MACKENZIE Murpy & MoALLISrva Rm
3 June 241, 1994

The City in the 1940s and 1950s operated a atate of the
art incinerator. It met all regulations in place at that time.
The discharge from the incinerator was buried on an adjacent site.
Both sites were, in the 1950s, sold to a lumber mill operation who
for the sake of this example complied with the necessary standards.
In 1990 both sites were transferred to a construction waste
recycling operation, who appear to have made no enquiries ag to the
condition of the site prior to purchase. :

' Under Bill 26 the materials introduced into the sites by
the City and the Lumber operation both exceed standards set out in
the Regulations. The recycling operation, being fully aware of the
contamination, last year appealed its assessment and successfully
reduced the value of the sites from $800,000 to $1,000. There is
no requirement in Bill 26 that the current owner put the tax
dollars saved into the remediation of the site.

In the above scenario all three parties are deemed to be
cesponsible persons. Any or all of the parties may be ordered to
remediate the sites in question. Given the cost of clean up, it is
entirely possible that the current owner will simply declare
bankruptcy. In addition, if the lumber mill operation has ceased
to exist, there is a real. possibility that the City, who is always
present, will be left without the tax dollars and with the entire
cost of the remediation.

This example is not at all extreme and will likely hecome
a reality over and over again.

Yours truly
MacKENZEE MURDY & MCALLISTER

Alp:

é

Michael R. McAllister
MRM/co/am

cc: Mr. Lawrence &. Kotseff£, City Administrator