Paterson council wrestles with garbage contracts as administration cites $4.6M savings from in‑house bulk pickup

Council members and city officials spent the bulk of the Dec. 9 workshop probing the city’s solid-waste contracts and a consultant finding that doing bulk pickup in-house could save roughly $4.6 million.

The council first considered two related procurement items: item 39, awarding the city-yard disposal contract to Gator Recycling (the lowest bidder), and item 11, a one‑year extension of Philco’s three‑year residential and merchant pickup contract. Director and procurement staff said Philco’s renewal is a one‑year extension written in the original agreement; the BA confirmed the current extension follows prices stipulated in the initial bid and that a second optional one‑year extension remains.

Why it matters: the city faces a Jan. 1 contract deadline for residential collection. Council members repeatedly warned a failure to approve an extension could leave the city without curbside pickup on New Year’s Day. At the same time, members pressed administration for transparency about whether in‑house bulk pickup actually yields net savings the city can use to hire staff or buy equipment.

What officials said: the administration and a consultant presented a headline savings figure of approximately $4,600,000 for bringing bulk pickup in-house. Council members — most prominently Councilman Jackson — said that headline figure is not a full accounting unless overtime, tipping fees and dumping costs are included and asked that the BA present a detailed internal analysis showing the true net savings and assumptions behind the consultant’s numbers. The BA and director agreed the consultant’s figure was a starting point and acknowledged certain line items may not yet be included in the published summary.

Council questions and concerns: council members pressed for - a line‑by‑line breakdown showing what’s included in the $4.6 million figure and what is excluded (overtime, tipping fees, incidental dumping, equipment, and administrative costs), - the number of vacancies in Streets & Roads (administration estimated 10–20 vacancies in the department), and - where any recurring savings would be reinvested rather than absorbed elsewhere in the budget.

The council also examined how the city yard’s solid waste will be transported: officials said city‑yard material will go to Gator in West Railway (replacing a Coastal location). Purchasing staff pointed attendees to the resolution packet for the price‑per‑ton breakdown, and councilmembers asked procurement to make that pricing clearer in future workshop packets.

Administration response and next steps: city staff said awarding Philco a one‑year extension would buy time to review consultant work, reexamine the RFP with and without bulk service, and make a committee recommendation. Several members asked DPW and the BA to publish the consultant report and to provide a full BA reconciliation showing the overtime and tipping fees that must be subtracted from any headline savings. The director and BA said staff would deliver that full costing and that item 11 (Philco extension) would move from workshop to a regular agenda for a final vote next week.

Quotes that capture the moment: "We save $4,600,000. So what are we doing with that money?" — Councilman Jackson, pressing the administration for detail. "They did their due diligence...that is a starting point." — Council President, urging an internal BA analysis to follow.

What’s next: staff committed to provide a full cost reconciliation to the BA and council ahead of the final vote next week. Council members repeatedly asked for the consultant’s assumptions, overtime tallies and tipping‑fee estimates to be included in that packet.