elements in the report before you. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose? >> members of the committee, this was recommended by the pec based on a competitive process. $10 million per year for a 15 year term. payments will be administered on a test basis. table two, page 5 of our report, provides a breakdown of the budget. the bulk of that would be labor. $134 million. an average hourly rate of $206.30 for an estimated 36,000 hours. the puc estimates the cost at

issuing commercial paper on page 6 of our report, a $150 million principal and $159 million in total cost of $340.2 million based on an annual interest rate of 5.5%. in terms of the impact on a single-family residence on the bottom of page 6, the average impact would be $1.74. that would be on the monthly bill. we recommend that you approve this resolution. supervisor chu: thank you. with regards to the project, i understand the project still has

major components outstanding that we are working on? but that in the cycle we should be seeing those projects coming to completion fairly soon? average case, puc wrapping up on the projects. i would imagine that it is never cheap to renovate and fixed sewer lines. and what we think the project might cost overall, it is something that this contract will help but you see refined further. >> the reason for firing the manager is to define the rate impact.

we believe that we can keep rate impacts to a single digit. we would be bringing each project as they are being implemented. the implementation phase is usually about three years in start-ups, looking at the option to deliver products to the voters and system. let's -- supervisor chu: in terms of this specific contract, the project is the anticipated to be paid for with commercial paper. will be retired with later that, later -- more debt later on? >> that would be serving bonds

through the appropriated process. supervisor chu: let's open this public -- this item for public comment. members that wish to comment on item number six? seeing no one, the item is closed. we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations. item number seven, please. >> item number 7. resolution approving, in accordance with section 147(f) of the internal revenue code, the issuance and sale of tax- exempt bonds by the california municipal finance authority in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $11,000,000 to finance various capital facilities owned or leased by children's day school. supervisor chu: thank you very much.

>> good morning. we are here before you to approve the issuance of bonds for purposes of federal tax law issuance. the public being financed, including acquisition of property at 605-601 delores' street. as you mentioned, the director of finance obligations is available, should you have any questions on the process. supervisor chu: body, would you like to say few words? let's thank you. we are expanding. the program is growing. we need additional facilities. this would allow us to have a satellite campus. supervisor chu: general expansion of space.

this item does not have a budget analyst report because there is no fiscal impact on the city. we would not be liable for any payments associated with this item. let's open this up for public comment. would any members of the public wish to speak? seeing no one, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send this item out with a recommendation to the full board. item number eight, please. >> item #8. ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code, section 18.13.1 to limit the overtime worked in any fiscal year by any employee to 20% of regularly scheduled hours and requiring monthly written reports regarding critical staffing shortages. supervisor chu: this item was before the budget and finance committee last week. there was a suggestion to amend

the legislation to allow for some clean up. i believe that the supervisors representative is here. >> thank you, supervisors. you are correct, in the last week we have been working closely with the comptroller's office on the amendments that all in your hands and then added to code for 14 annual reports. as we discussed with the controller in many cases, these reports provide redundant and overlapping information to and do not make recommendations to mitigate spending. the proposed changes moved to

more rational reporting requirements to get to the goal that i mentioned. specifically, and i have copies for the public, this changes have a comptroller views costs and projections. the new annual reporting requirement would be instituted to have significantly more analysis and recommendation in the board. making better recommendations to manage them. the president suggests that these amendments be stopped. supervisor kim: is there anything that -- supervisor chu: is there anything you would add? >> only that we appreciate the willingness to work with us on simplification rules that have grown up over many years and we think will lead to better

reporting on how many years are being spent and how many to litigate. supervisor chu: i do none of the dhr folks are here to provide more information? >> brought to my knowledge, no. so, i did not know if he was going to be here for that. let's open this up for public comment. item #8. seeing no one, public comment is close. supervisor mirkarimi: motion to except and move forward. supervisor chu: we have a motion to send this forward with the recommendation. i will be supportive, in the

last meeting, in terms that whether or not it will reduce the general level over time, i am not convinced that it will. this will spread over a large number of employees. it does not change the conditions on which partners are entering overtime. i would be comfortable -- do you think that his measure in the office, second of all spreading out over a larger number of city employees, i hope that people do not have the expectation that just because this passes we will see a significantly large reduction in overtime next year.

and there will be over time for the city with the recommendation. we can do that without a rejection. we are one to take a quick break before heading on to item number nine. we are a two person committee right now. we cannot leave without losing forum. we are going to take a quick break. we will be right back. >> -- 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