[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Fwd: Boulder Chamber Input - Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Young, Mary

Colleagues, I forwarded the Chamber's input to Summer Laws at Boulder County Public Health. Her response below.

Mary Dolores Young
Boulder City Council
303-501-2439



Hi Mary,

Here are my initial thoughts based upon the research literature, what we have heard from Philly, Chicago, San Francisco, and what we are learning from national organizations working in this area:


A.      Opening specific items up for exemption is not only challenging at the onset of the tax, but especially challenging throughout the process.  However, Philly<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/nKZYBGfRd0ahE?domain=beta.phila.gov> has created a request for exemption process and had a committee of public health, revenue, and city project management staff review each exemption request.  It should be noted they have not exempted any of the items listed below in bullets 1-4.


B.      It would be ideal to maintain as much consistency as possible city to city for those retailers that are located in multiple sites and to administer the tax. Especially as the tax in each jurisdiction has also been identified to improve health, sticking to definitions of beverages per health recommendations is preferred.




C.   Per TABOR, the items taxed must all meet a specific, single definition.   That definition is beverages with 5 or more grams of sugar per serving, with the specific exemptions laid out on the ballot such as:
-products containing alcohol (already taxed)
-medically necessary products
-products containing milk or milk substitutes
-baby formula
-sweeteners sold separately at the grocery store for the consumer (e.g. bags of sugar, etc.)


I am uncertain of the legal process for the City to allow additional exemptions outside of those listed in the ordinance and on the ballot.



D.      Many of the products listed by the Chamber are products that are consumed by high income earners.  There are no nutritional differences between beverages if they contain the same amount of sugars as other beverages more commonly consumed by people with lower incomes. This tax could impact those with lower incomes more than higher incomes if the products listed here are exempted.


In my opinion, the City should not be put in the position of stepping outside of the sugary beverage definition to exempt specific drinks per business and corporate interests.

Per bullet 1- Items that are taxed for athletic purposes
  This would include Gatorade, Powerade, and many of the sugary drinks that are now directly targeted at youth and children unnecessarily. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/31/136722667/pediatricians-warn-against-energy-and-sports-drinks-for-kids<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/1dYJB3fVp7Wul?domain=npr.org>

Per bullet 2- Alcoholic mixers, etc. – they clearly meet the definition of a sugar sweetened beverage.  In addition, bars and restaurants could also argue that Coke, Pepsi, and other products used to make alcoholic drinks should be exempt.  How would the City manage this exemption?

Per bullet 3- “Healthy beverages”   These beverages may be self-defined as “healthy”; however, how would the City define “healthy”.  What academic literature points to the health benefits of these products over other products?

Per bullet 4- Again, there is no health or political reason to exempt these products. They are taxed in other localities and most specifically are items consumed by people with higher incomes.

Bullet 5 is unclear to me.  This may be an areas of exemption of there is a second line of distribution outside of the City of Boulder before the retailer.  I am happy to reach out to the City of Philadelphia on this one as they have three months of implementation under their belt and we have found their staffing and infrastructure to be robust in implementing the tax.

Thanks for reaching out.
Summer




Summer Laws, MPH
Health Systems and Policy Planner
Strategic Initiatives
Boulder County Public Health
3450 Broadway Ave
Boulder, CO 80304
www.healthybouldercounty.org<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/VAGVBwheq3ZH5?domain=healthybouldercounty.org>
o 303.441.1531
<image001.jpg>

From: Young, Mary [mailto:YoungM at bouldercolorado.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 4:02 PM
To: Laws, Summer
Subject: Fwd: Boulder Chamber Input - Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax

Thoughts, please? Thanks.

Mary Dolores Young
Boulder City Council
303-501-2439

Begin forwarded message:
Resent-From: <council at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:council at bouldercolorado.gov>>
From: Andrea Meneghel <andrea.meneghel at boulderchamber.com<mailto:andrea.meneghel at boulderchamber.com>>
Date: April 3, 2017 at 3:34:09 PM MDT
To: Council <council at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:council at bouldercolorado.gov>>
Cc: "Brautigam, Jane" <BrautigamJ at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:BrautigamJ at bouldercolorado.gov>>, "Harkins,  Jamie" <HarkinsJ at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:HarkinsJ at bouldercolorado.gov>>, "Osborne, Curt" <OsborneC at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:OsborneC at bouldercolorado.gov>>, John Tayer <john.tayer at boulderchamber.com<mailto:john.tayer at boulderchamber.com>>
Subject: Boulder Chamber Input - Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax
Dear Mayor Jones and City Council,

Attached to this email is the Boulder Chamber’s input on the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax. Based on member input, we’ve included the questions for Council consideration in relation to the ordinance and ballot language.

For ease, of reading the input, I’ve also copied it in the body of this email below.

As always, please feel free to let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss this further.

Andrea Meneghel
Director of Public Affairs
Boulder Chamber
Direct: (303) 938-2077
andrea.meneghel at boulderchamber.com<mailto:andrea.meneghel at boulderchamber.com>
www.boulderchamber.com<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/5JL1BDT7gv2CM?domain=boulderchamber.com>

WE BUILD COMMUNITY THROUGH BUSINESS



April 3, 2017

Re:  Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance – Boulder Chamber Input

Dear Mayor Jones and City Council,

I’d like to begin by thanking City staff for the level of outreach they’ve done to understand the questions and concerns of impacted businesses prior to drafting the ordinance language for the sugar sweetened drink tax.  They have done an exceptional job identifying issues associated with the ballot language that either seem in conflict with voter intent or will create undue hardship on Boulder businesses. We offer this letter in response to the staff request for feedback on issues that need further discussion and clarification from City Council.

As City Manager, Jane Brautigam, articulated in the Daily Camera, the original purpose of the sugar sweetened drink tax and the clear intent of Boulder voters was “a desire to fight childhood obesity and promote health equity, giving all members of our community access to nourishing food and water as well as opportunities to engage in physical activity.”

Through initial discussions with our member businesses, we’ve obtained the following input. Given that the ballot question was presented to voters with a focus on “healthy kids” and targeted sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in Boulder, we begin by offering the following principles that address the concerns we’ve heard.  Specifically, we believe the following products/categorical areas should be exempt from this tax:


  *   Products that are designed to assist with athletic performance and/or function for health and/or are scientifically engineered to aid in the recovery of athletic activity.
  *   Products that are associated with adult use, and not legal for children’s consumption, such as alcoholic drinks or mixes used in the production of other adult beverages.
  *   Healthy alternatives, functional beverages and natural products that have sugar as a byproduct of their natural fermentation process, not added as a principle ingredient, such as kombucha, water kiefer, coconut waters, probiotic drinks and other products of that nature. These types of beverages have proven health benefits and are intended to promote healthy alternatives to sodas and sugary drinks.
  *   Syrups or flavorings used to make customized beverages at the request of the customer at the point of consumption – this often includes drinks offered by many of our small business establishments such as coffee drinks or cocktails.
  *   Assessing the tax at the first point of distribution raises many unintended consequences for our local companies producing products in Boulder, yet those products are sold or consumed in other locations around the world. There needs to be a provision that exempts those that distribute their product outside of Boulder, whose product will never be consumed in Boulder, but is intended for another market or community that has not chosen to impose this tax. Currently, if a Boulder business produces a beverage and provides it to a distributer at their location in Boulder, that’s the first point of distribution.

Taxing the type of products listed above is inconsistent with voter intent to focus on beverages that may be consumed by children and known to cause diabetes and childhood obesity.  We look forward to discussing these issues with you further in order to help achieve our community’s goals for healthy kids while avoiding inappropriate application of the sugar sweetened drink tax to the products that fall outside of the original ballot intent.

Andrea Meneghel
Director of Public Affairs, Boulder Chamber
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 7124 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20170404/e5418ff6/attachment.obj