Outcry over San Diego’s higher-than-expected proposed trash rates is prompting questions of whether the city could legally outsource trash service to private haulers so residents could pay less.
The city charter says the mayor has the discretion to consider outsourcing any service except law enforcement, firefighting or lifeguarding. But the city ballot measure that prompted the new trash fees may conflict with that.
An analysis of 12 local cities that outsource trash service shows they have lower monthly bills, in some cases by a wide margin.
San Diego officials are proposing a monthly full-service rate of $53, which would rise to $65 in July 2027 when more trash and recycling services get added.
The median monthly fee in the 12 local cities surveyed by San Diego is $32, which includes monthly fees of $28 in El Cajon, $23 to $35 in Chula Vista, $28 to $31 in Carlsbad and $29 to $33 in Oceanside.
But San Diego officials contend such comparisons can be misleading, stressing that trash collection is more complicated in San Diego because it’s a sprawling city that extends from San Ysidro near the U.S.-Mexico border all the way north to Rancho Bernardo.
“It is not reasonable to compare our costs to small, compact cities,” said Nicole Darling, a city spokesperson.
The debate comes with San Diego poised to start charging people in single-family homes for trash and recycling services, after decades of not being charged for those services.
A 2022 city ballot measure that voters narrowly approved allows the city to start charging. Officials say it will save the city roughly $70 million a year — the amount it has been spending on trash collection.
Before voters went to the polls in 2022, the city’s independent budget analyst estimated monthly bills would be between $23 and $29 if the ballot measure was approved.
But after a long and comprehensive analysis that recommended significantly enhancing trash and recycling services, the city is now proposing rates that are roughly twice that, prompting a public outcry.
Darling said context is needed when comparing the city’s proposed rates to what private haulers charge in the county’s smaller cities.
“When comparing rates across jurisdictions, it is important to consider geographic factors like city size, layout and proximity to facilities; community needs and preferences; scopes of services; variability in operating costs; and whether fees collected fully recover the costs of expenses,” Darling said.
She also noted that San Diego experimented with outsourcing trash service in the early 1990s, with disappointing results.
During a two-year trial run when single-family-home customers were divided roughly equally between city forces and crews from Waste Management, city crews missed significantly fewer pickups and were more effective at delivering replacement bins.
Afterward, an independent consultant concluded “if the deficiencies exhibited by Waste Management were remedied through contractual requirements, the cost of service would increase by at least 10 percent, thereby eliminating any cost savings of privately operated service.”
But before city leaders and residents can weigh whether outsourcing would be a smart move, officials need to answer the question of whether San Diego even has the discretion to consider it.
Section 117 of the city charter says the mayor and City Council can outsource any city service except public safety if “city services can be provided more economically and efficiently by an independent contractor than by persons employed in the Classified Service while maintaining service quality and protecting the public interest.”
That language was added to the charter when city voters approved — 60.4% to 39.6% —Proposition C in November 2006.
But the 2022 ballot measure that allowed the city to start charging for trash services — Measure B — says “City forces shall collect and transport residential solid waste for transfer, transport, recycling or disposal.”
The use of the words “city forces” was not an accident, according to a leading proponent of the measure.
When the San Diego County Taxpayers Association complained in 2022 that Measure B would prevent outsourcing by locking in city crews as the exclusive trash haulers for single-family homes, Councilmember Joe LaCava defended the move.
LaCava stressed that state law requires the city to charge no more than it costs to provide trash service, whereas private haulers have the power to charge more — whatever the market will allow.
“Competition doesn’t always play itself out the way that folks think,” LaCava said in 2022.
LaCava also said it would be disruptive to replace city crews with private haulers, noting that San Diego had recently bought dozens of trash trucks and hired many new drivers to comply with the state’s new organic waste recycling law.
“I’m confident they’re delivering the best service and the best price going forward, and that’s why I think competition is not the right answer for good governance,” LaCava said.
When asked whether there is a conflict between the charter and Measure B, City Attorney Heather Ferbert told the San Diego Union-Tribune last week that Measure B takes the option of outsourcing away from city leaders.
“Charter section 117(c) gives the City a choice between engaging in managed competition or using City forces,” she said by email. “In the case of Measure B, that choice was given to the voters. The clear language of the ballot measure specified that City forces would continue to provide trash collection for eligible residences. Measure B does not conflict with the City Charter.”
Jan Goldsmith, who served as San Diego’s city attorney from 2008 to 2016, sees it differently.
Goldsmith said a key factor is that Measure B amended a city law known as the People’s Ordinance, but that it didn’t amend the city charter, which serves as the city’s constitution.
“Based upon well settled California Supreme Court decisions, the City Attorney’s office has long concluded that, as a Charter City, San Diego may not act in conflict with its Charter and that any act, including enactment of an ordinance, that is violative of or not in compliance with the Charter is void,” Goldsmith said by email.
Ferbert’s comments last week were not part of a formal legal opinion or memorandum of law. In such a document, she might address the issue in more detail.
Residents frustrated with the city’s proposed fees may lobby city leaders to consider outsourcing during a March 25 hearing when the City Council is expected to vote on the new fees.
“An opt-out option MUST be offered, with a requirement to contract with one of the slate of approved private haulers,” resident Jeff Hamblin said in a recent email to the city.
Darling said attendance at a new wave of public forums on the trash fees has been roughly double the attendance at forums held before the proposed fees were revealed.
At public hearings and in emails, residents are expressing outrage.
“This is more than double the estimate when voters were asked to consider the measure and exceeds the going rate of surrounding cities that utilize private refuse collection services,” resident Richard Phillips said in a recent email.
Residents are also calling for the city to scale back plans for expensive new services, particularly a plan to spend $16 million replacing all existing blue and black bins, no matter how new they are.
“Why would you replace all the existing black and blue bins?” asked resident Jennifer Martin-Roff in an email. “This is unnecessary, as some bins are still in perfectly good condition. It would be a waste of money as well as environmentally harmful to dispose of all these plastic bins. Don’t waste $16 million on this!”
