Loading...
2010-09-09 Work Session Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Work Session Thursday, September 9, 2010, 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. Pathway Project 2. SWAB Update 3. Presentation by the Borough Attorney 4. Upcoming Legislative Session /State Legislative Priority List — Borough Lobbyist Mark Hickey PACKET REVIEW Building Concrete Repair, and KFRC PUBLIC HEARING Sidewalk Repair Projects. Ordinance No. FY2011 -05 Amending Title Contract No. FY2004 -61D Kodiak Island 3 Revenue and Finance Chapter 3.40 Borough Legislative Consultant During the Personal Property Tax Section 3.40.010 2011 and 2012 Legislative Sessions. Assessment Return to Change the Date for Contract No. FY2011 -13 Purchase of Front Filing Personal Property Tax Returns. Wheel Loader for Landfill Operations. UNFINISHED BUSINESS RESOLUTIONS NEW BUSINESS Resolution No. FY2011 -06 Adopting a CONTRACTS State Legislative Capital Improvement *Contract No. FY2011 -09 Kodiak Island Projects Priority List for the 2011 Legislative Borough and City of Kodiak Animal Control Session. Services Agreement. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION Contract No. FY2011 -10 Kodiak Island None. Borough Building Roof and Main OTHER ITEMS Elementary Canopy Replacement Project. *Approval of October 5, 2010 Regular Contract No. FY2011 -12 Kodiak Middle Municipal Election Workers. School Site Improvements, Borough Confirmation of the Mayoral Appointment to the Solid Waste Advisory Board. MANAGER'S COMMENTS CLERK'S COMMENTS MAYOR'S COMMENTS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS COMMENTS A"Z F -Nt r r Kodiak Island Borough m /y Office of the Borough Mayor and Assembly r 710 Mill Bay Road k t btu *t. Kodiak, Alaska 99615 j 4 Phone (907) 486 -9310 Fax (907) 486 -9391 • DATE: 04/08/2010 MEMO TO: Solid Waste Advisory Board FROM: Borough Mayor and Assembly RE: Goals /Projects/Tasks for the SWAB We, the borough mayor and assembly, extend our gratitude for your input and recommendations to the Solid Waste policy and program directions for the Kodiak Island Borough. Now that the solid waste collection contract is ready to be awarded, we would like to refer to the Board the following items for discussions. Public Outreach and Education 1. Responsible handling of waste 2. Diversion efforts a. New system, rules, options, and fees a. Reduce - facts - methods b. How to avoid bear issues b. Reuse - construction debris, bulking c. Define and instruct how to dispose of: agent for compost, etc., etc. i. Furniture /appliances c. Recycle - the last resort - cost in H. Yard waste Kodiak iii. Bulky items iv. Household and commercial hazardous waste v. Electronics /batteries, etc. vi. Commercial waste vii. Construction debris The above mentioned are short- term /immediate tasks for the board. If you have any other topics that you would like to embark upon, you need to come to an Assembly work session and request that the task be added to the work scope. The Assembly will consider whether the task is within the scope of the Board and if it is an immediate priority. Staff time is very limited right now and the Assembly is directing the staff to not use time for any tasks that do not appear on the above list. At this time, the landfill expansion is under contract with an engineering firm that is negotiating what can be done with the EPA and DEC. These regulatory agencies will dictate what must be done. When we have the plans to review, we can then determine the available options. Until then, there is no value in spending time on this matter. Similarly, the site /locations of the transfer station(s) will be in the hands of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the design of the actual stations is an Architectural Review Board matter. We can provide input at their meetings but these items do not need SWAB meeting time right now. We continue to count on your partnership in making positive and practical changes on matters affecting solid waste handling in the Kodiak community. We will be looking forward for your recommendations. VAdoveA users \njavierASharePoint Dralls \SWAB memo from Assembly. doe Wohlforth I Johnson Brecht Cartledge I Brooking A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Julius J. Brecht Telephone Cheryl Rawls Brooking ATTORNEYS AT LAW 907.276.6401 Cynthia L. Cartledge Michael Gatti 900 WEST 5TH AVENUE. SUITE 600 Facsimile Clyde W. Hutchins Jr. 907.276.5093 Robert M. Johnson ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 -2048 Leila R. Kimbrell Webslte Eric E. Wohlforth www.akalty.com OPEN MEETINGS ACT IN ALASKA Prepared and Presented By: Cheryl Rawls Brooking Wohlforth, Johnson Brecht, Cartledge & Brooking cbrooking @akatty.com 2010 I. Open Meetings Laws - Overview PART A - Alaska Open Meetings Act The Alaska Open Meetings Act (the "Act ") is codified in AS 44.62.310 and with policy behind the procedures described in Section 312. Although the Act has been on the books since 1959, it was substantially modified in 1994 to clarify definitions of "governmental body" and "meeting" and thereby give further guidance with respect to interpretation and enforcement under the Act. Where an issue concerning the interpretation of the Act is not determined by the statutory language or an Alaska Supreme Court decision, opinions of the Alaska Attorney General and of courts in other jurisdictions are referred to for guidance. Municipalities and other governmental entities have, in many cases, adopted their own ordinances and regulations regarding compliance with the Act. In summary, the Act prescribes certain requirements applicable to meetings of public bodies, and establishes exceptions to those requirements. The following issues are directly addressed in the Act: • What public bodies are subject to the Act? • What is a meeting for purposes of the Act? • What requirements does the Act impose upon a meeting of a public body? • What exceptions does the Act establish to the requirements that it imposes upon a meeting of a public body? • What are the consequences of a violation of the Act? When addressing the requirements that the Act imposes upon a meeting of a public body, it is helpful to refer to related requirements imposed by other provisions of state or local law. All of these requirements must be complied with, so they should not be viewed in isolation. Page 2 2010 The starting point in determining how the Act is to be interpreted is found in the words of the legislature itself, appearing in AS 44.62.312: (a) It is the policy of the state that (1) the governmental units mentioned in AS 44.62.310(a) exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business; (2) it is the intent of the law that actions of those units be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly; (3) the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them; (4) the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know; (5) the people's right to remain informed shall be protected so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created; (6) the use of teleconferencing under this chapter is for the convenience of the parties, the public, and the governmental units conducting the meetings. (b) AS 44.62.310(c) and (d) shall be construed narrowly in order to effectuate the policy stated in (a) of this section and to avoid exemptions from open meeting requirements and unnecessary executive sessions. It is well to remember the Act's purposes when addressing specific questions of its application. The Alaska Supreme Court repeatedly relies upon these statements of the Act's purposes as support for a broad interpretation of the Act's requirements, and a narrow interpretation of the exceptions to those requirements. PART B - What is a Public Meeting and What Public Entities are Covered? The Act begins with the words, "[a]ll meetings of a governmental body of a public entity of the [State of Alaska] are open to the public except as otherwise provided by this section or another provision of law." "Meeting," "governmental body" and "public entity" are each specifically defined terms in Section 310(h). Page 3 2010 1. What is a Public Meeting? The definition of "meeting" in the Act initially determines what gatherings of members of a governmental body are subject to the Act's requirements.' The definition of "meeting" varies depending upon the function of the governmental body: a. The governmental body has the authority to establish policies or make decisions for a public entity. There is a meeting of such a body when: • More than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present, and • a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act is considered by the members collectively. b. The governmental body has only authority to advise or make recommendations, but has no authority to establish policies or make decisions for a public entity. There is a meeting of such a body when: • More than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present, and • the gathering is prearranged, and • the gathering is for the purpose of considering a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act. Use the following analysis to determine whether one is participating in a meeting subject to the Act: a. What is the type of governmental body whose members have gathered? • Does the governmental body have authority to establish policies or make decisions? Note that authority to establish policies or make decisions is broader than authority to legislate. Governmental bodies in this category include municipal assemblies and councils, planning and zoning boards, and state boards and commissions. • Does the governmental body have only advisory responsibilities? Such governmental bodies may include temporary or permanent AS 44.62.310(h)(2). Page 4 2010 committees who provide advice and recommendations to a main governing body. b. If the governmental body has decision making authority: • How many members of the body are present? For there to be a meeting, either four or more members, or a majority of members, whichever is less, must be present for there to be a meeting. • Note that where there is a vacancy on a governmental body, the number of members whose presence is necessary for there to be a meeting subject to the Act may be reduced. Applying the statutory language literally, the presence of a majority of the actual members of the body, rather than a majority of the body's authorized membership, may cause a gathering to be a meeting. For example, if two seats were vacant on a body of seven members, a gathering of only three members (a majority of five) could constitute a meeting. • Are the members collectively considering a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act? • Note that the matter under consideration need not be pending currently before the body. It is only necessary that the matter be one upon which the body is empowered to act. • Note also that all members present need not participate in the collective consideration, so long as at least the minimum number of members necessary to constitute a "meeting" are present. c. If the governmental body has only advisory authority, was the gathering prearranged for the purpose of considering a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act? • More than three members, or a majority of the members, whichever is less, is sufficient. • No formality is specified for the necessary prearrangement. An appointment made in casual conversation could be a sufficient prearrangement. • What is actually considered a the gathering is irrelevant, so long as the purpose of the gathering is considering a matter within the authority of the body. Also keep in mind that a prearranged gathering to consider a matter upon which the body is not empowered to act Page 5 2010 may become a "meeting" if a matter within the body's authority is considered. Although the Act defines what constitutes a "meeting," some ambiguities remain. The determination of whether a meeting is subject to the Act may depend on the facts of the particular situation, viewed in terms of the Act's policies. Courts continue to hold that a "meeting" for purposes of the Act "includes every step of the deliberative and decision making process when a governmental unit meets to transact business."' "Deliberation" connotes not only discussion but the collective acquisition and exchange of facts preliminary to the ultimate decision.' Under the present law, the following factors do not determine whether a meeting has occurred for purposes of the Act: a. The presence of a quorum. A quorum need not be present for a "meeting" to occur. The presence of four members will constitute a meeting even if that number is less than a quorum. b. Formality of a gathering. A gathering need not be formally noticed or scheduled to constitute a meeting subject to the Act. c. Setting or location of a gathering. That a gathering is not at the location where the body regularly meets, or occurs during a social or civic function does not keep it from being a meeting subject to the Act. d. Absence of face -to -face interaction. A conference over the telephone may constitute a meeting subject to the Act. The Act expressly provides that meetings may be conducted by telephone conference.' Questions have been raised regarding whether a series of phone calls or emails constitutes a "meeting." If the relevant factors are met, emails or phone calls may constitute a meeting. 2 Brookwood Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 702 P.2d 1317,1322-1323 (Alaska 1985). 3 Id. a Id.; July 6, 1993 Op. Ak. Any. Gen. 5 AS 44.62.310(a) Page 6 2010 2. What Public Entities are Covered? The Act has broad application and includes not only State entities but also political subdivisions of the State, instrumentalities of the State, boroughs, cities, unified municipalities, the Alaska Bar Association Board of Governors,' school district boards' and other governmental units. The State legislature and the court system are excluded (h(3)) but the legislature has adopted its own version of open meetings rules (Uniform Rule 22). "Governmental body" also includes subcommittees of a governmental body. The Act describes the meetings of groups to which it applies as all meetings of a "governmental body of a public entity." 8 "Public entity" means: an entity of the state or of a political subdivision of the state including an agency, a board or commission, the University of Alaska, a public authority or corporation, a municipality, a school district, and other governmental units of the state or a political subdivision of the state; it does not include the court system or the legislative branch of state government.' "Governmental body" means: an assembly, council, board, commission, committee, or other similar body of a public entity with the authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity or with the authority to advise or make recommendations to the public entity; "governmental body" includes the members of a subcommittee or other subordinate unit of a governmental body if the subordinate unit consists of two or more members. 6 Horowitz v. Alaska Bar Association, 609 P.2d 39 (Alaska 1980). ' Von Stauffenbcrg v. Committee for an Honest School Board, 903 P.2d 1055 (Alaska 1995). 8 AS 44.62.310(a) 8 AS 44.62.310(h)(3) 10 AS 44.62.310(h)(1) Page 7 2010 The definitions are comprehensive. The formality with which a group is formed does not determine the Act's applicability. The Act applies to a task force or committee whose duration is temporary, or the subject of whose activities is quite limited." A group need not have decision making authority to be subject to the Act. A group that is merely advisory must comply with the Act, as must a subcommittee or other subordinate unit of a governmental body. However, under the current version of the Act, private organizations receiving public funding are excluded," and Municipal service area boards meeting solely to act on administrative or managerial matters. Part C - Requirements for Notice and Agenda The Act's stated policies regarding meetings of governmental bodies in Alaska" reflect the legislature's intent that governmental bodies conduct their business openly and maintain the people's right to remain informed. Any questions with regard to application of the Act are to be construed narrowly to avoid exemptions and to avoid unnecessary executive sessions. To meet these policy requirements, meetings of a governmental body subject to the Act require prior notice so that the public may attend. The meeting may be an informal work session or a formal adjudicatory hearing but the notice requirements are the same whether or not any final action is to be taken at the meeting. So long as the deliberative process is occurring, the meeting is considered an open meeting. AS 44.62.310(e) requires reasonable public notice for all meeting required to be under the Act: University of Alaska v. Geistauts, 666 P.2d 424, 427 -428 (Alaska 1983); Hammond v. North Slope Borough, 645 P.2d 750, 764 -765 (Alaska 1982). 12 May 23, 1994 Op. Ak. Atty. Gem 13 AS 44.62.310(b) Page 8 2010 The notice must include the date, time and place of the meeting and if, the meeting is by teleconference, the location of any teleconferencing facilities that will be used. The issue of what constitutes reasonable public notice may depend on the regulations adopted by the governmental entity. Many state regulations and municipal ordinances require at least 24 hours notice of a meeting. The first step in determining reasonable notice is to determine whether the governmental body has followed its own guidelines and procedures. The nature of the action to be taken may determine the reasonableness with regard to the timeliness of the notice. For example, in an emergency, the notice period may be much less. If an issue is complex and would have a tremendous public impact then more extensive notice may be required prior to a meeting.'" The agenda items for the meeting are not expressly required to be stated but fall within the concept of reasonable notice. The public should be provided with the substance of the matter to be discussed. This requirement limits the ability of the governmental body to address changes in the agenda and add items that have not been publically noticed. Items that are non - controversial or minimal in nature may not be objected to. However, items that may engender controversy or involve complex issues should be stated with some specificity in the meeting notice.' In addition to general public notice, other statutes, ordinances and regulations may require specific notice to be provided directly to individuals who would be affected at a meeting. This may apply to individuals facing adjudicatory hearings or permit applications, contracts, leases, licenses, zoning changes or the like. 14 Tunley v. Municipality of Anchorage School District, 631 P.2d 67 (Alaska 1981). 15 Anchorage Independent Longshore Union, Local 1 v. Municipality of Anchorage, 672 P.2d 891 (Alaska 1983). The court interpreted the Municipality of Anchorage public notice requirement, which is similar to the Act's reasonable public notice standard, and remanded to the trial court the question of whether the Port Commission's consideration of a terminal use permit application had to be specifically mentioned on the agenda posted in advance of the meeting or whether the issue could be properly taken up under the category "items Not on the Agenda." The trial court was required to make factual findings regarding the complexity and importance of the issuance of that particular permit. Page 9 2010 The Act states that notice may be given "by using print or broadcast media," and that "the notice shall be posted at the principal office of the public entity, or if the public entity has no principal office, at a place designated by the governmental body.i Note that specific provisions of law may establish the required media of notice for particular actions (e.g., publication in a newspaper of general circulation, posting in specified locations). Part D - Meeting Procedure Most meetings are held in one place with everyone present, but telephonic meetings are permitted." If telephonic participation is utilized, the various locations must be made known in the meeting notice, and meeting materials are to be available at each location. Any votes taken at a telephonic meeting must be by voice vote. Meeting procedures generally are defined by statute, regulation or ordinance of the public entity and will be controlling to the extent the requirements are narrower than the Act. Thus, even though telephonic meetings are permitted under the Act, a particular entity may be required to have a quorum of members physically present in a single location to conduct its business. The Act requires that meetings be open to the public, giving the right to be present, but does not require that the public be heard. Often the right to be heard is found elsewhere. For example, AS 29.20.020(a), which applies to home rule as well as other municipalities, requires that the governing body shall provide reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard at regular and special meetings. Other statutes, ordinances and regulations may require that certain actions of a public body may only be taken after a public hearing. 16 AS 44.62.310(e). 17 AS 44.62.310(a). Page 10 2010 II. Open Meetings Laws - Exceptions and Remedies for Violations Part A - Executive Sessions and Other Non - Public Meetings 1. Executive Sessions As an exception to its general requirement that meetings of public bodies be open to the public, the Act permits (but does not require) certain subjects to be discussed privately in executive session. a. Subjects that may be discussed at an executive session are limited to the following: 1. Matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity. Emphasis must be placed on the words "immediate" and "clearly" in this exception, as the exception is to be narrowly construed to avoid unnecessary executive sessions. 2. Subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person. This provision is qualified by the statement that the person whose reputation or character is at issue may request a public discussion, in which case the discussion must occur in a public meeting rather than in executive session. This right may be waived 2 3. Matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential. Under the Act, in contrast to the situation under the state's public records law, 18 AS 44.62.310(c). 19 AS 44.62.310(c)(1). 20 AS 44.62.312(6). 21 AS 44.62.310(c)(2); Geistauts, 666 P.2d at 429. 22 Ramsey v. City of Sand Point, 936 P.2d 126 (Alaska 1997). 23 AS 44.62.310(c)(3). Page II 2010 municipalities are explicitly delegated authority to establish topics which may be discussed in executive session. Where a municipality's ordinances list subjects that may be considered in executive session in a manner that is narrower than the Act's exceptions, the Act is controlling over the municipal ordinance 2 4. Matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure." This may be referred to as the "deliberative process" privilege." Communicating with an attorney is confidential and privileged and may also occur in executive session. b. Requirements for an executive session. 1. Procedure. Before the executive session, the meeting must be convened as a public meeting and the question of holding an executive session shall be determined by majority vote of the body. The motion to convene in executive session must clearly and with specificity describe the subject of the proposed executive session without defeating the purpose of addressing the subject in private." 2. Notice. If an executive session is to be held to discuss a subject that tends to prejudice the reputation and character of a person, that person must be given adequate notice of the meeting so the person may request that the subject be discussed in a public session 24 Walleri v. City of Fairbanks, 964 P.2d 463, 468 (Alaska 1998). 25 AS 44.62.310(e)(4). 26 Fuller v. City of Homer, 75 P.3d 1059 (Alaska 2003). 27 AS 44.62.310(6). Page 12 2010 instead of in executive session. In Ramsey v. City of Sand Point, 936 P.2d 126 (Alaska 1997), the court found that the police chief had actual notice of the meeting so a defect in formal notice was cured, and also found that the police chief had waived his right to a public discussion by failing to appear and request that the proceeding be held publicly. 3. Limitation on activity during executive session. Subjects may not be considered at an executive session except those mentioned in the motion to convene in executive session unless auxiliary to the main question. Action may not be taken at the executive session, except to give direction to an attorney or labor negotiator regarding the handling of a specific legal matter or pending labor negotiations. Any other action to be taken as a result of consideration of a matter in executive session may be taken only in a public meeting convened after the executive session. c. Other executive session issues. The following corrects some common misconceptions concerning executive sessions. 1. Confidentiality of matters considered in executive session. Provisions in the Act and in local ordinances for executive sessions act only as exceptions to the general requirement that meetings of governmental bodies be open to the public. 2. Consideration of particular documents in an executive session does not make those documents privileged or confidential indefinitely. Documents considered in an 28 Geistauts, 666 P.2d 424, 429. 29 AS 44.62.310(6). Page 13 2010 executive session remain subject to disclosure under state and local public records laws unless an exception to those laws permits them to be withheld from disclosure. 2. Other Non- Public Meetings Not every gathering of public officials is a group to which the Act's requirements apply. The Act lists specific exceptions,' which are to be interpreted narrowly: 1. A governmental body performing ajudicial or quasi - judicial function when holding a meeting solely to make a decision in an adjudicatory proceeding;" - 2. Juries; 3. Parole or pardon boards; 4. Meetings of a hospital medical staff; 5. Meetings of the governmental body or any committee of a hospital when holding a meeting solely to act upon matters of professional qualifications, privileges or discipline; 6. Staff meetings or other gatherings of the employees of a public entity, including meetings of an employee group established by policy of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska or held while acting in an advisory capacity to the Board of Regents; or 7. Meetings held for the purpose of participating in or attending a gathering of a national, state, or regional organization of which the public entity, governmental 30 Municipality of Anchorage v. Anchorage Daily News, 794 P.2d 584, 590 (Alaska 1990); Fuller v. City of Homer, 75 P.3d 1059 (Alaska 2003). 31 AS 44.62.310(d). 32 Alaska Department of Law Memorandum March 10, 1998 Page 14 2010 body, or member of the governmental body is a member, but only if no action is taken and no business of the governmental body is conducted at the meetings. 8. Meetings of municipal service area boards established under AS 29 .35.450- 29.35.490 when meeting solely to act on matters that are administrative or managerial in nature. There are two important features of these exceptions. First, the excepted groups are completely outside the application of the Act when acting within the scope of the exception. For example, the gathering of such a group may be closed to the public without complying with the "executive session" procedures of the Act. Second, these exceptions will be interpreted narrowly. Only a gathering of an excepted group that conforms strictly to the conditions of the defined exception will be exempt. Part B - Enforcement and Remedies a. Action taken contrary to the Act's requirements by a governmental body with authority to establish policies or make decisions is voidable." The remedy of voiding an action taken contrary to the requirements of the Act does not apply to the action of a governmental body that has only authority to advise or make recommendations to a public entity and has no authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity. b. The remedy of voidability applies not only to action taken by a governmental body with decision - making authority at an illegally closed meeting, but also to action taken at an open meeting where deliberations or fact - finding concerning the action occurred at an earlier illegally 33 AS 44.562.320(f). 34 AS 44.62.310(g). Page 15 2010 closed meeting." An illegally closed meeting at any time during the process leading to an action may render the action voidable. c. A lawsuit to void an action taken in violation of the Act must be filed in Superior Court within 180 days after the date of the action. A governmental body may cure its alleged violation of the act by holding another meeting in compliance with the Act and conducting a substantial and public reconsideration of the matters considered at the meeting where the alleged violation occurred." d. A court may void an action taken in violation of the Act by a governmental body with decision making authority only ifthe court finds that, considering all of the circumstances, the public interest in compliance with the act outweighs the harm that would be caused to the public interest and to the public entity by voiding the action. The court is required to consider specified factors in making this determination:' (I) the expense that may be incurred by the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals if the action is voided; (2) the disruption that may be caused to the affairs of the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals if the action is voided; (3) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals may be exposed to additional litigation if the action is voided; 35 Brookwood Area Homeowners, 702 P.2d at 1323. 36 AS 44.62.3100. 37 Id. 38 Id. Page 16 2010 (4) the extent to which the governing body, in meetings held in compliance with this section, has previously considered the subject; (5) the amount of time that has passed since the action was taken; (6) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, or individuals have come to rely on the action; (7) whether and to what extent the governmental body has, before or after the lawsuit was filed to void the action, engaged in or attempted to engage in the public reconsideration of matters originally considered in violation of this section; (8) the degree to which violations of this section were wilful, flagrant, or obvious; (9) the degree to which the governing body failed to adhere to the policy under AS 44.62.312(a). The determination whether to void an action depends upon the particular circumstances of the alleged violation, and in large part is subject to the discretion of the reviewing court. This standard should not be relied upon as an alternative to compliance with the Act in the first instance. The potential of having the court void an action in every case imposes uncertainty and delay even if the remedy ultimately is not granted. THE ALASKA OPEN MEETINGS ACT Sec. 44.62.310. Government meetings public. (a) All meetings ofa governmental body of a public entity of the state are open to the public except as otherwise provided by this section or another provision of law. Attendance and participation at meetings by members of the public or by members of a governmental body may be by teleconferencing. Agency materials that are to be considered at the meeting shall be made available at teleconference locations if practicable. Except when voice Page 17 2010 votes are authorized, the vote shall be conducted in such a manner that the public may know the vote of each person entitled to vote. The vote at a meeting held by teleconference shall be taken by roll call. This section does not apply to any votes required to be taken to organize a governmental body described in this subsection. (b) If permitted subjects are to be discussed at a meeting in executive session, the meeting must first be convened as a public meeting and the question of holding an executive session to discuss matters that are listed in (c) of this section shall be determined by a majority vote of the governmental body. The motion to convene in executive session must clearly and with specificity describe the subject of the proposed executive session without defeating the purpose of addressing the subject in private. Subjects may not be considered at the executive session except those mentioned in the motion calling for the executive session unless auxiliary to the main question. Action may not be taken at an executive session, except to give direction to an attorney or labor negotiator regarding the handling of a specific legal matter or pending labor negotiations. (c) The following subjects may be considered in an executive session: (1) matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity; (2) subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion; (3) matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential; (4) matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure. (d) This section does not apply to Page 18 2010 (1) a governmental body performing a judicial or quasi - judicial function when holding a meeting solely to make a decision in an adjudicatory proceeding; (2) juries; (3) parole or pardon boards; (4) meetings of a hospital medical staff; (5) meetings of the governmental body or any committee of a hospital when holding a meeting solely to act upon matters of professional qualifications, privileges or discipline; (6) staff meetings or other gatherings of the employees of a public entity, including meetings of an employee group established by policy of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska or held while acting in an advisory capacity to the Board of Regents; (7) meetings held for the purpose of participating in or attending a gathering of a national, state, or regional organization of which the public entity, governmental body, or member of the governmental body is a member, but only if no action is taken and no business of the governmental body is conducted at the meetings; or (8) meetings of municipal service area boards established under AS 29.35.450- 29.35.490 when meeting solely to act on matters that are administrative or managerial in nature. (e) Reasonable public notice shall be given for all meetings required to be open under this section. The notice must include the date, time, and place of the meeting and if, the meeting is by teleconference, the location of any teleconferencing facilities that will be used. Subject to posting notice of a meeting on the Alaska Online Public Notice System as required by AS 44.62.175(a), the notice may be given using print or broadcast media. The notice shall be posted at the principal office of the public entity or, if the public entity has no principal office, at a place designated by the Page 19 2010 governmental body. The governmental body shall provide notice in a consistent fashion for all its meetings. (f) Action taken contrary to this section is voidable. A lawsuit to void an action taken in violation of this section must be filed in superior court within 180 days after the date of the action. A member of a governmental body may not be named in an action to enforce this section in the member's personal capacity. A governmental body that violates or is alleged to have violated this section may cure the violation or alleged violation by holding another meeting in compliance with notice and other requirements of this section and conducting a substantial and public reconsideration of the matters considered at the original meeting. If the court finds that an action is void, the governmental body may discuss and act on the matter at another meeting held in compliance with this section. A court may hold that an action taken at a meeting held in violation of this section is void only if the court finds that, considering all of the circumstances, the public interest in compliance with this section outweighs the harm that would be caused to the public interest and to the public entity by voiding the action. In making this determination, the court shall consider at least the following: (1) the expense that may be incurred by the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals if the action is voided; (2) the disruption that may be caused to the affairs of the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals if the action is voided; (3) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals may be exposed to additional litigation if the action is voided; (4) the extent to which the governing body, in meetings held in compliance with this section, has previously considered the subject; Page 20 2010 (5) the amount of time that has passed since the action was taken; (6) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, or individuals have come to rely on the action; (7) whether and to what extent the governmental body has, before or after the lawsuit was filed to void the action, engaged in or attempted to engage in the public reconsideration of matters originally considered in violation of this section; (8) the degree to which violations of this section were wilful, flagrant, or obvious; (9) the degree to which the governing body failed to adhere to the policy under AS 44.62.312(a). (g) Subsection (f) of this section does not apply to a governmental body that has only authority to advise or make recommendations to a public entity and has no authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity. (h) In this section, (1) "governmental body" means an assembly, council, board, commission, committee, or other similar body of a public entity with the authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity or with the authority to advise or make recommendations to the public entity; "governmental body" includes the members of a subcommittee or other subordinate unit of a governmental body if the subordinate unit consists of two or more members; (2) "meeting" means a gathering of members of a governmental body when (A) more than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present, a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act is considered by the members collectively, and the governmental body has the authority to establish policies or make decisions for a public entity; or Page 21 2010 (B) more than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present, the gathering is prearranged for the purpose of considering a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act and the governmental body has only authority to advise or make recommendations for a public entity but has no authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity; (3) "public entity" means an entity of the state or of a political subdivision of the state including an agency, a board or commission, the University of Alaska, a public authority or corporation, a municipality, a school district, and other governmental units of the state or a political subdivision of the state; it does not include the court system or the legislative branch of state government. Sec. 44.62.312. State policy regarding meetings. (a) It is the policy of the state that (1) the governmental units mentioned in AS 44.62.310(a) exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business; (2) it is the intent of the law that actions of those units be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly; (3) the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them; (4) the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know; (5) the people's right to remain informed shall be protected so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created; (6) the use of teleconferencing under this chapter is for the convenience of the parties, the public, and the governmental units conducting the meetings. Page 22 2010 (b) AS 44.62.310(c) and (d) shall be construed narrowly in order to effectuate the policy stated in (a) of this section and to avoid exemptions from open meeting requirements and unnecessary executive sessions. ALASKA LEGISLATURE UNIFORM RULES Rule 22. Open and Executive Sessions. (a) All meetings of a legislative body are open to all legislators, whether or not they are members of the particular legislative body that is meeting, and to the general public except as provided in (b) of this rule. (b) A legislative body may call an executive session at which members of the general public may be excluded for the following reasons: (1) discussion of the matters, the immediate knowledge of which would adversely affect the finances of a government unit; (2) discussion of subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of a person; (3) discussion of a matter that may, by law, be required to be confidential; (4) discussion of a matter the public knowledge of which would adversely affect the security of the state or nation, or adversely affect the security of a governmental unit or agency. (c) When a legislative body desires to call an executive session in accordance with (b) of this rule, the body shall first convene as a public meeting and the question of holding an executive session shall be determined by a majority vote of the members present. (d) The provisions of this rule may not be interpreted as permitting the exclusion of a legislator from an executive session, whether or not the legislator is a member of the body that is meeting. A legislator not a member of the body holding an executive session shall, however, be subject to the same rules of confidentiality and decorum as pertain to regular members of the body. Page 23 2010 Hickey & Associates Planning * Management * Lobbying Telephone (907) 586 -2263 211 Fourth Street; Suite 108: Juneau, AK 99801 Fax (907) 586 -1097 G -mail mshickey n,gci.net Memorandum To: Mayor Jerome Selby, Borough Assembly & Manager Rick Gifford From: Mark Hickey, Borough Lobbyist Date: September 9, 2010 Subject: Lobbyist Report This memorandum provides a brief report on items of interest since session. FY 2011 Capital Budget Vetoes: Kodiak projects faired well in escaping the red pen compared to other districts. Governor Parnell vetoed two Municipal Water, Sewage, and Solid Waste Facilities Grants — (1) $2.8 million for the Aleutian Homes Water & Sewer Replacement, Phase 3 project; and (2) $4 million for the Kodiak Ultraviolet Secondary Water Treatment Facility. Both projects were legislative additions. I believe he vetoed all additions in this program, announcing they would be considered in a future budget. GO Bond Bill goes to November Ballot: The governor signed HB 424 into law in June, clearing the way for it to be considered by the voters in November general election. HB 424 includes $20 million to construct the Near Island Fisheries Research Facility. FY 2012 Capital Budget: Governor Parnell has begun to develop his FY 2012 capital budget submittal. State law requires it to be submitted to the Legislature by December 15. Who ends up making the submittal depends on the outcome of the November election. It's hard to predict what kind of capital budget to expect — agencies are identifying some level of reductions for the FY 2012 operating budget. I would expect Governor Parnell's capital budget submittal to be similar to his FY 2012 submittal, which proposed about $300 million in general fund spending (versus roughly $1.75 billion in general fund spending appropriated after the governor's vetoes). School Debt Reimbursement Program Extended: Governor Parnell signed SB 237 into law, extending the school debt reimbursement program indefinitely. Another provision of this bill changed the matching ratio for major maintenance projects. It applies retroactively back two years, providing the borough about $462,000 in additional reimbursement for the seismic project. KIB Lobbyist Report 1 September 9, 2010 DOT/PF's Call for Needs List Nominations & Inclusion in 2012 - 2015 STIP: The department is now accepting project nominations for additions to the Needs List and consideration of inclusion in the 2012 — 2015 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Comments are due on September 13, 2010. Legislative Task Force on Higher Education & Merit Scholarship: SB 221 created this task force. It's been formed and has begun meeting. Attached is a press release with additional information. I will monitor its progress and provide an update on any meaningful developments. There will likely be legislative proposals put forward for consideration next session, including possible changes to the education foundation formula. Alaska Transportation Infrastructure Fund: The proposed constitutional amendment to re- establish a dedicated transportation fund passed the House and made it as far as Senate Finance in the last session. The legislation to create a transportation infrastructure fund died in House Finance. Both measures started as House proposals. Rep. Peggy Wilson, prime sponsor of both measures, has indicated she intends to make both proposals her number one priority next session. Municipal Gag Act Ballot Initiative: This measure failed by a 61% to 39% margin. Sponsors involved in support of the proposal are indicating they plan to make another run at it. It would be good to keep an eye on them to avoid having a repeat of an election fight. Likely 2011 Legislative Priorities: It's always dangerous to try and make predictions about future legislatures. My best guess today is we'll see considerable attention to education funding, renewable energy and work on the transportation fund. Attachment KIB Lobbyist Report 2 September 9, 2010 SENATE BIPARTISAN WORKING GROUP J YY p 19071465 -4925 BUILD - ENERGIZE - PROTECT WWWAKSENATE.ORG PRESS RELEASE • For Immediate Release: July 21, 2010 Legislative Task Force on Higher Education and Career Readiness to Meet July 22 and 23 in Anchorage (Anchorage, Alaska) — A legislative task force looking at ways to improve access to higher education and get Alaska high school graduates better prepared for the career choices they will face will hold two days of meetings in Anchorage this week. The 20- member Advisory Task Force on Higher Education and Career Readiness, created under SB 221, will meet Thursday, July 22 and Friday, July 23 at the Anchorage Legislative Information Office at 716 W. 4` Street. Senate President Gary Stevens, R- Kodiak, co -chair of the task force, said the initial meetings of the task force are designed to bring together representatives of major organizations involved in delivering education to begin forming solutions for the Legislature to consider when it convenes in January. "I think it is imperative that we lay out on the table all of the various issues that keep our young people from fully realizing their potential," Stevens said. "Once we have fully identified the real problems, we can work toward real solutions." "We've got some major projects coming up in the near - future," House Speaker and co -chair Mike Chenault, R- Nikiski, said, "and we need to ensure that our high school graduates are headed in the right direction in order to make the career choices that are going to make Alaska successful." Other members of the advisory task force are: Mike Andrews, Executive Director, Alaska Works Partnership (Voc /Tech Training) Barbara Angaiak, President, NEA- Alaska Don Bantz, President, Alaska Pacific University Diane Barrans, Executive Director, ACPE (AK Student Loans /Financial Aid) Steve Bradshaw, President, ACSA (AK K -12 Superintendents) Heather Brakes, Legislative Director, & Designee for Governor Sean Parnell Lolly Carpluk, Coordinator, AK Native Teacher Preparation Project (UAF) Peter Finn, Chair, AK Coalition of Student Leaders (Designee for UnivAk Student Regent) Tammy Fowler- Pound, President, AASB (AK School Boards) Patrick Gamble, President, University of Alaska Dr. Keith Hamilton, President, Alaska Christian College Donald Handeland, Student Representative, Alaska State Board of Education & Early Development Senator Charlie Huggins Julie Kitka, President, Alaska Federation of Natives (or her designee) Larry LeDoux, Commissioner, AK Dept. Education & Early Development Representative Paul Seaton Fred Villa, UA Associate Vice President for Workforce Programs One seat remains open for someone serving as faculty at a post- secondary institution in AK with knowledge or experience with remedial education in AK who resides outside Anchorage, Fairbanks, or Juneau (Senate Alternate) Senator Linda Menard DRAFT AGENDA Location: Anchorage LIO - 716 West 4th Ave, Suite 220, (4th & H) THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2010 8:30 AM Opening comments by Co -Chair Senator Stevens 8:35 AM to 9:30 AM Larry LeDoux, DEED Commissioner 9:45 AM to 10:45 AM Barbara Angaiak, NEA- Alaska President 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM Tammy Fowler- Pound, AASB President - School Boards - Recess for Lunch - 1:30 PM to 2:30 PM Steve Bradshaw, ACSA President- K -12 Superintendents 2:45 PM to 3:45 PM, Mike Andrews, Executive Director - Alaska Works Partnership 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM Donald Handeland, State Board of Ed Student Rep FRIDAY, JULY 23, 2010 8:30 AM to 9:30 AM, Diane Barrans, ACPE - Post -Sec Financial Aid 9:45 AM to 10:45 AM, Fred Villa, Associate Vice President for Workforce Programs 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Patrick Gamble, UnivAK President - Recess for Lunch - 1:30 PM to 2:30 PM, Dr. Keith Hamilton, President AK Christian College (presentation by: John Lommel, Academic Vice President) 2:45 PM to 3:45 PM Peter Finn, Chair, UA Coalition Student Leaders (Student Regent's Designee) 3:45 PM to 4:15 PM Closing Comments and unfinished Task Force Business, including Fall meeting schedule # ## Introduced by: Borough Manager Requested by: Borough Assembly 2 Drafted by: Special Projects 3 Support Christiansen 4 Introduced: 09/16/2010 5 Adopted: 6 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 7 RESOLUTION NO. FY2011 -06 8 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 10 ADOPTING A STATE LEGISLATIVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 11 PRIORITY LIST FOR THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 12 13 WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough represents approximately 14,000 residents of the 14 Kodiak Island Archipelago living in six incorporated cities and one community governed by 15 a tribal council government; and 16 17 WHEREAS, a Borough —wide State legislative capital improvement program has been 18 adopted by the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly that identifies the major needs of the 19 island community for the next five years; and 20 21 WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough has identified major projects to submit to the 22 Alaska Governor and State Legislative Delegation for funding consideration. 23 24 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK 25 ISLAND BOROUGH THAT: 26 27 Section 1: The Kodiak Island Borough's State Legislative capital improvement project 28 priorities for the 2011 legislative session are as follows: 29 1. New High SchoolNocational Education Total estimated cost for the project: $80,800,000 Funding Sources: Sale of Bonds $65,300,000 State funding request: $15,500,000 The existing Kodiak High School complex was built in 1966 with several additions and renovations made throughout the years. The building is now functionally obsolete, is not energy efficient, and is overcrowded with 800 students in a school that was built for 550. The full project will renovate all existing facilities of the existing high school building and provide addition facilities to accommodate decades of student population growth. Additionally, this project will renovate existing spaces of the high school for administrative offices for School District -wide functions. A small obsolete building will be demolished to make room for the new academic wing. The primary objective of this project is to design the renovation of the existing facilities for current and future vocational, academic, art, athletic, and rural needs, and to build additional academic and common spaces to enrich the students' education with essential student activities and regional community involvement. This renovation and addition would capture the latest technology for energy efficiencies and sustainability. Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2011 -06 Page 1 of 5 Approximately $15,500,000 of the cost of this project is for vocational facilities that are needed for the Kodiak Island region. Funding for this project will come from a Borough - wide bond sale which will include local contribution and state reimbursement. Given the state's responsibility to provide vocational education and training, and the significantly higher costs vocational facilities add to the high school renovation, the Borough is requesting legislative funding for the vocational portion of the renovation in the amount of $15.5 million. 30 2. New Long Term Care Facility — Planning and Design Total estimated cost for the project: $1,500,000 Funding Sources: KIB, KANA, CDBG $225,000 State funding request: $1,275,000 Kodiak Island's only long term care facility is in need of replacement. The "Care Center" is housed in a former hospital wing that was never meant to be a nursing home. The use of this space presents space, safety, security, and privacy concerns in an institutional environment. A new facility, modeled after the Green House® concept, which feels more like a home than an institution is the preferred replacement. Planning and pre - development activities are necessary to determine the needs and financial feasibility of a new facility. 31 3. Womens Bay Tsunami /Emergency Shelter Total estimated cost for the project: $1,500,000 Funding Sources: HUD EDI $475,000 State funding request: $1,025,000 There is no emergency shelter in the Womens Bay Community. Womens Bay is located 8 miles from town and 2 miles from the United States Coast Guard Support Center. Should there be a tsunami that destroys the roads, or a rock slide at Womens Mountain or Pillar Mountain, the community of 700 residents would be without support services. A logical location for an emergency shelter is adjacent and attached to the Womens Bay Fire Department. A 2,500 square foot addition with an emergency generator is proposed. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Economic Development Initiative funds in the amount of $475,000 have been appropriated for this project. 32 4. Service Area Paving $5,000, Funding Sources: KIB $1,000, State funding request: $4,000, This project addresses the on -going need to pave portions of Borough Service Area roads. There are approximately 26 miles of road among four Road Service Areas that connect residential neighborhoods with the greater Kodiak community. Paving projects will address main thoroughfares or busy neighborhood roads as well as improvements to major drainage course that runs through these areas. Paving service area roads eliminates poor air quality experienced by the neighborhood. Kodiak's road construction material is shale /mudstone that breaks Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2011 -06 Page 2 of 5 down easily into fine air borne dust and volcanic ash. Kodiak's rainy climate and winter freeze and thaw of road bed material promote major maintenance issues with the development of pot holes and degradation of road surfaces. Residents located within the paving area will contribute, through a local improvement district, a percentage of the engineering and improvement costs. Due to the high cost of asphalt, the Borough is seeking the state's financial assistance to help to reduce this cost to the residents. The Borough's paving needs will be phased in and completed on a priority basis as funding is available. 33 5. Emergency Generators for Schools Total estimated cost for the project: $3,206,000 State funding request: $2,564,800 Many of our in -town and village school facilities act as emergency shelters during extreme weather events or during times of natural or economic catastrophes. We have identified and prioritized the need to equip the following schools with emergency generators: East Elementary School $780,000 Kodiak High School $466,000 Old Harbor village school $1,007,000 Karluk village school $33,000 Port Lions village school $920,000 Equipping these facilities with emergency generators will provide power for sheltering needs and back -up power during short term loss of electricity. These generators will be housed permanently at the school facilities and become part of the building. Located at these sites, they can be tested, operated and maintained as part of the service to the overall school building. 34 6. Engineering & Design for East Elementary Traffic Flow Improvements Total estimated cost for the project: $500,000 Funding Sources: KIB $50,000 State funding request: $450,000 Reconfiguration of the existing parking area at East Elementary School will reduce risks by providing for a safer separation of pedestrians, small vehicle traffic and bus loading /unloading. A new design will require an increase in the total area of the parking lot to allow adequate parking to support increased building usage and occupant load. 35 Traffic Safety Lighting from the City of Kodiak to the United States Coast Guard 7. Base, Planning and Design Total estimated cost for the project: $15,000,000 State funding request: $1,500,000 One road connects the City of Kodiak to the state airport, the U.S. Coast Guard Support Center and neighborhoods located roughly south of town. This stretch of roadway between the city limits and the Coast Guard Base is approximately five miles of dark, Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2011 -06 Page 3 of 5 two lane winding roadway with an average speed limit of 45 miles per hour. The lack of highway lighting is a significant safety concern along this section of heavily traveled road. 36 8. Phase I Baranof Park Improvements Total estimated cost for the project: $4,000,C State funding request: $2,000,( Baranof Park is a regional recreational facility located within the City of Kodiak that serves not only City residents, but the entire region. The Park serves as an important educational facility for both the Kodiak Middle School and the Kodiak High School, neither of which have any other outdoor educational facilities. This project requires the replacement of the aging track, replacement of two playing fields, necessary drainage improvements, fencing and some utility improvements, with an estimated total cost of $7 million. At least half of the needs for this project are due to Kodiak Island Borough School District use of the facility. Preliminary engineering plans and bid specifications for this project were completed in 2007. Phase I of this project is estimated to cost $4 million. Phase I includes removal of the deteriorating synthetic surface track and infield area used for football, soccer, physical education classes, and other sports, and replacement with a new synthetic track and synthetic surface infield better suited to multi - purpose use. 37 9. Peterson Elementary School Parking Lot Paving Total estimated cost for the project: $1,150,000 Funding Sources: KIB $115,000 State funding request: $1,035,000 Peterson Elementary School is one of six "in- town" public schools of Kodiak. Each of the other five schools has paved driveways and parking spaces. Peterson's surrounding topography is very level thus making drainage a challenge. This weak drainage forces a routine battle against the development of potholes throughout its gravel driveways and parking areas. All surrounding public roadways within four miles of the school are paved. Paving this school's driveways and parking will provide safer and cleaner facilities for our students, faculty, staff and parents. 38 10. Maintenance (painting) of the Near Island Bridge Total estimated cost for the project: $10,000,000 State funding request: $10,000,000 Bridge work currently conducted by the Alaska Department of Transportation is performed based on safety issues. Proper maintenance and painting will ensure the long term usefulness and safety of the Near Island Bridge. This project will include sandblasting and painting of the bridge. 39 11. Pathway Design: Kodiak City Limits to USCG Base Entrance Total estimated cost for the project: $11,700,000 Funding Sources: KIB $149,000 Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2011 -06 Page 4 of 5 State funding request: $1,490,000 The Kodiak Island Borough, in conjunction with the City of Kodiak and interested community members, is working to develop a designated pedestrian /bike pathway system for Kodiak residents and visitors. This pathway will complement Kodiak's road system by providing safe bike and pedestrian access from the northern most end of the road system, at White Sands Beach, to the Bells Flats community south of the City of Kodiak. This phase of the project addresses a segment of the pathway, Phase I, which will extend from the Kodiak City boundary (Deadman's Curve) and a well used scenic overlook to the entrance of the USCG Base. Other phases of the project, outside the City of Kodiak, are: Phase II from the USCG Base entrance to Panamarof Creek (Bells Flats community) and Phase III from Otmeloi Way to White Sands beach. Each of these phases is a significant component of an integrated, community friendly pathway system. A planning level scoping document has already been completed to support this project. Total project costs for this phase of the pathway project is estimated at $11.7 million; the Kodiak Island Borough is requesting State funding assistance for design and engineering costs associated with this section of pathway. 40 12. Anton Larsen Dock Total estimated cost for the project: $1,000,000 Funding Sources: KIB $15,000 State funding request: $100,000 The Anton Larsen Floating Dock is located 18 miles from the town of Kodiak. It was originally constructed as a supply dock for work associated with the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project. Instead of dismantling the dock upon the completion of the dam, the Borough became interested in it. It is a facility that is heavily used by residents of the rural communities of Port Lions and Ouzinkie, as well as those living on the island's west side. During the summer it is also used by charter boats and sport and commercial fishermen. This interest resulted from the boating public's desire for a safer route to the community of Kodiak through Anton Larsen Bay. A road leads to the City of Kodiak from this dock, bypassing the potential risk to loss of life and property that is huge when navigating around Spruce Cape. Spruce Cape is one of the most dangerous stretches of water on Kodiak Island and many people risk navigating around this cape to receive essential services. The KIB improved the dock in 1995 by driving piles and refurbishing the floating dock structure. Much more needs to be done to replace the dock and piles and design an improvement to this important facility. Total project cost is estimated at $1 million; we are requesting state funding assistance in the amount of $100,000 for engineering and design of the needed improvements. 41 13. Chiniak Warning Siren Total estimated cost for the project: $45,000 State funding request: $45,000 Due to the linear development of the Chiniak community, the existing warning siren is not audible to all areas of the community. A siren could be placed in a second location in Chiniak to alert this section of the community. Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2011 -06 Page 5 of 5 42 14. Planning and Design for Mill Bay Beach Access Improvements Total estimated cost for the project: $63,000 State funding request: $63,000 Mill Bay Beach is heavily used by residents, sport fishermen and the community who come to view this bay located close to town. New construction items proposed here include the construction of new access stairs and walkways, as well as trail enhancements between the two beaches, and a small raft /kayak launch. 43 15. Womens Bay Playground Upgrades Total estimated cost for the project: $100,000 Funding Sources: Grants, other funds $50,000 State funding request: $50,000 The playground equipment in the parks in the Womens Bay community, Paramanoff Park and Sargent Creek Park, is estimated to be thirty years old. The equipment is in need of replacement. These parks serve each side of the Womens Bay community and are the recreational centers of the two neighborhoods. Initial research conducted by residents demonstrates that grants are available to pay for many needed improvements. The goal is to provide safe playground equipment for the Womens Bay community. 44 45 Section 2: The Kodiak Island Borough administration is hereby instructed to advise our 46 State of Alaska Governor and Legislative Delegation of the Capital 47 Improvement Projects Priority List adopted by the Kodiak Island Borough 48 Assembly. 49 50 51 ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 52 THIS DAY OF 2010 53 54 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 55 56 57 58 ATTEST: Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor 59 60 61 62 Nova M. Javier. MMC, Borough Clerk Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2011 -06 Page 6 of 5 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY WORK SESSION Work Session of:.,ig 02.0 /0 Please PRINT your name Please PRINT your name 5 0.41 A bg I,V, S+ ci41, L 14 0 ye tZ iS Ste,/ Or/ 7 ,/ - MCL5 -ts k n�� J � 6 !CIA ke_i t._ (.)c -� Erkro Al (2'hey•ie Cjso Los h lr EftlaN m • � 7 1 2 .31a czckoss peeAi rce_ Tuft' / /J 4 /f &cokii, 7 .c lSer) ir r kfrw