NATCHEZ — In an effort to avoid another lawsuit over garbage contracts, City of Natchez officials hammered out details Wednesday of what the city seeks in a new waste collection and disposal contract.

Mayor Butch Brown, Ward 3 Alderwoman Sarah Smith, Ward 4 Alderman Tony Fields, Ward 5 Alderman Mark Fortenbery and Ward 6 Alderman Dan Dillard concluded that price would be the predominant factor in awarding a contract.

The city awarded a waste collection contract to Waste Pro USA  and the disposal contract to Riverbend Environmental Services in November 2012 for a yearly rate of $785,250 combined.

Waste Management presented to the city a combined collection and disposal contract for $764,730.

Waste Management subsequently sued the city, and Circuit Court Judge Forest “Al” Johnson ruled that the city had to restart the request for proposals process for the collection and disposal contract.

In the court order, Judge Forrest “Al” Johnson said the city based its decision on factors other than price. That was a clear violation of statute, he said, because the request for proposals did not include that other factors would be considered.

Brown said Wednesday that the city should have thrown out Waste Management’s combined contract proposal because companies were asked to separately quote prices for collection and disposal, not what the price would be if they got both contracts.

Brown has said the price of the Waste Pro USA contract and the proposal made by Waste Management for waste collection did not vary greatly. He said, in fact, Waste Pro was cheaper.

Aldermen said Wednesday they want to see a clear set of prices in the proposals that would outline “apples-to-apples” costs for collection and disposal. Dillard said he also wanted to see separately the cost of recycling.

Dillard said he wanted to see the costs in a per-household format, so the costs for the 6,000 households in the city that would receive service could be easily understood in all the proposals.

Fortenbery said he has received some calls from business owners whose rates increased after Waste Pro took over service. Carby said Waste Management may have been picking up those businesses’ trash to be accommodating, but said commercial pick-up rates are not included in the city’s contract.

The rates for commercial pick-up are determined by the business owner and the pick-up company, Carby said.

The aldermen also discussed whether they wanted to negotiate with companies after the proposals are submitted, which is allowed by statute.

Fortenbery said he wanted to see one set of numbers submitted that did not change after the proposals were submitted.

“I don’t want a set of numbers to come here and then two days later of five minutes later, they say, ‘Wait a minute, here’s another new set (of numbers),’” Fortenbery said.

Carby said the prices of the proposals will not be read publicly, as to not let the companies know what their competitors’ prices are.

Once the city awards a contract, the price will then be announced publicly, Carby said.

The aldermen agreed that they would include in the RFP the city’s ability to negotiate with companies, but said they did not want to negotiate prices.

The aldermen said they want the negotiations to take place with the company that submits the proposal with the best price. The negotiations would not include prices, only include specifics of the contract, such as the possibility of free collection for city properties, providing extra trash receptacles for events and similar services.

“I don’t want it to come down to who likes what company … I want it to be what is the best deal,” Smith said.

Brown said there will be no second chances that would allow companies to change their original prices after a proposal is submitted.

The advertisements for the proposals will begin Friday, Carby said. The city, he said, will receive proposals on May 23 and have until June 22, per Johnson’s court order, to award the contracts.