we have regular communication with them and look at -- look at monthly projection reports and see what is going on so we can work together as to how best reach our families in san

francisco. so this particular response is going to the scholarship fund. we can address the wait list. if you have questions. >> we don't have questions. >> the second part is the $200,000 discretionary fund for family resource centers. this was allocated to support family resource centre. it is based on community reports. there is concerns about displacement of the families. this will allow the family resource center to help support families. and so this money will be

supporting the family research centre and we are working closely to make sure the funding is appropriately spend and we look at the measures and so on. >> all right. so again thank you so much for the opportunity. and we certainly appreciate the funding that helps support the youngest children. i do not think we have questions. we will move on with the presentation. thank you. i want to call up the next speaker. he will have a presentation for us addressing the senior population. we also received a bulk of discretionary funding, particularly around food security. we asked the director mcfadden to speak to specific allocations for residential care facilities.

and then second, the skill and capacity building for seniors, the people with disabilities. thank you. >> yes. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity. and i will start out by talking about the two initiatives. i wanted to give you a brief update on the other ones which will be very fast. so the first one is that -- during the development for funding for residential care facilities for the elderly, this funding was called in a board hearing. based on alternatives for seniors. who are unable to stay home on their home but do not need a skilled nursing level of care.

due to a variety of factors including increased regulations and labour costs the supply is decreasing. we lost a 29% decline. this funding will be used to alleviate the infrastructure costs in san francisco with a goal of supporting facility sustainability. it is $300,000. the procurement process, the funding is currently going to a competitive -- we are hoping to get the rrsp by september and october. and in this case, we needed -- we tried to, we tried to get the money out quickly. in this case, we had a conversation about the best avenue to implement the funding.

and to do an rsp. this is not something we put up this way before. and thinking about measuring success. the program has objectives on long-term sustainability and specific to the infrastructure project proposed. for example, staff completion of training. behaviour and cognitive issues. that is where we are on that. march, 2019. the second big initiative is $600,000 for skilled capacity building for older people, people with disabilities. this funding was part of the board hearing in 2018. and the funding is being used to expand training and job placements. specifically for older people and people with disabilities.

in this capacity, we will add to our current program that we fund. which is operated by the campaign and it is something we have been doing for a couple of years now where the living campaign, the reserve, they work with non-profits to pay for wage subsidies and they are hoping that the non-profits will be able to continue providing care for individuals beyond the scope of the subsidy. in addition to that, at this time, they wanted to spend money on the services side. it is a big infrastructure. the workforce development and we wanted to really try to focus on their efforts on serving the elder population. we are working with them to build -- to expand their capacity to older adults. it will expand the capacity for

workforce and about 60% will go directly to the community based provider. >> how did you come up with those -- that allocation? the percentages that you just -- >> we came up with that really by sitting down and having a discussion about how we could start something and support the community based organization in our discussion. >> and does that include the partners, the internal staff, your partners. . >> one of the things that i want to achieve is to break the silence that we have in our agencies. first of all, the program on the side, how can we make sure the program has the capacity to serve older people. that is not part of the retirement right now as the program. they have the ability, the capacity and the business relationships and all of that. we wanted to really -- i really

thought it was a great opportunity for that. at the same time, we have community based organizations who have done a lot of advocacy and fantastic work. we brought them into the discussion and said what will work for you and make sure we can get a foot in the door on workforce development side of the program. >> okay. >> i want to talk a little bit next about the rest of the funding that we received in the process. so additional discretion spending. our approach was where we could with the new contract modifications, because we put out a request for proposals by program area, we have a lot about the contracts and we have the ability to do a number of contract modifications. try to get them out the door as soon as possible.

and keeping in mind that we think about the equity issues. the geographical equity issues as well. racial issues as well. thinking about people with disabilities. older adults, all of those things. 1 million in discretionary spending out of the two things i talked about. and to date, we have 6,800 contracts. all -- >> can you tell me how much? >> 2.1 million in discretion. with the initiatives i mentioned. >> 608,000 has gone out the door? >> as a one-time only contract modification. >> and -- the age resource cent

et cetera. >> and then we have a number of dollars also processed. we have an additional 1.6 million that we are processing almost all of it will go to commission in december. 1.26 million will go to commission in december. and it is funding for nutritional services. so we think that is about it, unless you have questions from me. >> thank you very much. >> i think -- all right. so i want to thank everyone who made the presentation. and the process of why we did it and why we are doing it this way, you may recall that the

board passed a discretionary fund. 130 million alongside the budget funding that has been identified as our identifying spending priorities. this was done in a series of hearings that we held. this was held in april or may of -- in this committee. we identified the specific spending priorities in the relevant departments to come back and tell us how they are spending the money. it is an effort just to reenvision the budget process and ensure there is transparency at every level. so we are not just allocating the spending money out the door. we are requiring the department heads to tell us how they are spending and what is the methodology used to determine how much they will be spending. so that's the presentation that

you have heard today. and i want to thank the department heads again for preparing the presentation. we can continue to take public comment in this hearing. if there are members of the public that would like to comment on number 8. no public comment. closed. what i would like to do, i will make a motion to file this what the hearing has heard and can do that without objection. thank you. okay. i want to call -- i want to call item 12. we will be continuing this item. let's call item 12. madam clerk. >> number 12. (number 12 read)

>> okay. thank you. we are going to continue this to the next budget meeting. which is scheduled for december 6th. if there is a member of public that on the item 12? yes? >> [inaudible] >> and again, just a reminder, we are continuing the items. we will take public comment again. this is just on commenting on the continuance. >> an opportunity for public comment then? >> only on the continuance. you can come next week and talk on it. >> just to clarify. >> thank you. >> a member of the public wants

to speak on any aspect of the item, the committee intends to continue. there will be an additional opportunity for public comment next week. thank you. >> okay. thank you very much. >> we want to thank you. and thank the supervisors for the work they are doing on the project labour agreement and including all the constituencies and the stakeholders and we wanted to -- we represent a very important constituency which we would love to have included in the agreement currently in section where it states the apprentices must be hired from the joint program. if you remove the word joint, you can have all federally approved apprentices working on the projects. our apprentices, we have a lot of apprentices who are in the -- we are putting them to work

directly. we believe we are an important component of the success of the city moving forward. we would like to be part of the conversation and we look forward to include all state and federally approved apprentices so they can continue to work in the city. there may be others interested in speaking. i know there are apprentices here who would like to speak. >> all right. well, come on down. >> good morning. i live right here in san francisco. i am a federally approved apprentice. i am enrolled in the electrical program. i started my education as an electrical trainee. i will been blessed with the opportunity to be accepted and currently trained as an apprentice. it has been a night and day difference. there is a hands-on training

program and an intense program. so that when the time comes, i will be a well-rounded electrician. almost my whole career as an aspiring electrician has been here in san francisco. everything i do and will do, like starting my family and future businesses will be here in the city. the san francisco labour agreement, there is an opportunity to work on projects in my community because of the join language that specifically excludes me, i urge you to -- to the board for december 4th vote. and to allow for all local residents the opportunity to work on projects in the city. thank you. >> all right. i would like to inform you, working with the sponsor and the

supervisor and the parties. the next speaker. >> hello. i am an electrical apprentice. and i work on a large project right now. the ones my company built in san francisco. because of the joint language in the poa, the path of the poa, it was specifically denied us to continue to work on projects like the ones we are working on right now. so i urge you strongly to -- >> we are not taking a vote on it again. thank you. come on down. the next speaker. >> good morning. i am currently living in san

francisco. i am a third year apprentice. i am currently working for helix electric on the san francisco state housing project. a lot of people have the assumption that a lot of us are not in the area. i was here when bus fare was a quarter. i graduated grade school up from the cathedral. it will drastically effect the local people like me in the program. during to the language, it excludes me as a representative of my community. i urge you not to pass this poa. thank you for your time. >> thank you. are there other members of the public that would like to speak? all right. seeing the public comment is closed. thank you very much. i make a motion to continue one

week to december 6th. the budget meeting. we can take that without objection? thank you. without objection. all right. madam clerk, call item 11. >> item number 11. (item number 11 read) >> i want to recognize the supervisor, the sponsor the legislation. i will turn the mic to him. thank you everybody on the committee. i know we have been spending a lot of time talking trash and here we are again today talking trash. trying to get you to laugh. but anyway, we spend a significant amount of time --

okay. in all seriousness, this conversation really began about 15 years ago, the department of environment commission set some very aggressive goals to achieve 0 waste. we created then, a composting and recycling laws. san francisco is a world leader in that regard. and we made significant strides over a very short period of time. in 2007, when the law went into effect, 2007, 2008, that is when members of the labour community, those who were actually doing the work on the ground, the teamsters, the janitors involving themselves in the conversation. the initial legislation was not really in any regard -- it is about the people doing the work. we worked with jack macy and

with staff and other stakeholders and we were able to come up with what we thought was a pretty aggressive post to composting and recycling. at that time -- in the conversation, the idea was there were certain large producers of trash, i did not and i will tell you, i have learned a significant amount over the last ten years working in the waste industry and working with the labour community and working with the department of environment and ecology to really understand that there are different levels in these conversations. so when we brought the conversation back up today, about a year ago, here we are today, the conversation -- i don't want to say transformed,

it moved over toward where are we in terms of achieving our zero waste goal. we had a hearing. in that hearing, we were not going to achieve zero waste by 2020. which was the original goal that the department of environment set out. and all the steps we made have been about achieving that goal. in the hearing, one of the most significant pieces of information came out that said 60% of our waste stream is still compostable and recyclable. that is small accounts, large accounts, the entire city. the department of environment and our staff work together to come up with categories of people that were -- account holders or customers that were essentially areas that we could target to make a dent in this goal to achieve zero waste. there in the context of the

conversations, back in the summer, the goal now is achieving a 50% reduction by 2030 because for many years, our -- what we were sending to landfill was on the decline. as the economy has come back up, and as the economy has shifted to more delivery, packaging, different types of waste, it has increased significantly what we are now sending back again to landfill. one of the largest areas of our -- and again further what we have learned, one of the largest areas of waste production is a very, very small group that we are calling large generators. they are less than 1% of the customers in the city. they send over 20% of waste to

landfill. that means the individual, like all of us on the board and anyone in the room that is not a business is paying a significant -- there is a price associated with sending waste to landfill. less than 1% of the account holders which are generators as we define them are sending over 20% of waste to the landfill. that is what we learned in the hearings and the conversation of the department of environment. they are originally -- the threshold was 40 cubic yards, compacters. we have made significant, significant amendments in the process of this. what we decided was 60% still goes to waste. less than 1% is sending that -- is producing 20% of what goes to landfill. the solution that we have discovered and it is one of the best practices in the industry,

not something that we created in the legislation is using people on site in almost every instance, it is a minimum wage job. in most cases it pays for itself and saves the company money. that is what we are calling a zero waste facilitator. using that best practice, we then crafted this legislation. the legislation essentially is about -- now it is over 400 accounts. 40 cubic yards of waste. and we have given these folks and the account holders over ten years to comply. but if anyone saw the report that came out last week, the federal government talked about the crisis that we are facing with global warming and environmental degradation. this is a piece to achieve some

success in reducing global warming. when we sent composting and material that should not be in the landfill, it creates methane gas. it is part of our global warming. the fires that happened in the last week, and that will be more commonplace in san francisco greatly impacted all of our health and our daily lives. it is not enough of a wakeup call on top of the other things we are seeing with regards to global warming. it is a small piece of that. it is a significant piece of that. so we have in the process of this, we have changed the threshold. we have reduced the amount of time that a facilitator must be required. we increased the amount of time that audits will happen. we will ask for an audit. all of these businesses will be audited. all of these businesses already know what their diversion rate is. and how well they are potentially doing overall. and this gives an opportunity to achieve by 2030 a significant

reduction that we asked. no longer zero waste. a significant reduction of what we send to landfill. that will save the taxpayers money. it will save the environment. it will save businesses money on their bottom line. and it will, yes, it will create in many instances minimum wage jobs. they often pay for themselves in saving businesses money. we have amendments we will introduce today. one of which revolves around public trash -- we have legislation with regard to public trash cans. there are areas of the industry, and the business community that do public trash cans as well. in the improvement districts and around the port. the second amendment we are doing, another i would say

compromise we made with regard to affordable housing complexes. we originally in our last meeting, we said that the implementation date would be pushed back two years and the director would have discretion of an additional year after the audit was done. an amendment we are making with regard to affordable housing complex, if they demonstrates financial hardship to the director based on the requirements after the audit and there is discretion there for the director as well. one of the other amendments that we are introducing today, working with the supervisor was to essentially put into writing what we articulated last week which was if an account holder or customer has -- already has facilitateors on site and failed an audit, they would not necessarily be required to hire the additional audits assuming they have the right -- they have

staffing at the right level of service. so this amendment puts into writing that the director working with the account holder has the ability to determine the proper level of staffing based on the level of waste produced. that will give clarity to those who have facilitators. in many cases, it could be different training and different equipment. the department of environment can provide. in those instances would not be a cost to the account holder. to review a couple of amendments we talked about in the past for clarity. we feel very strongly, i would reiterate again based on the conversations we had, even in the hearing that we had with the department -- the public departments and the supervisor asked for as related to discrimination in the workplace and we got into a lot of

workplace conversations. the reason we are asking for this work to be dedicated is we would never want an instance where an existing staff person was asked to do additional work on top of their existing workload. the positions can be part-time or full-time. it doesn't require to come from any industry. and so the flexibility is there. we also made some concessions and some amendments to say that originally it was two years, but now it is only one -- after one year the account holder has the ability to ask for the additional. it is purpose full. it is purposefull we ask for it to be dedicated and that we want the work and we want it to be a minimum of one year. we are asking the businesses to change culture and behaviour to contribute to the goal of having a better environmental score for lack of a better word.

and reducing the amount of waste that we send to landfill. at this time, madam chair, i don't have any additional comments. would i say just to reiterate for other city departments in the room, we made another amendment in the past that allowed for city agencies to have this not necessarily there will not be a department to department finds. they have the ability to work inside and outside of the budget

process. (please stand by)

>> we want to move less to the trash bin, and divert waste to the compost and the recycling bin appeared on the question before us, is how is the best way to accomplish this goal caught and what tools do we have in our toolbox to assist us in accomplishing that goal. the legislation approved really focuses on a few businesses that are collectively generating 20%

of the trash. so what i am still trying to do is to parcel out a couple issues in our presentation from the department of the environment, i would love for you to answer these questions. two businesses know their diversion right -- rate? second as each business know where they stand with regards to an audit? and finally capped as a facilitator definitely improve -- and finally, does a facilitator definitely improved sorting, and move us materially closer to our zero waste goals? or does it shift the responsibility of sorting from the user to the end of the line? i want to get clarification on that. now i would like to specifically

know what comes on the recology bill. i actually live in an apartment complex and i don't pay recology i would love an opportunity to be informed. what comes on the recology bill which will indicate where they stand prior to the audit that this legislation is going to be mandating. my final question is, do we have data on the improvement that facilitators bring. if you hire facilitator, and improve a business or an entity, i guess, waste management goal, for lack of a better word, to describe its. thank you. at this point, i want to recognize mr macy here who is jack macy who is representing the department of the environment too has been a champion as we begin to start at this legislation and crafting it it is my goal to get us out of

committee today. if we can move this forward. mr macy, the floor is yours. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. to answer your question,, supervisor cohen, generators do know their diversion rate. it can also be consider their recovery late -- recovery rate. >> it is on the refuse bill so they get every month from recology. the diversion right is listed as a% and stand that corresponds with a discount with a calculation. a 70 5% diversion rate, minus 25 equals a 50% discount. that discount is then shown on the bill and they can see dollarwise how that discount, for example, giving 50% across all three streams, they can see that dollar amount. they know their diversion rate.

they know their discount and the amount. and when they, if and when they get audited, they are given a report from recology. they are contacted by phone, by letter, and shown the results of that. if a driver, if they are not in a compactor service and the driver notices that there is contamination, the driver may leave a tag and recology will follow-up with that tag by phone call and letters. so so there is quite a process of notification and communication that recology conducts with their customers when they see that a customer has contamination and the customer is out of compliance with properly assorting those three streams. >> you have answered my question about what comes on a recology bill.

so people know. i will take that off. does the facilitator improve sorting? >> the data that we have seen and we don't have a building, but we have backed the business model that the zero waste facilitators have is they will go in and to provide this service to help clean up the streams and make sure they are properly sorted when they go into the containers for pickup at recology and their costs will be offset by the savings that the business gets from increasing that recovery right -- rate and by removing extra charges for contamination. >> so the answer is simple. >> the business model is to save businesses money and thus the information we have gotten is that by and large there is a net savings for business, the net savings as a result of

increasing the recovery. in every case, they are improving the separation for sure and they're usually able to get off contamination charges. they have them and they are able to shift their service levels because they are putting more and recycling and composting. they reduce their trash service levels and that results in higher discounts and a savings. >> thank you. does each business know where they stand with regard to an audit class. >> when they get an audit they get the feedback that i was telling you about. the communication, the calls, the letters, they know where they stand. they will not know when they have the audit. and not all of these generators have -- are being audited yet. >> do they know right now, preaudit. do they know if they are not audited at all capped do they know where they stand class. >> they know where they stand on their recovery rate. if they have tags, they know

there is a problem. if they are in a compactor, they won't know when they get audited that said, it is not hard for a generator to be able to look at where -- how the material is coming down from there different tenants or going in, if one were to go and observe, one can tell pretty quickly if there is a problem. >> thank you. question about diversion rates. trying to formulate my words. two businesses know what they diversion rate is. >> it is on their monthly refuse bill. >> the diversion rate, is that a goal? i am a little unclear. is that a goal that you set saying, hey, based on our audit, you should be at this level? >> i think we know that 90 plus%

of what is being discarded can go into compost and recycling. they should be at a 90 plus% recovery rate. and so what is under the rate schedule, the rates that were adjusted july of 2017, they can get an additional discount to 100%. there is a benefit for them to improve that all the way up to 100. >> it sounds like there is value having a baseline audit. you have so many words and all those other answers and now you are nodding your head. >> being audited provides useful feedback. so the requirements that every property has to be audited at least once for all their streams every three years is a benefit

to. that is useful feedback. an audit provides good information. absolutely. >> thank you. for me, i want to make sure we are moving towards an output -based system that is significantly honouring the department of the environment's mission. the metric shouldn't be how many facilitators we hire, i think that it should not be how many facilitators we hire, but how much we can reduce our landfill. and it does seem to me that a facilitator is a useful tool. regardless if it is an organization that is failing, an audit or not, it seems pretty valuable. we as a city should be doing everything we can to move in the direction to continue to reduce our waste.

we discussed two amendments again. they are very simple. we have circulated the language, colleagues. and i want to thank you. you have answered my questions both on the record and off the record. everyone has been completely available, i am grateful for that. i want to recognize supervisor viewer who has a few questions. >> thank you. >> i'm also proposing an amendment and i passed this out to my colleagues here. it is on page 4, lines 1-4. the new language is large refuge generators should not include property owned solely by the san francisco unified school district. i know there is some concern that we already have a great relationship with the san francisco unified school district. they are complying and they are

partners. i am understanding that if there is some some door some concern that if we add to this end to specifically say, because we do not have jurisdiction, quite frankly over the san francisco unified school district that they may somehow stop complying or stop being collaborating with us. i want to make this personal commitment to that having served on the san francisco board of education for eight years that i will work to craft a policy with them, perhaps with our peter khill loftus for the department of environment with the board of education members to craft their own policy which they are bound by to make a commitment to zero waste and continue their commitment to work in the department of environment. i will feel much more comfortable adding this small amendment in to ensure that legal liability requested by me

by the san francisco unified school district. and then. do you have a comment? >> i was speaking with the superintendent. we were saying we don't see this as necessary. we understand that legally sfusd is a state agency and that legally, they don't have to comply with city laws spirit given that understanding, we think it is unnecessary to have an explicit carveout of an entity that way in that it kind of invites others to say if you are covering it out, then the expectation is, i hear your commitment. we have been working very closely with them for a long time. we have a whole team working with the school district. they are not concerned about this ordinance. only one facility that is barely over the 40-yard threshold.

it wouldn't be hard. they believe the sustainability people to be able to bring that below and not even be covered by this. we think it is unnecessary and we don't think the optics are ideal. >> do you think that this is harmful to this ordinance? or this is something that you specifically would say that you are opposing to put this language as clarifying language, even though with a commitment to have a stronger commitment to zero waste policy with the san francisco unified school district? >> my concern is this is part of mandatory and we have a mandatory saying that the school district is not in mandatory. it is being put into the proposal to put it under the definition of a larger generation. >> it is just clarifying. >> it is calling them out in

mandatory with the optics that the mandatory is all about properly separating so we can help achieve zero waste. it just seems that it is -- yeah , it is something that we would prefer, certainly. >> i would feel much more comfortable with this language in there peerk having served on the board for eight years, i understand the superintendent specifically. but quite frankly, the board of education is the governing body of the school district i would feel much more comfortable with including this in a commitment that if you are concerned there would be no further commitment from the school district and they would all of a sudden stop their commitment to zero waste policy and they would fire their sustainability person. i just don't think that would

have been having being experience with them for a long time. i would feel more comfortable having this in here, i would say that i don't think it is harmful i think it is a further explanation and actually state that this is under the jurisdiction of the san francisco unified school district which is the absolute truth. thanks. than i have a question about private schools. i have a very large private college in my district. my constituent is the university of san francisco. does this mean that if they already hire a facilitator and they don't actually pass an audit, are they still find? find, subject to a fine. >> we would work with them to look at what their needs are to comply and as mandelman's

amendment talks about, you don't necessarily have to be hiring additional people if you already have somebody performing that role, how can that will be better done, so i think the director, as you know has discretion if it is somebody who continues to be out of compliance. the director has had that discussion. >> okay. that is your question. even if they have -- they required sorters, but they fail an exception, than they are still subject to a fine. is that what you are saying? >> the fine is that the fines are if we would only consider them if they are not basically meeting the director's order with regards to a zero waste facilitator. if there is a need to hire additional or to change their

role, if that order is not followed, only then with the director even consider fines. that is the way we understand it again, we consider fines to be cases where noncompliance is egregious. they are not settle. there would not be an automatic fine if they simply fail an audit. >> thank you. i think that answers my question that pertains to other large private schools, i am assuming. >> yeah. there are a couple of large private schools. 122 of the largest. >> like sacred heart, si. why are they included?

>> they have requirements for biomedical waste. that is not included as refuse. it means compostable his, recyclables it does not include hazardous medical. and what we call trash. >> thank you for that clarification. are we able to include fairer buildings in the legislation and do we have the jurisdiction? >> i believe we do. i think they don't quite have, it is my understanding that we do. there are two or three federal buildings on this list. there are five that were state or federal. so it is a very small number.

it is my understanding, unless the city attorney wants to -- >> perhaps they could give us clarification on that. my question was, are we able to include federal buildings in the legislation and do we have the jurisdiction? >> i'm not sure about the jurisdictional issue but i am able to look at it and it sounds like the department is saying that we do apply our local law to buildings owned by the federal government but i'm happy to confirm that. >> my colleague is saying it is our understanding that agencies do have to abide by local solid waste laws. >> have a clearly defined what the requirements are? what are the target separation goals? what are the targeted contamination goals? >> in terms of passing an audit. >> they are thresholds that they pass for recycling and

composting are based on market additions and they are 5% if you are at 5% more contamination and your recycle -- to recycle those compostable his, they are using higher threshold and trash. we expect that number would come down as we need to go towards zero waste. there's going to be more flexibility or tolerance for contamination and trash and there is for composting and recycling. we are under very tight market conditions. you may have heard about the changes in the markets and all that. that is very much strict standards we look at how clean that has to be with the processing and that is where they arrive at that number,. >> you are saying the threshold for garbage is 50%? >> it has been and we expect that number would be lower going forward and we would make that

change and let people know before this ordinance goes into effect on july 1st. >> to 50% would be the landfill. is that correct? >> yeah,. >> i think that is pretty high. >> i'm not an expert on trash. >> real quick, with all due respect, when the supervisor is talking, please don't over talker. >> i'm sorry. i'm also over talking you. i apologize. i do it to my husband all the time. [laughter] >> i should not take that liberty with you. i don't know you that well. it seems like 50% is high but you are telling me to reiterate that you expect that to be lower as we go further towards the zero waste goals. >> correct and we have talked to recology about lowering that as time goes on. >> okay. that 50% is used as a way to prioritize the further compliance efforts.

>> okay. >> i apologize for speaking over you. >> i apologize for speaking over you. >> good. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. so supervisor stefani, and looks like you are taking copious notes. we will hear from her at the end of everything. but i what i would like to do now is private to public comment there is no budget legislative analyst report on this. thank you for your time. ladies and gentlemen, now is a moment of reckoning. it is an opportunity for every member of the public to come and share their thoughts on this legislation. you have heard discussed amendments and i want to invite everyone to come on up. you will have two minutes. come on down. >> good afternoon. my name is karen. on the executive director of the union square business improvement district. we provide supplemental cleaning

and safety services around union square. about 27 blocks in partnership with the city. i'm here to support the amendment to exclude business improvement districts. thank you for that. we are a unique and large refuse collector. we are not a big building. we are picking up city garbage. my understanding is there talking to recology that the garbage is already contaminated. we collect two large bends every day before 10:00 pm. one is entirely at city degree that we sweep up, pick up. this is contaminated. i'm not sure you can sort this. the other ban is cardboard from the merchants and we have worked closely with public works to educate and enforce and get those numbers down. it is cardboard so i don't think it can be sorted. i understand the reason behind this legislation. i think it has good merit in terms of improving the recycling goals and their personal experience. the flood building, we ask that retailers and tenants on the above floors to recycle, and compost. then we also hire a company

called tool works. these are development illegally disabled individuals who work every day to resort the trash again. we have saved money through providing that service and do the right thing. i think that the goals of this are good. again, please include our band. we are good partner with the city just like the unified school district. we are trying to work with the city to keep the area clean. thank you. >> hello, good afternoon. i'm with the building owners and managers. we represent high-rise building owners. mostly office and retail. nice to see you all again. to be clear, our members to engage refuse orders, but they do it voluntarily based on rent. some do it part-time and some do it full time. some are effective and some, there is one recently that failed in audit with the use of a zero waste facilitator.

this ordinance, as drafted will ask -- affect scores of members who do not have control of what their tenant's place in the three refuse streams. this ordinance is targeting a building owner or a manager, and it's not tackling the entire refuse cycle pack which should include tenants and visitors and anyone who enters the building, frankly. so with that, we feel this measure needs to be amended to reflect the entire refuse cycle in a building, not just the last step, which is in the compactor. we are also concerned about mandating the two year higher order. as an aspect of the measure, this needs to be reviewed and considered with more stakeholder input, including us. but others that will speak, most likely, to determine the efficacy of such an action. perhaps you could start with the 30 or so large refuse generators that were identified as bad actors at the last meeting.

we would like this measure to work. it has admirable goals. we want to see the entire refuse stream and the high-rise building and other constituencies considered before you move forward with this to the full board to. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i on the operations manager at st. anthony foundation. it is a nonprofit organization that has been working to feed, clothes, heal, shelter, and enlist the spirits -- lift the spirits of san franciscans who are poor and in need for over six decades. we serve 2400 meals a day, seven days a week. because of our values to be good stewards, we work hard to properly sort the food waste and recycle products into the green and blue bins. we are not perfect. even though we have trainings, signs posted, blue and green

bands in our kitchens and common spaces. we are cognizant of the zero waste goal, but it is difficult to implement because we have so many volunteers, guests and residents, working at the foundation and some are not aware of the importance of composting and recycling and the effect it has on the environment and others just are not properly educated on what is composted and what is recycling. that being said, we feel that giving mandates and fines is not the answer. this proposed legislation would be very expensive for our foundation and many of the other nonprofit food providers in the city whose priorities are to feed and nourish those most in need in the great city of st. francis. we feel that more outreach and advertising to inform people of the importance of proper composting and recycling is needed. i want to thank you. we think that trash talking could be more effective if we talk together with leun