Jump to navigation

  • 網站導引
  • 字型大小
  • 純文字
Mobile menu button
San Francisco Voter Guide logo
線上版三藩市選民資料手冊和選票樣本 全州聯合直接初選
2022年6月7日

Elections and accessibility

  • sfelections.org
  • 無障礙通行
  • English
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Filipino
  • 一般資料
    • 2022年6月7日選舉快速指南
      • 有疑問嗎?
      • 處長的信
      • 官方的選民資訊資源概覽
      • 選票簡釋委員會
      • 選舉委員會
      • 2022年新的選區分界線
      • 投票方法的選擇
      • 三藩市的官方選票投遞箱地圖和地點
      • 選民權利
      • 無障礙投票和服務
      • 多種語言的選民服務:中文協助
      • 免費英文班
      • hide
      • 6月7日選舉的選票
      • 標記您的選票
      • 三藩市選民登記和投票的常見問題
      • 關於被禁止的選舉活動
      • 三藩市投票系統概要
      • 確保您的選民登記資料處於最新狀態!
      • 選民登記資料隱私
      • 居家安全計劃
      • 重要提示!
      • 停止收到印刷版的《選民資料手冊》
      • 志願者! 成為投票工作人員!
      • 找到您的投票地點和您的選票樣本
      • XML Streams
      • Site Guide
  • 候選人資料
    • 候選人和職位資料
      • 自願經費限制
      • 候選人的政黨支持
      • 本次選舉中即將選出三藩市市縣的職位
      • 加州的初選
      • 您的候選人聲明
      All Candidate Statements
      所有候選人聲明
      Todas las declaraciones de las candidatos
      Lahat ng mga Pahayag ng mga Kandidato
    • 國會眾議員第11選區候選人
    • 國會眾議員第15選區候選人
    • 州眾議員第17選區候選人
    • 州眾議員第19選區候選人
    • 市府律師候選人
  • 地方選票提案
    • 地方選票提案和論據的資料
      • 三藩市債務概覽
      • 名詞解釋
      • 提案 A: Muni可靠性與街道安全債券
      • 提案 B: 樓宇檢查委員會
      • 提案 C: 罷免時間表和空缺任命
      • 提案 D: 受害者和證人權利辦公室;家庭暴力 受害者的法律服務
      • 提案 E: 奉命捐款
      • 提案 F: 垃圾收集和處理
      • 提案 G: 公共衛生緊急休假
      • 提案 H: 關於博徹思(Chesa Boudin)的罷免提案

您在這裡

  1. 首頁 ›
  2. 地方選票提案 ›
F
垃圾收集和處理

市府是否應改變垃圾費率委員會的成員資格、如何制定垃圾費率和法規的 方式,以及管理日後變更的規定? 

摘要 由選票簡釋委員會撰寫

現況:市府為三藩市的住宅垃圾的收集、運輸和處理發放許可證並進行監管。Recology公司通過其附屬公司,持有本市所有住宅垃圾收集的許可證。

垃圾費率委員會(費率委員會)負責管理和制定住宅垃圾收集和處理的費率和制定法規。費率委員會有三名成員:公用事業委員會的總經理、市行政官和市主計官。

當費率委員會收到更改垃圾費率或法規的申請時,它首先將該申請提交給工務局局長,後者必須就該申請舉行公聽會,並向費率委員會提出建議。如果沒有人反對,該建議就成為最終結果。如果有人反對,費率委員會將舉行公聽會,並可以修改有關建議。

建議:提案F將重組費率委員會的成員,改變為住宅和商業客戶制定費率和法規的程序,以及管理未來如何變更的規則。費率委員會的成員將會由公用事業委員會的總經理、市行政官和一名費率付款人代表組成。市主計官也將擔任垃圾費率管理人的新職責。

費率付款人代表將由公用事業改革網絡(TURN),或者由市議會認可的其他致力於保護費率付款人的組織推薦。市長需在市議會的批准下任命費率付款人代表。

垃圾費率管理人將監測費率並向費率委員會提出修改建議。環境委員會和衛生與街道委員會將就擬議變更舉行公聽會。然後,費率委員會將就擬議的變更舉行公聽會並公佈其最終決定。任何新的費率將至少在兩年內有效,但不超過五年。

只有選民才能更改費率委員會的成員資格或其制定費率的權力。如果市長、費率委員會和垃圾費費率管理人提出建議,市議會可以在獲得三分之二的票數通過下更改條例的其他部分。

投「贊成」票的意思是:如果您投「贊成」票,即表示您希望更改垃圾費率委員會成員的資格,如何制定垃圾費率和法規的方式,以及管理日後變更的規定。

投「反對」票的意思是:如果您投「反對」票,即表示您反對進行這些變更。

市主計官對提案「F」的意見書

市主計官Ben Rosenfield 就提案F對本市財政的影響發表以下聲明: 

在我看來,如果擬議的法令獲得選民通過,它對政府支出將具有中度的影響。本分析僅限於擬議的法令對政府成本的影響,不包括分析該法令對提供給三藩市居民和商業的回收、堆肥和處理服務成本的影響。

擬議的法令將修改現行的《垃圾收集和處理法令》, 任命市主計官為垃圾費率管理人,負責監管垃圾費率,並向垃圾費率委員會提出調整垃圾費率的建議。目前,該項工作由工務局人員負責。一位被任命的費率付款人代表將取代主計官成為垃圾費率委員會的成員。該法令授權費率委員會管理商業和住宅費率,並允許市議會絕大多數成員在費率管理人、費率委員會和市長的建議下修改該法令。

估計每年用於垃圾費率管理的費用,包括辦公場所和人員配備,以及在垃圾費率委員會增加一位費率付款人代表的費用為50萬至100萬元。成本估算是在目前這些活動的支出基礎上增加的工作。之前由工務局人員完成的與費率申請程序有關的職責將從他們更大的工作範疇中移除,並且不再需要外判公共宣傳的職能。未來對該法令的修訂所產生的費用,如對商業費率或開放系統進行競爭性投標,則不包括在此估算中。請注意,擬議的修正案將改變主計長辦公室的職責,該辦公室已編制了本聲明。

提案「F」如何被列入選票

2022年3月1日,市議會以11票對0票通過將提案F列入選票。市議員的投票情況如下:

贊成:Chan、Haney、Mandelman、Mar、Melgar、 Peskin、Preston、Ronen、Safai、Stefani、Walton。

反對:無。

本提案需要有50%+1的贊成票才能獲得通過。

贊成提案 F 的論據

支付的垃圾收集費超出您應需的費用?嗯,那只是垃圾。

提案F為本市的住宅和商業垃圾管理和回收合約帶來付費人權益、定期審計和反腐敗保障措施,有可能為三藩市的客戶節省數億元。

一間名為Recology的私營公司,負責本市運輸和回收垃圾服務,但是由市府批准的費率。問題是,市府批准收費率的人允許Recology公司要價過高,向客戶多收了高達2億元的費用。

目前批准垃圾費率的制度已有90多年的歷史,並且已經崩壞了。這個制度允許工務局的員工監管費率,往往並不是其受過培訓的工作。由於目前的制度缺乏對費率付款人的宣傳和定期審計,因此容易受到任人唯親和腐敗的影響。

為制止過度收費,提案F是我們需要的改變。

通過建立充分透明度和對費率付款人的宣傳,提案F不僅將防止不合理的費率上漲。提案F將確保每個人都得到公平對待。因此,居民和小商業不會被過度收費而強大的市中心區企業得到更好的優惠。

那些為我們收集和回收垃圾的工人都在努力工作。其不是問題所在。問題是一個允許大量過高收費的制度。我們通過提案F改變這個制度。

食品、汽油和房租的價格不斷上漲。現在是我們政府採取措施,確保您不會為您所需要的服務過度付費的時候了。通過建立費率付款人宣傳,定期審計和反腐敗保障措施,提案F將確保您不會為垃圾服務支出超出您應需的費用。

市長London Breed 

市議會主席Shamann Walton 

市議員Connie Chan 

市議員Catherine Stefani 

市議員Aaron Peskin 

市議員Gordon Mar 

市議員Dean Preston 

市議員Matt Haney 

市議員Myrna Melgar 

市議員Rafael Mandelman 

市議員Hillary Ronen 

市議員Ahsha Safai 

所登載論據為作者意見,其準確性未經任何官方機構校核。英文原文的拼寫及文法錯誤均未經改正。中文譯文與英文原文儘可能保持一致。
反駁贊成提案 F 的論據

請投票反對提案F。

支持者認為垃圾費可能太高。實際上,三藩市的垃圾費率與灣區其他地方的垃圾費率差不多,而且我們有一套更全面的服務,比其他大多數地方都作出更多的處理工作。

目前已有費率付款人宣傳、定期審計和反腐敗措施。擁護循環利用和零廢物的人士參加了費率聽證會。廢物特性研究和財務審計定期進行。法律和法院命令都有嚴格的反腐敗保障措施。

在1932年有選民們批准的垃圾費率設定制度到目前仍然有效。提案F不是目前需要的解決方案。

沒有人把最近前工務局局長涉及的醜聞和最近的費率計算錯誤聯繫起來。Recology公司承認了這一錯誤, 並向客戶進行了退款。

這裡失去的是三藩市在過去35年裡,減少倒入垃圾填埋場的垃圾方面去已取得的巨大進步。其他地方羨慕我們全面的教育、分類和處理制度,有現代化的設備和當地的就業機會,以合理的成本減少對環境的影響。通過與Recology公司密切協調,三藩市已真正將垃圾收集轉變為減少浪費和使用有用的資源。

所有這些都受到了威脅。提案F將製造更多的官僚主義,而沒有任何有意義的公眾利益。

現有的監管機制已經為我們提供了良好的服務,並保持住宅和商業低水平的垃圾費。目前並不需要改變。

請投票反對提案F。謝謝!

David Pilpel

所登載論據為作者意見,其準確性未經任何官方機構校核。英文原文的拼寫及文法錯誤均未經改正。中文譯文與英文原文儘可能保持一致。
反對提案 F 的論據

請投票反對提案F。

釐定垃圾費率是市府最不起眼但又是最重要的職能之一。選民們在1932年批准了一個複雜而又簡潔的流程至今對我們依然很有幫助。我謹此建議,提案F不是我們目前需要的解決方案。

Recology公司常出現在新聞中,但並不總是出於好的原因。最近涉及前工務局局長的醜聞和最近的費率計算錯誤已被廣泛報道。

沒有被報道的是日常收集、加工和處理堆肥材料、回收和垃圾的工作,包括三藩市作為一個城市,在很多方面都處於領先地位,盡量減少廢物、分離和處理廢物,盡量減少送往垃圾填埋場,盡量減少對環境的影響,支持僱用當地人士和清理計劃,並在提供這些服務的同時以向費率付款人提供合理的費用。

在一個需要更穩定性的制度時,提案F已經造成了巨大的不確定性。

作為一個密切關注這個問題的人,我多年來一直參加垃圾費率聽證會,並向垃圾費率委員會提出反對意見。在我看來,制定費率的制度運作良好。而這項建議將改變這方面的權利和職責,對垃圾收集、環境或納稅人沒有幫助。其將製造更多的官僚主義,而沒有任何有意義的公眾利益。

這個建議是秘密制定的,選定的利益集團參與有限, 而且沒有大量的公眾參與。商業和居民將受到影響, 賬單金額可能上漲,服務可能減少,新的監管機制也模糊不清。

在疫情期間或其他任何時候,我們不需要新的市政府部門、不必要的開支、也不需要其他噱頭。我們應該更有效地利用現有資源和監管機制。

請投票反對提案F。謝謝!

David Pilpel

所登載論據為作者意見,其準確性未經任何官方機構校核。英文原文的拼寫及文法錯誤均未經改正。中文譯文與英文原文儘可能保持一致。
反駁反對提案 F 的論據

以下是毋庸置疑的事實: 

市府未能發現高達2億元的不必要的垃圾費增長。

被工務局派遣去批准費率上漲的人士並不總是有專業知識進行複雜的審計工作並發現有浪費的情況,更不用說發現欺詐或濫用。

據聯邦調查局稱,在負責確保我們垃圾費率公平的部門最高層存在腐敗模式。

而且,正如寫「反對」論據的作者自己所說,未能防止這些不必要收費的制度已經有近100年的歷史了。

經過近100年的時間,在過去幾年,我們看到了腐敗和費率不合理上漲的模式,現在是改變的時候了。

提案F提供監管、專業審計,並要求持續的費率付款人宣傳。其沒有建立新的部門,只是將監管權移交給能夠幫助產生公平費率以及改善服務的專家。

收集和回收垃圾的工人工作做得很好。提案F通過確保制度對每個人都公平來幫助這些一線工人。代表這些勤勞鄰居的公會也支持提案F。

幾乎所有的東西成本都在上升。對工薪家庭來說,現在是一個艱難的時期。三藩市人理應得到專業和透明的監管,以確保垃圾費率是公平的。

請投票贊成提案F。

市議員Connie Chan 

市議員Aaron Peskin 

三藩市勞工理事會

所登載論據為作者意見,其準確性未經任何官方機構校核。英文原文的拼寫及文法錯誤均未經改正。中文譯文與英文原文儘可能保持一致。
贊成提案 F 的付費論據

贊成提案F的付費論據

勞工們都贊同 – 投票贊成提案F,幫三藩市市居節省垃圾費

在這個艱難的時代 – 許多三藩市市居沒有一點多餘的錢。這就是為什麼我們需要專業的審計、費率付款人宣傳和基本保障措施,以防止垃圾公司向客戶收取過高的費率。

那些為我們收集垃圾和回收利用的工人們做得很好。其不是問題所在。 問題是一個崩壞的制度,以至於沒有發現明顯錯誤和超額收費 – 目前為止高達2億元。

讓我們來修復這個崩壞的制度!與我們一起投票贊成提案F。

三藩市勞工理事會

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是:三藩市勞工理事會。

贊成提案F的付費論據

商家贊同 – 提案F意味著為小型企業提供公平的費率

長期以來,小型企業一直承受高利率的衝擊。由於本市府從未制定標準商業費率,小型企業往往最終要為市中心大規模商業的利益而補貼垃圾服務。

提案F將允許市政府為小型企業制定合理的費率,包括昂貴的紙板回收費。我們現在需要公平的費率。

投票贊成提案F。小型企業應得到公平費率。

阿拉伯裔美國人雜貨商 

Castro 商會

Haight Ashbury 商會

北灘商業協會

Telegraph Hill 居民

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是:街區商業聯盟

贊成提案F的付費論據

民主黨領導人贊同 – 投票贊成提案F

提案F是一個完全不用多想的提案。我們需要對垃圾和回收費率進行更強的監督和審查,以便我們的賬單是公平的。

John Avalos, 三藩市民主黨成員* 

Keith R Baraka, 三藩市民主黨副主席*

Peter Gallotta, 三藩市民主黨副主席*

Anabell Ibanez, 教師/三藩市民主黨副主席* *

Li Lovett, 三藩市民主黨副主席*

Carolina Morales, 三藩市民主黨副主席*

Queena Chen, 三藩市民主黨副主席* 

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是:三藩市勞工理事會

贊成提案F的付費論據

Harvey Milk LGBTQ 群體民主俱樂部和Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ群體民主俱樂部贊同 – 投票贊成提案F。

 

是時候清理垃圾了!提案F將我們團結起來,支援市府對此早就應該進行的改革。目前的制度已經崩壞,結果證明了這一點 – 已經發現近2億元的超額收費。

通過要求定期審計、監督和費率付款人宣傳,提案F意味著現在和將來都可以節省開支。

和我們一起投票贊成提案F。

Harvey Milk LGBTQ群體 民主俱樂部 

Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ群體民主俱樂部

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是:Aaron Peskin。

贊成提案F的付費論據

當Recology公司向費率付款人超額收取2億元的費用時,租客已經感受到了壓力。

提案F將使所有三藩市居民更能負擔得起垃圾處理服務。這是一個簡單的選擇。

投票贊成提案F以獲得公平費率。

三藩市可負擔房屋聯盟

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是:Aaron Peskin。

贊成提案F的付費論據

投票贊成提案F。

自1932年以來,市政廳一直支持垃圾收集業的壟斷。目前的壟斷者是Recology公司,多年來該公司已經一直保持著壟斷地位。費率付款人、住宅和商業業主一直每月支付由於壟斷而產生的垃圾收集費率,這是半島地區最高的征收率。這個高費率是由貪贓枉法的前工務局局長和我們公共事業委員會總經理這樣的人士來制定的。他們已經被美國檢察官刑事指控,並在2020和2021年被迫辭去公職。

此外,在20世紀60年代,Recology公司的前公司獲得了一項獨特的市議會法令,如您未能按月支付賬單,該法令授予Recology公司對您物業、住宅或商業有抵押權。沒有其他私營企業或公司享有這種權利和偏袒。

投片贊成提案F,以廢除1932年的壟斷法。之後,確保市議會頒布一項新法令,通過要求競標來降低我們的垃圾費率,如同我們灣區鄰縣市所做的那樣!

三藩市納稅人協會

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是:三藩市納稅人協會。

贊成提案F的付費論據

最後 – 一個使政府更加有效和更負責任的計劃。

毋庸置疑,提案F意味著對我們垃圾收集和回收費率進行更充分和更專業的監督,以便我們不被過度收費。

租客和物業業主們達成共識 – 投票贊同提案F!

三藩市公寓協會

這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是:三藩市公寓協會。

贊成提案F的付費論據在此結束

所登載論據為作者意見,其準確性未經任何官方機構校核。英文原文的拼寫及文法錯誤均未經改正。中文譯文與英文原文儘可能保持一致。
反對提案 F 的付費論據

無人提交反對提案E的付費論據

所登載論據為作者意見,其準確性未經任何官方機構校核。英文原文的拼寫及文法錯誤均未經改正。中文譯文與英文原文儘可能保持一致。
法律文本

Ordinance amending the Refuse Collection and Disposal Ordinance (“the Refuse Ordinance”) to restructure the refuse rate-setting process to replace hearings before the Department of Public Works with a requirement that the Controller, as Refuse Rate Administrator, regularly monitor the rates and appear before the Refuse Rate Board to recommend rate adjustments; establish an appointed Ratepayer Representative to replace the Controller on the Refuse Rate Board; authorize the Refuse Rate Board to set commercial rates; require applicants for refuse collection permits to demonstrate their ability to avoid disruptions in service; clarify existing law regarding refuse collection permits; authorize the Board of Supervisors on recommendation of the Refuse Rate Administrator, Refuse Rate Board, and Mayor to amend the Refuse Ordinance by eight-vote supermajority; and fully codifying the Refuse Ordinance in the Health Code.

 

NOTE: Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain font.

            Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics Times New Roman font.

         Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics Times New Roman font.

         Asterisks (*   *   *   *) indicate the omission of unchanged Code subsections or parts of tables.

Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:  

Section 1.  Title.

This ordinance shall be known as “The Refuse Rate Reform Ordinance Of 2022.”

Section 2.  Background and Purpose.

(a)  The City regulates the collection and disposal of refuse via the Refuse Collection and Disposal Ordinance, an uncodified ordinance that the voters adopted in 1932 and have not amended since 1960.  Starting in 2020, a series of public reports revealed that the City’s refuse collection system was in need of reform, as evidenced by Recology, the City’s sole permittee, overcharging San Francisco residents and businesses by almost $100 million.  The City corrected this error, but even afterwards continued to have significant concerns that Recology’s expenses may have been inflated and had difficulty ascertaining answers because of the lack of transparency in the current regulatory structure.  

(b)  The purpose of this ordinance is to reform and modernize the City’s process for setting residential refuse rates to be more fair, transparent, and accountable; and to help the City continue to pursue its Zero-Waste goals.  To achieve these multiple purposes, the People  of the City and County of San Francisco hereby establish the following principles to govern this process:  

Refuse service shall be cost-effective and meet established service standards and environmental goals; 

The refuse rate structure shall encourage rate stability and ensure rates are reasonable and fair; 

The process used to establish and monitor rates shall be transparent, accountable, and publicly accessible; 

The work of the Refuse Rate Board and the City Controller, who shall act as Refuse Rate Administrator, shall be conducted in line with high professional ethical standards. 

(c)  This ordinance also authorizes the Board of Supervisors, on recommendation of the Refuse Rate Administrator and the Refuse Rate Board and the Mayor, to update the Refuse Collection and Disposal Ordinance, as codified in Health Code Section 290 by this ordinance, from time to time, so that the Ordinance can continue to meet the above standards well into the future.

Section 3.  Article 6 of the Health Code is hereby amended by revising Section 290, to read as follows:

SEC. 290.  REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL ORDINANCE NO. 17.083.

   This Section 290 (encompassing Sections 290.1 through 290.17, collectively referred to as “Section 290”) is enacted to set forth portions of the Refuse Collection and Disposal Ordinance No. 17.083 (adopted as Proposition 6, November 8, 1932, and reprinted in the Appendix A to the Administrative Code)of the San Francisco City Charter, as it has been amended via Ordinance No. 16 (November 5, 1946), Proposition C (June 8, 1954), and Proposition F (June 7, 1960), and as it may be further amended from time to time.heretofore has been adopted to read as follows

   “Section 290.1. The term “refuse” as used in this ordinanceSection 290 shall be taken to mean all waste and discarded materials from dwelling places, households, apartment houses, stores, office buildings, restaurants, hotels, institutions, and all commercial establishments, including waste or discarded food, animal and vegetable matter from all kitchens thereof, waste paper, cans, glass, ashes, and boxes and cutting from trees, lawns, and gardens. Refuse as used herein includes recyclables, compostables, and trash, but does not include debris and waste construction materials, (including, wood, brick, plaster, glass, cement, and wire, and other ferrous materials,derived from the construction of or the partial or total demolition of buildings or other structures) or hazardous waste, as those terms are defined in Chapter 19 of the Environment Code as it may be amended from time to time.

   “Section 290.2. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to dispose of refuse as defined in this ordinance except as herein provided in this Section 290., save that the provisions of this ordinance shall not include refuse which may be incinerated by an owner of a building for himself or for his tenants on the premises where produced; provided, however, that such incineration shall be subject to inspection and control by the Director of Public Health and the Fire Department. Failure of any householder producing refuse to subscribe to and pay for refuse collection, unless such householder is a tenant for whom refuse collection service is provided by histheirlandlord, shall be prima facie evidence that such householder is disposing of refuse in violation of this Section 290ordinance.

   “Section 290.3. Refuse consisting of waste or discarded food, animal and vegetable matter, discharged containers, of food, animal and vegetable matter and ashes shall be collected and placed in suitable metal cans of such capacity as the Director of Public Works secure containers in a manner as may be prescribed by law (but not to exceed 32 gallons in the case of a can serving one single family dwelling unit) by the producer or landlord who by reason of contract or lease with an occupant is obligated to care for such refuse, for collection by a refuse collector to be disposed of as provided in this Section 290as herein provided. Waste paper and boxes and other refuse materials not subject to putrefaction or decay, and cuttings from trees, lawns and gardens may be placed in any suitable container and delivered by the producer or landlord, who by reason of contract or lease with the occupant is obligated to care for such refuse and deliver same to a refuse collector, to be disposed as herein provided;provided, however, that it shall be optional with the producer or landlord to deliver waste paper or other refuse having a commercial value to a refuse collector, and the producer or landlord may dispose of the same in any manner hethey may see fit in accordance with law. (Refuse which under the provisions hereof must be deposited in a metal can of suitable capacity shall be removed daily from the place where the same is created at a frequency in accordance with law.)

   “Section 290.4.  (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, other than a refuse collector licensed by the Director of Public Health as in the ordinance provided in this Section 290, to transport through the streets of the City and County of San Francisco any refuse as in this ordinance defined, or to collect or to dispose of the same, except waste paper, or other refuse having a commercial value.”  It is provided, however, that a license for a refuse collector, as provided in Section 290.8, shall be distinguished from a permit to operate in the City and County of San Francisco on a certain designated route, under this Section 290.4.

(b) Upon the conviction of any person, firm, or corporation for any violation of the provisions of this Section 290, the permit of such person, firm, or corporation issued under the provisions of this Section 290.4, shall be forthwith and immediately terminated and canceled by operation of law as of the date of conviction.

(c) Ordinance No. 17-083 divided the City and County of San Francisco into routes for the collection of refuse, as designated on a map of the City, each route to include only the side of the street or streets bounding each route as designated by a number on said map, said routes being numbered 1 to 97, inclusive.  Said map and said routes were marked Exhibit A and are attached to and were made a part of Ordinance No. 17-083.

(d) Any person, firm, or corporation desiring to transport through the streets of the City and County of San Francisco any refuse, or to collect or dispose of the same, shall apply to the Director of Public Health for permission so to do. The permit application shall contain such information as the Director of Public Health may require, including but not limited to the name of the applicant, any of the particular routes that the applicant proposes to serve, and a statement that the applicant will abide by all the provisions of this Section 290 and will not charge a greater rate for the collection and disposition of said refuse than that fixed in or pursuant to this Section 290.  A permit applicant shall also demonstrate its ability to avoid disruptions in service; a certification that the applicant has appointed one or more employee representatives to its governing board may suffice to make this showing.

(e) The Director of Public Health shall grant a permit to such applicant unless the Director finds the route proposed is already adequately served by a licensed refuse collector.  An application for a permit must be granted, however, by the Director of Public Health, and it is mandatory on the Director to grant the same, when it shall appear in any permit application that 20% or more of the householders, businesses, apartment house owners, hotel keepers, institutions, or residents in said route or routes, using refuse service, and paying for same, or obligated to do so, have signed a petition or contract in which they have stated that they are inadequately served by any refuse collector who is then collecting refuse on said route or routes, provided that the Director finds upon substantial evidence that such statement is correct. Inadequate service is hereby defined as the failure on the part of any refuse collector to properly collect, handle, or transport refuse on said route, or the overcharging for the collection of same, or insolence towards persons whose refuse has been collected, or the collection by any refuse collector whose license has been revoked as provided in Section 290.9.  Permits granted by the Director of Public Health shall not be exclusive, however, and one or more persons, firms, or corporations may be given a permit to collect on the same route.

*  *

   (f) “Persons, firms, or corporations desiring to transport through the streets of the City and County of San Francisco only waste paper or other refuse having commercial value, and to collect and dispose of same need not obtain a permit therefor under the provisions of this ordinanceSection 290.”

   Section 290.5.  Refuse collected by refuse collectors shall be disposed of by such persons, firms, or corporations and in such manner or by such method or methods as from time to time designated by law.  The maximum rate or charge for the disposal of refuse to be charged the refuse collector by any person, firm, or corporation authorized by the Board of Supervisors to dispose of refuse shall be set by the Refuse Rate Board, and those rates or charges may be adjusted from time to time, in the same manner and in accordance with the same procedures as is provided for the adjustment of rates and charges for the collection of refuse in Section 290.6.

   Section 290.6.  (a) The maximum rates or charges for the collection and disposition of refuse by refuse collectors from residences, flats, and apartment houses of not more than 600 rooms, and the regulations relating to such rates or charges, shall be set by order of the Refuse Rate Board.  In determining the number of rooms of any household, building or apartment in order to ascertain the rate for the collection and disposition of refuse therefrom, halls, alcoves, storerooms, bathrooms, closets, and toilets shall not be considered as rooms, nor shall basements or attics be considered as rooms unless the same be occupied as living quarters.  

(b) Procedure for Adjustment.

      (1)  There is hereby created a Refuse Rate Board consisting of the City Administrator, who shall act as chairperson, the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and a Ratepayer Representative who shall be appointed pursuant to Section 3.100(18) of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco.  The Ratepayer Representative shall be recommended by The Utility Reform Network or any other entity that is dedicated to protecting ratepayers that the Board of Supervisors has designated by resolution, and shall have professionally relevant experience in operations, finance, utilities regulation, the refuse industry, or other related fields.  The City Administrator and General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission may from time to time designate a subordinate from their own departments to act in their place and stead as members of the Refuse Rate Board.   

      (2)  The Refuse Rate Board shall convene upon call of the chairperson or the other two members, and two members shall constitute a quorum.  The Refuse Rate Board shall act by majority vote.  The Refuse Rate Board shall adopt and adhere to a code of conduct, including limitations on ex parte communications during the rate setting process.

      (3)  The Refuse Rate Board shall receive assistance from the Refuse Rate Administrator.  The Controller shall serve as the Refuse Rate Administrator and may designate staff from the Controller’s Office to perform or assist with this function.  The Refuse Rate Administrator shall be responsible for proposing new rates (including adjustments to existing rates) to the Refuse Rate Board on the timeline established by the Refuse Rate Board in its prior rate order, monitoring the financial and operational performance of refuse collectors, performing studies and investigations, and advising the Refuse Rate Board as may be deemed necessary to ensure the rates are just and reasonable, taking into account any applicable service standards and environmental goals as established by law. The Refuse Rate Administrator shall present information to the Commission on the Environment and the Sanitation and Streets Commission, at separate or joint public hearing(s), the time and place of which shall be noticed not less than 20 days in advance at least once in an official newspaper of the City and County of San Francisco, to solicit comment from the commissions and interested members of the public, before submitting proposed rates to the Refuse Rate Board.  The Refuse Rate Administrator may also consult with the refuse collector(s), the Department of the Environment, the Department of Sanitation and Streets, and other City agencies and others, and may conduct public hearings, as the Refuse Rate Administrator deems appropriate.  

      (4)  Any person, firm, or corporation (including any holder of a permit to collect and dispose of refuse) affected by the rates, or by the proposed rates, and desiring an increase, decrease, or other adjustment or change in, or addition to, such rates or schedules or the regulations appertaining, may also file a written objection with the Refuse Rate Administrator.  The Refuse Rate Administrator shall consider all objections, and shall address them at the hearing of the Refuse Rate Board on the proposed rates. 

      (5)  The Refuse Rate Board shall commence the public hearing within 30 days after receipt of the Refuse Rate Administrator’s rate proposal.  The time and place of the hearing shall be noticed not less than 20 days in advance at least once in an official newspaper of the City and County of San Francisco.  The Refuse Rate Board shall be empowered to make or cause to be made such studies and investigations as it may deem pertinent, and to introduce the results of such studies and investigations in evidence.  Any person, firm, or corporation affected by the proposed rates shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and be heard.  Any such person, firm, or corporation desiring notice of further proceedings or action upon the application may file with the Refuse Rate Board a written request for such notice, setting forth their name and contact information.  

      (6)  The Refuse Rate Board is authorized to obtain financial audits of regulated revenues and expenses of the refuse collector(s) and refuse disposer(s), performed by an external auditor selected by the Refuse Rate Board in accordance with the Charter.  The Refuse Rate Board shall also adopt performance standards for refuse collectors and refuse disposers, and shall endeavor to maintain rate stability and accountability and an annual accounting of actual versus projected expenditures and revenues of the refuse collectors and refuse disposers, through means such as the establishment of balancing accounts, rate stabilization funds, or similar features.

      (7)  Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Refuse Rate Board shall adopt an order setting forth the facts based on the evidence taken and record made at the hearing. The order, if it provides for any change in the rates, schedules of rates, or regulations then in effect, shall set forth the date that the change is to take effect, which date shall be not less than 15 days from the date of the order.  The order shall remain in effect for a term of at least two years but not to exceed five years, as specified by the Refuse Rate Board.  Any revised rates, schedules of rates, or regulations placed in effect pursuant hereto shall be just and reasonable. 

      (8)  The Refuse Rate Administrator shall publish the order in an official newspaper of the City and County of San Francisco, and shall provide notice of the order to all who shall have filed written requests for notice as set forth in subsection (b)(5).  After the order takes effect, the Refuse Rate Administrator shall monitor the rates and shall update the Refuse Rate Board at least once per year, or more frequently as directed by the Refuse Rate Board.  

      (9)  Nothing in this Section 290 shall prohibit the Refuse Rate Administrator, a refuse collector, or any member of the public from petitioning the Refuse Rate Board to adjust the rates during the term of an existing order; provided, however, that it shall be the policy of the Refuse Rate Board not to adjust the rates during the term of an existing rate order unless necessary due to extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances. 

(c) The Refuse Rate Board may also use the procedures for adjustment in subsection (b) to adopt orders regarding the maximum rates or charges for establishments other than residences, flats, and apartment houses of not more than 600 rooms, except as prohibited by state or federal law, and provided that all rates set under this Section 290.6 remain reasonable and fair.

   Section 290.7.  It shall be unlawful for any refuse disposer or refuse collector to charge a greater rate for the disposal of refuse or for the collection and disposition of refuse than that fixed in, or pursuant to, Sections 290.5 and 290.6.  Nothing in this Section 290 shall be taken or construed as preventing a refuse disposer or a refuse collector from charging a lesser rate or charge for the disposal of refuse or for the collection and disposition of refuse than that fixed in, or pursuant to, Sections 290.5 and 290.6.

   Section 290.8.  Each refuse collector shall be licensed by the Director of Public Health.  The fees for said licenses shall be governed by Business and Tax Regulations Code Section 249.6, as it may be amended from time to time.  Each vehicle in which refuse is transported through the streets shall be assigned a number by the Director of Public Health and the number thereof shall be plainly marked thereon.

   Section 290.9.  The license, as distinguished from a permit herein, of any refuse collector, may be revoked by the Director of Public Health for failure on the part of the refuse collector to properly collect refuse, or for overcharging for the collection of same, or for insolence towards persons whose refuse they are collecting, and it shall be unlawful for any person whose license is so revoked to collect refuse in the City and County of San Francisco.  No license of a refuse collector shall be revoked except upon a hearing of which the refuse collector has been given a notice of at least three days.

   Section 290.10.  Upon the payment of the rate fixed in or pursuant to Section 290.6, the person paying the same shall receive a receipt from the refuse collector identifying the name of the collector, the amount paid, the date of payment, the premises for which the payment was made, and such other information as the Department of Public Health may require to ensure accuracy with respect to the imposition and collection of charges for refuse.

   “Section 290.11. Disputes over charges made by collectors or as to the character of the service performed shall be decided by the Director of Public Health. Any charges made in excess of rates fixed pursuant to thisSection 290ordinance, when determined by the Director of Public Health, shall be refunded to the person or persons who paid the excess charge.

   “Section 290.12. A refuse collector shall be entitled to payment for the collection of refuse at the end of each month from each householder or landlord served by himthe collector and from whom the payment is due.”

   “Section 290.1314. Any person, firm, or corporation who shall violate any of the provisions of this ordinanceSection 290 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500 or by imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

   Section 290.14.  (a) The Refuse Rate Administrator shall furnish the Director of Public Health with such financial data, including data as to the cost of refuse collections, as may be required to enable the Director to perform the Director’s functions under this Section 290.  

(b) Each refuse collector holding a permit shall keep such records and render such reports as may be required by the Refuse Rate Administrator to enable the Refuse Rate Administrator to develop the above-mentioned data, and the Refuse Rate Administrator shall have access to such records.

   Section 290.15.  On recommendation of the Refuse Rate Administrator and the Refuse Rate Board and the Mayor, and by supermajority of at least eight votes, the Board of Supervisors may by ordinance amend any portion of this Section 290, except that the Board of Supervisors may not alter the composition of the Refuse Rate Board or eliminate the requirement that refuse rates shall be approved by order of the Refuse Rate Board.  Further, any such amendments must further one or more of the following purposes: (1) to ensure that refuse service remains cost-effective and can meet established service standards and environmental goals; (2) to promote stability in the rate structure and enable rates that are reasonable and fair; (3) to ensure the process for setting and monitoring rates is transparent, accountable, and publicly-accessible; or (4) to ensure the Refuse Rate Board and Refuse Rate Administrator conduct their duties under this Section 290 in line with high professional ethical standards.  Such amendments may address, for example and without limitation, the standards and procedures for terminating existing route permits and the issuance of future permits subject to competitive bidding processes.  The foregoing grant of authority to the Board of Supervisors to adopt legislation concerning permits shall not be interpreted to affect or impair the authority that the Department of Public Health currently has, absent such legislation, with regard to the issuance or renewal or termination of permits.  In addition, this Section 290.15 does not affect or impair the ability of the voters of the City and County of San Francisco to adopt future initiative ordinances to amend any portion of this Section 290.

   Section 290.16.  If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Section 290, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this Section 290. The People of the City and County of San Francisco hereby declare that they would have adopted this Section 290 and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any other portion of this Section 290 or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 290.17. In enacting and implementing this Section 290, the City and County of San Francisco is assuming an undertaking only to promote the general welfare. It is not assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers and employees, an obligation for breach of which it is liable in money damages to any person who claims that such breach proximately caused injury.

Section 4.  Nature of Ordinance.

(a)  Health Code Section 290 currently contains portions of the City’s Refuse Collection and Disposal Ordinance (“Refuse Ordinance”) (Ordinance No. 17-083), which the People of the City and County of San Francisco adopted via Proposition 6 (November 8, 1932).  The People subsequently amended the Refuse Ordinance three times, via Ordinance No. 16 (November 5, 1946), Proposition C (June 8, 1954), and Proposition F (June 7, 1960).  The entire Refuse Ordinance has not heretofore been codified in Health Code Section 290.  

(b)  In enacting this ordinance, the People of the City and County of San Francisco intend to codify the entire Refuse Ordinance, including the three amendments referenced in subsection (a), at Health Code Section 290.  But the People also intend to further amend the entire Refuse Ordinance.  As a result, the entirety of the Refuse Ordinance, including as amended by this ordinance, will be in Health Code Section 290.   

(c)  Because this ordinance in part codifies previously uncodified text, some text in the ordinance that is shown as additions to text in accordance with the “Note” that appears under the official title of the ordinance actually does not change the law, but merely reflects that previously uncodified text has now been codified.

             

Section 5.  Conflicting Ballot Measures.  In the event that this measure and another measure relating to refuse collection shall appear on the same municipal election ballot, the provisions of such other measure shall be deemed in conflict with this measure.  In the event that this measure shall receive a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety and each and every provision of the other measure that conflicts, in whole or in part, with this measure shall be null and void in its entirety.

 

  • 地方選票提案和論據的資料
    • 三藩市債務概覽
    • 名詞解釋
    • 提案 A: Muni可靠性與街道安全債券
    • 提案 B: 樓宇檢查委員會
    • 提案 C: 罷免時間表和空缺任命
    • 提案 D: 受害者和證人權利辦公室;家庭暴力 受害者的法律服務
    • 提案 E: 奉命捐款
    • 提案 F: 垃圾收集和處理
    • 提案 G: 公共衛生緊急休假
    • 提案 H: 關於博徹思(Chesa Boudin)的罷免提案

關注我們!



© SF Department of Elections all rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

  • 一般資料
  • 候選人資料
  • 地方選票提案