coordinate, all that >> thank you for bringing that up. we have meetings periodically bringing the groups together there say lot of conservations, goodwill has been talking to recology department of the environment, has become a hub for bringing the teams together so we can divert dekz tiles in a coordinated manner, >> okay. one of the reasons i ask is because there was a bin -- i'm going to make this real tight, i can go down the rabbit hole with them -- i take my son on a pony ride, at mar vis sa, they have pony rides for five bucks, i think it went up to ten, there say bin that says bring your textiles i thought, is this a program, it's daily city right at the conner line do we have something similar? it seems to me that textile --

recapturing textiles, away from landfills, and resues has a lot of components there, i remember coming back to the staff saying yeah, i got a photo of it nobody had heard of it it was like something p happening at a pony ride. so that's why i asked about coordinating that around textiles, we know textiles is a big part of the last 20% to get to 0 it seems to be great there's coordination happening >> and the website, recycle where.org, has the locations, it covers the boxes and instore drop off locations like goodwill, everything. >> thanks alexa, public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is

closed, any further comments colleagues? thoughts? all right. all those in favor of approval please say aye >>-a- >> all opposed say no grants are approved. thank you everybody. [applause] >> thank you. >> all right. we can move to the next item please monica? >> approval of proposed amended guidelines for the use your packet today is the copy of the craft amended guidelines for the use of inpound account accounts punneds, for the city attorney on the grant guidelines, and a resolution

from 2006 from the commission on approving the impont account in general grant guide libraries, this is a discussion and action item. >> thank you. director raphael. >> thank you commissioners, this is an action item, it comes to you, as you recall back in january we presented our budget to you, that has gone to the office. as well as the full commission meeting, has to do with the appropriate use of impound funds, those funds, come to the garbage rates and that needs to be an approval of next sis, between the funding source and what we use them for. as a new director i took them

back what is the basis of our decision for the makes funds, i found approved back in 2007, it seemed like a good time to revisit that memo and take a look at it does it make sense have changes changes, and bring it back to you tonight for your review and approval, the what the memo shows you, the changes are around updating numbers, making it accurate to the current budget season. improving or just going back and looking at discrepancies of things that have changed over time there is outdated information we needed to remove and in terms of substantive, the one piece that had not in there, that is now in there, is the acknowledgment of the next sis between climate and die version

waste -- that come from the production there say significant impacts on that. there is simply an acknowledgment of that nexis and for the commission to weigh in whether it approves the use of impound money, i want to invite joe salem, to talk about how the memo was put together sh and we can answer any questions you have >> good evening commissioners fiscal administrator for the department environment. debbie says most of what i have in this speech. that document before you is provided in a commission in 2007, the only things we have changed, as debbie mentioned, we have updated the budget figures

to update the current fiscal year we removed outdated information about rate processy and included the climate impound portion there. so the material part of the change as debbie said is the client impound component, they feel there is a strong nexis with the climate program, that is detailed in the revised document, it's the last section labelled climate, also that nexis has been vetted and approved by the city attorney's office, we're confident in the

var rasty there. the only thing i want to add is there 11 section relating to biodiversity, we have decided not to add to it. the second page of the document i believe it's the 4th paragraph, second to the last sentence, it has biodiversity you know that as you read through it. that's all i had. i want to recommend and urge the commissioners, to approve the revised guidelines for the use of impound accountses funds, we will take any questions you may have >> thank you joe >> sure. second time is easier >> second time is easier, on that note, i have 16 questions i want to ask you. >> excellent, i'm prepared >> but i won't. colleagues? commissioner wald?

did you change the percentages? >> of the other? >> right >> no we did not. >> so it seems to me awfully con certifitive -- conservative, i was surprised when we got to the counsel collusions, the amount you know, the percentage allocations that you have used here with the exception for 0 waste which i assume no one would have any problem with. i don't know that it's necessary or even appropriate to do it now, but maybe you could have a little tickler in your calendars in a year or two, you should really look at the actual allocation. i was surprised at climate 10%.

>> i want to do a point of clarification, it's not 10% of climate activity it's 10% of the impound account >> it says 10% of climate activity from the impound account >> then i'm -- okay. there we go. i'm sorry. my mistake. >> i think it's a little too conservative. >> so the question is whether it's overly conservative to cap our investment of impound account into our climate program, no more than 10% of total activity. if i can just on that note what are some of the drivers in terms of thinking through this obviously, we know nexis.

this is something like a hard science or is it a little bit more judgment calls? >> i'm going to have to defer that probably to debbie or gir mow. that is generally i work on the fiscal side of it. the actual programmatic work in terms of quantifying is a bit aside from my role. giruiemo

-- looking at what is appropriate use of the solid waste impound account. >> thank you guiemo. i think at some point in the future you should revisit those assumptions based on mument pl years of information you have been gathering and tracking >> i think that's a great suggestion commissioner, thank you >> commissionerer stephenson

>> the prior budget had the biodiversity program, that has been removed from the budget >> yeah. >> colleagues if there is no further questions, can with we get a motion to approve the document? >> i move >> move by commissioner stephenson? second by mr. wald. comments? mr. pilpal. >> sorry, it's kind of a boring item, it's my kind of things, both on this item and the next, i want to say, these solid waste issues are complicated, you are hearing grant implications we are hearing grant um, pound and

we will talk about next -- where there is a rate process, that rate process is necessarily adversary y' all, and detailed complicated exhibits lawyers, all kinds of things i want to once again encourage the commission and department to have periodic interested persons, meetings so people like myself nanci, have an opportunity to talk to staff about what is happening, what is recology, what are others doing so we either agree on a path forward, or understand where different people are coming from before it gets to the adversary y' all rate process. unfortunate unfortunately, this policy committee, does not lend itself to that dialogue i'm not suggesting we do this every day or week, but once or twice a

year, there is new thinking with various players, and an opportunity to do that, happy to talk about that offline, in term thes of the specific guidelines this is guidelines documents for this upcoming fiscal year i think it should be more clear that it will be reviewed again either every fiscal year if that is your intent or periodically following a rate process something that tieses it. although. the chart on page three is hipful, it would have been even more helpful to show the entire department's budget or just for these program areas how much of that program area is actually funded. notwithstanding the limit that that staff is suggesting also the administration line previously paid for former deputy osman, who was involved in landfill that is transferred

to jack in 0 waste. so i'm wondering, if that maximum percentage from the waste administration, would will lowers, to 23%, but i don't know what the projected budget is next year i won't inteer fear with that, it would be nice to know what the reality is there. and yeah -- finally this document was only available to me friday afternoon. again, i suspect the audience for this is very small, but complicated things that have implications to other solid waste programs, and mro process, it's better to have these earlier, notwithstanding that i'm happy to talk with staff later on. >> thank you mr. pilpal. public further comments, seeing none comments closed.

further discussion, colleagues? seeing none, we will call the question all those in favor of approve, say aye >> aye. >> aye's have it. approved. thank you. next item monica. >> update on agreement for disposal of san francisco solid waste, solano county. and document in your packet is the san francisco sold waste disposal agree. commercial 0 waste coordinator, and report and discussion >> thank you. this item is informational, there is no action you need to take but in order to set the context better, i have asked guermo rodriguez gir ger row --

guiemollermo -- give >> given this is a dynamic lawyer to lawyer discussion we basically became comfortable with the language to move forward. just this past friday to give you a sense you are seeing this and the public is seeing this for the first time and we acknowledge that. as pokes know, the contract for the ultimate landfill started in 1987. it expires, when the cumulative

total of 15 million tons of waste, has been generated and land filled, the department has done an estimate of when we believe we will reach that 15 million tons based on the department's calculations we believe the end of this year or very early january 2016 we will have exhausted our capacity at the ultimate facility. as you may recall in anticipation of this contract ending the department went through a comprehensive, competitive bid process, which resulted in identification of alternative site. and ecologies, hay road, as a destination for san francisco's solid waste, the presentation you will hear today, and the contract you hear before you will provide you with an understanding of what is new in

the contract specifically second provide you with the overall next steps in time line associated with moving this contract forward, as you can imagine, the department doesn't enter the contract on it's own, it needs authorzation with the board of supervisors, we will walk you through what some of the steps and items are in the contract also here is erick, p, in case there are questions for rekolgcology -- as an additional item to the record, and with that, i will ask jack macy to walk you through the proposed contract. >> thanks guillermo. good evening commissioners, jack

macy 0 waste coordinator for the department, i will give you background, guillermo covered most of it i thought i would give you more background before getting into this specific agreement, just to say, this public process went on for many years (audio cut out) such as by

setting landfill die version rates, and tear tipping fees, also minimizing toxic, and reduce and divert toxics and protocols to identify them those are some of the over arching considerations, both bidders, met them and scored the same, so the final decision is based pretty puch on cost. recology's offer is to use their landfill in uba county, and transporting, by rooking to uba county. this is more expensive than

waste management but overall, recology was less expensive bid by the other. taking 5 million ton, they are to apply for a permit to haul all the way in, you are looking at the bidding process, decided they needed to do an environmental review for the rail spur once they initiated that environmental review, san francisco decided to join as a responsible party. thank you. responsible agency to that environmental review once that vier in a minute review was under way that looked at the rail hall component the city couldn't have an agreement and so the agreement had already been approved through that process by the board, and

actually signed, so that agreement was terminated. so then now what is happening is the environmental is under way, after going forth for a while, recology came in february of 2014, they concluded, given delays in the environmental review and permitting, in order for them to view and permits and construction for facilities of the rail hall that could not be done in time, given we needed something by the end of this year so they recommended that we pursue using the back up grand fill in the agree; the hay landfill is the back up landfill, in order to do that san francisco decided to do an environmental review for that project, that is basically

looking at the halling, recology's hay road -- all of san francisco would fall within that permit. so the issue is looking at the impact of the transportation starting in may of last year, the city employed a consultant team an expert team from the environmental science associations, and they did the analysis, planning we looked at the information they had and determined that a negative declaration should be suitable what is called a [inaudible] negative declaration, is reviewed by planning, then they decided that was sufficient. and as the process goes planning published that that was the beginning of march that provided for a 30 day common period,

there is one appeal on that then the planning commission then acts on that appeal and last thursday the planning commission held a hearing on that appeal, they made a decision, the negative declaration is suitable, was appropriate for the project so they have what is called upheld the appeal. now what happens is that the department representing the city is the project proponent for the landfill agreement. we then need to say, okay, we need to recommend the agreement to the board of supervisors, and when we recommend that agreement along with the associated environmental review. that triggers another 30 day review for a second round of appeal that the board of supervisor, will make the final determination on. skiend of a complicated process happy to answer questions on that, i think what i would like to do is talk about the contract

agreement itself. san francisco, we like to be innovative with waste. we have mechanisms in the agreement. that incentivize die version, and didn't treat all the material going to landfill the same it's not. if we're able to process the trash bin apped remove organicics out of it so what is left is none or insignificant, then the material will have less of a liability on the landfill and less methane gas, we wanted to incentivize that the first agreement is for 15 million tons lit start probably in january, 2016. the key part of the agree, is fees for disposing of the waste,

there is solid waste, and organic waste. if we can remove organ whys that that would be treated differently, and there is a category called beneficial use material landfill is being used as alternative cover, or landfill construction that can be treated differently. essentially, the rates in agreement as i mentioned before, 2273. recology bid on that back in 2009 we're able to keep the rates for the city. now there is two parts to the rate there is basic landfill and -- for solano county they're 7-and-a-half for the feets -- which is more than $20 at the current contract.

still quite favorable, given the current contract goes back to 1987. for the organ why is waste, it's slightly less, only $0.30, i will get to back that. then the components does change over time on the cost of living for the san francisco region i want to talk about additional fees, that are the most innovative part of this agreement, we have two types of feeing one is excess disposal in or agreement to go towards 0 waste that starts out current disposal, and by the end of 2020, we have a 0 waste gol.

2020, is a 0 waste goal we have to drop over 50,000 tons every year down to 20/21, every ton that's above that target we pay an extra fee of $five, we expect we will be paying some tonnage for that that goes into a dedicated 0 waste account, recology goes into a separate waste account, a second fee is a sustainability fee. that is the idea of trying to promote sustain ability -- remove the organic portion that has the biggest impact on landfilling, and long term client imimpact we will charge for that additional $10 if it

has organics in it, if it's solid was waste, we charge 15. and beneficial use material, wauz because it meet criteria -- essentially, we have 10 and 15 $5 different if it's organic free. those money go into the 0 waste account, now you are wondering, about the 0 waste account what we have created is a mechanism, we have an account, that will be mutually determined, to increase diverse, to get us toward the 0 waste goal or reduce. handling material not just the landfilling portion or the reality is as long as we're out there, driving trucks and collecting ma