Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the School Nutrition topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

PAC outlines proposed uses of Sugary Drink Tax revenue including millions for school nutrition and water access

San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education · January 15, 2019
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Parent Advisory Council reported proposed Sugary Drink Tax allocations affecting SFUSD: $4,545,000 to community-based organizations, $7,728,000 to SFUSD-distributed programs, and $2.5 million to SFUSD/DCYF for meal quality and water access projects including refill stations.

The Parent Advisory Council provided the board with an update on recommended allocations from the Sugary Drink Distributor Tax proposal during the Jan. 15 meeting, calling out specific amounts proposed to support school nutrition and related services.

PAC representatives said the advisory committee recommended $4,545,000 in grants to community-based organizations for programs in health education, physical activity and food access, and that SFUSD would distribute $7,728,000 of the package to CBO partners supporting district programs. They also said $2.5 million in grants would go to SFUSD and the Department of Children, Youth and Families to support school meals, nutrition education and one-time installation of water-refill stations and refillable water bottles.

PAC members described ongoing work with Student Nutritional Services and local partners to improve meal quality, expand freshly prepared meals at five school sites and pursue a central kitchen by 2028. They said students helped develop budget recommendations and that the district would oversee distribution for certain grants if the Board of Supervisors and mayor adopt the overall package.

Commissioners asked for clarification of the amounts and the PAC representative explained the figures were components of a larger proposed budget the advisory body forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and mayor.