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