Under state law, every city and county has to provide for its own solid waste collection system and counties are responsible for disposal sites. Within the refuse industry there is a saying: "Everyone wants you to pick up the garbage, but no one wants you to put it down." So the business of refuse management is tricky. You have to collect solid wastes regularly, safely, and cost-effectively. You have to handle an wide array of waste materials, including some that are dangerous for the environment and public health and others that are bulky, perhaps very bulky. On top of that are inherent costs of operations, including labor, materials, equipment and land. Those costs routinely increase. For example, consider the price of diesel fuel to operate garbage trucks and other heavy equipment, which wasn't trivial before the war with Iran and has since gone through the roof. 

It was no surprise, then, that the Board of Supervisors recently adopted a proposed new solid waste rate schedule. The rates were recommended in a consultant report aimed at fiscal stability for the County's solid waste management functions (see the Supervisor's 9/22/26 agenda packet, beginning at page 1582 of the packet). Of course, this is not the County's first rodeo in this regard. The County recently mailed notification of the proposed residential rate increase to its residental solid waste service customers and announced a public hearing for December 8, 2026 (see below). Ballpark-wise, customers can expect to pay $2-$3 more per month for the next 5 years, depending on the size of their garbage cans. To sweeten the pot, in 2027 the County will begin offering two bulk waste collections per year, not just one.

There has been quite a bit of outrage on social media sites about the proposed rate increases. While we DO underestand that people are stressed by rising costs, our little newsroom is not going to take sides as to whether people should support or oppose the County's new rate schedule. Besides, as a 501(c)(3) organization, that's not our role. We can point out, though, that the County's competitive rates table is not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. For example, there are wide variations in infrastructure and infrastructure needs. Rancho Cordova and Folsom don't really need transfer stations because they are close to the Kiefer landfill. There are recycling centers in Elk Grove, Galt and Sacramento. 

The County's proposed rate announcement indicates competitiveness vs. the Cities of Sacramento, Galt and Folsom. We suspect those cities' rates are heavily influenced by scale (very big, very small), by lack of transfer stations (Galt) or lack of small garbage cans (Folsom). Further, there are better add-on services in those cities. Folsom offers 3 bulk waste pick-ups and a cost-effective dumpster per year. Galt annually offers a free small (3.5 cu. yd.) dumpster, 1 bulk waste pickup and discounts on 10-40 cu. yd. dumpsters. Sacramento offers 2 free bulk waste pick-ups with more for $40 each, has a transfer station and allows for fall leaf pile pick-ups ("The Claw"). 

However, the three newest cities in our County - Citrus Heights, Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova - all have lower costs than the County while also offering better service. Each of those cities provides its custormeers with bigger garbage cans (32, 64 and 96 gallon cans vs. the County's 30, 60 and 90 gallon cans. All three provide three bulk waste clean-ups each year. Citrus Heights also gives customers 6 giant plastic bags for extra leaf disposal in the fall; Rancho Cordova provides 4 bags. Elk Grove's price includes Christmas tree pick-up and 1 free trip to the transfer station per year.  How do those cities manage to charge less and provide more? Because they are cities, they are not required to use the County's collection services. They can issue competitive contracts. If our community became a city, it would also gain the right to set rates ourselves.