Prineville workshop reviews biomass proposal, urban growth boundary expansion and updated EOA; council may vote at next meeting

Prineville — City planning staff and councilors used a public workshop on the biomass proposal to walk through the rationale for pursuing a biomass power facility, and to explain why the proposed urban growth boundary expansion and an updated Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) are tied together in the current schedule.

Joshua Smith, planning director for the City of Prineville, led the staff presentation and told the council the measures are intended to preserve local large-lot industrial capacity while the region waits for larger transmission upgrades. "For the record, Joshua Smith, planning director, City of Prineville," he said, and described the EOA as "a 20-year look" used to justify land needs.

The workshop covered three linked topics: (1) the city's updated EOA, a data-driven assessment of land the city says it needs for employment uses over 20 years; (2) a request to expand the UGB to add roughly 227 acres at a site the city has identified as offering rail access and room for auxiliary uses; and (3) the separate future permitting process a biomass project would need, including state air and water permits and site-specific traffic and operational studies.

Why staff brought the EOA and UGB together drew repeated attention. Smith said the state told staff the EOA must be updated before the city’s UGB expansion application would be accepted, and that the EOA is what the UGB uses to justify adding land. "The EOA, all it does is give you a 20 year look," Smith said. He added the EOA is required by state rules and is a technical inventory of buildable lands and employment projections rather than a site approval for any particular industry.

Councilors and residents pressed staff on several recurring topics: rail access, city water and sewer service, truck traffic, the types and sources of woody fuel the plant would accept, emissions monitoring, and whether alternative sites — notably parcels around the landfill and privately held pits on the grade (the Williams property) — had been considered. Smith and other staff repeatedly said the biomass facility itself would require its own permits and environmental review if an applicant files for the project; the EOA and UGB actions do not, by themselves, approve construction of a biomass plant.

Residents who spoke raised local impacts and process concerns. Adam Mikulski, who identified himself as a nearby resident, said nearby homeowners already face water problems and property-value concerns and asked whether locating a plant near those neighborhoods would compound problems: "Those people on Green Valley and Pucket have gone through hell with their water issues in that neighborhood... I'm going to stop on that one there." Pam Tano, another speaker, asked the city to improve document access and public outreach, and requested copies of technical studies and any litigation records she said relate to comparable plants elsewhere.

On technical points cited in the meeting: staff said the consultant work for the selected site assumes a roughly 227-acre contiguous area (about 60 of those acres were added to make the parcel contiguous) and that sample financial models and fuel-sourcing assumptions used in feasibility materials included a scenario where rail would initially carry about 20 percent of inbound fuel, ramping up later. Smith and others noted that without rail, the project can still operate but would rely on more truck deliveries and associated roadway impacts; conversely, city water and sewer availability was a major reason the staff favored a site inside the UGB because city services improve feasibility for auxiliary uses such as lumber drying or other industrial tenants.

Council discussion focused on two broad options Smith presented to the council: (a) proceed with the EOA and UGB expansion as drafted so the identified site could be available for an applicant, or (b) vote against the current EOA/UGB package and direct staff to rework the EOA and take more time to examine other potential sites (for example, landfill-adjacent parcels or county industrial land such as the Williams property). Smith framed the second option as "wipe the slate clean" on the UGB analysis and redo the EOA without the immediate UGB influence.

Councilors gave conflicting signals in the workshop. One councilor said they were "ready to take this forward" and expected a decision at the next council meeting; another councilor said they would abstain because they had not participated in earlier meetings and did not yet feel they had enough information. Staff emphasized that even if the council votes to adopt an amended EOA, any biomass project would still require separate land-use approvals and state permits, including air-quality review by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Smith and staff committed to additional follow-up: more detailed materials on candidate sites and the EOA methodology, links to existing consultant reports and grant-funded documents, clarification of fuel-sourcing and handling protocols, and explanations of what would be required for water and wastewater handling at the site if a project applied. Residents requested that the city post the referenced studies, grant awards and consultant analyses in one accessible online location and to provide clearer public-notice procedures.

Ending: The workshop ended with no formal vote recorded on the EOA or the UGB expansion. Councilors and staff said the topic will return to a council meeting for possible action; staff asked councilors to indicate whether they need more information or are ready to move to an adoption vote at the next regular meeting.