not addressed, who are interested in doing this kind of work, on how they are going to retain and employ people in the neighborhood, because that is not in their ball park. that is not their experience. that is not what they do. we need to use this as a model. speaking of models, this company is studied by other cities. the program that you and recology have put together is being studied internationally and it is being replicated all over the country and we are about to get rid of it. it does not make sense. thank you so much. supervisor chu: thank you. >> angelo king, a view hunters point environmental action committee. a couple of things really quickly. i want to do everything the reverend said. but also, he is absolutely

right. our landfill diversionary rates are the most of the county and the nation. we did this hand-in-hand with recology. furthermore, they are the kind of operation that set up a recycling program, knowing full well that would cut down on the building for them, but because they knew that was the right thing, they put out their architects and engineers to facilitate that process so we can relieve some burden of that bill on the housing authority. this is the kind of company we are talking about. this is a company that reads with san francisco, even when we are giving tax breaks to other companies so they will develop roots here. they are always doing something philanthropic in the city. they are always out doing the community cleanups, district cleanups, things of that nature. this thing with the department

of environment, and everybody who has been around knows we have some of the smartest people working there at the department of the environment, regardless of waste diversion, waste management, things in that realm. they have been a partner with us for some many years. i do not understand why we would even change it. as far as the city is concerned, we have a contract. they are making money of that contract. last but not least, when it comes to -- i done forgot it. there are so many things. i support recology. please move it forward. supervisor chu: thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. in a representative of the naacp. i am working with the education and youth community. we're supportive of recology on

different matters. one in particular is the work force hiring efforts in bayview- hunters point. they have given many of the residents there opportunities to grow and prosper. they are also supportive in their education efforts. they are very proactive on environmental issues. they are very supportive of cultural activities. once again, the naacp is very supportive of recology so that they can continue to do the great work that they do here in san francisco with the local hiring and things of that nature. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> i appreciate your time, supervisors. i am speaking in support of the recology contract, and i am

presenting letters from other business owners in the yuba center area who wished to support -- who wished to support but were not able to attend. i kept seeing things in the paper, but i have yet to run into anybody opposed to the landfill project. it was approved, by the way, by unanimous support of the board. is fully entitled. it is fully in compliance with the recent review. it is fully supported. but in any such project like this, there will always be groups. the project is already existing. it has been there for 20 years. the second group is a competitor that does not want to lose the business. however, the competitor was $100 million more expensive in their

bid. they seem to be fading away. these are small, nearly-focus groups. i appreciate their efforts to address their concerns. there are two large groups in san francisco that will save $100 million and give us a much greener option, without question. been there are the citizens of cuba townie who will receive the benefit of substantial -- of yuba county who will proceed -- who will receive the benefit of substantial fees. [chime] have i reached my time? recology welcomes your business. yuba county welcomes your business, also. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. for the record, my name is linda magellan.

i am here as a residence and consumer of recology services. there is much to recommend recology for the award of this contract. the list is long. you have heard some of them. the longstanding relationship with the city. that helped introduce the 3-bin concept, which has been very effective. it is an employee-owned business. this is a very green proposal. above all, as angela said earlier, they have demonstrated again and again their support for the community through philanthropic efforts. we're very proud to be partners in grime reduction with them. we hope you will move this forward with a recommendation to approve. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you.

>> good afternoon, members of the committee. continuing this discussion is a very important item. i am opposed to the proposed relocation of the recology transfer station to austin road. my concern is that recology has not offered a blanket assurance against contamination of earth, water, and air. as you know, sewage sludge is a permissible alternative to land cover necessary for any landfill. recology intends to use this. as noted by the san francisco public utilities commission, sludge is safe for organisms,

but requires a butperiod once exposed to air to not become harmful. my concern is the slide has the potential to contaminates -- the sludge has the potential to contaminate the granddaughter. -- groundwater. we may end up paying for unintended consequences. thank you. supervisor chu:. -- thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. we represent workers in town, including workers for recology in san francisco that have very, very good union jobs with health care and benefits. you can see some of them in the room here today. we are asking you to move forward with the recology contract for a variety of

reasons. one reason is here in san francisco, we do things different quite often. it has been resulting in nothing but good things. good jobs, jobs for people in the communities, the best recycling rate of any place in the united states giving and finally, there's absolutely no reason to fix anything that is not broken. we are asking to move forward because it is a good relationship. it is good for san francisco. it is good for the workers. i would recommend we move forward. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> i am a publisher of an independent newspaper. we live in the valley. i would like to know it's that the facility is situated in an environmentally-secure area,

not on march contiguous to agriculture. -- not a marsh contiguous to agriculture. it also has the support of residents at large. please vote against the recology agreement. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon, madam chair and committee members. i am recology an employee am for over 32 years. i am representing my fellow employee-owners, and as you well know, we do a very good job. we are taught one thing. do the job right. there is no other way to do it. finally, i would like to submit

articles from two articles lauding our efforts. >> i have a few more cards. [reading names] if i have not called her name but he would like to speak on this item, please line up on the center aisle. >> we support the measure before you today, the action item to approve this landfill and facilitation agreement. we have a great history to working with an employee-owned local company, recology. you have a report from your department of the environment recommending to move forward with this agreement. you have a record showing it will save ratepayers and businesses tens of millions of

dollars. is the right contract for the people of san francisco. it is recommended by your department and the chamber and the alliance urge you to move forward with approval today. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> david farrell. i am a member of the central market district, and we are here in support of the recology proposal to de. -- today. it is environmentally appropriate. we have been very happy with the work here in san francisco and we want to support. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good morning, committee members. my name is jim stevens. we have been around recology for many years. as a san francisco corporate

citizen, they are one of the best in san francisco. as a son of san francisco, they are one of the best of san francisco. i cannot see why we should come back here on this issue that has been coming here for the last six months. everything says "recology." i implore you today to let it be recology. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i put myself in a green business suit. i think that this recology proposal hits both nails right on the head. first, the recology bid is $100

million less than the losing bid, and the whole thing about the trains. vitrines are great. -- the trains are great. the trains are four times more fuel-efficient than the trucks that currently take the garbage out. it will reduce fuel consumption by 10 billion gallons. and especially in -- you know, i now work at a company in oakland here, so i know from my co- workers and having to drive myself, there is a lot of pollution coming off the road. and the change from truck to

train will play a significant role in reducing air pollution along interstates 80 and 580 in alameda county. this will reduce incidence of asthma and other respiratory problems. is a great step in the right direction, and i wholeheartedly support the proposal. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> hello, supervisors. this is the same proposal that has been before you for two months and has not gotten the support of the committee. is still proposes a landlocked facility in yuba city at the same time it pretends to consider a future site for barging. but you are not going to advance that cost in yuba city.

yuba city supervisor was here saying this sets up a blank check situation for the city and its rate payers, and i would think the supervisors would want to explore his concerns. there is no slush fund for recology. one would think that the budget and finance committee would want to explore the slush fund. recommendations from an independent analyst and the budget analyst both recommend that the board consider competitive bidding and a contract. we do not even recology have a even. -- we do not even have a contract with recology. over the last 30 days, 12,000 san francisco voters have signed a petition to put competitive bidding on the future ballot. we have done it in the face of a very expensive, hundreds of thousands of dollars,

advertising campaign and felony violations of state law, the california election code. we have a proposal expanding the current monopoly is in the face -- the current monopolies in the face of san francisco voters. i do not understand why we are considering it any further. thank you for your time. supervisor chu: thank you. >> i am diana fuller, and i have been a san francisco resident for many years. it is only recently i have become aware of what i think has been an incredible service to the city, and that is the service to the office by the employee-owned and operated recology. this is not my normal area of expertise or involvement, but when i see any city what has happened in the last two years of my specific interests, it is

amazing. the consciousness towards the way we live, the possibilities that are explored by recology. the other thing that comes to mind is that people are not aware of the enormous processes that are dealt with, and the many services that are offered by recology make it clear to the population why this is involved. so, i think from my own observation and appreciation -- #one, -- number one, we create an enormous amount of waste individually, but what is done in this company to take care of this and explore other ways and means to better recycling, to

better repurchasing, to better dealing with all these sorts of problems. i think they have done a fantastic job. i think the city is extremely lucky to have the. i do not know what we would do with anybody else, because nobody else seems to have the facilities, the laboratories, experimentation. i support their efforts. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker? if there are any members of the public whose name i did not call like to speak on this topic, please line up in the center of. >> members of the board, members of the committee -- i am with the san francisco bay area real road. -- railroad. i was not going to dwell on the landfill contract, but i heard the supervisor from yuba county say very clearly the agreement was open-ended. right now, the basis of what you

are looking at was on $4.40 per ton. i heard him say it could go up to $30, $40 per ton, depending on the board of supervisors' action sometime in the future. that equates to different numbers. that equates to about $150 million to $200 million over the course of tenures. you are opening up the san francisco checkbook two yuba county. that is the honest truth. you heard it from a fellow supervisor. let me dwell on the facilitation agreement that harvey rose says is not competitively bid. power company has moved 120 million tons of waste exclusively by rail. on the east coast, we move from

boston and new york to south carolina and virginia. the move to hundred thousand tons a year between oregon and utah. it has been printed in the paper that san francisco a railroad would like to compete with recology. well, recology has not moved a ton. how is it that the department of environment can justify an exclusive contract facilitation agreement with recology? we would like the opportunity to bid, and we are asking you to give us that opportunity. supervisor chu: thank you. >> i was going to say good morning, but i guess it was a good afternoon and not try to take to much of your time. i believe this process has been

fully vetted. we addressed the issues that were concerns on all the different areas to allow alternative methods of transportation, and for more than a year now, the budget and finance committee and others have looked at topics. its still comes back to one thing. waste management bid $46 a ton. we bid $23 a ton. that is not hard to understand. that equates with the savings over the term of the contract. just as important as being the lowest cost bidder, recology is also the most environmentally sensitive, superior auction, as substantiated by the department of the environment. our trucks will not be in traffic competing others. -- impeding others.

for more than a year now, unsuccessful bidders have led the charge to delay and steady, delay and study. recology is the lowest cost, highest-rated better -- bidder. we urge this board to move forward with this contract. thank you very much for your time. i also have a binder here of over 100 letters of support from different areas, including yuba county, for your files. we have binders for all the supervisors. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? item number nine? seeing none, public comment is closed. and the item is before the committee.

colleagues, if i could suggest this item has come before us multiple *. i do want to appreciate the time people have taken to be here, not only at this meeting, but once before. i also want to appreciate the supervisor from yuba county for taking the trip from yuba county to san francisco. we also appreciate those efforts. i want to thank the members of the community who have come out to speak on this item. i just want to relate what i am thinking, and i would like to hear from my colleagues on this issue. there are a couple of items that were brought up that i thought was important to address. one was the issue of this concept of government fees that are being charged from coast county. there was a comment that there is a blank check that we are opening up in regard to yuba county. whether it is yuba county or lme

the county, it neither one of those -- alameda county, neither one of those counties has the authority to charge fees on us. i think it is a false statement. whether it is yuba county, alameda county, those opposed jurisdictions -- those opposed jurisdictions do not have the authority to consider changes in their structure. yuba county does charge significantly more -- alan needed county does charge significantly more than yuba county does in these. is also possible that alameda county would do the same as a host county, and of course, there is no guarantee either way where those rates would be. in terms of competitive bidding, this is something i did hear from members of the public. i want to be clear.

there are two separate issues when we talk about the recology contract. the item that is before us, and in particular, the bidding for the fees, there was an extensive and open process conducted by the city. i do not want members of the public to be misled to believe there was no competitive process or rfp process that occurred. this is a process that was a multi-year process. the department pursued this with the indication that we would be running out of space over time, and to make sure the city would be bargaining at the strongest point possible. we went through and notified every single provider in the state of california, i believe, to invite them to bid on this project. unfortunately, we did not get too many responses. we did get a number. we asked them to come in to do

additional work to follow-up. because of that, we had two response of alternate bidders on this item. they ended up submitting bids, and the item before us is the bid that was reflective of the lowest cost for the city. i think that they covered these items, $100 million in savings to san franciscans and in particular. tipping fees that are two times higher was the next bid. i cannot help but ask waste management why it is they did not come out at a more fair price for san francisco? seeing that we are working with you for some years, you are charging twice as high as recology would be for the same service.

frankly, i am concerned about that, especially with the long term relationship san francisco has had. we talked a little bit about the greenhouse effect of this legislation. particularly the transit components. the other thing i do want to highlight -- the position of waiting and waiting. i do think we need to act on this contract, whether the board ultimately says yes or no, we do need to move forward. the department of the environment move forward on this process early on to make sure san francisco was not in the position where if we had a natural disaster or an emergency and needed space, that we would at that time be out for bid. you can imagine if we had a major disaster or only had one- you're of capacity -- one a year of capacity left, and then we went out to the open market. i want to thank the department

for being so thoughtful in the process. i do think it is time for us to take a position either way about this contract. i will be supportive of the contract. i do think the issue of collection, that hasn't been rfped, that is not the issue. it was competitively bid. the best bid, the lowest cost one-out. i do want to thank the department for bringing that contract to us. colleagues, i would like to hear from you about this item. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you. i also appreciate this has been held in committee for many months to make sure we have awful dialogue on the breadth of issues. it