chairperson campos: good afternoon, and welcome to be lafco meeting. my name is david campus. we're joined by committee vice chair ross mirkarimi, as well as commissioner lia pimentel. i want to thank members of the audience for being here today. covering the meeting for sfgtv are caroline and derrick. >> please make sure to turn off all cellular phones and pagers. chairperson campos: thank you very much. madam clerk, could you please call item no. 2? >> approval of the minutes for the meeting february 28, 2011, special lafco meeting. chairperson campos: colleagues, i believe you have a copy of the meeting minutes. any comments or changes to those minutes? and we open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public to like to speak on this item? seeing none, public, disclosed. emotion? -- a motion. we take that without objection. madam clerk, item three? >> report on the status of community choice aggregation activities, san francisco program, state legislation consideration of their resolution of support for sb 790, report on legislation affecting committee choice

>> well, we have our lafco hearing, i believe, is set for april 25. if we don't have an sfpc joint hearing, the idea would be that i wanted that available for public review a sufficient time prior to our hearing. but it's available publicly at that time so we can set our hearing depending on what hearing we want to have any time after that date. i was thinking in our next regularly scheduled meeting. vice chairperson mirkarimi: so it sounds like there has to be some kind of negotiation between us, lafco and the budget committee. two months from the time that this was postponed puts us up into early to mid april. from budget committee. and i know that budget committee would love to entertain this before we get into the significant depth of our budget process which are hits the ground in april -- may. i think we want to avoid that process. >> so the chair and committee members are aware, i started to have a discussion with superviser chu's office about doing a joint meeting with us and then on this very subject, we probably do it during one of the regul

nutter, a report was commissioned by lafco. it took some time to have that initial report finalized. we had to go through a competitive bid process. once that happens, the vendor had two or three weeks to do a very quick survey on where we are all relative to other jurisdictions. we believe and i certainly believe it is important for us as we're making these decisions that we have a context for what is happening in the region and what we're doing in san francisco and how that compares to other cities. as was noted, there are some things, a number of things that came out in the report. one of them, which i think is an accurate statement is that indeed it verifies that there is a survey provided by recology. in terms of the extensive list of the service, and the results for the ratepayers of san francisco. that something that three comforting. -- that is something that's very comforting. recology and department of environment have been very helpful in working with lafco to make sure we have the information needed for this assessm

>> approval of the minutes for the meeting february 28, 2011, special lafco meeting. chairperson campos: colleagues, i believe you have a copy of the meeting minutes. any comments or changes to those minutes? and we open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public to like to speak on this item? seeing none, public, disclosed. emotion? -- a motion. we take that without objection. madam clerk, item three? >> report on the status of community choice aggregation activities, san francisco program, state legislation consideration of their resolution of support for sb 790, report on legislation affecting committee choice aggregation programs, status on marin clean energy, and status of proceedings at california public utilities commission. >> this will be sort of a tag team for item three. i will be presenting a few of these items. i intend to cover an update on where we are in the negotiations on clean power sf, a status update with petrol solar, and update on what is going on in iran, as well as regulatory and legislative update. and we may have more to add

that's something that also came up at lafco. recology has invested in quite a bit of recycling and composting infrastructure. some of the special programs cost money. there was a lot of talk about apples to apples and if oakland was a fair comparison. supervisors kim: that was a little frustrating in the lafco report. it was hard to discern what the cost of all these programs were. i think there's probably a general consensus here to continue this item. i would like to see what the cost of these additional services are that, for example, other jurisdictions do not have. according to the report, many other jurisdictions have community clean-up days and compost giveaways and many of the things recology provides, which i think is great. i love that recology provides these services to our city. just to get a sense of what the benefits are. we have a sense of whether the residential rates are comparable and whether the fees are comparable compared to the services that other jurisdictions are getting. it would be good to get that. cou

one of them is the lafco study. some of you may have been at the meeting on monday where an initial study was presented regarding waste management systems in the bay area and comparing the san francisco system to other systems. what the study found was that our system is effective and we have the highest diversion rate of many counties. it is comprehensive. we of many different materials that are handled in our system. it's also cost-effective. for ratepayers, our rates are slightly below or at comparable rates. we did get confirmation from the study that the system that we have now is currently working. what we heard from the meeting on monday is that there is interest in looking at and considering franchise fees, open bidding, and contractual agreements with recology and integrating any of those elements into our current system. the lafco study was continued and the consultant is looking back to look at those elements. this is important for the collection portion of our refuse system, which relates to the 1932 ord

i think there are a couple of legal issues that i would ask lafco help you with into. if you have a franchise agreement the, how can the money be used legally? can that go directly to the general fund? are there limitations on the use of those funds? i want to know more about the 1932 ordinance. it is a lot of discussion about what the ordinance supposedly says and does. i think it is important for us to have

i think there are a couple of legal issues that i would ask lafco help you with into. if you have a franchise agreement the, how can the money be used legally? can that go directly to the general fund? are there limitations on the use of those funds? i want to know more about the 1932 ordinance. it is a lot of discussion about what the ordinance supposedly says and does. i think it is important for us to have more specific information of what it actually says. the question i had is whether or not the department of public health can issue permits under the ordinance. if that is the case, we might have a situation where there is no change in the charter required. if you look at the language of the ordinance when it talks about the permit, it says the permits granted by the director of public health shall not be exclusive. one or more persons or firms may be given a permit to collect from the same route. i do not know what that means exactly. but i think it is important for us to have a better sense of what the implications of the language of the ordinance actually are. m

one of the three objections of -- objectives of lafco is to preserve agricultural land resources. what concerns do you have about taking our black box non- recyclable garbage to a local landfill in yuba county, which is surrounded by agricultural land, and which has a large offer for 30 feet from the surface of the land? our concern -- what kind of garbage is recology proposing to send to yuba county? organic or inorganic? at a november meeting, the director and inorganic, but we now know that what goes in the black box includes dog, cat, and the the waste -- baby waste. there are an estimated 120,000 dogs and 100,000 cats in san francisco. public library says there are 25,000 babies two and under. they use an average five or more diapers per day, which means 125 soil baby diapers per day going into the black box. that is a lot of organic matter produced by dogs, cats, and babies. so what? organic matter produces methane, a greenhouse gas contributing to global warming. the concentration of landfill gas must not exceed 5%. the latest site inspection report at the landfill showed 1

supervisor mirkarimi: miss nutter, thank you for being here and working with the lafco staff to make sure we have as much information as we can have. >> she and her staff were always available to us as consultants. there were very professional in providing data. i believe we will get nothing but cooperation from her staff and your current provider. >> i am here to address you on the study commissioned. i thought i would put a chart here on the overhead projector that may answer some of the questions. you may not be able to see that well. this charge is provided to all of you. it was distributed this morning. you should have at your desks. it may be in the package provided to you. it shows the effective franchise fees currently receive for the city and county of san francisco is about 10%. this chart adds up all of the fees paid directly to the city from recology through the rate setting process and the free services. some include the fees paid directly to the city. those are in pound accounts, vehicle license fees, debris box permit fees, business tax, and facility permit fees. that

>> welcome to the special meeting for lafco, april 18, 2011. supervisor campos: i am david campos, commissioner. we're joined by ross mirkarimi and commissioners pimental and commissioner avalos. madame clerk, please call item no. two. >> approval of the minutes from previous meeting. supervisor campos: you have the minutes before you from the march meeting. we have a motion to except. is there any public comment on those minutes? c. non, public comment is closed. we have a motion from supervisor mirkarimi. we will take that without objection. call the next item. >> item # 3 is the study for a refugse collection in the greatr bay area. >> this is an item we have been working on for a few weeks. the board of supervisors is considering an item to issue a contract -- a landfill contract considered at the budget and finance meeting a few weeks ago. we have been conducting a study of how other jurisdictions deal with the issue of refuse collection, transportation, and disposal. to present on the item is our executive officer, nancy miller. >> we com

. >> ♪ well, hello, lafco and recology make it good, recology it is so nice to have you back where youelong the city is looking swell, recology i can tell, recology you are still going you are still growing you are still hauling strong one of those -- i will take up all those old-time landfill garbage from way back when golly, gee, board fellas why don't you recycle it up, and then you will sell them make it better, recology, once again ♪ [applause] >> sometimes you need a song to take all the tension out of the room. commissioner campos: next speaker. >> hello. i cannot very well top that. i was president of sun said scavenger company 1965 through 1985. i work for waste management for 10 years and sanitary service after that. toynbee and we had a tremendous amount of experience working with smaller companies and larger companies. when i became president of the company, san francisco was facing a difficult crisis, filling the day with garbage. we were able to work with the city government of san francisco, and the city of san francisco recognize the scavengers were experts in the solid

we urge the lafco commissioners to support the current refuse system that works for san francisco. thank you very much for your time today. commissioner campos: thank you. i have a quick follow-up -- one of the things that stood out to me was the abatement report. i wonder whether or not you agree or disagree with what they are saying. this is what it says -- "while no apparent service lapses or voids have occurred, it does not appear that recology is contractually obligated to negotiate with san francisco or continue providing services." >> it is true we do not currently have a contract in place. that is true. but again, from our experience, we have not seen any lapses in services for any reason to be concerned about the service that recology is providing. if there was a lapse in service, we could quickly reassigned those permits to another entity to enter the service does not stop in san francisco. commissioner mirkarimi: thank you. i agree with the overture with regard to recology. it does provide an excellent service, and it is a hallmark that it is employee-owned, and it is so