Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2007-04-19 Regular Meeting
April 19, 2007 — 7:30 p.m. Citizens Comments And Public Hearing Numbers: Toll Free Number: (800) 478 -5736 Local Number: 486 -3231 Mr. Jerome Selby Borough Mayor Term Expires 2007 Mr. Tom Abell Deputy Presiding Officer Assembly Member Term Expires 2008 Ms. Pat Branson Assembly Member Term Expires 2007 Mr. Jerrol Friend Assembly Member Term Expires 2009 Ms. Sue Jeffrey Assembly Member Term Expires 2008 Ms. Chris Lynch Assembly Member Term Expires 2009 Mr. Reed Oswalt Assembly Member Term Expires 2008 Ms. Barbara Williams Assembly Member Term E Aire. 2007 Mr. Rick Gifford Borough Manager Ms. Nova Javier, CMC Borough Clerk Regular Meeting Assembly Chambers Meeting broadcast live over radio station KMXT 100.1 FM and Cablevision station 12. 1. INVOCATION 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PROVAL OF MINUTES A. Kodiak Island Borough Regular Meeting of March 15, 2007. 6. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Longevity Award B. Student of the Month C. Proclamations 7. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker) A. Agenda Items Not Scheduled for Public Hearing and General Comments. 8. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation Update - Pat Ladner, President PUBLIC HEARING A. Ordinance No. FY2007 -13 Determining the Negotiation of a Sale at Fair Market Value of a Tax Foreclosed Property to the Federal Government. Ordinance No. FY2007 -01 F Amending Ordinance No. FY2007 -01 Fiscal Year 2007 Budget by Adjusting Three General Fund Revenue Accounts, Four General Fund Departments, Four Special Revenue Funds, and Two Capital Project Funds. B. 10. BOROUGH MANAGER'S REPORT 11. MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None. 13. NEW BUSINESS A. CONTRACTS 1. Contract No. FY2007 -39 Solid Waste Management Study. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Agenda April 19, 2007 Page 1 C. Kodiak Island Borough April 19, 2007 RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolution No. FY2007 -31 Authorizing the Approval of Lease Regarding the Womens Bay Fire Hall Apartment with Byron Cross. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None. D. OTHER ITEMS 1. Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment to the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council. 14. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker.) 15. ASSEMBLYMEMBERS' COMMENTS 16. ADJOURNMENT 17. INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS (No Action Required) A. MINUTES OF OTHER MEETINGS 1. Architectural /Engineering Review Board Meeting of February 12, February 20, and February 22, 2007. 2. Fire Protection Area No. 1 Board Regular Meeting of November 14, 2006 and February 26, 2007. 3. Gravel Task Force Meeting of January 8, 2007. 4. Joint Emergency Services Organization and Local Emergency Planning Committee Meeting of September 7, 2006. 5. Parks and Recreation Committee Regular Meeting of January 9, February 13, and February 27, 2007. 6. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting of February 21, 2007. 7. Womens Bay Service Area Board Regular Meeting and Budget Hearing Minutes of March 12, 2007. B. REPORTS 1. Kodiak Island Borough March 2007 Financial Report. 2. Kodiak Island Borough School District Board of Education Regular Meeting Summary of March 26, 2007. Assembly Agenda Page 2 /rte M O l� naav zing Mr. Friend -■ TTT ^^ •CWA7 Mr. Oswalt Ms. Williams TOTAL o o ) Mr. Abell :. II.1q 1� Mr. Friend a U uota7 •sY\I Mr. Oswalt A sure sy\i TOTAL W c \ C. o C N C? :_.) Mr. Abell Mr. Friend ..: 1 g ouk *S IN C�TTT� •CTAT Mr. Oswalt Ms. Williams TOTAL b 0 O _ Mr. Abell . - -- Mr. Friend gOUi J 'SJt A ll TT T P • C_T1L- Mr. Oswalt Ms. Williams TOTAL t ^ '1 / 2 V �l vl iiaw • gni II puaud •JYAj :1: L II Mr. Oswalt Ms. Williams TOTAL E_() 0 O b 7 W / _ l � L f j e 'jam is_ iiagd 'JNI os TE.1 •syy Mr. Friend f uou7 'sYsI _ ITT1 r •'TAT Mr. Oswalt Ms. Williams TOTAL CI1 8 (-0 l' Mr. Abell 'mss Branson Mr. Friend gouk7 'sN 1C7 TTT7 'CTAT Mr. Oswalt Ms. Williams I TOTAL S, p Pay 'JLAI l u Mr. Friend u 7 'sJAI kn TTT , 1I` •'TAT Mr. Oswalt Ms. Williams TOTAL ` —%' ___) ipgy Mr. Friend o l uota'I 'sw ITEMS() •JJAI _Ms. Williams TOTAL 0 0 y ti II Mr. Abell Ms. Branson Mr. Friend Ms. Jeffrey uouk 'svl II H Mr. Oswalt I' Ms. Williams TOTAL L) C) a) N O U April 19, 2007 - 7:30 p.m. Citizens Comments And Public Hearing Numbers: Toll Free Number: (800) 478 -5736 Local Number: 486 -3231 Mr. Jerome Selby Borough Mayor Term Expires 2007 Mr. Tom Abell Deputy Presiding Officer Assembly Member Term Expires 2008 Ms. Pat Branson Assembly Member Term Expires 2007 Mr. Jerrol Friend Assembly Member Term Expires 2009 Ms. Sue Jeffrey Assembly Member Term Expires 2008 Ms. Chris Lynch Assembly Member Term Expires 2009 Mr. Reed Oswalt Assembly Member Term Expires 2008 Ms. Barbara Williams Assembly Member Term Expires 2007 Mr. Rick Gifford Borough Manager Ms. Nova Javier, CMC Borough Clerk Regular Meeting Meeting broadcast live over radio station KMXT 100.1 FM and Cablevision station 12. 1. INVOCATION 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Kodiak Island Borough Regular Meeting of March 15, 2007. 6. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Longevity Award B. Student of the Month C. Proclamations DRAFT Assembly Chambers 7. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker) A. Agenda Items Not Scheduled for Public Hearing and General Comments. 8. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9. PUBLIC HEARING A. Ordinance No. FY2007 -13 Determining the Negotiation of a Sale at Fair Market Value of a Tax Foreclosed Property to the Federal Government. B. Ordinance No. FY2007 -01 F Amending Ordinance No. FY2007 -01 Fiscal Year 2007 Budget by Adjusting Three General Fund Revenue Accounts, Four General Fund Departments, Four Special Revenue Funds, and Two Capital Project Funds. 10. BOROUGH MANAGER'S REPORT 11. MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None. 13. NEW BUSINESS A. CONTRACTS 1. Contract No. FY2007 -39 Solid Waste Management Study. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Agenda April 19, 2007 Page 1 B. RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolution No. FY2007 -31 Authorizing the Approval of Lease Regarding the Womens Bay Fire Hall Apartment with Byron Cross. C. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION D. OTHER ITEMS 1. Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment to the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council. 14. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker.) 15. ASSEMBLYMEMBERS' COMMENTS 16. ADJOURNMENT 17. INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS (No Action Required) A. MINUTES OF OTHER MEETINGS 1. Architectural /Engineering Review Board Meeting of February 12, February 20, and February 22, 2007. 2. Fire Protection Area No. 1 Board Regular Meeting of November 14, 2006 and February 26, 2007. 3. Gravel Task Force Meeting of January 8, 2007. 4. Joint Emergency Services Organization and Local Emergency Planning Committee Meeting of September 7, 2006. 5. Parks and Recreation Committee Regular Meeting of January 9, February 13, and February 27, 2007. 6. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting of February 21, 2007. 7. Womens Bay Service Area Board Regular Meeting and Budget Hearing Minutes of March 12, 2007. B. REPORTS 1. Kodiak Island Borough March 2007 Financial Report. 2. Kodiak Island Borough School District Board of Education Regular Meeting Summary of March 26, 2007. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Agenda April 19, 2007 Page 2 CITIZENS' COMMENTS KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Regular Assembly Meeting March 15, 2007 A regular meeting of the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly was held March 15, 2007 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, Assembly members Tom Abell, Pat Branson, Jerrol Friend, and Chris Lynch. Staff members present were Manager Rick Gifford, Finance Director Karl Short, Clerk Nova Javier, and Assistant Clerk Jessica Basuel. BRANSON moved to excuse Assembly members Sue Jeffrey, Reed Oswalt, and Barbara Williams, seconded by ABELL. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION TO EXCUSE 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 A. Kodiak Island Borough Regular Meeting of February 15, 2007. FRIEND moved to approve the minutes as submitted, seconded by BRANSON. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AWARDS AND PRESENTATION A. Student of the Month Mayor Selby presented the February Student of the Month Award to Aaron Cooper, a Senior at the Kodiak High School. B. Proclamation Mayor Selby proclaimed the month of March as "Women's History Month" urging residents to increase knowledge and appreciation of the valuable role women play in our lives. Jeff Stephan, United Fisherman Marketing Association Representative, thanked the Assembly for its financial support to the King Crab Enhancement Workshop. He said the workshop was successful and projects are ongoing as a result. He thanked Dr. Brian Allee, Director of the Alaska Sea Grant College Program and Dr. Denis Wiesenberg, Dean of the University of Alaska Fairbanks School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Minutes March 15, 2007 Page 1 Dr. Bryan Allee, Director of the Alaska Sea Grant College Program, reported about the technology being explored as a result of the work shop and thanked the Assembly for its support. Tom Quick, City of Ouzinkie Council Member, spoke in support of Resolution No. FY2007 -29. He noted the importance of revenue sharing to smaller municipalities such as Ouzinkie since they do not have a tax base. He urged the Assembly to lobby for revenue sharing to help out in the continuation of basic services in rural communities. Mike Milligan spoke in support of Resolution No. FY2007 -30. Bill Burton spoke in support of Resolution No. FY2007 -30 and asked language be included to protect grazing rights in the area. COMMITTEE REPORTS Assembly member Branson serves on the Providence Service Area Board and gave an update regarding the hospital survey conducted by Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. She advised a new MRI machine will be coming soon to Kodiak. Mayor Selby reported the Planning and Zoning Commissioners and Parks and Recreation Board Members gave an update to the Assembly at the work session last Thursday. He thanked them for the amount of work they had done especially with the Womens Bay Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC HEARING A. Ordinance No. FY2007 -12 Amending Title 17 Zoning of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances by Amending Section 17.02.030 Comprehensive Ian to Incorporate the Updated Womens Bay Comprehensive Plan (licember 2006 ) Marie Rice Dave Neuman FRIEND moved to adopt Ordinance No. FY2007 -12, seconded by BRANSON. Manager Gifford reported this ordinance and plan documents were recommended by the KIB Planning and Zoning Commission on December 20, 2006. The P &Z Commission has conducted numerous work sessions and public hearings prior to making this recommendation. A community survey was developed and administered by consultants to carry forward this planning project. The plan document was comprised of a plan and an appendix which contained information on the planning process that is intended to complement the plan itself. Duane Dvorak, Community Development Department Acting Director, gave a brief report on the Womens Bay Comprehensive plan. He said it was intended to be a policy guide to aid the future commissioners and Assembly in making planning and land use decisions. Mayor Selby opened the public hearing. The following spoke in support of Ordinance No. FY2007 -12: Mike Milligan Lonnie White Lisa Booch Requests received from speakers focused on incorporating the Womens Bay Comprehensive Plan into the KIB Comprehensive Plan by adoption of an ordinance. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Guidelines March 15. 2007 Pane 2 Speakers agreed the Womens Bay plan was a great document and thanked staff for doing a wonderful job. Assembly member Lynch agreed with the comments and complimented the details that went into the plan. Assembly member Branson was glad to see the neighborhood's input incorporated in the plan. Assembly member Abell recommended the Womens Bay plan be incorporated into the KIB Comprehensive plan. Assembly member Friend noted the Womens Bay plan was a phenomenal document and hoped it would serve as an example to the other communities. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Abell, Branson, Friend, Lynch BOROUGH MANAGER'S REPORT Manager Gifford noted the March legislative report from Borough Lobbyist Mark Hickey was in the Assembly's mail and was also available on the Borough webpage. The report included legislation being monitored such as education funding, school district cost factor, community dividend revenue sharing program, and funding for PERS/TRS. He noted Senator Stevens introduced Senate Bill 111 and KIB Resolution FY2007 -30 was drafted in suppo _•f this bill. He had a meeting with City Manager Linda Freed and Joe Sullivan reg- : ng •d -ctor split/crab rationalization issues. It was suggested the Groundfish Ration. zation Task .rce meet and submit a recommendation to the Council and Assembly for di -cussi some t' e in May before the North Pacific Fishery Management Council conve eeti • . s. He submitted packets to the Assembly for the legislative reception and mee ings in Jun In response to Assembly member Branson, he responded that Lobbyist Hickey was trying to set up a meeting with Mike Kelly and possibly John Bitney, Legislative Liaison in the Governor's Office. MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR Mayor Selby encouraged everyone to contact the legislators regarding revenue sharing noting he was disappointed that legislators were working with oil companies giving out $500 million and removing $48 million from the Governor's budget for revenue sharing that would benefit small communities in Alaska. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS A. CONTRACTS 1. Contract No. FY2007 -35 Request for Proposal #2 Architectural and Engineering Services for Peterson Elementary School Seismic Upgrade, Ouzinkie School Voc- Ed Repair and Remodel, Ouzinkie School Seismic Upgrade, Old Harbor School Voc -Ed Gym Repair and Remodel and Larsen Bay Floor Repair. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Guidelines March 15 . 2007 Pace 3 BRANSON moved to authorize the Manager to execute Contract No. FY2007 -35 to Jensen Yorba Lott of Juneau, Alaska for schematic design services for RFP #2 projects in the amount not to exceed $40,000, seconded by FRIEND. Manager Gifford reported the Architectural /Engineering Review Board (ARB), through an RFP process, had selected the firm of Jensen Yorba Lott, Inc. of Juneau, Alaska to perform the services specified in RFP #2. RFP #2 projects included the Peterson Elementary seismic upgrade, Ouzinkie School Voc -Ed repair and remodel, Ouzinkie School seismic upgrade, Old Harbor School Voc -Ed gym repair and remodel and Larsen Bay School floor repair. Funds are in place through voter approved Bonds for the school bond projects and grants have been accepted for the Ouzinkie School seismic upgrade. There is a pending grant application in to the State for the Peterson Elementary School seismic upgrade. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Branson, Friend, Lynch, Abell B. RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolution No. FY2007 -27 Authorizing the Records Manager to Dispose of Certain Kodiak Island Borough Records. BRANSON moved to adopt Resolution No. FY2007 -27, seconded by FRIEND. Assistant Clerk Basuel reported the Borough Clerk and the Borough Attorney certified these records for destruction as having no legal or administrative value or historical interest. She noted that pre -1998 medical records from Providence hospital would also be destroyed and a detailed listing would be attached to this resolution. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Friend, Lynch, Abell, Branson 2. Resolution No. FY2007 -28 Accepting a State Grant in the Amount of $138,606 for the Seismic Upgrade to the East Elementary School Windows. FRIEND moved to adopt Resolution No. FY2007 -28, seconded by BRANSON. Manager Gifford reported this resolution accepts another Hazard Mitigation Grant for fiscal year 2007 from the State of Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management in the amount of $138,606. These funds would pay for the seismic upgrade for the East Elementary School windows. Mayor Selby congratulated and thanked Staff for successfully securing grants for this type of project. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Lynch, Abell, Branson, Friend 3. Resolution No. FY2007 -29 Authorizing the Borough Manager to Sign a Memorandum of Agreement Transferring Funds and Obligation of Legislatively Approved Capital Projects and Grant Funds to Ouzinkie, Larsen Bay, and Port Lions. BRANSON moved to adopt Resolution No. FY2007 -29, seconded by LYNCH. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Guidelines March 15. 2007 Paae 4 Manager Gifford reported the Borough received a number of legislative grants in FY2007 as a result of approval of Capital Improvement Program requests made to the Alaska State Legislature. Among these projects were three grants for communities around the Island. These projects were: • Ouzinkie Dock Replacement - $570,000 • Port Lions Workshop Door Replacement - $10,000 • Larsen Bay Equipment - $75,000 The language in the grant required the accounting and auditing as well as design, construction, and purchasing services associated with the projects be performed by the Kodiak Island Borough. With the help of staff, the Borough Attorney, and the State Division of Commerce and Community Advocacy, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was developed to transfer the responsibility and liability to the communities requesting the funding. It allows the community to manage and administer their own grant and removes the Borough from involvement in the communities' grant. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Abell, Branson, Friend, Lynch 4. Resolution No. FY2007 -30 Urging the Alaska State Legislature to Create the Kodiak Narrow Cape Public Use Area. ABELL moved to adopt Resolution No. FY2007 -30, seconded by BRANSON. Manager Gifford reported Senate Bill 111 proposed the establishment of a new public use area for the Narrow Cape area on Kodiak Island which was a very important public use and recreational area, used for a wide range of activities. This area is also subject to existing grazing leases and an interagency land management agreement with the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation for the Kodiak Launch Complex. FRIEND moved to amend the second whereas, bullet 2 of the resolution to read "protect, maintain, perpetuate, and enhance public enjoyment and use of fish and wildlife and existing grazing rights." ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Branson, Friend, Lynch, Abell ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED UNANIMOUSLY: Friend, Lynch, Abell, Branson 'ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1. Ordinance No. FY2007 -13 Determining the Negotiation of a Sale at Fair Market Value of a Tax Foreclosed Property to the Federal Government. BRANSON moved to adopt Ordinance No. FY2007 -13 in first reading to advance to public hearing on April 19, 2007, seconded by ABELL. Manager Gifford reported the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have expressed an interest in purchasing a parcel of property located near Amook Bay. This property was foreclosed upon by the Borough for delinquent taxes. The P &Z Commission has reviewed the parcel as required by KIB code, held public hearings and has recommended that the property be declared surplus to "public need" and determined to be available for future land sale. This ordinance would authorize the manager to negotiate a sale of the property to USFWS for fair market value and bring back to the Assembly for final approval. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Lynch, Abell, Branson, Friend Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Guidelines March 15. 2007 Pace 5 2. Ordinance No. FY2007-01F Amending Ordinance No. FY2007 -01 Fiscal Year 2007 Budget by Adjusting Three General Fund Revenue Accounts, Four General Fund Departments, Four Special Revenue Funds, and Two Capital Project Funds. FRIEND moved to adopt Ordinance No. FY2007-01F in first reading to advance to public hearing on April 19, 2007, seconded by BRANSON. Manager Gifford reported this ordinance amends the FY2007 budget to reflect the mid -year budget revisions to -date. The amendments included moving funds between various General Fund departments, amending budget to actual and other funds to reflect various grants and capital projects. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Abell, Branson, Friend, Lynch OTHER ITEMS 1. Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment to the Personnel Advisory Board. BRANSON moved to confirm the mayoral appointment of Susan Eoff to the Personnel Advisory Board for a term to expire December 2009, seconded by ABELL. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Branson, Friend, Lynch, Abell CITIZENS' COMMENTS Clarence Selig congratulated Assembly and staff for the completion of the Womens Bay Comprehensive plan. He noted the need to leave the requirement of 10 -acre parcels in the Larsen Bay area and asked for tax relief consideration for those living in depressed rural areas. ASSEMBLY MEMBER COMMENTS Mayor Selby announced that he, members of the Assembly, and the Manager would be traveling to Juneau March 19 -23 to meet with Legislators and to attend the Joint Kodiak Island Borough /City of Kodiak Legislative Reception. The work session scheduled for Thursday, March 29, 2007 and regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 5, 2007 have been cancelled. The next Assembly work session was scheduled on Thursday, April 12 at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Conference Room and the next regular meeting of the Assembly was scheduled on Thursday, April 19 at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers. The Borough Offices would be closed on Monday, March 26 in observance of Seward's Day. Assembly member Friend congratulated Aaron Cooper. He thanked Mr. Bill Hinkle for the amount of work he invested in the BMX Park. Assembly member Abell reminded everyone that ComFish was going on. Assembly member Branson congratulated Aaron Cooper. She was glad to see the Borough moving forward with the different projects. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Guidelines March 15. 2007 Paae 6 Assembly member Lynch congratulated Aaron Cooper. She was glad to see the completion of the Womens Bay Comprehensive plan. She would like to see a compromise between the community and the Borough regarding the upcoming gravel leases. ADJOURNMENT BRANSON moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by FRIEND ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Friend, Lynch, Abell, Branson The meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m. ATTEST: Jerome M. Selby, Mayor Nova M. Javier, CMC, Borough Clerk Approved: Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Guidelines March 15. 2007 Pace 7 Kodiak Island Borough AGENDA STATEMENT Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007 Item No.9.A Ordinance No. FY2007 -13 Determining the Negotiation of a Sale at Fair Market Value of a Tax Foreclosed Property to the Federal Government Certain real property has been deeded to the Borough through tax foreclosure proceedings pursuant to AS 29.45.290 for delinquent payment of taxes for 2004 and previous years. Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the parcels as required by KIBC 18.10.030 by public hearing in November and December 2006. They were declared surplus to "public need" and determined to be available for future land sale. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has expressed an interest in purchasing parcel T31 S R28W TL 3204 Amook Bay at fair market value from the borough. KIBC 18.20.100 (B) Disposal for fair market value allows the assembly and its agents to directly negotiate with the United States, the State of Alaska, or any political subdivision thereof upon a finding by the assembly that the disposal will allow the use of the land for a public purpose beneficial to the borough. The property was once part of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) and the reacquisition by USFWS will promote efficient management for public recreation and refuge for wildlife being consistent with the goals and objectives of the KIB comprehensive plan. APPROVAL FOR THE AGENDA: Recommended motion: Move to adopt Ordinance No. FY2007 -13. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ORDINANCE NO. FY2007 -13 Introduced by: Manager Gifford Requested by: Finance Department Drafted by: Finance Department Introduced: 03/15/2007 Public Hearing: 04/19/2007 Adopted: AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH DETERMINING THE NEGOTIATION OF A SALE AT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A TAX FORECLOSED PROPERTY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHEREAS, certain real property has been deeded to the Borough through tax foreclosure proceedings pursuant to AS 29.45.290 for delinquent payment of taxes for 2004 and previous years; and WHEREAS, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has expressed an interest in purchasing parcel T31 S R28W TL 3204 Amook Bay at fair market value from the borough; and WHEREAS, KIBC 18.20.100(B) Disposal for fair market value allows the assembly and its agents to directly negotiate with the United States, the State of Alaska, or any political subdivision thereof upon a finding by the assembly that the disposal will allow the use of the land for a public purpose beneficial to the borough; and WHEREAS, the property was once part of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) and the reacquisition by USFWS will promote efficient management for public recreation and refuge for wildlife is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH THAT Section 1: This ordinance is not of a general application and shall not be codified. Section 2: The assembly hereby authorizes the manager to negotiate a sale of former refuge property to USFWS for fair market value. The proceeds of any sale shall be distributed in the same manner as the proceeds of a tax sale under AS 29.45.480(B). ATTEST: ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH THIS DAY OF 2007 Nova M. Javier, CMC, Borough Clerk KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. FY2007 -13 Page 1 of 1 Memorandum Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Phone (907) 486 -9363 Fax (907) 486 -9396 www.kib.co.kodiak.ak.us DATE: February 6, 2006 TO: Rick Gifford, Borough Manager FROM: Duane Dvorak, Acting Director Community Development Department SUBJECT: Public Use Determination for Tax Foreclosed Properties The attached materials determine the recommended disposition of fourteen (14) tax- foreclosed properties from 2006. Planning and Zoning Commission review of these properties resulted from the conveyance of fourteen (14) pieces of property to the Kodiak Island Borough, due to non - payment of taxes. The Commission reviewed these tax foreclosed properties as required by KIBC 18.10.030, which states in part, "the planning commission shall review the newly acquired land and make recommendations as to whether all or any portion of the land should be devoted to public use, reserved for future use to meet projected requirements, or made available for sale, lease, or other disposition in conformance with the borough's comprehensive land use plan." The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 15, 2006 and again on December 20, 2006 regarding the disposition of the fourteen (14) foreclosed properties. (The second meeting was required because the telephone system in the Assembly Chambers was not working the night of the first public hearing in November.) In result of that meeting, the Commission recommends the Assembly take the following action: 1) All fourteen (14) 2006 tax foreclosed properties be declared as surplus to the "public need" and subsequently offered at a future KIB land sale. Information considered by the Commission is attached for Assembly review. IN REPLY REFER TO RE /6797.SL Ms. Cassandra Juenger Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Ms. Juenger: United States Department of the Interior Please be advised that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) is interested in acquiring Kodiak Island Borough property number R53128038204, Tax Lot 3204, which is a remote parcel situated on the eastern shore of Amook Bay, is approximately 9.5 acres in size and is further described as being located within Section 32, Township 31 South, Range 28 West, Seward Meridian. Acquisition of the parcel is an important priority to the Service due to the high quality of wildlife habitat found in the area in which the property is located. We appreciate and value the consideration that the Borough has offered the Service in the past, by providing opportunities to acquire properties for inclusion into the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. The Service is willing to provide its assurance and commitment, that if given the opportunity, we would purchase the parcel at fair market value. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1011 E. Tudor Rd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 -6199 JAN 3 0 2007 If you have any questions or require further information or assistance, please contact Susan LaKomski, Realty Specialist, at (907) 786 -3566, or by email at susan lakomski Lastly, I would like to thank you for your past and present efforts in assisting the Service with this matter. cc: Refuge Manager, Kodiak NWR Sincerely, Danielle Jerry Chief, Division of Realty and Natural Resources LA - Alaska Kodiak NWR, Tract 61w Kodiak Island Borough wV C O :a N C O 8 co co N H f0 8 Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007 Kodiak Island Borough AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM NO. 9.B Ordinance No. FY2007-01F Amending Ordinance No. FY2007 -01 Fiscal Year 2007 Budget by Adjusting Three General Fund Revenue Accounts, Four General Fund Departments, Four Special Revenue Funds, and Two Capital Project Funds In the General Fund Property taxes are $58,100 less than budgeted, Penalties and Interest on Taxes will be $4,000 more than budgeted, and Raw Fish Tax will be $158,970 more than budgeted. The Borough Clerk's office will be increased $4,000 for continuing education costs, the Finance Department will be increased by $20,000 to reduce allocations to the Solid Waste Fund, Health and Sanitation will be increased $12,380 to cover increases in the Animal Control contract with the City, and the Culture and Recreation Dept. will be increased $566 for a contribution to "Dig Afognak" to pay their personal property tax ". Building and Grounds transfers in will be reduced by $34,600 to show a reduced transfer in from the Facilities Fund. This will be made up for by use of their fund balance. The Womens Bay Road Service Area budget needs to be increased $25,000 to cover additional snow removal costs. Bayside Fire Department will be increased by $435,000 to cover the purchase of a new fire engine and a new tanker truck. This will be funded by a Use of Fund Balance. Womens Bay Fire Department will be increased by $146,000 to account for a portion of the FY2006 Homeland Security grant for a new fire engine received in FY2007 and $15,000 to cover the costs of supplies and materials for the new tanker truck. The BMX Bike Trail project is being increased due to contributions coming in $25,750 over budget. Panamaroff Creek culverts are being repaired and replaced for $30,000 Additional interest earnings have been realized in Fund 420, GO Bond Projects and an additional $1,500,000 in interest earnings are available for appropriation. The Anton Larson Boat Ramp project will receive $140,000 from Dingell- Johnson and a transfer in of $136,350 from Fund 410, Borough Capital Project, increasing the project by $276,350. The revised budget includes $25,000 for the Solarium Project at the Hospital Facility. The State of Alaska has awarded the Kodiak Island Borough $138,606 for seismic repairs and replacement of the East Elementary School windows. The Bayside Fire Department classroom equipment project was completed $26,800 under budget. This money will be moved into the Bayside Storage Addition and Equipment Bay project. The Borough has received a grant for $26,500 for the Summit Lake Trail. NOAA has reimbursed the Borough $67,172 for the fiber optic study and this money can be used for swimming pool repairs. APPRQVAL FOR AGENDA: D Recommended Motion: Move to adopt Ordinance No. FY2007-01F. SUBSTITUTED VERSION KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ORDINANCE NO. FY2007-01F Introduced by: Manager Gifford Requested by: Finance Department Drafted by: Finance Department Introduced: 03/15/2007 Public Hearing: 04/19/2007 Adopted: AN ORDINANCE OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2007 -01 FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET BY ADJUSTING THREE GENERAL FUND REVENUE ACCOUNTS, FOUR GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTS, FOUR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, AND TWO CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS WHEREAS, property tax revenues were $58,100 less than budgeted, and WHEREAS, penalties and interest on property taxes will be $4,000 or more than budgeted; and WHEREAS, raw fish tax was $158,965 more than budgeted; and WHEREAS, the Assembly agreed to increase the Clerk's Department by $4,000 for continuing education; and WHEREAS, the allocation to enterprise funds (solid waste) in the Finance Department needs to be reduced by $20,000 to match the expense budgeted in the Solid Waste Fund; and WHEREAS, the Health and Sanitation Department needs to be increased by $12,380 to cover the increase in the animal control contract with the City; and WHEREAS, the Culture and Recreation Department needs to be increased by $566 to contribute an amount equal to their personal property taxes to the Dig Afognak organization; and WHEREAS, due to increased snow removal costs, $25,000 needs to be added to the Womens Bay Road Service District, and WHEREAS, the transfer of funds from the Facilities Fund to the Building and Grounds Fund needs to be reduced by $34,600. This transfer was budgeted for more than was available; and WHEREAS, the budget for Fire Protection Area 1 (Bayside Fire Department) needs to be increased by $435,000 to cover the cost of a new fire engine and a new tanker truck: and WHEREAS, $146,000 of the Women's Bay Fire FY2006 Homeland Security grant was received in FY2007; and WHEREAS, $15,000 needs to be added to the Womens Bay Fire Department to cover the cost of materials and supplies for the new tanker truck, and WHEREAS, contributions to the BMX track are $25,750 more than budgeted; and WHEREAS, project 173, Bayside classroom equipment, is complete with a savings of $26,800; and WHEREAS, to offset the unauthorized fill associated with the in Anton Larsen Boat Ramp project, the Borough has agreed to repair and replace culverts at Panamaroff creek at a budgeted cost of $30,000; and WHEREAS, $25,000 is budgeted for construction of a solarium at the hospital; and WHEREAS, interest earnings in Fund 420, Bond Projects, are $1,029,000 over budget, and expected to increase even more; and WHEREAS, the Borough has accepted a grant for $23,500 for the Summit Lake Trail; and WHEREAS, project 177, Anton Larsen Boat Ramp, needs to be increased by $276,350; and Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. 2007-01F Page 1 of10 WHEREAS, Dingell- Johnson will contribute $140,000 to the Anton Larsen Boat Ramp Project; and WHEREAS, the remaining $136,350 is available in Fund 410; and WHEREAS, the State of Alaska has awarded a grant for $138,606 for seismic repairs and replacement of the East Elementary School windows; and WHEREAS, NOAA has reimbursed the Borough $67,172 for administrative expenses related to the fiber optic feasibility study; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH THAT: Section 1: The FY2007 budget will be amended per the attached schedule. ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH THIS DAY OF , 2007 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ATTEST: Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor Nova Javier, CMC, Borough Clerk Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. 2007-01F Page 2 of10 Fund 100 General Fund Revenues: Property Tax Boat & Motor Vehicle Tax Payment in Lieu of Taxes Severance Taxes Penalties & Int on tax Licenses and Permits Federal Shared Revenue Temporary Fiscal Relief Raw Fish Tax Raw Fish Tax - Offshore Other State Revenue Fines Interest Earnings Miscellaneous Use of Fund Balance Sale of Fixed Assets Transfer In Total Expenditures: Borough Assembly Borough Manager Borough Clerk Borough Attorney Finance Department Management Information Services Assessing Department Engineering/ Facilities Dept Community Development Building Official Economic Development General Administration Emergency Preparedness School District Support Health and Sanitation Culture and Recreation Transfers Out Total Fund 205 Child Care Assistance Program Revenue Expenditures Fund 210 Land Sales Revenue Expenditures Adopted Ammended As of Difference Budget Budget 01/31/07 8,496,982 8,496,982 8,438,904 276,700 276,700 95,508 765,000 765,000 12,527 1,016,793 1,016,793 541,950 150,000 150,000 141,198 104,500 104,500 47,991 350,075 350,075 1,039,870 1,039,870 1,039,873 800,000 800,000 958,965 2,000 2,000 - 26,000 26,000 1,000 1,000 663 400,000 400,000 119,725 59,200 59,200 20,943 154,296 154,296 58,078 181,192 752,473 474,843 8,802 56,509 350,075 (3) (158,965) 2,000 26,000 337 280,275 38,257 154,296 99% 35% 2% 53% 94% 46% 0% 100% 120% 0% 0% 66% 30% 35% 0% 13,642,416 13,642,416 11,418,247 2,224,169 84% 89,280 89,280 36,575 89,280 89,280 30,799 96,700 96,700 40,926 96,700 96,700 8,052 52,705 41% 58,481 34% 55,774 42% 88,648 8% Budget Adjustments Revised Budget (58,000) 8,438,982 276,700 765,000 1,016,793 4,000 154,000 104,500 350,075 1,039,870 158,960 958,960 2,000 26,000 1,000 400,000 59,200 (68,014) 86,282 161,790 161,790 71,719 90,071 44% 161,790 256,253 256,253 145,835 110,418 57% (67,172) 189,081 361,490 361,490 215,217 146,273 60% 4,000 365,490 130,000 130,000 53,779 76,221 41% 130,000 647,023 647,023 392,878 254,145 61% 20,000 667,023 475,838 475,838 184,990 290,848 39% 475,838 399,150 399,150 224,095 175,055 56% 399,150 152,102 152,102 68,622 83,480 45% 152,102 613,420 613,420 235,354 378,066 38% 613,420 132,640 132,640 44,816 87,824 34% 132,640 70,000 70,000 61,750 8,250 88% 70,000 297,370 297,370 172,223 125,147 58% 297,370 8,800 8,800 5,318 3,482 60% 8,800 9,082,990 9,082,990 4,960,898 4,122,092 55% 9,082,990 289,880 289,880 253,313 36,567 87% 12,380 302,260 167,220 167,220 145,100 22,120 87% 566 167,786 396,450 396,450 396,450 0% 67,172 > 463,622 13,642,416 13,642,416 7,235,907 6,406,509 53% 36,946 13,679,362 Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. 2007 -01 F Page 3 of10 36,946 13,679,362 89,280 89,280 96,700 96,700 Adopted Ammended As of Difference Budget Revised Budget Budget 01/31/07 % Adjustments Budget Fund 220 Buildings and Grounds - Revenues - Revenues 421,980 421,980 231,196 190,784 55% 421,980 Transfers in 220,000 220,000 220,000 100% (34,600) 185,400 Use of Fund Balance 65,000 65,000 - 65,000 0% 34,600 99,600 Total Revenues 706,980 706,980 451,196 255,784 706,980 Expenditures - Borough Building 341,160 341,160 162,642 178,518 48% 341,160 MHCApartments 11,000 11,000 2,501 8,499 23% 11,000 School Buildings 333,820 333,820 253,190 80,630 76% 333,820 Parks 21,000 21,000 6,567 14,433 31% 21,000 Total Expenditures 706,980 706,980 424,900 282,080 60% 706,980 Fund 230 Coastal Management - Revenues 25,650 25,650 1,554 24,096 6% 25,650 Expenditures CMG Regular 25,650 25,650 8,257 17,393 32% 25,650 Total Expenditures 25,650 25,650 8,257 17,393 32% 25,650 Fund 234 L.E.P.C. - Revenues 20,000 20,000 866 20,000 LEPC 20,000 20,000 4,327 15,673 22% 20,000 E.O.P. Grant - - - Revenues 20,000 20,000 4,327 15,673 20,000 Expenditures - Expenditures-LEPC 20,000 20,000 4,227 15,773 20,000 Expenditures -FEMA grant - 101 (101) Total Expenditures 20,000 20,000 4,328 15,672 20,00, Fund 240 Womens Bay Road Service - Revenues 119,600 119,600 126,432 (6,832) 106% 25,000 144,600 Expenditures 119,600 119,600 96,035 23,565 80% 25,000 144,600 Fund 242 Service District No. 1 - Revenues 215,000 215,000 222,108 (7,108) 103% 215,000 Expenditures 215,000 215,000 106,516 108,484 50% 215,000 Fund 243 Service Area No. 2 Revenues 342 (342) Expenditures Fund 244 Monaska Bay Road District - Revenues 43,175 43,175 41,316 1,859 96% 43,175 Expenditures 43,175 43,175 41,389 1,786 96% 43,175 Fund 246 Bay View Road Service Area - Revenues 4,800 4,800 5,903 (1,103) 123% 4,800 Expenditures 4,800 4,800 4,555 245 95% 4,800 Fund 250 Fire Protection Area No. 1 - Revenues 701,160 701,160 390,563 310,597 56% 435,000 1,136,160 Expenditures 701,160 701,160 146,462 554,698 21% 435,000 1,136,160 Fund 252 Womens Bay Fire Department - Revenues 89,200 89,200 234,733 (145,533) 263% 161,000 250,200 Expenditures 89,200 89,200 75,817 13,383 85% 161,000 250,20 Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. 2007 -01F Page 4 of10 Adopted Ammended As of Difference Budget Budget 01/31/07 Fund 254 KIB Airport Fire District - Revenues 16,730 16,730 13,642 3,088 82% Expenditures 16,730 16,730 16,725 5 100% Budget Revised Adjustments Budget Fund 260 Woodland Acres Street Lights - Revenues 6,000 6,000 262 5,738 4% 6,000 Expenditures 6,000 6,000 2,840 3,160 47% 6,000 Fund 261 Trinity Islands Lighting Dist. - Revenues 3,600 3,600 3,825 (225) 106% 3,600• Expenditures 3,600 3,600 982 2,618 27% 3,600 Fund 262 Mission Lake Tide Gate - Revenues 2,460 2,460 3,115 (655) 127% 2,460 Expenditures 2,460 2,460 315 2,145 13% 2,460 Fund 263 Trinity Islands Paving Dist. - Revenues 22,140 22,140 35,172 (13,032) 22,140 Expenditures 22,140 22,140 115 22,025 22,140 Fund 275 Kodiak Arts Council - Revenues 65,780 65,780 37,271 28,509 57% 65,780 Expenditures 65,780 65,780 37,453 28,327 57% 65,780 Fund 276 Facilities Fund - Revenues 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,042,829 757,171 58% 1,800,000 Expenditures/Transfers Out: - Building Insurance 220,000 220,000 220,000 100% (34,600) 185,400 Debt Service 714,000 714,000 714,000 - 100% 714,000 Capital Projects Fund 430 242,500 242,500 242,500 0% 242,500 Contengencies - inflation proofing 623,500 623,500 0% 34,600 658,100 Total Expenditures 1,800,000 1,800,000 934,000 242,500 52% 1,800,000 Fund 277 Tourism Development - Revenues 45,000 45,000 47,748 (2,748) 106% 45,000 Expenditures 45,000 45,000 90,579 (45,579) 201% 45,000 Fund 290 Fern Fuller Trust - Revenues 75,000 75,000 27,671 47,329 37% 75,000 Expenditures 75,000 75,000 72,613 2,387 97% 75,000 Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. 2007-01F Page 5 of10 16,730 16,730 Adopted Ammended As of Difference Budget Revised Budget Budget 01/31/07 % Adjustments Budget Fund 300 Debt Service - Revenues - State Debt Reimbursement 1,780,667 1,780,667 507,762 1,272,905 29% 1,780,667 Interest Earnings 6,000 6,000 21,622 (15,622) 360% 6,000 Transfers in - General Fund - Education 695,550 695,550 695,550 100% 695,550 General Fund - Health - - Facilities Fund 714,000 714,000 714,000 100% 714,000 Hospital Fund 235,593 235,593 235,593 100% 235,593 Use of fund balance - - - - Total Revenues 3,431,810 3,431,810 2,174,527 1,257,283 3,431,810 Expenditures - Expenditures-School Debt 2,675,925 2,675,925 969,068 1,706,857 36% 2,675,925 Expenditures - Hospital Debt 749,595 749,595 106,839 642,756 14% 749,595 Expenditures - Karluk Loans 6,290 6,290 6,290 0% 6,290 Expenditures -Other Debt - - - Total Expenditures 3,431,810 3,431,810 1,075,907 2,355,903 31% 3,431,810 Capital Projects Fund 410 - Borough Capital Projects: Revenues: - Interest Earnings 9,080 9,080 151,531 (142,451) 1669% 9,080 Contributions for BMX track 13,920 13,920 39,667 (25,747) 285% 25,750 39,670 Survey Fiber Optic Pass Through Grant 2,473,694 2,473,694 2,399,055 74,639 97% 2,473,694 Miscellaneous - - - 0% - Total Revenues 2,496,694 2,496,694 2,590,253 (93,559) 25,750 2,522,44' Operating Transfers In: General Fund 445,000 445,000 55,000 390,000 12% 67,172 512,172 Bayside Fire Department 426,800 426,800 426,800 100% 426,800 Facilities Fund 642,384 642,384 642,384 100% 642,384 Total Operating Transfers In 1,514,184 1,514,184 1,069,184 71% 67,172 1,581,356 Total Revenues 4,010,878 4,010,878 3,659,437 (93,559) 91% 92,922 4,103,800 Projects: - 85 Village Metals Removal 150,000 150,000 121,257 28,743 81% 150,000 146 BMX Bike Trail 68,920 68,920 49,278 19,642 72% 25,750 94,670 173 Bayside classroom equipment 75,000 75,000 48,199 26,801 64% (26,800) 48,200 174 Bayside Storage Addition & Engine Bay 400,000 400,000 3,020 396,980 1% 26,800 426,800 00102 Bayside Underground Electrical 22,000 22,000 - 22,000 0% 22,000 03105 Northstar School road /parking lot design 50,000 50,000 28,746 21,254 57% 50,000 03106 KHS emergency generator 50,000 50,000 50,000 0% 50,000 03109 Borough Building air handling penthouse 10,000 10,000 10,000 0% 10,000 03110 Borough Building emergency generator 20,000 20,000 2,353 17,647 12% 20,000 . 03120 WB Comm Plan Revision 33,380 33,380 22,392 10,988 67% 33,380 05001 Survey Fiber Optic Pass Through Grant 2,473,694 2,473,694 2,403,507 70,187 (25,000) 2,448,694 05006 HS Pool Filter 60,000 60,000 49,698 10,302 83% 60,000 07008 Seismic Repair 390,000 390,000 390,000 0% 390,000 R and replacement of culverts at Panamaroff Creek - - 0% 30,000 30,000 Hospital Solarium 0% 25,000 25,000 High School pool repairs 0% 40,000 40,000 Tranfer to Fund 430 - - 0% 136,350 136,350 Other Projects 207,884 207,884 207,884 0% (139,178) 68,706 Total Borough Projects 4,010,878 4,010,878 2,728,450 1,282,428 68% 92,922 4,103,800 Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. 2007-01F Page 6 of10 Adopted Ammended As of Difference Budget Revised Budget Budget 01/31/07 % Adjustments Budget Fund 420 -GO Bond Projects: Revenues: Interest Earnings 500,000 500,000 1,528,890 (1,028,890) 306% 1,500,000 2,000,000 Proceeds from bond 2004A Bond Issue 9,302,760 9,302,760 9,302,760 (0) 100% 9,302,760 Proceeds from bond 2004B Bond Issue 11,050,000 11,050,000 11,052,760 (2,760) 100% 11,050,000 Proceeds from bond 200X0( Bond Issue - - - - 0% - Projects: 04101 Old Harbor Gym/Voc Ed renovation 04102 Larsen Bay School floor repair 04103 Ouzinkie Gym renovation 05002 Evacuation Center earthquake evaluator 05009 Kodiak Middle School concrete repair 05010 Kodiak High School asbestos & floor coy 05011 District -wide floor covering replacement 05012 Kodiak High School heating and ventilatii 05013 Kodiak High School insulastion and wind 05014 Kodiak High School and Middle School n 05016 East School heating and ventilation 05017 Leaming Center renovation 03119 New Swimming Pool 05015 High School Voc ed /classroom reclaimati Contingencies 20,852,760 20,852,760 21,884,411 (1,031,651) 1,500,000 22,352,760' 2,251,134 339,883 1,858,255 500,000 237,918 304,704 728,708 250,000 596,020 523,504 520,000 1,181,336 :VW 6,210,000 4,840,788 510,510 20,852,760 2,251,134 2,122 2,249,012 339,883 1,411 338,472 1,858,255 3,945 1,854,310 500,000 299,555 200,445 237,918 7,494 230,424 304,704 10,372 294,332 728,708 342,132 386,576 250,000 172 249,828 596,020 4,057 591,963 523,504 4,498 519,006 520,000 979 519,021 1,181,336 6,966 1,174,370 4 a .,, 6,210,000 330,062 5,879,938 4,840,788 24,586 4,816,202 510,510 510,510 0% 0% 0% 60% 3% 3% 47% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 5% 1% 0% 2,251,134 339,883 1,858,255 500,000 237,918 304,704 728,708 250,000 596,020 523,504 520,000 1,181,336 6,210,000 4,840,788 1,500,000 2,010,510 20,852,760 1,038,351 19,814,409 5% 1,500,000 22,352,760 Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. 2007-01F Page 7 of10 Fund 430 -State Capital Grant Projects: Revenues: KIB Waste Management Implementation Anton Larsen Bay Boat Ramp School Repair Tide Gate Chiniak Grant SHSGP Grant ADF &G, fish research Coastal Impact Program CIAP Grant Kodiak Cadastral Grant AK Coastal Management Homeland Security 06008 Summit Lake Trail ADF & G Building Design 2005 Pre Disaster Mitigation Grant 05026 HS Library Wing Seismic Retrofit 07001 Area Wide School Equipment and Suppli 07003 Island Lake Trail 07004 Larsen Bay Equipment 07005 Main elementay School Playground Equi 07006 Port Lions Community Workshop 07008 School Facilities Seismic Repairs 07009 Tsunami Siren, Upgrades & Additions 07010 ADF & G Near Island Facility 07011 Ouzinkie Dock Replacement 07012 Ouzinkie School Seismic Upgrade East Elementary School Siesmic Upgrade Transfers in from fund 276 Anton Larson Boat Ramp Coastal Impact Program Dingell- Johnson Contribution Transfer from fund 410 Total Revenues Projects: 164 KIB Waste Management Implementation 177 Anton Larsen Bay Boat Ramp 00100 High School Repair FY00 00104 Tide Gate 02107 ADF &G Research Study 03114 Coastal Impact Program 03116 School Repair 03118 Chiniak Multi -use Grant 04106 SHSGP Grant 05003 Kodiak Cadastral Grant 05005 AK Coastal Management 05020 2005 PreDisaster Mitigation Grant 05026 HS Library Wing Seismic Retrofit 06002 Homeland Security 06008 Summit Lake Trail ADF & G Building Design 07001 Area Wide School Equipment and Suppli 07003 Island Lake Trail 07004 Larsen Bay Equipment 07005 Main elementay School Playground Equil 07006 Port Lions Community Workshop 07008 School Facilities Seismic Repairs 07009 Tsunami Siren, Upgrades & Additions Adopted Ammended As of Difference Budget Budget 01/31/07 1,741,400 1,741,400 560,000 560,000 252,574 252,574 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 138,151 138,151 200,000 200,000 189,985 189,985 40,000 40,000 46,000 46,000 17,733 17,733 1,500,000 1,500,000 41,724 41,724 60,000 130,000 1,741,400 620,000 126,770 20,000 200,000 319,985 125,804 20,000 138,151 40,000 46,000 41,724 17,733 465,618 70,000 48,000 70,000 25,000 10,000 910,000 100,000 500,000 570,000 308,344 60,000 130,000 1,741,400 620,000 126,770 20,000 200,000 319,985 125,804 20,000 138,151 40,000 46,000 41,724 465,618 17,733 1,500,000 1,500,000 70,000 48,000 70,000 25,000 10,000 910,000 100,000 976,048 765,352 56% 560,000 100% 252,574 0% 20,000 0% 20,000 0% 138,151 0% 200,000 0% 189,985 0% 0% 46,000 0% 17,733 0% 1,500,000 0% 41,724 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 60,000 0% 130,000 0% 0% 0% 4,957,567 8,342,873 1,536,048 3,381,519 31% 936,714 804,686 54% 611,292 8,708 99% 127,482 (712) 101% 21,075 (1,075) 105% 135,056 64,944 68% 265,411 54,574 83% 139,562 (13,758) 111% 11,118 8,882 56% 122,785 15,366 89% 74,087 (34,087) 185% 53,733 (7,733) 117% 18,809 22,915 45% 17,733 0% 1,500,000 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Budget Revised Adjustments Budget 23,500 138,606 140,000 136,350 438,456 Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. 2007 -01F Page 8 of10 1,741,400 560,000 252,574 20,000 20,000 138,151 200,000 189,985 40,000 46,000 17,733 23,500 1,500,000 41,724 465,618 70,000 48,000 70,000 25,000 10,000 910,000 100,000 500,000 570,000 308,344 138,606 60,0 130,000 140,000 136,350 - 8,472,985 1,741,400 276,350 896,350 126,770 20,000 200,000 319,985 125,804 20,000 138,151 40,000 46,000 41,724 465,618 17,733 23,500 23,500 1,500,000 70,000 48,000 70,000 25,000 10,000 910,or 100,0■ Adopted Ammended As of Difference Budget Revised Budget Budget 01131/07 % Adjustments Budget 07010 ADF & G Near Island Facility 500,000 0% 500,000 07011 Ouzinkie Dock Replacement 570,000 0% 570,000 07012 Ouzinkie School Seismic Upgrade 308,344 921 (921) 308,344 East Elementary School Siesmic Upgrade - 0% 138,606 138,606 School District Computer Grant 70,000 70,000 Emergency Communications and Planing 30,000 30,000 Total Expenditures 4,957,567 8,134,529 2,518,045 2,439,522 51% 438,456 8,572,985 Fund 490 Enterprise Funds Capital Projects - Landfill Closeout/Leachate Treatment 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,151,193 848,807 72% 3,000,000 Hospital 740,000 740,000 350,000 390,000 47% 740,000 Providence 125,000 125,000 125,000 From Facilities Fund 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000. Total Revenues 3,740,000 29,920,000 2,626,193 1,238,807 70% 3,990,000 165 Landfill Closeout/Leachate Treatment 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,336,043 663,957 78% 3,000,000 03112 Hospital access and parking, Phase I & II 700,000 700,000 22,989 677,011 3% 700,000 03113 Specialty Clinic roof repair /replacement 40,000 40,000 79,712 (39,712) 199% 40,000 CHC architural Engineering 250,000 250,000 250,000 Total Expenditures 3,740,000 29,920,000 2,336,043 1,403,957 62% 3,990,000 Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. 2007-01F Page 9 of10 Adopted Ammended As of Difference Budget Revised Budget Budget 01/31/07 % Adjustments Budget Fund 530 Solid Waste Collection /Disposal - Revenues - Waste Collection 2,761,345 2,761,345 1,517,910 1,243,435 55% 2,761,345 Waste Disposal 998,178 998,178 888,105 110,073 89% 998,178 Total Revenues 3,759,523 3,759,523 2,406,015 1,353,508 64% 3,759,523 Expenditures - Waste Collection 1,432,000 1,432,000 532,725 899,275 37% 1,432,000 Waste Disposal 2,327,523 2,327,523 760,897 1,566,626 33% 2,327,523 Total Expenditures 3,759,523 3,759,523 1,293,622 2,465,901 34% 3,759,523 Fund 540 Hospital Enterprise Fund Revenues: Interest Earnings - - Providence Hospital Lease 720,000 720,000 360,000 360,000 50% 720,000 Gain on sale of assets - Transfer in from Fern Fuller 66,500 66,500 66,500 - 66,500 Use of Retained Earnings 949,373 949,373 949,373 949,373 Total Revenues 1,735,873 1,735,873 426,500 1,309,373 25% 1,735,873 Expenditures and Transfers: - Expenditures 1,735,873 1,735,873 278,126 1,457,747 16% 1,735,873 Total Expenditures 1,735,873 1,735,873 278,126 1,457,747 16% 1,735,873 Fund 555 - Kodiak Fisheries Research Center - Revenues 2,051,759 2,051,759 885,382 1,166,377 43% 2,051,759 Expenditures - Research Facility 2,029,159 2,029,159 365,247 1,663,912 18% 2,029,159 Dorm Facility 22,600 22,600 14,367 8,233 64% 22,60C 2,051,759 2,051,759 379,614 1,672,145 19% 2,051,75 Fund 560 - Telephone 911 Service - Revenues 69,000 69,000 24,593 44,407 36% 69,000 Expenditures 69,000 69,000 4,640 64,360 7% 69,000 Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Ordinance No. 2007-01F Page 10 of10 DATE: TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJ: KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Engineering & Facilities Department MEMORANDUM March 4, 2007 Borough Assembly DD�� Rick Gifford, Borough Manager 1 c Bud Cassid ►- rector, Engineering and Facilities Department Anton Larsen Dock and Mitigation Project/ Budget Adjustment Item. MAR 1 3 2007 BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE Introduction For four years the Anton Larsen Bay Boat Ramp project has been stalled; the reason for this gap of time is due to a violation of the Corps of Engineers' (COE) fill regulations. The Borough filled .1 acres at the project site, which was more than allowed in the COE's approved plan of development for this project, which led to a "Stop Work Order" by the COE. Presently, the project is back on track and a permit to complete the ramp project is being reviewed by federal and state agencies. This permit will be approved subject to approval by the Assembly for a mitigation project to off -set the unauthorized fill. There is also need to fund, not only the mitigation project, but the completion of the ramp. Mitigation Project In addition to completing the ramp, the COE is requiring the Borough to complete a mitigation project, as a result of exceeding the proposed fill amount. Though mitigation projects are generally preferred to occur in the vicinity of the project, the COE is willing to accept one closer to town and one that will benefit Borough residents. The project discussed with the COE is the replacement of the culvert that runs under Panamaroff Creek Drive with that of additional culverts which will better serve the community by passing more water during high flow events. In the past this culvert has become plugged and waters from this creek have run across and along the road, causing major maintenance issues for the Womens Bay Service Area (WBSA). The project would replace the existing 48" culvert with 3 — 30" culverts, installed one on top of the other two. The river will then run through the two lower culverts during normal flows and the upper culvert will serve as a safety valve for flow during high waters. This project has been around and supported by the WBSA for many years. The cost of the mitigation project is estimated to be $25,000 — $30,000. Boat Ramp Project Completion and Past Expenses The amount to complete the ramp project is estimated to be $275,000. Of this amount, ADF &G has committed $140,000. THIS COMMITMENT IS ONLY GOOD SHOULD THE PROJECT BE COMPLETED THIS YEAR. The Borough's contribution to this next phase of the project is $136,350 to finish the project. Past contribution to the projects has primarily been by grants by the ADF &G Sport Fish Division. Two past grants have totaled $560,000. Past KIB contribution to the project has been $60,000. Total contribution to the project by ADF &G will be $700,000. Total KIB contribution with this approval will be $196,350. Anderson Construction was the successful contractor on the original boat ramp project and the job order to complete the project is still open. We propose to amend the contract for the additional construction amount with Anderson Construction. Conclusion The Anton Larsen Boat Ramp project has been around for over 10 years. It has remained unfinished since its original construction start date, summer 2003. The project is a result of the cooperation between ADF &G Sport Fish Division and the Kodiak Island Borough. Federal funds from the Dingle — Johnson program (which is a tax of recreational gear) is passed through the state ADF &G Sports Fish Division and onto localities to complete community sports fish access projects. The Anton Larsen Bay Boat Ramp is a heavily used facility, one that presently can only be accessed during high tides. At lower tides, to a large degree, the ramp is not functional. The new proposed ramp will extend to lower water and will be accessible at any tide stage. It is a valued facility to the sport fishing public, as well as an access point by those on the west side of the island and the communities of Port Lions and Ouzinkie. It allows for folks to access Kodiak and the services found within the city without having to traverse around Spruce Cape, which, at times can be life threatening. Staff recommends approval of the budget adjustment for the Anton Larsen Bay Boat Ramp project. Kodiak Island Borough MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Gifford, Borough Manager FROM: Karleton Short, Finance Director j (4 ) SUBJECT: BMX Bike Trail DATE: March 6, 2007 Since the project was started in 1996 $94,666.77 has been received for the BMX Bike Trail. This amount includes monies transferred in from the General Fund and donations from various groups and individuals. Below is a list of all the donations. 12/5/1996 General Fund 12/18/1997 General Fund 4/23/2003 Kodiak Liquor License Holders 10/13/2003 Kodiak Lions Club 12/11/2003 Kodiak SK8 Board 6/4/2004 City of Kodiak 12/12/2005 Chris Nielsen 12/12/2005 Christy Nielsen 5/3/2006 BPOE Elks $ 20,000.00 35,000.00 5,000.00 12,964.00 952.77 10, 000.00 2,000.00 750.00 8,000.00 $ 94,666.77 $49,278.05 has been spent on this project leaving a balance of $45,388 MAR 1 3 2007 BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE KOT)IAK ESLAND BOROUGH CLERICS OFFICE Cii WILD TO: ASSLM8 ' - IAYOR V� March 12, 2007 Dear Community of Kodiak; The dream of a BMX park for the Kodiak community, built largely through the promise of volunteer labor and voluntary contributions to the cause, has faded. Service organizations that contributed willingly to the dream are now requesting their money be returned. The volunteer construction labor that I solicited and committed to the task never got organized to dig the hole. No matter the reasons, the dream has died. I solicited service organizations for funds and managed to collect almost $60,000.00. I petitioned construction contractors and got their willing pledge of labor for the park. If a BMX park project were to succeed, it needs people or an organization firmly committed to the cause with equally strong community backing and a firm timeline in place to see the park built. I realize that I am not the person that can make this park happen. I can not seem to motivate people to live up to their promises in a timely manner. I apologize to the community and avid BMX bikers who shared my dream. I apologize for not keeping everyone involved with the details of what was happening and NOT happening on the project. I will make sure that all funds are returned to all groups. I hope that one day Kodiak will rise to the occasion and build a BMX park, based on volunteer labor and funds, for all BMX bikers, in -line skaters and skateboarders. Sincerely, l3 cQQ,b\ fr a,t. Bill Hinkle PO Box 2177 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 486 7751 work 486 3821 home Fiscal Notes: ❑ n/a Account No. 530 -731 430 -140 Expenditure Required: $ 107,360 C n/a Amount Budgeted: $107,360 ❑ n/a Kodiak Island Borough AGENDA STATEMENT Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007 Item No. 13.A.1 Contract No. FY2007 -39 Solid Waste Management Study A request for proposals (RFP) was solicited from consulting groups to assist in the development of a solid waste management study at the Assembly's direction. The essential components of the project consist of a comprehensive evaluation of the existing solid waste collection system and metal management; development of bid packets for solid waste collection and metal management (or potential negotiations with existing collection contractor as proposed by one of the respondents to the RFP and; comprehensive study and evaluation of KIB's current and proposed future solid waste collection, handling, processing and disposal systems. Two firms responded to this RFP; Golder Associates and Bell & Associates, Inc. Proposal reviewers concurred that Bell & Associates, Inc. presented the most thorough and comprehensive approach to this project. Cost was not considered as a factor in selecting the best qualified firm however a time and cost component was requested to be included in the proposal. Golder Associates cost was $129,286 and Bell & Associates, Inc was $107,360. Staff recommends that a time and materials contract in an amount not exceed $107,360 be approved with Bell & Associates, Inc. APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: Recommended motion: Move to authorize the manager to execute Contract No. FY2007- 39 with Bell & Associates, Inc of Camas, Washington in the amount not to exceed $107,360. WITNESSETH: AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 2007 by and between the Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) and Bell & Associates, Inc., hereinafter called the "Consultant." That the KIB and Consultant for the consideration hereinafter recited agree as follows: Project: The Consultant agrees to perform services as necessary for the professional completion of the project which shall be defined by the following Scope of Work and any additional specifications and addenda thereto which are signed by the parties or incorporated herein as part of this Agreement, which documents are hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. The services provided shall be of professional quality, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Project Manager. The essential project activities consist of comprehensive evaluation of existing solid waste collection system and metal management; development of bid packets for solid waste collection and metal management, or potential negotiations with existing collection contractor as proposed in Consultant's proposal and; comprehensive study and evaluation of KIB's current and proposed future solid waste collection, handling, processing and disposal systems. The Scope of Work is attached as Appendix I. The Contractor will keep accurate and complete records of performance and reimbursable costs, and maintain the records for six years, the statute of limitations for contract actions, after the work is completed. A. Tasks include: 1. Information Request 2. Kick -Off Meeting/Site Tours /Interviews 3. Summarize & Evaluate System 4. System Recommendations and Alternatives 5. Contract Updates 5B. Update and Negotiate Collection Contract or; 5C. Prepare RFP for Collection Services 6. Modeling System Costs & Collection Rates 7. Preparation of Draft Report 8. Preparation of Final Draft Report 9. Present Final Draft Report to KIB Assembly 10. Submit Final Report 2. Job Commencement and Performance. The Consultant shall commence work on , 2007 and will be completed by Agreement Solid Waste Mgmt Study FINAL Page 1 of 7 3. Project Manager. The project manager shall be the KIB's Environmental Specialist in the Engineering and Facilities Department. 4. Compensation. The KIB agrees to pay to the Consultant as compensation for services on a time and material basis not to exceed $118,560.00. 5. Insurance. (1) Contractor shall, at all times, at its own expense, keep in force the following described insurance for protection against the claims of employees or other persons, insuring both the Contractor and the Borough against liability that may accrue against them or either of them in connection with Contractor's performance under this agreement. (a) Insurance, in at least the required statutory amounts, covering claims under Workers' Compensation, disability benefits and other similar employee benefit acts; (b) Public liability insurance covering bodily injury, death, and property damage with combined single limit of not less than $2 million; and (c) Professional liability insurance in an amount of not less than $1 million. (2) If Contractor fails to comply with the insurance requirements of this agreement, the Borough may terminate the agreement on ten (10) days' written notice. (3) Contractor covenants to maintain all insurance policies required in this agreement for the period of time in which a person may commence a civil action as prescribed by the applicable statues of limitations. The coverage required by this agreement shall cover all claims arising in connection with the performance of Contractor under this agreement, whether or not asserted during the term of this agreement and even though judicial proceedings may not be commenced until after the expiration of this agreement. (4) If Contractor is self - insured Borough will require a statement to that effect; (5) Certificate of Insurance for liability and errors and omissions insurance, especially for contractor acting as agent (n/a of self insured); (6) Borough must be named as "additionally insured ". 6. Payment. The KIB shall make payment at monthly intervals subject to receipt from the Consultant specifying that the services have been performed and is entitled to the amount requested under the terms of this Agreement. The monthly payments due shall be equal to the actual time and materials spent on the project as of the date of the request. The Consultant shall prepare monthly invoices and progress reports which clearly indicate the progress to date and the amount of compensation due. The Consultant shall provide any additional information, which the KIB may reasonably require in support of any payment request. All requests for payment shall be for work completed unless otherwise agreed to by the KIB. Monthly invoices shall be delivered to the KIB no later than the end of the month and shall be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of the invoice unless the KIB shall notify the Consultant in writing of the reason for not making payment of the sums requested. 7. Indemnification. Contractor hereby agrees to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold the Borough, its employees, agents, successors and assigns, harmless from and against any and Agreement Solid Waste Mgmt Study FINAL Page 2 of 7 all loss, damage, liability and costs including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs arising out of claims by third parties for property damages or bodily injury, including death, to the proportionate extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Consultant, Consultant's employees, affiliated corporations and sub consultants in connection with the project; or resulting from any negligent act or omission of Contractor pursuant to this Agreement, which acts or omissions were caused by, or were themselves the negligence of Contractor and were not within the control of the Borough. The Consultant obligates himself to pay for all materials furnished and services performed by the Consultant's subcontractors or suppliers after the Consultant has been paid by the KIB for the same under this Agreement. 8. Claims. (a) Partial payments for work performed under this Agreement will equal the value of the work done by the Consultant at the agreed price, less the sum of previous payments as provided above; provided that the Consultant is not indebted to the KIB or anyone else for professional services, fringes, taxes, supplies, materials, equipment, rental or other proper charges against the services covered by the KIB from any payment or payments made under this provision. (b) The Consultant must notify the KIB or his agent of any and all claims for costs in excess of the contract amount within ten (10) days of incurring such costs. 9. Changes and Modifications. (a) The KIB may, at any time, by written order signed by the Borough Manager, make changes in the specifications for services hereunder or in the project schedule. Any additions or reductions to the amount of this Agreement resulting from authorized changes whether initiated by Consultant or the KIB must be agreed upon in writing by both parties hereto, subject to the contract and sale provisions of the KIB Code. (b) The cost or credit to the KIB resulting from a change in the services or in the project schedule shall be determined as follows: (2) by mutual acceptance of a lump sum properly itemized and supported by sufficient substantiating data to permit evaluation; or (3) by the hourly fees stated in the contract documents or subsequently agreed upon. 10. Performance of Work. The Consultant shall perform the work in a prompt and diligent manner whenever such work or any part of it becomes available, in order to promote the general progress of the entire project. Upon written request by the KIB, the Consultant shall furnish to the KIB such evidence as the KIB may require relating to the ability of the Consultant to complete the project. The Consultant shall comply with professional standards and all applicable laws. 11. Delays. In the event the Consultant's performance is delayed or interfered with by acts of the KIB, or any other justifiable cause beyond the control of the Consultant, he may request an extension of time for the performance of it. 12. Approvals. The Consultant shall obtain and pay for permits, licenses, and official inspections made necessary by his work, and shall comply with all laws, ordinances and regulations bearing on his work and the conduct thereof. Agreement Solid Waste Mgmt Study FINAL Page 3 of 7 13. Stop Work. (a) If the Consultant fails to correct defective services as required herein or persistently fails to carry out the project in accordance with the contract documents, the KIB, by a written order signed personally or by an agent, may order the Consultant to stop work, or any portion thereof, until the cause for such order has been eliminated; however, this right of the KIB to stop work shall not give rise to any duty on the part of the KIB to exercise this right for the benefit of the Consultant or any other person or entity. (b) If the Consultant defaults or neglects to carry out the work in accordance with the contract documents and fails within fourteen (14) days after receipt of written notice from the KIB to commence and continue correction of such default or neglect with diligence and promptness, the KIB may, after seven (7) days following receipt by the Consultant of an additional written notice and without prejudice to any other remedy it may have, make good such deficiencies but use its best efforts to mitigate the cost of curing such default. In such case an appropriate change order shall be issued deducting from the payments then or thereafter due the Consultant the cost of correcting such deficiencies, including compensation for the Project Manager's additional services made necessary by such default, neglect, or failure. 14. Time. (a) Definitions: (1) Unless otherwise provided, the contract time is the period of time allotted in this Agreement for substantial completion of the project. (2) The date of commencement of the project is the date established in this Agreement as set forth above. (3) The date of substantial completion of the project, or designated portion thereof, is the date certified by the Project Manager when the project is sufficiently complete, in accordance with the contract documents, so the KIB can utilize the project or designated portion thereof for the use for which it is intended. (4) The date of final completion is the date that the KIB certifies either orally or in writing that the project is finished. (5) The term day as used in the contract documents shall mean calendar day unless otherwise specifically designated. (a) All time limits set forth herein are of the essence of this Agreement. 15. Payments Withheld. (a) The KIB may withhold payments from the Consultant for any of the following reasons: (1) The application for payment mistakes the amount of services completed: (2) Defective services not remedied; (3) Third party claims filed or reasonable evidence indicating probable filing of such claims; (4) Failure of the Consultant to make payments properly to consultants and subcontractors or for professional services, materials or equipment after the Contractor has been paid for the same; Agreement Solid Waste Mgmt Study FINAL Page 4 of 7 (5) Reasonable evidence that the project cannot be completed for the unpaid balance of the contract sum; (6) Reasonable evidence that the project will not be completed within the contract time (7) Persistent failure to perform the services in accordance with the contract documents. 16. Final Completion and Final Payment. If the project is totally complete the KIB will cause a final certificate of payment and make payment to the Consultant within thirty (30) days of the date that the project was certified as finally complete on the conditions set forth below. 17. Termination and Default. If the Consultant is adjudged a bankrupt, or if he makes a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors, or if a receiver is appointed on account of his insolvency, or if he refuses or fails, except in cases for which extension of time is provided, to supply enough properly skilled professionals or proper services, or if he fails to make prompt payment to subcontractors or for materials or labor after he has been paid, or persistently disregards, laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or order of any public authority having jurisdiction, or otherwise is guilty of a violation of a provision of this Agreement, then the KIB may, without prejudice to any right or remedy and after giving the Consultant seven (7) days written notice, terminate the employment of the Consultant and take possession of all materials and documents prepared by the Consultant in connection with the project, and may finish the work by whatever method he may deem expedient. In such case the Consultant shall not be entitled to receive any further payment until the work is finished. (i). If the unpaid balance of the contract sum exceeds the costs of finishing the project, including compensation for the Project Manager's additional services made necessary thereby, such excess shall be paid to the Consultant. The amount to be paid to the Consultant shall be certified by the Project Manager, upon application, and this obligation for payment shall survive the termination of the contract. 18. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned by operation of law or through negotiated agreement by the Consultant without the written permission of KIB. However, subcontracting portions of the project to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be considered an assignment for the purposes of this Agreement. 19. Subcontracting. Prohibition of subcontracting without the expressed, written consent of the Borough and subcontractor must agree to be bound by contract terms. 20. Waiver. Failure of the KIB or the Consultant to enforce a specific section of this Agreement against one another or to enforce a particular demand of the KIB or the Consultant made pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall not effect a waiver of any of the KIB's or the Consultant's rights and powers as set forth in this Agreement. Agreement Solid Waste Mgmt Study FINAL Page 5 of 7 21. Written Notice. Written notice shall be deemed to have been duly served if delivered in person to the individual or member of the firm or entity or to an officer of the corporation for whom it was intended, or if delivered at or sent by registered or certified mail to the last business address known to him who gives the notice. 22. Integration. The Agreement and the referenced documents represent the entire integrated agreement between the parties hereto and supersede all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. 23. Notice. Written notice pursuant to this Contract shall be deemed delivered to either party if hand delivered to a superintendent or officer of a party or mailed to the parties at the following addresses: Kodiak Island Borough Office of the Manager 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Bell & Associates, Inc. Chris Bell 1628 NW 33 Way Camus, WA 98607 24. Venue & Applicable Law. For all legal actions Kodiak Island Borough is the 3 Judicial District of Alaska. Provide the appropriate venue is the Borough's judicial district or third. Alaska law will govern all disagreements between parties. 25. Kodiak Island Borough Furnished Data. KIB will provide to the Consultant all data in KIB's possession relating to the Consultant's services on the Project. The Consultant will reasonably rely upon the accuracy, timeliness and completeness of the information provided by KIB. 26. Reuse of Project Documents. All reports, documents and other deliverables of the Consultant, whether in hard copy or in electronic form, are instruments of service for this Project, whether the Project is completed or not. KIB owns all documents produced under the contract and may use and reproduce them freely. Reuse on another project, change, or alteration by KIB or any others acting through or on behalf of KIB of any such instruments of services without the written permission of the Consultant will be at KIB's sole risk. 27. Attorney's Fees and Costs. Consultant will reimburse all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in successful prosecution or defense of any lawsuit and appeal arising under the contract. 28. Certification. The Consultant certifies that it is not debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment or declared ineligible for work with the State of Alaska. Consultant shall notify the KIB within five (5) working days of any such action brought against the Consultant during the term of this agreement. Agreement Solid Waste Mgmt Study FINAL Page 6 of 7 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH By: By: Rick L. Gifford Chris Bell Borough Manager President, Bell & Associates, Inc. ATTEST: Nova M. Javier, CMC Borough Clerk Agreement Solid Waste Mgmt Study FINAL Page 7 of 7 Hi Nova, Please distribute to the Mayor and Assembly Members. Tb� tis. Rick To Mayor and Assembly Members: Bud Cassidy and I had a good telephone conversation with Chris Bell, President of Bell & Associates, Inc. who borough staff is recommending that the Assembly award a contract,for conducting a solid waste management study for Kodiak Island Borough. In particular we inquired of Mr. Bell about his proposed timeline for completing his report and recommendations. The timeline in his proposal, assuming a May start, would provide System Recommendations and Alternatives by September, 2007, or approximately 150 days. However, according to Mr. Bell, he believes that they can produce the report within 90 to 120 days provided the information gathering stage goes well, which will require input from staff, the collection contractor, the advisory committee and the public. In speaking with Mr. Bell, we advised him of our concern that the timeline allow ample time to issue an RFP for collection services as our current contract with current rates expire on June 30, 2008 and that the rates go up significantly if we exercise the option to extend one year. I was impressed with his responses and how the Borough might address the collection contract. I understand that he had a similar conversation earlier with Assembly member Oswalt. Attached is an article written by one of his staff members for an industry publication that touches on contracting issues for municipal solid waste that he sent to Assembly member Oswalt. After reviewing the two proposals received for the solid waste management study, I felt that Bell & Associates did a better job responding to our specific requests and needs in their proposal. I am further encouraged, after our telephone discussion, that Bell & Associates will be able to do a good job for the Borough. Mr. Bell was encouraged to know that we are considering forming a Solid Waste Advisory Committee and indicated that his firm h +rked well with other advisory committees. Attached is a recommendation that Mr. Bell provided another community in Or about setting up an advisory committee. Staff is planning to have the Ordinance ready for Assembly review and introduction at its next regular meeting. If you have any questions, prior to tonight's meeting, please contact me. Thanks. Rick Rick Gifford Borough Manager Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Phone: 907 -486 -9301 Fax: 907 - 486 -9374 Email: rgifford@kib.co.kodiak.ak.us Web site: http://www.kodiakak.us/ 4/19/2007 FDyECEOVE 11 11 APR 1 9 2001 J BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE COPIED TO: ASSEMBLY MAYOR MANAGER_-- OTHER Ten Top Touchstones for MSW Contracting By Constance Hornig This is the sixth in a series of articles that identify issues frequently encountered when procuring, negotiating, and drafting MSW service contracts. These articles constitute a practical contracts manual that describes approaches MSW service providers and local governments can take to share risk and reward —and reach a mutually satisfactory agreement. You draw on customer demand, political preference, regulatory mandate, and fiscal practice to define the scope of the MSW services that you want to procure. (How many bulky items can customers set out at annual curbside cleanup events? Will the second greenwaste cart be provided without an additional customer charge ?) You rely on your experience and citizen complaints to set the performance standards you expect. (If a missed pickup is called in by 3 p.m., must the hauler return that same day? At what hour can commercial pickup commence within 500 feet of residential premises ?) You also rely on your past experience to identify historical problem service issues. (Was greenwaste commingled with garbage? Is the on- street staging area for scooter service a source of litter ?) But when it comes to administering and enforcing service scope and performance standards, you will find yourself turning to the written pages of your service contract. (What happens if the hauler charges customers excess rates? Can you get copies of customer complaint records? How long can the hauler fail to secure valid workers' comp insurance before you can exercise your contractual remedies ?) This article suggests ways that you can work with your contracts counsel— whether in- house or retained for a specific procurement —to ensure that the printed word of your contract empowers you to secure the service scope and performance standards that you solicited and ensure that your residents and businesses get what you bargained for them. Although most examples come from collection contracts, many of the principles apply to other MSW services as well. The article highlights 10 important aspects of an MSW contract: 1. Term 2. Enforcing Service Scope and Performance Standards 3. Excuses for Non - Performance: Uncontrollable Circumstances /Force Majeure 4. Performance Assurance 5. Indemnification 6. Liability Insurance 7. Assignment 8. Contract Construction and Interpretation 9. Expiration or Termination 10. Obligations That Survive Expiration or Termination Term The length of your contract term is not mandated by Internal Revenue Code depreciation schedules or solid waste regulations. But the length of the contract term may largely determine your service price. Naturally, contractors lobby you and your local officials for longer terms. Term translates into money. Contractors don't have to face immanent renewed competition and the considerable expense of preparing proposals. You may similarly want a mid -to- longer term in order to delay your budgeted time and expense and the political dance of a competitive proposal process. On the other hand, you may desire a shorter term to test -drive a newly implemented program. You may want to eventually procure bundled, integrated services, thereby coordinating termination of one contract (for example, collection) to occur at the same time another one ends (for example, a disposal contract). Recovery of capital investment —But contractors prefer recovering their capital investment during the contract term. Understandably, they prefer not to assume the risk of capital recovery dependant upon your discretionary contract extension or renewal. The shorter the term, the more likely that contractors will correspondingly compress their capital amortization, which will increase your service price. (Remember, if you own the capital assets, such as containers, rolling stock, a materials recovery facility (MRF), or a transfer station, then you may free the contract term from capital recovery considerations.) Competitive attractiveness —Worse still, if the term is too short, potential contractors may decide to forego submitting proposals altogether. Contractors will earn proportionately more aggregate revenue over a relatively longer -term agreement, which makes that longer -term agreement a more attractive piece of business and whets more contractors' appetites to compete. Service fee adjustment—In addition to minimizing capital recovery risk and maximizing competitive attractiveness, the length of the contract term shapes the service price in a less obvious but equally important way. Since potential contractors will probably not assume the risk of cost inflation for more than a few years, in most service contracts the service price is adjusted over the term of an agreement, resulting (usually) in higher unit compensation as the term matures. For a detailed discussion of the implications of short-, mid -, and long -term agreements for choice of rate adjustment protocol, see "Preserving the Benefits of Your Bargain: Rate Adjustment Options," in MSW Management Elements 2005, www. mswmanagement .com /mw_0506_legal.html. But here is a summary. Short term —No rate adjustment may be appropriate for short-term agreements. Expect to pay higher rates, reflecting both contractor's increased assumed risk of cost inflation and /or reduced competition. Consider this option only if you prize rate stability and do not anticipate program or regulatory changes that would increase contractor's costs. Mid term — Index -based rate adjustment is appropriate for short- to mid -term contracts (five –seven years), especially if your initial service fees were procured competitively. You can develop a bundle of weighted indices, such as labor, fuel, and equipment replacement/maintenance, or just use a percentage of your regional CPI or the new chained CPI (C- CPI -U). (The chained CPI results in lower escalation because it accounts for changes in customer purchasing habits as prices rise, not only changes in the price of goods. For example, as the price of blueberries rises throughout the summer, the consumer may switch to cheaper, seasonal apples.) Compare average annual changes in index values from year to prior year and not from month to month or from year to base year. (Month to month may capture a nonrepresentative spike; year to base year compounds inflation of Tess than 100% of the index.) Coordinate index - publishing dates with your budget process (such as the July 1 –June 30 fiscal year). Consider capping increases. Do not adjust the profit component of rates; where possible, competitively bid profit/operating ratios and apply them to adjusted costs. Use the word "adjust" instead of "escalate" in order to capture possible deflation. (You can dream.) Even though you may choose an index -based rate - adjustment methodology, identify and carve out costs that are not directly related to indices, such as tipping fees, host fees, scheduled lease, or capital finance costs. Define those pass- through costs carefully. Include specified conversion ratios to translate costs to service fees (for example, conversion of subscribed residential gallons or commercial cubic -yard weights to tipping fees expressed as tons). Alternatively (and more simply), assume that a specified percent of service fees is attributable to a pass- through cost (such as x% for disposal tipping fee). If possible, keep the risk of waste volume on your collection contractor, even if you go through changes in disposal tipping fees. Long term — Cost -based adjustment may be appropriate for long -term contracts (10 -20 years). A longer term allows the contractor to recover its capital investment in a facility. Consider whether your rate base is sufficiently large to spread the cost of conducting cost audits and implementing a cost -based adjustment protocol that is more time - consuming and expensive than index -based adjustment. (You are more likely to hire outside consultants.) Ensure that your cost -based rate - adjustment methodology clearly defines (non)allowable cost. Include sufficient detail of operational obligations to clearly define the denominated "reasonable and necessary" costs. Secure audited financials for your contract services only. Be alert to corroborate fair cost allocations among your contract services and those of others and to ascertain that compensation paid to principals, affiliates, and parent companies is kept at arm's length. Consider reconciling all projected depreciation expenses with all actual expenses that have been incurred. Provide a conclusive administrative dispute resolution protocol in the event of your contractor objecting to your rate adjustment determination. To reduce fees in longer -term agreements, consider establishing a cycle of several years using index -based rate adjustment punctuated by cost -based adjustment. Even in shorter -term agreements, consider the right to require a specified number of cost - based adjustments at your option. This maintains your flexibility to implement program changes. Term Extension The contract expiration date is fixed but may be flexible. Ideally, you may want the right to extend the term for a number of annual or biannual increments at your sole discretion. Alternatively, you might give your contractor performance incentives by offering the contractor the right to earn extensions for objective, measurable, superlative performance (such as for low amounts of liquidated damages or fee increases, or for meeting guaranties for recyclables diversion in collection, recyclables recovery in MRF operations, or compaction in landfill operation). Unexpected delays and roadblocks can easily stretch out even the most well - planned reprocurement schedule. Secure the right to short extensions of the stated expiration date of your contract (such as six one -month extensions) to give you flexibility to complete a sole- source negotiation or competitive procurement for a new agreement. Enforcing Standards If your contractor's performance is slipping, it's not likely that you will be able to quickly or cheaply terminate your service contract. Termination of even the best - drafted contract will almost certainly involve contractor contest and expensive litigation. And if the contractor is failing because of its lowball price proposals, termination and reprocurement will only result in a higher (market) price. Your contract must give you interim remedies short of default and termination. Even better, pay performance -based compensation that rewards superlative service. Carrots are better than sticks. Especially in a competitive procurement, you may be able to secure termination - for - convenience (no- fault) termination, which you can exercise at your discretion without proving contractor breach. But in order to attract proposers, you—or your replacement contractor —will have to buy undepreciated assets. Fix the depreciation schedule and /or purchase price in the contract, before trouble materializes. For more detailed discussion on remedies and performance - based compensation, see "Money Talks: Financial (Dis)incentives for Performance, "www.forester.net/mw_0401 Jegal.html. In summary, consider the following. Performance -based compensation or compensatory (cost- demonstrated) damages are preferable to liquidated (pre - "guesstimated ") damages, since liquidated damages are vulnerable to judicial challenges by your contractor as unenforceable penalties. If you cannot implement performance -based compensation, negotiate liquidated damage provisions where possible and make certain that you recite detailed acknowledgments to support their enforcement. Budget and /or set rates and tipping fees to fund a cushion for potential compensation bonuses. When establishing compensation bonuses /reductions or damages, consider the trigger, timing, and amount as they relate to contractor control and (mis)conduct, as well as to fiscal and political stakes. For example, with respect to control, provide less for missed pickups that could be late set - outs, and more for a contractor's failure to return your calls in a timely manner. Include modest amounts of liquidated damages merely to get the contractor's attention. Remember: Contractors worry that you will assess liquidated damages when customers are at fault or in instances where contractor can't control the breach. Excessive number or amounts of liquidated damages may squelch contractor competition for your contract. Control the purse strings. Pay your contractor so that you can offset fee reductions or damages. (If you do not collect rates, hire your contractor as your billing and collection agent.) If you have service fee offset rights, collecting service fees may reduce the amount of performance assurance you demand from your contractor. There is one caveat worth remembering: In states such as California, collecting rates might transform your MSW contract from private to public service, triggering state constitutional procedural notice and substantive compliance requirements with respect to service fee change and revenue use. Require a readily accessible and liquid letter of credit rather than a performance bond. Prescribe simple and inexpensive dispute resolution procedures. De- politicize it; keep dispute in your administration and management departments, if possible, not in public forums. Avoid multiple levels of appeal to allow for quick, definitive, and final resolution. Remedies include not only suspension or termination, and liquidated or compensatory damages, but also the right to provide substitute service. Excuses for Non - Performance One law school legend recounts that a tough old torts professor posed a particularly complicated set of facts in a final exam and asked, "Against which party(ies) could you bring actions for damages ?" A canny law student responded succinctly: "Sue Him" —and supposedly received a grade of "A ". In contracts, too, there are instances when nonperformance is not due to either party's fault. Referred to as "uncontrollable circumstances," or the Latin force majeure, they typically include events such as diverse natural and manmade disasters (earthquakes, war, etc.) and other "acts of God." But don't forget that you can contractually define your list of events that excuse performance. One of the most likely —and therefore important— causes of service interruption is labor- related. For a more in -depth discussion, see "Sharing and Minimizing Labor Risks,"www.foresternet/mw_03111egal.html. legal.html. Some summary tips follow. Especially in a competitive procurement, you might be able to entirely exclude labor- related disturbances from your definition of "uncontrollable circumstances," meaning that your contractor will be in default during strikes. But such a harsh provision may be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back, scaring off potential proposers. And in practical terms, garbage is piling up during a strike, and instituting contract termination actions would be time - consuming. Rather, grant your contractor some degree of flexibility to resolve labor disputes by including labor disturbances within the definition of "uncontrollable circumstances" for a limited period of time. But correspondingly secure the right to provide substitute service (yourself or, more likely, a third -party contractor) using contractor's service assets, employees, and routing /customer billing records. (Routinely enforce a contractor's ongoing obligation to provide you with updated routing maps so that you don't scramble during a crisis.) Secure the right to audit customer accounts not only for the purpose of confirming franchise fees, for example, but also for the purpose of having access on prescribed timely notice. If you do not collect customer service fees, require the contractor to forward customer service fees to you during the continuance of the force majeure strike and secure that obligation with a liquid instrument, such as a letter of credit. Performance Assurance If your contractor does not meet its performance obligations fully and in a timely manner, you want access to cash so that you can hire someone else to pick up, transfer, or dispose of that rotting garbage and protect the public health. Sample areas of performance obligations include: • Core service specifications (such as picking up those putrescibles) • Service standards (such as keeping bins painted and water - tight) • Operations (such as safe truck operations and maintenance and maintaining your immediate access to customer complaint files) • Subcontracts (such as paying disposal tipping fees) • Keeping records and reporting • Paying the insurance premiums and the assurance fees • Liquidity and creditworthiness Good performance assurance should be liquid (to provide quick cash infusions). It should provide sustained creditworthiness to ensure that your contractor is good for the money for the duration of the contract. Sizing your performance assurance is not merely a comparative exercise, looking at the size of your neighboring community's performance bond. Your neighbor's contract may have an entirely different substitute service cost than yours. Instead, do the math: Estimate the substitute performance cost for the period of time from breach, cure, notice of default, termination, and reprocurement specific to your contract, mindful that your mid- to long -term contract cost is probably less than substitute service cost on a temporary, spot basis. Add reprocurement costs for event of termination. Add your franchise and other fees. Forms of Assurance Performance bonds or letters of credit, parent guaranties, and insurance are means of providing cash flow for performance assurance. Performance bonds are generally intended to complete construction of a building, not to provide ongoing service. They are not liquid, and the surety may contest draws —while the garbage piles up. Performance bonds may not clearly provide coverage for all of the contractor's pecuniary obligations, including liquidated damages, indemnifications, cost reimbursements, or fees (both franchise fees that the contractor may owe you or other solid- waste - management fees that it may collect from customers on your behalf). Since you may have chosen your contractor based in part on its MSW experience, environmental and litigation record, and client references, you probably don't want a bond surety to foist another contractor on you. So if possible, your contract should not allow forms of performance bonds that allow the surety to substitute contractors. Letters of credit provide superior liquidity. You can draw upon a standby letter of credit by submitting a draw certificate to the bank without contractor authorization. (Your contractor may dispute your right to make the draw, but meanwhile, you will have the cash to pick up the garbage.) Contractors may complain that securing letters of credit makes rates less "competitive" than performance bonds. Bonds may (or may not) cost more than letters of credit, since the cost of both letters of credit and performance bonds is based in part on the contractor's creditworthiness. (Unlike insurance claims, the contractor must repay draws on letters of credit and performance bonds.) But if you require all proposers to provide letters of credit, the playing field is level. Credit costs may differ among potential contractors, but that is true regardless of whether you require a bond or a letter of credit. The contractor's real objection to letters of credit may be that they use up part of their line of credit or require disclosure as a contingent obligation on their books. As a compromise, you might allow the option to provide a performance bond for a larger amount than a letter of credit, reflecting the probable greater time and expense of liquidating the performance bond and giving the contractor the fiscal incentive to choose the letter of credit option. Secure guaranties by a contractor's parent corporation, principal shareholder, or partner. (If it is a personal guaranty, make certain you get a spouse's signature in community property state.) Guaranties are not necessarily redundant with letters of credit, but one more option in your arsenal of remedies. Secure the guaranty of the ultimate parent that holds revolving credit line, that has audited financials, and that has filed 10Ks with SEC. In your contract, include a cross default for defaults under the guaranty. Only accept a parent guarantor with audited financial statements. Ideally, municipalities should impose financial tests to ensure continuing creditworthiness of their guarantor (or contractor), but few local governments to date have secured this assurance. Short of breach, failing to meet financial tests (such as maintaining a specified corporate bond rating or meeting certain financials ratios) might trigger the obligation to provide further assurances of performance ... as may be required in event of judgements over specified dollar amounts, prolonged labor disputes, or failure to pay creditors or debts (such as tipping fees). For further discussion of performance assurance, see "Tra$headed Ca$h: Contractor Credit Risks That Can Trash Your MSW System" (MSW Management, September /October 2003, www.forester.net/mw_0309 Jegal.html). Indemnification Beware of false security. The form of your contract will doubtless contain indemnification - and- defense provisions. Your contractor promises to pay or to reimburse you for liabilities that you may incur rising out of the contractor's (negligent) performance or nonperformance of the contract. Your contractor further agrees to defend you in related litigation. You may have one of many variations of this general indemnification commitment (e.g., with respect to sole or comparative negligence, approval of counsel, etc.), but the basic indemnification provision is aimed primarily at protecting you against likely tort suits by persons injured or property damaged in accidents with the contractor (such as auto collisions with the contractor's collection vehicles, or self - haulers injured unloading their vehicles at the contractor's transfer station or landfill), or statutory liability (such as Superfund /CERCLA cleanup costs). However, indemnification may have the effect of lulling you and your elected officials into an false sense of protection. Indemnities are corporate (or partnership or personal) promises to pay. They are unsecured obligations. Indemnities are worth only as much as your contractor's applicable insurance coverage or available credit. Your contract may require that your contractor secure insurance (or performance bonds) from insurers (or sureties) having specified capitalization or credit rating ranked and rated by A.M. Best. But A.M. Best does not rate the creditworthiness of your contractor. Strive to require performance assurance by third parties (such as banks issuing letters of credit) that cover your contractor's indemnity obligations. Visualize indemnification obligations that may be covered by insurance proceeds. (For further discussion, see "Evaluating Indemnification Clauses," MSW Management, May /June 1999.) Insurance Insurance backstops your contractor's indemnification. Your risk management department doubtless specifies that all public contracts contain insurance requirements detailing named additional insureds (and requiring applicability to each named insured), types and amounts of coverage, deductible levels, covered risks and (im)permissible exclusions, insurer licensing and rating qualifications, notification requirements, self- insurance conditions, and miscellaneous provisions regarding primary coverage, and excess /not- contributory status. Commercial general, auto, employers and umbrella, or excess liability insurance address the probable tort damages. More specialized environmental impairment/pollution liability policies (or endorsements) address concerns of cleanup of landfill leaks and associated liability. (For MSW transport by barge, include wharfing liability. With respect to workers' compensation, include US longshoremen and harbor workers' coverage as per the Jones Act, seaman.) But your risk - management department may not frequently deal with MSW risk issues. And there may be more questions than ready answers with respect to MSW liability. You may be well - served to work with a knowledgeable broker who can grapple with MSW coverage questions, such as the following: 1) Require a pollution overturn endorsement (generally to an automobile liability policy) to delete the pollution exclusion relating to discharges of pollutants that are in or upon, being transported or towed by, being loaded onto or being unloaded from a covered vehicle. Here, the question arises: Is there a gap in coverage for intentional discharge? (For example, what if a driver dumps a burning load onto the street and it pollutes the storm sewer? What if the driver tips the load at the landfill and hazardous waste is exposed ?) To cover intentional discharges, consider pollution liability coverage for transported cargo. 2) The value of commercial general liability coverage can be diluted if your contractor includes you as an additional insured along with tens or maybe hundreds of other municipalities. The question now is: Can you avoid coverage dilution in parent contractor policies by endorsement (such as Endorsement CG 25 034 97) providing that general aggregate limit applies to you? Or does it much matter? What is the major risk covered by commercial policies? If it is accidents and damage caused by dumpsters that crush fingers or roll into parked cars, contractors may routinely pay associated damages as part of their deductibles without ever making claims on their commercial liability policies. 3) Contractual indemnity provisions in a commercial general liability policy may support the indemnities that your contractor provides in your contract, but read the definitions and conditions in the policy closely. Your contract may have to be specifically named by endorsement to trigger contractual liability coverage. The question here becomes: Does a contractual indemnity provision cover comparative negligence or non -tort liabilities, such as CERCLA? Pollution /environmental liability policies are often written on a claims -made basis, which means claims must be filed while the insurance is in effect. However, pollution /environmental liability claims may not arise until many years after your contract has expired or terminated. Consider requiring your contractor to continue naming you as an additional insured and secure a claims -made endorsement to extend the reporting period. Make that obligation survive the expiration or termination of your contract. But develop an in -house protocol ensuring that you and your staff will monitor that continuing contractual obligation. 4) If your jurisdictional waste ends up in a Superfund site, you will likely be named a "potentially responsible party" (PRP). You must ask: As an additional insured required under a disposal contract, are you covered for your liability as a PRP? Remember, an additional insured is covered only for the named insured's (contractor's) primary liability. As a PRP, your liability does not derive from your contractor's. Yet another relevant question is: Can you be an additional insured (for example, on disposal facility policy) if you have no contractual relationship with the primary insured (for example, if you have a collection contract that includes disposal)? What about deductibles? Specify deductible levels prior to securing proposals or bids. If you require higher deductibles after awarding the contract (after competition has dispersed), your selected contractor may raise his service fees and recoup more than the incremental premium cost. You might conservatively size deductibles based on projected contract profit — mindful that the lower the deductibles, the larger the premiums and the higher the service rates. However, many contractors — especially larger companies —have relatively high deductibles in omnibus policies that cannot be tailored for your contract. (Some contracts also require letters of credit that cover the gap between contractually required deductible levels and lower, actual deductible levels.) When allowing exceptions to deductible requirements, remember: The insurer must pay claim regardless of whether the insured contractor pays the deductibles. Yes, deductibles raise indirect contractor creditworthiness issues. But they may be a red herring. The more important credit issue is that of self- insured retention (SIR). An insurer is not obligated to pay SIR, which raises direct creditworthiness issues. Prohibit an SIR unless the contractor provides additional performance assurance (letter of credit). In summary, this is the most important insurance lesson: Liability insurance from rated insurers is superior to indemnification that is not supported by ongoing financial covenants. Allocate and devote more time to establishing or negotiating insurance requirements than indemnification provisions. (For further discussion, see "Insuring Against Integrated Waste Management Risks," MSW Management, July /August 1996 Assignment Why do you care if your contractor sells its business to another company? You may have foregone a competitive procurement and contracted with a local, family -owned hauler that has provided service in your community for many years. The next generation of the principal's family may not want to stay in the garbage business; a larger company may give your small contractor a lucrative offer it can't refuse. For either reason, you may find yourself faced with a contractor you did not choose for a price you did not competitively procure. Contrariwise, you may have conducted competitive procurement and awarded your contract after careful consideration of many factors in addition to price, such as experience, references, creditworthiness, environmental responsibility, and litigation and regulatory compliance record. You don't want to work with a contractor that doesn't meet those same criteria. Your region may be experiencing MSW industry consolidation, and you want to maintain service provider diversity in the face of monopolistic price threats. In order to foreclose the possibility that you may be forced to work with a service contractor that you did not choose or do not want over the remaining term of your agreement, your contract should give you the right to consent to a broadly defined assignment or transfer of your contract —or the "transfer" of a parent guaranty that provides credit support for your contract —to another company. Transfer should include: • Sale, exchange, or other transfer of "ownership" or control of your contractor • Issue of new stock or sale, exchange, or other transfer of x% or more of the then outstanding common stock of, or partnership shares or equity interest in, your contractor • Dissolution, reorganization, consolidation, merger, recapitalization, stock issuance or reissuance, voting trust, pooling agreement, escrow arrangement, liquidation, buyout, or other transaction resulting in a change of ownership or control of your contractor • Assignment by operation of law, including insolvency or bankruptcy, making assignment for the benefit of creditors, writ of attachment of an execution being levied against your contractor, or appointment of a receiver taking possession of any of your contractor's tangible or intangible property • Sale or other transfer of x% or more of the value of assets of your contractor, except in the event of closely held contractors, for sales or transfers to parents, grandparents, siblings, children, and grandchildren of persons having a shareholder, partnership, or other equity interest in your contractor on the agreement execution date ( "immediate family ") or trust created primarily to benefit members of the immediate family • Substitution by a surety company providing any performance bond of another person or entity for your contractor to perform services under your contract • Assumption of any of your contractor's rights under your contract or assumption by, delegation to, or takeover of any of your contractor's obligations, duties, or responsibilities under the contract, by anyone other than your contractor, whether by subcontract (unless you approve it), or any other mechanism • Any combination of the forgoing (whether or not in related or contemporaneous transactions), with or without consideration, which has the effect of any transfer or change of "ownership" or control of the your contractor One can define ownership, for example, by reference to provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Cost Recovery Provide for your contractor's up -front deposit to cover your assignment due diligence, together with obligation to reimburse you for additional investigation costs and the cost of enforcing your assignment consent rights. Sole Discretion Although it may seem reasonable to agree that you will be "reasonable" in granting or withholding your assignment consent, this is an important instance where you do not want to be second - guessed in court as to whether or not your denial was "reasonable." It may be important to your elected officials and citizens to do business with locally owned and managed haulers or to do business with environmentally responsible contractors. If the proposed acquiring company shows billions in assets and credit lines, millions of residential and commercial accounts, and many thousands of municipal contracts, a court may find that your denial is unreasonable. Reserve your right to consent in your sole discretion. Some contracts list documentation that the assignee company must submit covering your potential due diligence concerns. Although including a list may not weaken your straightforward, contractual, and legal right to grant or deny consent in your sole discretion, it may create political or practical constraints on exercising that discretion. The assignee company may produce documentation demonstrating compliance or reasonable satisfaction of every item on the list, making it difficult to raise unlisted or less quantifiable concerns. If you reserve sole discretion, presumably the acquiring company will be cooperative in providing you with requested documentation to facilitate consent, whether or not the documentation is itemized in your contract or merely in your due diligence request letter. Due Diligence When you solicit competitive proposals (or bids) for services, you may often begin with a request for qualifications or request for proposals that contains detailed requests with respect to the proposer's financial creditworthiness, applicable waste service experience, litigation and environmental compliance history, or municipal references. Make these same enquires about a proposed assignee. And due diligence is now easier when you can surf the Web. Helpful sites include Edgar, which lists securities filings, related news articles, and analysts' reports: www.sec.gov /edgar.shtml. You can access news articles for papers located in the relevant local jurisdictions. McGraw Hill offers its Focus reports on industries, including date of founding, employees, shareholders, subsidiaries, revenues, officers, directors, auditors, banks, news items including new offerings, and mergers and acquisitions, as well as litigation lists. Conditioning Consent After conducting your due diligence, you may conclude that you will consent —but only if you receive additional protection. For example: Criminal conduct —Local events may make you or your elected officials more or less sensitive to assorted criminal conduct. If your contract does not already include criminal conduct prohibitions, you might add one such as the following, specifying bad acts by named bad actors (persons or related corporations): • Fraud or criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, procuring, or performing a public or private agreement related to recyclables, greenwaste, or solid waste services of any kind • Bribery or attempting to bribe a public officer or employee of a local, state, or federal agency • Embezzlement, extortion, racketeering, false claims, false statements, forgery, falsification or destruction of records, obstruction of justice, knowingly receiving stolen property, theft, or misprision (failure to disclose) of a felony • Unlawful disposal of hazardous or designated waste • Violation of antitrust laws, including laws relating to price- fixing, bid - rigging, sales and market allocation, and unfair and anti - competitive trade practice laws, including with respect to inflation of waste collection, hauling, or disposal fees In the event of criminal conduct by the named persons or related corporations, the contractor may effectuate a cure, such as firing the responsible person or removing that person from your contract administration. If the proscribed conduct occurs within your jurisdiction or with respect to your contract, you may want to have termination rights. Flow - control challenges — competition with local government, transfer, processing, and disposal. Large companies experience enormous volumes of litigation, including insurance and employment claims, which may or may not be directly relevant to providing waste collection service in your community. However, your staff or elected officials may be very concerned about a history of litigation with municipalities, especially with respect to flow - control challenges. Your decision to allow assignment may depend on what integrated waste management services you provide. If leaking waste from your system to the proposed assignee contractor's own vertically integrated system concerns you, add a facility designation provision to your contract. Make the designation clause non - severable, cite its breach as an enumerated event of default, and specify compensatory (or liquidated damages) for breach. Vertical integration — collection, transfer, and disposal. If vertical integration is an issue for your community, you might qualify your assignment consent as follows: • Secure the right to consent to provision of goods and services by the proposed hauler's related companies in order to preclude circumvention of existing assignment rights. • Require a rate adjustment to share cost savings resulting from the consolidation with your rate - payers. • Secure contractual termination - for - convenience rights, including buyout prices so that you would have greater flexibility to substitute a new service provider in the event that the proposed hauler's business strategy adversely affects competition in your collection market or threatens the economic viability of your waste system. • Secure equipment acquisition rights under your collection agreement to further facilitate hauler substitution in adverse circumstances. • Condition consent on the proposed hauler's committing not to compete with you (if legal under your state law) for waste disposal if its counsel delivers an opinion that non - competition commitments were legal, valid, and enforceable. • Get a guaranty of performance from the parent of the proposed hauler, including guaranty cross defaults under the collection agreement. • Be sure to secure a schedule of payments for any future consented assignments. For further discussion of contractual assignment language, due diligence requests, and consent conditions, see "Protecting Yourself From the Vertical Integration Grab," MSW Management Elements 1999. You may dismiss these contact provisions as "boilerplate," but they can determine your destiny when performance goes awry. Definitions Precision, precision, precision! Use defined terms, even for those that may seem obvious but lie at the heart of service ( "residential /commercial ", "solid waste," etc.). Beware the danger of inconsistency between the text of the contract and appended attachments, such as rate methodologies, acceptance tests, or hazardous -waste screening protocols written by different authors. It's not micro - managing or nit - picking: Define time - sensitive words and phrases, such as prompt, immediate, as soon as possible. (These prove especially important if you want to assess liquidated damages for breached performance obligations.) Specify if a day is uniformly a calendar day or your contractor's or your own workday. Say it once in a contract section governing construction and interpretation of the contract (for example, including means "including, without limitation" everywhere it occurs in the contract). Don't interject such modifiers in some places and not others, thereby risking that a litigator subsequently cites uses or omissions of such words to draw negative inferences. Provide that all discretionary actions, such as consents or approval, are deemed to be exercised "reasonably" unless sole discretion is reserved. Include an "integration" clause. It provides that the contract language supersedes RFP /RFB, proposals, correspondence, drafts, or minutes. You may feel that you put much time and effort into drafting your RFP /RFB, and that your contractor spent much thought and consideration into preparing its proposal. You may be loath to relegate them to the file cabinet. Do it, or you'll be sorry! Inconsistency born of proposals that are incorporated by reference into the executed agreement can lead to litigation. Instead of appending procurement documents, substitute detailed findings such as preambles or "whereas" clauses to tell your story. Specify that the contract will be governed by the law of your state, "without giving effect to the states' principles of conflicts of laws." Especially if your contractor is a national company, you want assurance that your state law applies. Excise or sever contract provisions that courts having jurisdiction should hold unenforceable, unconstitutional, illegal, void —but perhaps do not sever a facility designation clause. If designation is central to your deal, retain the right to terminate. Consider contract interpretation rules such as the following: "This Agreement must be interpreted and construed reasonably and neither for nor against either Party, regardless of the degree to which either Party participated in its drafting. Contractor acknowledges that it determined to participate in the procurement of this Agreement upon its own choice and initiative and during the course of that procurement [City] solicited Contractor's comments, exceptions, and proposals with respect to provisions in the Agreement and incorporated certain of those comments, exceptions and proposals. The Parties have negotiated this Agreement, including liquidated damages, at arm's length and with advice of their respective attorneys, and no provision in this Agreement is construed against the City solely because it prepared this Agreement in its executed form." Plain English A savvy city attorney once admonished: "Give me an easy -to -read MRF agreement. I want the shift supervisor to be able to throw this contract down on the sort line, read it, understand it, and enforce it!" Much talk circulates on transforming opaque, abstruse (some would say "maddening ") legal -ese language into plain English and make it reader - friendly. This need may not be wishful thinking. You can begin with these suggestions: • In the explanatory preambles or findings at the beginning of the contract, using the word whereas is not necessary. You can use complete sentences, even paragraphs, to tell your story. • Don't use herein, but rather in this contract; instead of hereafter, use after the execution date. • Outline (sub)sections, clauses, and lists; avoid run -on sentences and "provisos." Using outline and bullets can clarify meaning and is easier to read. • Avoid defining terms parenthetically within a sentence. The meaning may seem clear to you, but later on litigators may question where the definition inserted in a long, compound sentence begins or ends. • Limit such to examples. Such actually expands meaning. For precise reference, use that (or which) or simply the. • Shall is not what it seems. And this is the most surprising plain English suggestion: purge shall, replacing it with must, will, or may. (This is referred to as the "A -B -C rule" in Britain and Canada.) Or use shall only when the actor is the subject of sentence. (This is referred to as the "American rule. ") Think about it: Shall is not only used to mandate an action. • Shall actually has many meanings, some of which are not obligations. For example: • Contractor shall perform imposes a duty on the subject contractor, but notice shall be made imposes a duty on an unnamed person. • • Contractor shall be insured seems to impose duty on the contractor, but it actually imposes a duty on an unnamed person. • Time shall not further be extended means Time may not be extended. • Objections shall be filed is a discretionary or a conditional duty rather than an absolute one. • • Contractor shall have provided notice is in the future - perfect tense. Use the present tense. • City shall be reimbursed is an entitlement, not a contractor obligation. • Party filing claim shall notify is directory, meaning should. Before sending out your next draft agreement, do a global replacement of will for shall. And when you proofread those substitutions, invest another hour or two to transform all passive sentences into clear contractor obligations using active verbs: not All reports shall be submitted but Contractor will submit reports. Expiration or Termination Words matter, especially in contracts. A contract expires automatically after a stated term, such as seven years. A contract terminates only by affirmative action of one of its parties in accordance with the language of the agreement, such as for 1) defaults, 2) continued uncontrollable circumstances, or 3) convenience. For more detailed suggestions on how to provide for smooth transition to new contractors upon expiration or termination of your contract (especially for collection services), and how to articulate your rights and contractor's obligations after your contract ends, see "In the Beginning Is the End: Planning for a Smooth Transition Following Expiration or Termination of Your Collection Contract," vvww.foresternet/mw_0606 Jegal.html. In summary, consider: Expiration— Termination may never occur, but sooner or later —even after extensions or renewals —every contract will expire. Be prepared. Absent specific purchase rights and obligations, in the contract your contractor should acknowledge that it has no right to recover any unamortized asset value upon the expiration of the agreement. The contractor must leave premises (such as a MRF or transfer station) clean — including hazardous waste remediation; reconvey /discharge any ground or site lease. If the contractor has financed capital assets on your behalf, the contractor must transfer title of real or personal property, along with requisite warranties /deed, as negotiated. Termination — Depending on the circumstances of termination, your options —and contractor's obligations —vary. For example, you may have the option, or the contractor may have the obligation, to purchase /sell or transfer assets. Determine asset purchase price, if any, under the following scenarios: • Convenience no- fault— Convenience termination provides an alternative to litigious default termination or where you want to implement new program changes at a competitive, market price. Pay the contractor its unamortized capital investment plus a specified "lost profit." Specify the time /manner of depreciation for asset type (such as a seven -year, straight -line depreciation for carts), or a protocol to select a mutually acceptable appraiser to determine market value. Consider having competing contractors propose the "lost profit" component. In competitive procurements, you have greater likelihood of securing a liquidated dollar amount or prescribed formula (such as nine months defined "net" service fees based on contract -to -date average). • Uncontrollable circumstances — Termination for contractually defined "uncontrollable circumstances" that continue for a specified period of time is an exercise in risk - sharing. This can include not only prolonged labor disputes but changes in law that require additional capital investment or altered operational protocols that increase the service fee more than a specified amount annually or in the aggregate over the contract term. • In event of default —In this type of termination, the contractor has not fully or timely met its obligations. It is at fault. Ask this: Should the contractor forfeit its assets (such as cart ownership)? Consider assessing compensatory damages for costs of contract enforcement and reprocurement and also for your projected increased incremental costs of substitute service. (These damages —as well as unpaid fees, reimbursement costs, and other damages — should be covered by your performance assurance. Be careful —many performance bonds may not only limit liquidated damages, judgments, and regulatory fines and penalties, but also contain broad exclusions that prevent recovery or your compensatory damages.) For facility operation agreements, the same issues described above under "Expiration" apply (acquire assets; clean the site; reconvey or transfer title, etc.). But, in addition, your facility contract should obligate your contractor to assign subcontracts, supply contracts, operating permits, or maintenance agreements to you. For either expiration or termination with respect to collection services, make certain that the responsibilities of the outgoing and incoming collection contractor dovetail, especially with respect to containers: Who picks up old ones? Must they remain for a specified time, or until new ones are delivered? Consider container purchase options upon both expiration and termination (convenience, uncontrollable circumstances, and default) scenarios. Termination Protocol In competitive procurements where proposers lose evaluative points for taking exceptions to contract terms, you can often secure termination protocols that are simpler to effectuate: • Instead of arguing over materiality, list the major performance defaults that trigger termination (such as failure to pick up specified number or percentage of customers, not accepting waste for specified number of consecutive /aggregate days, failing to provide insurance or performance assurance, failure to pay fees). • Avoid the cycle of breach – cure – breach. Make repeated breaches an itemized default. • Allow contractor to cure the balance of minor breaches within specified time periods. Tailor notice periods to the type —and seriousness —of the breach. Avoid open - ended cure periods and arguments over "diligent" efforts to fix the breach. • De- politicize the termination protocol. • Tailor the notice period to each default immediately to protect health and welfare or failure to maintain insurance, and 30 days for other defaults. • Indicate which defaults (such as service defaults) are excused by "uncontrollable circumstances" and which are not (fraud, misrepresentation, failure to procure insurance, or failure to pay monetary mounts). • Give your contractor a second chance by including temporary suspension in lieu of termination. Survival For most things, it's not over till the fat lady sings. But for MSW, it's never over. There's always garbage. Make certain that you protect yourself after your contract expires or is term inated. In legal parlance, these provisions should survive, meaning that you can continue to enforce them: • Leaving, removing, or selling assets • Paying damages or reimbursement • Defenses and indemnities • Completing and submitting reports (for example, disposal reports for potential Superfund defense, or financial date for franchise fees) • Maintaining insurance (endorsements to extend reporting the periods on claims made policies or to make you additionally insured) • Record inspection / audit rights • Notice of record destruction • Right to take custody of records that may be lost or destroyed • Acknowledgments and contractor's representations and warranties that speak as of the date you and the contractor executed your contract or when the contractor submitted a report or certification Secure the right to specifically enforce (enjoin) these continuing obligations. Require that the contractor maintain performance assurances until these specified obligations satisfied. Conclusion In conclusion, be prepared to implement these practical 10 tips: 1. Term —Begin structuring your business deal by setting contract term. Consider capital amortization. Pick the most appropriate corresponding service fee adjustment methodology. Allow short-term, monthly term extension options, at a minimum. 2. Enforcing Service Scope and Performance Standards —Offer performance bonuses. Create remedies short of termination, such as compensatory and modest liquidated damages reflecting degree of contractor control. Control the purse strings for damage offsets. 3. Excuses for Non - Performance —Allow labor disputes for a limited time period with your right to provide effective substitute service with the contractor's service assets. 4. Performance Assurance — Secure performance with letters of credit rather than performance bonds. Size them based on your contract enforcement timing protocol and service fees. Also secure parent guaranties. 5. Indemnification —Don't be lulled into a false sense of security by securing contractor indemnities without credit assurances. 6. Liability Insurance —Get good advice on insurance coverage. Read the fine print of policies knowledgeably. 7. Assignment — Secure the right to consent to the broadly defined "transfer" of your contract. 8. Contract Construction and Interpretation —Don't scorn "boilerplate" rules of contract construction and interpretation. Spend a day to convert your draft agreement to plain English. 9. Expiration or Termination — Visualize service transition at the end of the contract. Analyze different reasons to terminate and prescribe what happens with service assets. Sit down in a quiet moment and walk yourself through the termination protocol. 10. Obligations That Survive Expiration or Termination —List the obligations you need to enforce after contract ends in order to preserve health and safety and maintain customer satisfaction. And finally, even in a competitive procurement, solicit your potential contractors' comments on the contract that you prepare. Address your contractors' comments and questions. Consider their requests so that you procure a win -win contract that works for you both, throughout the term of your mutual agreement. Author Constance Hornig, Esq., heads her own law firm in Los Angeles, CA. MSW - Elements 2008 Bud, Here is the section on what I think is an appropriate method to determine the composition of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. I wrote this section for Washington County, Oregon. Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) Members A. Five members representing the public; Recommendation: The members should reside in the County and be impacted by the decisions of the SWAC. It is further recommended that the number of members be reduced from six to five (three businesses and two residential members). B. One member or employee of the public works department Recommendation: The member of the Public Works Department should be an appointed member who is knowledgeable on solid waste and recycling topics and current issues. The best pick for this position is the solid waste department manager. He or she also needs to be a voting member. This individual is part of the County's duty to be an advocate for the community at large. C. Three members of the solid waste collection and disposal industry, each with not less than five years of experience in collecting, transportation or storage of garbage, waste and solid waste. Recommendation: The number of hauler / collection members should be two and one transfer / disposal / recycling processor member. 8.04.070 Membership Members of the advisory committee shall be appointed by the board. The term of office of a member is five years. Recommendation: A term should be reduced to a four years, with no more than two terms. Members of the advisory committee shall serve until their successors are appointed and qualified. Any vacancy shall be filled by the board for the balance of the unexpired term. Recommendation: There should be an advisory committee of stakeholders who do not vote on issues, but are present to advise the members and the public. The advisory committee should include the following: 1. Hauler's representative 2. Solid Waste and Recycling Program Managers (2) from two of Washington County's incorporated cities 3. Representative from Metro's Solid Waste and Recycling Division or Oregon DEQ 4. Representative from the Recycling Industry / Recycling Market BELL & Associates, Inc. K witk E N N E �"`rr d.iut CONSTANCE HORNIG, ESQ. MARCH 16, 2007 March 16, 2007 BELL & Associates, Inc. 1628 NW 33rd Way • Camas, WA 98607 • 360.326.8937 • Fax 360.326.8925 Tracy Mitchell Environmental Specialist / Project Manager Engineering / Facilities Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 — 6398 RE: RFP for Comprehensive Solid Waste Study, Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) Dear Ms. Mitchell and Members of the Consultant Evaluation Committee: KIB is seeking a consultant to work with staff and stakeholders in evaluating current solid waste management practices and proposing recommended courses of action. The analysis described in the RFP covers key system components such as collection, handling, disposal, reduction / reuse / recycling, rates, billing, costs, funding, and supportive policies / ordinances. As part of the assessment it is important to review the existing allocation of system roles / responsibilities between the public and private sectors to determine alternative configurations. Finally, the consultant should be prepared to assist KIB staff with one or more service procurement processes through issuance of RFPs or RFBs. To consider such topics the highly qualified Bell & Associates Team would assist the KIB with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Study (CSWS). In addition to Bell & Associates the Project Team consists of Kennec and Constance Hornig. Bell & Associates is the prime contractor and Chris Bell, Principal, is the Team's Project Manager with contracting authority. Our combined expertise, capabilities, and experience pertinent to performance of the project are presented in the enclosed proposal. The proposal addresses the requirements of the RFP, particularly those contained in Sections IV and VI. Based on previous communication with KIB we have modified the order of presentation for certain items. The Bell & Associates proposal includes not only detailed Qualifications but a draft Scope of Work developed for the purpose of preparing an estimated Project Budget and Project Schedule. It is emphasized that the Scope of Work, Budget and Schedule are in draft form and subject to further discussion and negotiation between KIB and Bell & Associates should our Team be selected for the project. The Project Team is a balanced blend of public / private expertise and experience. Team personnel for the KIB CSWS project are profiled below: • Chris Bell: Mr. Bell is a Certified Public Accountant who analyzes and calculates costs for solid waste system components such as waste and recyclables collection, hauling, transport; transfer and disposal of trash; and materials recovery facilities (MRFs). Chris also evaluates and recommends solid waste system funding and financing mechanisms. • Richard Hertzberg (Bell & Associates): Mr. Hertzberg is adept at developing and applying analytic methodologies that identify / evaluate alternatives for solid waste system elements as well as comprehensive, multi — faceted system scenarios. He has a specialized focus on planning and implementing waste reduction, reuse, and recycling programs / policies. Provider of Solid Waste & Recycling Solutions Client / Project Silver City, New Mexico Refuse Collection Program Design and Implementation Project Team Members Chris Bell, Richard Hertzberg Boise, Idaho Solid Waste Plan Chris Bell, Richard Hertzberg South Utah Valley Solid Waste District Solid Waste Plan Bob Wallace, Chris Bell, Richard Hertzberg State of Wyoming, Solid Waste Plans for Seven Municipalities (pending) Mike Stewart, Roger North, Bob Wallace, Chris Bell, Richard Hertzberg. Lewiston, Idaho Procurement of Comprehensive Solid Waste Services Chris Bell, Constance Hornig • Bob Wallace (Bell & Associates): Mr. Wallace worked for several years at Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) as Director of Transportation and Logistics, Western Group. In this capacity he was periodically involved with WMI's refuse collection / hauling, landfill, and incineration operations in Juneau. He has practical experience in arranging the transport logistics for refuse and recyclables from remote locations with limited access, and maintains ongoing relationships with private firms offering different methods of conducting these specialized operations. • Roger North / Mike Stewart (Kennec): Mr. North and Mr. Stewart are experienced in all aspects of landfill siting, design, engineering, operations, and closure. They are presently providing technical services for the landfills in Anchorage and Juneau. North and Stewart specialize in problem — solving for disposal sites in extreme climate conditions, either those that are especially dry and arid or wet and cold. • Constance Hornig: Ms. Hornig is a municipal solid waste attorney who exclusively represents public entities on projects entailing facility development, procurement, and contracting. Her clients have ranged from large, mega — urban jurisdictions (Los Angeles County) to isolated rural communities (Fallon, Nevada). Constance helps draft and negotiate collection contracts with existing haulers as well as via competitive procurements. The Project Team members know each other well and have collaborated on solid waste projects recently and in the past. Examples are noted below: The Project Team looks forward to meeting the challenge of developing a strategic management plan that will guide KIB's solid waste future. All staff and other resources which are required to perform the services described in this RFP will be made available by Bell & Associates over the life of the anticipated contract. This proposal is valid for 90 days past the submission date. Mr. Bell has the authority to bind Bell & Associates to a contract with the KIB sings this letter. Please contact him with any questions or comments concerning this submission. Christopher Bell President, Bell & Associates, Inc. Provider of Solid Waste & Recycling Solutions Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal 1.0 Introduction to the Bell & Associates, Inc. Team 1 1.1 Bell & Associates, Inc. 1 1.2 Kennec, Inc. 1 1.3 Constance Hornig, Esq 1 2.0 Project Personnel and Management Plan 1 2.1 Chris Bell (Bell & Associates, Inc.) 1 2.2 Richard Hertzberg (Bell & Associates, Inc.) 1 2.3 Bob Wallace (Bell & Associates, Inc.) 2 2.4 Roger North (Kennec, Inc.) 2 2.5 Mike Stewart (Kennec, Inc.) 3 2.6 Constance Hornig 3 2.7 Management Plan and Organization Chart 3 2.8 Workload and Resources 4 3.0 Relevant Project Experience and References 5 3.1 Bell & Associates, Inc. 5 3.2 Kennec, Inc. 7 3.3 Constance Hornig 8 4.0 Project Approach 9 4.1 Technical Methodology — Scope of Work and Project Approach 9 Task 1: Information Request 9 Task 2: - Kick -Off Week / Interviews with System Stakeholders / Site Assessments 10 Task 3 — Summarize and Evaluate the Existing Solid Waste Management System 10 Task 4 — Identify and Recommend Mechanisms and Best Practices for Efficient Organization, Administration, and Coordination of Waste Management Services 11 Task 5 — Contract Updates and Procurement of Collection Services 12 Task 5B — Update and Negotiate Collection Contact 13 Task 5C — Prepare the Request for Bids for Collection Services 13 Task 6 — Modeling System Costs and Collection Rates 14 Task 7 — Prepare Draft Report and Present to KIB 15 Task 8 — Prepare Final Draft Report and Make Recommendations 15 Task 9 — Present Final Draft Report to KIB Assembly 15 Task 10 — Prepare and Submit Final Report 15 5.0 Project Schedule 15 6.0 Project Budget 15 Appendices 16 A Detailed Project Budget 17 B Detailed Project Schedules 18 C Chart: Steps in the Development of an Integrated SW Mgmt 19 D Resumes 20 Bell & Associates, Inc. Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal 1.0 Introduction to the Bell & Associates, Inc. Team 1.1 Bell & Associates, Inc. Bell & Associates, Inc. is a consulting firm specializing in financial and operational analysis of integrated solid waste management. Founded by a licensed Certified Public Accountant, our primary mission is to serve the solid waste and recycling needs of local governmental agencies and municipalities. Located in Camas, Washington, our client base of municipalities and private companies extends to Idaho, Oregon, California, and New Mexico. In addition to collection systems analysis, rate review and rate setting, compliance services, and financial auditing, we team with a network of highly qualified professionals to offer consulting services ranging from program analysis and implementation, franchise procurement, training, and outreach. 1.2 Kennec, Inc. Kennec, Inc. provides permitting, engineering, construction services, and system software development to the solid waste industry. Kennec's clients include public and private organizations throughout the Western U.S., Alaska and Hawaii. Staff includes specialists in hydrogeology, hydrology, geotechnical engineering, regulatory compliance, civil engineering design, surveying, permitting, and construction management. 1.3 Constance Hornig, Esq. Constance Hornig is an attorney specializing in integrated solid waste management. Ms. Horning represents exclusively public entities on MSW project development, procurement and contracting. 2.0 Project Personnel and Management Plan 2.1 Chris Bell (Bell & Associates, Inc.) Chris Bell, CPA is a Certified Public Accountant practicing in the field of integrated solid waste management with an emphasis in the financial analysis and operational evaluation of solid waste and recycling collection systems. He has assisted numerous public and private entities with setting collection rates, program implementation, financial and performance audits, planning, franchise reporting, and systems analysis. In the calendar year 2006, Mr. Bell reviewed the operational and financial results of over 35 separate solid waste collection companies for nine municipalities, assisted seven jurisdictions with solid waste or house hold hazardous waste management plans, audited the financial and operational performance of seven collection companies, and set rates for 88,000 residential and 5,500 commercial customers in three jurisdictions. Prior to solid waste consulting, Mr. Bell served as Assistant Divisional Controller for Waste Management of Oregon. His responsibilities were the monthly financial close, budgeting, reconciliation, reporting, operational performance analysis, audit preparation, and annual franchise reporting for three separate collection companies and two transfer stations. In addition, Mr. Bell was in charge of fixed asset asses a �rroi info payable for all civ C ronon and Qoi ith \A/ chinnton coll c om pa ni es s and 1t.J r.ruyuvw �v� u11 vIfl v I v u11� v vaau 1.. v.ra r.uvI n l wI1 collection vv111 2.2 Richard Hertzberg (Bell & Associates, Inc.) Richard Hertzberg has nearly 30 years of experience in the solid waste management field working with public agencies and private companies in a variety of rural, suburban, and urban settings. His capabilities include research and data collection; strategic planning and analysis; feasibility studies and implementation plans; identification, review, and selection of program and policy options; facility and Bell & Associates, Inc. Page 1 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal technology evaluations; assessing regulatory impacts; developing vendor or equipment procurement strategies and documents; designing and initiating residential and commercial waste management programs; assistance with political decision — making; facilitation of communication processes; organization and implementation of citizen / stakeholder outreach and participation activities. Richard has held positions as the first Waste Reduction / Recycling Coordinator for the Metropolitan Service District (Metro), a tri — county regional government and environmental planning agency located in Portland, Oregon, and as an Assistant Project Manager with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. He has served as a project manager or senior consultant in preparing 100 integrated solid waste management plans for such diverse locations as the City of Livingston and Park County, Montana; Lincoln and Yamhill Counties in Oregon; the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial / National Park Service in St. Louis; State of Hawaii; Waterbury, Connecticut; Dakota County, Minnesota; Clark County, Nevada; Kitsap and Skagit Counties in Washington; numerous U.S. Navy installations in San Diego County, California; the County of Los Angeles; three multi — jurisdictional groups in Los Angeles County; and individual municipalities in Los Angeles County such as Long Beach, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach. 2.3 Bob Wallace (Bell & Associates, Inc.) Bob Wallace has more than 20 years of background in solid waste management, business improvement processes, transportation, waste -by -rail planning / operational startups and logistical management. Mr. Wallace's broad — based experience encompasses the fields of waste -by -rail, transfer station and MRF (materials recovery facility) operational management, vehicle routing, fleet management, business improvement process (turnarounds), motor carrier management and equipment procurement. Prior to consulting, Mr. Wallace spent seven years with Waste Management, the largest provider of solid waste services in North America. He served in a range of capacities in his tenure with a particular focus on directing transportation and logistical operations. He was responsible for all of the transportation for Waste Management's Western Group (nine Western States) waste -by -rail, maritime (tug and barge) and long — haul truck traffic as well as the transportation and logistics for many new commercial, private, and municipal solid waste contracts. 2.4 Roger North (Kennec, Inc.) Roger North, P.E. is a principal owner and Vice President of Engineering for Kennec and as such is in charge of civil and geotechnical engineering. He has extensive engineering and project management experience in all aspects of solid and hazardous waste facility permitting, design, construction, and environmental compliance as well as extensive geotechnical and geoenvironmental consulting, construction, and project management experience in the United States, United Kingdom, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Prior to becoming a principal owner of Kennec, Mr. North was the Region Engineer for the Northwest Region of Waste Management, Inc. His was responsible for all planning, permitting, and engineering aspects for five solid waste landfills, one hazardous waste landfill, and numerous transfer stations, material recycling facilities, maintenance facilities and support facilities. His engineering responsibilities typically involved permitting, design, contract procurement, construction management, environmental compliance and operational issues. The landfills he was responsible for received 400 to 8,500 tons of waste per day, with an annual capital budget between $20,000,000 and $30,000,000. Mr. North has relevant solid waste industry experience, specifically in the interdisciplinary issues facing the ECPL. Having also hired consultants while with Waste Management, Mr. North is acutely aware of the quality of planning, engineering, performance, and written documentation consultants should provide to clients. Bell & Associates, Inc. Page 2 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal Mr. North will be involved in the conceptual design and cost estimating efforts required to complete the ECPL planning effort. 2.5 Mike Stewart (Kennec, Inc.) Mr. Stewart is Vice - President of Construction Services with KENNEC Inc. Mr. Stewart has more than 25 years of experience in solid waste, geotechnical, and remedial design and construction. He is a proven Project Manager who has consistently demonstrated the ability to meet client expectations and to complete projects on time and within budget. He has provided engineering and /or construction services at over 75 solid and hazardous waste landfills owned and operated by public and private clients throughout Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, California, Wyoming, and Arizona. These facilities include small community landfills, mid -sized community landfills, and major regional facilities. He is familiar with solid waste regulations in all of the states he has provided consulting services, and with Federal (RCRA Subtitle D) solid waste regulations. 2.6 Constance Hornig Constance Hornig is a municipal solid waste attorney who represents exclusively public entities on MSW project development, procurement and contracting. She represents municipalities ranging from large (mega -urban Los Angeles County - population 11,000,000) to small (desert- isolated Fallon, NV - population 8,000). She's worked from Puerto Rico to Hawaii, from Barbados to El Salvador. • Constance helps negotiate and draft collection contracts with existing haulers as well as via competitive procurements (see references below and attached Professional Qualifications), so she is interested in KIB's potential options of negotiating with Alaska Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. / Kodiak Sanitation v. issuing an RFP. • Constance's MSW practice grew out of her tax - exempt / public finance work as municipal bond counsel on complex waste -to- energy revenue bond project financings. (She moved from a large firm in the World Trade Center, NYC to start her own firm in LA.). She studied waste facility financing in Japan on a Fulbright fellowship. So she is interested in possible IDB / tax - exempt financing for KIB transfer station / MRF development. • Constance has represented cities and counties on transfer station / MRF procurements for publicly financed - owned /privately operated as well as privately owned - and - operated facilities. • Constance has also represented local governments soliciting disposal services (including long - haul by rail or barge) or landfill operation. So KIB's potential panoply of disposal options are familiar to her. Constance regularly works with city attorneys and county counsel, combining her broad but in -depth procurement experience and insights into MSW business deals and financing, with municipal counsel's knowledge of local government. 2.7 Management Plan and Organization Chart Our project management approach is based on three following critical elements: 1) Executing a proven and effective work program with experienced personnel, 2) Effective communication, and 3) Being responsive to KIB staff. All work will be thoroughly planned and documented electronically. These elements are used in combination during the project to ensure the work is completed on schedule and w ithin budge within i uuuyc�. Work Plan An in -depth and proven work plan is an essential component of this project, and to ensure a quality product, the experience of the project team members will be essential. The work program summarized on the following pages is a proven program used to meet the objectives of the study and ensures that our recording, evaluation, planning, and implementation techniques are uniformly prescribed and Bell & Associates, Inc. Page 3 Client / Project Project Team Members Silver City, New Mexico Chris Bell, Richard Hertzberg City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska Chris Bell, Richard Hertzberg, Bob Wallace City of Boise, Idaho Solid Waste Plan Chris Bell, Richard Hertzberg South Utah Valley Solid Waste District Bob Wallace, Chris Bell, Richard Hertzberg Wyoming East Central Planning Landfills Chris Bell, Richard Hertzberg, Bob Wallace, Mike Stewart, and Roger North Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal performed on a coordinated basis. This keeps the project on time and on budget. The progress of each task will be tracked for accountability, timeliness and satisfactory completion. Communication Effective communication between the Project Team and the KIB Project Manager is critical to the timely completion of this project within the allotted schedule. Reports, spreadsheets and other data will be prepared using Microsoft products (Excel, Word, Access and Power Point) and transmitted electronically. As part of the kick -off meeting, the Project Manager will identify primary contacts for both our Project Team and the KIB staff and establish protocol for the exchange of information and the resolution of issues that arise in the normal course of this engagement. To ensure effective communication between Project Team members and the KIB, we propose to schedule and participate in periodic conference calls as needed to discuss project matters and be available for other communication(s) as needed. Richa{ Progr El Bell & Associates, Inc.. ( Constance; Esq. _ egal & Contra -- 1 s olid Waste Advisory Committee Tracy Mitchell KIS Project t anager Chris Bell, CPA Project Manager Finance & Operations Robert Wallace rantsportation $t Logistics Ro jer No id Engineer P Stew ndfill onstrurc The Project Team members know each other well and have collaborated on solid waste projects recently and in the past. Examples are noted below: 2.8 Workload and Resources The members of the Project Team have reviewed the project scope and the proposed time commitment and will be available to complete this project within the scheduled time. Current projects are noted below: Page 4 Bell & Associates, Inc. Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal 3.0 Relevant Project Experience and References The projects listed below demonstrate the Project Team's expertise to prepare study for the KIB. 3.1 Bell & Associates, Inc. Project: Solid Waste Management Plan Update Client: Wheeler County, Oregon Project Manager: Chris Bell Bell & Associates, in conjunction with another consultant, prepared an Updated Solid Waste Management Plan for this rural county of roughly 1,600 people and 1,700 square miles. The County was served by three transfer /recycling stations with Tong -haul transfer of waste and recyclables out -of- county. Tasks included fact finding for local priorities and conditions through interviews and solid waste system facilities site visits, performing technical research and analysis, making Solid Waste Advisory Committee presentations, facilitating decision - making, and coordinating reviews by state regulators. Selected alternatives were presented in an implementation plan including the necessary tasks to be accomplished, the party responsible for the specific alternative, a time frame for completion, a budget estimate, and a staffing estimate. The Plan was adopted by the County and approved by state regulators. Reference: Judge Jeanne Burch, Wheeler County, Oregon, (541) 763 -3460 Project: Annual Collection System Financial / Operational Review and Rate Setting Client: Clackamas County, Oregon Project Manger: Chris Bell Mr. Bell has performed the annual solid waste review for this County since 2001. The financial and operational review consists of 16 separate hauling companies serving the County's 43,000 residential and 2,000 commercial customers in the unincorporated urban and rural areas. The County is segregated into three distinct regions: the heavily populated Urban Region near the 1 -205 corridor, the sprawling Rural Region just outside the Metro Urban Growth Boundary, and the Distant Rural Region adjacent to the Mount Hood National Forest. Operating results for each region are analyzed, adjusted, aggregated, and then projected for the current year. Five of the franchised hauling companies have operations in two or more of the regions; therefore, it is imperative to understand the dynamics of the franchised haulers and the solid waste system. Reference: Rick Winterhalter, Program Manager, Clackamas County, Ph 503 - 353 -4466 Project: Solid Waste & Recycling System Procurement Client: Lewiston, Idaho Chris Bell and Constance Hornig, in a joint venture with GLA, were contracted to assist in the development of the City's new integrated solid waste and recycling system. Every aspect of the system was addressed: solid waste collection, curbside recycling, yard waste collection, composting, bulky waste collection, transfer station operations, solid waste transportation (long haul), and landfill. Four service contracts were drafted: (1) refuse, yard waste and bulky waste collection; (2) recycling collection and processing, (3) refuse transport (from the City's transfer station) and disposal, and moderate risk waste recycling and disposal, and (4) yard waste composing and sewage sludge processing, and tied together with a Master Agreement. Each component of the system was reviewed for projected costs and operational feasibility, updated to meet the City's long term goals, and then placed out to bid. Service proposals were evaluated by the project team and submitted to City staff for ranking and awarding of contracts for services. Collection rates were implemented based on the new mix of residential and commercial services. Reference: Chris Davies, Public Works Director, (208) 746 -3671 ext 295 Page 5 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal Project: Municipal Solid Waste Collection Study Client: Town of Silver City, New Mexico Project Manger: Richard Hertzberg The consulting team of Richard Hertzberg and Chris Bell assisted the Town with the development of a strategy to implement an automated solid waste collection system using side — loading and front — loading trucks for residences and businesses respectively. The project was completed in four steps: 1) Assessment of the operational and financial condition of the existing municipal collection system, 2) Research new programs and associated collection equipment, 3) Analysis of necessary rate changes and funding options, and 4) Reporting the findings and recommendations to the Town Council and interested parties. The final outcome of the project is to replace the Town's labor — intensive refuse collection program with a fully automated system using standardized carts for residences and containers for the commercial sector. The new approach features a variable rate structure for the residential sector based on the size and number of carts used for refuse storage. Reference: Peter Pena, Silver City Public Works Director, (505) 388 -4640 Project: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Client: Clark County Health District, Nevada Project Manager: Richard Hertzberg Richard Hertzberg, Project Manager, prepared the original Solid Waste Plan in 1995 and then updated / revised it in during the period 2000 to 2002. Both projects were completed in close coordination with a Technical Advisory Committee consisting of representatives of five incorporated jurisdictions, the urban and rural unincorporated County areas, and the Clark County Health District as the State — designated agency responsible for solid waste planning throughout Clark County. In each case the significant effects on waste disposal from growth and the tourism / hospitality industry in the County were documented. The original Plan contrasted the advantages and disadvantages of exclusive, long — term franchise agreements for waste services prevalent in the County. The updated / revised Plan focused on barriers to waste reduction / recycling and program / policy recommendations to address those barriers. Reference: Doug Joslin, Project Manager, University of Nevada at Las Vegas (702) 895 — 5149 Project: Feasibility Study for Developing a MRF at the City's Transfer Station Client: Santa Fe Solid Waste Management Agency and City of Santa Fe Project Manager: Richard Hertzberg Mr. Hertzberg collaborated with a national engineering firm to determine the practicality of installing a recyclables receiving, processing, and storage operation at the City's Transfer Station. The project involved an overview of the flow patterns and quantities for disposed and recycled waste streams; a description of in — state and out — of — state markets for recovered materials; an estimate of the amounts and types of recyclable materials available for processing; interviews with public and private sector representatives in Northern New Mexico to determine the prospects for implementing a regional recycling program to support a MRF; an introduction to basic MRF alternatives; related capital and operating costs and requirements for different MRF configurations; options for operating a MRF; and conclusions about a future course of action to be undertaken by the Agency and the City. Reference: Justin Stockdale, Santa Fe SW Management Agency, (505) 424 -1850 Project: Waste Monitoring Program & Material Recovery Facility (MRF) Assessment Client: King County, WA Bob Wallace was subcontracted to assist King County in quantifying and characterizing the material that is delivered to the private MRFs within the King County area (surrounding Seattle, WA) from single family, multi - family and commercial sources, as well as the material that leaves the MRFs as recyclable Bell & Associates, Inc. Page 6 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal products or as residual material for disposal. As part of the study, Mr. Wallace developed surveys and conducted interviews for an integrated feasibility study relating to the processing and recovery of recyclables by private MRF operators within the County. The report generated assisted the county in future planning and evaluation of waste flows, recycling recovery and waste diversion. Mr. Wallace developed performance standards for local private MRFs operating within King County. Systemic barriers were identified to help local MRFs continue to meet market recovery standards and protocols were developed to assist the monitoring of standards. Reference: Tanya Tarnecki, King County Sr. Associate (206) 343 -9759 Ext 117 Project: Transportation Cost Analysis & Market Study Client: Metro Regional Government, Portland, Oregon Project Manager: Bob Wallace Metro sought the services of a consultant experienced in the transportation of solid waste from transfer stations to a landfill. The project required the preparation of an estimate of the market cost of transporting waste in transfer trucks from the Metro South and Metro Central transfer stations for a period of 12 years to the Columbia Ridge Landfill. The market cost is the cost that Metro could expect to obtain through competitive bids for the service. The estimate of cost should be based on a per load cost using the latest fleet technology. In addition, the project required an estimate of the cost of operating the current contractor's equipment for a period of one year. The results of the project study identified true market costs and assisted Metro's Council and Staff in their decision making process. Reference: Paul Ehinger - Project Manager, (503) 797 -1789 3.2 Kennec, Inc. Project: Landfill Master Planning and CeII Construction Client: Anchorage, Alaska, Anchorage Regional Landfill Kennec personnel provided master planning for full development of the current permitted landfill footprint. This effort included preparation of several cell sequencing plans in an effort to provide a development sequence resulting in the greatest initial refuse airspace at the lowest short term development cost. Kennec personnel also provided design services related to a landfill gas master plan, which was prepared in coordination with the cell development master plan.. Reference: Steven Cooper, Environmental Specialist, (907) 343 -6274 Project: Lateral Expansion (92 acres with a capacity of 35,000,000 cubic yards) Client: Waste Management Greater Wenatchee Regional Landfill, East Wenatchee, Washington Project Manager: Roger North Kennec personnel have been providing hydrogeologic, engineering, construction, and permitting services at GWLF since 2000 including construction services related to a geomembrane final closure, and composite lined landfill expansion. Work currently being completed by Kennec personnel includes: • Preparing a full solid waste permit application; • Conducting hydrogeologic and geotechnical site characterization; • Designing and constructing remediation systems to mitigate landfill gas impacts to groundwater; Pr a full environmental impa effcmcnf• and • Preparing a lull • I1V11 JIIIIII II.t..I impact va u1Iu Reference: Ted Woodard, Dist. Manager, (509) 884 -2802 Bell & Associates, Inc. Page 7 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal Project: Landfill Master Planning and Cell Construction Client: City of Casper, Wyoming, Casper Regional Landfill Project Manager: Mike Stewart Kennec provided the City of Casper design and construction services related to the first phase of development for the Central Wyoming Regional Landfill. Once constructed is completed in summer of 2007, the bale -fill landfill will be the largest Subtitle D permitted landfill within the State at 400,000,000 cubic yards. The work included the following tasks: • Preparing construction documents for Cells 1 & 2 and associated landfill infrastructure; • Preparing a final construction quality assurance manual; • Providing construction contract administration services; • Performing construction quality assurance services; • Preparing a construction certification report; and • Preparing a detailed landfill operating plan. Reference: Cindie Langston, Casper Solid Waste Division, (307) 235 -8397 3.3 Constance Hornig Project: Sole- source Procurement and Negotiation of Collection Contract: Client: Mono County, California Developing Semi - Exclusive Franchises - Ms. Horning represented the rural and isolated Mono County, which is located in the high desert on eastern front of the Sierras. She helped the County develop franchises with 2 existing haulers in order to secure waste flow to the County landfill, including developing coordinated County Code and contract provisions, and assisting in negotiations with the incumbent haulers. Reference: Stacey Simon, Deputy County Counsel, (760) 924 -1704 Project: Competitive Procurement of Collection Contract Client: Los Angeles County, California Developing Exclusive / Semi - Exclusive and Non - Exclusive Residential / Commercial Franchise Agreements - Since 2002 Ms. Hornig has been working with Los Angeles County to increase its refuse disposal diversion / increase its recycling by developing franchise agreements for integrated waste management services in the unincorporated area of the County, including drafting the franchise agreements, meeting and with the stakeholder haulers' Working Group, advising on service specifications and standards, developing the RFP evaluative criteria and protocol, and reviewing contractor documentation (such as insurance, bonds, guaranties, etc.) for contract execution. Reference: Judith Fries, County Counsel's office, (213) 974 1834 Project: Landfill Disposal Service Client: Klamath County, Oregon Ms. Hornig represented rural Klamath County, Oregon in procurement of solid waste transfer and disposal services. The County's local landfill was being closed. Ms. Hornig drafted and helped negotiate the contract under which the County purchased the transfer station site and leased it back to the rnntrartnr. The C nntrartnr finnnrari arm rnnctn uteri the nrniert to cnerifiretinnc annrnveri by the County and transferred waste by rail to a desert landfill (Klickitat County) in south central Washington, with negotiated backup service by truck. The transfer station reverts to County ownership at the end of the contract term. Reference: Jay Henry, Klamath County, (541) 883 -4200 Bell & Associates, Inc. Page 8 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal 4.0 Project Approach A broad framework for preparing the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Study (CSWMS) is portrayed by the flow diagram titled "Steps in the Development of an Integrated Solid Waste Management System" that is located in the Appendix of this proposal. The actual long — range management strategy and alternatives analysis contained in the CSWMS is the result of a development and preparation process — it is the process that creates the product. The process and the product reflect the site — specific circumstances the study considers. The following are key features of our Project Team's approach to preparing the CSWMS for the KIB: • Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) — To serve as the primary but not exclusive method of fostering stakeholder / public participation in, and feedback on, the development process and substance for this project. • Project Kick — off Week — The Project Manager and at least one other consultant will initiate the project with a one — week site visit covering local conditions, field operations, interviews and conversations with KIB representatives, Kodiak Sanitation, and Threshold Recycling, an introductory SWAC meeting, and a formal project kick — off meeting. PLEASE NOTE — Project Kick — off Week is considered part of Task 2 below. • Systematic Analytic Methodology — In the CSWMS we will document the existing status of various solid waste system components, identify and evaluate options, and propose recommendations. System components include collection, transportation, transfer, disposal, diversion, household hazardous and special wastes, funding / financing, public information / education, administration / organization / enforcement. • Comprehensive System Scenarios — Alternative, integrated system scenarios with different configurations of recommended program elements / strategies along with associated roles, responsibilities, and costs will be presented to the SWAC for consideration. • Implementation Stages — A 20 — year planning period with designated short -, mid -, and long -term timeframes suggests recommendations can be formulated for implementation in logical, sequential phases. It also suggests the initial recommendations will be high priorities that are necessary for implementation of subsequent ones. • Three Critical Review Points — Feedback from the KIB, SWAC, and stakeholders is essential on 1 / findings and conclusions from the analysis of current programs (Task 3); 2 / recommended options for major system components (Task 4); and 3 / the initial draft report (Task 7). 4.1 Technical Methodology — Scope of Work and Project Approach Task 1: Information Request We will prepare an initial data request to identify specific information to be collected from the KIB prior to our first meeting. We will request the following information: Organizational Chart Current / Past Budget(s) Union Contract(s) Employee Handbook Current Staffing Schedule Rate Models / Schedules Kodiak Sanitation / KIB Contract Disposal Records Bell & Associates, Inc. Page 9 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal KIB Municipal Code for MSW Grant Program Documents Vehicle and Equipment Inventories Current Service Areas / Route Maps Landfill Permit Documents Expected Population Growth Landfill Expansion Plans KIB Certificate of Convenience & Necessity Policy Statements Threshold Recycling Bylaws Historical Productivity Data Procurement Agreements Waste Characterization Data Landfill Design Plans List of Cities that use the KIB Landfill In addition, we will review applicable regulatory infrastructure documentation such as Titles 7 (Boroughs), 35 Public Buildings, and 37 Public Finance (RE potential transfer station / MRF development, fleet ownership, and 46 Environmental. During our review, other items or issues may come to our attention which may require additional supporting documentation. We will make those requests as soon as possible so as to not disrupt the daily operations of the KIB staff. Task 2: - Kick -Off Week / Interviews with System Stakeholders / Site Assessments Once the Project Team has received the requested data, we will coordinate with the KIB to schedule an on -site kick -off meeting. The kick -off meeting will serve as a mechanism to discuss preliminary findings of our research, continue the data collection process, and identify project issues, goals, roles and responsibilities. Interviews with System Stakeholders - The Project Team will work with the KIB staff to conduct interviews with system stakeholders and representatives of potentially interested parties. These may include, but are not necessarily limited to, representatives of KIB including elected officials, KIB contract administration, MSW management / public works and accounting staff, local representative from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), representatives from Kodiak Sanitation — operations and billing staff (and perhaps upper level business officers from Alaska Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.) and Threshold Recycling, landfill supervisor, and key members of the community. These interviews will focus on identifying key issues, needs, and opportunities. Field Research - The Project Team will complete field research to document operational factors including but not limited to the following: non - mandatory collection sentiment and history, refuse collection methods; collection frequency; collection equipment type and condition; refuse container variations; number, size, and pattern of routes; site assessments of the KIB Landfill, Kodiak Sanitation's facilities, Threshold Services, and transfer operations for scrap metal. Research will also include a review of current landfill expansion and closure designs with a focus on identifying opportunities for design modifications that can substantially reduce capital costs for expansion, construction, landfill operation, closure construction, and post - closure monitoring and maintenance. Task 3 — Summarize and Evaluate the Existing Solid Waste Management System The Project Team will present an evaluation of the current KIB solid waste system components. Collected data detailing system infrastructure, methods and costs for waste collection, disposal and recycling, along with the results of discussions and interviews obtained in Task 2. The evaluation will cover the following components: • Collection — Including mandatory collection and economies of scale • Handling and Transfer • Disposal — Amounts and Material Types (MSW, C &D, and Yard Debris) ri Bell & Associates, Inc. Page 10 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal • Disposal Operations — Equipment and Personnel • Infrastructure — CeII Design, Airspace Maximization, and Closure • Diversion — Waste Reduction / Prevention, Reuse, Recycling, and Composting • Household Hazardous Wastes / Special Wastes • Public Participation and Community Education • Facility Descriptions and Capacities • Regional Infrastructure • Administration and Management • Regulations, Codes, and Ordinances • Costs and Financing We will develop a detailed matrix which summarizes key components of the current system. As the project progresses, the existing system components will be compared to recommended systems alternatives and changes or impacts of the presented for evaluation. Task 4 — Identify and Recommend Mechanisms and Best Practices for Efficient Organization, Administration, and Coordination of Waste Management Services Using the information collected and analyses conducted to this point in the project, a preliminary assessment of the KIB system will be completed. The project team will address recommended enhancements to the Department's management practices in a minimum of, but not limited to, the following areas: planning, management of contracts, management of waste and recycled products, performance indicators, labor tracking and control, landfill infrastructure and operational costs. Criteria include costs, consistency with KIB objectives, benefits, impacts, advantages, disadvantages, best practices, operational feasibility, institutional compatibility, technological reliability, regulatory risk / compliance, and other factors to be mutually determined by the KIB and Project Team members. Solid Waste Collection • Evaluate advantages / disadvantages, strengths / weaknesses of operations, collection systems (manual, semi - automated, or fully automated), transfer options or direct haul, and existing rates. • Propose modifications / improvements in solid waste collection operations. Delivery Bid Proposal What is the best alternative for the KIB to procure collection services? Should the services be put out to bid, should the KIB negotiate a new collection contract with the current service provider, or should the KIB provide collection services? Questions for investigation under this task include but are not limited to, the following: • Review of existing contractual arrangements (Kodiak Sanitation) and terms for provision of solid waste services by multiple private sector firms. • Contract assessment criteria to include: o Working relationship with the KIB o Customer satisfaction o Collection costs o Contract performance o Responsiveness to KIB system needs o Textual review: precisions of program specifications / performance standards, flexibility for change in scope services, comprehensiveness of administrative / enforcement provisions. • Review of existing role, responsibilities, and allocated personnel of the KIB in solid waste management. Bell & Associates, Inc. Page 11 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal o Should the KIB continue to bill for collection services o What are the costs and trade -offs of having the current provider invoice bill customers? • What control and leverage in the solid waste system does the KIB presently have? • Should the KIB directly provide some or all solid waste services now delivered by the private sector? What would be the capital costs if the KIB collected garbage? • If the KIB put the collection contract out to bid, would there be viable competition? • What are the additional benefits compared to the additional costs if the contract was put out to bid? The Project Team will analyze the specific issues and provide the KIB a recommendation to either negotiate with the current service provider or put the collection contact out to bid. Contract updates will also be proposed based on the system recommendations. Waste Handling, Processing, and Disposal We will provide an analysis and summary which correlates to past trends in waste generation and forecast trends over the short -term and long -term. This information will allow the KIB to select program and management options for the local waste stream. Recommendations for waste disposal management, waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting will be based on realistic expectations. • The Project Team will compare the current disposal process with future alternatives. We will work with the KIB to identify the future disposal alternatives, which will include bale fill, loose fill, long haul, incineration, or new technologies to produce energy or alternative fuels. • The disposal alternatives will include a cost -of service analysis. It will address policy issues, reliability, public acceptance, and flexibility in coordinating with other programs. This will include the development of a timeframe for making decisions on a long -term disposal method and examine the financial investments needed to implement the preferred solution. • We will examine methods to efficiently collect, consolidate, and transport selected recyclable materials such as curbside recycling and scrap metal to local and distant markets. The team will provide separate projections for the residential and commercial sectors. • The Project Team will review KIB's current collection and transportation system. We'll meet with representatives of the public operations and private sector to discuss ways to modify collection practices to meet future requirements. We will analyze whether alternative collection practices or additional transfer stations would improve these services in certain areas of the Borough. • The Project Team will review current designs (liners, covers, monitoring systems) for existing and future landfill expansion and closure and identify potential design modifications that will maximize airspace within the landfill footprint, and potentially reduce capital costs for construction, operation, and post - closure maintenance. Task 5 — Contract Updates and Procurement of Collection Services Review contracts provided by KIB staff, including current solid waste and recycling collection and hauling contracts; state, county, and city ordinances pertaining to solid waste and recycling; current solid waste management plan; and other background data available to evaluate the current system and future plans. Technical Issues • Consider and incorporate collection system changes and upgrades from Tasks 3 and 4. • Reconcile definitions in proposed contracts to KIB Ordinances and policy direction. Economic & Financial Issues • Review costs estimates for proposed new services and identify opportunities for streamlining or decreasing costs, increasing waste diversion or other options for paying for services. El Bell & Associates, Inc. Page 12 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal • Identify incentives that could be included for residential and commercial generators to decrease waste and increase recycling. • Document and analyze the KIB revenues and expenditures necessary to support the solid waste program for the term of the proposed program. • Consider 7 -10 year contract term (7 to amortize equipment; with 3 year extension as incentive) • Consider how best to structure Rate Review Process — Identify what type of rate analysis should be done as part of the RFP. The Project Team will confer with KIB staff to clarify issues of concern and develop policy recommendations that are consistent with other adopted KIB policies and programs. Task 5B — Update and Negotiate Collection Contact We propose the following approach if the KIB decides to forego the bid process and negotiate a new contact with the current provider of collection services: • Set schedules should be established at the outset of negotiations to provide a clear timetable for results, or determination of an impasse. • Evaluate and recommend how to respond to options and exceptions to the agreement that were proposed, keeping in mind the KIB's priorities. • The Project Team will then prepare the final draft agreement for review by KIB staff, then the proposer. Involvement in the final agreement negotiations will be focused on substantive clauses affecting the services provided and the structure of the business deal. We recommend that the KIB's legal counsel conduct a final legal review to ensure that all Borough policies and legal considerations have been incorporated into the agreement. • A Project Team member will then attend the Assembly meeting where this is presented for final approval if requested by KIB staff. Task 5C — Prepare the Request for Bids for Collection Services If the KIB decides to complete a competitive bid process for collection services, then the Project Team proposes to complete the following steps to assist in the procurement: • We will provide a sample Request for Proposals and Agreement (RFP) as a starting point to edit into the RFP and Draft Agreement for the KIB. • Work with KIB staff to identify current waste haulers in the vicinity of Kodiak Island that might be potential proposers or subcontractors. • Obtain residential and commercial customer counts from the KIB. For commercial customers, we will compile a summary of account size and frequency to include in the RFP. Based on assumed numbers of residential and commercial customers and the life of the proposed contract, we will then estimate the total value of the contract to be awarded • Draft the Request for Proposals and draft Agreement (RFP). The RFP will: o Seek information on proposers' technical and financial qualifications, key staff committed to be involved, and litigation history. o Seek information on proposer's technical plans and approach to comply with the scope of work. o Request information on the number and types of collection vehicles to be used, and the number of staff required to operate and maintain the collection system. o Request descriptions of their experience with the approach proposed for the KIB, including sample project descriptions, facility descriptions and references for comparable communities and services. o Provide a process for proposers to take exception to the draft agreement. o Include criteria for the evaluation of the qualifications and experience of proposers, the quality of their technical proposals (including company and individual's assigned knowledge and experience, financial capabilities, approach to scope of work, and client references /reputation) Bell & Associates, Inc. Page 13 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal and the feasibility of cost proposals providing sufficient revenues to the proposer to support the services proposed. o Include rate schedule forms for the evaluation of price proposals. These forms will include the assumed number of residential and commercial customers that will be the basis for comparing the total value of proposals and ranking those prices (with a caveat that the KIB does not guarantee this distribution of customers). Proposed rate schedules will include categories for all types of services to be provided, including residential curbside and backyard services (including handicapped and /or senior services, as desired), and commercial push /dismount charges. o Request 3 years of financial statements (to be kept confidential), to provide background information on their ability to finance the facilities, equipment and other costs associated with this project. o Include "process integrity guidelines," highlighting how proposers may be disqualified for inappropriate communications and contacts during the procurement process. o Include forms to sign indicating compliance with local policies (e.g., process integrity guidelines). • The Project Team will review the draft RFP with KIB staff, and then revise the documents as requested. • The Project Team will submit the final RFP to KIB staff and Assembly for approval. Proposals Evaluation and Recommendation • The Project Team will review the technical proposals and first determine if there are any non- responsive proposals to the requirements of the RFP. • The Project Team will then review the cost proposals and identify any issues requiring clarification from the proposers. Once all responses have been received, the proposals will be ranked according to the anticipated full cost of the base proposals over the life of the contract. Additional review will be done to clearly identify and compare any options presented and a revised ranking of the proposals considering all the options presented will be completed. Finally, we will evaluate the combined technical merits and economics to develop a recommendation that maximizes the highest services at the lowest possible cost (not necessarily the overall lowest cost proposer), or according to any other combination of criteria adopted by the KIB. • The Project Team will then review its preliminary findings with KIB staff and the evaluation committee. A summarized report with findings and recommendations will be presented to KIB staff, including any implications of options proposed, of the process. • The principal contact for the Project Team will then attend the Assembly meeting where these recommendations are presented for their consideration. Alternatively, Project Team members will be available by telephone during these scheduled sessions, in case there are other questions that arise that need to be addressed immediately. Task 6 — Modeling System Costs and Collection Rates Revenue requirements are usually maintained by the use of a model to forecast the necessary collection rates. Our preferred approach is to first look at the current rate model to gain an understanding of the model's logic. Checking the model for accuracy can be done at the aggregate level by_ for example, whether revenue requirements are in agreement with expected rate revenues from the model. If there is a problem with the model, tracking down inconsistencies from here is a matter of diligently checking formulas and the logic of the model. The Project Team will work with KIB staff to either update the current model or develop an Excel -based rate model with the following general structural components: Bell & Associates, Inc. Page 14 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal (1) Budget information related to contractor payments, operating costs, capital costs, and debt which will be translated into: (2) Revenue requirements, by operational area (e.g., solid waste, recycling, disposal, and general program expenses). The revenue requirements will be allocated to: (3) Service parameters (solid waste, and recycling collection, disposal, and account services, split by residential and commercial). The service parameters will be derived from: (4) Customer service data. (5) Rate construction, which pulls the relevant costs per service parameter to develop proposed rates. Task 7 — Prepare Draft Report and Present to KIB • Summarize results from Tasks 1 to 6. • Portray options for solid waste system component discussed in Task 3. • Present Report to KIB Project Manager. Task 8 — Prepare Final Draft Report and Make Recommendations • Amend draft report based on comments from KIB Project Manager, KIB Staff, SWAC, and public meetings. Task 9 — Present Final Draft Report to KIB Assembly Task 10 — Prepare and Submit Final Report 5.0 Project Schedule Depending on the outcome of Task 4, the KIB may decide to negotiate directly with Kodiak Sanitation rather than bid out the collection contract. That decision will shorten the project schedule by at least three months. The estimated start of this project is May, 2007 with completion in April 2008. If the contract is put out to bid, the estimated completion is July 2007. 6.0 Project Budget The table below is a summary of the detailed budget included in the Appendix of this proposal. Kodiak CSWS Hourly Billing Rates Total Project Costs Bell $ 125 Hertzberg $ 95 Wallace $ 125 Horning $ 200 North Stewart $ 135 $ 125 $5,500 Project Hours Project Cost $ 93,765 $107,360 Note: If the KIB decides to negotiate with Kodiak Sanitation rather than bid out the collection contract, labor costs would reduced by $9,250 to a total project cost of $ 98,110. Bell & Associates, Inc. Page 15 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Solid Waste Study Proposal Appendices A Detailed Project Budget B Detailed Project Schedules C Chart: Steps in the Development of an Integrated SW Mgmt D Resumes Bell & Associates, Inc. Page 16 / 0_ 2 \ m f k E / $ a) / t a) a) \ U % 0 \ ER- co ER A ER- 1.0 ER- LO LO ID, o tO ¥ ;r te c 1 o /J a< qfd E A - L O ;o � o 7 \ r of N m } f 0 / CD k / / k & / % 0 % 0 cci � O L N m ; E L L 0 OOH a � if�S � 2 c � O 0 0 •- c is C t6 Y `� � d o � i . E ' r 2 . .4- a . 1010100 c1(3) a co c m Cl) c r. N C! ttY 4 Review Existing Regulations What are the current solid waste management laws? Organize Decision-Making Framework Who will make the decisions? Identify Needs What types of waste are currently generated and in what quantities? Review Existing System How is waste currently managed? Establish Objectives What are your short- and long-term goals? Identify Potential Components Which waste management activities will help you achieve your objectives? Implement the Plan When you begin to conduct new or additional solid waste management activities? Compare Options Which activities are the most cost-effective and affordable? Develop the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan How will you finance facilities, equipment, and employees? ki Evaluate the Waste Management System How can solid waste services be improved or expanded? Certifications Certified Public Accountant Oregon (10,451) Illinois (73, 391) Affiliations American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Oregon Society of Certified Public Accountants Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Association of Oregon Recyclers New Mexico Recycling Coalition Work History Bell & Associates, Inc. President 2003 - Present Merina & Company, LLP CPAs and Consultants Manager of Consulting Services 2001 — 2003 Waste Management of Oregon Asst. Divisional Controller 1999 — 2001 Bidwell & Company, Accountant 1998 — 1999 Quincy Broadcasting Company Accounting Supervisor 1995 — 1998 Moore Corporation Cost Analyst 1994 -1995 United States Air Force Law Enforcement Patrolman 1989 - 1993 Education Bachelor of Science Business Management 1993, Park University Christopher J. Bell, CPA President - Bell & Associates, Inc, Solid Waste & Recycling Consultants Chris Bell, CPA is a Certified Public Accountant practicing in the field of integrated solid waste management with an emphasis in the financial analysis and operational evaluation of solid waste and recycling collection systems. He has assisted numerous public and private entities with setting collection rates, program implementation, financial and performance audits, planning, franchise reporting, and systems analysis. Prior to solid waste consulting, Mr. Bell served as Assistant Divisional Controller for Waste Management of Oregon. His responsibilities were the monthly financial close, budgeting, reconciliation, reporting, operational performance analysis, audit preparation, and annual franchise reporting for three separate collection companies and two transfer stations. In addition, Mr. Bell was in charge of fixed assets and accounts payable for all six Oregon and Southwest Washington collection companies. During the last year, Mr. Bell has completed the following solid waste related tasks: • Reviewed the operational and financial results of over 35 separate solid waste collection companies for nine different jurisdictions from Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and New Mexico. ■ Provided seven jurisdictions from five western states with integrated solid waste management assistance. • Set solid waste and recycling collection rates for over 88,000 residential and 5,500 commercial customers in three jurisdictions. Recent Project Experience • Solid Waste & Recycling System Planning & Implementation Silver City, New Mexico • Financial Analysis of Closure Costs for a Municipal Landfill — Asotin County, Washington • Financial and Operational Review of Franchised Solid Waste & Recycling Collection Operations — Tigard, Oregon • Solid Waste & Recycling System Procurement — Lewiston, ID • Residential Organic Collection Feasibility Study — Metro Regional Government, Portland, Oregon • Automated Collection System implementation — Beaverton, OR • Solid Waste & Recycling Rate Setting — Gresham, Oregon • Solid Waste & Recycling Collection Contract Compliance Audit Bellevue, Washington 1628 NW 33 Way Phone 360.326.8937 Camas, WA 98607 Fax 360.326.8925 Christopher J. Bell, CPA Solid Waste Financial and Audit Project Experience: Clackamas County, Oregon — Rate Review and Rate Setting Mr. Bell has performed the annual solid waste review since 2001. The review consists of 16 separate hauling companies serving the urban and rural areas of Clackamas County. The County is segregated into three distinct regions: the heavily populated Urban Region near the 1 -205 corridor, the sprawling Rural Region just outside the Metro Urban Growth Boundary, and the Distant Rural Region adjacent to the Mount Hood National Forest. Operating results for each region are analyzed, adjusted, aggregated, and then projected for the current year. Five of the franchised hauling companies have operations in two or more of the regions; therefore, it is imperative to understand the dynamics of haulers and the solid waste system. Asotin County, Washington / Lewiston, Idaho — Landfill Financial Analysis of Closure and Post - Closure Costs An analysis of the County's collected cash was to determine the current amounts of fund balances required to operate the landfill, the projected costs to cap the landfill, future monitoring of the site. Additionally, the past performance of the invested cash funds was also reviewed. A report was prepared for the City of Lewiston outlining the findings of the project. City of Beaverton, Oregon — Rate Review, Ordinance Revision, and Program Implementation Bell & Associates has assisted the City with the annual rate review of the six franchised collection companies for the past three years. The review included two site visits to validate the submitted information submitted on the annual reports. Using the annual review financial and operational data, the City adjusted commercial container and drop box collection rates. City council approved the implementation of a residential cart recycling program, making Beaverton the second city in Washington County to automate residential recycling. City of Gresham, Oregon — Rate Setting and Drop Box Deregulation Analysis Mr. Bell has performed the annual solid waste review for the years 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005. The project entails the financial analysis and operational review of four separate hauling companies serving the City's 20,400 residential and 1,300 commercial customers for the purposes of setting collection rates and implementing program changes when necessary. In 2004, Mr. Bell assisted the City with the program review and rate modeling of commercial food collection for a City -wide pilot program expected to start in the third quarter of 2006. Currently, the City is reviewing the rate impact and operational feasibility of converting the current residential recycling collection system from 14 gallon bins to 90 gallon roller carts. Topics for review include the impact to existing rates, resident input to the program, increased materials collected, collection of glass, and necessary equipment changes / purchases. The City of Gresham's objective is to roll out a low cost program that will increase the amount of material collected curbside. City of Tigard, Oregon — Financial & Operational Review of Franchised Solid Waste & Recycling Collection Operations The 2003 and 2004 rate reviews were the basis for the implementation of the new residential roller cart collection program. Mr. Bell worked with the Public Works Director and the franchised haulers to establish a cost effective program and update the collection rates. Part of the project included the two presentations to City Council by Mr. Bell to get the initial and final approval of the program. In addition to cart recycling, City Council also approved recycling outreach to the City's business sector in an effort to increase the region's diversion goals. 1628 NW 33r Way Phone 360.326.8937 Camas, WA 98607 Fax 360.326.8925 Christopher J. Bell, CPA Metro Regional Government, Portland, Oregon — Solid Waste Rate Seminar Bell & Associates has been contracted to conduct an in -house solid waste rate seminar for Metro staff. The purpose of this project was to improve Metro's institutional knowledge of the region's local solid waste rate - setting practices so that Metro staff can conduct more robust analyses of ratepayer impacts. City of Bellevue, Washington — Solid Waste Contract Compliance Audit Bell & Associates completed a review of Allied Waste's collection operation for the Utility Department to determine whether specific requirements had been fulfilled in accordance with the new collection contract. Data reported to the City was analyzed and the methodology used to collect the data was reviewed. An agreed upon procedures report was issued to the City on the findings of the engagement. City of Salem, Oregon — Franchise Fee Payment Review The City retained Bell & Associates to conduct a review of overpayments by two of the franchised collection companies (Both were Allied Waste Companies). The engagement was conducted to explain the overpayment, determine the correct amount due the City, and document the steps taken by the management of the company to correct the problem. A report was prepared for both the City and the hauler outlining the work program and detailing the findings of the agreed upon procedures. Solid Waste Planning and Program Project Experience: City of Lewiston, Idaho — Solid Waste and Recycling System Procurement Bell & Associates, in a joint venture has been contracted to assist in the development of the City's new integrated solid waste and recycling system. Every aspect of the system will be addressed: solid waste collection, curbside recycling, yard waste and bio- solids composting, bulky waste collection, transfer station operations, solid waste transportation (long haul), and landfill. Each component of the system will be reviewed, updated, and then placed out to bid. Proposing firms will then be evaluated by City staff for the awarding of contract(s) for services. Town of Silver City, New Mexico — Municipal Solid Waste Collection Study Bell & Associates assisted the Town with the development of a strategy to implement an automated solid waste collection system using side — loading and front — loading trucks for residences and businesses respectively. The project was completed in four steps: 1) Assessment of the operational and financial condition of the existing municipal collection system, 2) Research new programs and associated collection equipment, 3) Analysis of necessary rate changes and funding options, and 4) Reporting the findings and recommendations to the Town Council and interested parties. The final outcome of the project is to replace the Town's labor — intensive refuse collection program with a fully automated system using standardized carts for residences (35, 65, and 95 gallons) and dumpsters (1 to 6 cubic yards) for the commercial / institutional sector. The new approach features a variable rate structure for the residential sector based on the size and number of carts used for refuse storage. Metro Regional Government, Portland, Oregon— Residential Food Collection Program Analysis Bell & Associates in conjunction with Applied Compost Inc. worked with local governments and composting facilities to determine the impact of a residential food collection program. If a residential organics system were implemented, the yard debris and organics collected together would most likely be sent to the one fully - permitted and operational organic waste composting facility located within the Portland metropolitan region. Our study reported on the economic and structural impact to existing residential collections systems, composting facilities, compost markets, transportation systems, and the ancillary effects (job losses or job creation, lost business, lower tax base, etc.). 1628 NW 33 Way Phone 360.326.8937 Camas, WA 98607 Fax 360.326.8925 Christopher J. Bell, CPA Wheeler County, Oregon — Solid Waste Management Plan Update Bell & Associates, in conjunction with another consultant, prepared an Updated Solid Waste Management Plan for this rural county of roughly 1,600 people and 1,700 square miles. The County was served by three transfer /recycling stations with long -haul transfer of waste and recyclables out - of- county. Tasks included fact finding for local priorities and conditions through interviews and solid waste system facilities site visits, performing technical research and analysis, making Solid Waste Advisory Committee presentations, facilitating decision - making, and coordinating reviews by state regulators. Selected alternatives were presented in an implementation plan including the necessary tasks to be accomplished, the party responsible for the specific alternative, a time frame for completion, a budget estimate, and a staffing estimate. The Plan was adopted by the County and approved by state regulators. Washington County, Oregon — System Analysis Bell & Associates completed an independent review of the rate setting process used by Washington County to set collection rates for the 15 franchised collection companies. The specific project tasks were: 1) Review the cost based approach and the rate of return, 2) Analyze the process used to forecast hauler profitability, 3) Recommend changes to the advisory committee, and 4) Analyze the reporting process over the previous five years. A detailed report was submitted to the County outlining the system and recommended changes. Local Government Household Hazardous Waste Management Plans, Oregon Subsequent to the 1999 statewide planning process, local governments became eligible to apply for grants to develop local implementation plans for managing Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) in their communities. Mr. Bell has assisted the project consultant in the completion a regional plan for Union, Baker and Wallowa Counties in 2006 and is currently contracted to prepare plans for four additional counties through 2007. He has completed the financial aspects of the plans including projected plan costs, projection of wastes, and the fixed and operational costs. These local plans include identification and assessment of options for each community including permanent HHW facilities, collection events, and satellite collection cabinets; detailed capital and operating costs estimates; and various options for service providers, funding and promotion. Work includes facilitating meetings of a planning group comprised of citizens, service providers, government staff and elected officials. 1628 NW 33 Way Phone 360.326.8937 Camas, WA 98607 Fax 360.326.8925 Richard Hertzberg Senior Project Manager POSITIONS Zia Engineering & Environmental Consultants, LLC, Senior Project Manager, 2000 — present Independent Recycling Consultant, 1998 — 2000 Harding Lawson Associates & Resource Integration Systems, Project Manager, 1987 — 1997 Independent Recycling Contractor, 1983 — 1987 - Program Manager, Environmental Action Coalition, New York City - Project Consultant, NYC Dep't. of Sanitation - Recycling Program Director, Westchester County, NY Public Works Dep't. - Staff Writer/ Photographer, Resource Recycling & BioCycle magazines Waste Reduction / Recycling Coordinator, Metropolitan Service District, Portland, OR, 1981 -1983 Assistant Project Director, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, 1979 — 1981 EXPERTISE Mr. Hertzberg's areas of technical expertise are environmental regulatory compliance, pollution prevention and controls, and solid waste management / recycling. He has 25 years of experience in these fields working with local, state and federal public agencies and private companies to address their solid waste handling, recycling and waste minimization needs. His broad range of capabilities include the following: • Technical research and data collection, integration, and interpretation • Strategic planning and feasibility analysis • Program design and implementation • Formulation of public policy • Facility and technology assessments • Equipment evaluation for materials collection, storage, and processing • Assistance with initiating, monitoring, and modifying site — specific waste management, source reduction, and recycling programs • Cost estimates and projections • Funding and financing options • Development of vendor procurement procedures and RFBs / RFPs • Presentations to decision — makers, regulatory authorities, and interest group representatives • Inter — agency and inter — governmental coordination and cooperation • Organization and implementation of stakeholder outreach and participation campaigns • Preparation of educational, promotional, and instructional materials for targeted audiences • Formation of consensus — based alliances and coalitions between the public, private, and non — profit sectors REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE HERTZBERG, RICHARD 2 Metropolitan Service District (Metro), Portland, Oregon: Evaluation of proposed site and operations for neighborhood recycling drop — off center (performed while Metro's Waste Reduction / Recycling Coordinator). Metro, Portland, Oregon: Design of recycling drop - off area at regional transfer station (performed while Metro's Waste Reduction / Recycling Coordinator). Santa Monica, California: Design of yard waste processing and storage site (Senior Consultant). Santa Monica, California: Reconfiguration of existing drop — off center and processing operation for residential and commercial recyclables (Project Manager). Santa Fe, New Mexico Solid Waste Management Agency and the City of Santa Fe: Study to assess the feasibility of establishing a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) at the City's Transfer Station and implementing a regional recycling program to supply recyclables for the MRF (Project Manager). Dakota County, Minnesota: Design of Recyclables Processing Center for use by private refuse haulers, preparation of RFP to obtain facility operator, participation in proposal evaluation and vendor selection (Project Manager). Hawaii County, Hawaii: Design of Materials Recovery Area at new landfill on west side of the island (Senior Consultant). Ventura County, California: Analysis of receiving, handling, and processing operations at Materials Recovery Facility to increase throughput capacity and quantity of recyclables prepared according to market specifications (Senior Consultant). North Hempstead, New York: Technical evaluation of responses to RFP regarding the operation of a 125 ton — per — day Materials Recovery Facility, selection of the MRF vendor, and formulation of a service agreement (Senior Consultant). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (Seattle, Washington): Waste reduction / recycling program design for Henry Jackson Federal Building, a large multi — agency, multi — tenant complex, intended to serve as a model for government facility materials recovery throughout the region (Project Manager). U.S. Postal Service, State of Nevada: Statewide recycling program development and implementation assistance (Project Manager). Metro and the City of Portland, Oregon: Structural analysis of regional construction and demolition (C & D) industry and policy / program recommendations for expanding recycling by C & D companies (Senior Consultant). Tigard, Oregon: Evaluation of curbside, residential recycling program design alternatives in transitioning from a collection method requiring separation of materials into numerous categories to a commingled approach involving two basic sorts (Project Manager). Metro, Washington County, Clackamas County, and the City of Portland, Oregon: Evaluation of impacts on materials collection, processing, and marketability resulting from different methods of commingling residential recyclables (Senior Consultant). Los Angeles County: Preparation of Draft Integrated Countywide Solid Waste Management Summary Plan, a multi — firm effort to synthesize into one comprehensive document the key information, analyses, and HERTZBERG, RICHARD 3 recommendations from the AB 939 Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs) of all jurisdictions and unincorporated areas in L.A. County (Assistant Project Manager). Redondo Beach, California: Design, implementation, and evaluation of a pilot green waste recovery program using two different collection methods; design, implementation, and evaluation of a demonstration commercial sector recycling program recovering mixed waste paper; analysis and recommendations concerning the adoption of automated versus semi — automated residential refuse collection; and analysis and recommendations concerning what kind of variable rate mechanism should be applied to the residential sector (Project Manager). U.S. Department of the Navy, Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command: Coordinated contributions to a major project undertaken for the Navy in California's San Diego County entailing the preparation of AB 939 Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs) and Household Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWEs) for Naval bases and housing areas necessitating the management of multiple task activities occurring within the same time period (Assistant Project Manager). Long Beach, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood, California: Preparation of integrated solid waste management plans (Source Reduction and Recycling Elements or SRREs) according to the regulatory guidelines promulgated under AB 939 (Project Manager). Long Beach, California: Development of various diversion program and policy initiatives including an Integrated Waste Management Policy Statement, residential recycling design parameters, procurement of residential recycling service vendor, commercial sector recycling strategies and policies, and outreach to the general public and special interest groups (Project Manager). Santa Monica, California: Assessment of methods for collecting, processing, and marketing yard waste including preliminary system design, implementation activities, and evaluation of prospective locations for processing facility siting (Project Manager). Dakota County, Minnesota: Development of Recycling Program Implementation Strategy identifying mechanisms to expand recycling efforts in the County's urban and rural areas including consideration of such issues as coordination with private haulers, materials processing / marketing options, County technical and financial assistance measures, handling of yard waste, and compliance with regional / state waste diversion goals (Project Manager). Los Angeles, California: Contributed to development of a residential curbside recycling program implemented by the City that entailed analyzing program options and technologies, surveying and assessing materials markets, developing design factors and related cost projections for recyclables collection operations, specifying multi — cultural promotion techniques, and recommending program institutional / organizational structure (Senior Consultant). Plastics Recycling Corporation of New Jersey: Worked directly in the field with municipal and county officials, waste haulers, and recycling industry representatives to establish PET / HDPE beverage container recovery projects throughout New Jersey by securing markets, planning collection logistics, arranging for materials storage, transport, and processing, and creating educational / promotional materials (Senior Consultant). Westchester County, New York: Evaluation of options available to the County's Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Management Division for recycling program development and expansion (Senior Consultant). New York City, New York: Provision of technical assistance to the Office of Recycling, Department of Sanitation for analyzing, planning, and implementing multi — faceted waste recovery programs (Senior Consultant). Waterbury, Connecticut: Completion of Recycling Plan and implementation of its initial elements in cooperation with the City administration and the Waterbury Regional Resource Recovery Authority (Senior Consultant). Bob Wallace, MBA Education: References: Principal & VP of Business M.B.A, Managerial Leadership • City of Seattle Solutions WIH Resource Group City University, Seattle, Washington Contact :'Henry Friedman Phone #: (206) 733 -9147 Solid Waste Railroad Environmental & negotiations and equipment Logistical So/ B.A., Humanities, Washington recommendations. State University, Pullman, Washington • Gregory Canyon Landfill Registrations: N/A Richard Chase Phone #: (858) 792 -7661 Professional Affiliations: Solid waste, Biosolids and SWANA- Board member transportation feasibility studies. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) • Waste Management, Inc. National Industrial Dan Shoener Transportation League Phone# (818) 720 -4146 National Association of Rail Business improvement Shippers American Public Works strategy development, collection vehicle routing Association — Currently serving optimization, transfer station on Solid Waste Rate Making trucking RFP development and Committee contract negotiations, waste - New York State Association for by -rail feasibility studies. Solid Waste U.S. Composting Council Washington Refuse & Recycling Association Years of Experience: 20 Biography: Bob Wallace is a Principal and Vice President of Business Solutions for WIH Resource Group (WIH), an environmental, waste management and logistical consulting firm based in Phoenix, Arizona. The firm provides industry experience and business solutions to a wide range of clients in both the public and private sectors of the waste management, recycling and transportation service industries. Prior to forming WIH, Mr. Wallace held various positions within Waste Management, Inc., the nation's largest provider of solid waste services in North America. In his last position, he served as their Director of Transportation & Logistics for the Western United States, managing a $100 million dollar annual budget for transportation services. He was responsible for management oversight and activities for over 50 subcontracted motor carriers, maritime barge lines, Class One and Short-line railroads in the Western United States transporting hazardous and non - hazardous wastes and recyclable materials. He also was responsible for the company's Waste -by -Rail services program, serving various municipalities and industrial waste generators throughout North America. Relevant Project Experience: Waste -by -Rail and Barging Solid Waste Feasibility Study. Land & Lakes Company — Chicago, Illinois. Project Manager. This project began in August of 2006 and involved researching, interviewing, evaluating and developing a two- scenario (rail and barge) transportation & disposal feasibility study. Both scenarios contemplated the transportation costs, capital and operating requirements, as well as identified optimal landfills and their related disposal costs for between 750- 1500 TPD from two privately owned transfer stations in Dalton and Matteson Illinois. The work required conducting interviews with key staff from various railroads, barging and landfill disposal companies to secure necessary transportation service rates to identify critical service requirements, evaluate capital and equipment needs and other required infrastructure. The two - scenario feasibility study contrasted and contemplated both a working Waste -by -Rail and a waste -by -barge scenario. Solid Waste Service Area Redistricting Plan. City of Phoenix — Phoenix, AZ. Project Manager. The project consisted of conducting data gathering, analysis, and communication of findings and recommendations to develop the Solid Waste Service Area Redistricting Plan for the City. Several of the major components of this approach have been used successfully for other projects as well. The work was focused on improving operational efficiency, balancing routes and developing recommendations for improvements in data collection consistency among the service area districts. WIH created a strategic redistricting plan based on the recommendations developed during the project. WIH worked closely with City staff to ensure that the service areas could be reasonably implemented as developed and made appropriate adjustments to the proposed service areas. Transportation Cost Analysis & Market Study. Metro Regional Government — Portland, OR. Project Manager. In late 2006, Metro sought the services of a consultant experienced in the transportation of solid waste from transfer stations to a landfill. The project required the preparation of an estimate of the "market cost" of transporting waste in transfer trucks from the Metro South and Metro Central transfer stations for a period of 12 years to the Columbia Ridge Landfill. The "market cost" is the cost that Metro could expect to obtain through competitive bids for the service. The estimate of cost should be based on a per load cost using the latest fleet technology. In addition, the project required an estimate of the cost of operating the current contractor's equipment for a period of one year. The results of the project study identified true market costs and assisted Metro in their decision. Competitive Service Railroad Strategy Development. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) - Seattle, WA. Project Manager. The work for this project was to develop a solid waste management railroad strategy that addresses the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) rail access and competitive issues related to the Corgiat Intermodal Facility (IMF). The work involved developing an overall integrated strategy which outlined the major steps and overall strategy that Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) should consider employing to insure that the City of Seattle is able to secure competitive service, site access and pricing from the railroads serving the SPU's Corgiat Intermodal Facility site. The primary intent of the negotiations with the two railroads was to create a "competitive" and open market place for securing optimal and economical rates for rail service from the proposed site for the City of Seattle. Waste Monitoring Program & Material Recovery Facility (MRF) Assessment. King County, WA. Project Manager. WIH Resource Group was subcontracted to assist King County in quantifying and characterizing the material that is delivered to the private MRFs within the King County area (surrounding Seattle, WA) from single family, multi - family and commercial sources, as well as the material that leaves the MRFs as recyclable products or as residual material for disposal. As part of the study, WIH Resource Group developed surveys and conducted interviews for an integrated feasibility study relating to the processing and recovery of recyclables by private MRF operators within the County. The report WIH generated assisted the county in future planning and evaluation of waste flows, recycling recovery and waste diversion. In addition, WIH Resource Group developed performance standards for local private MRFs operating within King County. In addition to the development of the MRF performance standards, WIH Resource Group also identified systematic barriers to help local MRFs continue to meet market recovery standards. WIH also assisted in developing a protocol for monitoring the MRFs' adherence to the standards. Transfer Trucking RFP Development & Procurement. Waste Management — Western United States. These various projects were conducted between the years 2000 and 2004, and involved developing site specific motor carrier RFPs and subsequent negotiated contracts. The individual RFPs were developed to address the individual needs of the transfer stations. The projects required securing efficient and economical transportation services to transport municipal solid waste from various transfer stations to Waste Management landfills throughout the Western U.S. The following is a partial list of the RFPs and contracts that were completed and awarded to various third party motor carriers during that time frame: • WTR Transfer Station — Los Angeles, CA: Developed an RFP and procured third party transportation services for transporting 5,000 tons per day from the transfer station to three separate disposal sites. The RFP was unique and required bidders to provide a purchase of WM's transfer trailer fleet valued at $650K. • Edom Hills - Palm Springs, CA Transfer Station: Developed an RFP and procured motor carrier services for a 2,000 ton per day MRF that also required the bidders to provide daily management, manpower and equipment to handle the transfer station's waste volume and transfer trailer loading. • Kettlemen Hills Landfill Transportation Review — Kings County, CA: Analyzed the costs and pay structure of the third party carriers serving the site. In 2002, annual motor carrier expenditures were approximately $20MM. The project work efforts consisted of the following improvements: Improved the freight bill turnaround, allowing motor carriers to get paid quicker in exchange for reduced rates; eliminated carrier standby time by adding a new scale platform and extended the hours at the landfill to minimize layovers by carriers arriving from further origins. The changes resulted in a transportation cost savings of $800,000 in 2003. • Island County Transfer Station — Coupeville, WA: Completed the development of an RFP, carrier selection, contract negotiations and implementation of new motor carrier transportation services in 1999. • Butterfield Station Landfill & Phoenix Market - Phoenix, AZ: This project entailed developing a motor carrier RFP and procuring services for transporting 6,000 tons per day from various transfer stations located throughout the state of Arizona. In addition, the project required identifying key trucking companies suitable for responding to the RFP and creating a competitive environment. The entire RFP process took less than six months to complete and involved the development of the RFP, pre bid meeting, development of carrier performance requirements, subcontractor agreement, carrier interviews and carrier negotiations. In addition, the project involved interviewing and receiving formal presentations from five short listed carriers with one being selected. In the end, a five year base contract was negotiated and awarded to one motor carrier. Waste -by -Rail Feasibility Studies. Waste Management — Western United States. Between 2000 and 2004, various projects involving performing transportation feasibility studies were conducted. These involved research and development of potential Waste -by -Rail transportation and disposal movements from various cities to Waste Management landfills throughout the Western US that were adjacent or near major Class One railroads. The following is a partial list of some of the studies that were completed and their outcomes: • Kitsap County T/S & Intermodal Ramp: The project involved overseeing the full implementation and operationally smooth start up of new waste train from the Kitsap County Transfer to WM's Columbia Ridge Landfill. The work also involved eliminating an industry "paper barrier ", preventing railroad site access conflicts. It was resolved favorably with the railroads by the end of 2002. • El Sobrante LF /Bradley LF Rail Service: Developed a financial and feasibility model (pro forma) as well as developed a strategy of a waste by rail service from the Bradley MRF to the El Sobrante landfill in Southern California. The evaluation and determination of the action plan and the development strategy was completed at the end of 2002. • Skagit County Intermodal Ramp: Performed a feasibility study and determined the project not feasible for the development of a rail served intermodal ramp for waste transportation to the Columbia Ridge landfill. Completed the pro forma and evaluation at the end of 2002. • Butterfield Landfill Rail Service: Developed a feasibility model to develop and attract new rail served disposal business from outside the local Arizona marketplace. The project required developing both short and long -term strategies for attracting new waste streams to this landfill by the end of 2006, increasing the utilization of the rail accessibility of the site as well as the favorable economics associated with rail transportation from Los Angeles. • Lockwood Regional Landfill: This project involved performing a feasibility study for developing an intermodal facility near Lockwood, NV and securing waste streams from Northern CA and Utah into the regional landfill. • Klamath County, Oregon: This project was in response to the County's closing landfill. The work involved leading a team in developing an RFP response to the County's request for a Waste -by -Rail disposal alternative to that of a local landfill. The proposal was developed evaluating local intermodal sites, rail equipment requirements as well as developing an operating transportation plan. Dredge Sediment Disposal Barge Facility Study. WMI, Arlington, OR. This project involved performing a feasibility study for the development of a dredge sediment barge receiving facility and transportation /waste handling method at or near Arlington, OR. The intent was to provide tug and barge access to the Columbia Ridge and Chemical Waste Management landfills co- located in Arlington, OR. The study also involved the development of a short-term solution to handle this type of waste stream at the Port of Morrow or other local offloading site until a permanent facility could be constructed. The project entailed facilitating and conducting Citizen Hearings and developing a refined and environmentally friendly waste management plan for trans loading the dredge sediments. Waste -by -Rail Program Operational Management, City of Seattle, WA. The City of Seattle has traditionally owned and operated its own landfills, but faced a problem in the mid -80s as both landfills neared capacity. Charged with finding another resource for disposal of its solid waste, the City originally turned to King County -owned and operated landfills. However, escalating rates soon proved to be unacceptable to City residents and the City awarded a long term Waste -by -Rail transportation and disposal contract to Waste Management. In 2000, this work involved an active management role and day to day oversight and responsibility of the City of Seattle's Waste train. The operations of which were subcontracted to Waste Management. At the time, one unit train (minimum 50 rail cars) per day was originating in Seattle and being transported to Waste Management's Columbia Ridge landfill located in Arlington, OR. The work required daily interactions with the local operational management staff of the Union Pacific Railroad and weekly communications with their corporate offices in Omaha, NE. Quarterly meetings were also held with corporate staff of the Union Pacific Railroad in an effort to maintain good rail service to the City of Seattle. Waste -by -Rail Program Design Build Operate. Waste Management & Kitsap County, Port Orchard, WA. After the closure of Waste Management's Olympic View Landfill in 2002, project work began cooperatively with Kitsap County on a design, build, finance, operate (DBFO) intermodal transfer station, seamlessly redirecting more than 250,000 tons per year of waste from the old landfill to the Columbia Ridge Landfill, some 300 miles away. 24 to 28 intermodal containers were transported each day requiring between 12 to 14 rail well cars daily to handle the waste volume. A unit train of 50 well cars, containing approximately four days worth of waste, is transported weekly via short line rail service from the transfer station to the mainline near Centralia, Washington. The rail cars are interlined with the Union Pacific Railroad and transported to the Columbia Ridge landfill in Arlington, Oregon for disposal. Successful negotiations were finalized and a favorable transportation agreement was developed with the two railroads involved in the move. Roger North Vice President, Engineering Services Professional Biography Mr. North is Vice President of Engineering for KENNEC. Mr. North is the principal engineer in charge of all civil and geotechnical engineering performed by KENNEC, with a particular emphasis on solid waste projects. Mr. North has extensive engineering and project management experience in all aspects of solid and hazardous waste facility permitting, design, construction, and environmental compliance. He also has extensive geotechnical and geoenvironmental consulting, construction and project management experience in the United States, United Kingdom, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. In his most recent role with Waste Management, Mr. North was responsible for all engineering aspects of five solid waste landfills, one hazardous waste landfill, and numerous transfer stations, material recycling facilities, maintenance facilities and support facilities in Pacific Northwest. His engineering responsibilities typically included permitting, design, contract procurement, construction management, environmental compliance and operational issues. These landfills received 400 to 8,500 tons of waste per day, and had annual capital budgets of $20,000,000 to $30,000,000. Mr. North managed both internal engineering resources and external consultants. Education Slone Program, London Business School M.S., Civil Engineering M.I.T. B.S., Civil Engineering, The City University, London Registrations /Certifications Oregon Registered Professional Engineer Georgia Registered Professional Engineer U.K. Member Institution of Civil Engineers Professional Affiliations American Society of Civil Engineers Institution of Civil Engineers Professional Work History and Relevant Experience 1995 to April 2006 Northwest Engineering Manager, Waste Management Inc., Portland, Oregon Successfully completed expansion permitting at three solid waste landfills. These successful expansions added over 100 million cubic yards of solid waste disposal capacity. Currently in the process of overseeing expansion permitting at two other KENNEC 1 Roger North Vice President, Engineering Services landfills with the goal of adding over 50 years of solid waste disposal capacity. Both of the current projects have a high probability of success. Managed the design and construction of over 25 new landfill cells, and landfill closure systems, which meet Federal Subtitle -D and Subtitle -C standards. The new landfill cells include single and double liner systems. Some of the projects required complex designs related to siting the landfills in flood plain areas, and over poor subsurface conditions, including peat and liquefiable soils. Proposed and gained approval from federal and state regulators for one of Oregon's largest wetland mitigation projects and the creation of a 50 -acre wetland bank. Optimized and refined landfill cells and final cover system designs during construction resulting in saving over $10,000,000 in construction and adding hundreds of thousands of yards of waste disposal air space. Completed designs using geosynthetics and recycled materials such as shredded tires (as drainage materials, and retaining wall backfill), and crushed glass (as drainage and operations layers). Negotiated agency approval to place additional waste over an unlined area of an existing landfill for over a year, in exchange for closure commitments. 1990 and 1992 to 1995 Senior Engineer /Regional Business Manager, GeoSyntec Consultants, Atlanta, GA Performed dual role of Senior Engineer managing geotechnical and remediation projects and Business Manager responsible for administration (accounting, drafting and support staff) for a 60 person office. As resident engineer and engineer of record, simultaneously managed four contracts on $35,000,000 superfund remediation /removal project at a former Sinclair oil refinery in Wellsville, New York. Established and managed geotechnical exploration, assessment, and remedial design of $120,000,000 rehabilitation of over 20 miles of flood protection levees in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Provided peer review of foundation designs for two major hotel developments over soft soils in Indonesia. Managed design and construction of soil vapor and groundwater treatment systems, slurry walls and other barrier methods related to Subtitle C and D landfills and closure systems. Introduced office systems to track profitability, reduce invoicing time, and improve collections. *KENNEC 2 Roger North Vice President, Engineering Services 1991 Independent Consulting Performed due diligence in Budapest for British company considering purchase of Hungarian engineering entity. Advised US Management Consultancy in internal reorganization. Performed analysis of currency exposure of US multinational engineering consultancy. 1982 to 1990 Senior Engineer, Law Companies, Inc., Atlanta, GA; 1982 to 1990 Engineering consulting, geotechnical design, and construction supervision for several hundred projects - commercial, industrial and military - in US, Far East, Middle East, and Africa, with fees up to $1M and construction budgets to $300M. Select highlights include: Established and managed geotechnical program, designed foundations and deep excavation systems for John Portman's Shanghai Centre project, which at the time was the largest foreign investment project and tallest building in Shanghai. Project was constructed over soft compressible soils using deep piles and compensated raft foundations. Saved over $10,000,000 in foundation installation costs. Also managed entire construction quality control program over three year period. Designed foundations and deep excavations for NationsBank Tower, Peachtree Center, and MCI at Ravinia, three of the larger developments in Atlanta. Undertook site design program for Voice of America broadcast facilities in Botswana. Numerous pile design projects for paper mills, offshore facilities, offices and industrial facilities in many countries. Performed geotechnical design and engineering for a palm oil refinery over soft and organic soils in Malaysia. Foundation design, stability analyses for several major projects in Saudi Arabia including, high rise buildings, airport facilities, military underground command centers and deep excavations and embankments for highway projects. KENNEL Mike Stewart Vice President of Construction Services Professional Biography Mr. Stewart is Vice - President of Construction Services with KENNEC Inc. Mr. Stewart has more than 25 years of experience in solid waste, geotechnical, and remedial design and construction. He is a proven Project Manager who has consistently demonstrated the ability to meet client expectations and to complete projects on time and within budget. He has provided engineering and /or construction services at over 75 solid and hazardous waste landfills owned and operated by public and private clients throughout Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, California, Wyoming, and Arizona. These facilities include small community landfills, mid -sized community landfills, and major regional facilities. He is familiar with solid waste regulations in all of the states he has provided consulting services, and with Federal (RCRA Subtitle D) solid waste regulations. His typical responsibilities include project management, performing geotechnical site characterization programs, preparing solid waste permit applications and modifications, designing landfill expansions and landfill closures, preparing landfill master plans, and providing landfill operators with operational assistance. His typical construction related services include writing technical specifications that complement construction drawings, preparing construction contract documents, preparing construction quality assurance plans, providing construction management, managing construction quality assurance programs, and managing design /build construction services. Mr. Stewart also manages the preparation of work plans and construction documents related to site remediation activities and manages construction of these projects. Mr. Stewart is a Certified Construction Specifier (CCS) with the Construction Specifications Institute and a Level IV Certified Engineering Technician with the National Institute for the Certification of Engineering Technologies (NICET) in Geotechnical Construction and Materials Testing. Education Graduate, North American School of Conservation and Ecology, 1974 Construction Management Certification, San Jose State University, 1988 Additional Training: Annual HAZWOPER 8 Hour Health and Safety Training Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), American Red Cross Supervision of Hazardous Waste Operations, IT Corporation, Short Course, Seattle Washington Specification Writing for Civil Engineering, Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) 1989 Mike Stewart Vice President of Construction Services Registrations /Certifications Level IV Certified Engineering Technician, National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) in Geotechnical Engineering Construction and Materials Testing, 1990 Certified Construction Specifier, Construction Specification Institute Professional Affiliations National Institute for Certification of Engineering Technologies (NICET) American Society of Certified Engineering Technicians Construction Specifications Institute American Society for Testing and Materials Professional Work History and Relevant Experience October 1980 — January 2006 Senior Project Manager, EMCON /OWT, Inc., Bothell, Washington LANDFILL PERMITTING Managed preparation of a design report, design drawings, plan of operation, and closure and post - closure plan as part of a solid waste permit application for lateral expansion of the Greater Wenatchee Regional Landfill. Project included geotechnical investigations, composite lined expansion design, landfill closure design, operation plans, closure plans, post - closure plans, and financial assistance plans. Completed preparation off a Class III solid waste operating permit for a new Class III landfill in Sitka, Alaska. The new landfill permit was required due to planned closure of the City's only other landfill. The landfill is permitted to accept inert waste and asbestos, and in the event that off island disposal of municipal solid waste was interrupted, the permit allows limited emergency disposal of municipal solid waste. Managed preparation of a solid waste operating permit application for the City of Casper Regional Landfill in Casper Wyoming. Project involved assimilation of existing hydrogeologic and design information, and preparation of landfill design modifications in support of the application for a new regional landfill with 400,000,000 cubic yards of design capacity. Application elements included a design report, engineering drawings, plan of operation, closure and post - closure plan and construction quality control /quality assurance plan. Completed preparation of a solid waste permit modification for lateral expansion of Sudbury Road Landfill, in Walla Walla, Washington. Approval of the permit modification allowed final design and construction of the first Mike Stewart Vice President of Construction Services composite lined expansion of the facility. The composite lined expansion was initiated due to potential groundwater impacts related to the existing unlined landfill. Managed solid waste permit modification for a municipal solid waste landfill in Wasco County, Oregon. The project involved modification of an existing permit to reflect a new site development plan. Modifications included a new set of site development plans and an alternative liner design. The permit modification was followed by the preparation of construction documents for the first three new cells. Construction of the first cell began in the fall of 2000 and was completed in the spring of 2001. Construction of the second cell took place in 2002. Construction of the third cell was completed in phases in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Mr. Stewart remained involved throughout the construction phase of each cell managing earthwork CQA services and assisting the owner with contract administration. Design of the third cell included a modification of site development plans, which resulted in a dramatic decrease in earthwork construction (approximately 800,000 yards), saving the client millions of dollars in near term development costs, and resulted in an increase in design capacity of approximately 2,000,000 cubic yards dramatically increasing the site's market value. Managed solid waste permit renewal for a municipal solid waste landfill in Walla Walla, Washington. The project included a new site development plan that allowed a vertical expansion of the site. The vertical expansion resulted in delaying closure construction saving the client several hundred thousand dollars in closure fund deposits. The vertical expansion also substantially increased the capacity and life of the site at very little additional capital cost. Managed preparation of a full solid waste permit application under 173 -351 WAC for an existing and expanded solid waste facility for the City of Walla Walla. Project included hydrogeologic and geotechnical investigations, hydrogeologic reports, existing landfill closure design, new landfill expansion design, operation plans, closure plans, post - closure plans, and financial assistance plans. Also managed design and preparation of construction contract documents for the first cell of landfill expansion, and then performed contract administration and CQA services during construction. Managed the preparation of Solid Waste Facility Permit Application for a new landfill in Franklin County, Washington. Project involved permitting a new composite -lined municipal solid waste landfill that met existing state and federal regulations and included design reports, closure plan, post - closure plan, and financial assurance documents. Upon issuance of the permit, prepared construction documents and construction quality assurance plan. Managed construction of the first eight -acre lined cell. Mike Stewart Vice President of Construction Services Managed preparation of two solid waste permit applications for landfills on Adak Island, Alaska for the US Navy. Projects included assembly of existing data and reports and preparation of new information in support of the applications. LANDFILL EXPANSION AND CONSTRUCTION Assisted with design and construction services related to an 8 -acre landfill expansion at Riverbend Landfill. This difficult project required demolition of a decommissioned leachate pond, and then construction of an 8 -acre double lined landfill cell. The new cell was designed and constructed to connect to three existing lined cells and each existing cell had a different liner system. Managed design /build services for LFG system repair at a closed solid waste landfill in King County, Washington. The project included diagnostics to determine causes of system failure and then design and construction of new extraction systems and perimeter monitoring systems. Managed construction quality assurance program for three double -lined landfill cells in Jackson County, Oregon. The first was 15 acres in size and was constructed with a compacted clay liner (CCL) / geomembrane composite liner system. The second and third had a composite liner using GCL to replace the CCL component of the composite liner system. In the first construction season the client needed to utilize the cell as soon as possible, so Mr. Stewart prepared the certification report as work progressed and delivered it to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality upon substantial completion of the project allowing the owner to occupy the cell within 30 days of substantial completion. Mr. Stewart is currently providing conceptual plans to modify site development plans at the landfill. The modification would allow gravity drainage of leachate to an evaporation pond, eliminating the need for pumping the leachate. Mr. Stewart also provided conceptual design services for the next planned expansion of the site. Managed design of two scalehouse improvements and parking improvements for transfer stations in King County, Washington. The project included demolition and replacement of the scalehouses without disruption of refuse disposal activities at the sites. Managed preparation of construction drawings and technical specifications for nine composite -lined cells and two double -lined leachate storage ponds for a landfill in Medical Lake, Washington. Managed construction contracts and CQA programs during construction of each cell and then prepared certification reports. Mike Stewart Vice President of Construction Services Managed design of a 14 -acre composite lined industrial landfill for Weyerhaeuser Company in Cowlitz County, Washington. Design included an innovative gravity leachate conveyance system and stormwater diversion system. The gravity leachate system eliminated the need for long -term leachate pumping at the landfill. The stormwater diversion systems greatly reduced leachate production and associated treatment costs for the landfill. During construction assisted the Owner with construction contract management and managed CQA services. Managed construction quality assurance (CQA) services for phased construction of Cells II, III, and IV over a 10 -year period at Hillsboro Landfill in Hillsboro, Oregon. Supervised CQA services, assisted owner in management of construction contracts, prepared CQA manuals, and prepared certification reports. Prepared construction contract documents and technical specifications, and provided senior review of construction drawings for a slurry wall surrounding the Hobart Landfill in King County, Washington. Served as construction quality assurance manager during construction. Provided resident engineering and construction quality assurance services for construction of 22 -acre, composite -lined regional landfill and leachate evaporation pond for initial development of a regional landfill in Gilliam County, Oregon. Prepared construction contract documents, managed construction quality assurance services, and prepared construction certification report. Managed CQA services for a composite -lined landfill expansion at Northern Wasco Landfill in The Dalles, Oregon. Prepared construction contracts, technical specifications, and CQA manual. Subsequently managed CQA services and provided construction contract administration, including change order preparation and contractor payment. Managed three composite -lined landfill expansions at Cowlitz County Landfill in Washington. Managed CQA services during construction of the first a 10 -acre composite -lined cell. Prepared CQA manual, managed construction contract, managed quality assurance services, including on- site and off -site geotechnical testing services, and prepared construction certification report. Provided design through construction project management for second 10 -acre composite -lined cell at the site. Expansion designs met new Subtitle D liner regulations. Served as resident engineer during site development and cell construction of the Kirby Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Santa Clara County, California. Provided resident engineering, construction contract administration, and construction quality assurance. Project included 2.2 miles of paved road, landfill cell development, including nearly one million cubic yards of Mike Stewart Vice President of Construction Services earthwork, leachate collection facilities, grout curtain for leachate cutoff wall, potable water supply, and stormwater control structures. Prepared the Billings Sanitary Landfill Master Plan. The plan provides short- and long -term planning for landfill operations, expansion, and closure over the next 50 years. It includes preliminary designs for a five - cell Tined expansion of the site and a phasing plan for developing the improvements in conjunction with waste placement. The plan also includes cost estimates for all planned capital improvements. Costs are presented in a cash flow projection within the plan. Follow -up work included designing and preparing construction documents for the first phase of development, which includes a soil -lined cell, a 30 -acre closure and a perimeter access road. Managed preparation of construction documents and provided CQA services during the 30 -acre closure project. Also recently completed a Tier 2 NMOC emissions report for the landfill. Prepared construction contract documents for a nine -acre composite -lined cell at the Riverbend Landfill in McMinnville, Oregon. During construction assisted the owner in administering the construction contract, managed CQA services and prepared certification report. LANDFILL CLOSURE Design manager for the design /build closure of a municipal solid waste landfill in Franklin County, Washington. The site was being closed under CERCLA. The project involved geomembrane closure systems for the solid waste landfill and composite cover systems for the industrial waste sites. The landfill closure system includes an active gas collection and combustion system and stormwater control systems. Closure construction took place in the summer of 2001 and Mr. Stewart remained involved providing design and construction quality control services through the self - perform construction project. Managed construction quality assurance program for a 19 -acre geomembrane closure in Wenatchee, Washington. Project involved geomembrane closure system with a passive LFG system and stormwater run off controls. Prepared a complete construction certification report following completion of work. Managed design of a 50 -acre closure for Hillsboro Landfill in Hillsboro, Oregon. Closure design included a composite cover system, stormwater conveyance systems, leachate collection and conveyance systems, and LFG collection systems. Prepared construction documents for the first phase of the closure. Prepared closure and post - closure plan for an industrial waste landfill at the Washington Public Power Supply System WNP -2 Power Plant. Work Mike Stewart Vice President of Construction Services included negotiating closure requirements with the Department of Ecology. Prepared construction contract documents for implementation of the closure following acceptance of the plans and then managed CQA program during construction. Managed CQA of a geomembrane landfill closure at Riverbend Landfill. Assisted in managing construction contract, administered progress meetings, and prepared certification report. Provided construction management services for two 15 -acre landfill closures at Hidden Valley Landfill in Pierce County, Washington. Prepared multiple prime construction contracts, a project work plan and then managed multiple prime contractors working in conjunction with the owner's forces to complete the construction. Also managed CQA services and prepared certification reports. Provided construction management services for two landfill closures at the Purdy Landfill in Kitsap County, Washington. Prepared geomembrane installation contract documents, a project work plan and then managed geomembrane contractor working in conjunction with the owner's forces to complete the construction. Also managed CQA services and prepared certification reports Provided construction management services during a 70 -acre, three - phase closure and stormwater improvements project at a sanitary landfill in Clark County, Washington. Assisted in closure design and prepared construction contract documents and CQA manuals. Administered construction contracts during construction and prepared construction certification reports following construction. Performed independent review of the landfill closure design on behalf of the Tulalip Tribe in Snohomish County, Washington. Elements of closure included geomembrane cover, LFG collection, surface water controls, access roads, and erosion protection for the 150 -acre site. Design review resulted in significant design improvements implemented by EPA. Managed preparation of construction contract documents and provided construction management services during a 38 -acre landfill closure in Cowlitz County, Washington. Construction management included CQA program, submittal approvals, change order preparation, and other contract administrative work. Managed construction management services during four separate landfill closure projects at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill in King County, Washington. Prepared construction contract documents and quality assurance manuals, administered construction contract, and managed construction services team on all four projects. The four closure areas Mike Stewart Vice President of Construction Services were 35, 27, 52, and 45 acres respectively, and included geomembrane final cover, LFG collection and perimeter leachate cutoff and collection trenches. Served as project engineer for construction services during a 22 -acre landfill closure in Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared construction contract documents and provided periodic submittal review, design clarification, and construction observation during project. 1979 — 1980 Engineering Technician, Nordmo Associates, Santa Clara California Engineering technician responsible for geotechnical investigations and report preparation related to foundation designs of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. Also responsible for geotechnical laboratory testing and field inspection and testing services during earthwork construction related to previously investigated building sites. 1978 — 1979 Labor Forman, BW Construction, San Jose, California Responsible for supervising 4 -12 laborers during concrete construction activities for residential, commercial, and industrial building construction. 1975 — 1979 Engineering Technician, W.A. Wahler and Associates, Palo Alto, California Engineering technician responsible for geotechnical investigations and report preparation related to foundation designs of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, and other earthwork related construction activities. Also responsible for a wide range of geotechnical laboratory testing including unconfined, direct shear, triaxial and dynamic strength testing, and many soil characterization test methods. Provided field inspection and testing services during earthwork construction projects. Publications Application of the Design /Build Method to Landfill Construction, SWANA 3rd Annual Landfill Symposium, 1998. Geosynthetic Landfill Cover Design Methodology and Construction Experience in the Pacific Northwest, North American Regional Conference on Geosynthetics. Mike Stewart Vice President of Construction Services Field Construction Quality Assurance of Geotextile Installations, 6th Geosynthetics Research Institute Seminar, QC /QA and CQC /CQA of Geosynthetics. Adding Value to Construction Quality Assurance Services, NSWMA, Waste Tech Conference, 1994. Professional Awards Winner of Award of Excellence at North American Regional Conference on Geosynthetics, 1993 for paper titled Geosynthetic Landfill Cover Design Methodology and Construction Experience in the Pacific Northwest Building Council (USGBC) CONSTANCE HORNIG, ESQ. Law Offices 1415 Victoria Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90019 Telephone 323 934 -4601 * Telefax 323 934 -3742 Hornig @MSWesq.com RESUME / PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Education and practice experience. I represent only public entities with respect to the entire spectrum of integrated solid waste management system and service agreement planning, procurement, contracting and financing, as described below. I have 28 years' experience in waste management and public finance. Following my graduation from Harvard University (AB) magna cum laude and the University of Chicago (JD), I practiced in the municipal bond departments of the large firms LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae, and Brown & Wood in New York and San Francisco and studied waste disposal siting and financing in Japan on a Fulbright fellowship. Collection and recycling contracting: diversion. I represent local governments in sole source and competitive procurement of collection contracts and franchises (or ordinances), including evolving from a regulatory permit system to a bilateral contractual one. Agreements can create combinations of financial incentives and disincentives for diversion. Transfer / disposal service. I represent local governments that are procuring waste transfer and disposal agreements, including long term, long haul service and transport by rail, truck and barge to assorted landfill disposal options. MRFs, transfer etc. facilities. I work with teams comprised of sanitation staff, consulting engineers, financial advisers and investment bankers developing individual projects and integrated systems, for both privately and publicly owned/operated facilities. Landfill , operation, purchase /sale and indemnifications. I work with public entities that own landfills but contract for their operation. I have worked on landfill sales and acquisitions. MSW project economic feasibility analysis; bond financing. My background lies in MSW finance, including enterprise funded credit. A list of solid waste financings in which I have served as bond or underwriters' counsel, is attached. I work with engineering firms that review projects' design, permitting, costs, contracts etc. in order to evaluate their economic feasibility. Throughout most of the '90s I was on the CA State Treasurer's list of approved bond counsel for the California Pollution Control Finance Authority and served on the CPCFA's team of project feasibility consultants. MSW contractual and regulatory infrastructure. In the context of MSW revenue bond financing, I have helped shape "flow control" strategies to assure a steady stream of revenues to repay bonds. I also advise local governments on contractual (e.g. collection / transfer / disposal service agreements), regulatory (e.g. license and permit conditions, ordinance designations) and economic (e.g. generator fees) infrastructure that provides fully integrated MSW management and funding. Waste company mergers and acquisitions: assignment requests. I work with municipalities whose contract haulers or service providers are acquired by larger solid waste companies (including both Allied / BFI and Waste Management, Inc.), triggering consent for assignments of the service agreements. Intergovernmental agreements. I work with local governments on agreements to provide waste processing (MRF) and disposal (landfill) services (sometimes referred to as "flow control" agreements), as well as planning and diversion responsibilities. Examples include Joint Power Agreements and/or the creation of Joint Power Authorities or service agreements. Privatized MSW services. I represent local governments in privatization of municipal services procurements, including drafting RFQs, RFPS and contracts; evaluating proposals; and negotiating service agreements /franchises. (I also draft licenses and permits.) I served as procurement counsel on the privatization of municipal collection services in Colton, CA. I was part of an Inter American Development Bank team advising San Salvador, El Salvador on the privatization of its waste disposal and processing system. Legislation and Regulation. I am a delegate from the southern California Founding Chapter of SWANA to SWANA's California Legislative Task Force. My role includes not only reviewing pending CA law and regulation, but providing detailed comment to the LTF and League of Cities on bills such as SB 1340 (Polanco) on AB 939 indemnifications and SB 2241 (Brulte) haulers' 5 -year continuation rights in CA. I also review, revise and draft local legislation, especially in the context of capital facility financings and evolving State and federal law. I also helped draft recycling loan program regulations for the California Integrated Waste Management Board. I advised Barbados on comprehensive MSW law re- codification as part of an InterAmerican Development Bank team. Recycling development - RMDZs. I have served as special counsel to the California Integrated Waste Management Board with respect to financing recycling remanufacturers in Recycling Market Development Zones and represented the California Association of Recycling Market Development Zones with respect to its incorporation. Japanese waste financing research. I was awarded a Fulbright fellowship to study the financing of resource recovery facilities in Japan. I was affiliated with the sanitary and environmental engineering departments at Tokyo University and Kyoto University. Subsequently I served on the Council for International Exchange of Scholars' practicing lawyers discipline committee of Fulbright alumni which reviews grant proposals for Fulbright fellowships. Professional organizations. I am the corporate (legal) international board member of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), as well as member of its Executive Committee. I am a frequent speaker and teacher at professional waste management organizations, such as: ❑ SWANA, C the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), C California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA), C Northern California Recycling Association (NCRA), ❑ National Recycling Coalition (NRC), ❑ U.S. Conference of Mayors/ Municipal Waste Management Association, ❑ California County Engineers Association (CEAC) etc. Publications and Teaching. Trade periodicals such as Waste Age, Biocycle and MSW Management frequently publishes my articles on solid waste management transaction issues, including MSW Management's "Legal Brief', a series of articles where I discuss issues frequently encountered in drafting, procuring and negotiating MSW service contracts. I teach MSW contracting courses for SWANA and developed a Solid Waste Outsourcing training event for the World Bank. CONSTANCE HORNIG: PUBLICATIONS MSW contract procurement "Privatization of Municipal Solid Waste Management Services" in PRIVATIZING GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS, published by Law Journal Press, updated semi - annually. "The Procurement Process: The Five Commandments of Outsourcing ", MSW Management November /December 2000. http: / /www. forester .net /msw0012_procurement.html "Outsourcing Decision Criteria: The Four Commandments of Contracting ", MSW Management Elements 2000. http: / /www. forester .net /msw9912_outsourcing.html "Proper Contract Constraints During Municipal Contract Procurement: A Level Playing Field ", MSW Management March/April 1999 "Evaluating Indemnification Clauses ", MSW Magazine May /June 1999 Collection contracts "In the beginning is the End: Planning for a Smooth Transition Following Expiration or Termination of Your Collection Contract ", http:// www. forester.net /mw_0606_legal.html "Franchises Versus Service Contracts, Codes Versus Agreements" MSW Management: Elements 2001. http: / /www. forester .net /mw0106_franchises.html "Collection Contracts: Post - Carbone ", World Wastes, November 1996 "The Interrelationships of Municipalities' Collection Contract and Haulers' Commercial Customer Subscriptions ", MSW Management May /June 2003. http://www.forester.net/mw_0305 legal.html "Variable Can Pricing: Generator Diversion/ Hauler Generation Incentive ", http: // www. forester.net /mw0405_legal.html Landfills "Landfill Financial Assurance ", MSW Management Elements 1995 MRFs "MRF Ownership and Operation Options" in MSW Management March/April 1995. General MSW Management Transaction / Contracting "Preserving the Benefits of Your Bargain: Rate Adjustment Options ", in MSW Management Elements 2005. http : / /www.mswmanagement.com/mw 0506 legal.html "Money Talks: Financial (Dis)incentives for Performance ", MSW Magazine, January /February 2004. http://www.forester.net/mw 0401Jegal.html "Sharing and Minimizing Labor Risk ", MSW Magazine, November /December 2003. http://www.forester.net/mw_0311 legal.html "Tra$headed Ca$h: Contractor Credit Risks That Can Trash Your MSW System ", MSW Magazine September /October 2003. http: // www. forester.net /mw_0309_legal.html "Public Ownership: Cost and Control Advantages ", MSW Management March/April 1994 "Is Your Facility A Good Candidate for Refinancing ? ", MSW Management July /August 1993 "Protecting Yourself From the Vertical Integration Grab ", MSW Management Elements '99. "Insuring against Integrated Waste Management Risks" MSW Management July /August 1996. Financial analysis InterAmercian Development Bank: I co- authored "Economic Instruments for Solid Waste Management - A Global Framework Paper" http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocumentaspx?docnum=645712. Solid Waste Association of North America's ( "SWANA "): ❑ "Outsourcing of Solid Waste Services" (formerly "Evaluating and Managing Privatization of MSW Management Services ") ❑ Contract Administration and Enforcement "webinar" ❑ "Contract Procurement Basics" 3- part " webinar" (1) Chickens - and -Eggs: inter - relationship of capital costs, rate adjustment and contract term CONSTANCE HORNIG: TEACHING (2) Getting What You Bargained For: performance assurances and contract enforcement (3) In the Beginning is the End: planning ahead for the expiration or termination of your contracts. World Bank. I developed and delivered a solid waste contracting course for the World Bank. The third presentation is of most interest to US municipalities, and is representative of the types of issues encountered repeatedly in structuring, procuring and negotiating MSW service contracts. (The live video link includes a detailed power -point outline.) http:/ / info. worldbank. org /etools /BSPAN /EventView.asp ?PID = 1387 &EID =679 US State Department (Asian Enterprise Partners) supported my MSW procurement presentation at 2001 Water & Waste Global Summit in Singapore. CONSTANCE HORNIG: SAMPLE WASTE PROJECTS COLLECTION CONTRACT PROCUREMENT Elk Grove: competitive procurement of residential collection and disposal agreements; commercial fees. I advised the newly incorporated City with respect to solid waste issues, including decisions with respect to joining the joint powers authority to administer commercial and multifamily diversion programs and regional authority for AB 939 planning and compliance; drafting and negotiating a sole source residential collection contract with the current waste hauler and a residential service contract with Sacramento County; drafting 5 year notice for the commercial haulers; drafting an AB 939 commercial fee ordinance; and drafting residential collection and disposal agreements for a competitive procurement. I worked as part of a team competitively procuring the residential collection franchise with separate disposal agreement. I continue to help the City develop regulatory framework for commercial hauling diversion programs, closed landfill acquisition and development, and on -going solid waste advice. Cedar Kehoe, Solid Waste administrator 916 478 -3634. City of Hawthorne: Competitive non exclusive commercial and exclusive residential franchise procurement. I worked with Dave Davis of MSW Consultants and Gary Liss of GLA Associates on the City of Hawthorne's competitive procurement of refuse, recyclables and yard waste services for the residential (exclusive) and commercial (non exclusive) sector. I drafted City facilities' services, illegally dumped waste and bus stop collection agreements. I continue work with the City on diverse MSW matters, such as the extension of the commercial agreements, enforcement of residential franchise obligations (including franchise fee payment); competitive procurement of abandoned bulky waste collection / bus stop refuse, and City facilities refuse collection agreements. I continue to work with the City on bulky waste, bust stop collection and City facilities collection contracts. Glen Shishido, Russ Miyahara, City Attorney's office 310 970 -7990. Sunnyvale: extension of exclusive solid waste franchise. City Council directed staff to extend the existing franchise, and I helped secure tighter service standards and stronger enforcement measures. Mark Bowers. City of Compton: Collection Contract Procurement and "Municipalization". I was part of a team initially advising the City on the competitive procurement of collection contracts, but subsequently advising on aspects of providing service with municipal employees. Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority: Recycling and Diversion Incentives. I worked with the Authority, whose national recycling contractor sought relief from minimum recovered materials price commitments in its recyclables collection, processing and marketing agreement in mediation and rate review proceedings. We explored ways to amend the franchise agreement to provide for new and/or alternative financial incentives to reduce contamination and increase diversion. Janet Schneider, Executive Director, 510 906 -1801. Stanislaus County and City of Modesto: Consent to Assignment of Collection Franchises. I represented the County and City, which are partners in a WTE facility, in conducting due diligence with respect to requests for assignment of a local franchise to USA Waste and recommending franchise supplements or modifications. I represented the County in connection with a second such request for assignment to new Waste Management, Inc. Reference: Kevin Williams (no longer with the County). City of Allentown, PA: competitive procurement. I advised the City with respect to competitive procurement alternatives to public bidding requirements, with its associated constraints. Betsy Levin, Bureau of Solid Waste and Recycling 610 437 -8729. City of Colton: Collection Privatization. I represented the City of Colton which privatized its municipal collection system and procured integrated refuse, recyclables and green waste collection, processing /composting and disposal services. I worked with R.W. Beck preparing and evaluating the Request for Qualifications, developing the performance specifications and service standards, drafting the service agreement and preparing the RFP. I also drafted municipal code revisions to update and coordinate it with the new scope of services. I continued thereafter to represent the City in the administration of the franchise agreement. Assistant City Manager Daryl Parrish 909 370 -5051. Ojai: Sold Source Re procurement of Collection Franchise. This small City felt it could not attract bidders in a competitive procurement, and I helped with business and drafting issues in forming a new agreement with the existing hauler. California Integrated Waste Management Board: Recycling Manufacturing Finance. I have served as a special counsel for the CIWMB. I worked with recycling development team (including the Center for Business and Environmental Studies /California State University, Hayward; The National Development Council; recycling consultants, Gainer & Associates; and McGill Associates) promoting recycling market development. My role was to develop bonding mechanisms, including documentation for local Industrial Development Authorities to issue private activity/ small issue industrial development bonds to finance small industry which uses recovered materials to manufacture new products. I worked with Board Counsel preparing the Recycling Market Development Zone (RMDZ) loan regulations and participates in the CIWMB's recycling round tables for its Recycling Market Development Zone program. I drafted loan documentation for CIWMB loans to local governments for recycling /remanufacturing. With the marketing group, I contributed to its paper, Financing Options for Recycling -based Manufacturers and MRF Development, presented to the CIWMB Market Development Committee. I drafted legislation for creating a State owned recycling loan bank. I have also advised the Board with respect to State bond legislation to finance recycling infrastructure and secondary materials manufacturers' capital and operating cost needs. I worked on structuring secondary market offerings of RMDZ loans and loan sales and recycling bond issues, in order to leverage the Board's RMDZ loan monies. Washington County, OR. I drafted "Legal Issues and Considerations Related to Contracting / Franchising Options" in the 11 -2000 REVIEW OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICES - Washington County, Oregon" prepared by Skumatz Economic Research Associates. This section discussed possible County options for structuring commercial collection in light of the AGG case that held federal aviation law preempted local regulation of commercial roll off or drop off box collection. West Jordan, UT: competitive procurement. I worked on competitive procurement of refuse, recyclables and a new yard waste program for West Jordan, Utah. The City takes subscription orders, prepares and submits bills, and procures and owns containers. MOVING FROM COLLECTION PERMIT TO FRANCHISE / CONTRACTS SYSTEM Los Angeles County: Developing Exclusive / Semi - Exclusive and Non - Exclusive Residential / Commercial Franchise Agreements. Since 2002 I have been working with the County to increase its AB 939 diversion by developing franchise agreements for collection in the unincorporated area of the County, including drafting the franchise agreements, meeting and with the stakeholder haulers' Working Group, and advising on service specifications and standards. Judith Fries, County Counsel's office (213) 974 1834. Fred Rubin, DPW. Monterey County: Competitive exclusive commercial and residential franchise procurement. I helped the County structure its competitive procurement, drafted the franchise agreement and helped evaluate the proposals when the County moved from permits to collection contracts to a contractual relationship in the unincorporated, northeastern area of the County. Mono County: Developing Semi - Exclusive Franchises. I represented the County which is developing franchises in order to secure waste flow to its landfill, including developing the Code and contract provisions and assisting in negotiations with incumbent haulers. Stacey Simon (County Counsel's office), Evan Nikirk. City of Santa Maria: Developing Semi - Exclusive franchises for Compactor Collection. I consulted with the City to develop a strategy to secure delivery of refuse collected in compactors to the City's landfill, such as through semi - exclusive agreements with incumbent haulers and developing a self -haul opt -out for generators. La Canada Flintridge: Developing Collection Contracts. I helped develop non - exclusive residential and commercial collection service contracts with facility designation provisions for residential and commercial waste collection in the City of La Canada Flintridge, which was under a compliance order and needed to establish diversion incentives and program accountability not possible under its prior permit system. Steve Castellanos (former Public Works Director) and Mary Goytia Strauss 818 790 8882. Folsom: Developing C&D Franchising. The City's extension of AB 939 compliance was conditioned on implementing C &D diversion, and I worked with the City in an attempt to implement a C &D franchise system. Rick Shaw, Recycling Supervisor. Santa Barbara County: Flow Control and Collection Contracting; Assignments. I worked with County counsel and solid waste staff procuring first -time exclusive franchise agreements with the County's existing permittees, and helped negotiate contract provisions. I subsequently advised it with respect to requests for assignment of two collection contracts to Waste Management, Inc., including possible contract changes or preconditions which address due diligence and contract impacts. I also helped staff with respect to franchise extensions related to C &D processing facility development. I drafted a memorandum outlining the (dis)advantages of diverse forms of regional cooperation for a County- cities Regional Waste Symposium. I reviewed the County's solid waste code, especially with respect to flow control issues and the bond financing of the planned waste processing facility. I also advised the County with respect to the reprocurement of its recycling agreements and formation of a joint powers authority with the City of Santa Barbara. I conducted a regulatory disposal compliance survey. Reference: Leslie Wells, Solid Waste Division; David McDermott, Assistant County Counsel (now with the City of Ventura), 805 568 -2979. Butte County, mixed waste MRF procurement; landfill operation agreement; collection franchise development; hazardous waste services. I served as part of the County's team striving to develop a MRF to be owned and operated on County land for mixed waste processing of mixed waste, C &D debris and yard waste; re- negotiating the landfill operating agreement with Waste Management; moving from permits to a franchise collection system; and contracting for operation of a hazardous waste management program as well as supplying services to incorporated entities. Reference: Bruce Alpert 530 -538 -7621; Jim DeWeese (no longer working for the County). San Bernardino County: Developing Franchised Collection System. I worked with the County when it moved from a permit system to exclusive contracting through adoption of a detailed franchise ordinance and supplementary franchise agreements. I helped with the structure and content of the ordinance. Bob Jocks in County Counsel's office 909 387 -5462; Kathleen Bingham, project analyst 909 386 -8735; Gerry Newcombe was then Solid Waste Manager. TRANSFER, TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL City of Sacramento: Diversion Compliance, Transfer /transport/disposal. I was the legal member of the City's procurement team which prepared the City's final solicitation of a Best and Final Offer from three short listed proposers to design, permit, construct and operate a transfer station and provide processing /marketing, transportation and disposal services for municipally collected commercial waste. The City looks to the facility to satisfy the local Solid Waste Authority's requirement to divert 30% of commercial waste in furtherance of AB 939 overall mandates. Reina Schwartz, Solid Waste Division Manager. City of Los Angeles: Transfer Services Contract Procurement. I worked with Public Resources Advisory Group and CSI for the City of Los Angeles, analyzing the financial benefits and potential structures for a tax exempt financing program for the five MRFs, composting facility and transfer stations which the City was developing through service agreements with private contractors. I worked with the City legal and sanitation staff and CSI, drafting and negotiating transfer station and haul agreements with Browning Ferris Industries and BKK. Humboldt Waste Management Authority: Transfer Station, Transport, Disposal Procurement. I am part of the Joint Power Authority's (JPA's) procurement team for development of a transfer station to be designed, construction managed, tested and operated by a private contractor on a JPA -owned site; waste transfer haul; and waste disposal. I reviewed and commented on the RFP distributed to a large list of interested parties and drafted the JPA's form of proposed transfer station operation and transfer haul /disposal services agreement. I supported the JPA in its negotiations with the selected proposer. I advised the Authority on issues related to CERCLA indemnification in connection with its acquisition of the local privately owned landfill. Gerald Kindsfather, project manager (retired) City of Lewiston, ID: Integrated Waste Management Procurement. Lewiston is simultaneously competitively procuring 4 agreements: (1) refuse, yard waste and bulky waste collection; (2) recycling collection and processing, (3) refuse transport (from the City's transfer station) and disposal, and moderate risk waste recycling and disposal, and (4) yard waste composing and sewage sludge processing. I drafted all 4 contracts, tied together with a 5th Master Agreement and helping structure and implement the RFP process. Mendocino Waste Management Authority: transfer station, transport, disposal procurement. Following submission of bids, I helped the JPA develop an MOU and agreement for development of a transfer station to be designed, construction managed, tested and operated by a private contractor on a JPA -owned site; waste transfer haul; and waste disposal. (The Authority did not complete the project following failure to secure flow commitments from one of its members.) Mike Sweeney, director Monterey Regional Waste Management District: JPA formation. I advised the District with respect to the formation of a JPA, which it and its present members formed. West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority, CA: transfer & disposal agreements assignment consent. I have represented this joint powers authority in strategic planning for waste transfer and diversion, and with respect to issues raised by acquisition of the Authority's transfer station operator and landfill disposal service provider by Republic Industries. These issues include possible restructuring of the type and amount of closure and post closure funding for the landfill resulting from possible differences in Republic's life cycle projections based on presently unpermitted capacity. Fallon, NV: Contracting Merchant Capacity. The City owns and operates its landfill. I drafted the agreement - including put -or -pay capacity payments - pursuant to which the City provided disposal services to a private hauler. San Juan Capistrano: disposal contract /flow control agreement. I reviewed the landfill disposal services / flow control agreement, pursuant to which Orange County proposed to provide disposal services to the City of San Juan Capistrano if the City committed waste. City of Fortuna: coordinating collection with transfer /rail haul/disposal. I worked with the City in conjunction with the amendment of its collection agreement to coordinate with the City's participation in the Humboldt County JPA's transfer /rail haul/disposal project and drafting landfill services agreement. Gerald Kindsfather, project manager (retired). San Salvador, El Salvador: landfill privatization and development. I was part of an Inter American Development Bank team confidentially advising San Salvador, El Salvador and its surrounding municipalities on the privatization of the city's waste disposal and processing system (particularly a state -of -the -art sanitary landfill) in a difficult municipal /federal political environment. (The foreign private contractor perceived significant project risk stemming from the lengthy civil war, political instability, insurrection, currency risk etc..) Discussions of mutual risk allocations were paramount. City of Stockton: landfill privatization. I was part of a team advising the City on the possible sale of its publicly owned landfills, including particularly the interstate commerce clause / flow control issues. MATERIALS PROCESSING FACILITY DEVELOPMENT City of Oxnard, CA: MRF /Transfer Station Procurement. I served as counsel and chief negotiator for Oxnard in the development of its transfer station/MRF with BLT Enterprises, Inc. I worked with the City's team of financial advisors (Public Resources Advisory Group), engineer (HDR), marketing consultant (CEC) and City public works and planning staff in evaluating proposals and negotiated the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and BLT. Negotiations of the agreement for design, permitting, construction, equipping and operation of the facility, including materials recovery of curbside and clean commercial waste, transfer and transportation of waste and process residue, and marketing of recovered materials, continue. I have also participated in review of a proposal evaluation for procurement of a MRF /transfer station in Ventura County, and prepared an evaluation of the contractual proposals in Best and Final Offers from proposers on that project. I further represented the City with respect to requests for assignment of the service agreement to Republic Services, Inc. and ongoing materials diversion measurement issues. Reference: Cynthia Daniels, MRF project procurement head / presently Public Services Office (805) 385 -7871; Stan Hakes (now with Thousand Oaks). City of Vacaville, CA: mixed waste MRF procurement. I was part of the City's procurement team for development of a mixed waste MRF to help the City reach its mandated AB 939 diversion goals. I reviewed and commented on the RFP distributed to the City's franchised collection hauler and the CA Prison Industries Authority and drafted the City's form of proposed service agreement. In conjunction with this project, I reviewed and commented on the City's solid waste Code and collection franchise. Chuck Lamoree, City Attorney (retired); Connie Donovan, project manager. SMaRT Station: Cities of Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto. I served on the Peer Review Workshop panel to review the Cities' options on expiration of their MRF operating agreement. Riverside County, CA: MRF/Transfer Station Procurement. I was special counsel to the County in the development of its Agua Mansa transfer station/MRF /yard waste processing facility, to be located in an economic development and recycling market development zone. I worked with the City's team of financial advisors (Public Financial Management), engineer (Brown, Vence and Associates), underwriter, bond counsel and County Counsel and waste management staff, developing the RFP, evaluating the proposals, reviewing the MOU and drafting the facility agreement and intergovernmental agreements between the County and local jurisdictions with respect to waste services and waste supply. Reference: Bob Nelson, director, 909 275 -1399. San Diego County: MRF /Composting Facility Procurement. I was co- contracts counsel for San Diego County, drafting and negotiating of a service agreement for MRF services with the California Prison Industries Authority. The terminated project would have used prison labor to sort the County's MSW, applied recovered materials as feedstock in additional prison industries, composted the residue, and generated steam and electricity from the compost gases. The Mojave Desert and Mountain Solid Waste JPA: MRF Procurement. I worked with the JPA's the consulting engineer, R. W. Beck, to draft the request for proposal to the members' hauler, Burrtec, for MRF development. City of Pariier: MRF /Transfer Station Feasibility. I contributed to a feasibility memo for the City with respect to contractual and financing options for the City's proposed transfer station/MRF. Puerto Rico Solid Waste Management Authority. I represented the Puerto Rico solid Waste Management Authority, which was considering adoption of a $480 million capital plan, including two WTE facilities, ten landfills, twenty transfer stations, etc. I prepared a memorandum discussing alternatives for raising service fee payments (e.g. special assessments, ad valorem tax levies, utility bill surcharges, excise tax sharing). CONTRACTUAL, REGULATORY AND ECONOMIC FLOW CONTROL ANALYSES Kings County Solid Waste Management Authority / ordinance review. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Carbone, I reviewed the County's solid waste ordinances and addressed flow control issues in anticipation of the Authority's MRF financing. I also supported Deputy County Counsel drafting and negotiating an agreement for MRF services with Chambers. Reference: in County Counsel's Office, Jim LaPorte (who has become a judge) and Peter Moock. Butte County contractual / regulatory flow control. Butte County needed flow control for 2 compelling reasons: (1) private haulers were diverting waste from the County -owned landfill whose tipping fees supported integrated waste management programs, and the enterprise fund was hemorrhaging, and (2) the County proposed to develop a MRF on County land to achieve State - mandated diversion, and needed to assure the private owner/ operator of certain delivery of recyclables and waste feedstock. Generator fees were not a viable funding option because in this rural county, residents passionately opposed mandatory collection service. So first we tried to achieve contractual flow control by moving from permits to a franchise collection system, but this was unsuccessful. Alternatively, following the Second Court of Appeals decision in United Haulers v. Oneida - Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, we mandated waste delivery to the County's landfill by ordinance. Reference: The attorney with whom I worked, Neil McCabe, is no longer with Butte County Counsel's Office. But the chief County Counsel is Bruce Alpert 530 -538 -7621. Grand Traverse County, MI. The County proposed to competitively procure a bi- lateral collection services agreement designating the County's transfer station for delivery of collected refuse and compensating haul contractor from service fees collected by the County from customers. Waste Management challenged the County designation based on the then recent Huish Detergents, Inc. v. Warren County, Kentucky, a case in the 6 Circuit that includes MI. I prepared a memorandum evaluating the proposed procurement in light of local and national flow control law for the County's consultant, Jim Frey. Mariposa County. The County owns its landfill and was threatened with the loss of waste diverted from Yosemite National Park by a private contract hauler. I advised the County with respect to flow control issues (especially federal non preemption, e.g. Parola and related law). Subsequently, I advised the County on procuring landfill operation agreement. My contact was Tom Starling, now retired, and former County Counsel, Jeff Green. CONSTANCE HORNIG: SAMPLE SOLID WASTE FINANCINGS $90,960,000 Stanislaus Waste -to- Energy Financing Agency Solid Waste Facility Revenue Certificates (Ogden Martin Systems of Stanislaus, Inc. Project) Series 1990 I worked as bond counsel on the refunding of the variable rate California Pollution Control Financing Authority Solid Waste Facility Adjustable Rate Revenue Bonds (Stanislaus Waste Energy Company Project) Series 1985, done as a stand -alone project credit. This financing provided funds for the acquisition and construction of a mass burn, solid waste disposal, resource recovery and electric generating facility in Stanislaus County, California. Ogden Corporation is the vendor. [$100,000,000] California Pollution Control Finance Authority Solid Waste /Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds Browning Ferris Industries, Inc. (Sunshine Canyon) I worked with the CPCFA economic feasibility team reviewing financing of expansion of BFI's Sunshine Canyon landfill in Los Angeles County. This involved both field trips to the new cells under construction and due diligence with respect to waste commitments: both spot market and internalized waste disposal through BFI haul contracts. [$4,300,000] California Pollution Control Finance Authority Solid Waste /Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds Talco Plastics, Inc. I conducted economic feasibility research on the construction of a new facility for processing post- consumer plastics, including reviewing architectural contracts and status of feedstock supply arrangements in post- consumer markets. $24,000,000 California Pollution Control Finance Authority Solid Waste /Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds EDCO Disposal Corporation I conducted preliminary economic feasibility research with respect to proposed transfer station and MRF projects to determine whether the borrower controlled waste tonnage through its collection contracts to support loan repayment for the CPCFA bond term. $24,000,000 [not issued] United Tire Recycling Corporation California Pollution Control Finance Authority Solid Waste /Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds I conducted economic feasibility research with respect to this proposed tire recycling facility, with respect to feedstock supply. $105,000,000 [not issued] California Pollution Control Finance Authority Solid Waste /Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds Canfibre U.S. Limited I conducted economic feasibility research with respect to CPCFA financing of this manufacturing facility which used wood waste to manufacture medium density fiberboard (MDF) without use of environmentally hazardous urea formaldehyde. In particular I reviewed key documents in this project financing, including construction, operating, wood waste supply and MDF product sales agreements, focusing on risk allocation (e.g. force majeure, technology, casualty, inflation, cost over - runs). $14,500,000 California Pollution Control Finance Authority Solid Waste /Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds Taormina Industries, Inc. I conducted economic feasibility research on financing of collection equipment, collection operations yard, MRF /transfer station improvements (e.g. green waste transfer and materials preparation center). [$6,655,0001 California Pollution Control Finance Authority Solid Waste /Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds Refuse Services, Inc. (Escondido Disposal Co.) I conducted feasibility report research for the CPCFA with respect to its proposed bond issue for Escondido Disposal Co., which not only involved review of collection and recycling agreements between Escondido Disposal Co. and the City of Escondido, but farther reaching due diligence with respect to waste supply and flow control in San Diego County, including San Marcos MRF refinancing /sale options vis -a -vis outstanding CPCFA bonds; implications of Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the North County Solid Waste Management Agency; facility CUP and Joint Settlement Agreement and Release, Palomar transfer station settlements, etc. County of Sacramento 1995 Public Facilities Project (Solid Waste Facilities) Certificates of Participation I worked with CH2M Hill on the economic feasibility report, especially with respect to waste supply under contracts, permits and economic flow control scenarios, for the County's financing of the acquisition of buffer land around Kiefer landfill, acquisition and installation of a landfill gas collection system therefor, and an equipment maintenance building adjacent thereto. [$13,188,0001 Tax - Exempt Small Business Assistance Fund California Pollution Control Financing Authority Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. I conducted feasibility research for the CPCFA with respect to the CPCFA's Small Business Assistance Program for Burrtec, including review of waste /recycling collection agreements with Adelanto, Apple Valley, Fontana, Montclair, Rancho Cucamongo, Rubidoux Sanitation Services District, Riverside, Victorville and Yucaipa, as well as MRF operating agreement with the Mojave Desert and Mountain Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority. [$25,000,000] California Pollution Control Finance Authority Solid Waste /Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds Sanifill, Inc. [Final Resolution #581 7- 27 -95] I conducted feasibility research for the CPCFA with respect to financing landfill development and regulatory compliance costs for two landfills: McKitrick Waste Treatment Facility and Redwood Landfill. $11,500,000 Small Business Assistance Fund Solid Waste Disposal/Resource Recovery California Pollution Control Financing Authority Contra Costa Waste Service, Inc. [Final Resolution # 579 (SB) 7- 27 -95] I conducted feasibility report research for the CPCFA with respect to the Contra Costa Waste's MSW project, including review of franchises with Concord and Pittsburg. $2,200,000 Conventional Loan Guarantee Program California Pollution Control Financing Authority Eastern Regional Landfill, Inc. I worked on the feasibility report for CPCFA loan guarantee of MRF financing, including review of collection (flow control or feedstock) agreements with Placer and El Dorado Counties, Nevada County /Town of Truckee; MRF operating agreement with Placer County; landfill (residue disposal) agreement and other project documentation. $2,800,000 Conventional Loan Guarantee Program California Pollution Control Financing Authority El Dorado Disposal Service, Inc. I worked on the feasibility report for CPCFA loan guarantee of MRF financing, including review of MRF and collection agreements with El Dorado County and other project documentation. [$20,0000,000] [not issued] Gaston County, North Carolina General Obligation Bonds Series 199 [$20,000,000] [not issued] Gaston County, North Carolina Waste Disposal Revenue Bonds Series 199 As the County's contracts counsel, I helped draft the request for proposals for the materials recovery facility and participated in RFP evaluation and vendor selection (Westinghouse). I reviewed the municipalities' service agreements and waste stream control ordinances, as well as the County's solid waste management plan, and participated in drafting and negotiating the MRF contract. I engaged in correspondence with state regulators and the Environmental Defense Fund regarding the county's ash disposal plan and worked with the vendor and consulting engineer on air permitting. [$500,000.00 +] Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds (Montgomery County Facility) Series 199_ I served as underwriters' counsel for Shearson in the early stages of the 1800 TPD MSW mass burn facility and transfer station in Montgomery County, Maryland. The Authority sells power to PEPCO. In particular I was involved with review of the construction and service agreements between Ogden and the Authority, and Authority and County, as well as the County's master authorization governing system obligations. [$115,000,000] [not issued] Puerto Rico Industrial, Medical Higher Education and Environmental Pollution Control Facilities Financing Authority Solid Waste Disposal Facility Revenue Bonds (Westinghouse Electric Corporation of San Juan- Puerto Rico Project - 199_ Series A) I served as underwriters' counsel for First Boston on this issue to finance a 1040 TPD privately owned waste -to- energy facility in San Juan, Puerto Rico. (There were grandfathered tax credits.) The facility would sell power to PREPA. In particular, I reviewed the Construction and Operation Agreement between the City of San Juan and Westinghouse. $10,000,000 Massachusetts Industrial Finance Agency Sewage Facility Revenue Bonds (Resource Control Composting, Inc. Project) 1989 Series $8,500,000 City of Holyoke, Massachusetts Revenue Bonds McCormack Partyka Issue, Series 1990 I was purchaser's counsel representing the Merrill Lynch and Franklin bond funds, respectively, which bought a portion of the bonds issued to finance sludge composting facilities in Springfield and Holyoke, Massachusetts. $30,000,000 Industrial Development Authority of the County of Charles City Exempt Facility Revenue Bonds (Chambers Development Company, Inc.) Series 1989, Series 1990 I was underwriters' counsel for Dean Witter on this variable rate financing for a landfill in Charles City County, Virginia. The bonds are secured by a direct pay letter of credit issued by NCNB National Bank of North Carolina and guaranteed by Chambers Development Company, Inc. when the bonds bear interest at a fixed rate. Chambers has a waste disposal contract with the City of Richmond, Virginia and host community agreement with Charles City County. $186,435,000 Southeastern Public Service Authority Senior Revenue and Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 1989 (Regional Solid Waste System) I served as bond counsel on the refunding of three bond issues of the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) consisting of two senior lien issues - Series A (1984) and Series B (1985), aggregating $127.8 million to finance a refuse derived fuel plant and transfer stations - and a junior lien issue (1984) of $26 million to finance a regional landfill. Together the regional landfill, the 2500 TPD RDF plant, the transfer stations and the administration building support a regional solid waste collection, transfer and disposal system designed to serve six cities and two counties in the Tidewater, Virginia area. The entire system is publicly owned and operated by the SPSA, which serves as project manager for all construction and competitively bids individual contracts for facilities. Henningson, Durham and Richardson serves as design engineer, Heil Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin proved the RDF processing line. RDF is sold to the U.S. Navy pursuant to a long -term contract in which the price paid for the RDF is tied to the BTU content of the RDF and the price of coal. The senior lien bonds are secured by put -of -pay contracts with the eight participating cities and counties and by RDF revenues. Four Virginia municipalities, severally, not jointly, agree to make payments necessary to maintain the bond Reserve Account for the junior bonds at a reserve requirement equal to the next six months' interest and one year's principal payments. The full faith and credit of each such guarantor is pledged to its obligation. Virginia has explicitly authorized flow control ordinances. $30,000,000 California Alternative Energy Source Financing Authority Adjustable Rate Electric Revenue Bonds (Modesto Resource Recovery Project) Series 1985 I was bond counsel. These bonds were issued to finance the acquisition and construction of a facility which incinerates tires and produces steam to generate electricity. They are secured by a letter of credit issued by Kansallis - Osake - Pankki, New York Branch. The project is owned and operated by a limited partnership related to Oxford Energy, Inc.. I also worked on the amendment of the documents in 1986, as required by the rating agencies. $ (37,000,000) Town of Vandenbroek, Wisconsin Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds (Citadel Project) I served as underwriters' counsel for William R. Hough on this issue to finance a 450 TPD mass burn plant of the Citadel Company in Outagamie County, Wisconsin. Absent credit support, the bonds could not get a marketable rating. Honolulu, Hawaii. In the middle stages of the Honolulu project, in autumn of 1984 I worked as contracts counsel for Goldman, Sachs & Co. and the vendor, and Amfac /Combustion Engineering joint venture, to help in the review and development of project contracts during structuring and negotiations of the proposed revenue bond issue. This project was ultimately financed with general obligation bonds. Detroit, Michigan. I worked as underwriter's counsel for Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. in the early phases of the $500 million Detroit WTE project. At that stage, much time was spent developing a financing structure that would protect the bondholders in event of Detroit insolvency (e.g. exploring alternate issuers, pledge of special taxes, etc.). Combustion Engineering was the vendor. Rutland, Vermont. I worked on the early phases of the Rutland waste -to- energy project, especially regarding waste stream control and antitrust issues, as well as selecting an issuing entity. Vicon was the vendor, and eventually Industrial Bank of Japan issued a letter of credit supporting the bonds. Davis County, Utah. I worked as bond counsel on the early phases of the financing of a waste - to- energy facility and landfill in Davis County, Utah. Steam sales to Hill Air Force Base raised federal guaranty issues and necessitated a request for letter ruling from the IRS. Over a dozen municipalities entered into disposal agreements, which raised issues relating to Utah constitutional constraints on municipalities incurring indebtedness and lending their credit. Katy - Seghers was the vendor. Kodiak Island Borough AGENDA STATEMENT Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007 Authorizing the Approval of Lease Regarding the Womens Bay Fire Hall Apartment with Byron Cross. Kodiak Island Borough Code 18.40.020 Negotiated leases requires approval by the Assembly of specific leases. The amount charged to Mr. Cross has been discussed and approved by the Women's Bay Fire Protection District at their February 12 and 26. 2007 meeting; and Cross is a volunteer with the Women's Bay Fire Department. APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: Recommended motion: Move to adopt Resolution No. FY2007 -31. Item No. 13.B.1 Resolution No. FY 2007 -31 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH RESOLUTION NO. FY2007 -31 Introduced by: Requested by: Drafted by: Introduced: Adopted: A RESOLUTION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF LEASE REGARDING THE WOMEN'S BAY FIRE HALL APARTMENT WITH BYRON CROSS WHEREAS, Kodiak Island Borough Code 18.40.020 Negotiated leases requires approval by the Assembly of specific leases; and WHEREAS, the amount charged to Mr. Cross has been discussed and approved by the Womens Bay Fire Protection Area Board at their February 12 and 26, 2007 meetings; and WHEREAS, Mr. Cross is a volunteer with the Womens Bay Fire Department; ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH THIS DAY OF APRIL, 2007 ATTEST: Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH THAT the Borough Manager is hereby authorized to sign the lease on behalf of the Assembly. Nova M. Javier, CMC, Borough Clerk KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Manager Gifford Manager Gifford Finance Director 04/19/2007 Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Resolution No. FY2007 -31 Page 1 of 1 LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made this first day of May, 2007 by and between THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH, a borough organized under the laws of the state of Alaska, hereinafter called Landlord, and Byron Cross, hereinafter called Tenant. For and in consideration of the covenants, rents and demises, and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. Premises. Landlord, for and in consideration of the rents, covenants and conditions hereinafter specified to be paid, performed and observed by Tenant, does hereby let, lease and demise to Tenant the improved real estate particularly described as follows: Tenant, upon paying the rents, and performing all of the terms and covenants on this part to be performed, shall peaceably and quietly enjoy the leased premises subject nevertheless, to the terms of this lease, and to any deed of trust or mortgage to which this lease is subordinated. 2. Term of Lease. The term of the lease shall be for the period of one year (1) following the commencement of the term, unless sooner terminated as hereinafter provided. The term of the lease shall commence on May 1, 2007, and shall expire at 5:00 P.M., Alaska Standard Time on April 30, 2008. In the event the foregoing commencement provision results in a commencement date other than on the first day of a calendar month, the rent shall be immediately paid for such initial fractional month prorated on the basis of a thirty (30) day month. This provision can be waived at the request of the tenant to the Womens Bay Fire Protection District representative. Upon expiration of this lease, tenant may continue to occupy the premises on a month -to- month basis if granted approval by the Women's Fire Protection District board no later than thirty (30) days prior to the lease expiration. 3. Rental. In consideration of the demise and leasing of the premises aforesaid by Landlord, the Tenant covenants, stipulates and agrees to pay to the Landlord as rental for said premises her inabove described the sum of Nine hundred dollars ($900.00) less cleaning offset of forty - dollars ($49.00) for a net due of Eight hundred and fifty -one dollars ($851.00) in advance, on or before the first day of each month of the lease term. Cleaning will be of the Women's Bay Fire hall and will be detailed in attachment A per the decision of the Women's Bay Fire Protection District board. All rentals, unless and until otherwise directed in writing by Landlord, shall be paid to the Landlord at 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615, or at such other place as Landlord may designate from time to time in writing. Page 1 of 11 Certain residence space of a two bedroom apartment situated on the second floor of the Women's Bay Fire hall located at 538 Sargent Creek Drive on the following described real property: Lot Two, Block 2A (2 -2A), Kodiak Recording District, Third Judicial District, State of Alaska 4. Alteration of Premises. Tenant shall not make any alterations, additions, or improvements in or to the leased premises without first obtaining the written consent of Landlord. Any such alterations, additions and improvements consented to by Landlord shall be made at Tenant's expense. Tenant shall secure all governmental permits required in connection with such work, and shall hold Landlord harmless from all liability and liens resulting therefrom. All alterations, additions and improvements, except trade fixtures and appliance and equipment which do not become attached to the building, shall immediately become a part of the realty and the property of the Landlord without obligation to pay therefor, except that Landlord may require removal of all or part thereof by Tenant at the termination of the lease, at Tenant's expense, and Tenant shall pay for or repair any damages to the leased premises, including, without limitation, any necessary patching, repainting, and repairing caused by such removal. Upon removal of the trade fixtures and appliances and equipment which do not become attached to the building, Tenant shall restore the leased premises to the same condition that they were in prior to the installation of said items, including, without limitation, any necessary patching, repainting and repairing. Any trade fixtures, appliances, equipment or other property not removed from the leased premises by Tenant upon termination of the lease shall be deemed abandoned by Tenant, provided that Tenant shall save Landlord harmless from any loss, cost, or damage arising from Tenant's failure to remove such items. 5. Use of Premises. The leased premises shall be used for residential housing space, and for no other purpose, without the prior written consent of Landlord. Tenant shall not use or permit the leased premises or any part thereof to be used for any purpose in violation of any municipal, borough, state, federal or other governmental law, ordinance, rule or regulation. Tenant agrees that Tenant, together with all other persons entering and/or occupying the leased premises at Tenant's request or with Tenant's permission, will abide by, keep and observe all reasonable rules and regulations which Landlord may make from time to time for the management, safety, care and cleanliness of the building, and the preservation of good order therein, as well as for the convenience of other occupants and tenants of the building, and for the use of any parking areas adjacent to the building. The violation of any such rules and regulations shall be deemed a material breach of the lease by the Tenant. Tenant shall not, without Landlord's prior written consent, use, operate or install any electrical or mechanical equipment, machinery, or mechanical devices in the leased premises, except in compliance with the highest standards applicable to the leased premises, except in compliance with the highest standards applicable to the use, operation, or installation of such equipment, machinery or devices, generally recognized by the profession or industry in which Tenant is engaged, nor shall Tenant use the leased premises, or any machinery or equipment therein, in such a manner as to cause substantial noise or vibration, or unreasonable disturbance to other tenants in the building. In the event Tenant's use of the leased premises causes an increase in Landlord's fire or hazard insurance premiums; Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for the amount of such increase. 6. Utilities. Landlord shall furnish, at its expense, the following utilities and services for normal office use of the leased premises: a. Electricity for normal lighting and residential use. Special or additional electrical requirements shall be paid by Tenant. b. Heat from fuel oil based on normal residential use. Page 2 of 11 Tenant shall provide at his expense all other utilities and services used at the leased premises, including phone and cable. Landlord shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused by or resulting form any variation, interruption or failure of said utilities or services, arising from any cause, condition or event; and no variation, interruption or failure of such utilities and services incident to the making of repairs, alterations, or improvements, or arising from any accident, strike, condition, cause or event in whole or in part beyond the reasonable control of Landlord shall be deemed an eviction of Tenant or relieve Tenant from any obligation hereunder. 7. Maintenance and Repairs. Landlord shall, at its expense, maintain and keep in good repair the foundations, exterior walls, roof and other structural portions of the building. Tenant shall, at its expense, maintain the interior of the leased premises at all times in good condition and repair, all in accordance with the laws of the State of Alaska and all directions and regulations of governmental agencies having jurisdiction hereof. Tenant shall commit no waste of any kind in or about the leased premises, and Tenant shall pay for all damage to the building, as well as damage to tenants or occupants hereof, caused by Tenant's misuse or neglect of the leased premises, its apparatus or appurtenances. At the expiration of the term hereof, or on the termination of this lease, Tenant shall surrender the leased premises, its apparatus or appurtenances. At the expiration of the term hereof, or on the termination of this lease, Tenant shall surrender the leased premises in good and clean condition, normal wear and tear and damage by fire or other casualty excepted. Landlord shall maintain and repair all plumbing, lines and equipment installed for the general supply of hot and cold water, heat, ventilation and electricity, except that Tenant shall be responsible for any and all maintenance and repairs attributable to obstruction or objects deliberately or inadvertently introduced or placed in the fixtures, lines or equipment by Tenant, his employees, agents, licensees or invitees. Landlord shall not be responsible or liable at any time for any loss or damages to Tenant's equipment, fixtures or other personal property of Tenant or to Tenant's business except to the extent attributable to Landlord's negligence. Landlord shall not be responsible or liable to Tenant or to those claiming by, through or under Tenant for any loss or damages to either the person or property of Tenant that may be occasioned by or through the acts or omissions of persons occupying other portions of the building. Landlord shall not be responsible or liable for any defect, latent or otherwise, in the building in which the leased premises is situated, or any of the equipment, machinery, utilities, appliances or apparatus therein nor shall it be responsible or liable for any injury, loss or damage to any person or to any property of Tenant or other person caused by or resulting from bursting, breakage or by or from leakage, stream or snow or ice, running or the overflow of water or sewerage in any part of said leased premises, the building, or the surrounding area, or for any injury or damage caused by or resulting from acts of nature or the elements, or for any injury or damage caused by or resulting from any defect in the occupancy, construction, operation or use of any of said leased premises, building, machinery, apparatus or equipment by any person or by or from the acts or negligence of any occupant of the premises, unless Landlord itself is negligent. Page 3 of 11 Tenant shall keep premises in a clean and sanitary condition. Tenant shall assume all cost of extermination and fumigation for infestation caused by him. Tenant shall childproof /animal proof the dwelling and yard. Tenant shall mow and water the grass and lawn, and keep the grass, lawn, flowers, and shrubbery thereon in good order and condition, and keep the sidewalk surrounding of said premises free and clear of all obstruction; to use precaution against freezing of water and waste pipes and stoppage of same in and about said premises. 8. Fire and Other Casualty. Should the leased premises be damaged by fire or other casualty, and if the damage is repairable within four (4) weeks from the date of occurrence (with the repair work and the preparations therefore to be done during regular working hours on regular work days), the damages shall be repaired with due diligence by Landlord, an in the meantime the monthly rental shall be abated in the same proportion that the untenable portion of the leased premises bears to the whole thereof. Should the leased premises be completely destroyed by fire or other casualty, or should they be damaged to such an extent that the damage cannot be repaired within the four (4) weeks of the occurrence, Landlord shall have the option to terminate this lease, and Landlord shall advise Tenant within thirty (30) days after the happening of any such damage whether Landlord has elected to continue this lease in effect or to terminate it. If Landlord shall elect to continue this lease in effect, it shall commence and prosecute with reasonable diligence any work necessary to restore or repair the leased premises. If Landlord shall fail to notify Tenant of its election within said thirty -day period, Landlord shall be deemed to have elected to terminate this lease, and the lease shall thereafter automatically terminate. The commencement by Landlord of repair work shall be deemed to constitute notice that Landlord has elected to restore or repair the leased premises. For the period from the occurrence of any damage to the leased premises to the date of completion of the repairs (or to the date of termination of the lease if Landlord shall elect not to restore the leased premises), the monthly rental shall be abated in the same proportion as the portion of the leased premises bears to the whole thereof. In the event restoration or repair is delayed by acts or omissions of Tenant, there shall be no abatement of rental during the period of such delay. If the fire or damage is caused by the carelessness, negligence or improper conduct of Tenant, then notwithstanding other provisions of this lease, Tenant shall remain liable for the rent, without abatement, during any period of repair or restoration. If the Landlord, in its discretion, shall decide within thirty (30) days after the occurrence of any fire or other casualty in the building, even though the leased premises may not have been affected by such fire or other casualty, to demolish, rebuild or otherwise replace or alter the building containing the leased premises, then upon written notice given by Landlord to Tenant, this lease shall terminate on a date specified in such notice, but no sooner than thirty (30) days from the date of such notice, as if that date had been originally fixed as the expiration date of the term herein leased. Tenant and Landlord hereby mutually release each other from liability and waive all right of recovery against each other for any loss from perils insured against under their respective fire insurance policies, including any extended coverage and endorsements thereto; provided, however, that this paragraph shall be inapplicable if it would have the effect, but only to the extent that it would have the effect, of invalidating any insurance coverage of Landlord or Tenant. Page 4 of 11 Restoration or repair work conducted in the common areas, in areas of the building unleased, or leased to other tenants, or the noise or interference arising therefrom, shall not be deemed an eviction of Tenant, or a breach of this lease, but Tenant, or a breach of this lease but Tenant's obligation to pay rent shall be abated during such period of time as Tenant is unable to conduct business at the leased premises by reason of actual physical interference with use of the leased premises as a result of such restoration or repair work. 9. Subletting and Assignment. Tenant shall not sublet the leased premises, or any part thereof, or assign this lease or any part thereof, nor shall this lease be assigned in whole or in part by operation of law or through any court proceedings, without the prior written consent of Landlord to such subletting or assigning; any such assignment or sublease without Landlord's written consent shall be void. If Tenant is a corporation, any merger, consolidation, or dissolution to which it is a party, or any change in ownership of a majority of its voting stock outstanding, shall constitute an assignment of this lease for purposes of this paragraph. 10. Indemnification. Tenant agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and save harmless Landlord from and against any and all claims (no matter how meritless) demands, and causes of action of any nature whatsoever, and any expenses incident to defense of and by Landlord therefrom, for injury to or death of persons or loss of or damage to property occurring on the leased premises, or in any manner arising out of Tenant's use and occupation of said premises, or the condition thereof, during the term of this lease. Tenant shall procure and maintain renter's insurance coverage. Said renter's insurance shall include liability coverage of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) to protect tenant and landlord for any potential lawsuits. Such policy or policies shall be written by a responsible insurance company or companies satisfactory to Landlord. Upon the signing of this Agreement, certificates of insurance showing compliance with the foregoing requirements shall be furnished by Tenant to Landlord for approval. Certificates shall state that the policy or policies will not be canceled or altered without at least thirty (30) days, prior written notice to Landlord. Maintenance of such insurance and the performance by Tenant of the obligation under this paragraph shall not relieve Tenant of liability under this indemnity agreement. 11. Common Areas and Facilities. Landlord shall have the right to construct, maintain and operate lighting and other improvements on all said areas; to change the area, level, location and arrangement for common areas and other facilities and temporarily to close the common areas to effect such changes. All common areas and facilities which Tenant may be permitted to use and occupy are to be used and unoccupied under a revocable license, which shall not be unreasonably revoked, and if any such license be revoked or if the amount of such areas be changed or diminished, Landlord shall not be subject to any liability nor shall Tenant be entitled to any compensation or diminution or abatement of rent nor shall revocation or diminution of such areas be deemed constructive or actual eviction. 12. Liens. Tenant will not permit any mechanics', laborers' or material men's liens to stand against the leased premises or improvements for any labor materials furnished to Tenant or claimed to have been furnished to Tenant, or to Tenant's agents, contractors, or sublessee, in Page 5 of 11 connection with work of any character performed or claimed to have been performed on said premises or improvements by or at the direction of sufferance of Tenant; provided, however, Tenant shall have the right to contest the validity or amount of any such lien or claimed lien. In the event of such contest, Tenant shall give to Landlord such reasonable security as may be demanded by Landlord to insure payment of such lien or such claim of lien. Tenant will immediately pay any judgment rendered with all proper costs and changes and shall have such lien released or judgment satisfied at Tenant's own expense. The foregoing provisions respecting liens shall apply to all liens, of any kind or nature, asserted against the leased premises or improvements thereon, including liens arising out of, incident to, or connected with the use and occupation of the leased premises by Tenant. 13. Default. If Tenant at any time during the term of this lease (and regardless of the pendency of any bankruptcy, reorganization, receivership, insolvency or other proceedings, in law, in equity or before any administrative tribunal, which have or might have the effect of preventing Tenant from complying with the terms of this lease) shall: (a) Fail to make payment of any installment of rent or of any other sum herein specified to be paid by Tenant, and Tenant fails to cure such default within ten (10) days after such failure to make payment: or (b) Fail to observe or perform any of Tenant's other covenants, agreements or obligations hereunder, and if within thirty (30) days after Landlord shall have given to Tenant written notice specifying such default or defaults, Tenant shall not have commenced to cure such default and proceed diligently to cure the same; or (c) If Tenant has filed a Petition under Chapter 11 of Bankruptcy Act, 11 O.S.C. 701 et seq., or a voluntary petition under any other provision of said Bankruptcy Act, or if Tenant finally and without further possibility to appeal or review: (1) is adjudicated as bankrupt or insolvent; or (2) has a receiver appointed for all or substantially all of its business or assets on the ground of Tenant's insolvency; or (3) has itself appointed as a debtor -in- possession; or (4) has a trustee appointed for it after a petition has been filed for tenant's reorganization under the Bankruptcy Act of the United States known as the Chandler Act or any future law of the United States having the same general purpose; or (5) if Tenant shall make an assignment for the benefit of creditors, then in any such event Landlord shall have the right at its election, then or at any time thereafter, and while such default, defaults or events shall continue, to give Tenant notice of Landlord's intention to terminate this lease and all Tenant's rights hereunder, on a date specified in such notice, which date shall not be less than ten (10) days after the date of giving of such notice, and on the date specified in such notice, the term of this lease and all rights granted Tenant hereunder shall come to an end as fully as if the lease then expired by its own terms, and Tenant hereby covenants peaceable and quietly to yield up and surrender to Landlord said leased premises and all structures, buildings, improvements and equipment located thereon, and to execute and deliver to Landlord such instrument or instruments as shall be required by Landlord as will properly evidence termination of Tenant's rights hereunder or its interest therein. In the event of termination of this lease as in this paragraph above provided, Landlord shall have the right to repossess the leased premises and such structures, buildings, improvements and equipment, either with process of law or through any form of suit or proceeding, as well as the right to sue for and recover all rents and other sums Page 6 of 11 accrued up to the time of such termination, and damages for rent not then accrued. Landlord shall also have the right, without resuming possession of the premises or terminating this lease, to sue for and recover all rents and other sums, including damages, at any time and from time to time accruing hereunder. 14. Notices. Any and all notices required or permitted under this lease, unless otherwise specified in writing by the party whose address is changed, shall be mailed, certified or registered mail, or delivered, to the following addresses: LANDLORD: Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Page 7 of 11 TENANT: Byron Cross 538 Sargent Creek Road Apartment A Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Any such notices shall be deemed effective on the date of mailing or delivery. 15. Costs Upon Default. In the event either party shall be in default in the performance of any of its obligations under this lease or an action shall be brought for the enforcement thereof, the defaulting party shall pay to the other all the expenses incurred therefor, including a reasonable attorney's fee. In the event either party shall without fault on its part be made a party to any litigation commenced by or against the other, then such other party shall pay all costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred or paid by such party in connection with such litigation. 16. Rights or Remedies. Except insofar as this is inconsistent with or contrary to any provision of this lease, no right or remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to Landlord is intended to be exclusive of any other right or remedy, and each and every right and remedy shall be cumulative and in addition to any other right or remedy given hereunder, or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. 17. Waiver and Forbearance. Except to the extent that Landlord may have otherwise agreed in writing, no waiver by Landlord of any breach by Tenant of any of its obligations, agreements or covenants hereunder shall be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other covenant, agreement or obligation. Nor shall any forbearance by Landlord to seek a remedy for any breach of Tenant be deemed a waiver by Landlord of its rights or remedies with respect to such breach. 18. Inspection. Landlord shall at all reasonable times during Tenant's business hours have access to the premises for the purpose of inspection. Landlord shall also be entitled to put "to lease" or "for lease" signs in and about the leased premises, and to show the leased premises to prospective tenants, during the last sixty (60) days of the lease term and any extended term, and during any period of time after Landlord has given Tenant a notice of intention to terminate under paragraph 15 of this lease. 19. Notices of Nonresponsibility. Landlord may enter the demised premises at any time for the purpose of posting notices of nonresponsibility. 20. Successors in Interest. This lease shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 21. Holding Over. In the event that the Tenant holds over at or after the end of the term, the tenancy shall be needed a month -to -month tenacy commencing on the first day of the holdover period. 23. Memorandum of Lease. Tenant agrees that Tenant will not record this lease. At the request of either Landlord or Tenant, the parties shall execute a memorandum lease for recording purposes in lieu of recording this lease, in such form as may be satisfactory to their respective attorneys. 24. Estoppel Certificates. Tenant shall, at any time and from time to time upon not less than fifteen (15) days' prior request by Landlord execute, acknowledge and deliver to Landlord a statement in writing certifying that this lease is in full force and effect and unmodified (or in full force and effect and modified and stating the modifications), the dates to which the rent(s) and any other charges have been paid in advance, the date Tenant entered into occupancy of the leased premises and the date the lease term expires, the nature and amount of any claims of Tenant against Landlord arising as a result of this lease, and the existence and nature of any defenses or offsets claimed by Tenant against enforcement of this lease by Landlord; it being intended that any such statement delivered pursuant to this paragraph may be relied upon by any prospective purchaser or encumbrancer (including assignees) of the premises. In the event Tenant fails so to certify within such fifteen (15) day period, Tenant shall be deemed to have certified and admitted the accuracy of information submitted by Landlord in good faith to any prospective purchaser or encumbrancer in respect to this lease. 25. Excuse for Nonperformance. Either party hereto shall be excused from performing any or all of its obligations hereunder with respect to any repair and construction work required under the terms of this lease for such times the performance of any such obligation is prevented or delayed by an act of God, floods, explosion the elements, war, invasion, insurrection, riot, mob violence, sabotage, terrorist activity, inability to procure labor, equipment, facilities, materials or supplies in the open market, failure of transportation, strikes, lockouts, action by labor unions, or laws or order of governmental agencies, or any other cause whether similar or dissimilar to the foregoing which is not within the reasonable control of such party. 26. Construction of Lease. This lease shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Alaska. Words of gender used in this lease shall mean and include any other gender, and singular shall mean and include the plural and the plural the singular, where applicable, and when the sense requires. 27. Security Deposit. An essential inducement to Landlord from Tenant for this lease is a security deposit by Tenant in the amount of Three hundred and seventy -five dollars Page 8 of 11 ($375.00). receipt of which by Landlord is hereby acknowledged and paid in advance of occupation of said premises. Said deposit for security is for the full and faithful performance by the Tenant of all the covenants and terms of this lease required to be performed by Tenant. If the Tenant has a pet in the apartment this deposit shall be One hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00). Such deposit shall be held in a separate liability account in the Women's Bay Volunteer Fire Department asset account (252- 229 -100 called Customer Deposits) and will be accounted for by the Kodiak Island Borough. The deposit will be returned if the Tenant has fully and faithfully carried out all of its covenants and terms. If Tenant does not fully and faithfully perform the covenants and terms of this lease, Landlord may apply the aforementioned security deposit against damages resulting from breaches of Tenant. In the event all or part of the security deposit is so applied, Tenant shall, upon demand, promptly pay to Landlord such amount as may be necessary to replenish the security deposit to its original amount. In the event of a bona fide sale of the property of which the leased premises are a part, the Landlord shall have the right to transfer such security deposit to purchaser to be held under the terms of this lease, and, in that event, the Landlord shall be released from all liability for the return of such security deposit to the Tenant. The Tenant may not assign or encumber the money deposited as security, and neither the Landlord nor its successors or assigns shall be bound by any such assignment or encumbrances. 29. Condemnation. If the Leased Premises shall be taken or condemned for any public purpose to such an extent as to render the Leased Premises untenantable, this Lease Agreement shall, at the option of either party, cease and terminate as of the date when possession is taken. All proceeds from any taking or condemnation of the Leased Premises shall belong to and be paid to Landlord, and Tenant shall have no right to any portion of the amount that may be awarded or paid to Landlord as a result of such taking. Tenant shall be entitled to pursue any and all damages from the condemner personal to Tenant resulting from condemnation. 30. Subordination and Nondisturbance. This lease and all of the rights of Tenant hereunder are and shall be subject and subordinate to the lien of every deed of trust and every mortgage now or hereafter placed on the demised premises or any part thereof (except the property of Tenant and others stated to be removable under paragraph 4 of this lease), and to any and all renewals, modifications, consolidations, replacements, extensions or substitutions of any such mortgage or deed of trust ( "encumbrances "). Page 9 of 11 ATTACHMENT A Women's Bay VFD — Cleaning Requirement and Proposed Frequency All Cleaning discussed below are confined to the office, meeting area and bathrooms of the facility first floor. Weekly: • Empty Trash — Meeting Room, Office, Both Bathrooms — replace can liners • Clean Toilets, Lavatory Sinks, bathroom countertops, mirrors • Sweep all hard surface floors, mop if needed. Monthly: • Vacuum and remove floor rugs to exterior — shake out dirt / gravel • Mop all hard surface floors utilizing flooring cleaner provided. • Clean table surface, kitchen countertops • Clean interior / exterior of microwave • Clean entry door glass and fixtures As Needed: • Due to public use or fire department use, provide above services due to special events if the cleaning task is required. • Wash mop heads as needed in the fire department bay washer with supplies provided. Hang mop head in hose tower for drying. It is the responsibility of the tenant performing the cleaning tasks to inform the officers of the department when supplies are required prior to the depletion of the supplies including toilet paper, paper towels, cleaning agents, mops and mop heads. Tenant will inform officers of any abnormal events in a timely manner for action or investigation. Page 10 of 11 TENANT: ATTEST: Page 11 of 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals this day of , 2007 Borough Clerk, Nova Javier Byron Cross WOMENS BAY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT: David Conrad LANDLORD: THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Borough Manager, Rick Gifford THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made this first day of May, 2007 by and between THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH, a borough organized under the laws of the state of Alaska, hereinafter called Landlord, and Byron Cross, hereinafter called Tenant. For and in consideration of the covenants, rents and demises, and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. Premises. Landlord, for and in consideration of the rents, covenants and conditions hereinafter specified to be paid, performed and observed by Tenant, does hereby let, lease and demise to Tenant the improved real estate particularly described as follows: Page 1 of 11 LEASE AGREEMENT Certain residence space of a two bedroom apartment situated on the second floor of the Women's Bay Fire hall located at 538 Sargent Creek Drive on the following described real property: Lot Two, Block 2A (2 -2A), Kodiak Recording District, Third Judicial District, State of Alaska Tenant, upon paying the rents, and performing all of the terms and covenants on this part to be performed, shall peaceably and quietly enjoy the leased premises subject nevertheless, to the terms of this lease, and to any deed of trust or mortgage to which this lease is subordinated. 2. Term of Lease. The term of the lease shall be for the period of one year (1) following the commencement of the term, unless sooner terminated as hereinafter provided. The term of the lease shall commence on May 1, 2007, and shall expire at 5:00 P.M., Alaska Standard Time on April 30, 2008. In the event the foregoing commencement provision results in a commencement date other than on the first day of a calendar month, the rent shall be immediately paid for such initial fractional month prorated on the basis of a thirty (30) day month. This provision can be waived at the request of the tenant to the Womens Bay Fire Protection District representative. Upon expiration of this lease, tenant may continue to occupy the premises on a month -to- month basis if granted approval by the Women's Fire Protection District board no later than thirty (30) days prior to the lease expiration. 3. Rental. In consideration of the demise and leasing of the premises aforesaid by Landlord, the Tenant covenants, stipulates and agrees to pay to the Landlord as rental for said premises hereinabove described the sum of Nine hundred dollars ($900.00) less cleaning offset of forty - nine dollars ($49.00) for a net due of Eight hundred and fifty -one dollars ($851.00) in advance, on or before the first day of each month of the lease term. Cleaning will be of the Women's Bay Fire hall and will be detailed in attachment A per the decision of the Women's Bay Fire Protection District board. All rentals, unless and until otherwise directed in writing by Landlord, shall be paid to the Landlord at 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615, or at such other place as Landlord may designate from time to time in writing. Minutes Architectural /Engineering Review Board Meeti 12 February 2007 — 7:00 pm KFRC Conference Room A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 7:00 pm. B. Roll Call ARB Members present were Scott Arndt, Jerrol Friend, Gregg Hacker, Charlie Jerling, Jay Johnston and Brent Watkins. Absent Member was Reed Oswalt. Representing the Hospital /CHC were Capt. Ng, Brenda Friend and Stan Thompson. Representing the Fire Department was Fire Chief Andy Nault. Representing the KIB Engineering and Facilities Department were Bud Cassidy, Ken Smith, Sharon Lea Adinolfi and Jessica Kepley. Also present from Prochaska were Don Prochaska, Steve Riley, Curt Field, Anson Nowka and Patrick Wagner. C. Approval of Agenda It was moved and seconded to approve the Agenda. There was a unanimous affirmative voice vote. D. Approval of Minutes It was moved and seconded to approve Minutes from the 2 January 2007 meeting. There was a unanimous affirmative voice vote. F. Presentation of 35% Drawings for the CHC Addition Curt Field, Project Manager, began by noting that they had made other presentations during the day — working primarily with the interior — this presentation would be more structural /mechanical. J. Johnston said that he felt out of the loop since the last meeting on this project was a few years ago over at the Hospital. Inquired what level of completion was being presented this evening? CF responded 35% and the design is basically the same footprint as that first meeting. Since that time, schematic design, DD, the roof system, the mechanical and electrical systems were near completion — there is a fully developed interior — casework, cabs, finishes, etc. (. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070212 Minutes.doc Page 1 of 7 JJ asked if the program requirements had changed. CF said that early in the game they had talked about using the parking lot area — got approved site plan, basic parking layout — S. Arndt asked who had approved the parking plan. B. Cassidy said that the Community Development Department had handled the parking lot plan. SA asked if it weren't part of the ARB's responsibility to review and recommend for approval? He said that there may have been some preliminary work on the parking issue that had come to the ARB, but did not remember anything further. BC said that he could show what has been planned. CF said that a parking plan and drawing had been submitted in order to get a waiver and the plan had been approved. He noted that civil engineers had reviewed the plan, stalls were available for handicapped near the entrance, turns would be negotiable by larger vehicles, allowed for one way drive and felt that the plan was an improvement. Steve Riley of Prochaska interjected noting that what was originally part of the masterplan had not changed much — it was just more developed. J. Friend asked if there was a plan [for parking] during construction phase. CF - Not yet — but will be working on it. JF — have you been informed about the solarium? CF — Yes and it will work with this plan. Capt. Ng said that it was important to keep in mind that these were two projects — parking and the CHC addition. The parking lot project has been an issue for years and because the parking lot relates to the CHC addition, the opportunity is being taken to plan both at the same time — the clinic will need more spaces — but he did not want to lose sight that there are 2 different projects. CF continued. Exterior walls - 6" stud, fully insulated. Roof has been analyzed for snow impact — also analyzed for seismic considerations — sheer walls have been added inside — did considerable investigation into drainage. JF questioned the rating. CF - 24 -26. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070212 Minutes.doc Page 2 of 7 CF continued talking about meeting high wind criteria — have a secondary roof drain system. JJ asked: the structure is dead level and the roof is slopped? CF — No — the building is pitched. SA requested that when it came time for the 65% presentation the ARB would want to have drawings a week before the presentation. CF continued his review: Windows are the same — as in the addition [to the Hospital]. The canopy entry will be columned and sheathed — a vertical fascia. The drawing set has bathrooms and floorplans enlarged. Elevations on the sets ARB will get are fairly fleshed out — want the addition to look like it was always there. The set to be forwarded to the ARB will have a roof plan on it. The cabinets are elevated on the interior package. The interior package is contemporary — very nice looking. Structural sheets will show foundation plans. Soil report has been completed by DOWL. Have a footing schedule. Revised roof framing to wide flange with a central ridge. SA questioned the snow load. CF noted that the IBC has various values, but he didn't have that information with him. SA said that a 40 lb load is a minimum and he would hope it would be more than that. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070212 Minutes.doc Page 3of7 SR continued to speak about the interior aspects of the Project — Ceramic tile, sheet vinyl — plastic laminate for counters — there will be some wall covering in the lobby — the public will see the nicer finishes. B. Watkins questioned systems for seismic integrity. SR said they had worked with a seasoned engineer The fellow who built the building [don't have a name] — noted that the design for sheer walls was very standard throughout the lower 48 and across Alaska. Plumbing presentation was given by Anson Nowka. He reviewed the plans — standard copper piping — will have to make some connections outside the footprint — everything is pretty much standard. Questions — JF — questioned materials to be used. AN said he will take a look at the difference in pricing — copper v stainless steel. AN goes to the HVAC plan — using the existing capacity off the unit from the 97 addition — still working on that - only concern is the air handler's ability to properly move the additional air required — might need a stronger motor or a different fan. Said that adequate air is required but do not want to overwork the equipment. SA questioned the unfinished areas in the Hospital. AN said that there is capacity to take care of those areas when they are developed. He noted that they are treating it as if it were finished space. JF — questioned the change in the 2003 vs 2006 air quality standards. AN said he would look into that — with that in mind would make any necessary changes. SA — when will 65% be done? SR —would probably be in March — show final CDs scheduled for 1 week in April. SA — that gives you time to check the 2006 codes. AN reviews locations of sprinklers — control valves. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070212 Minutes.doc Page 4 of 7 Next presentation was given by Patrick Wagner. He reviewed the lighting plan — using lighting to match what is already in place - also using energy efficient lights — there is under cabinet lighting for work stations — surgical lighting in the procedure rooms — multiple ballasts in the break room - requirements for down lighting — compact fluorescent — egress lighting, emergency lighting — fog lights. CF noted that the parking lighting will match what is already in place. SA questioned the Toad. 200 amp service — PW went on to the power and systems plan —shows the locations — still working w /telephone, receptacles, etc. Also noted having a fire alarm system — matching the existing data jacks. JF — on data /phone — standalone? The storage room will be used for the controller. SA — post and beam to support the roof system? CF — Yes and he then went through the specs. SA — in providing healthcare services — things change and evolve — 20 years from now this building could end up being gutted. CF said the structure is designed for evolution — say for PT. CJ questioned the width of the hallways. Answer — 6' corridor and 5' into the rooms JF — questioned size of the doors — seem too small. CF said they are to code — and it is a way to save money. JF — would like to look at creating a vapor barrier — energy savings. Also suggested applying a new adhesive to the interior gypsum. It creates a barrier for heat Toss — it's a cheap way to do it. It shouldn't be a problem to apply on the interior walls. SA — what's the R value on the roof? 28 -30 \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070212 Minutes.doc Page 5 of 7 JF — talks about residential standards for R factors — they're cost effective measures - how would this apply to commercial? CF — we'll look at that. SA — requested they look at adding an inch to the roof. CF — want to bump it up? SA — Yes. On commercial facilities the upfront costs are cheap - it's the O &M that becomes expensive. A. Nault said there would be a need to install a new fire hydrant — and the new parking lot will change the way the FD operates — the one way set up looks restrictive — have some concerns — the other concern - is this one or two projects? BC said there was different funding but one project. SA said the Board had not seen a parking plan. He noted that the lot is a total disaster in the winter — snow removal — is a problem - very interested in looking at the proposed parking lot. CF said the area is very limited. The design team has tried everything. As it is designed now the parking lot is legal as far as the Borough is concerned. BC —this project has been touched by everyone — critical to make sure who is responsible for what. SA — this is a major change — I'm speaking from a snow removal perspective — and the 8 degree grade will still be like bumper cars. BC — it meets the Code. CF said the bulk of the folks will be encouraged to use the main entrance deliberately encourage traffic that way. SA thanked them for their presentation. BW — look to using the 2006 Code. SA to BC — what do you want from us [ARB]? BC — how would you like to approach it? \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070212 Minutes.doc Page 6of7 KS — if you wait until 65% to make changes it will be costly — better to make them sooner rather than later. JF — let's get these plans first and then if we need to meet — we'll do that and maybe meet before the 65 %. B. Friend commented that the parking might not be perfect but it is livable — thinks they have done a really good job with what they had to work with. D. Prochaska asked if the ARB thought the Architects had done justice to the site? SA — needs to see more. G. Public Comments None. G. Board Member Comments None. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm. Respectfully submitted: Sharon Lea Adi • Ifi, Project Assis KIB Engineering /Facilities Dept. Scott Arndt, Chair Architectural /Engineering Review Board Date: ,? \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070212 Minutes.doc Page 7 of 7 C. Approval of Agenda Minutes Architectural /Engineering Review Board Meeting 20 February 2007 — 7:00 pm KIB Conference Room A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 7:OOpm. B. Roll Call - c1 , ),ECEWE MAO 2 7 2007 BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE ARB Members present were Scott Arndt, Jerrol Friend, Gregg Hacker, Charlie Jerling, Jay Johnston and Brent Watkins. Absent Member was Reed Oswalt. Representing the School District was Robert Tucker. Representing Parks and Rec was Ian Fulp. Representing the KIB Engineering and Facilities Department were Bud Cassidy, Ken Smith and Sharon Lea Adinolfi. It was moved and seconded to approve the Agenda. There was a unanimous affirmative voice vote. D. Presentation /Discussion 65% Design /Cost Estimate — New Pool Project T. Hyer began the presentation by saying that the team had completed the 65% design drawings and the 65% cost estimate was completed and under budget. He felt they were on track and doing quite well. J. Shin began a slide presentation saying that he would be highlighting any changes since the 35 %, although there had not been anything too significant. He showed the building with landscaping and a site plan, including parking, indicating that the footprint had changed slightly. There was a visual review of the outside of the building and interior of lobby, the main level and lower level. JS next showed a cross section of the building and explained the system dealing with air supply and return. Interior view — the wall material has been changed from cedar to a resin core product which is recommended for humid environments. He will provide a sample of this product. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070220 Minutes [2].doc Page 1 of 10 Next was a discussion of the acoustics in the pool — he noted they were looking at an acoustical roof deck — again a product made specifically for swimming pools. He continued showing a wall section [ventilation /heating] that acts as a structural diaphragm for attachment of exterior materials and noted that this design will warm the floor of the surrounding area due to the air plenum under the deck. JS showed pictures of wood paneling to be used and said that it is very durable. The wood paneling is designed for humid environments. The product is called parklex 700 and is a wood veneer sheet material thermoset in resins. It also has perforations which will function as an acoustical element as well as an air distribution grille. He moved to the exterior siding — a metal siding which uses integrated concealed fasteners and offers reduced maintenance. The previous areas of painted cement board siding were deleted due to inconsistent performance data. He said they were recommending metal siding which has a proven track record as a durable finish. JS said, in summary, the overall building had been simplified. JF questioned the kind of glass to be used. JS said exterior would be double paned and the interior operable windows would be single paned which provides a continuous air flow chamber within the wall assembly. He said he would verify the cost v. energy saved by using triple paned glass. He said they want to use fiberglass frame windows — they have a high condensation resistance and the outside windows are insulated. JJ asked if the operable windows would open wide. JS said they had not gotten that detailed yet. JF suggested looking at triple pane windows for the entry way — as an energy savings. JS said he would do "sunlight modeling" to mitigate crucial glare issues. GH referred to the use of space in the alleyway in the site plan. He said they would need to get a forklift through there and also snow removal equipment. The path could double as a pedestrian walkway. SA suggested the use of a retaining wall in lieu of gabions. GH noted that the "sand pit" had been lost. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070220 Minutes [2].doc Page 2 of 10 JS suggested its placement behind the retaining wall. Tuck said there would need to be a ramp [for the forklift/snow removal equipment]. GH said grading would need to be done around the existing storm drain to prevent flooding. He also suggested at the same time while ditching, dropping a communications line — a conduit to connect the buildings. SA said he had an aversion to the planters shown — they create problems with snow removal. He said the same problems would hold true for the pictured trees. The consensus was to eliminate 50% of the trees. JS to have landscaping /planters looked at by the landscape architect. JF questioned the parking spaces. JS responded that as far as Community Development was concerned, the plan met the requirements. JF said he felt the entrance area and turn were going to be tight. JS suggested that the KIB needs to look at the driveway. SA/GH both said this issue needs to be addressed especially since buses will be going in. SA suggested carrying the parking lot over near classrooms — would reduce grade and make it closer to a 90 degree angle at Upper Mill Bay. Tuck said there needed to be access to the mechanical room and room for chemical storage — will need a double door or roll up door. SA questioned the aesthetics of the canopy — will it look like Northstar with columns — could another method be used? He also noted that those columns will get banged up with snow removal equipment. JS said that you need to be careful about the structure of a natatorium wall. Made a deliberate choice not to penetrate the insulation with structural steel which would compromise the integrity of the wall. SA suggested shortening the canopy to 20' and using galvanized posts. JS said maybe the canopy could be cantilevered off close columns and reminded that the canopy is not simply for aesthetics, but serves several purposes. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070220 Minutes [2].doc Page 3 of 10 JF said he would like to see the canopy left in [as designed]. GH drew attention to the Site Drawing C -2 — needed physical separation and a gate that could be locked at night to secure the voc -ed storage yard. JF talked about the vestibule suggesting designing in 2 windows and 1 door, framing it in at the beginning to be later used for the connecting canopy to the other building. CJ questioned access for the elementary school. KS said that in conversations with the National Guard — they will want a stairway down. SA re slab on grade underneath the entrance — easier to carve out a storage area /crawl space - there are more advantages to removing slab on grade; allows for saving money on fill and retaining walls. He also suggested moving building north 10' — would eliminate the bump out and give more space by the maintenance shop. (post script — ECI /Hyer investigated with structural engineer and determined that there would be increased cost associated with a crawl space due to increased steel framing.) BC suggested that this might be the time to discuss issues of project costs — some of these changes being discussed could cost more. JS said that the driveway off Mill Bay needs to be addressed — that would be a big cost. JF questioned how the perimeter would withstand salt air and would like to see the concrete sealed — he does not like concrete left bare. BW questioned items on pgs. 38 and 52 — had to do with natatorium ground water and controls — didn't understand — statements appear in conflict JS said he would look at it. SA questioned the make up of the natatorium wall — asked about 1/2" barrier JS reviewed the design and discussed the material. SA questioned if there were a vapor barrier. TH said that it was self sealing material. \ \dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070220 Minutes [2].doc Page 4 of 10 JJ asked about the roof assembly and questioned if roof penetrations were inside. JS — Yes. SA questioned the roof membrane, indicating he would prefer PVC. Tuck said he thought it needed to be PVC. JJ said PVC is much more user friendly to install. JF commented that PVC allows for continuity between buildings — easier to do repair work. SA talked about rigid insulation. TH /JS discussed differences between extruded and expanded foam insulation. JJ said he preferred blue board. SA questioned the vapor retarder. JS said it was the same as the roof. JF said it was a mandatory R40 on the roof. JJ to check pricing and pass along direction. Tuck requested that "tire tread" flooring not be specified for entries He asked if an acoustical engineer had been employed. TH answered no, but there is someone in Anchorage he is going to call. JJ would like to see some assistance in acoustical designing now, but did not want to throw out things that would then come back costing more. TH said the biggest change in price would be for a civil engineer to work on the parking lot/ driveway extension. BC said there may be some monies in Capital Projects — he'll check into it. SA said the driveway could be an added alternate, but it needs to be addressed and dealt with in this Project. BC said the budget is only so big — we need to talk priorities. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070220 Minutes [2].doc Page 5 of 10 JJ, looking at the electrical drawings, asked about the timing system — will it be on the parking lot side of the pool. He said it needs to be at the upper left hand area. Does this need to be specified and then we can look at the costs? He moved to the PVC piping for the UV /Saline systems, saying that he had heard there were problems in another facility with this piping — true? BC said that at the other building there was a totally different environment — very cold water and also a high salt content in the water and the pressure is much higher at Near Island. JJ/Tuck both agreed they would like this checked out — talk to Tundra. (post script — TH spoke w/ Tundra, they did not describe any problems with building piping) KS indicated that in the last cost estimate provided there was $343K for equipment costs that was not included by HMS, but is allowed by DEED. JJ said he had priced scoreboards, rough ins, etc. and could not get to $50K. SA said that we need to have a list of equipment — maybe KIB could purchase and install. JJ questioned how the bleachers divided up. JS said there were breaks at every 20'. He said they would stack against the wall protruding out 30" and the first row can be pulled out by itself. He noted that the manufacturer strongly suggested against motorizing. BW questioned the coaching lane and deck level — concerned about the transition. JS said they were thinking about spanning the transition with plastic mesh. JJ discussed the paneling suggested and asked if the design team could give some thought to the aesthetic application of the material so it didn't look like a warehouse. JS said they would take a look. Tuck questioned carpeting to locker rooms and then transition. Why not leave it all tile? JS said the distance [from lobby to the locker rooms] wasn't enough to get dirt off shoes, so had carried the carpeting further. \ \dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070220 Minutes [2].doc Page 6 of 10 TH said it makes a demarcation as to where you take shoes off. BC suggested that the bench area would be a good place to sit down and take off shoes. Tuck questioned the "ticket booth" — said the window needs to work sideways or roll up. He also thought there needed to be more showers. JS said they could put more showers on the wall — get up to 14. He noted there were 120 lockers. IF said the pool could only take 80 [people] at a time. He also talked about the reception counter area — said that if there were only one window that could create a line [obstruction] and it would be better to accommodate more than one at a time. Tuck talked about the gutters and asked if epoxy coating was the standard. JS — Yes. There was a brief discussion re tile v. diamond brite. SA said he would like to move on to the details of the pool structure. JS — bottom put in first — then walls — see SP 1.1. There are no expansion joints — the temperature remains constant. The pool walls are reinforced. SA questioned the construction under the pool — specifically drainage accommodations — he said that taking care of percolating water was critical. JS said he would check on that. SA — mix of concrete? TH said a concrete mix will be designed. SA said plasticizer needs to be specified. He went on to look at gutters and rebar placement. TH said that rebar placement and gutter coating will be more detailed at 95 %. IF asked there would be a test core. SA said he assumed there would be. \ \dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070220 Minutes [2].doc Page 7 of 10 Tuck — re SP 3.0 — shows 3 sand filters but nothing is costed by HMS — one will need to be purchased and installed. SA asked if in terms of mechanical, electrical, water supply, sewer, etc., did the design allow for expansion. He felt those needs should be accommodated now [preconstruction] as they would become very expensive later. JS said it was presumed this would be a stand alone — and asked if a redundant pump was wanted. Tuck responded saying as long as there was a spare pump and a spare cell. IF asked about the locker rooms — if the high school swim team kept the same lockers routinely — and locked — would there still be enough for others. He also suggested 3 separate windows in the reception area instead of one long rollup. JS suggested a single wide slider. JS said the Board would like to see actual samples of the siding material, interior and exterior finishes. JJ asked if Centria [siding mfg.] was going to be sole sourced. SA said quotes will be required and would be interested in warranties available. Tuck said he would want to see manufacturer's details for cutting — spell it out for contractor. JJ said that typically you want to shear. Tuck said he wanted the specs tight. TH suggested painted aluminum and would look into it Tuck said that painted aluminum works well except for field cuts. E. Design Cost Increase SA said that no action would be taken on this Agenda item this evening and would propose a meeting on 22 February 2007 to review the issue. TH asked if the ARB would be giving direction on the driveway because that is a big item. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070220 Minutes [2].doc Page 8 of 10 BC said that if there is going to be a contract change he will need to get it to the Assembly. SA asked if BC was going to present the cost increase to the Assembly. BC said no — Terry Hyer would present it — telephonically to ARB — with explanation — it looks like there is going to be a 35% increase. Note: TH to be out of the country when the assembly meets SA asked if the ARB would have an opportunity to review [the explanations]. BC said that he would get the information to the Board via email. TH said to keep in mind two critical happenings: volatility in the economy and an increased program. JJ questioned the 35% presentation where ideas were exchanged, but there had been no mention of cost increases. TH said that had been his error. He had assumed when direction was given to design to the program rather than the budget, people would understand there would be an increase in the cost. SA said the Board needs to see details [of the cost increases] and may need some time before a recommendation could be made. IF asked if a pool cover was a possibility. He felt it could add to the life of the building and cut down on heating costs. JS said his research had shown that the payback [when using a pool cover] was quick. JJ suggested that the figures he had seen came from different circumstances — NYC — outdoor pool. F. Public Comments IF praised the ARB for its work on the plans. He found the questions to be impressive. G. Board Member Comments JJ said he was excited about the building and was happy with what the 65% drawings showed. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architecturai Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070220 Minutes [2].doc Page 9 of 10 JF said the same thing and he appreciated TH and JS listening to the Board's comments. BW said the Architects had done a good job. GH concurred. SA concurred. H. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 pm. Respectfully submitted: Sharon Lea lCdinolfi, Project As tant KIB Engineering /Facilities Dep Scott Arndt, Chair Architectural /Engineering Review Board Date: 3 2 7- ,2OC 7 \ \dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070220 Minutes [2].doc Page 10 of 10 Minutes Architectural /Engineering Review Board Meet' 22 February 2007 — 7:00 pm KIB Conference Room A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 7:04pm. B. Roll Call IVECE WEB MAR 2 i 2007 BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE ARB Members present were Scott Arndt, Jerrol Friend, Gregg Hacker, Jay Johnston and Brent Watkins. Absent Members were Charlie Jerling and Reed Oswalt. Representing the School District was Robert Tucker. Representing the Hospital were Brenda Friend and Stan Thompson. Representing the KIB Engineering and Facilities Department were Bud Cassidy, Ken Smith and Sharon Lea Adinolfi. C. Approval of Agenda It was moved and seconded to approve the Agenda as amended, adding review of the 65% design drawings for the new pool. There was a unanimous affirmative voice vote. D. Design Cost Increase for New Pool B. Cassidy said that he had been dealing with this issue for a couple of months — and even since the ARB Meeting on 20 February 2007, the increase had gone up again to cover additional civil engineering costs. Staff met with the Architect on Wednesday the 21st to talk through the various increased amounts. It was noted at that meeting that the Architect was adamant about the increase and that he felt [even with the increase] the Borough was still getting a good deal. The Architect pointed to the new DEED Cost Model as a guide for what the A/E cost should be and that ECI /Hyer was below that allotted amount. B. Cassidy said Staff could spend time talking about all the particulars, but that could take a lot of time. Instead Staff chose to look at the DEED cost model. Given that guideline, ECI /Hyer's fees are less than the model. He indicated that this was a difficult issue for those working with it. S. Arndt said there is always going to be a bit of give and take and he was not opposed to that. He reviewed the process [from RFP forward] starting with the interviews of the four firms and noted that all the firms had said "no" to the question of whether or not the pool could be built with the original budget; all firms said they would be willing to work with the Owner if there were time delays; \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070222 Minutes.doc Page 1 of 10 the Board expressed to all firms that the desire was to design to the program. After the recommendation was made by the ARB to award the Project to ECI /Hyer, the EF Department negotiated the contract and the Project had gone from conceptual to 35% with no indication of a change in design costs. He said he would like to see a breakdown with explanations as to the increases. He continued saying that he did not have a problem with giving some for increasing the size of the pool and that there had been some tweaking with the access, but that he was having a hard time accepting because construction costs had gone up design costs were going up. He said that just because it [design cost increase] is under DEED's allowable it should not be automatically accepted and he did not feel any undue burden had been put on the pool designers or the mechanical and electrical engineers. He was not convinced that since the first set of 35% drawings this level of increase was justified. J. Johnston said that this was a complicated situation and a challenge to figure out what to do. He said he might buy some of the increases, but some others were ludicrous. His feeling was that they were asking for additional money to do what they should have been doing [design]. He said he felt the Architect offered options and it wasn't realized that every time an option was picked there was a cost increase. He went on to question at the 35% phase, how much real design had been done — structural hadn't been done. He said that if the Board were making changes at 65% he would expect some increase. He said that the issue is too complicated to resolve at this meeting; more information is required to make a quality assessment and the only sense he could make out of the request was that the Architects /Engineers found themselves way under their fees and were motivated to get more money. G. Hacker said that he had never been comfortable with design fees being a percentage of construction costs. He questioned the strength of the contract [with ECI /Hyer]. B. Cassidy responded that there is a contract based on a scope of work, but now there is a different scope. G. Hacker wanted to be sure that the existing Borough contract was not being violated. B. Cassidy said there could be a new contract drawn up or an amendment to the existing contract could be done. J. Friend suggested the Board look at some of the reasons put forth as justification for the increase, such as adding an inch of paving, choosing a concrete pool over a metal pool. He went on to say that, in his opinion, half of the items listed were baloney and there weren't that many changes to warrant a 57% increase. He said that he was extremely pleased with what the Architects \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070222 Minutes.doc Page 2 of 10 had done so far and some of the things the Board had asked for but did not feel they warranted this kind of increase. S. Arndt said that the interior finishes selected at the 35% stage were not acceptable so he didn't feel that the Board had added anything — the Architects were supposed to be designing. J. Johnston suggested looking at ECI /Hyer's design development booklets — that was what they were for — design development — and the Owner has the right to critique. B. Watkins suggested that a resolution could be to split the difference [between the increase figure suggested last week and the new figure suggested today]. He said he felt the firm had worked hard, lots of options had been discussed and the Architects had gone above and beyond. Tuck noted that the State calls out 6 -8% [of the total Project cost for A/E fees] and we're at 9 %. He suggested offering 8% and agreed that they had done some extra work. S. Arndt said the figure he was considering was maybe a 10% increase of their original cost which would equal $68,000 and that amount would go a long way. He continued by saying that he did not want to do anything until he saw a breakdown. He felt that the Board did not have enough information to make a recommendation at this meeting. J. Johnston said that if this whole thing were taken apart — a large amount of time would be spent fighting line item by line item — could take months. He questioned what is considered a design change and what is a modification. For the most part he felt they had been in a design process. K. Smith told the Board that there is not a list of all of the items that were included in the pool at the point they estimated. He said if we had that we could compare it to what we have now — that's part of the design process — making assumptions — developing — throwing out ideas to get to the next design phase. We could argue forever. J. Friend expressed concern about letting it go any longer because the construction fees would be going up — time is money. He would accept resolving at 8 %. Tuck said that he did not care for the percentages either but saw using the State's recommended percentage as a way of getting down to a lower number and being able to justify the increase because it fell into the State's recommended allowance. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070222 Minutes.doc Page 3 of 10 S. Arndt said that the size of the building had been increased by 10% and that 10 or 15% was as far as he would go. He did not feel that that many changes had been made and was willing to use a percentage based on increase of size of the building. J. Friend said that he would like to be fair and equitable and asked what would be considered a fair price for the product. He noted there should be room for negotiation to bring it down a little. K. Smith addressed the Board explaining that when an architect or an engineer looks at estimating their fees, they look at it in 2 different ways: as a percentage of the project and the number of drawings /sheets and man hours. They then weigh those two figures and try to find a balance. He said that what had happened in this case was that we had begun with an unrealistic budget. In the beginning the Architect was looking at a relatively simple building, looking at the construction costs and then looking at a percentage — if the Architect came up with 20% [as a fee] - he would know that was not going to fly, so he cut back. The Architect cut a lot out because the budget could not support a lot. Now we have a larger budget and that throws everything off. The budget for the project increased but the Architect did not see an increase in his budget. Tuck noted that DEED broke it down [the new budget] and everything came back doubled. J. Johnston asked if the Board was interested in looking at percentages. S. Arndt said that he wants to see a split on the different categories. K. Smith said that the DEED's 6 -8% is for schools — DEED does not have a standard for pools and that percentage is higher. J. Johnston said that he would like to look for a way to resolve the issue and we would be losing money if we took too much time. B. Watkins said that he was comfortable with negotiating with Terry Hyer. He also said he appreciated the care T. Hyer took with his buildings after a project was completed. BW said he would not want to jeopardize that with this building or other buildings and he did not feel that Hyer was trying to over inflate his fee. He then asked K. Smith for his opinion. K. Smith said that he had been struggling with this issue and was having a hard time but also felt it was something that could be argued forever. For that reason he would suggest looking at the big picture and not the details. There was a brief review of the numbers spelled out in the original AIA Contract with ECI /Hyer. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070222 Minutes.doc Page 4 of 10 S. Arndt listed the various categories in the contract - schematic design, design development, construction documents, bid phase, commissioning, reimbursables. This is the breakdown he would like to see based on the new numbers — and he noted that now CM needs to be added in. J. Johnston said that this was a narrow enough focus to look at. It would provide the needed information and should not take a lot of time. He asked what the time frame would be and would the schedule be delayed if there were not a response right now. S. Arndt said there is a contract in place — the schedule should not be delayed. There was a brief discussion re the need to have the Assembly approve the 65% drawings. It was the consensus that a report would be brought to the Assembly as information and that the additional design costs would be a separate issue, i.e. an amendment to the existing contract or a new contract. The Chair said that the Board would request from the Architect a breakdown of the increases in each category [to compare to the original figures]. 1. Review of 65% Design Drawings K. Smith said that he felt the design team had done a good job with the 65% drawings. J. Friend moved to accept the 65% drawings with the discussed changes. Note: Changes were discussed at the ARB Meeting held 20 February 2007 where ECl/Hyer presented the 65% drawings. J. Johnston seconded the motion. Discussion G. Hacker suggested that the 2nd pathway shown be deleted and the path remaining be designated as "a pedestrian path" - not a tractor ramp. Question called on amendment — delete steep path and change the designation of access ramp. There was an affirmative voice vote. Main motion as amended There was a unanimous affirmative roll call vote. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070222 Minutes.doc Page 5 of 10 E. Review /Discussion 35% Design Drawings for the CHC Addition The Chair requested a report from the E/F Department. B. Cassidy said that the presentation given [by Prochaska and Associates] was a disappointment. He suggested moving forward, making changes where necessary and continuing on with the process. K. Smith made the distinction between what was called by the presenters "design development" and what was actually the 35% schematic design phase. On a general note, KS said that the font the Architect was using was less than standard and difficult to read. He noted that he could print out larger sets for the Board Members if they would like and said that he was also disappointed in the presentation. J. Friend said that two things stood out for him [in the presentation]. The design of the parking lot is unacceptable. He would like to see the parking lot redesigned and suggested using existing entry, widening the whole parking lot making it more accessible, and cutting out the "S" curve. The second item dealt with insulation. JF said he considered the rate suggested unacceptable. He said that in his experience [residential] he would want to see an R42 rating used. J. Johnston questioned the net heat gain possible in this kind of a facility. S. Thompson said the heat gain would be dependent on the use of the space. He noted that there were not going to be many heat producing appliances; there would not be much more heat gain than in an office setting. J. Johnston asked if this should be a question for the architects. J. Friend said that the Architects said they would add an inch [of insulation] to the roof and maybe to the perimeter. J. Johnston suggested 2 layers of 3 inch insulation be added to the roof. J. Friend said that EPDM had been called out for the roof material but that he would rather see PVC used. J. Johnston and S. Arndt agreed with the use of PVC. B. Watkins said that he also had been disappointed with the presentation and that it appeared the people [making the presentation] could neither read nor follow directions. He said he was not satisfied with the placement of the sheer walls. He would like to see the numbers run at the 2006 code for ground motion. He also noted that he did not like the limited egress from the building. He indicated that there always seems to be some obstruction from the entrance to \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070222 Minutes.doc Page 6 of 10 the admittance desk and it appeared traffic was being routed through the busiest part of the hospital. He expressed concern about patient privacy and felt the main entrance to the clinic should be at the lower level. His impression was that the design had been done to look good in pictures and impress people. S. Arndt expressed the same concern — a patient having to move through all the other patients to get to the receptionist. He said he would like to see the receptionist first and he did not think the layout was functional. He also noted that he had not paid attention to the finishes — but didn't remember seeing the same color scheme as the hospital. He said that the exterior was going to be the same and thought the same should be considered for the interior. G. Hacker said that keeping interior finishes and fixtures the same made a good point in terms of replacement parts. J. Johnston said that in a lot of ways it [the addition] is a different entity — you may want it to be bright and cheery — some discussion would be worthwhile — fewer products on the shelf would be a good thing. B. Friend said that confidentiality is not an issue in a clinic — appointments are scheduled ahead of time. She also spoke to the color scheme noting that the Hospital colors were selected ten years ago and the CHC would be a new building and would not want to use outdated colors. Walls can always be repainted. S. Thompson noted that although the addition will be attached to the Hospital it actually is a separate entity. B. Watkins advised that he had priced the decorative glass tiles and the cost was a third higher than some other products which gave him concern about the cost of other items being considered. B. Friend said there had been very few upgrades — did not go with carpet and tried to keep everything basic. They looked for fixtures /items that would be easy to change and easy to clean. S. Arndt said that he was concerned about the number and positioning of posts and sheer walls — saw this making for complications in remodeling in the future. He would prefer to see flexibility and options. He noted that this kind of design is very limiting in terms of future renovations. There was a brief discussion re the permanence of the CHC. Originally thought that use /rearranging of existing Hospital space would suffice but the Clinic grew faster than anticipated and an addition became necessary. B. Friend advised the Board that their funding source was predicated on a 30 year lease, indicating that the CHC is a long term proposition. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070222 Minutes.doc Page 7 of 10 S. Arndt spoke again re the posts and sheer walls indicating that he thought the exterior walls could be useful and the walls did not correlate with the posts. B. Watkins indicated that we would not want to have to go back to FEMA [for funding to upgrade seismic design if this addition were built to 2003 Code]. He would like to see the numbers of the design as compared to using the 2006 Code. He suggested that the Board put their questions together and give them to SLA and have them submitted to the Architects for answers. S. Arndt said that this building needs to be designed to 2006 code. He said it would be better to design to a higher seismic code. First it is a life safety issue and secondly, it is always more expensive to retrofit. G. Hacker commented on the parking suggesting going back to the existing entry and eliminating the one way traffic. He said that it may meet Code but doesn't work well. B. Cassidy said that this issue was being addressed. G, Hacker asked about the hopper windows saying that in a sealed envelope he felt the windows should be fixed. He also noted that the door swing in the exam rooms could make exiting difficult — looked like a fire trip to him. He questioned how people would get out of this facility in an emergency. He also thought there should be a fire entrance for firefighters. J. Johnston said he would like to see one more entrance. S. Arndt questioned having only one entrance in a 6000 sf addition. G. Hacker said it appeared to him as though they worked around the code. B. Watkins told the Board that a code is a minimum requirement but not always a good requirement. B. Friend spoke to the hopper windows. She said that the NE people had said this kind of window would not be a problem. She went on to explain that the need for fresh air is important where there is a large turnover [of patients] and that there are sometimes instances, such as vomiting, where there is a need to be able to open windows to get fumes out. There was continued discussion re privacy issues in the reception area and looking for options for another egress. B. Friend maintained that there is a privacy area and that no one will wait in the waiting room longer than 15 minutes. \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070222 Minutes.doc Page 8 of 10 S. Arndt went back to the parking lot issue reiterating that he did not like the one way design and that it would be possible to pick up another 30 -40 spaces if the exit out were eliminated and should also lower construction costs. B. Cassidy said we would have the Architects look at it [parking lot plan] again. S. Arndt said that the Board had questions and he was not prepared to approve the 35% drawings. J. Johnston questioned the impact and cost [of delaying approval, asking questions]. B. Watkins said if they [the Architects] had given a true presentation the Board could have been prepared to approve. He went on to say that giving them a week to come back with answers to the Board's questions /concerns should not have an impact. J. Friend suggested the firm look at 2006 [Code] and egress and present at the 65 %. G. Hacker asked if they would be designing to the adopted current Code based on their contract. He also questioned how much change would there be between the 2003 and 2006 Code and how much will it cost to make those changes. S. Arndt questioned if the CHC is considered an "essential building ". B. Cassidy said that he would email these questions to Prochaska and to the ARB. J. Johnston said that he would like to see snow guards on the roof. Next meeting date will be left open until answers are received from Prochaska. F. Public Comments B. Friend spoke to the importance of the CHC and the need to continue to move forward. She thanked the ARB for their work on this project. S. Thompson said that the Board raised issues that others also had raised. G. Board Member Comments G. Hacker said that he did not think the actions tonight would slow the process down. \ \dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070222 Minutes.doc Page 9 of 10 J. Friend said this [CHC] and the pool project were big projects and would take a lot of work. B. Watkins said that he was very much in favor of the CHC and did not wish to slow anything down. There were no further Board Member comments. H. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm. Respectfully submitted: ssi ant Sharon Lea : dinolfi, Projec KIB Engineering /Facilities Dept. Scott Arndt, Chair Architectural /Engineering Review Board Date: Date: 3 -27-w 0 7 \\ dove \Departments \EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007 \070222 Minutes.doc Page 10 of 10 CALL TO ORDER: CHAIR S. ARNDT, called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Scott Arndt, Chair Cliff Davidson Rebecca Nelson FIRE PROTECTION AREA NO. 1 BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2006 @ 7:30 p.m. BAYSIDE FIRE HALL Absent: Mike Dolph Greg Spalinger, Vice Chair A quorum was established. M. Dolph and G. Spalinger were both excused from the meeting. Doug Mathers also attended the meeting. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Staff: Chief Bob Himes, Ex- Officio Bud Cassidy, E/F Jessica Kepley, E/F It was MOVED, C. DAVIDSON and SECONDED, IMEL90U to accept the agenda with minor changes. The motion CARRIED unanimously. [Item B. under Old Business: Cossette Property Lease and Item A. under New Business: Election of Officers were both deleted from the agenda.] ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF THE FINANCIAL REPORT: 121ECEllWE MAR - 72007 BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE It was MOVED, J ' OSDP J and SECONDED, R. NELSON to acknowledge receipt of the Financial Report. The motion CARRIED unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MOVED, DiWIDSO L. and SECONDED, R. NELSON to approve the minutes of October 31, 2006 [Regular Mtg]. The motion PASSED unanimously. VISITOR'S COMMENTS: None. OLD BUSINESS: A. New Apparatus Updates "Thank You" letter from Hughes Fire Equipment was read to the board. Pre -build conference will be determined at a later date. Discussion was held on the availability of a building to store the new fire equipment when it arrives. C. DAVIDSON requested that a timeline for the new additions to the building be presented at the next board meeting. B. Cossette Property Lease Removed from Agenda. C. Project Manager CHAIR said that a letter will go before the Borough Manager that will state D. Mathers and S. Arndt will act as co- project managers for the new additions. C. DAVIDSON asked why there was to be two project managers. CHAIR told the Board that between the two and their experience the project should work well. D. MATHERS said it will be less expensive and they would be able to pay more attention to the project and keep the project moving with an acting building inspector on the project. CHIEF'S REPORT None. FIREFIGHTER'S ASSOCIATION REPORT D. MATHERS reported that they are continuing the training in the new burn building. They have burned just about every time they have trained, so far the building is working good. C. DAVIDSON inquired if there are many opportunities to help train the village fire fighters. S. ARNDT replied that the Use Agreement was just approved, the idea being not to charge for the use. Due to maintenance issues, the Board concurred that a fee be charged to those that wish to use the building outside the department. CHAIR said that he would have CHIEF HIMES review the current fee schedule and come back with options on training fees. R. NELSON suggested that the Board look into a propane burner for the building. She said that she would look into additional information to bring before the board re a propane burner. CHAIR REPORT CHAIR reported a request of $1.2 million dollars for the addition is included on the Capital Improvements List by the Borough. $600,000 will be requested from the State to assist with the addition project and will hopefully be placed among the top 10 projects on the list. NEW BUSINESS: A. Election of Officers Removed from the agenda due to board members' absence. VISITOR COMMENTS: D. MATHERS asked what the plan is for the Cossette property. S. ARNDT informed the Board that the Cossette property would be vacated by the middle of December. He asked the Board to start brainstorming ideas on the use of the house. Options in the past have been to provide to the Fire Fighters Association, or moved to other property. D. MATHERS informed the Board that any building that is being moved within the district must be upgraded to meet the current building code. There are many things that need to be done to the house in order to move it. The other options would be to auction it off, "as is ". Board discussed further options. BOARD COMMENTS: S. Arndt. None. R. Nelson. None. C. Davidson. Very concerned about the shortage of time between the addition construction and receiving the new fire vehicles. He said he was very interested in receiving a timeline. Also, questioned the delegation of those that would attend the FDIC fire conference in April. S. ARNDT said that 6 to 8 people are scheduled to attend, dates and information would be provided once it was received. MEETING SCHEDULE: No schedule at this time. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: sica Kept-' , Secretary KIB Engineering / Facilities Department APPROVED BY: Scott Arndt, Chair Fire Protection Area No. 1 Board Date: (3 /1 / Date: 3 - 6 ` ,2 U©7 CALL TO ORDER: CHAIR S. ARNDT, called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Staff: Scott Arndt, Chair Cliff Davidson Chief Bob Himes, Ex- Officio Mike Dolph Bud Cassidy, E/F Rebecca Nelson Jessica Kepley, E/F Greg Spalinger, Vice Chair A quorum was established. C. Davidson was excused from the meeting. Doug Mathers and a number of Bayside volunteers also attended the meeting. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: DOLPH called Point of Order on the inadequate posting of the meeting agenda. With no objections from the Board, the meeting was adjourned until March 6, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: Je ra e ri ley, cretary KIB Engineering / Facilities Department APPROVED BY: 5 Scott Arndt, Chair Fire Protection Area No. 1 Board FIRE PROTECTION AREA NO. 1 BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 26, 2007 @ 7:30 p.m. BAYSIDE FIRE HALL Date: L3/62 (C Date: 3 ` 6 ` xO - 01ECEIIVE MAR - 7 2007 .J BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE Committee Members Present Absent Excused Others Present Mike Anderson X Duane Dvorak Tom Abell X Community Development Gary Carver X Sheila Smith Dave King X Community Development Bill Oliver X Andy Teuber X Thomas Trosvig X Vacant Vacant CALL TO ORDER KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH GRAVEL TASK FORCE COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 8, 20 MINUTES The meeting of the Gravel Task Force Committee was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Duane Dvorak on January 8, 2007 in the KIB conference room. ROLL CALL OLD BUSINESS January 8, 2007 D ECEDWErn t APR - 4 X107 BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE A quorum was established. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMITTEE MEMBER TEUBER MOVED TO APPROVE the agenda as presented. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER KING, and it CARRIED 5 -0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMITTEE MEMBER TEUBER MOVED TO APPROVE the minutes from December 4, 2006 as presented. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER CARVER, and it CARRIED 5 -0. A. Salonie Creek Exploration Dvorak stated he read the minutes from the December 4 meeting and not much has transpired since then. Lydick did tell him all the materials and the recommendation of the Gravel Task Force has been transmitted to the manager's office. We are waiting for some kind of sign. We knew going into this that the gist of this exercise was within the manager's authority to enter into a contract, so it didn't have to go through the Assembly approval process. We didn't get any word back from the Manager's office to go forward with it. There was discussion to determine whether the bids have gotten stale, or whether those companies are still interested in doing exploration at that cost. Salonie Creek exploration is on weather hold. The committee would like Salonie Creek Exploration left on agenda so it can be tested. B. Discussion of Policy Recommendations It was the general consensus that there is a need to have more active enforcement. Gravel Task Force Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2 It was suggested that we need to have a full committee at the next meeting. If we are going to have a 3 hour meeting there needs to be a full committee who has interest in this if we are going to go through this line by line. Anderson has almost never been to the meetings, and Oliver has rarely been here lately. They should be contacted to see if they are sincere about being on the committee and if not they should be replaced. It was the consensus of the committee to have the next Gravel Task Force meeting on March 5 advertise and recruit two new members, and get commitments from the existing members. COMMITTEE MEMBER TEUBER stated he will talk to Will, Koniag's new president, to see whether someone wants the position since Teuber no longer works there. Otherwise, he is interested enough to want to see something happen. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. COMMUNICATIONS There was no new business. REPORTS Meeting schedule: March 5, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the KIB conference room ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST By: eis2c( Sheila Smith, Secretary Community Development Department DATE APPROVED: March 5, 2007 January 8, 2007 G KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH VEL TAS d RCE COMMITTEE M in Lyd k - Chair Gravel Task Force Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 EMERGENCY SERVICES ORGANIZATION AND LOCAL EMER PLANNING COMMITTEE E JOINT MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 MINUTES ! MAR i 20 07 BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the LEPC was called to order at 1:36 p.m. by Duane Dvorak, Acting Director of Kodiak Island Borough /Community Development Department, on September 7, 2006, in the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Chambers. Acting Director /Community Development Duane Dvorak introduced himself and presented the history of LEPC's work and explained that more than six months have elapsed since the last LEPC meeting and that he felt it is important to have today's meeting in order for Committee members and interested parties to reacquaint themselves with the issues. The Director presented the Agenda. He stated that Linda Freed, Director of City Services and Chair of LEPC, cannot attend today's meeting and sent her regrets. The Director explained that as in the past, rather than doing an oral roll call, attendees were to initial or sign next to their name as it appears on the roster being passed around the room on a clipboard. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Director asked if attendees approved the Agenda, a question to which there was no response. He asked if there were any additions which attendees would like to make, to which question there were several negative responses. II. ROLL CALL' LEPC Members Present Excused Absent Vacant /Elected Local Official TC Kamai /Law Enforcement Sergeant Maurice Hughes /Civil Defense Andy Nault/Fire- Fighting Bob Himes/First Aid Darsha Spalinger /Health Stacey Studebaker Gayle Solesbee /PKIMC/Nominated Jim Ashford /Transportation ' The original roster with signatures or initials is attached hereto. September 7, 2006 N/A X x X X LEPC Minutes Page 1 of 8 Vacant/Broadcast or Print Media Vacant/Community Groups Dave Woodruff /Owner- Operator, 42 U.S.C. 11001 -11005 Linda Freed / Representative /Local - Interjurisdictional Disaster Planning & Service Area Will Smith, USCG/ Local - Interjurisdictional Disaster Planning & Service Area Mike Dolph/Member of the Public Captain Andrew Berghorn, USCG Carolyn Floyd Linda Freed — see above Rick Gifford Sergeant Maurice Hughes — see above Jerome Selby Captain Mark Carmel, USCG ISC Kodiak Gary Brown Pat Lee, USCG /MSD Duane Dvorak (Staff) Zoe Pierson Ann Ellingson Ruth -Anne O'Gorman Dale Rice Gabrielle LeDoux Stan Thompson Betty Walters Bud Cassidy A quorum was not established. III. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING September 7, 2006 N/A N/A X X X X X X ESC Members Present Excused Absent X X X X Invited Guests Present Excused Absent X X Others Present Lon White Mark Gardner, D.E.C. /Environmental Health Rick Nieves, USCG /MSD Daniel Jarrett, USCG /MSD Gayle Solesbee, PKIMC Larry LeDoux, KIBSD Tom Trosvig, Horizon Lines LLC Nick Szabo The Director explained that the last meeting occurred in December, 2005, under the direction of the City and that Linda Freed has stated that the minutes for this meeting were not done. She sent her regrets and asks LEPC's forgiveness. IV. INTRODUCTIONS The Director asked people new to the community to introduce themselves. Gayle Solesbee introduced herself as the new coordinator replacing Kay Andrews at LEPC Minutes Page 2 of 8 Providence Kodiak Island Medical Center. Mike Gardner of DEC stated that he is new to the meeting although not the community. V. INFORMATIONAL ANNOUNCMENTS A) Grant Updates — LEPC Grant, Homeland Security Grant, Hazard Mitigation Grants: The Director explained that the LEPC Grant plays a major role in supporting these meetings as well as other things. He asked attendees to review and then pass on copies of the advertisements which are being placed in the Kodiak Daily Mirror's survival guide and which the LEPC Grant funded. He explained that the LEPC Grant funds most of the advertising. He provided an explanation of the granting process, the source of the grant's capitalization, administrative roles, grant expenditures and the grant's terms and conditions. An attendee asked if any of the advertisements are being translated into Spanish or Tagalog. The Director stated that they are not; however, he went on, translation of the guides into Tagalog (not Spanish) is a current project. However, to accomplish this task will require approximately $20,000 for typing and proofreading. Further, he added, the English version will have to be reprinted, and it circulates in the community more than those in other languages. He noted that a potential funding source for the guides is the LEPC Grant since the guide includes information regarding hazard materials release. The Director addressed the issue of meeting programming, noting that the purpose of these meetings is to combine ESO and LEPC's work and adopt an all- hazards approach — i.e., an approach not limited to an oil spill or a hazardous material release. Therefore, he invited attendees to offer programs to LEPC. He noted the "light turnout" for today's meeting and thanked attendees for coming. The Director discussed Homeland Security grants. He explained that after 9/11, the federal government provided funding to local entities for the purposes of equipment, training and exercises. The City and Borough began applying for these types of grants in 2003, and he described the grants received and the expenditures made with them and the terms and conditions for these grants. The equipment purchases supported by such grants have broader applicability for the community than just anti - terrorism applications. The City applied for $78,000 but only received $8,000 which is not enough to accomplish September 7, 2006 LEPC Minutes Page 3 of 8 their current objectives. A new grant application for this purchase will made again next year. The Director went on to discuss the Hazard Mitigation grant(s). He explained that Bud Cassidy, Manager of the Borough's Facilities and Engineering Department, applied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (hereinafter, "FEMA ")for $1.2 million to repair a portion of Kodiak Middle School. The Borough's residents backed a bond supporting a seismic evaluation for all village (as well as City) schools. The Director pointed out that it is the past work on the part of the Borough as a whole which has made them eligible for this type of funding due to community support and the relationships which the community has built with state officials representing Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Monies for the retrofitting of the school at Ouzinkie and Kodiak High School's library are in hand. The Director began discussing other grants. Dale Rice interjected that in his opinion, while it is clear that the Borough is doing well, Bud is the person who managed to "make it happen ". Manager Cassidy stated while he had worked hard, it also required a lot of the Director's time. Dale Rice added that it is his belief that Kodiak has provided other communities with an example to emulate. The Borough received much technical assistance from the "people in Anchorage" (e.g., helping the Borough fill out the grant applications appropriately, etc.), and there is now a rapport between the community and State officials. Manager Cassidy also acknowledged Gabrielle LeDoux's contribution ". B) Plans in process: Hazard Mitigation Plan (update), Kodiak Sub -Area Contingency Plan (update), Kodiak Area Emergency Operations Plan (distribution). The Director explained vis -a -vis Hazard Mitigation plan that in 2004, FEMA's policy meant that if a community did not have a Hazard Mitigation plan, they were not eligible for FEMA funding. He explained the mechanics of federal funding, statewide use of such funding and the planning entailed. After the community supported the bond for seismic reevaluation, the Borough and City realized that there is a need for a plan. In early 2005, they applied for a grant to develop a pre- Hazard Mitigation plan, and the plan was being finalized in September, 2005. The Borough and City decided on a strategy involving two phases. The first phase included the school September 7, 2006 LEPC Minutes Page 4 of 8 [inaudible] improvement grant, and the Hazard Mitigation plan covers such things as winter storms, tsunamis and ash fall (which has a detrimental effect on electrical lines). The Borough and City are now in Phase II which includes each community's projects. The Borough's focus is on the schools while the City's focus will be on such things as the water and sewer system (which are at risk during earthquakes). The Borough and the City are looking forward and are on track for submitting an application to FEMA in January, 2007, which is when local communities can apply as well. The Director proceeded to provide an update regarding the Kodiak Sub -Area Contingency Plan (hereinafter, "KSACP "). The focus last year was marine firefighting. The new plan is geographic response strategies. Kodiak can be a potential refuge. He explained the selection process. Bob Himes interjected that in terms of marine firefighting, it includes anchorage. Deputy Harbormaster Lon White pointed out that when he was involved (over a year ago now), the subgroup was looking anchorages. The Director noted that all of these aspects are interrelated, and the idea is to keep them together until completion. C) Alaska Seismic Commission (update). The Director noted that ASHSC was "sunsetting ", but this community helped to extend its term. He pointed out that the community has Linda Freed, Laura Kelly, and Dr. Gary Carver on the ASHSC which stands to reason as seismic activity is the biggest hazard for this community. He offered to obtain for distribution the minutes of the ASHSC meetings or they may be viewed on the commission website at www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us /seismic hazards safety_commission.hotma it D) Review of Homeland Security Community Exercise of March, 2006. The Director reviewed the history of the exercise conducted in Spring, 2006, funded by Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2006 Grant. The spring exercise was preceded by a "tabletop" exercise last fall. Due to the short timeframe for preparing the spring exercise, a consulting group was retained to prepare and evaluate the exercise. The exercise went well, and the consulting group produced a lengthy written evaluation. Attendees were informed that for those interested, a copy of the exercise's evaluation is available. Stan Thompson pointed out that the tabletop exercise provided Providence Kodiak Island Medical Center with the information necessary to submit a September 7, 2006 LEPC Minutes Page 5 of 8 grant request for a filtration system which can utilize any fresh water source, and they have obtained funding for such a system. The Director asked Mr. Thompson if PKIMC would be willing to present this as part of the Programs for this group, to which he received an affirmative response. The Director went on to describe the spring exercise, noting that it "went well ". USCG was involved as well as a "responsible party on the waterfront ". He explained the educational nature of the exercise. E) Review of Pandemic Flu Conference of Spring, 2006. The Director then turned to the subject of the Pandemic Flu Conference. Ann Ellingson described how the State, City and Borough brought together professionals from a wide variety of organizations at Kodiak Community College. Mike Gardner of D.E.C. noted that he had attended the conference as D.E.C.'s representative and that his agency was there due to their interest in the topics of food safety, hygiene, etc. Ms. Ellingson, after citing examples of seminar topics, noted that the Conference ended up raising more questions than it answered and that it was not as well attended as she believes it should have been. She noted that a work group was supposed to have been created as a result based on e -mail correspondence she had had with Linda Freed and Mary Ogle. Mike Gardner, in light of the discussion of the Conference, offered the information that the State's veterinarian had attended this past weekend's Kodiak State Fair and Rodeo to test all the birds there. The Director noted that the State's veterinarian is attending all fairs in the State. He noted his appreciation for the previous speaker's comments on the Conference. F) Report on LEPCA and SERC Meetings of May 18, 2006. The Director then discussed his and Linda Freed's attendance of the LEPCA meetings in Anchorage which took place May 18, 2006. He gave attendees the Web site address for the information resulting from those meetings (www.ak- prepared.com/LEPC or SERC) and explained meeting schedules and described the May, 2006 meeting's topic of discussion. The Director then turned to the SERC meeting. He described its topic and SERC's mechanics. The Director invited attendees to look up the information from the SERC meeting online, asking them to request the Web address from him after adjournment. September 7, 2006 LEPC Minutes Page 6 of 8 VI. PRESENTATION The Director noted that no presentations were scheduled for this meeting. VII. COMMUNICATIONS September 7, 2006 A) NIMS training opportunity (e -mail notice). Referring to the copy of the e -mail handout which was given to the attendees upon arrival at today's meeting, the Director pointed out that ICS training has been available from USCG and that training has been provided for the emergency center. He described changes in requirements and the current standards for such training. He mentioned that a second e-mail (not given directly to attendees) had been received which indicates that grant funding for travel is available for those attending NIMS training in Anchorage or Matsu. He noted that the grant funding does not extend to providing payroll coverage — i.e., the Borough or the City will remain responsible for paying employees' compensation during training. The Director invited anyone interested in obtaining NIMS training to see him, and he will obtain the necessary information for enrollment. Dale Rice asked several questions regarding the training. The Director stated that he is not aware of a specific date and that he can ask the sponsoring agency if training could be conducted in Kodiak and throughout the Borough in early 2007 is possible. Mr. Rice stated that he would not be able to attend off - island training. The Director asked attendees how many of them would be interested in undergoing NIMS training, a question to which he received two affirmative responses. He commented that there were others who were not present who would want the training. He noted that if the sponsoring agency agrees to offer training on Kodiak Island in early 2007, he would send information via e -mail and initiate a sign -up procedure at that point because the December 7 meeting date would leave little time for those interested in the training to make the arrangements to attend it. B) Next Kodiak ESO /LEPC Meeting — December 7, 2006. The Director announced the next meeting date and invited attendees to submit by Thanksgiving for the meeting's agenda any ideas, news, opportunities, exercises, etc. which could then be discussed. LEPC Minutes Page 7 of 8 C) Next LEPCA/SERC Meetings — September 13, 2006, in Fairbanks. The Director announced that Linda Freed and Bob Himes would be attending the next LEPCA /SERC meeting. The Director asked attendees if there were any issues not so far covered which attendees would like to mention, an invitation to which there was no response. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the Director adjourned the meeting at 2:19 p.m. ATTEST By: September 7, 2006 Zoe Pierson, Temp. ecretary Community Development Dept. DATE APPROVED: March 1, 2007 LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE LEPC Minutes Page 8 of 8 CALL TO ORDER Committee Members Present Mike Sirofchuck -Chair X Hans Tschersich X T Pam Foreman X Kevin Foster Jeff Huntley X Patrick Saltonstall X Andy Schroeder Cassandra Juenger I Vacant KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTE REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2007 MINUTES The regular meeting of the Parks & Recreation Committee was called to order at 7:OOp.m. by CHAIR SIROFCHUCK on January 9, 2007 in the KIB School District Conference Room. ROLL CALL X MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Regular meeting of: • November 14, 2006 Excused Absent Others Present I Duane Dvorak X X E 11 E MAR 1 4 2007 1,0 BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE Community Development Dept. Sheila Smith Community Development A quorum was established. COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY MOVED TO EXCUSE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOSTER, SCHROEDER, and FOREMAN. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL MOVED TO APPROVE the agenda as presented. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. 1/9/2007 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 7 • November 28, 2006 COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY MOVED TO APPROVE the minutes from November 14, 2006 and November 28, 2006. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS Terry Michalski stated he works for the Coast Guard and is here to see what we will be doing with the trails and basically land use for the Coast Guard. Mark Gilmore is the Chief of Police for the Coast Guard and he is here for the same reason. COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY asked if he has anything that's an implication of (inaudible). Gilmore stated no, as everyone knows with the exception of both ends of Burma Road and some of Cliff Point, which are the only areas open for ATV's. All the other trails are for hiking or bicycling. The commanding officer is interested in possibly opening some of the other trails for possible ATV usage. This is more just looking with some feelers out. If we were to do that and come up with a set of guidelines we would like to be on the same page as the Borough. COMMITTEE MEMBER TSCHERSICH commented the history of these trails that were open with on restrictions until the trails were abused. People were leaving trash around and the trails were branching off. We are concerned that it will revert to the old system, which would not be in the best interest. Gilmore said Captain Carmel is afraid if he does open trails what kind of damage will be done. We have went on the back side of Old Woman, the Burma Road you can see the main road with a lot of trails branching off with a lot of damage and we don't want that happening on Coast Guard property. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL said some of the areas that were closed are the only place for skiing close to town. He would like to see some areas kept closed for cross - country skiing. COMMITTEE MEMBER TSCHERSICH stated the last few years we have worked here on trail surveys, public input, and questionnaires have went out to the general public. What came out of it is people would like to have certain areas limited for only pedestrian use, and others for motorized use. There should be some regulations. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL stated that people come here thinking they can ride their ATV anywhere. There needs to be more education. Michalski stated one of his concerns is the paintball course near Swampy Acres. From a liability standpoint, it is pretty much Federal Government Policy we leave our lands open for public use unless we are doing some sort of restricted activity. As far as liability, if it's public recreational use there is some protection in the law for the land owner. We thought about putting signs up that says "Open for recreational use; however, you must use appropriate safety equipment. He said the paintball use area is spilling over onto the Natives of Kodiak land. They have clearly marked their land. COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY asked if there is a paintball club or organization. 1/9/2007 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 Michalski said what he found out was everyone goes to the dive shop in town, which they hand out a Coast Guard waiver that he has never seen. The paintballs are biodegradable. It's out of the way and not shooting across the road or running across the road. It's not a hazardous place and it's quiet back there. He hasn't spoken to the Natives of Kodiak, but the corner of the property is right there at the edge of where they've been playing and now it's spilling over. This all started with a club in the Coast Guard that started this. COMMITTEE MEMBER FOREMAN joined the meeting at 7:15 pm. COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY stated that rather than trying to put rules and regulations, if there is an entity that has the ability to get the word out he would much rather see that than have an entity of authority to tell them. Michalski said what they don't want is the public to thinking this is a Coast Guard sanctioned paintball place. It is simply property that is open for public recreational use. COMMITTEE MEMBER TSCHERSICH asked he had some discussion with (inaudible) some years ago about opening a trail all around Buskin Lake. There is one area on the eastern side that is a magazine. He thought there might be a problem with that. Would it be possible to for the public to have some way to go around the lake? Gilmore said he would have to look into that because there might be a problem because it is a restricted area with the magazines and rifle and pistol range right there. COMMITTEE MEMBER TSCHERSICH asked if maybe just a little coastal path over the hill there. Gilmore said he can bring that up come spring. CHAIR SIROFCHUCK stated we aren't to the guidelines stage yet. Chapter 9 in the Parks & Recreation section in the Comp Plan is the current draft, and we are looking to implement a Trails Plan. As far as guidance, we could direct you to look at the Comp Plan. Gilmore stated the mountain bike shop has a poor hiking map. COMMITTEE MEMBER TSCHERSICH said there is an Audubon Society hiking and birding map that is laminated. Gilmore stated they had calls last spring about 4 wheelers being in restricted areas, but couldn't find them. There just aren't enough officers to enforce these things. We have been putting boulders at the places where they are going around the gates. CHAIR SIROFCHUCK stated in opening some areas is to try to figure out how to enforce or clearly mark where or where they shouldn't use. Gilmore we do hold newcomer welcomes which we could recommend to include some ATV guidelines in the packets. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL stated they should include some firearm info also. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked Gilmore if there is anything Parks & Rec can do to help with new family orientation. 1/9/2007 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 Gilmore said the Coast Guard has a requirement if in the Coast Guard and you are riding on government property you are required to go through a safety course they give. Unfortunately, that has fallen out. COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY asked if there is an active ATV club on base. Gilmore replied no, but there is the Emerald Isle 4 -wheel club. Gilmore also said P &R could show us on a map of where we aren't supposed to ride we could pass that information on to the newcomers as they arrive. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said we can get maps from the borough for the White Sands, Pillar Creek reservoir, and the Bells Flats areas closed to motorized use. Dvorak stated the Jack & Lee Lakes Natural Use Area is considered to be the real gem out there, and there has been some abuse of the area. There are also old roads and old trails that pre- existed the Natural Use zone, but from a staff perspective we would consider grandfathered, in addition there are trails that go through that area to State land and native land that access has to be provided to these lands beyond. He doesn't know of any native corporations that allow public ATV use on their land; however, when the Native Claim Settlement was done, when those conveyances took place there were provisions referred to as 17B Easements, and those are 25 foot wide easements that go through native lands to public lands, State lands, Federal lands, etc. to try to preserve historical public access. Those 17B Easements can't be restricted from motorized use. These trails haven't really been surveyed or defined properly, and maybe they tend to move a little over time. Some of the trails go over private lands or other lands and that has been a problem of why we haven't been able to publish the maps. We can't publish maps that encourage people to go on private land. Gilmore stated they have a map that shows the established stream crossings and trail in Saltery Cove. He also said the Coast Guard is pretty much where P &R is with the trails. If there is any trail work or mapping on Coast Guard property they will be happy to help. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS A) Implementation of the Parks & Recreation section of the Borough Wide Comp Plan CHAIR SIROFCHUCK stated VICE CHAIR FOREMAN and he went to the Comp Plan meeting at Peterson Elementary. He had emailed the members to read the most recent draft of the Parks and Recreation Plan to see if there's anything we want to add, change, or whatever. COMMITTEE MEMBER TSCHERSICH commented it is full of typos and the colored things are impossible to read. You can't see the important details, the graphs and tables are multi colored, and the print is too faint. COMMITTEE MEMBER JUENGER said she thinks it is the function of how it's in the internet. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL asked if it has changed dramatically since the last meeting because he was quite happy with it. 1/9/2007 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7 Dvorak stated we are working with them on the production values of the plan. He recognizes some of the short comings in the tables and what not. We will ask the consultants to do a better job on the graphics in particular so people can read them. We requested a format change because we intend on distributing this electronically through the Borough website, on CD to the villages and other places, and we expect a lot of people to read this on their computer rather than copy it or publish it. The final will be in color so it will be fairly expensive document to copy. We want it electronically so people can see the colors and not have to kill a lot of trees in the process. The columns are a problem to read on the computer. Now it is in single column format, so it will be a reasonable size and easier to read. COMMITTEE MEMBER TSCHERSICH said on page 12, under Implementation Actions there is highest priorities, and then other priorities the bike path is not under highest priority. It was the consensus of the committee to make the following changes: • Change the sentence under Implementation Actions to read "For areas on the road system, focus on developing, enhancing and maintaining trails according to the following priorities:" • Move the "bicycle trail from White Sands to Salonie Creek" from Other Priorities to Highest Priorities under Implementation Actions. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN stated in the Gateway Process, when the community was going through this visioning of where do you want your industry area, your residential development, and so on. They had a land use map with Mylar sheets that you lay over it. There were a variety of scenarios to look at to help decide what would work best. Something like that might work for the urban area. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL asked if at that time to make a motion as far as development affecting recreation we would rather see population stay focused in certain areas and the main public land stay open. CHAIR SIROFCHUCK asked if he was talking about a vision statement. On page 2 it says basically what we are supposed to do, it says the committee is empowered to: We could ask for a vision statement to be there. Dvorak stated COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL'S comment has ramifications beyond the Parks & Recreation. It plays OK in the Parks & Rec's Chapter, but you are talking about development rights of property owners and native corporations that may have different ideas of what they want to do in the future. Dvorak feels that's something that may be needs to be here but also in Chapter 11 where we talk about each community in turn or the road system in general as sort of a vision there. It could be implemented but it will probably need more play than just in this chapter. If you limit it there it won't have the weight to sway the P &Z when rezone requests start coming in. If it is put in Chapter 11 or other chapters where it is more applicable you are more likely to get a feel from the general public whether they resonate with that or whether there is push back. An essential part of the process is to put these things out there to gain feedback from the public to build consensus. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN stated if the visionary statement is the appropriate we could request the consultants include it in the Parks section in this document. She also told COMMITTEE 1/9/2007 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 MEMBER TSCHERSICH that Chapter 7 — Transportation has a lot regarding bicycle paths and pedestrian paths. After much discussion, it was the consensus that the Comp Plan needs a visionary statement for Kodiak and the road system. Staff was requested to provide the visionary statement from around August 2004 at the next meeting and put it as an agenda item under New Business, and keep the Parks & Rec section of the Comp Plan as a placeholder under Old Business. Chapter 7- Transportation should be on the next agenda also. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked to be excused at the January 23 meeting due to being out of town. COMMITTEE MEMBER TSCHERSICH asked to be excused at the January 23 and February l3the meetings due to he will be out of town. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications. REPORTS Dvorak updated the committee on the Recreational Amenities Ordinance reporting that it appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission at their December meeting and they recommended it be forwarded to the Assembly. It hasn't been forwarded yet due to their December meeting was cancelled. It will be transmitted to the Manager's office the end of this week or early next week before it goes to the attorney. Dvorak believes it will go to the Assembly sometime in February. A) Meeting schedule: • January 23, 2007 regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the KIB School District Conference Room. • February 13, 2007 regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the KIB School District Conference Room. There were no further reports. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. COMMITTEE MEMBER'S COMMENTS VICE CHAIR FOREMAN is very happy the Recreational Amenities Ordinance is going forward. COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY agrees with Foreman. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL asked if we are doing a Trails Plan. CHAIR SIROFCHUCK stated he was under the impression that once the plan was done he thought Parks & Rec would do the Trails Plan. Dvorak stated this plan is intended to be finished by the end of this fiscal year. Probably, within the next couple of weeks we will start budgeting for the next fiscal year 2008. We need to come 1/9/2007 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 up with some kind of idea of what resources will be necessary and try to build a budget for that we could lobby for as a group. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked Dvorak when do department heads have to have their budget forwarded to the Manager. Dvorak stated the packets will probably be distributed by the end of January for next years budget. Usually, we have the month of February to construct a budget for each department. He believes budgets would have to be turned in to the Manger by early March, late February. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN stated for January 23 we will start looking at the budget and pencil out what we will need. By the February 13 meeting we will try to come to agreement so Dvorak can take it to write up a budget. She requested staff to provide whatever tools needed. COMMITTEE MEMBER TSCHERSICH reminded the committee of the typos and map discrepancies and descriptions. CHAIR SIROFCHUCK thanked the two gentlemen for coming in to the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ATTEST By: Sheila Smith, Secretary Community Development Department DATE APPROVED: February 13, 2007 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PARKS & RECREAT N COMMITTEE /Forem 1/9/2007 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Parks & Recreation Committee was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by VICE CHAIR FOREMAN on February 13, 2007 in the KIB School District Conference Room. ROLL CALL Committee Members I Mike Sirofchuck -Chair Hans Tschersich F- Pam Foreman Kevin Foster I Jeff Huntley Patrick Saltonstall Andy Schroeder 1 Cassandra Juenger r Lori Demi LebBiessel�' KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTE REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 13, 200Z MINUTES APPROVAL OF AGENDA Present I Excused T Absent I Others Present 1- X 1 Duane Dvorak X 1 + Community Development Dept. T I Sheila Smith i t X Community Development Dept. I I X X X LATE X ECE11WEIN MAA 1 4 2007 Li) BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE A quorum was established. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL MOVED TO EXCUSE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOSTER, SIROFCHUCK, AND TSCHERSICH. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY, and CARRIED 5 -0. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN explained that COMMITTEE MEMBER SIROFCHUCK is teaching a class at the college which is on Tuesday night. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL MOVED TO EXCUSE CHAIR SIROFCHUCK until April 24, 2007. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY, and CARRIED 5 -0. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL MOVED TO APPROVE the agenda as presented. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY, and CARRIED 5 -0. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING VICE CHAIR FOREMAN requested correction of typos on pages 4 -7. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALSTONSTALL MOVED TO APPROVE the minutes as amended. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER DEMI, and it CARRIED 5 -0. COMMITTEE MEMBER SCHROEDER joined the meeting at 7:16 p.m. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS There were no audience comments or appearance requests. OLD BUSINESS 2/13/2007 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 A) Implementation of the Parks & Recreation section of the Borough Wide Comp Plan During the discussion, COMMITTEE MEMBER FOREMAN instructed Dvorak to let the committee know when the consultants make changes to the hard chapters so the members can look at it to see if there are any changes to make. B) Parks & Recreation Budget Discussion regarding going to the Assembly to ask for more money for park maintenance. Dvorak stated that first the Committee needs to look at the parks and conceptualize what they would consider an adequate level of service. For example, maybe have someone go out once a week for 8 hours to work in a park, if that's the level of service you want to shoot for then we can crunch numbers and develop a budget that way. Build your argument based upon a vision of what you want as a product, and then break it down into how much that would cost. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN stated for the next meeting on February 27 let's find the park inventory that tells what facilities are in each park, and then we will come up with some kind of formula to estimate and take that to the Finance Dept. She asked Dvorak to let them know how many hours of labor this budget (in the packet) represents. NEW BUSINESS A) Vision Statement It was the consensus of the Committee that they want staff to change the year to 2030 and put a lower case m on mecca, and then move it forward for addition to the consultants. B) Chapter 7 — Transportation It was the consensus that "the main pedestrian thoroughfare should be kept accessible year round" be inserted, and for Dvorak to let the consultants know that somewhere in the Transportation section it should talk about it may be time for the community to look at public transportation. C) Quarterly Updates to the Assembly The P &Z/P &R will meet with the Assembly on March 8` D) Committee Elections COMMITTEE MEMBER FOREMAN nominated CHAIR SIROFCHUCK for Chair. COMM111'EE MEMBER SCHROEDER SECONDED the motion, and it CARRIED 6 -0. COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY nominated VICE CHAIR FOREMAN for vice chair The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER SCHROEDER, and it CARRIED 6 -0. COMMUNICATIONS A) Request from Chair Sirofchuck to be excused until April 24, 2007 CHAIR FOREMAN addressed this communication after roll call. REPORTS A) Meeting schedule: • February 27, 2007 regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the KIB School District Conference Room. • March 13, 2007 regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the KIB School District Conference Room. Dvorak reported the Boards and Committee Reception is on February 23 at the Fisheries Research Center. Dvorak also reported there will be an open house for the Comp Plan on March 7th. The land use map is missing from the plan due to the consultants being from outside Alaska they feel they don't have all the information they need so they will transmit the map to us, and we will present this to the public without 2/13/2007 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 the consultants being present. There will be the map, comment forms, and a presentation to get the public thinking about it. Then on April 4 the consultants will be here for another meeting where the public can give their feedback and help design this land use plan map which will be the centerpiece of the Kodiak chapter. It is important for the P &R to be there. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. COMMITTEE MEMBER'S COMMENTS COMMITTEE MEMBER SCHROEDER apologized for his extended absence, and he congratulated COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL on his new baby. COMMITTEE MEMBER DEMI thanked everyone for having her. COMMITTEE MEMBER JUENGER said she will not be in town for the March 13 meeting. VICE CHAIR said she will be gone March 27` and possibly March 13 COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY said when he was at Kalsin Bay where Wayne Sargent told him the beach trail there isn't on his property. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL said he was happy to see the Recreational Amenities Ordinance go forward. Dvorak said he transmitted the both the Womens Bay Comp Plan and the Recreational Amenities Ordinance to the manager on February 6` The Womens Bay Comp Plan is on the Assembly Agenda for introduction this week, but the Recreational Amenities Ordinance will be going to the attorney for review. Dvorak expects to have it to the attorney this week, he expects an answer from the attorney by the end of this month, he expects it to be introduced to the Assembly by March, and then a public hearing date will be set. ADJOURNMENT VICE CHAIR FOREMAN requested a motion to adjourn. COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY MOVED TO ADJOURN the regular meeting. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER DEMI, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. ATTEST By: P.1 QO.. \ L ) Sheila Smith, Secretary Community Development Department DATE APPROVED: February 27, 2007 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PARKS &RE REATIJN COMMITTEE B man, � ice Chair 2/13/2007 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 Committee Members Present Absent Excused Others Present Mike Sirofchuck -Chair X Duane Dvorak Hans Tschersich X Community Development Pam Foreman LATE Sheila Smith Kevin Foster X Community Development Jeff Huntley LATE Patrick Saltonstall X Andy Schroeder X Cassandra Juenger X Lori Demi X Wayne Biessel X Chris Lynch X Ian Fulp X Roy Brown X KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING- FEBRUARY 27, 20 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Parks & Recreation Committee was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL on February 27, 2007 in the Borough Conference Room. ROLL CALL A quorum was established. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL requested that Linda Freed be moved to AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARNCE REQUESTS. COMMITTEE MEMBER TSCHERSICH MOVED TO APPROVE the agenda as amended. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER SHCROEDER, and it CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Smith stated there are two corrections to be made to the minutes; COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL moved to excuse CHAIR SIROFCHUCK until April 24, 2007and COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY seconded the motion. ECEOd 77 u COMMITTEE MEMBERSCHROEDER MOVED TO APPROVE the amended minutes of February 13, 2007. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER TSCHERSICH, and it CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. Pam Foreman joined the meeting at 7:05 pm. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS Linda Freed brought signed copies of the joint use agreement between the City of Kodiak, Kodiak Island Borough, and Kodiak Island Borough School District, which is now a three year 5/9/2006 Parks & Recreation Committee Page 1 of 4 BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE agreement. It covers issues between the three agencies with regard to the Parks and Rec programs the City runs. The only facilities, programs, and activities identified in this agreement are those sites where the City of Kodiak runs programs for the community. The Cities update of what the City is engaged in with regard to Parks and Recreation is they have five full time employees with the rest being temporary employees. Ian Fulp, the Parks Director, Joe Bailer, in charge of Teen Center, Joel DeLeon, maintenance program and in charge of the ice rink, File Quintana, does registration and monitors the Teen Center, and Keith Johnson, who is in charge of the maintenance equipment. Freed stated the City bought a track vehicle about 1 'h years ago that allows them to do a lot more with their facilities. The City Council approved a new piece of equipment Thursday night that will allow them to keep the sidewalks clear. It has three major functions; it will blow snow off the sidewalks, it has a big brush for cleaning the sidewalks in the spring, and it has a brush attachment. It will improve the sidewalk areas inside the City of Kodiak. There is one piece of equipment for the parks that is like a rototiller that picks up rocks, and the piece of equipment that was just approved will be in Public Works that will primarily be for sidewalks and overhanging brush. Freed stated in the summertime someone visits each park 2 -3 times a week. There's a program schedule in the Parks & Rec office in Baranof Park that tells how often which park will get park trail maintenance, which park will be groomed, when the grass is going to be cut, and who is going to do what. COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY joined the meeting at 7:11 p.m. Freed stated the Administrative staff budget is $545,000, the Teen Center budget is $270.000, the aquatic program budget is $94,000, and the ice rink budget is $78,000. The total of all Parks and Recreation funding for operational activities is just a little over $1 million. Freed said some facilities that she has talked to the Borough about is: Coon Field, which is State owns and they would like to get rid of it. The City manages the facility and has put money into managing the field. Freed said she has talked to the Borough and the State, and she told the State the City would like to take a long term lease or ownership of the property and make it part of the City system. Limited maintenance is being done there because we run the programs. The Woody Way sports field across from KANA is Borough owned, and we do the maintenance and program it. It's hard for us to put money into it since we don't own it. Ian Fulp suggested to Freed that the fields would benefit from expansion, the south field could be expanded into a full size adult softball field, and seating both fields for use as softball /soccer fields. It was suggested to Freed that the Borough pay for the improvements and the City provide management and maintenance. There was a plan originally to put a second field at the Dark Lake softball field, and once the field is complete the City would operate and maintain it. There's still some question of what is going to happen to that field. It's owned by the Borough. At East Elementary we are working on doing some improvements there. City of Kodiak donated $10,000 to the BMX facility through an anonymous donor. The big project now is to do renovations at Baranof Park. The preferred option chosen doesn't include 8 lanes at the track, it includes 6 lanes. We've been asked to go back to look at an alternative that would put 8 lanes in the track and what the additional costs would be. It would include completely renovating the track and putting artificial turf in the middle, it also includes facilities for the school track program, a dedicated long jump pit and a dedicated high jump pit. Also, all the bleachers need to be redone. The estimated cost now for the improvements with the 6 lane track is about $3.1, with an estimated engineering and design cost of about $250,000. The City Council amended their CIP List and reduced their request to the State Legislature for $250,000 for the engineering and design money. Another concern is the City Cemetery; we would like to move the cemetery boundaries in some fashion. What could we do to look at moving forward with doing long term planning for the facility? The suggestion was to get all the key players to another meeting to look at the property boundaries again. The City 5/9/2006 Parks & Recreation Committee Page 2 of 4 will have to make a decision of where to put the access road, and based on the survey information the drive that goes into the cemetery and the area where the hearse parks is on Borough property. The area they don't want to have to move a lot of graves to or the access road to is on the Mill Bay Road side of the property because it is so steep. The best place for the road is where the trail is. We don't want to make it a thoroughfare for vehicles, but in order to maintain the cemetery and get people to gravesites we would like to see some access along there and some designation of different boundaries, so we can expand the cemetery in a way that meets the communities needs. She will try to make this meeting happen and the intent would be, from a staff perspective, of how to change the boundaries so that the Borough would have additional land they could use to develop a long term facility and other things, and we would have the land we need to expand the cemetery. At the same time, keep the trail -way open for pedestrians. Freed stated improvements were done at Potato Patch Lake, and the master plan shows how a trail system could link into the transportation system we have with some improvements. Some improvements were done to the South trail above Trident Basin on Near Island. Freed also said there is $45,000 allocated for improvements to Larch Street Park, $80,000 appropriated to replace Selief Park, and an off - season surface for the ice rink. Freed asked Wayne Biessell if the City could pay State Parks to do the trail work. Freed stated there is $45,000 allocated for Larch Street Park, $80,000 to replace Selief Park. OLD BUSINESS A. Implementation of the Parks & Recreation section of the Borough Wide Comp Plan It was the consensus of the committee to keep this item on the agenda under Old Business until the new draft comes out, and then it will go under New Business. B. Parks & Recreation Budget Discussion regarding the park inventory and the need for seasonal staff to do preventative maintenance. Wayne Biessel recommends purchasing a pre - engineered bridge. COMMITTEE MEMBER TSCHERSICH MOVED to start the design process for a bridge for the Island Lake Park Trail and Bridge. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL, and it CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. COMMITTEE MEMBER FOSTER MOVED to budget $35,000 for the maintenance of the seven (7) major parks that were identified as Panamaroff Creek Park, Sargent Creek Park, Harlequin Park, Mill Bay Beach, Otmeloi Park, End of the Road Park, and Island Lake Park and Trail. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER SCHROEDER, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. Discussion regarding the Lester Lightfoot brochures. It was the consensus of the committee to review copy of Lester Lightfoot brochure. NEW BUSINESS A. City of Kodiak Recreation Facility Planning & Issues Linda Freed spoke earlier under Audience Comments and Appearance Requests. COMMUNICATIONS Dvorak reported the Comp Plan Open House is on Wednesday, March 7th at 7:30 p.m. in the KIB Assembly Chambers. This meeting is to unveil the draft maps to get the public thinking about what land use designations they would like to see for Kodiak, and then on April 4 will be the meeting with the consultants with the principle purpose of getting public feedback. 5/9/2006 Parks & Recreation Committee Page 3 of 4 REPORTS A. Meeting Schedule: • March 13, 2007 P &R meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the KIB conference room. • March 27, 2007 P &R meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the KIB conference room. It was the consensus that the March 13 Quarterly Update to the Assembly will be their March 13 meeting. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. COMMITTEE MEMBERS' COMMENTS COMMITTEE MEMBER FOREMAN stated she will be out of town for the March 27 meeting COMMITTEE MEMBER SCHROEDER said he was glad Linda Freed was here, and he feels we should listen to Freed's request about the cemetery. The cemetery land and trail has recreational value. Biessel said on April 25 the Alaska Recreation and Parks Association is sponsoring a trails training program in Anchorage that will be on trails classifications and trails objectives. Dvorak said he has a poster regarding the trails training and will email that out to them. COMMITTEE MEMBER JUENGER said Freed was talking about partnering with the State Parks. Is there any way we can talk about this for remote areas. COMMITTEE MEMBER TSHCERSICH stated he will miss the next two meetings. He also said the new trail group that COMMITTEE MEMBER SCHROEDER formed is great. ADJOURNMENT VICE CHAIR FOREMAN requested a motion to adjourn. COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY MOVED TO ADJOURN the regular meeting. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER FOSTER. The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. ATTEST BY: c )earx Sheila Smith, Secretary Community Development Department DATE APPROVED: March 27, 2007 KODI: K ISLAND BOROUGH N COMMITTEE Pam Foreman, ice Chair Clfitt1 5/9/2006 Parks & Recreation Committee Page 4 of 4 CALL TO ORDER February 21, 2007 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMI REGULAR MEETING ECE11WIEn � FEBRUARY 21.2C + 7� MAR 3 0 2007 MINUTES BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by CHAIR FRIEND on February 21, 2007 in the Borough Assembly Chambers. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Excused Absent Others Present Dave King — Chair X Martin Lydick, Planner Brent Watkins X Community Development Dept. Gary Carver X Sheila Smith, Secretary Casey Janz X Community Development Dept. Bill Kersch X Gary Juenger X Vacant A quorum was established. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER CARVER MOVED TO APPROVE the agenda as presented. The motion was SECONDED by COMMISSIONER JANZ, and it CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER JANZ MOVED TO APPROVE the minutes of January 17, 2007. COMMISSIONER WATKINS SECONDED the motion, and it CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS There were no audience comments and appearance requests. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case 07 -009. Request for a Variance, in accordance with KIBC 17.66, to permit the creation of one 3.15 acre lot and one 4.16 acre lot by subdivision which is less than five (5) acres of lot area not subject to tidal action below the mean high tide, per KIBC 16.40.040.A.2, KIBC 16.40.050.B.1, and KIBC 17.13.050.A Lydick reported this case comes back before the commission with supplemental information supplied by the petitioner, principally a recalculation of the land area of the two lots proposed on the waterfront portion of this proposed subdivision. The last time it was before the commission there was much discussion regarding the true net dry land acreage of the proposed lots. The new calculations submitted by the petitioner shows a considerable decrease in the size of the parcels not subject to tidal influence. Staffs recommendation is to deny this request, especially in light of the fact that the petitioner does have conforming alternatives. COMMISSIONER CARVER MOVED TO GRANT a Variance; in accordance with KIBC 17.66, to permit the creation of one 3.15 acre lot and 4.16 acre lot by subdivision in the C- Conservation zoning P & Z Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 7 district which will have less than five acres of lot area that is not subject to tidal action below the mean high tide, per KIBC 16.40.A.2, KIBC 16.40.050.B.1, and KIBC 17.13.050.A. COMMISSIONER WATKINS SECONDED the motion. Regular session closed: Public hearing open: Public hearing closed: Regular session open: After discussion, it was the consensus that the Commission doesn't want to create more non- conforming lots. The question was called, and it FAILED 6 -0. COMMISSIONER CARVER MOVED TO ADOPT the findings in that staff report dated February 14, 2007 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. COMMISSIONER JANZ SECONDED the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT 17.66.050 A.1.Exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use of development, which generally do not apply to other properties in the same land use district. From the materials submitted staff did not observe any exceptional physical circumstances that would distinguish this site from other lots in the C- Conservation area. The petitioner did not submit a plan of development other than the preliminary plat itself, which seems to indicate that the variance requested is a matter of convenience or a means to obtain maximum return on investment. The petitioner indicates that the exceptional circumstance is the location of the Kizhuyak Drive right - of -way which provides only 7.31 acres of area on the Settler Cove side of the road right -of -way. It should be noted that this circumstance does not affect all of the lots proposed in the subdivision, only the two lots proposed between the road right -of -way and the shoreline of Settler Cove. 17.66.050 A.2.Strict application of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The petitioner is indicating through this request that the strict application of the zoning ordinance (and by implication subdivision ordinance) will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The result of the applicable zoning and subdivision code provisions would be to disallow the creations of proposed Lots 1 and 2, Memory Estates Subdivision which would result in a single ;7.31 acre lot instead. If relief cannot be obtained by variance, the subdivider will have to reduce the number of lots in the subdivision from the requested six (6) lots down to five (5), assuming that the lot areas shown are the net area after deduction of Kizhuyak Drive right -of -way. The minimum lot area standards of the KIB zoning code are just that, a minimum standard. The C- Conservation zoning district does not guarantee any subdivider a five acre lot minimum size or in any way create an entitlement to subdivide down to the minimum size. While this is a variance case and not a subdivision, the two codes must work hand in hand in this case. The minimum allowable lot size should be whatever the Commission determines is minimally necessary to develop a "reasonable" use of the land. In the C- Conservation zoning district, this means a lot that is reasonably suitable for the development of the uses and structures permitted in KIBC 17.13.020 through 17.13.040, which includes lodges, agricultural uses, commercial fishing sites, etc., in addition to single - family residential. As noted in the staff report dated November 6, 2006, there are a number of conforming alternatives that may still allow a reasonable use of the site and which will not deprive this property owner of rights February 21, 2007 P & Z Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district. Granting relief by variance in this case would go beyond granting relief from practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in that it is intended that the provisions of the C- Conservation zone are intended to apply to all affected properties equally, unless for some reason this would deprive the land owner of all reasonable use. 17.66.050 A.3.The granting of the variance will not result in material damages or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. It is unlikely that granting the variance in this case will result in material damage to other properties in the vicinity. Other subdividers in the C- Conservation zone may feel prejudiced however if they have explicitly complied with the applicable code sections by providing five (5) acres of developable area after deductions for road right -of -way and tidal areas have been calculated by survey. This perception of prejudice would also hold true for subdividers who have been required to create lots larger than five acres to accommodate steep slopes, unsuitable soils conditions, drainages or additional area intended solely to support on -site wells and septic systems, etc. 17.66.050 A.4.The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan does not address the desired development density in this area so it does not appear that granting the variance will have any effect on the objectives of the 1997 Port Lions Comprehensive Development Plan. 17.66.050 A.5.That actions of the applicant did not cause special conditions or financial hardship from which relief is being sought by the variance. In this case, the petitioner has not created special conditions or financial hardship. The fact that the petitioner is required to go through this variance procedure first, before being allowed to subdivide the property, will ensure that such special conditions or financial hardships that might befall the petitioner, or subsequent owners of property in the proposed subdivision, may be avoided. As alluded to under Standard "A.2" the petitioner has a number of conforming alternatives that would comply with both subdivision and zoning ordinances and thereby eliminate the need for this variance. Taken in this context, it would appear that the requested variance is more a matter of financial desire rather than financial hardship in an attempt to maximize the number of lots in the proposed subdivision and thereby maximize the economic return to be realized from those lots. 17.66.050 A.6.That the granting of the variance will not permit a prohibited land use in the district involved. It does not appear that the granting of the requested variance will permit a prohibited land use in the C- Conservation zoning district. The question was called, and it CARRIED 6 -0. B) Case 07 -016. Request A Similar Use Determination, according to KIBC 17.03.090, in order to allow multi - family residential in the RB- Retail Business zoning district as a use similar in character and impact to boarding houses, hotels, and motels per KIBC 17.25.020.B, multi - family dwellings not on street level per KIBC 17.25.020.D, and R.V. Parks as a Conditional Use per KIBC 17.53.030. Lydick reported this request is for Commission review of an application to allow multiple multi- family dwellings on RB- Retail Business zoned land as a use similar in character and impact to several permitted and conditions uses permitted in the zone. As a point of clarification, the application information that you have read had language of an R.V. Park. The request before you tonight is not to allow an R.V. Park as a Conditional Use, it's only to find or not find that the multi - family dwelling February 21, 2007 P & Z Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 development on this property would be a similar use. Staff's recommendation is to approve this Similar Use, that on balance, a multi structure multi - family residential development in the RB- Retail Business zoning district may be found to be similar in character and impact to a permitted boarding house, hotel, motel or multi - family residential use not located on street level. COMMISSIONER JANZ MOVED TO DETERMINE, in accordance with Section 17.03.090 (Similar Uses) of the Borough Code, that a multi structure multi - family residential development in the RB- Retail Business zoning district is similar in character and impact to a permitted boarding house, hotel, motel use and similar in character and impact to multi - family residential uses not located on the street level of a commercial building, and to adopt the findings of fact contained in the staff report dated February 14, 2007 as "Findings of Fact" for Case No. 07 -016.. COMMISSIONER JUENGER SECONDED the motion. Regular session closed: Public hearing opened: Lee Russell, the applicant spoke in favor of this request. Dane Larsen, the applicant's agent spoke in favor of this request. He stated they are high -end attached Single Family Residences and will be sold as condominiums. Public hearing closed: Regular session opened: The Commission had a discussion. FINDINGS OF FACT [1] As it applies to multi - family residential use at this location, the proposed use is similar in character and impact to other land uses specifically permitted in the RB — Retail Business zoning district. [2] As described in the application, the uses are similar in scale and intensity to other permitted uses of land allowed in the RB- Retail Business zoning district. Multi - family residential is a permitted use in the zone, just not on street level of a commercial structure. [3] As described in the proposal, the multi - structure multi- family residential use will not result in negative impacts on neighboring properties. The question was called, and it CARRIED 6 -0. OLD BUSINESS A) Case 07 -013. Adoption of "Findings of Fact" in support of the Commission's denial of a Similar Use Determination. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED TO ADOPT the findings contained in the memorandum dated February 21, 2007 as "Findings of Fact" in support of the denial of a similar use determination in Case 07 -013. COMMISSIONER JANZ SECONDED the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact in support of denial are as follows: 1. The denial of the similar use determination is largely based upon the information submitted by the applicant, the City of Kodiak, and review of applicable zoning requirements and land use characteristics. Based largely on public testimony, the Commission does not believe that the proposed location is appropriate for a police station, jail and dispatch center. February 21, 2007 P & Z Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7 2. The proposed police station, jail and dispatch are determined not to be similar in character and impact to a permitted hospital use in the R2- Two - family Residential zoning district. The kind of traffic generation by a hospital would be more compatible with surrounding residential uses. Generally, ambulances running with sirens and lights on would be going one way, i.e. too the hospital facility whereas police traffic to and from headquarters could be running sirens and lights both to and from the police station which would be more disruptive to the surrounding area. 3. Un- refuted concerns about public safety in the area surrounding the proposed police station, jail and dispatch center, related to pedestrian and vehicle traffic generated to and from the proposed facility, were not adequately addressed by petitioner, City of Kodiak. Based on the testimony of many property owners in the area, the common perception was that the proposed police station, jail and dispatch facility would create a profoundly negative safety and economic impact on their neighborhood. 4. Comprehensive Plan: The 1997 Lakeside Safeway Subarea Plan identifies this area for residential use. o R2- Two - Family Residential District • Description and Intent. The R2- Two - Family Residential Zoning District is established as a land use district for single - family and two - family residential dwellings and limited office uses where public water and sewer services are available. For the two - family residential zoning district, in promoting the general purposes of this title, the specific intentions of this chapter are: A. To Encourage the construction of single - family and two- family dwellings in the district; B. To prohibit commercial and industrial land uses and any other use of the land which would interfere with the development or continuation of single - family and two - family dwellings in the district; * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** To discourage any use which would generate other than normal vehicular traffic on streets serving residents on those streets. Considering the comprehensive plan identifies this area as residential, along with the description and intent for a R2 district, it is determined by the Commission that a hospital and jail /police station would, indeed, impact the development and character of the proposed neighborhood. Traffic flow and patterns would significantly be increased. Public response spoke clearly of a neighborhood of concerned homeowners. The question was called and it CARRIED 6 -0. C. D. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. COMMUNICATIONS A. KIBCMP Project Consistency Review COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED TO ACCEPT communications A. COMMISSIONER JANZ SECONDED the motion, and it CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. REPORTS Lydick reported the KIBCMP Project Consistency Review is in Communications because this is a part of the Borough that has been ignored due to the policy that we only act on a complaint basis. With the re- application of the mining operator and the intent to start the operation again we went back to review the files and noted that prior Conditional Use Permits that were approved by the Commission had February 21, 2007 P & Z Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 lapsed over the years. The operator had been notified of the lapses. We tried to respond in the end of this communication advising the applicant of these lapses and the need to come back before the Commission to get the Zoning Compliance and re- establish the Conditional Use Permit. Very often, the applicant ignores our communications, and they go ahead and do what they want to do. Then it becomes an enforceable zoning violation, but historically the Borough hasn't provided the funding or the proactive enforcement mechanisms to go out to look at these operations. One of the things that was so disconcerting to staff when we reviewed the application was the maps were inadequate to determine where they were proposing to do anything, which mining leases they had worked in the past, and which ones they were proposing to use this time. We had made a request for additional information, and pointed out to the State the information provided is insufficient for us to review the project. The information was the wrong scale and hand drawn which was a real mess. Lydick doesn't know what the final outcome will be, he doesn't know if we will be detailed to do a site visit. Whether or not we will find the funding to purchase adequate recent aerial photography or charter something. We need to be aware this kind of activity is taking place and has taken place for years, and sooner or later we need to think about what we are going to do about it. From a zoning standpoint, the operators have been operating in violation of prior Conditional Use Permits for a number of years. Lack of reporting is required by Conditional Use Permits, non - renewal at appropriate times. It also underscores the value of the Alaska Coastal Management Program and our participation in it. An operator in such a remote location can get away with something for a number of years because locally, we don't have the resources to go out to check these things. They are aware that they have to deal with the Federal and State governments and then we receive notification through the office of Project Management & Permitting, and that is what triggered this off. That underscores the value of our participation in the Coastal Management Program because in the least we receive notification that this is going on, and we may have a problem there that we want to deal with. It's an allowable use; it's always been approved under the Conditional Use Permits. But technologies change, environmental sensitivities change, and the willingness of local bodies to participate or to allow things to continue and those opinions change, and it should be in our consciousness that these things are out there. During discussion the Commission requested copies of the Enforcement Policy. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Borough needs to purchase updated aerial photos of the Borough, and enforcement by the Borough needs to be carried out. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED TO ACCEPT reports as submitted. COMMISSIONER JANZ SECONDED the motion. COMMISSIONER CARVER MOVED TO CHANGE the dates of the work session to March 21 and the regular meeting to March 28` COMMISSIONER JANZ SECONDED the motion, and it CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. Meeting schedule: CHAIR KING reminded the Commission that March 13, 2007 is the P &Z/P &R Quarterly Update with the Assembly at 7:30 p.m. in the KIB Assembly Chambers • March 21, 2007 work session at 7:30 p.m. in the KIB Conference Room • March 28, 2007 regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS February 21, 2007 P & Z Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 COMMISSIONER WATKINS thanked Lydick for being a wealth of information. COMMISSIONER CARVER stated he is concerned about the Similar Use Determination. It bothers him that we can do spot Similar Use Determinations, which is no different than spot zoning. He would have rather seen it go through a zoning change. He also stated he is even more dismayed by the enforcement of rural areas. It is disheartening to think that we put all this time and energy into this Planning and Zoning when in reality it is only halfway enforceable and halfway real. He would like to see that policy looked at by the policymakers in this local government. It is a needed review. COMMISSIONER JANZ echoed Carver's sentiments because it has bothered her for a long time that that's the policy, and she doesn't think it is right. COMMISSIONER JUENGER stated he agrees with Carver and Janz. He feels all we can do about it is to keep our feelings known. COMMISSIONER KERSCH stated the Borough really does need to look at getting aerial photographs and maybe consider it an expenditure for next year's budget. CHAIR KING thanked Lydick for the mining report. He feels the response to the State on this mine was very clear and well put together. King stated he has talked to the Assembly and staff quite a few times about enforcement. He wishes the Borough would put aside enough money to have more people, equipment, and money to do enforcement. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER JANZ MOVED TO ADJOURN the meeting. COMMISSIONER KERSCH SECONDED the motion, and it CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. CHAIR FRIEND ADJOURNED the regular meeting at 9:00 p.m. ATTEST By: earl c tt ? Sheila Smith, Secretary Community Development Department DATE APPROVED: March 28, 2007 February 21, 2007 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION X BY Dave King, Chair P & Z Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 WOMENS BAY SERVICE AREA BOARD REGULAR MEETING / BUDGET HEARING MINUTES March 12, 2007 Call to Order — 7:10 pm APR - 4 2007 BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE Members Present —, John Isadore, Spencer Schaeffer, George Lee, Cliff Zawacki, Scott Griffin, Dave Conrad Craig Breitung, Excused Guests — Kevin Arndt, Dale Rice Citizens Comments — None Approval of Minutes — Minutes from February 12 were approved as submitted. Old Business Fire Department — • Surplus Fire Engine — Item tabled awaiting clarification from vendor. Motion: Griffin — Motion to table item pending additional information, Seconded Conrad Roll Call Vote — Unanimous — All Ayes • Discussion of Fire House expansion — Item tabled for further information Motion: Griffin — Motion to table item pending additional information, Seconded Lee Roll Call Vote — Unanimous — All Ayes • Purchase of hoses for Hurst Rescue tool — Item tabled for pricing information — Funding Motion: Conrad — Motion to table item pending additional information, Seconded Griffin Roll Call Vote — Unanimous — All Ayes Road Service — • Spring Work Status — FY07 has two projects ordered not performed by contractor due to weather — Items to be re- examined prior to completion • Nixon Ranch Turn Around — Isadore to contact Bud Cassidy, to follow with Facilities on survey progress • Brush Pile on Leta Drive — Question was asked why this was included in the Fire Department section of the previous minutes. Member pointed out that this was a contractor item. Contractor stated that this has not been burned due to winter weather — Pile to be moved near fire hall prior to burning. New Business Fire Department- • Discussion regarding meeting attended on March 6, by Griffin, Conrad, and Rice. Meeting held at Bayside to discuss radio communications dispatch billing and status of KIB EMS involvement. Conrad and Griffin to attend Assembly meeting on 3/13 to be available for resource information. • Mid Year Budget Adjustment Motion — Conrad — Motion made to request the transfer of $15,000 from the Fund Balance to the active budget to fund the remainder of the fiscal year, Seconded by Griffin Discussion — Explained that due to the cost of the acquisition of the tanker and associated equipment, increased fuel oil and electric that the funding was require to ensure a positive balance in the FY07 budget. Roll Call Vote — Unanimous vote, All Ayes Road Service- • No work to be ordered until weather improves. • Mid Year Budget Adjustment Motion — Conrad — Motion made to request the transfer of $25,000 from the Fund Balance to the active budget to fund the remainder of the fiscal year, Seconded by Griffin Discussion — Explained that due to increased snow removal cost as well as gravel placement earlier in the year, the funding was require to ensure a positive balance in the FY07 budget. Roll Call Vote — Unanimous vote, All Ayes Regular meeting closed 8:05 PM Budget Hearing Budget Hearing opened at 8:05 PM for approval of proposed FY2008 Budget Fire Department - Motion — Conrad — Motion made to approve the proposed FY08 Budget as prepared, Seconded by Lee Discussion — No discussion Roll Call Vote — Unanimous vote, All Ayes Road Service - Motion — Conrad — Motion made to approve the proposed FY08 Budget as prepared, Seconded by Griffin Discussion — No discussion Roll Call Vote — Unanimous vote, All Ayes Budget Hearing Closed at 8:15 PM Board Member Comments — Lee discussed his satisfaction with the current contractor regarding the recent winter snow removal efforts and stated this should be a factor to consider in the up coming contract bid in June. Conrad stated that if changes are to be proposed to the existing contract that they need to be made within the next thirty days for KIB staff review, discussion and inclusion in the contract prior to the April release of the RFP. A general discussion was held regarding the contract bid process and the board's involvement. Next meeting set for April 2, 2007 at 7:OOPM. Motion — Conrad — Motion made to adjourn at 8:30PM, Seconded by Griffin Voice Vote - Unanimous ACTION ITEMS: POSTPONED: PRESENTED: KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRIC Board of Education Regular Meeting — March 26, 2007 SUMMARY Motion to postpone the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 19, 2007, and March 19, 2007. Board President Elizabeth Odell presented a certificate of appreciation to Ouzinkie School Volunteer of the Month Andy Boskofsky, Jr. and Chiniak School Volunteer of the Month Sue Ketchum. ECE Err)) MAR 2 7 zoos BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE APPROVED: Motion to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of March 5, 2007. PUBLIC Motion to close the Regular Meeting and open a Public Hearing to HEARING: allow for comments from members of the community regarding the FY 08 Budget. APPROVED: APPROVED: APPROVED: APPROVED: Motion to approve the 2007/2008 Town Schools' Calendar as presented. Motion to approve a second semester 2007/2008 certificated leave of absence for Kodiak High School teacher Heather Corriere and Main Elementary School teacher Catherine Allen - DeVries and a 2007/2008 full -year certificated leave of absence for Peterson Elementary School teacher Taryn Bryan and Kodiak High School teacher Susan Ball. APPROVED: Motion to approve a certificated contract for the remainder of the 2006/2007 school year to Angela Eastman -Aytes — BA +0/1 in the amount of $8,478 for 1.0 FTE 40days North Star Elementary School. Motion to approve the FY 07 Winter Budget Revisions as presented by Director of Finance Dave Jones. Motion to accept the FY 07 ADF &G Kodiak Archipelago Youth Area Watch Grant Award in the amount of $69,400. SCHOOL BOARD SUMMARY March 26, 2007 Page 2 APPROVED: APPROVED APPROVED: APPROVED: Motion to accept the FY 07 Youth Risk Behavior Survey Grant Award amount of $2,000. Motion to accept the FY 07 Arts Education Initiative Grant Awards in the amount of $6,000 for Main Elementary School and $6,000 for East Elementary School. Motion to approve the KIBSD Technology Plan as presented. Motion to acknowledge receipt of the January 2007 Report of Revenues and Expenditures, year -to -date general fund revenues in the amount of $16,615,600 and year -to -date general fund expenditures in the amount of $15,200,019. APPROVED: Motion to adjourn.