For the first time, members of Akron City Council approved a community benefits agreement, a negotiated pact that will bring $1 million over a decade to neighborhoods on Akron’s east side while shutting down a long-problematic waste transfer station and allowing the construction of a new one.
The agreement, praised by some elected officials and residents as a historic accomplishment and derided by others as insufficient, will lead to the closure of the Fountain Street waste transfer station in Middlebury. Residents in that area have for decades been trying to get the facility, which is out-of-date and close to residences, to be decommissioned.
In a letter to council members signifying their approval of the plan, more than two dozen neighbors and members of a community group seeking the Fountain Street waste transfer station’s relocation said they hoped council would “prioritize the mitigation of ongoing harm” in deciding whether to accept the proposal. They praised the collaborative process that led to the agreement with Waste Management, known as WM.
To mitigate that harm, WM will spend about $16 million to build a more modern facility at 1400 E. Archwood Ave. in East Akron.
That additional project spurred frustration for a new group of residents and business owners, some of whom sued to stop the project. That group settled with WM in December agreeing, among other provisions, to a $40,000 annual fee WM will pay for the duration of the waste transfer station’s operation, with the funds going toward improving the Joy Park area, where it sits.
Akron Mayor Shammas Malik referenced that settlement, and the $40,000 annual fee, when he said Monday that the city’s work to bring in $100,000 a year for 10 years was “substantially greater.”
“I feel it’s as strong an agreement as we could negotiate,” he said.
But others who are connected to the Archwood site questioned whether there was any negotiation at all. Marc Tibbs, with the Akron Community Action Network, called it insufficient and patently unfair.
“You don’t get what you deserve; you get what you negotiate,” he said. “This is like the most horribly negotiated deal in human history.”
Community benefits agreement is a win, but some want more
Malik, in his remarks before council, noted that the city had as leverage a long-term renewal of its waste contract with WM, which Tibbs said is worth $131 million over 25 years. That leverage could be used to persuade WM to close the Fountain Street facility, which is 60 feet away from the closest residence, and open a new one where the closest resident is more than 1,000 feet away, the mayor said.
He said it was important for him to link all the pieces of the agreement, a decision he said lays the groundwork for community benefits agreements in the future. Malik called the closure of Fountain Street “frankly a historic thing for our city government to be able to accomplish,” while acknowledging there were still details about the community benefits agreement that needed to be worked out.
“This sets a precedent for how we are approaching large developments like this that have a lot of factors and concerns around them, that are complex,” he said. “But it is something where we can continue to develop how our city approaches community benefits.”
Tibbs, in addition to his concerns about the value of the agreement, also said the timeframe is too short. While Akron agreed to a 25-year contract with WM, the company’s contributions to the area stop after a decade.
“If you don’t ask for anything more, you’ll never get it,” he said.
Regardless of her misgivings about the details of the final agreement, the fact that the city went through with a community benefits agreement at all is a win, said Beth Vild, the chief operating officer and director of programming for the Big Love Network.
Still, Vild called the agreement “woefully low” for the size of the WM contract and said she continues to have concerns about a lack of environmental protections for residents in the agreement, including air quality testing.
“This agreement with WM could’ve been an opportunity to show what it means to be a corporate neighbor,” she said. “It could have been a historic thing to help East Akron restore some dignity. I’m grateful Fountain Street won’t have to endure any longer, but my heart really hurts for East Akron again today.”
Council Member Johnnie Hannah, who represents both areas, was the sole vote against the agreement. Hannah said he didn’t oppose the closure of the Fountain Street facility, but didn’t think the area needed “another dumping station.”
A framework for more agreements in the future
But in the end, the decades of strife residents near Fountain Street have endured won out over future concerns. Council Member Fran Wilson said their main priority was closing that facility, while Council Member Mark Greer said he felt for residents who couldn’t sit on their porches because of their proximity to the waste transfer station.
In their letter, nearby residents said they understood the desire to seek more compensation from WM. But, they wrote, “after 30 years of enduring environmental injustice and two years of litigation and negotiation, we believe the current arrangement is both fair and sufficient.”
“Prioritizing further financial negotiation risks delaying or derailing essential progress,” the group, Families Against City Transfer Stations, known as FACTS, wrote.
Carolyn Behrman, a member of the group, said she thought group members were proud of the ground work they had done before this point to help ensure that the next community where a waste transfer station was built wouldn’t suffer the same indignities.
Council Member Jan Davis, in voting for the agreement, expressed concern that WM would simply walk away from the proposal.
Still, Vild said, she wished there were people in the community who would ask for more from corporations operating in Akron.
“I think it could’ve been a better deal, but I’m glad there’s a deal, period,” she said.
In voting in favor of the agreement, Council President Margo Sommerville said she, too, hoped the city would learn from this process. In the future, she said, she hoped community benefits agreements would come earlier — not after a project has been approved, which was the case with the conditional-use permit that council already agreed to, and which will allow the construction of the East Archwood facility.
“Community benefits agreements should be in place at the beginning of the process, not the end,” she said.
With another proposal in the area, to use tax increment financing after the new project is built to seed more neighborhood investment, Sommerville said she would like the city to be proactive in helping the community.
“I am hoping that there is a priority to make sure that those funds go to Fountain Street and to the new Archwood facility neighborhoods,” she said.
