Special Meeting to Narrow the Selection of Waste Haulers for Fullerton

Date: June 30, 2026 Subject: Solid Waste Management Services — Request for Proposal (RFP) Evaluation

Editor’s note: This is a cleaned, readability-edited version of an automatically generated transcript. Filler words, false starts, and obvious transcription errors have been removed, and names have been corrected where possible. The wording is otherwise kept close to the original. Speaker labels are best-effort; where a speaker could not be reliably identified, a neutral label is used.

(Following closed session)

Mayor Jung: I’ll call this special study session meeting to order for June 30, 2026. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

City Clerk: All present — Mayor Fred Jung, Mayor Pro Tem Nick Dunlap, Council Member Dr. Shana Charles, Council Member Jamie Valencia, and Council Member Dr. Ahmad Zahra.

Mayor Jung: City Attorney, anything to report from closed session?

City Attorney: No report.

Mayor Jung: I’ll ask any council members if there are ex parte communications to report. Seeing none. Now let’s go to public comments. Madam Clerk.

City Clerk: Would you like the public comment on the business item now?

Mayor Jung: Business item now, please. This is a special meeting, so public comments are limited to the items on the agenda.

City Clerk: I have three people registered — Francisco Miranda, Shawna Adam, and Julie. Those who signed up for public comment, if you heard your name called, please come forward.

Public Comments

Resident (unidentified): Good evening. I have to differ — this is not a study session, it’s a regular meeting, so we can have regular public comment.

Mayor Jung: Is this about the business item, which comes up later on the agenda? There’s regular public comment on the agenda and then the business item later. This has been noticed as a special meeting.

Resident (unidentified): If you look at the agenda, it shows both. The agenda says public comment may be limited to the items on the agenda. But it also shows the mayor making an appointment and then the business item. It’s not a study session — it’s a special meeting where you can take action tonight. Am I correct?

Mayor Jung: I’ll defer to the City Clerk, but as I see it, it says a special meeting, and she noticed it as a special meeting. By the way, we can give direction, but we can’t make decisions. I’ve just used all of my time on this. I’m happy to give you more time; I wouldn’t adjudicate this back and forth with the City Attorney.

City Clerk:: Just to clarify — I understand where the confusion is. The agenda report says the City Council may limit comments to only the items described. “May limit” means it’s at council discretion to either allow general public comment or limit it to the agenda item.

Mayor Jung: It’s always council discretion, and I don’t plan on limiting anybody. I’m just taking public comment right now. So — are we giving general public comment, or is she talking about the trash, whatever she wishes to do? I’m not going to make that decision for her.

Resident (unidentified): Can we start my timer? Thank you. I ask that you keep Republic Services and award them the contract. It’s not perfect — no one is, in my opinion — but I’ve lived in Fullerton for 40 years, and 99% of the time they do a good job. Keeping them will be less disruptive to residents and commercial clients; any change will be disruptive by necessity.

I also want to speak out against considering the upfront-money enhancements — in one case $10 million, in another $15 million — which essentially allow companies that can afford it to buy their contract with the city. This was suggested by the ad hoc fiscal sustainability committee, and companies felt the need to offer it to be competitive, which I don’t think was right. Consideration should only be given to reliability, track record, and the other values staff considered — not convoluted with enhancements that have nothing to do with trash hauling.

I also ask that the companies that put that money up front — offered as a loan to the city — take it back, which would allow them to make a better offer on rates. And on Valley Vista: I don’t think they should have been allowed a second time through this. They didn’t score high enough; the fair thing would have been that they were out of the running. Council Member Zahra kept asking what comparable cities these companies serve. Valley Vista doesn’t serve a city our size — the closest was around 90,000. So I ask that you consider only the top three, and allow Republic to redo some of theirs if they take back their $10 million offer. Thank you.

Mayor Jung: Next speaker.

City Clerk: Francisco, then Shawna, then Julie Beretta.

Francisco Miranda (resident): Hello. My name is Francisco Miranda. I’m a resident of Fullerton on Sandalwood — I’ve been there since 2012. I’ve always had great service from the trash crews that pick up our trash. My neighbors never complained; they liked them. Even when I called in for an extra pickup or to replace a bin, the service was great. I’m happy with the service, and I’m here to represent our residents who are grateful for it. Your trash people are outstanding. That’s all I can say. Thank you.

City Clerk: Shawna, followed by Julie, and then Jeff Otter.

Shawna Adam (resident): Hello, Mayor, council members, and members of the audience. My name is Shawna Adam, and I’ve been a Fullerton resident over 30 years. Picking up trash isn’t a sexy subject — you can see how many people signed up to talk about it. When services go out to bid, many are quick to select the least expensive option because on the surface it looks like the better deal. But one needs to do due diligence and look deeper — contrast and compare all the services provided, the costs, and the timelines.

I need to make it clear I was not asked or solicited by Republic to come speak on their behalf, and I have no family members, neighbors, or friends who work for the company. I say that because I don’t want anyone to think I’m speaking for Republic based on someone asking me to. I’m a member of the community, and I’ve been very happy with them over the years. When I’ve had my trash can stolen up in my neighborhood off Hermosa and Teton, Republic replaced it at no cost.

Over the past six months, my friends and I have been comparing costs, pickup, and schedules. Some companies charge for replacement and for bulk pickup. Our city has unlimited bulk pickup, which is great — we need people to use it instead of dumping trash in the parks, which takes up our resources. We’re not charged extra for bulk pickup, unlike other cities that charge residents on top of the roughly $60 we pay for weekly pickup — or that only offer bulk pickup twice a year, which limits who can use it. I use it, and I’d like others to use it, so our city doesn’t end up looking like other cities with trash sitting out on the sidelines. Thank you.

City Clerk: Next, Julie from CR&R, then Jeff Otter, and then Lori Bruno.

Julie Beretta (CR&R, Senior Vice President): Good evening, Mayor Jung and City Council. My name is Julie Beretta, Senior Vice President with CR&R. It’s a pleasure to see you all again. First, we want to thank city staff for their hard work throughout this RFP process — it’s not an easy task — and we commend the City Council for the decision at the last meeting to bring the selected firms back for a second best-and-final. It’s apparent the proposals were very competitive, and whichever hauler you select, the community and ratepayers will benefit.

We know you have a tough decision, so we’d like to recap a few highlights. We feel CR&R provided the strongest combination of competitive rates, immediate investment, operational capability, and regulatory certainty. We’re four miles from your city, with the most operating facilities in Orange County, and we serve like-sized cities — Orange, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach. We’ve guaranteed the city SB 1383 compliance, including RNG credits from the renewable natural gas produced at our anaerobic digestion plant. From our first proposal in November to this second best-and-final, our rates are fair and equitable, and we assure the city and ratepayers we will not come back in a couple of years and say we bid too low and need to raise rates. That will not happen from CR&R.

Our initial proposal included a $300,000 beautification project to refurbish the city’s downtown enclosures. As a follow-up to the last meeting — and as the previous speaker raised — we heard the concern about bulky-item collection for multifamily properties. One of our new enhancements is a monthly bulky-item collection program for multifamily properties during heavy move-in and move-out periods, at no additional charge, with the same per-unit item allowance as single-family homes. We also recognize our collection vehicles are large and cause wear and tear to city streets, so as part of our new enhancement we’ve proposed a road-improvement contribution to help offset street repairs. We have the experience — we’ve transitioned 17 cities in the last 20 years — and we’d love to add Fullerton to the CR&R family. Thank you for your time and consideration.

City Clerk: Jeff Otter, then Lori Bruno, then Jordan Barrera.

Jeff Otter (resident, District 3; Treasurer, Craig Park East HOA): Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Jeffrey Otter. I’m a resident of District 3 and treasurer of the Craig Park East Homeowners Association. I’ve submitted a formal statement to the City Clerk and ask that it be entered into the record. I’m here to address rate equity for multifamily residents under the pending services contract.

Under California Proposition 218, waste fees are property-related fees and must legally be proportional to the actual cost of serving each parcel. However, because multifamily recycling and organics programs haven’t launched yet, there is zero empirical data to support a formal cost-of-service analysis. Without that data, the proposed commercial bidding structure creates a massive disparity gap. Our analysis shows that under the proposed commercial schedules, identical container services cost 480% to 1,400% of single-family rates. Modeling the impact on a community like Craig Park East, multifamily residents would face waste rates 14% to 168% higher than single-family homes for the same level of service — and under the incumbent, Republic Services, our community’s modeled rate would rise to 268% of the single-family rate. Because multifamily residents have the least visibility into these rate structures, they are highly vulnerable to disproportionate adjustments.

To remedy these disparities before they take effect, we urge the Council to adopt a legally defensible two-step transition. First, negotiate phase-one interim rates using a two-tier commercial structure that aligns the cost per multifamily dwelling with the single-family residential rate; our submitted statement provides a revenue-neutral blueprint to achieve that parity. Second, mandate a formal, data-driven cost-of-service analysis after 24 months of active service, so that once hard operational data is collected, final rates are legally adjusted to reflect actual audited costs. You’ll have your fingerprints on this agreement for the next 10 to 20 years, at a time when housing affordability is a critical concern. We cannot allow unverified rate structures to artificially inflate the cost of living for our renters and condo owners. Please adopt this interim parity strategy and ensure compliance with Proposition 218. Thank you.

City Clerk: Next, Lori Bruno, Jordan Barrera, then Lucy — that’s all who have signed up. If anyone else would like to speak, please work your way to the wall opposite me and we’ll get you to the microphone next.

Lori Bruno (resident; former Republic Services risk director): Good evening. I know we’ve had a difficult couple of months, but thank you for all you do for the city of Fullerton. I’m a longtime resident, a former risk director of a large waste company — Republic Services — and I was very active in the Fullerton School District. I’m a diehard safety advocate. I’m not running for anything; I care about kids and the safety of residents, and I watch the city like a hawk to make sure someone is looking out for safety.

I just listened to a presentation from a prospective company, and not once did they mention safety. That’s disappointing. I worked for Republic Services for 12 years, managing their claims, and I saw firsthand what a best-in-class operations organization looks like. I don’t care which company you pick — but I want to draw attention to the fact that it’s not just about pricing. I now represent 145 school districts across California, making sure kids are safe. This is a report of a fatality in the city of Placentia — a 13-year-old struck and killed as he left a crosswalk. If you don’t put safety into this conversation, you’re not doing your job.

Whatever you decide is up to you, but it’s about who manages the contract — checking their safety record, making sure they know how to handle lithium batteries and fires. Four miles is great; Republic is less than two miles away. I’m not telling you to pick anyone. But if you want safety in your city, make sure whoever is managing this understands safety. If that’s you, I’d love to spend an hour helping you audit a hauler’s safety records and make sure your transition plan is solid — for safety, not just pricing. Safety is not funny. I’ve seen the brain of a child on the back of a wheel. So whoever comes up here talking about waste collection, I hope safety is part of it. Thank you.

City Clerk: Jordan, followed by Lucy, and then those who aren’t registered.

Jordan Barrera (Higher Ground Youth and Family Services): Good evening. My name is Jordan Barrera. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting several of you. I work for a nonprofit called Higher Ground Youth and Family Services, which has been in Anaheim and now in Fullerton. I wanted to share our experience — and mostly my own — with Republic Services. They’ve shown up for our families in so many ways. I started in the program as a mom, years before I worked there, and I’ve seen firsthand how Republic looks for creative ways to serve the community and make a lasting impact.

When any city partners with a service agency, it should go beyond the transactional — beyond “this is what we can do for you” — to “how do we work together to make the community better.” That’s been a core part of what they do. I’ve witnessed it with us, and I volunteer and serve on committees for other nonprofits where I’ve seen them do the same. It’s consistent, it’s caring, and it comes from the heart. I think that’s a core component when you’re deciding who to bring into your community. Please truly consider the impact beyond just the service they provide. Thank you.

City Clerk: Our last registered speaker is Lucy, and then we’ll get to the folks lined up. So far, no remote comments.

Lucy (resident): Good evening. My name is Lucy. I came because someone mentioned this meeting. Usually the meetings are later so the community can come, because people work. Moving the meetings earlier makes it more difficult for residents to attend.

I heard you’re changing the trash contract, and I just hope you don’t raise prices. I heard the ladies speaking on behalf of the company that wants to come in instead of the current one, talking about how their trucks are bigger and will wear on the streets. She said they’ll provide money for the streets — but I’ve been here 30 years and I’ve seen hardly any improvement to the streets. We keep building homes and multifamily housing, but streets are a lower priority. Now we’re bringing in even bigger trucks, and I’m pretty sure it’s going to be more expensive.

I hope your priorities are set straight — we have very poor lighting and horrible streets. And I hope that next time you make it easier for residents to attend. Everything feels last-minute, and that’s not fair. I’m not working right now, so I can come — but most residents I know work, and it’s difficult for them. It’s not enough to thank people for coming; you have to make it easier for residents to be here. Thank you.

Helen Higgins (resident, District 2): Good evening. Can you hear me? Helen Higgins, District 2. As the previous speaker said, cheaper isn’t necessarily better. I appreciate Republic Services — I’ve found no fault with their service. I’m here primarily to raise a point nobody has mentioned: Republic Services uses union workers. As a former resident of Detroit, I know what unions mean. According to a rate-comparison table I reviewed this afternoon, neither of the two cheaper services is a union shop. After this primary election season and heading into November, I’d hope you’d pay very close attention to that aspect of whatever choice you make. Thank you.

Karen Lloreda (resident, District 2): Karen Loretta, District 2. This is a 20-year contract. We, the residents of Fullerton, have to live with the consequences of your decision. This directly impacts our lives every week. This isn’t about the five of you or the three of you — it’s about the people on the other side of the dais. We’re the ones who will pay the price. So please, no more shaky deals that benefit friends or donors, no more risky outcomes. Let’s go for the tried and true — stable, long-term, reliable service.

I urge you to be conservative tonight. The evaluation committee — five staff from relevant departments — ranked all applicants and recommended the top three: EDCO, CR&R, and Universal. Mayor Jung and Councilwoman Valencia decided to add three more. Staff used objective criteria; don’t second-guess them. We want good, dependable service at reasonable rates for the next 20 years. Don’t try to salvage a reputation or dig us out of a hole with a risky quick fix — we’ve seen what it’s like to live with prior councils’ poor decisions.

My personal preference is CR&R: they’re Orange County–based, have a proven record of service and community participation, their enhancement package is the most complete of the six, and they’re offering a $4 million road-improvement investment. Valley Vista’s customer reviews are terrible — you really ought to read them — and Athens is based out of LA and serves mostly LA cities. Residents aren’t council members, but many of us research, discuss, and compare options in depth — more than some council members do. Please take our comments seriously. Take the prudent path. Thank you.

City Clerk: That looks like our last speaker in chambers. We’ll move to Zoom — we have one hand raised.

Jane Ramirez (resident, District 5; via Zoom): My name is Jane Ramirez. I live in District 5. Mayor Jung and Council, I’m glad to be here. My biggest concern is that some real basics need to be assured — such as trucks that don’t leak green goo, red globs, and other fluids on our streets and alleys, which I’ve been seeing regularly. Don’t fault the drivers; they’re good people. I’ve seen one scrambling with rags he clearly brought from home — old T-shirts — trying to wrap leaking hydraulic lines. I know equipment is a huge investment, but these are basic standards we should expect: reliable pickup and reliable communication.

It would also help residents if billing didn’t have to go through the city — right now we have no way to communicate with the current hauler except by phone, and sometimes you reach people in places like Missouri who have different pickup standards and give wrong information. I don’t know how to capture this in a proposal, but cleanliness matters: always having a cleanup kit on every truck, so when garbage is dumped — sometimes because residents put junk in their trash — the crew cleans up after themselves or sends someone to. Regardless of who you select, these basics are very important, and if it means a dollar or two more a month to get them right, I’m okay with that. Thank you.

Resident (former Teamster, District 4): Good afternoon, elected City Council members, department heads, and staff. I became familiar with Fullerton when I relocated here in 1978. I’m a former Teamster from when I worked at UPS. I don’t know all the proposals the committee looked at, but most of these people seem to be here representing themselves.

What I know about the current company, Republic: Jamie Valencia is my representative in District 4, and our trash is picked up on Fridays — yet consistently, one or more of my three cans (green waste, recycling, garbage) isn’t picked up until Saturday, sometimes Saturday afternoon. As a former union member, I can’t figure out why someone would come to work on a Saturday when their job is Monday through Friday. I’ve asked direct questions of four Republic union members, and they lied to me. That’s not the way to represent the company.

I’m also on the investment advisory committee, and we recently changed our long-term financial advisor, because sometimes it’s good to change to another company. As for safety — you come up here and talk about safety, but you still don’t have sidewalks for 5-to-12-year-olds walking to Orange Sur Elementary. You can talk all you want, but I haven’t seen action. Until I see a sidewalk or a curb on even one side of that street, I won’t believe anyone who says they’re for safety while making children walk in the street year after year, where cars travel at high speeds. Even at the speed limit, if you get hit you’d better hope you have a helmet on. Go Lancers, Go Hornets, Go Titans, Go Cougars. God bless you all.

Elijah Manissero (resident): Good evening, Council. Elijah Manisero. First, I think we should stick with a union hauler — not necessarily because unions are better, but because if we don’t go with Republic, a lot of Fullerton residents may be out of a job, and a union hauler is more likely to absorb those workers and prevent that economic shock.

Of the current offers, CR&R has the best — head and shoulders above the rest. They offer the lowest residential rate among union haulers, the second-lowest commercial rate among all offers, $4 million to help fix our roads, and they serve more Orange County cities than any of the other haulers. They deserve serious consideration. That said, I think we should give the incumbent, Republic, a chance to revise its offer. I have no issue with Republic, but on safety — one of their trucks was on fire two weeks ago, and they have a very old fleet — there are things they need to address.

If we do go with Republic, I’d suggest three changes. One, lower their commercial rate to something more competitive; it’s far higher than any other offer, and if that means scaling back other benefits, so be it. Two, write strong SB 1383 compliance into the contract, and put that burden on the hauler rather than ourselves. Three, drop the lump sum of cash, which just increases rates on residents. That idea was suggested in the fiscal committee by Tony Bushala; it was a bad idea then and it’s a bad idea now. We have an annual structural deficit — a lump sum of cash doesn’t solve that. Don’t put a hidden tax on residents. So I think we should go with CR&R, or Republic if they make those three changes. Thank you.

Vince Buck (resident): My name is Vince Buck, and I didn’t expect to speak today. This has been a strange process — the staff recommendations, then a subcommittee of two members without representing the rest of the council. I think the staff recommendation should be taken seriously.

But that’s not what I want to talk about. I have needs different from other people — I’m disabled, and I have one of the steepest driveways in town, short but steep. I have difficulty even getting up to my mailbox, and there’s no way I can take the garbage cans out. Republic comes down and takes my cans every week. Occasionally I miss a can, but if I call, someone comes out the next day to take care of it. They’ve been very good at providing for my needs, and I’d hate to switch to a company that wouldn’t be as reliable.

The one thing I’m not happy with is that they sit in front of my house a little longer than at other houses, and one of their trucks drips oil, so I have big oil spots in front of my house. I’m hoping the city repaves that street soon. Thank you.

City Clerk: We have one hand raised on Zoom — Alexia, you should be able to unmute.

Alexia (Park Ridge Condominiums board member; via Zoom): Thank you for allowing me to speak. I’m a board member at Park Ridge Condominiums, right across from Craig Park on Imperial Highway and Associated Road. Thank you to Jeff from one of the neighboring condos for letting us know about this.

As a condo association, all of our trash is picked up — I believe by Republic — and I’ve had no problems in the 10 years I’ve been there. But hearing that you want to sign a 20-year contract, I’d caution and ask you to reconsider. Per the state of California, an HOA isn’t allowed to sign a contract longer than one year, but we can do an automatic renewal with review. I’d recommend a one-year contract with an automatic renewal up to five years — that gives you time to gather data on whether it’s working for you, the city, and the community.

We have a very diverse community — mobile homes, HOAs, condos, townhomes, and single-family homes. For us, our landscapers take away all landscaping waste, and anyone doing repairs isn’t allowed to use our trash areas; we pay a separate company for that. So the trash company is really just picking up trash. Please keep that in mind when looking at overall cost — there’s a difference between townhomes, home associations, and single-family homes.

I’m also not a big proponent of quid pro quos — “you give me this, we’ll give you $4 million for roads.” We’re all living in hard times and stretching our budgets, but we also want the best customer service. At 136 units, we’re a condo association, not single-family homes, and we only do trash. Please don’t sign a 20-year contract; you want a clause that lets you get out. Thank you again to Jeff Otter for letting other associations know. That’s all in my three minutes.

Mayor Jung: Thank you, everybody, for those comments.

Appointment — Parks & Recreation Commission

Mayor Jung: We do have an appointment this evening. Parks and Recreation told me that because of my lack of an appointment, they don’t have a quorum. So I’ll appoint Dan Kim this evening. I’ll make that motion.

Council Member: Second.

Mayor Jung: Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

City Clerk: Council Member Charles — aye. Council Member Valencia — aye. Council Member Zahra — aye. Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap — aye. Mayor Jung — aye. The item passes.

Business Item — Solid Waste Management Services RFP Evaluation

Mayor Jung: We’ll go to the regular business item — our Solid Waste Management Services RFP evaluation. I don’t expect council to make a decision this evening. Let’s have our Solid Waste and Recycling Specialist, Ms. Michelle Durant, make the presentation.

Michelle Durant (Solid Waste & Recycling Specialist): Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and council members. The purpose of this evaluation meeting is to obtain direction from Council on the next phase of the RFP process, maintain progress on finalizing service-agreement terms and preparing for contract award, and remain compliant with CalRecycle’s Corrective Action Plan (CAP) deadline.

As a reminder, the city received a final CAP extension until June 30, 2027, contingent on completing an RFP process that complies with SB 1383. Staff received a letter from the state identifying a missed April 2026 contract-negotiation milestone and expressing concern about our ultimate final deadline of July 1, 2027, for SB 1383 rollout compliance. The state wants to meet with staff after this meeting to see the outcome of tonight’s council meeting. If they feel their concerns are large enough that we won’t meet the July 1, 2027 deadline, they could cancel the CAP extension and put us into a compliance-review audit within the year. If we’re still not in compliance with our collection-service program, it could lead to notices of violation, and continued delay could result in penalties ranging from $500 to $10,000 per violation per day — dating back to January 1, 2022, the law’s initial implementation date. So we ask Council to consider this closely as we continue with the RFP timeline.

For an RFP status overview: at our April 14, 2026 study session, staff brought forward the evaluation of the nine initial proposals, the evaluation committee’s scores, and the ad hoc committee’s additional recommendations. Tonight, June 30, we’re continuing that discussion. At the April 14 meeting, City Council directed staff to advance six firms: Athens Services, CR&R Environmental Services, EDCO Disposal, Republic Services, Universal Waste Systems, and Valley Vista Services — the three recommended by the evaluation committee and the three recommended by the ad hoc committee. These shortlisted firms submitted final-offer proposals on May 5, 2026.

Staff reviewed the six final offers and prepared a comparative summary. Some firms strengthened their proposals; others had strong initial proposals and made targeted refinements. The comparison covers pricing, comparable cities (raised at the last meeting), union workforce, and key enhancements and community benefits. This slide shows our revised RFP process and timeline, built to allow sufficient time for Council review and public engagement. We’re now at the final evaluation stage, with a few remaining activities still to be scheduled.

I want to highlight a few notable RFP elements. First, this new contract includes a full suite of container-size options for commercial and multifamily customers. Our current contract allows multifamily customers only bin service; the new contract could allow different bin sizes or split containers, which matters because we’re adding recycling and organics service that many commercial customers don’t currently have. Every property is unique, and we want them right-sized to their waste generation.

Second, we’ll have a hot-spot collection service. We’ve identified illegal-dumping hot spots noted by our field crews; this is a flexible service, so as one area improves and another worsens, crews will do weekly sweeps and schedule removals. Relatedly, our current contract has weekly unlimited bulky-item collection; the new contract changed that to quarterly — partly because we now have the hot-spot service, and partly because we’ve added community benefits such as household hazardous waste collection events, paper-shredding events, and continued compost giveaways. These were all requested by the community over the years. Keeping unlimited bulky pickup plus all these extra benefits comes at a higher price tag, so we tried to offer a balanced, varied service like neighboring cities.

There are also important deliberation priorities for Council. One is workforce reliability — minimizing the risk of labor stoppages. We’ve had a couple of labor stoppages under the current contract, and there could be another, since labor negotiations are coming up within the year. Another is compliance and regulatory alignment. Our current contract references AB 341 (recycling) and AB 1826 (organics), and we are not compliant in those areas. Our overall diversion rate is 15.81%, largely because we haven’t fully rolled out recycling and organics. Our AB 341 compliance is 25.1% for businesses and only 4.8% for multifamily; our AB 1826 compliance is 6.6% for businesses and 1.5% for multifamily. With the new SB 1383 penalties and stronger enforcement, we want to ensure whoever is selected guarantees compliance under the new contract.

This is a significant compliance shift, which underscores the importance of the transition plan. We urge careful consideration before implementing expanded programs that require resident or business participation without first providing the time, resources, and education to ensure success. This is a poignant time for Fullerton — we’re rolling out recycling and organics in many ways for the first time — and we want to ensure the community understands how to sort properly so they don’t incur contamination or overage fees. Simply dropping off a cart is not the solution; we have to make sure people know how to use it. Regardless of the selected proposal, all proposers will be required to undertake the same transition steps. We have legacy issues — incomplete or inaccurate customer data — so we’ll need a full sweep of customer accounts, a service-level assessment to right-size service, equipment purchases (new vehicles and SB 1383–compliant containers), a full education and outreach campaign, and a citywide service rollout.

Tonight’s proposed motion is for Council to direct staff on which firm or firms to proceed with in negotiations, finalize service-agreement terms, and prepare for contract award. Council has been provided all the materials. I’m here with our solid waste consultant and our solid waste special counsel for any questions.

Mayor Jung: Thank you. For me, waste and recycling franchises rarely go out to bid — this city’s hauling contract has historically been evergreen — so this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve the service. I’m pleased we received robust responses to our RFP. I want to thank every company that made a proposal, and acknowledge our staff and consultant for handling this complex issue professionally, and for giving Council and the public time to digest it. This is our opportunity to do what’s best for Fullerton residents and businesses. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues. Who wants to start?

Council Questions

Council Member Zahra: Thank you, and thank you to everyone who worked on this and to the applicants for indulging us with these additional bids. I do have some questions. First, I wish we’d scheduled this differently and given the public better notice — this is an issue that affects everyone, not just five people, and not just now but for the next generation.

I’m confused about the upfront payments; the staff report is a bit convoluted. I’d like an explanation of these two fund advances — the $15 million and the $10 million — because the way I’m reading it is concerning. How does this translate into actual numbers and costs for residents?

Michelle Durant: We’ll call up our solid waste consultant, Mike Vallier, who analyzed the upfront payments.

Mike Valley (Solid Waste Consultant): Good evening. I’ve done a detailed analysis and report on the upfront payments and how they’d be paid back; that detailed report isn’t in your packet, though there’s summary information that is. This is a difficult decision. I’ve dealt with many contracts and hauler proposals and know most of the firms proposing. Specific to this issue — the City Attorney can address the rate questions — but from what I’m seeing, it’s essentially an offer tied to a different CPI schedule that would historically increase rates faster than the CPI schedule the city selected and put in its sample contract to protect ratepayers.

Council Member Zahra: Thank you. What I’m trying to do is translate it into actual numbers so laypeople can understand it. You said it could increase costs at a faster pace?

Mike Valley: We can’t predict what the schedules will do, but over the past 10 years our schedule ran at 3.48%. One proposer advancing money like that is at 4.1%, and the other — the one put forward by Republic — is at 4.15%.

Council Member Zahra: Has this ever been done before?

Mike Valley: It was fairly common historically — not so much anymore; today it would be more unusual than five or ten years ago. Over a 20-year term — and while the contract is for 10 years, one firm asked for 20 — rates go up close to 100% for everybody, but the two firms with the different CPI schedule go up 10% to 20% more over that term. There’s a correlation. It’s like a dividend stock: raise the base a little more early, and you get a raise upon a raise. It’s a rate challenge.

Council Member Zahra: In layman’s terms, am I correct to characterize this as taking a cash advance against future billing of our residents?

Mike Valley That’s really a City Attorney question — above my pay grade — but that’s how I read it, too. It’s an upfront payment.

Attorney Patrick Muñoz (Special Counsel, Solid Waste): Good evening, Council. Patrick Munoz, the Mayor’s special counsel on solid waste issues. From a pure legal standpoint, I wouldn’t characterize it that way. All trash contracts have a variety of loosely called franchise fees — revenue that comes to the city based on the gross receipts of the contract. The city asked for a specific percentage. There’s evolving law here, and a lot of talk about Proposition 218 and franchise fees. What you’re really looking at is haulers offering a different franchise-fee percentage than what you asked for, and willing to pay it up front to entice you. The legal analysis is whether it reasonably reflects the value of the franchise — a complex issue the courts are still struggling with. My job is to make sure that whoever you go with, we’ve done an analysis tying those points together. When you’re ready to decide, we’ll present an analysis on how to break that out.

Council Member Zahra: Could you speak a little louder, please? Who is paying this?

Patrick Muñoz: The haulers are paying it.

Council Member Zahra: But who is ultimately being billed for it?

Patrick Muñoz: The haulers are paying it. The best empirical way to demonstrate that is that a hauler offering you upfront cash lowered the rates they offered initially. They may make that money back, or they may not — legally, they’re taking these funds out of profits they otherwise would have made.

Council Member Zahra: Just to clarify — you’re our City Attorney, correct?

Patrick Muñoz: Special counsel, yes.

Council Member Zahra: It says here there’s a recovery of the $10 million payment — so they are making the money back. Can I speak to whoever put this analysis together? I’m getting legalese, but I’m not getting answers, and I feel like you’re defending this rather than explaining it. I’m frustrated because I’m trying to explain to the public how this translates to actual costs for residents. I don’t care what they’re offering — I want to know the real cost, because this idea was generated by one individual, not by council directive. So how it came about is also a concern. This seems to be about appeasing a political structure rather than translating to real value. I see money up front that residents will end up paying for over time.

Patrick Muñoz: I apologize if it’s coming across that way. I can give you the legal framework, but I’m not in a position to comment on the political aspects.

Council Member Zahra: Please, someone explain these charts. They’re extremely convoluted — the numbers keep going up, and our consultant says it’s exponential.

Mike Valley: Let me answer bluntly. The numbers on the board show what happens to rates under the proposals — and with the additional $10 million and $15 million, no question they’re higher. The table you’re referring to was a preliminary assessment I put in a broader memo to my client — my opinion, not necessarily the review committee’s. I was concerned about it. As Attorney Munoz said, I don’t know the legal cause-and-effect — it appears there’s money up front and then a higher rate increase, but I can’t confirm a legal tie. That’s why I created the table for staff: to flag it as an area of concern. Beyond that, I’m not qualified to comment. I think that addresses the heart of your question.

Council Member Zahra: I don’t think these offers actually helped EDCO or Republic — they’ve just increased their own cost; it’s like they’re outbidding themselves. We’re trying to hire a trash hauler to keep our neighborhoods clean, not to clean up the city’s financial messes. This is uncharted territory, and to me it needs to be off the books. The person who suggested this even has a blog where he himself calls it a hidden tax. I don’t understand why we’d divert our discussion from getting the best rate for residents into packaging something to get cash up front.

And if we did get this cash — do we have any mechanisms or protections on how the city would use it?

City Attorney / City Manager: There are no protections built into their proposals. If Council chose one with an upfront lump sum, you’d have to give us direction on how to apply that money. Right now there’s no plan for it.

Council Member Zahra: We just came out of an audit that showed we have no protection mechanisms in place — we had a $10 million misallocation — and now we’d ask for more money without even knowing what we’d use it for. It seems odd. Mr. Munoz, if we went down this path, we’d have to negotiate those guarantees and projections into the contract, right? With CR&R it was very clear — their offer was for roads, and that would be in the contract. The others are just cash; I don’t know what that is.

I also want to know: if a hauler other than Republic is selected, have the other union or non-union haulers guaranteed they’d become union or absorb employees? We have many Republic employees living in Fullerton, so we’d basically be putting them out of a job.

Michelle Durant: Council Member Zahra, only two firms have non-union workforces, but all firms have confirmed that if Republic isn’t selected, they’d offer employment to all of Republic’s employees and absorb that workforce. So no one would lose their job.

Council Member Zahra: But the non-union firms can’t take union workers, can they?

Michelle Durant: They’ve committed to offer jobs.

Council Member Zahra: And on the fleet — cleanliness of trucks came up. Is an upgraded fleet part of the negotiation?

Michelle Durant: Yes, newer or new vehicles are a requirement of the RFP and the agreement. Republic Services is the only firm that hasn’t agreed to the full terms; they’d provide 11 new vehicles up front and phase in the rest over five years. All the other firms confirmed they can begin with newer or new trucks.

Council Member Zahra: On SB 1383 — not everyone guarantees a deal on procurement assistance. For example, EDCO offers guaranteed procurement credits; are others not offering that? These tables would have been more helpful categorized by service.

Michelle Durant: All firms offered SB 1383 procurement assistance. Some already have anaerobic digestion facilities that process organic waste into renewable natural gas, which generates SB 1383 procurement credits; some offer unlimited compost usage; Valley Vista offered assistance toward that. Different firms offer varied assistance — and that includes Republic.

Council Member Zahra: One reason for putting this out to bid, per the staff report, was that Republic wasn’t negotiating properly on SB 1383. If a new contract guarantees a deal on this, why haven’t we already reached that with them?

Michelle Durant: That was one of my deliberation considerations — ensuring the compliance language is actually adhered to. Negotiations on amendments began about four years ago, with staff turnover on both sides. HFH Consultants set the parameters, and we actually reached an agreement in February 2024 and were ready to move forward with an amendment — plus a separate Amendment 5 for our multifamily legacy issues — so we could at least get SB 1383 compliance. But when we were ready to finalize, we received a different package from the incumbent that included an inflation cost that wasn’t agreed upon, with no backup documentation. That stalled negotiations. Now that we have dedicated staff in Public Works, we’d ensure the contract requirements are managed and met.

Council Member Zahra: Our lack of SB 1383 compliance is with the state. Republic is under contract with us until 2027 — why haven’t we continued negotiating with them?

Michelle Durant: We attempted many times over four years, including with our current consultant, City Green Consulting, before rolling out the RFP. But because of the delays, our CalRecycle CAP would only be extended if we entered an RFP process. So the state gave us a deadline: if you don’t conclude successful negotiations with Republic and want an extension, you must move forward with an RFP.

Council Member Zahra: So a new contract with these provisions is basically the solution?

Michelle Durant: That’s correct. And it’s important to note that we’re the only city that received such a lengthy extension, because our contract term was ending and we’d been compliant with all other aspects of the law. The state saw the city’s good-faith effort. Most caps have concluded, so this extension is not something to take lightly.

Council Member Zahra: Two more things. On bulky-item pickup — I raised this last time, and many residents have reached out and spoken tonight. It’s a very important service, and one of the best features Republic offers. How can we ensure it continues with the other applicants?

Michelle Durant: I created a slide showing which final offers included bulky-item collection beyond the quarterly service in the new contract. Athens now offers weekly unlimited residential bulky-item collection. CR&R added monthly multifamily bulky-item collection on top of the quarterly service, timed for heavy move-in/move-out periods. EDCO included quarterly multifamily bulky-item collection, not just residential. And Republic offered unlimited weekly single-family and multifamily bulky-item collection. If Council wants to keep unlimited weekly collection, that’s something we can discuss with whichever firm is selected — just let us know it’s a negotiation priority.

Council Member Zahra: Our community has made it very clear we want the unlimited service. When we enter a new contract, we should be building on services, not reducing them. Nobody times when they move out, and when someone buys a new fridge, the old one can sit out for 15 days waiting for the beginning of the month. That’s crucial. And the hot-spot service is separate — that’s about illegal dumping, a rover that roams alleys and hot spots.

Michelle Durant: Correct — the hot spots relate to illegal dumping. On bulky items, one of tonight’s goals is to collect Council’s priorities for negotiations. I understand you’ve expressed the community’s desire for unlimited, but we really need a consensus of Council to move that forward.

Council Member Zahra: My last question — could you explain the contract length again, 10 versus 20 years?

Michelle Durant: Our new contract proposal is a 10-year term with two additional five-year extensions, based on an audit and performance level. If the city and community are satisfied, Council can deliberate whether to extend an additional five years, and then five years again. Only one firm requested a 20-year term — EDCO, based on their $15 million upfront payment. But it’s a 10-year term with two performance-based five-year extensions.

Council Member Zahra: I don’t have more questions, but I’d like to hold off on my comments — we’ll come back.

Mayor Jung: Councilwoman, any questions first, then comments?

Council Member Valencia: Just a couple of clarifying questions. We went into the RFP, and you were negotiating with the current hauler even during the RFP. Can you still negotiate with our current hauler on the SB 1383 amendment?

Michelle Durant: No — the Corrective Action Plan has moved on; it’s now an RFP-based CAP. We have to have an SB 1383–compliant contract.

Council Member Valencia: But you were negotiating with Republic before this, to amend to an SB 1383 contract?

Michelle Durant: Yes.

Council Member Valencia: Okay, that’s all for now.

Mayor Jung: Council Member Charles, go ahead.

Council Member Charles: Thank you. Following up on what Council Member Zahra was discussing — the difference between single-family and multifamily bulky collection is something I’ve paid a lot of attention to. I understand it’s important for people to schedule a pickup any time, but I appreciate the idea of a scheduled monthly pickup so people know when it’s happening in these larger communities, and to give relief if something builds up. Can those two things exist together?

Michelle Durant: We can definitely note it as a negotiation priority and bring it to the table when finalizing contract terms. In a multifamily situation it helps for people to know a collection happens on, say, the 25th of the month, and plan around it.

Council Member Charles: The other thing I’m concerned about is street sweeping — there’s a difference across proposals. Do you have a slide like the bulky-item one showing street sweeping?

Michelle Durant: I don’t have one prepared, but most firms included it in their proposals. Valley Vista is offering no-cost street sweeping once our current street-sweeping contract with the vendor is finalized. Universal Waste Systems offered street sweeping with an additional 1.75% rate increase. Right now, street sweeping is done by a completely different vendor on a separate contract.

Council Member Charles: When is that contract up, and should we take it into account here?

Michelle Durant: We just extended our current contract with SCA for a year, so it should line up with this contract if we want it to.

Council Member Charles: Do all the companies have street-sweeping capability, or just the ones that mentioned it?

Michelle Durant: Two haulers have in-house street-sweeping — I believe Athens and one other; the others that proposed it would likely have to contract it out. CR&R offered it earlier, but in their final offer they chose to reduce rates instead. Let me bring up our consultant.

Mike Valley: Those two things intersecting could be more complex, because residents already pay for litter abatement and street sweeping within the new agreement. So “free” street sweeping isn’t necessarily great — you’re already collecting money for it, and you may have to amend those fees. You’re much better off keeping the money in the city’s hands to hire and control that vendor, rather than routing it through a hauler that may subcontract it out. If a firm offers free street sweeping, maybe you negotiate that to help with rates — but you’re covered through a fee for street sweeping regardless.

Council Member Charles: Looking at the downtown improvements — CR&R’s $300,000 beautification, EDCO’s new facility, another company wanting offices on Harbor — in staff’s opinion, what would be most positively impactful for downtown?

Michelle Durant: A dedicated city office, which several firms proposed, would be a great benefit — especially in the downtown Harbor area — because residents could come in to ask about their bill, missed pickups, and so on, instead of just a customer-service line. Also, our new contract already requires that within 10 feet of downtown enclosures, any uncontained waste on the ground be picked up, with weekly power washing and cleanings. Athens proposed a mini-sweeper and a porter downtown. CR&R’s $300,000 for capital improvements to those enclosures is separate from the base-contract requirement to power-wash the downtown enclosures, which happens regardless of who you pick.

Council Member Charles: I’ll say I’m always strongly pro-union — the city has unions representing every one of our other units, including police and fire, and I think we need to stick with that. If we went with a non-union firm, do you see any impacts?

City Manager Eddie Manfro: It wouldn’t have any impact on our internal labor relations with our own employees — that’s completely separate.

Council Member Charles: My related question is: if a non-union hauler got the contract and agreed to hire the former Republic employees, would that be in a unionized or non-unionized environment?

Michelle Durant: From the proposals, that seemed to be very much non-unionized. One impact of a non-union firm is that we wouldn’t have the labor-stoppage issue. The two non-union firms did offer to hire on the workforce, but likely not in a union environment.

Council Member Charles: As someone who’s been a public-university employee for about 25 years, I once took a non-union job that promoted me with better pay — and it was the worst protection I ever had. My salary later got cut to 60%, which is how I ended up coming back to Cal State Fullerton. Even if you get a base bump in pay, you don’t have protections later. So I’d be very strongly pro-union.

Mayor Jung: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, anything to add?

Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap: A few questions. I want to go back to the upfront-money issue, because to Council Member Zahra’s point, there are three different offers here. I take a different view: two of them are essentially an illegal tax — high-interest loans that the city or ratepayers are financing over the long term, whatever they’re called. The flip side is that upfront money without those strings isn’t necessarily bad — in the case of CR&R’s upfront money for roads, I think that’s a great strategy on their part.

I wanted to find out: was there any direction from staff to the applicants on terms, or did the haulers come up with the amounts and terms on their own?

Michelle Durant: This wasn’t directed by staff — it’s whatever they proposed. They had a best-and-final and then a second best-and-final after the interviews; it was a very competitive process. They had to resubmit the same pricing form, but anything they proposed is their own.

Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap: For our City Attorney or Mr. Munoz — can you address the similarities between these potential agreements and the Oakland case, Zolly v. Oakland? As I read it, this seems like a clear-cut case for a resident to align with Howard Jarvis taxpayers and sue the city, and we’d be in a tough spot.

Patrick Muñoz: I won’t pretend it’s not an issue — it’s the hot topic. The question is whether there’s a way for this to occur where it’s not a hidden tax. That’s what the Zolly court said you can’t do, and the analysis is whether it reasonably reflects the value of the franchise, which is a difficult analysis. We didn’t suggest this. And Council Member — you said earlier you thought I was defending it; I’m not defending it either way. My job is to give you objective legal advice without bias toward any proposal. If you’re interested in one of these proposals, I can figure out whether I can come back and tell you it’s lawful. The Zolly court identified examples of things that are a hidden tax and things that are not; that case went back to the Court of Appeal and settled, so we don’t have a definitive answer. It’s a very complicated area of law.

City Attorney Richard Jones: Let me add — if we go down this path with the money, we need assurances from Council that we can legally defend that position. Mr. Munoz would have to present an appropriate legal defense to avoid the challenge you’re describing.

Patrick Muñoz: And if you really want a nuts-and-bolts conversation because you’re interested in one of these proposals, we should have it in closed session so I can give you candid legal advice. At a high level, what I can say publicly is that the question is whether all these fees reasonably reflect the value of the franchise. That’s something you could teach a whole law-school class on. It’s complicated.

Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap: Thank you. My next question is more practical, for staff: if we select a different hauler, what does the transition period or rollout look like, and what impacts will the city face?

Michelle Durant: Some firms already submitted their SB 1383 rollout plan; some have completed their route maps. The first thing any firm must do is analyze the customer data — currently we don’t have a complete multifamily list with unit counts, which ties directly to compliance percentages. So they’d do a boots-on-the-ground review to account for all customers in each sector. The SB 1383 education and outreach plan runs in tandem — direct mailers, community workshops, and multifamily workshops at the complexes. We did a successful pilot in a senior mobile-home park on Valencia. Then it’s time to right-size businesses and multifamily complexes, and do a waiver assessment, since the Senate bill allows waivers based on waste generation or physical space constraints — a lot of older multifamily properties may not have room for additional recycling or organics carts.

Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap: My question was less about compliance and more about the practical rollout — making the switch. A lot of residents don’t realize that commercial properties, apartment buildings, and office buildings have bins, some with pull-out service where crews physically remove them, adding cost. And commercial clients aren’t only paying trash fees through their city utility bills; they also pay bin rentals and other direct fees to Republic. My hope is that as part of this shake-up, some of these legacy issues finally get addressed. That was part of the catalyst here — long-standing issues with Republic, and the inability to negotiate, which is how we found ourselves here. So this has actually presented a great opportunity, whether that means staying with Republic or making a change.

One more question: I know staff shared rankings with the first report, but the second phase didn’t include staff rankings. Were there internal notes or dialogue to a similar end, and would you share those?

Mayor Jung: Mr. Vallier, please come up and give us your ranking as the Mayor Pro Tem requested.

Mike Valley: Previously you had a review committee of staff, and I didn’t have a vote — I shared a memo with staff giving my opinions after the best-and-final, which were just mine. Going from bottom to top:

I don’t dislike Republic Services — I’ve audited their operations in Florida, Georgia, Texas, Nevada, and Northern and Southern California, and worked with them in Costa Mesa and Los Alamitos. They’re typically one of the best firms in the industry. My issues are specific to Fullerton. First, the rates — their commercial rates are by far the highest, so for that reason alone they wouldn’t be in my top three. I also have compliance concerns that weren’t addressed. To fix a problem you have to identify it: you gave them a rate increase to reach AB 1826 compliance, yet you’re at about 6% compliance. And on AB 341 — you used to have mixed-waste processing (the Taormina brothers’ operation) that sorted your trash and pulled out recycling, which counts as AB 341 compliance; that was taken away with no alternative and no price break. Those service issues weren’t resolved. So — a great firm in many areas, but I don’t think they’ve been a great firm for Fullerton the last three or four years.

Athens would be fifth for me, purely on pricing — great capabilities, facilities, service, and recommendations, but their residential rate is the highest and their commercial rate is also among the highest.

I hate to drop Universal Waste to fourth, because I think the Blackburn family is wonderful and they do a great job in Los Alamitos. As the low-cost non-union provider — I congratulate the ad hoc committee for putting Valley Vista back in, because Valley Vista has the only high-diversion organic-waste processing facility that CalRecycle has approved in Southern California, which would let multifamily properties use just two containers and return to mixed-waste processing. Universal is working to get that designation but doesn’t have it yet, and Valley Vista lowered their price to the point where they’re very close. So on facility alone, that drops Universal to fourth for me.

EDCO was my number one — I agreed with staff initially. But the initial cash figure, and I think they raised their commercial rates slightly, plus asking for a 20-year term tied to the facility they’d build in the city — enough variables to move them down. That moved Valley Vista into second, just by being very good across the board — very low commercial rates and a competitive residential rate. So I think CR&R was the best overall offer. The upfront-payment tables you saw were my red flag — not that I’m an attorney, but those payments are costs. So that’s my study and personal opinion, not necessarily staff’s.

Council Member Valencia: Since Valley Vista was brought up to number two — a quick follow-up. You said Valley Vista serves smaller cities; the comparable used here is El Monte, with only 100,000 residents. Do they have the capacity to scale to a city our size, especially given we also have a university? And didn’t they have to renegotiate their contract with Cyprus because they came in low?

Mike Valley: That was actually done in what I think was their second amendment — they’ve had four. I just did a compliance review where I looked at their earnings and margins, and they did fairly well. My feeling is that if they have a track record with 15 or so cities — from Pasadena down to Cypress — they could handle your city. Their facility definitely could; it’s one of the leading facilities for size and ability to handle traffic. Personally, I wouldn’t be afraid of them being able to do it — that’s why they’d be my number two.

Mayor Jung: Any other questions? Very good.

Council Comments

Mayor Jung: I’ll kick off the comment portion. My top three were CR&R, Valley Vista, and EDCO. I had concerns with EDCO — they were third for me. I was concerned in the same manner Council Member Zahra pointed out. Their $15 million upfront payment is impressive and hard to ignore; I’m pretty sure they’ve read the newspaper coverage of the city’s financial challenges, and this is their way of addressing that. But it comes with very specific strings: EDCO wants a 20-year fixed term — twice as long as the RFP’s 10 years — which obligates us to a very long-term relationship that may not be best over that length of time. Twenty years is incredibly long; I don’t know that I’ll be alive then, and certainly none of us will be on council. The contract also increases CPI by 4.01% compounding every year, which is extraordinarily expensive when residents and businesses are all trying to save. That’s roughly $1.3 million more per year — so to Council Member Zahra’s question about how it’s recouped, that’s how — a nearly $42 million increase in cost of service over the term. That’s not nothing, and it’s a cost borne by residents and businesses. That’s unacceptable to me.

So my top two, based fundamentally on where their redraws landed — and I think making them sharpen their pencils was a good process — are CR&R and Valley Vista. The one caveat: CR&R is union, Valley Vista is non-union, and so is Republic. Republic hasn’t been terrific the last three years, but I don’t know that we’ve been terrific as a council either — you can blame me for that — so I want to give some grace. Their drivers know the routes, they’re already here, and they’re a union outfit.

If I were to make a recommendation right now — and we’re not deciding tonight — it’s that the City Council embargo ends tonight. So far none of us have had the opportunity to be educated by the vendors one-on-one; it’s all gone through staff and our consultant, which was fair up to now. But for a 10-year contract, we all need a seat at the table, to voice our priorities and to hold public hearings so the public can be heard. So my direction is: end the embargo and begin final negotiating terms with Republic, Valley Vista, and CR&R, with a final choice by this Council in September.

Council Member Zahra: I don’t mind removing the embargo, since we started it — I think it would help. But it should be structured so these meetings aren’t held at cafes and coffee shops, but at the city, with staff present and notes taken, for transparency.

On Valley Vista — they came with a good proposal, but I’m not convinced they can scale to a city our size, especially on a 10-year contract; that’s a risk, and I don’t think we should put our residents at risk. They’re also non-union, which puts some of our residents at risk of losing their jobs — so that’s a nonstarter for me. Universal is the same situation, so I’d exclude those two. Athens came in quite high. CR&R stands out as a decent proposal — lower commercial rate, a fair contract. I’d like to see unlimited bulky-item removal and maybe a slightly better deal on rates.

On Republic — they’re the incumbent, so I’m always in favor of giving them the opportunity to come back with a rebuttal, which helps avoid a disruption in service. But they disappointed me by coming back with this $10 million thing, which nobody on council or staff requested. They need to work on their commercial rates, and we need to be in compliance on all regulatory aspects.

On the advances — they need to go. We shouldn’t be negotiating anything new, unprecedented, or complicated; this should be a simple contract for trash removal. We can’t burden residents and future residents with legal challenges and hidden fees. So that needs to go immediately. Same with EDCO — they’d be on my list if they removed the whole $15 million advance and went back to basic rates and services. And whoever is chosen, we need to make sure our workers are taken care of.

Mayor Jung: Good thoughts. Council Member Charles?

Council Member Charles: Thank you. I hear some agreement — CR&R is looking like a standout, and for me being non-union is a nonstarter; it just is. Valley Vista’s proposal showed no support for a strong union — at least Universal Waste said they put it to a vote of their employees, who decided to be non-union. I disagree with that decision, but that’s what they decided. So I’m not in favor of Valley Vista, though I understand my colleagues wanting to leave them in the mix, and I wouldn’t throw a fit about it. Republic, of course, deserves a chance to keep at this — without the $10 million upfront, maybe coming in with much more competitive rates.

Two things stood out to me about CR&R. First, going back to Mr. Otter’s comment — as an HOA treasurer, he’s done great work, and he sent us the full scope of his analysis. I live in a complex with an HOA myself — about 60 townhomes; I’m a renter, but the owner pays into these things. Mr. Otter also did a lot of legwork talking to about 14 other HOAs across the city, not just the east side. It’s such an important issue that multifamily doesn’t get treated the same as industrial or commercial — it’s a different entity. What I appreciate about CR&R is that their updated proposal specifically called out wanting to negotiate multifamily separately from commercial, and if you look at Mr. Otter’s analysis, which will be in the public record, single-family versus multifamily is very close. Equity matters — it shouldn’t matter whether you own or rent; there needs to be parity where possible.

Second — and this is coming from a public-health perspective and my own family life — CR&R talked about things like residential sharps collection and compost delivered directly to people’s houses. That’s real public-health and sustainability practice we don’t see much in this city. I’d love for our downtown restaurants and establishments to have sharps collection in their bathrooms, as some other cities do. So many people manage sharps at home now — type 2 diabetes, Ozempic, rheumatoid-arthritis drugs, all needle-injected. Disposing of them is difficult; you often have to order supplies and take them back to a provider. A company that acknowledges that would help a lot of people, especially seniors. So I appreciated those. I’m happy to give Republic another chance, and if colleagues still want to hear from Valley Vista, so be it.

Mayor Jung: Council Member Valencia, anything to add?

Council Member Valencia: Since I’ve been with this RFP since day one, I’ve been able to look at all the information on the different proposals and talk to staff, so I appreciate everyone’s hard work. My picks have changed over the course of the process — I’ve enjoyed reading everybody’s “Christmas wish list” of what they want to give the city.

My top three: first, I want to work with Republic Services and give them a fair opportunity, building on what they’ve started with our city. They know our routes, they’ve heard what we need, and I think they’re listening. There are still concerns to be worked out, and I’d like to lift the embargo so we can have conversations with the haulers. Second, Valley Vista — I liked their no-cost street sweeping and procurement support for SB 1383, and their rate is on the lower end. Third, Athens — I really appreciate their proposal, and they have no hidden future costs, which is appealing, but their rate is so high it’s hard to put that hike on residents right now. We’re in a financial crisis, and I don’t want to add more on our residents. So those are my picks.

Mayor Jung: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, close us out.

Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap: A few comments. First, I want to thank Mr. Otter — the analysis he prepared was one of the most valuable we’ve seen in this entire process, and it answered a question I’d raised with staff several times: what’s going on with commercial rates? Largely, commercial property owners end up subsidizing residential, and this table shows that at a disparity of rates. As we move forward — these rates are proposed, not set in stone — I’d encourage the negotiating team, whichever hauler is selected, to do a better job narrowing these margins. If there’s an opportunity for citizen engagement, Mr. Otter has offered his services and would be a great resource.

We’re up here to take care of our residents. We can trust the employees of these companies to make the best decisions for their own careers, but our job is to make the best decision for our community — the best overall value. I think there was value in going to a best-and-final, and additional value in bringing back a shorter list — though we ended up with six or seven; I’d have preferred an abbreviated list, because it put a lot of people through an unnecessary exercise. But looking at it tonight, I’d be prepared to go forward with the top two: CR&R clearly my number one, EDCO second.

On the upfront money — I’m not opposed to it as long as it is just that. But to the extent the city, and specifically the ratepayer, would essentially be making a high-interest payment on a loan vehicle — as EDCO proposed over 20 years — that’s a nonstarter for me. There are plenty of other city contracts, including OCP, where public benefits are provided; Republic currently provides public benefits. Funds for roads and streets are very important, but it needs to go specifically to what it’s intended for — not just a check to the general fund that staff allocates to payroll and salaries. Roads and streets I think is perfectly suitable, and something I’d support.

A question, not a comment: do we have any idea how much we’ve spent on additional consulting, attorney fees, and staff fees because of this whole ordeal — because of Republic’s unwillingness or inability to come to the negotiating table early on?

Staff: I don’t have the exact figure. I could put something together for council — it was certainly mid-six figures.

Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap: Let’s use an exact figure — for Public Works. My last comment: I think we should put the bulk of the compliance on the back of the waste hauler. That’s not something the city should be footing; it’s something they need to take care of as part of their service. So, with that, I’ve made my comments about CR&R.

Motion and Vote

Mayor Jung: It looks like we’re pretty much in agreement on moving CR&R forward. I heard from a majority of my colleagues that they agree on Republic moving forward as our current hauler — these are two union haulers. I’d also appreciate council supporting me on including a non-union firm, to compare like for like, which is the number-two firm from our consultant this evening, and also the Mayor Pro Tem’s question — Valley Vista.

I’m making this as a motion because the City Attorney says I have to, even though tonight was to provide direction. As part of the motion, I want to lift the embargo, and I want to mandate two public meetings for the three haulers that move forward, so they answer the public’s questions. This is a 10-year contract that fixes us down for an incredible length of time — certainly more than I’ll be on this council. And I want to clarify that Republic should lift their $10 million gift and incorporate that back into rates when this comes back before us in September. With that, I’ll seek a second.

Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap: A question, going back — how far do we need to get into refining the specifics of the proposals? I had some comments and thoughts as well. Does that need to come up tonight?

Mayor Jung: No. Part of my motion is lifting the embargo. Actually, I want to self-impose an embargo — I don’t want lobbying calls. You can do that, but that’s part of it, so all our concerns get addressed, because in the end we’re the voice of our constituents. Is there a second?

Council Member: Second.

Council Member: Could I get clarification on lifting the embargo?

Mayor Jung: Lifting the embargo means — as Council Member Zahra said, not the notes thing, that’s not necessary, but at City Hall with staff — you make the appointment.

Council Member: Are we talking one-on-one?

Mayor Jung: However the folks on the dais schedule it — I’m not going to determine that. This motion is just selecting the top three for final negotiations. It comes back in September, we decide what we’re doing, and staff takes the directions into consideration on the details. That’s why I said “lift the embargo” — so you speak for the constituents you represent.

Council Member: On the public comment about Republic incorporating that $10 million back into the rate structure — is it possible to vote on that individually?

Mayor Jung: I heard all of us talk about CR&R, and I heard a majority talk about Republic. I’m not interested in belaboring this or making it longer than it has to be.

Council Member Charles (substitute motion): Substitute motion: put everything you included, but only CR&R and Republic — and we’d vote on Valley Vista’s inclusion separately.

Mayor Jung: Is there a second for that?

(No second offered.)

Mayor Jung: All right, there’s a substitute motion. Madam Clerk, please call the roll — with the contingency of removing the $10 million, moving forward with CR&R and Republic as the two candidates.

City Clerk: Council Member Charles — aye. Council Member Valencia — no. Council Member Zahra — aye. Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap — no. Mayor Jung — no.

Mayor Jung: The substitute motion fails. We’ll go back to the original motion. Madam Clerk, call the roll.

City Clerk: Council Member Charles — aye. Council Member Valencia — aye. Council Member Zahra — aye. Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap — aye. Mayor Jung — aye.

Mayor Jung: The motion passes unanimously. Very well. Thank you, everybody. Have a great Fourth of July. Happy birthday, America.

(Meeting adjourned.)

Related

Discover more from Fullerton Observer

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.