Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02132012 City Council PacketSeward City Council Agenda Packet Seward Boat Harbor February 13, 2012 V*4.:ity Council Chambers Beginning at 7: 00 p.m. 1963 1965 2005 The City of Seward, Alaska CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 1 i-u {Please silence all cellular phones and pagers during the meeting} February 13, 2012 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER David Seaward 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor 3. ROLL CALL Term Expires 2013 4. CITIZENS' COMMENTS ON ANY SUBJECT EXCEPT THOSE ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING. [Those who Jean Bardarson have signed in will be given the first opportunity to speak. Time is Vice Mayor limited to 3 minutes per speaker and 36 minutes total time for this Term Expires 2012 agenda item.] 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA [Approval Robert Valdatta of Consent Agenda passes all routine items indicated by asterisk (*). Council Member Consent Agenda items are not considered separately unless a council Term Expires 2013 member so requests. In the event of such a request, the item is returned to the Regular Agenda] Christy Terry Council Member 6. SPECIAL ORDERS, PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS Term Expires 2013 A. Proclamations and Awards 1. Recognizing Lee Poleske for contributions to Historic Preservation Vanta Shafer .......................................................................... Pg. 4 Council Member 2. Recognizing Maureen Callahan for her service to the Seward Term Expires 2013 Community Library ................................................... Pg. 5 Marianna Keil B. Borough Assembly Report Council Member C. City Manager's Report Term Expires 2012 D. Mayor Report E. Other Reports and Presentations Ristine Casagranda Council Member 1. Seward Senior Center Annual Report Term Expires 2012 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS James Hunt A. Items Postponed from Previous Agenda, Resolutions For Public City Manager Hearing 1. Resolution 2012-001, Approving A Land Exchange Of A 0.56 Johanna Kinney Acre +/- Portion Of Lot 8A-1 For A 0.56 Acre +/- Portion Of Lot City Clerk 6A-1, Fort Raymond Subdivision Replat No. 2, With The Kenai Peninsula Borough And Appropriating Funds...................Pg. 6 Cheryl Brooking City Attorney (Clerk's note: Resolution postponed from January 9, 2012 council meeting and again from the January 23, 2012 council meetings. A public hearing was held on January 23, 2012, and council has requested another public hearing be held before consideration. The original motion to approve this resolution was made by Bardarson and seconded by Shafer) City of Seward, Alaska Council Agenda February 13, 2012 Page 1 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolutions * 1. Resolution 2012-010, Approving Amendment # 1 To The Employment Agreement With The City Clerk, And Appropriating Funds...................................................Pg. 23 2. Resolution 2012-011, Retroactively Amending The 2011 Budget To Record Expenditures Of $540,733.73 Paid By The State Of Alaska On Behalf Of The City Toward The City's Public Employees Retirement System Liability...........................................Pg. 28 *3. Resolution 2012-012, Approving A Contract For External Audit Services For The Years Ending 2011, 2012, And 2013, With Mikunda, Cottrell & Co., And Appropriating Funds. ...............................................................................Pg. 36 *4. Resolution 2012-013, Amending The 2011 Budget And Appropriating $24,953 In Sales Tax Revenue To The Hospital Debt Service Fund..........................................Pg. 50 5. Resolution 2012-014, Authorizing Transfer Of Additional Raw Fish Tax Proceeds In The Amount Of $234,451.41 To The Harbor Major Repair And Replacement Fund, To Fund Capital Infrastructure Needs.........................................................................Pg. 54 *6. Resolution 2012-015, Consenting To The Assignment Of The Contract For Collection And Disposal Of Garbage And Waste Between The City Of Seward And Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC, To Waste Connections Of Alaska, Inc..Pg. 57 7. Resolution 2012-016, Stating An Intent To Fund $400,000 For The Maple Street Sewer Line Project Subject To Receiving A Loan In That Amount, Authorizing A Loan Application With The Alaska Clean Water Fund And Authorizing The City Manager To Accept A Loan Offer From The Alaska Drinking Water Fund With Payments Subject To Bi-Annual Appropriation............................................................................................ P g. 63 B. Other New Business Items * 1. Approval Of The January 23, 2012 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes................................................................................................. P g. 104 *2. Appoint Andrew Wilder as the alternate representative to the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, seat currently held by Tim McDonald..............................Pg. 117 3. Discussion on rescinding the authorization of fluoridating city water and give direction if administration should bring forward a resolution for consideration. (Casagranda) ...........................................................................................................Pg. 119 4. Response to the invitation to send up to a nine person delegation to Obihiro, Japan to celebrate their 1301" Anniversary in October/November, 2012......................Pg. 230 5. Discussion on capping the fish tax. (Valdatta) 6. Discussion on authorizing the City Manager to contact Alaska Interstate Gas to seek proposal to bring natural gas to Seward. (Valdatta) 7. Discussion on contracting out Parking Services which is currently managed by the City of Seward. (Seaward) City of Seward, Alaska Council Agenda February 13, 2012 Page 2 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS (No action required) a. November City Financial Report.....................................................Pg. 239 b. December Providence Financial Report.............................................Pg. 292 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS 11. CITIZENS' COMMENTS [5 minutes per individual - Each individual has one opportunity to speak.] 12. COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION RESPONSE TO CITIZENS' COMMENTS 13. ADJOURNMENT City of Seward, Alaska Council Agenda February 13, 2012 Page 3 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the most lasting thing a person can give to his/her community is their time and commitment; and WHEREAS, for over four decades, Lee Poleske has been the most knowledgeable and credible resource of Seward history — locally, statewide and nationally; and WHEREAS, Mr. Poleske, with long-time colleague Dan Seavey Sr., has documented Seward's essential role in Alaska's Gold Rush era through the Iditarod Trailblazers and creation of the National Historic Iditarod Trail; and WHEREAS, as Seward's self-appointed historian, Mr. Poleske created the Obituary Index, which now contains more than 2,800 obituaries of people who have lived and/or died in Seward and which is a valuable local resource not found in many communities; and WHEREAS, for the past six years Mr. Poleske has led the popular Summer Solstice Cemetery Tour, during which he points out selected gravesites while reading highlights from the deceased's obituary; and WHEREAS, Lee Poleske has served on many local boards and is the organizational force of the Resurrection Bay Historical Society, and continues to publish the Resurrection Bay Historical Society Newsletter which is an entertaining, educational and concise publication; and WHEREAS, since Mr. Poleske's retirement from teaching in 1990, he has played the major role in operating and maintaining the Seward Museum for the Resurrection Bay Historical Society and the citizens of Seward; and WHEREAS, as Seward Museum volunteer curator and director, Mr. Poleske archived and catalogued items from Seward's past, created and maintained exhibits, led tours for school groups and tourists, and planned programs; and WHEREAS, Mr. Poleske has been instrumental in securing a future for the Seward Museum through the inception and creation of the Seward Community Library Museum. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, David Seaward, Mayor of the City of Seward, Alaska, do hereby acknowledge Lee Poleske's exemplary volunteer service to the City of Seward and its citizens in the preservation of our history and decree that the Research Room of the new Seward Community Library Museum be dedicated to Lee Poleske's achievements and named the Poleske Room. Dated this 13th day of February, 2012 THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA David Seaward, Mayor �1 FKOCLAMAI.JN a NHEREAS, Maureen Callahan, has worked at the Seward Community L jkrary since 1990, and NHF-RF-AS, Maureen is kindly referred to as the Story Lady to preschoolers and their caregivers in reward, and NHE REAS, Maureen has planned, helped create and/or presented over 1 1 00 Story Hours on most -ridgy mornings at the library for the past 22 years, and NHS RYAS, Maureen has maintained the children's and young adult collection providing a wide variety )f reading materials for the kids of Seward based on her vast knowledge of the genre, and NHF.RF-.A5, the total number of children's,junior and young adults books has increased from 1 1,500 0 17,342 during Maureen's tenure as children's librarian, and NHER'F-AS, Maureen instituted the popular Christmas Wish Tree program adding 50 to 75 new >ooks to the collection annually. JOWTHE RE FORE,1, David Seaward, Mayor of the City of Seward, \laska, do hereby acknowledge Maureen Callahan's dedication to the children F Seward, thank her for her 22 years of service and wish her a well -deserved, appy and relaxing retirement. THE, CITY OF SEWARD, AL.A5KA Dated tki,5 Jay Lekruarq i 3, 201 2 David Seaward, Magor Sponsored by: Hunt CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2012-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, APPROVING A LAND EXCHANGE A 0.56 ACRE +/- PORTION OF LOT 8A-1 FOR AN 0.56 ACRE +/- PORTION OF LOT 6A-1, FORT RAYMOND SUBDIVISION REPLAT NO. 2, WITH THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Seward has been granted funds by the state to build a new office/warehouse at the Fort Raymond Substation site as part of the substation upgrade; and WHEREAS, the City of Seward has developed plans for the office/warehouse, site drainage, electrical extension and pedestrian path; and WHEREAS, the project design would be facilitated by redrawing common property boundaries of certain city and borough owned land; and WHEREAS, this project would result in improved pedestrian access between the Seward Elementary School and Seward High School; and WHEREAS, all future plans and modifications after the land is acquired must go to the Planning and Zoning Commission per city code; and WHEREAS, the exchanged lands are of approximately equal area and are considered to be of approximately equal value; and WHEREAS, Under city code Title 7.05.120 which states, "The City Council may acquire or dispose of an interest in real property by negotiation, public auction, or sealed bid." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA that: Section 1. That the Council finds that exchanging a 0.56 acre +/- portion of Lot 8A-lof parcel number 14502621for an 0.56 acre +/- portion of Lot 6A-1, Fort Raymond Subdivision Replat No.2 with the Kenai Peninsula Borough is in the best interest of the City. Section 2. That the City of Seward Electrical department will be responsible for all surveying and platting costs associated with the property involved in the exchange. Section 3. That the City Manager is authorized to negotiate the exchange and execute the agreement substantially in the form of the one accompanying this resolution and any and all additional documents necessary to effectuate this resolution. WWI CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2012-001 Section 4. This resolution shall take affect 30 days upon its adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska, this 9`' day of January, 2012. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Johanna Kinney City Clerk (City Seal) W THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA David Seaward, Mayor Council Agenda Statement Meeting Date: January 9th, 2012 To: James Hunt, City Mana From: John Foutz, Electric Utility Manager Agenda Item: Land Exchange BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: The City of Seward Electric Department is the recipient of a state grant as part of Alaska Railbelt Cooperative Transmission and Energy Company (ARCTEC). The grant is for $4,000,000 and includes a new office/warehouse. The chosen location for the office/warehouse is north of the new generator building, off of Sea Lion Avenue and across the street from the Seward Elementary School.(Please refer to attached AutoCad drawing) This location was chosen to give the electric department the ability to bring together personnel, materials and equipment close the backup generation facility as well as add a visually pleasing and sound suppressing barrier from the road and elementary school. To construct the new building at the most logical location the City must acquire land located to the west along Sea Lion Avenue currently owned by the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The land the electric department requires is approximately 0.56 acres and a similar apportionment was chosen to make the property swap beneficial to both the City and the Borough. Once the exchange is complete the City will also have the opportunity to do the three following beneficial steps; First, reroute the bike/pedestrian path to better match the flow of children between the Seward Elementary School and Seward High School, Second: reroute the existing drainage overflow ditch for the City's well field, and Third, bury an underground power line to the City's well pumps in a direct route. INTENT: To exchange the specified pieces of land with the approximate equal acreage with the borough to allow the City of Seward's electrical department to move forward with plans for an office/warehouse. CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST: Where applicable, this agenda statement is consistent with the Seward City Code, Charter, Comprehensive Plans, Land Use Plans, Strategic Plan and City Council Rules of Procedures or Other Plans or Policies: FISCAL NOTE: The electrical department will be responsible surveying and platting costs from account no 501-5110-5910. Approved by Finance Department: ATTORNEY REVIEW: Yes X No RECOMMENDATION: Council approve resolution 201204ermitting the exchange of land between the City of Seward and Kenai Peninsula Borough. CITY or SEWARD PO. BOX 167 SEWARD. ALA51KA 99664-0167 September 7, 2011 To: Kenai Peninsula Borough, Land Management Division • Main Office (907) 224.4050 • Police (907) 224.3338 • Harbor (907) 224-3138 • Fire (907) 224.3445 • City Clerk (907) 224.4046 • Engineering (907) 224.4049 • Utilities (907) 224-4050 • Fax (907) 224.4038 This letter is a land exchange proposal for the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) to consider exchanging land with the City of Seward (COS) bordering Seward's Fort Raymond electric substation. The land exchange would involve portion of KPB tax parcel ID # 14502620 and # 14502621. Four maps have been included for reference. The Autocad drawing shows the pieces of land initially proposed in the swap. The wide green line indicates the initially proposed sections; the borough would acquire the portion shown as 23,953 sqft and the City would acquire the section indicating 24,193 sqft. This land Exchange would benefit both KPB and COS. The benefits to KPB include additional land options close to all the major schools in the Seward area and COS' willingness to construct additional *40W sidewalk on Sea Lion Avenue to accommodate the foot traffic between the elementary school and the high school. With the expected reroute of the bike path within city boundaries, the additional sidewalk will increase the safety of students, bikers and pedestrians, while creating a more direct route for the elementary students walking to the high school. This exchange could also be accomplished by the following alternatives: 1) The borough can consider an exchange of land as yet undetermined. 2) COS purchase the land from KPB based on a fair market value appraisal. With this land exchange, any survey and replatting costs would be split by the two entities. The City of Seward thanks you for considering this request. Please contact me at 907-224-4071 or by email at ifoutz(a)cityofseward.net for further information or questions. Very Respectfully, John Foutz Electric Utility Manager IF Kenai Peninsula Borough Property Report-14502620 Wed Sep 7 2011 03:13:00 PM d- x _ _ V YIGCIFAYE^ Nridl'OCK'AVE _ _ —i taurOCK "E 4�,1 ti SEP LION Mt � o _ % •'I �dhrah��j i a 7 , SOOm 2 Parcel Number: 14502620 Address: 605 SEA LION AVE Owner: SEWARD CITY OF (JR) PO BOX 167 SEWARD, AK 99664 Tax Area: 40 - SEWARD CITY Usage Cade: 100 Residential Vacant DISCLAIMER: The data displayed herein is neither a Acreage: 10,70 legally recorded map nor survey and should only be used for general reference purposes. Kenai Peninsula Borough Land Value: $1,220,000 assumes no liability as to the accuracy of any data displayed herein. Original source documents should be Improvement Value: $0 consulted for accuracy verification. Assessed Value: $1,220,000 Taxable Value: $0 Legal Description: T 1 N R 1 W SEC 34 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 2002018 FORT RAYMOND SUB REPLAT NO 2 LOT 6A-1 Number of Structures: 1 Structure # Year Built Square Ft Structure Type In Kenai Peninsula Borough Property Report-14502621 Wed Sep 7 2011 04:29:56 PM ff � u a z_ it t nsslS.f ASi53 �- VL- f l �, KElq• /f +r[4tean AVF— E61CbCK AVf w - �KAVe j� ._—_..�H _ 1fFUCCCN'aVE ,F �. �N� l f J _.._...._.._....- —.. / r. soom Parcel Number: 14502621 Address: 600 SEA LION AVE Owner: KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH 144 N BINKLEY ST SOLDOTNA, AK 99669 Tax Area: 40 - SEWARD CITY Usage Code: 820 Institutional School DISCLAIMER: The data displayed herein is neither a legally recorded map nor survey and should only be used Acreage: 17.64 for general reference purposes. Kenai Peninsula Borough Land Value: $1,634,500 assumes no liability as to the accuracy of any data displayed herein. Original source documents should be Improvement Value: $13,002,000 consulted for accuracy verification, Assessed Value: $14,636,500 Taxable Value: $0 Legal Description: T 1 N R 1 W SEC 34 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW 2002018 FORT RAYMOND SUB REPLAT NO 2 LOT 8A-1 Number of Structures: 2 Structure # Year Built Square Ft Structure Type C01 1990 52,199 SCHOOL R01 1990 52,199 SCHOOL -;,A'I 4A) aa--.173': 44 'i'dLNK R";. MIL y—j Fa :s;DLLL4414 p4Qz,;., 1.r7 SM11 �w-O Cl P� PL �l k-l-a K-Voot;W& 'v) VIA S6 0', M-44 i IP:5n. : h; :jj OL MI tLY-00 -4; a J p 1r 0*vd Oils 6 Os CAI V,� V-1 ni --- - - - - - - - f.Z+T xlll� N Ne� IIIN! "i., jo. -44 - 17-" "Op' �<" V4 AL- -^ 0 1 S-41 1 , 7Q 1) v."* - Q AV-.34 4- k9'.L k�+.E L,2,i A,L4-- Jw-4 =53 Z T-731SE05 Jl� SrLu; k"K:;,Ccj-xv 7-41 dool rpl; ainjnj r---------------- ---------------------------, ------------- --------f----------------------------ate --------- — - - ------ v----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ 177 i , OZ ain�n \ I 9 1 s Bik .\ ..�...—202�.. clj... Proposed reroute 'ra • O• — — \ _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Path Alternate Route ` pending ROW—U h p�. p-'—a W 1New Fence Exhibit KPB/Seward Land Exchange N 0 25 50 100 150 200 KRS 11/17/11 n Feet LIVID #11-40 EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Kenai Peninsula Borough and the City of Seward are owners of certain real property that the City of Seward wishes to exchange; and WHEREAS, the objectives are to construct an office/warehouse building that would become a barrier between the elementary school and a backup generation facility as well as additional sidewalk on Sea Lion Avenue to accommodate foot traffic between schools; and WHEREAS, the parties have designed the exchange to include lands of approximate equal area and value; NOW, THEREFORE, this Agreement is made on this of , 2012, by and between the KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH, an Alaska municipal corporation, whose address is 144 North Binkley Street, Soldotna, Alaska 99669 (hereinafter referred to as "KPB"), pursuant to KPB Ordinance 2011-_ enacted , 2012, and the City of Seward, an Alaska municipal corporation, whose address is P.O. BOX 167 Seward, AK 99664-0167 (hereinafter referred to as "CITY OF SEWARD"). 1. KPB PARCEL Subject to other applicable provisions of this Agreement, for good and valuable consideration, the KPB will convey all interest it has in the following described parcel of land ("KPB Property") to CITY OF SEWARD. The KPB makes no warranties, express or implied, nor assumes any liability whatsoever, regarding the social, economic, or environmental aspects of the KPB Property, including, without limitation, the soil conditions, water drainage, access, natural or artificial hazards that may exist, or the merchantability, profitability or fitness of the KPB Property for any particular purpose. CITY OF SEWARD shall have 30 days from the date of this agreement in which to inspect title to KPB Property and associated title records. If CITY OF SEWARD determine said title to be unacceptable, CITY OF SEWARD may cancel this agreement without penalty by written notice. If no such notice is given, it shall be deemed that CITY OF SEWARD accept title to KPB Property after having had a full opportunity to inspect the KPB Property and associated title records, and have determined them suitable for the purposes addressed by this Agreement. to Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska KPB/CITY OF SEWARD — EXCHANGE AGREEMENT Page 1 of 7 Property Description A 0.56 Acre +/- portion of Lot 8A-1 Fort Raymond Subdivision Replat No. 2 according to plat no. 2002-18 Seward Recording District, as shown on attached Exhibit A; subject to modification upon field survey and final platting action. 2. CITY OF SEWARD PARCEL Subject to other applicable provisions of this Agreement, for good and valuable consideration, the CITY OF SEWARD will convey all interest it has in the following described parcel of land ("CITY OF SEWARD Property") to KPB. The CITY OF SEWARD makes no warranties, express or implied, nor assumes any liability whatsoever, regarding the social, economic, or environmental aspects of the CITY OF SEWARD Property, including, without limitation, the soil conditions, water drainage, access, natural or artificial hazards that may exist, or the merchantability, profitability or fitness of the CITY OF SEWARD Property for any particular purpose. KPB shall have 30 days from the date of this agreement in which to inspect title to CITY OF SEWARD Property and associated title records. If KPB determine said title to be unacceptable, KPB may cancel this agreement without penalty by written notice. If no such notice is given, it shall be deemed that KPB accept title to CITY OF SEWARD Property after having had a full opportunity to inspect the CITY OF SEWARD Property and associated title records, and have determined them suitable for the purposes addressed by this Agreement. Property Description A 0.56 Acre +/- portion of Lot 6A-1 Fort Raymond Subdivision Replat No. 2 according to plat no. 2002-18 Seward Recording District, as shown on attached Exhibit A; subject to modification upon field survey and final platting action. 3. CONSIDERATION KPB and CITY OF SEWARD agree that the property subject to this exchange is of similar value, and each party is benefitted by this exchange for their respective purposes, and therefore the land received by each party is the full consideration for the land conveyed under this agreement. Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska KPB/CITY OF SEWARD — EXCHANGE AGREEMENT Page 2 of 7 4. 5. 2 TITLE A. KPB PROPERTY Title shall be delivered to CITY OF SEWARD at time of closing by quitclaim deed. KPB conveys only its interest in the property, if any, without warranty of any kind or nature whatsoever. Title shall also be subject to reservations, easements, rights -of -way, covenants, conditions and restrictions of record. B. CITY OF SEWARD PROPERTY Title shall be delivered to KPB at time of closing by quitclaim deed. CITY OF SEWARD conveys only its interest in the property, if any, without warranty of any kind or nature whatsoever. Title shall also be subject to reservations, easements, rights -of -way, covenants, conditions and restrictions of record. ESCROW AND CLOSING COSTS Unless agreed otherwise, KPB and CITY OF SEWARD will be responsible for their respective costs under this Agreement. CITY OF SEWARD will be responsible for surveying and platting costs associated with this exchange. Settlement for costs shall occur no later than the date of closing. Property taxes shall be fully paid for each property by its current owner prior to closing. CLOSING Unless otherwise agreed in writing, closing will occur within 90 days of plat recordation. KPB and CITY OF SEWARD will execute all documents required to complete the Agreement including signing required plat documents and, if applicable, establish an escrow account. 7. POSSESSION Possession shall be delivered at time of recording. KPB/CITY OF SEWARD — EXCHANGE AGREEMENT Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska Page 3 of 7 8. BREACH REMEDY Prior to closing of the sale, in the event that KPB or CITY OF SEWARD fail to make any payment required, or fail to submit or execute any and all documents and papers necessary for closing and transfer of title within the time period specified in this agreement, the other party may terminate this agreement. 9. MUTUAL DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION To the extent allowed by law and subject to appropriation, each party shall indemnify, defend, save and hold the other party, their elected and appointed officers, agents and employees, harmless from any and all claims, demands, suits, or liability of any nature, kind or character including costs, expenses, and attorneys fees resulting from their own performance or failure to perform in accord with the terms of this Agreement in any way whatsoever. This defense and indemnification responsibility includes claims alleging acts or omissions by the other party or their agents which are said to have contributed to the losses, failure, violations, or damage. However, neither party shall be responsible for any damages or claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the other party, their agents, or employees. 10. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL Both parties covenant and agree that no hazardous substances or wastes shall be located on or stored on either property prior to closing. 11. ASSIGNMENTS This agreement may not be assigned. 12. MISCELLANEOUS A. Entire Agreement, This Agreement and the documents referred to herein contain the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Any changes additions or deletions hereto must be made in writing and signed by both parties. Provisions of this agreement, unless inapplicable on their face, shall be covenants constituting terms and conditions of the exchange, and shall continue in full force and effect and will survive closing. Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska KPB/CITY OF SEWARD — EXCHANGE AGREEMENT Page 4 of 7 B. Residential Real Property Transfers Act. The parties mutually agree that this transfer will not be covered by the Residential Real Property Transfers Act, AS 34.70,010 et seq. C. Development. Both parties agree to comply with all federal, state, borough and city regulations regarding use and development of the property, which includes but is not limited to State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation regulations regarding water and sewer installation, and, if applicable, regulations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding filling or draining any area within the property designated as wetlands by the appropriate authority. D. Time. Time is of the essence in performance of this Agreement. E. Cancellation. This agreement, while in good standing, may be canceled in whole or in part, at any time, upon mutual written agreement. This exchange agreement is subject to cancellation in whole or in part if improperly issued through error in procedure or with respect to material facts. F. Entry or Re-entry. In the event that this agreement is terminated, canceled or forfeited, the owner or its agents, servants or representatives, may immediately or any time thereafter, enter or re-enter and resume possession of said lands or such part thereof, and remove all persons and property therefrom either by summary proceedings or by a suitable action or proceeding at law or equity without being liable for any damages therefor. G. Fire Protection. Both parties shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent, and take all reasonable actions to suppress destructive and uncontrolled grass, brush, and forest fires on the land under agreement, and comply with all laws, regulations and rules promulgated and enforced by the protection agency responsible for forest protection within the area wherein the demised premises are located. H. Notice. Any notice or demand, which under the terms of this agreement or under any statute must be given or made by the parties thereto, shall be in writing, and be given or made by registered or certified mail, addressed to the other party at the address shown on the contract. However, either party may designate in writing such other address to which such notice of demand shall thereafter be so given, made or mailed. A notice given hereunder shall be deemed received when deposited in a U.S. general or branch post office by the addressor. 'J'0 Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska KPB/CITY OF SEWARD — EXCHANGE AGREEMENT Page 5 of 7 I. Responsibility of Location. It shall be the responsibility of each party to properly locate improvements on the subject parcels. J. Construction. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been jointly drafted by both parties. It shall be constructed according to the fair intent of the language as a whole, not for or against any party. The interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Alaska. The titles of sections in this Agreement are not to be construed as limitations of definitions but are for identification purposes only. This Agreement has been executed by the parties on the day and year first above written. KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH Mike Navarre, Mayor ATTEST: Johni Blankenship Borough Clerk KPB%CITY OF SEWARD — EXCHANGE AGREEMENT A CITY OF SEWARD James Hunt, City Manager ATTEST: Johanna Kinney City Clerk Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska Page 6 of 7 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Holly B. Montague Deputy Borough Attorney NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OFALASKA )ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2012, by Mike Navarre, Mayor of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, an Alaska municipal corporation, for and on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public in and for Alaska My commission expires: NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ALASKA ) )ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2012, by James Hunt, City Manager of the CITY OF SEWARD, an Alaska municipal corporation, for and on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public in and for Alaska My commission expires: Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska KPB/CITY OF SEWARD — EXCHANGE AGREEMENT Page 7 of 7 Sponsored by: Clerk CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2012-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, APPROVING AMENDMENT #1 TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY CLERK, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS WHEREAS, Johanna Kinney has been employed by the City Council in Seward, Alaska as the City Clerk since January 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, prior to January 1, 2011, Kinney was employed as the Assistant City Clerk/Deputy City Clerk for six years where she obtained designation as a Certified Municipal Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk does not participate in standard employee step increases or cost of living allowances (COLA) as outlined in the Seward City Code, and any increase in pay or annual leave accrual must be by an amendment to the employment agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council met with Kinney on January 23, 2012 to evaluate the City Clerk's performance; and WHEREAS, the City Council agrees to increase Kinney's salary by 10% to an annual base salary of $62,590 based on a satisfactory performance evaluation; and WHEREAS, Kinney's contract indicates that the City Council will review Kinney's salary annually prior to adoption of the City's fiscal budget; and WHEREAS, as is standard practice during the budget process, the Clerk's salary is typically adjusted in conjunction with all other City employees since it may be considered inappropriate to anticipate the outcome of evaluation or salary negotiations, and therefore the Clerk's salary, in keeping with the cost of living for all other employees, was not budgeted to increase at all in the 2012 or 2013 budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, that: Section 1. Amendment No. 1 to the City Clerk's employment agreement dated November 24, 2010 between the City of Seward and Johanna Kinney results in an increase in the position's annual base salary to $62,590, and is hereby approved. 11%W Section 2. Funding in the amount of $6,830 is hereby appropriated from the General Fund undesignated fund balance account no. 101-0000-3050 to the 2012 City Clerk budget as follows: $5,562 to account 101-1130-5010 (salary); $444 to account 101-1130-5060 (PERS); $674 to account CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2012-010 101-1130-5040 (leave); $64 to account no. 101-1130-5080 (workers comp); and $86 to account no. 101-1130-5090 (medicare). Section 3. Funding in the amount of $6,830 is hereby appropriated from the General Fund undesignated fund balance account no. 101-0000-3050 to the 2013 City Clerk budget as follows: $5,562 to account 101-1130-5010 (salary); $444 to account 101-1130-5060 (PERS); $674 to account 101-1130-5040 (leave); $64 to account no. 101-1130-5080 (workers comp); and $86 to account no. 101-1130-5090 (medicare), and the effective date of this appropriation is January 1, 2013. Section 4. The effective date of the salary increase shall be retroactive to January 1, 2012. Section 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska, this 13`h day of February, 2012. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Johanna Kinney, CMC City Clerk (City Seal) DA THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA David Seaward, Mayor Meeting Date: To: From: Agenda Item: Council Agenda Statement February 13, 2012 City Council Johanna Kinney, City Clerkepi 0 Resolution 2012- , Amendinv- the Emolovment Ap-reement with the Citv Clerk BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: Johanna Kinney has been employed by the Seward City Council as the City Clerk since January 3, 2011. The City Clerk does not participate in standard employee step increases or cost of living adjustments (COLA) as outlined in the Seward City Code, and any increase in pay must be by an amendment to the employment agreement via Council Resolution. The attached resolution reflects a 10% increase to Kinney's salary, to $62,590 annually, reflecting the outcome of an annual evaluation by the Seward City Council, which took place on January 23, 2012. During the budget process, the administration typically makes no judgment about pay changes for the City Clerk, as it is sometimes uncomfortable for a Clerk to justify budgeting for a pay raise that will require an evaluation and a contract negotiation. Therefore, during the 2012 and 2013 budget process, administration did not include any budget adjustment for the Clerk. This was done simply to reflect the fact that no COLA was included for City employees in 2012 or 2013. The attached resolution appropriates the additional salary and benefits necessary to accommodate a 10% pay increase. INTENT: The intent of this increase is to bring the City Clerk's salary up to a level comparable to other City Clerk wages in similar Alaskan municipalities, and to amend both the 2012 and 2013 budgets to accommodate the impact. CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST: Yes No N/A 1. Comprehensive Plan (document source here): x 2. Strategic Plan (document source here): x 3. Other (list): n/a FISCAL NOTE: The total impact on salary and benefits of this contract amendment is $6,830 in 2012 and also in 2013. An appropriation is being requested from General Fund undesignated fund balance. Approved by Finance Department: 64 ATTORNEY REVIEW: Yes No X RECOMMENDATION: Council approve Resolution 2012- ��, amending the employment contract with Johanna Kinney effective January 1, 2012, and appropriating funds. =10 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH JOHANNA KINNEY AMENDMENT #1 The employment agreement for City Clerk services dated November 24, 2010 between the City Council of the City of Seward and Johanna Kinney is hereby amended as follows: Amends paragraph 2 of the original employment agreement to read, "Kinney shall be paid at the rate of $62,590 per year." This change is effective retroactive to January 1, 2012. Except as provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the agreement dated November 24, 2010 and subsequent amendments remain in force and effect. City of Seward, Alaska David Seaward, Mayor Attest: Brenda Ballou, Deputy City Clerk Johanna Kinney, CMC, City Clerk Sponsored by: Hunt CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2012-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, RETROACTIVELY AMENDING THE 2011 BUDGET TO RECORD EXPENDITURES OF $540,733.73 PAID BY THE STATE OF ALASKA ON BEHALF OF THE CITY TOWARD THE CITY'S PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM LIABILITY WHEREAS, in accordance with the 2010 Alaska State Legislature's passage of House Bill 300, the State of Alaska Department of Administration, Division of Retirement & Benefits ("DRB") contributed $246,273.59 on behalf of the City of Seward from January through June, 2011, reflecting the 5.96% difference between the actuarially required contribution rate of 27.96% as adopted by the Alaska Retirement Management Board' and the 22% employer "capped" rate established by SB53; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the 2011 Alaska State Legislature's passage of House Bill 108, the State of Alaska DRB contributed $294,460.14 on behalf of the City of Seward from July through December, 2011, reflecting the 11.49% difference between the actuarially required contribution rate of 33.49% as adopted by the Alaska Retirement Management Board2 and the 22% employer "capped" rate; and WHEREAS, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the City must record payments made on its behalf, and must therefore amend the 2011 Budget to account for both the expenditures paid on behalf of the City, and the corresponding revenues paid by the State of Alaska Department of Administration; and WHEREAS, failure to amend the budget to reflect the State's payments on -behalf of the City, will result in an imbalance between the actual and budgeted revenues and expenditures, giving the appearance of revenues and expenditures exceeding the annual budget as approved by the Seward City Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, that: ' The ARC reflects normal cost rate of 9.33% plus past service cost rate of 18.63%, and is further expressed as pension costs of 9.98% and healthcare costs of 17.98%. 2 The ARC reflects normal cost rate of 8.28% plus past service cost rate of 22.48%, and is further expressed as pension costs of 14.65% and healthcare costs of 16.11%. Mz CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2012-011 Section 1. The 2011 Operating Budget shall be retroactively amended to appropriate $540,733.73 from the State grant revenues accounts x01-0000-4350-0150 to various department retirement expense accounts allocated on a pro-rata basis, to accounts x01-xxxx-5060. Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska, this 13th day of February, 2012. THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA David Seaward, Mayor AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Johanna Kinney City Clerk (City Seal) COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Meeting Date: February 13, 2012 Through: James Hunt, City Manager From: Kristin Erchinger, Finance Director 00,11, gCAS�P Agenda Item: 2011 Budget Amendment appropriating the State PERS on -behalf contributions in the amount of $540,733.73 BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: The 2010 State legislature passed House Bill 300, appropriating $165,841,171 directly to PERS on behalf of Alaska municipalities, to help offset retirement liability costs to local taxpayers. The City of Seward's portion of this appropriation (for the period January 1 through June 30, 2011) is $246,273.59. This amount is being paid directly to the City's PERS account with the State of Alaska Division of Retirement & Benefits. While the funds did not come directly through the City, we are nonetheless required to account for the State's contribution as both a revenue and an expense/expenditure on the City's financial statements. The 2011 State legislature passed House Bill 108, appropriating $242,609,397 directly to PERS on behalf of Alaska municipalities, to help offset retirement liabilities in the PERS defined benefit plan. The City of Seward's portion of this appropriation (for the period July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011) is $294,460.14. In 2008, Senate Bill 125 was passed, capping the annual PERS contribution rates for employers at 22%, and creating a cost -sharing plan in which all employers pay the same employer contribution rate. This was a departure from the previous plan, in which every employer was assigned a different employer cost rate, depending on their individual experience. The Alaska Retirement Management Board has established the following PERS employer contribution rates- 2009 2010 2011 2012 Normal Cost 13.72% 9.46% 9.33% 8.28% Past Service Cost 21.50% 18.19% 18.63% 22.48% Total Rate 35.22% 27.65% 27.96% 30.76% Pension Cost 10.91% 10.25% 9.98% 14.65% Healthcare Cost 24.31 % 17.40% 17.98% 16.11 % Total Rate 35.22% 27.65% 27.96% 30.76% State On -Behalf Rate 13.22% 5.65% 5.96% 11.49% State On -Behalf Amount (CY) $420,411.62 $265,843.03 $540,733.73 TBD i ne Mate is on a nscal year ending June 3U, so the City applies the above 2011 rate to employee wages for the period January 1 through June 30, 2011, and the above 2012 rate to wages for the period July 1 through December 31, 2011. For the first half of the City's calendar year 2011, the State's contributions to PERS on the City's behalf totaled $246,273.59, and for the second half flea rnnfrihtitinn ivao Q )OA AA0 1 d fnr o +_+nl 17'11 171) CITY OF SEWARD RESOLUTION 2012- PAGE TWO Municipal governments in Alaska have benefited significantly by the State's coverage of PERS costs in excess of 22%. However, it is important to note that the legislature may, at any time, modify the amount of subsidy provided by the State toward PERS contributions. Any future reduction in the State's current practice of covering contribution rates exceeding 22%, will equate to equivalent additional required contributions by the City. CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST: Yes No N/A 1. Comprehensive Plan (document source here): X 2. Strategic Plan (document source here): X 3. Other (list): X FISCAL NOTE: The State's contribution of $540,733.73 is considered a State grant award and is recognized as such on the City's financial statements, with an equivalent amount recorded as retirement expense/expenditure, allocated on a pro-rata basis, to each department's operating budget. Approved by Finance Department VqUa6z jazv, ATTORNEY REVIEW: Yes No___X__ RECOMMENDATION: Council approve Resolution 2012- Ott retroactively amending the 2011 Operating Budget by appropriating $540,733.73 from State grant revenues, to various fund retirement expense accounts, on a pro-rata basis, to accounts XO1-XXXX-5060. M STATE OF ALASKA Department of Administration Division of Retirement and Benefits July 29, 2011 KRISTIN M ERCHINGER, FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY OF SEWARD PO BOX 167 SEWARD AK 99664-0167 Sent via email to: NPEREACaCITYMEWARDWET RE: Employer On -Behalf Funding - PERS ER 182 Sean Parnell, GOVERNOR P.O. Box 110203 Juneau. AK 99811-0203 Phone: (907) 465-4460 Fax: (907) 465-3086 Toil -Free: 1-800-821-2251 During the 2010 legislative session, House Bill 300 (HB300) passed providing on -behalf funding for PERS employer contributions for Fiscal Year 2011 (FYI 1). HB300, Section 29 (b) read as follows: (b) The sum of '$165, 847,171 is appropriated from the general fund to the Department of Administration for deposit in the defined benefit plan account in the public employees' retirement system as an additional state contribution under AS 39.35.280 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011. HB300 can be found at http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/26/Bills/HBO30OZ.PDF (Section 29 - page 90). The Alaska Retirement Management Board approved the actuarially determined rate of 27.96% for FYI 1, with HB300 providing an on -behalf rate of 5.96% for each FYI I employer payroll. On -behalf funding was applied with the processing of each employer payroll with payroll end dates between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011, and received by the Division by July 15, 2011. All such payrolls have been processed, and we have trued -up your account by making an adjusting entry. Enclosed is a report detailing the Employer On -Behalf Funding allocated for fiscal year 2011 payrolls. This is your final statement for FYI I. Please feel free to contact me via telephone at (907) 465-2279 or email at keith.hermann(a),alaska.gov if you have any questions or need additional information regarding HB300. Sincerely, 1_'� W41_0� Keith Hermann, Accountant FI/Enclosure p� � F5 u!/u3/1ul u 3,754.46 7,055.96 10,810.42 07/17/2010 3,811.99 7,164.07 10,976.06 07/31/2010 3,562.72 6,695.60 10,258.32 08/14/2010 3,485.27 6,550.04 10,035.31 08/28/2010 3,600.79 6,767.15 10,367.94 09/11/2010 3,623.55 6,809.91 10,433.46 09/25/2010 3,552.09 6,676.63 10,227,72 10/09/2010 3,634.29 6,642.17 10,176.46 10/23/2010 3,634.77 6,831.02 10,465.79 11106/2010 3,566.61 6,700.03 10,266.64 11/20/2010 3,746.62 7,038.13 10,784.75 12/04/2010 4,626.63 8,691.30 13,317.93 12/18/2010 3,531.24 6,633.61 10,164.85 01/01/2011 3,906.60 7,338.77 11,245.37 01/15/2011 3,600.07 6,762.90 10,362.97 01/29/2011 3,653.18 6,862.62 10,515.80 02/12/2011 3,621.25 6,802.72 10,423.97 02/26/2011 3,730.29 7,007.47 10,737.76 03/12/2011 3,728.36 7,003.80 10,732.16 03/26/2011 3.746.09 7,037.33 10,783.42 04/09/2011 3,854.47 7,240.76 11,095.23 04/23/2011 3,816.29 7,169.06 10,985.35 05/07/2011 3,689.81 6,931.34 10,621.15 05/21/2011 3,640.85 6,839.51 10,480.36 06/04/2011 3,784.06 7,108.58 10,892.64 06/18/2011 3,677.69 6,908.73 10,586.42 06/30/2011 Year -End Adjustment 54,675.36 52,135.63 106,810.99 TOTALS FOR CITY OF SEWARD $151,165.40 $233,403.84 $384,559.24 - - E- + . + + f + . . + + . + . . r . r�ram . . 0,1 . . . . . -z'0\ . . . A . Gam! tnl . M . ^- N . K1 n ti\ .— n �± J^ C. n \ 't lqo r N hr\ M M Ol C", N M (7) ro r— N M n --t ti C- 17) ol� -:t co Lr1 co N tom' Sean Parnell, GOVERNOR STATE P.O. Box 110203 Department of Administration Juneau, 9981Phone: (907)465-446 03 460 Division of Retirement and Benefits Fax: (907) 465-3086 Toll -Free: 1-800-821-2251 January 31, 2012 KRISTIN M ERCHINGER, FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY OF SEWARD PO BOX 167 SEWARD AK 99664-0167 RE: Employer On -Behalf Funding - PERS ER 182 During the 2011 legislative session, House Bill 108 (HB108) passed providing on -behalf funding for PERS employer contributions for Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12). HBI08, Section 29 (b) reads as follows: (b) The sum of $242, 609, 397 is appropriated from the general fund to the Department of Administration for deposit in the defined benefit plan account in the public employees'y retirement system as an additional state contribution under AS 39.35.280 for the fiscal V year ending June 30, 2012. HB108 can be found at http://www.le.izis.state.ak.us/PDF/27Bills/HB0108Z.PDF (Section 29 - page 84). The Alaska Retirement Management Board approved the actuarially determined rate of 33.49% for FY12, with HB108 providing an on -behalf rate of 11.49% for each FY12 employer payroll. On -behalf funding is applied with the processing of each employer payroll with payroll end dates between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, and received by the Division by July 15, 2012. Once all such payrolls have been processed, we will true -up your account and make an adjusting entry, then send you a final statement by early August, 2012 via email. Enclosed is a report detailing the Employer On -Behalf Funding allocated for fiscal year 2012 payrolls processed through January 12, 2012. Please feel free to contact me via telephone at (907) 465-2279 or email at keith.hennann@alaska.gov if you have any questions or need additional information regarding HB 108. Sincerely, Keith Hermann, Accountant FI/Enclosure 3y 07/16/2011 '"' 11,547.45 21, 211.91 07/30/2011 9, 770.89 11,898.85 21,669.74 08/13/2011 9,073.83 11, 049.96 20,123.79 08/27/2011 9, 024.87 10,990.26 20,015.13 09/10/2011 9,253.28 11,268.52 20, 521.80 09/24/2011 9, 523.21 11,597.28 21,120.49 10/08/2011 9,130.47 11,118.94 20, 249.41 10/22/2011 9,081.53 11,059.25 20,140.78 11 /05/2011 9,192.40 11,194.35 20, 386.75 11/19/2011 9,046.90 11,017.09 20,063.99 12/03/2011 9,327.66 11, 359.01 20, 686.67 12/17/2011 11,819.57 14,393.69 26,213.26 12/31/2011 9,342.92 11,377.66 20,720.58 9,620.36 11,715.48 21,335.84 TOTALS FOR CITY OF SEWARD $132,772.35 $161,687.79 $294,460.14 0- 0.00 S 21 211 -91 + 211669.74 + 20,123.7) + 20,015°13 + 20, 521 •,3) + 21,112)•49 + 20,249.41 + 20,140d78 + 20, 38• 75 + 20,063.99 + 20,686.67 + 26, 21 3 • 26 - 20 , 720 • 58 + 211335.84 + 294,4).14 T Sponsored by: Hunt CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2012-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR EXTERNAL AUDIT SERVICES FOR THE YEARS ENDING 2011, 2012, AND 2013, WITH MIKUNDA, COTTRELL & CO., AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Seward solicited a Request for Proposals (RFP) on January 9, 2012 for the purpose of hiring an independent external auditor to conduct annual financial audits of the City of Seward's financial records, including conducting tests of internal controls, and performing state and federal single audit services in accordance with the requirements of Seward City Charter 6.6; and WHEREAS, the current audit contract expired upon completion of the annual audit for fiscal year ended December 31, 2010; and WHEREAS, based on a competitive procurement process and the evaluation of criteria including scope of work, firm's size, evidence of adequate planning of labor hours, experience with similar engagements, references, technical qualifications, past performance, and bid price, the City received two bids which were considered responsive and qualified; and WHEREAS, the firm of Mikunda, Cottrell & Co. ("Mikunda") was the firm receiving the highest score in the RFP process, and the administration recommends entering into a contract with this firm; and WHEREAS, Mikunda has provided independent auditing services to the City of Seward in the past (since 2000), and understands the City=s accounting structure, financial reporting requirements, and recent financial history, and they have a positive working relationship with City staff and City Council; and WHEREAS, Seward City Code 6.10.120 (8) states that professional service contracts are exempt from competitive procurement procedures, but the City sought competitive bids as recommended by the best practices of the Government Finance Officer's Association, when seeking independent auditing services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, that: 3� CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2012-012 Section 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute an agreement with Mikunda, Cottrell & Co., in substantially the form as attached hereto, to provide external audit services to the City of Seward for calendar years ended 2011, 2012, and 2013, with an option to renew for an additional two years, subject to approval of the City Manager. Section 2. Funding in the amount of $6,145 is hereby appropriated from the General Fund undesignated fund balance account no. 101-0000-3050 to the mayor and council audit account no. 10 1- 1110-5110 in the 2012 Budget to cover the costs of the 2011 audit, and funding in the amount of $11,283 is hereby appropriated from the General Fund undesignated fund balance account no. 101-0000-3050 to the major and council audit account no. 101-1110-5110 in the 2013 Budget, to fund the 2012 audit. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska this 131" day of February, 2012. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Johanna Kinney, CMC City Clerk (City Seal) THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA David Seaward, Mayor ��l Council Agenda Statement Meeting Date: February 13, 2012 Through: James Hunt, City Manager From: Kristin Erchinger, Finance Director Agenda Item: External Audit Proposals BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: The City of Seward received two proposals for external audit services for years 2011, 2012, and2013 with options to renew for up to two additional years. Proposals were received from Altman, Rogers & Co. ("Altman") and Mikunda, Cottrell & Co. ("Mikunda"), and both proposals were found to be responsive and qualified. One additional firm from outside of Alaska requested a copy of the proposal, but declined to submit a proposal. The review committee evaluated proposals based on the following criteria, provided to the City Council in advance of the solicitation of request for proposals: 1) understanding of the scope of work (10%); 2) firm's size and evidence of adequate planning to complete the work (20%); 3) firm's experience with similar engagements, including references (20%); 4) firm's technical qualifications and qualifications of individuals assigned to the audit (20%); 5) firm's past performance (10%); and 6) fee proposal (20%). The reviewers scored each criteria for a total possible points of 100. The firm of Mikunda received the highest overall score with 88 points, while Altman received 67 points out of a total 100 possible points. Attached is a spreadsheet summarizing the analysis of each firm's proposal. The score sheet indicates that Mikunda received the highest overall score, rating highest on the criteria and lowest on the fee. Altman scored highest on the fee but lower on the other five criteria. The primary difference in the cost of each proposal is the amount of time spent on the audit. The cost proposal for Altman estimates that the audit will take 273 hours at a total cost of $43,150, or an hourly rate of $158. The cost proposal for Mflmda estimates the audit will take 501 hours at a total cost of $72,145, or an hourly rate of $144. While Mikunda's hourly rate is lower, they will spend 84% more time (228 additional hours) conducting audit work, resulting in the higher cost. When KPMG was the City's audit firm prior to 2000, the auditors spent a minimum of 15 days on -site doing fieldwork. Mikunda averages approximately 10 days on -site. The Altman proposal estimates on -site fieldwork of approximately five days. This is consistent with the three reference checks reviewers conducted (of similar -sized entities), in which all three references noted that Altman was on -site less than five full days to conduct the annual audit. Ultimately the difference in price is directly correlated to the thoroughness of the time spent auditing the books and records of the City. Following is an analysis of each firm's proposal: Altman, Rogers & Co. This firm is an Alaskan based Certified Public Accounting (CPA) firm which performs more than 110 governmental and non-profit audits, representing 69% of their practice. The bulk of their governmental clients are smaller school districts and communities such as Bethel, Pelican, Valdez, Nome, Hoonah, and Unalaska. The firm employs more than 35 people and has branch offices in Anchorage, Juneau, and RESOLUTION 2012- (7`1., Page Two Soldotna. The principals in the firm have experience auditing governmental entities, serve on the national Government Finance Officer's Association ("GFOA") review committees, and are qualified to perform the City's audit. Altman's three-year fee is $133,450 ($43,150 for 2011; $44,500 for 2012; and $45,800 for 2013). This results in an hourly fee ranging from $158 to $168. Mikunda, Cottrell & Co. This firm is an Alaskan based CPA firm which audits the most governmental entities in Alaska (approximately 100 governmental and utility entities) including 8 of the 11 home rule cities (Seward is a home rule City). The bulk of their clients are school districts, utilities, and communities such as the Municipality of Anchorage, Soldotna, Kenai, Homer, Kodiak, Palmer, and the City and Borough of Sitka. They also audit the Kenai Peninsula Borough and KPB School District. The firm has nine directors and employs more than 85 people. Mikunda joined the McGladrey Alliance in 1997, becoming part of the fifth largest accounting and consulting firm in the United States. Mikunda's principals have experience auditing governments, serve on national GFOA review committees, and are qualified to perform the City's audit. Mikunda's three-year fee is $224,098 ($72,145 for 2011, $74,670 for 2012, and $77,283 for 2013). This results in an hourly fee ranging from $144 to $154. It is our opinion that Mikunda, Cottrell & Co. should perform the City's audit based on the outcome of the RFP process, their extensive list of larger governmental clients, and their positive 11-year history auditing the City of Seward. This firm's experience with the City is expected to reduce the amount of staff time preparing for the audit. Mikunda's bid is higher than Altman's based on historical experience auditing the City, and includes 84% more time (228 additional hours) spent on the audit (501 hours versus 273), and is considered to fairly represent the amount of time it takes to do a thorough audit of the City's financial records and to conduct a thorough state and federal single audit. Mikunda's bid for the audit of 2011 is $72,145, and the 2012 Budget includes $66,000. The auditors work for the city council rather than management. There are advantages to retaining a firm with significant Seward experience, and advantages to having a perspective from other experienced firms. Some would suggest that it is good practice to rotate auditing firms to ensure auditor independence. However, the Government Finance Officers Association has developed a list of "best practices" surrounding the procurement of audit services, which does not necessarily support this theory.I Management believes that we can work well with either firm. I -Governmental entities should enter into multiyear agreements of at least five years in duration when obtaining the services of independent auditors. Such multiyear agreements can take a variety of different forms (e.g., a series of single - year contracts), consistent with applicable legal requirements. Such agreements allow for greater continuity and help to minimize the potential for disruption in connection with the independent audit. Multiyear agreements can also help to reduce audit costs by allowing auditors to recover certain "startup" costs over several years, rather than over a single year. -Governmental entities should undertake a full-scale competitive process for the selection of independent auditors at the end of the term of each audit contract, consistent with applicable legal requirements. Ideally, auditor independence would be *41ry enhanced by a policy requiring that the independent auditor be replaced at the end of the audit contract, as is often the case in the private sector. Unfortunately, the frequent lack of competition among audit firms fully qualified to perform public -sector audits could make a policy of mandatory auditor rotation counterproductive. In such cases, it is recommended that a governmental entity actively seek the participation of all qualified firms, including the current auditors, assuming that the past performance of the current auditors has proven satisfactory. Except in cases where a multiyear agreement has taken the form of a series of single -year contracts, a contractual provisign for the automatic renewal of the audit contract (e.g., an automatic RESOLUTION 2012- (7 i ti Page Three INTENT: To award a contract for independent audit services for a three-year period, with option to extend for up to two additional years. CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST: Yes No N/A 1. Comprehensive Plan (document source here): 2. Strategic Plan (document source here): 3. Other (list): X ATTORNEY REVIEW: YES NO X FISCAL NOTE: The 2012 and 2013 Budgets included $66,000 for each annual audit, necessitating an additional appropriation of $6,145 in 2012 and $11,283 in 2013. Approved by Finance Department: Jtg� .0 RECOMMENDATION: 11, Council approve Resolution 2012-0 awarding a contract for external audit services to the firm of Mikunda, Cottrell and Co. for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 annual audits, with an option to extend for an additional two years at the discretion of the city manager. second term for the auditor upon satisfactory performance) is inconsistent with this recommendation. -The audit procurement process should be structured so that the principal factor in the selection of an independent auditor is the auditor's ability to perform a quality audit. In no case should price be allowed to serve as the sole criterion for the selection of an independent auditor. Criteria Proposals responsiveness to understanding the scope of work Firm's size and evidence of adequate planning of labor hours required Firms experience with similar engagements, and references Firms' technical qualifications and qualifications of individuals assigned Firm's past performance on work for the City of Seward Bid price INDEPENDENT AUDIT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TABULATION SHEET Max Altman Rogers & Co. Points 1 2 3 Average 10 10 7 5 7.33 20 10 17 9 12.00 20 15 16 7 12.67 20 20 15 10 15.00 10 0 0 0 - 20 20 20 201 20.00 100 75 75 511 67.00 Mikunda, Cottrell & Co. 1 2 3 Average 10 8 10 9.33 20 18 19 19.00 20 18 19 19.00 20 18 20 19.33 10 8 10 9.33 12 12 121 12.00 92 82 901 88.00 0 1 ) 1 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 14th day of February, 2012, between the CITY OF SEWARD (hereinafter called "CITY") and MIKUNDA, COTTRELL, & CO. (hereinafter called "CONTRACTOR"): WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Seward City Code Chapter 6, the CITY may contract for such professional services as may be required; and WHEREAS, the City Charter requires an independent audit of all accounts of the CITY at least annually, and the audit is required to be made by certified public accountants; and WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR works for the Seward City Council and their services will be of benefit to the citizens of the City of Seward. NOW, THEREFORE, the CITY and CONTRACTOR mutually agree as follows: A. Employment of Contractor. The CITY agrees to engage the CONTRACTOR and the CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to perform independent audit services for the calendar years ending December 2011, December 2012, and December, 2013. This Agreement may be extended for up to two years upon mutual agreement of terms. B. Scope of Services. The CONTRACTOR shall do, perform, and carry out in a professional manner, the services described in ATTACHMENT "A". C. Time of Performance. The services to be performed hereunder by the CONTRACTOR shall be undertaken and completed in such sequence as to assure their expeditious completion to best carry out the purposes of this Agreement. The CITY requires that the external auditors coordinate their work with CITY personnel as follows: 1. All work will be coordinated with the Finance Director, who is primarily responsible for working with the external field auditors. Further coordination is necessary with the Accounting Supervisor, who monitors the day-to-day workflow of the department. 2. The Finance Director will work with the auditors to coordinate scheduling and identify the work required to complete the audit. Prior to the commencement of audit work, the auditor will discuss with the Finance Director, the expectations of the auditors relative to the work to be done by the CITY, including the preparation of work papers. 4. Verbal progress reports will be provided to the Finance Director on a weekly basis during the conduct of the audit. All adjusting journal entries suggested by the auditors are to be discussed with the CITY Finance Director. Professional Services Agreement Mikunda, Cottrell & Co. Page 2 D. Compensation. Compensation is to be computed separately for each year for which audit services are provided. The total compensation due to the CONTRACTOR during each year of this contract is as follows: 1) 2011 audit = $72,145; 2) 2012 audit = $74,670; 3) 2013 audit = $77,283, where compensation includes professional fees and actual out-of-pocket expenses, such as airfare, lodging, per diem and report production. The total compensation due the CONTRACTOR for any extensions of this contract will be mutually negotiated prior to commencement of additional audit work beyond the initial three-year contract term. E. Pa3ment to Contractor. The CONTRACTOR will bill the CITY monthly for services rendered. The CITY agrees to make payment to the CONTRACTOR within 30 days of receipt and agreement with the CONTRACTOR's bill. Final payment will be made after presentation of the audit report to the City Council, and in the case of the "conversion period," within 30 days of receipt and agreement with the CONTRACTOR's bill. F. Changes. The CITY may, from time to time, require changes to the scope of services of the CONTRACTOR to be performed hereunder. Such changes, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the CITY and the CONTRACTOR, shall be incorporated by written amendment to the Agreement, subject to approval of the Finance Director. For any additional fee/costs so authorized, the CITY requires that the fees for additional financial work be expressed as a fixed hourly rate for each period subject to audit, quoted for each staff category (e.g partner, manager, senior), and that the detail of the costs be disclosed. G. Services and Materials to be Furnished by the CITY. The CITY shall provide assistance in the accumulation of data and records to facilitate the audit for the City of Seward. H. Termination of Agreement. If, through any cause, the CONTRACTOR shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner, its obligation under this Agreement, the CITY shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the CONTRACTOR of such termination at least ten (10) business days before the effective date of such termination, and specifying the effective date of termination. I. Information and Reports. The CONTRACTOR shall, at such time and in such form as the CITY may require, furnish periodic reports concerning the status of the project. The CONTRACTOR shall furnish the CITY, upon request, copies of all documents and other materials prepared or developed in relation to, or as part of, the project, including copies of all year-end work papers. J. Records and Inspections. The CONTRACTOR shall maintain full and accurate records with respect to all matters covered under this Agreement. The CITY shall have free access at all reasonable times to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make transcripts therefrom, and to inspect all program data, documents, proceedings, and activities. K. Accomplishment of Project. The CONTRACTOR shall commence, carry on, and complete the A3 Professional Services Agreement Mikunda, Cottrell & Co. Page 3 project with all practicable dispatch, in a sound, economical, and efficient manner, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and all applicable laws. In accomplishing the project, the CONTRACTOR shall take such steps as are appropriate to ensure that the work is properly coordinated with related work being carried out by the CITY. L. Matters to be Disregarded. The titles of the several sections, subsections, and paragraphs set forth in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of the provisions of the Agreement. M. Completeness of Agreement. This Agreement and any additional or supplementary document or documents incorporated herein by specific reference contain all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties hereto, and no other agreements, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this agreement or any part thereof shall have any validity or bind any of the parties hereto. N. City Not Obligated to Third Parties. The CITY shall not be obligated or liable hereunder to any party other than the CONTRACTOR. O. When Rights and Remedies Not Waived. In no event shall the making by the CITY of any payment to the CONTRACTOR constitute or be construed as a waiver by the CITY of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of the CONTRACTOR, and the making of any such payment by the CITY while any such breach or default shall exist, shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to the CITY with respect to such breach or default. P. Personnel. The CONTRACTOR represents that it has, or will, secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform the services under this Agreement. All of the services required hereunder will be performed by the CONTRACTOR or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in work shall be fully qualified to perform such services. The personnel assigned to the CITY shall be mutually agreed upon by the CONTRACTOR and Finance Director. All subsequent staffing changes will be reviewed with, and agreed to, by the Finance Director prior to assigning personnel. The CONTRACTOR shall make every effort practicable to ensure continuity of personnel from year to year, with respect to performance of the audit. Q. Independent Contractor. The parties intend that the CONTRACTOR, in performing the services specified in the Agreement shall act as an independent contractor and shall have full control of the work and the manner in which it is performed. The CONTRACTOR and CONTRACTOR's employees are not to be considered agents or employees of the CITY for any purpose. R. Insurance. The CONTRACTOR shall provide at its own expense, and maintain at all times, the following insurance with insurance companies licensed in the State of Alaska and shall provide evidence of such insurance to the CITY as may be required. The policies or certificates thereof shall provide that, thirty (30) days prior to cancellation or material changes in the policy, notices of same shall be given to the CITY for all of the following stated insurance policies: 1. Workers' Co sensation - in compliance with the statutes of the State of Alaska. AVA Professional Services Agreement Mikunda, Cottrell & Co. Page 4 2. Comprehensive General Liability - insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit to include: a. Premises Operations b. Products/Completed Operations c. Blanket Contractual d. Broad Form Property Damage e. Independent Contractors f. Personal Injury 3. Comprehensive Automobile Liability - insurance with a minimum limit of liability per occurrence of $1,000,000 for bodily injury and $100,000 for property damage. This insurance shall cover bodily injury and property damage, owned automobiles, and non -owned automobiles. 4. Professional Liability - insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 If at any time, any of said policies shall be unsatisfactory to the CITY, as to form or substance, or if a company issuing such policy shall be unsatisfactory to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall promptly obtain a new policy and a certificate thereof as herein above provided. Upon failure of the CONTRACTOR to furnish, deliver or maintain such insurance and certificates as above provided, the Agreement, at the election of the CITY, may be forthwith declared suspended, or terminated. Failure of the CONTRACTOR to obtain and/or maintain any required insurance shall not relieve the CONTRACTOR from any liability under this Agreement, nor shall the insurance requirements be construed to conflict with or otherwise limit the obligations of the CONTRACTOR concerning indemnification. The CITY, its officials, agents and employees shall be named as additional insured on all insurance policies required herein. The CONTRACTOR's insurance policies shall include a provision that the coverage is primary as respects to the CITY; shall include no special limitations to coverage provided to additional insured; and, shall be placed with the insurer(s) with acceptable Best's rating of A:VII or with approval of the Finance Director. S. Ownership of Work Products. Work products produced under this Agreement, except items which have preexisting copyrights, are the property of the CITY. Payments to the CONTRACTOR for services hereunder include full compensation for all work products and other materials produced by the CONTRACTOR pertaining to this Agreement. T. Claims and Disputes. If the CONTRACTOR becomes aware of any act or occurrence which may form the basis of a claim, the CONTRACTOR shall immediately inform the Finance Director. If the matter cannot be resolved within seven (7) days, the CONTRACTOR shall, within the next fourteen (14) days, submit written notice of the facts which may form the basis of the claim. In presenting any claims, the CONTRACTOR shall specifically include the provisions of this Agreement which apply, the specific relief requested, including any additional compensation claimed, and the basis upon which it was calculated and/or the additional time requested and the basis upon which it was calculated. U. Governing Laws. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Alaska and such federal and Professional Services Agreement Mikunda, Cottrell & Co. Page 5 local laws and ordinances as are applicable to the work performed. CONTRACTOR is required to have a current CITY business license prior to commencement of Agreement. V. Hold Harmless. The CONTRACTOR shall hold the CITY, its agents, officers, employees and volunteers, harmless from, save, defend and indemnify the same against, any and all claims, losses, and damages for every cause, including but not limited to injury to person or property, and related costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising directly or indirectly out of any act or omission of CONTRACTOR, its agents, officers, employees, or volunteers, during the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. W. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by the Agreement shall be sufficient if sent by the parties in the United States mail, postage paid, to the address noted below: Kristin Erchinger Finance Director City of Seward P.O. Box 167 Seward, Alaska 99664-0167 Michelle Drew Audit Director Mikunda, Cottrell & Co. 3601 C Street, Suite 600 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY and the CONTRACTOR have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. MIKUNDA, COTTRELL & CO. CITY OF SEWARD Michelle Drew Audit Director James Hunt City Manager ATTEST: Johanna Kinney City Clerk (City seal) R Professional Services Agreement Mikunda, Cottrell & Co. Page 6 APPENDIX "A" CITY OF SEWARD PROFESSIONAL AUDIT SERVICES AGREEMENT SCOPE OF SERVICES The Scope of Services required under this contract are as follows: Annual Audit for Fiscal Years Ending December 31 2011 2012 and 2013. The examination shall be conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of State and Local Government and Nonprofit Organizations, and the provisions of the State Single Audit Regulation 2AAC 45.010. The audits will be the financial and compliance type described in the Government Auditing Standards, published by the U.S. General Accounting Office. The audits will adhere to appropriate auditing standards and procedures specified by federal, state and other applicable statutes, ordinances and regulations. It shall also conform to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) requirements for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The examination shall: -. report on the fair presentation of the financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). -. include an "in -relation -to" report on the schedule of state and federal financial expenditures. -. include reports on compliance and on internal controls over financial reporting in accordance with government auditing standards (GAS). -. Report on compliance with the requirements applicable to each major program in accordance with OMB Circular A-133 and the State of Alaska Audit Guide and Compliance Supplement. -. Include a schedule of findings and questioned costs (if any) as prescribed by OMB Circular A-133 and the State of Alaska Audit Guide and Compliance Supplement. -. Report on compliance with Alaska Statute AS 14.14.020, 14.17.505, and other State of Alaska requirements. -. Include a management letter. -. Include any other report as mandated by professional standards (SAS 61/114, SAS 115). The CITY requires the following financial audit services according to the following major engagement sections: 1. The City of Seward Comprehensive Annual Financial Statement and the State and Federal Single Audit Compliance Statements A. The scope of the audits shall include all accounts of the CITY, Basic Financial Statements (government -wide financial statements, fund financial statements, component Professional Services Agreement Mikunda, Cottrell & Co. Page 7 unit financial statements, and notes to the financial statements), and Required Supplementary Information. The required financial statements includes, but is not limited to, the following: government -wide Statement of Net Assets and Statement of Activities; individual governmental fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance; proprietary fund Statements of Net Assets, Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets, and Statements of Cash Flows; and fiduciary fund Statements of Net Assets and Statements of Changes in Net Assets. B. The auditors shall prepare the CITY' S comprehensive annual financial reports in a format similar to the December 31, 2010 City of Seward CAFR report. A final printer -ready report will be provided for the CITY, and the auditors will print and distribute 25 copies of the report to the CITY. The CITY will provide the auditors with the information needed for the divider tabs, the CITY's letter of transmittal and management's discussion and analysis, list of principal city officials, organizational chart, certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting, statistical section schedules, and any other required supplementary information. C. The opinions must be dated on or before April 30 of each year and must be presented to the City Council in a public meeting within thirty days after completion of the audit (no later than May 30) in accordance with Seward City Charter 6.6. D. A separate report on compliance and internal controls required for the Federal and State Single Audits will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (if possible) and shall be delivered according to the timeline in item 4 above. If the CITY and CONTRACTOR mutually agree to a separate report on compliance and internal controls, the CONTRACTOR shall provide copies of the reports in accordance with Federal and State requirements, plus twenty-five (25) extra copies. E. In connection with the audit of the financial statements, the Auditor shall perform tests of compliance in accordance with Government Auditing Standards; OMB Circular A-133, Audits of State and Local Governments; GASB and FASB pronouncements; and other applicable standards. In connection with the audit of the financial statements, the Auditor shall perform tests of internal controls in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS); Government Auditing Standards; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of State and Local Governments. F. As appropriate, the Auditor shall report on compliance with specific requirements applicable to major federal assistance programs and State programs, and communicate all instances of noncompliance in the report on compliance or in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Similarly, as appropriate, the Auditor shall report on compliance with general requirements applicable to federal assistance programs, and with non -major federal assistance programs if such were selected for testing during the audit. Information should be disclosed regarding the status of findings and recommendations from previous audits that remain uncorrected. RM Professional Services Agreement Mikunda, Cottrell & Co. Page 8 2. Management Letters The auditor shall observe the adequacy of the system of internal control, accounting procedures and other significant matters. If material weaknesses are noted, appropriate recommendations should be reviewed with management and noted in a letter addressed to the City Council. Twenty-five (25) copies of each management letter shall be provided. Presentation to City Council Upon completion of the audit, the auditor shall make a presentation to the Seward City Council in a work session, summarizing the major scope and findings of the audit, and discussing the highlights of the financial statements, and provide a brief presentation to the public at a presentation during the City Council meeting. Sponsored by: Hunt CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2012-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, AMENDING THE 2011 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING $24,953 IN SALES TAX REVENUE TO THE HOSPITAL DEBT SERVICE FUND WHEREAS, the 2011 Operating Budget anticipated that one cent of every four cents in sales tax collected by the City of Seward would be transferred to the Hospital Debt Service Fund to be used to pay healthcare related costs, including the debt service costs related to construction of the hospital; the hospital Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) liability; debt service costs related to construction of Seward Mountain Haven (if necessary); and to finance major repair and replacement costs associated with healthcare; and WHEREAS, the 2011 Operating Budget included an estimated amount of $981,632 in sales tax revenues to be transferred from the General Fund to the Hospital Debt Service Fund, based on estimated total sales tax cash receipts of $3,926,526; and WHEREAS, the actual sales tax receipts from the Kenai Peninsula Borough during 2011 are expected to exceed budgeted estimates by approximately $99,810, requiring an additional transfer of $24,953 to the Hospital Debt Service Fund, for a total annual transfer from the General Fund to the Hospital Debt Service Fund of $1,006,584. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, that: Section 1. The 2011 Operating Budget shall be amended as follows: 1) increase sales tax revenue account 101-0000-4120-0100 by $99,810; and 2) appropriate an additional $24,953 from the General Fund Transfers -Out account no. 101-0000-3071-0801 to the Hospital Debt Service Fund Transfers -In account no. 801-0000-3070-0101. Section 2. The 2011 Operating Budget amendment shall be effective retroactive to December 31, 2011. Section 3. This resolution shall be effective upon passage and posting. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska, this 13th day of February, 2012. Sb Council Agenda Statement Meeting Date: February 13, 2012 Through: City Manager Jim Hunt From: Kristin Erchinger, Finance Director V 'Yr Agenda Item: Appropriation of additional sales tax to Hospital Debt Service Fund BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: The City of Seward has historically set aside a 1 % sales tax (currently one-fourth of all sales tax revenues) for the purpose of supporting healthcare. In fact, when the City first initiated a sales tax in March, 1982 (Ordinance No. 507), the Ordinance explicitly addressed the funding of healthcare in Seward, as a primary purpose of the sales tax. The 2011 Budget anticipated total sales tax revenues of $3,926,526, with one -quarter of that amount ($981,632) to be utilized for healthcare. The City transfers the amount for healthcare from the General Fund to the Hospital Debt Service Fund, and it is used primarily for payment of bonded debt and to repay a loan that paid off Seward General Hospital's public employees retirement unfunded liability. The actual sales tax cash receipts in 2011 were $4,026,336, representing an increase of $195,583 from the prior years' cash receipts. This amounts to an increase in revenues over budget of $99,910. To transfer one - quarter of the additional cash receipts to the Hospital Debt Service Fund requires an additional appropriation of $24,953. INTENT: The intent of this resolution is to continue the practice of transferring 1/4 of all sales tax revenue from the General Fund to the Hospital Debt Service Fund for CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST: Yes No N/A 1. Comprehensive Plan (document source here): 2. Strategic Plan (document source here): 3. Other (list): 2011 Budget p. 36 and p. 76. X FISCAL NOTE: This action (splitting sales tax revenues between Funds) has no net financial impact on the City, although the increased overall sales tax revenues will have a positive ' t on both the General Fund (+$74,859) and the Hospital Debt Service Fund (+$24,953). Approved by Finance Department: ATTORNEY REVIEW: Yes X No RECOMMENDATION: Seward City Council authorize the transfer of an additional $24,953 in sales tax revenue from the General Fund to the Hospital Debt Service Fund. M ( ( f CITY OF SEWARD 2011 Sales Tax to Hospital Debt Service Fund 2011 Budgeted appropriation $981,632 Updated: 12/27/2011 Prior Year KPB Cash Total Same Period Cy to PY Total to remit Check Receipt Sales Tax Sales Tax Cumulative to Hospital Date Date Description Receipts Receipts Variance Debt Svc Fund 25-Jan-11 2011 sales tax (cash receipt) $74,867.29 $67,827.21 $7,040.08 $18,716.82 22-Feb-11 2011 sales tax (cash receipt) $366,388.24 $392,023.71 -$18,595.39 $91,597.06 22-Mar-11 2011 sales tax (cash receipt) $35,213.54 $32,404.07 -$15, 785.92 $8,803.39 26-A r-11 2011 sales tax (cash receipt) $67,951.81 $49,445.29 $2, 720.60 $16,987.95 23-Ma -11 2011 sales tax (cash receipt) $374,751.42 $363,324.76 $14,147.26 $93,687.86 21-Jun-11 2011 sales tax (cash receipt) 42,830.31 $46,025.51 $10,952.06 $10,707.58 22-Jul-11 2011 sales tax (cash receipt) 157,580.88 $218,797.61 -$50,264.67 $39,395.22 22-Au -11 2011 sales tax (cash receipt) 919,994.53 $825, 791.81 $43,938.05 $229,998.63 30-Sep-11 2011 sales tax (cash receipt) 381,763.32 $299,530.89 126,170.48 C65,440.83 25-Oct-11 2011 sales tax (cash receipt) 345,494.22 $334,905.21 136,759.49 86,173.66 22-Nov-11 2011 sales tax (cash receipt) 1,198,526.76 $1,131,266.48 204,019.77 299,631.69 27-Dec-11 2011 sales tax (cash receipt) 60,973.71 $69,410.64 195,582.84 15,243.43 subtotal: 4,026,336.03 3,830,753.191 195,582.84 1,006,584.01 ppropriation available: 1 (24,952.51) Updated: 1 /3/12 Sponsored by: Hunt CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2012-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF ADDITIONAL RAW FISH TAX PROCEEDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $234,451.41 TO THE HARBOR MAJOR REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT FUND, TO FUND CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS WHEREAS, the Seward City Council authorized transfer of 100% of the estimated raw fish tax proceeds ($365,000) from the General Fund to the Harbor Enterprise Fund in 2011, for the purpose of developing a revenue source to assist the harbor with replacement of critical capital infrastructure which was nearing the end of its useful life; and WHEREAS, the Harbor Enterprise Fund anticipated transferring all but $181,752 of the fish tax proceeds to the Harbor Major Repair and Replacement Fund (MRRF) to fund critical capital needs, such as replacement of D-Float, with the non -transferred funds remaining in the harbor to help balance the 2011 Harbor Enterprise Fund budget; and WHEREAS, raw fish tax proceeds exceeded budgeted projections by $234,451.41, coming in at $599,451.41, and it is the intent of the City Council to transfer 100% of these additional funds from the General Fund to the Harbor Enterprise Fund, for final transfer to the Harbor MRRF Fund, and this additional appropriation requires approval of the City Council; and WHEREAS, this resolution has been reviewed and supported by the Port and Commerce Advisory Board at its February 1, 2012 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA that: Section 1. General Fund raw fish tax budgeted revenues are hereby increased to account 101-0000-4350-0130 by $234,451.41; transfers -out from the General Fund (101-0000- 3071-0401) to the Harbor Enterprise Fund (401-0000-3070-0101) are hereby increased by $234,451.41; and transfers -out from the Harbor Enterprise Fund (401-0000-3075-0402) to the Harbor MRRF Fund (402-0000-3075-0401) are hereby increased by $234,451.41. Section 2. This resolution is retroactive to December 31, 2011, and shall impact the 2011 Budget. Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska, this 13`h day of February 2012. 19 Council Agenda Statement Meeting Date: February 13, 2012 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Through: City Manager Jim Hunt From: Kristin Erchinger, Finance Director'! Agenda Item: Appropriation of Additional Raw Fish Tax BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: The City of Seward annually receives raw fish tax payments from the State of Alaska. These payments are the result of a Fisheries Business Tax levied by the state on persons who process or export fisheries resources from Alaska. The tax is based on the price paid to commercial fishers, or fair market value when there is not an arms -length transaction. Fisheries business tax is primarily collected from licensed processors and persons who export fish from Alaska. The tax rates are as follows: Established Species Rate Developing Species FRate Floating 5% I —Floating 39/6 Salmon Cannery 4.5%I Shore -Based 1% Shore -Based 3% Direct Marketer F 1% Direct Marketers 3% In 2011, the City of Seward budgeted $365,000 in estimated raw fish tax revenues to the City's General Fund, with a corresponding transfer -out to the Harbor Enterprise Fund. This represents the second consecutive year in which raw fish tax proceeds have been given to the harbor, rather than used to offset the community -wide (General Fund) effects of fisheries operations. Shifting of this revenue source to the harbor was done to assist the harbor with accumulating sufficient reserves to address critical capital infrastructure needs, for which a funding source was not available. Based on the 2011 Budget, the Harbor Enterprise Fund intended to transfer $183,248 of the estimated $365,000 raw fish tax proceeds to the Harbor Major Repair and Replacement Fund (MRRF), for the purpose of replacing existing harbor infrastructure nearing the end of its useful life. The remaining fish tax proceeds ($181,752) were to be used to balance the Harbor's 2011 budget. The amount of fish tax received by the City in 2011 is $599,451.41. In order to accomplish the original intent of the City Council per the 2011 Budget, the following budget adjustments are necessary: 1) General Fund budgeted revenues increase by $234,451.41; 2) General Fund transfers out to the Harbor Enterprise Fund increase by $234,451.14; and 3) Harbor Enterprise Fund transfers out to the Harbor MRRF Fund increase by $234,451.41. INTENT: To allocate 100% of the raw fish tax proceeds received in 2011 from the City's General Fund to the Harbor Enterprise Fund, with final transfer to the Harbor Major Repair & Replacement Fund, for the purpose of addressing harbor capital replacement needs. CITY OF SEWARD RESOLUTION 2012- PAGE TWO CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST: Yes No N/A 1. Comprehensive Plan (document source here): 2. Strategic Plan (document source here): 1�— Other (list): 2012-2013 Harbor Capital Improvement Plan lists 3' replacement of D Float as a critical capital need that must be X accomplished within the next five years to avoid failure. The cost of this project is estimated at $2.363 million. FISCAL NOTE: This action has no financial impact on the General Fund since 100% of the fish tax proceeds are intended to be transferred to the Harbor. This action has no financial impact on the Harbor, since all of the increased fish tax proceeds will be transferred to the Harbor Major Repair and Replacement Fund. This action will increase the reserve balance in the Harbor MRRF by $234,451.41, to be used to fund harbor infrastructure replacement. Approved by Finance Department: Vi� ATTORNEY REVIEW: Yes No X RECOMMENDATION: Seward City Council approve an increase in the budgeted fish tax revenues, with final transfer of additional revenues to the Harbor MRRF Fund to fund critical capital needs. '5b Sponsored by: Hunt CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2012-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, CONSENTING TO A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP AND TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE CONTRACT FOR COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE AND WASTE BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEWARD AND ALASKA PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ANCHORAGE, LLC, TO WASTE CONNECTIONS OF ALASKA, INC WHEREAS, the City of Seward (the "City"), by its charter (the "Charter") and code of ordinances (the "Code"), provides for the sanitary, economic, and efficient collection and disposal of garbage, rubbish and waste material in the City and its service area, and permits, pursuant to such Charter and Code and voter approval, the use of a contractor to provide such services for collection and disposal of garbage and waste material; and WHEREAS, by Resolution 2010-64 approved on July 26, 2010, the Seward City Council approved a franchise for the collection and disposal of garbage and refuse with Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC dba Alaska Waste ("APES"), subject to approval of the voters of Seward at the October 5, 2010 regular election; and WHEREAS, at the election held October 5, 2010 voters affirmed a franchise agreement between the City and APES with 218 "yes" votes and 85 "no" votes, with said contract slated to expire December 31, 2012; and WHEREAS, through a corporate purchase and sales agreement, APES is selling substantially all of its assets to Waste Connections of Alaska, Inc. (WCI) and the City is entering into an acknowledgement to the change in corporate ownership, as well as a consent to assignment of the contract to WCI through the duration of the contract which is December 31, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to continue the Contract for collection and disposal of refuse, to acknowledge and consent to the assignment of the Contract by APES to WCI, and to consent to the change in ownership. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA that: Section 1. The above recitals are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. For the reasons set forth in the recitals above, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to assign the Contract from APES to the new owner, WCI, and to consent to the change in corporate ownership. CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2012-015 Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the document entitled "Acknowledgement and Consent to Assignment" and the document entitled "Acknowledgement and Consent to Change in Ownership," in substantial form as attached hereto, and the City Manager is authorized to sign any additional documentation reasonably necessary to complete this transaction. Section 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska, this 13th day of February 2012, THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA David Seaward, Mayor AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Johanna Kinney, CMC City Clerk (City Seal) F5 Council Agenda Statement Meeting Date: February 13, 2012 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Through: City Manager Jim Hunt From: Kristin Erchinger, Finance Director pry' Agenda Item: Consent to Change in Ownership and Assignment of Contract for Waste Management BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: The City of Seward contracts for waste collection and disposal via a franchise agreement which, according to the City Charter and Code, require voter approval. On July 26, 2010, the Seward City Council approved Resolution 2010-64 which authorized a franchise to Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC ("APES"), subject to approval of the voters. An election was held on October 5, 2010, at which the voters approved the franchise agreement by a vote of 218 to 85. The term of this contract expires December 31, 2012, with no further options to extend. APES is requesting an assignment of their contract with the City to a new corporate owner, Waste Connections of Alaska, Inc. ("WCI") In addition, they are seeking Council approval to consent to the change in corporate ownership. Per the terms of the contract, "APES shall not sell, assign, sublet or allow another to use this Agreement (the franchise contract) without prior approval by resolution of the City Council. This provision is subject to Charter Section 13.8." The purchase and sales agreement between APES and WCI is slated to become effective February 28, 2012, so time is of the essence. INTENT: To seek Council consent that the City's contract with APES for refuse collection and disposal be transferred to a new corporate owner, WCI, with said contract expiring December 31, 2012. The City will solicit requests for proposals in 2012 in time to place the matter before the voters at an election in October 2012, to award a franchise agreement for a term beginning January 1, 2013. CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST: Yes No N/A 1. Comprehensive Plan (document source here): 2. Strategic Plan (document source here): 3. Other (list): D( cv;� CITY OF SEWARD RESOLUTION 2012-015 PAGE TWO FISCAL NOTE: This action has no financial impact on the City. M Approved by Finance Department: ATTORNEY REVIEW: Yes_ No RECOMMENDATION: Seward City Council acknowledge and consent to a change in corporate ownership from Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC ("APES") dba Alaska Waste to Waste Connections of Alaska, Inc. ("WCI"), and consent to assign the contract for waste collection and disposal, between the City of Seward and APES, to WCI. M M 0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT Waste Connections of Alaska, Inc. ("WCI") has agreed to purchase all or substantially all of the assets of Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC ("Seller"), pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated August 16, 2011 (the "Purchase Agreement") between WCI, Seller and certain other parties, (the "Sale"). In connection with the consummation of the Sale, WCI will acquire the assets and certain obligations of Seller, including that certain City of Seward Contract dated October 6, 2010, approved by Seward City Council Resolution 2010-64 on July 26, 2010, by and between the undersigned and Seller (the "Contract"). A copy of the Contract is attached as Exhibit A to this Consent. The Contract expires December 31, 2012. The undersigned hereby acknowledges that WCI and Seller are contemplating the consummation of the Sale, and consents and agrees to any direct or indirect transfer or assignment by Seller to WCI of the Contract (the "Assignment") that has, or may be deemed to have, occurred upon the consummation of the Sale. The undersigned hereby further agrees that the Assignment shall not be deemed a breach of the Contract and that the Contract will remain in full force and effect after the consummation of the Sale. This Consent shall not be effective and the Assignment shall not be valid or binding on WCI or Seller unless and until the closing occurs under the Purchase Agreement (the "Effective Date"). The undersigned further consents and agrees to the assumption by WCI of all `'` W rights and obligations of Seller under the Contract that arise on and after the Effective Date. Any claims by the undersigned for damages or similar liabilities submitted on or after the Effective Date will be to WCI and not to Seller. The undersigned acknowledges and agrees that (i) the Contract has not been amended or modified and remains in full force and effect, (ii) there is no defense, offset, claim or counterclaim by or in favor of the undersigned against Seller under the Contract or against the obligations of Seller under the Contract, and (iii) neither the undersigned nor, to the undersigned's knowledge, Seller, is in default in the performance or observance of its obligations under the Contract, and the undersigned has no knowledge of any occurrence or any event that with notice or the passage of time would result in a default by the undersigned under the Contract. Date: , 2012 City of Seward ATTEST: By: Name: James Hunt Title: City Manager Johanna Kinney, CMC Address: P.O. Box 167 (City Seal) Seward, Alaska 99664-0167 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & CONSENT TO CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP Waste Connections of Alaska, Inc. ("Buyer") has agreed to purchase all or substantially all of the assets of Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC ("APESA"), including the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of Alaska Waste -Kenai (the "Company") held by APESA, pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated August 16, 2011 (the "Purchase Agreement") between Buyer, APESA and certain other parties, (the "Sale"). In connection with the consummation of the Sale, Buyer will become the new owner of the Company, and the Company will continue to operate that certain City of Seward Contract dated October 6, 2010, approved by Seward City Council Resolution 2010-64 on July 26, 2010, by and between the undersigned and the Company (the "Contract"). A copy of the Contract is attached as Exhibit A to this Consent. The Contract expires December 31, 2012. The undersigned hereby consents to any direct or indirect transfer ("Transfer") of the Contract that may be deemed to have occurred as a result of the change in ownership of the Company upon consummation of the Sale. The undersigned hereby further agrees that the Transfer shall not be deemed a breach of the Contract and that the Contract will remain in full force and effect after the consummation of the Sale. This Consent shall not be effective and the Transfer shall not occur or be valid or binding on Buyer or the Company unless and until the closing occurs under the Purchase Agreement (the "Effective Date"). The undersigned acknowledges and agrees that (i) the Contract has not been amended or modified and remains in full force and effect, (ii) there is no defense, offset, claim or counterclaim by or in favor of the undersigned against the Company under the Contract or against the obligations of Company under the Contract, and (iii) neither the undersigned nor, to the undersigned's knowledge, the Company, is in default in the performance or observance of its obligations under the Contract, and the undersigned has no knowledge of any occurrence or any event that with notice or the passage of time would result in a default by the undersigned under the Contract. Date: .2012 ATTEST: Johanna Kinney, CMC (City Seal) I r City of Seward By: Name: James Hunt Title: City Manager Address: P.O. Box 167 Seward, Alaska 99664-0167 Frn Sponsored by: Hunt CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2012-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, STATING AN INTENT TO FUND $400,000 FOR THE MAPLE STREET SEWER LINE PROJECT SUBJECT TO RECEIVING A LOAN IN THAT AMOUNT, AUTHORIZING A LOAN APPLICATION WITH THE ALASKA CLEAN WATER FUND AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A LOAN OFFER FROM THE ALASKA DRINKING WATER FUND WITH PAYMENTS SUBJECT TO BI-ANNUAL APPROPRIATION WHEREAS, in 2010 City staff identified several issues necessitating the addition of 850 linear feet of gravity sewer main on Maple Street; and WHEREAS, in 2011 Staff completed and submitted the required questionnaire to compete for loan monies being offered by the Alaska Clean Water Fund; and WHEREAS, this project was placed on the point source funding priority planning list for fiscal year 2012; and WHEREAS, the funding priority lists and the planning priority lists were amended upgraded this projects status and include the project in the point source funding priority list; and WHEREAS, the City of Seward seeks to obtain the necessary financial assistance to complete the Maple Street Sewer Main Extension by way of obtaining a loan from the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation's Alaska Clean Water Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA that: Section 1. The City of Seward is hereby committing to the State of Alaska (ADEC), its intent to fund the $400,000 project, subject to receiving the loan described below. Section 2. The City Manager is authorized to apply for a loan in the amount of $400,000 from the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Clean Water Fund, for the sewer system improvement known as Maple Street Sewer Main Extension. Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any and all documents that may be necessary to reflect the $400,000 loan from ADEC, the terms of its repayment over 20 years at a rate of interest equal to 1.5% subject to bi-annual appropriations, including but not limited to an agreement for the loan and a promissory note. 63 CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2012-016 Section 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska, this 13" day of February, 2012. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Johanna Kinney, CMC City Clerk (City Seal) �y THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA David Seaward, Mayor In Council Agenda Statement Meeting Date: February 13, 2012 Through: City Manager, Jim Hunt From: Public Works Director, W.C. Casey Agenda Item: Intent to fund $400,000 for the Maple Street Sewer Main Project, subject to receiving an ADEC Loan for that amount, authorizing a loan application with the Alaska Clean Water Fund and authorizing the City Manager to accept the loan offer BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: In the past twelve years there have been two water system evaluations and two wastewater system evaluations by two separate engineering firms. The purpose of the water and wastewater system evaluations performed in 2000 (CRW Engineering) was to investigate sizing and routing requirements for water and sewer infrastructure in the Gateway and Forest Acres subdivisions, as well as evaluating other water/wastewater components. These two subdivisions are the largest undeveloped areas left on the west side of Resurrection Bay and could provide substantial growth for the City if water and wastewater services could be provided. W To move forward with the Water/Wastewater system maintenance and development of the Capital Improvement Program that was delineated and recommended by the 2000 study, the City contracted with another engineering firm in 2009 (M.L. Foster & Assoc.). M.L. Foster was tasked with identifying areas that needed corrective actions and present their recommendations in a report (Water Compliance Study). M.L. Foster's study included an "Implementation Plan" that documents background information and results from field investigations, evaluates specific elements of the wastewater system, permit renewal processes, identifies trouble spots, recommends improvements and provides a summary of priority projects. City staff utilized both of these studies to create a master project list and identify potential funding sources. The Maple Street Sewer Main extension was placed on the master project list because of several issues outlined in both reports and Staff observations. With continued efforts, staff was able to secure funding for this critical infrastructure project through the ADEC Clean Water Fund low interest loan program. If the City is successful in acquiring the Loan, the acquired funding will construct 850 linear feet of sewer main, which will serve lots that are currently subdivided, as well as a large un-subdivided parcel. Present day status would require on -site wastewater treatment systems. The sewer main extension will also provide much needed redundancy for the Long Term Care Facility and the Afognak Subdivision development. INTENT: Secure available funding for the Maple Street Sewer Main Extension through the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Clean Water Fund Loan Program. (05 CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST: Yes No N/A 1. Comprehensive Plan (document source here): X 2. Strategic Plan (document source here): X 3. Other (list): 2011 M.L. Foster Wastewater System Evaluation X FISCAL NOTE: The City would have to commit to a $400,000 loan from the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Clean Water Fund, for adequate funding. The terms of repayment are over 20 years at a rate of interest equal to 1.5% subject to bi-annual appropriations, including but not limited to an agreement for the loan and a promissory note. Approved by Finance Department: ATTORNEY REVIEW: Yes X No RECOMMENDATION: The City of Seward City Council approve funding in the amount of $400,000 for the Maple Street , Sewer Main Line Extension Project, subject to receiving an ADEC Loan for that amount, authorizing a loan application with the Alaska Clean Water Fund and authorizing the City Manager to accept the loan offer r_ L STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA CLEAN WATER FUND APPLICATION FORM GENERAL INFORMATION Name of Community City of Seward Address P.O. Box 167 Seward. Alaska 99664 Contact Name W.C. Casey Title Public Works Director Telephone (907) 224.4005 PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name Maple Street Sewer Main Extension Location Forest Acres, Seward, Alaska Project Type: New Construction: X Upgrades Wastewater Treatment Collection System Discharge System Stormwater System Stormwater Quality Enhancement Fx1 Solid Waste Description of Project: This project will construct a new sewer main in order to serve lots that are developed in the near future The project consists of approximately 850 linear feet of gravity sewer main installation of 2 manholes and I cleanout, sewer service stub -outs to property lines and connection to the existing sewer system. ASSISTANCE AMOUNT This application is for $400,000.00 in loan monies from the Alaska Clean Water Fund. What loan payback period would you prefer? 7 Less Than I -Year Less Than 5-years a Up to 20-Years Note: The loan payback period may not exceed 20 years. Rev. 4/09 Page 1 of 4 ACWF Application PROJECT COSTS Administration $ Legal $ Preliminary Studies/Reports $ Engineering Design $ Inspection/Surveying/Construction $ Management Construction $ Equipment $ Contingencies $ Other $ Total Project Costs $ ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Loan Agreement Signed Preliminary Engineering Report Design Engineering Preparation of Bid Documents Award of Construction Contract Construction Initiation Construction Completion Initiation of Operation OTHER FUNDING Estimated :Date March 2012 March 2012 May 2012 May 2012 June 2012 June 2012 August 2012 September 2012 20,000 30,000 50,000 240,000 60,000 400,000 What fiends, if any, other than Alaska Clean Water Fund monies are committed for this project? Federal Funds from: Other State Funds from: Other Local Funds From: Other (Identify Source): Other (Identify Source): Rev. 4/09 Page 2of4 Amount: $ Amount: $ Amount: $ Amount: $ Amount: $ rA,2 ACWF Application n A separate account will be established within the municipality's accounting system through which financial assistance received from the Alaska Clean Water Fund will be administered. I certify the above information is current and correct. William Casey Name Signature CHECKLIST Public Works Director Title Date -C3i -lo21 DOCUMENTS TO BE SUMBITTED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION: ❑ ACWF Financial information Form ❑ Pre -award Compliance Review Report (.EPA Form 4700-4) ❑ Facility Plan ❑ Environmental Review Documentation ❑ Force Account Approval Forms and Equipment Rates, if applicable ❑Certification from your City Attorney stating that the Municipality has sufficient legal authority to incur the debt for an Alaska Clean Water Fund loan AND EITHER: ❑ A resolution from your city council authorizing this loan application and designating an official authorized to accept and manage an Alaska Clean Water .Fund Loan, or ❑ A resolution from your city council authorizing this loan application and specifying that an additional resolution will be issued to authorize the acceptance of a loan offer from the Alaska Clean Water Fund. Rev. 4/09 Page 3 of 4 61 ACWF Application Submit Completed Application to: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Municipal Grants & Loans 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2617 Rev. 4/09 Page 4 of 4 d ACWF Application ALASKA CLEAN WATER FUND Financial Information Form GENERAL INFORMATION The following information is intended to show whether your community can afford to repay the proposed loan from the Alaska Clean Water Fund. Loan Amount: $ 400,000. Repayment Term in years: l o (Loan repayment term may not exceed 20 years) Estimated Interest Rate: 1.596 (We will provide an estimate if you wish) Estimated Annual Payment: $43,100. (Given the above information, we will provide this if you wish) Please describe the sources of funding that will be used to repay the loan: `AW General Funds Capital Reserves User Fees Assessments, LIDs Taxes (identify type) Other (identify) amount $ amount $ 43,100. amount $ amount $ amount amount Describe whether any of these sources of funding or revenue have been previously pledged and, if so, please indicate the type of pledge or encumbrance (such as a previous bond sale, special assessment, legal or judicial settlement, etc.), amount pledged and any balance remaining: The City maintains the following outstanding bonds for the water fund: $2,652,000. with annual payments of $161,385. The City Council is considering the use of an assessment district to repay this debt. Please describe any litigation that could affect your communities ability to repay this loan: None ACWF Form 02 7l01 Page 1 of 2 CURRENT DEBT INFORMATION Does your community have a debt ceiling? If so, what is it? $ No How much remains available? $ N/A What is your current level of bonded indebtedness? $ 47,532,000. Please indicate the date, rating and amount of your last bond sale. Date: 9/15/2011 Rating: N/A Amount: $ 3,746,982. CURRENT CLEAN WATER FINANCING Please provide the following information regarding your current annual. water utilities budget. Operating revenues: $ 65,750 Operating expenses: $ 967,238 User fees collected: $ 1,015,755 Annual debt service: $ 1,903 TOTAL Revenues: $ 1,081,505 Other non -operating expenses: $ 92,482 TOTAL Expenses: $1 ,061 ,623 Reserves: $ 19,982 USER FEES If User Fees are intended to repay any portion of this loan, please submit: Existing ordinance that authorizes the collection of user fees Current fee structure Pertinent portions of your budget documents Most recent State single audit. Most recent rate study or rate analysis Also, please complete the following: Number of existing residential and commercial users: Number of proposed residential and commercial users: R5® How much will this loan repayment increase user fees? For example, how much will the average residential users monthly fee increase? The City Council is seriously considering an assessment district which would only impact beneficiaries of the assessment district and would therefore not result in an increase in the monthly fee. I certify the above information is correct and current. Name Title Signature Date ACWF Form 02 Page 2 of 2 7/01 R n lthbit L • 11 CFrY OF Sl✓WARD Wastewater Enterprise F u:nd Statement o` Net Assets December 31, 2010 (With Comparative 4unounts for 2009) 2009 C- rrelnt Cash and investments S 396,006 395,033 Receivables: Accounts 74,030 $1,009 Other 20,000 Less allowance for doubtful accounts a(3,33f5,9J5) Net receivables 90,699 75,1')4 Total current assets 486.705 470,137 Restricted cash and.investsnents - capital projects 112,315 187,920 Property, plant and equipment: Land and land rights 11.1,011 1 11,01 i Buildinas ?,415,39$ 2,418,399 lir.,provements other that buildings 8,952,968 8,952,968 lcuipmere, _ 705,897 292,907 Total property, plant drid cquiptnent in service 12„ 188,274 11,775,285 Less accumulated depreciation (b,903,924) _ (6,627,.316) Net prope-'-•, plan, ar,d equipment in service 284,350 5,147,969 Construedon in pro ,re. s _ _ _31 54 ! 08 otal props tc , plant and equiprment 5,284,350 5,502,077 Cotal assets `5 5,883,170 6,100,034 Liabilities and, et Assets Li i`Jilities: Current liabilities: Accounts payable 8_9C,6 8, l08 Accrued uavroll arid. related _irib;lities 7,836 6,372 accrued uiterest 3,932 565 CuI—'--. oortion. Accrued annual leave 3,841 3,135 Notes payable i 16,353 ___- 58,415 Tor clIrt"eIit habilnilcs 14ti 86 7.595 Noncurrent liabilities, net of current poi*.ion Accrued annual lease 15,624 9,405 Notes payable 12.2,492 181,763 OL1.1 noncurrent liabilities 138,116 191J68 Total I'kditics 278,984 267,7 ,3 Net assets: lnveAeA in e•apiial assets, net of nclated debt 5,045,505 5,261,899 C. r..restricted 558, :81 630,372 Total net assets S,6 0 4,186 5,892,271 Total li' biliaies and rlet assess 5.583.170 0,160,034 101 CITY OF SEWARD Skw Wastewater Enterprise Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Change in Net Assets Year Ended December 3_ ) 1, 2010 ('""ith Comparative -Amounts for 2009) IM Openning revenues: Residential Small general service Larse general service Seward Marine Industrial Center _%'Llscellaneous Total operating evenUeS Operating expenses: Salaries and benefits PUTCha-Sed services Supplies and maintenance Adrninistration and general Other Depreciation Total operating expenses Loss from operations Nonop eratiing revenues (expenses): Diteroovernmental Investment 'income Interest expense Net nonoperating revenues (e-,7--enses) Loss before transfers 1'ransfers out Change in net assets Beainning net assets Ending net assets Exhibit L-12 'o M09 465,108 44 5,190 1-16,741 107,520 193,914 179,191 50,211 40,898 5,442 23,655 85 1,416 796,454 2 70,366 216,385 2.95,790 179,994 81.,689 62,6719 13 8, 716 t 13,984 1 2,637 2-16,608 280.429 1,077,153 914,356 (225,73 -17) (I17,902) 8,7 12 1 1,842 6,021 67 8 (3,468) 11,265 11,188 (214,472) (106,714) (73,613) (68,667) (298,085) (175,381) 5,892,2'71 6,067,652 S 5ffl4,186 5,892,271 (Of the total depreciation expense of $276,609 above, S215,657 was attributable to capita) assets that were funded with capital contributions.) 102 Exhibit l.,-13 CITY OF SEWARD Wastewater Enterprise Fund Statement of Cash Flows Year Ended December 31, 2010 (With Comparative Amounts for 2009) 2010 2009 Cash flows front operating Receipts from customers and users S 835,821 792,259 Payments to suppliers (390,665) (255,362) Payments to employees (253,265) (230,809) Payments for intcrf:I_d sf_r ;ces used (138,716) (142,232) Net cash flows from operating activities 5 3,17 5 163,856 Cash flows from noncapital financing activities - transfers out (73.613) 667) Cash Flows from capital and related financing activities: Principal payments on long -terra debt (1,333) (57,584) Interest payments on long-term debt (101) (4,466) Accluis'- ,Dn of propert, pl u:t and equipment (58,881) (25.7,228) Received on note receivable - 239,600 Net cash flows from capital and related financing activi ies (60,3 (79,678) Cash flows from investing activities - investment income received y 6,021 T_ 3,678 Net increase (decrease) in cash and mves.:nents (7`1,732) 19,189 Beginning, cash Ind mvestinents 582,853 563,E64 Ending cash and in-c-estrp:--ts Reconciliation of cash ara.d Imll'eS2IrleIltS to statement of net assets: C.:urrent assets Restricted assets Reconciliation of loss fro,-7 operations to net cash pro-ride.d (used) by operating activities: Loss from. operations Adjustments to reconcile loss operations to net cash flows from operating activities: Depreciation Noraeash expense . P;RS relief Increase (decrease) jr-1 allowance for doubtful accounts (Increase) decrease in assets - accounts receivable Increase (decrease) in liabilities- Accounts payable Accrued payroll and related liabilities Accr ed .annual leave Net cash flow front operating activi'i s I03 S 508;121 582,853 3,90,006 395,033 112,1.15 187,820 S 508,121 582,853 (2=5,737) (117,902) 276,608 280,429 8;712 11,842 (2,574) 2,564 (.13,021) (6,759) 798 (52) 1,46=1 1,141 06 25 (7,407) S 53,175 163,856 CITY OF SEWARD Wastewater Enterprise Fund Schedule of Composition of Net Assets December 31, 2010 (With Comparative Amounts for 2009) Grants and other external contributions Related accumulated amortization Contributions from other funds City -generated equity Total net assets 104 -TI Ex.hi b 1 t_ L - 14 201,0 2009 10, 1-55,599 10, 155,1599 (6,584,269) (6,368,612) 161,550 161,550 1,87 1,306 1,94'.... I 51,604,186 5892,2-, 1 Mikunda, WGL'A"D'RFY ALLIANU McGladrey onf''IF-41 & Co., Inc. Certified Public Accountzints & Coilsultailts Indcp!Znj,,1 Auditor's__ Report on Internal. ContrdOver ErndncrajReyqrtir_and on CoinpLi4qce a Other Matters Based on an Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Seward, Alaska We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the Business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund infornia-ion of the fle City of Seward, Alaska as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010, which Collectively comprise City of Seward's basic financial statements and have issued our repoil thereon dated June 14, 2011. Our report was modified 10 include a reference to other auditors. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing ,Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Other auditors audited the Ifinaricial statements of Providence Seward IMedical Center, as described in our report on City of Seward's financial statements. The financial statements of Providence Seward Medical Center were not audited in accordance with Government luditing, ,Standards. Internal Control Over Finanqi.al Re-Dortincf In planning and performing our audit, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over financial reportintEll. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does riot allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity's 1I.T-ancial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. 165 Ir *40 3601 "C" Street, Suite 600 * Anchorage, Alaska 99503 * (907) 278-8878 * Fax (907) 278-5779 1,* www. nice -c pa. corn I CX Honorable Mayor and City CoLuicil CI;-tv of Seward, Alaska . Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or rnaterial weaknesses. We did not identif}, any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's financial statements an, free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws... regulations, contracts, ai-.,d grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct arid material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective olf- our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Governnient iluditing Standards. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City of Seward's rnariagerrient, Honorable Mayor and City Council, others within the entity, federal and state awarding agencies and, I if applicable, pass -through entities, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Anchorage, Alaska ,Z, june 14,2011 166 —1 CA, I 01"d MikZl I , M MCGLADREY ALLIANCE I McGladreyunda k-.4' ottrell & Co.,,,,,. Ce ied Public Accountants & Consultants .......... lndg),erdent. Auditor's Report on Compliance with Requirements That Could Have a - -1-'irect arid P-9.,-- --- Material Effect oil Each Maior roo-rarn and on Internal Control Over C P :orrip��qpce in Accordance with Q `M> CircidarA-133 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Seward, Alaska !C-Qw-Igme We have audited the compliance of City of Seward with the types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Circular A-] 33 Compliance Supplernent that are applicable to each of its major federal programs for the year ended December 31, 1, 2010. City of s r Seward's , f dealp am r ' major it r programs are identified in the suriarnary of auditor's results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. Compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts. and grants applicable to each of its major federal programs is the responsibility of City of Seward's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on City of Seward's compliance based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Governnient ,,MdifingStandards, issued by the Comptroller General of he United States; and OMB Circular A- 133 ), Audits qj'Staiesl, Local Governments, and ,Non -Profit Organizations, Those standards and ONM Circular A-133 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with die types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about City of Seward's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legcd determination on the City of Seward's compliance with those requirements. In our opinion, the City of Seward compiled, in all material respects, with the requirements referred to above that are applicable to each of its major federal programs for the year ended December 3 2010, 167 3601 "C" Street., Suite 600 1 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 * (907) 278-88?8 * Fax (907) 278-5779 * www.mcc-cpa.corrl W-) Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Seward, Alaska Internal Control Over Coniplliiarrce The management of City of Seward is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, arid grants applicable to federal Programs, In planning and performing our audit, we considered ("'It'v of'Seward's internal control over compliance with the requirements that could have a direct and. material eft'ecl on a major t'ederal program in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on cc-.- -pliance, and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with 0-%,1B Circular A-1.313, but riot for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance, Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of City of Seward's internal control over compliance. A deficiency in internal control Over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over '2 compliance does riot allow management or employees, in the norinat course of perforining their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material iveakness in interval control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a '77�-' of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a Timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed To identify all deficiencies ir, internal control over 0 compliance that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We did not 1 'deiitif I I any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be, material weaknesses, as defined above. This report is intended solely for The information and use of City of Seward's management, Honorable %4ayorand City Council, federal awarding agencies, and pass -through entities, and is not intended to be and should riot be used' by anyone other than These specified par'i,­,s. '-v Anchoraae, Alaska -'Line 14, 2011 168 Mikunda, %,,ottrell & Co., Inc. Certif ledu Pblic Accountants &- Co-asul=Ls I_1 McGLADREY ALLIANCE McGladrey ln__dependent Audirors L�-e E —ments -- Q�i Cqjpnliance aith eq i e'F.lat Could I -lave a Direct and Material Effect on Each on Internal Control Over Compliance in Accordance with the State ofAlaska Audit Guide and Cornr7liance SuUlci� pleinent for S.t.ate Sin le Audits I lonorable Mayor and Cl-Council City of Seward, Alaska Compliance We have audited the compliance of City of Seward with the types of compliance requirements described in the State of Alaska 4udit Guide and Compliance Supplement for State Single Audits that are a plicable, to each of its major state programs grarris for the year ended Decernber 31, 2010. City of Seward's major state are identified in the accompanying, Schedule of State Financial Assistance. Compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to each of its major state programs is the responsibility of City of Seward's managemetit. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on City of Seward's compliance based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of Arnerica; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government.,,luditing Standards issued by the Comptroller Gen oral of the United S-.a-tes; and the State of Alaska 4udit Guide d and Cni Compliance Sz�opleent for State Single ,Iudits. Those standards and the State oj'lllask�i .Iu i Guide and Compliance Supplement for State Single Audits reqUIlre that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major state progr,,:un occurred. An audit includes examining. on a test basis, evidence about City of Seward's compliance with diose, requirements and l�erfonrrlino such othc- procedures as we considered necessary in the We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of City of Seward's compliance with those requirements. In our opinion, City of Seward complied, in all material respects, with the requirements referred to above that are appticable'to each of its major state programs for the year ended December 31, 2010. 169 3601 "C" Street, Suite 600 "' Anchorage, Alaska 99503 * (907) 278-8878 * Fex (907) 278-5779 * www.rnec-cpaxoin Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Seward, Alaska Internal Control Over Compliance The management of City of Seward is responsible for establishing a-nd inaintaining effective intemai cont--ol over compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants -applicable to state pragr—ns. In planning and performing our audit, we considered City of Seward's internal control over compliance 1,-,,-ith the -requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major state program in order to deten-nine our auditing procedures for he purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance, and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance l,Nith the State of Alaskv .-Iudit Gvkle and Compliance 3'upj?Ie7-nent,ibr &ate Single Audits, but not for the pl:-Ilose of -expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express tan opinion on the effectiveness of City of Se -ward's internal control over compliance. A d4ficiency in internal Control 01'er compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the norrriai course of pert'brminor their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a state program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over com,13hance is a deficiency, or combination or deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibilit", that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of, , a state program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. Z:� Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not desigTed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be deficiencies, significarit deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal over compliance that we consider to be rnaterial weaknesses, as defined above. This report is intended solely for the information and use of City of Seward's rnariatyeinent, Honorable Mayor and City Council, and the. State of Alaska and is not inierided to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Arichorag1Alaska e, A, June 14,7Ol I 170 IQ 121 CITY OF SE WARD Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs Year Ended December 31, 2010 I Summary of Auditor's Results Financial Statements 'I'Ype of auditor's report issued Unqualified ffittmal control over financial reporting: C', © Material weakiiess(es) identified'? yes X 110 S;;�­iFicant deficiency(ies) identified that are not considered to be material wcakness(es.)? yes X_ none reported NonCOITIpliance material to financial statements noted.? yes X 110 FederalF,inancialAssistanee Internal control over major programs: ® Material weakness(es) identified? Yes X_. no • Significant deficiency(ies) identified that are not considered to be inWerial weakness(es)? Yes _X_ none reported "rope of auditor's report issued on compliance for major programs`? Unqualified 114� Any, audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with section 51 0(a) of Circular A.- 13 3 ? yes X_ no Identification of ma'or programs: t, j rams; A2encv Environmental Protection Agency Department of E'ducation Dollar threshold used to distinguish between C� 'Fvpe A and Type B programs: Auditee qualified as low -risk auditec? CFDA Number Narne of Federal. Program or Cluster 66,468 Drinking Water Lc (ARRA) 84.397 Community Economic Stimulus Program (ARRA) State .Financial Assistance Internal control over rnajor prograrras: ® Material weakness(es) identified? ® Significant deficiency(ies) identified that are not considered to be material weakness(es)? 171 S,-)00,000 X yes — 110 yes X no _ yes none reported CIT-11' OF SEWA-RD Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, continued Summary of Auditor's Results, continued State Financial Assislance, continued Type of auditor's report Issued on compliance for major programs? Unqualified Dollar threshold used to distinguish a state major Program? It. Financial StaternenLF hidings None noted. S -15,000 Rif. Federal Award Findin2s and Ouestioned Costs Nome noted. IV. State 1-.---ard Findm-gs and Questioned Costs None noted. 172 RM W90M CITY OF SEWALRD Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings Year Ended December --- 1, 2010 Federal There were no prior year audit Findings. Stale of Alaska There were no prior year audit findings. 17") M CITY OF SEWARD Corrective Action Plan Year Ended December 31, 2010 1`1 here are no current year findings; therefore no corrective action phm is required. 174 January 26, 2012 Ms. Beth Ve-relli Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water 555 Cordova Street, Fourth Floor Anchorage, AK 99501. SUBJECT: Maple street sewer Main Line Extension (pending ACWL Categorical Exclusion from Environmental Review Process Dear Ms. Verrelli: The City of Seward Water and Wastewater Department requests a categorical exclusion to the environrriental review process required by the Alaska Clean Water Loan program for the subject project. The project will construct a new sewer main in order to serve lots that are to be developed in the near future. The project consists of approximately 850 linear feet of gravity sewer main, the installation of 2 manholes, 1 cleanout, sewer service stub -outs to property lines and connection to the existing sewer system. The City of Seward Water Wastewater Department work is expected to be constructed within existing roadways/rights-of-ways. "T"his project will not adversely affect the degree of treatment or capacity of any existing wastewater facility. This project will allow for future developers to utilize the City of Seward's sewer system, thereby eliminating the need for septic systems and reducing the potential for environmental harm due to private septic systern malfunction. The increase in the volume of discharge or loading of pollutants caused by this new sewer main will be negligible. This project will not cause the permitted volume of discharge or loading pollutants from an existing facility as designed to be exceeded. It will not create a new or relocate an existing discharge to surface or ground waters. This project will have no identifiable effects on any cultural resource areas, any endangered or threatened species or their habitat, or any environmentally important natural areas. It is not expected to have any significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment individually, cumulatively over time, or in conjunction with any other action. R4 The City of Seward Water and Wastewater department is financially capable of constructing, operating and maintaining the additional 850 feet of sewer main. Also as requested, I have enclosed the Engineer's Cost Estimate as per the latest estimated project costs. If you require further information, please call W.C. Casey, Public Works director or Carmen ifewitt, Public Works Technician, at 907.224.4005. Sincerely, William C. Casey Public Works Director 907.224.4093 wcasey@cityofseward.net 9t) Sewer Rates and Charges - 2012 Dates for Sewer bN� Class of Service; ANNUAL RATE ADJUST MEN'f: The rates and fees herein provided are adjusted 6% beginning the first billing cycle of the 2012 and 2013 calendar year. The rates thereafter will be adjusted annually beginning the first billing of each calendar year to rellect all average of the five previous published years' annual increase in the C011sullner Price Index, All Items, 1982-84—t0(} 1'or all t..irban Consumers, Anchorage, Alaska Area ("C,l11") as published by the, (Jllite States Department of Labor, bureau of Labor Statistics. (For example, 2011 rates reflected an increase based on tile: average CPI for 2004-2008.) GROUP A - RESIDENTIAL ENTIAIL Group A includes all residential eustoriners living In single fanilly or multiple farni_ly living Units. M"'Iltiple family units includes multi-plexes, apartilnents and towIlhouses, but excludes hotels, motels and similar transient accorniriodati Otis. GROIJ11' B - SMALL GENERAL SERVICE Group B includes commercial enterprises where the use of grater is incidental to the coinlinercial activity and is primarily limited to domestic and janitorial use. 'This class of service includes such businesses as hotels, motels, professional office buildings, barber shops, warehouses, libraries, public offices, churches and tlx titers, etc. GROUP Cs - LARGE GENERAL SERVICE Group C i.ncludes commercial enterprises where water usage is greater than in Small General services and/or water is used for food ,)reparation or other activities, but not for industrial proce:,ssing. GROUP D - METERED COMMERCIAL & INDUS'I'RI.AL SERVICE Group D includes commercial and industrial enterprises where water usage is ~Treater than for small businesses and/or water is used for food preparation, other activities and industrial processing_= as %well as general domestic users. BASIS FOR MON 1'1-ILY FEES AND CHARGES C ROU]"S A - D NON ME'I ERli D SERVICES Non -metered sewer users in Groups A, B and C shrill be charged at the rate of WAS per t RU. per month, not including tax, "Olen the water service and sevver service serve the same activities. If the activities serviced by the sewer services are different than those served by the water service, a water charge shall be computed based on the acli hies served by the sewer. The sewer rate shall theft be computed at 1.2 times the established water charge. City of Seward Sewer l`arii-f- 1Z€?vr,rexl I0%0;"01 , L,j�clive Janurrr 1, 2012 �i Page 4-1 METERED SERVICES Users with metered service (GAroup D) shall be charged for se-,ver service according to the rates listed below, The charge shall be based upon the quantity of metered water, except that those users having a sewer meter shall be charged for the quantity of sewage actually metered. The quantity of sewage will be adjusted if a significant amount of'wastewater is not discharged into the city sewer systern. Minimum Charge for Each Metered Service [---Service Size millirlium Monthly Charge 3 )/4" - 1 water service $42.93 1-1/2 2 water sen ice 71.05 2-1/4" - 4" water service $17 9.12 Over 4" water service $895.58 Charize for Consumption ischaEgSA_per Month Charge per 1,000 Gallons Gro ups A, B & C Group D First 10,000 Gallons $6.330 $10,12 Next 40,000 Gallons $5.05 $8.10 _J Next 50,000 Gallons $4.19 $6.76 Next 100,000 Ciallons $3.77 $6.10 Next 500,000 Gallons $1.87 $3.92 Next 500,000 Gallons $1.87 $3.92 All Additional Gallons $1.87 $3.92 GROUP E - SPECIAL RATES AND FEES Group E includes charges 1br other categories of not included in GroupsA through D. Z:� L, City of'Seward Sewer Tariff .. Revised 10/03/2011, Fffntiveharm ai-V 1, 2012 CA-1 11.io 4-2 1. Users gernerating sewage with a BOD an€i SS loading in excess of mg/l. (upon a deter- mination by the utility manager that the concentration and characteristics of the sewage will not cause a detrimental effect upon the sewer system and/or treatment plant. IBOD — Biological 0:xyger1 Demand and SS = ;Suspended Solids ?. Tank Truck Operators: Fresh sewage, or waste froze portable or chemical toilets, provided the utility manager determines the waste will not be detrimental to the sewer system and:'or treatment plant.. 1N"DTE: It is prohibited to discharge into the city s server system; septic tank, waste or any waste containing toxic or other materials that could cause the city s discharge to violate the EPA or DEC discharge permit, Recreational Vehicles: Individual RV owners utilizing city -owned or approved dump sites Public and private campground operators [Operators must maintain sufflciejzt records 10 c€hrrrPute tz Y,atsrztlilY pc13�ss7erat, utzd such records shall he ma.cle available to the city i pon request.) 4. Ship's Sewage: Sewer Service Connection Fee: 6. Seiver Service Inspection Fee: This fee shall be charged fior services installed by anyone, rather than t1he. cite. Unauthorized Connection or Discharge into the City Sewer System: Specified rate in rate tables times a factor of the actual BOD and SS loading divided by 250, phis the cost of testing Per thousand gallons: No I've $48.86 S0.82 per day Per RV, camper or trailer permit, not including tent campers. Not accepted Installed at property owner s expense. Any work performed by the city will be charged at total cost, including labor, overhead, adnhinistration, materials and equipment PLUS a $125.00 connection fee. $100.00 Per Occurrence, $740.1 PLUS Cost ofrepair, restoration or cleanup by city City of Seward sewer ,rariff - Rc visecl 10;,03,'2011, 6;Jleciivu Januar V 1. 201 ' Page,?-3 PLUS State and/or federal penalties & charges levied against the city or individuaX Restoration of Sewer Service and Repair of Damage by Owner or Contrac- tor to Ciq, Facilities: 9. Locate Sewer Main: 10. Security Deposit: If a water security deposit was paid, no additional deposit will be required. if no water deposit was paid, the following deposits will be charged. Actual cost, including city overhead, adminis- tration, labor, materials and equipment First Locate: No Charge Each Additional Locate: $74.01 Large projects requiring several locates Nvill be under a special contract and may require a fee. Dontestic: $37.00 (Single tamily & duplex) Commercial: $111.01 Multi -Family: $ 111.01 11. Contractor Work: Any contractor tapping $5000.00 Bond or equivalent cash guarantee into a city sewer main, or otherwise working payable to the city on a city sewer main, must be properly licensed to perform the work and must provide: 12. Sewage Meter: 13. Delinquent Account Charges: Computed front the quantity of metered water delivered to the same activity unless a sewage meter has been installed. Sewage meters approved by the city may be installed at the user s expense. Interest rate: 10.5% per annum Monthly late fee: $5.51 City of Sewed SewerTziriff - Rev.sed 10/03,2011, FffecliveJain mn, /, 2012 Patle 4-4 r" Sewer Rates and Charges - 2013 Rates for Sewer by Class of Service ANNUAL, R.An ADJUSTMENT: The rates and fees herein provided are adjusted 6% beginning the first billifig cycle of the 2013 calendar year. The rates thereafter will be adjusted annually beginning the first billing rf'each calendar year to reflect an average of the five previous published years' annual increase in the Consumer price Index. A11 Items, 1982-84=100 for all Urban C;onsurners, .Anchorage, Alaska Area ("CPI") as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (For example, 2011 rates reflected an increase based on the average CPI for 2004-2008) GROUP A - RESIDENTIAL Group A includes all residential customers living in singte fancily or multiple amily living units. tvlultihle family units includes multi-plexes, apartments and to<<vnhouses. but excludes hotels, motels and similar transient accommodations. GROUT B - SMALL GENERAL SERVICE Group l3 includes commercial enterprises where the use of water is incidental to the cornnrercial activity and is primarily limited to domestic and janitorial use. This class of service includes such businesses as hotels, motels, Professional office buildings, barber shops, warehouses, libraries. public offices, churches and thcater-s, etc. CROUP C - LARGE GENERAL SERVICE Group (includes commercial enterprises where water usage is greater than in Small General services aiidior water is used for food preparation or other activities. but not for industrial processing. CROUP D - METERED COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL SERVICE Grout)1) includes commercial and industrial enterprises where water usage is grez€tc:r than fvr small businesses and/or water is used for food preparation, other activities and industrial processing as well as general domestic users. BASIS FOR MONTHLY FEES AND CHARGES (.'r'ROUI'S A - NC t .M- E "I' RED SERVICES 'Von -metered sewer users in Groups A, B and C: shall be charged atthe rate of$47.48 per EIRU per month,. not including tax, when the water service and sewer service serve the sane activities. Ifthe activities serviced by the server services are different than those served. by the water service, a water charge shall be computed based c the activities served by the sewer. The sewer rate shall t.heri be computed at 1.2 tames the established water charge. City ;it RewaYcl Smea' Tariff - Revised Ili /i3.':7(il J; f f'i�c:tive ,Jamiap), 1, 2013 Page 4-1 METERED SERVICES Users with metered service (Group D) shall be charged for sewer set -vice according to the rates listed below. The charge shall be based upon the quantity ot'metered water, except that those users having a sewer meter shall be charged for the quantity of sewage actually metered. The quantity of sc,,vage \vill be adjusted if a significant amount of wastewater is not discharged into the city sewer system. Minimum (barge for Each Metered Service Service Size Minimum Montlily Charge 3/4 P water service $45.51 1-1/2" - 2" water service $ 7 1. 311 2-1/4?'- 4" water setwice S 189.87 Over 4" water service S949.3I Charge for Consumption Gallons of Sewne Discharged ner Month 1, Irst 10,000 Gallons Next 40,000 Gallons Next 50,000 Gallons Next 100,000 Gallons Next 500,000 Gallons Next 500,000 Gallons All Additional Gallons GROUIP E - SPECIAL RATES AND FEES C Liar� 4e lolls G C Group 1) $6.68 Sl 0.73 $5.35 $8.59 $4.44 $4.00 $1.98 $1.98 $1.98 $7.17 $6.47 $4.16 $4.16 $4.16 Group E includes categories charges for other ories of not included in Groups A through 1). L__ C, City ol'Seward Sover Farifl'- Revived M/03/2011. Ejleclive Januarl, /, 2013 Fd-hV. Pate 4.2 , LWA 9 1. Users gene?'ating sewage with as BOD and SS loading in excess of mg/1 (upon a deter- rnination by the utility manager that the concentration and characteristics of the sewage will not cause a detrimental effect upon the sewer system and/or treatment plant 1130D — Biological Oxygen Detnand and SS = Suspended Solids 'I 2. Tank Truck Operators: Fresh sewage, or waste 1'rorn portable or cheinical toilets. provided the utility manager determines the waste will not be detrimental to the sewer system and/or treatment plant. NOTE. It is prohibited to discharge into the city s sewer systern, septic tank waste or any waste containing toxic or other rnatcrials that could cause the city s discharge to violate the E'PA or DEC discharge permit. 3. Recreational Vehic]cs: Individual RV ow'ners utilizing; city -owned or approved dump sites Public and private campground operators 101)erators rnusi rnaintefin sql ,licient records to coinpitte a nwnihlVptyinenr, anal such recordsshall be incu'le available to the city upon requestj 'A Ship's Sewage: 5. Sewer Service Connection Fee: 6. Sewer Service inspection Fee: This fee shall be charged for services installed by anyone other than the city. 7, Unauthorized Connection or Discharge into the Cih,, Sewer System: Specified rate in rate tables times a factor of the actual BOO and SS loading divided by 250, plus the cost of testing Per thousand gollons: No fee $51 .79 $0.87 per day Per RV, camper or trailer permit, not including tent campers. Not accepted Installed at property owner s expense. Any work performed by the city will be charged at total cost, illClUding, labor, overhead, administration, rnateriais and equipment PLUS a $125.00 connection `'ee. $100.00 .Per Occurrence $78-1 . 5 6 PLUS Cost of repair, restoration or cleanup by city City of Seward Sewer Tariff - Revised 1t10K7011, 4/ fectiveJanuari-, 1, 7013 R= Pa-e 4-3 1 PLUS State and/or federal penalties & charges Actual cost, including city overhead, adminis- levied against the city or individual8. tration, labor, materials and equipment Restoration of Sewer Service and Repair of Damage by Owner or Contrac- tor to City Facilities: 9. Locate Sewer .Main: 10. Security Deposit: If a water security deposit was paid, no additional deposit will be required. if no water deposit was paid, the f'ollowing deposits will be charged. First Locate: No Charge Each Additional Locate: $78.45 I.,,arge projects requiring several locates will be Linder a special contract and may require a fee, Domestic: $39.22 (Single family & duplex) Commercial: $117.67 Multi -Family: $117.67 11. Contractor Work: Any contractor tapping $5000.00 Bond or equivalent cash guarantee 0 into a city sewer main, or otherwise working payable to the city on a city sewer main, must be properly licensed to perform the work and must provide: 12. Sewage Meter: 13. Delinquent Account Char( -.Yes: Computed "rorn the quan+ity ofinetered water delivered to the same activity unless a sewage meter has been installed. Sewage meters approved by the city may be installed at the user s expense. Interest rate: 10.5% per annum Monthly late fee: $5.84 City of Seward Senver'Fariff - Revised 10/03!`2011, l-,,qectiveJunum:i- 1, 2013 <-> T7 Page 4-4 n n Sponsored by: Administration CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2011-079 A RESOLIJTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, AMENDING THE WASTEWATER TARIFF AND PROVIDING FOR A 6% INCREASE IN CALENDAR YEAR 2012 AND A 6% INCREASE IN CALENDAR YEAR 201.3 AND PROVIDING FOR AN AUTOMATIC ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT THEREAFTER TO ALL RATES AND FEES BY AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE FIVE PREVIOUS FULL YEARS' AVERAGE INCREASE IN THE ANCHORAGE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS WHEREAS, the most recent external comprehensive study of the City of Seward's utility rates was conducted sixteen years ago (in 1993) by R.W. Beck, resulting in several amendments to the City's wastewater tariff, and WHEREAS, from 1993 through 2008 the consumer price index has risen '111 excess of 40%, while rate increases associated with operating and maintenance costs have risen only 29.9%; and 1104W WHEREAS, the City of Seward's enterprise funds are operated in a 1`1121111er similar to private business entities, in that they establish charges intended to cover the full cost of providing services (including direct and indirect costs) including operations aild Maintenance, overhead, system expansion and charges for the use of capital facilities.-, and 0 WHEREAS, in order to qualify for [ow -interest loans and bond financing flor capital infrastructure, the City must be able to demonstrate the adequacy of utility rates as %vell as the financial capacity for debt repayment; and WHEREAS, the result of the 2010/2011 Budget process was a decision to increase wastewater rates by 4.8% (equals five-year average Cl)l of 2.8% plus 2%) effective January 1, 2010 and 5.1% (equals five-year average CPI of 3.1% plus 2%) effective January 1., 2011, in addition to automatic rate increases annually thereafter, equal to the Five-year average CP1 each year effective the first billing cycle of each year, in order to (at a rninimum) keep pace with cost increases-. and WHEREAS, the Seward City Council conducted a reassessment of enierprise fund capital infrastructure and rate review in work sessions in preparation for the 2012/2013 Biennial Budget, the outcome of which identified the need to raise rates above the CPI in order to cover the cost of capital infrastructure repairs and replacement, as Nvell as Operational shortfalls; and CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2011-079 WHEREAS, a result of the 2012/2013 Budget process was a proposed increase in wastewater rates of 6% effective January 1, 2012, and 6% effective .January 1, 2013, followed by automatic rate increases annually thereafter, equal to the five-year average CP1 each year effective the first billing cycle of each. year (in order to) at a minimum, keep pace with cost increases; and WHEREAS, a 6% rate increase in calendar year 2012 and 2013 will provide necessary, critical relief from rising operation costs and the cost of critical capital infrastructure repairs and replacement; and WHEREAS, limiting rate increases only by the CPI will not sufficiently cover the cost of operations, critical capital infrastructure repairs and replacement or demonstrate adequate financial health that is needed to qualify for low interest loans; and WHEREAS, the rate and fee schedule will resume the automatic annual adjustment by the previous published five years' annual increases in the Consurner Price Index beginning .January 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, annual rate adjustments will assist in demonstrating the City's commitment to maintaining a financially sound utility, and will serve to mitigate Potential `rate shack' associated with infrequent rate hikes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, AILASKA THAT: Section I. The Wastewater Tariff is hereby amended to establish a new initial paragraph prior to "Group A -Residential" on Page 4-1, to read as follows: AA17VUAL RATE ADJUSTMEWT, 17he rates and fees herein provided are adjusted 6% beginning the first billing cycle of the 2012 and 2013 calendar Year, The rates thereafter will be adjusted annually beginning the first billing of each calendar year to reflect an average of the five previous published }ears' annual increase in the Consumer Price Index, All Items, 1982-84=100 for all Urban Consumers, ,Anchorage, Alaska ,Area ("CPT) as published by the United States Department ofLabor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (For example, 2011 rates reflected an increase based on the average CP1 far 2004-200'8. j Sectors 22. All previous Resolutions in conflict therewith are hereby repealed effective: December 31, 2011. M CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2011-079 Section 3. The rates, fees, and charges incorporated herein by reference and attached hereto as "Sewer Rates and Charges --- 2012" are effective January 1, 2012 and is � 'Scvver Rates and Charges — 1013" are effective January 1, 2013), and are hereby - I ADO11'rED. Section 4. This resolution shall take effect ten days following approval PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska, this 20' day of October, 2011. THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA David �.eawaMWayor t AYES: Valclatta, Bardarson, Keil, Shafer, CasagrandLI,TerrY, Scaward NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST': / 4j-hanna fi . nh e �y,C MC" ,Cty Clerk (C ity S 41141 0 rA Iq Iq 1. %Ozr F 029CUU55" Council Agf Meeting Date: October 24, 2011 From: W.C. Casey, .Public Works Director Agenda Item: Amending the Wastewater Tariff and Providing Automatic Annual Adjustments to All Rates The Seward City Council has held two work sessions to discuss the past, current and future Financial and mechanical performance of the wastewater enterprise fund in regards to the 2012 and 2013 Wastewatcr Capital Budget. Staff was given the opportunity to highlight the critical needs ofthe department and offered some recommendations in addressing these critical needs. Customer rates and charges in the Wastewater Enterprise Fund, have been amended four times (5% in 2004, 154-o in 2005, 4.8 % in 2010 and 5.1 % in 201 1) since the early 1990's. 'The curnulative consumer price index between 1993 and 2008 is in excess of 39%. Due to the manner in which the wastewater fund is operated (similar to private business entities), expenses and operating costs have gradually begun to exceed revenues. Generating revenues in a manner that will allow for the funding of critical needs, depreciation, capital projects, repair and replacement of int'rastructure has become unachievable. Compounding the issue of revenue shortfalls is the ADF C requirement that the Wastewater Fund show proof for the financial capacity to incur debt. ADEC has sustained its ability to make funds available through very competitive grants and loans, and it is absolutely necessary for the City to maintain the leverage to take advantage of these funding mechanisms (70%-30% Municipal Matching Grants and 1.5% Municipal l: oans). Forward thinking in regards to Project Development and Project funding is crucial in order to make the City eligible for these opportunities. The 6% rate increase in calendar year 2012 and 2013 will provide necessary critical relief frorn rising operation costs and the cost of critical capital infrastructure repairs and replacement. The proposed rate increase will help the Wastewater Enterprise Fund catch-up to the cost of doing business in 2008, but will still leave the fund 3.3% behind 2008 CPI prices. The rate and fee schedule will resume the automatic annual adjustment by the previous published five years' annual increases in the Consumer Price Index beginning January 1, 2014. This will assist in demonstrating the City's cornrnitrnent to maintaining a financially sound utility, and will serve to mitigate potential `rate shock' associated with infrequent rate hikes. This proposed tariff does NOT include a fee for the purpose of recovering costs associated with individuals who elect to turn off utilities seasonally. However, if the City Council desires to arnend the tariff at this time to recover the lost revenue associated with the monthly customer charge fee for those customers who stop service seasonally, we would propose the following amendment: Sewer seasonal vacancy fee.: A turn-off: vacancy fee is assessed when the water service is disconnected for seasonal purposes = $166.18. A separate turn -on vacancy fee is assessed when the water service is reconnected after being turned off for seasonal purposes = $166.18. The basis for this recornnrendation is to charge the custo , °r the rnonthly non metered service fee of e$48.48 multiplied by seven months (and then divhalf, one -.half assessed at the time of eater turn-off and the other half assessed at the time of water turn -on). This methodology follows that used in the water tariff and electric tariffs (as proposed) to address the adverse impact of seasonal turn-offs to the utilities, INTENT. The adoption of the proposed amendments to the Wastewater Tariff and resuming the automatic annual adjustments to all rates will improve the financial condition of the Wastewater Enterprise Fund. This will also improve the utilities' ability to address critical infrastructure needs; fund depreciation, fund operations and maintain crucial leverage; to take advantage ofthe ADEC grant and loan programs, Rates and fees are adjusted 6% beginning the first billing cycle of the 2012 and 2013 calendar year. The rates thereafter, will resume the automatic annual adjustment beginning the first billing, of each calendar year to reflect an average of the five previous published years' annual increases in the Consumer Price Index Approved by Finance Departlm�ent: �. AT't`O1tNIEN RFVIEW: Yes-_,_., NoX c Council approves Resolution 2011-_JI I amending the 'Wastewater Tariff and resuming !he automatic annual adjIustments to all rates and fees by an amount equal to the five previous Mull year's average increase in the Anchorage consumer price index for all urban consumers beginning January I.2()1=t. 1rZ City of Seward, Alaska City Council Minutes January 23, 2012 Volume 38, Page CALL TO ORDER The January 23, 2012 regular meeting of the Seward City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor David Seaward. OPENING CEREMONY Lieutenant Louis Tiner led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL There were present: David Seaward presiding and Jean Bardarson Vanta Shafer Bob Valdatta comprising a quorum of the Council; and Jim Hunt, City Manager Johanna Kinney, City Clerk Absent — None Christy Terry Marianna Keil Ristine Casagranda CITIZENS' COMMENTS ON ANY SUBJECT EXCEPT THOSE ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING John Lang spoke to the council about the proposed Alaskan Wet Dog Race. They were close to getting it put together and had filed a permit with Department of Natural Resources to bring all concerns to the table. He was excited to be before the council this evening and was available to answer any questions. Rob Buck spoke in favor of Resolution 2012-007. A fuel delivery driver and a former PACAB member, Buck felt there was a lot of support from individuals and businesses. He thanked Utility Manager John Foutz and Administration for bringing this forward encouraged council to approve this resolution. Tim McDonald said there was a lot of talk of economic development at the last work session, but pointed out the citizen's that lived outside the city limits had no voting rights. This skewed property tax rates. He was not suggesting annexation, but Seward should not operate in a cocoon. They had a moral responsibility to those people outside the city limits. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA 1 b`\ City of Seward, Alaska City Council Minutes January 23, 2012 Volume 38, Page Motion (Keil/Bardarson) Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda Councilmember Valdatta requested two discussion items be placed on the agenda: discussion on capping the fish tax and discussion on contacting Alaska Interstate Gas for a proposal to bring natural gas to Seward. After much discussion, Councilmember Valdatta agreed these could be placed on the next regular meeting agenda. Motion Passed Unanimous The clerk read the following approved consent agenda items: The January 9, 2012 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Were Approved. Resolution 2012-006, Authorizing The City Manager To Sign An Agreement For Mutual Aid For The Provision Of Emergency Services With Emergency Service Providers On The Kenai Peninsula. SPECIAL ORDERS, PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS Chamber of Commerce Report, Cindy Clock stated last Friday was the Chamber's annual meeting and she provided the presentation she gave at the meeting. Clock felt the Chamber had the V%w tourism piece of Seward's economy figured out. The chamber's focus was going to be more concentrated in implementing the 2010 Economic Development Assessment to bring more people to Seward, create more year round j obs, and expand port development. She also handed out notes from the last economic development meeting to reference and build on. Clock stated the Turnagain Times was on their list to advertise in. She was confident that the Chamber and the city working together could achieve a healthy year round strong economy. City Manager's Report, City Manager Jim Hunt stated there had been no purchases approved by the City Manager between $10,000-50,000 since the last Council Meeting. In the Harbor Department, request for proposals for the Vessel Wash -Down and Wastewater Recycling Facility project at SMIC were being solicited. Matt Chase was the city's designated `Clean Harbors Officer.' The Coast Guard contracted with Ahtna Engineering Services for the relocation of their building currently along 41h Avenue to the new foundation at the northeasterly corner of the harbor. The tentative date to move the building was mid -April and that should result in minimal conflicts with other customers. The Facility Security Plan for SMIC was finalized and submitted to the Coast Guard Sector office in Anchorage. The Fire Department conducted an Emergency Vehicle Operator course on January 13 —14, 2012. Participants had to pass an academic and practical driving course for certification. Out of this class, six members received certifications as instructors. The department responded to numerous structure fires in our community in the past week. The department was asking residents to clean and check their heating appliances, keep combustibles away from hot objects, and to dispose of hot embers and smoking material in proper containers. The Building Department had several construction projects started without building permits and Hunt reminded the public to see the �K City of Seward, Alaska City Council Minutes January 23, 2012 Volume 38, PaQe Building Department before starting projects. Hunt urged residents to shovel the snow off their buildings due to the heavy snowfall experienced in the last weeks and anticipated weather changes to come. The City Manager and Assistant City Manager attended the World Trade Center Alaska Statewide Economic Outlook Forum in Anchorage January 18, 2012. Northern Economics, the city's finance strategy firm for the CVRF project, gave the review and outlook for the state economy by sector. Following up with Council direction at a recent work session, the Assistant City Manager and the Electric Utility Director met with Chugach Electric representatives Friday morning to begin looking at options for electric utility. The Parking area at Founder's Monument would be used as a laydown yard for the Seward Community Library Museum project this summer, and the National Park Service lot at the former Harbor Dinner Club location was planned for siting construction utility offices. The Assistant Manager would be accompanying Councilmember Casagranda to Soldotna Thursday and Friday for the Kenai Peninsula Economic Development District Economic Outlook Forum, co -hosted hosted by the Alliance (oil industry support businesses), with presentations by each of the cities on the Peninsula and the Borough, and with speakers from the State legislature, Departments of Labor, Revenue, Transportation and Natural Resources, industry leaders, gas line project players, and utilities. The Electric Department was interviewing for a new operator/mechanic. Projects for the electric crew were starting to line up for the upcoming construction season. Those planning to have new service or a service upgrade for construction this year should get their job order started sooner rather than later. Job orders get completed in the order in which they were received. In Public Works, staff was working with the Alaska SeaLife Center to recruit a marine observer required for pile driving activities for the Seward Marine Center Dolphin Project. The USCG Relocation project was slated for the last part of April. Staff was coordinating with the Electric Department and an engineering firm regarding the remaining work and building move. Public Works had finalized all pending submittals and other documents for the P Avenue waterline loan. Repayment would begin March 1, 2012. The department was working with ADEC to complete the Maple Street Sewer Line Loan application for FY2012. Council could expect the resolution to enter into a loan agreement with ADEC for the Maple Street Sewer Line at the next meeting. Street and Shop crews have worked hard to keep up with snow removal, sanding and mitigating other hazards caused by adverse weather conditions. The department was busy preparing streets, sidewalks and parking lots for the upcoming polar bear jump. Parts had been ordered to fix the snow blower and were slated to arrive soon; repairs would take approximately one day once the parts arrived. Hunt stated administration may be coming to council for an appropriation for gravel as they were running low due to the extreme weather. Water and Wastewater Departments were working with administration and an engineering firm on remaining permitting issues and sludge disposal for Lowell Point Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mayoral Report, David Seaward stated his report was for the last two weeks. He noted the last two work sessions, one joint work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission and one reviewing city services. Seaward reminded the public of the three seats available on the Planning and 1N City of Seward, Alaska City Council Minutes January 23, 2012 Volume 38, Page Zoning Commission and encouraged people to apply. He stated he would be going to Juneau to meet with the lobbyist in February. PUBLIC HEARINGS Resolution 2012-001, Approving A Land Exchange A 0.56 Acre +/- Portion Of Lot 8A-1 for An 0.56 Acre +/- Portion Of Lot 6A-1, Fort Raymond Subdivision Replat No. 2, With The Kenai Peninsula Borough And Appropriating Funds. Motion (Bardarson/Shafer) Approve Resolution 2012-001 (motion was originally made at the January 9, 2012 meeting) Notice of the public hearing being posted and published as required by law was noted and the public hearing was opened. Lee Ray, a second grade teacher at Seward Elementary and member of the Seward Schools Site Based Council, came tonight to bring to attention the Site Based Council's view point on the land exchange proposal between the city and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Ray read a letter from SSSBC President Julie Lindquist stating some of the wishes of the council should this land exchange occur. Lynn Hohl, Seward's School Board Representative, thanked administration for listening to the concerns of the school and the site council and for postponing this action. She hoped the school board would be providing a recommendation at the next meeting. There may be some differences of ownership/management from the borough and the school district, and the school board was not asked about this exchange, so she hoped they would be addressing this on the board. The public hearing was closed. Shafer said she didn't know the $4 million from ARCTEC included an office for the Electric Department and was under the assumption that it was to upgrade the generator project. She didn't think the city should be stating that these funds were coming from ARCTEC. She thought the funds were received to do something else. Assistant City Manager Ron Long said one of the things administration would like to do was to further refine this land exchange and then come back to council with how to prioritize the funds for this project. Electric Utility Manager John Foutz said last year while in Juneau, he asked from the ARCTEC grant two million dollars to move the generators into the generator building and two million dollars to create an office for the Electric Department. He could bring that information forward at the next meeting. 1,, Bardarson said she also thought it was to upgrade the mechanisms to cut down on man time and the time to bring the generators up. Foutz said that was upgrading the switchgear which involved moving the generators into the building and fixing generators three and six. 1 .r ti City of Seward, Alaska City Council Minutes January 23 2012 Volume 38, Page Keil said in the budget work sessions they discussed moving the electrical offices into the library. She wasn't supportive of creating more buildings/infrastructure to maintain. Motion to Postpone (ShaferBardarson) Postpone Resolution 2012-001 to the February 13, 2012 Council Meeting. Council also directed the City Clerk to bring this resolution back as a public hearing item once more. Motion to Postpone Passed Unanimous Ordinance 2012-001, Amending Seward City Code 2.30.220 And 2.30.221 (a) And (c) To Change The Planning And Zoning Meet Times To 7:00 P.M. And Set Adjournment No Later Than 10:30 P.M. And Further Clarify The Meeting Adjournment Requirements. Hunt said this was requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission to be consistent with City Council and for the public. Notice of the public hearing being posted and published as required by law was noted and the public hearing was opened. No one appeared to address the Council and the public hearing was closed. Motion (Terry/Casagranda) Enact Ordinance 2012-001 Motion Passed NEW BUSINESS Unanimous Resolution 2012-007, Authorizing The City Manager To Enter Into Amendment No. 2 To The Sale And Purchase Agreement With Chugach Electric Association To Facilitate Allowing The City To Purchase Electric Output Of Certain Small Renewable Power Production Facilities. Motion (Bardarson/Shafer) Approve Resolution 2012-007 Hunt said they recommended approval to address small renewable power production facilities who may wish to sell power to the city. Shafer stated a 25 kilowatt windmill was significant and smaller ones were 1-3 kilowatts. Shafer wanted to know if the smaller ones were included. Foutz said windmills less than 25 kilowatts were reliant on the RCA's ruling; however the city was not regulated by the RCA. According to the proposed amended contract with Chugach, the city could allow anything less than 25 kilowatts to go forward. Terry asked once this was approved by the RCA, was this the last step to interconnect? Foutz smid said it was not, the next step was the interconnect policy needed to be revised by staff. This included technical specifications and applications. Foutz stated the city needed to finish up plans for rates and 1 IV O City of Seward, Alaska City Council Minutes January 23, 2012 Volume 38, Page repayments for purchasing power from others before this happened. The RCA had their recommended rate, and while they city was not regulated by the RCA, it would probably be the best option to use. Hunt followed up it was quite a detailed process but it was progressing and that this was a big step. Valdatta asked about the hydro proposal across the bay at the 4th of July Creek. Foutz understood that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not give the proposer a recommendation and the grant funds were not received because of it. Casagranda asked if the billing/purchasing details within the contract were on a monthly basis, Foutz responded that it was aggregate. Foutz stated Chugach would not reimburse Seward for fuel costs. If Seward wished to do the same, which Foutz said was the logical thing to do, they could do so. Hunt said no matter what came in, the city would have to stick to the fuel rate. Foutz said the fuel rate from Chugach was based on what the City of Seward consumed. Bardarson asked if there was any way for smaller windmills to speed up the ability to connect a small home. Foutz said there was something in place in the code currently but no technical specifications, which would tell the city what they needed to look for when allowing someone to connect. When those were done, it would still be a long process to get people connected. What was needed after the interconnect policy was an application process that would require review, an engineering study, then authorization to move forward. It was possible other pieces may occur, such as building permit requirements and so forth. Terry wondered if the city could use what other Railbelt communities did that currently interconnected. Foutz said that was what they did; the documents they were pulling together were a combination of several utilities' policies. In response to the timeliness of this policy going into effect, Foutz said the agreement was pre -signed so Chugach Electric could submit it earlier to RCA. Generally it was a 45 day approval period. Seaward said this was good progress for Seward. Motion Passed Unanimous Resolution 2012-008, Authorizing The City Manager To Purchase An All -Wheel Drive Or Four Wheel Drive Vehicle In The Amount Not To Exceed $30,000. Motion (Bardarson/Valdatta) Approve Resolution 2012-008 Hunt said this purchase was budgeted for a replacement vehicle that had been decommissioned and re -commissioned many times. The amount before council was $10,000 less than what was budgeted. Vs� City of Seward, Alaska City Council Minutes January 23, 2012 Volume 38, Page Valdatta wanted to know if there was a sun roof and flood lights on the vehicle. Foutz said he had wanted to add those accessories. It also needed to be an emergency vehicle with a light on top. Valdatta recommended seasonal tires rather than studs. Keil didn't support purchasing a new vehicle at this time as they just authorized a vehicle purchase for the Electric Department last month. She wanted to keep that money in the utility for infrastructure improvements. She wondered if there was another vehicle within the city that could be used. Foutz said the vehicle being replaced was the field engineer's primary vehicle. The field engineer needed to travel out in far areas on an everyday basis. The intent of this purchase was to transfer Foutz' truck to the field engineer and the new vehicle go to Foutz for travel to and from Anchorage, which would be more cost effective than the truck Foutz currently used. Valdatta said a 2011 new vehicle on the lot would be cost effective. Foutz stated he looked for those, but had not found any yet. Casagranda asked the city manager if he was driving the Crown Victoria the previous city manager drove. Hunt stated he was not and that vehicle was being decommissioned. Casagranda wanted to know if they could swap vehicles and share. Hunt said purchasing one vehicle for all departments to use was not efficient but would be problematic instead. Terry was not going to support this. She did not think the vehicle purchase met code requirements and it should have gone out to bid. She would like to see quotes in place, and staff should look at local outlets like Hertz and look at used vehicles. Terry stated more due diligence should be shown before such a purchase was made. Valdatta said they should look at the warranty. Foutz said this was a twenty year old vehicle they wanted to replace. Every other vehicle was an 8 cylinder work truck, and Foutz clarified this would be used more as a commuter vehicle. Terry said getting quotes off the internet was not concrete enough; she wanted to know exactly what they were buying. Keil agreed with Terry. Hunt reminded council they needed to retro fit. Bardarson would rather see a vehicle that different department heads could use. Motion Failed Yes: Valdatta, Seaward No: Keil, Shafer, Terry, Casagranda, Bardarson Resolution 2012-009, Authorizing A Delay In Remittance Of Capital Add -On Payments From Providence Seward Medical Center (PSMC) To The City Of Seward In The Amount Of $2,071,323.96 To Cover Cash Flow. Motion (Bardarson/Shafer) Approve Resolution 2012-009 Finance Director Kris Erchinger gave some background information on this resolution. In July, administration came to council for an appropriation for $750,000, to cover two specific items for the hospital. One was to purchase an electronic records program in advance which would qualify 1 1 n M City of Seward, Alaska City Council Minutes January 23, 2012 Volume 38, Page the hospital to get reimbursed and Erchinger confirmed Providence would be getting reimbursed for this expense. The second item was for $450,000 to cover shortfalls resulting from a State of Alaska dispute over facility reimbursement costs. There were many disputes with the state and the state had agreed to reimburse the $450,000. Erchinger stated there was a large item in dispute with the state. The state was looking at base year costs and establishing reimbursement rate costs to go into effect two years later, which was the year Providence moved into Seward Mountain Haven. The state took costs from 2009 and revenues would be $2.6 million higher this year than what they were going to be based on the state's interpretation. The state implemented something called a lower of cost charges approach, where they could take the 2009 costs and reimburse or cut cost by reducing charges, which was what the state did when Providence went from Wesley to the Long Term Care Facility. Providence was appealing this issue. They were not the only facility experiencing this problem, Providence Valdez was as well. Regarding the role the city played in this issue, Erchinger stated they normally do not get involved. Providence's next step was to appeal again and if they lost they may consider litigation and approach the council with that option. This rate would determine rates for the next three years, up to $12 million dollars, which Erchinger felt was pretty significant. Erchinger stated Providence had money in the bank from Mountain Haven to cover this shortfall. They were asking to be able to hold that money until this issue was resolved, but had assured the city they would make sufficient bond payments. Also, the hospital bonds matured in April of 2013. In response to Bardarson, the appeal deadline was January 30, 2012. Providence Anchorage, Seward, and Valdez had been meeting to craft appeal response and arguments. She did not know how long the state had after that, but suspected it would be awhile. Terry asked if the funds coming in for grant reimbursement and the Medicaid reimbursements for 2010 were already covered. Erchinger said that helped cover $750,000 losses through December of this year. The cash would come in 2012. Valdatta asked how cost effective Providence was. Erchinger said the greenhouse model was a challenge. Since there was not a lot of competition in fuel in Seward, she suspected that service was not bid on. They do attempt to save on utilities and fuel, but they had fairly large fixed costs. In response to Keil, Erchinger reiterated Seward and Valdez were facing this challenge, but Valdez was not as severe as Seward. She did not suspect that the city would be part of the lawsuit, but perhaps the city may need to decide if they supported it. Keil wondered if there was some legislation that could be brought forward to prevent this. Erchinger said there had been a lot of discussions on how to handle this politically, in which the city may be involved. Shafer felt this was an interpretation of regulations so the state could reimburse at a lesser account. Erchinger didn't know if they were treating Seward differently. It was such a unique situation because of the timing and the transition of the long term care facility. Shafer said the legislators in the past had been consistent in the message regarding Providence Seward and its City of Seward, Alaska City Council Minutes January 23 2012 Volume 38, Page unique challenges. She thought they may need to have conversations with our legislators about this situation. They should bring it to their attention that they were one small element for Providence. Terry wondered if the city needed to amend their state legislative priority lists. Hunt felt at this point the city should let Providence take the lead on this. Terry said Providence needed to work on getting their numbers up at the long term care facility, which was part of this problem. Motion Passed Other New Business Unanimous Discussed providing comments to the Department of Natural Resources for the land use permit application for the proposed "The Alaskan Wet Dog Race." Clerk's Note: Commentperiod ends January 26, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. By unanimous consent, the rules were suspended to allow program organizer John Lang to speak to the council. John Lang gave an overview on what his group was trying to put together. The Alaska Wet Dog Race was a 2,000 mile personal watercraft event starting in Whittier, and the third check point in Seward, racing all along different port cities throughout Alaska. He had been working on this race for 10 years. It was close enough to apply for a permit to address concerns and work out logistics. In 2009, they did a dry run, about 800 miles. Terry thanked Lang for coming and asked what kind of impact it would have on Seward. Lang said the marketing had been amazing. Teams would come from all over the globe; so far they had interest from 37 countries. The plan was to begin the race on May 1, 2013 and riders would start in waves. Riders could reach Seward on the first day, possibly late evening. Seward would be a significant checkpoint in that most would be spending the night. Approximately 200 riders would arrive in Seward needing lodging, fuel, supplies, food, etc. In addition, it would attract visitors such as media personnel and pit crews. The organizers would need trailers for maintenance and repair that they would be buying and paying for. There would be a four day training class before the race began. Safety support boats and systems would be in place throughout the entire race. Lang said there would be wildlife awareness and a harassment policy that fish and wildlife would assist with teaching. They would also address culture and awareness though a class. Lang said they would have boat inspections. He wanted to put on a world class operational event. He anticipated a lot of people coming through town and lots of dollars being spent in Alaska. Lang said the priority right now was getting the permit. He would appreciate council's support of their permit with the Department of Natural Resources. By unanimous consent, the City Council directed the City Manager to write a letter of support to the Department of Natural Resources for the race's land use permit application. *464 Council gave direction to seek volunteers for Community Schools Open Gym. (Hunt) City of Seward, Alaska City Council Minutes January 23, 2012 Volume 38, Page Hunt said this came up following the mayor's request for information. The Open Gym program was a service provided by the city's Community Schools Program, which was cut this last year during the budget process. Keil said the council approved the budget where the Parks and Recreation Department chose to cut the Community Schools Program. She didn't see why they would put money back in for a program they cut. She thought it was redundant. Shafer said the department decided what to cut. If parents wanted to go to the schools and volunteer for an open gym program, they could, but she didn't think the city should. Seaward said that was his conversation with the Director of Parks and Recreation, to have volunteers so it would have no financial impact. It still took personnel and training time, Keil said. Shafer said if parents wanted the gym open and Community Schools was no longer providing that service, the parents should go to the principal and establish their own program. This was part of cutting and the privatization of services. $1.4 million for the Parks and Recreation budget was a lot. To her, this was an experiment of if something that could be privatized. Perhaps parents could take the responsibility in this instance and not the City of Seward. Seaward said that should be the direction moving forward — he thought this was another way to have another gym open. The principal had agreed, but Parks and Recreation would need to train volunteers. Valdatta asked who would do the clean-up. Seaward said the town needed a second gym. Keil said when a budget was cut, services were cut. Even on a volunteer basis, it would have associated costs. It took staff time to train and manage the program. Hunt said it would be nice to know the numbers of those interested. Administration didn't have a grasp with what they were dealing with, such as how many volunteers were needed. Council said this was the department head's and administration's choice if they wanted to provide this program. If they wanted to cut somewhere else, they could. Seaward emphasized the importance of having a place for our youth to go. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS (No action required November 2011 Providence Financial Report. Harbor Accounts Receivable Write Offs for 2011. COUNCILS' COMMENTS Bardarson thanked Public Works for keeping Seward's streets clean and all the Fire Department's hard work this week. 1%0W Keil congratulated the harbor crew and those who contributed for the successful polar bear jump and Marilyn Sutherland for her work with the event. She congratulated Christy Terry on being named one of the top 40 people in Alaska under 40. I X a City of Seward, Alaska City Council Minutes January 23, 2012 Volume 38, Page Shafer said vehicle purchases had to come to council. She wished the city could get their fleet more streamlined when they were being shared interdepartmentally. Valdatta said for natural gas, the city needed to show interest and hoped the deadline wasn't 6141Mr Casagranda said it was important for residents to know where their meters were and to make sure they were accessible. She enjoying seeing the small town spirit with the heavy snowfall. The community was helping each other and she encouraged others to help. She gave compliments to the Public Works Department for their hard, tireless work. Terry thanked the Street, Harbor, and Fire crews as well as private businesses for taking care of their areas for the polar bear jump. Tomorrow there were high school basketball games vs. Nikiski. She thanked the Planning and Zoning Commission for their work on the commission and encouraged people to apply. There were still city vacancies on the Seward Bear Creek Flood Service Area Board, she asked the public to please help take control of the property tax that went to the board and to consider volunteering to serve on this board. Seaward thanked the public for coming and watching. He thanked Mr. Lang for the opportunity to share the details of the race. The next Planning and Zoning meeting was next Tuesday, February 7, 2012 and reiterated the three open seats on the commission and encouraged people to get involved. Hunt reminded people to be extra careful driving with the high snow berms in the streets. CITIZENS' COMMENTS Tim McDonald, gave a Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association report for the city. The Fish and Game Advisory council would meet this Friday and would advise on commercial fisheries. The first board meeting was Saturday. The smolt release this year for sockeye in Bear Lake was 1,417,000 and the target release was 1.6 million. For eyed fish, there was 5.5 million released with a target release of 2.4 million, and 1.6 million of that going in the bay. They were really pushing the reds for cost recovery and using Bear Lake to do it. They were experiencing problems with Coho's, about half were lost and the target release would not be met. McDonald hoped they would get help from Fish and Game, and it would likely take another year or two to get the Salmon Derby pumped back up. The association was trying to correct cash flow and obtain grants. They accepted grants from the state and were starting a program to eradicate big mouth pike. The CIAA was trying to work with Port Graham to take over their fishery. The association was aggressively trying to increase salmon production from Seward to upper Cook Inlet. Becky Dunn found out about this meeting after it began so she apologized for being late. She was interested in the net metering. Her friend hooked up in Nikiski five years ago, and they also *404 bought power from Chugach. Her friend paid exactly for electricity for what she sold it for, and it was subtracted directly from her electric bill. Her friend had a 3 kilowatt windmill, which Dunn City of Seward, Alaska City Council Minutes January 23, 2012 Volume 38, Page thought was large. To her, it seemed like the resolution passed tonight was set up just for the large windmill at AVTEC, which was about 10 times as large as any individual would want. She would like to hook her windmill up on the city's grid. The city should look at potential lawsuits to allow industrial size and not allow smaller ones. She encouraged people to hook up off grid, which was more expensive. Also, Dunn said she blew a breaker and her outhouse heater came unplugged, which made her wonder if the animal shelter had a heater for their outhouse. She found out they did not so she bought one as well as heated water bowls, but then realized they didn't have outdoor outlets. John Lang addressed some concerns he had seen and heard about the proposed Alaska Wet Dog Race. To clarify, thousands of people would not be converging on the town at once, or camping on top of each other. That was not the plan. He did not foresee people stopping and spending extra time in town because it was a race. A big concern was the trash and messes that could be left behind. It was in their plan at the end of the day to send a clean-up barge to the checkpoint towns and dispose of everything so nothing was left behind. Regarding evasive species, boats would be subject to inspection and cleaned before putting into Alaskan waters. Lee Ray found the Seward Schools Site Based Council interesting. She complimented the mayor on his comment on needing things for our youth to do, and was sorry to hear community schools was cut. She was thinking economically down the road, and it seemed a lot of youth don't want to come back to Seward. Maybe if there were more things for them to do, they could grow their economic base. COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION RESPONSE TO CITIZENS' COMMENTS Shafer said that smaller windmills and generators would be allowed per Resolution 2012- 007. Terry agreed with Valdatta's request to discuss natural gas on the next agenda and hoped there were informational items for them to review. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion (Bardarson/Shafer) Go into Executive Session to discuss and review City Clerk evaluations. The City Clerk was asked to be present for this executive session. Motion Passed Unanimous Council recessed at 9:29 p.m. Council resumed at 9:32 p.m. Council went into executive session at 9:32 p.m. Council came out of executive session at 10:08 p.m 11� City of Seward, Alaska City Council Minutes January 23, 2012^ Volume 38, Page I��Z�li17►1► I �1►`Y � The meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. Johanna Kinney, CMC David Seaward City Clerk Mayor (City Seal) Agenda Statement Meeting Date: February 13, 2012 From: Johanna Kimsey, City Clerk Agenda Item: Appoint g pp Andrew Wilder as the alternate representative to the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (seat currently held by Tim McDonald) BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: At their June 13, 2011 meeting, Council appointed Tim McDonald as the City of Seward representative for the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (CIAA). Since that time, Mr. McDonald has requested through the City Clerk's Office he be allowed an alternate for the times he cannot attend a CIAA Board of Directors meeting. fir.► The City Clerk has asked procedurally of the CIAA if alternate members are permissible. Gary Fandrei, Executive Director of the Association, confirmed many members of CIAA do have alternates and it would be up to the appointing organization to determine how the alternate is selected. RECOMMENDATION: Since Mr. McDonald was appointed by the City Council, it is the recommendation of the City Clerk to appoint his alternate in the same fashion. Per Board of Director member and City of Seward Representative Tim McDonald's request, appoint Andrew Wilder as his alternate to the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association. Johanna Kinne From: Gary Fandrei <GFandrei@ciaanet.org> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:59 AM To: Johanna Kinney Subject: RE: alternate members Johanna, The Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association does recognize alternate Board members. It is up to each organization whether or not the organization appoints an alternate Board member and how the alternate Board member is selected. We just need a written notice from Seward identifying the alternate Board member. Tim has attended a couple of Board meeting and he has actively participated in the meetings. Let me know if you need any additional information. Gary Fandrei, Executive Director Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association 40610 Kolifornsky Beach Rd Kenai, AK 99611-6445 Phone: (907) 283-5761 Fax: (907) 283-9433 Cell: (907) 398-4505 From: Johanna Kinney[mailto:ikinney(acityofseward.net] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 10:11 AM To: Gary Fandrei Subject: alternate members Hi Gary, Hope things are going well with you. Tim McDonald, the City of Seward representative on CIAA, approached me yesterday about if he could have an alternate member appointed in his place when he cannot attend meetings and wanted to see how to go about doing that. Before I look to far into it and bring this to the Seward City Council, I thought I'd better check with you and the Association to see if that was something that was permissible and if there were any guidelines on how to select an alternate. I know on our end of things, the main position is noticed and letters of interest are sought, and then based on the response, our council will appoint someone. The idea of an alternate is new to me, but I would assume Seward would go through the same steps (if appropriate). I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter, if you have the time. Thanks much! Johanna Kinney, CMC City Clerk, City of Seward PO BOX 167 Seward, Alaska 99664 p: 907.224.4045 f: 907.224.4038 Agenda Statement Meeting Date: February 13, 2012 From: Johanna Kinney, City Clerk V Agenda Item: Discussion on rescinding e authorization of fluoridating city water and give direction if administration should bring forward a resolution for consideration. BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: Councilmember Casagranda has requested this item be placed on the agenda for council discussion. The following documents have been added to the council packet at her request. Any councilmember can request an item be added to the agenda. Councilmember Casagranda does have the authority to bring forward such a resolution for consideration. It has been recommended by the City Clerk for council to have a discussion first to see if there is a consensus to bring forward such a resolution. If a consensus is given, staff can be directed to bring forward a resolution for consideration. If a consensus is not given, Casagranda still has the option to bring forward a resolution individually. Included in this packet is a copy of Resolution 2010-015 that affirmed council support for fluoridation of the public water supply to improve oral health, and directed the city manager to determine the requirements and costs for safely adding fluoride to the community water system and to report on grants and other funding sources for subsidizing those costs. RECOMMENDATION: Council discuss if they would like to consider bringing forward a resolution for consideration to rescind the authorization to fluoridate city water and direct staff accordingly. In order to allow the public to fully participate, the City Clerk and Administration do not recommend using this discussion to determine if fluoride should or should not be added to the city's water but rather to determine if this topic should be revisited or not. Another possible recommendation would be to hold a work session on this topic. 1 CL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Seward Fluoridation Study This study presents information on design criteria, costs, and recommendations associated with fluoridating Seward's City water system. It also identifies related technical, operational, and regulatory constraints that the City will need to address if fluoridation is implemented. Refer to Technical Memoranda I and 2 (Refs.1, 2), as well as the Task 3 Study Report (Ref. 3) for the Water Compliance Study by Michael L. Foster & Associates (MLFA) for additional information on Seward's water systems, including monitoring results. Fluoridation is often promoted by dentists and other health professionals as a way to help protect developing teeth, particularly in children nine years old and younger. Because the Seward Marine Industrial Center (SMIC) water system is used almost exclusively by adults, we assumed fluoridation of that water was inappropriate and did not address that system. The scope of this study was to address engineering issues and costs related to equip- ment, chemicals, monitoring, and reporting. However, we would be remiss if we did not alert the City to the fact that this issue can elicit considerable passion among both proponents and opponents of fluoridation. Although 65 percent of Alaskans currently drink fluoridated water (Ref. 4), several communities have consciously chosen not to fluoridate —or have discontinued its practice. No community on the Kenai Peninsula currently fluoridates its water (Ref. 5). The City & Borough of Juneau has invested perhaps the greatest recent effort by any Alaska community into study of fluoridation, and discontinued fluoridation of its water on January 15, 2007. Its report is available at htt2://www.juiieau.org/clerk/boards/­Fluoride/Fluoride Study Con-unission.php (Ref. 6). The key issuesaddressed by this .report are: • FIuoride forms • Corrosion • Chemical feed • Regulatory requirements • Code compliance • Operator -certification • Costs • Fluoride removal Seward Fluoridation Study T A']..4.._I T T.' . .._ O_ A ­..J..a__ T__ 1 �LO April 13, 2009 [IT11t7 Vn.117T AAA AAAI 1. Fluoride Forms Fluoride compounds are produced in many different forms, and are used according to availability and application. Sodium fluoride (NaF) and sodium silicofluoride (Na2SiF6) are two commonly used compounds to fluoridate public drinking water systems in Alaska. Table 1 lists key properties of these -two compounds. Table 1 Properties of Fluoride Compounds Form Crystal or Powder powder Commercial Purity 95% ± 95% + Available Fluoride Ion 45% 61 % Density 95lb/ft3 66lb/ft3 Solubility in water at 4°C 4.0 g/100 mL 0.5 g/100 mL Amount needed per 20 pounds 15 pounds million gallons of water' Volume of saturated 56 gallons 330 gallons solution ?er million gallons of water pH of saturated solution 7.5 3.6 Cost, delivered, per pound $1.00 $0.70 Note: 1. For a dosage of 1.0 mg/L. Smaller water systems in Alaska that fluoridate almost exclusively use sodium fluoride. Silicofluoride (aka sodium fluorosilicate or sodium fluosilicate) is generally less expensive than sodium fluoride,'but because of its low solubility and considerably lower pH in solution, we conclude that sodium fluoride is a better chemical to use in Seward. Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is commonly used in many water systems elsewhere in the continental United States, but because of the cost and challenge of shipping, and increased handling hazard, is not used by any water system in Alaska, and is not considered appropriate for this application. 2. Corrosion Impacts The pH of water from the City wellfield is 6.93 (see Water Compliance Study, Technical Memorandum No. 1, Appendix E). This water meets the EPA`s secondary standard for pH of 6.5 to 8.5. Lower pH waters can be corrosive or contribute to higher lead and copper levels in the distribution system. Corrosivity was a potential concern expressed in Technical Memoranda 1 and 2. Sodium fluoride will have a slight effect on increasing the pH of City water, thereby decreasing its corrosivity, although this may not be measurable. On the other hand, sodium fluorosilicate would have a slight effect on pH depression. Seward Fluoridation Study 2 April 13, 2009 %d., ..L.._I r T__«.._ 0. A __.. _...«.._ i».. CIT\Ilrl CIT[S7T AAA nnni 1 a.1 3. Chemical Feed Sodium fluoride is a dry, white, colorless chemical commercially available as crystal (preferr-ed) or powder that dissolves in water. It is typically -delivered in 50-lb bags or 125-pound drums, is stable, has a long shelf -life, but must be kept dry. If it comes into contact with moisture it can form a hardened cake. Two common options for feeding sodium fluoride are a saturator and mechanical dry feed. A saturator is a free-standing tank (often with 50-55 gallon capacity) that stores a bed of sodium fluoride at the bottom of the tank. On the call for make-up water, water flows through the bed slowly, generating a saturated solution of 4 percent concentration. This solution is then injected into a discharge pipe by a metering pump. Fluoride saturators can be either upflow, in which water enters the bottom of the tank, or downflow, in which water enters the top of the tank. Upflow saturators are more common today and are preferred as they are easier to clean and maintain. The makeup water for a fluoride saturator should have hardness levels less than 50-75 mg/L because calcium and magnesium fluorides will precipitate. Saturator manufacturers recommend that a water softener be included with the system if hardness levels are greater than this. City water has a hardness of 94 mg/ L (Technical Memorandum No. 1, Appendix E) (Ref.1), so a water softener may be appropriate. Alternatively, the City should count on additional maintenance to clear clogging lines and remove scale. Saturators require less operator attention than mechanical dry feed systems and eliminate the need to weigh the chemical to form the desired solution strength. Operation can be automatic or manual. The accompanying drawings show a typical layout for a saturator and pump. Seward's City water system does not have a common point for chemical injection before water is provided to the consumer. Therefore, fluoridation equipment will need to be provided at each wellhouse. Well House 6 has room for this equipment. Space in Well Houses 2, 4 and 5 is more limited, but might be able to be arranged. Mechanical dry feeders produce a desired fluoride concentration in a storage tank by metering dry chemical with an auger into a dissolving chamber where it is mixed with water. Like the saturator, this solution is fed from the storage tank to the process line using a metering pump. These feeders require operator attention to ensure they have not"caked" or clogged. The dissolving chamber needs to be checked regularly to ensure the chemical is completely dissolved before discharge and that there is not excessive build-up of un-dissolved chemical in the tank. M Seward Fluoridation Study 3 April 13, 2009 %f.' ..L.._I T T....t.._ P. A.... .. .....a., .. T__ PTTT 7T'\ PTTTRI nnn nnnT N 1n These feed systems are compared in Table 2. TABLE 2 Fluoride Feed Comparison F+r Tie Aldvts Dlsdv;artik9s Saturator • Less mechanically • More operator contact complex with chemical • Requires less routine maintenance Mechanical Dry Feed • Reduced operator • More mechanically contact with chemical complex • Requires more routine maintenance • May require dust control (for powder form) Because the quantity of sodium fluoride needed for Seward is relatively small, and four well houses are currently in operation, we believe its use is manageable with a saturator, and we have opted for this simpler system, which is used commonly in many smaller communities in Alaska. 4. Regulatory Requirements State and federal regulations do not require fluoridation of drinking water systems. However, where it is practiced, they require that fluoride concentrations be measured. DEC will enforce the secondary maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 2.0 mg/ L. It has determined public health is threatened or that exceeding this secondary MCL fluoride is not in the public interest (18 AAC 80.30) (Refs. 5, 7) because of the toxicity of sodium fluoride and danger of tooth mottling in higher concentrations. The City would want to do this anyway. Good practice in public water systems that fluoridate is to keep fluoride levels between 0.7 and 1.2 mg/L (Ref. 8). Daily sampling and measurement are required for each location where fluoride is injected to ensure that concentrations of fluoride stay within the required levels. The results of the daily monitoring must be recorded and reported monthly to DEC. This can be done by grab sampling at representative locations in the water distribution system. Continuous online monitoring will also satisfy this requirement, and is recommended. Samples may also be collected and analyzed by a State -certified laboratory to demonstrate the validity of the City's fluoride monitoring. This would be a prudent action by the City to demonstrate the proper application of monitoring procedures and calibration of equipment. In addition, DEC may require the City to modify sampling procedures, increase sampling locations and frequency, and/or change sample -collection locations to ensure representative reporting, fluoridation Seward Fluoridation Study 4 April 13, 2009 X 4:..L__1 T T... -- O. Aor xi TTI Call TT% AAA nAnI "I 4� 4 t"i consistency and protection of public health. The City must notify the DEC iVW n out of compliance and when modifying its water system. It must also follow public notification procedures if the secondary MCL limit of 2.0 mg/L is exceeded. Generally, according to DEC, records of measurements on delivered water, especially for inorganics such as fluoride, must be kept at Public Wqrks or City Hall for five years. Like many communities in Alaska, the City of Seward is maintaining its water records essentially indefinitely. 5. Code Compliance The Alaska Department of Public Safety, home of the State Fire Marshal, has adopted the 2006 International Building, Tire, and Mechanical Codes. The 2009 Codes are now published, and it is likely the State with adopt them soon. Sodium fluoride is classified by OSHA and the International Fire Code (IFC) as a toxic chemical. Table 2703.1.1(2) of the IFC provides the exempt amounts of hazardous materials that can be stored in a controlled area. If quantities in excess of these are stored, facilities must meet applicable requirements of its Chapters 27 and 31. Generally, limits on storage areas for sodium fluoride are 50 pounds without sprinklers and 1,000 pounds with sprinklers. However, the Code allows some exceptions and adjustments, such as for detached storage. Code interpretation can be complex, and our research was not exhaustive, but we believe this interpretation is close to how it will be enforced by the State of Alaska. Sodium fluoride is non-flammable and does not support combustion. There are no restrictions on extinguishing media in fire situations. However, sodium fluoride will react with acids to form hydrogen fluoride, which is highly toxic. Other requirements also include signage (No Smoking and Chemical Identification) and ventilation. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has requirements for the safe handling of sodium fluoride, including safety shower and eyewash, protective face shield, gloves, and clothing. 6. Operator Certification Fluoride systems are relatively simple and implementing fluoridation is not expected to require additional operator certification for the City's staff (see 18 AAC 74) (Ref. 9). Still, training will be necessary for operators to ensure effective and safe performance. While fluoride is considered safe by EPA, DEC, and several other health authorities when handled properly and kept within regulated levels, an overdose can cause severe sickness, and even be fatal. Alaska was reminded of this in 1992 when fluoridation equipment malfunction and operator error combined to cause the death of one person and illness for several others in Hooper Bay. Thus, it is imperative that operation and maintenance staff be well trained to avoid system overdosing as well as their own accidental direct exposure. Seward Fluoridation Study S April 13, 2009 ne: e i T 'r--_a.... O. A_ a T-- CPTTT/T> CIr.zTm Ann AAnl 1-) L, R n 7. Costs To calculate the total amount of chemical usage a target fluoride concentration of 1.0 mg/L was used (based on the dosage range of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Public Health Service, as supported by the American Water Works Association and DEC) (Refs. 5,8). City water has no detectable background level of fluoride (see Technical Memorandum No. 1, Appendix E) (Ref. 1), so all of this would need to be added. The City system will require 20 pounds of sodium fluoride per day (3 bags per week), based on average off-season flows of 1 mgd, and up to 10 bags per week to accommodate summer flows that exceed '3 mgd. If the City is unable to locate appropriate existing storage space, it will either need to construct a new area or modify an existing space. For our cost purposes, we have assumed that 150 square feet of new space will be needed at $300 per square foot. This will include ventilation, sprinkling, security -and other protections to meet -Code requirements. Storage of 1,000 pounds will provide a two -week supply in the summer and up to seven weeks in the winter. The chemical will be distributed to wellhouses based on system operation, which currently has Well 6 operating in lead (primary) mode. Saturators are able to store .►° quantities greater than a single 50-pound bag, but they should still be checked regularly, at least every other day, and refilled as necessary. Monitoring of fluoridation is very important. Because of the layout of the City water distribution system, multiple locations should be monitored. Some customers receive water directly from discharge pipes, before water has gone to a storage tank. Monitoring in these locations is even more important, as the system will be less forgiving for an overdose. Because of this, wiring that ensures shut-off of the fluoridation pump when well pumps are not operating are essential. The City may also consider continuous in -line monitoring of fluoride with the capacity to shut-off or adjust the fluoridation pumps when a set level is exceeded. The costs presented in Table 3 assume that all water produced by the City wellfield will be fluoridated, including water delivered to cruise ships and Icicle Seafoods, the two largest summer customers. If these customers do not want their water fluoridated, the City might consider its seasonal discontinuation. Seward Fluoridation Study 6 April 13, 2009 T T7__a__ o_ A__.. _7_a__ T—_ PPITT/TN PT'177T1 AAA nnnl v-i< Table 3 Costs for Fluoridation Capital Chemical feed equipment' $ 50,000, Storage 45,000' Design, DEC review fees, 25,000 observation of installation Total Capital $130,000 Annual Chemicals4 $11,000 Operation & maintenance 8,000 (0.1 FTE), parts and supplies Power and heating 3,000 Laboratory tests and reports, 2.000 miscellaneous Total Annual $ 24,000 Notes: 1. Includes saturator, chemical feed pump, water softener, continuous in -line monitor, redundant pump, spare parts, anti -siphon devices, and controls. 2. Assumes installation in four wellhouses plus redundant parts. 3. Assumes chemical supply stored at a separate Public Works location. 4. Sodium fluoride plus salt (sodium chloride) for water softener. These estimates of capital and annual costs are considered conceptual at this stage (Class 5 cost estimates as defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineers), made without detailed engineering data. It is normally expected that capital cost estimates of this type are accurate to within plus 50 percent to minus 30 percent. Our estimates have been prepared for guidance in project evaluation and implementation from the information currently available to us, including our own experience with the Seward water system, fluoridation experiences by others, conversations with you and vendors, catalog and website research, and certain assumptions we have identified in the report. Your actual costs will depend on the project delivery system you choose and its implementation schedule, potential costs and delays from extensive interactions with the interested public, your own Public Works labor costs and assignment of personnel, costs of materials, various market conditions outside our control, and other variables. As a result, your final costs will likely vary from our estimates. Because of this, we suggest that project feasibility and funding needs be carefully reviewed as you advance the project before you make specific financial decisions and commitments. M Seward Fluoridation Study 7 April 13, 2009 *e_..L--[ T T.--a..- O. A __._....a ,. ,. I-- Pn%llTl PTI%l JT1 AAA AAA7 -a 1n S. Fluoride Removal If the City of Seward decides to fluoridate its water, some of its customers will likely no longer want to drink the water. These customers can purchase non -fluoridated bottled water or can remove fluoride from City wafter. Alternatively, the City can make non -fluoridated SMIC water available to them. The most effective treatment system for fluoride removal is reverse osmosis, and these units are not inexpensive. Small home units sized for removing fluoride from only drinking water (a small component of a household's total water use) cost from $250 to $500 at retail (Ref.10), plus installation and maintenance expenses. As it engages in its community dialogue, the City of Seward might consider other options for increasing fluoride intake for young children whose parents want them to have it, without causing the rest of the population that does not want it or does not need it to drink fluoridated water. This could include making fluoride tablets available at little or no cost for families with young children; promoting use of fluoride toothpaste, gels and rinses; or even selectively fluoridating (for example, pre- and elementary schools). Whatever it decides to do, Seward should become well aware of the recent experience in Juneau on this issue. Seward Fluoridation Study Ar:_1.--I T P....a O. M1 .._.. ....,a., .. Tom.. )—) April 13, 2009 c�T-nTm nT-11M% nnn Ann, References I. Michael L. Foster & Associates, Inc. Technical Memorandum No. 1, Background Investigation, Water Compliance Study, City of Seward, Alaska, February 21, 2008. 2. Michael L. Foster & Associates, Inc. Technical Memorandum No. 2, Develop Options, Water Compliance Study, City of Seward, Alaska, August 15, 2008, 3. Michael L. Foster & Associates, Inc. Task 3 Study Report: Implementation Plan, Water Compliance Study, City of Seward, Alaska, December 30, 2008. 4. Telephone conversation and email exchanges with Troy Ritter, Environmental Health Specialist, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, March 27, 2009. 5. Telephone conversation with David Litchfield, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Soldotna office, April 1, 2009. 6. Juneau Fluoride Study Commission. Report to Assembly of the City and Borough of Juneau, July 11, 2006. http:/ /www.juneau.org/c.lerk/boards/Fluoride/Fluoride Study Cominission-12hp 7. DEC, State of Alaska. Drinking Water Regulations (18 AAC 80). As amended through November 9, 2006. American Water Works Association. Position Statement - Fluoridation, May 27, 2005. http://www.zijawwa.org/pj2d 909b.pdf DEC, State of Alaska. Water and Wastewater Operator Certification and Training Regulations (18 AAC 74). As amended through December 3, 2006, 10. Pure Water Products, LLC, Countertop Reverse Osmosis Units, http: / / www.pwgazette.com/ ctro.htm, 2008. 11. Seward Public Works Department. Interviews, Telephone Conversations, and Correspondence with Staff, February -March 2008. 12. Chapter 4: Installation of Fluoridation Systems, excerpt from reference by South Africa Department of Health. htt:/ / www.doh.gov.za/ flocs/ misc/fluoridation/ chapter4.p 13. Tillman, Glenn. Water Fluoridation,1993 http: / / books.google.com/ books?id=enclobvlpV sC:&pg=PA18&lp g=PA18&dq=sodium +fluoride+saturator&source=bl&ots=cl MvW5TA51i&sib;-Ni}?11 k F k\- SR5w7er1wXNiAKE#PPP1,M1 14. Water Quality and Treatment, A Handbook of Public Water Supplies, by American Water Works Association, Inc.,1971. 15. Lauer, Bill and Frederick Rubel. Water Fluoridation Principles and Practices, American Water Works Association, 2004. http:/ /books oogle.com/books?id=VRs08BxC)NiIC&p)g=PA2&1_pg=PA2&dci=USPI-IS+f luoridation+goal&source=bl&ots=BKmh3evix &sig stKsK[0MVPEu7NQjnLsaKWU1N6 Q#PPA2,NI1 Seward Fluoridation Study 9 April 13, 2009 f T`---- O- A .... .. .....a.... I-- Pill /T\ PT)117T\ AAA AAA l `a�� ril 5 0 k 2 1 How Toxic is Fluoride compared to Lead & Arsenic. Relative Toxicity Lead Fluoride Arsenic Source:Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products LD50 data - 1984 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels Lead Fluoride Arsenic ppb (Parts per Billion) G Council Agenda Statement Meeting Date: May 26, 2009 To: City Council Through: Phillip Oates, City Manager Agenda Item: Resolution 2009-�` Submitting an Advisory Ballot Proposition to the Qualified Voters at the October6, 2009 Regular Municipal Election Regarding Whether Fluoride Should Be Added to the City of Seward Water BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: Providence, the City of Seward, and other health and wellness entities have met to discuss how to improve the health and wellness of the Seward community. This Wellness For All initiative originated with the 2008 publication of the Seward Region's Community Needs Assessment, sponsored by Providence. The Wellness For All Group's overarching goal is to improve wellness in the Seward community. Four sub -groups have been created focusing on Smoking Cessation, Obesity, Increasing Awareness of Programs and Opportunities Available in the Community (and improving access to healthcare), and Improving Oral Health. The fluoride issue has gathered a lot of attention both in favor and in opposition to putting fluoride in the City of Seward water. Based on extensive research, the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) established the optimum concentration for fluoride in the United States in the range of 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million. Fluoridation of community water supplies involves the addition of fluoride to the public water supply to an optimal level to reduce the incidence of tooth decay. On March 9, 2009, SGS (City's certified lab) conducted a standard water test for fluoride. This test did not detect fluoride in the Seward City water. A standard water test measures levels at 0.1 parts per million and higher. On April 13, 2009, a Seward Fluoridation Study was conducted by Michael L. Foster & Associates, Inc. This study addresses fluoride forms, corrosion, chemical feed, regulatory requirements, code compliance, operator certification, costs, and fluoride removal. According to this study, the approximate costs of fluoridating the water are $130,000 for capital costs and $24,000 for annual costs. The Indian Health Service may contribute up to 2 1 % of the capital infrastructure costs. If Resolution 2009- passes this would place the fluoride issue on the October 0, 2009 ballot allowing the qualified voters of the City of Seward to advise the Council on whether fluoride should or should not be added to the City of Seward water. This is an advisory vote and is non binding on the Council decision. Rn V� D CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST: Where applicable, this agenda statement is consistent with the Seward City Code, Charter, Comprehensive Plans, Land Use Plans, Strategic Plan and City Council Rules of Procedures. Other: FISCAL NOTE: There is no initial cost to add this ballot initiative to the ballot, other than in staff time associated with determining the ballot language. Determining appropriate and balanced ballot language may not be a simple matter. At some point, the Council may wish to involve groups on both sides of the issue, to provide input on appropriate ballot language to ensure that the issue is presented in a fair and balanced fashion. It is unknown at this time, whether the City will incur any costs related to the preparation of fair and balanced public education on this issue, although at this time, no costs are anticipated. Approved by Finance Department: ATTORNEY REVIEW: X RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve Resolution 2009-041_, Submitting an Advisory Ballot Proposition to the Qualified Voters at the October E, 2009 Regular Municipal Election Regarding Whether Fluoride Should Be Added to the City of Seward Water. \3� Sponsored by: Gales CiTY OF SEWARD, ALASKA -" RESOLUTION 2009-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, SUBMITTING AN ADVISORY BALLOT PROPOSITION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS AT THE OCTOBER 6, 2009 REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION REGARDING WHETHER FLUORIDE SHOULD BE ADDED TO TIIE CiTY OF SEWARD WATER WHEREAS, SGS (City's certified lab) conducted n standard water test, that measures 0.1 Parts per million and higher, on March 9, 2009 and fluoride was not detected in the Seward Cily water; and WHEREAS, the United States Public 1-1calth Service (USPHS) established the optimum concentration for fluoride in the United States in the range of 0,7 to 1.2 parts per million; and WHEREAS, fluoridation of community water supplies involves the addition of fluoride to the Public water supply to an optimal level to reduce the incidence of tooth decay; and WHEREAS, a Seward Fluoridation Study was conducted by Michael L. Foster & Associates, inc, on April 13, 2009 addressing fluoride forms, corrosion, chemical feed, regulatory requirements, code compliance, operator certification, costs, and fluoride removal; and WHEREAS, according to the Fluoridation Study the approximate cost of fluoridating; The water are S130,000 for capital costs and $24,000 for annual costs; and WHEREAS, the Indian Hcalth Service may contribute tip to 21 % ofthe capital infrastructure costs; and WHEREAS, there are pros and cons to adding fluoride to community water supplies and there is passion among both the proponents and opponents of fluoridation; and WHEREAS, this resolution will place the issue of whether fluoride should be added to the City of Seward water on the ballot as an advisory vote allowing the qualified voters to advise the City Council on whether to fluoridate the water or not; and WHEREAS, the advisory vote on adding fluoride to the City of Seward's Water is non binding, the City Council will consider the voting results. - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, that; CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2009-043 Section 1. The City Clerk is hereby directed to submit Proposition No.l as a non hinding advisory vote to the qualified voters at the October 6, 2009 regular municipal election in substarntially the following form: ADVISORY PROPOSITION NO. i Shall fluoride be added to the City of Seward water to the level (0.7-1.2 parts per million) recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service'? Yes No A "Yes" vote advises the Seward City Council that the voters recommend adding fluoride to the level (0.7-1.2 parts per million) recommended by the U.S. Public l lealth Set -Vice to the SQ\A1Ud City Water. A "No" vote advises the Seward City Council that the voters do not recommend adding fluoride to the level (0.7-1.2 parts per million) recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service to the Seward City Water. Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council ol'the City of Seward, Alaska, this 26"' day of May, 2009, THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA Clark Corbridge, Mavo1 AYES: Dunham, Bardarson, Kellar, Keil, Corbridge NOES: None ABSENT: Valdatta, Smith ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: Johanna Dollerhide, CMC Assistant City Clerk (city Seal) `OyV100VII#,e +•%,; OF Ads`. �sr«ss�� as�t 1�� Council Agenda Statement Meeting Date: February 22, 2010 To: City Council Through: Phillip Oates, City Manager Agenda Item: Resolution 2010-J, affirming council support for fluoridation ofthe public water supply to improve oral health, and directing the city manager to determine the requirements and costs for safely adding fluoride to the community water system and report on grants and other funding sources for subsidizing those costs BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: Providence, the City of Seward, and other Health and Wellness Entities have met to discuss how to improve the health and wellness of the Seward community. This "Wellness for All" initiative originated with the 2008 publication of Seward Region's Community Needs Assessment and the information in the report. The Wellness For All Group's overarching goal is to improve wellness in the Seward community. Four sub -groups were created focusing on smoking cessation, obesity, increasing awareness of programs and opportunities available in the community, and improving oral health. The improving oral health subgroup focused on water fluoridation as a preventative tool against dental disease. The fluoride issue has gathered a lot of attention both for and against putting fluoride in the City of Seward water. Based on over 60 years of research, the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) established the optimum concentration for fluoride in the United States in the range of 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million. Fluoridation of community water supplies involves the addition of fluoride to the public water supply to an optimal level to reduce the incidence of tooth decay. Community fluoridation is a public health measure that benefits individuals without access to regular dental care. Fluoridation of community water supplies is supported by numerous professional health organizations including the American Public Health Association, American Dental Association, World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has named water fluoridation as one of the ten greatest public health achievements and in 2005 marked the 601h anniversary of water fluoridation in the United States. On March 9, 2009, SGS (a certified testing lab) conducted a standard water test for fluoride. This test did not detect fluoride under .10 parts per million in the Seward City water. The United States Public Health Service (USPHS) established the opinion that the concentration for fluoride in the United States should be in the range of 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million. Fluoridation of community water supplies at an optimal level has been proven to reduce the incidence of tooth decay. Funding from the Indian n -'A Health Service may be available to contribute up to 21 % of the capital infrastructure costs for the fluoridation of community water systems. There are pros and cons to adding fluoride to community water supplies and there is passion among both the proponents and opponents of fluoridation. Resolution 2009-043 placed the issue of whether fluoride should be added to the City of Seward water on the ballot as an advisory vote allowing the qualified voters to advise the City Council on whether to fluoridate the water or not. The advisory ballot was titled as follows: "Proposition 1. (Advisory) Shall fluoride be added to the City of Seward water to the level of (0.7-1.2 parts per million) recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service." The results of the October 6, 2008 regular election were as follows: Election Day votes (Yes: 229 versus No: 206); after canvass votes (Yes: 50 versus No: 28); and the total votes were (Yes: 279 and No: 234). This vote was non binding, letting Council consider the voting results as a recommendation for action. The Seward City Council is the governing body of the City of Seward and the Seward City Council has recognized that there is community support for the fluoridation of the City of Seward public water system. The Seward City Council also recognizes that dental tooth decay is a chronic disease and the most common chronic disease found in rural Alaska children. At the January 11, 2010 council meeting the City Council was given information concerning the pros and cons of fluoridating the City of Seward water supply in the range of 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million. At the council meeting the city council directed the city manager to bring back a subsequent resolution supporting the fluoridation of the City's water supply to a minimum level of 0.7 and not to exceed 1.2 parts per million and begin the actions that are necessary to safely add fluoride to City of Seward water with the following conditions: 1. The city council directs the city manager to hire a qualified professional engineering firm f'or an amount not to exceed $50,000, to determine the impacts and requirements in terms of equipment, training, infrastructure, and safeguards of adding fluoride to City of Seward water system. The findings and conclusions from this study, and other requirements for the water system, shall be considered by the city council prior to the appropriation of funds for adding fluoride to the City of Seward water supply. 2. The city council also directs the city manager to report back to the city council all grants and funding sources that may be available to subsidize the costs of adding fluoride to the City of Seward water supply. 3. Once the city council appropriates funds for the fluoridation of the City of Seward water supply, the city manager will initiate actions for fluoridation of the water supply to a minimum level of 0.7 and not to exceed 1.2 parts per million, the recommended fluoride level of fluoride in public water supplies according to the U.S. Public Health Service. CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST: Where applicable,, this resolution is consistent with the Seward City Code, Charter, Comprehensive Plans, Land Use Plans, Strategic Plan and City Council Rules of Procedures. Other: 1 r7 r" FISCAL NOTE: This resolution authorizes expenditures not to exceed $50,000 for hiring an engineering firm. Costs exceeding $50,000 will necessarily comebefore council for approval. Approved by Finance Department: ATTORNEY REVIEW: No RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve Resolution 2010- Q/ , affirming council support for fluoridation of the public water supply to improve oral health, and directing the city manager to determine the requirements and costs for safely adding fluoride to the community water system and report on grants and other funding sources for subsidizing those costs \21 - Sponsored by: Oates CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2010-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, AFFIRMING COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR FLUORIDATION OF THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY TO IMPROVE ORAL HEALTH, AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DETERMINE THE REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS FOR SAFELY ADDING FLUORIDE TO THE COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM AND REPORT ON GRANTS AND OTHER FUNDING SOURCES FOR SUBSIDIZING THOSE COSTS WHEREAS, the Seward City Council is the governing body of the City of Seward and recognizes that there is community support for the fluoridation of the City of Seward public water system; and WHEREAS, the Seward City Council recognizes that dental tooth decay is a chronic disease and that community fluoridation is a public health measure that benefits all individuals; and WHEREAS, fluoridation of community water supplies is supported by numerous professional heath organizations including the American Public Health Association, American 1%w Dental Association, World Health Organization and the American Medical Association; and WHEREAS, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has named water fluoridation as one of the ten greatest public health achievements and in 2005 marked the 60W" anniversary of water fluoridation in the United States; and WHEREAS, SGS (the City's certified lab) conducted a standard water test aimed at detecting fluoride levels of 0.1 parts per million and higher on March 9, 2009, and fluoride was not detected in the Seward City water; and WHEREAS, the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) established the position that the optimal concentration for fluoride in the United States should be in the range of 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million; and WHEREAS, fluoridation of community water supplies at an optimal level has been shown to reduce the incidence of tooth decay; and WHEREAS, community water fluoridation simply..adjusts the level of fluoride that occurs naturally in water to the level considered optimal in helping to protect against tooth decay as shown in 72.4% of the U.S. population served by public water systems that are optimally fluoridated; and WHEREAS, the Council of State Governments resolution on community water fluoridation supports state efforts to provide community water fluoridation; and 1 Yl CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2010-015 WHEREAS, the Indian Health Service may contribute up to 21 % of the capital infrastructure costs for the fluoridation of community water; and WHEREAS, there are pros and cons to adding fluoride to community water supplies and there is passion among both the proponents and opponents of fluoridation; and WHEREAS, resolution 2009-043 addressed the issue of whether fluoride should be added to the City of Seward water, and authorized placing the question on the ballot as an advisory vote to allow the qualified voters to advise the City Council on whether or not to fluoridate the water; and WHEREAS, resolution 2009-043 advisory ballot was titled as follows: "Proposition 1. (Advisory) Shall fluoride be added to the City of Seward water to the level of (0.7-1.2 parts per million) recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service"; and WHEREAS, the results of the October 6, 2008 regular election which included an advisory vote were as follows: Election Day votes (Yes: 229 versus No: 206); after canvass votes (Yes: 50 versus No: 28); and the total votes were (Yes: 279 and No: 234); and M WHEREAS, the advisory vote on. adding fluoride to the City of Seward's water was non binding; and WHEREAS, at the January 11, 2010 council meeting the Seward City Council was given information concerning the pros and cons of fluoridating the City of Seward water supply in the range of 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, that: Section 1. The city council recognizes and supports the public health benefits of community water fluoridation for preventing dental decay and is committed to the safe and effective practice of water fluoridation as defined by the Centers for Disease Control Preventions' Engineering and Administrative Recommendation to Water Fluoridation. Section 2. The city council directs the city manager to hire a qualified professional engineering firm for an amount not to exceed $50,000, to,determine the impacts and requirements in terms of equipment, training, infrastructure, and safeguards of adding fluoride to City of Seward water system. The findings and conclusions from this study; and other requirements for the water system, shall be considered by the city council prior to tf ropriation of funds for adding fluoride to the City of Seward water supply. \� 0 CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2010-015 'err Section 3. The city council also directs the city manager to report back to the city council all grants and funding sources that may be available to subsidize the costs of adding fluoride to the City of Seward water supply. Section 4. Once the city council appropriates funds for the fluoridation of the City of Seward water supply, the city manager will initiate actions for fluoridation of the water supply to a minimum level of 0.7 and not to exceed 1.2 parts per million, the recommended fluoride level of fluoride in public water supplies according to the U.S. Public Health Service. Section 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska, this 22nd day of February, 2010. THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA Willard E. Dunham, Mayor AYES: Bardarson, Keil, Shafer, Dunham NOES: Valdatta, Amberg ABSENT: Smith ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: Jean Lewis, CMC City Clerk (City Seal) ENDORSEMENTS AMLJIA Participant Coverage Memorandum FY2012 ENDORSEMENT #7: WATER TREATMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: 7/1/11 Named Participant: Participant Named in the Declarations This Endorsement changes the Memorandum. Please read it carefully. It is agreed that Section II, Exclusions, 8. is amended to include coverage for the following: Water treatment. The below conditions shall apply: Section II: Exclusions, 8. does not apply to bodily injury or property damage sustained by consumers of drinking water provided by the Participant and caused by: 1. The introduction by the participant into water of chemicals for the sole purpose of purifying or treating such water; or 2. The introduction by others of substances which make such water impure, harmful or dangerous. However, this exception to Section 11: Exclusions, 8. shall not apply to any liability or legal obligation to clean up, detoxify, monitor or neutralize contamination of any reservoir, well, water -course, land or underground water or water -course. We shall have no duty to defend or indemnify regarding any suit or claim arising out of, or in any way related to, pollution excluded under Section H: Exclusions, 8. All other exclusions, conditions and definitions remain unchanged. R )ogle Image Result for https://www.lafayette.in.gov/egov/gallery/i 161312387167878 jpg Page 1 Go _3�fc mages Website for this image All team members are certified Hazardous Materials Technicians. city. lafayette. in. us Full-size image 2592 x 1944 (4x larger), 323KB More sizes Search by image Similar images Type: JPG Images may be subject to copyright A •�h Ma § $ t i}�, ,� uRSOMhMxrr^ •I an^att; J4,YwYv4Vy4i y'^M#n owµ. } w�shn. ay �� ImisAi!!'R ,� . {y4 ! N" ii t� � %f t lv , ry. � �'esgY n Neport of the :,. April 25, 2011 Prepared for the Fairbanks City Council Fairbanks, Alaska Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................4 Chapter 2: Recommendations....................................................... 6 Chapter3: History................................................................8 Chapter 4: Legal and Ethical Issues ................................................. 14 Chapter 5: Exposure .............................................................16 Chapter6: Efficacy ..............................................................30 Chapter 7: Adverse Effects........................................................ 39 Chapter 8: Socioeconomic Issues .................................................... 45 Chapter9: Cost.................................................................46 References.....................................................................47 Appendix A: Resolution Establishing Task Force ....................................... 53 Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 3 In response to concerns expressed by community members, on February 8, 2010, the Fairbanks City Council passed a resolution (Appendix A) establishing a committee charged with the responsibility to examine evidence related to fluoridation of public water supplies and to provide the City Council with a report containing analysis and recommendations. The committee was to obtain documentation provided by both proponents and opponents of fluoridation and to supplement this documentation with information from other appropriate sources. The committee was to make its final report to the City Council by early July, 2010, but the committee was unable to meet this deadline due to the complexity of the assignment and the schedules of the committee members. The committee, referred to in this report as the Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force (FFTF), is composed of the following members: Paul Reichardt, Ph.D. (Chair) Professor of Chemistry Emeritus University of Alaska Fairbanks Richard Stolzberg, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry Emeritus University of Alaska Fairbanks Rainer Newberry, Ph.D. Professor of Geochemistry University of Alaska Fairbanks Bryce Taylor, D.D.S. Dentist Fairbanks Joan Braddock, Ph.D. Professor of Microbiology Emeritus University of Alaska Fairbanks Beth Medford, M.D. Tanana Valley Clinic Fairbanks The FFTF met for the first time on March 4, 2010, and continued to hold public meetings approximately twice a month through March 8, 2011. At the invitation of the FFTF, both proponents and opponents of fluoridation of the Fairbanks water system (operated by Golden Heart Utilities) made presentations at the March 16, 2010, meeting. Public testimony was received at each of the ten public meetings during the period March 16, 2010, through June 22, 2010. Numerous comments and pieces of information were submitted to the FFTF electronically. Members of the FFTF supplemented this information with relevant articles from the professional literature and results of personal interviews and research. All documents and information received by the FFTF during the period in which public testimony was being accepted are cited on the References section of the FFTF website (www.ci.fairbanks.ak.us/ boardscommissions/fluoridetaskforce/fluoridetaskforcereferencematerials.php). While FFTF members considered the entire body of information submitted and collected, only some of the materials listed on the References website were used in preparing this report. Those materials are listed as references at the end of this report. There is a massive amount of relevant information on this topic. For example, Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 1 y6 in 2008, C. A. Yeung did a review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation that began with over 5,000 relevant citations. The approach the FFTF took to assessing and using this information was to rely on reviews and studies published between 2000 and 2008 to assess the evidence for and against fluoridation of drinking water as it existed up to 2008 and to supplement this body of literature with key professional articles published in the last several years. Although the FFTF examined all aspects of water fluoridation, it focused most of its review of the literature on exposure of individuals to fluoride, the efficacy of fluoridated water in caries prevention, and the risks associated with consumption of fluoride. While the task force's major concerns were about populations exposed to 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million (ppm) fluoride in their water supplies, it did examine and consider evidence related to populations receiving both higher and lower concentrations of fluoride in their drinking water. The FFTF's review and analysis of relevant information was organized around the topics that became the chapters of this report. After a series of discussions and work sessions in which all members voiced their observations and concerns about each of the topics, assignments were made to individual task force members for lead responsibility in producing an initial draft of each chapter. The entire task force was subsequently engaged in the process of chapter revision that led to a draft report, which went out for public review and comment. After consideration of comments submitted electronically as well as at two public hearings (March 29 and 31, 2011), the task force made corrections and edits at its meeting on April 5, 2011. The subsequent final report (including recommendations) will be submitted to the City Council. Some technical terms and abbreviations are used throughout this report. In an attempt to make the report more readable for the general public, a few key definitions are given below: concentration: the relative content of a component, often expressed as amount in a given volume (e.g., ppm) DMFS: decayed, missing, and filled surfaces in permanent teeth DMFT. decayed, missing, and filled permanent teeth dmft: decayed, missing, and filled deciduous (baby) teeth dose: measured quantity of an agent to be taken at one time g (gram): 0.001 kg kg (kilogram): a basic unit of mass and weight equal to 2.2 pounds mg (milligram): 0.001 g L (liter): a basic unit of volume equal to about a quart LDS() (lethal dose, 50%): dose of a toxin required to kill 50% of a group of test organisms ppm (parts per million): a unit of concentration, defined for this report as one mg/L Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report The Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force makes a set of four recommendations. We anticipate that the community's focus will be on Recommendation #1, but as a committee we feel strongly that Recommendations 2, 3, and 4 should be implemented along with Recommendation #1 as part of a cohesive plan to address dental health issues in our community. Primarily because (1) the ground water used for Fairbanks public water contains an average of 0.3 ppm fluoride, and (2) higher concentrations of fluoride put non -nursing infants at risk, the task force recommends that supplemental fluoridation of the Fairbanks public water supply be terminated. The task force further recommends that the Fairbanks community be informed of possible dental health implications from not fluoridating the water. Rationale: Not fluoridating Fairbanks water will reduce the fluoride content from 0.7 ppm to 0.3 ppm, which is the fluoride concentration of the raw water used by Golden Heart Utilities (GHU). This will reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of significant incidence and severity of fluorosis, especially fluorosis associated with the use of GHU water to prepare infant formula. Doing so will also address ethical concerns raised during the task force's public testimony. However, the effect of this reduction in fluoride concentration on the caries rate in the Fairbanks community, while most likely small, is unknown and unpredictable. Those who depend on 0.7 ppm fluoride in tap water for their dental health need to be informed of the possible adverse consequences to their dental health caused by reducing the fluoride content of Fairbanks tap water from 0.7 ppm to 0.3 ppm and of the measures that can be taken to address these possible adverse consequences. The task force has made this recommendation to terminate fluoridation of GHU water with full knowledge of and respect for the positions of the American Dental Association (ADA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), the World Health Organization, and the Alaska Department of Public Health in support of fluoridation of public water supplies. While the task force members agree that water fluoridation may be an important element of an effective dental health program in many communities, the majority of members are not convinced that it is necessary in Fairbanks because of the fluoride content of the city's ground water and the alternate sources of fluoride available in the community. Five task force members, with various degrees of conviction, support this recommendation, while one member (Dr. Taylor) supports continuing fluoridation at 0.7 ppm. 2. The Fairbanks City Council's decision -making process on fluoridation should involve representatives of the Fairbanks North Star Borough government. Rationale: At least 25% of area residents who receive GHU water reside outside the city limits. 3. Local dentists and physicians should be encouraged to provide their patients with up-to-date information on the benefits and risks associated with fluoride. Rationale: If nothing else, the recent notice that the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed a new recommendation on fluoridation of public water supplies NWO Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report indicates that the citizenry should be informed about the state of contemporary research findings I%W and analysis related to the role of fluoride in dental health. All of the members of the task force went into this project with incomplete and in some cases incorrect information about the issue. We suspect that we are not unique in that respect. 4. "Ihe Fairbanks City Council should encourage the local school system to review and modify, as appropriate, its approach to promoting good dental health practices. Rationale: The local schools have an excellent opportunity to help all families in the community to learn about and to implement good dental health practices, which can include optional opportunities at school for topical fluoride treatment (in the form of rinses and tooth brushing, for example) as well as techniques for minimizing unnecessary and/or unwanted exposure to fluoride. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report � yI� Fairbanks A version of Fairbanks City Code dated July 1, 1959, contained a section (Article III, Section 10.301) that authorized and directed the Municipal Utilities System to develop and implement a fluoridation plan that fulfilled the requirements of the Alaska Department of Health. A slightly rewritten version of Article III, Section 10.301 of the City Code was adopted on January 12, 1960, and on August 21, 1962, the mandated fluoridation of city water was implemented in the city of Fairbanks. In 1996, the city water plant was sold by the Municipal Utilities System to Golden Heart Utilities (GHU). The fluoridation program continued under the auspices of GHU, and in 1999 the rewritten Fairbanks General Code (FGC 82-1) continued the mandate for fluoridation under the administration of Golden Heart Utilities. The present version of the Fairbanks City Code retains the language of Section 82-1 as it existed in 1999. The only formal attempts to discontinue the fluoridation program took place in 2008. On February 25 of that year a proposed ordinance to prohibit the addition of fluoride to the GHU water supply failed in a vote of the City Council. In July 2008, a city resident submitted an application for an initiative proposing that FGC 82-1 be repealed and reenacted to read: Fluoride should not be added to City community water systems. Water utilities that own or operate community water distribution systems in the City shall not add fluoride, in any form, to the water system. All water utilities owning or operating community water systems in the City shall conduct periodic water quality testing. The required signatures were not submitted by the deadline of August 12, so the initiative did not go on the October ballot. The city took no additional action on the fluoridation issue until February 8, 2010, when the City Council passed Resolution No. 4398, establishing a task force to research issues related to the fluoridation of the municipal water supply. United States I.n the early 1900s, research, largely by dentist Frederick McKay and Dr. G. V. Black of the Northwestern University Dental School, documented that many residents in several areas of the western U.S. had mottled teeth and, in severe cases, brown stains ("Colorado brown stain") on their permanent teeth. McKay also noticed that the mottled teeth were resistant to decay. By the 1930s it had been determined that these conditions (today known as fluorosis) were caused by high concentrations of fluoride (ca. 4-14 ppm) in drinking water. In the ensuing years, Dr. H. Trendley Dean conducted a series of epidemiological studies and reported that (1) fluoride concentrations of up to 1.0 ppm in drinking water did not cause the more severe forms of dental fluorosis and (2) a correlation existed between fluoride levels in drinking water and reduced incidence of dental decay 1440 Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report (Dean et al., 1941). Dean's work led Dr. Gerald Cox and associates to publish in 1939 the first paper in which fluoridation of public water supplies was proposed (Cox et al., 1939). In the 1940s, four classic, community -wide studies were carried out to evaluate the addition of sodium fluoride as a caries -reduction strategy in Grand Rapids, MI; Newburgh, NY; Brantford, Ontario; and Evanston, IL. Based on the overwhelmingly positive evaluations of these pilot studies by scientists and dental professionals, water fluoridation programs were instituted in a number of large U.S. cities in the following two decades. In addition, alternative methods of administering fluoride to combat caries were developed, the most notable being the introduction of fluoridated toothpaste in 1955. However, as water fluoridation programs spread, so did opposition to the practice. In 1965, the first lawsuit in the U.S. contesting the legality of fluoridation of public water supplies was settled by the New York State Supreme Court, which denied the plaintiff's case "at least until some proof is advanced that fluoridation has harmful side effects" (Graham and Morin, 1992, p. 215). In the ensuing years a number of lawsuits contesting fluoridation of public water supplies have been pursued, but in no case have the plaintiffs been successful in stopping the practice (see Legal/Ethical Issues, chapter 4). The relevant federal, state, and professional organizations have endorsed and promoted the fluoridation of public water supplies for the past fifty years. As a result, in 2008, forty-six of the country's fifty largest cities provided fluoridated water, and approximately 60% of the U.S. population consumed fluoridated water (Fagin, 2008). The U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) has set a goal of "at least 75% of the U.S. population served by community water systems should be receiving the benefits of optimally fluoridated water by the year 2010" (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2000, p. 205). However, the actions of communities on this front are mixed. One summary (Juneau Fluoride Study Commission, 2006) indicates that from 1998 to 2005 approximately two hundred communities in the U.S. moved to fluoridated water or decided to retain it while approximately one hundred chose to discontinue the practice. The situation in Alaska, where the fluoridation of public water systems is encouraged by the Alaska Department of Public Health (www. hss.state.ak.us/dph/targets/ha2010/PDFs/13_Oral_Health.pdf), roughly mirrors the national picture. In 2006, 64% of the Alaska population received fluoridated water, up from 47% in 1993 (Whistler, 2007). However, today's statewide figure may be below that of 2006 because Juneau discontinued its fluoridation program in January 2007. International According to the British Fluoridation Society (British Fluoridation Society, 2010), over 400 million people in sixty countries were served by fluoridated public water supplies in 2004. Countries and geographic regions with extensive water fluoridation programs include the U.S., Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Columbia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Spain, and the United Kingdom. However, especially during the period of 1970 to 1993, Japan and a number of European Countries (Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, USSR, and Finland) discontinued water fluoridation programs. In 2003, Basel, Switzerland, ended its water fluoridation program, and in 2004 Scotland rejected plans to fluoridate water supplies. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report '� 1 In most or all of these situations, dental health continued to improve following cessation of water fluoridation (Ziegelbecker, 1998), presumably due to factors including enhanced dental hygiene programs, fluoride -containing table salt, fluoridated toothpaste, and improved diets. There are data to support the contention that in recent years caries rates in many areas have declined irrespective of the concentrations of fluoride in water supplies. World Heath Organization (WHO) data (Peterson, 2003: Fig. 7) indicate substantial declines in DMFT among twelve -year -olds in developed countries (from about 4.7 to about 2.5) during the period 1980 to 1998 but little change among this age group in developing countries (from about 1.8 to about 2.3). Nevertheless, the World Health Organization continues to consider community water fluoridation to be an effective method to prevent dental caries in adults and children. However, it recognizes that other approaches, including fluoridated salt and milk fluoridation, have "similar effects" (www.who.int/oral_health/strategies/cont/en/index.html). It also recognizes the value of fluoridated toothpaste and fluoride -containing mouth rinses and gels. For Alaska communities, perhaps the most relevant international situation is that in the neighboring country of Canada. According to the Health Canada website (www.hc-sc.gc.ca), each Canadian municipality retains the authority to decide on fluoridation of its water supply; in 2005, 43% of the Canadian population was served by fluoridated water supplies (Federal -Provincial -Territorial Committee on Drinking Water, 2009). The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality set a maximum allowable fluoride concentration of 1.5 ppm in drinking water, a level at which Health Canada believes there are no undue health risks (Health Canada, 2010). Although Canadian provincial and territorial governments regulate the quality of drinking water in their jurisdictions, Health Canada has recommended to communities wishing to fluoridate their water supplies that "the optimal concentration of fluoride in drinking water to promote dental health has been determined to be 0.7 mg/U' (Health Canada, 2010). The Controversy From the very beginning of efforts to implement water fluoridation programs in 1945, there has been controversy (Connett et al., 2010). By the 1950s the sides were pretty well drawn. On one side were dentists and scientists from government and industry, who promoted the addition of fluoride to drinking water as a protection against dental decay. On the other side were mostly activists who contended that water fluoridation was essentially compulsory mass medication, thus a violation of individual rights, and that the risks of fluoridation had not been studied adequately. The advocates of fluoridation won the argument, in part by ridiculing the unlikely arguments of some of the opponents (e.g., the John Birch Society, which contended that fluoridation was a communist plot to poison the citizens of the USA). A series of court cases from the mid-1960s through the mid-1980s established that local and state governments have the constitutional authority to implement fluoridation programs. These decisions were based largely on the principle that the "government interest in the health and welfare of the public generally overrides individual objections to health regulation" (American Dental Association [ADA], 2005, pp. 47-49). In light of these decisions, the argument against "compulsory mass medication" has emphasized ethical rather than legal issues (see, for example, Bryson, 2004). Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report in During this same period, a number of scientific investigations into potential adverse effects of drinking fluoridated water were undertaken. None of these studies produced results that were generally accepted as demonstrating serious adverse health effects of water containing "optimal levels" of fluoride ion (0.7 to 1.2 ppm). However, a number of them raised significant questions about potential risks by showing some adverse health effects at fluoride concentrations of greater than 2 ppm (for example, Kurttio et al., 1999; Freni, 1994). Around the turn of the century, a comprehensive review of the scientific literature related to water fluoridation was undertaken under the auspices of York University in the United Kingdom. The report from this review (McDonagh et al., 2000), often referred to as the York Report, noted the generally poor quality of the evidence for both beneficial and adverse effects of fluoridation. The resulting uncertainties about the benefits and risks of consuming fluoridated water fueled the controversy in that it allowed each side to discount the opposition's arguments because of the "poor quality" of the evidence on which positions were based. While there are many examples of the arguments put forward by the two sides, two representative accounts are an antifluoridation article by Colquhoun (1998) and a profluoridation article by Armfield (2007). Another key review of the effects of fluoride in drinking water was published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2006 (National Research Council, 2006). This review and associated recommendations were focused on EPA standards for drinking water (Maximum Contaminant Level, MCL, of 4 ppm and Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level, SMCL, of 2 ppm) and did not directly address the USPHS regulations on the lower concentrations in fluoridated public water supplies in the U.S. (0.7 to 1.2 ppm). Nevertheless, the report contains information and data relevant to the safety of fluoridated water. Evidence in the scientific literature led the review committee to conclude that water containing 4 ppm fluoride "puts children at risk for developing severe enamel fluorosis" and was "not likely to be protective against bone fracture" (National Research Council, 2006, p. 2). This review also contains analyses of a number of other adverse health effects that have been alleged to be related to fluoride ingestion, but the authors found that these allegations were either not supported by good evidence or required further study before any meaningful conclusions could be drawn. As with the York Report, the uncertainties about the risks of fluoride -containing water (compounded, in this case, by uncertainties about how conclusions based on consideration of fluoride concentrations of 2 ppm or higher relate to lower concentrations) have given both advocates and opponents of fluoridation data and arguments that they have selectively employed in supporting their opposing positions. As time has gone on, particularly since the publication of the York and National Research Council reports, a number of professionals with expertise in dental health and toxicology have joined the opposition to fluoridation. They include dental researchers who were originally supporters of fluoridation (e.g., Colquhoun, 1998; Limeback, 2000), dentists (e.g., Osmunson, 2010a), and EPA employees (e.g., Thiessen, 2006, 2009a, 2009b, 2010; Hirzy, 2000). A "Professionals' Statement to End Fluoridation" (www.fluoridealert.org/prof statement.pdf) had over three thousand signers as of July 2010 (although many of the signers are not identified with respect to their areas of expertise, so it is not clear that all these "professionals" have expertise in relevant areas). However, professional and governmental organizations remain supportive of water fluoridation, and to our knowledge, the majority of dental health practitioners in the United States continue to support it. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report W There is no shortage of information; the literature search for a recent review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation turned up over five thousand citations. However, after application of exclusion/ inclusion criteria related to the quality of the research and after review of the full text of each remaining article, the author of the review selected just seventy-seven citations for inclusion (Yeung, 2008). Why has so much of the fluoridation literature been deemed to be of less than high quality? There are at least four difficulties inherent in these studies: 1. as with all epidemiological studies, those focused on the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation are complicated by a multitude of confounding variables (e.g., Taubes, 2006), not the least of which is the tremendous variability in water consumption and related fluoride dose of individuals (EPA, 2004); 2. in many cases the data cannot be interpreted without the application of sophisticated statistical methods, and even then statistical correlations do not necessarily imply causative relationships (e.g., Sigfried, 2010); 3. some of the alleged adverse effects of fluoride are associated with very rare conditions (e.g., osteosarcoma), making it difficult to detect small, but potentially significant, differences in study populations; 4. the results from studies with laboratory animals are often not complicated by confounding variables, but their relevance to humans and the concentrations of fluoride in public water supplies is often difficult to determine (Hayes, 2008, pp. 330-332). In recent years, the difficulties associated with critical evaluation of research findings and associated conclusions have been exacerbated by the widespread use of the internet as a medium for distributing information and opinions. The opponents of fluoridation in particular have used the internet to advance their arguments and point of view. Although many of these sites contain useful information and cogent arguments, the sites and the information on them are not uniformly of high quality. In many instances it is difficult to evaluate the quality of material posted on websites focused on fluoride and fluoridation without a fairly thorough knowledge of the peer -reviewed literature. While these scientific issues continue to be debated, it appears that within the general public the major concern is related to ethics, not quality of the research on benefits and adverse effects of water fluoridation. Thus, many opponents of water fluoridation would remain opposed to "mass medication" even if the safety and efficacy of the practice were clearly documented. So, today the controversy continues unabated. The situation is described quite well in a recent journal article: Plans to add fluoride to water supplies are often contentious. Controversy relates to potential benefits of fluoridation, difficulty in identifying harms, whether fluoride is a medicine, and the ethics of a mass intervention. We are concerned that the polarised debates and the way that evidence is harnessed and uncertainties glossed over make it hard for the public and professionals to participate in consultations on an informed basis. (Chong et al., 2007, p. 699) Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report ray u Findings Throughout the United States, and in many countries around the world, the incidence of tooth decay has decreased significantly over the past several decades. Although claims have been made that adding fluoride to drinking water has been one of the main reasons for this decline, the data indicate that in many countries and communities progress in preventing caries has been made without fluoridated water. For many years professional organizations and federal, state (including Alaska), and local governments in the United States have promoted the fluoridation of public water supplies, and these organizations and relevant government agencies still strongly support the practice. However, there has also been opposition to the practice since its inception in the 1940s. Although it appears that most dental practitioners and researchers still support fluoridation of municipal water supplies, it also seems that the number of practitioners and researchers who oppose the practice has increased. At this time the claims most often cited by opponents of fluoridation of water supplies are: • lack of definitive evidence for efficacy, • evidence indicating risk of adverse effects, and • ethical issues related to mass medication. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report \CC- 13 As indicated by testimony to the Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force, legal and ethical issues are perhaps the biggest concerns of the local residents who are opposed to fluoridation of Fairbanks' public water supply. The testimony received by the task force was overwhelmingly against fluoridation. During the ten task force meetings at which public testimony was invited, sixty-two testimonies were presented by thirty individuals (at the extremes eighteen individuals presented testimony just once, and one individual submitted testimony on six different occasions). The positions of the testifying individuals, as described by themselves or ascertained by the task force from the nature of the testimonies, were twenty-six against fluoridation, three in favor, and one with no clearly stated opinion. The major concerns voiced by the opponents of fluoridation were: 1. toxic and harmful effects of fluoride; 2. lack of high -quality evidence that fluoride in public water supplies effectively prevents dental caries; 3. unethical aspects of "mass medication," including lack of informed consent; 4. fluoridation of public water supplies interferes with freedom of choice, infringes on individual rights, and results from an overreach of governmental powers; and 5. the risk that fluoridation of public water supplies may do more harm than good. While testimony and evidence on all five of these concerns were presented to the task force, concerns 3, 4, and 5 were highlighted for the task force by both the frequency and passion of testimonies related to them. They have also been voiced in the larger debate over water fluoridation. The "mass medication" argument is that fluoridation of public water supplies administers medication to an unaware and in some cases, unwilling public (see, for example, www.fluoridedebate.com/question34. html; Cross and Carton, 2003). The "individual rights" concern (#4) is related to the previous concern in that it questions governmental authority to implement the "mass medication" (Cross and Carton, 2003). The concern that water fluoridation may do more harm than good brings into the argument the "first, do no harm" precept of medical ethics. This precept basically says that in a given situation it may be better to do nothing if the action to be taken may cause more harm than good. The legal concerns brought to the task force were considered in light of a rather lengthy history of legal challenges to fluoridation of public water supplies (Graham and Morin, 1999). Although fluoridation has been challenged numerous times in at least thirteen states, and while cases decided primarily on procedural grounds have been won and lost by both proponents of and opponents to fluoridation, no final ruling in any of these cases has stopped a proposed fluoridation program or ruled in favor of elimination of an existing program (Block, 1986; ADA, 2005; Pratt et al., 2002). In the process, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review fluoridation cases at least thirteen times (ADA, 2005). In contrast to the legal question, which has repeatedly been addressed by the courts, the ethical issues remain problematic. On the one hand, opponents of fluoridation cite concerns about the propriety of forced "mass medication" and the integrity of at least some of the individuals and organizations that promote the practice (see, for example, Bryson, 2004; Cheng et al., 2007; Connett et al., 2010). On Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 1 r_-_,(6 14 the other hand, some proponents have argued that those who potentially have the most to gain from **Sw fluoridation of public water supplies the economically and educationally disadvantaged and those with limited access to proper health care —do not have a voice in the development of health policies and practices unless those in power are looking out for their interests (McNally and Downie, 2000). Cohen and Locker (2001), observe that the conflict between beneficence of water fluoridation and autonomy remains unresolved and that "there appears to be no escape from this conflict of values, which would exist even if water fluoridation involved benefits and no risks" (p. 578). Further, they argue that although recent studies indicate that water fluoridation continues to be beneficial, critical analysis indicates that the quality of evidence provided by these studies is generally poor. thus, they argue that from an ethical standpoint, past benefits of fluoridation cannot be used to justify continuation of the practice, and they call for new guidelines that "are based on sound, up-to-date science and sound ethics" (p. 579). Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 1 �� 15 Fluorine, which exists in its elemental form as fluorine gas, is one of the most reactive elements. Its chemical reactivity is characterized by its propensity to accept electrons and to undergo reduction to the fluoride ion. While elemental fluorine is found in just one form, the fluoride ion exists in a number of compounds, including the common minerals fluorite and especially fluorapatite. Fluorine is also found in a group of compounds called "organic fluorides," compounds in which fluorine is chemically bonded to carbon. Some pharmaceuticals, consumer products, and pesticides are organic fluorides. Concerns about the safety and efficacy of artificially fluoridated water revolve around one species, the fluoride ion —often referred to in this report as fluoride. Fluoride is easily absorbed in the human alimentary tract, is distributed to most —if not all —tissues, and is cleared from the blood and tissues by uptake into bone and by excretion (Whitford, 1996; National Research Council, 2006). It is capable of inhibiting certain enzymes (Scott, 1983, p. 166; National Research Council, 2006) and of affecting bacterial metabolism, including reducing the capability of plaque -forming bacteria to produce acid (Featherstone, 2000; Jones et al., 2005), which is the bacterial product responsible for caries. Given that fluoride has these biochemical properties, it is not surprising to find that it is toxic. the acute toxic dose of fluoride is 5 to 10 grams for a 155-pound person (Hodge and Smith, 1965; ADA, 2005). More precise determinations of toxicity have been performed with pure chemicals and laboratory rats, and these studies indicate, for example, that sodium fluoride is about ten times less toxic than sodium cyanide and about fifty times more toxic than sodium chloride (table salt). The fluoride -containing compound of most interest in the Fairbanks situation is sodium fluorosilicate, the compound that Golden Heart Utilities (GHU) uses to fluoridate the water it distributes. Sodium fluorosilicate is toxic; for rats its LD50 is 125 mg/kg (that is when laboratory rats were given single doses of 125 mg of sodium fluorosilicate per kg of body weight, 50% of the test animals died). According to the National Institute of Health's TOXNET website (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi- bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+770), the acute toxic dose of sodium fluorosilicate for a human is between 3.5 and 35 grams. However, the low concentration of this compound in treated water (around 1.5 mg per liter) ensures that there is no acute toxicity threat associated with the treated GHU water. Nevertheless, concerns have been voiced about risks related to the use of sodium fluorosilicate in water fluoridation programs. In particular, a correlation was reported between use of sodium fluorosilicate to fluoridate water in various locales in the state of New York and levels of lead in the blood of children residing in these communities (Masters and Coplin, 1999; Masters et al., 2000). However, this correlation was not verified in a subsequent study (Macek et al., 2006). Furthermore, a causative link between the use of sodium fluorosilicate and elevated lead levels in blood of children who consume the fluoridated water would require that sodium fluorosilicate incompletely dissociates when it dissolves in water, a proposition put forward by Westendorf (1975) but which is inconsistent with the best contemporary evidence (Urbansky, 2002). Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 1 L�l m Because fluoride is found in a number of common minerals, it is not surprising to find that it is 14%W naturally present in water. The concentration of fluoride in the oceans is approximately 1.3 ppm (Turekien, 1969). In the United States, fluoride concentrations in wells, lakes, and rivers range from below detection to 16 ppm (National Research Council, 2006). For example, Lake Michigan's fluoride level is 0.17 ppm, wells in Arizona have concentrations up to 7 ppm, and groundwater in Bauxite, Arkansas, has up to 14 ppm fluoride (ADA, 2005). In Alaska, a voluminous DEC data sheet (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 2010) demonstrates that although many natural water systems around the state have undetectable levels of fluoride, one area (Wales) has 2 ppm fluoride in groundwater, and several sources of groundwater in the Fairbanks area have from 0.1 to 0.3 ppm fluoride. Several independent studies of domestic, commercial, and monitoring wells in the greater Fairbanks area show that fluoride is present at concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 1.6 ppm (Fig. 5.1; USGS, 2001; Mueller, 2002; Verplanck et al., 2003). tA 8o 4. c °J E 70 v V1 6o v E 50 4- 0 40 v E 30 c 20 10 0 fluoride concentration in well water (ppm) Figure 54. Histogram of fluoride concentrations in 81 wells in the Fairbanks area. The median value is between 0.2 and 0.3 ppm, and the bulk of values are between o.i and 0.7 ppm. Wells in metamorphic rocks contain the higher fluoride concentrations; those tapping the sedimentary aquifer have values Of 0.2 to 0.4 ppm. Data from USGS, 2001; Mueller, 2002; Verplanck et al., 2003; and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 2010). Wells employed for Fairbanks city water are at depths greater than 100 feet below the surface and tap the sedimentary aquifer of the Fairbanks floodplain. The several hundred feet of sediment is essentially uniform in mineralogy and mineral compositions, hence, by reaction with groundwater it creates water with an essentially constant composition. The fluoride content of raw water from these wells has been tested numerous times between 1987 and 2008 yielding an average fluoride concentration of 0.34 ± 0.1 ppm (Fig. 5.2). Given the constant substrate for groundwater in the Fairbanks floodplain, there is every reason to consider this fluoride concentration to be the same for a very long time to come. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report < 17 0.5 0.4 v �L 0 U_ 0.3 E a CL 0.2 0.1 N Fairbanks City average: 0.34 ± .1 ppm well water, before T, treatment time (1987 0 20o8) Figure 5.2. Fluoride concentrations in Fairbanks municipal raw well water prior to treatment and fluoridation. Each bar represents a single measurement. Based on checks of fluoride standards, the uncertainty of a given measurement is approximately 0.05 ppm. Data supplied by GHU. A major source of exposure to fluoride for many Americans, including those who receive GHU water, is drinking water. While this exposure is clearly related to the concentration of fluoride in the water, it is important to distinguish between concentration and dose. The amount of fluoride (dose) an individual receives from drinking water depends on the concentration of fluoride in the water and the amount of water consumed. Thus an individual who drinks one liter of water containing 0.5 ppm fluoride receives the same dose of fluoride as another individual who drinks two liters of water containing 0.25 ppm. Various surveys have found that the amount of drinking water consumed by individuals varies considerably. For example, an EPA report (2004) states that the results from surveys done in the 1990s indicate that very young children consume an average of about 0.3 liter of drinking water per day and adults about 1 liter, as opposed to earlier EPA and WHO estimates of 1 liter and 2 liters, respectively. More importantly, the ranges of consumption are enormous: among the study subjects, infants less than one year old had water consumptions ranging from 0.03 liter to 1.5 liters, and the range among adults was from 0.1 liter to over 4 liters. The situation is further complicated by the fact that certain metal ions present in many water supplies can react with fluoride ions (before consumption) in a way that alters the uptake of fluoride from drinking water by humans (Institute of Medicine, 2000; Urbansky, 2002). For example, in seawater about one-half of the total fluoride is actually present as the MgF+ complex ion (Bethke, 1996). Therefore, it is very difficult to determine how much fluoride any individual actually consumes from drinking water on a daily basis. Furthermore, "average consumption" is meaningful for a relatively small segment of the population (see Fig. 5.3 for one representation of the situation). Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 1 1 _n 18 30 25 20 C 0 4-1 `u 15 a 0 a 4- 10 NO 0 .012 LJ —all E 'L • infants v a `v � a M a Cr E Ln _ W infant mean • infants all 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.175 mg F/kg body weight/day for 1 ppm F tap water Figure 5.3. Fluoride consumption from tapwater distribution for total population (dark, solid curve) and for infants (dashed curve). Note that only a small proportion of the population receives the target dose from tap water and that a large proportion of infants receive a dose considerably higher than the target dose. Graph constructed from data in EPA (2000). Agencies of the U.S. federal government, taking into account information that documents the adverse effects of human consumption of large doses of fluoride, have issued regulations and recommendations on the concentrations of fluoride ion in drinking water. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for fluoride at 4 ppm and a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 2 ppm (to provide a margin of safety against development of fluorosis from exposure to fluoride in drinking water —see Chapter 7). In 1962 the U.S. Public Health Service adopted standards that call for fluoride concentrations between 0.7 ppm and 1.2 ppm in public water supplies that have been "artificially fluoridated" or have "adjusted" levels of fluoride. this range of concentrations was selected based on estimates of water consumption that take into account differences based on climate and the assumption that people in warmer climates drink more tap water than do residents in cooler climates. In January 2011, just as the Fairbanks task force was finalizing the first draft of its report and recommendations, two federal agencies initiated formal processes to change policy and regulations related to fluoride exposure. In early January, the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a notice that HHS was seeking public comment on a proposed new �%W,, recommendation that communities that are fluoridating or choose to fluoridate their public water Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report iC supplies adjust the fluoride concentration to 0.7 ppm (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/0l/ pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html). This recommendation is based on the considerations that (1) scientific evidence indicates that water fluoridation is effective in preventing dental caries, (2) fluoride in drinking water is now just one of several sources of fluoride, (3) the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis has increased in recent years, and (4) the water consumption of children and adolescents is independent of ambient temperatures. At this writing, the HHS action is limited to initiating the public comment period and does not constitute a formal change in the HHS recommendation. A few weeks later, the EPA initiated a "Registration Review" of the pesticide sulfuryl fluoride. This chemical, used for controlling insect pests in a variety of stored agricultural products, breaks down during application to release fluoride ions. Although the fluoride residue from sulfuryl fluoride contributes negligibly to the fluoride exposure of individual humans, this proposal is based on the EPAs assessment that "aggregate fluoride exposure is too high for certain identifiable subpopulations in the United States, in particular children under the age of seven who live in areas with higher fluoride concentrations in drinking water resulting from natural background sources" (EPA, 2011; Office of Pesticide Programs, 2011). Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, EPA must withdraw sulfuryl fluoride under these circumstances, and the action initiated at this point (invitation for public comment) is the first step in the withdrawal process. The exposure of a given individual in the Fairbanks area to fluoride from drinking water is very difficult to assess because of the various sources of drinking water available in the area. However, for the purposes of this report, we will focus on individuals who are served by the Golden Heart Utilities water system. This distribution includes about 30,000 people (approximately 6,500 hookups) in the city of Fairbanks and an additional 10,000 to 25,000 individuals (approximately 2,200 hookups, including several water delivery services) in the surrounding area served by College Utilities. Until January of 2011 the drinking water supplied to these individuals contained, on average, 1.0 ppm fluoride. The GHU records examined by the task force demonstrated that over an extended period of time, the range of fluoride concentration in the distributed water was from 0.8 to 1.1 ppm. The variability in the concentration of fluoride was probably due to measurement uncertainties and to the fluctuation in fluoride concentration in the feed water for the GHU process —averaging 0.3 ppm but ranging from 0.2 to 0.4 ppm (Fig. 5.2). In response to the HHS action described in the previous paragraph, in January of 2011 GHU reduced the concentration of fluoride in distributed water from 1.0 ppm to 0.7 ppm. Thus the GHU fluoridation process presently raises the fluoride concentration from about 0.3 ppm in the groundwater to 0.7 ppm in the distributed water. The process used by GHU to produce water containing 0.7 ppm fluoride is one of the two most common approaches used elsewhere in the United States. A calculated amount of sodium fluorosilicate (SFS) is added to the raw water in a rather sophisticated treatment process. The SFS originates at KC Industries in Mulberry, Florida, where it is manufactured and purified as a byproduct from the domestic phosphate fertilizer industry. Each lot of SFS is analyzed and verified as meeting or exceeding American Water Works Association standards of purity before it is shipped. The material used by GHU is shipped from Florida by truck and container ship to Univar in Anchorage then by truck to Fairbanks. Univar has on record the certificates of assurance for the purity of each lot of SFS that it receives (R. Holland, personal communication). A member of the Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force conducted a laboratory analysis of a sample of SFS provided by GHU and found it to be impressively pure (Table 5.1) relative to typical laboratory chemicals. When used in the fluoridation Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 20 process, the calculated concentrations of metal ions added from the SFS are in the parts per trillion ✓ range, well below limits set by the EPA. While there are no guarantees against accidents in which fluoride levels in distributed water could rise to a dangerous point, the GHU fluoridation process is well run and has controls in place to provide a high level of assurance of safe operation. Each year since 2006 GHU has received a "Water Fluoridation Quality Award" from the Alaska Oral Health Program (Alaska Division of Public Health). The fluoride concentration in drinking water is measured three times each day, and the concentrations of eleven metals and radionuclides are analyzed on schedules that range from every three to nine years. Table 5.1a. Major elemental components of a random sample of KC Industries' sodium fluorosilicate° Element Weight % Element Weight % Silicon 14.8 Fluorine 60.3 Sodium 24.9 Chlorine 0.24 Table 5A. Trace elements in a random sample of KC Industries' sodium f luorosilicote° Element ppm Element ppm Aluminum 25 Arsenic <4 Barium <5 Bromine 132 Cobalt <1 Chromium <1 Copper <5 Iron 35 Iodine 35 Nickel <z Phosphorous 34 Lead <1 Antimony <5 Thorium <0.5 Vanadium <1 Tungsten <z Zinc <z Table 5.1c. Approximate concentrations of elements added to Fairbanks water after the fluoride concentration has been adjusted to 0.7 ppm Element ppm Element ppm Silicon 0.1 Fluorine 0.4 Sodium 0.2 Chlorine 0.002 Element pptb Element ppt" Aluminum 21 Arsenic <4 Barium <4 Bromine 11 Cobalt <1 Chromium <1 Copper <4 Iron 28 Iodine 28 Nickel <1 Phosphorous 28 Lead <1 Antimony <4 Thorium <0.4 Vanadium <1 Tungsten <1 Zinc <z a. Analysis by XRF at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Advanced Instrumentation Lab; R. Newberry, analyst b. ppt = parts per trillion Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report (_ 2 21 Exposure of individuals to fluoride from dental products was not an issue when fluoridation of public water supplies was first introduced in the 1940s. Fluoridated toothpaste became commercially available in 1955, and it rapidly became widely accepted as an agent for caries prevention. However, inadvertent intake of fluoride from toothpaste can be a problem, especially with children who may have poor control of the swallowing reflex. Detailed studies of fluoride ingested by children from swallowing toothpaste have led to ingestion estimates ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 mg per brushing (Ophaug et al., 1985; Levy and Zarei-M. 1991; Rojas -Sanchez et al., 1999). A USPHS report (Institute of Medicine, 2000) summarized the findings by concluding that an average of about 0.3 mg of fluoride is introduced with each episode of tooth brushing in young children. Additional, and highly variable, amounts of fluoride may be ingested by individuals who take fluoride supplements (e.g., drops) or receive topical fluoride application by dental professionals. Many foods and beverages contain detectable amounts of fluoride. The USDA National Fluoride Database on the fluoride content of a wide range of beverages and foods (USDA, 2004) contains an extensive list. Some representative entries from the USDA database are displayed in Table 5.2. Table 5.2. Fluoride concentrations in selected foods and beverages available in the United States. Adapted from USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods (2oo4) and Lalumandier and Ayers (z000). Food or Beverage Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Range (ppm) Dairy Products 0.25 0.38 0.02-o.82 Grain and Cereals 0.42 0.40 o.o8-2.oi Potatoes 0.49 0.26 0.2io-o.84 Leafy Vegetables 0.27 0.25 o.21-o.84 Fruits o.06 0.03 0.02-o.o8 Sugar and Substitutes 0.28 0.27 0.02-0.78 Tea (brewed) 3.7 0.6 2.6-5.3 Soda Pop or Cola 0.5 0.1 0.05-0.8 Bottled Watera NA NA 0.02-0.94 a. An analysis of bottled water available in Scotland found some European bottled waters to contain nearly 6 ppm (MacFayden et al.,1982). Part of the variation in fluoride concentrations in foods reflects differences in plant metabolism (for example, tea leaves seem to sequester higher concentrations of fluoride than do the leaves of lettuce or kale). However, one notable aspect of the range of fluoride concentrations in prepared foods is what is called the "halo effect" —the result of the use of fluoridated water to prepare foods and beverages (Griffin et al., 2001). Thus, the fluoride content of processed foods and beverages reflects, in large part, the fluoride concentrations in the water used in their processing. While the halo effect is manifested in a variety of products, perhaps the most obvious is bottled water, a product of special interest to residents of communities with fluoridated water supplies because it provides an alternative to tap water. The fluoride content of bottled water is regulated by lave (see National Research Council, 2006), and it can contain up to 2.4 ppm fluoride with no requirement for a statement of fluoride content on the label, unless fluoride has been added. The large range of Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report zz allowable concentrations of fluoride and the lack of a requirement for notification of fluoride content clearly compromises the utility of bottled water (as opposed to distilled water) as an alternative to fluoridated community water. A final source of fluoride, or at least fluorine in some form, is from the air. This is largely due to trace amounts of pesticides and other industrial chemicals in the atmosphere. For the most part the fluoridated substances in the air are organic fluorides (as are some medications such as Prozac and Ciprofloxacin) rather than the fluoride ion found in water, dental products, foods, and beverages. Although our knowledge of the fate of fluorine from organic fluorides as the result of metabolism in the human body is very limited, it seems unlikely that the "fluoride" that comes from atmospheric sources adds significantly to the fluoride ion burden in humans. Various estimates of the total fluoride exposure of individuals in the United States have been made, but the most comprehensive effort is probably that of an NRC committee (National Research Council, 2006). Tables 5.3 through 5.5, below, were constructed by the Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force from data in that report. The NRC committee's estimates of fluoride exposure from water were based on estimates of water consumption (EPA, 2000), which had been used in many of the studies considered by the committee. Because updated estimates of water consumption are now available (EPA, 2004), the task force substituted the updated estimates of water consumption and repeated the calculations used to construct Tables 5.3 through 5.5. The results are displayed in Tables 5.6 through 5.8. Table 5.3. Estimated fluoride exposure (mg/kg body weight/day) of U.S. populations on water with i.o ppm fluoride, based on water intakes estimated in NRC (2oo6) Population water' toothpasteb background food" pesticides & air' total exposure, Y from water Nursing infant .026o .0046 .0019 •033 79 Non -nursing Infant o86o .0114 .0019 •099 87 1-2 year old .0314 .0115 .0210 .0020 o66 48 3-5 year old .0292 .0114 o181 .0012 o6o 49 6—i2 year old .0202 .0075 .0123 .0007 .041 49 13-19 year old .0152 .0033 .0097 .0007 .029 52 20-49 year old o196 .0014 .0114 0006 •033 59 50+ year old .0208 .0014 .0102 0006 .033 63 a. Assuming all water, tap plus other, at i.0 ppm b. NRC (2oo6), Table 2-9 c. NRC (2oo6), Table 2-11 Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 23 Table 5.4. Estimated fluoride exposure (mg/kg body weight/day) of U.S. populations on water with 0.7 ppm fluoride, based on water intakes estimated in NRC (2006) Population water' toothpaste' background food' pesticides & air' total exposure' % from water Nursing infant o182 .0046 .0019 .025 73 Non -nursing Infant o602 .0114 .0019 •074 81 1-2 year old .0220 .0115 .0210 .0020 .056 39 3-5 year old .0204 .0114 o181 .0012 .051 40 6-12 year old .0141 .0075 .0123 .0007 •035 40 13-19 year old oio6 .0033 .0097 .0007 .024 44 20-49 year old .0138 .0014 .0114 0006 .027 51 50+year old .0146 .0014 .0102 0006 .027 54 a. Calculated from Table 5.3, assuming all water, tap plus other, at 0.7Ppm NRC (2006) NRC (2oo6), Table 2-9 NRC (20o6), Table 2-11 Table 5.5. Estimated fluoride exposure (mg/kg body weight/day) of U.S. populations on water with o.3 ppm fluoride, based on water intakes estimated in NRC (2006) Population water' toothpaste' background food' pesticides & air' total exposure` % from water Nursing infant .0078 .0046 .0019 .014 56 Non -nursing Infant .0258 .0114 .0019 .039 66 1-2 year old .0094 .0115 .0210 .0020 .044 20 3-5 year old oo88 .0114 o181 .0012 .040 22 6-12 year old oo61 .0075 .0123 .0007 .027 23 13-19 year old .0046 .0033 .0097 .0007 o18 26 20-49 year old .0059 .0014 .0114 0006 .019 31 50' year old oo62 .0014 .0102 0006 o18 34 a. Calculated from Table 5.3, assuming all water, tap plus other, at o.3Ppm b. NRC (2oo6), Table 2-9 c. NRC (20o6), Table 2-11 Table 5.6. Estimated fluoride exposure (mg/kg body weight/day) of U.S. populations on water with 1.o ppm fluoride, based on water intakes estimated by EPA in 2004 Population water' toothpaste' background food' pesticides & air' total exposure % from water Nursing infant .017 .0046 .0019 .024 71 Non -nursing Infant .055 .0114 .0019 o68 81 1-2 year old .029 .0115 .0210 .0020 o64 45 3-5 year old .026 .0114 .0181 .0012 .057 46 6-12 year old .017 .0075 .0123 .0007 .038 45 13-19 year old .014 .0033 .0097 .0007 .028 50 20-49 year old .018 .0014 .0114 0006 .032 56 50' year old o18 .0014 .0102 0006 .030 6o a. Calculated from Table 5.3, assuming all water, tap plus other, at 1.oppm b. NRC (20o6), Table 2-9 Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 1 Lt- 24 Table 5.7. Estimated fluoride exposure (mg/kg body weight/day) of U.S. populations on water with 0.7 ppm fluoride, based on water intakes estimated by EPA in 2004 Population water' toothpaste' background food' pesticides & airb total exposure % from water Nursing infant .012 .0046 0019 .019 63 Non -nursing Infant •039 .0114 .0019 .052 75 1-2 year old .020 .0115 .0210 .0020 •055 36 3-5 year old o18 .0114 o181 .0012 .049 37 6-12 year old .012 .0075 .0123 .0007 •033 36 13-19 year old .010 .0033 .0097 .0007 .024 42 20-49 year old .013 .0014 .0114 0006 .026 50 50' year old .013 .0014 .0102 0006 .025 52 a. Calculated from Table 5.4, assuming all water, tap plus other, at o.7Ppm b. NRC (2006), Table 2-9 Table 5.8. Estimated fluoride exposure (mg/kg body weight/day) of U.S. populations on water with o.3 ppm fluoride, based on water intakes estimated by EPA in 2004 Population water' toothpaste' background foodb pesticides & air' total exposure % from water Nursing infant .0051 .0046 .0019 .012 43 Non -nursing Infant .017 .0114 .0019 .030 57 1-2 year old oo87 .0115 .0210 .0020 .043 20 3-5 year old .0078 .0114 o181 .0012 .039 20 6-12 year old .0051 .0075 .0123 .0007 .026 20 13-19 year old .0042 .0033 .0097 .0007 o18 23 20-49 year old .0054 .0014 .0114 0006 .019 28 50+ year old .0054 .0014 .0102 0006 o18 30 a. Calculated from Table 5.5, assuming all water, tap plus other, at 0.3 ppm b. NRC (20o6), Table 2-9 Several things must be kept in mind when interpreting the data in these tables: • The average intakes of water are based on two different estimates of water consumption (NRC, 2006; EPA, 2004). The following pairs of tables allow direct comparison of the overall estimated exposures based on the differences in estimates of water intake: Tables 5.3 and 5.6, Tables 5.4 and 5.7, Tables 5.5 and 5.8. • The range of water intakes among individuals is quite large. • For simplicity of calculation, the estimated intake of fluoride from water assumes that all water has the fluoride concentration indicated in each table. This clearly is not the case for someone who uses several sources of water (for example, well, public system, and bottled) on a regular basis. This assumption, coupled with the range of fluoride concentrations in commercial bottled water, injects quite a bit of uncertainty into the results of these calculations. • The estimated amounts of fluoride ingested by individuals from toothpaste are for individuals who regularly brush twice daily with fluoridated toothpaste and who have control over swallowing. • Estimates of intakes from food (and beverages) are really just educated guesses because of variability in diets and in the magnitude of the halo effect. Despite the limitations on the validity of the estimates of exposure, the data in the tables can be evaluated in light of recommendations made by relevant organizations of health professionals. There Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report N �7 � 25 have been a number of recommendations through the years, and the situation is complicated by the fact that some recommendations are in terms of mg per individual per day and others in terms of mg per kg per day. In the opinion of the task force, the key recommendations on fluoride are: • Adequate daily intake (Institute of Medicine, 1997): 0.0014 mg/kg/day for infants 0-6 months 0.06 mg/kg/day for infants 7-12 months 0.05 mg/kg/day for other children and all adults • Upper limits: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): 0.023 mg/kg/day Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2010): 0.06 mg/kg/day Institute of Medicine tolerable upper intake (Institute of Medicine, 1997): 0.1 mg/kg/day for newborns through age 8 0.15 mg/kg/day for ages 9 through adult The ATSDR limit (MRL, minimal risk level) is an estimate of the daily human exposure to sodium fluoride that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects (set, in the case of sodium fluoride, by the lowest level of fluoride judged to be correlated with increased bone fracture rates and then divided by a "safety factor" of ten). The ATSDR "upper limit" of 0.023 mg/ kg/day for fluoride cited in this report takes into account the fluoride content of sodium fluoride for which the ATSDR has set an MRL of 0.05 mg/kg/day. The EPA limit ("reference dose") is based on a "no observed adverse effect level" for mottling of the teeth. The Institute of Medicine limits (tolerable upper intake limits, or UL's), which were also endorsed by the American Dental Association in 1994 and the American Dietetic Association in 2000, are set to minimize the risk of dental fluorosis but are at or near those that have been associated with mild (Institute of Medicine, 1997) or even crippling (National Research Council, 1993) skeletal fluorosis. While these upper limit recommendations have been used in formulation of a number of public health programs, the opponents of fluoridation have often critiqued and questioned the propriety of the recommendations and have called for lower limits for exposure to fluoride (see, for example, Connett et al., 2010). The problems associated with using these guidelines to develop public policy is perhaps best illustrated by the observation that the adequate daily intakes recommended by the Institute of Medicine for individuals greater than six months of age are equal to or greater than upper limits recommended by the ATSDR and the EPA. The relationships between estimated fluoride exposures of several subpopulations of Fairbanks residents consuming drinking water with 0.7 or 0.3 ppm fluoride can be analyzed with the aid of Figs. 5.4 and 5.5 (derived from Tables 5.7 and 5.8, respectively). In analyzing these data, it is important to keep in mind that the numbers represent "average" individuals and that the consumption of drinking water varies widely among individuals (Fig. 5.1). In the existing scenario (0.7 ppm fluoride in drinking water, Fig. 5.4), it is apparent that nursing infants (NI) are estimated to be exposed to daily fluoride doses well below those established by ATSDR, EPA, and IOM; those over twenty years of age (20+ YR) have exposure well below EPA and IOM upper limits and about at the limit recommended by ATSDR. However, non -nursing infants (NNI) and one to five year -olds receive daily doses significantly above the ATSDR recommendation, marginally below that recommended by EPA, and significantly below that recommended by IOM. In contrast, while drinking water with 0.3 ppm fluoride does place non -nursing infants and one to five year -olds at risk of exceeding ATSDR upper limits, the exposure of other age groups remains below the ATSDR recommendation. Furthermore, no age group risks exposure greater than the recommended upper limits of the EPA or IOM (Fig. 5.5). Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 26 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 77 D.01 O ❑ Other O Food ®Toothpaste ❑ Water NI NNI 1-2 YR 3-5 YR 20+YR Population Subgroup Figure 5.4. Estimates of fluoride exposure of individuals with 0.7 ppm fluoride in drinking water (data from Table 5.7) c O.05 f0 Y 0.04 bD E v L 3 H EL 0.03 X W W .Q 'C O LL 0.02 0.01 0 NI NNI 1-2 YR 3-5 YR 20+ YR Population Subgroup I%IW Figure 5.5. Estimates of fluoride exposure of individuals with 0.3 ppm fluoride in drinking water (data from Table 5.8). NI = nursing infant, NNI = non -nursing infant Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 1 k, 27 In addition to the officially defined upper and lower limits for exposure to fluoride, there has been a widely accepted "optimal intake" of fluoride of 0.05 to 0.07 mg/kg/day. The optimal intake was thought to be a narrow range of doses that provide protection from caries but do not cause dental fluorosis. However, recently the concept of an "optimal" intake has been called into question because of (1) the overlap in fluoride intakes of groups of children who are caries -free and groups of children diagnosed with fluorosis and (2) the high variability in individual fluoride intakes (Warren et al., 2009). Because the Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force had concerns about exposure of infants to fluoride and about the uncertainties associated with estimates of drinking water consumption, we performed some independent calculations. The results of the calculations for infants are displayed in Table 5.9. While the values in Table 5.9 are not identical with corresponding entries in Tables 5.3 through 5.5, the task force judges that they are sufficiently consistent, given the uncertainties and assumptions involved. Table 5.9. Average fluoride intake per day by non -nursing infants (mg/kg/day) Age 1 ppm F in water 0.7 ppm F in water 0.3 ppm F in water upper limit Birth o.164 0.115 0.049 0.023,'0.106 1 MO. o.161 0.113 0.048 0.023,'0.10b a MO. 0.179 0.125 0.054 0.023,'o.1ob 4 Mo. 0.130 0.091 0.039 0.023,'0.10b 8 mo. o.o8g o.o64 0.027 0.023,30.10b 10 MO. 0.070 0.049 0.021 0.023,' 0.10b 12 MO. o.o65 0.045 0.019 0.023,' 0.10b a. ATSDR b. IOM (1997) Findings The problematic relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and "fluoride dose," due to varying amounts of water consumed by individuals and to other sources of ingested fluoride, severely complicates attempts to determine both health risks and benefits associated with 0.7 ppm fluoride in drinking water. In particular, commonly available foods and beverages contain from high (greater than 2 ppm) to negligible levels of fluoride, and fluoridated toothpaste is variably used and swallowed. We believe that these factors grossly complicate interpretation of drinking water studies and explain why the numerous studies conducted have come to a variety of conclusions that, in some cases, are quite different. The concentration of fluoride in raw Fairbanks city water averages 0.3 ppm and is adjusted to 0.7 ppm in the treatment process. Because removing the fluoride from the raw water is impractical, the City of Fairbanks does not seem to have a realistic option for "fluoride free" city water (for a discussion of fluoride -removal processes see Fawell et al., 2006). Whatever benefits and detriments are caused by fluoride in drinking water will continue to a smaller degree if Fairbanks city water is no longer fluoridated. 3. Fluoride concentrations in Fairbanks area well water vary from 0.1 to greater than 1.0 ppm. Thus, some well water in the Fairbanks area contains more fluoride than fluoridated city water. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report V� b 28 4. Fluoridation of Fairbanks city water has ramifications throughout the surrounding area because of the distribution of GHU water by College Utilities and several suppliers of trucked water. 5. The practice of fluoridation as carried out in Fairbanks has sufficient safeguards to protect public health beyond whatever health effects are associated with 0.7 ppm fluoride. The chemical employed is of sufficient purity and the manner in which it is added and monitored meets or exceeds standard practices. 6. An analysis of the estimates in Tables 5.3 through 5.8 and Figures 5.4 and 5.5 indicates that two segments of the Fairbanks area population must be considered separately with respect to professional recommendations on upper limits of fluoride exposure: (1) the average consumer of GHU water (fluoride concentration of 0.7 ppm) who is greater than five years of age is projected to consume less than the daily upper limits set by the EPA and IOM and just about at the upper limit set by ATSDR, and (2) children less than six years of age (with the exception of nursing infants) are projected to have total fluoride exposures that remain below the upper limits set by IOM and EPA but exceed those of ATSDR. It appears that drinking water with a fluoride concentration of 0.3 ppm would bring total fluoride exposure for those over 20 years of age well below even the most stringent of the recommendations of upper limits (ATSDR) and would significantly reduce concerns about overexposure of infants and young children. However, due to the tremendous variability in amount of drinking water consumed by individuals, the fluoride exposures of significant portions of the population are not adequately represented by the average values. 7. Nevertheless, the estimates of Table 5.9 highlight additional concerns about fluoride exposure of non -nursing infants in their first year. 'The use of fluoridated water to make up infant formula leads to levels of fluoride consumption that exceed recommended upper limits. While the magnitude of the problem obviously declines with a decline in fluoride concentration in the water used to make up formula, the most conservative of the upper limits of fluoride exposure would be approached or exceeded even when using GHU well water (fluoride concentration averaging 0.3 ppm) to which no fluoride has been added. While bottled water would seem to be the water of choice, the data of Table 5.2 indicate that not all bottled waters available in the United States would provide this level of protection. The use of bottled water for this purpose is further complicated by the absence of information about fluoride content on the labels of most bottled water. The only certainty for consumers seems to be that the distilled water sold in supermarkets has an undetectable concentration of fluoride. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 111 29 Evaluation of Efficacy Before z000 The addition of fluoride was effective in reducing caries in those municipalities that were the subject of reports in the primary dental literature during the mid -twentieth century. The Ft. Collins report gives the historical background that led to widespread fluoridation of public water systems: In 1901, a Colorado Springs dentist recognized that his patients with teeth with a brown stain or mottled dental enamel also had a very low prevalence of cavities (also called caries) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 1999b). At this time in history, extensive dental caries were common, so this observation and its subsequent correlation with high amounts of fluoride ion in the water supply (2.0-12.0 milligrams per liter, mg/L) proved to be significant. Another dentist, H. T. Dean, DDS, took this information and conducted a survey of dental caries in relation to natural concentrations of fluoride in drinking water of 21 U.S. cities (Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs, USPHS [USPHS], 1991, pp. 18-19; CDC, 1999a, p. 934). Dean observed that at a concentration of 1 mg/L, fluoride would significantly reduce caries while causing a low incidence of mottled enamel, now called fluorosis, of the mostly very mild type. Beginning in 1945 and 1946, community trials were conducted over 13-15 years in four pairs of cities in the U.S. and Canada. These studies found a 50-70% reduction of caries in children following addition of fluoride (in the form of sodium fluoride) to community water supplies at 1 mg/L. The incidence of mild fluorosis remained low (CDC, 1999a, p. 936). Some of the early studies were criticized for lacking appropriate controls, not applying randomization, and not controlling for potential examiner bias (Sutton, 1960). However, the large effect sizes in these trials, along with replication of these findings in subsequent studies, led to the acceptance of community water fluoridation as a public health approach to caries prevention. (Fluoride Technical Study Group, 2003) Many reviews and meta -analyses, which combine the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses, support the hypothesis that water fluoridation reduces the incidence of caries. The York Report (MeDonagh et al., 2000) is a systematic review made to assess the evidence of the positive and negative effects of population -wide drinking water fluoridation strategies to prevent caries. It is a summary of 254 studies published from the mid-1960s to mid-1999, which were chosen for relevance from over 3,000 studies identified in the literature. The authors of the York Report identified five objectives to make their assessment. Their first objective was to answer the question: "What are the effects of fluoridation of drinking water supplies on the incidence of caries?" Of the 254 studies, twenty-six were relevant to this question. They are optimistic about the caries reductions caused by water fluoridation, yet cautious. The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report � �a 30 the mean change in dmft/DMFT score. The studies were of moderate quality (level B), but of limited quantity. The degree to which caries is reduced, however, is not clear from the data available. The range of the mean difference in the proportion (%) of caries -free children is —5.0 to 64%, with a median of 14.6%.... The range of mean change in dmft/DMFT score was from 0.5 to 4.4, with a median of 2.25 teeth.... It is estimated that a median of six people need to receive fluoridated water for one extra person to be caries -free.... The best available evidence from studies following withdrawal of water fluoridation indicates that caries prevalence increases, approaching the level of the low fluoride group. Again, however, the studies were of moderate quality (level B), and limited quantity. The estimates of effect could be biased due to poor adjustment for the effects of potential confounding factors. (McDonagh et al., 2000, p. xii) Their second objective was to answer the question: "If water fluoridation is shown to have beneficial effects, what is the effect over and above that offered by the use of alternative interventions and strategies?" Of the 254 studies, nine conducted after 1974 were relevant to this question. Again, their summary statement is positive toward the extra benefits of water fluoridation in the presence of other sources of fluoride: In those studies completed after 1974, a beneficial effect of water fluoridation was still evident in spite of the assumed exposure to non -water fluoride in the populations studied. The meta - regression conducted for Objective 1 confirmed this finding. (McDonagh et al., 2000, p. xii). A summary of observed effects of fluoridation on caries in children is presented in Figs. 6.1 and 6.2 (McDonagh et al., 2000, pp. 12-13). An examination of twenty-one studies, half of which were published between 1990 and 2000, came to a similar conclusion, although without as many caveats: "According to Community Guide rules of evidence, strong evidence shows that CWF (community water fluoridation) is effective in reducing the cumulative experience of dental caries within communities" (Truman et al., 2002, p. 28; see http:// www.thecommunityguide.org/index.html for more about Community Guide). A meta -analysis of twenty studies concluded that fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages (Griffin et al., 2007). Some details are worth noting. Water fluoridation was responsible for preventing 27% of the caries. Self- and professionally applied topical fluoride was responsible for the remaining 73% reduction. For studies published after 1980, fluoride from all sources annually averted 0.29 carious coronal and 0.22 carious root surfaces per person. The authors point out the value of all types of fluoride for low-income adults and the elderly, who may not be receiving routine dental care. Note that the York Report (McDonagh et al., 2000) does not support this conclusion. An epidemiological study in the United Kingdom addressed the question of differences in effect of water fluoridation over a range of socioeconomic groups (Riley et al., 1999). They conclude that water fluoridation reduced dental caries more in materially deprived wards than in affluent wards. In addition, the introduction of community water fluoridation substantially reduced inequalities in dental health. This conclusion is supported to an extent in the York Report (McDonagh et al., 2000, p. xii), although with considerable caution due to the low quality of the evidence and the general lack of variance Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 1 -12 31 Adriasola (1959) Ast (1951) Beal (1971) Beal (i 981) DHSS (1969) Scotland DHSS (1969) Wales DHSS (1969) England Gray (1999) Guo (1984) Kunzel (1997) Adriasola (1959) Beal (1981) Beal (1981) DHSS (1969) Guo (1984) Guo (1984) Kunzel (1997) Kunzel (1997) Adriasola (1959) Beal (1981) DHSS (1969) England DHSS (1969) Wales Guo (1984) Kunzel (1997) DHSS (1969) England DHSS (1969) Wales Guo (1984) Kunzel (1997) Brown (1965) Brown (1965) -20 Favours non -fluoridated ❑ 5 year olds ❑ 15 year olds NisM_370 UMN 7-_M —J 0 20 40 Favours fluoridated ❑ 8 year olds 9-12 year olds 60 EJ 12 year olds ® 12-14 year olds 80 1 Figure 6.i. The mean difference of the change in the proportion (%) of caries -free children in the exposed (fluoride) group compared with the control group (low fluoride), for all ages extracted (color coded by age), for studies in which fluoridation was initiated after the baseline survey (McDonagh et al., 2000, p. u) Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 32 lor M Mr Beal (1981) Guo (1984) Kunzel (1997) Beal (198 1) Beal (1981) Guo (1984) Guo (1984) ED Kunzel (1997) Kunzel (1997) Beal (198 1) Guo 0 984) Kunzel (1997) Guo 0 984) Kunzel (1997) Brown 0 965) Brown (1965) -1 0 1 3 5 Favours non -fluoridated Favours fluoridated El 5 year olds El 8 year olds El 12 year olds M 15 year olds IN 9-12 year olds M 12-14 year olds Figure 6.2. Change in dmft/DMFT Score (mean difference and 95% CO (McDonagh et al., 2000, P. 13) Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 33 estimates in the fifteen studies. To objective 3, "Does water fluoridation result in a reduction of caries across social groups and between geographical locations, bringing equity?", their response was There appears to be some evidence that water fluoridation reduces the inequalities in dental health across social classes in 5 and 12 year -olds, using the dmft/DMFT measure. This effect was not seen in the proportion of caries -free children among 5 year -olds. The data for the effects in children of other ages did not show an effect. The small quantity of studies, differences between these studies, and their low quality rating, suggest caution in interpreting these results. McDonagh et al., 2000, p. xii) It is apparently difficult to design and execute good studies to test the hypothesis that fluoridation of public water systems decreases the incidence of caries. Questions have been raised on a regular basis about the design and analysis of studies investigating the efficacy of municipal water fluoridation for the reduction of caries incidence. Concerns about experimental design and examiner bias were raised long ago (Sutton, 1960). The York Report (McDonagh et al., 2000), a meta -analysis of 214 studies published before 2000, presented relatively positive results for efficacy, with many caveats. In particular, they note the general lack of analysis, lack of control for potentially confounding factors, and the lack of any measure of variance for the estimates of decay. The difficulties of an accurate analysis and interpretation of data from a large and carefully designed longitudinal trial have been pointed out, with the observation made that "our analysis shows no convincing effect of fluoride - intake on caries development" in the permanent first molars in children between 7 and 12 years of age (Komarek et al., 2005, p. 145). Equally important to the critical evaluation of the efficacy of water fluoridation to prevention of caries is "The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay," which was reported in the journal Nature (Diesendorf, 1986). He notes in summary that "large temporal reductions in tooth decay, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, have been observed in both unfluoridated and fluoridated areas of at least eight developed countries over the past thirty years" (p. 125). The magnitude of the reductions observed in unfluoridated areas were generally comparable with those observed in fluoridated areas over similar periods. In his discussion of the why's of the reductions, the author emphasized the literature that suggests changes in diet, immunity, and perhaps topical fluoride exposure with time are more likely candidates than fluoridated municipal water. The magnitude of the decrease in tooth decay is demonstrated in World Health Organization data, which was put into graphical form (Fig. 6.3) for the antifluoridation Fluoride Action Network (FAN) (Osmunson, 2010b). The European experience has been one of generally decreasing DMFT scores. This is reported for fluoridated regions, nonfluoridated regions, and regions where fluoridation has been discontinued. In East Germany, the introduction of water fluoridation in Spremberg and Zittau brought about caries reduction averaging 48%. Surprisingly, caries levels for the twelve -year -olds of both towns significantly decreased following the cessation of water fluoridation (Kunzel et al., 2000). In Spremberg, DMFT fell from 2.4 to 1.4 (-40 %) and in Zittau from 2.5 to 2.0 (-20%). In Tiel (The Netherlands), where water fluoridation was discontinued in 1973, DMFS scores varied somewhat less consistently. The mean DMFS score increased between 1968/1969 and 1979/1980 from 10.8 to 12.7 (+18%) and then decreased to 9.6 (-26%) in 1987/1988. Overall the mean DMFS score decreased by 11% from 1968/1969, when water was fluoridated, to 1987/1988, when the town water had been Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 34 G] 8 II v v c s 6 a _ 5 LL o` d, c 4 N X v �3 v 0 LL 2 0 1 Tooth Decay Trends: Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries Data from the World Health Organization, http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/ Graph produced by Chris Neu rath, FAN ----------------------------- ---------------- e. ----- -----\--- -- ------------------------- -- ---- ----------------------- -------------------- I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 4- 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year UNFLUORIDATED -� - Austria Belgium -,A Denmark Finland -- France —0- Germany - Iceland �- Italy -— Japan Figure 6.3. Tooth decay trends internationally in countries with fluoridated vs. un fluoridated water Netherlands Norway Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom FLUORIDATED Australia Ireland New Zealand United States unfluoridated for fourteen years. In Culemborg, where the water was never fluoridated, the mean DMFS score decreased from 27.7 in 1968/1969 to 7.7 in 1987/1988. This decrease of 72% occurred with no fluoridation of the public water supply (Kalsbeek et al., 1993). Presuming the application of existing preventive measures, the question as to whether water fluoridation would have had an additional effect if it had been continued cannot be answered, because no communities in The Netherlands now fluoridate water. Evaluation of Efficacy After z000 A recent review of community water fluoridation and caries prevention considers only recent data (Pizzo et al., 2007). Using MEDLINE as the primary database, the authors reviewed articles published from January 2001 to June 2006. They conclude that community water fluoridation is not necessary for caries prevention in modern, industrialized societies. Because the primary cariostatic action of fluoride occurs after tooth eruption, the use of topical fluoride is a more effective approach in communities where caries levels have become low. This line of thought is noted in a recent analysis published in the British Medical Journal (Cheng et al., 2007). The average number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth in twelve -year -old children in a number of European countries is near 1.5, and half of children have no cavities. There is no correlation in the downward trends with degree of Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 111 35 water fluoridation. Pizzo and coworkers are cautious, however, and these cautions may be germane in Fairbanks. They state that "water fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure in populations where oral hygiene conditions are poor, lifestyle results in high caries incidence, and access to a well -functioning oral health care system is limited" (p. 192). An evaluation of three reviews culled from fifty-nine publications published between 2000 and 2008 resulted in positive support for the effectiveness of water fluoridation in prevention of dental caries (Parnell et al., 2009). Two of the reviews have been discussed previously and they include mostly older literature (McDonagh et al., 2000; Griffin et al., 2007). The third review (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2007) identified one systematic review (Truman et al., 2002) and one cessation study (Seppa et al., 2000) published since the York Report (McDonagh et al., 2000). As noted above, the Truman study was strongly positive toward water fluoridation. In contrast, the Seppa study showed no evidence of increased caries when a previously fluoridated town reverted to nonfluoridated water. Parnell et al. concluded that the two new studies do not change the findings of the York Report that "the existing body of evidence strongly suggests that water fluoridation is beneficial at reducing dental caries" (p. 143). A recent, somewhat indirect, study makes an association between lack of water fluoridation and inclusion of Nevada youth in the high caries prevalence group (Ditmyer et al., 2010). For adolescents in the study group (the 30% highest DMFT scores, DMFT > 4.0), 27.3% lived in a water -fluoridated community. For the control group (caries free, DMFT score = 0), 64.7% lived in a water -fluoridated community. Thus, participants living in nonfluoridated communities were almost twice as likely to be in the highest DMFT group as those living in fluoridated communities. Discussions of efficacy may sometimes revolve around the mode of action of fluoride in optimally fluoridated water. The theoretical mechanism by which fluoride prevents caries has undergone significant revision since the introduction of community water fluoridation. The original systemic theory was that fluoride had to be ingested to incorporate into tooth mineral during its development (Dean et al., 1942). By the 1970s, doubts emerged regarding the exclusively pre -eruptive effect of fluoride. Numerous clinical studies suggested that fluoride action is predominantly post -eruptive (topical). While there are conflicting results, most recent epidemiological and laboratory studies indicate that topical application of fluoride plays the dominant role in caries prevention (CDC 20011 Hellwig and Lennon, 2004). Fluoride's effect depends on its being in the right amount in the right place at the right time. It works primarily after teeth have erupted, especially when small amounts are maintained constantly in the mouth, specifically in dental plaque and saliva. The fluoride in saliva aids in enamel remineralization in enamel lesions by inducing apatite formation from calcium and phosphate ions present in saliva (Fejerskov et al., 1981). The effectiveness of toothpaste in decreasing the prevalence of caries is particularly clear. When introduced into the mouth, fluoride in toothpaste is taken up directly by dental plaque and demineralized enamel. Brushing with fluoride toothpaste increases the fluoride concentration in saliva 100- to 1,000-fold for one to two hours. Some of this salivary fluoride is taken up by dental plaque. The ambient fluoride concentration in saliva and plaque can increase during regular use of fluoride toothpaste (CDC, 2001). Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 36 In its recommendations, the CDC (2001) makes a strong argument supporting the topical mode of action in caries prevention. That said, they report that people living in communities with optimally fluoridated water who also use topical fluoride on a regular basis have a lower incidence of caries than people who use only optimally fluoridated drinking water or who only use topical fluoride. Thus the mode of action has been established in the modern literature as predominantly topical. Yet the epidemiological evidence, at least as reported a decade ago by CDC, still shows an empirical effect for fluoride in drinking water. Drinking fluoridated water prevents caries. When fluoridated water is the main source of drinking water, a low concentration of fluoride is routinely introduced into the mouth. Some of this fluoride is taken up by dental plaque; some is transiently present in saliva, which serves as a reservoir for plaque fluoride; and some is loosely held on the enamel surfaces. Frequent consumption of fluoridated drinking water and beverages and food processed in fluoridated areas maintains the concentration of fluoride in the mouth. (CDC 2001) Thus, although the mode of action for fluoride in drinking water was initially thought to be systemic, its true action is predominantly topical in caries prevention, as is the action of the fluoride present in toothpaste, supplements, mouth rinse, and professionally applied gels and varnishes. Publications and a federal proposal made even in the past year show that the jury is very much `out' with respect to questions about the efficacy of community water fluoridation at 1 ppm fluoride and about the benefit -to -risk assessment. • A proponent of community water fluoridation has recently written of the existing uncertainties associated with the efficacy of community water fluoridation (Newbrun, 201.0). These include the effect of reducing the concentration of fluoride below 1 ppm, the expected result of discontinuing community water fluoridation in a community, and the role of socioeconomic factors in the importance of continuing water fluoridation. • On January 7, 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a proposal recommending that water systems practicing fluoridation adjust their fluoride content to 0.7 ppm, as opposed to the previous temperature -dependent optimal levels ranging from 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/201lpres/Ol./20110107a.html, accessed January 27, 2011). • An opponent of community water fluoridation has noted the 15% difference in the proportion of caries -free children reported in the York Report and the 20% to 40% reduction in tooth decay reported by the American Dental Association (Thiessen, 2009a). She has no apparent objection to the numerical accuracy. However, she does put these values in context: "which would translate to < 1 decayed, missing, or filled permanent tooth (DMFT) in older children and adolescents (based on U.S. data from CDC 2005). Is this adequate justification for imposing inadequately characterized risks?" (Thiessen, 2009a, p. 3). Findings 1. There has never been a double blind, randomized, long-term study of the effectiveness of community water fluoridation on decreasing the incidence of caries. Nor has there been a comparable study on the effect of discontinuing water fluoridation on the incidence of caries. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 37 l C� 2. The degree of caries reduction due to community water fluoridation was large and significant in the first decades that it was done. In recent decades, the degree of caries reduction attributed to community water fluoridation has decreased as other sources of fluoride have come into common use and as effective dental health measures have become more prevalent. The relative importance of water fluoridation is currently much smaller, more variable among populations, and perhaps unknowable. 3. The problematic relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and "fluoride dose" (due to varying amounts of water consumed by individuals and to other sources of ingested fluoride) severely complicates attempts to determine both health risks and benefits associated with 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water. In particular, at this time commonly available foods and beverages range from high (greater than 2 ppm) to negligible fluoride content, and fluoridated toothpaste is variably swallowed. We believe that these factors grossly complicate interpretation of drinking water studies and explain why the numerous studies conducted have come to a variety of different conclusions. 4. Studies of the relative effectiveness of community water fluoridation among socioeconomic groups give contradictory results. Dietary habits, dental hygiene, and intervention by health/dental providers are independent factors that confound the investigation of the efficacy of fluoridation of water on caries prevalence. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report N� 38 M Introduction Fluoride can clearly lead to adverse health effects in humans. However, as for most chemicals, the dose that one is exposed to is a critical factor in determining the effect(s). For example, many drugs with therapeutic benefit are toxic at higher -than -recommended doses. Further, some drugs may have a very narrow window of therapeutic benefit. That is, the dose at which the drug provides benefit may be only slightly lower than the dose leading to ill effects. We focused primarily on studies that examined the effects on humans of drinking water with fluoride concentrations of less than 2 ppm (or 2 mg/Q. In Fairbanks (Golden Heart Utilities), the water is fluoridated to a concentration of 0.7 ppm. One challenge in understanding possible adverse effects is that, depending on water consumption and other possible sources of fluoride exposure (such as toothpaste or heavy tea consumption), individuals may be exposed to widely different doses of fluoride. Another challenge is that the average expected dose may also vary by age (an infant receiving most nutrition from formula reconstituted with fluoridated water vs. an infant who is breast fed), health (for example, patients with kidney problems vs. people with normal kidney function), or other confounding factors. In this section we rely heavily on several comprehensive review studies. Notably, we frequently cite the ' 2006 National Research Council (NRC) report by the Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scienti6c Review ofEPA's Standards. Although the purpose of this well - researched report was to determine if the Environmental Protection Agency's drinking water standard of 4 ppm maximum allowable concentration for fluoride protects the public from harmful effects of fluoride, the report also provides valuable information about possible effects of drinking water containing lower concentrations of fluoride, such as those found in Golden Heart Utilities water. We supplemented information from this report with other comprehensive reviews and with refereed literature, particularly those papers published since the NRC report came out in 2006. Dental Fluorosis Dental fluorosis, a mottling and/or pitting of the tooth surface due to fluoride exposure, develops in children during tooth formation when exposure to excess fluoride leads to disruption of the crystalline -enamel structure. Fluoride has a strong affinity for developing pre -eruptive enamel, leading to integration of fluoride into the crystal lattice. Teeth appear to be most susceptible to fluorosis at early maturation stages, which vary for different tooth types. For example, central incisors of the upper jaw are most susceptible at age 15 to 24 months for boys and age 21 to 30 months for girls (Fluoride Recommendations Work Group, 2001). Infants primarily ingesting formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, even at concentrations recommended for municipal systems, may receive doses of fluoride that could lead to more than mild *%,e fluorosis or possibly other adverse health effects from fluoride. For example, a recent study (Levy et Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 39 al., 2010) found that participants with fluorosis of permanent incisors (generally rated as mild) had significantly greater intake of fluoride from reconstituted powdered infant formula or other beverages with added water than those without fluorosis. The clinical implication suggested by the authors is that avoiding ingestion of formula or other drinks mixed with fluoridated water can reduce the likelihood of fluorosis. Due to the increased risk of fluorosis for non -nursing infants, in 2007 the American Dental Association (ADA) made an interim recommendation that infant formula be reconstituted with water that is fluoride -free or containing low levels of fluoride (ADA, http://www.ada.org/1767.aspx). In January 2011, the ADA rescinded the interim recommendation and issued a new recommendation based on research by the ADAs Council on Scientific Affairs (Berg et al., 2011). The new recommendations "for infants who consume reconstituted infant formula as the main source of nutrition" are (1) "Continue use of liquid or powdered concentrate infant formulas reconstituted with optimally fluoridated drinking water while being cognizant of the potential risk for enamel fluorosis" and (2) "Use ready -to -feed formula or liquid or powdered concentrate formula reconstituted with water that is either fluoride -free or has low concentrations of fluoride when the potential risk for enamel fluorosis is a concern." These "evidence -based" recommendations were ranked by the ADA as being "based on lower levels of evidence" (ADA, http://ebd.ada.org/contentdocs/ADA_Evidence- based_Infant_Formula_Chairside_Guide.pdf). The results of fluoride exposure on developing teeth range from mild discoloration to highly stained and pitted teeth, depending on the concentration of fluoride and to a certain degree the susceptibility of the individual (NRC, 2006; Fagin, 2008). Severe enamel fluorosis characterized by pitting results in teeth that are very susceptible to dental caries. Severe fluorosis is estimated to occur at a rate of about 10% among children drinking water at the current EPA maximum allowable fluoride concentration (4 ppm) (NRC, 2006). The incidence of severe dental fluorosis is near zero where fluoride in water is below 2 ppm (NRC, 2006). But fluoride ingestion at levels commonly used to fluoridate water (1 ppm) can lead to mild to moderate levels of fluorosis. In its mildest form, fluorosis leads to opaque areas on the teeth. Estimates in the literature on the incidence of fluorosis vary, but it can be expected that at least 30% of school -aged children who consume water with between 0.7 and 1.2 ppm fluoride will have very mild or more severe dental fluorosis (Heller et al., 1997). A more recent study reported that the incidence of fluorosis has increased since the 1980s, and an analysis of data from 1999 to 2004 found that the prevalence of dental fluorosis in adolescents aged 12 to 15 is 41% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010b). This condition has not been linked to other adverse health effects (Fagin, 2008). However, even mild fluorosis is considered by some to be of cosmetic concern. Since fluorosis cannot be reversed, treatment requires costly cosmetic dentistry where teeth are coated to hide the effects. For slightly older children (16 to 36 months), fluorosis risk increases with higher fluoridated toothpaste ingestion. To avoid fluorosis, it is recommended that ingestion of toothpaste should be reduced through parental supervision and using only a small smear of toothpaste when brushing (Levy et al., 2010). There are challenges to determining the relationship between fluorosis and dental caries. One challenge is consistent diagnosis of mild dental fluorosis, which is subjectively rated using various rating scales. Another challenge is that there is some evidence that fluoride delays the eruption of permanent teeth, thus affecting studies comparing caries rates in children of different age groups Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report Mej exposed to varying fluoride concentrations (NRC, 2006). A final challenge that affects all studies ,,. linking water fluoridation to both positive and negative health effects is that the concentration in water can lead to widely different individual doses, depending on water consumption and exposure to other sources of fluoride. Bone Effects and Skeletal Fluorosis Since about 50% of ingested fluoride not excreted is deposited in bone, and 99% of the fluoride in a human body is contained in the skeleton (cited in Bassin et al., 2006), a number of studies have examined the effects of fluoride on bone. Ingestion of fluoride at very high concentrations results in thickened bone and can lead to bone deformities (skeletal fluorosis). Debilitating skeletal fluorosis is rare in the U.S. (NRC, 2006), and there is no evidence that ingestion of fluoride at levels used to treat drinking water leads to significant skeletal fluorosis. However, exposure to fluoride at relatively high concentrations has been linked to an increased risk of bone fractures because fluoride incorporation, while increasing bone density, also leads to a decrease in bone strength. The Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water (NRC, 2006) found that people consuming drinking water containing 4 ppm or greater fluoride over their lifetime had an increased risk of bone fractures. However, they could not reach a conclusion about the relationship between consumption of water containing lower concentrations of fluoride and risk of bone fractures. there are a number of studies on the relationship between fluoride consumption and bone fractures. Interestingly, since fluoride is known to increase bone density, treating patients at risk of osteoporosis with fluoride was once a clinically accepted strategy. However, studies suggesting, at best, no protection against fractures and a high level of side effects have led to a decline in fluoride treatment (Vestergaard et al., 2008). Studies are confounded by factors that include the possibility that fluoride may affect different bones differently (NRC, 2006). Two comprehensive reviews of the literature have concluded that there is no clear association between hip fractures (either positive or negative) or osteoporosis and water fluoridation (McDonagh et al., 2000; Yeung, 2008). Overall, the data suggesting an increased risk of bone fractures in populations drinking fluoridated water in the concentration range recommended for drinking water are not conclusive. Cancer the potential link between fluoride and cancer, most specifically osteosarcoma, is an area of recent controversy. Since fluoride incorporates readily into developing bone and increases the proliferation of osteoblasts, it has been hypothesized that there could be a link between fluoride and osteosarcoma. Published studies have drawn different conclusions about whether or not there is a relationship, in part complicated by the relative rarity of this type of cancer. But several studies have indicated a potential link, including a 1990 study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (Bucher et al., 1991). In this study, where rats were exposed to high levels of fluoride, there appeared to be a relationship between osteosarcoma frequency in male rats and the level of exposure to fluoride. A more recent paper by Bassin et al. (2006) on humans used a case -control approach to assess the patient history of 103 patients with osteosarcoma matched with 215 controls. The authors concluded "our exploratory analysis found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 41 -2> childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males but not consistently among females." Interestingly, Dr. Bassin's PhD supervisor, Chester Douglass, challenged the data in a rebuttal published in the same issue of the journal that the Bassin et al. paper appeared (Douglass and Joshipura, 2006). In that rebuttal he suggested that a paper was forthcoming with more extensive data that would show no link. To date, no such paper has been published. Our task force committee chair contacted Dr. Douglass by e-mail to try to get more information. Dr. Douglass was not forthcoming with information, only stating that: "A paper has been submitted to a scientific journal for publication. 'Ihank you for your interest." A literature search in late November 2010 did not find a publication on this topic by Dr. Douglass. While the Bassin paper is intriguing, the authors admit that the results are in contrast to several other case control studies (see Bassin et al., 2006) that found no link between fluoride consumption and osteosarcoma. They were careful to outline limitations to their preliminary study, including lack of data on actual consumption of fluoride by their subjects, lack of data on other potential unidentified factors, and selection bias. The authors cautiously referred to their study as "exploratory" and urged that "further research is required to confirm or refute this observation." Unfortunately, as of 2010 it appears that no more comprehensive studies have been published that might shed light on a possible link between fluoride consumption and osteosarcoma. We find that although there may be such a link, the data published to date suggesting a link are limited and published studies are conflicting in their conclusions. 'This conclusion is supported by comprehensive reviews of the literature (Yeung, 2008; McDonagh et al., 2000), which both concluded that there is no clear association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence and mortality. Other Effects Endocrine Effects: Fluoride exposure has been shown to affect some endocrine glands and may function as an endocrine disruptor. Although fluoride is generally not thought to accumulate in soft tissues, there is evidence that it may accumulate in the thyroid where exposure can lead to decreased thyroid function. According to the NRC's Fluoride in Drinking Water report (2006), many effects of low -dose fluoride exposure may be "subclinical effects, meaning there are no adverse health effects." However, they also point out that "borderline hormonal imbalances" might lead to an increased risk of adverse health effects. their report concluded that studies to date on the effects of fluoride on endocrine function have limitations and that further research is needed to explore the possible connections between fluoride, particularly at low doses, and endocrine function. Additional research is important since there is some indication that concentrations of fluoride in drinking water of 4 ppm or less may affect endocrine function in "young children" or in "individuals with high water intake." Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral Effects: A number of studies have reported changes to the nervous system following fluoride exposure that could lead to functional effects. Of the neurobehavioral studies, epidemiological studies suggesting a link between fluoride exposure and cognitive abilities are of particular interest. For example, several Chinese studies have consistently reported lower IQs in children drinking water containing 2.5 to 4 ppm fluoride (e.g., see NRC, 2006). The mechanism of the action of fluoride on IQis not clear (Tang et al., 2008) but could be related to changes in membrane lipids in brain cells or to effects of fluoride on thyroid activity. It is unclear how the Chinese studies relate to U.S. populations, since U.S. populations are generally Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 1,ZL� 42 M exposed to drinking water with less than 2.5 ppm and there may be other confounding factors *Irr affecting the Chinese communities studied. Although the NRC's Fluoride in Drinking Water committee (2006) did not include neurological effects on their list of adverse effects not protected by the current EPA maximum allowable concentration for fluoride in drinking water, they did strongly advise that because of the "consistency of the results" in studies, such as those conducted on Chinese populations, additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence and on other neurological processes is warranted. A literature search conducted in December 2010 did not find published results that provide new information. It appears that there is reasonably good evidence that fluoride in drinking water at concentrations above 4 ppm may have neurological effects, including an effect on cognitive abilities. But the effects, if any, at lower concentrations of fluoride are not clear. Effects on Other Organ Systems: Other systems that may be affected by fluoride exposure include the gastrointestinal system, kidneys, liver, and immune system. The NRC committee (2006) found a lack of well -documented studies on humans exposed to drinking water at 4 ppm or less for all of these systems. They concluded that the risk of adverse effects was likely to be low for most individuals drinking water with fluoride at 4 ppm but that there is a possibility of adverse effects in particular subpopulations such as those with renal impairment. In an apparent response to the possibility of an increased risk of adverse health effects for renal -impaired patients, the National Kidney Foundation recently changed its position on fluoridated water from "safe" to "takes no position" and "further research is needed" (www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf). Findings 1. The problematic relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and "fluoride dose" (due to varying amounts of water consumed by individuals and to other sources of ingested fluoride) severely complicates attempts to determine both health risks and benefits associated with 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water. In particular, at this time commonly available foods and beverages range from high (greater than 2 ppm) to negligible fluoride content, and fluoridated toothpaste is variably swallowed. We believe that these factors grossly complicate interpretation of drinking water studies and explain why the numerous studies conducted have come to a variety of different conclusions. 2. The only commonly agreed -upon adverse effect related to drinking water with 1 ppm fluoride is mild dental fluorosis. Although debate continues concerning the quality of the studies, there are a large number that report deleterious effects from elevated fluoride in drinking water. On the other hand, numerous communities around the world use drinking water with natural fluoride concentrations of 1 ppm with no obvious ill effects, aside from mild dental fluorosis. 3. A fluoride concentration in water of 4 ppm is not protective for several adverse effects, including bone effects. That means that at best there is only a safety factor of about six for persons drinking Fairbanks water fluoridated to 0.7 ppm. 4. Although there may be a link between fluoride and osteosarcoma, the data published to date suggesting a link are limited and published studies are conflicting in their conclusions. 5. Fluoridated water is not recommended for all consumers. Recently several organizations have expressed concern about using fluoridated water to reconstitute infant formula. Consequently, the American Dental Association has recommended that parents of infants who primarily consume Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 43 reconstituted formula consult with their health care providers about the potential risks of using fluoridated water to make up infant formula. Despite those recommendations and cautions, pediatricians in the Fairbanks area (polled by committee member Dr. Medford) were not aware of these recommendations. The National Kidney Foundation has also changed its position on fluoridated water from "safe" to "takes no position" and "further research is needed." Research on possible adverse effects of drinking fluoridated water (at concentrations less than 2 ppm) on the endrocrine glands, nervous system, or other organ systems has showed mixed results, with many studies showing no effects. However, studies involving extensive review of the literature (e.g., McDonagh et al., 2000; NRC, 2006) recommend that more high -quality research is warranted. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 1IZL 44 One of the public policy arguments put forward for fluoridation of public water supplies has been that it reduces disparities in dental health among populations. The argument goes that, if fluoridated water reduces the incidence of caries, it seems reasonable that the availability of fluoridated water for an entire community should provide particular benefit to those with the greatest risk of developing caries. This argument has been strongly put forward by professional organizations and government officials, including former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher who "noted that water fluoridation is a powerful strategy in efforts to eliminate health disparities among populations" (ADA, 2005, p. 46). For decades it has been noted that members of lower socioeconomic categories have significantly higher rates of caries than those who are more fortunate (Kozol, 1992; CDC, 201.0a), so fluoridation should provide particularly valuable benefits to these groups. The refereed literature contains numerous reports that support (for example, Riley et al., 1999; Jones and Worthington, 2000) and refute this proposal (for example, Bradnock et al., 1984; Carmichael et al., 1989). McDonough et al. (2000) could reach no clear consensus on whether this public policy argument is valid, and shortly thereafter Cohen and Locker (2001) concluded that there is "little evidence that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health" (p. 579). However, the most recent reviews of the matter tend to be guardedly positive (Cheng et al., 2007; Pizzo et al., 2007; Parnell et al., 2009; Newbrun, 2010). Newbrun's review provides a good example of the dilemma. It cites evidence in support of the proposition but concludes by stating, "whether fluoridation reduces disparities in caries is a continuing research question." Arguments that members of lower socioeconomic groups disproportionately benefit from fluoridation of public water supplies raise questions about the existence of evidence that these groups also bear elevated risk of adverse effects from consuming fluoridated water. While the task force could find no good evidence on this topic, it does note that there is documentation that breast-feeding rates among mothers from lower socioeconomic groups are lower than those of their more affluent counterparts (Scanlon et al., 2010).1hus the task force's concerns about the exposure of formula -fed infants to fluoride (see Chapter 5) are particularly directed toward those from lower socioeconomic groups. Finding Although claims are made both that the detriments and the benefits of fluoridated water are greater for those in lower socioeconomic status, documentation of this is not conclusive. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 1�o 45 the proponents of water fluoridation continue to tout its cost effectiveness. For example, both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2010a) and the American Dental Association (ADA, 2005) claim that the fluoridation of public water supplies in the United States costs between approximately $0.50 and $3.00 per person per year and provides something on the order of $40 per person in annual benefits (decreased costs of dental care) for every dollar invested. However, both costs and benefits are very difficult to identify and quantify in any generally agreed upon and reliable way, so there is widespread disagreement about the legitimacy of any of these estimates. In Fairbanks, the only clearly quantifiable cost of the water fluoridation program is the annual GHU expenditure for sodium fluorosilicate, which is $10,000 to $12,000 per year. The additional indirect costs to GHU for handling the material, adding it to the water, and monitoring the concentration of fluoride in the distributed water are difficult to estimate but are probably negligible in that these duties are incorporated into the work schedules of employees who dedicate the majority of their time and effort to other responsibilities. Similarly, while there are real costs associated with the purchase, operation, and maintenance of equipment used in the fluoridation process, those costs have never been documented but are probably modest. If GHU discontinues its fluoridation process, it will have to adjust its protocol for conditioning the distributed water. While the task force did not investigate the projected costs of the required changes (mostly focused on maintenance of an appropriate pH), it seems likely that they will not be significant. No attempts have been made to quantify indirect medical and dental costs or benefits resulting from the fluoridation of Fairbanks water. Finding there is little in the way of reliable data that can be used to estimate the cost of fluoridating Fairbanks' water or the net savings or costs associated with discontinuing the existing fluoridation process. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report =a, 46 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (2010). "07-01-2010 Fluoride Information Request (Raw Water)." Online at www,ci.fairbanks.ak.us/boardscommissions/ fluoridetaskforce/ fluoridetaskforceexposure.php. American Dental Association (ADA) (2005). Fluoridation Facts. Chicago: ADA. Armfield, J. M. (2007). When Public Action Undermines Public Health: A Critical Examination of Anifluoridationist Literature. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 4:25ff. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Online at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index. html. Accessed March 14, 2011. Bassin, E. B., Wypij, D., Davis, R. B., and Mittleman, M. A. (2006). Age -specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes Control 17:421-428. DOI 10.1007/ s10552-005-0500-6. Berg, J., C. Gerweck, P. P. Hujoel, R. King, D. M. K.rol, J. Kumar, S. Levy, H. Pollick, G. M. Whitford, S. Strock, K. Aravamudhan, J. Frantsve-Hawley, and D. M. Meyer (2011). Evidence -based clinical recommendations regarding fluoride intake from reconstituted infant formula and enamel fluorosis. j Am. Dent. Assoc. 142:79-87. Bethke, C. M. (1996). Geochemical Reaction Modeling. New York: Oxford Press. Block, L. E. (1986). Antifluoridationists Persist: The Constitutional Basis for Fluoridation. J Public Health Dent. 46(4):188-198. Bradnock, G., Marchment, M., and Anderson, R. (1984). Social Background, Fluoridation and Caries Experience in 5 Year Old Population. Br. Dent. J 156:127-1.31. British Fluoridation Society (2010). One in a Million -The FactsAbout Water Fluoridation (2"' ed.). Manchester, UK: British Fluoridation Society. Online at www.bfsweb.org/onemilliori/oneminion.htm. Bryson, C. (2004). The Fluoride Deception. New York: Severn Stories Press. Bucher, J. R., Hejtmancik, M. R., Toft, J. D. II, Persing, R. L., Eustis, S. L., and Haseman, J. K. (1991). Results and Conclusions of the National Toxicology Program's Rodent Carcinogenicity Studies with Sodium Fluoride. Int. J. Cancer 48:733-737. Carmichael, C., Rugg -Gunn, A., and Ferrell, R. (1989). The Relationship Between Fluoridation, Social Class and Caries Experience in 5 Year Old Children in Newcastle and Northumberland in 1987 Brr, Dent. J. 167:57-61. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2010a). Community Water Fluoridation: Cost Savings of Community Water Fluoridation. Online at www.cdc.gov/fiuoridation/f"`act-sheets/cost.htm. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2010b). Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004. NCHS Data Brief No. 53. Online at www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databrief/ db53 pdf. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 50(RR14):1-42. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (1999a). Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48(41):933-940. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (1999b). Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay -Louisiana, 1995-6. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48(34):753-757. Cheng, K. K., Chalmers, K.., and Sheldon, T. A. (2007). Adding Fluoride to Water Supplies. BMJ335:699-702. Cohen, H., and Locker, D. (2001). The Science and Ethics of Water Fluoridation. J Can. Dent. Assoc. 67(10):578-580. Colquhoun, J. (1998). Why I Changed My Mind about Water Fluoridation. Fluoride 31(2):103-118. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 47 Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs, United States Public Health Service (1991). Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks: Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs, U.S. Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services. Online at http://health.gov/environment/ReviewofFliioride/` Connett, P., Beck, J., and Micklem, H. S. (2010). The Case Against Fluoride. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing. Cox, G. J., Matuschak, M. C., Dixon, S. F., Dodds, M. L., and Walker, W. E. (1939). Experimental Dental Caries IV. Fluorine and Its Relation to Dental Caries. J. Dent. Res. 57:481-490. Cross, D. W., and Carton, R. J. (2003). Fluoridation: A Violation of Medical Ethics and Human Rights. Int, J. Occup. &Environ. Health 9(1):24-29. Dean, H. T., Arnold, F. A., and Elvove, E. (1942). Domestic Water and Dental Caries. Public Health Report 57:1155-1179. Dean, H. T., Arnold Jr., F. A., and Elvove, E. (1941). Domestic Water and Dental Caries. Public Health Report 56:761-792. Diesendorf, Mark (1986). The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature, July 10, pp. 125-29. Ditmyer, Marcia, Dounis, Georgia, Mobley, Connie, and Schwarz, Eli (2010). A Case -control Study of Determinants for High and Low Dental Caries Prevalence in Nevada Youth. BMC Oral Health 10:24. Online at www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6831/10/24. Douglass, C. W., and Joshipura, K. (2006). Caution Needed in Fluoride and Osteosarcoma Study. Cancer Causes Control 17:481-482. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2000). Estimated Per Capita Water Ingestion in the United States (EPA 822-R-00-008). Online at water.epa.gov/action/.../ZOOS OS 06_criteria _drinking percapita_Textpdf. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2004). Estimated Per Capita Water Ingestion and Body Weight in the United States -An Update. (EPA-822-R-00-001). Online at www.epa.gov/waterscience%riteria/ drinking/percapita/2004. pdf. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2010). Fluorine (Soluble Fluoride) (CASRN 7782-41-4). Online at www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0053.htm. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2011). EPA proposes to withdraw sufuryl fluoride tolerances (http:// www.epa.gov/pesticides/sulfuryl-fluoride%valuations,html) Fagin, D. (2008). Second Thoughts About Fluoride. Sci. Am. 298(1):74-81. Fawell, J., Bailey, K., Chilton, J., Dahi, E., Fewtrell, L., and Magara, Y. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking -water. World Health Organization. London: IWA Publishing. Featherstone, J. D. B. (2000). The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 131(7):887-899. Federal -Provincial -Territorial Committee on Drinking Water (2009). Fluoride in Drinking Water -Draft For Public Consultation. Online at www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/consult/ 2009/fluoride-fluorure/draft-ebauche- eng.php). Fejerskov, O., Thylstrup, A., and Larsen, M. J. (1981). Rational Use of Fluoride in Caries Prevention: A Concept Based on Possible Cariostatic Mechanisms. Acta Odontol Scand. 39:241-249, Fluoride Recommendations Work Group (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 50 (RR14):1-42. Online at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5Ol4al.htm. Fluoride Technical Study Group (2003). Report of the Fort Collins Fluoride Technical Study Group. Online at http://www.healthdistrict.org/fluoridereport/FTSG.htm. Freni, S. C. (1994). Exposure to High Fluoride Concentrations in Drinking Water is Associated with Decreased Birth Rates. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 42:109-121. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 48 LWA Graham, R. J., and Morin, P J. (1999). Highlights in North American Litigation During the Twentieth %4w Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies. J. Land Use and Environmental Law 14(2):195-247. Griffin, S. O., Gooch, B. F., Lockwood, S. A., and Tomar, S. L. (2001). Quantifying the Diffused Benefit from Water Fluoridation in the United States; Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 29:120-129. Griffin, S. O., Regnier, E., Griffin, P. M., and Huntley, V. (2007). Effectiveness of Fluoride in Preventing Caries in Adults. J. Dent. Res. 86:410-415. DOI 10.1177/154405910708600504. Hayes, A. W., ed. (2008). Principles and Methods of Toxicology (5`h ed.). New York: Informa Healthcare USA. Health Canada (2010). Fluoride and Human Health. Online at www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/environ/fluor- eng.php#prov. Heller, K. E., Eklund, S. A., and Burt, B. A. (1997). Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis at Varying Water Fluoride Concentrations. J. Public Health Dentistry 57:136-143. Hellwing, E., and Lennon, A. M. (2004). Systemic Versus Topical Fluoride. Caries Res. 38:258 262. Hirzy, J. W. (2000). Statement Before the Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Drinking Water, United States Senate, June 29, 2000. Online at www.fluoridealert.org/HirzyTestimony.pdf. Hodge, H. C., and Smith, F. A. (1965). Biological Properties of Inorganic Fluorides. In Fluorine Chemistry, Simons, H. H., ed., pp. 1-42. New York: Academic Press. Iida, H., and Kumar, J. V. (2009). The Association Between .Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren. j American Dental Association 140:855-862. Institute of Medicine (1997). Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Report of the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Institute of Medicine (2000). Dietary Re_ ference Intakes. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Jones, C., and Worthington, H. (2000). Water Fluoridation, Poverty, and Tooth Decay in 1.2-year-old fir.. Children. J. Dent. 28:389-393. Jones, S., Burt, B. A., Petersen, P. E., and Lennon, M. A. (2005). The Effective Use of Fluorides in Public Health. Bull. World Health Organization 83(9):670-676. Juneau Fluoride Study Commission (2006). Report to Assembly of the City and Borough of Juneau, July 11, 2006. Online at www.ci.fairbanks.ak.us/boardscommissions/fluoridetaskforce/ fluoridetaskforceotherreferencesJuneaudocs.php. Kalsbeek, H., Kwant, J. W., Groeneveld, J., Backer Dirks, J., van Eck, A.M. J., and Theuns, H. M. (1993). Caries Experience of 15-Year Old Children in the Netherlands After Discontinuation of Water Fluoridation. Caries Res. 27:201 205. Komarek, Arnost, Lesaffre, Emmanuel, Harkanen, Tommi, Declerck, Dominique, and Virtanen, Jorma 1. (2005). A Bayesian Analysis of Multivariate Doubly -Interval -Censored Dental Data. Biostat 6(1):145-155. DOI 10.1.093/biostatistics/kxh023. Kozol, J. (1992). Savage.Inequalities: Children in America's Schools. New York: Crown Publishers. Kunzel, W., Fischer, T., Lorenz, R., and Bruhmann, S. (2000). Decline of Caries Prevalence After the Cessation of Water Fluoridation in the Former East Germany. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 28:382-9. Kurttio, P., Gustaysson, N., Vartaninen, T., and Pekkanen, J. (1999). Exposure to Natural Fluoride in Well Water and Hip Fracture. A Cohort Analysis in Finland. Am. J. Epidemiol. 150:817-824. Lalumandier, J. A., and Ayers, L. W. (2000). Fluoride and Bacterial Content of Bottled Water Versus Tap Water up to 1 ppm. Arch. Fam. Med. 9:246-250. Levy, S. M., and Zarei-M, Z. (1991). Evaluation of Fluoride Exposures in Children. J. Dent. Child. 58(6):467-473. Levy, S. M., Broffitt, B., Marshall, T. A., Eichenberger-Gilmore, J. M., and Warren, J. J. (2010). Associations Between Fluorosis of Permanent Incisors and Fluoride Intake from Infant Formula, Other Dietary Sources and Dentifrice During Early Childhood. J American DentalAssociation 141:1190-1201. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 49 Limeback, H. (2000). Why I Am Now Officially Opposed to Adding Fluoride to Drinking Water. Online at www,fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm. Macek, M. D., Matte, T. D., Sinks, T., and Malvitz, D. M. (2006). Blood Lead Concentrations in Children and Method of Fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994. Environ. Ilealth Perspect. 114(1):130-13. MacFayden, E. E., McNee, S. G., and Weeman, D. A. (1982). Fluoride Content of Some Bottled Spring Waters. Br. Dent. J. 53:423-424. Masters, R. D., and Coplan, M. J. (1999). Water Treatment with Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 56:435-449. Masters, R. D., Coplan, M. J., Hone, B. T., and Dykes, J. E. (2000). Association of Silicofluoride Treated Water with Elevated Blood Lead. NeuroToxicity 21(6):1091-1100. McDonough, M., Whiting, P., Bradley, M., Cooper, J., Sutton, A., Chestnutt, I., Misso, K., Wilson, P., Treasure, E., and Kleinjen, J. (2000). A Systematic Review ofPublic Water Fluoridation. National Health Service Centers for Reviews and Dissemination. York, UK: University of York. DOI 10.1136/ bmj.321.7265.855. McNally, M., and Downie, J. (2000). The Ethics of Water Fluoridation. J. Can. Dent. Assoc. 66(11):592-593. Mueller, S. H. (2002). A Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Near Fairbanks, Alaska, with Emphasis on Arsenic Hydrogeochemistry. MSc. thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder. National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) (2007). A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation. Online at www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/eh4lsyn.htm National Research Council (NRC) (1993). Health Effects ofIngested Fluoride. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (NRC) (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scient�fic Review ofER,4s Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Online at www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html. Newbrun, E. (2010). What We Know and Do Not Know About Fluoride. J. Pub. HealtbAnd Dentistry pp. 1-7. (Invited review presented at National Oral Health Conference, Portland, OR, April 21, 2009). DOI 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2010.00171.x. Ophaug, R. H., Singer, L., and Harland, B. F. (1985). Dietary Intake of 6-months and 2-year-old Children in Four Dietary Regions of the United States. J. Clin. Nutr. 42(4):701-707. Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) (2011). Sulfuryl Fluoride -Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Fluoride to Incorporate New Hazard and Exposure Information. Online at www.regulations. gov/#documentDetail;D=EPA-HQOPP-2005-0174-0113. Osmunson, W. (2010a). Letter #1 to Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force. "03-02-2010 Osmunson Letter to FTC -Fluoridation, Drugs, and Human Subject Research." Online at www.ci.fairbanks.ak.us/ boardscommissions/fluoridetaskforce/fluoridetaskforceotherreferences.php. Osmunson, W. (2010b). Letter #4 Effectiveness of Fluoridation, to Fairbanks Fluoridation Task Force. "03- 13-2010 Dr. Osmunson Letter -Effectiveness of Fluoridation." Online at http://www.ci.fairbanks.ak.us/ boardscommissions/fluoridetaskforce/fluoridetaskforceefficacy.php. Parnell, C., Whelton, H., and O'Mullane, D. (2009). Water Fluoridation. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. Sep; 10(3):141-8. Peterson, P. E. (2003). Fluoride in Drinking Water. The World Oral Health Report 2003: Continuous Improvement of Oral Health in the 21st Century -The Approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme (WHO/NMH/NPH/ORH/03.2). Geneva: WHO Global Oral Health Program. Online at http://www.who.int/oral-health/publications/report03/en/. Pizzo, Giuseppe, Piscopo, Maria R., Pizzo, Ignazio, and Giuliana, Giovanna (2007). Community Water Fluoridation and Caries Prevention: A Critical Review. Clin. Oral. Invest. 11:189-193. DOI 10.1007/ s00784-007-0111-6. Pratt, Jr., E., Rawson, R. D., and Rubin, M. (2002). Fluoridation at Fifty: What Have We Learned? J. Law Med. Ethics Fall 30(3) Suppl:117-121. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 50 Riley, J. C., Lennon, M. A., and Ellwood, R. P. (1999).1he Effect of Water Fluoridation and Social %4W Inequalities on Dental Caries in 5-year-old Children. Int. J Epidemiol. 28(2):300-305. DOI 10.1093/ ije/28.2.300. Rojas -Sanchez, F., Kelly, S. A., Drake, K. M., Eckert, G. J., Stookey, G. K., and Dunipace, A. J. (1999). Fluoride Intake From Foods, Beverages and Dentifrice by Young Children in Communities With Negligibly and Optimally Fluoridated Water. A Pilot Study. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27(4):288 297. Scanlon, K. S., Grummer-Strawn, L., Chen, J., Molinari, N., and Perrine, C. G. (2010). Racial and Ethnic Differences in Breastfeeding Initiation and Duration by State -National Immunization Survey, United States, 2004 2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 59(11):327-334. Scott, T. (1983). Concise Encyclopedia of Biochemistry. Berlin: Walter DeGruyter & Co. Seppa, L., Karkkainen, S., and Hausen, H. (2000). Caries Trends 1992-1998 in Two Low -Fluoride Finnish Towns Formerly With and Without Fluoridation. Caries Res. 34:462-468. Sigfried, T. (2010). Odds Are, It's Wrong. Science News 177(7):26ff. Sutton, P. (1960). Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials (2nd Ed.). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Tang, Qin-ging, Du, Jun, Ma, Heng-hui, Jiang, Shao-jun, and Thou, Xiao-jun (2008). Fluoride and Children's Intelligence: A Meta -analysis. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. DOI 10.1007/s12011-008-8204-x. Humana Press Inc. Taubes, G. (2006). Epidemiology Faces its Limits. Science 269:164-169. Thiessen, K. M. (2006). Water Fluoridation: Suggested Issues for Consideration. Unpublished manuscript, 6 pp., "05-27-2010 Thiessen -EPA Comments." Online at www.ci.fairbanks.ak.us/boardscommissions/ fluoridetaskforce/fluoridetaskforcereviews.php). Thiessen, K. M. (2009a). Comments on Fluoride in Drinking Water. Unpublished manuscript, 15 pp., "11-27- 2009 Thiessen -Water Fluoridation Suggested Issues for Consideration." Online at www.ci.fairbanks.ak.us/ 11%1r► boardscommissions/fluoridetaskforce/fluoridetaskforcetoxicityadverseeffects.php. Thiessen, K. M. (2009b). Comments in Response to Announcement of Chemicals Selected by OEHHA for Consideration for Listing by the Carcinogen Identification Committee and Request for Relevant Information on the Carcinogenic Hazards of These Chemicals. Unpublished manuscript, 15 pp., "12-15- 2009 Thiessen -Comments Responding to CA EPA Carcinogen Listings." Online at www.ci.fairbanks. ak.us/boardscommissions/ fluoridetaskforce/fluoridetaskforcereviews.php. Thiessen, K. M. (2010). Comments on the Need for Revision of the NPDWR for Fluoride. Unpublished manuscript, 22 pp., "15-27-2010 Thiessen -EPA comments." Online at www.ci.fairbanks.ak.us/ boardscommissions/fluoridetaskforce/fluoridetaskforcereviews.php. Truman, B., I, Gooch, B. E, Sulemana, I., Gift, H. C., Horowitz, A. M., Evans, C. A., Griffin, S. O., and Carande, K.., V (2002). Reviews of Evidence on Interventions to Prevent Dental Caries, Oral and Pharyngeal Cancers, and Sports -Related Craniofacial Injuries (Structured abstract). Amer. J. Preventive Medicine 23:21-54. Turekian, K. K. (1969). The Oceans, Streams, and Atmosphere. In Handbook oj'Geochemistry, vol. 1, K. H. Wedepohl, ed., New York: Springer-Verlag. Urbansky, E. T. (2002). Fate of Fluorosilicate Drinking Water Additives. Chem. Rev. 102:2837-2854. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2004). USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods 2004. Online at www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/f`oodcomp/Data/Fluoride/fluoride.pdf. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (2000). Healthy People 2000. With Understanding and Improving Health and Objectives for Improving Health (2" `i ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2001). Ground -Water Studies in Fairbanks, .Alaska -A Better Understanding of Some of the United States' Highest Natural Arsenic Concentrations. (Fact Sheet FS- '' 111-01). Online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0111-01/fs-0111-Ol.pdf. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 51 U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) (1991). Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks: Report of the Subcommittee on Fluoride of the EHPC. Washington, DC: Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services. Verplanck, P. I., Mueller, S. H., Youcha, E. K., Goldfarb, R. J., Sanzolone, R. F., McCleskey, R. B., Briggs, P. H., Roller, M., Adams, M., and Nordstrom, D. K. (2003). Chemical Analyses of Ground and Surface Waters, Ester Dome, Central, Alaska, 2000 2001. Open File Report 03-244. U.S. Geological Survey, Vestergaard, P., Jorgensen, N. R., Schwarz, P., and Mosekilde, L. (2008). Effects of Treatment with Fluoride on Bone Mineral Density and Fracture Risk: A Meta -analysis. Osteoporosis Intern. 19:257-268. Warren, J. J., Levy, S. M., Broffitt, B., Cavanaugh, J. E., Kanellis, M. J., and Weber-Gasparoni, K. (2009), Considerations on Optimal Fluoride Intake Using Dental Fluorosis and Dental Caries Outcomes —A Longitudinal Study.,J. Public Health Dent. 69(2):111-115. Westendorf, J. (1975). the Kinetics of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition and the Influence of Fluoride and Fluoride Complexes on the Permeability of Erythrocyte Membranes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. Whistler, B. J. (2007). Alaska Oral Health Plan: 2008-2012. Juneau, AK: Section of Women's, Children's and Family Health, Division of Public Health, Alaska Department of Health and Social. Services. Whitford, G. M. (1996). The Metabolism and Toxicity of Fluoride (2"d Rev. ed.). Monographs in Oral Science, vol. 16. New York: Krager. Yeung, C. A. (2008). A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation. Evid. Based Dent. 9(2):39-43. Liegelbecker R. (1998). Fluoridation in Europe. Fluoride 31(3):171-174. Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 1 ':1 L� 52 Introduced By: Council Member Cleworth Introduced: February 8, 2010 RESOLUTION NO.4398 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO RESEARCH CURRENT POLICY REGARDING FLUORIDATION OF THE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY. WHEREAS, the health and security of Fairbanks citizens are a primary concern of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the use of fluoride in the City's water supply was established in 1960 (FGC Sec. 82-1) as a way to enhance dental care; and WHEREAS, this practice has raised questions regarding potential long-term effects caused by the use of fluoride; and WHEREAS, it is advisable to periodically reanalyze this policy to make sure the potential benefits outweigh any potential side effects associated with fluoridation; and WHEREAS, the amount of research available on this subject is voluminous and often extremely technical. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a committee is formed consisting of the six individuals listed below to research documentation provided by both proponents and opponents of fluoridation through public hearings and to supplement this information with any other sources deemed appropriate. A final report along with analysis and recommendations will be presented to the City Council no later than early July. Legal notifications and assistance will be given by the City Clerk's office. The committee consists of individuals having extensive backgrounds in chemistry, biology, dentistry, and medicine, who have expressed a strong interest in objectively analyzing research regarding fluoridation. Committee Chair: Dr. Paul Reichardt, former Provost, Dean, and Professor at UAF, with a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry; Dr. Dick Stolzberg: Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at UAF, with a Ph.D. in Chemistry, who has done extensive research in the field of analytical chemistry; Dr. Rainer Newberry: Professor in Geochemistry, Mineralogy, and Economic Geology, with a Ph.D. in Economic Geology; Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report \ 1� 53 Dr. Bryce Taylor. Doctorate of Dental Surgery, formerly serving in public health with the TCC, now in private practice; Dr. Joan Braddock: Most recently Dean of the College of Natural Science and Mathematics, with a Master's Degree in Microbiology and a Ph.D. in Oceanography; Dr. Beth Medford: Board Certified Pediatrician with a background in biochemistry; formerly at Eielson AFB b teri privat practice. Terry Strie, ity Mayor AYES: Roberts, Eberhart, Gatewood, Bratcher, Cleworth, Stiver NAYS: Nona ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ADOPTED: February 08, 2010 ATTEST: - H,JAnden, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Paul J. Ewe , City Attorney Ordinance No. 4398 Page 2 Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force Report 54 1 `A �0 M R JUNEAU FLUORIDE STUDY COMMISSION REPORT TO ASSEMBLY OF THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU JULY 119 2006 GH Ci '*ALASKXS CAPITAL CITY C JUNEAU FLUORIDE STUDY COMMISSION REPORT TO ASSEMBLY OF THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU JULY 119 2006 Table of Contents Report To The Mayor & Assembly by the Juneau Fluoride Study Commission, Summary of Recommendations.................................................................................Page 2 Findings & Recommendations in Favor of Continued Fluoridation Report from 3 of 6 Commissioners........................................................................................Page 6 Report to the Mayor & Assembly by Fluoride Commission Members Kane & Bursell Recommending Against Continued Fluoridation of our Municipal Water ..............Page 15 Report by Fluoride Commission Chair Concluding that the Evidence Regarding the Effectiveness & Safety of Fluoridation is Inconclusive and therefore Recommending Against Continued Fluoridation................................................................................Page 23 Report of the Juneau Fluoride Study Commission List of Exhibits & Attached Exhibits ..Page 27 • Exhibit A: Interim Report Of Fluoride Study Commission (Feb. 15, 2005), IncludingAppendices............................................................................................Page 28 • Exhibit B: Report In Brief, Fluoride In Drinking Water (March 2006) (Summary Of NRC/NAS Report)........................................................................... Page 89 • Exhibit C: Summaries Of Actions On Fluoridation In Other Jurisdictions ...................Page 94 • Exhibit D: List Of Selected Additional Documents On File With The City Clerk .....Page I I I (Due to the large volume of documents in Exhibit D, they are not attached to final report but are available for review in the Municipal Clerk's Office) • Exhibit E: Exhibits Accompanying Subcommittee Report In Favor Of Continued Fluoridation.............................................................................................................Page 1469 • Exhibit F: CDC Paper: Oral Health —Water Fluoridation —Safety (March 28, 2006) Pagel490 • Exhibit G: Why EPA Headquarters Union Of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation ........Page1494 • Exhibit H: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Letter To Bart Rozell (Jan. 12, 2005) SupportingFluoridation.......................................................................................Page 1502 R LIST OF EXH3IBITS Report Of The Juneau Fluoride Study Commission A. Interim Report Of Fluoride Study Commission (Feb. 15, 2005) Including Appendices: ....................................................................................... Appendix A: Literature Search On Cancer And Brain/Intelligence Issues ........Page Page 28 33 Appendix B: Fluoride Cost/Benefit Analyses ...................................................Page 39 Appendix C: Fluoridation And The Thyroid ..................................................... Page 45 Appendix D: Fluoride And Dental Caries Prevention ....................................... Page 49 Appendix E: Fluoridation And Bone.................................................................Page 51 Appendix F: Fluoridation: Other Policy Issues .................................................Page 87 B. Report In Brief, Fluoride In Drinking Water (March 2006) (Summary OfNRC/NAS Report)...........................................................................Page 89 C. Summaries Of Actions On Fluoridation In Other Jurisdictions ..............................Page 94 C-1: Other Communities In Alaska...................................................................Page 95 C-2: Processes By Which Some Communities Have Decided Not To Fluoridate Their Community Water Supply................................................................Page 96 C-3: Mandatory State Laws On Fluoridation ....................................................Page 97 C-4: U.S. Communities Recently Voting To Adopt Fluoridation ...................Page 102 C-5: Communities Which Have Rejected Fluoridation Since 1990 ................Page 107 D. List Of Selected Additional Documents On File With The City Clerk .................Page 113 E. Exhibits Accompanying Subcommittee Report In Favor Of Continued Fluoridation.....................................................................Page1469 E-1: Letter From Brad Whistler To Bart Rozell (May 12, 2006) re: NRC Report Presentation At The National Oral Health Conference And Dental Decay (Caries) In Alaska....................................................................................Page1470 E-2: CDC Paper: Preventing Dental Caries ...................................................Page 1479 E-3: CDC Paper: Oral Health — Water Fluoridation — Safety — Osteosarcoma (Statement On NRC Report, 2006)......................................................... Page 1481 E-4: Surgeon General Statement On Community Water Fluoridation (July 28, 2004)..................................................................Page 1483 E-5: Statement From American Water Works Association On Fluoride Report Issued By National Research Council (March 22, 2006) ......................Page 1484 E-6: CDC Paper: Oral Health, Preventing Cavities, Gum Disease and ToothLoss(2006)...................................................................................Page 1486 F. CDC Paper: Oral Health — Water Fluoridation — Safety (March 28, 2006) ......... Page 1490 G. Why EPA Headquarters Union Of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation ...................Page 1494 H. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Letter To Bart Rozell (Jan. 12, 2005) SupportingFluoridation........................................................................................Page1502 Mal REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND ASSEMBLY BY THE JUNEAU FLUORIDE STUDY COMMISSION June 24, 2006 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS The Juneau Fluoride Commission is divided in its recommendations. After extensive study and constructive dialogue among Commission members, we are submitting three position papers to the Mayor and Assembly. Three members recommend continuing municipal water fluoridation in the range of 0.7 to 0.9 mg/L, believing that such fluoridation is safe and effective in helping to prevent dental caries. Two members oppose continued fluoridation, contending that fluoridation is potentially harmful and that its effectiveness against dental caries is doubtful. The final member believes that the available evidence slightly supports the argument that fluoridation is safe and effective, but that the studies to date do not adequately address the effects of fluoridation in the volumes used by municipalities. As a result, the level of uncertainty is too high to support a recommendation for continued fluoridation. THE COMMISSION'S MEMBERSHIP AND CHARGE The CBJ Fluoride Study Commission was created by motion of the Assembly and appointed by Mayor Bruce Botelho. The Commission members are: William B. Rozell, Chair. B.S. in Engineering (Aerospace), Brown University. J.D., Cornell Law School. Attorney in private practice. Jamie Bursell, B.S. in Psychology, University of Idaho. Human Anatomy and Physiology instructor for medical school and undergraduate students, certified Clinical Exercise Specialist, certified Personal Trainer. Deborah Erickson. B.S. in Earth Science, Pacific Lutheran University. Deputy Director, Alaska Division of Public Health. 20 years experience in community health planning and policy development. Ronald Hansen. Professional Engineer, B.C.E., M.S. (Civil Engineering), M.P.A. Dr. Emily Kane. B.A., Harvard University. Masters and Doctorate degrees from Bastyr University, Seattle, WA. Family doctor practicing naturopathic medicine in Juneau since 1994. Dr. Eric Paulsen. Oral and Maxillo Facial Surgeon. Ethel Lund was appointed to the Commission but resigned for personal reasons. A replacement member was not appointed. The Commission was asked: 1. To research and evaluate the scientific literature regarding the use of fluoride in municipal drinking water. 2. To research and evaluate the process used by other municipalities in making decisions regarding fluoridation of municipal drinking water. 3. To perform a costibenefit analysis and risk analysis regarding the use of fluoride in municipal drinking water. 4. To make recommendations to the Mayor, City Manager, and Assembly, regarding the use of fluoride in CBJ drinking water. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION'S ACTIONS The Commission was appointed and began work in June of 2004, and met monthly or more often into 2005. The members collected studies and reports and were provided with many other materials by interested citizens. In all, the Commission reviewed hundreds of documents. A recorded public hearing was held on July 29, 2004, at which over 25 citizens testified on both sides of the fluoridation issue. A panel discussion was held at Centennial Hall on December 16, 2004, with six informed advocates, three representing each side of the discussion. The panel presentation included an opportunity for public questions. In addition, public participation was permitted at each of the Commission's meetings. The Commission's scheduled reporting date was extended until February 15, 2005. On that date the Commission submitted an interim report, together with Appendices A through F (two appendices labeled "A" were included), which addressed the research done and the literature studied on several issues, including each of the issues identified in the Commission's charge. The Commission's interim report with appendices is attached as Exhibit A. In its interim report, four members of the Commission recommended that preparation of a final report be deferred until after a major report on fluoride toxicology was concluded by the National Research Council (NRC), the research organization for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The report was then scheduled for completion in May 2005. During that time the four members recommended that water fluoridation be continued by CBJ. Two members of the Commission recommended that fluoridation be discontinued immediately. NRC extended the date for completion of its report multiple times after that. During that time, the Commission reviewed new information and received additional extensions of time to complete its final report. The NRC report was finally released on March 22, 2006. Following its release the Commission met several times to review the report in detail. Other new materials were also reviewed. The Commission then drafted this report, including three subcommittee reports, to the Mayor and Assembly. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL The NRC report is the most comprehensive compilation and analysis of literature on fluoridation done to date. The full report is about 500 pages long. A copy of the NRC Report in Brief is attached to this Commission report as Exhibit B. In summary, the NRC report concludes that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) maximum allowable level for fluoride in drinking water, established in 1986, of 4 mg/L, is not adequately protective of health and should be reduced. 4 mg/L is the level designed to protect the public from being exposed to harmful levels of fluoride. NRC also found that from a cosmetic standpoint, EPA's standard of 2 mg/L does not adequately prevent the occurrence of moderate enamel fluorosis. However, NRC "did not evaluate the risks or benefits of the lower fluoride concentrations (0.7 to 1.2) mg/L used in water fluoridation. Therefore, the committee's conclusions regarding the potential for adverse effects from fluoride at 2 to 4 mg/L in drinking water do not apply at the lower fluoride levels commonly experienced by most U.S. citizens." Report in Brief (Exhibit B), p. 4. ACTIONS TAKEN BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS ON FLUORIDATION Attached as Exhibits C-1 through C-5 are summaries of actions taken by other municipalities within Alaska and throughout the United States on whether of not to fluoridate water supplies. The decisions by these other jurisdictions are divided on whether to fluoridate. Most of Europe does not fluoridate its drinking water, as discussed in the Kane/Bursell report opposing fluoridation. Most of those European countries have alternative government provided dental caries protection programs, such as regular provision of fluoride rinse to children in schools, or fluoridation of table salt. C/11�3ia` COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS Attached as Appendix B to the Commission's February 14, 2005, Interim Report (Exhibit A to this report) is a literature summary on the cost/benefit issue. Exhibit D is a list of documents on file with the Clerk which are too voluminous to attach to this report. Documents D-5(a) through (1) in the collection with the Clerk are a dozen papers that address cost/benefit questions in Juneau, Alaska and other jurisdictions. The Commission does not have data or funding sufficient to prepare a separate costibenefit analysis for Juneau. RECOMMENDATION Three separate reports by Commission members follow. Three members support continued fluoridation, believing it to be safe and effective in helping to prevent dental caries. Two members recommend that fluoridation be discontinued, believing it to be potentially unsafe and of doubtful efficacy in fighting tooth decay. The final member recommends that fluoridation be discontinued because the evidence does not show fluoridation to be safe and effective with sufficient certainty. The NRC report includes information that can be cited by both sides to support their viewpoints. The NRC report lists hundreds of documents it consulted in preparing its report, which are also divided in their conclusions and recommendations. The documents attached as exhibits to this report, and those additional documents listed in Exhibit D and on file with the clerk, address both sides of the issue. The Commission also reviewed a great volume of other documents, most of which are also on file with the clerk, that presented viewpoints on both sides. Given this division in the literature and public opinion, it is perhaps not surprising that the members of this Commission are also divided in the recommendations. Despite the absence of a clear cut majority position from the Commission, we are hopeful that the information provided in these reports and supporting documents will be helpful to the Mayor and Assembly. The Commission members will be available to answer any questions the Mayor and Assembly may have. We appreciate the opportunity to have worked on this Commission. In addition, the members wish to note that we have at all times worked cooperatively with each other and respect the sincere viewpoints of all members despite the differing conclusions we have reached. CBJ FLUORIDE STUDY COMMISSION Findings and Recommendations In Favor of Continued Fluoridation Report from 3 of 6 Commissioners 6/24/06 Introduction l . HISTORY: The City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) has been fluoridating the City public water supply for decades. Estimated annual cost of equipment maintenance is $65,000 and annual cost for the sodium fluoride is $29,000. totaling $94,000 annually. Estimated cost for a new storage facility for the sodium fluoride ranges between $150,000 to $200,000. Questions have been raised concerning the efficacy and safety of fluoridating the water supply. 2. OBJECTIVE: In an analysis of the subject one would derive an overall objective and subsidiary objectives, as follows: The overall objective of the City and Borough of Juneau is to provide for good dental health of the citizens of the CBJ. A subsidiary question is to determine if the City should continue to fluoridate the water system as a community -based strategy to prevent dental caries, or not to fluoridate. If fluoridation, at what concentration? If not, what harm would result and what programs are to be developed, by whom, and at what cost?' The CBJ created an ad hoc citizen advisory commission to address these questions in June 2004. The stated charge to the commission is as follows: a) "To research and evaluate the scientific literature regarding the use of fluoride in municipal drinking water. b) To research and evaluate the process used by other municipalities in making decisions regarding fluoridation of municipal drinking water. c) To perform cost/benefit and risk analysis regarding the use of fluoride in municipal drinking water. d) To make recommendations to the Mayor, City Manager, and Assembly regarding the use of fluoride in CBJ drinking water." 3. EXECUTION: CBJ Mayor Bruce Botelho appointed the Fluoride Study Commission in June 2004 to respond to the charge stated above. The Commission met regularly for the first six months and reviewed extensive materials presented on both sides of the fluoridation argument. An interim report was produced February 2005. At that time the Commission recommended (4 members in support, 2 opposing) continuing fluoridation of Juneau's water supply ` See the letter to Chairman Rozell from Dr. Brad Whistler of the Alaska Deptartment of Health and Social Services relating to potential harm done by termination of fluoridation (Exhibit E-1). at current levels (0.7 to 0.9 mg/l, which concentration is at the lower end of the range recommended by the US Public Health Service of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/1). Production of a final report was held pending completion and release of a National Research Council (NRC) study underway at that time, commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency to review existing literature and recommend changes to EPA standards for fluoride in drinking water. Following release of the NRC report in March of this year the Commission met a number of times to discuss the findings and recommendations from that report. At this point in time, as the Commission is finalizing its report, members are split three ways in regards to their findings and recommendations. Three members find that fluoridation of the public water system is a safe, efficacious, and cost- effective community -based strategy for prevention of dental caries, and recommends continued fluoridation of the CBJ public water system. Two members oppose continued fluoridation on the basis they feel it is unsafe and not effective. One member, the Chair of the Commission, recommends against continued fluoridation based on the belief that insufficient research has been conducted in his opinion to prove the fluoridation to be safe and effective. Following is the Report from the three Commission members who recommend in favor of continued fluoridation. Report of the CBJ Fluoride Study Commission Subcommittee in favor of Continued Fluoridation of the CBJ Public Water Supply Findings National Research Council Report on Fluoride The National Research Council (NRC) report (released in March 2006) addressed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) fluoride limits, the maximum contaminant limit (MCL) of 4 mg/l, the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of 4 mg/l, and secondary maximum contaminant limit (SMCL) of 2 mg/l. Note that these are upper limits, and above the concentrations recommended by the US Public Health Service (USPHS) as safe and effective for public water fluoridation (0.7 mg/l to 1.2 mg/1). No conclusions were made to fluoridate or not, but the report recognized fluoride's anti - decay effect. NRC's recommendations were that EPA should lower the MCLG of 4 mg/1 and that EPA should reevaluate the SMCL of 2 mg/1. The NRC report recognized, but did not address, the USPHS recommendation that community water fluoridation at 0.7 to 1.2 mg/l is safe and effective at reducing dental decay. The NRC report did not negate the Commission's findings and conclusions, and it implicitly supported community water fluoridation in that no dangers were apparent in that practice at the concentrations recommended by the USPHS. 2 More detailed subcommittee comments on the NRC report are included as an attachment to this report. The subcommittee finds that the NRC report provides a comprehensive literature review on the subject of the human health effects of higher levels of fluoride concentration in drinking water, and that the NRC report does not negate the CBJ Fluoride Commission's interim report and recommendation that fluoridation of Juneau's public water system should continue. Cost Benefit The CBJ Fluoride Study Commission's review found that the cost -benefit ratio was positive, that is fluoridation of the water supply is the most economical alternative method to provide for community dental health. (See the attached report on cost/benefit analysis). The unique benefit to fluoridating the public water supply is that the whole population is provided good dental health. Conspiracy Theories A claim in many of the materials received and reviewed by the Commission supporting discontinuation of fluoridation is that the government agencies and professional medical and dental associations that advocate for fluoridation are covertly conspiring with private industry to force fluoride on communities, knowing it to be unsafe. No credible evidence was found by this subcommittee to support such claims. No reasonable argument or evidence exists to explain why so many different and separate government and private professional science -based organizations would actively advocate for this strategy unless they were certain that it is safe and effective. This subcommittee finds that no conspiracies exist and that the organizations supporting fluoridation based their recommendations on scientific evidence. Other Cities' Fluoridation Practices and Processes Other communities' fluoridation practices and decision -making processes were of interest to the Commission both for the purposes of learning from others' work and experience, and because it was part of the Commission's charge. 46 (possibly up to 48 now) of the 50 largest cities in the United States have fluoridated water supplies.2 62% of the population of the United States is on a fluoridated public water system. Many communities (197 between the years 1998 — 20053) have moved to 2 National Center for Fluoridation Policy & Research, March 3, 2001 3 American Dental Association/Association of State & Territorial Dental Directors/Centers for Disease Control & Prevention 1999 — 2006 Fluoridation Awards Brochure 3 begin, or voted or otherwise decided to retain, fluoridation in recent years. As well, a number have decided to discontinue fluoridation (95 U.S. communities during the same time period4). This subcommittee finds that, in many of the cases where communities decided for discontinuation of fluoridation, the decision was based on philosophical objections and not on scientific evidence finding the practice to be unsafe and/or ineffective. CBJ Fluoridation Decision -Making Process A subsidiary question that emerged at times during discussions at public meetings of the Commission was whether the Commission was charged with recommending to the Assembly and Mayor the process by which this public policy question should be settled for CBJ; specifically, whether the Commission should recommend this question go to referendum. While this subcommittee supports the right of the CBJ citizenry to bring this question to a vote of the people through petition, we recommend against it as the first choice decision - making process for the Assembly and Mayor, for two reasons. 1) This subcommittee finds that there is considerable misinformation and fear being spread through the Internet by anti -fluoridation activists, thereby making it more difficult for the electorate to make an informed decision. 2) The subpopulation that will be the most significantly harmed by discontinuation of fluoridation, underprivileged children,5 is one that would have no voice in a municipal election. It is incumbent on the Assembly and Mayor, and appropriate to our representative form of government, to take the needs of all in our community under consideration and make the decision for our community that supports the common good. Perceptions of Risk and Scientific Certainty Community members and Commissioners who object to fluoridation at least partly base their arguments on 1) perceived absence of proof that fluoridation at the current level is safe, and 2) belief that, lacking absolute proof to the contrary, there is some level of risk posed to the public through fluoridation, and that if there is any chance at all that some risk exists, the city should not fluoridate. Members of this subcommittee find that much of the uncertainty about safety of fluoridation is fueled by studies that evaluated the affects of very high levels of fluoride exposure, and perceptions that something toxic at very high levels may be unsafe at any level. a http://www.iiewstarget.com/0I 9177.html. Posted February 28, 2006. Fluoride Action Network. "'Preventing Chronic Diseases: Investing Wisely in Health. Preventing Dental Caries." U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. 4 Because safety cannot be proved with absolute certainty, the weight of evidence must be considered. This subcommittee finds that the weight of evidence provided through 50 years of experience with fluoridation of public water systems, and the body of research provided in the materials studied, provides sufficient proof that fluoridation at current levels is safe and is effective at preventing dental caries. Individual Rights vs. Common Good The question of whether fluoridation constitutes an infringement on individual rights has also come up periodically in the course of the Commission's discussions. This is a classic public policy question. Government can rarely act to fulfill its role in serving the public without somehow infringing on the rights of the individuals they serve, whether through taxation to benefit the community through maintenance of a fire department, or laws against driving while intoxicated. People who live together in a free and civil society have a duty to one another and the community in which they live to sacrifice certain liberties for the common good. It is the duty of government decision -makers to fairly balance civil liberty and sacrifices demanded of individuals for the good of the community. This subcommittee finds that the objections of individuals in our community who have personal interests against fluoridation, are outweighed by the public benefit of continued fluoridation. A related question that has been raised to the Commission a number of times is regarding the legality of fluoridation. It should be noted that the legality of fluoridation in the United States has been tested many times over the years, and the court of last resort has never rendered an opinion against fluoridation, in general finding that a significant government interest in health and welfare of the public outweighed individual objections. The U.S. Supreme Court has denied review of fluoridation cases thirteen times, citing that no substantial constitutional questions were involved — rejecting contentions that fluoridation violates individual freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. Alaska State House Concurrent Resolution 5 Reference is made to Alaska State House Concurrent Resolution No.5, passed by the House in March, "Relating to support of community water fluoridation". (See copy, attached.) As shown in the supporting material, over 90 national and international organizations recognize the public health benefits of community water fluoridation for preventing dental decay. Significantly, this list includes the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Water Works Association. Recommendations This Commission Subcommittee, consisting of the Commission's experts in water supply, oral medicine, and public health, recommend that the City and Borough of Juneau's Assembly and Mayor direct the City Manager to continue to fluoridate the City domestic water supply using sodium fluoride, such that the concentration of fluoride in the water delivered to the public will be within the range of 0.7 mg/l to 0.9 mg/1. This is the present range of fluoride concentration, and as noted is at the low end of the USPHS recommendations. 0 N Comments on the March 2006 National Research Council Report FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER The CBJ Fluoride Study Commission Subcommittee in favor of continued fluoridation presents the following comments on each chapter of the National Research Council's recent report on fluoride in drinking water. The NRC report itself contains a 10 page summary before Chapter 1, and in addition includes "Findings" after each chapter. Chapter 1 - Introduction: A description of fluoride in drinking water brought out the wide range of natural fluoride and the practice of fluoridation using USPHS recommendations. NRC recognized the USPHS recommendations, but did not address them, since the NRC objectives were to address the EPA limits. EPA has adopted limits on fluoride in drinking water, a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, a Maximum Contaminant Level, and a Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. The Council's task was to evaluate the adequacy of EPA's limits and guidelines "to protect children and others from adverse health effects". Chapter 2 — Measures of Exposure to Fluoride in the United States Evaluations were made of various sources of fluoride to individuals, and reported as mg/body weight per day, with estimated water consumption at various ages and ambient temperatures. It is important to evaluate fluoride intake from all sources, for example, food and beverages, fluoride supplements, and, for children, toothpaste ingestion. Historical limits of fluoride exposure were researched. Chapter 3 — Pharmacokinetics of Fluoride A review was presented of the body's absorption, distribution, and elimination of fluoride. Bone fluoride concentrations were calculated to increase with both magnitude and exposure. The calculations were based on concentrations of fluoride at 4 mg/l, the MCLG for which the Council was tasked to evaluate. Groups likely to have increased bone fluoride include the elderly and people with severe kidney insufficiency. Chapter 4 — Effects of Fluoride on Teeth Enamel fluorosis is a mottling of the tooth surface that is attributable to fluoride exposure during tooth formation. One of the functions of tooth enamel is to protect the dentin and, ultimately, the pulp from decay and infection. Severe enamel fluorosis compromises this health -protective function causing structural damage to the tooth. NRC stated it is no longer appropriate to characterize enamel pitting as a cosmetic effect. With fluoride concentrations at or near the MCLG of 4 mg/1 approximately 10% of children in U.S. get severe enamel fluorosis. At 2mg/l, EPA's secondary limit, severe enamel fluorosis is near zero. Chapter 5 - Musculoskeletal Effects Fluoride is a biologically active ion with demonstrable effects on bone cells. Fluoride concentrations in water at 2 or 4 mg/l might not protect all individuals from the adverse 7 M effects of stage II and stage III skeletal fluorosis. It is important to note that so few clinical cases of skeletal fluorosis exist in the U.S. (only 5 cases of stage III were documented between 1960 and 1997), the NRC had to use modeling to develop projections of effects at high levels of fluoride exposure. The majority of the NRC committee found that lifetime exposure to fluoride in drinking water at 4 mg/1 is likely to increase fracture rates compared to exposure at 1 mg/l, while a minority would only find that research is not sufficient to prove fluoride is not protective against fractures. Data to assess bone fracture rates at 2 mg/l are inadequate. Chanter 6 — Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Fluoride Adverse and developmental outcomes occur only at very high concentrations of fluoride, and not at low level fluoride concentrations. Chanter 7 — Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral Effects High fluoride concentrations affect neurotoxicity and neurobehavior. The chapter described findings relating to those effects, but the NRC concluded the findings had insufficient details to have any confidence in the findings. There were reports that fluorosilicates enhance the uptake of lead in the body and brain, whereas sodium fluoride does not. Fortunately the City and Borough's water supply system is fluoridated with sodium fluoride. Aluminofluoride complexes affect transmitter concentrations and functions of the central nervous system. There is the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzeimer's disease. The NRC recommended more research is needed at fluoride concentrations at and above EPA's maximum levels. Chapter 8 — Effects on the Endrocrine System Evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine (such as thyroid, pituitary, and adrenal glands) function or response, the effects of which vary in degree and kind with different individuals, and in relation to other factors, such as calcium and iodine. Further research is needed at fluoride concentrations at and above EPA's maximum levels. Chapter 9 — Effects on the Gastrointestinal, Renal, Hepatic, and Immune Systems There are a few case reports of GI upset in subjects exposed to drinking water fluoridated at I mg/l. There are no studies on drinking water containing fluoride at 4 mg/l in which GI systems were carefully documented. In the United Kingdom, where tea drinking is common, people can consume up to 9 mg of fluoride a day. (Tea has one of the highest concentrations of fluoride.) GI symptoms were not reported in the tea drinkers. The kidney is the organ responsible for excreting most of the fluoride. There are no published studies that show that fluoride ingestion at 1 mg/1 on a chronic basis, drinking 1 liter/day, at that concentration (equivalent to 1 mg/day) can affect the kidney. However studies have shown that consuming 12 mg per day would increase the risk for some people to develop adverse renal effects. \k Chanter 10 — Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Available literature does not clearly indicate that fluoride either is or is not carcinogenic in humans. One analytic study of osteosarcoma has been published, but data were not included, so the study is inconclusive. Further research is needed on bladder cancer, since bladder cancer is relatively common compared to osteosarcoma. Other directed research was recommended relative to the maximum allowable fluoride concentrations. Chapter 11 — Drinking Water Standards for Fluoride The procedures for setting EPA's three standards for fluoride were discussed. EPA's standards are the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of 4mg/l, the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 4 mg/l, and the secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 2 mg/l. The task of NRC was to reevaluate these levels. NRC's task did not relate to the concentration levels of fluoride recommended by USPHS of 0.7 mg/1 to 1.2 mg/I for drinking water, although this was mentioned but not addressed. Evidence suggests that the MCLG might not protect all individuals from adverse conditions of skeletal fluorosis. For noncarcinogenic chemicals, the MCLG is based on the reference dose, which is defined as an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude or greater) of a daily dose to the human population (including susceptible subpopulations) that is likely to have no appreciable effects during a lifetime. The NRC concluded that the MCLG of 4 mg/1 is not protective against severe enamel fluorosis of teeth, an adverse health effect. NRC concludes that the MCLG of 4 mg/1 should be lowered. Strong evidence exists that the prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis is nearly zero at water fluoride concentrations to below 2 mg/1. The SMCL of 2 mg/I is not a recommendation to add fluoride to drinking water. The NRC evaluated the SMCL only in terms of its protection against adverse cosmetic and health effects, including enamel fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and bone fracture. Prevention of caries was not evaluated. The NRC concluded that the SMCL of 2 mg/I adequately protects the public from the most severe stage of enamel pitting. 19 C REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND ASSEMBLY BY FLUORIDE COMMISSION MEMBERS KANE AND BURSELL RECOMMENDING AGAINST CONTINUED FLUORIDATION OF OUR MUNCIPAL WATER After nearly two years of research, study and debate, two members of the commission strongly urge the CBJ Assembly to discontinue fluoridation of the municipal water. Over the two years, several members of the CBJ community have attended our meetings almost as regularly as commissioners. These public representatives are overwhelmingly in favor of cessation of the inappropriate and very possibly dangerous, to certain segments of the community, practice of adding sodium fluoride to our public drinking water. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride. Sodium fluoride is an extremely toxic substance. Both children (swallowing gels) and adults (accidents involving malfunctioning of fluoride delivery equipment and filters on dialysis machines) have died from excess exposure. We recognize these statements are strong, but they are not meant to be contentious. Bucking the status quo requires more energy than simply carrying on an established practice. Fluoridation of municipal water, like mass production of rolled cigarettes, may have seemed like a great idea at inception. No longer. Most European communities have abandoned the addition of sodium fluoride to their community water (1) because, upon close scrutiny, the impact of this practice on dental caries rates is debatable. (2-6) In fact, some research points to tooth decay declining less rapidly in communities who continue to fluoridation. (7) Regardless of fluoridation, rates of dental caries have continued to decline, as is the universal trend, because of greater understanding of the importance of oral hygiene and of the impact of sugary or acidic foods on the dental enamel. (8) Rates of caries continue to be higher in communities who lack the education or funding to seek dental care. A large and growing body of evidence suggests fluoridation may be more harmful than previously thought. New research shows that young boys are 5 times more susceptible to a rare form of bone cancer when exposed to relatively low levels of sodium fluoride. (9) Young children, and infants in particular, in fluoridated communities, are receiving a total load of sodium fluoride exponentially beyond levels considered safe. (10) A fairly recent study (Caries Research, Sept -Oct 2004) from Ireland showed that 5% of infants drinking 1 part per million of fluoridated water received more than 0.2-0.26 mg/kg/day from water because of the relative ratio of water consumer per their small body weight. This is particularly true for bottle-fed infants. From the long-awaited and recently published "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" (National Research Council of the National Academies), page 47, referring to children ages 1-2 and 3-5 years old, it is noted that "at 1 mg/L (which is equivalent to I part per million — the accepted standard for community water), the drinking water contribution is approximately 42%, while the contributions from toothpaste and background food are (also) sizeable, approximately 18% and 3 1 % respectively." Additionally, as stated in the NRC report, "On a per -body -weight basis, infants and young children have approximately three to four times greater exposure than do adults." We believe CBJ should not be adding to this burden, particularly in this vulnerable population — our young children. You, as guardians of public safety are admonished to consider not only the obscure and antiquated use of fluoride to harden the dental enamel of children, but also to deeply ponder the impact of purposefully placing a poison and known neurotoxin into our drinking water. Besides the very young, people with kidney problems are at particular risk (renal compromise is the next biggest cost to Medicare after diabetes in the US, and these two pathologies overlap considerably). We also know fluoride depresses thyroid function in the dose range of 2.3 — 4.5 mg/daily (24), a dose easily achieved by drinking normal amounts of "optimally" fluoridated water. Earlier in the 20`h century, fluoride was prescribed by medical doctors to reduce symptoms of hyper (over -active) thyroid (Graves' disease). (25) With water fluoridation, we are forcing people to drink a thyroid - depressing medication which could promote higher levels of hypothyroidism (under - active metabolism) in the population, and all the subsequent problems related to this disorder such as depression, fatigue, weight gain, menstrual abnormalities, muscle and joint pain, increased cholesterol levels and heart disease. The principal tenet of the Hippocratic Oath is "Do No Harm." We believe fluoridating the municipal water violates this oath. All other medication is carefully studied for potential harm, and then carefully administered to those patients who are judged by medical experts to need this medication. These medical experts then periodically evaluate their patients taking prescription medication for signs of deleterious side -effects. This is not happening with fluoride. Why not? Fairly recent Chinese studies, given credence by the National Research Council report referenced above, clearly show lower IQ (and other parameters of intellectual function) in children from fluoridated communities. From page 6 of the study, "Consistency of (the Chinese) study results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence." IQ deficits, the NRC committee noted, have been strongly associated with dental fluorosis, a condition caused by fluoride in tap water. (page 175, 2006 NRC report) The NRC report assiduously avoided addressing the 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million level of fluoridation. They specifically addressed higher levels of fluoridation and strongly urged the US government to take measures lower the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) below 4 parts per million. In looking at the impact of fluoride on immunological, intellectual, reproductive, musculoskeletal, renal etc. development and health, the general conclusion of the NRC committee was that "more research was needed." These commission members contend that without further research, community officials have no right to impose this potential toxin on the general population. Please recognize that there may well be additional risks we don't yet know about, just like with lead, or tobacco, or driving without seatbelts. From a purely biochemical perspective, at equal parts per million, fluoride is considered slightly more toxic to the human body than lead. (26) However, illogically, the standards for lead contamination of our water are much more stringent (lower) than the standards for fluoride. (27) These commission members are not confident that fluoride is safe for all segments of the population. We object to what amounts to compulsory ingestion of sodium fluoride by the entire CBJ population. We believe, despite OSHA regulations, that the workers in our water treatment facilities are at risk for excessive fluoride exposure. Fifty percent of ingested fluoride bio-accumulates definitively, meaning it never leaves the body, bonding extremely tightly to bone, nerve, renal and other tissues. We have absolutely no idea what the total load of fluoride amounts to in any given person. Given the known risks, particularly to infants and those with compromised kidneys, what right do you have to increase these involuntary health hazards? Most of the rest of the civilized world has abandoned fluoridation as a crude, indirect, and potentially harmful approach to tooth decay. It is no longer a good idea. We strongly urge the Assembly to recommend against continued fluoridation of our drinking water. REFERENCES 1) Statements on fluoridation by governmental officials from several countries: Germany: "Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsory medication." (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999). www. tluoridealert. org/germanv jpeg France: "Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment]. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de 1'Environment, August 25, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/france jpeg Belgium: "This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services." (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000). www.tZuoridation.com/c-beleium.htm Luxembourg: "Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs." (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L'Environment, May 3, 2000). www.}luoridealert. ore lluxembouM.i eg Finland: "We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." (Paavo Potel , Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/cfinland.htm "Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual's right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of "force-feeding" was also mentioned. Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water." (Leena Hiisvirta, M. Sc., ChiefEngineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.) www; fluoridealert.org/ nland Weg Denmark: "We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated." (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December22, 1999). www.fluoridation.com/c-denmark htin Norway: "In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated." (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Staten instituttforfolkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000). www.17uoridation.com/c-norway.htin Sweden: "Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden ... New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown." (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket — National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000). www.fluoildation.com/c-sweden.htin Netherlands: 9 "From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn." (Wified Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000). www.fluondation.com/c- netherlands. htm Northern Ireland: "The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland." (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000). www.. fluoridealert. or INorthern- Ireland. ' eQ Austria: "Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria." (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000). www. fluoridation. com I c-austria. him Czech Republic: "Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered: • uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor) • uneconogcal (environmental load by a foreign substance) • unethical ("forced medication") • toxicologically and phyiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health -threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor." (Dr. B. Havhk, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999). www. fluoridealert. org/czech. Weg 2) Hileman, B. An analysis of national survey data collected by the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) concludes that children who live in areas of the U.S. where the water supplies are fluoridated have tooth decay rates nearly identical with those who live in nonfluoridated areas. "New Studies Cast Doubt on Fluoridation Benefits. Chemical & Engineering News. May 8, 1989. 3) Sales -Peres SH, Bastos JR. "There was no statistically significant difference between DMFT in municipalities of the same size, regardless of the presence or absence of fluoride in the water supply." An epidemiological profile of dental caries in 12-year-old children residing in cities with and without fluoridated water supply in the central western area of the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Cadernas de Saude Publica 18:1281-8. (2002) 4) Shiboski CH et al. "Water fluoridation status of the children's area of residence did not have a significant effect on Early Childhood Caries (ECC)" The association of early childhood caries and race/ethnicity among California preschool children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 63(1):38-46. (2003) 5) Harding MA et al. "In lifetime residents of fluoridated areas 47% had evidence of erosion; in 21 % erosion has progressed to the dentine or pulp. The corresponding figures in non -fluoridated areas were 43% and 21 % respectively ... Levels in fluoridated and non fluoridated areas were similar." Dental erosion in 5-year-old Irish school children and associated factors: a pilot study. Community Dental Health 20(3):165-70 (2003) 6) Limeback, H. "The small benefit that remains today from water fluoridation can, in part, be explained by fluoride ingestion retarding tooth eruption, resulting in a delay in dental caries. The effect of the delay in tooth eruption from systemic fluoride is likely less evident in more recent fluoridation studies because of increasing ingestion of other sources of fluoride such as fluoridated dentifrices." University of Toronto, Canada. Oral Issues, Toxicology II, IADR/AADR/CADR 80`h General Session San Diego, CA March 6-9, 2002. 7) Maupome G, Clark DC, Levy SM, Berkowitz J. "The prevalence of caries decreased over time in the fluoridation -ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community."Patterns of dental caries following the cessastion of water fluoridation. Community Dentistry and Oral Epdemiology 29:37-47 (2001) 8) Leverett DH "During the past 40 years dental caries has been declining in the US, as well as in most other developed nations of the world ... The decline in dental caries has occurred both in fluoride and in fluoride -deficient communities, lending further credence to the notion that modes other than water fluoridation, especially dentifrices, have made a major contribution." Appropriate uses of systemic fluoride: considerations for the `90s. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 51:42-7 (2004) 9) Bassin EB. Association Between Fluoride in Drinking Water During Growth and Development and the Incidence of Ostosarcoma for Children and Adolescents "Among males, exposure to fluoride at or above the target level was associated with an increased risk of developing osteosarcoma. The association was most apparent between ages 5-10 with a peak at six to eight years of age. The odds ratio for the high exposure group was 5.16 at 7 years of age with a 95 percent confidence interval of 1.64 to 16.20... Figure 3.2 shows that the results continue to demonstrate an effect after adjusting by zipeode, county population, ever use of bottled or well water, age, and any use of self-administered fluoride products. For males, the odds ratio for the high exposure group was 7.20 at 7 years of age with a 95 percent confidence interval of 1.73 to 30.01... All of our models are remarkably robust in showing this effect during the mid -childhood growth spurt, which, for boys, occurs at ages seven and eight years. For females, no clear association between fluoride in drinking water during growth and osteosarcoma is shown in this study... Our results are consistent with findings from (2001)the National Toxicology Program animal study which found'equivocal evidence' for an association between fluoride and osteosarcoma for male, but not female, rats and from two ecological studies that found an association for males less than twenty years old (Hoover et al., 1991; Cohn 1992)." Doctoral Thesis, Harvard School of Dental Medicine (2001) 10) Hileman, B. Fluoridation of water. Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years. Chemical and Engineering News, p 26-42.. August 1, 1988. 11) Joseph Lyon, Ph.D. Hip Fractures and Fluoridation in Utah's Elderly Population, University of Utah, Journal of the American Medical Association, 268(6): 746-748,1992. 12) Y Li et al., Effect of Long -Term Exposure to Fluoride in Drinking Water on Risks of Bone Fractures, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 13) Levine SZ, ed., Advances in Pediatrics (New York: Insterscience Publishers, 1955), pp. 13-51. 14) Connett, Michael. Flouride and Bone: An Annotated Bibiliography, October 2003. 15) Jacobsen SJ, et al., Journal of the American Medical Association, Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: US white women aged 65 years and older. 264(4): 500-2, 1990. 16) Cooper C, et al., Water fluoride concentration and fracture of the proximal femur, Journal of Epidemiological Community Health 44: 17-19, 1990. 17) Cooper C, et al., Water fluoridation and hip fracture, Journal of the American Medical Association, 266: 513-514 (letter, a reanalysis of data presented in 1990 paper), 1991. 18) Keller C. Fluorides in drinking water. Discussed in Gordon, S.L. and. Corbin, S.B, (1992) Summary of Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fracture on Bone Health. Osteoporosis Int. 2: 109-117, 1991.. 19) Jacobsen SJ, et al., The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older; a national ecologic study. Annals of Epidemiology 2: 617-626, 1992. 20) May DS, Wilson MG. Hip fractures in relation to water fluoridation: an ecologic analysis. Unpublished data, discussed in Gordon SL, and Corbin SB. (1992). Summary of Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fracture on Bone Health. Osteoporosis Int. 2:109-117, 1992. 21) Hegmann KT, et al., The Effects of Fluoridation on Degenerative Joint Disease (DJD) and Hip Fractures. Abstract #71, of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Epidemiological research, June l 5-1 7, 2000. Published in a Supplement ofAm. J. Epid. P. S 18, 2000. 22) Kurttio PN, et al., Exposure to natural fluoride in well water and hip fracture: A cohort analysis in Finland. American Journal of Epidemiology 150(8): 817-824, 1999. 23) Suarez-Almazor M, et al., The fluoridation of drinking water and hip fracture hospitalization rates in two Canadian communities. American Journal of Public Health. 83: 689-693, 1993. 24) Galletti P, Joyet G. Effect on Fluorine on Thyroidal Iodine Metabolism in Hyperthyroidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology; 18:1102-1110 (1958) 25) Merck Manual, p. 952 (1960) and Waldbott et al. Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. Coronado Press, Inc. Lawrence, KS p 163 (1978) 26) "Fluoride is a poison, comparable to arsenic and lead, as any toxicology textbook can confirm. It is a powerful inhibitor of many biological processes." Dr. John Colquhoun, former Principal Dental Officer, Aukland Health District, New Zealand. Affidavit in Safe Water Association, Inc. vs City of Fond du Lac, State of Wisconsin Circuit Court Case No. 92 CV 579. (1993) 27) Anita Shattuck The Fluoride Debate, Health Way House February 2001 "the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for lead is 0.015 ppm, and the MCL for arsenic was recently lowered to 10 ppb (parts per billion), with a goal of 0.0 ppm for both of them." Ed note: This is highly significant information. The MCL for lead, which is considered a little less toxic than fluoride, is .015 ppm. And the MCLG (maximum contaminant level goal) is zero. The MCLG for fluoride is 4 ppm. Therefore, the standard for lead is more than 250 times more stringent than the standard for fluoride, even though fluoride is more toxic! Generally when the government sets these standards they put in a big margin of safety. They haven't done this for fluoride. The NAS report strongly suggested that the MCLG for fluoride should be lowered to 2 ppm. That means if we fluoridate to 1 ppm, we would be adding enough fluoride to get halfway to the maximum level. This seems incredibly reckless, worse than useless, and ill advised. REPORT BY FLUORIDE COMMISSION CHAIR CONCLUDING THAT THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF FLUORIDATION IS INCONCLUSIVE AND THEREFORE RECOMMENDING AGAINST CONTINUING FLUORIDATION. June 24, 2006 It is undisputed that fluoride in large volumes is dangerous, even deadly when ingested by human beings. It is generally accepted that fluoridation in volumes of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L helps to protect against dental caries or tooth decay, although that conclusion is disputed by a minority of analysts. The weight of the evidence seems to indicate that water fluoridation in the 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L is an effective method of protecting against dental caries, and it provides universal protection — especially including lower income children who may not get acceptable levels of professional dental care. Use of fluoridated toothpaste, other commercial fluoride products, and topical fluoride treatments by a dentist, are alternative ways of providing fluoride protection against dental caries. A very small number of individuals appear to have demonstrable adverse effects on their health from drinking fluoridated water. A large majority of medical professionals in the United States support fluoridation, concluding that it is safe and effective in preventing dental caries. The lengthy booklet "Fluoridation Facts" by the American Dental Association (2005) presents the ADA position in detail in question and answer format. "The Fluoridation Debate: A Response to the American Dental Association Booklet Fluoridation Facts," compiled by Anita Shattuck in 2000, together with a supporting booklet of documentation, disputes the conclusions in an earlier version of the ADA booklet on the same question by question basis. These documents are listed on Exhibit D as items D-2, D-3 and D-4, and are available with the clerk. Exhibit A, Appendix A, page 3, to the Commission's interim report to the Mayor and Assembly of February 15, 2005, addressed the issue of cancer risks. That appendix should be updated to note that the American Cancer Society supports fluoridation and has concluded that it is safe. Much of the literature opposing fluoridation is anecdotal, makes an unreasonable extrapolation of evidence regarding ingestion of large amounts of fluoride to draw conclusions about the effects of small amounts of fluoride, or is based on junk science. All sides agree that further research is needed. That is a constant theme in the recent National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study, conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies, on the toxicology of fluoride. No definitive study on the effects of water fluoridation in volumes of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L has been done. The NRC report is the best compilation of the research done to date. The methods followed by the NRC meet professional scientific standards and its approach was unbiased. The NRC findings should be accorded great weight. The NRC report concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) maximum allowable level for fluoride of 4 mg/L is not adequately protective of health and should be reduced, and that the EPA's standard of 2 mg/L does not adequately prevent the occurrence of moderate enamel fluorosis. Further, the NRC cautioned that its study did not evaluate the risks or benefits of the lower fluoride concentrations (0.7 to 1.2 mg/L) used in water fluoridation, and warned against concluding that the potential harmful effects found at higher fluoride levels are applicable at the lower levels used in municipal fluoridation. See the NRC Report in Brief, p.4, attached as Exhibit B. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), following review of the NRC report, said that it "continues to strongly support community water fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure to prevent and control tooth decay and to improve overall health." See Exhibit C. See also Exhibits E-2, E-3 and E-5. The labor union representing 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., has issued a paper opposing water fluoridation as a potential health hazard. See Exhibit G. After considerable thought about the evidence, I have concluded that municipal water fluoridation probably provides significant, cost effective protection against dental caries, and is probably safe for all but a small number of individuals with specific medical issues. However, the possibility that fluoridation in the 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L range may have adverse health effects is not negligible, and the effectiveness of fluoridation in preventing dental caries is not certain. The nearly unanimous belief that further research is needed highlights the uncertainty about the effects of fluoridation. There are reasonable disagreements among scientists and governmental policy makers about fluoridation. For example, most of Europe has decided against fluoridation, and there is considerable evidence that this has not had an adverse effect on dental health (though there is also some contrary evidence). In the United States, fluoridation is widely, but not universally, used. Many American jurisdictions have decided not to fluoridate. See the five documents included as Exhibit C. The Alaska Legislature, this past session, adopted House Concurrent Resolution No. 5 (SCS HCR 5 (HES)), urging that all communities in Alaska offer their citizens the benefits of optimally fluoridated water. The resolution was supported by many state medical associations, dentists and communities, with a much smaller group in opposition. However, the scientific evidence presented to the Legislature was minimal and analysis of the evidence was non-existent. The resolution reflects a bandwagon effect based on conventional wisdom. See the documents listed as Exhbit D, Item 8, which include the Resolution and documents collected by the legislature, on file with the clerk. There are also differences of opinion among the members of the Juneau Fluoride Commission. Ali of the members have worked hard in studying the issues, and have researched and discussed them constructively. However, the members have reached different conclusions after reviewing the same evidence. I do not share the level of confidence of the three Commission members who recommend continued fluoridation, believing it to be safe and effective. The evidence is mixed and there is no definitive study on the issue. I do not share the assessment of the evidence by the two Commission members who recommend discontinuing fluoridation. No study has been found showing that fluoridation is harmful in the 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L range. The findings and reports cited by the members opposing fluoridation in many cases are disputed and often involve levels of fluoride well in excess of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L. The complete NRC report (Exhibit D, Item 1, on file with the City Clerk) raises many questions without answering them. For example, at page 138 the NRC finds the evidence inadequate to fully assess the risk of bone fractures for people exposed at the 2 mg/L level, or in the 1 to 4 mg/L range. See also pages 145-46. Studies finding an adverse effect on IQ were found in areas in China with a mean water concentration of fluoride of 2.47 plus or minus 0.79 (range 0.57-4.50 mg/L), as compared with areas with a mean concentration of 0.36 plus or minus 0.15 mg/L (range 0.18-0.76 mg/L). More study is said to be needed. See page 173. At page 186 the NRC raises the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, with more research needed. Adverse endocrine effects were found in ranges that could be reached with fluoride concentrations of 1-4 mg/L in drinking water, especially for children. NRC report, pp. 21.7-8, 224. The NRC notes that in 1993 it concluded that the collective data do not present convincing evidence of an association between fluoride and increased occurrence of bone cancer in animals. But in 2006 it says, "the nature of the uncertainties in the existing data could also be viewed as supporting a greater precaution regarding the potential risk to humans." Page 271; see also p. 275. Analyzing studies since 1993, the NRC says, "The combined literature described above does not clearly indicate that fluoride is or is not carcinogenic in humans." Page 284. The "... literature as a whole is still mixed and equivocal." Page 286. These cherry picked examples do not fairly represent the NRC report as a whole, and none of these examples provides proof that fluoridation in the level used by municipalities is unsafe. However, the NRC finds a need for further study in nearly every area of its analysis. I find the level of uncertainty in the NRC report to be troubling. I believe that the evidence supporting the conclusions that water fluoridation helps protect against dental caries, and is safe, is stronger that the evidence that fluoridation is ineffective or unsafe. Absolute proof that fluoridation is safe and effective cannot be expected. However, the evidence in support of fluoridation is not as firm as the proponents claim, and the possibility that fluoridation may have adverse effects is not insignificant. In summary, I find the evidence concerning the effectiveness and safety of municipal fluoridation to be inconclusive. In reviewing the available scientific studies as an engineer, I find that the evidence tends to support fluoridation, but that the studies done so far are inadequate and further examination is required before final conclusions can be drawn. In reviewing the evidence as a lawyer, I believe a preponderance of the evidence supports fluoridation, but the evidence does not meet a higher, clear and convincing standard. Since I do not find the evidence supporting fluoridation to be compelling, I think the City and Borough of Juneau should follow the maxim, "first, do no harm." I recommend that Juneau discontinue water fluoridation until further studies of the kind advocated by the National Research Council address the issues of the safety and effectiveness against dental caries of water fluoridation in the 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L range. William B. Rozell Commission Chair M LIST OF EXHIBITS Report Of The Juneau Fluoride Study Commission A. Interim Report Of Fluoride Study Commission (Feb. 15, 2005) Including Appendices: ....................................................................................... Appendix A: Literature Search On Cancer And Brain/Intelligence Issues Page 28 ........Page 33 Appendix B: Fluoride Cost/Benefit Analyses ...................................................Page 39 Appendix C: Fluoridation And The Thyroid .....................................................Page 45 Appendix D: Fluoride And Dental Caries Prevention .......................................Page 49 Appendix E: Fluoridation And Bone.................................................................Page Appendix F: Fluoridation: Other Policy Issues .................................................Page 51 87 B. Report In Brief, Fluoride In Drinking Water (March 2006) (Summary OfNRC/NAS Report)...........................................................................Page 89 C. Summaries Of Actions On Fluoridation In Other Jurisdictions ..............................Page 94 C-1: Other Communities In Alaska................................................................... Page 95 C-2: Processes By Which Some Communities Have Decided Not To Fluoridate Their Community Water Supply................................................................Page 96 C-3: Mandatory State Laws On Fluoridation ....................................................Page 97 C-4: U.S. Communities Recently Voting To Adopt Fluoridation ...................Page 102 C-5: Communities Which Have Rejected Fluoridation Since 1990 ................Page 107 D. List Of Selected Additional Documents On File With The City Clerk .................Page 113 E. Exhibits Accompanying Subcommittee Report In Favor Of Continued Fluoridation.....................................................................Page1469 E-1: Letter From Brad Whistler To Bart Rozell (May 12, 2006) re: NRC Report Presentation At The National Oral Health Conference And Dental Decay (Caries) In Alaska.................................................................................... Page 1470 E-2: CDC Paper: Preventing Dental Caries ...................................................Page 1479 E-3: CDC Paper: Oral Health — Water Fluoridation — Safety — Osteosarcoma (Statement On NRC Report, 2006)......................................................... Page 1481 E-4: Surgeon General Statement On Community Water Fluoridation (July 28, 2004)..................................................................Page 1483 E-5: Statement From American Water Works Association On Fluoride Report Issued By National Research Council (March 22, 2006) ......................Page 1484 E-6: CDC Paper: Oral Health, Preventing Cavities, Gum Disease and Tooth Loss (2006) .........................................Page 1486 F. CDC Paper: Oral Health — Water Fluoridation — Safety (March 28, 2006) .........Pagel490 G. Why EPA Headquarters Union Of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation ...................Page 1494 H. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Letter To Bart Rozell (Jan. 12, 2005) Supporting Fluoridation........................................................................................Pagel502 Page ,)FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK HOME FLUORIDE DANGERS TAKE ACTION NEWS ARCHIVE VIDEO ABOUT FAN FAQ Subscribe to FAN's FREE Newsletter. Join the fight to get our water clean! Enter email address Fluoride Facts Like 507 Tvot 23 o 10 Facts about Fluoride Fluoride Action Network I Printer -Friendly Version f DONATE TODAY Submit Query 1) 97 o of western Europe has chosen fluoride -free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, German Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride. 2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All othe treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance: In Germany, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication." In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services." In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way." 3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, !r" however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1). According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all othe tissues to fluoride by swallowing it. 4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4). Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluoresis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early -life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6). 5) There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at -risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has tpr . Page ,, monstrated, there are many equally effective and less -intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example: A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions i;ot to swallcvv) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy. B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family -size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non -fluoride alternatives) for those families in need. C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc. 6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed. Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example: a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. AnimalID r studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia -like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10) b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an "endocrine disrupter." Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low -iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11) c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12) d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies — including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists — have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16) e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19) 7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally -occurring fluoride complexes. The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate Fe !hzer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to hiigt?er blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23) Water fluoridation's benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as ective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Car "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36) a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occ rred in the US over the past 50 years, the same .1a� Page The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the Worla Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44) b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41) c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low- income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children ("baby bottle tooth decay") is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally -based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental -care access. 9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low- income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example: a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA's recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47) b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride's toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in low-income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end -stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Ear Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: "I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51) 10) Due to other sources, many people are being over -exposed to fluoride. Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. Asa'""' result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered "optimal" for a full day's worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry: 'Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52) Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over -exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53) * Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea. References To access the references, ,:!.ck "sere Your Donation helps You can help support our efforts to initiate legislative changes and spread our message. M Page oride Dangers Sources of Fluoride Dental Fluorosis Other Risks of Fluoride Fluoride's Benefits? Copyright 2007 - 2012 FAN Email Fluoride Action Network News Archive Cr' Join the fight to get our water clean Subscribe to FAN's FREE Newsletter and get the Latest Bulletin Updates Enter email address JOIN NOW Contact the Fluoride Action Network: info@fluoridealert.c MEMO Meeting Date: February 13, 2012 V-/1From: Johanna Kinney, City Clerk Agenda Item: Invitation to send up to a nine son delegation in Obihiro, Japan in October/November, 2012. BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: Obihiro, Japan has been Seward's Sister City since 1968. The two cities have participated in a student exchange since 1973. Seward and Obihiro exchange correspondence each year, as well as trophies for our respective community events. In 2002, at the request of our Sister City, Seward sent a 26 person delegation to Obihiro to celebrate their 1201h Anniversary as a city. In 2003, Seward invited delegations from Obihiro and Port City Kushiro, Japan to celebrate Seward's l 001h Anniversary as a city. Copies of Resolutions approving these expenditures are attached. Last month, the City Clerk's Office received an email invitation from the City of Obihiro to participate in their 130th anniversary celebrations occurring October 30 — November 3, 2012. Obihiro has offered to pay for costs excluding lodging and airfare for up to nine people. It was noted in the invitation that this does not limit the number of the delegation, but what Obihiro is able to pay for. The City Clerk is looking into cost estimates for airfare and lodging. At the time of printing the agenda packet, costs were unknown. Sister City Coordinator Debbie Bond estimated airfare to be approximately $1,500 to $2,000. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss sending a delegation to Obihiro and direct the City Clerk to craft a response to the invitation based on what the wishes of the City Council are. �k„rJohanna Kinney From: Josh Neta <joshneta@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:15 PM To: Johanna Kinney; Brenda Ballou Subject: Obihiro 130 Year Anniversary Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Johanna, This year marks the 130 year pioneering anniversary and 80 year city founding anniversary of Obihiro. We will have having a celebratory ceremony on 11/1 and would like to invite the Mayor, City Council Chairperson, and any other relevant parties. A welcome party will also be held on 10/31, so we are recommending that visitors be in Obihiro from 10/30 till 11/3. Obihiro will be paying for food, transportation for sightseeing, and any relevant fees for sightseeing locations for up to 9 people. Note that 9 people is not a limit on how many people are invited, simply how many people the city of Obihiro has budgeted for and will be able to pay for. We are sorry but we will not be able to pay for lodging or airfare. Please RSVP by 1/31 if it will be possible for a delegation to attend. With the elections coming up in November we are aware that it might be difficult to send a delegation. If it is not �r possible to attend because of the time frame, please let me know if there is another time of the year that would be possible for a delegation to come to Obihiro. Thank you, Josh BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS NOTE: This message was trained as non-spam. If this is wrong, please correct the training as soon as possible. Teach Canit if this mail (ID 3174804) is spam: Spam: http://canit.cityofseward.net/canit/b.php?i=3174804&m=23f88e33leda&c=s Not spam: http://canit.cityofseward.net/canit/b.php?i=3174804&m=23f88e33leda&c=n Forget vote: http://canit.cityofseward.net/canit/b.php?i=3174804&m=23f88e33leda&c=f ----------------------------------------------- END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS 2 \ C_ ' Of, NV/\- ill ) lrO_ kt(-A 16 August 17,. 1-00 ; Jttnzo KashM ao%, Chief Manager International and Domestic Relations Section City of'Obihiro, J;apa.ai DcarJtrnzo KashalNaot, 224 -0 Police ,7 * Harbor (901) 22t-313& e Fire ( 07) 2 <4-;3445 * Clfi}r Clerk KV07) < %4-4N6 4 Crtt: mooring (907) 2 4.404 a Fax (` 07) 2124-40 3? Thank you so much for taking the: time to sit down and ine:et with us on Monday, Jt:aly ?h, 2008. The City of Seward very much appreciate,,; you making the long trip to Seward, and ive ltope that you had all enjoyable stay ill our little: town. I just ~witted to briefly summarize the meeting we had, to be clear oil some cal' the questions you had. I tlrouglat you could get tlai-, letter translated and it may, be ot' help to you. as I know our language Farrier sometimes keeps us From crnxuaaunicating host we WOUld like to (thank. goodness for Greg!). llurirag out, ancctiaag, you met with the f'ollOwittg City C1i'ficials: City Manager Phillip Cates, C OLIncil --lenaber Jean Bardarson, Sister City Coordinatorl)e.bbie Fond, anti rrtti self assistant City Clerk Johataraa DollerMcle. y 'e spoke briefly ol• our two cities, how large Obiltiro is and hole- small Seward is. III the rnWiraO, YOU had asked if' the Cityof* Seward finances the exchange 5tudeaat" travel to Obihiro liar the exchange program, Basically, thin Sister City t'rograan for Seward is a smaller scale program. and primarily conununity driven. 'I'lre (.'itV of Seward . bud<octs to contract Debbie Bond, Our Sister City Coordinator, to orgaanize tile. prog,raln. Unfortunately our office is too small and has toes Imlay things going on at once to =rive the program the attention it needs, so we hire Debbie to Bell us. Tire events while the Obiliiro students are here are paid for entirely through city fLurds. Debbie oaganizes everything fior the City of Seward, From selecting; the students to coordinating plane tickets With your depail-trZaent to organizing ltomestays to coordinating all of the: events. I'verything that. Debbie needs to do this. the City of Seward pays for out o[' city- hands. I lowe;ver, because our town is eery small and our budget is very limited, the sttulents are responsible for paying their way to Obihiro. 'I'his typically is clone: through raaising money within the coaaanran1ity. We are very lucky to have a comaaaunity that staPpcnts wonderful progran7s Like tilts. especially when the (Jtv of Seward can't really make the finauicial cornanitmertt to fly our students over to Japan. I hope- this aansr.Nercd your question :for i otr; if you ��cn.ild like further cxplanation, please ciorr't iaesitate to :ask. -ate m You also spoke of the City oft}biliiro's upcomin4, celebration of its 130"' Anniversary in 2012.. We are very excited at the possibility of sending a delegation to Obihiro to help celebrate this significant event. Also, we would be very honored to host a delegation of' Obihiro's citizens the; follo«-ing year in 2013 to help us celebrate the 1.10'11 Anniversary ofthe City of Seward. We look forward to planning these mornentous events (ogether. I am surd it will be an exciting tine! 1 hope this clarifies our conversation a little better. It was wonderful to meet you, a:nd we very much appreciate you meeting with our City Officials. I loot: forward to keeping in touch with you and to keel) Our sister city ties strong. Please let myself or Jean Lewis know if you have any other tluestions (:)r if' you _just want to chat! Take care. a.. _nk hanna E )olle:rhide Assistant City Clerk. City of Seward, Alaska 1.1Sf City of Seward, Alaska City Council Minutes `400� May 13, 2002 Volume, Page64 7 Motion (Orr/Shafer) Motion approved Other New Business Items Approve Resolution 2002-052 Unanimous Accepting the resignation from Seward City Council of Council Member Charles David Brossow and declaring his City Council Seat vacant effective May 14, 2002. Brossow was noted to have a conflict of interest. Motion (Clark/Calhoon) Accept the resignation of Council Member Charles David Brossow Motion approved Yes: Calhoon, Shafer, Orr, Branson, Clark, Blatchford Abstain: Brossow Discuss Obihiro —120`h Anniversary Trip. Sister City Coordinator Lani Lockwood gave an overview of the invitation from our Sister City. Janke stated that this was on the agenda because some decisions had to be made including; which individuals would have their travel expenses paid for by the City, how many would attend, the length of the visit and how delegates were going to be chosen. Council Member Vanta Shafer was appointed Council liaison to organize the Sister City Adult Exchange. Appointing 2 Applicants to the Historic Preservation Commission. The Mayor appointed and the Council confirmed Sherry Appel and Iris Darling to the Historic Preservation Commission. Mayor Blatchford noted he was impressed with Connie Spencer's qualifications. Informational items and reports Finance Quarterly Report January — March 2002. Seward Alice Pickett Memorial Animal Shelter April 2002 Report In Sponsored by: Clerk CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2002-061 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, APPROPRIATING $30,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE, AND AUTHORIZING TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF $30,000 FOR DELEGATION EXPENSES TO CELEBRATE OBIHIRO, JAPAYS 120TH ANNIVERSARY WHEREAS, the City of Obihiro, Japan has invited a delegation from the City of Seward to travel to Japan in celebration of Obihiro's 120`h Anniversary; and WHEREAS, the approximate dates of the trip are October 29`h — November 7`h, depending on airline flight availability and scheduling arrangements; and WHEREAS, the City of Obihiro will pay for the Seward Delegation's four night stay at a hotel in Obihiro and meals during this time; and r, WHEREAS, the City of Obihiro has agreed to set up homestay placements so the Seward Delegation may extend their trip; and WHEREAS, the City of Seward will pay for the travel expenses of City Manager Scott Janke, City Clerk Jean Lewis, Finance Director Kristin Erchinger, Sister City Coordinator Lani Lockwood, Mayor Edgar Blatchford, Council Member Margaret Branson, Council Member Stu Clark, and Council Member Vanta Shafer; and rj WHEREAS, the City of Seward will pay for a reception in Obihiro's honor; and WHEREAS, the City of Seward will pay for a gift for our Sister City of Obihiro, a gift for our Sister Port City of Kushiro, a small group visit to Kushiro, commemorative pins, and small gifts to our delegation counterparts; and WHEREAS, the City of Seward also approves the following individuals as members of the Seward Delegation: Kate Anthony, Blaine Bardarson, Jean Bardarson, Debra Bond, James Bond, Becky Buchanan, Rebecca Callahan, Carol Chaudiere, Dawn Hunziker, Linda Lockwood, Monica Luther, Melody Moline, Jean Polowski, Pat Reilly, Jessica Sauer, Sandy Wassillie, Brent Whitmore, and Ann Wright. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, that: a3� CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2002-061. Section 1. The Council appropriates funds of $30,000 from the General Fund Fund Balance Account Number 101-0000-3050, and authorizes total expenditures of $30,000 to the Promotion Account Number 101-1110-5730. Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska, this 24th day of June, 2002. THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA c-'o, t�Z'L',-) Edgar Blatchford, Mayor AYES: Blatchford, Branson, Calhoon, Clark, Orr, Shafer, Valdatta NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: J. Jean ewis City Clerk ,v,��trrrrrrrrrr0� (City Sea[) ` y F SE+ •• �aQj.'• ©ems a ; SEAL ., r • c+a • � 3Co Fwn R Sponsored by: Clerk CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2003-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, APPROPRIATING $26,913 FROM THE GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE, AND AUTHORIZING TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF $26,913 FOR JAPANESE DELEGATION EXPENSES WHILE IN ALASKA WHEREAS, the City of Obihiro and the City of Seward have been Sister -Cities for 34 years; and WHEREAS, the City of Seward joined the City of Obihiro's 120`h Anniversary Celebration by sending a delegation of 20 Sewardites to Japan in 2002; and WHEREAS, the City of Obihiro hosted the entire Seward delegation to four nights in a hotel, fifteen meals, a chartered tour to Kushiro, a tour of Sapporo, two welcome receptions, gifts were given to each member of the delegation and to the City of Seward, home stays were arranged, and many activities in Obihiro were provided; and WHEREAS, the Council would like to extend an invitation for Obihiro to send a delegation to Seward to help celebrate our Centennial; and WHEREAS, some activities for an Obihiro delegation could include: arrive in Anchorage spend night in Anchorage hotel, train ride to Seward, Resurrection Bay cruise, local hikes and activities, a reception hosted by the City of Seward, community potluck/ barbecue, chartered Bus Limo to return to Anchorage, and one night in Anchorage prior to return flight to Obihiro; and WHEREAS, Kushiro, Japan and Seward have been Sister Ports for 21 years, exchange annual gifts, have hosted delegates from the respective cities, and the Council would like to extend an invitation for a small delegation (Mayor and a guest) to come and help Seward celebrate our Centennial at the same time of the Obihiro delegation; and WHEREAS, Seward's Comprehensive Plan states, "There is Interest in Continuing to Strengthen Seward's Trade With Foreign Countries" and "Continue to promote tourism and extend maximum support to the efforts of local, State, national and international organizations which promote Seward as a visitor destination point." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA that: Section 1. The Council appropriates funds of $26,913 from the General Fund Fund Balance Account Number 10 1 -0000-3050, and authorizes total expenditures of $26,913 to the Promotion Account Number 101-1110-5730. CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2003-010 Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the city of Seward, Alaska, this 271h day of January, 2003. THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA Edgar Blatchford, Mayo AYES: Valdatta, Shafer, Orr, Dunham, Branson, Clark, Blatchford NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: Jea ewis uuItri�� Cit Clerk °.e° pF ul; j�,•f ���, w4� V��••'APOH;F� f;�'; 'C> (City Seal) +• SE M V i ~_ • r ram♦ ~�� '•^!� 1 i,•'• �j o° �.. r OF A�•P`°` a-�;z City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund Line Item Revenue Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7s of year has expired THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actual YTD Budget --------------------- Annual % of Account Name 2010 2011 Variance Budget variance Budget ---------- Annual Bud ------- ----------------- General Property $ ---------- 964,027 ---------- $ 970,257 --------- $ 6,230 $ ---------- 930,337 --------- $ 39,920 $ 1,014,913 95.60 °s Sales Tax Revenue 3,761,346 3,965,363 204,017 3,599,316 366,048 3,926,526 100.99 Other Taxes 315,607 321,956 6,349 282,931 39,025 309,652 104.31 Penalties and int 1,204 11119 (86) 1,375 (256) 11500 74.57 Licenses & Permit 137,177 150,142 12,965 159,418 (9,275) 173,910 86.33 P.I.L.T. 72,655" 48,068 (24,587) 77,000 (28,932) 84,000 57.22 Intrgvrmmntl Reve 1,091,440 1,510,096 418,656 1,278,151 231,946 1,394,346 108.30 General Governmen 1,706,014 1,793,293 87,280 1,689,819 103,474 1,843,439 97.28 Public Safety 12,047 12,307 260 11,733 574 12,800 96.15 Public Works 2,173 1,750 (423) 2,750 (1,000) 3,000 58.33 Recreation 615,435 608,553 (6,882) 559,625 48,928 610,500 99.68 Library/Museum 14,533 9,148 (5,385) 13,292 (4,144) 14,500 63.09 Fines 8,668 11,377 2,709 15,583 (4,207) 17,000 66.92 GF Interest Reven 39,378 37,999 (1,379) 179,G67 (141,668) 196,000 19.39 Rents and Royalti 130,252 122,467 (7,785) 114,105 8,362 124,478 98.38 Sales Fixed Asset 8,069 1,150 (6,919) 1,833 (683) 2,000 57.50 Spec Proj Revenue 108,156 23,053 (85,103) 262,467 (239,414) 286,327 8.05 Other Misr Revenu 60,812 24,679 (36,133) 19,956 4,724 21,770 113.36 Misc. Operating R 8,697 784 (7,913) 1,833 ---------- (1,049) --------- 2,000 ---------- 39.21 ------- Total Revenue $ ---------- 9,057,688 ---------- $ 9,613,561 --------- $ 555,873 $ 9,201,190 $ 412,372 $ 10,037,661 95.77 % 40 1 GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 0 - General Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTI YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num ---- Acct ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ REVENUES: 4110 100 Real Property Tax 125,965.86 691,385.81 - 691,386 715,913 96.6 4110 200 Personal Property Tax 51,374.43 255,247.69 - 255,248 270,000 94.5 4110 210 Motor Vehicle Registratio 4,647.64 23,623.36 - 23,623 29,000 81.5 4120 100 City Sales Tax 1,198,526.76 3,965,363.37 - 3,965,363 3,926,526 101.0 4130 300 Hotel/Motel Room Tax 57,122.90 321,956.09 - 321,956 308,652 104.3 4190 100 Tax Penalties & Interest 21.55 1,118.60 - 1,119 1,500 74.6 4230 100 Taxi Permits 115.00 1,055.00 - 1,055 1,400 75.4 4230 200 Building Permits 1,769.26 48,062.20 - 48,062 50,000 96.1 4230 300 Dog Licenses 7.00 147.00 - 147 750 1, 4230 400 DMV - Drivers License 1,055.00 23,203.50 - 23,204 26,400 87 4230 401 DMV - Motor Vehicles 4,709.70 61,884.50 - 61,885 69,360 89.2 4230 500 Misc Permits and Licenses - 4,210.00 - 4,210 4,300 97.9 4230 600 City Business License 150.00 11,580.00 - 11,580 21,700 53.4 4330 175 P.I.L.T. - Alaska SeaLife - 48,068.00 - 48,068 84,000 57.2 4350 110 Alaska Liquor Tax - 20,950.00 - 20,950 20,000 104.8 4350 130 Alaska Raw Fish Tax - 604,761.28 - 604,761 410,000 147.5 4350 131 Fisheries Resource Landin - - - - 5,000 - 4350 140 Revenue Sharing - City po 77,275.00 306,509.00 - 306,509 412,846 74.2 4350 170 Jail Contract - 491,341.00 - 491,341 450,000 109.2 4350 180 Dispatch Contract w/State - 36,375.00 - 36,375 48,500 75.0 4350 190 KPB 911 Dispatch Contract - 50,160.00 - 50,160 48,000 104.5 4410 110 Copying Charge 958.34 8,224.00 - 8,224 15,300 53.8 4410 120 Sales Tax Credit for Prom - 3,000.01 - 3,000 4,000 75.0 4410 300 Zoning Fees - 15.00 - 15 250 6.0 4410 410 Project Management (94.03) 198,159.41 - 198,159 96,004 206.4 4410 470 Admin. Exp. - SMIC 7,223.99 79,464.01 - 79,464 86,688 91.7 4410 500 Admin Exp.- Harbor 27,066.24 297,726.76 - 297,729 324,795 91.7 4410 501 Admin. Exp.- Parking Fund 809.58 8,905.42 - 8,905 9,715 91.7 4410 510 Admin. Exp. - Electric 70,607.58 776,683.42 - 776,683 847,291 91.7 4410 520 Admin. Exp. - Water 19,478.66 214,265.34 - 214,265 233,744 91.7 4410 530 Admin. Exp. - Sewer 11,895.42 130,849.58 - 130,850 142,745 91.7 4410 560 Admin. Exp. - Jail 6,908.91 75,998.09 - 75,998 82,907 91.7 4420 110 Misc. Dog Fees 165.00 1,525.00 - 1,525 2,000 76.3 4420 250 Misc. Jail Revenue 70.00 1,610.70 - 1,611 800 201 4420 275 Misc. Police Revenue - 4.67 - 5 - 4420 400 Misc Dispatching 833.33 9,166.67 - 9,167 10,000 91.7 4430 150 Shop Dept Work Orders 52.50 1,750.00 - 1,750 3,000 58.3 4470 10 Parks & Rec: Public Use F 267.06 5,658.90 - 5,659 4,500 125.8 4470 20 Parks & Rec: Punchcard Fe 7,829.88 27,435.42 - 27,435 19,000 144.4 4470 30 Parks & Rec: Class Regist 960.00 57,440.75 - 57,441 61,000 94 GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 0 - General Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTI YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num ---- Acct ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ------------ ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ 4470 40 Parks & Rec: FaciliLy Reis 28.04 553.26 - 533 300 184.4 4470 50 Parks & Rec: Tournaments 14.02 6,882.37 - 6,882 6,500 105.9 447�0 60 Parks & Rec: Special Even 1,396.25 21,296.42 - 21,296 14,500 146.9 4470 80 Parks & Rec: Shower Fees - 11,765.42 - 11,765 11,000 107.0 4470 10D Parks & Rec: Rock Wall Fe 52.34 751.43 - 751 - - 4470 110 Parks & Rec: Pavilion Fee - 2,927.60 - 2,928 3,200 91.5 4470 120 Parks & Rec: Camping Fees 250,722.48 - 250,722 261,000 96.1 4470 121 Mini -Service Campground R - 222,070.13 - 222,070 225,000 98.7 4470 150 Parks & Rec: Miscellaneou 118.66 448.81 - 449 1,500 29.9 4470 160 Parks & Rec: Work Order R - 600.00 - 600 3,000 20.0 4490 100 Library Service Revenue 385.60 5,660.00 - 5,660 8,500 66.6 4490 110 Library Circulation Reven 131.80 3,487.83 - 3,488 6,000 58.1 4510 0 Fines - General 430.20 11,376.76 - 11,377 17,000 66.9 4610 0 Misc A/R Interest Revenue - 73.84 - 74 - - 4610 10 GF Interest on Investment 3,701.45 37,231.14 - 37,231 185,000 20.1 4610 30 GF Interest on Repo 63.01 856.01 - 856 5,000 17.1 4610 120 GF Penalties & Interest (31.35) (162.45) - (162) 6,000 (2.7) 4620 100 General Fund Land Rents & - 35,900.00 - 35,900 44,478 80.7 4620 160 Jail Facility Rental 2,500.00 27,500.00 - 27,500 30,000 91.7 4620 200 Municipal Building Rental - 59,067.23 - 59,067 50,000 118.1 4640 100 Surplus Equipment Sales 1,150.00 - 1,150 2,000 57.5 4680 100 Federal Project Funds - 2,311.02 - 2,311, - - 4680 200 State Project Funds - 11,500.00 - 11,500 281,827 4.1 4680 900 Spec.Proj.Other Rev. - 9,241.73 - 9,242 4,500 205.4 4690 100 Garbage Contract - 19,218.74 - 19,219 15,120 127.1 4690 200 SVAC Maintenance Fee - - - - 2,400 4690 500 City Clerk Fees 5.00 122.00 - 122 250 48.8 4690 600 Collection of Doubtful Ac 122.59 1,287.28 - 1,287 2,000 64.4 4690 900 Misc Service Fees - 0,03 - - - - 4690 910 Vending Machine Fees - 4,051.38 - 4,051 2,000 202.6 4880 490 Miscellaneous Revenue (0.01) 784.13 - ------- 784 --------- 2,000 --------- 39.2 ------ TOTAL REVENUES ------------ 1,686,690.16 ------------ 9,613,561.14 - 9,613,561 10037661 95.8 a L-�\ City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund Line Item Expenditure Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7% of year has expired THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actual YTD Budget --------------------- Annual % of Account Name 2010 2011 Variance Budget Variance Budget Annual Bud Salaries $ 3,156,460 $ 3,172,310 $ 15,850 $ 3,401,718 $ (229,408) $ 3,710,965 85.48 Overtime 131,450 113,639 (17,811) 121,717 (8,078) 132,782 85.58 Standby Time 6,591 6,651 60 7,178 (527) 7,830 84.94 Unemployment Wage 24,255 12,589 (11,667) 18,792 (6,203) 20,500 61.41 Leave Time 327,221 333,390 6,169 361,541 (28,151) 394,408 84.53 In Lieu of FICA 6,584 7,900 1,317 6,338 1,562 6,914 114.26 Retirement Benefi 730,385 733,267 2,883 778,956 (45,689) 849,770 86,29 Health Insurance 974,950 996,063 21,113 1,026,398 (30,335) 1,119,707 88.96 Workers' Comp 114,565 106,259 (8,307) 128,466 (22,208) 140,145 75.82 Medicare 68,274 ---------- 69,632 1,358 70,044 (412) 76,412 91.13 Total Persnl Sery 5,540,734 ---------- 5,551,700 --------- 10,965 ---------- 5,921,147 --------- (369,448) ---------- 6,459,433 ------- 85.95 Audit 65,873 66,705 832 58,603 8,102 63,930 104.3 Advertising 25,432 30,441 5,009 34,540 (4,100) 37,680 8 0. 7 Subscriptions/Due 11,382 11,746 364 22,642 (10,895) 24,700 47.56 Travel/Subsistenc 73,732 95,225 21,492 86,440 8,784 94,299 100.98 Communications 71,285 68,669 (2,615) 88,487 (19,818) 96,531 71.14 Education/Trainin 20,452 20,397 (55) 37,428 (17,031) 40,830 49.96 Legal 143,800 162,844 19,044 133,833 29,011 146,000 111.54 Other Spec Servic 19,218 11,500 (7,718) 22,458 (10,958) 24,500 46.94 Utilities 319,886 359,396 39,510 318,817 40,579 347,800 103.33 Heating Fuel 36,852 52,000 15,148 67,421 (15,420) 73,550 70.70 Rents & Leases 52,177 37,098 (15,079) 57,108 (20,011) 62,300 59.55 Insurance 184,754 159,934 (24,820) 236,097 (76,162) 257,560 62.10 Maintenance & Rep 143,398 147,072 3,674 246,771 (99,700) 269,205 54.63 Contracted Servic 208,431 204,552 (3,879) 308,924 (104,373) 337,008 60.70 Library Bks.& Mat 25,325 18,608 (6,718) 22,917 (4,309) 25,000 74.43 Vehicle Supplies 3,897 931 (2,967) 7,517 (6,586) 8,200 11.35 Uniform Allowance 5,271 4,315 (956) 5,821 (1,506) 6,350 67.96 Operating Supplie 224,046 245,742 21,696 246,519 (777) 268,930 91.38 Gas & Lube 75,694 90,191 14,497 103,079 (12,889) 112,450 80.21 Equip,Furn,Tools 32,925 39,177 6,253 81,368 (42,190) 88,765 44.14 Safety Equip/Supp 6,881 5,429 (1,452) 15,950 (10,521) 17,400 31.20 Janitorial Suppli 8,778 9,757 978 8,754 1,003 9,550 102.16 Inmate Meals 8,120 8,831 710 12,375 (3,544) 13,500 65.41 Postage/Misc.Frei 29,829 31,287 1,458 40,425 (9,138) 44,100 70.94 Equipment Rental 42,018 20,552 (21,466) 52,525 (31,973) 57,300 35.87 Motor Pool Rent 188,634 188,634 - 188,634 - 205,782 91.67 Campgrounds (647) 18,365 19,012 - 18,365 - - Sister City Progr 3,989 3,455 (534) 3,667 (212) 4,000 86.36 Municipal Lobby F 136,690 136,940 249 144,696 (7,756) 157,850 86.75 Contributions 239,002 951,000 711,998 876,333 74,667 956,000 99.48 Bad Debt Expense - - - 1,375 (1,375) 1,500 - Genl Govt Admin F 72,941 75,998 3,057 75,998 82,907 91.67 iN .\ 1 City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund Line Item Expenditure Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7% of year has expired ---------------------------------------------------------------- THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL Actual YTD Budget --------------------- Annual % of Account Name ----------------- 2010 ---------- 2011 Variance Budget Variance Budget Annual Bud Contingency $ 32,358 ---------- $ 25,993 --------- $ (6,365) $ ---------- 28,974 --------- $ (2,981) $ ---------- 31,608 ------- 82.24 % Elections 2,127 2,062 (66) 3,667 (1,605) 4,000 51.54 Promotion 3,666 4,036 370 5,687 (1,651) 6,205 65.05 Vol Fireman Stipe 16,500 20,000 3,500 18,333 1,667 20,000 100.00 Bank,credit card 6,846 9,231 2,385 19,250 (10,019) 21,000 43.96 Misc. Expenses 46,986 95,843 48,857 92,831 3,012 101,270 94.64 Principal 159,828 159,883 55 248,111 (88,228) 270,667 59.07 Interest Expense 6,630 3,367 (3,264) 76,129 (72,763) 83,050 4.05 Capital Equipment 20,485 17,053 (3,432) 39,417 (22,364) 43,000 39.66 Misc. Programs 2,109 1,262 (827) 5,042 (3,760) 5,500 23.30 Pass-Thru Payment - - - 229,167 (229,167) 250,000 - Total Expenses ---------- $ 8,318,336 ---------- $ 9,167,237 --------- $ 848,901 $ ---------- 10,295,276 --------- $(1,128,039) $ ---------- 11,231,210 ------- 81.62 1 2, FAF GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM [KRISTI City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1110 - Mayor and Council Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries - 18,000.00 - 18,000 18,450 97.6 5060 Retirement Benefits - 242.88 - 243 185 131.3 5080 Workers' Compensation - 164.70 - 165 212 77.7 5090 Medicare - 1,228.20 - 1,228 1,259 97.6 Total Personnel ------------ ------------ 19,635.78 ------- - --------- 19,636 --------- 20,106 ------ 97.7 5110 Audit - 66,704.71 - 66,705 63,930 104.3 5120 Advertising and Publicati 4,531.39 21,708.59 - 21,709 24,080 90 5130 Subscriptions and Dues - 3,425.66 - 3,426 4,250 80 5140 Travel and Subsistence 1,702.00 30,534.17 - 30,534 25,699 118.8 5150 Communications 269.84 2,725.23 - 2,725 4,000 68.1 5160 Education and Training 600.00 800.00 - 800 1,700 47.1 5370 Insurance - 344.82 - 345 900 38.3 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - 2,271.78 - 2,272 - - 5440 Operating Supplies 1,344.17 5,795.90 - 5,796 10,000 58.0 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To - - - - 5,000 - 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 50.77 1,352.69 - 1,353 1,800 75.1 5560 Sister Cities Program - 3,454.52 - 3,455 4,000 86.4 5570 0 Municipal Lobby Fees 759.90 51,525.73 84,833 136,359 77,000 66.9 5570 10 Federal Programs - Lobby 14,116.00 85,413.86 105,801 191,215 80,850 105.6 5690 Contingency - 2,500.00 - 2,500 10,000 25.0 5730 Promotion & Entertainment - 3,854.19 - 3,854 6,005 64.2 5790 Misc. Expenses - 107.00 - 107 - - TOTAL EXPENSES 23,374.07 302,154.63 ------------ 190,635 492,789 339,319 89.0 e In GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1111 - Legislative - Boards & Commissions Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTI YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + — ----------------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 2,310.76 28,753.35 - 28,753 18,138 158.5 5040 Leave Time 127.58 1,469.96 - 1,470 1,702 86.4 5060 Retirement Benefits 230.95 3,152.29 - 3,152 1,441 218.8 5070 Health Insurance 949.58 9,031.55 - 9,032 6,995 129.1 5080 Workers' Compensation 18.72 262.53 - 263 211 124.4 5090 Medicare 33.49 416.92 - 417 278 --------- 150.0 ------ Total Personnel ------------ 3,671.08 ------------ 43,086.60 ------- - --------- 43,087 28,765 149.8 5120 Advertising and Publicati - - - 850 - 5130 Subscriptions and Dues 125.00 _ 125 1,050 11.9 5140 Travel and Subsistence 51.93 573.26 - 573 1,100 52.1 5160 Education and Training - - - - 1,700 - 5370 Insurance - 453.10 - 453 1,100 41.2 5440 Operating Supplies 147.12 1,025.54 - 1,026 3,000 34.2 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight - 1.45 - ------- 1 --------- 500 --------- 0.3 ------ TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 3,870.13 ------------ 45,264.95 - 45,265 38,065 118.9 % In ass GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM [KRISTI City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1115 - General Fund Legal Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ACTUAL + % Bgt Num ---- Acct ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ------------------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5140 Travel and Subsistence 92.65 176.80 - 177 5170 0 Legal - Unallocated - 10,631.42 - 10,631 - 5170 1001 General Government 3,136.63 59,808.48 - 59,808 146,000 41.0 5170 1002 Rock quarry - 487.50 - 488 - - 5170 1008 Property Title Issues 825.76 1,527.76 - 1,528 - - 5170 1022 Legal Re: Alaska SeaLife 1.82 1,758.03 - 1,758 - - 5170 1026 Planning & Zoning Issues 1.83 6,494.68 - 6,495 - - 5170 1030 QNT/Mariculture Agreement - 136.50 - 137 - 5170 1035 GF Portion of SBH Leases 3,012.94 - 3,013 - 5170 1036 GF Portion of SMIC Leases 702.81 - 703 - - 5170 1041 Long -Term Care Facility - 2,555.61 - 2,556 - 5170 1043 Trustees of Alaska 17,015.96 46,052.66 - 46,053 - 5170 1047 Eminent Domain 1,264.46 27,301.70 - 27,302 - 5170 4102 Legal: Harbor General - 137.50 - 138 - 5170 4106 SBH Leases-1/2 519.85 - 520 - 5170 4107 S.M.I.C. Leases 20.00 - 20 - 5170 4170 SMIC, General Legal 195.00 - 195 - 5170 5004 Legal: Electric General ------------ - 1,501.50 - 1,502 - TOTAL EXPENSES 22,339.11 ------------------- 163,020.74 - --------- 163,021 --------- 146,000 ------ 111.7 in GLCARL DPT 16-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1120 - City Manager Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTI YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num ---- Acct '--- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 12,809.99 205,474.23 - 205,474 189,721 108.3 5040 Leave Time 1,258.01 23,507.18 - 23,507 21,881 107.4 5060 Retirement Benefits 1,339.59 23,250.72 - 23,251 13,074 177.8 5070 Health Insurance 5,009.88 52,392.21 - 52,392 44,816 116.9 5080 Workers' Compensation 55.08 1,746.27 - 1,746 2,191 79.7 5090, Medicare 183.52 3,271.97 - ------- 3,272 --------- 2,921 --------- 112.0 ------ Total Personnel ------------ 20,656.07 ------------ 309,642.58 - 309,643 274,G04 112.8 5130 Subscriptions and Dues 375.00 427.00 - 427 100 427.0 5140 Travel and Subsistence 907.32 15,512.97 - 15,513 19,000 81.6 5150 Communications 280.30 3,262.77 - 3,263 3,000 108.8 5160 Education and Training - 50.00 - 50 - - 5310 Utilities 150.71 1,654.09 - 1,654 - - 5370 Insurance - 3,853.70 - 3,854 9,000 42.8 5380 Maintenance and Repair - 35.16 - 35 50 70.4 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen 1,516.56 6,116.56 - 6,117 5,000 122.3 5400 0 Library Books & Materials - 95.97 - 96 - - 5440 Operating Supplies 114.29 12,689.94 - 12,690 11,350 111.8 5450 Gas & Lube 21.97 954.61 - 955 1,000 95.5 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To 106.00 2,813.49 - 2,813 2,800 100.5 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 5.30 2,961.57 - 2,962 2,950 100.4 5690 Contingency - 23,493.15 - 23,493 21,608 108.7 5730 Promotion & Entertainment - 182.00 - 182 200 91.0 5790 Misc. Expenses 46.00 5,081.00 - ------- 5,081 --------- 100 --------- 5081.0 ------ TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 24,179.52 ------------ 388,826.58 - 388,827 350,762 110.9 % a�� GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM [KRISTI City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1121 - Management Information Systems Dept. Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ------------------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 9,186.88 112,741.60 - 112,742 135,046 83.5 5020 Overtime - 749.97 - 750 4,261 17.6 5040 Leave Time 1,156.44 13,844.02 - 13,844 15,495 89.3 5060 Retirement Benefits 1,074.66 14,857.53 - 14,858 11,159 133.1 5070 Health Insurance 2,750.52 30,194.74 - 30,195 33,375 90.5 5080 Workers' Compensation 71.56 986.43 - 986 1,552 63.6 5090 Medicare 152.52 1,913.51 - 1,914 2,152 88.9 Total Personnel ------------ 14,392.58 ------------------- 175,287,80 - --------- 175,288 --------- 203,040 ------ 86 " 5120 Advertising and Publicati - - - - 500 - 5130 Subscriptions and Dues - 25.47 - 25 500 5.1 5140 Travel and Subsistence - 2,968.68 - 2,969 2,500 118.7 5150 Communications 279.24 2,877.26 - 2,877 4,000 71.9 5160 Education and Training - 3,888.31 - 3,888 5,000 77.8 5370 Insurance - 2,225.80 - 2,226 4,400 50.6 5380 Maintenance and Repair - - - - 5,000 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - - - - 6,500 - 5440 Operating Supplies 466.15 29,246.22 - 29,246 22,000 132.9 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To - 27.10 - 27 5,000 0.5 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight - 46.69 - 47 500 9.3 5790 Misc. Expenses - - - 500 - TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 15,137.97 ------------ ------------ ------------------- 216,593.33 ------------------- ------------------- --------- 216,593 --------- --------- --------- 259,440 --------- --------- ------ 83.5 % ------ ------ GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1130 - City Clerk Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 (KRISTI YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------- —---------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 7,415.00 109,968.90 - 109,969 141,373 77.8 °s 5020 Overtime - 856.24 - 856 1,658 51.6 5040 Leave Time 1,043.90 12,311.43 - 12,311 17,226 71.5 5060 Retirement Benefits 1,017.18 12,649.29 - 12,649 11,614 108.9 5070 Health Insurance 4,125.78 44,025.40 - 44,025 50,062 87.9 5080 Workers' Compensation 56.00 957.53 - 958 1,621 59.1 5090 Medicare 139.45 1,741.77 - 1,742 --------- 2,239 --------- 77.8 ------ Total Personnel ------------ 13,797.31 ------------ 182,510.56 ------- 182,511 225,793 80.8 5130 Subscriptions and Dues - 315.00 315 550 57.3 5140 Travel and Subsistence 464.80 3,742.49 - 3,742 5,000 74.8 5150 Communications - 0.50 - 1 - - 5160 Education and Training - 2,395.60 - 2,396 2,500 95.8 5370 Insurance - 2,409.30 - 2,409 5,500 43.8 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - 4,986.00 - 4,986 7,000 71.2 5440 Operating Supplies - 7.80 - 8 - - 5500 Equipment Rental/lease - 6,495.00 - 6,495 7,000 92.8 5720 Elections 126.70 2,061.70 - 2,062 4,000 51.5 5790 Misc. Expenses - 142.00 - 142 --------- - --------- - ------ TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 14,368.81 ------------ 205,065.95 ------- - 205,066 257,343 79.7 % GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM [KRISTI City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1140 - Finance Department Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- %- Bgt Num Acct MONTH ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ENCUMB BUDGET w/o ENCUM Pet suiuiel 5010 Salaries 25,056.42 328,281.77 - 328,282 379,667 86.5 k 5020 Overtime 58.95 1,833.98 - 1,834 3,630 50.5 5040 Leave Time 2,578.55 33,687.75 - 33,688 42,253 79.7 5060 Retirement Benefits 2,566.83 36,285.02 - 36,285 30,414 119.3 5070 Health Insurance 8,251.56 100,420.37 - 100,420 116,811 86.0 5080 Workers' Compensation 170.34 2,784.80 - 2,785 4,394 63.4 5090 Medicare 374.17 5,978.58 - 5,979 5,864 --------- 102.0 ------ Total Personnel ------------ 39,056.82 ------------ 509,272.27 ------- - --------- 509,272 583,033 87 " *00 5120 Advertising and Publicati - 537.50 - 538 450 119.4 5130 Subscriptions and Dues - 770.00 - 770 1,500 51.3 5140 Travel and Subsistence 1,609.29 10,213.58 - 10,214 5,500 185.7 5150 Communications 465.18 4,682.29 - 4,682 4,900 95.6 5160 Education and Training - 1,835.21 - 1,835 2,500 73.4 5190 Other Special Services - 31.50 - 32 - - 5370 Insurance - 6,273.88 - 6,274 13,500 46.5 5380 Maintenance and Repair 5,320.00 22,601.63 - 22,602 35,000 64.6 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - 2,616.50 - 2,617 8,500 30.8 5440 Operating Supplies 400.79 10,331.06 - 10,331 15,000 68.9 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To - - 2,359 2,359 3,500 - 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 122.89 2,027.69 - 2,028 3,500 57.9 5790 Misc. Expenses - 80.95 - 81 500 16.2 5930 Capital Equipment - - - - 8,000 --------- - TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 46,974.97 ------------ ------------ ------------ 571,274.06 ------------ ------------ ------- 2,359 ------- ------- --------- 573,634 --------- --------- 685,383 --------- --------- ------ 83.4 ------ ------ In asb GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1150 - Community Development Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- e Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 6,543.32 85,760.46 - 85,760 211,096 40.6 %- 5040 Leave Time 704.34 7,909.40 - 7,909 22,449 35.2 5060 Retirement Benefits 663.69 8,344.69 - 8,345 16,871 49.5 5070 Health Insurance 2,292.10 25,260.32 - 25,260 65,800 38.4 5D80 Workers' Compensation 49.17 741.13 - 741 2,451 30.2 5090 Medicare 91,33 2,338.10 - 2,338 --------- 3,253 --------- 71.9 ------ Total Personnel ------------ 10,343.95 ------------ 130,354.10 ------- - 130,354 321,920 40.5 5120 Advertising and Publicati - 1,530.00 - 1,530 - - 5130 Subscriptions and Dues - 882.00 882 1,000 88.2 5140 Travel and Subsistence - 1,651.92 - 1,652 1,250 132.2 5150 Communications 197.51 1,944.14 - 1,944 3,000 64.8 5160 Education and Training - 967.60 - 966 1,600 60.5 5190 Other Special Services - 5,000.00 - 5,000 4,500 111.1 5370 Insurance - 2,631.90 - 2,632 3,400 77.4 5380 Maintenance and Repair - 489.32 - 489 1,500 32.6 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen 8,614.36 32,956.93 9,900 42,857 56,000 58.9 5440 Operating Supplies 53.99 2,268.41 - 2,268 2,200 103.1 546D Equipment, Furniture & To - 4,195.32 4,195 8,000 52.4 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 10.23 640.29 - 640 600 106.7 5500 Equipment Rental/lease - - - - 1,500 5790 Misc. Expenses - 71.00 - 71 - 5930 Capital Equipment - 4,492.50 - ------- 4,493 --------- --------- ------ TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 19,220.04 ------------ 190,075.43 9,900 199,975 406,470 46.8 % OR a�� GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM [KRISTIN City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1180 - General Services Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ------------ ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5030 Unemployment Wages - - - - 2,000 % Total Personnel ------------ - ------------------- - --------- - --------- 2,000 ------ - 5120 Advertising and Publicati - 330.00 330 4,000 8.3 5130 Subscriptions and Dues - - - - 800 - 5150 Communications 118.15 1,262.57 - 1,263 800 157.8 5370 Insurance - 421.20 - 421 1,000 42.1 5380 Maintenance and Repair - 1,916.80 - 1,917 3,000 63 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - 2,000.00 - 2,000 6,000 33 5440 Operating Supplies 3,967.75 18,022.90 559 18,582 9,000 200.3 10 5450 Gas & Lube 77.34 123.54 - 124 700 17.6 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To - - - - 5,000 - 5465 Safety Equip. & Supplies - 587.20 - 587 1,700 34.5 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight (1,263.18) (2,883.92) - (2,884) 2,300 (125.4) 5500 Equipment Rental/lease - 1,339.00 - 1,339 - - 5660 Bad Debt Expense - - - - 1,500 - 5770 Bank & credit card fees 1,420.43 4,762.66 - 4,763 15,000 31.8 5790 Misc. Expenses 4,737.87 78,756.78 2,775 81,532 83,000 94.9 5930 Capital Equipment - 540.00 - 540 - - 5998 Pass-Thru Payment ------------ - - ------------ - 250,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 9,058.36 ------- 107,178.73 3,334 --------- 110,513 --------- 385,800 ------ 27.8 e M a�;A GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM [KRISTIN City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1181 - General Services Copier Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL ------------------------------------ ------------------- Acct Sub ACTUAL ACTUAL + % Bgt Num Acct MONTH ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ENCUMB BUDGET w/o ENCUM ---- ---- ------------------------------- ------------------ ------ Personnel 5440 Operating Supplies 65.32 206.22 206 1,700 12.1 5500 Equipment Rental/lease 615.71 6,474.61 - 6,475 8,000 80.9 TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 681.03 ------------ 6,680.83 ------- --------- 6,681 --------- 9,700 ------ 68.9 2;5 3 GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1190 - SVAC Expense Accumulation Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 (KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL ------------------------------------ ------------------- Acct Sub ACTUAL ACTUAL + % Bgt Num Acct MONTH ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ENCUMB BUDGET w/o ENCUM Personnel 5190 Other Special Services - 1,500 1,500 10,000 - o 5370 Insurance - 3,183.48 - 3,183 3,200 99.5 5380 Maintenance and Repair 241.10 575.30 - 575 750 76.7 5450 Gas & Lube 80.08 1,736.20 - 1,736 2,000 86.8 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 32.40 32.40 - 32 - - TOTAL EXPENSES 353.58 5,527.38 1,500 7,027 15,950 34.7 asy GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM [KRISTIN City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1191 - Contributions Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL ------------------------------------ ------------------- Acct Sub ACTUAL ACTUAL + % Bgt Num Acct MONTH ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ENCUMB BUDGET w/o ENCUM ---- ---------------------------- ------------------------- ------ Personnel 5610 0 Contributions - 750,000.00 750,000 750,000 100.0 5610 1182 Senior Citizens - 50,000.00 - 50,000 50,000 100.0 5610 1183 Museum - - - 5,000 - 5610 i189 Chamber of Commerce - 151,000.00 151,000 151,000 100.0 5790 Misc. Expenses - - - --------- 3,000 --------- - ------ ------------ TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ ------- - 951,000.00 951,000 959,000 99.2 % aS5 GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1210 - Police Department Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 73,987.21 808,000.23 - 808,000 943,422 85.6 e 5020 Overtime 4,742.20 60,834.81 - 60,835 59,690 101.9 5030 Unemployment Wages - 1,579.04 - 1,579 6,500 24.3 5040 Leave Time 7,719.72 90,955.53 - 90,956 104,426 87.1 5060 Retirement Benefits 8,506.59 100,668.27 - 100,668 79,963 125.9 5070 Health Insurance 26,129.94 271,079.94 - 271,080 304,372 89.1 5080 Workers' Compensation 2,278.88 29,489.21 - 29,489 37,538 78.6 5090 Medicare 1,629.17 19,068.78 - 19,069 21,732 87.7 Total Personnel ------------ 124,993.71 ------------ 1,381,675.81 ------- - --------- 1,381,676 --------- 1,557,643 ----- 88 *404 5120 Advertising and Publicati 190.00 484.00 - 484 1,000 48.4 5130 Subscriptions and Dues 150.00 1,603.37 - 1,603 8,780 18.3 5140 Travel and Subsistence 1,709.88 11,697.06 - 11,697 13,000 90.0 5150 Communications 1,173.27 12,840.67 - 12,841 20,790 61.8 5160 Education and Training 660.00 3,171.00 - 3,171 4,000 79.3 5190 Other Special Services (1,851.62) 1,063.40 - 1,063 2,500 42.5 5370 Insurance - 55,591.30 - 55,591 68,000 81.8 5380 Maintenance and Repair 1,011.18 25,324.24 - 25,324 10,230 247.5 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - 1,000.00 - 1,000 20,676 4.8 5430 Uniform Allowance - 2,381.25 - 2,381 3,500 68.0 5440 Operating Supplies 1,084.58 13,052.48 - 13,052 14,500 90.0 5450 Gas & Lube 2,072.91 20,043.61 - 20,044 17,500 114.5 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To 440.63 3,107.13 - 3,107 6,500 47.8 5465 Safety Equip. & Supplies - 1,438.00 - 1,438 2,500 57.5 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 88.62 2,465.00 - 2,465 2,000 123.3. 5500 Equipment Rental/lease 418.53 4,756.60 - 4,757 5,000 95.1 5770 Bank & credit card fees 439.08 4,468.38 - 4,468 6,000 74.5 5790 Misc. Expenses - 346.00 - 346 2,000 17.3 5930 Capital Equipment - - - - 30,000 - 5990 Miscellaneous Programs 38.96 1,281.64 - 1,282 5,500 23.3 TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 132,619.73 ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,547,790.94 ------------ ------------ ------- - ------- ------- --------- 1,547,791 --------- --------- --------- 1,801,619 --------- --------- ------ 85.9 % ------ ------ ,D,'S 6 in GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1211 - Jail Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ------------------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 19,932.16 222,575.08 - 222,575 253,761 87.7 % 5020 Overtime 915.38 15,649.16 - 15,649 18,352 85.3 5030 Unemployment Wages - - - - 11000 - 5040 Leave Time 2,059.94 23,961.21 - 23,961 27,665 86.6 5060 Retirement Benefits 2,249.48 27,711.74 - 27,712 22,232 124.E 5070 Health Insurance 8,251.56 90,818.40 - 90,818 100,124 90.7 5080 Workers' Compensation 955.27 11,551.10 - 11,551 13,913 83.0 5090 Medicare 305.34 3,720.48 - 3,720 --------- 4,287 --------- 86.8 ------ Total Personnel ------------ 34,669.13 ------------------- 395,987.17 - 295,987 441,334 89.7 5120 Advertising and Publicati - - - - 500 - 5130 Subscriptions and Dues 150.00 698.58 - 699 700 99.8 5140 Travel and Subsistence 167.00 467.00 - 467 2,500 18.7 5150 Communications 321.65 3,260.31 - 3,260 2,500 130.4 5160 Education and Training 350.00 705.00 - 705 2,000 35.3 5360 Rents & Leases 2,500.00 27,500.00 - 27,500 30,000 91.7 5370 Insurance - 10,518.81 - 10,519 21,300 49.4 5380 Maintenance and Repair 640.65 651.65 - 652 1,500 43.4 5390 0 Contracted Services Gen - 1,000.00 - 1,000 1,000 100.0 5430 Uniform Allowance - 953.27 - 953 1,000 95.3 5440 Operating Supplies 159.67 5,011.14 - 5,011 6,000 83.5 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To 538.20 1,107.34 - 1,107 1,500 73.8 5470 Janitorial Supplies - - - - 1,500 - 5480 Inmate Meals 1,258.38 8,820.88 - 8,821 13,500 65.3 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight - 729.85 - 730 1,000 73.0 5670 General Govermmnt Adminis 6,908.91 75,998.09 - 75,998 82,907 91.7 5790 misc. Expenses - - - 500 - TOTAL EXPENSES 47,663.59 533,409.09 - 533,409 611,241 87.3 a�� GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM Acct Sub Num Acct Personnel 5130 Subscriptions and Dues 5310 Utilities 5370 Insurance 5380 Maintenance and Repair 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To 5500 Equipment Rental/lease TOTAL EXPENSES [KRISTIN City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1212 - Animal Control Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL ------------------------------------ ------------------- ACTUAL ACTUAL + % B t 4 MONTH ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ENCUMB BUDGET w/o ENCUM ------------------------------------------------- ------ - 75.00 - 75 - - ; 569.00 5,569.22 - 5,569 5,000 111.4 - 65.96 - 66 360 18.3 108.13 - 108 1,000 10.8 - 57,461.13 - 57,461 129,482 44.4 ' - - - 1,000 - - 100.00 - 100 1,000 10.0 ------------------------ 569.00 63,379.44 ------- --------- - 63,379 --------- 137,842 ---- 46 a5l MR GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1220 - Fire Department Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 12,508.28 146,728.80 - 146,729 174,509 64.1 16 5020 Overtime - 593.40 - 593 448 132.5 5040 Leave Time 1,562.16 18,489.23 - 18,489 20,166 91.7 5050 In Lieu of FICA - 1,975.05 - 1,975 1,975 100.0 5060 Retirement Benefits 1,446,38 16,694.84 - 16,695 14,197 117.6 5070 Health Insurance 3,831.08 42,651.57 - 42,652 45,690 93.3 5080 Workers' Compensation 1,035.57 12,140.13 - 12,140 14,710 82.5 5090 Medicare 97.97 1,168.71 - 1,169 1,330 87.9 Total Personnel ------------ 20,481.44 ------------ 240,441.73 ------- --------- 240,442 --------- 273,025 ------ 88.1 5120 Advertising and Publicati - - - - 500 - 5130 Subscriptions and Dues 29.00 413.95 - 414 500 82.8 5140 Travel and Subsistence (3.46) 3,929.89 - 3,930 4,000 98.2 5150 Communications 503.08 4,978.39 - 4,978 12,480 39.9 5160 Education and Training 160.00 2,092.00 - 2,092 2,000 104.6 5310 Utilities 5,609.73 62,302.82 - 62,303 70,000 89.0 5330 Heating Fuel 989.86 10,144.97 - 10,145 18,000 56.4 5360 Rents & Leases 168.41 1,556.82 - 1,557 4,100 38.0 5370 Insurance - 26,211.79 - 26,212 31,000 84.6 5380 Maintenance and Repair 738.27 21,326.71 - 21,327 29,250 72.9 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - 931.00 - 931 - - 5420 Vehicle Supplies 4.84 748.27 - 748 6,400 11.7 5430 Uniform Allowance - 44.00 - 44 850 5.2 5440 Operating Supplies 1,919.87 5,211.69 - 5,212 6,500 80.2 5450 Gas & Lube 538.18 7,116.36 - 7,116 7,000 101.7 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To 158.47 2,869.47 - 2,869 7,000 42.0 5465 Safety Equip. & Supplies - 299.95 - 300 6,500 4.6 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 82.35 947.28 - 947 2,000 47.4 5500 Equipment Rental/lease - - - - 1,800 - 5530 Motor Pool Vehicle Rental 9,181.42 100,995.58 - 100,996 110,177 --------- 91.7 ------ TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 40,561.46 ------------ 492,562.67 ------- - --------- 492,563 S93,082 63.1 % � .J GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1221 - Volunteer Training Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5080 Workers' Compensation ------------ - - 6,700 Total Personnel - ------------ ------- - --------- - --------- 6,700 ------ - 5140 Travel and Subsistence 669.92 1,802.38 - 1,802 3,500 51.5 5160 Education and Training - 180.00 - 180 4,250 4.2 5370 Insurance - - - 5,200 - 5380 Maintenance and Repair 41.98 2,181.38 - 2,181 4,000 54.5 5430 Uniform Allowance - 936.75 - 937 1,000 93 5440 Operating Supplies 587.10 4,139.95 - 4,140 3,000 1385 5450 Gas & Lube - 3.44 - 3 - - 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To 3,134.94 8,582.73 - 8,583 9,915 86.6 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 46.18 631.08 - 631 1,000 63.1 5750 Volunteer Fireman Stipend 1,666.67 ------------ 20,000.00 - 20,000 20,000 100.0 TOTAL EXPENSES 6,146.79 ------------ 38,457.71 ------- - --------- 38,458 --------- 58,565 ------ 65.7 % In a(00 GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1222 - Emergency Preparedness Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL ------------------------------------ ------------------- ACct Sub ACTUAL ACTUAL + % Bgt Num Acct MONTH ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ENCUMB BUDGET w/o ENCUM ---------------------------------- --------- --------- ------ Personnel 5140 Travel and Subsistence - - - - 1,000 ; 5150 Communications 110.91 349.72 23 373 5,509 6.3 5160 Education and Training - - - - 1,500 - 5310 Utilities 83.31 1,337.83 - 1,338 850 157.4 5380 Maintenance and Repair - - - 500 - 5440 Operating Supplies - - - - 11000 - 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To 612.00 612.00 612 750 81.6 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 51.05 51.05 - 51 300 17.0 ------------ TOTAL EXPENSES 857,27 -------- — 2,350.60 -- ---------------- 23 2,374 --------- 11,409 ------ 20.6 a�� GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1250 - Building Inspection Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num Acct MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 5,178.52 55,148.60 - 55,149 65,215 84.6 5020 Overtime - 299.20 - 299 3,149 9.5 5040 Leave Time 597.54 7,106.26 - 7,106 7,979 89.1 5060 Retirement Benefits 523.21 6,513.54 - 6,514 5,263 123.8 5070 Health Insurance 1,669.96 17,894.03 - 17,894 21,059 85.0 5080 Workers' Compensation 40.13 483.67 - 484 757 63.9 5090 Medicare 73.17 880.09 - ------- 880 - ------- 1,015 --------- 86.7 ------ Total Personnel ------------ 8,082.53 ------------ 86,325.39 68,325 104,437 84 5120 Advertising and Publicati - - - - 200 - 5130 Subscriptions and Dues - 175.00 - 175 200 87.5 5140 Travel and Subsistence - 2,507.71 - 2,508 2,250 111.5 5150 Communications 159.80 1,553.25 - 1,553 2,592 59.9 5160 Education and Training 360.00 1,795.00 - 1,795 2,500 71.8 5360 Rents & Leases 168.40 1,556.83 - 1,557 - - 5370 Insurance - 1,171.26 - 1,171 3,000 39.0 5380 Maintenance and Repair - 258.75 - 259 1,000 25.9 5440 Operating Supplies 81.00 663.30 - 663 1,500 44.2 5450 Gas & Lube 48.45 376.05 - 376 - - 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To - 852.29 - 852 2,500 34.1 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 10.95 72.09 - 72 500 14.4 5500 Equipment Rental/lease - - - - 2,000 - 5790 Misc. Expenses - - --------- 500 --------- ------ TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 8,911.13 ------------ 99,30G.92 ------- - 99,307 123,179 80.6 � � I Im GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 02:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1310 - Street General Operations Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 (KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 5,184.90 132,224.26 - 132,224 133,968 98.7 % 5020 Overtime - 5,895.28 - 5,895 4,203 140.3 5022 Standby Time 339.64 2,623.12 - 2,623 - - 5040 Leave Time 820.42 15,054.17 - 15,054 16,095 93.5 5050 In Lieu of FICA - 1,975.05 - 1,975 2,469 80.0 5060 Retirement Benefits 615.67 16,006.39 - 16,006 12,124 132.0 5070 Health Insurance 2,773,94 47,242.05 - 47,242 38,089 124.0 5080 Workers- Compensation 231,88 9,534.99 - 9,535 7,834 121.7 5090 Medicare 33.86 1,295.49 - 1,295 --------- 1,041 --------- 124.4 ------ Total Personnel ------------ 10,000.31 ------------ 231,850.80 ------- - 231,851 215,823 107.4 5120 Advertising and Publicati - - - - 150 - 5130 Subscriptions and Dues - - - - 300 - 5140 Travel and Subsistence 45.00 783.61 784 1,000 78.4 5150 Communications 16.39 176.98 - 177 2,000 8.8 5160 Education and Training - - - 11000 - 5310 Utilities 8,028.25 86,869.50 - 86,870 93,000 93.4 5370 Insurance - 14,916.49 - 14,916 22,000 67.8 5380 Maintenance and Repair 1,030.05 31,985.91 - 31,986 70,000 45.7 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - 39,849.87 - 39,850 20,000 199.2 5440 Operating Supplies 2,018.57 21,025.25 - 21,025 22,000 95.6 5450 "Gas & Lube 6,057.21 43,693.19 - 43,693 60,000 72.8 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To - 2,090.61 - 2,091 1,200 174.2 5465 Safety Equip. & Supplies 170.97 698.71 - 699 1,500 46.6 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight - 3,860.65 - 3,861 5,000 77.2 5500 Equipment Rental/lease - - - - 1,000 - 5530 Motor Pool Vehicle Rental 4,898.58 53,884.42 - 53,884 58,783 91.7 5790 Misc. Expenses - 1,013.68 - 1,014 2,500 40.5 5930 Capital Equipment - 3,635.33 - 3,635 --------- - --------- - ------ TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 32,265.33 ------------ 536,335.00 ------- 536,335 577,256 92.9 a;to3 GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1314 - Snow & Ice Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 9,089.50 40,702.87 - 40,703 66,804 60.9 % 5020 Overtime 2,163.85 7,905.86 - 7,906 23,340 33.9 5022 Standby Time 738.80 3,985.74 - 3,986 5,762 69.2 5030 Unemployment Wages - 454.96 - 455 - - 5040 Leave Time 692.43 3,975.84 - 3,976 6,595 60.3 5060 Retirement Benefits 1,494.26 5,585.01 - 5,585 6,463 86.4 5070 Health Insurance 1,865.30 4,549.84 - 4,550 20,716 22.0 5080 Workers, Compensation 986.41 4,693.18 - 4,693 8,399 55.9 5090 Medicare 124.02 535.28 - 535 1,105 48 ------------ ------------ ------- --------- --------- ---- Total Personnel 17,154.57 72,388.58 - 72,389 139,184 52.0 5120 Advertising and Publicati 240.00 240.00 - 240 400 60.0 5140 Travel and Subsistence - 76.85 - 77 400 19.2 5160 Education and Training - - - - 600 - 5380 Maintenance and Repair 203.72 6,423.21 - 6,423 32,000 20.1 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - 1,295.51 - 1,296 6,000 21.6 5440 Operating Supplies 1,703.36 32,423.49 10,000 42,423 48,000 67.5 5450 Gas & Lube 87.74 1,120.01 - 1,120 2,500 44.8 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To - 4.20 - 4 400 1.1 5465 Safety Equip. & Supplies - 23.79 - 24 Soo 4.8 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 139.16 695.48 - 695 3,000 23.2 5530 Motor Pool Vehicle Rental 3,068.50 33,753.50 - 33,754 36,822 91.7 5790 Misc. Expenses ------------ - - - - 500 - TOTAL EXPENSES 22,597.05 ------------ 148,444.62 ------- --------- 10,000 158,445 --------- 270,306 ------ 54.9 ME GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1340 - City Shop Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num ---- Acct ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 10,962.50 132,230.86 - 132,231 140,540 94.1 5020 Overtime 314.73 1,810.01 - 1,810 4,099 44.2 5022 Standby Time - 41.93 - 42 2,068 2.0 5030 Unemployment Wages - 32.97 - 33 - - 5040 Leave Time 1,257.47 16,385.10 - 16,385 15,105 108.5 5050 In Lieu of FICA - 1,975.05 - 1,975 494 399.8 5060 Retirement Benefits 1,200.90 16,491,89 - 16,492 12,202 135.2 5070 Health Insurance 4,023.88 50,300.13 - 50,300 42,118 119.4 5080 Workers' Compensation 691.51 7,750.51 - 7,751 9,547 81.2 5090 �r Medicare 133.78 1,937.05 - 1,937 1,986 97.5 Total Personnel 18,584.77 228,955.50 228,956 228,159 100.3 5130 Subscriptions and Dues - 957.95 - 958 2,000 47.9 5140 Travel and Subsistence - 2,739.26 - 2,739 1,250 219.1 5150 Communications 625.95 6,376.58 - 6,377 8,500 75.0 5160 Education and Training - 282.88 - 283 2,000 14.1 5310 Utilities 2,070.56 28,343.87 - 28,344 32,000 88.6 5330 Heating Fuel 849,61 18,650.41 - 18,650 25,000 74.6 5370 Insurance - 3,813.38 - 3,813 15,500 24.6 5380 Maintenance and Repair 361,67 5,776.17 - 5,776 16,000 36.1 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - 890.00 - 890 2,000 44.5 5400 0 Library Books & Materials - 368.00 - 368 - - 5440 Operating Supplies 1,754.21 15,350.50 - 15,351 28,000 54.8 5450 Gas & Lube 87.64 2,269.67 - 2,270 7,250 31.3 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To 848,70 5,392.63 - 5,393 9,000 59.9 5465 Safety Equip. & Supplies - 1,705.62 - 1,706 1,500 113.7 5480 Inmate Meals - 9.82 - 10 - - 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 73.79 1,760.01 - 1,760 1,200 146.7 5790 Misc. Expenses - 50.34 - 50 1,500 3.4 5930 Capital Equipment - 2,635.33 - ------- 2,635 --------- - -------- - ------ TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 25,256.90 ------------ 326,327.92 - 326,328 380,859 85.7 En R- • FrA GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM (KRISTIN City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1350 - Municipal Building Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ------------------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 6,466.13 68,815.55 - 68,816 80,005 86.0 % 5020 Overtime - 385.72 - 386 1,530 25.2 5040 Leave Time 748.44 8,782.80 - 8,783 9,797 89.6 5060 Retirement Benefits 656.44 7,846.58 - 7,847 6,564 119.5 5070 Health Insurance 2,750.52 30,194.74 - 30,195 33,375 90.5 5080 Workers, Compensation 437.29 5,098.21 - 5,098 8,758 58.2 5090 Medicare 92.13 1,103.19 - 1,103 1,266 87.1 Total Personnel ------------ 11,150.95 ------------------- 122,226.79 - --------- 122,227 --------- 141,295 ------ 86 5120 Advertising and Publicati - - - - 100 5140 Travel and Subsistence - 10.00 - 10 - - 5150 Communications 51.05 489.12 - 489 250 195.6 5310 Utilities 5,488.55 58,417.49 - 58,417 55,000 106.2 5330 Heating Fuel 1,200.47 14,571.61 - 14,572 18,000 81.0 5370 Insurance - 4,062.93 - 4,063 8,500 47.8 5380 Maintenance and Repair 721.19 2,547.82 - 2,548 26,000 9.8 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - 1,380.86 - 1,381 6,000 23.0 5420 Vehicle Supplies - 7.29 - 7 - - 5440 Operating Supplies 1,914.50 6,929.08 - 6,929 11,000 63.0 5450 Gas & Lube - 298.27 - 298 - - 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To 7.64 - 8 500 1.5 5465 Safety Equip. & Supplies - - - 250 - 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 74.36 198.84 199 600 33.1 5790 Misc. Expenses - - - 250 - TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 20,601.07 ------------ ------- 211,147.74 - --------- 211,148 --------- 267,745 ------ 78.9 °s Fn a Lcn GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1351 - Community Center Expense Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 (KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- e Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ------------ ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5120 Advertising and Publicati - 1,142.08 - 1,142 - - o 5310 Utilities 627.32 6,561.61 - 6,562 6,300 109.4 5330 Heating Fuel - 660.55 - 661 3,800 17.4 5370 Insurance - 1,691.12 - 1,691 4,000 42.3 5380 Maintenance and Repair 571.75 2,799.47 - 2,799 5,000 56.0 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - 1,753.46 - 1,753 5,000 35.1 5440 Operating Supplies 734.49 1,140.04 - 1,140 - - 5450 Gas & Lube 70.34 70.34 - 70 - 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 74.48 74.48 - 74 - - 5790 Misc. Expenses - - - --------- 500 --------- ------ TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 2,078.38 ------------------- 15,893.15 15,893 24,300 65.4 a(c;") GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1400 - Parks & Recreation- Administration Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num ---- Acct ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ------ ENCUM Personnel 5010 Salaries 6,380.82 83,387.74 - 83,388 88,246 94.5 a 5020 Overtime 173,70 1,678.80 - 1,679 - - 5040 Leave Time 1,062.29 11,287.05 - 11,287 12,304 91.7 5050 In Lieu of FICA - 1,975.05 - 1,975 - - 5060 Retirement Benefits 973.55 10,684.51 - 10,685 8,099 131.9 5070 Health Insurance 2,666.06 34,656.31 - 34,656 20,689 167.5 5080 Workers' Compensation 41.76 646.28 - 646 1,251 51.7 5090 Medicare 120.05 1,322.97 - 1,323 1,562 84.7 Total Personnel ------------ 11,418.23 ------------ 145,63B.71 ------- - --------- 145,639 --------- 132,151 ---- 110 5120 Advertising and Publicati - - - - 100 - 5130 Subscriptions and Dues - 215.00 - 215 500 43.0 5140 Travel and Subsistence 11.00 782.28 - 782 1,500 52.2 5150 Communications 366.34 3,859.29 - 3,859 7,000 55.1 5160 Education and Training - 64.65 - 65 1,400 4.6 5370 Insurance - 1,849.13 - 1,849 3,600 51.4 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen 3,190.00 32,800.00 38,432 71,232 40,000 82.0 5390 50 C.S.- Parks and Recreatio - 3,190.00 - 3,190 - - 5440 Operating Supplies 31.17 1,991.57 - 1,992 1,250 159.3 5465 Safety Equip. & Supplies - - - - 150 - 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight - 1,161.28 - 1,161 450 258.1 5790 Misc. Expenses 573.90 7,616.29 - 7,616 5,120 148.8 TOTAL EXPENSES 15,590.64 199,168.20 38,432 237,600 193,221 103.1 °s n GLCARL OPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1410 - Parks & Recreation- Parks Maintenance Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- a Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 9,656.46 103,985.01 - 103,985 114,783 90.6 IS 5020 Overtime 316.40 2,401.39 - 2,401 4,211 57.0 5030 Unemployment Wages - 3,813.85 - 3,814 10,000 38.1 5040 Leave Time 819.89 7,365.02 - 7,365 51668 125.5 5060 Retirement Benefits 740.26 6,676.07 - 6,676 3,978 167.8 5070 Health Insurance 2,435.30 21,280.55 - 21,281 15,887 133.9 5080 Workers' Compensation 678.30 6,933.06 - 6,933 6,525 106.3 5090 Medicare 413.93 4,793.84 - 4,794 6,220 ------ - - 77.1 ------ Total Personnel ------------ 15,060.54 ------------ 157,248.79 ------- - --------- 157,249 167,472 93.9 5120 Advertising and Publicati - 325.25 - 325 - - 5130 Subscriptions and Dues 40.00 - 40 330 12.1 5140 Travel and Subsistence 26.00 166.36 - 166 250 66.5 5150 Communications 167.34 1,701.48 - 1,701 1,250 136.1 5160 Education and Training - - - - 550 - 5310 Utilities 1,695.78 14,697.52 - 14,898 12,950 115.0 5330 Heating Fuel 83.08 751.57 - 752 1,150 65.4 5370 Insurance - 7,205.97 - 7,206 10,000 72.1 5380 Maintenance and Repair 3,044.77 9,850.72 - 9,851 11,400 86.4 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen 497.90 1,247.90 - 1,248 500 249.6 5420 vehicle Supplies - 92.25 - 92 750 12.3 5440 Operating Supplies - 879.58 - 880 1,500 58.6 5450 Gas & Lube 931.33 5,973.94 - 5,974 8,500 70.3 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To - 3,567.66 - 3,568 3,500 101.9 5465 Safety Equip. & Supplies - 524.48 - 524 1,500 35.0 5470 Janitorial Supplies 74.63 3,625.02 - 3,625 3,700 98.0 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 74.36 924.24 - 924 1,800 51.3 5500 Equipment Rental/lease - - - - 5,000 - 5790 Misc. Expenses - 1,312.60 - 1,313 - - 5930 Capital Equipment 2,875.00 2,875.00 - 2,875 --------- 3,000 --------- 95.8 ------ TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 24,530.73 ------------ 213,210.43 ------- - 213,210 235,102 90.7 in GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM [KRISTIN City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1415 - Parks & Recreation- Campgrounds Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ACTUAL + % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ------------------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 2,821.87 99,588.80 - 99,589 116,015 85.8 5020 Overtime - 9,324.06 - 9,324 4,211 221.4 5030 Unemployment Wages - 149.40 - 149 - - 5040 Leave Time 76.81 3,350.25 - 3,350 5,868 57.1 5060 Retirement Benefits 67.17 3,519.32 - 3,519 3,902 90.2 5070 Health Insurance 315.22 8,992.25 - 8,992 17,487 51.4 5080 Workers, Compensation 202.63 6,586.57 - 6,587 6,466 101.9 5090 Medicare 174.63 6,268.90 - 6,269 6,205 101.0 Total Personnel ------------ 3,656.33 ------------------- 137,779.55 - --------- 137,780 --------- 160,154 --- 86 5120 Advertising and Publicati - - - - 1,000 - 5130 Subscriptions and Dues - - - - 60 - 5140 Travel and Subsistence 26.00 53.35 - 53 500 10.7 5150 Communications 22.71 678.89 - 679 600 113.1 5310 Utilities 10,583.65 83,344.83 - 83,345 63,000 132.3 5330 Heating Fuel 83.08 318.31 - 318 600 53.1 5370 Insurance - 1,860.75 - 1,861 6,000 31.0 5380 Maintenance and Repair 2,687.57 10,012.41 - 10,012 8,525 117.4 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - 2,865.00 - 2,885 2,500 115.4 5420 Vehicle Supplies - 83.01 - 83 750 11.1 5440 Operating Supplies - 4,023.70 - 4,024 5,000 80.5 5450 Gas & Lube 115.86 5,133.10 - 5,133 4,000 128.3 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To - 249.99 - 250 3,750 6.7 5465 Safety Equip. & Supplies 151.73 - 152 600 25.3 5470 Janitorial Supplies - 3,539.17 22 3,561 2,300 153.9 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 57.99 633.00 - 633 600 105.5 5500 Equipment Rental/lease - 24.00 - 24 22,000 0.1 5550 Campgrounds 5,810.00 18,365.00 510 18,875 - - 5930 Capital Equipment 2,875.00 2,675.00 - 2,675 2,000 143.8 TOTAL EXPENSES 25,920.19 272,010.79 532 272,543 283,939 95.8 % -D'�A V MR GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM [KRISTIN City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1420 - Parks & Recreation- Sports & Recreation Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ----------------------------------- ACTUAL + ------------------- o Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ENCUMB -- --------- ---------------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 8,002.55 99,806.94 99,807 101,102 98.7 5020 Overtime 220.48 1,366.06 1,366 - - 5030 Unemployment Wages - 992.47 992 1,000 99.2 5040 Leave Time 613.12 8,018.81 - 8,019 9,433 85.0 5050 In Lieu of FICA - - - - 988 - 5060 Retirement Benefits 598.38 8,310.48 - 8,310 6,747 123.2 5070 Health Insurance 2,038.04 19,737.42 - 19,737 33,375 59.1 5080 Workers' Compensation 74.62 973.12 - 973 1,179 82.5 5090 Medicare 232.28 2,791.00 - 2,791 2,516 --------- 110.9 ------ Total Personnel ------------ 11,779.47 ------------------- 141,996.30 - --------- 141,996 156,340 90.8 5120 Advertising and Publicati - 2,065.25 - 2,065 2,000 103.3 5130 Subscriptions and Dues - 40.00 - 40 320 12.5 5140 Travel and Subsistence - 461.07 - 461 1,300 35.5 5150 Communications 290.50 2,929.25 - 2,929 2,500 117.2 5160 Education and Training - - - - 565 - 5360 Rents & Leases - - - - 20,000 - 5370 Insurance - 1,918.27 - 1,918 3,200 59.9 5380 Maintenance and Repair - (98.30) - (98) - - 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - 3,575.00 - 3,575 - - 5390 50 C.S.- Parks and Recreatio - 3,544.00 - 3,544 14,000 25.3 5440 Operating Supplies 1,658.64 31,094.79 610 31,705 23,150 134.3 5450 Gas & Lube - 289.37 - 289 - - 5465 Safety Equip. & Supplies - - - 500 5470 Janitorial Supplies - 745.57 - 746 - - 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 320.23 2,158.03 - 2,158 3,600 59.9 5790 Misc. Expenses 71.00 1,113.00 - 1,113 --------- 300 --------- 371.0 ------ TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 14,119.84 ------------------- 191,831.60 610 192,442 227,775 84.2 % a0\ GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM [KRISTIN City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1422 - Parks & Recreation- Community Schools Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 665.00 4,712.68 - 4,713 14,757 31.9 % 5080 Workers, Compensation 5.38 45.67 - 46 170 26.9 5090 Medicare 50.88 360.47 - 360 1,129 31.9 Total Personnel ------------ 721.26 ------------ 5,118.82 ------- - --------- 5,119 --------- 16,056 ------ 31.9 5150 Communications - - - - 100 - 5440 Operating Supplies 1,357.41 1,357.41 - 1,357 280 484.8 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 515.90 515.90 - 516 - ------- --------- ---- TOTAL EXPENSES 2,594.57 6,992.13 - 6,992 16,436 42.5 09 GLCARL DPT 18-San-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1430 - Parks & Recreation- Youth Center Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------- - --- ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCE ------------ ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 8,304.88 130,489.14 - 130,489 139,742 93.4 5020 Overtime 135.48 2,055.19 - 2,055 - - 5040 Leave Time 694.53 8,453.25 - 6,453 10,457 80.8 5050 In Lieu of FICA - - - - 988 - 5060 Retirement Benefits 694.12 9,259.52 - 9,260 7,777 119.1 5070 Health Insurance 3,413.29 34,873.77 - 34,874 42,118 82.8 5080 Workers' Compensation 68.70 1,398.11 - 1,398 1,622 86.2 5090 Medicare 234.90 4,729.62 - 4,730 --------- 4,192 --------- 112.8 ------ Total Personnel ------------ 13,545.90 ------------------- 191,258.60 - 191,259 206,896 92.4 5120 Advertising and Publicati - 110.00 - 110 250 44.0 5130 Subscriptions and Dues 30.00 320.00 - 320 260 123.1 5140 Travel and Subsistence - 51.02 - 51 300 17.0 5150 Communications 356.85 3,677.22 - 3,677 3,760 97.8 5160 Education and Training - - - - 965 - 5330 Heating Fuel 221.54 1,175.65 - 1,176 - - 5360 Rents & Leases - 214.10 - 214 - - 5370 Insurance - 2,552.28 - 2,552 4,900 52.1 5380 Maintenance and Repair 596.05 1,052.82 - 1,053 4,000 26.3 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen - - - - 350 - 5420 vehicle Supplies - - - - 300 - 5440 Operating Supplies 782.32 13,028.22 - 13,028 12,000 108.6 5450 Gas & Lube - 986.83 - 989 2,000 49.4 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To - - - - 6,950 - 5465 Safety Equip. & Supplies - - - - 200 - 5470 Janitorial Supplies 11.45 290.11 - 290 550 52.7 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 39.53 2,289.55 - ------- 2,290 --------- 900 --------- 254.4 ------ TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 15,583.64 ------------ 217,008.40 - 217,008 244,581 88.7 % a0-% GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1500 - Library Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 (KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num ---- Acct ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- w/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5010 Salaries 14,377.28 154,932.80 - 154,933 184,605 83.9 °s 5030 Unemployment Wages - 5,566.00 - 5,566 - - 5040 Leave Time 1,463.30 17,475.37 - 17,475 21,644 80.7 5060 Retirement Benefits 1,522.84 18,591.76 - 18,592 14,830 125.4 5070 Health Insurance 5,501.04 60,467.54 - 60,468 66,749 90.6 5080 Workers' Compensation 109.87 1,291.52 - 1,292 2,144 60.2 5090 Medicare 209.26 2,767.55 - 2,768 2,860 96.8 Total Personnel ------------ 23,183.59 ------------ 261,092.54 ------- - --------- 261,093 --------- 292,832 ------ 89 5120 Advertising and Publicati - 1,968.00 - 1,968 1,600 123.0 5130 Subscriptions and Dues 135.00 1,237.25 - 1,237 1,000 123.7 5140 Travel and Subsistence - 4,322.94 - 4,323 1,500 288.2 5150 Communications 967.90 9,043.31 - 9,043 7,000 129.2 5160 Education and Training 39.95 2,169.70 - 2,170 2,500 86.8 5190 Other Special Services - 5,404.98 - 5,405 7,500 72.1 5310 Utilities 908.61 10,096.74 - 10,097 10,000 101.0 5330 Heating Fuel 427.88 5,727.27 - 5,727 7,000 81.8 5360 Rents & Leases - 6,270.00 - 6,270 8,200 76.5 5370 Insurance - 4,707.79 - 4,708 9,000 52.3 5380 Maintenance and Repair - 1,252.30 - 1,252 3,500 35.8 5390 0 Contracted Services - Gen 300.00 800.00 - 800 500 160.0 5400 100 Library Materials - Books 556.80 9,064.68 - 9,065 12,000 75.5 5400 200 Library Materials - Perio 249.99 847.52 - 848 4,000 21.2 5400 300 Library Materials - Stand 235.00 4,503.00 - 4,503 4,500 100.1 5400 400 Library Materials - Non-P 301.87 3,728.50 - 3,729 4,500 82.9 5440 Operating Supplies 842.03 8,825.24 - 8,825 10,000 88.3 5460 Equipment, Furniture & To 331.00 3,697.84 - 3,698 5,000 74.0 5470 Janitorial Supplies - 1,556.86 87 1,644 1,500 103.8 5490 Postage and Misc. Freight 770.58 7,939.96 61 8,001 8,000 99.2 5500 Equipment Rental/lease - 1,363.26 - 1,363 3,000 45.4 5790 Misc. Expenses - 152.00 - 152 500 30.4 TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 29,250.20 ------------ 355,771.68 ------- 148 --------- 355,920 --------- 405,132 ------ 87.8 0 a�� Em GLCARL DPT 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM City of Seward FUND: 101 - General Fund DEPT: 1910 - General Fund Debt Service Revenue and Expenses as of November 30, 2011 [KRISTIN YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL Acct Sub ACTUAL ------------------------------------ ACTUAL + ------------------- % Bgt Num Acct ---- ---- MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ------------ ENCUMBRANCE ------- ENCUMB --------- BUDGET --------- W/o ENCUM ------ Personnel 5060 Retirement Benefits 31,793.66 379,924.84 - 379,925 560,671 67.8 0 Total Personnel ------------ 31,793.66 ------------ 379,924.84 ------- - --------- 379,925 --------- 560,671 ------ 67.8 5810 Principal 90,970.35 159,883.23 - 159,883 270,667 59.1 5820 Interest Expense 1,591.98 3,366.57 - - 3,367 --------- 83,050 --------- 4.1 ------ TOTAL EXPENSES ------------ 124,355.99 ------------ 543,174.64 ---- — - 543,175 914,388 59.4 °> ass 19 City of Seward FUND: 401 - Small Boat Harbor Enterprise Fund Line Item Revenue Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7% of year has expired ---------------------------------------------------------------- THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL Actual YTD Budget --------------------- Annual % of Account Name 2010 2011 Variance Budget Variance Budget Annual Bud EF Interest Reven $ 18,043 $ 25,639 $ 7,596 $ 19,250 $ 6,389 $ 21,000 122.09 % Sales Fixed Asset 634 - (634) - - - - Other Misc Revenu 2,941 658 (2,283) 1,375 (717) 1,500 43.85 Amortization of C 575,891 574,909 (982) 689,493 (114,584) 752,174 76.43 Amort.Bond Premiu - - - 7,677 (7,677) 8,375 - Transient Moorage 453,341 471,412 18,071 386,875 84,537 422,045 111.70 Moorage 1,068,981 1,076,539 7,558 876,370 200,169 956,040 112.60 Boat Lift Fees 98,359 97,060 (1,299) 81,813 15,247 89,250 108.75 Capital Renewal F 12,660 - (12,660) 91,667 (91,667) 100,000 - wharfage 60,404 36,502 (23,902) 50,417 (13,915) 55,000 66.37 Land Rents & Leas 270,394 290,008 19,614 324,975 (34,967) 354,518 81.80 Labor and Service 9,670 21,807 12,137 5,042 16,765 5,500 396.49 Land Lease Credit (42,628) (47,919) (5,291) (47,239) (680) (51,533) (92.99) Misc. Harbor Reve 98,806 74,173 (24,633) 92,538 (18,364) 100,950 73.48 Harbor Power Sale 205,666 ---------- 225,782 20,116 233,750 (7,968) 255,000 88.541,0 Total Revenue $ 2,833,160 $ ---------- 2,846,570 $ --------- 13,410 $ ---------- 2,814,001 $ --------- 32,569 $ ---------- 3,069,819 ------- 92.73 % M M City of Seward FUND: 401 - Small Boat Harbor Enterprise Fund Line Item Expenditure Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7% of year has expired THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL Actual YTD Budget Annual % of Account Name ----------------- 2010 ---------- 2011 Variance Budget Variance Budget Annual Bud Salaries $ 391,149 $ ---------- 403,696 $ --------- 12,547 $ ------- - - 455,694 $ ------ - - (51,998) $ ---------- 497,121 ------- 81.21 Overtime 11,880 13,605 1,725 36,230 (22,625) 39,524 34.42 Standby Time 11,255 11,099 (156) 10,383 716 11,327 97.99 Unemployment Wage - 5,550 5,550 - 5,550 - - Leave Time 41,338 41,721 363 49,520 (7,799) 54,022 77.23 Retirement Benefi 101,835 105,631 3,796 120,188 (14,557) 131,114 80.56 Health Insurance 152,907 150,950 (11956) 162,223 (11,272) 176,970 85.30 Workers' Comp 21,584 19,985 (11599) 27,435 (7,450) 29,929 66.78 Medicare 7,169 7,570 400 8,219 (649) 8,966 84.43 ----------- Total Persnl Sery 739,117 ---------- 759,808 --------- 20,691 ---------- 869,892 --------- (110,084) ---------- 948,973 ------- 80.07 Advertising 3,684 3,843 159 5,042 (11198) 5,500 69.88 Subscriptions/Due 957 325 (632) 917 (592) 1,000 32.50 Travel/Subsistenc 2,752 6,462 3,710 6,875 (413) 7,500 86,16 Communications 5,908 7,247 1,339 11,000 (3,753) 12,000 60.40 Education/Trainin 4,018 2,845 (1,173) 3,667 (822) 4,000 71.13 Legal 23,153 9,662 (13,491) 21,083 (11,422) 23,000 42.01 CY Legal Recoveri - (20,721) (20,721) - (20,721) - - Utilities 66,381 96,013 29,632 80,208 15,804 87,500 109.73 Power for Resale 133,406 172,719 39,314 161,700 11,019 176,400 97.91 Heating Fuel 5,503 7,885 2,381 9,167 (1,282) 10,000 78.85 Rents & Leases - 4 4 - 4 - - Insurance 64,213 32,620 (31,594) 92,583 (59,963) 101,000 32.30 CY Insurnce Recov - - - (22,404) 22,404 (24,441) - Maintenance & Rep 29,774 78,664 48,890 80,687 (2,023) 88,022 89.37 Contracted Servic 75,120 53,201 (21,919) 66,017 (14,815) 74,200 71.70 Operating Supplie 20,914 23,402 2,489 30,021 (6,619) 32,750 71.46 Gas & Lube 14,595 19,083 4,488 24,292 (5,209) 26,500 72.01 Equip,Furn,Tools 11,106 91986 (1,121) 16,958 (6,973) 18,500 53.98 Safety Equip/Supp 4,449 5,127 678 5,500 (373) 6,000 85.46 Janitorial Suppli 7,086 5,944 (1,141) 6,417 (472) 7,000 84.92 Postage/Misc.Frei 6,969 6,295 (674) 10,175 (3,880) 11,100 56.71 Equipment Rental - - - 917 (917) 1,000 - Motor Pool Rent 49,133 50,325 1,192 50,325 - 54,900 91.67 Depreciation Expe 996,317 995,785 (532) 1,109,774 (113,990) 1,210,663 82.25 Bad Debt Expense 1,882 129 (1,753) 11,000 (10,871) 12,000 1.08 Harbor Overhead 784,818 794,575 9,758 844,260 (49,685) 921,011 86.27 Harbor Allocation (498,325) (498,198) 126 (548,017) 49,819 (597,837) (83.33) P.I.L.T. 160,634 190,417 19,782 149,350 31,067 162,927 110.73 Reclass PILT to T (160,634) (180,417) (19,782) (149,350) (31,067) (162,927) (110.73) Bank,credit card 19,296 34,831 15,535 36,667 (1,836) 40,000 87.08 Misc. Expenses 1,589 2,555 966 1,833 721 2,000 127.74 Principal 380,088 406,193 26,105 372,344 33,849 406,193 100.00 Interest Expense 306,924 290,319 (16,605) 299,280 (8,961) 326,487 88.92 R City of Seward FUND: 401 - Small Boat Harbor Enterprise Fund Line Item Expenditure Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7% of year has expired THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- Actual YTD Budget Annual % of Account Name 2010 2011 Variance Budget Variance Budget Annual Bud --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Capital Equipment $ - $ 3,450 $ 3,450 $ - $ 3,450 $ - - % ----------------------------- ------------------- ---------- ------- Total Expenses $ 3„260,827 $ 3,360,379 $ 99,552 $ 3,660,178 $ (299,799) $ 3,992,921 84.16 % R en a-Tz Ln City of Seward FUND: 403 - Parking Enterprise Fund Line Item Revenue Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7% of year has expired THROUGH NOVEMBER — ----- — ------------------------------------------------------- Actual YTD Budget Account Name 2010 2011 variance Budget Variance --------------- —---------- Parking Fees $ ---------- 191,516 $ 291,584 --------- $ 100,068 $ ---------- 244,594 --------- $ 46,990 $ Fines 530 4,080 3,550 - 4,080 EF Interest Reven 1,497 2,522 1,025 11,000 (8,478) ---------- Total Revenue $ - 193,543 $ —------- 298,185 --------- $ 104,642 $ ---------- 255,594 --------- $ 42,591 $ a'T� ANNUAL --------------------- Annual o of Budget Annual Bud ---------- 266,830 ------- 109.28 a 12,000 21.01 ---------- 278,830 ---------- ------- 106.94 ------- City of Seward FUND: 403 - Parking Enterprise Fund Line Item Expenditure Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7% of year has expired THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actual YTL) budget --------------------- Annual % of Account Name 2010 2011 Variance Budget Variance Budget Annual Bud --------------------------- Salaries $ ---------- 77,640 $ 76,850 $ --------- (790) $ ---------- 94,980 $ --------- (18,129) $ ---------- 103,614 ------- 74,17 % Overtime 721 3,456 2,735 - 3,456 - - Unemployment Wage 9,963 7,790 (2,173) 6,417 1,373 7,000 111.29 Leave Time 426 1,376 953 - 1,378 - - Retirement Benefi 344 1,169 825 - 1,169 - - Health Insurance - 1,473 1,473 4,119 (2,646) 4,493 32.78 Workers' Comp 4,496 3,139 (1,356) 976 2,163 1,065 294.78 Medicare 5,739 5,403 (336) 6,495 (1,092) 7,OB5 76.26 ---------- Total Persnl Sery ---------- 99,328 100,659 --------- 1,331 ---------- 112,986 --------- (12,327) ---------- 123,257 ------- 81.67 Advertising 205 76 (128) 1,375 (1,299) 1,500 5.08 Subscriptions/Due 1,525 1,290 (235) 2,521 (1,231) 2,750 46.91 Travel/Subsistenc - - - 348 (348) 380 - Communications 1,939 1,787 (151) 3,300 (1,513) 3,600 49.6 Education/Trainin - - - 1,375 (1,375) 1,500 - Legal - - - 458 (458) 500 - Other Spec Servic - 9,085 9,085 2,292 6,793 2,500 363.40 Utilities 652 917 265 458 459 500 183.47 Rents & Leases - - - 917 (917) 1,000 - Insurance 2,468 2,199 (268) 3,208 (11009) 3,500 62.84 Maintenance & Rep 2,316 15,966 13,650 5,500 10,466 6,000 266.10 Vehicle Supplies 74 21 (54) 917 (896) 1,000 2.05 Operating Supplie 8,406 8,844 438 8,012 832 8,740 101.19 Gas & Lube 1,042 841 (202) 92 749 100 840.95 Equip,Furn,Tools 4,297 47 (4,250) 2,956 (2,910) 3,225 1.45 Safety Equip/Supp 2,025 159 (1,866) 688 (529) 750 21.20 Postage/Misc.Frei 3,085 333 (2,752) 642 (309) 700 47.53 Equipment Rental - 9 9 - 9 - - Motor Pool Rent 11,917 11,917 - 11,917 - 13,000 91.67 Depreciation Expe 12,501 15,360 2,859 6,704 8,657 7,313 210.04 Bad Debt Expense - - - 458 (458) 500 - Genl Govt Admin F 8,569 8,905 336 8,905 - 9,715 91.67 P.I.L.T. 15,448 23,702 8,253 19,571 4,131 21,350 111.01 Reclass PILT to T (15,448) (23,702) (8,253) (19,571) (4,131) (21,350) (111.01) Bank,credit card 3,068 5,519 2,451 3,667 1,852 4,000 137.97 Misc. Expenses 1,105 801 (304) 1,100 (299) 1,200 66.75 Infrastructure Co - - - 145,750 (145,750) 159,000 - Capital Equipment 21,833 50,478 28,645 - 50,478 - ---------- ---------- --------- ---------- 1410 Total Expenses $ 186,355 $ 235,213 $ 48,858 $ 326,544 $ (91,331) $ 356,230 66.03 1 City of Seward FUND: 417 - S.M.I.C. Enterprise Fund Line Item Revenue Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7% of year has expired ---------------------------------------------------------------- THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL A�Luel YTD Dudyet --------------------- Annual % of Account Name ------------------------- 2010 ---------- 2011 Variance Budget Variance Budget Annual Bud EF Interest Reven $ 139 $ 38 $ ------------------- (101) $ - $ --------- 38 $ ---------- ------- Sales Fixed Asset - 1,060 1,060 - 1,060 - - Amortization of C 461,113 442,318 (18,795) 442,318 - 482,529 91.67 Moorage 1,764 3,916 2,153 2,406 1,510 2,625 149.19 Boat Lift Fees 66,685 124,335 57,651 105,417 18,919 115,000 108.12 Storage Fees 128,662 104,315 (24,347) 82,500 21,815 90,000 115.91 Wharfage 4,705 6,176 1,471 2,979 3,157 3,250 190.04 Land Rents & Leas 77,056 104,052 26,997 67,023 37,029 73,116 142.31 Labor and Service 28,779 2,262 (26,516) 917 1,346 1,000 226.23 Land Lease Credit (5,641) (7,265) (1,624) - (7,265) - - Misc. Harbor Reve 222 3,414 3,193 - 3,414 - - Harbor Power Sale 10,176 23,180 13,004 18,333 4,847 20,000 115.90 ---------- Total Revenue $ ---------- 773,658 $ 807,803 $ --------- ---------- 34,145 $ 721,893 $ --------- ---------- 85,910 $ 787,520 ------- 102.58 % PIN City of Seward FUND: 417 - S.M.I.C. Enterprise Fund Line Item Expenditure Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7% of year has expired THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actual YTD --------------------- Budget Annual % of Account Name 2010 2011 Variance Budget Variance --------- ---------- Budget Annual Bud ------- ----------------- ---------- Salaries $ ---------- 48,644 $ 53,885 $ --------- ---------- 5,241 $ 39,625 $ 14,260 $ 43,227 124.66 % Overtime 1,889 1,371 (518) 3,151 (1,780) 3,437 39.88 Leave Time 3,697 4,531 833 4,306 225 4,697 96.46 Retirement Benefi 5,788 6,005 217 3,380 2,625 3,687 162.86 Health Insurance - 14,175 14,175 14,106 69 15,388 92.12 Workers' Comp 3,654 3,593 (61) 2,386 1,207 2,603 138.05 Medicare 733 801 69 714 87 779 ---------- 102.85 ------- ---------- Total Persnl Sery ---------- 64,405 84,360 --------- 19,955 ---------- 67,667 --------- 16,694 73,818 114.28 Advertising 1,000 320 (680) 458 (138) 500 64.00 Legal 7,825 9,161 1,336 7,333 1,828 8,000 114.51 Utilities 9,545 13,155 3,610 11,917 1,238 13,000 101.19 Power for Resale 10,086 18,039 7,954 28,417 (10,377) 31,000 58.3 Heating Fuel 2,407 5,014 2,607 9,167 (4,152) 10,000 50.1 Insurance 10,053 5,957 (4,096) 16,317 (10,360) 17,800 33.47 Maintenance & Rep 21,156 26,252 5,096 30,250 (3,998) 33,000 79.55 Contracted Servic 26,126 16,273 (9,854) 32,083 (15,811) 35,000 46.49 Operating Supplie 3,005 5,647 2,642 5,042 605 5,500 102.67 Gas & Lube 3,583 6,474 2,891 9,167 (2,693) 10,000 64.74 Equip,Furn,Tools 1,044 1,330 287 1,375 (45) 1,500 86.67 Postage/Misc.Frei 3,078 2,927 (152) 5,500 (2,573) 6,000 48.78 Depreciation Expe 570,473 551,679 (18,795) 551,381 297 601,507 91.72 Bad Debt Expense 60,487 - (60,487) - - - - Harbor Overhead 153,857 148,939 (4,918) 155,887 (6,947) 170,058 87.58 Harbor Allocation (77,336) (68,123) 9,212 (74,937) 6,813 (81,749) (83.33) P.I.L.T. 19,279 27,874 8,594 17,004 10,869 18,550 150.26 Reclass PILT to T (19,279) (27,874) (8,594) (17,004) (10,869) (18,550) (150.26) Misc. Expenses 18,631 - (18,631) - - - - Principal 55,094 59,030 3,935 54,111 4,919 59,030 100.00 Interest Expense 3,409 1,894 (11515) 1,894 - 2,066 91.67 ---------- Total Expenses $ ---------- 947,929 $ 888,327 $ --------- (59,603) $ ---------- 913,028 $ --------- (24,701) $ ---------- 996,030 ------- 89.19 % Fs / City of Seward FUND: 501 - Electric Fund Line Item Revenue Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7% of year has expired ---------------------------------------------------------------- THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL Actual YTD Budget --------------------- Annual o of Account Name ----------------- 2010 ---------- 2011 ---------- variance Budget variance Budget Annual Bud Assessment Revenu $ 1,837 $ 1,117 --------- $ (720) $ ---------- 2,429 --------- $ (1,313) $ ---------- 2,650 ------- 42.13 EF Interest Reven 49,035 74,855 25,820 98,083 (23,228) 107,000 69.96 Sales Fixed Asset 5,000 - (5,000) - - - - Amortization of C 792,348 806,479 14,131 1,048,805 (242,326) 1,144,151 70.49 Amort.Bond Premiu - - - 7,669 (7,669) 6,366 - Residential Sales 2,450,057 2,848,188 398,131 2,789,615 58,573 3,043,216 93.59 SG Service 1,324,895 1,578,714 253,820 1,438,656 140,058 1,569,443 100.59 LG Service Sales 3,027,404 3,501,847 474,443 3,297,542 204,306 3,597,318 97.35 Special Contracts 879,545 1,176,349 296,804 871,739 304,610 950,988 123.70 Harbor Power Sale 162,168 210,737 48,569 241,661 (30,924) 263,630 79.94 Street & Yard Lig 59,853 61,949 2,096 69,208 (7,259) 75,500 82.05 Chugach Coop Divi 9,955 - (9,955) - - - - Special Rate Sale 12,056 18,065 6,010 - 18,065 - - Misc. Operating R 56,185 41,578 (14,607) 92,858 (51,280) 101,300 41.04 ---------- -- - ------ --------- ---------- --------- ---------- ------- Total Revenue $ 8,830,338 $ 10,319,879 $ 1,489,541 $ 9,958,265 $ 361,614 $ 10,863,562 95.00 0 ME , City of Seward FUND: 501 - Electric Fund Line Item Expenditure Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7% of year has expired THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL --------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actual YTD Budget Annual % of Account Name 2010 2011 variance Budget Variance --------- Budget ---------- Annual Bud ------- ----------------- Salaries $ ---------- 626,391 ---------- $ 677,655 $ --------- 51,265 $ ---------- 720,864 $ (43,208) $ 786,397 86.17 % Overtime 95,663 52,701 (42,962) 48,507 4,194 52,917 99.59 Standby Time 73,634 75,481 1,846 77,506 (2,025) 84,552 89.27 Electric Meal All 6,627 2,546 (4,081) 11,993 (9,447) 13,083 19.46 Unemployment Wage 9,167 1,060 (8,107) 2,750 (1,690) 3,000 35.32 Leave Time 58,240 63,001 4,760 71,877 (8,876) 78,411 80.35 In Lieu of FICA - - - 251 (251) 274 - Retirement Benefi 96,116 114,996 18,880 118,884 (3,889) 129,692 88.67 Health Insurance 134,779 142,560 7,781 141,208 1,352 154,045 92.54 Workers' Comp 60,670 45,703 (14,966) 85,883 (40,179) 93,690 48.78 Medicare 13,201 14,425 1,224 15,909 (1,484) 17,355 83.12 Union Benefits 15,262 17,757 2,495 18,333 (577) 20,000 88.78 Sal.& Ben.w/o cre (51,174) (59,475) (81301) (183,333) 123,858 (200,000) (29.74) Total Persnl Sery ---------- 1,138,576 ---------- 1,148,409 --------- 9,833 ---------- 1,130,631 --------- 17,77E ---------- 1,233,416 ------ 93.1 Advertising 1,921 732 (11190) 3,208 (2,477) 3,500 20.90 Subscriptions/Due 19,371 21,853 2,482 30,708 (8,855) 33,500 65.23 Travel/Subsistent 11,201 24,685 13,484 76,083 (51,399) 83,000 29.74 Communications 14,919 14,475 (443) 34,833 (20,358) 38,000 38.09 Education/Trainin 6,499 13,635 7,135 19,708 (6,074) 21,500 63.42 Legal 36,890 9,916 (26,974) 94,875 (84,959) 103,500 9.58 Other Spec Servic 9,167 19,222 10,055 13,750 5,472 15,000 128.14 Utilities 50,362 69,494 19,132 66,917 2,577 73,000 95.20 Power for Resale 3,813,117 4,573,966 760,849 3,941,667 632,299 4,300,000 106.37 Heating Fuel 9,972 41,490 31,518 9,625 31,865 10,500 395.15 Fuel for Generato 163,058 25 (163,033) 45,833 (45,809) 50,000 0.05 Rents & Leases 12,604 12,804 200 26,583 (13,779) 29,000 44.15 Insurance 58,260 50,838 (7,422) 70,583 (19,746) 77,000 66.02 Maintenance & Rep 57,056 74,455 17,399 125,033 (50,578) 136,400 54.59 Contracted Servic 127,074 140,112 13,038 185,167 (45,054) 202,000 69.36 Vehicle Supplies ill - (111) 2,292 (2,292) 2,500 - operating Supplie 424,190 205,806 (218,384) 271,975 (66,169) 296,700 69.37 Oper.Supp.w/o cre (41,322) (22,710) 18,611 (183,333) 160,623 (200,000) (11.36) Gas & Lube 28,081 28,360 279 38,958 (10,599) 42,500 66.73 Equip,Furn,Tools 8,064 6,531 (1,533) 22,45E (15,928) 24,500 26.66 Safety Equip/Supp 6,847 512 (6,335) 7,792 (7,280) 8,500 6.02 Postage/Misc.Frei 27,654 22,387 (5,267) 17,463 4,924 19,050 117.52 Equipment Rental 29,845 3,340 (26,505) 20,808 (17,469) 22,700 14.71 Motor Pool Rent 149,417 151,250 1,833 151,250 - 165,000 91.67 Util, Deposit Int 1,049 1,005 (45) 1,278 (273) 1,394 72.06 Depreciation Expe 1,318,196 1,362,526 44,330 1,498,823 (136,297) 1,635,080 83.33 Bad Debt Expense - - - 24,750 (24,750) 27,000 - Genl Govt Admin F 747,343 776,683 29,341 776,683 - 847,291 91.67 P.I.L.T. 638,311 760,223 121,913 842,210 (81,987) 918,775 82.74 City of Seward FUND: 501 - Electric Fund Line Item Expenditure Summary by Fund Through November, 91.70 of year has expired THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actual YTD Budget --------------------- Annual o of Account Name 2010 2011 Variance Budget Variance Budget ---------- Annual ------- Bud ----------------- Reclass PILT to T $ ---------- (638,311) $ ---------- (760,223) $ --------- (121,913) $ ---------- (842,210) --------- $ 81,987 $ (918,775) (82.74)°; Bank,credit card 28,844 37,385 8,541 45,833 (8,448) 50,000 74.77 Misc. Expenses 1,456 3,024 1,568 7,792 (4,768) 8,500 35.58 Principal 315,000 330,000 15,060 302,500 27,500 330,000 100.00 Interest Expense 323,540 310,415 (13,125) 405,918 (95,504) 442,820 70.10 Amort.BondIssueCo - - - 3,228 (3,228) 3,521 - Buildings - - - 36,667 (36,667) 40,000 Infrastructure Cc 352,765 - (352,769) 462,917 (462,917) 505,000 - Capital Equipment 43,301 44,962 1,661 67,833 ---------- (22,872) --------- 74,000 ---------- 60.76 ------- Total Expenses $ ---------- 9,294,431 $ ---------- 9,477,584 $ - -- - --- 183,153 $ 9,859,091 $ (381,507) $ 10,755,372 88.12 % on City of Seward FUND: 701 - Water Enterprise Fund Line Item Revenue Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7% of year has expired THROUGH NOVEMBER ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actual YTD Budget Account Name 2010 2011 Variance Budget Variance --------- ----------------- EF Interest Reven $ ---------- 27,341 $ ---------- 22,193 --------- $ (5,148) $ ---------- 62,333 $ (40,140) Spec Proj Revenue - 134,844 134,844 - 134,844 Amortization of C 26,986 25,348 (1,638) 25,349 (1) Residential Sales 344,601 361,367 16,766 363,478 (2,111) SG Service 98,065 103,856 5,791 113,082 (9,226) LG Service Sales 159,472 175,002 15,531 151,449 23,553 SMIC Sales 54,939 56,794 1,855 60,580 (3,766) Special Contracts 166,518 177,733 11,214 131,256 46,477 Ship Water 60,965 62,427 1,462 80,772 (18,345) Misc. Operating R 78,320 61,687 (16,632) 55,458 6,229 --------- Total Revenue $ ---------- 1,017,207 $ ---------- 1,181,252 --------- $ 164,044 $ ---------- 1,043,756 $ 137,495 ANNUAL $ --------------------- Annual g of Budget Annual Bud ------- ---------- 68,000 32.64 °s 27,653 91.66 396,521 91.13 123,362 84.19 165,217 105.92 66,087 85.94 143,188 124.13 88,115 70.85 60,500 101.96 ------- ---------- $ 1,138,643 103.74 on City of Seward FUND: 701 - Water Enterprise Fund Line Item Expenditure Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7% of year has expired THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actual YTD --------------------- Budget Annual % of Account Name 2010 2011 Variance Budget Variance Budget Annual Bud ----------------- ---------- Salaries $ ---------- 136,845 $ 134,840 $ --------- ---------- (2,006) $ 179,244 $ --------- ---------- (44,404) $ 195,539 ------- 68.96 °s Overtime 10,007 11,809 1,803 3,745 8,065 4,085 289.09 Standby Time 7,663 8,603 940 8,954 (351) 9,768 88.07 Leave Time 15,473 15,911 438 21,563 (5,652) 23,523 67.64 In Lieu of FICA 658 - (658) 453 (453) 494 - Retirement Benefi 30,717 31,559 842 45,509 (13,950) 49,646 63.57 Health Insurance 28,771 37,110 8,339 56,172 (19,062) 61,279 60,56 Workers' Comp 8,003 7,256 (748) 12,051 (4,795) 13,146 55.19 Medicare 2,076 2,111 35 2,663 (552) --------- ---------- 2,905 72.67 ------- ---------- Total Persnl Sery ---------- 240,213 249,199 --------- ------ 8,986 --- 330,353 (81,153) 360,385 69.15 Advertising 311 200 (111) 917 (717) 1,000 20.00 Subscriptions/Due 799 1,114 315 1,100 14 1,200 92.85 Travel/Subsistent 3,456 2,549 (907) 6,050 (3,501) 6,600 38.63 Communications 6,829 6,943 114 7,333 (391) 8,000 86.78 Education/Trainin 1,141 1,841 700 5,592 (3,751) 6,100 30.1E Legal - - - 9,167 (9,167) 10,000 - utilities 120,426 164,440 34,014 149,417 15,024 163,000 100.88 Heating Fuel - - - 917 (917) 1,000 - Insurance 4,118 3,110 (1,008) 11,000 (7,890) 12,000 25,92 Maintenance & Rep 28,545 22,512 (6,033) 66,000 (43,488) 72,000 31.27 Contracted Servic 79,168 68,120 (11,048) 357,500 (289,380) 390,000 17.47 Library Bks.& Mat 167 - (167) - - - operating Supplie 22,763 33,485 10,722 35,750 (2,265) 39,000 85.86 Gas & Lube 5,807 6,731 924 7,883 (1,152) 8,600 78.27 Testing 7,999 5,121 (2,878) 12,833 (7,712) 14,000 36.58 Equip,Furn,Tools 7,720 3,562 (4,159) 11,000 (7,438) 12,000 29.68 Safety Equip/Supp 215 2,056 1,842 6,417 (4,360) 7,000 29.38 Postage/Misc.Frei 4,121 5,034 913 5,042 (8) 5,500 91.52 Equipment Rental - 12,488 12,488 6,417 6,071 7,000 178.40 Motor Pool Rent - 3,667 3,667 - 3,667 - - Depreciation Expe 187,554 191,150 3,596 185,289 5,861 202,133 94.57 Bad Debt Expense - - - 1,833 (1,833) 2,000 - Genl Govt Admin F 206,171 214,265 8,094 214,265 - 233,744 91.67 P.I.L.T. 77,030 80,015 2,985 70,913 9,102 77,360 103.43 Reclass PILT to T (77,030) (80,015) (2,985) (70,913) (9,102) (77,360) (103.43) Bank,credit card 2,976 3,796 820 7,333 (3,537) 8,000 47.45 Misc. Expenses 1,401 136 (1,265) 1,375 (1,239) 1,500 9.04 Principal - 42,656 42,656 130,656 (88,000) 142,534 29.93 Interest Expense - 213 213 42,719 (42,506) 46,602 0.46 Infrastructure Cc 29,446 - (29,446) 36,667 (36,667) 40,000 - Capital Equipment 29,561 4,335 (25,246) - ---------- 4,335 -- - ----- - ---------- ------- - Total Expenses $ ---------- 1,000,927 $ ---------- 1,048,724 $ --------- 47,797 $ 1,650,823 $ (602,100) $ 1,800,898 58.23 s City of Seward FUND: 703 - Wastewater Enterprise Fund Line Item Revenue Summary by Fund Through November, 91.75, of year has expired THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL --------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actual YTD Budget Annual % of Account Name 2010 2011 variance Budget variance --------- Budget ---------- Annual Bud ------- --------------------------- EF interest Reven $ 3,382 $ ---------- 6,079 --------- $ 2,697 $ ---------- 24,017 $ (17,937) $ 26,200 23.20 % Spec Proj Revenue - 250,200 250,200 - 250,200 - - Amortization of C 197,686 200,321 2,635 197,686 2,636 215,657 92.89 Residential Sales 427,100 448,048 20,948 444,251 3,797 484,637 92.45 SG Service 113,865 120,652 6,788 107,024 13,629 116,753 103.34 LG Service Sales 180,056 194,711 14,656 181,738 12,973 198,260 98.21 SMIC Sales 46,178 32,296 (13,882) 40,387 (8,090) 44,058 73.30 Misc. Operating R 5,442 5,565 123 1,833 3,732 2,000 ---------- 278.24 ------- ---------- Total Revenue $ 973,709 $ ---------- 1,257,873 --------- $ 284,164 $ ---------- 996,935 --------- $ 260,938 $ 1,087,565 115.66 % City of Seward FUND: 703 - Wastewater Enterprise Fund Line Item Expenditure Summary by Fund Through November, 91.7% of year has expired THROUGH NOVEMBER ANNUAL ----------------------------------------------- Aotual - --------------- YTD Rildget --------------------- Annual o of Account Name 2010 2011 variance Budget Variance Budget Annual Bud ----------------- Salaries $ ---------- 137,062 $ ---------- 133,748 $ --------- ---------- (3,314) $ 131,397 ------ - - $ 2,351 $ ---------- 143,342 ------- 93.31 Overtime 11,042 5,995 (5,047) 2,626 3,369 2,865 209.26 Standby Time 5,622 5,667 45 5,377 290 5,866 96.61 Leave Time 14,923 15,862 940 15,497 365 16,906 93.83 In Lieu of FICA 658 - (658) 453 (453) 434 - Retirement Benefi 30,849 30,862 12 32,795 (1,933) 35,776 86.26 Health Insurance 28,771 35,280 6,509 37,642 (2,362) 41,064 85.92 Workers' Comp 8,208 7,060 (1,148) 15,056 (7,996) 16,425 42.98 Medicare 2,032 1,965 (66) 1,825 140 --------- 1,991 ---------- 98.71 ------- Total Persnl Sery ---------- 239,168 ---------- 236,440 ------------------- (2,728) 242,668 (6,228) 264,729 89.31 Advertising - 200 200 458 (258) 500 40.00 Subscriptions/Due 2,757 2,620 (137) 917 1,703 1,000 262.00 Travel/Subsistent 828 1,472 644 2,750 (1,278) 3,000 49.08 Communications 4,626 4,897 271 5,500 (603) 6,000 81.62 Education/Trainin 133 89 (43) 3,667 (3,577) 4,000 2.23 Legal - - - 4,583 (4,583) 5,000 - utilities 109,068 131,024 21,957 96,250 34,774 105,000 124.79 Heating Fuel - 3,968 3,968 1,558 2,410 1,700 233.44 Rents & Leases - 67 67 458 (392) 500 13.34 Insurance 6,335 5,784 (551) 7,792 (2,007) 8,500 68.05 Maintenance & Rep 40,193 4,830 (35,363) 74,250 (69,420) 81,000 5.96 Contracted Servic 143,466 52,483 (90,983) 76,083 (23,600) 83,000 63.23 Operating Supplie 11,080 61619 (4,461) 15,125 (8,506) 16,500 40.11 Gas & Lube 5,960 8,637 2,677 7,104 1,533 7,750 111.45 Testing 13,585 14,655 1,070 16,958 (2,303) 18,500 79.22 Equip,Furn,Tools 707 816 110 5,500 (4,684) 6,000 13.61 Safety Equip/Supp 181 424 243 1,100 (676) 1,200 35.34 Postage/Misc.Frei 1,671 2,289 619 4,767 (2,477) 5,200 44.03 Equipment Rental - - - 5,042 (5,042) 5,500 - Motor Pool Rent - 3,667 3,667 - 3,667 - - Depreciation Expe 253,558 271,969 18,411 250,061 21,907 272,794 99.70 Bad Debt Expense - - - 1,192 (1,192) 1,300 - Genl Govt Admin F 125,907 130,850 4,943 130,850 - 142,745 91.67 P.I.L.T. 61,811 64,238 2,427 56,760 7,478 61,920 103.74 Reclass PILT to T (61,811) (64,238) (2,427) (56,760) (7,478) (61,920) (103.74) Bank,credit card 3,646 4,582 936 7,333 (2,752) 8,000 57.27 Misc. Expenses 89 200 ill 917 (717) 1,000 20.00 Principal 1,333 87,074 85,741 54,335 32,739 59,274 146.90 Interest Expense 100 10,947 10,847 2,500 8,447 2,727 401.43 Infrastructure Co - - - 18,333 (16,333) 20,000 - Capital Equipment 47,300 14,279 (33,021) - ---------- 14,279 --------- - ---------- ------- Total Expenses $ ---------- 1,011,688 $ ---------- 1,000,882 $ --------- (10,806) $ 1,038,051 $ (37,169) $ 1,132,419 88.38 % CASH MLANCE's ALSO ALS 18-Jan-12 03:37 PM City of Seward Audit Lead Sheet as of 11 /3010 FUND: 001 - Central Treasury Adj Entry Reclas Sub Last Year This Year This Year Debit/ Adjusted Debit GL ----- Acct ----- Description -------------------- Balance Budget ----------------------- Balance ------------- Credit Balance Credi ---------------- ------ ASSETS: 1020 Cash- Treasury $ 1,667,414.37 $ $ (148,599.97) $ - $ - $ - 1030 0010 Investments 15,921,336.32 - 18,106,533.27 - - - 1300 0101 General Fund (7,956,131.31) (8,292,684.67) - - - 1300 0102 Motor Pool Fund (675,324.65) - (899,044.65) - - - 1300 0103 Capital Acquistion (224,770.80) - (216,081.09) - - - 1300 0104 Compensated Leave (457,188.35) (457,188.35) - - - 1300 0208 Lawing/Ft.Ray.T-Line (575,599.38) - (566,135.55) - - - 1300 0215 ALPAR (587,84) 8,340.35 - - - 1300 0220 Two Lakes Park (2,520.19) - (2,520.19) - - - 1300 0271 FY97 Muni Grants - 341,842.44 - - - 1300 0273 FY95 Muni Grants 3,961.44 - - 1300 0274 Sm Boat Harbor Exp (723,922.66) (433,039.04) - - - 1300 0275 Sm.Boat Hrbr.South 15,875.23 (392,511.22) - - - 1300 0276 Harbor Dredging 111,591.61 - (86,495.81) - - - 1300 0277 Harbor Cap Projects (263,914.42) (881507.18) - - 1300 0278 Harbor Float Restore - - 63,498.80 - - 1300 0306 1995 Flood Disaster 7,957.86 - 48,606.91 - - 1300 0315 SBH Repair/Renovate (11,537.41) (11,537.41) - - 1300 0401 Harbor Fund (1,534,330.55) - (363,035.50) - - 1300 0402 Harbor MRRF Fund (1,053,856.32) (1,144,067.01) - - - 1300 0403 Parking Revenue Fund (387,337.54) (441,773.61) - - - 1300 0417 SMIC Operations 27,141.18 - 50,098.37 - - - 1300 0501 Electric Fund 233,894.11 - (786,226.54) - - - 1300 0502 Electric MRRF (387,761.07) - (423,889.40) - - - 1300 0505 Stndby Elec Generatr (71,713.45) - (50,497.71) - - - 1300 0600 Fourth & Adams Park (8,523,98) - (8,523,98) - - 1360 0626 Library/Museum CP 156,044.48 - 944,410.97 - - - 1300 0651 Police Cap. Projects 159,105.35 - - - - - 1300 0660 Public Safety 1,913.50 - 1,913.50 - - - 1300 0666 NRCS Levee/Road 347,887.69 - (219,165.82) - - 1300 0668 Networking, Web Page (53,111.97) - - - - - 1300 0670 Hospital Grants (12,098.45) - (9,205.26) - - - 1300 0700 Water MRRF (4,019.00) - (4,019.00) - - - 1300 0701 Water Fund (1,604,280.77) - (1,854,709.05) - - 1300 0702 Wastewater MRRF (112,115.31) - (112,115.31) - - 1300 0703 Wastewater Ent. Fund (396,005.81) - (611,220.11) - - 1300 0704 Forest Acres/Gateway (30,662.62) - (30,768.50) - - 1300 0708 Fire Hydrant Phase 2 (61,912.00) - (7,698.68) - - 1300 0709 Water Tank Phase I 353,192.26 - 5,644.22 - - - 1300 0713 3rd Ave Water Main (45,000.27) - (45,000.27) - - - 1300 0800 Seward Mtn Haven (1,689,691.75) - (962,166.34) - - 1300 0601 Hospital Debt Svc. (546,694.90) - (186,143.73) - - ALS4 ALS 18-Jan-12 03:37 PM FUND: 001 - Central Treasury Sub GL Acct Description ----- ----- -------------------- 1300 0804 Teen Council Fund 1300 0805 Bus Transportation 1300 0806 Harbor Revenue Bond 1300 0810 Hoben Park 1300 0611 Parks Capital Projec 1300 0826 Library S.R.Projects 1300 0851 Fire Dept. Grants 1300 0866 Natural Disasters 1300 0890 Pass-thru SR Fund MR City of Seward Audit Lead Sheet as of Adj Entry Reclas Last Year This Year This Year Debit/ Adjusted Debit Balance Budget Balance Credit Balance Credi ---------------- ------ ------------- $ (46,894.44) ----------------------- $ - $ (42,229.39) $ - $ - $ _ - 30,772.70 (249,553.18) - (825,730.52) - - - (17,807.79) - (17,807.79) - (7,293.15) - (7,293.15) - (11,788.22) - (11,788.22) - (3,679.00) - 432.80 ' 224,139,22 - 308,515.17 - - 61,759.03 ------- --------- ----- ------------- (135.37) ---------- ------------- - 216,909.95 - - a�� 1 /24/2012 Run Date - 1/24/12 @ 5:45 PM % Variance Actual MTD Budget MTD MTD 160 158 1.3% 557 471 18.3% 181 127 42.5°% 1,063 886 20.0°% 1,961 1,642 19.4% 52 29 79.3°% 492 42 1,071.4°% 2 4 (50.0%) 125 40 212.5°% 671 115 483.5% 1,290 1,527 (15.5%) 456 7 6,414.3°% 1,746 1,534 13.8% Providence Health & Services 110 - MGD - PROV SEWARD MED CTR Detail Statement of Operations (in Thousands) Reported as of December 2011 Gross Service Revenues: Acute Care -Inpatient Acute Care -Outpatient Primary Care Long-term Care Homecare & Hospice Housing & Assist. Living Total Gross Service Revenues Revenue Deductions: Charity Care Medicare & Medicaid Negotiated Contracts Other Total Deductions Net Service Revenue Premium Revenue Rental and Education Revenue Other Operating Revenue Total Net Operating Revenues Expenses from Operations: - Purchased and Healthcare Expenses 788 749 5.2°% 242 270 (10.4%) 7 6 16.7°% 87 70 24.3°% 256 174 47.1 °% 2 2 (18) 252 69 265.2°% 1 65 56 16.1 °% 1,682 1,396 20.5% 1,682 1,396 20.5% 64 138 (53.6%) Other Expenses from Operations: Salaries & Wages Employee Benefits Professional Fees Supplies Purchased Service Depreciation Interest and Amortization Bad Debts Taxes and Licenses Other Expenses Total Other Exp from Operations Total Operating Expenses Excess of Rev Over Exp from OPS Actual YTD Budget YTD % Variance YTD Last Year Actual YTD % Variance YTD 2,312 1,887 22.5% 1,872 23.5% 6,266 6,325 (0.9%) 6,254 0.2% 1,578 1,688 (6.5%) 1,738 (9.2°%) 12,774 10,445 22.3°% 9,567 33.5°% 22,930 20,345 12.7% 19,431 18.0% 329 349 (5.7%) 225 46.2% 4,475 571 683.7°% 1,252 257.4°% 15 57 (73.7%) 100 (85.0%) 902 520 73.5°% 464 94.4°% 5,721 1,497 282.2°% 2,041 180.3% 17,209 18,848 (8.7%) 17,390 (1.0°%) 646 86 651.2% 323 100.0°% 17,855 18,934 (5.7%) 17,713 0.8% 9,231 8,689 6.2°% 8,285 11.4°% 2,589 2,675 (3.2%) 2,361 9.7°% 166 74 124.3°% 157 5.7°% 1,043 848 23.0°% 926 12.6°% 2,596 2,073 25.2°% 2,120 22.5°% 21 21 21 - 38 2 1,800.0°% 5 660.0°% 1,017 894 13.8°% 1,002 1.5°% 23 6 283.3°% 21 9.5°% 976 666 46.5% 15 6,406.7°% 17,700 15,948 11.0% 14,913 18.7°% 17,700 15,948 11.0% 14,913 18.7% 155 2,986 (94.8%) 2,800 (94.5°%) Non -Operating Gain (Loss) - 1 1 - 64 138 (53.6%) Excess of Revenues Over Expenses 155 2,987 (94.8%) 2,801 (94.5%) Other Activity- Unrestricted (469) (2,999) 84.4°% Increase (Decrease) in UR Net Assets (314) (198) (58.66 5:45 PM DET_OPS a 1 /24/2012 PRELIM - Run Date - 1/24/12 @ 5:45 PM ASSETS Current Assets: Cash and Cash Equivalents System Pooled Cash Mgmt Designated Cash & Cash Equiv. Short Term Investments Assets Held Under Securities Lending Accounts Receivable, Net Affiliate Receivable Premiums Receivable Other Receivables Supplies Inventory at Cost Other Current Assets Current Port. of Assets -Use is LTD Total Current Assets Assets Whose Use is Limited: Mgmt Designated Cash and Investments Funds Held for Long-term Purposes Gift Annuity and Trust Funds Funds Held by Trustees Non -Current Assets Limited as to Use Property. Plant & Eauipment: Gross Property, Plant & Equipment Less: Accumulated Depreciation Net Property, Plant & Equipment Other Assets: Unamortized Financing Cost Interaffiliate Notes Receivable Other (Incl. Long-term Investments) Total Other Assets Total Assets Providence Health & Services 110 - MGD - PROV SEWARD IVIED CTR Balance Sheet (in Thousands) Reported as of December 2011 December 2011 December 2010 Actual Last Year (1,991) (414) 2,477 2,111 907 (18) 2 24 1,395 1,703 2,071 476 2,071 476 107 107 (96) (75) 11 32 30 30 30 30 3,507 2,241 LIABILITIES & NET ASSETS Current Liabilities: Accounts Payable Accrued Compensation Affiliates Payable Payable to Contractual Agencies Deferred Revenue/Unearned Premiums Liability for Unpaid Medical Claims Liability for Risk -Sharing Liabilities Under Securities Lending Other Current Liabilities Short -Term Debt Current Portion of Long -Term Debt Total Current Liabilities Long -Term Debt: Master Trust Debt Loans from Affiliates Other Long -Term Debt Other Long -Term Liabilities Total Liabilities Net Assets: Unrestricted Temporarily Restricted Permanently Restricted Total Net Assets Total Liabilities and Net Assets 8 December 2011 December 2010 Actual Last Year 226 223 900 834 361 420 22 30 2,834 1,231 4,343 2,738 44 69 4,387 2,807 (883) (569) 3 3 (880) (566) 3,507 2.241 5:45 PM BAL_SHT 1242012 5:45 PM PRELIM - Run Date - 124/12 @ 5:45 PM Providence Health & Services CASHFLOW 110 - MGD - PROV SEWARD MED CTR Statement of Cash Flows (in Thousands) Reported as of December 2011 Operating Activities: Change in Net Assets Adjustments to Reconcile to Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities: Depreciation Amortization Provision for Bad Debts Extraordinary Items and Other Loss (Gain) on Sale of Cap. Assets Equity Income from Joint Ventures Changes in Certain Current Assets/Liab. Increase (Decrease) in Other Liabilities Restricted Contrib./Investment (Income)Loss Net Assets (Contributed)Assumed and Other Net Real./Unreal. (Gains)Losses on Invest. Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Op. Act Investing Activities: PP&E Additions Proceeds on the Disposal of PP&E Purchases of Investments Proceeds on the Sale of Investments Capital Contributions to Joint Ventures Distributions from Joint Ventures (Increase) Decrease in Other Long -Term Assets Net Assets (Liab.) Assumed and Other Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Inv. Act. December 2011 December 2010 Current Year Last Year (314) (195) 21 21 1,017 1,002 (682) (1,502) (24) (120) (3) 469 2,999 487 2,202 (1,595) (348) (30) (1,595) (378) Financina Activities: Proceeds from Rest. Contrib. and Invest Inc. Debt Borrowings Debt Reductions (Increase) Decrease in Def. Financing Costs (Increase) Decrease in Funds Held by Trustee Interdivision Transfers & Other Net Cash Prov by (Used in) Financing Act. Increase (Decrease) in Cash & Cash Equiv. Cash & Cash Equiv- Beginning of Period Cash & Cash Equiv- End of Period Supplemental Disclosure: Cash Paid for Interest, Net of Capital Capitalized Lease Obligations December 2011 December 2010 Current Year Last Year (469) (2,999) (469) (2,996) (1,577) (1,172) (414) 758 (1.9911 (414) 38 5 c c � cm m- 01 February 2012 March 2012 F e b ru a ty 2012 SuMo TuWe T_h Fr Sa SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa — 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 91011 4 5 6 7 8 910 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Jan 30 31 Feb 1 2 3 11:OOam PACAB WS 12:OOpm PACAB Meetin v LL O M C 6 7 8 9 10 11:30am Seward Comm 0 2 LL 13 14 15 16 17 7:OOpm City Council M 6:30pm Historic Preser 9:OOam Social Security h rl M rl N LL 20 21 22 23 24 ` Offices closed; Preside 6:OOpm P&Z Work Ses 12:OOpm PACAB WS v N O N v LL 27 28 29 Mar 1 2 7:OOpm City Council M N N n N L LL Nand Richey n r-+ 2/8/2012 12:39 PM March 2012 March 2012 April SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa SuMo TuWe Th Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 S% 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 Monday. Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Feb 27 28 29 Mar 1 2 N i f0 r` N N LL 5 6 7 8 9 7:00pm P&Z Meeting 12:00pm PACAB Meetin I 11:30am Seward Comm 12 113 7:OOpm City Council M NI 14 15 16 19 120 121 22 123 6:00pm P&Z Work Ses 12:00pm PACAB Work S 9:00am Social Security 6:30pm Historic Preser 26 27 28 29 30 Offices Closed; Seward 7:OOpm City Council M 0 ro ry �o Nand Richey 1 2/8/2012 12:39 PM �o,r