2018-03-21 Joint Work Session
CITY COUNCIL -BOROUGH ASSEMBLY
JOINT WORK SESSION AGENDA
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
School District Conference Room
7:30 p.m.
(Borough Chairing)
Page
1.Public Comments
2.Agenda Items
2-3A.Consolidation
Historical, Timeline, and Current Information Link
4-22B.Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management
Specialist to the Kodiak Emergency Services Organization
JWS Job Duties and Tasks for EMS
2017 EMPG Local Grant Guidance
C.Tsunami After Action Update
3.Next Meeting Schedule
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
4.Future Discussion Items
A.Community Health Needs Follow Up (May Meeting)
B.Fishery Related Discussion -KFAC, Fisheries Analyst, NPFMC
June Meeting, Reception Sponsorship, etc.
Page 1 of 22
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
CONSOLIDATION RELATED
INFORMATION
Available to the Public – Link Below:
Page
CONSOLIDATION INFORMATION
#- # 1.2016 TO PRESENT CONSOLIDATION TIMELINE
2016- Consolidation Timeline
#- # 2.Resolution Directing the Borough Manager to Solicit for Proposals for
the Hiring of a Consultant to Perform Research and Provide Reports
Related to the Topic of Consolidation and Recommending the
Allocation of Funding Necessary Related To This Subject in the
FY2019 Budget.
Resolution No. FY2018-25 Consolidation adopted es
#- # 3.Assembly Discussion on February 15, 2018 Regular Meeting
(Discussed during packet review on February 8, 2018).
Output Document (AS - 0755) - Pdf
#- # 4.Discussed During the Assembly Work Session Dated November 30,
2017
113017 Managers Consolidation Report - Pdf
Discussed During the December 21, 2016 Joint Borough and City Joint
#- # 5.
Work Session - No Backup Provided in the Packet
Joint Work Session - Assembly and City Council - 21 Dec 2016 -
Agenda - Pdf
#- # 6.Discussed During the October 19, 2016 Borough City Joint Work
Session - No Backup Provided (Title: Eficienciesof Government and
Consolidation Discussion)
Joint Work Session- Assembly and City Council - 19 Oct 2016 -
Agenda - Pdf
Resolution No. FY2017-07 Certifying Election - Advisory Vote Result
#- # 7.
and Pamphlet Page
FY2017-17 REGULAR
Page 2 of 22
Consolidation
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
2016 Pamphlet Advisory Question on Consolidation
#- # 8.August 23, 2016 Borough City Joint Work Session
Joint Work Session - Assembly and City Council - 23 Aug 2016 -
Agenda- Pdf
Ordinance No. FY2017-02 Final Adopted
#- # 9.
Ordinance No. FY2017-02 Consolidation Advisory Vote (Version 2)
2016-06-21 Consolidation Advisory Vote Draft Ordinance (Version 1)
#- # 10.Discussed During the August 4, 2016 Assembly Regular Meeting
Assembly Regular Meeting - 04 Aug 2016 - Agenda - Pdf
#- # 11.Discussed During the July 14, 2016 Work Session - Placed as an Item
on the Agenda
14 Jul 2016 Work Session Packet - Agenda - Pdf
Discussed During the July 28, 2016 Work Session as a Packet Review
#- # 12.
Item For the August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting
Assembly Regular Meeting - 04 Aug 2016 - Agenda - Pdf
Consolidation Comp Plan - Policy
#- # 13.
Consolidation and Merger Flow Chart
#- # 14.
Consolidation Resolutions Binder
#-#15.
Historical Information Regarding Consolidation
#- # 16.
Consolidation Resolutions Historical Index
#- # 17.Consolidation Report May 15, 1989 withappendices
Consolidation Report May 15 1989 with appendices
1989 Consolidation Report 1
#- # 18.
1989 Consolidation Report 2 Revised
Local Boundary Commission Consolidation Regulations
#- # 19.
2015A Types of Municipal Government in Alaska
#-#20.
Alaska Statutes Governing and Procedures for Consolidation
#- # 21.
Page 3 of 22
Consolidation
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
Job Duties and Tasks for: "Emergency Management Specialist"
Under direction of the City Manager, plans and coordinates all facets of emergency preparedness for the
City and Borough ensuring National Incident Management System compliance.
1) Collaborate with other officials in order to prepare and analyze damage assessments following disasters
or emergencies.
2) Conduct surveys to determine the types of emergency-related needs thatwill need to be addressed in
disaster planning, or provide technical support to others conducting such surveys.
3) Consult with officials of local and area governments, schools, hospitals, and other institutions in order
to determine their needs and capabilities in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency.
4)Design and administer emergency/disaster preparedness training courses that prepare the Incident
Management Teamhow to effectively respond to major emergencies and disaster.
5) Develop and maintain liaisons with municipalities, departments, and similar entities in order to
facilitate plan development, response effort coordination, and exchanges of personnel and equipment.
6)Develop and perform tests and evaluations of emergency management plans in accordance with state
and federal regulations.
7)Inspect facilities and equipment such as emergency management centers and communications
equipment in order to determine their operational and functional capabilities in emergency situations.
8)Keep informed of activities or changes that could affect the likelihood of an emergency, as well as
those that could affect response efforts and details of plan implementation.
9)Keep informed of federal, state and local regulations affecting emergency plans, and ensuresthat plans
adhere to these regulations.
10)Maintain and update all resource materials associated with emergency preparedness plans.
11)Prepare emergency situation status reports that describe response and recovery efforts, needs, and
preliminary damage assessments.
12)Propose alteration of emergency response procedures based on regulatory changes, technological
changes, or knowledge gained from outcomes of previous emergency situations.
13)Apply for federal funding for emergency management related needs; administer such grants and
report on their progress.
14)Develop instructional materials for the public, and make presentations to citizens' groups in order to
provide information on emergency plans and their implementation process.
Page 4 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
Emergency
Federal Fiscal Year
Performance
Grant(EMPG)
2017
Program
State of Alaska
Department of Military
and Veterans Affairs
Local Grant Guidance
Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency
Management
Page 5 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
2017 Emergency Management Performance Grant
LOCAL JURISDICTION APPLICATION AND GUIDANCE
The Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2017 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG)
continues the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) and the Alaska Division of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management’s (DHS&EM) efforts to sustain and enhance
all–hazards emergency management capabilities. Emergency management must be able to
coordinate in the context of natural and man–made hazards, as well as technological events, that
threaten the security of the homeland and the safety and wellbeing of citizens. The State of
Alaska directs EMPG Program funds will be used to support emergency management staff
salaries for activities delineated in your application work plan.
While not anticipated, the federal program guidance release may contain additional program
requirements or objectives not currently in the State’s local guidance and application. Any
significant modification will be communicated, and if needed, will be addressed in the 2017
Obligating Award and accompanying award letter.
There are no major changes to the 2017 local jurisdiction EMPG Program Guidance and
Application. DHS&EM is releasing this guidance and application for submittal by 11:59 p.m.,
nd
Friday, June 2, 2017.
To accurately capture data, the 2017 EMPG application requires jurisdictions to identify the
training courses completed to date by local EMPG funded staff. Training should continue be
documented in quarterly progress reports and kept in local jurisdiction records throughout the
performance period.
EMPG 2017 Requirements
Jurisdictions shall complete and submit the Request for EMPG Funds and Work Plan.
The 2017 EMPG performance period will be twelve months, beginning July 1, 2017 and
ending June 30, 2018. Awards will be retroactive to July 1 if needed.
EMPG mid–year expenditures will be reviewed by DHS&EM following the second quarter
reports. Jurisdictions shall be required to provide a spending plan to DHS&EM if they have
expended less than 45% of the awarded funds.
EMPG funded personnel–to include those performing emergency management duties and
used as required match must complete the required FEMA independent study (IS) courses by
June 28, 2018.
Jurisdictions shall develop a multi–year Training and Exercise Plan (TEP) to be submitted to
DHS&EM at the Training and Exercise Plan Workshop (TEPW).
Jurisdictions will participate in the Alaska Assessment annually as requested by DHS&EM
Jurisdictions shall participate in DHS&EM's Preparedness Conference and attend the State’s
TEPW, to be held in conjunction with the Preparedness Conference.
EMPG 2017 Grant Assurances
Jurisdictions must ensure federally funded preparedness assistance programs reflect and
support National Incident Management System (NIMS) implementation, and must be in full
ЋtğŭĻ
Page 6 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
NIMS compliance by having adopted the required compliance. For FFY 2017, the Alaska
Assessment will be the required means to report NIMS compliance.
INTRODUCTION
The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Program provides federal funds to
assist state, local, tribal and territorial governments in preparing for all hazards, as authorized by
Section 662 of the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (6 U.S.C. § 762) and the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. §
5121 et seq.). State of Alaska leaders recognize both state and local governments must work to
protect their citizens by developing comprehensive, risk–based, all–hazards emergency
management programs. Emergency management must be able to coordinate in the context of
natural and man–made hazards, as well as technological events, that threaten the security of the
homeland and the safety and well–being of citizens. An all–hazards approach to preparedness
including the development of a comprehensive program of planning, training, and exercises, sets
the stage for an effective and consistent response to any threatened or actual disaster or
emergency, regardless of the cause.
FEMA has identified overarching priorities for the EMPG Program:
Advancing “Whole Community” Security and Emergency Management. “Whole
Community” fosters a national emergency management approach and considers all aspects of
a community to effectively prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from and mitigate
against any terrorist attack or natural disaster.
Implementation of Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-8. These activities include
continued development and sustainment of core capabilities needed to close gaps and
strengthen the State of Alaska’s preparedness.
Federal Program Requirements
Guidelines from the FEMA Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) have the following stipulations
concerning the use of funding received from EMPG Program.
Funds may be used for a range of emergency management planning programs to accomplish the
following initiatives:
Emergency Management Organization Program. Programs must continue to fund all
necessary aspects of the emergency management program that support day–to–day
preparedness, response, and recovery activities, including mitigation efforts.
National Preparedness Goal (NPG) and National Incident Management System (NIMS).
Emergency management programs must update or modify their operational plans, training,
and exercise activities, as necessary, to achieve conformance with the NPG and the NIMS
implementation guidelines, coordinating structures, processes, and protocols, as required. As
with FFY 2016 EMPG Program funding, federal departments and agencies are mandating
applicants certify current NIMS requirements have been met to be eligible for preparedness
grant funding. For FFY 2017, the Alaska Assessment will be the required means to report
NIMS compliance. For more information on NIMS compliance consult
http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims.
Alaska Assessment. The Alaska Assessment will be used towards the State of Alaska Threat
and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). It will also be used to support local
ЌtğŭĻ
Page 7 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
jurisdictions’ efforts to identify gaps in prevention, protection, mitigation, response and
recovery by providing useful deliverables. State and local jurisdictions should also continue
to focus on addressing state–specific planning issues identified through the 2010 Nationwide
Plan Review.
Multi–year Training and Exercise Plan (TEP) and multi–year Training and Exercise
Plan Workshop (TEPW). The multi–year TEP provides a roadmap to accomplish the
priorities described in the Homeland Security Strategy. Engaging the Whole Community in
training and exercises allows all partners to evaluate and improve upon their level of
preparedness. States and Urban Areas are required to conduct an annual TEPW. All grantees
and sub–recipients are required to develop a multi–year TEP, update it annually and attend
the State’s TEPW.
Hazard Mitigation Plans. Mitigation is the effort to reduce loss of life and property by
lessening the impact of disasters. This is achieved through risk analysis, which results in
information that provides a foundation for mitigation activities that reduce risk, and flood
insurance that protects financial investment. Maintaining an updated Hazard Mitigation Plan
through the documents five (5 year document life is important to be able to apply for various
federal grants to accomplish stated mitigation activities.
Emergency Management and Operations Plans. A plan, usually developed in accordance
with guidance contained in the Guide for the Development of State and Local Emergency
Operations Plans, Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 Version 2 (CPG 101 V2), and
other similar guides. The emergency operations plan clearly and concisely describe a
jurisdiction's emergency organization, its means of coordination with other jurisdictions, and
its approach to protecting people and property from disasters and emergencies caused by any
of the hazards to which the community is particularly vulnerable. It assigns functional
responsibilities to the elements of the emergency organization, and details tasks to be carried
out at times and places projected as accurately as permitted by the nature of each situation
addressed. Emergency operations plans are multi–hazard, functional plans that treat
emergency management activities generically. They have a basic section that provides
generally applicable information without reference to any particular hazard. They also
address the unique aspects of individual disasters in hazard–specific appendixes.
Continuity of Operations (COOP) and Continuity of Government (COG). COOP and
COG planning is the fundamental responsibility of local jurisdictions that perform essential
functions. In order to conduct necessary emergency operations, recovery actions, and other
key essential functions during a large–scale or catastrophic event, the jurisdiction must have
effective COOP plans in place to support continued operations. COOP efforts also provide
the foundational basis for COG programs, such as succession planning, which are designed
to ensure the continued existence of not only leadership, but also an enduring constitutional
government.
Whole Community Engagement and Planning. As a concept, Whole Community is a
means by which residents, emergency management practitioners, organizational and
community leaders, and government officials can collectively understand and assess the
needs of their respective communities and determine the best ways to organize and
strengthen their assets, capacities, and interests. By doing so, a more effective path to societal
security and resilience is built. In a sense, Whole Community is a philosophical approach on
how to think about conducting emergency management. There are many different kinds of
communities, including communities of place, interest, belief, and circumstance, which can
ЍtğŭĻ
Page 8 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
exist both geographically and virtually (e.g., online forums). A Whole Community approach
attempts to engage the full capacity of the private and nonprofit sectors, including businesses,
faith–based and disability organizations, and the general public, in conjunction with the
participation of local, tribal, state, territorial, and federal governmental partners. This
engagement means different things to different groups. In an all–hazards environment,
individuals and institutions will make different decisions on how to prepare for and respond
to threats and hazards; therefore, a community’s level of preparedness will vary. The
challenge for those engaged in emergency management is to understand how to work with
the diversity of groups and organizations and the policies and practices that emerge from
them in an effort to improve the ability of local residents to prevent, protect against, mitigate,
respond to, and recover from any type of threat or hazard effectively. Below identifies the
three principles of Whole Community engagement:
o Understand and meet the actual needs of the Whole Community. Community
engagement can lead to a deeper understanding of the unique and diverse needs of
a population, including its demographics, values, norms, community structures,
networks, and relationships. The more we know about our communities, the better
we can understand their real–life safety and sustaining needs and their
motivations to participate in emergency management–related activities prior to an
event.
o Engage and empower all parts of the community. Engaging the Whole
Community and empowering local action will better position stakeholders to plan
for and meet the actual needs of a community and strengthen the local capacity to
deal with the consequences of all threats and hazards. This requires all members
of the community to be part of the emergency management team, which should
include diverse community members, social and community service groups and
institutions, faith–based and disability groups, academia, professional
associations, and the private and nonprofit sectors, while including government
agencies who may not traditionally have been directly involved in emergency
management. When the community is engaged in an authentic dialogue, it
becomes empowered to identify its needs and the existing resources that may be
used to address them.
o Strengthen what works well in communities on a daily basis. A Whole
Community approach to building community resilience requires finding ways to
support and strengthen the institutions, assets, and networks that already work
well in communities and are working to address issues that are important to
community members on a daily basis. Existing structures and relationships that
are present in the daily lives of individuals, families, businesses, and
organizations before an incident occurs can be leveraged and empowered to act
effectively during and after a disaster strikes.
Resource Management Planning. Emergency management and incident response activities
require carefully managed resources (personnel, teams, facilities, equipment, and supplies) to
meet incident needs. Utilization of the standardized resource management concepts such as
typing, inventorying, organizing, and tracking will facilitate the dispatch, deployment, and
recovery of resources before, during, and after an incident. Resource management should be
flexible and scalable in order to support any incident and be adaptable to changes. Efficient
and effective deployment of resources requires that resource management concepts and
ЎtğŭĻ
Page 9 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
principles be used in all phases of emergency management and incident response.
Evacuation Planning. Evacuation planning encompasses not only the movement of people,
but also alerts, warnings, and crisis communications, the ability to care for those displaced
people and the ability to plan for re–entry. While levels of planning for this focus area will
vary greatly depending on the jurisdiction, it should be noted that urban areas should have
detailed plans to address issues associated with this focus.
Pre–Disaster Recovery Planning. Pre–disaster recovery planning enables local jurisdictions
to effectively direct recovery activities and expedite a unified recovery effort. Pre–disaster
plans provide a common platform to guide recovery decisions and activities. When done in
conjunction with local and regional comprehensive and community development, pre–
disaster planning helps to identify recovery priorities, incorporate hazard mitigation
strategies in the wake of a disaster and articulate post–disaster options. By integrating and
coordinating planning initiatives, a community further increases local resilience. In addition
to the general elements of the pre–disaster planning process, there are also elements specific
to the various participants in the process. The responsibility of preparing for disaster recovery
begins with the individual and builds to the larger responsibility of the community and loc al
government. Community planning efforts are supported by voluntary, faith–based and
community organizations; businesses; and local, state, tribal, and federal governments.
Recovery Planning. Those capabilities necessary to assist communities affected by an
incident to recover effectively, including, but not limited to, rebuilding infrastructure
systems; providing adequate interim and long–term housing for survivors; restoring health,
social, and community services; promoting economic development; and restoring natural and
cultural resources.
All costs under these categories must be eligible under the Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
ЏtğŭĻ
Page 10 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
The State of Alaska Requirements
The State of Alaska’s EMPG Program imposes requirements to mirror or supplement federal
guidance.
In Alaska, EMPG Program funds strengthen local government efforts by providing direct
financial support for local community staff engaged in all hazard and emergency management
planning. The goals of such planning are to coordinate, integrate, and encourage the
improvement, development, and sustainment of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery
capabilities for all–hazards. In addition, funds provided under the EMPG Program may, and
should, be used to support local staffs who contribute to terrorism consequence management
preparedness. The International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) defines emergency
management as, “the managerial function charged with creating the framework within which
communities reduce vulnerability to hazards and cope with disasters.”
The State of Alaska directs that EMPG Program funds will be used to support emergency
management staff salaries for the activities proposed on the work plan.
Communities are expected to develop emergency management systems that build partnerships
between government, business, volunteer, community organizations, and Local Emergency
Planning Committees (LEPC.)
ELIGIBILITY and SELECTION CRITERIA
Requirements
This is an invitation–only grant. Participation is based upon the ability to meet certain criterion
and upon the historical participation in emergency management related programs. Under the
EMPG Program participants must:
Designate an emergency manager or emergency management coordinator from among the
paid jurisdiction staff. This person will be the focal point to local emergency planning, and
designated project manager for the EMPG Program grant. Federal EMPG funds cannot
replace (supplant) funds that have been locally appropriated for the same purpose.
Submit an EMPG Program application with the required attachments, including the Annual
Work Plan outlining planned emergency management activities to be conducted during the
grant performance period of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018.
Funding Levels
Funding to jurisdictions applying for the EMPG Program will be based on the following criteria:
The level of development of the local emergency management agency e.g., is the emergency
manager or coordinator full–time, part–time, or assigned as an extra duty to an existing staff
position.
The ability of the community to implement an emergency management program e.g.,
organizational structure, fiscal controls, staffing levels, performance history, and experienced
personnel.
The size of the population that could potentially be affected by a major disaster.
If previously a recipient of EMPG Program funding the applicant must have successfully
completed all prior requirements and reports.
АtğŭĻ
Page 11 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
Funding Goals
Program funding goals for FFY 2017 are listed below.
The emergency manager or coordinator position is a fulltime position, a part–time position,
or an additional duty assigned in a position description.
The community successfully completes all reports identified under the EMPG Program on
time.
The community provides public education and information on all–hazards disaster
preparedness.
The community develops and maintains up–to–date emergency plans.
The community will prepare and approve such ordinances as are required to ensure local
compliance with NPG and NIMS.
The community updates their Alaska Assessment annually.
The community conducts or participates in and reports all–hazard based exercises utilizing
the State of Alaska, DHS&EM Exercise After Action Report–Improvement Plan (AAR–IP).
The form can be found at http://ready.alaska.gov/exercise/.
Emergency management staff and key elected officials participate in ongoing all–hazard
training. All EMPG personnel shall complete at minimum, FEMA Independent Study (IS)
courses IS 100.b, IS 200.b, IS 700.a and IS 800.b. and the IS FEMA Professional
Development Series (PDS) courses.
The emergency manager or coordinator shall attend the DHS&EM Preparedness Conference
during the award period. They are encouraged to attend other applicable DHS&EM
sponsored training or outreach events during the award period.
Anticipated FFY 2017 EMPG Funding Levels
Anticipated FFY 2017 EMPG funding levels will be based on available grant funds and
feasibility of the jurisdiction to expend the funding. DHS&EM’s goal is to provide jurisdictions
with the same funding levels as allocated in FFY 2017. When completing the EMPG application,
please indicate on the Application Coversheet the funding amount needed for the emergency
manager or coordinator position(s) and ensure the amount is supportable with a local match,
described below.
This grant requires an equivalent dollar to dollar local match. For example, if the grant award is
for $10,000.00 the local jurisdiction must be able to provide a hard–match of $10,000.00.
Match activities must be emergency management activities. Finance and administrative activities
associated with administering the grant, such as filing reports or processing EMPG salaries cannot
be used as local match or charged to the grant for reimbursement with federal funds.
Submitting for Reimbursement and Local Match
Reimbursement must be equal to hours worked. Reimbursement should not be an estimate of time
worked in the quarter or a calculated as a percentage of the grant (Ex. 25% of grant award every
quarter). DHS&EM suggests using the optional Financial Worksheet available on the grants
section of the website to lessen the amount of supporting documentation that must be submitted
for reimbursement.
Local match must be dollar for dollar. If your jurisdiction expends $8,000.00 on salary and
БtğŭĻ
Page 12 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
benefits, then your jurisdiction may receive $4,000.00 in reimbursement.
Contractor time worked must be certified by the CFO. This can be accomplished by the CFO
signature on contractor timesheets, or a memo accompanying the reimbursement request.
Hard–Match
A hard–match is a cash contribution from the local government. The hard–match must be in the
form of staff salaries and benefits.
Since the EMPG Program is funded with federal funds, funds from other federal programs may
not be used to fulfill the match requirement. State funding from the LEPC Program Grant is not
eligible as local match to EMPG. The LEPC grant is currently meeting other match requirements
at the State level.
Local jurisdictions are encouraged to report all eligible emergency management program costs.
Additional expenditures are used to justify requests for an increase in funding from the federal
program on your behalf.
BASIC EMPG EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
Jurisdictions receiving EMPG Program funds are required to work towards completion of all
tasks identified and submitted in the Annual Work Plan. In addition, all participants are required
to submit quarterly progress reports describing achievements toward the quarterly goals
identified in the Work Plan and any other emergency management program activities, as well as
providing detailed financial accounting of program expenditures.
Failure to comply with EMPG Program requirements may result in reduction of annual funding
and possible reduction in the current year’s award allocation.
Note:
Participation in exercises and completing ongoing training are integral components of an
emergency management program. While these activities are no longer required to be explicitly
identified on the Annual Work Plan for the 2017 EMPG, emergency management programs
within EMPG jurisdictions are expected to complete exercises and training tasks.
2017 EMPG State Requirements
EMPG Mid–Year Grant Review
Upon completion of the 2017 EMPG second quarter grant cycle, DHS&EM will perform a mid–
year grant review. Upon completion of the mid–year grant review, if the jurisdiction has spent
less than 45% of the awarded funds DHS&EM will require a detailed spending plan identifying
how the jurisdiction will expend the remaining funds.
Alaska Assessment
DHS&EM’s goal is to measure community emergency preparedness. The Alaska Assessment
provides information that allows the state to identify; gaps in capacity and capabilities,
preparedness activities, response assets, and support our return on investment. The Alaska
ВtğŭĻ
Page 13 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
Assessment will measure preparedness by identifying the jurisdictions capacity and capabilities
through evaluating activities and assets in the five phases of emergency management;
prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery.
The jurisdiction’s Alaska Assessment should be complete and submitted no later than December
31, 2017, and is an EMPG Program state requirement. More information on the Alaska
Assessment may be obtained online at http://ready.alaska.gov/plans/GEP.htm or contact the
DHS&EM Planning Section at (907) 428-7000.
Develop a multi–year Training and Exercise Plan (TEP) and participate in State of Alaska
Multi–Year Training and Exercise Plan Workshop (TEPW)
The multi–year TEP provides a roadmap to accomplish the priorities described in the Homeland
Security Strategy. Engaging the Whole Community in training and exercises allows all partners
to evaluate and improve upon their level of preparedness. Local jurisdictions must develop a
Multi–Year Training and Exercise Plan (TEP) and submit the TEP to DHS&EM at the state
TEPW scheduled to be held in conjunction with spring Preparedness Conference. DHS&EM’s
Preparedness Section will provide guidance and a template for the TEP.
Jurisdictions must complete the FEMA Independent Study (IS) online Emergency
Management Institute (EMI) NIMS Training Courses
Emergency management coordinators, assistant coordinators, and other staff members whose
salary is supported by EMPG Program funding–to include those performing emergency
management duties and documented as the required match, must complete the following courses
by EMPG funded personnel by June 28, 2018:
http://training.fema.gov/IS/NIMS.aspx
IS 100.b Introduction to theIncidentCommandSystem,ICS-100
IS 200.b ICS for Single ResourcesandInitialActionIncidents
IS 700.aNational IncidentManagementSystem(NIMS),AnIntroduction
IS 800.b National ResponseFramework,AnIntroduction
Jurisdictions must complete the FEMA Professional Development Series (PDS)
Emergency management coordinators, assistant coordinators, and other staff members whose
salary is supported by EMPG Program funding–to include those performing emergency
management duties and used as required match, must complete the FEMA Professional
Development Series IS online EMI Training Courses training courses on the list below by June
28, 2018. Other jurisdiction staff members and local elected officials are also encouraged to
complete these courses. For more information, please contact the DHS&EM Preparedness
Section at (907) 428-7000.
http://training.fema.gov/IS/searchIS.aspx?search=PDS
Course Code Course Title
IS-120.a An IntroductiontoExercises
IS-230.d Fundamentals ofEmergencyManagement
IS-235.b Emergency Planning
IS-240.b Leadership & Influence
IS-241.b Decision MakingandProblemSolving
IS-242.b Effective Communication
IS-244.b Developing and Managing Volunteers
ЊЉtğŭĻ
Page 14 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
The following classes are recommended for EMPG funded personnel by DHS&EM:
http://training.fema.gov/IS/crslist.aspx
IS 1.a Emergency Manager:AnOrientationtothePosition
IS 208.a State Disaster Management
nd
IS 271.a Anticipating Hazardous Weather and Community Risk, 2 Edition
IS 288.a Role of VoluntaryAgenciesinEmergencyManagement
IS 393.a Introduction toHazardMitigation
ICS 300 Intermediate ICSforExpandingIncidents
ICS400 Advanced ICS
IS-546.a Continuity of Operations(COOP)AwarenessCourse
IS 547.a Introduction toContinuityofOperations(COOP)
IS 701.aNIMS MultiagencyCoordinationSystems
IS 706 NIMS IntrastateMutualAid–AnIntroduction
All online training courses listed can be found at Emergency Management Institute - FEMA
Independent Study
Program.
Conduct or Participate in All–Hazard Exercises
Emergency management programs funded through the EMPG should conduct or participate in
exercises on a regular basis. Jurisdictions should coordinate with DHS&EM prior to conducting
an exercise. Following any local all–hazard exercises the State of Alaska, DHS&EM Exercise
After Action Report–Improvement Plan (AAR–IP) should be submitted to the DHS&EM
exercise officer with the next quarterly progress report, if not sooner. The current reporting form
is available on the DHS&EM grants website at http://ready.alaska.gov/exercise/. Updated
versions may also be requested from the DHS&EM exercise officer. For more information,
please contact the DHS&EM Preparedness Section at (907) 428-7000.
NOTE: Communities that experience a state or federally declared disaster event during
the grant performance period shall be considered to have satisfied this requirement and a
DHS&EM AAR–IP must be submitted for the disaster.
2017 EMPG Grant Assurances
National Incident Management System (NIMS) Compliancy
In FFY 2017, jurisdictions should continue to maintain and work towards 100 percent NIMS
compliancy in all areas. For FFY 2017 the Alaska Assessment will be the required means to
document and report NIMS compliance.
2017 EMPG Baseline Requirements
Submit a Program Application and Annual Work Plan
Submit the EMPG Program Application and Annual Work Plan to mva.grants@alaska.gov on or
before 11:59 p.m., Friday, June 2, 2017.
Provide Quarterly Progress Reports
Progress reports are required to be submitted on a quarterly basis.
Quarterly performance reports are filed on the Performance Progress Report form and
describe the steps taken to complete tasks identified in the Annual Work Plan.
Quarterly financial reports must be completed using the Financial Progress Report form and
submitted along with back–up documentation detailing the allocation of Program funds.
ЊЊtğŭĻ
Page 15 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
(Check the DHS&EM grants website at http://ready.alaska.gov/grants.htm to obtain the most
recent reporting forms.) Deadlines for submitting EMPG Quarterly Progress Reports are listed in
Quarterly Reporting Requirements on page 15.
Participate in DHS&EM Emergency Management Training and Outreach Programs
Support communication with other emergency managers and coordinators by:
Required participation at the DHS&EM preparedness conference. These conferences are held in
conjunction with meetings of the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and Local
Emergency Planning Committee Association (LEPCA). At the time of publication, the next
scheduled conference is April 13, 2018 in Anchorage.
Attendance at other DHS&EM sponsored regional training and outreach activities may meet the
above participation requirement. Contact the DHS&EM EMPG Program Project Manager for
more information.
Improve Local and Regional Emergency Partnerships
In those jurisdictions where an organized LEPC is in operation, the jurisdiction emergency
manager or coordinator shall be required to meet and coordinate with the LEPC. Additionally, all
jurisdictions should seek opportunities to establish local and regional partnerships for emergency
planning and response.
ЊЋtğŭĻ
Page 16 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
IDENTIFY SPECIFIC GOALS IN ANNUAL WORK PLAN
The following examples are basic to any community emergency management program. The
DHS&EM goal in listing these is to provide full credit for the work already being performed at
the local level. For additional information refer to the Federal Program Requirements on page 3.
Mitigation Plans
o Conducting a hazard analysis and risk assessment prior to mitigation plan
development
o Developing or enhancing all–hazards mitigation plans
Emergency Management and Operations Plans
o Modifying existing incident management and emergency operations plans aligning
them with the guidelines of Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 Version 2
(CPG 101 V2)
o Modifying existing incident management and emergency operations plans
o Developing or enhancing comprehensive emergency management plans
o Developing or enhancing large–scale and catastrophic event incident plans
Continuity of Operations (COOP) and Continuity of Government (COG)
o Developing or enhancing COOP and COG plans
o Developing or enhancing financial and administrative procedures for use before,
during and after disaster events in support of a comprehensive emergency
management program
Whole Community Engagement and Planning
o Developing or enhancing emergency management and operations plans to
integrate citizen, volunteer, and other non–governmental organization resources
and participation
o Provide training and other support as necessary to assist local jurisdictions to
further develop preparedness through community, school, private sector, and
business outreach
o Build new partnerships to expand planning and citizen capabilities
o Community–based planning to advance “whole community” security and
emergency management
o Public education and awareness on emergency management and preparedness
o Planning to foster public–private sector partnerships
o Brief civic groups and senior citizens on local hazards and family preparedness
plans
o Conduct awareness, individual response training, and evacuation drills in schools
o Conduct workshops on the local Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and
Emergency Response Plan (ERP)
o Arrange for disaster preparedness and response information to be included in
utility bills, or as inserts in the local newspaper
o Publish emergency preparedness information in the local telephone directory
o Prepare an emergency preparedness calendar for distribution throughout the
community
o Work with Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) (where LEPC exists)
o Public education and awareness
o Develop or formalize agreements through letters or memorandums of
understanding (MOU) to clarify mutual expectations, if existing, with local
ЊЌtğŭĻ
Page 17 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
agencies or private organizations that can assist with emergency planning
preparation, response, or recovery
o Develop intra–state mutual aid agreements that encourage building partnerships
across all levels of government, tribal organizations, non–governmental
organizations, and private entities in neighboring jurisdictions
o Program evaluations
Resource Management Planning
o Developing or enhancing logistics and resource management plans
o Developing or enhancing volunteer and donations management plans
Evacuation Planning
o Developing or enhancing evacuation plans, including plans for alerts, warnings,
crisis communications, pre–positioning of equipment for areas potentially
impacted by mass evacuations sheltering, and re–entry into affected area
Pre–Disaster Recovery Planning
o Disaster housing plans to support a local disaster housing task force and develop
or enhance local disaster housing plans
o Develop pre–event response, recovery, and mitigation plans in coordination with
State, local, and tribal governments
o Developing or enhancing other response and recovery plans
Recovery Planning
o Developing or enhancing long–term recovery plans
Training and Exercises
o Developing, updating, enhancing, or conducting exercise activities
o Developing, updating, enhancing, or conducting training activities
Additional EMPG Program Related Activity
o Any additional emergency management activities that are not identified in the
2017 Work Plan.
Emergency Management Organization Program
o Programs must continue to fund all necessary aspects of the emergency
management program that support day–to–day preparedness, response, and
recovery activities, including mitigation efforts.
o
For further details or prior approval of eligible of additional EMPG program related activity,
contact DHS&EM project manager at (907)-428-7000
QUARTERLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
All EMPG Program grant sub–recipients must file a two–part quarterly progress report for each
reporting period. These two reports are a quarterly performance report to document grant related
activities undertaken by the jurisdiction during the reporting period, and a quarterly financial
report that documents requests for reimbursement and the expenditure of grant funds.
Utilize grant reporting forms provided on the DHS&EM website
http://ready.alaska.gov/grants.htm
Mail the quarterly progress reports to the DHS&EM EMPG Grants Section in time to arrive by
the due date. Post marked packets sent by the due date are accepted. Signed electronic or faxed
ЊЍtğŭĻ
Page 18 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
copies with all supporting documentation are accepted. Jurisdictions are encouraged to send
signed electronic reports.
Scheduled ReportJurisdiction Reporting PeriodFinancial & Performance
Progress Report Due Dates
1st Quarter July 1st – September 30th October 20th
2nd Quarter October 1st – December 31st January 20th
3rd Quarter January 1st – March 31st April 20th
4th Quarter April 1st – June 30thJuly 20th
Progress reports shall be submitted to DHS&EM by the due date as specified in the above schedule.
Should the grant period be extended for any reason, a modified report schedule will accompany the
Quarterly Performance Progress Reports
Use the designated Performance Progress Report forms to document all EMPG Program
activities for each reporting period. Both the emergency manager or coordinator and the local
signatory official or their delegates must sign the Performance Progress Report as documented
on the Signature Authority Form.
Jurisdictions are expected to complete and report a proportionate amount of the overall set of
tasks outlined in their approved Annual Work Plan during each quarter of the fiscal year.
Quarterly Financial Progress Reports
Quarterly financial reports shall consist of the following:
The completed Financial Progress Report form. The chief financial officer and the project
manager or coordinator or their delegates for the grant must sign this form as documented on
the Signature Authority Form.
Supporting Documentation for Reimbursement. Supporting documentation must include
source documents suitable for audit purposes, including, but not limited to:
o Copies of payroll warrants; and
o Payroll time sheets and leave registers; or
o Payroll transaction reports certified by the chief financial officer; or
o Completion of the Optional Financial Work Sheet for Identifying and Certifying
Program Costs, available at http://ready.alaska.gov/grants.htm may be utilized in
lieu of the above documentation for reimbursement of personnel costs and
documentation of the local match.
Note: The signatures of the project manager, signatory official, and Chief Financial Officer or
delegate must be three different signatures.
Submit quarterly reports to:
Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
ATTN: Grants Section
PO Box 5750, JBER, Alaska 99505-5750
Fax: (907) 428-7009 Phone: (907) 428-7000 Toll Free Phone: 1-800-478-2337
Email: mva.grants@alaska.gov
ЊЎtğŭĻ
Page 19 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR EMPG PROGRAM APPLICATION AND WORK
PLAN
Applying for EMPG Program Funding
Jurisdictions apply to participate in the program by submitting a complete FFY 2017 EMPG
application package. Preparing the application will necessitate drafting an Annual Work Plan,
identifying goals for improving local emergency preparedness and response.
Required Contents of the EMPG Program Application Package
Request for EMPG Funds
Signatory Authority Form
Work Plan
Signatures Required on EMPG Program Documents
Certain individuals, as identified on the Signatory Authority Form and on the grant award, must
sign specified EMPG obligating documents (award, amendments, etc.) These officials are:
Signatory Official: An individual who has been authorized by the governing body of the
applicant jurisdiction or organization to apply for, accept, or decline grants on behalf of the
organization. For local governments, this is typically the Mayor or City Manager.
Chief Financial Officer: This should be the chief financial officer or treasurer of the applicant
jurisdiction or organization. This is the person who will be contacted by the DHS&EM staff if
questions arise regarding financial aspects of the grant.
Project Manager: The project manager, usually, the emergency manager or coordinator is
directly responsible for carrying out tasks outlined in the Annual Work Plan and is supported
by grant funds. The project manager is the primary point of contact for DHS&EM for EMPG
related matters.
Please see the included Signatory Authority Form instructions for more information on signatories
and signatory delegations allowed on quarterly progress reports
SUBMITTING THE EMPG PROGRAM APPLICATION PACKAGE
DHS&EM must receive applications by 11:59 p.m., Friday, June 2, 2017. Signed copies can be
emailed to mva.grants@alaska.gov and the State Project Manager at
mva.dhsem.plans@alaska.gov or faxed as working documents. Mail signed originals to the
address below:
Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
ATTN: State Administrative Agency Point of Contact
PO Box 5750
JBER, Alaska 99505-5750
ЊЏtğŭĻ
Page 20 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
AWARD FUNDING and NOTIFICATIONS
DHS&EM will notify successful applicants of their EMPG Program award amount in an award
letter accompanied by the obligating award document.
FFY 2017 funding awards will be made contingent upon satisfactory completion of deliverables
funded in the current and prior years, to include timely submission of quarterly reports. The
DHS&EM Director may reduce the baseline FFY 2017 funding award to a community that has
not completed deliverables funded in the previous fiscal year(s). Additionally, DHS&EM will
continue to monitor the performance of applicants who fail to submit a quarterly report by the due
date and funding may be withheld for reoccurring poor performance. Monitoring of this grant by
DHS&EM staff may include technical assistance, site visits, and desk audits. Communities that
have not completed deliverables in prior years may be subject to Special Conditions until the
successful accomplishment of any Special Conditions funding may be withheld.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Summary of Allowable Costs
All costs under these categories must be eligible under the Uniform Administrative Requirements,
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-
Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, located
bin/text-
idx?SID=6214841a79953f26c5c230d72d6b70a1&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title02/2cfr200_main_02.tpl
For the State of Alaska EMPG Program, the only allowable costs are those relating to
necessary and essential state and local emergency management personnel expenses.
Emergency Management is the managerial function charged with creating the framework within
which communities reduce vulnerability to hazards and cope with disasters through coordination,
integration, and encouragement of the improvement, development, and sustainment of
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities for all–hazards. Funds provided
under the EMPG Program may, and should, also be used to support local staffs who contribute to
terrorism consequence management preparedness. Specifically, allowable personnel expenses
would include:
Personnel Compensation and Benefits
Federal contributions for this category of expenses are limited to compensation and benefits paid
to, or on behalf of, personnel whose paid positions are reported on the applicant’s current EMPG
Request for Funds and have an acceptable current position description that includes the specific
emergency management duties and functions of the employee on file at DHS&EM or submitted
as a supplement to the applicant’s Request for Funds. EMPG funds may not be used to pay
personnel costs of additional staffing for disaster operations.
Retirement Funds
The federal share of any payment to a retirement fund must be in a prorated amount apportioned
on the basis of time worked in a position while it was federally assisted, and so reported on the
Staffing Pattern. The cost must be related to a particular fiscal year and be charged only while
that year’s funds remain available.
ЊАtğŭĻ
Page 21 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
Full–Time or Part–Time Status
Personnel will not be funded as full–time employees under EMPG Program unless they are
performing emergency management program elements included and identified in an approved
local statement of work, are required by such projects and their current job description to devote
full–time to emergency management, and tasks are specifically included in the Annual Work Plan
submission. EMPG Program funding is allowable in the case of an individual with a part–time
position in an emergency management agency, while at the same time holding a separate part–
time position in another department or in the private sector, provided the duties of the other
position do not conflict with or impair the emergency management functions assigned to the
individual.
Contractors
The use of contractors to perform the eligible activities of the EMPG Program is allowable.
Contractor selection must follow proper procurement procedures and pre–approval of contract
scope and contractor selection is required. Time and billing records must be kept to demonstrate
that the costs charged to emergency management are in accord with emergency management
activities and most be certified by the financial officer.
Personnel of Other Agencies
Personnel compensation and benefits for an employee of a department of local government other
than emergency management including persons serving as full–time or part–time local
emergency program managers or coordinators, are allowable for federal contributions under the
following conditions:
The employee must be assigned on a regular, continuing basis to emergency management
duties under the official personnel system of the particular local jurisdiction.
Elected Officials (full–time or part–time)
Salaries paid to persons who are full–time elected officials are not allowable costs for a federal
contribution under the EMPG Program. Salaries of local emergency management employees who
also hold a part–time elective office by appointment to fill a vacancy may be allowable for a
matching contribution under the EMPG Program. It must be demonstrated that the holding of
such elective office does not conflict with or impair performance of the emergency management
duties for which salaries are being paid. Time and attendance records must be kept to demonstrate
that the costs charged to emergency management are in accord with time and effort spent on
emergency management activities.
Grant Information and Assistance Contact Information
For further information and assistance:
Contact the DHS&EM EMPG Project Manager at (907) 428-7000, toll–free 800-478-2337
ЊБtğŭĻ
Page 22 of 22
Discussion of a Creation of an Emergency Management Specialist to the Ko...
Table of Contents
Informationfor the
March 21, 2018, Joint Work Session
City Bullet PointsAbout Consolidation.......................................................................... 1
Questions to Ask KIB.................................................................................................... 5
City’s July 18, 2016, Letter to KIB................................................................................. 6
KIB Ordinance FY2017-02 Authorizing Ballot Measure................................................. 8
KIB Voter Pamphlet WithBallot Measure Information.................................................10
KIB Manager’s November 30, 2017, Consolidation Report.........................................11
Kyle Crow’s Consolidation RFP Scope of Work Document.........................................17
KIB Manager’s February 15, 2018, Staff Report for Resolution No. FY2018-25......... 21
KIB Adopted Resolution No. FY2018-25.....................................................................35
KIB RFP for Research and Analysis for Consolidation of City and Borough...............37
Kodiak Daily Mirror March 14, 2018, Ad for RFP........................................................44
City Chief of Police Report About Consolidation Impacts on Law Enforcement..........45
KIB Resolution FY2018-30, FY2016-2021 StrategicPlan...........................................49
(This page left intentionally blank.)
Office of the Mayor and City Council
710 Mill Bay Road, Room 220, Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Joint Work Session
March 21, 2018
The City believes it is their duty to provide the best services at the mostreasonable cost
to the public and to be transparent in doing so.On that note, I would like to speak about
this consolidation process, point out some timelines, what has occurred, what hasn’t
occurred, and clear up some assumptions and statements.
At theJuly 14, 2016, KIB work session the Borough Clerk stated the first step on the
consolidation discussion would be to direct staff via resolution to petition through LBC
and then put it before the voters later. At that same meeting an Assembly member
stated: “It would be nice to discuss this with the City council so they know exactly what
we are thinking. It would be good to make them equal partners.”
The City wrote a letter to the Assemblydated July 18, 2016, and presented it and read it
to the Assemblyat the regular Boroughmeeting July 21, 2016, with the letter asking
questions and noting concerns about the language of ordinance FY2017-02. The City
also wrotea letter to the editor of the Kodiak Daily Mirror requesting KIB to meet with the
City Council before putting this advisory vote on the ballot. (Quotes from letter)
It was stated by an Assembly member at the July 21, 2016,KIB regular meeting that “it
would be most respectful thoughtful and logical and following government processes to
have included this discussion with the City Council.”This did not happen.
It is questionable if the October 2016 ballot measure did or didnot exclude the outlying
community.The outlying communities’ residents voted on the consolidation advisory
vote and overwhelmingly voted no.
It would have been in the best interests of all Boroughresidents including those in the
outlying communities to have had a Local Boundary Commission representative come to
Kodiak and give correct information about consolidation/unification/mergers to the public.
It would have been in the best interests of all Boroughresidents if the City and Borough
had met to discuss consolidation and had drawn up an MOA on how both groups could
collaborate and communicate on this matter.
At a KIB August 11, 2016,work session an Assemblymember stated,“the City
approved $25,000 for advocating or basically advertising Prop1 which is about the
unionizing and consolidation thing, so the City is spending money to educate the public
on consolidation.”This is an incorrect statement as the City only spent money to
educate the public on the unionization vote NOT consolidation.
1
At the August 23, 2016, JWS in depth details about consolidation did not occur though
the topic was on the JWS agenda.An Assemblymemberstated at that meeting: “It was
on as a discussion item for us to talk about during a JWS we didn’t get a chance to do
that; we wanted it to make the ballot.We don’t want to talk about it unless the voters
say we want you to talk about it and then we will look into it. It’s all going to be
transparent and available and it’s going to an open public discussion.”
A City Council member statedat that same JWS; “It’s too late to do anything about it
but I have heard comments and feedback from voters that whenyou look at the ballot
initiative they don’t quite understand what they’re voting for. So they’re going to support
consolidation but they don’t even understand what that means.It’s almost the cart
before the horse.It is a yes/no vote and how meaningful is it to vote on something you
don’t understand.”
At that same JWSan Assemblymember stated: ‘The voter pamphlet will have an
explanation of exactly what this means in a very elegant way. I worked on that so it
explains what cost will be. And the cost will be minimal effort going into it.I agree that
this probably could have been a better document to begin with, I guess I was wanting to
make sure it got on the ballot.”
And in response to that statement aCitycouncil member stated: “My recommendation is
not a pro and con, just a factual statement this is what consolidation will belike, and
there will be associated costs, some description of whatconsolidation will look like.”
An Assemblymember stated at that same JWS: “At the risk of sounding callous, if we
wanted to know what the City Council’s opinion was we would have asked.”
The October4, 2016, voter pamphlet did not have any consolidation costsmentioned
nor any explanation of the definition of consolidation nor pros and cons of consolidation
or what it would look like.
The October4, 2016, ballot summary stated the Boroughwill proceed with caution as to
ensure efficient use of time and resources on the issue of evaluating the pros, cons,
harms and benefits of consolidation.The City doesn’t think this rushed process with now
an RFP for a consultant being released without any kind of discussion or input from with
the City Council and with a due date of April 13, 2018, has been done with any kind of
caution or collaboration.
If indeed the objective for this advisory vote on consolidation was in the best interests to
have the best services at the most reasonable costs tothepublic, then a strategic plan
of how possibly going forward should have been in place before putting the measure on
the ballot.
It was stated in the Boroughmanager’s consolidation report presented to the Assembly
that: “Recently the City changed its position to being willing to provide information
needed but did not commit to work with the Boroughto analyze operational and fiscal
issues. Accordingly, the efforts of the Boroughto study the matter have been undertaken
without cooperation of the City” and in that report it continues to be stated “the City did
not cooperate and was unwilling to work on this report.”
2
In the KIB manager’s consolidation report onStatus of the villages: “presumably the
villagesthat have incorporated cities are unlikely to be part of a consolidated Borough,
however this will need to be further developed and provisions made for their ongoing
operation.”
And at KIB work session November 30, 2017,the KIB manager stated: “I want to make
sure the City has provided the information we have requested butthey have not wanted
to work on the analysis ofwhat consolidation would look like. We need to pull them in
rather thanpush them away.”
The City has cooperated in providing all information KIB manager requested.The City
never changed its position in providing information when asked or cooperating in giving
that information.The City Mayor, manager,BoroughMayor and manager met
November30, 2017, to clear the air on this matterprior to the manager’s report being
released.
At November 30, 2017,KIB work session KIB Manager stated: “We have never formally
asked theCityto participate and while some may not think its worth it to try to smear
some honey on it, Ithink in order to form a government that serves the people as well if
not better that it does now we should at least try.”
At the December21,2017, JWS the onlycomment about consolidation made was by
an Assemblymember: ‘We have toremind people this isn’t consolidation; this is
investigating consolidation.”
At theFebruary 8, 2018, KIB work session: an Assemblymember stated: “I have heard
several times that the city does not want to participate because we haven’t asked them
in a manner that is appropriate to them so why haven’t we done that.We need to do
everything we can to work cooperativelywith the City.”
The City was not involved or asked to discuss with KIB the Resolution FY2018-25
passed atthe regular KIB meeting on February15, 2018, directing the manager to
solicit for proposals for the hiring of a consultant to perform research and provide
reports related to the topic of consolidation and recommending the allocation of funding
necessary related to this subject in the FY2019 budget though in that resolution the City
is mentioned.
At the February 15, 2018,KIB regular meeting:An Assemblymember stated: “I don’t
know the Assemblyhas had an open and fairdiscussion with how they (the City) feels
about it.It actually surprised me that we hadn’t had a face to face discussion with the
other entity involved.It concerns me that we haven’t had a dialogue with the City.”
At that same KIB February 15, 2018, KIB regular meeting it was noticed that
th
consolidation was on October 19, 2016, JWS(after the Oct 4vote) and assumed face-
to-facediscussions happened but they did not. Only comment by Assembly member at
that JWS was: “Wehave to somehow have dialogue and that cannot happen unless the
Cityis an active partner in this.”
3
And at the same February15meeting an Assembly member stated: “We want theCity
to participate certainly we want theCityto cooperate with our consultant to answer
questions and provide information for an objective and non biased study” And another
Assemblymember stated: “Unless we involve theCityin helping to formulate the RFP
they’re going to feel disenfranchised again –they already feel disenfranchised from
when the question was put on the ballot without information to them.The discussion
now does not involve theCity; we had JWS where it was mentioned and dropped with 3
minutes; it wasn’t a discussion andto pretend it was is wrong.”
Just because consolidation was on a JWS agenda does not mean discussions were
held between theCityand Borough.
Cityhas not been included with input on that ResolutionFY2018-25 or RFPfor a
consultant and that RFP is now statewide.For KIB to think so is disingenuous.
The City hasconsistently asked KIB to include the City in consolidation discussions.
TheCityhas not been hostile to these consolidation discussions.We requested a better
andopen process and inclusiveness. It makes sense since abouthalf the Borough
population reside in the City.
The City Council and Mayor have never made statements about being against
consolidation nor have we been obstructionists in any way. The City Council has never
taken a position on consolidation. And to continue to label the City as being hostile and
not sincere is not appropriate or true.Words matter.
So with all this information taken from JWS KIB and City meetings, the City is
requesting a couple of outcomes from this JWS:
As stated in the KIB Strategic Plan 2018-2023: Optimize the effective use of community
resources and assets through partnerships for the benefit of Boroughcitizens: explore ways to
collaborate with local government to capitalize on community partnership through fostering
positive relationship with cities, school district, service areas, tribes and rural communities with
the Borough. The City agrees.
Both City and KIB invite LBC to Kodiak to give accurate information in a community forum
(including outlying communities) on definitions and processes of
consolidation/merger/unification and that these community forums take place before KIB
residents’ (which include City residents) tax dollars are spent in hiring a consultant to study this
matter.
That the City and KIB have open discussionsabout consolidation and the City has a seat at the
table with an MOA drawn up between City and KIB understanding process and what is expected
from each entity.
And the council has questions for the Assembly.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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
51
52
53
Chairman Dan Hull
North Pacific Fishery Management Council
605 West 4'", Suite 306
Anchorage, AK 99501-2252
coin ments. n ptinc.o rg
March 20, 2018
Re: Chinook salmon PSC cap adjustments for the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) catcher vessel (CV) non-pollock
trawl sector
Dear Chairman Hull,
Kodiak is highly dependent on our diverse fisheries with the majority of the seafood industry economic
activity derived from groundfish'. The near year-round operation of the groundfish trawl fleet fills critical
gaps in economic activity allowing for multiple, year-round processors, which in tum supports processing
seasonal fisheries such as salmon, crab, herring and fixed gear groundfish. Groundfish deliveries by trawl
vessels represent about 60% of all fish across Kodiak's dock annually. These, in combination with other
seasonal fisheries, allows the community to support many year round resident workers that might
otherwise be addressed by a transient workforce. Maintaining this resident population is important to the
social fabric of the community. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) is presently
considering adjusting the Chinook salmon PSC caps for the GOA CV non-pollock trawl fisheries. This
promises to help prevent premature trawl fishery closures while preserving these important year-round
fisheries. We support the Council's effort in this regard.
Kodiak is currently experiencing significant negative economic pressures and remains highly dependent
on fish landings for tax revenue to support local government. In the past 10 years, the Kodiak Island
Borough derived roughly 50% of its General Fund revenue from fisheries taxes. In FY 2018 the City of
Kodiak is running a $2.8 million deficit, has raised the sales tax to fill a portion of this budget gap, and
there is also talk about doubling the city property taxes. In addition, the School District has a $1.5 million
budget deficit and has asked the Borough to raise property taxes to fill this gap.
Recent declines in allowable harvest directly impact local government's ability to serve residents and
maintain infrastructure on which its fisheries economy depends. Recently we have seen an 80% reduction
in Pacific cod quotas, a 20% reduction in Pollock, and a 25% reduction in arrowtooth flounder. Combined
with lower halibut quotas, a commercial fishery disaster for pink salmon in 2016, coupled to another low
pink forecast in 2018, means fewer landings, less income for residents, and lower tax revenues to support
governmental operations of the community.
We continue to strongly support the Council's efforts to balance National Standard (NS) 1— achieving
optimum yield, NS 8 — taking into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities
and NS 9 —minimize bycatch to the extent practicable. We appreciate the Council's decision in December
of 2016 to evaluate other regulatory actions to help deal with fishery management problems in the Gulf.
We support adjusting the Chinook salmon PSC caps for the GOA CV non-pollock trawl sectors to reduce
the risk of fishery closures and provide both stability and flexibility to the GOA trawl fleet and shore -
based processors that will benefit our community.
New information has become available since the Council established these caps in 2013, which warrants
their re-evaluation. Increased observer coverage in the Western Gulf trawl fisheries revealed higher
' McDowell Group, Economic Impact ofthe Seafood Industry on the Kodiak Island Borough (May 2016) p.6.
salmon bycatch in their trawl cod fishery than originally estimated. The WGOA Chinook PSC for 2003-
2011, averaged 72 Chinook per year. Observer data now available from the previously unobserved <60'
vessels indicate an average of 554 Chinook per year from 2013 to 2017, with a high of 1,686 Chinook in
2017. While we agree that bycatch limits should not be modified simply because they are constraining, in
this case, bycatch data from a significant portion of the Gulf trawl fleet at the time of final action was
lacking. Now that those data are available, it warrants a re-evaluation to ensure the policy is a reasonable
standard for the fishery.
The current cap of 2,700 fish is an annual cap shared by both the WGOA Sand point/King Cove fleet and
CGOA Kodiak fleet. The WGOA fleet only fishes non-pollock targets in the first quarter of the year,
while the CGOA fleet fishes non-pollock targets all year. If the cap is reached and the fisheries close it
disproportionately impacts CGOA participants, support sectors and communities since the cap must
support Kodiak landings throughout the calendar year. This outcome was demonstrated in May 2015
when non-pollock non -rockfish trawl fishery (cod, flatfish) closed due to hitting the Gulf -wide 2,700
salmon cap. According to NMFS2, the losses due to that closure were estimated at $4.6 million in ex -
vessel revenues and $11.3 million in gross first wholesale revenues, in addition to indirect impacts on
local employment, support service businesses, and public revenues impacting the community of Kodiak.
A one-time emergency rule allowed the fishery to reopen in August of that year.
Other new information is the recent and consistent Chinook salmon genetic data that suggest about 97%
of the fish caught as bycatch in the Gulf trawl fisheries are from Southeast Alaska, British Columbia and
the Pacific Northwest. Heavy concentrations of hatchery Chinook production occur in SE Alaska, BC and
the Pacific Northwest — an average of 239 million Chinook over the years 2010-2016 were released from
hatcheries in these three areas'. The most recent data available from the 2016 pollock fisheries' shows
only about 1.2% of Chinook by -catch are from the northwest Gulf streams (Alaska Peninsula, Kenai
Peninsula and Kodiak Island).The benefits of adjusting the salmon bycatch caps are meaningful to the
community of Kodiak. Adjusting the Chinook salmon cap even slightly will help provide more flexibility
for the Kodiak trawl industry to operate and reduce economic impacts to our communities from premature
trawl fishery closures. The initial Council analysis did not indicate any identifiable harm in providing this
small amount of Chinook (maximum of 3,900 fish), as impacts will be diffuse across many communities
and thousands of miles of coastline without affecting any one community disproportionately.
We encourage the Council to provide flexibility to the Kodiak trawl fleet by adjusting the Chinook PSC
caps in the non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries to help prevent more fishery closures. All of the options
for new limits proposed under this action will keep the total Chinook PSC limits well below the ESA
40,000 Chinook salmon cap, and the analysis notes that none of the alternatives will cause significant
adverse impacts to Chinook salmon stocks.
Sincerely,
2 NMFS Emergency Rule. Apportion additional Chinook Salmon PSC to Non -Rockfish Trawl CVs Regulatory Impact Review —
June 2015 p 34.35
3 North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). January 2018. Initial Review Draft Chinook Salmon Prohibited Species
Catch in the Gulf of Alaska Non -Pollock trawl Fisheries page 63 table 21. Available: www.npmfc.org
4 Genetic Stock Composition Analysis of the Chinook Salmon Bycatch Samples from the 2016 Gulf of Alaska Trawl Fisheries,
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-370 Feb 2018
Dan Bockhorst
3962 Big Rock Road
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: 907-247-3962 • Email: bockhorst@kpunet.net
March 20, 2018
SENT VIA EMAIL
The Honorable Patricia B. Branson
Mayor
City of Kodiak
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, AK 99615
Re: Restructuring of Kodiak Area Local Governments
Dear Mayor Branson:
By way of introduction, I responded affirmatively to a recent inquiry from Ketchikan Gateway Borough
Mayor David Landis as to whether I would be willing and available to consult with you on the topic of
restructuring Kodiak area local governments. In follow up, you provided some 50 pages of related
materials yesterday and asked me to review and comment on those materials prior to a March 21 joint
work session of the Kodiak City Council and the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly. In terms of my
background, I am presently retired after working in the field of local government in Alaska for more than
40 years, including more than 4 years as the Haines City Administrator, more than 27 years as the chief of
staff of the Alaska Local Boundary Commission, and more than 9 years as the Ketchikan Gateway Borough
Manager.
The material that you provided included a list of 15 questions. I consider all your questions to be
reasonable and appropriate at this stage of the discussions regarding the matter.
Based on the information you provided, consolidation of the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Island Borough
appears to be the focus of those advocating for reorganization of Kodiak area local governments.
Among the options for restructuring, forming, or dissolving local governments in Alaska, or altering their
corporate boundaries, consolidation is second only to unification in terms of complexity.
A proposal to consolidate (i.e., dissolve municipal corporations and incorporate a new borough
government) is not a simple undertaking. By Alaska standards, the two local governments being
considered for consolidation are major municipal corporations.
Both the City of Kodiak and Kodiak Island Borough are mature local governments that provide many
essential services to significant numbers of residents. The local governments involved have substantial
assets and debt. Following is a summary profile of the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Island Borough. It
provides information which may be known to some or even many but should be helpful to all during
preliminary discussions of consolidation.
Patricia B. Branson, Mayor
March 20, 2018
Page 2 of 7
Kodiak Island Borough
The Kodiak Island Borough is a general -law borough that has been in existence for 55
years. It serves an estimated 13,287 residents according to 2017 estimates of the Alaska
Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
Two-thirds of the Borough's residents (8,834) live within 11 separate communities or
Census Designated Places or CDPs. These are:
• Akhiok (population 88),
• Aleneva (population 24),
• Chiniak (population 44),
• Karluk (population 29),
• Kodiak (population 5,952),
• Kodiak Station (population 1,303),
• Larsen Bay (population 86),
• Old Harbor (population 214),
• Ouzinkie (population 146),
• Port Lions (population 175), and
• Womens Bay (population 773).
Six of the communities listed above are incorporated as city governments.
The six areas served by city governments and the five unincorporated communities are
scattered throughout approximately 21,908 square miles encompassed by the Borough's
corporate boundaries. Some are remote.
Additionally, an estimated one-third of the Borough's population (4,453) resides outside
the 11 communities/CDPs. Presumably, many or most of those 4,453 residents live near
the area within the boundaries of the City of Kodiak, which is a critical factor in terms of
consolidation for reasons discussed later in this letter.
Among the assets of the Borough are 25 school buildings totaling 568,961 square feet.
As of June 30, 2017, the Borough had $73,045,000 in general obligation debt secured by
the full faith and credit of the Borough.
The Borough provides the following services: general government, education, tax
assessment and collection, fire protection, first -response emergency medical services,
health facilities, construction and maintenance of roads and other infrastructure,
community and economic development, solid waste disposal, tourism development,
parks, and cultural and recreational activities.
The Borough's FY 2018 budget totals $46,688,788. Included in that figure is $24,830,272
for "education." The education costs include the Borough's local contribution for schools,
Patricia B. Branson, Mayor
March 20, 2018
Page 3 of 7
school -related debt service, school -related capital projects, and other related costs.
Apart from that, the Kodiak Island Borough School District (a component unit of the
Borough') had a FY 2017 proposed budget' of $47,395,711. A portion of that —just under
$10.3 million —was cash and in-kind services provided by the Borough. As such, the cash
and in-kind services by the Borough would be reflected in both the Borough's budget and
the District's budget. In other words, those funds are counted twice. Counting funds only
once results in a combined figure in excess of $80 million for the authorized annual
expenditures of the Borough and its school district based on the Borough's FY 2018
budget and the District's proposed FY 2017 budget.
In FY 2018, the Borough levied the following taxes (see page 36 of Borough's FY 2018
Budget for total real and personal property tax levies by the Borough's nine tax code
areas)
• Property Taxes
✓ areawide real and personal property: 10.75 mills
✓ Womens Bay Service Area road service real and personal property: 2.5
mills
✓ Womens Bay Service Area fire protection real and personal property: 2.5
mills
✓ Service Area #1 road service real and personal property: 1.5 mills
✓ Protection Area #1 fire protection real and personal property: 1,5 mills
✓ Monashka Bay Service Area road service real and personal property: 2.5
mills
✓ Bayview Service Area road service real and personal property: 1.5 mills
✓ Airport fire protection real and personal property: 1.25 mills
✓ Woodland Acres street light real and personal property:0.1 mills
✓ Tide Gate Mission Lake real and personal property: 1.0 mills
• sales tax: none
• nonareawide transient room tax: 5%
• areawide severance tax on certain natural resources: 10.75 mills
City of Kodiak
The City of Kodiak is currently a home -rule city government. The City's classification as a
home -rule local government is likely to be a significant factor with respect to
consolidation as is noted later in this letter.
The City of Kodiak was incorporated 77 years ago and became a home -rule city when
voters adopted a home rule charter 53 years ago on March 16, 1965.
' In Alaska, a municipal school district is not a separate and distinct corporation. State law (AS 29.35.160(a))
provides that a borough "constitutes a borough school district and establishes, maintains, and operates a system
of public schools on an areawide basis as provided in AS 14.14.060."
' The most recent budget readily available to me.
Patricia B. Branson, Mayor
March 20, 2018
Page 4 of 7
The corporate boundaries of the City of Kodiak are relatively small. According to the City,
its corporate boundaries encompass 6.2 square miles (State records indicate that the area
is slightly more than 5.5 square miles).
An estimated 5,952 individuals reside within the boundaries of the City of Kodiak—nearly
half (44.8%) of the population of the Borough.
As noted in the above profile of the Kodiak Island Borough, one-third of the Borough's
population (4,453) resides outside the 11 recognized communities in the Borough.
Presumably, the greatest number of those residents live near the area within the
boundaries of the City of Kodiak, the most populous community within the Borough. For
reasons addressed later in this letter, that factor may be critical in terms of consolidation.
The City of Kodiak provides police, jail services, fire protection, animal control, regional
dispatch services (including E-911), ambulance services, boat harbors, port and cargo
facilities, street maintenance, airport facilities, water utilities (including areas outside the
boundaries of the City), sewer utilities (including areas outside the boundaries of the City),
building inspection services, recreation programs, park operations and maintenance,
museum, cemetery, and library services.
The City has a current budget of $37,386,307, comprised of the General Fund
($19,583,887, Special Revenue Fund $189,500, Capital Project Appropriations
$2,103,901, Enterprise Funds totaling $14,894,540, and Internal Service Funds totaling
$614,479).
As of June 30, 2017, the City of Kodiak had debt of $19,297,733, including $6,565,000 in
general obligation bonds for which the City has pledged its full faith and credit, $389,398
in Bond Premium, $11,817,854 in net pension liabilities, and $525,481 in accrued
employee leave.
In FY 2018 the City levied the following taxes
• real property: 2.0 mills (an increase to 4.0 mills in FY 2019 is under consideration)
• personal property: none
• sales tax: 7%
• transient room tax: 5%
(End of profiles)
Consolidation, as it currently appears to be envisioned, would result in the dissolution of both the Kodiak
Island Borough and the City of Kodiak. Concurrent with the dissolution, a new home -rule or general -law
borough government would be formed.
Patricia B. Branson, Mayor
March 20, 2018
Page 5 of 7
Those developing a petition for consolidation would be faced with the decision regarding the classification
of the proposed new borough. The choice made by the petitioners — formation of either a general -law
borough or a home -rule borough —would likely be another critical choice.
If the petition calls for the new consolidated borough to be a general -law borough, it might be concluded
by the Local Boundary Commission that the consolidation proposal diminishes maximum local self-
government since the City of Kodiak is a home -rule city and home rule is consistent with Alaska's
constitutional principle of maximum local self-government.
Here are some simple examples of elements of a hypothetical home -rule charter that might be important
to Kodiak area residents in terms of maximum local self-government:
• Provisions that make it easier to institute new taxes or, conversely, terms that make it more
difficult to institute new taxes
• Elements that cap existing tax rates
• Terms that limit local government spending
• Provisions that impose term limits on local government officials
Another critical way in which home rule serves the principle of maximum local self-government is that a
home -rule charter can only be amended by a vote of the people.
Again, the discussion above offers minimal examples of the way in which a charter offers maximum local
self-government. Given time constraints, I have not undertaken a review of the existing Home -Rule
Charter of the City of Kodiak.
If the petitioners choose to pursue a home rule borough, a charter would have to be written and included
in the consolidation petition. It is noteworthy that drafting a home -rule charter is a major undertaking by
itself. Prospective petitioners would face a critical political question about how they would draft a charter.
Legally, the proposed charter could be written by one individual sitting at his or her kitchen table. At the
other end of the spectrum, working with the local governments, a commission could be appointed by the
affected local governments to draft the charter orthe local governments could stage an election to choose
the charter commission.
A home rule charter is a constitution for local government. Care must be taken how that constitution is
drafted and the framework of the document.
The corporate boundaries of a new borough formed through consolidation would be identical to those of
the existing boundaries of the Kodiak Island Borough unless a concurrent proposal to modify the
boundaries through annexation or detachment were included in the proposal and approved by the Local
Boundary Commission and voters. Some or all the other five city governments within the corporate
boundaries of the Kodiak Island Borough could also be dissolved if such were proposed in the petition;
however, this does not seem to be contemplated. The discussion below assumes that the dissolution of
no city government other than the City of Kodiak would be proposed; it also assumes that no concurrent
annexation or detachment of territory within the boundaries of the Kodiak Island Borough would be
involved.
Patricia B. Branson, Mayor
March 20, 2018
Page 6 of 7
A petition for consolidation of the Kodiak Island Borough and City of Kodiak would have to include a
practical plan that demonstrates the capacity of the proposed new borough government to extend
essential municipal services into the areas of the local governments proposed to be dissolved in the
shortest practicable time after the effective date of the consolidation.
As noted in the profile of the Kodiak Island Borough provided above, it is likely that many or most of the
4,453 residents who live outside the 11 communities/CDPs in the Borough, live near the area within the
boundaries of the City of Kodiak. That factor is critical in terms of consolidation as it will likely pose
another challenging political question to those pursuing consolidation.
The petition must define how services will be provided in a consolidated borough. The area of the former
City of Kodiak would presumably become a borough service area. The question would likely arise whether
those in the area adjacent to that proposed service area should be included in that service area. This, of
course, is equivalent to the question ofwhetherthose residents should be annexed into the City of Kodiak
in the current local government structure.
The petition must include a practical plan for the assumption by the new borough of all relevant and
appropriate powers, duties, rights, and functions presently exercised by the Kodiak Island Borough and
the City of Kodiak. If the petitioners plan to create a new general -law borough, a thorough and careful
examination should be made of the impact of doing so with respect to the requirement for the plan of
assumption. The plan must be prepared in consultation with the officials of the Kodiak Island Borough
and City of Kodiak, and must be designed to effect an orderly, efficient, and economical transfer within
the shortest practicable time, not to exceed two years after the effective date of consolidation.
The petition must include a practical plan for the transfer and integration of all relevant and appropriate
assets and liabilities of the Kodiak island Borough and City of Kodiak. The plan must be prepared in
consultation with the officials of those two governments and must be designed to effect an orderly,
efficient, and economical transfer within the shortest practicable time, not to exceed two years after the
date of consolidation. The plan must specifically address procedures that ensure that the transfer and
integration occur without loss of value in assets, loss of credit reputation, or a reduced bond rating for
liabilities.
If the full faith and credit of the entire borough is pledged for the payment of the debt of a service area,
an areawide election must be held and the proposition must pass both areawide and in the service area.
If the indebtedness is limited to a service area, the vote is limited to voters in the service area. Only the
full faith and credit of the area voting on the indebtedness is pledged for the payment of the debt.
The financial implications of consolidation are not simple or easily determined. On the surface, some may
assume that consolidation would lead to a reduction in staff. Those assumptions may not necessarily hold
true. Petitioners should examine that Issue and other effects of consolidation carefully. Even if it can be
objectively concluded that a consolidated government could be effectively and efficiently operated with
fewer staff, the savings may not be as great as it might appear superficially. For example, termination of
groups, departments orjob classes from participation in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS)
may require a termination study under AS 39.35.615-625. When a termination of a department, group or
Patricia B. Branson, Mayor
March 20, 2018
Page 7 of 7
classification has occurred, AS 39.35.625 requires employers to pay continuing contributions to the Public
Employees Retirement System plan until the past service liability is extinguished.
Before approving a consolidation petition, the Local Boundary Commission may require that the Kodiak
Island Borough and the City of Kodiak execute an agreement approved bythe Local Boundary Commission
for the assumption of powers, duties, rights, and functions, and for the transfer and integration of assets
and liabilities.
I hope this letter is useful in offering insights into a prospective consolidation effort. I could go on;
however, time constraints lead to me stop at this point. If further questions arise following the March 21
work session and if I can be of help in addressing those questions, please let me know.
Cordially,
l,. Z7
Dan Bockhorst
BOYD, CHANDLER & FALCONER, LLP
Attorneys At Law
Suite 302
911 West Eighth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 272-8401
Facsimile: (907) 274-3698
be a�bcfaklaw.com
MEMORANDUM
PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
To: Mike Tvenge
Kodiak City Manager
uall�
From: Brooks Chandler
Date: March 16, 2018
Re: Consolidation
You asked whether a 2016 advisory question posed at the borough election excluded
communities within the Kodiak Island Borough. Based on our review of the ballot question and
regulations of the Local Boundary Commission in our opinion the answer is NO. The reason for
this conclusion is set forth in greater detail below.
FACTS
The Kodiak Island Borough was incorporated in 1963 as a second class borough.
Borough boundaries include all of Kodiak and Afognak Islands and extend across Shelikof
1 There are 3 types of boroughs in Alaska. Home rule, first class and second class. For an
explanation of the different powers of each type of borough. See,
httos://www.commerce.al aska.goy/web/Porta Is/4/au b/Powers %20a nd%2ODuties %20Home-
Rule,%20First%20CIass%20and%2OSecond%20CIass%2OBoroughs odf. The primary difference
between the different classes of borough involves what governmental powers require voter
approval.
MEMO: CONSOLIDATION BALLOT QUESTION PAGE 1 of 4
Strait. There are 5 incorporated cities within borough boundaries.' There are 10 service areas
some of which are responsible for local road construction and maintenance, some of which
provide water and sewer services and some of which provide Fre protection services.' There is a
borough school district and a borough landfill facility.
The City of Kodiak was incorporated in 1940. A home rule charter was approved by
voters on March 16, 19654. The city operates a port and harbor, provides water and sewer
services and has a police department and a fire department.
On August 4, 2016 the Kodiak Island Borough adopted ordinance 2017-02. The
ordinance authorized "the submission of an advisory question to the qualified voters of the
borough ... to determine whether the public supports the idea of consolidating the Kodiak Island
Borough and the City of Kodiak into a single unit of government'. The whereas clauses of the
ordinance included a statement "consolidating the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of
Kodiak into a single unit of home rule government may result in a more efficient single unit of
government'. The actual ballot question read as follows:
Should the Kodiak Island Borough pursue the idea of consolidating the
Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak into a single unit of
government?
The decision to place this question on the ballot was taken without prior formal
consultation with the City of Kodiak so there are no contemporaneous city documents that
discuss what the Assembly had in mind when using the word "consolidating" and referencing a
"home rule government" in the whereas clause of the ordinance.5 The word "consolidate" has a
very specific meaning under state regulation as explained below.
LAW
In Alaska, changes to existing municipal boundaries must be approved by the Local
Boundary Commission ("LBC"). The LBC has adopted regulations specific to many categories
of boundary changes' including incorporation (forming a new municipality), dissolution (ending
2 Kodiak (first class city), Larsen Bay, Port Lions, Ouzinkie, Akhiok (second class cities).
Chiniak and Karluk are unincorporated.
KIBC Chapters 4.50-4.140. The Trinity Islands service area provides street lighting.
4 See, the Department of Commerce publication "Local Government in Alaska" for a
detailed explanation of the powers of a home rule city.
htti)s•//www commerce.alaska.itov/web/Portals/4/pub/2015%20%20LOCAL%20GOVERNMENT
%201N%20AL4SKA.pdf
5 We attempted to search assembly minutes for additional insight but the minutes do not
appear to be organized chronologically.
6 3 AAC Chapter 110.
MEmo: CONSOLIDATION BALLOT QUESTION PAGE 2 OF 4
a municipality), annexation (expanding boundaries of an existing municipality), detachment
(reducing boundaries of an existing municipality), consolidation (taking multiple municipalities
and replacing them with a single municipality) and merger (combining one or more existing
municipality with another existing municipality).
The LBC consolidation regulations state "two or more municipalities may consolidate to
form a new municipality". Consolidation can result in either a consolidated city or a
consolidated borough. The consolidation regulation indicates "[s]eparate proceedings are not
required for dissolution of the consolidating municipalities. Dissolution occurs automatically at
the time of consolidation."'
ANALYSIS
Here is the basic concept of consolidation. Municipality A and Municipality B are
replaced by Municipality C. The most logical interpretation of Ordinance 2017-02 is that the
Assembly intended to seek voter advice on whether to "pursue the idea" or replacing the existing
second class Kodiak Island Borough and the existing home rule City of Kodiak with a new home
rule Kodiak Island Borough.
It should be obvious that the current second class borough cannot be dissolved and
replaced with a new home rule borough without potentially impacting all existing cities within
the boundaries of the existing second class borough. Creating a home rule borough literally puts
everything on the table. A charter is required which defines such basics as how many assembly
members are on the borough assembly, whether assembly members run at large or from
designated election districts, whether a manager or strong mayor form of government is involved
and literally dozens of basic issues involving the division of responsibility for delivery of
services between cities within the borough, borough service areas or by the borough area -wide.
Alternatively, consolidation into a single home rule government referenced in Ordinance
2017-02 could be a new home rule city with expanded boundaries rather than a borough. This
would replace the existing borough school district with a city school district (providing education
within the expanded city boundaries) and an REAA district (providing education outside city
boundaries). This is a less likely interpretation of what the Assembly intended. But either form
of consolidation would impact all municipalities and unincorporated communities within the
KIB not just the City of Kodiak.
7 3 AAC 110.240(a)(1)(A),(B). This is also recognized in state law. AS 29.06.090(a)
states "[t]wo or more municipalities may merge or consolidate to form a single general law or
home rule municipality".
B 3 AAC 110.240(b).
MEMO: CONSOLIDATION BALLOT QUESTION PAGE 3 OF 4
The Assembly placed the phrase "consolidating the Kodiak Island Borough and the City
of Kodiak into a single unit of government" on the 2016 ballot. The LBC consolidation
regulation envisions dissolution of the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Island Borough.
Dissolution of the KIB "involves" all existing cities within the borough. So the outcome of the
advisory vote necessarily includes all existing incorporated and unincorporated communities in
the borough. If the Assembly had not intended this the ballot question would have used the word
"merger"' rather than "consolidation". In addition, the whereas clause in Ordinance 2017-02
would not have included the reference to a "single home rule government'.
It certainly is possible those voting Yes in the 2016 election did not fully understand what
consolidation means under Alaska law. We have not reviewed any borough -prepared election
materials to determine if those materials clearly and precisely explained how consolidation
works under existing state regulations. If you would like us to review those materials, please let
me know.
As the examination of this public policy issue moves forward it will be important to focus
on precisely what the perceived ideal outcome is from both the borough perspective and the city
perspective. We recommend any future ballot questions be jointly prepared by KIB and the city
and accompanied by a robust voter education effort.
9 Merger is distinct from consolidation and has separate LBC regulations. 3 AAC
110.220(b). The basic concept of merger is that Municipality A joins Municipality B.
MEMo: CONSOLIDATION BALLOT QUESTION PAGE 4 of 4
M kYa ��-� I�►� n3 M
Joint Work Session
March 21, 2018
The City believes it is its duty to provide the best services at the most reasonable
cost to the public and to be transparent in doing so. On that note, I would like to
speak about the consolidation process by describing what has and has not occurred
and hopefully clearing up some misunderstandings, so together we can lay a path
forward.
For those of us who have not participated in this matter nor have followed it closely, I
have attached a full timeline of misstatements from meetings from July, 2016 -
February, 2018 which illustrates how we got to this point of confusion. A couple of
those statements are as follows:
From the August 11, 2016, KIB work session, an Assembly member said: "the City
approved $25,000 for advocating or basically advertising Prop 1 which is about the
unionizing and consolidation thing so the City is spending money to educate the
public on consolidation." This is not true. The City spent money only to educate the
public on unionization not consolidation.
At the August 23, 2016, Joint Work Session (JWS) an Assembly member stated:
"The voter pamphlet will have an explanation of exactly what this means in a very
elegant way. I worked on that so it explains what the cost will be". However, the
October 4, 2016, voter pamphlet did not include pro and con statements about
consolidation nor an explanation of costs; though a City Council member
recommended at the same JWS: "My recommendation is not a pro and con just a
factual statement; this is what consolidation will look like; there will be associated
costs; some description of what consolidation will look like." Those items were not
included in the voter pamphlet.
At that same JWS session, an Assembly member stated: "At the risk of sounding
callous, if we wanted to know what the City Council's opinion was, we would have
asked." This is an example of how messy the communication has gotten.
At the November 30, 2017, KIB work session the KIB manager stated: "I want to
make sure the City has provided the information we have requested but they have
not wanted to work on the analysis of what consolidation would look like."
The City has not been hostile or obstructionist in this process and gave all
information to the KIB manager requested.
At the February 15, 2018, KIB regular meeting it was stated that consolidation was
on the October 19, 2016, JWS (after the Oct 4" vote) and other JWS and that face to
face City/KIB consolidation discussions had occurred. But at that same KIB meeting,
an Assembly member stated: "Unless we involve the City in helping to formulate the
RFP they're going to feel disenfranchised again -they already feel disenfranchised
from when the question was put on the ballot without information to them. The
discussion does not involve the City; we had JWS where it was mentioned and
dropped within 3 minutes. It wasn't a discussion and to pretend it was is wrong."
JWS may have had consolidation as an agenda item on that October 19, 2016, JWS
but the only comment about consolidation was by an Assembly member: "We have
to somehow have dialogue and that cannot happen unless the City is an active
partner in this."
To think in depth discussions on consolidation have occurred at JWS just because
the item was on the agenda is disingenuous.
I think the statements as just mentioned have confused the process and the public's
understanding of what consolidation is and involves. I think the public simply wants
to know if there is a more cost efficient form of government, one that can bring the
City, Borough, and all of our island communities together for the betterment of the
people of Kodiak. Finding answers requires thorough research and thoughtful, open
and inclusive public discussions.
The City has not been invited to this dance. Our dance card is empty. The City and
The KIB are neighbors and partners, and it is in the best interests of our citizens in
order to be efficient, save money and have better services to reset things about
consolidation.
And so the City, in the spirit of the KIB 2018-2023 strategic plan where it is stated: To
optimize the effective use of community resources and assets through partnerships
for the benefit of Borough citizens and to explore ways to collaborate with local
governments to capitalize on community partnerships through fostering positive
relationships with cities, school district, service areas, tribes, and rural communities
within the Borough.
Based on the plan, the City is requesting two outcomes from this JWS:
To launch such a discussion, the City and Borough together should begin by inviting
the Local Boundary Commission to a community forum in Kodiak that includes
outlying communities. At the forum, the Commission would open the discussion by
giving the public relevant information, including definitions of consolidation, merger,
unification, and annexation, and the process each requires.
Following this information -gathering forum, the communities of Kodiak Island then
would hold public discussions about consolidation, merger, unification, and
annexation. All parties (the City, Borough, and rural communities) would have a seat
at the table with an MOA as a stated outcome that explains the process and
expectations of each entity.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
—JWS WORK SESSION w/C14y of Kodiak
Work Session of: YVCYck
Please PRINT your name Please PRINT your name