they are going to do right to yuba city. over 35 years. i would like you to say ok to it. chair chu: thank you. next speaker. >> honorable supervisors, my name is -- on of the public relations manager for recology in san francisco. -- i am the public relations manager. i in here to deliver 71 letters in the binders from merchant associations -- i am here to deliver these. restauranteur groups, all across the city. -- restaurant groups. artists. these are the voices of san francisco. people took the time to write these letters. and what do they say? they say that they liked the idea of saving $125 million less

than the losing bidder. they like the idea of saving 1 million gallons of fuel, and they like this process. this has been a thorough and transparent process. very strongly. i would like to submit these letters. chair chu: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is mary. i am the president of a tug and barge operator. we are located at pier 50. we have been in business for many years, and part to that, we were where the giants are now, pier 46. we bring it to our docks, and we

work with recology, golden gate, sunset. they are a great company, but if this is another opportunity for maritime right now, i think it should be looked into. we bring barges renaud intopier 96 for sand and gravel. we have 12 barges on the bay bridge, and there are others available if something was needed, so i think it is another avenue that should be investigated, and any maritime that can be brought into the port would be a great thing. we're also union. >> good afternoon. my name is robert.

i am a native san franciscan. a 15-year recology employee. i still consider myself somewhat of a new employee because of the many employees at recology. we have men in women -- and women with 10, 20, 30, 40 years. it brings to light the dedication, commitment, and pride of the work force t recology. we work under many adverse conditions on all hours of the day. in order to reach our goal to make san francisco one of the most beautiful cities in the world. we volunteer throw the city and in communities and have different programs to better our way of life. our service is second to none in the waste industry. we're also the leader in alternative ways solutions, which we call waster zero -- in

alternative waste solution. san francisco is the model, and others are watching. san francisco and recology working together can show the world a better way to a greener tomorrow. in these difficult economic times, cities are looking for ways to save money. the money you spend must be spent in a wise and intelligent way. investing in recology is not just a strong investment today, but a strong investment for tomorrow, our children, our community, and for the city of san francisco. thank you. chair chu. thank you. >> my name is david tucker, waste management.

one question that still has to be asked and answered is why is it the ratepayers are the ones responsible for subsidize the transportation system when what the city countered charter is asking for is a zerowaste -- is zero waste by 2020? that is a lot of money. there are other landfills. it is difficult to be paying for this. that is the question you have to ask yourself. your material will not be what will be used. thank you. chair chu: thank you. next speaker. >> ibm lee -- i am lee gray, a

local trucking company. i oppose the proposal that is on the table here -- sorry about that. there was no mention of local businesses' participation. i work with waste solutions, waste management, and other local small businesses throughout the san francisco bay area, and because of their opportunities, i 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. >> the san francisco ethnic

dance festival is one of the jewels on san francisco sculptural crowns. this is in its 32nd year of showcasing the celebrated dance troupes. this year will be one of the past with four new works representing kondo, afghanistan, china, mexico. -- congo, afghanistan, china, mexico. more than a hundred 30 ensembles and soloists auditioned in january for a slot in the ethnic dance festival. in the end, 37 companies were selected to perform. 26 of those performances are world premieres. >> each year, we assembled a

panel of dance experts that is made up of academics, scholars, researchers. people have been working for decades in the field. many of them came to this country in the seventies and have trained the next generation of dancers. they are proud to see many of these students at the these masterful levels. this was one of the best panel'' we have ever had, extraordinary people. at the end of the process, they rank their top groups which are then merged into a master list. >> performers are judged on stage presence, costumes, and innovation. >> the four programs are created

around an exciting and dynamic range so the soloists and groups selected each weekend will have enough dynamic range to be a society overall to are experience. >> hundreds of dancers from different countries need each other, compare stuff, and make new friends. this has resulted in new cross- cultural collaborations'. >> one of the extraordinary things is that it really only happens here in the san francisco bay area. all of the dancers that we are presented -- presenting are from the area. they have full-time jobs and they spend their weekends nurturing their passion to sustain these extraordinary dance forms from around the

world. the audience cannot help but be inspired. >> this year, the festival will feature a special collaboration that celebrates the mexican bicentennial and commemorates the 100th anniversary of the mexican revolution. >> one of the great area biographers has stepped out of that role and we asked them to create a special work working with 6 x ordinary dance companies that we have assembled dancers from all of these companies to present a united work in celebration of the bicentennial. >> dancers from over 20 countries are staunch cultures are participating. >> one of thi