Loading...
2012-05-03 Regular Meeting Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Regular Meeting Agenda Thursday, May 3, 2012, 7:30 p.m., Assembly Chambers 1. INVOCATION 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None. 6. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Student of the Month for May B. Municipal Clerks Week 7. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker) A. Agenda Items Not Scheduled for Public Hearing and General Comments 8. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9. PUBLIC HEARING A. Ordinance No. FY2012 -19 Rezoning a Tract of Land Located in Old Harbor From R1- Single Family Residential To I- Industrial (P &Z Case 12 -030, Sage Technologies, LLC). B. Ordinance No. FY2012 -20 Amending Title 3 Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.35 Real Property Tax By Adding Section 3.35.085 Method of Determining the Assessed Value of Property That Qualifies for a Low Income Housing Tax Credit Under 26 USC 42. 10. BOROUGH MANAGER'S REPORT 11. MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 13. NEW BUSINESS A. Contracts 1. Contract No. FY2012 -18 Auditing Services for Kodiak Island Borough and Kodiak Island Borough School District for Fiscal Years 2013 — 2015. Meeting broadcast live over radio station KMXT 100.1 FM and Cablevision station 12. Citizens' Comments and Public Hearing Numbers: Local 486 -3231. Page 1 of 2 B. Resolutions 1. Resolution No. FY2012 -29 Authorizing the Assessor to Assess the Fir Terrace Low- Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Project Based on Restricted Rents. 2. Resolution No. FY2012 -27 Approving a Contract Extension Agreement to Extend the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the Kodiak Island Borough and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1547 and Adjusting the Salary Schedule and the COLA as Agreed to In This Contract to Both Union and Non -Union Employees. C. Ordinances for Introduction 1. Ordinance No. FY2012 -16 Amending Various Code Sections in Title 7 Elections. D. Other Items 1. Approval to Proceed to Final Construction Bid Documents for the Long Term Care Center Project. 14. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker) 15. ASSEMBLY MEMBERS' COMMENTS 16. ADJOURNMENT 17. INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS (No Action Required) A. Minutes of Other Meetings 1. Parks and Recreation Committee Regular Meeting of March 27, 2012. B. Reports 1. Kodiak Island Borough School District Board of Education April 9, 2012 Special Meeting Summary. Meeting broadcast live over radio station KMXT 100.1 FM and Cablevision station 12. Citizens' Comments and Public Hearing Numbers: Local 486 -3231. Page 2 of 2 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH AGENDA STATEMENT REGULAR MEETING OF: MAY 3, 2012 ITEM NO.: 9A TITLE: Ordinance No. FY2012 -19 Rezoning a Tract of Land in Old Harbor From R1- Single Family Residential To I- Industrial (P &Z Case 12 -030 Sage Technologies, LLC). ORIGINATOR: Community Development Director FISCAL IMPACT: ❑ Yes $ or ® No Funds Available ❑ Yes ❑ No Account Number: Amount Budgeted: ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. FY2012 -19; P &Z Case Packet; Draft P &Z Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2012. APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: SUMMARY STATEMENT: A petition for the rezone of a tract of land in Old Harbor came as a request before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Not only is this the site of a proposed communications tower providing broadband service for community cell phone and internet, this area also includes the Old Harbor Landfill. The rezone to I- Industrial will allow the landfill and support activities to expand without coming back to the Commission. Clerk's Note: Three public hearing notices were mailed out on Monday, April 23. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Ordinance No. FY2012 -19. Kodiak Island Borough Page 1 of 1 Introduced by: Borough Manager Requested by: CDD Director 1 Drafted by: CDD Director 2 Introduced: 04/19/2012 3 Public Hearing: 05/03/2012 4 Adopted: 5 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 6 ORDINANCE NO. FY2012 -19 7 8 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 9 REZONING A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN OLD HARBOR FROM 10 R1- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO I - INDUSTRIAL 11 (P &Z CASE 12 -030 SAGE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC) 12 13 14 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission received a request to rezone a tract 15 of land approximately 10 -12 acres in size in Old Harbor from R1- Single Family Residential 16 to the I- Industrial Zoning District for communications infrastructure and landfill purposes; 17 and 18 19 WHEREAS, the Commission held and publically advertised meeting consistent with 20 KIBC 17.205.040; and 21 22 WHEREAS, the Commission voted to recommend to the Borough Assembly that this 23 tract be rezoned finding that the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and 24 good zoning practice would be promoted by such action; and 25 26 WHEREAS, the Commission hereby recommends that this rezone request be reviewed 27 and approved by the Borough Assembly. 28 29 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND 30 BOROUGH THAT: 31 32 Section 1: This ordinance is of a general and permanent nature and shall become a 33 part of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances; 34 35 Section 2: The Old Harbor landfill described in Plat 96 - 33 and described by Quit Claim 36 Deed recorded at Book 120, Pages 759 — 761 is rezoned from R1- Single 37 Family Residential to I- Industrial. 38 39 Section 3: The findings of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning 40 Commission are hereby confirmed as follows: 41 42 17.72.020 A. Findings as to the Need and Justification for a Change or 43 Amendment. 44 45 The land owners, City of Old Harbor and the Old Harbor Native Corporation, need 46 this rezone in order to construct a microwave communication tower in the vicinity of 47 the Old Harbor Landfill. The site is one of the few locations with sufficient elevation 48 and close road accessible proximity to the community to be served. The rezone will 49 also provide the benefit of making the existing landfill a conforming use and allow 50 the community to expand the use or entertain other uses beneficial to the 51 community at this location. 52 Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance No. FY2012 -19 Page 1 of 2 53 17.72.020 B. Findings as to the Effect a Change or Amendment would have on 54 the Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 55 56 The Comprehensive Plan designates all areas outside of the Townsite as 57 Conservation, however it is clear from past zoning decisions and community goals 58 and objectives that the community desires improved access to broadband services, 59 in addition to the continued function of the community landfill at this location. The 60 plan also speaks to the need for economic diversity and economic opportunity in 61 the Old Harbor community. At this time it is necessary to zone for the most 62 intensive uses that might be required at a landfill site and to accommodate the 63 related uses that might be required to support the landfill. At present the I- Industrial 64 zone best meets this need. 65 66 The plan also speaks to the need to maintain good two -way communication 67 between the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Old Harbor. This need also 68 applies to the related native corporations and tribal councils serving the community 69 as well. The rezone will eliminate certain zoning nonconformities that have existed 70 on the rezone site for many years and will encourage re- development that is 71 consistent with both past use and planned future development. 72 73 ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 74 THIS DAY OF 2012 75 76 77 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 78 • 79 80 81 Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor 82 83 ATTEST: 84 85 86 87 Nova M. Javier, MMC, Borough Clerk 88 89 Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance No. FY2012 -19 Page 2 of 2 `? Kodiak Island Borough trr Office of the Borough Clerk glitit f ' "` rS 710 Mill Bay Road ' Kodiak, Alaska 99615 -' Phone (907) 486 -9310 Fax (907) 486 -9391 njavier @kodiakak.us NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 3, 2012, at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska before the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly to hear comments on: Ordinance No. FY2012 -19 Rezoning a Tract of Land Located in Old Harbor From R1- Single Family Residential To I- Industrial (P&Z Case 12 -030 Sage Communication). If you do not wish to testify verbally, you may provide your comments on the attached public hearing form and fax it to (907) 486 -9391, email to njavier(�kodiakak.us, or hand deliver to the Borough Clerk's Office, 710 Mill Bay Road, Room 101, Kodiak, AK 99615 prior to 5 p.m. on May 3, 2012. Comments favoring and opposing are encouraged. If you have any questions, please call 486 -9310. Attachments: • Map • Public hearing form • Ordinance No. FY2012 -19 Ordinance (a FY2012-19 Rezoning p ft2iil CQ Land Located Ito akg Harbor F.rom R1- Single RagOr Residential M I- Industrial (P &Z @MG 12 -030 Sage Communication). u • ____) AI 0, a 7 4c , — o a Legend 1 EN Subjct Parcel hr i t _ o el g r ..., ' Kodiak Island Borough GIS Legend N ., _ a r I I` Subject Parcel wr Vita E a �' •–•1 Feat V 1 0 345 499 1520 Oil t r Notification Area S • This map was prepared From Use Kodiak maid Borough s GIS System. It n prowled for Me purpose at showing the general !malign at a property' *inn the Kodiak Island 000.41 IDm map Uses not represent a sirvey. More InlmsAon aboutIle mapping data tan co obtained by contacting the Kodiak Island Borough IT Department at m7)4669333 PUBLIC HEARING FORM Ordinance No. FY2012 -19 Rezoning a Tract of Land Located in Old Harbor From R1- Single Family Residential To I- Industrial (P &Z Case 12 -030 Sage Communication). ❑ This is in support of the rezone. ❑ This is in opposition of the rezone. ❑ Other comments. Name: Residence Address: Mailing Address: Comments: Written comments may be submitted by email to nlavier(a.kodiakak.us, faxed to 907 - 486 -9391, mailed or hand delivered to the Borough Clerk's Office, 710 Mill Bay Road, Room 101, Kodiak, AK 99615 prior to 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 3, 2012. _ t "" +3t cktgi �;; k,. 4 4 i �L' � `ti " l' +7.Y' '}�+.�. 'H` t V ra 6, >.. ' �i.. ^. 6 ?..) vv c. • 3 4 - S+c a , - . M.' v i a Y. r A r r r Y.r... , .r -_ �ri�ti.:i� n `.,.,v :. ^RL ""' .. .,.• a.t ,t..- .. . -i�. f,. j :�� 'O �} i!✓^Y ., .. . 1. > .w x, r �� � PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Case S12 -015. Request Preliminary approval, according to KIBC 16.40, of the subdivision of Ouzinkie Subdivision, Tract C creating U.S. Survey 4871, Tracts C -2A & C -2B. The applicant is Sage Technologies LLC and the agent is St. Denny Surveying. The location is at the site of the Ouzinkie Community School. The zoning is PL- Public Lands. Cassidy reported you have previously reviewed a rezone, a couple of variances, a disposal, and a site plan review, and tonight, your subdivision action, should you vote favorably, will be the last action needed. The legal description provided on the plat is incorrect and the surveyor will make the corrections. Staff recommends approval subject to 4 conditions approval. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT stated he will just read in the correct lots into the motion and findings. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT MOVED to grant preliminary approval, according to KIBC 16.40, of the subdivision of Tract C, Block 2, U.S. Survey 4871, Townsite of Ouzinkie in Tracts C -1A & C -1B, subject to Conditions of Approval and Findings of Fact in the staff report dated February 27, 2012. The public hearing was opened & closed. There was no public testimony. Discussion CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — 1. Eliminate the detail of Tract C -1B on the final plat, and just show the survey of Tract C -1 subdivided into Tract C -1A and Tract C -1B at an appropriate scale; and 2. That the newly created 10 foot Utility Easement located at the base of the flag lot be identified as "being created this plat "; and 3. The contour lines on the preliminary plat be labeled with elevations; and 4. Add the address of the Kodiak Island Borough as 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, AK 99615. FINDINGS OF FACT 1, Approval of this preliminary plat is in the public interest and consistent with the disposal of this parcel to the City of Ouzinkie recommended by the Commission to the Assembly in P &Z Commission Resolution FY2012 -02. 2. This request meets the minimum application standards of Title 16 Subdivision of the Kodiak Island Borough Code; 3. This plat meets all the minimum standards of Title 17 Zoning of the Borough Code. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY C) Case 12-030. Request a rezone, according to KIBC 17,205, to consider a zoning change from R1- Single- family Residential to I- Industrial for the Old Harbor Landfill Area as described by Plat 96 -33 and also by Quit Claim Deed recorded at Book 120, Pages 759 to 761, Kodiak Recording District. The applicant is Old Harbor Native Corporation /City of Old Harbor. The location is generally north of the Old Harbor Airport runway and the zoning is R1- Single - family Residential. Cassidy reported this is another telecommunications case but in this case the services will be extended down the east side of the island to Old Harbor. The tower will be located in the landfill area of Old Harbor and both the landfill and the tower uses require Industrial zoning. The tower is in proper alignment to receive a signal at that location. Staff recommends approval. COMMISSIONER VAHL MOVED to recommend that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve a rezone of the Old Harbor Landfill; described by Plat 96 -33 and also by Quit Claim Deed recorded at Book 120, Pages 759 to 761, Kodiak Recording District, from R1- Single Family Residential to h Industrial, according to KIBC 17.205.030.0 (Manner of Initiation), subject to the findings contained in the staff report dated March 8, 2012 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. March 21, 2012 Page 3 of 8 P &Z Minutes .c ;4 . 4;;' 'Is .+`' tl 44:5 ' " '}t a ' .F. . " 1;tib r . .r � 4 n} i .'1 .•fd i �.�.- % trs. Y e l .'.!i \ ✓ - C' r1 ' V - ✓! V r ♦ a The public hearing was opened & closed. There was no public testimony. Discussion FINDINGS OF FACT 17.72.020 A. Findings as to the Need and Justification for a Change or Amendment. The land owners, City of Old Harbor and the Old Harbor Native Corporation, need this rezone in order to construct a microwave communication tower in the vicinity of the Old Harbor Landfill. The site is one of the few locations with sufficient elevation and close road accessible proximity to the community to be served. The rezone will also provide the benefit of making the existing landfill a conforming use and allow the community to expand the use or entertain other uses beneficial to the community at this location. 17.72.020 B. Findin as to the Effect a Chan o r Amendment would have on the Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, The Comprehensive Plan designates all areas outside of the Townsite as Conservation, however it is clear from past zoning decisions and community goals and objectives that the community desires improved access to broadband services, in addition to the continued function of the community landfill at this location. The plan also speaks to the need for economic diversity and economic opportunity in the Old Harbor community. At this time it is necessary to zone for the most intensive uses that might he required at a landfill site and to accommodate the related uses that might be required to support the landfill. At present the I- Industrial zone best meets this need. The plan also speaks to the need to maintain good two -way communication between the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Old Harbor. This need also applies to the related native corporations and tribal councils serving the community as well. The rezone will eliminate certain zoning nonconformities that have existed on the rezone site for many years and will encourage re- development that is consistent with both past use and planned future development ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY C VOTE B) Case 12-029. Request a Variance, according to K1BC 17.175.040, to allow the establishment of a Bed & Breakfast Use for up to two (2) guest rooms which would normally require the provision of one (1) additional off - street parking space, where there is no possible location for an additional off - street parking space. The applicant is Bethan Davis and the location is 223 Mill Bay Road. The zoning is R3- Multi- family Residential. Cassidy reported the applicant's home is a single family structure on a substandard residential lot The applicant wants to establish a B &B in 2 extra rooms in the house. It requires an additional parking space that cannot be provided on site. Staff recommends approval because staff feels it meets the standards of granting a variance. COMMISSIONER VAHL MOVED to grant a variance, according to KIBC 17.175.040, to allow the establishment of a Bed & Breakfast Use for up to two (2) guest rooms which would normally require the provision of one (1) additional off- street parking space, where there is no possible location for an additional off- street parking space, and to adopt those findings of fact in the staff report dated March 9, 2012, as Findings of Fact for Case No. 12 -029. The public hearing was opened & closed. Public testimony was given by: Beth Davis thanked the commission and stated she was here to answer any questions. In response to COMMISSIONER'SCHMITT'S inquiry of- the statement about not being able' to accommodate parking in the back, Davis replied there's a good drop off in the back, and the only way to access the back would be to go around the neighbor's.tree to go down the-back. On the right side of the house there is gravel parking and a 5 foot rock retaining wall. March 21, 2012 Page 4 of 8 P &Z Minutes Public Hearing Item 7 -C Overlay Request:arezone, aceording fiONIM ma Qp consider a pe3g ease 312 -030 zoningchangeglaa Rd.- Single - family Residential (iO I- Industrial 0 o Harbor (� - eorp. gig o e Harbor Landfill Area as described �gte 96 -33 gL1daktD twain Claim Deed recorded en Book ,o Pages'Mend Mg ad Harbor Kodiak Recording District.( 0D located north orthCOOG . Dave Burns, &pu am Harbor Airport runway i ii i y .,� s ! ' t ' ' 4 Legend f . 9 itl y"a:'fa,. Y `at a ;, .]' ; F : : n w r a ' . t i - °' S r� ' >�, �. Lam Subjct Parcel " > . a „ Aril. r r s t ' t x Or r' i. r .y } ,} A . 5 *t � -� -a fat- k i t'' .'V� 3 "$ A '.31. /� 1�i \ ' � � ` r ± may. f s fi A d u f{f 'w ( t / 4 d . >T 1T t � Fi if C':: L tf 1 0 ' . A ? • g w .. 4. . s t � � l n5� � ` , ,tr r" t L N .X' � . ,;r, r !j Z 3 3” ' t_ iii � A ,i�I� I -, ,y 5,+ � , f'+ 1 X 3i: ,f" . �`' ;p ` d y ■ , u i 7 f . 1. fi % . , , t f � ' v Ir. 1 T. Y 4s ?`:• f F. E � r xt � ,. y $ M1 ° X "" .�!' n.-.^• c Y i v y Y � 7s f } § . •1 ' °*�✓ t }+ '.. t �/ 2 . �t" ,I ,,,..,:i.,,, te` 7 ,;..4,‘„,„...7.... � -R , y L!,` � ° • 1 S . Y ` 4l'{' t f " s � ''' S u� Y?• v ~ . y, . 5. . . e • ! Ss$ .c � � / � s t3 " • � ,' , s- ,a' �_�- M11 „, 7C * e ' r � I . JJi l� t r 0 F4. V: d �. G -•*' j - '' %,, /La; � , . `m / `- al! , "t . y y � t 7e Y M1 . / // I T tc y L � ' f y ti lu (e L, . 4 } �. e c / 4. • ■ r ( '.! �i :7: r 'tin, I'' + c t ryw. t t f , q ` s y ,. >i: N t b x(1 '1 t r: riq f L - y � N ♦ r. A 1 t dr + � f f .1 ra 5 � G / t,'1` ,'. I P Kodiak Island Borough GIS System N `; Sig 0 750 1,500 3,000 4.500 6,000 Feet I This map was prepared fror the Kodiak Island Borough's GIS System. It is provided for the purpose of showing the general lioton of ag propertywitin the Kodiak Island Borough This map does not represent a survey. Mae information about the mapping data can be obtained by contacting the Kodiak Island o Borough IT Department al (907) 486 -9333 Introduction - Page 1 of 8 ", Public Hearing Item 7 -C J ❑ i- Liri I _S a cne - ri 11 r . L u '�.J !I Li j J� H -. , J L ,eirt I t - - r E o LL Introduction - Page 2 of 8 Public Hearing Item 7 -C s : Kodiak Island Borough Land Use Map ".. 4 Community Development Department P , Request: Q rezone , according Ming Mat) consider a P(3f1,@fo3pi2 -030 zoning change th R4- Single - family Residential50 I- Industrial (c r CQ o . Harbor SG ag Harbor Landfill Area a3 described C1903296 33 F..GId r/EV o . Harbor Corp. ° I Claim Deed recorded eg Book moo. Pages ( ' Qa)> • g Kodiak Dave Burns, gif� Recording District. Qppa located north pQ o o Harbor EQVgallib Airport runway. 0 1,050 2,100 4200 I t t t la ii I Feet VAC VAC J VAC VAC ___—.`/ C ND 4 • VH VAC ......\ 0 VAC C. g> CD O Y� • VAC ' a ° „ / lit D t en i \ M � �lnt 7 VAC VAC = Vacant PUB = Public SFR = Single- family Residential IND = Industrial This map was prepared from the Kodiak Island Borough's GIS System. It is provided for the purpose of showing the general location of a property within the Kodiak Island Borough. This map does not represent a survey. More information about the mapping data can be obtained by contacting the Kodiak Island Borough IT Department at (907) 486 -9333. Introduction - Page 3 of 8 Public Hearing Item 7 -C i —� — ❑ r--- L 0 r irm I !I I (1 r. �1 1 1' , � i �y o L a r k Introduction - Page 4 of 8 Public Hearing Item 7 -C Current Location Request: A rezone, according to KIBC 17.205, to consider a zoning change from R1- Single- family Residential to I- Industrial for P & Z Case # 12 -030 the Old Harbor Landfill Area as described by Plat 96 -33 and also City of Old Harbor by Quit Claim Deed recorded at Book 120, Pages 759 to 761, Old Harbor Native Corp. Kodiak Recording District. Generally located north of the Old Harbor Airport runway Dave Burns, Sage Tech. LLC Q. • L I -1 400 t o N ,, 4,,7 ollee. 1 47:4 R , 1' �f ^ oi'1, e 0 C-) 0 Legend v f 1=1 Subjct Parcel ,.: i d, / cz, • 'e 40 q i iv. ,Vid--1 • t ,f Kodiak Island Borough GIS System A 0 1,700 3,400 6,800 10,200 13,600 Feet This map was prepared from the Kodiak Island Borough's GIS System. It is provided for the purpose of shaving the general location of a property within the Kodiak Island Borough. This map does not represent a survey. More information about the mapping data can be obtained by contacting the Kodiak Island Borough IT Department at (907) 486 -9333. Introduction - Page 5 of 8 Public Hearing Item 7 -C t--- ---I n f L-- 1 7 ' S - 0 cm 1 j 1 7 h l r: n I n ----3\ f 1 - i 1 � [ - 0 ni Introduction - Page 6 of 8 Public Hearing Item 7 -C i %; ':. Kodiak Island .Borough Zoning Map W .� Community Development Department '0' B S t Zoning Request: Q rezone, according tip me awnQ� consider © PtSII( o012 -030 zoning change from R.1- Single- family Residential 60 I-Industrial ftP Harbor Landfill Petitioner: � eau Harbor a ra o e • t- E@ described (or Q 96 -38 IE�Cj alk C .Harbor Corporation Claim Deed recorded Ee Book 2-° Pages G`Tr'�' m Kodiak Agent Dave Burns, �LCS Recording District. l o e located nor Harbor Airport runway I I 1 o 4., ... a Subject p Parcel f 05,,, _tr.. .„... ii:1/4,, c ,,---„, , e in,. c,.._ . 0 ......s „, ,...,,, „:,,,:, l ��� -J .9. ,/,..„,,,,:: 0, , „ 6 // Zoning Legend Public Use Lands I Rural Residential 1 I Multi Family Residential V • , n .`.' Light Industrial I�� Watershed I I Rural Residential 2 ® Business I Rural Neighborhood Commercial Conservation I Single Family Residential I'y: =l Retail Business ® Urban Neighborhood Commercial I Rural Residential Two Family Residential I I Industrial I Natural Use 1 This map was prepared from the Kodiak Island Borough's GIS System. It is provided for the purpose of showing the general location of a property within the Kodiak Island Borough. This map does not represent a survey. More information about the mapping data can be obtained by contacting the Kodiak Island Borough IT Department at 1907) 486 -9333. Introduction - Page 7 of 8 Public Hearing Item 7 -C L__ r I) i d _ ,. S �i a 0 e _2 J I 1 r c rics) __,,,,,„ 11 , 1 _ (.....„„ u _1 Li ca _ _ I 11 K,,., L 1 ( , y (:,) n r 0 m_ Introduction - Page 8 of 8 Public Hearing Item 7 -C KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Rd., Room 205, KODIAK, AK 99615 -6398 (907) 486.9363 - FAX (907)486-9396 www.itib.co.kodiak.ak.us • • Applicant Information Property Information Old Harbor Native Corp /City of Old Harbor 19046 • • Property ID Numberis • Property owner's name 2702 Denali St, Suite 102 /P0 Box 109 T34S R25W TL 2102 OLD HRBR SANITARY LDFL Legal Description Property owners mailing address • • Anchorage AK 99503 / Old Harbor AK 99643 Current Zoning: Hi City State Zip Applicable Comprehensive Plan: • 907- 278 -6100 cbernseoidharbor. erg / 907 - 286- 22 c3Year of Plan adoption: • Home phone Work Phone - E -mail Addr. Present Use of Property: Landfill under an , David Burns • exception to Ri zoning. • Agent's name (If applicable) • 2702 Denali St. Suite 102 - . Agent's mailing address - _ e AK - 99503 Proposed Use of Property: Landfill & install a 40ft tower to City State • Zip extend terrestrial telecommunications. • 407 - 925 -6751 dburns®shearwaterllc . con • to the outlying villages of Old - Harbor Home phone Work Phone . E -mail Addr. • (Note: Use additional sheets, if needed, to provide a complete description of the proposed request.) Applicant Certification I hereby certify as the property owner /authorized agent that this application for Planning and Zoning Commission review Is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and that it is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the applicable Kodiak Island Borough Code, which includes a detailed site plan for variance and conditional use requests and which may . Include optional supporting documentation as indicated below. X Additional Narrative/History _ As -built Survey _ Photographs Maps _ Other • le-/e/4-6°' \SO& t (13612_ ath&AI---- . q31,120472. . Property Owner's Signature Date Authorized Agent's Signature Date j A development plan for one or more lots on which is shown the existing and proposed conditions of the lot, Including topography, vegetation, drainage, flood plains, wetlands, and waterways; landscaping and open spaces; walkways; means of ingress and egress; ; circulation; utility services; structures and buildings; signs and lighting: berms, buffers, and screening devices; surrounding development and any other information that reasonably may be required in order that an Informed decision can be made by the approvingauthority. (Source: The New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions, 01993 by Rutgers University) - • STAFF USE ONLY PAYMENT VERIFICATION 573 Code Section(s) Involved: El ( - I ii- OS (' xeKS 106" . - ° of l�® Variance (KIBC 17.66.020) $250.00 f''ee - eh edr'te: Conditional Use Permit (KIBC 17,67.020.B) $250.00 (per KJ{reaso i�tutiun • Other (appearance requests, site plan review, =t $ 5 uiv ea . • Zoning change from 12 k to I (KI I6,. 7 te 1 I 7 A'(G� K woo 130 i: r , " U LLL��� v.LaC Application received by: ii. 7 r 4(1 f EB — 3 2012 - ;le; ?c:'e5 er ir-o'? 2 — ;,WQf • Staff signature • 1 _ �-� • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Application - Page 1 of 4 Public Hearing Item 7 -C KKCC Site Narrative - Old Harbor January 31, 2012 To whom it may concern, Kodiak -Kenai Cable Company, LLC (KKCC) is requesting the Kodiak Borough Planning & Zoning Commission approve our request to rezone the Old Harbor Landfill site from Residential RR1 to Industrial to allow for the construction of a telecommunication utility service. It is our understanding the current landfill was allowed in the RR1 zoning under an old exception rule that is no longer in effect. The use of the Industrial zoning will allow for both the communications site as well as the existing landfill. We have reviewed a number of viable sites in the vicinity of the landfill and due to access road and elevations have determined that a small site somewhere within the currently platted landfill area will be sufficient for our requirements. At this juncture, it is requested that necessary zoning be considered for installation of a 40' high, 4 leg, 9' face, 'box' tower and a 10'x12' communications hut to be installed within the current landfill property boundary. The tower foundation will consist of four concrete piers approximately 3' x 3' that are 4' high each (tops of piers exposed approximately 3' above grade, leaving 1' approximately below grade) and spaced approximately 9' apart to accommodate the tower size. In addition to the four 3' x 3' x 4' piers, eight rebar anchor bolts per concrete pier are to be embedded 8' beyond the base of the concrete piers and secured utilizing non - shrink grout, total depth below graded breached being approximately 12' amongst (32) 2" wide drilled holes. The hut will be installed on a concrete slab adjacent to the tower. The attached picture shows a representative sample of what this site will look like when completed. We are attempting to perform this project in the summer of 2012 and hope to complete the necessary zoning and subsequent permitting to enable a June construction start. KKCC is jointly owned by Old Harbor and Ouzinkie Native Corporations. The service we are providing is expected to have the same positive impact on the communication infrastructure as was provided to the City of Kodiak via our undersea fiber optic cable project, and with the recent completion of similar microwave links to Ouzinkie and Port Lions, the benefits those villages will see in the near future . We thank you for considering this rezoning request and look forward to working with the Kodiak Island Borough on this and many future planned projects. I can be reached at 407- 925 -6751 or dburns @sagealaska.com should you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, C c4. ) £J. / t Dave Burns KMS Program Manager Kodiak -Kenai Cable Company, LLC 2702 Denali St, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99503 Application - Page 2 of 4 1 r 7tl {MY e V✓�xf n a c r r{ " r�- --. .L V 4 y �� / � 7r /4y e 1r . , j 4 i -✓S 4 t ' ` a C C e f. �1 4 r C. \ i .4Y a ° JR i ;• ! ;/ • - ✓ .. i i ' A 2( 4 � �" ti s ''a ±r , , �b ,, j5 ��„ , ' -.}q , /�''' I r l y %// ? { ... ---/// 4 • - i �. " te ° � ' , � ' • -4 >$' . ! y o • P l i t ' t 1 • ry � w g `• ; a '"� c � a� . t 5 ), y: 7 • s � / k y . t < f. r * H f { . . • • ssc. a o 5 � �t n C y 'I -f 't wa c,;:;: 4 _ '' t if; e; l/ '.C('..� , ` cm. 14"," 5 v «a a a- ., f a .n r . 4 ' • , si KO DI A i E.nn f X�t`r�) .. .IP R. S e .0 '' - A r. hem `S,, v t 1, T 74 v d Vt. t A. ... '�° �L � .{, + -"'gym. ! '..5 I . tr a A l �,. IS LAND F� � � ,r1 ! ��., ' a r - ' /� Y /" / JC 3 7" F x 4Cy t 1 . lMh 3 .4'‘.1,(,° ) � s1 , .. • D W, / j ,, iy 2 1m ® ` ?. — it . rAe c 1 e . / t wt , v*was ^ -l 43 > ` 24 , Sic ) . }.v, va3-1 �i' a rt 3 � -ji1 ��-' • - , p r��(A� F e' °w r -.. }; t t+ • 67 . y• • w.. CS - r j ']e 1 " I ti y - ,. G.+ ,e,. n ,. 7J y N'� o 1 3 lf' - 'T .e ,.,, i w !1$ ,>4 d <+t,.y K 1 ' c�l7 t aly • • p w. a 4,•••• / /}1;. 7 Y ' •e ""', --,,,a--- 'Re"P i t '- • x p 0.- F Y` • a,�.a ' 3 ,.� ' 44 .X • a t • L .�, , J"d L •� 9 I • '4 - ,.: X } 4 .+ ` 9 f ..n 44 \ • r' CV 7 // c v F < 1� N �i c „'da 1 �u t {. �� � � ° C I ° SS .mew. 6�� - � ti e5 . ` ° :cc aot �4 . / /✓ 4 '�f 7f r is ... 'X � - x. il 9 i S ..7'! t n+nea �/ ' ; p R � F fI J r } „ [. < � a 1 1(1 ; ` � • '' 1 +. u c .n � I , ♦ r4 2 t o / / . t l OLD HARBO seyi,,,a / 9 ) 1 ((}f " y . M / uo�.� F \`'2 a } ( l @. x'rKa,g{1..( • : ➢ ;I 4. ,.. f 'i \ t s ; -t l ESTUARY v •4% l +y{.�$ 4 9 1 ' 1 ... 1I 1. ,J t'.” i4 ft" 8 / f h,t4 1 , ♦ h' �J to : l"i - i [ °: 4,.."',../ N ye € '. S an' t '° ! + L < �, „} �1t m ,y - , +� 'L 'Se9 f w 4y, ` e � • 41 v. 04 I '4$ j ex wdxo °b au" T ti n 9 U': ! + ® � • `s° fW�T fS a •{ "� K ) L 1 L L ky � a • .-.4r ',/--' f D51 �° i.`.. •. ©� �L(r ) .4 f.e.. 4 4t �— w nt e.aT \ \ `-r+^ - y .* e r / i 'tir ` �. � a .%,. z ° °F F , T 4F l + '(!'i /_ , l. n i e a nfi 1- 4° . Yr� _ - .\ r y ‘1,.. ( \ � � y J , r ° c l r / �, � +2a., {': i , F 1h 1 • 0 ,may i f i .A+/ n 1 y` Y A . . t om ' ./ elan.¢ ® a w e I t .v.'¢� 4 1„ . 1 es ' ! P"T :5 [ ,yus a ✓ ,F� \�\ " f / +w. w 5 s - V 3 1 r 1 ' 1,• [ / J r J t f � K 1 13 ?' � ti l am r ...-3 4`.. � jY „� Y e � o J" (( �i l I t e e11k �ti' 4.',\ L e . = - " E �..C�7 r 4 \ . Re kx 0.n e ;V t �; A ;{ `,3 t c aw { i.�" Vica,• l l ° p . - .' 1 1 _ , � i - { ' � r MIDWAY" 1 1 n - _ T 9 m.ae \ ` et r t. e 4 `' l. +L f BAY t t `� ' i r i ! ' ' P b . . 5 �' �Xy '1 a " - . 2'9 '1/2- ;E t 1� C .4,4 ,G > C. � r k 4. • S /TKALlDAK STRAIT ,. ... \ , t,Y�. —� - - -+ � " AREA USE NAP SITKALIDAK PAS' GE ,,, I '. OLD HARBOR . -d` • °" °S n, a 3- Co II 40 r ° `.. " ire ?\ b r Y .;a ".ter ! 1" • •d irL QO°° Legend�Nofes .. ✓` ° sy s "+ i " 3IT KA DAKrISLAND .�.¢ s , �, ss�z i . f sage t. • ' �y — s. wrrr: ' e ,.....,� .w ... . Cy t ''a' `'�' 1f' � i S' E� P\ p 5 swe � W y - . E., -: � � e 7' 'i7 ! _ _ �,,, ^ 7 ' y : � ,,t-,, + . '4 1 it __;1,1,c• ' ti. { l - ISLAND..! Public Hea.ng Um vZ i \4 C A ' \74. J+ t � c s t 7 b.. V,' 16 ��'=; i 'S ; '1 � i`.Y , < �' " J� 4 +' !, .p�y� /fir if + 5+ N 4X -- V -.7 +.' . F xa ^rip e li r •-: 'a. 'frifirs.; , ms. i I prili • — 1 t Y r , 5 , ,..___, 41 4.‘ > / -'y • „A i it �jf +}� y °sl. ® P i ' *Yea, r • �i )i W. t y, 3 ��. 0 y � � /' t "'d ii 6. F 1 }fiC Al `t' f Ai a c .a. ` ;v r� " > s - 5"" ) u !ail', Y , v i � .1 ' P "` , L t. • Q ... �✓� � ��•''cJr1�r. g -cw'"" ; a Sari r s� .j t ' ri ^y � , "ti .F. yq - - E' Mt s ''44,..y.‘:9 F S y' L '` `' � v"'wpit I 'J Py Yi /P. t <C's . @ n' °`. — e - �d w x P � 2 m la' � _' t � � S ))!! :« . '„:q ri t c u l " t d fl a , s y et .t • +s' -e, ' ,p � .i.: �', m7 d^+` - , J� ^' eJ 1 .1 _ __ � .. v il : ; ,e . 7,, zt�,, 4» a! + cyyi#�d : i ti. . Y_... ��.3-`L.a . 1 t. ----- Y / ' :P ?44-' - 3 r P' u i y ? . 11X-.{I!! --.a. _..W"3s G�Yf.:'. "°"� a I � ! t b i ' c �` * ^ s y+ ^i { e ms _ $ ro C ...4,,' F e 'ate i r y / ^+ ' t'' +fix.. T . CY P I. ' - Tthattley"...,::,444A 437 '' ( ) ,„,x ?iMS.v� fay C 11 'T•w.� • i t _'in rn 2 .,t . ..wYtb "-..• " 4 z_ Appliance- Page a of C Public Hearing Item 7 -C KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 (907) 486-9363 February 14, 2012 Public Hearing Item 7 -C PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 21, 2012. The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska, before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear comments if any, on the following request: CASE: 12 -030 APPLICANT: Old Harbor Native Corporation /City of Old Harbor AGENT: David Burns, Sage Technologies LLC REQUEST: A rezone, according to KIBC 17.205, to consider a zoning change from R1-Single- family Residential to I- Industrial for the Old Harbor Landfill Area as described by Plat 96 -33 and also by Quit Claim Deed recorded at Book 120, Pages 759 to 761, Kodiak Recording District. LOCATION: Generally located north of the Old Harbor Airport runway ZONING: RI- Single - family Residential This notice is being sent to you because our records indicate you are a property owner /interested party in the area of the request. If you do not wish to testify verbally, you may provide your comments in the space below or in a letter to the Community Development Department. Written comments must be received by 5 pm, March 6, 2012 to be considered by the commission. If you would like to fax your comments to us, our fax number is: (907) 486 -9396 or you may email them to ssmith(h kodiakak.us. If you would like to testify via telephone, please call in your comments during the appropriate public hearing section of the meeting. The local call -in telephone number is 486 -3231. One week prior to the regular meeting, on Wednesday, March 14, 2012, a work session will be held at 6:30 p.m. in the Kodiak Island Borough Conference Room ( #121), to review the packet material for the case. Kodiak Island Borough Code provides you with specific appeal rights if you disagree with the Commission's decision on this request. If you have any questions about the request or your appeal rights, please feel free to call us at 486 -9363. Your Name: Mailing Address: Your property description: Comments: Public Comment - Page 1 of 4 Public Hearing Item 7 -C Current Location Request a rezone, according to KIBC 17.205, to Generally located north of consider a zoning change from R1- Single- family Old Harbor Airport runway Residential to I- Industrial for the Old Harbor P & Z Case 12 -030 Landfill Area as described by Plat 96 -33 and also Old Harbor Native Corp./ by Quit Claim Deed recorded atBook 120, Pages City of Old Harbor 759 to 761, Kodiak Recording District. / , ‘ri Approximate Location i r ._ J � f• fi t v p R, r � S e, ter. / ...7----- 5 '' / � o i p 0 c - J / , �ttl n ir-Y — — Cm*. Kodiak Island Borough GIS N Feet \�' 0 oso z,too 4,zoo Legend t t t I i I I I t S This map was prepared from the Kodiak Island Borough's GIS System. It is provided for the purpose of showing the general location of a properly within the Kodiak Island Borough. This map does not represent a survey. More information about the mapping data can be obtained by contacting the Kodiak Island Borough IT Department at (907)486-9333. Public Comment - Page 2 of 4 Public Hearing Item 7 -C Old Harbor Native Corporation City of Old Harbor PO Box 71 PO Box 109 Old Harbor, AK 99643 Old Harbor, AK 99643 State of Alaska Dept. of Transportation & PF Planning Section PO Box 196900 Anchorage, AK 99519 -6900 Public Comment - Page 3 of 4 Public Hearing Item 7 -C J pri i_ :J n in r n��5 �� f' �_� Y � 7- i t 1 )/- � ! u Li ''J-3 ! f „__ L ((---±) 1 f: DI O r Public Comment - Page 4 of 4 Public Hearing Item 7 -C MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 2012 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Duane Dvorak, Associate Planner, KIB /CDD SUBJECT: Information for the March 21, 2012 Regular Meeting CASE: 12 -030 APPLICANT: Old Harbor Native Corporation/ City of Old Harbor AGENT: Dave Burns, Sage Technologies, LLC REQUEST: A rezone, according to KIBC 17.205.030.0 (Manner of Initiation), to consider a zoning change from R1- Single Family Residential to (- Industrial for the Old Harbor Landfill Area as described by Plat 96- 33 and also by Quit Claim Deed recorded at Book 120, Pages 759 to 761, Kodiak Recording District LOCATION: Old Harbor Landfill Area ZONING: R1- Single- family Residential Three (3) public hearing notices were mailed on February 14, 2012. Date of site visit: No Site Visit Conducted — Borough GIS Consulted 1. Zoning History: Zoned R1- Single- family Residential by KIB Ordinance No. 77 -15 -0. 2. Lot Size: Tract C 10 acres ( + / -) 3. Existing Land Use: Community Landfill 4. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Unsurveyed Land Use: Vacant Zoning: R1- Single- family Residential South: Unsurveyed Land Use: Vacant Zoning: R1- Single- family Residential Staff Report - Page 1 of 6 Public Hearing Item 7 -C East: Unsurveyed Land Use: Vacant Zoning: R1- Single- family Residential West: Unsurveyed Land Use: Vacant Zoning: R1- Single- family Residential 5. Comprehensive Plan: The 2008 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan Update identifies this area for Conservation use. 6. Applicable Regulations: The following sections of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Borough Code and the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program are applicable to this request: 17.10.020 REFERENCE AND USE. In accordance with Alaska Statutes, zoning decisions shall be based upon the recommendations contained in the comprehensive plan. 17.10.030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. For the purpose of this title, the Kodiak Island Borough comprehensive plan consists of the following documents: A. Kodiak Island Borough comprehensive plan update dated December 6, 2007, prepared by Cogan, Owens, Cogan and the Kodiak Island Borough; ... 17.205.030 MANNER OF INITIATION. Changes in this title may be initiated in the following manner: A. The assembly upon its own motion; B. The commission upon its own motion; and *C. By petition of one or more owners of property within an area proposed to be rezoned. A petition shall be in the form of an application for a change in the boundary of a district, shall be filed in the community development department, be accompanied by the required fee and such data and information as may be necessary to assure the fullest practicable presentation of facts and shall set forth reasons and justification for proposing such change. 17.205.055 SUBMISSION TO ASSEMBLY. A. Within 30 days after the commission has acted favorably upon a proposed zoning change in accordance with the above provisions, a report with recommendations shall be submitted to the assembly together with the proposed ordinance. Such recommendations of the commission shall be advisory only and shall not be binding upon the assembly. When an ordinance has been forwarded to the assembly, the assembly shall act in accordance with this chapter, and notice shall be issued as provided in KIBC 17.205.070 by the clerk. Staff Report - Page 2 of 6 Public Hearing Item 7 -C B. If the commission recommends denial of any proposed amendment, its action shall be final unless the initiating party, within 10 days, files a written statement with the clerk requesting that the commission's action be taken up by the assembly. COMMENTS This request was initiated . by Sage Technologies, LLC, with the approval of the apparent land owners the City of Old Harbor and the Old Harbor Native Corporation. Sage Technologies proposes to erect a microwave communication tower in the vicinity of the landfill site in order to connect the Old Harbor community with the kind of broadband communication services currently enjoyed on the Kodiak Road System, and more recently in Ouzinkie and Port Lions. In order to move forward with the project the Old Harbor Landfill needs to be rezoned from R1- Single- family Residential to (- Industrial. There are two parcels that describe the Old Harbor Landfill, a deed parcel created in 1993 and a plat that was created in 1996. The conveyance of land described in the 1993 deed from the Old Harbor Native Corporation to the City of Old Harbor is self - evident. The conveyance of land created by plat in 1996 is less clear in the record. Nevertheless, staff presumes that the later plat may more accurately depict the actual landfill area based on the field work and monumentation that a registered surveyor is typically required to provide with the preparation of a subdivision plat. Staff suggests that the rezone requested in this case be considered for both parcels in order to ensure the maximum area is considered for I- Industrial designation in order to provide for the ongoing landfill activities and for other related municipal activities such as the proposed microwave tower project that will connect the Old Harbor community more directly to the fiber -optic cable that now provides the bulk of broadband service to Kodiak Island. The original Old Harbor Landfill was permitted as a use in the R1- Single- family Residential zoning district in the early 1990's. Shortly after that approval the Exception procedure was removed from KIBC Title 17 when it was determined to be an illegal procedure under Alaska Statute. As part of the ordinance removing the Exception procedure from the KIBC, a related provision was inserted in the nonconformity chapter making all prior approved exceptions the same as a nonconforming (grandfathered) use. While this provision has preserved the landfill activities on the site over the years, it has not allowed for the expansion of related industrial uses or the development of other uses beneficial to the Old Harbor community at this location. Staff Report - Page 3 of 6 Public Hearing Item 7 -C CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The proposed rezone is conforming to both the 1989 Old Harbor Comprehensive Plan and the 2008 Kodiak Island Borough Regional Comprehensive Plan Update. The 2008 plan generally identifies all areas outside of the recognized Townsite subdivisions for Conservation use. Nevertheless, based on the weight of prior zoning decisions on behalf of the Old Harbor community and the goals and objectives in the plan it is clear that this broad brush designation is intended for fine tuning of the land use pattern on a local need basis. Both plans recognize this area for landfill and related activities. In addition, the 2008 plan specifically references the desire for outlying communities to have improved communications facilities similar to those serving the Kodiak Road System. The plan has several goals that talk about diversified economic development in the community. In addition, there were several goals and objectives that refer to improving the manner in which the borough interacts with the community on a range of issues, presumably including how the borough regulates land use and zoning. This rezoning process, therefore, is an opportunity to work with the community to create some beneficial two -way communication, both literally and figuratively. It should be noted that staff was unable to make a site visit in this case and therefore was not able to investigate this case as thoroughly as other cases here on the Kodiak Road System. The case is similar to the recent cases reviewed for the City of Ouzinkie however in that the selection of this site is appropriate for the microwave communication tower because of its higher elevation and close proximity to the community that the communications system will serve. The rezone of the Old Harbor Landfill will benefit the existing use by removing it from nonconforming status. Once the use is conforming in a more appropriate zoning district, the community can more easily expand the use of the site or entertain other beneficial uses for the site such as the current microwave tower proposal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission forward this rezone request to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly with a recommendation for approval. Staff Report - Page 4 of 6 Public Hearing Item 7 -C APPROPRIATE MOTION Should the Commission agree with the staff recommendation, the appropriate motion is: Move to recommend that the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly approve a rezone of the Old Harbor Landfill, described by Plat 96 -33 and also by Quit Claim Deed recorded at Book 120, Pages 759 to 761, Kodiak Recording District, from R1- Single Family Residential to I- Industrial, according to KIBC 17.205.030.0 (Manner of Initiation), subject to the findings contained in the staff report dated March 8, 2012 as "Findings of Fact" for this case. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 17.72.020 states that the Commission shall incorporate the following criteria into their report to the Assembly: 17.72.020 A. Findings as to the Need and Justification for a Change or Amendment. The land owners, City of Old Harbor and the Old Harbor Native Corporation, need this rezone in order to construct a microwave communication tower in the vicinity of the Old Harbor Landfill. The site is one of the few locations with sufficient elevation and close road accessible proximity to the community to be served. The rezone will also provide the benefit of making the existing landfill a conforming use and allow the community to expand the use or entertain other uses beneficial to the community at this location. 17.72.020 B. Findings as to the Effect a Change or Amendment would have on the Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates all areas outside of the Townsite as Conservation, however it is clear from past zoning decisions and community goals and objectives that the community desires improved access to broadband services, in addition to the continued function of the community landfill at this location. The plan also speaks to the need for economic diversity and economic opportunity in the Old Harbor community. At this time it is necessary to zone for the most intensive uses that might be required at a landfill site and to accommodate the related uses that might be required to support the landfill. At present the I- Industrial zone best meets this need. The plan also speaks to the need to maintain good two -way communication between the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Old Harbor. This need also applies to the related native corporations and tribal councils serving the community as well. The rezone will eliminate certain zoning nonconformities that have existed on the rezone site for many years and will encourage re- development that is consistent with both past use and planned future development. Staff Report - Page 5 of 6 Public Hearing Item 7 -C I r � � �_ �J r ,, , ,, t, bi Lcic. L, L ,_..L iLL 0 Li L. C -Dr--) ., [ L_ - %/ 7 c% irD -In i__iffft 8 [ r k Staff Report - Page 6 of 6 Officially Filed ORIGINAL DATE S4•.l 2 el 3 384•1• A ,r 1 EcFND ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT 6 `t 0 f (ANCSA) SECTION 14(e). TRACTS A AND B 653. 7 • ANCeA N(el 41 tin IA int li Cc E 1 2 On. teat 2..1. 2e .r.. Y V2 102) is wilt eau. cal. (P.C. 92 - 203, 85 6TAT, 688, 702. 7031 Q N ye E a ANC54 NIA •••04•••• 11•41.111 (Nan II I OLD HARBOR NATIVE CORPORATION \ Nun. re.h N 4.. 3/4 i• N.n...rn ... cep). e Ann. «ea /RenwwA, e. a..vle.a. AT OLD HARBOR. ALASKA W' I pt0 el in Nos 6 an, t •m.....N.r L. * 1 7 r4i ¢•4�.w•m. h \ rr. line 4) n 'Ha. 3/ i. 1 D •4E .. Y .• Y:rrr rrl IL r 4•44, Awl Sat, It ' �2Y E. Hn oiw...r ml;.r •• Ms M� W TRACT B g r a..rr�.m.rN .N. m•.rwwrr W w E fe e 6C • r �D� • 8 44 • •4 n • • w . n. •m la w. rwrx. . •. Nw•. x....•4..Y E. 3 yA 5. i••• in. ri ea. x^•nV2 Y % ti . u.� tI�.._:""...r:'e. i•.. r. - a , 4.4 •44.11 in n 4444 . Onint'"...x , N To. u . c Survey of Old Harbor Survey 4< e 7 2 N • y N9 09 -- - e9 y ��Vll i 3i > mt..99 . T " - 1 r.r. .- N as I 3 � .r 3 2 yY 7-0— -amp / �sN •,: e D `a ♦ TYPICAL SECONDARY +: IN 4�/ MONUMENT MARKINGS /coo 0 a IN • i 7 , E 2 p e 3A , 9611\ 4- �, S � I 0. �. % 9; ..4 °911 CFNTERLINE CURVE OATF • • C -I 235.00 181.50 • 21' N. 75 E. 177.39 • N F 0 -2 300.05 213.92 61. 17' N. Aron' E. 203.87 0-3 346.00 159.63 26 N. 23 E. 1E0.21. U.S. Survey No. 4793 5 6.^�p C -4 356.00 196.34 31 N. 3 •. 1983.96 Tract E no 0 roo 1o: NA -- _ _ 01. 01 tens .,b eLn> - g3 After recording please return to: 0120 759 JAMIN, EBELL, BOLGER 6 GENTRY 323 Carolyn Street Kodiak, AK 99615 PTITCLATM ORER THE GRANTOR, Old Harbor Native Corporation, of P.O. Box 71, Old Harbor, Alaska 99643, for partial satisfaction of its obligation under Section 14(c)(3) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby CONVEYS and QUITCLAIMS to Grantee, the City of Old Harbor, P.O. Box 109, Old Harbor, Alaska 99643, an Alaska municipal corporation, all of its right, title, interest, estate and claim in and to the surface estate of that certain real property located in the State of Alaska and more particularly described as follows: Area of Conside rat an to p ACCESS ROAD EASEMENT DESCRIPTION Rezone from R1 - SinCle A 40 -foot wide access road easement over a Family Residential to portion of Sections 20 and 21, T 34 S, R 25 W, Seward Meridian, Alaska, as depicted on I - Industrial Exhibit A, attached. P &Z Case 12 - 030, SANITARY LANDFILL SITE DESCRIPTION A 10 -12 acre parcel within the northeast h of Section 16, T 34 S, R 25 M, Seward Meridian, Alaska, as depicted on Exhibit A, attached. The total amount of land conveyed by this deed does not exceed 12 acres. DATED this Sday of June, 1993. OLD HARBOR NATIVE CORPORATION By: A E IL CHRISTIANSEN, President • • • • STATE OF ALASKA ^\ ) • JUDICIAL DISTRICT IS I as. THIRD 0120 76 . THIS WI me, the Alaska, dud TO CERTIFY that on the a l-�lt day of sane 199 o individ hrie Christiansen, to me sworn, Notary and Public i, document d described known a1, Pena for the S t before Wsent bad i d know sonall Sate Alaska ae President n and who n to me y aPPeare of end pforlandt of old Harbor of cknowledg Harbor to Native me th within andefo r no dal Native a n d by authority off its Board oard ' Di ati n hal � e el9ned the amn j last above GIVEN ONDE 1 a HAN and of Director: a forand the and j N UN HAND and official seal the day and year Notary public in and r My ComMiasion E xpires : r_ / y Deke 3765116D. 004 • ,y, �Kurf' °: ( • r6 • 1 ,� QUITCLAIM DEED • In1111111 -2- I , Area considered for Rezoning from R1- Single Family Residential to I (P&Z Case 12-030) 1 --] 0120 761 . i ........ KODIAK RES „ ..1''.* 1 .. ..-.....-• 1 1 DI STR I07." - It: • •:„ 1: ,_ , - 1 REQUESTED 8Y - -.. • ' r , t i . \ i o7pm,.., E.,69.44S 44 • 1 . a 1 I i J 13 a ra 1 Pa 3 ES 1 s I . . . I 1 , • • % 9 •••• " s • 4%,•.0' :4% , , ir . it a raii• .. I -1 t ""W —.. • ... 'P - ....e.e ^ - ... Av p-4 ,,, . " t_1(1/4-ai4t-'eP., -..e 11 ..-t '4- - S, -%:_-.4••••• iiiit - - it- ,:: Atl4 ' -• . i u ta.4% • ••,- t . ...1 - _ . .. . iv 0 -.. 5 ',,, 45. k ‘ ..le : , "I 1...• •'" , ....• I -I, . - 4•■.. • , - S. 0 f .S1. • ' "'"C" ) „la 4 7 1 1 , • • . .. - .• 1. 1 : 4 . ,41 air - - - , :,■ "" •-:".. a :Alb - 04 1, ' % " silt. _ ......, " 1 .--4...: 4 J • .10,4Cr. ..! ' - :-VA2 1 1 K. .,..- f, •z4 ‘- ... wit i -, , ,i. • rt: 4war,...„. — at * ,n , ... • . a•-,....a w.- ) -", s' 4Z.-.. : • .•: • . , 4t. ' 4 ".• ' - 1 A A ' -.. • s .4.6I•-• ..-.',.... . ..;&.• r. '' - "Its-. • • ,.. -b , ' • ,, on NcVng,, ' , , ele ' )e . ,%, 1 p *Cie - ni:4Pkt4 • ' 40 . - . a .., - / 6 s 11.4 i... a • ti, , is . ,o- NI ---,_.%-. :s o., N.„ - _ • 1. ?Pr ' r V‘ IV. IC ar ik t ,` . AP` ..... '••• ,..6 "114 n-c -.....:= . r. •c. i, . ,, 11' ,- Ps., ' .<til i ',-"r411.• 1 . .. 0K.• „ilk • '.i tit, -g. :••• I- I CV" i t• ;1 't ••4 IP t T7 , ir, , ....... M 4 .,,, ' IA ' 1 - ''"'"/ 1 +11/4- ..e -•(' ' - ... • asP, c 144 -,7,. 1, • Pc ing! a ttreu - - -- -4?: to ,.. . 0 4? I -.942 •- .2 nit Vi „ - ..5.3 extuarr A i , 4. . "; AS 1 •010, Ai . •••• :.%., 1 r% .4%:. -... I b t 7. .:- , s,1 , - V. .jrzitt>til 4;Ps•-■1;3:,- 4 . --- 0 'tv j .6„ -% , A _ 1 I g.e 'Tr r.. ncit '4AA ... ' ; ‘ A. 2, • --- KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH c-LtItnit 37 7 7., AGENDA STATEMENT ems+ REGULAR MEETING OF: MAY 3, 2012 ITEM NO.: 9.B TITLE: Ordinance No. FY2012 -20 Amending Title 3 Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.35 Real Property Tax By Adding Section 3.35.085 Method of Determining the Assessed Value of Property That Qualifies for a Low Income Housing Tax Credit Under 26 USC 42. ORIGINATOR: Borough Assessor FISCAL IMPACT: ❑ Yes $ or ❑ No Funds Available ❑ Yes ❑ No Account Number: Amount Budgeted: ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. FY2012 -20 APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: " SUMMARY STATEMENT: The property located at 2610 Mill Bay Road, known as the Fir Terrace Apartments, have requested, in accordance with AS 29.45.110(d), that the Kodiak Island Borough exempt their property from the full and true valuation requirement of AS 29.45.110(a) and assess their property based on actual rents. The assessor finds that this property does qualify as a LIHTC property under 26 CFR 42 and the qualification date is after January 1, 2001. To make a decision on whether to honor their request or not, according to the State Assessor, the borough must first adopt an ordinance to review such requests on a parcel by parcel basis. The ordinance before you is a substituted version which was also provided to the public. It reflects changes as suggested by the Borough Attorney. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Ordinance No. FY2012 -20. Kodiak Island Borough Page 1 of 1 Introduced by: Borough Manager Requested by: Borough Assessor 1 SUBSTITUTED Drafted by: Borough Assessor 2 Introduced: 04/19/2012 VERSION Public Hearing: 05/03/2012 3 Adopted: 4 5 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 6 ORDINANCE NO. FY2012 -20 7 8 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 9 AMENDING TITLE 3 REVENUE AND FINANCE, CHAPTER 3.35 REAL PROPERTY 10 TAX BY ADDING SECTION 3.35.085 METHOD OF DETERMINING 1 I THE ASSESSED VALUE OF PROPERTY THAT QUALIFIES 12 FOR A LOW - INCOME HOUSING UNDER 26 USC 42 13 14 WHEREAS, according to Alaska Statute 29.45.110(d), the Kodiak Island Borough 15 Assessor is required to value low- income housing tax credit projects existing as of January 16 1, 2001, the effective date of the legislation, based on the actual income derived from the 17 property, which can result in a value that is less than the full and true value required by 18 Alaska Statute 29.45.110(a); and 19 20 WHEREAS, these projects must be qualified and recognized under the United States 21 Tax Code 26 USC. 42; and 22 23 WHEREAS, AS 29.45.110(d) requires the borough assembly to determine by ordinance 24 whether the projects that qualify on or after January 1, 2001, shall be assessed based on 25 the actual income which is from restricted rents versus market rents; and 26 27 WHEREAS, to date there are no low- income housing projects in the Kodiak Island 28 Borough receiving the benefit of the restricted rent income approach to value; and 29 30 WHEREAS, Fir Terrace Apartments located at 2610 Mill Bay Road, containing sixty (60) 31 units total has applied for consideration under AS 29.45.110(d)(2); and 32 33 WHEREAS, in accordance with AS 29.45.110(d)(2), the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly 34 finds that properties that first qualify for the low- income housing tax credit exemption after 35 January 1 , 2001 may be exempt from • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :••:• _ _ _ AS 36 29.45.110(a)(d)(1) method of assessment and may be assessed bacod on tho actual 37 - - 38 using the full and true value requirement under AS 29.45.110(a) or 39 may be assessed based on the actual income derived from the property without 40 adjustment based on the amount of any federal income tax credit. The assembly 41 shall determine on a parcel by parcel basis whether such property shall be valued at its full 42 and true value or based on its restricted rents. 43 44 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND 45 BOROUGH THAT: 46 47 Section 1: This ordinance is of a general and permanent nature and shall become a 48 part of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances; Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance No. FY2012 -20 Page 1 of 2 49 50 Section 2: That Kodiak Island Borough Code Title 3 Revenue and Finance, Chapter 51 3.35 Real Property Tax is hereby amended by adding Section 3.35.085 to 52 read as follows: 53 54 3.35.085. Method of determining the assessed value of property that qualifies 55 for a low- income housing tax credit under 26 USC 42. 56 A. In accordance with AS 29.45.110(d) (1), the full and true value of all property 57 within the Kodiak Island Borough that first qualifies for low- income housing tax 58 credit under 26 USC 42 before January 1, 2001, shall be based on the actual 59 income derived from the property and may not be adjusted based on the 60 amount of any federal income tax credit for the property. 61 62 B. Pursuant to AS 29.45.110(d)(2), the full and true value of all property within the 63 Kodiak Island Borough that first qualifies for a low- income housing credit under 64 26 USC 42 on or after January 1, 2001, shall be exempt from the requirement 65 that the value be based on the actual income derived from the property. For 66 property that first qualifies for a low- income housing credit under 26 USC 42 on 67 or after January 1, 2001, the assembly may determine, by parcel, whether the 68 property shall be assessed based on AS 29.45.110(a) or on the basis of actual 69 income derived from the property without adjustment based on the amount of 70 any federal income tax credit given for the property. Once the manner of 71 assessment of the property has been determined under this subparagraph, the 72 assembly may not change the manner of assessment of that parcel of property 73 if debt relating to the property incurred in conjunction with the property 74 qualifying for the low- income housing tax credit remains outstanding. 75 76 C. To secure an assessment based upon the actual income derived from the 77 property under this section, an owner of property that qualifies for the low - 78 income housing tax credit under 26 USC 42 shall apply to the assessor before 79 May 15 of each year in which the assessment is desired. The property owner 80 shall submit an application on forms prescribed by the assessor and shall 81 include information that may reasonably be required by the assessor to 82 determine the entitlement of the applicant and to assess the property under this 83 subsection. All such applications shall be forwarded to the assembly for 84 determination, by resolution, for a determination of the manner of assessment. 85 86 ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 87 THIS DAY OF 2012 88 89 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 90 91 92 Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor 93 94 ATTEST: 95 96 97 Nova M. Javier, MMC, Borough Clerk Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance No. FY2012 -20 Page 2 of 2 x:• °t' KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH AGENDA STATEMENT REGULAR MEETING OF: MAY 3, 2012 ITEM NO.: 13.A.1 TITLE: Contract No. FY2012 -18 Auditing Services for Kodiak Island Borough and Kodiak Island Borough School District for Fiscal Years 2013 -2015. ORIGINATOR: Finance Director FISCAL IMPACT: ❑ Yes $ or ❑ No Funds Available ❑ Yes ❑ No Account Number: Amount Budgeted: ATTACHMENTS: None. Evaluations will be distributed to the Assembly at the April 26, 2012 work session. APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Kodiak Island Borough issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the FY2013 -2015 audits. RFP's were due March 30, 2012. Finance Director Karl Short, General Accountant Dria Holloway, KIBSD Director of Finance Luke Fulp, and KIBSD Accountant Cassee Olin reviewed and evaluation the three proposals that were submitted. Per KIBC 3.16.110 Competitive sealed proposals— negotiated procurement. D. Proposals shall be received at the time and place designated in the request for proposals and shall be opened so as to avoid disclosing their contents to competing proponents during the process of negotiation. Proposals and tabulations thereof shall be open to public inspection only after the contract award. Copies of the evaluation will be distributed to the Assembly at the April 26, 2012 work session. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the manager to execute Contract No. FY2012 -18 with for auditing services for the Kodiak Island Borough and Kodiak Island Borough School District for Fiscal Years 2013 -2015. Kodiak Island Borough Page 1 of 1 2, P KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH t5'St " : j'�, y r "' AGENDA STATEMENT REGULAR MEETING OF: MAY 3, 2012 ITEM NO.: 13.A4 TITLE: Contract No. FY2012 -18 Auditing Services for Kodiak Island Borough - d Kodiak Island Borough School District for Fiscal Years 2013 -2015. ORIGINATOR: Finance Director FISCAL IMPACT: ❑ Yes $ or ❑ No Funds Available ❑ Yes ❑ No Account Number: oo Amount Budgeted: ATTACHMENTS: V1.A K`^ • APPROVAL FOR AGENDA SUMMARY 61° The Kodiak Island Borough issued an RFP for the FY2013 -2015 audits. RFP's were due March 30' 2012. Karleton Short, Borough Finance Director; Dria Holloway, Borough General Agcountant; Luke Fulp, KIBSD Director of Finance; and Cassee Olin, KIBSD Accountant, reviewed and evaluated the three proposals that were submitted. Per KIBC 3.16.110 Competitive sealed proposals— negotiated procurement. D. Proposals shall be received at the time and place designated in the request for proposals and shall be opened so as to avoid disclosing their contents to competing proponents during the process of negotiation. Proposals and tabulations thereof shall be open to public inspection only after the contract award. Copies of the evaluation will be distributed to the Assembly at the April 26, 2012 work session. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the manager to execute Contract No. FY2012 -18 with for auditing services for the Kodiak Island Borough and Kodiak Island Borough School District for Fiscal Years 2013 -2015. Kodiak Island Borough Page 1 of 1 ° KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH AGENDA STATEMENT REGULAR MEETING OF: MAY 3, 2012 ITEM NO.: 13.B.1 TITLE: Resolution No. FY2012 -29 Authorizing the Assessor to Assess the Fir Terrace Low - Income Housing Tax Credit (LITHC) Project Based on Restricted Rents. ORIGINATOR: Borough Assessor FISCAL IMPACT: ® Yes $16,450.73 or ❑ No Funds Available ❑ Yes ❑ No Account Number: Amount Budgeted: ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. FY2012 -29 APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: L SUMMARY STATEMENT: This will be for your consideration in the adoption of Ordinance No. FY2012 -20. The property owners of Fir Terrace Apartments located at 2610 Mill Bay Road have made a request to be exempt from AS 29.45.110(a) which requires the assessor to assess properties at their full and true value. In accordance with AS 29.45.110(d) properties that are low income housing credit (LIHTC) properties under 26 CFR 42 are to be exempt from full and true valuation and valued on their actual rents without consideration of the tax credit benefit. If the property qualifies as a LIHTC property after January 1, 2001, which is the case for the Fir Terrace Apartments, the assembly may pass an ordinance stating that they will determine on a parcel by parcel basis whether to allow this exemption. KIB Code 3.35.085 gives the Assembly this authority. The motion before you is a positive motion. If you PASS this resolution, the property will be valued based on its actual income without any consideration given to the value of the tax credit benefits. If you FAIL this resolution, Fir Terrace Apartments will be assessed at its full and true value. The difference in assessed value, if the ordinance passes, is a negative $1,530,300, which at a mill rate of 10.75 equates to $16,450.73 in taxes. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. FY2012 -29. Kodiak Island Borough Page 1 of 1 _ i *t. lf/ Assessing Department a i r 1p Kodiak Island Borough Memo To: Rick Gifford, Borough Manager From: Bill Roberts, Borough Assessor Date: 05/02/2012 Re: Staff Recommendations on LIHTC Resolution Rick, The following information is forwarded as the Staff Recommendations on the Resolution concerning the Fir Terrace Low Income Housing Resolution. Passing the resolution will give the Fir Terrace Apartments owners, APD Housing Partners 18 LP a tax break based on AS 29.45.110(d). Passing the resolution will mandate that the assessor value the property based on actual rents without consideration to the tax credits that the owner receive from the federal government. This would reduce the assessment from $3,576,800 to $2,046,500. Staff recommendation is to fail the resolution for the following reasons. 1. The property generates up to $600,000 in tax credits. Tax credits used for a direct pay down of the actual taxes owed by those that purchase these credits from the property owners. That is, it is not a credit against the total taxable income but rather a direct credit for the final amount of taxes owed. 2. The property not only enjoys the benefits of tax credits, but is financed with better than market mortgage rates. The mortgage rate set by the US Department of Agriculture Rural Development for the purchase of the property is at 1% for a term of 50 years as opposed to more typical financing at 5 -7% for a 30 year term. Also, the loan for the remodel and refurbishment of the buildings through Alaska Housing Finance Corporation is subsidized by the federal government at a 0% loan for 30 years. 3. There are already about 225 units on Kodiak Island that are owned by Alaska Housing and Kodiak Island Housing that are low income rentals and pay no taxes and very little if any payment in lieu of taxes. The purpose of the LIHTC program is to promote more low income housing development, but in staffs opinion there is a definite need for rentals within the Kodiak Island Borough, it is not solely low income rentals that are needed. • Page 1 1 Introduced by: Borough Manager 2 Requested by: Borough Assessor 3 Drafted by: Borough Assessor Introduced on: 05/03/2012 4 Adopted on: 5 6 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 7 RESOLUTION NO. FY2012 -29 8 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY AUTHORIZING 10 THE ASSESSOR TO ASSESS THE FIR TERRACE LOW - INCOME HOUSING TAX 11 CREDIT (LIHTC) PROJECT BASED ON RESTRICTED RENTS 12 13 WHEREAS, AS 29.45.110(d), requires the borough assembly to determine by ordinance, 14 whether the projects that qualify after January 1, 2001, shall be assessed based on actual 15 income from restricted rents derived from the property; and 16 17 WHEREAS, if the assembly determines that such property is exempt from the 18 requirement that the assessment be based on restricted rents, it can by parcel authorize 19 the Borough Assessor to assess the projects at either full and true value or based on 20 actual income derived from the property; and 21 22 WHEREAS, the assembly passed Ordinance No. FY2012 -20 on May 3, 2012 stating that 23 all such applications shall be forwarded to the assembly by resolution for a determination 24 of the assessment manner; and 25 26 WHEREAS, the owner of the Fir Terrace Apartments has applied for assembly 27 consideration on the method of valuation; and 28 29 WHEREAS, the owner has filed a timely application by May 15, 2012 with the Assessor 30 and the project has been verified by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to be a low - 31 income housing tax credit project under 26 U.S.C. 42 qualifying after January 1, 2001; and 32 33 WHEREAS, following are the values that would be attributed to the property using the 34 two different value techniques: 35 36 2012 FULL AND TRUE VALUE 2012 RESTRICTED RENT VALUE 37 38 $3,576,800 $2,046,500 39 40 WHEREAS, that in accordance with AS 29.45.110(d), the Kodiak Island Borough 41 Assembly finds that valuing this project based on the actual income derived from the 42 property best serves the interests of the borough by potentially increasing the affordability 43 and availability of low income housing. 44 45 46 Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2012 -29 Page 1 of 2 47 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK 48 ISLAND BOROUGH THAT 49 50 Section 1: The assembly authorizes the assessor to value the Fir Terrace Apartments 51 based on the actual income derived from the property without adjustment based on the 52 amount of any federal income tax credit given the property. 53 54 Section 2: This resolution takes effect immediately upon it enactment. 55 56 ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 57 THIS DAY OF 2012 58 59 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 60 61 62 63 ATTEST: Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor 64 65 66 67 Nova M. Javier, MMC, Borough Clerk Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2012 -29 Page 2 of 2 ° ° , c. , KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH t,' s ti r, " AGENDA STATEMENT a REGULAR MEETING OF: MAY 3, 2012 ITEM NO.: 13.B.2 TITLE: Resolution No. FY2012 -27 Approving a Contract Extension Agreement to Extend the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the Kodiak Island Borough and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1547 and Adjusting the Salary Schedule and the COLA as Agreed to In This Contract to Both Union and Non -Union Employees. ORIGINATOR: Finance Director FISCAL IMPACT: Z Yes $ or ❑ No Funds Available ❑ Yes ❑ No Account Number: Amount Budgeted: ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. FY2012 -27; Contract No. FY2009 -11B Contract Extension Agreement APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: SUMMARY STATEMENT: During the month of April 2012, Kodiak Island Borough management team consisting of Borough Manager Rick Gifford, Finance Director Karl Short, and Grant Writer /Special Projects Support Meagan Christansen met with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1547 negotiating team consisting of IBEW Local 1547 Business Representative Debra Blanchard, Shop Stewards Bill Bissett and Jeff Johnson, and Payroll Accounting Technician Marilyn Ordal to discuss the terms of the IBEW contract which expired December 31, 2011. The union members ratified the contract extension on April 13, 2012. The old contract remains the governing contract until all parties have approved and signed the contract extension. In addition to extending the term of the original contract from December 31, 2011 to December 31, 2013, the agreement reflects a three percent (3 %) cost of living allowance (COLA) for employees, effective January 1, 2012 and, effective January 1, 2013, an adjustment of the salary schedule by an increase of 85% of the Anchorage CPI -U, as measured from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012. This resolution will apply to both union and non -union employees RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. FY2012 -27. Kodiak Island Borough Page 1 of 1 1 Introduced by: Borough Manager 2 Requested by: Borough Manager 3 Drafted by: Finance Director 4 Introduced on: 05/03/2012 Adopted on: 5 6 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 7 RESOLUTION NO. FY 2012 -27 8 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY 10 APPROVING A CONTRACT EXTENSION AGREEMENT TO EXTEND THE COLLECTIVE 11 BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH AND THE 12 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 1547 AND 13 ADJUSTING THE SALARY SCHEDULE AND THE COLA AS AGREED TO IN THIS 14 CONTRACT TO BOTH UNION AND NON -UNION EMPLOYEES. 15 16 WHEREAS, the current Collective Bargaining Agreement between KIB and IBEW expired 17 at midnight on December 31, 2011; and 18 19 WHEREAS, the parties wish to extend their current Collective Bargaining Agreement for a 20 period of two (2) years. 21 22 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND 23 BOROUGH, BASED ON THE MUTUAL PROMISES AND COVENANTS CONTAINED 24 HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 25 26 1. KIB and IBEW agree that the terms and conditions of the current CBA between the 27 parties effective January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011 shall continue in full force 28 and effect from January 1, 2012 until and through December 31, 2013, except where 29 modified, added to or changed by this Contract Extension Agreement. 30 2. Adjustment to Salary Schedule: 31 a. Effective January 1, 2012, Kodiak Island Borough shall adjust the salary schedule 32 in Appendix A (1 -1 -11) by an increase of three percent (3.0 %). The specific wage 33 rates that are the product of this adjustment are identified in "Appendix A (1- 1 -12)" 34 attached hereto and made a part hereof. 35 b. Effective January 1, 2013, Kodiak Island Borough shall adjust the salary schedule 36 in Appendix A (1 -1 -12) by an increase of 85% of the Anchorage CPI -U as 37 measured from 7 -1 -11 to 6- 30 -12. The specific wage rates that are the product of 38 this adjustment shall be identified in "Appendix A (1 -1 -13) to be attached hereto 39 and made a part hereof. 40 41 3. This adjustment to the Salary Schedule will also apply to non — union employees. 42 43 4. This resolution shall be effective immediately. Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2012 -27 Page 1 of 2 44 ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 45 THIS DAY OF 2012 46 47 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 48 49 50 51 ATTEST: Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor 52 53 54 55 Nova M. Javier, MMC, Borough Clerk Kodiak Island Borough Resolution No. FY2012 -27 Page 2 of 2 Contract No. FY2009 -B CONTRACT EXTENSION AGREEMENT Between Kodiak Island Borough, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1547 This Agreement is made by and betweenr Island Borough (hereinafter referred to as "KIB ") and the InternationalBrotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1547 (hereinafter referred togs "IBEW") representing KIB employees covered by the IBEW /KIB Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "CBA "). 417 rh o- WHEREAS, the current Collective "Bargaining \Agreement `between KIB and IBEW expired at midnight on December 31 201 WHEREAS, the parties wishkto extend their,current Collective Bargaining Agreement for a period of two (2)�years" r NOW, THEREFORE, based #'on themutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: <el //).) AGREEMENT ttS 11 1. KIB and IBEW ogre - that1the, t and conditions of the current CBA betw the par Ja 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011 all , ll cont� � in fuINforce and effect from January 1, 2012 until and $through December 31,;;2Q13, except where modified, added to or changed d ^by ContractExtension`�Agreement. 2. Adjustment to Salary Schedule A. Effecti 'Ja nuary 1, 2012, Kodiak Island Borough shall adjust the salary schedule in Appendix A (1 -1 -11) by an increase of three percent (3.0 %). The specific wage rates that are the product of this adjustment are identified in "Appendix A (1- 1 -12)" attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. Effective January 1, 2013, Kodiak Island Borough shall adjust the salary schedule in Appendix A (1 -1 -12) by an increase of 85% of the Anchorage CPI -U as measured from 7 -1 -11 to 6- 30 -12. The specific wage rates that are the product of this adjustment shall be identified in "Appendix A (1 -1 -13) to be attached hereto and made a part hereof. Contract No. FY2009 -B EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement is Executed by the duty authorized agents and representatives of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEROF, the parties hereto have set their hands for and on behalf of the parties. KODIAK ISLAND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD BOROUGH OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, Kodiak, Alaska LOCALUNION 1547 AnciorageAlaska / s>,�� iii ‘ <Hre 4 Rick Gifford, , M ike'Hodsdon, ay. Borough Manager i wBusiness Manager ti ty{ iii & y ilr t Date: r ' „ Date ii / p r y a / 'S a °tom'". y ryA to d „ " 4 '14 53 T. ,; ,t,. ,ek,, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH fi." % ° \' AGENDA STATEMENT • REGULAR MEETING OF: MAY 3, 2012 ITEM NO.: 13.8.2 TITLE: Resolution No. Y2012 -27 ,`.• proving an _extension of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Be een th - odiak s - d Bo h and the International Brotherhood of = ectrica Wo s •cal 15 • d adju ting th LA an "alary phedule as agre• • to i, this c• tract for union aria non on emp es. • % i, j � . ORIGINATOR: Finance Director FISCAL IMPACT: ❑ Yes $ or ❑ No Funds Available ❑ Yes ❑ No Account Number: Amount Budgeted: ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. FY2012 -27; Contract No. FY2009 -11B Contract Extension Agreement APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: d_ / SUMMARY STATEMENT: During the month of April 2012, Kodiak Island Borough management team consisting of Borough Manager Rick Gifford, Finance Director Karl Short, and Grant Writer /Special Projects Support Meagan Christansen met with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1547 negotiating team consisting of IBEW Local 1547 Business Representative Debra Blanchard, Shop Stewards Bill Bissett and Jeff Johnson, and Payroll Accounting Technician Marilyn Ordal to discuss the terms of the IBEW contract which expired December 31, 2011. The union members ratified the contract extension on April 13, 2012. The old contract remains the governing contract until all parties have approved and signed the contract extension. In addition to extending the term of the original contract from December 31, 2011 to December 31, 2013, the agreement reflects a three percent (3 %) cost of living allowance (COLA) for employees, effective January 1, 2012 and, effective January 1, 2013, an adjustment of the salary schedule by an increase of 85% of the Anchorage CPI -U, as measured from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012. This resolution will apply to both union and non -union employe , RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. FY2012 -27. Kodiak Island Borough Page 1 of 1 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH > fr e7 AGENDA STATEMENT REGULAR MEETING OF: MAY 3, 2012 ITEM NO.: 13.C.1 TITLE: Ordinance No. FY2012 -16 Amending Various Code Sections in Title 7 Elections. ORIGINATOR: Borough Clerk FISCAL IMPACT: ❑ Yes $ or ® No Funds Available ❑ Yes ❑ No Account Number: Amount Budgeted: ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. FY2012 -16, description of amendments, the pertinent information such as Supreme Court Decisions and Enactment of the State Legislature APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: S . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This ordinance would change all references of the word "Special Needs" to "Personal Representative" in the Election code. It would allow those running for candidacy who cannot obtain notary services to have a postmaster attest their statement of candidacy and it would also allow candidates to submit their declaration of candidacy by electronic submission. This ordinance clarifies that hand counting of ballots would only pertain to precincts where the optical scans or other computer -read or electronic ballot counting equipment are not used, or in elections where write -in votes should be tallied. This ordinance institutes a requirement to file a declaration of candidacy for those who wish to run a write -in campaign. This amendment would incorporate language in the borough code in order to solidify the process in allowing minor variations in the spelling of write -in candidate names to be counted for a candidate. This ordinance would eliminate the unnecessary process of counting write -in votes on election night and it would clarify the role of the receiving team. The effective date of this ordinance will be upon notification from the U. S. Department of Justice of non - objection to the Preclearance Request in accordance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This ordinance is in the process of being reviewed by the Attorney. Results will be shared with the Assembly and any changes will be given to the Assembly in a form of a corrected version or a substituted version of the Ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Ordinance No. FY2012 -16 in first reading to advance to public hearing at the next meeting of the Assembly. } Kodiak Island Borough Page 1 of 1 ' 1 2 Introduced by: Borough Clerk CORRECTED VERSION Requested by: Borough Clerk 3 Drafted by: Borough Clerk 4 Introduced: 05/01/2012 5 Public Hearing: 6 Adopted: 7 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 8 ORDINANCE NO. FY2012 -16 9 10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 11 AMENDING VARIOUS CODE SECTIONS 12 IN TITLE 7 ELECTIONS � \\ 13 \ \\ 14 WHEREAS, Section 2 of this ordinance would change all references of the e word "Special 15 Needs" to "Personal Representative" in this title; and 16 17 WHEREAS, Section 3 of this ordinance would, allow those running for candidacy who 18 cannot obtain notary services to have a postmast , attest , their statement of c and 19 this section would also allow candidates to submit their declaration of candidacy by electronic 20 submission; and 21 22 WHEREAS, Section 4 of this ordinance\clarif es that hand counting of ballots would only 23 pertain to precincts where the optical scans or/other computer -read or electronic ballot 24 e counting equipment are not used, or in elect ons wh re ■wriin votes should be tallied; and 25 \\C, 26 WHEREAS, Section 5 of this ordinance institutes a requirement to file a declaration of 27 candidacy for those wh \wish to a write-in campaign and this amendment would 28 incorporate the language in the'boroughcode_in -order to solidify the process in allowing minor 29 variations in'the.spelling of write in candidate -n mes to be counted for a candidate; and 30 // \\ \ \ \`� 31 WHEREAS, Section6\would eliminate the unnecessary process of counting write -in votes 32 the nightiof the election and would clarify the role of the receiving team; and 33 34 WHEREAS, Section 7 provides for the effective date of this ordinance which would be upon . 35 notification from \ theU.S`Department of Justice of non - objection to the Preclearance 36 Request in accorda with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 37 38 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND 39 BOROUGH THAT: 40 41 Section 1: This ordinance is of a general and permanent nature and shall become a part 42 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances; 43 44 Section 2: 45 All references to "Special Needs" are 46 changed to "Personal Representatives" throughout Title 7. Words are Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance No. FY2012 -16 Page 1 of 4 47 replaced three times in KIBC 7.40.010, eight times in KIBC 7.50.040, and 48 once in KIBC 7.70.030A. 49 50 Section 3: • Title 7 Elections, Chapter 7.20 Qualifications of Voters and Candidates, 51 Section 7.20.030 Declaration of Candidacy is hereby amended as follows: 52 53 7.20.030 Declaration of candidacy. 54 A. At least 75 days before each regular election, the clerk shall publish in one or more 55 newspapers of general circulation in the borough a notice of offices to be filled at the 56 election and the procedure for filing a declaration of candidacy. r \, \ 57 B. Packets containing declarations of candidacy shall be available clerk's office no 58 later than the day the filing period opens. Declarations of candidacy shall be submitted in 59 original form and shall - not may be submitted electronically, provided that the original is t. J 60 received by the clerk before the close of the filing period. 61 C. A declaration of candidacy shall be in a form p ovided, y the clerk shall state the 62 following: 63 1. The full name of the candidate, and the manner in�which the candidate - wishes the 64 candidate's name to appear on the ballot; \\ ,4, 65 2. The full residence and mailing addresses of the 66 3. The office for which the candidate declares; \ \ 67 4. That the candidate is qualified for the office as provided by law; 68 5. The date and notarized statement-of the candidateNlf .a notary public is not 69 available, a postmaster may atte sta instead of a notary; 70 6. The candidate shall certify information coritained - in } e d t eclaration of candidacy is true 71 and accurate; /7 \.-/K 1 72 7. Any other information that the clerk reasonably requires to determine whether the 73 candidate is qualified for the' office as pro ided by law; and 74 8. The declaration of must be signed by 10 qualified voters of the borough. 76 D. Filing'for elective,offices shall be made by filing a declaration of candidacy with the clerk 77 from /August 1 through \August \15,4:30 p.m. Should August 15 fall on a Saturday or 78 Sunday andidates sheik have until 4:30 p.m. on the first Monday following to file their 79 declaration. 1 er 80 E. Declarat of candidac may be filed with the clerk by electronic transmission and 81 the original signed and / notarized statement must be delivered to the clerk by the close 82 of the filing periodtilf.the original is not received by the clerk at the close of the filing 83 period, the candidate`'s name shall not appear on the ballot. 84 F. Within four business days after filing a declaration of candidacy, the clerk shall notify the 85 candidate as to whether it is in proper form. If not, the clerk shall immediately return the 86 declaration of candidacy to the candidate with a statement certifying how the nominating 87 petition is deficient. 88 89 Section 4: Title 7 Elections, Chapter 7.30 Procedure of Conduct of Elections, Section 90 7.30.120 Rules for counting ballots is hereby amended as follows: 91 92 7.30.120 Rules for counting ballots. Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance No. FY2012 -16 Page 2 of 4 93 A. The election board shall - - . • - - - - - - - - - -: _ • .•e . e.: perform a hand 94 count for ballots in precincts where the optical scan and or other computer -read or 95 electronic ballot counting equipment are not used, or in elections where write -in 96 votes shall be tallied in accordance with Sections 7.30.110 and 7.30.125 of this 97 chapter. 98 1. A voter may mark a ballot only by filling in, making "X" marks, diagonal, horizontal, or 99 vertical marks, solid marks, stars, circles, asterisks, checks, or plus signs that are 100 clearly spaced in the oval opposite the name of the candidate, proposition, or question 101 that the voter desires to designate. 102 2. A failure to properly mark a ballot as to one or more candidates does not itself 103 invalidate the entire ballot. 104 3. If a voter marks fewer names than there are persons to -be elected to the office, a vote 105 shall be counted for each candidate properly marked( \ 106 4. If a voter marks more names than there are persons to be elected to the office, the 107 votes for candidates for that office may not b > u 108 5. The mark specified in subsection (A)(1) of'this section shall be counted ted only if it is 109 substantially inside the oval provided, or,touching the oval so as to indicafe>dearly that 110 the voter intended the particular oval to be des gnated. !1%f 111 6. Improper marks on the ballot may not be coun an do not invalidate marks for 112 candidates properly made. \\ 113 7. An erasure or correction invalidates that section of the ballot in which it appears. 114 8. Write -in votes are not invalidated \ by \ writ ni g -in the name of a candidate whose name is 115 printed on the ballot unless the election board - .determines, on the basis of other \\ / �', 2 116 evidence, that the ballot was so marked for'the purp �e of identifying the ballot. 117 9. In order to vote foa.write -in candidate the voter, must write in the candidate's name 118 in the space provided and fill in the oval \opposite the candidate's name in accordance 119 with subsection,(A)(1) of this section. \ \`` 120 10. Stickers bearing the candi -name may'not be used on the ballot. L. �_ 121 �—� " A� ( \-------■// 122 Section 5:/ Title--7„, Elections, Chapter 7.30 Procedure of Conduct of Elections, Section 123 / < 7.30.125 -in vot \ s is hereby added as follows: 124 125 7.30.125 Write -in Votes. // 126 A. Write -in votes shall not be tallied except: 127 1. if the a person running as a write -in candidate has, at least before 5 p.m. of the 128 day before,th'e4Iection filed a declaration of write -in candidacy on a form 129 provided by ' the ` clerk stating that they' are he or she is willing to assume the 130 office if elected and have has also filed a completed public officials financial 131 disclosure statement with the borough clerk; and 132 2. if the total number of write -in votes for an office exceeds the smallest number of 133 votes cast for a candidate for that office whose name is printed on the ballot. 134 B. In order to vote for a write -in candidate, the voter must, in the space provided, write 135 in the candidate's name as the candidate's name appears on the candidate's 136 declaration of write -in candidacy filed with the borough clerk. In addition, the voter 137 must mark the square or oval opposite the candidate's name in accordance with 138 subsection 7.30.120 Al of the KIB Code. Stickers shall not be used. Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance No. FY2012 -16 Page 3 of 4 -J 139 C. Write -in votes are not invalidated by writing in the name of a candidate whose name 140 is printed on the ballot unless the election board determines, on the basis of other 141 evidence, that the ballot was so marked for the purpose of identifying the ballot. 142 D. If votes for write -in candidates are counted at the precinct level, election workers 143 shall set aside any ballots which contain any abbreviation, misspelling, or other 144 minor variation in the form of the name of a write in candidate and forward those 145 ballots to the canvass board for review and determination. The canvass board shall 146 review such ballots and shall disregard any misspelling, or other minor variation in 147 the form of the name of a write -in candidate if the intention of the voter can be 148 ascertained. 149 E. In order to be elected, a write -in candidate must receive he number of votes 150 required by this chapter. 151 152 Section 6: Title 7 Elections, Chapter 7.30 Procedure`of Conduct of Elections, Section 153 7.30.130 Receiving team is hereby amj ded follows: 154 f 155 7.30.130 Receiving Team. / `1 156 A. Befor each e lle e c ti n , the assembly shall appoint at'leastfhree qualified voters, who shall 157 constitute the receivinglcounting team. \\ `\ 158 B. The receivingleeunting team shall - receive all ballots.,electio n materials, supplies, etc., 159 from the precinct election officials on,election night. \ \_ • \ \V �• �/ . �.. a ._ _ ... ....: .. - __. ,_ _ . , 161 . ! 162 k, ` , ,�� = 163 s- 164 the- ballet, /7(‘ 166 write -in- -votes \J 167 168 Section 7:' Effective Date. This'ordinance shall be effective upon notification from the U.S. 169 / Departmen ?of Justice] f non- objection to the Preclearance Request in 170 \ accordance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 171 172 AD BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 173 "\THIS 7/ DAY OF 2012 174 175 / KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 176 177 178 179 ATTEST: Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor 180 181 182 183 184 Nova M. Javier, MMC, Borough Clerk Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance No. FY2012 -16 Page 4 of 4 1 2 Introduced by: Borough Clerk Requested by: Borough Clerk 3 Drafted by: Borough Clerk 4 Introduced: 05/01/2012 5 Public Hearing: Adopted: 6 7 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 8 ORDINANCE NO. FY2012 -16 9 10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 11 AMENDING VARIOUS CODE SECTIONS IN TITLE 7 ELECTIONS \ `\ 13 ( \ 14 WHEREAS, Section 2 of this ordinance would change.allkeferences of the word "Special 15 Needs" to "Personal Representative" in this title; and,/,, \, 17 WHEREAS, Section 3 of this ordinance would, allow those running for candidacy who 18 cannot obtain notary services to have a postmaste��attest'their statement of< candidacy and 19 this section would also allow candidates to submit their declaration of candidacy by electronic 20 submission; and l \ \ 'N 21 \ 22 WHEREAS, Section 4 of this ordinance clarifies that hand counting of ballots would only 23 pertain to precincts where the optical scans or'other' computer -read or electronic ballot 24 counting equipment are not-used, or in elect ons where write votes should be tallied; and 25 v 26 WHEREAS, Section'5 of this ordinance institutes a requirement to file a declaration of \ A„.,.^ 27 candidacy for those who wish'to run a write and this amendment would 28 incorporate the language i to fie - borough code,in order to solidify the process in allowing minor 29 variations in'the.spelling,of write in candidate n ames to be counted for a candidate; and 31 WHEREAS, Section &would eliminate the unnecessary process of counting write -in votes 32 the night-of the election and would clarify the role of the receiving team; and 33 \\N } 34 WHEREAS, Section 7 provides for the effective date of this ordinance which would be upon 35 notification from \ the\U.�S /Department of Justice of non - objection to the Preclearance 36 Request in accordance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 37 ; 38 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND 39 BOROUGH THAT: 40 41 Section 1: This ordinance is of a general and permanent nature and shall become a part 42 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances; 43 44 Section 2: This ordinance changes all references from Special Needs to Personal 45 Representative in this title. 46 Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance No. FY2012 - 16 Page 1 of 4 47 Section 3: Title 7 Elections, Chapter 7.20 Qualifications of Voters and Candidates, 48 Section 7.20.030 Declaration of Candidacy is hereby amended as follows: 49 50 7.20.030 Declaration of candidacy. 51 A. At least 75 days before each regular election, the clerk shall publish in one or more 52 newspapers of general circulation in the borough a notice of offices to be filled at the 53 election and the procedure for filing a declaration of candidacy. 54 B. Packets containing declarations of candidacy shall be available from the clerk's office no 55 later than the day the filing period opens. Declarations of candidacy shall be submitted in 56 original form and shall not be submitted electronically. 57 C. A declaration of candidacy shall be in a form provided by the'clerk and shall state the fis 58 following: / \ /;, 59 1. The full name of the candidate, and the manner in'whi the candidate wishes the 60 candidate's name to appear on the ballot; .` 61 2. The full residence and mailing addresses of thefcandidate; �, 62 3. The office for which the candidate declares; /,i N 6 3 4. That the candidate is qualified for the office as, provided by law; �t '` i' 64 5. The date and notarized statement of the candidate /If a, notary is not available, a 65 postmaster may attest the statement instead‘ofad notar 66 6. The candidate shall certify information contained ih declaration of candidacy is true 67 and accurate; ` �" ,-._ `N 68 7. Any other information that the clerk reasonably requires to determine whether the 69 candidate is qualified for the office as provided bylaw; and 70 8. The declaration of candidacy must be`signed by 10 qua it fied voters of the borough. 71 /1",------N )/ 72 D. Filing for electiveroffices shall 'be made by filing a declaration of candidacy with the clerk 73 from August th ug rough Au 1 st 15, 4:30 p.m-- Should August 15 fall on a Saturday or 74 Sunday, candidates shall have until 4:30 p n the first Monday following to file their 75 declaration - ..� _ / 76 E. Declarations of may . be filed with the clerk by electronic transmission and 77 the signed'and' notarized ^statement must be delivered to the clerk by the close 78 6f filing period. lithe origin`alris not received by the clerk at the close of the filing 79 period; the,candidate's name shall not appear on the ballot. 80 F. Within four b'siness days1after filing a declaration of candidacy, the clerk shall notify the 81 candidate as \to whether it is in proper form. If not, the clerk shall immediately return the 82 declaration of candidacy to the candidate with a statement certifying how the nominating 83 petition is deficient./ 84 85 Section 4: Title 7 Elections, Chapter 7.30 Procedure of Conduct of Elections, Section 86 7.30.120 Rules for counting ballots is hereby amended as follows: 87 88 7.30.120 Rules for counting ballots. 89 A. The election board shall .2. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ _ • _ _ e _ _ _ __ perform a hand 90 count for ballots in precincts where the optical scan or other computer -read or 91 electronic ballot counting equipment are not used, or in elections where write -in 92 votes shall be tallied with Sections 7.30.110 and 7.30.125 of this chapter. Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance No. FY2012 -16 Page 2 of 4 93 1. A voter may mark a ballot only by filling in, making "X" marks, diagonal, horizontal, or 94 vertical marks, solid marks, stars, circles, asterisks, checks, or plus signs that are 95 clearly spaced in the oval opposite the name of the candidate, proposition, or question 96 that the voter desires to designate. 97 2. A failure to properly mark a ballot as to one or more candidates does not itself 98 invalidate the entire ballot. 99 3. If a voter marks fewer names than there are persons to be elected to the office, a vote 100 shall be counted for each candidate properly marked. 101 4. If a voter marks more names than there are persons to be elected to the office, the 102 votes for candidates for that office may not be counted. ..". 103 5. The mark specified in subsection (A)(1) of this section shall only if it is 104 substantially inside the oval provided, or touching the oval to as to indicate clearly that 105 the voter intended the particular oval to be designated / \ \ 106 6. Improper marks on the ballot may not be countetand do not.invalidate marks for 107 candidates properly made. \ \:‘,, \`t 108 7. An erasure or correction invalidates only thati ,Se of the ballot it appears. 109 8. Write -in votes are not invalidated by writing in,the name of a candidate,whose name is 110 printed on the ballot unless the election board de� p rmines, on the basis of other • 111 evidence, that the ballot was so marked for the urpose of identifying the ballot. 112 9. In order to vote for a write -in candidate, the vote ?'must write in the candidate's name 113 in the space provided and fill in the oval opposite the candidate's name in accordance 114 with subsection (A)(1) of this section \ -. �' j ' 115 1 0. Stickers bearing the candidate's n m be.used on the ballot. r -. „. 116 y /, ,;- , --„ / 11 Section 5: Title 7 Ele`ctio s `Chapter 7.30 (Procedur e / o f Conduct of Elections, Section 118 7.30.125 \ Write- in,v {{ es is hereby\added as follows: \ 119 ``. 120 7.30.125 Write -in Vote \ y E` ",��) l 121 A. Write- in.votes shall not 122 1. ifahe person,runnina•as``a write-in has, at least before 5 p.m. of the 123 / 4day before the, eiectioii\filedra declaration of write -in candidacy on a form 124 <' ' 'provided by the clerk stating that they are willing to assume the office if elected 125 and. Have also filed a completed public officials financial disclosure statement 126 with the borough clerk; and 127 2. if the total number,of write -in votes for an office exceeds the smallest number of 128 votes cast fora- candidate for that office whose name is printed on the ballot. 129 B. In order to vote fora write -in candidate, the voter must, in the space provided, write 130 in the candidat`e's name as the candidate's name appears on the candidate's 131 declaration of write -in candidacy filed with the borough clerk. In addition, the voter 132 must mark the square or oval opposite the candidate's name in accordance with 133 subsection 7.30.120 Al of the KIB Code. Stickers shall not be used. 134 C. Write -in votes are not invalidated by writing in the name of a candidate whose name 135 is printed on the ballot unless the election board determines, on the basis of other 136 evidence, that the ballot was so marked for the purpose of identifying the ballot. 137 D. If votes for write -in candidates are counted at the precinct level, election workers 138 shall set aside any ballots which contain any abbreviation, misspelling, or other Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance No. FY2012 -16 Page 3 of 4 139 minor variation in the form of the name of a write in candidate and forward those 140 ballots to the canvass board for review and determination. The Canvass Board shall 141 review such ballots and shall disregard any misspelling, or other minor variation in 142 the form of the name of a write -in candidate if the intention of the voter can be 143 ascertained. 144 E. In order to be elected, a write -in candidate must receive the number of votes 145 required by this chapter. 146 147 Section 6: Title 7 Elections, Chapter 7.30 Procedure of Conduct of Elections, Section 148 7.30.130 Receiving team is hereby amended as follows: 149 �` /` 150 7.30.130 Tally-of-votes Receiving Team. 151 A. Before each election, the assembly shall appoint at least three qualified voters, who shall 152 constitute the receiving/eeuating team. ,^ . \��\ 153 B. The receiving/seaatiag team shall receive all ballots' election materials, supplies, etc., 154 from the precinct election officials on election night \ 155 / 156 -.e - e e • . -- - •• - ' _ - -'' . . • • • _- .. e, - \ \/ 157 ' 158 0 _ :_ 159 tho ballot. 160 `. - - - - --• - •- - - - - 161 write -ire -vets \ � '= � l ' 162 _ � ` ' / 163 Section 7: Effective Date. This ordinance' shall be effective upon notification from the U.S. /7 \ `, 164 Department of Justice of non objection to the Preclearance Request in 165 accordance with Se 5 of the V oting Rights Act of 1965. 166 \\\\] c.____ ; 167 ADOPTED.BY THE ASSEMBLY OF, /THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 168 , r /' -THIS \� \\ DAY OF / I , OF 169 .\ `,� \ v , f% 170 � �_ r KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 171 172 �� 173 �� `` i� ~ ` 174 ` >'// Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor 175} .,' 176 ATTEST: 177 178 179 180 Nova M. Javier, MMC, Borough Clerk Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance No. FY2012 -16 Page 4 of 4 KIB Section Description of Amendment Section 2 Change of the wording "special needs" to "personal representative ". This is to make the code consistent with the State's. Section 3 Declaration of candidacy. 7.20.030(C5) This is to allow those running for candidacy who cannot obtain notary services to have a postmaster attest their statement of candidacy. This was reviewed by the Attorney in the past and it was found that Alaska Statutes A.S. 44.50.180 allow postmasters to perform the functions of notaries. 7.20.030(E) This will allow candidates to submit their declaration of candidacy by electronic transmission. Section 4 Rules for counting ballots. 7.30.120 (A) Clarifies that this section would only pertain to precincts where the optical scans or other computer -read or electronic ballot counting equipment are not used, or in elections where write -in votes should be tallied. Section 5 Write -in votes. 7.30.125 (A) Historically, the Borough declares a person who received the highest write - in vote tallied as the person who is elected to a vacant seat on a race even though the person has not filed a declaration of write -in candidacy. Generally, what happens is that the Clerk would verify the qualifications of the person elected, locate /contact the person, offer the seat to the person, and ask whether they want to assume or decline the seat. In many instances, we go through this laborious process and the person elected declines to assume the seat, writes a letter of declination, the Assembly would have to declare the seat vacant, the Clerk advertises, and then the Assembly could appoint to the "refused /vacated" seat. This section of the code would eliminate all the unnecessary work cited above. 7.30.125 (B -E) AS 15.15.360 was amended on August 15, 2011, based on the Alaska Supreme Court decision on the Joe Miller v. Mead Treadwell, and Lisa Murkowski. The amendment mandates "the director of elections shall disregard any abbreviation, misspelling, or other minor variation in the form of the name of a candidate if the intention of the voter can be ascertained." Although this has been historically the practice of the canvass board, this amendment would incorporate the language in the borough code in order to solidify the process in allowing minor variations in the spelling of write -in candidate names to be counted for that candidate. Section 6 Receiving Team 7.30.130 Historically, the receiving /counting team tallied write -in votes on the night of the election after receiving all the voted materials from the precinct. In reviewing this process, counting ballots on election night do not produce a result since the votes /tallies still need to be verified by the Canvass Board. This process is redundant since the canvass board would have to go through the work of the counting team and it also makes it a very long day for the receiving team and staff. In checking with the members of the canvass board, they expressed their willingness to assume the duties of counting write -in ballots. N . T LAWS OF ALASKA a y� AJF l t..,, 4 ?,1 wW s 2011 Source Chapter No. HCS CSSB 3l (STA) am H AN ACT Relating to the counting of write -in votes. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA: THE ACT FOLLOWS ON PAGE 1 Enrolled S13 31 AN ACT 1 Relating to the counting of write -in votes. 2 3 * Section 1. AS 15.15.360 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: 4 (d) Write -in votes shall be counted according to the following rules: 5 (1) writing in the name of a candidate whose name is printed on the 6 ballot does not invalidate a write -in vote unless the director determines, on the basis of 7 other evidence, that the ballot was so marked for the purpose of identifying the ballot; 8 (2) in order to vote for a write -in candidate, the voter must write in the 9 candidate's name in the space provided and fill in the oval opposite the candidate's 10 name in accordance with (a)(1) of this section; 11 (3) a vote for a write -in candidate, other than a write -in vote for 12 governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that 13 candidate and if the name of the candidate, as it appears on the write -in declaration of 14 candidacy, or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided; 15 (4) if the write -in vote is for governor and lieutenant governor, the vote -1- Enrolled SB 31 1 shall be counted if the oval is filled in and the names of the candidates for governor 2 and lieutenant governor, as they appear on the write -in declaration of candidacy, or the 3 last names of the candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, or the name of the 4 candidate for governor, as it appears on the write -in declaration of candidacy, or the 5 last name of the candidate for governor is written in the space provided; 6 (5) in counting votes for a write -in candidate, the director shall 7 disregard any abbreviation, misspelling, or other minor variation in the form of the 8 name of a candidate if the intention of the voter can be ascertained. 9 * Sec. 2. AS 15.15 is amended by adding a new section to read: 10 Sec. 15.15.365. Counting of write - in votes in general election. (a) Write - 11 votes on a general election ballot shall be counted for a candidate only if the aggregate 12 of all votes cast for all write -in candidates for the particular office is 13 (I) the highest number of votes received by any candidate for the 14 office; or 15 (2) the second highest number of votes received by any candidate and 16 the difference between the total number of votes received by the candidate having the 17 highest number of votes and the aggregate of all votes cast for all write -in candidates 18 for the office is less than the percentage necessary for a recount at the state's cost I9 under AS 15.20.450. 20 (b) Write -in votes that do not meet the requirements of this section may not be 21 individually counted under this section. 22 (c) If the director determines that the requirements of (a) of this section have 23 been met, the director shall establish the date for counting those write -in votes, and the 24 director, or a designee of the director, shall count all write -in ballots under 25 AS 15.15.360(d). 26 (d) This section does not apply to the counting of federal write -in absentee 27 ballots submitted under 42 U.S.C. 1973ff. 28 (e) Write -in ballots shall be counted by the director, or a designee of the 29 director, in a public place at the location where write -in ballots are sent for counting 30 following an election. 31 * Sec. 3. AS 15.15.360(a)(9), 15.15.360(a)(10), 15.15.360(a)(1 I), and I5.15.360(a)(12) are Enrolled SB 31 -2- 1 repealed. -3- Enrolled SB 31 In the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska State of Alaska, Division of Elections, ) Gail Fenumiai, in her capacity as ) Director of the Division of Elections, ) and Lisa Murkowski for U.S. Senate, ) ) Supreme Court No. S -14054 Petitioners, ) v. ) Order ) Alaska Democratic Party and Alaska ) Republican Party, ) ) Respondents. ) ) Trial Court Case # 3AN- 10- 11621C1 Before: Fabe, Winfree, Christen, and Stowers, Justices. [Carpeneti, Chief Justice, not participating.] 1. In preparation for the upcoming November 2, 2010 election, the Division of Elections anticipated a substantial increase in the number of people wanting to vote with write -in ballots. On October 18, 2010, the Division began offering voters a list identifying approved write -in candidates' to voters who appeared at the polls and requested assistance. The list contained the names of the write -in candidates, the candidates' party affiliation, and the candidates' registration status with the Division. To qualify as an approved write -in candidate, the person must file a letter of intent not later than five days before the general election. AS 15.25.105. Ballots marked in support of candidates who do not meet this requirement may not be counted. AS 15.25.105. The Division's list included only those candidates who had met the necessary requirements; it was updated whenever additional individuals filed a letter of intent within the appropriate deadline. State v. Alaska Democratic Party Supreme Court Case No. 5 -14054 Order of 10/29/10 Page 2 The list was only provided to those voters who explicitly requested help with write -in voting "beyond the basic assistance provided by the simple instructional poster," including voters who asked how to spell the name of the candidate for whom the voter wished to cast a ballot. 2. On October 27, 2010, at the request of the Alaska Democratic Party, joined by the Alaska Republican Party, the superior court entered a restraining order prohibiting the Division from providing a list of write -in candidates to voters requesting assistance at the polls. The Division filed an emergency motion for stay, a petition for review, and a motion for expedited consideration. To avoid disruption at the polls, we stayed the superior court's order, granted expedited consideration of the Division's petition for review of the restraining order, and received additional information and argument from the parties.' We now grant the Division's petition for review and issue this brief order to provide guidance regarding the appropriate use of the "write -in candidate list" for the 2010 general election. 3. The legislature provided in AS 15.15.240 that, if a voter requests assistance, the Division "shall assist the voter.s' But 6 AAC 25.070(b) adopted by the We acknowledge the efforts of the parties and amicus curiae Alaska Federation of Natives in presenting this briefing and oral argument to us in such expeditious fashion. 3 In an earlier form, AS 15.15.240 required that, "A qualified voter who cannot read, mark the ballot, or sign the voter's name may request an election judge, a person, or not more than two persons of the voter's choice to assist." (Emphasis added.) But in 2000, the Alaska State Legislature amended AS 15.15.240 by removing the phrase 2 State v, Alaska Democratic Party Supreme Court Case No. S -14054 Order of 10/29/10 Page 3 Division, provides that "[i }nformation regarding a write -in candidate may not be discussed, exhibited, or provided at the polling place, or within 200 feet of any entrance to the polling place, on election day." The Division asserts that it has authority to provide a list of write -in candidates and their party affiliations under its statutory obligation to assist voters. The Alaska Democratic Party and the Alaska Republican Party respond that the Division's decision violates the regulation. 4. The decision we reach today is informed by our previous cases regarding the importance of facilitating voter intent. "[W]e have consistently emphasized the importance of voter intent" because the "opportunity to freely cast [one's] ballot" is fundamental 4 "The right to vote encompasses the right to express one's opinion and is a way to declare one's full membership in the political community "who cannot read, mark the ballot, or sign the voter's name" and replaced it with the broader phrase "needing assistance in voting." Thus, AS 15.15.240 now reads, "A qualified voter needing assistance in voting may request an election official, a person, or not more than two persons of the voter's choice to assist." Qualified voters requiring assistance may include those covered by the old version of the statute, those "who cannot read, mark the ballot, or sign the voter's name," but they also include voters who require assistance for other reasons. ' Edgmon v. State, Div. of Elections, 152 P.3d 1154, 1 157 (Alaska 2007); see also Sonneman v. State, 969 P.2d 632, 636 -37 (Alaska 1998) ( "[T]he right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil rights, any alleged infringement of the right of the citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized. "); Carr v. Thomas, 586 P.2d 622, 626 (Alaska 1978) ( "In the absence of fraud, election statutes will be liberally construed to guarantee to the elector an opportunity to freely cast his ballot, to prevent his disenfranchisement, and to uphold the will of the electorate. "). 3 State iv. Alaska Democratic Party Supreme Court Case No. S -14054 Order of 10/29/10 Page 4 ... a true democracy must seek to make each citizen's vote as meaningful as every other vote to ensure the equality of all people under the law. "' 5. The legislature's statutory mandate that the Division assist voters who request assistance is paramount. Our decisions have consistently held that when a regulation conflicts with a statutory requirement, "it is the regulation that must yield. " And we have consistently held that we should "defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute if undefined or ambiguous terms appear in the statute. "' Regarding regulations we have held, "[w]here an agency interprets its own regulation ... a deferential standard of review properly recognizes that the agency is best able to discern its intent in promulgating the regulation at issues' 6. We recognize there are myriad reasons why a qualified voter in Alaska may require assistance casting a write -in ballot. Some voters require assistance for medical difficulties or conditions that make spelling or memory recall difficult. Some voters suffer from learning disabilities that interfere with word retrieval, such as aphasia 5 Dansereatr v. Ulmer, 903 P.2d 555, 559 (Alaska 1995). 6 Bradshaw v. State, Dep't ofAdmin., Div. of Motor Vehicles, 224 P.3d 118, 122 (Alaska 2010). Id. Alaska State Emps. Assoc. /AESCME Local 52, AFL -CIO v. State, 990 P.2d 14, 19 (Alaska 1999). 4 State v. Alaska Democratic Party Supreme Court Case No. 5 -14054 Order of 10/29/10 Page 5 and dyslexia.`' Further, some voters may need assistance remembering or spelling the name of a candidate due to conditions impacting their memory or comprehension, including stroke victims who may have word retrieval problems. Other qualified voters may need assistance spelling the name of a candidate for a variety of reasons, including language barriers. Providing the proper spelling of names written in English could assist those voters who want to vote for a particular candidate and need assistance in ensuring that they write the candidate's name correctly. 7. We conclude that when a voter requests assistance in casting a write - in vote and that request for assistance cannot be addressed by the posted general instructions for completing a write -in ballot," the assistance provided to the voter must Aphasia is defined as a defect or loss of the power of expression by speech, writing, or signs, or of comprehending spoken or written language, due to injury or disease of the brain. DORLAND'S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY 105 (28th ed.1994). Dyslexia is defined as the inability to read, spell, and write words, despite the ability to see and recognize letters. Id. at 516. There are twenty differentNative Alaskan languages still spoken in Alaska: Aleut, Alutiiq, Tnupiaq, Central Yup'ik, Siberian Yup'ik, Tsimshian, Haida, Tlingit, Eyak, Ahtna, Dena'ina, Deg Hit'an, Holikachuk, Upper Kuskokwim, Koyukon, "Tanana, Tanacross, Upper Tanana, Gwich'in and Han. U.S. Census Bureau, Table 4. Languages Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over by State (2000) (available at http: / /www. census. gov / population /cen2000 /phc- t20 /tab04.pdf). In addition, the 2000 Census reports that 82,758 Alaskans "speak a language other than English at home," and of those 30,842 "do not speak English very well." " 6 AAC 25.070(d) provides that "[i]nstructions for indicating a write -in choice will be posted in each polling place ...." 5 State v. Alaska Democratic Party Supreme Court Case No. S -14054 Order of 10/29/10 Page 6 be related to and commensurate with the voter's request. The Division may provide the list only when its use is tailored to address a voter's request for specific assistance. There will be some circumstances where providing the list will not be necessary to address a voter's request for assistance and other circumstances where providing the list will be necessary to address a voter's request for assistance. For example, if a voter requested the correct spelling of a specified registered write -in candidate's name, it would be unnecessary to provide the entire list to that voter in order to provide the requested spelling assistance. 8. We do agree with the Alaska Democratic Party and Alaska Republican Party that providing information about a write -in candidate's party affiliation is prohibited because party affiliation is "information regarding" a write -in candidate that is not necessary to address a voter's request for assistance. Thus we reiterate our previous order that the "write -in candidate list" shall not include any information other than the write -in candidates' names. 9. We vacate our previous order requiring the Division to mark and segregate ballots cast by voters who use the "write -in candidate list." Entered at the direction of the court. Clerk of the Appellate Courts I Vital Marilyn Mi 6 State v. Alaska Democratic Party Supreme Court Case No. S -14054 Order of 10/29/10 Page 7 cc: Supreme Court Justices Judge Pfiffner Trial Court Clerk - Anchorage Distribution (phone, fax, & email): Margaret Paton Walsh Assistant Attorney General 1031 West Fourth Avenue Suite 200 Anchorage AK 99501 Thomas 1`9 Daniel Perkins Coie 1029 West 3rd Avenue Suite 300 Anchorage AK 99501 Scott Kendall Holmes, Weddle & Barcott, PC 701 West 8th Ave Suite 700 Anchorage AK 99501 Kenneth C Kirk Kenneth Kirk & Associates 425 G Street Suite 204 Anchorage AK 99501 Thomas P Amodio Amodio Stanley & Reeves LLC 500 L Street Suite 300 Anchorage AK 99501 Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264 -0608, fax (907) 264 -0878, e -mail correetions@appellate.courts.state.ak.us. appellate.courts.state.ak.us. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA JOE MILLER, ) ) Supreme Court No. S -14112 Appellant, ) ) Superior Court No. v. ) 1JU- 10- 01007CI ) MEAD TREADWELL, in his official ) OPINION capacity as Lieutenant Governor, ) STATE OF ALASKA, DIVISION ) No. 6532 — December 22, 2010 OF ELECTIONS, and LISA ) MURKO W SKI, ) Appellees. ) ) ) LISA MURKOWSKI, ) Supreme Court No. S -14121 ) Cross - Appellant, ) v. ) ) JOE MILLER, MEAD TREADWELL, ) in his official capacity as Lieutenant ) Governor, STATE OF ALASKA, ) DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, ) ) Cross - Appellees. ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, First Judicial District, Juneau, William B. Carey, Judge. Appearances: Thomas V. Van Flein, Clapp, Peterson, Van Flein, Tiemessen & Thorsness, LLC, Anchorage, and Michael T. Morley, pro hac vice, Washington, D.C., for Appellant and Cross - Appellee Miller. Joanne M. Grace and Laura F. Fox, Assistant Attorneys General, Anchorage, and Richard A. Svobodny, Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellees and Cross - Appellees Treadwell and State of Alaska, Division of Elections. Timothy A. McKeever and Scott M. Kendall, Holmes Weddle & Barcott, Anchorage, for Appellee and Cross - Appellant Murkowski. Thomas P. Amodio, Reeves & Amodio, LLC, Anchorage, for Amicus Curiae Alaska Federation of Natives. Before: Carpeneti, Chief Justice, Fabe, Winfree, and Christen, Justices. [Stowers, Justice, not participating.] PER CURIAM. 1. Introduction This case presents several issues of constitutional and statutory interpretation that arise from the count of votes following the 2010 election for one of Alaska's two seats in the United States Senate. Two of the contestants for that seat — Joe Miller, the Republican nominee, and Senator Lisa Murkowski, running as a write -in candidate — are parties to the lawsuit. Without seeking a recount, Miller filed suit in superior court challenging several decisions of the Alaska Division of Elections in counting the votes. Murkowski intervened, challenging other vote - counting decisions of the Division. Superior Court Judge William B. Carey upheld the Division's actions. Miller appeals, and Murkowski cross - appeals. II. Longstanding Alaska Election Principles In resolving the questions presented by the parties, we are governed by a number of longstanding principles that we have consistently applied to election issues in Alaska over the past 50 years. -2- 6532 We start with the bedrock principle that "[t]he right of the citizen[s] to cast [their] ballot[s] and thus participate in the selection of those who control [their] government is one of the fundamental prerogatives of citizenship. "' The right to vote "is fundamental to our concept of democratic government. ' "[It] encompasses the [voter's] right to express [the voter's] opinion and is a way to declare [the voter's] full membership in the political community. "' We articulated this principle over three decades ago in Carr v. Thomas, recognizing the profound importance of citizens' rights to select their leaders and noting that "[c]ourts are reluctant to permit a wholesale disfranchisement of qualified electors through no fault of their own. " In reviewing and interpreting election statutes, we have uniformly held that "[w]here any reasonable construction of [a] statute can be found which will avoid such a result, the courts should and will favor it. " We have applied this principle throughout the years because we recognize that the right to vote is key to participatory democracy. Guided by this polar principle, we declared in Edgmon v. State, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, Division ofElections that "the voter shall not be disenfranchised because of mere mistake, but [the Carr v. Thomas, 586 P.2d 622, 626 (Alaska 1978) (quoting Sanchez v. Bravo, 251 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952)). 2 Dansereau v. Ulmer, 903 P.2d 555, 559 (Alaska 1995). The United States Supreme Court recognized the principle that voting is a fundamental right, emphasizing: "When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter." Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000). 3 Dansereau, 903 P.2d at 559. 4 Carr, 586 P.2d at 626. 5 Id. (quoting Reese v. Dempsey, 153 P.2d 127, 132 (N.M. 1944)). -3- 6532 voter's] intention shall prevail. " Most recently, in State, Division of Elections v. Alaska Democratic Party, we noted that "[w]e have consistently emphasized the importance of voter intent because the opportunity to freely cast [one's] ballot is fundamental. "' It is in light of our consistent application of these cardinal principles that we examine the issues presented in this case. III. Voter Intent Is Paramount, And Any Misspelling, Abbreviation, Or Other Minor Variation In The Form Of The Candidate's Name On A Write -In Ballot Does Not Invalidate A Ballot So Long As The Intention Of The Voter Can Be Ascertained. Joe Miller seeks an interpretation of election statute AS 15.15.360 that would disqualify any write -in votes that misspell the candidate's name. We do not interpret the statute to require perfection in the manner that the candidate's name is written on the ballot. Our prior decisions clearly hold that a voter's intention is paramount.' In light of our strong and consistently applied policy of construing statutes in order to effectuate voter intent, we hold that abbreviations, misspellings, or other minor variations in the form of the name of a candidate will be disregarded in determining the validity of the ballot, so long as the intention of the voter can be ascertained. Miller points to language in AS 15.15.360(a)(11) providing that "[a] vote for a write -in candidate ... shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write -in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the 6 152 P.3d 1154, 1157 (Alaska 2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted). ' Case No. S- 14054, Order dated Oct. 29, 2010 at 3 (internal citations omitted). Edgmon, 152 P.3d at 1157 ( "[W]e have consistently emphasized the importance of voter intent in ballot disputes. "). -4- 6532 last name of the candidate is written in the space provided." He argues that this subsection, read in the context of other provisions of the statute, requires that a write -in candidate's name be written and spelled perfectly, even if the voter's intent to vote for a particular candidate can be readily ascertained. But when read as a whole, AS 15.15.360's purpose is inclusive, not exclusive; it is designed to ensure that ballots are counted, not excluded. And this inclusiveness is consistent with the overarching purpose of an election: "to ascertain the public will. " Miller urges that only his interpretation of the statute will "preserv[e] the integrity of the electoral process as a whole." But it is Miller's interpretation of the statute that would erode the integrity of the election system, because it would result in disenfranchisement of some voters and ultimately rejection of election results that constitute the will of the people. We have consistently construed election statutes in favor of voter enfranchisement. Turning to the language of subsection (a)(11), it is evident that it does not require exact spelling. We agree with the State that subsection (a)(11) concerns pseudonyms. The "nickname" field on the declaration of candidacy form supports this interpretation. If that field were not present, a candidate with a pseudonym might write only his or her legal name on the form, thus invalidating ballots with the candidate's pseudonym written in. The "nickname" field allows a candidate to ensure that his or 9 Boucher v. Bomhoff, 495 P.2d 77, 79 (Alaska 1972) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 70 Compare AS 15.15.360(11) (requiring write -in vote to include "name, as it appears on the write -in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate "), with AS 15.15.030(4) (allowing the Director, in placing names on the ballot, to "include in the candidate's name any nickname or familiar form of a proper name of the candidate "). -5- 6532 her pseudonym "appears on the write -in declaration of candidacy" so that the write -in votes listing that pseudonym will count. Thus, the word "appears" relates to a pseudonym's possible presence on the ballot, not the particular form of the vote, and demonstrates that the statute is inclusive — it is designed to include, rather than exclude, votes. As we have recognized, "a true democracy must seek to make each citizen's vote as meaningful as every other vote to ensure the equality of all people under the law. " In order to ensure that each citizen's vote is as meaningful as every other vote, we must interpret the election statute to preserve a voter's clear choice rather than to disenfranchise that voter. The State characterizes the standard urged by Miller as the "perfection standard," and we agree that such a standard would tend to disenfranchise many Alaskans on the basis of "technical errors. " Alaskan voters arrive at their polling places with a vast array of backgrounds and capabilities. Some Alaskans were not raised with English as their first language. Some Alaskans who speak English do not write it as well. Some Alaskans have physical or learning disabilities that hinder their ability to write clearly or spell correctly. Yet none of these issues should take away a voter's right to decide which candidate to elect to govern. We must construe the statute's language in light of the AS 15.15.360(a)(11). 12 Dansereau v. Ulmer, 903 P.2d 555, 559 (Alaska 1995); see also Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 -05 (2000) ( "Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. "). 13 See Carr v. Thomas, 586 P.2d 622, 625 -26 (Alaska 1978) ( "There is well - established policy which favors upholding of elections when technical errors or irregularities arise in carrying out directory provisions which do not affect the result of an election. "). -6- 6532 purpose of preserving a voter's choice rather than ignoring it. As we have consistently ruled, we remain "reluctant to permit a wholesale disfranchisement of qualified electors through no fault of their own, and [w]here any reasonable construction of the statute can be found which will avoid such a result, [we] should and will favor it.' " Our interpretation of AS 15.15.3 60 permitting abbreviations, misspellings, or other minor variations in the form of the name of a write -in candidate so long as the intention of the voter can be ascertained is also consistent with the federally mandated standard for counting the write -in votes of those voters living or serving in uniform overseas. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act provides that in counting the ballot of a uniformed services voter or other voter who is overseas, "[a]ny abbreviation, misspelling, or other minor variation in the form of the name of a candidate or a political party shall be disregarded in determining the validity of the ballot, if the intention of the voter can be ascertained. "' The Alaska Administrative Code incorporates this requirement into state law. Miller's proposed construction of the statute would require us to impose a different, and more rigorous, voting standard on domestic Alaskans than on those who are serving in the military or living abroad. Our construction of AS 15.15.360 treats overseas and domestic Alaskan voters equally, 14 Id. at 626 (quoting Reese v. Dempsey, 153 P.2d 127, 132 (N.M. 1944)). 15 42 U.S.C. § 1973ff- 2(c)(3) (2006). 16 See 6 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 25.670(b) (2010) ( "Any abbreviation, misspelling, or other minor variation in the form of the name of a candidate or political party will be disregarded in determining the validity of the ballot, if the intention of the voter can be ascertained. "). We do not reach the question as to whether any provisions of federal law might conflict with relevant portions of the Alaska Administrative Code, as it is not presented here. -7- 6532 ensures that each write -in vote is treated equally and counted in the same manner, and avoids valuing one person's vote over that of another." Finally, Miller suggests that our interpretation of AS 15.15.360 will lead to elections being decided by the unbridled discretion of election officials in determining voters' intent through visual inspection of write -in ballots. But Miller concedes that other states use the same standard for counting write -in ballots and that Congress has mandated that standard. We see no basis for Miller to argue that the application of the standard in this election violates equal protection under either the state or federal constitution. First, only one person, the Division's Director, made the initial determinations whether write -in ballots demonstrated voter intent for a particular candidate; this avoids any constitutional infirmities that might arise from different reviewers applying the standard differently. Second, the initial election results are subject to the Director's review during a recount. And, of course, the Director's final determinations are subject to judicial review. We affirm the decision of the superior court on this issue. IV. The Manual Count Of Write -In Votes Complied With Alaska Law And Did Not Violate Miller's Right To Equal Protection. Miller alleges that the Division's procedure to manually count the write -in votes violated 6 AAC 25.085. He argues that this regulation requires the Division to manually examine and count only the write -in ballots the optical scanners had first " Cf. Bush, 531 U.S. at 104 -09. 18 Cf. id. 19 See AS 15.20.480. 20 See AS 15.20.510. - 6532 validated. Miller claims that his interpretation of 6 AAC 25.085 would best "facilitate fairness" under AS 15.15.030. Neither this regulation nor the statute Miller cites requires a particular procedure for counting write -in votes. Alaska Statute 15.15.030 addresses ballot preparation. It directs that ballots must be prepared "to facilitate fairness, simplicity, and clarity in the voting procedure"; it does not apply to the method used to conduct a count of write -in votes. In addition, Miller's contention that the Division should have manually counted only those write -in ballots that were first validated by the optical scanner ignores the State's uncontested showing that the optical scanner neither sorts nor segregates ballots. The machine merely counts filled -in ovals indicating a vote for those candidates whose names appear on pre - printed ballots and for the "write -in" category. It is possible to quantify the number of ballots that an optical scanner deems invalid, but these ballots are not segregated by the machine. Because the optical scanner counted a sufficient number of ballots for the "write -in" category in this election, it was necessary for the Division to conduct a manual count of the write -in ballots to determine for which candidates the write -in ballots had been cast.' Miller impliedly raises an equal protection argument under Bush v. Gore,' claiming that Division workers counted more write -in ballots than the optical scanner because they used a more lenient standard than the scanner.' But there is no factual Z' See 6 AAC 25.085(b). 22 531 U.S. at 104 -10. 23 The optical scanner detected 102,252 write -in votes. From all of the ballots cast in the election, the Division workers manually sorted out 103,805 ballots cast for a "write -in" candidate. From that total, the Division determined that 101,088 ballots were cast for Lisa Murkowski; 92,929 were unchallenged and 8,159 were challenged but counted. - 6532 dispute that the Division workers looked at every ballot cast in the election to segregate the total ballots cast for "write -in" candidates. In an affidavit to the superior court, Division Director Gail Fenumiai explained the three -step procedure as follows. First, "all the ballots cast in the election were sorted by 30 election board workers who worked in 15 teams of two." They sorted the ballots into five categories: (1) ballots on which the oval was marked correctly next to a candidate's name that was printed on the ballot; (2) ballots on which no oval was marked for U.S. Senate, more than one oval was marked for that race, or a name was written in but the oval was unmarked; (3) ballots on which the write -in oval was marked and the written name was "Lisa Murkowski" or "Murkowski," spelled correctly, and the ballot was not challenged by any observer; (4) ballots on which the write -in oval was marked and the name written appeared to be a variation or misspelling of Lisa Murkowski or Murkowski; this category also included any ballot challenged by an observer in the sorting process; (5) ballots on which the write -in oval was marked and the name written in was not "Murkowski," "Lisa Murkowski," or a variation thereof. Significantly, the candidates had observers present who could challenge the category into which every ballot was sorted. The Division instructed the workers who conducted the initial sort of the ballots not to proceed unless observers were present at the table from both the Miller and Murkowski campaigns. After the ballots were sorted, the Director personally examined the ballots in category four ballots on which ovals had been filled in but the handwritten name was a variation or misspelling of "Lisa Murkowski" and other ballots challenged during - 6532 the sorting process to determine voter intent. The Director examined the ballots that were challenged because they contained misspellings of "Lisa Murkowski" or for any other reason. She permitted write -in ballots containing "minor misspellings and phonetic variations of `Murkowski' to be counted for Lisa Murkowski when [she] determined that the voter clearly intended to vote for that candidate." The Director placed the ballots into one of two envelopes: "challenged counted" or "challenged not counted." If the Director's decision regarding voter intent was not challenged, the ballot was placed in category three (write -in, oval filled, Lisa Murkowski properly spelled, not challenged) or category five (write -in, oval filled, a candidate other than Murkowski), depending on whether the Director decided to count it for Murkowski. The Director examined ballots in category two in which no oval was filled in for the U.S. Senate race, and those ballots were not counted for any candidate. This was true of ballots on which voters spelled "Lisa Murkowski" correctly but failed to fill in the oval. The Director also examined "over -voted ballots " in category two to determine voter intent. As Director Fenumiai explained: 1) I did not count ballots that had no oval filled in for the U.S. Senate race, even if a name was written in. 2) If a ballot had two ovals filled in for the U.S. Senate race, I examined the ballot to see where the ovals appeared. If the voter had filled in the oval by the name of a candidate printed on the ballot and also by the write -in choice, 1 counted the ballot if the voter wrote in the name of the same candidate. This is how Joe Miller received many of his 20 write -in votes. I also counted ballots with two ovals marked 24 The Director was the only person who made the final decision regarding voter intent. Given this protocol, we see no basis for any concern that inconsistent standards were used to determine the validity of ballots cast in this election. 25 This refers to a ballot with more than one oval filled in. - 6532 when it was clear that the voter crossed out one of the ovals. I did this regardless of whether the voter expresses an intent to vote for a write -in candidate or for a candidate whose name was printed on the ballot. Otherwise, I did not add the ballot to the count. 3) The candidates' observers were able to challenge all of these determinations. As a result of this process, each candidate's vote tally was increased. The write -in vote count yielded the following tallies: Lisa Murkowski, unchallenged 92,929 Lisa Murkowski, challenged, counted 8,159 Total counted for Lisa Murkowski 101,088 Lisa Murkowski, challenged, not counted 2,016 Joe Miller 20 Scott McAdams 8 Other registered write -in candidates 53 Other miscellaneous names 620 Total write -in votes 103,805 The total number of write -in votes identified by the Division workers was 103,805 but the optical scanner detected 102,252. Miller claims that because the total write -in votes from the manual count— 103,805 — was higher than the number of write - in votes detected by the optical scanner, the workers must have applied "more lenient standards" that unfairly advantaged Murkowski. He claims that "it is unclear how many additional votes Joe Miller, or any other preprinted candidate, would have gained, had those same standards been applied to all the ballots in the election." But having carefully examined the record in this case, we conclude that the record does not support Miller's contention that ballots in category two were treated differently depending on whether they were cast for candidates whose names were pre - printed on the ballot. Observers -12- 6532 working on Miller's behalf had the opportunity to challenge the sorting of every ballot cast in the election, and every category -two ballot was individually examined, as were the ballots in category four. In addition, only one individual the Director of the Division — looked at all of the ballots containing anomalies, including both over -votes and 'under-votes. We fail to see how having one person examine all overcount, undercount, and write -in ballots and all ballots challenged by either candidate is not a uniform standard. Finally, the Director's examination resulted in additional votes for both Miller and Democratic nominee Scott McAdams, as well as Murkowski. Because the Division applied the methodology described above to every precinct, we conclude that the Division's methodology gave all of the ballots as well as all of the candidates — equal treatment. For these reasons, we affirm the decision of the superior court on this issue. 26 We observe that even if Miller had demonstrated that the Division was more lenient in the threshold it used to validate votes than the optical scanner, the difference he cites would not have changed the outcome of this election. The optical scanners deemed a total of 2,882 votes for the U.S. Senate race to be invalid. But the Division shows that the number of votes rejected by the optical scanner that could have been cast in Miller's favor is much smaller. The Division begins with the total number of ballots cast in this election (258,746) and subtracts the total number of votes cast for candidates on the pre - printed ballot (153,579) and the total number of write -in votes it identified in its manual tally (103,805). The difference (258,746 - 257,384 = 1,362) is the Division's calculation of the number of votes rejected by the scanners that could have been cast in Miller's favor. -13- 6532 V. The Division's Vote - Counting Procedures Are Not Regulations. Miller argues that the Division's write -in vote - counting methodology is a regulation, or set of regulations, that should have been enacted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). We disagree. The APA requires advance notice of a regulation before it can be applied in agency interactions with the public. Common sense statutory interpretations by agencies do not require regulations. By contrast, if a statutory interpretation is "expansive or unforeseeable," the agency may be required to promulgate its interpretation through a regulation. The Division's statutory interpretations of AS 15.15.360 and 6 AAC 25.085 were common sense interpretations and were not required to be promulgated in regulations. We have previously noted that "[n]early every agency action is based, implicitly or explicitly, on an interpretation of a statute or regulation authorizing it to act. A requirement that each such interpretation be preceded by rulemaking would result in complete ossification of the regulatory state. " We decline to depart from our previous decisions, and conclude that the Division did not violate the APA. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the superior court on this issue. 27 AS 44.62.010 et seq. 28 AS 44.62.190. 29 See Squires v. Alaska Bd. ofArchitects, Eng'rs & Land Surveyors, 205 P.3d 326, 334 -35 (Alaska 2009); Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. State, Dep 't of Envtl. Conservation, 145 P.3d 561, 573 (Alaska 2006); Alaska Ctr. for the Env 't v. State, Office of the Governor, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Div. of Gov't Coordination, 80 P.3d 231, 243 -44 (Alaska 2003). 30 Alyeska Pipeline, 145 P.3d at 573. 31 Id. -14- 6532 VI. We Affirm The Dismissal Of Miller's Claims For Invalidation Of Two Categories Of Votes: (1) Votes Allegedly Cast By Voters Whose Identities Had Not Been Confirmed, And (2) Write -In Votes Allegedly Cast By The Same Person(s) On Multiple Ballots. A. Overview This case comes to us under unusual circumstances. The election was held on November 2, 2010. Without seeking a statutorily available vote recount by the Division or filing a lawsuit in state court to contest the election, on November 9 Miller filed a federal court lawsuit. Miller sought declaratory and injunctive relief (1) stopping the Division from certifying the election results in favor of Murkowski, and (2) directing the Division to follow his interpretation of AS 15.15.360 by invalidating write -in votes "in which a candidate's name is misspelled or is not written on the ballot as it appears on the candidate's write -in declaration of candidacy." On November 19 the federal court issued an injunction against certification, conditioned on Miller's filing a state court lawsuit by November 22 to resolve the disputed interpretation of AS 15.15.360. Miller filed suit in superior court on November 22, seeking not only declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the interpretation of AS 15.15.360, but also regarding: alleged disparate treatment of ballots, violation of other election statutes, the validity of the Division's write -in vote - counting methodology under the Administrative Procedure Act, the validity of classes of votes the Division counted, and the validity of the election results. Murkowski intervened in Miller's lawsuit, asking for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the interpretation of election statutes, as well as challenging the validity of two classes of votes not counted by the Division. After expediting the proceedings, on December 10, 2010, Superior Court Judge William B. 32 See AS 15.20.430 —.530. 33 See AS 15.20.540 —.560. -15- 6532 Carey upheld all of the Division's disputed actions, treating some claims as pure declaratory judgment requests and treating other claims as an election contest under AS 15.20.540. It may be that certain legal issues could properly be brought to us pre- election or during an election with appropriate requests for declaratory and even injunctive relief. But the legislature has created two specific legal proceedings for election challenges that would normally apply to many of the issues in this case an election contest and a recount appea1. And as we have noted, "an election contest and a recount appeal are distinct proceedings. " An election contest is authorized by AS 15.20.540, which provides that "a contest of the election as a whole" is heard first by the superior court. An election contestant must show "malconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of an election official sufficient to change the result of the election" or "any corrupt practice as defined by law sufficient to change the results of the election. " By contrast, AS 15.20.510 provides for a recount appeal directly to our court to challenge the Director's decisions to count or not count votes during a recount of an election for, among other offices, the United States Senate. We have noted that 34 See Willis v. Thomas, 600 P.2d 1079, 1081 (Alaska 1979) (identifying, describing, and comparing the two legal proceedings). 35 Id. 36 Id.; see also AS 15.20.550 (providing for superior court's original jurisdiction). 37 AS 15.20.540. 38 AS 15.20.510 provides, in relevant part: "A candidate ... who requested a recount who has reason to believe an error has been made in the recount ... involving (continued...) - 6532 "the inquiry in a recount appeal is whether specific votes or classes of votes were properly counted or rejected. " Our review comes only after the Director "review[s] all ballots ... to determine which ballots, or part of ballots, were properly marked and which ballots are to be counted in the recount[.] " Issues we have considered in a recount appeal "include the validity of punch cards and a variety of marks on ballots, the proper procedures for absentee voting and consequences for failure to follow those procedures, and registration requirements. " With this legal framework in mind, we consider Miller's claims that two classes of votes should not be counted. B. Multiple write - in ballots cast by the same person(s) Miller alleged in his complaint that the Division accepted and counted as valid "write -in votes in which the candidate's name apparently was not written on the ballot by the voter" in violation of AS 15.15.360(a)(10), which provides that "the voter" must write in the candidate's name. In its summary judgment motion, the State noted 38 (...continued) candidates for ... Congress ... may appeal to the supreme court ...." 39 Willis, 600 P.2d at 1081. 40 AS 15.20.480. 41 Cissna v. Stout, 931 P.2d 363, 367 (Alaska 1996). Miller's claim for declaratory judgment regarding the interpretation of AS 15.15.360 can easily be seen as in the nature of a recount appeal that should not be properly before us. Given the unusual circumstances of this case, we nonetheless chose to decide the legal issues raised regarding Alaska election statutes and regulations. 42 Under Alaska Civil Rule 56(c), summary judgment may be granted without trial if there are no genuine issues of fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. -17- 6532 that under AS 15.15.240 voters "can delegate that authority [to vote] to others election officials or friends or family members — if they need assistance in writing in the name of a candidate.i The State argued that Miller's claim was in the nature of an election contest and that he would have to present some evidence of both (1) improper conduct on the part of someone and (2) an indication that any such wrongful conduct was sufficient to affect the election's outcome. Miller submitted affidavits from observers of the ballot count attesting that in some precincts many write -in ballots appeared to have been written in similar handwriting. He argued that this evidence was "sufficiently suspicious that it legitimately raises the specter of voter fraud or other electoral improprieties." (This argument reflects that he considered his claim to be an election contest claim under AS 15.20.540, because misconduct is not an element of a recount appeal. He also • argued that this evidence was sufficient to entitle him to further time for discovery regarding the identity of the people who completed the ballots, whether voters had actually requested assistance, why only a few people apparently filled in many ballots, and the total number of ballots that might have been affected. The superior court denied Miller's request for discovery and granted the State's motion for summary judgment, noting that the admissible portions of Miller's 43 AS 15.15.240 provides, in relevant part, that "[a] qualified voter needing assistance in voting may request an election official, a person, or not more than two persons of the voter's choice to assist." 44 Willis, 600 P.2d at 1081 ("[I]n a recount appeal ... [t]he concept of malconduct does not enter into the question[.] "). 45 Alaska Civil Rule 56(f) allows the superior court broad discretion to grant a party sufficient time to conduct discovery before opposing a summary judgment motion if the party is unable to marshal evidence in the time nomially required to oppose the motion. - 6532 evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding misconduct by anyone, and that it was not even sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant discovery before opposing the summary judgment motion. We agree. Alaska Statute 15.15.240 allows any qualified voter to ask for assistance, including assistance in writing in the name of a write -in candidate. No reasonable inference of misconduct can arise from the mere fact that the handwriting on multiple ballots appears to be from a small number of people. And though we have interpreted Civil Rule 56(f) liberally to allow a litigant a meaningful opportunity to obtain evidence to present a case, pure speculation cannot support a fishing expedition for evidence to oppose summary judgment in an election contest. We affirm the superior court's summary dismissal of this election contest claim. C. Ballots cast by allegedly unidentified voters Miller alleged in his complaint that the Division accepted and counted as valid ballots from voters who, "according to the official election registers from the precinct polling places, ... neither showed proper identification nor were excused from showing such identification." He noted that Alaska law requires a voter to show identification before being allowed to vote, unless an election official waives that requirement because the voter is known to the officia1. In its motion for summary judgment, the State explained that although the voter registers contain spaces for election officials to specify how they verified each voter's identity, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement that the election officials 46 E.g., Kessey v. Frontier Lodge, Inc., 42 P.3d 1060, 1062 (Alaska 2002) ( "Generally, `requests made pursuant to Rule 56(f) should be freely granted[.]' " (quoting Jennings v. State, 566 P.2d 1304, 1313 (Alaska 1997))); Gamble v. Northstore P 'ship, 907 P.2d 477, 485 (Alaska 1995); Munn v. Bristol Bay Hous. Auth., 777 P.2d 188, 193 (Alaska 1989). 47 See AS 15.15.225. -19- 6532 actually fill in this information. Construing Miller's claim as an election contest, the State argued that Miller would have to produce some evidence both (1) that misconduct by election officials actually allowed unregistered persons to vote and (2) that the number of votes in question would affect the outcome of the election. Miller responded that he was not bringing an election contest on this issue, but rather was "contesting the validity of particular ballots." He argued that the failure of election officials to mark the register form for some voters was circumstantial evidence that "certain people may have voted without showing identification or being personally known to an election worker" and that he needed discovery to determine who they were. The superior court treated this claim as an election contest, denied Miller's request for discovery, and granted summary judgment in favor of the State. The court noted that there is no requirement that election workers fill out the register, that the failure to fill out the register did not create a reasonable inference of misconduct by election officials, and that there was no legitimate basis for the requested discovery based solely on the failure to fill out some of the registers. But Miller did not raise his claim as an election contest within the jurisdiction of the superior court. He instead raised a challenge to "the validity of particular ballots," which is in the nature of a recount appeal that would come directly to us. But he also did not ask for a recount and there is no recount decision about the validity of particular ballots for us to review. Miller cannot avoid the avenues established by the legislature to challenge elections: Miller asserted in the superior court that he did not bring an election contest, and he did not seek a recount by the Division. The only possible issue before us, then, is an issue not decided by the superior court: whether Miller is entitled to a judgment declaring that an entire class of ballots — those from voters for whom election officials did not mark on their registers how the officials verified the voters' identification — is invalid. He is not entitled to such a judgment. - 6532 We affirm the superior court's dismissal of the claim because there is no legal requirement that an election official mark the register form for identification verification and the failure to do so does not invalidate a vote. VII. We Do Not Reach Questions Regarding Miller's Motion To Amend His Complaint To Add Claims About Alleged Voting By Felons. During the summary judgment briefing, Miller raised a new claim that an unknown number of felons ineligible to vote had actually voted in the election. This claim was discussed at oral argument before the superior court on the summary judgment issues. Shortly after the oral argument, Miller sought leave to file an amended complaint setting out this claim. The superior court issued its order on summary judgment without ruling on the motion to amend. In light of the expedited nature of this case, we accepted Miller's appeal of the summary judgment ruling without waiting for a final judgment from the superior court. We now decline to reach whether the superior court implicitly denied the motion to amend and whether it was error to do so. We will resolve all issues actually before us by way of this opinion, and we will return jurisdiction to the superior court to consider Miller's motion to amend. But we note the following. If Miller intends to pursue his superior court claim about improper voting by felons, he must do so as an election contest under AS 15.20.540. He must allege and prove the necessary elements of an election contest claim, including the level of misconduct necessary to support the claim and that the votes in question are sufficient to change the result of the election. In light of our other rulings and the current voting tally, it appears to us that the number of votes in question would have to be in the tens of thousands to change the result of the election." But it is difficult, at best, to quantify 48 Miller currently trails by over 10,000 votes. Because any malconduct in (continued...) - 6532 the number based on the record before us, and we leave that to the parties to resolve in the superior court should Miller decide to pursue this claim. Finally, we note that an election contest does not bar certification of an election and that there are no remaining issues raised by Miller that would prevent this election from being certified. Under AS 15.20.560, if an election contest ultimately changes the result of an election, judgment will be so entered and a new certification will be issued. VIII. The Superior Court Did Not Err In Denying Murkowski's Motion for Summary Judgment On Her Claim That Write -In Ballots With Her Name But Lacking A Filled -In Oval Should Have Been Counted. The Division did not count a number of ballots for Murkowski because the voters had not filled in the ovals next to the write -in line, even though the voters had written in Murkowski's name. Murkowski argues that these votes should have been counted for her. We disagree. Alaska Statute 1515.360(a)(10) states that "[i]n order to vote for a write -in candidate, the voter must write in the candidate's name in the space 48 ( .. continued) allowing ineligible felons to vote would not appear to bias any particular candidate, proportional reduction of votes would be the proper remedy if any ineligible felons were actually shown to have voted. See Hammond v. Hickel, 588 P.2d 256, 260 (Alaska 1978). 49 AS 15.20.560 provides in relevant part that, at the conclusion of an election contest, "[t]he judge shall pronounce judgment on which candidate was elected .... The director shall issue a new election certificate to correctly reflect the judgment of the court." 50 Like Miller's claim regarding the class of votes by allegedly unidentified voters, this claim is in the nature of an election recount appeal. Like Miller, Murkowski did not request a recount. We therefore consider this claim only as one for declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of AS 15.15.360's provisions regarding marking the ovals on ballots. -22- 6532 provided and fill in the oval opposite the candidate's name." (Emphasis added.) Although AS 15.15.360(a) does not address spelling, marks that validly "fill in the oval" are subject to the requirements of AS 15.15.360(a)(1) and (a)(5), which state: (1) A voter may mark a ballot only by filling in, making "X" marks, diagonal, horizontal, or vertical marks, solid marks, stars, circles, asterisks, checks, or plus signs that are clearly spaced in the oval opposite the name of the candidate, proposition, or question that the voter desires to designate. (5) The mark specified in (1) of this subsection shall be counted only if it is substantially inside the oval provided, or touching the oval so as to indicate clearly that the voter intended the particular oval to be designated. In other words, the statute mandates that the write -in voter mark the oval in some fashion; a blank oval will invalidate the vote. Writing in the name but not marking the oval is not compliant with the statute. Murkowski is not entitled to declaratory judgment that AS 15.15.360 should be interpreted to excuse write -in voters from marking ovals as required by laws' Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the superior court on this issue. IX. Conclusion For the reasons set out above, we AFFIRM the decision of the superior court in all respects. 51 Murkowski also argues that the Division erred by not counting a number of write -in votes for "Lisa M." and that the superior court erred by affirming the Division's determination. This claim is essentially a recount appeal that may only be brought to us after a recount by the Director, and is not an election contest within the jurisdiction of the superior court. As with Miller's claim about specific votes by allegedly unidentified voters, Murkowski's claim is not properly before us. To the extent she requests declaratory judgment regarding variations on write -in candidates' names, we have already addressed it. -23- 6532 There are no remaining issues raised by Miller that prevent this election from being certified. t=' -24- 6532 ft. ° < KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH sh3 °Q ' AGENDA STATEMENT SIf : "„ REGULAR MEETING OF: MAY 3, 2012 ITEM NO.: 13.D.1 TITLE: Approval to Proceed to Final Construction Bid Documents for the Long Term Care Center Project. ORIGINATOR: Borough Manager FISCAL IMPACT: ® Yes $481,653 or No Funds Available ® Yes ❑ No Account Number: 495 -535 452.140 09010.4 Amount Budgeted: $796,399 ATTACHMENTS: Project Schedule APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: a cir SUMMARY STATEMENT: Kodiak Island Borough code 3.30.100 "Change Orders - Manager Authority" states that a change order to a contract in excess of $10,000 will require the signatures of at least two Assembly Members in the absence of the Mayor and Deputy Presiding Officer. Due to the large amount of this change order, staff feels that it is appropriate to bring before the Assembly for approval. On June 2, 2011 the Assembly approved the contract award FY 2011 -33 to Architects Alaska for Design Services and authorized tasks through the Concept Phase of planning. This work has been accomplished. In order for the Design Team to proceed with the completion of the Design and Construction Documents phase an amendment to the original contract will be necessary. Architects Alaska, in their original proposal, placed a value of $481,653 for this phase of the work. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to grant approval to proceed to final construction bid documents for the Long Term Care Center Project. and to amend Architects Alaska contract FY2011 -33 adding an amount not to exceed $481,653. Kodiak Island Borough Page 1 of 1 ID 0 Tusk Name I Duration I Start I Finish Predecessors Feemal Marti I April I May IJune I July I August I Septa I 10CtobelNoverni D I Ja tsar I Fee Febru I March IAprl IM May IJune July I Aunust I Septa 1001 bet Novemj Deceml 1 �i Geo-Technical Investigation 11 days Mon 5/7/12 Mon 521/12 1 I 517 0 5121 1 2 3 Programming 11 days Mon 2/13/12 Mon 227/12 3 8 .2/ 27 1 I I I 3 ' C p, Design 15 Jaye Tue 228 /12 Mon 3/19/122 2/28LIY 1 1 4 3 KIDPmjed Manager review and comments 11 days Thu 4/19/12' Thu S /31123 1 4/19 I,i 1 1 1 1 1 5 Sdremallc Design 21 days Fri 5/4/12 Fri 6/1112 4 alai 611 I 6 GC/CM Request for Proposals 10days Mon 6/4/12 Fn6/15/125 1 6141 6/15 _ 1 7 a GC/CM Contract Award 10 days Mon 6/16112 Ft 629/12 6 18 6129 8 3 KIB Project Manager eview and comments 5 days Moo 6/4112 Fri 6/6 /12 4 614 618 9 3 Design Development 35% 31 days Mon 6/11/12 Mon? /23/128 6/11 7123 10 Certificate of Need Application 1 day Tue 7/24/12 Tue 7/24/12 9 '7/24 1 7/24 1 1 11 3 KIB Project Manager review and comments 4 days Tue 7/24/12 Fn 7/27/12 9 7/24 7/27 x ', 12 3 PKIMC Lease agreement approval 1 day Tue 7/31/12 Tue 7/31/12 7/31 ]IH 13 — 100% Site drawings 15 days Mon 7/30112 Fn 8/17/1211 7130 8/17 14 3 Site Preparation 15 days Mon 8/20/12 Fri 9/7/1213 120 8/7 l 15 3 Design Development 65% 31 days Mon 7130112 Mon 9/10 /1211 7130 9110 1 16 a KIB Project Manager review and comments 4 days Tue 9111/12 Fn 9/14/1215 9 /11 0-9/14 17 3 100% Foundation Drawings If days Mon9/17/12 Mon 10 /1/1216 I 9H] 10H • I 18 Footings 8 Foundation Permit 10 days Tue 10/2/12 Mon 10115/1217 I 1 12 10/15 19 3 Footin & Foundation Construction 21 days Tue 10116/12 Tue 11/13/1218 I 10116 11/13 20 Permitting Drawings 11 days Mon 9/17/12 Mon 1011 /1216 9117 10 21 3 Construction Documents 95% 25 days Mon 9/17/12 Fri 10119 /1216 9/17 10119 I 22 Final Permit 30 days Tue 10 /2/12 Mon 11112 /1220 1012 11112 23 KIB Project Manager final review and comments 5days Nan 1022112 Fr110/26/1221 I 10122 ` 10/26 l ' 24 a Fnal ConsOuctpn Documents 14 days Mon 10/29/12 Thu 11/15/1223 1 1029 11/15 1 1 25 3—Construction 252 days Ft111I18/12 Mon 11/4/13 24 11/16 r 1 t 11/4 Project'. 11034.01 Project Schedule Task • Milestone • Rolled Up Task 1000 Rolled Up Progress External Tasks I J Group By Summary % Date'. Fri 4 /27/12 Progress Summery ID 9 Rolled Up Milestone O Split .............................. Project Summary V v l Deadline d Page 1 4 PROVIDENCE u Kodiak Island Medical Center Provudence ',esponse to F F' inc. LTC Facility Proposal Kodiak Island Borough Assembly May 2012 _ ,, r • it PROVIDENCE Providence Summary Kodiak Island Medical Center We appreciate the opportunity to address F &R's concerns regarding the replacement of the long term care (LTC) facility. We are responding from the letter and supporting information sent to the KIB Assembly by F &R dated April 30, 2012. At no time has F &R reached out to Providence, the operator of the LTC, to discuss the possibility or feasibility of remodeling Bayview into a LTC facility. In summary, for the reasons cited in this presentation, Providence would be unable to operate a LTC facility at Bayview, and we would not recommend the KIB purchase and remodel a 34 year old facility for that purpose. • The Following Is Addressed + PROVIDENCE in This Presentation Medic . dic l al Cent Cent Mer 1. Providence does not compete with Bayview nor will they in a new facility. Both provide different levels of care. 2. For medical care delivery and operational efficiencies, the LTC facility needs to be co- located next to the medical campus. Bayview is 1.4 miles from the hospital. 3. Combining assisted living with LTC would significantly decrease cost reimbursement from Medicaid. 4. The KIB small hospital consultant, an expert in these matters, indicates no financial burden to the community of KIB for the construction of the new facility. 5. Providence and the KIB will negotiate a mutually beneficial lease amendment to address the addition of a new LTC facility. 6. A new LTC facility really does serve the most vulnerable in our community. 7. There are significant life safety issues for the elderly in a 5 -story building. 8. Staffing inefficiencies in the delivery of medical care would be extremely problematic in a multilevel facility. • • A New Facility Has Ft PROVIDENCE No Impact On Bayview Medical Island Medical Center • Providence does not compete with assisted living services provided by Bayview • Bayview and Providence provide significantly different levels of service regulated by federal and state requirements • Providence provides long term care — 24 hour nursing care and supervision requiring the services of a licensed nurse — Higher level of care — The State of Alaska determines level of care using very strict guidelines Long Term Care Does Not + PROVIDENCE Islan Compete with Assisted Living M d nter • Bayview provides assisted living services — Does not require 24 hour nursing services and supervision — Lower level of care • Clients at Bayview are admitted to LTC only when assisted living no longer meets the client's level of care • When a patient is discharged from acute care, depending on the determination and level of care need, the patient either goes to assisted living or long term care 4 PROVIDENCE Level of Care W Kodiak Island Medical Center • Summary — F &R suggests there is a "gray area" regarding level of care. There is no "gray area ". — A resident either qualifies for Medicaid funded long term care services or they do not. An assisted living client cannot elect to transfer to a new long term care facility unless they are state qualified for this level of care. — Long term care does not compete with assisted living. i PROVIDENCE Proximity to Hospital u Kodiak Island Medical Center • As operator, Providence recommends close proximity of long term care to the hospital for a host of obvious operational reasons. — The advantages of a LTC facility that is co- located, or close to, the medical campus: • Makes it easier for staff to respond to the needs of the LTC residents in areas such as dietary consultation, lab and X -Ray, maintenance, housekeeping and spiritual services just to name a few • Ease and efficiency for physicians to visit LTC residents • Ease of providing laundry services to LTC residents • Ease of transportation of residents from LTC facility to hospital for medical services • A valuable lesson learned from Seward is not to locate the LTC facility too far from the medical campus. The facilities in Seward . -. are separated by 4 miles `� Implications of Combining sit PROVIDENCE LTC with Assisted Living M d edic i Island al Cent Cent Mer • Combining LTC and assisted living services has significant financial implications to the operator. • LTC is 100% cost reimbursed by Medicaid. Assisted living is not. • Housed in the same facility, overhead and capital costs would be allocated to both the LTC and assisted living units based upon predetermined Medicare and Medicaid formulas (e.g. square footage). • Any overhead and capital (depreciation, interest) costs allocated to assisted living would be lost and unrecoverable Medicaid reimbursement. The decrease in Medicaid reimbursement would be significant. • For this reason, small hospitals nationwide avoid combining assisted living and LTC services as being promoted and suggested by F &R, Inc. PROVIDENCE Cost to the Community Kodiak Island Medical Center • F &R Inc. indicated this would be taxpayer funded competing with an existing business — The cost of a new LTC facility to the KIB and the community is zero as recently demonstrated by the KIB consultant at a recent work session — Capital Medicaid reimbursement would flow through to the KIB for payment of debt service on the facility — The KIB consultant indicated there is no financial burden to the KIB or the community`° Agreement ROVIDENCE Lease Agreement J r u Kodiak Island Medical Center • Providence and KIB would renegotiate the current lease to include the additional Providence lease payments for payment of debt service — Providence would continue to assume operational risk • LTC is currently reimbursed by Medicaid at 100% of cost. Could this change in the future? Sure, but not likely for the following reasons: — Historically, Medicaid has paid LTC at cost for at least 25 years and probably longer, so the likelihood of this changing is small — If there is a change, existing facilities would probably be held harmless by the change as suggested by the KIB consultant based upon his experience in other states • Providence is confident a mutually beneficial lease agreement can be reached with the KIB L , `s Does This Really Serve t PROVIDENCE Kodiak Islan Our Community? Medical C nter • F &R suggests a new LTC facility would not serve the community, because residents not qualifying for Medicaid, could not afford this service. — Current Realities: • Medicaid utilization of the Kodiak LTC unit is 95% and historically close to 100 %. • Medicaid reimbursement rates in the state range from $407 to $889 with an average of $665; cost depending on age of facility. Current Kodiak rate is $512. • The majority of LTC beds throughout Alaska are close to 100% Medicaid occupied. • The cost of constructing a new LTC facility is not the primary reason for the increased cost of care. In 2016, the capital portion of the Medicaid rate is projected to be $182, representing only 19% of the Medicaid rate. The operating portion of the Medicaid rate represents 81% of the total Medicaid rate. • Our LTC facility is currently serving the needs of the most vulnerable of our population and will continue to do so in a new LTC facility. • tiy,4 PROVIDENCE Other Considerations Kodiak Island Medical Center • A new LTC facility would have a useful life of 40 years or more. What would be the useful life of a remodeled 34 year old building? • Life safety. A 5 story facility presents significant challenges regarding the evacuation of residents. It would be seemingly impossible for LTC residents to reach safety in the event of fire or natural disaster. • If the KIB converts this building, where would current tenants find housing? KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Board of Education Special Meeting — April 9, 2012 SUMMARY APPROVED: Motion to approve the 2011/2012 School Board Meeting Calendar Revision as presented. APPROVED: Motion to extend Superintendent Stewart McDonald's contract effective July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2015, with a FYI3 annual salary of $131,021; and the annual salaries for FYI4 and FYI5 shall be $131,021 per fiscal year. APPROVED: Motion to approve the FYI3 Artist in Schools Grant Intent to Apply in the approximate amount of $15,000 with a District match dependent on individual building level resources. APPROVED: Motion to approve a procurement agreement to Arctic Fires Bronze Sculpture Works in the amount of $68,000 for new pool facility artwork. APPROVED: Motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing negotiations and to include Superintendent Stewart McDonald, Assistant Superintendent Marilyn Davidson, Chief Financial Officer Luke Fulp and Spokesperson John Sedor (via telephone, if need be). APPROVED: Motion to adjourn. Subsequent to approval, Board of Education meeting minutes are posted on the District's website at www.kodiakschools.org. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Regular Meeting Guidelines May 3, 2012, 7:30 p.m., Borough Assembly Chambers Please announce: Please remember to turn off ringers on your cell phones or put them on vibrate. 1. INVOCATION Major John Quinn of the Salvation Army. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL KIBC 2.16.070.... the Chair shall cause the record to reflect the absence of the member, the REASON for the absence, and whether the absence is excused by the Assembly. Recommended motion: Move to excuse Assembly member Bonney who is absent due to personal leave. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Recommended motion: Move to approve the agenda. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. PLEASE ANNOUNCE: Due to the delay of the radio broadcast and web streaming, please place your calls at this time to speak under Citizens Comments. Your call will be placed in a queue and answered at the appropriate time. Local: 486 -3231. 6. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Student of the Month for May 2012 • Leila (Lay -la) Pyle, Senior at Kodiak High School B. Municipal Clerks Week Proclamation C. Older Americans Month Proclamation • Accepting: Dave Blacketer, Vice President, Senior Citizens of Kodiak Board 7. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (These are limited to three minutes per speaker.) A. Agenda Items not scheduled for public hearing and general comments. Read phone number: Local is 486 -3231. Please ask speakers to: 1. sign in 2. state their name for the record 3. turn on the microphone before speaking Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Guidelines May 3, 2012 Page 1 8. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9. PUBLIC HEARING A. Ordinance No. FY2012 -19 Rezoning a Tract of Land Located in Old Harbor From R1- Single Family Residential To I- Industrial (P &Z Case 12 -030, Sage Technologies, LLC). Recommended motion: Move to adopt Ordinance No. FY2012 -19. Staff Report — Manager Gifford Open public hearing. Read phone number: Local is 486 -3231. Please ask speakers to sign in and state their name for the record. Comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. Close public hearing. Assembly discussion and amendments may be offered at this time. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION. B. Ordinance No. FY2012 -20 Amending Title 3 Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.35 Real Property Tax By Adding Section 3.35.085 Method of Determining the Assessed Value of Property That Qualifies for a Low Income Housing Tax Credit Under 26 USC 42. Recommended motion: Move to adopt Ordinance No. FY2012 -20. Clerk's note: Attached on yellow paper is the substituted copy of Ordinance No. FY2012 -20. Staff Report — Manager Gifford Recommended motion: Move to amend Ordinance No. FY2012 -20 by substitution. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND. Open public hearing. Read phone number: Local is 486 -3231. Please ask speakers to sign in and state their name for the record. Comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. Close public hearing. Assembly discussion and amendments may be offered at this time. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED. 10. BOROUGH MANAGER'S REPORT 11. MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Guidelines May 3, 2012 Page 2 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None. 13. NEW BUSINESS A. Contracts 1. Contract No. FY2012 -18 Auditing Services for Kodiak Island Borough and Kodiak Island Borough School District for Fiscal Years 2013 — 2015. Recommended motion: Move to authorize the Manager to execute Contract No. FY2012 -18 with Altman, Rogers, & Company for auditing services for the Kodiak Island Borough and Kodiak Island Borough School District for Fiscal Years 2013 -2015 in an amount not to exceed $395,840. Staff Report — Manager Gifford Assembly discussion. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION. B. Resolutions 1. Resolution No. FY2012 -29 Authorizing the Assessor to Assess the Fir Terrace Low - Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Project Based on Restricted Rents. Clerk's Note: Attached on white paper is a memorandum regarding staff's recommendation for Resolution No. FY2012 -29. Recommended motion: Move to adopt Resolution No. FY2012 -29. Staff Report — Manager Gifford Assembly discussion and amendments may be offered at this time. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION. 2. Resolution No. FY2012 -27 Approving a Contract Extension Agreement to Extend the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the Kodiak Island Borough and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1547 and Adjusting the Salary Schedule and the COLA as Agreed to in This Contract to Both Union and Non -Union Employees. Recommended motion: Move to adopt Resolution No. FY2012 -27. Staff Report — Manager Gifford Assembly discussion and amendments may be offered at this time. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION. PLEASE ANNOUNCE: Due to the delay of the radio broadcast and web streaming, please place your calls at this time to speak under Citizens Comments. Your call will be placed in a queue and answered at the appropriate time. Local: 486 -3231. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Guidelines May 3, 2012 Page 3 C. Ordinances for Introduction 1. Ordinance No. FY2012 -16 Amending Various Code Sections in Title 7 Elections. Recommended motion: Move to adopt Ordinance No. FY2012 -16 in first reading to advance to public hearing at the next meeting of the Assembly. Clerk's Note: Attached on blue paper is a corrected copy of Ordinance No. FY2012 -16. Staff Report — Clerk Javier Assembly discussion and amendments may be offered at this time. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION. D. Other Items 1. Approval to Proceed to Final Construction Bid Documents for the Long Term Care Center Project. Recommended motion: Move to grant approval to proceed to final construction bid documents for the Long Term Care Center project in an amount not to exceed $481,653. Clerk's Note: Attached on breed paper is backup information for this item. Staff Report — Manager Gifford Assembly discussion. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION. 14. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (These are limited to three minutes per speaker.) Read phone number: Local is 486 -3231. Please ask speakers to: 1. sign in 2. state their name for the record 3. turn on the microphone before speaking 15. ASSEMBLY MEMBER COMMENTS Announcements — Mayor Selby The next Assembly work session will be held on Thursday, May 10 at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Conference Room. The next regular meeting is scheduled on Thursday, May 17 at 7:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers. 16. ADJOURNMENT Recommended motion: Move to adjourn the meeting. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Guidelines May 3, 2012 Page 4 . , • KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY ROLL CALL SHEET i fp . - Regular ' . Special Date: 051 a Convened: .., Recessed: Reconvened: Adjourned: ... . ... . , BY BY: t BY: . 111 . 04) BY: &pleau BY: p titc“.11 • , SECOND: .. 'i SECOND: ; ; -)kiruvE. SECOND: 51 iL CS SECOND: .7.1 w e i t1/4_, SECOND: % 5 1.-, n < - ' . • " - 0 ( Cii ki mg) 0 fo(A;vvcoAd, Ti 9.ol D - ;-D : /et t _ YES NO - ' YES NO ' YES NO , .-: - YES, NO ' ''. YES'' :NC:h Ms. Austerman V Ms. Austerman Ms. Austerman Ms. Austerman*s Ms. Austerman Itc, d' Mr. Bonney i Mr13_oriney................Mr 411r7.Bonraey,.... Mr. Bonney„, ' ■••■• Mr. Friend V Mr. Friend Mr. Friend Mr. Friend V Mr. Friend Mr. Kaplan V . Mr. Kaplan Mr. Kaplan Mr. Kaplan V Mr. Kaplan 4,- v Ms. Lynch V/ Ms. Lynch Ms. Lynch Ms. Lynch V Ms. Lynch Mr. Stephens V , Mr. Stephens Mr. Stephens Mr. Stephens / Mr. Stephens . V s • Ms. Stutes Ms. Stutes Ms. Stutes Ms. Stutes V Ms. Stutes V • PHANGE:OFVOTE? HANGE OF VOTE? CHANGE OF VOTE? CHANGE OF VOTE? CHANGE OF VOTE? CHANGE OF VOTE?1:.*P . W‘ttLi.;,1y : kV TOTAL .' 4 ; , . ; TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: l 0 TOTAL: The mayor may not vote except in the case where only six members of the assembly are present and there is a three/three tie vote of the assembly. Mayor Selby V Mayor Selby Mayor Selby Mayor Selby Mayor Selby KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY ROLL CALL SHEET _ / 1 j J Regular I Special ^ Date: O� I O✓ (9-0 0- �% Convened: Recessed: 'b '� 1 Reconvened: Adjourned: BY: • p, BY: K1 21t t)) �,QQ BY: -I-II-en BY: (�A (KV JL13Y: 1.0 SECOND: �i6L� SECOND: " � GY'�/� SECOND: l ( SECOND: }� � SECOND:\ „,j p 6 9,09-2 1 Dide Stl' . , YES NO YES NO - YES NO - . YES NO YES NO -- Ms. Austerman "_i Ms. Austerman V Ms. Austermaij v'Ms. Austerman t / Ms. Austerman ✓ k- Bo Mnney— - r, M-Bonney .---- - - -M: r Bonney --- - - -r. M Bonney..,_., y Mr. onney" Mr. Friend' I Mr. Friend t/ Mr. Friend V Mr. Friend ✓ Mr. Friend V Mr. Kaplan ` / ` V, Mr. Kaplan` ` �/ Mr. Kaplan , Mr. Kaplan 7 Mr. Kaplan / + Ms. Lynch , Ms. Lynch v � /` Ms. Lynch - v. / / Lynch te --� Ms. Lynch v / Mr. Stephens ' Mr. Stephens y , / Mr. Stephens Mr. Stephens ✓ Mr. Stephens* ✓ Ms. Stutes v Ms. Stutes VVV f Ms. Stutes V Ms. Stutes ✓ Ms. Stutes (CHANGE OF VOTE? HANGE OF VOTE? CHANGE CHANGE OF VOTE? CHANGE _OF_ VOTE? CHANG_E OF VOTE? CHANGE OF VOTE') _ TOTAL: 1Q %D TOTAL: J 0 TOTAL: TOTAL: (0 el TOTAL: / The mayor may not vote except in the case where only six members of the assembly present and there is a three /three tie vote of the assembly. Mayor Selby Mayor Selby Mayor Selby Mayor Selby Mayor Selby KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY ROLL CALL SHEET Date: D510 -c„ Regular Special r -a® Convened: Recessed: Reconvened: Adjourned: at //�� ‘Pe (# p PA J ���"� � 1 BY: �l,�Y({I �' BY: � -Q� BY: Awt„k BY: BY: SECOND: L �„t✓ `'1�44jpj 'SECOND: GU SECO ND: SECOND: SECOND: K Imt vcr:71‘ \ ftil \111/4) i t Of i - O 85'14 r‘ \ e \aft) CACI YES NO YES NO. YES NO YES . NO YES NO Ms. Austerma / Ms. Austerman , / Ms. Austerma<5-' /� �/ Ms. Austerman / Ms. Austerman , J Mr _Bonney. f -M[ Bonney _- _Mr._Bonney - -Mr— Bonney._,_„ Mr . Boaney Mr. Friend ` Mr. Friend V Mr. Friend Mr. Friend I Mr. Friend V. Mr. Kaplan . VVV / Mr. Kaplan / Mr. Kaplan V V/ Mr. Kaplan Mr. Kaplan 1/4/ V V Ms. Lynch Ms. Lynch Ms. Lynch L Ms. Lynch Ms. Lynch ' I Mr. Stephens 7 ) y Mr. Stephens I Mr. Stephens a Mr. Stephens V Mr. Stephens tr Ms. Stutes 4 V Ms. Stutes , / Ms. Stutes Ms. Stutes V Ms. Stutes [CHANGE OF VOTE? HANGE OF VOTE? CHANGE OF VOTE? CHANGE OF VOTE? CHANGE OF VOTE? CHANGE OF VOTE ?j _ - fOr 1 0 0 TOTAL: si G TOTAL: - TOTAL: ir TOTAL: 11 v The mayor may not vote except in the case where only six members of the assembly are present and there is a three /three tie vote of the assembly. Mayor Selby Mayor Selby Mayor Selby Mayor Selby Mayor Selby KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH REGULAR MEETING Regular Meeting of: (nA �ulo� Please PRINT your name Please PRINT your name (4 Vet& DfL-N (e4 S 1 u \ \\ ot-COAL / t etS e 46Cr- ,y)4.),1 �- / b, �rSON C:\\) 0 �s v Alt -t , ck4-