City of Bethel Parks, Recreation, Aquatic, Health & Safety Center Committee Regular Meeting - Monday, November 9, 2020 6:00 pm City Hall Council Chambers, Bethel, AK
We are hosting our public meeting via Zoom.
To join this meeting, follow these instructions: Go to the website, https://zoom.us/join or Brian Lefferts Call: 253-215-8782, 301-715-8592, 312-626-6799, 346-248-799, 699-900- Committee Chair 6833, or 929-205-6099 Term Expires 2020 Zoom Meeting ID: 939 7507 5606 Passcode: 004626 Judy Wasierski Vice-Chair I. CALL TO ORDER Term Expires 2021 II. ROLL CALL III. PEOPLE TO BE HEARD – Three minutes per person Kathy Hanson We are accepting written testimony from the public for each of our public Committee Member meetings. Deadline to submit written testimony will be 4:00pm the day of Term Expires 2021 the meeting. Please send written testimony to [email protected]. Beverly Hoffman Anonymous submissions will not be accepted. Committee Member IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Term Expires 2021 V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. October 12, 2020 Regular Meeting Garrett Hussion Committee Member Term Expires 2022 VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Phase II Multipurpose Facility Rose Henderson B. 2020 Committee Goals Committee Member C. Pinky’s Park Developments and Updates Park Names Term Expires 2023 D. Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax
Kathryn Baldwin E. Contracted Services/Re-establish a Parks and Recreation Department by Alt. Committee Member FY2022 Term Expires 2020 F. Boardwalk Issues G. Existing YKFC Maintenance Contracts Michelle DeWitt Council Representative Term Expires 2020 VII. NEW BUSINESS
Stacey Reardon VIII. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REPORT YK Fitness Center Director IX. YK FITNESS FACILITY DIRECTOR REPORT Corbin Ford X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Property Maint. Foreman XI. ADJOURNMENT Ex Officio Member
Posted November 3, 2020 at City Hall, AC Co., Swanson’s, and the Post Office.
Charlie Dan, Public Works Assistant Website: https://www.cityofbethel.org/prahscc City of Bethel, Alaska Parks, Recreation, Aquatic, Health & Safety Center Committee Minutes October 12, 2020 Regular Meeting Bethel, Alaska I. CALL TO ORDER: A regular Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting was held on October 12, 2020 via Zoom. Brian Lefferts called the meeting to order at 06:05 pm.
II. ROLL CALL: Comprising a quorum of the committee, the following were present for Roll Call: Brian Lefferts, Judy Wasierski, Kathy Hanson, Beverly Hoffman, Rose Henderson, Michelle DeWitt and Garrett Hussion. Also Present: Charlie Dan and Stacey Reardon Unexcused Absence: Corbin Ford, Bill Arnold
III. PEOPLE TO BE HEARD: IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOVED BY: Michelle DeWitt Motion to amend the agenda by bringing Unfinished SECONDED BY: Judy Wasierski Business D first. VOTE ON MOTION Motion carried by unanimous vote.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOVED BY: Kathy Hanson Motion to approve meeting minutes for September 14, SECONDED BY: Judy Wasierski 2020. VOTE ON MOTION Motion carried by unanimous vote.
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. Phase II Multipurpose Facility- B. 2020 Committee Goals- C. Pinky’s Park Developments and Updates Park Names-Find out what Parks did not have the signs. Post on Facebook asking for suggestions on park names. One park a month, starting with Lion’s Club Park. D. Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax- MOVED BY: Michelle DeWitt Motion to suspend the rules to hear from Jamie Morgan. SECONDED BY: Beverly Hoffman VOTE ON MOTION Motion carried by unanimous vote.
E. Contracted Services/Re-establish a Parks and Recreation Department by FY2022-
VII. NEW BUSINESS: A. Boardwalk Issues-Pinky’s and Housing, Moravian Church and Kilbuck require maintenance B. Existing YKFC Maintenance Contracts
VIII. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REPORT: IX. YKFC FACILITY DIRECTOR’S REPORT: X. MEMBER COMMENTS: Brian Lefferts: Judy Wasierski: Kathy Hanson: Beverly Hoffman: Thank you all for a great committee!
Parks, Recreation, Aquatic, Health & Safety Center Committee Minutes City of Bethel, Alaska October 12, 2020 Rose Henderson: Garrett Hussion: No comment Michelle DeWitt: Congrats, Sugar, on joining City Council.
XI. ADJOURNMENT: MOVED BY: Beverly Hoffman Motion to adjourn. SECONDED BY: Kathy Hanson VOTE ON MOTION Motion carried by unanimous vote.
With no further business, meeting adjourned at 07:50 PM.
APPROVED THIS ______DAY OF ______, 2020.
______Brian Lefferts Charlie Dan Committee Chair Recorder of Minutes
Parks, Recreation, Aquatic, Health & Safety Center Committee Minutes City of Bethel, Alaska October 12, 2020 Impact of Sugary Drinks and Sugary Drink Taxes
Jamie Morgan Government Relations Regional Lead [email protected] 916-201-8115 Why Worry About Sugary Drinks?
• Sugary drinks like soft drinks, fruit drinks, sweetened coffees and teas, and energy drinks are the leading source of added sugars in the American diet. • About 23% of Alaska adults and almost 50% of Alaska high school students drink one or more sugary beverages every day. (2017 BRFSS, 2019 YRBS) • Among Yup’ik youth, sugary drinks contribute more than 75% of beverage intake. • 31% of Alaska 3-year-olds drink some amount of sugary beverages every day. (2018 Alaska Childhood Understanding Behaviors Survey)
2 Why Worry About Sugary Drinks?
• The American Heart Association recommends that children have no more than one 8-ounce sugary drink a week— but children are consuming as much as ten times that amount.
• A 20-ounce bottle of soda contains the equivalent of approximately 17 teaspoons of added sugars. The American Heart Association recommends that adults consume no more than five to nine teaspoons of added sugars per day.
3 Sugary Drinks: Health Impact
• The harmful health effects of sugary drinks are clear: Having even one per day significantly increases a person’s risk of developing heart disease, diabetes, obesity and tooth decay.
• In the United States, 40,000 deaths every year are attributed to heart problems caused specifically by consuming too many sugary drinks.
• The potential harms for children, who consume an average of more than 30 gallons of sugary drinks a year—including sports drinks, fruit-flavored drinks and soda—are particularly concerning.
• In addition to weight gain, excess consumption of added sugars, especially from sugary drinks, raises the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and tooth decay.
• Having one more sugary drink each day can increase a person’s risk of hypertension by 8 percent and risk of heart disease by 17 percent.
4 Sugary Drink Taxes The American Heart Association supports a multipronged approach to address high sugary drink consumption. One policy we advocate for are sugary drink taxes. A sugary drink tax of at least 2 cents per ounce can help: • Raise revenue for important programs like opportunities for increased physical activity, healthier food in schools, initiatives to prevent diabetes and other chronic diseases, education campaigns about sugary drinks and healthy eating. • Target investment of revenues in low-income communities disproportionately affected by health conditions caused by sugary drinks. • Reduce the rates of, and curb rising costs from preventable chronic diseases. • Increase awareness about the harmful effects of sugary drinks and shift sales to healthier products. • Discourage consumption of sugary drinks by raising their prices.
Sugary drink taxes work: • Evidence shows that these taxes can reduce consumption of sugary drinks and are raising critical revenue that fund programs and policies to improve health and education for children and families, particularly those in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. • The Choices Project modeled an Alaska sugary drink excise tax based on a volume tax structure of $0.03/ounce. Results showed that the tax would prevent thousands of cases of childhood and adult obesity, prevent new cases of diabetes, increase healthy life years and avoid more in future health care costs than it costs to implement.
5 Thank You.
6 Sugary Drinks Excise Tax Alaska
Intervention Strategy Description Implementation of a state excise tax on sugary drinks based on either solely the size of the beverage (“volume tax”; $0.03/ounce) or both beverage size and sugar content (“graduated tax”: $0.03/ounce for higher-sugar-content beverages and $0.02/ounce for lower-sugar-content beverages). The tax in either form would be applied at the wholesale level, be administered by the state and be based on proposals considered by federal, state, and local governments and the American Heart Association.1-4
Background Sugary drinks include all beverages with added caloric sweeteners. The modeled excise tax does not apply to Summary Results 2015-2025 100% juice, milk products, or artificially-sweetened beverages. Although sugary drinks consumption has Volume Tax: Graduated declined in recent years, adolescents and young adults in $0.03/ounce Tax: the United States consume more sugar than the Dietary $0.03/ounce Guidelines for Americans recommend, with persistent & 0.02/ounce racial/ethnic disparities.5-8 Randomized trials and # of Cases of Obesity 7,220 6,830 Prevented in 10th year longitudinal studies have linked sugary drinks consumption Health Care Cost to excess weight gain, diabetes, and cardiovascular $19.30 $18.40 Avoided per $1 disease. Consumption of sugary drinks increases the risk of Invested chronic diseases through its impact on weight and other Cost per Case of Costs avoided Costs avoided 9,10 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, mechanisms. The Obesity Prevented 2015-202011 recommend that individuals reduce sugary drink intake in order to manage their body weight. Drawing Health Care Cost $43.6 million $41.6 million Avoided on the success of tobacco taxation and decades of economic research, public health experts have studied taxes on sugary drinks and documented their likely impact.12-15 In 2009, the Institute of Medicine (IOM)
recommended that local governments implement tax strategies to reduce consumption of “calorie-dense, nutrient- 16 poor foods,” emphasizing sugary drinks as an appropriate target for taxation.
Modeled Tax Structures In recent years, 7 cities in the U.S. have passed and implemented taxes of varying amounts on sugary drinks based on the size of the beverage (referred to in this brief as a volume tax). The volume tax model in this brief followed this approach.
The United Kingdom is applying a different type of tax structure to a sugary drink tax starting in 2018, which will be a tax rate that varies according to both the amount of sugar in the beverage and the size of the beverage, referred to in this brief as a graduated tax. This approach, according to a recent report by the Urban Institute, may encourage industry to reformulate products to reduce sugar.17 The American Heart Association has developed a proposal for a graduated tax structure; that framework was used for the graduated tax model. 1
The information in this brief is intended to provide educational information on the cost effectiveness of sugary drink taxes. 1
Under both approaches, a tax rate of 0.25 cents/ounce is applied to powdered beverages.
Modeling Framework An excise tax is linked to changes in body weight through changes in sugary drink price and consumption.
Impact of Tax on Price to Consumers We assume 100% pass through of the tax over the 10 years. Empirical studies in Mexico and France indicate that approximately the full amount of the excise tax is passed on to consumers.18 Short-term studies for the local tax in Berkeley indicate less than complete pass through.3,19,20 The expected percent increase in sugary drink price was estimated based on an average $0.092/ounce; based on national and local price/ounce for several sugary drink categories, including ready-to-drink and powdered mixes;21-23 and inflated for higher prices in geographically remote locations in Alaska where high transportation costs increase food and beverages prices . 23 The volume tax approach would result in an average 36% price increase; the graduated tax approach would result in a 34% price increase.
Sugary Drink Consumption and Price Elasticity of Demand We used regionally-adjusted estimates of total sugary drink consumption in 2017 published in the UCONN Rudd Center Revenue Calculator for Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes to adjust national age, sex, and race/ethnicity- specific consumption data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005-2010 to estimate current sugary drink consumption levels in Alaska.24 We further adjusted sugary drink consumption to
The information in this brief is intended to provide educational information on the cost effectiveness of sugary drink taxes. 2
account for Alaska Behavioral Risk Factor Surviellance System (BRFSS)-reported differences by race.25 A review of studies published from 2007-2012 was used to estimate how a change in the price of sugary drinks would impact consumer purchases.26 These studies found that, on average, every 10% price increase would lead to a 12% reduction in purchases.65 Recent research concerning the Berkeley tax indicates a 21% reduction in sugary drink intake among low-income populations.19
Direct effect of change in sugary drink consumption on change in weight
We conducted evidence reviews for impact of change in sugary drink intake on weight, measured by Body Mass Index (BMI), taking into account any dietary compensation.15 Four large longitudinal studies in adults27-30 of sufficient duration were identified. The relationship was modeled using a uniform distribution based on the range of the estimates of the effect of a one-serving (142 kcal) reduction on BMI (from 0.21 to 0.57). A double-blind randomized controlled trial conducted over 18 months among youth found that kids who consumed an additional daily 8 ounce serving (104 kcal) of sugary drinks gained 1 kg more weight than kids who did not.31 We assumed the same impact of change in sugary drink consumption on change in body weight for both tax structure approaches.
Reach Since obesity can be estimated and tracked for adults and youth as young as age 2, for the purposes of the model the reach of the intervention is defined as all youth and adults ages 2 years and older in Alaska.
Costs We assume that the two different tax structures would involve the same implementation costs. The policy change would involve start-up and ongoing labor costs for state tax department administrators. To implement the intervention, the state government would need to process tax statements and conduct audits. The state government would also incur a one-time cost to set up the new tax within the state system. Businesses would also need to prepare tax statements and participate in audits, which would require labor from private tax accountants. Cost information was drawn from states and localities with planned or implemented excise taxes on sugary drinks.15 The cost and benefit estimates do not include expected tax revenue.
CHOICES Microsimulation Model The CHOICES microsimulation model for Alaska was used to calculate the costs and effectiveness of a volume or graduated sugary drink tax over 10 years (2015–25). This is a stochastic, discrete-time, individual-level microsimulation model designed to simulate the experience of the state population from 2015 to 2025. Cases of obesity prevented were calculated at the end of the model in 2025. The model uses data from the following sources: U.S. Census, American Community Survey, Alaska Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System32,33, NHANES, National Survey of Children’s Health34, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, and multiple national longitudinal studies. We calculated uncertainty intervals using Monte Carlo simulations programmed in Java over 1,000 iterations of the model for a population of 1,000,000 simulated individuals scaled to the state population size.15
According to this model analysis, a $0.03/ounce volume excise tax on sugary drinks in Alaska would reach all residents of the state and prevent over 1,000 cases of childhood obesity and over 7,000 cases of adult obesity in the 10th year of the model. The sugary drinks excise volume tax would also prevent 156 premature deaths due to sugary drink consumption while avoiding $43.6 million in health care costs by the final year of the model. We project overall obesity prevalence to decline by 0.93% in the final year of the model with the tax and a decline in childhood obesity prevalence of 0.56% (the difference in the projected Alaska prevalence of obesity without the intervention and the projected Alaska prevalence of obesity in 2025 with the intervention). The sugary drink excise tax is projected to
The information in this brief is intended to provide educational information on the cost effectiveness of sugary drink taxes. 3
increase healthy life years and avoid $19.30 in health care costs for every $1 to implement the tax. The graduated tax is projected to result in a slightly lower impact on health and health care costs avoided and is also projected to be a cost saving approach for reducing obesity. Detailed model results are presented in the table below. A sugary drink excise tax, using either tax approach, is one of the most cost effective strategies to reduce childhood obesity the CHOICES team has modeled. 15
The information in this brief is intended to provide educational information on the cost effectiveness of sugary drink taxes. 4
Results Graduated Tax Volume Tax Metric $0.03/ounce & $0.03/ounce Results $0.02/ounce Results Mean (95% Uncertainty Intervals) Effect Cases of obesity prevented in 10th year* 7,220 6,830 (5,710; 8,080) (5,420; 7,660) Case of childhood obesity prevented in 10th year* 1,110 1,030 (809; 1,370) (747; 1,270) Reduction in obesity prevalence overall in 10th year* 0.93% 0.88% (0.74%; 1.04%) (0.70%; 0.99%) Reduction in childhood obesity prevalence in 10th year* 0.56% 0.52% (0.41%; 0.70%) (0.38%; 0.64%) Years with obesity prevented over 10 years 51,000 48,400 (40,700; 56,500) (38,600; 53,600) Life years gained over 10 years 519 496 (388; 635) (368; 612) Deaths prevented* over 10 years 156 149 (119; 185) (114; 180) Decrease in 12-ounce serving of sugary drinks per 134 128 person in the first year* (74.5; 230) (70.4; 219) Total decrease in gallons of sugary drinks consumed in 9,210,000 8,840,000 the first year* Cost Health care costs avoided over 10 years^ $43.6 million $41.6 million ($35.4 million; $48.0 million) ($33.8 million; $45.7 million) Annual intervention cost $226,000 $226,000 ($192,000; $260,000) ($192,000; 261,000) Total 10 year intervention cost $2.25 million $2.26 million ($1.92 million; $2.60 million) ($1.92 million; $2.61 million) Net cost (negative means savings) over 10 yearsᵻ -$41.3 million -$39.3 million (-$45.9 million; -$33.0 million) (-$43.5 million; -$31.6 million) Health care costs avoided per $1 invested^ $19.30 $18.40 ($14.60; $23.80) ($14.10; $22.70) Reach First year population reach* 734,000 734,000 (733,000; 734,000) (733,000; 734,000) Cost/Effect Cost per year with obesity prevented Costs-avoided Costs-avoided Cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained Costs-avoided Costs-avoided Cost per case of obesity prevented Costs-avoided Costs-avoided QALYs gained 2,090 2,000 (1,690; 2,330) (1,620; 2,250) All metrics reported for the population over a 10-year period and discounted at 3% per year, unless otherwise noted. *Not discounted. ᵻ These costs include the difference between the cost to implement the intervention and the healthcare cost savings produced over 10 years. ^does not include dental costs saved
The information in this brief is intended to provide educational information on the cost effectiveness of sugary drink taxes. 5
Impact on Diabetes We estimated the impact of the tax-induced reduction in sugary drink intake on type 2 diabetes incidence for adults ages 18-79 years using a published meta-analysis of the relative risk of developing diabetes due to a one-serving change in sugary drink consumption35as well as local estimates of diabetes. On average, each 8.5 ounce serving of sugary drinks per day increases the risk of diabetes by 18%. In Alaska, we estimated that a $0.03/ounce volume tax would lead to a 10% reduction in diabetes incidence — an estimated 362 cases of diabetes prevented — over a one- year period once the tax reaches its full effect; the graduated tax would lead to a similar reduction— an estimated 384 cases of diabetes prevented — over this same timeframe.
Impact on Dental Caries We estimated the impact of a sugary drink excise tax on tooth decay cost using a longitudinal analysis of the relationship between intake of sugars and tooth decay in adults. On average, for every 10 grams higher intake of sugar per day, there is an increase in decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) of approximately 0.10 over 10 years.36 As described above, we assume that the excise tax will result in a reduction in sugary drink intake. There are many studies showing a similar relationship between higher intake of sugars and tooth decay in children and youth37 and thus we assume the same relationship as found in adults.
We used the Alaska Medicaid Assistance: State Fiscal Year 2018 Fee Schedule to estimate a Medicaid cost of treating DMFT as: $692.24 for a permanent crown in children and $106.89 for a filling in both children and adults. These codes reflect treatment for one surface and do not reflect higher reimbursement rates for multi-surface treatment, temporary crowns, or potential flat tax schedules. Based on analysis of data on tooth decay, fillings and crowns for the U.S. population from NHANES 1988-1994 (the last year crowns and fillings were separately reported)39, we estimate that 78.9% of tooth decay in children and 43.5% of tooth decay in adults is treated. Using this same data set, we estimate that 97% of treatment for children is fillings and 82.5% of treatment for adults is fillings.
To estimate Medicaid-specific dental caries cost savings, we used local estimates of the numbers of people enrolled in Medicaid and the proportion receiving Medicaid dental services from 2011; these numbers may be conservative given state-wide Medicaid expansion in Alaska in fiscal year 2016. In Alaska, we estimate that a $0.03/ ounce volume tax would lead to a total savings of $11,300,000 over a period of 10 years in DMFT and of that $628,000 in Medicaid savings. We estimate that a $0.03/ounce and $0.02/ounce graduated tax would lead to a total savings of $10,800,000 over a period of 10 years in DMFT and of that $597,000 in Medicaid savings. The Medicaid reimbursement tax estimates may underestimate the total cost savings of tooth decay treatment projected here as dental providers may charge higher amounts to patients.
The information in this brief is intended to provide educational information on the cost effectiveness of sugary drink taxes. 6
Expected Yearly Sugary Drink Tax Revenue1 The annual revenue from a state excise tax on sugary drinks is likely to be substantial. Based on data from the Rudd Center and CHOICES model estimates of the consumption of sugary drinks, including powdered beverages, in Alaska, a $0.03/ounce volume excise tax on ready to drink sugary drinks and $0.0025/ounce tax on powdered sugary drinks in Alaska could raise approximately $32.0 million in 2017 and a graduated excise tax ($0.03/ounce and $0.02/ounce) could raise approximately $36.0 million in 2017. Equity and Implementation Considerations Concerns have been raised regarding the impact of the tax on households with low incomes. Because of the elasticity of -1.21, our analyses clearly indicate that households will spend less on sugary drinks after the tax goes into effect, providing disposable income for other purchases. We estimate that a $0.03/ounce volume tax will result in $109 million in sugary drink savings for consumers after one year and a $0.03/ounce and $0.02/ounce graduated tax will result in $105 million in sugary drink savings for consumers after one year. In addition, we project that greater health benefits will accrue to low-income consumers who on average consume more sugary drinks than higher-income consumers; the same is true for a number of racial and ethnic groups. Racial/ethnic and income disparities in obesity outcomes should thus decrease following implementation of the modeled tax. In addition, revenue raised from a sugary drinks tax can be reinvested in low-income communities; for instance, in Berkeley, sugary drink tax revenue has been allocated for spending on school and community programs, several with a focus on low-income or minority populations, to promote healthy eating, diabetes prevention and obesity prevention.40,41
There is opposition to sugary drink excise taxes from the beverage industry, which spends over $4 billion each year nationwide on marketing.42 Public support for such taxes generally increases when the public knows the revenue is designated for health promotion activities.43 The modeled tax is likely to be sustainable if implemented based on the history of tobacco excise taxes.
1 Actual fee revenue may be lower than these projected estimates due to several factors. For instance, retailers may have inventories of sugary drinks obtained before a tax is implemented. There may also be some distributors/manufacturers that are non- compliant with the fee. Revenue estimations differ from the UCONN Rudd Center Revenue Calculator for Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes due to the use of locally adjusted consumption estimates and the inclusion of powders taxed at a lower tax rate.
The information in this brief is intended to provide educational information on the cost effectiveness of sugary drink taxes. 7
Discussion We project that the modeled sugary drink excise tax based on a volume tax structure of $0.03/ounce would prevent thousands of cases of childhood and adult obesity, prevent new cases of diabetes, increase healthy life years and avoid more in future health care costs than it costs to implement, with a lower impact for a graduated tax structure. Revenue from the tax could be used for education and health promotion efforts. Implementing the tax could also serve as a powerful health education message to reduce added sugar consumption. There is potential for a shift in social norms of sugary drink consumption based on evidence from tobacco control tax and regulatory efforts.44 There is not one reason for the obesity epidemic and there is not one solution. A sugary drink excise tax is just one of a number of cost-effective strategies that could be implemented; a multi-pronged, multi-sector approach will be necessary to reduce obesity.
Results prepared by the CHOICES project at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health: Gortmaker SL, Long MW, Ward ZJ, Giles CM, Barrett JL, Flax C, Resch SC, Cradock AL. Funded by The JPB Foundation and Healthy Food America. Results are those of the authors and not the funders. For further information contact [email protected]. Visit www.ChoicesProject.org.
References 1. American Heart Association. Support for taxing sugary drinks by sugar content: Comment from Nancy Brown, American Heart Association CEO. American Heart Association website. http://newsroom.heart.org/news/support-for-taxing-sugary- drinks-by-sugar-content/. December 12, 2016. Accessed November 8, 2017 2. Hakim D and Confessore N. Paterson seeks huge cuts and $1 billion in taxes and fees. The New York Times, Jan 19, 2010. 3. Falbe J, Rojas N, Grummon AH, Madsen KA. Higher Retail Prices of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages 3 Months After Implementation of an Excise Tax in Berkeley, California. Am J Public Health. 2015 Nov;105(11):2194-201. 4. Leonhardt D. The battle over taxing soda. The New York Times, May 19, 2010. 5. Wang YC, Bleich SN, and Gortmaker SL. Increasing caloric contribution from sugar-sweetened beverages and 100% fruit juices among US children and adolescents, 1988–2004. Pediatrics. 2008;121(6):e1604-e1614. 6. Bleich SN, Wang YC, Wang Y and Gortmaker SL. Increasing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages among US adults: 1988–1994 to 1999—2004. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;89(1):372-381. 7. Kit BK, Fakhouri TH, Park S, Nielsen SJ, Ogden CL. Trends in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among youth and adults in the United States: 1999-2010. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013 Jul;98(1):180-8. 8. Bleich SN, Vercammen KA, Koma JW, Li Z. Trends in Beverage Consumption Among Children an Adults, 2003-2014. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2018 Feb;26(2):432-441. doi: 10.1002/oby.22056. Epub 2017 Nov 14. 9. Malik VS, Pan A, Willett WC , Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(4):1084-1102. 10. Chen L, Caballero B, Mitchell DC, et al. Reducing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with reduced blood pressure a prospective study among United States adults. Circulation. 2010;121(22):2398-2406. 11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015 – 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th Edition. December 2015. Available at http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/. 12. Chaloupka FJ, Powell LM, and Chriqui JF. Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes and public health: A Research Brief. Minneapolis, MN: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Healthy Eating Research, 2009. 13. Brownell KD, Farley T, Willett WV, et al. The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. New Engl J Med. 2009;361(16):1599-1605. 14. Long MW, Gortmaker SL, Ward ZJ, Resch SC, Moodie ML, Sacks G, Swinburn BA, Carter RC, Claire Wang Y. Cost Effectiveness of a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Excise Tax in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Jul;49(1):112-23. 15. Gortmaker SL, Wang YC, Long MW, Giles CM, Ward ZJ, Barrett JL, Kenney EL, Sonneville KR, Afzal AS, Resch SC, Cradock AL. Three Interventions That Reduce Childhood Obesity Are Projected To Save More Than They Cost To Implement. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Nov 1;34(11):1932-9. 16. Institute of Medicine. Local Government Actions to Prevent Childhood Obesity, 2009. National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
The information in this brief is intended to provide educational information on the cost effectiveness of sugary drink taxes. 8
17. Francis N, Marron, D, Rueben, K. The Pros and Cons of Taxing Swettened Beverages Based on Sugar Content.Urban Instittue, 2016. Washington, DC. 18. Colchero MA, Salgado JC, Unar-Munguía M, Molina M, Ng S, Rivera-Dommarco JA. Changes in Prices After an Excise Tax to Sweetened Sugar Beverages Was Implemented in Mexico: Evidence from Urban Areas. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(12): e0144408. 19. Falbe J, Thompson HR, Becker CM, Rojas N, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA. Impact of the Berkeley Excise Tax on Sugar- Sweetened Beverage Consumption. Am J Public Health. 2016 Aug 23:e1-e7. 20. Ng SW, Silver L, Ryan-Ibarra S, Induni M, Hamma C, Poti J , Popkin B. Berkeley Evaluation of Soda Tax (BEST) Study Preliminary Findings. Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Chicago, IL, November 21. Powell LM, Isgor z, Rimkus L, Chaloupka FJ. Sugar-sweetened beverage prices: Estimates from a national sample of food outlets. Chicago, IL: Bridging the Gap Program, Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, 2014. Available at: http://www.bridgingthegapresearch.org/_asset/ww9rpz/btg_SSB_price_brief_FINAL_Jan_2014.pdf. 22. Luick, B. Personal Communications about results from December 2016 Alaska Food Cost Survey. 23. Potempa AE, Beverage Costs in Alaska: Select Communities, March 2017. Unpublished data. 24. UCONN Rudd Center. Revenue Calculator for Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes. Jan 2014. Accessed March 2016, http://www.uconnruddcenter.org/revenue-calculator-for-sugar-sweetened-beverage-taxes. 25. Sugary Drink Prevalence. Retrieved on Jan 9, 2017, from Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Indicator-Based Information System for Public Health (AK-IBIS) website: http://ibis.dhss.alaska.gov/. 26. Powell LM, Chriqui JF, Khan T, Wada R, Chaloupka FJ. Assessing the potential effectiveness of food and beverage taxes and subsidies for improving public health: a systematic review of prices, demand and body weight outcomes. Obes Rev. 2013;14(2): p. 110-28. 27. Chen L. Reduction in consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with weight loss: the PREMIER trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89(5):1299-306. 28. Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Rimm ER, Willett WC, Hu FB. Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(25): p. 2392-404. 29. Palmer JR, Boggs DA, Krishnan S, Hu FB, Singer M, Rosenberg L. Sugar-sweetened beverages and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in African American women. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(14): p. 1487-92. 30. Schulze MB, Mason JE, Ludwig D, et al. Sugar-sweetened beverages, weight gain, and incidence of type 2 diabetes in young and middle-aged women. JAMA. 2004;292(8): p. 927-34. 31. de Ruyter JC, Olthof MR, Seidell JC, Katan MB. A trial of sugar-free or sugar-sweetened beverages and body weight in Children. N Engl Med. 2012;367(15):1397-1406. 32. Obesity prevalence. Retrieved on Jan 9, 2017, from Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Indicator-Based Information System for Public Health (AK-IBIS) website: http://ibis.dhss.alaska.gov/. 33. Ward ZJ, Long MW, Resch SC, Gortmaker SL, Cradock AL, Giles C, Hsiao A, Wang YC. Redrawing the US Obesity Landscape: Bias-Corrected Estimates of State-Specific Adult Obesity Prevalence. PLoS One. 2016 Mar 8;11(3):e0150735. 34. Long MW, Ward ZJ, Resch SC, Cradock AL, Wang YC, Giles CM, Gortmaker SL. State-level estimates of childhood obesity prevalence in the United States corrected for report bias. Int J Obes (Lond). 2016 Aug 30. 35. Imamura F, O’Connor L, Ye Z, Mursu J, Hayashino Y, Bhupathiraju SN, Forouhi NG. Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes. Br J Sports Med. 2016 Apr;50(8):496-504. 36. Bernabé E, Vehkalahti MM, Sheiham A, Lundqvist A, Suominen AL. The Shape of the Dose-Response Relationship between Sugars and Caries in Adults. J Dent Res. 2016 Feb;95(2):167-72.) 37. Sheiham A, James WP. 2014. A new understanding of the relationship between sugars, dental caries and fluoride use: implications for limits on sugars consumption. Public Health Nutr. 17(10):2176–2184. 38. Alaska Medicaid Health Enterprise. Alaska Medicaid Assistance: State Fiscal Year 2018 Fee Schedule. 2018. Avaliable from: http://manuals.medicaidalaska.com/docs/dnld/Fees_Dental_SFY2018.pdf 39. Ward Z, et al. NHANES III Dental Examination: An Incisive Report. unpublished report; 2018. 40. Lynn J. (2016, Jan 20). City council votes to allocate ‘soda tax’ revenue to school district, city organizations. The Daily Californian. Retrieved from http://www.dailycal.org/2016/01/20/city-council-votes-allocate-soda-tax-revenue-school- district-city-organizations/. 41. Berkeley City Council. (2016, June 14). Berkeley City Council meeting. [Annotated Agenda]. Retrieved from https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2016/06_June/City_Council__06-14-2016_-_Meeting_Info.aspx.
The information in this brief is intended to provide educational information on the cost effectiveness of sugary drink taxes. 9
42. Federal Trade Commission. A review of food marketing to children and adolescents: follow-up report. Washington, DC: FTC; 2012Dec. Available from: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2012/12/121221foodmarketingreport.pdf. 43. Friedman R. Public Opinion Data, 2013: New Haven, CT: Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity. 44. Frieden TR, Mostashari F, Kerker BD, Miller N, Hajat A, Frankel M. Adult tobacco use levels after intensive tobacco control measures: New York City, 2002-2003. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(6):1016-1023.
The information in this brief is intended to provide educational information on the cost effectiveness of sugary drink taxes. 10
Yukon-Kuskokwim Fitness Center
Safety. Wellness. Community
th October 16 , 2020
In support of efforts to reduce the spread of Important Links YK Fitness Center Website: CoVID-19 in the YK Delta, the fitness center http://www.ykfitness.org/ will remain closed until further notice. http://www.ykfitness.org/covid19
City of Bethel Website: All memberships have been placed on hold. https://www.cityofbethel.org/ Class participants will be contacted regarding Bethel, AK Local News: rescheduling or cancelation of classes. https://www.kyuk.org/
Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation Let’s all work together to be healthy so we https://www.ykhc.org/covid -19/ can open again. State of Alaska COVID-19 Website: We look forward to seeing you soon. http://dhss.alaska.gov/dph/Epi/id/Pages/COVID -19/monitoring.aspx
CDC Website: Visit ykfitness.org, find us on Facebook, or https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/index.html email us at [email protected] for news, inspiration and more.
Week 2 of our Fall Into Fitness
Challenge runs Oct 11-17th. Work towards achieving the CDC recommended 150 minutes of exercise a week and enter to win!.
http://www.ykfitness.org/ William Arnold, Public Works Director 1155 Ridgecrest Drive PO Box 1388 Bethel, AK 99559 P: (907) 543-3110 F: (907) 543-2046 [email protected]
MEMORANDUM DATE: 10.31.2020 TO: Pete Williams, Acting City Manager FROM: Bill Arnold, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Manager’s Report – Public Works Department
Programs/Divisions Hauled Utilities: Business as usual. This Department gets job accomplished despite all of the challenges. We assisted Utility Maintenance during the Lift Station Failure. We lost an employee this month and possibly another.
Utility Maintenance: • 14 alarms on residential lift stations were responded to. Multiple issues with grinder pumps and float systems. • Monthly meter reading and service connections were completed. • Clean up and organization of shops and vehicles. • 14 residential lift station repairs • Line flushing and leveling activities on low-flow and plugged sewer lines. Non- compliance reports were filled out per DEC requirements. • Daily safety meeting • Finished up replacing P.D. sewer line. • Replaced leaky fire hydrants and corp stop in housing • Been working with contractors on the main lift station to change out bad check valves
Property Maintenance: • IN GENERAL: o Fire Sprinkling Systems Contract . I recommend City Administration place a RFB for contract of professional services specifically related to Sprinkler Systems throughout the City. Contract should include; Semi-annual inspection, service, repairs and maintenance as well as any State and Federal inspection requirements. o Standby Power generators Contract. . I recommend City Administration place a RFB for contract of professional services specifically related to power generators. Contract should include; periodic scheduled inspection, service, repairs and maintenance of ALL City standby power generators. • PW Building o Fire sprinkling system: . System NOT in operation. Pinhole leaks were discovered in inventory room 4 inch piping. Requested assistance of administration to engage in establishing a contract with Fire Sprinkling Professional services for repairs to be made in accordance with state and federal regulations. . Dry Sprinkler System Compressor is failed. New compressor will be needed. Similarly, as above City should engine in a contract for professional Fire System Services. o Handicap ramp at Public Works approximately 95%+ complete. Minor finishing work yet to be completed, other than that the ramp is in full service. This finishing work will need to be completed summer of 2021. o Serviced batteries on the shop man lift. Lift in better operation. But shop should consider getting a new piece of equipment in the coming budget year.
• City Hall o Front Entry hallway finishing work from previous “City Manager” remodel project yet to complete. o 2020 Summer projects left to complete Summer of 2021 . Parking line permanent paint . Handicap area designation and paint . Loading/unloading designation and paint . Guard railing install . Relevel front and rear deck entrances
• Court House o ***Gary Poe discovered (2) overheated and critically hot circulation pump during building checks one morning. The circulation pumps cycle water from the outdoor the Fire Suppression water tank into the building through a small heat exchanger and back to the suppression tank. The purpose of these pumps is to prevent freeze up of the water stored in the suppression tank outside of the courthouse building by continuously moving the water from the tank, into the heat exchanger and back to the tank. After thoroughly troubleshooting the circulation pumps it was then discovered that there was no water passing through the pumps. It was originally suspected that the pumps had seized and the applied power to the motor under the seized load caused the thermal overload. This turned out not to be the case. Further inspection resulted in finding the suppression water storage tank COMPLETELY empty of water, with only about 6 to 8 inches remaining in the bottom of the tank. Essentially Gary’s keen attention to detail during daily building rounds found a small and minor “red flag” that resulted in finding a MUCH BIGGER problem. I believe Gary Poe should be recognized with great honor for his actions and attention to detail. I could only image what our insurance company would say if the courthouse building caught on fire and burnt completely down to the ground because there was NO suppression water available for the fire sprinkling system to provide.
o Dry Sprinkler System: . Dry system is in NORMAL operation minus ONE isolated sprinkler head located on the outside of the building to the left of the front main entrance. . The dry system has a small leak in the system piping just above court room 4. Leak is temporarily fixed and holding. Static air pressure is remaining constant with additional help from the fire system air compressor. Pressures checked daily, but serious concern remains. Needs a professional contracted services attention. o Request by Court employees to install baby changing areas in public bathroom, near front side of building. TBD o Request by court employees to install different hand soap dispensers in bathrooms. TBD o Request by court and DA employees to complete yearly carpet cleaning of all spaces throughout the building. Request made to janitorial contracted services. Still not complete. o Multiple areas of the building showing signs of significant shifting of piling foundation. PW Director working on bid process with DOWL engineering for contractor to level the building. o Winter preparation work on boiler and associated system in work.
• Port Dock Warehouse Building o Standard daily rounding with nothing significant to note. o Request made by AML employees to square up and level entry door to the transition building. Temporary fix in place.
• Old “Bus Barn” Blue Warehouse Building o The foundation is failing o Man door is no longer accessible as the floor and door jam are severely affected by the foundation movement.
• Log Cabin o Building is in NON USE status. . Graffiti and vandalism are a continuing constant problem. . Foundation has settled enough that the entrance closest to the ONC multipurpose building is jammed itself and will not operate. o Building Fuel tank found empty and removed from building by vandals. Vandals destroyed the fuel connection lines from tank to building and moved the entire stand and tank away from the building. o Constant vandalism reports. Constant graffiti. Constant reports of kids on the roof of the building.
• YKFC - Pool o Pool is on daily observation by building maintenance staff. Sometimes several times a day. o 4 months ago, Architects Alaska and mechanical engineering firm visited to survey problems within the building that will need addressed. DOWL Engineering selected Wolverine Supply to conduct list of repairs and fixes associated with the findings. LARGE list. o City Attorney working on discovery and document collection for City Administration to make informed decisions for going forward. o Long Building Technologies contractor site visit: (Report from contractor still pending) . Along with building maintenance staff thoroughly troubleshot and made repairs to automated systems that control the building. o DOWL Engineering evaluation of building issues in process. o UV Light pool water treatment system repairs complete along with annual maintenance.
• Fire Department o Fuel tank for FD building shows signs of shifting. May need extension of flexible fuel line installed to prevent hard line from breaking. On list of “To Do” o A water fountain bubbler has been requested for install in front area between bathrooms. In the works. o Previous city manager request 2 TV’s be installed in the FD training room for future EOC use. One is installed. o Previous City Manager requested outlets be placed in the floor of the training room for future EOC use. Completed.
• Teen Center o Boilers have failed multiple times this winter. Troubleshot, repaired and returned to service. o Found failed fuel pump on Loop Glycol Boiler. Replaced fuel pump. Boiler back in service. o Request to level rear emergency evacuation stairs lower landing. Staff is using this as a normal entrance and exit to the building and should not be, however the landing does need leveling and repair. This has been completed.
• Senior Center o All three boilers in good working order. Weekly rounds of the building are in place. o Vandalism and graffiti is evident all over exterior of building. o Daily removal of trespassers and loiters.
• To DO’s . Old Shop Utility Building: Loading and unloading deck repairs/replacement. . New Shop Utility Building: . Loading and unloading deck and ramp repair/replacement needed. . Foundation and piling supports to building found to be in a non-repairable condition. This will be a project to address in the following summer.
Parks and Recreation: • Parks and Rec in General - Projects to be considered for future o All play parks . General maintenance and grounds upkeep . Rules and hours signage in works . Trashcan repair/replacement . Ground cover/chips upkeep has been halted for winter also out of chips. . Equipment repair and maintenance
o Pinky’s Park . Potential Softball field refurbish/re-sod/re-seed in discussion . Potential dugout repairs, repaint . Bleacher maintenance . Skate park/bike park expansion discussions (Unsure of administration direction on this)
o Soccer Sports Field . Additional Hydro Seed and ground aerate . Bike Rack install . Build and place information bulletin stand at location . Nets install to goal posts. . Funding for permanent fencing. Quotations received for two options. Awaiting administration decisions. Shipping costs equal or greater to the materials cost.
o Airport Cemetery (on Hold status) . additional fencing . Potential options for hydro seeding
o Puncheon/Boardwalks . Boardwalk lighting project materials order . General maintenance and upkeep . Vegetation trim back . Way finding signage options in discussion . Leveling boardwalk . Board repair or replacement as needed . Trash can replacement as needed . Benches and sitting areas repairs
Road Maintenance: Streets and Roads built up the parking lot at the swimming pool so it will not be as slippery in front of the building, i.e. walking in when ice is present. We hauled in 125 dump truck loads of road sand and graded the parking lot before capping it off with $80,000 of gravel. Streets and Roads hauled road sand to build up Katie Hately Lane, between Alex Hately Drive and Blackberry Street in Blueberry Subdivision. We hauled in D-1 gravel, and capped it off by grading it. Street and Roads helped piped water and sewer by digging out the road by the Police Station and laying in new sewer pipe. After that, we buried the sewer line and capped it with gravel. Streets and Roads in Kasayuli Subdivision built up two sinkholes with road sand on Noel Polty Boulevard, and Nacaullek Street. We, then, lay D-1 gravel in those two areas and graded it. Streets and Roads repositioned a sewer line that crosses Ptarmigan Street. As a result, we had to build the road higher. Streets and Roads dug five graves for the month of October at the graveyard by the airport with the 420D backhoe.
Landfill / Recycle Center: Have worked on repairing dump pads by placing fresh loads of broken concrete so that in the spring when everything is wet these pads won’t be muddy. Streets and Roads made a salt sand pile for us due to lack of personnel. We are in the process of finding and hiring a new employee for the one vacancy in my department. We continue to plant trash and cover it with sand, and then move on to another area to fill-in. We have drained, crushed and placed plenty of cars on the dike to be covered with sand at some time. 174 refrigerators and freezers have been drained of Freon, crushed and buried.
Personnel:
Department Hauled Utility Landfill Vehicles & Streets Bethel Property Utilities Maintenance Equipment & Roads Transit Maintenance Filled 13 8 3 7 5 3 5 Positions Total 20 9 4 7 5 3 5 Funded Positions Percentage 65% 89% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Streets and Roads-leveled YK Fitness Center Driveway