Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 15- 2023-12-04 City of Springfield - IMERF Public TestimonyCOURT OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 541.726.370 0 FAX 541.726.2363 www.springfield-or.gov December 4, 2022 Lane County Board of Commissioners 125 E 8th Ave. Eugene, OR 97401 Dear Lane County Board of Commissioners, During the City of Springfield’s November 20th, 2023, work session, staff from Lane County’s Public Work Department presented on the proposed agreement with Bulk Handling Systems to build and operate an Integrated Material and Energy Recovery Facility, (IMERF). We had an engaging discussion with the staff present and we appreciate them presenting to the Springfield City Council. Below is a summary of our conversation and our concerns with this project. Cost Uncertainty The uncertainty of cost remains the highest concern for Springfield. While Lane County staff outlined the tipping fee increase percentage for the next six years, they were unable to translate that into real dollars. Our community takes an increase to cost of services seriously, and we require strict review before approving any increases. Without knowing how much the average home and business’s solid waste disposal rate will increase each year we are being asked to assume a high levels of risk and uncertainty. A breakdown of the average dollar increase for various homes and businesses in the region, along with a guarantee that these costs would not increase, would help eliminate uncertainty and allow for the City of Springfield, and its community to prepare for the increases. Flow Control Alongside the costs, Springfield City Council is concerned that approval of the IMERF may lead the County to mandate flow control in the future, requiring all municipal solid waste to be hauled exclusively to Lane County’s facilities. Specifically, the Council is concerned about the impact on customer rates if flow control is required. However, Lane County staff would not rule out the possibility that flow control may be implemented later on, if the IMERF does not receive the expected amount of solid waste. In response to this concern, Lane County staff stated that the county is not currently proposing flow control because its cost analysis demonstrates that disposal at the IMERF will remain the cheapest option, even accounting for higher tipping fees, and so flow control is unnecessary. This uncertainty, like the cost increase, creates an unknown risk for Springfield residents and businesses. We urge the Board not to move forward with the IMERF unless it is clear that long-term success will not depend upon flow control. Additionally, Lane County staff acknowledged that, under ORS 459.085, the county’s authority to regulate solid waste hauling is limited to “areas outside of cities.” The Springfield City Council requests that the Board and County Counsel’s Office confirm their agreement that state law preempts the county from mandating municipal flow control without explicit cooperation and agreement by the Springfield City Council. Project Priority While the IMERF helps the County reduce waste and achieve the goal material recovery rate of 63%, there are other, competing projects that would more directly impact Springfield and the community. City Council’s first priority project is the wastewater and leachate pipeline to Goshen, the future IMERF site, and beyond. Cities like Creswell and Goshen are economically hampered by their outdated and failing systems. By focusing on this issue, these areas could continue to develop and would bring in stronger economic development for the region. City Council’s second priority project is the Glenwood Transfer Station. In 2016 the City had identified this 20-acre site of land as a potential for future redevelopment use and has been incorporated into City of Springfield’s long range planning documents to have the transfer station moved. The Glenwood area is starting to see economic interest and hosting a transfer station in Glenwood is proving a barrier for increased investments. Proposing and researching alternative locations for the transfer station would alleviate the barrier in Glenwood and provide economic development opportunities for the region. These two projects present active problems that need to be addressed and will require significant resource dedication from the County. These have been long standing issues in the County, while the IMERF focuses solely on a self- imposed greenhouse emission and material diversion reduction goal from the County. Before correcting new issues, the region should come together and correct the current problems we are facing. Public Input Lastly, the Springfield City Council were surprised to hear there had not been active and dedicated public involvement opportunities. While this item has been brought before several public bodies, Lane County staff could not provide opportunities where they were talking with the public body general public, save for one visit with the Springfield City Club. The IMERF will provide new opportunities for our community, have an impact on the emissions reduction, and require new and increased costs. Directly reaching out to the community to provide these updates and get community feedback on this project creates a more transparent process. Without a community outreach plan, does Lane County know if the majority of the community supports increasing fees to meet sustainability goals? Before increasing fees across the County, a more thorough and dedicated community outreach effort should be made. The City of Springfield and Lane County have developed a strong relationship over the years, and we appreciate the Board of Commissioners and staff to take the time to hear our concerns. While we understand the Federal tax credits for this project expire soon, we need to make sure this is a problem the community wants to solve first. Funding alone should not dictate this work. Thank you again for your time. We hope you will consider these points during your vote on December 5. If there are additional questions from the Board, we would be happy to continue this conversation with the Board and Lane County staff. Sincerely, ____________________________ Sean VanGordon, Mayor ____________________________ ____________________________ Michelle Webber, Councilor Beth Blackwell, Councilor ____________________________ ____________________________ Steve Moe, Councilor Victoria Doyle, Councilor ____________________________ ____________________________ Kori Rodley, Councilor Joe Pishioneri, Councilor