Los Angeles officials move to raise solid-waste fees for first time in 17 years to cover organics and operating shortfall

Los Angeles City Council committees on Monday advanced a proposal from LA Sanitation and Environment (LA San) to raise the city—s solid-waste fees for the first time since 2008, saying long-term cost increases and a state organics mandate have left the bureau reliant on roughly $200 million a year in general-fund support.

Barbara Romero, director and general manager of LA Sanitation and Environment, told the joint Energy and Environment and Public Works committees that the bureau has kept the same solid-resources fee for 17 years and that rising labor, fuel, equipment and organics-processing costs have forced the agency to dip into the general fund. "We have not had a rate increase for 17 years," Romero said, adding that the bureau—s projected operating cost for 2025 is about $555,000,000 and that the general-fund subsidy has grown into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The bureau hired HF&H Consultants to perform a Prop 218-compliant cost-of-service study, Sarai Baga, LA San—s chief financial officer, said. The consultant, Rick Simonson, summarized the study—s rationale: because state law and implementing rules require every dwelling unit access to three separate containers (refuse, recycling and organics), the bureau proposes a single base rate for all dwelling units that reflects equal access and capacity rather than measured usage. "The analysis is based on the capacity," Simonson said.

Why it matters: the state—s SB 1383 mandate—designed to reduce methane emissions by diverting organic waste from landfills—requires cities to provide and enforce separate organics collection and to report compliance. LA San officials said organics processing costs have risen sharply (they cited a rise from about $40 per ton to $122 per ton), and recycling now costs the city money rather than producing revenue. Those changes, coupled with inflation in vehicle and labor costs, prompted LA San to propose a multi-year rate plan that staff said would achieve full cost recovery in the first year of implementation.

What was proposed: staff recommended converting to a single solid-resources fee for all customer classes, revising the multifamily bulky-item fee to a single rate and updating extra-capacity fees (including charging for previously free extra recycling capacity). The staff report assumes an implementation date of Jan. 1, 2026, with future adjustments effective July 1 for the following four years. Because the Department of Water and Power (DWP) bills on a two-month cycle, staff said revenue collection will lag the ordinance implementation and the general fund will still need to subsidize part of fiscal 2025–26.

Affordability and outreach: LA San proposed replacing the existing lifeline program—s dual eligibility (low income plus senior or disabled) with a single low-income eligibility tied to DWP—s federal-income guidelines. Staff estimated that qualifying low-income customers could save up to 30 percent and that expanding eligibility would increase general-fund cost by roughly $10 million annually. LA San outlined a multi-pronged outreach plan—including notices required by Prop 218, translated materials in 16 languages, webinars, community events and partnerships with council offices—to accompany any Prop 218 mailing.

Committee action and next steps: the Energy and Environment Committee and the Public Works Committee voted to approve the LA San report as presented and to begin the Prop 218 process and outreach. Committees directed staff to proceed with mailing required notices, to work with council offices on community outreach and to return with any further analysis as needed. Staff said that, if approved by the full council later in the process, the earliest likely effective date for new rates would be Jan. 1, 2026, and that bills would begin reflecting changes on the bimonthly DWP statement following the billing lag.

What officials said about timing and frequency: multiple council members pressed LA San and its consultant on why the city waited 17 years between rate reviews. Romero and the CAO—s office said producing a Prop 218-compliant cost study requires time and funding; several members urged establishing regular, periodic rate reviews to avoid future "catch up" increases.

Direct quotes: Romero summarized the financial pressure facing LA San: "For the last 17 years, as all of these costs have gone up, we've continued to take the same fees in." Simonson described the rate-setting approach: "So in solid waste rate setting, it's set on the capacity to which you're being provided." Council members repeatedly emphasized the need for clear outreach messaging about the increase and for expanded enrollment in the low-income assistance program.

Ending: LA San will begin the Prop 218 notice and outreach process if the council authorizes it; staff projected that the proposed package would achieve full cost recovery in year one of implementation but acknowledged that, because of the billing cycle, some general-fund support will be required in fiscal 2025–26. The committees also asked staff to return with additional data and to work with the CAO and council offices on regular review schedules.