Rarely do developers and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection agree on anything, but businesses and environmentalists have found an issue both can get behind.
Cleaning up blighted and contaminated properties for redevelopment is the best way to improve the environment, grow industry, increase tax rolls and reduce sprawl all at once.
Connecticut has thousands of opportunities for brownfield remediation — more than 13,000 — and the issue isn’t getting quality projects done. It’s getting more of them done.
“It is the only issue that I know of where everyone is on the same side,” said Eric Brown, associate counsel for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association. “It is really a win all around. It’s hard to find a downside.”
Out of the more than 13,000 brownfield sites in Connecticut, 47 have been remediated since 1996. The state has committed $121.6 million to those efforts.
Goodwin College in East Hartford sits on a formerly contaminated property, a remediation effort that won the state the 2010 Project of the Year Award from the Northeastern Economic Developers Association. Pfizer built a facility in New London on a brownfield peninsula; same for the Brass Mill Center in Waterbury.
The 113-year-old Remington Rand complex in Middletown was quite the project for the town and its contractors to pull together — as the complex has polluted the nearby soil, groundwater and Mattabessett River for years — but with some creativity, the city-owned complex is now nearing 20 new tenants.
“It was pretty easy once it got planned out,” said Al Warren, Stafford Springs contactor who worked on the building’s plumbing problems. “It was just a general plumbing job. Instead of putting it in the floor, we hung it on the ceiling.”
While Connecticut has plenty of examples, the latest push by business and environmental groups simply says the state needs more brownfield redevelopment, calling for more cooperative and hassle-free work between governments and developers. There’s also the little matter of funding.
“Brownfield remediation and funding could be the ultimate jobs bill,” said State Rep Jeffrey Berger, D-Waterbury, co-chair of the Commerce Committee.
Brownfield redevelopment is supported by environmental groups because pollution is contained or removed. It is supported by industry because of the resulting new facilities and jobs, often brought online with state and federal funding. Municipalities support it because blighted properties become productive again and add to tax rolls. Smart growth people support it because formerly developed sites are revitalized, preventing sprawl caused by development of greenfields.
At a December meeting with state business leaders, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Amey Marrella said brownfield redevelopment was an issue both industry and environmental groups could get behind.
While Connecticut is far more progressive in brownfield redevelopment than other states the state still needs to work on making the projects more development friendly, said Peter Simmons, executive director of the Connecticut Office of Brownfield Remediation and Development. Developers like to work fast, and often they prefer to build on a greenfield instead of cleaning a brownfield and then building, even if there are government incentives to do so.
“When you’re dealing with a developer, time and money are the big issues,” Simmons said. “For some of the projects, they take longer.”
To help developers know the cost of remediating a brownfield, the state has changed the liability laws so municipalities can do site assessments before foreclosures begin. The state also lessened the regulatory approval process by reworking the floodplain statutes, as many brownfield are adjacent to rivers.
The state needs to eliminate more hurdles for the businesses, Brown said.
Developers need a clearer picture of their own liability. There are also multiple state agencies for handling the different phases of brownfield remediation, making it hard for developers to know where to begin. The Office of Brownfield Remediation and Development is a good start, but it needs better funding and a higher position of power within the government, Brown said.
Since the state is in a budget crisis, the CBIA won’t push for more brownfield funding in 2011, Brown said. Instead, the business lobbying group will work on issues such as liability, getting special treatment in the regulatory process, and possibly developing a new type of insurance product.
As co-chair of the Commerce Committee, Berger has worked for five years to change the state’s mindset on how brownfield redevelopment is funded and accomplished. A dedicated source of funding needs to be set aside for clean-up of these sites so they are shovel-ready for developers. And Berger believes he has the funding answer, even in the budget crisis.
Two years ago, Berger worked on a bill that called for taking $100 million of recording and filing fees out of the state’s general fund and putting it toward brownfields. While the measure passed the House, the Senate changed it to award the money to dairy farmers.
Now that two years have passed, Berger wants to reallocate that money to brownfields. That way, the remediation has a solid source of funding for multiple projects, instead of relying on state bonding for individual projects.
“We just need to do more of these projects. Right now, we can only do three or four per year,” Berger said. “We need money to make it happen.”
The end result of brownfield redevelopment often depends on the community, Simmons said. There are housing projects, commercial developments, new manufacturing sites, research facilities; municipalities such as Bridgeport, Meriden and Norwalk have converted them to parks and other open space.
“It is really gratifying when you attend these ribbon cuttings where there properties that were really in bad shape become a positive for the community,” Simmons said.
