London council debates privatizing sanitation, leaves bids and rate choices pending

Council members spent the largest portion of their Dec. meeting debating the future of city-run sanitation services, discussing equipment shortfalls, staffing gaps and possible alternatives including a public ballot. The council left Resolution 190.25 — which would authorize the safety service director to advertise for bids on sanitation services — on second reading so staff can provide more detail on timing, costs and legal requirements for placing the question before voters.

The push to consider privatization followed public comment from Kevin Crossley, who said the department needs “bodies and some equipment” to function. Council members and city staff exchanged specifics about the scale of the problem: Mr. Saltzman, the safety/service staff lead, said the sanitation operation is short about three employees from a full staffing level of seven and that several trucks are old or out of service. He urged prudence in deciding whether to lease short-term equipment or invest in new trucks, noting the current lease payment is roughly $11,000 a month and new rear-load trucks were quoted in the high hundreds of thousands.

Saltzman warned that keeping the system running as-is would require several one-time capital fixes: compactor boxes at the transfer station need replacement, and the transfer station’s electrical system likely requires a 3‑phase upgrade that he estimated could cost $150,000–$175,000. He also said hauling fees will rise — citing a change to roughly “$83.4 a ton” starting Jan. 1 — and that the city pays about $1,300 a month to transfer recycling. Those increased operating and capital costs factored into council discussion about whether residents should decide the service’s future at the ballot box in the May primary, or whether the council should raise rates in the interim.

The mayor and other council members proposed putting the question to voters as the most definitive test of public preference; timing was a concern because ballot deadlines and the need to procure bids require months of lead time. The mayor noted a 3% rate increase under consideration could cover short-term needs while the council determines whether to privatize, put the matter on the ballot, or retain and invest in the municipal service.

Council did not adopt any final direction tonight. Members instead requested additional legal guidance about ballot mechanics and more detailed cost information (including truck lease vs. purchase options, staffing costs, and potential use of stormwater utility funds) before advancing either the advertising-for-bids resolution or the rate ordinance to final action. The sanitation advertising resolution remains on second reading.