City Council approves new solid‑waste fee to cover organics mandate, expands low‑income relief

The Los Angeles City Council voted 10–1 on April 11 to approve a multi‑year increase to the city’s solid resources fee, a change Sanitation leaders say is necessary to cover the cost of new state organic‑waste rules, rising equipment and labor costs and programs such as unlimited bulky‑item pickup.

The vote sends the proposal forward with an implementation date the department has modeled for Jan. 1, 2026, with subsequent adjustments effective each July 1 for the following four years. Department officials said the fee package is projected to generate about $184 million for the solid resources program and roughly $8.5 million for a multifamily bulky‑item program over the plan period and would sharply reduce a growing general‑fund subsidy.

Why it matters: Los Angeles has relied on the general fund to cover an increasing share of sanitation costs. That subsidy, Sanitation officials said, reached roughly $217 million within five years — nearly 40% of program costs — and will continue to grow unless fees are adjusted.

“The $217,000,000 in general fund subsidy amounts to nearly 40% of those costs, and that percentage will continue to increase if we do not have a rate adjustment,” said Barbara Romero, director and general manager of LA Sanitation and Environment, during the council presentation.

Council members and staff said the price drivers include state law and program changes, such as Assembly Bill/Senate Bill 1383, which requires source‑separated organic collection and more costly composting or anaerobic digestion processing, a collapse in recycling commodity revenue, higher truck costs and higher labor and fuel prices. Sanitation officials said the per‑truck cost has roughly doubled since 2008; new LNG trucks and electrification planning were included in the department’s cost modeling.

The adopted proposal would standardize a three‑container service (black for refuse, blue for recycling and green for organics, as required under SB 1383) for single‑family and small multifamily customers, set capacity‑based charges for additional containers and continue citywide services such as unlimited bulky‑item pickup, Christmas tree recycling and hazardous‑materials drop‑offs.

Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, chair of the Public Works and Energy & Environment Committee, framed the vote as a necessary but difficult step. “This is not sustainable, and it’s not equitable,” Hernandez said, noting that the general fund had subsidized service that primarily benefits a subset of residents and that delaying increases simply shifts the burden to other city services.

Sanitation staff said the department conducted a Prop 218–style cost‑of‑service study and would begin the formal notice and protest process required for property‑related user fees if the council authorized the change. Nicole Bernsen, assistant director, outlined the outreach plan: mailed notices, translated materials, webinars, community events and a rate calculator online. She said mailings would start immediately if council approved and a public hearing would follow no sooner than 45 days after the last mailing, as required by law.

The proposal also expands low‑income assistance. Under the plan the department would remove a previous dual‑eligibility requirement (low income plus senior or disability) and instead make the lifeline discount available to all qualified low‑income customers, which the department estimates could reduce bills by up to 30% for eligible households. Sanitation staff estimated that expanding eligibility and removing the existing cap would increase the program’s general‑fund cost by about $10 million annually if the council adopts the expanded assistance option.

Councilmember Tim McOsker and other members urged aggressive outreach to ensure eligible residents apply for assistance, and several members pressed staff for district‑specific community education about the change. Councilmember Gil Cedillo (not on the dais but on record during committee) and others stressed the need for ongoing rate reviews; Councilmember Nazarian registered the lone NO vote saying he objected to the methodology and wanted more data and a phased review schedule.

The council approved the fee package 10–1. Sanitation staff and outside consultants said they will proceed with Prop 218 notice mailings and district outreach; if returned protests do not exceed a majority of affected properties the fee will move forward to implementation per the scheduled timeline.

Community reaction during public comment was mixed: union representatives and Sanitation employees urged the council to approve the increase to maintain service levels and modernize equipment; community advocates pressed for rapid, proactive outreach and additional affordability protections. Environmental and composting advocates told the council expanded organics collection is critical to meeting the state’s climate goals and to building local compost processing capacity.

The council’s action is intended to reduce the city’s reliance on general‑fund subsidies for sanitation services and to bring the fee structure into alignment with state mandates and current operating costs. If fully implemented Jan. 1, 2026, Sanitation estimated the action will reduce general‑fund pressure and support a multi‑year plan for fleet modernization and yard upgrades.