A way to clean up Recology’s act
San Francisco was a wildly different place in 1932. Neither the Golden Gate Bridge nor the Bay Bridge were complete. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission oversaw Muni and the airport. And the Refuse Collection and Disposal Ordinance was installed in the city charter.
Things have changed substantially in the past 90 years, and part of San Francisco’s evolution as a city must be a critical review of our decades-old ordinances. Proposition F, on the city’s June 7 ballot, would do that by amending the Collection and Disposal Ordinance to create oversight and transparency to combat corruption.
Recology is granted a monopoly to collect refuse in San Francisco under the 1932 ordinance, and it appeals to the San Francisco Public Works when it wants to raise rates on consumers. With no dedicated staff for reviewing these raise proposals, Public Works assembles an ad hoc group to analyze each rate hike application, and
the department’s director then unilaterally issues an order.
History shows the danger of a system this haphazard.
Last year, Recology was ordered to reimburse San Franciscans over $94 million for years of overcharges that occurred under the leadership of former Public Works Director Mohammad Nuru, who pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges in January. Nuru admitted to accepting jewelry, wine, trips
and other goods from city contractors and developers, while offering them special favors and information about city contracts.
A 14% rate increase Nuru implemented in 2017 was found to be twice what should have been allowed. That rate was allowed to stand even after Recology notified Public Works of the error; the charges piled on for two years. To date, Recology claims this was a simple mistake. But it is clear that awarding rate setting power to the head of one department invites the potential for opaque decision making, errors and corruption.
Under Prop. F, all proposed rate increases would be reviewed by the city controller’s office. This is a logical move: the controller oversees the city’s finances, managing everything from processing payroll to monitoring the city’s budget. In addition, a Refuse Rate Board would be established, made up of the city administrator, general manager of the Public Utilities Commission and a ratepayer representative, to create transparency in the process of rate setting — not just for residential customers, but commercial entities as well. Finally, the city would be granted the power to cancel Recology’s monopoly on trash collection without returning to the ballot.
Prop. F was created with due diligence. For a full year, an internal city working group, consisting of representatives from the controller’s office, city administrator’s office and Department of the Environment convened to review paths forward. Simultaneously, an external task force, made up of building owners, the tenants union and environmental organizations discussed fair practices. Both groups concluded amending the 1932 ordinance — rather than immediately dissolving Recology’s monopoly — was the best path.
They weren’t alone. Mayor London Breed and all 11 members of the Board of Supervisors have thrown their support behind the measure, a rare feat.
We concur. Reforming our 90-yearold system of reviewing refuse rates is clearly needed. And there isn’t a timely option for phasing out the city’s reliance on Recology’s monopoly in favor of a municipal collection system or a competitive bidder. In the meantime, there needs to be a stringent process for reviewing rates to protect San Franciscans from overcharges. We recommend voters support Prop. F.