Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts reduced trash fee for 2028–29 under settlement, but general fund subsidy rises
Summary
As part of a negotiated settlement, the council approved lowered solid‑waste fees for FY28–29; staff said reductions require larger subsidies from the recycling fund and an estimated $10–11M annual general‑fund subsidy, and that some service expansions (weekly recycling, bulky pickup) may be deferred.
The San Diego City Council on June 8 approved revised solid‑waste management fees for fiscal years 2028 and 2029 that reflect a negotiated settlement and reduce the 95‑gallon bundle to $38.75 per month in FY28 and $39.91 in FY29.
Environmental Services staff said the rates were derived using the city’s cost‑of‑service model to preserve proportionality among service bundles. To keep the reduced rates balanced, modeling assumes increasing the recycling‑fund subsidy to as much as $22 million per year and requires an additional general‑fund subsidy in the range of $10–11 million annually for FY28–29. Staff noted that because lower fees do not lower operating costs, the adjustment creates a revenue–cost gap.
Jeremy Bauer of Environmental Services told the council the department will defer or scale back certain initiatives to limit subsidies, including the planned weekly recycling service, a bulky‑item pickup program, an electric vehicle pilot, some capital investments and reserve buildup. Councilmember Stephen Whitburn — who negotiated the settlement terms — said medium and small bundle users will see even larger relative decreases because proportional pricing lowered those tiers.
Jordan Moore of the IBA recommended that ESD produce a five‑year financial outlook to identify likely general‑fund subsidy needs and future fee options so council and the public can track enterprise‑fund health.
Council approved the revised schedule consistent with the settlement; councilmembers and union and advocacy speakers repeatedly emphasized both the affordability benefits for residents and the need to preserve diversion and Miramar landfill life.
Staff said the decision carries long‑term tradeoffs: reduced diversion or delayed programs could shorten Miramar landfill life or increase disposal costs in future years, requiring higher subsidy or higher fees later.
