Council Votes Down Deal to Roll Back Trash Fee

The San Diego City Council decided to roll the dice. 

On Monday, councilmembers voted down a settlement offer that would have stopped the effort to repeal the trash fee and lowered fees to homeowners to $29 a month from their current higher rate.  

It was a potential compromise, but it seems a majority of councilmembers present for the closed session where it was discussed felt it was compromise at gunpoint, which they couldn’t accept. Councilmember Henry Foster was absent. The remaining eight voted 5-3 to reject the deal.

Accepting the deal would have had negative budget consequences. Collecting $29 per month from homeowners would have meant the city couldn’t cover its own costs on trash collection. That would have exacerbated the current budget deficit by tens of millions of dollars in the coming years. Those who didn’t support the deal said it would lead to vital cuts in services. 

But the alternative could be worse. Now the trash repeal effort led by the Lincoln Club Business League will move forward — as will a lawsuit by homeowners that prompted the settlement talks. That means a repeal question could end up on the ballot and voters could decide to get rid of the trash fee entirely. Or the lawsuit could end with the same outcome. 

That would create a devastating budget crisis for the city, as we previously reported. 

“It was a good deal that allowed the city to keep a chunk of the money,” former City Attorney Mike Aguirre, who is representing residents suing over the trash fee. “It was a good compromise. It was actually initiated from some folks within the city and I know they’re disappointed.” 

“By not willing to compromise, they may have set it up where they create an existential hit on the budget,” he added 

Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera did not comment on the specifics of the proposed settlement or the closed session vote. But he panned the effort to repeal the trash fee and said if it makes the ballot he will work to defeat it. 

“The same group that has spent years defending the rich and powerful at the expense of everyday San Diegans is now working to blow a more than $120 million annual hole in the city’s budget. That would mean massive layoffs across every city department,” Elo-Rivera wrote. 

Firefighters, librarians, park workers and repair crews would all face potential layoffs, he wrote.

“All of them at risk because civic arsonists are willing to light the city on fire to advance their political agenda. No corner of San Diego would be untouched,” Elo-Rivera wrote.

Aside from rolling back the fee and ending the repeal effort, the deal had two other key points: 

• The city would have been required to bring billing for the trash fee in house. That means homeowners would no longer get billed through their property tax bill. This would have cost the city considerable money. 

• Aguirre and other attorneys on the case would have had their fees paid by the city. The campaign committee working to get a repeal question on the ballot, which has been led by the Lincoln Club, would have also been reimbursed for its efforts by the city. 

The repeal effort, because it is attempting to roll back a fee, has a lower threshold for signature-gathering than many other efforts that attempt to make the ballot. That means it’s likely a trash fee repeal question will end up before voters in November. And that means supporters of the fee are going to have a serious political fight on their hands. 

The city’s employee unions will spend big money to make sure the trash fee stays in place. 

Some councilmembers have opposed the fee to varying degrees. 

Councilmember Raul Campillo has said he opposed the fee precisely because it ended up higher than the independent budget analyst estimated it would be when voters approved allowing the city to pursue it. Foster answered yes at a debate forum where moderators asked if he supported repealing the fee. He has said he prefers it be reduced to what was estimated. Von Wilpert had previously voted no on imposing the fee. 

Much depends on the final question that actually makes the ballot, as I previously wrote in the Politics Report. If voters are asked whether they support a measure that could lead to sanitation problems or delays in trash pickup, for instance, they might be likely to vote no. If they are asked a straight question about whether they want the fee repealed, they could be more likely to vote yes.