from local 34 and 75. we also have a union that is purge workers and backhands. we have heard a lot of stuff today but we have not heard it all. there has been no study detailed and complete on barging. you do not know what the cost would be for a 300-container barge. it is a barge that can go to any land fill up north or out of state. while it is going one way with 300 full ones, there is another one coming another way with 300 in fees. you cannot get that kind of efficiency by truck or rail. i look at it as a longshoreman.

we're talking about a down from the truck onto a move on to the barge. when it gets to where is going, it moves from the port in is dumped into the landfill. that is it. right now, we're talking about a dump and a load, i am not sure how many moves just to get into oakland. the other thing you are not looking at is revenue to the port. the port is the revenue for each container brought through the port. instead of sending stuff out of san francisco, all of a sudden you can be bringing them into san francisco, through our ports, and into the landfill. there's a lot to look out for barges. please take a long, serious look at it. that has not been done. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon.

my name is john smith. i am outside counsel for waste management. i have probably negotiated or developed 50 or more franchise agreements. i urge the commission to continue its steady -- study. the fee is paid under the contracts are multiple and different. what may be 10.9% is duplicated elsewhere in other fees that other jurisdictions pay in addition to the franchise fee. livermore has an impact fee, plus an in ministry fee that is ongoing. some of these are collected at the transfer stations. it is also to the benefit of the contract entities. others are collected at the landfill or are paid back or to

the benefit of the contract in agency. i urge additional study be done if you want to do it apples to apples comparison. the one difference in all jurisdictions highlighted in san francisco is that each is done in with a contract with specific obligations. each has the final approval through the city or county. it is always the elected officials. in this case, it is only the city and county of san francisco where the officials do not have the same. take the next up and look to the additional information out there. waste management is willing to help bring the information together. supervisor campos: next speaker, please. >> we have three companies based

at the port of san francisco. one of them is waste solutions group. israelt rails 100 tons of wastea year. the other is san francisco bay railroad. that is the real road for the port of san francisco. it is a federally certified railroad. the last one has 60 goats grazing at the port. we read them out to anyone that would like them. -- rent them out to anyone that would like them. the study is a good start. but there needs to be vigorous pursuit of detail. i concur with the three areas that need to be drilled down on. one is barging and rail directly from the port. the other is the port of san

francisco having a transfer complex and possibly an industrial park based at the port. the third is the issue of franchise fees and what that can mean to vital services in san francisco. there is a lot of work to be done. i draw your attention to something that may not have been mentioned but i think is emblematic of the whole structure itself. that is on page 7. it is interviews with doe staff. the last line in that paragraph is most emblematic of what is upside-down about our system. staff indicated having a long- term relationship with recology is an appropriate alternative to a competitive procurement process. i am not sure how you could reconcile that with a competitive procurement process.

supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak. miss nutter, you wanted to add something? >> following up on studies that need to be done, i want to make sure the commissioners know that the department of the environment work with a company called hdr to put together a memo on cost estimates. commissioner campos, a scent that to you last night. we just got it friday. -- i sent that to you last night. we just credit party. that work has been done. we have commissioned a study about a month ago with the port of san francisco looking at the long-term possibility of the port been the site for an integrated transfer facility. both studies are currently in process. i wanted to make sure the commission knew that. supervisor campos: colleagues, i do not know if anyone has

anything to follow up. from my perspective, thank you to all of the individuals involved in the process, beginning with our lafco staff and the stuff from the department of the environment. there in the unenviable position of having to write another report in a few weeks. given the time line, i think you did an amazing job in pulling this together. i want to thank recology for being open to sharing with us all the information available to them. i want to thank them for their open-door policy in terms of answering our questions. i believe the study points to some positive things and some things where there are questions.

one positive is that we have a program that is working very well. the focus of this process has never been about questioning the substance of the work that recology does. the study does point of that san francisco is very unique. 55% of the jurisdictions looked out actually do a competitive process. i am a big proponent of competitive bids. i believe competition is good for the consumer and the rate payer. to the extent the company has had a sole source contract where the company is doing the right job for the consumer, a competitive bid process is the best deal.

that process will guarantee that. it will demonstrate that. we also see the study of the jurisdictions that do not have a competitive bid. 45% of them do have something we do not have. that is a franchise agreement that codifies the terms and conditions under which service is provided. there seems to be something like a contract. they consider some of the documentation in the rate process has a contract. as a lawyer, you look at that. you know it is not a contractual, legally binding document that outlines the things we heard about today. we have the document from the department of the environment. that is the first time i have seen anything that details what recology pays to the city, that shows the collective value is

about 10.6% of revenues. that is good to have, but we need to make share -- make sure our consultant has a way of looking at those numbers. we need to look at where we are relative to other jurisdictions. if we're talking about this being the equivalent of a franchise fee, help are these treated in other jurisdictions? someone in public comment talked about how maybe the franchise fee in some jurisdictions is in addition to other fees being paid to the city. i do not know if that is the case. it is important for us to know that. even if this is the right approach and structure, what is the right amount that should be paid to san francisco? 10.6% of revenue is about $29 million. we have heard from recology that the franchise fees they pay range from low single digits of

with up to 15%. what is the right percentage for san francisco? if it is 15% rather than 10%, you are talking about $14 million more that could going to the general fund. what about the type and quality of services being provided? those questions need to be resolved. instead of acting on this report, i ask that we asked our consultant to come back to lafco in three weeks to give us more information. from my perspective, the main focus should be on the franchise agreement, what is paid to other jurisdictions, and how that compares to what is being received by the city and county of san francisco. supervisor avalos also mentioned the issue of the transfer station. i do not know if there's anything else we want to add to that. it is important for us to have

as much information as possible. i also want to say something about the document given to me on friday. it is a memo that came from the interim city administrator in the city of oakland to the members of the city council there. this memorandum says the city of oakland is opting to extend by 2.5 years the terms of their agreement with waste management of our meeting county -- alameda county. there are different ways to see this memo. in some respects, i can see how it points to the need to extend or continue the relationship with recology. i think it cuts a different way. what is interesting about the memo for me are the two reasons

given by the oakland city administrator as to why this agreement should be extended. he said there are two compelling reasons. one is that the extension of the agreement ensures the city will continue to receive the revenues provided for in the agreement. in fiscal year 2010-2011, the city received $21 million. $4.8 million of that goes into the general fund. that is not the case in san francisco. we do not have a franchise agreement like oakland does. we do not have the same structure where there is a specific amount required by agreement nor do you have a specific amount that goes to the general fund. if we were in that situation, i could see why an extension of the ongoing relationship with makes sense.

the fact that we are not in the situation tells me that we have some flexibility and leverage. the other reason is the extension of the agreement will insure the city of oakland and businesses enjoy the stability of the existing rate structure. i can see have a point would be applicable here. i concede that benefit. the i can see that benefit. this is complicated. the more information we have, the better it is. ultimately, we want to have the best service and deal possible for our ratepayers. we want to do that in a way that is consistent with the values of our city. we have heard from the employees of recology. we have heard about the best practices the company follows. i am proud to see that happen in san francisco. i do not think doing what is best for the rate payers and

employees is necessarily mutually exclusive. i think there is a way we can do both. with that, i simply ask that we cannot in about three weeks -- that we come back in about three weeks and you are back from the consultant. >> i was just going to affirm that the look of franchise agreements and fees compared to rates and services provided -- we are comparing apples to apples that way. i did hear the consultants say three weeks to prepare the report, three to four. that means we would meet sometime after that, in terms of the timing issue. i would like the consultant to speak to the timeline to make sure. through the chair, i can work with you on the revised schedule. >> i think we can come back or

have the report ready, let me try for four weeks. i do have some concern on looking at equity and assets. that is not something we have even started looking at. the franchising fees would be a continuation. if that is something you want us to do, i would like to have more time on the part of it. supervisor campos: commissioner avalos? >> i think four weeks sounds good to me on that. i appreciate your summary of the hearing, german composts -- chairman campos. we do need to look at whether we move the land fill agreement out of budget next week or not or

this week or not. i think this information would be important to have. i value your work in the study. it makes sense that we look at how we can maximize our report resources -- port resources for our waste system. the port is in desperate need of revitalization. if there is a way that we can have a two-fer in having a waste management plan that includes a port development plan, it would be a win-win and make a lot of sense. i am not sure we can do that, but i think this report will give us that information to helpless fly less finely -- to help us fly less blindly in the night. >> i thought you would are decommissioned one of the reports.

supervisor campos: a think the department of the environment had a steady. that was the first i heard of it today. i do have a copy of it. my sense of where we are, i think there are three items. one is the issue of the franchise agreement, the fees, and how we compare to other jurisdictions. second is the issue of the transfer station and issues associated with that th. third, on the issue of merging, -- barging, lookit that issue of using the report provided to us by the department of the environment as a way of augmenting what is reported to lafco. great.

i have a final thing that is important. this is directed to our general counsel. i think there are a couple of legal issues that i would ask lafco help you with into. if you have a franchise agreement the, how can the money be used legally? can that go directly to the general fund? are there limitations on the use of those funds? i want to know more about the 1932 ordinance. it is a lot of discussion about what the ordinance supposedly says and does. i think it is important for us to have more specific information of what it actually says. the question i had is whether or

not the department of public health can issue permits under the ordinance. if that is the case, we might have a situation where there is no change in the charter required. if you look at the language of the ordinance when it talks about the permit, it says the permits granted by the director of public health shall not be exclusive. one or more persons or firms may be given a permit to collect from the same route. i do not know what that means exactly. but i think it is important for us to have a better sense of what the implications of the language of the ordinance actually are. maybe our legal counsel can help us with that. >> yes, we will provide that as well. i will work with you in terms of

establishing a budget for the additional services. supervisor campos: madame clerk, if we can go to item number four. >> it is the executive officer's report. you were provided a memo regarding the senate bill 390 from the senator's office. i wanted to make sure you took note of it. we will be discussing that on may 6. supervisor campos: great. thank you very much. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? public comment is closed. call item no. 5. >> public comments for items not on the agenda.

supervisor campos: is there any other member of the public that like to speak? public comment is closed. >> item # 6 is the chair agenda items. supervisor campos: any future agenda items or any members of the public alike to speak? public comment is closed. >> item # 7 is adjournment. supervisor campos: thank you to everyone for coming out for the hearing. the meeting is adjourned.

>> i work with the department of environment and we are recycling oil. thank you. we can go into a refinery and we can use it again. they do oil changes and sell it anyway, so now they know when a ticket to a. hal>> to you have something you

want to get rid of? >> why throw it away when you can reuse it? >> it can be filtered out and used for other products. >> [speaking spanish] >> it is going to be a good thing for us to take used motor oil from customers. we have a 75-gallon tank that we used and we have someone take it from here to recycle. >> so far, we have 35 people. we have collected 78 gallons, if not more.

these are other locations that you can go. it is absolutely free. you just need to have the location open. you are set to go. governor welcome to culturewire. on march 18 the san francisco arts commission hosted the 2010 mayor's artwork. the mayor's arts award was established to honor an individual artist with a lifetime of outstanding achievement in the art and civic life. this year's award is to none other than carlos santana. before the award ceremony, the director of cultural affairs had a chance to sit down with carlos to ask him a few questions.

>> once a year, mayor gavin newsom gets to select one distinguished individual to receive the mayor's arts award. in 2010,á(át that distinguished individual was none other than the legendary musician carlos santana. carlos, it is so great for the city to be able to recognize you. given all of your accomplishments already, from the awards, all of the other distinctions you have received, what does it mean for you to get the mayor's part award? >> i am very grateful, moved. i always want to be in the company of illuminaries like cesar chavez.

people making a difference, but to people's hearts. giving people a sense of tangible hope. one thing is to be famous, it is quite another for people to like you. i am grateful for this award. it is another blessing. i do not take it for granted. this is an incredible city. everywhere i go, i tell everyone that this is the atlantis of today. there is no other city in the world -- i have been everywhere. there is nothing like san francisco. in fact, to me, it is not even the united states. you can see how fox network always attacks us. we do not have an inferiority

complex. we just do not follow blindly. we question authority. as i said before, a person for person, there are more artists and con artists in the bay area. >> you are someone who has identified so strongly with the bay area. a lot of it reflects the values that you also identify with. i know that you have been promoting an idea for a work of public art that could be pretty transformative. could you talk about that? >> peace brother is something that i saw, i think in the 1980's there was this lady. she started back there and converted -- she went to the neighborhood and was collecting the