2005-09-01 Work SessionASSEMBLY WORK SESSION
August 25, 2005 - 7:30 p.m.
Borough Conference Room
1 AGENDA
CITIZENS' COMMENTS (limited to three minutes per speaker)
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Assessing - Reevaluation Plan
2. Woodland Acres Paving District
PACKET REVIEW
MANAGER'S COMMENTS `\ 11 I i
CLERK'S COMMENTS �oV Qi
MAYOR'S COMMENTS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER COMMENTS
ON LEAVE
ASSEMBLY CALENDAR
August 2005
29 7:00 pm School Board Regular Meeting- AC
September 2005
1 7:30 pm Assembly Regular Meeting - AC
8 7:30 pm Assembly Work Session - CR
12 7:00 pm School Board Work Session - SD /CR
13 7:00 pm Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - CR
14 7:30 pm Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session -CR
15 7:30 pm Assembly Regular Meeting - AC
21 7:30 pm Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting - AC
26 7:00 pm School Board Regular Meeting - AC
27 7:00 pm Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - CR
7:30 pm City Council Work Session - SD /CR
29 7:30 pm Assembly Work Session - CR
7:30 pm City Council Regular Meeting - AC
October 2005
4 Municipal Election
6 7:30 pm Assembly Regular Meeting - AC
10 7:00 pm School Board Work Session - SD /CR
11 7:00 pm Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - CR
12 7:30 pm Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session - CR
13 7:30 pm Assembly Work Session - CR
19 7:30 pm Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting - AC
20 7:30 pm Assembly Regular Meeting - AC
25 7:00 pm Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - CR
7:30 pm City Council Work Session - SD /CR
27 7:30 pm Assembly Work Session - CR
7:30 pm City Council Regular Meeting - AC
31 7:00 pm School Board Regular Meeting - AC
Discussion Paper U
SOUTHWEST ALASKA
SEAFOOD SUPPLY CHAIN ANALYSIS
Problem Statement: Market trends and consumer preferences for seafood
products are increasingly governed by the ability to consistently deliver the highest
possible quality. The demand for fresh and fresh frozen product is increasing,
particularly in historically underserved domestic markets. Limited infrastructure,
increasing operating costs, transportation bottlenecks, and other operating
limitations hinder the ability of existing seafood producers and a growing number of
direct marketers from meeting market demands and optimizing retums in the seafood
harvesting and processing sector.
Full implementation of the Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan has been
significantly delayed due to staggering infrastructure needs in the region, erratic
funding patterns, and legislative actions. Transportation planning processes have
become increasingly complex, time - consuming and subject to litigation, resulting in
the inability to plan and adapt infrastructure projects to respond to the changing
needs and demands of the stakeholders in the seafood supply chain.
Proposal: In partnership with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Utilities, SWAMC proposes to
Develop an analysis and visual schematic of the existing Southwest Alaska
Seafood supply chain, including linkages in key transportation hubs outside of
the region, product forms and volumes, and end -user markets.
Assess and determine the optimal placement of transportation infrastructure
to support the efficient movement of fresh seafood products, including an
assessment of planned, programmed, and funded infrastructure
improvements.
Optimal placement of cool chain logistic facilities to increase product flow,
product margins, and expansion of product forms.
Priority recommendations to allocate transportation resources to ensure the
highest possible retum can be achieved through the investments
programmed in the STIP, ATP, and Harbors CIP.
Work Group: The Alaska. Department of Transportation and Public Utilities, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Denali Commission, APICDA, BBEDC, CBFSA, APA
and members, PSPA and members, UAA Logistics and Global Supply Chain faculty,
SW communities and boroughs, other stakeholders
SWAMC's Role:
• Seed funding of $100,000 to be matched by commitments of staff time, cash
match and other resources from work group agencies and stakeholders
Develop MOA and solicit agency participation
• • Volunteer time through Fisheries and Infrastructure Committees
• Project coordination and planning
• First right of refusal on consultant selection
• Publication, publicity and advocacy for proposed solutions
Denali Commission:
• $100,000 match from transportation funds
DOTPF Role:
• $100,000 match
• Technical liaison with consultant
Other Stakeholders' Roles
• Staff time
• Cash
• Evaluation/Critique
'I n TOLL tgrScwt
� (vri(cs donLi_e et
Work Session Meeting of:
Please print your name
1. ..fcoe
2.
.L -T
3. tfIS {CVI 146orti
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
WORK SESSION MEETING
Memo
To: Rick Gifford ®v"-'
From: Tom Anderson 'T
Date: 8/24/2005
Re: Borough -wide Reassessment
Rick,
Current Status :
Assessing
Department
Kodiak Island Borough
Pursuant to our ongoing discussions regarding the systematic reassessment being planned by this
department, and in preparation for this week's work session with the Borough Assembly, let me
give you a summary of the analysis to this point.
We have conducted a detailed ratio study which compared the 2005 assessed values with all
known sales from the same period. A summary of the results of this study are tabulated in the
attached Excel file (Revenue Projections). The study shows that the assessed values are, on
average, about 12% below market, though the results are further broken down by tax code area.
Taking the percentage of uncaptured value in each area, and applying it to the existing tax base
for each property type gives an estimate of how much property tax value might be added by
bringing these assessments into line with the current market. Further, multiplying this added
value by the Mill Rate for each area yields an estimate of the property tax revenue that might be
gained, approximately $1.1 milion, assuming the mill rates stay the same.
It is important to keep in mind that this study was conducted on a given sample of properties in
the borough, 181 sales, which constitutes a statistically significant portion of the total. Still, we
are using statistical inference here, and the mix of properties in the sample may not match the
mix or proportion of the entire population of properties in the Borough. Only a very few
commercial or industrial sales are available at this time, which is not enough for reliable
statistical analysis.
Options :
We are in receipt of a study conducted by Assessment Consulting Services, Inc. (ACS), which
was completed sometime in May of this year. The report provided sets forth 3 options for
conducting a Borough -wide reappraisal, each of which, we agree, might be a feasible alternative.
Feasibility
Alternative A : Conduct a systematic physical inspection and reappraisal of all properties
over a 3 year period. This option specifically mentions the hiring of one additional staff
appraiser for the duration of the project. Our initial analysis of the time required to
complete the project indicates that we might be able to get it done in 3 years using only
existing staff. We would plan to review our progress after the first year, and consider
hiring additional (possibly temporary) staff for the following year if unable to meet our
first year's objectives. The ACS report presumes that this plan would be the most
economical, and would provide for knowledgeable staff to represent and defend the the
results.
Altemtive B : Contract with an independent appraisal firm to conduct a reappraisal
within one calendar year's time frame. The estimated cost of this alternative is $170,000
to $225,000. This option would potentially allow us to make up the full amount of the
undervalued properties in a single year, less the cost of the contract. However there is
some question as to how soon we could get the contract completed. We would first have
to issue an RFP for the service, then allow time for responses and selection of a
competent firm, assuming that one is available. Once on the job, it seems reasonable to
assume that our own assessing staff would need to assist in orienting the hired
appraiser(s) with the local neighborhoods and market areas. There is a strong possibilty
that this could not be accomplished for the 2006 tax year.
Alernatative C : Contract with an independent appraisal firm to conduct a reappraisal of
all commercial, industrial and multi - family properties, and then to reappraise all the
remaining properties over a 2 year period. The estimated cost of such contract is $85,000.
The ACS report concludes that "commercial property values may be deficient by as
much as 15 to 20 percent ". If this is in fact the case, the revenue gained from reappraisal
of all commercial and industrial properties could be more than $450,000. However our
analysis estimates the underassessment to be a more conservative 4 to 12 percent.
We have studied all of these alternatives in detail, though more time would be needed to fully
explore the feasibility of Alternative B. Based upon the estimates we have, and on the basis of
our own assessment / sales ratio study, we can present the following cost / benefit alaysis :
The tabled analysis above shows the best revenue return over the 3 year period from Alernative
B, assuming that we can retain a firm to conduct the entire project for the 2006 tax year, which is
doubtful. If this alternative can't be implemented until tax year 2007, then over the coming 3
year period it will produce $1,975,000. There is also a fourth possibility to consider, which
combines the approaches set forth in Alternatives A and C The revenue stream from Alternative
A above assumes that we conduct reappraisal of an equal third of the value each year with
existing staff. Depending on which tax code areas and property types we focus on first, we could
conceivably capture more revenue at the front end of the project. Targeted thus, Altemative A
could look like this •
ALTERNATIVE A
(EVEN)
ALTERNATIVE B
ALTERNATIVE C
$650,000
REVENUE
REVENUE
$1,100,000
$60000
YEAR 1
COST
TOTAL
($225,000)
($85,000)
NET
$366,667
$875,000
$515,000
YEAR 2
REVENUE
$733,333
$1,100,000
$850,000
YEAR 3
REVENUE
$1,100,000
$1,100,000
$1,100,000
TOTAL
$2,200,000
$3,075,000
$2,465,000
The tabled analysis above shows the best revenue return over the 3 year period from Alernative
B, assuming that we can retain a firm to conduct the entire project for the 2006 tax year, which is
doubtful. If this alternative can't be implemented until tax year 2007, then over the coming 3
year period it will produce $1,975,000. There is also a fourth possibility to consider, which
combines the approaches set forth in Alternatives A and C The revenue stream from Alternative
A above assumes that we conduct reappraisal of an equal third of the value each year with
existing staff. Depending on which tax code areas and property types we focus on first, we could
conceivably capture more revenue at the front end of the project. Targeted thus, Altemative A
could look like this •
ALTERNATIVE A
(TARGETED)
YEAR 1
REVENUE
$650,000
YEAR 2
REVENUE
$875,000
YEAR 3
REVENUE
$1,100,000
TOTAL
REVENUE
$2,625,000
The tabled analysis above shows the best revenue return over the 3 year period from Alernative
B, assuming that we can retain a firm to conduct the entire project for the 2006 tax year, which is
doubtful. If this alternative can't be implemented until tax year 2007, then over the coming 3
year period it will produce $1,975,000. There is also a fourth possibility to consider, which
combines the approaches set forth in Alternatives A and C The revenue stream from Alternative
A above assumes that we conduct reappraisal of an equal third of the value each year with
existing staff. Depending on which tax code areas and property types we focus on first, we could
conceivably capture more revenue at the front end of the project. Targeted thus, Altemative A
could look like this •
Conclusions :
The targeted Alternative A looks like a good choice both in terms of revenue and feasibility.
Even if additional staff need to be hired to complete the project in- house, the projected revenue
exceeds the next best alternative by $160,000, and the Borough Assessing Department will be
able to directly account for the results.
It must be emphasized once again that these are only projections, based upon the best
information available to us. The revenue streams and costs presented are estimates from reliable
outside sources, and based upon current mill rates and average assessment levels.
I hope this discussion and the analysis provided are instructive in determining the best course of
action to take for Kodiak Island Borough.
Sincerely,
Tom Anderson
§
LO
co co co
co
LO
Irc 1.6
CD
CO
0
CO
eo
LO
co
oa
CO
co
to
CO
CD
69
co
CO
0)
0)
0
co
CO
co
▪ CO C O CO • Nt
• CO
CO CO
ui
CO
CNI
69
co
ca
LII
cei
CO
CNI
0
CO
ui
CD
CO
s
\ k \ 69
0)
CO
CO
0
0
CO
CO
kj
SE To
2 )2 4 0)
E #;!
§a = ae
uk «;!
CO
Of
CO
CO
-J
$
«|
co
co
COI
!
k 4 co cci oa NI :
q{ 6 o5
\ / $
co
co co
co
cei
0
CV
co
Cji 1)3
an
g l
J
0)
%
CO
CO
co
Lo
f 2
\§
f)
N-
CO CO
LID c6
o
co CO
LO
69
X
#
CD CD C‘l
)
co
te
/ �
#
CO
oo
69
CD
CD
CO
69
ai
\
In
tfl
-J
_1 =
0 a
$k })}
CO
Lo
cv
Lri
CD
0)
$
CO
CO
J
TO:
KODIAKISLAND BOROUGH
OFFICE of the MANAGER
FROM: Rick Gifford, Borough Manager a
DATE: August 23, 2005
SUBJECT: Woodland Acres Paving District
MEMORANDUM
The Honorable Mayor and Assembly of the Kodiak Island Borough
Background:
Property owners in Woodland Acres (based upon a certified plat map as of July 1, 2002)
submitted a petition to the Borough Clerk on December 9, 2002 requesting that the
Borough Assembly establish the Woodland Acres Paving Assessment District for the
purpose of paving streets and other road improvements. According to Borough Code
§4.40.020, "An assessment district may be initiated by:
A. Filing with the clerk a petition to form the district signed by the owners of
more than one -half (1/2) in value of the property to be benefited by the
proposed improvement; or
B. A majority vote of the assembly."
In a memo (copy attached) dated December 24, 2002 to Manager Pat Carlson from
Clerk Judi Nielsen, the Clerk determined that the signatures of owners of more than
one -half (1/2) in value of the property are contained in the petition with the value totaling
$13,703,000.
On February 9, 2003, Manager Pat Carlson wrote a memo to the Mayor and Assembly
(copy attached) providing a report on the proposed Woodland Acres Paving District
outlining: 1. the need for the project; 2. the extent of desirability; and 3. the estimated
costs.
On February 20, 2003, the Assembly approved Resolution No. 2003 -08 requesting
State DOT to add streets within the Woodland Acres Paving District to the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for funding help.
A public hearing on the proposed Woodland Acres Paving District was held on April 15,
2003 at a special meeting. The Assembly moved to direct the Manager to prepare a
resolution to determine whether to proceed with the proposed improvement. To -date no
resolution has been prepared. It is my understanding that the Borough decided to
MEMORANDUM
Woodland Acres Paving District
August 23, 2005
Page 2
complete the Trinity Islands Paving District first. The Trinity Islands Paving District has
been completed and assessments have been assessed.
Recommendation:
Staff and I have started reviewing the proposed Woodland Acres Paving District,
keeping in mind the lessons learned from the Trinity Islands Paving District.
Given the size and complications of the Woodland Acres Paving District, we
recommend that this paving project be engineered by an engineering firm. This project
involves paving, road preparation, drainage issues, and the manholes and utility valve
boxes will need to be raised to the level of the pavement, etc. The cost to engineer this
project could cost between $20,000 and $30,000. There are two options that could be
used to pay for the engineering costs:
1. The road service area could front the engineering costs and be reimbursed when
the assessment district is established. However, if the project didn't go forward,
the road service area would have to pay for the engineering costs.
2. The Assembly could go ahead and establish the Woodland Acres Paving District
and if the project didn't go forward, the Woodland Acres Paving District would be
assessed the engineering costs and any administrative costs incurred to that
point.
We recommend option 2, since those in the road service area who do not benefit from
the paving district would likely object to using road service area funds. Although, keep
in mind that road service area funds are currently used to maintain the roads and will
continue to be used to maintain the roads after the roads have been paved.
We also recommend that new notices be sent out to current property owners (some
owners have changed since the petition) and a hearing be set on whether to establish
the proposed Woodland Acres Paving District. Staff would complete its review of the
proposed paving district, prepare a resolution establishing the paving district and send
out notices to property owners setting a meeting for a public hearing and action by the
Assembly upon the resolution.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Attachments.
Per KIBC:
MEMORANDUM
TO : Pat Carlson, Manager
FROM : Judi Nielsen, CMC, Borough Clerk
DATE : December 24, 2002
SUBJECT : Proposed Woodland Acres Paving District
Kodiak Islana borough
Office of the Borough Clerk
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, AK 99615
Phone (907) 486 -9310
Fax (907) 486 -9391
Attached is a copy of the petition filed with the clerk's office for the formation of the
Woodland Acres Paving District. This action does not require an election.
4.40.020 Methods of initiating district. An assessment district may be initiated by:
A. Filing with the clerk a petition to form the district signed by the owners of more
than one -half (1/2) in value of the property to be benefitted by the proposed improvement, or
The clerk's office has determined that the signatures of owners of more than one -half (1/2) in
value of the property are contained in the petition with the value totaling $13,703,000.
4.40.030 Report by manager. For every assessment district that is initiated, the manager
shall report to the assembly regarding the need for, the desirable extent of, and the estimated
cost of the proposed improvement. The manager shall present the report to the assembly no
later than the time of the public hearing on the proposed improvement.
4.40.140 Allocation of assessable costs. In the resolution forming an assessment district, the
assembly may adopt any of the following methods which the assembly finds will allocate the
assessable costs among the benefitted properties proportionally to the benefit that the
improvement will confer on each:
A. Allocation of costs on a zone basis;
B. Allocation of costs on a per- front -foot basis;
C. Allocation of costs on a per - square -foot basis;
D. Allocation of costs on a per -lot basis; or
E. Allocation of costs on any other basis that reasonably relates the costs assessed
to the benefit received from the improvement.
cc: Borough Assembly and Mayor
•
•
w
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kodiak Island Borough Mayor and Assembly
FROM: QManager
DATE: Feb. 9. 2003
SUBJECT: Woodland Acres Paving District Report.
The following report is being transmitted pursuant to KIB 4.40.030 in response to the petition
of the residents of the area who wish to create a special assessment- paving district. This process
will result in the cost of the project shared by the residents and administered by the borough
based on the formula you approve, should you adopt the district.
The code section requires the manager to report to the Assembly on three things, which are
the need for the project, desirability and estimated cost.
1. Need for the Project:
1. Reduces dusty conditions for drivers, homeowners and residents with respiratory
problems
2. Reduces the cost of short and long term road maintenance
3. Adds to the longevity of the cars by reducing car repair bills
4. Centerline and shoulder demarcation is important on dark rainy nights protects
walkers and bike riders alike
5. Road run -off is cleaner and quicker.
2. Extent of Desirability:
The desire of the residents of the area is best demonstrated by the high percentage
of residents who signed the petition at a 100% cost to themselves.
3. Estimated Costs:
The cost analysis is a two -part process, comprised of the estimated project cost and the
cost to the property owner.
Estimated Project Cost:
The costs for the project are determined by a number of factors. Of those the most
important is the length and width of the paved surface. Also a major factor is the
thickness of the proposed pavement. There are other associated costs. These include the
road preparation, drainage ditch and culvert work, the need to raise manholes and utility
valve boxes to the level of the pavement etc.
What are optional additives to the project are wide shoulders for bike riders and
walkers, driveway aprons, painting of stripes and signage which could be part of the bid
process but have not been analyzed as part of this project.
The length of all the roads to be paved is 10,51.0 feet. In addition there are 12 cul-
de -sac bulbs that need to be added on to the equation. At an average of 26 feet wide
(some roads being 24 feet wide and others being 28 feet wide) the amount of asphalt to
be applied to the service area roads is estimated to cost $702,000 with a 3" depth.
•
•
Additional costs for sur , di, n cleaning and a contingency factor yies. a total project
cost estimate of $850,000.
Estimated Cost to the property owner:
This project was initiated by a meeting at Bayside with interested property owners
notified by a public mailing which offered the basic methods of allocating costs that are
in ordinance along with an allocation based on the certified assessed value of land only.
Because of the variety of lot sizes and configurations, the per lot and front foot methods
were found to be inequitable. It was virtually unanimous that the assessed value method
would result in the fairest allocation of costs.
The project was proposed at 100% allocation, but has been submitted to the State
DOT/PF for analysis in the STIP program with a 50% local contribution. This was done
for purposes of scoring to see how long it would be before the State would do the project.
It is important to note that the State costs are higher because of additional administrative
overhead so the savings will not be a direct 50 %. The decision on how long to wait is
important as the property owners wish to have this project completed in a reasonably
short time frame.
For purposes of this report, we have compiled a listing based on the estimated
total cost of 3" pavement without additives of $850,000 and calculated the total amount
due annually on a ten year pay back at the rate of 4.5 %. The attached schedule assumes
the property owners are paying the full costs.
p EC OVE
AUG 2 6 2005
BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE
KODIAK KENAI CABLE COMPANY, LLC
1007 West Third Avenue, Suite 201, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
J�
2005
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
CLERK'S OFFICE
COPI$D TO: V
AS MAYOR
MA SEMBL T - OTR __
May, 2005 Page: i
Executive Summary
The Project:
The Kodiak Kenai Fiber Link (KKFL) will be a marine -based fiber optic telecommunications
system connecting Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula, Kodiak Island and Seward. Phase 1 of the
system, with landing points in Anchorage, Kenai, Homer, Kodiak and Narrow Cape, will serve a
population base of approximately 60,000 citizens, along with the Cook Inlet oilfields and the
Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation's Kodiak Launch Complex at Narrow Cape. Phase
11 of the project will extend a redundant fiber optic cable from Seward to Kodiak thereby creating
a fully diverse route. The physical diversity achieved through the completion of Phase 11 will not
only improve the service offered to communities connected by this fiber link, it also will greatly
improve the communication security for mainland Alaska by addressing the current potential for
disruption of the Turnagain Arm communication corridor by earthquake, landslide or terrorist act.
The benefits of greater capacity, speed, and reliability of the new fiber plant will meet the
demand for enhanced Internet and telecommunications delivery. It will support economic
development, education, telemedicine, marketing, research, homeland security and national
defense. This project is the keystone link in a statewide fiber optic network anticipated by the
state and federal governments to enhance civil and military telecommunications.
The Company:
The Kodiak Kenai Cable Company (KKCC) was formed by Old Harbor Native Corporation for
the purposes of constructing and operating advanced telecommunications facilities for use by
service providers. KKCC will operate as a carriers' carrier, offering broadband capacity to local
and long distance exchange carriers for telephone, Internet, and other data services on a
competitively neutral basis.
The Case:
The aggregate communications and data traffic on Kodiak Island today indicate an estimated
transmission rate requirement at the level of an OC -3 (SDH), roughly equivalent to three DS -3's
(NADH). A conservative estimate of the aggregate line capacity required by the Kenai
Peninsula is two DS -3's. Unfortunately, capacity bottlenecks due to limited satellite transponder
space to Kodiak Island, and microwave systems operating at the limits of the current frequency
spectrum for the Kenai Peninsula, have constrained supply and kept prices inflated.
Frustrations have compounded over signal latency inherent in satellite transmissions, and
weather effects on radio transmissions. At the same time, demand continues to grow driven by
increasingly bandwidth -hungry applications such as streaming video, video on demand, Internet
gaming, and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). The combined effects of latent demand and
demand growth are expected to increase broadband demand over a new fiber optic facility by
two more DS -3's on Kodiak Island and at least one more DS -3 on the Kenai Peninsula over the
course of the next five years.
KODIAK KENAI CABLE COMPANY, LLC
1007 West Third Avenue, Suite 201, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
May, 2005 Page: ii
Regional growth in demand for telecommunications capacity is expected to be robust. Kodiak
Island has a population of 13,500 residents. It has long been one of the largest fishing ports on
the west coast; it now has a diversifying economy. It is home to the largest Coast Guard base
in the country. The Kodiak Launch Complex, initially conceived as a commercial launch facility,
is assuming greater importance in the development of the National Missile Defense System as a
test launch site. Kodiak hosts an advanced, interagency fisheries research center. The Kenai
Peninsula, with a population over 51,000, has a diverse commercial and industrial base,
including the Cook Inlet oil field. The Kenai Peninsula and Kodiak Island together account for
10% of the State's population. Alaska overall has the highest per capita use of computers in the
home for the entire U.S. at 62 %. It has the highest per capita Internet connections at 60 %.
These demographics and computer use statistics highlight both an urgent demand for better
and faster broadband telecommunications as well as the likelihood that such new capacity will
be utilized by the served communities.
System Description and Status:
The KKFL system offers a number of distinct features. It will be a seamless, unrepeatered fiber
optic facility. The system provides ample capacity for current as well as future service
requirements. Quality of service will be to the highest industry standard and available at a cost
less than current service offerings.
The following main features have been designed into the KKFL system specifications:
o OC -48 DLS (2.5 Gbps data rate) end to end availability target, with expansion capacity to
multiples of 10 Gbps
o Submarine cable qualified for Universal Jointing technology for flexibility of maintenance and
repair options;
o System boundaries at the central offices will be standard transport interfaces to meet
existing network providers;
o Optical fibers — 8 fiber elements (4 fiber pairs); and
o Wet plant design life of 25 years.
Significant work on the project has been completed over a four -year period. Discussions with
carriers have led to the sizing and design specifications for the system. Regulatory permitting
for the project has been completed. The Army Corps of Engineers, as the lead federal agency,
has authorized the project. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources has completed a
favorable review of the project under the Shoreline and Coastal Management Act and has made
a final decision in favor of issuing an aquatic lands lease Offshore marine surveys and cable
route engineering have been completed for the entire system. Landing sites have been
selected and the terrestrial engineering has been completed for all uplands work necessary to
connect the system into existing network co- location facilities.
KODIAK KENAI CABLE COMPANY, LLC
1007 West Third Avenue, Suite 201, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
May, 2005 Page: iii
Next steps:
o Phase I & II cable and equipment manufacture, testing, & transit — May05 to February06
o Phase I & II installation and system commissioning — MarchO6 to MayO6
Conclusion:
The project will offer affordable, secure, high -speed telecommunication services to ten percent
of Alaska's population, the nation's largest Coast Guard Base, and a strategically important
rocket launch facility which is critical to the development of the Ground -based Midcourse Missile
Defense system. Improved telecommunication delivery will enhance economic and educational
opportunities and health services for all the communities connected by this system, including
Anchorage. The importance of Phase II is underscored by the reliability requirements for a
project serving such varied and important interests. Completion of Phase II assures security
and expands the potential benefits of this system beyond Kodiak and the Kenai Peninsula by
improving communications reliability for Anchorage, Fairbanks and all of interior Alaska.
The system design is more than sufficient to meet the total current requirements of users on the
Kenai Peninsula and Kodiak Island, and provides significant additional capacity to
accommodate all foreseeable future traffic demand increases. The benefits of cable over
existing telecommunications media include secure transmission, expanded capacity, and high-
speed, all- weather access free of delay problems. These benefits will be provided for a price
that is competitive with existing services.
KODIAK KENAI CABLE COMPANY, LLC
1007 West Third Avenue, Suite 201, Anchorage, Alaska 99501