2019-08-08 Work Session
PRESENTATION
NEW BUSINESS
CONTRACTS
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
OTHER ITEMS
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
STAFF REPORT
AUGUST 8, 2019
ASSEMBLY WORK SESSION
SUBJECT:
ORIGINATOR:
RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
ALTERNATIVES:
FISCAL IMPACT:
OTHER INFORMATION:
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
KODIAK ISLAND
BOROUGH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
DATE: July 24, 2019
TO: KIB Assembly
FROM: Erin Welty, Acting Director, Community Development Dept.
SUBJECT: Ordinance FY2020-002 – Title 16 Amendments
At the June 11, 2019 work session of the KIB Assembly, I presented the Title 16
amendments for an initial review. The Assembly had several questions and concerns I
was directed to answer. Following is a summary of my investigations. For simplicity, I
am addressing items by the ordinance line number.
Line 672 – Alaska Department of Environment Conservation (ADEC) wastewater
disposal review
The paragraph containing the requirement that subdivisions obtain a wastewater review
before a final plat can be recorded is being struck in this amendment. The Assembly
requested I contact ADEC to find out why wastewater reviews were no longer be
provided.
Per a conversation with Tanya Bear, acting director of the Engineering Plan Review
Division on July 23, 2019, the requirement to perform subdivision reviews was repealed
by the state in the 1990’s. Therefore, they no longer perform the reviews for anyone.
Line 1282 – Cul-de-sac radius
Cul-de-sac minimum radius is being raised from 50 feet at the bulb to 60 feet (120 feet
diameter in Table 16.80.030.A) in this amendment. The Assembly asked for a
comparison of other municipality requirements. Required radius were obtained from
existing municipal code and/or published development standards. Please note all
standards were reported as radius, not as diameter.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
City and Borough of Sitka – Not less than a 45-foot radius.
Kenai Borough – 50-foot radius
Municipality of Anchorage – 50-foot radius
It appears that the proposed changes to KIB Title 16 for cul-de-sacs exceeds other
Alaskan community average standards by approximately 10 feet in radius, or 20 feet in
diameter.
Line 1290-1303 – 16.80.070 Road construction standards
Proposed changes to these lines address sub-base and base course depth standards.
The Assembly wanted to know how these standards compared to the City of Kodiak,
which Assembly Member Arndt asserted is what Service District One defers to, as well
as how they compare to other Alaskan municipal standards.
In an effort to compare similar communities, I looked at the municipal code for Sitka
City & Borough, Kenai Borough and the Municipality of Anchorage. In my review, I was
unable to find any place in the code of these organizations where actual road base and
sub-base depth was listed. There were charts that referred to sieve and grading
standards. At least one of the municipalities referred to standards as provided in the
engineered plan.
I then spoke with Glenn Melvin, Engineer for the City of Kodiak. I had been referred to
their Standard Construction Specifications earlier, which also do not contain road base
depths. Mr. Melvin stated that the City of Kodiak does not have published road base
and sub-base standards because situations vary depending on soils, what is already in
place, etc. They instead require and refer to engineered plans for any street repair
and/or development. His suggestion was to simply require engineered road plans that
are prepared by an engineering firm licensed within the State of Alaska.
The Assembly also asked to see any comments the attorney might have provided
regarding Title 16. A copy of the title with the attorney’s comments on the right in red
bubbles in included. I have also included Title 16 in its entirety as it currently exists. The
copy provided to the Assembly with the ordinance only includes those sections with
edits.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
RobertMGreeneTMSII
KodiakAleutianDistrictSuperintendent
1500AntonLarsenRoad
KodiakAlaska99615
9074874952Office
9074874913Fax
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S1\]: The codification process adds the
legislative history. It is not an actual part of the code and
does not need to be adopted by ordinance. It is sort of
mainly my idiosyncrasy though so you do not have to do it.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S2\]: AS 29.40.180 includes offering to sell.
Do we want to include that?
Commented \[S3\]: Misdemeanor is a crime punishable by
not more than a year in jail. AS 29.40.180 has this
prohibition and allows for up to 90 days in jail and a fine of
up to $1000. If we are not intending on seeking jail as a
Commented \[S4\]: AS 29.40.180 and AS 40.15.010 also
prohibit recording a plat unless it is approved by the platting
authority.
Commented \[S5\]:
not Borough, and does not have a state of mind
requirement. Do we really want to have to be able to prove
knowingly?
Commented \[S6\]: Parallels AS 29.40.120.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S7\]: Abbreviated plats are outside of 16.40
and 16.50.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Commented \[S8\]: The approach I am suggesting is similar
boundaries and that it was reviewed by the platting
authority and qualified for a waiver. See the definition of
certificate of waiver added.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S9\]: From AS 29.71.800(23) defining
subdivision to exclude these items.
Commented \[S10\]: The changes here go along with the
certificate of waiver approach. They do not need a mylar if
it is not a plat or a record of survey.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S11\]: I suggest a reference in 16.30.040 to
this notice, and maybe a time line for notice.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S12\]: This definition is added to
accommodate the waiver provision identifying a document
for memorializing the subdivision.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S13\]: The addition here would be for the
urpose of including parcels created by a waiver subdivision
p
within the definition of lot. It depends on whether you
want to refer to parcels created by waiver as tracts. If so no
change is needed here, but we might add something in
16.10.050 saying parcels created by the waiver are tracts.
Commented \[S14\]: Do you want to include this to
account for situations where there may be a private street,
but they do not have legal access rights to use that street
for access?
Commented \[S15\]: Do we want to include this to account
for subdivisions by waiver?
Commented \[S16\]: Same comment about legal access on
private stree
at.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S17\]: This is suggested to accommodate the
waivers and abbreviated plat approval administratively
without commission action.
Formatted: Highlight
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S18\]: On some of these it is final approval
also. Is there a reason we do not want to say this, or are we
just relying on KIBC 16.50.010 for the director approving
final plats?
Commented \[S19\]: I believe that you can reduce it to two
for plat alterations but need to leave it as 4 for certain
subdivisions due to the fact that the state statute allows 4.
You could exclude the Borough as applicant, whether by
rdinan
oce or policy, because it is proprietary and the
the State or other municipalities to use this process. Also,
AS 40.15.200 provides that state and municipal subdivision
are subject to subdivision codes in the same manner as
other subdividers. This implies that they should be treated
the same.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S20\]: I deleted state and other
municipalities for the reason noted above.
Commented \[S21\]: Part of the theory I am going on here
is that AS 29.40.090 identifies certain plats which you must
create a process for abbreviated plats, but you are free to
identify other plats which may use an abbreviated process.
The approach I use here has the AS 29.40.090(a) plats in
subsection B, and the rest are other circumstances where
you may allow abbreviated plats. This will allow you to limit
the plat alteration category to 2 lots. I suggested additional
criteria to avoid plats which create other issues.
Commented \[S22\]: The time limitation does not appear
in AS 29.40.090(a).
Commented \[S23\]: The requirement for an ordinance
allowing abbreviated plats does not extend to plats vacating
a ROW under AS 29.40.090(a)(4). However, you can likely
do it separate from the abbreviated plats under AS
29.40.090(a). Planning commission approval will be
required for the vacation under 16.60. I am understanding
that such plats only require administrative approval and do
not need to go to the commission.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S24\]: I am not sure if 5 days is a good
measure, but I think there should be some standard if you
have only 20 days to make a decision. People need some
opportunity to react to the notice.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S25\]: The abbreviated plats that are right of
way plats and those which are vacations of a right of way
will not comply with this by their nature. There is more
than one way to address this, but I thought may be try
calling out the exceptions here.
Commented \[S26\]: I listed these in 16.30.020(A. They
can be on both places, or can be omitted in 16.30.020A and
a reference to this section added. I had suggested including
them there as I understand that the criteria is part of the
qualification.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S27\]: Is there a list of these? How are they
designated? I presume they are not agencies actually
created by the commission, but instead we are referring to
those the commission identifies to review and comment on
a proposed plat.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S28\]: Does this need to be community or
government operated, or are we merely referring to
collective operating or serving multiple parcels? Are we
really meaning to say that if the property is not served by an
existing or proposed collective wastewater system the
developer/subdivider will be required to provide verification
that each lot will be able to support an on-site wastewater
treatment system; and for water supply if it is not public
water is a well the only acceptable water source?
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S29\]: If there are existing lines using
easements which are not platted will this create a problem?
Commented \[S30\]: The definition of front lot line implies
that water access is
provision for accepting navigable waterway here. In the
plat waivers under KIBC 16.10.050 there is specific provision
or a subdivision with a plat waiver to rely on water access.
f
You might consider that here if full plats are intended to
permit water access also.
Commented \[S31\]: This is probably fine but it sounds a
little odd in that it does not say what you do if the submittal
requirements are met 6 or more working days after the
deadline established for the commission agenda. I think
that what is intended is that plat application submittals
which are complete more than X days before the packet
deadline for the next meeting will be placed on the agenda
for the next meeting, and applications which do not meet
that time line will go on the next meeting for which they are
complete prior to the packet deadline.
Commented \[S32\]: What happens with comments which
are received 8 days before the meeting? Can the fire
department comment at the planning commission meeting
if they have not submitted comments in time 9 days ahead
of the meeting? I think that this is only a deadline for
comments to be included in the staff report.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S33\]: This is an odd phrase to include. First,
hen is the
w planning commission not deciding by majority
vote. Second, there is sometimes controversy as to
whether a vote requires a majority vote of the fully
constituted body or simply a majority vote of those present
at a meeting where a quorum is present. See also KIBC
2.100.120 requiring approval of majority of authorized
members.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Formatted: Highlight
Commented \[S34\]: I did not see any standards for these.
Is there an interest in identifying standards for construct
and install agreements and bonding in the code? There is
provision for bonding for warranty work, but nothing about
for performance bonds for required improvements.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S35\]: I think this phrase first is better here.
If you want to keep it at the end it should at least be set off
by a comma so that it does not read like it is modifying
easements of record only.
Commented \[S36\]:
reference to the regulation which sets out the material
źƓ ƷŷĻ ğƦƦƩƚƦƩźğƷĻ ĬƌğĭƉ źƓƉ ğƓķ ĬĻ ğĭĭƚƒƦƌźƭŷĻķ ǞźƷŷ ƒĻĭŷğƓźĭğƌ
required for recording. If so this reference should work.
Another alternative would be to simply say in one of the
requirements that the final plat must comply with the
requirements for recording.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
ƌĻƷƷĻƩźƓŭ ĻƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷ͵
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S37\]: Is this for road and sewer and water
maintenance?
Formatted: Highlight
Commented \[S38\]: Would this be service area also?
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S39\]: Should have, but what if they do not?
Commented \[S40\]: With the changes in 16.40.040(N) and
16.50.010(D) do we want to include a cross reference to
those sections here.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S41\]: See next note.
Commented \[S42\]: Is denial of a requested variance to
development requirements subject to the administrative
appeal process or just straight to court? Or is this a
situation where we would have the adjustment approved by
the engineering and facilities director presented to the
commission as part of the preliminary plat? This decision to
accept or reject a variance from requirements is an
administrative decision which may be controversial at times
and generally there will be an appeal right of some sort
from a decision of this type. If no specific appeal method is
provided the default is an appeal to superior court. I
suggest that this get routed to the commission. Also, what
is the intended interplay between this and 16.110.010? I
suggest that decisions under this section be treated like
appeals under 16.100.010.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S43\]: This is not that bad, but I am
suggesting moving the clause because I think it reads better.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S44\]: Consider adding a reference to
appeals of grant or denial of a variance from minimum
improvement requirements under 16.80.100.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Commented \[S45\]: May want to add engineering director
for variances.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
QVCMJD!IFBSJOH!DBTF!F!
KVOF!2:-!312:!QMBOOJOH!BOE!\[POJOH!SFHVMBS!NFFUJOH!
DBTF!2:.132!
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Commented \[S46\]: It would be preferred if there were a
more objective standard. Also, I suggest that the
Commission consider whether use of the term subdivision
suggest that any waiver/variance be supported by approved
findings justifying the waiver/variance, and that the
commission specifically be allowed to place conditions on a
waiver so that the scope can be adapted as needed to
protect the public interests and surrounding areas.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #2.a.
AGENDA ITEM #3.a.
Michael Powers ICMA-CM
Managers Report
August 8, 2019
Issues and Activities
Kodiak Island Housing Authority-met with the Executive director to discuss various housing and
community issues including issues in the villages. We discussed the need for different housing types,
the need to avoid concentrating low income housing in limited areas, sustainability of the villages, and
several the societal issues that are affecting Borough residents and KIHA clients. Discussed at length
homelessness in Kodiak and the many issues involved in that issue. We discussed future land needs of
KIHA, availability of Federal funds and work they are doing in the community. KIHA is ending their
funding of the Rural Forum after the September Forum.
Saltery-met with Island Trails Network and subsequently with ADFG regarding a potential funding
opportunity for both the legal access component (easement) and potential improvements (and the
necessary maintenance that would need to be planned and funded).
Pillar Creek Beach-staff has looked at various issues related to access, parking and protection of natural
resources at the sight. We have sought bids and are reviewing past efforts by Island Trails Network to
address trash and other problems at the site and are working up a staff report for Assembly
consideration.
Personnel-reviewed and ranked applications for Community Service Director and Revenue Accountant
as part of the recruitment process.
Hospital and LTC-we continue to work both the remediation aspects and the solution aspects of the
fuel spill. We are relocating the tank and cleaning up the remnant piping and design work is underway
for the permanent fuel system. Regarding the LTC, Providence is coming up to speed and relaunch of
negotiations will occur in September.
I took a couple of single days off to spend with my family and enjoy the beauty of Kodiak.
Upcoming
No immediate travel plans.
October 2019-International City/County Managers Association Conference-I intend on attending,
funding dependent of course.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
Meeting Type:... )Q( 4 ID V) Date:
V . ..... ..............................................................................................
Please PRINT your name legibly Please PRINTYO.u,r name 1eq!pjy_
I--