Presented By: Dina El Mehelmy By: NADO Research Foundation Web Address: Topic No.17 Date: December 2003 Six Common Threads: Weaving Successful Brownfields Projects into Rural and Small Communities

Content  Background  Executive Summary  Research Findings  Methodology Site Visits Issues Discussed  Outcome Analysis Six Common Threads  Conclusion

Background  The National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) is a public interest group founded in 1967 to promote community, economic and rural development.  The association is a leading advocate for a regional approach to development.  The NADO Research Foundation, established in 1988, aims to provide research, education and training to community and economic development practitioners and policymakers.  The Research Foundation identifies issues and develops training strategies to help professionals and local elected officials.  With support from EPA, the NADO Research Foundation initiated its work in brownfields redevelopment in  The initial researches identify challenges, explore obstacles and include profiles of rural and small community successes in brownfields revitalization projects.  As regional development organizations become increasingly involved in brownfields assessment, cleanup and redevelopment, the Research Foundation will provide information and training beneficial to their efforts and strategies.

Executive Summary  Redeveloping brownfields sites in rural and small communities is a demanding and challenging process.  The project comparisons cogently strengthen the theory that approaching rural and small community brownfields redevelopments on a regional basis is more beneficial than the independent, isolated, single-community approach.  Analysis of the information gathered revealed six prevailing common threads for brownfields redevelopment in rural and small metropolitan America.  It is important to note that all of the threads of success recognized have been somewhat compromised by common rural shortcomings: redevelopment staff turnover, Lack of ample administrative capacity, lack of financial resources, lack of public understanding about brownfields in general and cost- cutting measures such as green technologies.

Research Findings Six Common Threads Among Successful Brownfields Redevelopment Projects: 1.Job creation and retention strategies that include a job-training component based on community needs. 2.Properties that are centrally located in the community. 3.Incorporation of brownfields sites into regional plans, especially for economic development and transportation. 4.Community involvement in all phases of the process: planning, inventorying, assessment, cleanup and redevelopment. 5.Leveraging of funds and using a combination of in-kind services and financial support. 6.Established administrative capacity necessary to survive the life of the project.

Methodology Sites visited between August 2002 and October 2003: 1.New London Economic Development Corp., New London, Connecticut 2.Catawba Council of Governments, Rock Hill, South Carolina 3.Land-of-Sky Regional Council, Asheville, North Carolina 4.Port of Bandon, Bandon, Oregon 5.City of Coos Bay, Coos Bay, Oregon 6.Hoopa Valley Tribe, Hoopa, California 7.Humboldt County, Eureka, California 8.Rio Grande Council of Governments, El Paso, Texas 9.Association of South Central Oklahoma Governments, Duncan, Oklahoma 10.Oregon Economic and Community Development Department’s Rural Brownfields Program (Newberg and Independence sites) The site visits included:  Physical observation of the sites and  Interviews with brownfields coordinators, local elected officials, regional development organization executive directors, city managers, county managers and local citizens. Site Visits

Methodology 1.What are the common factors of successful brownfields projects and what can be learned from any pattern(s) of commonality found? What are the commonalities among communities that have not been able to incorporate brownfields into economic and community development strategies? 2.What types of redevelopment projects (retail, housing, etc.) work best in rural/small communities? 3.As new regional authorities, known as federal-state regional commissions, emerge (modelled in part after the widely successful Appalachian Regional Commission) (ARC), what will their roles be in promoting brownfields as an economic strategy? What are the common threads and different strategies among the multi-state regions? 4.Who are the partners that rural and small communities bring together to design redevelopments? 5.What does a brownfields redevelopment mean for a community in terms of jobs and income, new and retained businesses, tax base, community pride, housing opportunities, etc. Issues Discussed

Outcome Analysis  Six common elements among the rural and small community brownfields revitalization projects examined are critical for brownfields revitalization project success, which can be replicated and applied to projects in various settings, whether rural, small metropolitan or urban.  Overall the outcomes provide a rural and small community information resource to increase the body of knowledge that directs brownfields revitalization.

Outcome Analysis  Job creation and retention appeared to be the key motivating factor.  Most of the sites visited had also centrally or tangentially incorporated job training into their brownfields project plans to propagate cluster industries.  This cluster component also would connect with practical community needs and smart growth strategies.  The program goal is to encourage economic growth that will encourage homeownership and increase entrepreneurial start-ups. Job creation and retention strategies that include a job- training component based on community needs. Common Thread No. 1

Outcome Analysis  Brownfields redevelopment is often portrayed as a real estate transaction in which a site is in a desired location which in turn drives up land values; this property location-value relationship drives demand for site redevelopment.  Central properties by circumstance increase the risk of impacting human health on a larger scale.  Many rural and small communities lack a common property or town centre, sites were selected that could be redeveloped to fill the void.  Abandoned properties are common in rural and small metropolitan communities and they have adverse impacts on the community and local economy; potential health hazard, drain on the local economy, inhibit tourism, discourage business relocation, potential crime scenes. Properties that are centrally located in the community. Common Thread No. 2

Outcome Analysis  The process of inserting projects into these comprehensive economic and transportation plans is indirectly a means of getting communities involved in the many phases of brownfields projects.  It allows communities to validate brownfields revitalizations and rank redevelopments.  Regional brownfields initiatives for rural and small communities effectively help communities start-up brownfields projects by including them in CEDS and TIPs, fill in resource gaps, expand funding opportunities, keep communities involved. Incorporation of brownfields sites into regional plans, especially for economic development and transportation. Common Thread No. 3

Outcome Analysis  Brownfields revitalization is an inclusive process, especially in rural and small communities.  Cleaning up and redeveloping a brownfield engenders land re-use that benefits communities holistically and meets the ultimate public policy goal of achieving “the greatest good for the “greatest number.”  Community involvement enabled to capture useful public common knowledge about the site and at the same time pinpoint a site the community wanted redeveloped.  Community involvement also proved to be a timesaving, cost-effective measure that assured accuracy of brownfields assessments.  The local community provides a large amount of commonly known historical information about the sites. Community involvement in all phases of the process: planning, inventorying, assessment, cleanup and redevelopment. Common Thread No. 4

Outcome Analysis  The lack of a local budget was why leveraging funds is crucial and in turn, leveraging funds is possible.  The community made a commitment to pursue brownfields revitalization projects, the leveraging funds followed.  Brownfields initiative reveals that leveraging funds appeared to be more prevalent in the regional initiatives than in the sole-community sites; Regional development organizations coordinating the initiatives offered greater consistency in project management; Community involvement is greater in the site selection and redevelopment planning phases; Regional development organizations often already had useful technological equipment such as GIS; Regional development organizations exhibited greater administrative capacity and; Regional development organizations established connections with other federal and state commissions, like ARC and EDA. Leveraging of funds and using a combination of in-kind services and financial support. Common Thread No. 5

Outcome Analysis  The ability to establish the administrative capacity may be the most practical of the common threads identified, yet the most difficult to achieve for the rural and small community.  Administrative capacity refers to a sufficient amount of personnel, resources (financial and technological) and institutional stability necessary to effectively manage a brownfields revitalization project.  The number of brownfields personnel managing the sites visited was typically one. This position included non-brownfields tasks.  Financial stability was important to those rural and small community projects that had received EPA brownfields grants.  Institutional stability was an absolute necessity when attempting to start-up and achieve brownfields revitalization in rural and small metropolitan communities. Established administrative capacity necessary to survive the life of the project. Common Thread No. 6

Conclusion  The analysis of the six common threads and their application revealed differences between the regionally managed sites and the sole- community managed sites.  The regionally managed sites exhibited eight advantages for the applicable rural and small communities: Greater consistency in project leadership; Added local leadership support; Greater ability to leverage funds; Enhanced opportunities for regional cluster industry development; Increased cost-effectiveness of grant administration; Increased accessibility to regional comprehensive plans (CEDS and TIPs) for insertion of brownfields projects; Greater community involvement in site selection and redevelopment planning; and Increase in frequency of collaboration among local entities and community groups.

Conclusion  The advantages that independent, sole-community managed sites exhibited also improve certain common threads: greater opportunity for community involvement; greater likelihood for establishing needs to leverage funds; increased access to local media; and more opportunities to capture common knowledge about brownfield sites.  The evaluation of these rural and small community common threads of brownfields revitalizations repeatedly demonstrated the interdependency between project activities and how rural communities can compensate for an absence of resources.  Conclusively, the six common threads provide a framework for resolving the challenges that rural and small community brownfields projects encounter. They add to the overall empirical brownfields knowledge base and provide important insights to rural redevelopment issues.