(February 13)  The Mojave Water Agency’s Tactical Advisory Committee has recommended against the agency relying upon water available from the Cadiz Water Project as part of its integrated water management plan.
Los Angeles-based Cadiz, Inc. is undertaking what is officially known as the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project, a plan to siphon billions of gallons of water from the East Mojave Desert for use elsewhere.  Since the 1980s, Cadiz, Inc. has operated a 500-acre organic grape, citrus, melon and pepper farm in the Cadiz Valley, thereby obtaining water pumping rights. In 2012 Cadiz, Inc.arranged to have the Santa Margarita Water District, to which it is contracted to deliver a portion of the water to be extracted from the desert, assume lead agency status for the project’s approval. Many of those opposed to the project considered that to be a conflict of interest.
San Bernardino County contemplated, but in March 2012 ultimately elected against, challenging Orange County-based Santa Margarita’s assumption of that lead agency status on the project. Instead on May 1, 2012 the county entered into a memorandum of understanding with that district and Cadiz, Inc. and its corporate entities, including the Fenner Valley Mutual Water Company, allowing Santa Margarita to oversee the environmental impact report for the project and conduct the public hearings related to project approval.
On July 31, 2012, the Santa Margarita Water District Board of Directors approved the Cadiz Water Project and certified the environmental impact report for the Cadiz Water project.
On October 1, 2012, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors gave approval to a groundwater monitoring plan to facilitate completion of the project.
Cadiz intends to import the lion’s share of the water to Orange and Los Angeles counties but is also looking to sell water to other entities in Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
The Mojave Water Agency, which oversees water usage in the western Mojave communities of Apple Valley, Adelanto, Hesperia, Baldy Mesa, Victorville and Barstow, Helendale and Oro Grande, is interested in augmenting that region’s water supply and has done so by purchasing water from the State Water Project.
As part of its Integrated Water Management Plan, the agency contemplated becoming one of Cadiz, Inc.’s customers.
Last week, however, the Mojave Water Agency heard protests from various individuals opposed to the Cadiz project.
Historically, entities in San Bernardino, Redlands, Riverside, Rialto, Anaheim and Los Angeles have sought to commandeer water originating in the western Mojave Desert, all of which included elaborate schemes involving large scale aqueducts to carry the water down the Cajon Pass. None of those succeeded after residents of the Victor Valley opposed those efforts. Indeed, the Mojave Water Agency was formed in part to manage the West Mojave’s water resources and prevent it from being diverted elsewhere.
At least one of those protesting against incorporating Cadiz, Inc.’s water into the MWA Integrated Water Management Plan referenced those earlier efforts to seize the Victor Valley’s water for distant use, asserting the Mojave Water Agency would set a bad legal precedent and lose its moral authority to oppose any efforts to take local water if it went along with the Orange County raid on the East Mojave’s water supply.
Those opposed to the Cadiz project object to the use of the terms “conservation” and “storage” in the official name of the project, maintaining that the project purports to “conserve” water by exporting it for consumptive use. Legal challenges to the project, which are ongoing, contend that Cadiz, Inc. and the Santa Margarita Water District should have included the Metropolitan Water District, state or regional water resources control boards, and the California Department of Fish and Game, and the state Department of Water Resources as responsible agencies in the environmental impact reporting drafting process. The Santa Margarita Water District did not do so.
Opponents of the project also maintain that the county of San Bernardino should have been the lead agency overseeing the approval of the project and its environmental certification as opposed to the Santa Margarita Water District.
The MWA’s Tactical Advisory Committee on February 6, after a protracted debate, voted to advise the Mojave Water Agency board of directors to not incorporate Cadiz Water Project water as an element of its water management plan.
Cadiz, Inc. and the Santa Margarita maintain that there is adequate legal precedent for diverting water from one region to another.

(February 12)  It now appears that the real dogfight in this year’s 31st Congressional District race will be between Democrats Joe Baca and Pete Aguilar, now that the incumbent, Republican Gary Miller, has announced he will not seek re-election.
Ever since Miller in 2012 gained election in the 31st District, which leans Democratic, the prospects for the 2014 race have been closely watched and there has been much speculation about the eventual final matchup and outcome in the district race.
With the Republicans holding a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives and California being an overwhelming Democratic state, Miller’s hold on the 31st Congressional District provoked the Democrats to begin early and in earnest in their efforts to unseat him as part of a larger strategy to capture control of both houses of the legislature.
Miller’s 2012 victory in the 30th Congressional District, which had been redrawn after the 2010 Census, was an extraordinary occurrence.
In 2012, California had switched to an open primary system, which ended sequestered party ballots and effectively ended the tradition of guaranteeing that a Democrat would face a Republican in the November general election.
In the 31st District, which encompasses parts of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga, and stretches eastward across San Bernardino County through a large portion of Fontana, Rialto, Colton, San Bernardino and Redlands, four Democrats – Pete Aguilar, Justin Kim, Rita Ramirez-Dean, and Renea Wickman – sought election in 2012, as did Miller. In addition, another Republican, Bob Dutton, joined the fray in the 2012 primary. Despite the seven percent Democratic voter registration advantage in the 31st, simple mathematics hurt the Democrats as their vote was divided four ways, while the Republican vote was split two ways. Dutton and Miller proved to be the two top vote-getters and under California’s open primary arrangement, the November general election came down to a race between Republicans Miller and Dutton. Miller prevailed in that race.
With no little justification, the Democrats consider the 31st District to be one that should naturally fall to them. Of the district’s registered voters, 127,690 or 41 percent, are affiliated with the Democratic Party.  Registered Republicans in the district number 104,938, or 33.7 percent. Independent political appraisers see the 31st as a Democratic asset as well.
Even before Miller outpolled Dutton in November 2012, Democratic strategists were conferring about what steps could be taken to ensure that Democratic disarray in 2014 would not perpetuate Miller’s incumbency beyond the current Congress. In short order, a game plan was hatched by which Aguilar, who had polled the most votes among the four Democrats in the 2012 primary, was chosen as the logical party standard bearer. By promoting Aguilar early, engaging in brisk fundraising on his behalf and warding off any other Democrats so a concentrated party electoral effort to advance Aguilar can be mounted, they believed Aguilar could beat Miller in a toe-to-toe slugfest in November 2014, despite Miller’s incumbency and formidable fundraising capability.
Relatively early on, well-connected Democratic-functionaries acted to boost Aguilar.  In May 2013, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee selected Aguilar as one of five candidates nationwide to be included in its Jumpstart Program, which is intended to assist early-emerging Democrats seeking to unseat incumbent Republicans deemed to be vulnerable.
Party leaders convinced California’s two senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, to endorse Aguilar. Party donors, inside and outside California, were encouraged to provide him with campaign cash, and money started pouring into Aguilar’s political war chest. More attention was drawn to him, ensuring even more contributions, when the Washington-based news organization, Politico, in July named Aguilar one of “50 Politicos to watch in 2013.”
Joe Baca, who since 1999 had represented California in the Washington D.C.’s lower house in the heavily Democratic-leaning  42nd and 43rd Congressional districts with solid Democratic support, in 2012 found himself unseated when he was opposed by another Democrat, then-state senator Gloria Negrete-McLeod, in the race to represent the newly drawn 35th Congressional District. In the June 2012 primary Baca comfortably outpolled Negrete-McLeod 12,619 votes or 47.17 percent to 9,078 or 33.93 percent in a race that also featured Green Party Candidate  Anthony Vieyra. Nevertheless, in November 2012 Baca was vanquished by Negrete-McLeod, 61,065 votes or 54.35 percent to 51,281 votes or 45.65 percent, after Negrete-McLeod’s campaign was boosted by an infusion of $3.8 million in donations from a political action committee controlled by Republican New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, which paid for a $2.3 million television advertising blitz during the last week of the campaign.
Baca for the last ten months has defied members of his own party in their promotion of Aguilar, and he is using the name recognition he has with local voters, his indirect and residual political clout as a former member of Congress, together with an insider’s knowledge of issues and alliances to obtain big money backing from national and even international players to regain entrance to the House of Representatives. He is joined by Democratic Party activist Eloise Reyes and San Bernardino school board president Danny Tillman in challenging Aguilar.
With Miller out of the picture and no other Republicans having immediately stepped in to make an attempt to succeed Miller, the National Democratic Party’s emphasis on promoting Aguilar is very likely to be tempered in the days ahead, as it now appears quite likely that the seat will fall to a Democrat, as Miller and his prodigious fundraising capability are out of the picture.
There was nonetheless a minor indication that a Republican candidate might crop up to show the flag for the GOP in the 31st. Paul Chabot, who is already seeking state office as a successor to Michael Morrell should Morrell need to vacate his current position in the Assembly as a result of his candidacy to succeed resigned 23rd District State Senator Bill Emmerson, said he has been approached by members of his party to run for Congress in the 31st District. Chabot said he would not diverge from his current ambition with regard to the state Assembly unless Dutton does not leap into the breach.
“I am humbled by the overwhelming number of calls and emails offered by my friends and supporters to run for the congressional seat,” said Chabot. “My position is clear – I am 100 percent behind Dutton who ran for the seat in 2012, if he chooses to run. If he decides not to run, I am seriously considering making a bid.”
In announcing he would not seek reelection, Miller said he was doing so for “family reasons,” making no mention of the consideration that the Democratic Party was targeting him.
“When I came to Congress in 1999, my children were grown and out of the house. Today, we have a full house again. My wife and I are raising our three grandchildren,” he said. “It has been a great honor to spend so many years in public service, striving to make a difference for Southern California families. While there is still a lot of work to be done, it is now time for me to pass the baton.”

(February 12)  Chino Hills Public Works Commissioner Barry Fischer on January 29 tendered his resignation in apparent protest over the city’s policies and actions with regard to animal control.
The 72-year-old Fischer, who was named by the major newspaper in Chino and Chino Hills, The Chino Champion, as Chino Hills Outstanding Citizen of the Year in 2013, has been active for several years in advocating that Chino Hills operate on its own or contract with a no-kill animal shelter.
He has decried city policies and city council decisions which run counter to that goal, in particular the city’s ongoing contract with the Inland Valley Humane Society, which has a policy of euthanizing animals that come under its stewardship if adoptions are not effectuated within a 30-day deadline.
An outgrowth of Fischer’s dedication to that issue was his inability to accept  the city’s code enforcement and ensuing legal action against Charles and Lisa Price, who had taken it upon themselves to operate a private non-kill animal adoption clinic which had saved hundreds of dogs and cats from being put to sleep at the Inland Valley Humane Society facility. Ultimately, the Prices were prosecuted and convicted and sentenced to jail time for what Fischer saw as their acts of compassion and courage.
Fischer said that Charles Price was an individual of “high moral character” whose military service and volunteer work demonstrated a personal value system that should have been embraced by the community.
Fischer was councilman Peter Rogers’ appointee to the commission. In tendering his resignation,  Fischer sought to vector the community’s attention to the upcoming annual renewal of the city’s contract with the Inland Valley Humane Society in July, and suggested that city residents insist that the council either end its relationship with the society or alter the contract it has with it for animal control services to disallow the euthanizing of animals originating in Chino Hills that are taken in at its shelter.

The board of supervisors this week delayed until February 25 upholding or overturning the county planning commission’s denial of Sunlight Partners, LLC’s application for a conditional use permit to establish a 7.5 megawatt photovoltaic solar power generating facility on 80.6 acres in Helendale.
On October 17, 2013, the county planning commission conducted a public hearing to consider Sunlight Partner’s application for the conditional use permit pertaining to the project. The planning commission heard testimony from the general manager of the Helendale Community Services District, who expressed concern that the project would impact the adjacent property owned by the district, which is currently used as a park. The district stated impacts to scenic vistas from the park related to dust and blow sand originating from the project site. While the matter was continued until the November 7, 2013 county planning commission meeting, the commission, by a vote of 3-2, directed staff  to prepare findings for denial of the conditional use permit based on the project being inconsistent with the goals and policies of the general plan, which require land use compatibility. County Land Use Services Department staff indeed prepared and presented findings for the denial of the project to the planning commission.
At its November 7, 2013, meeting, only four of the planning commission’s five members were present. In addition to staff’s findings for the denial of the project, the commissioners who were present were provided with the applicant’s revised site plan that incorporated an increased setback from the park property to reduce impacts related to aesthetics and blow sand. The revised site plan showed an increase in setback from the park property to the fence line from 15 feet to 249 feet.
According to Tom Hudson, the director of the Land Use Services Department, “This design change solves an inconsistency in the initial study/mitigated negative declaration related to the minimum distance from the proposed facility to the existing off-site residences. The revised plan was presented to the planning commission for consideration.”
Additional testimony was provided by the Helendale Community Services District reiterating concerns regarding the potential impacts on the adjacent property, including blow sand and impacts to view qualities. The representative of the Helendale Community Services District also stated that she did not agree that the revised site plan presented at the hearing would reduce those impacts.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission voted 2-2 on the item with one commissioner not present. By rule, the project was denied for not having the required majority vote for approval.
On November 18, 2013, the applicant filed a timely appeal of the planning commission action to deny the project. The issues raised in the appeal application included making reference to the consideration that the planning commission dismissed staff’s original recommendation to approve the project based on findings that the project complies with the county’s general plan and development code that was supported by analysis contained in the planning commission staff report.
Moreover, according to the appeal, the findings for denial were not supported by evidence, and the denial of the project violated the California Solar Rights Act.
Three months later, in his report to the board of supervisors on Tuesday, Hudson said, “Notwithstanding the outcome at the planning commission, staff is recommending that the appeal be granted and that the project be approved. Staff believes that the revised site plan submitted by the applicant between the October 17, 2013, and November 7, 2013 planning commission meetings mitigated the concerns initially raised by the Helendale Community Services District and the planning commission. The significant increase in project setbacks assuages the concerns expressed as to aesthetics and blow sand. The increase in setbacks also resolves the issue of the minimum distance from the proposed facility to the existing off-site residences. Findings for approval have been provided based upon these revisions.”
In his presentation to the board of supervisors this week, Hudson recommended that the board overturn the planning commission’s denial of project approval in November, be he also made available the proposed findings for denial that were prepared at the direction of the planning commission and which were adopted by virtue of the 2-2 vote.
The board did not vote on the matter on February 11, postponing its decision until February 25.
The proposed project site is situated in an unincorporated county area in the desert. The primary facility access point is proposed on Smithson Road, which runs along the southern project boundary. A secondary access point is proposed on Wild Road along the northern project boundary.
The project is to entail photovoltaic panels mounted on single axis trackers, supported by steel piers driven into the ground to an appropriate depth, as determined by soil conditions. The height of the panels will not exceed nine feet. The trackers will form rows running north and south. The design proposes five concrete pads, approximately 20 feet by 40 feet that would support 500KV inverters and mechanical components. Electricity generated onsite will be delivered to the existing electrical transmission system at the connection point along Smithson Road. The site will be surrounded by an eight foot high chain link fence with a security video monitoring system. The electricity produced by the panels will be sold to Southern California Edison under two long-term power purchase agreements. The first agreement was executed in January 2012 and required power generation by July 2013. An extension has been requested. A second agreement was executed in December 2012 and requires power generation by June 2014.

(February 11)  The county board of supervisors this week gave the coroner’s office’s lead forensic pathologist a $6,000 raise to ensure that her pay grade is not exceeded by her lesser-experienced colleagues.
Dr. Chanikarn Changsri has been with the coroner’s division since March 2006. The coroner’s division investigates deaths within its jurisdiction to determine the manner and means of death. In certain instances, forensic pathologists conduct autopsies to provide expert diagnosis as to the cause of death.
One year ago, on February 12, 2013, the board of supervisors updated benefit language and contribution levels for the top tier of employees within the coroner’s division to ensure consistency with all employment groups in the county and included a salary increase to maintain parity with other counties.
On August 6, 2013, the board of supervisors approved Agreement No. 13-671 with Dr. Brian Hutchins to provide services as a forensic pathologist. Dr. Hutchins’ contract included an updated salary schedule starting at $72.12 per hour with 2.5% step advancement to a maximum hourly rate of  $101.90 per hour. Sheriff John McMahon, who also serves as the county’s titular coroner, requested that the board approve “an amendment to Dr. Changsri’s contract to align her salary at the top step of this new pay scale given her nearly eight years of service to the county.”
According to McMahon, “This increase will also enhance the department’s ability to retain this critical position.”
The board approved upping Dr. Changsri’s pay from $98.55 per hour to $101.90 per hour.

MONTCLAIR (February 12) —Heavily debt-laden CWCapital has sold Montclair Plaza to Los Angeles-based CIM Group, it was announced on Wednesday.
Since 1969, Montclair Plaza has been one of the largest commercial venues in San Bernardino County, and the sales tax revenue generated there has given Montclair a level of financial clout beyond its relative size. With its 36,664 residents, Montclair is the 16th most populous of San Bernardino County’s 24 cities.
In recent years, the once grand plaza has seen its stature diminish as other large-scale shopping operations such as The Mills in Ontario, Victorian Gardens in Rancho Cucamonga, The Shoppes in Chino Hills and the Tanger Outlets in Lenwood near Barstow have lured shoppers away.
Nevertheless, Montclair Plaza remains viable and its sale to CIM Group is an indicator that the plaza will reach its half-century mark as an ongoing and energetic mercantile concern.
In selling the Plaza, CWCapital, with a reported $2.57 billion in debt, simultaneously sold six other properties.
CIM Group has a reputation for committing to upscale commercial and hospitality properties in urban areas such as the Two California Plaza, a 52-story building in downtown Los Angeles and the Redbury Hotel in Hollywood.

(February 11)  San Bernardino County remains free of the peril represented by the Light Brown Apple Moth, according to county agricultural commissioner John G. Gardner.
The Light Brown Apple Moth, a serious pest impacting grapes, citrus, pome fruits and stone fruits, is a threat to California agriculture and to the economy of California, causing barriers to the export market. Damaging to a broad range of plant species, the Light Brown Apple Moth will take as a host many trees and ornamental species, giving it the potential to cause serious damage to natural areas and urban settings as well as to agricultural crops.
According to Gardner, “The Light Brown Apple Moth was first discovered in the San Francisco Bay Area in the fall of 2006; since then it has been detected in 24 California counties. To date, San Bernardino County has not detected the Light Brown Apple Moth. A Federal Domestic Quarantine Order was established on May 2, 2007 that required, in addition to other actions, additional Light Brown Apple Moth trapping to ensure continued interstate movement of regulated plants and plant products. San Bernardino County has performed Light Brown Apple Moth detection and trapping services on behalf  of the state through annual agreements since July 1, 2007.”
Those traps have been placed on trees and near crops at various locations throughout the county.
Gardner indicated the county would continue to monitor the situation.
“Traps will be placed alongside existing detection trap sites, so no additional personnel or resources will be required to fulfill this agreement,” Gardner said.
The state has agreed to compensate the county in an amount not to exceed $52,491 to reimburse the county department of agriculture for its staffing costs from last October through September of this year, based on the number of trap placements and time spent inspecting/servicing the traps.
By participating in the program, Gardner said, the county is benefiting itself through taking steps to see that “economic value is maintained by ensuring continued interstate movement of regulated plants and plant products. Performing these detection activities to prevent the Light Brown Apple Moth from taking hold in the county and causing damage is far less expensive than remediation costs if a significant presence occurs as a result of delayed detection activities.”

(February 10) YUCCA VALLEY— A double fatality collision on Yucca Trail on February 6 underscored the extremely dangerous traffic conditions on that road.
The deadly mishap occurred at the corner of Yucca Trail and Warren Vista Avenue at approximately 1:09 p.m., when a red 1984 Ford Bronco driven by 64-year-old Jesse Torres, 64 of Yucca Valley, was broadsided by a westbound black 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee driven by 23-year-old Brooke Nemeth, of Yucca Valley.
Torres and the passenger in his vehicle, Melissa Torres, 36, also of Yucca Valley, were northbound on Warren Vista and attempting to cross Yucca Trail. Both were killed in the collision and were pronounced dead at the scene.
Nemeth was treated and released at the scene.
According to a witness, the Bronco approached the stop sign at the intersection and was moving slowly into the intersection when it was struck. The accident report contained a statement from Nemeth that she was traveling at the posted speed limit of 50 mph and did not see the Bronco in the intersection.
The Jeep impacted the passenger side of the Bronco with tremendous force, resulting in both vehicles careening northwest through the intersection until they ended their deadly progress in the right shoulder of the westbound lane on Yucca Trail.
San Bernardino County firefighters extricated Jesse Torres from the vehicle but were unable to revive him. Melissa Torres had recently relocated to Yucca Valley from Junction City, KS.
The Major Accident Investigation Team from the Morongo Basin Sheriff’s Station is investigating the collision. Driver impairment from both alcohol and drugs has been ruled out as a factor in the crash.
The accident has renewed public calls a four-way stop sign at the intersection and a reduction of the speed limit along that span of Yucca Trail, where several other serious traffic accidents have occurred.

By clicking on the following portal, you can download a copy of the February 7  SBC Sentinel

Sentinel 02-07-14

(February 6)  Four months after the Upland City Council balked at locking in Burrtec Waste Industries’ trash hauling franchise contract for 15 more years, the concept has been resurrected for the city council’s reconsideration, as early as next week.
In October, the city council deadlocked 2-2 on granting the franchise extension, which would have lengthened Burrtec’s trash hauling franchise with the city of Upland from its current seven-year rollover term to 15 years.
Currently, under the so-called evergreen clause instilled into the contract by former Upland Mayor John Pomierski, the city is committed to keep Burrtec as its trash hauler at least until 2020. If it does not give notice to Burrtec that it wishes to rebid the contract by March of each successive year, the franchise is renewed again, i.e., kept green, for at least seven more years.
In May, in a letter to Upland Public Works Director Rosemary Horning, Burrtec proposed the city and Burrtec make adjustments to the  franchise contract. Those changes would have included rate increases to be borne by the city’s residents and businesses, allowing the city to lay claim to a larger portion of the trash hauling revenue, Burrtec paying the city a $200,000-per-year street impact fee to offset the damage the company’s trucks do to the city’s roads and alleyways, incorporating household hazardous waste and medical waste disposal as services rendered to customers, and extending the evergreen clause by another eight years, such that the earliest Upland could have gotten out of the contract with Burrtec would have been 2028.
Councilman Brendan Brandt abstained from voting on the matter because the law firm in which he is a partner has done work for another trash hauling firm that would potentially be in competition with Burrtec for the contract if bidding on the franchise were to take place.
While council members Gino Filippi and Debra Stone supported the extension of the Burrtec franchise contract, councilman Glen Bozar proclaimed opposition to the extension without an accompanying bidding process. He pointed out that Burrtec has held the city trash hauling franchise since 2001, subsequent to the last open bidding on the franchise in 2000. He reasoned that the city should give notice to Burrtec at once so that bidding on the franchise contract can be conducted at the earliest possible date, i.e., in 2020. His adamant opposition to extending Burrtec’s hold on the franchise until 2028, which would be more than a quarter of a century after the last bid competition, persuaded Mayor Ray Musser to reject the extension as proposed by Burrtec.
Subsequently, the city formed a ten-member committee to look at ways the city could redress its deteriorating financial condition. At city manager Stephen Dunn’s suggestion, the committee considered as a revenue enhancement strategy having the city council once again consider an adjustment of Burrtec’s trash hauling franchise. Among the options the committee recommended was that the city council take that matter up as part of a multi-pronged approach in generating new revenue and reducing operational expenses.
Accordingly, the council directed city staff to prepare an item relating to the Burrtec franchise contract adjustment/extension. On January 27 Dunn indicated the item would be ready for council consideration and a vote by the February 10 council meeting. At press time, the agenda for the February 10 meeting was not publicly available, however. Indications were that the newest franchise extension proposal will be substantially the same as that considered in October, with some unspecified revisions.
Unchanged in the proposal is that Burrtec would not need to subject itself to a competitive bid process to obtain the extension.
Burrtec fared rather poorly in one of the last major bid competitions it had engaged in.  Since 2001, Burrtec had held a $17 million-per-year contract for operating the county of San Bernardino’s landfill system. Last April, following a bidding competition, Burrtec lost that contract to Los Angeles County-based Athens Services.
The loss of that contract chastened Burrtec, which currently holds trash hauling franchises with 16 of San Bernardino County’s 24 incorporated cities and 34 of its unincorporated communities.  With Athens and other trash haulers nipping at its heels, Burrtec is militating to maintain its position at the top of the trash hauling heap in the county by solidifying its hold on those 58 trash hauling franchises.  In this way, the effort Burrtec initiated in Upland in May, which proposed adding street sweeping and household hazardous waste and medical waste disposal to the services it already offered the city as an inducement to the council for its consent  to lengthen the “evergreen” clause, has been seen as a test case.
Meanwhile, other refuse handlers appear ready to compete for the Upland franchise contract, if given a chance.  A spokesman with Waste Management, Inc. which held the Upland franchise prior to Burrtec, said his company would participate in the bid process if Upland makes a request for proposals. Similarly, Athens Services, which has a heavy presence in neighboring Los Angeles County and recently established a toehold in San Bernardino County when it outbid Burrtec and Waste Management for the county landfill system operation contract, would be a potential applicant for the franchise.
Free market advocates assert that the city and its ratepayers will benefit by a bidding competition, which would force Burrtec and its rivals to submit proposals that would offer lower consumer rates, enhanced services and more generous give-back arrangements with the city than are likely to be derived from the continuation of the terms in the existing contract.