build housing that will start september 1. a lot of the critical that work should have happened by now -- redevelopment work that should happen by now. supervisor mirkarimi: other cities and counties looking to retain their read development designation. does that mean that the others are going to go away? >> frankly, many do not have the funds. san francisco does not take all our titled tax increment. we only bonn for products that we think will be immediate. we do not maximize on all of our abilities to get bond proceeds for tax increment. there are some -- i understand san jose had made some poor decisions and made some debt obligations to the city.

there were some precarious market conditions that really excited their demise. smaller redevelopment agencies that do not operate like us would be entirely eliminated because they will not have the funds available to make this payment. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. just one comment and question. in terms of the longevity -- and this is a conversation that we can have when items comes back to us. if we make a one-time payment, it will be substantial. one thing to consider is, does that mean make it to keep the development agency in perpetuity? in three years, could the legislature come back and abolish redevelopment? that is something that we need to address in the next presentation. finally, a question on a lawsuit. i know there is a pending claim

by the state redevelopment agency. does that impact this proposal, going forward? >> a lawsuit that was found by the league of cities, counsel association is challenging the legality of ab27, 26. it does lend itself to some uncertainty. as of now, some of the bond counsel is hasn't to -- hesitant to opine on whether we should be able to issue bonds prior to the resolution of the lawsuit. that further suspends some of the uncertainty we face. we will know a little bit more later on, the bending on whether it gets heard in the supreme court or not, how fast that is accelerated.

it really is making a huge impact to our work and our ability to contract, and our existing contracts as well. given the additional time, we will have more certainty when a comeback in august and september, to have a more detailed discussion. we will also have better numbers for you. at some point, we may also have better tax rolls, assessed values. then we will know the status of the lawsuit, and if any changes will be made to the current bill. there was some speculation that there could be some cleanup language. but we hope to have more information on those two things, and will go into detail discussion. supervisor chu: thank you. this item does not have a budget analyst thought reports -- budget analyst's report on it. i know we open this item up to the public.

is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> i just saw an item that looked just like you and walked just like you and i knew that it grew turn the city on its corner, call out your name i knew it felt the same and it grew and it grew fix it up, won't you and all the schools fix it up, " you take my redevelopment away blues all this item, everything to me fix it up, " you please fix it up, won't you you will take away my

redevelopment blues. supervisor chu: thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i am one of the co-sponsors of this resolution but i think it is important that we move forward with our intent. and our commitment to continuing our rid of all the projects in the city. there are many important projects that are important to many of our neighborhoods, including district 6. so i am very committed to this. it is an unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in, but i look forward to seeing how this moves forward with all the moving pieces. i do think it is important we move forward and keep redevelopment, here in san francisco. supervisor chu: thank you.

colleagues, can we send this item forward to the full board with recommendations? ok, that will be the case. do we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda. supervisor chu: thank you. i believe this is the last meeting until we come back from court recess. happy vacation to everybody. thank you. we are adjourned.

>> good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting. supervisor avalos: present. supervisor campos: present. president chiu: present. supervisor chu: present. supervisor cohen: present. supervisor elsbernd: present. supervisor kim: here. supervisor mar: present. supervisor mirkarimi: present. supervisor weiner: present. >> all members are present. president chiu: thank you. please join me in the pledge of allegiance. colleagues, we have copies of the june 21 meeting minutes.

motion to approve by a supervisor mirkarimi seconded by campos. those are approved. >> i have no communications. president chiu: could you read the consent agenda? >> these items will be acted upon by a single roll call vote unless a member requests discussion of a matter, which will be considered separately. president chiu: would anyone like to sever any of these items? >> on items one through six -- supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye.

>> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: these ordinances are finally passed. items seven through 18 constitute the upcoming budget. >> items 7 through 8 are the positions in the annual budget, and appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year ending june 2012. aiken's 9218 of the legislation associated with implementation of the -- items 9 through 18 of the legislation are associated with implementation of the budget. i contend increases fees for non-residents and tournaments at parks and golf courses. item 12 designate this weekend hours.

item 14 is the ordinance increasing all fees based on the controller's consumer price index. there are fee amounts set for applications for planning commission, certificates of appropriateness, and building permits. item 16 sets the patient waits for the department of public health. item 17 modifies monthly and daily fees for construction and st. occupancy. item 18 establishes a fee for a program for services provided by the public administrator. president chiu: colleagues, any discussion on the budget for the second read? why don't we take a roll-call vote on the final ordinance? supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye.

supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: these ordinances are finally passed. >> item 19, ordinance providing for a special election to be held on tuesday, november 8, 2011, for the purpose of submitting a proposition to incur the following bonded debt up for $248 million to finance the repaving of roads and streets safety. president chiu: any discussion? roll-call vote. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor weiner: aye.

supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. >> there are nine ayes and two nos. item 20, amending the administrative code to limit overtime worked in a fiscal year by any employee to 20% of regularly scheduled hours. president chiu: colleagues, this is an ordinance that does two things. first, it lowers the percentage of regularly scheduled hours that the department is required to get an exemption from the department of human resources from 30% to 20%. it helps reduce the number of written reports required from the controller's office. i conferred with labor leaders earlier. they have requested a second

meet and confer, so i would like to ask that we continue this item to next week. supervisor campos: that motion is seconded by supervisor farrell. can we take the without objection? madam clerk, next item. >> item 20 -- item 21 approves the 10-year land fill disposal agreement and facilitation agreement with recology san francisco. president chiu: and the discussion? supervisor campos: i know this is an item which has been vetted a number of times in committee. let me begin by thanking all the people in the city departments that have been working on this item, including the mayor's office and the department of the

environment. as you may recall, the item was continued quite a few times to provide an opportunity for the local agency formation commission to delay study -- to do a study of how the issue of the kind of trash collection, transportation, and disposal is handled in other jurisdictions. i think that discussion and process was informative and helpful. i think that in some respects it perhaps addressed some of the concerns that had been raised in terms of how we were doing relative to other jurisdictions. i think in others it probably also raised additional questions. what i wanted to say today is simply that i recognize that recology provides great service

to the city and county of san francisco, and we have through this process learned a lot about all the positive things they are doing. but for me the question with respect to this contract, at the end of the day, comes down to not so much the specifics of who the players are, but simply the process and where we are as a city in terms of management and the handling of this issue. and it is because of that, notwithstanding the many positive things recology is doing, i will be voting against this item. i understand why other supervisors would support it and can see there are very good reasons for that. but i think it is important for us to create certain protections for the city and county of san francisco before we go down the process of approving this landfill agreement. one of the things the lafco

study showed is we are really the only jurisdiction that does not have a franchise agreement. there are legal limitations as to why, but i think we need to continue discussions that i know began, so we get to a point that, through a franchise agreement or similar contract or document, we can provide additional protections to ratepayers. i also think it is important for us to provide a further delineation of responsibilities and obligations that recology has to the city and county of san francisco. i would hope we would have that in place before we went down the road of approving this agreement, which is the only reason why i will be voting against it. i do hope, though, that those discussions continue. i think it is in everyone's

interest, and most portent -- most importantly in the interest of ratepayers to have those formalized. i think there will be a proper forum for those issues to be discussed. i certainly look forward to being a part of that discussion. the other thing that i would say about this deal is that it also includes a facilitation agreement, which was not subjected to a competitive bid process. coupled with the land fill agreement, the extension of the facilitation agreement would essentially create vertical integration. there may be different views on the positives or negatives of that, but i simply believe that before we go down that road that we should have some of the contractual protections i have discussed in place. that is the reason for my vote today. but again, i want to thank

recology, the department of the environment, and the lafco staff for all they have done and their good faith efforts. supervisor avalos: thank you. much like supervisor campos, i want to echo my thanks to the department of the environment and lafco and the mayor's office, and recology as well. i will be voting also against the land fill agreement and the facilitation agreement, the amended version between d.o.e. and recology. much for the same reasons, i believe our process for selecting this land fill agreement has not been as thorough as it needed to be.

we also need to look overall at what our system for garbage is in san francisco. i do not think it reflects where many jurisdictions are in the bay area, and most likely in the country, in how we create our garbage functions and garbage utilities functions. i think we need to be going to a new direction for that at some point. we are reliant on, i would say, an outdated process that was established back in 1932, which i think in practice provides a way of doing things for our garbage functions but not the best way to do it. are there other ways we can reconfigure how we select and build our garbage functions that can protect ratepayers? i know there is a lot of discussion for the next year, possibly going to the ballot, of

a process to competitively bid our garbage functions in this city. that is looming heavily over what we are doing here today. i am not quite sure if it makes a lot of sense to move forward, knowing there could be major changes happening in the future. i actually had the occasion to visit the garbage -- the land fill site in yuba county late last year. i went there with melanie nutter, director of the department of the environment, and a supervisor eric mar. it was an enlightening trip. we met with folks from recology and at the landfill site, and we met with residents and elected officials. there were some concerns about environmental issues related to adjacent farms and what the impact of the set would be on an adjacent farms.

but the thing i took away most from that trip was that the host fees that govern how much it costs to deposit a ton of refuse at the landfill were much lower in yuba county than the rest of california. there were $4.40 at yuba county, but much higher in other places. i think it is over $16 at the current land fill site in livermore. there was some tension from elected officials in the yuba county to possibly raise those fees. how those increases would affect local ratepayers -- i felt that was a risk, a potential risk that it would increase the cost locally, and whether the bid that could be approved today was the right bid that would later in flight what the costs were to the city and to the ratepayers.

-- inflate what the costs were to the city and the ratepayers. because of that i was skeptical of this contract, knowing the great work the environmental -- the department of the environment did to put this together. but i felt my vote on this measure has really weighed on what is right for the process of the city and the true cost to ratepayers. i will be voting against this agreement. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you to my colleagues. i do appreciate the discourse we have had over this topic. we have had a number of meetings at the committee level about this contract. although i appreciate the comments. we appreciate the comments, i disagree and will support this contract, which is a strong one. overall, the department materials show this is a contract that would save our ratepayers over $100 million

over the term of the contract in terms of the landfill component. much has been said about the environmental benefits, so i won't go into that. in terms of where we were in a competitive bid process, one reason i feel comfortable with this contract is we did have an extensive contrast in order to get to today. the department went forward with an rfp many years ago, worked to do outreach to every landfill in the state of california to encourage them to bid. we did receive a small number of responsive victors -- bidders on this process. that process took many years. knowing our current capacity at the alta month site, i think it would be bad for the -- altamont site, i think it would be bad for the city to hold off on this, whether it is a natural disaster or something else that comes down the pipeline. i think this is a positive

contract, one that was competitively and fairly bid, one that will show ratepayers $100 million worth of savings. finally, with regards to the issue of fees, i know much has been said about whether certain counties and jurisdictions can increase fees. regardless of where we would be, whether it is altamont or you but county, those local jurisdictions have that capability, so we do not have certainty either way. we do know at our current site we have fees that are far higher than the current yuba county amount. should that increase, that would drag down the deferment to, but in either case we would still be under the same pressure of local jurisdiction in terms of these. i do believe this is a strong contract and hope you will also support it. supervisor weiner: thank you.