of supervisors sends this on to the ballot with a unanimous vote. we show that you care about this public and you are hitting it head on. >> good afternoon. my name a laura bell and i'm a clinical social workers and i have children. i have helped young mom's whose homes i have come into where the baby bottles are filled with coke. i asked them why are you feeding the child two-year-old coquina bottle and they say it's cheaper than milk. i'm thrilled that i a huge portion of this money is going towards education because a lot of mom's don't mean to do the wrong thing. they are not educated. the money that goes

towards education in this bill just makes me feel so proud of this city and what we are doing. so i really support it and thank you very much for your work. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on this item, please come forward. >> good afternoon. item kate listen with the parks alliance. it's a busy day for parks and we are happy to be here in support of the tax. i want to speak on behalf of the organization that we represent through our par ner program that are also in support of these sodas tax. the hidden garden, friends of plaza park and we strongly encourage you to pass this along and we are excited for this tax. thank you.

>> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, mr. chairman, may we close public comment? >> public comment is now closed. >> colleagues, i thank you for this time and thank you to the departmental staff and thank you to the public. it is time to pass this out of committee to the full board of supervisors. i want to acknowledge and thank the teamsters for being here today. i had numerous conversations with the teamsters before and after and regularly over time i understand that it is a challenging issue for the union. i also know the teamsters believe in public health as well and there are many many healthy products at the teamsters members bring to our stores and our city for

our residents. i want to thank the other representative of labors from ufcw and aft who were here as well and i want to thank you for continuing the discussion in the labor community and beyond. i also wanted to just reiterate supervisor mar's thank you to our staff because this has just been a terrific joint effort among various offices. which you don't always see that happening but a really coequal collaboration and i really want to thank jeff in my office, peter from supervisor mar's office and supervisor cohen's office. with that, mr. chairman i make a motion to forward the soda tax to the full board to the supervisors with a positive recommendation. >> thank you very much. i

will call the roster. supervisor breed? >>supervisor london breed: i just want to make a comment because this is a difficult process for me because i'm adamant leo posed to putting forth a beverage tax period. i wanted to make sure that i checked in with folks that i know people that i support, checked in with my community and formally. i know there has been a study at ucsf and looking at other data about this and just really trying to connect the data to actual people that i know in my community who are kids who drink sugary soft drinks and trying to make the connection. eye still -- i have still not been able to do that. the data is there and i'm not disputing the data, but the data relates to my experience is not connected. that doesn't mean

it's actually not correct data. i'm not part of the beverage industry or any corporation. so i guess in some ways i do resent the fact that it's implied that if you don't support this tax that you are somehow associated with the beverage industry folks who are unfortunately targeting our community to oppose this tax in the first place. i get that. but everyone has the right to purchase what they want. they have the right to drink what they want. they have the right to do what it is they want and i realize that this is a real challenge especially with young people and in poorer communities, but the problem that i have, the bigger problem that i have which i said before is where are the healthier alternatives. single family house -- i know supervisor mar said the

bottled water in schools. where are these items to purchase because kids are going to purchase these items. the programs we talk about funding don't always support the kids that we are talking about changing the behaviors. there is no direct connection to ensure that the population that we are talking about that's impacted by diabetes how are they going to be directly supported through the health care industry, through the schools, through the non-profits. i understand why you are moving this forward. i understand that there is a lot of research and supporters that want to put this forward. i'm fine to send this to the voters to decide on this issue. i want to make it clear that i don't support it and i don't think it's a good idea

and there are better ways for utilizing resources to address better health and snaeft safety in our neighborhoods and i wanted to make it clear. >> supervisor mar? >>supervisor eric mar: i want to thank supervisors for bringing these issues. i know from alternatives besides water that this soda tax exempt 100 percent fruits and vegetable drinks and milk secretary -- substitute like soy. the effort that we are taking with matt haney and others in the school district with other board of education

members and their sustainability department to ensure there is strong access to water stations. i wanted to say that supervisor breed and others have raised other questions too about sodas and other types of sugary and i will just say that christina gota and from department of public health that liquid forms of sugar are different from consuming cakes or other types of products that in many ways the impact on the liver and also our body doesn't tell us to stop consuming sugary beverages and that's critical between sugary beverages in drinks like this. our

coalition s f has been great in getting this out there. the campaign is leading to more opportunities in the high school and not just here but centers four youth population is getting the message out there. i'm hoping these types of questions that keep coming up will see youth oriented ways to explain many different communities. i think it was reverend walker from the bayview that said that science is on our side. i think if we go through all the hearings on the impact on the african american community and latino that i think that scenes -- science comes out and i think it's important for our department to raise awareness in schools and public places as well. i want to say every single pen will be spent in an accountable way. supervisor

laid out at different hearings that an independent body of parents, health experts and youth and others will over see how to money is spent. the $30-50 million a year is going to be accountable to make sure it's going to schools, parks and open space and department of public health and the community base organizations that will help with the process. the last thing, that it's not just san francisco, i will be cheering and many of us cheering on voters as they address their soda tax as well. i think on a national level as others have said, the centers for science in the public interest yale for obesity and public health add vocey are looking into san francisco and how our communities respond to the onslaught of political mailers from the american befrnl

beverage association and others and apparent and youth and others the david and goliath battle this soda. i think we are going to be a strong supporter. i would like to thank all of those that have been here from the beginning for many many years. i'm very proud that we'll be moving this forward today and then to the full board. >> supervisor avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: thank you, i want to make sure that my support is clear and i'm in full support of this measure going to the ballot. i want to thank supervisor wiener and mar for their support on this and the partnership as well and of

course many of the community members who are also fighting for this measure. it does many things and helps bring revenue for some parks and providing help inform many -- families and we are promoting health as well. the cost of the impacts of sugar sweetened befrms -- beverage are great. this cost of what this tax will be and we know the cost of going, the everyday cost of taking people to the hospital are enormous in terms of time and effort and energy and the cost of medical care can be great. we can be minimizing those cost and the impact of cost have beverages is going to be. i'm

actually very disgusted by the beverage industry and the money they have spent and the cost that it will be, it's literally disgusting. that's the policy they play in san francisco. there is a strong grass roots to education for the ballots to show that this will prevail. thank you. look forward to this in november. >> supervisor wiener? >> >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you. i want to thank you for your comments. supervisor breed you and i have been on a multi-dialogue and back and forth on this conversation. i want to thank you for really length and being willing to

send this to the voters. i preernt -- appreciate that. i also appreciate breed's acknowledge in the data and science here. what everyone's view is, the data and science really are disputable at this point. the data in terms of the linkages between these beverages and very serious diseases deflecting our community, diabetes, liver disease, other health problems thab -- that are dproeshtly impacting the community. the data and science validating this tax. dr. come dom go who

presented a study showing the alkaline of this. our own city economist as well as the actual experience that we are seeing in mexico which quickly saw a decline in consumption after the passage of mexico's soda tax last year. we know in this country that a series of cigarette taxes over the years have been the single most important things in collapsing smoking rates in the country and savings lives. the same arguments we hear p the soda tax or against the soda tax we heard against cigarette taxes that it's trying to dictate people and what to do and people are going to buy cigarettes anyway and it's not going to work. we know it's work and this is going to work as well. i appreciate everyone's open mind and look forward to sending this to

the full board with a positive recommendation. >> just a few comments. i'm very sensitive to concerns raised about this esh, but at the end of the day i come out as an apparent and i can't deny what i have seen and recognize we have a health issue. we need to be moving in this direction and really focusing on this issue from a health perspective and the way this is constructed is very appropriate for that and i want to commend supervisor mar and wiener for all of the hard work. i know this campaign has been going on for a while. i know there is much to come. with reservation i will be voting for this and supporting it. we have a motion on the floor and a

second. madam clerk, will you do a roll call on that. >> motion by supervisor mar, aye, avalos aye, breed, hee, wiener, aye. 5 ayes. [ applause ] okay. 5 ayes. that item will be sent to the full board with a full recommendation to the committee. madam clerk the next item up item no. 9. mr. wagner is here. city clerk: item no. 9. leasing of equipment. >> thank you. wagner from the department of public health. we have code change before you today. it's a minor amendment to clarify that we would be able to take advantage of

certain types of lease transactions for the procurement of equipment of the new san francisco general hospital. as you maybe aware that we currently have under the admin code authority the purchase through the university health systems consortium which is a group that allows hospital to pull our purchasing power with other hospitals to get more favorable rates. we think for the new hospital there are several pieces of equipment that would be financially advantageous to lead through this current system. however it's currently am ambiguous about our code. i want to get clarifying language to allow the tool for savings near the for the budget. >> okay. do we have a budget

analyst report. we'll open up to public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues can we send this forward. we have a motion and a second by supervisor avalos and we'll take that without objection. madam clerk, call item no. 10. city clerk: resolution amending resolution 265-13 to revise the scope of the work for an emergency trt from six to five digesters at the southeast water pollution control plant and increase the contract not to exceed $14, 535, 427. >> i'm with the san francisco public utilities commission here to request an amendment to no. 265-13 regarding the

south treatment plant in the bayview hunters point neighborhood. i would like to take a brief moment to refresh the memory to talk about the digesters of these facilities. we have nine digesters that have 50 percent of our wastewater. there are 100 feet diameter large tank. the basic function is their responsive of solid waste and using anaerobic digestion process which destroys the pathogens in the sludge and the biosolids that can be used for land application. during the november 7, 2012, the staff operation discovered a large accumulation of sludge

off one of the digesters. with the quick action by operation, they were able to safe the digester from complete collapse. so in retrospect, on november, 27, 2012, the sf usage manager claerd -- declared an emergency room to declare the repair. this digester of the treatment plant which resulted in another emergence in march 2013 for digester no. 4, 7, 6, 8 ands 10 and 3 and 4. from

august 2, 2013. the board of supervisors approved the emergency work for the replacement of this work from six digesters. so the current status of this emergency to date we have completed repairs to three of the six digester covers and both of the cake bins. these repairs have improved the reliability and compliance. during the course of this emergency work, we encountered a situation such as hazardous led and as bes stos and required for removal and found extensive corrosion and also required design changes for the structural modification of these digest ers. they were built in 1952. they have out lived it's

useful life. all of these aspects have contributed to request amend our resolution which is not to include exceed $9 million. in addition, due to the accumulation, they decided to redesign a new pump system which will carry not accumulate and that will require design and putting the bid package together. today we are requesting to serve the digester from the report because additional time is needed to put together a design approach and construction with documents. there is no time to allow us

to competently bid this work. for this i'm available to answer any questions. >> any questions from staff? seeing none, we'll go to your report, please. >> yes on page of 62 of our report summarizes the contract with monterey mechanical company to not exceed 14, 535, 427. we recommend you approve this resolution. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? seeing none, we'll go to public comment. any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues can we

take this to the full board? >> so moved. >> we'll thaek take that without objection. next item, please. item no. 11. contract amendment resolution authoring general manager of the public utilities commission to execute amendment no. 4 to an agreement with urs corporation. >> members of the board, the acting regional project manager for the water system improvement program. due to the interest of time, i will cut to the chase and give you my conclusion slide which is stated on the slide here. we request the board of supervisors approval of amendment no. 4 to contract

cs 716 with urs corporation for the purpose of increasing contract amount by $4.5 million and increasing the contract duration by two 2 years and 9 months. this will allow urs to continue a design engineer for our record for the project out in this region through project construction and close out. and i would refer to the budget analyst report. >> thank you, colleagues, no questions. we'll move to budget analyst report. >> members we support this amendment of the contract with urs would allow the contract to reach by $4.5 million which is 18.8 percent from $24 million to $28 million $500,000 as shown in table two

on page 68 of our report. the cdc has spent on the contract to date. on page 68 we note the budget for 4.5 million shown on table three and page 69 of our report. we recommend you approve this resolution. >> colleagues, any questions. seeing none, public comment? no public comment. public comment is closed. members, can we take this without objection. this is taken without objection. next item. 12.

city clerk: item 12, ordinance deappropriating and reappropriating $23 million in wastewater revenue bonds for the wastewater enterprises northshore. >> your approval will provide us with a continue gency fund. this project will provide a redundancy force main, a pressurized pipe so it provides a red dante pipe to carry flow in south particularly in the northeastern quadrant of the city. this has failed multiple times. we have had a number of emergency room repairs in the past and this project will provide for redundancy for us to be able to transport the sewage to this portion of the city. i also am requesting

for a correction in page 4 of the ordinance. on page 4, item, there is a bullet item no. 2 which states the puc and board of supervisors discretionary adoption of ceqa findings for the project following review of consideration of completed project related environmental analysis were required pursuant to ceqa state guidelines and administrative code. the project has received ceqa approval through the board. so we request that for that bullet item to be stride out # -- striked out from the ordinance. >> okay. thanks very much. mr. city attorney i believe we can just amend this. okay. why don't we first move on to our budget analyst report. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee. table 2 on page 75 of our report shows the

projected deappropriation and reappropriation of this request of $23 million for the northshore main project. we have recommendation on page 6 and recommend that you amend the proposed resolution back to the board of supervisors on status with efforts regarding from korj of pg coverage for pg & e facilities and that you approve the proposed resolution as amended. just as a little background pg & e, the puc had anticipated that pg & e would pay for these cost. that has not happened. now the city attorney is working on this matter. that is why we made that recommendation. >> okay. thank you very much. colleagues, any questions for our budget analyst. seeing none, we'll open to public en