Cleveland Utilities Committee Meeting on Harvard Landfill Solar CPRG Grant (Dec 4, 2025)

This meeting of the Cleveland Civil and Utilities Committee addressed the exclusion of the Harvard Road Refuse Landfill in Slavic Village from the Cuyahoga County's Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (CPRG) sub-agreement. The primary focus was the 129 million EPA grant designed to install solar projects on brownfields, and the resulting conflict between Cleveland Public Power (CPP), Cuyahoga County, Slavic Village Development, and developer CEP Renewables. While the city and county finalized a sub-award for two other Cleveland sites (West 11th and Koltoff Road), they determined the Harvard North site was infeasible due to unresolved technical interconnection costs, scope challenges, and site control issues. The committee heard testimony regarding the ongoing environmental hazards at the landfill, the failure to reach a sub-agreement in time for engineering studies, and the need for further inter-departmental coordination to address the landfill's condition.

Consent Calendar

• No items listed; the meeting proceeded directly into public comment and discussion items.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Lou (Slavic Village/Slotwood Resident): Expressed frustration and anger regarding a perceived lack of transparency, stating that funding opportunities for the neighborhood are repeatedly pulled without explanation. The speaker stated they have no idea who made the decision to exclude the solar project and criticized the lack of resident participation in future decision-making. The speaker expressed strong position that the city has failed the community and that the solar project is vital for the city's energy independence.
• Crystal Sierra (Planning Director, Slavic Village Development): Stated that the community's support for the CPRG project was predicated on the project addressing the landfill's environmental hazards (rock piles, methane) and bringing the site out of receivership. The speaker expressed opposition to the city dropping the Harvard site, arguing that the reasons cited by CPP (cost, time, site control) were not resolved prior to the exclusion. She stated the community deserves an apology and explanation, emphasizing that the landfill continues to be an active environmental and health hazard for residents.
• Shauna Sanders (Executive Director, Slavic Village Development): Joined Crystal Sierra in advocating for the community and residents' rights regarding the landfill's future and the need for transparency.

Discussion Items

• Cuyahoga County (Mike Foley, Administrator): Confirmed that the County won the CPRG grant in partnership with the City of Cleveland and CEP Renewables. The speaker explained that the Harvard North site was excluded because the City of Cleveland (via CPP) refused to include it in the sub-agreement due to feasibility concerns. Mr. Foley stated that the County is attempting to reallocate the 5 megawatts originally assigned to Harvard to other County sites (like Brooklyn and Euclid) or potentially a 2-megawatt project on the Harvard South (Garfield Heights) side of the landfill. He expressed position that the County is not trying to compete with CPP but seeks cooperation, though he acknowledged frustration with the delays caused by negotiations regarding the sub-agreement.
• Slavic Village Development (Crystal Sierra): Detailed a timeline of the landfill's abuse, including BMB Wrecking's rock crushing operations and methane leaks. She argued that the City's reasons for dropping the project were "intentionally obscure" and failed to address the immediate dangers to residents. She stated that even if the solar project had proceeded, it would not have removed the waste (a "toxic landfill" remains), but it would have taken the site out of receivership and stopped the active nuisances.
• Cleveland Office of Sustainability (Director O'Keefe): Acknowledged that sustainability could have engaged Slavic Village earlier in the process. The Director stated the City is disappointed to miss the Harvard project but could not pursue a project deemed non-compliant or unfeasible. She confirmed the City is committed to working with Slavic Village and other departments (Housing, Public Health, etc.) to holistically address the environmental issues at the landfill that remain.
• Cleveland Department of Public Utilities (Director King and Commissioner Danielson): Argued that the exclusion of the Harvard site was necessary due to complex federal regulations (PERPA) regarding interconnection, the shift in the federal administration, and the time constraints of the grant. Commissioner Danielson stated unequivocally that the project's cost, scope, and time risks made it unfeasible, threatening the success of the entire grant and CPP customers. Director King explained that the delay was due to legal and technical definitions of "interconnection" rather than administrative inaction, resulting in an engineering conclusion that the cost (potentially millions) was not covered by the grant.
• CEP Renewables (Mike Wise, Senior Counsel): Clarified that the project would not perform a complete cleanup (removal of waste) but would cap the landfill, remove rock piles, and take the site out of receivership, assigning ownership to CEP or West Creek Conservancy. Mr. Wise expressed a position that they are willing to proceed with a 2-megawatt project on the South side of the landfill with city assistance, even without interconnection to CPP, emphasizing that they want CPP to be a winner in future projects.
• Councilman Polencick: Expressed confusion and concern regarding the city's lack of aggression in addressing the rock crushing operations and dust issues for nearly two decades. He requested an aggressive approach from the administration to the Department of Health and Building and Housing to stop the ongoing hazards. He asked if the 129 million grant could be used for site capping, to which the County clarified the landfill is already capped but maintenance is ignored.
• Councilwoman Moore: Questioned the narrative that the project was dropped solely due to technical feasibility, highlighting a June 13th letter she produced which indicated a dispute over a long-term power purchase agreement (PPA) was preventing the sub-agreement. She asserted that the City did not perform necessary engineering studies on the Harvard site because the sub-agreement was not finalized in time. She expressed that Slavic Village was "caught in the middle" of the dispute and feels the neighborhood is owed an apology. She emphasized that the technical questions regarding interconnection remain unsolved in Cleveland and urged the committee to fix these underlying issues for future projects.

Key Outcomes

• Project Exclusion: The City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County agreed to exclude the Harvard North Landfill from the CPRG sub-award. The remaining grant funds (approx. 129 million total, with ~20 million allocated to Cleveland) will be utilized for projects at the West 11th Spring Road landfill and the Koltoff Road Landfill, which are under City control and do not require complex interconnection studies.
• Feasibility Determination: Commissioner Danielson directed that the Harvard project is technically infeasible under current federal guidelines and cost structures, citing interconnection costs potentially running into millions of dollars and undefined scope. The project is considered a "loss" for the Slavic Village neighborhood due to being "out of time" and lack of completed engineering.
• Future Action Directives:
  • Director O'Keefe directed the Office of Sustainability to continue working with Slavic Village Development to address the environmental hazards at the Harvard Landfill.
  • Councilman Polencick urged the administration to take an aggressive approach to stop rock crushing and dust issues, recommending the involvement of the Department of Health.
  • The County and CEP Renewables indicated a continued interest in developing a smaller (2-megawatt) solar project on the South side of the Harvard landfill (Garfield Heights side) if they can secure city permitting and resolve site ownership via West Creek Conservancy, but this is outside the current CPRG agreement.
• Unresolved Issues: The committee noted that the underlying legal and technical disputes regarding interconnection definitions (PERPA) and the process for future utility cooperation were not fully resolved, leaving concerns that similar issues may hinder future projects.