Garbage Contract Held Up With No Talk Of Other Bids

The path of a potential village contract from idea to reality is usually short.

Once researched, it comes up for quick discussion and vote before the proper village committee. Then it's off to the village board for the final vote.

On Monday night, Orland Park officials hammered out a contract with more vigor than usual until it was postponed after a last minute change of heart.

While the Orland Park board operates efficiently, after one of Monday night's decisions, it was clear that the different committees could benefit from more communication between them before full board meetings.

Waste Management Contract: The village's current agreement with Waste Management allows them to extend service for one year with a 4 percent increase, or for three years with no change in the first year and a 2.5 percent increase the next two years.

The second option came before the board on Monday for a vote after passing the Public Works and Engineering Committee last month.

Trustee Brad O'Halloran suggested otherwise.

"I really believe that we need to look at only a one-year extension and then go through a competitive bid process," he said.

Several trustees disagreed, citing favorable prices the village historically received from Waste Management. But O'Halloran fired back that surrounding communities received cheaper deals from other trash collectors.

Village Manager Paul Grimes cautioned both sides of the argument.

"Every community has some differences with respect to the service level that they want," he said. "What we tried to do was negotiate the best deal possible."

Grimes said Mokena pays less for trash but still spends comparably when their fee to collect lawn waste is added.

Waste Management also was going to waive a Dumpster rental fee for multi-family homes and apartment buildings as part of the new contract. The addition would save most of those residents about $3 to $4 per month.

The village collects fees for Waste Management, which appears on residents' bi-monthly water bills. Waste Management agreed to refund $60,000 in service charges each year if the village extends service, Grimes added.

Why should we care? We should want government to get the most bang for our tax bucks. But this issue raises questions of efficiency and communication.

Should the Board of Trustees simply trust staff when prices have worked historically, or should it search for a better deal every time? That depends. Is a quick decision worth the risk of a bad decision? Never. Should there be more communication between the Village Board and its committees before an issue comes up for a vote? Definitely.

What's next? The village board agreed to postpone the Waste Management contract until Oct. 18, while Mayor Dan McLaughlin urged them each to read through the entire contract.

But there was no mention of seeking prices from a competitor. The village board must vote on a contract at the next meeting otherwise the village's trash will go uncollected until they do.

"This thing kind of got caught up on us, and we don't have the time to do the competitive bid process," O'Halloran said.