A Richmond judge ruled City Council had the right to withdraw a trash contract it had voted to award a company two months earlier after officials misinterpreted bid numbers, even as he sharply criticized what occurred.

“The Court is dismayed that the City has been able to preliminarily and cursorily authorize a multi-million-dollar contract and upon appropriate investigation, reconsider,” wrote Richmond Circuit Court Judge Richard Campbell in a March 17 letter opinion on a lawsuit brought by Meridian Waste against the city this December. 

That practice, “in terms of public policy, may chill robust franchise activity and discourage bidding for city contracts and business,” Campbell continued. “But the Court cannot grant relief to which Meridian is not entitled by law.” 

In October, City Council unanimously voted to award Meridian Waste the franchise to operate Richmond’s two trash centers, the Hopkins Road Transfer Station and East Richmond Road Convenience Center. 

The decision turned out to be what Campbell called a “blunder”: The Department of Public Works had told Council Meridian’s $4.4 million bid was the “best and highest offer” compared to a $3.7 million proposal from Waste Management of Virginia. It was the highest offer — but in this case, the bids represented amounts the city would have to pay the business, not the other way around, meaning taxpayers would be on the hook for more. 

Documents included in court filings show city officials realized the mistake quickly. Two days after the vote, DPW Director Bobby Vincent sent a letter to Meridian notifying it an error had occurred. In November, City Council voted to begin the process of reconsidering the October vote. Council would ultimately withdraw the award from Meridian and give it to Waste Management of Virginia.

In the meantime, Meridian sued. The company argued that the ordinance City Council had passed granting the franchise to Meridian was legally binding and that the refusal of then-Chief Administrative Officer Lincoln Saunders to sign the agreement was unlawful. Saunders, it maintained, “has no discretion at this juncture to withhold his signature.” 

Campbell rejected that stance in his March letter opinion. 

“In both the City Council Rules of Procedure and within the City Charter itself, the City has reserved the right to rethink its ordinances, whether by means of a repeal or a reconsideration,” he wrote. 

Furthermore, he concluded that the CAO “was vested with a certain amount of discretion” in signing off on franchise agreements. 

“While it may seem to be in the vein of mere ceremony or rubber-stamping, the discretion was nonetheless explicitly given,” he said. 

Nevertheless, Campbell repeatedly portrayed the reconsideration system as a flawed one that could subject businesses awarded contracts by City Council long periods of uncertainty about whether or not those agreements will remain in place. 

“It appears those who do business with the City must necessarily bear the risk of having their ordinance reconsidered before the next City Council meeting, delaying finality until that time,” he wrote. 

In one footnote, he suggested such ordinances might contain a buyer beware warning.

“Indeed, all whose bids are accepted by the City of Richmond assume the very real risk that the City Council may 'pull out the rug' from the franchisee before the next City Council meeting,” he continued. 

Meridian did not respond to inquiries about the decision. Richmond spokesperson Ross Catrow said the city “is aware of Judge Campbell’s ruling and will continue to provide our residents with the best possible service to keep Richmond clean and safe.” 

Contact Reporter Sarah Vogelsong at svogelsong@richmonder.org