into the ostrom road . in yuba county, and then going by rail rather than truck. -- into the ostrom road area in yuba county. the proposed two agreements are proposed to increase rates 3%. the monthly rates paid by a single family residence with a 32-gallon waste container would increase by 82 cents, from $27.55, a 3% increase. however, supervisors, unlike waterways, charged by the public utilities, which are subject to the board of supervisors, neither residential and more commercial refuse collections are subject to the board of supervisors' approval. under this 1932 ordinance, residential refuse collection rates are subject to approval by the director of public works. if the rates are appealed, then there is a subject to the rate board, which is composed of the city administrator, the controller, and the director of the public utilities commission. in fact, unlike residential rates, collection rates paid by san francisco businesses are not subject to approval by either the director of public works or the

assumption 3, you county is satisfied with the current ostrom road landfill permit. not true. san francisco is immune to a recology shell game tactic. not true. you have been given complete data. not true. yuba county has been used. san francisco has been used. as a former supervisor of placer county said to me recently, san francisco is a wholly owned subsidiary of recology. this record i told i and my hand is from the board of supervisors yesterday morning in view of county, documenting all the facts of this. the original use permit is under question now, and one supervisor accepts that it is a consideration for us to close the ostrom road landfill. now, you have an obligation to the people of san francisco, not to recology. recology has no obligation to the people of san francisco or to the people of you but county. your obligation is to make the best decision possible. not to rubber stamp and unsatisfactory decision. act on the best information possible and available. listen to the people. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> hello. i'm a resident

goes into compost -- it keeps us green, our san francisco people green, but i am concerned about ostrom road, because i hope things do not go in there increase in methane. i am concerned about things other than dirt that cover. i would like to see it so it does not produce any methane anymore, especially if it is going to be commingled with san francisco waste. something came out last september that said that waste management was running their trucks on san francisco garbage. well, in the fine print, it is the historic waste. so, in closing, i think i would like to say harvey milk's legacy. i wish i could take the dog poop and put it in this corn-based, disposable baggy and dispose of it properly. chair chu: thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am doug from a towing company. we are a local towing company and a supplier of services in san francisco. we support the proposal to reevaluate the city's proposals for the transport of municipal waste. i do not think anybody believes traffic congestion will improve in the near future, and this will produce a sizable number of trucks

the cost to transport the materials by rail to the ostrom road landfill includes transport to the intermodal yard in alameda county, and it is destined to be approximately $30 per ton in $2,009. the average cost of transport by truck to the ultimate landfill and organic materials to the hero of landfill is currently approximately $18.33 per ton, so i guess the question still is vague on looking in the competitive aspect of that one swipe that i think is a point of concern and interest here, why we cannot just zero in a little bit more in pulling out what is the best deal sense what was noted in their response, suggested that this was an afterthought by supplemental response, so therefore, i would think that it would also be an afterthought to try to get still a more competitive bid. >> just one comment on that. we received a letter from waste management after we had gone through the process in which they have put together a table and estimated their cost to transport waste to the landfill, which was $19.50 a ton, which is higher than what we are currently paying for recology. supervisor mirk