support for this item. i am more than happy to answer any questions. >> any questions or comments from commissioners? seeing none. public comment is closed. is there a motion to award this contract? >> same house, same call. the item is adopted on first reading. his are in the introduction new items? is there any general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed and to the t.a. is adjourned.

>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. time for budget and finance committee. i'm excited to be here. supervisor malia cohen, and to my right is supervisor mandelman, stepping in for supervisor fewer. also recognize supervisor stefani on my left, a member of the committee. recognizing, of course, linda wong, thank you very much for coming to work today, linda. appreciate that. and michael and jim came to

work, our friends at sfgovtv. thank you for assisting us with the broadcast. madam clerk, announcements? >> clerk: silence all cell phones, and submit items to the work. item one, please. >> resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health in the grant of $800,000, to a program beam up a comprehensive stepped early intervention program. >> an item, a grant of $800,000 to work with young people. at risk for mental health issues. supposed to last for two years.

supervisor mandelman and the mayor are the sponsors of this. marlo simmons, come on down. representing the department of public health today. thank you, share with us your comments. >> marlo simmons, deputy director for behavioral health, department of public health. we have had a very robust early psychosis program in san francisco and this grant is an opportunity to expand that program and what we know about psychosis, the earlier you intervene and more effectively you intervene, you can change someone's whole life trajectory. >> resolution states the full grant period has a possible additional two years. if funds are available and if they are "satisfactory progress." maybe you can talk to me about how are we going to be able to measure satisfactory progress and what are the indicators, what indicators would be, would

we be looking for to determine the efficacy. >> a lot of emphasis on getting the word out about the program, so it really is going to strengthen our outreach and awareness campaign that we are doing. so the measures include the number of young people that we are able to reach and enroll in the program, number of providers in the community that are connected to the program making referrals to the program. overall the program measures the symptoms people are experiencing, the families experience. of the young person's symptoms, reductions in hospitalization, incarceration, housing status. >> how do you measure all that? >> report from the client or we look in the electronic health records system, the program is actually replicated, i don't know the number of counties, at

least 5 or 6 bay area county and expanding as well, so the state has put a lot of money into the early psychosis work and that program has been like a trail blazer nationally and internationally. a lot of robust measures that they are tracking. >> all right. thank you very much. seeing that there are no questions with my colleagues, what we will do is hear and take public comment. any member of the public would like to comment on item one, come down and do so. you'll have two seconds -- two minutes, sometimes i wish it was two seconds, but two long minutes. seeing none, public comment is closed. there it is. i'll make a motion to approve and send this item to the full board with the positive recommendation. and take that without objection. madam clerk.

make a motion to excuse supervisor fewer from today's meeting. and we can take that without objection as well. thank you very much. all right. next item, item two. >> item number two, resolution u authorizing issuance, sale and delivery of multi-family housing reven revenue bonds, $50 million, for 2050, 2060, 2070 folsom street and 255 and 265 shotwell street. >> so we have presenters today. welcome. >> good morning. deputy director for finance and administration. item number two is a bond issuance resolution for 2060 folsom street. a 100% affordable project that

will consist of 127 units, including 29 units for transitional age youth. also include ground floor space for childcare, community programs and a small cafe. the project is being jointly developed by mission economic development agency and chinatown center. authorizes to execute just over $50 million in multi-family housing revenue bonds to finance the project. the proposed issuance will be conduit financing and not require the city to pledge any of its funds to repayment of the bonds. i'm joined by elaine yee of meta. if there are any questions about the project it sechl -- itself. we ask to forward it to the full board. >> thank you for the presentation. resolution allowing the mayor's office of housing to issue a

bond. for $50 million for the development of 127 units of affordable housing in the mission. >> yes. >> excellent. i don't see any names on the roster, so we are pretty clear on what you are asking. public comment at this time if there's any member of the public that would like to comment on item two. seeing none, public comment is closed. motion to send, to approve and to send to the full board with a positive recommendation. colleagues, your support. all right. we got it. it's unanimous. thank you, madam clerk. >> resolution authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commissioner to enter into revocable license for new streetlight facility and rock columns and rockaway avenue and laguna honda boulevard with no license fee. >> gives the city license to install city lights on two existing poles at rockaway

avenue and laguna honda. supervisor yee, and recognize darlean, and hear from john scarpula who represents the public utilities commission. welcome, jarlean. >> good morning. i am legislative aide for supervisor yee. and the residents requested the lighting more than six years ago worked on by supervisor yee's predecessor, and we are extreme extreme extremely grateful to staff for working so closely with our neighbors to make this lighting finally possible. the neighbors are really looking forward to a lighting ceremony, hopefully in time for the holiday season. and we hope that this legislation received your support. thank you. >> all right. thank you. i don't see any reason why it wouldn't. john. >> good morning. and sfgovtv, a quick power point

here. thank you. >> the power point. >> there it is. ok. so, really quickly, rockaway avenue is just off laguna honda boulevard and developed in the 1930s, they installed the rock columns that had lights on the top of them, and there are several on that block. unfortunately, at some point in time, we don't know exactly when, two of the columns had lights that came off of them. i don't know if they were moved or broke or what. but we want to replace them and get those lights fired back up. and so this project will install new conduit in the street, sidewalk and a short segment on private property of 10 rockaway avenue, on the property of 10 rockaway, we need a license and so we worked with the owner of 10 rockaway for the license and

the city attorney's office, no fee, no cost to the p.u.c. and license will run with the title of the property and it is perpetual unless terminated by either of the parties. and that is it. >> quick question. this project requires a license from the owner of 10 rockaway. >> correct. because of the conduit we need to install on his property. >> and there's no fee for the license? >> no fee, correct. >> and the license will run through the title of the property and the perpetual, unless terminated by the parties. >> correct. >> all right. so, sounds pretty standard. let's go to public comment. any member of the public that would like to comment on item three, come up. >> good morning, karl wendorf, i live on rockwood court, part of rockwood terrace, these posts, lighting posts have been so important to our neighborhood.

they actually come from a quarry, as far as i've been able to determine, from behind our homes in knock ash hill. and we have wanted to maintain them worked with the city, or with pg&e when they put in new cabling to improve that system because we had frequent occasion of lights going out in foggy times. and because these, two remaining posts that don't have lighting, we have been spearheading this project from the neighborhood to get these lit again. it's really important because it's one of these is right on the corner of laguna honda and rockaway, across from st. brendan's catholic church. there is a lot of activity on that five-way corner. traffic, kids, you've got st. brendan's school, the parish, commute time in the evening. there are a lot of people

walking on the street, a lot of cars in that intersection. so having the poles lit once again would be wonderful. and thank you john and jarlean for working with us on this. >> 30 seconds remaining. anything else? >> that's it. thank you so much. any other member of the public like to comment? no, seeing none, public comment is close. approved and send to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you, madam clerk. appreciate it. please call item four. >> four, resolution approving the issuance of revenue bonds or loan plan of financing in aggregate issue not to exceed 21 million to refinance all or portion of certain outstanding debt obligation that originally financed or refinanced the acquisition, construction,

improvement, equipping and furnishing of educational facilities at 1453 mission street. >> all right. so, this legislation is introduced and sponsored by supervisor kim. we have the office of the controller presenting to us today. >> good morning, thank you for hearing the item. to give you a background on the resolution, tax equity and fiscal responsibility act allows tax exemption on debt, in this case, the financing through the california municipal authority, which the city and county is a member. and issue bonds, notes and other types of debt, including refunding previously issued debt. the resolution before you today is because federal tax law requires the governing body in which the project is located, after providing opportunity for duly noticed public hearing before the bonds can be issued

on that tax exempt basis. in this case, the jurisdiction, the city and county, not obligated for paint on the bonds. hearing notice was published in the san francisco chronicle on september 14th. public hearing two weeks later on september 28th. no comments from any members of the public were heard or received through the process. background on the project, proceeds will be loaned to the borrower, california integral studies, for equipping and furnishing of educational facility on mission street, owned and managed by the bar in connection with the provision of educational services in the city. also finance additional improvements, water proofing, seismic upgrades, and other maintenance. also to finance improvements and

equipment of certain other facilities that are leased and occupied by the borrower. related to providing counseling started at 312 sutter street. also in san francisco, capitalized interest and certain expenses with the bonds. the project is on mission and sutter street. the amount of the bonds approving, assuming it's approved, california municipal finance authority would issue tax exempt bonds not to exceed $21 million. and again, approval of the legislation will have no fiscal impact to the city and county. a little background on california institute of integral studies, accredited, enrollment of graduate and students. and utilizing face-to-face, hybrid and online approaches.

founded in 1968 by dr. chadry as integrational fellowship, non-profit, nondenominational, for universal religion and self-development. now comparative, and cultural anthropology, the arts. as well as bachelor degree programs. project is located in district 6. if you have any questions. appreciate that. item four is a bond up to 21 million to allow them to refinance their debt. easy. ok. public comment, item four. seeing none closed.

motion to send to the full board. item five, please. >> number five, resolution approving issuance of tax exemption obligation by the california statewide aggregate principal amount not to seed 100 million to benefit the california college of the arts. >> i'm the sponsor of this legislation. thank you for hearing it, and here to present on behalf of the controllers office. allow the california college of arts to build 280 units of student housing at 188 hooper street. we held a ribbon cutting ceremony for blatner hall, just a few blocks away on arkansas street, which has over -- has over 200 student housing units. it's important to note these developments, along with 100

hooper are p. d.r. development that we quite frankly, very joyously celebrated in october. the reason why we were celebrating, part of revitalizing potrero hill, straightforward and simple. anything else you want to add? >> yep, thank you for providing background. again, another -- joint powers authority, california statewide community development authority. as you said, the amount of the bonds would be not to exceed $100 million. we published a hearing notice published in the examiner october 4th, public hearing october 18th. did not receive any comments from any members of the public. and yeah, as you said, the bar in this case, national campus community development corporation, hooper street llc,

non-profit benefit or corporation to administer on behalf of california college of the arts for the 280 unit, 134,000 square foot student housing facility. so, that's the purpose of the bond as well as to pay for a cost of issuance and debt service reserve. i can speak a little more if you would like of california college of the arts, but it's your project. >> i don't need to hear about them, but colleagues -- trust me, all right. thank you. all right. i think we are ok. thank you very much. but i would like to open up to public comment. any member of the public like to comment on the item, please come on down. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you very much. thank you for youred presentation. a motion to send to the full board with a recommendation, madam clerk, and without objection. madam clerk, items 6 and 7 together. >> resolution approving the send amendment to the agreement

between the city and community housing partnership, navigation center partnership and center, and to increase the grant amount by approximately 12.1 million for total grant amount of approximately 21.7 million. item seven, resolution retroactively approving the second amendment to provide these supportive housing property management and supportive services to extend the grant agreement term by two years and increase the grant amount by approximately 16. 16.7 million, total 42 million. >> this will continue operation until 2021, that's a good thing. the property eventually will be redeveloped into affordable housing, but until then, we will have the navigation center located, and item seven, a grant extension to provide housing and support services for five master

leases, primarily and again, in district 6, totaling 463s.r.o. units, amazing, and very exciting. so, we have g.t. whitley here from the department of homelessness and supportive housing to make the presentation. recognize that the mayor is the sponsor of both pieces, both item 6 and 7. gigi, welcome, the floor is yours. >> thank you, gigi whitley, deputy director for administration and finance for the department of homelessness and supportive housing. thank you for the excellent summary, chair cohen. first item, item number six, resolution to retroactively approval the second amendment of the grant agreement, one of our non-profit operators, as you mentioned, 93-bed temporary shelter, navigation center, until it can be redeveloped into affordable and permanent housing.

this was approved by the board back in june to extend the navigation center until 2021. this resolution particularly extends the contract amendment, the grant amendment for services and operations until 2021. the second item, a resolution to retroactively approve a second amendment to a grant agreement between our department and episcopal services, extend the grant agreement two additional years, and increases the board approved in the budget process. five master lease hotels that have been long standing in the city, and provide 463 units of permanent supportive housing. we are in agreement with the budget analysts and i want to

thank severin campbell and her team. appreciate it. >> i don't think we have any questions, but what i do want to do, pivot to the budget analyst. nice to see you. >> budget analyst office. item number six is the agreement with community housing partnership for the navigation center, civic center hotel. it approves the second amendment to that agreement. the first time it has come before the board, it's under the threshold that required board approval. the agreement is retroactive to july 1, 2018, and extends the term through december 31, 2021, consistent with prior board actions. page four, we do summarize the budget for the agreement, and

what the budget is going forward. it's 20.8 million. because of that, we are recommending amendment to the resolution to decrease the amount in, from the resolution amount of 21.7 million, to 20.8 million and then approve the resolution as amended and our understanding is the department is, concurs with that. the second item, item number seven, is the approving the second amendment to the agreement with the episcopal community services to provide services and property management to the five master lease hotels. this would extend the agreement by two years to 2020. and retroactive to july 1, 2018. budget presentation is on page nine. the proposed resolution increases the agreement amount to 42.9 million, but based on

information and the budget going forward, amending to reduce it to 40.4 million, and the department is in agreement with that. one other issue came up, when there was the transition from agency, legislation introduced but never approved by the board to, for the first amendment to this agreement. so, there is going to need to be a retroactive approval of that amendment enacted in 2016. >> thank you for that important note. we are going to go to public comment, anything else that you wanted to share with us. nope. are you in agreement with the budget legislative analyst's remarks? >> we are. >> great, good to know. members of the public, item 6 and 7. two minutes. all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. and colleagues, what i would like to do, i'll make a motion

to accept the budget legislative analyst amendments on both items, 6 and 7. also make a motion to approve and send to the full board as amended with a positive recommendation. any questions? nope. all right. any objections? seeing none, we can do it without objection. thank you. madam clerk. items 8 and 9 together. >> number eight, resolution approving modification number one to professional services agreement for airport escalator and electric walk, and increase the contract amount by 2.5 million for a new amount, no the to exceed 19.5 million. item nine, resolution approving modification number three of the superbay hangar between american airlines and the city, and to 6 million and reduce the premises by recapture of plot 40 at the

san francisco international airport. >> thank you, kathy white, san francisco international airport. item number, start with eight, i believe. i will address them very briefly separately, they are fairly different items. the first item before you seeks your approval for modification number one, to an existing contract with thyssenkrupp, increases the contract by $2.5 million. the contract was originally approved by the board in 2013. it allows for the maintenance, repair, testing and on call emergency services of the airport, 133 escalators and four # moving walkways. this is throughout the terminal buildings, garages, connectors,

air train station and rental car facility. the airport develops an r.s.p. with july 31, 2018, commencement date, to align with the fiscal year. a result of the competitive request for proposals and the budget analyst has reviewed the request for modification and recommends approval. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> lrpt. thank you. just so i'm clear, item eight, maintenance for the escalators and the moving walkways, and as the airport continues to prepare for the r.f.p. >> we will bring the new contract back to you, but we are trying to align the contract in the fiscal year. >> that makes sense. and then item nine reduces the land area increases the rent and extends the time limit for the lease for the superbay hangar. what is that?

>> the large hangar area you see just to the east of 101 adjacent to the air field. i can briefly address that, this is also an item that has come before the board a few times. this particular item seems your approval to amend an existing lease with american airlines in order for the airport to recapture some land and ebs tends the lease with american. and reduce by.40 acres and extend the lease through june 30, 2023. the hangar is used exclusively by united and american to do maintenance on aircraft and overnight parking. the airport did begin work to upgrade the superbay hangar fire suppression project in 2016 when the existing contract began to fail. the new system will replace the

old system with a high expansion foam and fire sprinkler system and this modification will allow us to capture some space for infrastructure, as well as extend the lease. >> how did we lose the space? recapturing? >> we didn't lose it. it was part of american's original rental agreement with us, but we need this land, it's not very much, but just for the infrastructure for the new fire suppression system. >> and this new fire suppression system, it will be owned by the s.f.o.? >> yes, we own the superbay and we rent it to the airlines, so we are responsible for all of the infrastructure costs. >> ok. thank you. i don't have any other questions. let's go to the budget legislative analyst and hear miss campbell's thoughts. >> item number eight is approving extension of the contract with thyssenkrupp

elevator corporation by six months through july of next year, june of next year, and the reason for the extension, because it was not part of the original contract, is to allow them to do the r.f.p. process, the airport has told us they want to align the new contract with the fiscal year rather than the calendar year. so we consider that to be reasonable. the airport sees some increasing costs going forward in terms of the age of the escalators, or the walkways and the escalators, and increased foot traffic at the airport. we did consider their budget request to be reasonable and are recommending approval. item number nine is a modification to the lease with american airlines for plot 40, the superbay hangar. it does reducing some of the square footage or the acreage,

to needing that for the construction crews. the second time the lease has been reduced in size for that reason. rent is going up to -- from 4.6 million to -- 4.6 million to 6 million a year, based on appraised value and being extended through 2023, under the administrative code, the airport does not need a competitive process to extend into a lease, or extend a lease with an airline and we recommend approval. >> are you in agreement with the recommendations from the b.l.a.? >> yes, we are. >> all right. colleagues, let's go to public comment on items 8 and 9. please come up. all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. miss campbell, you didn't make any amendments, right? so, i'll make a motion to approve and send to the full

board with a positive recommendation. colleagues, take that without objection, thank you, without objection, madam clerk. thank you. all right. on to the big fish. item ten. >> ten, ordinance amending the environmental to require audit every three years of large refuse generators, separation requirements and establish enforcement measures applicable to large refuse generators found noncompliant. >> thank you very much. i wanted to recognize, we have supervisor safai a sponsor, and supervisor tang a sponsor of this, and miss debbie rafael, an opportunity to make opening remarks and then we will hear -- ok, supervisor safai, please. >> thank you. i'm not going to have long remarks today. i think we had a really deep and spirited discussion last time, i appreciate the opportunity to

hear this again. i'm just going to say very clearly, based on the research, based on best practices, based on everything that we know from working in this industry, waste management, and environmental protection and concern, this is about an entry level minimum wage job to help preserve money, save money, for the company that they, this person might be working for, or the non-profit or entity, whatever it might be, but ultimately this is a position that will pay for itself, it will help save the company money, and ultimately save our environment. we are paying significant cost to send waste to landfill, we are paying significant cost in environmental degradation as it

pertains to greenhouse gasses. when we send waste not appropriate to landfill, it lets off toxins that contribute to greenhouse gasses, and ultimately help degrade our environment. rate payers experienced 14% increase in the garbage bill last year. all of that embedded in the cost is the cost to pay for landfill and pay for the work that's being done in this industry, and i think san francisco is a leader. so, what we are saying is in this legislation that we have been working with the department of environment and many in the industry on for almost a year, that if there is an audit, if there is a finding that a company or entity is not performing well, not participating in our environmental goals, then they will be asked to have someone dedicated to looking at this and helping to facilitate the work to divert more recycling and composting away from landfill.

the reason we started this conversation was a year ago, we found out that we would not be meeting our 0 waste goals by 2020, and that 60% of our waste stream was compostable or recyclable. so we said how are we going to ultimately achieve this goal, and so this is the best practice in the industry. we are not making this up. having someone dedicated to doing this work has been done for years now. another thing we will talk about is the impact on affordable housing and food, food serving industries that serve the indigent, i have some amendments. we worked with the department of the environment, unified school district, city administrator, small business commission, and economic work force development, multiple city agencies. each and every one of them has signed off and is in support of

what we are doing. we have checked in with them multiple times, so we feel really comfortable about the way this is headed and we really appreciate director rafael and her team for putting so much time. at the end of the day, this is -- if in fact someone would have to hire a facilitator, this is a minimum wage job that will pay for itself and ultimately save whatever entity that's required to do that money at the end of the day. and they have case studies to show that. thank you, director rafael. >> thank you. >> thank you, president cohen and members of the committee. debbie rafael, could we have the power point, please? perfect, thank you. it is a pleasure for me to be here today to discuss my role in this is to explain why, why this

is important to our department, and then jack macy will answer some of the questions laid out before. this is the total tons disposed to landfill over time, and what you can see, since 2000, we made great strides. reduced our amount to landfill in half. and during the recession, there was a dip that continued, and as we pulled out of the recession, that, we call that the hockey stick. the number is going in the wrong direction. at the same time, we have signed on to the world, on the world stage, that we are committed to refusing what goes to landfill in half, by 2030. so, we've got a major commitment that we have joined with cities from around the world in cutting where we are now in half. so, when i take a look at that graph, i say all right, we are going in the wrong direction.

what are the tools that i have that we have as a department to help us change that direction, and what tools are missing for us? so, the first question, why is this going up and who is contributing to that. a small group of generators, less than 1% of the generators are actually 20% of the waste to landfill. who to tackle first, that's where you go. the small number giving the biggest input, that's the most efficient way to go. so, these large quantity generators, large refuse generators are not mysterious to us. we know who they are, we have been working with them for 20 years. the last ten years since mandatory composting and recycling was passed by the board, we have in fact invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in staff time, in consulting

time, at no cost to those generators, to hold their hands, to help them do a better job. and what we have found of those large generators, many of them are willing partners. they are willing to work with us to try and do a better job. there are a handful, there are a number of them who won't let us in the door. and when we raise their rates, when we take away diversion discount, when we start to do what we call these contamination charges, they simply pay their way out. to them, it's the cost of doing business in san francisco. so, for us, when we look at that, it's a tool of technical assistance, the tool of rate signals are not working, we need an additional tool in our toolbox to deal with those large generators. and again, as supervisor safai said we look around. where do we have proof of concept, what tool we need and what we have seen is successes are often because somebody in

that building has a responsibility to make sure that 0 waste paid attention to. not spread out over the janitors or asked of the tenants to simply do the right thing. there is someone who owns that task, and we call them 0 waste facilitators because their job is much more than sorting at the end of the line. it's going back up to tenants and making sure they understand the rules, it's putting signage in place, giving a feedback mechanism to know what's expected. there are some other consequences of not doing a good job. this graph is a problem for us on many levels. the wasted resources is one, of course. we are sending things to landfill that shouldn't go there. tlu already other problems and those are the problems in the green and the blue bin. in our green bin, our compost, that is important resources for our agricultural systems. we have had loads of that

contaminated with glass, some restaurants or hotels were not careful and put in bottles. that ended up on ag land and costs tens of thousands of dollars, they had to go out to the vineyard and collect that compost and bring it back. with the blue bin, hearing about china shutting off its recycling markets because they want it clean. and if anyone has ever looked in a blue bin, maybe in their own homes, sometimes they are contaminated with food. they are not clean and dry. well, that food contaminated material completely gums up the system at pier 96, that we just invested $14 million to upgrade. so, when our blue compactors are contaminated, green are contaminated, we have real problems at the end of life. and when our black compactors are contaminated with recyclables and composting, we are not meeting our goals and

serving the climate. so, that's the problem statement, why i as director are looking for opportunities to give our staff more tools to address the problem. now, you last time this committee met, you had a number of questions and they were fully legitimate questions, and i apologize that we did not come to you in advance with those answers. but we want to be responsive and so jack macy and his team have spent a lot of time trying to figure out what are the answers to those questions. we also understand that when this law was originally written, it was too broad. and we have worked to narrow the focus so that we work with the affordable housing, the food pantries, get rid of the smaller restaurants and businesses so we are honing our sites on the large generators that are the problem. with that, i'm going to pass it along to jack macy, unless there is a question. >> i have a couple questions. if you don't know the answer,

that's fine. we will pass it on to mr. macy. i want to say thank you for coming to committee and being a part of this. your voice was notably absent and give you an opportunity to be present and aware of this. as a director, it's really important. the other thing that i want to also highlight, we are on the same page. we want to get to 0 waste. that is the ultimate goal, and i think it's important for us as the city and county of san francisco as a leader, not only in the state of california, but argue possibly the entire world to be, to making sure our walk and our talk are congruent with the wrdz we put out there. i have a couple questions for you. these are fairly specific. how many tons a year are going into landfill outside of the recology system. >> it's a great question. what the question is getting at, is that there are, if you look at what is going to landfill, it

comes from the inside of buildings, which is what this ordinance is dealing with, and it comes from outside of buildings, which is the construction and demolition world. that is very heavy material, incredibly important, and so i will get you the answer to that question but i want to acknowledge, two different pots, if you will, of waste, and they require two different answers, but it's a very important to understand the graph i showed wasn't talking about the construction and demolition waste, that's what recology is handling and so it's very important to be, to have that distinction and understand that we are not done with this, we are not done. >> before jack comes up, thank you. that's really important distinction that i did want to get on the record, and i wanted to hear. we'll get to the tonnage in a second. in your presentation, talked about having tools in order to

do a better job of bringing the generators, large generators into compliance with our policies. for what reason have we not considered increasing the fees, or increasing the penalties so that these large generators are no longer at the point where they can factor the fee in to where it's just a cost of doing business, but actually becomes punitive and adverse effect on the bottom line. >> beautiful thought, and exa exactly where we went in the last rate process. >> we, it's not the city, recology had the authority by the rate board to penalize generators, if their black bin, and i use black as a -- if the black bin was contaminated, then

they would get an extra charge on their bill, and the way the charge would work, would be up to 50% of their refuse rate. after last year, the rate board approved to go to 100%. so, if they were paying $100,000 a year in their refuse rate, they could pay $200,000 a year. now, for many people, for many companies it's sufficient to get their attention. but there are some who even with those charges, for whatever reason, they are busy, they don't care, i can't ascribe why it has not motivated them, but it's not sufficient. albeit that rate process has only been in the last year. so, what's good about the structure of this is because it goes over a three-year period of implementation, that rate process should be sending signals to people between now and then, so that they will start seeing different

motivations for taking, paying attention to what they do. but that's exactly, and that's something san francisco has that is unique. there are cities around the world that are jealous of the signals we send through the rate structure itself. we have a discount and we have penalties. unfortunately for some, that's not sufficient. >> all right. so, another piece of the legislation a little troubling for me is the cost benefit analysis, whether a sorter would actually save money. i don't know if you have an answer, but i suspect mr. macy certainly would. and also want to talk a little bit about allowing yourself as the director, the director of this department, the discretion needed to determine, discretion needed to have some flexibility

to built in how you want to go after these bad actors. one thing that does concern me, i think you will be lobbied heavily, i'm sure you don't want that. >> so, yeah. you raised two very good points there. the cost benefit analysis, i just want to say, that we have seen because of our rate structure, and so this might not be true for other cities, but because we have penalties and incentives, that together makes the cost benefit analysis very helpful to hiring a 0 waste facilitator. other cities who don't have the incentives and the penalties, if you will, it might not pencil out. in san francisco it did hes and we have seen it over and over again and jack macy will be able to show you some case studies. issue of discretion is important and i've been in government over 20 years and i believe that, and so i have a lot of sympathy for the regulated community when

they don't have certainty, when they don't understand what is expected of them. that to me is a very fair statement. so, when you start to give a nonelected official like myself discretion, it can get funky after a while, problematic. it can be dependent on who is in my position. >> exactly. >> also then be overwhelming to me personally, because we have 400 accounts and if i am deciding on each of those 400 as individually, i'm spending way too much time on this issue compared to all the other things that i need to pay attention to. having said that, i do believe that one size doesn't necessarily fit all. and so what we have -- there are two pieces of this legislation that i think are positive, and came across after discussion. one is that upon failure of the audit, we will give a very detailed report to the failed business, the business that did not pass on what the problem is.

and so they will be able to see where they need to work and what they need to do. that will be tailored to each business. it's not the same reason that everyone is failing. it will be different for a restaurant versus a hotel, versus an apartment building, versus a commercial office building. so, there is discretion for me, for the department to list the terms. there is no discretion on hiring a facilitator, i get that, and that is a policy call, but that is where the discretion stops. >> ends, right. >> the other place there is discretion built in here is on the fines. so, it says the director may issue fines, that was changed from the very first, to shall. because we heard loud and clear that those fines were incredibly onnerous and only used under, you know, extreme circumstances where someone is truly blowing us off. they just are not wanting to pay

attention to this issue. so those areas have been addressed given the one area that hasn't. but those are addressed. >> the one area that hasn't, i -- i will, at some point, will direct the, have already been in touch with the deputy city attorney to start to draft some language. we don't have it here today in this committee to actually go over and to present with you, but when we do have them, when we do have the language, we'll present it to you as a department head and then also to the sponsor. >> ok. >> ok. very good. >> i have another question. how are we enforcing fees? how are they enforced? because i understand, and i want to just confirm this, that they are not very well enforced. >> i don't know what well enforced means. i would say the way that the fines, or extra charges happen as recology and there is someone from recology here that can

speak more specifically than myself. they are pretty communicative in terms of people's performance and they will just start charging on their bill. so, i don't know what not enforce means. >> okay. supervisor safai. >> thank you, president cohen, appreciate the questions. those were really to the point. one point of clarification that i want to add in terms of when in this instance where the director is giving all their orders, spent a lot of time, the legislation says, you would have to have someone dedicated. for instance, we have been in conversation with the flower mart. flower mart is 40, 50 vendors, all under one roof. they have one operator. we explained to them. they already have a 0 waste facilitator, some one dedicated to doing the sorting, sop one that goes around, looks at the waste stream from each of the

respective vendors, says ok, you are not doing the packaging here, you are not doing this here, you are not sorting it properly. sends it back, they end up fixing it, it comes back out. so, the point is, in that instance, if they were to fail, they would not, part of the director, correct me if i'm wrong, director rafael, but would not be required to hire a new sorter. they would probably have to retool some. so, when i talk to the operator there, jeannie boaz, she said waiting and working with recology, need new equipment. it might require department of the environment to retrain the individual or is the person knowledgeable of how things are. sometimes and i know you all have been doing this very aggressively, where things are sorted changes, right? one, you know, wet paper versus soiled paper versus lining, and

part of the legislation, what levels of contamination are, where things are. they allow for that to be updated on an annual basis. that may be part of the reeducation. a place like the flower mart, if they were to fail, they would not be required to hire an additional staff person, but retool, identifying, additional equipment. >> originally written if you fail, i think the word is audit, then you have to -- then the legislation requires you to hire someone, is that -- has that chan changed? an a that has nodding chaed. we talked a lot about drafting the legislation. first the universe was larger than 424, universe was up to 6, 700, right?

we originally had it at 30 cubic yards of waste. slightly different definition and so when we talk to recology, and we have been in negotiations with recology and the department of environment since the spring, since it started, even before the spring. we changed the definition, right? and we also talked about -- >> changed definition from what to what? >> from 30 cubic yards and rolloff compactor, to 40 -- shrunk the businesses. it's no longer on the list, because of the level of waste they are doing. >> that's where we get to the 424. >> yes, i think it's down to 419 now. >> 419. >> so, we are down to universe of 419. one thing we heard from depending upon the time frame recology said to us, well, and this is another thing we did, we

rolled back the start date from january 1st to july 1, 2019. we org in a lly were going to go for a 2 or 2 and a half year period, all the audits would happen. we extended that out to three years, we wanted the appropriate spacing. recology does not want to spend all of the time doing audits of businesses that have rolloff compactors. so we spread out that time and we also know, and again, this is just, i know there are some folks from the industry, know that if someone has an audit, fails that audit, and then knows that they are going to have an audit in a very short period of time after that, it's very easy for them to temporarily reorganize themselves on bringing some additional staffing and then know the audit is coming and then potentially pass that audit and release these folks. so, we are also concerned about gaming the system. so, one, the amount of time the department of environment and

recology would spend on this, two, and i'm sure with a smaller universe, recology would say we can do additional audits, right? but we also are very concerned about false positives, and very concerned about people that are not necessarily going to really be changing their culture. so, this is another thing we would change to your question. originally we required it to be a two-year period the 0 waste facilitator would have to be there, we reduced it to one year. after one year they have the ability to go and have an additional audit, and at that point they can see if they are doing better. but i mean, when jack gets into his slides -- >> interject a question. where are these changes codified? >> the changes i'm talking about are all already changed. >> in the legislation. >> all changed -- i have a couple of additional amendments today but i can -- >> you have language for your amendments? >> i do. >> would you like me to talk about them now? >> circulate them.

>> i was waiting to hand them out, after the presentation. >> you can still do that, that's perfectly ok. >> those are the two things i wanted to jump in and clarify on, i'm glad the director talked about the discretion piece. another point to your point about discretion, we did also make some amendments, they are reflected in the legislation already, and this is in a previous version with regard to the city, on the city side of equation. some consideration given to our budget process. so, the audits happen outside of the budget process as it pertains to city agencies, and we give consideration to the budgeting and hiring process that the city has to participate in. so they would not be required to have the same turn around of 60 days as everyone else is, and so there is more discretion in this realm, in city agency realm than there is to yourri