D. A. Reviews Award of Trash Collection : Lancaster: The effort will focus on whether City Council members acted legally. Authorities have received citizen complaints with ‘vague’ allegations.

In response to citizen complaints, the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office is reviewing the Lancaster City Council’s decision in July to award most residential trash collection in the city to a subsidiary of the nation’s largest trash hauler.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Gail Ehrlich of the office’s special investigations division said the review will focus on whether council members acted illegally in approving an agreement with a subsidiary of Waste Management Inc. The review could lead to an investigation or determine that there were no irregularities.

Ehrlich said her office had received several citizen complaints containing only “vague” allegations about the council action. She declined to be more specific, identify those complaining, give the number of complaints or say when the office began its review.

Lancaster City Atty. David McEwen said he knew that at least one person had complained to prosecutors last year. But McEwen said he knew of no legal problem with the council’s action. He and Waste Management executives said they were unaware of the district attorney’s review.

Under the council’s 4-1 vote July 1, Waste Management of California was given the exclusive right to serve about 90% of the city’s residential customers, all those north of Avenue L.

Previously, Waste Management, which had about 70% of Lancaster’s residential customers, had competed citywide with the area’s other major hauler, Antelope Valley Rubbish, which had about 30%. The council action gave Antelope Valley Rubbish the 10% of customers south of Avenue L.

Phil Arklin, co-owner of Antelope Valley Rubbish, said he had not complained to the district attorney and was unaware of the review.

The council action stirred resentment among residents who were forced to switch haulers and pay Waste Management’s rate, which is $2 more a month.

The district attorney’s office in 1987 charged Waste Management of California with price fixing and antitrust violations as part of an alleged countywide conspiracy. In 1989, Waste Management pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count and was fined $1 million, prosecutors said.