very diligently to follow up on the questions raised at the last laugh do meeting. you have provided the information that has been requested. i also want to thank the staff of the department of the environment who have worked with lafco staff and with our consultant to get all that information, as well as ricology who has provided the information that has been sought. i would simply encourage members of the audience and people who are interested to read the report. i think the report speaks for itself, and i don't really have any questions. colleagues, i don't know if you have any questions for r-3 at this point? no questions. ms. miller, before we turn it over to public comment, there is no action that is taken here at lafco in terms of the issue of how refuse is collected and

disposed of. this is simply a study, but i understand that at some point we need to simply accept the findings of the report and then provide that information to the board of supervisors? >> that is correct. there is an action item before you should you choose to take it. it is in my staff report, which is a resolution which merely accepts the report and forwards it on to the board of supervisors. supervisor campos: great. why don't we open it up to public comment? if there is any member of the public who week like to speak on this item, please come forward. i think there is one? go ahead. >> hello, commissioners.

i am tony kelly. i certainly don't believe you should send the report back, but that doesn't really mean it is truly an acceptable report. let me point out three things quickly that i don't believe the report did. one, the evaluation of commercial rate still presumes that the average commercial raid in san francisco is 50% of what the published commercial rates are, which really doesn't make much sense. it matches what i have been hearing from merchant associations across the city. this was based on anecdotal conversations between the staff, department and others. there is no real reason for why that rate is cut in half for the purposes of the study. the evaluation of services. ricology in san francisco is credited for providing $18 million in free services. there is no break down for how

that is considered. it looks like there is a lot more information on one side of the ledgers than the other. that brings up more questions than answers. third, on the barging, which has been a deficient part the study. it evaluated the department of environment study which was limited because it was only considering barging in terms of delivering refuse to the proposed landfill in yuba city, which is land locked. so yes, barging may not be the best way to deliver material to that landfill. but it ignores the numerous other land fills which are much more accessible by barge, and that would make barging much more competitive. will we get that? no. thanks for listening. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public who would like to

speck? did you have a question, commissioner? great. any other member of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner avalos? supervisor avalos: just a question that was pointed out about the $18 million in free services. they are not free because the rate payers are paying for those services ultimately, so i wouldn't say they are free. it is in-kind service that icology is providing to san francisco. we just had our community clean team recently, and i think it is a great service that they provide. but it is not like we have any type of real agreement that says this is going to be provided pie them. i think what ricology is doing

is helpful, but when it comes to what is really being quantity fade in terms of what -- quantified of what we can expect every year, that is not in the report. that is not in any kind of agreement between ricology and the city. i think the report does speak for itself in terms of providing a range of services whether in-kind or free, and that is something as we considering making decisions down the line about our contracts for -- or how we do our contract work for garbage in san francisco. the other issue that mr. kelly had raised, and he talked with me about that before the meeting, was around the commercial rates. i just wanted to see if we actually -- if that is correct, how the commercial rates were gathered for this report.

we are looking at 50% less than we have been told, but the rates were for commercial rates, and according to mr. kelly, that was gathered through discussions with the department of the environment, but not necessarily going directly to the commercial mtvs and the people who actually pay those rates, the businesses in san francisco. do we have any other information available that describes it more ack rately, or did -- accurately, or do you believe that is accurate? >> we believe it represents the most common rate, which is what we were putting together. that information did come from talking with your staff and members of ricology. because of the way your rate structure is set, unless you have absolutely no diversion capacity at all, you don't pay the base rate. you have to go into the rate calculator and determine what percentage comes off your percentage rate based on what

your diversion capacity is. we were informed that the average commercial business in san francisco has approximately 50% capacity. that was the reason we used the 50%. >> and then in terms of verifying that information from business groups, had that been done, or was that gathered from the department of the environment? >> that was gathered from the department and talking with ricology. it was based on their indication to us for how much capacity for diversion the average commercial business has. >> and did you look at the medology for how that diversion rate figure was established? was that an assumption you got from the department of environment as well? >> the 50% comes right off your rate calculator that is on your website that a commercial business uses to determine what

their actually rate is going to be. supervisor avalos: so the business will kl collate what their division rate is, and they plug that number into -- >> they look at how much capacity they have for solid waste and the diversion of materials, then the on-site web calculator tells them what the rate is. there is an untold number of permutations that you can have. supervisor avalos: how is the accuracy of that calculation determined? who is responsible for that? >> that is a good question. it is on the d.o.e. website. i am assuming -- and we weren't charged to get into this. i am assuming it was tested

before it was put on to the website. supervisor avalos: thank you. supervisor campos: commissioner mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, mr. chair. i appreciate part two of this report and mark row scopically speaking, i think the report has been helpful overall in the city's ability to move forward in its consideration of how it wants to, i think, continue -- seriously considering continuing its relationship with ricology based on information that was not there before us in the past. with the juncture that the city has met, in consideration both the lant phil contract that is before san francisco, and the strategy that is to help expedite that transportation and delivery of that contract, and the consideration that has come up because of the land phil -- landfill contract, new

issues have percolated forward as to how the city can now imagine and reimagine its relationship with its waste hauler contractor. in the past, many of these issues were not as well delved into as have been recently. what that does is it takes our prospective relationship with them to a whole new level. as referenced by one of the comments, on the question of barging, that is something i led in the back room negotiations and discussions about our port and deciding what a role in barging might look like. it was not ricology who said no. it was the port who said not yet. it was the port, with the department of environment, who

we really pressed, including the mayor's office -- we pressed hard to try to figure out what the infrastructure and capacity would look like as well as the economics so that it would help make sense to make sense for us to divert a portion and thinking we would be able to compensate that through a barging system that would allow us to hopefully capitalize on a portion of the port not in use right now. i think that this idea should not be retired. i think it should be developed and pursued, but it would probably require some significant investment on its capital side to make this happen. but in the interim of making that happen, i think it has been obligated of us to purse that conversation. just like the commercial rates that commissioner avalos just spoke about, the opening up commercial rates has yet i

think been delved into before lafco and/or the city. and now the fact that commercial rates is something we may want to recapital as part of an agreement with either ricology or whoever the contractor is, that gives us a leveraged position of defining what we would like to see happen with commercial rates. that tells me that we are in a better position for being able to scope out how this should be calculated. and thirdly, and i think most importantly to the study, i haven't seen any county that is on pace for the diversionary rate like san francisco. if there is a vlade calculation, then the department of ecology needs to

explain that. that is a pretty high bar to suggest that we are going to have complete diversion by 2020 or between 2017 and 2020. that is a pretty high bar so that if in fact we are asking for a service that commits to the policy that was talked about by mayor museum and many of us supported, that is something we should stand by. that is going to cost. that is going to cost san francisco cans. if you want to have a prouked that is less relined on fossil fuel and he lies more on renewable energy, that is going to cost. there is a price tag for that

policy. if we are saying we don't want that 77% diversion rate right now or move towards the 100% diversion in the next several years, then what we can do is did he fray from that cost -- defray from that cost and move from the policies that we earlier committed to. i have to tell you i think this concludes the discussion, at least for this time period, well right now. it makes sense to me to continue this to the call of the chair. supervisor campos: thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. i think my take on the report with respect to commercial rates is different than what has been articulated. i think the report does what was asked of the consultant, which is to provide a picture of what is being paid by businesses in san francisco relative to other businesses in other parts of the bay area. i think that is precisely what the report does.

as to how commercial rates actually are calculated and how we arrive to that number, the report specks to that. we as members of the body and members of the board of service have to purse -- pursue. there isn't a lot of specification on how that works? i think that you make that there is no document that outlines what the responsibilities are. but that is something that i think this report will provide us, with information that will be helpful in moving forward. i think it is not only the

amount of money and services provided to the city, but also what we as a city decide to do with that. that is not their position. that is more of an internal deliberation within city government. i think we as members of lafco and as members of the port of supervisors we need to have a discussion about how that money is allocated. up to this point the board has really nod had much after role in making those decisions. i think i certainly am interested in making sure that happens. but i think the report fulfilled its service, and before we move on the actual item, i do think that it would

be important for us to accept the report, which is to pass the resolution before us, accept the report, and then forward it to the board of supervisors so that they can avail themselves of the information that is included here. so i would ask for a motion. a motion by commissioner mirkarimi, seconded by commissioner avalos. can we take that without objection, colleagues? without objection. unless there is any other comment, we have a motion by commissioner mirkarimi to continue this to the call of the chair. i have a motion, and get a second. second by commissioner avalos. we can take that without objection. thank you. again, thank you to everyone who has been involved in this matter and to all the members of the audience who are here and people who are watching. madam clerk, call item number five. >> executive officer's report.

>> i don't really have a report except to ask when you want to -- if you want to still have another june meeting. under our calendar, we would have a meeting on the fourth friday of this month. supervisor campos: colleagues? >> i am jason. the fourth friday is where the all-day budget meeting curse where they have public comment. it starts at 10:00 in the morning and goes until midnight or whenever they finish. one commissioner will be on budget committee. i want to make sure we can get a quorum that day. supervisor campos: is there something pressing that would prechoir us to be here? supervisor mirkarimi: like the negotiations with shell? >> no. i don't think there is anything pressing in the next three weeks. supervisor campos: unless my

colleagues feel strongly otherwise, i would say not to have a meeting. because even though -- in addition to having one member of the lafco who is on the budget committee and is actually the vice chair, i know that those of us on the board of supervisors who are not on the budget committee may have some involvement as well. so unless any commissioner feels otherwise -- i would say not to have a meeting. supervisor mirkarimi: it's a busy month. >> thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: and to that question through the chair, remind me again of what the date is about us getting had some idea of the negotiations with shell? >> well, the idea is by the end of june we would be able -- by the end of june or first or second week of july, we should be coming back with actual draft contact. what i will be talking to mike about is a joint meeting towards the end of july.

that is our schedule. now, you know, -- supervisor mirkarimi: can we talk about the process a second? >> let's do that. supervisor mirkarimi: it has to be approved by p.u.c. and lafco, right? >> that is correct. supervisor mirkarimi: then it goes, pending its approval by both commissions, to the both of supervisors, and then it is assigned to committee. >> i believe that is the correct process. supervisor mirkarimi: so most likely the budget committee will probably take it, it sounds like, or city operations, or what have you, dealing with the precedence as necessary. so it is then the committee process that we want to hit. so if you wait to a joint meeting at the end of july, then you are looking through august, and we are on recess. >> right. supervisor mirkarimi: is there any way to move this up a little bit?

it wouldn't be a bad idea to get this heard. you are not moving us way after labor day. >> welsh let's do this -- well, let's do this. the issue is i don't know we will have the complete contract to you within four weeks. my guess is that would be difficult. but if there are dates that we could set as tentative dates, i could have the clerk off line do that with you, two or three dates early to mid july. then i could check with mike, and we could see if that works with the sfpuc, and if in fact we could bring a template to you. i understand your normal procedure, and the full contract is what you want to see. not an outline or a schematic. supervisor campos: that's right. >> we have a lot of lawyers involved right now, and as you know the contract with all the

boiler plate and all that, it's a time-consuming process. so i am not sure we will be able to meet early to mid july, but we will set it as a target date. your recess -- anyway, i know that our ultimate schedule because of the rate situation is now to implement by june of 2012. so even if we came back in september, we would be -- supervisor campos: i think it is important to have this in july. supervisor mirkarimi: if we can, we should. >> ok. supervisor mirkarimi: or we just absolutely cement the date , knowing very well that if we don't get something to the end of july, if we have a joint commission hearing, that's great. knowing that this is then forwarded to the full board and assigned a committee as early in september as possible, that is fine. but i have to tell you, you are

getting into a gnarly season, and i would hate for there to be any distractions away from what i think is so incredibly important that is before us now. ok. supervisor campos: i think it is important to maintain the momentum before the recess. >> so we will look for a date in july. we will have a tentative date of our regular friday, and the clerk will be contacting you for additional dates, and i will coordinate with the sfpuc as well as the idea of bringing the full contract back on whatever date that is. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk, can you call the next item? >> item number six, public comment for items not on the agenda. supervisor campos: this allows any member of the public to speak on any item not on the

agenda, but on the area. seen now, closed. >> future agenda items. supervisor campos: colleagues, do you have any future yites to put on the agenda? any member of the public who would like to speak? public comment is closed. last? >> eight number eight, adjournment. supervisor campos: thank you very much, and enjoy your wonderful weekend.

>> 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.

>> i'm your host of "culturewire," and today, here at electric works in san francisco. nice to see you today. thanks for inviting us in and showing us your amazing facility today. >> my pleasure. >> how long has electric works been around? >> electric works has been in san francisco since the beginning of 2007. we moved here from brisbane from our old innovation. we do printmaking, gallery shows, and we have a fabulous retail store where there are lots of fun things to find.

>> we will look at all of that as we walk around. it is incredible to me how many different things you do. how is it you identify that san francisco was in need of all these different services? >> it came from stepping out of graduate school in 1972. i wrote a little thing about how this is an idea, how our world should work. it should have printmaking, archiving, a gallery. it should have a retail store. in 1972, i wanted to have art sales, point-of-sale at the grocery store. >> so you go through the manifesto. with the bay area should have. you are making art incredibly accessible in so many different ways, so that is a good segue. let's take a walk around the facilities. here we are in your gallery space. can you tell me about the current show? >> the current show is