Jacksonville City Councilman Ray Holt’s decision to accept campaign contributions from Waste Management and its lobbyist creates a conflict of interest that sullies his expected vote Tuesday on a settlement deal, two groups said Monday.

Holt, who is running for re-election, raised $6,150 during the first quarter of the year. Almost half of that is from $500 donations by Waste Management, lobbyist Paul Harden and three companies connected to Harden, according to campaign finance reports on the Duval County supervisor of elections website.

Holt was among eight council members who voted in committee last week to accept a settlement deal that would allow Waste Management to continue operating Trail Ridge landfill. Nine others voted to reject the settlement, and that recommendation is up for a full council vote Tuesday.

The Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County issued a news release Monday that questioned the motivations behind Holt’s vote to approve the settlement in light of the contributions he received.

“We believe it is appropriate for public officials who have actual or perceived conflicts of interest to recuse themselves from voting on matters affecting those interests,” the group’s news release said.

The Jacksonville Young Democrats said Holt should either return the money or recuse himself from Tuesday’s vote.

“It is this sort of dishonest behavior that contributes to the apathy and distrust that so many Americans have toward their government and it should not have any place in our politics,” the group’s vice president, Ryan A. Clarke, said in a news release.

Holt said he will neither return the money nor abstain from a vote.

“I don’t think any of the campaign contributions that I’ve gotten have any strings to them,” Holt said.

If that were the case, he said he would give the money back.

“I don’t need it enough to compromise my ethics,” he said, “although I do have a campaign to run.”

Holt pointed out that in addition to the $2,500 from Waste Management and companies tied to Harden, he also accepted $500 from lobbyist Alberta Hipps’ company, which works for Republic Services, a company that has pushed the council to allow others to bid on the landfill contract.

He said the criticism of his campaign contributors was about politics, pointing to the Young Democrats’ ties to Republic Services during last year’s landfill debate. The group said it is no longer being funded in part by a firm that did work for Republic.

Council President Richard Clark said he sees no issue in Holt accepting campaign contributions from Waste Management or Harden and there is no reason for him to recuse himself from today’s vote.

Councilman Johnny Gaffney has accepted $500 from Harden and another $500 from one of those same connected companies that contributed to Holt’s campaign. Gaffney has raised $3,750 so far.
Gaffney is among the nine who voted on April 19 to reject the settlement.

The Times-Union left messages for Gaffney at his council office and on his cell phone Monday, but they were not returned.

The only other current council member who has a filed campaign finance report is Don Redman, who has raised $4,120. None of his contributions has come from Waste Management, Harden or any companies with clear ties to the lobbyist.

Redman was among the eight who voted in favor of approving the settlement deal, worth an estimated $459 million over 26 years.

Also Monday, Waste Management released a two-page report outlining reasons why it thinks the City Council should approve the proposed settlement. The company said the deal on the table provides immediate savings for taxpayers — such as the reduced fee the city pays to drop off each ton of trash — avoids closure costs and avoids the costs of future court battles, including appeals.

The company points out that the settlement deal includes the acceptance of ash during a massive city cleanup process, something Waste Management isn’t required to do under the current contract.

The City Council voted to reject the settlement based largely in part on an analysis by the Council Auditor’s Office, which said the settlement deal would cost taxpayers more than a contract extension proposed by the mayor and rejected by the council last year.

The mayor’s deal had an estimated 26-year cost of $422 million, which is $37 million less than the settlement proposal, according to the auditor’s report. If the council rejects the settlement and loses the lawsuit, set for trial in December, it could be forced to allow the existing contract to play out at an estimated cost of $488 million over 26 years.