Loading...
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