Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Soda Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors introduce unified sugary‑drink ballot measure proposing two‑cent per ounce fee
Summary
A six‑supervisor coalition introduced a proposed November ballot measure to impose a two‑cent per ounce fee on sugary drinks, with projected annual revenue above $30 million to support schools, parks, public‑health programs and community groups.
A coalition of six supervisors introduced a unified sugary‑drink ballot measure aimed at curbing consumption of sugar‑sweetened beverages and funding public‑health programs.
Supervisor David Chiu (introducing the item in the roll call) and Supervisor Norman Yee framed the measure as an equity‑focused public‑health initiative targeting childhood obesity and diabetes. Supervisor Mark Farrell, Supervisor Scott Wiener, Supervisor John Avalos and others also described the measure during floor remarks and introductions of cosponsors.
The measure as presented would levy a fee of 2 cents per ounce on distributors of sugar‑sweetened beverages. Sponsors estimated the fee could generate more than $30 million per year and said the measure is designed to be levied on distributors rather than small retailers. Sponsors proposed an independent 13‑member steering committee to oversee revenue allocations and to protect funds from being used to backfill existing programs.
Sponsors outlined a proposed spending framework: roughly 40 percent of revenue for San Francisco Unified School District programs (physical activity, health and nutrition), about 25 percent for Recreation and Parks physical‑activity and park programs, about 25 percent for the Department of Public Health’s education efforts, and roughly 10 percent for community‑based organizations. Sponsors also said a portion of funds would be dedicated to installing and repairing drinking water fountains and other access improvements in neighborhoods with low access to fresh water.
Backers cited academic research and local analysis, and referenced UCSF researchers and the Yale Rudd Center among their advisors. Supervisor Wiener highlighted a provision aimed at preventing the fee from being used to backfill existing programs and thanked city legal staff for drafting that language. Supporters acknowledged the prospect of a well‑funded opposition campaign by beverage industry groups and said they expect a major ballot fight if they proceed.
The introduction places the measure on the board’s path to be certified for the November ballot; sponsors said they plan outreach and coalition building in the coming months.
