Loading...
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