WOJTOWICZ: It pays to know environmental requirements

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Jean Wojtowicz

Q: Something caught me by surprise when I was buying a piece of business property: I was required to pay for an environmental audit that turned up residual contamination from a long-ago business on the site. My company in no way will contaminate the land, but I can’t open until the property is deemed acceptable. Is this right? And what are my options?

A: Unexpected problems add to the headaches of opening or relocating a business, and we hear a lot about the hang-ups of required, but annoying, environmental investigations.

However, an evaluation is necessary whenever a lender is financing real estate to make sure the property is environmentally clean and will not cause more damage to the environment in the future.

There are plenty of stories about private and public projects that have little or no impact on the environment—such as florist shops or libraries—being delayed or stopped by old environmental contamination.

You might ask the reasons environmental regulations exist and apply to you. After all, your business is not one with the obvious potential environmental impact of, say, a dry cleaner or service station. But lenders, including the Small Business Administration, must guard against being responsible for remediation costs in the future. Decades-old pollution can cause problems years after the offending business is gone from the site.

Environmental regulations are fairly explicit. Most commercial lenders and the SBA have a set of requirements the borrower/business owner must meet. If you are financing property, meet with your lender. Then, locate a licensed and insured environmental investigator to lead you through the process.

It may not seem fair for you, as the current owner of a commercial location, to be saddled with remediation costs from 30 or 40 years ago. But the outcome of a successful investigation and remediation will be worth your respect and your attention.


Wojtowicz is president of Cambridge Capital Management Corp.



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.