Committee retains Brownfields language prioritizing sites that "contain housing"; Senate bill proposes larger funding package

During its Feb. 27 session the House General & Housing Committee discussed Brownfields language included in draft 4.1 and indicated it would leave the language in the bill while seeking clarifications about prioritization and process.

A committee member summarized the senate proposal and the group's approach: "Brownfields is, at the moment, it's going to be in the senate bill that comes. So I think it's fine if we will. The senate bill proposes an extra large, it proposes a, funding. It poses a total of $6,000,000 in funding in a combination of grants and, but appropriations to various sources." The committee said its letter to Appropriations had focused on the $2 million included in the governor's budget.

Committee members reported meeting with the secretary, Matt Chapman and others about program hurdles and possible changes. The committee said the agency agreed to examine process changes and to provide recommendations. The draft asks for a study of how program processes and regulations could be revised to reduce barriers for housing-focused cleanups.

Members debated how to phrase a prioritization preference. The Committee chair proposed adding the words "contains housing or proposed housing development." "I would ask ledge council to add the words contains housing or proposed housing development," the chair said; the committee checked the language "off" as staying in the draft.

Members also discussed trade-offs: prioritizing residential cleanups could mean lower priority for certain industrial or manufacturing cleanups. "It means that a manufacturing, something that has to do with manufacturing might come in and get bumped to a lower level because the housing development gets first," the Committee chair said, noting the program already emphasizes health-based priorities.

Committee members raised follow-up items: clarifying whether prioritization should refer to sites that currently "contain housing" versus vacant parcels where housing is proposed; ensuring the appropriation language matches the committee's letter to Appropriations; and confirming whether the environmental committee in the Senate could review related provisions.

Ending

The committee left the Brownfields language in the draft and asked legislative counsel and staff to add clarifying wording about "contains housing or proposed housing development," and to reconcile appropriation language with the committee's letter. No formal vote on the Brownfields language was recorded during the session.