2006-04-06 Regular MeetingKodiak Island Borough
April 6, 2006 - 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Jerome Selby
Borough Mayor
Term Expires 2007
Mr. Tom Abell
Deputy Presiding Officer
Assemblymember
Term Expires 2008
Ms. Pat Branson
Assemblymember
Term Expires 2007
Ms. Sue Jeffrey
Assemblymember
Term Expires 2008
Mr. Reed Oswalt
Assemblymember
Term Expires 2008
Mr. Cecil Ranney
Assemblymember
Term Expires 2006
Mr. Mel Stephens
Assemblymember
Term Expires 2006
Ms. Barbara Williams
Assemblymember
Term Expires 2007
Mr. Rick Gifford
Borough Manager
Ms. Judi. Nielsen, CMC
Borough Clerk
Kodiak Island Borough
April 6, 2006
Meeting broadcast live over radio station KMXT 100.1 FM and Cablevision station 8.
1. INVOCATION
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Kodiak Island Borough Ass
March 2 and 16, 2006.
6. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation
10. BOROUGH MANAGER'S REPORT
Assembly Agenda
Regular Meeting Assembly Chambers
egular Meetings of February 16 and
7. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker)
(Toll Free Phone Number 1- 800 -478 -5736) (Local Phone Number 486 -3231)
A. Agenda Items Not Scheduled for Public Hearing and General Comments.
8. COMMITTEE REPORTS
9. PUBLIC HEARING (Limited to Five Minutes per Speaker)
(Toll Free Phone Number 1- 800 - 478 -5736) (Local Phone Number 486 -3231)
Ordinance No. FY2006 -06 Amending Kodiak Island Borough Code of
Ordinances Title 3 Revenue and Finance Chapter 3.04 Public Finance -
budget Section 3.04.020 Permissible Investments Section 3.04.022
Collateral Requirements Section 3.04.051 Facilities Fund by Changing the
Types of Instruments the Borough Can Invest In and Changing the
Investments Allowed in the Facilities Fund.
11. MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR
Assembly Agenda
Page 1
1. Vacation of a 10 Foot Wide Utility Easement and a 15 Foot Wide Utility Easement
Located on Portions of Lot 6B, U.S. Survey 3099.
2. Board of Equalization Vacancy.
3. Resignation of Borough Clerk.
14. INFORMATION MATERIALS (No Action Required)
A. MINUTES OF OTHER MEETINGS
1. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting of February 15, 2006.
2. Service Area No. 1 Board Regular Meeting of February 8, 2006.
3. Womens Bay Service Area Board Regular Meeting of February 13, 2006.
4, Kodiak Island Borough School District Board of Education Regular Meeting of
January 23 and Special Meeting of February 6, 2006.
B. REPORTS
12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
13. NEW BUSINESS
A. CONTRACTS - None.
B. ESOLUTIONS
i 1
. Resolution No. FY2006 -33 Granting Final Approval of the Phase 1 Kodiak Island
Borough Pre-Hazard Mitigation Alan_
Resolution No. FY2006 -34 Supporting Alaska Village Initiatives Integrated Program
O n for Biomass Utilization in Rural Alaska.
C. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None.
D. OTHER ITEMS
Kodiak Island Borough
April 6, 2006
1. Kodiak Island Borough February Financial Report.
15. CITIZEN COMMENTS
16. ASSEMBLYMEMBER COMMENTS
17. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda items are available at the Borough Clerk's Office, 710 Mill Bay Road, or just prior to the meeting outside the
Assembly Chambers.
Assembly Agenda
Page 2
Kodiak Island Borough
April 6, 2006 - 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Jerome Selby
Borough Mayor
Term Expires 2007
Mr. Tom Abell
Deputy Presiding Officer
Assemb /ymember
Term Expires 2008
Ms. Pat Branson
Assemblymember
Term Expires 2007
Ms. Sue Jeffrey
Assemblymember
Term Expires 2008
Mr. Reed Oswalt
Assemblymember
Term Expires 2008
Mr. Cecil Ranney
Assemblymember
Term Expires 2006
Mr. Mel Stephens
Assemblymember
Term Expires 2006
Ms. Barbara Williams
Assemblymember
Term Expires 2007
Mr. Rick Gifford
Borough Manager
Ms. Judi. Nielsen, CMC
Borough Clerk
Kodiak Island Borough
April 6, 2006
Assembly Agenda
Regular Meeting Assembly Chambers
Meeting broadcast live over radio station KMXT 100.1 FM and Cablevision station 8.
1. INVOCATION
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
10. BOROUGH MANAGER'S REPORT
DRAFT
A. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Regular Meetings of February 16 and
March 2 and 16, 2006.
6. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS - None.
7. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker)
(Toll Free Phone Number 1- 800 - 478 -5736) (Local Phone Number 486 -3231)
A. Agenda Items Not Scheduled for Public Hearing and General Comments.
8. COMMITTEE REPORTS
9. PUBLIC HEARING (Limited to Five Minutes per Speaker)
(Toll Free Phone Number 1 -800- 478 -5736) (Local Phone Number 486 -3231)
A. Ordinance No. FY2006 -06 Amending Kodiak Island Borough Code of
Ordinances Title 3 Revenue and Finance Chapter 3.04 Public Finance —
budget Section 3.04.020 Permissible Investments Section 3.04.022
Collateral Requirements Section 3.04.051 Facilities Fund by Changing the
Types of Instruments the Borough Can Invest In and Changing the
Investments Allowed in the Facilities Fund.
11. MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR
Assembly Agenda
Page 1
12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
13. NEW BUSINESS
A. CONTRACTS - None.
B. RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution No. FY2006 -33 Granting Final Approval of the Phase 1 Kodiak Island
Borough Pre - Hazard Mitigation Plan.
2. Resolution No. FY2006 -34 Supporting Alaska Village Initiatives Integrated Program
for Biomass Utilization in Rural Alaska.
C. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None.
D. OTHER ITEMS
1. Vacation of a 10 Foot Wide Utility Easement and a 15 Foot Wide Utility
Easement Located on Portions of Lot 6B, U.S. Survey 3099.
2. Resignation of Borough Clerk.
14. INFORMATION MATERIALS (No Action Required)
A. MINUTES OF OTHER MEETINGS
1. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting of February 15, 2006.
2. Service Area No. 1 Board Regular Meeting of February 8, 2006.
3. Womens Bay Service Area Board Regular Meeting of February 13, 2006.
4, Kodiak Island Borough School District Board of Education Regular Meeting of
January 23 and Special Meeting of February 6, 2006.
B. REPORTS
1. Kodiak Island Borough February Financial Report.
15. CITIZEN COMMENTS
16. ASSEMBLYMEMBER COMMENTS
17. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda items are available at the Borough Clerk's Office, 710 Mill Bay Road, or just prior to the meeting outside the
Assembly Chambers.
Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Agenda
April 6, 2006 Page 2
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
Regular Assembly Meeting
February 16, 2006
VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
WILLIAMS moved to approve the agenda, seconded by BRANSON
VOICE VOTE ON MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
DRAFT
A regular meeting of the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly was held February 16,
2006 in the Assembly Chambers of the Kodiak Island Borough Building, 710 Mill
Bay Road. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
The invocation was given by Captain Dave Davis of the Salvation Army,
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Present were Mayor Jerome Selby, Assemblymembers Pat Branson, Sue Jeffrey,
Cecil Ranney, Mel Stephens, and Barbara Williams. Absent were Tom Abell and
Reed Oswalt. Staff present were Manager Rick Gifford, Engineering and
Facilities Director Bud Cassidy, Finance Director Karl Short, Clerk Judi
Nielsen, and Deputy Clerk Nova Javier.
BRANSON moved to excuse Assemblymembers Abell and Oswalt, seconded by
STEPHENS
A. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Regular Meeting of January 19, 2006. C
BRANSON moved to approve V
pp rove the minutes as submitted, seconded by WI , 6 1
Assemblymember Branson corrected the spelling of Sergeant Mayor to Sergeant
Major on page 1 and asked Clerk Nielsen to verify whether Assemblymember
Abell's motion to amend Resolution No. FY2006 -24 on page 4 was to increase
the amount to $5,300,000.
VOICE VOTE ON MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Student of the Month
Mayor Selby presented the Student of the Month Award for February 2006 to
Katherine Pascua, a senior at Kodiak High School.
B. Employee of the Year Award
Manager Gifford presented the 2005 Employee of the Year Award to Cassandra
Juenger, Revenue Accountant in the Finance Department.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
Al Burch was pleased to serve on the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens'
Advisory Council and expressed his desire to continue serving.
Kodiak Island Borough Volume XXIX
February 16, 2006 Page 1
COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Seismic Vulnerability Presentation
Structural Engineer John Eidinger and Economist Ken Goettel of Goettel and
Associates, Inc. reported that the final report and the application for the
FEMA grant were submitted.
In response to Assemblymember Stephens, the most expensive seismic repair was
for the high school gym and funds would be requested for that from FEMA.
In response to Assemblymember Branson, it was noted that the process was to
review and rank the grant applications.
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Ordinance No. FY2006 -07 Rezoning US Survey 3471 Lot 1 FROM RR -1 Rural
Residential One Zoning TO RNC -Rural Neighborhood Commercial. (P &Z Case
03 -020)
JEFFREY moved to adopt Ordinance No. FY2006 -07, seconded by BRANSON
Manager Gifford said the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval
of this rezone to allow greater flexibility in developing the lot.
Assemblymember Stephens was concerned about the language in Section 3.
James VanAtta, rezone applicant, said he wanted access to the house on the
top portion of the property.
Mayor Selby opened the public hearing; hearing and seeing none, he reconvened
the regular meeting.
STEPHENS moved to amend Ordinance No. FY2006 -07 by deleting Section 3
seconded by BRANSON
Assemblymember Stephens said Section 3 contained a condition not related to
rezoning the property.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Branson, Jeffrey,
Ranney, Stephens, Williams
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Jeffrey, Ranney,
Stephens, Williams, Branson
B. Proposed Woodland Acres Paving Assessment District.
Manager Gifford said property owners submitted a petition to the Clerk in
December 2002 to establish the Paving Assessment District. The Assembly held
a public hearing in April 2003 and directed the manager to prepare a
resolution for the project; however, no subsequent action was taken. He said
there was a need to initiate the assessment district prior to public hearing.
BRANSON moved to suspend the rules to take action on Resolution No. FY2006-
28, seconded by STEPHENS
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO SUSPEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Ranney, Stephens,
Williams, Branson, Jeffrey
Kodiak Island Borough Volume XXIX
February 16, 2006 Page 2
2 006 -28 Resolution No. s
Reolu FY Initiating the Woodland Acres Paving
Harlequin Court, Patrick Court, Coho Circle, Curlew Assessment
Sean Circle, Sea Plover Way, Puffin Circlet Gull Drive,
Quail Way, Shearwater Way, Puffin Drive,
t �'� Teal Way, and Wolverine Way
JEFFREY moved to adopt Resolution No. FY2006 -28, seconded by WILLIAMS
Manager Gifford encouraged the Assembl
owners indicated the Y to adopt the resolution as
y still wanted the roads paved. Property
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO ADOPT CARRIED U NANIMOUSLY : S
Branson, Jeffrey, Ranney
tephens, Williams,
Proposed Woodland Acres Paving Assessment District.
Mayor Selby opened the public hearing.
Peaay Tuttle supported the paving p was concerned about time lost
1 funds could be used to and
Mike Nugent hoped that pay for engineering.
P grants could be secured to
David Horn felt paving pay for the project.
should be on a g would save plowing costs and thought the assessment
per lot value basis.
Robert Johnson was concerned about the cost to
Heather Parker supported roperty owners.
pported the paving project.
Brad Troth felt that most property owners wanted pavin
Bonnie Troth urged the Assembly
Y to
Julie Co le urged the Assembly ave the roads.
Y to pave the roads.
Christine Greenstreet said many property owners wanted
the Assembly to move forward.
paving and she urged
T m Motis wanted a guard rail on Puffin Drive and all w
Dah Rohrer wanted the roads paved ork done correctly.
and assessed fairly and equitably.
Matt Corrier wanted the assessment to be equal to all
Dan Farmer ur ed the Assembly Property owners.
m
g y to move forward with the
Ed Coe said this was throw-away aving.
curbs and gutters were considered paving unless drama e
g was addressed and
r own
the Pickett hoped the Borough would cover their
the project. portion of the cost of
Michelle Powell wanted paving and a fair and equitable a
Scott Greenstreet said curbs and ssessment.
gutters would triple the cost.
Mayor Selby closed the
public hearing and reconvened the regular meeting.
After
meets a ten minute recess at 9:20 p.m., Mayor Selby reconvened the regular
Kodiak Island Borough
February 16, 2006
Volume XXIX
Page 3
BOROUGH MANAGER'S REPORT
Manager Gifford said the North Star Review Committee reviewed proposals for
the school traffic circulation and pedestrian paths project. Two firms would
be interviewed the week of February 20 with a recommendation forthcoming.
The Comprehensive Plan Consultants visited various communities and
stakeholders over the last two weeks. He thanked all who participated.
He thanked those elected officials for attending the Emergency Management
Training session. He attended the Incident Command staff training and said
additional emergency management training was scheduled.
Prochaska & Associates Inc.'s hospital master plan, that would better utilize
space for the Kodiak Community Health Center, was near completion. The Plan
would be presented at a special work session on Tuesday, March 7, 2006.
The Assembly would travel to Juneau for the legislative reception and to meet
with legislators. Lobbyist Mark Hickey was scheduling the meetings.
He provided the FY 2007 budget calendar and a summary of the budget process.
MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR
Mayor Selby traveled to Juneau to attend the AML board meetings and returned
with positive information that the Department of Transportation would move
ahead with the Otmeloi Drive design work, cost, and construction. The
Department of Fish and Game was positive about the Near Island facility. He
would participate in ComFish in March.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
A. CONTRACTS - None
B. RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution No. FY2006 -29 Determining to Proceed With the Proposed
Woodland Acres Paving Assessment District and Authorizing Staff to
Determine the Approximate Cost to Pave the Roads Within the
District.
WILLIAMS moved to adopt Resolution No. FY2006 -29, seconded by BRANSON
Manager Gifford said this would allow the Borough to proceed with hiring an
engineer to determine the approximate cost to pave the roads. There would
be future meetings with the Service Area No. 1 Board, residents, and the
Assembly.
Stephens moved to amend Resolution No. FY2006 -29 in the sixth Whereas to
replace "4.40.140(E)" with "4.40.140(D) ", seconded by BRANSON
Assemblymember Stephens felt an allocation of costs based on a per -lot basis
was stronger legally than based on a per -lot value.
Manager Gifford said the per lot allocation did not recognize duplexes that
would have more traffic. The Anderson lot was not included in the district.
Kodiak Island Borough Volume XXIX
February 16, 2006 Page 4
Mayor Selby noted that this was for design work at $140 per lot.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND FAILED: Ayes: Williams, Stephens; Noes:
Branson, Jeffrey, Ranney
Assemblymember Branson said it was not fair that a property was exempt.
There was general discussion to move forward with the engineering and work
with the Board and residents to continue with the paving project.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Branson, Jeffrey, Ranney,
Stephens, Williams,
2. Resolution No. FY2006 -30 Supporting the Draft Revision to the Kodiak
Island Borough's Coastal Management Plan.
WILLIAMS moved to adopt Resolution No. FY2006 -30, seconded by BRANSON
Manager Gifford said the revised plan would guide the Borough's participating
in the ACMP, a state program for the cooperative management of coastal uses
and activities.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Jeffrey, Ranney, Stephens,
Williams, Branson
C. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
1. Ordinance No. FY2006 -06 Amending Kodiak Island Borough Code of
Ordinances Title 3 Revenue and Finance Chapter 3.04 Public
Finance budget Section 3.04.020 Permissible Investments Section
3.04.022 Collateral Requirements Section 3.04.051 Facilities Fund by
Changing the Types of Instruments the Borough Can Invest In and
Changing the Investments Allowed in the Facilities Fund.
JEFFREY moved to adopt Ordinance No. FY2006 -06 in first reading to advance
to public hearing on March 2, 2006, seconded by BRANSON
Manager Gifford said this would allow the Borough finance director to invest
the Borough's funds in a broader class of investments.
Assemblymember Stephens was concerned that hiring a money manager would be
expensive when generally, over the past years, the finance director has done
very well with investments.
Assemblymember Branson saw this as a tool to improve the Borough's financial
situation. She hoped to advance the ordinance to public hearing.
Assemblymember Ranney said hiring a money manager was optional and even a one
percent increase in interest earnings would be substantial. He thought this
was conservative and wanted the best bargain for the public's money.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION FAILED THREE TO TWO: (Ayes) Ranney, Branson,
Jeffrey; (Noes) Stephens, Williams
D. OTHER ITEMS
1. Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment to the Prince William Sound
Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (PWSRCAC).
Kodiak Island Borough
February 16, 2006
Volume XXIX
Page 5
RANNEY moved to confirm the mayoral appointment of Al Burch to the Prince
William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council for a two year term to
expire March 2008, seconded by BRANSON
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Stephens, Williams, Branson,
Jeffrey, Ranney
CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
Dan Rohrer appreciated the need to move forward with the paving project and
volunteered his time to help write the resolution.
Christine Greenstreet thanked the Assembly for their interest in the paving
project.
Julie Coyle thanked the Assembly for moving forward with the paving project.
Al Burch thanked the Assembly for confirming his appointment to the PWSRCAC.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER COMMENTS
Assemblymember Branson said she and Assemblymembers Jeffrey and Williams
would review the non - profit application for presentation to the Assembly at
the February 23 work session.
Assemblymember Stephens requested an approximate total assessed valuation
compared with last year. He intended to file for reconsideration on the
paving resolutions. He favored moving forward but had concerns about legal
issues with the process.
Assemblymember Jeffrey congratulated Katherine Pascua as a high achiever,
Cassandra Juenger as an excellent Borough employee, and Al Burch on his
appointment to the PWSRCAC.
Mayor Selby announced that the Boards, Committees, and Commissions Reception
would be held on February 17 from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the Kodiak Fisheries
Research Center. He invited all members and their guest to attend.
The Borough offices would be closed on Monday, February 20, in observance of
the President's Day holiday.
The Assembly would meet in a work session on Thursday, February 23 at 7:30
p.m. in the Borough Conference room and a regular meeting on Thursday, March
2 at 7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers.
ADJOURNMENT
BRANSON moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by WILLIAMS
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, Williams, Branson, Jeffrey,
Ranney, Stephens
The meeting adjourned at 10:24 p.m.
ATTEST: Jerome M. Selby, Mayor
Judith A. Nielsen, CMC, Borough Clerk Approved:
Kodiak Island Borough Volume XXIX
February 16, 2006 Page 6
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
Regular Assembly Meeting
March 2, 2006
DRAFT
A regular meeting of the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly was held March 2,
2006 in the Assembly Chambers of the Kodiak Island Borough Building, 710 Mill
Bay Road. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
The invocation was given by Captain Dave Davis of the Salvation Army,
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Present were Mayor Jerome Selby, Assemblymembers Tom Abell, Pat Branson, Sue
Jeffrey, Cecil Ranney, Mel Stephens, and Barbara Williams. Absent was Reed
Oswalt. Staff present were Manager Rick Gifford, E &F Director Bud Cassidy,
Finance Director Karl Short, Assessor Tom Anderson, Clerk Judi Nielsen, and
Assistant Clerk Jessica Basuel.
BRANSON moved to excuse Assemblymember Oswalt, seconded by STEPHENS
VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
ABELL moved to approve the agenda, seconded by BRANSON
VOICE VOTE ON MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation
Mayor Selby proclaimed March 2006 as "National Women's History Month" urging
residents to increase their knowledge and appreciation of the valuable role
women play in our lives.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
Lawrence Anderson, Senior Citizens of Kodiak Inc. Board president, reported
that transportation through KATS was well used. He thanked the Assembly for
its support and invited Assemblymembers to visit the Center to view the many
improvements.
Christine Greenstreet, Bonnie Troth, and Julie Covle urged the Assembly to
move forward with the Woodland Acres paving project.
Jim Van Atta, read a letter of thanks to the Planning and Zoning Commission
and all the Borough staff involved in his recent rezone.
Shawn Dochtermann was disappointed that the Gulf of Alaska (GOA)
Rationalization Task Force had not met and suggested they meet weekly. He
attended a North Pacific Fisheries Management Council ( NPFMC) meeting and was
concerned how the State was handling the GOA rationalization and seafood
processing quotas. He asked for a resolution to the State and the NPFMC
opposing any process of quotas, linkage, or forced co -ops.
Steve Branson, Crewman's Association representative, said 500 members and 230
Kodiak residents attended the NPFMC meeting. He hoped the Task Force would
meet before ComFish and meet weekly. He said the State DEC intended to
illegalize the gutting of all fish.
Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Minutes
March 2, 2006 Page 1
In response to Assemblymember Stephens, Mr. Branson said he received an E-
mail that DEC planned to illegalize gutting of all fish within a half -mile
of land and also if the trip was longer than three days.
Darius Kasprzak, fisherman, also attended the NPFMC meeting and agreed that
the Task Force should meet regularly.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Scott Arndt, ARB member, asked for a change in the request for proposal (RFP)
for the architectural services on the pool. He said some of the Board
members questioned the selection process for the RFP. The ARB had not met
yet, but he said he spoke with vice -chair Jay Johnston.
Clerk Nielsen called a point of order in that the recommendation of one or
two Board members was not a Board recommendation and should not be reported
under Committee Reports, but under Citizens Comments.
Mayor Selby encouraged Mr. Arndt to hold an ARB meeting and return with a
recommendation from the Board.
Mr. Arndt wanted an addendum to change the procedure where the ARB would
recommend to the Assembly the top two firms for the Manager's negotiations.
PUBLIC HEARING - None
BOROUGH MANAGER'S REPORT
The GOA Rationalization Task Force would meet on Wednesday, March 22, 2006
at 9:00 a.m. in Room 106 at the Kodiak College.
He thanked WalMart for their $500 donation to the Bayside Fire Station. The
funds would pay for half the cost of a piercing nozzle and valve.
Prochaska & Associates would present the Hospital Master Plan to the ARB on
Monday, March 6 and then to the Assembly at a special work session at the
hospital on Tuesday, March 7. The plan would better utilize space for the
Kodiak Community Health Center (KCHC) and the hospital. The work session
would begin with a tour of the hospital with the presentation to follow.
Senate Bill 207, increasing the AADC Board to eleven members, was amended to
remain at nine members designating two representatives from Kodiak.
MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR
Mayor Selby said ComFish would be held in Kodiak March 16 -18 and he
anticipated many meetings on gulf rationalization. Fish and Game
Commissioner Campbell would be here for ComFish. He would speak before the
Assembly at the March 16 regular meeting. He encouraged people to attend and
participated to the ComFish meetings.
He asked Manager Gifford to research DEC's decision on fish gutting.
He remembered Mickey Duros, who served the community as a Borough employee
for many years. He appreciated her and said she would be greatly missed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Reconsideration of Ordinance No. FY2006 -06 Amending Kodiak Island Borough
Code of Ordinances Title 3 Revenue and Finance Chapter 3.04 Public
Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Minutes
March 2, 2006 Page 2
Finance - Budget Section 3.04.020 Permissible Investments Section 3.04.022
Collateral Requirements Section 3.04.051 Facilities Fund by Changing the
Types of Instruments the Borough Can Invest In and Changing the
Investments Allowed in the Facilities Fund.
BRANSON moved to reconsider the vote taken on Ordinance No. FY2006 -06,
seconded by JEFFREY
Branson made the motion to reconsider because she wanted the ordinance
advanced to public hearing to hear comments from the public.
Assemblymember Stephens opposed reconsideration and suggested amending the
ordinance for Assembly consideration at a future date.
In response to Assemblymember Williams, Clerk Nielsen related that the
ordinance could be changed in the future at the will of the Assembly.
Assemblymember Ranney wanted to move forward with the public hearing.
In response to Assemblymember Jeffrey, Clerk Nielsen said if reconsideration
was approved, the motion to advance to public hearing on March 2 would be
before the Assembly as if the vote had never been taken. If reconsidered,
an amendment to advance to public hearing at a future date was needed.
In response to Assemblymember Williams, Clerk Nielsen said the Assembly could
hold as many public hearings as they felt necessary on any ordinance.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER WAS TAKEN WITH A TIE VOTE: Branson,
Jeffrey, Ranney (Ayes); Abell, Stephens, Williams (Noes); Mayor Selby broke
the tie by voting aye; MOTION CARRIED FOUR TO THREE.
STEPHENS moved to amend the motion to change the public hearing date to April
6, 2006, seconded by WILLIAMS.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Branson, Jeffrey,
Ranney, Stephens, Williams, Abell
Assemblymember Stephens did not favor hiring a money manager as the expense
was not needed. Investing in the stock market was risky and he felt rushed.
Assemblymember Ranney said discussion started long -ago when the Facilities
Fund was earning two percent. He wanted to hear public comments.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO ADVANCE AS AMENDED CARRIED FIVE TO ONE: Jeffrey,
Ranney, Williams, Abell, Branson (Ayes); Stephens (Noes)
Mayor Selby reconvened the regular meeting at 9:02 p.m. after a ten - minute
recess.
B. Reconsideration of Resolution No. FY2006 -28 Initiating the Woodland Acres
Paving Assessment District to Pave Auk Circle, Coho Circle, Curlew Way,
Gull Drive, Harlequin Court, Patrick Court, Plover Way, Puffin Circle,
Puffin Drive, Sean Circle, Sea Quail Way, Shearwater Way, Teal Way, and
Wolverine Way.
STEPHENS moved to reconsider the vote taken on Resolution No. FY2006 -28,
second by WILLIAMS.
Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Minutes
March 2, 2006 Page 3
Assemblymember Stephens was concerned from a legal standpoint. If this was
reconsidered, he would make a motion to amend by substitution with the
ordinance he prepared. If not reconsidered, he would not make a motion to
reconsider Resolution No. FY2006 -29.
Clerk Nielsen clarified that if reconsideration was approved, the motion to
adopt would be before the Assembly as if the vote had never been taken. If
reconsideration failed, the original vote on the motion to adopt would stand.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER FAILED FOUR TO TWO: Ranney, Williams,
Branson, Jeffrey (Noes); Abell, Stephens (Ayes)
C. Reconsideration of Resolution No. FY2006 -29 Determining to Proceed With
the Proposed Woodland Acres Paving Assessment District and Authorizing
Staff to Determine the Approximate Cost to Pave the Roads Within the
District.
The motion to reconsider failed for lack of a motion.
NEW BUSINESS
A. CONTRACTS - None
B. RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution No. FY2006 -31 Establishing Citizens Board of Equalization
Dates for the Year 2006.
RANNEY moved to adopt Resolution No. FY2006 -31, seconded by BRANSON.
Manager Gifford said this established the Board's May 16, 2006 meeting date.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Stephens, Williams, Abell,
Branson, Jeffrey, Ranney
C. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
1. Ordinance No. FY2006 -08 Amending Kodiak Island Borough Code of
Ordinances Title 17 Zoning Chapter 17.51 Accessory Buildings Section
7.51.040 Height Limit.
JEFFREY moved to adopt Ordinance No. FY2006 -08 in first reading to advance
to public hearing on March 16, 2006, seconded by BRANSON.
Manager Gifford said the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted public
hearings on the proposed changes that would match existing state law.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Williams, Abell, Branson,
Jeffrey, Ranney, Ranney, Stephens
2. Ordinance No. FY2006 -09 Amending Kodiak Island Borough Code of
Ordinances Title 3 Revenue and Finance Chapter 3.32 Motor Vehicle
Registration and Tax Section 3.32.010 Established, and Section
3.32.020 Allocation; and by Adding Section 3.32.030 Fee Imposed to
Increase the Motor Vehicle Registration Tax.
BRANSON moved to adopt Ordinance No. FY2006 -09 in first reading to advance
to public hearing on March 16, 2006, seconded by ABELL.
Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Minutes
March 2, 2006 Page 4
Manager Gifford said the Department of Motor Vehicles required an ordinance
by April 1, 2006 to increase the registration tax to begin January 1, 2007.
This would generate additional revenue of approximately $100,000 per year.
There was general discussion about using the funds to remove junk vehicles.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Abell, Branson, Jeffrey,
Ranney, Stephens, Williams
D. OTHER ITEMS - None
CITIZEN COMMENTS - None
ASSEMBLYMEMBER COMMENTS
Assemblymember Stephens said the Borough website was updated and documents
could be downloaded. He wanted to review the Hospital Master Plan rough
draft. He was heard Mr. Arndt's comments and noted that the RFP for the pool
design services came in over budget. He was concerned about the comments
regarding gulf rationalization.
Assemblymember Branson thanked Mr. VanAtta for his letter. She appreciated
Mr. Arndt's comments but did not agree with the process of speaking under
committee reports.
Assemblymember Abell hoped more people would come forward and testify on gulf
rationalization as he saw no benefit to the community.
Assemblymember Ranney, GOA Rationalization Task Force member, was sorry that
the Task Force had not met. He would attend the Legislative Reception in
Juneau and would miss the Task Force meeting on March 22, 2006.
Assemblymember Williams wanted to meet with all the Boards, Committees, and
Commissions and wanted minutes of their meetings.
Mayor Selby announced that the Assembly would tour the Providence Kodiak
Island Medical Center on Tuesday, March 7 at 6:30 p.m. starting at the
Specialty Clinic entrance. The Assembly would meet in a special work session
immediately following the tour in Providence's east wing training room.
The Assembly would meet in a work session on Thursday, March 9 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Borough Conference room and a regular meeting on Thursday, March 16
at 7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers.
ADJOURNMENT
BRANSON moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by JEFFREY
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Branson, Jeffrey, Ranney,
Stephens, Williams, Abell
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
ATTEST: Jerome M. Selby, Mayor
Judith A. Nielsen, CMC, Borough Clerk Approved:
Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Minutes
March 2, 2006 Page 5
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
Regular Assembly Meeting
March 16, 2006
DRAFT
A regular meeting of the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly was held March 16,
2006 in the Assembly Chambers of the Kodiak Island Borough Building, 710 Mill
Bay Road. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Present were Mayor Jerome Selby, Assemblymembers Tom Abell, Sue Jeffrey,
Cecil Ranney, Mel Stephens, and Barbara Williams. Absent were
Assemblymembers Pat Branson and Reed Oswalt. Staff present were Manager Rick
Gifford, Engineering and Facilities Director Bud Cassidy, Finance Director
Karl Short, Clerk Judi Nielsen, and Deputy Clerk Nova Javier.
The invocation was given by Captain Dave Davis of the Salvation Army,
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
ABELL moved to excuse Assemblymembers Pat Branson and Reed Oswalt, seconded
by JEFFREY
VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STEPHENS moved to approve the agenda, seconded by ABELL
VOICE VOTE ON MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Student of the Month
Mayor Selby presented the Student of the Month Award for March 2006 to Andrew
Wolford, a senior at the Big Sandy Lake School.
B. Proclamation
Mayor Selby proclaimed the Month of April 2006 as "Donate Life Month"
encouraging all residents to consider giving life through tissue and organ
donation and to discuss that decision with their families.
C. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF &G) - Commissioner McKie Campbell
Commissioner Campbell spoke in support of the construction of a new ADF &G
building on Near Island.
In response to Assemblymember Stephens, Commissioner McKie did not know the
longest lease that ADF &G had entered into. He said ADF &G was interested in
entering into a long -term lease with the Borough.
Mayor Selby appreciated Commissioner Campbell for coming. He said the concept
for the building started in late 1970's, which was included in a three -phase
concept for development on Near Island.
In response to Assemblymember questions, Commissioner Campbell said at least
50 percent of the construction may qualify for an EVOS Grant as a part of the
Kodiak Island Borough
March 16, 2006
Volume XXIX
Page 1
research component, the number of employees that would move to Kodiak to work
at the facility was dependent on the legislature and federal government, and
the State may use the old building to consolidate other State Agencies in
Kodiak.
Commissioner Campbell explained his position on the current rationalization
issues. He said it was a long analytical process. At the last NPFMC
conference, he supported a wide -range of analysis for different alternatives
and supported stability for all sectors and communities.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
Faith Bancroft spoke in support of the Kodiak Baptist Mission Food Bank.
James VanAtta asked the Assembly to review the allocation of the transient
accommodations tax to the Kodiak Island Convention Visitors Bureau (KICVB).
He hoped the funds were spent wisely. He thought there should be an audit
and that minutes and recordings of meetings be made available to the public.
COMMITTEE REPORTS - None.
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Ordinance No. FY2006 -08 Amending Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances
Title 17 Zoning Chapter 17.51 Accessory Buildings Section 7.51.040 Height
Limit.
STEPHENS moved to adopt Ordinance No. FY2006 -08, seconded by WILLIAMS
Manager Gifford said the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted public
hearings on the proposed changes. As a result, the Commission recommended
the changes included in the ordinance to better match existing state law.
Mayor Selby opened the public hearing, hearing and seeing none, he reconvened
the regular meeting.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Abell, Jeffrey, Ranney,
Stephens, Williams
B. Ordinance No. FY2006 -09 Amending Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances
Title 3 Revenue and Finance Chapter 3.32 Motor Vehicle Registration and
Tax Section 3.32.010 Established, and Section 3.32.020 Allocation; and
by Adding Section 3.32.030 Fee Imposed to Increase the Motor Vehicle
Registration Tax.
WILLIAMS moved to adopt Ordinance No. FY2006 -09, seconded by ABELL
Manager Gifford said the Department of Motor Vehicles required an ordinance
by April 1, 2006 to increase the registration tax to begin January 1, 2007.
Additional revenue would be approximately $100,000 per year.
Mayor Selby opened the public hearing.
James VanAtta supported the Ordinance with the assumption that money would
be allocated to the removal of junk vehicles.
Mayor Selby closed the public hearing and reconvened the regular meeting.
Kodiak Island Borough
March 16, 2006
Volume XXIX
Page 2
There were general comments from Assemblymembers that the additional funds
should help address the community's problem with junk vehicles and advocating
the need for more discussion in the future.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Jeffrey, Ranney, Stephens,
Williams, Abell
BOROUGH MANAGER'S REPORT
Manager Gifford said the Borough and City conducted a community -wide
emergency exercise on Tuesday, March 14, 2006. An Incident Management Team
was started and it included participants from the Borough, City, North
Pacific Fuel, the Coast Guard, and the Department of Environmental
Conservation. The consultants would provide a written report outlining what
went well and where improvements were needed.
ECIHyer representatives would be in Kodiak the first week of April to meet
with the Architectural Review Board on the pool design and site selection.
He would travel to Juneau for the joint Borough /City legislative reception.
He provided a schedule of the legislative /state agency visits.
MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR
Mayor Selby encouraged everyone to participate in ComFish. He said the five
gubernatorial candidates were in Kodiak and ComFish was a great place to
start their campaign.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None.
NEW BUSINESS
A. CONTRACTS - None.
B. RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution No. FY2006 -32 Supporting the Prince William Sound
Regional Citizens' Advisory Council's (PWSRCAC) Efforts to compile
an Oral History of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.
JEFFREY moved to adopt Resolution No. FY2006 -32, seconded by ABELL
Manager Gifford said Al Burch, PWSRCAC member, requested that the Assembly
adopt this resolution supporting the Council's efforts.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Ranney, Stephens, Williams,
Abell, Jeffrey
C. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None.
D. OTHER ITEMS
1. Approval of Revised Planning and Zoning Commission By -Laws.
WILLIAMS moved to approve the revised Planning and Zoning Commission By -Laws,
seconded by STEPHENS
Kodiak Island Borough
March 16, 2006
Volume XXIX
Page 3
Manager Gifford said the Commission reviewed and approved changes to their
by -laws and asked for Assembly approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Stephens, Williams, Abell,
Jeffrey, Ranney
CITIZEN COMMENTS - None.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER COMMENTS
Assemblymember Williams encouraged everyone to attend ComFish.
Assemblymember Stephens encouraged everyone to participate in the upcoming
budget process.
Clerk Nielsen noted an E -mail was received from Assemblymember Oswalt saying
he was enjoying his trip with the kangaroos and emus in Australia.
Mayor Selby announced that he, members of the Assembly, and the Manager would
travel to Juneau March 20 -23 to meet with legislators and to attend the joint
Kodiak Island Borough City of Kodiak Legislative Reception.
The Assembly would meet in a work session on Thursday, March 30 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Borough Conference room and a regular meeting on Thursday, April 6,
at 7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers.
The Borough Offices would be closed on Monday, March 27 in observance of
Seward's Day.
ADJOURNMENT
WILLIAMS moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by JEFFREY
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Williams, Abell, Jeffrey,
Ranney, Stephens
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
ATTEST: Jerome M. Selby, Mayor
Judith A. Nielsen, CMC, Borough Clerk Approved:
Kodiak Island Borough
March 16, 2006
Volume XXIX
Page 4
Regular Meeting of April 6, 2006
Kodiak Island Borough
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. 9.A
Ordinance No. FY2006 -06
Amending Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances Title 3 Revenue and Finance
Chapter 3.04 Public Finance - budget Section 3.04.020 Permissible Investments Section
3.04.022 Collateral Requirements Section 3.04.051 Facilities Fund by Changing the
Types of Instruments the Borough Can Invest In and Changing the Investments Allowed
in the Facilities Fund.
The first part of this ordinance changes the collateral requirements in the code. In actual
practice many of the allowed investments in the Borough Code can not be collateralized.
Examples would be US treasuries and agencies. This would keep the requirement to have
investments such as repurchase agreements collateralized.
This ordinance also allows assets of the Facilities Fund to be invested in more instruments
than currently allowed. This Ordinance would allow the Facilities Fund to invest in mutual
funds made up of stocks.
This ordinance allows the cash and investments of the Facilities Fund to be managed, and
invested, by an external money manager if the Assembly desires the services of a money
manager.
Generally, over a longer period of time, the return on investments is higher when they are
invested in higher risk instruments. This ordinance would let the Borough maximize interest
earnings on funds held by the Facilities Fund.
FISCAL NOTES: ACCOUNT NO.:
NA Expenditure
Required:
Amount
Recommended motion: Move to adopt Ordinance No. FY2006 -06.
WHEREAS, the Borough Code pertaining to investments has become dated; and
WHEREAS, the list of allowed investments could be more clearly defined; and
WHEREAS, collateral is not available on all investment types, only repurchase agreements and
certificates of deposit; and
WHEREAS, because the principal amount of the investments held in the Facilities Fund is not
used for daily operations, investments can be held for a longer term and can have larger swings in
value; and
WHEREAS, generally, over a long period of time equities (stocks) show a greater return than
government securities; and
WHEREAS, because of GASB 31 the value of the Borough investments change on our general
ledger even though it will not change over the life of an investment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND
BOROUGH THAT:
Section 1:
Section 2:
Sections:
3.04.010
3.04.015
3.04.020
3.04.021
3.04.022
3.04.023
3.04.026
3.04.027
3.04.030
3.04.040
3.04.050
3.04.051
3.04.052
Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
ORDINANCE NO. FY 2006 -06
Introduced by:
Requested by:
Drafted by:
Introduced:
Failed to Advance
Reconsidered:
Public Hearing:
Adopted:
Manager Gifford
Assembly
Finance Director
02/16/2006
to PH: 02/16/2006
03/02/2006
04/06/2006
AN ORDINANCE OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
AMENDING KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH CODE OF ORDINANCES
TITLE 3 REVENUE AND FINANCE CHAPTER 3.04 PUBLIC FINANCE — BUDGET
SECTION 3.04.020 PERMISSIBLE INVESTMENTS
SECTION 3.04.022 COLLATERAL REQUIREMENTS
SECTION 3.04.051 FACILITIES FUND BY
CHANGING THE TYPES OF INSTRUMENTS THE BOROUGH CAN INVEST IN AND
CHANGING THE INVESTMENTS ALLOWED IN THE FACILITIES FUND
This ordinance is of a general and permanent nature and shall become a part of the
Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances.
Title 3 Revenue and finance Chapter 3.04 Public Finance — Management and
Accounting Section 3.04.020 Permissible investments is hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 3.04
PUBLIC FINANCE — MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTING
General treasury management.
Authority.
Permissible investments.
Terms defined.
Collateral requirements.
Collateral safekeeping.
Diversification of investments.
Investment records.
Deposit of school money.
Basis of accounting.
Funds.
Facilities fund.
Education fund.
Ordinance No. FY2006 -06
Page 1 of 5
3.04.053 Fern Fuller fund.
3.04.056 Land sale fund.
3.04.056 Penalties.
3.04.057 General fixed assets.
3.04.060 Distribution of funds.
3.04.065 Review of service fees.
3.04.070 Post audit.
3.04.020 Permissible investments. The treasurer shall invest money only in the following types
of security instruments:
A. Bonds, notes, or other obligations, direct or otherwise, of the United States
Government;
B. Bonds and other evidence of indebtedness of the state of Alaska, or any municipality, or
political subdivision of the state of Alaska;
C. Savings accounts, certificates of deposit, banker's acceptances, repurchase
agreements, and such other legal security instruments; or
D. The Alaska Municipal League Investment Pool, Inc. made in accordance with the terms
of that Pool's "Common Investment Agreement ".
Section 3: Title 3 Revenue and finance Chapter 3.04 Public Finance — Management and
Accounting Section 3.04.022 Collateral requirements is hereby amended as follows:
3.04.022 Collateral requirements. CD's over $100,000 must be collateralized at 102 %. All
Statc and municipal Required for
bonds and notcs: 100% of Deposit
1. Alaskan issucs 100% of markct
2. Federally guaranteed
projcct notcs Alaska
issues 100% of market
3. Other states (Bea
rating or better) 120% of market
B. U.S. Government obligations:
1. Direct obligations 100% of markct
2. Federal agency
i3SUC3 100% of markct
3. Federally guarantee
A.
projcct notcs othcr 100% of markct (Ord. 82 15 O(A) (part), 1982).
Section 4: Title 3 Revenue and finance Chapter 3.04 Public Finance — Management and
Accounting Section 3.04.051 Facilities fund is hereby amended as follows:
3.04.051 Facilities Fund.
A. The facilities fund is established as a separate investment fund which is distinct from
the general land 3alc fund and all other funds. The fund consists of all proceeds received from
the sale of Shuyak Island property to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. All income
from the fund shall be deposited to the fund. The assembly may, by ordinance, make
additional appropriations to the fund at any time. Any additional funds added to the fund,
aside of Shuyak Island proceeds, shall become part of the fund as a whole and subject to the
regulations of the facilities fund.
B.
e e
Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska
The
Ordinance No. FY2006 -06
Page 2 of 5
investment purpose of the Facilities Fund is growth through prudent investment of fund assets.
Notwithstanding the objectives of the Borough policy for the investment of its operating and
other funds set out in 3.04.020, the investment of the Facilities Fund assets shall be made to
maintain safety of principal while maximizing total return. Investments shall be diversified to
minimize the risk of Toss resulting from a concentration of investments in a specific maturity,
issuer, class of security, financial institution or, with respect to equity investments, in a
specific company, industry or investment sector. Fund assets may be invested in the
instruments and securities set out in the following:
1, United States Treasury obligations including bills, notes, bonds, and other debt
obligations issued by the United States Treasury, and backed by the full faith and credit of the
U.S. Government.
2. Securities issued or guaranteed by agencies and instrumentalities of the U.S.
Government, but not explicitly backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.
3. Securities issued or guaranteed by municipalities in the United States, rated in one
of the three highest rating categories by nationally recognized statistical rating organization
(NRSRO).
4. Corporate debt securities rated investment grade.
5. Asset - Backed securities rated investment grade.
6. Yankee debt (that is, U.S. dollar denominated obligations issued in the U.S. capital
markets by foreign issuers) rated investment grade.
7. Mortgage- Backed Securities (MBS) and Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMO)
comprising.
Agency MBS investments issued by Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation, or the Government National Mortgage Association.
CMO investments securitized by agency MBS issued by Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or the Governmental National
Mortgage Association; provided that permissible CMO investments include only sequential
class CMO's or type I planned amortization class CMO's.
8. Money market mutual funds regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission
which comply with rule 2(a)7 and whose underlying portfolio consists of investment grade
securities; and The Alaska Municipal League Investment Pool, Inc.
9. A mutual fund, which is designed to replicate the Standard and Poor's 500 Index or
an ETF (Exchange Traded Funds) with the same purpose.
C. Allocation of investments. The Borough may have all or part of the Facilities Fund
investments managed by an external money manager.
1. By external money managers.
Allowable Maximum
Minimum Percentage Percentage
Requirements of Issuer of portfolio
UST 100% 0 - 100%
Agencies 100% 0 - 100%
Bonds BBB 10% 0 - 25%
BA's A 2% 0 - 25%
Repo's A 5% 0 - 25%
CD's A 5% 0 - 10%
Mutual Funds 10 - 25%
AMLIP 0 - 50%
CD's over $100,000 must be collateralized at 102%
Mutual Funds must meet all of the above requirements.
2. By Finance Director or designee: The finance director or designee can invest in
any of the above except for mutual funds.
Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. FY2006 -06
Page 3 of 5
D. The following are prohibited transactions:
1. Purchase of non - dollar securities.
2. Purchase of private placement securities.
3. Short sale of securities (the sale and settlement of a security not currently owned
and a formal agreement to borrow the security to facilitate the settlement of the
short sale)
4. Purchases of futures, forwards or options.
5. Borrowing to leverage the return on investments. Extended settlement of securities
purchases executed to facilitate or improve the efficiency of a transaction will not
be considered borrowing, provided that sufficient cash equivalent securities or
receivables are available to facilitate the extended settlement.
In the event a security currently held in the portfolio is downgraded below investment grade
the money manager shall provide written notification to the Finance Director and set forth in
writing a recommended course of action.
The fund may not be appropriated or spent, except as provided in this section. The
earnings or principle shall at no time run or supplement the running of government except
as specified in this section.
as an addition to the Fishcry Industrial Tcchnology Ccntcr
t3E.The excess income of the fund is defined as eighty -five (85) percent of the annual
investment income from the fund. The excess income of the fund is available for appropriation
by the assembly in the fiscal year following the year in which the income is earned. The
excess income of the fund may be appropriated only for the following purposes:
1. maintenance and repair of existing borough facilities,
2. insurance paid by the borough for borough buildings,
3. upgrade and reconstruction of existing facilities, or
4. debt service on general obligation bonds issued for facilities construction - -up to fifty
(50) percent of excess may be used for this purpose.
EF. A portion of the fund may be appropriated for another purpose only upon approval of an
ordinance ratified by a two - thirds (2/3) majority of the qualified voters at a regular or special
election.
G. At least ninety (90) days prior to fiscal year end the Assembly will adopt a resolution
to determine how much of the Facilities Fund will be managed by external money
managers.
H. Selection of money managers. If the Assembly desires the services of a money
manager, the Finance Director will prepare an RFP to solicit proposals from different
money managers to manage a portion or all of the investments of the Facilities Fund.
There shall be a committee consisting of the Borough Finance Director,
a Borough staff member appointed by the Manager, and an Assembly member
appointed by the Mayor to wi.# evaluate the various proposals and make a
recommendation to the Assembly through the Borough Manager. Money managers
must meet the following minimum criteria:
1. Be a bank, insurance company, investment management company, or investment
adviser as defined by the Registered Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
2. Provide historical quarterly performance numbers calculated on a time - weighted
basis, based on a composite of all fully discretionary accounts of similar
investments style, and reported net and gross of fees.
3. Provide detailed information on the history of the firm, key personnel, key clients,
fee schedule, and support personnel. This information can be a copy of a recent
Request for Proposal (RFP) completed by the money manager.
Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. FY2006 -06
Page 4 of 5
4. Clearly articulate the investment strategy that will be followed and document that
the strategy has been successfully adhered to over time.
Selected firms shall have no outstanding legal judgments or past judgments, which may reflect
negatively upon the firm.
I. Duties and responsibilities of the money manager. The duties and responsibilities of each
money manager retained by the Borough include the following:
1 Managing the Borough assets under its care, custody and /or control in accordance
with the objectives and guidelines set forth herein.
2. Exercising investment discretion (including holding cash equivalents as an
alternative) within the objectives and guidelines set forth herein.
3. Promptly informing the Borough through the Finance Director in writing regarding all
significant and /or material matters and changes pertaining to the investment of
Borough assets, including but not limited to:
a. Investment strategy
b. Portfolio structure
c. Tactical approaches
d. Ownership
e. Organizational structure
f. Financial condition
g. Professional staff
h. Recommendations for guideline changes
i. All legal material, SEC and other regulatory agency proceedings affecting the
firm
4. Promptly voting all proxies and related actions in a manner consistent with the long-
term interests and objectives of the Borough set forth herein. The money manager
shall keep detailed records of said voting of proxies and related actions and will
comply with all regulatory obligations related thereto.
5. Utilize the same care, skill, prudence and due diligence under the circumstances
then prevailing that experience, investment professionals acting in a like capacity
and fully familiar with such matters would use in like activities for like Borough and
Endowment Funds with like aims in accordance and compliance with all applicable
laws, rules and regulations from local, state, federal and international political
entities as it pertains to fiduciary duties and responsibilities.
6. Acknowledge and agree in writing to their fiduciary responsibility to fully comply
with all of the objectives and guidelines set forth herein, and as modified in the
future.
ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
THIS DAY OF 2006
ATTEST: Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor
Judith A. Nielsen, CMC, Borough Clerk
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. FY2006 -06
Page 5 of 5
Regular Meeting of April 6, 2006
Kodiak Island Borough
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. 13.B.1
Resolution No. FY2006 -33
Granting Final Approval of the Phase 1 Kodiak Island Borough Pre - Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The Kodiak Island Borough has under contract, a qualified consulting firm to review the
ability of our school facilities to withstand seismic ground motion. This work has shown
that a number of our educational buildings are in need of reinforcement work.
One of the tasks outlined in the contract is to prepare an application to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for a Pre - Disaster Mitigation Seismic Project
Grant. This application was completed by Mr. Ken Goettel of Goettel and Associates, Inc.
This requested funding, if approved, will provide up to 75% of the cost to repair and
reinforce a portion of the Kodiak Middle School.
To be eligible for the award of this money a FEMA approved "Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan "
must be in place before FEMA can rule on the project grant application. At this time the
Kodiak Island Borough does not have a pre- disaster mitigation plan in place.
The assembly awarded a sole source contract to Goettel & Associates Inc. for completion
of a Pre - Disaster Mitigation Plan. To qualify for the Pre - Disaster Mitigation Seismic Project
Grants there is a need to adopt the completed Phase 1 Pre - Disaster Mitigation Plan before
FEMA can rule on the Borough's Pre - Disaster Mitigation Seismic Project Grant request.
FEMA requires the local governing body to formally adopt the plan before FEMA will
consider the borough to be eligible for project grant funding. Several amendments to the
provisional Phase I plan were required by FEMA and these changes have been incorporated
into the plan presented to you.
FISCAL NOTES: ACCOUNT NO.:
NA Expenditure
Required:
Amount
Recommended motion: Move to grant final approval of the Phase 1 Kodiak Island Pre -
Hazard Mitigation Plan.
WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough has spent considerable time, effort, and resources to
determine the seismic vulnerability of all school facilities owned and maintained by the Borough; and,
WHEREAS, the engineering information developed through these investigations not only identifies
the facilities that are most at -risk, but also provides technical justification for FEMA Pre - Hazard
Mitigation Grant funding, which can provide up to 75% matching funds for an approved project; and,
WHEREAS, to be eligible for the FEMA Pre - Hazard Mitigation Grant funding, the Borough must
comply with the requirements of the Disaster Management Act of 2000, which requires that the
Borough adopt a multi - jurisdictional Pre - Hazard Mitigation Plan in order to be eligible for project grant
funding; and,
WHEREAS, the Borough has engaged the services of a qualified consultant to develop a Pre -
Hazard Mitigation Plan which must be granted final approval by the Assembly as one of the FEMA
requirements for agency plan approval, subject to several minor edits required by the agency as part
of the recently concluded review by DHS &EM and FEMA; and,
WHEREAS, the Borough has submitted a Phase I single jurisdiction plan (borough -wide) in order to
obtain FEMA eligibility for the Middle School Seismic Retrofit project submittal in the 2006 grant cycle,
however the Phase 11 planning process will continue through 2006 until conclusion to ensure that all
borough communities and all natural and man -made disasters are adequately addressed in the final
multi - jurisdictional plan product; and,
WHEREAS, the plan has been reviewed and approved by the Alaska Department of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND
BOROUGH grants final approval of the Phase 1 Kodiak Island Borough Pre - Hazard Mitigation Plan.
ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
THIS DAY OF 2006
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
ATTEST:
Judith A. Nielsen, CMC, Borough Clerk
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
RESOLUTION NO. FY2006 -33
Introduced by: Manager Gifford
Requested by: Assembly
Introduced: 04/06/2006
Adopted:
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PHASE 1
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PRE - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor
Kodiak Island Borough Alaska Resolution No. FY2006 -33
Page 1 of 1
Meeting of: April 6, 2006
Kodiak Island Borough
AGENDA STATEMENT
Supporting Alaska Village Initiatives Integrated Program for Biomass Utilization
in Rural Alaska.
This resolution was requested by Assemblymember Abell.
Recommended motion: Move to adopt Resolution No. FY2006 - 34.
Resolution No. FY2006 -34
FISCAL NOTES: ACCOUNT NO.:
NA Expenditure
Required:
Amount
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
RESOLUTION NO. FY2006 -34
Introduced by: Manager Gifford
Requested by: Assemblymember Abell
Introduced: 04/06/2006
Adopted:
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
SUPPORTING ALASKA VILLAGE INITIATIVES INTEGRATED PROGRAM FOR
BIOMASS UTILIZATION IN RURAL ALASKA
WHEREAS, the high cost of electricity and heating fuel in rural Alaska is detrimental to the
sustainability of rural communities; and,
WHEREAS, enterprises that are environmentally, culturally, and economically sustainable are
critical to the economic vitality of rural areas; and,
WHEREAS, a lack of active forest management has created an increase in fire hazard and a
decline in moose habitat in many areas of the state; and,
WHEREAS, new and emerging technologies are available which can utilize existing forest biomass
to displace expensive diesel used in electrical generation; and,
WHEREAS, effective us of this biomass can stimulate economic activity, improve moose habitat,
reduce fire danger, and reduce the cost of power in rural Alaska; and,
WHEREAS, Alaska Village Initiatives is actively engaged with the Alaska Energy Authority and other
partners to successfully implement biomass projects for heat and electrical generation on a cost -
effective basis;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND
BOROUGH fully supports Alaska Village Initiatives in their efforts to implement biomass programs in
rural Alaska and encourages the State of Alaska to support this effort with technical and financial
assistance.
ATTEST:
ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
THIS DAY OF 2006
Judith A. Nielsen, CMC, Borough Clerk
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor
Kodiak Island Borough Alaska Resolution No. FY2006 -34
Page 1 of 1
-..i ALASKA PILLAGE
�I N ITIATIVE$ NEW HORIZONS FOR RURAL ALASKA
1577 'C' Street, Suite 304, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 - (907) 274 -5400 - Fax (907) 263 -9971 - 800 - 478 -2332
www.akvillage.com, e-mail: info @akvillage.com
Background
Alaska Village Initiatives
Proposal to the State of Alaska
Regarding Biomass Renewable Energy
For Rural Alaska
March 20, 2006
• High heating and electrical generation fuel costs threaten the survival of rural Alaska
• Environmentally, culturally, and economically sustainable enterprise is vitally needed,
but difficult to develop in rural Alaska
• Moose populations are in decline in many parts of rural Alaska, which further depletes a
rural communities resources
AVI's Efforts to Meet These Challenges
• Facilitated the inclusion of Alaska Native lands into the Natural Resource Conservation
Service cost share programs -helps rural Alaska promote subsistence habitat improvement
and restoration
• Created the Village Wildlife Conservation Systems Division of AVI- hired nationally and
internationally recognized wildlife biologist and experienced Alaska native Forester
• Business affiliate with Community Power Corporation, developer of the BioMax wood
chip gasifier and electrical power generator
• Active member of the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group
• Developed an integrated biomass utilization program concept for rural Alaska including:
o Economic cost model for small wood harvest in rural /bush conditions
o Planting faster growing indigenous trees for biomass and moose browse
o Harvest and reforestation plan that reduces wildfire hazard around community
o Establishing biomass management plan that creates local jobs
• Developed demonstration project for electrical power generation using BioMax at a small
sawmill in Dry Creek
• Applications submitted for Federal matching fund Grants to fund demonstration project
as well as evaluate biomass economics in 5 rural communities
• Producing Forest Stewardship Plans through the Forest Stewardship Program, for Tetlin
Village Council, Yukon Flats /Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments, and others,
with an emphasis on biomass utilization
• Partnering with Alaska Energy Authority on Upper Tanana Renewable Energy
Committee evaluating biomass energy applications in the Tok area
Conclusions AVI has drawn from our observations to date:
• Preliminary observations indicate that biomass energy applications make economic sense
at current fossil fuel prices
• There is strong interest in alternative energy applications in rural Alaska
• Biomass utilization thought processes for rural Alaska must be on a community level in
order to make significant progress in controlling energy costs and advancing rural
economic development
• Federal programs are available to help facilitate certain portions of a biomass energy
program
• AVI has the capacity to leverage the Federal monies but needs a reliable source for non-
federal matching funds
• Biomass fueled heating systems that currently exist that have immediate application in
rural Alaska
• Biomass electrification is possible and AVI is currently pursuing Federal funding to
demonstrate this technology in interior Alaska
• Wood chip storage and distribution systems are key to an areas ability to capture biomass
energy opportunities
• AVI believes that investment in rural energy now will result in energy cost savings to the
State of Alaska in subsequent years
• Existing methodologies for creating and expansion of moose habitat can be easily
integrated into a biomass energy program at little cost
• Rural Alaskan communities do not have the capacity to undertake a biomass energy
program on with their own resources
• AVI has a unique position to facilitate a biomass program in rural Alaska
What Alaska Village Initiatives is asking of the State of Alaska
1. AVI is seeking a resolution from the State of Alaska supporting AVI's efforts in
advancing biomass energy applications in rural Alaska.
2. AVI is seeking $500,000 from the State of Alaska to further efforts related to renewable
energy and economic development in rural Alaska to be spent on the following projects:
• State funds will be used as match to federal funds secured by AVI
• Evaluate technical and economic viability to use biomass for heat and (later)
electrical generation in the following five communities:
o Kodiak (plus outlying villages)
o Tok
o Fort Yukon
o Kenai
o Delta Junction
• Determine appropriate biomass (small logs for chipping) harvest systems for remote
locations, example Fort Yukon /Yukon Flats
• Research design applicability of currently available boiler /chip production /feed
mechanisms for wood chips
• Draft conceptual business plan for a community biomass energy program
• Identify grant and loan resources for communities who wish to pursue biomass
energy for their community
Waste material may soon power Interior lumbe
By Margaret Bauman r mill
Alaska Journal of Commerce
A mountain of sawdust produced as a byproduct
g eyed as t
mill near the Canadian border is being t f a lumber
brewed fuel that could cut the he o home-
percent, mill's diesel fuel bill by up to 70
That's big bucks for the D
Tok, a profitable sawmill with a wo kin dr l, 45 miles east of
where extreme subzero t emperatures are common in winter
months.
It's also part of a la
Energy Atho larger plan in the works by the Alaska
Energ ty and Alaska Village Initiatives to boost the
stability of rural economies, while enhancing
critical to subsistence lifestyles. If
Creek Sawmill subsistence
be testing grant funds moose habitat
Colorado firm g the system, desi the Dry
to see how it stands up 9ned by a
P in extreme cold.
We have a tremendous opportunity
e tO link integrated
approaches to management of habitat and forest and
The Dry Creek lumber mill O- k J I tfes are
reduction of the. cost of energy veteran wildlife biologist with giaska age Initiative powered by this John Deer 40- kilowatt
quite veteran
possible
wildlife
that over the said Bill Wall, diesel generator. sawdust A
happen. It is very exciting next 10 s• "It is could use plan is in the works that
to 15 years to see this sawdust as a fuel to help relieve
g for us. the mill of its reliance on diesel for
PHOTO Courtesy of Alaska Village Initiatives Power.
't comes to fruition, the project would replace cut ti
- . i effort to bolster the animal's population.
tuber with vegetation conducive to moose habitat In
The key to the project's success lies with a BioMax
in
The key to Colo., and its success
provide energy ability lies
use wood Power system, produced b
development Litt 9Y otherwise fueled by y biomass fuels, including Community and sawdust,
nr y o h, the technology fue d y diesel generators. While the project g WO n chips and u toCorp,,
no modification to those nmsy has T already ad
isint heresearcha n d
Initiatives. Y proven effective for diesel
Harris, president and chief executive officer of A�aS requiring
"This will displace u Alaska Village
displace imported P to 70 percent of the fuel needed to operate heat the communl y' he teid. ppIys added that waste heat W be recycled system
ty's water supply, ' using a locally grouch fuel to
John Squires, to re -dry wood chips or
n
quires, a part in the sawmill awmill at Dry s, a valuable wave a the future. ^I
Y small communities that have trees Creek, which was founded by s would see the project y missionaries in 1ue3
rees and a s P 1 � being something of value to , sees Alaska, mall sawmill, ^ he said.
lie company is lread
raves about 7 k isf sing a sawdust -fired boiler to heat the lumber d
r o the machine, and a stfr , al o has electric
Ito th el fuel at p the sawdust fluffed.tIn alt, the mill u au kiln. 800 gallon whmh
$1.45 a gallon, he said. "If we could create that electricity to get the sawdust
. diesel fuel at
4t,^ he said.
ca $1. mill uses about 800
ctricity out of wood chips, gallons a month
' � makes Dry p , it would be
ry Creek ideal for project
Alask Alaska Energy Authority and Alaska Village Initiatives chose Dry Creek to work with
a ka operating gy gy sawmill in a rural community tY with access to the highway system. ecause hwa it has a
It is also, according to Squires, the only community on the Alaska Highway system near the Canadian
border that does not have grid power available. The power lines from Delta stop at Saw Mill Creek, about
16 miles east of Delta Junction, and the power lines from Tok stop at Dot Lake, 17 miles east of Dry
Creek. "That's almost a 40 -mile stretch of no power lines," he said.
While Dry Creek lacks access to power lines, it has plenty of biomass, i.e. sawdust and wood chips.
"The biomass is right there, and they have a disposal problem," said Peter Olsen, executive field director
of Alaska Village Initiatives.
"It's not really a question of whether it will work. The technology has been proven, (but) people are not
going to abandon putting diesel fuel in generators in favor of this unless they are absolutely positive it is
going to work."
Assuming the sawdust does work as a viable fuel, Dry Creek and other communities interested in using
such a system would have to be assured of a reliable supply of sawdust or wood chips. "In Alaska right
now we don't have a chip economy," Olsen said. "We have to jump start that kind of interest. The
producer has to know he has a reliable demand for it."
Assuming grant applications and other funding approaches go smoothly, installation of the BioMax unit at
Dry Creek would come in late fall or early winter of 2006, he said. Meanwhile, a feasibility study is also
under way for a wood chip boiler at a school in Delta Junction.
"We could do something similar for Tok," Olsen said. "If you have three or four facilities that require wood
chips, then you have a wood chip economy. Then you could get someone to produce the chips. Once there
is someone producing the chips, it's a lot easier to say 'let's put another one in here.'
"It's kind of a chicken- and -egg thing. Then you have the momentum for this thing to take off," he said.
Beyond the savings on diesel fuel, there is also a significant environmental benefit, Olsen said. "The net
effect of carbon dioxide using wood chips is zero. It is good for reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
The program Alaska Village Initiatives is planning would also involve planting trees to replace cut timbers,
with an emphasis on aspen, willow and other species that grow fast and provide quality forage for moose.
Given the spin -off benefits of clean air and growing the economy, "we are all very excited about it," he
said.
Since planned reforestation would likely attract wolves and bears along with moose, efforts would have to
be mz -.de to create a balance between the number of moose and predation, Wall said. "Wolves gets all the
press nut black bears have significant impact on moose populations too, by taking moose calves," he
said.
Assuming such balance is achieved, the economic effects would be significant, said AVI's Harris. "Every
pound of protein produced locally means there are now $5 available to meet other needs," he said. "Eight
hundred pounds of moose meat equals $4,000 introduced into a household for other uses."
Harris said he hopes to have the demonstration project up and running by the winter of 2006 -2007, most
likely with federal funding.
"This is more than simply a way to heat a house," he said. "We are very hopeful that this
encourage a better relationship between rural and urban entities."
Mike HaPper, deputy director of the Alaska Energy Authority's rural energy group, agreed.
represents a good group of business folks, and if it works, we'll take it to Tetlin and see if
he said. "It's a community affair that's really positive."
Margaret Bauman can be reached at margie.bauman@ alaskajournai.com.
process will
"Dry Creek
it works there,"
Meeting of: April 6, 2006
Kodiak Island Borough
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM N0. 13.D.1
Vacation of a 10 Foot Wide Utility Easement and a 15 Foot Wide Utility
Easement Located on Portions of Lot 6B, U.S. Survey 3099.
The KIB Planning and Zoning Commission approved the above referenced utility
easement vacations after a public hearing was held on December 21, 2005, subject
to three (3) conditions. One of the conditions of approval requires the easement
vacations to be submitted for review by the Assembly. In this case, the Kodiak
Island Borough Assembly is the applicable review body, which must review the
vacation request in accordance with the following standards:
Kodiak Island Borough Code Section 16.60.060 states:
"A. A eci " n to grant a vacation is not effective unless
ap roved by the city council if the vacated area is within a city or by
e assembly if the vacated area is within the borough outside a city.
The council or assembly shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of the
desisiop to veto the vacation. If the vacation is not vetoed within the
thirty (30) day period, the consent of the council or assembly shall be
considered to have been given to the vacation."
Attached is a copy of the information considered by the Commission at their
meeting.
FISCAL NOTES: ACCOUNT NO.:
NA Expenditure
Required:
Amount
Recommended motion: Move to approve the vacation of a 10 foot wide utility easement
and a 15 foot wide utility easement on portions of Lot 6B, U.S. Survey 3099.
C..9 • N
14 ?
Q-
6a
• 0 •
•
� W
N
•
Y
t y
• y p
3
h
r
Y 44. • 4
4 Y • O
R - ••••
. +
3 J 3 !V
•
0
U.
ey
•
•
r
1.
4
8
O
n► n
4- 4.
• •
J
BO
of development that conforms to the prevailing planning and zo
esignations for the area.
17. • .020 B. Findings as to the Effect a Change or Amendment - ould
have on the Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
RB -Ret. Business zoning is not consistent with the designa ' •n of the
rezone are. for Medium Density Residential and/or Mobile •me Parks.
Because of - generalized nature of the comprehensive plan, As e Assembly
has previousl determined in 1984 that this area is desi ated Medium
Density Reside ial in the 1968 Comprehensive Plan ant applied the R1-
Single Family ' sidential zoning district to this . a. This zoning
designation has s 'ved several past attempts to .lter the land uses
permitted in the area . d as the most consistent zoni : designation it should
continue to do so til the overall community comprehensive plan is
revisited and updated. at that time a new desiy, ation is determined to be
appropriate for this area, based on the balanc - • best interest of the entire
community, then and only en should a ch. .e of zoning be considered to
implement the newly revise • and use policy guidance.
The question was called, and it ARRIE
C) Case 06 -006. Request for a rezo e,
(Manner of Initiation)of propose
R1- Single Family Residential to R2
location is portions of Lot 6A, 2 :2
Cape Road; and 6C, 650 Spru - Ca
R1- Single Family Resi • ntial.
P & Z Meeting Minutes December 21, 2005
5 -0.
in . ccordance with KIBC 17.72.030 B
s 1 and 3 Cutoff Subdivision, from
wo Family Residential. The
pruce Cape Road; 6B, 2571 Spruce
ap- Road, U.S. Survey 3099, and it is
Staff indicated there were 62) public h , 'ng notices were sent out on
November 18, 2005. This s the Planning C • ission's case; however, the
property owner has sub 'tted a letter that s : ted he has no objections to
consideration to R2 zo g for these properties : -ing taken off the table.
COMMISSIONER ' ATKINS MOVED TO HDRAW Case 06 -006
for consideration • rezone, and it was SECONDE ► by COMMISSIONER
JANZ.
Regular sessi • closed:
Public heart g opened:
Arnie S ock spoke in favor of the request.
Lorna S -eleman spoke opposing the rezone.
Debra oyer spoke against the request.
Pub c hearing closed:
Re lar session opened
e question was called and it CARRIED 5 -0.
D) Case S06 -008. Request a re- subdivision of United States Survey 3099 Lots
6A, 6B, and 6C, in accordance with KIBC 16.40, creating Lots 1, 2, and 3,
Cutoff Subdivision. Its location is Lot 6A, 2582 Spruce Cape Rd; Lot 6B,
Page 5of10
P & Z Meeting Minutes
2571 Spruce Cape Rd.; and Lot 6C, 650 Cutoff Rd. U.S. Survey 3099, and
is zoned R1- Single Family Residential.
Staff indicated there were (41) public hearing notices mailed on November
17, 2005. This is a reconfiguration of the existing lots, and staff
recommends approval of this request subject to three (3) conditions of
approval. The conditions of approval have been reviewed with the applicant
to clarify what the intent is.
COMMISSIONER JANZ MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval to
the re- subdivision of U.S. Survey 3099, Lots 6A, 6B, and 6C, in accordance
with KIBC 16.40, creating Lots 1, 2, and 3, Cutoff Subdivision and
including the vacation of two unused utility easements in favor of a new
access and utility easement to be created on proposed Lot 3, subject to the
conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated December 13,
2005, and to adopt the findings in that staff report as Findings of Fact for
this case. COMMISSIONER KING SECONDED the motion.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The plat shall be referred to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly
for review of the utility easement vacations as required by KIBC
16.60.
2. Reduce the width of the propose access and utility easement over
proposed Lot 3 to 20 feet maximum along the side westerly side lot
line.
3. Amend the access easement to grant residential or eliminate the
reference to access through the above referenced easement.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Subject to conditions of approval, this plat meets the minimum
standards of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats required
in Title 16 of the Borough Code.
2. This plat meets all the requirements of Title 17 of the Borough
Code.
3. Subject to conditions of approval, this plat provides a subdivision of
land that is consistent with adopted Borough plans for this area.
Regular session closed:
Public hearing opened:
Arnie Shryock spoke in favor of his request.
Public hearing closed:
Regular session opened:
After a brief discussion, the Commission now understands Condition #3 as
meaning there is to be a full residential access easement created at this time.
The question was called and it CARRIED 5 -0.
December 21, 2005 Page 6 of 10
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 13, 2005
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJ: Information for the December 21, 2005 Rdgular Meeting
CASE: S06 -008
APPLICANT: Arnold and Sondra Shryock
AGENT: Arnold Shryock
REQUEST: Resubdivision of U.S. Survey 3099, Lots 6A, 6B and 6C, in accordance
with KIBC 16.40, creating Lots 1, 2 and 3, Cut -off Subdivision and the
vacation of two unused utility easements in favor of a new access and
utility easement.
LOCATION: Lot 6A, 2582 Spruce Cape Road; Lot 6B, 2571 Spruce Cape Road; Lot
6C, 650 Cut -Off Road, U.S. Survey 3099
ZONING: R1- Single - family Residential
Forty-one (41) public hearing notices were mailed on November 17, 1005.
Date of site visit: December 6, 2005
1. Minimum lot size: 7,200 Square Feet
Compliance: Yes
2. Minimum lot width: 60 Feet
Compliance: Yes
3. Existing land uses: SFR on proposed Lot 1
Compliance: Yes
Case S06- 008 /Staff Report
Page 1 of 6 P & Z: December 21, 2005
4. Existing structure(s) on the property: SFR on proposed Lot 1
Compliance with setbacks: Yes
Compliance with other zoning regulations: Yes
Encroachments: No
5. Topography:
Provides good building sites: Yes
Provides good parking areas: Yes
Allows driveway construction to meet
maximum slope requirement: Yes
6. Physical Features:
Wetlands, streams, drainage courses: Yes
Need for driveway /access restrictions: No
Adequate line of sight: Yes
Adequate access for additional traffic volume: Yes
Adequate access from a safety standpoint: Yes
Neighborhood character: Mixed -use and MHP
Double frontage lots: One corner lot (No Change)
Flag lots: No
Adequate access for fire apparatus: Yes
Utility installation meets Title 13: Yes
Common wall or zero -lot line: No
Frontage on dedicated public right -of -way: Yes
Case S06- 008 /Staff Report
Page 2 of 6 P & Z: December 21, 2005
Case S06- 008 /Staff Report
t UUi1L 11Gi 11116 116111 V 1
Other road and utility improvements
required before final approval: No
7. Existing Plat Restrictions: No
Compliance: NA
COASTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICABLE POLICIES
Residential Development
1. Location
In areas with poorly draining soils, development where feasible shall be connected
to a sewer line. Where this is not feasible, on -site facilities shall be designed so as
not to cause conditions that will pollute rivers, lakes, and other water bodies,
including the ground water supply.
Consistent: Not Applicable. This subdivision is in an area served my
municipal water and sewer.
2. Open Space
Green areas and open space shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible and
prudent when land is subdivided.
Consistent: Not applicable. This subdivision (replat) is located in a
long established residential subdivision.
3. Access
New subdivisions or other residential developments on the shoreline shall provide
usable public access to and along the shoreline, extending the length of the
development, to the extent feasible and prudent.
Consistent: Not Applicable. The subdivision area is not located along
the shoreline.
4. Hazardous Lands
Development shall not occur in hazardous areas such as avalanche runout zones,
active floodplains, and high water channels to the extent feasible and prudent.
Siting, design, and construction measures to minimize exposure to coastal erosion,
mass wasting and historic tsunami run -up shall be required to the extent feasible
and prudent.
Page 3 of 6 P & Z: December 21, 2005
Consistent: Not Applicable. The subdivision is not located in a known
hazard area.
5. Wetlands
Filling and drainage of water bodies, floodways, backshores, and natural wetlands
shall be consistent with ACMP Standards 6 AAC 80.070 (Energy Facilities) and 6
AAC 80.130 (Habitats).
Case S06- 008 /Staff Report
Consistent: Not Applicable. The subdivision (replat) does not involve
the filling or draining of wetlands.
COMMENTS
- r uU11G 11G2u11% 116111 V 1
This case was originally reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 21,
2005. At that time the case was postponed for additional information required for the
preliminary plat procedure. The original submittal proposed a lot consolidation replat that would
have seen the existing three lots consolidated into two lots. In this resubmittal, the petitioner has
redesigned the subdivision to provide a less substantial change to the existing development
pattern maintaining the three lot configuration with some minor boundary changes.
The petitioner proposes this replat to reconfigure three lots in a slightly different lot
configuration. This will also involve giving the subdivision a new name and lot number
designations. In the process, the petitioner requests to vacate two existing utility easements in
favor of a new access and utility easement as depicted on Lot 3 of the proposed subdivision. The
petitioner has an interest in two pending rezone cases (Case 06 -005 and Case 06 -006) which both
rely on the proposed boundaries of this replat.
Because the subdivider is not increasing the number of lots staff does not feel that the new design
proposed by the petitioner constitutes a significant change from the existing development pattern.
Even the vacation of two utility easements is proposed to be replaced with a new access and
utility easement. Staff believes that the minimum width of proposed Lot 3, at 60 feet, makes the
proposed 25 foot wide utility and access easement a considerable constraint to future structural
development on the land. A five (5) foot side yard setback on the opposite property line would
leave only 30 feet, half the total lot width to develop in. While it is not staff's desire to tell
someone how to develop their property, one of the purposes of standardized setbacks is to permit
building develop that is able to take advantage of bulk of each parcel. For this reason staff
recommend that the subdivider reduce the width to 20 feet. This would leave a maximum of 35
feet of lot width to develop within.
With regard to the access easement language, staff does not see the point of requiring a future
permission or agreement of the land owner to perfect the proposed alternate residential access for
Lot 2. If the agreement is to be left up to the owner of Lot 3 at some future time, the owner of
Lot 2 could request a recorded easement or permission to cross at some future date just as well.
Page 4 of 6 P & Z: December 21, 2005
Staff believes the easement to be legal should either grant access at this time or the language
should be removed in favor of land owner discretion at some later time.
Kodiak Electric Association:
No Comment
ACS Alaska Communications:
Request for blanket utility easements in all zoning setbacks based on a stamped boiler plate
comment placed on the preliminary plat which was returned to the file by ACS staff.
City of Kodiak:
No Objection
State of Alaska Department of Transportation:
No Comment
KIB Department of Facilities and Engineering:
No Comment
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to three (3) conditions of approval.
Move to grant preliminary approval to the resubdivision of U.S. Survey 3099,
Lots 6A, 6B and 6C, in accordance with KIBC 16.40, creating Lots 1, 2 and 3,
Cut -off Subdivision and including the vacation of two unused utility easements in
favor of a new access and utility easement to be created on proposed Lot 3,
subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report dated December
13, 2005, and to adopt the findings in that staff report as "Findings of Fact" for
this case.
Case S06- 008 /Staff Report
REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
RECOMMENDATION
APPROPRIATE MOTION
- r uU1G rimumg nem1 V 1-L
Page 5 of 6 P & Z: December 21, 2005
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The plat shall be referred to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly for review of the utility
easement vacations as required by KIBC 16.60.
2. Reduce the width of the propose access and utility easement over proposed Lot 3 to 20
feet maximum along the side westerly side lot line.
3. Amend the access easement to grant residential or eliminate the reference to access
through the above referenced easement.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Subject to conditions of approval, this plat meets the minimum standards of survey
accuracy and proper preparation of plats required in Title 16 of the Borough Code.
2. This plat meets all the requirements of Title 17 of the Borough Code.
3. Subject to conditions of approval, this plat provides a subdivision of land that is
consistent with adopted Borough plans for this area.
Case S06- 008 /Staff Report
Page 6 of 6 P & Z: December 21, 2005
Meeting of: April 6, 2006
Kodiak Island Borough
AGENDA STATEMENT
Board of Equalization Vacancy.
Assemblymember Oswalt currently holds a seat on the Board of Equalization.
Borough Code Section 3.20.05.A Membership, Qualification, Duties, Terms:
ITEM NO. 13.D.2.
1. Members. the board of equalization shall be composed of five (5) persons, not assembly
members, appointed by the assembly.
FISCAL NOTES: ACCOUNT NO.:
NA Expenditure
Required:
Amount
APPROVAL FOR AGENDA:
Recommended motion: Move to declare the seat held Reed Oswalt on the board of
Equalization vacant.
3.20.050
3.20.050 Board of equalization.
A. Membership, Qualification, Duties, Terms.
1. Members. The board of equalization shall be composed of five (5) persons, not
assembly members, appointed by the assembly.
2. Alternate members. The assembly shall appoint alternate members. The alternate
members shall be named by the assembly, as the need arises, to serve as board members during
the absence or disability of regular members.
3. Qualifications. Members and alternate members should be appointed on the basis of
their expertise in real and personal property appraisal, the real estate market, the personal
property market, and other fields related to their functions as board members.
4. Duties. The board may determine equalizations on properties brought before the board
by appellants.
5. Terms of office. Upon confirmation, members and alternate members shall serve for
three (3) years or until their successors are appointed and confirmed. Of the members initially
appointed, two (2) shall serve three (3) year terms, two (2) shall serve two (2) year terms, and one
(1) shall serve a one (1) year term.
B. Chair. The board annually shall elect a member to serve as its chair. The chair may call
meetings of the board, shall exercise such control over meetings as to ensure the fair and orderly
resolution of appeals, shall make rulings on the admissibility of evidence, and shall conduct the
proceedings of the board in conformity with this chapter.
C. Appeals to the board.
1. A person whose name appears on the assessment roll, or his agent or assigns, may
appeal to the board for relief for an alleged error in valuation not adjusted by the assessor to the
taxpayer's satisfaction.
2. No appeal may be taken unless the applicant files with the board written notice of
appeal specifying grounds for such appeal within thirty (30) days from the date the assessment
notice was mailed. The board shall prescribe the form in which written notices of appeal shall
be made.
3. The assessor shall notify the appellant of the time and place for the hearing and assign
a docket number of appeal.
4. If a party to whom notice was mailed as provided herein fails to appeal, the board may
proceed with the hearing in his absence.
D. Quorum and voting.
1. Quorum. A quorum shall consist of four (4) members.
2. Voting. The granting of any appeal or part thereof shall require the concurring vote
of at least three (3) board members. Any appeal or part thereof which is not granted by the board
shall be considered denied.
E. Hearings, procedures.
1. Record. The clerk is the ex officio clerk of the board. The clerk shall record in the
minutes of each meeting all proceedings before the board, the names of persons protesting
assessments, and all changes, revisions, corrections, and orders relating to claims or adjustments.
3 -27
(KIB 12/05)
Supp. #44
Meeting of: April 6, 2006
Kodiak Island Borough
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM NO. 13.D.3.
Resignation of Borough Clerk.
FISCAL NOTES: ACCOUNT NO.:
NA Expenditure
Required:
Amount
APPROVAL FOR AGENDA:
Recommended motion: Move to accept the resignation of Judith A. Nielsen as Borough
Clerk effective June 3, 2006.
March 24, 2006
Mayor and Assembly Members
Kodiak Island Borough
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, AK 99615
Kodiak Island Borough
Office of the Borough Clerk
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone (907) 486 -9310 Fax (907) 486 -9391
Re: Resignation as Borough Clerk
Dear Mayor Selby and Assembly Members Abell, Branson, Jeffrey, Oswalt, Ranney,
Stephens, and Williams:
Please accept this as my letter of resignation as Borough Clerk of the Kodiak Island Borough
to be effective June 3, 2006.
I would like to thank you for your support and for allowing me to achieve the goals and
success of the position.
It is with mixed emotions that I tender this letter of resignation and I will always remember
fondly my eight years as Deputy Borough Clerk and nearly seven years as Borough Clerk.
Respectfully yours,
Gl G4
Judith A. Nielsen, CMC
Borough Clerk
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIO1N
REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2006
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30
p.m. by CHAIR FRIEND on February 15, 2006 in the Borough Assembly Chambers.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners
Jerrol Friend —Chair
David King
Gary Carver
Brent Watkins
Casey Janz
Dennis McMurry
Gary Juenger
February 15, 2006
Present Absent Excused Others Present
X Mary Ogle, Director
X Community Development Dept.
Sheila Smith, Secretary
Community Development Dept.
X
X
X
X
X
li MAR 1 62006
j
BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE
A quorum was established.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COMMISSIONER JANZ MOVED TO APPROVE the agenda as presented. The motion
was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER WATKINS, and CARRIED 6 -0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMISSIONER CARVER MOVED TO APPROVE the minutes of January 18, 2006
as presented. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER WATKINS, and it
CARRIED 6 -0.
V. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS
There were not audience comments and appearance requests.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CaseS06 -007. A request for preliminary approval, in accordance with KIBC
16.40, of the subdivision of Lot 19A -1, Block 7, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision
creating Lots 19E and 19F, Block 7, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision. Location
Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision, Block 7, Lot 19A -1, U.S. Survey 2539. Zoned
RR1 -Rural Residential One.
Staff reported (14) public hearing notices were distributed for this case on
November 17, 2005. This case is continued from a previous meeting in order for
the petitioner to have time to meet with the service district and the fire district to
P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 4
VII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Draft Amendment of Transient Accommodations
February 15, 2006
look at the slope drainage and turn around area for the shared portion of these
driveways that will be installed because of the increased road standards due to the
additional lots. Five conditions have been met so staff has included 3 conditions
of approval for this case. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to
those three conditions of approval and "Findings of Fact."
COMMISSIONER CARVER MOVED TO GRANT preliminary approval of the
subdivision of Lot 19A -1, Block 7, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision creation Lots
19E and 19F, Block 7, Bells Flats Alaska Subdivision, subject to the conditions of
approval contained in the staff report dated December 9, 2005, and to adopt the
findings in that staff report as "Findings of Fact" for this case. COMMISSIONER
JANZ SECONDED the motion. (Staff corrected date to read "February 6, 2006"
after the meeting.)
Regular session closed:
Public hearing open:
Public hearing closed:
Regular session open:
The question was called, and it CARRIED 6 -0.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Amend the proposed driveway easement language to designate the area as
an access and utility easement to serve Lots 19B through 19F as requested
by KEA in the letter dated November 23, 2005.
2. Improve the road and turn around to be consistent with the Uniform Fire
Code and that a turn around provided by the applicant meets the discretion
of the Fire Chief.
3. Obtain and record an easement for the driveway encroachment on
adjoining Lot 18A which shall be reflected on the final plat prior to filing,
or in the alternative, relocated the driveway intersection to be located on
the common flag stems for proposed Lots 19E and 19F.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Subject to conditions of approval, this plat meets the minimum standards
of survey accuracy and proper preparation of plats required in Title 16 of
the Borough Code.
2. This plat meets all the requirements of Title 17 of the Borough Code.
3. Subject to conditions of approval, this plat provides a subdivision of land
that is consistent with adopted Borough plans for this area.
Ogle stated staff has been working on the proposed code change for several
months now. Under the direction of the Commission, staff notified over 200
P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4
transient accommodation business owners and interested parties as well as the
public at large to solicit comments and review of the proposed changes. Written
responses are included in your packet for review. At this point, we can start
working through some of the suggested changes and work through changes that
can be made that would then be brought to your next meeting potentially can be
adopted at your next meeting.
Discussion of options for proposed code changes, and it was decided to bring this
back to the next meeting with more draft changes.
B. Draft Amendment of P &Z By -Laws
Ogle stated staff has been working on this for several months to clarify the
activities that can occur at the work session, as well as notification of the meetings
and posting of the notices. Staff has provided you Kodiak Island codes that are
referenced and cited from Title 2.
COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED TO FORWARD these revised Planning
& Zoning Commission By -Laws to the Assembly for adoption. It was
SECONDED by COMMISSIONER JANZ, and it CARRIED 6 -0.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
IX. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Email from Duane Dvorak to Mary Ogle regarding APA training.
COMMISSIONER JANZ MOVED TO ACCEPT communications as presented.
It was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER WATKINS, and it CARRIED 6 -0.
X. REPORTS
Ogle stated that staff had scheduled the Womens Bay Community Plan meeting to review
the plan, but it was cancelled due to weather. It will be rescheduled around the first week
of March. Once it is scheduled notification will be sent out to all residents in that study
area. Notifying them of that meeting in hopes of getting the plan to the Commission for
review and adoption and on to the Assembly.
Ogle also thanked everyone who took part in the Comprehensive Planning Consulting
meetings and Stakeholder meetings that we have had in the past two weeks. There were
over 40 - 50 meetings in a two week period. There was a lot of good input and will be put
on the Comp Plan website, which is www.kibcompplan.com.
COMMISSIONER CARVER MOVED TO ACCEPT reports as submitted. It was
SECONDED by COMMISSIONER JANZ, and it CARRIED 6 -0.
XI. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments
XII. COMMISSIONERS'COMMENTS
February 15, 2006
P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4
Gary Juenger said it's nice to see the coordination and follow up that staff provides.
Things are going well.
Dennis McMurry said he went to both meetings. He drove all the way out there to find
out one was cancelled. Going to the second meeting, there was a lot of disgruntled
people.
Jerrol Friend reminded everyone of the Commissions, Boards, and Committees reception
is Friday night from 7:00 p.m. — 9:00 p.m.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR FRIEND ADJOURNED the regular meeting at 8:00 p.m.
ATTEST
By: 'O
B (Oh C�1 �►
Sheila Smith, Secretary
Community Development Department
DATE APPROVED: March 15, 2006
February 15, 2006
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
PLANNING AND ZONING CO OMISSION
By:
Jerrol Friend, Chair
P & Z Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4
Service Area No. 1 Board
Regular Meeting
Minutes
8 February 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
KFRC Conference Room
Al MAR 2 3 2006
BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE
A. Call to Order
Chairperson Kevin Arndt called the meeting to order at 7:OOpm.
B. Roll Call
Present were Board Members Sharon Lea Adinolfi, Kevin Arndt,
Charlie Lorenson, Ed Mahoney, Greg Spalinger and Dennis Symmons.
At the time of roll call Scott Arndt was absent, but appeared at
7:15pm. Jessica Kepley, recording secretary and Louis
Rocheleau, Brechan Enterprises, were also present.
C. Public Comments
None.
D. Approval of Agenda
It was moved, C. Lorensen, and seconded, SL. Adinolfi, to amend
the Agenda to include "Action Items" from the previous meeting's
minutes.
It was then moved, C. Lorensen, and seconded, D. Symmons to
approve the agenda. The Agenda was approved by a unanimous voice
vote.
E. Approval of Minutes
It was moved, C. Lorenson, and seconded, SL. Adinolfi, to
approve the Minutes [22 November 2005] as presented. There was
a unanimous affirmative voice vote.
F. Acceptance of Financial Report
It was moved, C. Lorensen, and seconded, SL. Adinolfi, to
acknowledge receipt of the Financial Report. There was a
unanimous affirmative voice vote.
\ \Dove \Departments \EF \Service Districts \Service Area No. 1 Board \Agendas and
Minutes \Service District Minutes \Service District Minutes 2006 \Minutes 8 Feb 2006.doc
Page 1 of 4
G. Chair Report
H. Old Business
The Chair reported that during the month of December when Kodiak
received record rainfall, the roads, especially Sharatin Road,
were -very mush) and because of this condition Brechan decided
not to grade the roads. He commended Brechan for getting out and
grading the roads on February 2 -4, before the freeze. The issue
with Ivar Malutin was again discussed; his boat needs to be
moved in order to allow the grading of Ocean Drive. It was
decided to submit a letter to Mr. Malutin to remove the boat. E.
Mahoney told the board that there was a flooding problem on Ed's
Way. He said that it seemed that Brechan was not taking the
grader into the smaller areas to remove snow.
Action Items from past meetings were brought up and further
discussion was held regarding the Malutin situation. It was
brought up that there were neighbors that were complaining about
the boat being an impediment. SL. Adinolfi wanted clarification
if the board had the authorization to proceed with warning
notices. It was mentioned that this direction would come from
Bud Cassidy [Engineering and Facilities] and then the board
would proceed with the notices.
The board briefly discussed snow removal and sanding around
dumpsters in the district. S. Arndt noted that sanding was not
the priority at the time of snow removal.
It was mentioned by C. Lorensen that many stop signs were down
due to the recent high winds. Lilly Drive, Balika Lane and
Briggs Circle were specifically mentioned.
Drainage issues on Shahafka Circle, on both the north and south
ends, were discussed. It was decided that this should be one of
the priority projects for the board.
I. New Business
1. K. Arndt wanted to find out what projects the board felt
would be needed for the budget during the new fiscal year. The
board discussed going as a group to visit the service district
to look for possible guardrail, ditching and other various road
problems /issues. Although it was suggested to do this in the
spring the majority of the board decided that on Saturday,
February 18 the board would drive around the service district
\ \Dove \Departments \EF \Service Districts \Service Area No. 1 Board \Agendas and
Minutes \Service District Minutes \Service District Minutes 2006 \Minutes 8 Feb 2006.doc
Page 2 of 4
and conduct an in depth inspection of the roads. From there, the
board would prioritize the projects that were discovered. E.
Mahoney questioned the advertising process for such an event. If
a full quorum was expected, advertisement would be placed ahead
of time. Transportation would be provided by the Borough.
2. Election of Officers was held. Kevin Arndt and Ed Mahoney
were nominated for the position of Chair. Both accepted and the
outcome was E. Mahoney with a 4 -3 vote. E. Mahoney accepted the
position and said that he looked forward to working as Chair for
the board.
C. Lorensen and S. Arndt were nominated for the vice -chair
position. It was voted S. Arndt, 4 -3.
K. Arndt turned the meeting over to E. Mahoney at this time.
J. Public Comments
S. Arndt commended L. Rocheleau for the sanding job that was
done for the roads due to the freeze. S. Adinolfi noted that
Sharatin Road was looking nice. G. Spalinger said that he was
glad to see the gravel was "heavily" being placed on the road.
L. Rocheleau told the board that it would be beneficial to pave
the Woodland Acres roads. He said that although D1 has been put
down and the roads have been graded and compacted, the roads
basically have no rock left in them; and it would become
expensive to continue putting more D1 down.
K. Board Comments
SL. Adinolfi. Questioned whether the upcoming projects were to
be as costly as the previous project done for the Creelman's.
She stated that she was glad that E. Mahoney was getting the
chance to be Chair of the board. She reminded the board that
calls regarding road issues need to be directed to the chair.
The Board member reception being held on February 11 was
mentioned and all were invited to attend. L. Rocheleau and K.
Arndt were thanked and commended for the hard work they have
done.
K. Arndt. Said that although it has been a tough year due to
weather conditions, the roads were looking very good, despite
various glitches and only having 2 sanders available at times.
He looked forward to the drive around on Feb. 18.
\ \Dove \Departments \EF \Service Districts \Service Area No. 1 Board \Agendas and
Minutes \Service District Minutes \Service District Minutes 2006 \Minutes 8 Feb 2006.doc
Page 3 of 4
S. Arndt. Spoke about the budget for the upcoming fiscal year.
He wanted the board members to think about the fact that so far
expenses outweighed the revenue for the district. There is
plenty of work to do on the roads and suggested placing more
salt on the roads.
C. Lorensen. None.
( 1
E. Mahoney. Encouraged the board to call him tat anytime. He
stated that he desired to have a meeting with .S_ Arndt and L.
Rocheleau regarding the district roads and those providing
services. He reconfirmed the drive - around meeting to be held
Saturday, February 18, at 10:30, starting from Bayside Fire
Department.
G. Spalinger. Suggested contemplating the idea of rotating the
Chair position and instituting a similar program as Womens Bay
Service District. It would assist with spreading out the
responsibility and give others the opportunity to become more
familiar with the process and the district needs.
D. Symmons. Looked forward to being given responsibilities and
said that he has been checking conditions of the roads in the
district.
L. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:15pm.
Respectfully submitted:
Je,.ica Kepley, ecr_'cry
KI•. Engineering/Faci 'ties Dept.
Approved by:
Ed air
rvice A No. 1 Board
Date: 3 - .2 3'0-6
Date: /3 7/"/(j.'k— (1)(
\ \Dove \Departments \EF \Service Districts \Service Area No. 1 Board \Agendas and
Minutes \Service District Minutes \Service District Minutes 2006 \Minutes 8 Feb 2006.doc
Page 4 of 4
Women's Bay Service Area Board
Regular Meeting Minutes
February 13, 2006
CALL TO ORDER 7:00 pm
Members Present — Chris Lynch, John Isadore, Dave Conrad, Scott Griffin, Craig
Schaeffer, Dale Rice
Guests Present — Ron Gibbs, Kevin Arndt
Citizen's Comments — Ron Gibbs voiced concern about safety of roads. He would like to see roads plowed
sooner. Board discussed policy and procedures with Ron and invited him to stay for the budget portion of
the meeting.
Approval of Minutes — Minutes from the January 16 meeting were approved as submitted.
Old Business
Fire Department —
• New tanker truck chassis payment was made into the KIB account. The money in our
current account covers the $13100 portion of our match.
• SOP status —Ed Hamlin and Dave Conrad are using the USCG base SOP's as a guide to
develop a draft for our department.
• Dale has been working on a letter to the community to ask for volunteers. We need to do
some sort of a program for recruiting; will shoot for April meeting.
• Volunteers agreed not to be paid for call out and put money back in budget.
• Contacted and received packet from consignment firm in California in regards to the old
engine. Need to discuss spare service rig for ISO rating.
• Waiting on weather before we take a truck to McFarland's Subdivision to try turn around.
Road Service Area — The board voiced comments and concerns regarding the most recent snow
removal to the contractor, Kevin Arndt. Not enough snow is being removed and not the correct
judgment calls are being made. He will take corrective action.
New Business
Comprehensive Plan — Chris encouraged board members to participate in the public meetings.
Fire Department — ISO letter will be reported to the Assembly; Department is trying to improve
records and will do a cost benefit analysis to help rating.
Road Service —
Subdivision Review — Seaview Estates — This is not within our service area. Board members
voiced the following concerns. Will an election be held to include this subdivision in our service
area? The dead end road should have dry hydrants. We are not willing to provide per call service.
Budget — Presented and reviewed Road and Fire District budgets. Budgets will be forwarded to public
hearing at our next meeting.
Board Member Comments —
Meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Next Meeting — March 6, 2006 at 7 p.m.
CG
Du'
12ECEOVE
ll MAR 1 02006
F3ORO GH CLERK'S OFFICE
g p°ncer
Women's Bay Service Area Board
Regular Meeting Minutes
January 16, 2006
CALL TO ORDER 7:06 pm
Members Present - Chris Lynch, John Isadore, Dave Conrad, Scott Griffen
Guests Present -
Citizen's Comments - None
Approval of Minutes - Minutes from the December 19 meeting were approved as submitted.
Old Business
Fire Department -
• New tanker truck is being ordered; final spec and shop drawings are forthcoming;
we will invoice for chassis and be reimbursed.
• SOP status - expect something for FEB.
Road Service Area - The roads will be graded once the rain stops.
New Business
Fire Department - ISO letter was received. We were downgraded to a classification9 /10.
We need volunteers. We will be working on a training plan.
Road Service -
Chris will be gone January 20 through the 29 - Dave will be in charge.
Board Member Comments -
Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Next Meeting - Budget work session will be 2/13 at 7 p.m. and public hearing will be 3/6 at 7
p.m.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Board of Education
Regular Meeting — January 23, 2006
The Board of Education of the Kodiak Island Borough School District met in regular session on
January 23, 2006, in the Borough Assembly Chambers. The meeting was broadcast on KMXT
Radio, 100.1 F.M. and televised by GCI Cablevision. Board President Roy Brown called the
meeting to order at 7 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL was taken, and the following members were present:
Scott Arndt Norm Wooten Elizabeth Odell
Jeff Stephan Roy Brown Jordan Rodg
Absent: LCDR Virginia Cameron, excused
A quorum was established.
ALSO PRESENT:
MINUTES:
Dave Jones
Porfiria Lopez -Trout
Larry LeDoux
Laurie Busness
Ron Fried
Ted Nussbaum
Catherine Allen- DeVries
Beth Tulio
Josh Lewis
Michael Horton
Elaine Loomis -Olsen
Jack Walsh
Marilyn Davidson
Bob Meade
Karen Winkler
Stewart McDonald
Marcia Putney
Harry Davenport
Noel Tulio
Victoria Becwar -Lewis
Susan Patrick
Susan Olsen
Bill Watkins
Heather Wheeler
Barbara Bolson
Chris Aguirre
Lisa Johnson
Melissa Beyers
Barbara Reynolds
Jane Eisemann
Beth Cole
Samuel Horton
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 12, 2005, and the Special Meetings
of December 21, 2005, and January 3, 2006, were to be considered for approval
and /or correction.
MOTION
JEFF STEPHAN moved to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 12, 2005,
and the Special Meetings of December 21, 2005, and January 3, 2006, as presented. SCOTT
ARNDT seconded the motion and it carried unanimously by a voice vote.
ECEDVE
MAR - 7 2006
BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE
SCHOOL BOARD REGULAR MEETING
January 23, 2006
Page 2
RECOGNITION OF VISITORS:
Superintendent Betty Walters welcomed all in attendance and in the listening and
viewing audiences.
COMMUNITY COMMENTS:
Board President Roy Brown announced the telephone numbers to call and invited comments
from the rural sites that might be connected via video conference.
CORRESPONDENCE: None
PROGRAM /STAFF REPORTS:
1. Volunteers of the Month — East Elementary School and Main Elementary School are
pleased to recognize their Volunteers of the Month.
East Elementary School Principal Ron Fried stepped up to the podium and
shared that the staff of East Elementary School were pleased to honor Harry
Davenport as their Volunteer of the Month. Harry worked for the School
District from 1977 to 1986 as a custodian and now faithfully visits Ms.
Patrick's kindergarten classroom to assist her and the students. As a resident of
the Care Center, Harry is accompanied by Barbara Reynolds, and when he is
not feeling well, Barbara comes to the classroom to get things for him to do
that week.
PRESENTED
On behalf of the District, School Board President Roy Brown presented a certificate of
appreciation to East Elementary School Volunteers of the Month Harry Davenport and Barbara
Reynolds.
Mr. Davenport delighted the audience with his harmonica playing abilities.
Main Elementary School Principal Marilyn Davidson stepped up to the podium to recognize
Main Elementary School's Volunteer of the Month Hilda Medina. She shared that Hilda is
not only a mom, but a professional woman in the community. Hilda volunteered to become
an officer when the Main Parent Teacher Organization was formed three years ago. She
makes a major effort each year in organizing and facilitating the book fairs which are held
twice a year and often takes time away from her workplace to lead and help with events at
Main. The staff at Main Elementary School can count on Hilda to be a calm and steady team
member who gets things done for kids.
SCHOOL BOARD REGULAR MEETING
January 23, 2006
Page 3
PRESENTED
On behalf of the District, School Board President Roy Brown presented a certificate of
appreciation to Main Elementary School Volunteer of the Month Hilda Medina. (The certificate
was accepted by Marcia Putney on Hilda's behalf.)
2. Main Elementary Blue Ribbon School Presentation — Main Elementary School
staff were asked by the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development to
make a presentation at a recent conference regarding observed gains in achievement
that have led to Main Elementary School's nomination as an No Child Left Behind
Blue Ribbon School.
Main Elementary Principal Marilyn Davidson stepped up to the podium and shared a
PowerPoint presentation called a "Story of Navigation ", Charting the Course — One
Child at a Time. She explained how the school made leading gains in meeting the No
Child Left Behind standards. Mrs. Davidson introduced the team members that were
involved in the presentation for Alaska Department of Education and Early
Development: Main Elementary School teachers Beth Cole, Melissa Beyers,
Catherine Allen - DeVries, and Director of Assessment and Accountability Stewart
McDonald.
Beth Cole, Melissa Beyers, and Catherine Allen - DeVries highlighted changes the
school made in math, reading and writing programs to boost student achievement.
Main Elementary Principal Marilyn Davidson, along with staff, Board members and
Superintendent Betty Walters sang One Song at a Time for the listening audience.
3. Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council Student Report -
The Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) is the
`watchdog' group which was legislated following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, through
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). The PWSRCAC is made up of working
groups which cover the arenas of Port Operations /Vessel Traffic Systems, Scientific
Advisory Committee, Oil Spill Prevention and Response, and Terminal Operations
and Environmental Monitoring. (Kodiak High School teacher Jane Eisemann sits on
the Board of Directors representing the City of Kodiak as well as on the Port
Operations/Vessel Traffic Systems committee.)
Kodiak High School teacher Jane Eisemann shared that Kodiak High School student
Casey Meliah, Ouzinkie School student Devin Skonberg, and Old Harbor School
student Kelsey Peterson were invited to participate in the PWSRCAC workshop with
renowned marine biologist and resident explorer for the National Geographic Society
Dr. Sylvia Earle. These students were the only Alaskan students invited to the event
which included a one -day committee workshop at the BP Alaska Energy Center,
personal audience with Dr. Earle, and a formal volunteer banquet hosted by the
PWSRCAC. She also shared that students Casey Meliah, Devin Skonberg and
Kelsey Peterson acted very professional and made a great impression.
SCHOOL BOARD REGULAR MEETING
January 23, 2006
Page 4
Kodiak High School student Casey Meliah and Ouzinkie School student Devin
Skonberg, who tuned in via videoconferencing, told Board members they were very
excited to be the first students invited to a Prince William Sound Regional Citizens
Advisory Council Meeting. Casey Meliah shared that he was very impressed that the
council and presenters spoke to him as an equal even though he was a teenager.
SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT:
1. Three students representing Kodiak High School recently won honors in this
year's WordMasters Challenge, a national competition for high school
students requiring close reading and analysis of many different kinds of prose
and poetry. Juniors Laurel Murdock and Sarah Horton both placed among the
172 highest scoring eleventh graders in the entire country, while senior Ryan
Fields also earned honorable mention for high achievement. More than
55,000 students from 46 states entered the meet. The school's participation
was overseen by Mike Sirofchuck and Ben Jackson.
2. Superintendent Betty Walters apprised Board members that the Department of
Education and Early Development will be monitoring Special Services as well
as other programs funded by federal money in March.
3. She announced that Kodiak High School Girls Basketball team from 25 years
ago is being recognized at the state meet in February.
4. Director of Technology Education and Safe Schools Chris Aguirre apprised
Board members of the recent Culinary Hospitality Program recently hosted in
Old Harbor.
5. Ouzinkie School teacher Joan O'Neal, along with her students, was recently
showcased on Channel 2 highlighting their volcano project.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
1. FY 05 Audit — The District received an unqualified opinion, which means that our
financial statements are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.
MOTION
SCOTT ARNDT moved to accept the FY 05 Audit as presented by Director of Finance Dave
Jones. NORM WOOTEN seconded the motion and it carried unanimously by a roll call vote.
SCHOOL BOARD REGULAR MEETING
January 23, 2006
Page 5
2. 2005/2006 Certificated Contract — Administration has no contracts prepared for Board
approval at this time.
3. FY 06 Title IID Enhancing Education Through Technology Grant Award — This grant
supports the use of technology to acquire, store and transform data into information that is
relevant to decisions that improve student achievement and drive instruction.
MOTION
ELIZABETH ODELL moved to accept the FY 06 Title IID Enhancing Education Through
Technology Grant Award in the amount of $116,953. SCOTT ARNDT seconded the motion and
it carried unanimously by a roll call vote.
4. FY 06 No Child Left Behind Integrated Program Grant Award — This grant
encompasses the Title I -A, Title I -C, Title II -A, Title II-D, Title III, Title IV -A, and Title
V -A grants and funds professional development, certificated and classified staffing, staff
travel, and supplies and materials, all specifically tied to student achievement.
MOTION
NORM WOOTEN moved to accept the FY 06 No Child Left Behind Integrated Program Grant
Award in the amount of $1,227,735. SCOTT ARNDT seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously by a roll call vote.
5. Purchase Requisition Number 459006027, Excelsior Software - This requisition is
funded by the Enhancing Education Through Technology (E2T2) Grant, for web -based
software, support and training to support the E2T2 - funded Data Driven Decision Making
project to collect all federal, state and local assessment data to use in our instructional
programs.
MOTION
SCOTT ARDNT move to approve Purchase Requisition Number 459006027 to Excelsior
Software in the amount of $64,222.50. ELIZABETH ODELL seconded the motion and it
carried unanimously by a roll call vote.
6. Purchase Requisition Number 250000129, Kodiak Baptist Mission - This requisition
funded by the Alaska Community Centers Learning Program Grant, part of the 21 Century
Community Learning Center (KACLAC), is for the Kodiak Baptist Mission staff time and
supplies which are being used in the after school programs at East Elementary and Main
Elementary. The Mission is providing staff and planning for the activities portion of the
program on a regular basis.
MOTION
JEFF STEPHAN moved to approve Purchase Requisition Number 250000129 to the Kodiak
Baptist Mission in the amount of $40,000. SCOTT ARNDT seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously by a roll call vote.
SCHOOL BOARD REGULAR MEETING
January 23, 2006
Page 6
7. FY 06 ADF &G Kodiak Archipelago Youth Area Watch Grant Award — This award
provides students with opportunities to explore their environment through place -based
educational activities including science camp, science fair, internships with local scientists,
and access to scientists and their work.
MOTION
NORM WOOTEN moved to accept the FY 06 ADF &G Kodiak Archipelago Youth Area Watch
Grant Award in the amount of $57,800 through September 2006. SCOTT ARNDT seconded the
motion and it carried unanimously by a roll call vote.
8. Under -age Student Request - School Board Policy Section 5.3, School Age Entrance, in
part states, "The child must reach age five on or before September lst." A student who will
not turn five on or before September 1st may be enrolled early if the district can
demonstrate the child has the capacity to perform satisfactorily at that grade level and
continue through to each subsequent grade level.
MOTION
JEFF STEPHAN moved to approve the under -age student request of student 056HG and to allow
enrollment in the District. SCOTT ARNDT seconded the motion and it carried unanimously by
a voice vote.
9. FY 06 Carl Perkins Vocational Education Secondary Grant Amendment — This grant
provides funding for state - approved vocational education courses at Kodiak High School.
MOTION
SCOTT ARNDT moved to accept the FY 06 Carl Perkins Vocational Education Secondary
Grant Amendment increase in the amount of $6,561 for a total grant award of $63,010.
ELIZABETH ODELL seconded the motion and it carried unanimously by a roll call vote.
10. FY 06 Migrant Education Parent Advisory Council Grant Award — This grant provides
funding for Migrant Education Parent Advisory Council Member Pam Suppe's travel
expenses to migrant- related meetings as well as phone and copying charges for migrant -
related business.
MOTION
JEFF STEPHAN moved to accept the FY 06 Migrant Education Parent Advisory Council Grant
Award in the amount of $5,000. SCOTT ARNDT seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously by a roll call vote.
SCHOOL BOARD REGULAR MEETING
January 23, 2006
Page 7
11. Executive Session - Negotiations
MOTION
NORM WOOTEN moved to enter into Executive Session to discuss Negotiations following the
portion of the agenda reserved for Board Comments, and to include Superintendent Betty
Walters, Director of Finance Dave Jones, Director of Personnel and Student Services Jack Walsh
and School District Negotiator John Sedor.
FUTURE BUSINESS:
1. The meeting schedule for February is a Work Session on Monday, February 6, 2006, and a
Regular Meeting on Monday, February 20, 2006, at 7 p.m. in the Borough Assembly
Chambers.
2. FY 07 Budget Work Sessions continue on Mondays beginning at 5:15 p.m. Please call the
Central Office or Director of Finance Dave Jones for more information.
COMMUNITY COMMENTS: None
BOARD COMMENTS:
1. Jordan Rodgers extended her thanks to the Volunteers of the Month as well as staff for
their great presentations.
2. Jeff Stephan congratulated staff and students at Main Elementary School for their
tremendous success in being nominated a Blue Ribbon School. He thanked Kodiak High
School teacher Jane Eisemann for sharing such valuable experiences with students.
3. Elizabeth Odell extended her thanks to students and teachers who continue to
represent the District well. She reminded parents to dress children warm for the
weather.
4. Norm Wooten shared that the evenings demonstration show that the District is a
model for the state and that people are looking at Kodiak for guidance and input.
The students in the District make us proud!
5. Scott Arndt echoed the sentiments of Board member Norm Wooten and he also
extended his thanks for efforts of students and staff tonight.
6. Roy Brown shared that the Board gets great input from administration, staff,
teachers and students. He thanked staff for the inspiring presentations.
SCHOOL BOARD REGULAR MEETING
January 23, 2006
Page 8
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At 8:28 p.m. the Regular Meeting recessed into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing
negotiations.
No action was taken and the Regular Meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
SCOTT ARNDT moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting. NORM WOOTEN seconded the
motion, and it carried unanimously by a voice vote.
There being no further business, Board President Roy Brown adjourned the Regular
Meeting at 9:27 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sheila J. Roberts
Administrative Assistant
Approved by the Kodiak Island Borough School District Board of Education at their Regular
Meeting of February 20, 2006.
Clerk of the Board
The Board of Education of the Kodiak Island Borough School District met in special session on
February 6, 2006, for 2005/2006 Certificated Contracts and Executive Session to discuss
Negotiations. Board President Roy Brown called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL was taken, and the following members were present:
Elizabeth Odell
LCR Virginia Cameron
Absent: Norm Wooten, excused
Jeff Stephan, excused
Jordan Rodgers, excused
A quorum was established.
ALSO PRESENT:
Betty Walters
Mel LeVan
Larry LeDoux
Porfiria Lopez -Trout
NEW BUSINESS:
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Board of Education
Special Meeting — February 6, 2006
Scott Arndt Roy Brown
Dave Jones
Kristin Inbody
Bob Meade
Bob Tucker
Heather Wheeler
Diane Langfitt
Karen Winkler
Bill Watkins
1. 2005/2006 Certificated Contracts — Administration has two certificated contracts prepared
for Board approval.
MOTION
ELIZABETH ODELL moved to approve certificated contracts for the remainder of the
2005/2006 school year to Denise Anderson — BA +0/0 in the amount of $15,796 for 1.0 FTE
Peterson Elementary School and Kodiak High School English Language Learners and Suzan
Hailey — BA +0/5 in the amount of $18,120 for 1.0 FTE Peterson Elementary School. SCOTT
ARNDT seconded the motion and it carried unanimously by a roll call vote of all members
present.
2. Executive Session — Negotiations
MOTION
SCOTT ARNDT moved to enter into Executive Session to discuss Negotiations and to include
Superintendent Betty Walters and Director of Finance Dave Jones following the conclusion of
the Work Session. ELIZABETH ODELL seconded the motion and it carried unanimously by a
voice vote of all members present.
MAR - 7 2006 IL-)
BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE
School Board Special Meeting
February 6, 2006
Page 2
At 7:14 p.m. the Special Meeting recessed into the regularly scheduled Work Session. Following the
conclusion of the Work Session, the Special Meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m. and recessed into
Executive Session.
No action was taken, and the Special Meeting reconvened at 10:29 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION
SCOTT ARNDT moved to adjourn the Special Meeting. ELIZABETH ODELL seconded the
motion, and it carried unanimously by a voice vote of all members present.
There being no further business, President Roy Brown adjourned the Special Meeting at
10:30 p.m.
Approved by the Kodiak Island Borough School District Board of Education at their Regular
Meeting of February 20, 2006.
Clerk of the Board
tfully submitted,
Sheila Roberts
Administrative Assistant
Please print your name
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
ASSEMBLY MEETING
Regular Meeting of:
Please print your name
-Je \:\ , 01610
0
4.) 1,5-7
.., ..
a_
›.
MEE
IIaNV *JIAI
UOSURIg SW
` -- 07"1 "1 !L
,Ca ma r 'MAT
JSauutx
suauds 4
SUIe'IIIIM 'SJAI
i,
..,:,
Cil v
_____9
___y_
-`
\y I
Z
Ipgy •JI^I
UOSU1TH 'Sys
oaf 'sIAI
1iMSO
ifouuU J 'I
suudals 'TYAI
SCLTLij[TL�(� 'sTAI
"IV.LoI
■^
3 °.._..-
O
C
ti
IIaNV 4\1
UOSUflIJ
oaf 's7/\I
I jtmsO �Y�I
icauue'u '.I01
suaudals JY\I
sal L Yl 'sTAI
Q.
O
pa
Z
IINNV '`IYAI
UOSUEig . s
liras *JIAI
&uiar 'STi T
touu. I . 3v
suoi-FIalS �IAI
iIIT�c1 •svJ
Taal,
O
co
7
IIN V`IW I
UOSUeIj S
Alga
li 'JIAI
AurreI
I samIIIIMA
I 'wail,
z
O ( J
ti
'
UOSUPJJ •sy4
oaf 'STAI
WAs0
ICauu ry�
4 suoudhs 'A1
stueEM
"IVLOI
csi O
Z
TP'1V 'JIAI
uOSUOIH SI/
oaf 'sIAI
1jl MSO
14• /COMMIT AN
suoudals
STIIIt1k 'sV1
''Vaal,
0
GQ ri)
Z
Q
iii' • J'\i
uOSUPJH 'SW
$af 'SJAJ
ffemso
ICauu I •ry\I
suauds '
suzeIIIIM 's AI
"IVLoI
0
z
CZ
[INV •
UOSUMEI 'Sys
iCa NPf
Ilgnns0
X31.11.16X
suogdals
sul811VA 'SVs
'IVIOI
cC1
O
CO v) \�•-
IINV
I ft 0 supzg sy�
mar � l
I 4T MSO .
�I ulAt
suau
swoOM 'SIn1
1 'mini,
0
ct
V)
11
H � >'
0
c
cu
H CI)
0
g ?ca
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY
ROLL CALL SHEET
z
o
0
co cn
INV 'JIAI
UGH
oaf Sys
1jemsO *JIAI
j u I • VsI
suoucbls 'JYAI
sam 'sW
o
O
clo cn
4
II°4V AN
UOSUl Jg •sy�
111MS0 •JVsI
k7TTT7r •CTAT
suauCs '
'C
o
0
z
!INV 'JIAI
UOSULIg 'SJAJ
�r •sIAI
JJAJ
Aauue21
suogthis '
suze rn •syAI
, - w:LoI
0
O
4
INV '.
uosuelg •sy\I
AaNfo
I 'JFNI
icauaeg •.Iyi
suaudaos •
sUIULIIIM SF
'IVIOI
„..,.... ,
_ \.
n_. "C
O
7
0I
.•\
S
INV
UOSUMEI
1 w II
,
2jUMs0 •JY�T
oaf 'sv\T
AMULIaM
,
I suuas
.
- -
swl jT 'sy� •
8
CO vD
11
H � >'
0
c
cu
H CI)
0
g ?ca
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY
ROLL CALL SHEET
Kodiak Island Borough
April 6, 2006 - 7:30 p.m.
1. INVOCATION
Captain Dave Davis of the Salvation Army.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
Clerk's note: Assemblymembers may be out and asked to be excused.
Recommended motion: Move to specifically excuse any Assemblymembers that are absent.
VOICE VOTE ON MOTION
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Recommended motion: Move to approve the agenda.
VOICE VOTE ON MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Assembly Guidelines
Regular Meeting Assembly Chambers
A. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Regular Meetings of February 16 and March 2 and 16,
2006.
Recommended motion: Move to approve the minutes as submitted.
Please correct the February 16, 2006 minutes, page two, under Committee Reports, Seismic
Vulnerability Presentation by replacing the words "high school gym" with the words "middle
school".
VOICE VOTE ON MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED
6. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation.
7. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker)
A. Agenda Items Not Scheduled for Public Hearing and General Comments.
Read phone numbers: Local Number 486 -3231 Toll Free 1- 800 - 478 -5736
PLEASE ASK SPEAKERS TO SIGN IN AND STATE THEIR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Guidelines
April 6, 2006 Page 1
8. COMMITTEE REPORTS
9. PUBLIC HEARING - Limited to five minutes per speaker
A. Ordinance No. FY2006 -06 Amending Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances Title 3
Revenue and Finance Chapter 3.04 Public Finance — budget Section 3.04.020 Permissible
Investments Section 3.04.022 Collateral Requirements Section 3.04.051 Facilities Fund by
Changing the Types of Instruments the Borough Can Invest In and Changing the Investments
Allowed in the Facilities Fund.
Recommended motion: Move to adopt Ordinance No. FY2006 -06.
Staff Report - Manager Gifford
Open public hearing.
Read phone numbers: Local Phone Number 486 -3231 Toll Free 1- 800 - 478 -5736
Public Testimony is limited to five minutes per speaker.
Close public hearing.
Assembly discussion. Amendments may be offered at this time.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOT /ON
10. BOROUGH MANAGER'S REPORT - Manager Gifford
1 1 . MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR - Mayor Selby
12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
13. NEW BUSINESS
A. CONTRACTS - None
B. RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution No. FY2006 -33 Granting Final Approval of the Phase 1 Kodiak Island
Borough Pre - Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Recommended motion: Move to adopt Resolution No. FY2006 -33.
Staff Report - Manager Gifford
Assembly discussion.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION
2. Resolution No. FY2006 -34 Supporting Alaska Village Initiatives Integrated Program for
Biomass Utilization in Rural Alaska.
Recommended motion: Move to adopt Resolution No. FY2006 -34.
Staff Report - Manager Gifford
Assembly discussion.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION
Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Guidelines
April 6, 2006 Page 2
C. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None
D. OTHER ITEMS
1. Vacation of a 10 Foot Wide Utility Easement and a 15 Foot Wide Utility Easement
Located on Portions of Lot 6B, U.S. Survey 3099.
Recommended motion: Move to approve the vacation of a 10 foot wide utility
easement on the western property and a 15 foot wide utility easement on the southern
property located on Lot 6B, U.S. Survey 3099.
Staff Report - Manager Gifford
Assembly discussion.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION
2. Board of Equalization Vacancy.
Recommended motion: Move to declare the seat held by Reed Oswalt on the Board of
Equalization for a term to expire December 31, 2007 vacant and direct the Borough
Clerk to advertise the vacancy per Borough Code.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION
3. Resignation of Borough Clerk.
Recommended motion: Move to accept the resignation of Judith A. Nielsen as Borough
Clerk effective June 3, 2006.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION
14. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Limited to three minutes per speaker)
Read phone numbers: Local Phone Number 486 -3231
Toll Free 1- 800 - 478 -5736
PLEASE ASK SPEAKERS TO SIGN IN AND STATE THEIR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
15. ASSEMBLYMEMBER COMMENTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS - Mayor Selby
The Assembly will meet in a work session on Thursday, April 13 at 7 :30 p.m. in the Borough
Conference room and a regular meeting on Thursday, April 20, at 7 :30 p.m. in the Assembly
Chambers.
16. ADJOURNMENT
Recommended motion: Move to adjourn the meeting.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOT /ON
Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Guidelines
April 6, 2006 Page 3
l9A .00
1
PROPOSAL TO KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY
April 6th , 2006; Respectfully submitted by Arne Shryock
(Y6A-A-
Little research is necessary to learn that the Borough has a mandate on it: to
create a "comprehensive plan" and to periodically update. There is no mandate
for zoning.
We have opted for zoning anyway; I challenge anyone to point out the good fruits
from zoning in Kodiak. Does this look like a community that has benefitted
from zoning? That has a lot to do with a very repressive use of zoning and an
Assembly that has long winked at mean spiritedness in planning and has no
problem with having documents designed to guide our development crafted by
outside (or out -of- State) firms.
I am proposing that the assembly consider two modifications to the zoning code
that be adopted even before a new comprehensive plan is updated. This will
create a better atmosphere in which to craft a more locally realistic and friendly
comprehensive plan. These two suggestions are:
1) Consolidate the zoning classifications "Light Industrial" and "Retail
Business" into one performance -based classification appropriate for use in
moderate to high traffic areas at the margins of different zones. These can serve
as a buffer between zones and provide guiding standards in the conduct of small
businesses in these zones. I have attached — with heuristic intent — a sample
proposal for just such a classification titled: "Neighborhood Enterprise ".
2) The concept — as presently developed in our zoning code — of
"nonconforming use" and the frequent use of the term "discourage" in the zoning
code contrive to cast a pall upon our community. The only result is decay and
stagnation. Discouraging a use takes decades. It is not a pretty picture during
those decades (just look around). A more practical, fair, and probably as
effective sample of "non- conforming use" is suggested here.
Note for item 2: any good planner should be able to put many positive approaches on the table for
encouraging change in the direction of development within our community. Actively
orchestrating infrastructure has always rated high on that list, but there may be some good
alternate ideas (as an example, identify areas from which demolition waste could be disposed at
greatly reduced rates).
1
Sections
Chapter 17.xx sample
NE - Neighborhood Enterprise
Description and Intent. The NE- Neighborhood Enterprise District is
established as a district ideally located at the boundary between dissimilar
districts and which is compatible with both residential and commercially zoned
districts. It is ideally located along arterial, connector, or other high traffic
roadways. This is dominantly a performance based district and replaces the
"light industrial" and "retail business" districts. The specific intentions of this
chapter are:
A. To provide a buffer between dissimilar zoning districts and between
high traffic environments and residential districts;
B. To provide greater opportunity for family or small business enterprise
by Kodiak residents near or at the property in which they live;
C. To favor enterprise that does not dramatically increase traffic flow to
the site and which blends into surrounding development; and
D. To provide performance standards to minimize conflict between this
district and neighboring districts.
Permitted uses. The following uses of the land are permitted in the
neighborhood enterprise district:
A. Small retail businesses that normally operate with 6 or fewer employees
on -site;
B. Small fabrication or manufacturing businesses that normally operate
with 4 or fewer employees on -site;
C. Professional offices that normally operate with 4 or fewer professional
staff on -site;
D. With the exception of fisheries support or horticultural businesses,
enterprises in which activity will occur inside a building constructed to be
compatible with any adjacent residential properties;
E. Businesses that do not inherently produce offal, odors, harmful
emissions, operational dust and smoke, or store quantities of compounds that can
provide risk beyond the property boundaries;
F. Businesses that do not increase traffic in the neighborhood by more than
50 percent from 6 a.m to 8 p.m or by more than 20 percent from 8 p.m to 6 a.m.
(summer ?);
G. Single family residences or duplexes;
H. Enterprises that are not restricted to adults (such as taverns, nightclubs,
and adult bookstores);
I. Enterprises that can provide adequate off- street parking for staff,
customers, and residents; and
J. Public uses.
2
Lot requirements. Properties smaller than 10,000 square feet shall only be
designated as neighborhood enterprise by conditional use permit except for
enterprises which have been designated "neighborhood enterprise" by the
Borough based upon existing "grand- fathered" activity.
Setbacks, restrictions, and building height limits. The height limitations shall
be the most restrictive of any adjacent properties. The front yard setback will be
25 feet. The setback between this district and adjacent commercial properties
shall be 10 feet. The setback between this district and adjacent residential
properties shall be 20 feet and there shall be no outside storage within this
setback. At least 20 percent of the area of a lot in this district shall be reserved
for landscaping into gardens, lawns, wild species assemblages, etc. Large sheet
metal (or similarly constructed) commercial structures shall not be used adjacent
to residential properties if they will degrade the value of that neighboring
property.
Performance Standards. All enterprise within the neighborhood enterprise
district is subject to the performance standards listed in this section.
A. The presence of animals in this district shall meet any other applicable
Borough and municipal codes. Animals shall not be maintained in this district
for enterprise purposes and there shall be no processes on this property that
produce offal.
B. Operations or outside storage shall not be maintained in a way that
attracts or provides harborage for Norway Rats or other similar pests. There
shall be no outside storage that attracts or provides a hazard to pets. Outside
storage shall not provide an obvious attractive nuisance, shall be safely secured
on the property, shall not be a source for blowing litter. Outside storage areas
shall be fenced (4 feet on level ground) or landscaped to maintain the prevailing
character of the neighborhood.
C. Operations requiring the use of water will use municipal water and
sewage facilities or shall have water and wastewater disposable facilities
approved by a State health authority (presently ADEC).
D. Noise. Noise with objectionable qualities dues to pulse, frequency, or
rhythm shall be conducted inside where noises are muffled from neighboring
properties. Commercial noises leaving the property boundary shall not exceed 80
decibels during the day (6 am - 8 pm) and shall not exceed 60 decibels at night.
E. Lighting. Any lighting shall not be used in a manner which produces
glare on public highways or neighboring property. Welding, cutting, and similar
light producing processes shall be performed so as not to be seen outside the
property. Flashing advertising signs are not permitted.
F. Smoke, dust and odor. Any enterprise processes producing a point
source emission (smokestack, etc) shall have no visible non -water emissions for
more than 3 minutes (with 5 percent or greater black or white emissions being
unacceptable in this district). No waste oil burners using technology (oil
injectors versus evaporation prior to combustion) which can put heavy metals
3
into the atmosphere shall be used if this district is adjacent to residential
properties. There shall be no corrosive, odorous or hazardous gases or fumes
exhausted from property within this district. The detection of odor — such as the
detection of mercaptan -like or solvent -like odors at a residential property
boundary can be a basis for restricting or removing a process or activity from a
specific neighborhood enterprise district. There shall be no activities in this
district that produce fugitive emissions of dust and fumes specific to that activity
that exit the property boundary.
G. Fire and safety hazards. Chemicals shall not be stored on property
within this district that have realistic potential to provide a hazard outside the
property boundary. The operator of an enterprise within this district shall
provide access to the fire marshal at reasonable hours and frequency to all
chemicals that may produce a toxicity or flammabilty hazard so that the fire
marshal may review chemical inventory, storage and usage. Fire marshal
determinations that a specific chemical poses realistic risk beyond the property
boundaries can be a basis for restricting use of that chemical or processes using
that chemical.
Performance agreements. In the event of dispute between owners of properties
within this district and neighboring properties regarding compliance with
performance standards or restrictions applicable to this district, Borough staff is
authorized to attempt to reach agreement between itself, the district property
owner, and any concerned neighbors. Any such agreement will become a specific
performance standard applicable to operations on that property.
4
Second thought — "Nonconforming Use"
17.36 Existing Nonconforming Uses and Structures
1) Lots which would be nonconforming because they were platted prior to
requirements for greater size or dimension, shall be conforming. New
developments on those lots will meet set -back requirements except that
conditional use permits shall be issued for development on that property that
conforms to setbacks most consistently seen in neighboring properties (or the
neighborhood if some adjacent properties are not developed). Structures that
were built on these lots may be rebuilt inside their existing footprint or may be
modified to also include any area meeting current setback requirements for that
district. Rebuilding to a greater footprint than would normally be permissible
under present set -back requirement will be permitted by conditional use if, again,
that is consistent with development in the neighborhood.
2) A use on a property that became non - conforming because of a change is zoning
applied to that property will become a conforming use if either of these two (2)
conditions are met:
1) The use on that property conformed to zoning in the 1968
comprehensive plan or any new plan to be developed; or
2) The persisting use on that property was shown as a present or planned
use for that property in the 1968 comprehensive plan.
3) A use that becomes conforming through the section above may be demolished
and rebuilt and remain in conformance. However, the property owner will have
the opportunity to demolish and rebuild in conformance with present zoning and
request, with nominal fee, that the property be included in the current zoning
district within which it would normally reside. When such a re -zone approval is
complete and the present use is in compliance, further changes will go through
the standard re -zone process.
4) Enterprise uses that became non - conforming through changes in zoning or
other actions of the Borough and which have been allowed to persist as "grand -
fathered" nonconforming enterprises will only retain that status if they are not on
a roadway having considerable traffic. If located on such a roadway, the use and
property will be re- designated "neighborhood enterprise" and the owners of that
property will be required to meet the performance standards of that district.
Properties remaining as "grand- fathered" uses will still have to meet the
performance standards of that district. All owners of properties converted to
this new classification may abandon this use and petition, with only nominal fee
and administrative burden, to have their property restored to the zoning district
in which it would normally lie.
5
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MELVIN M. STEPHENS, II
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEY AT LAW
104 CENTER AVENUE, SUITE 206
P.O. BOX 1129
KODIAK, ALASKA 99615
TELEPHONE (907) 486 -3143
Minimum
Requirements
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and Assembly
Mel Stephens '--
Investment Ordinance (FY 2006 -06)
April 4, 2006
Such an amendment would read more or less as follows:
clECEIIVE
u APR - 52006
BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE
4e:/nailed / /5/
- t"
Following the public hearing on Ordinance FY 2006 -06 I may offer an amendment the
purpose of which would be to remove all references to the hiring of a money manager.
MOVE TO AMEND Ord. 2006 -06 by making the following changes to Section 4 (which amends
section 3.04.051 of the Borough Code):
1) DELETE proposed paragraphs G and H in their entirety;
2) MODIFY proposed paragraph C so as to read:
C. Allocation of investments.
The following restrictions shall be observed in the
course of investing Facilities Fund assets:
Allowable
Percentage
of Issuer
100 %
100%
10%
UST
Agencies
Bonds BBB
BA's A
Repo's A
CD's A
Mutual Funds S &P 500 Index Funds
AMLIP
* Investments in revenue bonds or
shall not be taken into consideration in computing these percentages.
2% 0 - 25%
O - 25%
O - 10%
O - 25%
O - 50%
other obligations of the borough itself or any of its departments
5%
Percentage
of total
portfolio'
O - 100%
O - 100%
O - 25%
Mayor and Assembly
CD's over $100,000 must be collateralized at 102 %.
Mutual Funds must meet all of the above requirements.
the above except for mutual funds.
-2-
April 4, 2006
invest in any of
3) MODIFY the first sentence following the enumeration of prohibited transactions in
proposed paragraph D so as to read:
In the event a security currently held in the portfolio is down graded below
investment grade the . ' ' . , - Finance
Director . . - . , shall so notify the
assembly.
I do not wish to mislead anyone. I continue to hold most of the concerns expressed in my
memorandum of March 2 and therefore expect that I will vote against the adoption of Ordinance FY
2006 -06 whether or not the references to a money manager are removed. I offer the foregoing to
avoid surprises, however, and in an effort to avoid the difficulties which often arise when an
amendment is offered "out of the blue."
Note that in the foregoing table I have changed the allowable percentage of Mutual Funds
from 10 -25 % to 0 -25 % and have included a footnote which clarifies that Facilities Fund investments
in instruments such as the KFRC revenue bonds and the hospital loan, which are ultimately
obligations of the borough itself, are not to be taken into account in computing the maximum
allowable percentage of any particular type of investment. In other words, as of 2/28/06 (see
Balances p. 23 of the February Short Report), the Facilities Fund would be viewed as holding
approximately $29 million of investments rather than $37+ million. Accordingly, the maximum
investment an S &P 500 Index Fund would be about $7 million, not $9 million.
Finally, it is possible that I might also offer an amendment which would authorize Facilities
Fund assets to be invested in index funds designed to track the Wilshire 5000 index as well as those
which track the S &P 500 index. The Wilshire 5000 is sometimes referred to as the "total stock
market" index. Like the S &P 500 it is market cap weighted but tracks over 6,000 U.S. -based
companies (the biggest 500 of which account for approximately 70% of the Wlishire 5000 index).
I doubt that I will raise this issue. Indeed, the fact that we have not talked about things like this is
one of the reasons I am against going forward with ordinance 2006 -06. Once again, however, I
mention the issue so as to avoid surprises.
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
FOR
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
ALASKA
February 3, 2006
Prepared by:
Kenneth A. Goettel
Goettel & Associates Inc.
1732 Arena Drive
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 750 -0440
Cover Photo:
Map of Kodiak Island Borough
Updated On: 2/3/06
The Point of Contact for information regarding this plan is:
Duane Dvorak
Associate Planner
KIB Community Development Department
Kodiak Island Borough
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, AK 99615
907 486 -9362 (Office)
9074869296 (Fax)
ddvorak @kib.co.kodiak.ak.us
Secondary Point of Contact
Ken Goettel
530 750 -0440
Goettel & Associates Inc.
Prepared with:
ifisualRisk
MITIGATIONPLAN.COM
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for Kodiak Island Borough covers each of the
major natural hazards that pose risks to the communities and people of the
Borough. The primary objectives of this Mitigation plan are to reduce the
negative impacts of future disasters on the communities: to save lives and
reduce injuries, minimize damage to buildings and infrastructure (especially
critical facilities) and minimize economic losses. This Mitigation Plan is a
planning document, not a regulatory document.
This mitigation plan meets FEMA's planning requirements by addressing
hazards, vulnerability and risk. Hazard means the frequency and severity of
disaster events. Vulnerability means the value, importance, and fragility of
buildings and infrastructure. Risk means the threat to people, buildings and
infrastructure, taking into account the probabilities of disaster events. Adoption
of a mitigation plan is required for communities to remain eligible for future FEMA
mitigation grant funds.
This document is a Public Review Draft. Review comments, suggestions,
corrections and additions are enthusiastically encouraged from all interested
parties. Please send comments to:
Duane Dvorkak
Community Development Department
Kodiak Island Borough
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, AK 99615
(907) 486 -9362
ddvorak @kib.co.kodiak.ak.us
Plan Contents
The Introduction provides an overview of hazard mitigation planning and why it is
important for Kodiak Island Borough.
Section 1 documents the Public Planning Process.
Section 2 documents the formal adoption of the Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 3 provides a geographic and demographic overview of Kodiak Island
Borough.
Section 4 reviews each of the natural hazards and evaluates the risk posed to
the people, buildings and infrastructure of Kodiak Island Borough. Human
caused hazards will be evaluated later in the second phase of developing the
Kodiak Island Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Section 5 Presents Mitigation Goals, Priorities, Action Items and Projects.
Section 6 outlines the strategy for Plan Maintenance.
iii
Table of Contents
Section 1 Public Planning Process
1.1 Narrative Description
1.2 Planning Team Information
1.3 Public Involvement in Planning Process
1.4 Other Interested Party Involvement
1.5 Review of Technical and Fiscal Resources
1.6 Review of Existing Plans
Section 2 Jurisdiction Participation Information
2.1 Adoption by Local Governing Body
2.1.1 Primary Point of Contact /Chairperson
2.1.2 Promulgation Authority Information
Section 3 Jurisdiction Information
Section 4 Risk Assessment
4.1 Overall Hazard Ranking
4.2 Hazard Profile
4.3 Asset Inventory
4.4 Analysis of Community Development Trends
Section 5 Mitigation Strategy
5.1 Summary of Mitigation Goals
5.2 Mitigation Goals
5.3 Mitigation Actions /Projects
5.4 Implementation Strategy and Analysis of Mitigation Projects
5.5 Capability Assessment
Section 6 Plan Maintenance
6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan
6.2 Implementation through Existing Programs
6.3 Continued Public Involvement
INTRODUCTION
What is a Hazard Mitigation Plan?
Kodiak Island Borough is subject to a wide range of natural hazards, including:
earthquakes, tsunamis, winter storms, landslides, avalanches, flooding, erosion,
wildand /urban interface fires, and volcanic events. Some of these hazard events,
such as winter storms, happen to some extent every year. Others, such as
earthquakes, may significantly affect Kodiak Island Borough only once every few
decades or longer. Each of these natural hazards is addressed in the Kodiak Island
Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Kodiak Island Borough is also subject to a variety of anthropogenic (human- caused)
hazards including hazardous material spills, dam failures, and deliberate malevolent
actions (including terrorism). These human - caused hazards are not addressed in this
Hazard Mitigation Plan, but rather will be addressed in an expanded plan later in
2006.
The effect of potential future hazard events on Kodiak Island Borough may be minor -
a few inches of water in a street - or it may be major - with damages and economic
losses reaching millions of dollars. The effects of major disasters on communities can
be devastating: the total damages, economic losses, casualties, disruption, hardships
and suffering are often far greater than the physical damages alone. Furthermore,
recovery from major disasters often takes many years and some heavily affected
communities may never fully recover.
Completely eliminating the risk of future disasters in Kodiak Island Borough is neither
technologically possible nor economically feasible. However, substantially reducing
the negative consequences of future disasters is achievable with the implementation
of a pragmatic Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Mitigation simply means actions that reduce the potential for negative consequences
from future disasters. That is, mitigation actions reduce future damages, losses and
casualties.
The Kodiak Island Borough mitigation plan has several key elements.
1. Each hazard that may significantly affect Kodiak Island Borough is
reviewed to determine the probability (frequency) and severity of
likely hazard events.
2. The vulnerability of Kodiak Island Borough to each hazard is
evaluated to determine the likely extent of physical damages,
casualties, and economic consequences.
3. A range of mitigation alternatives are evaluated to identify those with
the greatest potential to reduce future damages and losses in
Kodiak Island Borough, to protect facilities deemed critical to the
community's well being, and that are desirable from the community's
political and economic perspectives.
1
Why is Mitigation Planning Important for Kodiak Island Borough?
Effective mitigation planning will help the residents of Kodiak Island Borough deal with
natural and anthropogenic hazards realistically and rationally. That is, to help identify
specific locations in Kodiak Island Borough where the level of risk from one or more
hazards may be unacceptably high and then to find cost effective ways to reduce such
risk. Mitigation planning strikes a pragmatic middle ground between unwisely ignoring
the potential for major hazard events on one hand and unnecessarily overreacting to
the potential for disasters on the other hand.
Furthermore, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) now requires
each local government entity to adopt a multi- hazard mitigation plan to remain eligible
for future pre- or post- disaster FEMA mitigation funding. Thus, an important objective
in developing this plan is to maintain eligibility for FEMA funding and to enhance
Kodiak Island Borough's ability to attract future FEMA mitigation funding.
The Plan is specifically designed to help Kodiak Island Borough gather the data
necessary to compete successfully for future FEMA funding of mitigation projects.
FEMA requires that all FEMA- funded hazard mitigation projects must be "cost -
effective" (i.e., the benefits of a project must exceed the costs). Benefit -cost analysis
is thus an important component of mitigation planning, not only to meet FEMA
requirements, but also to help evaluate and prioritize potential hazard mitigation
projects in Kodiak Island Borough, regardless of whether funding is from FEMA, state
or local government or from private sources.
The Kodiak Island Borough Mitigation Plan
This Kodiak Island Borough Mitigation Plan is built is upon a quantitative assessment
of each of the major hazards that may significantly affect Kodiak Island Borough,
including their frequency, severity, and geographic areas most likely to be affected.
The hazards addressed include: earthquakes, tsunamis, winter storms, landslides,
avalanches, flooding, erosion, wildand /urban interface fires, and volcanic events. The
Kodiak Island Borough Mitigation Plan covers Kodiak City and surrounding areas, as
well as the remote village communities The geographic areas covered by available
hazard data often do not correspond exactly to political boundaries.
The Kodiak Island Borough Mitigation plan also includes a quantitative assessment of
the vulnerability of buildings, infrastructure, and people to each of these hazards.
That is, the plan includes an evaluation of the likely magnitude of the effects of future
disasters on Kodiak Island Borough.
These reviews of the hazards and the vulnerability of Kodiak Island Borough to these
hazards are the foundation of the mitigation plan. From these assessments, specific
locations where buildings, infrastructure, and /or people may be at high risk are
identified. These high risk situations then become priorities for future mitigation
actions to reduce the negative consequences of future disasters in Kodiak Island
Borough.
2
The Kodiak Island Borough Mitigation Plan deals with hazards realistically and
rationally and also strikes a balance between suggested physical mitigation measures
to eliminate or reduce the negative consequences of future of disasters and planning
measures which better prepare the community to respond to and recover from
disasters for which physical mitigation measures are not possible or not economically
feasible.
Key Concepts and Definitions
The central concept of mitigation planning is that mitigation reduces risk. Risk is
defined as the threat to people and the built environment posed by the hazards being
considered. That is, risk is the potential for damages, losses and casualties arising
from the impact of hazards on the built environment. The essence of mitigation
planning is to identify high risk locations /situations in Kodiak Island Borough and to
evaluate ways to mitigate (reduce) the effects of future disasters on these high risk
locations /situations.
The level of risk at a given location, building or facility depends on the combination of
hazard and exposure as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1
Hazard and Exposure Combine to Produce Risk
Frequency
and Severity
of Hazard Events
Value and
Vulnerability of
Inventory
Risk is generally expressed in dollars (estimates of potential damages and other
economic losses) and in terms of casualties (numbers of deaths and injuries).
There are four key concepts that govern hazard mitigation planning: hazard,
exposure, risk and mitigation. Each of these key concepts is addressed in turn.
HAZARD refers to natural or anthropogenic events that may cause damages, losses
or casualties (e.g., floods, winter storms, landslides, earthquakes, hazardous material
spills, etc.). Hazards are characterized by their frequency and severity and by the
geographic area affected. Each hazard is characterized differently, with appropriate
parameters for the specific hazard. For example, floods may be characterized by the
frequency of flooding, along with flood depth and flood velocity. Winter storms may be
characterized by the amount of rainfall in a 24 -hour period, by the wind speed, or by
the amount of snow or ice associated with a storm. Earthquakes may be
characterized by the severity and duration of ground motions and so on.
A hazard event, by itself, may not result in any negative effects on a community. For
example, a flood -prone five -acre parcel may typically experience several shallow
3
floods per year, with several feet of water expected in a 50 -year flood event.
However, if the parcel is wetlands, with no structures or infrastructure, then there is no
risk. That is, there is no threat to people or the built environment and the frequent
flooding of this parcel does not have any negative effects on the community. Indeed,
in this case, the very frequent flooding (i.e., the high hazard) may be beneficial
environmentally by providing wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and so on.
Figure 2
Hazard Alone Does Not Produce Risk
The important point here is that hazards do not necessarily produce risk to people and
property, unless there is vulnerable inventory exposed to the hazard. Risk to people,
buildings or infrastructure results only when hazards are combined with exposure.
EXPOSURE is the quantity, value and vulnerability of the built environment (inventory
of people, buildings and infrastructure) in a particular location subject to one or more
hazards. Inventory is described by the number, size, type, use, and occupancy of
buildings and by the infrastructure present. Infrastructure includes roads and other
transportation systems, utilities (potable water, wastewater, natural gas, and electric
power), telecommunications systems and so on.
Inventory varies markedly in its importance to a community and thus varies markedly
in its importance for hazard mitigation planning. Some types of facilities, "critical
facilities," are especially important to a community, particularly during disaster
situations. Examples of critical facilities include police and fire stations, hospitals,
schools, emergency shelters, 911 centers, and other important buildings. Critical
facilities may also include infrastructure elements that are important links or nodes in
providing service to large numbers of people such as a potable water source, an
electric power substation and so on. "Links" are elements such as water pipes,
electric power lines, telephone cables that connect portions of a utility or
transportation system. "Nodes" are locations with important functions, such as
pumping plants, substations, or switching offices.
4
For hazard mitigation planning, inventory must be characterized not only by the
quantity and value of buildings or infrastructure present but also by its vulnerability to
each hazard under evaluation. For example, a given facility may or may not be
particularly vulnerable to flood damages or earthquake damages, depending on the
details of its design and construction. Depending on the hazard, different engineering
measures of the vulnerability of buildings and infrastructure are used.
Figure 3
Exposure (Quantity, Value and Vulnerability of Inventory)
RISK is the threat to people and the built environment - the potential for damages,
losses and casualties arising from hazards. Risk, which results only from the
combination of Hazard and Exposure as discussed above, is illustrated schematically
in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4
Risk Results from the Combination of Hazard and Exposure
5
Hazard
Common Mitigation Projects
Earthquake
Seismic retrofits for critical facilities
Seismic retrofits for public, residential and commercial
buildings
Seismic retrofits for infrastructure
Tsunami
Relocate critical facilities
Improve warning systems
Public education and awareness
Winter storms
Emergency generators for critical facilities
Improve redundancy or harden utility systems
Enhance tree trimming to protect utility lines
Flooding
Relocate, elevate or floodproof flood -prone structures
Improve storm water drainage
Erosion
Add protective barriers
Relocate at risk buildings or infrastructure
Landslide /avalanche
Remediate slide /avalanche conditions
Add protective barriers
Relocate at risk buildings or infrastructure
Wildland /urban interface fires
Encourage fire safe construction practices
Vegetation (fuel load) reduction measures
Volcanic eruptions
Enhance emergency planning
Public education and awareness
General and Multi -Hazard
Enhance emergency planning and mutual aid
Expand public education programs
Risk is the potential for future damages, losses or casualties. A disaster event
happens when a hazard event is combined with vulnerable inventory (that is when
hazard event strikes vulnerable inventory exposed to the hazard). The highest risk in
a community occurs in high hazard areas (frequent and /or severe hazard events) with
large inventories of vulnerable buildings or infrastructure.
However, high risk can also occur with only moderately high hazard, if there is a large
inventory of highly vulnerable inventory exposed to the hazard. Conversely, a high
hazard area can have relatively low risk if the inventory is resistant to damages (e.g.,
elevated to protect against flooding or strengthened to minimize earthquake
damages).
MITIGATION means actions to reduce the risk due to hazards. Mitigation actions
reduce the potential for damages, losses, and casualties in future disaster events.
Repair of buildings or infrastructure damaged in a disaster is not mitigation because
repair simply restores a facility to its pre- disaster condition and does not reduce the
potential for future damages, losses, or casualties. Hazard mitigation projects may be
initiated proactively - before a disaster, or after a disaster has already occurred. In
either case, the objective of mitigation is always is to reduce future damages, losses
or casualties.
A few of the most common types of mitigation projects are shown below in Table 5
Table 5
Examples of Mitigation Projects
6
The mitigation project list above is not comprehensive and mitigation projects can
encompass a broad range of other actions to reduce future damages, losses, and
casualties.
The Mitigation Process
The key element for all hazard mitigation projects is that they reduce risk. The
benefits of a mitigation project are the reduction in risk (i.e., the avoided damages,
losses, and casualties attributable to the mitigation project). In other words, benefits
are simply the difference in expected damages, losses, and casualties before
mitigation (as -is conditions) and after mitigation. These important concepts are
illustrated below in Figure 6.
Figure 6
Mitigation Projects Reduce Risk
Quantifying the benefits of a proposed mitigation project is an essential step in hazard
mitigation planning and implementation. Only by quantifying benefits is it possible to
compare the benefits and costs of mitigation to determine whether or not a particular
project is worth doing (i.e., is economically feasible). Real world mitigation planning
almost always involves choosing between a range of possible alternatives, often with
varying costs and varying effectiveness in reducing risk.
Quantitative risk assessment is centrally important to hazard mitigation planning.
When the level of risk is high, the expected levels of damages and losses are likely to
be unacceptable and mitigation actions have a high priority. Thus, the greater the
risk, the greater the urgency of undertaking mitigation.
Conversely, when risk is moderate both the urgency and the benefits of undertaking
mitigation are reduced. It is neither technologically possible nor economically feasible
to eliminate risk completely. Therefore, when levels of risk are low and /or the cost of
mitigation is high relative to the level of risk, the risk may be deemed acceptable (or at
least tolerable). Therefore, proposed mitigation projects that address low levels of risk
7
or where the cost of the mitigation project is large relative to the level of risk are
generally poor candidates for implementation.
The overall mitigation planning process is outlined in Figure 7 below.
Figure 7
The Mitigation Planning Process
Mitigation Planning Flowchart
Risk Acceptable?
Mitigation Not Necessary
Risk Assessment
Quantify the Threat
to the Built Environment
1
Is Level of Risk
Acceptable?
Risk Not Acceptable?
Mitigation Desired
1
Identify Mitigation Alternatives
Find Solutions to Risk
1
Prioritize Mitigation Alternatives
Benefit -Cost Analysis
and related tools
1
Obtain Funding
Implement Mitigation Measures
Reduce Risk
The flow chart above outlines the major steps in Hazard Mitigation Planning and
Implementation for Kodiak Island Borough.
The first steps are quantitative evaluation of the hazards (frequency and severity)
affecting Kodiak Island Borough and of the inventory (people, buildings, and
infrastructure) exposed to these hazards. Together these hazard and exposure data
8
determine the level of risk for specific locations, buildings or facilities in Kodiak Island
Borough.
The next key step is to determine whether or not the level of risk posed by each of the
hazards affecting Kodiak Island Borough is acceptable or tolerable. Only the
residents of Kodiak Island Borough can make this determination. If the level of risk is
deemed acceptable or at least tolerable, then mitigation actions are not necessary or
at least not a high priority.
On the other hand, if the level of risk is deemed not acceptable or tolerable, then
mitigation actions are desired. In this case, the mitigation planning process moves on
to more detailed evaluation of specific mitigation alternatives, prioritization, funding
and implementation of mitigation measures. As with the determination of whether or
not the level of risk posed by each hazard is acceptable or not, decisions about which
mitigation projects to undertake can be made only by the residents of Kodiak Island
Borough.
The Role of Benefit -Cost Analysis in Mitigation Planning
Communities, such as Kodiak Island Borough that are considering whether or not to
undertake mitigation projects must answer questions that don't always have obvious
answers, such as:
What is the nature of the hazard problem?
How frequent and how severe are hazard events?
Do we want to undertake mitigation measures?
What mitigation measures are feasible, appropriate, and affordable?
How do we prioritize between competing mitigation projects?
Are our mitigation projects likely to be eligible for FEMA funding?
Benefit -cost analysis is a powerful tool that can help communities provide solid,
defensible answers to these difficult socio - political- economic - engineering questions.
Benefit -cost analysis is required for all FEMA- funded mitigation projects, under
both pre- disaster and post- disaster mitigation programs. Thus, communities
seeking FEMA funding must understand benefit -cost analysis. However,
regardless of whether or not FEMA funding is involved, benefit -cost analysis provides
a sound basis for evaluating and prioritizing possible mitigation projects for any natural
hazard.
Benefit -cost analysis software, technical manuals and a wide range of guidance
documents are available from FEMA at no cost to communities. A Benefit -Cost
Analysis Toolkit CD which contains all of the FEMA benefit -cost materials is available
from FEMA. The publication What is a Benefit? Draft Guidance for Benefit -Cost
Analysis is particularly recommended as a general reference for benefit -cost analysis
of hazard mitigation projects. This publication includes categories of benefits to count
9
for mitigation projects for various types of buildings, critical facilities, and infrastructure
and has simple, standard methods to quantity the full range of benefits for most types
of mitigation projects.
Further details about benefit -cost analysis and example calculations are given in the
Appendix at the end of this chapter.
Hazard Synopsis
To set the overall context of hazard mitigation planning, we briefly review the major
hazards that significantly affect Kodiak Island Borough. Some hazards affect the
entire area, while other hazards have only localized potential consequences. For
every community within Kodiak Island Borough, the two predominant hazards are
earthquakes and tsunamis. That is, earthquakes and tsunamis pose the greatest risk
to each community in terms of damages, casualties, and economic impacts.
The entire Kodiak Island Borough is subject to the affects of
earthquakes, including not only major earthquakes on the Subduction
Zone off the coast, but also smaller crustal earthquakes within or near
Kodiak Island.
All of the communities of Kodiak Island Borough are located on the
coast and all have portions subject to inundation by tsunamis.
Each community within Kodiak Island Borough is also subject to some level of risk
from several other natural hazards. For these hazards, the potential impacts are
much lower than for earthquakes and tsunamis and /or are limited to small portions of
the community.
The entire Kodiak Island Borough is subject, to ash falls from eruptions
of nearby volcanoes.
Portions of the hilly areas of Kodiak Island Borough are subject to
landslides, mudslides, and avalanches which may affect buildings,
roads, and utilities.
The entire Kodiak Island Borough is subject to the effects of winter
storms, including wind, rain, snow and ice, as well as secondary effects
such as power outages.
Most of the communities have areas subject to coastal flooding and /or
erosion.
Portions of several communities are subject to riverine flooding.
Parts of Kodiak Island Borough region are subject to some level or risk
from major wildland /urban interface fires.
10
Each community within Kodiak Island Borough is also subject to anthropogenic
hazards. These hazards are listed below, for information, but are not evaluated in this
hazard mitigation plan.
HAZMAT incidents are possible nearby or downwind from fixed site
concentrations (e.g., industrial sites) as well as along transportation
corridors from truck or ship accidents.
Terrorist incidents or other deliberate malevolent actions by vandals,
disturbed individuals, employees or members of organized groups could
affect Kodiak Island Borough.
The entire Kodiak Island Borough region is subject to disruption of utility
and transportation systems from a wide variety of human - causes or
natural causes.
The remaining sections of this mitigation plan include the following.
Section 1 documents the Public Planning Process.
Section 2 documents the formal adoption of the Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 3 provides a geographic and demographic overview of Kodiak Island
Borough.
Section 4 reviews each of the natural hazards and evaluates the risk posed to the
people, buildings and infrastructure of Kodiak Island Borough. Human caused
hazards will be evaluated later in the second phase of developing the Kodiak Island
Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Section 5 Presents Mitigation Goals, Priorities, Action Items and Projects.
Section 6 outlines the strategy for Plan Maintenance.
11
Principles of Benefit -Cost Analysis
APPENDIX
Benefit -cost analysis is the tool that provides answers to a central question for hazard
mitigation projects: "Is it worth it ?" If hazard mitigation were free, individuals and
communities would undertake mitigation with robust enthusiasm and the risks from
hazards would soon be greatly reduced. Unfortunately, mitigation is not free, but often
rather expensive. For a given situation, is the investment in mitigation justified? Is
the owner (public or private) better off economically to accept the risk or invest now in
mitigation to reduce future damages? These are hard questions to answer! Benefit -
cost analysis can help a community answer these difficult questions.
In the complicated real world of mitigation projects, there are many factors which
determine whether or not a mitigation project is worth doing or which of two or more
mitigation projects should have the highest priority. Consider a town which has two
flood prone neighborhoods and each neighborhood desires a mitigation project. The
two neighborhoods have different numbers of houses, different value of houses,
different frequencies and severity of flooding. The first neighborhood proposes storm
water drainage improvements at a cost of $3.0 million. The second neighborhood
wants to elevate houses at a cost of $3.0 million. Which of these projects should be
completed? Both? One or the Other? Neither? Which project should be completed
first if there is only funding for one? Are there alternative mitigation projects which are
more sensible or more cost - effective than the proposed projects?
Such complex socio - political- economic - engineering questions are nearly impossible to
answer without completing the type of quantitative flood risk assessment and benefit -
cost analysis discussed below.
In determining whether or not a given mitigation project is worth doing, the level of risk
exposure without mitigation is critical. Consider a hypothetical $1,000,000 mitigation
project. Whether or not the project is worth doing depends on the level of risk before
mitigation and on the effectiveness of the project in reducing risk. For example, if the
before mitigation risk is low (a subdivision street has a few inches of water on the
street every couple of years or a soccer field in a city park floods every five years or
so) the answer is different than if the before mitigation risk is high (100 or more
houses are expected to have flooding above the first floor every 10 years or a critical
facility is expected to be shut down because of flood damages once every five years).
All well- designed mitigation projects reduce risk (badly designed projects can increase
risk or simply transfer risk from one community to another). However, just because a
mitigation project reduces risk does not make it a good project. A $1,000,000 project
that avoids an average of $100 per year in flood damages is not worth doing, while the
same project that avoids an average of $200,000 per year in flood damages is worth
doing.
The principles of benefit -cost analysis are briefly summarized here. The benefits of a
hazard mitigation project are the reduction in future damages and losses, that is, the
avoided damages and losses that are attributable to a mitigation project. To conduct
benefit -cost analysis of a specific mitigation project the risk of damages and losses
12
Flood Depth
(feet)
Annual Probability
of Flooding
Scenario Damages and
Losses Per Flood Event
Annualized Flood
Damages and Losses
0
0.2050
$6,400
$1,312
1
0.1234
$14,300
$1,765
2
0.0867
$24,500
$2,124
3
0.0223
$28,900
$673
4
0.0098
$32,100
$315
5
0.0036
$36,300
$123
Total Expected Annual (Annualized) Damages and Losses
$6,312
must be evaluated twice: before mitigation and after mitigation, with the benefits being
the difference. The benefits of a hazard mitigation project are thus simply
avoided future damages and losses.
Because the benefits of a hazard mitigation project accrue in the future, it is
impossible to know exactly what they will be. For example, we do not know when
future floods or other natural hazards will occur or how severe they will be. We do
know, however, the probability of future floods or other natural hazards (if we have
appropriate hazard data). Therefore, the benefits of mitigation projects must be
evaluated probabilistically and expressed as the difference between annualized
damages before and after mitigation. The following simplified example illustrates the
principles of benefit -cost analysis; more details are given in the examples in the
Appendices.
To illustrate the principles of benefit -cost analysis, we consider a hypothetical single
family house in the town of Acorn, with the house located on the banks of Squirrel
Creek. The house is a one story structure of about 1500 square feet on a post
foundation, with a replacement value of $60 /square foot (total $90,000). We have
flood hazard data for Squirrel Creek (stream discharge and flood elevation data) and
elevation data for the first floor of the house. Therefore, we can calculate the annual
probability of flooding in one -foot increments, as shown below.
Table 8
Damages Before Mitigation
Flood depths shown above in Table 1.8 are in one foot increments of water depth
above the lowest floor elevation. Thus, a "3" foot flood means all floods between 2.5
feet and 3.5 feet of water depth above the floor. We note that a "0" foot flood has, on
average, damages because this flood depth means water plus or minus 6" of the floor;
even if the flood level is a few inches below the first floor, there may be damage to
flooring and other building elements because of wicking of water.
The Scenario (per flood event) damages and losses include expected damages to the
building, content, and displacement costs if occupants have to move to temporary
quarters while flood damage is repaired.
13
Flood
Depth
(feet)
Annual
Probability
of Flooding
Scenario Damages
and
Losses Per Flood
Event
Annualized Flood
Damages and
Losses
0
0.2050
$0
$0
1
0.1234
$0
$0
2
0.0867
$0
$0
3
0.0223
$0
$0
4
0.0098
$6,400
$63
5
0.0036
$14,300
$49
$112
The Annualized (expected annual) damages and losses are calculated as the product
of the flood probability times the scenario damages. For example, a 4 foot flood has
slightly less than a 1% chance per year of occurring. If it does occur, we expect about
$32,100 in damages and losses. Averaged over a long time, 4 foot floods are thus
expected to cause an average of about $315 per year in flood damages. Note that
the smaller floods, which cause Tess damage per flood event, actually cause higher
average annual damages because the probability of smaller floods is so much higher
than that for larger floods. With these data, the house is expected to average $6312
per year in flood damages. This expected annual or "annualized" damage estimate
does not mean that the house has this much damage every year. Rather, in most
years there will be no floods, but over time the cumulative damages and losses from a
mix of relatively frequent smaller floods and less frequent larger floods is calculated to
average $6312 per year.
The calculated results in Table 8 are the flood risk assessment for this house for the
as -is, before mitigation situation. The table shows the expected levels of damages
and losses for scenario floods of various depths and also the annualized damages
and losses.
The risk assessment shown in Table 8 shows a high flood risk, with frequent severe
flooding which the owner deems unacceptable. Therefore he explores mitigation
alternatives to reduce the risk: the example below in Table 9 is to elevate the house four
feet.
Table 9
Damages After Mitigation
By elevating the house four feet, the owner has reduced his expected annual (annualized)
damages from $6312 to $112 (98% reduction) and greatly reduced the probability or
frequency of flooding affecting his house. The annualized benefits are the difference in
the annualized damages and losses before and after mitigation or $6312 - $112 = $6200.
Is this mitigation project worth doing? Common sense says yes, because the flood
risk appears high: the annualized damages before mitigation are high ($6,312). To
answer this question more quantitatively, we complete our benefit -cost analysis of this
project. One key factor is the cost of mitigation. A mitigation project that is worth doing
14
Annualized Benefits
$6,200
Present Value Coefficient
12.41
Net Present Value of Future Benefits
$76,942
Mitigation Project Cost
$20,000
Benefit -Cost Ratio
3.85
at one cost may not be worth doing at a higher cost. Let's assume that the elevation
costs $20,000. This $20,000 cost occurs once, up front, in the year that the elevation
project is completed.
The benefits, however, accrue statistically over the lifetime of the mitigation project.
Following FEMA convention, we assume that a residential mitigation project has a
useful lifetime of 30 years. Money (benefits) received in the future has less value than
money received today because of the time value of money. To take the time value of
money into account, we need to do what is known as a "present value calculation."
We compare the present value of the anticipated stream of benefits over 30 years in
the future to the up -front out -of- pocket cost of the mitigation project.
A present value calculation depends on the lifetime of the mitigation project and on
what is known as the discount rate. The discount rate may be viewed simply as the
interest rate you might earn on the cost of the project if you didn't spend the money on
the mitigation project. Let's assume that this mitigation project is to be funded by
FEMA, which uses a 7% discount rate to evaluate hazard mitigation projects. With a
30 -year lifetime and a 7% discount rate, the "present value coefficient" which is the
value today of $1.00 per year in benefits over the lifetime of the mitigation project is
12.41. That is, each $1.00 per year in benefits over 30 years is worth $12.41 now.
The benefit -cost results are now as follows.
Table 10
Benefit -Cost Results
These results indicate a benefit -cost ratio of 3.85. Thus, in FEMA's terms the
mitigation project is cost - effective and eligible for FEMA funding. Taking into account
the time value of money, which is essential for a correct economic calculation, results
in lower benefits than if we simply multiplied the annual benefits times the 30 year
project useful lifetime. Economically, simply multiplying the annual benefits times the
lifetime would ignore the time value of money and thus gives an incorrect, spurious
result.
The above discussion of benefit -cost analysis of a flood hazard mitigation project is
intended to illustrate the basic concepts. Very similar principles apply to mitigation
projects for earthquakes or any other natural hazards. The role of benefit -cost analysis
in prioritizing and implementing mitigation projects in Kodiak Island Borough is
addressed in Section 5 (Mitigation Strategy).
15
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community of Kodiak Island Borough, AK
Section 1 Public Planning Process
The items below describe how the public was involved during the
drafting stage and prior to the plan approval:
Public Involvement consisted of the following items:
1.1 Narrative Description
1.1.1 Community Involvement in Kodiak Island Borough's Mitigation
Planning.
Kodiak Island Borough recognizes that community involvement is an
essential step in developing a mitigation plan. The Borough has
involved the community throughout the mitigation planning process to
help ensure that the final plan reflects the values and needs of
residents, as well as building the support base necessary to implement
the Plan. Citizen involvement has provided valuable historical
knowledge about the community that increases the completeness and
accuracy of the Plan. Kodiak Island Borough also understands that the
area's businesses and service providers also have key information and
their involvement in the planning process was also essential.
1.1.2 Previous Mitigation Planning Activities
To a limited extent, mitigation planning began in Kodiak Island
Borough after the 1964 earthquake, with greatly enhanced community
awareness of earthquakes and tsunamis. Since then, successive
building codes have incorporated enhancements in the seismic
provisions as they have been developed by the structural engineering
community. Awareness of the potential impacts of tsunami resulted in
efforts to identify tsunami inundation zones and to map evacuation
routes. In most communities, schools have been designated as
tsunami shelters. However, separate tsunami shelters have been
established in communities where schools are located within areas
potentially affected by tsunamis, including Akhiok, Larsen Bay, Old
Harbor, and Ouzinkie.
In the 1980s, the development of the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal
Management Program included about a dozen public workshops and
public meetings, as well as numerous work sessions of the Kodiak
Island Borough Assembly, the Planning and Zoning Commission and
the OCS Advisory Council. Mitigation of the risk to life and property in
the coastal zone from seismic, avalanche, erosion, flood, and wind
hazards was an explicit objective of this planning process.
More recently, the 1999 -2000 update of the Kodiak Island Borough
1
Emergency Operations Plan included a substantial review of hazards,
vulnerability and risk for 15 natural and human - caused hazards. The
development process for this Emergency Operations Plan included
extensive public meetings, discussion, review and commentary by
stakeholders and the general public.
Kodiak Island Borough's commitment to hazard mitigation planning is
also demonstrated by an ongoing outreach program of public
education about hazards and steps to mitigation the impacts of
hazards. These efforts include a widely- distributed 42 -page brochure
which provides general preparedness and response guidance for
disasters and also discusses:
tsunami Warning signals and evacuation shelters,
earthquake mitigation tips for homes, and
preparation and response to ash fall events.
Public outreach and education efforts for natural hazards also include
regular publication of guidance similar to that in the brochure
discussed above in the Kodiak Daily Mirror.
Kodiak Island Borough's ongoing planning and zoning activities
through the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural
Review Board also bear directly on mitigation issues. These activities
all have ample opportunity for ongoing public involvement.
Finally, in 2005 Kodiak Island Borough undertook a detailed seismic
risk evaluation for all of the public schools on the island. This
evaluation included regular meetings of an advisory committee and a
public meeting on November 21, 2005.
1.2 Planning Team Information
The planning team /committee for the development of the Kodiak Island
Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan consisted of the following members:
Kodiak Island Borough Staff
Mary Ogle, Director, Community Development
Duane Dvorak, Planner, Community Development
Bud Cassidy, Director, Engineering & Facilities
Other Representatives
Doug Mathers, Building Official
Gary Carver, Planning and Zoning Commissioner, Geological
Consultant
Jerroll Friend, Chair, Planning and Zoning and Building Contractor
Jim Devlin, Engineer, Kodiak Electrical Association
Linda Freed, City Manager, City of Kodiak
Andy Nault, Fire Chief, City of Kodiak
2
Martin Owen, Harbormaster, City of Kodiak
Robert Lachowsky, USCG ISC Commander
T.C. Kamai, Police Chief, City of Kodiak
Val Maxwell, Village Public Safety Coordinator
Kenneth Goettel, Natural Hazards Consultant
1.3 Public Involvement in Planning Process
To ensure that the Kodiak Island Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan has
been prepared and reviewed by the key stakeholders within the
community, several public meetings were held during the development
of the draft and final plans. Furthermore, the draft plan was widely
distributed for review and comment by citizens and stakeholders.
The first public meeting was held on November 9, 2005. In addition to
members of the Mitigation Plan Committee, this meeting was also
attended by representatives of the KMXT radio station and the Kodiak
Daily Mirror. At this meeting, the mitigation plan requirements, goals
and objectives were discussed. Extensive discussions about the natural
hazards posing threats to the Borough started the process of
identifying mitigation priorities.
The second public meeting was held on November 21, 2005. This
meeting including further discussions of hazards, past experience with
disaster events, and identification of facilities deemed critical for the
safety and economic well being of the Borough and its citizens.
The draft Kodiak Island Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared by the
consultant, Kenneth Goettel, and delivered to the Borough on January
3, 2006. This draft plan was circulated for review and comment by the
Mitigation Plan Committee and also distributed to each community
within the Borough for additional review and comment.
A revised draft final Hazard Mitigation Plan was presented for public
review at a meeting of the Kodiak Assembly on TBD. The Plan was
approved by the Assembly and sent to the Alaska Division of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management for review and
forwarding to FEMA for further review.
1.4 Other Interested Party Involvement
This section describes the Involvement of other interested parties in
Plan development.
The primary interested parties for the Kodiak Island Borough Hazard
Mitigation Plan are the citizens of the Borough, the Kodiak Island
Borough and the seven incorporated or recognized communities within
the Borough. These communities include the cities of Akhiok, Kodiak,
Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions as well as the tribal
village of Karluk.
Other interested parties or organizations include the US Coast Guard,
3
which is represented on the Mitigation Plan Committee, the Kodiak
Chamber of Commerce, the Kodiak Island Borough School District, and
the Native Housing Authority - Kodiak Island Housing Authority.
The State of Alaska, especially the Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management, is an interested party and has provided
much guidance and support throughout the mitigation planning
process.
Finally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has
provided funding for the development of the Kodiak Island Borough
Hazard Mitigation Plan and is a potential source of funding for future
mitigation projects within the Borough.
1.5 Review of Technical and Fiscal Resources
This section describes the review of technical and fiscal resources:
LOCAL TECHNICAL AND FISCAL RESOURCES
Local technical resources related to mitigation planning and
implementation include the following.
The Community Development Department has primary responsibility
for land use planning within the Kodiak Island Borough, including
providing staff for the Planning and Zoning Commission, with
commensurate technical experience
The Engineering and Facilities Department has responsibility for
administration of codes related to construction and utility
improvements on Borough -owned facilites, with commensurate
technical experience.
Overall, the Kodiak Island Borough also has the necessary fiscal and
financial management experience to implement mitigation actions,
including grants experience.
STATE OF ALASKA TECHNICAL AND FISCAL RESOURCES.
DHS &EM has also been actively working with local governments
throughout the State to generate interest and develop initiatives for
hazard mitigation. The focus of this initiative is to generate interest at
the local level and create advocates for the program. This work has
taken place through the following forums:
1)DHS &EM mitigation staff schedule and conduct Mitigation for
Emergency Managers workshops to educate local emergency
managers on the various mitigation programs and initiatives that are
available and the benefits of those programs. These workshops provide
an opportunity for an exchange of ideas and the development of
mitigation initiatives based on the evaluation of State and local needs.
Additionally, it helps generate interest in the mitigation program from
4
the ground up.
2)The DHS &EM Spring Conference is an annual event and includes
workshops on a variety of subjects. One of those workshops addresses
the mitigation program. Topics have included the mitigation planning
process, risk assessment, identification and development of viable
mitigation projects, cost benefit analysis, and public - private
partnerships. Attendees include Federal, State, and local emergency
management officials, State and local elected representatives,
business and industry representatives, and volunteer organizations.
3)DHS &EM will be publishing a quarterly newsletter starting in Jan
2005. Its purpose is to address issues of concern related to all aspects
of emergency management, to include hazard mitigation. This
newsletter will be sent to emergency management officials, State and
local elected officials and posted on DHS &EM web site. The newsletter
explains mitigation planning requirements, solicits ideas /initiatives not
already identified, highlights community mitigation success stories,
and explains Federal /State mitigation requirements.
4)The State mitigation program is making a concerted effort to spread
the word on the short and Tong -term benefits of well - planned,
comprehensive mitigation initiatives. Include using newsletters,
training workshops, conferences, success stories, etc.
While the formal adoption of codes and standards may not be possible
for some jurisdictions, efforts to encourage local government,
businesses, and individuals to voluntarily adopt building practices and
land use planning that consider mitigation measures. By
demonstrating the long -term benefits of these measures to the
community at large, we are seeing more of these initiatives take hold.
Many jurisdictions are getting involved in various on -going planning
activities related to community growth. These may include:
Land Use Planning. local governments are using land use planning to
identify areas subject to damage from natural hazards and are working
to keep inappropriate development out of those areas.
Subdivision Regulations. Jurisdictions are starting to look at the
impacts of existing and planned subdivision developments and
methods to reduce and /or eliminate those impacts. Combinations of
storm water retention projects and locally funded buyouts are making
a significant difference in this area.
Capital Improvement Planning. More and more jurisdictions are
considering cost - effective mitigation measures when developing capital
improvement projects. Success stories continue to show that
development, with associated mitigation measures, can take place
with minimal natural hazard risk. Disseminating these success stories
will continue to strengthen the overall mitigation program at both the
state and local levels.
Data Limitation Note: DHS &EM's knowledge of and ability to analyze
local policies, programs and capabilities will continue to improve
through submitted and coordinated local mitigation plans. DHS &EM will
incorporate that improved knowledge and analysis in future updates of
the State Hazard Mitigation Plan, as local plans are coordinated and
approved by the State and FEMA.
OTHER STATE RESOURCES
Department of Public Safety
The Department of Public Safety provides legal counsel to DHS &EM for
mitigation and other emergency management related issues, as
needed.
The Community Health and Emergency Medical Services (CHEMS) is a
section within Division of Public Health within the Dept. of Health and
Social Services (DHSS). DHSS is charged with promoting and
protecting the public health and one of CHEMS' responsibilities is
developing, implementing, and maintaining a statewide comprehensive
emergency medical services system. The department's statutory
mandate (AS 18.08.010) requires it to:
(1) Coordinate public and private agencies engaged in the planning
and delivery of emergency medical services, including trauma care, to
plan an emergency medical services system;
(2) Assist public and private agencies to deliver emergency medical
services, including trauma care, through the award of grants in aid;
(3) Conduct, encourage, and approve programs of education and
training designed to upgrade the knowledge and skills of health
personnel involved in emergency medical services, including trauma
care
(4) Establish and maintain a process under which hospitals and clinics
can represent themselves to be trauma centers because they
voluntarily meet criteria adopted by the department which are based
on an applicable national evaluation system.
In addition to these responsibilities, the section is heavily involved in
planning and responding to bioterrorist events.
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
The Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development administers the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program funds and administers various flood mitigation
projects, including the acquisition of flood -prone homes and
businesses, throughout the State. This department also administers
programs for state "distressed" and "targeted" communities.
Division of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
The Department of Environmental Conservations (DEC) primary roles
and responsibilities concerning hazards mitigation are ensuring safe
food and safe water, and pollution prevention and pollution response.
ADEC ensures water treatment plants, landfills, and bulk fuel storage
tank farms are safely constructed and operated in communities.
Agency and facility response plans include hazards identification and
pollution prevention and response strategies.
Division of Forestry (DOF)
The Department of Forestry participates in a statewide wildfire control
program in cooperation with the forest industry, rural fire departments
and other agencies. Prescribed burning may increase the risks of fire
hazards; however, prescribed burning reduces the availability of fire
fuels and therefore the potential for future, more serious fires.
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT /PF)
The Department of Transportation and Public Facilites (DOT /PF)
personnel provide technical assistance to the various emergency
management programs, to include mitigation. This assistance is
addressed in the DHS &EM- DOT /PF Memorandum of Agreement and
includes, but is not limited to:Environmental reviews; Archaeological
surveys; and Historic preservation reviews. In addition, DOT /PF and
DHS &EM coordinate buyout projects to ensure that there are no
potential right -of -way conflicts with future use of land for bridge and
highway projects, and collaborate on earthquake mitigation.
Additionally, DOT /PF provides safe, efficient, economical and effective
operation of the State's highways, harbors and airports. The
Department uses it's Planning, Design & Engineering, Maintenance &
Operations and Intelligent Transportation Systems resources to
identify the hazard, plan and initiate mitigation activities to meet the
transportation needs of Alaskans and make Alaska a better place to
live and work. The Department budgets for the temporary replacement
bridges and materials necessary to make the multi -model
transportation system operational following a natural disaster.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administers
various projects designed to reduce stream bank erosion, reduce
localized flooding, improve drainage, and improve discharge water
quality through the storm water grant program funds. Within DNR, the
Division of Geology and Land Survey is responsible for the use and
development of Alaska's mineral, land and water resources, and
collaboration on earthquake mitigation.
FEDERAL RESOURCES
The federal government requires local governments to have a hazard
mitigation plan in place to be eligible for funding opportunities through
FEMA such as the Pre - Disaster Mitigation Assistance Program and the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The Mitigation Technical Assistance
Programs available to local governments are also a valuable resource.
FEMA may also provide temporary housing assistance through rental
assistance, mobile homes, furniture rental, mortgage assistance, and
emergency home repairs. The Disaster Preparedness Improvement
Grant also promotes educational opportunities with respect to hazard
awareness and mitigation.
FEMA, through its Emergency Management Institute, offers training in
many aspects of emergency management, including hazard mitigation.
FEMA has also developed a large number of documents that address
implementing hazard mitigation at the local level. Five key resource
documents are available from FEMA Publication Warehouse (1 -800-
480 -2520) and are briefly described below:
How -to Guides. FEMA has developed a series of how -to guides to
assist states, communities, and tribes in enhancing their hazard
mitigation planning capabilities. The first four guides describe the four
majorphases of hazard mitigation planning.. The last five how -to
guides address special topics that arise in hazard mitigation planning
such as conducting cost- benefit analysis and preparing multi -
jurisdictional plans. The use of worksheets, checklists, and tables
make these guides a practical source of guidance to address all stages
of the hazard mitigation planning process. They also include special
tips on meeting DMA 2000 requirements
( http: / /www.fema.gov /fima /planhowto.shtm).
Post - Disaster Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance for State and Local
Governments. FEMA DAP -12, September 1990. This handbook explains
the basic concepts of hazard mitigation and shows state and local
governments how they can develop and achieve mitigation goals
within the context of FEMA's post- disaster hazard mitigation planning
requirements. The handbook focuses on approaches to mitigation, with
an emphasis on multi- objective planning.
Mitigation Resources for Success CD. FEMA 372, September 2001.
This CD contains a wealth of information about mitigation and is useful
for state and local government planners and other stakeholders in the
mitigation process. It provides mitigation case studies, success stories,
information about Federal mitigation programs, suggestions for
mitigation measures to homes and businesses, appropriate relevant
mitigation publications, and contact information.
A Guide to Federal Aid in Disasters. FEMA 262, April 1995. When
disasters exceed the capabilities of state and local governments, the
President's disaster assistance program (administered by FEMA) is the
primary source of federal assistance. This handbook discusses the
procedures and process for obtaining this assistance, and provides a
brief overview of each program.
The Emergency Management Guide for Business and Industry. FEMA
141, October 1993. This guide provides a step -by -step approach to
emergency management planning, response, and recovery. It also
details a planning process that businesses can follow to better prepare
for a wide range of hazards and emergency events. This effort can
enhance a business's ability to recover from financial losses, Toss of
market share, damages to equipment, and product or business
interruptions. This guide could be of great assistance to the
communitys industries and businesses located in hazard prone areas.
Other federal resources include:
Department of Agriculture. Assistance provided includes: Emergency
Conservation Program, Non - Insured Assistance, Emergency Watershed
Protection, Rural Housing Service, Rural Utilities Service, and Rural
Business and Cooperative Service.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Weatherization Assistance Program. This program minimizes
the adverse effects of high energy costs on low- income, elderly, and
handicapped citizens through client education activities and
weatherization services such as an all- around safety check of major
energy systems, including heating system modifications and insulation
checks.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Homes and
Communities, Section 108 Loan Guarantee Programs. This program
provides loan guarantees as security for federal loans for acquisition,
rehabilitation, relocation, clearance, site preparation, special economic
development activities, and construction of certain public facilities and
housing.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community
Development Block Grants. Provides grant assistance and technical
assistance to aid communities in planning activities that address issues
detrimental to the health and safety of local residents, such as housing
rehabilitation,public services, community facilities, and infrastructure
improvements that would primarily benefit low -and moderate - income
persons.
Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance. Provides weekly unemployment
subsistence grants for those who become unemployed because of a
major disaster or emergency. Applicants must have exhausted all
benefits for which they would normally be eligible.
Federal Financial Institutions. Member banks of FDIC, FRS or FHLBB
may be permitted to waive early withdrawal penalties for Certificates
of Deposit and Individual Retirement Accounts.
Internal Revenue Service, Tax Relief. Provides extensions to current
year's tax return, allows deductions for disaster losses, and allows
amendment of previous tax returns to reflect loss back to three years.
United States Small Business Administration. May provide low- interest
disaster loans to individuals and businesses that have suffered a loss
due to a disaster. Requests for SBA loan assistance should be
submitted to the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management.
OTHER RESOURCES
The following are Web sites that provide focused access
to valuable planning resources for communities interested in sustainable
development activities.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, http: / /www.fema.gov - includes
links to information, resources, and grants that communities can use in
planning and implementation of sustainable measures.
American Planning Association, http: / /www.planning.org - a non - profit
professional association that serves as a resource for planners, elected
officials, and citizens concerned with planning and growth initiatives.
Institute for Business and Home Safety, http: / /ibhs.org - an initiative of
the insurance industry to reduce deaths, injuries, property damage,
economic losses, and human suffering caused by natural disasters. Online
resources provide information on natural hazards, community land use, and
ways citizens can protect their property from damage.
Additional State Resources
DHS &EM is responsible for coordinating all aspects of emergency
management for the State of Alaska. Public education is one of its identified
main categories for mitigation efforts.
Improving hazard mitigation technical assistance for local governments is
another high priority list item for the State of Alaska. Providing hazard
mitigation training, current hazard information, and the facilitation of
communication with other agencies would encourage local hazard
mitigation efforts. ADES provides resources for mitigation planning on their
Web site at http: / /www.ak- prepared.com.
Other state resources include:
Division of Senior Services: Provides special outreach services for seniors,
including food, shelter and clothing.
Division of Insurance: Provides assistance in obtaining copies of policies
and provides information regarding filing claims.
Department of Military and Veteran's Affairs: Provides damage appraisals
and settlements for VA- insured homes, and assists with filing of survivor
benefits.
Other Funding Sources and Resources
American Red Cross. Provides for the critical needs of individuals such as
food, clothing, shelter, and supplemental medical needs. Provides
recovery needs such as furniture, home repair, home purchasing, essential
tools, and some bill payment may be provided.
10
1.6 Review of Existing Plans
This section describes the review and incorporation if appropriate of
existing plans, policies, and ordinances:
A review of previous mitigation planning activities and related eforts
within Kodiak Island Borough was given previously in Section 1.1
(Public Planning Process).
The following are a list of existing programs and strategies established
through the State of Alaska:
DHS &EM operates booths at several State fairs and other important
functions including the Alaska Tanana Valley Fair in Fairbanks, the
Alaska State Fair in Palmer, the Kodiak Crab Festival, the Alaska
Municipal League, the Alaska Federation of Natives Convention, and
the Alaska Municipal Clerks Workshop, providing information on
hazards in Alaska as well as mitigation and preparedness measures.
These activities provide excellent opportunities to reach many Alaska
residents.
Other public education opportunities include school presentations,
outreach trips to potential flood communities, an annual Emergency
Management Conference, public information media campaigns,
numerous presentations and briefings for professional organizations
and community groups (Chamber of Commerce, Rotary Club, media
outlets, etc.), and training sessions and exercises with partner
agencies /groups.
Alaska Volcano Observatory
The Alaska Volcano Observatory, a joint program of USGS,
DNR /DGGS, and UAF /GI, is the State's principal agency with
responsibility to assess, monitor, and issue early warning of volcanic
activity and hazards in Alaska. AVO was formed in 1988, and uses
Federal, State, and university resources to monitor and study Alaskas
hazardous volcanoes, to predict and record eruptive activity, and to
mitigate volcanic hazards to life and property.
As of January 2002, AVO maintains seismic monitoring networks on 23
of Alaska's 41 active volcanoes. Data from these networks are
recorded 24 hours per day and examined for precursory signs of
eruptive activity. Several times a day, AVO also examines satellite
images of Alaskan, Kamchatkan, and northern Kuril volcanoes for signs
of eruptive activity or possible precursory heating of the ground. These
two primary data streams are used routinely to assess the likelihood
and character of volcanic activity. Additional monitoring methods such
as space -based satellite radar interferometry, are under development.
AVO regularly disseminates information about the status of volcanoes
in Alaska and neighboring Kamchatka. Each week, AVO distributes a
written status report to more than 100 recipients at Federal, State,
local agencies, the media and the public via Internet, fax, and
11
recorded message line. During volcanic crises, or if precursors to
eruptive activity are noted, AVO follows a rigid emergency call -down
protocol, as well as using Internet and fax outlets to notify authorities,
the media, the aviation industry, and the public.
Outreach
The "Quake Cottage" is an earthquake simulator operated through a
partnership between DHS &EM and the Municipality of Anchorage,
Office of Emergency Management and is being used in earthquake
outreach activities. It is taken to schools, businesses, and special
events to educate people about what can be done to non - structurally
mitigate a structure and for general disaster preparedness awareness.
The Earthquake Resistant Model Home was developed by FEMA and
the State of Washington to show structural mitigation and other
bracing options for either retrofit applications or during new
construction. DHS &EM takes this model on the road to fairs, home
shows and other functions to demonstrate earthquake mitigation
options.
The Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC) is a project between
the USGS and the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute
(UAF /GI) to collect and analyze seismic data as well as disseminate
information about earthquakes in Alaska.
Inclusion of earthquake- hazard mitigation language in many local
coastal district plans and enforceable policies.
Identification, mapping, and evaluation of geologic hazards by
DNR /DGGS.
Cooperative program between UAF /GI and DNR /DGGS to develop
seismic site - response and soil class maps for Anchorage, funded by
the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation.
Policies and standards implemented by DOT &PF for earthquake -
resistant design and construction of State roads and facilities.
The Alaska Coastal Management Program (at 6 AAC 80.050) requires
State agencies and coastal districts to identify known geophysical
hazard areas. The appropriate State or local authority may not
approve development in geophysical hazard areas until siting, design,
and construction measures for minimizing property damage and
protecting against loss of life is provided.
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community of Kodiak Island Borough, AK
Section 2 Jurisdiction Participation Information
Akhiok
Karluk
Kodiak
Larsen Bay
Old Harbor
Ouzinkie
I Port Lions
Jurisdictions in Kodiak Island Borough
2.1 Adoption by Local Governing Body
2.1.1 Primary Point of Contact /Chairperson
The Point of Contact listed below is the Chairperson and Director of
the Planning Committee:
Duane Dvorak
Associate Planner
KIB Community Development Department
Kodiak Island Borough
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, AK 99615
9074869362 (Office)
9074869296 (Fax)
dd vorak@kib.co.kodiak.ak.us
Secondary Point of Contact
Ken Goettel
5307500441
Goettel & Associates Inc.
Akhiok: Point of Contact for information:
Diana Simeonoff
Mayor
Akhiok, AK 99615
(907) 836 -2229 (Office)
(907) 836 -2209 (Fax)
Karluk: Point of Contact for information:
Joyce Jones
Utility Manager
Karluk, AK
(907) 241 -2228 (Office)
(907) 241 -2210 (Fax)
1
Kodiak Island
=Borough Assembly
Kodiak: Point of Contact for information:
Linda Freed, City Manager
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
907.486.8640
907.486.8600 Fax
Larsen Bay: Point of Contact for information:
Allen Panamaroff Sr.
Mayor
Larsen Bay, AK 0
(907) 847 -2211 (Office)
(907) 847 -2239 (Fax)
Old Harbor: Point of Contact for information:
Russell Fox
Treasurer, City of Old Harbor
P.O. Box 109
Old Harbor, AK 99643
(907) 286 -2203 (Office)
(907) 286 -2278 (Fax)
Ouzinkie: Point of Contact for information:
Dawn Morrison
Clerk, Ouzinkie Tribal Council
P.O. Box 130
Ouzinkie, AK 99644
(907) 680 -2259 (Office)
(907) 680-2259 (Fax)
ouzinkietc @compuserve.com
Port Lions: Point of Contact for information:
Brad Ames
VPSO
City of Port Lions P.O. Box 110
Port Lions, AK 99550
(907) 454 -2330 (Office)
(907) 454 -2420 (Fax)
cityofportlions @hotmail.com
2.1.2 Promulgation Authority Information
This Hazard Mitigation Plan was reviewed and approved by the
following Promulgation Authorities:
Akhiok
Title
Kodiak Island Borough -
:Governing Body for Kodiak Island Kodiak Island Borough
Borough
Organization
P hone
907 486 -9374
INSERT: Scan cif KIS Plan adoption by the Assembly, when available,
3
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community of Kodiak Island Borough, AK
Section 3 Jurisdiction Information
This Section provides a broad perspective, brief history, and describes the
make up and development of the region.
FIPS: INSERT
Latitude:
57.8
Longitude:
-152.4
Population:
13,466
Topography:
The Kodiak Island Borough is an island archipelago with one main
island and numerous smaller mostly uninhabited islands. Kodiak lies
about 250 air miles south of Anchorage. The Borough also includes
coastal portions of the Alaska Peninsula, northwest of Kodiak Island
across the Shelikof Strait. The total area of the Borough is about
12,024 square miles, with a land area of about 6,560 square miles.
The defining characteristics of Kodiak Island Borough are its
geographic isolation and its small population (13,466, 2004 State
Demographer estimate). The only access to Kodiak Island is by air or
sea, with both transportation modes subject to frequent weather
delays or cancellations. Thus, in normal times and especially so under
disaster conditions, Kodiak Island Borough must be largely self -
sufficient. This isolation makes mitigation planning and mitigation
actions to reduce the risks of natural disasters even more important
for Kodiak Island than for less isolated communities.
All of the population centers of Kodiak Island Borough are located on
the coast, with the interior regions being largely unpopulated. Much of
the Borough is included in National Wildlife Refuges. Elevations on
Kodiak Island range from sea level to above 4000 feet in the interior
Most of the population of Kodiak Island is concentrated on the
northeastern end of the island, including the city of Kodiak and
surrounding communities. These communities are connected by a road
network of about 140 miles. However, Kodiak Island Borough also
includes several remote, isolated small cities and villages which are
accessible only by sea or by air.
1
Geographic Area
Population
13,913
Kodiak Island Borough
Cities
Ahkiok
80
Kodiak
6,334
Larsen Bay
115
Old Harbor
237
Ouzinkie
225
Port Lions
256
Census Defined Place
Aleneva
68
Chiniak
50
Karluk
27
Kodiak Station
1,840
Womens Bay
690
Remainder of KIB
3,991
Demographics:
Kodiak Island Borough has a population of about 13,466 (2004 State Demographer
estimate. 2000 Census population data include data for Kodiak Island Borough, for
six cities, for six "census defined places" as well as for the remainder of the Borough
outside of the named places. These data are summarized below in Table 3.1
Climate:
The climate for Kodiak Island Borough is moderate with a very strong
marine influence, including frequent cloud cover and fog. The average
annual precipitation is about 77 inches. Average monthly precipitation
varies from about 4 inches in July to nearly 9 inches in January.
Average annual snowfall is about 71 inches, mostly between November
and April. February has the highest average monthly snowfall of about
16 inches. The maximum annual snowfall observed since the weather
station was established at the airport in 1972 was 138 inches in 1975-
6.
Mean daily high temperatures range from 62 degrees in August to
about 36 degrees in December, January and February. Mean daily low
temperatures range from 49 degrees in August to about 26 degrees in
December, January and February.
Table 3.1
Kodiak Island Borough Population Data (2000 Census)
Of the five census defined places shown above, Karluk is a recognized village. The
other four census defined places are unincorporated portions of the Borough with no
local government functions and no authority to adopt a mitigation plan. Kodiak
Station is the census named placed more commonly known as the U.S. Coast Guard
Base.
Thus, for the purposes of the multi jurisdictional Kodiak Island Borough Hazard
Mitigation Plan, the covered jurisdictions are the Kodiak Island Borough, the six
2
Demographic Data 1 KIB
Age
Under 5 years
9.7%
Under 18 years
32.5%
18 years and over
67.6%
18 years to 65 years
63.0%
65 years and over
4.6%
Ethnicity of Households
White
59.7%
Black or African Amerian
1.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native
14.6%
Asian
16.0%
Native Hawaiin and Pacific Islander
0.8%
Other or two or more races
5.2%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
6.1%
Language Spoken at Home
English only
75.5%
Language other than English
24.5%
Spanish
12.4%
Other Indo- European languages
2.1%
Asian and Pacific Island languages
16.1%
Speak English less than very well
12.4%
Disability Status (percent with disability)
Age 5 to 20
5
Age 21 to 64
13.1%
Age 65 and over
43.0%
cities and the village of Karluk. All other unincorporated areas are included within
the Borough's jurisdiction.
2000 Census demographic data for Kodiak Island Borough are summarized below in
Table 3.2.
For emergency planning purposes, children, elderly adults, those with disabilities
and people whose primary language is not English are generally considered special
needs populations. Based on these census data, Kodiak Island Borough has a
substantial population of children, with only a small population of elderly. About 33%
of the population of Kodiak Island Borough are children under 18 years old, while
only about 5% are adults over 65 years old. Kodiak Island Borough has a significant
population of individuals classified as disabled, including about 5% of children from 5
to 20, 13% of adults from 21 to 64 and 43% of those 65 and over.
There is a large population whose primary language is not English, with nearly 25%
speaking a language other than English at home and 12% speaking English less
than well.
Table 3.2
Kodiak Island Borough Demographic Data (2000 Census)
Note: the Age and Ethnicity categories above intentionally
Include overlapping subsets of categories for planning purposes.
3
Demographic Data
KIB
Population 16 years and older
In labor force
74.1%
Employed (civilian)
62.6%
Armed Forces
8.1%
Unemployed
3.4%
Not in labor force
25.9%
Commuting to work
Drove alone
62
Carpooled
16.8%
Public transportation
1.2%
Walked
9.9%
Other means (includes bicycles)
4.6%
Worked at home
2.7%
Incomes and poverty levels
Median household income
$54,636
Median family income
$58,834
Families below poverty level
4.6%
with children under 18 years
5.8%
with children under 5 years
6.6%
Additional demographic and economic data for Kodiak Island Borough are shown
below in Table 3.3.
U.S. Census data for Year 2000 showed nearly 8,000 residents as employed or in
the armed forces. The unemployment rate at that time was 3.4 percent, although
25.9 percent of all adults were not in the work force. The median household income
was $54,636, per capita income was $22,195, and 4.6 percent of families were living
below the poverty level. However, these Census data should be interpreted
cautiously, because there are wide variations within Kodiak Island Borough from
community to community.
Table 3.3
Demographic and Economic Data
2000 Census data show total housing units numbered 5,156, and vacant housing
units numbered 732. Vacant housing units used only seasonally numbered 308.
Census data show 4,424 occupied dwelling units in Kodiak Island Borough,
classified as shown below in Table 3.4. The majority of occupied housing units in
Kodiak Island Borough are owner - occupied single family homes, with renter -
occupied units comprising about 45% of the housing stock.
4
Demographic Data
KIB
Housing Units
Number
Occupied units
4,424
Owner - occupied units
2,425
Renter - occupied units
1,999
Vacant units
732
Vacancy percentage
14.20%
Housing Units by Type
708
Single- family detached
2,253
Single- family attached
379
Multi- family
1,413
Mobile Home
372
Boat, RV, van etc.
7
Demographic Data
KIB
Year Structure Built
Number
Percent
1990 to 2000
780
17.63%
1980 -1989
1,183
26.74%
1970 -1979
1,134
25.63%
1960 -1969
708
16.00%
1940 -1959
581
13.13%
1939 or earlier
38
0.86%
TOTAL
4,424
100.00%
Table 3.4
Kodiak Island Borough Housing Data
The age distribution of the occupied housing stock indicates that the majority of the
housing stock was built when relatively recent seismic design provisions were in
place. About 70% of the housing stock was built since 1970, with only about 1%
being pre -1940 vintage. Older homes, especially those built before 1940 may be
more vulnerable to earthquake damage than newer homes. These data are shown
below in Table 3.5
Table 3.5
Age Distribution for Housing Stock
Economy:
Kodiak Island has been inhabited since about 8,000 B.C. and was
settled by Russian fur trappers in 1792. Sea otter pelts were the
primary incentive for Russian exploration at that time. Kodiak was the
first capital of Russian Alaska, which later moved to Sitka. A Russian
Orthodox Church seminary is based in Kodiak, one of the two existing
seminaries of this kind in the U.S.
Alaska was purchased by the U.S. in 1867. Since the Aleutian Campaign
of World War II, several branches of the military have maintained a
presence in Kodiak and the Coast Guard comprises a significant
5
portion of the Borough's population.
The Borough was incorporated in 1963. The 1960s brought growth in
commercial fisheries and fish processing, along with an increase in
tourism for fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing. The Island culture is
grounded in commercial and subsistence fishing activities and is
primarily non - Native, although about 18% of the population is Alaska
Native or part Native.
Industry:
Fishing, fish processing, retail, services and the health care industries
are the key employers. The Coast Guard, City, Borough, State and
federal agencies also provide employment. 767 borough residents hold
commercial fishing permits. Subsistence activities and sport fishing are
prevalent. The Kodiak Launch Complex, a $38 million low -Earth orbit
launch facility on 27 acres, was recently completed at Cape Narrow
near Chiniak. The Kodiak Launch Complex, operated by the Alaska
Aerospace Dev. Corp., is the only commercial launch range in the U.S.
that is not co- located with a federal facility. The KLC launched its first
payload in November 1998. In August 2003, Alaska Aerospace Dev.
Corp. was awarded an $8 million contract to handle two or three
Missile Defense Agency launches in 2003 -2004. The Kodiak - launched
missiles will be targets, not interceptors. With similar launches planned
annually over the next five years, the contract could be worth up to
$40 million. The Kodiak Chamber of Commerce provides economic
development services to the area (www.kodiak.org).
Kodiak is accessible by air and sea. Airports and seaplane facilities
serve air traffic island -wide. The Alaska Marine Highway System
operates a ferry service from Whitter and Homer. Two boat harbors
serve commercial and transient vessels. Approximately 140 miles of
roads connect island communities on the east side of the island.
Major Rivers and Watersheds:
Kodiak Island Borough contains numerous small rivers and streams,
most of which are located in unpopulated or very lightly populated
areas. Streams and rivers near populated areas include: Buskin River,
Pillar Creek, Monashka Creek, Sargent Creek, Russian Creek, American
River, and Chiniak River. Other major rivers on Kodiak Island include
the Karluk River, Ayakulik River and the Afognak River. There are also
numerous large rivers on the mainland portion of Kodiak Island
Borough.
Associated Files
File Name: KIB Demographics.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 12/31/2005
User: Duane Dvorak
Subject:
Description: Narrative about KIB demographics, with Tables of
census data.
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community of Kodiak Island Borough, AK
Section 4 Risk Assessment
Mitigation simply means actions that reduce the potential for negative consequences
from future disasters. That is, mitigation actions reduce future casualties (deaths
and injuries), damages to buildings and infrastructure, and economic losses.
Completely eliminating the risk of future disasters in Kodiak Island Borough is neither
technologically possible nor economically feasible. However, substantially reducing
the negative consequences of future disasters is achievable with the implementation
of a pragmatic Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Risk assessment is always the foundation of mitigation planning. In simple terms,
risk is the level of threat to people and the built environment of buildings and
infrastructure. The risk posed by any natural hazard depends on three factors:
hazard, exposure and vulnerability.
Hazard refers to natural events such as earthquakes or tsunamis that
may result in damages and casualties. For effective mitigation
planning, hazards must be characterized as quantitatively as possible
in terms of their probability of occurrence and severity. Each natural
hazard has a range of possible events, from minor to moderate to
severe and thus each hazard must be characterized by a range of
events of varying severity. The higher the hazard, the greater the
potential risk.
Exposure refers to the number of people and the quantity and value
of buildings and infrastructure exposed to each hazard. Some
hazards such as earthquakes may impact an entire community, while
other hazards such as landslides or flooding may affect only small
portions of a community. The greater the exposure, the greater the
potential risk.
Vulnerability refers to the damageability of buildings and
infrastructure exposed to a given hazard and the potential for
casualties. For a given inventory exposed to a hazard, the greater the
vulnerability the greater the level of risk for the community.
Hazard, exposure and vulnerability combine to produce RISK, as shown
schematically in the following figure:
Frequency
and Severity
of Hazard Events
Value and
Vulnerability of
Inventory
1
4.1 Overall Hazard Ranking
The MitigationPlan.com template used by the State of Alaska uses a Calculated
Priority Risk Index (CPRI) as one measure of the overall risk posed by each hazard.
The CPRI is calculated by selecting from four pre- defined choices for Probability,
Magnitude /Severity, Warning Time, and Duration. CPRI values are calculated
automatically by a weighted formula from these selections. CPRI values for each
hazard for each of the ten natural hazards considered in the Kodiak Island Borough
Hazard Mitigation Plan are included in the MitigationPlan.com template.
However, these CPRI values are not included in the Kodiak Island Borough Hazard
Mitigation Plan because we believe that these values do not accurately reflect the
relative risk posed by each hazard to Kodiak Island Borough. The CPRI values tend
to overemphasis risk for frequent hazards such as snow avalanches and coastal
erosion, with very minor impacts (casualties, damages, and economic losses). The
CPRI values underemphasize risk from major hazards such as earthquakes and
tsunamis with longer return periods but with very high potential for substantial
casualties, damages and economic impacts.
For example, earthquakes pose the greatest risk for Kodiak Island Borough in terms
of the potential for casualties, damages, and economic impacts. However, the CPRI
score for earthquakes is lower than those for other hazards which pose a much
lower risk to the Borough. The CPRI for earthquakes is low in large part because the
probability is rated "unlikely" because major earthquakes happen less than once very
10 years and because the duration of earthquakes is less than 6 hours.
Rating earthquakes as "unlikely" is misleading to the public and the fact that the
duration of an earthquake may be very short does not in any way reduce the
potential for damages, casualties and economic impact. A more accurate measure
of risk from earthquakes taking into account hazard, exposure, and vulnerability
indicates that the risk from earthquakes is substantially higher than the other natural
hazards which pose risk to the Borough.
The following table reflects professional judgment about the relative risk posed by
each of the ten natural hazards taking into account: the approximate levels of
casualties, damages and economic impacts and the approximate probabilities from a
range of hazard events of varying severity. For example, over a 50 -year or 100 -year
time period, the range of possible earthquake events might result in from roughly 50
deaths to perhaps several hundred deaths. Thus, on average, over a long time
period, earthquakes might result in from one to several deaths per year. On the
other hand, more frequent hazards such as snow avalanches and coastal erosion
might happen every year, but result, on average, in far Tess than one death per year.
Thus, from a life safety risk, earthquakes pose a greater risk than the other hazards,
even though the annual probability is lower for earthquakes. Similar, analyses apply
for estimation of the risk from each hazard for damages and economic impacts.
2
Hazard
Life Safety Risk
Damage and
Economic Risk
Overall Risk
Ranking
1
Earthquake
High
High
Tsunami
High
High
2
Severe Winter Storms'
Low
Moderate
3
Landslides
Low
Moderate
4
Volcano
Low
Moderate
5
Wildland /Urban Fires
Low
Low
6
Flooding
Very Low
Low
7
Erosion
Very Low
Low
8
Snow Avalanche
Low
Very Low
9
Severe Storms
Very Low
Very Low
10
Overall Risk Ranking for Natural Hazards
1 Severe winter storm effects include wind, snow and ice.
2 Severe storm effects include thunderstorms, lightning, hail, and ivu.
3
4.2 Hazard Profile
1. Earthquake
A. Hazard Definition for Earthquake
Historically, awareness of seismic risk in Alaska has generally been high, among
both the public at large and public officials. This high level of awareness reflects the
high level of seismic activity in many parts of Alaska as well as the long lasting
memory of the Good Friday earthquake of March 27, 1964 which was one of the
largest earthquakes experienced anywhere in the world in the past 100 years.
Before reviewing the levels of seismic hazard and seismic risk in Kodiak Island
Borough, we first present a brief earthquake "primer" that reviews some basic
earthquake concepts and terms.
In the simplest terms, earthquakes simply represent sudden movements of the
earth's crust. Earthquakes in Alaska, and throughout the world, occur predominantly
because of plate tectonics - the relative movement of plates of oceanic and
continental rocks that make up the rocky surface of the earth. Most earthquakes
occur on or near the boundaries between the tectonic plates that make up the
earth's crust. However, earthquakes may also occur within plates and some
earthquakes are caused by other geologic phenomena, including volcanic activity.
Earthquakes may impact people, buildings, and infrastructure in several different
ways. The most widespread impacts and damages from earthquakes arise directly
from ground shaking. However, earthquakes often cause other secondary impacts
which may greatly increase damages in affected locations. Examples of such
secondary impacts include: tsunamis, landslides, and soil effects (liquefaction,
settlement, and lateral spreading). In addition, earthquakes in which the fault
movement reaches the surface may cause extreme levels of localized damage to
buildings or infrastructure subjected to such surface rupture.
Earthquake Magnitudes
In the popular press, earthquakes are most often described by their Magnitude (M).
Magnitude is a measure of the total energy released by an earthquake. In technical
detail, there are several different measures of earthquake magnitudes, including
Richter magnitude, moment magnitude and several others. However, such technical
details are beyond the scope of this discussion.
It is important to recognize that the earthquake magnitude scales are not linear, but
rather logarithmic. A M8 earthquake is not twice as powerful as a M4, but rather
thousands of times more powerful. A M7 earthquake releases about 30 times more
energy than a M6, while a M8 releases about 30 times more energy than a M7 and
so on. Thus, great M9 earthquakes release thousands of times as much energy as
do moderate earthquakes in the M6 range.
4
The public often assumes that the larger the magnitude of an earthquake the
"worse" the earthquake. Thus, the "big one" is the M9 earthquake and smaller
earthquakes (M6 or M7) are not the "big one ". However, this is true only in very
general terms. Larger magnitude earthquakes affect larger geographic areas, with
much more widespread damage than smaller magnitude earthquakes. However, for
a given site, the magnitude of an earthquake is NOT a good measure of the severity
of the earthquake at that site. Rather, the intensity of ground shaking at the site
depends on the magnitude of the earthquake and on the distance from the site to the
earthquake. An earthquake is located by its epicenter - the location on the earth's
surface directly above the point of origin of the earthquake.
Earthquake ground shaking diminishes (attenuates) with distance from the epicenter.
Thus, any given earthquake will produce the strongest ground motions near the
earthquake with the intensity of ground motions diminishing with increasing distance
from the epicenter. Thus, for a given site, a smaller earthquake (such as a M6.5)
which is very close to the site could cause greater damage than a much larger
earthquake, such as a M8 or M9 which is quite far away from the particular site.
However, earthquakes at or below M5 are not likely to cause significant damage,
even locally very near the epicenter. Earthquakes between about M5 and M6 are
likely to cause some damage very near the epicenter. Earthquakes of about M6.5 or
greater can cause major damage (e.g., the Northridge earthquake, M6.7), with
damage usually concentrated fairly near the epicenter. Larger earthquakes of M7+
cause damage over increasingly wider geographic areas with the potential for very
high levels of damage near the epicenter. Great earthquakes with M8+ can cause
major damage over wide geographic areas.
Earthquake Ground Motions
There are many measures of the severity or intensity of earthquake ground motions.
A very old, but commonly used, scale is the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale (MMI),
which is a descriptive, qualitative scale that relates severity of ground motions to
types of damage experienced. MMIs range from Ito XII.
More useful, modern intensity scales use terms that can be physically measured with
seismometers, such as the acceleration, velocity, or displacement (movement) of the
ground. The most common physical measure, and the one used in this Mitigation
Plan, is Peak Ground Acceleration or PGA. PGA is a measure of the intensity of
shaking, relative to the acceleration of gravity (g). For example, 1.0 g PGA in an
earthquake (an extremely strong ground motion) means that objects accelerate
sideways at the same rate as if they had been dropped from the ceiling. 10% g PGA
means that the ground acceleration is 10% that of gravity and so on.
The intensity of ground shaking varies not only as a function of M and distance but
also depends on soil types. Soft soils may amplify ground motions and increase the
level of damage. Thus, for any given earthquake there will be contours of varying
intensity of ground shaking. The intensity will generally decrease with distance from
5
the earthquake, but often in an irregular pattern, reflecting soil conditions
(amplification) and possible directionality in the dispersion of earthquake energy.
Damage levels experienced in an earthquake vary with the intensity of ground
shaking and with the seismic capacity of structures. Ground motions of only 1 or 2%
g are widely felt by people; hanging plants and lamps swing strongly, but damage
levels, if any, are usually very low. Ground motions below about 10% g usually
cause only slight damage. Ground motions between about 10% g and 30% g may
cause minor to moderate damage in well- designed buildings, with higher levels of
damage in poorly designed buildings. At this level of ground shaking, only unusually
poor buildings would be subject to potential collapse. Ground motions above about
30% g may cause significant damage in well- designed buildings and very high levels
of damage (including collapse) in poorly designed buildings. Ground motions above
about 50% g may cause high levels of damage in many buildings, even those
designed to resist seismic forces.
Seismic Hazards for Kodiak Island Borough
There are three source regions for earthquakes that can affect Kodiak Island
Borough.
1) Interplate (also called "interface ") earthquakes on the Aleutian Trench
subduction zone, where portions of the Pacific Ocean plate is being
pushed /pulled (subducted) under the North American plate. The 1964 Good
Friday earthquake as an example of this type of earthquake.
2) Intraplate (also called "intraslab ", "Benioff Zone or "deep zone ")
earthquakes within a subducting oceanic plates. The 1999 earthquake which
occurred deep under the southwest part of Kodiak Island is an example of
this type of earthquake.
3) Crustal earthquakes within Kodiak Island. The Narrow Cape fault, located
parallel to the southeastern edge of Kodiak Island is an example of this type
of fault. This fault is active and capable of producing earthquakes in the M7
to M7.5 range. It is also highly likely that there are other similar faults within
Kodiak Island with locations which are unknown or poorly documented.
The geographic and geometric relationships of these earthquake source zones are
shown in the following figure from the KIB Seismic Vulnerability Assessment by G &E
Engineering Systems Inc. (draft report, November 19, 2005).
6
Soil Effects
Earthquake Figure 1
Cross Section Through Kodiak Island
Alaska - Aleutian megathrust
Pacific plate
Volcanos
Modified from Hansen and Ratchkovski (2001)
Shellikof Strait
450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50
Distance from trench (km)
Larsen Bay Kodiak City
'`.,Kodiak Island
Trench
Pacific Ocean Southeast
Other Aspects of Seismic Hazards in Kodiak Island Borough
Most of the damage in earthquakes occurs directly because of ground shaking which
affects buildings and infrastructure. However, there are several other aspects of
earthquakes that can result in very high levels of damage in localized sites: soil
effects, landslides, dam failures and tsunamis.
Liquefaction is a process where loose, wet sediments lose strength during an
earthquake and behave similarly to a liquid. Once a soil liquefies, it will tend to settle
and /or spread laterally. With even very slight slopes, liquefied soils tend to move
sideways downhill (lateral spreading). Settling or lateral spreading can cause major
damage to buildings and to buried infrastructure such as pipes and cables.
In general, areas of high liquefaction potential largely follow river and stream
drainage channels, marshy areas and areas near lakes. In addition, similar soil
conditions may occur in areas where lakes or streams existed in the past but have
now been filled in by natural or human - caused processes.
7
In earthquakes, liquefaction, settling or lateral spreading does not occur in all such
areas or in all earthquakes. However, in larger earthquakes with strong ground
shaking and long duration shaking, liquefaction is likely in many of these high
liquefaction potential areas. Settlements of a few inches or more and lateral spreads
of a few inches to several feet are possible. Even a few inches of settlement or
lateral spreading is likely to cause significant to major damage to buildings or
infrastructure.
Landslides or Avalanches
Earthquakes can also induce landslides, especially if an earthquake occurs during
the rainy season and soils are saturated with water. The areas prone to earthquake -
induced landslides are largely the same as those areas prone to landslides in
general. As with all landslides, areas of steep slopes with loose rock or soils are
most prone to earthquake- induced landslides. See hazard sections dealing with
landslides and avalanches.
Dam Failures
Earthquakes can also cause dam failures in several ways. The most common mode
of earthquake- induced dam failure is slumping or settlement of earthfill dams where
the fill has not been properly compacted. If the slumping occurs when the dam is
full, then overtopping of the dam, with rapid erosion leading to dam failure is
possible. Dam failure is also possible if strong ground motions heavily damage
concrete dams. In a few cases, earthquake- induced landslides into reservoirs have
caused dam failures.
Dam failures are not addressed in this initial hazard mitigation plan, but will be
considered in an enhanced mitigation plan, later in 2006.
Tsunamis and Seiches
Tsunamis, which are often incorrectly referred to as "tidal waves," may result from
earthquakes which cause a sudden rise or fall of part of the ocean floor. Such
movements may produce tsunami waves, which have nothing to do with the ordinary
ocean tides. In the open ocean, far from land, in deep water, tsunami waves may be
only a few inches high and thus be virtually undetectable, except by special
monitoring instruments. These waves travel across the ocean at speeds of several
hundred miles per hour. When such waves reach shallow water near the coastline,
they slow down and can gain great heights.
Another similar earthquake phenomenon is "seiches" which are waves from sloshing
of inland bodies of water. Seiches have caused damages to shorefront structures
and to dams.
Tsunamis and seiches which may affect Kodiak Island are evaluated in the tsunami
hazard section.
8
B. Previous Occurrences for Earthquake
Kodiak Island has a long history of experiencing earthquakes as documented in
native people's oral histories and by reports from early Russian settlers beginning in
the 1700s. The two most recent significant earthquakes affecting Kodiak Island were
the 1964 Good Friday earthquake, an interplate earthquake along the Aleutian
Trench subduction zone and the 1999 intraplate earthquake deep beneath the
southwest part of Kodiak Island.
C. Geographic Location for Earthquake
The following information identifies the geographic area(s) affected by each specified
hazard.
The entire Kodiak Island Borough is at risk from earthquakes. However, the level of
earthquake hazard is highest towards the southeastern shore of Kodiak Island and
progressively decreases towards the northwest shore of the island.
Nevertheless, the level of earthquake risk (the threat to people, buildings and
infrastructure) is highest in Kodiak City and the surround areas because this is
where the vast majority of people, buildings, and infrastructure are concentrated.
Furthermore, nearly all of the buildings in the remote cities and villages are small
wood frame buildings, which generally perform reasonably well in earthquakes.
D. Hazard Extent for Earthquake
The following information describes the magnitude and severity of each specified
hazard.
Kodiak Island is subject to earthquakes from three distinct source regions:
1) Interplate (also called "interface ") earthquakes on the Aleutian Trench subduction
zone, where portions of the Pacific Ocean plate is being pushed /pulled (subducted)
under the North American plate. The 1964 Good Friday earthquake is an example of
this type of earthquake.
2) Intraplate (also called "intraslab ", "Benioff Zone or "deep zone ") earthquakes
within a subducting oceanic plates. The 1999 earthquake which occurred deep
under the southwest part of Kodiak Island is an example of this type of
earthquake.
3) Crustal earthquakes within Kodiak Island. The Narrow Cape fault, located parallel
to the southeastern edge of Kodiak Island is an example of this type of fault. This
fault is active and capable of producing earthquakes in the M7 to M7.5 range. It is
also highly likely that there are other similar faults within Kodiak Island with locations
which are unknown or poorly documented.
The severity of earthquake damages depends not only on magnitude but also on
9
Site Name
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
475 -year
975 -year
2,475 -year
Akhiok School ROCK
0.47
0.62
0.81
Chiniak School ROCK
0.65
0.84
1.08
East Elementary ROCK
0.47
0.63
0.84
Karluk School ROCK
0.25
0.33
0.44
Larsen Bay School ROCK
0.25
0.33
0.44
Mill Bay Complex ROCK
0.47
0.63
0.84
North Star Elementary ROCK
0.47
0.65
0.89
Old Harbor School ROCK
0.52
0.68
0.88
Ouzinkie School ROCK
0.32
0.41
0.52
Peterson Elementary ROCK
0.47
0.63
0.84
Peterson Elementary SOIL
0.45
0.57
0.75
Port Lions School ROCK
0.28
0.35
0.45
distance from the earthquake and on local soil /rock conditions. For Kodiak Island,
the most damaging potential earthquakes are not the largest earthquakes on
subduction zone, but rather smaller crustal earthquakes within Kodiak Island which
would result in higher levels of ground shaking and higher levels of damage because
of their proximity to populated areas.
The level of seismic hazard at any specified location with Kodiak Island Borough can
be specified quantitatively by a hazard curve which shows the annual probabilities of
ground motions expressed as Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA). Such data are
available nationwide, including Alaska, on the website for the United States
Geological Survey (USGS): http: / /earthquake.usgs.gov /hazards
For Kodiak Island, site specific seismic hazard evaluations were done for the 2005
seismic risk study of the Kodiak Island Borough Schools (G &E Engineering Systems,
Inc., 2005). These data are expressed as ground motions with a 10 %, 5% and 2%
chance of being exceeded in a 50 -year time period. Equivalently, these levels of
ground motions are defined as earthquakes with return period of 475 -, 975- and
2475 - years, respectively. These seismic hazard data are shown in the table below.
Earthquake Table 2
Seismic Hazard Data for Kodiak Island Borough
10
E. Hazard Summary for Earthquake
The following provides information on the probability of future events. In addition, the
data provides an overall summary of the Jurisdiction(s) vulnerability and impact of
each hazard.
Of all of the natural hazards, earthquakes pose by far the greatest risk to Kodiak
Island Borough. That is, the potential for damages, casualties, and economic
impacts from major earthquakes is far higher than for any other hazard.
A major earthquake could affect all or most of Kodiak Island Borough with
widespread damage to public, residential and commercial buildings and widespread
damage to infrastructure. Critical facilities at risk include: schools (emergency
shelters), police and fire stations, medical facilities, harbor and airport facilities, fuel
storage facilities, and lifeline utilities including electric power, water, wastewater and
telecommunications.
Furthermore, secondary impacts of earthquakes including tsunamis, landslides, and
soil effects such as liquefaction, settlement and lateral spreading could result in
major damage to affected buildings and infrastructure.
F. Calculated Priority Risk Index for Earthquake
The CPRI factors the elements of risk: Probability (P), Magnitude /Severity (M),
Warning Time (WT) and Duration to create an index which allows for the
prioritization of mitigation activities based on the level of risk.
The CPRI for earthquake of 2.35, which is lower than most of the other hazards, is
not a meaningful measure of risk. Characterizing earthquakes as having a
probability of "unlikely" because the return period for major earthquakes is greater
than 10 years is profoundly misleading. For Kodiak Island Borough, earthquakes
pose the greatest risk — the threat to people, buildings, infrastructure, and economic
well being — of any natural hazard.
Major earthquakes, with return periods of decades or even hundreds of years have
enormous potential to cause high levels of casualties, damages and economic
impacts. Taking into account the probability of major earthquakes and the expected
levels of casualties, damages, and economic impacts earthquakes pose the greatest
risk of any natural hazard to Kodiak Island Borough.
G. Vulnerability Analysis for Earthquake
This section serves to identify each hazard confronting the community and its
vulnerabilities to that hazard.
For earthquakes, the level of casualties (deaths and injuries), the number of
people needing emergency shelter, damages to buildings and infrastructure and
11
Inventory
Probable Impacts
Portion of Kodiak Island
Borough affected
Entire borough. Specific cities with greatest impact will vary
depending on location of each earthquake
Building Damages
Many buildings will have no damage or Tight to moderate damage,
with heavy damage concentrated in vulnerable buildings (wood
frame buildings with cripple walls or weak foundations,
unreinforced masonry, older concrete buildings). Total building
damage could range from roughly $10 million to perhaps $200
million.
Economic Impacts
Probable economic impacts comparable to building damages
Streets and Roads
Minor damage possible in areas of soft soils. Some bridges will
have moderate to extensive damage. Some road closures likely
from landslides
Electric power
Short outage of electric power is likely, with duration ranging from
a few hours to 1 day.
Water and wastewater
Generally moderate damage to water and wastewater systems,
including pipe breaks. Probable damage to water and wastewater
treatment plants. Many customers will lose service for at least
several days.
Telecommunications
Phone systems (land and cellular) will have system overloads for
about 72 hours, then most customers will have normal service.
Emergency shelter needs
Depending on the specific earthquake, up to 10% or 20% of
residents may need emergency shelter
Casualties
Will vary markedly with specific earthquakes. Worse case may be
tens of deaths (or more) and hundreds of injuries. Casualties will
be higher for daytime earthquake than nighttime earthquake,
because mostly wood frame residential buildings have lower life
safety risk.
overall economic impacts will vary markedly depending on the location and
severity of each earthquake event. The table below provides a very rough
overview of the likely impacts for major earthquakes with ground shaking roughly
in the range of 30% g to 60% g in the population center of Kodiak City and
surrounding areas.
b. Critical Facilities.
Earthquake Table 2
Probable Impacts of Major Earthquakes
a. Population.
The entire population of Kodiak Island Borough has some level of risk from
earthquakes.
(1) Approximately 100 percent of the community's critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific critical facilities vulnerable are:
Critical facilities potentially at risk include: schools (emergency shelters), police and
fire stations, medical facilities, harbor and airport facilities, fuel storage facilities, and
12
lifeline utilities including electric power, water, wastewater and telecommunications
and lifeline utilities including electric power, water, wastewater and
telecommunications.
Detailed seismic risk evaluations were completed in 2005 for all public schools within
Kodiak Island Borough. However, detailed seismic risk evaluations have not been
completed for most of the other critical facilities at risk. Completion of such risk
evaluations is a high priority action item for Kodiak Island Borough.
c. Non - Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 100 percent of the community's non - critical facilities are
vulnerable.
(2) The specific non - critical facilities vulnerable are:
To some extent, all of the buildings and all of the infrastructure on Kodiak Island
have some level of seismic risk. Detailed risk evaluations for the inventory of public,
residential, and commercial buildings have not been completed.
Files associated with Earthquake
File Name: Alaska Earthquakes Map.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 11/1/2005
User: Laura Young
Subject:
Description: Graphic of Alaska Earthquakes, Active Faults, and Rupture Zones
from State of Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan (in MS Word)
Hazard: Earthquake
File Name: Earthquake Vulnerability.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 11/1/2005
User: Laura Young
Subject:
Description: State of Alaska Earthquake Vulnerability information including graphics
and critical facilities information (MS Word format)
Hazard: Earthquake
File Name: KIB Earthquakes.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 1/2/2006
User: Duane Dvorak
Subject:
Description: This file contains a primer about earthquakes with definitions of
technical terms and general information about earthquake hazards. This file also
includes supplemental text, figures and tables, which will be added to the final Word
version of the Kodiak Hazard Mitigation Plan during the final reformatting, after data
13
entry is complete in the MitigationPlan.com template.
Hazard: Earthquake
H. Hazard Economic Loss Estimation for Earthquake
This section describes the potential economic losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
a. Economic Loss.
The economic loss resulting from this hazard is approximately $100,000,000.
b. Structure Loss.
The loss from damage to structures from this hazard is approximately $100,000,000.
c. The following is the methodology for estimating losses.
Potential losses for earthquakes cannot be estimated meaningfully for a generic
"earthquake." Rather, potential losses must be estimated separately for a range of
scenario earthquakes of defined magnitudes and locations. Loss estimates above
are extremely rough estimates for major earthquakes with ground motions in the
range of approximately 30% g to 60% g.
Damages, casualties, losses and other measures of the severity of impacts such as
numbers of displaced people requiring temporary shelter can be made using Toss
estimation software such as the HAZUS software developed by FEMA. Such
quantitative Toss estimates have not been made for this hazard mitigation plan, but
will be made for the enhanced mitigation plan later in 2006.
I. Hazard Human Loss Estimation for Earthquake
This section describes the potential human losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
Deaths and injuries cannot be meaningfully estimated except with detailed loss
modeling for specific earthquakes with defined magnitudes and locations. Death
and injury estimates are not available at this time.
J. Vulnerability to Future Assets /Infrastructure for Earthquake
In general, the vulnerability of future buildings, other facilities, and infrastructure will
be lower than for existing assets, because new construction will presumably be in
conformance with current and future seismic provisions in the building code.
However, the extent of vulnerability cannot be estimated meaningfully at this time.
14
K. Unique and Varied Risks for Earthquake
Commentary on Risk for each incorporated city or recognized tribal village within
Kodiak Island Borough.
The analysis of earthquake hazard, vulnerability and risk applies to Kodiak Island
Borough as a whole. Because the population of the Borough and thus also the built
environment of buildings and infrastructure is predominantly concentrated in Kodiak
City and surrounding areas, the Borough -wide overview also applies to Kodiak City
and surrounding areas.
Much of the analysis also applies to the remote communities. However, because of
their isolated nature, there are also community- specific aspects of earthquake risk
that are important to recognize.
Most of the buildings in Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie and Port
Lions are small wood frame buildings that are generally expected to perform
reasonably well in earthquakes. Each of these communities also has a school which
also serves the community as a multi - purpose meeting place. The seismic
vulnerability of each of these schools was evaluated in 2005 and the structural
seismic performance of all of these schools was judged to be adequate, except for
the Ouzinkie School. For the Ouzinkie School, structural deficiencies were identified
for the older portions of the school. A specific retrofit was designed and will be
implemented in the near future as funds become available. In addition, minor non-
structural upgrades were recommended for each school.
Other critical facilities in these isolated communities include dock/harbor facilities
and fuel tanks. Evaluation of these facilities for seismic risk is an important
mitigation action item.
Each of these isolated communities has risk from earthquake- induced tsunamis.
Each community has a warning system, a specified tsunami shelter (either the
school or a tsunami - specific shelter) and public education efforts have informed
residents about the risk of tsunamis and appropriate evacuation steps.
15
2. Erosion
A. Hazard Definition for Erosion
Erosion is a widespread ongoing geologic process that involves the gradual wearing
down, transport and deposition of rock and soil material. The principal agents for
erosion are water, wind, and ice. Riverine erosion by water results from water flow
along rivers, streams and other waterways. Coastal erosion by water results from
water currents and wave action on the coastline. Wind (aeolian) erosion means
erosion by direct action of the wind and can occur anywhere on land. Ice erosion
may occur wherever there is seasonal or permanent ice.
For Kodiak Island Borough, erosion by wind and ice are negligible in the sense that
none of the built environment of buildings and infrastructure is effected by such
erosion. However, portions of the Borough are affected by erosion, with coastal
erosion much more significant than riverine erosion.
Coastal and riverine erosion may occur gradually over an extended time period, or
rapidly during major storm events. Erosion often results in loss of vegetation and
may damage buildings, other facilities, roads and utility lines by undermining
foundations or support, eventually leading to failure of the building, facility, road or
utility lines.
In some cases, erosion can be reduced by constructing barriers. However, in
general, large scale erosion cannot be stopped and the only long -term mitigation
may be to relocate the at -risk property outside of the zone of active erosion.
B. Previous Occurrences for Erosion
Significant coastal erosion has occurred in several communities in Kodiak Island
Borough, including Karluk, Akhiok, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, Port Lyons,
and Chiniak.
The village of Karluk was relocated in the 1970s due to erosion caused by a breach
in the Karluk spit. At present, the road between the airstrip and the lagoon is being
eroded.
In Old Harbor, erosion is occurring along the road at the head of the bay in Old
Harbor, but does not currently threaten any residential areas or businesses.
In Ouzinkie, a breakwater was constructed to slow the erosion. In Chiniak, where
sections of the highway are being undercut by erosion, there has been discussion of
relocating portions of the road further inland.
In Port Lions, coastal erosion has occurred at several places along roadways, with
some potential to impact buildings in a few places.
16
Erosion is also occurring in the Spruce Cape area in the Kodiak urban area. Erosion
in Spruce Cape threatens a few homes as well as hiking trails and public use areas
in the Fort Abercrombie State Park.
No documentation of serious riverine erosion was found for Kodiak Island Borough.
C. Geographic Location for Erosion
The following information identifies the geographic area(s) affected by each specified
hazard.
Every community within Kodiak Island Borough is located on the coast and thus
portions of every community are at some risk from erosion. Areas at particular risk
were outlined in the previous section.
D. Hazard Extent for Erosion
The following information describes the magnitude and severity of each specified
hazard.
Overall, the level of risk posed by erosion within Kodiak Island Borough is minor to
moderate. The risk of casualties from erosion is virtually nil and the risk of damages
and economic impacts is much smaller than for earthquakes or tsunamis.
E. Hazard Summary for Erosion
The following provides information on the probability of future events. In addition, the
data provides an overall summary of the Jurisdiction(s) vulnerability and impact of
each hazard.
Overall, the level of risk posed by erosion within Kodiak Island Borough is minor to
moderate. The risk of casualties from erosion is virtually nil and the risk of damages
and economic impacts is much smaller than for earthquakes or tsunamis.
F. Calculated Priority Risk Index for Erosion
The CPRI factors the elements of risk: Probability (P), Magnitude /Severity (M),
Warning Time (WT) and Duration to create an index which allows for the
prioritization of mitigation activities based on the level of risk.
The calculated CPRI for erosion, 2.65 is higher than those for earthquake and
tsunami, because of the very frequent occurrence of very minor erosion. These
CPRI values do not meaningfully indicate the relative levels of risk which are
drastically higher for earthquake and tsunami than for erosion.
17
Inventory
Probable Impacts
Portion of Kodiak Island
Borough affected
Small portions of the coastal areas in each community.
Building Damages
Very limited potential for damage to a small number of buildings.
Economic Impacts
Very minor impacts
Streets and Roads
Significant damage only in very limited locations.
Electric power
Very minor impacts
Water and wastewater
Very minor impacts
Telecommunications
Very minor or nil impacts
Emergency shelter needs
Probably nil
Casualties
Probably nil
G. Vulnerability Analysis for Erosion
This section serves to identify each hazard confronting the community and its
vulnerabilities to that hazard.
For erosion, generic estimates of damages and impacts for the "next occurrence" are
not meaningful. Rather, meaningful estimates must be for specific erosion events in
specific locations. The estimates below are for roughly typical, small -scale erosion
events.
Probable Impacts of Erosion
a. Population.
Approximately 0 percent of the community's population is vulnerable.
b. Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 0 percent of the community's critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific critical facilities vulnerable are:
None known at this time.
c. Non - Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 1 percent of the community's non - critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific non - critical facilities vulnerable are:
Only a tiny fraction of the roads, infrastructure and utilities within Kodiak Island
Borough, Tess than 1 %, may be significantly affected by erosion.
Files associated with Erosion
File Name: Erosion Vulnerability.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
18
Uploaded: 11/1/2005
User: Laura Young
Subject:
Description: State of Alaska Erosion Vulnerability characterization including
graphics and narrative (MS Word format) Actual analysis expected to be complete at
next plan update.
Hazard: Erosion
File Name: KIB Erosion.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 1/2/2006
User: Duane Dvorak
Subject:
Description: This file contains a primer about erosion with definitions of technical
terms and general information about erosion hazards. This file also includes
supplemental text, figures and tables, which will be added to the final Word version
of the Kodiak Hazard Mitigation Plan during the final reformatting, after data entry is
complete in the MitigationPlan.com template.
Hazard: Erosion
H. Hazard Economic Loss Estimation for Erosion
This section describes the potential economic losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
a. Economic Loss.
The economic loss resulting from this hazard is approximately $25,000.
b. Structure Loss.
The loss from damage to structures from this hazard is approximately $25,000.
c. The following is the methodology for estimating losses.
Potential losses for erosion cannot be estimated meaningfully for a generic "erosion"
event. Rather, potential losses must be estimated separately for a range of scenario
erosion events of defined severities and locations. Detailed estimates cannot be
made without a full inventory of at -risk buildings and infrastructure.
I. Hazard Human Loss Estimation for Erosion
This section describes the potential human losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
The risk of deaths and injuries or displacement from erosion is negligible.
19
J. Vulnerability to Future Assets /Infrastructure for Erosion
In general, the vulnerability of future buildings, other facilities, and infrastructure will
be much lower than for existing assets, because new construction will presumably
not be located in areas undergoing active erosion.
K. Unique and Varied Risks for Erosion
Commentary on Risk for each incorporated city or recognized tribal village within
Kodiak Island Borough.
Areas within at risk communities subject to erosion were summarized above in
Section B.
20
3. Flooding
A. Hazard Definition for Flooding
There are several types of flooding that may affect portions of Kodiak Island
Borough:
• Coastal flooding, which is also known as storm surge flooding,
• Riverine flooding, when waters overflow the banks of rivers and streams
• Urban flooding, when the capacity of storm water drainage systems in urban
areas is exceeded,
• Flash flooding, which is characterized by very rapid increases in water level.
Coastal flooding can occur in the low -lying coastal portions of every community
within Kodiak Island Borough.
Riverine flooding can occur along any of the numerous rivers and streams within
Kodiak Island Borough. However, most of the rivers and streams run through
unpopulated or very lightly populated areas. Historically, however, there have been
relatively few occurrences of riverine flooding within developed areas.
Urban flooding is possible within some portions of the Kodiak City urban area.
Historically, however, there been relatively few occurrences of such flooding.
Flash flooding is possible due to extremely heavy rains and /or rapid snow melt,
especially in narrow steep canyons. However, such areas within Kodiak Island
Borough are generally in unpopulated areas. Flash flooding can also occur from
dam failures. Dam failures, and other anthropogenic hazards, are not addressed in
this hazard mitigation plan, but will be addressed in an enhanced mitigation plan
later in 2006.
B. Previous Occurrences for Flooding
Most of the coastal communities have experienced at least minor coastal flooding.
However, no major flood events have been recorded in recent years.
There are no documented occurrences of significant riverine flooding, urban flooding
or flash flooding, although minor flooding has occurred along streams in the
Women's Bay area.
C. Geographic Location for Flooding
The following information identifies the geographic area(s) affected by each specified
hazard.
21
Every community within Kodiak Island Borough is located on the coast and thus
portions of every community are at some risk from coastal flooding. Areas at
particular risk were outlined in the previous section.
Areas especially subject to potential coastal flooding correspond in large part to
those areas identified as being at risk for coastal erosion (see Erosion section). The
Kodiak Emergency Operations Plan calls out the Chiniak Road, as being at flood
risk. In general terms, harbor facilities, the airport, and buildings and infrastructure in
all low -lying coastal areas are at potential risk.
D. Hazard Extent for Flooding
The following information describes the magnitude and severity of each specified
hazard.
Overall, the level of risk posed by flooding within Kodiak Island Borough is minor to
moderate. The risk of casualties from flooding is virtually nil and the risk of damages
and economic impacts is much smaller than for earthquakes or tsunamis.
E. Hazard Summary for Flooding
The following provides information on the probability of future events. In addition, the
data provides an overall summary of the Jurisdiction(s) vulnerability and impact of
each hazard.
Overall, the level of risk posed by flooding within Kodiak Island Borough is minor to
moderate. The risk of casualties from flooding is virtually nil and the risk of damages
and economic impacts is much smaller than for earthquakes or tsunamis.
F. Calculated Priority Risk Index for Flooding
The CPRI factors the elements of risk: Probability (P), Magnitude /Severity (M),
Warning Time (WT) and Duration to create an index which allows for the
prioritization of mitigation activities based on the level of risk.
The calculated CPRI for flooding, 2.70 is higher than those for earthquake and
tsunami, because of the very frequent occurrence of very minor flooding. These
CPRI values do not meaningfully indicate the relative levels of risk which are
drastically higher for earthquake and tsunami than for flooding.
G. Vulnerability Analysis for Flooding
This section serves to identify each hazard confronting the community and its
vulnerabilities to that hazard.
For flooding, generic estimates of damages and impacts for the "next occurrence"
are not meaningful. Rather, meaningful estimates must be for specific flooding
22
Inventory
Probable Impacts
Portion of Kodiak Island
Borough affected
Small portions of the coastal areas in each community.
Building Damages
Very limited potential for damage to a small number of buildings.
Economic Impacts
Very minor impacts
Streets and Roads
Significant damage only in very limited locations.
Electric power
Very minor impacts
Water and wastewater
Very minor impacts
Telecommunications
Very minor or nil impacts
Emergency shelter needs
Probably nil
Casualties
Probably nil
events in specific locations. The estimates below are for more or less typical, small -
scale flooding events.
Probable Impacts of Flooding
a. Population.
Only a tiny fraction of the population, perhaps 1 %, may be at risk from flooding.
b. Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 0 percent of the community's critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific critical facilities vulnerable are:
None known at this time.
c. Non - Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 1 percent of the community's non - critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific non - critical facilities vulnerable are:
Only a tiny fraction of the roads, infrastructure and utilities within Kodiak Island
Borough, less than 1 %, may be significantly affected by flooding.
Files associated with Flooding
File Name: Flood Basin Vulnerability Analysis
File Type: xls (Excel Spreadsheet)
Uploaded: 10/18/2005
User: R Simmons
Subject:
Description:
Hazard: Flooding
23
File Name: Flood Map
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 10/18/2005
User: R Simmons
Subject:
Description:
Hazard: Flooding
File Name: KIB FLOODING.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 1/2/2006
User: Duane Dvorak
Subject:
Description: This file contains a primer about flooding with definitions of technical
terms and general information about flooding hazards. This file also includes
supplemental text, figures and tables, which will be added to the final Word version
of the Kodiak Hazard Mitigation Plan during the final reformatting, after data entry is
complete in the MitigationPlan.com template.
Hazard: Flooding
H. Hazard Economic Loss Estimation for Flooding
This section describes the potential economic losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
a. Economic Loss.
The economic Toss resulting from this hazard is approximately $100,000.
b. Structure Loss.
The loss from damage to structures from this hazard is approximately $100,000.
c. The following is the methodology for estimating losses.
Potential losses for flooding cannot be estimated meaningfully for a generic
"flooding" event. Rather, potential losses must be estimated separately for a range of
scenario flooding events of defined severities and locations. Detailed estimates
cannot be made without a full inventory of at -risk buildings and infrastructure. In the
absence of any formally mapped riverine or coastal flood zones, making accurate
quantitative estimates of the probability and severity of flooding and of potential
losses cannot be made at this time.
I. Hazard Human Loss Estimation for Flooding
This section describes the potential human losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
24
The potential for deaths and injuries is negligible for flooding. There is some
potential for displacement for a very small fraction, perhaps 1 %, of the population.
J. Vulnerability to Future Assets /Infrastructure for Flooding
In general, the vulnerability of future buildings, other facilities, and infrastructure will
be much lower than for existing assets, because new construction will presumably
not generally be located in areas with a history of active coastal erosion and flooding
potential.
K. Unique and Varied Risks for Flooding
Commentary on Risk for each incorporated city or recognized tribal village within
Kodiak Island Borough.
Areas within at risk communities subject to flooding were summarized above in
Section B.
25
4. Landslide
A. Hazard Definition for Landslide
Landslide Overview and Definitions
The term "landslide" refers to a variety of slope instabilities that result in the
downward and outward movement of slope- forming materials, including rocks, soils
and artificial fill. Four types of landslides are distinguished based on the types of
materials involved and on the mode of movement. These types of landslides are
illustrated in Figures 8.1 to 8.4 and described below.
Rockfalls are abrupt movements of masses of geologic materials (rocks and soils)
that become detached from steep slopes or cliffs. Movement occurs by free -fall,
bouncing and rolling. Falls are strongly influenced by gravity, weathering,
undercutting or erosion.
Rotational Slides are those in which the rupture surface is curved concavely
upwards and the slide movement is rotational about an axis parallel to the slope.
Rotational slides usually have a steep scarp at the upslope end and a bulging "toe"
of the slid material at the bottom of the slide. Rotational slides may creep slowly or
move large distances suddenly.
Translational Slides are those in which the moving material slides along a more or
Tess planar surface. Translational slides occur on surfaces of weaknesses, such as
faults and bedding planes or at the contact between firm rock and overlying loose
soils. Translational slides may creep slowly or move large distances rather
suddenly.
Debris Flows (also called debris torrents) are surficial movements in which loose
soils, rocks and organic matter combine with entrained water to form slurries that
flow rapidly downslope or within a stream channel. They may travel hundreds to
thousands of feet.
All of these types of landslides may cause road blockages by dumping debris on
road surfaces or road damages if the road surface itself slides downhill. Utility lines
and pipes are prone to breakage in slide areas. Buildings impacted by slides may
suffer minor damage from small settlements or may be completely destroyed by
large ground displacements or by burial in slide debris. Also, landslides may also
result in injuries or fatalities.
26
FIRM BEDDED ROCK
Fig. 8 -1. Rockfall
Figures 8.1 to 8.4
Major Types of Landslides
Fig. 8 -3. Translational Landslide
Scar (area of initial failure)
Track (may or may not be eroded)
Zone of deposition (fan)
27
Fig. 8 -2. Rotational Landslide
Soil or Col I uvium
Fig. 8 -4. Debris Flow
There are three main factors that determine susceptibility (potential) for landslides:
1) slope steepness,
2) soil /rock characteristics or landform shape, and
3) subsurface water.
Loose, weak rock or soil is more prone to landslides than is more competent rock or
dense, firm soils. For landslides, the term competent rock means solid, coherent
rock with good bearing strength that is less prone to landslides. Finally, water
saturated soils or rock with a high water table are much more prone to landslides
because the water pore pressure decreases the shear strength of the soil and thus
increases the probability of sliding.
The water content of soils /rock is a major factor in determining the likelihood of
sliding for any given slide -prone location. Thus, the vast majority of landslides
happen during rainy months, when soils are saturated with water. In Kodiak Island
Borough, however, the "rainy" months include the entire year.
Landslides may happen at any time of the year. In addition to landslides triggered
by a combination of slope stability and water content, landslides may also be
triggered by earthquakes. Areas prone to seismically triggered landslides are
generally the same as those prone to ordinary (i.e., non - seismic) landslides. As with
ordinary landslides, seismically triggered landslides are more likely for earthquakes
that occur when soils are saturated with water.
B. Previous Occurrences for Landslide
Landslides are very common within Kodiak Island Borough. Fortunately, many of
these events are in the hilly interior portions of the island and thus do not affect
developed areas.
Within the developed areas, there are numerous recently active landslide locations
along Rezanof Drive between Kodiak City and the airport and along the Chiniak
Highway. The largest potentially active slide area is along Rezanof Drive adjacent to
the cargo handling dock area.
Within the Kodiak urban area, some residential development is located within historic
landslide paths and /or within steep slope areas potentially subject to landslides. In
1991, a significant landslide resulting from 8.5 inches of rain within a 24 hour period,
resulted in the evacuation of about 25 to 30 homes and about 80 people in a Kodiak
hillside residential area.
C. Geographic Location for Landslide
The following information identifies the geographic area(s) affected by each specified
hazard.
28
Within the developed areas of Kodiak Island Borough, the areas most prone to
landslides posing risk to people, buildings or infrastructure are the areas noted
above: along Rezanof Drive, along Chiniak Highway and it some of the hilly
residential areas within the Kodiak urban area.
D. Hazard Extent for Landslide
The following information describes the magnitude and severity of each specified
hazard.
Overall, the level of risk posed by landslide within Kodiak Island Borough is
moderate, because there are only limited developed areas subject to landslides.
However, these areas include important transportation routes, and the cargo dock
area along Rezanof Drive is an important facility for the economic well being of
Kodiak Island Borough.
Most commonly, landslides result in temporary road closures. However, they may
also damage utility lines located along roadways and buildings or other facilities in
their path. The risk of casualties from landslide is moderate. Landslides along
highways could result in casualties for people in vehicles and landslides in
residential areas certainly have the potential for casualties.
Overall, the level of risk posed by landslides to Kodiak Island Borough is probably
significantly higher than the risks from erosion and flooding but much smaller than
the risk from earthquakes or tsunamis.
E. Hazard Summary for Landslide
The following provides information on the probability of future events. In addition, the
data provides an overall summary of the Jurisdiction(s) vulnerability and impact of
each hazard.
The level of risk posed by landslide within Kodiak Island Borough is moderate,
because there are only limited developed areas subject to landslides. However,
these areas include important transportation routes, and the cargo dock area along
Rezanof Drive is an important facility for the economic well being of Kodiak Island
Borough. The LASH dock in the Women's Bay area and the Old Harbor School may
also be at risk.
Overall, the level of risk posed by landslides to Kodiak Island Borough is probably
significantly higher than the risks from erosion and flooding but much smaller than
the risk from earthquakes or tsunamis.
F. Calculated Priority Risk Index for Landslide
The CPRI factors the elements of risk: Probability (P), Magnitude /Severity (M),
Warning Time (WT) and Duration to create an index which allows for the
prioritization of mitigation activities based on the level of risk.
29
Inventory
Probable Impacts
Portion of Kodiak Island
Borough affected
Small portions of Rezanof Drive and Chiniak Highway. Portions of
the hilly residential areas in the Kodiak urban area.
Building Damages
Limited potential for damage to a small number of buildings.
Economic Impacts
Generally minor impacts. More important impacts, especially for
earthquake- induced landslides in major transportation routes are
closed and /or the cargo dock facility is damaged.
Streets and Roads
Significant damage only in very limited locations.
Electric power
Generally minor impacts.
Water and wastewater
Generally minor impacts.
Telecommunications
Generally minor impacts.
Emergency shelter needs
Probably minor.
Casualties
None in most events, but some landslides could result in several
fatalities and injuries, along highways or in residential areas.
The calculated CPRI for landslide, 2.80 is higher than those for earthquake and
tsunami, because of the very frequent occurrence of minor landslides. These CPRI
values do not meaningfully indicate the relative levels of risk which are significantly
higher for earthquake and tsunami than for landslide.
G. Vulnerability Analysis for Landslide
This section serves to identify each hazard confronting the community and its
vulnerabilities to that hazard.
For landslide, generic estimates of damages and impacts for the "next occurrence"
are not meaningful. Rather, meaningful estimates must be for specific landslide
events in specific locations. The results below are for more or less typical, small -
scale landslide events.
Probable Impacts of Landslide
a. Population.
Approximately 1 percent or Tess of the community's population may be directly
vulnerable. However, much of the population is vulnerable to road closures and
potential economic impacts of major landslides.
b. Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 5 percent of the community's critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific critical facilities vulnerable are:
Key transportation routes (Rezanof Drive and Chiniak Highway) and perhaps the
cargo dock facility, the LASH dock in the Women's Bay area and the Old Harbor
School.
30
c. Non - Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 1 percent of the community's non - critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific non - critical facilities vulnerable are:
Only a tiny fraction of the roads, infrastructure and utilities within Kodiak Island
Borough, Tess than 1 %, may be significantly affected by landslides.
Files associated with Landslide
File Name: KIB LANDSLIDES.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 1/2/2006
User: Duane Dvorak
Subject:
Description: This file contains a primer about landslides with definitions of technical
terms and general information about landslide hazards. This file also includes
supplemental text, figures and tables, which will be added to the final Word version
of the Kodiak Hazard Mitigation Plan during the final reformatting, after data entry is
complete in the MitigationPlan.com template.
Hazard: Landslide
File Name: Landslide Vulnerability Analysis
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 10/19/2005
User: R Simmons
Subject:
Description:
Hazard: Landslide
File Name: Principal Landslide Types
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 10/19/2005
User: R Simmons
Subject:
Description:
Hazard: Landslide
H. Hazard Economic Loss Estimation for Landslide
This section describes the potential economic losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
a. Economic Loss.
The economic loss resulting from this hazard is approximately $50,000.
b. Structure Loss.
The loss from damage to structures from this hazard is approximately $50,000.
31
c. The following is the methodology for estimating losses.
Potential losses for landslide cannot be estimated meaningfully for a generic
"landslide" event. Rather, potential losses must be estimated separately for a range
of scenario landslide events of defined severities and locations. Detailed estimates
cannot be made without a full inventory of at -risk buildings and infrastructure.
I. Hazard Human Loss Estimation for Landslide
This section describes the potential human losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
Most landslides will not result in deaths or injuries or displacement of people.
However, there is a potential for a small number of deaths or injuries in some events,
along with damage to a few homes, resulting in displacement of a few residents.
J. Vulnerability to Future Assets /Infrastructure for Landslide
In general, the vulnerability of future buildings, other facilities, and infrastructure will
be much lower than for existing assets, because new construction will presumably
not generally be located in areas with a history of active landslides or in high risk
areas.
K. Unique and Varied Risks for Landslide
Commentary on Risk for each incorporated city or recognized tribal village within
Kodiak Island Borough.
Areas at high risk for landslides are mostly within the Kodiak urban area. However,
portions of Old Harbor, including the school, may be at risk from debris flows.
32
5. Severe Storms
A. Hazard Definition for Severe Storms
The State of Alaska text in the MitigationPlan.com template lists the following
hazards under severe storm: thunderstorms, lightning, hail, high winds, coastal
storms /storm surge, and ivu (ice override).
Coastal storms /storm surge are addressed in the erosion and flooding sections and
are thus not included here. High winds in Kodiak Island Borough, and indeed
throughout Alaska, are associated predominantly with severe winter storms and are
thus addressed in that section.
Thus, this section covers thunderstorms, lightning, hail and ivu, all of which have
historically had minimal impacts on Kodiak Island Borough.
B. Previous Occurrences for Severe Storms
There are no historical reports of thunderstorms, lightning, hail or ivu events which
caused significant damage or other impacts within Kodiak Island Borough.
C. Geographic Location for Severe Storms
The following information identifies the geographic area(s) affected by each specified
hazard.
The entire Kodiak Island Borough is potentially subject to thunderstorms, lightning,
hail and the entire coastal area is potentially subject to ivu events. However, there
are no historical reports of thunderstorms, lightning, hail or ivu events which caused
significant damage or other impacts within Kodiak Island Borough
D. Hazard Extent for Severe Storms
The following information describes the magnitude and severity of each specified
hazard.
There are no historical reports of thunderstorms, lightning, hail or ivu events which
caused significant damage or other impacts within Kodiak Island Borough.
However, there is a low probability of severe weather events of these types affecting
Kodiak in the future. The potential for significant damage from thunderstorms,
lightning or hail is virtually nil. Localized damage from ivu events is possible, but
extremely unlikely.
E. Hazard Summary for Severe Storms
The following provides information on the probability of future events. In addition, the
data provides an overall summary of the Jurisdiction(s) vulnerability and impact of
each hazard.
33
Inventory
Probable Impacts
Portion of Kodiak Island
Borough affected
Theoretically the entire Borough for severe storms and the entire
coast for ivu. However, There are no historical reports of
thunderstorms, lightning, hail or ivu events which caused
significant damage or other impacts within Kodiak Island Borough.
Building Damages
Minimal
Economic Impacts
Minimal
Streets and Roads
Minimal
Electric power
Minimal
Water and wastewater
Minimal
Telecommunications
Minimal
Emergency shelter needs
Minimal
Casualties
None likely
There are no historical reports of thunderstorms, lightning, hail or ivu events which
caused significant damage or other impacts within Kodiak Island Borough.
However, there is a low probability of severe weather events of these types affecting
Kodiak in the future. The potential for significant damage from thunderstorms,
lightning or hail is virtually nil. Localized damage from ivu events is possible, but
extremely unlikely.
Overall, the potential for damages, losses or casualties from such events affecting
Kodiak Island Borough is minimal at most.
F. Calculated Priority Risk Index for Severe Storms
The CPRI factors the elements of risk: Probability (P), Magnitude /Severity (M),
Warning Time (WT) and Duration to create an index which allows for the
prioritization of mitigation activities based on the level of risk.
The calculated CPRI for severe storms, 1.15, meaningfully represents the very low
risk posed to Kodiak Island Borough from thunderstorms, lightning, hail, and ivu.
G. Vulnerability Analysis for Severe Storms
This section serves to identify each hazard confronting the community and its
vulnerabilities to that hazard.
For severe storm events, generic estimates of damages and impacts for the "next
occurrence" are not meaningful. Rather, meaningful estimates must be for specific
events with defined severities and locations. The estimates below are for more or
less typical small -scale severe storm events.
Probable Impacts of Severe Storm Events
a. Population.
Approximately 0 percent of the community's population is vulnerable.
34
b. Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 0 percent of the community's critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific critical facilities vulnerable are:
None.
c. Non - Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 0 percent of the community's non - critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific non - critical facilities vulnerable are:
None
Files associated with Severe Storms
File Name: KIB SEVERE STORMS.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 1/3/2006
User: Duane Dvorak
Subject:
Description: This file contains a primer about severe storms with definitions of
technical terms and general information about severe storms. This file also includes
supplemental text, figures and tables, which will be added to the final Word version
of the Kodiak Hazard Mitigation Plan during the final reformatting, after data entry is
complete in the MitigationPlan.com template.
Hazard: Severe Storms
File Name: Severe Weather Vulnerability.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 11/1/2005
User: Laura Young
Subject:
Description: State of Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan Severe Weather Vulnerability
graphics and narrative (MS Word Format)
Hazard: Severe Storms
H. Hazard Economic Loss Estimation for Severe Storms
This section describes the potential economic losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
a. Economic Loss.
The economic Toss resulting from this hazard is approximately Q.
35
b. Structure Loss.
The loss from damage to structures from this hazard is approximately IQ.
c. The following is the methodology for estimating losses.
Potential losses for severe storm events cannot be estimated meaningfully for a
generic "severe storm" event. Rather, potential losses must be estimated
I. Hazard Human Loss Estimation for Severe Storms
This section describes the potential human losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
The potential for deaths, injuries or displacement from severe storms
(thunderstorms, lightning, hail and ivu) is virtually nil.
J. Vulnerability to Future Assets /Infrastructure for Severe Storms
In general, the vulnerability of future buildings, other facilities, and infrastructure will
very similar to that for existing assets: minimal.
K. Unique and Varied Risks for Severe Storms
Commentary on Risk for each incorporated city or recognized tribal village within
Kodiak Island Borough.
The level of risk from thunderstorms, lightning, hail and ivu is similar for each
community within the Borough: minimal.
36
6. Severe Winter Storm
A. Hazard Definition for Severe Winter Storm
The State of Alaska text in the MitigationPlan.com template lists the following
hazards under winter storm: heavy snows, ice, aufeis, and extreme cold. For the
Kodiak Hazard Mitigation Plan, we also include high winds in this section because
high winds in Kodiak, and indeed throughout Alaska, are associated predominantly
with winter storms. For the purposes of mitigation planning, these hazards are
defined as follows:
High winds. Wind speeds high enough (generally greater than approximately 50
mph) to cause tree falls, with disruption of transportation and utility systems
(especially electric power). More extreme wind events may also result in damages
to buildings and other facilities.
Heavy snow. Snow falls sufficient to significantly disrupt transportation, with some
potential for generally minor damages to buildings and other facilities..
Ice. Ice accumulations from freezing rain sufficient to significantly disrupt
transportation and impact utility systems (especially electric power) by causing tree
falls and downed utility lines.
Aufeis. Aufeis is an arctic phenomenon which includes glaciation or icing of stream
and rivers when emerging ground water freezes from the bottom up, forcing water
out of channels. Aufeis is not a significant problem for Kodiak Island Borough and is
thus not considered in this hazard mitigation plan.
Extreme cold. In Alaska, extreme cold generally means temperatures below
minus 40 F. Extreme cold presents risk to some utility services; for example, water
pipes may freeze and burst. Extreme generally increases the failure rate for
mechanical equipment and poses an increased level of life safety risk for people
exposed to the cold for extended time periods. Temperature data for Kodiak exist
from 1931 to 1972 at the Naval Air Station and from 1973 to date at the airport.
During this 75 year time period, the lowest recorded temperature was minus 16 ° F on
January 28, 1989. Given the strong marine influence on Kodiak's climate, extreme
cold is extremely unlikely for Kodiak.
For the Kodiak Hazard Mitigation Plan, aufeis and extreme cold are not significant
problems for Kodiak and thus are not considered further in this hazard mitigation
plan. Thus, this section addresses high winds, heavy snow, and ice storm events for
Kodiak Island Borough.
B. Previous Occurrences for Severe Winter Storm
Winter storms are a very frequent occurrence throughout Kodiak Island Borough.
However, for the most part, the effects are relatively minor, with some disruption of
transportation systems being the most common impact. Damage to utility lines with
37
temporary loss of power is another common effect of winter storms.
The following report is generally representative of the typical level of effects from
major storm events on Kodiak:
On March 23, 2001, a major winter storm struck Kodiak Island. Nearly a foot of snow
fell over the city of Kodiak followed by heavy rains and high winds. The combination
of snow, ice, and rain created treacherous driving conditions and contributed to a
number of accidents. Nine transformers failed during the storm, power lines came
down all over the island, and a tree smashed a house damaging the roof. At the
height of the storm, a wind gust of 93 mph was measured at the Zachor Bay Lodge
near Larsen Bay. Approximately $25,000 of damage resulted from the storm.
C. Geographic Location for Severe Winter Storm
The following information identifies the geographic area(s) affected by each specified
hazard.
The entire Kodiak Island Borough is subject to winter storms.
Snow accumulations are commonly higher at higher elevations in the interior;
however, these areas are largely unpopulated.
D. Hazard Extent for Severe Winter Storm
The following information describes the magnitude and severity of each specified
hazard.
Winter storms are a very frequent occurrence throughout Kodiak Island Borough.
However, for the most part, the effects are relatively minor, with some disruption of
transportation systems being the most common impact. Damage to utility lines with
temporary loss of power is another common effect of winter storms.
Building damage from winter storms is generally limited to isolated damage from tree
falls. However, extreme wind, snow or ice events could result in more widespread
damage to buildings and other facilities.
E. Hazard Summary for Severe Winter Storm
The following provides information on the probability of future events. In addition, the
data provides an overall summary of the Jurisdiction(s) vulnerability and impact of
each hazard.
Winter storms are a very frequent occurrence throughout Kodiak Island Borough.
However, for the most part, the effects are relatively minor, with some disruption of
transportation systems being the most common impact. Damage to utility lines with
temporary loss of power is another common effect of winter storms.
38
Return Period
(years)
Radial Ice Thickness
(inches)
Concurrent 3- second
wind gust (mph)
50
0.25
65
100
0.25
65
200
0.5
65
400
0.5
65
Building damage from winter storms is generally limited to isolated damage from tree
falls. However, extreme wind, snow or ice events could result in more widespread
damage to buildings and other facilities.
Mean annual snowfall total, measured at the airport weather station, is about 71
inches. Since 1973, the yearly maximum snowfall has been 138 inches in 1975 -6.
The yearly minimum snowfall was zero inches in 1999 -2000.
Ice storm maps prepared by the USACE show Kodiak with a moderate level of risk
for both ice accumulation and wind. The following results were interpolated from
maps for 50 -, 100 -, 200- and 400 -year wind gust speeds and ice thicknesses.
Radial ice thicknesses of 0.25 to 0.50 inches commonly result in some tree falls and
some damage to utility lines. However, such thicknesses are unlikely to cause
widespread damage. For comparison, we not that the maximum ice thicknesses for
the 400 -year return period in the lower 48 states are 2.5 inches in the highest hazard
areas.
Within the accuracy of the contours, the concurrent 3- second wind speeds
associated with ice storms are all about 65 mph. For Alaska overall and for Kodiak in
particular, extreme winds are not common. The State of Alaska narrative about
severe winter storms listed peak wind gusts for several major storm events: most of
these peak gusts were in the range of 70 to 90 mph, although an extreme gust of
143 mph was recorded in 2000 at the Dutch Harbor spit.
Overall, the hazard level for winter storms, including snow, wind, and ice is moderate
for Kodiak Island Borough.
F. Calculated Priority Risk Index for Severe Winter Storm
The CPRI factors the elements of risk: Probability (P), Magnitude /Severity (M),
Warning Time (WT) and Duration to create an index which allows for the
prioritization of mitigation activities based on the level of risk.
The calculated CPRI for winter storms, 2.70, is higher than those for earthquake and
tsunami, because of the very frequent occurrence of winter storms. These CPRI
values do not meaningfully indicate the relative levels of risk which are drastically
higher for earthquake and tsunami than for winter storms.
39
Inventory
Probable Impacts
Portion of Kodiak Island
Borough affected
The entire Kodiak Island Borough
Building Damages
Generally minor, except in extreme events
Economic Impacts
Generally minor, except in extreme events
Streets and Roads
Most common impact is temporary closures
Electric power
Most common impact is temporary loss of service due to tree falls
and line damage
Water and wastewater
Generally minor, except in extreme events
Telecommunications
Generally minor, except in extreme events
Emergency shelter needs
Generally minimal, but could be significant during prolonged
power outages.
Casualties
Low potential for casualties due mostly to isolated tree falls
G. Vulnerability Analysis for Severe Winter Storm
This section serves to identify each hazard confronting the community and its
vulnerabilities to that hazard.
For winter storm events, generic estimates of damages and impacts for the "next
occurrence" are not meaningful. Rather, meaningful estimates must be for specific
events with defined severities and locations. The following impacts are for roughly
typical winter storm events.
a. Population.
Probable Impacts of Winter Storm Events
The entire population of Kodiak Island is affected by winter storms. However, for the
most part, effects are relatively minor.
b. Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 10 percent of the community's critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific critical facilities vulnerable are:
The most at risk facilities are transportation systems (road, sea, air) and utility
systems, especially electric power.
c. Non - Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 10 percent of the community's non - critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific non - critical facilities vulnerable are:
All buildings and other facilities are affected to a very minor extent. However, the
potential for widespread damages appears very low.
40
Files associated with Severe Winter Storm
File Name: KIB SEVERE STORMS.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 1/3/2006
User: Duane Dvorak
Subject:
Description: test
Hazard: Severe Winter Storm
File Name: KIB WINTER STORMS
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 1/3/2006
User: Duane Dvorak
Subject:
Description: This file contains a primer about winter storms with definitions of
technical terms and general information about winter storm hazards. This file also
includes supplemental text, figures and tables, which will be added to the final Word
version of the Kodiak Hazard Mitigation Plan during the final reformatting, after data
entry is complete in the MitigationPlan.com template.
Hazard: Severe Winter Storm
File Name: Severe Weather Vulnerability.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 11/1/2005
User: Laura Young
Subject:
Description: State of Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan Severe Weather Vulnerability
graphics and narrative (MS Word Format)
Hazard: Severe Winter Storm
H. Hazard Economic Loss Estimation for Severe Winter Storm
This section describes the potential economic losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
a. Economic Loss.
The economic loss resulting from this hazard is approximately $25,000.
b. Structure Loss.
The Toss from damage to structures from this hazard is approximately $25,000.
c. The following is the methodology for estimating losses.
Potential losses for winter storm events cannot be estimated meaningfully for a
generic "winter storm" event. Rather, potential losses must be estimated separately
for a range of scenario winter storm events of defined severities.
41
I. Hazard Human Loss Estimation for Severe Winter Storm
This section describes the potential human losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
The potential for deaths and injuries is minor and limited mostly to tree falls on
buildings or vehicles, along with potential for deaths or injuries to back country
recreationists during extreme weather events.
J. Vulnerability to Future Assets /Infrastructure for Severe Winter Storm
All buildings and other facilities will be affected to a very minor extent. However, the
potential for widespread damages appears very low.
K. Unique and Varied Risks for Severe Winter Storm
Commentary on Risk for each incorporated city or recognized tribal village within
Kodiak Island Borough.
The level of risk from winter storms is generally similar for all communities within
Kodiak Island Borough.
However, because of their isolation, the smaller isolated communities may have
greater risk, especially from long duration winter storms which may preclude
resupply of fuel, food, and other essentials.
42
7. Snow Avalanches
A. Hazard Definition for Snow Avalanches
A snow avalanche is a slope failure consisting of a mass of fluidized snow sliding
down a hillside.
B. Previous Occurrences for Snow Avalanches
Avalanches are common within Kodiak Island Borough. Fortunately, nearly all of
these are in the hilly interior backcountry and thus do not affect developed areas.
Within the developed areas, there have been avalanches along the Pasagshak
Highway.
C. Geographic Location for Snow Avalanches
The following information identifies the geographic area(s) affected by each specified
hazard.
The vast majority of avalanches within Kodiak Island Borough occur in backcountry
areas. However, there have been avalanches along the Pasagshak Highway and
avalanches are possible along the Chiniak Highway.
There are no residential or commercial areas within known avalanche hazard areas.
D. Hazard Extent for Snow Avalanches
The following information describes the magnitude and severity of each specified
hazard.
Overall, the level of risk posed by avalanches within Kodiak Island Borough is low,
because high risk areas are predominantly in the backcountry. Thus, skiers,
snowboarders and snowmobilers are at the greatest risk.
E. Hazard Summary for Snow Avalanches
The following provides information on the probability of future events. In addition, the
data provides an overall summary of the Jurisdiction(s) vulnerability and impact of
each hazard.
Overall, the level of risk posed by avalanches within Kodiak Island Borough is low,
because high risk areas are predominantly in the backcountry. Thus, skiers,
snowboarders and snowmobilers are at the greatest risk.
43
Inventory
Probable Impacts
Portion of Kodiak Island
Borough affected
Mostly the interior backcountry portion of the island. However,
avalanches are possible along Chiniak Highway and have
occurred along the Pasagshak Highway.
Building Damages
Limited potential for damage to a small number of buildings.
Economic Impacts
Generally minor impact
Streets and Roads
Generally minor impacts, limited to temporary closures
Electric power
Generally minor impacts.
Water and wastewater
Generally minor impacts.
Telecommunications
Generally minor impacts.
Emergency shelter needs
Very minor
Casualties
None in most events, but some avalanches could result in several
fatalities and injuries, especially in backcountry areas.
F. Calculated Priority Risk Index for Snow Avalanches
The CPRI factors the elements of risk: Probability (P), Magnitude /Severity (M),
Warning Time (WT) and Duration to create an index which allows for the
prioritization of mitigation activities based on the level of risk.
The calculated CPRI for avalanche, 2.80 is higher than those for earthquake and
tsunami, because of the very frequent occurrence of minor avalanches. These CPRI
values do not meaningfully indicate the relative levels of risk which are significantly
higher for earthquake and tsunami than for avalanche.
G. Vulnerability Analysis for Snow Avalanches
This section serves to identify each hazard confronting the community and its
vulnerabilities to that hazard.
For avalanche, generic estimates of damages and impacts for the "next occurrence"
are not meaningful. Rather, meaningful estimates must be for specific avalanche
events in specific locations. The estimates below are for more or less typical small -
scale avalanche events.
Probable Impacts of Avalanche
a. Population.
Approximately 0 percent of the community's population is vulnerable.
b. Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 0 percent of the community's critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific critical facilities vulnerable are:
None known at this time.
44
c. Non - Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 1 percent of the community's non - critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific non - critical facilities vulnerable are:
Only a tiny fraction of the roads, infrastructure and utilities within Kodiak Island
Borough, less than 1%, may be significantly affected by avalanches.
Files associated with Snow Avalanches
File Name: High Snow Avalanche Vulnerability Analysis
File Type: xls (Excel Spreadsheet)
Uploaded: 10/18/2005
User: R Simmons
Subject:
Description:
Hazard: Snow Avalanches
File Name: KIB AVALANCHES.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 1/2/2006
User: Duane Dvorak
Subject:
Description: This file contains a primer about avalanches with definitions of
technical terms and general information about avalanche hazards. This file also
includes supplemental text, figures and tables, which will be added to the final Word
version of the Kodiak Hazard Mitigation Plan during the final reformatting, after data
entry is complete in the MitigationPlan.com template.
Hazard: Snow Avalanches
File Name: Low Snow Avalanche Vulnerability Analysis
File Type: xls (Excel Spreadsheet)
Uploaded: 10/18/2005
User: R Simmons
Subject:
Description:
Hazard: Snow Avalanches
File Name: Medium Snow Avalanche Vulnerability Analysis
File Type: xls (Excel Spreadsheet)
Uploaded: 10/18/2005
User: R Simmons
Subject:
Description:
Hazard: Snow Avalanches
File Name: Snow Avalanche Vulnerability Analysis
File Type: doc (Word Document)
45
Uploaded: 10/18/2005
User: R Simmons
Subject:
Description:
Hazard: Snow Avalanches
H. Hazard Economic Loss Estimation for Snow Avalanches
This section describes the potential economic losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
a. Economic Loss.
The economic loss resulting from this hazard is approximately $10,000.
b. Structure Loss.
The loss from damage to structures from this hazard is approximately $10,000.
c. The following is the methodology for estimating losses.
Potential losses for avalanches cannot be estimated meaningfully for a generic
"avalanche" event. Rather, potential losses must be estimated separately for a range
of scenario avalanche events of defined severities and locations. Detailed estimates
cannot be made without a full inventory of at -risk buildings and infrastructure.
I. Hazard Human Loss Estimation for Snow Avalanches
This section describes the potential human losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
For most avalanche events, there will be no deaths or injuries or displacement.
However, especially in backcountry areas used for recreation, some avalanches will
results in a small number of deaths or injuries.
J. Vulnerability to Future Assets /Infrastructure for Snow Avalanches
In general, the vulnerability of future buildings, other facilities, and infrastructure will
be even lower than for existing assets, because new construction will presumably
not generally be located in areas with a history of active avalanches or in high risk
areas.
K. Unique and Varied Risks for Snow Avalanches
Commentary on Risk for each incorporated city or recognized tribal village within
Kodiak Island Borough.
Areas at high risk for avalanches are predominantly within the interior backcountry,
rather than in the developed areas.
46
8. Tsunami
A. Hazard Definition for Tsunami
Tsunamis, which are often incorrectly referred to as "tidal waves," may result from
earthquakes which cause a sudden rise or fall of part of the ocean floor. Such
movements may produce tsunami waves, which have nothing to do with the ordinary
ocean tides. Tsunamis are generally not caused by earthquakes on land and not all
undersea earthquakes result in tsunamis.
In the open ocean, in deep water far from land, tsunami waves have very low heights
and very long wavelengths and thus may be virtually undetectable, except by special
monitoring instruments. These waves travel across the ocean at speeds of several
hundred miles per hour. When such waves reach shallow water near the coastline,
they slow down and can gain great heights. Tsunami run -up heights may be only a
foot or two for small events, but run -ups of tens of feet may also occur in larger
events. In extreme cases, run -up heights can exceed 100 feet depending on wave
characteristics and the geometry of the affected coastline. Tsunami waves can
travel thousands of miles across oceans, as evidenced by the 2005 tsunami in
Indonesia or the 1964 Good Friday earthquake which caused tsunami damage and
deaths not only in Alaska but also in Oregon and California.
Tsunami detection and warning systems are in operated in the Pacific Ocean.
Warning times for tsunamis from distant earthquakes can be several hours.
However, arrival times for tsunamis generated by nearby earthquakes may be Tess
than 15 minutes and official warnings may or may not be issued in time.
Residents of Kodiak Island living in tsunami hazard areas should thus
evacuate to designated locations or tsunami shelters immediately upon either
the issuance of a tsunami warning and immediately upon feeling strong
ground shaking even if a specific tsunami warning has not been issued.
Tsunamis can also be triggered by other types of events, including:
• large undersea landslides that may occur because an earthquake or without
any earthquake occurring,
• large landslides on land that flow into the ocean, and
• collapse of volcanic islands into the ocean.
For example, the 1964 Good Friday earthquake triggered one large tsunami from
movement of the ocean floor. However, in addition there were about 20 smaller, but
locally damaging tsunamis that were generated by landslides undersea or on land.
An extreme example of a landslide triggered tsunami occurred in the narrow inlet of
Lituya Bay in 1958 where the tsunami stripped trees on adjacent hillside to an
elevation of over 1,700 feet above sea level.
Seiches are another phenomenon very similar to tsunamis. Seiches are waves from
sloshing of inland bodies of water such as lakes or reservoirs. Seiches may be
47
caused by earthquakes or by landslides into the bodies of water. Similar to
tsunamis, seiches may cause damages to shorefront structures and to dams.
B. Previous Occurrences for Tsunami
The most recent significant tsunamis affecting Kodiak Island occurred after the 1964
Good Friday earthquake. Kodiak City and the surrounding area experienced several
tsunamis with over $30 million in damages. There were major damages to dock and
harbor facilities, the airport, the electrical power and water systems, roads and to
many residential, commercial and industrial buildings. About 80% of the cities
industrial base was destroyed and about 600 people were made homeless out of a
population of only 2,658. Six people died from the tsunami.
C. Geographic Location for Tsunami
The following information identifies the geographic area(s) affected by each specified
hazard.
Every community within Kodiak Island Borough is located on the coast and thus
portions of every community are at risk from Tsunamis. As a rule of thumb, any
locations at elevations below 100 feet above sea level may be at risk from major
tsunamis.
For the Kodiak City area and the Women's Bay area (including the Coast Guard
Base), more detailed tsunami modeling maps are available. These maps have
tsunami run -up maps for seven scenario earthquake events. The maximum run -up
shown is for a repeat of the 1964 tsunami event. These maps are attached to the
Mitigation Plan.com online version of this hazard mitigation plan. A portion of the
map showing tsunami run -ups for downtown Kodiak City is shown in the figure
below.
48
D. Hazard Extent for Tsunami
EXPLANATION (also see text)
Modeled tsunami-inundation limits
* r 1; Repeat of 19 4 evert: 7 s cfs s 3
19x'4 evert . kv,t^ ° t s€ -fir
rtt ;et 19?4 eve7t eri :y can y w suWauhs (Mw = .v
19I4 even a ia«: on n t* * s rp t�f�x _ 8:
pture pious s eam s ^ gap <Mw = 9 11
e.en an m4 Cape fault ON; = 72)
SU,duct 2a2Cn:
E. Hazard Summary for Tsunami
49
The following information describes the magnitude and severity of each specified
hazard.
Kodiak Island is subject to tsunamis from undersea earthquakes, from undersea or
terrestrial landslides, and from the collapse of volcanic islands.
Every community within Kodiak Island Borough is located on the coast and thus
portions of every community are at risk from Tsunamis. As a rule of thumb, any
locations at elevations below 100 feet above sea level may be at risk from major
tsunamis.
The following provides information on the probability of future events. In addition, the
data provides an overall summary of the Jurisdiction(s) vulnerability and impact of
each hazard.
Of all of the natural hazards, tsunamis probably pose the second greatest risk to
Kodiak Island Borough (after earthquakes). That is, the potential for damages,
casualties, and economic impacts from major tsunamis is higher than for any other
hazard, except for earthquakes.
As demonstrated by the 1964 tsunamis, damage in affected areas can be nearly
total. However, unlike earthquakes which could affect the entire Borough, the direct
impacts of tsunamis are limited to narrow bands along the coastline.
F. Calculated Priority Risk Index for Tsunami
The CPRI factors the elements of risk: Probability (P), Magnitude /Severity (M),
Warning Time (WT) and Duration to create an index which allows for the
prioritization of mitigation activities based on the level of risk.
The CPRI for tsunami of 2.35 is not a meaningful measure of risk. Characterizing
tsunamis as having a probability of "unlikely" because the return period for major
tsunamis is greater than 10 years is profoundly misleading. For Kodiak Island
Borough, tsunamis pose a substantial risk — the threat to people, buildings,
infrastructure, and economic well being — which is probably larger than for any
natural hazard except earthquakes.
Major tsunamis, with return periods of decades or even hundreds of years have
enormous potential to cause high levels of casualties, damages and economic
impacts. Taking into account the probability of major tsunamis and the expected
levels of casualties, damages, and economic impacts tsunamis pose a substantial
risk to Kodiak Island Borough.
G. Vulnerability Analysis for Tsunami
This section serves to identify each hazard confronting the community and its
vulnerabilities to that hazard.
For tsunamis, the level of casualties (deaths and injuries), the number of people
needing emergency shelter, damages to buildings and infrastructure and overall
economic impacts will vary markedly depending on the location and severity of each
tsunami event. The table below provides a very rough overview of the likely impacts
for major tsunamis roughly corresponding to a repeat of the 1964 tsunami in Kodiak
City and surrounding areas.
50
Inventory
Probable Impacts
Portion of Kodiak Island
Borough affected
Low -lying coastal portions of each community
Building Damages
Potential for heavy or complete damage to most buildings in the
tsunami run -up area. A repeat of the 1964 tsunami could result in
over $50 million in damages to buildings and other facilities.
Economic Impacts
Probable economic impacts comparable to building damages
Streets and Roads
Significant damage in run -up area.
Electric power
Short outage of electric power is likely, with duration ranging from
a few hours to 1 day.
Water and wastewater
Potential for significant damages in run -up area, especially in
areas subject to soil scour.
Telecommunications
Relatively minor impacts outside of run -up zone.
Emergency shelter needs
Depending on the specific tsunami, up to 5% of residents may
need emergency shelter
Casualties
Will vary markedly with specific tsunami. Worse case of a major
tsunami with very short warning time may be tens of deaths (or
more) and hundreds of injuries. Casualties will be lower for
daytime tsunami than nighttime tsunami, because evacuations are
likely to be more effective.
a. Population.
Probable Impacts of Major Tsunamis
Approximately 5 or 10 percent of the community's population may be vulnerable to
the direct impacts of tsunamis. However, the entire population would be affected by
the disruption to transportation system and to the Borough's economic well being
because of expected damage to harbor facilities, including boats and seafood
processing facilities.
b. Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 20 percent of the community's critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific critical facilities vulnerable are:
Critical facilities potentially at risk include: harbor and dock facilities, the airport,
portions of the Coast Guard Base, and portions of lifeline utilities Detailed inventory
of at risk buildings and infrastructure within tsunami inundation zones does not exist.
Obtaining such an inventory is a mitigation action item for Kodiak Island Borough.
c. Non - Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 5 percent of the community's non - critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific non - critical facilities vulnerable are:
Very roughly about 5% of the non - critical facilities within the Borough may be at risk.
51
Detailed risk evaluations for the inventory of public, residential, and commercial
buildings have not been completed.
Files associated with Tsunami
File Name: KIB Tsunami.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 1/2/2006
User: Duane Dvorak
Subject:
Description: This file contains a primer about tsunamis with definitions of technical
terms and general information about tsunami hazards. This file also includes
supplemental text, figures and tables, which will be added to the final Word version
of the Kodiak Hazard Mitigation Plan during the final reformatting, after data entry is
complete in the MitigationPlan.com template.
Hazard: Tsunami
File Name: Tsunami map.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 11/1/2005
User: Laura Young
Subject:
Description: Map from State of Alaska Hazard Mitigation plan showing communities
vulnerable to tsunami (MS Word Format)
Hazard: Tsunami
File Name: Tsunami Vulnerability.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 11/1/2005
User: Laura Young
Subject:
Description: State of Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan Tsunami Vulnerability graphics
and narrative (MS Word Format)
Hazard: Tsunami
H. Hazard Economic Loss Estimation for Tsunami
This section describes the potential economic losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
a. Economic Loss.
The economic loss resulting from this hazard is approximately $25,000,000.
b. Structure Loss.
The loss from damage to structures from this hazard is approximately $25,000,000.
c. The following is the methodology for estimating losses.
Potential losses for Tsunamis cannot be estimated meaningfully for a generic
52
"tsunami." Rather, potential losses must be estimated separately for a range of
scenario tsunamis of defined severities and locations. Detailed estimates cannot be
made without a full inventory of at -risk buildings in infrastructure.
I. Hazard Human Loss Estimation for Tsunami
This section describes the potential human losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
The number of deaths and injuries from any future tsunami will depend on many
factors include the severity of the tsunami, the warning time, the effectiveness of
evacuation and the time of day or night.
J. Vulnerability to Future Assets /Infrastructure for Tsunami
In general, the vulnerability of future buildings, other facilities, and infrastructure will
be lower than for existing assets, because new construction will presumably be in
conformance with current and future provisions in the building code. However, the
extent of potential vulnerability cannot be estimated meaningfully at this time.
K. Unique and Varied Risks for Tsunami
Commentary on Risk for each incorporated city or recognized tribal village within
Kodiak Island Borough.
The analysis of tsunami hazard, vulnerability and risk applies to Kodiak Island
Borough as a whole. Because the population of the Borough and thus also the built
environment of buildings and infrastructure is predominantly concentrated in Kodiak
City and surrounding areas, the Borough -wide overview also applies to Kodiak City
and surrounding areas.
Much of the analysis also applies to the remote communities. However, because of
their isolated nature, there are also community- specific aspects of tsunami risk that
are important to recognize.
Each of the remove communities of Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor,
Ouzinkie and Port Lions have significant portions within potential tsunami run -up
zones. Each of these communities also has designated tsunami shelter, which is
either the school or a tsunami - specific shelter if the school is within the potential
tsunami run -up zone. Each of these communities has a warning system and public
education efforts have notified residents of the criticality of evacuation during
potential tsunami events.
Other critical facilities in these isolated communities include dock/harbor facilities
which are at tsunami risk and fuel tanks which may be at risk in some communities.
53
9. Volcano
A. Hazard Definition for Volcano
Volcanic eruptions involve release of molten rock, ash and gases from molten rock
within the earth's interior. There are more than 500 active volcanoes in the world,
including 44 historically active volcanoes in Alaska. There are also about 45 other
volcanoes in Alaska that are potentially active. Since 2000, 17 Alaska volcanoes
have had eruption activity.
Currently, Augustine Volcano, which is located in Cook Inlet about 180 miles
southwest of Anchorage, is emitting ash, steam and gas, with increasing seismic
activity. Historically, Augustine has been the most active volcano in the Cook Inlet
region with significant eruptions in 1812, 1883, 1908, 1963 -4, 1976, and 1986.
There are no active volcanoes on Kodiak Island. However, Kodiak Island is close
enough to active volcanoes on the Kenai and Alaska Peninsulas to be impacted by
some types of volcanic hazards.
Volcanic eruptions often involve several distinct types of hazards to people and
property, as well evidenced by the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption and by several
recent eruptions in Alaska. Major volcanic hazards include: lava flows, blast effects,
pyroclastic flows, ash flows, lahars, and landslides or debris flows. Some of these
hazards (e.g., lava flows) only affect areas very near the volcano. Other hazards
may affect areas 10 to 100 miles away from the volcano, while ash falls may affect
areas many hundreds of miles downwind of the eruption site.
Lava flows are eruptions of molten rock. Lava flows for most the major Alaska
volcanoes tend to relatively thick and viscous, forming cones and thus typically
affecting areas only relatively near the eruption vent. However, flows from the
smaller mafic volcanoes may be less viscous flows that spread out over wider areas.
Lava flows obviously destroy everything in their path.
Blast effects may occur with violent eruptions, such as Mount St. Helens in 1980.
Most volcanic blasts are largely upwards. However, the Mount St. Helens blast was
lateral, with impacts 17 miles from the volcano. Similar or larger blast zones are
possible in future eruptions of many of the major Alaska volcanoes.
Pyroclastic flows are high -speed avalanches of hot ash, rock fragments and gases.
Pyroclastic flows can be as hot as 1500 ° F and move downslope at 100 to 150 miles
per hour. Pyroclastic flows are extremely deadly for anyone caught in their path.
Ash falls result when explosive eruptions blast rock fragments into the air. Such
blasts may include tephra (solid and molten rock fragments). The largest rock
fragments (sometimes called "bombs ") generally fall within two miles of the eruption
vent. Smaller ash fragments (less than about 0.1") typically rise into the area
forming a huge eruption column. In very large eruptions, ash falls may total many
54
feet in depth near the vent and extent for hundreds or even thousands of miles
downwind.
Lahars or mudflows are common during eruptions of volcanoes with heavy loading
of ice and snow. These flows of mud, rock and water can rush down channels at 20
to 40 miles an hour and can extend for more than 50 miles. For some volcanoes,
lahars are a major hazard because highly populated areas are built on lahar flows
from previous eruptions.
In addition to the above volcanic hazards, volcanoes which are islands in the ocean
can also generate substantial tsunamis by collapse of volcanic cones. For example,
collapse of Mt. Augustine in Cook Inlet could generate a substantial tsunami
impacting Kodiak Island. However, the probability of a collapse of Mt. Augustine is
low.
B. Previous Occurrences for Volcano
There are no volcanoes on Kodiak Island. Past volcanic events for Kodiak Island
have been limited to ash fall events. The most extreme event occurred in June 1912
when a major eruption of the Novarupta Volcano (Katmai) included massive
amounts of volcanic ash.
During the 1912 eruption ash began falling in Kodiak City within about four hours
with total accumulations of several feet of ash. Roofs collapsed under the weight of
ash and some buildings were destroyed by ash avalanches down slopes, while
others burned after lightning strikes from the ash cloud. Breathing became difficult
because of the heavy ash content of the air and because of volcanic gases; the
water supply was rendered undrinkable. There were also major environmental
impacts include destruction of vegetation and deaths of terrestrial and aquatic
animals.
C. Geographic Location for Volcano
The following information identifies the geographic area(s) affected by each specified
hazard.
The entire Kodiak Island Borough is subject to ash falls. As with non - volcanic
tsunamis, low lying coastal areas in every community are also subject to the effects
of possible volcanic tsunamis.
D. Hazard Extent for Volcano
The following information describes the magnitude and severity of each specified
hazard.
Overall, the level of risk posed by volcanic events to Kodiak Island Borough is
moderate. The most likely ash events would be minor with perhaps a few inches of
ash. Only rare, extreme events, such as the 1912 event, would result in substantial
55
thicknesses of ash falls. Similarly, while a significant volcanic tsunami event is
possible, the probability is low.
E. Hazard Summary for Volcano
The following provides information on the probability of future events. In addition, the
data provides an overall summary of the Jurisdiction(s) vulnerability and impact of
each hazard.
The level of risk posed by volcanic events to Kodiak Island Borough is moderate with
the most likely events being relatively minor ash falls. However, extreme events with
heavy ash falls or significant volcanic tsunamis are also possible, albeit with low
probabilities.
The most likely effects of ash falls are respiratory difficulties, especially for children
and the elderly, effects on the water supply system, and effects on mechanical
equipment. Ash falls can damage mechanical equipment such as vehicles,
generators and aircraft engines.
F. Calculated Priority Risk Index for Volcano
The CPRI factors the elements of risk: Probability (P), Magnitude /Severity (M),
Warning Time (WT) and Duration to create an index which allows for the
prioritization of mitigation activities based on the level of risk.
The calculated CPRI for volcanic events, 1.95, may meaningfully indicate the relative
levels of risk for volcanic activity vis -a -vis other hazards.
G. Vulnerability Analysis for Volcano
This section serves to identify each hazard confronting the community and its
vulnerabilities to that hazard.
For volcanic events, generic estimates of damages and impacts for the "next
occurrence" are not meaningful. Rather, meaningful estimates must be for specific
events with defined levels of ash fall. The estimates below are for more or less
typical small -scale volcanic ash events. Extreme events with several feet of ash will
have larger impacts.
56
Inventory
Probable Impacts
Portion of Kodiak Island
Borough affected
The entire Borough.
Building Damages
Generally minor impacts with only minor cleanup, except in
extreme events would could damage some buildings.
Economic Impacts
Generally minor impact
Streets and Roads
Generally minor impacts.
Electric power
Potentially significant events from accumulation of wet ash which
may short out some components and result in temporary loss of
power.
Water and wastewater
Significant impacts on water system with possible Toss of
potability. Minor impacts on wastewater systems.
Telecommunications
Generally minor impacts.
Emergency shelter needs
None except in extreme events.
Casualties
Respiratory difficulties possible for children, elderly and people
with respiratory problems.
a. Population.
Files associated with Volcano
File Name: KIB VOLCANO
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 1/3/2006
User: Duane Dvorak
Probable Impacts of Volcanic Events
The entire population of Kodiak Island Borough could be affected by volcanic ash
events. Deaths and health affects are possible, predominantly for children, elderly or
otherwise frail people, and persons with respiratory problems.
b. Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 20 percent of the community's critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific critical facilities vulnerable are:
The water supply system is vulnerable to ash flow events which contaminate water
supplies and clog filter systems in water treatment plants. Some electrical system
components may also short out when covered in wet ash.
c. Non - Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 10 percent of the community's non - critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific non - critical facilities vulnerable are:
The effects of ash falls on non - critical facilities would generally me minor, except in
extreme events which could damage some buildings.
57
Subject:
Description: This file contains a primer about volcanoes with definitions of technical
terms and general information about volcano hazards. This file also includes
supplemental text, figures and tables, which will be added to the final Word version
of the Kodiak Hazard Mitigation Plan during the final reformatting, after data entry is
complete in the MitigationPlan.com template.
Hazard: Volcano
File Name: Volcano Map
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 11/1/2005
User: Laura Young
Subject:
Description: Map from State of Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan identifying statewide
Volcano Hazards (MS Word format)
Hazard: Volcano
File Name: volcano vulnerability.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 11/1/2005
User: Laura Young
Subject:
Description: State of Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan volcano vulnerability narrative
and graphics (MS Word format)
Hazard: Volcano
H. Hazard Economic Loss Estimation for Volcano
This section describes the potential economic losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
a. Economic Loss.
The economic loss resulting from this hazard is approximately $1,000,000.
b. Structure Loss.
The loss from damage to structures from this hazard is approximately $1,000,000.
c. The following is the methodology for estimating losses.
Potential losses for volcanic events cannot be estimated meaningfully for a generic
"volcanic" event. Rather, potential losses must be estimated separately for a range
of scenario volcanic events of defined severities.
I. Hazard Human Loss Estimation for Volcano
This section describes the potential human losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
58
The entire population of Kodiak Island Borough could be affected by volcanic ash
events. Deaths and health affects are possible, predominantly for children, elderly or
otherwise frail people, and persons with respiratory problems. Quantitative
estimates are not available at this time.
J. Vulnerability to Future Assets /Infrastructure for Volcano
In general, the vulnerability of future buildings, other facilities, and infrastructure will
very similar to that for existing assets, because there are no specific volcanic ash
provisions in the building codes.
K. Unique and Varied Risks for Volcano
Commentary on Risk for each incorporated city or recognized tribal village within
Kodiak Island Borough.
The level of ash fall hazard and risk is generally more or less uniform throughout
Kodiak Island.
59
The entire population of Kodiak Island Borough could be affected by volcanic ash
events. Deaths and health affects are possible, predominantly for children, elderly or
otherwise frail people, and persons with respiratory problems. Quantitative
estimates are not available at this time.
J. Vulnerability to Future Assets /Infrastructure for Volcano
In general, the vulnerability of future buildings, other facilities, and infrastructure will
very similar to that for existing assets, because there are no specific volcanic ash
provisions in the building codes.
K. Unique and Varied Risks for Volcano
Commentary on Risk for each incorporated city or recognized tribal village within
Kodiak Island Borough.
The level of ash fall hazard and risk is generally more or Tess uniform throughout
Kodiak Island.
59
10. Wildfires
A. Hazard Definition for Wildfires
Fire has posed a threat to mankind since the dawn of civilization. Fires may cause
significant damage to property and may also result in deaths and injuries. For the
purposes of mitigation planning, we consider three types of fires: structure fires,
wildland fires, and wildland /urban interface fires.
Structure fires are fires in urban, suburban or rural areas where structures (and
contents) are the primary fire fuel. Structure fires predominantly affect residential
and other ordinary buildings. However, structure fires may also affect other types of
structures, including bulk fuel storage or hazmat facilities. Fires affecting these
types of facilities may be particularly hazardous to both firefighters and nearby
residents. Fires on pipelines and transportation fires (road, rail, air) generally have
similar characteristics to fires at hazmat sites or structures.
Wildland fires are fires where vegetation (grass, brush, trees) is the primary fire fuel.
Wildland /urban interface fires are fires where the fire fuel includes both structures
and vegetation.
For mitigation planning, the emphasis is on wildland /urban interface fires because
such fires are analogous to natural disasters in that they may affect large developed
areas and large numbers of people.
B. Previous Occurrences for Wildfires
Wildland or wildland /urban interface fires are not common within Kodiak Island
Borough, although there are extensive areas with vegetative fuels, including grassy
and forested areas. To a large extent, the relatively low occurrence of such fires
reflects the generally high levels of precipitation.
Historically, there have been grass and forest fires on Kodiak that have threatened
populated areas. Fortunately, however, losses of structures have generally been
avoided.
C. Geographic Location for Wildfires
The following information identifies the geographic area(s) affected by each specified
hazard.
Within the Kodiak urban area, some residential development is located within or
adjacent to forested steep slope areas potentially subject to wildland /urban interface
fires.
Portions of the Kodiak urban area and portions of most of the other communities are
60
located within or adjacent to grassy areas which are also subject to wildland /urban
interface fires. The potential for fires in grassy areas is well demonstrated by the
grassland fires in Texas and Oklahoma in December 2005 and January 2006 which
have burned several hundred structures.
D. Hazard Extent for Wildfires
The following information describes the magnitude and severity of each specified
hazard.
Overall, the level of risk posed by wildland /urban interface fire within Kodiak Island
Borough is low, because of the relatively low number of wildland fires and because
of climatic conditions which result in a relatively low probability of wildland fires
burning out of control into developed areas.
Overall, the level of risk posed by wildland /urban interface fires to Kodiak Island
Borough is among the lowest risks for the natural hazards evaluated.
E. Hazard Summary for Wildfires
The following provides information on the probability of future events. In addition, the
data provides an overall summary of the Jurisdiction(s) vulnerability and impact of
each hazard.
Borough is low, because of the relatively low number of wildland fires and because
of climatic conditions which result in a relatively low probability of wildland fires
burning out of control into developed areas. It is important to note that wildland fires
in remote areas not pose a threat to developed areas.
Within the Kodiak urban area there are four fire departments: Kodiak Area Fire and
Rescue, Women's Bay Volunteer Fire Department, Bayside Volunteer Fire
Department, and the US Coast Guard ISC Kodiak Fire Department. These agencies
have an excellent record of cooperation and mutual aid and an excellent record of
extinguishing vegetation fires before they destroy structures.
However, the isolated communities have extremely limited fire suppression
capabilities and all of these communities are thus a some level of risk for wildland
fires burning into developed areas.
Overall, the level of risk posed by wildland /urban interface fires to Kodiak Island
Borough is among the lowest risks for the natural hazards evaluated.
F. Calculated Priority Risk Index for Wildfires
The CPRI factors the elements of risk: Probability (P), Magnitude /Severity (M),
Warning Time (WT) and Duration to create an index which allows for the
prioritization of mitigation activities based on the level of risk.
61
Inventory
Probable Impacts
Portion of Kodiak Island
Borough affected
Portions of most communities at or near the interface of forest or
grasslands with developed areas.
Building Damages
Limited potential for damage to a small number of buildings.
Economic Impacts
Generally minor impact
Streets and Roads
Generally minor impacts, limited to temporary closures
Electric power
Generally minor impacts.
Water and wastewater
Generally minor impacts.
Telecommunications
Generally minor impacts.
Emergency shelter needs
Generally minor (small number of displaced people)
Casualties
None in most events, but severe wildland /urban interface fires
could result in several fatalities and injuries.
The calculated CPRI for wildland /urban interface fire, 2.40, is similar to those for
earthquake and tsunami, because of the more frequent occurrence of minor
wildland /urban interface fires. These CPRI values do not meaningfully indicate the
relative levels of risk which are significantly higher for earthquake and tsunami than
for wildland /urban interface fires.
G. Vulnerability Analysis for Wildfires
This section serves to identify each hazard confronting the community and its
vulnerabilities to that hazard.
For wildland /urban interface fire, generic estimates of damages and impacts for the
"next occurrence" are not meaningful. Rather, meaningful estimates must be for
specific wildland /urban interface fire events in specific locations. The estimates
below are for a typical small -scale wildland /urban interface fire.
a. Population.
Probable Impacts of Wildland /Urban Interface Fires
Only a small fraction, perhaps 1`)/0 or2% of the population is likely to be directly
affected by wildland /urban interface fires.
b. Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 0 percent of the community's critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific critical facilities vulnerable are:
None known at to be at especially high risk.
c. Non - Critical Facilities.
(1) Approximately 10 percent of the community's non - critical facilities are vulnerable.
(2) The specific non - critical facilities vulnerable are:
62
Buildings and other facilities in or near the wildland /urban interface areas.
Files associated with Wildfires
File Name: Critical Fire Vulnerability Analysis
File Type: xls (Excel Spreadsheet)
Uploaded: 10/18/2005
User: R Simmons
Subject:
Description:
Hazard: Wildfires
File Name: Fire Vulnerablity Analysis Map
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 10/18/2005
User: R Simmons
Subject:
Description:
Hazard: Wildfires
File Name: Full Fire Vulnerability Analysis
File Type: xls (Excel Spreadsheet)
Uploaded: 10/18/2005
User: R Simmons
Subject:
Description:
Hazard: Wildfires
File Name: KIB Wildand Urban Fires.doc
File Type: doc (Word Document)
Uploaded: 1/2/2006
User: Duane Dvorak
Subject:
Description: This file contains a primer about wildland /urban interface fires with
definitions of technical terms and general information about wildland /urban interface
fire hazards. This file also includes supplemental text, figures and tables, which will
be added to the final Word version of the Kodiak Hazard Mitigation Plan during the
final reformatting, after data entry is complete in the MitigationPlan.com template.
Hazard: Wildfires
File Name: Limitied Fire Vulnerability Analysis
File Type: xls (Excel Spreadsheet)
Uploaded: 10/18/2005
User: R Simmons
Subject:
Description:
Hazard: Wildfires
63
File Name: Modified Fire Vulnerability Analysis
File Type: xls (Excel Spreadsheet)
Uploaded: 10/18/2005
User: R Simmons
Subject:
Description:
Hazard: Wildfires
File Name: Unplanned Fire Vulnerability Analysis
File Type: xls (Excel Spreadsheet)
Uploaded: 10/18/2005
User: R Simmons
Subject:
Description:
Hazard: Wildfires
H. Hazard Economic Loss Estimation for Wildfires
This section describes the potential economic losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
a. Economic Loss.
The economic loss resulting from this hazard is approximately $200,000.
b. Structure Loss.
The loss from damage to structures from this hazard is approximately $200,000.
c. The following is the methodology for estimating losses.
Potential losses for wildland /urban interface fires cannot be estimated meaningfully
for a generic "wildland /urban interface fire" event. Rather, potential losses must be
estimated separately for a range of scenario wildland /urban interface fire events of
defined severities and locations. Detailed estimates cannot be made without a full
inventory of at -risk buildings and infrastructure.
I. Hazard Human Loss Estimation for Wildfires
This section describes the potential human losses due to each hazard confronting
the community.
Any wildland /urban interface fire has some potential to cause deaths and injuries
and to displace residents whose homes may be damaged or destroyed. For most
events the number of deaths will be zero and the number of injuries will be none or
few. In some events, a few people may be displaced.
64
J. Vulnerability to Future Assets /Infrastructure for Wildfires
Only a small fraction of the buildings and infrastructure within Kodiak Island
Borough, perhaps about 10 %, may be significantly affected by wildland /urban
interface fires. The vulnerability of new construction will be somewhat less due to
more modern fire codes.
K. Unique and Varied Risks for Wildfires
Commentary on Risk for each incorporated city or recognized tribal village within
Kodiak Island Borough.
Areas at highest risk for wildland /urban interface fires are mostly within the hilly
portions Kodiak urban area. However, portions of the isolated communities may
also be at risk, especially from grass fires.
65
4.3 Asset Inventory
A. Processes and Sources for Identifying Assets
Critical facilities identified by the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee.
Data Limitations:
Limited GIS mapping completed to date to map high hazard zones or to overlay
inventories with identified hazard zones.
B. Critical Facilities List:
This section lists Critical Facilities:
Geographic isolation is one of Kodiak Island Boroughs defining characteristics: the
only access to the island is by sea or by air. This geographic isolation affects the
entire Borough, but is especially pronounced for the small isolated communities
which are not on the road network and thus which are further isolated from the main
population and resource center of the Kodiak urban area. For the Borough as a
whole, individuals, businesses, organizations, and communities must be self
sufficient, especially in post- disaster times when relief assistance from the outside
world may not be immediately forthcoming.
Because of this geographic isolation, some types of facilities and infrastructure are
much more critical for Kodiak Island Borough than they are for the more typical
jurisdictions which generally have much more immediate access to mutual aid of all
sorts from surrounding jurisdictions.
BUILDINGS
Schools
All borough schools, all of which also serve as emergency shelters
Fire Stations
City Fire Hall
Bayside Fire Hall
Women's Bay Fire Hall
Coast Guard Fire Station
Village fire halls
Police Stations
Kodiak
Alaska State Police
Hospitals and Clinics
Providence Kodiak Island Medical Center
USGC Support Center (Rockmore -King Clinic)
66
Kodiak Island Medical Clinic
Kodiak Area Native Association Clinic
North Pacific Medical
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Airports and Support Facilities
State Airport
City Municipal Airport
Trident Bay Float Plane facility
Woody Island aviation traffic control
Docks
All City Docks, especially Pier III - loads and unloads Horizon Lines cargo
Coast Guard Docks
Lash Dock (Samson Tug and Barge)
Cannery Docks
Harbor Facilities
Saint Herman's Harbor
Saint Paul Harbor
Major roads
Rezanof Drive from Chiniak to Monashka Bay
Chiniak Road
Parts of Mission Road
Parts of Mill Bay Road
Parts of Pasagshak Road (rocket launch facility)
Major roads in Kodiak City: Shelikof Street, Center Ave. and Marine Way.
UTILITY INFRASTRUCURE
Water
Monashka Bay Dam
Piller Creek Dam
Upper Reservoir
Water treatment facilities
Distribution mains and lines
Wastewater
Sewage treatment plant
Pump stations
Mains and lines
Electric Power
Terror Lake Hydroelectric Dam, Powerhouse and Transmission Lines
High Substation
67
Hartman Substation
Local transformers and distribution lines
Kodiak Electrical Association Electrical Power House
Telecommunications
Kodiak Central Office (switching)
Pillar Mountain antennas and dishes
Fuel Tanks
North Pacific Fuel
Petro Marine Fuel
This section lists Non - Critical Facilities:
All other public, residential, commercial and industrial buildings, facilities, and
infrastructure.
C. Facility Replacement Costs
This section describes the costs from lost Critical Facilities
Not included in this Hazard Mitigation Plan
This section describes the costs from lost Non - Critical Facilities:
Not included in this Hazard Mitigation Plan
D. Future Development
No major future developments are planned at this time.
4.4 Analysis of Community Development Trends
Kodiak Island Borough
The Community Development Department has primary responsibility for land use
planning within the Kodiak Island Borough, including providing staff for the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
The Engineering and Facilities Department has responsibility for administration of
codes related to construction. The City of Kodiak is responsible for water and
wastewater utilities.
The rate of development within Kodiak Island Borough is modest. The 2004
68
population estimate (State Demographer) shows a population Toss of about 450
people since the 2000 Census.
Development activity within the Borough is predominantly within Kodiak City and
surrounding areas on the eastern end of Kodiak Island. Development activity is
generally limited to residential and commercial construction.
69
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community of Kodiak Island Borough, AK
Section 5 Mitigation Strategy
5.1 Summary of Mitigation Goals
The following section provides an overview of the Mitigation Goals and
Objectives:
The overall purpose of the Kodiak Island Borough Hazard Mitigation
Plan is to reduce the impacts of future natural or human - caused
disasters on the people and communities of Kodiak Island
Borough. That is, the purpose is to make Kodiak Island Borough
more disaster resistant and disaster resilient, by reducing the
vulnerability to disasters and enhancing the capability to respond
effectively to and recover quickly from future disasters.
Completely eliminating the risk of future disasters in Kodiak
Island Borough is neither technologically possible nor
economically feasible. However, substantially reducing the
negative impacts of future disasters is achievable with the
adoption of this pragmatic Hazard Mitigation Plan and ongoing
implementation of risk reducing action items. Incorporating risk
reduction strategies and action items into the borough's existing
programs and decision making processes will facilitate moving
Kodiak Island Borough toward a safer and more disaster resistant
future.
In addition, the Kodiak Island Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan is
intended to meet or contribute towards meeting various
regulatory requirements, especially FEMA's (Federal Emergency
Management Agency) mitigation planning requirements so that
Kodiak Island Borough remains eligible for pre- and post- disaster
mitigation funding from FEMA.
The Kodiak Island Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan is based on a
four -step framework that is designed to help focus attention and
action on successful mitigation strategies: Mission Statement,
Goals, Objectives and Action Items.
Mission Statement. The Mission Statement states the purpose
and defines the primary function of the Kodiak Island Borough
Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Mission Statement is an action -
oriented summary that answers the question "Why develop a
hazard mitigation plan ?"
Goals. Goals identify priorities and specify how Kodiak Island
Borough intends to work toward reducing the risks from natural
and human - caused hazards. The Goals represent the guiding
principles toward which the Borough's efforts are directed. Goals
provide focus for the more specific issues, recommendations and
actions addressed in Objectives and Action Items.
Objectives. Each Goal has Objectives which specify the
directions, methods, processes, or steps necessary to accomplish
the plan's Goals. Objectives lead directly to specific Action Items.
Action Items. Action items are specific well- defined activities or
projects that work to reduce risk. That is, the Action Items
represent the steps necessary to achieve the Mission Statement,
Goals and Objectives.
Mission Statement
The mission of the Kodiak Island Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan
is to:
Proactively facilitate and support borough -wide policies,
practices, and programs that make Kodiak Island Borough
more disaster resistant and disaster resilient.
Making Kodiak Island Borough more disaster resistant and
disaster resilient means taking proactive steps and actions to:
Protect life safety,
Reduce property damage,
Minimize economic losses and disruption, and
Shorten the recovery period from future disasters.
Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives
Mitigation plan goals and objectives guide the direction of future
policies and activities aimed at reducing risk and preventing loss
from disaster events. The goals and objectives listed here serve
as guideposts and checklists as agencies, organizations, and
individuals begin implementing mitigation action items in Kodiak
Island Borough.
These goals were developed with extensive input and priority
setting by agencies, the mitigation plan steering committee,
stakeholders and citizens from throughout Kodiak Island Borough.
5.2 Mitigation Goals
1. Goal 1: Reduce Threats to Life Safety
Goal Description:
Reducing threats to life safety is the highest priority for Kodiak
Island Borough.
The 2005 seismic risk evaluation for all of the public schools
within the Borough identified several school buildings which pose
significant life safety risks, including: the old wings of the Middle
School, the library wing of the High School, and the original
buildings at Ouzinkie and Peterson Schools. Furthermore, non-
structural life safety risks were identified at all of the school
buildings.
Seismic upgrades for these school buildings all have very high
priority. However, the highest priority mitigation project for
Kodiak Island Borough is for the Middle School, which has been
identified as posing the highest level of life safety risk
Objective:
Enhance life safety by minimizing the potential for deaths and
injuries in future disaster events.
Duration: Long -Term
Associated Files
File Name: KIB Action Items Table.xls
File Type: xls (Excel Spreadsheet)
Uploaded: 1/4/2006
User: Duane Dvorak
Subject:
Description: This file contains a tabular summary of KIB action
items for each of the 10 natural hazards. This table will be
reformatted and pasted into the final Kodiak Hazard Mitigation
Plan
Goal: Goal 1: Reduce Threats to Life Safety
2. Goal 2: Protect Critical Facilities
Goal Description:
Kodiak Island Borough's defined critical facilities (buildings,
transportation infrastructure, and utility infrastructure) are
itemized in the critical facilities section of Assets Inventory in the
3
Risk Assessment section of this mitigation plan. Mitigation
projects to reduce risk for all of these defined critical facilities, for
each hazard that affects each facility, are all high priority projects
for Kodiak Island Borough.
Geographic isolation is one of Kodiak Island Boroughs defining
characteristics: the only access to the island is by sea or by air.
This geographic isolation affects the entire Borough, but is
especially pronounced for the small isolated communities which
are not on the road network and thus which are further isolated
from the main population and resource center of the Kodiak urban
area. For the Borough as a whole, individuals, businesses,
organizations, and communities must be self sufficient, especially
in post- disaster times when relief assistance from the outside
world may not be immediately forthcoming.
Because of this geographic isolation, some types of facilities and
infrastructure are much more critical for Kodiak Island Borough
than they are for the more typical jurisdictions which generally
have much more immediate access to mutual aid of all sorts from
surrounding jurisdictions.
Objectives:
Implement activities or projects to protect critical facilities and
infrastructure.
Seek opportunities to enhance, protect, and integrate emergency
and essential services.
Strengthen emergency operations plans and procedures by
increasing collaboration and coordination among public agencies,
non - profit organizations, business, and industry and the citizens of
Kodiak Island Borough.
Duration: Long -Term
3. Goal 3: Reduce the Threat to Property
Goal Description:
Each of the ten natural hazards considered in the Kodiak Island
Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan poses threats to some of the
buildings, facilities and infrastructure within the Borough. In
general each hazard poses different levels of threat to different
assets.
For existing development, this objective focuses on identifying
buildings, facilities and infrastructure that are at high risk from
one or more hazards, with high potential for significant damages
4
and then mitigating such risk whenever mitigation actions are
cost - effective.
For new development, this objective focuses on identifying hazard
areas that pose significant risks for new development of buildings
and infrastructure. Upon identification of such hazard areas,
Kodiak Island Borough will discourage new development in such
areas unless any new construction is engineered to minimize the
potential for future damages.
Objectives:
Reduce the potential for damages to public, residential, commercial
and industrial buildings from each hazard that poses risk to specific
buildings.
Reduce the potential for damages to other facilities and
infrastructure from each hazard that poses risks to specific facilities
and infrastructure.
Duration: Long -Term
4. Goal 4: Create a Disaster Resistant - Resilient Economy
Goal Description:
This objective focuses on steps to ensure that the economic well
being of Kodiak Island Borough is a disaster resistant as possible
and ensuring that when disasters do happen that the economic
well being is as resilient as possible. These actions are particularly
important for Kodiak Island Borough because of its geographic
isolation and relatively narrow economic /employment base.
Objectives:
Develop and implement activities to protect economic well -being
and vitality while reducing economic hardship in post disaster
situations.
Reduce insurance losses and repetitive claims for chronic hazard
events.
Work with State and Federal Partners to reduce short -term and
long -term recovery and reconstruction costs.
Work with local organization, such as Local Emergency Planning
Association (LEPA).
Expedite pre- disaster and post- disaster grants and program
funding.
5
Duration: Long -Term
5. Goal 5: Increase Public Awareness of Mitigation
Goal Description:
The focus of this goal is to increase public awareness of natural
hazards and mitigation opportunities through a wide range of
education, outreach and partnership activities.
Objectives:
Coordinate and collaborate, where possible, risk reduction outreach
efforts with other public and private organizations.
Develop and implement risk reduction education programs to
increase awareness among citizens, local, borough, and regional
agencies, non - profit organizations, business, and industry.
Promote insurance coverage for catastrophic hazards
Strengthen communication and coordinate participation in and
between public agencies, citizens, nonprofit organizations,
business, and industry.
Duration: Long -Term
Kodiak Island Borough's Hazard Mitigation Action Items are
summarized on the following pages.
6
Is Addressed 1
i ;eonp3 oiignd
'Earthquake Mitigation Action Items
x
x
x
x
x
Atuouoo3
;ue;sisaa
Je1ses!a
x
x
x
x
x
Mitigation Plan Goal
iedoJd ;oa ;oJd
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ta
1 -3 Years
1 -3 Years
Ongoing
Long Term
Long Term
Coordinating Organizations
KIB, KIB School District, villages
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages, Kodiak
Electric Association, Alaska Villages
Electrical Coop, Petrostar,
Petromarine
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages, Kodiak
Electric Association, Alaska Villages
Electrical Coop, Petrostar,
Petromarine
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
Action Item
Complete seismic retrofits for school buildings
identified as posing a high life safety risk
Conduct seismic risk evaluation for critical facilities
(buildings, transportation systems, utility systems) to
determine which assets require retrofit
Disseminate FEMA pamphlets to educate
homeowners and businesses about structural and
non - structural retrofitting of vulnerable buildings and
encourage retrofit
Obtain funding and retrofit critical facilities to ensure
adequate seismic performance in future earthquakes
Encourage retrofit of vulnerable residential,
commercial and industrial buildings
12
co
N
ca
I Short-Term
#1
Z#
wJal
Short-Term
#3
Long -Term #1
'Long -Term #2
Is Addressed 1
i;eonP3 ollgnd
'Tsunami Mitigation Action Items
x
x
x
x
nuaouoo3
;ue;sisaa
.1a;sesia
x
x
x
x
Mitigation Plan Goal
iadoJd ;oa;oJd
x
x
x
x
x
x
Alain Gin
x
x
x
x
Tu
1 -2 years
sieaA-g
Long Term
Ongoing
Coordinating Organizations
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
Action Item
Complete inventory of critical facilities located within
mapped tsunami inundation zones (and probable
inundation zones where mapping is not completed)
Complete mapping of tsunami inundation zones for all
communities within the Borough
Harden or relocate critical facilities determined to be
in tsunami inundation zones
Continue public education, evacuation awareness,
and emergency planning for tsunami events
1..,
N
CCS
Z
Short-Term
#1
I Short -Term
#2
I Long -Term
#1
Long -Term
#2
Is Addressed
n ;eonp3 ovind
'Erosion Mitigation Action Items
x
x
x
Is Addressed
uoneonp3 3!Ignd
>n Action Items
x
x
x
nuaou03
;ue ;sisaa
Je sesia
x
x
x
ALLIOUO33
;ue ;s!sea
Je ;sesia
x
x
x
Mitigation Plan Goal
ledoid ;oa;oJd
x
x
x
Mitigation Plan Goal
Apedaid ;oa;ord
x
x
x
x
x
x
se,MIPed le
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ale JeS 0 111
x
x
x
1 -2 Years
Long Term
Ongoing
sJe8A Z - t
Long Term
Ongoing
Coordinating Organizations
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
KIB, villages
Coordinating Organizations
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
KIB, villages
wa ;l uo! ;oy
Complete the inventory of locations, buildings and
infrastructure subject to significant erosion
Remediate erosion or relocate buildings or
infrastructure subject to erosion when cost effective
Limit future development in high erosion risk areas
wa ;I uol;oy
Complete the inventory of locations, buildings and
infrastructure subject to significant flooding
Undertake flood mitigation actions when cost effective
for identified high risk locations
Limit future development in high flood risk areas
P.
L
as
N
!a
1
I Short-Term
#1
Long -Term
#1
Long -Term
#2
12
L
43
N
to
_
I Short-Term
#1
I
Long -Term
#1
I
Long -Term
#2
Is Addressed
o! ;eonP3 o!!gnd
gation Action Items
x
x
x
Is Addressed I
uogeonpj o!!gnd
'Severe Storm Mitigation Action Items
AWOUO33
;ue ;slsaa
Ja ;ses!a
X
X
x
Awou033
;ue ;s!se
Je ;sesla
Mitigation Plan Goal
Jedoid;oa;oid
x
x
x
Mitigation Plan Goal
tripedaid ;oa;oJd
X
X
X
soMIPed !e3l ;lJ9
kaleS 0 M1
X
x
x
I1aieg eJll
cu
steal. Z
Long Term
6u!o6u0
a
v
Coordinating Organizations
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
KIB, villages
Coordinating Organizations
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
Action Item
Complete the inventory of locations where critical
facilities, other buildings and infrastructure are subject
to landslides
Consider landslide mitigation actions for slides
seriously threatening critical facilities, other buildings
or infrastructure
Limit future development in high landslide potential
areas
Action Item
Risk from severe storms appears minimal. No action
items identified at this time.
'2
V
0
N
CO
2
Short-Term
#1
t•#
ulial -6uoi
I Long -Term
#2
-0
L
CO
N
CO
2
l•#
w.1al -Jo4S
oleonp3 offgnd
x
{
Is Addressed
aogeonp3 offgnd
x
x
x
Atuouo33
;ue;sfseJ
as ;sesfa
x
K
x
nwouoo3
;ue;sfsab
aa;sesm
x
x
x
faado.1d ;oa;oad
Storm Mitigation Action Items
x
K
x
igation Plan Goal
ftaadoad ;oa;oad
x
x
x
x
x
seRffloed 1
x
x
x
�!W
x
x
x
1 -2 years
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
1 -2 Years
Long Term
6u!o6u0
Coordinating Organizations
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages, Kodiak
Electric Association, Alaska Village
Electrical Coop
Kodiak Electric Association, Alaska
!Village Electrical Coop
Kodiak Electric Association, Alaska
Village Electrical Coop
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
Coordinating Organizations
he Mitigation Action Items
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
KIB, villages, Kodiak Electric
Association, Alaska Village
Electrical Coop
SIN
w0;1 uo! ;oy
Ensure that all critical facilities in Kodiak Island
!Borough have backup power and emergency
'operations plans to deal with power outages
Enhance tree trimming efforts especially for
transmission lines and trunk distribution lines.
Encourage prudent tree planting (avoid service lines)
and safe, professional tree trimming where necessary
Encourage citizens and businesses to plan for
emergencies and to stockpile emergency supplies
Action Item
Complete the inventory of locations where critical
facilities, other buildings and infrastructure are subject
to avalanches
Consider mitigation actions for avalanche areas
seriously threatening critical facilities, other buildings
or infrastructure
Limit future development in high avalanche potential
areas
N
N
CC
2
1•#
uual
Long -Term
#1
Long -Term
#2
Long -Term
#3
la
N
CO
2
pueleny mous'
t.#
wJal
Long -Term
#1
I Long -Term
#2
s Addressed
of ;eonp3 ongnd
x
x
Is Addressed
uogeonp3 ongnd
x
x
x
x
ALLIOUO33
luels!sed
Je ;sesia
x
x
AWOU003
;ue;sised
Je sesia
x
x
x
Mitigation Plan Goal
;pedoid pe oid
x
igation Plan Goal
ApedoJd ;oa;oid
x
x
x
x
senwej D
rds Mitigation Action Items
x
x
x
x
x
mw I
x
x
x
TB
6w
Long Term
TD
n Interface Fire Mitigation Action Items
1 -2 Years
1 -2 Years
1 -2 Years
L O ngoing ....
Coordinating Organizations
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
City of Kodiak, Kodiak Electric
Association, Alaska Village
Electrical Coop
Coordinating Organizations
KIB and villages through fire service
areas, State of Alaska Dept. of
Forestry
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
KIB, villages
KIB, City of Kodiak, villages
Action Item
Update public emergency notification procedures and
emergency planning for ash fall events
Evaluate vulnerability of water and electric power
systems to ash falls and mitigate risks when cost
effective.
WON U0113V
Identify specific parts of Kodiak Island Borough at
high risk for urban /wildland urban interface fires
because of fuel loading, topography and prevailing
construction practices
Identify evacuation routes and procedures for high
risk areas and educate the public
Develop Community Wildand Fire Protection Plans
Encourage fire -safe construction practices for existing
and new construction in high risk areas
N
N
CO
2
Short-Term
#1
Short -Term
#2
N
N
R
2
weal - poyS
Z #
waa - 3. 1 o1S
Short -Term
#3
Long -Term
#1
5.4 Implementation Strategy and Analysis of Mitigation Projects
Overview
For a hazard mitigation plan to be effective, it has to be implemented
gradually over time, as resources become available, continually
evaluated and periodically updated. Only through developing a system
which routinely incorporates logical thinking about hazards and cost -
effective mitigation into ongoing public- and private- sector decision
making will the mitigation action items in this document be
accomplished effectively. The following sections depict how Kodiak
Island Borough has adopted and will implement and maintain the
vitality of the Kodiak Island Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Kodiak Island Borough has the necessary human resources to ensure
the Plan continues to be an actively used planning document. Borough
staff has been active in the preparation of the plan, and have gained
an understating of the process and the desire to integrate the plan into
the land use planning. Through this linkage, the plan will be kept
active and be a working document. Furthermore, recent earthquake
and tsunami disasters worldwide and continuing volcanic activity in
Alaska serve to maintain a high level of interest in evaluating and
mitigating risk from natural disasters of all types. These events have
kept the interest in hazard mitigation planning and implementation
alive at the Assembly level, at the Borough staff level, in cities and
villages and among the citizens of Kodiak Island Borough.
Implementation
As outlined in the Maintenance Section of this Hazard Mitigation Plan,
the Community Development Department will have primary
responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the plan and for integrating
mitigation into ongoing planning activities. Through these ongoing
processes, mitigation planning will be incorporated into land use
planning, zoning, and capital improvement plans and related activities
within Kodiak Island Borough.
The Community Development Department will share responsibility for
implementing the plan with the Engineering and Facilities Department. A
key aspect of implementation will be the important effort to integrate
hazard, vulnerability and risk evaluations and mitigation planning and
mitigation actions into ongoing planning and other Borough activities,
especially capital improvement planning.
Prioritization of Mitigation Projects
Prioritization of future mitigation projects within Kodiak Island Borough
requires flexibility because of varying types of projects and funding
sources. Potential projects may be identified by the Borough, by
various communities, by departments, agencies, or by the public.
For Borough projects, the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly will make
final decisions about implementation and priorities, with the Community
Development Department having the lead to help develop potential
mitigation projects, with input from all public sector agencies and the
public at large.
Kodiak Island Borough's prioritization of mitigation projects will include
the following factors:
1) Benefit -cost analysis and benefit -cost ratio, to ensure that all
projects are cost - effective with benefits exceeding the costs (see
Cost - Effectiveness section below),
2) The mission statement, goals and objectives in the Kodiak Island
Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan including:
a) Reduce threats to life safety
b) Protect critical facilities
c) Reduce the threat to property
d) Create a disaster - resistant community, and
e) Increase public awareness of mitigation.
3) The STAPLEE process will also be used to help ensure that
potential projects meet the broad needs and objectives of the
Borough, its communities, and citizens, by including
consideration of social, technical, administrative, political,
economic and environmental aspects of potential projects (see
STAPLE/ E section below.
Cost Effectiveness of Mitigation Projects
As Kodiak Island Borough or the communities and special districts within
the County consider whether or not to undertake specific mitigation
projects or evaluate how to decide between competing mitigation
projects, they must answer questions that don't always have obvious
answers, such as:
What is the nature of the hazard problem?
How frequent and how severe are hazard events?
Do we want to undertake mitigation measures?
What mitigation measures are feasible, appropriate, and affordable?
How do we prioritize between competing mitigation projects?
Are our mitigation projects likely to be eligible for FEMA funding?
Kodiak Island Borough recognizes that benefit -cost analysis is a
powerful tool that can help communities provide solid, defensible
answers to these difficult socio - political- economic - engineering
questions. Benefit -cost analysis is required for all FEMA- funded
mitigation projects, under both pre- disaster and post- disaster
mitigation programs. Thus, communities seeking FEMA funding must
understand benefit -cost analysis. However, regardless of whether or
not FEMA funding is involved, benefit -cost analysis provides a sound
basis for evaluating and prioritizing possible mitigation projects for any
natural hazard. Thus, Kodiak Island Borough will use benefit -cost
analysis and related economic tools, such as cost - effectiveness
evaluation, to the extent practicable in prioritizing and implementing
mitigation actions.
STAPLEE Process
Kodiak Island Borough will also ise the STAPLEE methodology to
evaluate projects based on the Social, Technical, Administrative,
Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental (STAPLEE) considerations
and opportunities for implementing particular mitigation action items in
the City. The STAPLEE approach is helpful for doing a quick analysis of
mitigation projects.
The following paragraphs outline the Borough's STAPLEE Approach
Social: Community development staff, local non - profit organizations, or
local planning groups can help answer these questions.
• Is the proposed action socially acceptable to the community?
• Are there equity issues involved that would mean that one
segment of the community is treated unfairly?
• Will the action cause social disruption?
Technical: The community development and engineering departments
can help answer these questions.
• Will the proposed action work?
• Will it create more problems than it solves?
• Does it solve a problem or only a symptom?
• Is it the most useful action in light of other goals?
Administrative: Elected officials from local government can help
answer these questions.
• Is the action implementable?
• Is there someone to coordinate and lead the effort?
• Is there sufficient funding, staff, and technical support available?
• Are there ongoing administrative requirements that need to be
met?
Political: Consult the Kodiak Assembly, communities, and citizens, to
help answer these questions.
• Is the action politically acceptable?
• Is there public support both to implement and to maintain the
project?
Legal: Include legal counsel, land use planners, and risk managers in
this discussion.
• Who is authorized to implement the proposed action?
• Is there a clear legal basis or precedent for this activity?
• Are there legal side effects? Could the activity be construed as a
taking?
• Will the Borough be liable for action or lack of action?
• Will the activity be challenged?
Economic: Borough community development and engineering staff,
and the assessor's office can help answer these questions.
• What are the costs and benefits of this action?
• Do the benefits exceed the costs?
• Are initial, maintenance, and administrative costs taken into
account?
• Has funding been secured for the proposed action? If not, what
are the potential funding sources (public, non - profit, and private)?
• How will this action affect the fiscal capability of the Borough?
• What burden will this action place on the tax base or economy?
• What are the budget and revenue effects of this activity?
• Does the action contribute to other goals, such as capital
improvements or economic development?
• What benefits will the action provide?
Environmental: Environmental groups, land use planners, and natural
resource managers can help answer these questions.
• How will the action impact the environment?
• Will the action need environmental regulatory approvals?
• Will it meet local and state regulatory requirements?
• Are endangered or threatened species likely to be affected?
5.5 Capability Assessment
Kodiak Island Borough Capability Assessment
Storm Water Management Ordinances: No
Stream Maintenance Ordinances: No
Zoning Management Ordinances: Yes
Subdivision Management Ordinances: Yes
Erosion Management Ordinances: No
Floodplain Management Ordinances: No
Fire Insurance Rating: Hydrant areas are Class 4.
Non - hydrant areas are Class 8.
Rating Dates: Borough - 1985, City of Kodiak - 1990.
Floodplain Management Plan Published Date: N/A
Floodplain Management Last Delineation Date: N/A
Elevation Certificates Maintained: No
National Flood Insurance Program Community: No
National Flood Insurance Program Join Date:
National Flood Insurance Program Number: N/A
National Flood Insurance Program Rating: N/A
National Flood Insurance Program Rating Date: N/A
Flood Insurance Claims: None. There are no FEMA- mapped
floodplains within Kodiak Island Borough and thus the Borough
does not participate in the NFIP.
Land Use Plan: Yes
Land Use Plan Last Update: 10/7/1999
Community Zoned: Yes
Zoned Date: 8/6/1964
17
Established Building Codes: Yes
Type of Building Codes:
2003 IBC Commercial, including Apartments
1997 UBC, Single Family and Duplex
2003 UPC (Plumbing)
2005 NEC (Electrical)
2003 IFC (Fire)
2003 IMC (Mechanical)
Local Electric Utilities: Kodiak Electric Association. Alaska Village
Electric Coop in the smaller cities.
Local Water Utilities: City of Kodiak; city owned in smaller cities
Local Sewage Treatment Utilities: City of Kodiak; city owned in
smaller cities
Local Natural Gas Utilities: None
Local Telephone Utilities: Alaska Communication Systems
18
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community of Kodiak Island Borough, AK
Section 6 Plan Maintenance
6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan
Plan Last Updated On: 2/3/2006
Monitoring of the Kodiak Island Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan is an
ongoing, long term effort. An important aspect of monitoring is a
continual process of ensuring that mitigation actions are compatible
with the goals, objectives, and priorities established during the
development of this Mitigation Plan.
The Community Development Department will have primary
responsibility for monitoring the plan. This department has ongoing
responsibility for land use planning, grant writing, and coordination
with federal and state governments. Thus, there will be ample
opportunities to incorporate mitigation planning into ongoing
activities and to seek grant support for specific mitigation projects.
The Kodiak Hazard Mitigation Plan will evaluated at least annually by
the Community Development Department to determine whether there
have been any significant changes in the understanding of hazards,
vulnerability and risk or any significant changes in goals, objectives,
priorities and action items.
The Plan will be updated at least once every five years, as required by
FEMA. However, Kodiak Island Borough intends to update this plan
later in 2006. This initial plan focuses on Kodiak Island Borough as a
whole and on natural hazards only. This plan will be enhanced later in
2006 to include major anthropogenic hazards and also expanded to
include complete appendices for each of the seven incorporated or
recognized subjurisdictions within the Borough, including the cities of
Ahkiok, Kodiak, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, Port Lions, and the
village of Karluk.
6.2 Implementation through Existing Programs
The Community Development Department has ongoing responsibility
for many planning functions are related activities, including land use
planning (Planning and Zoning Commission, area plan preparation,
permitting and enforcement), liaison with federal and state agencies,
grant writing, and other functions such as supporting the Local
Emergency Planning Committee. All of these ongoing functions have
ample opportunity for incorporating hazard, vulnerability and risk
evaluations, mitigation planning, and implementation of mitigation
actions into ongoing programs. All such opportunities will be
vigorously pursued.
1
The Engineering and Facilities Department will also incorporate
mitigation planning into its many ongoing related functions including:
municipal codes related to construction and utility improvements,
management of capital projects and maintenance projects, and liaison
between service districts and public officials.
Through these ongoing processes, mitigation planning will be
incorporated into land use planning, zoning, and capital improvement
plans and related activities within Kodiak Island Borough.
6.3 Continued Public Involvement
Description of Opportunities and Mechanisms for On -Going Public
Involvement
For the remainder of 2006, an extensive level of public involvement will
be maintained as this mitigation plan is extended to include major
anthropogenic hazards and also expanded to include complete
appendices for each of the seven incorporated or recognized
subjurisdictions within the Borough, including the cities of Ahkiok,
Kodiak, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, Port Lions, and the village
of Karluk. This process will involve several public meetings, including
meetings in person or via video conference for the isolated
communities as well as regular public meetings of the Mitigation
Planning Committee.
On a longer, ongoing time scale, continued public involvement will be
an integral part of the ongoing process of incorporating mitigation
planning into land use planning, zoning, and capital improvement
plans and related activities within Kodiak Island Borough. In addition,
the Borough will expand communications and joint efforts between
the Mitigation Planning Committee and the Local Emergency Planning
Committee, who share many goal and many members serve on both
committees.
Kodiak Island Borough's commitment to hazard mitigation planning is
also demonstrated by an ongoing outreach program of public
education about hazards and steps to mitigation the impacts of
hazards. These efforts include a widely- distributed 42 -page brochure
which provides general preparedness and response guidance for
disasters and also discusses:
tsunami Warning signals and evacuation shelters,
earthquake mitigation tips for homes, and
preparation and response to ash fall events.
Public outreach and education efforts for natural hazards also include
regular publication of guidance similar to that in the brochure
discussed above in the Kodiak Daily Mirror. These outreach and
education efforts will continue.
Finally, the mitigation planning committee will meet at least annually
to review progress and monitor changes in goals, strategies, and
potential funding sources for mitigation projects.
2