Public Works committee holds trash‑removal contract bid after questions about recycling and sole bidder

Manuel Barcomb, chair of the Jackson County Public Works Committee, moved to hold consideration of Resolution 21874, a proposed 24‑month term supply contract with two 12‑month extension options for county trash removal services, after committee members raised questions about recycling provisions and the scope of services.

The item, introduced by Barbara Casimino of the county purchasing department, would award consolidated trash‑removal services to a single vendor. “Waste Management is usually the only respondent. They’re the only one big enough to take on this contract,” Casimino said, noting Waste Management has been the incumbent and “they are in compliance and their taxes have been paid.”

The committee’s concern centered on whether the bid adequately covers recycling and bulky‑item and roadside collection. Bridal Gaddy of Public Works said the county provides recycling bins at facilities and that roll‑off containers and dumpsters used by county departments include recycling pickup as part of refuse services. “We do have an equal part of refuse and then recycling,” Gaddy said. Michelle Newman, director of Jackson County Parks + Rec, said parks staff collect recyclables on site and then take them to Waste Management collection locations under the current arrangement.

Committee members pressed for clarity on what the contract specifically obligates the vendor to provide. The purchasing department and Public Works staff told the committee that larger containers, roll‑offs and recycling services are included in the bidding structure, but that heavy bulky‑item collection performed by county crews is not covered by the county’s trash contract and is handled separately by county staff.

Barcomb said the committee should invite Waste Management to explain available services and to review the full, not summarized, contract document. Committee members noted the contract could lock the county into a multi‑year arrangement with a sole bidder and discussed whether increased recycling participation could lower waste costs. “I would love to bring Waste Management in and have them talk about what options they do have to support us,” Barcomb said.

The committee moved and seconded a motion to hold Resolution 21874 pending staff follow‑up. Barcomb asked purchasing to provide the full contract and said staff and members would pursue additional information from Waste Management and return the item to committee for further consideration.

The hold means no contract award or formal procurement action was taken at the meeting; the resolution remains under committee review.