was because we were anticipating the new east ban, and there is a cost associated with that, and if we want to slip a pipe into that conflict, that and people, who pays for that? >> you mean for power? >> for recycled water and wastewater right now. for power, we paid for a new submarine cable to treasure island. we are paying caltrans as part of that. again, when they moved the east end, it was in line with where the other cable was. we have a new cable. there are costs associated with the project that we have been incurring for years, and now, we have to decide as an entity how we go forward and recover those costs. use our rate payers, or to the developer. them that if we wanted to push the envelope and a distributed project on treasure island, that would provide power for all of treasure island, so when you

have been tapping into is, we would manage it. >> right here and as far as when you ask a question for feasibility study, what it would take, there is a dedicated 46 acres that the puc would own, or in a long-term lease with haida -- with tida. we could use that if it were not on the actual building. so there are options that we have there. >> thank you. than anything else? then adjust the oversight. >> great. thank you very much. >> i have a question. homeless or disadvantaged persons fell 25% -- fell 25% of all jobs.

>> back into the additional slides in there. >> do you happen to have a slide number? >> sustainability assets, right? >> down and in the left-hand corner. >> right, so one of the other documents that would be attached to the development agreement is a job and equal opportunity program. as part of that, 25% of all jobs would be set aside for formerly homeless individuals. we have a separate agreement between tida and the treasure island homeless development initiative. a primary component of that plan is a housing component, but it also has a job training

component and economic opportunities, so that is a policy goal that we would fill 25% of all jobs through our partnership with them, but we would also work with the office of work force development arm to bring folks -- formerly homeless folks to the job portion. and and maybe i'm not hearing clearly, but you are saying 25% of all the jobs? >> right. then let it just seems like pie in the sky. dam it to expect that work force is available and trained and ready to be accessed. but that is the goal. >> ok. commissioner courtney. commissioner courtney: i agree. perhaps we should try to develop on what disadvantaged --

>> we can provide some specifics and bring this information back to you to lay out a little bit more broadly what the components of the job program are, just so you have a fuller understanding. i personally have not worked on that plan. there are others in our office that have, and we can bring them to the presentation and provide information to you in advance. >> it may be safe to assume just for today's meeting that when we have had these discussions before, we had used a map of the city and county, and in particular areas within particular zip codes. these folks qualify based on their income. maybe we are kind of lumping in the homeless and disadvantaged together. it is still pretty ambitious, but i would like to see more information on that as well. >> we can provide definition on

that. delaware the cost to have the problem of labor training program? >> there is about 400, depending on the ethnic flows, but about 400 or 500 students, and they will remain. >> so there is no proposed remodel or infrastructure development for that center? >> that is correct. >> it is a wholly federally operated center? >> correct. >> any other comments? thank you very much. next item please. are there any public comments on this item? >> we have no speaker cards. >> good afternoon. we would like to really discuss this proposal, but i wanted to

make sure you all know that many of us are concerned about the obligations that the puc is taking on. as i personally listen to this discussion, i would encourage you to look carefully at this jobs and equal opportunity agreement. it could be that the puc is getting into something -- it could be that this thing is not financially sustainable with provisions that are in excess. i do not know if that is where you need to look, but i am concerned about the level of affordability in all of these programs, which i know san francisco loves dearly, but in a situation like this with our extensive and long-term obligations that you are assuming, you want to make sure that there is going to be a viable plan here, and i do not see it. housing, as a development plan

-- it does not seem like the best opportunity here, but i know we are too late for that discussion. my advice would be to look carefully at the other agreements that the city is making. because it is going to obligate the puc if they cannot recoup their money. good luck. >> thank you. we always appreciate the input from our citizens advisory committee, so any more detail or concern that you have, we would love to hear that as you proceed. thank you. any other public comment? next item please. >> item 11, discussion and possible action to improve and other less the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the department of the environment and municipal transportation agency to install 27 electrical vehicle charging stations in 13 city-owned rogers for public use -- garages for public use.

>> thank you. manager of administration and budget power. the mou before you formalizes the roles and responsibilities among the sfpuc, department of environment, an invisible transportation agency. these charging stations will be publicly acceptable throughout 13 city own garages. the charges are provided to the city free of charge through 2013. the facilities are customers of the power enterprise, and they pay the enterprise rate. approximately a range of facilities between 12 cents and

18 cents per kilowatt hour. during the term of the program, the power provided to the public for the charging sessions will be free, but the power enterprise will recover that cost through the facilities themselves. mta for example. beginning mid-year, the host agencies, including sfpuc, department of the environment, and municipal transportation, including others will be working together to develop more clarified rules about responsibility of ownership of the facility for the chargers, maintenance costs for future, to 2013, and we will -- we at the agency will collect the data from those chargers -- public chargers. we will be collecting the usage. we will be collecting the profile, when they use it, time

of use. the emission savings. the fuel savings. and mainly the performance of the chargers. looking forward to future technologies with charging stations. with that, and happy to answer any questions. >> i just want to be clear -- the puc would pay for the installation of the charging station, and we provide the staffing and maintenance, and we provide the power? but the power gets recouped because the facilities would be paying the puc basically market rate. 15 cents approximately. even if it is a general fund facility? >> the first question, the charging stations themselves, and that is coming from a grant. >> that is correct. charging stations are being

given to the city through a grant. >> so our portion is to pay for the installation by having our staff to the work. >> right. >> and the only stations you are coming up with now our enterprise funds. >> correct. garages are all enterprise customers today. >> that makes it easy. than any other questions or comments on this item? is there a motion to adopt? >> so move. >> second. >> public comment? >> we have no speaker cards. >> hearing none, the motion carries. thank you very much. >> the next item is closed session. are there any public comments, or shall we call for any public comments on any item in the closed session? >> any public comment on a closed session? hearing none, please continue. >> we can entertain a motion to

discuss the matter is listed within the conference of legal counsel. >> is there a motion? all those in favor? opposed? >> if you would give me one moment to read the two items. sorry. threat to public services or facilities, consultation with chief of security, conference of legal counsel pursuant to litigation, tadhge conway v. city and >> we are back now held a closed

session. item 14, there was no action. item 15 was settled. >> would you like a motion to disclose or not disclose? commissioner vietor: yes, is there a motion to not disclose? >> so world. >> second. commissioner vietor: all those in favor? motion carries. next item. >> [inaudible] commissioner vietor: no, no new business. hearing none, the meeting is adjourned. thank you.

>> welcome to the special meeting for lafco, april 18, 2011. supervisor campos: i am david campos, commissioner. we're joined by ross mirkarimi and commissioners pimental and commissioner avalos.

madame clerk, please call item no. two. >> approval of the minutes from previous meeting. supervisor campos: you have the minutes before you from the march meeting. we have a motion to except. is there any public comment on those minutes? c. non, public comment is closed. we have a motion from supervisor mirkarimi. we will take that without objection. call the next item. >> item # 3 is the study for a refugse collection in the greatr bay area. >> this is an item we have been working on for a few weeks. the board of supervisors is

considering an item to issue a contract -- a landfill contract considered at the budget and finance meeting a few weeks ago. we have been conducting a study of how other jurisdictions deal with the issue of refuse collection, transportation, and disposal. to present on the item is our executive officer, nancy miller. >> we commissioned a study approximately a month ago. the scope was fairly limited in looking at the selection process other agencies enter into for the selection of a provider for refuse. there was a competitive bid process. the report was made public on

april 14. it is available before you today. the consultant met with the san francisco department of the environment. port authority, and members. they conducted an oral and written survey of 106 jurisdictions to assess the findings of the report. there was a resolution in your pocket if you decide to accept and forward to the board of supervisors. to give a presentation from members from the consulting team. they are richard hutcheson and melete passenger -- lasseter. i will turn it over to rich for the presentation. you have additional information provided to us after the report

was in the final stages of preparation. one is a letter from the city of oakland. the other it is figures on estimated benefits the city receives from the contract. supervisor campos: i have a quick question about process. if there are additional questions or additional information that the commission would want, we can ask them to come back to us in the near future. >> that is correct. the consultant is available to you for any additional services you would like for them to provide. supervisor campos: great. thank you. is the microphone working? >> i am richard hutcheson. melody worked on the project

with me. we're going to provide results of our study to examine the practices of procuring services for solid waste. supervisor campos: does your company have any relationship or employment agreement with any companies that could have any involvement in the industry we are discussing? >> no, sir. we do not. power company only works for public agencies. -- our company only works for public agencies. please feel free to interrupt with questions as recover various areas of the study. we were hired few weeks ago to look at the process for selecting haulers at various jurisdictions in the greater bay area.

it is a fairly quick process. just a few weeks ago, we were in these chambers when it approved the contract. about three weeks later, we will now provide you with the report. the caveat is we tried to gather as much information as we could in a short time. everything we were able to gather is in the report. if we had six months, we might have been able to get more information. we looked at a lot of background information. the 1932 ordinance is key to this. that governs how you procurer services. we talked to various members of the port, the city, waste management, ecology. we read your disposal agreements and virtually

anything else we could get hold of in the timeframe to gain an understanding of how the process works and what was going in with in the process. we looked at the recycling websites. we did internet research. we used a lot of information we have in our own files from working with jurisdictions in the greater bay area. we did a fairly extensive survey of those jurisdictions. we have summarized the results of that in the report. so that you can get a feel for who we talked to, we were able to communicate with 95 jurisdictions and seven counties in the greater bay area. we have listed them on the chart. i will not go through them. of those 97 jurisdictions -- 95.

i am sorry. three haulers serve the majority of them. the remaining jurisdictions are serviced by 19 other independent companies. some are jointly owned. there is one other national company. of the companies that we surveyed, they are international, independent, or owned by the employees themselves. what we found with the first question of how they procure the services, we found 55% of the jurisdictions we talked to use a competitive procurement process. we found 45% of them do not use a competitive procurement

process. the reason in most of the 45% is because it one time back in history, they awarded a franchise to either a single hauler or multiple haulers without going through competitive procurement. that is the best we can tell. some of it goes pretty far back. as time went on, those contracts were purchased for the companies were merged -- or the companies were merged. since that time, they have extended contracts without going through a procurement process. san francisco is similar to that but you use the permit in license process. -- permit and license process. you have had initial haulers merge and have not gone through a competitive process. the real difference in san

francisco and everybody else we talked to is that they all have some type of formal agreement, a franchise agreement or contract, the documents the terms and conditions of the service that has a finite term attached to it. in virtually every case but one, the term can be extended and has been extended over and over again. we did find one municipality that by city code cannot contract for more than 10 years without going through a competitive procurement. supervisor campos: a quick clarifying point. is there any other jurisdiction besides san francisco that does the service only by the permitting process? >> some cities use a permit

process for a non-competitive commercial service or industrial service. no one else we are aware of uses it for residential and commercial together. supervisor campos: the ones that selected vendors three non- competitive process, how many jurisdictions do not have a franchise agreement? >> we're not aware of any that do not have some type of franchise agreement. supervisor campos: san francisco is the only one. ok. >> when we look at the length of the term of the agreements, we found the average agreement term was 11 years. most or a majority of the jurisdictions are 1 to 10 years. seven is about the shortest juicy. -- 7 is about the shortest that you see. the run-up to 30-year

agreements. seven jurisdictions have an evergreen contract. the contract extends by a year at the end of each year unless the jurisdiction elects not to extend it. those just go on. if it starts a seven years, it is always a seven-year contract until the jurisdictions as they do not want to extend it anymore. san francisco is the only one in our survey that does not have some type of term limitation that can be extended but does not have been there. -- does not have it in there. we also looked at disposal agreements. this is considerably different. we did find some jurisdictions competitively procure their agreements. the majority even have negotiated -- i have negotiated

a separate agreement or the collection hauler is the person in charge of disposal. i would tell recology to take it to the land go where they can get the most economic benefit for their contract. -- to the landfill where they can get the most economic benefit for their contract. you have just gone through a competitive negotiation. you have done both. the rate setting methodologies, there are a variety of ways to set them. the most common are in indexed approach using the consumer price index or a multiple index approache. the refuse rate index is related

to the hauler's cost. it is important that they be able to adjust rates by fuel. a lot of municipalities use a detailed break review process such as what you do. several combine them as you do and have a detailed review process every certain number of years with an indexed adjustment in the off years. we are going to talk about service rates. i have to do this. comparing service rates is virtually impossible without one of two things. the first thing is detailed knowledge of the services of the jurisdictions you are comparing. we have a list of some of the more important variables. you cannot compar