The Indianapolis Board of Public Works on Jan. 8 approved a services agreement with Reworld Indianapolis Inc. (formerly Covanta Indianapolis Inc.) to provide solid-waste disposal at a waste-to-energy facility beginning Dec. 17, 2025, with an agreement expiration date of Dec. 31, 2035.

DPW staff presented the agreement as the product of a competitive procurement (RFP 14 DPW 1614) and said there is no “not-to-exceed” contract amount because tonnage volumes cannot be predicted. A staff representative said Reworld will serve as the city’s primary disposal facility; waste items ineligible to be burned at that facility will go to the city’s secondary disposal site, the Southside Landfill.

The board’s discussion focused on environmental and equity concerns. A board member, Dan Hake, raised questions about public-health impacts in disproportionately impacted neighborhoods and recalled earlier council debates about whether waste-to-energy should be the city’s long-term approach. Hake said the issue calls for leadership and for expanding recycling; during the meeting he stated, “So I’ll be voting no.” The record shows the motion passed; the transcript records dissent from at least one board member.

Sean Brock, deputy director for solid waste, responded to questions about regulatory compliance, saying, “I don't know that the city does anything necessarily per se, but it is our understanding that Covanta follows all of the item rules, regulations regarding smoke exhalation and and as to the best of my knowledge, they have passed all their inspections.” The board asked whether the city could set contract standards beyond state rules; staff said air-quality permits and many related standards are governed by the state, though DPW and the Office of Sustainability were involved in reviewing proposals and scoring sustainability reporting during the procurement.

Sam Barris, interim director of DPW and chair of the board, provided financial context for how the facility interacts with city finances: “We actually receive 10% of all of their steam revenue back,” Barris said, and staff noted that figure historically has equated to about $2.5 million but varies with the facility’s sales. Barris also said the contract includes a processing rate (the staff cited roughly $42 per ton for year one) and that the theoretical upper bound if 100% of the city's waste were processed there would be on the order of $12 million; staff cautioned that a significant portion of the city’s waste does not go to the facility in practice. DPW and solid-waste staff estimated roughly 60–70% of the city's trash went to the waste-to-energy facility last year, though the facility had periods of downtime for improvements.

Board members asked whether procurement confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements limited what staff could present. Lisonbee Sigman, procurement manager in the city’s Purchasing Division, said certain details gathered during evaluations are confidential until contracts are fully executed and stored in the city's contract system, though she said the procurement process allows for contract amendments and iterative adjustments as needed.

DPW staff said the Office of Sustainability participated in proposal review and that sustainability reporting submitted by proposers was part of scoring; staff offered to provide additional sustainability and air-quality materials to the board and to schedule follow-up briefings where procurement confidentiality permits. Natalie Van Dongen, deputy director of policy and planning, said staff would share sustainability reporting materials where allowed and that the Office of Sustainability had been engaged throughout the RFP process.

Despite calls for more information from some board members and requests for additional briefings, the board approved the agreement. The transcript records the motion passing by voice vote and at least one board member stating they would vote no.