2007-09-13 Work Session
Kodiak Island Borough
Assembly Work Session
Thursday, September 13, 2007, 7:30 p.m., Borough Conference Room
Work Sessions are informal meetings of the Assembly where Assembly members review the upcoming regular meeting agenda
packet and seek or receive information from staff. Although additional items not listed on the work session agenda are discussed
when introduced by the Mayor, Assembly, or staff, no formal action is taken at work sessions and items that require formal
Assembly action are placed on regular Assembly meeting agenda. Citizen’s comments at work sessions are NOT considered part of
the official record. Citizen’s comments intended for the “official record” should be made at a regular Assembly meeting.
CITIZENS’ COMMENTS
(Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker)
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Leadership Forum Presentation – Robbie Townsend
Vennel
2. Upcoming Legislative Session/State Legislative Priority List – Mark Hickey, Borough
Lobbyist
3. Road Name Change Request from Ocean Drive to Monigold Drive
4. Pasagshak Cell Phone Tower
PACKET REVIEW
(Items listed with asterisks (*) are proposed for the consent agenda.)
PUBLIC HEARING
Ordinance No. FY2008-03
Determining the Disposition of Tax Foreclosed Properties From
2005 and Prior Tax years, Establishing Intention to Surplus and Sell the Same, Finding That a
Public Need Does Not Exist for These Properties, and Authorizing Land Sale Number Sixteen’s
Terms and Conditions.
CONTRACTS
*Contract No. FY2008-10
Bayview Service Area Road Maintenance and Repair, Snow
Removal and Sanding.
*Contract No. FY2008-11
Agreement for Analytical Laboratory Services (Landfill Water
Monitoring RFB.)
RESOLUTIONS
*Resolution No. FY2008-06
Authorizing the Records Manager to Dispose of Certain Kodiak
Island Borough Records.
Resolution No. FY2008-07
Adopting a State Legislative Capital Improvement Projects Priority
List for the 2008 Legislative Session.
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
Ordinance No. FY2008-06
Rezoning 15.9 Acres (Proposed Lots 3&4 Stratman Subdivision,
U.S. Survey 4964) From C-Conservation Zoning District To RNC-Rural Neighborhood
Commercial District (P&Z Case 08-006.)
Ordinance No. FY2008-07
Prohibiting the Use of High Speed Watercraft on
Designated Lakes.
Page 1 of 2
Kodiak Island Borough
Assembly Work Session
Thursday, September 13, 2007, 7:30 p.m., Borough Conference Room
Ordinance No. FY2008-08
Amending Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances Title 3
Revenue and Finance Chapter 3.04 Public Finance-Management and Accounting Section
3.04.020 Permissible Investments Section 3.04.022 Collateral Requirements Section 3.04.051
Facilities Fund by Changing the Types of Instruments the Borough Can Invest in Changing the
Investments Allowed in the Facilities Fund, and Changing Disbursements from the Facilities
Fund from a Percent of Interest Earned to a Percent of Market Value (POMV.)
OTHER ITEMS
*Approval of Workers
for the October 2, 2007 Regular Municipal Election Workers.
MANAGER’S COMMENTS
CLERK’S COMMENTS
MAYOR’S COMMENTS
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS COMMENTS
Page 2 of 2
Saturday
I I
91.
I I
ZZ
6Z
Friday
b6
6Z
8Z
Thursday
co
13
7:30 p.m. Assy
WS -CR
7:30 p.m. City
CNCL RM - AC
1
20
7:30 p.m. Assy RM
-AC
27
7 p.m. MBSAB Mtg -
BFH
7:30 p.m. Assy WS -CR
City CNCL - XLD
ber 2i
Aopseupee
31.
19
7:30 p.m. P &ZC
RM - AC
26
5:30 p.m. Cand.
Forum - AC
Aopsenl
4
1.1.
18
7:30 p.m. FPA #1
RM -BFH
25
5:30 p.m. Cand.
Forum — AC
7 p.m. Parks & Rec
Mtg. — SD /CR
Monday
M
01.
LL
Dd
- Wb as 'w'd L
173
[ Aopuns 1
N
a)
91.
0 £
Saturday
EL
OZ
LZ
A0pii1
ZL
66
9Z
Wednesday Thursday
3 4
7:30 p.m. Assy WS !,
- AC
10 11
7:30 p.m. P&ZC - 7:30 p.m. Assy WS
CR — CR
City CNCL Mtg -
XLD
17 18
7:30 p.m. P &ZC - 7:30 p.m. Assy RM
AC - AC
24 25
7:30 p.m. Assy WS
R
7:30 p.m. City Cncl
RM - AC
I j
L£
ber 20
Tuesday
2
Municipal Election
7:30 p.m. FP #1
WS - BFH
9
l 7 p.m. Parks and
Rec Mtg. — SD /CR
16
7:30 p.m. FP #1
RM - BFH
23
7 p.m. Parks and
Rec Mtg — SD /CR
7:30 p.m. City Cncl
-CR
I
OE
Monday
I1
5:30 p.m. Gravel
Task Force Mtg -
CR
8
7 p.m. KIBSD WS
— SD /CR
91.
ZZ
29
7 p.m. KIBSD RM -
AC
L Aopung
l'-.
V L
LZ
H
9Z
please print your name
2. 4 K r U CE�K
3.
4 ' d aMI
5. PA, 606 <cii5d
6. 11�► /eQ5 '
7. Mat
8.
9.
1 0. eu i ( v)
11. iA.-f ' 1
12.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
WORK SESSION MEETING
Work Session Meeting of: / —
13. �- O w in
14. `N
T U Q N
15. ?a/Pwilt
),
PL-
4 AtAA, hi.4) 1Q-/4 - )4,ti_zezeretieu
Please print your name
1. yj
2. cf
3.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
WORK SESSION MEETING
Work Session Meeting of:
To: Rick Gifford, Manager
Through: Karleton Short, Finance Director K
From: Cassandra Juenger, Revenue Accountant
Re: Junk vehicle and metal costs
Kodiak Island Borough
Finance Department
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone (907) 486 -9323 Fax (907) 486 -9392
September 13, 2007
During the 2007 spring clean -up forty -six (46) vehicles were disposed of. The total cost of
removal was $14,160.00. The state of Alaska has reimbursed the borough for $2,160.00 of this
cost.
The cost for spring clean -up of metals was $9,251.00. This was paid out of money budgeted for
in the general fund.
PASAGSHAK CELL SITE
CELLULAIRONE
from Dobson Ce Systons
40649
40725
-2207 08:24 HORIZON LAND SURVEYING 1 - 907- 486 -3637
PAGE2
PPDPCo ED BU1L tJ I J& and TOWEFZ LOCATI Ott
W ITHIW 11-IE 1:21G4-4T-- of -W /Y' DF •OR1N WA's
PA.S4 6 5v-M K R /VER SUet/ v/S/ON , ex A tLA/.
'ALE /" = 30 {cam f t7ATE• ?s4/ Z007
drawing
Q
7
0
.11144 ‘'."°
photo
D91bA
.A00178S
820555E
D0358?C —
1
DD3582B —'
DD3582A
BM21�
ELEVATION VIEW
SEE FABRICATION DRAWINGS
FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS
LSPL ICE DIMENSION
MINIMUM— 27 77"
DESIGN = 37.00"
MAXIMUM = 42.00"
SPLICE DIMENSION
MINIMUM = 36.81"
DESIGN = 45.00"
MAXIMUM = 51.00"
39' -0"
80' -0"
Kodiak Archipelago Rural
Regional Leadership Forum
Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional
Leadership Forum
• Presentation
- What is the Forum?
- The Forum's focus
- Long Term Vision
- Questions and
comments
1
Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Leadership
Forum
• What is it?
An invitational rural regional
forum
Forum was initiated in October
2006 as an identified need to
bring community leaders
together to work on issues of a
regional nature.
Arose out of the community
planning processes for Akhiok,
Larsen Bay, Old Harbor and Port
Lions funded through the Kodiak
Island Housing Authority
Meets three times a year in
October, early winter, and the
first week of May.
Currently funded through Kodiak
Island Housing Authority.
Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Leadership
Forum
The Forum is made up of approximately 30
community members from all 7 of the
Archipelago's small, rural communities of:
• Akhiok
• Chiniak
• Karluk
• Larsen Bay
• Old Harbor
• ni i7inl,i
• Port Lions
2
Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Leadership
Forum
• The Forum is a community
based Forum
- Must be a resident of
one of the rural
communities.
- Members were initially
invited based on their
participation in the
development of their
community plans.
- Invitations continue to
be extended based on
involvement with the
Forum and support of
community plans and
Forum goals.
Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Leadership
Forum
Forum's Approach
• Deep Democracy
• Proactive
• Positive
• It's all about getting
the information and
building the necessary
relationships to bring
about achievement of
lol ly term communi y
and regional visions
3
Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Leadership
Forum
• Deep Democracy
- The Forum has no elected officers, it sets its
own agenda
- Every voice has equal weight
- Emphasis is on building regional strategic
consensus through group process together
with
• Invited technical and industry specialists.
• Government elected officials and administrators
• Other identified regional resources
- Forum planning and facilitation is done
through the Forum Facilitator
Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Leadership
Forum
• Two Underlying
Themes
- No Community
Left Behind"
- Stronger rural
communities
means a stronger
overall Kodiak
region
4
Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Leadership
Forum
Forum's Focus
• Education
• Economic
Development
• Governance
Education
• Education identified
as primary Forum
priority
- Perceived that
excellence in
education supports
all aspects of a
quality community
environment
• Kodiak Island
Borough School
District (KIBSD)
• Kodiak College,
Anchorage (KoC)
5
KIBSD
• KIBSD has been a strong
Forum participant since
Forum's inception
• Community plans
indicated a sense that
our rural schools are
failing our rural students.
• The Forum together with
the KIBSD Rural Schools
staff worked through a
Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and
Challenges analysis in
May of 2005
KIBSD
The Forum then focused on
strengthening identified
weaknesses through:
• Building one on one
relationships with KIBSD
School Board and
Administrators
• Begin to work to shift focus
from standards driven to
education driven priorities
• Develop community
leadership understanding of
education budget process at
the State and Local level
- Forum member input supported the
current rural schools budget that
brings back on site principals to rural
schools
6
KIBSD
• Developed a set
of Advisory School
Board Best
Practices
- Relationships /Attitudes
- Process
- Policy
- Accountability
• Realization that we have
everything we need
regionally to have
excellence in education in
our rural schools. It is how
we organize and apply
our resources.
7
Kodiak College
• Kodiak College is
"home" to the Forum
and a strong
collaborative partner
• "Community
Connections"
- KoC Faculty
paired with each
community
- Community site
visits
Kodiak College
• Development of greater
access through Rural
Access Coordinators
• Focus on High School to
College Transition
8
October Forum
• Education
— KIBSD
• Larry LeDoux and his
Administrative Staff
will be sharing their
vision for rural schools
KoC
• Continued
collaboration on the
Kodiak Connections
process
Economic Development
• Highest Identified
Priorities
- Transportation Access
- Rural Communities
Access to Fisheries
- Addressing the high
cost of fuel and energy
9
Kodiak Archipelago Rural
Regional Transportation Plan
• Developed with Mike
McKinnon, McKinnon
and Associates,
consultant supporting
the Denali Commission's
Transportation Access
Program
- Ferry System Feasibility
Study
• We have copies for the
Assembly
Rural Communities Access
to Fisheries
• Recent research is
documenting the
negative long term
impact of current
fisheries policies on
coastal rural
communities.
- Courtney Carothers
• How do we address
as a region?
• Will be a Forum focus
in this coming year.
10
High Cost of Fuel and
Energy
• October Forum
- Exploring the
feasibility of a
regional fuel
purchasing co -op
• John Durham, KoC
Business Faculty
• Andrew Crow, ISER
• Mike McKinnon
• KANA
• KIBSD
High Cost of Fuel and
Energy
• Alternative Energy
- Focus of the coming
year
- October Forum
• Panel of best
practices and
currently available
programs
- Mike Harper, Alaska
Energy Authority
- Sydney Kauffman,
SWAMC
- Darren Scott, KEA
Kodiak Chamber of
Commerce
• Strong Forum Partner
- Worked together with
the Forum to integrate
rural priorities in the
Kodiak CEDS
Document
- The Chamber CEDS
Committee is regularly
invited to Forum
worksessions
Regional Governance
• How does Regional
Government craft an
agenda within their
described powers
that strengthens and
supports long term
sustainable
economies for its
communities?
12
Regional Governance
• The regional government
relationship in the minds of many
of its rural residents is
characterized as:
• "Kodiakcentric"
Perception that there is a
governance focus on road
system Kodiak and that the
villages are just out there"
A sense that villages are viewed
as "disappearing" resulting in a
reluctance to engage
• This perception gives rise to:
- Strong distrust of regional
government
Regional government does not
focus nor is supportive of rural
needs and issues
Regional Governance
• There is a lack of
aligned
understanding of:
- The Capital
Improvements List
Process
- How legislative
priorities are set that
support the region
overall including
access to the Borough
supported lobbyist
Fifth Goal Category Priority
Facilities and Infrastructure
Communrty Develop. Coals
qie
13
Regional Governance
• KIBSD Borough Staff
have been working
with the Forum to
understand the
underlying friction
and clarify processes
• Mary Ogle
• Duane Dvorak
— Rural Regional
Transportation Plan
• Bud Cassidy
• Woody Koning
Community of Larsen By
Community Comprehensive plan
Visions, coals and Ktlon plans
A Plan
new. irwatahes
day Iwo.. S.W. ILAW Jai Aswasnawilwans
Regional Governance
• At the October Forum
agenda, Borough
staff will facilitate a
training and
discussion on these
topics:
- Powers of 2nd class
Cities and Boroughs
- The CIP process
- The Legislative Priority
Process
1 oC.ess
- The KIB Comprehensive
Plan
Community of Port Lions
Vision
com: m u au ra lll,
unity mac is a
` r plat. to iwe
„r rmwren
oy growing,
in9 andw
m stay e e
beautiful, clean
wn.le
g a
sunonena with balanced the
modern wingthe
modern changing
world. We haw
economic
end economic
infrastructures,
yw ere
i s rnana
friendships nourish
V r Uugn raring.
respect.
14
Regional Governance
• Borough Assembly
- We are inviting the
Borough Assembly to
be part of this work
session
• Meet Forum members
• Have an opportunity
to participate
• Wednesday, October
10 at 2:00 p.m.
COMMUNITY of
AKHIOK
COMMUNITY PLAN
41•1110 and Ad.. Nam
Regional Governance
• We need to focus
on the Big
Question:
- How do we
together craft
regional
governance
priorities that
support long term
CI 1CT/Y1Y1/`11'l10
JV JI<.11111AAJ1G
communities?
FacI Iles
Id
y
Education
Land &
Envirment
Gov
Contunity
& People
Economic
DeveI pmen
eMance
15
Regional Governance
• We have
everything we
need to craft a
strong regional
agenda. Let's do
it!
Vision Category:
Economic Development
Vision:
We have a strong, committed
community that is supported by our
Tribal Council, City Council and Native
Corporation who work together to
establish and maintain a sustainable,
stable economk base.
• October 10, 11
and 12
- Kodiak College
Benny Benson
Building
- We have copies of
the draft agenda
for the assembly
16
Going Forward with the
Forum
• Kodiak
Archipelago
Leadership
Institute
- Has received its
501 (C) (3) Status
- Will be the future
funding vehicle for
the Forum
KALI Board Members
• Board Members
- Marty Shuravloff
- Woody Koning
- Robbie Townsend
Vennel
- Mark Anderson
- Will Anderson
17
Long Term Goals
• Continue the Forum
with a focus on
workproduct and
deliverables
• Collaborate with KoC
to develop a
Leadership Institute
that grows and
develops rural leaders
• Publish and share the
Forum experience
with others
The National Agenda
• Rural America is
becoming an
agenda of National
Focus
• First Annual National
Rural Assembly was
held this past summer
in Washington, D.C.
= The Forum is already
evolving as a rural
best practices model
18
Collaborative Partner
• We invite the Kodiak
Island Borough to
become a
collaborative partner
with the Forum
Forum is available as a
vehicle to assist in
developing the
regional agenda
- Assembly consider
Borough financial
support of the Forum
based on Forum
deliverables
We look forward to the Borough's
continued participation!
• Questions and
comments?
19
KARRLF Transportation Planning Workshop October 12, 2006
Introduction
The Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Leadership Forum (KARRLF) held a daylong
transportation- planning workshop to discuss current Alaska transportation issues,
examine Kodiak Island trans portation systems at both the community and regional level,
and set the framework for selecting high priority projects. The forum is part of a n
ongoing strategic planning effort KARRLF is sponsoring for Kodiak Island communities.
In addition to leaders from Akhiok, Chiniak, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, Port Lions
workshop attendees included:
• Area students
• Kodak Island Housing Authority management and staff
• Duane Dvorak, Kodiak Island Borough Planning Director
• Erin Harrington, McDowell Group research analyst working for the borough
• Roberta Townsend Vennel, KARRLF facilitator and guide
Four transportation themes emerged during the meeting:
• Repair and hard surface local roads to improve safety, and reduce mud and dust
• Repair and upgrade docks and harbors to meet commercial and charter boat
operations; many harbors are over 30 -years old
• Repair and expand old runways to accommodate new aircraft and to enhance
economic opportunities
• Promote a DOT &PF feasibility study for an Alaska Marine Highway System
regional ferry system based in Kodiak to improve passenger and freight haul
costs and transport reliability
A quick history of Alaska transportation preceded the six -hour discussion about current
local and regional transportation issues. Alaska's transportation history shows strong
patterns that illustrate what is practical to expect from regional and statewide
transportation systems today.
A fundamental principle repeatedly brought up during the meeting was the need for
economic development to sustain and grow small communities. Another key principle
was inter - community transportation connections that can result in economic and /or
public facility cooperation and coordination. Participants agreed these principles needed
to be incorporated into the transportation planning exercise. It was clear throughout
the meeting that a locally motivated private sector partner can be a significant catalyst
to new transportation improvements. This is an important point for communities to
understand and develop as new transportation infrastructure is considered.
It was also a key point that new public infrastructure to promote local economic
opportunities requires that commitments by the private sector to use the infrastructure
be in hand or nearly so. Whether it is a new dock, runway or road, if the goal is
economic development, real -time private sector commitments need to be documented.
2
KARRLF Transportation Planning Workshop October 12, 2006
Summary
Roads
Look for funding sources that aim directly at rural comm unity local roads
• Tribal Shares
• Denali Commission
• State General Fund Appropriations
• DOT &PF - Community Transportation Program
Select projects that have the best chances for funding
• Understand agency and legislative project ranking criteria
• At the community level, select low cost, high impact local roads as a first priority
• At the region level, select Karluk- Larsen Bay as a high -value connector road
Docks and Harbors
Agencies funding docks and harbors generally look for eventual local ownership of
facilities
• State owned facilities need DOT &PF sponsorship for capital projects; community
resolutions of support are important
■ Funding agencies generally give a preference for repair and replacement of
existing docks and harbors over new facilities
• New docks and harbors generally require discernible new economic activity that
warrants public investment in public infrastructure
• New state legislation, House Bill 291, may provide opportunities to better finance
full reconstruction of state facilities that have been or may be turned over to
local governments
Aviation
Airports at rural communities are a primary state interest for DOT &PF. There is a
separate fund pool and a separate ranking criteria system within DOT &PF to make sure
there is progress toward system development
• All rural community runways will be upgraded to 3,300 -feet to meet the new
aircraft fleet that is coming online throughout Alaska
• 3,300 -foot runways will be used in areas in proximity to regional hubs and /or
where small populations do not meet demand for larger twin- engine turbine
aircraft
• A 4,000 -foot runway is used when larger aircraft are running longer routes, and
when air transport is the primary fuel and freight delivery system
• The By -Pass mail system, used throughout rural Alaska, may be applicable for
Kodiak Island communities that recently lost regular fuel /freight barge service
Alaska Marine Highway System
Recent discussions about developing a Kodiak Island Ferry System that would be based
in Kodiak is receiving favorable consideration at DOT &PF
= Compatible with AMHS new service direction, it would not preclude traditional
large vessel stops
■ Improves transportation reliability by supporting air carrier services and
enhances Kodiak as the region's economic base
• System would use protected waters and road connections to the extent practical,
including Karluk to Larsen Bay, Akhiok to Alitak and Old Harbor to Pasagshak
3
KARRLF Transportation Planning Workshop October 12, 2006
History
People showing up in Alaska in the late 1800's used traditional transport systems. Like
the people who had lived in Alaska for thousands of years, they traveled by boats along
the coast and on rivers during the summer. Overland travel was limited to trails in the
summer and sled or snowshoe in the winter.
Railroad construction from Seward into the interior began in the e arly 1900's but limited
population and difficult terrain made it impractical as a private sector business. The
federal government took over and by the 1920's had completed a route to Fairbanks.
The rail system helped establish the interior, non -river communities of Anchorage and
Palmer- Wasilla, as well as smaller communities along the route.
The road network between communities began about the same time the railroad got
underway. The goal here was more ambitious; use a highway system to settle the land
much as the western states had been settled first by rail and then by a system of roads.
Agriculture and access to mineral resources were the two primary targets. However,
and despite the very hard efforts of many good people, Alaska just is not suited to
large -scale agricultural development. Growing seasons are too short, the ground is too
cold and distances to market are too great to make farming and its attendant road
network practical. During this period, access to mining projects was generally a
combination of river or coastal transport and short roads. The Alcan Highway into
Alaska and the highways developed in Alaska before and during World War II were
primarily associated with national defense strategies.
As a result, an extensive road network, like that seen in the western states did not
develop in Alaska. The three major new roads in Alaska after World War II, the Parks
Highway connecting Anchorage and Fairbanks, the Klondike Highway connecting British
Columbia mining to the port at Skagway, and the Dalton Highway connecting North
America's largest oil and gas fields to shipping ports were primarily in response to
resource extraction commercial opportunities. Outside of the state's Railbelt, surface
transportation continues to be based on coastal and riverine systems.
A key coastal surface transportation system has been development of the Alaska Marine
Highway System (AMHS). Originally designed to replace the coastal freighters that plied
Southeast and Gulf Alaska, the vessels are generally point -to -point operations that
connect coastal to the mainland highway system. In recent years, improved air
transport and rising operational costs at AMHS have caused the state government to
shift their next generation of work toward smaller, faster vessel hub and spoke type
systems. This type of system also seeks to upgrade existing roads and /or build new
roads that shorten ferry run segments. Vessel type, frequency and routing will shift
toward the specific needs of communities within a regional zone. Unfortunately, this
evolution in service is occurring in an environment of rising costs that are proving a
challenge to success.
Like the other basic transportation services, Alaska's aviation system has evolved as part
of the state's strategic location during World War II and the Cold War. Small aircraft
have played a key role in rural Alaska since the 1920's, but it was during the buildup to
and execution of World War II that the modern aviation networks in Alaska came into
being through construction of large aircraft runways. The use and development of
4
KARRLF Transportation Planning Workshop October 12, 2006
those early runways was reinforced during Alaska's strategic role during the Cold War.
These military efforts resulted in most of rural Alaska having an extensive and top -
quality fast transport connection to Anchorage and Fairbanks.
One element of aviation service that has helped the system is ByPass Mail. This service
provides consumer product freight haul through a favorable postal rate structure and
enhanced passenger service by requiring that the mail move on aircraft providing local
passenger service. While the system struggles at times to make timely deliveries,
overall stores and institutions are able to provide quality consumer products that
improved quality of life in many rural communities off the road network.
Alaska has made a deliberate and concerted effort to upgrade small community runways
since the late 1970's. It has also upgraded regional hub runways in order to
accommodate jet traffic. From the hubs, transport to the urban centers is Tess than two
hours away no matter where you are in Alaska. Two recent and significant
developments, a new GPS -based navigation system, a new fleet of turbine - engine
aircraft have changed runway desig n to a minimum standard of 3,300 -foot runways,
with optional 4,000 -foot runways when required by fleet aircraft and /or freight and fuel
transport requirements.
Setting Community and Regional Transportation Priorities
The KARRLF discussion about Alaska's transportation history and the evolution to
current trends helped the communities develop a practical approach to selecting and
supporting the next generation of transportation improvements. One key concept is
that air and marine service should be developed with Kodiak as the hub and should be
set up in a way that they reinforce each other in providing overall reliable transportation
services.
Air transport is convenient and fast, but weather sometimes makes it impractical. The
marine system needs to provide good backup to aviation. At the same time, freight haul
by air is limited and the marine system is needed to take on the larger freight volumes,
vehicle transport and less time sensitive items.
Finally, local roads continue to play a key role in small community quality of life. Good
roads with hard surfaces improve vehicular and pedestrian safety, improve vehicular
longevity and maintenance costs, reduce dust and mud, and generally contribute to the
well -being of the community. One point raised during the m eeting that is a common
theme throughout rural Alaska is the need to not only fix up the roads that exist, but to
help housing developments by building subdivision roads with funds from other sources
than housing agencies so that more homes can be built.
The effort to improve local roads is hampered by limited fund sources. DOT &PF, the
state's primary road building agency focuses most of its efforts on major highways and
urban arterials of state interest. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, who does focus its efforts
in rural areas, has only had $25 -35 million a year to address the road needs of over 200
villages. This has not been a practical funding level. The new BIA Tribal Shares
program, which distributes funds to tribal governments for their use, is a step forward in
local road development, but still needs considerably higher funding levels to address
long- standing needs in almost all rural communities. State General Fund grants have
5
KARRLF Transportation Planning Workshop October 12, 2006
been largely unava ilable since the early 90's, although the re is some hope funding could
increase with recent rises in oil prices. The Denali Commission's new road and
waterfront development program also offers some new hope for funding local projects.
Communities need to be practical about what they can expect in local projects, clear in
their priority order of projects, and consistent in their support for the highest priority
project once it is selected. A one -to -two day transportation meeting in a community will
generally produce a priority order of projects and a resolution of support for the
resulting top priority projects. It is generally best to break project priorities into modal
funding sources so projects do not compete across funding lines. Road funding is
separate from aviation funding, docks and harbors funding, and is often separate from
AMHS funds as well.
It is important to understand how agencies view transportation systems. DOT &PF has a
determined commitment to improve basic aviation infrastructure in each community, so
it would not make practical sense to push an aviation project over a local road or dock
improvement if DOT &PF was already committed to the airport improvements. It is also
important to understand regional as well as local priorities, especially in aviation and
AMHS programs, so that borough governments and other regional entities can support
local project priorities. The following outlines key discussion points for each
transportation mode.
Roads
Generally, repairing local existing roads will rise to the top of the list, with long -range
economic development projects and new construction coming in lower in the ranking.
This is generally the case for two reasons. One is local roads can be upgraded for a
reasonable cost through joint funding opportunities at the local, state, tribal and federal
levels. Local needs, where safety is an immediate issue rank well in most project
selection processes. Further, the new BIA Tribal Shares system has the ability to assign
25% of the annual tribal shares funds on maintenance. Suddenly, small communities
across the state are able to sign needed maintenance agreements to get projects in
their villages. This is an exceptional step forward for collaborating with other local, state
and federal transportation funding agencies.
Second, economic development projects and new road construction, especially of any
distance is often quite expensive for the economic return provided to the community.
There is exception to this of course, but economic returns are often difficult to realize
from new construction. It has often been the case that if a new industry or major
business is coming to a comm unity, it will construct needed infrastructure, or will work
with the community to joint- venture infrastructure. In either case, it generally takes an
imminent development with an active agent on the scene to bring public road funds to
the table.
Housing development roads are a special circumstance that needs individual evaluation,
but it has generally been difficult to get other agencies to provide funding for subdivision
roads. This is an area where new attention may garner additional funds in order to
extend the number of homes built in a given project.
6
KARRLF Transportation Planning Workshop October 12, 2006
Many communities will receive airport improvements over the next ten years, and there
is significant merit to tying local road projects and other capital project schedules to
airport reconstruction or upgrading scheduled for a community. Coordinating timing
with a runway project can lower overall mobilization costs, make construction bidding
more competitive, put heavy equipment in a small community that is ordinarily not
available and create materials synergies that lower costs for all projects.
It was interesting to see the discussion of the Karluk- Larsen Bay quickly turn to the idea
of coordinating and combing services between the two communities. If a road were
built and underground electrical were to be extended Kariuk would be able to take
advantage of the cheaper cost of fuel delivery to Larsen Bay and their combined
purchases, stored at the new tank farm may create a better economy of scale. In
addition, Larsen Bay gets some electricity from hydroelectric, which could be used to
support a two- community system. With the two communities working together, the
road - utility connection could be a significant improvement over the existing situation in
both communities.
Aviation
Generally, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and DOT &PF are responsible for
aviation infrastructure. FAA focuses on weather and navigation systems, while DOT &PF
focuses on runway operations. Three areas where communities can play in ensuring the
developments meet community needs is runway length, airport leasing opportunities
and the ByPass Mail system.
Runway length is primarily a function of how much room an aircraft needs to fully power
up on takeoff and then pull off power and run down to a stop. This allows a
tremendous safety factor for operations. DOT &PF and FAA have determined that a
3,300 -foot runway with safety areas meets these safety standards for the existing and
emerging aircraft fleet that operates in rural Alaska.
There are generally two cases where the longer 4,000 -foot runway standard is needed.
One is when the passenger fleet is operating on longer routes, using twin- engine turbine
aircraft like the Beech 1900. These aircraft offer faster runs and more reliable service
than older twins, but require a longer runway. These aircraft are coming into extensive
use in the arctic and the Yukon - Kuskokwim regions. Even in these cases however,
single engine aircraft generally serves those communities near the regional hub airport
and 3,300 -foot runways are the norm.
The second case where a 4,000 -foot runway is appropriate is when DC -6 aircraft do or
could deliver fuel because barge operations are not available. Several upriver villages in
interior and arctic Alaska use this aviation -based system. Recent reductions in Kodiak
Island barge service may be grounds for considering an aviation -based approach for fuel
and freight delivery, especially to the south island communities.
Many small coastal communities have looked at a 4,000- 5,500 -foot runway to ship fresh
fish to Anchorage or Seattle. While freighter - capable runways may be practical in some
cases, it is unlikely that new, 737 - capable runways will be developed in the near term.
Examining this issue quickly shows that Alaska's history as a military center for aviation
operations plays a key role in fresh fish transport. Those communities who were part of
7
KARRLF Transportation Planning Workshop October 12, 2006
the lend -lease airport system or the coastal protection system during World War II got
long runways to handle high volumes of military aircraft. Small communities like Sitka,
Yakutat, Cordova, King Salmon and Adak have jet - capable runways. These sites have
become connection points between fishers and the growing demand for fresh products.
An approach small communities use in Southeast Alaska is to send small loads (up to
2,000 pounds) of fish on single engine aircraft to Juneau, Sitka or Ketchikan where it
can be sent by jet direct to Seattle. DOT &PF, the only practical airport owner in most
rural communities would require commitments from processors and air carriers that
there is a sustainable market demand. The most likely runway for a new market would
be a 4,500 -foot runway for DC -6 aircraft, or the new ATR -42 twin- turbine freight
aircraft. It is not practical to expect that a much wider and longer jet - capable runway
would be built in any small Alaska community in today's cost environment.
It appears that for Kodiak Island communities, a first generation goal may be to work
with processors and air carriers to get products to the regional market with smaller
freight aircraft. A business plan that includes commitments from air carriers and
processors would be the start point for making a case to the State of Alaska for a
freighter - capable runway.
Another airport-based program that needs review by Kodiak Island comm unities is the
ByPass Mail system. It is a consumer products based mail system used throughout rural
Alaska to lower costs for stores and institutions and ensure regular passenger service for
small communities. It is generally not used where other freight transport services like
regular barge service or road haul is available. However, with the recent elimination of
regular barge service, it is worth a call to the U.S. Postal Service to discuss this option.
Docks and Harbors
The same characteristics that direct funds toward reconstruction of local roads are also
at play when selecting dock and harbor projects. The state and federal funding agents
generally look for opportunities to repair and upgrade existing facilities that are fully
utilized. Since these funds are limited, it is generally the case that the most active
facilities, especially those that contribute to regional as well as local economies score
highest in agency selection processes.
In addition, it is often the case that funding for direct marine elements of docks and
harbors get a higher funding priority than upland developments like parking and staging
areas. Communities generally fare better if they segregate upland developments from
direct marine elements. However, it is critical to develop parking and staging areas that
accommodate a growing trend in road and marine transport intermodal connections.
Discussions during the meeting indicated that many people already stage vehicles at
marinas or boat landings in Kodiak. As road -ferry and road -smaii vessel transport
projects come on line, it will be important to understand and incorporate intermodal link
demand into final project designs. This may mean developing additional local funding
sources to address vehicle connection points. Parking /staging demand at the Anton
Larson Bay facility is a good example of the problems that result from underestimating
intermodal connection demand.
8
KARRLF Transportation Planning Workshop October 12, 2006
Like new roads, new docks and harbors have to be based on some significant economic
development. New businesses will often play a financial role in marine developments.
Communities seeking new businesses by developing new marine facilities will need to
have firm commitments in place before funding agencies will participate. If a firm
commitment is in place, many funding avenues warrant investigation. Again, a locally
motivated private sector partner can be a significant catalyst to getting a new project
brought into a community.
Alaska Marine Highway System
Traditionally, Gulf of Alaska communities have sought AMHS service from the
Tustumena and Kennecott with the goal of getting to the mainland. Anchorage is often
the final destination. Even now, both Ouzinkie and Perryville would like to have these
vessels dock at their communities and there is some merit to that goal.
However, it is generally recognized inside DOT &PF, that the new generation of work for
AMHS is to develop regional systems operating out of a h ub like Kodiak that uses
smaller, less expensive vessels in daytime operations. These systems would use existing
roads to the extent practical to reduce vessel costs. New short roads to Zink ferry routes
may also be meritorious. In several cases, a new open deck vessel, based on the
Latoya class vessel being used between Metlakatla and Ketchikan in southeast Alaska is
being considered. The goal is provide service to hub communities with regional
business, education and medical facilities.
Kodiak is dearly well suited to that strategy. While some of the southern island
communities present some challenges, it is clear that Karluk- Larsen Bay, Port Lions and
Ouzinkie are, at first impression good candidates for a road -ferry system. There may be
an opportunity for Old Harbor to access the next bay north with a road and run from
there to Pasagshak where the road to Kodiak begins. An access road to the Alitak
cannery near Akhiok would provide berthing for a ferry vessel that may not be practical
at the community itself.
A primary goal of a new service would be to stay in protected waters to the extent
practical to minimize vessel costs and to maximize service frequency /consistency.
A first step in understanding the opportunities and constraints of such a system would
be a request by the Kodiak Borough for DOT &PF to conduct a feasibility study or
"Marine Transportation Study ". While a system like this could take 6 -10 years to put in
place, in the end it could provide benefits to both the area communities and to Kodiak
as a hub community. Good ferry service could provide backup to the aviation system
and could provide the regular freight haul service that is currently missing from the
island's transportation system.
The idea was raised during the meeting of using a mainline barge /lightering barge
system like those that work together on the Bering Sea coast. A quick look at the large
freight and fuel volumes being delivered on the Bering Sea coast showed that it would
not be practical to use this kind of two- vessel system in the limited volume, small
community circumsta nces of Kodiak Island. A small local barge will likely provide service
to the island, with air service entering the market where barge service is not present.
9
KARRLF Transportation Planning Workshop October 12, 2006
Conclusion
The day of discussion amongst the leaders and various agency staff revealed a common
set of goals for communities. The consensus included local road improvements, repairs
to existing harbors including finishing the harbor at Larson Bay, continuing to support
airport improvements throughout the island, and a feasibility study to determine if a
regional ferry system is practical.
I will report on the status of each airport on the island to make sure communities can
show opportunities to coordinate local projects with the airport construction projects. I
will send this information to Duane Dvorak at the borough. Some communities thought
they might be eligible for 4,000 -foot runways and /or ByPass Mail, given the unusual
circumstances of the region's local barge service from Seattle pulling out of Alaska this
year. The requests for ByPass Mail consideration need to be addressed to the U.S.
Postal Service, and the request for consideration of a 4,000 -foot runway needs to be
addressed to DOT &PF, Central Region Planning.
Communities agreed to pursue funds aimed directly at rural communities, particularly
tribal shares, state General Fund appropriations and Denali Commission funds. The
Denali Commission project nomination period is open until November 30, with all needed
forms available on line.
Each community agreed to each select its single highest priority road and to support a
separate project to investigate the feasibility of a Karluk- Larsen Bay road. There are
many social, economic and transportation values to connecting these communities.
The same is true for harbors, most are state owned and need DOT &PF support for
improvements. The new House Bill 291 may offer some opportunities for joint funding
between the state and federal agencies for harbor and dock improvements. These
project actions will again need to go through the borough to some extent. Communities
agreed that repair and replacement would be the focus of their efforts given the fact
state and federal agencies preferred these types of projects to new construction.
Regardless of the project type, all the communities at the meeting agreed it is important
for a community to develop a joint resolution amongst the village Native Corporation,
Tribal Council and City. It is also important to ask the regional corporation for support.
Especially with regard to state funded projects, these resolutions have to have the
support and endorsement of the borough government as the borough is the first order
of legal relationship with the state government.
Funding agencies have come to understand that joint resolutions demonstrate a serious
commitment to project scope and schedule. To show support for the AMHS feasibility
study or Transportation Analysis, includi ng a full intermodal connections analysis,
communities agreed to prepare resolutions for transmittal to DOT&PF. It would likely be
best to have the resolutions sent through the borough, to DOT &PF and the region's
legislative delegation.
One point that I mentioned a number of times was to consider organizing a
transportation committee through the Chamber of Commerce, borough assembly or
other regional organization. In Fairbanks, the Chamber of Commerce has developed a
10
KARRLF Transportation Planning Workshop October 12, 2006
rural -urban committee to get a dialog going between Fairbanks and it regional rural
communities. This kind of committee may be a good precursor to a transportation
committee.
It was a pleasure to work with such productive and positive leaders. I also saw a
beneficial emerging relationship with the borough through the attendance of the
Planning Director and hope communities recognize the need to continue to establish
formal and informal relationships with the boro ugh. The mutual benefit of the smaller
communities receiving projects through borough support and the borough economy
benefiting from improved transportation conditions on the island is a powerful
opportunity for borough facilitation.
11
Impacts of Halibut IFQs and Changing Kodiak Fishing Communities
Courtney Carothers
University of Washington
Department of Anthropology
Box 353100, Seattle, WA 98195
c1c23 @u.washington.edu
Paper presented at Alaska's Fishing Communities: Harvesting the Future, September 2006 Anchorage, AK
The North Pacific halibut fishery is one of the premier international examples of why restricted
access, market -based fishing quota programs are becoming a gold standard in fisheries management.
Many of the goals of fisheries "rationalization" have been realized since this quota program was
implemented in 1995: the fleet consolidated, seasons lengthened, product price and quality
increased, the value of the fishery increased, and many feel fishing is safer. However, the halibut
fishery also showcases other realities of privatized access fisheries: fleet consolidation has meant loss
of jobs, quota issued to only to vessel owners has solidified classes of owners and non - owners and
impeded upward mobility, crew members and skippers have lost labor power, entry costs have made
the fishery inaccessible to many fishermen, and quota markets have led to distributional inequities
(e.g. pattern of quota share migrating out of small, remote fishing villages).
My dissertation research explores how these realities of access limitation and privatization have been
experienced in Kodiak Island, Alaska. Ethnographic research in the port of Kodiak and three
remote Alaska Native fishing villages suggests that halibut IFQs are one of the factors contributing
to a fundamental change in the fishing lifestyle on the island. A series of access limitation policies
that began with `limited entry' for salmon in the 1970s and continue today in the form of
`rationalization' of Bering Sea crab and Gulf of Alaska groundfish has changed the nature of fishing
in general, and has had particularly negative impacts on fishing in small, remote coastal communities.
Residents of Kodiak villages link this set of policies to the alienation of their fishing rights. While
residents also note a series of other factors that have contributed to a loss of fishing rights (e.g.
salmon market price declines and the Exxon Valdez oil spill), access limitation and privatization is
seen as a primary force driving this dramatic decline in village fishing participation. This paper
briefly outlines two sets of analysis that explore the social side of fisheries access privatization — a
halibut IFQ holder mail survey and ethnographic research on current fishing village trends on
Kodiak Island.
Halibut IFQ Holder Survey
One of the basic research questions for this study is: Why does quota share leave small
communities? Previous research on the halibut IFQ program shows that most small communities
have a net loss of quota share over time; this trend is particularly pronounced in communities with
less than 1,500 people. A mail survey was developed to question IFQ holders about their reasons for
buying and selling quota, their community history, and their opinions about how IFQs have changed
the halibut fishery and their communities of residence. A random sample of initial quota share
holders and those that have bought or sold quota from 1995 to 2004 was stratified so that about
50% of the respondents were residents of small, remote fishing communities (SRFCs). To be
classified as an SRFC in this analysis a community has to have a population less than 1,500, be
considered rural by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, be located less than 10 miles from
1
Alaska coastline, and have had historic halibut landings. There are 52 communities that meet this
definition.
About 14% of the total population of halibut IFQ initial quota share holders, buyers, and sellers was
sampled (N= 1,100). Approximately 46% of the surveys were returned (N =506). The basic
demographics for both sets of respondents (those from SRFCs and those from non - SRFCs) are
similar for some categories; the vast majority of respondents are male, the average age in both
groups is approximately 42 years, about 75% of both groups are boat owners, while less than 25%
are crew members. The two groups differ in average household income (SRFC respondents average
about $45,000, non -SRFC about $75,000) and ethnicity (about 38% of SRFC respondents identify as
Alaska Native, compared to about 8% of non -SRFC respondents).
The analysis of these survey data is currently underway. Some initial findings suggest that, compared
to non -SRFC residents, respondents in SRFCs have strong, multi - generational ties to their
communities, a majority believe that halibut IFQs have had a negative impact on their communities,
and few would support managing more fisheries with IFQs. A majority of both groups prefer IFQs
to halibut derbies, agree that IFQs are changing the fishing lifestyle, and conceptualize IFQs as a
type of private property.
Kodiak Village Fishing Trends
I conducted 12 months of detailed ethnographic fieldwork in three Kodiak villages: Larsen Bay, Old
Harbor, and Ouzinkie. In addition to research questions explored in my survey work (why quota
share is leaving small communities), this research explore how these impacts of fishing access
limitation are experienced locally. Three main trends are apparent from initial analysis of my field
research. First, the fishing villages on Kodiak Island are depopulating. Within the past twenty years,
there has been about a 50% decrease in the year -round populations in each study community.
Current residents attribute these declines to decreased fishing access and profitability and limited
educational opportunities for youth.
A second trend is the significant decrease in fishing involvement. This decrease has been
pronounced as it has occurred over just one generation. Over 75% of households in each village
have been previously involved in commercial fishing; currently, less than 25% are involved. On this
change, one Ouzinkie resident remarked:
(Fishing) used to mean everything... now really there are only three active boats. Not really a
fishing village since IFQs and all that. It still is in its own mind a fishing village. They
consider themselves fisher people even though they don't really fish...
Declines in fishing involvement have led to a third important trend in these communities — the
younger generation has become detached from commercial fishing. People have referred to
youngsters (roughly under 25) as the "lost generation." Their parents and grandparents grew up as
fishermen; however, most no longer participate in fishing. Many village fishermen tell stories of their
own childhood; young men grew up knowing that they would one day be boat owners and captains.
Older fishermen remark with sadness that most young people today cannot realistically share that
same vision.
Limiting access to commercial fishing has played a significant role in each of these trends. Other
factors, particularly low salmon prices, have also contributed decreased fishing participation and
2
village depopulation. Overall though, when discussing how their communities have changed in
recent decades, village residents link a set of fisheries management policies that limit fishing access
to a fundamental change in their lifestyle and their ability to fish and continue to fish. More recently
people have begun expressing their resistance to this set of policies collectively — often disparaging
as `ratz,' drawing on rodent metaphors to counter the more positive, common -sense connotations of
fisheries `rationalization.'
As fisheries access limitation and privatization policies gain widespread approval internationally, it
increasingly important that the social impacts of such policies are properly evaluated. As
demonstrated in the halibut fishery, many management goals can be realized with fisheries access
privatization; however, this access privatization is fundamentally changing fishing lifestyles and is
impacting the future of fishing communities in Alaska. So -called fisheries rationalization, guided by
the goals of economic efficiency, represents certain social values. These values are often mistaken
for fact -like common -sense in policy and economics literature. Fisheries managers should be
challenged to evaluate the distributive outcomes of such programs, and indeed to repoliticize this
common -sense mentality of rationalization. Many patterned distributive outcomes of such policies
can now be predicted (e.g. fishing rights tend to leave small communities, crew are disadvantaged by
rationalization, increased costs make it difficult for entry class of participants); rather than ignoring
these social impacts as `unintended consequences,' managers should make attempt to design policies
that mitigate these predictable (and as often voiced, undesirable) social impacts.
3
W.K. Kellogg Foundation: Overview - Rural People, Rural Policy
Home Who We Are Grantseeking Pro . rammin
Knowledgebase
Page 1 of 3
RURAL PEOPLE. RURAL POLICY
News Highlights
New Publications
Overview
All Featured Projects
■ Publications and
Resources
Grants
Peer Learning Sessions
Network Members
How to Talk Rural Issues
Rural Perceptions
News Archives
Rural Framing Module
Insights
► News Room
Toolkits
Show
All
Youth Serve Disadvantaged While Learning
to Make Impact in Their Rural Community -
High schoolers in Rhinelander, Wisconsin, are
partnering with adults in local organizations to
supply toys, toiletries,...
Food Systems and Rural Development > Rural People, Rural Policy
Overview
Sign up 1
Newslett
Melanoma Diagnosis Often Delaye
Rural Poor - The farther a patient ha
to see the doctor who diagnoses thei
melanoma, the more likely they are ti
thicker -- and more lethal -- skin...
First Annual National Rural Assembly
In June 2007 more than 300 of the nation's rural leaders from across the United States gather
near Washington, D.C., in the first annual National Rural Assembly. The Assembly, the first 01
several, intended to strengthen rural America by giving its leaders a platform to be heard, rais
the visibility of rural issues, organizing a national network of rural interests, and developing
specific rural policy initiatives.
The National Rural Assembly consisted of three related components: 1) a 21st Century Town
Meeting® - a unique technology - enabled forum - where rural leaders were able to articulate if
vision for their communities, examine policy altematives around critical issues and outline are
for action; 2) the chance to communicate this vision and strategic agenda to national leaders,
including members of Congress; and 3) an opportunity for national leaders to voice their view:
the future of rural America to this influential gathering.
This article by Mary Annette Pember for the Rural People, Rural Policy newsletter tells more c
the story of the Assembly.
Rural People, Rural Policy
Rural People, Rural Policy (RPRP) energizes and equips organizations and networks to shay
policy that improves the lives of rural people and the vitality of rural communities.
Rural People, Rural Policy, a multi-year national initiative, is based on the premise that rural
America has abundant assets and that the brightest potential for rural America emerges wher
critical mass of rural people are stronger, more organized policy actors. Rural People, Rural
Policy builds and strengthens skilled networks and organizations to advocate and act in the rt,
policy arena.
http: / /www.wkkf.org /default.aspx ?tabid =75 &CID = 274 &NID =61 &LanguagelD =0 9/13/2007
W.K. Kellogg Foundation: Overview - Rural People, Rural Policy Page 2 of 3
Creating a Rural Policy System
The approach of the Rural People, Rural Policy Initiative is that systems, not symptoms, are tl
focus of policy action. What is required of such an approach? We at the Kellogg Foundation a
learning as we go, but here are some of our thoughts:
• A shared narrative and vocabulary that articulate a common, achievable vision.
• A process that highlights, shares, and reinforces better learning and doing through
creative and ongoing peer connections.
• A deliberate effort to build networks focused on rural policy change.
• A framework of inquiry that seeks to understand what drives policy, identifies leverage
points to influence policy drivers, and then builds the competencies to influence the
leverage points.
• Special attention to those activities and messages that scale up over time and create
tipping point for change.
Initiative Outcomes
The Initiative seeks the following outcomes:
• A common vision and vocabulary of challenges, opportunities, and solutions that frame
consistent, more productive national dialogue on rural America.
• A nationwide network of rural advocates and organizations that collectively:
• Advances local, state, and federal policy that produces healthy, sustainable rui
communities with widely shared economic prosperity.
• Shares a platform that helps coordinate research, learning, tool and resource
development, expertise, and communication.
• Includes people and communities historically excluded from the policy formatic
and decisionmaking process.
• Becomes a knowledgeable, creative, effective, and powerful voice in rural
policymaking.
• Five rural policy networks, including organizations in:
• Central Appalachia - West Virginia, Appalachian counties of Kentucky, Tennes
Ohio, Maryland, and Virginia
• Mid South - Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana
• Midwest/Great Plains - Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana
• Southwest — Arizona and New Mexico
• At Large - organizations outside the other regions
• Rural policy results that integrate the importance of people and place in an effective,
flexibly applied framework.
• A new perception and understanding by all Americans that rural communities are resili
diverse, and innovative, and that a vital rural America is essential to the nation's well-
being.
Rural People, Rural Policy Components
Rural People, Rural Policy includes the following components:
• Rural Policy Networks
Rural Policy Networks are sets of organizations selected from four specific geographic
regions and "at- large" from the United States. The five Networks engage in a process
develops their individual and collective strategies, skills, and efforts to improve the imr
of public and private policy on rural people and rural places. Rural People, Rural Polic:
selects a Cohort of up to 25 organizations every year, with five organizations joining el
of the five Rural Policy Networks. By the fifth year of the Initiative (2011), each Networ
will have a group of 25 organizations equipped and actively working to improve rural
policy. Each Cohort participates in a series of three peer learning sessions that build tl
capacity to engage in effective policy change, strategic communications, and network
development. Each organization receives a grant to support its participation over the
duration of the Initiative. Each Network meets on a regular basis to share policy prioritl
critical to its region, act on emerging strategy to meet policy change objectives, and dr
more organizations and actors into the work. By adding organizations every year, the
Networks enrich and deepen their potential for collective action and build network
http: / /www.wkkf.org /default.aspx ?tabid =75 &CID = 274 &NID =61 &LanguagelD =O 9/13/2007
W.K. Kellogg Foundation: Overview - Rural People, Rural Policy Page 3 of 3
cohesion over time.
• Annual Rural Assembly
Across the nation, other local, regional, tribal, and national organizations seek to make
rural lives and places better. The Initiative can involve such organizations in a range o
roles over the course of the Initiative. Through Rural People, Rural Policy, the Kellogg
Foundation will partner with other organizations to convene an Annual Rural Assembly
that includes the Rural Policy Networks as well as key rural policy decisionmakers,
stakeholders, thinkers, and actors from across the nation. The Assembly will help built
national voice for rural America.
• Rural Policy Analysis and Tool Development
The Rural People, Rural Policy Initiative develops and disseminates analysis and prac
tools that emerge to scan rural policy conditions and sift options for solutions.
Organizations participating in the Rural Policy Networks help drive the direction of this
analysis and the choice of tools.
• Communications Skills Development
Effective policy advocacy requires particular skills in communicating to different audier
in different settings. The Initiative explores ways to connect rural voices and help
organizations become more strategic in their communications related to policy — voice
that reflect the strengths and opportunities across rural America.
Rural People, Rural Policy to Date
In 2006, the Kellogg Foundation launched the Initiative by focusing first on the selection of the
2006 Grantees of Rural Policy Networks. During 2006, Rural People, Rural Policy (1) selectee
organizations to participate in the Rural Policy 2006 Networks; (2) designed and convened tw
three planned Grantee Peer Leaming Sessions; (3) engaged network resource organizations
experts to design, inform, and energize Peer Leaming Sessions; (4) initiated information shari
and networking with a wide range of organizations, policymakers, and public agencies; and (4
explored what it takes to develop and use networks for policy change.
During February 2007, the third Peer Learning Session was held for the 2006 Grantees. In the
spring, 32 additional organizations were added to the current Rural Policy Networks, and the :
grantees had their first Peer Leaming Session in May. A second Session is planned for Octob
with a third Session to be held in 2008.
• Initial Cohort Press Release
• Peer Learning Sessions
Kellogg Foundation Policy Toolkit
Link to Policy Toolkit
This toolkit outlines the essential elements for building effective public policy programs. We he
you will find the content provocative and action- oriented. Links to many other publications and
Internet resources can help us all do a better job of serving the needs of society.
Site Map • Contact • Privacy Policy
http: / /www.wkk£org /default.aspx ?tabid =75 &CID = 274 &NID =61 &LanguageID =O 9/13/2007
Working Draft
Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Leadership Forum
Fall Forum 2007
Forum Agenda
Kodiak College, Kodiak, Alaska
Working Draft
Wednesday, October I0, 2007
9:00 a.m.
Opening Prayer
Welcome
Marty Shuravloff, Executive Director
Kodiak Island Housing Authority
Barbara Bolson, Director
Kodiak College
9:I5 a.m.
Agenda Review
Robbie Townsend Vennel
Forum Facilitator
9:45 a.m.
Forum Work
Robbie Townsend Vennel
(Closed door session, Forum members only)
Preparation for Forum sessions
Status of non- profit to support forum work
Noon
Lunch
Lunch with the Kodiak Island School Board, KIBSD School Board, Superintendent and Staff
Group Table discussions at lunch
I2:45 p.m.
Kodiak Island Borough School District Forum
Larry LeDoux, School Superintendent (confirmed)
2:00 p.m.
Kodiak Island Borough Forum
Kodiak Island Borough Assembly (invited)
Jerome Selby, Borough Mayor (invited)
Bud Cassidy, Director, Community Development (confirmed)
Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner /LRP (confirmed)
Woody Koning, Engineering Facilities Department Director (confirmed)
Powers of Cities and Boroughs
Capital Improvement List
Borough Legislative Priority List
Lobbying efforts
4:45 p.m.
Closing Comments
5:00 p.m.
Prepared by RTV
Page I of 3
Fuel Purchasing Co-Op Work session
John Durham, Facilitator (confirmed)
Business Faculty and Chair of Instruction, Kodiak
College UAA
Andrew Crow (confirmed)
Hans Grier (pending confirmation)
Institute for Social and Economic Research
Mike McKinnon (confirmed)
Transportation Planner,
Denali Commission
Tammy Helms (confirmed)
State of Alaska RUBA Program
Closing Prayer
Thursday, October I I, 2007
(Chamber of Commerce CEDS Committee invited for this day)
9:00 a.m.
Opening Prayer
9:I0 a.m.
Presenter Introductions
9:I5 a.m.
Break -out Sessions
Noon
Lunch
I2:45 p.m.
Group Debriefing and Forum next steps
Robbie Townsend Vennel, Forum Facilitator
Fuel Purchasing Co -op
Alternative Energy
2:I5 p.m.
Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Transportation Plan
Review and Update
Mike McKinnon (confirmed)
Denali Commission
Air Taxi owners invited to participate
3:30 p.m.
Overview of Kodiak's Rural Communities Fisheries Research
Courtney Carothers (confirmed)
PhD Candidate, University of Washington
4:45 p.m.
State of Alaska RUBA Program
Tammy Helms (confirmed)
Local Government Specialist
5:I5 p.m.
Closing Comments
5:30 p.m.
Closing Prayer
Alternative Energy Work session
John Miller, Facilitator (confirmed)
Forum Member
Mike Harper (confirmed)
Deputy Director Rural Energy Group
Alaska Energy Authority
Sydney Kauffman (confirmed)
Energy Project Coordinator
Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference
Darren Scott (confirmed)
President /CEO
Pillar Mountain Wind Generation Project
Kodiak Electric Association
Working Draft Prepared by RTV Page 2 of 3
Friday, October I2, 2007
9:00 a.m.
Opening Prayer
9:I0 a.m.
Forum Work
(Closed door session Forum members only)
Robbie Townsend Vennel, Forum Facilitator
Debrief from Wednesday and Thursday
Organizing to achieve the Forum's Agenda
Planning the Winter Forum Agenda
I I:00 a.m.
Tribal CEDS Planning, EDA Planning Grant
Margie Bezona (invited)
Kodiak Area Native Association
I1:30 a.m.
Kodiak College Community Connections
Barbara Bolson, Director Kodiak College (confirmed)
Kodiak College Faculty and Staff (confirmed)
I2:30 p.m.
Closing Prayer
Forum Adjournment
Working Draft Prepared by RTV Page 3 of 3
Nova Javier
From: Rick Gifford
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 9:24 AM
To: Nova Javier
Subject: FW: Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Leadership Forum
FYI
Rick Gifford
Borough Manager
Kodiak Island Borough
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, AK 99615
Phone: 907 -486 -9301
Fax: 907 -486 -9374
Email: rgifford(akodiakak.us
Web site: http: / /www.kodiakak.us
From: Roberta Townsend Vennel [ mailto: rtownsendvennel @kodiak.alaska.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:20 PM
To: Rick Gifford
Cc: Woody Koning; Bud Cassidy; martys @kiha.org
Subject: Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Leadership Forum
Dear Rick
Thanks for the time today. As we discussed, the Forum has now formed as a 501(c)(3) non - profit with the intent of
supporting a long term Forum process. We are now beginning our third year and the next Forum will be October 10, 11
and 12. The Forum schedule is starting to become somewhat standardized as time goes by, and we are making an effort
to ensure that both the Borough and the School District have allocated time to work with the rural community leaders.
Through previous forums and discussions with Bud and Woody, it appears a good use of Forum and Borough staff time to
have the Borough staff present a training /presentation on the powers of 2nd class Boroughs and Cities, the evolving CIP
process, and also a discussion on how the communities could more effectively support and work together with the
Borough on lobbying efforts. With that in mind, we have scheduled a 2.5 hour time slot on Wednesday, October 10 to that
purpose.
Prior to the Forum, we request the opportunity to make a brief 15 to 20 minute presentation at an Assembly work session
on the Forum, its reasons for forming, and its accomplishments to date, and to extend an invitation to the Assembly to
attend and participate during the Borough time slot on October 10. This would require that we are on the assembly work
session agenda for either September 13 or the 27 We understand that work session planning does not occur until the
Monday of the week of the work session, and if the work session scheduled for the 13 is too crowded, that we should be
able to be on the agenda for the 27
We also understand that if 3 or more assembly members attend the Forum, this would have to advertised as a public
meeting by the Borough Clerk for the time slot the Assembly is invited to attend. We do not anticipate that this will be a
problem.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thanks
Robbie
1
Attn: Mayor Jerome Selby
Kodiak Island Borough
Kodiak, Alaska
Re: Request Road Name Change
Dear Mayor Selby,
AUGUST 19, 2007
This letter is a request to change the name of Ocean Dr. to Monigold Dr. the following
information provides the justification for requesting the name change.
Raymond Monigold was born August 7, 1927 in Steubenville Ohio. Ray joined the
United States Navy in 1944 at the age of 17, his service in the navy brought him to
Kodiak Alaska on July 2, 1946 where he has lived for the pass 61 years.
Ray has had many jobs over the years in and around Kodiak. In 1950 Ray helped pour
the first sidewalks in Kodiak. In the spring of 1952 Ray helped clear the land and pour
the foundation for the main school in Kodiak. Ray helped build the dam and reservoir in
1952 for the Kodiak water system. Ray helped build Aleutian Homes. In 1959 Ray
worked on the Kodiak water system again to raise the height of the dam.
Ray helped build the Early Warning System known as " White Alice " on Pillar
Mountain, the early warning system was to warn people of enemy attack.
Ray lived in a log cabin at Mill Bay from 1950 to 1954; the only access to the cabin was
a trail. In 1951 Ray built a road to his cabin with flat shale rock from Mill Bay. The flat
rock did not provide traction in ice and freezing weather, as a result Ray removed the flat
shale rock and he rebuilt the road with gravel hauled from Mill Bay in a car that had been
converted into a pickup with a small bed where the trunk was. Leigh Niblock remembers
helping Ray with this project. Today the road that Ray built in 1951 is called Ocean Dr.
On March 20, 1960 Ray went to work for the Alaska State Highway Department in
Kodiak as an equipment operator, after 25 and '/z years Ray retired on September 30,
1985.
Ray Monigold has been a mainstay in Kodiak and the Kodiak Island Borough for 61
years. He has been a vital part in building and maintaining the infrastructure of Kodiak
and the Kodiak Island Borough.
Ray Monigold recently celebrated his 80 birthday on August 7, 2007. After devoting 61
years of service to the Kodiak community, his daughter Theresa Wallace and son -in -law
Leroy Wallace, respectfully request that the road Ocean Dr be changed to Monigold Dr.
Please see enclosed map of Kodiak showing Ocean Dr at Mill Bay.
Thank you for your attention to this request,
Sincerely
Theresa and Leroy Wallace
5313 80 CT S W
Olympia, WA. 98512
Ph. 360 - 754 -8171
E -mail badphoebe @comcast.net
KODAK
COLLEGE
, 4, . • .,,41444,.... . . -'..r ! •
1111•11111110. 1111001.1. - . . .
=MR MOM* ... . . - .. _ ..
._
.._ ,... -..,...
Lowrr
Reservoir
KODIAK
ISLAND
,akt,kek.24.4.*
Realer
Sections:
12.10.010 Purpose and intent.
12.10.020 Definitions.
12.10.030 Manner of initiation.
12.10.040 Hearing on name change.
12.10.050 Procedure.
12.10.080 Appeals.
Chapter 12.10
CHANGES TO EXISTING STREET NAMES
12.10.010 -- 12.10.050
12.10.010 Purpose and intent. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for a consistent process
by which the name of a street, road, way, avenue, etc. can be changed. The process established
by this chapter is intended to be used when property owners on an existing platted street desire to
change the name of that street without going through the platting process in Title 16
Subdivisions. This process can be used when the change will not result in a change to any of the
boundaries of the street or any of the adjacent lots. This process does not apply to state roads or
highways. (Ord. 2001 -06 ' 2 (part), 2001).
12.10.020 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following are all synonymous and will
be described by using the word Astreet @:
A. Street, road, avenue, way, circle, court, drive, lane, and similar words designating a
dedicated right -of -way. (Ord. 2001 -06 ' 2 (part), 2001).
12.10.030 Manner of initiation. Changing the name of a street may be initiated as follows:
A. By the commission upon its own motion; or
B. By petition of owners of at least fifty (50) percent of the lots on that street. (Ord. 2001 -06
2 (part), 2001).
12.10.040 Hearing on name change. The commission shall review and approve or deny all
requests for a street name change. Notice of the petition shall be sent to all property owners of
lots adjacent to that street. (Ord. 2001 -06 ' 2 (part), 2001).
12.10.050 Procedure.
A. The petition shall be reviewed within thirty (30) days of receipt according to the following
standards:
1. The proposed name shall be appropriate and shall not duplicate existing street names
in spelling or sound, which could result 111 confusion.
2. To the extent possible, names should be consistent with other street names previously
established in the area.
12 -2
(KIB 03/2001)
Supp. #31
12.10.050 -- 12.10.080
3. If an individual =s name is proposed, it is recommended that it be a surname of
historical significance, or in memorial of an individual.
4. The proposed name shall not be offensive or derogatory.
5. No objection is expressed by local emergency response authorities and support of a
majority of street property owners is provided.
B. Upon reaching a determination, the commission shall adopt a resolution changing the
name of the street.
C. Upon adoption of a resolution and completion of the appeal period, owners of the lots
affected by the decision, as well as proper emergency response agencies and utilities, shall be
mailed official notification by the community development department.
D. Upon adoption of a resolution and completion of the appeal period, the resolution shall be
filed at the recorder =s office to provide legal documentation of the street name change. (Ord.
2001 -06 ' 2 (part), 2001).
12.10.080 Appeals. Appeals may be taken from a decision of the planning and zoning
commission as provided in chapter 16.90 of this code. (Ord. 2001 -06 ' 2 (part), 2001).
12 -3
(MB 03/2001)
Supp. #31
DATE: September 10, 2007
TO: Rick Gifford,: orpugh Manager NJ_
Pasagshak Subdivision
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Bud Cassia , , -ctor, Community Development Department
SUBJ:
Use of Right of Way for Wireless Tower/ Emergency Siren
The Borough received a request to utilize the right of way of Bayview Drive in the Pasagshak
Subdivision (see map) as a location for a cellular tower, and small support building. Though not
designed yet, the foot print of this activity will be less than 20' x 20' with the cell tower reaching
up to 80'. Because the location of this facility is within the road right of way, it is exempt from
zoning regulations and therefore public hearing requirements. It's location in the right of way
does require a right of way permit which is an administrative action generally not requiring a
public hearing.
Staff has also been working with the applicant in an effort to piggy back a Borough tsunami siren
onto the tower in exchange for use of the right of way so that both communication and
emergency evacuation notification occur at one site and on one tower. Should this occur, an area
where a large contingent of the Kodiak population recreate would now be served by phone
service and an emergency warning siren.
The proposed tower will have to meet wind loads and other requirements of the building code as
well as any other federal and state requirements. Insurance will be required of the applicant
holding the KIB harmless as well as providing recourse to the Borough and adjacent private
property owners should their property ever be injured.
The question that staff is bringing to the Assembly is to have you weigh in on the issue of
whether a public hearing should be required. Because this is not a zoning issue none is
required by code. Staff feeling is that because of the nature of this area (underground
electric lines, prime view property and overall recreation nature of the area) the public
should have an opportunity to comment.
Though this will be a privately owned facility, the fact that cell companies are like a quasi - utility
and operate in the public interest providing a public service makes sense. This certainly is the
case with the installation of a facility in Pasagshak that will enhance the public's ability to
communicate which includes casual visitors as well as the permanent residents of this
subdivision.
Cellular towers are springing up all over country including mainland Alaska. Staff has been in
contact with companies that are traveling to the villages around the island as well as to Chiniak
to identify sites for towers and will provide service to these areas soon. We are living in the
instant wireless communication age where communication by individuals to individuals,
businesses, and public agencies is almost second nature. This flurry of activity is just now
reaching Kodiak.
Recommended Assembly Action
It is recommended that though there is no public hearing required by the issuance of a right of
way permit, the Assembly has the authority to require one if deemed necessary.
It is recommended that the Assembly refer this matter to the Planning and Zoning Commission
for public review. Here folks can become better informed about the project and provide valuable
feedback.
Pasagshak Bridge Association
Monday, July 16, 2007
Mr. Woody Koning
Director Engineering & Facilities Dept
Kodiak Island Borough
710 Mill Bay Rd.
Kodiak AK 99615
Dear Mr. Koning,
Sincerely yours,
PASAG BRIDGE SOCIATION, INC.
!' Michael C. Brechan
President
MCRf'6'oody Koning I.,tr re Cell lower 16 Jul 07
Cc! PHA board, Bud Cassidy
P.O. Box 3463
Kodiak, Alaska 9961 5
President: Michael C. Brechan
Vice President: Jim Peterson
Treasure: Jessica Wolfe
Secretary. Cathy Wilson
Member at Large: Dick Diemer
JUL 17 200?
JGIFAC KODIAK SLAW t95.906
During the past several months, f have been in contact with Gary Brekke who is the Project
Manager for Cellular One in Anchorage. Gary has been trying to locate a. proposed cellular site
in the Pasagsha.k area and has found that the only reasonable and viable central location for
providing their service is where Furin Way takes a turn from west to north.
During this same time period, f have personally polled the residents of the PBA and found no
significant opposition to having a cellular tower within our neighborhood, fn fact, of the
responding residents, there was general enthusiasm for the prospect of reliable communications
and the possibility of a combined use of the tower to include a tsunami warning horn. As you are
aware, the residents of the Pasagshak area have been trying to get a tsunami warning system
installed for quite some time now. A warning system at this location will also alert the State Park
and campers in the area.
It appears that the golden opportunity to accomplish both these objectives is here and now may be
to only opportunity to have a reliable communication system in this remote area. On behalf of the
Pasagshak Bridge Association, I. wholeheartedly support this project and suggest that the Borough
will assist Mr, Brekke in accomplishing this project in a timely manner. Thank you for your
careful consideration in this matter.
map
PROPOSED 13ll IL p 1)4G and TOWER LOCAT{ Ot
W M E 1:21#41 c'T iU R1 N WAY
PA SA G' Si-MK RIVER SU5D /V /5 /ON 7 2x° A 61W.
SCALE : /" = 30 fee /• DATE: 25 ,J4,/y 000 7