Erlanger City Council signals informal support to pursue two-year extension of Rumpke waste contract after missed pickups

City staff reported performance figures and recent missed pickups and the Erlanger City Council held a straw poll indicating informal support to pursue a two‑year extension of the city’s waste-collection contract with Rumpke.

A city staff member told the council that Rumpke services about 7,600 parcels in Erlanger and that about 1,900 of those residents participate in the recycling program. "The total number of concerns that we received for fiscal year '24 was 43," the staff member said, and the staff member added that the current fiscal year’s tally rose from 18 to 25 after an incident the day before the meeting, bringing the two‑period total to 68.

The figures mattered because the council was asked whether to go back out to bid for waste collection or to accept the next two‑year renewal period with the current provider and have city staff prepare a municipal order. The staff member described the most recent incident in the Sherborne subdivision: a recycling route was only partly completed after a sequence of trucks reported being full and a miscommunication. The staff member said Rumpke’s municipal representative, "Robin," dispatched another truck and "before noon, they had already reported back to me that they'd gone back over there and they caught up on everything." That representative is the city’s direct contact with Rumpke, the staff member said.

Council members asked follow-up questions about causes and frequency. One council member said, "No garbage pickup's gonna be perfect. Ever," and noted residents appeared understanding of weather-related delays. Another council member asked whether the recent surge in reports related to recent snow; the staff member said it did not. Council discussion also covered operational questions the city cannot confirm without Rumpke: whether a single recycling truck covers an entire neighborhood, and how truck routing and fill levels interact with pickup gaps.

Council members raised contract and market-context issues. The staff member said vendors are increasingly reluctant to offer twice-weekly pickups, and recalled that at the last bid the city received only two bids from possible providers and that Bestway declined to bid because it sought a longer contract. The staff member also described the contract’s fuel-surcharge language: the agreement indexes an annual surcharge to a diesel‑price figure (the contract looks at diesel in March and applies the resulting surcharge in April for the year). The staff member said Rumpke includes a cap on that surcharge; alternative providers may not.

Facing those trade-offs, the council conducted a straw poll on whether to "move forward with the extension" and an informal consensus favored proceeding with the two‑year renewal. The staff member asked whether the council wanted the city to go out to bid or accept the next two‑year renewal and have staff prepare the municipal order. The record shows the straw poll was informal; the transcript does not record a formal roll-call vote on the contract extension. The meeting later approved a separate motion to adjourn by voice vote.

The council did not take a formal, recorded vote on the contract extension at the meeting; staff said they would proceed based on council direction. The transcript includes references to follow-up items staff would need to complete if the extension moves forward, such as preparing a municipal order and clarifying any outstanding service concerns with Rumpke.