San Mateo Waste Ordinance Letter

From The Desk Of

Michael Ross

ssorleahcim@comcast.net – 916.923.2215 – www.ssorleahcim.com

City Clerk’s Office                                                                    Jan. 28, 2025
San Mateo City Council 

City Hall

300 West 20th Ave.

San Mateo, CA. 94403

 

Subject: Opposition to Proposed Garbage Fee Increase and Recommendations for Fair, Sustainable Practices

Dear City of San Mateo;

I am writing to express my STRONG OPPOSITION to the proposed increase in garbage collection fees in the City of San Mateo. While I understand the financial challenges municipalities face, this proposal raises serious concerns about fairness, efficiency, and potential legal liabilities.

 

Key Concerns:

  1. Unfair Billing Practices:
    Currently, the City of San Mateo charges residents based on container size which is measured in gallons, rather than the actual weight of the refuse collected. This penalizes consumers who generate less waste, while paying the same fees as those who fill their bins to capacity and don’t recycle. Residents deserve a system that reflects their actual usage and encourages financial incentives to conserve.
  2. Potential Fraudulent Practices:
    Charging fees based on container size rather than actual weight in this day and age, could (and will) be perceived as deceptive or fraudulent because it fails to align costs with services provided as well as technological advances and abilities. Such practices certainly will expose the city to lawsuits, undermining public trust and risking unnecessary legal expenses.
  3. Lack of Incentives for Conservation:
    The current model you are endorsing fails to encourage waste reduction, recycling, or composting. A more dynamic system could align better with state conservation goals, rewarding residents who actively reduce their environmental footprint.
  4. Failure to Explore Alternatives:
    Before imposing a fee increase, the city must conduct a comprehensive analysis of alternative approaches, including the hiring of alternative companies. Advances in technology, such as trucks equipped with weight scales and RFID-tagged containers, make weight-based billing a feasible and fair solution.
  5. Competitive Bidding: Where is the evidence that San Mateo opened the process up to competitive bidding and disclosed these proposals publically?

Recommendations for Improvement

To address these concerns and ensure a fairer system while removing consumer opposition, I propose the following:

  1. Conduct 4 or 5 Separate Community Hearings:
    Organize dedicated community hearings in various parts of the city to engage residents in discussions about waste collection fees and explore alternative solutions. Transparency and public input are critical to maintaining trust.
  2. Comprehensive Cost Analysis:
    Create a cost-benefit analysis comparing the proposed flat-rate fee structure with at least three alternative, innovative models, such as weight-based pricing. This analysis should consider long-term savings for both residents and the city.
  3. Competitive Bidding Process:
    Establish a competitive bidding process to allow multiple waste collection companies to bid for the contract. Competition often provides better services at lower costs (Competition is the consumer’s best friend).
  4. Pilot Programs:
    Implement pilot programs in pre-selected neighborhoods to test weight-based pricing systems. These trials can provide valuable insights and help refine the approach before citywide implementation.
  5. Demonstrations:
    Invite providers, experts and consumers to present innovative/alternative approaches and case studies to the city council and its residents – just don’t rubber stamp things.
  6. Technological Integration:
    Equip waste collection systems with RFID-locking chips, ensuring that bins can only be opened by the homeowner or authorized refuse removal service. This technology prevents illegal dumping in residential bins and promote accountability.
  7. Legislative Safeguards:
    Establish measures to ensure any changes to waste collection fees are equitable, transparent, and tied to measurable outcomes, such as increased recycling rates or reduced landfill usage.

Modernized Refuse Collection: An Alternative & Better Path Forward

The Pay-As-You-Go Waste Collection Act of 2025 that I am proposing in this letter (and as an attachment), offers a viable framework for transitioning to weight-based refuse collection fees. The act would establish:

  • Fair Pricing: Residents pay based on the actual pounds of refuse collected.
  • The Use of Technological Advancements: Modern refuse trucks equipped with scales and RFID-tagged containers ensure accurate weight measurement.
  • Incentives for Conservation: Lower fees for lighter loads encourage recycling and waste reduction.
  • Save landfill space: This will save both land and money.

Communities of interest with weight-based systems, include but are not limited to:

  • Ghent (Belgium), Malmö (Sweden), Seoul (South Korea), Treviso (Italy) and Zurich (Switzerland)

Communities that have adopted weight-based systems report significant benefits:

  • Cost Savings for Residents: Studies show households save up to 30% annually under pay-as-you-throw models.
  • Environmental Impact: The EPA reports measurable increases in recycling rates, reduced landfill waste, and lower carbon emissions.
  • Equity and Transparency: Residents gain confidence knowing they are charged fairly for the services they use.

Commentary on the Success of Weight-Based Garbage Collection Programs

Success in Waste Reduction

  1. Reduction in Waste Volume:
    Weight-based garbage collection programs have generally been successful in reducing the amount of waste sent to landfills. Cities like Seoul, Zurich, and Ghent reported significant decreases in waste generation after implementing these programs, as consumers became more mindful of their disposal habits. For instance, in South Korea, food waste decreased by over 10% when weight-based systems were tested for food waste bins.
  2. Increase in Recycling Rates:
    These systems often motivate residents to sort their waste more effectively. Malmö and Treviso observed substantial increases in recycling rates, with some cities achieving rates above 70%. Households are incentivized to recycle because it is often free or cheaper than disposing of general waste.

Impact on Consumer Costs

  1. Cost Savings for Consumers:
    Many households saw cost savings, particularly those that actively reduced waste and increased recycling. For instance:
    • In Zurich, residents who minimized their non-recyclable waste paid significantly less than those who didn’t.
    • Ghent saw similar results, with households that embraced composting and recycling saving up to 30% on their waste management bills.
  1. Concerns About Equity:
    Some households, such as those with infants (who dispose of diapers) or larger families, faced higher costs despite efforts to reduce waste. This led to perceptions of unfairness and debates over whether certain groups should receive subsidies or exemptions.

Community Challenges and Troubles

  1. Social Disparities:
    Weight-based systems disproportionately affected lower-income households, particularly in cities where people lacked the means to invest in reusable or compostable alternatives. Minimal subsidies and targeted outreach programs were often needed to address these concerns.

Commentary on Community Concerns

Concerns About Equity

Weight-based systems have occasionally been criticized for disproportionately affecting larger families, households with infants (diaper waste), and low-income residents. Solutions include:

  • Implementing reduced rates for low-income households and families with unique waste needs.
  • Providing targeted outreach programs to help residents transition to compostable or reusable alternatives.
  • For example, Zurich and Malmö introduced subsidies for low-income families, successfully reducing disparities.

 

Illegal Dumping

In cities like Taipei and Limburg, weight-based systems led to illegal dumping in public spaces or neighbors’ bins. Solutions include:

  • Installing RFID-locking chips on bins to prevent unauthorized use.
  • Using surveillance cameras in common dumping areas.
  • Enforcing stricter penalties for illegal dumping.

For example, Seoul reduced illegal dumping by 30% by integrating RFID-locked bins and increasing fines.

 

Administrative and Technical Issues

Introducing smart scales or RFID bins may lead to technical challenges, including equipment malfunctions and weight disputes. Solutions include:

  • Partnering with experienced technology providers to ensure robust systems.
  • Establishing a hotline or service center to resolve disputes quickly.
  • Allocating budget for ongoing maintenance and staff training.
  • Osaka successfully addressed similar issues by creating a dedicated support team for residents.

 

 

Resistance to Change

Resistance is common when implementing new systems. Cities like Tallinn overcame this through public education campaigns, including workshops and informational pamphlets, to promote understanding and participation.

 

Social Disparities

Low-income households may struggle to afford the initial costs of transitioning to reusable or compostable materials. Solutions include:

  • Ensuring access to free or low-cost recycling and composting facilities.
  • Malmö successfully introduced such measures, achieving equity without compromising environmental goals.

Commentary on Modernized Refuse Collection

Communities adopting weight-based systems report significant benefits:

  • Waste Reduction: Food waste in South Korea dropped by 10% with weight-based collection.
  • Cost Savings: Households in Zurich saved up to 30% annually.
  • Recycling Rates: Cities like Treviso achieved recycling rates above 70%.

However, success depends on robust public education, accessible recycling infrastructure, and support for vulnerable groups.

Overall Assessment

While weight-based garbage collection systems have successfully reduced waste and increased recycling rates, and their success hinges on addressing community concerns. The most effective programs, complemented the system with:

  • Robust public education.
  • Accessible recycling infrastructure.
  • Support for vulnerable groups (e.g., families, low-income households).

Cities that struggled (e.g., Limburg) often faced challenges with enforcement and fairness. Despite these challenges, the programs are widely regarded as a significant step toward sustainable waste management.

Avoiding Legal and Financial Risks

Municipalities that fail to modernize their waste collection systems risk legal challenges. California long ago settled the issue of inequitable billing practices, ruling they were illegal and that a governmental entity could face lawsuits if the fees charged are unrelated or disproportional to actual usage. This a weight-based system not only protects the city legally but also demonstrates a commitment to fairness and innovation.

 

Call to Action

I urge the San Mateo City Council to reject the proposed fee increase and instead pursue a fair, modernized waste collection program prioritizing equity, sustainability, and public trust. By integrating weight-based billing, RFID-locking chips, and targeted support measures, the City of San Mateo can lead the way in environmental stewardship and cost-effective governance.

Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. I would be happy to provide additional information or participate in community discussions to help advance these ideas.

Sincerely,

Michael Ross
37 Seville Way

San Mateo, CA. 94402

(916) 923.2215

Attachment(s): The Pay As You Go Waste Collection Ordinance of 2025