he was actually part of the authority when they were negotiating. we want to keep those services involved. just some quick numbers, we are asking for what will be a $25,000 reserve fund to be spent. this is a reference. we have approved about 145,000 over the years for the services and spend just under 100,000. should we continue to use them, we would still have more than that amount. we were paying for his services at $344 an hour. we have negotiated that down to $250. we think we can come at a much

lower budget and a much lower price range. staff is asking for your approval to open up a contract so we can continue to use his services as we have done in the past. >> any questions on this item? a quick question if i may. everything is essentially pretty comparable perio. >> we bapay $250 for his services. it is a lower rate. supervisor campos: is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? public comment is closed. colleagues, if we can have a motion on item #6.

to enter into agreement is with the management consultant. seconded by commissioner avalos. without objection. thank you. can you please call item no. 5? this is an item that i asked the executive officer to prepare. it is essentially a study that would be conducted through the lafco for purposes of ascertaining the collection, hauling, and disposal of the

refuse of trash. this is collected -- connected to one item that has come before the supervisors which is an attempt to enter into an agreement changing where the trash that san francisco disposes. we have begun discussions of a 1932 ordinance that essentially has trash collection being done since 1932 through a structure that does not have a competitive bid process. we have every reason to be happy the company that is involved. the question here, for purposes of making sure that we are following best practices, and

this is something that these jurisdictions do. this item would essentially give staff have the approval to issue an rfp. so a quick survey could be done. with that, i turn it over to commissioner pimentel. commissioner pimentel: with this, doesn't address illegal dumping -- does it address illegal dumping? >> the current scope does not do that.

commissioner pimentel: like an area on the corner, or an area with the city. that there is someone that will selectively,. -- come up. >> it looks the other jurisdictions and how they conducted the selection of their garbage provider. that type of consultant might be somebody of bit different. supervisor campos: the purpose of the study would be to help the city and county of san francisco know what other jurisdictions in the area are doing with respect to the collection, transportation, and disposal of refuse. it will be done in an expedited manner.

commissioner avalos. commissioner avalos will wait. miss miller? >> this item is before you pursuant to our policy 2.6 which allows you to conduct as you deem appropriate. i developed an rfp similar in format to what we have done in the past. typically, we have done and utility issues, but this is still a public service. the idea would be to do a fairly quick study of other agency's practices. this would be both collections, hauling, and disposal. i gave you a list of greater

bay area joint powers authorities that provide this type of service with the idea being that we would pick not everyone on this list, but we would narrow it down to the larger jpa's. and more if possible given our time frame. supervisor campos: i know that i get a little confused about this. >> the original patent only had a few of the providers. we call this the greater bay area. there are quite a few. in our selection of the consultant, we are looking for a

consultant that has some experience in dealing with studies of this nature that is an assessment of public services being provided by jpa or district. we are looking for someone with potential familiarity. we have budget constraints, so we're looking for someone to provide a competitive bid. the list of jpa's that provide service are at the top of the list of potential providers. the five that i think you look at are alameda, central contracost at county and west valley solid waste management jpa. if you look at the list, it tells you which cities the

jpa's provide. it will pay cut most of the bay area cities. -- pick up most of the bay area cities. there, we have about seven daily city palo alto, santa clara county, pacificca. -- pacifica. i listed the providers so we could pick a couple of cities from that list. for the purposes of the study, i don't have any preference there. palo alto operates its own the land fill.

>> they would provide a potential that are being charged by each of the jurisdictions if applicable. supervisor campos: commissioner

avalos. commissioner avalos: a couple comments and questions. it makes sense that we look at jurisdictions that do not give the land fill in the county or the region. that would give us kind of an apples to apples comparison. it is also good to be able to look at there could be a matter that could be provided about the use of margin.

i am not sure that is something how that is being done anywhere with refuse. i think it will be a useful thing to look at. the scope seems to be a bit narrow. it is outside of what is currently being done, but there are some opportunities that could have a good impact on city infrastructure. there are opportunities that we might see, a lot of barging being done. those will go away. perhaps this way we could make use of the barge for the next hey phase possibly close to a land fill site. what we had before us is that

they will contract with trucks to go across the bay bridge to a site in the oakland and have the rail. is there a way to do that? the other question, if that is something that can be included in the scope of the work, what is the impact to the public infrastructure? we know that the port is struggling to build infrastructure. it will be to where it will be hauled out or wherever. there is a way to -- especially at the site where the distribution center will be at

hunters point. i wonder if that makes sense. >> i think it is the will of the commission. we can add those potential to be reviewed. noting that the time frame is short, it could be all right. i am not so sure about the issue being done now. there may not be issues that you want to explore that might take longer than three weeks. what we would get back is a fairly cursory were -- look at that issue. we could get some information about if anyone has ever tried

it, is if the revenue source, that kind of thing? >> it might be good to look at the airport staff as well. i expect it could be cursory. without having to start from scratch, understanding something much deeper and much more brought on that issue. supervisor mirkarimi: this is probably a fitting time to update the conversation. since we put the contract on hold, my office has been conducting meetings.

we instigate a supplemental program for an alternative barge program. is this something that we can do alternative to what is before us? or something to complement the existing need and structure. that determination is underway right now. we are meeting with the office of economic work force development because what we learned was that the city never entertained the idea of animating the ports for this portion of waste hauling delivery. long story short, the port is not equipped to deal with solid waste.

in the short term, the ability to have an infrastructure in line to be able to receive and transport recyclables, that is something that we should pursue vigorously. it helps us answering the question, but it gives us a double bond to answer how we can activate port. i am hoping that oewd does pursue another extension. whether that is in addition to or in lieu of what ever the calculus is. there is also a contract that

the port is pursuing brisbane . maybe 75 acres of area that the city missed the boat on not pursuing that contract as well. if there is some rule for this question, i could see it to being cursory because of the time line. i wanted to add to the conversation that the port is not an afterthought. but definitely not out the front burner of being able to galvanize new business. it is pre-disposed for new business. i am hoping that we will be able to report something that will definitively, on the progress of the question of the port before

we turn back to the contract as a whole. i will determine if that is -- which will determine if it is something that will bolster the ecology. it has to be answered. >> we can certainly put in the rfp the issues that have been raised in terms of looking at that issue and potentially working with support staff -- port staff to talk about their ability to provide a service. we can certainly have them work with port staff in making sure we have that input. supervisor mirkarimi: i think what the city missed has nothing to do with lafco. that conversation did not take

place at the mayor's office. who knows? it can still continue to keep along the construct. there is enough to go around for us bringing the port into the discussion, whereas that was never mentioned before. solid waste versus >> and that's what needs to be zeroed on the port's ability to be able to help administer and process this with the proper environmental reviews. so maybe look at the issue of rekentucky cla believes -- recyclaables by something being hauled by port or barge is

something we're looking at. >> i think it's important to include the barging piece in terms of the survey locally in terms of what is happening around the bay area. i would also hope that to the extent that that is not happening in the bay area that we actually look at, at least survey quickly what jurisdictions are doing that, for instance. i have heard that new york city is actually using barging and so i think that knowing who else is doing it, even if it's outside the bay area. i think it would be something useful to this discussion and at least giving a cursory overview of what that looks like, understanding that the issue of barging is very complicated.

this survey will serve as a starting point for further exploration. so i would say ask in the survey to include barging around the bay area, but also to do a quick review of what jurisdictions are actually doing, the actual barging of waste, recycling and what that looks like. >> ok, and i'll exclude those that barge to the ocean. so they go there and dump. we're looking at barging to landfill. chairperson campos: i think that's a safe exclusion. vice-chair mirkarimi: yes. >> so the consultant search, i'll be looking to the league of california's city last. calapco has a list. i want to work with harvey rose's office to see if they have any suggestions to send in addition to just our normal

r.s.p. process. chairperson campos: and if anyone in the city family or anyone watching has suggestions about who might be in a position to compete for this study, i think they're free to provide that information to staff and we want as much competition for purposes of conducting this survey as possible along the lines of what we're trying to accomplish with the larger larger issues h.

>> as i