L.A. City Council backs huge trash fee hikes for residents
The Los Angeles City Council moved Friday to dramatically increase trash fees in a bid to raise money and close a billion-dollar budget deficit.
On a 10-1 vote, the council ordered city attorneys to draft an ordinance raising the fees on roughly 740,000 customers, with council members arguing that the city has subsidized the cost of trash pickup for too many years.
Owners of single-family homes and duplexes will see their trash fees more than double in the coming budget year, reaching $55.95, up from $36.32.
Fees for smaller apartment buildings — those with three or four units — will be increased to $55.95, up from $24.33, with each unit paying the full fee.
The trash fees will rise each year through 2029, hitting $65.93 for all categories.
For single-family homes and duplexes, that would represent an 81% increase over this year. For buildings with three or four units, the fee for each unit would nearly triple.
On residents' bimonthly bills from the Department of Water and Power, the increases will show up under the line item 'Solid Resource Fee.'
Read more: Huge trash fee hike looms for L.A. residents
Larger apartment buildings would not be covered by the planned trash fee hikes.
Residents can seek to overturn the fees. Proposition 218, passed by California voters in 1996, requires that property owners be mailed information about the proposed fees and that a hearing be held at least 45 days after the mailing.
The fee fails if a majority of owners send in written protests.
Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival, said landlords will likely pass the fee increase on to tenants who renew a lease or sign a new lease. He expressed concern about the regressive nature of the fee, which will disproportionately hurt low-income residents, since they will pay the same amount as wealthier residents.
Councilmember Adrin Nazarian, who represents the eastern San Fernando Valley, expressed a similar concern at Friday's City Council meeting as he cast the lone "no" vote.
He pointed out the dramatic increase that residents of a four-unit building will see in the first year. "That unit is going to pay as much as a home in the wealthiest parts of the city," he said.
Councilmembers John Lee, Traci Park, Monica Rodriguez and Imelda Padilla were absent from Friday's vote.
City leaders said that a program to help low-income residents afford the fees will be expanded, also pointing out that the last trash fee increase was 17 years ago.
Without the fee hike, the general fund would lose about $200 million in the next budget year, since the city has been partly subsidizing trash pickup, according to city officials.
The fee increase is planned as the city faces a nearly $1-billion budget shortfall and the potential elimination of thousands of city jobs. Mayor Karen Bass is scheduled to release her proposed budget, and her plan for closing the financial gap, later this month.
Part of the shortfall is due to labor costs and recent pay increases for some workers, including for police officers and firefighters, that were approved by Bass and the council.
Read more: L.A. city budget shortfall grows to nearly $1 billion, with layoffs 'nearly inevitable'
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. on Friday blasted the trash fee hike and accused Bass and the City Council of mismanagement through overspending, "unaffordable" labor contracts and "policies that have driven businesses out of the city, resulting in lower business tax and sales tax revenue."
'The mayor and City Council may want taxpayers to bail out Los Angeles, but it's more likely that taxpayers will bail out of Los Angeles,' the association said.
Several Bureau of Sanitation employees spoke in support of the fee at Friday's City Council meeting.
Charles Leone, a coordinator with Service Employees International Union 721, which represents sanitation workers, told the council that the fee should have gone up "decades ago" and described the hard work that goes into picking up the trash.
"They took on the homeless crisis — head on, they take out the trash every single day, they lift up the mattresses every single day, they address the couches every single day, the list goes on and on," he said.
The council last year raised sewer fees for all property owners. Landlords who own units that are rent-stabilized — the vast majority of units in the city — typically can't pass on water costs, which are linked to sewer costs, to their tenants, according to city officials.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
Predicting the unpredictable for intermodal
Intermodal analyst Larry Gross says that normally he'd be able to draw on his 45 years of transportation experience to make predictions about freight volume in the months ahead. 'Theoretically, it would mean that I would be bringing some long-term insight to the situation that we find ourselves in today: You know, a sense that, well, the last time that this happened, here's how it went,' Gross said Tuesday during an Intermodal Association of North America webcast. But the past does not offer a road map for how intermodal traffic might perform while a trade war is raging. 'There is no 'last time' for some of what we're seeing right now,' Gross said. 'It's really a unique situation.' Shippers pulled forward their imports, particularly from China, in an attempt to beat tariff deadlines, which sent international container volume higher beginning late last year. Then when the Trump administration imposed 145% tariffs on Chinese goods in April, trade all but dried up, creating an air pocket of container volume bound for the says he was surprised it took as long as five to six weeks for the air pocket decline to hit U.S. railroads. 'We've only really seen it now for the past two or three weeks,' he said of BNSF and Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP) intermodal volumes. Now, with tariffs on Chinese goods reduced to 30% from May 12 through the middle of August, Gross is expecting a mini-surge in volume to begin in the middle of this month. 'It's not going to be … a huge volume, because even though 30% is a lot lower than 145%, it's still pretty significant,' Gross said of tariffs on Chinese goods. The hold on reciprocal tariffs, which vary by country and will remain in effect until at least July 9, means importers of goods made elsewhere also may try to rush containers to the U.S., he says. What happens to volume after these summer tariff-related deadlines depends on the next steps in trade talks. But it's trade with China, Gross says, that will have the biggest impact on U.S. intermodal makes up roughly half of all U.S. rail traffic. And North American volumes this year are running well ahead of 2024 levels as well as the 10-year average. U.S. intermodal volume is up 7% this year through May 24, while North American volume is up 5.8%, according to Association of American Railroads data. Overall, 41.3% of U.S. containerized imports come from China, Gross says, citing S&P Global PIERS data for 2024. Chinese imports make up 57.5% of containers handled by U.S. West Coast ports but just 25.6% of boxes that land at U.S. East Coast ports and 34.7% at Gulf Coast ports. 'To the extent that we have a trade war with China, the West Coast is going to feel it much more acutely than the East Coast,' Gross said. Making matters worse for the West Coast: Asian trade is flowing back to normal routings involving East Coast ports for two reasons. First, shipments were diverted to the West Coast last year amid labor uncertainty and a brief strike at East and Gulf Coast ports. Second, some shipments shifted to the West Coast to avoid danger on their normal route via the Red Sea, which was under threat by Houthi rebels in Yemen. This means that both international and domestic intermodal volume from Southern California will face headwinds after the mini-surge, Gross says. Some 15% of domestic container shipments out of Southern California carry goods that were transloaded from international containers, he estimates. This is bad news for BNSF and UP, which originate intermodal loads from West Coast ports. But it's not necessarily good news for Eastern carriers CSX (NASDAQ: CSX) or Norfolk Southern (NYSE: NSC) because the intermodal share of imports is much lower at the East Coast ports they serve. It's unclear when trade disputes will be ironed out, Gross says, but he doesn't expect agreements to fall into place quickly. And that, he says, will mean lingering uncertainty for businesses and consumers alike. 'Uncertainty is the enemy of growth,' Gross said. Slowing growth, plus the potential for tariff-fueled inflation, could ultimately produce stagflation that will reduce consumer demand, he says. 'It certainly wouldn't surprise me to see a downturn in the second quarter and third quarter of this year,' Gross he expects domestic intermodal to eke out slight year-over-year gains for 2025 – if intermodal can continue to slowly regain market share from trucking. International volume, Gross says, likely will be flat to down this year. 'I certainly view more downside risk in that forecast than upside potential,' he said. The post Predicting the unpredictable for intermodal appeared first on FreightWaves. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Stanislaus County community faces huge water rate increase to $600 a month
In the Spotlight is a Modesto Bee series that digs into the high-profile local issues that readers care most about. Story idea? Email tips@ Residents of the troubled Diablo Grande resort in western Stanislaus County are facing an extraordinary water rate increase. Under the Western Hills Water District proposal, the monthly residential flat rate would jump fourfold from $145 to $569, effective July 1. The plan, plotting increases over five years, would set the rate at $610 in 2029 and $626 in 2030. Such rates would be eye-popping in any community, but Diablo Grande property owners are being asked to accept it because the new rates will keep a supplier from cutting off water to their homes June 30. Kern County Water Agency, the water supplier, said in a May 28 letter that it will shut off water deliveries June 30 if the majority of Diablo Grande parcel owners reject the rate increases and the resort can't make monthly payments to Kern. The Western Hills Water District, serving Diablo Grande, is conducting a Proposition 218 process before implementing the first rate hike and is scheduled to tally the protests at a June 28 hearing. Proposition 218 allows property owners to reject new assessments through a majority protest. 'If the rate increase is successful and WHWD begins to make monthly payments to the agency for administrative and variable costs, the agency will continue supplying water to WHWD through Dec. 31, 2025, to allow WHWD to develop an alternative water supply,' Kern's letter said. The Kern board took action May 27 to end the year 2000 contract because Western Hills owes $13.5 million for water and hasn't made a payment since 2019. With water use charges on top of the flat rate, Diablo Grande residents could be paying around $600 a month starting in July. 'It's our understanding if a majority are opposed to it, we will definitely have our water turned off,' said Linda Powell, a 76-year-old homeowner whose husband is a disabled Marine Corps veteran. 'It's going to be tough for us to make that kind of payment. We don't feel like we have a choice.' An original developer and World International, which acquired the Diablo Grande development out of bankruptcy in 2008, formerly subsidized the water purchases from Kern County while trying to develop the project into a 5,000-home destination resort. But only 600 homes were built. World unloaded the debt-ridden project to another firm in 2020, which hasn't paid debts and taxes. Debbie Antigua of the Diablo Grande Community Action Committee said the rate increase will allow Western Hills to make payments to Kern and buy time for finding a different water source for the 600 households. According to a district water rate study, the extraordinary bills will cover water purchases from Kern, treatment expenses, community water service and securing an alternative supply, but won't cover money owed to the Kern agency. Western Hills has looked into an agreement with the Patterson Irrigation District to deliver San Joaquin River water to the district, which has treatment facilities. But it could take two or three years to get approval and build a 5,000-foot pipeline to connect with Western Hills, Antigua said. The community also is trying to get assistance from the state Department of Water Resources to find another district to sell water that could be delivered to Western Hills' facilities via the California Aqueduct. If a new water source is secured at affordable cost, the water rates could be adjusted down to a more acceptable level, Antigua said. Antigua acknowledged the new rate will be too much for many renters, some of whom live on $1,800 a month in Social Security or less. But the situation is desperate. 'My feeling is that a majority of people (at Diablo Grande) understand if they protest they will not have water and they are putting their homes in jeopardy,' Antigua said. 'You have a lot of renters up here that don't want to pay the increase.' According to a rate increase notice, Western Hills provides treated drinking water to about 1,800 people through 600 residential connections. Jennifer Hamilton, a Diablo Grande homeowner for eight years, said Monday it's upsetting that the Kern County agency won't renegotiate its 25-year-old contract with Western Hills. The residents are billed for 8,000 acre-feet of water annually but Diablo Grande neighborhoods use only 400 acre-feet of that. 'If we were to get the correct amount of water, the residents would be able to pay,' Hamilton said, adding that customers deserve a clearer accounting of what's done with the excess water. 'I don't want to pay for water we are not using.' A spokesman for Western Hills couldn't be reached Monday. The Western Hills website says one of the district's services is raw water provided to vineyards, construction and the two golf courses, which are closed. In a May 23 letter to water district customers, Stanislaus County officials discussed potential ramifications of a water shutoff, citing a state law requiring homes to have access to potable water. Robert Kostlivy, county environmental resources director for the county, wrote that his department has a complaint-driven approach to consider red-tagging homes that are uninhabitable and that it does not inspect without a formal complaint. The county is 'operating under the assumption that individual residents and property owners have taken steps to secure basic sanitation needs including access to water, in light of the potential shutoff,' said the letter also signed by Fire Warden Erik Klevmyr. 'There is no intention to conduct sweeping or preemptive enforcement actions.'
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Yahoo
L.A. City Council approves $14-billion budget, scaling back Bass' public safety plans
The Los Angeles City Council signed off on a $14-billion spending plan for 2025-26 on Thursday, scaling back Mayor Karen Bass' public safety initiatives as they attempted to spare 1,000 city workers from layoffs. Faced with a nearly $1-billion budget shortfall, the council voted 12 to 3 for a plan that would cut funding for recruitment at the Los Angeles Police Department, leaving the agency with fewer officers than at any point since 1995. The council provided enough money for the LAPD to hire 240 new officers over the coming year, down from the 480 proposed by Bass last month. That reduction would leave the LAPD with about 8,400 officers in June 2026, down from about 8,700 this year and 10,000 in 2020. The council also scaled back the number of new hires the mayor proposed for the Los Angeles Fire Department in the wake of the wildfire that ravaged huge stretches of Pacific Palisades. Bass' budget called for the hiring of 227 additional fire department employees. The council provided funding for the department to expand by an estimated 58 employees. Three council members — John Lee, Traci Park and Monica Rodriguez — voted against the budget, in large part due to cost-cutting efforts at the two public safety agencies. Park, whose district includes Pacific Palisades, voiced alarm over those and other reductions. "I just can't in good conscience vote for a budget that makes our city less safe, less physically sound and even less responsive to our constituents," she said. Rodriguez offered a similar message, saying the council should have shifted more money out of Inside Safe, Bass' signature program to address homelessness. That program, which received a 10% cut, lacks oversight and has been extraordinarily expensive, said Rodriguez, who represents the northeast San Fernando Valley. "Inside Safe currently spends upwards of $7,000 a month to house a single individual. That's just room and board and services," she said. "That doesn't include all of the other ancillary services that are tapped from our city family in order to make it work, including LAPD overtime, including sanitation services, including the Department of Transportation." Councilmember Tim McOsker, who sits on the budget committee, said the fire department would still see an overall increase in funding under the council's budget. Putting more money into the police and fire departments would mean laying off workers who fix streets, curbs and sidewalks, said McOsker, who represents neighborhoods stretching from Watts south to L.A.'s harbor. McOsker said it's still possible that the city could increase funding for LAPD recruitment if the city's economic picture improves or other savings are identified in the budget. The council authorized the LAPD to ramp up hiring if more money can be found later in the year. "I would love to put ourselves in a position where we could hire more than 240 officers, and maybe we will. I don't know. But today we can't," McOsker told his colleagues. Councilmember Ysabel Jurado, who joined the council in December, also defended the budget plan, saying it would help create "a more just, equitable and inclusive Los Angeles." "This budget doesn't fix everything. It doesn't close every gap. But it does show a willingness to make some structural changes," she said. Bass aides did not immediately respond to inquiries about the council's actions. A second budget vote by the council is required next week before the plan can head to the mayor's desk for her consideration. Bass' spending plan proposed about 1,600 city employee layoffs over the coming year, with deep reductions in agencies that handle trash pickup, streetlight repair and city planning. The decisions made Thursday would reduce the number to around 700, said City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo, who helps prepare the spending plan. The remaining layoffs could still be avoided if the city's unions offer financial concessions, said Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who heads the council's budget committee. For example, she said, civilian city workers could cut costs by taking four to five unpaid furlough days. "My goal, my fervent goal and hope, is that labor comes to the table and says 'We'll take some furloughs, we'll take some comp time off,'" Yaroslavsky said. The city entered a full-blown financial crisis earlier this year, driven in large part by rapidly rising legal payouts, weaker than expected tax revenues and scheduled raises for city employees. Those pay increases are expected to consume $250 million over the coming fiscal year. To bring the city's budget into balance, council members tapped $29 million in the city's budget stabilization fund, which was set up to help the city weather periods of slower economic growth. They took steps to collect an extra $20 million in business tax revenue. And they backed a plan to hike the cost of parking tickets, which could generate another $14 million. At the same time, the council scaled back an array of cuts proposed in Bass' budget. Over the course of Thursday's six-hour meeting, the council: * Restored positions at the Department of Cultural Affairs, averting the closure of the historic Hollyhock House in East Hollywood, protecting its status as a UNESCO World Heritage site. * Provided the funds to continue operating the Climate Emergency Mobilization Office, which had been threatened with elimination. * Provided $1 million for Represent LA, which pays for legal defense of residents facing deportation, detention or other immigration proceedings. That funding would have been eliminated under Bass' original proposal, Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez said. * Moved $5 million into the animal services department — a move requested by Bass — to ensure that all of the city's animal shelters remain open. * Restored funding for streetlight repairs, street resurfacing and removal of "bulky items," such as mattresses and couches, from sidewalks and alleys. Even with those changes, the city is still facing the potential for hundreds of layoffs, around a third of them at the LAPD. Although the council saved the jobs of an estimated 150 civilian workers in that department — many of them specialists, such as workers who handle DNA rape kits — another 250 are still targeted for layoff. 'We took a horrible budget proposal, and we made it into one that is just very bad,' said Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who represents part of the west San Fernando Valley. 'It took a lot of work to do that, but it is better and we did save jobs. But the fundamentals are still very bad.' Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
