Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Collection Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
High Springs officials weigh renegotiating Waste Pro contract, exploring county 'piggyback' and cart-size options
Summary
City commissioners discussed opening talks with current hauler Waste Pro and examining whether to adopt Alachua County's contract terms (a "piggyback"), and raised cart-size options and cost concerns; staff noted the existing contract runs through April 30, 2026, and said negotiation could produce a proposal before then.
High Springs city leaders discussed opening talks with current hauler Waste Pro and exploring whether to "piggyback" on Alachua County's contract during a commission meeting; city staff told commissioners the current Waste Pro contract runs through April 30, 2026, and said negotiations could yield a proposed contract before that date.
Commissioners and members of the public flagged two main concerns: rising solid-waste costs (one speaker referenced a projected range of $700,000 to $1,400,000) and whether households should have options for smaller or larger cans. One council member said smaller carts could help single-person households save money, while another noted her family of five rarely fills the standard cart.
City staff explained the legal and practical options on the table. "You're just bound by those terms and conditions. It would be as if you've taken out Alachua County and everywhere that Alachua County is referenced, you put in the city of High Springs," a staff member said, describing how a piggyback contract would work. The same staff member added, "Your contract runs through 04/30/2026. If staff were to start negotiations now with Waste Pro, I would be hard pressed to believe that Waste Pro and staff couldn't come to some proposed contract for you before the 7 months were up." Those remarks framed two possible paths: begin negotiations now with Waste Pro, or examine adopting an existing, competitively bid county contract to avoid issuing a new RFP.
Speakers noted service and problem-resolution history. One participant said pickups that fell on Fridays presented problems when city offices were closed and no staff were available to take calls; another said recent service from the county-hauler had seemed better than earlier service by Waste Pro. Commissioners recommended, without a formal vote during the recorded discussion, that staff investigate the options and return with details on costs, cart-size options, and the legal implications of piggybacking on an Alachua County contract.
There was also a brief exchange over public access to county contract terms. One speaker said the county contract terms are publicly available and could be used as leverage in negotiations; another replied that some contract details were "not public record." The transcript shows differing views about which documents are immediately accessible and which require staff to request them.
No formal motion or vote on changing vendors or issuing an RFP was recorded in the discussion. Commissioners asked staff to bring back more information, including pricing scenarios that incorporate optional cart sizes and any constraints tied to the existing Waste Pro agreement.
Next steps: staff will collect contract details, pricing options for different cart sizes, and clarify what parts of the county contract are available for public review; commissioners may use those materials to provide guidance or to decide whether to negotiate, piggyback, or issue an RFP before the current agreement expires.
