Letter from Mayor Mark Kruzan

>
> Hello,
>
> I'm writing with an update on the proposed transfer station.
>
> The City of Bloomington Legal Department contacted the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) on February 22nd to state our opposition to the permit application.
>
> You may know that our Department of Public Works had been supportive of the application, for which I apologize.  That support letter should not have been supplied.  In DPW's defense, there is a legitimate benefit to the community to reduce the margin between waste and recyclables, so from that limited perspective, DPW felt there was merit to the business.
>
> That having been said, there are greater reasons against the plan that outweigh the limited merit.
>
> First and foremost, the impression is created that a specific part of our city is a dumping ground, and that is unacceptable, as is the negative consequences to the quality of life of local residents that would be caused by the odor, noise, traffic, and particulate emissions of such a business.
>
> Second, the proposed I-69 will result in Vernal Pike's closure at the interstate, thus resulting in heavy truck traffic being diverted to neighborhood streets, which causes public safety and infrastructure problems.
>
> Thirdly, the Solid Waste Management District's contract for trash and recycling hauling would be adversely impacted by the permitting of a transfer station, a fact that only recently came to light.
>
> Our Planning Department, contrary to anything you might have heard, has not endorsed the proposal nor taken any affirmative action to advance it.  Our Planning staff was simply asked if the business being proposed is permissible under existing zoning laws, which it is.
>
> Even the Public Works Department previous letter was symbolic in nature only.  I want to emphasize that the city government has no jurisdiction in the granting or denial of this permit.  We are, however, going to officially participate in the IDEM comment period when it begins, and we will be stating our opposition based on the points listed above in my message.  Council Members Chris Sturbaum, Steve Volan, and Dorothy Granger have been working against the proposal, as well.  In fact, they informed us of some aspects of the proposal that we had not previously known.
>
> IDEM has been very responsive to our inquiries.  They have told us that city government has no official role to play in the issue, but that they are interested in our and all public opinion about the situation and invited us to make official comment, as I have noted.  It is our understanding that up until 2005, there was a needs determination that had to be made (meaning an applicant had to demonstrate that existing demand was not being met), but that the needs determination requirement has since been repealed by state government.
>
> We've been told that once the permit application is complete, IDEM will publish notice of a 30-day comment period, and that I, as mayor, will be notified.  At that time, the public and city government will be invited to make official comment.
>
> We were also told that no public hearing is required by law, but that a hearing could conceivably be scheduled anyway; an approach I support.
>
> I appreciate you taking the time to read this lengthy message and would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
>
> Thanks very much,
>
> Mark