In a recent city council meeting, officials engaged in a heated discussion regarding the ongoing garbage collection issues with Priority Waste. The debate centered around whether to pursue legal action against the company or to allow them more time to fulfill their contractual obligations.

One council member expressed concerns about the financial implications of a court battle, noting that neighboring communities with larger budgets have opted for drastic measures, including withholding payments to Priority Waste. This strategy has reportedly led to improvements in service for those municipalities. However, the council member cautioned against such an approach, emphasizing that the city is smaller and lacks the leverage to effectively negotiate with a larger waste management company.

The council member highlighted that while Priority Waste has been late in their pickups, they have not completely failed to provide service. The member pointed out that other cities, such as Commerce, have successfully engaged with Priority Waste by leveraging their larger contracts, but warned that the city could risk losing garbage collection altogether if they pursued litigation without a backup plan.

Another point of contention arose regarding the potential engagement of a new waste management company, Rizzo, which has a controversial history. The council member expressed skepticism about entering into a contract with Rizzo, citing concerns over its leadership and past legal issues.

The discussion concluded with a call for caution, urging the council to consider the implications of abandoning the current contract with Priority Waste. The member stressed the importance of maintaining reliable garbage collection while exploring all options, including consulting with the city attorney for legal guidance. The council's decision on how to proceed remains pending as they weigh the risks and benefits of their next steps.