City of Falls City staff described a proposed bioeconomy investment and related infrastructure plans during a meeting, and several residents urged the city to address potential farmland loss and displacement before the project moves forward.

City staff presented the development as a multi-phase build tied to an announced bioeconomy initiative and an anchor tenant the city identified as an incoming industrial investor. Staff said the site benefits from existing rail access and available lots, and that state and utility funds may be used to support infrastructure. “There was a $15,000,000 grant for electrical improvements,” staff said, and the city is working primarily with OPPD on a solution, while considering alternative uses of the funds.

The meeting matter drew extended public comment because the planned site sits adjacent to existing family farmland. A resident who identified themselves as a family member of the landowner said, “This is my son’s inheritance. This is his job. This is not right.” The resident said the family feels the project has been “secretive” and that the development would place industrial activity next to an existing home.

City staff responded that the conceptual site plan and some materials had been publicly posted through the city’s economic development organization for some time, but that details about the anchor partner had been held confidential until a press release issued the same day. Staff said co‑founders and the incoming company have committed to work with any farming operations that might be displaced; staff said the investors indicated they would seek to purchase replacement acreage for affected farmers and that the project includes options to support continued farming where desired. “They’re willing to go buy land so that farming operation can stay in,” the staff member said, reporting discussions with the company and with state representatives.

Residents pressed for specifics on scale and impacts. One attendee asked whether the city would use 400 to 800 acres of farmland and whether the development would force a particular farmer to retire; staff said the investor had discussed options to locate replacement acreage but that purchases would be from willing sellers and were not guaranteed. Residents also asked about water and wastewater impacts; staff said the proposed plant would use ethanol feedstock and would include an on‑site wastewater treatment assembly intended to purify water before returning it to the local system, and gave an estimated flow-rate range discussed in the meeting (a participant asked about “148 gallons of water a minute”; a staff member replied “I think it’s closer to 300”).

The city said the first phase of construction would focus north of 702 Trail Road and that full buildout could extend across multiple years. Staff also described community engagement plans, including upcoming sessions where cofounders would meet residents to answer questions. “There’ll be those engagement sessions to continue that and make sure we can come up with solutions,” the staff member said.

No formal vote or regulatory decision was taken at the meeting; discussion centered on project briefings, community concerns and plans for follow‑up engagement and technical studies.

Next steps announced by staff included more public engagement sessions and coordination with OPPD and state programs to define infrastructure financing and mitigation options for affected landowners.