San Francisco’s city board overseeing waste management approved a 24 percent increase to residents’ trash collection rates on Wednesday, a hike that’s set to take place Oct. 1.
Recology’s current rate for basic service (three bins) is $47 a month per household. The increase takes place over the next three years, and will amount to $52.75 a month for the 2026 rate year, $56.52 for 2027 and $58.44 for 2028.
For the following years, the rates will be negotiated in September 2027.
The decision marks the end months of back-and-forth between Recology, the private company that has a monopoly over the city’s trash collection, and the city’s Refuse Rate Board, a designated body within the city controller’s office that has overseen the rate-setting process since 2022.
The board was created in the wake of a corruption scandal. Mohammed Nuru, the former director of the Department of Public Works, the agency formerly in charge of setting the city’s trash collection rates, agreed to an inflated rate increase in return for favors from Recology.
Recology’s proposal sparked fierce pushback from residents. Homeowners associations and tenants groups, who typically disagree on policy, have banded together to oppose the increase.
“I could throw this garbage away myself and make money,” said Sean, who introduced himself as “a small property owner” at the meeting, which stretched for more than three hours. “I’m here to plead with you guys, and tell you that it’s difficult for us, and it’s just getting more difficult, especially for the mom and pop guys.”
Aaron Peskin, the former president of the Board of Supervisors, who placed the legislation that created the rate-setting board on the ballot, also came to the meeting. “I’m here today as a ratepayer, on behalf of a coalition of tenants, residential property owners and homeowners, to formally protest these proposed refuse rate increases for rate years 2026 through 2028,” he said.
But the increase is going through, regardless. Board Chair Carmen Chu, after thanking the public for their comments, said it was “not realistic that we will not have any rate increase.”
Recology has seen lower revenue than expected over the last couple of years, explained Chu, in part because it over-projected how many people would live in the city. And, as with any other service, the cost of doing business has risen.
“The rate application before you is the cost to perform the services,” said Evan Boyd, Recology’s regional vice president. He added that the cost of service in San Francisco is in line with elsewhere, including Los Angeles, San Diego and Oakland.
In January, Recology initially sought a rate increase of 32 percent over three years. Last month, the refuse rates administrator found that to be too high, and countered with 28 percent. That came down again after more technical adjustments and negotiations.
Just bring it yourself . I go to south San Francisco dumps . $180 a ton . My work was getting charged $2000 a mo th for a small dumpster and some bins . I dump it myself for $200-$250 a month .
100% of savings $1750 has been passed to the customer . Not raising our prices for our beloved customers . Businesses need to keep prices the same and become more efficient .
Outrageous. S.F. residents should have the option to opt out or use another provider.
Why is Recology a monopoly?
Recology got voters to approve the no-bid contract back in the 1930s, and it’s been that way ever since. An attempt to break up the monopoly in 2012 was crushed by Recology and the Chamber of Commerce: https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco_Competitive_Bidding_Required_for_Garbage_Collection_and_Disposal,_Proposition_A_(June_2012)
How else would it work? Multiple mornings of pickups by different companies, different bins? Would garbage service providers share the SF “dump”, requiring perhaps a third sorting/picking company, with their own associated overheads and profit margins? It makes sense for the local refuse company to have an exclusive contract to SF services, at least for a given contract period, but perhaps the contract needs to be put out for competitive bid, assuming the physical plant of the SF tranfer station is publicly owned.
Landlords/property owners are required to have refuse service to reduce illegal dumping- can you imagine how much worse street cleanliness would be if trash pickup weren’t mandatory?
How else could it work? Gosh, I dont know. Maybe the City could take it over. “Public service”, you know, like in most cities, not contracted out to for profit and nonprofit corporations
So the owner employees of Recology make out like bandits with monopoly profits when business is good and they make good projections, but when things don’t go their way, they come crying cup in hand to the city so that they don’t have to put the other half of skin into the game.
The numbers presented in this article don’t add up. Are there additional increases in later years? It would be nice to know what those are. $47 to $53 is a 13% increase.
The refuse contract for San Francisco was up for bid just last year- would Recology have won the contract if their bid had included this 24% rate increase?
Now, this is really going to help with all of the illegal dumping. Thanks, city leaders.
From direct personal experience, folks in LA and Toronto don’t pay out of pocket for garbage removal at all — two really big cities. I know the funds come from somewhere, taxes, etc, but what about SF?
If you call Recology with a broken garbage can, they take the opportunity to also raise your costs by offering to replace the same sized receptacle at a higher rate, or a smaller/less volumed one for the same price.
Millbrae repairs or replaces them for free without the increase, though they also use Recology/Sunset Scavenger. Just a different deal with the city. Our leaders are just inept, or corrupt, or whatever.
RECOLOGY IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A MONOPOLY! You have a right to choose any recycler you wish so forcing you to pay for Recology recycling pick-up service is UNENFORCEABLE. Read this bombshell https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2025/05/27/18876784.php (leave a comment with your contact if you want details)
The city takes a cut from Recology profits so its “attempts” to reign in this de-facto monopoly are theatre at best. Vacant houses, people who don’t produce waste etc can theoretically get a waiver, but DPH admitted it never granted one as it does not want “to set a precedent”! The city acts like a free Recology’s lawyer defending its profits on taxpayers’ dime.
As to street pollution it will end when people are not forced to pay exorbitant rates, not the other way around!
All this and more is supported by evidence to be presented at the next BoS meeting – stay tuned and spread the word. Only a mass outrage will reduce or even eliminate your rates like it was done in many countries…
Lets see. Recology bribed city officials, right. Like In most of the world,bribery is a crime in SF. But in SF, the criminals, if the are wealthy and powerful enough, arent put in jail, but rewarded because their revenue projections are down. Sounds like PG&E, though Recology has yet to be convicted multiple tomes of murder — give them time. BTW,Recology picks up trash from trash cans as well. What does the contract say about that?
Utility cost increases are killing mom and pop rental owners.
Residential PGE costs have increased 56% in last three years (and more than doubled in last 10).
SFPUC/water costs increased 8.3% in 2023 with a 28% increase approved over the next 3 years.
Recology rate hike to be 24%.
Insurance costs have more than doubled — if you can get it at all.
San Francisco rents have essentially been frozen since 1992. In all years except 2023, the allowable increase was 0.1% to 2% per year. Most small owners were struggling to fill their units in 2023 after the pandemic when the allowable increase was 3.6% and did not pass this on.
Security deposit interest was set at 5.2% last year and 5% again this year, which is a net loss for landlords.
These cost increases are not sustainable for the 60% of SF landlords who own two or three units and live in one.
Oakland is hardly a valid comparison. Remember how they arrived at sky high rates when the City Counsel shot themselves in the foot by trying to push a favored but hopelessly unprepared new contractor over the existing one? By the time it became clear that the garbage was going to go uncollected and pile up in the streets, they had cornered themselves into having to accept a last hour proposal from their current contractor, considerably lifting the established rates.
Thanks
Too bad pay isnt related to performance
Sf remains a garbage dump
Toters and garbage from them all over
With the homeless and addicts on the streets/sidewalks dumping and contiunally using public spaces as a garbage dump
And showing no respect for others or the community , the 24 hour babysitting and room service doesnt help
But recology needs to get their act together