In a 3-2 vote on August 20, the Lane County Board of Commissioners approved the issuance of $35 million in bonds to fund a planned waste processing facility, marking a significant step forward for the project despite ongoing public controversy. The 3-2 margin, mirrored the commissioners’ divided stance from their previous discussions.
The facility, now named the CleanLane Resource Recovery Facility, was initially greenlit by the board in December under its former name, the Integrated Materials and Energy Recovery Facility (IMERF). Tuesday’s votes edited the board order to outline the partner as BHS Projects @ Lane County, rather than the parent company Bulk Handling Systems. The $35 million in bonds would cover Lane County’s portion of the project costs.
Public opinion on the project remains deeply divided. More than 30 people spoke at last week’s meeting with arguments echoing those raised in November.
Proponents praised the board’s earlier vote and said the project would extend the landfill’s lifespan, reduce the county’s carbon emissions, create jobs and spur economic growth.
However, opponents — who outnumbered the supporters during the meeting — urged the board to reverse its earlier vote or refer the project to a ballot. They raised concerns about potential harm to nearby residents and the expected increase in garbage and electricity rates, as well as the risk of cost overruns.
The commissioners stood firm, voting along the same lines as they did in December and rejecting the proposal to send the matter to the ballot.
“Our job is actually to filter far more information over a far longer trajectory of time than any individual constituent.” Commissioner Laurie Trieger said. “Never (does) any one of us ever make a decision that pleases every constituent we have, but we do all have a commitment to making responsible decisions.”
Dan Hurley, the county’s public works director, said the initial board order selecting the parent company rather than the shell company was his mistake, and county staff outlined the benefits of letting BHS use a shell company. That decision means if the project goes poorly, BHS proper can’t be tapped for assistance (which opponents highlighted) but also that this project can’t be tapped if a separate BHS project goes poorly (which proponents highlighted).
The county estimates its portion of the project’s cost at $35 million, excluding the $1.5 million already spent on land acquisition and a planned $1 million investment in wetland mitigation. The bonds authorized last week will be repaid over 20 years, accruing nearly $24 million in interest, funded through anticipated increases in tipping fees. The average residential customer is expected to see annual rate increases totaling a monthly increase of $2 to $2.40 in garbage service charges.
The project has also attracted legal questions. In the time since commissioners approved the project, two entities have threatened lawsuits over it: a group of Lane County garbage haulers in March and the Emerald People’s Utility District in August.
The haulers alleged the contract as drafted at the time was illegal because it was awarded to a shell company and included a clause that could obligate the county to purchase the facility’s equipment from BHS in the event of contract termination. The haulers alleged this violated a provision in Oregon’s constitution barring local governments from lending credit to companies. Devon Ashbridge, the county’s public information officer, said that buying equipment is not loaning credit.
Either way, Lane County’s actions last week partially addressed these concerns. Commissioners edited the board order to match the contract, and the county shared an updated draft of the contract with BHS. This isn’t final, but negotiations appear to have led to a draft more favorable to the county than the one discussed last year, and no longer requires the county to buy BHS equipment if the company defaults.
Jake Pelroy, a political consultant and president of the hauler’s association, said the association “believe(s) there are still significant legal issues.” The association’s next steps were to file a pair of prospective referendum petitions Thursday, which if approved by the Clerk’s Office would give Pelroy 90 days to gather signatures to refer the project to a county-wide vote.
EPUD alleged the county’s plans violate their current contract, which lets EPUD siphon methane from the county’s Short Mountain Landfill to generate electricity because it sets up the digester in a different location and diverts waste from the landfill.
EPUD cited a provision in the 2018 contract saying it “amend(s) and restate(s), in its entirety, the terms and conditions of the 1986 agreement,” to say the 1986 provision that the “County shall not otherwise utilize or dispose of such solid wastes” is still binding. It also cited that the 2018 contract gives the county authority to “install generating facilities at the Landfill.” (EPUD’s emphasis)
Ashbridge said, “the old contract no longer applies.”
Hurley told commissioners that earlier plans for CleanLane placed it at the landfill, but “there just wasn’t an area at the landfill where we could fit it.”
Alan Torres covers local government for the Register-Guard. He can be reached over email at [email protected] or on X @alanfryetorres.
This article originally appeared on Register-Guard: Lane County commissioners approve $35M bond for waste processing plant
Source Agencies
