NATCHEZ — Behind closed doors, city leaders reviewed details of what waste companies have offered to provide Natchez residents as a few of those very citizens sat silently outside.

Natchez aldermen discussed proposals from five companies at a specially called meeting, though everything about the proposals remains under wraps aside from which companies submitted them.

The closed-door review involved five waste haulers: Arrow Disposal Services Inc., Metro Service Group, Red River Waste Solutions, Waste Management and Waste Pro USA, the city’s current waste collector.

After officials determined the subject matter of the meeting qualified for a closed-door executive session, City Attorney Bob Latham was asked which exemption under Mississippi’s Open Meetings Act permitted the discussion to occur outside of the public’s earshot.

The Open Meetings Act provides transparency laws that government bodies must abide by, but a list of items pertaining to certain matters can be legally discussed non-publically.

Latham first said publically disclosing the information in the proposals would compromise the city’s ability to further negotiate with a company if they should wish to do so, as relates to a new statute that took effect January.

That specific reason, however, does not fall under the list of exemptions provided in the Open Meetings Act.

Asked again which exemption the city was citing, Latham then took about a minute to review the list of exemptions, eventually citing exemption (j): “Transaction of business and discussions or negotiations regarding the location, relocation or expansion of a business or an industry.”

A small number of citizens attended the meeting, though none had the opportunity to speak.

The aldermen took no action during the executive session, and Mayor Darryl Grennell said afterward that the city was not yet ready to select the next waste hauler.

After the meeting closed, Grennell said the information from the proposals is not publicly available because preventing the prospective companies from knowing about the others’ proposals is in the best interest of the public.

“In the long run, this is going to be what’s best for the citizens — for the city to be able to negotiate to get the best deal for them,” Grennell said. “If we made the numbers public at the moment, we wouldn’t be able to negotiate the best deal for the city.”

Grennell gave a hypothetical example of a company who offered the lowest price for a service, but the city wanted to negotiate the price down even further. If that company knew their price was lower than the others’, Grennell said, it would have no incentive to negotiate.

The aldermen agreed to next discuss the waste contract at a special-called meeting at 5 p.m. May 3.