Portage residents and hauler raise transparency concerns after council approves garbage franchise

Portage residents pressed the City Council on Aug. 12 over the citys recent decision to award a single residential garbage franchise, arguing the bid evaluation and public information around the award left questions unanswered.

"The city of Portage's RFP included weekly trash collection, reload service of any excess bagged MSW, weekly bulk waste collection, side door service for those in need, and no fuel surcharge," said Chris Phillips, a Portage resident and employee of Bestway Disposal, at the public comment portion. Phillips said Bestways full‑service price was compared against a Waste Management bid that did not meet those specifications and described a slide presented during the award as "misleading." He said Bestway had submitted alternate bids that would have reduced a monthly price to $14.68.

Several residents, including Dustin Thomas, urged the council to release procurement documents. "All communications, emails, memos, letters, notes between the city council, mayor, city manager, and staff regarding this topic" were requested via FOIA, Thomas said, adding he believed the decision had been made before the public had adequate opportunity to review the process.

Council members and staff pushed back on any suggestion that the award was predetermined. Council member Urban said the contract approval presented to council was not a public hearing item and that members receive a packet of materials in advance to review. "There was no requirement for public comment on that item," Urban said, noting that council members receive materials on Thursday, have staff responses by Monday/Tuesday and deliberate individually before meetings.

Council member Young reiterated the councils process, saying members are prohibited from meeting together outside of public sessions and describing the packet‑and‑question workflow. Young said the single‑hauler decision aims to lower costs, increase uniform service and reduce environmental impacts, and she announced the change will not go into effect until March 2026 with an educational rollout for residents.

City Manager Pat McGinnis said much information related to the procurement is public and that the administration has received numerous FOIA requests. He offered to make materials available and to speak directly with residents seeking clarity.

The meeting record also includes a finance figure mentioned by a public commenter: a $29,000,000 franchise award referenced during comments about the scope of the contract. Council and staff did not dispute that public records requests were extensive and said some requested items include personal council communications that require individual member review.

The council approved the consent agenda and later adopted council committee reports by voice vote during the meeting. Several commenters asked that the final contract and evaluation materials be released to clarify how alternate bids were considered and how services (reload service, bulky waste, yard waste) were compared across proposers.

What happens next: Council members and the city manager said they will respond to FOIA requests and provide follow‑up to residents who left contact information. Council member Young said staff will run an educational rollout about the new franchise ahead of the March 2026 start date.