The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-01-13 Work Session Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Work Session Thursday, January 13, 2011, 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. Halibut Quotas - IPHC 2. Service Area No. 1 Board Request for Funding Assistance for a Drainage Repair 3. Lateral Expansion /Leachate Management Presentation by CH2M Hill 4. Geographic Information System (GIS) Presentation by Dave Wolfe PACKET REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. FY Ordinance No. FY2011 -10 Rezoning Lot 3, Block 1, Woodland Acres Subdivision - 3694 Rezanof Drive East, From RR —Rural Residential To B— Business (Painter Family Trust). UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None. NEW BUSINESS CONTRACTS Contract No. FY2011 -21 Architectural Design Services for the Kodiak High School Renovation Project. RESOLUTIONS - None. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION Ordinance No. FY2011 -11 Amending Title 2 Administration And Personnel Chapter 2.20 Borough Mayor Section 2.20.040 Duties and Chapter 2.25 Borough Assembly By Instituting Section 2.25.040 Representation Of Assembly Position to Require Assembly Discussion or Approval Before Stating or Announcing the Position of the Borough In Any Written or Electronic Communication or Giving Testimony Before Any Legislative or Regulatory Body as a Representative of The Kodiak Island Borough. OTHER ITEMS - None. MANAGER'S COMMENTS CLERK'S COMMENTS MAYOR'S COMMENTS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS COMMENTS --tillS KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH . ENGINEERING/FACILITIES DEPARTMENT ! L T Y O , i r : fi " *if ` fp' A 33 , ;/ MEMORANDUM DATE: 1 -12 -2011 FROM: Woody Koning, Director� "� TO: Rick Gifford, Borough Manager CC: Ken Smith, Project Manager RE: Kick -Off Meeting for A/E Processes for KHS The Jensen Yorba Lott design team, KIB Projects staff, key KIBSD staff, KIBBOE Member Norm Wooten, and Mayor Jerome Selby met yesterday at 3:30 to discuss the pre - design process and plan for user input into the conceptual design. The following items were discussed: 1. Schedule, design process, and milestone dates leading up to Concept Design deliverable mid April 2011. 2. Confirmation of chain of communication and responsibility - a. Building/budget /contract issues i. MB POC is Ken Smith, Project Manager ii. JYL POC is Tony Yorba b. Education program issues i. KIBSD POC is Scott Williams, Operations Director ii. JYL POC is Tony Yorba 3. Website development, coordination, and maintenance — JYL team will produce and maintain on -going project status information and accept public comments and ideas via an open access website. JYL will email weekly project progress summaries to the MB Clerk for distribution to Assembly and KIBSD Secretary for distribution to the Board of Education. Various media will he employed for further public outreach. 4. Program meetings with faculty, community, and student groups were planned. KHS Principal will organize groups. KIBSD will be responsible for advertizing and promoting these meetings. 5. Life -Cycle -Cost Analysis of the existing facility to help determine viability of reusing/renovating specific portions of the building. 6. Eco- Charette was scheduled. This activity will include faculty, students, neighbors, parents and the general public to discuss site issues including: traffic/access, building orientation to the local environment, landscaping, snow /ice /removal/storage etc. The design team will acquire local knowledge about the specific site its environment. Ilan Kw December 30, 2010 There will be several fishermen speaking under citizens comments and the following are facts which will outline the reason for their comments. Please understand the IPI-IC commissioners do not realize at this point that Kodiak is in possession of this information. I believe Kodiak needs to address the IPHC and specifically Mr. Balsinger, and directly ask for justification of the pending actions which would so adversely affect the economic health of our community, being there is NO scientific material to back such an action. FACTS 1. On Monday 12/27/10 a meeting took place between Bob Alverson, Executive director of Fishing Vessel owners Assoc., and Juliana Curry, Executive Director of the Petersburg Vessel Owners Assoc. It was at this meeting Ms. Curry informed Mr. Alverson that the PVOA with the help of Icicle Seafoods, through the IPHC, they intend to transfer 1 million pounds of 2011 halibut from areas 3A & 3B, (Kodiak) to 2C, (Southeast) 2. Vessel loss of 1 million pounds, (primarily to Kodiak) equates to approximately 6 million dollars to Kodiak longliners,(this is at $6.00 per pound) 3. This also equates to approximately $120,000.00 in loss to the KIB in fish tax,. 4. Over the past 2 -4 years halibut quota for SE has decreased dramatically due in part to an over fishing of approximately 3-4 million pounds by charter boats. 5. This transfer of quota from Kodiak area to SE will allow fishermen to over fish an additional million pounds in an already over fished area, and under the same circumstances, what will they do to us next year ? ?? 6. Remember for every fish dollar that crosses our docks, the affect on our community is anywhere from 5 -7 times that dollar. For a loss of 6 million dollars in fish that could be as much as 42 million dollars loss in jobs, supplies, fuel, etc. We cannot afford this loss in this community. Louise J s fyl..l_ Gt ;.dge 9 ��,., »"'a ''.- s. ' ' _"am .a`a ., 7:@" 'Y.J$IIII'Ar'�'�i€i01 Dear Longliner: This newsletter will bring you up-to -date on the North Pacific Council and Pacific Council activities, the IPHC proposals, activities in Washington, D.C., and markets. **Actions in Washington, D.C.** Punitive Damages Legislation. Before the November elections, this legislation was being pushed by the Trial Lawyers Association with support by Senator Reid and Senator Rockefeller. Both have taken substantial funds from the trial lawyers. This bill would have opened up vessel owners, particularly commercial fishing boat owners, to be sued for punitive damages. Currently, Federal Courts bar punitive damages for an injured crewman except for failure to provide maintenance and cure. We are told the trial lawyers have backed off and may now support legislation for punitive damages targeting oil derricks. Since this was supposed to address the Gulf of Mexico "BP Horizon" situation, this is a more acceptable approach. The previous attempt would have been disastrous for all vessel owners, so the situation is much improved since November. Codfish Co-ops. The House and Senate have both passed legislation that authorizes a single fishery cooperative for the longline catcher processor subsector in the BSAI. This will greatly add to their efficiency in vessel usage relative to resources abundance. Medicare. (Injuries for older Crew). Due to budget concerns, those in charge of Medicare (i.e. Feds) want to know when an older crewman, who is old enough to receive medical benefits, has an injury. Any long -term settlement from a lawsuit or negotiated out -of -court settlement for older crew may have to get federal government approval, with a portion of settlements offsetting future Medicare benefits of the injured crew. We have not had a problem with the Marine Safety Reserve on this but we have heard stories of lawsuits not settling because of federal Intervention and demands. Federal Loan Program. The IFQ current loan program, financed with your IFQ fees, will be expanded to accommodate the crab fleet in the Bering Sea. The fees from crab, halibut, and sablefish will be co-mingled as well as loans made. Funding will likely continue in 2011 based on a continuing resolution by congress similar to last year's funding. Safety Act. John Crowley and I sat in on a Coast Guard meeting in Anchorage to discuss the new Safety Act and its impact on our vessels. We came away with a more positive feeling regarding this Act. The Act will require all vessels built after 7 -1 -2012, and longer than 50 feet to be "classed" and if longer than 79 feet, be load lined. Vessels built before 7 -1 -2012 and >50 feet will need to meet a Coast Guard "alternative compliance program? This will likely entail new classes for skippers, mandatory safety review of vessels, which most of you do already. Our biggest concern is under existing compliance programs for catcher processors very expensive structural demands have been requested by the Coast Guard. We will have another meeting with the Coast Guard on this before it affects you in 2020. We have asked for a meeting here in Seattle this spring. **IPHC** 7 I The following are the IPHC 2011 harvest recommendations. The staff recommends a catch limit total of 41.02 million pounds for 2011, a decrease of 19% from 2010. .macgy U- ,..; Ja , 4 .. l 071731;....-47,--21-457:777,7-, - °` �....;t'. ti .,r 4 ; x Asa � 9��as '' ,?'Y: ��,�. Halibut Catch Limits 2011 Regulatory 2008 Fishery 2009 Fishery 2010 IPHC 2011 IPHC Staff Change +/- % Change +/- Area Catch Unit Catch Unlit Fishery Catch Catch Umlts 2011 IPHC - 20084c2010 - 3 0 m e2C)1/ Limits Fishery Catch IPHC fishery Limit Catch limit 2A 1.22 0.95 0.81 0.86 0.05 6% 2B 9 7.63 7.50 7.65 0.15 2% 2C 6.21 5.02 4.40 2.33 -2.07 -47% 3A 24.22 21.7 19.99 14.36 -5.63 -28% "E vnuL -cc 38 10.9 10.9 9.90 7.52 $ -2.38 -24% Conte_ 11_ 4A 3.1 2.55 2.33 2.41 0.08 3% WQ F - tt S 4B 1.86 1.87 2.16 2.18 0.02 1% 4CDE 3.89 3.46 3.58 3.72 0.14 4% Total 60.4 54.08 50.67 41.03 -9.64 -19% - LY'r „ { -4,A L � L_�� I . --.7. � :4 r �t i s [a 1 $$l ' (-`:$1( i 5i i � i` veil", A' N /fit' /+� i .a -.I ; it � +. 7 i �. i ' ?; _,�l '.i ._ r, ,_. I ' .. . .- _._..... a.. ..... .. 3*5:_.vtrr. ..._. -.. / i . �/ (. . 1 � f : �. . ..i survey 1 rrlf. ?r, 5,4 2i 1 " 1I, -.r: -) 14 -jW WPUE Cor: Mi WPUF Com cowl Removals _1C:. i; _ . . - L/ - !.: . - , ;, -a Ertou The staff is asking for 100% of their recommended reductions instead of half down. They have changed their WPUE (Weight per Unit of Effort) by weighting the current year 75 %, the second year 20 %, and the third year 5 %. The most notable reduction is in SE Alaska, with a 47% reduction. Three years ago we asked how long It will take 2C to recover. We were told 5 years and that was three years ago. If you look at the recruitment chart below, the Commission argues the recent reductions are the result of the fleet fishing on weak year classes from 1989 through 1997. They say December 30, 2010 (Thursday) — Kodiak- Island'Sorough- meeting Public Comments presented t Lu Dochtermann: RE: Halibut Quotas — Potential reallocation from GOA to_SE- Alaska by Political Interference Lu Dochtermann is a long -time Kodiak fisherman and holder of Halibut quota in the Gulf of Alaska. He's one of six industry members on the International Pacific Halibut Commission's Scientific Committee, and recently participated in the 2010 meeting. That committee discusses future research plans; provides industry input regarding what they encounter and observe at -sea, and discusses surveys of halibut and the scientific methodology that are used by the IPHC's staff to recommend new allocations for the upcoming year. For years — without unreasonable complaint — the Gulf of Alaska halibut fleet endured cut backs of up to 50 %, because they understood that only by reducing allocations in line with survey results would we preserve the fishery in the long run. Stocks are down, and causes aside, the Gulf halibut fleet understood the need for even greater conservation. Lu endorsed this year's overall cutbacks, because he believes in sustainability and maintaining a future halibut fishery. Now, we hear that the Southeast Alaska halibut fleet is protesting the survey -based cutbacks that they will finally have to endure in 2011. Please keep in mind that these are localized surveys, so IPHC staff makes allocation recommendations based on regional stocks that are first and foremost impacted by that region's fleet behavior. The SE commercial halibut fleet steadfastly refused cutbacks starting about 7 years ago, which had negative cumulative impacts on their latest stock levels; and now good science says they must adjust downward. But today's word on the docks is that SE wants to take 1 million pounds of halibut, worth about $6 million ex- vessel to GOA communities and fishermen, for itself, by subtracting it from our region's allocation. Yet we already struggle with additional economic stresses on halibut due to federal politics that have kept the GOA Trawl Bycatch issue from being properly assessed and managed. Lu's message for the Southeast fleet, and those who would have our halibut delivered to their plants, not to Homer and Kodiak's etc., is: "Don't milk us for your failures! Stop your crying and take your medicine — because if this unjustified reallocation occurs, we will fight it in the courts." While it is unfortunate SE got a large cutback, the right thing to do is to live with the 2011 recommendation, see what happens under that harvest level, and come back to the Commission next year with an updated survey and information. Politics should not be the way for SE to prevail over science. In short, this is a matter for the International Pacific Halibut Commission, and the state should not position Alaska's fishermen against each other. The governor's office ought to be made aware by Kodiak officials that our quotas were lowered too, and we expect others to abide by the surveys and industry input and IPHC's staff recommendations, as we will. SE Alaska should be given no special favor, especially if it will only come at an economic expense to our region. Thank you, and Happy New Year. I ' F/V Stormbird & F/V North Point; POB 714, Kodiak, AK 99615 IPHC Catch Limit Comment Form Comment on Regulatory Area: 2A /213/2C /3A/3B /4A /4B /4CDE Year: SO ( 0 (Circle all that apply) Submission Information (Please print or type) Name: ' 40(11 . 01c Ecicwo,„ tO OUC h, Affiliation: pp Address: t71 0 Mi (1 bck Qdo a(f City: A(oGI,t A_State /Prov.: A Postal /ZIP Code: � "'� Telephone ( 1 0 D A &iO Fax: 0i i V )4q Email: lfU(� cezA,C - 0 _j,S Signature: D TI ' S I. What is your recommended catch limit or proposal? PI Cl I r �. 2. What is the supporting information for this recommendation (e.g., catch rates, biomass trends, recruitment, etc.)? Please be specific where possible. Please attach any other supporting materials. All items submitted by December 31, 2010 will be considered at the IPHC Annual Meeting. Remember to include contact information and signature. Lt; Kodiak Island Borough z / ` ,, Office ofthe Borough Mayor 710 Mill Bay Road „, � ' , L : 4 ,` Kodiak, Alaska 99615 . A d 0 `z x' Phone (907) 486 -9310 Fax (907) 486 -9391 December 30, 2010 IPHC 2320 W. Commodore Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98199 -1287 Attention: Mr. Bruce M. Leaman, Director IPHC Commissioners The Kodiak Island Borough insists that 3A and 3B Halibut Allocations are based on staff recommendations and Kodiak would receive no less than 14.36 million pounds in 3A and 7.52 million pounds in 3B. Sincerely, BO OUG AYOR Jerome M. Selby COMMISSIONERS. EC L BRUCE E DIRECTOR M. LEA MAN JAMES BALSIGER INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC HALIBUT COMMISSION JUNEAU. AK RALPH G. HOARD 2322 W COMMODORE WY STE 200 SEATTLE. WA LARRY JOHNSON SEATTLE, WA 98145.2009 PARKSVILLE. B.C. ESTABLISHED BY A CONVENTION BETWEEN CANADA - - - -- -- PHILLIP LESTENKOF TELEPHONE Si PAUL, AK AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (206) 6341838 LAURA RICHARDS NANAIMO. B.C. - '_ - - -- GARY ROBINSON VANCOUVER. B.C. (706) 632.2983 Call for Catch Limit Proposal Comments 2011 IPHC Annual Meeting The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) invites the public and industry to submit proposals concerning IPHC staff catch limit recommendations or related issues (such as stock assessment) to the IPHC for inclusion at the 2011 IPHC Annual Meeting. Blank forms for submission are available through the IPHC office or from the web page. All completed submissions that are received (or postmarked) by the deadline will be included in discussion at the Annual Meeting. Comments may be posted on the IPI-IC homepage (www.iphc.int) and copies can also be available by mail or fax by calling the IPHC offices (206- 634 - 1838). Please be aware that the IPIIC regulates only the catch limits by IPI-IC Regulatory Area and not by fishery (commercial or sport). Internal allocation issues (catch limit distribution, for example) are handled domestically and should be addressed to the respective governments. Due to the need for adequate staff time to assemble Catch Limit comments prior to the IPHC Annual Meeting, the deadline is December 31, 2010. Any information to be included must he received (or postmarked) at the IPHC office by the submission date. Comments received after the deadline may not be included or reviewed at the Annual Meeting. Instructions for submission: Please fill out all areas of the form. Remember to complete the name and contact information section and sign the comment form. If additional space is needed to answer one or more of the questions please attach additional sheets. I. Proposed Catch Limit and Area — List the IPHC Regulatory Area and your proposed catch limit. 2. Supporting evidence — Describe the reasoning behind your proposed catch area limit. What supporting evidence do you have regarding your proposal? For example, historical catch rates, juvenile recruitment, or other biological reasons supporting the assertion. Submit the proposal and any supporting documents to the IPHC by December 31, 2010 via either: Physical Address Fax IPHC 206- 632 -2983 2320 W. Commodore Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98199 -1287 Note: Regulatory proposals or administrative issues associated rvitlt the IPIIC regulations must be submitted by using the IPHC Regulations Proposal Submission Form and be received by November 10, 2010 for inclusion in discussions at the IPHC 2011 meeting. December 30, 2010 (Thursday) — Kodiak- Island°Sorough- meeting 1 Public Comments presented f r Lu Dochter RE: Halibut Quotas — Potential reallocation from GOA_toSE- Alaska by Political Interference Lu Dochtermann is a long -time Kodiak fisherman and holder of Halibut quota in the Gulf of Alaska. He's one of six industry members on the International Pacific Halibut Commission's Scientific Committee, and recently participated in the 2010 meeting. That committee discusses future research plans; provides industry input regarding what they encounter and observe at -sea, and discusses surveys of halibut and the scientific methodology that are used by the IPHC's staff to recommend new allocations for the upcoming year. For years — without unreasonable complaint — the Gulf of Alaska halibut fleet endured cut backs of up to 50 %, because they understood that only by reducing allocations in line with survey results would we preserve the fishery in the long run. Stocks are down, and causes aside, the Gulf halibut fleet understood the need for even greater conservation. Lu endorsed this year's overall cutbacks, because he believes in sustainability and maintaining a future halibut fishery. Now, we hear that the Southeast Alaska halibut fleet is protesting the survey -based cutbacks that they will finally have to endure in 2011. Please keep in mind that these are localized surveys, so IPHC staff makes allocation recommendations based on regional stocks that are first and foremost impacted by that region's fleet behavior. The SE commercial halibut fleet steadfastly refused cutbacks starting about 7 years ago, which had negative cumulative impacts on their latest stock levels; and now good science says they must adjust downward. But today's word on the docks is that SE wants to take 1 million pounds of halibut, worth about $6 million ex- vessel to GOA communities and fishermen, for itself, by subtracting it from our region's allocation. Yet we already struggle with additional economic stresses on halibut due to federal politics that have kept the GOA Trawl Bycatch issue from being properly assessed and managed. Lu's message for the Southeast fleet, and those who would have our halibut delivered to their plants, not to Homer and Kodiak's etc., is: "Don't milk us for your failures! Stop your crying and take your medicine — because if this unjustified reallocation occurs, we will fight it in the courts." While it is unfortunate SE got a large cutback, the right thing to do is to live with the 2011 recommendation, see what happens under that harvest level, and come back to the Commission next year with an updated survey and information. Politics should not be the way for SE to prevail over science. In short, this is a matter for the International Pacific Halibut Commission, and the state should not position Alaska's fishermen against each other. The governor's office ought to be made aware by Kodiak officials that our quotas were lowered too, and we expect others to abide by the surveys and industry input and IPHC's staff recommendations, as we will. SE Alaska should be given no special favor, especially if it will only come at an economic expense to our region. Thank yo and Happy New Year. ivao ac-/-7-600- F/V Stormbird & F/V North Point; POB 714, Kodiak, AK 99615 Nova Javier From: robert alverson [robertalverson @msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 5:03 PM To: carol. austerman @assembly.kodiakak.us; jerrol .friend @assembly.kodiakak.us; judy.fulp @assembly.kodiakak.us; sue .jeffrey @assembly.kodiakak.us; david.kaplan @assembly.kodiakak.us; chris .lynch @assembly.kodiakak.us; louise .stutes @assembly.kodiakak.us; Nova Javier Cc: Julianne Curry - PVOA -; Ted Kronmiller; arni thomson; Arne Fuglvog; Dan Hull; halibutcoalition @gmail.com Subject: halibut issues Assembly members, I have been reading some Kodiak blogs, the Kodiak Mirror and some Borough minutes regarding proposed halibut quotas for 2011 and a meeting I mentioned to some folks. I think my comments have been greatly pushed and pulled. I had lunch at Chinooks here in Seattle with a representative of PVOA. We both were concerned about the significant drops in quota in areas 3B,3A and 2c. (24, 28 and 47 percent respectively. ) In part these reductions reflect some new assumptions on how much of the total quota should be harvested in the 10 regulatory areas. The new model that distributes harvests has been questioned by all participants as it has allocation implications beyond just biological implications. On the biological side the decreases in the IPHC survey WPUE (weight per unit of effort) in my opinion, and I am sure many others, do not match up with the staff IPHC proposed harvest increases and decreases this year. Such as area 4 WPUE goes down yet quotas go up and in 2c there is a 5 to 6 percent change yet the quota goes down 47 %. There is room for some disagreement about the staff proposals, and those concerns were discussed over my lunch meeting. During the past 32 years that I have helped chair the industry Conference board at IPHC annual meetings the fishermen from all the different areas have supported the staff recommendations for the most part, never being more than a total of a million and a half pounds out of phase with the scientist on the high side and have often recommended well below that on the low side of recommendations. The IPHC lately wants to go to a coast wide model for distributing quotas as apposed to setting quotas based on the individual science by each area. Unfortunately this drives in my opinion more politics than the old method. SE and other areas including the Canadians have objected to this new model in that it can short different areas from historical harvest limits. The western and central GOA participants worry that the model over states historical harvest that may have been too large in the past hence takes away from the central and western GOA. The IPHC Commissioners in the recent past have added quota in some areas and deducted quotas in others in order to fit with the total recommended removals, even though individual areas ended up being over or below the scientist staff recommendations. This has unfortunately brought the complaint of politics being played between regulatory areas. So when I have lunch with someone and we both complain, based on the new model, our respective complaints could mean some else is could to be shorted if our concerns are agreed with by the Commissioners and they follow their past adding and subtracting. If you multiply my concerns over 10 regulatory areas you can get a gist of how complicated things can get between the regulatory areas. I think this is why most of the time the fishermen end up supporting the staff recommendations. I am certain the PVOA members and their representative nor myself ever intended the interpretations of my fish and chip lunch, halibut, as replayed in blogs, public testimony before the Borough and expressed elsewhere to reach the current level of galloping senility that it has. But since I am over 60 perhaps senility is my best defense. I apologize if I am the one that got this snow ball rolling, but on the other hand, it is one hell of snowball. bob alverson manager FVOA See you all in Victoria 1 Nova Javier From: Pat Hardina [PatH @IcicleSeafoods.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 8:19 AM To: robertalverson @msn.com Cc: carol. austerman @assembly.kodiakak.us; jerrol .friend @assembly.kodiakak.us; judy.fulp©assembly.kodiakak.us; sue .jeffrey @assembly.kodiakak.us; david .kaplan @assembly.kodiakak.us; Chris .lynch @assembly.kodiakak.us; louise .stutes @assembly.kodiakak.us; Nova Javier; Julianne Curry -PVOA-; Ted Kronmiller; arni thomson; Arne Fuglvog; Dan Hull; halibutcoalition @gmail.com Subject: FW: Fwd: halibut issues Bob, Your apology below for initiating the rumor spread throughout blogs, the Kodiak Daily Mirror, and Borough Assembly does nothing to dispel the blatantly false assertion that Icicle was somehow involved. The first we knew of these supposed plans of ours was when we read about it yesterday in the Kodiak Daily Mirror. In the future, if you are going to apologize for starting a rumor that falsely includes our name, we would appreciate it if your "retraction" also clarified that we were not involved. We would much prefer, however, that you refrain from making false inferences about Icicle in the first place. Contrary to your statement that "it is one hell of a snowball," the spread of erroneous information like this can be extremely damaging to companies that are falsely accused. Regards, ctat mata(ina Icicle Seafoods, Inc. V.P. Risk Management & Administration 4019 21st Avenue Seattle, WA 98199 206- 281 -5372 p a th @ icicl ese afoo ds. com From: Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 07:09 PM To: Kris Norosz Subject: Fwd: halibut issues Kris, See Bob Alverson's comment to the Kodiak Assembly below. Also Icicle was mentioned in this blog http: / /tholepin.blogspot.com/ (scroll down) Regards, Forwarded message From: robert alverson <robertalverson c,msn.com> Date: Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:03 PM Subject: halibut issues To: carol.austerman(2l assemblv.kodiakak.us, jen of .friend(aassembly.kodiakak.us, judy.fulp 4assembly.kodiakak.us, sue .jeffrev(assembly.kodiakak.us, david.kaplan a,assembly.kodiakak.us, Chris .lynclQassembly.kodiakak.us, louise.stutes a,assembly.kodiakak.us, njavier @kodiakak.us Cc: Julianne Curry -PVOA- <pvoa(cdgci.net >, Ted Kronmiller <kroncyber a,emait.msn.com >, arni thomson Nova Javier From: robert alverson [robertalverson @msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:07 AM To: path @icicleseafoods.com Cc: carol. austerman @assembly.kodiakak.us; jerrol .friend @assembly.kodiakak.us; judy.fulp @assembly.kodiakak.us; sue .jeffrey @assembly.kodiakak.us; david .kaplan @assembly.kodiakak.us; chris .lynch @assembly.kodiakak.us; louise .stutes @assembly.kodiakak.us; Nova Javier; Julianne Curry - PVOA -; Ted Kronmiller; arni thomson; Arne Fuglvog; Dan Hull; halibutcoalition @gmail.com Subject: RE: halibut issues Pat, I am not going to comment on your precived abuse as I never mentioned Icicle Seafoods in any of my comments. Kodiak folks mentioned Icicle however. My advice to processors is to stay out of fishermen mud flights. However if you want the fact I am just accross the street from you. I will be in the office Thursday. bob a From: PatH @IcicleSeafoods.com To: robertalverson @msn.com CC: carol. austerman @assembly.kodiakak.us; jerrol .friend @assembly.kodiakak.us; judy.fulp @assembly.kodiakak.us; sue .jeffrey @assembly.kodiakak.us; david .kaplan @assembly.kodiakak.us; chris .lynch @assembly.kodiakak.us; louise .stutes @assembly.kodiakak.us; njavier @kodiakak.us; pvoa @gci.net; kroncyber @email.msn.com; acccrabak @earthlink.net; arne_fuglvog @murkowski.senate.gov; dnhull @alaska.net; halibutcoalition @gmail.com Subject: FW: Fwd: halibut issues Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 17:19:20 +0000 Bob, Your apology below for initiating the rumor spread throughout blogs, the Kodiak Daily Mirror, and Borough Assembly does nothing to dispel the blatantly false assertion that Icicle was somehow involved. The first we knew of these supposed plans of ours was when we read about it yesterday in the Kodiak Daily Mirror. In the future, if you are going to apologize for starting a rumor that falsely includes our name, we would appreciate it if your "retraction" also clarified that we were not involved. We would much prefer, however, that you refrain from making false inferences about Icicle in the first place. Contrary to your statement that "it is one hell of a snowball," the spread of erroneous information like this can be extremely damaging to companies that are falsely accused. Regards, eat diatd Icicle Seafoods, Inc. V.P. Risk Management & Administration 4019 21st Avenue Seattle, WA 98199 206 - 281 -5372 path @ icicleseafoods. corn From: Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 07:09 PM To: Kris Norosz Subject: Fwd: halibut issues Kris, See Bob Alverson's comment to the Kodiak Assembly below. Also Icicle was mentioned in this blog http: / /tholepin.blogspot.com/ (scroll down) 1 1 1 MEMORANDUM W TO: Case File FROM: Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor SUBJ: Kodiak Island Borough Subdivision Case 94 -028 Subdivision of Lot 7A, Block 5, Miller Point Subdivision DATE: August 21, 1998 Request The subdividers of the above referenced property have requested that the Kodiak Island Borough, through Service District One, agree to accept maintenance responsibility for a grated manhole located in the Rezanof Drive right -of -way located most closely to proposed Lot 7 A -1. Background This subdivision has been subject to extensive review and revision; including an appeal to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, and subsequent submittal of a revised subdivision. The original lot contained a drainage course that ran roughly through the center of the lot. This drainage course was re- routed as part of the subdivision development process. In a letter to the subdividers dated May 5, 1995, from Steve Hobgood (then Facilities /Engineering Director), the following request was made: "Please provide provisions as to how and by whom this storm drain system is to be maintained. If it is to be maintained by adjacent subdivision owners provide a description of the document to be used to obligate the landowners to maintain it. This may require a small stormdrain district toto be established, since most property owners are not prepared to operate and maintain utilities involving confined entry OSHA regulations. In considering your verbal proposal that you plan on the landowners being responsible for the maintenance of the stormdrain system, Borough attorney, Joel Bolger, has recommended that you add a plat note stating your intentions and that a document be drafted stating how this maintenance program will be administered. Mr. Bolger stated, however, that the easiest arrangement might be for Service District No. 1 to agree to maintain this stormdrain. This would only require a letter from the Board stating that they would accept the system after it has been constructed and approved by the Engineering/Facilities Department. Another option is to petition the Borough to establish a drainage service district. Which ever method you chose you will need to submit it for review and approval as part of this drainage plan review." Case 594 -028 Manhole Review and Decision Memo August 21, 1998 Page 2 The need to establish maintenance responsibility for this subdivision's drainage system was based on a letter from the Alaska Department of Transportation (ADOT) dated October 20, 1994. This letter expressed non - object to the installation of a manhole, contingent on the requirement that "keeping the manhole clean is the sole responsibility of the property owner and at no time will it become the responsibility of the State of Alaska." In May 1995, ADOT clarified that they had no "problems with your proposal for better drainage at your property along Rezanof near Cliffside Drive." However, at no time did ADOT agree to accept maintenance responsibility for the system. As a condition of subdivision approval the subdividers were required to "submit additional grading and drainage information to the Borough Engineering/Facilities Department for review and approval prior to final approval of the plat ". In her review of the subdivision for final plat approval, Engineering/Facilities Director Chris Lynch has noted "attached are calculations from a registered engineer and a drainage plan. I visited the site and did not find any drainage problems." The Service District One Board of Supervisors has discussed the issue of maintenance of this manhole at three (3) separate meetings. In addition, over three (3) discussions have been held with ADOT requesting that they reconsider their position not to assume maintenance responsibility for this manhole. Both the Service District One Board of Supervisors and ADOT have decline to accept responsibility for the manhole. Mr. Grothe and Mr. Gondek have offered a deed restriction that purports to assign responsibility for the maintainence of the subject manhole to the adjacent private property owner. Borough staff consider this deed restriction (attached) unacceptable for its intended purpose. Authority Kodiak Island Borough Code (KIBC) 16.70.020 A. 5 requires that "all necessary facilities, either underground pipe or drainage ditches, shall be installed to provide adequate disposal of surface water, as are needed to maintain or reroute any natural water courses." Mr. Grothe and Mr. Gondek's manhole and storm drain system were installed to meet this requirement of Borough code. KIBC 4.20.020 B states that... "the mayor shall execute the approved operating budget and capital budget for each service area, and direct and supervise the administration of all Borough activities in the service area." i l Case S94 -028 Manhole Review and Decision Memo August 21, 1998 Page 3 KIBC 4.20.030 C states... "a board shall participate in the administration of services in its area... and shall advise the mayor and assembly regarding the execution of the work program and budgets for its service area." 7 Decision As mayor of the Kodiak Island Borough, charged by Borough code with the administration of all Borough activities in service areas, I have considered the request made by the subdividers of the subject property. Based on the available information, including the advice of the Service District One Board of Supervisions (as contained in the minutes of their meetings), I believe that it is appropriate for the Kodiak Island Borough assume maintenance responsibility for the manhole portion of this drainage system on both sides of the subject property (i.e. Rezanof Drive and Cliffside Road). This acceptance is subject to the cover for the manhole in the Rezanof Drive right -of -way \ being changed to a solid cover. \ 1 The subdividers have certified that "the highest quality material was purchased for this installation. It was engineered to be trouble free..." as a result there should be little cost to the service district, or the public in connection with the maintenance of this manhole, while government maintenance will benefit the immediate subdivision and property owners both upstream and downstream from the drainage system. c.c. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Chris Lynch, KIB Engineering and Facilities Director Kevin Arndt, Chair Service District One Board of Supervisors John Chya, Alaska Department of Transportation Len Grothe and Ed Gondek, Subdividers August 7, 1998 To the Owners of Lot 7A -1, Block 5, Miller Point Subdivision: Linda Fried, an employee of the Kodiak Island Borough, has decreed that the owners of Lot 7A -1 must maintain the storm sewer manhole adjacent to this lot for as long as they are owners of that lot. This burder will be thiers, their children's, and their children's children at no cost to the local service district, the City of Kodiak, the Kodiak Island Borough, the State of Alaska, the United States of America, or the United Nations. Signed by the developers and present owners s m Lenhart J. Grothe (S g 4.1? 1/ „Y Edward Gondel& � . ti,✓ T • • � 1 y Kodiak Island Borough w e MEMORANDUM TO: Jerome M. Selby, Mayor FROM: Linda L. Freed, Director Community Development Department DATE: August 27, 1998 SUBJECT: Transmittal of Approved Final Plat for Recording RE: Case S94 -028. Final approval of the subdivision of Lot 7A, Block 5, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision, creating Lots 7A -1, 7A -2, 7A -3 and 7A -4, Block 5, Miller Point Alaska Subdivision. Tax Code # R7525050071 1 The attached final plat is submitted for your approval and signature as required by Kodiak Island Borough Code Section 16.50.050E. All required improvements have been made and conditions met. After the Borough Clerk's office has processed and filed the plat with the District Recorder, the recorded final plat should be distributed to the following: Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department Len Grothe P.O. Box 1504 Kodiak, AK 99615 SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 BOARD MEETING JUNE 2, 1998 The meeting was called to order by Chair Kevin Arndt at 7:30 p.m. in the Bayside Fire Department. Members Present: Kevin Arndt Ed Mahoney Robert Greene Jennifer Spencer Eric Kocurek Members Absent: Scott Arndt Charles Lorenson Visitors: Len Grothe Edward Gondek PUBLIC COMMENT None ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Kevin Arndt asked that item C. BOARD MEMBER ATTENDENCE be added under NEW BUSINESS. Robert Greene moved to accept the agenda as amended. Ed Mahoney seconded. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES Ed Mahoney asked that the minutes of the April 28, 1998, regular meeting reflect the following change from The Service District #1 Board was in favor of consolidation to The Service District #1 Board was in favor of discussing the Annexation issue at a later date. Ed Mahoney moved to accept the amended minutes of the April 28, 1998, Service District #1 Board Meeting. Jennifer Spencer seconded. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. FINANCIAL REPORT Eric Kocurek asked why the Kodiak Island Housing revenue was not showing on the Financial Statement? Eric suggested checking with the Finance Department regarding these funds. Ed Mahoney moved to acknowledge the receipt of the Financial Report. Eric Kocurek seconded. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. • OLD BUSINESS Street Signs Robert Greene reported that five new stop signs for the Woodland Acres subdivision are up. Annexation Plan Kevin Arndt suggested setting up a public hearing regarding the City Annexation Plan. Eric spoke of the Alaska Housing Home Loan program and how it would be affected if the annexation took place. Ed spoke of the Title 29 Alaska Administrative Code for Municipalities, he stated that there should be a harmony between the Title 29 and a proposed plan (i.e. City of Kodiak Annexation Plan). Ed Mahoney spoke about police protection within the Borough. He stated that police could be hired through the Borough or we could sub - contract with the City to provide police protection. Ed Mahoney felt that the City Annexation Plan does not identify a need. Kevin Arndt set a Public Hearing regarding this issue for Tuesday, July 14, 1998, 7:30 p.m., Bayside Fire Hall. Lilly Drive Drainage Kevin Arndt reported that he has spoke with Chris Lynch and Bud Cassidy regarding this issue. Kevin spoke of cleaning the ditch line, running water through Ed's subdivision and - raising the culvert on Balika that currently runs under the water /sewer main. This project would consist of a new culvert on Balika, and filling in the ditch on the North side of Matt Moir's yard. Jennifer stated that she would like Chris Lynch, Borough Engineer, to review this plan prior to any work taking place. Ed Mahoney moved to re- direct the drainage by raising the Balika culvert, directing the water on the South side of Lilly Drive down to Eider Street (ditching included). Robert Greene seconded. Vote on motion to re- direct Lilly Drive Drainage: Ayes: Kevin Arndt Ed Mahoney Robert Greene Eric Kocurek Jennifer Spencer Noes: None Motion passed 5 -0. i Calcium Chloride Kevin reported that the first shipment (8.4 tons) of calcium chloride has been ordered. He stated that there is a demand and a shortage of calcium chloride this year, therefore if the Service District #1 intends on placing a second order it should be done as soon as possible. Kevin stated that A -K Construction agreed to store the calcium chloride. Jennifer Spencer moved to order 3 flats of calcium chloride if it will be received by July 15, 1998. Ed Mahoney seconded. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. NEW BUSINESS Sewer/Water rates for Service District #1 Ed Mahoney spoke about the 20% surcharge for sewer and water services in Service District #1. He stated that the City Annexation Plan states that "annexation will not add directly to the cost of the utility operation and maintenance, it does eliminated the 20% that we are paying now. The current rate structure would accommodate these reductions without a rate increase. It should be noted howeverthat the eventual need for the increased revenues to offset inflation and expansion of the service would occur sooner than otherwise projected." Ed felt that the Service District #1 shouldn't have to pay a premium dollar amount for these services. Ed Mahoney moved to ask the Assembly to ask the City via a letter to lower the Service District #1 rates by 20 %. Robert Greene seconded. Motion passed 4 -1. Storm:.Drain/Miller Point Subdivision Len Grothe presented information to the Service District #1 Board regarding the under ground culvert system at Miller Point Subdivision. He feels that they have installed a trouble free culvert system. Mr. Grothe is requesting that the Service District manage the culvert (i.e. if someone damages the culvert the Service District would have the authority to direct the individual to repair the culvert). Ed Mahoney asked if the request is to maintain the culvert on private property? Mr. Grothe responded that he is asking the Service District #1 to manage the culvert, not maintain. Ed Mahoney asked if it is required that this culvert is overseen? Ed Gondek responded "yes ". Ed Mahoney spoke against any Service District #1 maintenance on private property. Ed Gondek stated that the Community Development Department has requested that either they get a plat note that describes how these five different property owners are going to manage the culvert or get the Service District #1 to take over the management of the culvert. Jennifer Spencer stated that she would like to have the culvert overseen properly to avoid future problems. 1 � Ed Mahoney requested that Chris Lynch, Kodiak Borough Engineer, review the storm drain plans for Miller Point Subdivision. Jennifer Spencer also felt more comfortable with an engineer's approval. Kevin Arndt stated that a meeting would be set up with Chris Lynch, Len Grothe and himself to discuss • this issue. Board Attendance Jennifer Spencer spoke regarding Charles Lorenson's lack of attendance of Service District #1 Board meetings. Ed Mahoney moved to send a letter to Charles Lorenson asking if he intends on continuing to serve on the Service District #1 Board? If there is no response by July 10, 1998 the Service District #1 Board will assume he has no interest and his seat will be filled. Eric Kocurek seconded. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC COMMENT None BOARD COMMENTS Kevin Arndt stated that A -K Construction has contacted him regarding ditch cleaning for Service District #1. Kevin asked Chris Lynch if she felt there would be a conflict of interest. She felt there wasn't a conflict of interest. Ed Mahoney commented that he has a problem with the Service District #1 maintaining private property. Jennifer Spencer stated that if things were done correctly in the beginning then future problems would be avoided. Robert Greene is concerned about the manhole in Miller Point Subdivision that is connected to an existing culvert that the Service District #1 is currently maintaining. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Kevin Ar st, Chair Becky Lor , jci g Sec t ry SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 11, 1998 -06 -16 The special meeting was called to order by Chair Kevin Arndt at Noon in the Kodiak Island Borough Conference Room. Members Present: Kevin Arndt Ed Mahoney Jennifer Spencer Robert Greene Members Absent: Scott Arndt Eric Kocurek Charles Lorenson Visitors: Len Grothe Ed Gondek STORM DRAIN/MILLER POINT SUBDIVISION Kevin Arndt reported that he spoke with Chris Lynch, Borough Engineer, regarding the Miller Point storm drain. Chris Lynch reviewed the Miller Point storm drain system, she felt it was a good system. Robert Greene motioned that the Service District #1 manage the Miller Point Subdivision storm drain. Ed Mahoney seconded. Ayes: Kevin Arndt Robert Greene Jennifer Spencer Noes: Ed Mahoney Motiori failed 3 -1. BOARD COMMENTS Ed Mahoney feels that it's not the public's responsibility to manage water whether it's under ground, in culverts, over drainage ditches or on private property. Jennifer Spencer felt that this was a thorough drainage plan, and has no problem with the Service District managing this culvert system. Meeting adjourned 12:15 p.m. _ - a .,A /ta Kevin • dt, air Becky R. irentz, Recording retary SERVICE DISTRICT #1 BOARD MEETING JULY 14, 1998 The meeting was called to order by Chair Kevin Arndt at 7:35 p.m. in the Bayside Fire Department. Members Present: Kevin Arndt Jennifer Spencer Ed Mahoney Robert Greene Members Absent: Scott Arndt Eric Kocurek Charles Lorenson Visitors: Len Grothe Ed Gondek PUBLIC COMMENT None ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Robert Greene requested that item C. LILLY/BALIKA DRAINAGE be added under NEW BUSINESS. Robert Greene moved to accept agenda as amended. Ed Mahoney seconded. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES Ed Mahoney asked that the June 2, 1998 regular meeting minutes reflect the following change. Under NEW BUSINESS / Storm Drain/Miller Point Subdivision, change the wording from "maintain" to "manage" throughout this portion of the minutes. Robert Greene moved to accept the minutes from the June 2, 1998 regular meeting and the June 11, 1998 special meeting. Ed Mahoney seconded. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. FINANCIAL REPORT The Board reviewed the Financial Report. Kevin Arndt stated that he would research the charges to Repairs and Maintenance and Grading/Ditching line items. Ed Mahoney motioned to acknowledge the receipt of the Financial Report. Robert Greene seconded. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. • • I j OLD BUSINESS Dust Abatement Kevin Arndt stated that A -K Construction has applied calcium chloride on Puffin and Sharatine. Kevin Arndt stated that the second order of calcium chloride should be received in approximately one week. Miller Point Subdivision Manhole Grate Len Grothe spoke about maintenance of the manhole grate in the Miller Point Subdivision. Mr. Grothe is requesting that Service District #1 accepts the responsibility of keeping this grate free of debris (i.e. ice and snow). He feels that this responsibility should not be passed on to the lot owners. Mr. Grothe stated that the grate is in a State right of way, however, the State has refused to accept the responsibility of maintenance. The Borough has stated that someone has to be responsible for the maintenance of the grate. A plat can not be recorded until someone has agreed to maintain the Mill Point Subdivision grate. Kevin Arndt felt that the grate maintenance should be part of the culvert management that has been agreed to by the Kodiak Island Borough. Kevin Arndt stated that he would call Chris Lynch regarding this issue. Robert Greene suggested that Len Grothe call John Chya with the State of Alaska for a better explanation of why the State is refusing the maintenance of this grate. Board Attendance Kevin Arndt reported that Service District #1 Board member, Eric Kocurek turned in his letter of resignation. Ed Mahoney moved to accept Eric Kocurek's resignation as submitted. Jennifer Spencer seconded. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. Ed Mahoney moved to declare Charles Lorenson's Service District #1 Board seat vacant due to lack of attendance. Robert Greene seconded. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. Annexation Plan Ed Mahoney tried to reach City Manager, Bill Jones regarding an update on the City Annexation Plan. Bill Jones was unavailable. Ed Mahoney felt that the Service District #1 Board needs to take a position on the Annexation issue. Ed Mahoney moved to oppose the Annexation Plan at the Service District #1 Board level. Robert Greene seconded. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. ' i t Ed Mahoney suggested that Kevin Arndt write a letter to the Assembly stating the Service District #1 Board members stand on the Annexation issue. Puffin Drive Extension The Service District #1 Board reviewed the plan for moving the Puffin Drive Extension. Kevin Arndt was concerned about liability issues with moving the road over five feet, which would leave a four foot ditch vs. a nine foot ditch. Ed Mahoney moved to send the Puffin Drive Extension to Chris Lynch, Borough Engineer for review. Jennifer Spencer seconded. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. Lilly/Balika Drainage Kevin Arndt reported that two lots on Lilly Drive are being filled in. In the process the contractor is tearing up the road. Dirt was dumped on the road then pushed off, the drainage ditch was filled in, therefore leaving an inadequate surface water drainage route. Robert Greene suggested that Chris Lynch, Borough Engineer contact Brechan regarding repairing the damage that has been done in this area. PUBLIC COMMENT None BOARD COMMENT Jennifer Spencer voiced concern regarding Service District #1 decisions being overruled by authorities within the Borough. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Kevin Arndt, Chair Becky Lorentz, Recording Secretary . . /4:------ e 0 . • •• 1 a 1 / / / / , . • i i / / . / , 1 I I 1 i / / / • ' I . m I i : i / i . N i'll% / (-/ " ) 5a > l . 0' 18"moPE ... LIFT STATION i k z ‘, ....4 . 1 -C2 ipe .,„.. , , • 4110 .' I 0 2 1 i c pi .•■■...••■ CC il cc:3 1 , -------- °UMW -' •■•■...s.,............. ( f ; ._ . __.,.-...... "7 :- :- 1 17.7111 ' ' " ÷- 1 ' 7 ! -.. -.___ 4 , CL-35 / PIE-RAE 1. ' !! Ct Z , JE J LOT 7A y t ly ' • t Hd. LOT 7A-3 i i , Z i , 1 - „ , il i ('S ,G 8 8" SUTRA' PAIN q r ...., ! e , ■ Ai 1 i i . f • ' 8" 'SEWER MAW ' ' ' ' j --I. ge -- -. r I l , z ; ' '''''' i ------- = ! c-- Ell Pr- , " L. - - 1 ■ 1 4.: ° ;,N. \ ' ) ...., i i"-- a, -6 . I ■? .n- ----- , i I 70' \ .‘' 4 45 (5...) 14J r! r t 'A : i LOT 7A-2 i 75 CC 1 5' EN/STeNG 5E4E SERVICE L4T7PAL , ..1. I i R-. / —. -1.--- i I E ‘4.1 (Jr) , 5' , 1 i i X/STA/0 ,I. .:-.) , — . s_, „c_ LA , t ,A, nit la. +...i 14:10 --'''". 1 UTILITY ERSIMENT (1 1 1 -. ) ---- : dialessaMCIT 7A-5 ' z-u 4‘ 1 I ` ..6 - 7----- I i - LOT 7A-1 1 6 , F (TWA) ■—.. 1 i 22. \ I VP I! / /7 7 / w ...,.... I 7 /I I C Q i i I /// / , E . / I / ( I c/n N. w ••■• I V / . CEA'FRAI NOlic 0.1 it II\ Cc i / i N C / I.) ALL CONSTPUST5ON TO _RE IN ACCORDA WITH THE LAWES" ALMON OF CITY OF KODIAK STD m.rr.t A SPECS • N 41 6 I 1 , 1 I i --. / / i 2 SAsIS Or ELL -WS C. & C I, -_,..... --. / N. 1 I _ PRE-EARTHQUAKE 1.964. AS PREPARE V --.. BY ECKLUI50 SURVEWNG. ; SERI. 2504 Pe g 1 / C.) 2 ) NATORAL DRAINAGE ACROSS LO .• '''. I 6 TS wiLl. NOT SE BLOCKED OE imEECID P N, 4 ) ACC EASEMENTS stiowri ARE 5 ..... I UTILTE EASEMENTS C *5 5.) SURFACE RUNOFF SHOWN AS 4 1 g Lc I 1 _ C 2 i f,' 0 9 OC'r NT (AK) SUBONS/OV '• YBFF IS ,\ / / n . v ! KCOHG . 4ICCRDINC D'SMIC1 I / / ri 1 1 { % / I GI 9 N 11 ,, / % / / i/ H.le.. ,. 1 / • cc Inc „) 18 PoPL .9, I ' i O • - aa.rucr ..... ., " i 1 n I I - - - - -- l II 11 iv I T F \ I �^ M (_ „- I T 4P � / 11 �/ t LOT ]A - 4 1 ! I EN$ NG 8 54 .F MAW LOT 7A J 4 • r - , Nc B 5E11ER MAIA i t o , 1, ^ mS c k<I,: a 4 5 J ,1 11 / 5 M T 4 1B ��r �/ r ' I 40 1^ I mw ` -i v Q 1 p F ,_,_._ _ __._. __ ! oosnvc EL SE4t]CE TE ?A W T n rr i LOT 7A-Y - - - - -- - - -- i a 1 > �r . __ i i EN'S TING i',27: s_awCE :+rEC4: _ ._1 L /N 1 . l 5 1 1 J 4 . - 71 1 1 7i 1 a 'L - �- _lJ I - r U11L ?Y EASEPIENT (TY -) — I , fl LOT 7A-1 wal h 5' _ _1O; 12” , I)=. PIPE MI') — IOT n O ACCESS ROADS I 7— I `M' c ' / L 1 W CENTRAL NorEc It i / / /" \\ I 0 I : I ALL CONVALI : ^,CA Po BE IN ad / 1 / ll % 4CCJRC4,v6E ODIA THE . DET I "C' IO"C' 1 !/ or LIIY OF KOO /AR S O£TAtt SP[C'S ''4 \ I S) BASIS OF EL_04 Rryti U.S.C. d C5. I �� \ PRE-EAR/HOUAKE (1354' 45 KR/I /APE,, ibbb 1 l r ' ) 2Y ECKLUND SURW,LNG. SEPT I] °4 6 w4 �\ � / `/ /1 C.) L N4 .vC/ B/URAL E OBRAILOCKE£ NI 'CROS LOTS FC OR m. E000 - ,,,, 4 .) ALL EASEMENTS SHORN ARE / UTILITY EASEMENTS 4 5.) SLIPPAGE RUNOFF SHORN 9 v AS a F 4 k I Service District Number 1 Revenues and Expenditures last 5 years $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 s<, a a $100,000 _ a $- III I - _i i $(100,000) " 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0 Revenues a Expenditures ❑ Difference Fund Balance Revenues Expenditures Difference at end of year 2006 $ 175,382 $ 188,892 $ (13,509) $ 240,727 2007 237,844 291,349 (53,505) 187,222 2008 250,247 166,672 83,575 270,797 2009 307,095 170,946 136,149 406,946 2010 335,301 297,325 37,976 444,922 $ 1,305,870 $ 1,115,184 $ 190,686 mote/ Flo. • %OP AI • t ` - Document BIOITM — 2007 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect AGREEMENT made as of the 12th day of January in the year 2011 (in words, indicate day. month and year.) BETWEEN the Architect's client identified as the Owner: (Name. legal status. address and other information) Kodiak Island Borough This document has important 710 Mill Bay Road legal consequences. Kodiak, Alaska, 99615 Consultation with an attorney is encouraged with respect to its completion or modification. and the Architect: (Name, legal status, address and other information) Jensen Yorba Lott Inc., General Corporation 522 W. 10th St. Juneau Alaska Telephone Number: 907 586 1070 for the following Project: (Name, location and detailed description) Kodiak High School Addition and Renovation 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska Project includes Renovation and Addition to Kodiak High School site and campus The Owner and Architect agree as follows. AIA Document 13101 —2007 ``formerly 8151 ^' — 1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights /nit. AM reserved. WARNING: This A Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of .1 this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149_1 which expires on 04/14/2011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) TABLE OF ARTICLES 1 INITIAL INFORMATION 2 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITIES 3 SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES 4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 5 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 6 COST OF THE WORK 7 COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES 8 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES 9 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 11 COMPENSATION 12 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 13 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT A INITIAL INFORMATION ARTICLE 1 INITIAL INFORMATION § 1.1 This Agreement is based on the Initial Information set forth in this Article I and in optional Exhibit A, Initial Information: (Complete Exhibit A, Initial Information, and incorporate it into the Agreement at Section 13.2, or state below Initial Information such as details of the Project's site and program, Owner's contractors and consultants, Architect's consultants, Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, authorized representatives, anticipated procurement method, and other information relevant to the Project.) The work to be accomplished under this contract shall be as described in the attached Request For Proposal dated July 2010, the proposal prepared by Jensen Yorba Lott,Inc in response to the Request for Proposal, the Draft Education Specification for Kodiak High School prepared by DeJong Richter and Associates, as well as the draft scope of work memorandum dated December 29, 2010. Full scope of work to be accomplished under this agreement shall be confirmed during the Pre - design and Conceptual Design Phases. Procurement method for construction, phasing, number of bid packages and fees for Schematic, Design Development, Construction Documents, Bidding, Construction Administration and Closeout services shall be determined at the conclusion of the Conceptual Design Phase. Fees shall be calculated following the Washington State Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineer Fees for Public Works BuildingProiects in effect after July 1, 2009 and the accompanying A/E Fee Schedule in effect July I, 2007 § 1.2 The Owner's anticipated dates for conunencement of construction and Substantial Completion of the Work are set forth below: .1 Commencement of construction date: to be determined .2 Substantial Completion date: NA Document 0101 "' - 2007 ((formerly B151'" - 1997). Copyright 01974, 1978. 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. NI rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 2 this NA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by MA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6650208149 1 which expires on 04/14/2011, and is not for resale. - User Notes: (1514231861) to be determined § 1.3 The Owner and Architect may rely on the Initial Information. Both parties, however, recognize that such information may materially change and, in that event, the Owner and the Architect shall appropriately adjust the schedule, the Architect's services and the Architect's compensation. ARTICLE 2 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITIES § 2.1 The Architect shall provide the professional services as set forth in this Agreement. § 2.2 The Architect shall perform its services consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by architects pra cticing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. The Architect shall perform its services as expeditiously as is consistent with such professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Project. § 2.3 The Architect - ' : -- • : -: - - - .: i - :.:: •: has identified Tony Yorba to act on behalf of the Architect with respect to the Project. § 2.4 Except with the Owner's knowledge and consent, the Architect shall not engage in any activity, or accept any employment, interest or contribution that would reasonably appear to compromise the Architect's professional judgment with respect to this Project. § 2.5 The Architect shall maintain the following insurance for the duration of this Agreement. If any of the (ldentifi• apes and limits of insurance coverage, and other insurance requirements applicable to the Agreement if wry.) .1 General Liability See the attached Certificate of Liability Insurance dated 1/21/2010 issued by Shattuck and Grommett Insurance for Jensen Yorba Lott Inc. .2 Automobile Liability See the attached Certificate of Liability Insurance dated 1/21/2010 issued by Shattuck and Grommett Insurance for Jensen Yorba Lott Inc. .3 Workers' Compensation See the attached Certificate of Liability Insurance dated 1/21/2010 issued by Shattuck and Grommett Insurance for Jensen Yorba Lott Inc. .4 Professional Liability I See the attached Certificate of Liability Insurance dated 1/21/2010 issued by Shattuck and Grummett Insurance for Jensen Yorba Lott Inc. ARTICLE 3 SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES § 3.1 The Architect's Basic Services consist of those described in Article 3 and include usual and customary structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering services. Services not set forth in this Article 3 arc Additional Services. § 3.1.1 The Architect shall manage the Architect's services, consult with the Owner, research applicable design criteria, attend Project meetings, communicate with members of the Project team and report progress to the Owner. § 3.1.2 The Architect shall coordinate its services with those services provided by the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Architect shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy and completeness of services and information Init. NA Document 8101' —2007 formerly ' erly B151 — 1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or disWbution of 3 this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible / under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149_1 which expires on 04/14/2011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) furnished by the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Architect shall provide prompt written notice to the Owner if the Architect becomes aware of any error, omission or inconsistency in such services or information. § 3.1.3 As soon as practicable after the date of this Agreement, the Architect shall submit for the Owner's approval a schedule for the performance of the Architect's services. The schedule initially shall include anticipated dates for the commencement of construction and for Substantial Completion of the Work as set forth in the Initial Information. The schedule shall include allowances for periods of time required for the Owner's review, for the performance of the Owner's consultants, and for approval of submissions by authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. Once approved by the Owner, time limits established by the schedule shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Architect or Owner. With the Owner's approval, the Architect shall adjust the schedule, if necessary, as the Project proceeds until the commencement of construction. § 3.1.4 The Architect shall not be responsible for an Owner's directive or substitution made without the Architect's approval. § 3.1.5 The Architect shall, at appropriate times, contact the governmental authorities required to approve the Construction Documents and the entities providing utility services to the Project. In designing the Project, the Architect shall respond to applicable design requirements imposed by such governmental authorities and by such entities providing utility services. § 3.1.6 The Architect shall assist the Owner in connection with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. 3.1.7 The Architect shall prepare concept plans for determining the extent of renovation and demolition of existing facilities as required to accomplish the Owner's Program as refined during the Pre - Design phase. 3.1.8 Other services to be provided by the Architect during the Pre - Design and Concept Design phases include:life cycle cost analysis of the existing KITS Classroom and Voc Ed wings, gymnasium area and commons/cafeteria /library areas for the purpose of determining the cost effectiveness of renovation /demolition of these areas; Extent of new and renovation construction; Phasing and building area as it relates to DEED reimbursement rates; Assistance with preparation of DEED project application for debt reimbursement; Assistance with determining the type of project delivery method to be used for construction; Produce and manage a web based project information tool; Preparation of Building Information Modeling (BIM) plan. § 3.2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE SERVICES § 3.2.1 The Architect shall review the program and other information furnished by the Owner, and shall review laws, codes, and regulations applicable to the Architect's services. § 3.2.2 The Architect shall prepare a preliminary evaluation of the Owner's program, schedule, budget for the Cost of the Work, Project site, Phasing Plan and the proposed procurement or delivery method and other Initial Information, each in terms of the other, to ascertain the requirements of the Project. The Architect shall notify the Owner of (t) any inconsistencies discovered in the information, and (2) other information or consulting services that may be reasonably needed for the Project. § 3.2.3 The Architect shall present its preliminary evaluation to the Owner and shall discuss with the Owner alternative approaches to design and construction of the Project, including the feasibility of incorporating environmentally responsible design approaches. The Architect shall reach an understanding with the Owner regarding the requirements of the Project. § 3.2.4 Based on the Project's requirements agreed upon with the Owner, the Architect shall prepare and present for the Owner's approval a preliminary design illustrating the scale and relationship of the Project components. § 3.2.5 Based on the Owner's approval of the preliminary design, the Architect shall prepare Schematic Design Documents for the Owner's approval. The Schematic Design Documents shall consist of drawings and other documents including a site plan, if appropriate, and preliminary building plans, sections and elevations; and may include some combination of study models, perspective sketches, or digital modeling. Preliminary selections of major building systems and construction materials shall be noted on the drawings or described in writing. NA Document 8101 TM - 2007 /I B151° — 1997)_ Copyright 1974. 1978. 1987. 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This NA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 4 this NA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by MA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6658208149 1 which expires on 04/14/2011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) § 3.2.5.1 The Architect shall consider environmentally responsible design alternatives, such as material choices and building orientation, together with other considerations based on program and aesthetics, in developing a design that is consistent with the Owner's program, schedule and budget for the Cost of the Work. The Owner may obtain other environmentally responsible design services under Article 4. § 3.2.5.2 The Architect shall consider the value of alternative materials, building systems and equipment, together with other considerations based on program and aesthetics, in developing a design for the Project that is consistent with the Owner's program, schedule and budget for the Cost of the Work. § 3.2.6 The Architect shall submit to the Owner an estimate of the Cost of the Work prepared in accordance with Section 6.3. § 3.2.7 The Architect shall submit the Schematic Design Documents to the Owner, and request the Owner's approval. 3.2.8 The Architect shall assist the Owner to perform a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCC) as part of the Schematic Design phase. LCC shall be used to select exterior envelope assemblies and Mechanical/Electrical primary assemblies § 3.3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE SERVICES § 3.3.1 Based on the Owner's approval of the Schematic Design Documents, and on the Owner's authorization of any adjustments in the Project requirements and the budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall prepare Design Development Documents for the Owner's approval. The Design Development Documents shall illustrate and describe the development of the approved Schematic Design Documents and shall consist of drawings and other documents including plans, sections, elevations, typical construction details, and diagrammatic layouts of building systems to fix and describe the size and character of the Project as to architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical systems, and such other elements as may be appropriate. The Design Development Documents shall also include outline specifications that identify major materials and systems and establish in general their quality levels. § 3.3.2 The Architect shall update the estimate of the Cost of the Work. § 3.3.3 The Architect shall submit the Design Development Documents to the Owner, advise the Owner of any adjustments to the estimate of the Cost of the Work, and request the Owner's approval. 3.3.4 The Architect shall assist the Owner to perform a Value Engineering/Constructability Review to be conducted in Kodiak. Purpose of this review is to identify potential constructability problems and refine the details to mitigate them. The Value Engineering review will take place early in the Design Development phase. § 3.4 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE SERVICES § 3.4.1 Based on the Owner's approval of the Design Development Documents, and on the Owner's authorization of any adjustments in the Project requirements and the budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall prepare Construction Documents for the Owner's approval. The Construction Documents shall illustrate and describe the further development of the approved Design Development Documents and shall consist of Drawings and Specifications setting forth in detail the quality levels of materials and systems and other requirements for the construction of the Work. The Owner and Architect acknowledge that in order to construct the Work the Contractor will provide additional information, including Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples and other similar submittals, which the Architect shall review in accordance with Section 3.6.4. § 3.4.2 The Architect shall incorporate into the Construction Documents the design requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. § 3.4.3 During the development of the Construction Documents, the Architect shall assist the Owner in the development and preparation of (1) bidding and procurement information that describes the time, place and conditions of bidding, including bidding or proposal forms; (2) the form of agreement between the Owner and Contractor; and (3) the Conditions of the Contract for Construction (General, Supplementary and other Conditions). MA Document B101'e —2007 formerly 8151' — 1997). Copyright® 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This MA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 5 this AMA Document, or any portion of it, may resuh in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AlA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149_1 which expires on 04/14/2011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) The Architect shall also compile a project manual that includes the Conditions of the Contract for Construction and Specifications and may include bidding requirements and sample forms. § 3.4.4 The Architect shall update the estimate for the Cost of the Work. § 3.4.5 The Architect shall submit the Construction Documents to the Owner, advise the Owner of any adjustments to the estimate of the Cost of the Work, take any action requ under Section 6.5, and request the Owner's approval. § 3.5 BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE SERVICES § 3.5.1 GENERAL The Architect shall assist the Owner in establishing a list of prospective contractors. Following the Owner's approval of the Construction Documents, the Architect shall assist the Owner in (1) obtaining either competitive bids or negotiated proposals; (2) confirming responsiveness of bids or proposals; (3) determining the successful bid or proposal, if any; and, (4) awarding and preparing contracts for construction. § 3.5.2 COMPETITIVE BIDDING § 3.5.2.1 Bidding Documents Documents, if a traditional Design -Bid Build procurement process is selected, shall consist of bidding requirements and proposed Contract Documents. §15.2.2 The Al chitect shall assist the Owner in bidding the Project by .1 procuring the reproduction of Bidding Documents for distribution to prospective bidders; .2 distributing the Bidding Documents to prospective bidders, requesting their return upon completion of the bidding process, and maintaining a log of distribution and retrieval and of the amounts of deposits, if any, received from and returned to prospective bidders; .3 organizing and conducting a pre -bid conference for prospective bidders; .4 preparing responses to questions from prospective bidders and providing clarifications and interpretations of the Bidding Documents to all prospective bidders in the form of addenda; and .5 organizing and conducting the opening of the bids, and subsequently documenting and distributing the bidding results, as d by the Owner. .6 preparing multiple bid packages if phased or multiple construction contracts are desired. § 3.5.2.3 The Architect shall consider requests for substitutions, if the Bidding Documents permit substitutions, and shall prepare and distribute addenda identifying approved substitutions to all prospective bidders. .. :. .:.. .. a .. .3 parti . ,,,.ti..g in negoti: ' - - - -- . .. - : - - , ... _ .. .. r „r,,:• of •h nea ° ^ °- exults, as dir.,oted by the Owner. § 3.6 CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES § 3.6.1 GENERAL § 3.6.1.1 The Architect shall provide administration of the Contract between the Owner and the Contractor as set forth:. - ..:. - .... ._. ., !t . - :'• ": : -:. - .e ... wed •• !' - -..... '- ' " - • : ' : : :. ..- Architect's services .... .... .....below.. Init. MA Document 8101 ^' — 2007 (tonnedy 8151* — 1997). Copyright C 1974. 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This Ale Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of s this AlA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible / under the law. This document was produced by MA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149 1 which expires on 04/14/2011. and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) § 3.6.1.2 The Architect shall advise and consult with the Owner during the Construction Phase Services. The Architect shall have authority to act on behalf of the Owner only to the extent provided in this Agreement. The Architect shall not have control over, charge of, or responsibility for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work, nor shall the Architect be responsible for the Contractor's failure to perform the Work in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. The Architect shall be responsible for the Architect's negligent acts or omissions, but shall not have control over or charge of, and shall not be responsible for, acts or omissions of the Contractor or of any other persons or entities performing portions of the Work. § 3.6.1.3 Subject to Section 4.3, the Architect's responsibility to provide Construction Phase Services commences with the award of the Contract for Construction and terminates on the date the Architect issues the final Certificate for Payment. once the contractor has requested substantial completion inspection. Closeout Services commence with the contractor request for substantial completion inspection. . § 3.6.2 EVALUATIONS OF THE WORK § 3.6.2.1 The Architect shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction, or as otherwise required in Section 4.3.3, to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and to determine, in general, if the Work observed is being performed in a manner indicating that the Work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. However, the Architect shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on -site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work. On the basis of the site visits, the Architect shall keep the Owner reasonably informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and report to the Owner (I) known deviations from the Contract Documents and from the most recent construction schedule submitted by the Contractor, and (2) defects and deficiencies observed in the Work. § 3.6.2.2 The Aaehi4eet Owner has the authority to reject Work that does not conform to the Contract Documents. Whenever the Architect considers it necessary or advisable, the Architect shall have the authority to require inspection ur testing of the Work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Documents, whether or not such Work is fabricated, installed or completed. However, neither this authority of the Architect nor a decision made in good faith either to exercise or not to exercise such authority shall give rise to a duty or responsibility of the Architect to the Contractor, Subcontractors, material and equipment suppliers, their agents or employees or othcr • persons or entities performing portions of the Work. § 3.6.2.3 The Architect shall interpret and deeide-recommend matters concerning performance under, and requirements of the Contract Documents on written request of either the Owner or Contractor. The Architect's response to such requests shall be made in writing within any time limits agreed upon or otherwise with reasonable prompmess. § 3.6.2.4 Interpretations and decisions of the Architect shall be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents and shall be in writing or in the form of drawings. When making such interpretations and decisions, the Architect shall endeavor to secure faithful performance by both Owner and Contractor, shall not show partiality to either, and shall not be liable for results of interpretations or decisions rendered in good faith. The § 3.6.3 CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR § 3.6.3.1 The Architect shall review and certify the amounts due the Contractor and shall issue certificates in such amounts. The Architect's certification for payment shall constitute a representation to the Owner, based on the Architect's evaluation of the Work as provided in Section 3.6.2 and on the data comprising the Contractor's Application for Payment, that, to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief, the Work has progressed to the point indicated and that the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents. The foregoing representations are subject (1) to an evaluation of the Work for conformance with the Contract MA Document B101'• — 2007 formerly B151 S — 1997). Copyright* 1974. 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This A/A Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 7 this Ale Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149_1 which expires on 04/142011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231561) Documents upon Substantial Completion, (2) to results of subsequent tests and inspections, (3) to correction of minor deviations from the Contract Documents prior to completion, and (4) to specific qualifications expressed by the Architect. § 3.6.3.2 The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall not be a representation that the Architect has (1) made exhaustive or continuous on -site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work, (2) reviewed construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, (3) reviewed copies of requisitions received from Subcontractors and material suppliers and other data requested by the Owner to substantiate the Contractor's right to payment, or (4) ascertained how or for what purpose the Contractor has used money previously paid on account of the Contract Sum. § 3.6.3.3 The Architect shall maintain a record of the Applications and Certificates for Payment. § 3.6.4 SUBMITTALS § 3.6.4.1 The Architect shall review the Contractor's submittal schedule and shall not unreasonably delay or withhold approval. The Architect's action in reviewing submittals shall be taken in accordance with the approved submittal schedule or, in the absence of an approved submittal schedule, with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time in the Architect's professional judgment to permit adequate review. § 3.6.4.2 In accordance with the Architect - approved submittal schedule, the Architect shall review and approve or take other appropriate action upon the Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. Review of such submittals is not for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other information such as dimensions, quantities, and installation or performance of equipment or systems, which are the Contractor's responsibility. The Architect's review shall not constitute approval of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the Architect, of any construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The Architect's approval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a component. § 3.6.4.3 If the Contract Documents specifically require the Contractor to provide professional design services or certifications by a design professional related to systems, materials or equipment, the Architect shall specify the appropriate performance and design criteria that such services must satisfy. The Architect shall review Shop Drawings and other submittals related to the Work designed or certified by the design professional retained by the Contractor that bear such professional's seal and signature when submitted to the Architect. The Architect shall be entitled to rely upon the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the services, certifications and approvals performed or provided by such design professionals. § 3.6.4.4 Subject to the provisions of Section 4.3, the Architect shall review and respond to requests for information about the Contract Documents. The Architect shall set forth in the Contract Documents the requirements for requests for information. Requests for information shall include, at a minimum, a detailed written statement that indicates the specific Drawings or Specifications in need of clarification and the nature of the clarification requested. The Architect's response to such requests shall be made in writing within any time limits agreed upon, or otherwise with reasonable promptness. If appropriate, the Architect shall prepare and issue supplemental Drawings and Specifications in response to requests for information. § 3.6.4.5 The Architect shall maintain a record of submittals and copies of submittals supplied by the Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. § 3.6.5 CHANGES IN THE WORK § 3.6.5.1 The Architect may authorize minor changes in the Work that are consistent with the intent of the Contract Documents and do not involve an adjustment in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time. Subject to the provisions of Section 4.3, the Architect shall prepare Change Orders and Construction Change Directives for the Owner's approval and execution in accordance with the Contract Documents. § 3.6.5.2 The Architect shall maintain records relative to changes in the Work. AR Document 13101 at —2007 (formerly 8151'• — 1997). Copyright ®1974. 1978. 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This me Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 8 this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AtA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149_1 which expires on 04/142011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) § 3.6.6 PROJECT COMPLETION § 3.6.6.1 The -When notified by the Contractor that the work is substantially complete the Architect shall conduct inspections to determine the date or dates of Substantial Completion and the date of final completion; issue Certificates of Substantial Completion; receive from the Contractor and forward to the Owner, for the Owner's review and records, written warranties and related documents required by the Contract Documents and assembled by the Contractor; and issue a final Certificate for Payment based upon a final inspection indicating the Work complies with the requirements of the Contract Documents. § 3.6.6.2 The Architect's inspections shall be conducted with the Owner to check conformance of the Work with the requirements of the Contract Documents and to verify the accuracy and completeness of the list submitted by the Contractor of Work to be completed or corrected. § 3.6.6.3 When. the Work is found to be substantially complete, the Architect shall inform the Owner about the balance of the Contract Sum remaining to be paid the Contractor, including the amount to be retained from the Contract Sum, if any, for final completion or correction of the Work. § 3.6.6.4 The Architect shall forward to the Owner the following information received from the Contractor: (1) consent of surety or sureties, if any, to reduction in or partial release of retainage or the making of final payment; (2) affidavits, receipts. releases and waivers of liens or bonds indemnifying the Owner against liens; and (3) any other documentation required of the Contractor under the Contract Documents. § 3.6.6.5 Upon request of the Owner, and prior to the expiration of one year from the date of Substantial Completion, the Architect shall, without additional compensation, conduct a meeting with the Owner to review the facility operations and performance. ARTICLE 4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES § 4.1 Additional Services listed below are not included in Basic Services but may be required for the Project. The Architect shall provide the listed Additional Services only if specifically designated in the table below as the Architect's responsibility, and the Owner shall compensate the Architect as provided in Section 11.2. (Designate the Additional Services the Architect shall provide in the second column of the table below. In the third column indicate whether the service description is located in Section 4.2 or in an attached exhibit. If in an exhibit, identh' the exhibit.) Additional Services Responsibility Location of Service Description (Architect, Owner (Section 4.2 below or in an exhibit or attached to this document and Not Provided) identified below) § 4.1.1 Pi ogramming Architect § 4.1.2 Multiple preliminary designs Architect § 4.1.3 As Built Drawings of existing buildings Architect § -4.1,3 Measure dra-'"ing § 4.1.4 Site sure Consistent with Section 5.4 Architect §4.1.4 - Existing facilities survoys § 4.1.5 Oeutechnical Investigation consistent with Architect section 5.5 . § 4.1.6 Building information modeling Architect § 4.1.7 Civil engineering Architect § 4.1.8 Landscape design Architect § 4.1.9 Architectural Interior Design (B252TM 2007) Architect § 4.1.10 Value Analysis ($204Th' 2007) Architect § 4.1.11 Detailed cost estimating Architect _§ 4.1.12 On -site project representation Architect § 4.1.13 Conformed construction documents Architect § 4.1.14 As- Designed Record drawings Architect § 4.1.15 As- Constructed Record drawings Architect AlA Document 13101"' — 2007 formerly 8151 — 1997). Copyright ®1974, 1978. 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AlA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 9 this MA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the taw. This document was produced by AlA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149_1 which expires on 04/14/2011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) § 4.1.16 Post occupancy evaluation Not Provided § 4.1.17 Facility Support Services (B210TA -2007) Not Provided § 4.1.18 Tenant- related services Not Provided § 4.1.19 Coordination of Owner's consultants Not Provided 4 4.1.20 Additional Electrical Services (Security System. Architect Sound System , and Telecommunications /Data system design( • 4.1.21 Food Service Design Architect 200.7 § 4.1.22 Commissioning (13211Tm 2007)( Owner § 4.1.23 Extensive environmentally responsible design Not Provided § 4.1.24 LEED Certification (B214TM -2007) Not Provided § 4.1.25 Fast -track design services Not Provided § 4.1.26 Historic Preservation (13205• Not Provided § 4.1.27 Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Design Architect (D253 2007) 4.1.28 Web based project information and Architect information management services. § 4.2 Insert a description of each Additional Service designated in Section 4.1 as the Architect's responsibility, if not further described in an exhibit attached to this document. Description of additional services are described in the attached scope of work dated December 29, 2010. It is anticipated that extent of services, including Construction Administration and Construction Observation Services, will be modified after Pre - Design and Concept Design is completed. § 4.3 Additional Services may be provided after execution of this Agreement, without invalidating the Agreement. Except for services required due to the fault of the Architect, any Additional Services provided in accordance with this Section 4.3 shall entitle the Architect to compensation pursuant to Section 11.3 and an appropriate adjustment in the Architect's schedule. § 4.3.1 Upon recognizing the need to perform the following Additional Services, the Architect shall notify the Owner with reasonable promptness and explain the facts and circumstances giving rise to the need. The Architect shall not proceed to provide the following services until the Architect receives the Owner's written authorization: .1 Services necessitated by it change in the Initial Information, previous instructions or approvals given by the Owner, or a material change in the Project including, but not limited to, size, quality, complexity, the Owner's schedule or budget for Cost of the Work, or procurement or delivery method: .2 Services necessitated by the Owner's request for extensive environmentally responsible design alternatives, such as unique system designs, in -depth material research, energy modeling, or LEED® certification; .3 Changing or editing previously prepared Instruments of Service necessitated by the enactment or revision of codes, laws or regulations or official interpretations; .4 Services necessitated by decisions of the Owner not rendered in a timely manner or any other failure of performance on the part of the Owner or the Owner's consultants or contractors; .5 Preparing digital data for transmission to the Owner's consultants and contractors, or to other Owner authorized recipients; .6 Preparation of design and documentation for alternate bid or proposal requests proposed by the Owner; .7 Preparation for, and attendance at, a public presentation, meeting or hearing; .8 Preparation for, and attendance at a dispute resolution proceeding or legal proceeding, except where the Architect is party thereto; .9 E0. - ;action- t;e-qua • . • - ... - . • .. • . .. , NA Document 6101 r• - 2007 Formerly B151 - 1997). Copyright ®1974, 1978, 1987. 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This NA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 0 this NA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AEA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149_1 which expires on 04/142011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) .10 Consultation concerning replacement of Work resulting from fire or other cause during construction; or §4.3.2 To avoid delay in the Construction Phase, the Architect shall provide the following Additional Services, notify the Owner with reasonable promptness, and explain the facts and circumstances giving rise to the need. If the Owner subsequently determines that all or parts of those services are not required, the Owner shall give prompt written notice to the Architect, and the Owner shall have no further obligation to compensate the Architect for those services: .1 Reviewing a Contractor's submittal out of sequence from the submittal schedule agreed to by the Architect; .2 Responding to the Contractor's requests for information that are not prepared in accordance with the Contract Documents or where such information is available to the Contractor from a careful study and comparison of the Contract Documents, field conditions, other Owner- provided information, Contractor - prepared coordination drawings, or prior Project correspondence or documentation; .3 Preparing Change Orders and Construction Change Directives :. - - ... • . ...: requested by the Owner or for the convenience or benefit of the Contractor ; .1 Evaluating an extensive Humber of Clair .5 Evaluating substitutions proposed by the Owner or Contractor and making subsequent revisions to Instruments of Service resulting therefrom; or .6 To the extent the Architect's Basic Services are affected, providing Construction Phase Services 60 days after (1) the date of Substantial Completion of the Work or (2) the anticipated date of Substantial Completion identified in Initial Information, whichever is earlier. § 4.3.3 The Architect shall provide Construction Phase Services exceeding the limits set forth below as Additional Services. When the limits below are reached, the Architect shall notify the Owner: .1 two ( 2) reviews of each Shop Drawing, Product Data item, sample and similar submittal of the Contractor .2 ( ) visits to the site by the Architect over the duration of the Project during constructionNumber of site visits will be negotiated prior to the start of construction. visits will be negotiated prior to the start of construction. .4 - • - • . • : : -• :• : . - • : :- • - ' -• .: ••: umber of site visits will be negotiated prior to the start of construction. § 4.3.4 If the services covered by this Agreement have not been completed within fortyeight (48 ) months of the date of this Agreement, through no fault of the Architect, extension of the Architect's services beyond that time shall be compensated as Additional Services. ARTICLE 5 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES § 5.1 Unless otherwise provided for under this Agreement, the Owner shall provide information in a timely manner regarding requirements for and limitations on the Project, including a written program which shall set forth the Owner's objectives, schedule, constraints and criteria, including space requirements and relationships, flexibility, expandability, special equipment, systems and site requirements. Within 15 days after receipt of a written request from the Architect, the Owner shall furnish the requested information as necessary and relevant for the Architect to evaluate, give notice of or enforce lien rights. § 5.2 The Owner shall establish and periodically update the Owner's budget for the Project, including (I) the budget for the Cost of the Work as defined in Section 6.1; (2) the Owner's other costs; and, (3) reasonable contingencies related to all of these costs. If the Owner significantly increases or decreases the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, the Owner shall notify the Architect. The Owner and the Architect shall thereafter agree to a corresponding change in the Project's scope and quality. AM Document B101°' - 2007 formerly 5151 `" - 1997). Copyright 10 1974, 1978. 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AM' Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 1 this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149_1 which expires on 04/14/2011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514731861) § 5.3 The Owner shall identify a representative authorized to act on the Owner's behalf with respect to the Project. The Owner shall render decisions and approve the Architect's submittals in a timely manner in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the orderly and sequential progress of the Architect's services. § 5.4 The Cromer-Architect shall furnish surveys to describe physical characteristics, legal limitations and utility locations for the site of the Project, and a written legal description of the site. The surveys and legal information shall include, as applicable, grades and lines of streets, alleys, pavements and adjoining property and structures; designated wetlands; adjacent drainage; rights -of -way, restrictions, easements, encroachments, zoning, deed restrictions, boundaries and contours of the site; locations, dimensions and necessary data with respect to existing buildings, other improvements and trees; and information concerning available utility services and lines, both public and private, above and below grade, including inverts and depths. All the information on the survey shall be referenced to a Project benchmark. § 5.5 The Owner Architect shall furnish services of geotechnical engineers, which may include but are not limited to test borings, test pits, determinations of soil bearing values, percolation tests, evaluations of hazardous materials, seismic evaluation, ground corrosion tests and resistivity tests, including necessary operations for anticipating subsoil conditions, with written reports and appropriate recommendations. § 5.6 The Owner shall coordinate the services of its own consultants with those services provided by the Architect. Upon the Architect's request, the Owner shall furnish copies of the scope of services in the contracts between the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Owner shall furnish the services of consultants other than those designated in this Agreement, or authorize the Architect to furnish them as an Additional Service, when the Architect requests such services and demonstrates that they are reasonably required by the scope of the Project. The Owner shall require that its consultants maintain professional liability insurance as appropriate to the services provided. § 5.7 The Owner shall furnish tests, inspections and reports required by law or the Contract Documents, such as structural, mechanical, and chemical tests, tests for air and water pollution, and tests for hazardous materials. § 5.8 The Owner shall furnish all legal, insurance and accounting services, including auditing services, that may be reasonably necessary at any time for the Project to meet the Owner's needs and interests. § 5.9 The Owner shall provide prompt written notice to the Architect if the Owner becomes aware of any fault or defect in the Project, including errors, omissions or inconsistencies in the Architect's Instruments of Service. § 5.10 Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, or when direct communications have been specially authorized, the Owner shall endeavor to communicate with the Contractor and the Architect's consultants through the Architect about matters arising out of or relating to the Contract Documents. The Owner shall promptly notify the Architect of any direct communications that may affect the Architect's services. § 5.11 Before executing the Contract for Construction, the Owner shall coordinate the Architect's duties and responsibilities set forth in the Contract for Construction with the Architect's services set forth in this Agreement. The Owner shall provide the Architect a copy of the executed agreement between the Owner and Contractor, including the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. § 5.12 The Owner shall provide the Architect access to the Project site prior to commencement of the Work and shall obligate the Contractor to provide the Architect access to the Work wherever it is in preparation or progress. ARTICLE 6 COST OF THE WORK § 6.1 For purposes of this Agreement, the Cost of the Work shall be the total cost to the Owner to construct all elements of the Project designed or specified by the Architect and shall include contractors' general conditions costs, overhead and profit. The Cost of the Work does not include the compensation of the Architect, the costs of the land, rights -of -way, financing, contingencies for changes in the Work or other costs that are the responsibility of the Owner. § 6.2 The Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work is provided in Initial Information, and may be adjusted throughout the Project as required under Sections 5.2, 6.4 and 6.5. Evaluations of the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, the preliminary estimate of the Cost of the Work and updated estimates of the Cost of the Work prepared MA Document 8101`• -2007 formerly 8151"' — 1997). Copyright n 1974, 1978, 1987. 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This NA� Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 12 this NA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by ALA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149 1 which expires on 04/14/2011, and is not for resale. — User Notes: (1514231861) by the Architect, represent the Architect's judgment as a design professional. It is recognized, however, that neither the Architect nor the Owner has control over the cost of labor, materials or equipment; the Contractor's methods of determining bid prices; or competitive bidding, market or negotiating conditions. Accordingly, the Architect cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids or negotiated prices will not vary from the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work or from any estimate of the Cost of the Work or evaluation prepared or agreed to by the Architect. Architect will adjust the scope of the work and assist with re- bidding if lowest responsible base bid is more that 10% above the Owners budget for construction. § 6.3 In preparing estimates of the Cost of Work, the Architect shall be permitted to include contingencies for design, bidding and price escalation; to determine what materials, equipment, component systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Documents; to make reasonable adjustments in the program and scope of the Project; and to include in the Contract Documents alternate bids as may be necessary to adjust thc estimated Cost of the Work to meet the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work. The Architect's estimate of the Cost of the Work shall be based on current area, volume or similar conceptual estimating techniques. If the Owner requests detailed cost estimating services, the Architect shall provide such services as an Additional Service under Article 4. § 6.4 If the Bidding or Negotiation Phase has not commenced within 90 days after the Architect submits the Construction Documents to the Owner, through no fault of the Architect, the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work shall be adjusted to reflect changes in the general level of prices in the applicable construction market. § 6.5 If at any time the Architect's estimate of the Cost of the Work exceeds the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall make appropriate recommendations to the Owner to adjust the Project's size, quality or budget for the COST of the Work, and the Owner shall cooperate with the Architect in making such adjustments. § 6.6 If the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work at the conclusion of the Construction Documents Phase Services is exceeded by the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, the Owner shall .1 give written approval of an increase in the budget for the Cost of the Work; .2 authorize rebidding or renegotiating of the Project within a reasonable time; .3 terminate in accordance with Section 9.5; .4 in consultation with the Architect, revise the Project program, scope, or quality as required to reduce the Cost of the Work; or .5 implement any other mutually acceptable alternative. § 6,7 If the Owner chooses to proceed under Section 6.6.4, the Architect, without additional compensation, shall modify the Construction Documents as necessary to comply with the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work at the conclusion of the Construction Documents Phase Services, or the budget as adjusted under Section 6.6.1. The Architect's modification of the Construction Documents shall be the limit of the Architect's responsibility under this Article 6. ARTICLE 7 COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES § 7.1 The Architect and the Owner warrant that in transmitting Instruments of Service, or any other information, the transmitting party is the copyright owner of such information or has permission from the copyright owner to transmit such information for its use on the Project. If the Owner and Architect intend to transmit Instruments of Service or any other information Or documentation in digital form, they shall endeavor to establish necessary protocols governing such transmissions. IrrstrmneDts- ef- Serviee, ineheding the Drawings and Specifications, and shall retain all common law, ctntuto.y ,aid other reserved rights, including copyrights. Su • • • ' in derOgMiet�rved -right ef-the • - ' :. . . ' - . - § 7.3 Upon execution of this Agreement, the Architect grants to the Owner a nonexclusive license to use the Architect's Instruments of Senviee- ': • • - - • - . -::: • : - . ' • - and adding to the Project, Service, provided that the Owner substantially performs its obligations, including prompt AM Document B101'• - 2007 formerly B151 w — 19971. Copyright ® 1974. 1978. 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This Ale Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 13 this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149_1 which expires on 04/14/2011, and Is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) payment of all sums when due, under this Agreement. The Architect shall obtain similar nonexclusive licenses from the Architect's consultants consistent with this Agreement. The license granted under this section permits the Owner to authorize the Contractor, Subcontractors, Sub - subcontractors, and material or equipment suppliers, as well as the Owner's consultants and separate contractors, to reproduce applicable portions of the Instruments of and exclusively for use in performing services, or construction for the Project. If the Arcl.;t.,ct rightfully terminates § 7.3.1 In the event the Owner uses the Instruments of Service without retaining the author of the Instruments of Service, the Owner releases the Architect and Architect's consultant(s) from all claims and causes of action arising from such uses. The Owner, to the extent permitted by law, further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Architect and its consultants from all costs and expenses, including the cost of defense, related to claims and causes of action asserted by any third person or entity to the extent such costs and expenses arise from the Owner's use of the Instruments of Service under this Section 7.3.1. The terms of this Section 7.3.1 shall not apply-if-the-Owner _.. .. ,...... .. ..:.. .. 7.3.1.. § 7,4 Except for the licenses granted in this Article 7, no other license or right- shall- under this Agreement. The Owner shall not assign, delegate, sublicense pledges er- otherwise transfer any license . .. .. ... - . My uaeathetT2e� use of the Instruments of Service shall be at the Owner's sole risk and without liability to the Architect and the Architect's consultants. 7.5 Owner and Architect agree to negotiate use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) materials in a separate agreement using AIA E202. ARTICLE 8 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES § 8.1 GENERAL § 8.1.1 The Owner and Architect shall commence all claims and causes of action, whether in contract, tort, or otherwise, against the other arising out of or related to this Agreement in accordance with the requirements of the method of binding dispute resolution selected in this Agreement within the period specified by applicable law, but in any ease not more than 10 years after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work. The Owner and Architect waive all claims and causes of action not commenced in accordance with this Section 8.1.1. onumamted herein. § 8.1.3 The Architect and Owner waive consequential damages for claims, disputes or other matters in question arising out of or relating to this Agreement. This mutual waiver is applicable, without limitation, to all consequential damages due to either party's termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in Section 9.7. § 8.2 MEDIATION § 8.2.1 My claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to binding dispute resolution. If such matter relates to or is the subject of a lien arising out of the Architect's services, the Architect may proceed in accordance with applicable law to comply with the lien notice or filing deadlines prior to resolution of the matter by mediation or by binding dispute resolution. § 8.2.2 The Owner and Architect shall endeavor to resolve claims, disputes and other matters in question between them by mediation which, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Construction Industry Mediation Procedures in effect on the date of the Agreement. A request for mediation shall be made in writing, delivered to the other party to the Agreement, and filed with the person or entity administering the mediation. The request maybe made concurrently with the filing of a complaint or other appropriate demand for binding dispute resolution but, in such event, mediation shall proceed in advance of binding dispute resolution proceedings, which shall be stayed pending mediation for a period of 60 days AIA Document 8101'• —2007 tfonnerly 8151 u' — 1997). Copyright 01974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This NA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 14 this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the taw. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6655208149 1 which expires on 04/142011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) from the date of filing, unless stayed for a longer period by agreement of the parties or court order. If an arbitration proceeding is stayed pursuant to this section, the parties may nonetheless proceed to the selection of the arbitrator(s) and agree upon a schedule for later proceedings. § 8.2.3 The parties shall share the mediator's fee and any filing fees equally. The mediation shall be held in the place where the Project is located, unless another location is mutually agreed upon. Agreements reached in mediation shall be enforceable as settlement agreements in any court having jurisdiction thereof § 8.2.4 If the parties do not resolve a dispute through mediation pursuant to this Section 8.2, the method of binding dispute resolution shall be the following: (C'heck the appropriate box. If the Owner and Architect do not select a method of binding dispute resolution below; or do not subsequently agree in writing to a binding dispute resolution method other than litigation, the dispute will he resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction.) [ X [ Arbitration pursuant to Section 8.3 of this Agreement [ j Litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction [ j Other (Specify) § 8.3 ARBITRATION § 8.3.1 If the parties have selected arbitration as the method for binding dispute resolution in this Agreement, any claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement subject to, but not resolved by, mediation shall be subject to arbitration which, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules in effect on the date of this Agreement. A demand for arbitration shall be made in writing, delivered to the other party to this Agreement, and filed with the person or entity administering the arbitration. § 8.3.1.1 A demand for arbitration shall be made no earlier than concurrently with the filing of a request for mediation, but in no event shall it be made after the date when the institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on the claim, dispute or other matter in question would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. For statute of limitations purposes, receipt of a written demand for arbitration by the person or entity administering the arbitration shall constitute the institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on the claim, dispute or other matter in question. § 8.3.2 The foregoing agreement to arbitrate and other agreements to arbitrate with an additional person or entity duly consented to by parties to this Agreement shall be specifically enforceable in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. § 8.3.3 The award rendered by the arbitrator(s) shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof § 8.3.4 CONSOLIDATION OR JOINDER § 8.3.4.1 Either party, at its sole discretion, may consolidate an arbitration conducted under this Agreement with any other arbitration to which it is a party provided that (1) the arbitration agreement governing the other arbitration permits consolidation; (2) the arbitrations to be consolidated substantially involve common questions of law or fact; and (3) the arbitrations employ materially similar procedural rules and methods for selecting arbitrator(s). § 8.3.4.2 Either party, at its sole discretion, may include by joinder persons or entities substantially involved in a common question of law or fact whose presence is required if complete relief is to be accorded in arbitration, provided that the party sought to be joined consents in writing to such joinder. Consent to arbitration involving an additional person or entity shall not constitute consent to arbitration of any claim, dispute or other matter in question not described in the written consent. MA Document B101' — 2007 fomredy 8151 — 1997). Copyright 0 1974. 1978, 1987. 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights init. reserved. WARNING: This Ale Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 15 this MA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:57:34 on 01122011 under Order No.6656208149_1 which expires on 04/142011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) § 8.3.4.3 The Owner and Architect grant to any person or entity made a party to an arbitration conducted under this Section 8.3, whether by joinder or consolidation, the same rights of joinder and consolidation as the Owner and Architect under this Agreement. ARTICLE 9 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION § 9.1 If the Owner fails to make payments without reasonable justification to the Architect in accordance with this Agreement, such failure shall be considered substantial nonperformance and cause for termination or, at the Architect's option, cause for suspension of performance of services under this Agreement. If the Architect elects to suspend services, the Architect shall give seven days' written notice to the Owner before suspending services. In the event of a suspension of services, the Architect shall have no liability to the Owner for delay or damage caused the Owner because of such suspension of services. Before resuming services, the Architect shall be paid all sums due prior to suspension and any expenses incurred in the interruption and resumption of the Architect's services. The Architect's fees for the remaining services and the time schedules shall be equitably adjusted:adjusted as agreed by both parties. § 9.2 If the Owner suspends the Project, the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior to notice of such suspension. When the Project is resumed, the Architect shall be compensated for expenses incurred in the interruption and resumption of the Architect's services. The Architect's fees for the remaining services and the time schedules shall be equitably adjusted. § 9.3 If the Owner suspends the Project for more than 90 cumulative days for reasons other than the fault of the Architect, the Architect may terminate this Agreement by giving not less than seven days' written notice. § 9.4 Either party may terminate this Agreement upon not less than seven days' written notice should the other party fail substantially to perform in accordance with the terns of this Agreement through no fault of the party initiating the termination. § 9.5 The Owner may terminate this Agreement upon not less than seven days' written notice to the Architect for the Owner's convenience and without cause. § 9.6 In the event of termination not the fault of the Architect, the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior to termination, together with Reimbursable Expenses then due and all Termination Expenses as defined in Section 9.7. § 9.7 Termination Expenses are in addition to compensation for the Architect's services and include expenses directly attributable to termination for which the Architect is not otherwise :'- : • - . t:, : • :• ' :: . - .. ,. .. : ' • .. - o p sat ... .... -..... ... .. men ed,. § 9.8 The Owner's rights to use the Architect's Instruments of Service in the event of a termination of this Agreement are set forth in Article 7 and Section 11.9. ARTICLE 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS § 10.1 This Agreement shall be governed by the law • :: • -- - -- r -:' -. ' :: • :, • -- in place as interpreted, governed, and enforced by the laws of the State of Alaska, and the codes of Kodiak Island Borough,exccpt that if the parties have selected arbitration as the method of binding dispute resolution, the Federal Alaska Arbitration Act shall govern Section 8.3. § Terms in .......... .. ...... .. .: .. .. _ . 1. § 10.3 The Owner and Architect, respectively, bind themselves, their agents, successors, assigns and legal representatives to this Agreement. Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall assign this Agreement without the written consent of the other, except that the Owner may assign this Agreement to a lender providing financing for the Project if the lender agrees to assume the Owner's rights and obligations under this Agreement. NA Document 8101" — 2007 ``fonnedy 6151''' — 1997). Copyright 01974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 16 this MA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AW software at 13:57:34 on 01/72/2011 under Order No.6658208149_1 which expires on 04/142011, and is not rot resale. User Notes: (1514237861) § 10.4 If the Owner requests the Architect to execute certificates, the proposed language of such certificates shall be submitted to the Architect for review at least 14 days prior to the requested dates of execution. If the Owner requests the Architect to execute consents reasonably required to facilitate assignment to a lender, the Architect shall execute all such consents that are consistent with this Agreement, provided the proposed consent is submitted to the Architect for review at least 14 days prior to execution. The Architect shall not be required to execute certificates or consents that would require knowledge, services or responsibilities beyond the scope of this Agreement. § 10.5 Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against either the Owner or Architect. § 10.6 Unless otherwise required in this Agreement, the Architect shall have no responsibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal or disposal of, or exposure of persons to, hazardous materials or toxic substances in any form at the Project site. § 10.7 The Architect shall have the right to include photographic or artistic representations of the design of the Project among the Architect's promotional and professional materials. The Architect shall be given reasonable access to the completed Project to make such representations. However, the Architect's materials shall not include the Owner's confidential or proprietary information if the Owner has previously advised the Architect in writing of the specific information considered by the Owner to he confidential or proprietary. The Owner shall provide professional credit for the Architect in the Owner's promotional materials for the Project. § 10.8 If the Architect or Owner receives information specifically designated by the other party as "confidential" or "business proprietary," the receiving party shall keep such information strictly confidential and shall not disclose it to any other person except to (1) its employees, (2) those who need to know the content of such information in order to perform services or construction solely and exclusively for the Project, or (3) its consultants and contractors whose contracts include similar restrictions on the use of confidential information. ARTICLE 11 COMPENSATION § 11.1 For the Architect's Basic Services described under Article 3, the Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: (Insert amount of or hash for, compensation) The basis of compensation for basic services shall be the Washington State Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineer Fees for Public Works Building Projects, effective July I, 2009, including Exhibit A, A/E Fee Schedule effective July 1, 2007, The attached fee proposal describes the anticipated basic services fees, Actual Basic services fees shall be determined after Concept Design and this contract will be amended as required. § 11.2 For Additional Services designated in Section 4.1, the Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: (Insert amount 01, or basis for, compensation. If necessary, list specific services to which particular methods of compensation apply.) The basis of compensation for additional services shall be the Washington State Guidelines for Determining Architect/Engineer Fees for Public Works Building Projects, effective July 1, 2009, including Exhibit A, A/E Fee Schedule effective July 1, 2007, The attached fee proposal describes the additional services fees for Pre - Design and Concept Design. Actual additional services fees shall be determined after Concept Design and this contract will be amended as requited. § 11.3 For Additional Services that may arise during the course of the Project, including those under Section 4.3, the Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: (Insert amount of or basis for, compensation.) as negotiated § 11.4 Compensation for Additional Services of the Architect's consultants when not included in Section 11.2 or 11.3, shall be the amount invoiced to the Architect plus ten percent ( 10 %), or as otherwise stated below: AIA Document BI01TM — 2007 formerly 8151 r" — 1997). Copyright ® 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This NA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 17 this NA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149_1 which expires on 04/14/2011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) § 11.5 Where compensation for Basic Services is based on a stipulated sum or percentage of the Cost of the Work, the compensation for each phase of services shall be as follows: Schematic Design Phase twenty percent ( 20 %) Design Development Phase twenty percent ( 20 %) Construction Documents twenty-nine percent ( 29 %) Phase Bidding or Negotiation Phase two percent ( 2 ° /a) Construction Phase twenty -seven percent ( 27 %) Close -out two 2 Total Basic Compensation one hundred percent ( 100 %) § 11.6 When compensation is based on a percentage of the Cost of the Work and any portions of the Project are deleted or otherwise not constructed, compensation for those portions of the Project shall be payable to the extent services are performed on those portions, in accordance with the schedule set forth in Section 11.5 based on (1) the lowest bona fide hid or negotiated proposal, or (2) if no such bid or proposal is received, the most recent estimate of the Cost of the Work for such portions of the Project. The Architect shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with this Agreement for all services performed whether or not the Construction Phase is commenced. § 11.7 The hourly billing rates for services of the Architect and the Architect's consultants, if any, are set forth below. The rates shall be adjusted in accordance with the Architect's and Architect's consultants' normal review practices. al applicable, attach an exhibit of hourly billing rates or insert them below.) Billing rates are attached Employee or Category Rate § 11.8 COMPENSATION FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES § 11.8.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Additional Services and include expenses incurred by the Architect and the Architect's consultants directly related to the Project, as follows: .1 Transportation and authorized out -of -town travel and subsistence; .2 Long distance services, dedicated data and communication services, teleconferences, Project Web sites, and exnanets; .3 Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project; .4 Printing, reproductions, plots, standard form documents; .5 Postage, handling and delivery; .6 Expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates, if authorized in advance by the Owner; .7 Renderings, models, mock -ups, professional photography, and presentation materials requested by the Owner; .8 Architect's Consultant's expense of professional liability insurance dedicated exclusively to this Project, or the expense of additional insurance coverage or limits if the Owner requests such insurance in excess of that normally carried by the Architect's consultants; .9 All taxes levied on professional services and on reimbursable expenses; .10 Site office expenses; and .11 Other similar Project- related expenditures. § 11.8.2 For Reimbursable Expenses the compensation shall be the expenses incurred by the Architect and the Architect's consultants plus percent ( %) of the expenses incurred. § 11.9 COMPENSATION FOR USE OF ARCHITECTS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE feilews AIA Document B101r" — 2007 f 8151"' — 1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This MA" Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 18 this Ale Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by NA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149_1 which expires on 04/142011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) I § 11.10 PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT § 11.10.1 An initial payment of ($ ) shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and is the minimum payment under this Agreement. It shall be credited to the Owner's account in the final invoice. § 11.10.2 Unless otherwise agreed, payments for services shall be made monthly in proportion to services performed. Payments are due and payable upon presentation of the Architect's i IVOIC: - � eunts unpaid ( invoice once any reasonable corrections have been completed. Amounts unpaid thirty ( 30 ) days after the invoice date shall bear interest at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof at the legal rate prevailing from time to time at the principal place of business of the Architect. (Insert rate of monthly or annual interest agreed upon.) —five % 5% § 11.10.3 The Owner shall not withhold amounts from the Architect's compensation to impose a penalty or liquidated damages on the Architect, or to offset sums requested by or paid to contractors for the cost of changes in the Work unless the Architect agrees or has been found liable for the amounts in a binding dispute resolution proceeding. § 11.10.4 Records of Reimbursable Expenses, expenses pertaining to Additional Services, and services performed on the basis of hourly rates shall he . - - ! - - .provided with invoices. ARTICLE 12 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Special terms and conditions that modify this Agreement are as follows: ARTICLE 13 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT § 13.1 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Owner and the Architect and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral_ This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Owner and Architect. § 13.2 This Agreement is comprised of the following documents listed below: .1 AIA Document B101Tm -2007, Standard Form Agreement Between Owner and Architect .2 AIA Document £2OITM 2007, E20IT"_2008, Digital Data Protocol Exhibit, if completed, or the following: .3 Other documents: (List other documents, if any, including Exhibit A, Initial Information, and additional scopes of service, ifany, forming part of the Agreement.) Request For Proposal dated July 2010, Proposal prepared by Jensen Yorba Lott,Inc in response to the Request for Proposal. Washington State Guidelines for Determining Architect /Engineer Fees for Public Works Building Projects in effect after July 1. 2009 and the accompanying A/E Fee Schedule in effect July 1, 2007 Final Scope of Work and Schedule dated December 29, 2010 Draft Education Specification prepared by Dejong Richter and Associates for Kodiak High School. Fee Proposal for Pre - Design services and Conceptual Design services Estimation of fees for all services through Closeout (actual fees to be confimted after conceptual design). Current Design Team fee schedules. AIA Document 6101 ro - 2007 formerly B151 TM - 1997). Copyright a 1974, 1978, 1987. 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AlA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 19 this Abe Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible f under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149_1 which expires on 04/14/2011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. OWNER ARCHITECT (Signature) (Signature) Rick Gifford, KIEI Manager Tony Yorba, Corp Sec (Printed name and title) (Printed name and title) MA Document 8101 T' — 2007 11formerly 8151 Te - 1997). Copyright Q 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This MA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of 20 this Ale Document, or any portion of it may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:57.34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149_1 which expires on 04/142011, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) Certification of Document's Authenticity AIA® Document D401 TM — 2003 1, Antonio V. Yorba, AIA, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, that I created the attached final document simultaneously with this certification at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No. 6656208149_I from ALA Contract Documents software and that in preparing the attached final document I made no changes to the original text of AIA Document BI OITM — 2007, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect, as published by the AIA in its software, other than changes shown in the attached final document by underscoring added text and striking over deleted text. (Signed) (Title) (Dated) AIA Document D401 N — 2003. Copyright ®1992 and 2003 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA Document, or any portion of it, 1 may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, end will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by ALA software at 13:57:34 on 01/12/2011 under Order No.6656208149 1 which expires on 04/14/2011. and is not for resale. User Notes: (1514231861) TO: Honorable Borough Mayor Jerome Selby and Borough Assembly Members Carol Austerman, Jerrol Friend, Judy Fulp, Sue Jeffrey, Dave Kaplan, Chris Lynch, Louise Stutes FROM: Roger David -1912 Mill Bay Road, 539 -6816 DATE: January 13, 2011 RE: Mistaken Dumpster Billing On July 29, 2007 at 9:10 a.m. the house owned by Virgilio Sabado burned down. On Friday, September 28, 2007, Mina Pimentel asked me to meet her at the Borough Building to help obtain a demolition permit and dumpster for the Sabado's. Mina was helping the Sabado's because Virgilio Sabado doesn't speak English and has a hearing problem and RoseMarie Sabado speaks only a little English. Mina asked for my help because I had once worked on her house on Mission Road and because she didn't know what was needed, where to go and how to fill the forms out. Mina and I met at the Borough Building and got a demolition permit by first going to the building inspector's office and then to the zoning office. The permit was in Virgilio Sabado's name, with Virgilio Sabado's address and phone numbers. Since Virgilio Sabado wasn't there, I entered my signature next to his name. Mina stayed in the zoning office with Duane Dvorak and gave me $1,030 cash to take to the cashier's office. I brought the permit with me and gave it to the cashier, Casandra Junger. When I filled out the Construction Dumpster Listing Sheet, I entered Virgilio Sabado's address as the billing address. I asked Casandra Junger whose name should go in the account- name column and explained that Virgilio Sabado was not in the building and that I was doing this for him. She told me that since Virgilio Sabado wasn't present, to just put my name in the column. (Casandra Junger may remember it differently, but if she had told me that putting my name in the account -name column would make me responsible for the bill, I would NOT have put it there.) Because of that one thing, writing my name in the account -name column, because Virgilio Sabado wasn't there and Mina Pimental was waiting in the zoning office, I became, in the Borough's eyes, the person responsible for the dumpster payment. Sometime later, to make sense of the sheet, a Borough staff person crossed out Virgilio Sabado's address in the billing- address column and entered mine. Rather than put a line through the billing address, they should have crossed out my name and entered Vergilio Sabado's —it was his billing address, his permit and his property. I was just representing the Sabado's and trying to help. It was not my house that was being torn down. I did not get the insurance money for it and I did not sell the lot it was on. Virgilio Sabado collected the insurance money and then sold the lot. The only money I received for the dumpster was the thousand dollars Mina gave me to take to the cashier. It was not my property and never has been. I've gone to Virgilio Sabado to have him pay the bill but he won't. My wife Violet wrote the Sabado's a letter but it was ignored. I've gone to a Borough staff person, whom I know, but she wasn't able to help. I've attended a one -sided hearing about this where I was pitted against the Borough staff and Borough attorney, but no one has ever looked at the basic problem. My name on the Construction Listing Sheet, at the direction of Casandra Junger, has made me responsible for the dumpster bill —even though the dumpster was not for my house. On the afternoon of Monday, January 3, I was notified by my wife that the Borough had emptied our bank account, leaving us with no money for heat or food and having to pay a $60 bank - processing fee and a $30 fee for every returned check. Although on January 7, I paid $79 to file a small claims case against Virgilio Sabado, I don't feel that I should have to go through this. It seems ridiculous that I was ever billed for the dumpster. Virgilio Sabado owned the property, the demolition permit was in his name and I never gave him anything in writing, or even told him verbally, that I would be responsible for his dumpster debt. Although I feel that this is a Borough staff person's mistake, I acknowledge that I am also to blame. I should have come to the Borough Assembly right away. I didn't go to the right people, and I didn't handle this properly. Just as Mina and the Sabado's didn't know what to do or where to go for a permit and dumpster, I didn't know what to do or where to go about the dumpster bill. I am not the land owner and never have been. I am requesting that the Borough stop billing me for Virgilio Sabado's dumpster fee and reimburse me the $944 taken from my bank account, the $60 bank processing fee, the amount the bank will charge me for every returned check and the $79 I paid for the Small Claims Filing. I am asking for a total of approximately $1,200 and will provide receipts for everything. Thank you very much for whatever help you can give me. Attachments: Construction Dumpster Listing with Post -It note attached Zoning Compliance Permit No. CZ2008 -036 � / 6-- 0 7176 y CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTER LISTING q G 677 71 &bob? DATE ACCT, p ACCOUNT NAME BILLING ADDRESS PROJECT SITE PHONE*/ DEP, CONTACT PERSON ZONING# 4 ;• E]llrM T— SR PO R� �� _ NK LE( 511 -ucc ESf 4$6 4762 IOOO'• Dm �oo9EK 4 ova r in / 3SV7 ©a ��(fcr baN ` i4�S — " za_ i i ` Sprdu' '• iS1 t o 4 fler- kr r iaF —a� n ^, sC'. IyU .�.��7'��i >, '.ia: wie Wr�d: l�L1f1 / Q/ � :�' T D, F 9'$ � ? k R a• /� . r .l to,- ®L!� 4 �, 4' /p!(l c l' l A-1, ✓ d41 s D 1 �_ / L ,bO / 1/D co .< C'z��oJ o: � TOP( Co> � b oa �t� fe ueu r<R -, 0 cu ; &o6 4L de/ 5 k2, %Zam`ods( L r u.1 r� kS ar G o14478 n 1 . Ooo t ' • J1 Lr ✓ �• 1 G & of b)ood r A f 8)-P a. 15e I X60 71)n / S�e�c L� jiff t . :: - Milo ? �f tyl;' E . -rE_ _ ' - - , .rr _. :6 145 - . r,:,r )1A) , u . 'o:� L- O::. — � � w� l� �lSonJ l IG11 Q) GI4V -11. OA_ L w - . I Finco wIR - 2721 l oon — :f rn PE tatlsl..A aza7)Zoj= n �._.. 5 7-6n/, o o. (� ' 2_� / a� WA �L'�N•E GLc +7'7 -I'Ej2 $ / ' �'� °�SS�_ S � B l:7er,ESr� .. . � I +/ °J'/i MW - / 24- /61 AIL %Li Bec ause I put my name in the acc ount -name �� ai ;) k EA 3/ 3 "� c o lu mn , a t Casandra Junge direction, l G ZJ11 �S"-0 �t t , t a l A Liu r N 31 3 7 h be came dumpster the payment person responsible for the 6 / I I I 0 /S • / . �� _ Kul 1 �, r To make sense of the sheet, saba ough stae 6 Q,I I Z � O , (Q /) o PIM q pn the billing addres t co lam Sabaao„1ede ress fir+ ,e hul 1 2 - 338 GR �Y S 3Yy (� / cGi (/ f A in �✓'^ 1 .. RV t/ e5- r l Z 15 m ine . — Sow DOU k� m� 4 o // R t put a line through the bil mg a5- 'IIV /C�7 ,M1 jim a c'' a 7 /'l -In '+ .�� ' s hould have cro ssed out m � �i. . %�, —av p q b it was I � —) , n, (,,:: a d Oe l t !L' ?y a ddress, they ' 7 i T '� • Lis • A. gig 1 • name and entere Ver +ilio Sabado I llin ' address h is t and his of ru7r�i:..,1 �i:z::.�e�_ 1 hisli g -- �:;y property. Abp \__st___ &. xt e,..) -V, -‘- .12_,„4. C'^+� -i ___ _ e v P., IMINTIFF, VV E X HIBIT NOe fe I 1 " s ' — 'kl`-it— 'S'N \--- 4 •,:// U tfi. 11 � • / ��/ �+ ' " 5.,' ?4' ICASEINUMBERe --+ Kodiak Island Borough Community , _4$ubmk by !I +� Development Department '! AK 205 IUIIIIIIIIIII(IflhIliIIDh I �I�II Ph. (907)486 - 9362 Fax (907) 486 - 9396 R1040060220 hnp://www.kib.co.kodiak.ak.us Zoning Compliance Permit Permit No. C22008 -036 The following information is to be supplied by the Applicant: Property Owner / Applicant: VIRGILIO SABADO Mailing Address: 514 THORSHEIM STREET Phone Number: 486 -2501 OR 539 -2853 Other Contact email, etc.: Legal Description: LOT 22 BLOCK 6 ALEUTIAN HOMES SUBDIVISION Street Address: 514 THORSHEIM STREET Use & Size of Existing SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (BURN DAMAGED) Structures: Proposed Action, DEMOLITION OF ABOVE REFERENCED SFR Describe Fully: Number of parking 3 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES @ 9 FOOT BY 18 FOOT EACH spaces & size of parking area: Staff Compliance Review: ZONING: R -1 Parcel No. R1040060220 Lot Area: 6001 Lot Width: 60' Bld'g Height: 35' Front Yard: 25' Rear Yard: 10' Side Yard: 5' Prk'g Plan Rvw? No 8 of Req'd Spaces: 3 Plat / Subdivision NA Requirements? Other NA Requirements? I- — Coastal Policy Residential Consistent? Yes Attachment? No Subd Case No. NA Plat No, NA Bldg Permit No. PENDING Driveway NA Permit? Septic Plan NA Approval: Fire NA Marshall: Applicant Certification: I hereby certify that Iwill comply with the provisions of the Kodiak island Borough Code and that! have the authority to certify this as the property owner, or as a representative of the property owner. I agree to hove identifiable corner markers in place for verification of building setback (yard) requirements. Attachments? List Other: Date: Sep 28, 2007 Signature: VIRGILIOSABADO • This permit is only for the proposed project as described by the applicant. If there are any changes to the proposed project, including its intended use, prior to or during its siting, construction, or operation, contact this office immediately to determine if further review and approval of the revised project is necessary. CDD StaffCertification Date: Sep 28.2007 CDD Staff: Duane Dvorak AP_LRP ., Payment Verification Zoning Compliance Permit Fee Construction Disposal Deposit Payable in Cashiers Office Payable in Cashier's Office Room # 104 Room # 104 FICASH FICA'SH 9/28/2007 13:33: 0B00a5532 Zoning C p Fee Schedule _Fee Schedule JO o+ pad 30.i00 + in Fu I Less than 1.75 acres $30.00 More than 500 sq ft $1000.00 Kodiak Island trough Kodiak AK 9 615 1907) 4E6 - a4 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY WORK SESSION Work Session of: 011151■010 Please PRINT y our name Please PRINT your name $ r t / /9, - .2,- A/ ff .Qa TDSit4- � J�,J r 4 ` , \ ,> / \ , c ;, CC;7 r' 1 11 \\ 1\