Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Recycling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Livonia council pauses vote on new trash contract after contractor flags change to unlimited-collection terms
Summary
After reviewing bids and several cart-transition options, the council left the solid-waste and recycling contract in committee after the recommended vendor told the city it would not provide unlimited collection as proposed, prompting calls for more discussion about service levels and costs.
Council members on Monday deferred action on a proposed five-year solid-waste and recycling contract after the recommended vendor indicated it would not provide an "unlimited collection" service that the request-for-proposal originally contemplated.
The Capital Outlay and Infrastructure Committee presented three options based on vendor bids and city-purchased carts for roughly 39,900 homes. Committee chair Councilman Donovan said the bids showed GFL at $19.55 per stop and Priority Waste at $17.50 per stop, and outlined a cart-purchase option the administration estimated would cost roughly $4 million in upfront cart purchases but would reduce per-stop costs to about $15.50 and deliver multi-year savings compared with the Priority Waste proposal.
"GFL's bid was $19.55 per stop compared to Priority Waste's bid of $17.50 per stop," Councilman Donovan said in committee. He added the full-cart option required the city to buy 40,000 trash carts and 40,000 recycling carts and that the refuse fund balance could cover the purchase without a new levy.
But the committee chair said a late change raised concern: the vendor later said it would not provide the unlimited-collection portion of the service in the contract as originally envisioned. "Apparently the vendor no longer wants to do unlimited collection," the chair said, calling it "a substantial change" from what the city understood and urging more local discussion before any vote.
Mayor Brosnan told the council the administration had been surprised by the change and stood ready to meet in committee again. Several council members said the change to collection scope merited additional public discussion and detail on how the altered service would affect residents.
The council did not vote; members agreed to keep the item in committee so administration and council staff could clarify service levels, pricing, and the effect of possible cart purchases and state grants on overall cost.
What's next: The council asked staff to continue discussions with the contractor and to return to committee with clarified contract language and cost scenarios before any formal vote.
