The Board of Alders of the City of Willard, Missouri, voted to postpone action on an ordinance to accept a bid for city solid-waste collection after public comment from a local hauler and follow-up questions from aldermen about bid scoring and recycling. The board agreed to reopen the procurement for further review of scoring criteria and contract scope.

The issue arose during the meeting after resident and local hauler Doug Coteau told the board he operates B and H (a local trash business) and had submitted a bid for the city’s weekly trash service. Coteau said his bid was not the lowest but that his company “spends most of his money with local businesses” and asked the city to consider the local economic impacts when it selects a contractor. “I am here tonight to ask you to vote local and keep your business with a local company who spends most of his money with local businesses instead of a corporate company who is not involved with our community,” Coteau said.

City staff said three bids were received. In the materials presented to the board, GFL appeared as the lowest-cost proposal (listed by staff as $337 per month), B and H bid $522 per month, and the city’s existing arrangement with Republic Services was shown at roughly $1,700 for the most recent month. City staff recommended GFL based on the bid opening and the scoring process used for the solicitation.

Aldermen pressed staff about how the city weighs “lowest and best” criteria and whether recycling should be part of the contract. Several alders said local economic participation and one-off community services (for example, event support such as dumpsters for Freedom Fest) are important factors the board may wish to weigh. Staff said recycling was not included in the current bid package and that bundling recycling with solid-waste collection can change overall costs.

After discussion, an alder made a motion — and the board voted in favor — to postpone the ordinance and revisit the solicitation process. The motion asked staff to reexamine scoring weights and the contract’s scope; the board instructed staff to consider rebidding with revised criteria (including whether recycling and special-event services should be part of the award). The postponement does not award the contract and leaves the city operating under existing service arrangements until the board takes final action.

The board’s action preserves the formal procurement process while giving the aldermen more time to decide whether to prioritize lowest-cost alone or a broader “lowest and best” evaluation that would explicitly weigh local participation, recycling and special-event service commitments.

City staff said copies of all bids are available at City Hall for alder review and suggested that bundling recycling in a future bid could produce different pricing outcomes. No final vendor was selected at the meeting; the matter will return to the board once staff outlines revised scoring criteria and any reissued solicitation.

Details recorded at the meeting show staff’s preliminary cost comparisons and the reasons cited by aldermen for postponement. The board did not set a firm new award date at the meeting but directed staff to return with options for rebidding or re-scoring the current submissions.