'Dig our heels in': Landfill negotiations continue

Jul. 18—EAU CLAIRE — Local control negotiations continue regarding Seven Mile Creek Landfill in the town of Seymour, as a committee and residents ask for measures they believe are warranted to compensate people most affected by the landfill.

The Seven Mile Creek Landfill Siting Committee and GFL Environmental, which owns the landfill, made progress in their latest local control offers last month, but disagreements remain.

Stephen Nick, Landfill Siting Committee chairman, was encouraged that the most recent offers had points of agreement and said the Landfill Siting Committee is currently "attempting to understand some of those substantial sticking points, those points where we don't have complete agreement."

The sticking points, which include property value guarantees, annual sociological payments and tonnage fees, may eventually require a third party to help reach an agreement.

The local control negotiations, which began in 2019, are happening because of an expansion that would significantly increase Seven Mile Creek Landfill. GFL Environmental, a private Canadian company that last year took over landfill operations, is proposing an expansion that would occur in phases across six years and bring the landfill's area from about 10.56 million to 14.64 million cubic yards.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources last month conditionally approved the expansion on the northeast end of the landfill, which opened in 1978. The expansion is anticipated to add seven years to the landfill's lifespan, which would result in operations continuing through 2029.

However, expansion cannot begin until local control negotiations are settled. Local controls also require final approval from the Seymour Town Board, Eau Claire County Board and Eau Claire City Council.

'We're not going to budge'

The Landfill Siting Committee's most recent meeting occurred May 26, when it elected Nick chairman and welcomed new committee member Jessica Janssen, who was elected Seymour Town Board chairwoman in April.

The siting committee is opposed to the landfill expansion but does not have authority over its approval. Thus, the committee is working to ensure residents near the landfill receive compensation for negative impacts like smell, noise, poor aesthetics and litter that could be exacerbated by the expansion.

"We'd rather not see this facility expand in this way, but the DNR has approved it and GFL intends to go forward with it," Nick said. "How can we make sure that we don't need to see another (expansion) in as long a time frame as possible, if ever?"

On June 9, Anders Helquist, attorney for the siting committee, sent the committee's latest offer to GFL. The committee asked for property value guarantees within one mile of the landfill for "owner-occupied residential and owner-occupied residential-agricultural properties," which essentially means houses and farmhouses. Property value guarantees, which are currently not in place, would ensure that homeowners receive fair value in a sale.

In GFL's June 28 offer, Timm Speerschneider, attorney representing GFL, wrote that the corporation "continues to reject property value protection." In an email to the Leader-Telegram, Speerschneider wrote that GFL does not believe the landfill expansion will impact property values.

Nick called property value guarantees "the most substantial point of difference" between the siting committee and GFL. He said the committee is working to understand why the landfill owner has not offered any guarantees.

"We're very willing to meet them in dialogue on that issue, but we're not willing to compromise on the principle of needing to find a fair way to address that real issue," Nick said.

Janssen agreed.

"They don't want to budge, and we're not going to budge, either," Janssen said. "Everybody is giving a little here and there on other things, but not (property value guarantees)."

Annual payments, tonnage fees

The entities remain apart on property value guarantees but appear closer on annual sociological payments and tonnage fees.

The committee, which is composed of representatives from the town of Seymour, Eau Claire County and city of Eau Claire, proposed annual payments of $1,500 for owner-occupied houses and farmhouses within one mile of the landfill along with annual increases based on the Consumer Price Index.

GFL responded with an offer of $1,500 per year and 1.5% annual increases for those within three-fourths of a mile of the landfill. Residents currently do not receive any annual payments.

The siting committee also decreased its tonnage fee request from $3.35 to $2.35 per ton of waste brought to the landfill.

"This reduced figure is below comparables but is a concession the committee is making to obtain all of the protections in the other parts of their proposals," Helquist wrote in the offer.

GFL responded with an offer of $1.95 per ton. The current fee is about $1.70 per ton.

Tonnage fees are paid by the landfill operator to the town of Seymour, Eau Claire County and the city of Eau Claire. The fees help pay for effects like wear and tear caused by garbage trucks on county roads.

Separation also exists over the volume of non-local garbage brought to the landfill. Seven Mile Creek Landfill accepted an average of more than 1,100 tons of waste per day in 2019 from Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa.

The committee proposed a voluntary cap on waste from Minnesota in an effort to slow the landfill's growth. The company did not agree to a cap.

"GFL rejects any limits on out-of-state waste," Speerschneider wrote in the offer.

Speerschneider wrote in an email to the Leader-Telegram that out-of-state waste limits "discriminate against interstate commerce" and noted that GFL "has guaranteed a prescribed amount of airspace for local needs."

Nick said the voluntary cap request was an attempt to lessen the amount of garbage hauled long distances to the landfill.

"We produce landfill-necessary waste in our community, and frankly having it landfilled locally is a necessity, and it's more environmentally sound to do so locally than transporting it hundreds of miles," Nick said.

Finding consensus

Agreements in the latest offers include a landfill height limit of 1,165 feet and the landfill accepting composted waste free of charge from public institutions such as local schools.

Moreover, GFL concurred with the committee's request to add to the Seven Mile Creek Landfill Standing Committee a member who lives within a half-mile of the landfill. The corporation also agreed to submit an annual summary of water monitoring data to the Landfill Standing Committee.

Nick was pleased that the parties found common ground, particularly the height limitation and composting.

"Those are two of those long-term stewardship concepts that I and the committee gave voice to at our last committee meeting," Nick said. "That's a positive note for our community."

'Now is our chance'

Nick was one of several people who mentioned the importance of GFL caring for the environment near Seven Mile Creek Landfill.

"It is time for GFL to be a responsible corporate citizen, 'practice what they preach,' and make firm, substantive commitments that protect the community for the life of the landfill and beyond," Helquist wrote in the siting committee's offer. "The committee and the community have not seen, are waiting for, and are expecting GFL's public commitments to local communities to not be window dressing, but to be memorialized in the siting agreement."

"GFL is committed to environmental responsibility," Speerschneider replied in the corporation's offer.

Janssen said the committee will work to ensure GFL fulfills that commitment via local control measures.

"We're going to hold them to what they claim and actually make them be good neighbors," Janssen said. "Now is our chance. In my opinion, there's this opportunity, and if you don't take it and if you don't get what's deserved now, that opportunity is never going to be there again."

'A step forward'

Janssen, the Seymour Town Board chairwoman, lives about two miles from the landfill. She isn't directly impacted by it on a daily basis, but Janssen emphasized the importance of listening to the valid concerns of residents near the landfill and working to preserve their quality of life.

"The committee is really committed to doing what (it) can for all of our residents, in particular the Seven Mile Creek Neighborhood Association," Janssen said. "The neighbors need to be seen and heard in this contract more than they've ever been seen and heard before. This is the contract that includes the neighborhood now. It's not excluding anybody, but it's now including the neighbors ... We've got to dig our heels in to protect the neighbors."

In February, the Seven Mile Creek Neighborhood Association, a group of about 100 residents who live near the landfill, proposed property value guarantees for residents within one mile of the landfill. It also asked for annual payments of $3,500 for residents within a half-mile of the landfill and $2,000 for those between a half-mile and one mile of the landfill.

Kathy Campbell, neighborhood association member, called the siting committee's latest offer "a step forward" for residents near the landfill. The offer doesn't completely align with the neighborhood association's proposals, but Campbell feels more supported by the committee.

"We feel like they're acknowledging, and asking GFL to acknowledge, that there are issues here that need to be addressed to protect us, and that's encouraging," Campbell said. "This is a whole neighborhood that's impacted, and we really appreciate the committee listening and moving forward, and we appreciate the community supporting us as we try to gain protection and respect from this corporation."

Campbell, who lives about a half-mile from the landfill, stressed the importance of negotiating fairly, something she does not believe the landfill operator has done. She said negotiations would ideally be collaborative instead of adversarial, but cooperation appears unlikely for now.

"We would prefer that (GFL) would want to become partners with us to improve conditions," Campbell said. "That would be a win-win ... It's very confusing why they are unwilling to take the route that benefits all of us."

'It's time'

Residents and committee members said their requests are on par with people who live near other regional landfills.

"We're not asking for anything that other places don't already have," Janssen said.

Janssen said Seymour residents understand the significance of Seven Mile Creek Landfill, since it raises tax revenue for the town and provides a convenient location to dump trash. However, she said the landfill is an ever-expanding waste site that impacts the people living nearest to it, and they deserve adequate compensation.

"Everybody recognizes the landfill is an important part of our community," Janssen said. "But it's a fact that it's a big mound of garbage ... so there are things that need to be done to make that OK."

A recent experience strengthened Janssen's belief in the importance of local controls. While touring the property of a resident whose backyard is near the landfill, she understood the additional negative impacts an expansion could have on that resident and his neighbors.

"Once you see it, it's like, 'Oh my God,'" Janssen said. "You have to do something. You can't brush that off anymore ...That's who we're standing up for. That's who we're protecting. That's not saying that we don't care about the rest of the township, but it's saying it's time the township acknowledges the people who are dealing with (the landfill) every day."

Mediation possibility

With the compromises made last month, Nick expressed optimism regarding future agreements and said he believes the siting committee and landfill owner want to bring local control negotiations "to a prompt, mutual conclusion."

Speerschneider, the attorney representing GFL, agreed, writing in an email that "GFL looks forward to further negotiations to hopefully reach a negotiated agreement."

That process may entail mediation, which means a third party would help the committee and GFL try to voluntarily come to an agreement. Speerschneider wrote in GFL's latest offer "that the parties will know whether mediation is required" after their next meeting, a date for which has not been set.

Nick said the committee is open to mediation but will hold firm to its principles of fair compensation. If the committee and GFL cannot soon reach an agreement on their own, Nick said mediation could occur "in the relatively near future."

"There's a point in every negotiation where you see, 'Can we get this to a handshake (deal) by ourselves or do we maybe benefit from a professional looking at this and trying to help us find potential solutions?'" Nick said. "I think we're about there."