am now doing quite well, and granting this will monopolize this dream, because we had a problem before would scavengers, sunset scavengers, because there were not any opportunities for the small businesses, and the ordinance of the 1932 ordinance was suspended, i do believe, because now, there is some sanitation that is being transported throughout the city streets of san francisco, due to the suspension of the ordinance of 1932. thank you. chair chu: thank you. next speaker.

>> madam chair, members of the committee, i am a lawyer. we represent recology. i was a principal negotiator for recology for the landfill agreement and the participation agreement. there were no flaws in the rfp process. the department of environment conducting a proper process, in my view, and followed the law, but in regard to the landfill, waste management made a bid, a recology -- and recology bid less than half that. that should be the end of the story. this is clearly the best financial deal for the ratepayers in san francisco, but turning to the second transportation agreement, recology's proposal provided an

estimate and not a bit, because that was not called for. during the negotiations, the department of environment wanted to nail down the transportation costs, to have recology contractually committed to the transportation costs, so a transportation contract was separately negotiated because of the request made by the department of invar in the during the course of the negotiations -- department of environment during the course of the negotiations. the landfill contract was drafted so it could stand on its own without the transportation agreement if necessary. the landfill agreement should be considered on its own merits. we think the senate transportation agreement is also a good deal for the city -- we think these separate transportation agreement is also a good deal for the city.

if the board of supervisors believes it should be put out to bid, that is ok with recology. chair chu: i see no further speakers. if you have a comment, please come to the center aisle. >> madam chair, members of the committee, i have been in the environmental field for 35 years, both public and private sector. my resume is part of your packet that you received. one of my three companies, waste solutions group, has moved over 6 million tons of waste exclusively by rail and barge out of boston, new york, new jersey, and did, yes, right here in san francisco, where we are headquartered -- and, yes.

k k -- exhibit k shows railcars at the port. when given the opportunity to compete with recology, we have done quite well. we have taken a 25-year contract come in in another one, we finished in the top two of seven companies in san mateo county. recology did not finish in the top. as was said by a representative from the chamber earlier, we can take a bite of the apple. even though there was a promise, and there were people listening in on the speakerphone, a promise that we would have the opportunity to compete for the transportation portion of this agreement, for some reason, that never came to pass, and neither did a response from myself or

another to the department of environment offering this psyche of the port, which is an ideal site for both barging and rail -- offering this site of the port. you can go the machine politics route, the lobby route, or you can go with a monopoly, or you can create a new day here. chair chu: 50. if there are no other members to speak, this will be the last comet -- thank you. >> i am with recology. we have worked closely with those in the southeast part of the city as part of our work at pier 96. we spoke about our hiring and our accomplishments.

there is strong opposition against bringing this to the bayview. we are bringing recycling to the bayview, and they were very pleased with that. what we have heard is they do not want all of san francisco's garbage and garbage trucks coming through the bayview. there are major environmental justice issues that no one is addressing in some of what i think are half a alternatives that some have proposed. -- has date -- half-baked alternatives that some have proposed. thank you. chair chu: thank you. are there any other members who have spoken -- which to speak? if not, we will close public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. ok, the item is before the committee. i know there might be some more questions, so why do we not go

to it? supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, madam chair. i do not have any questions, unless my colleagues do. to get to a preliminary conclusion. first of all, i want to reiterate what i had said some time ago in the opening of this hearing about recology, which i think i put it in the most glowing terms as possible that they are a strong company, a fine company, and won his representation -- reputation, i think, perceives itself -- and one whose reputation, i think, proceeds itself. the merits of this contract proposal, in itself. two, it has been said many times by stakeholders on recology's

side that this has been churning through a four-year service, and maybe that means we should just rubber-stamp it bite some of the tone we have heard. -- by some of the tone we have heard. most recently, if we had not intervened, in our attempt to find a deal on the america's cup, we would not have successfully secured that deal, and the regional deal, which was not satisfactory, -- that just occurred over the last couple of months. i think this body, this committee in particular has helped provide where none had existed or had been considered. many land use deals, by the way,

like market octavia, it is a lot more than 4.5 years. we were able to insert considerations that were not even contemporary in the days when it was initiated, whereas it was straddling the process. that, ultimately, is the case in this particular conversation, as well. i have to tell you that on the question of where the port is or is not in this equation, it remains unresolved. at the transfer station, over the past 50 years, the capital costs have been paid for by ratepayers several times over. i was hoping that at some point,

up to this discussion here today, that there was at least some analysis that says, "supervisor mirkarimi, it is not a good idea that there is some consideration of consolidation of the transfer station with the recycling facility port property." i appreciate comments made about environmental justice. there are some of us who for decades have been very invested in those issues, and i do not think those issues should be taken lightly or slightly as a shield to try to distract from some larger questions that go one answered -- go unanswered. there are some questions about the tipping fees that i do not think have been adequately examined here and that could use a little more insight. i am a little concerned about

the diversionary map, and i also had meetings with the department of environment on this. with our previous may year, now a lieutenant governor, he rests his laurels very high for the rest of the nation to follow -- with our previous mayor. the wherewithal and the substance about where we are with this 77% figure, and this dovetails with the fact that we hear that there may be a re- thinking about what to do with the recycling centers that these things are occurring as we're speaking right now and yet we've been asking for, trying to understand what is the city's current master plan for repsychling and for diverse nary.

i don't think we can compartment meant lies these. we need to return to these things. that doesn't mean that if they don't get contract it could actually be a more fortified opinion that they are the ones that should get the contract. i have to say this a side note we should seriously go after the question of revising this charter. and as it segues back to that term of rate pair and consumer response, that's where i think we want to put the math on a bug -- bigger board. will our repairs benefit from the construct as it is right

now, which i think has been well sold or were there other angles that were not considered. as the attorney came up and said the department dead a -- did a thorough job, i agree. but it does not preclude the city from also considering other strategies that may strenthening -- strengthen our deem. with that in mind, i motion that we continue this for two months. in the course of that two months, i'm going to ask you to just return here to the budget committee. also, we'll call a meeting offline with the port authority and the port authority and the office of the mayor and others within the department mental family. i would like us to form a

meeting with recology to see if they can speak to some of these considerations. my forecast is that we might arrive and say thumbs up, 100% confident in this. but the fact that those steps did not get taken, i don't think anybody should be fearful because it's the desired answer you want today. we're doing tour due diligence. my motion is for a two-month continue wins. mid to late april is what i would suggest. >> thank you, supervisor mirkarimi, for your proposal. i would request perhaps that we do a continuance and we are cock any distant of the schedule before -- cognizant of the

schedule before us. supervisor? i appreciate all the members of the public that came out today to speak on this issue. i think there are a lot of pieces. and while i a-- agree with supervisor mirkarimi that i think recology has done a terrific job, i am also ok with having a contiuance. supervisor mirkarimi: i just want to qualify that it wouldn't come sooner than two months, correct? since we're marching into the budget process. supervisor campos: we'll definitely try to get that done in the month of -- april, i think, sounds ok. i do want to say, just to be

clear for the department. we're asking for a continue once but i think it's -- continuance but i think it should come back to the committee answering the questions that that committee has presented. if i could just summarize from my understanding of the comments that were made today, it does not appear that anyone is necessarily talking about whether or not the process was a fair process, whether or not that process was flawed. there also is not necessarily a question in terms of the cost comparison that has been laid out by the department of environment in comparing it. there were a couple of individuals who spoke to say why didn't we open it up to other land fills in the county? in fact, we did send out a solicitation to every single land fill. so there was a very clear effort

to try to get a brooder response as possible. that did not happen. we didn't get as many bidders, i would say, even though we did make that outreach. i would say the context in which people have been asking questions really circle around the facilitation agreement. i would hope that in the intervening time we have the port director speak to us about the feasibility of this and where that fits in the long-range plans. i don't know if there's anything else you would like to add. supervisor mirkarimi: just thank you to everybody for their long efforts on all sides of this issue. i very much respect your time. >> ok, then just also from my point of view, i think that we -- i'm ok with a continuance but

i also have to make sure we don't leave the city in a situation where we potentially have no capacity to accept trash. i think that would be a big mistake. we understand that our capacity could run out on usage. not only that, none of us can predict what would happen should we have a natural disaster and need to tam into a waste disposal space. ok, so we have a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair and we'll take that without objection. ok, are there any other items before us today? >> that completes the agenda. >> thank you, we are adjourned.