Representatives of several community groups that have worked with the City of Akron on exactly how a waste transfer station will operate in East Akron said they were generally pleased with the effort, but that a proposed agreement between WM and the city could still use some tweaks, particularly on the money side.
The agreement to set the terms and conditions related to the building and its operations includes:
- Environmental protections beyond the requirements of the Ohio EPA, including as the existing Fountain Street station in Middlebury that is replacing the new East Akron station is shut down.
- Provide $1 million (over 10 years) in monetary benefits from WM to the community in a first-of-its-kind arrangement.
- Set the terms for the rates the city will pay WM to take its garbage and recyclables to the station over the next 25 years.
Representatives of several community groups present at City Council’s Public Service, Public Utilities, & Green Committee meeting Monday said they were given the full 55-page document containing the proposal one hour before the committee meeting and did not have enough time to fully evaluate its terms.
What they were able to digest in the short time available sparked debate over whether the city secured enough benefits for neighborhoods near the Fountain Street station, built in the 1970s, and whether residents had meaningful time to participate in shaping the deal.
City Council members broadly praised the agreement, along with the months of work that city officials, including Casey Shevlin, Suzie Graham Moore, Chris Ludle and Brian Angeloni put into it.
The new transfer station at 1400 E. Archwood Ave. will replace the existing Fountain Street facility, where city crews take the trash and recyclables they pick up along routes throughout Akron. The project faced sustained community opposition over concerns about traffic, odors and long-term environmental impacts.
The facility was approved in October of 2024 by City Council following months of debate and legal challenges and despite the opposition of Johnnie Hannah, the ward council member for the area.
Residents say agreement is close but still falls short
Marc Tibbs, pastor of Centenary United Methodist Church and a principal of the Akron Community Action Network (Akron CAN), which he described as a conglomeration of community organizations, said, “We are very close in terms of our priorities and what we’d like to see as a result of this project.”
Tibbs said the areas where his constituents disagree with the city’s plan include the amount of money being offered by WM as a community investment.
“Akron residents are being offered a million dollars over 10 years,” he said. “Quite frankly, we don’t think that’s enough. We believe over the 50 years that residents have endured living with this trash transfer facility there ought to be more years and there ought to be more resources.”
A quick analysis by Tibbs of the rate stability agreement in the proposed 25-year WM contract showed the city would pay approximately $3.96 million a year to the company. Over 25 years, “it’s exponentially more than that,” he said.
“They’re offering the community a million over 10 years. We have some disagreements with that.”
Tibbs also questioned how a redevelopment plan involving tax increment financing (TIF), proposed as a way to invest in improvements that could include roads, water and sewer, public parks or other infrastructure, would work. Most TIFs are used to incentivize business growth and development.
The TIF would be established once the new facility is completed. A figure of $40,000 was referenced, but that aligns with an annual fee WM will be required to pay for the duration of the waste transfer station’s operation as part of a legal settlement with nearly a dozen neighboring businesses, people and Zion Temple Baptist Church. Those funds are targeted at improving the Joy Park neighborhood and encouraging families to live in, and businesses to invest in, the area.
Tibbs said that when the TIF package came before council, it was described as a flexible TIF to be used anywhere in the city. “There seems to be a lack of detail in terms of how those funds are actually going to benefit the people in the Fountain Street area,” he said. “We would just like to see more details on that.”
City outlines TIF funding structure as separate mechanism
Plans for a tax increment financing arrangement are also tied to the development agreement. Once the facility is built, the TIF would allow the city to redirect a portion of future property tax increases toward public infrastructure improvements in the surrounding area, said Suzie Graham Moore, Akron’s economic development director.
Council already approved the first step in the legislation required to establish the TIF process, though additional approvals — including state review — would still be needed before any funding could be accessed.
“We might have access to those resources through the tax increment financing as well,” Moore said.
Moore said TIF funding would be separate from the proposed $1 million community investment fund.
Residents had expressed a desire for resources that are not directly controlled by either the city or WM, she said.
“The establishment of the community investment plan allows the city and Waste Management to be arm’s length away from those community assets,” Moore said.
She added that TIF dollars would instead flow through the city because they are tied to tax revenue and public infrastructure spending.
$100,000 over 10 years ‘does not go very far’
Ron Shultz, formerly pastor of South Arlington United Methodist Church and representing the Families Against City Transfer Stations (FACTS) group, said its members appreciated the city’s efforts to involve community members.
But he said FACTS had significant concerns with the financial agreement.
“We keep talking about a million dollars, which sounds great,” Shultz said. “We’re really only talking about $100,000 a year over 10 years. And everyone in this room knows $100,000 does not go very far when trying to address problems in our neighborhoods.”
Shultz said residents would prefer an investment period of at least 15 years, since nearby neighborhoods have already absorbed decades of what he called environmental and economic harm.
He also pointed to ongoing concerns about declining property values and long-term impacts from the existing waste transfer station.
City says lawsuit delayed engagement, outside experts helped structure process
Community engagement on the agreement was delayed by litigation but resumed after the case was settled late last year, said Shevlin, Akron’s director of sustainability and resilience.
The lawsuit slowed engagement efforts during part of 2025 and forced the city to pause portions of the process.
Akron has never conducted a community engagement process of this scale before, Shevlin said, and the city brought in outside support to help structure the effort once engagement resumed.
The city partnered with Community Planning Collaborative to guide outreach and planning.
“We needed their capacity and their expertise,” Shevlin said.
The structure was designed to ensure a more formal and rigorous community input process, she said.
Discussion of agreement to continue
After Monday’s meeting, residents said they would continue reviewing the agreement ahead of next week’s committee discussion, with a focus on environmental enforcement and oversight.
Beth Vild, COO and director of programming at Big Love Network, said one of her primary concerns is the proposal’s lack of independent, third-party air-quality monitoring for volatile organic compounds, or VOCs.
“Just because the trash doesn’t smell like trash doesn’t mean it’s not poisonous,” Vild said.
Tibbs said the monitors would go above and beyond what the Ohio EPA requires, but “since WM has not always been a good corporate neighbor,” he said, “we’d just like to see a few more safeguards with regard to the air quality monitor.”
Vild also raised concerns about how quickly environmental complaints would be investigated and whether delays could allow potential issues to go undetected.
Fran Wilson, the Ward 1 council member, asked during the committee meeting how the city would handle complaints within a three-day period.
Shevlin responded that she thought the city’s 311 system could be used, since it’s already familiar to residents.
Brian Angeloni, the city’s law director, said establishing a system to handle the complaints is a requirement of the court settlement, so the city will figure out a system.
“There are certain time-sensitive things on the environmental side that would be concerns for residents nearby,” Vild said.
During next week’s planning committee meeting, Vild said she hopes to speak. Council members are expected to continue hearing reactions to the agreement before it advances to the full Akron City Council for a vote. The committee set the agreement aside for the time being.
Overall, Tibbs said he believes in the work of the city’s staff on the agreement.
But, he added, “A community-informed agreement is not the same as a community-directed or driven agreement.”
