U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

29–333 PDF 2006

THE CONNECTICUT EXPERIENCE: WHAT CAN BE

DONE TO SPUR BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT

IN THE NEW ENGLAND CORRIDOR?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM

AND THE CENSUS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 13, 2006

Serial No. 109–163

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

DAVID MARIN, Staff Director

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM AND THE CENSUS

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

——— ———

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

JOHN CUADERES, Staff Director

SHANNON WEINBERG, Counsel

JULIANA FRENCH, Clerk

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 13, 2006 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Barton, Elizabeth, chair, Environmental and Land Use Department, Day,

Berry & Howard, LLP .................................................................................. 57

Carbone, Joseph, president/CEO, the Workplace, Inc. .................................. 63

Fabrizi, John, mayor, city of Bridgeport, CT ................................................. 10

Lauretti, Mark, mayor, city of Shelton, CT .................................................... 35

McCarthy, Gina, commissioner, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection .......................................................................................... 28

Sanderson, Mary, Chief, Remediation and Restoration II Branch, Office

of Site Remediation and Restoration, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency ............................................................................................................ 16

Santy, Robert, president, Regional Growth Partnership .............................. 68

Soler, Stephen, president, Georgetown Land Development Co. ................... 75

Trilling, Barry, partner, Wiggin and Dana, LLP ........................................... 82

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Barton, Elizabeth, chair, Environmental and Land Use Department, Day,

Berry & Howard, LLP, prepared statement of ........................................... 59

Carbone, Joseph, president/CEO, the Workplace, Inc., prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 65

Fabrizi, John, mayor, city of Bridgeport, CT, prepared statement of .......... 13

Lauretti, Mark, mayor, city of Shelton, CT, prepared statement of ............ 38

McCarthy, Gina, commissioner, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, prepared statement of .................................................. 31

Sanderson, Mary, Chief, Remediation and Restoration II Branch, Office

of Site Remediation and Restoration, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, prepared statement of .................................................................... 18

Santy, Robert, president, Regional Growth Partnership, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 71

Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Connecticut, prepared statement of ........................................................ 7

Soler, Stephen, president, Georgetown Land Development Co., prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 78

Trilling, Barry, partner, Wiggin and Dana, LLP, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 84

Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio, briefing memo ................................................................................. 3

(1)

THE CONNECTICUT EXPERIENCE: WHAT CAN

BE DONE TO SPUR BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT IN THE NEW ENGLAND CORRIDOR?

MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM AND THE CENSUS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Bridgeport, CT.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., at the City

Council Chambers of Bridgeport City Hall, 45 Lyon Terrace,

Bridgeport, CT, Hon. Michael Turner (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Turner and Shays.

Staff present: John Cuaderes, staff director; Shannon Weinberg,

counsel; and Juliana French, clerk.

Mr. TURNER. If everyone is ready, we will get started. Please

have a seat.

A quorum being present, this hearing of the Subcommittee on

Federalism and the Census will come to order.

Welcome to the Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census

field hearing entitled, ‘‘The Connecticut Experience: What Can be

Done to Spur Brownfield Redevelopment in the New England Corridor?’’

This is the fifth in a series of hearings held on the issues of

brownfields and brownfield redevelopment.

Our hearings in D.C. are informative, but the field hearings

allow us to reach out to the public and interact with individual

communities on a more personal basis, and learn firsthand of their

concerns, and their successes and their suggestions.

I’m very pleased with the response to this hearing from the great

number of witnesses and the public attendance today.

Before we begin, I want to express my appreciation to Congressman Shays for having us here. As you know, Congressman Shays

chairs the National Security Subcommittee of Government Reform,

and is known as a leader in the field of homeland security, the war

on terror, and supporting our military and men in uniform.

He has looked at issues, the impact on the men in uniform and

it’s wonderful to have this hearing here, addressing the issue of

brownfields.

He has been a leader in the fight to maintain CDBG, and insuring the development of funds and programs that support urban

2

America, and is a member of this committee as we have tried to

look at the issues of cities and urban Americans.

So I appreciate your having us here, and look forward to the testimony from your community as to ways that we can fashion national policy to address these important issues.

I would also express my great thanks to the mayor of the city

of Bridgeport, to Mayor Fabrizi, for hosting these proceedings. We

appreciate your accommodating efforts in lending your facilities.

We have a great number of witnesses present, and we are here

to listen to you. In the interest of time, I will submit my complete

comments for the record, a copy of which is available at the press

table, and we will move to introducing our witnesses and the testimony, and our opening statements from Congressman Shays.

We have two panels of witnesses before us to help us understand

the ground rules we developed. We also hope to hear your ideas for

improving and complementing the EPA ground rules program, in

order to encourage more aggressive redevelopment.

Our first panel will have our host, Mayor John Fabrizi, of the

city of Bridgeport; Mary Sanderson, the Chief of Remediation and

Restoration II Branch of the Office of Site Remediation & Restoration of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1; Gina

McCarthy, the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection; and Mayor Mark Lauretti of the city of

Shelton.

On our second panel of witnesses, presenting testimony will be

Elizabeth Barton, partner and Chair of the Environmental & Land

Use Department, Day, Berry & Howard; Joseph Carbone, president/CEO of the Workplace, Inc.; Robert Santy, president, Regional

Growth Partnership; Stephen Soler, president of the Georgetown

Land Development Co.; and Barry Trilling, partner in Wiggin and

Dana.

I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished panel of

leaders.

And I thank you all for your testimony in both preparing for this

written testimony and the oral testimony you give today.

As I recognized before, Congressman Chris Shays is chairman of

the National Security Subcommittee and is a member of this subcommittee.

We have oversight over EPA in areas of economic development.

And Chairman Shays, I appreciate you having us here.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael Turner follows:]

3

4

5

6

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For those of you who are attending this hearing, I am a huge fan

of Mike Turner. He was the former Mayor of Dayton and was my

Vice Chairman on the subcommittee that I’m still Chairman of.

And, he, when he got here, established the Save America’s Cities

Working Group within the Republican Conference. And that was

huge because not many Republicans tend to represent urban areas,

so they don’t really focus on them the way they need to. And so

what he’s done is he’s drawn the few that do and others that care

about our cities. He has been really a leader in protecting the

CDBG fund, and also spearheading brownfields efforts.

Both our mayors know how important, and all our witnesses

know how important, brownfield redevelopment is.

But I want to state, once again, that I believe brownfield aid is

probably the best way to help cities of almost anything the Federal

Government does. And, obviously CDBG is important as well, but

brownfields can help rebuild our cities.

We were fortunate to get significant grants in the past, in the Fourth District. We have about $6.4 million that has been provided

to the Fourth Congressional District. And I’m very pleased with

how private developers and the communities have maximized this

benefit.

I’m hoping that Mike, with his good relationship with our conference, and being such a good, outspoken member on urban areas,

will be able to continue to move this program forward.

I want to say to all our witnesses here, they are all experts.

And to Mike Turner I want to say, we have two fantastic panels.

One’s been mayor a little longer than the other, and both have had

major challenges, and they’ve done a tremendous job. We appreciate the work of the EPA, and obviously, our head of the Department of Environmental Protection in Connecticut.

So we’re going to have a great hearing.

I would also want to say for the record that I could have any

hearing I want in Bridgeport, and I can go anywhere in the district. I wanted it to be in Bridgeport, No. 1, mayor, and I also

wanted it to be about this issue, because I really believe that this

is a huge issue to which we can make a difference.

And your testimony today will be very valuable.

So thank you all very much for coming.

And, Mike Turner, I love you, and thank you for being here.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]

7

8

9

10

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.

Each witness has kindly prepared testimony which will be included in the record of this hearing. Each witness has also prepared an oral statement, summarizing their written testimony.

There is a timer on the witness table. The green light means you

should begin, the red light indicates that your time has expired. In

order to be sensitive to everyone’s time schedule, we ask the witnesses to cooperate and limit their remarks to a 5-minute time period.

It is the policy of this committee that witnesses are sworn in before they testify. I will now swear in the witnesses. If you will

please rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. TURNER. Let the record show that all witnesses have responded in the affirmative.

We will begin with Mayor Fabrizi, of the city of Bridgeport.

STATEMENT OF JOHN FABRIZI, MAYOR, CITY OF

BRIDGEPORT, CT

Mr. FABRIZI. Good afternoon, Chairman Turner, and Congressman Shays, and all of the other attendees this afternoon. Welcome

to the great city of Bridgeport.

Before I begin my remarks, Mr. Chairman, you described Congressman Shays and the work that he does on the Federal level.

I want to say that every issue that you addressed, Congressman

Shays has assisted and supported the city of Bridgeport in all of

those assets, and he is a true, true friend to the city of Bridgeport.

I want to thank you, Congressman, for hosting the meeting here

this afternoon.

I’m deeply appreciative, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Shays,

and others, of recognizing the importance of the brownfields issue

and having encouraged discussion on this issue by organizing a

public hearing here in the city of Bridgeport.

We in Bridgeport have long felt that neither the State of Connecticut nor the Federal Government dedicates enough resources or

attention in any form toward brownfield redevelopment, but I have

to say that we are extremely grateful for the significant support we

have received on both levels, the Federal and State EPA, to date.

Brownfields that are not redeveloped are contributing factors in

many of the major problems that not only face Bridgeport, but face

Connecticut and the entire country—immense pockets of poverty in

our urban centers, highway congestion, the accelerated pace of natural habitat destruction in our suburbs and rural areas, alike, and

the escalation of property tax burdens in big cities and small

towns.

If we do not keep our commitment to recycling brownfields, I

know that Connecticut will never enjoy all the economies and benefits of smart growth, no matter what investments are made elsewhere or laws are changed.

Please note that for Bridgeport specifically, brownfields are the

single greatest impediment to meaningful and sustainable improvement of our local economy. This is part of the lasting legacy of our

proud industrial past and history, a history in which we served

America as an arsenal of democracy through two world wars and

11

provided a standard of excellence for the world machine through

industry.

The impact of brownfields was first identified in Bridgeport

about 15 years ago, as we saw many industrial properties that had

been a source of economic strength for Bridgeport during the 20th

century increasingly being vacated, neglected, and abandoned.

While the city suspected for some time that contamination problems could exist on many of these properties, the adoption and enforcement of new environmental laws brought these problems

sharply into focus.

New companies were not moving into many of these properties.

Banks were not willing to lend money for the purchase or improvement of these properties. Owners were letting the properties deteriorate and fall into long-time tax delinquency.

The city of Bridgeport has proactively attacked the brownfields

problem since the early nineties, a cause that I championed as a

city council member, and continue to champion as mayor.

In the mid-nineties, Bridgeport successfully competed to become

a U.S. EPA Brownfields Pilot City, only the second in the country

to receive that designation. The additional EPA grant allowed us

to identify inventory and prioritize over 250 brownfield parcels in

Bridgeport. Since conducting this inventory, we have had numerous successes in brownfield redevelopment, both large and small.

When funding has been hard to come by, we have a track record

of creativity and resourcefulness.

EPA has repeatedly recognized our need and performance by

funding site assessment grants, cleanup grants, and our

Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund.

With the limitations are our problems. Here are some.

Staffing. Brownfield projects are labor intensive and time-consuming. We are currently contemplating the hiring of a full-time

Brownfields Coordinator.

Inadequate funding is available for site assessments and remediation. The city can only afford to take on a certain amount of this

work every year. Inadequate funding is available for demolition activities, often a necessary prerequisite for assessment and remediation.

And liability concerns prevent the city from being more aggressive in obtaining the site control.

What would we like to see the Federal Government do is support

Bridgeport’s current funding applications to the EPA for 2006.

We’ve proven that we know what to do with the funding when we

get it.

Increase assessment grant size when the sites and projects merits it.

Increase the size of cleanup grants.

Change the laws authorizing cleanup grants.

Continue to replenish Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan funding for successful communities, and provide for funding for management and monitoring of long-term institutional controls.

I do have much more to say, however, it is in my written testimony.

And once again, on behalf of myself and the entire city of Bridgeport, I offer my sincere thanks to you, Congressman Shays, and esVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:40 Oct 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\29333.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
12

pecially to you, Chairman Turner, and all of those who have organized today’s hearings.

Thank you so much for considering Bridgeport.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fabrizi follows:]

13

14

15

16

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

Ms. Sanderson.

STATEMENT OF MARY SANDERSON, CHIEF, REMEDIATION

AND RESTORATION II BRANCH, OFFICE OF SITE REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Ms. SANDERSON. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Congressman

Shays, members of the subcommittee.

My name is Mary Sanderson, and I direct the Remediation &

Restoration Branch in the new England Region 1 Boston office.

I’m here to talk with you a little bit about EPA’s Brownfields

Program, with which you’re all very familiar.

And we are very pleased with what Bridgeport is beginning for

us here in the New England office, which began over a decade ago,

with Bridgeport, CT, being one of the earliest entrants in tackling

these issues.

Nationwide, EPA initially provided seed money to communities

to inventory brownfields and assess contamination of brownfields

properties. In response to community requests, additional tools

were added to the effort. Congress enacted legislation and provided

tax incentives to promote cleanup and development of brownfields.

Over the years an additional tool has been added. EPA has grants

to capitalize revolving loan funds for cleanup. The job training

grants were added to promote employment opportunities in

brownfields communities—I’ll talk more about that shortly. Local

governments and non-governmental organizations began to focus

on brownfields, looking at local and regional approaches.

The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act—we will call it the Brownfields Law—provided EPA with

a clear congressional mandate on brownfields. The law expanded

the program, boosted funding levels, expanded the entities, properties and activities eligible for the funding, clarified and strengthened liability protection for certain properties, and provided increased support to State and tribal response programs.

Here in New England, since the start of the EPA brownfields

program, $75 million in EPA brownfield grants has been awarded

to numerous communities.

For the past 3 years, EPA has awarded approximately $1 million

annually to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, to further advance their brownfields program.

As a whole, the State of Connecticut and its communities and

nonprofit organizations have received over $24 million in EPA

brownfields funding to date.

Bridgeport, one of our first grantees, has a proven track record

with all types of brownfields funding, not only for the EPA, but

other public and private sources, to deal with brownfields through

redevelopment.

EPA invested $1 million to date in assessment grants for the city

of Bridgeport to conduct extensive environmental assessment work

and inventory sites in their community.

EPA has also invested over $2 million in targeted brownfields assessments throughout Connecticut, as well. These are the singleproperty assessments that are designed to help communities on a

17

more direct basis, especially when they do not have EPA assessment grants.

One example that I was fortunate to be able to see this morning

is in Shelton, where the EPA’s TBA resources were used to assess

a portion of Canal Street. This helped to support the cleanup demand to the town of Shelton. This area will soon become part of

the Farm and Public Market along the riverfront area.

EPA provides direct cleanup grants of up to $200,000 per site to

public sector and nonprofit property owners, to carry out cleanup

activities.

Here in New England we are extremely proud of the 50 cleanup

grants that have been awarded to date, to the value of $8.4 million,

which demonstrates the maturation of the Brownfields cleanup program here in New England, as work moves from assessment to

more cleanups. In Connecticut, two of our cleanup grant recipients

are nonprofit organizations, Habitat for Humanity and Georgetown

Redevelopment Corp., and we look forward to continuing our partnership with the nonprofit community.

The revolving loan fund grants provide State and local governments with capital to make grants for low or no-interest loans to

finance brownfields cleanup. The brownfields law provided flexibility in the program, in that it expands properties and activities that

are eligible for funding, provided the capability to make sub-grants,

as well as loans for cleanup, and streamlined technical requirements, while still ensuring public health and environmental protection.

A number of loans have been made here in Connecticut and several more are being planned.

In addition to assessment cleanup funding, EPA also funds

brownfields training, research, and technical assistance.

As communities are cleaning up brownfields, EPA recognizes the

need for a work force with environmental cleanup skills. You will

hear shortly of the great work that the Workplace has been conducting under this job training program.

The development of successful State programs is essential to ensuring the successful implementation of the brownfields program,

since they truly are a funding regulated support group.

This funding is helping States and tribes to develop or enhance

their response program, and for structure and capabilities.

Here in Region 1, we work very hard to retain close relationships

with our State, since the inception of the brownfields program, and

these partnerships are an integral part of our success.

Continuing our success will require ever more interaction and

collaboration among all members of the government, the private

sector and nongovernmental working organizations.

EPA is dedicated to continuing our efforts to reach out to our

partners and build safe and sustainable communities through public and private partnerships.

And one thing that’s clear, that notwithstanding all those great

efforts, we will never be able to make the program as successful as

we can without the funding and know-how of our private sector.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sanderson follows:]

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

Ms. McCarthy.

Mr. SHAYS. I just have to warn you, she has a little bit of a Boston accent.

STATEMENT OF GINA McCARTHY, COMMISSIONER, CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms. MCCARTHY. Come on. We won’t talk about the past.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here Mr. Chairman,

and members of the subcommittee, and I want to thank you for inviting me to testify today.

I also want to thank Chairman Turner, and also, Congressman

Shays, as well as Congresswoman Johnson, for all of their efforts

to help focus attention on brownfields redevelopment.

We consider brownfields redevelopment to be a critical component of our efforts to address environmental threats in concert with

our efforts to stimulate economic growth, and revitalize the State’s

urban communities.

Connecticut, like all of New England, has a disproportionate

number of contaminated properties that results from our past success as the birthplace of the industrial revolution. There are many

under-utilized commercial sites with significant redevelopment potential. At the same time we are facing tremendous growth pressures that are threatening to consume our precious open space.

It is our hope that by working together, we can redirect the development pressures to focus growth where it is most beneficial,

and where it is sustainable—in the State’s urban areas, where infrastructure exists, where transit is accessible, and where these

brownfields sites offer truly a prospect of both environmental and

economic success.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to commend your efforts to pass legislation known as the America’s Brownfield Cleanup Act.

The creation of a Federal business tax credit for expenditures related to remediation and redevelopment of contaminated properties

that bridges some of the gaps in the existing funding. Particularly,

I would highlight what Mayor Fabrizi has indicated concerning

demolition cost is extremely important. It’s the sort of comprehensive approach that we believe could truly remove obstacles to

brownfields cleanup.

Today, I would like to give you a thumbnail sketch of what Connecticut does on the brownfield side, and also provide a few recommendations, like the passage of the America’s Brownfields

Cleanup Act, that we think can really spur brownfields redevelopment along.

In 1985, Connecticut passed the Property Transfer Act, which

was a law that brings sellers and buyers together, to disclose, to

discuss, and apportion cleanup liability at the time that it makes

the most sense—before the transaction is initiated, and provides

DEP with a cleanup commitment. The Property Transfer Act helps

stimulate brownfields redevelopment by ensuring that buyers are

given a full opportunity to take environmental considerations into

the cost of the transaction negotiations. It reduces financial uncertainties that can hinder reuse opportunities.

29

More than 4,300 property transactions have occurred under this

program over the past 20 years. This demonstrates that contamination, in and of itself, doesn’t prevent the sale or reuse of properties.

However, we have a long way to go of it. There are at least 7,000

properties that have been, or are currently being, remediated

through Federal and State programs in Connecticut, and we anticipate that thousands more will come up as redevelopment is

sparked.

Ten years ago, we also put into place additional tools the Remediation Standard Regulations that provide scientifically sound performance standards to define cleanup end points. It’s a flexible approach, a risk-based approach, that allows flexibility, and it provides environmental standards that take into consideration human

exposures, and addresses cost effective and safe cleanup end points.

Ten years ago, Connecticut also began licensing environmental

professionals—those are LEPs—to oversee environmental investigations and cleanups, and ultimately, to verify that cleanups are

accomplished.

More than 300 environmental professionals are now licensed to

conduct this activity. Through rigorous education, experience and

testing requirements, we believe they are providing high quality

service to our communities and to the State.

We would hope that any Federal legislation would treat the expenditures resulting from their remediation work, which is conducted in accordance with the DEP-approved plan, in a similar

fashion to any work that the Department undertakes itself.

We believe that Connecticut is in the forefront of using State

land restrictions also as a tool to minimize—to eliminate the potential of people in the environment to be exposed to contamination.

Here in Bridgeport, for example, the former Jenkins Valve manufacturing plant was converted into a baseball park, a skating rink,

and a museum.

The ballpark was built with $11 million in private investment, $1 million of local funding, and $2 million in State funding.

The project has added 68 jobs to the local economy.

Connecticut DEP and its partners, the Department of Economics

and Community Development, and the Connecticut Brownfields Redevelopment Authority, will continue to buildupon these successes,

but we need continued support from both private and public investments if we are to speed up the rate of brownfields redevelopment.

We appreciate all of the Federal funding that has been afforded

to us. In recent years, the U.S. EPA has awarded over $20 million

directly to municipalities and regional organizations. EPA has provided approximately $1 million a year for the last 3 years for Connecticut to support the Department’s brownfields work.

Federal tax credits that are being considered, such as those proposed by Chairman Turner, and streamlined Federal grants and

loans, are tools that can help leverage these existing resources, and

really move brownfields redevelopment along in the State.

30

We understand the value of the Federal partnerships. We need

to continue that and move that forward. We need to invest in our

village centers to bring us closer to achieving our goals of environmental restoration, revitalized communities, preservation of open

space and farmlands, and sustainable economic growth.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]

31

32

33

34

35

Mr. TURNER. The Honorable Mark Lauretti.

STATEMENT OF MARK LAURETTI, MAYOR, CITY OF SHELTON,

CT

Mr. LAURETTI. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Congressman

Shays, members of the subcommittee.

Thank you for your invitation to testify this afternoon on the critical issue of brownfield redevelopment, and to provide local officials

with an opportunity to discuss impediments which affect our ability

to address brownfield-related issues.

I’m going to also echo the same comments and sentiments of the

speakers before me, because I think that once you work in this

area and spend a significant amount of time trying to affect a

brownfields remediation project, you tend to experience the same

types of things.

In the city of Shelton, which is located in Fairfield County, we

are a community which has made the transition to a 21st century

economy, but one that still has remaining brownfield issues, which

are remnants of a heavy industrial use, which were prevalent along

our Housatonic River and Naugatuck River Valley.

Beginning in 1991, the city of Shelton embarked on an ambitious

program of downtown revitalization and we have made significant

strides in working in partnerships with the U.S. Department of Environmental Protection, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, and the Connecticut Department of Economic

and Community Development.

Our efforts have embraced the concept of a public and private

participation, and a meaningful citizens’ participation. Our efforts

involve local and regional officials, and have made important

strides toward cementing ongoing relationships. I would add that

the Federal Government has made important strides as well. However, several issues still persist which require your attention.

Given our commitment to smart growth and the desire to put

abandoned properties back to work, it is inconceivable that

brownfields redevelopment is not a national priority. Funding levels are meager at best and communities without experienced staff

have little opportunity to access the current programs of the U.S.

EPA. While some meaningful regional collaboration has been fostered, such as our own Naugatuck Valley pilot, funding remains a

major impediment to timely progress.

The newer funding initiatives that have been offered by the U.S.

EPA are excellent in the ability of communities to access remediation funding; however, these programs are also underfunded and

offered only once annually.

Programs that have developed experience and capacity are hampered by the lengthy application and review process. We applaud

our own Region 1 officials for their efforts to provide excellent technical assistance and timely responses to every request we make.

They are hampered, however, by limits of funding and processes

which are not conducive to fast track.

One program that stands out as being user-friendly is the EPA

Targeted Assessment Site program. This program combines a simple, user-friendly application with timely decisions, and very meaningful technical assistance to local and regional site evaluations.

36

It is difficult to conceive that there is no comprehensive registry

of brownfield sites after all the time and investments that have

been made to launch national brownfields awareness. This should

be made an immediate priority. Congress should consider a requirement that the U.S. EPA create this program, fund it properly,

and implement it over the next several years. Considerable field

work has been accomplished which could immediately be folded

into this program, and speaking for our community, our information is ready to be shared with Federal, State, and regional officials.

In respect to the committee’s interest in obtaining input concerning House bill 4480, our community’s position is as follows: Every

tool possible should be employed to attack the issue of sites that

are dormant due to historical contamination.

The proposal included in this legislation to offer tax credits is appropriate and should prove to be a valuable weapon in the arsenal

of tools which will be needed to make real progress in addressing

the estimated number of sites needing attention in Connecticut and

nationally.

This is not the only approach to be used. Government needs to

find ways to lower the costs associated with brownfield remediation. This will create the truest form of incentive for private entrepreneurial expertise to effect a positive change, and one that will

benefit all. I would respectfully suggest, however, that the offering

needs to be user-friendly to both large and small developments,

and to communities that have institutionalized programs, and

those that lack staff capacity.

The private businessman is the best vehicle to use in trying to

expand the tax base through brownfield remediation and we must

allow them to do that.

The extent of brownfield problems has been described as a federally created problem due to the Superfund law that was passed in

1980. This is true in some respects. As a result of that law, an environment has been created that discourages owners to find out if

their property is contaminated. This has promoted owners of such

property to abandon them, along with general reluctance to sell

properties, for fear of liability and the associated cost.

Brownfields are defined as an abandoned or under-utilized property that is not redeveloped due to the fear of real or perceived environmental contamination.

The current brownfields law, the Small Business Liability Relief

and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002, provides some protection against liability but does not address the high redevelopment

costs associated with redeveloping brownfield sites and does not

provide enough of an incentive for voluntary action.

The current brownfield program has done a good job of redeveloping what someone described as less problematic sites that are either not that contaminated or in places that are highly desirable.

However, with the current level of resources, the overall magnitude

of this important issue can never be resolved.

Let’s mention something about how sprawl has affected many

States and how brownfield remediation can help reduce sprawl.

There is no question that new private investment is naturally inclined to seek out opportunities that will allow them to realize a

37

reasonable return on their investment and to minimize their risk.

Brownfields should become the preferred area for new private investment using financial incentives such as tax credits to reawakening these forgotten neighborhoods. Once this has started, pressure can be reduced to develop pristine open spaces and our valuable farmlands for new private investments.

Current EPA programs are a step in the right direction but additional tools are sorely needed to foster more development outside

the U.S. EPA, particularly private sector funding. Incentives included in legislation similar to House bill 4480 can certainly improve the climate for attracting new and private investments in our

urban centers, or to sites possessing urban characteristics.

While we share the hope to use these financial incentives, we

also hope that the Federal Government recognizes that their noneconomic development activities, such as parks and public spaces,

also contribute greatly to community rebuilding and that programs

and financial assistance should be tailored for those sites, which

contribute indirectly to the economic development as well.

We hope that the additional legislation which complements

House bill 4480 would be the motivation for owners of cold storage

sites—sites that are held onto by the current owners with no intention of selling or redeveloping the land—to start cleaning up the

properties and eventually sell or redevelop the site for themselves.

Again, on behalf of the city of Shelton, please accept our thanks

for providing us with the opportunity to support national initiatives

which will truly lead to smart growth.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lauretti follows:]

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you very much for your preparation, and the

insight that you gave us today.

I will begin a round of questions, starting with Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the mayor needs

to leave, at the very latest, by 2 p.m., so we’ll get you out of here.

Mr. FABRIZI. I called the office so I have as much time as you

want now.

Mr. SHAYS. To make it simpler, with the mic, I’ll just go down

and you can answer down the line.

Bridgeport got the first grant, assessment grant. I think there were two in New England for $250,000. It was an assessment

grant. I am interested to know—one of the good things about that

assessment grant was that—assessing the properties—was that we

realized that some properties weren’t as dirty as we thought they

were, so then people actually came in and started to develop these

properties. Others had some costs in cleaning up. So the question

I have is basically, has Bridgeport assessed most of its properties

and now are we at the point where we need to be doing more on

the cleanup of them? And I would like to ask each of you, Mayor

Lauretti, as well, but also, our two experts from the Federal and

State government to speak to the issue of assessment versus cleanup.

And I’ll just throw out another one, since you will pass the mics

back. I’m hearing Connecticut has 700 sites. How many are we actually able to assess and how many are we able to clean up? In the

New England area, about how many sites do you think there might

be and are we able to clean them up?

So let me throw all those questions out to the panel.

Mr. FABRIZI. Thank you.

The initial EPA agreement allowed us, the city of Bridgeport, to

identify, inventory, and prioritize over 250 brownfield parcels just

in the city of Bridgeport alone.

And since conducting that inventory, we’ve had numerous successes in brownfield redevelopment, both large and small, by expanding parks, recycling industrial properties, modernizing larger

portions of Bridgeport to the waterfront.

But again, in response to the question, the successes to date are

not enough and brownfields continue to impact the quality of life

in the neighborhoods, the employment prospects of our residents,

and threaten public health in ways that we are only starting to

quantify.

But the financial impact of the brownfields is significant—and

our examination is based on our current zoning and real estate investment trends. We’ve estimated that the city foregos somewhere

between $25 and $50 million in property tax revenues every year

because more than 400 acres of brownfield sites are not realizing

their economic potential.

Mr. SHAYS. So is the issue there that you need more money to

clean up, to help developers clean up? Is the city taking ownership

of some of these properties?

Mr. FABRIZI. The city has taken ownership to some properties.

I have to tell you that we can’t afford to continue to allow our

real estate to sit idle.

45

One thing that we did just recently that was—in some folks’

mind—termed controversial, per se, we used a State statute that’s

5 or 6 years old to allow a private developer to use his own funds

to clean up property at the tune—I understand that 7 or 8 years

ago, the city could have bought this property for next to nothing,

or foreclosed on it, we would have assumed back then, a $7 or $8

million liability cleanup, where somebody else had purchased the

property and has done $4 million worth of cleanup and has $1 million more to go that the city has forgiven through council resolution

to forgive some of those past property taxes. That’s very similar in

nature to the property tax credit that the mayor of Shelton mentioned before, and so did Ms. Sanderson, I believe, and also, Commissioner McCarthy.

That’s one way to help with private developers as far as the Federal tax income credit is concerned—takes away the controversy of

having people make bold decisions here. But we will continue to

make them as we go along.

We have identified, thanks to EPA and the State, we have identified an inventory of properties. Now it’s money to clean them up.

But here in Bridgeport, we can use a person full-time to do that

and we’re strapped under our budget. That’s how much of a focus

needs to be put right here at home, in the city of Bridgeport.

You’re talking 400 acres.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much.

Mr. FABRIZI. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Sanderson.

Ms. SANDERSON. A couple of points. One is a great number of

cleanup grant applications to see the program ensure that it is

moving from assessments toward cleanup. We have seen that scale

start to tip.

With regard to the number of sites, I wish I had an answer to

that. I don’t so we’ll just keep looking. The nationwide estimates

are about half a million to a million brownfield sites. We probably

have more than our 10 percent share, given the history of the area,

so there are potentially 100,000 sites out there to be assessed.

One statistic I think is interesting is the assessment program

finds one-third of the sites are not contaminated. So it very much

does look at that perceived contamination, as well as actual. On the

other hand, we certainly may find some very contaminated sites as

well.

In terms of inventories, we do give funding to our States, and to

our communities, to develop those inventories. And I think, in the

spirit of local solutions and regional solutions to things, I don’t

know that EPA is trying to drive that so much as give the tools

to the communities looking at those inventories and prioritizing

those.

Mr. SHAYS. Could you put the mic a little closer to you.

Ms. SANDERSON. My last thought is, it is seed funding. We do realize that there could be an easy answer, sure, you know, more

money for cleanup. But, as you realize, certainly, to balance the

whole thing in terms of how much do you fund. And so, we work

very hard on the partnerships. But you heard our seed funding,

you heard our targeted brownfield assessment. To jump start

that—or givebacks. And partnerships with developers——

46

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just interrupt you. Our time is very precious

here. I’ll just ask you a followup question.

Can you think of a more important program, or would you put

this under EPA’s, one of it’s more important programs? How would

you rate this program?

Ms. SANDERSON. Top priority, unequivocally.

Mr. SHAYS. It gets a good return on the dollar, correct?

Ms. SANDERSON. Absolutely.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me ask you to pass it on.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Let me just advise you that under the Property

Transfer Act, we have already looked at 4,300 properties. So we already know that those properties are moving forward. There is potentially, at this point, 7,000 in the system.

Mr. SHAYS. 7,000, not 700.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. We have focused—and we have funding

available at the State level that focuses—on assessments. We believe that it’s extremely important to try to provide certainty to developers who are looking to redevelop these properties. That is absolutely key.

Right now, I think we are also falling short on the actual cleanups. I think that on the State level, municipalities are struggling

to move properties forward that have economic potential, but the

demolition costs can really get in the way. There are certain costs

that are always associated with the redevelopment of these projects

that, simply, there is no funding source to turn to.

Mr. SHAYS. Do we have a lot of different gradations for describing the brownfield site? And first, do we rate them under certain

categories?

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, we don’t differentiate them.

We know that they’re either mildly contaminated or heavily contaminated. The assessment provides an opportunity to get a sort of

a feel for what it is.

Mr. SHAYS. So we basically categorize it by the dollars and

cents—it’s going to cost so much to clean up.

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think if you’re in Connecticut and you’re looking at a piece of property in an urban area, whether it’s been

looked at or not, you put it into the brownfield site, you put it in

the contaminated site, because you’re concerned about the history

in the State.

Mr. SHAYS. The assumption is it’s a brownfield site, a dirty site,

but clearly, not a Superfund site.

Let me just, I want to make sure that the chairman has a chance

to talk to the mayors before they go.

Yes.

Mr. LAURETTI. Any specific area that you want me to touch on?

I’ve got several questions with respect to sites, and the number of

sites. So any specific areas?

Mr. SHAYS. Tell me, from your standpoint, anything you would

want to qualify from what you’ve heard so far, or emphasize on the

answers so far?

Mr. LAURETTI. We have done to completion—and to the point

where a property becomes productive—several sites in our community, particularly in the downtown area. You have to do multiple

47

things—not just focus onsite assessments—to be successful, and we

have an ongoing program.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you spend a lot of your own city dollars to do this?

Mr. LAURETTI. We have. We have put some city money into the

equation.

Mr. SHAYS. You have almost 4 million square feet of office space,

correct? Close to that?

Mr. LAURETTI. Correct.

Mr. SHAYS. It’s huge. It’s very much a suburban community city,

but you have a lot of residential areas. Those are clean.

So was your emphasis at the beginning to deal with the clean

sites? Are you taking the clean site dollars to help fund the dirty

site areas?

Mr. LAURETTI. Actually, it’s a combination of things. You try to

leverage every dollar that you can from every area that you can,

not only from some of your tax revenue, but try to get private developers into the equation, to fund some of the remediation, in particular.

I think that as the approval process becomes more streamlined,

and there is clarity as to what needs to be done with the site, you

will get that outside interest.

I mean, obviously, it has to be monitored—you can’t give them

a free hand—but there has to be an incentive for people. We, in

government, have to be a catalyst to making that happen.

Mr. SHAYS. The bottom line is—and this is my last point—you

are not going to get this done without the third party, the developer, actually—the individual owning the property ultimately is

going to have to bear a lot of the cost, but they know what it costs,

because you had an assessment, they know the risks. But the market must then be able to support it; is that a pretty fair assumption?

Mr. LAURETTI. That’s a pretty fair assumption.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TURNER. Mayor Fabrizi, first, I’ll tell you why I’m going to

ask you the questions that I’m going to ask you. I’m going to give

you an opportunity for a commercial in the middle of our hearing.

Mr. SHAYS. Good man.

Mr. TURNER. In addition to the opportunity to learn about the

differences between the various programs that occur in each State

and the effectiveness of our Federal programs—how they are working, how they can be improved—what comes out of a hearing like

this, in addition to where it is locally, your words are taken down,

as you can see, and transcribed, and become part of the Federal

record.

It’s we, as a committee, who help form policy on the Federal

level, and to help advance legislation.

On the CDBG issue, we had six hearings. From those hearings,

we heard from representatives from all over the country. We took

their testimony and we put together a 75-page report that passed

over our full Committee on Government Reform on a bipartisan

basis that listed some of the problems of CDBG, but also, some of

the great things about CDBG.

48

On the issue of ground use, we are also going to be doing the

same. In addition to your testimony today, we will be doing a report of the subcommittee that will go to the full committee. And,

hopefully, we will have some insights as to framing the issue, some

of the successes that we are having, and then some of the solutions

that are going on in various communities. And I tell you that, because the next questions that I’m going to ask you will seem like

you’ve already addressed them, but again, I want to give you an

opportunity to give us a commercial that we can use in this record

to put in our report as to why brownfields are important.

So with that, the two mayors can do this, I’ll start with you,

Mayor Lauretti, since you have the microphone.

If you can talk about the issue of economic development in urban

areas, because almost all of the literature that we have, everybody

who testifies, everyone agrees that the largest impediment to economic development in urban areas, areas that have been developed

where you’re doing redevelopment, is the issue of the availability

of land.

Because you have the availability of land, and then brownfield as

an opportunity, it would seem to lend itself that, if you had the

proper tools, and the proper funding, that brownfields could be an

excellent fuel for economic development in the community.

If you can tell us about that, it will be an opportunity to see

what can happen if you had the resources for development in your

community.

Mr. LAURETTI. I don’t think there is any question about it, that

brownfields redevelopment is an excellent economic opportunity for

any municipality and State. And I think we’re proving that in

Shelton.

But, as I said earlier, you have to do several things that run parallel with one another, it can’t just be one thing, because once the

clock keeps ticking, you lose your economic cycles, and then investment opportunities are not conducive to get the other part of the

equation in motion.

What we did many years ago, probably going back 12, 13 years

ago, was establish a master plan for our downtown area that borders the Housatonic River, and we are now 10, 12 years later,

starting to see the fruits of everyone’s efforts, both the Federal

Government, and the State’s participation financially, as well as

the taxpayers in the city of Shelton, because now we’ve got private

development at the table in a big way that is just incredible.

In the next 3 to 5 years, people are going to be in awe of what

goes on along the Housatonic river and the city of Shelton from an

economic development standpoint. And we are that far along because we had a plan, and we made commitments, and we fulfilled

our commitments, and we’re continuing to drive the issue.

So I think that, from an economic standpoint, you’ve got to look

at that and make that part of what drives your economic engine

for your municipality.

Mr. TURNER. Before our recess, I’ll ask the second part of the

question, and that is, once we establish that funds, once available

to you, would result—funds available to you for demolition, cleanup

would result in land development, and therefore, economic growth,

the sources of those funds become an issue. And I think many

49

times there is pressure on local governments to participate at a

higher level of economic development when your tax structures are

not set up for economic development purposes, and the basic functions, the services that you have to provide to your residents at the

local level are just so important.

You talked a minute ago about the financial squeeze that the cities have, the decisions that you have to make, and making certain

that you fund the services in the community.

Mr. LAURETTI. Well, that’s the balancing act that every local official has to do. And the process is ongoing.

As an example, many years ago, we invested a lot of city money

into open space purposes. But we’ve also, at the same time, invested our resources into the infrastructure of our downtown,

where all the brownfields are located.

And I keep going back to the point that you’ve got to give the

private entrepreneur the opportunity to fit into the equation. And

a lot of it has to do with the process, and how long the process

takes, and is it reasonable, and is it cost effective.

As an example, we have several locations right now in the downtown area that have had ongoing contamination, and to sit there

and do nothing allows that contamination to keep affecting the environment. But when you have someone that wants to invest in

that property, now you say to them, OK, you can do that, but

you’re going to have to do many, many things that are just cost ineffective, so that person goes away.

And it’s almost kind of like a defeated logic that you have here,

because it’s OK to let the property sit there and contaminate a

river, but when someone wants to come in and do something, you

tell them ‘‘well, listen, you’ve got to monitor it for 30 years, so do

that, and we’ll give you the approvals.’’

And I’ve got to be very frank about this, because this is the real

life that we experience, and it is about the environment, it’s about

people’s health, but it’s also about the money. And you can’t lose

sight of that. So we’ve got to find a happy medium where everything can coexist.

Other things that we’ve done and established in our master plan

is we’ve adopted an anti-blight ordinance that allowed us to take

down properties that could become firetraps and locations for illegal activity, for drug transactions, places for homeless, and you

name it, it occurs there. So the anti-blight program that we have

has served us well and we’ve done that in conjunction with

brownfields remediation.

That’s where we’ve had a real strong advantage in being able to

move it along a lot quicker than a lot of people anticipated.

Mr. TURNER. Mayor Fabrizi, the first issue, the issue of the availability of land being restricted, for economic development for your

city, have value for brownfields redevelopment, and make a difference in making productive land available, utilized.

And then also you talk about the funding pressures that you

have as a city, the competing interests providing basic services, and

also, trying to fund some of these great opportunities.

Mr. FABRIZI. Those are all the right questions to ask, as far as

frustrations and issues and concerns go.

50

Bridgeport is made up of 17 square miles, 16 square miles are

built out on, there is not much available land at all.

With the other part of the chemistry, you have over 250 parcels

identified as brownfields sites, totaling almost 400 acres, with lost

revenues, lost job potential, and everything that goes along with

that, it gets seemingly more frustrating each and every day.

When developers are knocking on your door to either build or rebuild, or redevelop or invest, and you just don’t have the property

to identify, to put these parcels together, mainly because of the cost

to clean up and remediate these properties—that’s where it’s come

up time and time again, regarding remediation, regarding developers, regarding what can we do as far as tax credits, or an invite

to those who are investing their money, or who are going to.

And we took a page out of Shelton’s book and New Haven’s book

as far as anti-blight is concerned. And we know that these properties also invite detractors to the quality of life—regardless if it’s

homelessness, if it’s blight, if it’s illegal activities.

But also, in addition, you talk about balancing the budget. Every

year we are faced with increasing costs—if it’s health costs that are

spiraling out of control, if it’s utility costs, but now, we have to take

into consideration what senior center do we close, what firehouse

do we close, how many police and fire recruitment classes do you

hold off. So the impact is severe.

Mr. TURNER. My next question is, in 2002, the Brownfield Remediation Act that was passed, providing opportunity for some liability relief for potential purchasers who were looking to redevelop

property.

It also changed some of the tax treatment of the expenditures

and provided for some relatively small grant programs that you

both discussed today.

Many critics of those programs—they are not critics in terms of

saying that this should not have been done, but they are critics in

terms of the volume of commitment that has been involved—say

that the new tax treatments and the small grants have allowed

people to invest in those pieces of property that have the least

amount of contamination.

We are finding in the assessments grants, when the assessment

was done, others have not been contaminated, but some we all

know are, and they remain there, abandoned, and robbing the economic potential, and also are a blighting influence on the properties around them. We’ve all invested in infrastructure, and we

continue to invest in infrastructure to support them, and our school

systems, our police and fire is lost.

Would you please talk for a moment about the need for additional funding, because we hear many times of the sites that are

worse. There is an understanding of the extent of the contamination exceeding the value of the property. Even when it’s cleaned it

will be a negative.

Since, it’s a federally created issue, really, you have this issue of

this negative dollar being invested.

Can you speak about that for a moment?

Mr. FABRIZI. I certainly can, because we’ve experienced it in the

city of Bridgeport each and every day.

And we have what I term as active and inactive brownfields.

51

An active brownfield, GE corporation, which is a big plant has

60 some-odd acres. However, by law, they have to have 142 buildings to house 12,000, I believe, during the war time. And they were

big manufacturing here in Bridgeport. And I truly believe they

keep their property up. But to demolish those buildings, the environmental concerns, I know will be in the hundreds of million of

dollars, I think. I’m not an expert there.

So why does a big company, with a great asset, just continue to

maintain the status quo? But by maintaining the status quo, this

allows the city of Bridgeport, or other active economic development,

to come in and revitalize the property, and expand our tax base.

I think on the Federal level, especially with companies in that

respect, something needs to be done as far as pushing them along,

and just maintaining property for 30, 40, 50 years, inactive where

a company has gone out of business, like Remington, owed $7 million of back taxes, and transfers the property to an LLC, and other

places like that. Those are the frustrations that we see all the time.

Mr. TURNER. Mayor Lauretti, if you can just talk about the issue

of—a lot of the properties, at this point, are properties that do not

have excessive contamination, many of them have light contamination. Speak for a moment, if you will, about those properties, and

you don’t have to be specific if you don’t want to, but of the need

of the properties that exist in your community, where you know

there is real—not a Superfund site—but there is real contamination. The cost of decontamination exceeds the value of the property

once it’s cleaned, but if that property is available, it would be a

great economic opportunity.

Mr. LAURETTI. I actually believe we have gotten to the point

where we have been able to reverse that negative trend just

through the site assessment program that we have received

through the EPA and Region 1. I made in my comments earlier

how helpful those were.

When you are able to demonstrate to the private entrepreneur

that the costs associated with bringing a property back, to produce

an economic benefit, both for the tax rolls, and for the entrepreneur, that serves as a great stimulus to get people interested.

And we are actually seeing that happen now in an area that is historic, like many cities along the east coast that have been old industrial hubs for hundreds of years, and 100 years ago, that have

laid fallow over the last 40, 50 years, just because of the contamination.

So I think that things like that—and I again need to emphasize

how important it is to clarify the regulatory process, because we

don’t want to regulate any property out of the equation—we want

to make sure that there are opportunities to be able to understand

just what it is that we can do, and if there are other uses, if they

are not economic, but are there other uses that these properties

could contribute to the surrounding area that will help reduce the

economics of an area.

And I mentioned in my opening comments about how it’s important to establish walking areas, and green belts, and public gathering places that could serve those uses. They do provide a real benefit to the vitality of any strong economic area.

52

So I think that we can’t focus on just one thing, we have to focus

on multiple issues, when you’re looking at an area, particularly

from an economic standpoint, if the site has strong economic potential, then that means that the surrounding sites around it have the

same type of potential, as well.

So it’s the big picture that we have to try and see when we are

drafting legislation to help get past this brownfield remediation

issue. So I’ve become a big fan of the site assessment program,

that’s yielding big benefits for us.

Mr. TURNER. Ms. McCarthy, Connecticut has a tax credit program—we are going to let both mayors to exit. I appreciate your

time.

Mr. LAURETTI. I have a little bit more time. I can stay.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

The taxpayer program, you mentioned this, bill 4480, which is

the brownfields bill that is proposed. In that tax credit bill, we

have a requirement that for taxpayers to be eligible for the tax

credit, they must go through the voluntary action program. Is there

such a requirement under Connecticut’s tax credit program? And

how does the Department of Economic Development work in conjunction with you on making certain that the extent of the cleanup

and the remediation works?

Ms. MCCARTHY. Again, our hope is that we could look at the language of the legislation, make sure that it recognizes the full range

of cleanups that are ongoing—both at the Federal and State level—

because we have something in our system. We allow both publicly

funded cleanups as well as private cleanups that are overseen by

licensed environmental professionals. So it’s not completely clear to

us that the bill as it’s currently crafted would allow a tax credit

to the full range of cleanup activities that are being done on properties in Connecticut.

So that’s one of the things that we would like to make sure that

it happens, because we do believe that tax credits are a terrific opportunity to bring the brownfields redevelopment to happen.

Mr. TURNER. My question is the Connecticut Tax Credit Program.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh, I’m sorry.

Mr. TURNER. I was asking how is your experience in the coordination between the Department of Economic Community Development and its tax credit program and your voluntary action program.

Ms. MCCARTHY. My apologies.

Actually, we have a very good team that meets on our brownfield

development efforts. I would say that the coordination is very good.

Part of the challenge that we face, I think, is that it’s often reactionary.

If someone comes into the system and wants to clean up a

brownfield, it’s an opportunity for us to get together and marry the

various tools, including tax increment financing, which I think

holds a lot of promise for urban brownfields redevelopment.

And I guess the problem that we have is that there are many

sites out there that just are not on the radar screen, for a variety

of reasons. And we have not put together a proactive team that

53

would be working with local communities to try to key those up for

redevelopment opportunity.

That’s the next discussion for us.

Mr. SHAYS. Can I ask you a question for a second?

Just talking about the proactive team—is the success or failure

basically dependent on the approach of the communities, the mayors who run them? Are some towns really quite aggressive and

doing particularly well, and others just simply are not aware of

what they could be doing?

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think that it’s fair to say that’s one of the factors.

There are some Mayors, obviously, some that are with us today,

that are very aggressive and understanding all of the benefits that

are out there that they can take advantage of. But there are others

that are not.

But when you’re looking at brownfields redevelopment in an

urban area, there are two things that need to be done. One is you

have to keep the obstacles, or the costs, to develop any open spaces

very high.

In an area like this, every piece of property is very valuable, and

you’re trying to drive development in the urban areas. So if you’re

zoning, and if you’re conservation development plans in this community are strong, you will take some of the open spaces off the

list of development.

And the second thing you need to do is really work hard to make

it attractive to develop in the urban areas. And I think you need

to understand, and I’m sure we all do, that’s not just about the contamination issue, you know.

A city—there are many cities that do very well in brownfields redevelopment. They address the security issues, the lighting issues,

the transportation issues, the transit issues, the education issues,

because it’s all about whether or not that site is marketable, what

is its economic potential. Then the brownfields—the contamination

area—is manageable and you can put together the right tools to

make that happen.

But I think you’re absolutely right when you raise the issue that

many of the crew is gone, and we are at the next level of development where we really need to put our heads together, because it’s

not clear that they have the kind of economic strength they need

to get over the contamination part without additional incentives

from the public sector.

Mr. SHAYS. One of the points, you’re really suggesting that from

the EPA standpoint, there is really two benefits here.

One benefit is cleaning up a dirty site. The other one is a policy

that I think is inherent to both the State and Federal Government,

and that is that we are looking to see the development back in our

urban areas, so we are not continuing to sprawl, make things work

better, and so on.

Mr. LAURETTI. If I may, I’d just like to expand on the Commissioner’s point. I think it’s a good one, because we’ve been able to

do that in our community by leveraging the CDBG block grants

program that you have to do public infrastructure improvements,

which eventually foster economic development. You send a signal

to private development that, you know, you’ve made a commitment,

54

and that certain things are going to happen, and that’s why it’s important for government to be the catalyst. I really believe that this

is the role that we need to play.

So while there may be an indirect approach, it still gives you the

same net result.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you for that.

I would like the EPA to just respond to the added incentive of

wanting to get people back into urban areas.

Is that a policy that is intuitive on the part of both the Environmental Protection Department, or agencies, or am I thinking it

should be, but it isn’t part of the policy?

Ms. SANDERSON. We have a very active, strong program that is

growing. We are doing more and more as we have more success.

A key partner for us is our smart growth office, and the investment in the resources that they also have. We have to really take

a hard look at those development opportunities.

So that has been more mainstream for us.

Mr. SHAYS. So is that a ‘‘yes.’’

Ms. SANDERSON. Yes.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Sanderson, concerning Connecticut’s Department of Environmental Protection programs, under the voluntary

mediation program, I have two questions for you.

One, it says that the responsible parties may not be a party to

the covenant not to sue.

And I’m not certain that is unique in Connecticut, or is that

something that you see region-wide?

The second thing is that Pennsylvania has just entered into an

agreement with EPA. What is your experience in looking to providing States with a broader program?

Ms. SANDERSON. It does vary. I’m familiar with the program in

Massachusetts. They have a program that——

Mr. TURNER. It varies.

Ms. SANDERSON. I believe that is very much driven by State law.

Mr. TURNER. Concerning the responsible parties.

Ms. SANDERSON. Yes.

I’m sorry, your second question was?

Yes, Pennsylvania, exactly.

We do not have formal memorandums of agreements with our

States. What we have, and what we found has worked in New England so far—and we are always looking for new ideas—is we have

cooperative agreements with our States that have the conditions of

what they use their funding for, and how they work together. That

has worked for us well here in New England.

We have the advantage of proximity, and being familiar with

each other from other programs. So we do depend very heavily

upon our State voluntary cleanup programs, and that is a term and

condition of our cleanup grants. We feel so secure in our State

cleanup programs, we actually defer that piece to them as a condition of those cleanup grants.

Mr. TURNER. Ms. McCarthy.

Ms. MCCARTHY. I actually worked in Massachusetts before Connecticut. Both of them are the same.

55

Mr. TURNER. What about grants.

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually have an agreement with EPA Region 1 on our corrective actionsites, where we work in alignment

with one another, in which we coordinate the cleanup of those

sites. It’s a fairly new program, but so far, it seems to be working

very well.

It’s very clear that the regulated community appreciates the fact

that we are trying to standardize from the cleanup levels and the

process to get there, and our reviews, so that it’s conducted in a

timely way.

I raised the issue of certainty before as being critical. This increases the certainty, so that if you’re expending funds, you’re getting to a finish line that is recognized at both the Federal and

State levels.

The more we can coordinate that, the better off we’re going to be.

Mr. SHAYS. I would like to know the best thing about this program and the worst.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Start with me.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes.

Ms. MCCARTHY. The best thing about the brownfields program is

I think it’s gotten a lot of visibility at the Federal level.

The cleanup of brownfields, to me, is absolutely vital if you’re

going to maintain urban areas that people want to live in. You’re

going to be able to protect the open spaces, and the farmlands that

we all want to protect. I think it’s absolutely vital for quality of life

that we move forward on this.

I believe the money toward assessments has been very valuable.

I totally agree that brownfields inventories is probably one of the

weak links, is that it would be great to have a much better understanding, so that you actually have sites up there that developers

can come and choose from and understand.

Mr. SHAYS. I’m going to come back to that.

So the worst is the inventories?

Ms. MCCARTHY. And the simple fact that we have this many

sites, and so few staff to oversee them in moving forward, is a significant problem.

We have to generate that kind of enthusiasm in the private sector. We have to expand our ability to oversee these sites.

Mr. SHAYS. I want to know the best and the worst from your understanding.

Then I want to come back to what that tells us.

Ms. SANDERSON. I would say the best is it forges partnerships,

and it is not top down. It really tries to provide grant funding to

communities without dictates and allows regional solutions, which

is somewhat different from other programs.

Mr. SHAYS. And worst.

Ms. SANDERSON. The Federal process of getting Federal funding

can be cumbersome, and we have tried to chip away at that process, and we can probably continue to do more.

Mr. SHAYS. I’m going to just come back and react to what you

said, but I’d like the mayor to respond.

Mr. LAURETTI. The best is the final remediation of the site and

the worst is getting there.

Mr. SHAYS. That’s really helpful.

56

Staff of Bridgeport had a huge benefit in that there were some

sites that nobody wanted to touch, and just having an assessment,

the developers, the owners of the property, in some cases, realized

that it wasn’t as heavy lifting as they thought. So I felt like the

assessment was, we got a big payback in some cases, because some

properties started to move just by the assessment, and nothing

else.

So what I’m wrestling with is whatever dollars you have, it is

better to do more assessments of more properties, given that logic;

or now that we’ve identified so many sites, is the problem that

we’ve identified, thanks a lot, but we need help in cleaning it up?

Maybe you can respond to that.

Mr. LAURETTI. I think a little common sense needs to be employed with respect to that.

Site assessments are essential and necessary in understanding

the nature and the cost associated with the nature of the remediation. And the ones that make sense, you should absolutely do.

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think, given the age of some of these programs,

the assessment has been very useful, but right now we have to go

to cleanup.

Mr. SHAYS. OK, but what you said, though, is that the inventory

isn’t there, which tells me that the assessment hasn’t been as good

as I thought it was.

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think the assessments have been done, but we

haven’t found a great way of developing a list and getting that

available.

Mr. SHAYS. It’s not that the assessments haven’t been done.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Many have been done. We don’t do a great job

in organizing those.

Mr. SHAYS. Who should be doing that, the State or the Federal

Government?

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think it’s done at different levels but it would

be very useful if we could coordinate it.

Mr. SHAYS. If this committee were to make a recommendation—

that’s one of the things that this committee does, it basically attempts to determine what the problem is, and what are the solutions recommended to a variety of municipalities—so who should

be doing that coordination?

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, if you’re offering the Federal Government,

it would be a great place to coordinate that activity.

Mr. SHAYS. It mandates the States or local governments.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I know EPA has given grants to have this

happen at the local level, and I know they’ve tried to spur the

State to get involved in these activities. We agreed that it needs

to be done.

Mr. SHAYS. It needs the coordination.

Ms. Sanderson.

Ms. SANDERSON. We have seen many more applications for cleanup grants and for revolving loan grants. So one thought would be

looking at some of the fixtures made to the loan program, and to

reward successful grantees who have gotten revolving loan grants.

You made a loan, you certainly have the opportunity ahead of you

to have supplemental funding for the application process, and reward high performance.

57

Mr. SHAYS. I just want to thank our witnesses for your comments. I appreciate it a lot. It’s great to have you here.

I appreciate you coming from Boston and Hartford.

Mr. TURNER. I thank all of you for participating, for your insights

today.

I want to give you one last opportunity, if something occurred

that you want to respond to. We are finished with our questioning,

if you have some statement that you want to make, this is your opportunity.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Could I just make one final pitch for the bill, actually, that is proposing to look at this in a comprehensive way?

I’m serious. The world doesn’t dissect things the way Government does. To go into a brownfields site and say the only thing we

can deal with is the hazardous waste component, but we can’t deal

with the demolition, of the asbestos, of the lead, of the pesticides—

that’s not how the real life works. So if we could really look at this

as a more comprehensive approach, it really makes ultimate sense

I think to all of us, even us bureaucrats.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you for that.

Anything else? If not, we will turn to our second panel.

Our second panel includes Elizabeth Barton, Joseph Carbone,

Robert Santy, Stephen Soler, and Barry Trilling.

We are now on our second panel of witnesses.

Before you begin your prepared remarks, the red lights indicates

your time has expired, the yellow light indicates when you have 1

minute left to conclude your remarks.

It is the policy of this committee that all witnesses be sworn in

before they testify.

Will you please rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. TURNER. Let the record show that all witnesses have responded in the affirmative.

We will begin with Ms. Barton, partner of Day, Berry & Howard.

Ms. Barton.

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH BARTON, CHAIR, ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND USE DEPARTMENT, DAY, BERRY & HOWARD, LLP

Ms. BARTON. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Shays, members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on

the topic of brownfields redevelopment in Connecticut and the new

England region.

My name is Elizabeth Barton. I am a partner with Day, Berry

& Howard, Connecticut’s largest law firm.

In addition to our five Connecticut offices, Day, Berry & Howard

has offices in New York City and Boston.

I chair the Environmental and Land Use Development at Day,

Berry & Howard and have been practicing in the environmental

and land use area for over 20 years.

I am resident in Day, Berry & Howard’s Hartford office.

I am presently the Secretary of the Connecticut Chapter of the

National Brownfield Association, a member of the National

Brownfield Association’s Advisory Board, and a Co-Chair of the

58

Government Affairs Task Force of the Connecticut Business and

Industry Association’s Environmental Policies Council. I have been

a member of the Board of Directors of the New England Council

and also the International Council of Shopping Centers for many

years. My experience in the brownfield arena is as counsel to the

universe of stakeholders, including owners, developers, lenders,

and governmental entities.

I have been extremely fortunate in that my experiences in the

brownfields arena span the full spectrum, from the very large

urban properties—specifically, to Brass Mills Shopping Center

Mall, in Waterbury, CT—to the small parcels being developed by

nonprofit organizations.

I also am working on a true public-private partnership with the

Fairfield Metro Center, in Fairfield.

Brownfields redevelopment, as I think many of the people have

spoken to it today, have acknowledged is a win-win for all State

owners.

I applaud the efforts of this subcommittee. The emphasis today

is on job creation, job retention, both of which directly rely on economic health and more progress.

I would like to touch on several points. It is real estate development, with unique challenges, that carry additional budget line

items. Brownfield projects are real estate projects. There is a need

to make it economically viable to pursue the brownfield redevelopment completion. There are direct economic incentives such as

grants, loans, and tax credits, but also, the lack of predictability

translate into additional project costs.

These are three significant impediments, the lack of coordination,

the continuing liability, and the lack of finality to the plan.

A second point, unfortunately, for all of us trying to address

these issues, it is not a one size fits all situation. A specific

brownfields property where it might cost more for remediation than

the value—some might benefit most from either tax credit measures such as that provided in H.R. 4480 or incentives that encourage and facilitate the assemblage of clean and not so clean properties. The latter, however, may require greater employment of resources to better address concerns about the predictability and finality of the process and any residual liability for the owner or developer of the site. Development actually requires us to look again

into very hard public policy. We need to address those.

We need to get more properties to the market, and we need to

get more developers interested.

We need to realize from the Connecticut transfer experience that

we need a clear and reasonable end point.

Thank you again for the invitation to be here today, for your continued support for the brownfields redevelopment.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Barton follows:]

59

60

61

62

63

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Carbone.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH CARBONE, PRESIDENT/CEO, THE

WORKPLACE, INC.

Mr. CARBONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Shays.

I’m Joe Carbone. I am president of the Workplace, Inc. We act

as the regional work force in southwestern Connecticut. From the

standpoint of work force development, we cover the town of Beacon

Falls, CT.

I get the opportunity here today to not get into kind of the fine

print of brownfield sites, but sort of a nice ancillary kind of a program.

The Workplace has received two Federal competitive grants, and

participated in a third one that provides occupational skills. It is

actually a program that began about 5 years ago. We have two

completed projects. I have a third project under way right now in

Stamford, CT.

As part of my testimony, I have given you information and reports really breaking down all the work that has been done in the

two areas and also work that has been under way so far at the

Stamford region.

From the standpoint of jobs—and that is what our business is all

about—there is a very, very clear distinction between both the nature of the jobs that are being marketed in the environmental

health area in this region and the wages that comes with them.

We are talking very clearly about jobs, jobs that are really at the

point of a career and can grow as years go on, and opportunity for

further education that can lead to increasingly better real kinds of

opportunities, careers for people.

I am here today to say that we are offering our continued sup- port for jobs. About $2 million a year has been allocated in the bill,

and there have been anywhere from 10 to 12 sites each year that

have been designated to receive it.

In our region of Connecticut—I just want to give you an idea, I

just took some numbers here from the completed sites, which is the

Bridgeport project and the Valley project, and we are looking at the

cost here of the combined sites, a $400,000 grant; and they were

entered into the program; 103 people entered, actually were

trained; 19 of them did complete. These numbers are much greater

than the usual trend in the American work force—90 percent completion. And in terms of the number of people that entered employment, we are looking at 87 percent, an average wage of $13.81 per

hour.

It is not just a case of something that can lead to a career track.

For a very small part of the package, there is a great return. These

opportunities for training, these are people who reside in the designated areas that are brownfields. Sometimes it appears to be

something negative. By the way, a number of them became misplaced, because they worked in factories that were vacated and

they are picking up an opportunity which would result from the

cleanup that is going on, or has been going on, and will go on in

the future.

In terms of opportunity, it is great; good for our region. And I

guess the important point that I want to at this point leave you

64

with is that most people really didn’t recognize the opportunities,

the field of environmental opportunites that is out there. We don’t

have difficulty taking people from training to employment and to

employment again in these higher wage kind of jobs.

To the extent that you can either continue or increase that, the

opportunities are greater. I think we are feeding into a sector of

the workforce where there is clearly a growing need, not just here

in our region, but across the State, and certainly, across the northeast, as well.

The last point I want to make here is that as hard as we worked

in the field of brownfields redevelopment, our job is to bring that

work with us.

I would really be remiss in sitting here today if I didn’t thank

you. The gentleman in front of me, seated to your left, he has been

a great friend of workforce development in southwestern Connecticut.

I have been here at the Workplace now for 10 years, actually 10

years as of next week, and I have been engaged in an effort to try

to build and kind of build our current workforce system to not just

make it larger, but to service more people, to actually service those

that are part of our system even better.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carbone follows:]

65

66

67

68

Mr. SHAYS. I believe in what you are doing.

Mr. CARBONE. And I thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT SANTY, PRESIDENT, REGIONAL

GROWTH PARTNERSHIP

Mr. SANTY. My name is Robert Santy, and I am president of the

Regional Growth Partnership [RGP].

RGP is a non-profit economic development organization comprised of public and private sector members in 15 towns in south

central Connecticut.

We perform a variety of functions in our region—Connecticut

being one of the two States in the Nation that lacks county government. I will come back to that in a few minutes. For example, we

support transportation initiatives such as the expansion of our local

airport, increased train stations, and infrastructure improvements

for our highways.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you have a counterpart in the greater Bridgeport,

Stamford area?

Mr. SANTY. I would say—and BRBC, are similar, but they don’t

have the same economic development functions. Metro Hartford Alliance and—are more similar to what we do.

Mr. SHAYS. Got you.

Mr. SANTY. We provide a variety of services to our towns. In our

region, we provide our local economic development offices with support ranging from grant writing to networking opportunities and

we seek ways for our region to work together.

We are a small State, made up of small communities. Our average town size is about 25 square miles. So really, our towns need

to work together, if they are to achieve the economic grout that we

need to achieve as a State.

One example of what we have done for our region is our

brownfields development program, and of course, on the other side

of that one is greenspace preservation and smart growth. And RGP

has been a leader on these issues for several years.

RGP has been working on brownfield projects for almost 10

years. We have been the recipient of $1.25 million in grant dollars

from the State Department of Economic and Community Development to conduct site assessments on properties in our 15 towns.

To date we’ve done phase I, II or III assessments on over 85 sites

in our 15 communities, and these investigations have assisted municipalities and private property owners to expand, purchase, sell

or lease their buildings. In every case, the project has been stalled

due to the lack of funding to complete the necessary testing and

would not have proceeded were it not for our funding.

In addition to State funding, RGP has been the recipient of two

Federal EPA grants. In 2000, working in conjunction with our

council and government, we secured a $200,000 assessment grant.

And in 2003, RGP was awarded a million dollar revolving loan

fund. And we are currently working to close our first loan under

that program in the city of Meriden.

However, even with our successful track record, it has been difficult for our organization to obtain funding. We have a great partnership with both EPA and the State DEP, and the Department of

69

Economic and Community Development, but actually, qualifying

for Federal funding has been an issue for us. We had to expend a

considerable amount of money to pay attorneys to work with our

Council of Governments, and get an opinion from our Attorney

General, to argue that we, in fact, qualified as a political subdivision in the State, which is the requirement under Federal statute.

In other States, of course, with governments, this would not be

as big an issue, but there are also issues, I think, in other States.

We hit a similar block recently in talking to the National Park

Service about Groundwork USA and becoming a groundwork trust,

which is funded with EPA dollars. And although in other States

Groundwork USA has worked with the counties and regional planning agencies, they have not worked with a regional not-for-profit

organization to perform similar functions.

We are convinced that a regional entity advocating and managing brownfields redevelopment should be eligible for these programs and is probably one of the most efficient organizations to administer them.

Our 15 towns clearly have limited resources. You spoke earlier

about Bridgeport and Shelton taking advantage of these programs,

other towns that don’t. There are certainly towns that cannot afford the administrative burden of some of these programs, so we

hope we address that by doing it on a regional basis, and working

with our towns.

I mentioned earlier we are close to closing our first EPA revolving loan fund loan in the city of Meriden. The important EPA program was considered essential for our region in order to have access to the remediation dollars, which, as we know, are difficult to

identify in brownfield projects.

The RFL funding was a perfect fit for the Meriden site. There

were no complicated financial issues, however, the process that we

had to undergo to get to the point of drawing up loan documents

has taken us a year-and-a-half. Difficulties arose due to a pending

lawsuit against a potentially liable party, which required detailed

opinions from many lawyers regarding the Superfund.

Additional problems arose when we realized much of the contamination was petroleum, instead of hazardous waste, and our application was for hazardous waste. So we weren’t able to do the petroleum cleanup because our dollars were dedicated to hazardous

waste, something Commissioner McCarthy mentioned when she

said maybe we can broaden some of these definitions.

Fortunately, these issues have been worked out, but as I mentioned, the process has taken us a year-and-a-half, and we are just

about to close the loan.

I’d also like to turn for a moment to your bill, Mr. Chairman,

H.R. 4480, which is co-sponsored by two Connecticut Congressman

that I am aware of, Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and Congressman Shays. And I would just say, in the interest of time on that,

that again, it is a toolbox that needs to be full in order to do the

stuff effectively.

And I would say that most of the low hanging fruit, to use a

phrase that comes up again and again today, probably has been

dealt with, and we deal with a lot of smaller sites, with a lot more

difficult issues. And the more options we have, both on assessment

70

remediation and redevelopment, as far as financing for those functions, the better off we are. So we would welcome new tax credit

legislation at the Federal level.

Thank you for the opportunity.

And I’d be happy to answer your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Santy follows:]

71

72

73

74

75

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Soler.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN SOLER, PRESIDENT, GEORGETOWN

LAND DEVELOPMENT CO.

Mr. SOLER. Thank you, Chairman Turner and Congressman

Shays, for inviting me to testify before this Committee on such an

important topic.

For the record, my name is Stephen Soler. I’m president of the

Georgetown Land Development Co., the owner and developer of a

55 acre wire mill in the Georgetown section of Redding, CT, a town

of about 8,500 people, so it’s not a big city. I’ve been in the

brownfields business for well over 10 years and have developed

about 50 properties.

Our development plan calls for the reuse of this property, if you

will. They will have about 416 residences, about 350,000 square

feet of commercial space.

Mr. SHAYS. How much commercial?

Mr. SOLER. About 350,000 square feet of commercial space.

It will create 1,500 jobs, 1,500 jobs that have not existed there

since 1959, which it gets to one of the points the State of Connecticut is trying to stimulate job retention, job creation.

The purpose of my testimony today is to talk about the process

we went through, and how coordinated State and Federal resources

make complex redevelopment a reality.

The most important point I could make in this testimony is that

this process could be replicated and used as a model throughout

the United States. But first, a little bit of history to understand

how we got to where we are.

In 2000, the town of Redding, a town of 8,500 people, wrote about $1 million in taxes.

They watched a large, thriving complex. Under the leadership of

the first selectman, they knew something had to be done, so they

enlisted the services of a Connecticut architect and planner, Patrick Pinnell, and listened to him on what could happen.

Pinnell suggested that this would possibly become a new village.

By taking some of those historic buildings and integrating it into

the existing area, that you could create a new town center. But

there was a problem. Nobody knew how much it was going to cost

to clean up the property. There was wild speculation, it was $30

million, it was $50 million, and that gets to the point about getting

assessments done.

Pinnell advised the town, and we listened to what he had to say.

One of the problems that has faced brownfields, I think it’s probably the largest problem that’s faced brownfields, is the fact that

secured creditors refuse to take title to these properties. You heard

from the Mayor that there are a lot of properties that they can’t

take on the liability. Those secure creditors include banks and tax

holders. There are taxes that are past due that are owed to cities

and towns. I primarily purchased those properties by buying the

mortgages and taxes, so I kind of knew how to go about doing this.

In 2002, I made a proposal to the town to repurchase the outstanding taxes for about $1 million. And part of our agreement

with the town was to involve them in the planning process, and

also to make available to them remediation information. We were

76

going to investigate the site, and make that information available

to the public, so that people knew what was going on. And I think

that’s also a big issue, that people have no concept of what’s really

going on. And when you do get that information out there, you sort

of break down that barrier, what is really going to happen, and

what people think is going to happen.

Based on our development plan, the former wire mill, we bought

those taxes in 2002, September 2002, negotiated the deed from the

owner, who no longer wanted it, and in March 2003, acquired the

mortgage from the bank. To put that into perspective, the bank put $26 million, and to

further complicate the problems, it was the Commercial Bank of

Kuwait, go to the local bank and buy the mortgage.

We spent the better part of 2003 stabilizing the property and

completing the environmental investigation. And in October 2003,

we had a planning session which involved the town. We had over

1,000 residents attend that Charrette.

Many of the ideas that came out of the Charrette were given to

us by local residents and stakeholders.

Mr. SHAYS. Just to stop you for a second.

Mr. Chairman, this was an amazing thing to watch, because the

developer had a concept, he came forward with a concept, invited

the whole community to come in, and then was receptive to amend,

change, adjust, based on good suggestions of the residents.

I have to tell you, it was one of the more impressive things that

I’ve seen since I’ve been in government.

Mr. SOLER. It was a pretty impressive process.

At any point in time, they didn’t know what was going to happen

at the end of the week.

There was some consensus that was built as to what could happen, and it all started with Pinnell’s initial drawings, initial ideas.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me ask you, you also had different groups of people to go to, and they could make a suggestion, and the artist, on

the spot, would kind of conceptualize and draw, and let people

know what this would look like, based on their suggestions.

Mr. SOLER. It was a very proactive Charrette. We had about 50

people working for us during the Charrette process.

So that, as a group that was dealing with the transportation

issues, they had some concerns that they wanted to raise. We had

transportation professionals, they were transportation planners,

engineers. They could actually solve and answer that question right

then and there.

What that also did was it took a lot of the problems that we normally faced with large scale developers off the table because people

got the answer to their question right away.

Mr. SHAYS. We’ll get him back up here later to see it.

Mr. SOLER. The Charrette input, for the record, included information from U.S. EPA, Connecticut DEP, local planning and zoning officials, historic preservationists, the National Park Service,

and various departments of Connecticut DOT who were working

with us on reactivating the train station that was closed, and that

train station would provide service to Grand Central Station.

The plan, after we had done the Charrette, was presented to the

town in June 2004, or just about 8 months later, and in September

77

2004, we received unanimous approval with no appeal. That’s a

unique accomplishment for any development that tries to go

through the process in the State of Connecticut. And we expect to

break ground on the project next month.

Because of the process that’s on the record, we undertook that

in 2000, and the results of that process, the U.S. EPA awarded the

town of Redding the National Award for Smart Growth Achievement in the Small Communities categories. And to put that in perspective, most of the recipients were from the west, with the exception of a project in Orlando, FL.

In addition, EPA has provided a tremendous amount of support,

both in brownfields assessments and brownfields grants.

And this past January, the project received a sustainable design,

design project designation, from the U.S. Treasury, which will enable the project to take advantage of tax exempt bond financing for

the development. And it’s only one of four projects in the country

to receive that recognition.

Most important, though, it shows that the efforts of EPA to promote brownfield development, they’re not only taking root in the

urban areas, but they’re also taking root in the suburbs. Not all the

brownfields exist in the urban core. In fact, many brownfields exist

in suburban environments. And it’s good to know that to provide

those suburban environments the ability to tap the resources that

the urban core and that the cities get, as well.

This all begs the question, how do you take our model and adapt

it to cities and towns where so many brownfields are?

We believe it can happen with the following factors: One, cities

and towns need professionals, and they think EPA is working hard

to provide that resource for them.

Two, States need to be more proactive, with a regulatory framework that streamlines the process. And I believe Connecticut,

under the direction of Commissioner McCarthy, shall become a

model for brownfields development.

And at the Federal level, in addition to existing financial tools

available to brownfield sites, there needs to be brownfields tax

credit legislation that’s targeted to a very specific geographic area.

It shouldn’t be for every site.

I think the best method for increasing the capital is for Federal

policy to reflect the critical importance of revitalizing American cities and towns, now impaired by an industrial legacy. I think tax

credit legislation is arguably the best, most straightforward method

of creating an equity pool to achieve this goal, and is vital to ensuring that this becomes a reality in communities who need it, just as

it’s become a reality for the residents of Georgetown.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak at this session.

I’ll be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Soler follows:]

78

79

80

81

82

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Trilling.

STATEMENT OF BARRY TRILLING, PARTNER, WIGGIN AND

DANA, LLP

Mr. TRILLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us here

today.

I’m Barry Trilling. I’m a partner in the Stamford, CT, office of

Wiggin and Dana. I also chair the Legislation and Policy Committee of the Connecticut chapter of the National Brownfield Association, and the Government Affairs Committee of the local chapter of

the National Association of Industrial Office Properties, which had

the pleasure of hearing Chairman Turner speak back in February,

about H.R. 4480.

I work both in Connecticut and elsewhere in the country——

Mr. SHAYS. Just lower it down a bit.

Mr. TRILLING. I’ve had judges tell me that I wear out their court

reporters. I appreciate the admonition.

I work in properties all over the country, as well as here in Connecticut.

Success stories about brownfields get a lot of press attention. Yet

hundreds and, perhaps, thousands of small, commercial and real

estate projects that would result in cleanups in the use of contaminated properties have failed due to bureaucratic and international

barriers. In addition, we seldom hear about the properties not

available for cleanup and redevelopment, because of the owners’

fears of unending liability if they allow those properties to come on

the market.

Here are two examples: An idle finishing business in Elmhurst

was put up for sale. It’s a dilapidated property. Site remediation

costs about $150,000. Prospective buyers show interest in this

transaction, but remediation and environmental insurance costs

proved too high. The property thus remains unremediated and undeveloped.

In another instance, a New Haven County building construction

supply business wants to expand and move its operations near its

current site. It finds suitable a long-out-of-use munitions plant, for

which it would pay about $1 million. But potential cleanup and insurance premiums could cost more than $300,000, killing the deal.

Current governmental assistance programs either have too many

barriers to entering or take too long to use in these transactions.

What would make these deals work, resulting in brownfield revitalization?

All 50 States have adopted some form of brownfields remediation

and developed a program, and the Federal Government has more

than 20 such programs administered by more than half a dozen

agencies.

Your committee has already heard how many of these programs

have been working. All of these programs require enforcement

agencies to welcome and to nurture private sector cleanup efforts.

The old command and control micromanagement attitude, suspicion and cynicism, just doesn’t work.

Here in Connecticut, for example, the Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Gina McCarthy is working to

83

make her agency more ‘‘user friendly,’’ and EPA has provided resources for brownfields revitalization in every one of its regions.

Mr. Chairman, Representative Shays, my remarks—my written

remarks—describe both Federal and Connecticut grants and loans

for site assessment for remediation and redevelopment. Government funding programs, however, often create bureaucratic mazes

that real estate developers would just rather avoid.

These programs also depend largely on the government, rather

than private sector initiatives, and political pressures which may

outweigh the projects’ own merits. And State agencies, with overlapping mandates, frequently don’t work well with other further

deterrents to revitalization.

Connecticut, with the creation of the Nutmeg Coalition, has

begun to confront these issues, and our General Assembly has also

begun to create a one-stop shop for brownfields remediation and

development. Still, smaller brownfields sites, with low levels of contamination, such as I have described, have difficulty in obtaining

insurance. The premiums on smaller cleanups are disproportionately large and frequently unaffordable, in the context of a project.

Further, we need reforms, both Federal and State liability

schemes, to encourage the original responsible parties to participate in revitalization and to encourage them to make their

brownfield sites available for restoration. Under Pennsylvania’s Act

2, for example, any party that contributes to any extent to cleanup,

meeting State standards, receives protection from liability under

State statutes, even the PRP’s, and they are coming to the table

for remediation of sites.

Legislation such as H.R. 4480 is a good step. It has tax credits

for up to 50 percent for demolition and environmental remediation.

It would be even stronger if its credits also applied to insurance

costs. Other, more traditional forms of financing cannot match direct tax credits.

Further, legislation would also result in more properties for development, and encourage the current owners to participate in site

assessment, cleanup, and the redevelopment process.

If owner liability relief were available, who knows what additional sites my clients may have been able to revitalize.

Thank you, and I appreciate the time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trilling follows:]

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

The type of training in the area of brownfields, both assessment

and remediation, has to be very technical. I was wondering how the

costs for people were dealt with, with respect to this or other types

of training that might be provided.

Mr. CARBONE. In this case, I would say it’s probably a bit more expensive, probably somewhere between $4,000 and $5,000 per person, but that’s inclusive of the administrative charge along with

that. But in terms of outcome—it’s what’s important here—you’re

looking at $14 an hour, which is really wages that would start at

that, but a real potential is still much higher. And if continued

education took place, opportunity into other areas of environmental

health, that would even bring it a lot higher than that. It’s really

a small amount of money for a person to be a starter of this.

And also the fact that there is not much question as to training

as to whether or not employment is there. As I mentioned before,

it did open our eyes to the very rich vein of opportunities that I

think many of the parties who work for our system have neglected

to really see it there. But it’s there, meaning we are talking about

environmental health. It’s a much broader field than some of the

fields that we’re talking about here today, including like inspection

of restaurants. That’s all part of environmental health. So once you

kind of get your foot in the door, it opens opportunities into the

field.

But in terms of how it compares to other training, it might be

a bit more expensive. But again, it’s meeting the jobs for the wages

that we’re talking about.

Mr. TURNER. Each of you have not had the benefit of each other’s

testimony as you were preparing to testify. And, Mr. Carbone, you

were probably not aware, in the written testimony that an issue

that was raised was the availability of personnel to conduct assessments, and to conduct environmental remediation, both from the

standpoint of the expertise, but also from the standpoint of lowering the overall costs and increasing competition. So I’m certain that

your efforts not only provide the economic ability for the people

who have participated but also have an impact on what is needed

in providing the expertise for each of these groups to be able to accomplish what is necessary.

Mr. CARBONE. Yes.

It might also serve to increase the number of training providers

in the field. And there are not many at this point in Connecticut

that can do that well.

But I think we are beginning to see the undercurrent of some

economic activity, where for-profit operators see the potential here.

And that will begin to drive down the per unit cost. It always

works that way. I think we can all be positive to see that these forprofit operators will recognize this opportunity here. And I think

we will see that happen by the next round of actual training that

takes place here.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Trilling, as another example of ‘‘great minds

think alike,’’ your comment to me about including the costs of environmental assurances was not the only one I had received on the

bill last time. And as a result of the number of people like yourself

who are practitioners and have had experience with that, the bill

93

does include a qualified remediation expense for financial assurances, including insurance.

Mr. TRILLING. I second what everybody said about demolition,

and costs, as well.

The insurance ambition in the last 2 to 3 years particularly has

become acute, and I commend you for looking at it.

Mr. TURNER. You being, again, a practitioner, what we are greater aware of is the extent to which the insurance products are playing a role in encouraging lenders to become comfortable when coming to the table, so that’s a capital issue for the redevelopment

project itself, after remediation is complete.

Mr. TRILLING. The lenders are concerned not so much about their

own liability anymore. There is State legislation to protect them.

But they are always concerned about the security of the collateral

and the ability of the borrower to pay. Insurance product provides

that assurance. That bolsters the lenders’ ability to provide their

share of the money.

Mr. TURNER. To the attorneys, I’m very interested in the issue,

looking at Connecticut’s not to sue provisions, including responsible

parties as a prospect to that process. I wonder if you will, if you

could speak about incentives that you believe that we should be undertaking at the Federal and State level.

And there’s one last thing, and that is it is my belief—and I

would like your thoughts on this—that those properties that are

the worst, that have the worst contamination, are probably not undertaking the assessment process because of the owners’ desire not

to know, and not to have others know, the contamination that

needs to be remedied.

So if you would speak about incentives to bringing the responsible parties to the table in this process, do you think it might

work. And the second aspect, how the assessment process impacts

those properties that are the worst; the disincentive for people to

come to the table.

Mr. TRILLING. I’ve only been here 3 years.

The first thing I would look at is the Brownfields Revitalization

Law of 2002, which, in one provision, restricts EPA enforcement actions, sites that have been cleaned up pursuant to State programs.

So if the State program provides liability relief for the PRP, for the

owner, then that’s going to encourage more insights into the program. Regrettably, here in Connecticut, we still don’t have that recognition.

At the very least, States should encourage the owners to come

forward, participate in assessments, and evaluations. There is no

cookie cutter. Every State has its own problems. But I think we

need to be creative in trying to address this to bring these properties to the table.

Mr. TURNER. In Pennsylvania, are PRP’s eligible for relief?

Mr. TRILLING. Yes, they are. Act 2 applies. Act 2 is the remediation standard statute, essentially, and it applies to all cleanup

programs, whether voluntary or involuntary. And anyone participating in that program can get relief, including if an owner voluntarily comes to the table and meets the standard.

The Pennsylvania attitude was—clean is clean and I don’t care

who’s involved. If you clean it up, it’s done.

94

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Barton, I’ll wait for you to get your microphone,

and I’ll restate your questions: The first one, of course, being the

issue of incentives to bring the task polluter to the table, and the

second being the assessment process, is there a disincentive for the

worst properties?

Ms. BARTON. I think that there definitely is a disincentive. And

I’m not sure if it’s necessarily for the worst property.

Often the properties with respect to the issue, the owner doesn’t

quite know what to do. And then the fear of stepping into traffic

without knowing what might be the final phases in response to

what was found.

But they’re going to want help, basically, without any sort of

strings attached, should they find a circumstance—a real estate development project makes it not worthwhile. And then you have the

property owner saying, ‘‘What do I do now? I now have this information about my site.’’ So I think it is a disincentive.

I do think, by the way, some of the recent developments will,

hopefully, be of some assistance in that regard in dealing with contingent liability. And I think it’s getting some of the larger companies, in particular, to step back, and perhaps reexamine whether

an approach of putting an incentive that is no longer used is the

best thing to do. So we still need more incentives.

Mr. TURNER. Could you comment on Connecticut’s tax credits

program and the bond termination program. I’m going to tell you

again why I’m asking it, and hope I don’t confuse you.

In the first draft of the Federal Tax Credit Program that I proposed, one of the criticisms that we received of it was that the taxpayers were awarded by a State development agency, because the

focus was on redevelopment, but the remediation was coordinated

by the State EPA. And those who were involved in EPA remediation programs wanted to make sure that there was a lane.

So what we did was, we required the State development agency

that still evaluates the projects for award, that a project must be

part of the voluntary action program in order to be able to get the

tax credits, thereby making it at least coordination, if not cooperation.

How is it working here? And what have we learned from it?

Ms. BARTON. I don’t think there really is that linkage. In making

that statement, I’m not conveying criticism. I just think they’re

separate programs. I think they are programs that are not into it

anymore.

The economic development program, the programs involved, I

don’t think we truly have an incentive program, like the tax credit

program.

But while the programs that the economic development agencies

are responsible for will make reference to and rely upon an outcome of a program, and require it to be in compliance with DEC,

we do not have in Connecticut the sort of voluntary action programs, remediation programs that I and Barry have said they have

in many other States.

We do have what, to a large degree, functions as our program,

clearly not voluntary—the transfer program that Commissioner

McCarthy referenced. And that program was very, very effective,

95

and it works really well, I think primarily because it has limited

public sector involvement.

The public sector dictates the filing, dictates as Commissioner

McCarthy says. They have to look at the properties. And there is

a process that you have to go through. It’s largely between the

buyer and the seller.

While there is a statute, two statutes, actually, that refer to voluntary remediation, the reality is, those are not statutes that are

used anywhere to the degree that is used in other States where

there are very well-developed voluntary remediation programs.

There is a bit of a disconnect.

We have the building blocks, but through these people that Barry

referenced, the agency coming together and having a coalition, and

proposing legislation, and we still have work to do.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

Mr. SANTY. Could I make a comment?

I just want to comment that was not a tax credit program. The

State has an urban remedial action grant program that’s administered jointly by the Department of Economic and Community Development, partnered with Environmental Protection. And before a

grant is made under that program, both of those departments need

to agree to move forward. So you might want to take a look at that

statute as an example.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

I would like you to assess, it seems to me that we have seen

some very real progress under the brownfields programs. But is it

a success because there is just a lot of low-hanging fruit, or has it

been a success because the Government has provided noticeable incentives?

The difference between whether a property is developed or not is

obviously what kind of attorney you’ve got. Does a little bit of action make a big difference in return? Or my assumption is that if

brownfields were a mystery, we didn’t know how many we had, the

particular type, or what its liability was, and so really we were

able to then take the easy ones, and now we’ve got a lot of more

difficult ones on the books. Help me understand the environment.

Can I start with you?

Ms. BARTON. Sure.

I think, unfortunately, it gets back to circumstances with reference to the tool box. The tools that are needed are not the same.

I think in some instances money does play a key role, and it’s

critical, makes a difference whether or not the project goes forward.

But truly, if you look at some of the success stories—and I think

you’re right, we’ve had some very, very good success stories in our

State—but if you look at the success stories, and Steve said, what

the end needs to work is everyone is on board with respect to the

project.

Mr. SHAYS. If everyone is on board, or that it’s easier to do a

brownfields cleanup in Stamford, CT, versus Bridgeport, because

the property is worth more, the return—you’re going to get a better

rent, so to speak—return on investment, the site that Mr. Soler has

is an awesome site and it’s around tremendous wealth. And I’m

wondering, if that’s the case, or——

96

Ms. BARTON. Well, I think it depends. The reality is that there

are some properties that are not going to be developed, no matter

what you do.

Mr. SHAYS. Right.

Ms. BARTON. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And would they tend to be closer to a Superfund site?

The site’s location maybe not being as economical?

Would it be basically that the cleanup is more intense, and the

liability greater?

Ms. BARTON. I don’t think it’s so much the cleanup, quite candidly. I believe its time has not come yet in terms of the economic

viability, the particular location.

But the reality is if you have a cleanup scenario, while it may

be more challenging in getting the incentive to work, the reality is

that with money, and commitment, and resources, you can address

it. Beyond that, I think that it is definitely going to be beneficial

from the perspective of the investment needs. But not all projects

require the money. For other projects, it’s just a need to get everybody going in the same direction.

Mr. SHAYS. That last response to me is encouraging because

that’s doable.

Ms. BARTON. Absolutely, absolutely.

Mr. SHAYS. It’s doable within even the financial restraints we

have.

Let me ask Mr. Carbone to respond. I’m assuming, Joe, that you

have an opinion.

Mr. CARBONE. No.

Mr. SHAYS. He’s been involved in so many good things.

You also speak as a former Deputy Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Economic Development, so this is right up

your alley.

Mr. SANTY. And brownfield redevelopment is about development,

there’s no question about it. I don’t think there is any doubt that

we’re all alone and continuing here. Some projects were easier, and

they’re getting tough. Both the size of the project—more the size

of the project than the types of remediation that are necessary. But

there were none that were easy.

And I think I go back to Joe’s comment, that all of these are really development projects. They all require a return.

As to your point about Stamford or Bridgeport, harkening back

to the days when I was with the State, there were multiple properties there. All of them had environmental issues on them, and

yet, clearly, that was the deal that was going to go in Stamford.

Mr. SHAYS. Ultimately UBF.

Mr. SANTY. Ultimately the UBFs, yes.

So I do think location makes a big difference, but, more importantly, people in Connecticut are very concerned about the way the

State is growing. And I think we have an opportunity, to follow on

Elizabeth’s comment, to talk about brownfields and land preservation, because they are only sides of the same coin. And if we put

$1 into protected land, which our suburban communities and our

rural communities more and more do, why shouldn’t we put a dollar into brownfields redevelopment and get that investment back in

our cities at the same time?

97

And that’s one way of getting the public to understand why you

do this.

Mr. SHAYS. I’m going to put it in my own words—a developer, if

he is going to develop half a million dollars of square foot of commercial office, better he do it in an urban area.

So your point, and I’m hearing, you’re saying to me, that in

spending money for brownfields, in a sense, indirectly you’ve almost put up money to preserve open space.

Mr. SANTY. Correct. Getting the public to understand that’s critical. They don’t necessarily see the connection, but they don’t like

what’s occurring in their urban communities. So that’s one way.

Mr. SHAYS. I believe in my suburban areas, when I’m helping in

Bridgeport, Stamford and Norwalk, and obviously, a site like Soler

has, which is already there, is already a part of an old community,

that’s contaminated.

Mr. Soler, maybe you can respond as well.

Mr. SOLER. My comment really would be geared more toward

higher leverage of the dollars and what happens when you leverage

the dollars and it’s put into perspective.

The first Federal agency that jumped on board was the EPA and

they provided us with a site assessment.

Mr. SHAYS. You’re talking about your site here.

Mr. SOLER. At our site in Georgetown. Because the EPA came to

the table, that allowed all the other Federal agencies to come to the

table. They like to work with each other. EPA tends to be the first

one.

I figured you were going to ask this question, so I wrote down

some of the agencies that we’re dealing with to put this in perspective.

We received a targeted brownfield assessment from EPA, a clean- up frame from EPA; obviously, in the town of Redding, a $72 million allocation of tax exempt bonds from the U.S. Treasury;

$550,000 of CDBG funds to demolish the property; $5 million from

the U.S. Department of Agriculture to build a wastewater treatment facility because Redding is a rural community; we will probably get about $3 million of tax credits using the Historic Tax

Credit Program through the National Parks Department of the Interior; and $3 million in tax credits from the Department of Energy, primarily through different energy efficiencies that we’re

going to use.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you know that in the beginning?

Mr. SOLER. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. When you started out, you anticipated, to make this

project succeed, you’d have to do all of this?

Mr. SOLER. Yes.

We knew that if we started with the EPA—and that’s leveraging

the dollars—that people could really put on paper like this, that

$100,000 targeted brownfields assessment got us to where we are,

and all these other programs, because every other Federal agency

came to the table.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, you live in the area of the sites, correct?

Mr. SOLER. I live in Cos Cob.

Mr. SHAYS. But the bottom line is you develop all over the country.

98

Mr. SOLER. I develop property from Miami to Boston, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Mostly——

Mr. SOLER. Brownfield sites, that’s all I do. And mostly, they’ve

been small. I have a working knowledge of small sites.

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t call this one small.

Mr. SOLER. This is not a small site. This is a once-in-a-lifetime

opportunity. But that should speak to how you leverage dollars.

But more important than that, when EPA makes an investment,

sometimes you don’t see the real impact of that investment.

When EPA made the investment on a targeted assessment for

the Jenkins Bell property, look what happened. People now started

to quantify the risk and they could start seeing the light.

Mr. SHAYS. What I’m hearing you say is that having the Department of Environmental Protection get involved as a promoter, in a

sense, of the project, it’s a message to people around you that what

is viewed as the most difficult part, you have that agency at the

table.

Mr. SOLER. Yes. Having EPA at the table, at the same time. This

happened during our Charrette. We had Connecticut DEP at the

table. People realized that those two agencies were there, talking

in unison, saying this can happen.

The thing of Beth’s comment—to bring all those stakeholders,

those various groups together, is important, because at the end of

the day, it’s a real estate transaction, and it has to have an intrinsic value. Otherwise, no one is going to do it.

But there are properties that are going to get built. There are

properties that are marginal, that with the right incentives, with

using some of these tools that are out there, they can get done. But

it’s not easy.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Trilling, before you answer the question I asked,

is Mr. Soler more unusual, or are there a lot of folks like him that

have over 10 years in development this expertise.

Mr. TRILLING. There are a number of prominent brownfields developers who specialize in these properties and Mr. Soler is probably the best of those. The way he works with communities, the

way he works with government, the way he integrates, he has this

whole holistic approach to development. It really shows the best

creative side of the private sector.

Mr. SHAYS. My purpose for asking, though, is if you don’t have

that expertise, you have some disadvantages.

Mr. TRILLING. You’ve got problems if you don’t.

And I’d like to speak to the unsexy problems.

Atlantic station, in Atlanta, another sexy project.

Here in Connecticut——

Mr. SHAYS. It’s good where we introduce sex into our hearings.

Mr. TRILLING. I’m trying to avoid getting myself in real trouble.

Ms. BARTON. You’re dead.

Mr. TRILLING. The projects I’m talking about, they’re not sexy.

I’m talking about getting developers to promise—the Steve Solers

in this world who don’t specialize in brownfield, or don’t have that

expertise, who right now do as Bob Santy mentioned he has to do

in order to get grants, hire extensive experts and lawyers—you

99

know, I’m trying to talk myself out of a job here—but right now,

the process is too expensive, it’s too complex, it’s too sophisticated.

What you do by things like H.R. 4480, which provides simple tax

credits if you meet certain standards, allows the mom and pop developer to go out and start becoming a part of this process.

As Beth has pointed out, as Bob has pointed out, brownfields

properties are a subset of real estate development; and the private

sector knows how to deal with real estate development.

Allow that creativity of a mom and pop developer to go out, find

a property, use their own money to clean it up. You’re going to

have a turnaround in cities like Bridgeport, and Milford, and

Shelton, and all the other towns that don’t have perhaps a huge

tax base that these other sites do that attract these projects. It’s

the making this a mainstream idea that will turn around our cities,

free up our resources, and protect our other resources.

I don’t mean to use hyperbole, but I’m going to. Other than winning the war on terrorism, I don’t think there is a more important

task that the government has than restoring our cities. Restoring

our cities will cure a host of social problems. We can help eliminate

poverty, we can make our cities more livable. We can bring people

back in. You make them more livable by increasing tax bases, creating jobs, making them safer, making them places where people

want to live.

Mr. SHAYS. Wouldn’t it be great—excuse me, it’s a bit of a digression—but in a Presidential debate, instead of talking about whether a Senator earned three Purple Hearts, or a President hasn’t

properly fulfilled his National Guard duty, that you had a public

debate about this issue?

And believing that we can’t see success in Iraq, or the Iraqis

can’t see success, it’s not lost on me the opportunity cost of billions

and billions of dollars, and we’re really debating hundreds of millions, if that.

Mr. TRILLING. You’re preaching to the choir, as far as I’m concerned, at least to me.

And, again, I take some missionary zeal in this because I’ve seen

projects I’ve worked on that were laying idle, unused, where there

was blight in the neighborhood, and having turned those around,

creating new businesses, including small business opportunities,

and new jobs, seeing the hope in people’s eyes. You can’t get paid

enough for that.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, one of the values of this hearing for me has

been, at this point here, is we are not going to have a world to live

in if we keep doing what we’re doing. And if we can tie this effort

to a strong environmental movement, it can make a world of difference.

I want to thank you all for your testimony. You’re all experts on

this.

And if I could, Mr. Chairman, just ask if there is any point that

needs to be put on the record that we haven’t put on the record?

I find sometimes those last points tend to be sometimes the most

important.

Yes.

100

Mr. SANTY. Thanks for the opportunity. Two points. One is, I

have some language that might be helpful in meeting the eligibility

standards of the program. And it’s not attached to my testimony.

Mr. SHAYS. I’d just like to make sure that’s specifically inserted

in the record.

Mr. SANTY. Thank you.

One issue we haven’t raised at all I think deserves mention because of its prominence nationally and in Connecticut right now

and that’s the effect of limitations on eminent domain on redevelopment.

We have a number of bills in the Connecticut Legislature that

seek to take economic development out of the public as a definition,

which will be in the courts for years.

Mr. TURNER. Before we change the topic, let me just tell you, on

the Federal level—and you certainly are going to find a very sympathetic legislator here on the issues of the need for tools for economic development—the bill that passed the House, which was

highly restrictive in the areas of eminent domain, included specific

exceptions for brownfields. So, from this perspective, at least on the

Federal level, eminent domain, we will still, even if that less restrictive bill was passed, the brownfields were covered.

Mr. SANTY. That’s great, and that’s the point—just to keep an

eye on that as these things go through because the reaction, particularly on the State level, may limit our ability to do brownfields,

and eminent domain is really necessary.

Mr. SHAYS. Could I just ask, did you want to ask any more questions?

Mr. TURNER. You can wrap it up.

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t want to wrap up, I want you to wrap it up.

But I just want to make sure, if you would just ask the question,

because we haven’t asked you as many questions as you’re probably prepared for, I would like to make sure that the key points

that you want to make are put on the record. So maybe with that,

we can end up with a commercial.

Mr. TURNER. Aside from Mr. Soler, is there anything that you

would like to add? You have an opportunity to say it now.

Ms. BARTON. I think the one point I would like to make is actually a point that Commissioner McCarthy made, and that is, there

is a need for us to maximize the realization in the way the real

world works as we try to do the very, very important things that

all of you are doing; that is, recognizing that things do not proceed

in a sequence, and therefore, there is a need for flexibility when it

comes to when the money is available and what it’s being used for.

It has to be the ability, for those who are going to be responsible

for allocating the moneys, to have those moneys be put to the best

use for each project.

But again, as I said, it’s not a one-sided control unfortunately.

So any flexibility that can be built into any of the efforts would be

helpful.

Thank you.

Mr. CARBONE. Just the one point that I wish to make is that, as

you allocate dollars in the future, I know it’s important to help people, particularly those who might live in this area, and earn a livelihood from the particular field, but the need to increase the numVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:40 Oct 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\29333.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
101

ber of people with occupations in this field is really great, and the

need to do things that actually stimulate private investment in forprofit operations is equally as great. And to the extent that you can

include this funding, if possible, to enhance it, I think you will be

accomplishing something.

Mr. TURNER. One of the things I find most exciting whenever we

do a hearing on urban economic development issues—CDBG,

brownfields, public housing—you get together urban people who

not only have expertise, but they have a love for accomplishing the

end goal of redeveloping our cities. That camaraderie, that body of

knowledge that’s sharing, is always a valuable experience.

And I want to let you know that’s how I feel about your Congressman, Chris Shays. That in the House, there aren’t that many

people who would sit around this table, like Mr. Soler’s associates,

who share the end goal and the love of making certain that our

communities are redeveloped.

Congressman Shays, thank you again for having me here, and

thank you for your friendship, and your advocacy on all the issues

in the House.

Mr. Soler, as I said to the Mayors, we have a transcript that’s

being made and we will use that testimony when we put together

the reports.

And the Mayors, I asked them to give the commercial as to why

this is important to their communities. They talked about issues of

taxes, and economic development, and blight. Of course, they’re

talking from a Mayor’s perspective.

And from your perspective as a developer, I would love for you

to give us your thoughts on why this is important for you to do.

Not every developer is doing it, so the reasons are not so evident,

otherwise, the line behind me would be very long.

Please share with your thoughts as to why it’s important that

you do what you do.

Mr. SOLER. I will tell you that a lot of developers would want to

do it. They’re scared. They are fearful that they’re going to lose

money. They’re not in the business of losing money, they’re in the

business of making money. But many developers that I talk to

want to gravitate into the brownfields business. I think that if you

had protections in place, and you had a little bit more certainty in

place, and you had these tax incentives, they would get into the

business.

And you’re starting to see that happen now, for institutional investors. What’s happening in Stamford, CT, is not being done by

a brownfield developer, it’s being done by an institutional investor,

buying what up to now they knew it as properties nobody wants.

So there are a lot of people who get into it.

I also think that you’re seeing a tide change in the development

community. You’re seeing people that are taking a little bit more

of a responsible role in what will happen with buildings in the future.

Four years ago, when I started this project, and I looked at creating green buildings, everybody thought I was nuts, why would you

want to do that, until last year, when we had an energy spike.

Then, all of a sudden, everybody thought I was a genius.

102

The reality is that time is going to take a toll on how we develop

properties in this country. And if we start at looking the way that

the Europeans develop it, and other countries develop it, and adopt

some of those models, we’re going to look smart, we’re going to end

up having the future become our reality. So that’s the reason why

I’m doing this.

Those are the opportunities that are in the marketplace. I think

taking advantage of those opportunities, because, frankly, no one

else is looking, and doing it in a very creative way, is not only

going to be financially rewarding, but I think it’s the right way of

doing it. There are a lot of people out there that are following me.

We are not the only ones doing it.

Mr. SHAYS. Before you adjourn, Mr. Chairman, I just want to

thank you for coming here. I want to thank you for setting up two

excellent panels.

I just have so much admiration for what you’re doing on this

issue, and so many more. And it’s nice to be part of your team in

this effort. And so, thank you very much for coming, I appreciate

it.

Mr. TURNER. I want to thank you again for your preparation and

for your participation today.

And we stand adjourned.

Mr. SHAYS. And may we thank the transcriber.

Mr. TURNER. Yes.

[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

103

104

105

106

Æ