By Kate Callen
In rejecting proposals for deeper fiscal analysis of city-driven fee ballot measures, three San Diego City Councilmembers decided February 18 that preserving a broken status quo is more important than restoring public faith in city governance.
Councilmember Raul Campillo’s efforts to keep voters better informed through cost-of-service studies were brusquely dismissed by his colleagues on the Rules Committee. Joe La Cava and Vivian Moreno took umbrage that Campillo would even suggest such a thing. Kent Lee worried that greater transparency about a ballot initiative would create “a multitude of hurdles” for raising existing fees or creating new ones.
A fourth committee member, Sean Elo-Rivera, participated remotely and did not speak.
Campillo’s proposals were driven by public outrage over the notorious 2022 “bait and switch” trash fee Measure B. Voters approved the initiative after the Independent Budget Analyst (IBA) estimated that monthly fees would run $23 to $29. When the measure passed, the city announced that — oops! — the actual monthly fees would approach $50.
Were there any explanations for the bungled IBA estimates? Any consequences? No. Just a throwaway line from principal IBA analyst Jordan More, author of the estimates: “Mea culpa — I’m only human.”
Four public speakers unanimously urged the Rules Committee to support Campillo’s proposals. They included La Jolla resident Catherine Douglas, who offered members a guiding acronym: “ACT — accountability, clarity, transparency.”
From that point on, the existential crisis of lost public faith in City Hall was shelved. Officials were only concerned about how fiscal analysis would be a hindrance and an inconvenience.
IBA Deputy Director Jillian Andolina started off by warning that cost-of-service studies would “create a potential timeline impact” and cost money.
“We encourage the committee to consider potential trade-offs,” she said, “that could hinder the city’s ability to pursue future revenue measures in a timely fashion.”
(Nothing will hinder the city’s ability to pursue future revenue measures more than the determination of angry voters to never, ever pass such measures. But we digress.)
Lee shared Andolina’s anxiety about how further analysis would complicate things. Moreno argued that studying ballot measures would somehow undermine Council rule. “This policy would limit the Council’s ability to govern,” she said. “It would restrict our legislative authority, and that’s not something I’m willing to support.”
And then there was La Cava, whose intoxication with his power as Council President is even greater than his visceral dislike for the man he called “the always eloquent Councilmember Campillo.”
La Cava began his comments by paying tribute to his own policy skills, reminding everyone that he’s an engineer and mentioning “my wonkiness” with evident pride. He picked apart Campillo’s proposal for not being more comprehensive. He insisted that the city’s confusing “Notice of Public Hearing” tax mailer complied with state law. “We even exceeded state requirements,” he said.
Engineers and wonks are good at solving technical problems. But they are not known for having emotional intelligence. As a rule, they cannot read the room.
La Cava may think he vanquished his upstart colleague, but that would be a temporary victory. If Campillo is contemplating a run for mayor, his efforts to bring accountability and transparency to City Hall is winning him support. And La Cava’s petulant campaign to quash him will win him even more support.
Campillo would be wise to remember Napoleon’s battle proverb: Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Great reporting, Kate! Wow, 4 to 1 against Campillo’s effort to right a wrong that is glaringly starring them in their faces.
Give me a break! No where are they addressing the disastrous rollout of the trash fees or Balboa Park fees other than “oops.” Any wonder why the 2024 sales tax increases failed ? Good luck in the future. Oh, wait. Who pays the price?
Thx for this timely and very informative report and analysis of today’s City Council committee meeting.
I agree that the refusal of the four committee members to support Raul Campillo‘s proposal will come back to bite them, and hopefully improve Campillo’s stature as the only council member who understands and advocates for the true interest of San Diego taxpayers. Many of us see Campillo as our best and perhaps only hope to be a mayor who well act in the best interest of all residents, not just labor unions, renegade, land, developers, and city employees.
Statement: Councilmember Campillo’s Local Fee Transparency Initiative Rejected by Rules Committee
SAN DIEGO — Following today’s decision at San Diego City Council’s Rules Committee to reject an initiative to increase transparency regarding local fees, Councilmember Raul Campillo (District 7) released the following statement:
“I voted no on the Trash Fee last year, and I even called it what it was: a bait and switch. My intent was to pass a policy that would make sure a bait and switch never happens to San Diegans again, but my four colleagues on the Rules Committee just buried that idea.
“I am frankly shocked that my colleagues didn’t support my proposal to require the City Council to transparently inform the public of exactly what the fees are prior to voting on them.
“San Diegans, who live in one of the most expensive places in the country, deserve leaders that go above and beyond on transparency and accountability. This is common sense. This Council should not hide fees from the public. And today, they ran and hid.”
Not only bait and switch, but no option to opt out either. Heaven forbid serving the public would usurp your legislative authority properly informing them.
Kent Lee worried that greater transparency about a ballot initiative would create “a multitude of hurdles” for raising existing fees or creating new ones.
The Public to Kent Lee, “Exactly! That’s the entire point of Campillo’s proposal, idiot.”
In all honesty, this kind of tone deaf response would also be embraced at the County and State levels. Bait & Switch has become an effective tool. Look at the current trial balloon regarding monitoring everyone’s vehicle mileage for fee implementation in lieu of gasoline taxes. We will end up with both concurrently, and everyone knows it. Still it’s good to hear at least one voice in the wilderness, for what it’s worth.
I got to say it’s interesting how often these members have voted for boondoggle studies that pay out millions but provide no practical results. Now they get a proposal that makes sense and they kill it. Yes Kate, let’s not get in the way of our enemy when they are making a mistake…
Kudos to Kate.
I worked fairly closely with one of the IBA analysts, Noah, who evaluated the impact of the vacant house and STR tax initiative. During our face to face meting, I asked him a number of questions that he could not answer. He repeatedly said that these types of questions would require outside consultants with greater capability to address. So, I think the IBA analyst who commented in opposition to Campillo’s proposal, because it would end up costing the City substantial consulting fees was lilkey being very accurate. Rather than spend huge amounts of tax payer money on studies, perhaps we need to add a couple of new IBA staff members that would increase the capabilities of that department. I also believe, based on Campillo’s Power Point presentation at the STR tax rules committee meeting revealed a lot about Campillo. I think he lacks the brain power to do his own independent assessments, so his option is to spend more money on outside consultants, a luxury the City cannot afford right now.
Gary, the analysis for new fees is required by state law—we can’t hire a few internal people to handle them, because they are highly specialized documents that require extensive work and data collection. And the money has to be spent on the analysis before we charge the public a fee. I want the analysis done before people vote to allow new fees, instead of after, to prevent the bait and switch from happening. I asked the IBA analyst in the meeting about this exact point, and she agreed with me that the money is spent on the analysis one way or the other. Your suggestion that my idea costs more is incorrect (if anything, if we had done the analysis in 2022 before Measure B told everyone the upper limit was $29, instead of in 2024, chances are it would have been cheaper than the $4m+ we spent—which you will remember, I was the only Councilmember to vote against it as being too expensive as a package to conduct such a study: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2024/03/22/san-diego-is-paying-45-million-for-a-trash-study-is-that-too-high/). So, the idea that I’m somehow suggesting a more expensive idea is refuted by law, evidence, and my voting record.
As for your ad hominem attack about my brain power, I appreciate you reminding people that I don’t just have a handful of talking points to mention, and indeed I dig deep and even put on presentations to explain why I think something is right or wrong (even if I am ultimately incorrect). What I lack in brain power, I believe I make up for with effort and diligence.
Amen and thank you.
I spoke to Noah from IBA following the vacation home tax hearing, about his garbage financial analysis.
IBA assumed that for the STRs returning to long term housing, that 0% of their visitors would still visit san diego using alternative lodging (or a different STR.)
Which is plainly absurd. This assumption then created the unfavorable “break even” value which tanked the proposal.
Whether we support a fee or not, a thorough and accurate analysis for something of this magnitude is worth every penny, whether it’s done internally or hired out. If it’s not ready in time for this ballot, so be it.
Raul Campillo thank you for your recognizing the vigorous and honest public discourse that takes place everyday of the week in the OB Rag and joining in. Our communities would all be better served by leaders unafraid of discourse and the benefits it affords everyone.
“The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason.”
– Thomas Paine
Gary, agree with you on many things, but not on this latest rant vs Campillo’s efforts to SAVE taxpayer and residents’ money.
Gary, your comments are usually thoughtful and precise. What happened here? It’s fine to disagree on the facts. But a personal insult like “he lacks brain power” coarsens the dialogue. I’m sorry you didn’t stay on higher ground.
Adding more staff to a City unit that is underperforming (“I’m only human”) is throwing good money after bad. When an IBA analyst tells you that outside consultants have a greater capability to answer your questions that he does, that’s cause for concern.
“end up costing the City substantial consulting fees”
A Cost of Study to determine the required Cal. Constitution art. XIIID6 (Right to Vote on Taxes Act) is mandated: “The amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each parcel shall be calculated. The agency shall provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge to the record owner of each identified parcel ….” The City alone does not accomplish this but always hires a consultant, to include preparing the Notice materials. When a cost of study is necessary, the spending is necessary. This Committee voted for their speed in putting half-baked measures on a ballot rather than diligence, transparency and clarity.
Corporate consultants have eradicated the Public’s representation by providing plausible deniability, and thus all but circumvent democracy altogether. FIRE ALL CONSULTANTS. START WITH CIRCULATE SAN DIEGO!
I am disgusted with La Cava and the rule committee folks who vetoed Campillo’s plan.. given that the bait and switch on trash fee vote is well known, one would hope that the city would try to obviate it happening again. Instead we get a “we stole it before, and do not want to interfere with us stealing it again”. Shame.
Agree.
I am grateful to Raul Campillo for his extraordinary – and risky, as he has seen – to make the city understand and consider the impact of its lofty ideas on people who live here. It’s astonishing to me that this smart initiative could be stomped down by a council committee that’s clearly committed to unleashing pain and foreseeable consequences on residents. How do we get this on the ballot?
Thanks Marty; yes, it’s completely not understandable. Some believe it’s because most of those committee members are not engaged with their constituents as their political careers are over, and they simply don’t care. Once LaCava is termed out — what’s he gonna do? Work in his garden and do crossword puzzles? His promising career is over — unless he runs for …. (fill in blank) …. But his reputation within San Diego has been ruined. Maybe he doesn’t know or believe that. But his “distaste” for Campillo is on display. Why? Perhaps Joe will run for mayor, thinking that whatever stain is on his reputation will be cleaned off by then, and he sees Raol as his main competition. Ah dunno.
I think he wants to be mayor of the new city of La Jolla.
How can La Cava lay claim that the city’s confusing “Notice of Public Hearing” tax mailer complied with state law. And how can he outrageously declare “We even exceeded state requirements,” ?
The walls of denial are crumbling.
Everyone can find the “mailer” here in Sandra G. Leon’s aricle from Oct 2022 in La Prensa SD The article also points out that Sean Elo-Rivera misused his own campaign funds to deceive the Public. (unethically, if not in violation of campaign laws, despite going unchallenged) Read the “mailers” Sean Evil-Rivera conceived for yourself:
https://laprensa.org/SDtrashtax
Kate, I rarely comment directly on articles, but because you repeat a quote the UT took out-of-context from one of my staff members and inaccurately state there has been no explanation for how the IBA developed its initial trash fee estimates, or why later proposals were higher, I feel compelled to respond.
We released a report in April last year detailing both the assumptions that went into Measure B’s initial fee estimate and what led to the increased amounts that were actually proposed (that report also identified multiple ways staff’s initial proposal could be *reduced*, many of which were ultimately incorporated into the final adopted fees). You can find that report here: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/25-10-iba-review-of-the-waste-collection-cost-of-service-study-complete-rpt.pdf
In short, the estimates in 2022’s Measure B relied on City staff’s assertion that roughly 285,000 residences were receiving trash service, when the actual number was closer to 225,000, which materially affected per-household costs. Beyond that, the initial estimate reflected what a fee might have been if it were in place in 2022. Over the last 4 years, both operating costs and proposed service levels increased, as detailed in the linked report. We explicitly noted in Measure B’s fiscal impact statement that fee amounts could end up higher than early estimates due to the potential for inflation and the multi-year gap between when the measure was before voters and when fees would actually be implemented.
I understand the discontent surrounding trash fees, I welcome disagreement and criticism, and I try to go out of my way to make sure that my team and I are accessible and transparent with the public. But it’s important that discussions reflect the full analyses and follow-ups we’ve completed and made publicly available.
Charles – I have huge respect and admiration for your team. You’ve always been a strong and detailed advocate for fiscal responsibility. This is an accurate and necessary addition which I hope the OBRag team will note!
Charles, thank you for writing. As a layperson, I don’t have the knowledge to grasp the complexities of why the estimates were way off the mark. It sounds like you were working with bad data when City staff overcounted residences by 60,000. And operating costs and proposed service levels increased over 4 years, which was no surprise.
Estimated costs and actual costs are never identical. But when the actual costs are double the estimated costs, the lay public feels whipsawed. This was just too big a leap. In any profession, performance is always affected by fluctuations and unforeseen events. But in the end, performance is judged by results.
Double estimated costs by blowing housing numbers by 20+% would suggest further study was needed. Now low income trash users can sign up to get relief further impacting full price payers.