Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Refuse Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables decision on refuse‑hauler contract terminations after haulers cite investment concerns
Summary
The Merced County Board of Supervisors on Aug. 26 tabled deciding when to issue official termination notices for the county’s refuse‑hauler agreements after haulers and some supervisors disagreed over how long carriers need to recoup capital investments tied to state mandates.
The Merced County Board of Supervisors on Aug. 26 decided to table action on formal termination notices for the county’s refuse‑hauler agreements after a contentious discussion about how to balance contract competition with haulers’ capital investments and the state’s SB 1383 mandates.
Public Works staff had returned the item for reconsideration after haulers requested longer contract terms to amortize equipment investments made to comply with state regulations. Staff recommended issuing a notice in February 2030 that would make the contracts terminate July 1, 2035 — effectively a 10‑year window from the agreements’ July 1, 2025 start date — so haulers could recover some capital costs.
Some supervisors urged a shorter timeline to preserve the county’s ability to seek competitive bids. “I believe we have a responsibility to our constituents to look at the costs of what we’re doing,” Supervisor Pedrozo said, urging the county to begin the termination process and move to a request‑for‑proposal (RFP) timeline in 2028. Other supervisors, however, emphasized the practical effects of SB 1383 implementation and the amortization schedules of the haulers’ equipment investments.
Representatives from WM Winton Disposal and Jilton Solid Waste told the board they appreciated staff’s review and described the staff recommendation as a “balanced path forward” that recognizes both county planning needs and haulers’ investment timelines.
Supervisor Pereira moved to table the item indefinitely and bring it back to the board later if a board member requests it; Supervisor Pacheco seconded. The motion passed 4‑1. Supervisors Silvera and McDaniel expressed support for accommodating hauler concerns; Supervisor McDaniel voted no and argued for earlier notice and a competitive process.
Staff said that, if notice is given per the contract terms, contracts terminate five years from notice and the county would then run a competitive procurement so current haulers may reapply. The item returned to the board after a July 22 hearing and subsequent information exchange between staff and the haulers.
The board took no immediate step to issue termination notices; tabling preserves the current contract terms and directs staff to return the item when a supervisor requests further action.
