Dump Closure Could Increase Garbage Fees

Los Angeles City Council members acknowledged Tuesday that residents throughout the city would face higher garbage collection fees if the council decides to close the Lopez Canyon landfill when its permit expires next year.

Sanitation officials have argued that the landfill near Lake View Terrace has the capacity to accept trash into the next century and warned that it will cost $55.7 million to close it in February and haul the refuse to private dumps.

For that reason, sanitation officials have recommended extending the life of the landfill until 2001. But residents near the site and their elected representatives have urged that the dump be closed, saying it has created traffic, noise and odors.

Although the council made no final decision during a debate on the issue Tuesday, several members suggested that they will soon have to discuss increasing fees to pay for the $55.7-million cost associated with closing the dump.

“We need to start asking ourselves how we are going to pay for the cost of this,” said Councilwoman Laura Chick, who represents parts of the west San Fernando Valley.

To pay the cost of closing the dump, the city would have to increase the $4.50 monthly fee for single-family homes to $6 and raise the $3 monthly fee for apartment renters to $4, according to sanitation officials.

Councilman Mike Hernandez, who represents parts of East Los Angeles, said he will introduce a motion today, asking the Bureau of Sanitation to study the possibility of adding a new fee to pay the cost of closing the dump.

He said he wants to add a new fee instead of increasing the current one so that residents will realize the cost of closing the dump, which will in turn encourage them to recycle more often. Hernandez suggested calling it a “dump” fee.

But Councilman Richard Alarcon, who has opposed any extension of the operation of the dump in his northeast Valley district, questioned the estimated cost of closing it, saying the Bureau of Sanitation has yet to complete adequate studies.

Still, he said a small increase in the collection fee may be a reasonable burden on residents for closing the dump.

“I think $1.50 a month to get out of the landfill business might be a reasonable consideration,” he said.

But Alarcon added that the city may be able to reduce the cost of closing the dump by adopting an “extra capacity fee” for residents who request an extra trash container.

The city currently charges nothing for an additional 30-gallon trash container but sanitation officials have suggested a $5-per-month fee. As proposed, the extra capacity fee could raise up to $8 million a year. The proposal calls for waiving the fee for low-income families.

The discussion about new fees was the latest chapter in a long saga over the 400-acre landfill. Lopez Canyon landfill, the only city-owned dump, takes in about 80% of the city’s trash.

In 1991, sanitation officials asked for and received a permit extension to operate the dump until February, 1996, and promised to seek no further extensions.

Alarcon and Lake View Terrace residents say that another extension would break that promise and force the community to bear the burden of five more years of traffic, noise and odors.

A final decision on Lopez Canyon and any increases in fees was put off until Dec. 13.

During Tuesday’s debate, Alarcon’s frustration over the dump peaked as he accused a council committee of violating the state’s open meeting law when it recommended on Monday extending the life of the Lopez Canyon landfill until 2001.

Alarcon said the Environmental Quality and Waste Management Committee violated the Ralph M. Brown Act because it voted on the extension without notifying the public that it would take up the issue. The committee’s agenda, Alarcon argued, simply suggested that the committee would discuss recycling issues at Lopez Canyon and did not suggest that a final recommendation on the extension would be made.

The Brown Act prohibits government bodies from taking action on items that are not on the posted agenda.

Alarcon said he has written a letter to the city attorney’s office, asking that the decision be nullified.

“I say that is a violation of the Brown Act,” he said.

Councilman Marvin Braude, chairman of the committee, rejected that charge, saying he was told by a deputy city attorney that the committee’s decision was appropriate.

“It rolls right off my back,” he said of Alarcon’s allegations.