$300,000 a year ramping to almost $700,000 a year over 10 years. the net present value is about $17 million. here is our projection of events that would flow to the port over that timeframe. i have covered the important lease terms already. another things i want to point out there is infrastructure needs for this area and it's currently a closed area. there are important things to need to happen which include sidewalk improvement and removal of transformers and electricity to the shipyard next door and park amenities. there are a number of park benefits that i will in the interest of time i will give if you acquire and a number of us are available

for questions if the supervisors so choose. >> thank you. colleagues. do we have any questions? >> great. mr. rhodes, can we go ahead -- get your report. >> yes, mr. chairman, on page 38, regarding items 6 and 7. we report that the office of public finances estimates the annual debt service in the bonds is approximately 1, million, $791 and $13, 34,000 on the bonds estimate at 5.1 percent. the combined debt of interest over 20 years of the bond is $828,000. on page 8

of the report for the property tax would be maintained below the 2005, 2006 rate. so that is the estimate. and on page 40, we do recommend that you approve this legislation. regarding item 8 on page 56 of our report, we note that in 2012. the budget and legislative analyst made a finding of fiscal fees ability for the proposed historic buildings project to rehabilitate the building to 20th street as pier 70 and we did at the time the board of supervisors endorse the project. since that time the total estimated the cost of the project has increased by $18 million, from $58.5

million to $76.5 million. it's due to the port over the 66 -year lease term has also increased to $17 million. an increase of $1.3 million. we also report that other changes made to the term sheets since the board of supervisors endorsement 2012 include that the port will contribute $1, 750,000 to the project which is an increase of $250,000 due to the california cultural equity endowment granted. -- grant. we do recommend you approve the resolution. we have made a recommendation of fiscal feasible. we recommend you approve this legislation. >> okay. thank you. any questions, for mr. rhodes. if not, we'll open this up for public comment. anyone want

to comment on items 6, 7 or 8? please step forward. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm a chair of the port of the advisory group. i have sent you a letter. i'm not going to repeat anything. we've worked with the port on more than 70 years of the master plan. we are very excited that that they are able to take on this challenge hopefully before these buildings fall down completely. we think it's a great use of the program. we are very excited about that we want this approved. thank you. >> thank you very much for all of your leadership. are there

anymore public comments? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues we have a recommendation from our budget analyst to send these items forward. can i have a motion to send these items forward without ovenlgs we are going to skip to item 16. city clerk: item 16. an ordinance regarding sugar sweetened beverage. >> thank you very much for hearing this item again. colleagues this is the third hearing we have held at the budget and finance committee on our proposed soda tax. i

want to thank supervisors mar, avalos, chiu and campos for this measure. we held three hearings at the budget meeting and several hearings in different subject matters in other committees. this is a significant public health measure. we want to make sure that it is fully vetted in all of it's complexity and all the different policies that implicated before sending it to the voters. i appreciate the time and resources this committee has invested in this measure. colleagues as you recall from previous hearings, this public health measure will make san francisco hopefully berkeley as well as they are also going to the ballot on this issue and first in the country to adopt this measure which will

help us to reduce couples of soda -- consumption and other soda as that are contributing to diabetes and other health risks caused by this product. this will generate 10s of millions of dollars that will be legally dedicated because it's a special tax, legally dedicated to nutrition programs with 26 percent of the funds goes to the san francisco unified school district to support the lunch school program, physical ed and the like, 25 percent will go to our parks and recreation department for the sole purpose of expanding active physical recreation in the parks, expanding rec's center hours and 25 percent to our department of public health for programs such as oral health programs, food

access programs and so forth and 10 percent of the funds into a grant making program for community based organizations that are doing work around nutrition, physical activity and health. the measure has language providing that communities that have been disproportionately 2018 paktd by the health effects of soda and other sugary benefits particularly communities of color will receive priority and funding decisions around the measure and in addition the measure has very specific language indicating that these funds could not be replacement funds, the department cannot sweep out funds already being used for purposes for replacement of these funds and these funds are intended and required for purposes of the measure to find additional

and fund programs. this measure has received very broad and deep support in our health care community, our education community and our parks community and among various labor unions. i want to know that -- note that we have received a report from our economist. hopefully we can provide mr. yeeg ann opportunity to make comments. i do note a few of the conclusions of the other economic impact report, we had estimated that the tax would generate approximately $31 million a year. the city economist has determined that the likely range of annual revenue from this measure will be to $32 million which is more than we had anticipated. in addition the city

economist estimates that this tax will result in a decline of consumption by up to 31 percent which is a very significant in terms of improving the health of our city and when people are not drinking sodas or drinking less, they will make healthier choices whether it tea or water whatever the case maybe. the argue of the argument that the soda industry has put forward, the beverage industry has asserted that the tax won't be passed through for sugary sodas and will be spread to all products sold. we know that's not how retailing pricing works. from 80 percent to 100 percent of

the tax will be passed for the soda and other sugary benefits and also wanted to note that our economist has indicated that lower income communities will benefit from this tax in terms of improvements in health, improvements of economic productivity as well as benefitting from the specific programs that this measure will fund. so colleagues, after this, what i hope will be our final hearing at the budget committee, i along with supervisor mar will be asking the committee to forward this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. supervisor mar? >>supervisor eric mar: thank you supervisor wiener for your leadership on this issue and i want to thank supervisor john avalos, malia cohen and david chiu for working with the six of us on this measure together. i wanted to also acknowledge that we have fred

russo, our policy analyst from our budget legislative analyst that will help supplement from teddy and his staff as they show us the economic analysis that they have done. i want to acknowledge the grass roots community base coalition our soda tax in san francisco is here in force. it's an example of parent and youth power that has been built over many years of work. there has been a lot of decades of work for some in our lowest income communities that have been working on this issue for many years as well. i wanted to also say that this grass roots community coalition is not only fighting for public health, but it's also addressing the disparity of obesity, diabetes and other health issues that are hurting so many city of san francisco

san franciscans. our goal is not only improving education for key strategy for reducing consumption of sugary beverages but also looking at common sense policies like this to make our communities healthier. on the education front, many advocates and coalitions like shape up sf and centers for vulnerable populations, many groups have been working hard on education, but education alone as we have seen from research can't counter the huge amounts of billions of dollars of money spent by the soda industry in marketing especially to younger children and their predatory tactics they have used for generalization -- generations in our neighborhoods and corner stores and different food access work that's been done over the years is also important, but common sense

measures like this also add to our overall strategy in our city. as has been said before in our several other hearings, children born in 2000 or around that time, that's my daughter's generation, if we do nothing, 1/3 of those children will grow up to have diabetes and to be obese. it's like 1/3 of the population that we are talking about. i think common sense measures like this are addressing a crisis that's on going and existing in our neighborhoods. this is also local problem that impacts all of san francisco, but there are some neighborhoods that are impacted even more heavily. as more people know whether it's a walker from the bayview hunters point area or folks from chinatown and admission that diabetes is exploding in san francisco. an it's an on going problem of

health that is expanding and increasing over the last 30-40 years. i wanted to point out that map of diabetes hospitalizations quickly. this has been shown from vargas and ucsf that it's the communities of color and low income that are the ones hospitalized for diabetes. you can see the eastern part of the city most heavily impacted. when you look at poverty and low income populations, even more closely to the census tract, you will see it's not just in these areas but where you have low income populations and people of color as well. i wanted to also say that other issues of liver damage as presented by christina and other department of public health folks and other types of health problems

are also somewhat hidden. i have another example of health disparity. this is using cavity and oral health which shows that higher rates of cavities and oral and dental problems occur in many similar areas but also very different than diabetes. the data from this one comes from our department of public health. we have color coded this one so you can see there are key neighborhoods not on the in the key part of the city but particularly where there is areas of large immigrants and like chinatown and polk and large number of chinese and immigrants live as well. i think the keypoints i'm trying to make that this soda tax campaign is about equity and addressing the needs of our communities. the $30-50

million that supervisor wiener said that this soda tax would generate would go to the schools and programs for help in the schools and lunches and healthy nutrition, 25 to parks and 25 percent to department of public health in our city and with an a competent approach to raise awareness and reduce the harmful beverages and foods as well. the last point i want to make before we hear the analysis from teddy and his staff, i wanted to say that the issues of public health are an epidemic in our city and our country. the financial impacts are critical as well on our city. earlier, fred bruso, the analyst from the office gave us an estimate of how much it cost san francisco city

government with the crisis of diabetes and obesity only, it's not even talking about liver, metabolic syndrome and oral and dental health problems but even estimating the couple of diseases and health problems that diabetes and obesity, the estimate was between 48 and $61 million for the cost to the city for those problems. the city is on the hook for another $28 million for other related impacts from obesity and diabetes. i think the impacts are pretty clear. the money generated will go in an equitable way to help with public health issues in our city. i think there is a lot of the young people that are here who have been working in our neighborhoods. i think we are putting forward a historic measure in san francisco that we hope voters will pass in on and off. -- in november and

it's a reasonable. the economic analysis presented will show the decrease in consumption is even larger than what we had anticipated. there are estimated about 30-40 percent reduction of consumption. i think that's a really good sign. also the revenue generated is significantly higher than what we initially estimated as well. the last point i will make this impact of reducing sugary consumption, benefits the city which is our goal for our true health sf coalition. i want to thank supervisor wiener and his staff for the work they have done and from cohen's office as well and for the countless hours they spent in helping build a community coalition. i want to say

supervisor wiener at the last hearing read off the pretty broad and amazing coalition that's been built. i want to make a point about that it's about parent power. not only san francisco secondary pta, but there is a dozens pta's that individually passed resolutions in support and are hitting the ground with their children as well. parents for public schools, the parent pack, the whole san francisco board of education and the san francisco unified school district. i see them here and thank them for being here and cham championing for healthy foods. the other point is that labor and health related organizations are in strong support. not only the

teachers united educators who have been in front for many months ant 21 and local 51 which has been amazing and the united health workers an a number of other units that are strongly supportive of this effort. with that, back to mr. wiener. >> >>supervisor scott weiner: i would like to ask ted eagan to discuss his report. >> thank you. ted eagan controllers office. supervisor wiener i believe you summarized all the of the main points of the report. it's quite lengthy. i won't go into detail. i'm happy to take any questions that you and the board have. >> thank you. mr. -- you also

worked on this. you want to add anything? >> fred brus oh from the budget analyst office. we have a report if you have any questions on it. >> thank you very much. we also, i will note colleagues at the first budget hearing we had detailed presentations from various departments. our departments are here if questions arise, but we are not going to have them repeat their presentations they made at the first budget hearing. so with that, before we start public comment, i know the school district is here, chris arm troud. i want to give him an opportunity to speak on behalf of the school district.

>> thank you, supervisor wiener. my name is chris arm troud. i just want to very very briefly come here and say thank you. i'm here on behalf of superintendant richard carranza and we are very very proud to be here and to be partnering with you on this measure. earlier this year our board of education unanimously passed a resolution in support of this. and we are proud to be able to see the good work, the work that this is doubly good. you are taking resources, you are creating a disincentive for bad behavior and creating incentives for many organizations as well as ours. thank you for that and

thank you for your kind words and for your leadership on this measure. if there is any questions regarding our programs or our district, we are happy to do our best to answer them. >> thank you very much. supervisor breed? >>supervisor london breed:. yes. thank you for being here today. are there vending machines or stores that sell into category of what we are trying to tax in the schools at this time? >> i believe that was, no. i'm trying to remember the exact number of years ago, but we actually banned drinks at our campus. >> in vending machines only or in the stores? >> i believe across the board. there is no sale of soda as. >> not just sodas but sugary

drinks that fall in this category because i think that's not the case. i'm assuming that you mean you probably banned the sale of sodas completely but not sugary drinks that fall in this category which include things thab that are not necessarily soda. >> the district does have a wellness policy that does allows sugary drinks. there are some schools that may slip by and sell independently on campus. but officially, the department of nutrition services does not sell sugary sweetened beverages. >> it's not listed as soedz soda but not allowed on campus? >> correct. >> it did not happen over night and the food and

fitness community after year after the 1990s passing commercial free policies and really a good education process within the school district, the health programs and parent leaders and youth themselves making sure that san francisco was a leader in the nation having the wellness policy that was mentioned but also strong involvement from parents and youth as well in the development of policies. i think joe win deserves a lot of credit for her work for many years with many others that have been on the food and fitness committee. >> thank you. one quick question. i know, i think it was last year or maybe early this year that the district came out with a new plan to revamp the school lunch program and also a desire to improve the school breakfast program. i read it and spoke

to some folks about that. it seemed like a wonderful plan, but i also understand the district doesn't have the funds to fully implement it. can you talk about what the district is wanting to do to improve the school meal program? >> yes. we did finish a strategic planning process and we now have a clear vision of what we would like our school meals program to look like. it's a future dining experience. we have materials for those that are interested. there are 10 specific recommendations in that plan. we are actively working on all 10 in varying degrees. i'm very proud to say in addition to those plans, this last year we did expand to serving 3 meals a day. student nutrition services serves over $5

million breakfast and lunch and snacks and last year a supper meal to low income students. we have been successful in expanding our breakfast program. we have tested breakfast in our lower element ary schools this year as well as breakfast programs at our secondary schools. >> thank you. i want to commend the district for the work in trying to improve the school meal programs in general. we want kids to stay on campus and eat health lunches and sometimes the programs get overlooked and there are kids coming to school not having eaten and not provided with a meal but a healthy meal in the morning that is going to improve their performance and energy level throughout the day. thank you

for that. >>supervisor london breed: just a follow up question to mr. wiener's comments on the program. do you keep track of folks that actually use the program. for example i know that element ary school those kids eat the school lunches and whatever is available and sometimes in junior high school they do as well but high school students tend not to as much. is your count based on what you provide or what's actually being utilized by the population? >> yes. that is true, nationally generally school meal participation does drop off as students get older. the 5 million meals figure that i used earlier. we do have detailed data on participation. we serve generally 22,000 lunches a day, 6 thousand breakfast,

around 6,000 snacks and 1,000 supers this just last year. as of last year 64 percent of the district qualified for free meals. so there is still a gap of students that are not participating, but we do have specific strategies and a vision of how we want to have more students participate in a meal program. >> but, just, for example, you are providing on average, i think you said how many a day, i'm sorry? >> 22,000 lunches. >> out of those 22,000 lunches that you are able to provide, how many are utilizing the 22,000. not everyone is going to the cafeteria and