i heard the gentleman from r3. some of the questions he answered. other things he did not know the answers to. i urge you to take the time to get the kind of answers that you seek, to find out the truth of these things. codifying these agreements. who is paying what. there are many folks in this room that could tell you the answers that the gentleman from r3 does not even know. it was a good report. not complete. i urge you to take the time. get the answers you seek. i did not know about pier 80, of brisbane. i would like to see the citizens of san francisco benefit. i'm not hearing that. recology does not have any barging facilities in place. they do not even have any landfills. it is not really cost-effective for them if they do not have a place to barge. as i said, there is no doubt they are a good company that does good work, worker-owned and all that. but we deserve to get the best possible deal for the ratepayers moving forward. thank you. commissioner campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning, commissioners. i do not mean to rep

commissioner campos: just a follow-up -- was this information shared with r3? >> yes. it was sent on the morning of wednesday, april 13. >> yes, that is correct. was too late to make it in the final report, and that is why you have that as a separate item. commissioner campos: that goes to my earlier point. this information, it probably is the first time for me that i have seen anything that details the amount that is paid by recology to the city. it makes sense if you go back and get more information that this is information that they take into account. just a final point about the breakdown -- who decided what the amount would be, the 10.6%, and we decided the allocation of the fees -- who decided the allocation of the fees? >> my understanding is it is part of the process between recology and the city. commissioner campos: in other jurisdictions -- oakland being one of them -- the city council actually has a say over rates. to your knowledge, the board of supervisors has never opined on what the amount should be or what the allocation of these funds should be? >> no

r3. one and 2 family homes. even new ones, which is not under the jurisdiction of the fire department. we will allow new buildings to have fire escapes if they can show reasonable standard for why they cannot put in a conforming stair sway. fire escapes are essentially providing a legal second stairway. it's not quite a second stairway. that's 60 to 70 degrees. the fire department does to the agree and the more hazardous. >> if it was built, we allow you to maintain them. >> speaking of maintenance. we will get to maintenance later. we have people that do fire escape maintenance. going back to talking about the elements, we have access to the fire escape and then we have a fire escape balcony, they need a balcony to get access. you don't climb out directly on to a ladder. for one and 2 family dwellings, but there are very few of them. we had an exception under there for no balconies. they are almost always required >> jomes are not allowed. they are pole ladders and they open up into a vertical ladder, their pro

i urge you to continue this matter, get the report from r3 when they come back. do not think about making a decision. thank you. >> [unintelligible] san francisco bay railroad. each of the items are easily answerable as to why you should not act now. first of all, as you heard, there is no host feet in yuba county regionfee -- fee in yuba county. ratepayers, under the agreement, would shoulder that tab. there is no host the in this brisbane regionfee -- fee in this brisbane facility. there has not been a single public hearing. there has been no input. all we have to go by is the word of the department of the environment. at the last budget financing committee, the supervisor s staff who owned the transfer station. it is embarrassing that you heard that they did not know who owned it. the rate payers have paid billions for a private asset and the staff to your department did not know the answer. you have a fiduciary duty to look for the answers. to do the right thing. to hold public hearings. is not just these contracts. this is actually the future of how we contr

commissioner campos: just a follow-up -- was this information shared with r3? >> yes. it was sent on the morning of wednesday, april 13. >> yes, that is correct. was too late to make it in the final report, and that is why you have that as a separate item. commissioner campos: that goes to my earlier point. this information, it probably is the first time for me that i have seen anything that details the amount that is paid by recology to the city. it makes sense if you go back and get more information that this is information that they take into account. just a final point about the breakdown -- who decided

to that end, we would be very happy to work with r3 to assist in a more thorough analysis to assist -- to determine how san francisco and oakland are very much different. commissioner campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning. i m a user of the dump facility both in san francisco and in south san francisco, so i have a little different perspective from the fine gentleman that spoke earlier. i feel as though san francisco is being taken over the barrel, essentially. for me, as a user, i pay $144 a ton in san francisco and $89 a ton in south san francisco, so i think that same discrepancy is being applied to residential users as well as commercial users. my second point is the proposed dump-week lynn, california. as you know, that is a watershed -- dump in wheatland, california. as you know, that is a watershed where they want to located. because trash is not inspected, there is no saying as to the toxicity of users in these dumpsites. although san francisco has a wonderful recycling program, other counties have nothing at all. so their trash mixed with our trash, and if t

we want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the work that r3 did in the report. we were very pleased by the comments that they made about how we conduct our business and the things we do for the city. everything has already been said a few times already, but i would like to comment on a couple of things. i guess we just see the world from a different point of view. there is no contract, as you know, with the city, but -- we have -- the mentioned 23 communities in the bay area that we have contracts with. around the state, would probably have about 100 contracts. i do not think any ~ well are alike. -- i do not think any two are alike. we began providing service in san the tail on january 1 of this year. those 12 agencies have a standard form agreement that provides all the legal terms about what we are obligated to do. every city has decided they want some slightly different little services. they all want a different franchise fee. they have others that are added on to that. in that area, where branded state of the art agreements, if you can call of that, no two