>> -- supervisor chu: welcome back. mr. clark, call item 9, place. >> item #9 -- resolution approving a 10-year landfill disposal agreement and facilitation agreement with recology san francisco under charter section 9.118. supervisor chu: thank you. we have considered this a number of times. >> good morning, supervisors. in the director of the san francisco department. i am melanie nutter. at previous budget and finance

meetings, the department provided a detailed overview for the contract which began back in 2006, highlighting the financial and environmental benefits of the proposed contracts and evaluating the importance of incorporating san francisco into the waste management system. as you know, under the current proposal, san francisco will stop using the facility in yuba city around 2015. with all costs factored in, but the recology bid will save san francisco ratepayers over $175 million over the life of the,. this includes waste disposal costs. looking at the landfill disposal

fees alone, the competitive bids -- the competing bid was twice as high as those proposed by recology. the proposed agreement also has significant environmental advantages. it will eliminate up to 10 million trucks miles off the congested bay area freeways and reduce cassette emissions over the life of the contract. based on many conversations with support staff, a facilitation agreement is being offered for consideration. it is language to address a further exploration of transportation alternatives and the development of a new refuse- handling facility at the port of san francisco. for your review, i do have a copy of that language available, and for the clerk, i also have copies of the amended

resolution. this language has been agreed to buy -- by recology and it is approved by the city attorney. >supervisor chu: melanie, do you have copies of that right now? >> yes, i will bring that right now. it includes the fifth effective anniversary of the agreement. the city will meet to consider whether there are transportation alternatives that will offer a more cost effective solution and rail transport services. based on a comprehensive review by department staff and with the assistance of the city attorney's office, the department of the environment is confident that the proposed contract is the best deal for san francisco and for ratepayers. i want to thank support staff for their work on this issue,

and i also want to thank members of this committee for in-depth evaluation of our waste system. i do have a few members of my team here today. any of us are available to answer any questions you have. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. now to our budget analyst. do we have any special information to report? >> madam chair, members of the committee, i can make a brief summary of our reports or just pick out the additional. when ever you prefer. supervisor chu: what ever we -- what about the additional information? >> madam chair, super reassert -- supervisor mirkarimi, we stated that our report had factual errors. that is incorrect.

we have responded to all of those comments in our letter to the board of supervisors and there are no factual errors in our report. on page 2 of the recology letter to you, they stated that " competitive bidding does not necessarily result in lower rates." by that statement, recology itself acknowledges that competitive bidding could result in lower rates. the it budget and finance subcommittee previously requested last go -- lafco survey other jurisdictions for the process of selecting providers. their initial report found that in the 71 jurisdictions survey, san francisco is the only

jurisdiction that did not have an agreement with a service provider and san francisco is the only jurisdiction that has not completed a competitive bidding process for collection services. based on the results of all three consulting groups' phase ii report, when comparing $31.2 million total value, up san francisco receive services relative to $219 million in annual gross revenues that recology receives, san francisco's 14.2% is significantly lower proportionally than the majority of jurisdictions survey. all the survey jurisdictions accept san jose and forster city receive a higher proportion of revenues for free services.

for example, the city of emoryville receives 14.4% compared to san francisco's 14.2%. both of those are twice as much as san francisco receives from recology. therefore the budget analyst says the board of supervisors should consider repealing the agreement so that future transportation contracts are awarded by the city under a competitive bidding process and require that refuse be subject to board of supervisors' approval. supervisor chu: thank you, mr. rose. i will reserve my questions.

i know there are a number of people who came to testify on this issue. now that this issue is back again, i would like to provide that opportunity for public comment. so, if we can open public comment on this item, we will begin that process. if there are members of the committee would like to speak -- or actually members of the public who would like to speak, we will allow that to happen. i do have a number of cards. if you hear your name, please line up. first off, roger, a yuba county supervisor, matthew, richard, al norman, arnold, the rev. gary banks, joe dimartini, jim

lazarists. -- lazarus. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is off roger aubrey, a supervisor for yuba county, the fourth district. i just had a few comments to make to you prior to making a decision on whether to recommend it to your full board. as a fellow supervisor, i think it is important for you to consider in the recology contract itself, there are a number of unanswered questions. primarily, next year our board of supervisors will be considering a change in host fees charged to residents

outside the you but center area, and i would look at it as a completion -- yuba center area, and i would look at it as a completion. it has been mentioned to me that if in fact san francisco does award this contract to recology prior to yuba county doing that, you the county would have a blank check -- yuba county would have a blank check to charge host fees we can justify and make reasonable, anywhere from $10 to the existing $4.40 at a time. up to $20, $30. i would not expect the board to zero look at awarding such a contract without having a better

idea of the costs, which ultimately would be passed on to ratepayers in san francisco. secondly, i do not know if you are aware, but down in imperial county, they recently approved a project in which there will be reeling -- railing from los angeles to imperial county. that was a two-year puc process. i know that has not taken place in this project. that, i think, also is going to be a big question. if there is a two-year process, if that got started today, he may be able to completed prior to 2015, but if there were additional questions that clinton the -- that would

lengthen the process, recology may not be in the position to dispose of that waste in 2015. lastly, the other additional unanswered question that you have is the fact that recology has filed for an amendment to the conditional use permit that would allow rail transport to take place. the processes in its infancy. they have not decided what environmental impact there might be, as well as all the processes that would take place before the board. i think as responsible supervisors, which i am sure you are, you would prefer to delay and wait until you know for sure. thank you very much. supervisor chu: thank you. it is great to see you. >> good morning.

my name is dr. richard paskowitz, part of, a member of yuba country against garbage. this is a proposal for the city and county of san francisco presented by a division of recology. deception by mission. -- ommission. the first deception not disclose to you is the fee per ton of garbage disposal for yuba county has been the same for years. recology describes these fees as "stable." you have been deceived by their implied assumption that the fis would not be dramatically raised to be consistent -- that the fis

would not be dramatically raise to be consistent with other areas in the space. second deception, recology is going to charge the rate payers of san francisco to pick up used baby diapers out of your [unintelligible] recology is not going to pay for these used baby diapers being deposited in the landfill in yuba county. this is an equivalent of depositing a flow of dirty diapers on to the floor, and then not paying for them, for the privilege of using the property. ♪

[chime] supervisor chu: thank you very much. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is matthew. my family's farm has been in the area for 91 years. i serve on the california farm board, in our goal is to preserve the habitat, and the natural resources. water, air, soil, which we all take for granted. i also serve on the yuba center water quality coalition, as well as the seventh placer county for data. we are on both sides of the

river. those are voluntary organizations, set up by farmers to preserve and protect the water quality, surface runoff, and we are working on monitoring of underground aquifers. this dump site, i fear, as a board member of those coalitions, jeopardize is our water quality. -- jeopardize our water quality. when you start putting numerous tons of trash on that site on the area outside of the county and put more pressure on the side, shortening the life span, you are going to increase the possibility of water pollution in the region. we want to preserve the water quality to grow quality crops

for all people in the united states of america and the world. we are dependent on foreign trade for our products we grow onion that region. i think it is critical -- [chime] thank you very much. supervisor chu: thank you. >> my name is steven valentine. i have concerns about the recology project dumpsite. my family is in the downstream watershed area of the proposed dump site. we have a process, as many family farms to in that area. we are subject to any surface water contamination in any ground water contamination coming from upstream, which is where the dump site is. we are responsible to monitor

our water quality, both ground and surface, at our own expense to mitigate any toxic contamination is. at our own expense. there is not currently any condition or assurance that the contract with yuba county to require them to mitigate any downstream contamination might impact our facility. we have some evidence of surface water contamination from the site. we cannot tolerate even 0% e. coli contamination. we are inspected annually by the fda. the potential contamination of those areas that are immediately downstream at a very high water table level could result in loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in agricultural production, which is one of the few bright spots in california. this is a serious problem. thank you.

supervisor chu: thank you. >> good morning, supervisor chu, supervisors. i am with the san francisco commission. my biggest concern is we went into a contractual situation with recology for all our children to go to work at their recycling plants that we were helping them to set up. i am sympathetic to all the police from yuba county and the people from yuba county. i believe that is the situation yuba county and recology can work out for themselves. my concern is to pass the budget and you need to go to the next step and work out the problems of this contract. i hope so much for the people who could not be here today, working at those recycling

plants, the baking continue to work as recycling plants. and there would not be some big lay off because no one wanted to take action in this situation. like i said before, i am very sympathetic to the folks of yuba county and what they had to say to today. but we have a different scenario down here with our young people and how we need to put a lot of them to work because of our relationship with recology. and we ask that you pass this item. thank you so much. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is a laronda smith. i was born and raised in san francisco. i am here in support of recology. i think they have done a beautiful job by hiring people in the southeast section of san francisco, and i would like them to continue to do this. thank you so much for your time. supervisor chu: thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is pastor gary banks. i am the founder of family restoration house. i also sit on the project area committee. i am most definitely invested in the community. i just want you to take into consideration as we look at competitive bids, we do not want to create a scenario of competitive gambling with the lives of the citizens of the bayview. we have been working diligently as pertains to cleaning up the bayview and the shipyard, and we have invested many years in this project. i would hate to see us bring

another company in because of competitive bidding and undermining the work. we can turn those lives around. we can now have a competitive wage and reinvest back into our city. i want you to please take into consideration. we have been dumped on for too long, and we do not want another dumpsite in our community. thank you some much for your consideration. supervisor chu: so. -- thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. i do church with pastor banks as an associate pastor. you know, every now and then, we did a situation where it seems like the city did said.

usually when that happens, the first thing we start doing is trying to undo a. we have an organization that is $120 million cheaper than the nearest competitor. we have an organization that, when it comes to hiring, it is outstanding. i do not know another company in san francisco that has hired residents and people of color like recology has done. it is tremendous work. i have sat in on the meetings in the training sessions with the workers and how much support and help they give them once they hire them. let me tell you something, with all due respect for mr. rose to has done good work for the city, i know one thing. when you go on the cheap, the first folks that gets put out are the folks that need to work most sesl