Speakers from two competing waste haulers urged Parma City Council to weigh cost, service response and recycling performance as the city moves toward selecting a new residential trash and recycling contractor. The council referred Ordinance 138-25—authorizing a residential solid waste, disposal and recycling services contract—to the finance committee for consideration.

Brett Feagin, representing Kimball Recycling and Disposal, told council his company submitted the lowest responsive bid for unlimited service and estimated the difference versus the next option at roughly $1 million over five years, which he said equates to about $0.58 per household per month in potential savings. Feagin described Kimball as a family-owned Ohio firm with local transfer stations, its own recycling facility and a renewable natural gas operation for vehicle fuel. He invited council members to tour Kimball’s recycling plant.

A Rumpke representative identified only as Joe, speaking for the incumbent Rumpke Waste and Recycling, said Rumpke already provides carts to every Parma household and that avoiding 60,000 cart switch-outs would spare logistics and cost. He also emphasized proximity—Rumpke’s facility is about 20 minutes from Parma versus Kimball’s roughly 40-minute travel time—and described Rumpke’s larger acceptable-items list and its glass-processing and material-recovery facilities, including a high-capacity materials recovery facility in Columbus.

Council took procedural action on Ordinance 138-25 by referring it to the finance committee; the ordinance had been listed for second reading and was sent to committee for further review. No council votes on a vendor award were taken at the meeting. Administration and council members did not make substantive commitments on vendor selection; the finance committee will consider the ordinance and any contract award details in a later committee meeting.

The competing statements from Feagin and Rumpke’s Joe lay out the principal trade-offs council and staff will weigh: lowest cost on paper, versus service proximity, existing cart infrastructure and recycling-processing capabilities. Council members and staff did not indicate a timetable for final contract award during the meeting.