The waste management landscape in Lane County is becoming increasingly complex, with the CleanLane recyclable sorting facility at the center of a financial and operational storm. The latest dispute revolves around the interpretation of “system benefit fees” and their application to waste collected in Springfield, a disagreement that could have significant implications for the county’s waste management strategy and finances.
County staff argue that Springfield city code mandates a system benefit fee, which is intended to support the overall waste management system. This fee, they contend, should be applied to waste generated in the county, regardless of where it is disposed of. However, Springfield officials and Sanipac, the waste hauler, disagree, stating that Springfield customers do not pay a system benefit fee. This divergence in interpretation has led to a stalemate, with the county seeking to enforce the fee and the city and Sanipac resisting.
The financial stakes are high. Lane County’s waste management fund is no longer structurally balanced, with tipping fees at the landfill down by $4.3 million this fiscal year. A portion of these fees was earmarked to fund the CleanLane project, making the dispute over system benefit fees a critical issue for the county’s waste management plans.
Adding to the complexity, Sanipac has been taking garbage to the Dry Creek landfill in Jackson County instead of the Short Mountain Landfill in Lane County. Sanipac’s senior accounts manager, Aaron Donley, explained that this decision was made to stabilize rates for Springfield residents and to align with a consultant’s determination that disposal at Dry Creek would be more environmentally sustainable due to its renewable gas operation.
Meanwhile, Lane County Commissioners have approved plans to spend an additional $5.1 million from the waste management fund to relocate CleanLane and extend natural gas to it. The commissioners voted unanimously to support a methane project and to pay for a larger natural gas pipeline, which would also facilitate the installation of a leachate pipe. The decision to start engineering work to relocate CleanLane to Short Mountain was more contentious, with commissioners ultimately approving it in a 3-2 vote.
Commissioner Laurie Trieger, part of the majority, argued that this contract change would create more options for the facility’s location and keep momentum forward on a project that is in the best interest of the public. Commissioner David Loveall, part of the minority, expressed concerns about the project’s profitability and the potential financial risk to the county.
The debate over CleanLane is heating up, with critics launching a website, cleanlane.exposed, to outline their arguments against the project. These arguments include the project’s cost and the tonnage requirements that the county may struggle to meet.
This ongoing dispute and the financial pressures facing Lane County’s waste management system highlight the need for a comprehensive and collaborative approach to waste management. The sector must grapple with these challenges to ensure sustainable and efficient waste management practices. The outcome of this debate could shape the future of waste management in Lane County and serve as a case study for other regions grappling with similar issues.