Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2016-09-29 Work Session
Page Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Work Session Thursday, September 29, 2016, 7:30 p.m. Borough Assembly Chambers Work Sessions are informal meetings of the Assembly where Assembly members review the upcoming regular meeting agenda packet and seek or receive information from staff. Although additional items not listed on the work session agenda are discussed when introduced by the Mayor, Assembly, or staff, no formal action is taken at work sessions and items that require formal Assembly action are placed on regular Assembly meeting agenda. Citizen's comments at work sessions are NOT considered part of the official record. Citizen's comments intended for the "official record" should be made at a regular Assembly meeting. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker) 2. AGENDA ITEMS 3-124 a. Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AKDOT Otmeloi Summary August 2016 - Pdf 125-174 b. Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Mark Hickey Resolution No. FY2017-13 CIP List C. Items To Discuss With Governor Walker 3. PACKET REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. FY2017-17 Placing A Temporary Moratorium On The Enforcement Of Those Sections Of Title 17 (Zoning) Of The Borough Code That Prohibit The Keeping Of Chickens And Other Animals Useful To People In The Rr-Rural Residential, R1 -Single -Family Residential, R2 -Two -Family Residential, And R3 -Multi -Family Residential Zoning Districts, And Initiating A Planning And Zoning Commission Review Of Title 17 (Zoning) Of The Borough Code To Consider Amendments That Will Allow Such Uses In Those Districts, And Directing Staff To Perform A Concurrent Review Of Chapter 6.04 (Animal Control) Of The Borough Code To Recommend Amendments That More Specifically Address The Control Of Chickens And Other Animals Useful To People. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Contract No. FY2016-45A Amending Contract No. FY2016-45 Twin Creeks Fire Salvage Timber Sale Contract, Between A-1 Timber Consultants, Inc. And The Kodiak Island Borough, To Provide An Visit our website at www.facebook.com/Kodiakislandborough © @KodiakBorough www.kodiakak us Page 1 of 174 Exception To Section 11 Timber Operations, Subsection "C", Slash Operations. NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTIONS *Resolution No. FY2017-02A Amending Resolution No. FY2017-02 Reestablishing The Fees for the Kodiak Island Borough. *Resolution No. FY2017-11 Authorizing An Amendment To The Borough's Participation Agreement With The Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) Of Alaska To Exclude Seasonal Employees From Participation. Resolution No. FY2017-13 Adopting A Capital Improvement Projects Priority List For The 2016-2017 State Legislative Session. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION Ordinance No. FY2017-18 Rezoning Lot 13, Block 16, Tract A, Larsen Bay Subdivision From R1 -Single-family Residential District To B - Business District (P&Z Case No. 16-038). Ordinance No. FY2017-19 Amending The 2008 Comprehensive Plan By Changing The Future Land Use Designation Of Lot 4, Block 3, Port Lions Subdivision From Public Land To Residential (P&Z Case No. 16- 039). Ordinance No. FY2017-20 Rezoning Lot 4, Block 3, Port Lions Subdivision From PL -Public Use Lands District To R2 -Two -Family Residential District (P&Z Case No. 16-040). OTHER ITEMS Board of Adjustment Appeal - Case No. 16-010. Request a Variance to construct a 67' tall telecommunications tower that exceeds the B - Business zoning 50' building height limit by 17' on Lot 3, Block 4, Airpark Subdivision (KIBC 17.195 and 17.90.040) (Appellant Mark Moderow, Senior Counsel Representing Alaska Wireless Network). EXECUTIVE SESSION Matters Involving Negotiations With The IBEW 4. MANAGER'S COMMENTS CLERK'S COMMENTS MAYOR'S COMMENTS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS COMMENTS 8. FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS Visit our website at www.facebook.com/Kodiakislandborough www kodiakak us 91 0 @KodiakBorough Page 2 of 174 AGENDA ITEM #2.a. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH AGENDA STATEMENT C SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 ASSEMBLY WORK SESSION TITLE: Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion ORIGINATOR: Meagan Christiansen FISCAL IMPACT: No FUNDS AVAILABLE: Account Number: Amount Budgeted: SUMMARY STATEMENT: Members of the project team from the Alaska Department of Transportation will be available to discuss the project with Borough Assembly members, staff and the public. A summary of the project from the DOT perspective is provided in a letter with attachments in the supporting documents of this packet. This discussion has been arranged with the intent of providing accurate information prior to the election in which there is a proposition to expand Road Service Area No. 1 in case the Otmeloi Way Reconstruction project proceeds and the Borough should commit to taking ownership of Otmeloi Way. MOTION: i1rnra Kodiak Island Borough Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion Page 3 of 174 or r THE STATE afALASKA GOVERNOR RILL WALKER er,w5K� August 16,2016 Michael Powers, Borough Manager Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Rd. Room 125 Kodiak, AK 99615 Re: 68713 Kodiak: Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation Mr. Powers, AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Department of Transportation and Public Facilities SOUTHCOAST REGION DESIGN & ENGINEERING SERVICES Preconstruction 6860 Glacier Highway PO Boz 112506 Juneau, Alaska 99801-2506 Main: (907) 4654444 Toll free: (800) 5754540 Fax: 19071465-8485 KCB l f'f�\ Il AUG 1 I, StDl i ILj 1`:31,9AMGER The intent of this letter is to provide you with some history and a status update of the Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation project and to request direction from the Kodiak Island Borough on how the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) should proceed. The Borough requested an Alaska legislative appropriation of $3.3 million in general funds to the DOT&PF for the design and construction of the project in the SFY2005 capital budget. The Borough offered to assume ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the roadway upon project completion of the improvements. The Borough, through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the State of Alaska agreed to conduct a reconnaissance engineering study to determine if the available funding was adequate for the project. The MOA authorized the transfer of $200,000 from the appropriation to the Borough for the study. The MOA was signed on January 14, 2008 and later amended on August 4, 2009 to extend the date of completion for the study. In March 2011 the Borough, due to workload, asked the DOT&PF, Central Region, to assume responsibility for the study and complete a reconnaissance report. The DOT&PF completed the Reconnaissance Engineering Report (Attachment 1) for Otmeloi Way in March 2012. The Borough was provided a copy of the report on May 29, 2012. The report presented three alternatives: Alternative 1. Pave the road with no additional improvements in alignment or profile. The design speed would remain below the posted speed limit of 25 MPH. "Keep Alaska Moving through service and infrastructure. " Page 4 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. • Alternative 2. Improve the alignment, profile, and typical section. Curves would be flattened and grades decreased to improve sight distance and increase the design speed to 30 MPH. • Alternative 3. Design per Alternative 2; additionally, a separated shared used path would be constructed parallel to Otmeloi Way on its south side. The Borough selected Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative as a condition of accepting ownership and maintenance responsibilities. DOT&PF agreed to pursue this alternative with the understanding that federal funding would be required in addition to the previous general fund appropriation. It was further understood between both parties that a new MOA would be required that clarifies the scope of work and ownership and maintenance responsibilities. This MOA is currently in draft form and is included for your approval or redirection as Attachment 2. The Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation project was transferred from DOT&PF Central Region to Southcoast Region in 2015. Southcoast Region, in consultation with the Borough, made several adjustments to the preferred alternative that reduced overall project impacts to the environment and adjacent property owners. The revisions were specifically intended to reduce the overall footprint of the project, reduce right of way takes, reduce speed, and to simplify and reduce cost of maintenance of the facility. The adjustments that were made include: • Reducing the lane width from 12 feet to 1 I feet. • Eliminating the separation between the shared use path and roadway shoulder. • Reducing the design speed from 30 MPH to 25 MPH. The current design reflects the adjustments listed above and was presented to the public during an open house meeting in Kodiak on April 6, 2016. Several comments were received during the public meeting that indicated general support for the project. These are provided as Attachment 3. Most recently, we have received a few negative comments related to the impacts from the project. These most recent comments were provided through Representative Stutes' office and seem to have created a negative tone amongst residents along the roadway corridor. These comments are provided as Attachment 4. These most recent comments are mostly related to a section of the existing road constructed beyond the platted right-of-way. As this portion of road has been in open and notorious public use for more than 10 -years, the Slate has a prescriptive interest claim in the portion of land used. The project proposes to make slight modifications in this area, but in general, the roadway will remain in its current location. The State will pursue acquisition of full interests in this portion of property as prescribed by the Uniform Act of 1970. DOT&PF has explored alternatives to remove the roadway from this property, but the consequence of doing so will cause significant impacts to properties across the road and substantially increase project costs. DOT&PF responded to Representative States' inquiry into this matter on July 12, 2016. This response is included as Attachment 5 to this letter. There was also a recent teleconference between DOT&PF, Representative States, two Borough Assembly members, a representative from Senator Stevens' office, and nine property owners and/or representaives of property owners, Page 5 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. including the owner impacted by the current roadway. During this discussion, the DOT&PF project manager explained the reasoning behind the preferred design. The explanation seemed to have alleviated a few concerns, but most on the call remained uncertain of the need for the project. There was mention of reducing the scope of work by ending the improvements at Mallard Way, which is not something that DOT&PF, and I would assume the Borough, would consider. DOT&PF needs direction from the Borough on how to proceed. We feel that the best instrument to accomplish this is through an MOA, which discusses the scope of the project and roles and responsibilities of both parties. As stated above, the draft MOA is included as Attachment 2. We have inserted a provision in the MOA that provides no maintenance and ownership commitment on behalf of the Borough until the Borough authorizes the DOT&PF to obligate federal aid highway funds to construct the project and advertise for construction bids. The DOT&PF will seek written approval from the Borough prior to advertising, at which time the Borough assumes a commitment to accept ownership of the roadway and project improvements, including operation and maintenance responsibilities outlined in the MOA. Previous discussions with the Borough indicated a vote was needed to expand the service area and take ownership of the road before the MOA could be signed. However, if the Borough wishes for the design to continue prior to the public vote in November, the MOA as revised allows the Borough to execute the MOA and allows the DOT&PF to complete the project design and place it on the shelf construction ready. I look forward to hearing from you in regards to this project with direction on how you would like us to proceed. We do not wish to spend any more time or money on this project if it's unlikely to be pursued by the Borough as designed. If you have any questions and or comments related to this matter, please don't hesitate to contact me at 465-1796 or by e-mail at keith.kamstein(a)alaska.eov. I will be in Kodiak for unrelated business on September 1'r and I would be happy to reserve some time for you if you'd like to meet on that day. Sincerely, Keith Karpstein, P.E. Design Group Chief DOT&PF Southcoast Region CC: Michael J. Coffey, Southcoast Region Director Pat Carroll, P.E., Peconstruction Engineer Christopher Goins, P.E., Project Manager Andy Hughes, Planning Director End: Attachment 1 — Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Otmeloi Way Attachment 2 — Draft MOA between State of Alaska and Kodiak Island Borough Attachment 3 — Sign In Sheets and Public Comments from Public Open House Attachment 4 — Public Comments to Representative Stutes Attachment 5 —DOT&PF Response to Comments Page 6 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion Reconnaissance Engineering Report Otmeloi Way Project U59216 r r. Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES CENTRAL REGION, PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SECTION RECONNAISSANCE ENGINEERING REPORT for Otmelot Way Improvements Project No, 59Z36 March 20, 2012 Prepare y: Cherry Welsh, PE PD&E Project Manager DOT&PF Recommended By: Kim Strkliran, PE Central Region PD&E Chief DOT&PF Approved Kenne M. Morton, PE Central Region Preconstruction Engineer DOT&PF 3/aiLarjl:7- Date 3JzlJlz Date Date AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Otmelol Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report. Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page ill Page 8 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Reconnaissance Engineering Report Otmeloi Way Project #159216 Route # 067475 Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page ii Page 9 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Contents ExecutiveSummary ..............................................................................................................1 Project Background...............................................................................................................2 ProjectOrigination...............................................................................................................3 Context................................................................................................................................3 Zoning................................................................................................................................... 3 TrafficProjections................................................................................................................. 5 Existing Conditions...............................................................................................................5 ROW.....................................................................................................................................5 Utilities................................................................................................................................. 6 PotentialDevelopment..........................................................................................................6 HazardousWastes.................................................................................................................6 Cultural& Historic Sites................................................................................................................. 6 Snow& Ice............................................................................................................................6 Availability of Construction Materials....................................................................................7 Geology, Soils, Vegetation, Wetlands_ ................................ M ................................... M ............. 7 IssuesIdentified....................................................................................................................7 DraftPurpose & Need...........................................................................................................9 AlternativesConsidered.................................................................................................................9 PreliminaryCost Estimates.................................................................................................. 10 Conclusions& Recommendations............................................................................................... 10 List of Tables TableA — Traffic Projections.................................................................................................. 5 TableB—Segment Crash Rates, 1994-2003............................................................................8 Table C — Preliminary Cost Estimates Summary .................................................................... 10 TableD — Evaluation of Alternatives.................................................................................... 17 List of Figures Figure 1— Vicinity Mao.........................................................................................................2 Figure2— Project Area...........................................................................................................4 Figure3 — Alternative 1, Sheet 1.......................................................................................... 11 Figure4 - Alternative 1, Sheet 2........................................................................................... 12 Figure 5 - Alternative 2, Sheet 1........................................................................................... 13 Figure5—Alternative 2, Sheet 2.......................................................................................... 14 Figure 7 - Alternative 3, Sheet 1........................................................................................... 15 Figure8 —Alternative 3, Sheet 2.......................................................................................... 16 OLmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page iv Page 10 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Appendices AppendixA —Previous correspondence...............................................................................18 AppendixB—Memorandum of Agreement.......................................................................... 23 AppendixC—Design Designation Report .............................................................................35 Appendix D — Existing utilities mapping............................................................................... 45 Appendix E— Crash Rate Analysis......................................................................................... 51 Appendix F — Preliminary Cost Estimates by Concept 53 Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page v Page 11 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Executive Summary Otmelai Way Is a state-owned and maintained facility in the Kodiak Island Borough, serving local residents and providing access to North Star Elementary School. Otmeloi Way provides access to the surrounding neighborhood through connecting side streets. Daily traffic on Otmeloi Way is projected to increase from 490 in 2010 to 700 in 2035. The Department of Transportation & Public Facilities received a general fund appropriation to rehabilitate Otmeloi Way. A Borough project description includes realignment, grading, drainage, lighting, paving, and a separated pathway. The Borough has Indicated they will take of ownership of the road from the state when a rehabilitated project is completed. (Refer to 3/16/06 Borough letter, Appendix A.) Otmeloi Way is a two lane road, unpaved except at Its east end. The existing road width is about 26 feet, somewhat wider near its ends. Grades approach 14% in some areas; there are sharp curves. Segment crash rate analysis indicates a substantive safety performance problem. Within those segments there are discrete or overlapping geometric elements that do not meet current minimum design standards for the existing posted speed limit of 25 MPH. Three preliminary "build" alternatives with a range of scope have been developed and compared in this study. • Alternative 1. Pave the road with no additional improvements in alignment or profile. The design speed would remain below the posted speed limit of 25 MPH. • Alternative 2. Improve the alignment, profile, and typical section. Curves would be flattened and grades decreased to Improve sight distance and increase the design speed to 30 MPH. • Alternative 3. Also designed for 30 MPH; additionally, a separated shared use path would be constructed parallel to otmeloi Way on its south side. The purpose of this study is to document existing conditions and any design Issues along Otmeloi Way, to analyze expected future conditions, to describe potential solutions, and to present planning level cost estimates. Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 1 Page 12 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Project Background Location & description Otmeloi Way is a local road approximately 3.5 miles northeast of downtown Kodiak. It Is 0.8 miles long, connecting generally east -west between Rezanof Drive and Monashka Bay Road, near Miller Point. Refer to Figure 1. Otmeloi Way is unpaved, and Is posted at 25 MPH. Figure 1: Vicinity Map Ownership A state-owned and maintained facility within the Kodiak Island Borough, Otmeloi Way primarily serves local residents and provides access to North Star Elementary School, located on Otmeloi Way at Mallard Way. Otmeloi Way is outside the City of Kodiak city limits. The Borough has indicated they will accept transfer of ownership from the state provided the road can be rehabilitated to appropriate road standards within the $3.3 million budget. Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 2 Page 13 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Classification Otmeloi Way (CDS Route 8067475) Is classified as an "Urban Local Road" in the current State Highway Lag Report. Otmelai Way is classified as a "local road" by the 2008 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan Update, which defines local roads as "the lowest classification. The primary purpose of local roads is to carry locally generated traffic at relatively low speeds to the collectorstreet system and to provide more frequent access to individual businesses and residential property." Project Origination The Department of Transportation & Public Facilities received a $3.3 million general fund appropriation for Otmelol Way rehabilitation in the 2006 capital budget. A Kodiak Island Borough Project Description includes realignment, grading, drainage, lighting, paving, and a separated pathway. (Refer to 11/2/05 Todd VanHove email, Appendix A.) The Department proposed to transfer ownership of the road, along with the $3.3 million, to the Kodiak Island Borough for the design and construction of the project. The Borough agreed to develop a scope of work and an engineer's estimate to determine if additional funds would be needed. (Refer to 11/16/05 Gordon Keith letter, and 3/16/06 Rick Gifford response, Appendix A.) A Memorandum of Agreement to transfer $200,000 to the Borough for a Reconnaissance Report was signed by the Borough on 12/10/07 and by the Department on 1/14/08. (Refer to Appendix B.) An amendment was signed by bath parties in 2009. Context Otmelol Way is a two lane road, unpaved except at its east end; the current Central Region Highway Lag Report indicates it is paved. The existing road width is about 26 feel, somewhat wider near Its ends. Otmeloi Way provides access to four named and improved side streets; two of these, Mallard Way and Lakeview Drive, provide alternative through connections to Rezanof Drive and East Monashka Bay Road. Peninsula Road provides access for 29 separate parcels including three on Lakeview Drive. Otmeloi Way also accesses an un -named side street near Its east end and two platted but un -built side streets. According to the Kodiak Island Borough, the "Future Special Planning Area" to the north of Otmeloi Way would be accessed from Otmeloi Way via the undeveloped Heitman Way and Kraft Way (refer to Figure 2.1 These streets (unbuilt at the time of this writing) are platted in terrain with existing grades of 30%. One unsigned curve near the Peninsula Road intersection has a radius of 100 feet and does not meet the criteria for the existing posted speed of 25 MPH. Grades approach 14°.S In some areas. Zoning The 2008 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan Update (Figure 4.2, "Kodiak Island Borough— Kodiak Urban Area: Proposed Future Land Use") designates most land along Otmeloi Way as "Rural Residential." The Rural Residential use "allows for residential development at rural densities where municipal water and sewer treatment facilities are not available. Such development must occur an larger lots and would include uses allowed in the RR, RRl and RR2 zones." Lots adjacent to Otmelai Way vary In size from under a half acre to nearly four acres. Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 3 Page 14 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. There are two "Public Facllitles" parcels on the south side of Otmeloi Way, Monashka Bay Park at the Intersection with Monashka Bay Road, and North Star Elementary School at the intersection with Mallard Way. Several parcels at the intersection of Otmeloi Way and Rezanof Drive are designated "Commercial/ Business". The Commercial designation "is Intended for commercial uses allowed In the Borough's Retail Business, Business and Urban Neighborhood Commercial Zones. Existing uses on these parcels appear to be light industrial. One "Rural Residential' parcel approximately 300 feet east of Mallard Way also appears to be used for commercial or industrial purposes. Approximately 300 to 500 feet north of Otmelci Way Is a Borough -owned 35 ave parcel designated as a "Future Special Planning Area." Figure 2: Project area Population According to the 2008 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan, between 1996 and 2005 the population of the Kodiak Island Borough fluctuated between 13,500 and 14,ODD, after peaking at about 15,000 In 1993. Between 20DO and 2005, the Borough population dropped by 2% to 13,638 and the City of Kodiak population dropped 3.9% to 6,088. In the same 5 yearperlod, the number of preschool age children declined by 1.9% annually, and the number of residents over age 60 grew by 4.5% annually. Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 4 Page 15 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Traffic Projections Based on a projected growth rate of 1.5%, the ADT is expected to increase from 475 in 2009 to 700 in 2035. Refer to Table A. The draft Design Designation report from the Central Region Highway Data Section is attached as Appendix C. Table A—Traffic Projections Existing year ADT (2010) 490 Constructionyear ADT (2015): 519 Mid -Life year ADT (2025): 603 Future year ADT (2035): 700 Maintenance: Otmeloi Way is currently owned and maintained by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Ownership and maintenance are expected to be transferred to the Borough per discussions documented in Appendix A. Services to existing communities: Otmeloi Way provides access to Monashka Bay Park and North Star Elementary School. Guidance: 1. Alaska DOT&PF, Alaska Preconstructlon Manual (2005) 2. AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2001) 3. AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999) 4. US. Department of Justice, ADA Standards for Accessible Designs (2010) 5. Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan Update, 2008 Existing Conditions Right of Way (ROW) The Otmeloi Way ROW is 100 feet wide; the Lakeview Drive ROW Is go feet wide and the Mallard Way ROW is 60 feet. ROW has not been surveyed. Additional right-of-way would be required to improve the curves and grades on Otmelai Way. Right of way would be required to construct a separated path. The Peninsula Road ROW Is not contiguous with the Otmeloi Road ROW, beginning about 300 feet south of the Otmeloi ROW. Peninsula Road crosses four private parcels to reach Otmeloi Way. Right of way would be required to improve the Peninsula Road intersection. Utilities Borough water and sewer lines are located under otmeloi Way and side streets. Kodiak Electric Association power poles are in place along the south side of Otmeloi Way. Telephone and cable are also on the poles according to the electric utility. (Refer to Appendix D.) Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 5 Page 16 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Potential Development Areas Within the Community Approximately 300 to 500 feet north of Otmeloi Way is a Borough -owned 35 acre parcel designated as a "Future Special Planning Area." Heitman Way and Kraft Way, both platted but undeveloped, would provide access to this parcel from Otmeloi Way, according to the Borough. Regardless of any changes to Otmeloi Way, development of Heitman Way may be challenging due to existing terrain. Hazardous Waste Sites A search of the Department of Environmental Conservation Contaminated Sites Program database found Oberg Rental, 0.4 miles from Otmeloi Way on Lakeview Drive. A petroleum -contaminated well was reported in 1990. Cleanup was completed and the site was closed in 1994. (Source: http•//dec.alaska.gov/spar/csa/search) No other sites close to Otmeloi Way were found In the DEC database. In 1994, the City of Kodiak commissioned a study to analyze the risks associated with hazardous materials storage and transportation in Kodiak. The report, Analysis of Hazards (Arthur D. Little, June 10, 1994), contains information on specific facilities In and around Kodiak. (Source: http://www.city.kodiak.ak.us/emermencviiren The report was not available at this writing. Cultural & Historic Sites Fort Abercrombie State Historical Park Is about one half mile to the north, on Miller Point. The park includes the historic ruins of a World War II coastal defense installation, as well as recreational facilities. Monashka Bay Park is located at the intersection of Otmeloi Way and Monashka Bay Road, North Star Elementary School Is on Mallard Way, near the intersection with Otmeloi Way. None of these resources would be affected by the Otmelal Way rehabilitation project. Snow & Icing problems According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH) records, Kodiak records an annual average of 77.5 Inches of snowfall per year, with measurable snow falling every month from October through May. Kodiak records sub -freezing temperatures on the average at least once a month from September through May. From December through March, Kodiak records sub -freezing temperatures at least 20 times each month. The normal daily mean temperature is above freezing from March through November, and the frequent freeze -thaw may contribute to slick roads and deteriorating pavement. Availability of Construction Materials The Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Won states that granitic rocks in the high peaks and ridges are significantly harder than the sedimentary rocks that make up most of the Island, and are more suitable for aggregate and construction material. The Borough Comprehensive Pion has identified two gravel sources close to the City of Kodiak: Vista View to the north, and Green Mountain to the southwest. The 1987 USGS Kodiak (D-2) SE quad sheet shows two gravel pits in the project area; one Is now the location of the school, and the other is a commercially -zoned lot at the Intersection of Otmeloi and Rezanof. Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 6 Page 17 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Geology, Soils, Vegetation, Erosion, Drainage, Wetlands, & Natural Hazards According to the Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan, the Kodiak Islands are underlain by marine sedimentary and meta -sedimentary rocks and intrusive granite and diorite. Receding glaciers left bedrock covered by a thin discontinuous blanket of clay rich till and small moraines. The till has very low permeability and is generally poorly drained. On steep valley sides, the till is unstable when saturated. Volcanic ashes constitute the principal component of the local soils and directly overlie impermeable bedrock. These ash -rich soils are moderately permeable and in most places where they overlay Impermeable rack or till they form perched aquifers which are commonly poorly drained. High rainfall and leaching of minerals has created a soil acidic in nature. Moderate to large amounts of rainfall support a heavy annual growth of vegetation in soils that are typically rocky, organic, or volcanic. These soils support coastal spruce on lower slopes, and tall brush, grass, and moist tundra at higher elevations. Erosion potential Is high primarily due to slope and soils. Small ponds and takes, common through the glacially carved topography, are found on both sides of Otmeloi Way. The Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan states that earthquakes are the greatest natural hazard risk in the Borough. The highest risk for earthquake damage is in the City of Kodiak and surrounding areas, where the majority of the Borough's people, buildings, and infrastmcture are located. Steep slopes in the Borough have significant slope failure potential, particularly where they are underlain by highly fractured rock, or covered by unconsolidated glacial sediments. Slope failures are particularly common where steep slopes have been undercut by excavations for roads or other material removal. Landslides and erosion frequently clog culverts and wash out roads after heavy rain storms. Tsunamis resulting from earthquakes are also a hazard, particularly in low-lying areas. issues identified, Problems to be solved Geometry AASHTO Exhibit 3411, Minimum Radii (Low -Speed Urban Streets,) lists a minimum radius for 25 MPH of 135 to 165 feet, depending an superelevation. The horizontal curve near the Peninsula Road intersection has a radius of approximately 100 feet, and at the existing posted speed limit of 25 MPH, does not meet the criteria for Low -Speed Urban Streets. There are two additional horizontal curves with radii of 175 and 200 feet, meeting the criteria for 25 MPH, but not for 30 MPH, and one additional horizontal curve that meets the criteria for30 MPH only with a .04, or greater, superelevation. The acute angle Peninsula Road intersection with Otmeloi Way is located in below -standard horizontal and vertical curves. Due to terrain between Peninsula Road and Mallard Way, several existing driveways also approach Otmelol Way at an acute angle. Heitman Way and Kraft Way, unbuilt Borough -planned side streets platted In steep terrain, have geometric implications as well; revisions to the alignment or grades on Otmeloi Way to accommodate driveways an the south side will Increase grades for Heitman Way and Kraft Way, making future development of these streets difficult. Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 7 Page 18 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Segments of Otmelol Way are at grades ranging up to 14%. Per AASHTO Exhibit 5-4 Maximum Grades for Local Rural Roads, and the Alaska Preconstruction Manual, 10% is permissible in rolling terrain. Preliminary sight distance evaluation indicates that stopping sight distance at the station 30+55 crest vertical curve does not meet minimum standards for 25 MPH. Minimum K value should be 12.0, current K value is 8.9. At the station 13+18 sag vertical curve, headlight sight distance does not meet minimum standards for 25 MPH. Minimum K value should be 26, current K value Is 12.3. A 30M PH design speed would result In additional sight distance problems. Crash data Crash data show seven crashes on Otmelol Way between 1994 and 2008. Five Involved single cars; two Involved two cars. No injuries resulted from three crashes. There were a total of five injuries In the remaining four crashes; none were major. Two crashes happened at or near the Intersection with Lakeview Drive; otherwise there is no pattern by location. Three vehicles were in a ditch, one in an embankment. Alcohol and unsafe speed were reported to be factors In two crashes; unsafe speed In another. Snow was reported on the road surface in two crashes; a dry road surface was reported In four crashes. Four crashes occurred in daylight, one after dark on a lighted road. The weather was reported clear In four crashes, cloudy in two crashes, and rainy In one. Four crashes were reported on curve and grade or hill; three were reported on straight road and grade or hill. Four crashes occurred while traveling straight ahead, two while turning left, one while passing. Table B —Segment Crash Rates, 1994-2003 Table B compares segment crash rates to the corresponding State of Alaska average crash rate. For a rural local road, this rate is 1.372 crashes per million vehicle miles (10 year average, 1999.2008). The crash rate for the segment from Monashka Bay Road to Rezanof Drive is above average and above the FHWA established upper control limit (UCL) Accident rates above the UCL indicate crashes are an issue for these segments and not due solely to chance. Segment crash rates Indicate a substantive safety performance problem. Within those segments, there are discrete or overlapping geometric elements: curves and/or roadway widths that are not adequate for the design speeds. (Refer to Appendix E for Crash Rate Analysis.) Safe Routes to Schools North Star Elementary School is located at the Intersection of Otmeloi Way and Mallard Way. Bicycles & Pedestrians There is an existing shared use pathway along the west side of Rezanof Drive. It extends past Otmelol Way to Abercrombie Drive. The Kodiak Island Borough has requested construction of a bicycle and Otmelol Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report. Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 8 Page 19 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. pedestrian pathway along otmeloi Way adjacent to North Star Elementary School; the North Star PTA has requested a study of the traffic on Antone Way and Lilly Drive adjacent to the school as well. Public Involvement There has been no public Involvement to date on this project. There has been agency Interest in construction of a bicycle path along otmeloi Way. The Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation facilitated a bicycle path discussion in 2005 involving the Kodiak Island Borough, the Kodiak Island Borough School District, the City of Kodiak Parks and Recreation Department, the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, and the National Park Service. Draft Purpose and Need The purpose of this project: • Improve the mobility of people on otmeloi Way and adjacent roads. • Improve safety for motorized and non -motorized traffic. • Accommodate projected traffic growth The need forthis project: • Otmeloi Way is currently narrow and unpaved, with 14% grades and 20 mph curves. • Crash rates Indicate a substantive safety performance problem. • North Star School attracts motorized and non -motorized traffic to the area in addition to local residents. The pedestrian traffic is largely elementary school students. • Not all horizontal or vertical curves meet sight distance criteria for the posted speed limit. • Daily traffic Is expected to increase from 490 in 2010 to 700 in 2035. Alternatives The following assumptions have been made In developing three preliminary "build" alignments: • Design Speed of 30 MPH is assumed for Alternatives 2 and 3. Because Alternative 1 is unchanged from the existing alignment, the design speed Is limited by the existing horizontal and vertical curves. The 30 MPH design speed was selected as a conservative approach. While reduction in design speed could yield reduced costs, access and constructability, Issues would persist. • Terrain Is assumed to be rolling. • Drainage will be by culverts and open ditches. There will be no storm drains. • Slopes are assumed to be 1:1 for cuts and 2:1 forfill in all cases, due to the presence of rock. • Lighting is assumed to be an option in all alternatives due to the presence of existing power poles along the road. • Pathway Is assumed only in Alternative Alignment 3. Alternative Alignment 1: Lane width would be 11 feet with 2 foot shoulders. The alignment and profile of the improved road would remain the same as the existing road. The design speed would remain Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 9 Page 20 of 174 Otrneloj Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. below 25 mph at the 5 -curves near Peninsula Road. Approximately 6,200 square feet (0.14 acres) of additional ROW and/or construction easement would be necessary as the existing alignment is outside of the ROW at the reverse curves. Headlight and stopping sight distance shortcomings mentioned in the Geometry section would remain. The skewed intersection at Peninsula Road would remain, as would the nearby skewed driveway approaches. Refer to Figures 3 & 4. Alternative Alignment 2: Lane width would be 12 feet with 3 foot shoulders. The centerline of the Improved road would mostly follow the existing road centerline, but realignment at the reverse curves would raise the design speed to 30 MPH and move the reverse curve Into the ROW. Approximately 68,700 square feet (1.58 acres) of additional ROW and/or construction easement would be required. The profile would be redesigned to eliminate sight distance problems and comply with AASHTO maximum grades for rolling terrain. The acute angle of the Intersection at Peninsula Road would be corrected. The skewed driveway approaches between Peninsula Road and Mallard Way would be replaced by a single shared driveway off of Mallard Way. Reserving the future ability to construct Heitman Way limits realignment of Otmeloi Way to the north or lowering of its grade In this location to accommodate driveways. Refer to Figures 5 & 6. Alternative Alignment 3: Lane width would be 12 feet with 3 foot shoulders. The centerline of the improved road would be offset from the centerline of the existing ROW to provide for a separated shared use path. All curves would be designed for a minimum of 30 MPH. The profile would be redesigned to eliminate sight distance problems and to comply with AASHTO maximum grades for rolling terrain. Approximately 92,000 square feet (2.11 acres) of additional ROW and/or construction easement would be necessary. The acute angle of the intersection at Peninsula Road would be corrected. The skewed driveway approaches between Peninsula Road and Mallard Way would be replaced by a single shared driveway off of Mallard Way. Reserving the future ability to construct Heitman Way limits realignment of Otmeloi Way to the north or lowering of its grade in this location to accommodate driveways. Refer to Figures 7 & B. Table C—Preliminary Cost Estimates Summary (Thousands -2012 dollars) Design ROW Utilities Construction Total Alternative 1 I $19D $175 $210 $1,700 $2,275 Alternative $380 $370 $260 $3,400 $4,410 Alternative 3 1 $490 1 $420 $6go $4,400 $5,990 Refer to Appendix F for additional cost estimate details. Conclusions & Recommendations Owing to the higher than average crash rate and the presence of elementary school children, the Department recommends proceeding with development of this project. Otmelot Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 10 Page 21 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 11 Page 22 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion : �\ �Aw z � » �� A4,/ : �\ z � » �� AGENDA ITEM #2.a. F_ S r � 8 _ 8 A l k ay €€ . _ � 8 i f 8 �t paypay 8 y fr g ke i 5y 41 .pt�,jF M Cagy Figure 4 Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 13 Page 24 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion �.�» /��\m •�`� %&��/ \'���: � � y \�� \ " \® � \� � 2 �������%2 ± may; . , �>��\��� � F� s \��f ! 4� K � a AGENDA lr m #2 a Figure _wwReconnaissance EngineeringReport, Project wmw _,a mz Page s Page of 174 @mel oi Way Reconstructionil+ m_Gn \ . k , \ a2 ..lo, y . ^- _.- , . 1 r - OF{ || | . � � / 2 � p:< . � |■ ■ \\�\� \° ,y/ \ SIEC ■ Figure _wwReconnaissance EngineeringReport, Project wmw _,a mz Page s Page of 174 @mel oi Way Reconstructionil+ m_Gn --- ✓�;� �� y ,�v` =ra � ��� ' �'` , 4/� - �. i - � � �'� .� 14 " r .. 1, ' .I IHW P� _ . �. '� yf t i� - �r. ! t� �F .. 1\ c aA � Cy� n' f �. La t n yr r a �A ` _ �' I P r f��^y� �Y��� i ��y�}��4�4x r rJ i_ 1 ��F 1 ����'� nfy ;". _ fry ' aRi ;�coH ''fes M � AGENDA ITEM #2a ` | , . . ! , . � \. • � , , \ A . \\� 8 2\ : / \ \ �\\\(\ q | | A!\�/(w« , '| fill |« Figure 8 __ way ___,Engineeringm*Project No. ma _a» mz Page _ OtmeloiwyReconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Table D - Evaluation of Alternatives Aitematives No Alternative Alternalive2 Aitemative3 Build Pave existing Line & Line & Grade to Line & Grade to Issues Grade minimums, pave minimums, pave, y Construct path Alignment No 20 MPH curve All curves to 30 MPH All curves to 30 MPH change remains design speed design speed Grade No No change, grades In All grades less than All grades less than chane excess of 10% 10% 10% Width 26', no 11' lanes, 2' 12' lanes, 3' 12' lanes, 3' shoulders, change shoulders, 26'total shoulders, 30'total 30'total, plus 10' path with 1' shoulders Length No No change No change No change change Road surface Gravel Paved Paved Paved ROW or No 0.14 acres 1,58 acres 2.11 acres construction change easement requirements Sight distance No Stopping/headlight Stopping/headlight Stopping/headlight change sight distance below sight distance meet sight distance meet minimum standards minimums minimums School Routes No 2 it striped shoulders 3 it shoulders; sight 3 it shoulders; sight change distance minimums distance minimums met In separated path Project Cost I $2,275,000 1 $4,410,000 $5,990,000 Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Pago 18 Page 29 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Appendix A Previous Correspondence Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 pa' L� 19 Page 30 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. nuuua uumv owwau wn., n.r -- Subject. Kodiak island Barough Otmeloi Way Rehab From: Todd VeaHova aadd vanhovc@doLstale.akus> Dale: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 09:33:40 4l900 To: Judy J Dougherty <judy_doughaay@dotstate.akuv Judy, attached is a scope I received from Mark Hickey, HIB lobbylot. This Is the same scope that is in the Legislative Intent. I know Me would like to do as much of this as they can on their own. I have already told them they can not manage the construction portion of the project. I ala.told them Nat at a minimum we would take out IM and any Project management Ieea from the 3.3 million. Also, regardlsas of who doe. what on this project HIB .vada to transfer ownership and maintenance of thin road and be prepared to pay any cost over runs. mope this helps and let me know if you need anything also. Todd VanHove cadd vanhove0dot.slale.ak.uP FKDG�V�Egd.Content-Type: applicationhnsword RIB GAAVER_da Content-Rncoding: bas,64 I of] I VMD05 9DI AM Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 20 Page 31 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Kodiak Island Borough GARVEE Bond Projects gl Kodiak: Olmeloi Way Rehabilitation Federal Share: $3,300,000 Project Description: Reconstruct approximately ane mile of ohoeloi Way. The work will include grading, drainage, lighting and paving One arca of realignment will be required and a separated pathway will be constructed for pedestrian safely adjacent to tneNorth Star Elementary School. 02 Kodiak: ReunofDrfve Rehabilitation, Lighting & Intersection Safety Improvements Federal Share: $6,700,000 Project Description: Rehabilitate sod repave portion ot'Reranof Drive. Install righting along Remnof Drive between the airport and town, probably slatting of Buskin River up to Deadman's Curve. This stretch of mad has a history of numerous accidents, particularly during the winter months. A range of improvwents wig be considered to address safety end capacity mammas al the RvanofDrivdClonh Mill Bay ]toad imerscetion Impmvementsmbeconsidered may include, but are not limited to: lightng, signal installation, turn lanes, signage. and pedestrian safety unprovenanls. Dtmelot Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report. Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 21 Page 32 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. ��p�� O� ��(NC"JLI\1Ij'U. r�+At+rclantuxKowslgcovaruron DErAMMTOFMMS'OR=GNAMI?tMIJCDACUX= ItffAVN7In+lAVErxIE P.0. anX fa9aW ANl7faRAriE ALA51fA ea31&eeW (am7)afi8'a77a (FAKNa-1573) REoa1W1-paaC7CR-at:.l7rfNl REmaaY, tlTl'3a901TJ1 November, ]6, 2005 Rick Olffmd, Borough Manager KndiakundBorough 710MMBayRW Ko&AAK99615 . RB: Otmeloi way Rehabilitation Mr. flitfard: neDepatmmntrmcived a $33 nulRoa general fired appropriation for Otmeloi WayRehabgitatim inflic20DSupindbudget Wewautto know whether the Kodiaklaland Bomughia interested in tolong ova ownership of the road and developing the project Otmeloi Way, cuacutly a elate owned ®d m.i tainedfaedity, Faimariy aervci local residents and acctsewanelrmmtaryyachoal. Wepmpose that the ownership ofOtmeloi Way he kanafeaed to the KDdiakMmd Bmmtg% elmg whhthe S33 milliou in generelfimde, fmthe design and construction offlmpmjwt Thiswould eoable the Bmoughma<immarflen'bility in developing the project to meet the community's needs and desires. If the Beroughpmfers the Doparunerdmannge the design and construction, we would do so under m agramnmt wNhtlmBorooghto agoept owncohip and mandmance of the madupon theprojeat eomrplcdm Tlmegree m would ftibw equefheBamughberaspauaiblafa soy costs that ,,need Om general land appmlaialim. TheDepmtmeol'd Project mandger is JudyDmghorty. She can be reached at 269-0566 why emarl at iedvn ahertv(aidat.dteta elcve. We lookforward to hearing from you -in the near fuuue. smaemty, • d-�� dont C. Sr10y p" ,B, . Regional Dnoctor TV/m ce: Bud Cassidy, BaronghEng wing& Facilities, Kodiak island Boren& Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 22 Page 33 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. C-<ct 2•64M16nte .-- Ifoa'rak IskrndBoraugb OFFMEafiheMANAGER700O0Wy — 710 A9 BayRoad 7T i4e. Kodiak, Absks 99619 Phone (907) 4869301 Pu (907) 4869374 &=it: rgitrord@krlxevlmdiakdcsu March 16, 2006 GordouC. Kath, P.R. Rogioad Direelor StaleofAlasa Dedu tumd orTranspodation and PublicFacilitira P.O. Box 196900 Aa.Loragq AK 99519-6900 BB: Ohndal WayRelmbililation Desrhlr. Keilk This letter is in response to your letter dated Novemba 16, 2005 concerning the $3.3 million general bud appmptiWon for Otmelah WayRehebOitdion in the 2006 eepiW budpL The Kodiak Island Borough is immeshed in taking ova owaaship of the mad, provided ft road can ba mnsbudd and rnbsbilitaled to appropriate mad standards within the 533 million budget The Borough has no funds available. if the project "CAM, the budget. However, the Borough would like to see the pmject axVlcld and would be writing to Geek additional funding through grants and oder various funding avenues, if it is determined that the $33 million is inadequate. Based on oro wro m of whether the S33 million is Adequate funding, dm Borough visited with cmimisdoner Harlon onlunury 25, 2006. Conunissiena Harlon, Kdiak bland BomughMayorSclby, Mark Hickey, and I was present at Ihol meeting. At the meeting, we discussed the obvious newt to relubWtate Otmdoi Way and Out the Borough would be willing to lake ova ow=,Wp of the mad (subject to Assembly approvd) provided the road cold be rehabilitated and mut mad standards. The Bomugb'a preferenm would be for the Stale to rtbabililnte Olmclol Way to meet mad standards and the we would take ova owneraNp. However, in our discumion wigs commissioner Barton, we undamtand the budget constraints that OOT has ad I believe Commissioner Barton smdaslaods the Borough's budget constraints. lberaf re, it was agreed that DOT would ml=c funding to the Bonugb la develop a scope of wok sod angina's estimate an the project to determine whclha the $33 million would be enough funds and ifnor. how much more might be needed. Onee it is known Out them is rmongh funding fm aonpldiun arthe project, the Borough could 0vn enter into an agreement with DOT to take ova ownership or Olmeloi Way. Ifyou haw any questions adfur would like to discuss, plea•"mmsdme Sincerely. Bbdtaklsfand�B,yo{ro/ugh ilfwdN Manager CC: Conurdsiana Berton Matkihrlrey Bud Cauidy, Borough Director of Engineering Ik Facilities Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Projec[ No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 23 Page 34 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Appendix S Memorandum of Agreement Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 24 Page 35 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF ALASKA AND THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Project: Otmelol Way Rehabilitation Project Number. 59216 Reconnaissance Engineering Study The parties to this Agreement are the State of Alaska acting through its Department of Transportation and Publlc Facillties (hereinafter DOT&PF) and the Kodiak Island Borough, e Borough established under Alaska law (hereinafter the BOROUGH). WHEREAS, the BOROUGH requests to be allowed to own end maintain Otmelol Way end to assume all responsibility for the planning, design and construction of the Otmaloi Way Rehabilitation project (hereinafter the PROJECT); WHEREAS, $3,300,000 was appropriated In SFY2006 Capital Budget by the Legislature to DOTBPF for the project; WHEREAS, the BOROUGH does not have funds available If the project exceeds the appropriated budget; WHEREAS, the BOROUGH has requested a direct transfer to them of $200,000 [a conduct the reconnaissance engineering study required to determine if the available funding Is adequate for the project (hereinafter the STUDY); WHEREAS, the BOROUGH hes exercised its authority under Stele law or local charter to assume the power to plan, design, construct, and maintain, finance, hold titre to, or otherwise control highways, streets, roads, and transportation facilities within Its boundaries; WHEREAS, Alaska Statute 10.05.040 provides that DOTBPF may enter into agreements with local agencies relating to highways; and WHEREAS, the undersigned parties have been authorized to enter Into this Agreement to cooperatively complete the project under the terms and conditions Identilied below. THEREFORE, the parties, in consideration of the mutual promises contained In the Agreement, agree to the following: 1. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS The BOROUGH agrees to comply, and shall require compllence by any contractors, with all applicable local. Stale, and federal laws and regulations. Project Number. AKSAS 69216 Olmalol Way Rehabilitation Page 1 Ormeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report. Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 25 Page 36 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. 2. PROJECTSCOPE Otmelol Way, currenllya slate owned and maintained facility, primarily serves local residents and accesses an elementary school. The proposed rehabilitation project provides an opportunity to transfer the ownership of the roadway to the BOROUGH and allow local development and construction of the project However, the BOROUGH does not have funding available if the project budget exceeds the amount of the appropriation. Since Itis in the best Interest of both the DOT&PF and the BOROUGH to re0ne the scope of the project and determine if the budget Is adequate, the BOROUGH shall prepare a Reconnaissance Engineering Study for the Olmelol Way Rehabilitation project In accordance with tfie DOT&PFs Preconstructlon Manual, Section 430.3 Reconnaissance Engineering Study, (See Attachment A), to evaluate the project. 3. DELEGATION OF DUTIES a. The DOT&PF will support the BOROUGH In the preparation of the STUDY through the participation of DOT&PF stag generally described as follows: 1) Serve as technical advisor to the BOROUGH, and 2) Coordinate review and approval of the STUDY by DOT&PF staff. 4. FUNDING a. The STUDY estimate Is Figure 1. b. Funds required to complete the STUDY In excess of the estimate. Including dispute resolution will be secured by the BOROUGH unless the Agreement is amended and approved by both padles. c. DOT&PF indirectcosts, at the rate of 4.88%, are deducted from the project account. DOT&PF Indirect costs are those authorized by the OMB circular A-87. d. Technical services provided by DOT&PF staff, as listed under 3a of this Agreement, will be directly charged to the project. 5. BILLING a. Project costs eligible as expenses Include In-house or contracted project management, engineering, and surveying services. b. There will be one lump sum payment for the STUDY, In the amount of $200,000, made upon the execution of this Agreement. 6. PROJECT PHASING The BOROUGH shall not Incur any costs Intended to be reimbursed on any phase of work unfit the phase has been au8todzed In writing by DOT&PF. The phase of work authorized by Project Number. AKSAS 59216 Obnelol Way Rehabilitation Page 2 Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 26 Page 37 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. this Agreement is: (1) Reconnaissance Engineering Study. Work Includes surveying, preliminary engineering, and public Involvement. If the STUDY determines that the PROJECT budget Is adequate, future PROJECT phases may include design, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, and construction. Any future phases of the PROJECT may be authorized by amendment to this Agreement. 7. CONTRACT PROCUREMENT If the BOROUGH contracts With third -party contractors, the BOROUGH shall select the contractors using the competitive procurement principles consistent with the stale Procurement Code, AS 38.30. 8, PROJECT SUBMITTALS AND REVIEWS a. The BOROUGH shall submit five (5) copies of the draft STUDY for review by DOT&PF staff within one year of the execution of this Agreement. b. The DOT&PF shall have sixty (50) days to review the draft STUDY and submit any comments to the BOROUGH. c. The BOROUGH will adjudicate all DOT&PF comments and submit five (5) copies and one unbound original of the final STUDY. d. Acceptance of the final STUDY shall constitute completion of this phase of the PROJECT. e. Within six (5)months afteracceptancebyDOT&PF that the BOROUGH has met the requirements of this Agreement, the BOROUGH will return the full amount of the grant, less legitimate project expenses, as detailed In a final cavilled expenditure report, to the State of Alaska. 9. AUDIT OF PROJECT The BOROUGH will retainfor a period of three years after final billing, all contracts, Invoices, payrolls, personnel records, conditions of employment, and otherdats relating to the matters of this Agreement DOT&PF reserves the right to perform a final project audit 10. INDEMNIFICATION a. The BOROUGH shall Indemnify, defend, and hold harmless DOT&PF, Its officers, agents, and employees from all liability, Including costs and attomey's fees, for all actions or claims resulting from Injuries or damages sustained by any person or property, as a result of the BOROUGH'S, Its contractors', or Its employees' performance of this Agreement Project Number. AKSAS 59215 Otmeld Way RehablNfatlon Page 3 Otmelot Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Pap 27 Page 38 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. b. Responsibility for all actions or claims, Including costs and attorney's fees, resulting from Injuries or damages sustained by any person or property arising directly or Indirectly from the BOROUGH'S performance of the Agreement, which result from the joint negligence of DOT&PF and the BOROUGH, shall be apportioned on the basis of comparative fault 11. WAIVER OF PROVISIONS The failure of DOT&PF to Insist upon strict performance of the BOROUGH of any provision In this Agreement is not a waiver or relinquishment of the provision for the future. The waiver by the DOT&PF of any provision In this Agreement cannot be enforced or relied upon unless the waiver Is in writing and signed on behalf of the DOT&PF. 12. LOBBYING The BOROUGH shall ensure that none of the funds under this Agreement will be used for the purposes of lobbying the Alaska State Legislature or the United State Congress. 13. CONTACTS Required notices of this Agreement must be sent to the following contract administrators: DOT&PF: Cynthia Ferguson, PE OOT&PF, Project Manager 4111 Aviation Avenue Anchorage, AK 99519 BOROUGH: Rick Gifford Kodiak Island Borough, Borough Manager 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Each party agrees to notify the other party In writing of any change In the administrator. 14. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE a. If the BOROUGH Is In substantial violation of the agreement, or If the BOROUGH has failed to fu101f Its responsibilities under the agreement In a proper and timely manner, DOT&PF may, in its discretion, notify the BOROUGH of the violation or failure. If the BOROUGH falls to correct the violation within a reasonable time, orto offer assurance satisfactory to DOT&PF that the vloletlon or failure will be remedied or the work defects cured, DOT&PF will, In Its discretion, terminate the agreement and assume control of the project. DOT&PF will give written notice to the BOROUGH at least fifteen (15) days before the effective date of termination, and will state the reasons for -the Iennlnatlon.The BOROUGH may appeal DOT&PF's decision to the Project Number. AKSAS 59216 Otmelol Way Rehabilltallon Page 4 Otmelot Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Pale 20 Page 39 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Commisslonerwithin ten (10) days. Pending the Commissloner's decision, no work may proceed on the project The Commissioner's decision Is final. b. If an agreement Is terminated forceuse under this section, DOT&PF will compensate the BOROUGH for satisfactory work on the project to the extent that the BOROUGH has not been compensated. However, the BOROUGH is not relieved of any liability to DOT&PF, or any third party, for damages caused by the contract breach, and DOT&PF will, In Its discretion, withhold compensation due under this subsection until the amount of damages owed to DOT&PF can be determined and deducted against DOT&PFs obligations. 15. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE a. DOT&PF may, In Its discretion, at any time terminate the agreement If DOT&PF determines that termination Is In the best Interests of the State. DOT&PF will give written notice to the BOROUGH of Its decision to terminate the agreement not less than fifteen (15) days before the effective date of termination. The written notice will Include a statement of why the decision to terminate was made. b. If an agreement Is terminated for the convenience of the State under this section, DOT&PF will reimburse the BOROUGH for that portion of Its expenses which was not otherwise reimbursed under the agreement, and which Is directly attributable to performance under the agreement. DOT&PF will also reimburse the BOROUGH for any costs properly incurred by the BOROUGH In honoring convenience termination clauses in Its agreements with Its contractors, as long as those clauses conform to the standard convenience termination clause used by the State for similar type contracts. 16. TERMINATION BY MUTUAL CONSENT a. If the DOT&PF or the BOROUGH whishes to terminate this Agreement prior to Its completion, the initialing partyshall notify the other party In writing of Its reasons for requesting the early termination. This request must be made at least fifteen (15) days pdor to the proposed termination dale. If both parties agree that It is in their mutual best Interests to terminate this Agreement early, all finished or unfinished documents and other materials shall become the properly of the BOROUGH. b. If the Agreement Is terminated as provided herein, the BOROUGH shall be reimbursed for those actual expenses not otherwise reimbursed under this Agreement, which were Incurred by the BOROUGH during the Agreement period and which are directly attributable to the BOROUGH's performance of the Agreement. The DOT&PF shall also reimburse the BOROUGH In honoring convenience termination clauses In the Agreement with Its contractors as long as these clauses conform to the standard convenience termination clause used by the State for similar type contracts. 17. AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT Project Number. AKSAS 5[)216 Olmelol Way Rehabilitation Page 5 Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 29 Page 40 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. This Agreement may only be modified oramended bywdtien agreement signed by the original signatories or their successors In office. 18. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT In the event the BOROUGH has not delivered afinal Reconnaissance Engineering Studyprlor to September 30, 2009, and aRerconsuhallon with the BOROUGH, the DOT&PF may grants time extension or terminate for cause at its discretion. 19. THE WHOLE AGREEMENT This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. There are no other understandings or agreements between the parties, either oral or memorialized In writing regarding the matters addressed In this Agreement. This Agreement may not be amended by the parties unless agreed to In writing with both parties si ugh their authorized representatives. �Nlb eO SIGNATURES0 Authorized Signatidd for BOROUGH Borough Mena er ate A GthorIM Signature for State Director, Construction and Operations Date Central Region Project Number. AKSAS 59216 Otmelol Way Rehabll9atlon Page 8 Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 30 Page 41 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Figure 1. Project Budget Estimate of Funding Type of Work (i) (2) (3) Estimated Total Es9mated Estimated Slate Project Funds Borough Funds Funds Reconnalssance Engineering Study e. Borough Work $ 200,000 $ - S 200,na0 b. Other S $ $ C. State Services $ 10,775 $ - S 16,775 d. Indirect Cost Allocation Plan(ICAP) $ 11,225 $ - $ 11,225 e. Total Renin. Cost Estimate (a+b+ d) $ 230,000 $ $ 230.000 Project Number. AKSAS 59216 Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation Page 7 Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 31 Page 42 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. ATTACHMENT A 430.3. Reconnaissance Engineering Study Some projects are authorized only for preliminary engineering through a reconnaissance engineering study. A reconnaissance study Involves describing the problems to be solved, Identifying and analyzing alternative solutions, and providing comparisons of the alternatives. Project development Is similar to those projects with ATP for PE through environmental document, except that there is no formal environmental process, and public Involvement may be limited. An environmental analysis is usually completed to determine the environmental Impacts and issues that would need to be addressed if the project goes beyond the reconnaissance stage. A reconnaissance engineering study Is typically performed as follows: • Identity and review the problem or deficiency to be resolved, and formulate a purpose and need statement. • Obtain support group input on the problem, and their data needs. • Research and acquire existlng data, and make an Initial site visit • Identify preliminary alternatives, then discuss with each support group. Provide each support group a sketch map and data for each alternative to Initiate their studies and evaluation. • Begin public involvement activities as outlined In the Public Involvement Plan • Request needed air photos and mapping, and request traffic projections and design designations. • Sufficiently develop those altema0ves that appear feasible so that they can be compared according to alignment, grade, width, length, cost, level of service, access control, soils conditions, erosion and sediment control, drainage, availability of construction materials, maintenance, snow and Icing problems, right-of-way and utilities considerations, services to existing communities, development and potential development areas within communitles, location of hazardous waste sites, wetlands, cultural and historical sites, and other environmental Issues. • Prepare schematic plans as necessary to convey Information to support groups, agencies, and the public, The discussion of alternatives should consider the "no build" action, Transportation Systems Management (TSM), alternative transportation options (such as transit) where appropriate, and all reasonable "build" aitematives. Obtain additional surveys, mapping, and traffic projections as needed. Coordinate public Involvement, local government Input, and project development with support groups. The result of the Reconnaissance Engineering Study is a written report containing a description of the project's purpose and need, and a discussion of all technically feasible ahemative solutions, Including comparison of their engineering characteristics, environmental impacts and cost. This report should target a general audience, so it Is Otmelol Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 32 Page 43 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. easily incorporated later into the projects environmental document. The Reconnaissance Engineering Study Report may conclude with a recommendation to proceed, not proceed, or proceed later with further project development. The formal report Is signed by the preparer and the engineering manager and approved by the regional preconstructlon engineer. Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 33 Page 44 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Amendment to the RECEIVED Memorandum of Agreement pU6 G a 7! Between the State of Alaska and the Kodiak Island Borough CR DESIGN SECnON Local Government: AKSAS Project No. Kodiak Island Borough 59216 Data: Federal Aid Project No. June 2g, 2609 WA Project Amondmant No.: Otmelol Way Rehabilitation one Reconnaissance Engineering Stud The Department of Transportation & Public Facilities and the Kodiak Island Borough desire to supplement the Memorandum of Agreement for the Otmelol Way Rehabilitation project entered into and executed on January 14, 2008. This Memorandum of Agreement delegated and funded the preparation of a Reconnaissance Engineering Study for the project to the Kodiak Island Borough. Except as expressly modified by this supplement, all provisions in the bask agreement remain in aged Description of Agreement Modification; The term of the agreement Is extended to September 30, 2071. Reason for Agreement Modification: The Kodak Island Borough is experiencing workload challenges and requests the extension to complete the Reconnaissance Engineering Study for the Obneid Way Rehabilitation project. Kodiak Island Borough yy� 4 By: LU(GrG�tc� Title: Borough Me goer Date: " i I Z31 09 Depertm I f Tran o ation & Public Facilities By: Tido: Dir at r 'esi n & Construction Date: 0•or{aq _ Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 34 Page 45 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion June 18, 2009 AGENDA ITEM #2.a. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ENGINEERING/FACELME.S DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 (907) 486-9343 Phone (907) 486-9394 Fax Cynthia Ferguson, PE AKDOT& PF, Project Manager 4111 Aviation Way Anchorage, AK 99519 RE: Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation Reconnaissance Engineering Study Dear Ms Ferguson: Due to workload challenges Kodiak Island Borough Engineering Department is behind schedule in procuring a Reconnaissance Engineering Study for the Obneloi Rehabllltatlon Project. We are presently working on an RFP to solicit proposals for the Study. Ager discussing project Omellne with you, KIB would respectfully request a time extension for the grant period. Please extend the period m September 30, 2011. We expert to be able to select a consultant by September of this year and have a draft in hand by August 2010. Thank you for your assistance on this project Sincerely, W y ping, Director CC: Rick Gifford Meagan Christiansen File RECEIVED 10 9, R '%; . CR DESIGN SECTION Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 35 Page 46 of 174 Ottneloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Appendix C Design Designation Report Otmelol Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 36 Page 47 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. X w c ♦r{r�T{i � .1.fF:4 4 ° l "$ r �.�' s ,t( fi T tt I Otmelol Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 37 Page 48 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Flc)ect t1me, lleralolNtr/. Noelell DelglarNen Actect NarOer 69216 Oats Mahn ❑N25'3n1 Traffic Data for Design and Historic ESALs Desian Data Input I Historic Data Input DesignConstructionYearl 2015 Hrstonc construct on Year Back.aM %par Year % of Base Year AADT for Each Lane Low % 1 Design Length In Years:20 Base Year. 2009 Base Year Talal AADT: 47 Granth Rate% perYaar 1.5 % of Base Year AADT for Each Len. Lana % 1 50 2 50 2 3 0 3 4 0 4 5 0 5 e ❑ e Truck Category Load Factor %AADTn (ESALsper Truck) Truck Category Truck Ca Load Factor %AADT In �Y (ESALsperTrurk) Trurk CalzVW 2 -Axle 05 3.42 2 -Axle 0.5 3 -Axle OBS 106 3 -Axle 0.65 4 -Axle 1.2 005 &Axle 12 S -Axle 155 029 r>Axle 1,55 >=&Axle 224 645 90,622 >=&Axle 2.24 ' Construction Year ESAL Calculations Truck Category Design Law %AADT In Load Factor for Construction Year AADT Truck Category Truck Category ESALs 2 -Axle 250 342 05 1,623 3 -Axle 250 1.06 065 655 4 -Axle 260 O.D5 12 57 5 -Axle 260 029 155 427 »Ade 21) 045 224 957 Total Ccostnlctlon Year FSALs. 3.919 Historic Construction Yaw ESAL Calculations Historic Truck Category Design Lane %AADr In Load Factor for Construction AADT Truck Category TruckCale9ory Year ESALs 2 -Axle ❑ 05 0 3 -Axle 0 065 0 CAxle 0 1.2 0 5 -Axle 0 155 0 >=B -Axle 0 224 0 Total Huaorc construction Year ESALs. 0 F Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Englneering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 38 Page 49 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. State Route Number. 067475 Route Name: Ohneloi Way Kodiak Project Limits: E Rezanof Or to Monashlm Bay Rd (787 mi) State Project Number. 59216 Federal Aid Number OF Project Description: Surface Rehabiria5on of Otmelol Way Design Functional Classification: Functional Class 9, RumYLooal Road E] Urban Arterial ❑ Rural Arterial E] Major Collector ❑ Minor Collector ❑X Local New Construction -Reconstruction: Rehabilitation(3R). pX Other Project Design Life (years): 5 10 ❑ 20 Q 25 ❑ Other Equivalent Axle Loads: REVIEWED DATE Highway Data Manager REVIEWED DATE Area Planner APPROVED DATE Regional Preconshuction Engineer Figure 1100.1 Design Designation Form Naim Rxmammlan MYUY 1100.11 Existing Construction Mid -Life Future Year Year Year Year 2009 2015 2!125 2035 ADT 475 519 603 700 OHV 15.0% 150% 150% 15.0% Peak Four Factor 0.8B 088 088 0 B Directional Distribution 50150 50150 050 50r50 Percent Recreational Vehicles NA NA NA NA Percent Commercial Trucks 527% 5.27% 527% 5.27% Compound Growth Rate 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 150% Pedestrians(NumbedDay) NA NA NA NA Bkyclists (Number/Day) NA NA NA NA Equivalent Axle Loads: REVIEWED DATE Highway Data Manager REVIEWED DATE Area Planner APPROVED DATE Regional Preconshuction Engineer Figure 1100.1 Design Designation Form Naim Rxmammlan MYUY 1100.11 11a01nevtluttim Crrtrd flrdon Nid*+W alxaedm EBWv� Orcxnbw, iat] Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 39 Page 50 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. 59216 Kodiak Otmeioi Way Traffic Forecast Annual Year Historical Historical Growth Rate GROWTH RATES Month AAOT Year MDT % Otmeloi Way® CDS MPT O.Sa3 2005 450 2009 560 2009 475 2005 527 2015 519 2025 6m 2035 599 Future Based on Regression 2039 475 2015 519 1.50% 1.50 calculated from Arent dale 2015 Sig 2025 502 1.50% 1.50 2025 602 2035 e99 1.50% 1.50 CAATR_P1rsSSpmA59216 Kodiak Otmelo\GRTH_FORECAST hh.)(LS Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 40 Page 51 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. 59215 Kodiak cdmelol Way Traffic Forecast 750 700 —._- 650 --_ — 600 - i' 550 - --. - _ �6erlecl Lk�ear(Serkal) 500 450 400 350 300 ppb 2009 2015 2725 2035 2008 am 2009 475 Fubm Rued on Represaim 2009 475 2015 519 150% 150 eakvbletl 1. anent dab 2015 519 2025 am 160% 150 2075 802 2035 Bap 150% 150 2035 999 GwF_Rm&sp=%59218 Kodak OtneloeGRTN FOREGSr_M.riS Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 41 Page 52 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. ®mm VIIMNIdv Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 42 Page 53 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion Wn, x.n.DYY wesllmazowl vaaxwt+mlYlul v,,,.�peae.Nowaceauw+da:.+Mevdnxvl twu.n+..axat.m+vma! aav+Yn..matzu•Iaf aat o,•z m,s o.+s aYs Y.,e mI a�.f ox,f o.+m Ywv wm a.�n xz.•u mm umw n svY zW x zn IY o s n f a a 11 o Y 1! I., rm n sm uu a >m ss o o n + v z v • fm us n »u xov I w s a z o 0 o m+ s++ Iz zsm Im v u s o I • e o a v o em LLn! 11 m+ IW ! m ! e f o ix ! Sw iH{ Ix 19+ xw I A+ n l+ u e S ! • Wa w,ez f LY Im s mt w ! n n o f ! it ! sm tn.f it vv It. I a +u o z Y t a n ! >w mf n An zCn I w v o ! a ! f ! n wf +1m n IWl I m e o I f f ! n S 31If ,-11 n U. nn zw a ux i o x o f 111+ v sla mt z Iff o I u f ! x u ! sxw .it .it a sm w t zv u o f v n v o u o fm w.nu n YY I11z I xM xe o It 1! • z+ o Wz +bu SI SW IL+ I w Im Y ! • • Iv ! uu rnuit SYS = I w w v z • ! ! w1 S? v uv Q! w n v s I e u • ms v.�u u u!1 Im v w v o v x o • o v o u1x Ynn Ix YL zzv a n0 v ! o n S • n ! trza n ssss un z m, n 1 v f o v e u pit t wrn n lw zn+ I uI Sx ! S u ! S I n 1 fw n.�u u un o vI u o o v v • v I n o fats rnv v ssn wi 0M =7 in • z m f o • it vu uu I Nn Ilb • 1 I I o it !xU Snn f zm = + m I I 1 0 o a ss • Sm Wnu v vu Iv it u ! 1 n I e 1 ! n v fmt rwv m Un vn zm z m n o I v o v n s fm w.en v w+ Iw z m u I I f s a v v vu 1Nm f Yx! Iza zL Iz o I n I ! x! o wx rnso 1 ssn xm o ul Y a s u I o 0 o v • fno uv f sa znf t w v • a s s o f v ss • sW o 11YR nfii •L'R S.tli IAi enlR aWR e]IIL etlR CA'R fYA oIDR eI1R emR I1. im\ 1-1 S11 n flYf fnlx Y fnl I+6 I II Yf lY e e l W e Ix110) ®mm VIIMNIdv Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 42 Page 53 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. 1v,v, } ubr-xl ve:n:u m-Nv.vou swu ®]axxort or udfvm�v}d um fvuxc ocanm v]v wxaac un varmN vxmld slw wxv wrt xllt ]Cn }aee a r]xfOW Mlm oM oNOt.1. d f - m owo uvv uaa woo M. vcoo vmo V W 180 0. 2 vvoc eeoo tooa }}ao uov uvo levo uoo laoo ]+oo uvo avoo }oov U. noe uoo xloo 1e}LL ax¢ xvva ou vxr du ou oaav act , ox vu dr o}ve s ] s f l 1 1 zl zv }e u 11 a ]f a a f] n lv 'I 4f w s o a o a v } a lv }f v xx e 11 ]e l} S} x 11 z] U u 1]v u u } ]f] ein ] a o o s r ] n 11}• }f a m u x} z] SS sl n n }l ]f { s u+ in• a a e x f u }} ev u L •v }r l} L u u lv }e u u u a u1 13v ] } x o l 1 ] v fv xv n xx u u v v ]1 ss ]e ]x n 21 u S]1 ssz 9 S a o x v • lv 11 u u n 10 s1 n A. of fl ]a 11 v P 1, m Wo 1O 1 a a x a 1 l 11 le v 11 n v ]s u u v u sc v }3 n u 10 !u efu lu o1N zvr uv zl1 Sl! G}Y }Sf 0}d ' ITx ' }N ' udc wu - xzmo� v.vsr or>�, u1 xw+ vwnvn, l.lvrvdvm •.avacm au a v mx m cvc, •gym-vmf u]alsmv Inc Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 43 Page 54 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. mut-)rry-ext ualva ocavnmrt or irlealtiQl.TifY c® emaic arntiiv eav wta� rat.1 vlixiov vi�Ia uin ra]1c wvr ee:e Wxw000 n . .2...1. rJnu31. 010on nn o.sex aif W - eM n a . RWx W - wIu ai mm moo vim vlv»v C. vivo oem moa tom um co m atm IN. iwv »w Ieoo uw xovv It. »m uao um Imu umm xoov mS WM mi n e l! xl ]i ]1 » » ] ]») It !!mnasuanamYsstz!aaII S n 11e » u » ]Y m ss to xv » I. U nIta n a]av NJ n 1 a n 1 a 2 ) e 20 xe a! la ao xe» Ia » It al ]o » 0.. ) a a z e Is a e !o » » an » s]nsm u u » Iv av to o! ] ! o a n 11 ie 1 m 2 »ao ni !e n u Ia so iizsvxa1 e s aB 1 0 o a xo x! ]a »]a »!ss » I!I v n!!! xzava]oa i 1 u ai n It » 10 n Se )eSa! I s i m u aae » It ] a ) 11 1a » It » a ! It a 1 Se » ]a S] » x)x v 1! Ia 10 12 1.1 v e a 1 It Se u » m 11 ]z 1e z1 Qit]a11I11) ) to m6 art v ) a a 0 1 It 10 u 4 a 15 n a1 vt a 31 !I at ]s ]v n za 10 vt0 IN Im III, mxa »a ' IN les I I. I1r m11 1m JIJINT - I>: o -u) or vm. wm aalrm, a-nvu •+aunt vu1, a v mart n 1ms..+m.vvu sam/Irav znc Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 44 Page 55 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. i.• 1 13-04-}} MUM DrL1-rn-roR +uv ®+smart ar ] Jr=itrtm xm wuc runRRa w w uc vw S}tutm ox}LCSl uxu xyL W.POOTCMR savi01 Y xi2N-0Rx onrn v116D1 Wr - } or M1311W sAY m i1W 31QVIN i mx ww Roo mw 0loa osw a00 0100 i to aw0 Oe 00 Iwo uee uw sto0 3!w 1500 IiYY tloo aew awo x000 tlw v00 nw zsm T. . i6 wi v1r ' Re ooa ' vR omx OR Dix OR Rr OlR } ! I i 0 i 1 I i 15 ]I SI ]0 ]5 Si Z) it SS ti IS }l 0 • ! ll! ' m to o x 0 0 o s 0 1 0 ) u xt n 9 )o ]3 n v Io 35 30 u a xt5 ot111 t l v 0 3 ! ] s le m }0 v n u sv v n xI it u 1i u s • xu m 10 1 0 0 x 0 a 5 Sv ti 1 u xi 20 ss a 25 Si }o Si I! xo xi ] its tN 1 } e o 0 51 5 Ie m IT x! 15 n ss xe v ti Ss n L }R 0 1 ssr l s x 0 z1)! Sv 10 to i}5 xu5 I 11 l c "0 IR } 1 0 3 0 o I it n Ii 11 • )o li a xa ss m ]e IS TO ]a it u 115 5n} Su 51N }5r it. xR I}r am it, ROI In SN }R ' l0r Iwc xam . 101 tt'm01: 0•G} cr i21. xMOr VP ntm. o-iNIXxm ••M14 txa Iww 0l a mdR to LIC. ..wa-w11 Rim1S O. 1. Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Pag-2 45 Page 56 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Appendix D Existing Utilities Mapping Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 46 Page 57 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. it h qu mi �a a slid �. kljll' j g I�il: 1 • I _-- —JL - �- j— y r-• { � iti I i � i -M, U i I i r� tll 9 0' dlllrsi Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 47 Page 58 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 40 Page 59 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion Page 49 Page 60 of 174 AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 50 Page 61 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion BUR f, US, ! ! !� naNE REZWOF fi ma C. m .. N O a Uts i O Q ti3 a� -Way Ln �i ep O - `G p � qq 9 _ V Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No.59216 March 20, 2012 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Page 51 Page 62 of 174 AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Appendix E Crash Rate Analysis Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 52 Page 63 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Crash Rates Crash rates area good Indicator of an individual's risk in being involved Ina crash when using the facility, because they consider the matorist's exposure by volume and length of road. Crash Rate analysis is especially useful when there is a statewide crash rate of similar facilities for comparison. Statewide crash rates for segments and Intersections were obtained from the Central Region Traffic and Safety Section. Segment Crash Rates There were 7 segment -related crashes trot including crashes at major Intersections) between 1994 and 2003 within the project area. In Table 1, segment crash rates are compared to the corresponding State of Alaska average crash rate. For a rural local road, this rate is 1.372 crashes per million vehicle miles (10 year average, 1999.2008). The Rate Quality Control method of identifying hazardous road locations, as identified in the FHWA's Highway Safety Improvement Program manual, establishes an upper control limit (UCL) to determine if the facility's crash rate Is significantly higher than crash rates In facilities with similar characteristics (in this use a rural local road). The UCL or critical rate is determined statistically as a function of the statewide average crash rate for the facility category (i.e., highway or intersection) and vehicle exposure at the location being considered. By comparing the rate of the facility under analysis to the upper control limit, locations with rates higher than the upper control limit are classified as problem areas. segment ser'We'. A,e,.Ce Million State 95.005; bo,e Above 1994. Miles rAvlA (rural local, lcirashes/ Aviu.ze Critical „ „ Moivshka Bay Road to7 0.787 587 1.686 4.152 I 1.372 3.149 Yes yes Rezanof O,ive Table 1—Segment Crash Rates, 1994-2003 The crash rate for the segment from Monashka gay Road to Rezanof Drive is above average and above the 95% UCL Accident rates above the UCL Indicate crashes are an Issue for these segments and not due solely to chance. Segment crash rates Indicate an overall substantive safety performance problem. Within those segments, there are discrete or overlapping geometric elements: horizontal & vertical curves and roadway widths that are not adequate for the design speeds and contributory to crashes. Utmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page S3 Page 64 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Appendix E Preliminary Cost Estimates by Alternative Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 54 Page 65 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. OTMEL01 WAY ALT 1 -�lu7C�u'7t�i� ESPMATEOF IXIANTI71E5 �y ITEM OESCT71PN011 IltdT TOTAL UNR PPoCE L•... ��ExE7sa:Ts:;n CLEA(6N08 GRUB&NG *CRE 2 8100 I1.7® 7mR REMOVAL OF PAVEMENT SOWRE YARD ter. +r. A 6,330 �Trnzl IMIC YARD 135]0 15 302.550 � •• ... -__Ei4iG1 220 ]6 7. m 10111 III -SS:49��iLT?d TON 060 1. SO 1 06,600 001R TCEME PG .ID TON W 650 66.000 1 I61NCM UFEM FOOT 600 116 ---Iff S2.OW 81511 STANDARD SIGN !8MM FOOT 1 12.000 Siam SEEdNG POLIO 110 150 17.100 1 MOBILRATIONB DEMOBILQAl10N WMP SIAL ALLfffOWiED 200,000 200.Om 6111 EROSION ANO PGILTION CONTROL AdLNLSTRATION LUMP SM ALLREOIIRED lOjOO 10.Om 61f TEMPORARY ERASION, 6EOIMENT, ANO POLLUTION CONn70L CONnNGEMSUM ALLREOURED 25A00 25.007 Eewub m1e 1.Z'13 GTMUCI WAY ALT 1 LUMPSUM AL843(21 L REOUREO 1SAM 15.000 602 1 THREE PERSON SURVEY PARTY HOUR f0 ]20 ]100 TRAFFIC MNNTENANCE LUMPSIIM ALL REOUREO �TIIdT-• .•�' � 64 TRAFFIC CONTROL CONTIIASEMSUM 111 23A00 25 am 1 CPM SCIffOULING LUMP 6IRA ALLflEOUREO SA00 5.000 6 1 PAINTED TRAFFlC MAFOONGS WMPSUM ALL REOUflED /0 10.000 YSS ANPGPATED ITEM6 S 1.150AW I SY SU'PIEASMALITEAIS S 56.000 I BASIC BID) s tz6e.00G Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 55 13-�illRr- -�lu7C�u'7t�i� ESPMATEOF IXIANTI71E5 �y ITEM OESCT71PN011 IltdT TOTAL UNR PPoCE L•... ��ExE7sa:Ts:;n CLEA(6N08 GRUB&NG *CRE 2 8100 I1.7® 7mR REMOVAL OF PAVEMENT SOWRE YARD ter. +r. A 6,330 �Trnzl IMIC YARD 135]0 15 302.550 � •• ... -__Ei4iG1 220 ]6 7. m 10111 III -SS:49��iLT?d TON 060 1. SO 1 06,600 001R TCEME PG .ID TON W 650 66.000 1 I61NCM UFEM FOOT 600 116 ---Iff S2.OW 81511 STANDARD SIGN !8MM FOOT 1 12.000 Siam SEEdNG POLIO 110 150 17.100 1 MOBILRATIONB DEMOBILQAl10N WMP SIAL ALLfffOWiED 200,000 200.Om 6111 EROSION ANO PGILTION CONTROL AdLNLSTRATION LUMP SM ALLREOIIRED lOjOO 10.Om 61f TEMPORARY ERASION, 6EOIMENT, ANO POLLUTION CONn70L CONnNGEMSUM ALLREOURED 25A00 25.007 6131 CONSiRUCPON SURVEYIFG LUMPSUM AL843(21 L REOUREO 1SAM 15.000 602 1 THREE PERSON SURVEY PARTY HOUR f0 ]20 ]100 TRAFFIC MNNTENANCE LUMPSIIM ALL REOUREO �TIIdT-• .•�' � 64 TRAFFIC CONTROL CONTIIASEMSUM 111 Page 66 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion ESPMATEOF IXIANTI71E5 ITEM NUMBER ITEM OESCT71PN011 IltdT TOTAL UNR PPoCE AMWNT 201174A) CLEA(6N08 GRUB&NG *CRE 2 8100 I1.7® 7mR REMOVAL OF PAVEMENT SOWRE YARD 1.310 A 6,330 UNCLASSIFIED E%GVAl10N IMIC YARD 135]0 15 302.550 � BORROW. TYPEA TON 220 ]6 7. m 10111 III AGGREGATE BASE COUtSE.G NG O -t TON 060 1. SO 1 06,600 001R TCEME PG .ID TON W 650 66.000 1 I61NCM UFEM FOOT 600 116 ---Iff S2.OW 81511 STANDARD SIGN !8MM FOOT 1 12.000 Siam SEEdNG POLIO 110 150 17.100 1 MOBILRATIONB DEMOBILQAl10N WMP SIAL ALLfffOWiED 200,000 200.Om 6111 EROSION ANO PGILTION CONTROL AdLNLSTRATION LUMP SM ALLREOIIRED lOjOO 10.Om 61f TEMPORARY ERASION, 6EOIMENT, ANO POLLUTION CONn70L CONnNGEMSUM ALLREOURED 25A00 25.007 6131 CONSiRUCPON SURVEYIFG LUMPSUM AL843(21 L REOUREO 1SAM 15.000 602 1 THREE PERSON SURVEY PARTY HOUR f0 ]20 ]100 TRAFFIC MNNTENANCE LUMPSIIM ALL REOUREO 20A00 20.000 64 TRAFFIC CONTROL CONTIIASEMSUM ALLREOU11E0 23A00 25 am 1 CPM SCIffOULING LUMP 6IRA ALLflEOUREO SA00 5.000 6 1 PAINTED TRAFFlC MAFOONGS WMPSUM ALL REOUflED /0 10.000 YSS ANPGPATED ITEM6 S 1.150AW I SY SU'PIEASMALITEAIS S 56.000 I BASIC BID) s tz6e.00G Page 66 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. OTMELOI WAY ALT 2 EfilIM11TE OF WAMIIIES ITERI MIMOEN REM DESGiIP2RR1 UNT TOTAL UNR A6CE AMOUNT 20IT1A1 CLEANING 6GRlABING -�gykj�s D[tn ] 8300 19A10 102 FtEMOVALO!'PAVELIENT 1NRE YARD 1,T10 4 5,A0 20](3 UICL/SSIFIEO EXCAVATION YARD 22A60 .-��Errnrnl 111300 :mI6A1 BOfdiQN.IYPEA TON 2ZOa 'viii/tL� 7ff.-4ff 30t(I AG EGA lUSE Ld1fl5E. GFUO6C•D•1 is T� 1100 60 309,000 I 1 1. ]EP-,Ttr6 Q�lW,i7 ASR4LLT EMEIR. i 100 830 65,000 6611161 Ib INCH CAP tEM FOOT m0 115 107SW 81 1 STANDARDSIGN LLARE FOOT 1 120 12.OW Ib(11 SEEDING 102 150 2BA00 61gt MOBRITATgNb UI.P wM ALLREOU E .6LG 200.000 ,PROJECT EROSION AND POILVnON LONi110. MSTfUitON lLMP6UM ALLflE0URE0 15.000 15.000 llt .. Da:e IM12 OTMELOIWAYALT2 GONi1NiENT6UM ALLTEOURED M.000 SOOW &121 LOIJ TRUCTI wRVEnNG LUMP SUM ALL REOU D 30.000 30.000 �' TWEE PERSON 6URVEY PARTY MW f0 3M1 3 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE LUMP 6UM 1111 40.000 tl.000 TRA:'FIC CONTROL ENTSUM ALLREOUflEO `11,000 50 1 LPM SLHEOWNG URPSIM ALLREOU O 3.000 5p00 6 1 PAINTED TRAFFIC AU2dOPL6 LUMP Sm ALLftEOURED 10.000 tOEW BSY ANTICIPATEOITEM6 6 2]10.000 SY SU'PLEMENTAI NEMS S ti6.Om ens�c ao s 2.A2a.o6o GRAM PG 52-26 DEMOBUZATION Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report. Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 56 Page 67 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion EfilIM11TE OF WAMIIIES ITERI MIMOEN REM DESGiIP2RR1 UNT TOTAL UNR A6CE AMOUNT 20IT1A1 CLEANING 6GRlABING E ] 8300 19A10 102 FtEMOVALO!'PAVELIENT 1NRE YARD 1,T10 4 5,A0 20](3 UICL/SSIFIEO EXCAVATION YARD 22A60 TS 111300 :mI6A1 BOfdiQN.IYPEA TON 2ZOa 35 7ff.-4ff 30t(I AG EGA lUSE Ld1fl5E. GFUO6C•D•1 iON 1100 60 309,000 I 1 1. t bl ASR4LLT EMEIR. iON 100 830 65,000 6611161 Ib INCH CAP tEM FOOT m0 115 107SW 81 1 STANDARDSIGN LLARE FOOT 1 120 12.OW Ib(11 SEEDING 102 150 2BA00 61gt MOBRITATgNb UI.P wM ALLREOU E .6LG 200.000 BIl1 EROSION AND POILVnON LONi110. MSTfUitON lLMP6UM ALLflE0URE0 15.000 15.000 811 ER0.410N, SEDNIENT,ANO POLLUTION CONTROL GONi1NiENT6UM ALLTEOURED M.000 SOOW &121 LOIJ TRUCTI wRVEnNG LUMP SUM ALL REOU D 30.000 30.000 �' TWEE PERSON 6URVEY PARTY MW f0 3M1 3 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE LUMP 6UM 1111 Page 67 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion EfilIM11TE OF WAMIIIES ITERI MIMOEN REM DESGiIP2RR1 UNT TOTAL UNR A6CE AMOUNT 20IT1A1 CLEANING 6GRlABING E ] 8300 19A10 102 FtEMOVALO!'PAVELIENT 1NRE YARD 1,T10 4 5,A0 20](3 UICL/SSIFIEO EXCAVATION YARD 22A60 TS 111300 :mI6A1 BOfdiQN.IYPEA TON 2ZOa 35 7ff.-4ff 30t(I AG EGA lUSE Ld1fl5E. GFUO6C•D•1 iON 1100 60 309,000 I 1 1. t bl ASR4LLT EMEIR. iON 100 830 65,000 6611161 Ib INCH CAP tEM FOOT m0 115 107SW 81 1 STANDARDSIGN LLARE FOOT 1 120 12.OW Ib(11 SEEDING 102 150 2BA00 61gt MOBRITATgNb UI.P wM ALLREOU E .6LG 200.000 BIl1 EROSION AND POILVnON LONi110. MSTfUitON lLMP6UM ALLflE0URE0 15.000 15.000 811 ER0.410N, SEDNIENT,ANO POLLUTION CONTROL GONi1NiENT6UM ALLTEOURED M.000 SOOW &121 LOIJ TRUCTI wRVEnNG LUMP SUM ALL REOU D 30.000 30.000 6Q TWEE PERSON 6URVEY PARTY MW f0 3M1 3 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE LUMP 6UM ALL REOURED 40.000 tl.000 TRA:'FIC CONTROL ENTSUM ALLREOUflEO `11,000 50 1 LPM SLHEOWNG URPSIM ALLREOU O 3.000 5p00 6 1 PAINTED TRAFFIC AU2dOPL6 LUMP Sm ALLftEOURED 10.000 tOEW BSY ANTICIPATEOITEM6 6 2]10.000 SY SU'PLEMENTAI NEMS S ti6.Om ens�c ao s 2.A2a.o6o Page 67 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. OTMELOI WAY ALT 3 ESTIMATEOF WANImEb ITEM NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION lMr Toru UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 2111 NG SCRUBBING 4 Um 27200 REMOVAL OFPAVEMENT 50 Y 1,310 A 5?2•] iR1GASSIFiED EAUIYATIDN BC YARD 30.iW 15 4522W TON 2)40 35 BSB]WCIXIRSE.GRAGNGW 4],1W LTON 130 8W 110$W t:YR{ii- LRIEAR FOOT 1.7)0 115 119SW I bTANOMOb1GN SdUkRtFOOT 1W 120 193(19SEEGNGPOLPN 168 molrom=1 m. 39.bW -��s'1M1T^d LUMPbUM ALLREOUREO 2WOW 200.OWERosioNNW Pl�i��Tv�r• PolumoNcoNma ADMINISTRATION rli - ZOp00 20AW Etlmale Hale tgp12 CTLIELOI WAYUT 3 COMINGEMSUM ALL REOUREO ]OA00 ]O.OfA 6Q1 CONSTRUCTION SLEtVETI1G LUMP SUM ALL REOUi1E0 tl,OW 10,031 612 � HOUR LUMP SUN 10 ALL REOURED 320 W,000 S'E�"Trr� .� � TRAFRC COtrTHM ACRE uL REOURED ••1111 BSAOD Il CPM 6CNEOULING LAMP SUN ALL REQUIRED S,OW S,OW 87011 PAINTFJ)TMFFIC YAI80NG5 LDAP SUM uL REOURED 1 A00 10.000 I BSY ANTIGPATED ITEMS S 2.%O.OW 5166UPREMENTAL ITEMS S 118.000 BASIC BID S 3.108.OW Otmelol Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 57 Page 68 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion ESTIMATEOF WANImEb ITEM NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION lMr Toru UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 2111 NG SCRUBBING 4 Um 27200 REMOVAL OFPAVEMENT 50 Y 1,310 A 5?2•] iR1GASSIFiED EAUIYATIDN BC YARD 30.iW 15 4522W TON 2)40 35 BSB]WCIXIRSE.GRAGNGW 4],1W LTON 130 8W 110$W t:YR{ii- LRIEAR FOOT 1.7)0 115 119SW I bTANOMOb1GN SdUkRtFOOT 1W 120 193(19SEEGNGPOLPN 168 150 39.bW -��s'1M1T^d LUMPbUM ALLREOUREO 2WOW 200.OWERosioNNW Pl�i��Tv�r• PolumoNcoNma ADMINISTRATION rli - ZOp00 20AW WI ) TF3APORARY ER0.40N, SE[XNEM, A!D POLLUTION COIiTiIOL COMINGEMSUM ALL REOUREO ]OA00 ]O.OfA 6Q1 CONSTRUCTION SLEtVETI1G LUMP SUM ALL REOUi1E0 tl,OW 10,031 612 � HOUR LUMP SUN 10 ALL REOURED 320 W,000 S'E�"Trr� .� � TRAFRC COtrTHM CONIINGENTSUM uL REOURED ••1111 Page 68 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion ESTIMATEOF WANImEb ITEM NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION lMr Toru UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 2111 NG SCRUBBING 4 Um 27200 REMOVAL OFPAVEMENT 50 Y 1,310 A 5?2•] iR1GASSIFiED EAUIYATIDN BC YARD 30.iW 15 4522W TON 2)40 35 BSB]WCIXIRSE.GRAGNGW 4],1W LTON 130 8W 110$W 181NG1CMP LRIEAR FOOT 1.7)0 115 119SW I bTANOMOb1GN SdUkRtFOOT 1W 120 193(19SEEGNGPOLPN 168 150 39.bW NOBIU2AT10NSDEMD&LVAiION LUMPbUM ALLREOUREO 2WOW 200.OWERosioNNW PolumoNcoNma ADMINISTRATION LUMP SIM ALLREOIMED ZOp00 20AW WI ) TF3APORARY ER0.40N, SE[XNEM, A!D POLLUTION COIiTiIOL COMINGEMSUM ALL REOUREO ]OA00 ]O.OfA 6Q1 CONSTRUCTION SLEtVETI1G LUMP SUM ALL REOUi1E0 tl,OW 10,031 612 TlREE PERSON bURVEY PARTY TRAFFIC MNNTENVICE HOUR LUMP SUN 10 ALL REOURED 320 W,000 ] W TRAFRC COtrTHM CONIINGENTSUM uL REOURED 85000 BSAOD Il CPM 6CNEOULING LAMP SUN ALL REQUIRED S,OW S,OW 87011 PAINTFJ)TMFFIC YAI80NG5 LDAP SUM uL REOURED 1 A00 10.000 I BSY ANTIGPATED ITEMS S 2.%O.OW 5166UPREMENTAL ITEMS S 118.000 BASIC BID S 3.108.OW Page 68 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion Hight-af-Way Estimate 0MEMORANDUM To: Kenneth V. Morton Thru: Gary Welsh Thru: Al Burton CCs✓'rd- Supervisor, Project Coordination XBruce Shell Righl of Way Agent AGENDA ITEM #2.a. STATE OF ALASKA Drrynmrnr orTrnspwnmi,m amt Publk Fxilma Ccnlnl kegian Design d: Cautrurlmn Net iminary Design and Enrirvmisnlal January 26, 2012 Project Name: Otmeloi Way Improvements project No.: 59216 Phone No.: 269-0681 11¢ Dcpartmcnt of Transporlalion and Public Facilities is proposing to recomhuct a portion of olmclol Way, near Kodiak. As pan mf the planning process, the Project Coordination Unit sins asked to prepare conceptual cost estimates for three alternative designs, with respect to Right -of -Way aetn'itics associated with the project. Based on the limited information we hare, and a review of property records or the Kodiak Island Barough, the Project Coordination Unit has prepared the following estinu acs for the alternatives. Where appropriate, the costs listed below include Right of Way staff time, appraisal fees, Ole reviews and Phase close-outs. 'llicy do not include relocation costs, condemnations, cr miligation of hamrdous materials. Right of Way Engineering has determined tlut the cost of mapping only for this projcei, regardless or ollcmmtve. will be bctWccn 5150,000 and 5200,000. No Right of Way or design level surveying costs have been included in the conceptual cost estimate. • Olmclol Way Alternative I - Pa%c 0.8 miles ofcxisting unpaved road from Monmhko Bay Road Io Rerrnof Drive- Existing lop width ofnpproximttely 26 feel Will be remind. h is mnicipxled that approsinatcly 0.15 acres of ROW acquisition would be required. Altenali%C 1, ns pmpused, impacts Isvo prismte parcels, willm an eslinmated acquisition cost of approximately S 15,000. Oimchu Way Alternative 2- Recoml(ucl and pmx 0.8 miles of existing unpaved mad from hlonashka Boy Road to Rczanof Drive.'rop width %could be increased to JO 4rot. I lurizanml and verlicaI alignments Would be redesigned for a uni farm design speed and improved sight distance. Imprn%cments would be made to peninsula Road and an existing loop driveway due to malignmcnls. It is anticipated that approximately 1.6 acres of ROW acquisition would be required. Ailematoc 2, as proposed, inipacls eight private parcels, With an estimated acquisition cost of approximately S 150,000. Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Repor4 Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 58 Page 69 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. • Omtelni Way Altcmative 3 - Reconotr ui and pace 0.6 miles of existing unpaved mad from hiunashka Day Road to Remnof Drive. Top width ocruld be increased to 30 feet. Ilorizomal and vertical al Immenis would be redesigned fora uniform design speed and improved sight distance. Ccoun ine wnuhd be offset from existing in allow construction ufa separated shared use path. Improvements smuldM: made to peninsula Road and on existing loop driveway due to realigamcnis, It is anticipated that approximately 2.1 news of ROW acquisition would be required. Alternative 3. as proposed, impacts seventeen private or local government parcels. with an estimated acquisition cost of appmsimatcly 5200,000. If you have any questions. please contact me at 269.0661. cc: Mike Hartman. chid Right of Way Agent Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 59 Page 70 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion Utilities Estimate MEMORANDUM TO: Gerry Welsh THRU: John Linnell, PE �Yl� FROM: Kiel Murphy, E.I.T. AGENDA ITEM #2.a. State of Alaska Department orTrmnpartatlan & Public Facillllea Benign and Engineering sc'Ac.—Central Regim, Ullllties section DATE: 1/31/12 TELEPHONE NO: 769.0628 FAXNUMBER: 769-0654 5119JECT. Olmelai Way Improvements Reconnaissance Estimate After analyzing the three alternatives for proposed improvements to Otmeloi way on Kodiak Island die utility section has provided die following estimates and assumptions for potential relocations; Notes All estimates include Electrical, Telephone, Cable Television, Water, and Sewer. Alternative 01 Assumptions • Minor conflicts with Kodiak Electric Association pole line along project right; • No conflict with ACS owned Satellite operations center © approx. station 9+00 right; • No major conflicts with Kodiak Borough owned water and Sanitary Sewer facilities, conflicts consist orSanitary Sewer manhole reconstructs and water line valve box adjustments, and; • All others that are stated in letter dated January 23, 2012. Total Utility Encumbrance $200,000 to $250,000 Alternative 42 Assumptions • Minor conflicts with Kodiak Electric Association pole line along project right; • No conflict with ACS owned Satellite operations center Q approx. station 9+00 right; Otmeloi Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 60 Page 71 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. • Sufficient slack in GCI owned fiber optic facility on KEA pole line; • No major conflicts with Kodiak Borough owned water and Sanitary Sewer facilities, conflicts consist of Sanitary Sewer manhole reconstructs and water line valve box adjustments, and; • All others Unit are slated in letter dated January 23, 2012. Total Utility Encumbrance $200,000 to $250,000 Alternative 93 Assumptions • Seperated pathway along project right will impact approximately 900iu of KEA 3- phase pole line and 100% oFKEA owned I -phase pole line; • Pathway from Lakeview Drive to Peninsula Drive can be warped toward the roadway to avoid conflict with ACS owned satellite operations center; • KEA, GCI, and ACS facilities will be relocated to the project left; • No major conflicts with Kodiak Borough owned water and Sanitary Sewer facilities, conflicts consist of Sanitary Sewer manhole reconstructs and water line valve box adjustments, and; • All others that are stated in letter dated January 23, 2012. Total Utility Encumbrance $600,000 to $650,000 cc: Rory Redick, Utility Geographical Lead Kenneth V. Morton Otmelol Way Reconnaissance Engineering Report, Project No. 59216 March 20, 2012 Page 61 Page 72 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. A F Farh>�let� I z Memorandum of Agreement Between the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities and the Kodiak Island Borough Project: Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation & Transfer State Project Program Number Z687130000 I. INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) and the Kodiak Island Borough (Borough) (collectively, the Parties) mutually agree to the terms and conditions of this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation and Transfer Project (Project). A primary focus of the project is to provide a safer route to the area elementary school. Alaska Statute 44.42 020 authorizes DOT&PF to cooperate, coordinate, and enter into agreements hvith the federal government and municipalities to plan, design, and construct transportation facilities. The Borough is established under Alaska law. This MOA is being executed to facilitate the planning, design, and construction of the Project and the transfer of maintenance, operations and ownership of Otmcloi Road and all improvements made by the Project. By Resolution the Borough has authorized the DOT&PF to plan, design, and construct the Project and to perform all acts specified in this agreement. However, per this MOA, the Project will not be constructed until the Kodiak Island Borough provides written authorization to move forward with obligation of construction funds and advertisement of the project, thereby committing the Kodiak Island Borough to assume maintenance, operations, and ownership responsibilities as described in this MOA. II. PROJECT SCOPE AND FUNDING A. This project will rehabilitate approximately one mile of Otmeloi Way (Milepoint 0 to 0.8). Road improvements will include grading, drainage, paving, and construction of pedestrian facilities. Realignment and lighting will be included as needed. Upon completion, mmersbip and maintenance responsibility for Otmeloi Way and associated facilities will be transferred to the Kodiak Island Borough. 'fo complete a safer route to school DOT&PF will reconstruct approximately 500 -foot portion of Borough owned Mallard Way from Otmeloi Way to the North Star Elementary School as part of this project. B. DOT&PF received a 2005 State of Alaska general fund appropriation of $3,300,000 to fund rehabilitation of Otmeloi Way, Kodiak Island Borough. At the Borough's direction the DOT&PF is using a portion of this funding to develop the Project through final design and right of way. Since the amount of state funding available is FINALdate MOA between ADOT&PF and the Kodiak Island Borough Otmelai Way Rehabilitation and Transfer Page 73 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. insufficient to cover the overall estimated Project cost, DOT&PF will develop the Project in compliance with the federal project development process. The DOT&PF plans to supplement the available state funds with federal highway funds. The DOT&PF has placed the Project in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as a contingency (a.k.a. Illustrative) project. A project placed in the STIP as an illustrative project is an unfunded project available for obligation of federal funding, if projects programmed for funding in a fiscal year are unable to obligate all of the available federal funding in the fiscal year. The DOT&PF will also present the Project at the next Project Evaluation Board Meeting (PEB) for ranking. C. Parties will review and approve the Project budgets. The Project budgets are estimates only and the Parties recognize and acknowledge that actual costs may exceed the original Project budget estimates. D. Parties acknowledge that DOT&PF has historically maintained Otmeloi Road from its intersection with the Rezanof Drive Highway to its intersection with Monashka Bay Road. The parties acknowledge that improvements made as a result of the Project will reconstruct approximately one mile (Milepoint 0 to 0.8) of Otmeloi Way. The parties acknowledge that upon completion of the Project, the Borough shall assume maintenance, operations and ownership of Otmeloi Road and all improvements made by the Project.The Parties acknowledge that the DOT&PF will request written approval from the Borough before obligating construction funds and advertising the project. At this time the Borough will be required to explicitly, in writing, accept those maintenance, operations, and ownership responsibilities as described in this MOA. Responsibility to maintain, operate, and own will begin upon completion of Project construction. III. PLANNING, DESIGN, RIGI-lT OF WAY, CONSTRUCTION, UTILITIES, AND OWNERSHIP OF THE PROJECT AND IMPROVEMENTS A. Project Developed in Phases 1. The Project will be broken down into 4 Phases: a. Phase 2: Design i. Preliminaryengineering through environmental document; ii. Preliminary engineering to final Plan, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E); and b. Phase 3: Right of Way, Appraisals, and Acquisition c. Phase 4: Construction d. Phase 7: Utility Agreements The DOT&PF will be responsible for all design, right of way, construction, and utilities FINArdate MOA between AOOMPF and the Kodiak island Borough Otmelai Way Rehabilitation and Transfer Page 74 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. The Project is being developed (using state funds in hand) compliant with the federal process to prepare the Project for federal funding participation in construction of the Project. Approval of the environmental document, right of way certification, and final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) must comply with FHWA certification requirements prior to receipt of authorization to proceed to construction and advertise for construction bids. 2. DOT&PF Policy and Procedure numbered 09.01.040 (Local Match for CIP) requires that a minimum of 15% contingency be included with the total cost estimate for each project ("adjusted total cost estimate"). The State of Alaska general fund appropriation for the Project will be used to fund the required match and is sufficient to cover the anticipated required local funding match, including snatch for the 15% construction contingency, and any items determined to be ineligible for federal participation. If for any reason the state funds currently appropriated to the Project should be withdrawn, the Borough would be responsible provide other local funds to corer federal matching requirements and cost of items ineligible for federal funding participation. B. DOT&PF's Responsibilities DOT&PF shall: 1. Seek legislative authorization to receive and expend federal funding sufficient to construct the Project. 2. Consider the Project a contingency project and place the Project in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as an illustrative project to take advantage of federal -highway aid as it may become available, if programmed projects fail to obligate all of the available federal funding for a fiscal year. The Project will be presented to the next meeting of the Project Evaluation Board for scoring and ranking. 3. Ensure that state and FHWA funds are expended in accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. 4. Plan, design, and construct the Project (including utilities). 5. Acquire all necessary rights of way in the name of the Kodiak Island Borough. 6. Obtain NEPA documentation as needed, and keep an interested parties list. 7. Develop the Project with own staff or use contracted services or combination of state and contracted services. For contracted services issue Requests for Proposals ("RFPs") and enter into contracts for engineering services to develop the Project. The FINALdate MOA between ADOT&PF and the Kodiak Island Borough Ottnelol Way Rehabilitation and transfer Page 75 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. RFPs shall be submitted to the Borough for comment prior to advertising for proposals. 8. Execute and manage any professional services agreements as necessary. 9. Keep the Kodiak Island Borough point -of -contact informed of Project status. 10. Charge staff time and expenses to the Project. 11. When design is 35% complete, submit plan set to the Kodiak Island Borough for review and comment. 12. When design is 95% complete, submit to the Kodiak Island Borough for review and comment on the plans, specifications and estimate (PS&E) that will go to advertisement for bid solicitation. 13. Submit the final PS&E package to the Kodiak Island Borough for approval prior to advertising the Project for bids. The Project will be inventoried until such time as the Borough reaches a decision on whether to authorize the DOT&PF to proceed to construction. 14. Request written authorization from the Kodiak Island Borough to proceed with obligation of construction funds and advertisement of the Project, thereby committing the Kodiak Island Borough to assume maintenance, operations, and ownership responsibilities as described in this MOA. 15. Provide the construction engineering and indirect cost allocation plan (ICRP) to the Kodiak Island Borough with a copy of the contractor's Notice to Proceed. 16. Deduct the appropriate rate of ICRP to the Project to cover DOT&PF indirect expenses. The current ]CAP rate for FH WA and state highway projects is 4.65% of the total Project costs. 17. Submit each proposed change order to the Kodiak Island Borough for review and comment prior to commencement of the work covered by the change order, and note if approval may result in the Kodiak Island Borough exceeding the Kodiak Island Borough's estimated dollar share allocated to the particular construction activity. 18. The DOT&PF shall add a special provision to its bid documents extending the protections of Standard Specification 107-1.13 to the Kodiak Island Borough. The DOT&PF shall add a special provision to its bid documents requiring the Kodiak Island Borough to be listed as an additional insured on the policies required by FINALdate MOA between ADOT&PF and the Kodiak Island Borough Otreeke Way Rehabilitation and Transfer Page 76 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. Standard Specification 103-1.06, paragraphs 2 through 4. The Kodiak Island Borough shall have the right to enforce these requirements against the successful bidder. C. Kodiak Island Borough's Responsibilities The Kodiak Island Borough shall: 1. Establish a single point -of -contact with sufficient authority and responsibility to communicate to DOT&PF all decisions or notifications required by this agreement. The Kodiak Island Borough shall be solely responsible for payment of contract price adjustments to compensate for any owner -caused contract delay claims that are directly attributable to the Kodiak Island Borough's failure to timely communicate decisions or notices required by this agreement. 2. Provide funding to cover any work in the original scope of work, or under any change order recommended for approval by the Kodiak Island Borough determined to be ineligible for federal funding and exceeding state funding for the Project sufficient to cover the additional federal find match and/or items ineligible for federal participation. 3. Provide written authorization for DOM PF to proceed with obligation of construction funds and advertisement of the project, thereby committing the Kodiak Island Borough to assume maintenance, operations, and ownership responsibilities as described in this MOA. If the Kodiak Island Borough does not wish to provide authorization. then the project will be closed out.. 4. Provide timely Borough approval or rejection of any change order that may exceed the amount of state finds appropriated to the Project available to cover any ineligible and federal match requirements resulting from the increase in cost for a phase; in no instance shall the Kodiak Island Borough's recommendation he more than ten (10) calendar days after DOT&PF°s delivery of the proposed change order and all supporting documents to the Kodiak Island Borough's authorized representative. If the Kodiak Island Borough intends to recommend rejection of any proposed change order that DOT&PF finds necessary for the completion of the Project, within seven (7) days of the DOT&PFs delivery of the proposed change order the Kodiak Island Borough shall provide an alternative change order proposal—which may include reduction of the Project scope of work—that would allow timely completion of Project. At the time of the Borough's recommended approval or recommended alternative proposal, the Borough must transfer local funds sufficient to cover any shortfall in available Project state funds to cover an increase in the Borough's local funding commitment to the Project. 5. Provide funding at the match rate to cover the costs of all Project related litigation, including legal fees and costs, including challenges to federal permits or decisions, FINALdaw MOA between A00TUF and the Kodiak Island Borough Otmelol Way Rehabilitation and Transfer Page 77 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. condemnation or right of way matters, procurement claims, and construction claims, sufficient to cover any shortfalls in available Project state funds to cover same. Kodiak Island Borough shall assist the DOT&PF, as necessary, during the course of the Project related administrative or civil proceedings and shall have the right to actively participate in the control of the litigation, including participating in strategy and settlement discussions, if it elects to do so. 6. Review information and action items from DOT&PF and provide any necessary responses within fourteen calendar days of receipt. 7. Provide management staff for coordination and review of the Project as needed with no cost to the Project. 8. Authorize the DOT&PF and its contractors on the Project to conduct the necessary work within the Kodiak Island Borough road rights of way, and provide the DOT&PF with construction easements and such other interests as required to meet federal right of way certification requirements. 9. Inspect the Project right of tray and property prior to Project closeout. The Kodiak Island Borough may perform an environmental assessment of that property for the purpose of determining whether any hazardous material contaminates the property. For purposes of this agreement, a "hazardous material" is any chemical, metal, petroleum product, or other substance (or any combination of hazardous materials) that is designated as "hazardous" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and that is regulated by any government agency in any quantity as a contaminant, hazardous material, or threat to health or safety. 10. Participate in determining "substantial completion" of each phase or stage of the Project, and accept full o%vnership and complete responsibility for each phase or stage of the Project, and all improvements thereon, upon substantial completion of each. The Kodiak Island Borough will assume maintenance, operations, and ownership of the facility upon completion of the improvements. The Kodiak Island Borough acceptance of ownership is not a direct or implied waiver of a contractor's responsibility to satisfactorily complete the work. 11. After the completion of the Project, in addition to the transfer of constructed improvements and the transfer of operation and maintenance responsibilities described herein. DOT&PF will assign to the Borough, all its rights, powers, interests, and privileges in or arising from each and every one of the utility permits listed below, or as listed at time of transfer: • Electric distribution line. • Telecommunications line • City water and sewer lines • Any other permits or easements FINALdate MOA between AOOT&PF and the Kadlak Island 9oraugh Olmelai Way gehabilitallan and Transfer Page 78 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. IV. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION A. Unless otherwise expressly stated in this MOA, the DOT&PF shall be solely responsible for all Project procurements. B. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this MOA, the DOT&PF will be solely responsible for the administration of all Project contracts, in accordance with its contract(s) with the contractor(s) ("construction contract(s)"). The Borough has no direct or implied right to enforce any terms or conditions of any professional services or construction contracts against either the DOT&PF or the contractor(s) except where there is alleged Project mismanagement premised upon the DOT&PP's gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct. Nothing herein shall he read to modify the scope of AS 09.50.250 or to waive any provisions thereof. C. Notwithstanding Section DC of this Agreement, DOT&PF shall be wholly responsible for the defense of any procurement protests or contract claims. V. FINAL INSPECTION A. Representatives of the Borough and the DOT&PF may jointly conduct final inspections upon substantial completion of the Project's construction. The DOT&PF shall, however, determine when the Project reaches the point of substantial completion. The term "substantial completion" as used in this MOA means that the construction is sufficiently completed to allow the owner or a person authorized by the owner: A) to occupy the phase or stage constructed and improvements thereon; or B) to use the phase or stage constructed and improvements thereon in the manner for which they were intended. B. The DOT&PF shall provide the Borough with an "As Built" of the Project and all improvements at Project closeout. VI. THE BOROUGH'S RIGHT-OF-WAY, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS The Borough's right-of-way, operations, and maintenance duties for the Project shall commence on the date of substantial completion. The Borough agrees that its obligations with regard to the transferred rights-of-way, operations, and maintenance include the following: A. The Borough agrees to perform, at its own expense, those right-of-way, operations, and maintenance obligations required by the use of FHWA funds. In carrying out these obligations, the Borough's duties include: FINAL dale MOA between ABOTBPF and the Kodiak Island Borough Olmeol Way Rehabilitation and Transfer Page 79 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. 1. Those identified in 23 C.F.R. §1.23 ("Rights -of -Way") and 23 C.F.R. §1.27 ("Maintenance"), which would otherwise he required of the DOT&PF if the DOT&PF owned the transferred facility and improvements; 2. Management of the right-of-way and any utilities in accordance with relevant sections of 23 CFR Part 710 ("Right -of -Way and Real Estate") and 23 C.F.R. Part 645 ("Utilities"); 3. Complying with the DOT&PF's Right -of -Way Manual; 4. Conducting oversight and management of utilities located in any transferred right-of- way consistent with the DOT&PF's Utility Manual. and complying with the utility policies and requirements set forth in AS 19.25.010-020 and 17 AAC 15; 5. Allowing no encroachments within the transferred right-of-way without the prior consent of the DOT&PF and the FHWA; 6. Refrain from selling or conveying any portion of the transferred right-of-way without prior consent from the DOT&PF. In the event that the DOT&PF gives its consent to the disposal of any portion of right-of-way acquired with federal -aid highway funds for the Project, the Borough shall par proceeds of the sale to the DOT&PF, which the DOT&PF will credit to the appropriate federal -aid and state accounts; 7. Issuing permits as required by the foregoing duties, and assuming sole responsibility for enforcement of all terms and conditions of such permits. B. The Borough agrees to maintain and operate the transportation facilities consistent with 23 C.P.R. §1.27 and the DOT&PF's Alaska Highway Maintenance and Operations Manual ("AHMOM"). In the event of conflict between 23 C.F.R. § 1.27 and AHMOM, the more stringent provisions will establish the minimum standards with which the Borough must comply. C. The Borough shall perform all operation and maintenance activities required by this MOA at its own expense and without reimbursement from the DOT&PF. Maintenance activities include. but are not limited to: 1. Planning, scheduling, administration, and logistics of maintenance activities; 2. Traffic control and safety; 3. Maintaining road, bridge, river and other embankment protection, including erosion control, to as -built conditions; 4. Roadside management; FINALdate MOA between ADOMPF and the Kodiak Island Borough Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation and Transfer Page 80 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. 5. Maintaining guardrails and guardrail end treatments to their as -built conditions; 6. Snow and ice control, including all plowing, sanding, culvert and storm sewer thawing, snow hauling, winging, opening of shoulders, ice scraping, drift control, snow slide removal, and associated tasks as may be required for the safe and timely passage of the public; 7. Maintaining signs and delineators in an as -built condition and their replacement, including posts and foundations, when damaged, unreadable, or wom out; 8. Maintaining highway markings and repainting as required to maintain performance of their intended function; 9. Removal of debris, rubbish, and dead animals; 10. Signing of seasonal weight restrictions as may, be required by local conditions; 11. Pothole repair using the appropriate asphalt or concrete products on an as -needed basis; 12. Annual crack sealing 13. Addressing deficiencies identified through bridge inspections and reports provided by DOT&PF. VII. TERM This MOA shall become effective on the date of the last signature and shall apply in perpetuity. VIII. INCORPORATION CLAUSE The Borough shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, executive orders, stewardship agreements, and applicable DOT&PF manuals and guidelines, including those provisions that would apply to the DOT&PF if the DOT&PF were to perform those tasks to be performed under this MOA by the Borough. This obligation is in addition to compliance with any law, regulation, or executive order specifically referenced in this MOA. IX. INDEMNIFICATION A. The Borough shall hold the DOT&PF, the State, its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, "the State") harmless from and defend and indemnify the State for liability, claims, or causes of action arising out of this MOA or relating to the Project or property and facilities being transferred and the obligations being assigned. FINALdate MOA between AWT&PF and the Kodiak Island Borough Otmelol Way Rehabilitation and Transfer Page 81 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. 1. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Borough shall have no obligation to hold harmless and indemnify the State to the extent the State is determined to be liable for its own acts or omissions, except that: a. to the maximum extent allowed by law, the Borough shall hold the State harmless from and indemnify the State for liability, claims, or causes of action arising from an alleged defect in the design or construction of any facility transferred to the Borough pursuant to this MOA, regardless of negligence or other fault, if such liability, claim, or cause of action arises out of an incident that occurs more than two years after the Borough assumes maintenance responsibilities for the subject facility. 2. The Borough's duty to defend shall apply regardless of whether it is also alleged that the State's acts or omissions contributed to the injury (including injury to personal property, real property or persons, including fatal injury). 3. Neither liability claims nor causes of action arising from injuries which occurred prior to the date of the transfer of maintenance responsibilities, nor liabilities imposed by or claims or causes of action arising from or asserted under AS 46.03.822, shall be governed by this paragraph. B. The DOT&PF shall add a special provision to its bid documents extending the protections of Standard Specification 107-1.13 to the Borough. The DOT&PF shall add a special provision to its bid documents requiring the Borough to be listed as an additional insured in all instances where the successful bidder would be required to add the DOT&PF as an additional insured. The Borough shall have the right to enforce these provisions against the successful bidder. X. EACH PARTY 1S AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR For the purposes of this Agreement and all services to be provided hereunder, each party shall be, and shall be deemed to he, an independent contractor and not a partner, agent, or employee of the other party. Neither party shall have authority to make any statements, representations, nor commitments of any kind, or to take any action, which shall be binding on the other party, except as may be explicitly provided for herein or authorized by the other party in writing. Xt. CANCELLATION REMEDIES A. If the Borough requests or is the primary cause of cancellation of any construction contracts entered into by the DOT&PF, the Borough shall be responsible for those costs not accepted for reimbursement by the FHWA, amounts the State of Alaska expects to be reimbursed for, and any other costs or expenses incurred by the Borough or the DOT&PF in the Project to the date of cancellation or related to finalizing cancellation and Project 10 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion FINAldate MOA between AOOMPF and the Kodiak Island Borough Otmelal Way Rehabilitation and Transfer Page 82 of 174 AGENDA ITEM #2. a. termination. B. If the DOT&PF is the primary cause of the cancellation, the DOT&PF shall bear those costs not accepted for reimbursement by FHWA, amounts the State of Alaska expects to be reimbursed for, and any other costs or expenses incurred by the Borough or the DOT&PF in the Project to the date of cancellation or related to finalizing cancellation and Project termination. C. The foregoing remedies are in addition to any other remedies referenced in this MOA, and do not bar or limit the parties from resorting to any other remedy available at law or equity. XII. PENALTY FOR BREACH OF MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS A. Notification and Opportunity to Cure: If DOT&PF notifies the Borough in writing that it is in violation of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions of Section VI, VII, or VIII of this Agreement, the Borough shall have thirty (30) days from the date of such notification to remedy the violation; or, if the remedy will take in excess of thirty (30) days to complete, the Borough shall have thirty (30) days to commence implementation of a satisfactory remedy. Expiration of the thirty (30) days and failure by the Borough to remedy is a breach of this MOA. If the Borough is in substantial breach, DOT&PF may elect to terminate this MOA. Failure to implement a satisf story remedy may also result in the DOT&PF not considering arty Borough contribution in evaluating the Borough's municipal capital improvement project nominations in the six years after breach (17 AAC 05.175(1)). B. Remedies: In the event of breach of the Borough's obligations to own, maintain and operate the Project or the constructed improvements, damages shall include, but are not limited to: 1. Return of the state and federal funds expended on the Project under this MOA; 2. Reimbursement to the DOT&PF for any costs incurred by the DOT&PF which are directly or indirectlt related to fulfilling any of the Borough's contractual commitments; and 3. Withholding of approval of future state or federal funded projects until such time as the Borough puts the Project in a state of compliance with this MOA. XIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Amendment or modification of Agreement: This MOA may only be modified or amended by written agreement signed by authorized representatives for both Paries. FIMLdate MOA between ADOT&PF and the Kodiak Island Borough Olmelui Way Rehabilitation and Transfer 11 Page 83 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. B. The Whole Agreement: This MOA constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties. There are no other understandings or agreements between the Parties, either oral or memorialized in writing, regarding the matters addressed in this MOA. This MOA may not be amended by the Parties unless an amendment is agreed to iri writing with the both Parties signing through their authorized representatives. C. Assignment: Without the written consent of the DOT&PF, this MOA is not assignable by the Borough either in whole or in part. D. Third Parties and Responsibilities for Claims: Nothing in this MOA shall be construed as conferring any legal rights, privileges, or immunities, or imposing any legal duties or obligations, on any person or persons other than the Parties named in this MOA, whether such rights, privileges, immunities, duties or obligations be regarded as contractual, equitable, or beneficial in nature as to such other person or persons. Nothing in this MOA shall be construed as creating any legal relations between the DOT&PF and any person perforating services or supplying any equipment, materials, goods, or supplies for the Project. E. Duty of Cooperation: Each party agrees to provide reasonable access to the Project and to relevant Project records, to any authorized representatit es of the other party or U.S. Government. The Borough and DOT&PF further agree to cooperate in good faith with inquiries and requests for information retating to the Project or its obligations under this MOA. F. Necessary Approvals: In the event that any election, referendum, ordinance, approval, permit, notice, or other proceeding or authorization is requisite under applicable law to enable the Borough to enter into this MOA or to undertake the Project, or to obsen•e, assume or carry out any of the provisions of the MOA, the Borough will initiate and consummate, as provided by law. all actions necessary with respect to any such matters so requisite. G. Joint Drafting: This MOA has been jointly drafted by the Parties, and each party has had the ability and opportunity to consult with its legal counsel prior to signature. The MOA shall not be construed for or against either party. K. Third Party Beneficiary Status: The Borough is not an intended beneficiary of any contracts between the DOT&PF and any contractors, subcontractors or consultants or any other third parties, and has no contractual rights with respect to such contracts or any provisions thereof, unless expressly stated otherwise. 12 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion FINALdate MOA between ADOT&PF and the Kodiak Island Borough Otmelol Way Rehabilitation and Transfer Page 84 of 174 XIV. CONTACTS For DOT&PF, Southcoast Region — Design Phase: Christopher Goins, Engineering Manager Email: Christopher. goins(a)alaska.eov Telephone: (907) 465-4443 Construction Phase: Vic Winters, Construction Chief Email: vic.winters@alaska.gov Telephone: (907) 465-8884 Or other representatives as designated in writing. For the Borough: Michael Powers, Borough Manager Kodiak Island Borough Email: mpowers@kodiakak.us Telephone: (907) 486-9302 Or other representative as designated in writing. XV. ATTACHMENTS Appendix: A: Scope, Schedule, Estimate Preliminary Drawings (10 Pages) Draft Right of Way Exhibit (I Page) 13 AGENDA ITEM #2. a. FINALdate MOA between AOOT&PF and the Kodiak Island Borough Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation and Transfer Page 85 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion The undersigned agree to the terms of this Memorandum of Agreement: Dated: STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES By: Mike J. Coffey Regional Director, Southcoast Region AGENDA ITEM #2.a. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO OR AFFIRMED before me by Michael J. Coffey, who is Regional Director for the Southcoast Region of the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, an agency established under Alaska laic, on this day of .2016. Notary Public, Stale of Alaska My commission expires: KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Dated: By: Michael Powers Borough Manager, Kodiak Island Borough SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO OR AFFIRMED before me by Bud Cassidy, who is the Borough Manager of the Kodiak Island Borough, a municipality established under Alaska law, on thisday of_ , 2016. Notary Public, State of Alaska My commission expires: _ FINALdate MOA between AWT&PF and the Kodiak Island Borough Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation and Transfer 14 Page 86 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY BE IT REMEMBERED that on the _day of 20_ at a regular meeting, of the Kodiak Island Borough, a municipality established under Alaska law, granted its approval of the foregoing instrument. Dated: Clerk, Kodiak Island Borough 15 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion FINALdate MOA between AOOT&PF and the Kodiak Island anneugh Otmelai Way Rehabilitation and Transfer Page 87 of 174 AGENDA ITEM #2. a. Otmeloi Way Reconstruction & Transfer Project State Project No.: 68713 Appendix A Scope, Schedule, Estimate Scope This project will reconstruct approximately one mile of Otmeloi Way (milepoint 0 to 0.8). Road improvements will include grading, drainage, paving, and construction of pedestrian facilities. Realignment and lighting will be included as needed. Upon completion, ownership and maintenance responsibility for Otmeloi Way and associated facilities will be transferred to the Kodiak Island Borough. To complete a safer route to school DOT&PF will reconstruct approximately 500 -foot portion of Borough owned Mallard Way from Otmeloi Way to the North Star Elementary School as part of this project. STIP Schedule Phase I Fund I FFY 16 IFFY 17 F 3 JOSF I $500,000 4 LU 1 1 $3,400,000 4 JOSF 1 $1,450,000 7 JOSF 1 $750,000 Totals: 1 1 $500,0001 $5,600,000 FINALdate MOA between ADUT&PF and the Kodiak Island Borough Otmelol Way Rehabilitation and Transfer 16 Page 88 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Estimate Phase ILLU CSF Total Preliminary Engineering & Design $600,000 $600,000 Right of Way $500,000 $500,000 Construction $3,400,000 $1,450,000 $4,850000 Utilities $750,000 $750,000 Totals $3,400,000 $3,300,000 $6,700,000 PROJECT SCOPE, SCHEDULE, AND ESTIMATE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING PROJECT CONTACTS: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Date: Kodiak Island Borough Date: M Andy Hughes, Juneau Field Office Chief, Division of Planning and Program Development By: Michael Powers, Borough Manager 17 FINALdate MOA between AOOT&PF and the Kodiak Island 9araugh Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation and Tmnsfer Page 89 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Page 90 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion a S * z W P � x i J� si�1 J C) Irk M C VO �n a :z7y U V rrnn'' 0 rn i I i V s E Page 90 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Page a x z a z � s 5 � •� r, '✓� -1-' � 1�, IN N I 0 ^ F �1 l— 91 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA 7£m #2a Page 92 ¥,a amel a Way Reconstruction Proj a - § \ 'n \ � •_ .. \ mo _An ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN HOUSE April 6, 2016 COMMENT SHEET Kodiak Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation State Project No. 68713 AGENDA ITEM #2.a. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF is proposing to reconstruct and pave Otmeloi Way and a portion of Mallard Way in Kodiak, Alaska. Comments on the proposal from the interested public would assist us in preparing the project's environmental documentation. YourName: Your Contact Information (optional): 0/'o ? 1 (;-12- - -7W -2— COMMENTS: [-2 COMMENTS: b rz..lLn�' Dttot' w�t..� Gli-n-JG.£ JLC -0 aV �r C -)r k ✓- Wtl'Sn,� i.J�IM" � �57z•.�'91L 1r 1J f� f � ave 2 v i16 nn &4 -t vG tai 0J State of Alaska, DOT & PF 6860 Glacier Highway P.O. Box 112506 Jun"u, AK 99811-2506 ATM: John Barnett Revised: September. 2011 Page 93 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN HOUSE April 6, 2016 COMMENT SHEET Kodiak Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation State Project No. 68713 AGENDA ITEM #2.a. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF is proposing to reconstruct and pave Otmeloi Way and a portion of Mallard Way in Kodiak, Alaska. Comments on the proposal from the interested public would assist us in preparing the project's environmental documentation. Your Name: 7� (- - 't I/V-47 Your Contact Information (optional):.._ *r it eatf WLWyWl&l" .1t COMMENTS: h Z414 �Iijhl, 1'19 piCi2 MOPWAILI.'r= IJiI H State of Alaska, DOT & PF 6860 Glacier Highway P,O. Box 112506 hmeau, AK 99811-2506 AM: John Barnett Sen[nnbcr. 2011 Page 94 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN HOUSE April 6, 2016 COMMENT SHEET Kodiak Ottncloi Way Rehabilitation State Project No. 68713 AGENDA ITEM #2. a. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF is proposing to reconstruct and pave Olmeloi Way and a portion of Mallard Way in Kodiak, Alaska. Comments on the proposal from the interested public would assist us in preparing the project's environmental documentation. Your Your COMMENTS: /- ! Z all '�.."'16eplal,1111 kfoj 1 f / S« LUutt rl l. l . _ fl ff hr 1 /I t Cp— to kk e t, otf II `r107 �P t. l I. cS ' /! 0 v - J k 1 / av-� %o wa I r rl lei 9 X1 1 i dbk,— IU Sliz�hkl� Revised: Uplun1m, 2011 State or Alaska, DOT & PF 6860 Glacier Highway P.O. Box112506 Juneau, AK 99811-29811-2 506 ATfN: John Barnett 1 M Page 95 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion u,O Ok1'1 - �I\ "�7 to W &r �or N r.(J'oL INA- A- �O 5C -e - Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. Page 96 of 174 AGENDA ITEM #2.a. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Y °F THE S OPEN HOUSE '&P A q,, s,y • >� April 6, 2016 M COMMENT SHEET °FALA6�r Kodiak Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation State Project No. 68713 The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF is proposing to reconstruct and pave Otmcloi Way and a portion of Mallard Way in Kodiak, Alaska. Comments on the proposal from the interested public would assist us in preparing the project's environmental documentation. Your Name: UAV omnb Skkc l" S "Cwk ��jA•r (,J Your Contact Information (optional): Y o GV X ZG1Sto �p �� 11K — 61 % COMMENTS: APR 2 1 — Statc of Aleskn, DOT & PF 6860 Glaci�v Highway---- . P.O. Box 112506 AiASAA Dl .SEgw:0u� Juneau, AK 99811-2506 OC2:iil ATTN: John Barnett aevind: September, 2011 Page 97 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. My husband and I own the property addressed 3653 Otmeloi Way, Kodlak AK 99615. This is my initial response (and feedback) to your proposed road project. When we initially heard about the Otmeloi project on the Kodiak Island Borough agenda from our State Representative, Louise Stutes, we immediately emailed all the board members on the Kodiak Island Borough about our continual concerns regarding the state road occupying a portion of our property. Assemblyman, Dan Rohrer passed our concerns onto the project manager for the SOA, and we were contacted and notified there would be an open house regarding the project proposal for the public to attend. Our concerns were heard during this phone conversation regarding our opinion with the state using our property, and that we wanted our property back. Upon attending the open house on April 6, 2016 it was proposed that the road would be staying on our property and that we would be compensated. I have to explain to you how upsetting it is to see that decisions were made regarding our property without actually having approached us first and in person, being as that it has been decided, by the State of Alaska DOT, that it's best to take and use our property as the building foundation of your new, elevated roadway. Learning about these proposals along with the entire public with drawings, blown up photographs, engineering drafts and the declarations that those decisions were best for the state, isn't exactly the best way to be presented with this. I em not necessarily opposed to selling my property; however, I would have strongly preferred that DOT approached me first, so I could explain to you that I, in fact, prefer to keep what is mine. We have lost considerable amount of the flat usable property to not only the roadway, but to the ditches that were then dug out further inward, taking even more of what we once used and could use had the road not impeded significantly. Obviously, it's useful to us as it's useful to the Slate of Alaska and this road project. From my understanding, we were informed that we would gain part of it back and only a minimal amount of property would he used. I would like to make It clear as to what I understand. The actual paved road would be moved off slightly, however, it will 'given' back to us as a ditch and supporting fill to support the SOA's new elevated road, and from my perspective, that is not gaining anything. We would be gaining a ditch. What I consider gaining back, is the flat usable property the road has currently occupied and I don't see us gaining that back, so I don't buy this claim that we recapture most of It back. An elevated slanted gravel ditch that connects to the ditches that are already dug into my property isn't gaining anything useful for us. For that reason, I prefer to keep what should and is In fact, currently my property. The issues of cost avoidance are not my problems to surrender to. Any projects designed on private property should be negotiated — and I as the landowner should not be forced into giving up my property at the will of the DOT at your discretion. I own this property, I've paid taxes on it since 2004, and I absolutely have a decision in what happens with it — or doesn't happen with it. Thank you for your attention to this. LuVonne Shields -Chaco PO Box 2956 Kodiak AK 99615 RE: 3653 Otmeloi Way Kodiak AK 99615 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion *_ L ;1 4-18.1, Page 98 of 174 ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN HOUSE April 6, 2016 COMMENT SHEET Kodiak Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation State Project No. 68713 AGENDA ITEM #2.a. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF is proposing to reconstruct and pave Otmeloi Way and a portion of Mallard Way in Kodiak, Alaska. Comments on the proposal from the interested public would assist us in preparing the project's environmental documentation. YourName: i a Sr[n;tl Your Contact Information (optional): gy/ r 5-/1 0"5" clW 9,-/j 0/ Slfr [e%/ COMMENTS: ,:•,d /,x��. 1:// :,-�e•., �... /i so,.,«,/tc •�, rr' cti s<<_.,,✓Lr� r/r:i•1•.1„ • 1....'/ilC/ e,4)�</.,, r.vC • V, / 4" 7/SC 1"e Awe tt a 2 irn '-m L�'[. Pn '/.+.' „ /•r,rto �9 �. YifyF[razl. ��•i✓ %,/%t. 7�1 4-19ov / .s::, -/c i1t /sSuY, Stale of Alaska, DOT & PF 6860 Glacier Highway P.O. Box 112506 Juneau, AK 99811-2506 AT1N: John Barnett Revised: Scplcmher• 2e11 Page 99 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN HOUSE April 6, 2016 COMMENT SHEET Kodiak Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation State Project No. 68713 AGENDA ITEM #2.a. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF is proposing to reconstruct and pave Otmeloi Way and a portion of Mallard Way in Kodiak, Alaska. Comments on the proposal from the interested public would assist us in preparing the project's environmental documentation. Your Name: .�jA -P" 1` Your Contact Information (optional): tit V/ - 3 -a to ( {mow; , (n,,., COMMENTS: 2� 1t4e c4 -j !vA— ( of rii.'i 01nfI C�Yci'�e rvti.-1 /'P r-�.• s.✓,n 0�,�-�e�or 1.=e<,.�. e "A" / ^k11+ t 0.7 Lc'.l•� I S �GT li..l l k t^C C..(re.�,� �q'� 6.,d)C.4 cl%Sr5 (/CY�-t e iS wo.,1J �.. alw sd" II `? iA� �014J 161 �'u/ t�S4 JJs r (� LIJII[ ,v,/,�'✓S 7/J L'L�1' ,'S `, �,n � �lnl 1N0��� CA to, sv, r C -s th'A J0, 1 0� 0J IGrJ J[•, dI State of Alaska, DOT & PF S.L `�, 4l"J oma• 6860 Glacier Highway P.O. Box 112506 Jun"u, AK 99811-2506 ATM: John Barnett RevaW: SV( mba, 2011 Page 100 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Al r _.+ fl�z tr�� COC-�l�/�c 0', lPin �7 )1 �/�'r,,!; J`�G $" j r,4 �"lr¢.� �,1(-rr„i•,h'i'�.i• �c^e.. Jri�c,,,,r� �✓�L.. > ele.-e, 1 f 1 � Lac Le SS � 99. ��. / We- C', GeJ'j �'..� � r^+si .:ss r55✓r's 0140 v--� )..v.f/f t-) /Vto,LC.� L�.c1-jr`er' vccessS/(�ACr...rt.:. �',.n Gv¢-•ti � S � P �Ml � �+ � W f'1 � r�C. C¢J-•J�-.�C" �2G, � 1''� �'pti� . 1 -PA--e cow I I I i I Page 101 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN HOUSE April 6, 2016 COMMENT SHEET Kodiak Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation State Project No. 68713 AGENDA ITEM #2. a. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF is proposing to reconstruct and pave Otmeloi Way and aportion of Mallard Way in Kodiak, Alaska. Comments on the proposal from the interested publicold assist us n preparing the project's environmental documentation. w Your Your Contact Information (optional):. qO7-53-1—b State of Alaska, uu r & Pr 6860 Glacier Highway P.O. Box 112506 Juneau, AK 99811-2506 ATTN: John Barnett Revised: Seprendxr. 2011 Page 102 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion EM. M11 fI/.�7.fr.►' .Irl/,IJL./ � �� .. TO r State of Alaska, uu r & Pr 6860 Glacier Highway P.O. Box 112506 Juneau, AK 99811-2506 ATTN: John Barnett Revised: Seprendxr. 2011 Page 102 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Page 103 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN HOUSE April 6, 2016 COMMENT SHEET Kodiak Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation State Project No. 68713 AGENDA ITEM #2. a. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF is proposing to reconstruct and pave Otmeloi Way and a portion of Mallard Way in Kodiak, Alaska. Comments on the proposal from the interested public would assist us in preparing the project's environmental documentation. r Your Name: mr�c\Q W1ISdY-1 Your Contact Information (optional): '315 - 60 & - O a Z 9 State at Alaska, LJU r & 1'N 6860 Glacier Highway P,o, Box 112506 Juneau, AK 99811-2506 ATIN: John Barnett Revised: 5eplember, 2011 NEE Page 104 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion u"fit,• ' � •- • �u4Ti u stv. u ' • • • • State at Alaska, LJU r & 1'N 6860 Glacier Highway P,o, Box 112506 Juneau, AK 99811-2506 ATIN: John Barnett Revised: 5eplember, 2011 NEE Page 104 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. A44aAmen+ -f From: LuVonne To: Representative.LouiseStutesCaaklee.eov Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 12:03 AM Subject: Re: Otmeloi proposed paving project Louise! Thank you for your attention to this situation of ours. I will try to explain as much as I can, so you understand what we are dealing with. We purchased our property in 2004 from Mel Stephens and closed on new construction in 2006. Our property is just before Peninsula Way prior to the sharp'S' turn in the road on the tree side (opposite the Island Lake side of the road). When we closed on our property, Robert Tarrant surveyed our project and submitted the as -built to the Kodiak Island Borough. He was the first person to Inform us that the road encroached significantly into our property (he was not able to find several points of the lot as they were buried in the middle of the road at that point). Tony has had many conversations with the Kodiak DOT regarding the roadway encroaching on our lot, and it was stated many times, that the SOA would eventually pave the road, and they would straighten it so that (a): it would no longer be on our property and; (b): it would eliminate the significant hazard that that sharp 'S' turn imposes to both lanes of trafffic as well as approaching traffic entering Otmeloi from Peninsula Way. Throughout the years, we have lost more and more property due to a combination of traffic driving around the washboard potholes in front of our house as well as the grading and resurfacing of the road then following the tire path around those potholes and pushing the road further and further into our lot. There are points in Otmeloi where its at least twice as wide as it should be, and in front of our house is one of those areas. A few years ago, we were then hit with the ditching project the SOA decided to implement and that took even more usable property from us as they just ditched from where the road seemed to end and dug out even further from that point. Our property nearest the road was the same level as the road and was easily encroached upon by traffic and grading because of this. When they ditched our property, the took away significant usable parking space as well as our maintained lawn. If you look at the topography of our acreage (our property is supposed to exceed one acre), there is gat usable space directly at the bottom where the roadway is currently, as well as where we built our house on the top. We use the bottom portion of our property nearest the road to park both our boat and skiff during the winter so we can free up the top of our property for plowing and pushing snow out of the way so we can park and tum around. When they dug the ditches, they just'did' It with no notification and actually trapped our skiff with no way to tow It out (we used to be able to back into that part of our property from the roadway at any point on the road). Tony talked to Rob Green here after that happened, and he was understanding enough to build in an extra culvert in to allow us to continue using one point of our property for our boat storage (it was explained to us that each property was only allowed one culvert, but they made an exception for us). Let me stop here and just express that I, in no way, am looking to bring bad light to our local DOT. Rob and his crew do an exceptional job maintaining all our state roads in Kodiak and I understand they have orders to follow with the projects planned by SOA/DOT project managers outside our area. In the summer of 2015, we saw a crew of surveyors measuring, marking and mapping out the roadway and after speaking with them, they told us this was intended for consideration of future paving of that road. You better believe I told them to pay close attention to the entire area in front of my house so it's understood exactly how much property is being used by the road. In Feb of this year, you stopped Tony at the airport to let us know KIB assembly would be bringing up the topic of the Otmeloi paving project and we immediately emailed all of them to notify them as well, that the road encroaches significantly. Dan Rohrer followed through on our correspondence and gave our contact Information directly to the project manager in Juneau, and he contacted us in March 2016 to let us know about a public meeting they would be presenting In Kodiak the following month regarding this project. In April 2016, we attended this open house at North Star Elementary to see what was in store. This is where it was initially presented to us (they presented their project in organized stages to small groups of Page 105 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. attendants) with aerial maps, photographs and engineered drafts, that the road was basically going to stay as it is, and that We would be compensated' for the property used for their project. It was also explained to us that this project was possible only because of federal grant money, and that the 'compensation' to us (Tony and myself) would come from the state level only after approval. Louise, I was very upset, shocked, speechless, trying to keep my composure during this time about the fact that these decisions were made without so much as a conversation with us first. Once the initial presenter (John Barnett) realized which property owners we were, and that I wasn't cool with this idea, we were ushered over directly to the project manager (all I can remember is that his first name is Chris). Chris, the project manager, made it very clear that these decisions against my property were his direct decisions, based on what was best for the state. His reasoning is that It would have cost way too much to straighten the roadway and would inconvienence the property owner opposite of me (as if I haven't been inconvenienced this whole time?). He stressed that this is the best way to make things right, and that that was their goal (all the while, I'm feeling very much the opposite of'righl' about any of it). His biggest attempt at a selling pitch to me, is that we would actually be gaining 'some' of our property back and their proposed project would only be slightly on our property, but we would be compensated once they re- designed where our property starts in relation to their road. There are several things I find completely absurd. First of all.... the millions they are receiving from the federal gov't to fund this project, in my opinion, has a lot of over the top embellishments where money could be better spent (isn't that the oldest line in the book for spending other peoples money?). When you see the details of the proposal you will see It too. It was explained to me that it would cost loo much to correct the sharp S tum (which would serve two very important purposes.... moving It off private property and eliminating the traffic hazard that the hook in the road currently creates). I've paid increased property taxes on property being utilized more and more by the stale every year, and I've been biding my time In anticipation of the straightening and paving that would come in the future. This project has many points of proposed road elevations, which costs a lot of money and more of others' private property (the higher they raise the road, the more of a slanted ditch they need to extend outward to support the fill and pavement as a proper foundation). Basically, there are points in the road (particularily in front of my house) that will be built up 4 feet from where they sit now. Why not propose a project that focuses on putting the roadway where it's acutally plotted to be, instead of dumping millions in elevating it? I am very concerned one guy makes all the decisions on what he would like his'dream project' to entail at the cost of property owners like me. I hesitate strongly to agree to give them my property because I feel it will be giving them a green light to tear into as much property as they need .... and quite frankly, I'm not In this for the money .... I prefer to have back what we once used, could use and pay taxes for every year. I don't trust one project manager (and especially this one) to decide what my property is worth and how much he wants to take. I got the very strong impression that they decide what I get, and I just have to take It. I will tell you, that we took the project manager and his engineer for a walk over to our property to talk about It specifically. This next point I have to make is the other thing that alarms me greatly (and solidifies that I do not trust what they say). Chris kept making the pitch to me that I would gain back (recapture) some property in his proposal. While he was talking with Tony, I asked the engineer (Nathan or Nate was his name), "okay ... I am gaining back some of this property since that is what I was told ... will you be filling this ditch back In so I can use it again because it used to be my nice green lawn and boat parking?". Louise.... he told me no (and looked at me strangely because that is not the plan at all). Basically, what I understand to be true is this: the property I will 'recapture'will be part of the elevated roadway and extended ditch (that will actually tie into the ditches they already dug into my curemt property). I won't be gaining one inch of property, only expensive fill and foundation for their 4 fool higher roadway that serves them best. That really is the most insulting part of this whole scenario. Louise, I can't tell you how relieved I am that engineer told me the truth. This solidified to me that I really just want back what is mine legally. They don't get to decide how much they take, how much I get paid for it or where they want my new property line to start. I wasn't told how much of my property is currently the roadway - but I am sure they have the exact square footage with all the surveying they did in 2015. The only thing they showed me were aerial drawings with their dream -project drawn through part of it. I know my next door neighbors, Matt Van Daele & Mary Ruskovich have quite a few concerns on excavation to part of their property as well (it's just as absurd, if Page 106 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. not more than my concerns). I'm going to give them your email address and hopefully they contact you as well. Another shocking detail attached with this proposal ... was that there were two properties at the end of Olmeloi Way (closer to Monashka side) that the KIB district voters decide to annex into this project (basically they may be forced to become part of this project). I didn't quite understand why those two properties were key to this project, but if they don't get annexed in by the voters in our KIB district, this dream road project cannot happen. At the open house public meeting in April, John Barnett (one of the representatives for this project) gave me a form to complete to provide them with any comments, concerns and I did sent them a letter, certified with return receipt later that month. When I get to work tomorrow, I'll scan it and email it to you as well. I have received no correspondence back as to any of my comments. I know this is a lot of information... and my mind is scattered with it (I honestly have tried not to think about it). Please feel free to stop by our house (we are usually home after 6 pm and on weekends), but I encourage you to at least take specific note to the sharp S hook in the road..it is a very significant safety hazard and should be fixed. If you do stop by, please bring some signs ... I want to plant some Stick With Stutes on my lawn! Thanks so much for listening to my concerns Sincerely LuVonne Page 107 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. August 4's, 2016 The Honorable Louise Stutes, Alaska Stale Legislature 305 Center Avenue, Suite 1 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Representative Stutes, Thank you again for organizing and facilitating the meeting we had on August 2", 2016, regarding our and our neighbors' concerns over the State of Alaska's proposed paving and realignment of Otmeloi Way in Kodiak. We greatly appreciate your attention to this matter, because as we experienced fust -hand on Tuesday there is a tremendous amount of trepidation over the project design, and a lack of communication and transparency regarding the information we have been receiving from Juneau. To set the record straight, I would be willing to vouch for all ormy neighbors that we all care deeply about the safety requirements of this mad, as well as for the safety of each other and our community's children. However, this does not negate the fact that we have not been given any quantitative information demonstrating the fundamental nature and character or use of otmeloi Way have changed enough to warrant either the excessive designs we have seen, nor the detrimental impacts proceeding with this design will have to those of us who live along and use Otmeloi every single day. As slated in this meeting, it is important to weigh the consequences of the decision to pave all of Otmeloi. What we have not been told is why this project is necessary. In this era of looming funding crises, we do not undersland why spending multiple millions of dollars on such a small road is a responsible andjustifiable use of public resources, particularly when so much private property will be substantially degraded as a result. In light of these facts and concerns, I have the following points to suggest that I feel will adequately address many of my and my neighbors' concerns, as well as improving the safety standards of the road: 1. Only pave Olmeloi (per the existing design) to Mallard Way. Rather than paving all of Otmeloi, this approach will result in reduced maintenance costs for the improved portion. It will also add the needed improvements to the section of Otmeloi that is actually frequently used by North Star Elementary, as well as being the section of Otmeloi that paving does not appear to negatively impact adjacent property owners. 2. With the exception of realigning the "Peninsula Drive Intersection," leave the rest of Otmeloi as it is - without added sidewalks, streetlights, and/or concrete retaining walls on private property. 3. Compensate property owners who have already been impacted by Otmeloi Way migrating onto their private land. Besides specific property -based concerns, our overarching problem with this project is that it has become apparent many Facets of the design are based on assertions that are not factual (such as the level of use of Otmeloi Park by North Star Elementary, rather than Fort Abercrombie State Park), and this is driving up the cost of this project, as well as negatively impacting residents living along Otmeloi. Until these concerns are addressed, I will remain in opposition to the project as currently designed. Thank you again for your attention to this matter, and For your work to rind a positive and equitable solution for all of us involved and impacted by this process. Please let us know if there is anything we can do to assist you, and good luck. Singly, Mary.Ruskovich 11! 3741 Otmeloi Way marv.mskovichfdumai l.com cc The Honorable Gary Stevens - Alaska State Legislature Assemblywoman Rebecca Skinner - Kodiak Island Borough Assemblyman Dennis Symmons - Kodiak Island Borough Mayor lerml Friend - Kodiak Island Borough Michael Powers, Borough Manager - Kodiak Island Borough Andy Hughes, Trans Planner III - Alaska DOT & PF Marie Heidemann, Trans Planner I - Alaska DOT & PF Chris Goias, Engineer/Amhilect IB - Alaska DOT & PF Rob Greene, Maintenance and Operations Supervisor- Alaska DOT & PF Page 108 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. ii' 4-a_ch nn eyJ1 5 Kodiak Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation Response to Comments from Public Open House State Project No. 68713 Name: Mary Ruskovich Contact Information: marvtuskovich(alemail.com /(208)-819-2477 Response to comment: While I cannot guarantee we will miss the tree buffer we will attempt to limit the rock cut along your property as much as we can in hopes of preserving the buffer. We will work to accommodate your driveway request as best we can. Name: Matt Van Daele Contact Information: mvandaele(a)konisg coin Response to comment: Thanks for your concerns. Regarding your driveway we will attempt to straighten the driveway per your request. It should be noted the straightening of the driveway will not reduce the grade that we showed to you during the meeting since the road grade in the direction of straightening the driveway is also falling. Additionally the edge of your driveway is limited by the adjacent property line. Name: David Bradbury Contact information: (907)-512-7412 Response to comment: We could reduce the grade of the driveway into the yard by extending the driveway tie in point we showed on the plans at the meeting to reduce grade. The second driveway was mistakenly not shown. Regarding fill in the yard adjacent to your home, the State may have a minor 511 in the pond adjacent to Otmeloi Way, but nothing further. Name: Sandra West Contact Information: (907)-539-6429 Response to Comment: The current design will be using a standard curb (what you described as an L curb) to separate the shoulder from the mulit-use path. Funding has yet to be acquired for the entire project and the intent is to build all components shown at the meeting. Traffic calming measures have been implemented in the cross-sectional design of the road to reduce driving speeds. Page 109 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Peninsula Road and Otmeloi Way intersection grade is changing to address site distance issues that are currently in place. Name: Patricia Wilson Contact Information: (315)-608-0229 Response to comment: Thank you for your comment. Name: Tom Lance Contact Information: soruweardens rr alaska.net Response to comment: Thank you for your comment. The plan for the path is to connect it to the Rezenoff Drive path and to the park adjacent to Monaskha Day Road and Otmeloi Way. Name: Tim Sharon Contact Information: (Home) (907)-512-0585/(Cell) (907)-942-7307 Response to comment: ROW will contact you regarding these issues. Page 110 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Goins, Christopher B (DOT) From: Goins, Christopher B (DOT) Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 1:41 PM To: Coffey, Michael J (DOT) Cc: Carroll, Lawrence P (DOT); Buck, Joseph T (DOT); Barnett, John C (DOT); Karpstein, Keith D (DOT) Subject: RE: Otmeloi proposed paving project Attachments: 3653 Otmeloi Way Property Conflict Memo.pdf Per our recent discussion here is my response. Mike, Thanks for giving me the opportunity to respond to this discussion below. I am disappointed that Mrs. LuVonne Shields - Chaco has portrayed some of our staff and I as folks who are only interested in our project desires at the cost of her, her property, and the people of this State. My intent has always been to provide the best design for the Otmeloi Way neighborhood, the Kodiak Borough, and the State while fully respecting the people and their property. I believe the attached memo (dated 5/2/2016) related to this discussion demonstrates this. The attached memo regarding the property owner's concerns cover the following key points in further detail: 1. Aerial photography dated 1985 provided by the Kodiak Island Borough including parcel lines shows that the road has been on Mrs. LuVonne Shields -Chaco property prior to her ownership in 2004. 2. Based on the overlay of the 1985 aerial photo and the 2015 aerial photo (both of which came directly from the Kodiak Borough web application with zero alteration of orientation) it appears as if the road has moved very little if at all on to the private owner's property. 3. The initial layout of the road from Central Region included straightening the curves but never removing the road fully from Mrs. LuVonne Shields -Chaco property which can be seen in Figure 6 outlined in red above the s - tum. This option eliminated her neighbor's existing driveway opposite her and required the State to build a new driveway (labeled driveway) from Mallard Way. This option required the acquisition of property along the new driveway from four different property owners. This area is multiple times larger than the area currently proposed to be acquired on the Chaco's property, and is also outlined in Figure 6 surrounding the new driveway. 4. Due to the existing topography of the neighborhood all options require property acquisition and specifically property from the Chaco's. S. In cooperation with the Kodiak Borough, DOT Staff, and myself the determination was made to keep the design speed at 25 mph and reduce the lane widths to 11 -feet thereby reducing the cross-sectional width of the mad by 2 -feet. This design allowed DOT to maintain two existing driveways and eliminate the needed property takes shown at the bottom of Figure 6. This also maintained existing neighborhood dynamics. 6. To meet regulated safety standards the elevation of the road had to be raised adjacent the Cham property. Alternatives to not raising the road were infeasible due to existing intersection and driveway grades. 7. Point 5 allowed the design to move the edge of the road further away from the existing edge of the road, however Point 6 resulted in a greater need for fill therefore extending the road footprint. (Both Nathan Purves and I tried to explain this multiple times and in different ways to Mrs. LuVonne Shields -Chaco and her husband during the public outreach meeting and eventually visited their property to further explain until they understood.) 8. The alignment options and the design criteria were discussed in depth on January 2016 in Kodiak with the Kodiak Island Borough Staff including the Borough Manager, his support staff, representatives from the City of Kodiak, and a Kodiak Island Borough Service District Representative. At that meeting all concluded the design option to pursue was the one that was later presented at the public outreach meeting. Page 111 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. 9. A month later 3 Kodiak Assembly members, their lobbyist, A DOT planner, the DOT Southcoast Region Director and I met in Juneau where I briefed them on the design and the reasons behind the decisions made to date. This discussion specifically addressed the issues related to Mrs. LuVonne Shields -Chaco property and the other neighbors. No one objected to this course of action, but assembly member Dan Rohrer suggested I contact Mrs. LuVonne Shields-Chaco's husband (Tony Chaco) and discuss our reasoning. 10. On March 10'", 2016 and again on March 25v', 20161 called and spoke with Tony Chaco and fully walked him through the proposed design and the other options considered and all of the resulting effects of those design options. 11. On April 6'", 2016, the Public meeting was held about a block from their home at North Star Elementary. With maps in hand staff and I walked them through the proposal, the reasons why, and the consequences both negative and positive that resulted. This conversation continued well after the meeting on the Chaco's property as I wanted them to fully understand what the proposed design would look like so they could comment. 12. Attached to the end of the memo is Mrs. LuVonne Shields-Chaco's comment to the project. In addition to the attached memo I think there area few items that should be noted in this discussion: 1. Design decisions made to date have been made in cooperation with the Kodiak Island Borough Staff, the Kodiak Island Borough Service District representative, the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Members, City of Kodiak representatives, DOT design staff, and in consideration of the comments received during the environmental process. 2. B written comments for the project were received during the public outreach process. Only one negative comment was received, which was from Mrs. LuVonne Shields -Chaco. 3. 23 people signed into the public meeting on April 6th, 2016, with approximately 25-30 people attending in total. Of those attendees only Mrs. LuVonne Shields -Chaco commented negatively toward the project. 4. Further interaction with Mr. and Mrs. Chaco has been delayed until the design was at a point where impacts were more clearly defined as is dictated by the State Preconstruction Manual. S. Mr. Barnett directed the Chaco's to me once he knew who they were because I told all our staff before the meeting that I wanted to personally meet them and be available to them, and because I told Tony Chaco I would make sure to meet them. 6. This project is State funded and until more funds are acquired it cannot be built. The hope is that federal funds will be acquired to allow for construction. Upon completion of the construction Kodiak Island Borough will assume ownership of the road. 7. Mrs. LuVonne Shields-Chaco's assertion that the road fill will be hers to own after construction is incorrect. The State is required to purchase land that supports the road. This means that any fill or cut required by the project not related to their driveway or boat parking will require the State to negotiate with them to acquire the land. Mrs. LuVonne Shields -Chaco and her husband were informed at the meeting that once the environmental document was completed and the design was further along the State would contact them again to negotiate a possible purchase. As a result of this process and ongoing design the State elected to delay response until further design information was secured. I hope this brings some understanding to the design process and our reasoning to date. I have tried to communicate to Mr. and Mrs. Chaco during this process that 1 am not trying to single them out, but trying to make the best decision for all parties involved given all stakeholders Input. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Christopher Goins, P.E. Engineering Manager Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Southcoast Region Ph: (907) 465-4443 Page 112 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. From: Coffey, Michael J (DOT) Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 12:09 PM To: Karpstein, Keith D (DOT); Goins, Christopher B (DOT) Cc: Carroll, Lawrence P (DOT); Buck, Joseph T (DOT) Subject: FW: Otmeloi proposed paving project We will need to respond to this. Please draft a reply. Michael l Coffey Southcoast Region Director Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 907-465-1762 (office) 907-975-9039 (cell) From: Lesmann, Mike (DOT) Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 11:59 AM To: Coffey, Michael ] (DOT) Subject: FW: Otmeloi proposed paving project Sorry Mike, but I have another one for you. Perhaps the 'Chris' that is mentioned below is Chris Gains.(?) I'll let Rep Stutes know that we're looking into the issue. Thanks. Mike Lesmann Legislative Liaison Department of Transportation & Public Facilities 907.465.4772 (desk) 907.957.2321 (cell) From: Rep. Louise Stutes rmailto:Reo.Louise.Stutes(a)aklea.aovl Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 11:32 AM To: Lesmann, Mike (DOT) Subject: FW: Otmeloi proposed paving project Hi Mike, Page 113 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. It appears we have another problem Houston) Please seethe attached email. For the state to continually encroach on this property and not acknowledge it is unacceptable. Can you help me resolve this please. Thanks Louise From: LuVonne fmaiito:tcls(daci.netl Sent: Friday, July 08, 201612:13 AM To: Rep. Louise Scutes <Ren.Louise.Stutes@aklea.eov> Subject: Fw: Otmeloi proposed paving project --- Original Message ---- From: LuVonne To: Representative.LouiseStutes(a�akleg.gov Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 12:03 AM Subject: Re: Otmeloi proposed paving project Louise! Thank you for your attention to this situation of ours. i will try to explain as much as I can, so you understand what we are dealing with. We purchased our property in 2004 from Mel Stephens and closed on new construction in 2006. Our property is just before Peninsula Way prior to the sharp'S' turn in the road on the tree side (opposite the Island Lake side of the road). When we closed on our property, Robert Tarrant surveyed our project and submitted the as -built to the Kodiak Island Borough. He was the first person to inform us that the road encroached significantly into our property (he was not able to find several points of the lot as they were buried in the middle of the road at that point). Tony has had many conversations with the Kodiak DOT regarding the roadway encroaching on our lot, and it was slated many times, that the SOA would eventually pave the road, and they would straighten it so that (a): It would no longer be on our property and; (b): it would eliminate the signifcant hazard that that sharp's' tum imposes to both lanes of trafffc as well as approaching traffic entering Otmeloi from Peninsula Way. Throughout the years, we have lost more and more property due to a combination of traffic driving around the washboard potholes in front of our house as well as the grading and resurfacing of the road then following the tire path around those potholes and pushing the road further and further into our lot. There are points in Otmeloi where it's at least twice as wide as it should be, and in front of our house is one of those areas. A few years ago, we were then hit with the ditching project the SOA decided to Implement and that took even more usable property from us as they just ditched from where the road seemed to end and dug out even further from that point Our property nearest the road was the same level as the road and was easily encroached upon by traffic and grading because of this. When they ditched our property, the took away significant usable parking space as well as our maintained lawn. If you look at the topography of our acreage (our property is supposed to exceed one acre), there is Dal usable space directly at the bottom where the roadway is currently, as well as where we built our house on the top. We use the bottom portion of our property nearest the road to park both our boat and skiff during the winter so we can free up the top of our property for plowing and pushing snow out of the way so we can park and tum around. When they dug the ditches, they just'did' it with no notification and actually trapped our skiff with no way to tow it out (we used to be able to back into that part of our property from the roadway at any point on the road). Tony talked to Rob Green here after that happened, and he was understanding enough to build in an extra culvert in to allow us to continue using one point of our property for our boat storage (it was explained to us that each property was only allowed one culvert, but they made an exception for us). Let me stop here and just express that I, in no way, am looking to bring bad light to our local DOT. Rob and his crew do an exceptional job maintaining all our state roads in Kodiak and I understand they have orders to follow with the projects planned by SOA/DOT project managers outside our area. In the summer of 2015, we saw a crew of surveyors measuring, marking and mapping out the roadway and after speaking with them, they told us this was intended for consideration of future paving of that road. You better believe I told them to pay close attention to the entire area in front of my house so it's understood exactly how much property is being used by the road. In Feb of this year, you stopped Tony at the airport to let us know KIB assembly would be bringing up the topic of the Otmeloi paving project and we immediately emailed all of them to notify them as well, that the road encroaches significantly. Dan Rohrer followed through on our correspondance and gave our contact information directly to the project manager in Juneau, and he contacted us in March 2016 to let us know about a public meeting they would be presenting in Kodiak the following month regarding this project. Page 114 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. In April 2016, we attended this open house at North Star Elementary to see what was in store. This is where it was initially presented to us (they presented their project in organized stages to small groups of attendants) with aerial maps, photographs and engineered drafts, that the road was basically going to stay as it is, and that'we would be compensated' for the property used for their project It was also explained to us that this project was possible only because of federal grant money, and that the'compensation' to us (Tony and myself) would come from the state level only after approval. Louise, I was very upset, shocked, speechless, trying to keep my composure during this time about the fact that these decisions were made without so much as a conversation with us first Once the initial presenter (John Barnett) realized which property owners we were, and that I wasn't cool with this Idea, we were ushered over directly to the project manager (all I can remember is that his first name is Chris). Chris, the project manager, made it very clear that these decisions against my property were his direct decisions, based on what was best for the state. His reasoning is that it would have cost way too much to straighten the roadway and would Inconvienence the property owner opposite of me (as if I haven't been inconvenienced this whole time?). He stressed that this is the best way to make things right, and that that was their goal (all the while, I'm feeling very much the opposite of'right' about any of it). His biggest attempt at a selling pitch to me, is that we would actually be gaining 'some' of our property back and their proposed project would only be slightly on our property, but we would be compensated once they re -designed where our property starts in relation to their road. There are several things I find completely absurd. First of all.... the millions they are receiving from the federal gov't to fund this project, in my opinion, has a lot of over the top embellishments where money could be better spent (isn't that the oldest line in the book for spending other peoples money?). When you see the details of the proposal you will see it too. It was explained to me that it would cost too much to correct the sharp S tum (which would serve two very important purposes.... moving it off private property and eliminating the traffic hazard that the hook in the road currently creates). I've paid increased property taxes on property being utilized more and more by the state every year, and I've been biding my time in anticipation of the straightening and paving that would come in the future. This project has many points of proposed road elevations, which costs a lot of money and more of others' private property (the higher they raise the road, the more of a slanted ditch they need to extend outward to support the fill and pavement as a proper foundation). Basically, there are points In the road (particularily in front of my house) that will be built up 4 feet from where they sit now. Why not propose a project that focuses on putting the roadway where It's acutally plotted to be, Instead of dumping millions in elevating it? I am very concerned one guy makes all the decisions on what he would like his 'dream project' to entail at the cost of property owners like me. I hesitate strongly to agree to give them my property because I feel it will be giving them a green light to tear Into as much property as they need .... and quite frankly, I'm not in this for the money .... I prefer to have back what we once used, could use and pay taxes for every year. I don't trust one project manager (and especially this one) to decide what my property is worth and how much he wants to take. I got the very strong impression that they decide what I get, and I just have to take it. I will tell you, that we took the project manager and his engineer for a walk over to our property to talk about it specifically. This next point I have to make is the other thing that alarms me greatly (and solidifies that I do not trust what they say). Chris kept making the pitch to me that I would gain back (recapture) some property in his proposal. While he was talking with Tony, I asked the engineer (Nathan or Nate was his name), "okay ... I am gaining back some of this property since that is what I was lold...will you be filling this ditch back in so I can use it again because it used to be my nice green lawn and boat parking?". Louise.... he told me no (and looked at me strangely because that is not the plan at all). Basically, what I understand to be true is this: the property I will'recaplure' will be part of the elevated roadway and extended ditch (that will actually fie into the ditches they already dug into my curemt property). I won't be gaining one inch of property, only expensive fill and foundation for their 4 foot higher roadway that serves them best. That really Is the most insulting part of this whole scenario. Louise, I can't tell you how relieved I am that engineer told me the truth. This solidified to me that I really just want back what is mine legally. They don't get to decide how much they take, how much I get paid for it or where they want my new property line to start I wasn't told how much of my property is currently the roadway - but I am sure they have the exact square footage with all the surveying they did in 2015. The only thing they showed me were aerial drawings with their dream -project drawn through part of it. I know my next door neighbors, Matt Van Daele & Mary Ruskovich have quite a few concerns on excavation to part of their property as well (It's just as absurd, if not more than my concerns). I'm going to give them your email address and hopefully they contact you as well. Another shocking detail attached with this proposal... was that there were two properties at the end of Olmeloi Way (closer to Monashka side) that the KIB district voters decide to annex into this project (basically they may be forced to become part of this project). I didn't quite understand why those two properties were key to this project, but if they don't get annexed in by the voters in our KIB district, this dream road project cannothappen. At the open house public meeting in April, John Barnett (one of the representatives for this project) gave me a form to complete to provide them with any comments, concerns and I did sent them a letter, certified with return receipt later that Page 115 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. month. When I get to work tomorrow, I'll scan it and email it to you as well. I have received no correspondance back as to any of my comments. I know this is a lot of information... and my mind is scattered with it (I honestly have tried not to think about it). Please feel free to stop by our house (we are usually home afters pm and on weekends), but I encourage you to at least take specific note to the sharp S hook in the road ... it Is a very significant safety hazard and should be fixed. If you do stop by, please bring some signs...1 want to plant some Stick With Stutes on my lawnl Thanks so much for listening to my concerns Sincerely LuVonne Page 116 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. 3653 Otmeloi Way Property Conflict Memo Date 5/2/2016 By Christopher Goins On April 21" the State received a certified letter from Mrs. LuVonne Shields -Chaco regarding the work on her property along Otmeloi Way. Her concern is the road is on her property. This road is a gravel road that has been in this general location since its original construction based on old aerial photographs courtesy of the Kodiak Island Borough. See Figures 1-5. ♦f„o r •, C r' ¢ r` Figure 1; Map of Otmeloi Way Page 117 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. Figure 2; 1973 Figure 3; 1985 Page 118 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion .,a�Qwr AGENDA ITEM #2. a. As time has gone on Mrs. Sheilds-Chaco believes the road has slowly moved further onto her property. As the photos and figures above suggest this does not appear to be the case. Additionally, the homeowner appears to have bought the property after the road was already on the private property as shown in the 1985 photo. Purchase by the Chaco's is believed to have occurred in the early 2000's. It has been reported by the homeowner that in the recent past M&O widened the ditch. This stipulation has not been confirmed or denied by M&O as far as I know. We do know they did maintain a ditch on this property and installed a private access drive for boat storage at the request of the Chaco's. Before Southcoast Region begun design the recon report completed by Central Region proposed a 30 MPH design resulting in the road being partially removed from Mrs. Shields-Chaco's property. This was a result of the design speed dictating wider radiuses in the curves near the Chaco's property. The consequences of this design alternative were that two properties across the street from the Chaco's would lose their primary driveway. The owners of those properties would then have to access their homes from a driveway off of Mallard Drive. This new driveway would require the State to acquire property from 4 different property owners as figure 6 displays. This design would have pushed the road further off of the Chaco's land, but as the figure also shows property would have to be acquired from the Chaco's due to an increase in the road grade. Figure 6; Original design concept with separated path Page 120 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. The other issue this original design concept had was that the design speed was 30 mph. A 5 mph increase from the existing speed posted. Such an increase led to major concerns from both DOT and Borough's representatives who believed this would lead to further speed issues near a school. With the cooperation and participation of the Kodiak Borough it was determined the road should be designed with a 25 mph design speed. To encourage this 25 mph speed the lane width was reduced from 12 -foot lanes to 11 -Foot lanes thereby reducing the width of the road cross-section. The combination of these two design changes created a smaller footprint and tighter radiuses on curves. This opened up the possibility to keep the two driveways across from the Chaco's. This allowed the design to move the horizontal alignment of the road further off the Chaco's property, however the vertical grade had to rise 4 feet to meet vertical alignment standards which lead to a slightly larger footprint on the Chaco's property. Figure 7; Current road design fill lines with existing road and fill delineated The 25 mph design concept was brought to the Kodiak Borough Manager and support staff for approval back in January 2016, and the effects to the various property owners was discussed. At this meeting it was determined DOT should pursue this design. About a month later another meeting was held in Juneau where the DOT Southcoast Region Director, Marie Heidemann, 3 Kodiak Assembly members, and their lobbyist met with me to discuss the project. At this meeting the 25 mph design scenario and the reasons it was selected were discussed. There were no objections to the plan, but assembly member Dan Rohrer did suggest I contact the Chaco's and discuss the design and the reasoning behind the design. On March 10'", 2015, 1 called and spoke with Tony Chaco, Mrs. Shields-Chaco's husband, about the project and the upcoming public meeting on April 6'", 2016. On this phone call I discussed the design, the reasons design decisions were made, how those decisions were made to date, and if they had Page 121 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. concerns regarding those decisions. Tony was concerned that the road was on his property all these years and he was paying taxes since his purchase I believe in the early 2000's. He was happy the State was planning upgrades to the road, but continued to press his desire to have a resolution on paying taxes on the land the road currently sat on. He also warned me that his wife may not like the proposed plan. We discussed the boat parking that he gained and wanted to keep when M&O did the ditch work. Tony mentioned he was happy I had contacted him prior to the public meeting, and thanked me for my time. On March 25", 2016, 1 called Tony Chaco to remind him on the public meeting on April 6'h, 2016. 1 also enquired about how his wife perceived the proposed project and our design approach. He said she was not pleased, but he was grateful we were having the discussion regarding the situation. On April 60, 2016, the public meeting was held at North Star Elementary, about a block from the Chaco's residence. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. and Mrs. Chaco in person. With maps in hand I discussed with them the design and the process much as I had previously discussed with Tony over the phone. It was made clear by Mrs. Chaco she was upset and she felt the opposing driveway and the neighborhood configuration was not her problem. I gently explained that all parties involved to date preferred to have the road as much as where it currently was configured, and where it created the least interruption to the neighborhood at large given the design standards. 1 explained that no matter what option we chose a portion of her property would have to be acquired to complete the work, and that eventually our right-of-way department would be in contact with them to discuss a possible purchase. The Chaco's requested the designer and I to accompany them to their property following the meeting to discuss further. Nathan Purves and I honored this request and walked through the design again this time on their property. When we parted Mrs. Shields -Chaco was still not happy but thanked us for our time, and said she would be sending in a comment. Tony walked with us back to the school where his car was parked. He too thanked us for our time, and for being proactive in contacting him prior to the meeting. On April 2e, 2016, we received LuVonne A. Shields-Chaco's comment which is attached to the back of this document. Page 122 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2. a. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES y�tieF �NEsr OPEN HOUSE &PUB�o ynr 'M April 6, 2016 COMMENT SHEET •9TEOF ALPS �FALA6�~ Kodiak Otmeloi Way Rehabilitation State Project No. 68713 The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF is proposing to reconstruct and pave Otmeloi Way and a portion of Mallard Way in Kodiak, Alaska. Comments on the proposal from the would assist us in the project's environmental documentation. interested public nn Your Name: L,,IA V V) nb T] , X Zq s�� viR61 Your Contact Information (optional): PO EW COMMENTS: i APR 2 1 2016 State of Alaska, DOT & PF 6860 Glacier Highway P.O. Box 112506 ALASKA UOuPF SE RL6Wli Juneau, AK 99811-2506 ATTN: John Harnett Revised: September, 2011 Page 123 of 174 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AGENDA ITEM #2.a. My husband and I own the property addressed 3653 Otmeloi Way, Kodiak AK 99615. This is my initial response (and feedback) to your proposed road project. When we Initially heard about the Otmeloi project on the Kodiak Island Borough agenda from our State Representative, Louise Stutes, we immediately emailed all the board members on the Kodiak Island Borough about our continual concerns regarding the state road occupying a portion of our property. Assemblyman, Dan Rohrer passed our concerns onto the project manager for the SOA, and we were contacted and notified there would be an open house regarding the project proposal for the public to attend. Our concerns were heard during this phone conversation regarding our opinion with the state using our property, and that we wanted our property back. Upon attending the open house on April 6, 2016 it was proposed that the road would be staying on our property and that we would be compensated. I have to explain to you how upsetting It is to see that decisions were made regarding our property without actually having approached us first and in person, being as that it has been decided, by the State of Alaska DOT, that it's best to take and use our property as the building foundation of your new, elevated roadway. Learning about these proposals along with the entire public with drawings, blown up photographs, engineering drafts and the declarations that those decisions were best for the state, Isn't exactly the best way to be presented with this. I am not necessarily opposed to selling my property; however, I would have strongly preferred that DOT approached me first, so I could explain to you that I, In fact, prefer to keep what Is mine. We have lost considerable amount of the flat usable property to not only the roadway, but to the ditches that were then dug out further inward, taking even more of what we once used and could use had the road not impeded significantly. Obviously, it's useful to us as it's useful to the State of Alaska and this road project. From my understanding, we were informed that we would gain part of it back and only a minimal amount of property would be used. I would like to make it clear as to what I understand. The actual paved road would be moved off slightly, however, it will'given' back to us as a ditch and supporting fill to support the SOA's new elevated road, and from my perspective, that is not gaining anything. We would be gaining a ditch. What I consider gaining back, is the flat usable property the road has currently occupied and I don't see us gaining that back, so I don't buy this claim that we recapture most of It back. An elevated slanted gravel ditch that connects to the ditches that are already dug into my property Isn't gaining anything useful for us. For that reason, I prefer to keep what should and is In fact, currently my property. The Issues of cost avoidance are not my problems to surrender to. Any projects designed on private property should be negotiated — and I as the landowner should not be forced into giving up my property at the will of the DOT at your discretion. I own this property, I've paid taxes on it since 2004, and I absolutely have a decision In what happens with it — or doesn't happen with it. Thank you for your attention to this. LuVonne Shields -Chaco PO Box 2956 Kodiak AK 99615 RE: 3653 Otmeloi Way Kodiak AK 99615 Otmeloi Way Reconstruction Project Discussion AL -i8-u, Page 124 of 174 AGENDA ITEM #2.b. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH AGENDA STATEMENT OCTOBER 6, 2016 ASSEMBLY REGULAR MEETING TITLE: Resolution No. FY2017-13 Adopting a Capital Improvement Projects Priority List for the 2016-2017 State Legislative Session ORIGINATOR: Meagan Christiansen FISCAL IMPACT: No Account Number: FUNDS AVAILABLE: Amount Budgeted: SUMMARY STATEMENT: In accordance with KIBC 2.40.030(E), the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews and updates a list of project priorities for the KIB Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Commission is required to make a recommendation to the Assembly by resolution and deliver that recommendation no later than October 1st of each year. The Commission generally reviews the prior year's resolution, removes projects which have been funded, and adds new community projects that have come to its attention. The commission receives input from the KIB Parks and Recreation Committee and requests input from the general public. The Assembly has historically referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission's CIP list in preparing a short list of projects for which the Borough requests legislative funding from the State of Alaska to assist in accomplishing important community priorities. The Assembly may add projects, amend language and figures as well as remove projects. The adopted list will be forwarded to our legislative delegation, the governor, and any state agencies that would have oversight and/or involvement in the project. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. FY2017-13 Kodiak Island Borough Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... Page 125 of 174 AGENDA ITEM #2.b. I Introduced by: Borough Manager 2 Requested by: Borough Assembly Drafted by: Special Projects Support 3 Introduced: 10/06/2016 4 Adopted: 5 6 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 7 RESOLUTION NO. FY2017-13 8 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND 10 BOROUGH ADOPTING A STATE LEGISLATIVE CAPITAL 11 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PRIORITY LIST FOR THE 2017 12 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 13 14 WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough represents approximately 14,000 residents of the 15 Kodiak Island Archipelago living in six incorporated cities and one community governed by 16 a tribal council government; and 17 18 WHEREAS, a Borough—wide capital improvement program has been adopted by the 19 Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission which identifies major needs of the 20 island community for the next five years; and 21 22 WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly has identified major projects to submit 23 to the Alaska Governor and State Legislative Delegation for funding consideration; 24 25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK 26 ISLAND BOROUGH THAT: 27 28 Section 1: The Kodiak Island Borough's State Legislative capital improvement project 29 priorities for the 2017 legislative session are as follows: 30 31 1. MN Tustumena Replacement Vessel Construction 32 Estimated Project Cost $238,000,000 33 34 The MN Tustumena was built in 1964 and serves the communities of South Central, 35 Kodiak Island and Southwest Alaska. It is one of two ocean class vessels in the Alaska 36 Marine Highway System (AMHS) fleet. Because of its size and design, it is the only AMHS 37 vessel that is capable of serving all 13 ports of call between Homer and Unalaska. 38 Retiring and replacing the MN Tustumena with a vessel that is equally, if not more, 39 versatile and seaworthy will provide reliable marine transportation service well into the 40 future for the communities, residents and businesses in South Central, Kodiak Island and 41 Southwest Alaska (from the Alaska Marine Highway System website). 42 43 The MN Tustumena is an essential service to the communities of Kodiak Island. As such, 44 the Kodiak Island Borough is requesting that the legislature concur with the funding plan 45 for the construction of the replacement vessel as described in the 2016-2019 STIP 46 Amendment 1. 47 48 2. Anton Larsen Bay Road Extension to Ice Free Water 49 Estimated Project Cost $8,450,000 50 Funding Acquired 450,000 51 State Funding Request $8,000,000 Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2017-13 Page 1 of 3 Page 126 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. 52 An extension of the Anton Larsen Bay Road to ice free waters will provide year around 53 access to communities located in the Kupreanof Strait as well as those who use the 54 island's west side for commercial and recreational purposes. Many times during the year 55 travel by vessel to and from Kodiak is treacherous. Extending the road to ice free waters 56 makes traveling safer, and provides safer access to critical services located in the City of 57 Kodiak including hospitals and businesses. This route was identified in the Kodiak 58 Transportation Plan as an important upland facility. 59 60 The Ouzinkie Native Corporation subsidiary, Spruce Island Development Corporation 61 (SIDCO) received a $450,000 legislative grant for planning and design to construct two 62 miles of gravel road extending the Anton Larsen Road and to construct a parking area and 63 boat launch ramp at the road's termination, a beach near Crag Point. 64 65 Funding is requested to the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for 66 construction of this road as it is an extension of an existing state roadway. The land 67 owner, Ouzinkie Native Corporation, has agreed to donate ownership of the road right -of - 68 way to the State when construction funding is obtained; and another local organization, 69 Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak, can commit BIA road program funding to the project and is 70 working to obtain a TIGR grant, or other road grant funding to support the project. 71 72 3. East Elementary Traffic Flow Improvements 73 Estimated Project Cost $2,000,000 74 State Funding Request $2,000,000 75 76 There is a safety issue in the East Elementary School parking lot. The school was 77 constructed in 1966 with a substantial addition in 1988. The facility now totals 39,842 78 square feet with twenty-five teaching stations. Since the expansion, increased traffic flows 79 have created dangerous vehicle/student hazards when students are entering and leaving 80 school. Reconfiguration of the parking area will reduce risks by providing for a safer 81 separation of pedestrians, small vehicle traffic and bus loading/unloading. The project will 82 require an increase in the total area of the parking lot to allow adequate parking to support 83 increased building usage and occupant load. 84 85 4. Service Area Road Improvements and Paving 86 Estimated Project Cost $5,000,000 87 State Funding Request $5,000,000 88 89 This project addresses the on-going need to improve portions of Borough Service Area 90 roads. There are approximately 26 miles of road among four Road Service Areas that 91 connect residential neighborhoods with the greater Kodiak community. Paving projects will 92 address main thoroughfares or busy neighborhood roads. Improvements to major 93 drainage courses, installation of guard rails, and other identified road improvement needs 94 may also be addressed with this funding. Priorities will be given to collector roadways 95 with relatively higher volume use and further based on recommendations made by the 96 elected service area boards. 97 98 5. Mill Bay Beach Access Upgrade 99 Estimated Project Cost $200,000 100 State Funding Request $200,000 101 102 Mill Bay Beach is a recreational site near the Kodiak City area heavily used by residents, 103 sport fishermen and community groups. Time, tide and use have eroded safe access to Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2017-13 Page 2 of 3 Page 127 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. 104 the two stretches of beach at this site. Improved access may include new stairs, 105 walkways, and trail enhancements between the two beaches as well as a small raft/kayak 106 launch. 107 108 6. Drainage Improvements to the Chiniak Highway at Sargent Creek 109 Estimated Project Cost $54,000 110 State Funding Request $54,000 111 112 Heavy rains along with high tides consistently cause Sargent Creek to flood and diverge 113 from its channel. This causes flooding at the intersection of the Chiniak Highway and 114 Sargent Creek Road. This intersection is the only roadway in and out of Bells Flats 115 subdivision. The flooding occurring here impedes safe travel and often leaves motorists 116 stranded and unable to reach homes or critical services located in town. 117 118 This request is to provide the DOT in Kodiak funding to construct spot improvements for 119 bank stabilization, armoring, and rechanneling as needed to keep the Sargent Creek in its 120 channel and stop the flooding of the roadway. 121 122 7. Monashka Bay Water and Sewer Project: Feasibility, Planning and Design 123 Estimated Project Cost $500,000 124 State Funding Request $500,000 125 126 There are 256 residential parcels that lie outside the reach of the existing sanitary sewer 127 and public water utilities in the Monashka Bay area. The soil and topography in this area 128 are not ideal for septic systems and many are failing. The construction of a wastewater 129 treatment facility at the Kodiak landfill provides an option for future expansion that could 130 include sanitary sewer treatment for the residents of this area. Water in this neighborhood 131 is provided by wells, cisterns and frequently by tank from a distant public source. Water 132 quality and quantity are questionable in the Monashka Bay neighborhood. Extension of 133 water service from the City of Kodiak will be needed. A feasibility study, planning and 134 design is the first step in providing water and sewer services to the residents of the 135 Monashka Bay area. 136 137 Section 2: The Kodiak Island Borough administration is hereby instructed to advise 138 our State of Alaska Governor and Legislative Delegation of the Capital Improvement 139 Projects Priority List adopted by the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly. 140 141 ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 142 THIS DAY OF 12016 143 144 145 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 146 147 148 149 ATTEST: Jerrol Friend, Borough Mayor 150 151 152 153 Nova M. Javier MMC, Borough Clerk Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2017-13 Page 3 of 3 Page 128 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Notes on the FY17 Capital Projects Resolution We create this resolution each year and submit it to the Governor, Senator and Representative for our district, and the legislative capital project data base to share the Importance of these projects to our community and request mpital funds in support of our projects. We also use this list when applying for other funding, such as grants, to show that a project has been vetted through a public process. Tustumena The State Department of Transportation's 2016-2019 STIP Amendment 1 Includes a funding plan for constructing the Tustumena's replacement vessel using federal funds with a Stale match funded from the Vessel Replacement Fund. This amendment also proposes that construction begin in September, 2017 rather than in 2019 bemuse of the documented stress cracks In the vessel's steel. The Borough's lobbyist, Mark Hickey, has recommended that we ask our legislators to support the funding plan in the STIP amendment. Anton tarsen Bay Road Extension A project description and details taken from the State of Alaska, Department of Tmnsportation website is included in the packet. A 2012 legislative grant from the State to Spmce Island Development Corp (Ourinkie) In the amount of $450,000 is funding design work. A mute has been developed as shown in the map Included in the packet. Sun'aq Tribe has $400,000+ In BIA mad program funding that can be contributed to the project; has applied for TIER grant funding that was not awarded, and may apply for the TIGR grant again or other grant funding on behalf of this project because they believe it is an important connection for the people of the north and west sides of the Island. East Elementary Traffic Flow Improvements This project has been on the list for many years with no movement. Attached In the packet is a white paper produced by the East Elementary School PTA and shared with Island Trails Newark for Inclusion in their Safe Routes to Schools Plan. Coordination with KIB and a decision or plan is needed to flesh out the details of resolving the issue, such as determining whether to expand the parking lot, where it would be expanded; how much It might cost and where the funding would come from. Service Area Road Improvements and Paving This Item has also been an the list for many years. It benefitted KIS when a State transportation bond was passed and the Borough received a grant (in 200671 In the amount of $2.9m which paid for the Improvement and paving of Sharatin Road and other roads In Woodland Acres without having to assess a special improvement tax to the property owners. We have kept this project on the list In case funding becomes available again, however in light of the recent contmversy regarding the Improvement and paving of Otmeloi Way, staff questions whether to continue efforts to obtain funding for service area road Improvements and paving. Mill Bay Beach Access Upgrade We have a 2011 estimate in the amount of $62,000 from lounsbury & Associates outlining the costs of preconstruction activities (surveying, mapping, testing, design, permitting, etc) necessary to construct new access structures at Mill Bay Beach. Should we continue to pursue this project, a new engineefs estimate would need to be procured, followed by a cost estimate to construct the access. There is a grant from the State Parks Department for which this project may be a good fit, however it requires a 50% match so some funding would have to be determined prior to application. Drainage Improvements to the Chiniak Highway at Sargent Creek Communimtion with local DOT employee, Rob Green, asks that we continue to support this request. Monmhka Bay Water and Sewer Project: Feasibility and Design This project concept was developed when the water treatment plant was constructed within the landfill expansion project to treat leachate. This particular plant is expandable and could potentially treat sewer for the Monashka neighborhoods not reached by the City sewer system. Along with sewer services, Monashka neighborhood residents would also benefit greatly from a reliable, safe water source. Extending existing water services necessitates coordination with the City of Kodiak which has not occurred to date. Staff questions the timing and expense for this project beyond a feasibility study and whether it would be better to await a later date, perhaps when residential expansion is planned In the area? Page 129 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... Project Update: 08-19-16 AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Page 2 Refining and replacing the MyV Tustumena with a vessel that is equally, if not more, versatile and seaworthy will provide reliable marine transportation service well into the future for the communities, residents and businesses in South Central, Kodiak Island and Southwest Alaska. Project Key Dates . Gloslen Selected for Design November 2013 . Reconnaissance Report March 2014 . Environmental Documents June 2014 . Design Study Report November 2014 . Final Design (100% PS&E) January 2016 100% PS&E (Plans Specifications and Estimates) package received from the designer, Glosten Associates on January 15, 2016. The project is in the current STIP as a Beyond FFY19 project. STIP Amendment 1 pulls that forward to a FFY17 project. Legislative Authority to obligate federal funds for construction and for the stale match will be part of the FY17 DOT&PF budget. Design and construct an ocean going vessel to replace MjV Tustumena . The MN Tustumena entered service in 1964 and is near the end of its design service life. Together with the MN Kennicoh, these two ferries are the only ferries capable of serving the Alaska Marine Highway mutes between Homer, Kodiak, and the Aleutian Chain. . Why replace the MN Tustumena . Age: 50 years old . Lack of Capacity' 36 Vehicle (720 Lane Feet) and 174 Passengers. There is increasing demand for car deck capacity between Homer and Kodiak. Also there is an increasing demand for car deck capacity for the Aleutian Chain route . The increase in the discovery of wasted steel and cracking during annual maintenance availabilifies Tustumena Replacement Vessel Characteristics Length Over All (LOA) 330 Feet Depth 24.5 Feet Breadth Over All (BOA) 71 Feet Design Draft 15'- 10" to 16'- 6" (End of Service Life) Air Draft 90 Feet Cruise / Service Speed 15 Knots Vans & Cars 12 Vans & 27 Cars Cars Only 54 Vehicle Loading Ability Stem & Side (Part & Starboard), Vehicle Elevator Vehicle Lane Length 1,180 Feet Passengers 250 (Berths for 104) Officer & Crew Minimum Manning IAW Regulatory Requirement Manned Engine Room 16 Page 130 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Me... AGENDA I£rmg& meal* Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Me.. JrJ : - ,.. ....., .... ... ..... ..... z l § \ zMUM !� ! • ,. ! ! !; !! \ !! )!!|! !!|! !�.! •!.! |!.! .! `, ! _ �•, :. !, ! . ! ;,�! . ;, .,! _, •! •, ! �, ! !; ! I, . meal* Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Me.. z !� ! • ,. ! ! !; !! \ !! )!!|! !!|! !�.! •!.! |!.! .! `, ! _ �•, :. !, ! . ! ;,�! . ;, .,! _, •! •, ! �, ! !; ! I, . AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Kodiak Anton Larsen Bay Rd Home Page I of _' Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities/ Southcoast Region Kodiak Anton Larsen Bay Road Extension Project #68420 Project Description The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) proposes to extend the existing Anton Larsen Bay Road in Kodiak, Alaska. Click Here for the Regional and Vicinity Map. The project would construct two miles of gravel road starting at the end of the existing Anton Larsen Bay road, following an existing ATV trail, but continues north as the trail heads east. The road would end at the beach near Crag Point with a parking area and boat launch ramp. The proposed route crosses multiple streams which would require culverts and drainage features along the road. Click Here for the Project Area Map and Here for the Road Extension Typical Sections. This project is currently funded for planning and design under a State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED) grant that was issued to the Spruce Island Development Corporation (SIDCO). The Department is providing engineering services to SIDCO under agreement. Construction funding has not yet been secured. Purpose & Need The purpose of this project is to improve a year-round transportation link between outlying communities off the Kodiak road system and Kodiak The existing Anton Larsen Bay road ends at a http://www.dot.alaska.gov/sereg/projectsfkodiak anton larsen ba /index.shtml 9/7/2016 Page 132 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Page 2 of 2 parking area approximately 15 miles North East of Kodiak on Kodiak Island. An All -Terrain -Vehicle (ATI') trail was constructed recently to allowATV access between the end of the existing Anton Larsen Bay road and just northeast of Three Pillar Point. The trail is only approved for vehicles up to 3000 lbs, which does not allow for trucks. A boat launch is located approximately one mile from the end of the road and allows for parking and launching small boats but does not allow for year- round boat access because the enclosed nature of the bay often has a layer of fresh water that freezes during the winter Department of Transportation & Public Facilities PO BOX 112500 Project 3132 Channel Drive Information Juneau, Alaska 99811-2500 Contact Information • Kodiak Anton Larsen State of Alaska © 2011 Web Manager Bay Home • Proiect Details and Status • Proiect Documents • Contact Regional Links • Southcoast Region Home • Southcoast Region Public Calendar • Southcoast Region Proiects • Southcoast Region Contract Bid Calendar • Southcoast Region Contract Bid Results • Southcoast Region Maintenance and Operations (M&O) • Southcoast Region AsBuilts • Southcoast Region Survey Plats • Southcoast Region Contacts anton tarsen bay/index.shual 9/7/2016 Page 133 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Kodiak Anton Larsen Bay Rd Project Details Pagel of 2 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities/ Southcoast Region Kodiak Anton Larsen Bay Road Extension.Project #68420 Project Details and Identified Resources The project would • cross multiple anadromous fish streams and may require fish habitat permits from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Anadromous fish streams are designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. • require work in Waters of the US and filling wetlands which would require authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). DOT&PF would conduct a bald eagle nests survey. • be located on Ouzinkie Native Corporation lands except for the tie into the existing road, which is within DOT&PF right of way. Prior to construction, the necessary right-of-way would be transferred to DOT&PF in order to construct and maintain the road. Also, • If eagle nests are located within rh mile of the project, authorization from USF WS may be required. • DOT&PF would require the contractor to use Best Management Practices during construction to avoid and minimize construction -related impacts. Project Status The Department began preliminary design and environmental baseline studies for the proposed route Fall -Winter 2oi5. Public and Agency scoping began in early Winter 2015 and is currently in process of public noticing. With consideration of public and agency comments, and engineering considerations, the department will make further refinements to the proposed design and complete the environmental documentation. littp://www.dot.alaska.gov/sereg/projectsikodiak anion larsen ba /Projects details.shtml 9/7/2016 Page 134 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Page 135 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... EAST ELEMENTARY PTA East Elementary Parking Lot Safety Committee PROPOSAL FOR EAST ELEMENTARY PARKING Lu i AGENDA ITEM #2.b. SAFETY & EFFICIENCY MODIFICATIONS ;evAll-WILAfJ Al East Elementary concerns about safely and efficiency in the parking lot have been identified by both parents and staff for many years. In February 2007, the then East Elementary PTA Board through input from parents and staff came up with the current procedures to follow during morning arrival and afternoon dismissal of students. These procedures were designed with the #1 priority as student safety and the #2 priority as efficiency for students riding the buses and getting rides from parents or other adults. The design was to improve usability and safety until something more permanent could be done to ensure the safety of students and pedestrians. Since 2007 nothing else has been done to improve the school's parking lot issues. The Objective The overall objective is to make the East Elementary Parking Lot safe and efficient. • Priority #1: Student & Pedestrian Safely Priority #2: Traffic Efficiency The Issues Both parents and school staff have identified the following issues. • Supervision of students who are dropped off in the Student Loading/Unloading Zone. Parents are "wailing" to move out of the parent pick up and drop off line until their child is safely in the building. Parents and other drivers am not following the procedures during arrival and dismissal causing safely issues and additional risk for students and pedestrians. • The parking lot is loo dark to adequately see pedestrians or other vehicles in the winter months. • There are not enough parking spaces to accommodate both parents and staff members needing to park their vehicles during arrival and dismissal times. • Both staff and parents are not parking in the appropriate marked areas. • Parking lot lines am difficult to impossible to see especially in the winter in the dark. • Snow removal is piled up on the wooded back side of the lot and impinges the flow of traffic by not providing adequate space for the back row of parking. There is not enough room for buses to efficiently maneuver. The Solutions The East Elementary Parking Lot Safety Committee identified the following recommendations that would solve the problems of safety and efficiency. At least one school staff member should be posted at the Student Loading/Unloading Zone during arrival and dismissal times to safely escort or otherwise supervise students actively getting in and out of parent vehicles. This staff member would also remind parents they may not park their car in this zone and also encourage them to move their vehicles as soon as possible when students have loaded or unloaded to maintain the efficiency of this parent pick up line. Page 136 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. • Volunteers both within the school parent community and outside the school from local service organizations should be actively sought to form teams of 2-3 volunteers to supervise the traffic of parents during arrival and dismissal times. These volunteers should be provided training from local law enforcement on how to manage tragic, crowds, or the occasional belligerent adults not willing to follow the parking lot procedures. They should also be provided with appropriate safety gear such as reflective vests and light wands. • Additional new lighting is required in several areas of the parking lot. One in the back comer near the baseball field, one on the far side of the lot at the enhance, one in the dumpster area, and one in the Student Loading[Unloading Zone. • Additional parking could be added by utilizing some of the baseball field, constructing an access road up to the unused blacktop area of the Primary Playground, and by utilizing some of the wooded area at the back of the parking lot. • Parking lot lines could be repainted on a routine basis and with high density yellow reflective paint. This would assist in maximizing parking potential. • A new area for snow removal could be achieved by utilizing the area between the dumpster and the exit. The sidewalk would need to be maintained and not impinged by the piles of snow. • Removing the school buses from the lot entirely would solve many traffic flow issues, get the students riding the buses into the building earlier so they arrive on time for school to start, and would improve the overall congestion in the lot. A Dedicated Bus Ramp or Loop utilizing the wooded lot and access mad/path behind the City of Kodiak Public Works lot and extending out the current sidewalk to join that new School Bus Loading/Unloading Zone would eliminate all but the Special Education and Handicap buses from the lot. This would allow a much greater loadinglunloading area for students needing rides from parents or other adults. CONCLUSION The parents and stag have identified the day to day safety issues of the East Elementary Parking Lot. Changes must happen and solutions to these issues are required BEFORE an incident happens that cannot be fixed like someone getting seriously hurt or killed. All of our children and pedestrians are at risk when walking in our parking lot under the current conditions. The solutions provided in this safety proposal are reasonable expectations to improve the safety of our school parking lot. Thank you for your consideration, East Elementary PTA Kerry Halter, President Melissa Magnuson, Vice President Amy Johnson, Treasurer Tammy Holforly, Secretary Luke Smith, Member Edcka Schauff, Member Bonnie Stobinski, Member December 4. 2012 Tania Silva -Johnson, Member Susan Patrick, Teacher Representative Chris Provost, Teacher Representafive Esther Furio, Teacher Representative Kathy Powers, School Principal Ann Kirven, Parent Facilitator Page 137 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... MEMORANDUM Date: March 30, 2011 To: Bud Cassidy, Kodiak Island Borough Community Development From: Joshua Cross, P.E. Subject: Scope of Work — Island Lake Trail, Mill Bay Access PROJECT OUTCOME Prepare construction and permitting documents for at Mill Bay in Kodiak, Alaska. This project is part project. SCOPE OF WORK The services described in this scope of wor ill b Borough's Professional Services Agreemen Civil Engineering Consulting and RelaALServic AGENDA ITEM #2.b. rstruction of beach access Island Lake Trail Upgrade The proposed scope of work will consi%p1`TM%k ovJIRg tasks in accordance with the & Associates, Inc. for Task 1 — Survevino and Ma i. Lounsbury will perform tgaphiury of the existingMill Bay Beach recreation area seaward from Reza he existing parking lot and beach access. We will research the recpa a plan of survey. We will mobilize a two - person crew to Koe. Survey and Mapping efforts will include: • Locating 1&stcal fea es `vf ocate and map physical features, natural or man- made, that Id affec he design of the project. • Locating geot i orings - Locate and map geotechnical bore holes. • Locating Existing"giJtilities - Locate and map all existing improvements and utilities (above and underground) within the typical survey limits. These limits shall be extended as necessary to match the DTM limits. Overhead utility wire crossings shall be located at the existing and proposed centerlines; elevations for these points shall be the wire elevation. For below -grade structures, the frame top and pipe invert shall be recorded. Underground utilities shall be located according to information provided by the Locate Call Center (278-3121). • DTM Data - By conventional ground survey, define the existing ground surface by creating a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) sufficient to generate contours of two foot intervals. Page 138 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... �01�1aAff�c�v 5399 A Street Anchorage, Alaska 99519 T: 997-272.5451 F: 991 272.9965 IFs y 3161 E. Palmer-Wasilla Highway, Suite 2 Wasilla, Alaska 99654 T: 991-357-9129 F: 997-357-9149 'L�` i U N S B U R Y I N C. C i Page 138 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Island Lake Trail Upgrade —Mill Bay Beach Access Kodiak Island Borough Scope of Work P. 2 • Legal Boundaries - Lounsbury will recover and tie sufficient boundary control to show the parcel boundaries per the plat(s) of record. Vertical datum will be assumed on site. • Existing Conditions Survey drawing — Lounsbury will prepare a drawing showing the parcel boundaries, roadways, driveways, parking areas, bluff, beach and any improvements within the survey limits. Task 2 — Geotechnical Investigation Northern Geotechnical (NGE-TFT) will provide all geotechnical services to support the design of a beach access. The following tasks will be performed as geotechnical services: Task 2a. Field Explorations - Approximately four excavated along the face of the existing slope leading beach. The test pit locations will correspond with F pedestrian ramp and at least one test pit will be 1 existing kayaktraft launch (Figure 1). The test . v depth of approximately 10 feet bgs, or t e t encountered first). A representative of NG locations and collect appropriate samples r collected during the excavation activities will b ah the natural moisture content of the s labe lab for further identification and testin T I with the excavated spoils. Task 2b. Laboratory Testh to the lab for further identil properties and frost classifi moisture content, parl!!M testing will be perfot'med o the site. The rfumbers of encountered.i test pits are proposed to be u the parking area from the tial sites for the proposed long the alignment of the 11 xtended to a maximum droc ur a (whichever is be onsi to select the test pit ratory analysis. Soil samples d in air -tight bags (to preserve ccordingly, and returned to our will be subsequently backfilled the Vples obtained in the field will be returned Llesti?%. The soil samples will be tested for index 5MMpriate. The index property tests may include )ution, and organic content. Frost classification A may affect the performance of paved areas at rt may be altered depending on the materials Task 2c. Geotechnf por1 - A geotechnical report will be prepared which will present the data collectLrd In the field; including graphical test pit logs depicting the subsurface conditions encountered at each test pit. The report will also include the results of the laboratory analyses, as well as engineering recommendations for future foundations and pavement sections based on the lab results and observations made in the field. Deliverables Geotechnical Report — One copy as PDF and one paper copy. lounsbury & associates, inc. Page 139 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Island Lake Trail Upgrade — Mill Bay Beach Access Kodiak Island Borough Scope of Work Task 3 — Permitting Solstice Consulting will provide permitting services to support the construction of a beach access. Lounsbury will provide engineering support for permitting tasks. The following will be performed as Permitting services: Task 3a. Intertidal Assessment - Solstice will travel to Kodiak for one day to complete a field assessment of the project area. Work will involve documenting intertidal species (invertebrates and algae) present, substrate characteristics, and any degradation of the area. While in Kodiak, Solstice will discuss the project and potential mitigation options with project officials. It is possible that meetings with agencies will occur while in Kodiak to determine the importance of the site. Solstice will draft a short memorandum documenting the findings from the field. The memo will focus on the ecological functions and human values of the proposed project area. Task 3b. Permit Application Preparation - Solstice applications and environmental consultations: • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Wetland Water • Alaska Department of Natural Program Coastal Project Questic Determination the following permit below Ordinary High Alaska Coastal Management (forceable Policies Consistency • National Oceanic and Atmosp I is?tion (NOAA) Fisheries Essential Fish Habitat Consultation • State Historic Presery Ice nsultation • Endangered Speci Act C sultation with NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se In addition, Sole o ly discuss the project with regulatory agencies to determine wheother rm and environmental authorizations are needed, including a Statlands L se. A project descriptio inJTormation provided by Lounsbury will be written to meet the needs and requiren1W of the permit applications. Task 3c. Agency Follow up - Agency questions and additional information needs will be addressed as needed. Once permits are issued, a permit commitments memorandum will be drafted to clearly advise the contractor of the permit stipulations. Deliverables Field Visit Findings Memorandum — one copy as PDF Permit Applications — copies as required by the Borough and Permitting Agencies Permit Commitments Memorandum — one copy as PDF lounsbury & associates, inc. Page 140 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Island Lake Trail Upgrade — Mill Bay Beach Access Kodiak Island Borough Scope of Work o.4 Task 4 — Design Study/Memorandum Lounsbury will prepare a design memorandum summarizing design evaluations, preliminary costs, and recommendations. The following alternatives will be evaluated: • Beach Access — Stairs • Beach Access — Ramp • Raft/Kayak Access — Ramp A draft design memorandum will be submitted for Borough review and comment. Comments will be incorporated into a final design memorandum. Deliverables Draft design memorandum — one copy as PDF Compilation of comments and responses — one e Final design memorandum — one electronic copy Based on acceptance of the Design specifications, and estimates for the completed as PS&E tasks: Task 5a. Draft PS&E package — P� estimate of the selected alternative review and comment. copy as PDF and one paper copy will prepare plans, following will be specifications, and engineer's to Kodiak Island Borough for Lounsbury will prepare pla a ing3Nuction proposed location of the access on the project site, locations of wn turexisting topography, locations of physical improvements, existing ac a details. Lounsbury will preya c speci ons pertaining to the construction of the proposed access. Applicablg permit d ants will be included as appendices. Final plans will be signed an 'sealed by Registered Professional Engineer of record. Lounsbury will prep n ' is estimates for Kodiak Island Borough's use. Task 5b. Final PS& ckage — Comments on the Draft PS&E package will be incorporated into a final PS&E package. The final PS&E package will be submitted to the Kodiak Island Borough for bidding and construction purposes. Deliverables Draft PS&E package — one electronic copy as PDF for Borough review and comment. Compilation of comments and responses — one electronic copy as PDF Final PS&E package — one electronic copy as PDF, and one paper copy: plans as 22x34, unbound specifications as 8.5x11, and estimate as 8.5x11 lounsbury & associates, inc. Page 141 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Island Lake Trail Upgrade — Mill Bay Beach Access Kodiak Island Borough Scope of Work Task 6 — Bidding and Construction Su000rt Lounsbury will assist the Borough during bidding and construction of the proposed access. The assistance shall be performed by personnel that were in responsible charge during the planning and design phases of the project. Lounsbury will assist the Borough in providing clarification of the bid documents, identifying work or materials that do not satisfy the requirements of the construction documents and resolving construction problems as they arise. Deliverables Bid Clarification — format as required Construction Support—format as required Submittal review— format as required Task 7 — Construction Inspections Lounsbury will perform an inspection of the cor will be performed at the Borough's request. inspections, Lounsbury will submit a separate; Construction Inspection Services. 10 ITEMS PROVIDED BY KODIAK Existing Information The Borough will provide records. These items y� plans, and permit exh' s. Additional inspections to perform additional and fee estimate for matics, existing permits, and land project related maps, engineering Surveying and Mappm If Lounsbury i on to perform Task 1 - Surveying and Mapping, the Borough wi lk guide al rve documentation and electronic mapping necessary to complete s 2 thr gh 5. Survey documentation includes copies of field notes, electrorift!a,0 a survey control sheet printed on a 22x34 sheet signed and sealed by a li professional surveyor. Electronic mapping will include a drawing file (or files7 with the survey control sheet, base map, and a surface model. Drawings will be provided in Autodesk 2009 Civil 3D format with .dwg file extensions. The electronic map will clearly depict those items described in Task 1. Permitting The Borough will provide additional documentation necessary for completing permit applications. Additional documentation includes items not readily available or prepared by Lounsbury but required by local, state and federal regulations. Permits and/or permit packages will be signed and submitted by the Borough. lounsbury & associates, inc. Page 142 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Island Lake Trail Upgrade — Mill Bay Beach Access Kodiak Island Borough Scope of Work Reviews The Borough will review draft plans, specifications, and estimates. Comments will be provided in Microsoft Word format. Right of Entry The Borough will obtain written authorization for entry on all parcels as required for survey activities COMPENSATION Billing Grou Task Estimated Fee Cumulative Total 1 Surveying and Mapping $ 10,859 $ 10,859 2 Geotechnical Investigation $ 6,314 $ 17,173 3 Permitting $ 0,710 $ 27,883 4 Design Memorandum 8,140 $ 36,023 5a Pre PS&E 5,813 $ 51,835 5b Final PS&E $75 $ 56,810 6 Biddin Assistance $ 0 $ 57,470 7 Construction Assistance 4,500 $ 61,970 This estimate assumes the PS&E t; raft/kayak access. Based on the Lounsbury will revise the estime P; I Nan design a pedestrian �� a Design Memorandum t Lounsbury will complete al;he ks a e and Materials Basis. related to each task area d. t ertaining to travel, lodg and other directly related a submitted for compensatic Surveying and Ma me a single mobilization and den this and other cts. e s may increase if Lounsbury is perform surveyin sks for other projects. lounsbury & associates, inc. Does not Costs not authorized to Page 143 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... FEE PROPOSAL - ENGINEERING PROJECT. Island Lake Trail Upgrade - Mill Bay Access CLIENT: Kodiak Island Borough Date: 30 -Mar -11 Estimator: J. Cross Revision: PROJECT COST SUMMARY: Task AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Basic Svcs Addl Svcs Combined Total Total Total PUBLIC & AGENCY INVOLVEMENT $0 1 SURVEYING 8 MAPPING $10,859 2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 14 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING $0 3 PERMITTING $10,7 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATI $0 4 DESIGN STUDY REPORT I MEMORANDUM RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION $8,140 $0 5a DRAFTP! 5b FINAL PS BID CHE( 6 BIDDING 7 CONSTUI TOTAL BASIC SERVICES: � TOTAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES: TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT.' 313012011 Mill _Bay_Access_Estimate K1e03.xlsx, Summary $15,813 $4,975 $0 $0 $0 $56,810 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $660 $4,500 $5,160 $0 $10,859 $6,314 $0 $10,710 $0 $8,140 $0 $15,813 $4,975 $0 $660 $4,500 $61,970 Lounsbury Associates, Inc. 1 of 17 Surveyors Engineers Planners Page 144 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Page 145 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... �a Y m y' 'a H 3 m m c o V � Y W H y C Q � > > r � N N w G 0 = J 0o cl O U v H O o lop U 1 1111111111111 N N AJ -2 aUo � 3 00 t y N u j N U � E ¢ O o mea' E _ Iq PP O � J N �aN U N Q d N N m w a � c � m c r z 2 � c z mtioo S o N 0N _ O WOW ui E .> W K-�Ama Page 145 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Page 146 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... �d Y m D m" d FcT M d M d V m H 0 Y W F ¢ 12 it ti it m v'� y C - J � o O U v rn 00 00 m m N � 3o o 2 2 U m ry m m N m� N i 3 w m o t R N M O ao m N O m m b3 U � E x O O m d o w E 2 C O m N O t J h U � ¢ aN m� m O � � m a m � m � c m c O s N = m U .c a Y mo m O N ~� K W F- o O W E o O C ml W J N N W w � wallow¢ Page 146 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... D Page 146 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2& Page @,a Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist A. JE �! �, I® \ {) ;a . ; \� ; (§—\ Ui ( � LLI §) $« ® \ \§ � \ 15 f t6 — ! \8#�lm! §k Page @,a Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist A. AGENDA ITEM #2a Page @,a Capital Improvement Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... ) k( /\ // f` 2 \ §ca| $! \) 00 K I OD\ ; ))o§ § /% � a 0 R {] « � :r12 § \ \ 2 i k �§t®,, � tl,, ~ & �= Z 2 -1 -Wz |!!z !!� - M �_ ))§/)j | ; § § ; § \\ §\ Page @,a Capital Improvement Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA 7£m #2a Page 149 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... ����► 1 � \/ � < � \) #[ `w00 (aa. ����� -\)| 111111111111: 01lu -£ I: \\ E/ ,5 !§ _ :_ C) / ! ) _ I( Page 149 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... ����► 1 � AGENDA 7£m #2& Page ee,& G�lImprovement Projm List Discussion With Lobbyist )§ 12 \� � k \ !| HIM I /\ �� ��� ������►������� m § ) 1% \ \t\ n \ 22f Kk) - \ : 01 02! ] ! 01 +§ 0Q J §(\§kj ��������1111 (/ Page ee,& G�lImprovement Projm List Discussion With Lobbyist � A. AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Page 151 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... i am =A N' a m w x N m E ~ � W N o 7 N C O J Oo m U m � 3 00 m a O a t U w m � o E S w T m W o v tai U y m U C Q ag wm O c Na � 0 a o c 0 ,�.� °• w dtio � m o N C Y o a E Z m z m wl N U LL rn o L w w 1:41 `o o O WUY a;z ,o WOW v E> $ omi W a' J i V" 0 U �E LLa(30w¢11111111111111101111111 Page 151 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... i Page 151 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Page 152 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... i� 7 F N B F V N n •V ~ O W o o o VOj C y �'n H C: 0 Oe h 00 U _ N 2 U p� m N m OFN 6 ¢ g ¢ ¢ OO ¢ ¢ c ryppu OO �. Un em s =z dv mv= y v � m 10 N op E K W o o Q Q m ¢ r c U r a � o � E S o m V~1 U u1 w m o L U d ry U CQ T a O. a Cm Z $ U p a O,,..,. o U 0 ya � � C Qe K o O y ti o m o xa p in t m m e > p J m - Q a� m a N ❑ �. m Z U - C7 c aO.T i r WOW v E Lu LLRUO Page 152 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... i� 7 Page 152 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Page 153 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... s� N w i W v a� y Q � a a � 7, y e e 0 ? = F a JJ III S O J a$ L) 0 m U e c � 3 0 0 o a 8 NWS' 0 q E W o F v o E to .N U W y � g y d ry U OU O Q am n� N 4 c � o IL d m xi r b J m j N m s a d = U wi O o 6 K U Y `o o 13 c a. LU O W ui E S RUO ¢ � IWi W Page 153 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... s� Page 153 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2b Page 154 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist me... .. IM���������������������� | \\ ����������� MII������������������������������ ); § }� POP rdIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111 11 ME����������������������������� \ j \ ���������/����►���������������������� \ 1E w � 0 'g■\, n Ca 0 k\LL / \#\ X ƒ(| § ` m2! ] !®) a. §|a2 Page 154 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist me... ����������� AGENDA ITEM #2 & � Page 155 of 174 Capital mp _mom Project List Discussion With Lob ► � � 3� , ■� e (� 5 \k 115, RAP 00 zf0Ilk,: � \ W �\ /} 0 l�m� 00 cna 2g! 0 a : _ IL �( � Page 155 of 174 Capital mp _mom Project List Discussion With Lob ► � +kms. AGENDA ITEM #2a Page 156 @,a Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... �����������I���■■����� \ ; }�\§� }12j\` � �!�! E LU 0UCo k% \ })6 � \ !%k | 2)\ ] ! # bMU1 e« Mown! Page 156 @,a Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... �����������I���■■����� AGENDA ITEM #2.b. N a r Page 157 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE e' � m o V a O _ w` N � � m y C i = O ev J 8 Nu^ a$ �o Un 30 No wC)9 m U w F € o e L 8 ^ 3 dab . m u � m� E 0� W o c — d m o w E _ E tam U W Ri y fig^ y y d n C � O A io y U)UF W m d j o c lL d m Yi _J m W En L m na y N mx d E = (L O awe 00 m W O W d E s �°1111111131111111111 oilIII 95 5 IWi aW D: Page 157 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... e' Page 157 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2 b Page 158 @,a Capital mp _mom Project List Discussion With Lobbyist ������ I - 0 _ J E / �IAN����� \) jae is-- � INAI����� -- - �\ \ �\ M/ IINI ; {!§ 0wiZ\ \ 00 \k \\% } \ ! ■ . ` 02 ) 2 -75 [2)2§J ;, _ Page 158 @,a Capital mp _mom Project List Discussion With Lobbyist ������ m. AGENDA 7£m #2a Page 159 @,a Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... � ������ � ƒ| ] )\ �` 0 ' L) � )) )\ ( 2P �\LLI §}@/LU a - CQ \ � \ S6 z 2§]Ln �)k - ! 1 J ! - G!! ! _ ! Be! 2� 2 2 \ LU LU 0 \M \ jjL �; Page 159 @,a Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... � ������ AGENDA ITEM #2 & Page 160 @,a Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist A. \� #| �. !! 2 !! - o co co. r! f - - a `~° �! - - �) \ ) §\�\ _- 000� § k `#-- k U ! , /7 ;) / _ ! k ! l !- _ -� �! Zi -a t . Page 160 @,a Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist A. A. AGENDA ITEM #2.b. NORTHERN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, INC. / TERRA FIRMA TESTING February 22, 2011 Lounsbury & Associates, Inc. 5300 A Street Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Attn: Josh Cross, P.E. Proposal 11-29 RE: COST PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATIONS AT THE MILL BAY BEACH ACCESS SITE, KOD K, ALASKA Josh, Per your request, Northern Geotechnical Engi mg, Inc. d. b. erra Firma Testing (NGE-TFT) is pleased to present this cost pr I t nduct geotechnical explorations at the above referenced site. The site is located along the east side o`e in Kodiak, Alaska (Figure 1). The site consists of a vehicle utLrdoto arking area with an unimproved kayak/raft launch ramp le sbeach. The parking area sits approximately 12-15 feeve round surface slopes moderately down towards the b ck outcrops adjacent to the site are visible in aerial photography oft 11 re , d shallow bedrock likely underlies the site. Proposed improv [s toilsite include improvements to the existing kayak/raft launch ramp and/or t ruction of an ADA accessible ramp and/or staircase which would lead from [he par mg area to the beach. Improvements to the kayak/raft launch ramp are envisioned to consist of pre -formed concrete slabs placed adjacent to one another along the existing launch ramp alignment. The location of the proposed pedestrian ramp/stairs is currently uncertain. Scope of Work The proposed work is divided into three tasks described below: • Task 1 — Field Explorations. Approximately four test pits are proposed to be excavated along the face of the existing slope leading up to the parking area from the beach. The test pit locations will correspond with potential sites for the Page 161 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Me... Mill nay Beach Access Lounsbury & Assoc. Febnrary 22, 2011 AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Proposal 11-29 proposed pedestrian ramp and at least one test pit will be located along the alignment of the existing kayak/raft launch (Figure 1). The test pits will be extended to a maximum depth of approximately 10 feet bgs, or to the bedrock surface (whichever is encountered first) and will be approximately 24 four feet in width and 10-15 feet in length. A representative of NGE-TFT will be onsite to select the test pit locations and collect appropriate samples for laboratory analysis. Soil samples collected during the excavation activities will be sealed in air -tight bags (to preserve the natural moisture content of the samples), labeled accordingly, and returned to our lab for further identification and testing. The test pits will be subsequently backfilled with the excavated spoils and the test pit locations marked in the field with survey lathe so they can be later surveyed. a Task 2 — Laboratory Testing. All of the sam btained in the field will be returned to the lab for further identification ash a soil samples will be tested for index properties and frost cl cation as ropriate. The index property tests may include moisture co I, p le size dis ibution, and organic content. Frost classification testing will rmed on soils that may affect the performance of paved areas at te. The hers of each test may be altered depending on the materials enco Task 3 —Report. a port 11 be prepared which will present the data collected in the fi incl be test pit logs depicting the subsurface conditions encounte ach to It. The report will also include the results of the labors e , well as engineering recommendations for future foundat and pa ent ctions based on the lab results and observations made in t Id. Schedule 1W The tasks described above can commence immediately upon receipt of written approval to proceed. Field activities can usually be completed in about 10-15 business days, depending upon excavation contractor availability and resolution of any utility conflicts. The lab work can usually be finished in about 10 days, depending on the backlog in the lab at the time. Interpretation of the laboratory data, preparation of the test pit logs and figures, and finalizing the report will be completed about two to three weeks following receipt of the laboratory test data. NGC -TFT 11301 Olive Lane, Anchorage, AK 99515 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... Page 2 Page 162 of 174 Mill nay Beach Access Lounsbury & Assoc. February 22, 2011 AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Proposal 11-29 Assumptions and Cost Cost to complete the work is presented on the table below. These costs include a 10% markup for outside services handled through this office. The costs assume that the work will be conducted in thawed. If seasonally frozen soils are encountered, then additional excavation effort will likely be required at additional cost. NGE-TFT is not responsible for surveying the proposed launch/ramp/stair locations or test pit locations, and the test pit locations will be estimated from the drawings/photos provided by the client. The proposed scope can modified at any time to satisfy project requirements/objectives. Billing will be on a time and material basis, using the rates shown below. The total cost will not be exceeded without prior written approval. TASK 2 - $920 Moisture Conte 10.0 $14 ea $140 COST ESTIMATE 2.0 $90 ea Quantity Subtotal Total TASK 1 - FIELD EXPLORATIONS $185 ea $3,474 Site Evaluation/Utility Locates $1,000 da $500 Mob/Demob drill excavator 0 400 ea $400 Excavator/operator $165 hr $660 Geotech Geologist 0. 1,000 day $500 Mob/Demob Geotech Geologist 2.0 $160 hr (includes RT airfare) $675 ea $675 Per Diem 1.5 $261 ea $392 Vehicle Rental 1.5 $165 day $248 Sample freight 1.0 $100 ea $100 TASK 2 - $920 Moisture Conte 10.0 $14 ea $140 Grainsize 2.0 $90 ea $180 Frost Classification 2.0 $185 ea $370 Percent Passing #200 4.0 $45 ea $180 Organic content 1.0 $50 ea $50 TASK 3 - REPORT $1,920 Engineering Analysis 2.0 $160 hr $320 Laboratory Compilation 3.0 $100 hr $300 Drafting Logs and Figures 5.0 $100 hr $500 Report 8.0 $100 hr $800 PROJECT TOTAL NGE-TFT 11301 Olive Lane, Anchorage, AK 99515 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... $6,314 Page 3 Page 163 of 174 AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Mill nay Beach Access Proposal 11-29 Lounsbury & Assoc. February 22, 2011 The work will be completed in accordance with the attached terms and conditions. Approval of the above scope and cost can be authorized by signature below. A fax copy (344-5993) of this signed last page of the proposal returned to this office will constitute a notice to proceed. This opportunity to propose on this work is greatly appreciated. If you wish to change the scope or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience at (907)344-5934. Sincerely, Northern Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. d.b.a. Terra Firma Testing, � A40 Andy Smith Keith F. Mobley, P.E. Project Geologist President Client Signature: Date: NGF -TFT Paee a 11301 Olive Lane, Anchorage, AK 99515 Page 164 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Page 165 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b.I F1 Page 166 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... o�� c 0 om r 0 i c 0 y m R O e a E a 2 n O sv m o� u v� o n` � S 3' u o _ - n � s o z 0 Go O x 2 6 6 1- O m m m O vi O C N N f U O m O m 00 p 00 m 6 C O H ei U O � C a a„ m a o LL _ ¢ c Page 166 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Meagan Christiansen From: Greene, Robert M (DOT) <robert.greene@alaska.gov> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:19 PM To: Meagan Christiansen Subject: RE: Chiniak Highway at Sargent Creek This is pretty much spot on. If the Borough will continue to help with ensuring the needs are there, it will help on our end to make sure this work gets completed. Robert M Greene TMS II Kodiak Aleutian District Superintendent 150o Anton Larsen Road Kodiak Alaska 99615 907-487-4952 Office 907-487-498 Fax Keep Alaska Moving through service and injastructure From: Meagan Christiansen fmailto:mchristiansen6kodiakak.u— Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:03 PM To: Greene, Robert M (DOT) Subject: FW: Chiniak Highway at Sargent Creek Sorry, missed the end of the description... From: Meagan Christiansen Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:01 PM To: 'Greene, Robert M (DOT)' Subject: RE: Chiniak Highway at Sargent Creek Thank you for the response. Following is the description we used last year in our Capital Improvement Projects list, can you please let me know if it is accurate or share suggested revisions with me? Drainage Improvements to the Chiniak Highway at Sargent Creek Estimated Project Cost $54,000 Heavy rains along with high tides consistently cause Sargent Creek to flood and diverge from its channel and flood the intersection of the Chiniak Highway and Sargent Creek Road. This intersection is the only roadway in and out of Bells Flats subdivision. The flooding occurring here impedes safe travel and often leaves motorists stranded and unable to reach homes or critical services located in town. Page 167 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. KIB requests that the DOT in Kodiak be provided funding to construct spot improvements for bank stabilization, armoring, and rechanneling as needed to keep the Sargent Creek in its channel and stop the flooding of the roadway. Thanks, Meagan From: Greene, Robert M (DOT) rmailto:robertareeneaalaska.aovl Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 11:38 AM To: Meagan Christiansen Subject: RE: Chiniak Highway at Sargent Creek We have some funding from our General Fund, we were going to do the work during the window we would be allowed to be in the river. Right of Way needed concurrence from the property owner outside of the ROW and that has stalled the project. We still need the Borough to Support this work as the question of why we are doing it has come up from some new players in DOT. Robert M Greene TMS II Kodiak Aleutian District Superintendent 15oo Anton Larsen Road Kodiak Alaska 99615 907-487-4952 Office 907-487-4913 Fax Keep Alaska Moving through service and infastructure From: Meagan Christiansen rmailto:mchristiansenCalkodiakak.usl Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 10:54 AM To: Greene, Robert M (DOT) Subject: Chinlak Highway at Sargent Creek HI Rob, I am following up on a conversation that former Borough Manager Bud Cassidy had with you approximately a year ago regarding the need to construct minor improvements near the intersection of the Chiniak Highway and Sargent Creek Road due to periodic flooding events. I am wondering if funding has been provided to your department to make the improvements or if there is still an ongoing need for the Borough to support your efforts to resolve the problem? Page 168 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Thanks Meagan Meagan Christiansen Special Projects Support Kodiak Island Borough 907-486-4323 mchristiansen@kodiakak.us Page 169 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Introduced by: Requested by: Drafted by: Introduced: Amended: Adopted: KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH RESOLUTION NO. FY2016-09 AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Borough Manager Borough Assembly Special Projects Support 1110512015 11/052015 11/05/2015 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ADOPTING A STATE LEGISLATIVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PRIORITY LIST FOR THE 2016 LEGISLATIVE SESSION WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough represents approximately 14,000 residents of the Kodiak Island Archipelago living in six incorporated cities and one community governed by a tribal council government; and WHEREAS, a Borough—wide capital improvement program has been adopted by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission which identifies major needs of the island community for the next five years; and WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly has identified major projects to submit to the Alaska Governor and State Legislative Delegation for funding consideration; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH THAT: Section 1: The Kodiak Island Borough's State Legislative capital improvement project priorities for the 2016 legislative session are as follows: 1. MN Tustumena Replacement Vessel Construction Estimated Project Cost $238,000,000 State Funding Request $50,000,000 The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is currently in the process of designing the MN Tustumena replacement vessel. The MN Tustumena was built in 1964 and serves the communities of South Central, Kodiak Island and Southwest Alaska. It is one of two ocean class vessels in the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) fleet. Because of its size and design, it is the only AMHS vessel that is capable of serving all 13 ports of call between Homer and Unalaska. Retiring and replacing the MN Tustumena with a vessel that is equally, if not more, versatile and seaworthy will provide reliable marine transportation service well into the future for the communities, residents and businesses in South Central, Kodiak Island and Southwest Alaska (from the Alaska Marine Highway System website). The MN Tustumena is an essential service to the communities of Kodiak Island. As such, the Kodiak Island Borough is requesting that the Governor plan to include in the capital budget a $50,000,000 deposit into the Vessel Replacement Fund to provide funding for the construction of the replacement vessel. Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2016-09 Page 1 of 4 Page 170 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. 51 2. Anton Larsen Bay Road Extension to Ice Free Water 52 Estimated Project Cost $8,450,000 53 KIB Funding Source: Ouzinkie Native Corp, SIDCO 450,000 54 State Funding Request $8,000,000 55 56 An extension of the Anton Larsen Bay Road to ice free waters will provide year around 57 access to those communities located in the Kupreanof Strait as well as those who use the 58 island's west side for commercial and recreational purposes. Many times during the year 59 travel by vessel to/from Kodiak is treacherous. Extending the road to ice free waters 60 makes traveling safer, providing access to critical services located in the City of Kodiak 61 including hospitals and businesses. This route was identified in the Kodiak Transportation 62 Plan as an important upland facility. 63 64 The Ouzinkie Native Corporation subsidiary, Spruce Island Development Corporation 65 (SIDCO) received a $450,000 legislative grant for planning and design. With that grant 66 funding SIDCO is working with DOT finalizing the route and developing a more formal cost 67 estimate. 68 69 Funding is requested from DOT for construction of this road as it is an extension of an 70 existing stale roadway. Additionally, the land owner, Ouzinkie Native Corporation, has 71 agreed to donate ownership of the road right-of-way to the State when construction 72 funding is obtained; and another local organization, Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak, is working to 73 obtain BIA or other road grant funding to support the project. 74 75 76 3. East Elementary Traffic Flow Improvements 77 Estimated Project Cost $2,000,000 78 State Funding Request $2,000,000 79 80 There is a safety issue in the East Elementary School parking lot. The school was 81 constructed in 1966 with a substantial addition in 1988. The facility now totals 39,842 82 square feet with twenty-five teaching stations. Since the expansion, increased traffic flows 83 due to business development in the area have created dangerous vehicle/student hazards 84 when students are entering and leaving school. Reconfiguration of the parking area will 85 reduce risks by providing for a safer separation of pedestrians, small vehicle traffic and 86 bus loading/unloading. The project will require an increase in the total area of the parking 87 lot to allow adequate parking to support increased building usage and occupant load. 88 89 4. Drainage Improvements to the Chiniak Highway at Sargent Creek 90 Estimated Project Cost $54,000 91 State Funding Request $54,000 92 93 Heavy rains along with high tides consistently cause Sargent Creek to flood and diverge 94 from its channel. This causes flooding at the intersection of the Chiniak Highway and 95 Sargent Creek Road. This intersection is the only roadway in and out of Bells Flats 96 subdivision. The flooding occurring here impedes safe travel and often leaves motorists 97 stranded and unable to reach homes or critical services located in town. 98 99 This request is to provide the DOT in Kodiak funding to construct spot improvements for 100 bank stabilization, armoring, and rechanneling as needed to keep the Sargent Creek in its 101 channel and stop the flooding of the roadway. Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2016-09 Page 2 of 4 Page 171 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.h. 102 5. Service Area Road Improvements and Paving 103 Estimated Project Cost $5,000,000 104 State Funding Request $5,000,000 105 106 This project addresses the on-going need to improve portions of Borough Service Area 107 roads. There are approximately 26 miles of road among four Road Service Areas that 108 connect residential neighborhoods with the greater Kodiak community. Paving projects will 109 address main thoroughfares or busy neighborhood roads. Improvements to major 110 drainage courses, installation of guard rails, and other identified road improvement needs 111 may also be addressed with this funding. Priorities will be given to collector roadways 112 with relatively higher volume use and further based on recommendations made by the 113 elected service area boards. 114 115 116 6. Fire Protection Area No. 1 Fire Tankerfrender Vehicle 117 Estimated Project Cost $420,000 118 KIB Funding Sources: Service Area Funds $320,000 119 State Funding Request $100,000 120 121 The Bayside Fire Station provides fire protection to the residents and visitors of Fire 122 Protection Area No. 1. Bayside Fire Station's existing fire tanker/tender vehicle that 123 serves the area is 32 years old and in need of replacement. The estimated cost of a new 124 fully equipped 3,000 gallon fire tank/tender vehicle delivered to Kodiak is $420,000. Fire 125 Protection Area No. 1 has $320,000 to fund the purchase of the vehicle. The remaining 126 $100,000 required to complete the purchase is requested. 127 128 129 7. Mill Bay Beach Access Upgrade 130 Estimated Project Cost $200,000 131 State Funding Request $200,000 132 133 Mill Bay Beach is a recreational area heavily used by residents, sport fishermen and 134 community groups who come to access this beach site close to town. Time, tide and use 135 have eroded safe access to the two stretches of beach at this site. The project has been 136 through the design and engineering process. New construction items proposed for this 137 project include new stairs, walkways, and trail enhancements between the two beaches 138 as well as a small raft/kayak launch. 139 140 141 8. Monashka Bay Water and Sewer Project: Feasibility, Planning and Design 142 Estimated Project Cost $500,000 143 State Funding Request $500,000 144 145 There are 256 residential parcels that lie outside the reach of the existing sanitary sewer 146 and public water utilities in the Monashka Bay area. The soil and topography in this area 147 are not ideal for septic systems and many are failing. The construction of a wastewater 148 treatment facility at the Kodiak landfill provides an option for future expansion that could 149 include sanitary sewer treatment for the residents of this area. Water in this neighborhood 150 is provided by wells, cisterns and more frequently by tank from a distant public source. 151 Water quality and quantity are questionable in the Monashka Bay Neighborhood. 152 Extension of water service from the City of Kodiak will be needed. A feasibility study, Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2016-09 Page 3 of 4 Page 172 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... AGENDA ITEM #2.b. 153 planning and design is the first step in providing water and sewer services to the residents 154 of the Monashka Bay area. 155 156 157 Section 2: The Kodiak Island Borough administration is hereby instructed to advise 158 our State of Alaska Governor and Legislative Delegation of the Capital Improvement 159 Projects Priority List adopted by the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly. 160 161 ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 162 THIS FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 163 ATTEST: 164 Nova M. Javier, NWC, Borough Clerk Kodiak Island Borough Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Ma... KODIAK ISLAND BOROU H J, rrol Frien ,'gorough Mayor Resolution No. FY2016-09 Page 4 of 4 Page 173 of 174 AGENDA ITEM #2.b. Memorandum To: Kodiak Island Borough Assembly From: Spruce Island Development Corporation Duncan Fields, Contact Date: 9/26/16 Subject: Request to Prioritize Anton Larsen Bay Road Extension On M 2017 CIP list Spruce Island Development Corporation, SIDCO, a non-profit community development corporation consisting of the City of Ouzinkie, Ouzinkie Tribal Council and the Ouzinkie Native Corporation. SIDCO is requesting $8,000,000.00 in State funding to complete a 2.1 mile extension of the Anton Larsen Bay road to year - around salt water. Ouzinkie is contributing about $2,800,000 in right-of-way value and Koniag, Inc. is expected to donate in excess of $1,000,000 in subsurface value. In addition to the Ouzinkie entities and Koniag, Inc., the project is strongly supported by the Sun'aq tribe, City and Village of Port lions, Native Village of Afognak, Afognak Native Corporation, Kodiak Rural Forum and Kodiak residents that use Anton Larsen Bay as a boat launch and departure point. An initial grant of $450,000.00 was granted to SIDCO through the 2012 legislative capital budget. This money was used for LIDOR imaging with the remainder going to the Alaska Department of Transportation for routing, design and preliminary engineering as well as cost estimation. DOT recently concluded that project completion would cost approximately $8,000,000.00. The Anton Larsen Bay road extension is a safety and protection of life project that has been on both the KIB and the Ouzinkie CIP lists for most of the past 20 years. The continued identification of this project as important to Kodiak Island is an indication of the importance of the project to the Kodiak community and reflects ongoing concerns about Ouzinkie and Port Lion's emergency access to Kodiak. The project also has economic development enhancement possibilities. Koniag, Inc.'s rock quarry is about 3 miles away. Year around access for rock shipments could substantially reduce transportation costs for the quarry. Thousands of sportsmen use Anton Larsen Bay as a departure point during the summer. If winter access were obtained, many of these recreation users would expand their use of the area. Page 174 of 174 Capital Improvement Project List Discussion With Lobbyist Me... Impact of Fisheries on General Fund Revenue FY2016 - General Fund General Fund Revenues Source FY16 Actual Property & Ad Valorem Taxes $ 163,700 PILT (Payment In Lieu of Taxes) 1,670,540 Severance Taxes - Fish 1,369,076 Severance Taxes - Other 95,479 Penalties & Interest 145,067 Permits 66,151 Federal & State - Fish 1,402,690 Federal & State - Non fish 1,063,597 Interest earnings 54,211 Miscellaneous 465,684 $ 6,496,196 L 0 " ♦ ♦ KIB Fish Tax FY2007-16 2,000,000 1,800,000 ♦ ♦ 1,600,000 ♦` ♦ 1,400,000 OP 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Q1iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ2 � Q3 — Q4 — — Total 9,000,000 8,000,000 -- 7,000,000 - 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 $1.3 million gap woe 3,000,000 2,000,000 4 Debt Service Expenditures 1,000,000 11—Budgeted Reimbursement --i--Actual Reimbursement FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 Kodiak Island Borough Specific Account Revenue Fiscal Year 1999-2016 NOTE: State year end final payments are received by the Borough after their fiscal year end. This creates differences between annual State reporting payment totals as found on the state website and annual Borough income totals. Fisheries Business Tax Landing Tax Fiscal Year Dept of Revenue Fish - DCED 1999 $ 855,077 $ 62,933 2000 $ 728,557 $ 105,423 20_01 $ 948,364 $ 58,583 _ _ 2002 ----------------------------- $ 1,287,345 $ 76,904 2003 $ 796,373 $ 44,395 20_04 $ 573,595 $ 76,333_ — 2005 — $ — — — 717,066 $ — 56,224 2006 $ 802,313 $ 62,877 958,965____$_____66,235_ ___20_07____$_ 2008 $ _ _ 1,059,161 $ 41,811 2009 $ 1,288,927 $ 55,382 2010----$ 1,339,575 $ 68,855_ — 2011 — $ — — 1,026,385 — $ — 88,859 2012 $ 1,405,360 $ 101,364 20_13 $-- 1,647,025 $ 110,532_ — 2014 — $ — -- — - 1,546,308 — $ — 97,679 2015 $ 1,561,675 $ 92,730 2016 $ 1,382,320 $ 20,370 NOTE: State year end final payments are received by the Borough after their fiscal year end. This creates differences between annual State reporting payment totals as found on the state website and annual Borough income totals. Kodiak Island Borough Fish Severance Tax Revenues Fiscal Year 2007-2016 Fiscal Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Year Jul - Se Oct - Dec Jan - Mar (Apr -Jun) Total 2007 452,345 274,961 267,827 290,165 1,285,298 2008 478,073 269,908 311,534 349,738 1,409,253 238,170_ 185,957 _ 276,386 _ _1,28_9,694 _ _2009 _ 2010 _ _589,181_ 511,161 149,095 _ _ 284,057 343,380 1,287,693 2011 568,314 181,182 405,994 427,786 1,583,276 228,854_ 436,468 _ 430,473 _ _1,89_2,754 _ _2012 _ 2013 _ _796,959_ 734,259 234,181 _ _ 341,449 344,259 1,654,148 2014 814,126 189,724 350,783 360,862 1,715,495 2015_ _226,96_8 329,057 _322,908 _1,5_50,706 _ 2016 _671,773 544,807 282,182 217,857 324,230 1,369,076 a) u L i m0 y O H L Y m Q C a, m u aj Y � M a O Y N rn O O0 O H .D .-1 m ul n E m lrl m ul M V m M m N a V N lrl V m I, N N ul 0 V .O O N ul m m r N ON m O m h V' C lO m m I, tD n N1* V a -f N O H m N O O O O rn O M M M O O tD O M O ul T ul VJ .-I lO ul O ul M ul n It . or! V Ol N C a o C, to v m m o Y N M rV N w m N N .--I C O O O O O O O O O N w O O O O O O O O O O co n CD 0 o O c O o O O c .L m o vi 0 0 0 ul ui ul o m ri u O fV ul ul m r-1 V ON M M m M C m M U'I n m N rl N N W m N 1!'1 ul m CY LD m ul m LO I, WI O O O O O O O O O O O O O N m N rV M M N m rV m N M Y ]. rp N rV N rV N N N N N N N N d � Q m M V Q m Q m I, n 'Cool 0 O r•'I N N r -I N ul ul m m a . C CA CA 0 0 CA CA 0 0 0 0 0CA CA 0 mN N N N N N N N w w Q M m ui m n O^ W N N m O N N N Ol � m N Z � n o c In .-� ul m ut m O m on a n' rri uiI, r% CA a ui rr o ui Oi U) +• a V m m N N M m a O m V m O M M N m N V M ow M N m o IN vm In an n wm M rn rn .o M I' O N M n v T on m o m 1, m 1, n ul o ,0m y I; m l� .� I; m m rn m .v v o O ; ° E: m ao N of ut O W rri z n m m ry Ln vl rn o ti .� m 11 In m m .y v .� m IN O ti Q. E r tn In V} 1/} t/? V} VT V} 1D In m o m m rn v m m m m Q' m m ti n o m m n v M No c m^ m n m m ul CM n m O m W ul O uJ N M ul M Ol O Ol m W Y E II, m rn I� m y ul a m n m rn N "1 V CY V .--I N N M M N on vl w r4 'i m E a Y O` a O O` O -g P O O O` C 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W m n 'C m n n I, I\ n n r n E m O h � Y f0 � E Cr rn O O0 O H .D .-1 m ul n E m lrl m ul M V m M m N a V N lrl V m I, N N ul 0 V .O O N ul m m r N ON m O m h V' C lO m m I, tD n N1* V a -f N O H m N O O O O rn O M M M O O tD O M O ul T ul VJ .-I lO ul O ul M ul n It . or! V Ol N C a o C, to v m m o Y N M rV N w m N N .--I C O O O O O O O O O N w O O O O O O O O O O co n CD 0 o O c O o O O c .L m o vi 0 0 0 ul ui ul o m ri u O fV ul ul m r-1 V ON M M m M C m M U'I n m N rl N N W m N 1!'1 ul m CY LD m ul m LO I, WI O O O O O O O O O O O O O N m N rV M M N m rV m N M Y ]. rp N rV N rV N N N N N N N N d � Q m M V Q m Q m I, n 'Cool 0 O r•'I N N r -I N ul ul m m a . C CA CA 0 0 CA CA 0 0 0 0 0CA CA 0 mN N N N N N N N w w Q M m ui m n 1000 Bishops Gale Blvd., Ste. 300 M t. Laurel, NJ 08054-5404 t 1.800.444.4554 Opt. 2 f 1.800.777.3929 October 13, 2015 nrr2 72015 Mr. Bud Cassidy, Manager Kodiak Island FPA 1 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Kodiak Island FPA 1, Kodiak Island, Alaska Public Protection Classification: 5/5Y Prior Public Protection Classification: 4/4Y Dear Mr. Bud Cassidy: We wish to thank you, Chief Doug Mather, Water Operator Harry Heiberg and others for your cooperation during our recent Public Protection Classification (PPCTM) survey. Insurance Services Office (ISO®) has completed its analysis of the structural fire suppression delivery system provided in your community. The resulting classification is indicated above. This is a retrogression from the previous classification. If you would like to know how your community's classification could improve or if you would like to learn about the potential effect of proposed changes to your fire suppression delivery system, please call us at the phone number listed below or visit our website - www.isomitigation.com. We are not implementing the class change at this time. Before we make this change, we would like to know if you desire to develop a program to retain class 4. We request that you acknowledge this letter in writing within 30 days, and advise when this matter will be reviewed. If you choose to begin an improvement program, we would appreciate receiving a list of intended changes within 60 days. (The list of intended changes can be included in the 30 day letter if you wish.) In cases where improvements have not been completed within 12 months or by October 13, 2016 in this case, ISO will publish the retrogressed classification, but will continue to work with your community towards an improved future classification. The PPC program is not intended to analyze all aspects of a comprehensive structural fire suppression delivery system program. It is not for purposes of determining compliance with any state or local law, nor is it for making loss prevention or life safety recommendations. If you have any questions about your classification, please let us know. Sincerely, Darin Ca6a&m Darin Cabalona Email: dcabalona@iso.com Office: (541) 968-2424 (Pacific Time Zone) Fax: (800) 777-3929 cc: Chief Doug Mather, Fire Chief, Bayside Fire Department Mr. Harry Heiberg, Water Operator, Kodiak Public Works Mr. Delana Hatfield, Supervisor, Kodiak PD Dispatch Center File Public Protection Classification (PPCTM) Summary Report 11 Kodiak Island FD 1 ALASKA Prepared by Insurance Services Office, Inc. 1000 Bishops Gate Blvd., Ste. 300 P.O. Box 5404 Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054-5404 1-800-444-4554 October 2015 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Introduction ISO collects and evaluates information from communities in the United States on their structure fire suppression capabilities. The data is analyzed using our Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) and then a Public Protection Classification (PPCTM) grade is assigned to the community. The surveys are conducted whenever it appears that there is a possibility of a PPC change. As such, the PPC program provides important, up-to-date information about fire protection services throughout the country. The FSRS recognizes fire protection features only as they relate to suppression of first alarm structure fires. In many communities, fire suppression may be only a small part of the fire department's overall responsibility. ISO recognizes the dynamic and comprehensive duties of a community's fire service, and understands the complex decisions a community must make in planning and delivering emergency services. However, in developing a community's PPC grade, only features related to reducing property losses from structural fires are evaluated. Multiple alarms, simultaneous incidents and Iffe safety are not considered in this evaluation. The PPC program evaluates the fire protection for small to average size buildings. Specific properties with a Needed Fire Flow in excess of 3,500 gpm are evaluated separately and assigned an individual PPC grade. A community's investment in fire mitigation is a proven and reliable predictor of future fire losses. Statistical data on insurance losses bears out the relationship between excellent fire protection — as measured by the PPC program — and low fire losses. So, insurance companies use PPC information for marketing, underwriting, and to help establish fair premiums for homeowners and commercial fire insurance. In general, the price of fire insurance in a community with a good PPC grade is substantially lower than in a community with a poor PPC grade, assuming all other factors are equal. ISO is an independent company that serves insurance companies, communities, fire departments, insurance regulators, and others by providing information about risk. ISO's expert staff collects information about municipal fire suppression efforts in communities throughout the United States. In each of those communities, ISO analyzes the relevant data and assigns a PPC grade — a number from 1 to 10. Class 1 represents an exemplary fire suppression program, and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire suppression program does not meet ISO's minimum criteria. ISO's PPC program evaluates communities according to a uniform set of criteria, incorporating nationally recognized standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association and the American Water Works Association. A community's PPC grade depends on: ➢ Needed Fire Flows, which are representative building locations used to determine the theoretical amount of water necessary for fire suppression purposes. ➢ Emergency Communications, including emergency reporting, telecommunicators, and dispatching systems. ➢ Fire Department, including equipment, staffing, training, geographic distribution of fire companies, operational considerations, and community risk reduction. ➢ Water Supply, including inspection and flow testing of hydrants, alternative water supply operations, and a careful evaluation of the amount of available water compared with the amount needed to suppress fires up to 3,500 gpm. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page I Data Collection and Analysis ISO has evaluated and classified over 48,000 fire protection areas across the United States using its FSRS. A combination of meetings between trained ISO field representatives and the dispatch center coordinator, community fire official, and water superintendent is used in conjunction with a comprehensive questionnaire to collect the data necessary to determine the PPC grade. In order for a community to obtain a grade better than a Class 9, three elements of fire suppression features are reviewed. These three elements are Emergency Communications, Fire Department, and Water Supply. A review of the Emergency Communications accounts for 10% of the total classification. This section is weighted at 10 points, as follows: • Emergency Reporting 3 points • Telecommunicators 4 points • Dispatch Circuits 3 points A review of the Fire Department accounts for 50% of the total classification. ISO focuses on a fire departments first alarm response and initial attack to minimize potential loss. The fire department section is weighted at 50 points, as follows: • Engine Companies • Reserve Pumpers • Pump Capacity • Ladder/Service Companies • Reserve Ladder/Service Trucks • Deployment Analysis • Company Personnel • Training • Operational considerations • Community Risk Reduction 6 points 0.5 points 3 points 4 points 0.5 points 10 points 15 points 9 points 2 points 5.5 points (in addition to the 50 points above) A review of the Water Supply system accounts for 40% of the total classification. ISO reviews the water supply a community uses to determine the adequacy for fire suppression purposes. The water supply system is weighted at 40 points, as follows: Credit for Supply System 30 points Hydrant Size, Type & Installation 3 points • Inspection & Flow Testing of Hydrants 7 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 2 There is one additional factor considered in calculating the final score — Divergence. Even the best fire department will be less than fully effective if it has an inadequate water supply. Similarly, even a superior water supply will be less than fully effective if the fire department lacks the equipment or personnel to use the water. The FSRS score is subject to modification by a divergence factor, which recognizes disparity between the effectiveness of the fire department and the water supply. The Divergence factor mathematically reduces the score based upon the relative difference between the fire department and water supply scores. The factor is introduced in the final equation. PPC Grade The PPC grade assigned to the community will depend on the community's score on a 100 -point scale: PPC Points 1 90.00 or more 2 80.00 to 89.99 3 70.00 to 79.99 4 60.00 to 69.99 5 50.00 to 59.99 6 40.00 to 49.99 7 30.00 to 39.99 8 20.00 to 29.99 9 10.00 to 19.99 10 0.00 to 9.99 The classification numbers are interpreted as follows: • Class 1 through (and including) Class 8 represents a fire suppression system that includes an FSRS creditable dispatch center, fire department, and water supply. • Class 8B is a special classification that recognizes a superior level of fire protection in otherwise Class 9 areas. It is designed to represent a fire protection delivery system that is superior except for a lack of a water supply system capable of the minimum FSRS fire flow criteria of 250 gpm for 2 hours. • Class 9 is a fire suppression system that includes a creditable dispatch center, fire department but no FSRS creditable water supply. • Class 10 does not meet minimum FSRS criteria for recognition, including areas that are beyond five road miles of a recognized fire station. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 3 New PPC program changes effective July 1, 2014 We have revised the PPC program to capture the effects of enhanced fire protection capabilities that reduce fire loss and fire severity in Split Class 9 and Split Class 8B areas (as outlined below). This new structure benefits the fire service, community, and property owner. New classifications Through ongoing research and loss experience analysis, we identified additional differentiation in fire loss experience within our PPC program, which resulted in the revised classifications. We based the differing fire loss experience on the fire suppression capabilities of each community. The new PPC classes will improve the predictive value for insurers while benefiting both commercial and residential property owners. Here are the new classifications and what they mean. Split classifications When we develop a split classification for a community —for example 5/9 — the first number is the class that applies to properties within 5 road miles of the responding fire station and 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply, such as a fire hydrant, suction point, or dry hydrant. The second number is the class that applies to properties within 5 road miles of a fire station but beyond 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply. We have revised the classification to reflect more precisely the risk of loss in a community, replacing Class 9 and 8B in the second part of a split classification with revised designations. Whafs changed with the new classifications? We've published the new classifications as "X" and "Y" — formerly the "9" and "8B" portion of the split classification, respectively. For example: • A community currently displayed as a split 6/9 classification will now be a split 6/6X classification; with the "6X" denoting what was formerly classified as "9". • Similarly, a community currently graded as a split 6/8B classification will now be a split MY classification, the "6Y" denoting what was formerly classified as "813". • Communities graded with single "9" or "8B" classifications will remain intact. Prior Classification j New Classification 1/9 j 1/1X 2/9 3/9 2/2X I 3/3X 4/9 4/4X 5/9 5/5X 6/9 6/6X 7/9 717X 8/9 B/Bx 9 9 Prior Classification New Classification 1/8B lily 2/86 3/86 2/2Y 3/3Y 4186 4/4Y 5/86 515Y 6/8B 6/6Y 7/86 7/7Y 8/88 8/8Y 8B 8B PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 4 What's changed? As you can see, we're still maintaining split classes, but it's how we represent them to insurers that's changed. The new designations reflect a reduction in fire severity and loss and have the potential to reduce property insurance premiums. Benefits of the revised split class designations • To the fire service, the revised designations identify enhanced fire suppression capabilities used throughout the fire protection area • To the community, the new classes reward a community's fire suppression efforts by showing a more reflective designation • To the individual property owner, the revisions offer the potential for decreased property insurance premiums New water class Our data also shows that risks located more than 5 but less than 7 road miles from a responding fire station with a creditable water source within 1,000 feet had better loss experience than those farther than 5 road miles from a responding fire station with no creditable water source. We've introduced a new classification —10W — to recognize the reduced loss potential of such properties. What's changed with Class 10W? Class 10W is property -specific. Not all properties in the 5 -to -7 -mile area around the responding fire station will qualify. The difference between Class 10 and 10W is that the 10W -graded risk or property is within 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply. Creditable water supplies include fire protection systems using hauled water in any of the split classification areas. What's the benefit of Class 10W? 10W gives credit to risks within 5 to 7 road miles of the responding fire station and within 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply. That's reflective of the potential for reduced property insurance premiums. What does the fire chief have to do? Fire chiefs don't have to do anything at all. The revised classifications went in place automatically effective July 1, 2014 (July 1, 2015 for Texas). What if I have additional questions? Feel free to contact ISO at 800.444.4554 or email us at PPC-Cust-Servaiso.com. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 5 Distribution of PPC Grades The 2015 published countrywide distribution of communities by the PPC grade is as follows: Countrywide 12,000 1-1..002-0 10,000 9,255 — i 8,500 8,000 6,455 I _ I 6,000 + 4,721 4,000 - 3,056 2.000 1,060 ( tf 760 1i 1,374 1,421 132 ,�� �T�1��r�� (� I 11 1,1 1 Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 86 9 10 Assistance The PPC program offers help to communities, fire departments, and other public officials as they plan for, budget, and justify improvements. ISO is also available to assist in the understanding of the details of this evaluation. The PPC program representatives can be reached by telephone at (800) 44411554. The technical specialists at this telephone number have access to the details of this evaluation and can effectively speak with you about your questions regarding the PPC program. What's more, we can be reached via the internet at www.isomiticlation.com/talk/. We also have a website dedicated to our Community Hazard Mitigation Classification programs at www.isomiticiation.com. Here, fire chiefs, building code officials, community leaders and other interested citizens can access a wealth of data describing the criteria used in evaluating how cities and towns are protecting residents from fire and other natural hazards. This website will allow you to learn more about the PPC program. The website provides important background information, insights about the PPC grading processes and technical documents. ISO is also pleased to offer Fire Chiefs Online — a special, secured website with information and features that can help improve your PPC grade, including a list of the Needed Fire Flows for all the commercial occupancies ISO has on file for your community. Visitors to the site can download information, see statistical results and also contact ISO for assistance. In addition, on-line access to the FSRS and its commentaries is available to registered customers for a fee. However, fire chiefs and community chief administrative officials are given access privileges to this information without charge. To become a registered fire chief or community chief administrative official, register at www.isomitigation.com. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 6 PPC Review ISO concluded its review of the fire suppression features being provided for Kodiak Island FD 1. The resulting community classification is Class 05/5Y. If the classification is a single class, the classification applies to properties with a Needed Fire Flow of 3,500 gpm or less in the community. If the classification is a split class (e.g., 6/XX): ➢ The first class (e.g., "6" in a 6/XX) applies to properties within 5 road miles of a recognized fire station and within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant or alternate water supply. ➢ The second class (XX or XY) applies to properties beyond 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant but within 5 road miles of a recognized fire station. ➢ Alternative Water Supply: The first class (e.g., "6" in a 6/10) applies to properties within 5 road miles of a recognized fire station with no hydrant distance requirement. ➢ Class 10 applies to properties over 5 road miles of a recognized fire station. ➢ Class 10W applies to properties within 5 to 7 road miles of a recognized fire station with a recognized water supply within 1,000 feet. ➢ Specific properties with a Needed Fire Flow in excess of 3,500 gpm are evaluated separately and assigned an individual classification PPC is a registered trademark of insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 7 Earned Credit FSRS Feature Credit Available Emergency Communications 3 414. Credit for Emergency Reporting 0.30 422. Credit for Telecommunicators 3.20 4 432. Credit for Dispatch Circuits 1.20 3 440. Credit for Emergency Communications 4.70 10 Fire Department 3.17 6 513. Credit for Engine Companies 0.18 0 50 523. Credit for Reserve Pumpers 3 3 532. Credit for Pump Capacity 2.63 549. Credit for Ladder Service 3.28 4 553. Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks 0.00 0.50 561. Credit for Deployment Analysis 5.15 10 571. Credit for Company Personnel 2.53 15 581. Credit for Training 2.40 9 2 730. Credit for Operational Considerations 2.00 590. Credit for Fire Department 21.34 50 Water Supply 30.00 30 616. Credit for Supply System 621. Credit for Hydrants 3.00 3 7 631. Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing 3.20 640. Credit for Water Supply 36.20 40 Divergence -9.56 2.40 - 5.50 1050. Community Risk Reduction Total Credit 55.08 105.50 PPC is a registered trademark of insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 7 Emernencu faiprntllunications Ten percent of a community's overall score is based on how well the communications center receives and dispatches fire alarms. Our field representative evaluated: • Communications facilities provided for the general public to report structure fires • Enhanced 9-1-1 Telephone Service including wireless • Computer-aided dispatch (CAD) facilities • Alarm receipt and processing at the communication center • Training and certification of telecommunicators Facilities used to dispatch fire department companies to reported structure fires Item 414 - Credit for Emergency Reporting (3 points) The first item reviewed is Item 414 "Credit for Emergency Reporting (CER)". This item reviews the emergency communication center facilities provided for the public to report fires including 911 systems (Basic or Enhanced), Wireless Phase I and Phase II, Voice over Internet Protocol, Computer Aided Dispatch and Geographic Information Systems for automatic vehicle location. ISO uses National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems as the reference for this section. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 8 Earned Credit Credit Available 414. Credit Emergency Reporting 0.30 3 422. Credit for Telecommunicators 3.20 4 432. Credit for Dispatch Circuits 1.20 3 Item 440. Credit for Emergency Communications: 4.70 10 Item 414 - Credit for Emergency Reporting (3 points) The first item reviewed is Item 414 "Credit for Emergency Reporting (CER)". This item reviews the emergency communication center facilities provided for the public to report fires including 911 systems (Basic or Enhanced), Wireless Phase I and Phase II, Voice over Internet Protocol, Computer Aided Dispatch and Geographic Information Systems for automatic vehicle location. ISO uses National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems as the reference for this section. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 8 4 Item 422- Credit for Telecommunicators (4 points) The second item reviewed is Item 422 "Credit for Telecommunicators (TC)". This item reviews the number of Telecommunicators on duty at the center to handle fire calls and other emergencies. All emergency calls including those calls that do not require fire department action are reviewed to determine the proper staffing to answer emergency calls and dispatch the appropriate emergency response. NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems, recommends that ninety-five percent of emergency calls shall be answered within 15 seconds and ninety-nine percent of emergency calls shall be answered within 40 seconds. In addition, NFPA recommends that ninety percent of emergency alarm processing shall be completed within 60 seconds and ninety-nine percent of alarm processing shall be completed within 90 seconds of answering the call. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 9 Earned Credit Item 410. Emergency Reporting (CER) Credit Available A./B. Basic 9-1-1, Enhanced 9-1-1 or No 9-1-1 10.00 20 For maximum credit, there should be an Enhanced 9-1-1 system, Basic 9-1-1 and No 9-1-1 will receive partial credit. 1. E9-1-1 Wireless 0.00 25 Wireless Phase I using Static ALI (automatic location identification) Functionality (10 points); Wireless Phase II using Dynamic ALI Functionality (15 points); Both available will be 25 points 2. E9-1-1 Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 0.00 25 Static VoIP using Static ALI Functionality (10 points); Nomadic VoIP using Dynamic ALI Functionality (15 points); Both available will be 25 points 3. Computer Aided Dispatch 0.00 15 Basic CAD (5 points); CAD with Management Information System (5 points); CAD with Interoperability (5 points) 4. Geographic Information System (GIS/AVL) 0.00 15 The PSAP uses a fully integrated CAD/GIS management system with automatic vehicle location (AVL) integrated with a CAD system providing dispatch assignments. Review of Emergency Reporting total: 10.00 100 4 Item 422- Credit for Telecommunicators (4 points) The second item reviewed is Item 422 "Credit for Telecommunicators (TC)". This item reviews the number of Telecommunicators on duty at the center to handle fire calls and other emergencies. All emergency calls including those calls that do not require fire department action are reviewed to determine the proper staffing to answer emergency calls and dispatch the appropriate emergency response. NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems, recommends that ninety-five percent of emergency calls shall be answered within 15 seconds and ninety-nine percent of emergency calls shall be answered within 40 seconds. In addition, NFPA recommends that ninety percent of emergency alarm processing shall be completed within 60 seconds and ninety-nine percent of alarm processing shall be completed within 90 seconds of answering the call. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 9 To receive full credit for operators on duty, ISO must review documentation to show that the communication center meets NFPA 1221 call answering and dispatch time performance measurement standards. This documentation may be in the form of performance statistics or other performance measurements compiled by the 9-1-1 software or other software programs that are currently in use such as Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) or Management Information System (MIS). PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 10 Earned Credit Item 420. Telecommunicators (CTC) Credit Available Al. Alarm Receipt (AR) 20.00 20 Receipt of alarms shall meet the requirements in accordance with the criteria of NFPA 1221 A2. Alarm Processing (AP) 20.00 20 Processing of alarms shall meet the requirements in accordance with the criteria of NFPA 1221 B. Emergency Dispatch Protocols (EDP) 0.00 20 Telecommunicators have emergency dispatch protocols (EDP) containing questions and a decision -support process to facilitate correct call categorization and prioritization. C. Telecommunicator Training and Certification (TTC) 20.00 20 Telecommunicators meet the qualification requirements referenced in NFPA 1061, Standard for Professional Qualifications for Public Safety Telecommunicator, and/or the Association of Public -Safety Communications Officials - International (APCO) Project 33. Telecommunicators are certified in the knowledge, skills, and abilities corresponding to their job functions. D. Telecommunicator Continuing Education and 20.00 20 Quality Assurance (TQA) Telecommunicators participate in continuing education and/or in-service training and quality -assurance programs as appropriate for their positions Review of Telecommunicators total: 80.00 100 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 10 Item 432 - Credit for Dispatch Circuits (3 points) The third item reviewed is Item 432 "Credit for Dispatch Circuits (CDC)". This item reviews the dispatch circuit facilities used to transmit alarms to fire department members. A "Dispatch Circuit" is defined in NFPA 1221 as "A circuit over which an alarm is transmitted from the communications center to an emergency response facility (ERF) or emergency response units (ERUs) to notify ERUs to respond to an emergency". All fire departments (except single fire station departments with full-time firefighter personnel receiving alarms directly at the fire station) need adequate means of notifying all firefighter personnel of the location of reported structure fires. The dispatch circuit facilities should be in accordance with the general criteria of NFPA 1221. "Alarms" are defined in this Standard as "A signal or message from a person or device indicating the existence of an emergency or other situation that requires action by an emergency response agency". There are two different levels of dispatch circuit facilities provided for in the Standard — a primary dispatch circuit and a secondary dispatch circuit. In jurisdictions that receive 730 alarms or more per year (average of two alarms per 24-hour period), two separate and dedicated dispatch circuits, a primary and a secondary, are needed. In jurisdictions receiving fewer than 730 alarms per year, a second dedicated dispatch circuit is not needed. Dispatch circuit facilities installed but not used or tested (in accordance with the NFPA Standard) receive no credit. The score for Credit for Dispatch Circuits (CDC) is influenced by monitoring for integrity of the primary dispatch circuit. There are up to 0.90 points available for this Item. Monitoring for integrity involves installing automatic systems that will detect faults and failures and send visual and audible indications to appropriate communications center (or dispatch center) personnel. ISO uses NFPA 1221 to guide the evaluation of this item. ISO's evaluation also includes a review of the communication system's emergency power supplies. Item 432 "Credit for Dispatch Circuits (CDC)" =1.20 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 11 Fire Department Fifty percent of a community's overall score is based upon the fire department's structure fire suppression system. ISO's field representative evaluated: Engine and ladder/service vehicles including reserve apparatus Equipment carried Response to reported structure fires Deployment analysis of companies Available and/or responding firefighters Training Basic Fire Flow The Basic Fire Flow for the community is determined by the review of the Needed Fire Flows for selected buildings in the community. The fifth largest Needed Fire Flow is determined to be the Basic Fire Flow. The Basic Fire Flow has been determined to be 2000 gpm. PPC is a registered trademark of Insmance Services Office, Inc. Page 12 Earned Credit Credit Available 513. Credit for Engine Companies 3.17 6 523. Credit for Reserve Pumpers 0.18 0.5 532. Credit for Pumper Capacity 2.63 3 549. Credit for Ladder Service 3.28 4 553. Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks 0.00 0.5 561. Credit for Deployment Analysis 5.15 10 571. Credit for Company Personnel 2.53 15 581. Credit for Training 2.40 9 730. Credit for Operational Considerations 2.00 2 Item 590. Credit for Fire Department: 21.34 50 Basic Fire Flow The Basic Fire Flow for the community is determined by the review of the Needed Fire Flows for selected buildings in the community. The fifth largest Needed Fire Flow is determined to be the Basic Fire Flow. The Basic Fire Flow has been determined to be 2000 gpm. PPC is a registered trademark of Insmance Services Office, Inc. Page 12 Item 513 - Credit for Engine Companies (6 points) The first item reviewed is Item 513 "Credit for Engine Companies (CEC)". This item reviews the number of engine companies, their pump capacity, hose testing, pump testing and the equipment carried on the in-service pumpers. To be recognized, pumper apparatus must meet the general criteria of NFPA 1901, Standard forAutomotive Fire Apparatus which include a minimum 250 gpm pump, an emergency warning system, a 300 gallon water tank, and hose. At least 1 apparatus must have a permanently mounted pump rated at 750 gpm or more at 150 psi. The review of the number of needed pumpers considers the response distance to built -upon areas; the Basic Fire Flow; and the method of operation. Multiple alarms, simultaneous incidents, and life safety are not considered. The greatest value of A, B, or C below is needed in the fire district to suppress fires in structures with a Needed Fire Flow of 3,500 gpm or less: 2 engine companies a) 1 engine companies to provide fire suppression services to areas to meet NFPA 1710 criteria or within 1'/z miles. b) 2 engine companies to support a Basic Fire Flow of 2000 gpm. c) 2 engine companies based upon the fire department's method of operation to provide a minimum two engine response to all first alarm structure fires. The FSRS recognizes that there are 2 engine companies in service. The FSRS also reviews Automatic Aid. Automatic Aid is considered in the review as assistance dispatched automatically by contractual agreement between two communities or fire districts. That differs from mutual aid or assistance arranged case by case. ISO will recognize an Automatic Aid plan under the following conditions: It must be prearranged for first alarm response according to a definite plan. It is preferable to have a written agreement, but ISO may recognize demonstrated performance. The aid must be dispatched to all reported structure fires on the initial alarm. The aid must be provided 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. FSRS Item 512.D "Automatic Aid Engine Companies" responding on first alarm and meeting the needs of the city for basic fire flow and/or distribution of companies are factored based upon the value of the Automatic Aid plan (up to 1.00 can be used as the factor). The Automatic Aid factor is determined by a review of the Automatic Aid provider's communication facilities, how they receive alarms from the graded area, inter -department training between fire departments, and the fire ground communications capability between departments. For each engine company, the credited Pump Capacity (PC), the Hose Carried (HC), the Equipment Carred (EC) all contribute to the calculation for the percent of credit the FSRS provides to that engine company. Item 513 "Credit for Engine Companies (CEC`" = 3.17 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 13 Item $23 - Credit for Reserve Pumpers (0.50 points) The item is Item 523 "Credit for Reserve Pumpers (CRP)". This item reviews the number and adequacy of the pumpers and their equipment. The number of needed reserve pumpers is 1 for each 8 needed engine companies determined in Item 513, or any fraction thereof. Item 523 "Credit for Reserve Pumpers (CRP)" = 0.18 points Item 532 — Credit for Pumper Capacity (3 points) The next item reviewed is Item 532 "Credit for Pumper Capacity (CPC)". The total pump capacity available should be sufficient for the Basic Fire Flow of 2000 gpm. The maximum needed pump capacity credited is the Basic Fire Flow of the community. Item 532 "Credit for Pumper Capacity (CPC)" = 2.63 points Item 549 — Credit for Ladder Service (4 points) The next item reviewed is Item 549 "Credit for Ladder Service (CLS)". This item reviews the number of response areas within the city with 5 buildings that are 3 or more stories or 35 feet or more in height, or with 5 buildings that have a Needed Fire Flow greater than 3,500 gpm, or any combination of these criteria. The height of all buildings in the city, including those protected by automatic sprinklers, is considered when determining the number of needed ladder companies. Response areas not needing a ladder company should have a service company. Ladders, tools and equipment normally carried on ladder trucks are needed not only for ladder operations but also for forcible entry, ventilation, salvage, overhaul, lighting and utility control. The number of ladder or service companies, the height of the aerial ladder, aerial ladder testing and the equipment carried on the in-service ladder trucks and service trucks is compared with the number of needed ladder trucks and service trucks and an FSRS equipment list. Ladder trucks must meet the general criteria of NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus to be recognized. The number of needed ladder -service trucks is dependent upon the number of buildings 3 stories or 35 feet or more in height, buildings with a Needed Fire Flow greater than 3,500 gpm, and the method of operation. The FSRS recognizes that there are 0 ladder companies in service. These companies are needed to provide fire suppression services to areas to meet NFPA 1710 criteria or within 2'/ miles and the number of buildings with a Needed Fire Flow over 3,500 gpm or 3 stories or more in height, or the method of operation. The FSRS recognizes that there are 1 service companies in service. Item 549 "Credit for Ladder Service (CLS)" = 3.28 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 14 Item 553 — Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks (0.50 points) The next item reviewed is Item 553 "Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks (CRLS)". This item considers the adequacy of ladder and service apparatus when one (or more in larger communities) of these apparatus are out of service. The number of needed reserve ladder and service trucks is 1 for each 8 needed ladder and service companies that were determined to be needed in Item 540, or any fraction thereof. Item 553 "Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks (CRLS)" = 0.00 points Item 561 — Deployment Analysis (10 points) Next, Item 561 "Deployment Analysis (DA)" is reviewed. This Item examines the number and adequacy of existing engine and ladder -service companies to cover built -upon areas of the city. To determine the Credit for Distribution, first the Existing Engine Company (EC) points and the Existing Engine Companies (EE) determined in Item 513 are considered along with Ladder Company Equipment (LCE) points, Service Company Equipment (SCE) points, Engine -Ladder Company Equipment (ELCE) points, and Engine -Service Company Equipment (ESCE) points determined in Item 549. Secondly, as an alternative to determining the number of needed engine and ladder/service companies through the road -mile analysis, a fire protection area may use the results of a systematic performance evaluation. This type of evaluation analyzes computer-aided dispatch (CAD) history to demonstrate that, with its current deployment of companies, the fire department meets the time constraints for initial arriving engine and initial full alarm assignment in accordance with the general criteria of in NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. A determination is made of the percentage of built upon area within 1'/ miles of a first -due engine company and within 2'/z miles of a first -due ladder -service company. Item 561 "Credit Deployment Analysis (DA)" = 5.15 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 15 Item X71—Credit for Company Personnel (15 points) Item 571 "Credit for Company Personnel (CCP)" reviews the average number of existing firefighters and company officers available to respond to reported first alarm structure fires in the city. The on -duty strength is determined by the yearly average of total firefighters and company officers on -duty considering vacations, sick leave, holidays, "Kelley" days and other absences. When a fire department operates under a minimum staffing policy, this may be used in lieu of determining the yearly average of on -duty company personnel. Firefighters on apparatus not credited under Items 513 and 549 that regularly respond to reported first alarms to aid engine, ladder, and service companies are included in this item as increasing the total company strength. Firefighters staffing ambulances or other units serving the general public are credited if they participate in fire -fighting operations, the number depending upon the extent to which they are available and are used for response to first alarms of fire. On -Call members are credited on the basis of the average number staffing apparatus on first alarms. Off -shift career firefighters and company officers responding on first alarms are considered on the same basis as on-call personnel. For personnel not normally at the fire station, the number of responding firefighters and company officers is divided by 3 to reflect the time needed to assemble at the fire scene and the reduced ability to act as a team due to the various arrival times at the fire location when compared to the personnel on -duty at the fire station during the receipt of an alarm. The number of Public Safety Officers who are positioned in emergency vehicles within the jurisdiction boundaries may be credited based on availability to respond to first alarm structure fires. In recognition of this increased response capability the number of responding Public Safety Officers is divided by 2. The average number of firefighters and company officers responding with those companies credited as Automatic Aid under Items 513 and 549 are considered for either on -duty or on- call company personnel as is appropriate. The actual number is calculated as the average number of company personnel responding multiplied by the value of AA Plan determined in Item 512.D. The maximum creditable response of on -duty and on-call firefighters is 12, including company officers, for each existing engine and ladder company and 6 for each existing service company. Chief Officers are not creditable except when more than one chief officer responds to alarms; then extra chief officers may be credited as firefighters if they perform company duties. The FSRS recognizes 0.00 on -duty personnel and an average of 7.60 on-call personnel responding on first alarm structure fires. Item 571 "Credit for Company Personnel (CCP)" = 2.53 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 16 Item 581 — Credit for Training (9 points) Item 580 "Credit for Training (CT)" = 2.40 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 17 Earned Credit Training Credit Available A. Facilities, and Use 16.7! 35 For maximum credit, each firefighter should receive 18 hours per year in structure fire related subjects as outlined in NFPA 1001. B. Company Training 2.47 25 For maximum credit, each firefighter should receive 16 hours per month in structure fire related subjects as outlined in NFPA 1001. C. Classes for Officers 0.00 12 For maximum credit, each officer should be certified in accordance with the general criteria of NFPA 1021. Additionally, each officer should receive 12 hours of continuing education on or off site. D. New Driver and Operator Training 0.67 5 For maximum credit, each new driver and operator should receive 60 hours of driver/operator training per year in accordance with NFPA 1002 and NFPA 1451. E. Existing Driver and Operator Training 5.00 5 For maximum credit, each exisfing driver and operator should receive 12 hours of driver/operator training per year in accordance with NFPA 1002 and NFPA 1451. F. Training on Hazardous Materials 0.33 1 For maximum credit, each firefighter should receive 6 hours of training for incidents involving hazardous materials in accordance with NFPA 472. G. Recruit Training 1.50 5 For maximum credit, each firefighter should receive 240 hours of structure fire related training in accordance with NFPA 1001 within the first year of employment or tenure. H. Pre -Fire Planning Inspections 0.00 12 For maximum credit, pre -fire planning inspections of each commercial, industrial, institutional, and other similar type building (all buildings except 1-4 family dwellings) should be made annually by company members. Records of inspections should include up -to date notes and sketches. Item 580 "Credit for Training (CT)" = 2.40 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 17 Item 730 —Operational Considerations (2 points) Item 730 "Credit for Operational Considerations (COC)" evaluates fire department standard operating procedures and incident management systems for emergency operations involving structure fires. Item 730 "Credit for Operational Considerations (COC)" = 2.00 points Forty percent of a community's overall score is based on the adequacy of the water supply system. The ISO field representative evaluated: the capability of the water distribution system to meet the Needed Fire Flows at selected locations up to 3,500 gpm. size, type and installation of fire hydrants. inspection and flow testing of fire hydrants. Earned Credit Operational Considerations Credit Available Standard Operating Procedures 50 50 The department should have established SOPs for 3.20 7 fire department general emergency operations 36.20 40 Incident Management Systems 50 50 The department should use an established incident management system (IMS) Operational Considerations total: 100 100 Item 730 "Credit for Operational Considerations (COC)" = 2.00 points Forty percent of a community's overall score is based on the adequacy of the water supply system. The ISO field representative evaluated: the capability of the water distribution system to meet the Needed Fire Flows at selected locations up to 3,500 gpm. size, type and installation of fire hydrants. inspection and flow testing of fire hydrants. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page IS Earned Credit Credit Available 616. Credit for Supply System 30.00 30 621. Credit for Hydrants 3.00 3 631. Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing 3.20 7 Item 640. Credit for Water Supply: 36.20 40 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page IS Item 616 — Credit for Supply System (30 points) The first item reviewed is Item 616 "Credit for Supply System (CSS)". This item reviews the rate of flow that can be credited at each of the Needed Fire Flow test locations considering the supply works capacity, the main capacity and the hydrant distribution. The lowest flow rate of these items is credited for each representative location. A water system capable of delivering 250 gpm or more for a period of two hours plus consumption at the maximum daily rate at the fire location is considered minimum in the ISO review. Where there are 2 or more systems or services distributing water at the same location, credit is given on the basis of the joint protection provided by all systems and services available. The supply works capacity is calculated for each representative Needed Fire Flow test location, considering a variety of water supply sources. These include public water supplies, emergency supplies (usually accessed from neighboring water systems), suction supplies (usually evidenced by dry hydrant installations near a river, lake or other body of water), and supplies developed by a fire department using large diameter hose or vehicles to shuttle water from a source of supply to a fire site. The result is expressed in gallons per minute (gpm). The normal ability of the distribution system to deliver Needed Fire Flows at the selected building locations is reviewed. The results of a flow test at a representative test location will indicate the ability of the water mains (or fire department in the case of fire department supplies) to carry water to that location. The hydrant distribution is reviewed within 1,000 feet of representative test locations measured as hose can be laid by apparatus. For maximum credit, the Needed Fire Flows should be available at each location in the district. Needed Fire Flows of 2,500 gpm or less should be available for 2 hours; and Needed Fire Flows of 3,000 and 3,500 gpm should be obtainable for 3 hours. Item 616 "Credit for Supply System (CSS)" = 30.00 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 19 Item 621— Credit for Hydrants (3 points) The second item reviewed is Item 621 "Credit for Hydrants (CH)". This item reviews the number of fire hydrants of each type compared with the total number of hydrants. There are a total of 184 hydrants in the graded area. 620. Hydrants, - Size, Type and Installation Number of Hydrants A. With a 6 -inch or larger branch and a pumper outlet with or without 2'/z - inch outlets 184 B. With a 6 -inch or larger branch and no pumper outlet but two or more 2'% -inch outlets, or with a small foot valve, or with a small barrel 0 CJD. With only a 21/2 -inch outlet or with less than a 6 -inch branch 0 EJF. Flush Type, Cistem, or Suction Point 0 Item 621 "Credit for Hydrants (CH)" = 3.00 points Item 630 — Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing (7 points) The third item reviewed is Item 630 "Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing (CIT)". This item reviews the fire hydrant inspection frequency, and the completeness of the inspections. Inspection of hydrants should be in accordance with AVWVA M-17, Installation, Field Testing and Maintenance of Fire Hydrants. Frequency of Inspection (FI): Average interval between the 3 most recent inspections. Freyuen................._.............................................................................__.........................._._. Points 1 year 30 2 years 20 3 years 10 4 years 5 5 years or more No Credit Note: The points for inspection frequency are reduced by 10 points if the inspections are incomplete or do not include a flushing program. An additional reduction of 10 points are made if hydrants are not subjected to full system pressure during inspections. If the inspection of cisterns or suction points does not include actual drafting with a pumper, or back-flushing for dry hydrants, 20 points are deducted. Total points for Inspections = 3.20 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 20 Frequency of Fire Flow Testing (FF): Average interval between the 3 most recent inspections. Fre uenc 5 years 6 years 7 years S years 9 years 10 years or more Total points for Fire Flow Testing = 0.00 points Item 631 "Credit for Inspection and Fire Flow Testing (CIT)" = 3.20 points Div'eris W�-9.56 :L 30 20 10 No Credit The Divergence factor mathematically reduces the score based upon the relative difference between the fire department and water supply scores. The factor is introduced in the final equation. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 21 Earned Credit Credit Available 1025. Credit for Fire Prevention and Code Enforcement (CPCE) 1.05 2.2 1033. Credit for Public Fire Safety Education (CFSE) 0.96 2.2 1044. Credit for Fire Investigation Programs (CIP) 0.39 1.1 Item 1050. Credit for Community Risk Reduction 2.40 5.50 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 21 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 22 Earned Credit Item 1025 — Credit for Fire Prevention Code Adoption and Credit Available Enforcement (2.2 points) 5.00 10 Fire Prevention Code Regulations (PCR) 8.60 10 Evaluation of fire prevention code regulations in effect. 3.00 6 Fire Prevention Staffing (PS) 3.33 8 Evaluation of staffing for fire prevention activities. 0.00 6 Fire Prevention Certification and Training (PCT) 3.00 6 Evaluation of the certification and training of fire prevention code enforcement personnel. 7.00 20 Fire Prevention Programs (PCP) 4.20 16 Evaluation of fire prevention programs. Review of Fire Prevention Code and Enforcement (CPCE) 19.13 40 subtotal: PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 22 Earned Credit Item 1033 — Credit for Public Fire Safety Education (2.2 points) Credit Available Public Fire Safety Educators Qualifications and Training (FSQT) 5.00 10 Evaluation of public fire safety education personnel training and qualification as specified by the authority having jurisdiction. 3.00 6 Public Fire Safety Education Programs (FSP) 12.50 30 Evaluation of programs for public fire safety education. 0.00 6 Review of Public Safety Education Programs (CFSE) subtotal: 17.50 40 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 22 Earned Credit Item 1044 — Credit for Fire Investigation Programs (1.1 points) Credit Available Fire Investigation Organization and Staffing (IOS) 4.00 8 Evaluation of organization and staffing for fire investigations. Fire Investigator Certification and Training (IQT) 3.00 6 Evaluation of fire investigator certification and training. Use of National Fire Incident Reporting System (IRS) 0.00 6 Evaluation of the use of the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) for the 3 years before the evaluation. Review of Fire Investigation Programs (CIP) subtotal: 7.00 20 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 22 Final Community Classification = 05/5Y PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 23 Earned Credit FSRS Item Credit Available Emergency Communications 414. Credit for Emergency Reporting 0.30 3 422. Credit for Telecommunicators 3.20 4 432. Credit for Dispatch Circuits 1.20 3 4.70 10 440. Credit for Emergency Communications Fire Department 513. Credit for Engine Companies 3.17 6 523. Credit for Reserve Pumpers 0.18 0.5 532. Credit for Pumper Capacity 2.63 3 549. Credit for Ladder Service 3.28 4 553. Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks 0.00 0.5 561. Credit for Deployment Analysis 5.15 10 571. Credit for Company Personnel 2.53 15 581. Credit for Training 2.40 9 730. Credit for Operational Considerations 2.00 2 21.34 50 590. Credit for Fire Department Water Supply 616. Credit for Supply System 30.00 30 621. Credit for Hydrants 3.00 3 631. Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing 3.20 7 36.20 40 640. Credit for Water Supply Divergence -9.56 - 1050. Community Risk Reduction 2.40 5.50 Total Credit 55.08 105.5 Final Community Classification = 05/5Y PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 23 September 26, 2016 Mr. Bud Cassidy, Manager Kodiak Island FD 1 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska, 99615 RE: Kodiak Island Fd 1, Kodiak Island County, Alaska Public Protection Classification: 04/4Y Effective Date: January 01, 2017 Dear Mr. Bud Cassidy, 1000 Bishops Gate Blvd. Ste 300 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054.5404 tl.800.444.4554 Opt.2 fl .800.777.3929 We wish to thank you Mr. Harry Heiberg and Chief Doug Mather for your cooperation during our recent Public Protection Classification (PPC) survey. ISO has completed its analysis of the structural fire suppression delivery system provided in your community. The resulting classification is indicated above. If you would like to know more about your community's PPC classification, or if you would like to learn about the potential effect of proposed changes to your fire suppression delivery system, please call us at the phone number listed below. ISO's Public Protection Classification Program (PPC) plays an important role in the underwriting process at insurance companies. In fact, most U.S. insurers – including the largest ones – use PPC information as part of their decision- making when deciding what business to write, coverage's to offer or prices to charge for personal or commercial property insurance. Each insurance company independently determines the premiums it charges its policyholders. The way an insurer uses ISO's information on public fire protection may depend on several things – the company's fire -loss experience, ratemaking methodology, underwriting guidelines, and its marketing strategy. Through ongoing research and loss experience analysis, we identified additional differentiation in fire loss experience within our PPC program, which resulted in the revised classifications. We based the differing fire loss experience on the fire suppression capabilities of each community. The new classifications will improve the predictive value for insurers while benefiting both commercial and residential property owners. We've published the new classifications as "X" and "Y" — formerly the "9" and "813" portion of the split classification, respectively. For example: • A community currently graded as a split 6/9 classification will now be a split 6/6X classification; with the "6X" denoting what was formerly classified as 119." • Similarly, a community currently graded as a split 6/813 classification will now be a split 6/6Y classification, the "6Y" denoting what was formerly classified as "8B." Communities graded with single "9" or "8B" classifications will remain intact. Properties over 5 road miles from a recognized fire station would receive a class 10. PPC is important to communities and fire departments as well. Communities whose PPC improves may get lower insurance prices. PPC also provides fire departments with a valuable benchmark, and is used by many departments as a valuable tool when planning, budgeting and justifying fire protection improvements. ISO appreciates the high level of cooperation extended by local officials during the entire PPC survey process. The community protection baseline information gathered by ISO is an essential foundation upon which determination of the relative level of fire protection is made using the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule. The classification is a direct result of the information gathered, and is dependent on the resource levels devoted to fire protection in existence at the time of survey. Material changes in those resources that occur after the survey is completed may affect the classification. Although ISO maintains a pro -active process to keep baseline information as current as possible, in the event of changes please call us at 1-800-444-4554, option 2 to expedite the update activity. ISO is the leading supplier of data and analytics for the property/casualty insurance industry. Most insurers use PPC classifications for underwriting and calculating premiums for residential, commercial and industrial properties. The PPC program is not intended to analyze all aspects of a comprehensive structural fire suppression delivery system program. It is not for purposes of determining compliance with any state or local law, nor is it for making loss prevention or life safety recommendations. If you have any questions about your classification, please let us know. Sincerely, DOM&& .7Q�CtaKo1Gb Dominic Santanna Manager -National Processing Center cc: Mr. Harry Heiberg, Water Operator, Kodiak Public Works Mr. Delana Hatfield, Communications Supervisor, Kodiak PD Dispatch Center Chief Doug Mather, Chief, Bayside Fire Department Public Protection Classification (PPCTM) Kodiak Island F® I Insurance services Office, Inc. 1000 Bishops Gate Blvd., Ste. 300 P.O. Box 5404 Mt. Laurrel, New Jersey 08054-5404 1-800-444-4554 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Introduction ISO collects and evaluates information from communities in the United States on their structure fire suppression capabilities. The data is analyzed using our Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) and then a Public Protection Classification (PPCT) grade is assigned to the community. The surveys are conducted whenever it appears that there is a possibility of a PPC change. As such, the PPC program provides important, up-to-date information about fire protection services throughout the country. The FSRS recognizes fire protection features only as they relate to suppression of first alarm structure fires. In many communities, fire suppression may be only a small part of the fire department's overall responsibility. ISO recognizes the dynamic and comprehensive duties of a community's fire service, and understands the complex decisions a community must make in planning and delivering emergency services. However, in developing a community's PPC grade, only features related to reducing property losses from structural fires are evaluated. Multiple alarms, simultaneous incidents and life safety are not considered in this evaluation. The PPC program evaluates the fire protection for small to average size buildings. Specific properties with a Needed Fire Flow in excess of 3,500 gpm are evaluated separately and assigned an individual PPC grade. A community's investment in fire mitigation is a proven and reliable predictor of future fire losses. Statistical data on insurance losses bears out the relationship between excellent fire protection — as measured by the PPC program — and low fire losses. So, insurance companies use PPC information for marketing, underwriting, and to help establish fair premiums for homeowners and commercial fire insurance. In general, the price of fire insurance in a community with a good PPC grade is substantially lower than in a community with a poor PPC grade, assuming all other factors are equal. ISO is an independent company that serves insurance companies, communities, fire departments, insurance regulators, and others by providing information about risk. ISO's expert staff collects information about municipal fire suppression efforts in communities throughout the United States. In each of those communities, ISO analyzes the relevant data and assigns a PPC grade — a number from 1 to 10. Class 1 represents an exemplary fire suppression program, and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire suppression program does not meet ISO's minimum criteria. ISO's PPC program evaluates communities according to a uniform set of criteria, incorporating nationally recognized standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association and the American Water Works Association. A community's PPC grade depends on: ➢ Needed Fire Flows, which are representative building locations used to determine the theoretical amount of water necessary for fire suppression purposes. ➢ Emergency Communications, including emergency reporting, telecommunicators, and dispatching systems. Fire Department, including equipment, staffing, training, geographic distribution of fire companies, operational considerations, and community risk reduction. r Water Supply, including inspection and flow testing of hydrants, alternative water supply operations, and a careful evaluation of the amount of available water compared with the amount needed to suppress fires up to 3,500 gpm PPC is it registered trademark of Inset nnce Services Office, Inc. Page I fforts fire prevention's odes nand Reduction, enforcement, public p blicoincluding community fire safety education, and fire investigation programs. Data Collection and Analysis ISO has evaluated and classified over 48 ,000 fire protection areas across the United States using its FSRS. A combination of meetings between trained ISO field representatives and the dispatch center coordinator, community fire official, and water superintendent is used in conjunction with a comprehensive questionnaire to collect the data necessary to determine the PPC grade. In order for a community to obtain a grade better than a Class 9, three elements of fire suppression features are reviewed. These three elements are Emergency Communications, Fire Department, and Water Supply. A review of the Emergency Communications accounts for 10% of the total classification. This section is weighted at 10 points, as follows: s Emergency Reporting 3 points Telecommunicators 4 points Dispatch Circuits 3 points A review of the Fire Department accounts for 50% of the total classification. ISO focuses on a fire departments first alarm response and initial attack to minimize potential loss. The fire department section is weighted at 50 points, as follows: . Engine Companies Reserve Pumpers Pump Capacity Ladder/Service Companies Reserve Ladder/Service Trucks Deployment Analysis Company Personnel Training Operational considerations Community Risk Reduction 6 points 0.5 points 3 points 4 points 0.5 points 10 points 15 points 9 points 2 points 5.5 points (in addition to the 50 points above) A review of the Water Supply system accounts for 40% of the total classification. ISO reviews the water supply a community uses to determine the adequacy for fire suppression purposes. The water supply system is weighted at 40 points, as follows: Credit for Supply System 30 points Hydrant Size, Type & Installation 3 points Inspection & Flow Testing of Hydrants 7 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 2 There is one additional factor considered in calculating the final score — Divergence Even the best fire department will be less than fully effective if it has an inadequate water supply. Similarly, even a superior water supply will be less than fully effective if the fire department lacks the equipment or personnel to use the water. The FSRS score is subject to modification by a divergence factor, which recognizes disparity between the effectiveness of the fire department and the water supply. The Divergence factor mathematically reduces the score based upon the relative difference between the fire department and water supply scores. The factor is introduced in the final equation. PPC Grade The PPC grade assigned to the community will depend on the community's score on a 100 -point scale: PPC Points 1 90.00 or more 2 80.00 to 89.99 3 70.00 to 79.99 4 60.00 to 69.99 5 50.00 to 59.99 6 40.00 to 49.99 7 30.00 to 39.99 8 20.00 to 29.99 9 10.00 to 19.99 10 0.00 to 9.99 The classification numbers are interpreted as follows: • Class 1 through (and including) Class 8 represents a fire suppression system that includes an FSRS creditable dispatch center, fire department, and water supply. • Class 8B is a special classification that recognizes a superior level of fire protection in otherwise Class 9 areas. It is designed to represent a fire protection delivery system that is superior except for a lack of a water supply system capable of the minimum FSRS fire flow criteria of 250 gpm for 2 hours. • Class 9 is a fire suppression system that includes a creditable dispatch center, fire department but no FSRS creditable water supply. • Class 10 does not meet minimum FSRS criteria for recognition, including areas that are beyond five road miles of a recognized fire station. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 3 New PPC program changes effective July 1, 2014 We have revised the PPC program to capture the effects of enhanced fire protection capabilities that reduce fire loss and fire severity in Split Class 9 and Split Class 8B areas (as outlined below). This new structure benefits the fire service, community, and property owner. New classifications Through ongoing research and loss experience analysis, we identified additional differentiation in fire loss experience within our PPC program, which resulted in the revised classifications. We based the differing fire loss experience on the fire suppression capabilities of each community. The new PPC classes will improve the predictive value for insurers while benefiting both commercial and residential property owners. Here are the new classifications and what they mean. Split classifications When we develop a split classification for a community — for example 5/9 — the first number is the class that applies to properties within 5 road miles of the responding fire station and 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply, such as a fire hydrant, suction point, or dry hydrant. The second number is the class that applies to properties within 5 road miles of a fire station but beyond 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply. We have revised the classification to reflect more precisely the risk of loss in a community, replacing Class 9 and 8B in the second part of a split classification with revised designations. Whafs changed with the new classifications? We've published the new classifications as "X" and "Y" — formerly the "9" and "813" portion of the split classification, respectively. For example: A community currently displayed as a split 6/9 classification will now be a split 6/6X classification; with the "6X" denoting what was formerly classified as "9". Similarly, a community currently graded as a split 6/8B classification will now be a split 6/6Y classification, the "6Y" denoting what was formerly classified as "8B". Communities graded with single "9" or "813" classifications will remain intact. PPC is a registered tmdem:n k of hisurance Services Office, Inc. Page 4 What's changed? As you can see, we're still maintaining split classes, but it's how we represent them to insurers that's changed. The new designations reflect a reduction in fire severity and loss and have the potential to reduce property insurance premiums. Benefits of the revised split class designations To the fire service, the revised designations identify enhanced fire suppression capabilities used throughout the fire protection area To the community, the new classes reward a community's fire suppression efforts by showing a more reflective designation To the individual property owner, the revisions offer the potential for decreased property insurance premiums New water class Our data also shows that risks located more than 5 but less than 7 road miles from a responding fire station with a creditable water source within 1,000 feet had better loss experience than those farther than 5 road miles from a responding fire station with no creditable water source. We've introduced a new classification —10W —to recognize the reduced loss potential of such properties. What's changed with Class 10W? Class 10W is property -specific. Not all properties in the 5 -to -7 -mile area around the responding fire station will qualify. The difference between Class 10 and 10W is that the 10W -graded risk or property is within 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply. Creditable water supplies include fire protection systems using hauled water in any of the split classification areas. What's the benefit of Class 10W? 10W gives credit to risks within 5 to 7 road miles of the responding fire station and within 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply. That's reflective of the potential for reduced property insurance premiums. What does the fire chief have to do? Fire chiefs don't have to do anything at all. The revised classifications went in place automatically effective July 1, 2014 (July 1, 2015 for Texas). What if I have additional questions? Feel free to contact ISO at 800.444.4554 or email us at PPC-Cust-Servto7iso.com PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 5 Distribution of PPC Grades The 2015 published countrywide distribution of communities by the PPC grade is as follows: Countrywide 12,000 10 10,377 ,000 9,464 I 8,392 8.000 _ _ _ I I—! 6,000 4,484 4,0003 ,265 3,2651 2,000 1,164 178 1,552 i ' 1,757 Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8B 9 10 Assistance The PPC program offers help to communities, fire departments, and other public officials as they plan for, budget, and justify improvements. ISO is also available to assist in the understanding of the details of this evaluation. The PPC program representatives can be reached by telephone at (800) 444-4554. The technical specialists at this telephone number have access to the details of this evaluation and can effectively speak with you about your questions regarding the PPC program. We also have a website dedicated to our Community Hazard Mitigation Classification programs at www.isomitigation.com. Here, fire chiefs, building code officials, community leaders and other interested citizens can access a wealth of data describing the criteria used in evaluating how cities and towns are protecting residents from fire and other natural hazards. This website will allow you to learn more about the PPC program. The website provides important background information, insights about the PPC grading processes and technical documents. ISO is also pleased to offer Fire Chiefs Online (FCO) — a secured website featuring information currently on file with ISO. FCO features a jurisdiction map that allows the community to view the current boundaries on file for the community as well as fire station locations and the locations of any commercial property surveyed by ISO. FCO users can also utilize the website to initiate contact with ISO to obtain additional information or submit updates through the National Processing Center. In addition, on-line access to the FSRS and its commentaries is available to registered customers for a fee. However, fire chiefs and community chief administrative officials are given access privileges to this information without charge. To become a registered fire chief or community chief administrative official, register at www.isomitigation.com. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 6 PPC Review ISO concluded its review of the fire suppression features being provided for Kodiak Island FD 1. The resulting community classification is Class 04/4Y. If the classification is a single class, the classification applies to properties with a Needed Fire Flow of 3,500 gpm or less in the community. If the classification is a split class (e.g., 6/XX): ➢ The first class (e.g., "6" in a 6/XX) applies to properties within 5 road miles of a recognized fire station and within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant or alternate water supply. The second class (XX or XY) applies to properties beyond 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant but within 5 road miles of a recognized fire station. Alternative Water Supply: The first class (e.g., "6" in a 6/10) applies to properties within 5 road miles of a recognized fire station with no hydrant distance requirement. ➢ Class 10 applies to properties over 5 road miles of a recognized fire station. Class 10W applies to properties within 5 to 7 road miles of a recognized fire station with a recognized water supply within 1,000 feet. ➢ Specific properties with a Needed Fire Flow in excess of 3,500 gpm are evaluated separately and assigned an individual classification. FSRS Feature Earned Credit 513. Credit for Engine Companies Credit Available Emergency Communications 0.00 0.50 414. Credit for Emergency Reporting 0.30 3 422. Credit for Telecommunicators 3.20 4 432. Credit for Dispatch Circuits 1.20 3 440. Credit for Emergency Communications 4.70 10 Fire Department 513. Credit for Engine Companies 4.03 6 523. Credit for Reserve Pumpers 0.00 0.50 532. Credit for Pump Capacity 3.00 3 549. Credit for Ladder Service 3.28 4 553. Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks 0.00 0,50 561. Credit for Deployment Analysis 5.67 10 571. Credit for Company Personnel 2.90 15 581. Credit for Training 2.85 9 730. Credit for Operational Considerations 0 2K3,9.4O40 590. Credit for Fire Department Water Supply 616. Credit for Supply System 621. Credit for Hydrants 631. Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing 640. Credit for Water Supply Divergence 1050. Community Risk Reduction Total Credit I 60.02 105.50 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 7 Emergency Communications Ten percent of a community's overall score is based on how well the communications center receives and dispatches fire alarms. Our field representative evaluated: Communications facilities provided for the general public to report structure fires • Enhanced 9-1-1 Telephone Service including wireless Computer-aided dispatch (CAD) facilities • Alarm receipt and processing at the communication center • Training and certification of telecommunicators Facilities used to dispatch fire department companies to reported structure fires Item 414 - Credit for Emergency Reporting (3 points) The first item reviewed is Item 414 "Credit for Emergency Reporting (CER)". This item reviews the emergency communication center facilities provided for the public to report fires including 911 systems (Basic or Enhanced), Wireless Phase I and Phase II, Voice over Internet Protocol, Computer Aided Dispatch and Geographic Information Systems for automatic vehicle location. ISO uses National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems as the reference for this section. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 8 414. Credit Emergency Reporting 422. Credit for Telecommunicators M4.701 432. Credit for Dispatch Circuits Item 440. Credit for Emergency Communications: Item 414 - Credit for Emergency Reporting (3 points) The first item reviewed is Item 414 "Credit for Emergency Reporting (CER)". This item reviews the emergency communication center facilities provided for the public to report fires including 911 systems (Basic or Enhanced), Wireless Phase I and Phase II, Voice over Internet Protocol, Computer Aided Dispatch and Geographic Information Systems for automatic vehicle location. ISO uses National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems as the reference for this section. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 8 Item 422- Credit for Telecommunicators (4 points) The second item reviewed is Item 422 "Credit for Telecommunicators (TC)". This item reviews the number of Telecommunicators on duty at the center to handle fire calls and other emergencies. All emergency calls including those calls that do not require fire department action are reviewed to determine the proper staffing to answer emergency calls and dispatch the appropriate emergency response. NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems, recommends that ninety-five percent of emergency calls shall be answered within 15 seconds and ninety-nine percent of emergency calls shall be answered within 40 seconds. In addition, NFPA recommends that ninety percent of emergency alarm processing shall be completed within 60 seconds and ninety-nine percent of alarm processing shall be completed within 90 seconds of answering the call. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 9 Earned Credit item 410. Emergency Reporting (CER) Credit Available A./B. Basic 9-1-1, Enhanced 9-14 or No 9-14 10.00 20 For maximum credit, there should be an Enhanced 9-1-1 system, Basic 9-1-1 and No 9-1-1 will receive partial credit. 1. E9-1-1 Wireless 0.00 25 Wireless Phase I using Static ALI (automatic location identification) Functionality (10 points); Wireless Phase II using Dynamic ALI Functionality (15 points); Both available will be 25 points 2. E9-1-1 Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 0.00 25 Static VoIP using Static ALI Functionality (10 points); Nomadic VoIP using Dynamic ALI Functionality (15 points); Both available will be 25 points 3. Computer Aided Dispatch 0.00 15 Basic CAD (5 points); CAD with Management Information System (5 points); CAD with Interoperability, (5 points) 4. Geographic Information System (GIS/AVL) 0.00 15 The PSAP uses a fully integrated CAD/GIS management system with automatic vehicle location (AVL) integrated with a CAD system providing dispatch assignments. The individual fire departments being dispatched do not need GIS/AVL capability to obtain this credit. Review of Emergency Reporting total: 10.00 100 Item 422- Credit for Telecommunicators (4 points) The second item reviewed is Item 422 "Credit for Telecommunicators (TC)". This item reviews the number of Telecommunicators on duty at the center to handle fire calls and other emergencies. All emergency calls including those calls that do not require fire department action are reviewed to determine the proper staffing to answer emergency calls and dispatch the appropriate emergency response. NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems, recommends that ninety-five percent of emergency calls shall be answered within 15 seconds and ninety-nine percent of emergency calls shall be answered within 40 seconds. In addition, NFPA recommends that ninety percent of emergency alarm processing shall be completed within 60 seconds and ninety-nine percent of alarm processing shall be completed within 90 seconds of answering the call. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 9 To receive full credit for operators on duty, ISO must review documentation to show that the communication center meets NFPA 1221 call answering and dispatch time performance measurement standards. This documentation may be in the form of performance statistics or other performance measurements compiled by the 9-1-1 software or other software programs that are currently in use such as Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) or Management Information System (MIS). PPC is a registered trademark of hrsurmce Services of] -ice, Inc. Page 10 Item 420. Telecommunicators (CTC) Earned Credit Credit Available Al. Alarm Receipt (AR) 20.00 20 Receipt of alarms shall meet the requirements in accordance with the criteria of NFPA 1221 A2. Alarm Processing (AP) 20.00 20 Processing of alarms shall meet the requirements in accordance with the criteria of NFPA 1221 B. Emergency Dispatch Protocols (EDP) 0.00 20 Telecommunicators have emergency dispatch protocols (EDP) containing questions and a decision -support process to facilitate correct call categorization and prioritization. C. Telecommunicator Training and Certification (TTC) 20.00 20 Telecommunicators meet the qualification requirements referenced in NFPA 1061, Standard for Professional Qualifications for Public Safety Telecommunicator, and/or the Association of Public -Safety Communications Officials - International (APCO) Project 33. Telecommunicators are certified in the knowledge, skills, and abilities corresponding to their job functions. D. Telecommunicator Continuing Education and 20.00 20 Quality Assurance (TOA) Telecommunicators participate in continuing education and/or in-service training and quality -assurance programs as appropriate for their positions Review of Telecommunicators total: 80.00 100 PPC is a registered trademark of hrsurmce Services of] -ice, Inc. Page 10 Item 432 - Credit for Dispatch Circuits (3 points) The third item reviewed is Item 432 "Credit for Dispatch Circuits (CDC)". This item reviews the dispatch circuit facilities used to transmit alarms to fire department members. A "Dispatch Circuit" is defined in NFPA 1221 as "A circuit over which an alarm is transmitted from the communications center to an emergency response facility (ERF) or emergency response units (ERUs) to notify ERUs to respond to an emergency'. All fire departments (except single fire station departments with full-time firefighter personnel receiving alarms directly at the fire station) need adequate means of notifying all firefighter personnel of the location of reported structure fires. The dispatch circuit facilities should be in accordance with the general criteria of NFPA 1221. "Alarms" are defined in this Standard as "A signal or message from a person or device indicating the existence of an emergency or other situation that requires action by an emergency response agency". There are two different levels of dispatch circuit facilities provided for in the Standard — a primary dispatch circuit and a secondary dispatch circuit. In jurisdictions that receive 730 alarms or more per year (average of two alarms per 24-hour period), two separate and dedicated dispatch circuits, a primary and a secondary, are needed. In jurisdictions receiving fewer than 730 alarms per year, a second dedicated dispatch circuit is not needed. Dispatch circuit facilities installed but not used or tested (in accordance with the NFPA Standard) receive no credit. The score for Credit for Dispatch Circuits (CDC) is influenced by monitoring for integrity of the primary dispatch circuit. There are up to 0.90 points available for this Item. Monitoring for integrity involves installing automatic systems that will detect faults and failures and send visual and audible indications to appropriate communications center (or dispatch center) personnel. ISO uses NFPA 1221 to guide the evaluation of this item. ISO's evaluation also includes a review of the communication system's emergency power supplies. Item 432 "Credit for Dispatch Circuits (CDC)" = 1.20 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page I I Fire Department__ Fifty percent of a community's overall score is based upon the fire department's structure fire suppression system. ISO's field representative evaluated: Engine and ladder/service vehicles including reserve apparatus Equipment carried Response to reported structure fires Deployment analysis of companies Available and/or responding firefighters Training 513. Credit for Engine Companies 523. Credit for Reserve Pumpers 532. Credit for Pumper Capacity 549. Credit for Ladder Service 553. Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks 561. Credit for Deployment Analysis 571. Credit for Company Personnel 581. Credit for Training Earned Credit 4.03 0.00 3.00 3.28 0.00 5.67 2.90 Credit Available 6 0.5 3 4 0.5 10 15 730. Credit for Operational Considerations Item 590. Credit for Fire Department: 2.85 2.00 23.73 g 2 50 Basic Fire Flow The Basic Fire Flow for the community is determined by the review of the Needed Fire Flows for selected buildings in the community. The fifth largest Needed Fire Flow is determined to be the Basic Fire Flow. The Basic Fire Flow has been determined to be 2000 gpm. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 12 Item 513 - Credit for Engine Companies (6 points) The first item reviewed is Item 513 "Credit for Engine Companies (CEC)". This item reviews the number of engine companies, their pump capacity, hose testing, pump testing and the equipment carried on the in-service pumpers. To be recognized, pumper apparatus must meet the general criteria of NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus which include a minimum 250 gpm pump, an emergency warning system, a 300 gallon water tank, and hose. At least 1 apparatus must have a permanently mounted pump rated at 750 gpm or more at 150 psi. The review of the number of needed pumpers considers the response distance to built -upon areas; the Basic Fire Flow; and the method of operation. Multiple alarms, simultaneous incidents, and life safety are not considered. The greatest value of A, B, or C below is needed in the fire district to suppress fires in structures with a Needed Fire Flow of 3,500 gpm or less: 2 engine companies a) 1 engine companies to provide fire suppression services to areas to meet NFPA 1710 criteria or within 1'/z miles. b) 2 engine companies to support a Basic Fire Flow of 2000 gpm. c) 2 engine companies based upon the fire department's method of operation to provide a minimum two engine response to all first alarm structure fires. The FSRS recognizes that there are 2 engine companies in service. The FSRS also reviews Automatic Aid. Automatic Aid is considered in the review as assistance dispatched automatically by contractual agreement between two communities or fire districts. That differs from mutual aid or assistance arranged case by case. ISO will recognize an Automatic Aid plan under the following conditions: It must be prearranged for first alarm response according to a definite plan. It is preferable to have a written agreement, but ISO may recognize demonstrated performance. The aid must be dispatched to all reported structure fires on the initial alarm. The aid must be provided 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. FSRS Item 512.D "Automatic Aid Engine Companies" responding on first alarm and meeting the needs of the city for basic fire flow and/or distribution of companies are factored based upon the value of the Automatic Aid plan (up to 1.00 can be used as the factor). The Automatic Aid factor is determined by a review of the Automatic Aid provider's communication facilities, how they receive alarms from the graded area, inter -department training between fire departments, and the fire ground communications capability between departments. For each engine company, the credited Pump Capacity (PC), the Hose Carried (HC), the Equipment Carried (EC) all contribute to the calculation for the percent of credit the FSRS provides to that engine company. Item 513 "Credit for Engine Companies (CEC)" = 4.03 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 13 Item 523 - Credit for Reserve Pumpers (0,50 points) The item is Item 523 "Credit for Reserve Pumpers (CRP)". This item reviews the number and adequacy of the pumpers and their equipment. The number of needed reserve pumpers is 1 for each 8 needed engine companies determined in Item 513, or any fraction thereof. Item 523 "Credit for Reserve Pumpers (CRP)" = 0.00 points Item 532 — Credit for Pumper Capacity (3 points) The next item reviewed is Item 532 "Credit for Pumper Capacity (CPC)". The total pump capacity available should be sufficient for the Basic Fire Flow of 2000 gpm. The maximum needed pump capacity credited is the Basic Fire Flow of the community. Item 532 "Credit for Pumper Capacity (CPC)" = 3.00 points Item 549 — Credit for Ladder Service (4 points) The next item reviewed is Item 549 "Credit for Ladder Service (CLS)". This item reviews the number of response areas within the city with 5 buildings that are 3 or more stories or 35 feet or more in height, or with 5 buildings that have a Needed Fire Flow greater than 3,500 gpm, or any combination of these criteria. The height of all buildings in the city, including those protected by automatic sprinklers, is considered when determining the number of needed ladder companies. Response areas not needing a ladder company should have a service company. Ladders, tools and equipment normally carried on ladder trucks are needed not only for ladder operations but also for forcible entry, ventilation, salvage, overhaul, lighting and utility control. The number of ladder or service companies, the height of the aerial ladder, aerial ladder testing and the equipment carried on the in-service ladder trucks and service trucks is compared with the number of needed ladder trucks and service trucks and an FSRS equipment list. Ladder trucks must meet the general criteria of NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus to be recognized. The number of needed ladder -service trucks is dependent upon the number of buildings 3 stories or 35 feet or more in height, buildings with a Needed Fire Flow greater than 3,500 gpm, and the method of operation. The FSRS recognizes that there are 0 ladder companies in service. These companies are needed to provide fire suppression services to areas to meet NFPA 1710 criteria or within 2'% miles and the number of buildings with a Needed Fire Flow over 3,500 gpm or 3 stories or more in height, or the method of operation. The FSRS recognizes that there are 1 service companies in service. Item 549 "Credit for Ladder Service (CLS)' = 3.28 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 14 Item 553 — Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks (0.50 points) The next item reviewed is Item 553 "Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks (CRLS)". This item considers the adequacy of ladder and service apparatus when one (or more in larger communities) of these apparatus are out of service. The number of needed reserve ladder and service trucks is 1 for each 8 needed ladder and service companies that were determined to be needed in Item 540, or any fraction thereof. Item 553 "Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks (CRLS)" = 0.00 points Item 561 — Deployment Analysis (10 points) Next, Item 561 'Deployment Analysis (DA)" is reviewed. This Item examines the number and adequacy of existing engine and ladder -service companies to cover built -upon areas of the city. To determine the Credit for Distribution, first the Existing Engine Company (EC) points and the Existing Engine Companies (EE) determined in Item 513 are considered along with Ladder Company Equipment (LCE) points, Service Company Equipment (SCE) points, Engine -Ladder Company Equipment (ELCE) points, and Engine -Service Company Equipment (ESCE) points determined in Item 549. Secondly, as an alternative to determining the number of needed engine and ladder/service companies through the road -mile analysis, a fire protection area may use the results of a systematic performance evaluation. This type of evaluation analyzes computer-aided dispatch (CAD) history to demonstrate that, with its current deployment of companies, the fire department meets the time constraints for initial arriving engine and initial full alarm assignment in accordance with the general criteria of in NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. A determination is made of the percentage of built upon area within 1'/� miles of a first -due engine company and within 2'/z miles of a first -due ladder -service company. Item 561 "Credit Deployment Analysis (DA)" = 5.67 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 15 Item 571 — Credit for Company Personnel (15 points) Item 571 "Credit for Company Personnel (CCP)" reviews the average number of existing firefighters and company officers available to respond to reported first alarm structure fires in the city. The on -duty strength is determined by the yearly average of total firefighters and company officers on -duty considering vacations, sick leave, holidays, "Kelley" days and other absences. When a fire department operates under a minimum staffing policy, this may be used in lieu of determining the yearly average of on -duty company personnel. Firefighters on apparatus not credited under Items 513 and 549 that regularly respond to reported first alarms to aid engine, ladder, and service companies are included in this item as increasing the total company strength. Firefighters staffing ambulances or other units serving the general public are credited if they participate in fire -fighting operations, the number depending upon the extent to which they are available and are used for response to first alarms of fire. On -Call members are credited on the basis of the average number staffing apparatus on first alarms. Off -shift career firefighters and company officers responding on first alarms are considered on the same basis as on-call personnel. For personnel not normally at the fire station, the number of responding firefighters and company officers is divided by 3 to reflect the time needed to assemble at the fire scene and the reduced ability to act as a team due to the various arrival times at the fire location when compared to the personnel on -duty at the fire station during the receipt of an alarm. The number of Public Safety Officers who are positioned in emergency vehicles within the jurisdiction boundaries may be credited based on availability to respond to first alarm structure fires. In recognition of this increased response capability the number of responding Public Safety Officers is divided by 2. The average number of firefighters and company officers responding with those companies credited as Automatic Aid under Items 513 and 549 are considered for either on -duty or on- call company personnel as is appropriate. The actual number is calculated as the average number of company personnel responding multiplied by the value of AA Plan determined in Item 512.D. The maximum creditable response of on -duty and on-call firefighters is 12, including company officers, for each existing engine and ladder company and 6 for each existing service company. Chief Officers are not creditable except when more than one chief officer responds to alarms; firefighters if they perform company duties. then extra chief officers may be credited as The FSRS recognizes 0.00 on -duty personnel and an average of 8.70 on-call personnel responding on first alarm structure fires. Item 571 "Credit for Company Personnel (CCP)" = 2.90 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 16 Item 581 — Credit for Training (9 points) Item 580 "Credit for Training (CT)" = 2.85 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 17 Earned Credit Training Credit Available A. Facilities, and Use 16.7! 35 For maximum credit, each firefighter should receive 18 hours per year in structure fire related subjects as outlined in NFPA 1001. B. Company Training 6.25 25 For maximum credit, each firefighter should receive 16 hours per month in structure fire related subjects as outlined in NFPA 1001. C. Classes for Officers 0.00 12 For maximum credit, each officer should be certified in accordance with the general criteria of NFPA 1021. Additionally, each officer should receive 12 hours of continuing education on or off site. D. New Driver and Operator Training 0.67 5 For maximum credit, each new driver and operator should receive 60 hours of driver/operator training per year in accordance with NFPA 1002 and NFPA 1451. E. Existing Driver and Operator Training 5.00 5 For maximum credit, each existing driver and operator should receive 12 hours of driver/operator training per year in accordance with NFPA 1002 and NFPA 1451. F. Training on Hazardous Materials 0.33 1 For maximum credit, each firefighter should receive 6 hours of training for incidents involving hazardous materials in accordance with NFPA 472. G. Recruit Training 2.63 5 For maximum credit, each firefighter should receive 240 hours of structure fire related training in accordance with NFPA 1001 within the first year of employment or tenure. H. Pre -Fire Planning Inspections 0.00 12 For maximum credit, pre -fire planning inspections of each commercial, industrial, institutional, and other similar type building (all buildings except 1-4 family dwellings) should be made annually by company members. Records of inspections should include up -to date notes and sketches. Item 580 "Credit for Training (CT)" = 2.85 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 17 Item 730 — Operational Considerations (2 points) Item 730 "Credit for Operational Considerations (COC)" evaluates fire department standard operating procedures and incident management systems for emergency operations involving structure fires. Operational Considerations Earned Credit 616. Credit for Supply System Credit Available Standard Operating Procedures 3.00 3 631. Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing 50 50 The department should have established SOPs for 39.40 40 fire department general emergency operations Incident Management Systems 50 50 The department should use an established incident management system (IMS) Operational Considerations total: 100 100 Item 730 "Credit for Operational Considerations (COC)" = 2.00 points Water Sunuly Forty percent of a community's overall score is based on the adequacy of the water supply system. The ISO field representative evaluated: the capability of the water distribution system to meet the Needed Fire Flows at selected locations up to 3,500 gpm. size, type and installation of fire hydrants. inspection and flow testing of fire hydrants. PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 18 Earned Credit Credit Available 616. Credit for Supply System 30.00 30 621. Credit for Hydrants 3.00 3 631. Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing 6.40 7 Item 640. Credit for Water Supply: 39.40 40 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 18 Item 616 — Credit for Supply System (30 points) The first item reviewed is Item 616 "Credit for Supply System (CSS)". This item reviews the rate of flow that can be credited at each of the Needed Fire Flow test locations considering the supply works capacity, the main capacity and the hydrant distribution. The lowest flow rate of these items is credited for each representative location. A water system capable of delivering 250 gpm or more for a period of two hours plus consumption at the maximum daily rate at the fire location is considered minimum in the ISO review. Where there are 2 or more systems or services distributing water at the same location, credit is given on the basis of the joint protection provided by all systems and services available. The supply works capacity is calculated for each representative Needed Fire Flow test location, considering a variety of water supply sources. These include public water supplies, emergency supplies (usually accessed from neighboring water systems), suction supplies (usually evidenced by dry hydrant installations near a river, lake or other body of water), and supplies developed by a fire department using large diameter hose or vehicles to shuttle water from a source of supply to a fire site. The result is expressed in gallons per minute (gpm). The normal ability of the distribution system to deliver Needed Fire Flows at the selected building locations is reviewed. The results of a flow test at a representative test location will indicate the ability of the water mains (or fire department in the case of fire department supplies) to carry water to that location. The hydrant distribution is reviewed within 1,000 feet of representative test locations measured as hose can be laid by apparatus. For maximum credit, the Needed Fire Flows should be available at each location in the district. Needed Fire Flows of 2,500 gpm or less should be available for 2 hours; and Needed Fire Flows of 3,000 and 3,500 gpm should be obtainable for 3 hours. Item 616 "Credit for Supply System (CSS)' = 30.00 points PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 19 Item 621 — Credit for Hydrants (3 points) The second item reviewed is Item 621 "Credit for Hydrants (CH)". This item reviews the number of fire hydrants of each type compared with the total number of hydrants. There are a total of 184 hydrants in the graded area. 620. Hydrants, - Size,�Installatlon Number of A. With a 6 -incnd a um Hydrants inch outlets Pumper outlet with or without 2/, 184 B. With a 6 -inch or larger branch and no pumper outlet but two or more 2'% -inch outlets, or with a small foot valve, or with a small barrel C✓D. With only a 21 -inch outlet or with less than a 6 -inch branch E./F. Flush TypeCistern, or Suction Point Item 621 "Credit for Hydrants (CH)" = 3.00 points Item 630 — Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing (7 points) The third item reviewed is Item 630 "Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing (CIT)". This item reviews the fire hydrant inspection frequency, and the completeness of the inspections. Inspection of hydrants should be in accordance with AWWA M-17, Installation, Field Testing and Maintenance of Fire Hydrants. Frequency of Inspection (FI): Average interval between the 3 most recent inspections. nspections. Fren 1 year - Poll 2 years 30 3 years 20 4 years 10 5 years or more 5 Note: The points for inspection frequency are reduced by 10 points if the inspections allon reedit to or do not include a flushing program. An additional reduction of 10 points are made if hydrants are not subjected to full system pressure during in ections. If the inspection of arems or suction not include actual drafting with a pumper, or actions. If for p 9 dry hydrants, 20 points are deducted- Totnts al points for Inspections = 4.00 points PPC is a registered trademark of Inso ance Services ottice, Inc. Page 20 Frequency of Fire Flow Testing (FF): Average interval between the 3 most recent inspections. Points .... __......._..... Frequency, 5 years 6 years 7 years 8 years 9 years 10 years or more Total points for Fire Flow Testing = 2.40 points Item 631 "Credit for Inspection and Fire Flow Testing (CIT)" = 6.40 points 40 30 20 10 5 No Credit Divergence = -10.21 The Divergence factor mathematically reduces the score based upon the relative difference between the fire department and water supply scores. The factor is introduced in the final equation. Community Risk Reduction PPC is , -i registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 21 Earned Credit Credit Available 1025. Credit for Fire Prevention and Code Enforcement (CPCE) 1.05 2.2 1033. Credit for Public Fire Safety Education (CFSE) 0.96 2.2 1044. Credit for Fire Investigation Programs (CIP) 0.39 1.1 Item 1050. Credit for Community Risk Reduction 2.40 5.50 PPC is , -i registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 21 Item 1025 - Credit for Fire Prevention Code Adoption and Earned Credit Enforcement (2.2 points) Credit Available Fire Prevention Code Regulations (PCR) 4.00 g Fire Investigator Certification and Training (IQT) Evaluation of fire prevention code regulations in effect. 8.60 10 Fire Prevention Staffing (PS) Use of National Fire Incident Reporting System (IRS) Evaluation of staffing for fire prevention activities. 3.33 g Fire Prevention Certification and Training (PCT) Evaluation of the certification and training of fire prevention code enforcement personnel. 3.00 g Fire Prevention Programs (PCP) Evaluation of fire prevention programs. 4.20 16 Review of Fire Prevention Code and Enforcement (CPCE) subtotal: 19.13 40 Item 1033 — Credit for Public Fire Safety Education (2.2 points) Earned Credit Credit Available Public Fire Safety Educators Qualifications and Training (FSQT) 5.00 Evaluation of public Fre safety education personnel training and 10 qualification as specified by the authority having jurisdiction. Public Fire Safety Education Programs (FSP) Evaluation of programs for public fire safety education. 12.50 30 Review of Public Safety Education Programs (CFSE) subtotal: 17.50 40 Item 1044 — Credit for Fire Investigation Programs (1.1 points) Earned Credit Credit Available Fire Investigation Organization and Staffing (IOS) Evaluation of organization and staffing for fire investigations. 4.00 g Fire Investigator Certification and Training (IQT) Evaluation of fire investigator certification and training. 3.00 6 Use of National Fire Incident Reporting System (IRS) Evaluation of the use of the National Fire Incident Reporting S stem (NFIRS) for the 3 0.00 6 years before the evaluation. Review of Fire Investigation Programs (CIP) subtotal: 7.00 20 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 22 Final Community Classification = 04/4Y PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 23 Earned Credit Credit Available FSRS Item Emergency Communications 0.30 3 414. Credit for Emergency Reporting 422. Credit for Telecommunicators 3.20 4 432. Credit for Dispatch Circuits 1.20 3 440. Credit for Emergency Communications 4.70 10 Fire Department 4.03 6 513. Credit for Engine Companies 523. Credit for Reserve Pumpers 0.00 0.5 532. Credit for Pumper Capacity 3.00 3 549. Credit for Ladder Service 3.28 4 553. Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks 0.00 0.5 561. Credit for Deployment Analysis 5.67 10 571. Credit for Company Personnel 2.90 15 581. Credit for Training 2.85 9 2 730. Credit for Operational Considerations 2.00 590. Credit for Fire Department 23.73 50 Water Supply 30.00 30 616. Credit for Supply System 621. Credit for Hydrants 3.00 3 631. Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing 6.40 7 640. Credit for Water Supply 39.40 40 Divergence -10.21 - 1050. Community Risk Reduction 2.40 5.50 Total Credit 60.02 105.5 Final Community Classification = 04/4Y PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. Page 23 \ 0 , \ /} - / - =2 cy u wG - -_ � )& } - ;0 }/ ( - �7 \ - / - 7 ] ; 7 ) / - ` < _9 § \ ) / /- \3 a Aa: } \ \ } \mo Z o , \ } �) \ /E \(>/\\}