supervisor chu: hello, welcome to the regular meeting of the budget finance subcommittee. our klerk today is mr. victor young. mr. young, are there any announcements today? >> please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak during public comment, please fill out and return to myself a public speaker card. items act upon today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on april 26, 2011, unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: before we begin,

i'd like to welcome the group that was year earlier. a number of fourth graders from st. and ties school. we wanted to welcome them to city hall and hope that they have a great field trip. please call item no. 1. >> item #one. resolution authorizing the exercise of an option to extend the lease of 3,900 sq. ft. at 1449 webster street for three years for the office of economic and workforce development employment assistance programs. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have a presentation from the real-estate department. >> good morning. my name is john updike. this is a renewal of an existing lease and 49 webster street. about 3900 square feet of ground floor space within the safe way shopping center located at webster. this serves the office of economic workforce development western addition one-stop

career center. providing employment services, job search services, readiness skills, training and education, access to public training funding, as well as coordinating supportive services for family needs. the details of the lease are that it is a rate of $2.18 per square foot. it has increases over the three year term, bracketed, consumer price index no less than 2% -- 2%, no greater than 5% increase. included within the resolution is the authority that we seek for renewal, should that be the decision that the director of economic development, as well as the director of property, agreed falls within the terms of the lease. the recommendation of the budget analyst is to strike that

request for renewal. simply stating that in a case such as this, where there is a fairly rigorous program and a low dollar amount involved, three years for an additional three-year term, in addition this lease has a 180 day prior notice termination clause. a fairly unusual element that the city can trigger unilaterally without cause. so, it was thought that given the relative minimal financial impact, it might make sense at this time to pre-authorized that renewal, should that become raises -- necessary three years from now. other than that, i believe that we are in agreement with the budget analysts recommendation. supervisor chu: thank you very much, mr. updike. i believe that the sponsor would

like to say a few words. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, madame chair. before we hear from the budget analyst, i want to say that i am a big fan of moving forward with this lease. this was instigated based on dollars that were procured in 2007. the reason for this, participating the end of the -- the dirt -- the jurisdiction of the western division in japan town, where workforce centrally surrounded construction jobs and fast-food restaurants was coming to an end. there was really very little vision in helping people in that sector of our city to be able to find other jobs in the industries that they were oriented towards for 40 years. this was the first and is the first one-stop job training center that was co-run by city

and goodwill. we put it in the epicenter of the western addition, right on gary and western. the focus, of course, with redevelopment, we did not know it would be eliminated. knowing that this was going to conclude in 2009 in the western addition, we wanted to start getting the people of our city in the western addition on livability and permanent job tracks in the private sector. not just the government sector. that is exactly what this job training placement center is for. it is nice to see that with good will and their support system, that they are able to collaborate so that the people of this particular area can get the kind of tools that they were deprived of a in the past. i would like to thank the office of economic development, rhonda

simmons, and the department of real estate for helping us to get to this point. i think that the analyst report in the moment is accurate and i would agree with and the amendment that they put forth. support for this should be self- evident. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst report. >> on page 5 of the report, we point out that the total cost for the three-year lease extension ranges from $394,000 to $403,000. as the supervisor indicated, we pointed out that in the provision to exercise a second option for the lease for a second three-year period from september 1 of 2014 through august 1 of 2017, without being subject to further approval, would be a departure from

policy. as a matter of fact, if you would permit that and the department of real-estate indicates minimal costs, i do not consider $100,000 per year to be minimal. if you were to depart from the policy, it would be an indication for all the apartments do not have to come before the board of supervisors. there are parameters right now for lower levels where the real estate division can approve leases without admitting them to the board of supervisors. we state that we recommend -- and are fully supportive of this lease, it is just the second three year option. we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution to delete the lines on page 2, and lines 1 and 2 on page 3, authorizing the director of real-estate to exercise a second three-year option from the proposed lease of september 1, 2014 through

august 31, 2017. authorizing the other option through august 31, 2013 -- 2014. supervisor chu: thank you very much. if there are no immediate questions from the committee, i would like to open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on item number one? seeing no one, public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi: i will motion that we adopt the amendments proposed by the budget analysts, mr. rose. with those, sending a forward with recommendation. supervisor chu: there is a motion to amend the resolution per the budget analysts recommendation. it has a second and we can take that without objection. thank you very much.

mr. clark, please call item no. 2. >> item #2, resolution approving a ten-year landfill disposal agreement and facilitation agreement with recology san francisco under charter section 9.118. supervisor chu: thank you very much. this item came before us some time ago. we have the presentation from the department of environment. and we did have the report provided by our budget analyst, mr. rose, on this item already. if i could direct the department to speak more about the follow- up items from the last committee hearing. my understanding of the conversation in committee was that it circled around agreements on transportation options regarding the port. i know that between then and now

there has been a commission agreement between the apartments. if we could hear the conversation towards those new information items, that would be terrific. i would like to record -- recognize the supervisor campos has joined us for the committee. >> thank you for the opportunity to present today on the proposed landfill contract for san francisco. when we were here two months ago, we had a detailed overview of the selection process for choosing a landfill contract as well as the benefits of the proposed contract. i have a couple of slides as a reminder to a couple of different items. that then we will address the issues that came up in the last committee. the first slide that i wanted to highlight is the slide that goes over the san francisco refuse

system and what the elements of the system more. of course, we have collection, governed by the 1932 ordinance, the picking up and hauling of trash recyclables through the streets of san francisco. processing, governed by the written review process. hauling, taking the trash from the transfer station to the landfill. finally, we have the landfill governed by the contract. today, as you all know, we are addressing portion three and four of our system. speaking of the time line, i just wanted to provide the slide to the committee members, showing where we have been on this land search time line. it started back in 2003, when there was a landfill capacity report provided to the board of

supervisors. from 2004 until now, the department of the environment has been engaged in various levels of study and analysis, looking for a new landfill contract for the city and county of san francisco. as you will also see on this slide, it shows where the landfill capacity is expected to expire in 2015. we are right up against a five- year time line for expiration. again, just to remind committee members, trash would note to the landfill in yuba county once we need the capacity at the alta lot landfill, where the city's trash currently goes. this excess of limit is expected to expire in 2015. following an extensive multi- year invasion and review, the department of environment review panel has concluded that the

contract is a good deal for san francisco. i wanted to put up the cost comparisons slide shows that if the contract is approved by the committee and board of supervisors, we stand to save $130 million over the life of the contract. before we get into the port options, here you will see a 10- year agreement for 5 million tons, whichever comes first. state-of-the-art landfill gas recovery, minimizing impact at the landfill site. also establishing a land -- framework for revenue sharing. which is really a first. at some point we will have to look at the value of trash disposal in landfills. finally offering a solid waste

costs. for starting in 2016. the facilitation agreement that governs the transportation of our trash from the station to the landfill is being offered again today to confirm the transportation method and walked in to rail costs. -- block in real costs. we are proposing an amendment -- locked in rail costs. we are proposing an amendment should the options change for transporting waste to the landfill. to bring us up to today, two months ago we talked a lot about -- there was much interest from the committee about the port of san francisco and whether or not

it could take part in our solid- waste infrastructure. what the department of the environment did was embarked upon a process to review the options in the short term and the long-term that the port of san francisco could take part in. so, there are three main elements that we looked at. moving all refuse collection infrastructure. barging of the refuse from port property. third, recyclables from port property. it seems that the interest of the committee was -- would there be a way to gain funding for the city entity through a solid waste structure and ensure additional revenue for the port? i would like to go over these three options to make sure that committee members are aware of what we discussed with the pore over the