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 complete the environmental review 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 material and using energy to process material, we're using energy for emotion

missions there are ways to reduce that using more bio gas for trucks or using equipment that uses less energy, those are the two criteria, helping us move toward 0 waste, reducing climate impact, all of that can come out of the 0 waste fund. what is good about that in reality of going to 0 waste, we need to process the black bin i have spenlt years looking at the material there is a locality of cost of that my concern is how we fund that. we don't want to come to rate payers and hit them hard this provides an opportunity to fund that, and link reducing landfill. if we are going over to further reduce landfilling, a nice tie in there. that is about the fees then the last kind of part about the landfill i want to highlight

that is unique for typical landfills, this continues from the current agreement. there is a reserve fund that will be funded by 1% surcharge on all of the solid waste collected, that money creates a separate fund that will go up to $10 million, it's like an emergency contingency fund or costs that get incurred, that recology may not get with the rate process. it's a long process, that takes nearly a year. there are things that recology needs to do that they can use this fund p for until this rate process. it's a temporary stopgap fund, it's limited under the current

agreement. we have capped it at 10 million versus 15. -- not to take more time that key features otherwise, it's a lot of legal language that is standard. just finally, the next steps after this public meeting director recommend the agreement to the board, we will be sending a memo to the board of supervisors, they cal end der it, and 30 days, before they act on it our hope is to have board meeting, and act on it in july if they don't do that we will be into the fall, we want to give ourselves, leeway, if this is not done by of the year when we need it we're in a position to pay waste management

whatever they want us too, which is outside the current contract i will leave it at that and see if you have any questions, thank you. >> thank you jack. >> tom owe wen, city attorney's office, it's worth pointing out, some of the fees that mr. macy is discussing going into the 0 waste account will not be directly disposed they may require separate approval by the board of supervisors. >> the agreement expresses the intent of the city. >> thank you jack. questions from the commission? >> i got one p nobody?

director raphael? >> thank you jack for the presentation, and guillermo, for setting the context, i know it's late this is important to us that we have a viable contract that not only allows the city the necessity of disposing of solid waste, but also incentive'ize the beltway yorss, that we want, something complicated like this has many steps in play what is important to us is where we come and from now here it goes to the board of supervisors where they will have another public meeting, and weigh in then it comes back to the department. we wanted to make sure you understood a point in time in the process we have been working on this very diligently for a number of years now. it's coming to a head, wen't waed to give you the heads up of where it is in the process, and

to let people know where it's going next so that's really the point of tonight. >> thank you director raphael, i have a question which is around jobs. and we have our new commissioner comes among the different lenses she looked at with this work, whether it's community, small business also labor, and jobs, i come from the same school as well. one of the things about the way we have done 0 waste in the city and county. i became aware of back in 2009, that is peer 96 at where recology, sf environment, the port supervisor max well at that time came together had a strong, cutting edge resource at the peer 96 resource

recycling -- let's look for entry level jobs the first source of the program, let'ses find entry level jobs and connect the term is qualified economically disadvantaged residence with those opportunities, it was creative at that time it dug deep in identifying zip codes as to hunters point, and 134 in visitation valley and there is a lot of folks that came in through the entry level jobs and a lot of work molded upon that. with 2010, become key elements that supervisor avalos authorized, that is most successful of it's kind any war, a lot of that comes back to the work that does done