Council closes public hearing on proposed sanitation rate increase after hours of public comment

The Los Angeles City Council closed a public hearing on a proposed sanitation rate increase during its Sept. 30 meeting; no council action was required on the item at that time.

The hearing drew large public turnout and prolonged public comment about the proposed fee increases. Sanitation workers and union representatives told the council the increases were necessary to maintain the city’s suite of services, while residents and tenants warned higher monthly charges would hit seniors and low-income households already struggling to pay basic bills.

Julian Zuniga, who identified himself as a shop steward with the City of Los Angeles sanitation workforce, told the council the proposed rates fund not just curbside trash collection but ancillary services such as multifamily bulky-item pickup, Christmas tree recycling and move-in/move-out support. “This is an important and necessary rate,” Zuniga said during public comment.

Paul Morales, a sanitation worker, also testified in support of the increase, saying those fees pay for services workers provide and citing programs that rely on the revenue.

Several residents urged the council to reject or scale back the increase. Lorna Paisley, who said she lives in Lake Balboa, criticized the size of the proposed monthly jump and warned inflationary pressures on food and health care make additional utility charges unsustainable for many households. Ana Hernandez, who identified herself as a resident of public housing, said many neighbors are seniors or people with disabilities who rely on electricity for medical devices and cannot absorb higher utility and waste costs.

Other commenters echoed those concerns, arguing the city should find alternative cost-savings or revenue sources rather than raise flat fees on residents. Speakers also raised broader budget criticisms and questioned service delivery, with some saying street cleaning and other promised services were not reaching their neighborhoods.

Procedural context: City Attorney staff explained public-comment rules at the start of the period, noting speakers had up to three minutes for multiple items and one minute per specific agenda item. After public comment concluded, the council clerk announced that the public hearing for item 1 was closed and that “no action is required for this item” at this meeting.

The council proceeded to vote on a separate set of agenda items later in the session; item 1 remained a public-hearing-only item on Sept. 30.

What’s next: Because item 1 was noticed for public hearing only, the council did not take an on-the-spot vote on the rate increase that day. Additional committee reports, analyses or a future council action would be required before any rate change could be adopted.