Preview: 4/14/26 Special City council meeting
This meeting was scheduled to decide which company will become Fullerton’s trash hauler.
Meeting Summary
This meeting was scheduled to decide which company will become Fullerton’s trash hauler.
Study Session: Waste Management Proposal
Fullerton’s waste management is currently serviced by Republic Services until 6/30/27. On 9/2/26, City Council directed staff to begin receiving proposals from waste management companies. They voted on a scoring chart that assigns point totals to different categories in order to evaluate all the offers consistently and fairly. Staff is now requesting City Council vote on which company to proceed with.
An important component of this process is SB1383 compliance. SB1383 is a state law passed in 2016 that governs how companies dispose of organic material. Noncompliance with this law can result in penalties of $500-$10k per violation per day.
The Rankings With Staff Summaries
EDco Disposal
Advantages: top three in SB 1383 Compliance, Related
Experience, Safety and Customer Service, Operation, and Value
Added Services. Top scores for Document Organization, Project
Team, Other Resources, and Local Commitment. Proposing
local Terminal to house fleet and customer service in the City,
generating City revenue through property taxes, sales tax, and
potential employment opportunities for residents
Disadvantages: No negatives in any scoring category. Would
charge $1.25 per household per month if they took over
Residential billing, this would reduce their proposed rate score,
dropping them from the top spot, if City chooses hauler billing
CR&R Environmental Services
Advantages: Due to number and type of facilities, number of
franchises in Orange County and program data presented in the
proposal, CR&R scored highest in SB 1383 Compliance and second
highest in Related Experience. Received highest score for Value
Added Services, providing full SB 1383 procurement offset and
additional quantified notations totaling $800,000. Highest
interview score. Provided only lower cost landfill option.
Disadvantages: Upload challenges due to large file size resulted insubmission of complete draft without artwork, and therefore
scored lowest in the Document Organization category. Neglected
to provide performance metric and missing table and formatting
issues in the Safety and Customer Service area of the proposal.
Universal Waste Systems
Advantages: Second-highest in Project Team and Resumes, Value
Added Services, and Local Commitment. Highest ranked in
Proposed Rates. Ownership of multiple regional disposal
processing facilities, along with a solid waste truck and container
manufacturing company, provides an operational advantage.
Disadvantages: Minimal experience with serving a citycomparable to Fullerton, and rolling out a large scale commercial
organics program.
NASA Services
Advantages: Scored well in most categories, and received the
highest mark for Proposed Rates and References.
Disadvantages: Size of firm and limited number of exclusivemunicipal franchises. Minimal Safety and Customer Service
information submitted in proposal, and not as detailed as other
proposers. Limited Value Added Services provided received
lowest score.
ATHENS SERVICES
Advantages: They scored highest in Related Experience, and
Safety and Customer Service. Other than pricing, one of the
highest rated firms.
Disadvantages: More exceptions to the agreement than mostproposers, and their pricing was significantly higher.
Valley Vista Services
Advantages: Interviewed very well, and presented the largest
discount in pricing in their resubmittal to address actual County
Landfill rates for July 2027. Very good scores on 9 out of 15
categories including third highest scoring on price.
Disadvantages: Some reviewers felt the proposal was notorganized well and noted missing attachments. Referenced letter
from insurance company was not attached which also impacted
financial ability to perform scores by a number of evaluators.
Concerns over compliance order in Pasadena, insufficient SB 1383
compliance detail, and limited examples of educational materials
in comparison to other proposers. Safety and Customer Service
marked down for generalized response. Dollar value provided for
enhancements was below average.
GreenWaste Recovery
Advantages: Excellent references and operations in Northern
California. One of the best organized proposals. Great local
commitment. Fullerton would be their base of operations for
planned expansion into Southern California.
Disadvantages: No local operational experience or facilities.Number of Exceptions taken to City's agreement contributed in
second-lowest score. Proposed Value Added Services did not
provide the tangible benefits of other proposers. Pricing was
among the highest.
Ware Disposal
Advantages: Document Organization, SB 1383 Compliance,
Financial Ability to Perform, and Operation scoring was good.
Disadvantages: No area in the reviews resulted in a top threescore, and only one in the top four. Lack of experience with an
exclusive franchise on par with Fullerton. Indicated letter of
commitment for organic processing not relevant to Fullerton.
Insufficient illustration of safety operations and training records.
Some apprehension with the customer service program not being
as robust and localized as other firms presented. Lowest score in
Oral Evaluation, not being as prepared or organized as other
proposers.
Republic Services
Advantages: Document Organization, Financial Ability to Perform,
and Guaranteed Organic Waste Capacity scores were above
average.
Disadvantages: Received lowest score for SB 1383 Compliance,
Operation, and References. In general, the reviewers were
concerned with the lack of acknowledgement of current contract
compliance, operational, and customer service issues. They also
received the lowest score in Exceptions, objecting to the City's
preferred CPI and age of fleet requirements. Proposed
Commercial rates were among the highest
How Do Their Services Differ?
Below shows how each company differs in general costs or services. Bid alternate refers to the increase in cost (if any) if the company bills residents directly as opposed to the city handling billing. Pricing is montly.
EDCO
Residential: $32.75
Commercial: $236.82 (up to 3 cubic yards. one pickup per week)
Bid Alternate: $1.25
Bulk Item Pickup: 4 free per year
CR&R Environmental Services
Residential: $32.64
Commercial: $275.67 (up to 3 cubic yards. one pickup per week)
Bid Alternate: $0
Bulk Item Pickup: 4 free per year
Universal Waste Systems
Residential: $20.69
Commercial: $261.98 (up to 3 cubic yards. one pickup per week)
Bid Alternate: $1.45 per customer per household per month
Bulk Item Pickup: 4 free per year
NASA Services
Residential: $26.00
Commercial: $206.00 (up to 3 cubic yards. one pickup per week)
Bid Alternate: $120,000 per year per household
Bulk Item Pickup: 4 free per year
Athens
Residential: $42.32
Commercial: $318.37 (one bin. one pickup per week)
Bid Alternate: $0
Bulk Item Pickup: 4 free per year
Valley Vista Services
Residential: $29.24
Commercial: $242.10 (up to 3 cubic yards. one pickup per week)
Bid Alternate: $0.53 per customer per household per month
Bulk Item Pickup: 4 free per year. $40 after that + $20 per item
GreenWaste Recovery
Residential: $34.94
Commercial: $312 (up to 3 cubic yards. one pickup per week)
Bid Alternate: $0
Ware Disposal
Residential: $37.73
Commercial: $311.74 (up to 3 cubic yards. one pickup per week)
Bid Alternate: $1.55 per customer per household per month
Bulk Item Pickup: 4 free per year
Republic Services
Residential: $25.82
Commercial: $351.96 (up to 3 cubic yards. one pickup per week)
Bid Alternate: $0
Bulk Item Pickup: Unlimited (by request)
How Did Each Company Score?
Waste management scores by category
Policy Perspective
Waste management contracts are one of the most expensive and longest contracts that cities enter into. It is important that the decision is not made lightly. Up for consideration are the top three (EDCO, CR&R, and Universal) as well as three companies requested by Jung and Valencia: Athens (5), Valley Vista (6), and Republic (9).
The Top 3
EDCO ranks highest because they have competitive pricing, a proven track record, quality customer service, and excellent organization and compliance. Their local terminal would also provide jobs and additional revenue to the city. They are the strongest choice overall and would be the safest option for the City.
CR&R ranks second mostly due to excellent compliance, experience, facilities, and extra services. This option is the best compliance-heavy proposal, providing strong legal protection and infrastructure.
Universal ranks largely due to their rates, customer service, and extra services. This option would be the best “value” proposal, providing the best rates while still scoring high in operations. The main concern with this option is their lack of experience with cities Fullerton’s size or larger.
Other Considerations
Athens is a very large company with extensive experience servicing large cities. They have excellent compliance with state law and quality customer service. However, they rank last in pricing due to rates significantly higher than the other proposals.
Valley Vista offers competitive pricing but ranks very low in compliance, financial capability, organization, and customer service. Given that Universal offers better rates with better services, Valley Vista is a weak choice with no distinctive benefits.
Republic ranks high in financial capability but very low in most other categories. They are arguably the weakest option on this list.
Recap: 4/7/26 City Council Meeting
City Council denied the signal light at the Valley View x Euclid intersection (3-2, Zahra & Charles opposed), approved increasing the cannabis enforcement penalties (unanimous), and approved the IT contract (unanimous)
Explanations of the items being discussed can be found in the meeting preview.
Meeting Summary
City Council denied the signal light at the Valley View x Euclid intersection (3-2, Zahra & Charles opposed), approved increasing the cannabis enforcement penalties (unanimous), and approved the IT contract (unanimous)
Explanations of the items being discussed can be found in the meeting preview.
Agenda Order Changed
A large crowd attended the meeting regarding the signal light. Jung stated that he will be moving public comment to the end of the meeting in order to get to the signal light as soon as possible. Dunlap expressed support. Charles objected, stating there are people who want to speak but aren’t here yet as they assumed the agenda order would remain unchanged. Jung replied “your objection is noted”. Charles made the motion, seconded by Zahra, to overrule Jung and allow the agenda to remain unchanged. Motion failed 2-3 (Jung, Dunlap, Valencia opposed).
A couple of residents messaged me sharing that they were unable to speak on the item due to this change. They also shared that they were having issues with joining Zoom and were in communication with the clerk’s office who confirmed they were having issues.
Signal Light
Prior to public comment, it was disclosed that Jung inadvertently selected “Reply All” to an email to the City Council in which he expressed his position on the item. Under California law, City Councilmembers may not discuss how they will vote on an item with a majority of councilmembers. The City Attorney stated that because Jung immediately notified him of the issue and stated it was inadvertent, it is not necessary for him to recuse himself on this item.
Public comment included many residents who lived in the area that this light would be installed. Most speakers spoke in opposition to the project, with a few speaking in support. The opposition expressed concerns about vehicles cutting through their neighborhood and increased traffic congestion. Those in support spoke on the safety issues at this intersection, the City’s legal liability should a collision occur, and the poor visibility given the slope of the road.
Jung opened the discussion by stating that he believes the solution is increased enforcement of speeding in the area and will be voting no.
Zahra stated that he thinks the majority will vote to deny this, and if that is the case, that they direct staff to explore other options to improve the safety at this intersection.
Charles asked the City’s traffic engineer what they have done so far to address the safety concerns: widened the lanes, changed the angle of turns, improved the signage, and installed speed signs. These have not resolved the safety issue. Charles said that signal lights are used to control dangerous traffic, and that speed humps can be used to limit cut-through traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods. She said she doesn’t like to go against public opinion, but that this is a safety issue that she thinks they need to take seriously.
Dunlap stated that the problem with this intersection is Euclid, not Valley View. He said that they sent this item back to the Transportation Commission to address resident concerns yet the item returned back to them unchanged. Dunlap closed by saying that the signal light would increase traffic and that the “common sense impact” is bad.
Valencia said that she appreciates people coming out and speaking and will be voting no.
Zahra requested that in the denial that they give staff specific instructions as to how to solve the safety issue. Jung, Dunlap, and Valencia said that staff understands what they need to do. Charles pushed back saying that the traffic engineer made it clear that they have tried many different options already. The City Manager joined the discussion to confirm that staff has tried many measures and so he can’t guarantee that staff will come back with a solution.
City Council voted to deny the signal light installation 3-2 (Charles & Zahra opposed)
Cannabis Enforcement
Jung stated that there are bad actors who see the current penalties as simply a cost of doing business. He agrees with streamlining enforcement and increasing penalties, moving to approve this item with Zahra seconding.
Zahra stated that this is helpful for enforcement in the short term, but that this is not the long term solution. He said that there is a market for cannabis in the city, and it is not difficult for people to obtain it. So, the city’s current policy has been ineffective and a cost to the city. The long term solution would be to bring those consumers into regulated shops that will be safer and offer the city some control. He also spoke about how this could generate revenue for the city, as opposed to being a financial burden.
Charles asked what the legal dispensaries in Costa Mesa, a city that implemented a similar policy, thought about this current policy. Staff shared that legal dispensaries generally like the increased enforcement as it helps consumers choose the regulated shops over the illegal dispensaries.
Item approved 5-0
IT Contract
City Council had questions on the details of the contract, the company’s history, and potential impacts to service levels. Council found no major concerns.
Item approved 5-0
Public Comment
Multiple public commenters spoke on tobacco shops violating current laws, particularly in selling flavored e-cigarettes, selling to minors, and selling illicit drugs.
One commenter spoke on construction tax fraud, that is, the paying of contractors under the table to evade taxes. He continued by saying that these practices hurt workers, but also hurt companies who are following the law as they have to compete with others who are breaking the rules. Lastly, these practices hurt the city as they don’t receive the taxable revenue that could be used to support city services. At least two dozen tradespeople in orange vests were in attendance, with a handful holding signs supporting the commenter’s statement.
One commenter spoke on Dunlap’s behavior last meeting, saying that it violated policy by creating a hostile work environment. Another commenter expressed concerns about residential construction in their neighborhood, which is a preservation district. The next commenter spoke on the City sending him a cease-and-desist letter (see most recent video). Other topics discussed: the decision to move public comment to the end of the meeting, ongoing efforts to recover the remains of fallen soldiers, the parks master plan, the budget error, updating the City’s municipal code, and the actions of ICE.
Council Reports
The Housing Director shared that the construction in the preservation district can only be regulated by objective standards, so there are certain features that they can’t control, particularly the windows.
The City Manager stated that they are in the process of contacting vendors to perform a forensic audit on the budget error.
Zahra expressed support for an investigation into the budget error to rebuild trust with the community. He said he hopes it will come back soon and that it is presented a transparent manner. He disagreed with the decision to send a cease-and-desist. He then asked to agendize a local tobacco license program to regulate the industry within the city, requesting it return within 45 days. Charles seconded.
Charles spoke about her office hours, ICE’s actions, recent events she’s attended, and asked residents to consider signing up for her newsletter.
Valencia spoke on recent events she’s attended.
Dunlap spoke about the budget issue, requesting that the staff bring back an item to expand the Fiscal Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee and exploring cuts/privatization of services.
Preview: 4/7/26 City council meeting
This meeting includes a proposed traffic signal installation, changes to cannabis enforcement policy, and several infrastructure projects
Meeting Summary
This meeting includes a proposed traffic signal installation, changes to cannabis enforcement policy, and several infrastructure projects
Consent calendar (Items 1-10)
The consent calendar are typically routine items that are passed in bulk by the City Council. Any item can be pulled from the consent calendar by a single City Councilmember for a separate vote and/or discussion
March 17, 2026 meeting minutes
The minutes of the prior City Council meeting. This documents the events that took place in writing
classification plan update
This renames the “Secretary” → “Administrative Aide” to better align with modern standards
loan consolidation agreement for east fullerton villas
This restructures a loan from 1994 on an affordable housing project so the City can actually receive steady payments instead of almost nothing
us army corp of engineers utility easement renewals
The City is renewing easements for sewer and drain infrastructure. If they don’t, they’d have to remove critical infrastructure which would be costly
additional microsoft renewal licenses emergency purchase
The City had to spend an additional ~$40k on Microsoft licenses after underestimating what was needed to keep critical systems running. This asks for retroactive approval (emergencies/time-sensitive needs allow this)
critical network infrastructure equipment purchase
The City spent ~$109k to replace failing network equipment at fire stations to avoid disruptions to emergency response systems. This asks for retroactive approval
purchase order for solar powered streetlights
The City plans to spend up to $100k per year to gradually replace unreliable streetlights with solar-powered ones
palm street area street rehabilitation
The City is approving a $2 million street repair project, partially funded by neighboring cities, to fix severely deteriorated roads.
baker avenue rehabilitation
The City is approving a ~$533k project to repair a deteriorated street near a school, including sidewalks and accessibility upgrades
coronado area water main replacement
The City is replacing aging water pipes that have a history of breaking as part of a broader plan to upgrade water infrastructure
regular business (items 11 through 13)
11. Euclid and Valley view signal light
Problem: Residents in the area expressed concerns with high speeds in the area and frequent crashes. Staff conducted studies and tried various solutions, yet the traffic conditions remain mostly unchanged
Proposed Solution: Staff recommends that City Council install a signal light at this intersection to improve safety and reduce the City’s liability
Why This Matters: Impacts public safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers
Policy Perspective: Staff has exhausted all reasonable alternatives to improve safety at this intersection short of a signal light. It is of the utmost importance that the City implement the infrastructure necessary to keep residents safe, and as it stands, there are no alternatives to do so. This signal light would protect pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers, while having minimal impact on the nearby neighborhoods.
12. Cannabis fines and penalties
Problem: Fullerton does not allow dispensaries within the city. The current enforcement process is costly, time-consuming, requires coordination between multiple departments, and has been ineffective in permanently shutting down these dispensaries.
Proposed Solution: Staff recommends the City strengthen enforcement using recently passed state laws that allow costlier fines and more tools for enforcement.
Why This Matters: Costs the City money, affects local businesses and landlords, and impacts public safety.
Policy Perspective: Fullerton is a college town, and thus, likely has a relatively larger market for cannabis compared to other cities. Even with these stronger enforcement measures, the demand will still exist, and thus illegal dispensaries will be a persistent issue.
Rather than waste funds on legal costs and staff time, the City should pursue legalization of dispensaries to collect additional revenue and control a market that is currently operating without oversight. This would require a shift in policy direction and could not be immediately implemented at this meeting.
If the council wishes to proceed with their current policy direction, the recommended changes are superior to our current policies and will allow more costs to be recovered.
13. IT management and support services
Problem: The City contracted their IT services out to Glass Box Technology in 2020 following a cybersecurity incident. This agreement costs $3.6 million a year and expires in June 2026. Staff has identified another qualified firm who can provide similar services at a reduced cost
Proposed Solution: Enter into a contract with Infinity Technologies until June 2029, with two optional one-year extensions. This would cost ~$2 million, saving $1.6 million annually
Why This Matters: City operations rely on technology that need to be serviced by professionals. IT services are critical infrastructure to every city in this era
Policy Perspective: This is a qualified firm and can provide similar services at a reduced cost.