LOS ANGELES – Property owners in Los Angeles may soon see a 22% hike in their sewer service bills as the City Council will consider approving new rates Friday that would increase further through 2028.
In May, Los Angeles Environment & Sanitation, the bureau overseeing the city’s sewer system, proposed a new rate schedule, which officials say is needed to maintain operations and invest in aging infrastructure. Before this proposal, the city had not raised sewer fees since 2020, opting to keep fees flat due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Under the proposed rate change, households would receive a 22% increase in sewage service fees in October, followed by smaller percentage increases through July 2028. Ratepayers would end up spending almost double compared to the existing fees.
A single-family household currently pays $75.40, but if the rate schedule is approved, it would see a charge of $92.04 on their typical bimonthly bill. By July 2028, the charge would be $155.48 — though rates are based on a percentage of the amount of water used, according to the city’s sanitation bureau.
As of the 2024-25 fiscal year, nearly one-third of pipes are older than 90 years, past their life cycle of 60 to 80 years, while treatment plants have an expected average life cycle of 30 to 50 years, Barbara Romero, general manager of the sanitation bureau, wrote in a report to City Council on May 2.
The city’s Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant, a sewage treatment facility in Playa del Rey last saw a major overhaul almost 40 years ago. On Aug. 20, the City Council approved $20.8 million to pay fines as a result of a 2021 sewage spill that released 12.5 million gallons of untreated wastewater discharged to Santa Monica Bay.
Romero noted that in the next five years there will be hundreds of infrastructure projects — estimated at more than $3 billion — such as pipeline rehabilitation, water reclamation plants, and monitoring water quality.
In order to effectuate the rate change, the city is required by Proposition 218, also known as the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which protects taxpayers by limiting the methods local governments can create or increase taxes, fees and charges without taxpayer consent, to notify property owners, as well as comply with public hearing and protest requirements.
Property owners had until Tuesday to submit a written protest if they opposed the proposed rate increases. The city also sent out notices in the mail about the possible sewage fee hikes to stakeholders. Additionally, the bureau hosted two informational webinars over the summer.
If more than half of property owners submitted protests against the proposal, it would have been unable to move forward.
On Wednesday, at a public hearing on the proposed rates, about 25 people gave public comments to the City Council and another 10 also called in via teleconference.
Simboa Wright, vice president of SEIU Local 721, who is also a sanitation wastewater conveyance operator for the city, was one of about five individuals who supported the rates. He said the proposed hikes are about protecting citizens.
“We don’t want sewage backing into people’s properties. We don’t want to have overflowing sewers going into the ocean,” Wright said. “If we don’t take care of this 80-year-old infrastructure, that’s what will happen.”
Charley Mims, executive director of the Los Angeles Professional Managers Association, also supported the proposed rates, saying it was a matter of helping to maintain the environment of the Santa Monica Bay.
Dory Frank, a resident of the Fairfax district, described the 22% rate increase as “excessive.” He criticized the city for their lackluster effort to inform homeowners about the impact to their tax bills.
Tess Taylor, president of the Greater Toluca Lake Neighborhood Council, also expressed her frustration with the city’s handling of the rate increase.
“The way this rate increase has been manipulated virtually guarantees adoption by this government as a largely unregulated monopoly utility. … A standard that a proposed rate increase will be approved unless a majority of ratepayers file timely written protest is completely backwards, counterintuitive and should be unacceptable to you as it is to ratepayers,” Taylor said.
