and we know that taxes are extremely effective. they all work together. if supervisors can identify funding streams from the tax then we can add more fluoride varnishing. is that bell for me? >> if you can wrap up. >> sugary consumption is detrimental to all ages. i have this map of areas of oral health decay. >> we have brian from the neighborhood tndc and today davis from parent pack and other groups and a few others that i have mentioned we are going to close public comment

in a moment. >> thank you, my name is margaret fisher with the department of public health. i came this morning in my scrubs because i came directly from a screening of our preschoolers in our state subjectssidized preschools. many children have experienced decay. some low income families are especially susceptible. so 39 percent of our state is subsidized children of preschool already have decay. soda consumption nearly doubles the risk and increases likelihood in adults. the cost of sugar based drinks, the cost of sugar and dental decay is a cost. the cost for

3-year-old is about $10,000. by seeing children earlier preventative dental services saves money. safety net dental clinics like the dph dental services provide critical preventative treatment. unfortunately access to a preventative dental treatment continue to be a major obstacle to having healthy teeth. i include nutritional guidance. clinics are under staffed and dental appointments will become harder. in 2007, we had 1263 emergency room visits due to dental problems. you know the cost of emergency room visits.

nine of these visits were from children less than 1 year of age. one more thing. treating dental problems cost $6500 per visit. additional preventative visits cost much less for an exam. we encourage you to decrease the availability of sugary drinks and increase the ability to provide benefit educational information. >> thank you. i should say we also have brittany from the american heart association. if there is anyone else that would like to speak, please come forward. >> my name is ryan ther. i want to applaud you all as other folks have said to try to take this on. i think we have a big fight ahead of us with the soda companies that poisoning our

communities and running smear campaigns and i think this is really winnable. we are not trying to fight against the soda companies but providing benefits and services that's on the ground. i found it roo really interesting that the map that was looking at the soda expenditures pretty much over lays the food and security maps which correlates with the folks who are living with poverty here in the city and serving those communities what it brings around health and food access and preventative care around health and food and nutrition is really a lot. even reading a label is something and people are not aware of serving size and the amount of servings when they are drinking

2-liter bottles which is really important to be aware of that. if we can use some of these funds how we can create these programs on job training models to provide job economic opportunities to these people. i think there is a big potential around looking at food access and nutrition preventative care as a model for providing economic opportunities to folks living in these communities that are facing the most impacts. thank you. >> thank you, mr. ther, mr. living stop >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is bruce living ston. we help people who are affected

by alcohol consumption especially youth. we support this effort. several years ago supervisor avalos led a fight for harm for an alcohol mitigation fee of 3-$0.05 for $18 million for by city services in emergency room treatment and jail house detox and other treatment services. the fee was vetoed by mayor news om. the sugary tax is a charge for harm. it's a charge to the residenting -- residents and harm done to the residents and the city of san francisco just like tobacco tax

can pay for services and tobacco fee. it's time to charge for the harm for our residents from sugary benefits. >> you have 30 seconds. >> you've got my testimony. i want to say flavored drinks are loaded with carbohydrates. there is 280 calories in this. 44 grams of carbohydrates in bud light and there is tons of calories that kids consume. we would like to put in initiatives for revenues for education among youth. you

can't tax this directly but you can do this with sugar tax that impacts our youth directly. thank you. thank you. my name is todd davis. i want to thank supervisor march for joining us in our committee meeting and san francisco action committee has fully endorsed the sugary benefit tax and confident that we'll have 1 piece of legislation moving forward. a couple of things i want to talk about that are some of the talk on the street that is out there with the november 2014 ballot that the sugar beverage tax can hurt the education fund or the children's fund. i provided supervisor march with research that was done boo i the u.s.

mccarthy school and the polling that was done and the pipeline support was 86 percent and the top line for children's support was 85 percent. it was plus one what was needed to pass. anyone making claims that the sugary beverage tax could pull down the reauthorization is stretching. in 2014 presents an opportunity for san francisco to prove that we are a city that cares about it's children. if we pass the reauthorization, the children's fund and pass the sugary beverage tax we have the opportunity to provide every school child with actual physical education and physical education teachers. this is an historic opportunity that we should not miss out on. thank

you very much. >> thank you, mr. david. is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak? please come forward. the doctors from ucsf. >> good afternoon, thank you for the opportunity for hearing us. we are doctors at the hospital and pediatrician at uc sf. everyday in our clinic we countier -- encounter children that are over weight. this is not a cosmetic issue. it is a serious and lifelong problem with psychological consequences ranging from heart disease to diabetes and bullying and self-esteem issues. obese children will most likely

become obese adults. >> recent data tells us that two -thirds of our children are consuming sugar beverages many it's higher in adolescence than any other age group. more 20 percent of adolescence are consuming over 500 calories per day. our most vulnerable children which is our racial minority and less educated and poorer families are likely to increase their risk. >> sugary beverages, a child's risk in obesity rises nearly 60 percent. when kids decrease the number of sugar sweet and bevenlgs that they drink, they lose weight and their over all

health improves. sugary drinks increase bone density, headache, anxiety and loss of sleep and less nutritious diets. this is a problem that we can fix and this task is a step in the right direction. thank you. >> thank you so much for testifying. and everyone else for testifying as well. a really great group of folks from communities, health care doctors and from other cities. thank you. mr. chairman, it looks like we have some comments from colleagues. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen? >> thank you very much, forgive me for just stating the obvious. i want to recognize the girl power that's behind this initiative. the strong female advocates from the

doctors at the nurses to the research and the legislators. this is pretty impressive. so excuse me for stealing a moment just to highlight the obvious. fellows, i just wanted to point that out to you guys. >> supervisor avalos? >> i just wanted to say thank you to supervisor mar, supervisor wiener and cohen for bringing this forward. this hearing comes out of a lot of work done by people who are really concerned about public health and looking at real solution for public health. i want to thank the budget analyst for their work on this as well. i am fully supportive of going to the ballot with a measure that could create a disincentive for sugar sweets and beverages and a program for our communities and neighborhoods and schools and

look forward to that approach and will have my support as we move forward. i have two kids who i try and -- they occasionally have a sugary sweet and beverage but i really limit that greatly and when it comes to tooth deck -- decay. they have a dental appointment tomorrow. i hope they pass with flying colors. i want to thank you for your work on this. >> thank you supervisor avalos. i wanted to also quickly wrap up by saying that a lot of the materials used should be very helpful from the mother jones chart of the drinks and the huge sizes to the tooth decay and liver slide that i'm going to immediately show that to my 13-year-old when she has the urging and even the feelings in

her brain as the doctor mentioned to purchase a sugar beverage and the consequences to our public health and to children's future health whether they are going to be healthy or have serious chronic diseases. i also want to say the science and data as crunched by the great folks from the budget analyst office and pediatricians is i -- eye opening. others mentioned other areas we need to look into and i would like to work with the budget legislative analyst to work on focusing on a little bit more and i really appreciate the data so that conservative to 48 million to

61 million if we add on fatty diseases and oral health and if we show other impacts we'll show it's much higher than that and showing other impacts on children. perhaps if we can look more into other data and studies for the future. i also wanted to say that mr. smith and miss guma looked at other cities. we are trying to draw the best experiences and suggestions from not only dr. riter man in richmond and gale mclauk listen and el monte in the san gabriel valleyey to look at suggestions to help better craft policies in our cities. i also want to say that disparities that christina gupta are bringing awareness to our very critical areas and the

maps showing that it's a citywide problem. but again, the funds as we come up with one proposal for the battle we are looking very carefully at targeting in the most appropriate and effective ways to communities that are the most that face the most health disparities. i also want to say how to report shows how urgent the report is before many of us and hope we move as quickly as possible because there is nothing more as local legislators as the health of our children in our community. i want to mention that the nation of mexico's focus on the environment cause by harmful drink companies and junk food companies is critical but our measure is a very modest one that is focusing on the harm created by that environment and really targeting it to physical activity in and out of school and healthy nutrition and

education in our communities. the advertising is going on in the environment that's created by big soda and sugar sweet and beverage companies is overwhelming. it's about $1 million spent and it is targeting adolescence for energy drinks or young children to develop these addictions to liquid diabetes in a can. ours is a modest weigh to tip the scales to improve the health of our children in our communities. with that i wanted to thank everyone for speaking and let scott wiener as well make some closing remarks. >> thank you. i want to thank everyone who came out today. i think like i said at the beginning, the facts and the science are on the side of

implementing effective policy here in the form of sugary beverage tax to fund nutrition, physical activity and health programs. our job is to make sure the public understand those facts and that science. i think today was a very very important step in putting that information out there. this will not be the end. i know we are going to be doing a lot of work in the coming months to make sure that public awareness is high and remains high because that's how we are going to take tangible steps to address this public health epidemic. thank you. >> thank you, and thank you to chair ferrel for giving us so much time on this item. >> thank you, supervisor mar, wiener and avalos, do you want to continue with this call? >> i want to continue this to the call of the chair. >> can we take this motion without opposition?

>> okay. mr. clerk, we are going to take one quickly because some people to have leave on this one, item no. 4 and then we'll go through the regular items. >> the clerk: item no. 4. 131141:[public employment - amendment to the annual salary ordinance - recreation and park department - fys 2013-2014 and 2014-2015]1311414.sponsor: mayorordinance amending ordinance no. 160-13 annual salary ordinance - fy2013-2014 and fy2014-20155 to reflect the addition of two class 5502 project manager i positions 1.0 ftee in the recreation and park department for the implementation of the recreation and park department's capital improvements. fiscal impactt11/26/13; assigned to the budget and finance committee. >> the clerk: item no. 4. sf 41234 thank you, can you call item no. 3 as well. >> the clerk: item 131140:agenda[appropriation - recreation and park department's capital improvements - fy2013-2014 - $10,029,670]1311403.sponsor: mayorordinance appropriating $10,029,670 including de-appropriating $3,176,558 of 2000 recreation and park facilities improvement bond capital projects; appropriating $36,401 of 2000 recreation and park facilities improvement bond proceeds; de-appropriating $3,000,000 of 2008 clean and safe neighborhood parks bond capital projects; and appropriating $3,816,711 of 2008 clean and safe neighborhood parks bond proceeds interest earnings to recreation and park and neighborhood park contingency funds to fund capital projects

within 2000 recreation and park facilities improvement bond and 2008 clean and safe neighborhood parks bond approved projects and program parameters. fiscal impactt11/26/13; assigned to the budget and finance >> the clerk: sf 31234 okay. we have daun from parks and recreation. >> i'm here to provide a brief presentation on the supplemental appropriation request for two general operation bonds. the 2008 parks bond. these request i would like to say represent good news. these are funds that we've been able to free up through both responsible management being lucky from the bidding climate and from undertaking financial improvement management from the bond funds. this is a way of background, the 2000 neighborhood obligation bonds were approved by voters for $200 million. those funds were approved without restriction except that they may not be used in golden gate park. they were used with $110 million to

leverage roughly about $3 hundred million in grant funds and deliver over 80 projects. that is to deliver projects across the city. one of the hamilton school projects and the completion of the capital project we really began to set about trying to clean up the 2,000 bond programs. with all of those grants we want to make sure that all expenditures were appropriately accounted for and funding sources were used for what the intent was provided. we took a year 1/2 long process working with the department of public works who i would like to thank and acknowledge for all of their hard work to culminating the 85 projects. in the 2,000 bond there was little in the way of the kind of accountability measures for 2008-2012. you have literally pennies under the couch trying

to gather up. some of those projects are small, there would be a $5,000 and some medium $275,000 and another project for a little over $800,000. we try to gather those funds up and put them in one master project. they remove things from smaller projects which makes them difficult to spend because we have to come to the board every time we go to an appropriation authority and they can propagate for the purposes. we have we have had about $5 million left in the bond but through the requisition reconciliation there is about $5.6 million. there is money that has been

locked in smaller appropriations over the years that we are trying to gather into one master project. with those funds we would like to work with our stakeholdersers and would like to work with a menu of those options with the january or february meeting. there is a couple of criteria that we have to be aware of when we think about spending these funds. one of the funds generally are constrained and they can only be used through capital expenditures. we want to focus on closing our existing funding gaps. i think many of you are aware that the bidding climate has turned from being 2 years ago extremely

beneficial for city capital projects to being very competitive, we are seeing bids coming in 20 percent higher than we originally thought. we would like to use these funds that close project gaps caused by this. i want to point out a number of life preservation needs coming up. one example is a civic elevator project allocating funding for this past year. as we started do that elevator project, we thought that there would be some water intrusion but there may be a stream underneath that we stumbled into and we saw just like thousands of gallons coming in and we have to do an emergency contract and now we have to rethis i that project. things like that. landslide is going to require more funding than was appropriated and a number of other projects that we like to use these funds for. third, these are old bond

dollars. this bond was approved in 2000. for us to be contemplating $5 million is not enough. we can incur arbitrage fees which is levied by outside agencies when an entity has taken too long to spend their go bond dollars. so because are that we are focusing on projects that are shovel ready and trying to get into contract a sap and for construction cost. part of that is for their approval. in appropriation do not prevent us from spending any money from any eligible

capital expense but in allows us to have the expect ability in how we manage the funds. from the 2008 bond, we have both been lucky and good, i think. we have been very good in our over all management of the go bond program and that has resulted in project savings from many projects particularly again from the first half of the bond implementation when there were bid savings and also the recent project where again just there have been minimal change orders and we manage to come right in before the bidding climate turned to our disadvantage. we have $3 million and interest accrued on the bond. that is about $6.8 million that we need. we need those funds to be able to move those projects forward as they

are currently scoped. >> so as i said we want to address the unforeseen escalation of regulatory requirements and the overall commitment of the clean and safe neighborhoods bonds that we would deliver those 12 neighborhood parks that we call by name and ordinance. this is consistent with the ordinance language. lastly we need staff to deliver these projects. there was voted funds and we'll have basically added another 60 percent to the financial value of our portfolio and also increased our work load by another 25 percent in projects. right now i have a staff of

nine and they are already managing 8 projects each. ths they already have a full plate. you can do that but you can see what happened in the beginning of the 2008 bond program where there were delays for getting that program off the ground because it wasn't staffed appropriately. we are trying to learn from those lessons. the staffing shortages were affecting our impact to get these projects going. we are asking for a project manager one position, permanent exempt positions. no general fund impact and they are even off budget. if we were to wait to do these positions to do the budget process, i wouldn't have anybody on hand until october of 2014. that would be a full year after we passed the bond. i think in a 5-year bond

program, that is an extraordinary delay. that is the basis of our request today. so with that, i am happy to answer any questions from the committee. >> colleagues, any questions, supervisor wiener? okay. that was remaining. >> okay. colleagues if no questions at this time. why don't we go to our budget analyst report, mr. rhodes if you will. >> mr. chairman, supervisor winner, the sources of the proposed $10 million appropriation are summarized in table 3. that's on page 20 of our report. on page 21 of our report we note that