Is a 54% Increase in Our Trash Fee Justifiable?

This is why Los Angeles is the home of the very rich, the very poor and the illegal aliens.  The middle class is being financially forced to leave.

“The Bureau of Sanitation is proposing to increase our Trash Fee (Solid Waste Resources Fee) by 54%, from $36.32 to $55.95 a month.  And over the next four years rates would rise another 18% to $65.93, or almost $800 a year. Overall, our rates would soar by over 80% by 2030. 

To justify this increase, Sanitation has indicated that the rate has not kept up with inflation.  The last increase was in 2008, 17 years ago, when Mayor Villaraigosa, over a two-year period, more than tripled our rates from $11 to $36.32 in September of 2008.  According to Sanitation, if our rates had kept up with the Consumer Price Index, the rate would be $61.80.”

The real reason for the raise?  The city has a ONE BILLION DEFICIT—AND GROWING.  The Marxist Mayor Bass is going to nickel and dime the people to death.

Is a 54% Increase in Our Trash Fee Justifiable?

Jack Humphreville, City Watch LA,  4/3/25  https://www.citywatchla.com/la-watchdog/30670-is-a-54-increase-in-our-trash-fee-justifiable

LA WATCHDOG – The Bureau of Sanitation is proposing to increase our Trash Fee (Solid Waste Resources Fee) by 54%, from $36.32 to $55.95 a month.  And over the next four years rates would rise another 18% to $65.93, or almost $800 a year. Overall, our rates would soar by over 80% by 2030. 

To justify this increase, Sanitation has indicated that the rate has not kept up with inflation.  The last increase was in 2008, 17 years ago, when Mayor Villaraigosa, over a two-year period, more than tripled our rates from $11 to $36.32 in September of 2008.  According to Sanitation, if our rates had kept up with the Consumer Price Index, the rate would be $61.80. 

[Note: As a matter of interest, the trash fee commenced in 1983 to pay for increased personnel costs. The rate was $1.50. It was gradually increased to $11 in 2003.] 

Sanitation has indicated that there are many more mandates that need to be funded.  These include the recycling of organic materials (composting) that is mandated by the State, the expensive Clean Fuels Program for its fleet of heavy-duty vehicles, and increased oversight and maintenance of landfills.  And, of course, there is the major impact of budget busting labor agreements. 

The Solid Resources Program is also experiencing significant operating losses that requires a subsidy from the City’s financially stressed General Fund. For the upcoming fiscal year, the subsidy is projected to be almost $230 million, an increase of $89 million (64%) from this year’s estimate and triple the subsidy in 2024.  

While the lack of rate increases over the last seventeen years (thanks to the kick-the-can-down-the-road Mayor Garcetti) and the need to cover operating losses are reasonable justifications for rate increases, we have not been provided with any operating or financial information for this $550 million a year enterprise to support the rate hike.  

For instance, how much revenue will be derived from this rate increase?  Why have the subsidies tripled over the last two years?  How long will operations need to be subsidized?  Are there any detailed projections to justify future rate increases?  How much debt is there? Is there a Reserve Fund and how is it funded?  How much does City Hall charge for overhead? Are there any independent studies on the Solid Resources Program like those required for the three proprietary departments?   Is there even an annual report? What information has been provided to the Energy and Environment Committee other than less than transparent March 21 memo to the City Council? 

There has not been any outreach to Neighborhood Councils or Angelenos where concerned citizens are able to ask questions and demand answers.  

There is a lack of transparency for the Solid Resources Program and its proposed rate increase.  This is unacceptable.  But obfuscation appears to be standard operating procedure for the Bureau of Sanitation as the doubling of the Sewer Service Charge over the next four years barely saw the light of day. And that was for $700 million.

(Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee, the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council, and a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate.