2007-02-08 Work SessionITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
MANAGER'S COMMENTS
CLERK'S COMMENTS
MAYOR'S COMMENTS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER COMMENTS
ON LEAVE
Williams
Branson
Abell
Oswalt
Gifford
ASSEMBLY WORK SESSION
February 8, 2007— 7:30 p.m.
Borough Conference Room
AGENDA
CITIZENS' COMMENTS (limited to three minutes per speaker)
1. Solarium Update
2. Kodiak Electric Association Resolution
3. Tele- conferencing
4. Personal Property Tax Threshold Limitation
5. Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference (SWAMC) Update
PACKET REVIEW
CONTRACTS
Contract No. FY2007 -31 Contract Award - Kodiak Fisheries Research Center /Dorm Facility Janitorial
Services.
Contract No. FY2007 -32 Recycle Services with Threshold Services, Inc.
Contract No. FY2007 -33 Approval of Control Contractors, Inc. as a Provider cf New Controls for Bond
Projects at East Elementary School and Kodiak High School and Award of Contract to Control Contractors,
Inc. for Control Work at East Elementary.
RESOLUTIONS
Resolution No. FY2007 -21 Supporting SB46, an Act Relating to an Extension of the Plan Revision
Deadline for Coastal Management Plans From March 1, 2007 to September 1, 2007.
Resolution No. FY2007 - Establishing Citizens Board of Equalization Dates for the Year 2007.
Resolution No. FY2007 -23 Authorizing a Renewal of the Lease with Providence Health System Alaska for
the Kodiak Island Hospital and Care Center
Resolution No. FY2007 -24 Authorizing a Renewal of the Lease with Providence Health System Alaska for
the Kodiak Island Mental Health Center Now Known as Providence Kodiak Island Counseling Center.
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
Ordinance No. FY2007 -12 Amending title 17, Zoning, of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances
by Amending Section 17.02.030 Comprehensive Plan, to Incorporate the Updated Womens Bay
Comprehensive Plan (December 2006).
March 4 -9
February 12 -16 (Jun: au)
March 1 -10 (NCOA)
February 14 -17
February 11 - March 20
February 22 - March 4
I
01
C
3
0
d
a
g.
c
( 0;
trl 00
O p V1
NN.
VOW 01
NN.+
WA
AN Co 4.1
VI N.+ .
W 1+
NOLO
OW01
OW011O
W N1+1
I+AV
n
• n
o
CD • 3
Fl Q
m n
o o 3
3 Fg
tn
- n v
nn
_ . 0
n) 0
7C o
2, o
• A.
to
N o
fD
O1 f f D
� (- N
• o
o
3
W
T _
3
CD 03
cn
c a
T T
1
M CD
=
01 d
7:OOpm KIBSD RM (AC)
1 SEWARD'S DAY HOLIDAY
1 BOROUGH OFFICES CLOSED 1
ON
19
12
5:OOpm
7:OOpm KIBSD WS (SD /CR)
‘71
1 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Sat/Sun
3
0J
A
N1+1+
to CO I+A
mio N an
VO w al
O r ?V
NN 1+
10 N VIOr
W N1+
OW0110
VI N1+1+
1+A VOW
NN t•
O N VIOr
OWp1tON
AVO
V
KJ
0110 VI
VOW 01
W1
N
O
0
V
V)
3
-1 3
c1
* p 4 o
O
--I
T
VI
VI
3
-I
O
V
-I
T
VI
7:OOpm PARKS & REC
7:30pm CITY CNL WS (CR)
27
7:30pm CITY CNL WS(XLD
(CR)
I_ 20
7:OOpm PARKS & REC
13
7:30pm CITY CNL WS(XLD)
(CR)
0
28
7:30pm
21
7:30pm
7:30pm
7:30pm CITY CNL RM (AC)
29
7:30pm CITY CNCL RM(XLD)
(AC)
N
N
7:30pm
l 15
7:30pm
7:30pm CITY CNL RM(XLD)
(CR)
OD
7:30pm
March 1
30
[ 23
ko
N
311
N
J.
03
V
iil
O
-
W
CD
CD
tO
CD
NJ
D
73 n
0
7
-n
to 3
CD CT
un
7 ty
3 Q
m
nn
o N
a �
0) o
�
1 0
n _
cud
CD
CD m
13.1 m
0 7
n
(Y
m v
7 0
m o
CO
CO
T
2
co
o
3
fD
VI
cu Ll
T T
N N
S 2
m
February 7, 2007
To: Kodiak Island Borough Assembly
From: Pat Branson
Re: Solarium Project at Care Center
Providence Kodiak Island Medical Center
SENIOR CITIZENS OF KODIAK, INC.
302 Erskine Avenue, Kodiak, AK 99615
Phone: (907) 486 -6181
Fax: (907) 486 -4503
E -mail: scokinc @ak.net
Senior Citizens of Kodiak, Inc. (SCOK) Board of Directors has agreed to be the lead agency for
writing a Tier 1 grant to the Rasmsuson Foundation as the grant has to be submitted by a 501(c)3
organization. The Hospital Auxiliary felt they did not have the appropriate set up in writing the grant,
bookkeeping back up and being the lead agency.
Project cost is $125,000.
Donations raised to date: $41,575
$11,100 from individuals; $25,000 from Lions Club; $5,000 CHARR; $475 interest
In -Kind donations from Ken Knowles, Marty Belarde, Barry Still, Ben & Hazel Ardinger
We are requesting $25,000 in Tier 1 funds from Rasmuson Foundation and $5,000 from American
Seafoods as well as seeking other funds.
Solarium Project Cost: $125,000
Donations: 41,575
Rasmuson Grant: 25,000
American Seafoods 5,000
Total donations: 71,575
Amount needed to complete project: $53,425
Rick,
1/18/2007
From: Darron Scott [mailto:dscott @kodiak.coop]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:37 AM
To -1 'ck Gifford
Si t: KEA Wind Power Resolution
Attached is a draft resolution that I would hope that the Borough Assembly would consider passing. As you know, we are looking
at putting a wind power project on Pillar Mountain, and we are trying to get some help from the state for funding. I would be happy
to talk to you or the Borough Assembly or both on the project, so please let me know.
Thanks,
Darron Scott
Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.
CITY OF KODIAK
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
KODIAK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
RESOLUTION NO. * **
A RESOLUTION URGING THE ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE AND
GOVERNOR TO SECURE GRANT FUNDING FOR
KODIAK ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION'S PILLAR MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT
WHEREAS, safe, reliable electric energy is an essential service for every resident
within the state; and
WHEREAS, renewable power provides for sustainable future power and cost stability;
and
WHEREAS, renewable power is crucial for the environmental health of the state; and
WHEREAS, renewable power utilizes the abundant natural resources of the state; and
WHEREAS, renewable power projects are in need of capital project funding to move
them to the forefront of future power generation; and
WHEREAS, volatile electric rates have hindered the economic development of many
areas of the state; and
WHEREAS, the development of renewable energy projects in Alaska such as this
promotes Alaska's position in the growing economic market of renewable
energy by encouraging in -state expertise and experience in a field that
promises long -term global growth; and
WHEREAS, the State of Alaska has a need to support the development and
enhancement of its renewable power to promote future expansions, for the
benefit of all Alaskans; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Kodiak, Kodiak Island
Borough, Kodiak Chamber of Commerce, Governor and the Legislature support a grant
for $5,000,000 to Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. for the Pillar Mountain Wind Project,
City of Kodiak
Kodiak Island Borough
Kodiak Chamber of Commerce
ADOPTED BY THE * * **
THIS * * ** DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2007
Resolution No. * **
Page 1 of 2
DATE: February 8, 2006
MEMO TO: Assembly
FROM: Nova M. Javier, CMC
RE: Teleconferencing
Kodiak Island Borough
Office of the Borough Clerk
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone (907) 486 -9310 Fax (907) 486 -9391
In response to the Assembly's request about teleconferencing discussion, I attached the
following information from the packets when this matter was first presented to the
Assembly.
February 9, 2006
The Assembly was presented with a draft ordinance and Assembly members suggested
changes.
Work Session Notes Summary:
Clerk Nielsen said the ordinance was drafted based on the responses from an email
sent to several municipalities. The Assembly was asked for changes. In response, the
Assembly gave direction to make changes on the draft ordinance based on the
discussion.
February 23, 2006
The Assembly was presented with a corrected draft ordinance. The Assembly requested
a copy of the responses from different municipalities.
Work Session Notes Summary:
Discussion ensued about having 4 members physically present to establish quorum
before allowing an assembly member(s) to participate and vote via - teleconference.
There were concerns about public access to elected officials if teleconferencing was
allowed and questioned participation if Assembly members are on vacation. The
Assembly consensus was to allow teleconferencing during work sessions only. Direction
was given to seek legal opinion about the legality of teleconferencing.
March 9, 2006
Clerk Nielsen submitted a copy of the responses from different municipalities (exhibit
A); draft ordinance based on the changes from previous work sessions (exhibit B); and
legal opinion from the Borough Attorney (exhibit C.)
N:\CL\ASSY\MEMOS\teleconferencing.doc
�3
Work Session Notes Summary:
There was discussion to allow teleconferencing for members elected from outlying
communities. There was opposition because the public deserved access to elected
officials. Jeffrey, Ranney, and Abell opposed teleconferencing. Stephens opposed but
would allow it for an elected Assembly member living in outlying communities. Williams
could go either way. Assembly members queried if teleconferencing benefited the public
or the elected officials. Stephens provided information from the Attorney General to the
Clerk (exhibit D.) Consensus was to bring this up again in April 2006 for discussion.
OTHER ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED:
1. Permit teleconferencing from a location on the road system of Kodiak.
a. No, under any circumstances.
b. Only from Chiniak and outlying villages.
c. Only if the member is physically incapacitated. (Attempt to define "physically
incapacitated".)
2. Distinguish between participation at work sessions and at regular meetings.
a. No, the requirements for advance notice, etc. should be the same.
b. Yes, formal advance notice, etc. should be required only for participation at
regular or special meetings where formal actions may be taken.
4.
Distinguish participation within and outside of the State of Alaska.
a. No, all requirements regarding notice, public access, and the availability of
materials should be the same.
b. Yes, participation from outside of Alaska may be from a private site not
previously noticed. Participation from within Alaska must be from a site open
to the public, notice of which has been duly published.
Yes, participation from outside of Alaska should not be permitted.
Attempt to include provisions or procedures which will apply if the telephonic
connection is broken.
a. No, deal with that when and if it develops.
b. Yes, unexpected severance of connection shall not be grounds for
invalidating any action of the Assembly on which that member otherwise
could have voted.
Yes, require a brief recess to re- establish connection. Failure of such efforts
shall not be grounds for invalidating any action of the Assembly on which that
member could have voted.
d. Yes, require a brief recess to re- establish connection. If such efforts are
unsuccessful, any one member of the assembly may require reconsideration
of any vote taken thereafter by filing notice with the clerk by the close of the
next business day.
5. Provision to the effect that publication of agenda packet and other materials
on the website prior to the day of the meeting may substitute for having hard
opies of those materials available at a teleconference site.
a. Yes.
b. No.
N: \CL\AS SY\MEMOS \teleconferencing.doc
Hi,
E-1 F[A
These are the responses received from various communities regarding teleconferencing.
As you can see, they are quite varied. This is not the complete rule for each municipality but his
gives you an idea about what each allows:
Yes - City of Barrow - Telephonic participation by city council members is authorized when a
council member is physically absent from Barrow. Any vote during a meeting in which a council
member appears telephonically shall be taken by roll call vote.
Yes - City of Fairbanks - A member may participate at any meeting of the city council by
teleconference if the member cannot physically attend the meeting; however, the member's
physical absence shall not exceed 90 continuous days for medical circumstances and shall not
exceed 30 days for non- medical circumstances.
No - City of Kenai - discussed several years ago, but no action - code does not allow attendance
by teleconferencing.
No - City of Skagway - Teleconferencing by council members for purposes of attendance and
participation in regular and special council meetings is prohibited.
Yes - City and Borough of Sitka - Follow Alaska's Open Meetings Act Law - AS44.62.310
Attendance and participation at meetings by members of the public or by members of a
governmental body may be by teleconferencing.
Yes - City and Borough of Juneau - No more than the first three members to contact the clerk may
participate via teleconference - The member participating by teleconfeence shall be counted as
present for the purposes of quorum, discussion, and voting.
Yes - City and Borough of Yakutat - Nothing in Code or Charter - but teleconferencing is allowed
if the Clerk or Manager are informed that a member wishes to participate via phone.
Yes - Kenai Peninsula Borough - No formal policy but teleconfe.rening is allowed if the member
notifies the Assembly at a meeting prior to the teleconference.
Yes - Ketchikan Gateway Borough - A member who will be absent from a meeting...may participate
in and vote at the meeting by telephone if:
The meeting is held withh a quorum of members physically present.
There are other minor requirements to participate by telephone:
Reasonable techical capabilities are available;
Reasonable efforts are made to ensur member has information
All votes are taken by roll call;
Teleconferencing may not be used as a regular form of participation;
24 hours notice to clerk;
Member pays for telephone long distance charges unless absent on Borough business.
Teleconference Ordinance
From: Christie Jamieson
Sorry Judi, couldn't finish what I was trying to relay to you, I had to run
out the door; Wrangell does not have teleconferencing in their code however
the Wrangell City Council - does not practice it either. Have a great day.
Christie
Unalaska used to allow teleconferencing in the early 90's, but discontinued the
practice. It's not prohibited in the Code, they just don't allow it. Reasons
were similar to Skagway's. Our attorney advised that we would have to advertise
the teleconference site as a place of meeting, be able to provide all paperwork
for that site, etc.
The other reason Unalaska stopped it was the belief that an elected official
should be in front on their public when making decisions.
Hope this helps.
Debra K. Mack, City Clerk, City of Unalaska
We prohibit it in Skagway. Back when it was done it was for a specific reason,
we had a council member elected who wanted to live in Washington in the winter
time and teleconference all meeting during the winter instead of being present
in person. Other reasons for prohibiting teleconferencing meetings by members
is the logistics of getting them their packets and if they are gone for extended
periods of time, how they are truly understanding what their constituents want
when they aren't available to talk to.
Marjorie D. Harris, City Clerk, City of Skagway
From: Laurie Sica ( mailto :Laurie_Sica @ci.juneau.ak.us]
Good point, Marj. I remember that issue, and it was a valid concern.
Juneau allows teleconferencing, and so far it works OK for us, however,
the packet material issue is a significant one, I believe. We put all
our information on the internet, so if they have access to it, they can
read it, but there are always things that come in at the meeting. Also,
lots of subtleties are missed when not being present.
I'm not a big fan of it, but it has been working so far (except for the
expense of the phone calls, as we have not yet required the members to
pay for the call). If a member is willing to take time from their
vacation or work trip to sit with their ear to a receiver for a few
hours, more power to them - they are doing the job people elected them
to do. Their other option is to just not show up. We have limits on
the number of times they can participate and the number of members that
can call in to a meeting.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
ORDINANCE NO. FY 2006 -XX
EXHIBIT B
Introduced by: • Assembly
Requested by: Assembly
Drafted by: Borough Clerk
Introduced:
Public Hearing:
Adopted:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
AMENDING KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH CODE OF ORDINANCES
TITLE 2 ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL
CHAPTER 2.17 RULES OF THE ASSEMBL
SECTION 2.17.020 GENERAL RULES
TO PROVIDE FOR TELECONFERENCING DURING ASSEMBLY MEETINGS
WHEREAS, currently there is no provision in the Borough Code for assembly members to
participate in assembly meetings by teleconference; and
WHEREAS, Alaska Statutes 44.62.310 provides that attendance and participation at meetings by
members of the governmental body may be by teleconferencing; and
WHEREAS, the assembly is desirous that assembly members be able to participate by
teleconference during assembly meetings:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND
BOROUGH THAT:
Section 1: This ordinance is of a general and permanent nature and shall become a part of the
Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances.
Section 2: Title 2 Administration and Personnel Chapter 2.17 Rules of the Assembly Section
2.17.020 General Rules is hereby amended as follows:
2.17.020 General rules.
A. Public meetings: All official meetings of the assembly shall be open to the public. The
journal of proceedings shall be open to public inspection.
B. Quorum: Four (4) members of the assembly shall constitute a quorum.
C. Absences: No member of the assembly may absent himself from any regular or special
meeting of the assembly except for good cause. An assembly member who is unable to attend a
meeting shall advise the clerk or the mayor of the contemplated absence and the reason for that
absence. During the course of the meeting from which the member is absent, the chair shall cause
the record to reflect the absence of the member and whether the absence is excused by the
assembly.
D. Teleconferencing: Attendance and participation of members of the assembly at assembly
meetings may be by teleconference.
1. Telephonic participation by assembly members is authorized during assembly
meetings when an assembly member is physically absent from Kodiak or is
physically incapacitated.
2. The assembly member shall inform the Assembly of his or her wish to participate
by teleconference at a meeting prior to the teleconference. o
Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska COL rdinan No. FY2006- Teleconferencing
Page 1 of 2
3. An assembly member participating by teleconference shall only be allowed if the
meeting is held with a quorum of members physically present.
4. An assembly member participating by teleconference shall be deemed to be present
at the assembly meeting and shall have the same right to participate in discussion
and to vote on any matter as if physically present at the assembly meeting. The vote
shall be conducted in such a manner that the public may know the vote of each
person entitled to vote. All votes shall be taken by roll call vote.
5. An assembly member participating by teleconference shall not be charged for any
telephone costs associated with the teleconference participation.
E. Rules of order: "Roberts Rules of Order Current Edition" shall govern the proceedings of
the assembly in all cases, unless they are in conflict with these rules. When such a
conflict exists, this ordinance prevails.
ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
THIS DAY OF 2006
ATTEST: Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor
Nova M. Javier, CMC, Borough Clerk
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
4 Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. FY2006- Teleconferencing
Page 2 of 2
Robert Nelson
Chairman of the Bank
Alaska Municip al Bond
Authority
`ld J" ' t o v y
November 30, 1994 nIteIT
661 - -0662
269 -
Public Notice for Board
Meetings
Keith A. Laufer
Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section, Anchorage
Former Chairman Eaton requested the advice of
this
requirements notice regarding the req inder AS 44.85.040 for no the Municipal Bond
with sp public meetings of from the information
Authority respect to P We understand
providedy (the sAuthice, that the specific concern relates to the
notice q this forice, s of the board of di of The
Authority required for meeting participate by The boardriquestions whether
some of
the the blocation of a board member
board questions must be included in th notice o that the
participates by
public and whether the public is entitled to access
location.
We understand that Authority board members reside at
various locations around meet state of nahe Authority 'S board are frequently.
meetings also understand that all s Anchorage that avaiiabie
person f that location, and
conducted m from the Authority's p iattend e oflic that location, at
board membe in Anchorage en
that the meetings are always open public
meet on short notice in
that location. The board must frequently
connection with the authorization ndfacilitate tbond and n to
conduct other business. In order �
these meetings, board members occasionally must par c
participate cipate �publi
telephone. It is often impractical to provide patc
notice of each location from which to provide board member my p ic c i pate
by telephone and it is not alway s possible
access to each such location.
AS 44.85.040(b) provides:
The fond bank authority may meet and transact
business by an electronic medium if (1) public
notice of
the time and locations where the meeting
will :)e held by an electronic medium has been
given in the same manner as if the meeting were
held in a single location; (2) participants and
memb':rs of the public in attendance can hear and
have the same right to participate in the meeting
as Lf the meeting were conducted in person; and
Robert Nelson
Chairman of the Board
Alaska Municipal Bond Bank
Authority
661 -94 -0662
Similarly, the Alaska Open Meetings Act provides for
"[a]ttendance and participation at meetings by members of the
public or by members of a governmental body may be by
teleconferencing." AS 44.62.310(a). With respect to the
required notice the Open Meetings Act provides:
AS 44.62.310(e).
November 30, 1994
page 2
(3) copies of pertinent reference materials,
statutes, regulations, and audio - visual materials
are reasonably available to participants and to
the public. A meeting by an electronic medium as
provided in this subsection has the same legal
effect as a meeting in person.
Reasonable public notice shall be given for all
meetings required to be open under this section.
The notice must include the date, time, and place
of the meeting and, if the meeting is by
teleconference, the location of any
teleconferencing facilities that will be used
The policy behind the Alaska Open Meetings Act is
expressly set forth in AS 44.62.312. The following provisions of
this section are relevant to the question being addressed in this
memo:
(5) the people's right to remain informed shall
be protected so that they may retain control over
the instruments they have created;
(6) the use of teleconferencing under this
chapter is for the convenience of the parties, the
public, and the governmental units conducting the
meetings.
Thus, the Open Meetings Act is designed to promote
public access and participation at meetings of governmental
units. In addition, teleconferencing is to be used to promote
the convenience of the public and the government and to
facilitate the conduct of government business.
Requiring advance public notice of each location where
Robert Nelson
Chairman of the Board
Alaska Municipal Bond Bank
Authority
661 -94 -0662
November 30, 1994
page 3
a board member might participate by telephone and requiring that
the public be allowed to participate from each such location does
not promote the purposes of the Act. Further, such requirements
would actually impede the Authority's ability to conduct
business. Because it is not always possible to determine in
advance where each board member will be on the date of a given
board meeting, requiring advance public notice of and public
access to such locations would effectively prohibit the
participation by board members who could not otherwise
participate at the meeting. For example, if a board member
became ill and wished to participate in a meeting by telephone
from the board member's home, the practice would be prohibited
unless the location was publicly noticed in advance, the board
member was willing to allow the public access to the board
member's home for purposes of the meeting, and the board member's
home had adequate teleconferencing facilities. We do not believe
the legislature intended such a result.
In order to promote both the public access and
convenience purposes of the Act, we believe that teleconference
facilities, as that term used in AS 44.62.310(e), refers to those
official teleconference facilities at which the public may
participate. Thus, reasonable public notice is required to be
given under the Act with respect to each location at which the
public may attend the meeting. We do not believe that the notice
requirement was intended to prohibit a member of a state
governmental unit from participating at a public meeting by
telephone merely because advance public notice of the location
from which the member participates was not given or because
access to the public is not available at that location.
Of course, all meetings of the Authority must be open
to the public and public notice of those locations where the
public may attend must be given. Whenever possible, advance
notice of all locations where board members will participate
should also be given and, if practicable, members of the public
should be permitted to participate from those locations. When,
on occasion, a particular member can not participate from a
noticed location, that member should not be prohibited from fully
participating by telephone from a location not available to the
public, provided that all other requirements of the Open Meetings
Act and AS 44.85.040(b) are met. On such occasions, the record
should clearly indicate the locations from which each board
member is participating. In addition, the record should also
Robert Nelson
Chairman of the Board
Alaska Municipal Bond Bank
Authority
661 -94 -0662
KAL:aw
November 30, 1994
page 4
indicate those locations where public access has been provided
and that appropriate public notice with respect to those
locations has been given.
We believe the purposes behind the specific
requirements of AS 44.85.040(b) to be no different from the
purposes under the Open Meetings Act. Accordingly, we believe
the notice requirements for board member participation by
telephone under that statute to be the same as those under the
Open Meetings Act described above.
Should you have any questions with respect to this
matter, please let me know.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
Account Number: 001 - 429661
Invoice Number: 13222990
Previous Activity
Amount Due on Last Invoice
Payments Received
Balance Forward
Current Activity
Long Distance Services
Internet Services
Current Activity Subtotal
11.1..1.1...11 IIJhL•II1•.1II.I.IrrlrrlrrrJlll 11,1
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
710 MILL BAY RD
KODIAK, AK 99615 -6398
Page: 1 of 4
Invoice Date: 11/26/2006
Due Date: 12/18/2006
$19.95
- $19.95
$106.53
$19.95
Amount Due by December 18, 2006 $126.48
n +-r
$0.00
$126.48
For GCI Customer Service, please ca11265 -5454, 1- 800 - 800 -7754 from outside Anchorage, or email us at bcs @gci.com.
Please include your account number in your message. To pay online go to www.gci.com.
--------- - - - - -- - - ---
- - - b e t a c T i and � e f u r n this portion with y o u r payment - Thank you for using MI.
Payable to: GCI, P.O. Box 99016, Anchorage, AK99509 -9016
Invoice Date: 11/26/2006 Amount Due: $126.48
Account Number: 001 - 429661 Due Date: December 18, 2006
Invoice Number: 13222990 Amount Enclosed:
CI Pay by credit card. Check here and fill out the
back to pay by credit card.
❑ Paperless billing. Check here and select an
Autopay option on the back to stop getting paper
statement by mail.
❑ Change of billing address. Check here and
make changes on back.
0000126480014296610
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
Account Number: 001- 429661
Invoice Number: 13222990
Long Distance Charges
Detail of Services for 907 - 138 -2727 FINANCE
Taxes and Surcharges
Date Description
1 11/26/06 Alaska Universal Service Fund
2 11/26/06 Federal Universal Service Fund
3 11/26/06 Regulatory Cost Charge
Total Charges for 907 - 138 -2727 FINANCE
Total Long Distance Charges
Long Distance Usage
Calls billed to 907 - 138 -2727 FINA
Flexibility Package calls
International calls
GCI Calling Card calls
Date Time
4 Thu 11/09/06 9:02 AM
Called From
5 Thu 11/09/06 7:31 PM
Called From
2 Total International calls
Internet Services
NCE
Number
34- 0663789501
907 - 486 -5736
34- 0663789501
907 - 486 -5736
Intrastate calls
GCI Calling Card calls
Date
6 Thu 11/09/06
Called From
1 Total Intrastate calls
3 Total Long Distance Calls
Where
SPAIN
KODIAK, AK
SPAIN
KODIAK, AK
Time Number Where
7:25 PM 907 - 356 -7818 FTWAINWRIT, AK
907 - 486 -5736 KODIAK, AK
Page:
Invoice Date:
Due Date:
3 of 4
11/26/2006
12/18/2006
we 07e., Lv/. cg
Period Units Unit Amount Total Amount
10/26/06 - 11/25/06 1 0.01 $0.01
10/26/06 - 11/25/06 1 8.84 $8.84
10/26/06 - 11/25/06 1 0.01 $0.01
$8.86
Minutes
7.0
116.0
123.0
Minutes
1.0
1.0
124.0
$8.86
Total Amount
$5.5;
$91.64
$97.17
Total Amount
$0.50
$0.50
$97.67
For technical support please email us at support @gci.net or call 868 -0320 (in Anchorage) or 1- 800 - 800 -7754 (statewide).
Monthly Service
Date Description Period Units Unit Amount Total Amount
7 11/26/06 GCl.net Dial Up Access Product 11/26/06 - 12/25/06 1 $24.95 $24.95
8 11/26/06 Email 5 MB 11/26/06 - 12/25/06 1 $0.00 $0.00
9 11/26/06 gci.net LD Discount 11/26/06 - 12/25/06 1 -$5.00 -$5.00
Total Monthly Service $19.95
Total Internet Services $19.9'
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Page: 4 of 4
Account Number: 001 - 429661 Invoice Date: 11/26/2006
Invoice Number: 13222990 Due Date: 12/18/2006
Payments Received
Date Description
10 11/06/06 01: Pmt -Check/MO
Total Payments Received
Thank you for using GCI!
Amount
- $19.95
- $19.95
Memo
Assessing Department
Kodiak Island Borough
To: The Honorable Mayor and Assembly of the Kodiak Island Borc
Through: Rick Gifford, Borough Manager M
From: Tom Anderson, Borough Assessor --
CC: Karl Short, Borough Finance Director
Date: 2/5 /2007
Re: Personal Property Exemption
6IECEOVE
- 52007
FEB FEB -5 2001
BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE
Pursuant to a proposal to enact a new property tax exemption in KIB code, specifically to apply to all
business personal property below a given minimum threshold, staff has explored the options and
implications of such exemption.
To provide some relevant background information, there were 1,271 business personal property
accounts in 2006 with a total taxable value of $94,833,515. At last year's mill rate of 10.5, this produced
borough -wide revenues of $995,751.91.
Implementing any new exemption will require amendment to the code by ordinance. All other boroughs
in Alaska that have a personal property exemption (see attached schedule) have enacted an ordinance
exempting all business personal property below a chosen threshold value. To be clear, the exemption
applies to ALL businesses.
We have examined the revenue implications of applying various exemption thresholds in Kodiak, these
being $5,000, $15,000, $25,000 and $50,000. The results are shown in the table below.
LESS THAN:
$5,000 $15,000 $25,000 $50,000
EXEMPT VALUE $3,365,145 $6,675,260 $8,964,363 $13,044,945
PERCENT OF TOTAL 4% 8% 11% 16%
NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS 699 887 949 1,017
REVENUE @ 10.5 MILLS $35,334 $70,090 $94,126 $136,972
MILL RATE INCREASE 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.17
TOTAL MILL RATE ( +10.5) 10.54 10.59 10.62 10.67
Assuming the same budget and tax base as last year, the exemption below $5,000 dollars would
increase the mill rate by 0.04 (millage notation), which equals $0.04 per thousand dollars of taxable
• Page 1
_.J
value. The tax bill for a house with a taxable value of $100,000 would increase $4. If the exemption
were allowed up to $50,000 then the tax bill on a house assessed at $100,000 would increase by $17.
Both the assessing department and the finance department have considered how this exemption might
affect the efficiency of our operations. In the case of assessing, we don't believe this will save us any
administrative expense. We will still have to send filing forms to all businesses in order to determine the
market value of their personal property assets. We could in fact see a slight increase in staff time
devoted to processing those forms and determining how much of the value is taxable, if any. Finance
has concluded that there is virtually no difference in cost to them in either billing or collections.
We should note that there is a potential complication that must be considered. The City of Kodiak
doesn't currently tax personal property but it could enact such a tax in the future, as could any of the
remote cities within the borough. If ever a city chose to tax personal property that was exempt under
borough code, the assessing department would have to produce separate assessment rolls for each.
This scenario has in fact come to reality in Kenai Peninsula Borough.
There is an alternative to the value threshold that should possibly be considered here. There is a
provision in the code that effectively exempts very small accounts. Any account that would result in a
tax bill Tess than $5 is written off; it simply doesn't trigger a tax bill. This provision doesn't require any
administrative action but is automatically applied by the software system in processing the tax bills.
Increasing this $5 minimum to, say, $10, $25 or $50 would effectively expand the exemption of small
accounts and would not substantially impact administrative functions within the borough. It would have
a revenue impact just as any other exemption would, but this approach would exempt only those
accounts whose total annual tax falls below the threshold. It would not apply to all accounts. Here is a
breakdown of the estimated tax shift, similar to the one presented above.
LESS THAN:
• Page 2
$5 $10 $25 $50
EXEMPT VALUE $0 $92,452 $575,921 $1,067,107
PERCENT OF TOTAL 0.00% 0.10% 0.61% 1.13%
NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS 76 223 548 696
REVENUE @ 10.5 MILLS $0.00 $970.75 $6047.17 $11,204.62
MILL RATE INCREASE 0.0000 0.0012 0.0075 0.0139
MILL RATE TOTAL ( +10.5) 10.5000 10.5012 10.5075 10.5139
This table shows that increasing the minimum tax bill would have very little impact on revenue and on
taxes shifted to other property owners. If the threshold level were changed to $50 the lost revenue
could be made up by increasing the tax bill on a $100,000 house by $1.39.
However, this approach to exemption would have an unintended effect. Raising the minimum tax bill to
$50 would exempt all vessels under 50 feet, as vessels are taxed at $1 per foot of length. This would
result in a further loss in revenue of $12,658 and would effectively exempt 330 of 521 taxable vessels.
Staff has attempted here to set forth a clear and comprehensive discussion of the revenue and tax
implications of the proposed exemption. We will be happy to answer any further questions that may
arise.
Personal Property Tax Programs by Borough
• Aleutians East- No personal property tax program
• Bristol Bay- No tax
• Denali- No tax
• Fairbanks North Star- Same as KIB
• Juneau- Very detailed. All non - exempt businesses receive an automatic
$20,000 exemption of assessed value. Aircraft have a flat tax by weight.
In addition, they have exemptions for various types of export
manufacturing.
• Kenai Peninsula- Kenai has a flat tax on boats over 20 feet. The first
$100,000.00 of assessed value is exempt on businesses.
• Ketchikan Gateway - Similar to KIB, but they also have manufacturing
exemptions.
• Lake & Peninsula- Severance tax only.
• Matanuska - Susitna -The first $250,000 of business assessed value is
exempt.
• North Slope - Similar to KIB, but they also get a share of oil monies
collected by the State.
• Northwest Arctic- No tax
To: Mayor Selby and
Members of the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly
From: John Witteveen, Borough Resident
Subject: Business Personal Property Tax Exemptio
Jvi keeta r fek
January 23, 2006
I would like the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly to review the Business
Personal Property Tax collected in the Kodiak Island Borough and consider a
minimum assessed value prior to implementation of the general tax levied as
per KIB Code Title 3, Section 3.24.
With the assistance of the borough staff I obtained the following
information. As of 2005, the borough maintained 1161 business personal
property tax accounts collecting a total of $1,207,450 in taxes. Arbitrarily
selecting a minimum of $25,000 in business personal properly value as a limit
before levying taxes would affect the total amount collected by $5,150
from 170 accounts. This averages approximately $30 per account.
Maintaining the property inventory, by adding new property and depreciating
current property by the owner, then subsequent review and record keeping
by the.borough staff hardly warrants the collection of such a small amount
of tax revenue.'
In an effort to promote efficiency within the Kodiak Island Borough I would
propose for the assembly's consideration, a minimum threshold value for
business personal property before a tax is imposed.
Having recently gone through a dispute regarding business property tax with
the borough, I could see what appeared to me an excessive amount of
borough staff time spent on collection of a very small amount of tax. At one
point I received a tax interest statement for $2.04.
By setting a reasonable limit of value on the property before the general tax
is levied seems to me to be a more efficient method of tax collection using
less borough staff time and reducing paperwork and frustration to small
businesses.
KODLAK ISLAND BOROUGH
CLERKS OFFICE
COPIED TO:
ASSEMBLY v" MAYOR V
MANAGER OTHER
� L�61EU��f�
JAN 2 42006
BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE
I reviewed this issue with five representative communities in Alaska and
found the following information:
Juneau. has a $20,000 minimum on business personal property value
prior to a levy of taxes. The amount will be raised to $40,000 next
year and $60,000 the year after that.
Ketchikan has a $500 limit on business"personal property value prior
to a levy of taxes.
Sitka currently has no minimum limit on value of business personal
property taxed, however, the matter is currently under review.
The Anchorage Borough exempts the first $20,000 in business
personal property value prior to a levy of taxes.
The Mat -Su Borough collects no business personal property tax
except on business inventory of which the first $250,000 in value is
exempted.
As you can see, other communities in Alaska are looking at efficiencies in tax
collection and I laepe,the Kodiak Island Borough could respectively consider
efficiencies in Kodiak.
Please print your name
1. D4/Z S wTr
2. 0` LEA 56 / FEPJ
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
WORK SESSION MEETING
Work Session Meeting of: re I) ?5� -'� c 0 T
13.
14.
15.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
�U�