120 likes | 257 Vues
MGP Partners LLC, a leading real estate firm focusing on rehabilitating contaminated sites, presents insights into the critical role of Land Use Controls (LUCs) in risk-based cleanups. With extensive experience across 22 states, MGP Partners discusses stakeholder interests, compliance challenges, and monitoring issues surrounding LUCs. The presentation highlights the importance of a robust public/private partnership model and proposes a novel trust-based approach for managing LUCs, ensuring integrity, financial assurance, and efficient stewardship of contaminated properties. ###
E N D
LAND USE CONTROLS THE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES Presented by MGP Partners LLC December 7, 2000
MGP Partners LLC • Founded in 1997 as real estate firm focused on rehabilitating contaminated sites nationwide • Partners have completed over 30 risk based cleanups in 22 states as brownfield redevelopers • Providing advisory services to corporations, institutions and governments for developing strategies to finance, remediate, redevelop and manage the risks of properties having environmental conditions • Experience with Superfund, RCRA and Brownfield sites Presented by MGP Partners
Importance of Land Use Controls (“LUCs”) • Viability of LUCs underlie most risk based cleanups • Failure of LUCs may cast doubt on acceptance of risk based cleanups and affect the achievement of GPRA goals • Important public policy interest in ensuring integrity of LUCs Presented by MGP Partners
Interested Stakeholders • Government Regulators • Owners/PRPs • Buyers • Lending Institutions • Neighbors • Communities • Municipalities Presented by MGP Partners
Where are we today? • LUCs not uniformly integrated into remedy selection process • No clear-cut approach to monitoring compliance • State laws and resources vary • Enforcement is uncertain • Remedies for failure of LUCs not clearly defined • Regional Inconsistencies Presented by MGP Partners
Areas of Concern • Viability of Specific LUCs • Financial Assurances • Monitoring • Notice • Remedial Costs Involved with Failure of LUCs • Compliance • Access to Information Presented by MGP Partners
Design of Pilot Study • A conceptual model for study in Pennsylvania • Use of not-for-profit 501(c) Trust • Trust holds rights and assumes obligations for LUCs • Trust receives fees from private and public sources to administer LUCs Presented by MGP Partners
Benefits and Services • Shifting burden of financial risk from government to Trust • Government $$ replaced with Trust funds • More efficient use of state resources • Creating institutional responsibility for stewardship of LUCs • Trust can integrate federal oversight with varying state programs • Consistent outcomes not requiring similar state programs • Quality assurance for remedy monitoring and compliance on a state, regional and national basis • Infrastructure created in Pilot Study can be duplicated efficiently in other states Presented by MGP Partners
Proposed Trust Responsibilities • Certifying Viability of LUCs • Providing Financial Assurance • Monitoring Compliance • Reporting and Notice to Stakeholders • Ensuring Compliance with LUCs • Maintaining Database Presented by MGP Partners
Public/Private Partnerships • USEPA/PADEP • MGP Partners LLC Potential Partners • Other States • Federal Agencies and Departments • Municipalities Presented by MGP Partners
Final Comments • Risk-based closures require viable LUCs • LUCs must be maintained to be effective • Public/private trust may ensure the integrity of LUCs Presented by MGP Partners