tv Government Access Programming SFGTV November 1, 2018 7:00pm-8:01pm PDT
current system presents. the existing systems require often manual entries and are not updated in realtime. this has led to errors, certainly confusion, workarounds and have impaired coordination between our three offices. the city is not able to easily make changes to these older systems to adapt to changes that occur in state and local law, or even in dealing with evolving ownership structures we see in the property system. and the software limits the ability to use modern analytics tools for revenue forecasting, production analysis or reporting. it has been a challenge to find and retain employees, which we can continue to support the systems. and as you see on the screen, an example of one of the interfaces from these systems, it's typically called a green screen. these systems were designed as long as 50 years ago and result in impaired user access and high
degree of specialized training in order to even understand them and use the systems. now i'll talk about the planning and procurement process. our offices have been working together for more than five years on this project. we have established a governance group, multi-department, that has been meeting for much of that time addressing project specific needs, and also areas of mutual concern, not related to the new systems. through these efforts we've already made significant process changes including automating refunds and doing better data sharing that are reduced wait time for refunds. also through past technology upgrades, one of the areas we know that can hammer a project is data conversion. we've been cleaning up the data for many years and have made significant strides in that area. additionally, we hired gartner
group as a consultant to perform a market scan and through that process we have documented thousands of business requirements that we need the new systems to deliver. in designing the procurement strategy we wanted to be sure we were open to any possibilities for systems, even including one system we could all three departments use, or separate systems that would work in tandem. so we structured the procurement process to allow for any of those possibilities. that resulted in us launching parallel rfps that invited responses on either or both systems. the dual process ensured the solutions met each department's legal requirements to assess and collect property taxes. we all engaged in the selection process that resulted in the different vendors being selected. i'd like to detail the vendor that was selected and then i'll turn it over to the assessor
office for a scrips of their solution. grant street group was selected through our bidding process and their leadership team has joined us today, including miles harrington, the president and the chief business officer. grant street has a deep experience in web based collection services. founded in 1995, they specialize in hosted internet applications now used by thousands of clients across the country. grant street's implementation for california has begun in san matteo county and scheduled to go live. san matteo who used the system to collect over $1.5 billion in property taxes each year. and i'm happy to say they're very happy with the work to date. for project management services we're pleased we've been able to
hire the san matteo project manager that will allow us to hit the ground running on our implementation starting in january. grant street has spent ten years in getting to know the california market for development of the system for california clients. we're aiming for 18-month implementation and it will include a large team of grant street staff working full-time on the project during the implementation period. with that, i would like to turn it over to the assessor recorder office for more information on their contracts. rachel? >> thank you. good morning, rachel from the assessor's office. i'd like to speak to you about the two contracts that we're requesting approval for. one is with sapient, the other with carahsoft. the sapient is the implementation of the professional services for the implementation and the ongoing support. and sapient was selected through a competitive process and i
believe it's a very strong contract for the department as well as the city they through the proposal process, met all of our business needs. there is a deliverable based contract, which means it's not time and material and sapient will need to meet the deliverables and the city will then -- or the assessor office will need to approve them before they're paid. deliverables are designed configuration, testing, training on the system. as the assessor's office preferred a phased implementation, this means through the three years implementation, we'll see things go into production and be able to have users use it live, so we can see if there is anything we need to correct for future phases. which i think makes it a very strong contract for our department. sapient partnered with our
legacy system. this is important because we have a lot of data conversation needs and sapient is close to you are data. the contract is a 12-year term. it's one of the reason for the over $10 million price tag. we thought having such a mission critical system implemented for the city, it was important to enter into a long-term contract so that we could obtain price holds. regarding the carahsoft contract that, is the reseller agreement for the platform that sapient and our department will be using to configure our new system. this ace sole source contract. the city already has a sole source contract with the department of technology. we determined not to use the city's existing contract, because terms in the next two years and we thought it was important again because we're going to be in the middle of implementation and this is a
system that is going to be around for at least a decade or more, that we have a 12-year term similar to the sapient agreement. we decided to enter into our own agreement. this includes stronger provisions, insurance provisions we thought were important for our contract. and the next slide, one of the -- so that's the summary of our two contracts. one of the other things i wanted to talk about today was the importance of integration and how we've been approaching integration of the two systems. we've done this in multiple ways because we know it's important that our system and the assessor system be able to interact seamlessly with the treasury and tax collector system and that's definitely a goal of our program. throughout both of our rfp processes, there were evaluation criteria where our 19 panelists on each side evaluated the proposals to determine whether the systems would be able to speak to one another. we also have joint governance processes where we have ongoing
steering committees where we've been meeting for the last couple of years. we'll plan to meet throughout implementation and thereafter to talk about the data-sharing needs. and then finally the controllers office will be taking on the role of oversight on quality assurance of the whole program and project managing the integration between the two systems. and the controllers office is here to answer any questions if you have about their role in the integration process. with that, i thank you for your time. i can answer any questions you have. >> president cohen: have you had a chance to review the bla report? >> yes. >> then you understand there is a discrepancy between the final cost and they vary at $20 million. could you speak to that? >> yes, thank you for the question. i think it was in fiscal year 14-15, the departments came up with a $56 million project number that was a good number to
work around. it was prior to us actually conducting a market scan, going through a procurement process and receiving bids. we received planning funding from hoyt so we could hire a consultant and go through the process. over the last couple of years, we've reached out to gardiner to understand the market community and then we entered into a procurement process and received bids. over the last two years, we knew that $56 million was lower than what it was going to cost and we've been updating the mayor's office of the new $70 million project amount as we've learned more. and the decision was that they did not want to update the $56 million in their plan until we actually received numbers, so that we weren't changing the cost. now that we have actual
proposals and contracts that we selected, we can now update that amount with the true dollar value. >> president cohen: my colleagues don't have questions. you can be seated. we'll hear from the budget legislative analyst. >> these two resolutions approve three contracts for the property tax system replacement project. we summarized the contract amount on page 30 of our report. carahsoft as reported was selected on a sole source basis. it's a 12-year contract for a $14.4 million. this was the sole source approved by the city office of contract administration. sapient and grant street were selected through competitive processes. sapient is $21.4 million over 12 years and grant street is $37.5
million over ten years. t we recommend approval of the contracts and resolutions. as a separate item, which was addressed, when the board of supervisors approved the city 5-year plan in the spring of 2017, the property tax system replacement project was estimated to have implementation costs. i want to make clear those costs are separate from the contract costs. that's the five-year implementation for contract, hardware, city staff costs. so at that time that implementation estimate was $56 million. we have projection that the costs will be $72.4 million. that question has been asked and she has spoken to it in the hearing, but we do recommend that because of this sort of
increase in time over the project estimated costs, that the board of supervisors request during the approval of the next five-year information and technology plan which will be in the spring of 2019, that the assessor, the collector and the controller report on the project's budget, on the estimates, and what cost containment measures are in place. we actually report on the plan when it comes before the board and we'll be reporting on that. >> president cohen: thank you. maybe you could talk about the discrepancies between the estimated cost of the contracts and the final bids? i wanted to hear your ideas on it. >> so i think that's actually not exactly how we reported it in our report. the three contracts before you today were selected -- two of them were selected through a competitive process when it was negotiated. we did not estimates on what those were because it was
competitive process and seemed to be, you know, a process that fully evaluated the respondents. we're recommending approval. we don't see discrepancy. what i was speaking to was more the actual -- which is a separate issue -- a separate number, similar number, but separate, of the actual project implementation which includes the first few years of these contracts, but also includes city costs. looks like ms. chiu wants to explain it a little more and that's where we're raising concern. that's where the city approves the plan, we want to make sure the costs are contained. >> president cohen: thank you. >> if i could add to the budget analyst report and to their comments. we definitely agree with the budget analyst in terms of making sure we're continuing to keep the board apprised of the cost of the entire budget and the process of implementation. that is something we expect to
do and want to make sure we're transparent about it. when we first started with the project, the city was undergoing the five-year planning for technology investments and wee knew this was going to be a major undertaking for the departments and huge priority for the city. at this time we were tasked with coming forward with a number that was reasonable for planning purposes. our three organizations worked together, we talked to a will the of different counties about their implementations. we were transparent this was a number that was the best estimate, but we would true that up. so they did give us the funding to go through the planning process. we did that and went through the process to look at the market scan. we went through a competitive bid process so nail down what the best guesstimates were. so i think that is what we have before you. something that severin said that
i want to point out because it is significant and important, the contracts before you is not simply for implementation. the 12-year contract term throughout the three contracts is not only for the implementation, but ongoing maintenance and operations once they go live. so the total contract dollars is not just project and implementation, but includes maintenance. >> supervisor fewer: assess, it's my understanding that the escalation price is also due to sort of after collaboration, having a clear sense of what is needed and required. would that be correct? >> that's correct. the market in california is -- it's a maturing market and there aren't many providers with prop 13 that provide the services. so the market is smaller than other states. that is probably the reason the bid might be higher than initially expected.
>> supervisor fewer: thank you. cohen con all right, we're going to go to public comment to hear what the public has to say. please come on up. you'll have two minutes. welcome. >> property assessment and collection systems, modifications, reinterpretation, misinterpretation or adjustment of their existing tax bills or the tax code or do you anticipate that we will witness a rare straight forward process and performance? also, someone once came before the board to complain that elderly black homeowners were losing their homes due to tax delinquent.
any system which might be interpreted as clientele-ism is reprehensible. >> president cohen: thank you. any other members of the public? all right. public comment is closed. thank you. to the assessor and the treasurer. why has it taken so long? why haven't you guys come before us prior to 20 -- what is this, 18? >> that's a great question. we've been working on this for five years. we wanted to do it right. this is critically important matter. all three of our offices bring in billions of dollars of revenue for the city and county of san francisco. >> just for the public, we depend on these people to do their job and execute to the fullest ability. >> and we've never let you down, i want to be clear on that. we have never let you down and never will. to be perfectly honest, we wanted to do this right.
it was a matter of learning about the marketplace. and it was a matter of coordinating our offices. i'm proud to say that all three of those things have been done very well to date. >> i guess i'd like to say that the treasurer office, the controller office and our office are like peanut butter and the bread, and the jelly. we worked really well together to figure out how to move the systems forward. i've only been assessor for five years, so we're focusing on driving the backlog down in our office. we've been implementing other technologies to help us move. so i think we've been moving in parallel on the process. it does take time to plan and get to a place where we are now. we feel good about being able to bring the contracts before you. but even before we're able to bring in decision point to you, we had to have many conversations about what would be ideal for the city going forward. we've worked hundreds of hours with all of the respective staff
to identify technical requirements to ensure the security of the system. only at that point and having done a quick look at what we see in the market place, talking to our colleagues, were we comfortable bringing forward through a competitive bid process, the three contracts for you. i think what you see is a thoughtful approach that is collaborative, that is integrated with the three departments and that really took a look at what is the business needs ensuring that we bring to you the best investment possible. we understand that technology investments are hard to come by. they're time intensive, staff intensive and expensive. we know if we're putting in place now, it needs to last the duration. >> president cohen: another 50 years. >> hopefully, a little bit less. >> ok, decades. just real quick, what we're talking about is system improvements. are there hardware costs as well that we can anticipate in the
future? to complement the upgrades, the system upgrades? >> the systems are hosted, so they're part of the contract dollars you're seeing before you. there will be some minimal hardware costs of things we're going to do on premise and we're work with the department of technology on, but it's not the bulk of the cost. please stand by. please please stand by.
>> one giant step for the city. did we take public comment on this? i can't remember. we did. thank you. supervisor viewer has comments. >> i also wanted to say that actually, she had briefed me on this at our meeting. we have been having ongoing conversations about this coming down and this is why we need it. this is how to not having this updated system was hindering our work. i wanted to say that isn't -- it isn't just coming to me. i was expecting this because she
has given me the heads up at our very first meeting which was about 20 years ago. >> thank you. lets put some action behind our words. let's make a motion to approve this into the full board with a positive recommendation. i want to also have a motion to accept the suggestions for the presentation in the spring. thank you for that. can we take that without objection? thank you. we will take that without objection. thank you. onward and upward. madam clerk, please call item nine. >> item nine is revolution authorizing the office of civic engagement to extend a granted $100,000 from the state comptroller's office to support the local update of census and outreach activities related to the 2020 census. >> the mayor is a sponsor of this and we have adrian pond
from the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs to present. welcome. nice to see you. >> good morning chair and supervisors. i apologize. i have a really bad cold today and i am i am having trouble hearing although i heard all of you very clearly. i am joined here by my colleagues who will help me when i need help. the item before you is an accept and extend resolution which would allow our office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs to accept a grant of $100,000 through the state of california to support our local update of census addresses and outreach efforts for 2020 census. as you know, preparation for the census started and back in december of 2017, there were
cities and states that were preparing earlier and they may have more resources this decade than in 2010. the challenges are significantly higher. we meet every person in san francisco accurately and fairly counted during the census and this translates to our representation, our voice and fair share of over $600 billion in federal funding each year that goes out to municipalities. every person matters regardless of age, orientation, economic circumstances or immigration status. this is the law under the u.s. constitution. we have had, in the city, a historic undertow of hard-to-reach communities. children,, seniors, homeless communities of colour and immigrants and low income and other vulnerable populations. we are one of 50 cities nationally with the highest
number of hard to count people. and one of the hardest -- one of 13 hardest to count counties in the state of california. compounding this are a number of other issues. first of all, digital divide and equity gaps. this is the first all digital census in more than 30% of the population is not wired. it lacks access to the internet or digital tools like smart phones or are unable to navigate digital systems. especially when they are based largely in english content. there are also language barriers for the nearly half of our population who are limited english proficient or do not speak english as a first language. there are privacy and cyber security concerns. even if privacy of information is guaranteed by the constitution, the intent of the
current administration is highly questionable. as we saw in world war ii, the use of census data for the incarceration of our japanese-american citizens is still questionable today. these factors and others, and most of all, there is a growing fear of participating in the census due to anti-immigrant and hate rhetoric which you all know has escalated. plus the inclusion of a citizenship question on the census questionnaire. for these reasons, this 2020 census is going to be extremely challenging and like no other. from december 2017, the u.s. census bureau started the first phase of the work by sending out a list of addresses to municipalities and this is exactly how the census bureau was sent information to residents in 2020.
so we worked with our community partners and the planning department to do our best to ensure that every address in the city was included in the census bureau's list and that the information was accurate. and for your information, our wonderful planning department identified 82,765 addressed corrections -- addressed corrections or changes that they submitted along with all of the ones that were correct. so this work was very important. we are now gearing up to launch the san francisco complete count committee and issue strategic plans for reaching citywide and hard to count areas of the city and releasing an r.f.p. it is an open bid process for community outreach and education grants which the mayor's office on the board generously approved $1 million per year for the next two years. the state of california has allocated $90.5 million for the
census for the entire state. in 2010, the state only had taught $12 million total for the entire campaign. so we really need this resource and this first $100,000 incentive grant is going to allow us to lay the groundwork for the census. the next wave of state bids will be issued in about a week. i'll be coming back before you with another resolution as soon as we receive the details on that. thank you for your consideration of this resolution and happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you. supervisor theoretically. >> thank you -- supervisor fewer >> thank you. this is a very serious issue that we should address. because of everything you mentioned and also because we know that there is a digital divide that exists among our
communities. so i think it is important we call a hearing on this to see how prepared we are for the 2020 census and we want to make sure everyone is counted and that it also is a really good indicator for us on the city about where we are around displacement and how our population has changed and what -- who is living here in san francisco and i know that because of the trump administration trump administration we will have to really beef up a sense of security and safety for our residents to be able to answer these questions and already, in a regular census year without all this craziness that is happening nationwide, we even -- it is even challenging to get an accurate count then. i think i will be calling for a hearing to let you know around the 2020 census. i think it is particularly challenging in this term and we need to make sure that we are all working together and we have enough resources to meet the
needs. thank you. >> thank you. >> question. may be you can tell us about the methodology for an all digital census. what does it look like we do we have the technology already at our hands? or will it require some purchasing of laptops or tablets i'm not sure what that will look like. and i'm asking you because i know you have been through several censuses. >> i think i heard most of what you asked. >> oh, k. supervisors, at this point, we are assessing and part of the first stage of our planning process is to prepare by looking at what software we need, what technology it is like. we are working with the digital services office and the digital equity and right now to help us get some professional expertise. we are going to need a laptops and we will need smart phones. we are making an initial investment in that.
before we go and buy a lot of equipment, we really want to do an assessment of how people in the city kalakaua residents, particularly the most vulnerable get their information. is it via smart phone? the census bureau has made a lots of untested assumptions about how people get their information and that is why this is going to be so challenging. that is part of the first phase that we will be launching in the next month or two and it is really doing some testing of equipment and a the testing of approaches, software and seeing what works best. we probably will have a technology center placed in every one of our hard to count neighborhoods. >> supervisor cohen: when you talk about hard to count neighborhoods, in my mind i am thinking of bayview hunter's point. does this include public housing something on site? the housing units -- perhaps you don't have that level of specificity -- specificity.
>> we don't have the details worked out but we have started the conversations with the digital equity folks because we know that most of our public housing sites are wired to. but then there is an issue of content. how do you put that in a format that people will relate to and understand? we are looking at that as well. >> exciting times. thank you for your presentation. we have no analyst reports so we will go ahead and take public comment on item nine. i see no public comment so we will close comment. all right. i would like to make a motion to approve and scent to a full board with a positive recommendation. we can take that without objection. thank you, very much. thank you for your presentation. item ten, please. >> resolution retroactively approving the fifth amendment to the revenue agreement for the automatic public toilet and public service kiosk program extending the term by 105 days and changing determination day from october 12th 2182 january
25th 2019. >> thank you. the sponsor of this is supervisor peskin. he has jeremy spits from the department of public works to make a presentation. this is a simple agreement. why don't you share with us the details? >> sure. my name is jeremy spits. i am with san francisco public works legislative affairs. we are here to ask you for the fifth amendment to the revenue agreement between the city for the public toilet and public service kiosk program. the original contract was from 1996 to october 2016. as a contract was coming to a close public works put out an r.f.p. for a new contract and they were the only respondent. they provided the design and we began gathering the necessary approvals. the design was approved by the review committee and the arts commission but we received negative feedback from the public, members of the board of supervisors and historic preservation commission. there were concerns raised about the utilitarian design of the lack of community input.
as a result we went back to the drawing board and launched a competition for a new design. we also did robust community outreach and took the approach that the toilets and kiosks should be a static assets rather than blend into the background. the winner of the competition was elected this may and since then, we have been working with them to turn their concept into a reality. since we have a new design we needed to restart the design approval process. the new design were saved phase one and two approval from the design committee on september 17 th and historic preservation commission on october 17th. we are scheduled for phase three design review on november 27th and we are scheduled to be before the full arts commission on december 3rd. once we receive our final approvals will finalize new contract and bring it before the board in december and january. and i'm available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. i see see this is pretty straightforward. i don't have any questions. colleagues? all right. public comment?
public comment is open for item ten. please come on down. >> i was wondering if the public toilets could require client operation or credit card operation? that way they may not be trashed >> thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. let's make a motion to approve and scent to the full board with a positive recommendation. can we take that without objection? item 11, please. >> ordinance amending the environmental code to require audit every three years of law to refuse generators for compliance with refuse separation requirements and enforcement measures found on compliance and the planning department under the california environmental quality act. >> thank you. we have item 11 before us and i want to recognize our sponsors
and our colleagues. we have charles sheehan from the department of the environment making the presentation today and we have jack macy on deck as well from the department of the environment. all right. police, present. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to present today on hours they were -- zero waste facilitator ordinance. i want to introduce jack macy who is pulling up the screen. he will be the primary presenter today. he is our lead senior analyst for zero waste and he will be going through the ordinance and giving you an overview as well as talking about some of the amendments that we have been working with supervisors on. >> one more thing, we also have been from the department of economic workforce development. where are you? ok. after these two gentlemen present, we will hear from you. i thank you have some amendments you want us to consider.
>> madam chair? >> ladies and gentlemen, look who is here. >> i will borrow some energy from president cohen. who is ready to talk trash? [laughter] >> yes. >> come on, raise your hands. all right! what have you all been waiting for? all right. i will say some opening remarks. i know this is something we spent a lot of time with. i want to set the context for this. this legislation, the mandatory recycling and composting was originated back in 2007 and 2008 this is ten years in the making. this is something that i think san francisco should be very proud to have. we are one of the leaders in the united states, if not the world and diverting the amount of trash that we have from landfill to other uses. either composting or recycling. because of that, we always are
wanting to look to improve. as part of that original legislation back in 2007 or 2008 , the city set a goal very similar to our transit first policy. people always talk about our transit first policy and bike lanes and traffic calming and bulb outs and all different types of investments have been made to increase and include the transportation system in the city. sum has been done with significant amounts of growing pains and essentially a change in culture in san francisco. there are a lot of businesses businesses and a lot of residents that have had a hard time with that but there is a significant amount of san francisco people who have embraced that. the city is better for it and the public is better served. similar to that original legislation, we brought through a goal of achieving zero waste by 2020. we discovered last year when we held a hearing at the public
services and neighborhood committee that we will not achieve that goal by 2020. we are doing significant work. i think we are no longer using the word diversion rate but we have one of the highest rates of diverging waste from landfills than any other part of the world , if not the united states. one of the things that we discovered, and this i think was a shocking finding in our hearing was that 60% of what we send to landfill is still recyclable or compostable. the department of environment will have a good presentation that will dig into the data but i want to let that sink in again sixty% of what we send to landfill is compostable or recyclable, still, to this day. and so at that hearing, and that is where we really put the pedal
to the metal in terms of drafting this legislation, we had the department of environment zero down and promote categories that we could focus on to achieve and tackle this remaining amount -- we think it is considerable. sixty% is considerable. so one category was packaging and materials. that is harder to tackle and harder to legislate. we took a small step which we think is significant when we tackled the single use plastic uses in the city. straws and other types of plastics that we banned. it will have an impact, albeit a smaller one, but we are thinking about that. styrofoam is another. we banned it a few years ago. that is a strong step in the right direction. in terms of the other two categories, one was construction and demolition materials and we are in the process of having a
working group and we will be proposing legislation to tackle that issue. we are talking about all the phenomenal amount of construction, rehabilitation, a lot of the materials that are in the waste stream from construction and demolition are still recyclable. instead they end up in landfill and that is a significant amount of waste that we could be working with. the last category and the one we're talking about today is large refuse generators. so those account holders that are sending -- that are creating a significant volume of trash on a weekly basis and how well are those large refuse generators, as we are calling them, how well are they sorting in terms of diverting their trash? and you will hear this from the department of environment. through audit and information and gathering from recology and the department of environment, we found out that some are doing a good job using best practices.
some are not to. and those that are not, impact every single san franciscan. because what we pay in our rate structure is reflected in how much we are paying the cost of landfill. and i landfill is a finite amount of space. we have a landfill, that at some point will be full and we will have to renegotiate. the average san franciscan will bear the cost in the rate structure. wheat what we are trying to do is reduced, reviews, recycle is the theme of the department of environment. this is on the recycle and reduce category. we are trying to reduce how much we are sending to landfill and increase how much we recycle. sixty% is significant. those large refuse generators, how will we tackle that diversion. we looked at best practices. we have had ten years since we have been doing mandatory recycling and composting. one of the best practices we
have seen is to deal with the waste at the source of creation. and when you are able to sort it out the source of creation and when it goes to pier 96, we have other staff at recology that do additional sorting and they are creating a significant benefit for san franciscan his. legislation is attempting to tackle that using best practices we spent, from the beginning of the spring all the way until now meeting with stakeholders and meeting with interested parties and i have a series of amendments that i will get to later after the presentation. we are changing the effective dates from january 1st until july of next year. we are changing the definition of large refuse generators today and we will increase that slightly. that will take out a significant portion of the number of refuse generators that will be impacted from over 540 accounts down to around 530 a.
we have been making concessions left and right. there is a few things that we believe firmly in in this legislation. one is this work and to the person that would be doing the sorting, it should be someone that is exclusively focused on that work. some will ask, why are you doing that? why does this person have to be exclusive? in these large accounts, we are talking about volume. thirty or 40 cubic yards. i will ask the department of environment to describe that but that is a significant amount of waste and if you have someone, that does not mean full-time, it can be part-time. but if you have someone focusing on that at the right level, you will see a significant reduction in the person's overall garbage bill. the department of environment will talk about that. how the cost savings are realized. this is a cost-saving measure. a lot of folks will see this as a mandate but at some point, if
we are going to achieve less and less going to landfill and in the process of drafting this legislation the mayor and the department of environment brought forth a goal of achieving half of what we sent today, a 50% reduction by 2030. we have to take aggressive steps in summary, using pat best practices on sight and having it be someone that is focused on the work either full-time or part-time. in the end, we will ultimately realize a significant savings, not just for the actual account holder, but for san franciscans overall because we will be reducing it at what rate we are sending trash to the landfill. i will save the remainder of vermont -- of my remarks and comments for after the presentation but i would like to call up jack may see from the department of environment to proceed with the presentation. let me say the department of environment have been a wonderful partner and all of
this. they spent significant time and energy working with city departments and multiple stakeholders in our office at in drafting this legislation. thank you. >> thank you and good morning, supervisors. i am with the department of the environment zero waste program. my pleasure to join you this morning. i wanted to give you a high level background on this and starting with the visionary and leading zero waste goal that the city adopted over 15 years ago and this was a key part of the sustainability efforts by going for a zero waste disposal to landfill incineration. we are helping to reduce or conserve resources and reduce pollution and climate impact and create many benefits like jobs. you have a lot more jobs with recycling and composting then
through disposal. this was an ambitious aspirational goal and it has driven a lot of progress. we have, as supervisors have mentioned, we have been considered a worldwide leader in this effort and we have been able to adopt many policies from a mandatory recycling and composting, which this ordinance builds on, to efforts to ban problematic products, packaging and then most recently, through the global climate action summit , we joined in the summits in announcing new goals and calling in other cities around the globe and 25 others have joined us so far to reduce overall generation of total discard -- discards by 15% and reduce disposal by 15% by 2030. the challenge is, this goal and all the efforts has resulted in
a lot of gains. we reduce disposal by more than half from 2000-2010 and then after that things levelled out and with the booming economy particularly in construction, we saw trends reverse. so as this graph shows, after this is disposed, we saw it dropping down significantly. we have been going in the wrong direction recently and we have a lot of new efforts and programs to address that. but we need to do more. >> before you go into there, can you go into the next slide? why are some of the reasons that the trend is trending up? >> the main thing is we have seen and increase and booming economy with a tremendous amount of construction activity. we have seen how there are so many cranes and so much construction and that really took off in 2012 and 2014 and
2015. you will see it is leveling off. i say that is a major driver. there has been changing patterns of consumption. people are ordering more and more stuff online and we are seeing a profusion of packaging. there is new packaging. these are some of the key trends we are going to get to looking at the causes of these and efforts that we are addressing at one of them is that ordinance being considered today. as we mentioned, 60% of what we see going into our black bends, our trash overall, should go into the blue and green as recyclable. there is additional instruction demolition debris that could be recovered. we are currently looking at -- two policy efforts, addressing three key challenges. the supervisor just mentioned. changing consumption. that is around the rapid growth of single-use packaging. and the ordinance recently was addressed and there is more that
can be done. we have done regulations to better regulate the construction and demolition debris. that staff is not allowed to go directly to landfill. it has to be processed first. and we are looking at more things that can be done there and this ordinance addresses larger generators. i want to say that we have a challenge throughout all sectors from your small single-family resident all the way up to the largest generators and we are doing a tremendous amount and have been over the past ten years. we were currently -- over the last year plus, rolling out a new program to single-family residence. you may be aware you have gotten a smaller trash bin and he saw the new materials that we are recycling. there is a part of the efforts we are working with with a lot of the smaller generators. this ordinance is offering a tool that makes sense only for the larger generators. and so when you think about larger generators, we see a need
to improve participation across the board. but when a large generator is contaminated in our containers and throwing recyclables and combustibles with the trash, it is a bigger impact because it is a bigger material. and looking at one of the parts of the definition of large refuse generators as they have a roll off compactor. those things start at 10 cubic yards and because they are compacting they are holding cubic yards material. we're talking about big generators. those generators, we look in recent years, they are a 551 audits that have been done. over three quarters of them in the trash stream have more than half recyclables and combustibles. gives a huge lost opportunity. a need for tremendous improvement and we have been working with a lot of properties for ten years on the mandatory and even before but we still have a need for improvement. and then they have a need to
improve recycling and composting but smaller percentages, as you see. currently, we have a system in place through the refuse rates that are set separately through the process going back to a 1932 ordinance that allows recology to provide significant discounts for the amount of recycling and composting that an account has. basically, the volume divided by all three streams gives you a recovery or diversion right and that ends up translating, not 25 % off that, to a discount. it is across all three streams. it is significant. large build properties are saving thousands, if not many thousands through that discount. but if they mess up those streams and contaminate too much , they can lose the discount if they are contaminating the trash too much like you see here , they get extra charges and those can be really significant
up to just over a year ago, the maximum of that was 50% and then just over a year ago the rate process allows recology to go to 100% on those. there are significant incentives in place that has helped driven and industry of what we call a zero waste facilitators. so there is an existing group of companies and entities out there that are doing this kind of work and what are they doing and what is envisioned in this ordinance as they can help a property with better material separation and sorting. through working with the property and looking at what is going into the containers collected by recology, they can see where the contamination is and help provide feedback and education to tenants and overall , the benefit of what they're doing is to help reduce the contamination so property can comply better and that allows property to get off contamination charges or get the discounts back.
as i said, there is existing zero facilitators that are out there and we have been able to identify over 80 properties. mostly large office buildings that are currently using the zero waste facilitators. and why are they doing that? because they can economically incentivize by increasing the discount on the rate his -- other rate. some of these properties take pride in being a cyst ability champions. >> excuse me. before you go to that slide, i wanted you to speak a little bit more in depth about that so the committee members can really drill down on this point. this is an important point. this shows how this is the use of best practices. how these buildings realize savings and how they pay for the facilitators and in most cases,
paying for themselves and realizing a significant cost savings. if you could say more about that so -- >> this approach with getting additional professional help to better manage materials has a long history. we saw it starting with special events. get used to be one of the hardest to deal with and getting high recovery rates. now a lot of events are covering 75 or 89%. that is often because they have professional staff on board to help them provide quality control and to do necessary sorting to get material separated. that has moved into the building property space as well over the last number of years and it is being driven in part by the incentive refuse right structure that we have so properties can maximize. as of a year ago, in july, there was an incentive for properties to get an increased discount all the way up to 100% diversion.
the more they recover or divert, the more they put in recycling and composting then they can get a higher discount. and the charges that can be done through the refuse right process is driving that as well. not everybody is using that could be using and benefiting that has used the zero waste facilitators. so i think -- this is an example of the impact that a zero waste facilitators can have. it is a high-rise apartment building. before you see, they have a lot of trash. and only 64 -- 464 gallons. just to help you visualize what a cubic yard is, you know the toter is that you have residentially? they typically are 32-gallon size and with the new trash ones
, they are even smaller. the next biggest size is 64 and the largest is 96 gallons. that is less than half a cubic yard. a cubic yard is 202 gallons. if a property has 30 cubic yards , they would have to have over 60 of those collected every week. you basically have a lot of trash but after a zero waste facilitator, reduce the trash by two thirds and they reduce the recycling by two and a half times and they increase composting by three times and after paying for the zero waste facilitator, and this was i think, a couple people working there, they saw a net savings of $28,000 a year. the savings will vary a lot based on a given particular situation. and with a zero waste facilitator, we see a range of effectiveness. some seem to be effective and there have been cases where they may not be doing as good a job as they could add a property can
still not be in compliance. i just want to clarify who actually is covered by this ordinance. as the supervisor just mentioned , the definition of who is included has been changed. the bar has been raised to remove the smaller one. the definition is anyone with a rolloff compactor. a rolloff compactor is one of these large units. 10-30 cubic yards that is so big that a truck cannot empty it on site. they have to pull it up onto a flatbed and drive it all the way to the transfer station or the recycling facility, empty it and bring it back. those are really big units. the smallest is 10 cubic yards. after that, if you don't have a rolloff compactor and you have more than 40 cubic yards, you are included and as i was giving you the visual, that would be a lot of totes. when you look at these big-box bins, they go from one up to 6 cubic yards.
the very biggest that people would have. this includes 124 of the largest office buildings. ninety-seven of the large department buildings. they are all high-rise. they are typically well over 100 and averaging 3-600 units. we have a combination of wholesale, retail, shopping centres and some of the largest restaurants at 95 and only about a dozen restaurants now included we have some schools that have been reduced and there's only a handful of secondary schools. there is a few colleges and universities and a few hospitals and a couple of the largest churches. a couple of the big food pantries and a couple of museums that total 42. there are convention facilities as well. they are a model and have been
doing this kind of starting for a long time and are at 95% recovery rate. there's a couple of industrial office buildings and there are 15 city properties. since this is the budget and finance committee, the inclusion of city properties brought to this. we are looking at the following agencies that have those 15 properties. real estate has three and that includes the hall of justice, city hall here because there is a rolloff compactor. we have public health, general hospital, we have sfmta and we have five of the large sites that are included. the public library, a couple of port facilities including pier 39 and