Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Collection Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oak Hill commission rejects Waste Pro bid after business outcry; orders new RFP
Summary
After hours of public comment from businesses and residents about steep proposed rate increases and limited bidding, the Oak Hill City Commission voted to reject the sealed Waste Pro contract bid and directed staff to re-advertise the request for proposals with both commercial and non‑commercial options.
The Oak Hill City Commission voted to reject the current sealed bid from Waste Pro for city trash, recycling and commercial waste service and directed staff to re-advertise the solicitation with additional outreach to prospective vendors.
The decision followed sustained public comment from small-business owners and residents who said the proposed renewal lacked transparency and could force local businesses to pay sharply higher rates. At the meeting, commission staff cited proposed unit-cost increases of about 23% for residential service, about 37% for commercial service and roughly 70% for recycling participation.
"Figures do not lie, but liars figure," said Neil Bonds, a business owner at 295 Indian Creek Road, criticizing the lack of clear rates and telling the commission that businesses had already paid thousands more because of past contract terms. Kelly Bonds, another local business owner, said she believed a prior audit showed businesses in town had been overcharged and asked the city to publish the full commercial rates before signing any agreement.
Waste Pro representatives defended their proposal and urged the commission to consider the economics of serving a small, geographically isolated municipality. Steve Cameron, Waste Pro division manager, told the commission that the commercial component is essential to the company's willingness to operate in Oak Hill: "It's all or nothing for us with commercial," he said, explaining that trucks and equipment are an investment and that opening commercial accounts to competition would undermine the contract model.
City administrator John told the commission that staff had complied with legal requirements for the RFP but acknowledged the community's concerns about outreach and whether additional bidders were notified. After discussion, the commission directed staff to: reject the current bid, reissue a revised RFP that includes options both with and without commercial service, advertise in the legally required notice outlets and send certified notices to identified regional vendors to widen participation.
A motion to reject the bid passed on roll call. Commissioners instructed staff to set an aggressive timetable so the commission can act before service interruptions become likely.
Next steps: staff will consult with the city attorney to confirm procurement timelines and advertise the new RFP with the broader outreach the commission requested. The commission indicated it may hold a special meeting if vendor responses warrant faster action.
