>> we are back in the meeting of the budget and finance committee. we will continue on with our agenda items. >> item number 10, ordinance

contract in -- resolution authorizing the seventh disco fire department to amend the department ambulance billing contract with adpi west that anticipates approximately 20 million per year in revenues, authorize the first two-year contract extension, retroactively approve the first contract extension at the department's discretion. >> we would like to extend our contract. we conducted a process in april, 2005 of an ambulance services. this shows -- as the vendor which is now known as adpi west inc.. this is a four-year contract

with the two-year extensions. could we are seeking to authorize at their discretion two options. this item before you is a third amendment to the contract. the first amendment was this a change in scope of the contract with in the revenue collections on updated accounts with the vendor. the goal is to convert to the department's medical records systems from paper based to electronic based which would include billing collection. prior to this project, all patient reports or completely paper based and sent to radical records for safekeeping. and to implement this project, they required a significant capital investment and to insist

-- assist the department. a large cost was paid by the vendor for which the department can repay the vendor. the department completed >> for this project in june of 2010. for the purpose of the remaining amendments, it would only be on the next elections. >> this third amendment is comprised of two major changes to the contract. one would be the authorizing of the contract for two years. extending the contract until june of 2012. the department has completely repaid the obligations. i apologize for the delay in presenting this item. the department's understanding of the original resolution approving the contract henican the department the ability to approve the contract at its

discretion. the city attorney recommended that the original language in new original resolution was not sufficient to authorize the department to do so and the department needed to submit it through the board of supervisors. first, it had to go to the commission and then to the board which necessitated the the late. the department has a very positive working relationship. there is implementation of our electronic records program. this assisted us with regard to any information as well as any medical regulations. they also have assisted the department with revenues by working with hospitals to gain data to support the patients that we transfer. every year, the department has seen an increase in overall revenue as well as the call

reimbursement. in 2009, 2012, revenues exceeded $20 million. the legislation is to authorize the department to retroactively extend the contract and the department to add the second year term at a later date. any substantial changes to the agreement would be before the board but for the department's request, any extension would clearly be a time-related. if there are any questions, i am more than happy to answer them. >> the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, members of the committee, which have nothing to add other than to recommend you approve this legislation. >> there is an indication that the department -- that the fire department did give them money for the cost of the data system. is that something that becomes the property of the city?

>> absolutely. >> says the city has fulfilled its obligations, -- >> are there any other questions from the committee? if not, why don't we open this up for public comment? are there any that wish to comment on item 10? seeing none, public comment is closed. okay, we have a motion to send this to the full board of recommendations. thank you. now, the item we have been waiting for. item number 11. >> resolution approving a 10- year landfall disposal agreement and facilitation agreement with recology san francisco under charter section 9.118. >> i want to thank everyone for their patience.

>> good afternoon. i am the chair of the department of the impairment. the for you is the authorization to enter into a new landfill contract and a new dose of such an agreement with -- a new facilitation agreement with recology. the proposed agreement is an arrangement that we believe will benefit all people of san francisco. if approved, this contract will save rate-payers $130 million over the life of the contract and its carbon footprint will be significantly smaller. reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that are

released into the atmosphere. based on the fact that you will be presented today, we hope that you will come to the same conclusion which is that the contract is a good deal for san francisco rate-payers and a good deal for the environment. here, i have a presentation that i would like to walk through that will go through the process we have undertaken and also answer any questions you have. hello, supervisor campos, thank you for joining us. the current landfill agreement was established in 1988. this is an agreement with waste management of alameda county. the terms of that contract is that it was good for 15 million tons of disposal or it would end at 65 years, whichever came first. because we're coming up to the 15 million tons of disposal, we are looking for a revised plan to contract. one item to note is that this

contract, the one that was established in 1988, was not competitively bid. the landfill contract before you today is the first competitively bid contract for san francisco. san francisco is projected to reach our contract capacity limit in less than five years. apologies for the delay, the computer has about a 10-second delay in changing slides for some reason. there was an expensive search process -- extensive search process. this began in 2006 where the environment department was charged with overseeing the process of finding a new contractor through our city administrator. following that, the environment commission and be administrator coordinated public hearings in 2007. there were five of them total and a day resulted in the

overarching consideration guidelines for the process which i will go through in detail. following that, there was a comprehensive rfq process where every landfill in the state of california was invited to bid. following that, there was an extensive process in 2009 where two finalists were able to meet the criteria and became finalists as part of this process. once a finalist was selected, a contract negotiations started in 2010. the overarching considerations that did come out of the process that i just referred to comprised of minimizing and mitigating the climate impact of any landfill contractor or landfill that we selected, incentivizing landfill diversion which is recycling and

composting. finding that which would be complying with the reduce, reuse, recycle principle and minimizing the life cycle use. reducing toxins. minimizing environmental and other impacts on how the community is addressing the issues it combined with the flow control and legal issues and preparing for a contingency and diversifying our options. the two finalists wanted to give you a snapshot. this is off of the recology web site. they are headquartered in san francisco. they are the largest employee- owned company in the industry. they have been honored many times. they're also one of the largest 100% employee-owned companies

with a substantial minority representation on its shareholders. more than five generations ago, they pioneered recycling and up to 50% of the waste stream long before cycling became fashionable or mandated by law. the other finalist was waste management. they're based in houston, texas. they have about 45,000 employees who are committed to to the environmental responsibility. they aren't looking to -- waste management posted a 11.7 9 billion of revenues in 2009 for their shareholders. the valuation of proposals, there was a panel that was assembled to look at these proposals. that panel was comprised of ed

lee, the in our mental services director, the deputy director for our department, the department of the environment. this entire process followed all legal requirements and provide a significant opportunities and followed all city requirements and protocols. of course, the first and most important element reviewed was the cost. i have a number of slides i would like to go through that will show you all of the different elements that were evaluated by the panel and what was concluded. in the first slide you have is did cost comparison between landfills, this is a snapshot for 2009. there is both a column for recology and waste management and shows what was included in the bids.

the host fee income also included is the transportation cost. as you will note, this was not and did out -- bid out. recology has a $30 transportation fee. waste management has an $18 transportation fee. this was calculated if -- was chosen and our ways was taken there by trucks, any of the additional costs are included in the cost. and this is per ton. finally, there is a total. the recology fee came out to $50 per ton. "waste management was $91.

this is a snapshot with the same numbers for 2011. and number of county fees had been increased and as you will see, the cost has gone up a couple of dollars as this process went along. there is a larger -- between the two bids. regarding the fee analysis, a couple of points to note that the panel took a look at. historically, the alameda county fees have gone up annually where the fees in yuba county have remained stable for about 15 years. al ltd. county fees have increased by 21%. in contrast, he accounting only has a host county. i will show you a chart. if you but county was to increasehe