El Segundo residential trash collection fee is resolved

by Michael D. Robbins
Director, Public Safety Project, PublicSafetyProject.org

February 3, 2011

The El Segundo residential trash collection fee has been resolved with a 3-1 vote of the City Council to have the City continue collecting trash from residential properties with three or four units, in addition to those with one or two units. This decision departs from the current City practice of collecting trash at no fee from residential properties with one to four or more units if standard trash cans are used instead of a large rectangular trash bin. City Attorney Mark Hensley stated that it was not necessary to amend the City Municipal Code for the City to continue collecting trash for three and four unit properties. He said the City Municipal Code creates an exclusive franchise for the City to collect trash from residential properties with one or two units, all owners or tenants of those properties are required to use the City’s service, and no private trash haulers can provide this service. To amend the City municipal code to create an exclusive franchise for residential properties with three or four units is not necessary and is a five-year long process.

The affected residential properties with more than four units will have to contract with a private trash hauler and pay for the service, however, the City will include in its upcoming trash collection contract Request For Proposal (RFP) a requirement to offer trash collection service to the affected properties at the same cost as the City would have paid. The trash hauler that is awarded the contract, and not the City, will bill the affected residential property owners that choose to use the City’s trash hauler.

At first, City Council member Don Brann made a motion to continue the existing City practice of collecting trash without fee from residential properties with one to four or more units that use standard trash cans. His motion was seconded by Council member Suzanne Fuentes, and won by a 3-1 vote with Brann, Fuentes, and Mayor Pro Tem Bill Fisher voting “yes” and Mayor Eric Busch voting “no”. Councilman Carl Jacobson abstained due to a conflict of interest (he owns a four-unit residential property in the city).

But then the Director of Public Works spoke and muddied the waters, causing some confusion. Mayor Pro Tem wanted to take back his vote. He made a motion to reconsider, which was seconded by Fuentes and passed by a 3-1 vote with Fisher, Fuentes, and Busch voting “yes” and Brann voting “no”. Suzanne Fuentes then made a motion to direct staff to include three and four unit properties in the next trash collection contract. Bill Fisher seconded the motion, and it passed by a 3-1 vote, with Fuentes, Fisher, and Bran voting “yes” and Busch voting “no”.

There was discussion about including an option in the RFP for the trash hauler awarded the contract to offer service for a fee at the City’s rate to residential properties with more than four units that use standard trash cans.

Mayor Eric Busch was visibly upset that he did not have enough votes to support his agenda to discontinue the City’s residential trash collection service to properties with more than two units in order to save an estimated $130,000 per year at the expense of the residents. Cost increases to apartment building owners would likely and reasonably be passed on to the tenants.

The current residential trash collection system works fine. If it is not broken, then don’t fix it, and certainly don’t break it.

Mayor Eric Busch’s attempt to discontinue city trash collection service for residential properties with more than two units that use standard trash cans might have broken the system for the older buildings that have no space to accommodate a large rectangular trash bin. It may also have resulted in many more trash trucks from different companies driving routes through our residential neighborhoods to service the affected properties.

Mayor Eric Busch’s priorities are in the wrong place if he really wants to stop squandering taxpayer money. He wants to “save” $130,000 per year by cutting City services to residents, at the same time he is wasting at least $9 million per year in wildly excessive and unsustainable firefighter and police “special compensation” ($3 million excess per year) and CalPERS pension “employer contributions” and “employee contributions” paid by the City ($6 million excess per year). But then again, the firefighter and police unions endorsed him, contributed money to his City Council campaign, and campaigned enthusiastically for him.