Reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the roma and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Thank you very much. Please call the next item. Madam clerk. This item is a presentation from the refuse rates administrator to adopt an order memorializing the refuse rate boards approval of a code of conduct on june 12th, 2023. It is a discussion and action item. Thank you very much. Ill turn it over to j. But just so members of the public know, the refuse rate board already approved a code of conduct, this is simply housecleaning to make sure that were actually doing it in the form of, i believe, a resolution. So ill turn it over to j. As the chair said, this is a housekeeping item. The City Attorney advised that the code of conduct should be approved as a as a resolution. So thats what was included in the packet and noticed a few weeks ago. Thank you very much. Given that, why dont we open this item up for Public Comment . Well start with members of the public who are in person here. Good afternoon, david. People, i was waiting for the handout so i could see it in writing. I understand thats coming soon. I think this is a third time. The code of conduct has been for the board and yes, it was approved in june. I just wanted to reiterate my belief that it should be amended in the future to state that all parties should be covered by the ex parte, a limitation. So that would limit members of the board from speaking not just to recology, but any other party to a proceeding. So that could be a citizen like myself or someone else who might file a rate application or to the extent that the city or any other entity files a rate application with this board, but only limiting that limitation on ex Parte Communications as to the substance of the rate application during its pendency. So to the extent that the members of this board relate to recology or any other party with regard to any other matter, in my view, they shouldnt be limited. But again, if anyone else submits a rate application and not just the recology companies, i believe this rate board should also be limited in its ex Parte Communications with those parties, as the term has been used in the past. I hope that helps. Thanks. Thank you for your comments. Are there any other members of the public in person who wish to speak on this item. Here . Yes. Im a Property Owner marketing castro. Ive had a lot of trouble with sunset scavenger. I sent in a letter somewhere in all of this, im sure. But i feel so strongly about it that i wanted to mention it in person. I have a two unit building at marketing castro and ive been here 30 years and ive always had two garbage cans and a recycle can and weve had a lot of trouble with the collectors who damaged the property. The doors open and the vagrants come through. And then, of course, i have bigger problems. The manager at the time and the supervisor some years ago had sort of set my rate at 107 for two garbage cans and a recycle can. And they told me that i didnt need to have the compost if i was a generic generating it because most of our stuff goes through garbage disposals in regards to food and things like that. And they dont have much of anything in regards to plants. What i do get once or twice a year, i take it, and dispose of it or have somebody come and get it and dispose of it appropriately. That way back then they said i had to pay for the compost bin, but i didnt have to have the can because i have very minimal , minimal space. In the back where they come in to get it. They have to im being charged. A key fee and a distance fee and they charge it for every can, yet they only use the key. Well in the beginning they only use the key once, but i have to pay four times for a key fee for each can and then they usually end up consolidating it anyway. Because i have cameras. Thank you for your comment. Oh, i didnt. I didnt. Tell me how much. All right. Let me get to the chase, if i can know. The Public Comment is limited to two minutes per individual. Unfortunately but you will have an opportunity to speak again at the next item in the next what . You will have more opportunities. There are additional opportunities for Public Comments at other items. Okay i guess a little bit out, but not to the chase of their improprieties. Thank you, sir. All right. Are there other members of the public who wish to speak on this item, which is about the boards adoption of a code of conduct . Seeing none in person. Madam clerk, can you check to see if there are any members of the public who wish to speak online. There are no callers in the queue. Thank you very much. Given that we will close Public Comment on this item number two, do we have any discussion or emotion. Move that we approve, approve the motion . All right. There has been a motion. Ill second that. Well do a roll call. Number two, i remember herrera. Hi thats two votes. Thank you very much. The item is passed. Madam clerk, would you read the next item . Number three, please . This item is a present and action item from the refuse rates administrator to adopt a refuse rate order for rate years 2024 and 2025. Thank you very much. We are going to turn this item over to j. But just one second. Member herrera. Madam clerk, just as we go through this process, i think it would be helpful to remind the public that they the Public Comment is for the item that theyre speaking on. If they have general Public Comment that could come earlier just to make sure that were speaking to the item thats before us. Thank you, jay. Good afternoon. City administrator and cher chu and general manager member herrera jay liao refuse rates administrator with the Comptrollers Office. So this is our fourth rate Board Hearing for this rate setting cycle in the last hearing, the rate board directed our office to make changes to our proposed rate order to be included in a potential final rate order for the rate board to consider and potentially adopt today. Over the last month, our office worked with department of public works Environment Department, recology to address the changes requested from the board. So i want to thank the departments and recology for the response and support and thoughtfulness throughout the whole process. In particular over the last few weeks as we work through many details to draft this rate order in the hearing packet, the board will have received the rate order, which is the resolution, a separate executive summary of the rate order, a detailed report of all the rate order components and a presentation from our office. We do have one more scheduled hearing if theres a need for more discussion. But our goal today is to provide the information the board needs to take a vote on a final rate order. So to that end, we have three topics for this agenda item. The first is the prop 218 protests will first allow any Property Owners to comment on this. On this topic. Then well share the tally for protests. The second item is for prop f written objections and comments. The ordinance requires us to consider all prop f written objections and address them at the hearing. At this hearing. So weve coded and group the written objections and comments. Weve identified three main groupings and so well share our offices consideration of the comments and objections and then well a lot time after each grouping. So three, three opportunities for anyone to comment on that on that topic. The last item is the refuse rate order. So we will summarize the changes made by the board to the refuse Rate Administrators proposal. This presentation will also summarize the refuse rate order included in the hearing packet that the board can choose to adopt or make amendments. Weve also prepared a potential alternative that adds back some funds so theres an alternative resolution and report and i can share the details of whats in that as well. That would go towards possibly addressing any contamination, outreach or additional street cleanliness, investment. After the presentation, id invite, id like to invite public works, Environment Department and recology to comment or present if they wish. They will then move into Public Comment after which the board can discuss and potentially vote on the rate order. So this first topic, prop 218 protests. We wanted to allow Public Comment here. So well take a pause from this presentation. And if there are folks that want to include additional protests before we do the tally, this is opportunity to do that. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on their protests . If so, please line up at the podium now. Sorry, clarifying question. David pell will this be the only opportunity for Public Comment on this item or will there be opportunities for each of the three segments . Okay. And the copies are coming from downstairs. Great. Seeing as there are no, um, Public Comments, we will move to the next item in the agenda. Should we check to see if theres any online or is that encompassed online . Yes great. There are no callers online. Thank you. So the next topic in this agenda item. Sorry we have to do the tally so as part of agenda item three, this will constitute the public hearing on proposal adopt refuse rates for rate year 2024 and rate year 2025. In accordance with article eight d, section six of the california constitution also known as proposition 218, proposition 218 requires that the board consider all protests against proposed rates and provide that the board shall not impose the proposed rates of written protests are presented by majority affected Property Owners. So on june 1st, 2023, our office provided affected Property Owners with written notice of the proposed rates and the date time location of this hearing. The written notice advised Property Owners of their right to protest the proposed rates and instructed that any written protest be mailed to the refuse rates administrator or be handdelivered at todays hearing in order to be counted. This also instructed that any written protest must one state that the Property Owner or customers and opposition to the proposed rates increase to provide the location of the affected property by assessors parcel number, street address or customer count, and three include the name and signature of the person submitting the protest. The notice stated that the oral comments at public hearing would not qualify as a formal protest unless accompanied by a written protest. So weve just welcomed any input. Additional input from the community during this hearing. The commission we. Received 200 and 263 written protests. We received additional four today. This morning. And so four of those written protests were handdelivered today. This morning, the refuse rate board has. 146,572 residential refuse customer accounts, which means 73,287 protests are required for majority protests. The total number of written protests receives thus does not amount to a majority of the affected Property Owners or customers. Having counted and considered all protests against proposed rates in accordance with proposition 218, the board may act to adopt the proposed rates. So i think that closes out this topic for proposition 218. The next topic on this agenda is the prop f written objections and comments. So well first summarize as what weve heard and then will allow within each grouping for Public Comment. So as i mentioned, we coded written comments or objections from 220 ratepayers and we identified three major themes. The first is that of the 220 ratepayers, 167 or 79. 70 5. 9 of respondents rejected any rate increase or rejected increase to components of the rate. 21 ratepayers. 9. 5 of response identified issues with service. Some of whom tied this to rate increase objections. Others did not pose a rate increase, but use this form to share issues with their service and request for potential changes to service. And then third category d 19 ratepayers or 8. 6 of respondents supported some form of a rate increase. So in the first grouping of the response who reject objected to a rate increase. The most common reasons cited was that San Francisco is already an expensive place to live and that the rate increase compounds other Cost Increases. 37 responses cited the fact that recology had already raised rates in january 2023, 28 response objected because they felt rates were already too high. 18 respondents objected only to recology proposal 15 response objected to any increase because of the recent scandal. 15 response objected to any increase because they were experienced Service Issues. These Service Issues are varied and well go into more detail in the third grouping. And then one respondent objected to increase specifically to the base rate and one objected to any increase in the tipping fee. So the refuse rates administrator would not recommend no rate increase in our analyzes of recology finances, operations and Service Levels. Some amount of rate increase will be needed to cover increases in cost of doing business as well as improvements to Service Level in certain areas, such as abandoned material, pickup, public receptacle pickup to improve overall cleanliness of the city , also to provide Driver Safety and certain areas and to address the additional administrative needs due to the new process and new reporting requirements. Our rate proposal recommended no increase in year one and a modest increase in year two. That would allow us sustain, improve Service Levels. The boards recommended changes would also add funding to begin addressing long term capital costs. So this would necessitate some increase in year one. So we believe these increases are reasonable and fair and moving to no rate increase for both years would likely require reducing Service Levels, addressing Service Issues. That subcategory will go into later with regard to the base rate, this base rate is there to acknowledge fixed costs of service and based on the information provided by recall, e. G. On fixed versus variable costs, we believe its appropriate to apply the same rate increase factor to the base rates. Lastly with regard to the tipping fee, this fee is embedded in the collections rates. Our analyzes of the tipping fee as a cost to residential collection is that it represents a fair and reasonable increase given the recent Cost Increases in Capital Improvements, given the recent Cost Increases in Capital Improvements being included in the rate order. So those are considerations for each of these objections. And we would also like to invite any members of the public to comment on this on this grouping, which is objection to any rate increase. All right, madam clerk, we will now take Public Comment. Members of the public may address the board with common specific to the current item and will be limited to two minutes of speaking per time. Uh, per person. And a total of 20 cumulative minutes for this item. Members of the public who wish to provide inperson Public Comment on this item, please line up at the podium now. Each person will have two minutes to speak. Great. David phillips again. I did not submit either a prop 218 objection or protest, nor a prop f written objection. I worked on it for some time. As to the prop f objection, it just became too complicated. I have discussed a number of my concerns before this board and staff and city staff and recology staff over the last several months and a number of changes were made in part in response to some of my comments before this board and with the staff. Nevertheless, i was noted to call attention to the this issue of the written objections and the prop 218 process. For me , as someone whos paid very close attention to this, i think its been a bit problematic that the recall originally submitted a rate application. The city departments proposed changes to the impound account that funds their operations. There was a prop 218 mailing that fairly summed rised those proposals and the impact on rates. But since that time of june 1st, when that mailing occurred, there have been a number the i believe the draft rate order was not out at that time. And since the draft rate order was issued, there have been further discussions and what was made available this past friday. Thanks includes some entirely new elements. This idea of a change on january 1st of 2024 to my way of thinking, is entirely new and so i think in the future, and i will wrap up on this point, i think if i can just wrap up on this point, i think i weve weve got to respect time, given that we also cut off the other Public Commenter at the to the two minute mark hell have another opportunity in a moment. Can i just finish my sentence where we have to move the next speaker . Please dont make me unhappy. All right. Thank you very much. Are there other members of the public and i will comment that there was an individual who wanted to speak about some of the written objections earlier. So i just want to make sure this is the opportunity for someone to be able to provide their written objections or comments and some of the elements that other folks have provided comments around Service Levels as well. So i just wanted to do one more call