KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH 144 N. BINKLEY. SOLDOTNA, ALASKA. Qa,::"n ~--- BUSINESS (907) 262-4441 ~ ", ,... -...,..""' ....,.-" .. ~~ '_E BAGLEY MEMORANDUM ~ll1 MAYOR TO: Pete Sprague, Assembly President (at Members ofthe Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly
FROM: Bonnie L. Golden, Grants Manager ~
DATE: February 17, 2004
SUBJECT: Reports from Borough Grant Recipients
The Borough provides funding to various agencies for a variety of purposes, generally for economic development activities. Recipients ofthose funds are required to file reports to the Borough, generally on a semi-annual basis. (The Small Business Development Center, must file quarterly reports.) I have received the January 31,2004, progress reports and financial reports from all of the following grant recipients.
• Arctic Winter Games Host Society • Central Area Rural Transit System, Inc. • Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Committee • Cook Inlet Salmon Brand, Inc. • Kenai Peninsula Economic Development District • Kenai Peninsula Tourism Marketing Council
Copies of the reports are attached for your infonnation. Kenai Peninsula 2006 Arctic Winter Games Host Society .t ,~lJ\~llNg~.lff~~~~~~~il;~~!~~Illi1t~1IiiE I~_. KENAI PENIN BORO Mayor's Office KPB GRANT ACTI'1ITY REPORT January 2004
In October the Host Society Board ofDire(~tors began a hiring process to recruit a General Manager and I am please to announce the hiring ofMr. Loren Smith from North Pole, Alaska. They had a nine member hiring committee who review 54 applications and narrowed the list down to three individuals. They interviewed the three applicants and Mr. Smith was the recommendation from the hiring committee. On November 25,2006 the Host Society Board ofDirectors, approved the hiring committee's selection. A management contract was negotiated with Mr. Smith and approved at the th December 11 th Board ofDirector meeting. December 15 was Mr. Smith's first day ofwork.
The Host Society is currently advertising for a Sport Director, and hopes to have him/her on board by February of2004.
Some significant developments for the Arctic Winter Games 2006:
• We now have a permanent headquarters for the 2006 AWG Host Society. The City of Kenai has contributed the upper office area at their PRISM facility for the Arctic "rinter Games Host Society to use as our headquarters. This is a $100,000 plus in-kind contribution and it is great to be in such a well laid out facility. Not only do we have lots of office space, we also have a large conference room and several smaller conference rooms.
• We have received our 501(c) 3 tax-exempt status from the IRS.
• Homer recently announced that they will break ground on their new hockey rink this spring and Kenai is ,evaluating what may need to be done to upgrade their hockey rink.
Box 1659, Soldotna, AK 99669 - 907-335-3366 - 907-335-3367 - [email protected]
!ci~*,.~~~ • A number of important promotional items such as hats, jackets, vests and pins are in the process of being ordered for the delegation going to the Arctic Winter Games 2004.
• The Arctic Winter Games purchased Blackbaud fundraising and financial accounting software. This software comes highly recommended by any number of large non-profit organizations and will help to reduce the number of staff members required to manage our fundraising campaign and in-house accounting. This comprehensive software package otters a vast range of tracking and contact management options, reports, mass mailing fonnats and complete fundraising campaign management features. It also offers higWy detailed accounting features and reports that will help the Host Society to maintain the highest standards of financial accountability. When the 2006 Games are completed, this software will be donated to an appropriate local area non-profit organization.
Thursday, Dec 11, the 2006 host society had their first annual meeting and accomplished some major tasks. They passed a resolution supporting a memorandum of agreement with the Peninsula Winter Games, approved Committee and Sub-committee Chairperson appointments, began the process to put together a contract for a local Marketing/Media consultant, approved the General Manager's contract and approved the 2004-operating budget. Since this was the Host Societies Annual meeting they also had an election of officers. Dale Bagley was reelec~ted as President, David Carey was reelected as Vice President, Becky Foster was reelected as Treasurer, and Jack Brown was reelected as Secretary.
Box 1669, Soldotna, AK 99669 - Phone 907-336-3366 - Fax 907-336-3367 - [email protected] .Jj,c~~~J;~tt~~~~:fi!lI~~~M11.~~~~ The following chart is a breakdown showing how the Host Society has spent funds from the Kenai Peninsula Borough grant money for 2003. Classification Account Title Budgeted Expenditures
Personnel Wages & Taxes $67,800.00 $16,965.03
Supplies & Services Office Supplies $6,850.00 $2,625.98
Travel $40,000.00 $5,896.66
Financial Software $42,000.00 $40,650.00
!Rent & Operating Leases $5,500.00
I Other $11,700.00 $6,877.00
Capital Outlay Office Furniture and Machines $17,300.00 $3,634.27
Contingency $8,850.00
$200,000.00 $76,648.94
In conclusion, Arctic Winter Games 2006 has an active Board ofDirectors and equally active committee members that are doing an outstanding job of raising the necessary revenue to put on the 2006 Arctic Winter Games. With Mr. Loren Smith now on board, and with all the excitement that will be generated by the delegation going to the 2004 Arctic Winter Games, we are expecting that there will be even more accomplishments to report during the next three months. cf?~~~ Terri Nettles Administrative Assistant, Arctic Winter Garnes 2006
Box 1669, Soldotna, AK 99669 - Phone____ 907-336-3366 - Fa.xift, 907-336.3367 - [email protected] Central Area Rural Transit System, Inc.
P.O. Box 993, Soldotna, Alaska 99669 (907) 262-8900 Fax 262-6122
" 'We're Driving People Happy!"
We are an Equal Opportunity Agency. Auxiliary Aide and Services are available to individuals with Disabilities.
January 15,2004
Bonnie Golden, Grants Administrator Dale Bagley, Borough Mayor KfJVAl PENm BORD Assembly Members Mayor's Office Kenai Peninsula Borough 144 N. Binkley St. Soldotna, AK 99669
RE: Borough Grant to CARTS
Dear Ms. Golden,
Enclosed is the documentation and progress report for the above named grant.
CARTS had another tremendous year! We delivered 35,446 rides in 2003, bringing our total rides delivered to 99,384! WOW! I have included some updated charts. Note on the line graph covering ridership for 2002-2003 how during the winter months in 2002, typically our busy time, the numbers steadily decreased. I attribute that to the mild winter weather we had last year. The same cannot be said for this year though, and we are often scheduling 200 or more rides a day during the week. In fact, one day we had over 250 rides scheduled! During the last quarter alone, we delivered 10,417 rides. Again, WOW!
In September we upgraded our scheduling/dispatching software which has been a great help. It is now much easier to schedule/dispatch rides and to compile om data and statistics. CARTS recently signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Independent Living Center to coordinate rides, and we are currently working on a contract with Central Peninsula Counseling Services.
If you have any questions please give me a call. We appreciate the continued support from the Borough.
Sincerely, 100000 - //// • Work • School 90000 • Personal/Shopping/Recreational o Support SeIVice 80000 o Medical/Physical T'herapy
70000 • Mental Health/Substance Abuse • Child/Adult Care Programs tiOOOO
50000
1.0000
:~()()OO -
20000
10000
o 2000 (3 months) 2001 2002 2003 Total 983 Rides 21,614 rides 41,341 rides 35,446 rides 99,384 Total Rides Ridership 2002-2003
4000 --,---- I ---~ a500
aooo School Ends '2500 School Ends 2000 --1 1500 School School Starts Starts 1000
500
0, I I I I I I I I i I I f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~###~~~#~¥¢~~###~~~#~¥¢ Central Area Rural Transit System, Inc. Income Statement For the Six Months Ending December 31,2003
Current Month Revenues Revenue BOR004 25,000.00
Total Revenues 25,000.00
Expenses PR, Hourly Ops Asst BORO 04 1,589.58 Rent Expense BOR004 600.00 Travel BORO 04 53.58 Equipment BOR004 6,675.00 Vehicle Expense BOR004 3,565.35 Provider Rides Expense BORO 04 11,767.88 Dues & Memberships BORO 04 20.00
Total Expenses 24,271.39
1/15/2004 at 10:12 AM Page: 1 Cook Inlet RCAC Report to the Kenai Peninsula Borough
RCAC
June 30, 2003 through January 31, 2004 Progress Report from Cook Inlet RCAC to KPB for their funding for "Coordination in Cook Inlet: Partnering for improved Physical Oceanographic Observational Data and Numerical Modeling and Developing a User-friendly Coordinated Coastal Habitat Database"
ShoreZone Mappine
The ShoreZone mapping project, that received significant funding from the KPB, gave Cook Inlet RCAC opportunities to leverage funds and bring on numerous partners for expanding the project outside of Cook Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Since this project's inception, in 200 I, it has grown from the initial pilot project in central Cook Inlet to now include much of the northern Gulf of Alaska coast. After presentations by Cook Inlet RCAC and their contractors about the ShoreZone mapping project, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the University of Alaska., and the National Park Service adopted the methods and have or are currently mapping the Kenai Fjords National Park, the Katmai National Park, Afognak and northern Kodiak Islands, and coastline just west of Prince William Sound. Also, at a recent meeting of over 30 local, state, and federal agency personnel, and interested parties from other not-for profit organizations, a unanimous agreement was reached that this program should be expanded to include the entire state of Alaska and be integrated with programs in B.C. and Washington state.
Final ShoreZone mapping for upper Cook Inlet and Public Outreach Component Activities from 30 June 2003- 31 January 2004: Funding Provided by KPB on 11 November 2003: $15,000 Funding expended 30 June 2003 - 31 January 2004: $ 0
Through a partnership with the USF&WS, Cook Inlet RCAC surveyed the area north of the east and west Forelands in June 2003, using some of our previous KPB funds. The additional funds provided in this contract are being used to ensure additional polygon mapping is specific areas and for developing a Public Outreach component for ShoreZone mapping. We are coordinating the public outreach component with funding we will receive from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (EVOSTC) due to a successful proposal approved by them in November 2003. In effect, we matched the KPB public outreach funds against the USF&WS funding and, subsequently, with the EVOSTC funds to increase the funds available for public outreach for ShoreZone mapping, which was a significant effort by Cook Inlet RCAC with funds from the KPB in past years.
To date, we have not received any invoices from our contra.ctor so have not expended any KPB funds to date, but have been working with our contractor at Coastal and Ocean Resources, Inc. (CORI) to develop public outreach components. Cook Inlet RCAC's Director of Public Outreach, Steve Howell, has met with local educators to begin developing a public outreach component appropriate for a high school level lesson plan. We met with Dr. John Harper of CORI on 12 January 2004 to develop a plan for moving forward with the public outreach plan and have developed a contract with him for the development of public outreach components within the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
ShoreZone on-the-ground surveyslDatabase dictionary :and web site Activities from 30 June 2003- 31 January 2004: Funding Provided by KPB on 11 November 2003: $25,000 Funding expended 30 June 2003 - 31 January 2004: $ 0
A second major component of ShoreZone Mapping is the collection of on-the-ground data for verifying the aerial surveys and for providing the detailed information about the biota that are mapped using ShoreZone protocols. With funding from the KPB in 2002 and 2003, we have built a database of on-the ground information that describes the various intertidal assc::mblages that are provided in the mapping
C. IDoCliments and SettingslBGoldenlLocal SeltingslTemporary Internet FileslOLKC15\KBP2004-progress report 31jan04.doc Page 1 0/3 2/3/2004 database. These data include detailed descriptions of intertidal algae and invertebrates as well as digital images ofcommunity assemblages and individual species.
We coordinated with the Kachemak Bay Research Reserve to conduct on-the-ground surveys in the summer of 2003 and received funds from the KPB to complete a "digital database dictionary" that can be integrated with a prototype Alaskan Coastal Habitat Web Site. This web site will use and integrate the various components of ShoreZone mapping projects. The initial web site development will focus on data collected from the Kachemak Bay and outer Kenai Peninsula regions and incorporate the various levels and types of data that have been collected to date; ShoreZone mapping data from the aerial surveys, digital coastal images, on-the-ground survey data, and detailed descriptions of invertebrate and algal assemblages and species. The KPB funds were leveraged iin a successful proposal to the EVOS Trustee Council to incorporate the various components for ShoreZone into a user-friendly web site. We developed a contract with Archipelago Marine Resources, Inc. to develop the "database dictionary" and are currently negotiating how best to incorporate this database into a website. After meeting with contractor, Mary Morris of Archipelago, in January, an amendment to that contract is under development.
Physical Oceanography
There is an unprecedented opportunity to see observational physical oceanography data collected in Cook Inlet in the near future. Previously, there had been no significant collections of physical oceanography data in Cook Inlet since the late 1970s and early 1980s. The studies that had been done have been limited to small, focused studies, much of which are considered proprietary data collected by industry in the development of their mixing zone applications. Other studies have been project specific studies, for example the Army Corp of Engineers conducted current studies near the port of Anchorage and the Cook Inlet RCAC conducted a small pilot study using a towed current meter in central Cook Inlet.
Recently, however, there has been renewed interest in unde:rstanding the physical oceanographic regime in Cook Inlet. One ofthe benefits of having a better understanding of Cook Inlet's physical oceanography is to be better able to predict how the water moves in Cook Inlet in relation to tides, wind, freshwater inputs, and other factors. Several agencies have taken an interest in obtaining this information for fulfiIling their various mandates. Unfortunately, we at the Cook Inlet RCAC have noted a lack of integration, coordination, or collaboration between and among the agencies and their contracted researchers. We believe that we are in a unique position to give input and recognize opportunities for overlap and cooperation during field data collections and during the analysis and distribution of data.
Cook Inlet RCAC has been in contact with the various researchers and recognizes a unique opportunity to try to bridge these various projects to ensure that the combination of the different data sets and the opportunity for sharing data will provide physical oceanography modelers to build the best models for predicting the movement of oil within and out of Cook Inlet in oil spill events.
Physical Oceanography (coordination and data) Activities from 30 June 2003- 31 January 2004: Funding Provided by KPB on 11 November 2003: $150,000 Funding expended 30 June 2003 - 31 January 2004: $ 0
Cook Inlet RCAC has submitted a proposal to the Coastal Marine Institute, administered by the School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences at the University of Alaska in an attempt to leverage the funds received from the KPB for physical oceanography in Cook Inlet. Wl~ were notified that our initial proposal "Seasonality of Boundary Conditions for Cook Inlet, Alaska" submitted in October 2003 made it through the first cut for funding. More detailed proposals were due in early December 2003 and we are currently waiting for word whether our final proposal was funded. The proposed project will allow us to work with
C. \Documents and SettingslBGoldenlLocal SetllngslTemporary Internet FileslOLKC15lKBP2004-progress report 3ljan04.doc Page 2 of3 21312004 the University of Alaska's Dr. Steve Okkonen and the Kachemak Bay Research Reserve's Dr. Scott Pegau to conduct hydrographic profile data collections along the boundaries to Cook Inlet, including Kennedy and Stevenson entrances, as well as transects in upper and central Cook Inlet and Kachemak Bay. This study will provide the needed data for these boundaries to water flow into and out ofCook Inlet and, in conjunction with overlapping data from other sources, will provide necessary data for improving surface and sub-surface ocean current models.
In the absence of the CMI funding, we will still be able to conduct a smaller study at the boundary conditions and have developed a plan with the University of Alaska and KBRR to move forward with our first sampling trip in March 2004. We have the two CTO instruments needed for the program currently being shipped to the SeaBird, Inc. offices in Washington to be calibrated before any data are collected. In addition, Cook Inlet RCAC is adding two sensors (dissolvf'd oxygen and fluorometry) onto their CTO to provide additional physical data for the water column. To date, however, no invoices have been received nor any expenses incurred.
In addition to the collaborative data collections planned as described above, the Cook Inlet RCAC is planning a two-day "Cook Inlet Physical Oceanography Workshop" in April 2004 to bring together the various researchers, modelers, and user groups to help ensure that collaboration is taking place for physical oceanography interests in Cook Inlet. This workshop will provide an avenue for the researchers to identifY their data needs and research plans, for modelers to relate their data needs to the researchers, and for user groups to identifY their needs to both the researchers and the modelers. For example, as a user group, Cook Inlet RCAC can describe their need for valid, tested surface or plume trajectory models to ensure, for example, their ability to predict the movement of spilled oil or the accuracy of proposed mixing zone applications. Modelers can then describe what data is needed to improve or test the models. We will work towards ensuring that the data collected by n:searchers I data that is needed and useful for applications. This workshop will be sponsored by Cook Inlet RCAC with the funds provided by the KPB. In addition, the KBRR will match the costs for hosting the workshop by providing their new auditorium at the Ocean Sciences Center in Homer.
C. \Documents and SeltingslBGoldenlLocal SeltingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLKCI5\KBP2004-progress report 3 Ijan04. doc Page 3 of3 2/3/2004 FY's 2002.2003 Year-End KPB/CIRCAC Workplan and 2004 Approved Workplan
PROGRAM/PROJECT _ f'( 2002_!
1-- Total r-$~1 $38,000.00 I $0.00-1- 100.00%1$140,000.00 $69,161.42 $80,848.68 42.26% $40,000.00 $0.00 I $40,000.00 0.00% -. I-I I --f Iii I --l Intertidal Monitoring/KPB Professional Services/KPB ---J!1-00,000.00 ! $100,000.00 $0.00 1100 00%1 $25,000.00 1--$-1-2,6912~ $12,308L~ 50'76%l=__$'-0'-0'-0=--t-__----'--'---+__--'-"--'-"-+-_'----'-'-IFc--'----'----'--'----'----'--'-'---'------t --=-=--:-=-:"!"otal----=1!100,000~~ $0.00 I~~ $12,691.24 t$12,308.76~ $0.00 t=$0.00 I $0.00 I o.oo.J'''''''''C,jC',"MO,"'C'''c~", 'c, I
I Physical OceanographyikPB I 1 1 I I 1 I --+- I Professional Services/KPB $000 I $0.00 $000 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $000 0.00%1$150,000.00 $OOO:::W1..500oo ~ 000% ------I
Total so:i1-o-+-- $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00%1$160,000.00 $0.00 1$160,000.00 0.00%
Prevention, Response, Operations & Safety Committee Shorezone Mapping - 2oo2lGeographic Response Strategies· 2003/KPB
Professional servlcest$20,000i&D20,000.00 ~ $000 11oooo0/"T)45,00000 _$34,89290 $10,107.10 7754%1__ $000 $0.00 $000 O. 00%11002 FUIl'~s ur\,]9r Cr:,ntra,~t ...... m C(.as(~ & Ocean Ho?sl ! I ------1 Total_~---~--_P2~0,000.oE$0.00100.00% $46,000.00 $34,892.90 $10,1-ii7.1iI 77.64% $0.00. --$0:00 __~~2C"'F"M'"'''''C,,,,,,w,"Tm:~
Pipeline Integrity/facilitieslKPB ~~ __ _ c- __ ___E'.__Mffi=" Se,"'=__£''''''''- __ '000 ''',<0000 0 00% on 00 .000 $0 00 0 00% '000 '000 $0 00 _ 000% ' , 1- Total _ $22,000.00 $0.00 $22,000.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00_ $0.00 0.()()"Io. ------ ------ 1 1 Protocol Control Committee NOn-TankerC-PlanFleviews/KPB t---~ ~ ---t---t-----~--~-j-~ I 1---ProFessionaIServices 1$45,00000 $21,962.48 $23,03752 4881%1-- $QOO $000 --~~- $0.00 $000 --~ o.oo%<,,,,,,c'.""Wlhl",O'O"",'
Total $46,000.00 $21,962.48 $23,037.62 48.81% $0.00 I $0.00-+___ $0'])01 o_~ $0.00 t=so:oor $0.00 I O.OOO/~ 1 I 1 ! 1 I --+-- --+------111------ ~~Iic prog=hr~~==t= =t==t----~t==1= Outreach L- -- J J =t-----J=-- t=j I Informational Brochure ------Professional Services $25,000.00 $25,00000 $0.00 110000% $000 $0.00 $0.00 1 0.00% $000 $000 $0 o~O. 00% ,c~nlra:led Ie. TerraJrach"; I
Total ---+I-$26,000.00t- $26,-000.00 I $0.00 1100.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 I $0.00 I $0.00 ~ O'oo%t--- I
\------+---- I 1 I --I ---1----+---- TOTALS ==1$260,000.00lS204--;'962.48----=t::H6,037.62 I 81.98"/·1$210,000.00 I $106,736.66 1$103,264.44-l- 60.83°/~190,000,oo $0.00 1~1~0,0()(),!lQL _IlJl()"!o.+------l
------+-- r- --l- ---1f- --1--'$~2~5~O,~00~0~.0~O;+;F:!;Y~2;~0~02~KP~B~p;:ro;:fe=ss=,o::n::a~' s~e~rv::;ic:;e3s, I I -1 i 1-----1 I $210,000.00 FY 2003 KP8 Professional Services $19000000 FY 2004 KPB Professional Service 1------1 --+ I I------j I I 1ssi;0.000.00 Total FY 2002 & 2003 KPB Funds Received
Page 1 of 1 Feb OS 04 01:51p CEDD 2626762 p. 1
KENAIWILD~ Cook Inlet Salmon Brand, Inc. 43335 KaIUornsky Beach Rd. Suite 16 Soldotna, AK 99669 Email: [email protected] Fax/phone: (907) 262-6762 Telephone: (907) 262-6355
To: Bonnie Golden, KPB Grants M~nager Re: Activity Report for Cook Inlet Salmon Brand Grant Date: Feb. 5,2004
Dear Bonnie,
I am re-sending the following report at your request.
Enclosed the Cook Inlet Salmon Brand, Inc. (CISB) semi-annual activity report, as per our grant agreement.
Sincerely, ~~«ft 9/~~~~ S~ia G. Beaudoin Executive Director, CISB, Inc.
Cook Inlet Salmon Brand Grant Report July-Dec. 31,2003 1 KENAI WILD' Cook Inlet Salmon Brand, Inc. 43335 Kalifornsky Beach Rd. Suite 16 Soldotna, AK 99669 Email: [email protected] Fax/phone: (907) 262-6762 Telephone: (907) 262-6355
Cook Inlet salmon Brand, Inc. Program Activities July 1- Dec. 31, 2003
1. Program Administration: The executive director took steps to immediately comply with all grant requirements, such as obtaining all required insurance and providing certificates of such to the Borough. Insurance is held with a local provider, Accordia of Alaska.
Additional administrative tasked included: registration with the Alaska Department of Labor for a Notice of Employment, interviewing and soliciting written bids from local businesses which provide accounting services. The office of Steve Tarries was selected for general accounting services. Purchased accounting software to assist in tracking of grants (Quickbooks for non-profits) and software to publish newsletters.
Meeting with Blaine Gillman to secure him as a local attorney for Cook Inlet Salmon Brand, Inc.
Ms. Beaudoin was an independent contractor for CISB from Aug-Oct. when a formal salaried contract with benefits was signed.
Brandii O'Reagan has been hired to act as CISB's lead quality control inspector. Ms. O'Reagan has incorporated her own local seafood inspection company, Integrity Seafood Inspection service and she will work over the next several months to expedite the self-certification process for our local processing facilities to comply with program standards and develop training materials for participatin~~ fishers and processors. She Cook Inlet Salmon Brand Grant Report July-Dec. 31,2003 2 will also act to locate potential hires for our local quality inspections.
Ms. Q'Reagan is hired as an independent contractor for CISB and is not on payroll.
2. Website Development: The executive director met with Dave Arnsdorf of AKMA/Alaska Quality Seafood Program (AQS) and discussed the data base server which AKMA has already developed for participants of AQS, which our organization can tap into to further develop quality control tracking of Kenai Wild/AQS certified product. This will be an on-going project this winter. CISB plans to work with AKMA on server based data base development, and in tlhe near future an RFP will be put forth to further develop this sophisticated type of website. The Kenai Wildwebsite will have a component which will be linked to our independent quality control inspectors in the field to input all inspection data, and allow participants access to their individual account to track their program production.
In addition, the executive director of CISB met with the KPB MSI director, Bob Jones and discussed a multitude of website based topics. Mr. Jones assisted the organization in securing the domain name kenaiwild.org for the next five years. Additionally, he outline to the executive director how to develop a draft website and the skeleton for the Kenai Wildtm website has been completed and can be viewed through the KPB computer system. This willlJe an informational site with links to all participating pack holders of Kenai Wildtm production.
Brief emails and telephone calls have been made to specialist attorney, Yale Lewis, requesting update information on Kenai Wild's trademark status and possible trademark infringement by a website and holder of the domain name kenaiwild.com and kenaiwildsalmon.com. Work in this area is on going.
3. Video Development: Two videos were completed using the talents of a local videographer during this activity period. The first Video, wlhich was created prior to this grant agreement, to document the program and it's activities was re-edited to Cook Inlet Salmon Brand Grant Report July-Dec. 31, 2003 3 emphasize the program's need for additional icing equipment in the Kenai Peninsula Borough and to include the recent hire of a independent local seafood inspection service.
A "Consumer Point of Sale" video was completed in time to be utilized in three Kenai Wildprol11otions in lower 48 supermarkets. This video highlights the positive attributes of wild Alaska salmon and the nutritional and health benefits of purchasing quality certified Kenai Wild brand salmon. The video was geared toward the American consumer and was well received in Oregon, Missouri and Ohio.
4. Marketing: A CISB Marketing Committee was formed and several productive meetings were held to identify our key markets and consumer and support materials which need to be developed for those markets. The brand has identified wholesale seafood customers capable of purchasing all of the program's targeted production of 300,000 net pounds (600,000 round pounds of program fish) of pin bone out skin on full side salmon fillets.
The Marketing Committee will make recommendations to the full board as to what specific marketing materials will need RFPs. In addition this group will work to define standards for packaging and labeling and make further refinements and work with AKMA to evaluate market driiven changes to the AQS grading standards.
The group is progressing well and work is ongoing.
Customer development is progressing with all current customers of Kenai Wild pleased with the branded product they have purchased. A new promotion for Kenai Wildis planned in February and CISB plans to send one or two qualified individuals to be on-hand for the promotion and meet with customers and sales staff. This chain of supermarkets has 125 stores. 10,000 Ibs. of skinless boneless twice frozen certified AQS/Kenai Wildwas shipped to this customer.
5. Borough Wide Icing Project: CISB has spear headed the effort to obtain capital from the State of Alaska's Department
Cook Inlet Salmon Brand Grant Report July-Dec. 31,2003 4 of Community and Business Development for additional ice making equipment. This additional ice will be available to anyone within the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The grant request was for 1 million dollars. The grant passed the preliminary meeting of the States' "Fish Caucus", which gave the plan its approval. The grant request was then brought to the governor who indicated that he would require a 25 % local match. Grant funds provided by the KPB Borough Assembly to CISB for program management and quality inspectors, as well as in kind matching funds from borou~lh services and employees acting to assist CISB will go a long way toward the requirement match, however, additional funds will need to be located.
CISB's executive director has acted as a moderator for "Icing Task Force Meetings" with interested individuals. Two meeting have been held and at this.
Profit and Loss by Class Statement enclosed for grant tracking.
Cook Inlet Salmon Brand Grant Report July-Dec. 31,2003 5 2:53 PII .<:. I':~ ~}/N Cook Inlet Salmon Brand, Inc. ~.~O' (~;.,"', Il. 01122104 C](.\. Profit & Loss by Class Accrual Ba.la July through December 2003 CV' 'f) ~. ",;v , \ ". ','. Marketing Malerlal Program Managemenl auallly Conlrol Webslle Development (Bora, Brand Granl) (Bora. Brand Granl) (Bora. Brand Granl) (Bora. Brand Grant) Total Bora. Brand Gra... TOTAL Ordinary IncomalE.penae Income 4 . Contrlbuled eupport 4540 . KP Borough Granls 40,000.00 100,000.00 42,000.00 10,000.00 192,000.00 192,000.00 Tola14 . Contrlbuled support 40,000.00 100,000.00 42,000.00 10,000.00 192,000.00 192,000.00 N 5 . Eerned reYenuea ltl ( 5310· Inleresl-.avlngol.hort·l&rm Inv 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 0,14 [' . ltl Tolal 5, Eamad ravenues 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 N .L ~ "0 ltl N ~ Total Income 40,000.00 100,000.14 42.000.00 10.000.00 192,000.14 192,000.14 Expense I~ 7000 . Granl & conlracle.pen.e 7010· Contract. - prooram..elaled 0.00 16,141.25 0.00 0.00 16,141.25 16,141.25 I~ '/1 . 7060 . 8eneAIs paid 10 or for mambars 0.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 24.00 ~ ~ Tolal 7000, Grant & conlreclaxpanaa 0.00 16,165.25 0.00 0.00 16,165.25 16,165.25 ~ .c c £ 8 0. u. 7200 . Sslaries & relaled axpen.ea ,. 7210 . Officers & dlreclore salsrlss 0.00 9,546.63 0.00 0.00 9,546.63 9,548.63 .. 7240 . Employee banams - nol pension 0.00 3,209.84 0.00 0.00 3,209.64 3,209.84 t:: ~ ..... III 8300 • Travel &meaUngs a.panaes ltl 8310· Travel 0.00 900.00 0.00 0.00 900.00 900.00 N TOlal 8300, Travel & meeUngs e.penaea 0.00 900.00 0.00 0.00 900.00 900.00 (1l o 'If" o l'l N ~ ., Page 1 2:53 PII Cook Inlet Salmon Brand, Inc. N II.. 01122104 Profit & Loss by Class Accrual Basis July through December 2003 lIarkeUng lIeterllll Progrem lIanegement Quality Control W.baita Development (Boro. Brand Gr.nt) (Boro. Brend Grant) (Boro. Brand Grantl (Boro. Brand Granl) Total Boro. Brand Gra... TOTAL 1500 . Mloe e"""n••• 1515· Sarvcle Charge 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.00 4.40 4.40 1520 . Insurance -other 0.00 1.293.00 0.00 0.00 1,293.00 1.283.00 Total 1500· Mise e.p.ns•• 0.00 1.297.40 0.00 -0.00 1,297.40 1,297.40 Total Expen•• 26,269.25 33.735.62 0.00 75.00 60.079.87 60.078.87 N --- Ul r Nal Ordinary Incom. 13,730.75 66.264.52 42,000.00 9,925.00 131,820.27 131.920.27 ID N Ul Nat Income 13.730.75 66,264,52 42,000.00 9,925.00 131.820.27 13U20.27 N c:l c:l W U III ID N.. m 0 ". 0 C'l N C .,III Pag.2 KENAI PENINSULA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, INC. BUSINESS INNOVATION CENTER Friday, January 30, 2004 Bonnie Golden, Grants Manger Kenai Peninsula Borough 144 N. Binkley Soldotna, AK 99669 RE: Mid Progress Report FY04 Dear Bonnie, Please find enclosed the Mid Progress Report unde:r the KPEDD Service Agreement FY04 and Financial Statements for the reporting pt~riod July 1, 2003 through December 31,2003. Also included is the CEDS document on CD and hard copy. Ifyou should have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your patience during EDD's transition period. Sincerely, d1£1d(1'd~ Dee L. Gaddis Administrative & Finance Coordinator Enc: CEDS CD Progress report Financial Statement [4896 KENAI SPUR HWY; SUITE l03-A, KENAI, AK 99611-7756 PHONE: 907/283-3335 FAX: 907/283-3913 EMAIL: [email protected] ",-ww.kpedd.org FY04 Progress Report JulY 1, 2003 to Decennber 3 1, 2003 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ANn PLANNING Goal: Provide up-to-date, accurate, useful information gathered from throughout the Kenai Peninsula for making sound public and private sector economic decisions. Objective #1: Prepare the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Task # 1: Identify interested community groups, Native Associations and individuals, promote participation in public process to gather input from local communities on economic development needs and opportunities, as well as infrastructure priorities to assist communities in developing an Economic Development Strategy. Responsible Party: Executive Director Performance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Performance Measure: Participation of 100 % ofthe rural communities in the Borough on going process. Task # 2: Compile community economic development strategies into a Kenai Peninsula Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Responsible Party: Executive Director Performance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Performance Measure: CEDS produced and distribution in process. Goal: Facilitate the coordination of resources and services to maximize Kenai Peninsula Borough economic development. Objective #1: Promote the benefits ofcommunities, groups and individuals to pool limited resources and work together on economic development issues. Task #1: Hold a 2004 Opportunities Outlook Forum. Responsible Party: ExecutivE: Director/Staff Performance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Performance Measure: Date & Pl.ace TBA. Progress through December 31 St, 2003 KPEDD with the help of the Board ofDirectors and the staff in absence of an Executive Director continued to work on the CEDS document. At the time of this report the CEDS is completed. EDD has contacted several ofthe rural communities about their community plans at this time we are waiting to hear when the first meeting will be. 2 ECONOMIC INFORMATION Goal: Encourage economic development by providing groups, businesses and individuals with ready access to economic information. Objective #1: Distribute marketing materials and infonnation to promote new industry and business growth and relocation to the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Task #1: Distribute marketing infonnation. Responsible Party: Staff Perfonnance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Perfonnance Measure: Marketing infonnation distributed. Task #2: Use World Wide Web and e-mail to provide infonnation useful to business and industry interested in locating in the area. Responsible Party: Executive Director Perfonnance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Perfonnance Measure: Add a counter on website, and continue to keep track ofemai1s requesting infonnation Task #3: Maintain, staff and update resource 1i.brary, Internet access. Responsible Party: Staff Perfonnance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Perfonnance Measure: Number ofcontacts. Progress through December 31 st, 2003 EDD staff distributes economic infonnation at various functions such as the Kenai Peninsula Job Services Center, Chamber of Commerce meetings and Rotary functions. These packets contain economic infonnation and materials intended to promote and support business development. EDD has had a turn over in staff The new Director came on in mid December. The Vista volunteer left the end ofAugust. Low staff turnover is anticipated for the remainder ofthe year. KPEDD's web-sight and e-mail are now an integral part on how we carry out our objective to provide infonnation on our website. The resource library is maintained and is used by the public. Demand for the library varies. 3 Community Participation: State ARDOR Association Anchor Point Chamber Cooper Landing Chamber Homer Chamber Kenai Chamber Nikiski Chamber Seward Chamber Soldotna Chamber Pacific Incubation Network Teleconference North Peninsula Community Council Radio: Print Media: News Interviews Peninsula Clarion Coffee Table Call In Show Dispatch Board Membership: Kenai Peninsula Resource Conservation and Development Central Area Regional Transportation Service (CARTS) National Business Incubator Association ENCOURAGE ECONONUC DEVELOPMENT IN THE BOROUGH Goal: Stimulate sustainable and diverse growth of the Kenai Peninsula Borough economy. Objective #1: Identify, develop and promote opportunities and projects. Task #1: Identify, develop and promote projects ofeconomic development throughout the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Responsible Party: Executive: Director Performance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Performance Measure: Identification process. Objective #2: Identify and recruit companies in the early stages of development to locate in the nurturing and cost effective environment of the business incubator. Task #1: Provide in-depth, quality assistance and support to newly formed small businesses and individuals wanting to establish small business in the BIC facility. Responsible Party: Administrative Coordinator Performance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Performance Measure: Nine tenants (five are BIC) in facility as of 12/31/03. 4 Task #2: Market the facility through media campaigns, public information sessions, and individual contact with small business owners in the community. Responsible Party: Executive Director Performance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Performance Measure:, Nine tenants (five are BIC) in facility as of 12/31103. Progress through December 31 S t, 2003 We are pleased to house five Business Incubator Center tenants; KPTMC, Cook Inlet Refuse, Alaska Video Productions, Peninsula Bookkeeping & Clerical Service and USAlaska Service. WOe also rent space to non-BIC tenants, KDLL/Public Radio, Polar Supply Company, CooperHeat-MQS and R-K Industrial. Business Assistance Goal: Stimulate the growth of small business by providing access to capital. Objective #1: Expand access to start-up or expansion l:;apital for small businesses in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Task #1: Make quality Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) loans to assist businesses in need of gap financing. Responsible Party: Executive DirectorlFinance Coordinator Performance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Performance Measure: None during this reporting period. Task #2: Expand the loan pool and investigate other financing alternatives. Responsible Party: Executive DirectorlFinance Coordinator Performance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Performance Measure: Compile a small business resource list of other available loan funds. Task #3: Effectively Market the RLF. Responsible Party: Executive DirectorlFinance Coordinator Performance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Performance Measure: Public presentations. 5 Progress through December 31 st, 2003 Our first priority is to restructure the RLF committee to be in compliance with EDA requirements and industry standards. Our next priority is to partner with local banks in making community development loans, and to continue to assess the need for re-capitalization. The Executive Director has and will participate in speaking at Chambers and Rotary to infonn the public and promote the RLF. A brochure outlining thl~ RLF criteria is being revised. ADMINISTRATION Goal: Efficiently manage EDD operations through effective staff and resource utilization. Objective #1: Maximize the use ofEDD financial resources through responsible administration. Task # 1: Manage grants and contracts in a responsible, timely manner that satisfies the statutory and regulatory requirements. Responsible Party: Executivl~ Director/Finance Coordinator Perfonnance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Perfonnance Measure: Contracts renewed; grants awarded. Objective #2: Manage office personnel to provide professional and cost-effective program delivery. Task #1: Hire and retain qualified staff. Responsible Party: Executiv€~ Director Perfonnance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Perfonnance Measure: Employee perfonnance evaluations conducted. Task #2: Staffparticipation in training seminars on topics ofcurrent and continuing interest. Responsible Party: Staff Perfonnance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Perfonnance Measure: Attend conferences/seminars. Objective #3: Enhance general public support ofEDD through effective communications. Task #1: Continue implementation ofa public relations program. Responsible Party: Executive: Director Perfonnance Period: 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 Perfonnance Measure: Participation at meetings of civic organizations; public presentations: submit media releases. newslettel:. 6 Progress through December 31 st, 2003 Contracts have been renewed, and all grants applied for have been funded. EDD is now fully staffed with three employees. EDD will evaluate personnel with performance reviews. EDD will improve services with an addition of a VISTA volunteer. EDD has and will continue to participate at civic organizations and improve our public relations program with news releases and public serve announcements. 7 Financial Statements of Kenai Peninsula Economic Dev. District For the Period Ended Dlecember 31, 2003 Prepared inhouse. Kenai Peninsula Economic Dev. District Income Statement For the Period Ended December 31, 2003 1 Month Ended 6 Months Ended Dec. 31, 2003 Dec. 31, 2003 Revenue Restricted Grant Revenue $ 0.00 $ 54,500.00 Interest Income-Banks 105.96 857.74 Interest Income-Loans 611.94 4,195.97 Interest Income-Home 383.83 2,362.94 Interest Income-Evans 19.77 101.69 Rental Income 7,669.85 37,612.11 Other Income 45.25 5,375.11 Trade Revenue 434.75 2,608.50 Total Revenue 9,271.35 107,614.06 Operating Expenses Wages-Admin Assistant 2,640.00 12,320.00 Wages - Executive Director 12,700.00 26,292.18 Wages-Project Manager 0.00 280.50 Wages-Admin Coordinator 3,832.80 17,886.40 Payroll Costs-FICA 1,466.73 4,343.64 Payroll Costs-ESC 529.23 1,179.44 Payroll Costs-Workers Compo Cl.OO 351.75 Payroll Costs-Health Insurance Cl.OO 9,350.10 Payroll Costs-Pension 1,078.80 4,379.88 Payroll Costs-FUTA 56.00 58.24 Advertising 316.66 1,899.96 Alarm 100.00 350.00 Bank Fees 8.00 216.85 Contract Services 2,537.77 2,537.77 Credit Report/R.ecording Fees 20.00 100.00 Dues & Memberships 250.00 505.00 Employee Recruitment 4,570.88 12,994.49 Insurance-Dir & Officers 202.00 1,212.00 Insurance-Emp Dishonesty Bond 27.17 163.02 Insurance-General 393.16 3,115.88 Janitorial 0.00 1,090.00 License 0.00 400.00 Maintenance 760.25 4,507.38 Marketing 192.51 342.51 Miscellaneous 123.28 618.28 Office Supplies 260.83 2,736.60 Postage-Freight-Shipping 17.29 846.34 Professional Fees-Audit 2,500.00 2,500.00 Professional Fees-Legal 96,00 171.00 Professional Fees-Consulting 2,600.00 12,600.00 Publications 0.00 244.00 Staff Development 350.00 350.00 Supplies 18.00 364.29 Taxes/Licenses 0.00 1,035.76 Prepared inhouse. Alaska.s KENAI Dear KPB Mayor and Assembly Members, It has been a challenging and rewarding year for KPTMC! Our mission is to market the KP as a traveler's destination of choice when visiting Alaska therefore developing our economy, and to act as a valuable resource for the KP Tourism Industry (KPTl). During last years grant request campaign I vowed to you that I would create a team that would kick-start this organization. lam pleased to report that KPTMC has been seen, heard and has acted as a player in developing strategies and partnerships to benefit the KP. One of our main priorities is to continually strive for 'buy-in', which will enable us to build a strong collective voice that can positively impact the KPTI. I have outlined the past 6 months in brief. We have already started this 2004 year off and running, and look forward to working with you and your constituents. Thank you for your continued support, it has made a difference. Experience the Kenai Peninsula Migration! Aud Walaszek Executive Director KPTMC 3rd and 4th Quarter Performance Report for KPB: July-Dec 2003 Submitted by Aud Walaszek Strategic Distribution of Planner: The original strategic distribution plan of Discovery Guides was carried out to completion. After evaluation of the costs spent on shipping these guides, we have designed a tiered process for our web visitors to order and select shipping options to recleive planner. lfthe individual (with DSL) opts to view and print immediately they may download a PDF file on the web page, this option provides them immediate gratification on their research and saves us in shipping. This option will have a counter so that we will know how many additional "online" planners have been visited and allows the planner to reach an unlimited number of potential visitors, rather than being restricted to the 75,000 in print. Option 2 is for the international inquiry who opts not to download and pays a $12 SH fee on their MCN for international delivery. The 3rd Option is for the US resident who opts not to down load and need the planner within a week or so, they pay SH of $10 on their MCN. The fourth option is our traditional option and is reserved now for US resident, free delivery in 3 weeks or less (bulk mail). V{e are confident that our request will continue to grow and the money saved on the previous expenses absorbed from KPTMC paying for hefty international mail rates and rushes will allow us to mail out more US bulk-mail planners. We anticipated an influx of web inquiries due to the (3) new personal reference-lead source (postcards) in each 2004 planner. phone (907) 283-3850 fax (907) 283-3913 e-mail [email protected] 14896 Kenai Spur Hwy, Suite 106A Kenai, Alaska 99611 Alaska.s KENAI Support of Kenai River Classic: In July both Aud and Kiplynne volunteered day and evening time to expedite KRC Event. Industry Appreciation Day 2003: KPTMC played a visible role in the planning of Industry Appreciation Day. This was KPTMC's first year to, serve the planning committee and awards committee, and support the effort and to represent the Tourism Industry with a booth and as a sponsor and player in the days' events! KPTMC followed up with Bravo advertisements in regional newspapers recognizing the Tourism Award recipients. Advertising in Travel Planners: . ATIA State Planner ACVB Planner: new map ad ofKP with highlights Marine Highway Guide Advertising in National Publications: Reader's Digest in October Alaska Magazine Dec-Jan, Feb and April: first cooperative ad!!! KPTMC used KP map ad and coordinated efforts with CVBs on KP to create and benefit from a cooperative Ad. This is important to educate the potential visitor on the network ofcommunities that are connected on the KP. Cabela's Magazine in cooperation with Soldotna Chamber and along side an article on the area. Board Development: Board Elections held, electing in candidates, one from each of the 3 geographic regions. Officer elections to take place @ Ft;:b 19th Board Meeting. 13/13 seats are filled. 2004 Board: lillian Simpson, SeaLife Center, Seward-outside promos Janet Swanson, Major Marine Tours, Seward-outside promos Roark Brown, Homer Ocean Charters, Homer Paul Carter, Hotel Edgewater, Seward Shanon Hamrick, Soldotna Chamber, Soldotna Linda Heath, Alaska Legends Lodge, Funny River Steve Anderson, Soldotna BB Lodge, Soldotna Brandii O'Reagan, Arctic Winter Games Cultural Committee (Michelle Glass, to be approved once she starts), KCVB, Kenai George Heim, Alaska River Adventurers, Cooper Landing Karen McCarty, Homer Travel, Homer Rebecca Sorenson, Aspen Hotel, Soldotna Lacey Eckberg, Seward Chamber, Seward phone (907) 283-3850 fax (907) 283-3913 e-mail [email protected] 14896 Kenai Spur Hwy, Suite 106A Kenai, Alaska 99611 Alaska.s KENAI StaffDevelopment: (the team is what make it happen or not. ..) Building a team was one of my personal primary goals this past year. It would take a team to elevate KPTMC to the role of being a valuable resource for the KP Tourism Industry. I am proud to say we have developed that TEAM! Because the opportunities to grow are endless, we tend to keep the hands and minds ofnumerous volunteers active as well. In July I hired Melinda Nonnan to handle our bookkeeping part-time during the day. She has all our finances in order and current on a daily basis. She works M-F 8am-2:30. During that time she also manages the pull-tab finances and admin. duties as well as keeps our office grounded while Teresa and I strategically plan and expedite the evolution of our organization. In August Kiplynne Limberg stepped down from her position here at KPTMC. Because this position is vital to the success of the organization I waited until opportunity presented itself (PWG 2004-which allowed me the funding) to hire a professional and exceptional team player in mid-Oct. Teresa Honrud- Nichol is our Membership Services Manager (and Revenue Generator). In a brief period of time her commitment to excellence has already proved beneficial to our organization and membership! Office Mgt: Insurances-All liability, worker compensation and comprehensive, as well as licenses and pennits for KPTMC and Hello Lucky pull··tabs are current. Asset Improvement: purchase and installed CD disk writers for the 3 office computers, and 1 keyboard-mouse. Shoulder Season Promotions within the State: Coordinated Booster Committee of numerous leaders from Central Peninsula communities to facilitate a successful Peninsula Winter Games 2004 end ofJanuary. Promotion of Event includes but not limited to: Grand Prize Float in Christmas Comes to Kenai Parade, addressing the Chamber Memberships at luncheons, Mascot at Community events and in the school system development of first PWG website! Membership is Priority! : Membership has increased from 160 to 216 so far, and the number of display ads in our planner increased from 58 to 78. Web Development: Currently in 2004 we are working with Phil Sheridan to do and extreme makeover on our web to mirror our 2004 Discovery Guide! Continued TI Education: Aud and numerous board Members attended ATIA Annual Convention in Vancouver BC. phone (907) 283-3850 fax (907) 283-3913 e-mail [email protected] 14896 Kenai Spur Hwy, Suite 106A Kenai, Alaska 99611 Alaska.s KENAI !<'uture Tourism Industry Workforce Promotion: One ofour Board Members participated in the KPC Career Day educating the interested students in their options in the TI on the KP. ATIA and Regional DMO relations: ATIA appointed And to the ATIA Marketing committee. This appointment will keep us in the loop ofthe bigger statewide Tourism Industry picture as well as provide networking opportunities. It also will keep KPTMC visible and get the collective voice of the KPTI heard. ATIA President Ron Peck and Mat-Su Executive Director Bonnie Quill addressed a fuli room of 40, hosted by KPTMC here on the KP, regarding sustainable funding for tourism, state and borough wide. 2006 Arctic Winter Games: Aud was invited to be one ofthe researchers to attend the Wood-Buffalo Games in Canada in preparation for our 2006 AWG on the KP! Aud also assisted in gathering bids for preliminary AWG merchandise. KPB Comprehensive Plan: KPTMC Board met with 1he outreach KPB Comprehensive Plan Committee to express priorities. 2004 Discovery Planner Developments: Enhanced!!!! - Hope each ofyou received your introduction copy in the mail. We have attached another copy for your review, and we encourage you to send it to a potential visiting friend or relative. Enhancements are numerous some major developments are: Info listed by communities as you drive (migrate) the KP and is sectioned by colored tabs. Mission to educate and encourage the visitor to "Experience the Kenai Peninsula Migration". Theme footprints throughout guide and Invitation from Mayor Bagley (placed with Table of Contents) carryout this theme. Alaska Geographic Society Map- 2 page spread Personal Referral Postcards-3 potential leads in each guide to visit website and order guide and plan to visit. Activities "Experience the KP Migration" To Do check List on back cover Promotion of ATIA Alaska Logo on cover Photo and Journal Entry Contest and snapshot theme throughout guide And, ahhhh, how about that Cover! 3500 Discovery Guides-2004guides with cover wraps went to Tour Operators who currently book overnights in Anchorage. 1500 Discovery Guides-2004 with cover wraps went to the KPTI and associated City Council Members, Mayors, Managers and KPB Assembly, Mayor and Administration. phone (907) 283-3850 fax (907) 283-3913 e-mail [email protected] 14896 Kenai Spur Hwy, Suite 106A Kenai, Alaska 99611 Alaska.s KENAI Future Eco·Tourism and Shoulder Season Developments: Feathered Trails Champions: KPTMC rallied players interested in future birding trail development. Birding is the fastest growing outdoor recreational activity in the US and brings in millions of dollars to small communities and billions nation wide. KPTMC committed to promote birding more in our planner and website for 2004, to encourage the Visitor Centers to keep the new Wildlife Refuge Hotline number visible for bird sightings, and to investigate the coordination of an illustrated-birding map for the KP to be distributed or sold in the Visitor Centers. Finances: Audit complete for 2002 (attached) and mon:: importantly we are preparing for our 2003 audit scheduled to take place March 8th 2004. Our goal for 2003 was to get in the black. KPTMC was able to payoff the majority of previous debt while maintaining current healthy finances (not creating new debt) and growing. While our development happened by leaps and bounds, we fell short ofbeing able to payoff all previous debt by under $7000. We have the funds in our bank balance to pay it, but would then run the risk ofbeing short offunds come spring 2004, due to the cycle and timing of our revenues generated and grants received versus monies going out. International Relations: Participated in the greeting arId farewell activities when our sister borough Akita, Japan delegates visited. Tour Operator Relations: Met individually with 20 International Tour Operators at the ATIA Market Place to educate to them to choose the KP as their destination of choice for their Alaska bound clients. Met individually with 30 US Tour Operators at the National Travel Association in Charlotte NC to educate them to include the KP in their travel packages to Alaska. Two of our KPTMC Board Members trained a group of 68 tour operators in Florida on the KP. KPTMC Board Members continuously promote the message of the "KP Network of Communities" as they promote their own establishment when outside at trade shows. Maintained Other Daily duties Continually searching for the balance between expediting our mission, raising funds to expedite our mission, and promoting/educating the KP on the valuable resource they have in KPTMC in order to achieve buy-in, support of our mission and the funding for our mission. phone (907) 283-3850 fax (907) 283-3913 e-mail [email protected] 14896 Kenai Spur Hwy, Suite 106A Kenai, Alaska 99611 Kenai Peninsula Tourism Marketing Council 021091114 Income Statement by Class N <=) July through December 2003 p.., Mirtclting Funds/Exp•.• lBepostMap Other Unclassified ---TOTAL Ordirwy !ncomelExpen&e Jnc:ome 40211 - Internet Revenue Hot Link -Internet 2,127.79 O.V;) 0.00 0.00 2,127.79 Jnlemel Refereacll Ad 129.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 129.04 ~1.882.31 02109104 Income Statement by Class (T)= July through December2003 CL. Matching FundslExp_ Milepost Map Other UnclassilJed TOTAl. Offil:e Equipment- Other 2.45227 0.00 (T) Total Offica phones 1,308.60 0.00 0.00 1,097.36 2,405.&5 CO N OftIcesupplhtS r Willer 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.00 C) Office suppUes - Other 789.70 0.00 0.00 527.24 1,316.94 OJ ~ Tolal Office auppOe5 807.70 0.0:> 000 527.2~ 1,:!34.94 c> Postage :z: freight 0.00 0.00 000 538.50 538.50 Postage. Other 4.916.76 0.00 D.CO 401.61 5,31e.37 ~ --- ---- U- Total Postage 4,916.76 0.00 0.00 94D.11 5.856.87 Rent 2,209.01 O.Cl) 0.00 0.00 2.200.01 Slaff CommIsson 2.824.51 0.00 O.CO 0.00 2,82'.51 StaffTravel 3.017.31 0.00 --0.00 1.748.95 4,766.26 Tolal SDDD . Administrallon 23,1069.41 0.00 a.co ~t514.55 33.383.57 5400' PWG Rlli.'l\bul'$abJes 3.812.68 O.CO 0.00 1CO.CJ 3,912.86 5500' Fundraislng Exp. 2.435.CO 0.00 1.5::0.00 -16a.50 3,765.5:-' 55'01 •• Refmbursablas 9M.64 0.00 O.CO ·e80.CO -45.313 6000 ' Marketing 800it 4«.92 O.CO 0.00 103.25 5.(818 Ad'lertiiinIl 16,560.~1 0.'::0 G.CO 1.360.5~ 17.920.92 fulfillment ~,5a6.17 0.00 0.00 212.43 4,793.60 Mil«pcst Map 8C:l.OO a.coO 0.00 D.CO 5::';>.00 § Planner Pro-ducllon 51.<:4643. O.CO O.CO O.o-J 5t.a.:6.?3 0... 600J • ~~arketin9 - Other aC1.75 O.C':: 00·:: 970.93 1.i72.65 :><:: ---~--- :c T01Z16000 . r:arl;eting 75.035.106 0.0<; oeo 2.~7.:3 77.685.81 0... e5: Everyone involved in the visitor industry in Alaska agrees we need a more effective and better funded marketing program. Independent visitor counts have been in decline for five years or more. And while cruise passenger counts have held steady, it has come at a high price: steep discounting has hurt many segments ofthe cruise market, including hotels and optional tours. The Alaska Tourism Industry Association was formed in 2000 from the "Millenium Plan"-- an effort to create a private / public partnership to fund tourism marketing. The state was seeking to cut costs, and warned the industry that they must find a long term, self-funded approach to marketing Alaska. The industry reacted with a combination of "pay-to-play" programs, heavy contributions from the m~ior cruise operators, as well as voluntary "assessments" from the ACVB and smaller regional marketing organizations. The state subsidy dropped from historical levels, but still contributes about $4 million of the annual $10 million budget. Most agree that $10 million is barel y adequate to maintain a viable marketing program, and the threat of losing financial support from the state and cruise industry is ever-present. Alaska ranks low nationally in terms of its marketing budget. The cry for more money has met with resistance in Juneau, even in the wake of 91 ] . As the state seeks revenue sources to balance the budget, talk of sales tax, bed tax, cruise ship head tax, and a seasonal visitor tax has stirred interest among different sectors. Once a specific bill or proposal is aired, the howls of protest ring and the lobbyists in Juneau start their engines. Senate Bill 254 is the brainchild of ATTA, and calls for a 2% "self assessment" on all in state visitor services to provide a stable funding source for tourism marketing which is not subject to General Fund appropriation. Projected revenue is about $18 million and would be earmarked exclusively for tourism marketing, similar to how ASMI assesses the fishing industry for marketing seafood. This self-assessment would be subject to a vote of those assessed-one dollar, one vote. In spite of noble efforts by the industry to create a solid front of support to the Legislature on this bill, negative reaction to SB254 is widespread. However, due to the high stakes and the;: need for consensus, the industry is talking and negotiating in ways that have never happened before. This consensus building is overdue, and should address long standing issues that prevent our industry from being truly united. First, an executive summary of the conflict: Some feel the cruise industry does not pay its share, since it avoids sales and income tax on its ocean based cruises and would avoid them under SB254. Others feel the cruise industry has disproportionately subsidized the marketing of this state for a decade. Some feel the regional and political structure of ATlA is a Dinosaur holdover of the 1970's style AVA and disenfranchises entire regions of the state; others feel opportunities exist for all who desire to be involved and that the system works. Some contend our industry is 70% based on in-state resident visitation and KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE inda Murphy, MMC, Borough Clerk Sherry Biggs, Deputy Cler 144 North Binkley Street ~ 907-262-8608 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Fax 907-262-8615 MEMORAlvDUM TO: Assembly President Pete Sprague Members of the Assembly FROM: Borough Clerk Linda MUrp~ DATE: February 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Approval of March 30, 2004 Special By-Mail Election Canvass Board Pursuant to KPB 4.50.010, approval of those people who have consented to serve as canvass board members for the upcoming March 30, 2004 Special By-Mail Election is respectfully requested. Sue Krizer, Chair /_ LiMa eus~ck ._~_.. Sharon Harris Jackie Walgenbach Lori Seymore Nita Douthit MEMORANDUM TO ASSEMBLY February 12. 2004 Approval of Canvass Board Page 1 of 1 Central Area Rural Transit System, Inc. P.O. Box 993, Soldotna, Alaska 99669 (907) 262-8900 Fax 262-6122 " We're Driving People Happy!" We (Ire an Equal Opportunity Agency. Auxiliary Aide and Services are available to individuals with Disabilities. February 5, 2004 () I rn Dale Bagley, Mayor =0 Kenai Peninsula Borough ~~J 144 N. Binkley C·,") , ':'-~"; e' ,•• Soldotna, AK 99669 C:J !-~il --n ,"-'j }J \....-/ C) RE: Central Area Rural Transit System, Inc. funding request for FY 2005 r:-1 Dear Mayor Bagley, CARTS continues to grow! We routinely scheduled and delivered over 200 rides per day this winter. We also reached the milestone of 100,000 trips this January! I can't tell you how pleased we are with our accomplishments. CARTS recently signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Independent Living Center and we firmly believe partnerships like this are key to maximizing the transportation options at the lowest cost. This agreement is allowing CARTS to offer an expanded service, providing transportation to residents we were previously not serving. We submitted a joint application to the state DOT requesting funds for the upcoming year to continue this partnership. In addition, we were awarded grant funds to purchase a new vehicle for Central Peninsula Counseling Services, and are expecting delivery soon. We are finalizing a contract between our two organizations. These are just two examples of the progress we are making to fully coordinate the community and make sure that those who need a ride can get one. We certainly appreciate the support the Borough has given us and respectfully request $75.000 for FY 2005. These funds will help to match Job Access (JARC) funds we receive from the Federal Transit Administration for operating expenses. I would like to arrange a time to meet with you to discuss our program and plans for the upcoming year. Sincerely, cc: Pete Sprague, Assembly President Page 1 of 1 AGENDA lTEM 1. J. Essert, Sue Ellen From: Bear [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 20047:08 PM To: [email protected] SUbject: Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund The Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund wants funds to tile a lawsuit against a government agency, then they should go to their members for funding, and not another government agency. The Borough has better things to do with the money they have then give it to groups to fight another government agency. Robert Crowell Bear's Reel Repair Soldotna, Alaska r"',,·.) :::~3 nr -l: • i III ~":-I ::::0 02 0:::: il"i ~":""~ CJ -/"- C,r) -...... l 'I -;:; .-" () [::::J ~'.~ -'''";'''''i r--"l -rOt '---' C) C:9 V1 fil w 02/17/04 Essert. Sue Ellen AGENDA ITEM I.. / From: Don [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 12:58 PM To: Undisclosed-Recipient; Subject: government vs government lawsuits 02/17/04 (agenda "I" item) Dear Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Member: I understand that on 02/17/04 (agenda "I" item) the commercial fishing lobby desires to attempt to undermine the public process which placed limitations on that industries devastating impact on public fisheries. John McCombs and Doug Blossom of the Cook Inlet Fistermen's Fund appear to be seeking Borough funds to create legal action to repeal due process regulation of their commercial fishing industry. I do not believe it is a proper function of our government to become entangled within legal actions against other branches of that same government. I believe that government vs government lawsuits are at best counter-productive. Our State has developed correct and logical public procedures to handle fish & game regulation disputes. Those procedures include our Alaska Board of Fisheries due process meetings. Many State and private dollars have been spent to create or allow this due process procedure. I pay thousands of tax dollars into tte Kenai Borough every year and I do not want my Borough to have anything to do with attempting to undermine our Alaska Board of Fisheries meetings. It is not logical to have our Boroughs bring legal action against our State Boards as it is not logical for those Boards to bring actions against our Boroughs. I believe it is an act of governmental suicide for a government to begin suing it other branches. Proper due process procedures have been established to resolve these fisheries disputes but there will always be some individuals who will not be happy with the outcome of this process. Please do not allow our Kenai Borough to waste any of its valuable time considering such legal folly. Thank you for not considering this legal folly. Don Johnson P.O. Box 876 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 [email protected] o 907 262 7893 n-i -;.,. , __"._, :::0 "!-i-·-~ '.:J I i AGENDA ITEM~d-, Dennis K. & Barbara L. Roper P.O. Box 4234 Soldotna, AK 99669 907.262-6577 - Voice / 907.262-8896 - Fax [email protected] February 11,2004 ~"'''''''') C) ~',:_:3 Borough Clerk I -,.,-"'" m rr-l :=D Kenai Peninsula Borough :J"J !;.,:':' ;-n ::::, (:J 144 N. Binkley ./", :I) -"-I 0- ;-:1 " .,:;' " Soldotna, Alaska 99669 (~) CD - _s~ i--r'-l -, '-I ~ 0 Ass(~mbly -n ..r:::: ATTN: Assembly President Sprague and Members C-) iT1 "! SUBJECT: Street Name Review - Amiyung Cow:t Madame Clerk: My name is Barbara Roper and I reside at 46075 Amiyung Court in Soldotna. I had testified at the November 24, 2003 Planning Commission meeting and again at the February 3, 2004 Assembly meeting regarding the subject street name review. I was disappointed that the issue was moved for reconsideration, especially since I will be traveling the day it comes back before you, and cannot attend. However, I do want to point out that two of the property owners who testified on February 3 (Brown and Carlisle) gave the impression they had structures or homes on their lots - they do not. The lots are vacant and have been for as long as we've lived there, a total of 14 years. I respectfully request the Assembly vote to retain the name Amiyung Court - it would be an inconvenience for us year-round residents to once again have to change the name of our street. The other property owners do not understand what is involved, as the majority spend only 30 days or less each year in residence on Amiyung. Thank you for your consideration. Barbara Roper AGENDA ITEMUjIL J ~ dt:Jt?y--t1~ z o ii) 5 is CD ::> (/) f oZ ~ w (/) o o ::E Attachment A Lot Layout I Topography MCLane Consulting Group Point Possession x Conceptual Plan No.3 211 ~ I ~ I" / I"'l \I r KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH 144 N. BINKLEY, SOLDOTNA, ALASKlQ!:9§~"'g.t~9 P,''! J 31 BUSINESS (907) 262·4441 FAX (907)262-1892 1/[''") -. ,': ,J " •. - ...... --",,> . I.~.·.· :... __~. ,r::', ! .-', C' ,r-";- -/ ,""""" ~ _ ',__ \.....,,' ,-- i- :i -' =. DALE BAGLEY MAYOR MEMORANDUM LAYDO WN TO: Pete Sprague, Assembly President Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Members FROM: tf)Max J. Best, Planning Director DATE: February 13, 2004 SUBJECT: Vacate a portion of Lincoln Street between Lots 68 & 73, 69 & 72,70 & 71 and vacate the 20' Alley Way between Bear Lake Road and the North 40 feet ofLot 98, dedicated by Woodrow Alaska (Plat SW # 8); within Section 12, Township 1 North, Range I West, Seward Meridian, Alaska; and the Kenai Peninsula Borough; KPB File 2004-019; Location: Bear Lake area in Seward In accordance with AS 29.40.140, no vacation ofa Borough right-of-way and/or easement may be made without the consent of the Borough Assembly. The Planning Commission approved the referenced vacation subject to staffs recommendations during their regularly scheduled February 9, 2004 meeting. Staff's recommendations follow: 1. Alternate dedication ofa right-of-way over the roadway constructed adjacent to and through Lincoln Street. 2. Alternate dedication ofa right-of-way over the roadway constructed adjacent to and through the alley extending south from Lincoln Street. 3. Resolution of encroachment problems in Bear Lake Drive with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation or the Kenai Peninsula Borough. 4. Extension ofthe submittal time requirements ofKPB Codes: submittal ofa preliminaryplat in accordance with Chapter 20 of the KPB Code AND submittal of a final plat within two years of vacation approval. This petition is being sent to you for your consideration and action. The Assembly has 30 days from February 9,2004 in which to veto the decision of the Planning Commission. lfno veto is received by the Commission within the 30-day period, the decision of the Commission will stand. Draft, unapproved minutes of the pertinent portion of the meeting and other related materials are attached. Findings: 1. Sufficient rights-of-way exist to serve surrounding properties. 2. No surrounding properties will be denied access. 3. Per the submittal, the right-of-way proposed for vacation is not in use for access. 4. Per the submittal, the right-of-way proposed for vacation has not been constructed. 5. The rights-of-way do not appear to be in use for utilities. 6. All subdivision plats finalizing vacations are sent to utility companies for review and easement requirements. 7. Dedication of the portion of Bear Lake Drive through this property will be provided. 8. Bear Lake Drive provides access to numerous subdivided and developed parcels to the east. 9. Staff has requested a cul-de-sac to facilitate use of the remainder of Lincoln Avenue and the alleys. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends approval of the vacations as petitioned, subject to: 1. Submittal of a preliminary plat in accordance with Chapter 20 of the KPB Code (submittal of a final plat within one year of vacation approval). If the vacation is approved, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly has thirty days in which they may veto Planning Commission approval of the vacation. DENIAL OF A VACATION PETITION IS A FINAL ACT FOR WHICH NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH. APPEALS TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VACATION MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS TO SUPERIOR COURT AT KENAI, ALASKA PURSUANT TO PART VI OF THE ALASKA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURES. [20.28.110 AS AMENDED BY KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ORDINANCE 99-43]. END OF STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM TO THE STAFF REPORT Staff report addendum as read by Max Best. PC Meeting 2/9/2004 Staff conducted a site visit on February 3, 2004. Due to a recent heavy snowfall, some areas were inaccessible. The areas providing access to the assorted mobile homes and permanent structures on the property had been plowed. Staff took numerous photographs, which are provided in the desk packet. It appears that development of the property has taken place with roadways being constructed in approximately the same pattern as the original dedications. This is supported by the as-built. The as-built shows that these roads extend past the mobile home/RV portion of the property to serve the adjacent parcels. Due to the snow, access to the creek adjacent to and within Wissamickon Drive was limited, but it was located very close to the Bear Lake Drive constructed road and the Wissamickon Drive dedication intersection. KPB GIS data shows the Wissamickon Drive dedication area was severely impacted by the 1995 flood. Bear Lake Drive was also flooded at this time. State of Alaska Department of Transportation has provided a written objection to the vacation. They have offered to work with the petitioner to exchange a vacation of a portion of the State-owned Bear Lake Drive right-of-way for additional dedication of Bear Lake Drive. This is the portion that passes through the "park" tract to the east. This would solve numerous encroachment problems. Based on the State DOT comments, a site visit and the flood hazards associated with the dedication of Wissamickon Drive, staff has added to or revised the original findings: Original Findings: 1. Sufficient rights-of-way exist to serve the surrounding properties. 2. No surrounding properties will be denied access. 3. Per the submittal, the right-of-way proposed for vacation is not in use for access. 4. Per the submittal, the right-of-way proposed for vacation has not been constructed. 5. The rights-of-way do not appear to be in use for utilities. 6. All subdivision plats finalizing vacations are sent to utility companies for review and easement KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2004 MEETING PAGE 19 UNAPPROVED MINUTES Closing Lincoln Drive would make Mr. Burgess' property inaccessible for moving his airstream and boat. The alley off Bear Lake Road is approximately 10 feet wide, and he cannot negotiate the corner. His boat and trailer are more than 36 feet long. His boat is 9 1/2 feet wide. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Burgess how he negotiated the corner now. Commissioner Johnson did not understand what the difference would be if the proposed vacation was approved. Mr. Burgess replied he used Lincoln Drive when he moved his boat and airstream. There is a street sign posted for Lincoln Drive. Right now he reaches his property by turning off the highway to Bear Lake Road, taking a 90-degree right turn, and turning right onto Lincoln Drive (next to Bear Creek RV Park). He drives through the park to reach his property. Mr. Burgess wondered about the actual location of the road. The information he received shows mobile homes are in the road. Standing on Bear Lake Road looking down Lincoln, a line where trees have been cleared is visible. This cleared area goes to the western tip of Lot 68. Mr. Burgess noted the entrance to his property was on Lincoln Drive. When he bought his property, he thought he had a road. Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Burgess if he would be satisfied if the existing graveled road stays in place. Mr. Burgess agreed. He needed access from Bear Lake Road to Lincoln. Vice Chairman Clark understood the graveled road was not necessarily in the Lincoln right-of-way. Mr. Best noted that staff is recommending dedication of the existing travel way. The petitioners proposed to vacate all the right-of way. 2. David Hettick, 33508 Lincoln Street, Seward Mr. Hettick agreed Mr. Burgess drove throljgh the RV park. Mr. Hettick offered to provide a document authorizing Mr. Burgess to bring his camper or boat through the RV park. Mr. Hettick did not plan to block the road. He wanted to be able to control the traffic through the RV park. He built the road and has maintained it since 1964. The clearing did not follow the road. Mr. Burgess' gate is at the far end of the road. Mr. Hettick did not object to dedicating a cul-de-sac. He was unsure about the problems the State referenced regarding Bear Lake Drive. The State did not notify him. Chairman Bryson asked Mr. Hettick if he agreed to staff's recommendations. Mr. Hettick replied yes. Commissioner Hutchinson asked Mr. Hettick if he owned the lots currently crossed by the existing graveled travel way (Lots 72, 73A, and 73B) so providing a dedication over the travel way would not be a problem. Mr. Hettick replied yes. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Bryson closed the public comment and opened discussion among the Commission. Commissioner Johnson understood staff recommended dedicating over the existing graveled travel way. He noticed the travel way had a wye, which narrowed (directly north of Lots 73A and 73B). He inquired about the location of the dedication. Mr. Best replied the amount of dedication was up to the applicant. Commissioner Troeger pointed out the as-built showed the area available for dedication was limited. He asked if it was possible to get a dedication that would meet Borough standards. Mr. Best was unsure. He agreed the area looked narrow. He would leave this to the surveyor at the time of replatting. Commissioner Hahl inquired about the State's proposed land exchange for vacating part of Bear Lake Drive on the western side. She inquired about the ownership of the park tract. Mr. Best replied the State Department of Natural Resources owned the park parcel. He believed the State wanted to acquire some of the Hettick's property on the corner in exchange for the encroachments along Bear Lake Road. Commissioner Foster was confused about the staff report, which said the area was not in a floodplain, but flooding had impacted Wissamickon Drive. Mr. Best explained the floodplain administrator's notes referred to the mapped floodplain. When the area was mapped, the stream was mapped as a stationary stream, not an alluvial stream. KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY g, 2004 MEETING PAGE 21 UNAPPROVED MINUTES - I / / / c- ! 89-5 .i; ..-4 ';; ~ ...... , ~ , \ \, \ \\ \ '., \ KENAI PENINSULA @OROUGH 144 N. BINKLEY SOLDOTNA, ALASKI{]P9§i61d'5~m C:'l J 31 BUSINESS (907) 262-4441 FAX (907)262-1892 t/f"',"--'" ."...... t ;:; "'. _.~ DALE BAGLEY MAYOR MEMORANDUM LAYDOWN TO: Pete Sprague, Assembly President Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Members FROM: ~Max J. Best, Plarming Director DATE: February 13, 2004 SUBJECT: Vacate a portion of Lincoln Street between Lots 68 & 73, 69 & 72,70 & 71 and vacate the 20' Alley Way between Bear Lake Road and the North 40 feet ofLot 98, dedicated by Woodrow Alaska (Plat SW # 8); within Section 12, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska; and the Kenai Peninsula Borough; KPB File 2004-019; Location: Bear Lake area in Seward In accordance with AS 29.40.140, no vacation of a Borough right-of-way and/or easement may be made without the consent of the Borough Assembly. The PIarming Commission approved the referenced vacation subject to staffs recommendations during their regularly scheduled February 9, 2004 meeting. Staffs recommendations follow: 1. Alternate dedication ofa right-of-way over the roadway constructed adjacent to and through Lincoln Street. 2. Alternate dedication ofa right-of-way over the roadway constructed adjacent to and through the alley extending south from Lincoln Street. 3. Resolution of encroachment problems in Bear Lake Drive with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation or the Kenai Peninsula Borough. 4. Extension ofthe submittal time requirements ofKPB Codes: submittal ofa preliminary plat in accordance with Chapter 20 of the KPB Code AND submittal of a final plat within two years ofvacation approval. This petition is being sent to you for your consideration and action. The Assembly has 30 days from February 9,2004 in which to veto the decision ofthe Planning Commission. Ifno veto is received by the Commission within the 30-day period, the decision of the Commission will stand. Draft, unapproved minutes of the pertinent portion of the meeting and other related materials are attached. AGENDA ITEM F. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Vacate a portion of Lincoln Street between Lots 68 & 73,69 & 72,70 & 71 and vacate the 20' Alley Way between Bear Lake Road and the North 40 feet of Lot 98, dedicated by Woodrow Alaska (Plat SW # 8); within Section 12, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska; and the Kenai Peninsula Borough; KPB File 2004-019; Location: Bear Lake area in Seward Staff report as read by Max Best. PC Meeting 2/9/2004 Purpose as stated in petition: (Summarized by staff - see petition) This is a trailer park that has been privately maintained since 1964. Lincoln Street runs through the park and is only used by the tenants. The alley also runs through the park and is not constructed. The owners would like to have one big parcel for financial reasons. As it stands now, they have eight different tax assessments for this property. The owners propose to dedicate right-of way to encompass Bear Lake Road where it crosses their property. Petitioners: David Wand Lynn S Hettick of Seward, Alaska Public notice appeared in the January 22 and January 29,2004 issues of the Seward Phoenix Log. Sixteen (16) certified mailings were sent to owners of property within 300 feet of the parcels; fourteen (14) of the receipts have been returned. Thirteen (13) regular mailings were sent to agencies and interested parties; eight (8) notices were sent to KPB Departments. Four (4) notices were posted in public locations. The notice and maps were posted on the Borough web site. Statement(s) of non-objection KPB Floodplain Management - not located in a flood zone, no comment or objection KPB Coastal Zone Management Statement of conditional objection KPB Road Maintenance - Gary Davis Mr. Davis states that Wissamickon Drive is not built and probably not buildable due to the encroachment of the creek over the years. He further states that it appears that several lots will be left without legal ROW. Statements of objection None received when this report was prepared. Staff discussion These rights-of-way were created by a 1916 subdivision. KPB Road Maintenance may be unaware of the number of lots owned by the Hetticks, and that they will be platted into a single lot. The portion of the right-of-way adjacent to the Pullins' parcel is required to be platted back into their parcel from the centerline if the vacation is approved. Satellite imagery indicates that all or most of the right-of-way petitioned for vacation is currently blocked by mobile homes and is not in use for roadway purposes. It does not appear that any lots will be left with less legal access than they currently have, and all lots will front on dedicated rights-of-way. The dedication of Bear Lake Road through this parcel may be an improvement over the current situation, since that road is used to access numerous improved lots to the east. Wissamickon Drive has been known to be problematic due to the movement of Bear Creek over the years. Portions of the right-of-way appear to be usable; construction of the road as a throughway may not be. Staff recommends an offset cul-de-sac be provided by the Hetticks at the end of the remaining Lincoln Avenue to allow its future use and the use of the alleys, when constructed. KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2004 MEETING PAGE 18 UNAPPROVED MINUTES Findings: 1. Sufficient rights-of-way exist to serve surrounding properties. 2. No surrounding properties will be denied access. 3. Per the submittal, the right-of-way proposed for vacation is not in use for access. 4. Per the submittal, the right-of-way proposed for vacation has not been constructed. 5. The rights-of-way do not appear to be in use for utilities. 6. All subdivision plats finalizing vacations are sent to utility companies for review and easement requirements. 7. Dedication of the portion of Bear Lake Drive through this property will be provided. 8. Bear Lake Drive provides access to numerous subdivided and developed parcels to the east. 9. Staff has requested a cul-de-sac to facilitate use of the remainder of Lincoln Avenue and the alleys. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends approval of the vacations as petitioned, subject to: 1. Submittal of a preliminary plat in accordance with Chapter 20 of the KPB Code (SUbmittal of a final plat within one year of vacation approval). If the vacation is approved, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly has thirty days in which they may veto Planning Commission approval of the vacation. DENIAL OF A VACATION PETITION IS A FINAL ACT FOR WHICH NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH. APPEALS TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VACATION MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS TO SUPERIOR COURT AT KENAI, ALASKA PURSUANT TO PART VI OF THE ALASKA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURES. [20.28.110 AS AMENDED BY KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ORDINANCE 99-43]. END OF STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM TO THE STAFF REPORT Staff report addendum as read by Max Best. PC Meeting 2/9/2004 Staff conducted a site visit on February 3,2004. Due to a recent heavy snowfall, some areas were inaccessible. The areas providing access to the assorted mobile homes and permanent structures on the property had been plowed. Staff took numerous photographs, which are provided in the desk packet. It appears that development of the property has taken place with roadways being constructed in approximately the same pattern as the original dedications. This is supported by the as-built. The as-built shows that these roads extend past the mobile home/RV portion of the property to serve the adjacent parcels. Due to the snow, access to the creek adjacent to and within Wissamickon Drive was limited, but it was located very close to the Bear Lake Drive constructed road and the Wissamickon Drive dedication intersection. KPB GIS data shows the Wissamickon Drive dedication area was severely impacted by the 1995 flood. Bear Lake Drive was also flooded at this time. State of Alaska Department of Transportation has provided a written objection to the vacation. They have offered to work with the petitioner to exchange a vacation of a portion of the State-owned Bear Lake Drive right-of-way for additional dedication of Bear Lake Drive. This is the portion that passes through the "park" tract to the east. This would solve numerous encroachment problems. Based on the State DOT comments, a site visit and the flood hazards associated with the dedication of Wissamickon Drive, staff has added to or revised the original findings: Original Findings: 1. Sufficient rights-of-way exist to serve the surrounding properties. 2. No surrounding properties will be denied access. 3. Per the submittal, the right-of-way proposed for vacation is not in use tor access. 4. Per the SUbmittal, the right-ot-way proposed for vacation has not been constructed. 5. The rights-of-way do not appear to be in use for utilities. 6. All subdivision plats finalizing vacations are sent to utility companies for review and easement KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9,2004 MEETING PAGE 19 UNAPPROVED MINUTES requirements. 7. Dedication of the portion of Bear Lake Drive through this property will be provided. 8. Bear Lake Drive provides access to numerous subdivided and developed parcels to the east. 9. Staff has requested a cul-de-sac to facilitate use of the remainder of Lincoln Avenue and the alleys. Revised Findings: 1. Sufficient dedicated rights-of-way exist to serve the surrounding properties. 2. Not all surrounding rights-of-way are capable of being constructed. 3. Due to flood hazards, not all rights-of-way provide guaranteed access. 4. Due to flood hazards, alternate access is desirable. 5. Roads have been constructed through the property in approximately the same pattern as the dedications. 6. The roads have been constructed outside the dedications. 7. Based on the as-built, the roads appear to extend to adjacent parcels. 8. Development of the property has blocked many of dedicated areas. 9. The dedications were provided by a 1916 plat. 10. The dedications may not have been provided in the locations best suited for development of roadways. 11. Numerous encroachments exist in Borough and State owned rights-of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends approval of the vacations as petitioned, subject to: 1. Alternate dedication of a right-of-way over the roadway constructed adjacent to and through Lincoln Street. 2. Alternate dedication of a right-of-way over the roadway constructed adjacent to and through the alley extending south from Lincoln Street. 3. Resolution of encroachment problems in Bear Lake Drive with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation or the Kenai Peninsula Borough. 4. Extension of the submittal time requirements of KPB Codes: submittal of a preliminary plat in accordance with Chapter 20 of the KPB Code AND submittal of a final plat within two years of vacation approval. If the vacation is approved, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly has thirty days in which they may veto Planning Commission approval of the vacation. DENIAL OF A VACATION PETITION IS A FINAL ACT FOR WHICH NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH. APPEALS TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VACATION MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS TO SUPERIOR COURT AT KENAI, ALASKA PURSUANT TO PART VI OF THE ALASKA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURES. [20.28.110 AS AMENDED BY KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ORDINANCE 99-43]. END OF STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM While reading the staff report addendum, Mr. Best advised the Commission that the numbers on the photos in the desk packet corresponded to a copy of the as-built (Page 89-14). Chairman Bryson read the rules by which public hearings are conducted and opened the meeting for public comment. 1. James Burgess, 12111 Timberline Drive, Anchorage Mr. Burgess and his wife owned Lot 67 in Woodrow Subdivision. They bought their property in August 1997and use it recreationally (approximately five weeks in the summer) at this time. They plan to live on the property when they retire. They developed their property in accordance with the survey of record. Lincoln Drive is the only established road that provides access to Mr. Burgess' property and the subdivision. If Lincoln Drive is closed, his property and other adjacent properties will greatly depreciate in value. Mr. Burgess currently has a 31-foot airstream trailer and 28-foot boat on his property. Guests, who have large RVs that cannot use the alley, use Lincoln Drive for access. KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2004 MEETING PAGE 20 UNAPPROVED MINUTES Closing Lincoln Drive would make Mr. Burgess' property inaccessible for moving his airstream and boat. The alley off Bear Lake Road is approximately 10 feet wide, and he cannot negotiate the corner. His boat and trailer are more than 36 feet long. His boat is 9 1/2 feet wide. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Burgess how he negotiated the corner now. Commissioner Johnson did not understand what the difference would be if the proposed vacation was approved. Mr. Burgess replied he used Lincoln Drive when he moved his boat and airstream. There is a street sign posted for Lincoln Drive. Right now he reaches his property by turning off the highway to Bear Lake Road, taking a 90-degree right turn, and turning right onto Lincoln Drive (next to Bear Creek RV Park). He drives through the park to reach his property. Mr. Burgess wondered about the actual location of the road. The information he received shows mobile homes are in the road. Standing on Bear Lake Road looking down Lincoln, a line where trees have been cleared is visible. This cleared area goes to the western tip of Lot 68. Mr. Burgess noted the entrance to his property was on Lincoln Drive. When he bought his property, he thought he had a road. Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Burgess if he would be satisfied if the existing graveled road stays in place. Mr. Burgess agreed. He needed access from Bear Lake Road to Lincoln. Vice Chairman Clark understood the graveled road was not necessarily in the Lincoln right-of-way. Mr. Best noted that staff is recommending dedication of the existing travel way. The petitioners proposed to vacate all the right-of way. 2. David Hettick, 33508 Lincoln Street, Seward Mr. Hettick agreed Mr. Burgess drove through the RV park. Mr. Hettick offered to proVide a document authorizing Mr. Burgess to bring his camper or boat through the RV park. Mr. Hettick did not plan to block the road. He wanted to be able to control the traffic through the RV park. He built the road and has maintained it since 1964. The clearing did not follow the road. Mr. Burgess' gate is at the far end of the road. Mr. Hettick did not object to dedicating a cul-de-sac. He was unsure about the problems the State referenced regarding Bear Lake Drive. The State did not notify him. Chairman Bryson asked Mr. Hettick if he agreed to staff's recommendations. Mr. Hettick replied yes. Commissioner Hutchinson asked Mr. Hettick if he owned the lots currently crossed by the existing graveled travel way (Lots 72, 73A, and 73B) so providing a dedication over the travel way would not be a problem. Mr. Hettick replied yes. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Bryson closed the public comment and opened discussion among the Commission. Commissioner Johnson understood staff recommended dedicating over the existing graveled travel way. He noticed the travel way had a wye, which narrowed (directly north of Lots 73A and 73B). He inquired about the location of the dedication. Mr. Best replied the amount of dedication was up to the applicant. Commissioner Troeger pointed out the as-built showed the area available for dedication was limited. He asked if it was possible to get a dedication that would meet Borough standards. Mr. Best was unsure. He agreed the area looked narrow. He would leave this to the surveyor at the time of replatting. Commissioner Hohl inquired about the State's proposed land exchange for vacating part of Bear Lake Drive on the western side. She inquired about the ownership of the park tract. Mr. Best replied the State Department of Natural Resources owned the park parcel. He believed the State wanted to acquire some of the Hettick's property on the corner in exchange for the encroachments along Bear Lake Road. Commissioner Foster was confused about the staff report, which said the area was not in a floodplain, but flooding had impacted Wissamickon Drive. Mr. Best explained the floodplain administrator's notes referred to the mapped floodplain. When the area was mapped, the stream was mapped as a stationary stream, not an alluvial stream. KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2004 MEETING PAGE 21 UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Foster asked if the area was going to be remapped. Mr. Best replied yes. Discussions about rewriting the flood code and gathering additional information in the Seward area for new maps are underway. Chairman Bryson entertained a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Petersen, to grant the vacation per staff recommendations based on the revised findings. Revised Findings: 1. Sufficient dedicated rights-of-way exist to serve the surrounding properties. 2. Not all surrounding rights-of-way are capable of being constructed. 3. Due to flood hazards, not all rights-of-way provide guaranteed access. 4. Due to flood hazards, alternate access is desirable. 5. Roads have been constructed through the property in approximately the same pattern as the dedications. 6. The roads have been constructed outside the dedications. 7. Based on the as-built, the roads appear to extend to adjacent parcels. 8. Development of the property has blocked many of dedicated areas. 9. The dedications were provided by a 1916 plat. 10. The dedications may not have been provided in the locations best suited for development of roadways. 11. Numerous encroachments exist in Borough and State owned rights-of-way. VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous consent. BRYSON CLARK FOSTER GROSS HOHL HUTCHINSON ISHAM YES YES YES YES YES YES YES JOHNSON MARTIN MASSION PETERSEN TAURIAINEN TROEGER 13 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Chairman Bryson commented that the vacation would be forwarded to the Assembly for final approval. KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9. 2004 MEETING PAGE 22 UNA.PPllO'J:::D MINUT:::S - I I / ,I / i I '.. .-( ."".-:-:.:.~;.. ~.} 89-4 89-5 -~~~~i ~,.jo~'-,;l • \ \ \ \\ \ \ '., ~. Ul ~1l:!-U~-~UU4 l1UN ue: ~b AM l FAX Covl'r Sheet TO= MARY TOLL FAX: ~907} 262-8618 PHONE= 907) 262-4441 LOCATION: KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH FROM: AL BURTON PHONE: ~907 ~ 269-0689 FAX: 907 248-9456 DATE: February 6, 2004 NUMBER OF PAGES: 4 (this is page 1) COMMENTS: MARY, THE DEPARTMENT OBJECTS TO THE VACATION DISCUSSED IN THE ATIACHED LETTER. THANKS AND GIVE ME A CALL IF YOU ANY QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS. AL B. :-) IF YOU 00 NOT RECEIVE All OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL: ___~ .AT (907) 269-0700 THANK YOU. 89 10 r M NU. 1 ~U I '-"10 :::1"100 r. u' , r'" / FRANK H. MURKOWSKI. GOVERNOR 1'''\ \')• (,,", 1".'\\. lit~, ,I/ : \ (. "\'\ II ' 1 (PO \) I' , 1 \ I '<\ '" 1:,\ I, \ I \\ .' ; \ ,II, ~ ./ £ L. '\ . 1\ .r I :l.:! !i I \. • i,' l ,' '" \!. 'fr·; \'" :.) d \\. '" r \', ,! 4111 AVIATION AVENur; I P.O. BOX 196'100 I ANCHORAGe, ALASKA 911S19·BDOO STATr=WIDE; OES/GN & ENGIN~ERJNG SERVICES DIVISION J (OO"!) 260-0700 (FIlX 248·9450) CENTRAL REGION· RIGHT 01= WAY SECT/ON ! (TTY 269-0473) 1·800-770-5263 . February 6,2004 Re: Project No. STP-0001 (274) /54991 Seward Area Paving Bear Lake Road Mary Toll Platting Officer Kenai Peninsula Borough 144 Binkley street Soldotna AK 99669 DE:ar Ms. Toll: This letter is in response to your notice of public hearing on a request to vacate a portion of Lincoln Street and an alley way between Bear Lake Road and the North 40 feet of Lot 98, dedicated by Woodrow Alaska, Plat SW #8 within the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). The Department objects to the vacation of the sUbject rights of way as presented, Current and fuLure access needs in this area need to be preserved. This vacation and re-platting action has the potential for mutual benefits to both the petitioners and the Depaltment In mitigating some of the encroachment issues. However, the petitioners will still be required to remove encroachments from the Bear Lake Road ROW. As you may be aware, the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DeparLment) is responsible for Bear Lake Road and its associated right of way (ROW). Currently the petitioners have encroachments within the Department's ROWand portions of Bear Lake Road encroach upon the petitioners property. The petitioner's encroachments Include building structures; a sign; a fuel/propane tank; a sewage tank cleanout; fencing; and campsite water, sewer, and utility hookups, These enc;roachments will not be permitted to remain in the Bear Lake Road ROW. The petition states that the petitioners intond to dedicate additional ROW to accommodate the current location of Bear Lake Road as part of this action. The Department would like to discuss the following as a way to enhance access along Bear Lake Road and eliminate the petilioners need to move the large structure that encroaches into the Bear Lake Road ROW. 89--11 I:' H1'I N.U, 1 ::1U ( ~"lO ~4~O r, UJ ~l:.J:j-u~-~UUq nUN Uti: ~lj AI1 KIlTH 1 ur WHY Ms. Toll 2of2 February 6, 2004 More specifically, the Department would like the petitioners to consider the potential for dedication of additional ROW as depicted on the attached drawing, in exchange for our v'lcation of a portion 0'1 the existing ROW. This dedication of approximately 3,408 square feet for Bear Lake Road and our relinquishment of approximately 1,775 square feet of existing ROW for Bear Lake Road has the potentlal to eliminate the petiLioners need to relocate a major structure. However, plGase be advised that any such agreement by the parties would have some additional costs. The State is required to advertise its intent to dispose of ROW in local newspapers. Advertising fees can range from $150 to $300 with the minimum of $150 tt) be paid in advanco by the petitioners. If an agreement such as the one suggested above can be reached, the petitioners woWd be responsible for advertising cost. If your re-platting acUon reqUires advertisement I under this scenario there may be an opportunity for liS to combine the notices and reduce the cost to the petitioners. We suggest that the KPB table this application to vacate so that the parties can have sufficient time to discuss the issues regarding encroachments and perhaps reach a satisfactory agreement on the alternatives presented. If you have any questIons concerning our comments or would like to meet to discuss further alternatives, please feel free to contact me toll free at 269-0689. I can also be reached through our toll free number, 1-800-770-5263, extension 0689. Sincerely, A/Burton Right of Way Agent Enclosure: As stated cc; Sylvia Vinson-Miller, KPB Planning, 144 Binkley Street, Soldotna AK 99669 Tom Moll P.E., Project Manager Rick Feller, Supervisor Project Development Dave Heier, Supervisor Property Management Marcia Menefee. NDtural Resources Manager, DNR, 550 W. til AVO, Anchorage AK 99501-3579 Cl'l'is Grundman. Natural Resources Specialist, DNR, 550 W. 7'h Ave, Anchorage AK 99501-3579 Andrew Liebig, Natural Resources Speclalist, DNR, 550 W. 7~1 Ave, Anchorage AK 99501-3579 Lynn & David Hettick, 33508 Lincoln Avenue, Seward Alaska 99664-2554 '99-12 -'-m~-- - --- 89-13 ~n ~l) UH Q?:Qn ~nu bnn?-Rn-p~~ O~bf\ ~17? Infl 1 HiM I 1)1 .'!j i r.. ;.; :2 , , j 10. ~ ~ ~ 'J , ~;~:E~ ~ j i ~:: ~i .' " ..:....' .:. 1 l jill ___ :S:Zd !~ --~ I <0 -I. I I Lor 41 ItI Lor 41 t£G£NO L ~ ~L • '-_."F__.I'lCop Cop ------. I ,- BEAR LAKe ROAD ..... • •__ • l S-;-]..[-"I r--, " • ---...... JlIIt'c::a....r ~ OK ,~~ _".,0 + , 1:YI ~~lD. ,;0 SlUo'\ \ \ -r. l:J,U= -.--..... \ \ I~ --... \ 1 1 ... --~ Lor of! \ I Ifr 4J ... t \ -- I I --, \ I ( ( \ --- \ - __ .1!!!!:. __ \ \ rm?::I -/ 4'1- II!!!.-.. \ -/- J l---~':: \ -- r ( ." \ I Encroachment Summary I. ..Ila \ LOT 4J: ~ PIIb1ldy lI_d ,_roy (B_ Lolr. Drl",,) Cncrooch•• Lor ,. I I " \ onlo Lol 4.1 Lor" . LOT 44: \ \ Sh~ ond Fenc. £ncrooch Inlo B_ LoA. Rd. R.O. W. ;.." TraIer~ eIICT'11OCh Inlo An.y. \ LOT ,,: I I Sh~. \ Trol.., ond £ncrooch Inlo Nt.y ond Lincoln I I 51. R.O.w. I \ \ LOT 70: Buldlng £ncrooch•• Inlo Lincoln SL R.O. II': ond onlo adjoining Pri Tnxl D-~'-'" ._-_.- .-.- _ ..- ··--~-CDT·~----··-··_-··_·_·- ... Complif/ll•• Fence. Shfld and Fllel TanA. £n"",o"" onlo Pri Trod, Tro'", etIt:r'O<1ch Inlo Alley. .:Ji\i, LOT 7.J; Tro'. end Orlve....y Cncrooch 01110 Lol ,7, ..::--- .'Ill ~ \ r ----"\\ : t\ 1\ I I1/·.ALorn\ \ ~\ Notfts No 1111••_eII "'0' performed for Ihi. """"')I other ~ el<~1. Lor 73A I Lor 718 I ( \ \i \ £_1. moy Lor 74 \ Dol. of Sur..y oAJIy. IH'. Updoled Nowmber 2OOJ. .. \ ill \ \ \;\ ~-t~~-~ ~" ~ ....M \ '-\ \ AS-BUlL T SURVEY "~'. ,. \. ... eM \ I \ BEAR CRffK RV PARK .. ~~---+ , LOTS 43.44.69.70,71,72. 73A. 738 ~ and a portion af LOT 98 ~ Norl1t 40'-- 1.01 \ ItOOOROW SUBDIVISION PLA T NUMBER 8 Lor IS ------'!!:!'!!.. ------.... \ SEWARD RECORDING DISTRICT \ LOCA TE'D 'MTHIN: l , S£CnONS 12 and 13. TIN. RIW, 5."'. ~~:::,.~' ~';~:::-'~ Lor 17 Lor JiI l __n.I7,~7JIP.-dA0D4P101no4_t /flo _ 40' of Lto/ i \ CLINE AND ASSOCIATES LAND SUR~YORS "l~ 418 41h A~NUE PO BOx 2703 SEWAIlD. N( 99884 1IN,-...,... ___ - ..... _-.010""" Ibo lo,""';/hi>J """'-"J (907) 224-7324 r.... (907) 224-8088 MQ"OG'~t • • qt no -..efIP' ". DAT., II /lotH" ..0 .. 1Nr~ SCAU: I" - eo' llRA_ r.D. IIIC.: 99-4.03-07 " """'------l <0 I'\) ERV TRES -- _1- I __ __ _ SLER SUBDIVI ION / // I ~,I~ I / II / ~ DAVIS TRAC __ __ I j L I JIL I I'I PC 4/27/98 RECORD OF SUI ~I ,,4~ A- J JI I I _\ ~'{ / '1 m;;;'~, I I " ~O~ /~ I I~ or vacation __ /10 J ilr r 4iRLAKEDR- L I r*~ Proposed f In Avenue ) / "" ~ Portion of L'or vacation ' .-J InCO ' \'~ il C ~, ~ " / ''I COLLMAN ~tnss_ 4t1t1. / CI(O YVD I~ z I ~ '~ ~ ~- . ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~I ~I ~ - -- tv*"' I <:: 5 I ~ lCJ«-«; L~ ,~ I~--- ~ I N~::J¢:"; llJ -- cr: I" ------<: ------'J0,,0-<:' 0°0 0 1 0 J__ -~ ---' ~--- ~ ---=-r1- -1--' ~'\ll-~ONErREEKAVt--l-l~ BEAR LAKE Vicinity Map N 0.4 o 0.4 Miles L __ i w.'s ~ ,_~ ~ • • I - -" I. , I •.1 '. . ,t • J---- : '.: ; .,:. • '. I , ' -,p= .. ' ,,~~ '\(-' "" ,->,. r "'z3;. J I i I ""~" 'f .....~ LC . ()[I: I "> . 15 ~ \ I ~~JI======~9=~,.~,,-:-::\==.=_.::.~:::,.-~,.,..;:--::J~.,r::_l ~S4 ---'------ •• 2__2,.. Seward Phoenix Log KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Public notice is hereby given that a petition has been received to vacate Right-of-Way & Alley. Area under consideration is described as follows: A. Location and request: Vacate a portion of Lincoln Street between Lots 68 & 73, 69 & 72, 70 & 71 and vacate the 20' Alley Way between Bear Lake Road and the North 40 feet of Lot 98, dedicated by Woodrow Alaska (Plat SW #8); within Section 12, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska; and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. KPB File 2004-019 B. Purpose as stated in petition: (Summarized by staff) This is a trailer park that has been privately maintained since 1964. Lincoln Street runs through the park and is only used by the tenants. The alley also runs through the park and is not constructed. The owners would like to have one big parcel for financial reasons. As it stands now, they have 8 different tax assessments for this property. The owners propose to dedicate Right of Way to encompass the existing travelway for Bear Lake Road where it crosses their property. C. Petitioner(s): David Wand Lynn S Hettick of Seward, AK Public hearing will be held by the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission on Monday, February 9, 2004 commencing at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as business permits. Meeting to be held in the Assembly Chambers of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, 144 N. Binkley Street, Soldotna, Alaska. Anyone wishing to testify may come to the above meeting to give testimony; or may submit a written statement to the attention of Mary Toll or Sylvia Vinson-Miller, Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Department - 144 N. Binkley Street - Soldotna, Alaska 99669. Written testimony should be received by the Planning Department no later than Wednesday February 4, 2004 [written comments may also be sent by Fax to 907-262-8618] If the Planning Commission approves the vacation, the Borough Assembly has thirty days from that decision in which they may veto the Planning Commission approval. Appeals from denials of the Planning Commissions must be taken within 30 days to the Superior Court at Kenai, Alaska pursuant to Part VI of the Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure. For additional information contact Mary Toll or Sylvia Vinson-Miller, Planning Department, 262 4441 (1-800-478-4441 toll free within Kenai Peninsula Borough). Mary Toll Platting Officer [email protected] PUBLISH 2X (Thursdays, January 22 and January 29,2004) 95 I I January 2, 2004 Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Department 144 N. Binkley Soldotna, Alaska 99669 RE: Clarification for vacating Lincoln Street and alleys on lots 43, 44, 69, 70, 71, 72 and lot 73-A and lot 73-B We would like to vacate the alley between SW0000008 TOlN R01 W S12 Plat of Woodrow Alaska Sub lot 43 excluding that portion per wd 31@306, SW0000008 T01N R01 W S12 plat of Woodrow Alaska Sub lot 44, SW0000008 T01N R01 W S12 Woodrow Alaska Sub lot 69, 70, 71 and 72 and SW0000008 T01N R01 W S13 plat of Woodrow Alaska Sub lot 98 the North 40 ft thereof. We would also like to vacate Lincoln Street from SW0000008 T01N R01 W S12 Woodrow Alaska Sub lots 69, 70, 71and 72. We also would like to include SW0770014 T01N R01 W S13 Woodrow Alaska Sub lot 73 lot 73-B and lot 73 lot 73-A. The alley that we are trying to vacate is not constructed or used as an alley. This alley runs through our trailer park. Lincoln Street is also a street that runs through our trailer park. This street is only used by our tenants and it is not in the correct spot. We privately maintain Lincoln Street ourselves and have since 1964. We would like to have one big parcel for financial reasons. As it stands now we have 8 different tax assessments for this property. Thank you S. ~ ~~~/ Lynn S. Hettick David W. Hettick 96 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAy/SECTION LINE EASEMENT PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED Upon receipt ofcomplete application with fees and all required attachments; a public hearing before the Planning Commission will be scheduled. The petition with all required information and attachments must be in the Planning Department at least 30 days prior to the preferred hearing date. By State Statue and Borough Code, the public hearing must be scheduled within 60 days ofreceipt ofcomplete application. [VY' Fees - $300 non-refundable fee to help defray costs ofadvertising public hearing. Plat fees will be in addition to vacation fees. [ J City Advisory Planning Commission. Copy ofminutes at which this item was acted on, along with a copy of City StaffReport. . . L ~\.V-\'> [~ Na:~f public right-of-way proposed to be vacated is Lin girl 5fr-<.z:r~, 'dedicated by plat of LllQCQI'1l ,,) fl..la.."i>/u. Subdivision, filed as Plat No. 2 in SR1d2UW?ff Recording District. [% Are there associated utility easements to be vacated? [ JYes ~ Are easements in use by any utility company; ifso which? [,..y" Easement for public road or right-of-way as set out in (specify type ofdocument) .£.J..d .;J; ~ as recorded in Book Page ofthe Recording District. (Copy ofrecorded document must be submitted with petition) nV/r Section Line Easement. Width ofeasement must be shown on sketch. [-1/ Has right-of-way been fully or partially constructed? []Yes [~ Is right-of-way used by vehicles/pedestrians/other? [q-Ves [ ] No Has section line easement been constructed? [ ] Yes [I.}*b Is section line easement being used? [ ].yes [l}N Submitted by: Signature Name [ ] representative »d petitioner Address Phone Petitioners: Signature Signature Name Name Address Address Owner of Owner of Signature Signature Name Name Address Address Owner of Owner of 97 KENAI PENINSULA 144 N. BINKLEY . SOLDOTNA, ALA~ F[ml6f3~F~ 3: '"{ J BUSINESS (907) 262-4441 FAX (907)262-1892 1 TO: Pete Sprague, Assembly President Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Members FROM: ~Max 1. Best, Planning Director DATE: February 13, 2004 SUBJECT: Vacate a 1.7-foot portion ofthe 60-foot access easement to accommodate the existing building, dedicated by Questa Woods Number One (Plat SW 83-15); within Sections 13 & 14, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska; and the Kenai Peninsula Borough; KPB File 2004-020; Location: Off Cherrywood Lane in the Seward area [n accordance with AS 29.40.140, no vacation of a Borough right-of-way and/or easement may be made without the consent of the Borough Assembly. The Planning Commission approved the referenced vacation during their regularly scheduled February 9,2004 meeting by a majority vote. This petition is being sent to you for your consideration and action. The Assembly has 30 days from February 9,2004 in which to veto the decision of the Planning Commission. Tfno veto is received by the Commission within the 30-day period, the decision of the Commission will stand. Draft, unapproved minutes of the pertinent portion of the meeting and other related materials are attached. AGENDA ITEM F. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Vacate a 1.7-foot portion of the 50-foot access easement to accommodate the existing building, dedicated by Questa Woods l\lumber One (Plat SW 83-15); within Sections 13 & 14, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska; and the Kenai Peninsula Borough; KPB File 2004-020; Location: Off Cherrywood Lane in the Seward Area Staff report as read by Max Best. PC Meeting 2/9/2004 Purpose as stated in petition: I misinterpreted a survey and constructed a new garage; the NE corner encroaches into Cherrywood Lane R.O.W. by 1.7 feet. We would like to vacate only the portion encroaching on Cherrywood Lane. Petitioner: Marvin L. Thompson of Seward, Alaska Public notice appeared in the January 22 and January 29, 2004 issues of the Seward Phoenix Log. Eleven (11) certified mailings were sent to owners of property within 300 feet of the parcels; all of the receipts have been returned. Fourteen (14) regular mailings were sent to agencies and interested parties; eight (8) notices were sent to KPB Departments. Four (4) notices were posted in public locations. The notice and maps were posted on the Borough web site. Statement(s) of conditional non-objection Kenai River Center Floodplain Management. The parcel is within a mapped floodplain. The carport and house were constructed prior to the adoption of the KPB Floodplain Development ordinance. The garage required a permit but was constructed without one. The owner has been contacted and given ten days to respond to the River Center. Staff has contacted the River Center for verification that the owner has been responsive. An addendum will be provided in the desk packet clarifying the status of the floodplain permit. Staff discussion The request for vacation was submitted with an as-built survey. Staff contacted the surveyor and requested clarification on the status of the 20-foot bUilding setback and inquired if this was also a request for an exception to that restriction. The surveyor had not shown the setback on his as-built. The surveyor does not consider the building location in the setback to be an encroachment and does not show building setbacks on his as-builts. The owner contacted staff just prior to this report. He stated that he was asked at the time of submittal by a Borough staff person if he wished to include a setback exception in his request. He indicated that he had verbally requested that it be included during that conversation. This was never conveyed to the Platting Technician or the Platting Officer, and was not included in the notice. Staff recommends it be considered with this action. The bUilding setback restriction is a Borough imposed restriction to maintain sight distance and for such uses as snow storage. As such, it does not have the public interest that an actual dedication has, and not including the wording in the public hearing notice does not appear to be critical. Staff has contacted KPB Road Maintenance for their comments on inclusion of the building setback in the action. If comments are received, they will be included/addressed in an addendum. Staff will also try to get photographs of the site prior to the meeting. The as-built does not show the location of the constructed road within the right-of-way. Current Findings: 1. Sufficient rights-of-way exist to serve the surrounding properties. 2. No surrounding properties will be denied access. 3. Per the submittal, the right-of-way proposed for vacation is in use for access. 4. Per the submittal, the right-of-way proposed for vacation has been constructed. KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY.9, 2004 MEETING PAGE 23 UNt.PPROVED Mlhlll:ES 5. It is unclear where the constructed road is located within the right-of-way. 6. All subdivision plats finalizing vacations are sent to utility companies for review and easement requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is unable to make a recommendation until additional information from the River Center and Road Maintenance is obtained, and a site visit is conducted. Staff will make a recommendation in an addendum. Staff will recommend the building setback exception request and the right-of-way vacation be considered in two separate actions by the Commission. The Assembly may act on the vacation, if approved. The bUilding setback exception is solely a Planning Commission action unless it is appealed. If the vacation is approved, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly has thirty days in which they may veto Planning Commission approval of the vacation. DENIAL OF A VACATION PETITION IS A FINAL ACT FOR WHICH NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH. APPEALS TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VACATION MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS TO SUPERIOR COURT AT KENAI, ALASKA PURSUANT TO PART VI OF THE ALASKA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURES. [20.28.110 AS AMENDED BY KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ORDINANCE 99-43]. END OF STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM TO THE STAFF REPORT Staff report addendum as read by Max Best. PC Meeting 2/9/2004 Staff discussion Staff conducted a site visit on February 3,2004. Photographs have been provided with this addendum. KPB Road Maintenance had concerns about snow storage area. It appears that the snow is stored at the intersections, where it does cause sight distance problems, and across the intersection on the shoulder of Bruno Road. It does not appear that it would be stored in the location of the garage even without the garage being located there. This is also a driveway area into the carport. Current Findings: 1. Sufficient rights-of-way exist to serve the surrounding properties. 2. No surrounding properties will be denied access. 3. Per the submittal, the right-of-way proposed for vacation is in use for access. 4. Per the submittal, the right-of-way proposed for vacation has been constructed. 5. It is unclear where the constructed road is located within the right-of-way. 6. All subdivision plats finalizing vacations are sent to utility companies for review and easement requirements. Additional findings based on site visit: 7. The road appears to be constructed off-center in the right-of-way, toward the subject property. 8. There appears to be at least )12 of the 50-foot right-of-way that is undeveloped opposite the encroachment. 9. The encroachment is located on a straight stretch of Cherrywood Lane. 10. The encroachment is located near an intersection with a stop sign. 11. Due to the intersection, traffic speed is not high in this location. Staff will make recommendations on the building setback exception request and the right-of-way vacation as two separate actions. The Assembly may act on the vacation, if approved. The building setback exception is solely a Planning Commission action unless it is appealed. Staff recommends the Commission act on each request separately. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR BUILDING SETBACK EXCEPTION: KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9,2004 MEETING PAGE 24 UNAPPROV:::D Mlt-JUT:::-S Based on findings 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, staff recommends granting the bUilding setback exception for ONLY that portion of the garage located within the setback. Any new or replacement construction will be subject to the building setback. If the exception is approved, staff will prepare a resolution finalizing the exception, requiring a copy of the as-built or a sketch showing the encroachment be recorded with the resolution. The resolution will be presented at the next Planning Commission meeting. 20.24.010 provides that the Commission may authorize exceptions to any of the requirements set forth in Title 20. This section also states - The Commission shall find the following facts before granting any exceptions: 1. That special circumstances or conditions affecting the property have been shown by application; Findings 6-11 appear to support this fact. 2. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and is the most practical manner of complying with the intent of this title; Findings 6-11 appear to support this fact. 3. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which said property is situated. Findings 9-11 appear to support this fact. NOTE: An appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission may be filed to the Assembly sitting as a board of adjustment, in accordance with the requirements of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Code of Ordinances, Chapter 21.20.250. An appeal must be filed with the borough clerk within 15 days of date of the notice of the decision, using the proper forms, and be accompanied by the $300 filing and records preparation fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION: Staff can find no justification to support the vacation of 1.7 feet of Cherrywood Lane to accommodate the garage corner. Staff recommends denial of the vacation request. If the vacation is approved, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly or the appropriate City Council has thirty days in which they may veto Planning Commission approval of the vacation. DENIAL OF A VACATION PETITION IS A FINAL ACT FOR WHICH NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH. APPEALS TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VACATION MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS TO SUPERIOR COURT AT KENAI, ALASKA PURSUANT TO PART VI OF THE ALASKA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURES. [20.28.110 AS AMENDED BY KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ORDINANCE 99-43]. END OF STAFF REPORT Chairman Bryson opened the meeting for public comment. 1. Marvin Thompson, Seward Mr. Thompson provided written comments for the desk packet. He was uncertain what he wanted to do and did not quite understand staff's recommendations. His garage was slightly over the property line. He needed to be able to borrow money using the structure as collateral or be able to sell his property in the future. He asked for the Commission's help. Commissioner Hohl commented that a similar situation occurred in the City of Seward. The owner cut off his building to eliminate the encroachment. She asked Mr. Thompson if he would be willing to consider this. Mr. Thompson considered this alternative. He commented that he was present to find out how much of his building he had to cut off. He added that is boat was 30 feet long. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Bryson closed the public comment and opened discussion among the Commission. He entertained a motion for the building setback exception. KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9,2004 MEETING PAGE 25 MOTION: Commissioner Hutchinson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tauriainen, to grant the building setback exception per staff recommendations based on Findings 6-11 for ONLY that portion of the garage located within the setback. Commissioner Hohl referred to Finding 11 (Due to the intersection, traffic speed is not high in this location.). She lived in the area for several years. She did not know if the statement the traffic speed is not high was accurate. This area experiences heavy snowfall. The school bus does not go into this area. All the children walk out to the highway. Commissioner Hohl voiced concern about the building encroaching into the right-of-way. She understood Mr. Thompson's dilemma. She wanted the Commission to realize that the garage might have an impact in the future. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that: Findings 6-11 applied to Fact 1 (That special circumstances or conditions affecting the property have been shown by application.); Findings 6-11 applied to Fact 2 (That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and is the most practical manner of complying with the intent of this title); Findings 9-11 applied to Fact 3 (That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which said property is situated.). FINDINGS 6. All subdivision plats finalizing vacations are sent to utility companies for review and easement requirements. 7. The road appears to be constructed off-center in the right-of-way, toward the subject property. 8. There appears to be at least Y:z of the 60-foot right-of-way that is undeveloped opposite the encroachment. 9. The encroachment is located on a straight stretch of Cherrywood Lane. 10. The encroachment is located near an intersection with a stop sign. 11. Due to the intersection, traffic speed is not high in this location. VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous consent. BRYSON CLARK FOSTER GROSS HOHL HUTCHINSON ISHAM YES YES YES YES YES YES YES JOHNSON MARTIN MASSION PETERSEN TAURIAINEN TROEGER 13 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Chairman Bryson entertained a motion for the vacation. MOTION: Vice Chairman Clark moved, seconded by Commissioner Hutchinson, to grant the right-of-way vacation as petitioned. Chairman Bryson asked Vice Chairman Clark if he had findings to attach to the motion. Vice Chairman Clark replied no. Commissioner Hohl asked if the Commission could do something to encourage surveyors to show setbacks on as-builts. Mr. Best replied staff talked to the surveyor about showing as-builts. As far as Mr. Best knew, the surveyor for this project is the only surveyor who does not show any kind of development restrictions on as-builts. VOTE: The motion passed by a majority vote. BRYSON CLARK FOSTER GROSS HOHL HUTCHINSON ISHAM NO YES NO NO NO YES YES JOHNSON MARTIN MASSION PETERSEN TAURIAINEN TROEGER 9YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 4 NO Chairman Bryson asked those who voted affirmatively to cite findings in support of the motion. Vice Chairman Clark and Commissioner Troeger cited the following findings in support of the motion: KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9,2004 MEETING PAGE 26 FINDINGS 1. The garage is in the right-of-way. 2. The 1.7-foot encroachment is a minor encroachment into the right-of-way. 3. The 1.7-foot encroachment will not cause a problem for traffic. 4. A substantial property right has been jeopardized by the surveyor, and the owner should not have to suffer the consequences. Commissioner Hohl commented the property owner should have looked at a plat map, which shows setbacks. She did not think the property owner was completely innocent. MOTION: Commissioner Troeger moved, seconded by Commissioner Petersen, to attach the findings to the motion. FINDINGS 1. The garage is in the right-of-way. 2. The 1.7-foot encroachment is a minor encroachment into the right-of-way. 3. The 1.7-foot encroachment will not cause a problem for traffic. 4. A substantial property right has been jeopardized by the surveyor, and the owner should not have to suffer the consequences. VOTE: The motion passed by a majority vote. BRYSON CLARK FOSTER GROSS HOHL HUTCHINSON ISHAM YES YES YES YES NO YES YES JOHNSON MARTIN MASSION PETERSEN TAURIAINEN TROEGER 12 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 1 NO KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9. 2004 MEETING PAGE 27 Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Depart. 144N. Binkley St. Soldotna, AK 99669 Attn: Planning Commissioners RE: Explanation of why the Dream Toy Barn is in the road A heated garage for storage and minor repair of my charter boat has been a significant portion ofmy lifelong dream to boat and fish for a living. We purchased property in the Seward area with this dream in mind. Our property is nearly an acre level and accessible to the highway and we qualified for the mortgage. One year after the purchase, we applied for a new mortgage (Jan. 02). At this time we hired Cline and Associates to survey and perform an "as built" for the bank. Our surveyor explained the flood plain and its requirement. That survey located the east and west comers measured at line N58 01 07E as 200.02 ft from the monument to the corner ofBruno and Cherrywood. The summer of 03 we applied for a loan to build the new garage. I staked out the building reading the 02 survey and misinterpreted the 23.99 feet at the S.end ofthe property. We hired a contractor, he hired a building inspector, all was approved, and we thought we had built the dream toy barn. I would like to keep my dream. I can't afford to lose $55,000.00. Your approval ofa small vacation of Cherrywood right of way, and an acceptance ofthe covenant 5 foot side yard would certainly be appreciated. I came today to find out what I need to do to keep my garage. T~9iflk you, 7/7JivVV-~ ,1flt1~'l\ Marvin L. Thompson · ',' ),I ..1> ,.t~ '~, "~ 0 0 I\) 4 t.. 0 -0 Cl ~ t.. 0 I\) 0 ...... ~ 01 a.. L 3: Cl t.. 4 0 e 0 (J t.. + 0 +- I\) Vl I\) Cl ...t: 3: -0 m'-> Vl l:: ...... 0 ._ 0 l:: t.. -0 l:: Vl I\) l:: ::::l +- ...t: Cl t.. Cl + +- en m 0 !J) l:: ...x: 0 0 '···.···'" ;';.; "':, t·'J \J '+ d 0 0 s::: t... 0 \J \J ~ -+- 0 U 0 -+ ~ U ~ , ~ 3: t... t... t... C- -+ ~ t... ~ -+ ~ s::: s::: ..t: 0 '-> u -+- ...... s::: d 0 I: 3: O"l ~ 0 I: t... \J \J en O"l I: I: d .::L. -+ 0 IJ) -2. \f) ~ u :l U 0 0 C 0 (J ~ > ~ C ~ 0 ..;:: ..;:: \..) ..... ~ 0") 0 en C .~ O u en c -+ 0 0 ..... en (f) c ..:x 0 0 1 I rt 1~0 0'_ I J;> I 0'_ 33'~ I 33', ! .1 , 66' Section U-ine Easement \5 0 I I ~O . I LOT 19 LOT 21 *••••••,... LEGEND ~••~ OF -. Found Monument ...... ~\'C.-...... •• s ~,(\"': .1' .... . Ir__" ... Found Rebar • --J..... ~ • :~.... '.*~ i.~ ~~.h. ~ I hereby certify that on December 27 AS-BUlL T SURVEY ..!...... \ 2003, I surveyed the improvements on LOT 20, BLOCK 3 llI! ~/U r! . jlI Lot 20, Block J, Questa Woods Subdivision QUESTA WOODS SUBDIVISION NUMBER 1 ~ I' r"",' .~.. : rc;~. = No.1, Plat 83-15, Seward Recording , Wm. icholos Cline":ff; District. That the improvemen ts are CLINE & ASSOCIA TES '0"'··... LS-7569 S:'# shown in the correct relationship to t.~.... P.O. BOX 2703 . rfr. the recovered monuments, and that no SEWARD, ALASKA 99664 t ~D" .'.,()\,~~ ~.• •• .0::...... •• encroachments exist unless noted 907-224-7:524 ... 'rOf"t:SSloN/l-\, ~.. ~ hereon. Non Platted easements. if any •••...... exist, are NOT shown hereon. FIELD BOOK: 03-08 DA TE: 12/28/03 DWG: 03-84A SCALE: 1"= 40' 102 e ftS :E ~ ...... 0 .c: .(.) > 103 Page 1 of 1 Sweppy, Maria From: Toll, Mary Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 10:13 AM To: Sweppy, Maria Subject: FW: Cherrywood Lane Vacate - Questa Woods Number one -----Original Message---- From: Gabler, Jane Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 10:12 AM To: Toll, Mary Subject: RE: Cherrywood Lane Vacate - Questa Woods Number one Mary- We contacted Mr. Thompson (see attached letter) and he responded by submitting a floodplain application for the garage on January 27, 2004. We have not yet processed the application. Thanks. G -----Original Message---- From: Toll, Mary sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 7:57 AM To: Gabler, Jane Subject: Cherrywood Lane Vacate - Questa Woods Number one You contacted the owners, Thompson and Clark, regarding the need to apply for a floodplain permit for the new construction. This is to request a written verification that Mr. Thompson has responded and is working with the River Center for the permit. I am writing my staff report at this time and would like to include this information. Thanks- MT 1130/2004 104 January 19, 2004 Mr. Marvin Thompson Ms. Diane Clark P.O. Box 3492 Seward, AK 99664-3492 SUBJECT: Kenai Peninsula Floodplain Permit Questa Woods Subdivision No.1, Lot 20, Block 3 Parcel 125-410-04 Dear Mr. Thompson and Ms. Clark: As the Floodplain Program Administrator, I was asked to review your Cherrywood Lane vacation petition for compliance with the Borough's Floodplain code. For your information, your lot is entirely in Floodzone A (see attached map). As such, a floodplain permit is required for all development, including new construction, excavation, fill material, or substantial improvements, that has occurred since November of 1986. According to our records, we have not received a floodplain development application for the new garage. Enclosed you will find a Floodplain Development Permit Application and a copy of the floodplain ordinance for your reference. After we have received the completed application describing the garage and any other work conducted on your lot after Nov. 1986, we will review it for completeness and code compliance and issue an "after-the fact" permi1. Please contact me at the Kenai River Center within ten calendar days ofreceiving this correspondence to let me know your intentions to resolve this situation. Failure to adhere to Borough Code may result in a citation and fines according to KPB 21.24. Each day the violation occurs is a separate violation. The phone number at the Kenai River Center is (907) 260-4882. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jane Gabler Floodplain Administrator Enc cc: W. Finley, KPB Code Compliance Officer M. Toll, Platting Officer M. Best, Planning Director '105 Sweppy, Maria From: Toll, Mary Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 10:54 AM To: Sweppy, Maria; Best, Max Subject: FW: KPB-2004-020, KPB 2004-019 -----Origi nal Message---- From: Davis, Gary Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 10:53 AM To: Toll, Mary Cc: Conner, Jim Subject: RE: KPB-2004-020, KPB 2004-019 Cherrywood - With the amount of snow in the area, even the setback is an advantage, so the garage at the edge of the ROW, within the setback, would still be a problem. The only place for any snow storage easement would be on parcel 12541047, to the east. There is a "saving grace" to this issue due to the creek locate north of these parcels. There appears to be lots of room there, but it is hard to tell what that land may be used for in the future. GD -----Original Message---- From: Toll, Mary Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 9:02 AM To: Davis, Gary Cc: Conner, Jim Subject: RE: KPB-2004-020, KPB 2004-019 RE: Cherrywood vacate - yes - he has requested the building setback be included. I will be going over next week to photograph the two vacations in the area. What are your comments regarding the building setback exception to encompass only that portion of the structure located within it? What about the vacation request? Would you like an additional snow storage easement? If so, where? Thanks - MT -----Original Message---- From: Davis, Gary Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 9:24 AM To: Toll, Mary Cc: Conner, Jim Subject: KPB-2004-020, KPB 2004-019 MT, The above file (020) is a guy wanting to vacate 1.7 feet of ROW on Cherrywood where he built a garage. ' Doesn't he need to include the 20ft setback variance too? The garage is a shed roofed garage with only the shell completed. Probably a concrete slab too, I did not check that. -106 The area has lots of snowfall each winter. The variance request could definately cause a snow storage problem. File 019 looks problematic too. Wissamickon Drive is not built and probably is not buildable due to the encroachment of the creek over the years. It appears there are several lots left without adequate legar ROW is this Lincoln 8t vacation is approved. GD 107 I Date: January 16, 2004 To: Mary Toll From: Jane Gabler and Glenda Landua Re: Vacation Petition - KPB File 2004-020 Marvin Thompson and Diane Clark Parcel # 125-410-04 Cherrywood Lane ROW, in Questa Woods Number One Subdivision. Mary, Jane and I reviewed the above referenced vacation petition and discovered the portion of Cherrywood Lane involved in this vacation request, as well as the adjacent lot owned by Mr. Marvin Thompson and Diane Clark (Parcel # 125-410-04) are within a FEMA FIRM mapped Flood Zone A (see attached map). According to the Borough's tax assessment records, Mr. Thompson and Ms. Clark's home was constructed in 1984 - which is 2 years prior to the Borough's adoption of the Floodplain Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.06), therefore the house does not require a floodplain permit. However, the vacation application describes the garage as a new addition, which was built partially in the R.O.W. Please be advised that any construction on this lot after November of 1986 requires a Floodplain Development Permit. According to our files, no permit has been applied for and it appears the applicant may be out of compliance with the Floodplain Development code. We will be sending the applicant a letter and a floodplain application requesting information about the garage and any other development that occurred after Nov. 1986. We recommend that consideration ofthe vacation request be held until we've received the requested information and development on the property complies with KPB Floodplain Code Chapter 21.06. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me 260-4882, x 234. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this vacation petition. Kenai Peninsula Borough Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Fish & Game Planning Department Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Habitat and Restoration Division DEC-30-2003 TUE 04:36 PM KPB PLANNING FAX NO. 9072628618 P. 04 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING DEPARlMENT PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC RIGHf ~OJl-WAy/SECTION LINE EASEMENT PWLIC HEARING RRQUIRIill Upon receipt ofCOlllJlletc 8!'Plication with fees and all required IIltachments; a publicbcarinC before the Planning Commission will be scheduled. nle petition widlllll required information and attachments must be in the Planning DepartmOllt at least 30 days prior 10 the prefcmd hearing date. By ~'tatc Statile and Borough Code, the public hearing must be scheduled within 60 clays or receipt of complele application. [ ] flees - $300 non-ref1Jndable fcc to help defray costs of advertising pUblic hearing. Plat fec~ will be: in nddi1i2n to vllCfl(ion fees. [ 1 City Advisory Plllnning Commission. COllY of minutes at which this item was Ret.ed on, along with a eopy of City Staff ReJlort. _ I ~ [ ] . Name of public r~ght-oI"wllr proposed to be vacated is ,:)"..I...~k.OJ::~~edicaled by plat of ~..[Q:~pJ4 lJ}j.kls L -Ji2 l3j Subdivision, filed l\S Plat No. ~~_ in _e ....Mc1_ Recording lJistrict. ( ] Arc there Ilssociated utility cascmcn1.S to be vacated? [ ] Yes WNo Are llasements in use by any utility company; if so which? [ ] r"1.~cmcnt for publie road or right-of-way as set Olll in (specify txpe of document) ('/ Ci 1f as recorded in nook 8:3 Page [S ofthc .5"e..J,wJ Recording District. (Copy of recorded document musl be submitted wilh petition) ( 1 S(;~'lioll Line Easement. Width ofcasement must be shown on sketch. [ J Submit threfl eOJ'lics or pial or JDap sbowing III'C8 proposed to be vacated. Must Ilot oxceed 11 x 17 inehes in size. In the case of publie right-of-way tho submittal must include. a sketch showing whlell parcels the vacated area will be all,lched to. I'roposed alternative dll41icatioa is to be $hown and labeled on the sketch. lIas right-or.way becn fully or partially constructed? D Is seclion line casement being used? [ ] Yes ~J No Is Dlternativl: righl-or-wny being provided? tx Yes I: ] No Tile petitioner Dlust provide ..ramllable j.stifieation for tile vaeatioll. ReasonforvacatlllS I YbiS.i ",l?u,pr.ekl SLlrlJ P ,/ CO"'4~Joj 1'"\0...... ,1 ~~'1~ }J ~ ~'r ~~'~~~se-~~S' C-~~,y W4"~ L4 ~Q The petitiun must be signed (written signature) by owners of majority of the front feet of lllnd fronting part of right-of.way or seclion Iinc casement prop05Cd to be vaca . Ea..h must include mailing address and ICIll'I description of hislher propeny. Submilted by: Signaulrc ~ ·1/ Name Address Phone PeliLioners: Signature Signature Name Nam~ Address Address OWllerof Owner of SignalUfl: Signature Name Name Address Address Owncro[' Owner of 111 ...... I\) 11lf\~ 'NOOO RCl'.~~~S 0-- ~."Cl{ Z :"01" ! LIn I "1llI·lIllI"'~'__rt'1. .~~"...... :!!:; ..--~. 1~'~ :=-~...... ,. 4 I e:" .:::.. __a C" ...... - C"I __Wl.- ... c...... ,., __ .... LEse,.., .._ I•• LOT II . c" .....,_ __ -at 1.01_ JC, .- II .....0_... c-, _ c-, _ ~, + ... U._ =s """IlLlI_',,"~K"_. col .,.. _ -_" .11 ole C1 •• __ " .. ...... -, $'_."IUIl ...... '_ ~ .., _ ... I v.'o.· 01 C'IO.... 1*'11/1" I_ ..-._dIl_'M.__ -Mil.. -I"M ,_rot LOT '7 .".._. _11 ...... '~'~t_ _. 4_'-_..,,:• Lea'" C" • .-fIII' ..- '_:5'I·~ c r.·._ ....~,~ - "'t·_ .... e .,..., ""aD ~"I OI_~_ .,.,._ ... •. - ,. .• .... .a n." ....c.,.~_ -.",, ....- W ,,_ ~ ~ eo• ...... - --.~ ~ .... ,., ""0 u· ...... LOT • LOT It 'i ~.:' . lUIAC, :~"I to., lie. ::::: == ..... , =1' c·...... _.. - ....- LOT I!I ~"'_ 1 HOTU " "" "1 .. .1 AU _._. _._t _.,_.tJ .,t't. jl =~~:,:..It 1_., t1_ .' ~~ -----'-'IiI'd' ~ == ~~ ;.:..~'l~=.-:~ =:: =':.1,0.:'. ~"'Il.t1." .~. ~ LOT' :':;:::;.::-::::\:': :::::.:. tf ~ JI"_O"~_""' !It 'HI'" O' r~o\H~'1-q-",·,t.- ,+-~ LOT T lI:41K ~ I I . 'liI'"'"So "'f IM.A I II:• B-I$ ~/D~ I LOTI I.tCliC. ~i=-_. C.-I I I 3 L- --3 @itl .. QUISTI WOOIlI ~lP ". PLAT ..-vAL SUlDMIION NOT AAY' B A~IDG!MENT ClRTl'lCAU Of It Alii"'- _ DEIIICATlllN... ~"'.': , .. __ urw til., .. _ t.,. _... n =~ ':':=:~ __ ~ _ .... _ 10"'''' _, _. '''I' ,I... ~ ::..:-....:.::. NUIlIIER ONE 11'''-''_''"" " 00•• _ ,~.,. ~'= ~9~ _M1"I ,_ .. , ..U .._" ..''' .. t:a.,.....:r: 9_ ...... _.71'...... ,..... ~ '~I-. _t~~ LOLU•• ..... CII' ...... I tl! .Ut ,,,.,.,.II._ to'W ... ~ ., ,...... ,. ••""" nnOt _ .... ""c_, "I.... =:::.: I" , ••_.-.. __ .N Y'l14...u. J.u. it='\ __ " • ...- • .-aa,TD_. IOollr"\' -1I- ._ ,...... " ~I_. ",~~I\lJ _1I'VTlIIII. _ t!:".=• _. S ..:::::'., Ifllll/l' Introduced by: Legislative Committee Date: 02117/04 Action: Vote: KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH RESOLUTION 2004-025 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AND FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR THE YEAR 2004 (FISCAL YEAR 2005) WHEREAS, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly has conducted public hearings and sought input from various boards and commissions regarding the borough's capital needs; and WHEREAS, in consideration ofthe requests brought forth from the public and the administration, the Assembly has compiled its list of federal legislative and funding priorities for Fiscal Year 2005; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH: SECTION 1. That the legislative priorities and requests for federal funding of capital projects for Fiscal Year 2005, as shown in the document entitled "Kenai Peninsula Borough 2004 Federal Priorities" on file in the Clerk's Office, are hereby adopted. SECTION 2. That the transportation priorities for Fiscal Year 2005, as shown in the document entitled "Kenai Peninsula Borough 2004 Federal Transportation Priorities" on file in the Clerk's Office, are hereby adopted. SECTION 3. That a copy ofthis resolution and accompanying priority lists shall be provided to the Kenai Peninsula Borough's congressional delegation. SECTION 4. That this resolution becomes effective immediately upon its adoption. ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH THIS 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2004. Pete Sprague, Assembly President ATTEST: Linda S. Murphy, Borough Clerk Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska Resolution 2004-025 Page 1 of 1 Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Legislative Committee February 17,2004 5:00PM Borough Assembly Chambers Borough Administration Building, Soldotna, Alaska Ron Long, Chair Pete Sprague, Vice Chair AGENDA o. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Postponed Items a. Resolution 2003-094: In Support ofCS for HB 240 and SB 186, Acts Relating to Charitable Gaming Through Implementation ofElectronic Gaming Machines (EGM) in the State of Alaska (Superman) (Referred to Legislative Committee) 45 P. NEW BUSINESS 2. Resolutions e. Resolution 2004-025: Establishing Federal Legislative and Funding Priorities for the Year 2004 (Fiscal Year 2005) (Legislative Committee) LAYDOWN *Consent Agenda Items Staff requested: Borough Clerk Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska Page 1 of I LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE , ~EB~06-2004 FRI 11:45 AM KPH PU~LIC WU~K~ t'RX NU, L ~u I ibi ou~u r, VI FES~06-04 FRI 11 :45 AM FAX: PAGE 1 Fel;nuary 6, 2004 To: :KENAI PENINSUl,A BOROUGH ASSBM13LY MRMBERS FrO'rn: Gary Davis) Road ServIce Area Director Subj~ct: Ttl-MunicipalitY Transportation Project At tb~ February )td Legislative Committee Meeting, tbe assembly discussed the Federat Legislative Priorities. One issue diSCU$!>ed was the proposal presented to the KPB assembly by Mr. John Duffy. Mat/Su :aoroogh Manager, relating to a tTi-municipality toad project to be ~ubmittcd to Congrossman Don Young. This proposal ha.l; been put together via. a. resolution that the MatlSu assembly has pas5~. Enclosed is a copy of the re~olution and ll. memorandv.m on the resolution. This information is presented as an information it~ro ~o the KPB assembly has an 1h /ld vanced XlQtlcc of this issue prior to the February 16 meeting. As can he observed u from the memorandum \bis is arequost for $1 OOm fur sb. years fot' "road improvements • Pie-alit do not get this confused with previous discussion of ('ferries". Th~ two isSl\e~ have bee" split into their own projects. 1am available tv Answer any information desired for clarification of this issue. FEE-05-2C04 THU 04: 46 PM KPB PUBLIC WORKS FAX NO, 1 807 262 6090 tJ, U~ O:!/ot/Oi 'flIt! 14::J1 FAX 907 34343l:l }fO,A CLERK !lJ 001 MA'l"AlmSKA-StJSI:'tNA BOROUGH INJ'ORMATION MPO'RANOUM IN No. 04.. 040 SUBJECT ~ P~opol!l.d Aeeelerat.ed Highway ProgriSm for Sou~b,-cenU'&l A1.aska AGENDA OP; February MANAGER R.ECO~AT:rON: ~PROVED BY JOHN PU'F~, . , Route To: Dep~~tment/lndividual rnicials Remar~s 1 originator 'Manager) " ~ .. 2 Borough Attorney r?1{ Jf ~ 3 Eorough Clerk ( ~ 1:: (H'"' 4" """= ) t. 11, '" l\.'!''J:'ACHKENT (S): Rr::solution Serial No. 04-j'60 C2..PfJ RUMMARY STATEMENTt The municipalities of th~ Matanusk~·Susitn~ Borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough, and Municip~lity of Anchorage form Southcentral Alas~a. Southc@ntral Alaska is the stQte'$ most important c=nter for agriculture, finance r man~f~cturin9, health ~~~~, and education. It is also tho Btat~·~ primary transportation hub. Thus I Southcelltral. Alaska pla.ys an important pa:rt. in the St:ato's overall economy. For in~tance, over 60 percent ot the ~l~ska'G population and workforce is found in Alaska. The region aleo aCCCl\lnt.$1 fol';" well ove~ half ot t:.he state' s total vehicle miles travelod. JUI efficient and effective transportation syscem is a fundamental n~cess.ity for a properly functioning economy. Therefore it is important that Southcent:ral Alaska's highway system be s.fe, uncongestod, and efficient. The r~gion'~ highway sY3~em must also grow in order to support th~t the region'S economic growth. By working together, the municipalities of the Matanuska-Su91tna BQrough, Kenai Peninsula Borough, and Municipality of Anchorage can ~ccomplish more th~n by working alone. And a~ the ~hree municipalitie~ a~e par~ of one regional e~Qnomy and highway system. it only make~ sense to cooper.~e and coord~nate in the area of transport~tion improvements. hge J. o( .2 1M No. O-t-040- R~2~lu~1on Serial No. 04.D~O 71 FEB-05-2004 THU 04:46 PM KPB PUBLIC WORKS FAX NO, 1 907 262 6090 P. 03 021'05/04. TIIU 14:31 }:'A..."t 907 34:111313 MOA CLERK ~002 In addition, the current ~o£itions now held by Alaska'$ congrel$sionsl Delegation oUeX' a unique oppcrtunity to improve Scuthcent~~l Alaska's highway system. However. tn. Oelegation's cur~ontly held posieicne are subject to change d~& to the rules of tho RO~l;!e and Se%\ate. Therefo-r8 r if thQ munieipalitil::!1 of the M~tanuska-Sti~ienQ Borough, Kenai ~eninsula Borough, and Municip~~ity of Anchorage wish to take action on a joint pr¢~osal to improve th~ regionrs highways, then action should be taken as snon "3 po~sible. It is proposed that thlll three municipalities work tog~ther a.nd submit a requ~st to CtlrtSJ;ess to fund tm Accelerated rtighway Program .for Southeentral Alaoka. l'he funds would be used to further QF.!vslop the region's highway systlilm. Each municipa.lity would select proj~cts for their respective munieipality. The progr_m h would he called ~ Alaeka Accelerited Highway Program • Funds would be requent~d fo~ eaO~l year covered by the ~eauthori2ation Of the Transportation Efficiency Act for tho 21!t century. Memb=rs from ~ach m~nicipalicy would meet to dete~ine ~he size of the entirQ r~rrue,;t and the best method of apport.ioning the fUnd~ in an equitii.ble manner. This ~onoept has been discussed with re~re$entativeG of the Municipality of Anchorage and Kenai f'~ninsula Borough and each haviiI agreed to move forwaX'd on the effD~t and obtain governing body approvals. The a~~a~h~d resolution would aULhorize the manager to begin formalizing th~ d~tails of the effort with the other municip~l~ties. . paye:: 2 of 2 :tl'l No. Q4-040 RelQlutign Serial No. 04'U~ F FEB-05-2004 THU 04:47 PM KPB PUBLIC WORKS FAX NO. 1 907 262 6090 P, 04 02/P~/01 TUU 14:~1 FAX 807 3434313 UOA ClERK ~OOJ Action: ".. _.., MATANUSKA-St1£;I'l'NA BOitOUGH USOLl3TXOH SERIAL NO. 04 - ,,(;0 A ~gSOI1UTION OF THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH ASSEMBLY S[)PPOR'I'rUG nm FORMA'tION OF lIN ACCEI.a~'I'ED RIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROGAAM FOR SOU'!HCENTRAL A!.AEU AS A P'EDERAL I"B~;( S~'1'IVE .ANt> PRC~EC~ PRIORITY PO~ THE YEAR 2004. WH~REAS, th. local governments of the Matanuska-Susitna Eorough, Kenai Peninsul. Borough, and Munioipality Qf Anchorage .. X'tilp:CE\sent Soutncentral Ala·aka;·· and WHEREAS, over 60 percent. of the vehicle miles traveled in the it~t~ of Alaska are Within Southoentral Alas~ai and WHEREA.S I southcentral Alaska. contains over 70 percent of the stQte of Ala5ka's popula~ioni ana WHE~EAS, sou~heentral Ala,ka is the state of Alask~'~ major ag-rioultural, manufaoturing, £in2l.ncial, and tran$porta~ion ,_- c~nter, and WHEREAS, i3. hel'llthy and growing Southcentral eeonomy wil·l benefit the enti~e state of Alaska; and WUERE1\S, a. ~eliable, effir;·ient., and effective transportation system is vital to the continued grow~h and diversifieacion of Southcentral Alask~'s economy; ana WEEREA~. Southcentral Alaska's highway network lacks ~ .. suf~ic~erlt number of arterial lane miles and h~s seriously congested intersections making the system unsafe, inadequate, ann congest~di and WHERR~S, the local governments of the Matanu9ka-susi~na :BorouSh, l 9~owin9 economy and high quality o~ li£~j an~ WHEREAS, the Mat~nueka-Sus1tna Eo~o~gh, Kenai Peninyula \.~::...... Eorough. an~ Mun1cipa11ty of Anchorage believe: that by wcrkil'lg -'._--'-~."_.-~-----~--.._-~------Page: 1 of '2 Resolution Serial No. 04-61)) JD/Accelercted Hi9hw~y Pro9r~m-04 1M No. 04-040 :RRSOLl:1TIONS 73 FEB-C5-2004 THU 04:47 PM KPB PUBLIC WORKS FAX NO, 1 907 262 6090 p, 05 ouos/o.t . THll lIt:31 FA! 907 343431:1 )tOA CLERK ~004 t~gether end th~oU9h coordination and coop~rtLtion on tr~nsportation p~ojects an improved Southc8Dtr.l Alaska hi~hway netwo~k CQn be achieved. NOW, TUEREFORE, BE IT RESO~VED, that ehe Matanuska~Susitna S¢rouSh Assembly hereby supports tho formation of an accelerated highway imp:z:ovement program for Southcentrl!.l AlasKa aliil a. P'ederCll Legi~lative ~nd ~roject priority for the year 2004. ADOPTED by t.he Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly this clmy c.~f ., 200~. TIMOTHY L. ANDERSON, Borough Mayor ---...... ,.~-~----:- S&~RA A. DILLON, ~orough Clerk (stAt.) (~:"11~ S ~ L1)'~E ~~~ ifo73 ,--- q--Q"~ ~ ~ (;.. ~~4 .. 1o~<; a(.\ t"\ ~J.JB-l. J..1.'I- 311 ~ ;J.~~ ~ .s-/f? I I':' • J:¥l,* e,oJ~ -S',,,it:'. i&"~TI~,J ;1& -----_._~-_._------~--:--~-~--:--':"""":'"----:-::-:<: Pa9~ 2 of ~ Resolu~ion Ser1~1 ~Q. 04-~ JP/Acc~ler~~ect Highway Program-04 IM No. 04-040 - -,-, It fS/!WI~~~' ~/~ "1 ~/ict February 9,2004 Dear Assembly Member: Due to a prior commitment, we must be in Anchorage on February 17 and will not be able to be with you in person as you and your fellow members as you fmalize your list of Top Federal Priorities for 2004. As a full-time resident on Keystone Drive (borough section), we would like to encourage you to vote for our project for paving our road. I understand we knew our road was gravel when we built our home here; however, at that time we did not expect the lengthy extension when the Salamantof group purchased and opened their land at the end ofour road. We also did not expect the federal government to build two day parks, a permanent resident for the wildlife agent, nor open a second boat launch at the very end ofthe road. These parks bring an extremely large amount oftraffic on our road, especially during the second run ofreds in the river. (In one day last summer (not during the peak season), over 1,500 cars went over the counter installed to come up with a good estimate ofour daily traffic.) Our neighbors are in their 80's and one ofthem has only one lung. I have allergies that become aggravated with the excess dust from the road, and my husband has a lung problem that is also exacerbated with the dust. We are thankful for the one application of calcium chloride we get each year; however, it only lasts until the fIrst good rain storm when the road fIlls with potholes, is graded, and then becomes extremely dusty again. One year several residents paid for a second application of the calcium chloride but that, too, dissipated rapidly. We residents have formed a "grass roots" effort to get our road paved. So far we have been had money set aside by Congress for this purpose; however, in order to be able to receive that money, we must appear as one ofyour top priorities on the federal list. We are not requesting money; We only encourage you to assist us in getting what we have fought for to date. But - we can't do it without your help so please keep this in mind as you consider the list of federal priorities for 2004. Thank you for your time. We appreciate everything you have done or can do for us. Central Area Rural Transit System, Inc. P.O. Box 993, Soldotna, Alaska 99669 (907) 262-8900 Fax 262-6122 " We're Driving People Happy!" We are an Equal Opportunity Agency. Auxiliary Aide and Services are available to individuals with Disabilities. February 5,2004 Dale Bagley, Mayor :::0 Kenai Peninsula Borough 144 N. Binkley Soldotna, AK 99669 - I."' c--:) RE: Central Area Rural Transit System, Inc. funding request for FY 2005 , -, -. "') [ , I Dear Mayor Bagley, CARTS continues to grow! We routinely scheduled and delivered over 200 rides per day this winter. We also reached the milestone of 100,000 trips this January! I can't tell you how pleased we are with our accomplishments. CARTS recently signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Independent Living Center and we firmly believe partnerships like this are key to maximizing the transportation options at the lowest cost. This agreement is allowing CARTS to offer an expanded service, providing transportation to residents we were previously not serving. We submitted a joint application to the state DOT requesting funds for the upcoming year to continue this partnership. In addition, we were awarded grant funds to purchase a new vehicle for Central Peninsula Counseling Services, and are expecting delivery soon. We are finalizing a contract between our two organizations. These are just two examples of the progress we are making to fully coordinate the community and make sure that those who need a ride can get one. We certainly appreciate the support the Borough has given us and respectfully request $75,000 for FY 2005. These funds will help to match Job Access (JARC) funds we receive from the Federal Transit Administration for operating expenses. I would like to arrange a time to meet with you to discuss our program and plans for the upcoming year. Sincerely, ~lfMvJ<-- kmann irector cc: Pete Sprague, Assembly President Page 1 of 1 Murphy, Linda ------ From: Betty Glick [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:33 AM To: Linda S. Murphy,CMC/AAE Subject: Fw: Legislative Affairs ----- Original Message ---- From: <:lOn~pjll To: pjg@c;lJ<:l$1<:l-,net Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 10:22 AM Subject: Fw: Legislative Affairs Subject: Legislative Affairs Dear Ms. Glick: My family built a home on Keystone Drive about 20 years ago. At that time it was a locked, approximately 1/2 mile long subdivision with a road adequate for the small number of lots. Subsequently the Federal Government traded Moose Range lVIeadows (refuge land) to the Salamatoffs. The native corporation opened up another two plus miles, after which the Federal Refuge constructed two impressive day parks. It is our personal opinion that the Federal Government is responsible for the resultant traffic and that they should be willing to pay for the necessary upgrade and paving of Keystone Drive. Aside from our personal agendas, the upgrade of Keystone will be good for the City of Soldotna and the Kenai Borough. With the quality of the two day parks already installed, a decent road connecting existing paving to the parks is a natural progression. In addition to the health hazards to the residents and to the Kenai River, this little strip of road is supposedly one of the most expensive roads for the Borough to maintain. The Madison's have lobbied successfully for Federal and State money and we are off to a good start. There are some time constraints on the funds and we would really appreciate your leaving Keystone on the top three priority list for road improvements this session. If we can get this project started this group would serve as an ideal example of grass roots efforts for other areas which need improvement at reduced monetary outlay from the Borough. Please remember this affects not only all the residents on this road but also hundreds, if not thousands of visitors. Respectfully, Bill and Ann Curtis 34375 Keystone Drive Soldotna, Alaska 99669 (907)262-3816 [email protected] 2/17/04 Page 1 of 1 "~GENDA ITEM 1. J. Essert, Sue Ellen From: Bear [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 7:08 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund The Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund wants funds to file a lawsuit against a government agency, then they should go to their members for funding, and not another government agency. The Borough has better things to do with the money they have then give it to groups to fight another government agency. Robert Crowell Bear's Reel Repair Soldotna, Alaska -~.., , CJ '-_":: ~·l ' , =~ -: \ i '.~:J ···-l ---.! .. '. - J - " ;~ .' " ( ) ~ ,·1 .L,,~' i i 1" .J 02117104 Essert, Sue Ellen AGENDA iTEM I. / From: Don [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 12:58 PM To: Undisclosed-Recipient: ; Subject: government vs government lawsuits 02/17/04 (agenda "I" item) Dear Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Member: I understand that on 02/17/04 (agenda "I" item) the commercial fishing lobby desires to attempt to undermine the public process which placed limitations on that industries devastating impact on public fisheries. John McCombs and Doug Blossom of the Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund appear to be seeking Borough funds to create legal action to repeal due process regulation of their commercial fishing industry. I do not believe it is a proper function of our government to become entangled within legal actions against other branches of that same government. I believe that government vs government lawsuits are at best counter-productive. Our Sta~e has developed correct and logical public procedures to handle fish & game regulation disputes. Those procedures include our Alaska Board of Fisheries due process meetings. Many State ano private dollars have been spent to create or allow this due process procecure. I pay thousancs of tax dollars into the Kenai Borough every year and I do not want my Borough to have anything to do with attempting to undermine our Alaska Board of Fisheries meetings. It is not logical to have our Boroughs bring legal action against our State Boards as it is not logical for those Boards to bring actions against our Boroughs. I believe it is an act of governmental suicide for a government to begin suing it other branches. Proper due process procedures have been established to resolve these fisheries disputes but there will always be some individuals who will not be hap9Y with the outcome of this process. Please do not allow our Kenai Borough to waste any of its valuable time considering such legal tolly. Thank you tor not considering this legal folly. Don Johnson P.O. Box 876 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 ccpwow@gci. net. 907 262 7893 1 Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Le/!islative Committee February 17,2004 5:00PM Borough Assembly Chambers Borough Administration Building, Soldotna, Alaska Ron Long, Chair Pete Sprague, Vice Chair AGENDA O. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Postponed Items a. Resolution 2003-094: In Support ofCS for HB 240 and SB 186, Acts Relating to Charitable Gaming Through Implementation ofElectronic Gaming Machines (EGM) in the State of Alaska (Superman) (Referred to Legislative Committee) 45 P. NEW BUSINESS 2. Resolutions e. Resolution 2004-025: Establishing Federal Legislative and Funding Priorities for the Year 2004 (Fiscal Year 2005) (Legislative Committee) LAYDOWN *Consent Agenda Items Staff requested: Borough Clerk Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska Page 1 of I LEGTSLATIVE COMMITTEE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH Oil and Gas Office 43335 Kalifornsky Beach Road. Suite 16 Soldotna, Alaska 99669-8250 BUSINESS: (907) 262-6355 FAX: (907) 262-6762 CELL: (907) 398-8245 bpopp@borough,kenai.ak.us DALE BAGLEY MAYOR To: Pete Sprague, President Members ofthe Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Thru: iJdJ Dale Bagley, Borough Mayor From: Jiv Bill Popp, Oil & Gas Liaison - ._~ j i t Date: February 11, 2004 '~--""r - -' vJ Tl Subject: Proposed Addition to the 2004 Oil & Gas Federal Priorities The following is a proposed addition to the 2004 legislative priorities for review aJiffi consideration by the Legislative committee of the Assembly. It is the intention oftli~ "",' Administration to advocate for workforce development and training funds in support of expanding and enhancing the existing vocational and technical training programs offered within the Kenai Peninsula Borough, This includes the Kenai Peninsula College (KPC), the Mining and Petroleum Training Service (MAPTS), the Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) and the Pacific Rim Institute for Safety Management (pRISM). In recent weeks several major projects have taken substantial steps towards actual construction and operations that could have a profound effect on employment and economic development in Alaska. Two specific projects that will directly affect the Kenai Peninsula Borough include: The Alaska North Slope Natural Gas Pipeline • Earliest projected start ofconstruction: 2007/08 • Earliest projected completion date: 2010 • Estimated minimum construction workforce required: 5,000-8,000 • Estimated permanent workforce required: 400+ The Pebble Gold-Copper Mine (Iliamna) • Earliest projected start ofconstruction: 2006 • Earliest projected completion date: 2008/09 • Estimated minimum construction workforce (mine, road, port, power): 1,500+ • Estimated permanent workforce (Mine, port, power): 1,200 to 1,700 In the 1970's, Alaska was not prepared to train its local workforce to fill many ofthe technical trades jobs required to build the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline. With the current three to four year lead time we can now identify, it is important to start training our local workforce now to fill the many high-skilled construction jobs that these projects will require. KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE lLinda Murphy, MMC, Borough Clerk Sherry Biggs, Deputy Cleric 144 North Binkley Street Soldotna, Alaska 99669 MEMORANDUM TO: Assembly President Pete Sprague Members of the Assembly FROM: Borough Clerk Linda MUrphd~ DATE: January 26,2004 SUBJECT: Street Name Review - Amiyung Court On February 10, 2003, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution SN 2003-01 (Substitute), renaming Birch Circle as Amiyung Court. On July 21,2003, Max Dansereau filed a petition to change the street name from Amiyung Court to Coors Court. His petition contained the signatures of75 % of the adjacent landowners. On December 8,2003, the Planning Commission, upon recommendation of the Planning Staff, adopted Resolution 2003-14, leaving the street name unchanged. On December 22, 2003, Mr. Dansereau filed an application with the Clerk's Office requesting Assembly review of the naming of this street. This application requests that the Assembly consider naming the street Canal Court. Attached to this memorandum is a copy of KPB Chapter 14.10 setting forth the standards for street naming and street name reviews. Included in your packet is the following information: • Application for Review as filed by Mr. Dansereau with supporting petitions from surrounding property owners representing a total of 15 lots • Planning Commission resolutions, minutes, memoranda, reports, maps and other information regarding the naming and renaming of this street MEMORANDUM TO ASSEMBLY January 26, 2004 Street Name Review - Amiyung Court Page 1 of 1 STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, ROADS AND TRAILS 14.10.040 CHAPTER 14.10. STREET NAMlNG METHODS 14.10.010. Purpose and authority. A. The purpose ofthis chapter is to establish an official method ofnaming streets within the rural district of the borough and to establish an official map showing all official street names. B. The planning commission, acting upon recommendations from the administration and after hearing public testimony, when applicable, shall establish the official name of a street within the rural district of the borough. (Ord. No. 92-09, § l(part), 1992) 14.10.020. Street defined. The term street(s) as used in this chapter, except as defined under section 14.1O.060(B) and used in section 14.1O.070(B), is construed as a general term to describe a right-of-way dedicated to public use for access purposes. (Ord. No. 92-09, § l(part), 1992) 14.10.030. Street name map. The existing series of borough base maps, scale 1" = 500', prepared and maintained in the Resource Planning Department are adopted as the official street name maps of the borough. A. The official street name maps shall supersede, where applicable, street names shown on subdivision plats or other recorded documents. B. Future revisions and updates of the existing base map series may be accomplished by utilizing the computerized Geographic Information System which may produce official street name maps at other appropriate scales. C. Copies of the official street name maps shall be made available upon request to any agency and the public upon receipt ofpayment for reproduction costs, when applicable. D. Street names adopted by action of an incorporated city within the borough shall be recognized on the official street name map. (Ord. No. 92-09, § l(part), 1992) 14.10.040. Street names. A. Official street names shall be established in accordance with the following: 1. A new or changed street name shall not be a duplicate of any existing name. A different suffix (street, avenue, etc.) does not constitute a different name. 2. A new right-of-way created by the subdivision process which is a direct extension or has the same alignment as an existing named right-of-way shall bear the existing name. 14-15 STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, ROADS AND TRAILS 14.10.070 b. The procedures for renaming a street by petition shall be in accordance with section 14.1O.050(A). (Ord. No. 95-12, §§ 1, 3, 4, 1995; Ord. No. 92-09, § l(part), 1992) 14.10.055. Public hearing and notice required. A. The planning commission shall publish a notice stating street names to be changed, time and place ofthe public hearing, and a contact person. The notice shall be published once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the renamed street. Notice shall be sent by regular mail to property owners fronting the street to be renamed, as shown on borough tax rolls. B. When the name change only involves a change in the suffix, the planning commission shall publish a notice as provided in this subsection. The notice shall contain a list ofall streets with existing suffixes and proposed changes, and the time and place of the public hearing and a contact person. The notice shall include a vicinity map of the affected area. The notice shall be published twice a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed renamed street suffix and posted in a central location utilized by residents affected by the proposed renaming. Ifpracticable, public service announcements will be broadcast on local radio stations. (Ord. No. 96-13, § 1, 1996; Ord. No. 95-12, § 2, 1995) 14.10.060. Unnamed streets. A. All unnamed streets that have been recognized as public rights-of-way by reason of a previously filed subdivision plat or other recorded document shall be officially named by the planning commission in accordance with section 14.10.040 and under the procedures of section 14.10.050(A). B. Private street names may be officially named by the planning commission upon a finding that special circumstances merit a name assignment and that the public interest is not harmed. 1. Naming a private road does not constitute a legal dedication of the street for public right-of-way or maintenance purposes. 2. Naming of private streets shall be in accordance with section 14.10.040 and follow procedures of section 14.1O.050(A). (Ord. No. 92-09, § l(part), 1992) 14.10.070. Street name suffixes. A suffix designation shall be added to all new, renamed, or unnamed streets and shall be indicative ofits alignment according to the diagram on the attachedAppendixA and described as follows: A. "Avenue" means any right-of-way lying in an east-west direction, not ending in a cul-de-sac, and the future extension in either direction is possible. Supp. No.4 14-17 STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, ROADS AND TRAILS 12.02.325 ~ t::l "'"z00 ~ :llI-I ...... ~i~ WEST m m ,.. me:(') "u -lEe: 0 ~ 1""('):llIm_:m CIRCLES 0 Z:llIm -a ~ Q(,)z n 0 ;1l;-I c:: <: ~Joi ::c Cr.i Zc -t c (I) c::: (')~ ::--- Oz ~ e:n > :llIm-lUI < mz t::l ~~ c::: ~ m ~ ~ en ~ c:::: ~ V:l :<; :::: a STREETS STREETS c:: ~ ...... :: Sf:: ~ ~ ~ ...... '""'3 ::::: ~ t:: > < ~ mz ":::l c::: Jo m Cr.l • en ~ o •if' ~ ojJo ~ ~i! ROADS '""'3 -1:I'Z :. "C !i! !fx ~ !i Jo "':' EAST ~ -~ C> -0 <~ ... C> Street Naming (Ord. No. 95-12, §§ 5, 6, 1995; Ord. No. 92-09, § 1(part), 1992) StiPp. No. 13 14-18.1 I KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Finance Melody Douglas. Chief Financial Officer 148 North Binkley Street Soldotna,Alaska 99669-7553 Phone (907) 262-5846 Fax (907) 262-9645 Email [email protected] January 27, 2004 MEMORANDUM To: Board ofEducation . ,,~ Through: Dr. Donna Peterson, Superintendent D~r \!\t\d.9d/\A.J L-V). From: Melody Douglas, Chief Financial O:flicer Subject: FY05 Budget Work Session Enclosed are four documents: 1) Summary ofthe Budget Survey taken in December 2) Budget Review Committee comments 3) Unprioritized comments received during the public hearing process 4) Summary of a survey taken during the public hearing process. The results of this survey are ranked in order ofpriority according to the responses received. General Fund budget reconciliation options will be discussed. Preliminary budget revenue $75,430,297 Less allocation of fund balance from FY04 (1,600,000) Revised preliminary budget revenue 73,830,297 Less preliminary budget expenditures (80,604,717) Actual budget shortfall (6,774,420) Allocation of fund balance 1,600,000 Remaining required expenditure reduction $ 5,174.420 ANCHOR POINT COOPER LANDING HOMER HOPE KACHEMAK SELO KENAI MOOSE PASS NANWALEK NIKISKI NIKOLAEVSK NINILCHIK PORT GRAHAM RAZDOLNA SELDOVIA' SEWARD SOLDOTNA STERLING TUSTUMENA TYONEK VOZNESENKA KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT - Assistant Superintendent Dr. Gary Whiteley 148 North Binkley Street Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone (907) 262-5846 Fax (907) 262-5867 Email [email protected] Memo To: Budget Review Committee From: Gary Whiteley, Ed. D. Assistant Superintendent Date: December 22, 2003 Re: Budget Survey Results Enclosed are the results from the District Budget Survey. Two hundred eighty-five (285) surveys were returned (employees-90, community members-129, no designation 66). The survey was designed as a 4 point forced choice scale. A mean is reported as "overall rating" for each question. The frequency distribution is reported next to the _ designations strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. Results from the survey are interesting. Care should be used in generalizing these results based upon the sample size of the survey. ANCHOR POINT COOPER LANDING HOMER HOPE KACHEMAK SELO KENAI MOOSE PASS NANWALEK NIKISKI NIKOLAEVSK NINILCHIK PORT GRAHAM RAZDOLNA SELDOVIA SEWARD SOLDOTNA STERLING TUSTUMENA TYONEK VOZNESENKA Employee __ Due no later than December 15, 2003 Community Member__ Please return to Lassie Nelson, KPBSD KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 148 N. Binkley St. Soldotna, AK 99669 This survey is designed to provide direction to the Budget Review Committee, The topics on the survey were identified by the 2002 2003 Budget Review Committee for possible ways to reduce the budget. I am asking you to rate the areas you feel should be considered for reduction by circling the number most correctly corresponding to your opinion, Please provide specific suggestions in the space provided. Thank you for your assistance, Agree Disagree Reduce Personnel Costs 2 3 Comments: Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Increase Class Size 2 3 4 Comments: Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Consolidate Schools 2 3 4 Comments: Agree Disagree Eliminate Programs 2 3 Comments: Agree Disagree Reduce or Eliminate Co-Curricular Funding 2 3 Comments: Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Adjust Health Insurance 2 3 4 Comments: Agree Disagree Other 2 3 Comments: RESPONSES __jQUEST!ON#1' QUESTION #2 IIQUESnON #3 __ ,:ES:~#4 IIQUESnON #5 I QUESTION #6 -~-----~ ~ ~JL- Employees --t:- -==t -----++------+-- (1)STRONGLY AGREE l_7--7.7S01. L-2: 222"10 26, =-- ~~ , 8 8.89% 31.34.44% 11 12.22% c-- ~) AGREE 17 18.89% 8 8.89% 30 33.33% 24 26.67% 28 31.11% 20 22.22% (3) DISAGREE 19 21.11% 24 26.67% 11 12.22% 24 26.67% 12 13.33% 14 15.56% (4) STRONGLY DISAGREE 34 37.78% 55 61.11% 15 16.67% 24 26.67% 10 11.11% 35 38.89% ----I--- NO RESPONSE 13 14.44%' 1 1.11% 8 8.89% 10 11.11% 9 10.00% 10 11.11% I I ------1~---__l Totals 1_ 90 100.00% 90 100.00% 90 100.00% 90 100.00%, 90 100.00% 90 100.00% I~;':":':';'~~~------lCommunity -----~- - -- ------r------ (1) STRONGLY AGREE 18 13.95% 3 2.33% 39 30.23% 12 9.30% 26 20.16% 17 13.18% ------I ------+---+1--- (2) AGREE 25 19.38% 17 13.18% 27 20.93%· 28 21.71 % 25 19.38% 39 30.23% ------~ ---+------1+-----1------H------+------H--- (3) DISAGREE 29 22.48% 16 12.40% 16 12.40% 19 14.73% 26 20.16% 19 14.73% -- ------(4) STRONGLY DISAGREE 42 32.56% 88 68.22% 37 28.68% 53 41.09% 34 26.36% 25 19.38% !'!o RESPONSE--~_~_ !5-11.63% 1_ 5 3.88% 10 7.75% 17 13.18% 18 13.95% 29 22.48% I T~I~------1- 1-29-1-00~00%129 -100.00% 129 100.00% -129100.00% -129100.00% 129 100.00% ------~- -- -.---- --- ~------1------1------_. ------ -~------ \ RESPONSES QUESTION #1 I I QUESTION #2 QUESTION #3 QUESTION #4 QUESTION #5 QUESTION #6 -- Not Designated (1) STRONGLY AGREE 11 16.67% 2 3.03% 21 31.82% 7 10.61% 10 15.15% 7 10.61% (2) AGREE 17 25.76% 3 4.55% 17 25.76% 9 13.64% 9 13.64% 24 36.36% (3) DISAGREE 18 27.27% 15 22.73% 11 16.67% 18 27.27% 21 31.82% 13 19.70% ~- (4) STRONGLY DISAGREE 11 16.67% 41 62.12% 13 19.70% 21 31.82% 13 19.70% 6 9.09% NO RESPONSE 9 13.64% 5 7.58% 4 6.06% 11 16.67% 13 19.70% 16 24.24% Totals 66 100.00% 66 100.00% 66 100.00% 66 100.00% 66 100.00% 66 100.00% I Overall Totals (1) STRONGLY AGREE 36 12.63% 7 2.46% 86 30.18% 27 9.47% 67 23.51% 35 12.28% (2) AGREE 59 20.70% 28 9.82% 74 25.96% 61 21.40% 62 21.75% 83 29.12% (3) DISAGREE 66 23.16% 55 19.30% 38 13.33% 61 21.40% 59 20.70% 46 16.14% - (~_ STRONGLY DISAGREE _ 87 30.53% 184 64.56% 65 22.81% 98 34.39% 57 20.00% 66 23.16% NO RESPONSE 37 12.98% 11 3.86% 22 7.72% 38 13.33% 40j 14.04% 55 19.30% - Total # of Responses 285 100.00% 285 100.00% 285 100.00%ft- 285 100.00% 2851100.000/•. 285 100.00% KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET SURVEY - 12/15/03 ]~ EMPLOYEES Total Surveys Returned: 90 !~educe Personnel Costs Overall Rating: 3.04 Total Responding: 77 Strongly Agree: 7 Agree: 17 Disagree: 19 Strongly Disagree: 34 1) Which personnel? What type ofcosts? Classroom teachers and funding - NO! 2) Do away with the pork barrel! There is so much waste in the schools. 3) I already bag my trash and clean my dishes! 4) Do NOT cut anymore teachers! Cut one counselor from each school; cut one administrator from each school. 5) Only administrative costs! 6) At administrative level. No cutting, then "re-naming" a position. Less meetings for principals (sub $) and less travel at central office. 7) Cut more support staff? Who will cook and clean? 8) This has been done at classified level and this has put additional pressure on them and certified trying to pick up the pieces. Class size increase has lower certified costs. 9) What personnel costs are we referring to? 10) Central Office art specialist 11 ) Art specialist? 12) I am concerned that we have an art specialist and let the reading specialist go. Doesn't make sense. However, teacher aides are needed. 13) Eliminate art specialist, consolidate departments within Central Office. 14) Art specialist 15) Art specialist, central office 16) What are personal? (personnel?) 17) I think teachers and staffare stretched very thin - administrative personnel could be reduced. 18) Eliminate nurses, assistant principals, counselors, activity directors and central office administration. 19) Only at the top, starting with Central Office. 20) Do not cut any more teacher positions!! Start in the school district offices and clean out the positions that could be consolidated with other jobs. 21) Personnel are already accepting the brunt of budget cuts. Personnel who do not serve students directly (face to face) should be cut first. 22) Necessary evil? 23) Reduce administration costs. Reduce teacher support systems. In this climate teachers may have to go it on their own. Sub contract out all administration, i.e. payroll, personnel, hiring, or let the school themselves look after administration. 24) No more teacher cuts! 25) Decrease number offace-to-face meetings in Kenai/Soldotna. Replace with web-based teleconferences, etc. 26) Too vague - yes, administrative 27) I would hate to see this happen. We already feel the man/woman power crunch in so many areas. 28) It seems inevitable. Is the idea ofan early retirement bonus possible? 29) The custodial cuts at Chapman had a huge effect on our school. Where would the cuts happen? What is being looked at? Please keep employees up-to-date on changes that will affect them. 30) I am a teacher with the district and did not support a pay increase until one was given to principals. 31) This category is vaguely described. What does "reduce personnel costs" really mean? Fewer teachers? This category name is not very specific for a public survey. 32) A school is not a building, it is the professionals that deliver the instruction. 33) I know this has been cut, but there may still be some room to cut. Possibly an early retirement program to become effective every year would be one idea. 34) One can't occur without the other occurring (reducing personnel costs/increasing class size). 35) Though we need to remain "on top of our profession" my first suggestion would be to reduce travel expenses, including at the district office level. Training may need to become the responsibility ofeach employee and meetings need to be audio conference. 36) Administration/Central Office only. 37) I assume this means reduction in staff, i.e. teachers. Perhaps there are other personnel costs which could be looked at. 38) Central office personnel should be reduced, as well as administration salaries should share cuts just like KPBSD employees have already. 39) Don't create new high paying positions such as Data Analysts who make more than teachers - ask for volunteer - hourly reduction. 40) Where? How? 41) At top administrative level- this will happen with consolidation. 42) What persOimel? Central Office? Data Processing? Technology? NO MORE teachers! Or nurses or custodians! 43) Already high expectations from teachers and staff. 44) Don't cut the bottom off our totem pole, it will topple. Cutting custodians is not the answer. There are way too many chiefs in your wigwam. Increase Class Size Overall Rating: 3.48 Total Responding: 89 Strongly Agree: 2 Agree: 8 Disagree: 24 Strongly Disagree: 55 I) Already too large! 2) No! Kids are not heard in a sea of voices. Teachers burn out and just pass kids along. 3) Again, this hurts kids. 4) No, the classes at SoHi are already filled to the brim. 5) This adversely effects student learning. 6) This has been happening gradually for years. How many kids could you handle being around? 7) We have 3 of4 of our students at Montessori Charter, which has helped our kids. Why can't regular classes in KPBSD be smaller? 8) Can't afford to - some are already over capacity. 9) Overcrowding classrooms will cause parents to look for alternative schooling - No Child Left Behind - smaller class size will help insure successful students. 10) This will cause more students to leave public education. 11) There's too many already; or there wouldn't be such a need for parent volunteers. 12) Increased class sizes are driving more students away from public schools, thereby exacerbating the problem of declining enrollment. 13) Quality decreases - physically unhealthy. 14) The class room sizes are already too big! 15) Class sizes are already too big. Some schools room dimensions will not accommodate more students. Individual education goes down as class size goes up. 16) Those "specialists" who do not have classrooms should be there. Put "grant" people into classrooms. 17) If schools are consolidated, perhaps class size will not have to increase - team teaching might be explored - or year round schools. 18) Only if you lower standards; my biggest class is 36 - many kids fall through the cracks. 19) More students are coming to school without basic skills, i.e. lack listening skills, respect for others, respect for rules. They have challenging social skills due to divorce, abuse, drug abuse. The skill of being responsible for their own behavior is lacking and teachers will be spending all their time dealing with behavior!;. 20) Only increase class size if you add an aide to help in the class. 21) No 22) I don't like large classes anymore than the next guy, however, when I went to school we had 35+ kids per class and I feel I got a great education. 23) Our son's 6th grade class already has 30 kids in it, to add anymore would not be fair or educationally fair. 24) No - only as a last resort. How many board members accepted the offer to shadow a teacher? 25) Currently there are 28 students in my class. Next year predicts numbers to be 30-32. It will be impossible to show student growth and progress with increased class size. Many parents are looking at private schooling next year with class size increase. 26) More efficient. 27) Best practices tends to disappear under this. 28) This would help as well and then offer an additional class or two on schedules. 29) Understand that greater class size would mean less individual attention - that could drive more students from our schools to home schooling. 30) NOl 31) Class sizes need to be decreased. 32) Class size is so important. Classes of 25+ are difficult to teach because of mandated curriculum. 33) Research shows all kinds ofnegative consequences. 34) NO! 35) Absolutely not. Consolidate Schools Overall Rating: 2.18 Total Responding: 82 Stronl!:lv Al!:ree: 26 Agree: 30 Disagree: 11 Strongly Disagree: 15 1) Class sizes are too big as they are - consolidating schools would only exacerbate the problem. 2) Absolutely - it's time to address what's best for kids, not what people who are ego driven want. 3) Yes, it makes no sense to have so many high schools so close to each other. 4) Yes, ifdone reasonably; i.e., Nikiski to Kenai, Skyview to SoHi. 5) Outlying, yes. Where it makes sense. If school is full and working well, leave it. Not everyone likes K-3 schools. HELP the Jr. High! 6) Are there any that are not full? 7) Yes! If schools aren't at capacity, then don't waste the resources of operating a building. However, I'm an itinerant speech pathologist and I serve three schools - SoHi, Skyview and Nikiski MiddlelHigh. Nikiski needs their school!! With Ir. & Sr. High in one building, capacity isn't an issue. Though our family will be effected as we drive between Soldotna and Kenai. I'd much prefer to see boundary changed for KCHS, and Skyview and SoHi combined. 8) Can be done within reason. 9) What schools? Should have given more information. Move Russian schools to McNeil- yes! 11 0) Overcrowding schools is not the answer - parents will look for alternative schooling - communities do not want to lose their schools. II) This has to be looked at carefully. 12) Eliminate portables by sending Fireweed Academy and Connections at West Homer Elementary. 13) Our school classrooms are already full. THIS is a very wrong and selfish option. 14) Smaller schools include smaller class sizes and give more students a chance to participate. 15) Chapman School really has a good thing going here. Please leave it status quo. 16) School boundaries to balance things. Small is beautiful! 17) The schools are busting at the seams as it is! 18) Do this instead (of eliminating programs). 19) Close Soldotna Middle School and make Skyview and SoHi 7-12 schools like Nikiski, Seward, Ninilchik, Seldovia, etc. Could be done at Kenai as well. Move school district offices into Soldotna Middle School building and save rent in borough building. 20) Create complete programs. 21) This seems to make a lot of sense - both programs and teaching could be offered to more students. Why duplicate services? 22) Wherever feasible and reasonable. Change boundaries to balance student count where feasiblelreasonable. 23) I disagree - but what difference does it make what I think? 24) In small communities this is a definite No. This will kill a community. 25) Yes! This saves funds all the way around, plus unites the community. 26) The central peninsula only needs 2 high schools. We cannot afford to run four. 27) Good idea - cost effective, efficient, makes sense. 28) Within a IS mile radius. 29) Some obvious choices exist - closing Skyview, consolidating Chapman Jr. High with Homer Middle. 30) This seems a viable way to save money. 31) At some point this is going to happen. Consolidation with portables does not seem to be much of a savings; extra heat, building them, etc. 32) I hope this would be looked at very carefully. How the school is part of the community; location of school; does the school meet the needs of students; what would have the least impact on families-students-communities. 33) This is a necessity in the Homer area - Russian small schools to McNeil. Paul Banks to West Homer Elementary. Sixth grade of West Homer Elementary to Homer Middle. Please consolidate principals with small schools. 34) Some ofthe smaller schools have become much too expensive to maintain. 35) More efficient. 36) Combine Kenai and Nikiski, Skyview and Soldotna. 37) Consolidate Nikiski and Kenai High. 38) Can some of the smaller schools be combined? 39) Perhaps, if absolutely necessary and only if it would save programs. 40) The Russian schools in Homer area are costly to run. The teachers and staff are having to work around "religious days". 41) As enrollment falls - may be necessary - start with close together schools such as Paul Banks and West Homer Elementary to avoid long commutes and impact to small communities. 42) One high school in Soldotna area. Sterling Elementary to Soldotna Elementary - or other. 43) Buildings and maintenance is expensive. Consolidation would save a lot of money, but would transportation costs then increase? 44) There might be a few that could be consolidated, but not very many would be cost effective. I believe large schools are more economical and are the worst idea for academic learning. Small schools serve students best if they have the range of programs. 45) Homer High and Homer Flex; West Homer and Paul Banks - geography possible. 46) Good luck! This should have occurred years ago. 47) Consolidate Voz and Raz to McNeil. Bring McNeil into town K-2 at Paul Banks and 3-6 at West Homer, ifconsolidation is a true need. Eliminate Programs Overall Rating: 2.80 Total Responding: 80 Stron!!:lv A!!:ree: 8 Agree: 24 Disagree: 24 Strongly Disagree: 24 I) They are what kids come to school for, especially with the large class sizes. 2) This will hurt kids, not help them. Consolidate SoHi and Skyview to save programs. 3) No, at SoHi there is nothing left to cut with the exception of AP classes. Few of our students graduate from college. We need vocational education classes. Extra-curricular programs should be taken over by the community. 4) I would rather consolidate than lose options for students. 5) It's time. We've got to put money toward academics. Clubs can pick up the slack. Keep music, P.E., library. 6) Special needs - schools are for learning, not an institution for re-hab. Each child has their own personal attendant. 7) Campaign for increased number of volunteers. 8) Do what is needed - possibly Boys and Girls Club could pick up some of these sports. 9) Absolutely not. 10) Depends on the programs - need more information. This is not a fair question to ask people without giving more information. 11) Some programs could be combined for services and some eliminated. 12) Programs such as P.E. and Music, Foreign Language should not be cut; they are important. 13) What programs? 14) No! 15) Eliminating programs is also driving students away from public schools to home school. I think a stronger emphasis on arts, science and physical education would attract these students back. 16) Programs have been cut enough! 17) What's next? Where are the priorities? 18) Start with the programs that could be done as independent study or combine 1 teacher for several schools. Foreign language would be a start. Also classes offered at the college could be dropped. Classes that have small numbers of students. 19) What would we eliminate? Most have already been cut. 20) KPBSD is known for many of its fine programs - student needs beyond the regular classroom continue to be important, and the reason many students are present every day. 21) Quest could be eliminated. I don't like it, but I could live with it. 22) I don't think we should be eliminating P.E., Music, Library or Art. All programs should be looked at to see how many students they service. 23) No - combine the high schools and maintain programs and curriculum. 24) Already at bare bones to keep people here! 25) I hate to see us lose programs....especially the arts and music which always seem to be the first to go. The arts are so important for us to be culturally aware and to maintain our humanity. 26) I realize something has to go; however, music, art and P.E. are a necessary outlet for our students. They teach not just that subject, but also to believe in themselves and to see things in more than one way. It is another way to help them see outside "the box". 27) We keep expecting more from our staff in regards to students but want them to do it with less. How can public education withstand this mind set? 28) We must be allowed to focus time, energy and dollars on the core curriculum or it will be a lose lose situation in the next five years, with class sizes 000-35. 29) Academic programs such as Ouest shouldn't be reduced - these Quest programs are needed for many students in our district. The quality of education our district provides would go down hill ifprograms such as Quest aren't readily available to the exceptional students who require them. 30) Freeze all curricular, building or revision activities. Reduce central office staff to the bare bones. Let onsight staff handle things. Eliminate warehouse. 31) Look at sports programs that have less than 12 students participating, cut them. Also look at the more expensive programs. 32) What programs? Or how? I don't know. 33) Extra-curricular and sports programs may require elimination or higher contributions by parents. 34) No, many of these programs are what keep students motivated. 35) Too many "pet" programs started with each new director then set aside or replaced with new ones. Too much waste! 36) Maybe make all sports programs/clubs fan supported. 37) Groups/organizations like Boys & Girls Club, Elks, churches, colleges, etc., could offer music, sports, and art programs and opportunities for students. Transportation would become a family responsibility. 38) How much more can you cut? Our students are already being academically crippled by the elimination of college bound classes and vocational programs. 39) Offer minimum electives. Students can choose college courses or on-line classes. 40) Students do not need to be taught how to tie knots and climb trees in the public school system. 41) Eliminate sports! Keep electives and fine arts. 42) Quest Reduce or Eliminate Co-Curricular Funding Overall Rating: 2.01 Total Responding: 81 Strongly Agree: 31 Agree: 28 Disagree: 12 Strongly Disagree: 10 1) Reduce, not eliminate, by as little as possible. 2) Parent volunteers for mock trial, etc. 3) Sporting events can be handled by the community; example: KPHA - Hockey, Boys/Girls Club: Basketball, Soccer 4) Higher Fees 5) Play only Peninsula teams except for play-offs 6) Fund it outside the cap. 7) After school programs should be a corrununity alternative and not part of the school day. Do not cut fine arts and practical arts during the school day. 8) Reduce not eliminate. 9) Give the kids nothing to do and crime will increase. 10) Increase number of volunteers. 11) Fee for service for "child care", i.e.: After the Bell at the elementary level. Outside, specifically in Arizona, working parents pay for their child care, outside hours ofpublic education. 12) Depends on what ones. 13) Pay to play 14) Co-curricular should go before we look at academics, increasing class size. They don't help a student pass a qualifying exam. 115) Creative funding/consolidation ofprograms. Schools could share some athletic programs, i.e., XC running and skiing, wrestling. First step toward consolidation. 16) Academics should be before sports! 17) After school activities keep students active. They do better in school. Sometimes it's what keeps them in school. Teaches students how to excel in whatever they do. 18) Though I hate to do so (eliminate), put this into club hands but try to maintain eligibility standards. 19) Reduce funding. 20) No one wants to see this happen, but #1: It's time, #2: More parents will get involved with this item on the table. 21) Reduce - I think parents could pay a bigger portion for sport activities. 22) Co-curricular activities in this present economy is a luxury. Teachers' jobs are more important. There is a lot ofbenefits of sports, why not have more P.E. within the school, as this services all students and not just the elite students. 23) All of these programs should be self pay programs - the kids who are in the programs pay to be there. Travel at their own expense or have intramural teams. 24) Students from low income families should not be excluded from sports on that basis - but many students do come from families that could help meet sports fees. 25) This too is important, but I would prefer to lose co-curricular funding before the arts. 26) Why should education dollars be used for recreational activities? Let sports be self-supporting or be outside the cap. 27) Have athletes pay for any traveling, etc. Parents already pay for sport travel for Little League, Pee Wee Hockey, Pop Warner Football, Soccer, etc. 28) This is a must. Once again the focus should be on core subjects - reading, language, math and science. 29) Why does basketball and football get so much funding? 30) We have more sports than we need right now. 31) I'm not in favor of eliminating music or business programs. 32) I'd hate to do this because they are so valuable to the students - however, it will get the attention of the citizens - maybe then we'll have increased funding. But without sports - as a parent, I would leave the Peninsula - it's that important. We certainly can eliminate some sports - in Seward we have several sports with very low participation - they could go without any problem. 33) Not sure what this means. 34) You already have - no more. 35) Question is how to do this without impacting low income students more strongly. Look at reducing funding for high cost activities - football; substitute low cost - soccer. 36) I'm not exactly sure what things are co-funded, but by eliminating or reducing these requirements the district would save money. 37) As much as I despise this idea, it is the only place [think the borough could pick up and fund outside the cap. 38) Find alternative funding for sports programs/travel. 39) Find alternative funding; eliminate travel costs. Have parents pay for those. 40) Parents' responsibility - we're not babysitters. 41) Possibly. Adjust Health Insurance Overall Rating: 2.91 Total Responding: 80 Stronl!lv Al!ree: 11 Agree: 20 Disagree: 14 Strongly Disagree: 35 1) Leave it where it is so one can afford to go to the doctor. 2) $200.00 deductible and different premiums for people who are single with no dependents. 3) Ifservices from RSCB (RBMS?) got better, I would pay more. The company is the epitome of inefficiency. 4) Why punish those working the hardest to provide education? 5) I don't care - I don't get benefits. 6) Done! Contract negotiations $lOO/month. 11/03 raised to $180+ a month. 7) Offer different plans for different situations - some people take advantage and then everyone pays the price! 8) That can be done by people not abusing the system. Amen to the $75 charge for the emergency room treatment that's not one. 9) We need to have a higher cap or higher deductible - something needs to be done to get a handle on health insurance. 10) Increase those with families; reduce for single. 11) Deductible or cap needs to be raised. Single, couple, family cost should be different. 12) Offer incentives to keep costs low, in addition to raising co-pays. Employees who use very little health care could see smaller increases in co-pay. 13) This has already been bargained for the next 3 years. 14) Costs are high enough! 15) Health benefits are included in salary base and salaries would have to be adjusted to reflect that. 16) Get into a larger pool so that our costs can be averaged amongst larger (?) - look into comparisons for covering dependents or not. 17) This seems to be on the rise everywhere - no one wants to pay more, but it seems inevitable. 18) We can't pay any more than we do! Adjust us! Double the fee for ER visits (at least $150). Have health professionals speak at inservices to teach employees to be pro-active. Some health issues are absolutely unavoidable, but some could be prevented. 19) Incentives for teachers who are not claiming. Extra charges for spouse and children. Extra charges for teachers who claim emergencies which are not. 20) Adjust policies to reflect spouses and children. 21) This is a contract agreement - I don't think it should be an opinion ofcommunity members. 22) Fonn preferred provider group to decrease health care costs. Have caregivers available until 7:00 p.m. Friday and clinic hours on Saturday to minimize unnecessary trips to emergency room. Check out "school district clinic" at Nanana Valley Clinic in Fairbanks (907-459-3585). See attached info. 23) We could consider charging a fee to cover dependents - many companies, state, colleges and school districts do this. 24) Co-pay is already very expensive and takes out a large chunk ofmy classified paycheck. 25) Is this a contract issue? 26) I agree that this may be a necessity but ifthe Borough continues to increase class size, and does not eliminate programs and co-curricular funding, I wouldn't be willing to take on added health care costs. I am also checking into starting my own private school in the area. This is based on parent request. 27) Why does everyone pay the same amount for the co-pay? A family of6 is going to cost more to insure than a family of 2. 28) Health insurance should be moved into Anchorage School District's carrier. Our costs are already too high. Furthennore, coverage should be optional. I bet it's illegal to make someone purchase coverage (or anything) they don't want. 29) I think we need to look into combining health insurance with Anchorage and MatSu Schools. Our district alone is not self sufficient. 30) We need to find an insurer with a larger base. Blue Cross? How do other state employees make it without co-pay? 31) Since the only adjustment ofbetter coverage and less cost won't happen, health insurance should not be adjusted. 32) We've already increased our co-pay this year. Perhaps looking at cost saving measures. 33) Health insurance co-pay keeps getting more expensive and our wages are not keeping up with the difference. Do not raise insurance! 34) Let employees buy their own insurance - add a stipend. 35) This is a negotiated item. The quality, and availability, of your teachers would decline if a fair health insurance plan wasn't offered. 36) Incentives to decrease utilization - for example: 100% coverage on first $1000 of covered services per enrollee/year. IF NOT USED BY ENROLLEE THAT YEAR, CARRIED OVER TO FOLLOWING YEAR OF COVERAGE. 37) Health insurance is not an equal opportunity for everyone anyway. Those ofus who don't use it might be getting tired of paying for those who take advantage of the system. 38) How? Cut benefits? 39) Have employees pay a small fee for any dependents. 40) Cut school board offl Adjust iffair for all. 41) Monitor abuses to system i.e. emergency room trips. 42) How could that be done as health insurance is a negotiated item? Other 1) Transfer custodial budget/services to Borough maintenance since they own the buildings. 2) The whole system is out of whack! There's so much wrong with it, it's hard to know where to start. 3) Bus service could be paid for by those using it. 4) Lobby for a funding formula correction. It's past time for KPBSD administration to address this obvious problem in Juneau. 5) Why not look again at 4-day school week to save money? Other states are. Or 4 Y2 day so all meetings, inservices are held Friday P.M. This helps with "babysitting" in the long run, and with athletic travel in Jr/Sr High ifwe keep that. This has worked well in other districts. (The 4-day saves money, though.) Save money -less testing that needs to be graded by hand. Just try to remember when cutting - that teachers and class size directly effect test results. 6) Trim the "fat" in that administrative office - I haven't seen any cuts there. 7) Keep trying! Education crucial to our kids and our future. State Income Tax is justified! 8) I think the governor could do away with coastal trails, trying to put funding for bridges that don't need to be built, giving themselves raises and cutting everywhere else. We need to work on getting the State Tax back so we don't need to keep cutting from the educational programs and our future!!!!! 9) This whole survey is slanted - not enough information is given for people to make a decision - the questions are very ambiguous. 10) Home school programs should not be encouraged by supplying computers, etc. 11) This survey is too ambiguous and I will not send my child to public school if a well rounded education is not offered, including P.E. and music. 12) Draw students back to public school - create schools within schools or magnet schools. Look appealing to the home school/private school family - generate more revenue! Market our public schools - we are in competition! 13) All things are needed in the school. Cutting programs like art and music is wrong and tragic. Sadly, there really aren't any options. 14) Our elected officials and school administration need to be leading the charge for funding and taxes. 15) Continue reduction of central office personnel. 16) Eliminate central office staff. Change state law that "caps" funding! Adjust school boundaries to balance schools! 17) Since my son started in the school system, I heard about how the increase of home-schooling has come up. Every year this is a problem - why? Because of all the cut backs, parents are removing their children, then you cut more programs, teachers, etc. When or where does it stop? Find another way. 18) Even in this time of budget reduction, it is possible to give emphasis to quality of education that will meet student needs. 19) Reduce money spent on textbooks. Whatever isn't in the ones we have is on the internet. 20) Examine Board and administrative overhead; reduce itinerant travel time by assigning specialists by complex rather than be grade or (apparently) by lottery. 21) Parents must pay more for co-curricular activities, busing, special programs. 22) Make those who home school as accountable as the schools. 23) We flat out need more money for our schools as we see what lack of funding can do. 24) We need smaller classes - student to teacher ratio all ready at peak. If we must have more students per class, we need more teachers too! 25) Create a charter school that draws students and allows access to alternative funding. 26) Administrative costs - teleconference admin meetings. Four day week! Saves a lot! Sue the State! 27) All out effort to get more money from the State, even cooperatively doing this with other school districts - lobbying State; get parents and students to lobby State or letter-writing campaign to Juneau. Elect a new governor! 28) No elective funding for Connections. Stop giving money to home school/Connections students for P.E., etc. If they want to home school they'should be prepared to be responsible for the electives. 29) These are things that should be looked at! How much did the evaluation of the Borough Warehouse cost the District??? How much is spent in this manner? 30) I would truly prefer to stay in the public system. I believe in public education and love my job. Thank you for this opportunity to share. 31) Take our schools to a 4 day week. Don't restrict, but expand our offerings to include and utilize KPC and community. 32) It would be OK to eliminate insurance with me, but I know that many people need it. It is the only possibility I see. 33) Close warehouse. 34) A moratorium on any curriculum changes. Elimination of supervisory personnel. We need to go to a 4 day work week. Longer days to make up for the missed 5th day. I know this is against state laws - but laws can be changed. Benefits: In heating costs, electrical costs, janitorial costs, substitute pay (Fridays - with sports teams traveling - require many subs at our school). Parents wouldn't like it because they would have to find baby sitters - maybe they would appreciate teachers more and maybe they would pressure the legislature to increase the funding formula. Students would miss fewer days of school because of sports travel. Offer early retirement incentive program every year - might cut down on personnel costs. 35) Computers - 3 year turnover is way too much. 36) Rather than cuts, we need to actively lobby for more funds from the state. 37) Instead of Laidlaw stopping at every block and driveway in a Y2 mile stretch, make one central stop! This would save money! 38) Too much spent on food and travel for meetings. 39) Use video conferencing for meetings rather than paying transportation costs for people to attend. 40) I feel that a 4 day work week would greatly reduce costs for support staff, food services, building heat and maintenance and still serve the students of our district with a quality education. 41) I hate to see anything more cut, but I feel counselors should go before classes and programs at the high school and middle schools. 42) This is such a flawed survey and is anti-education. Also, many of these issues can't be changed. Have you looked at a 4 day week ofschool? Savings in lunch program, buses, non-essential personnel. 43) Cut costs associated with training, materials for new "waves" in education. For example, Lightspan money was wasted because program was cut after a year. Cut car allotment and travel for administration. 44) Comptroller for all school purchasing. Redundant and over spending on frivolous items within every site. How many digital cameras/projectors does one school need? 45) Bus usage cuts for in town; eliminate field trips unless not paid by district. 46) Decreasing credits needed to graduate. 47) Eliminate all funding for administrative conferencing, teacher conferences - no vehicle allowances. 48) Lobby for Juneau to fund education adequately. Look for grants to support programs and co-curricular. II: COMMUNITY MEMBERS Total Surveys Returned: 129 ~teduce Personnel Costs Overall Rating: 2.83 Total Responding: 114 Stron!!:Iv A2:ree: 18 Agree: 25 Disagree: 29 Strongly Disagree: 42 1) Less personnel means more strain ofa personnel that is already stretched to its limits. 2) Keep a hold on benefits, etc. Go to what the private sector has (union shops). 3) When I go in the middle or high school, I see many personnel that don't appear to be working with students. Speech pathologists, Quest teachers, attendance secretaries. 4) We can't have a reduction in this area. The classes are already over crowded as is. The teachers can't do a good job. If anything else, we need more teachers. 5) I think most ofour teachers are underpaid as is. But there is some cost that can be cut elsewhere. 6) Don't need counselors at Middle School. Administration heavy. What do all the Asst. Supts. and their secretaries do? Streamline your operations. 7) Reduce administration, not teachers! District supervisors do not need 6 figure salaries. 8) Education must be a priority. Need to provide excellent pay for good teachers. Get rid of those who are "riding out" the system. Quality, quality, quality. 9) As it is there's not enough teachers in our school. 10) We are already short. 11) In central office 12) I don't know ofany profession that works 9 months a year and gets paid for 12. Live within your means I do!! 13) We are "all" experiencing downsizing and cuts in paylbenefits; businesses/companies all over the community, state, and nation are going through these same changes. 14) We need quality teachers. Ifwe can get rid of administrators by consolidating schools, then I am all for it. 15) If it means fewer teachers, no! Cuts in benefits, no! 16) Reduce staffand administration. Consider closing schools in outlying communities. Seek additional funding for these services that have high cost to benefit few. 17) Cut admin costs, not teachers salaries, benefits. 18) Do more with less is becoming an old slogan. 19) All things good and necessary will come from first reducing administrative personnel first, teachers second. 20) Only if all classified and/or all certified were equally affected. 21) Not teacher - in main office center. 22) Lessen principal positions - shared positions empower vice-principals. 23) We need more teacher. - 24) Our personnel has a long way to drive and walk. 25) We already have the minimum amount ofteachers. We can't lose any. 26) We can't lose anymore teachers. We won't be able to teach the students good. 27) We don't want fewer teachers. 28) Instead of reducing personnel in school, what we would really like is to build a bigger school, but there isn't much funds available at this time. 29) Personnel at the school level has been reduced past a point of acceptance. This would raise class size and lower necessary servIces. 30) Already has been done. 31) Make one full-time counselor and rehire Spanish teacher at Homer High. That's a personal pet peeve from last year! 32) In my opinion one of this district's biggest problems is your teacher tenure. For example, ifa school needs a % English teacher, an algebra teacher, a %time Spanish teacher, etc., but all you have is teachers with limited teaching skills then you try to squeeze all these students into classes that you have teachers for. And it's because your teachers are tenured and they think they deserve ajob. School A School B %English 1 English teacher '14 Shop class 1 Algebra teacher 1 Algebra teacher 1 Spanish teacher Yz Spanish Y, Welding Look how many more kids you can service better at school A than school B. I have volunteered thousands ofhours with this school district. You don't need more revenue, you need to be more efficient with what you have. 33) Short of eliminating jobs... 34) Reduce central office staff to get more teachers and aides in the classrooms. 35) The Homer High School has too large classes now. The school stairways edges do not get cleaned. 36) There shouldn't be any unnecessary spending going on but these schools need to be updated with proper books, desks, and any other educational materials that are needed. 37) We need quality teachers. Ifwe can get rid ofadministrators by consolidating schools then I am all for it. 38) Where would the cuts come from? Schools are already operating at bare bone levels. 39) Ifpersonnel cuts are made they need to be made at levels that have the least effect on students learning environment - this includes safety and learning. 40) I'm not sure how this can be done. I do know that I am tired of listening to teachers whine about how underpaid they are - I am also tire of them using my children as pawnsl! 41) Cut special ed aides. 42) I feel that my child isn't getting $2.40 worth offood for lunch. 43) Teachers are highly underpaid as it is; costs should be eliminated at administration level. 44) Not teachers - look at sub out custodial. 45) PTR's are already too high. We can't afford to lose teachers. 46) State money and a borough sales tax to help ends meet or to fund co-curricular activities. Make sure the people know where their money's going. Get rid of stupid classes. 47) RIP. Consolidation of administrative processes (human resources, purchasing) with other districts and outsourcing where cost-effective. 48) Superintendents plus directors go Y2 time with central office duties and other Y2 time to take up slack where cuts in schools have been made. For instance, have them teach P.E., music and library at Tustumena and Sterling, music at Ninilchik. 49) Ifthis means cutting teacher staff- I am very against it. Classes are already too big. Ifthere is any excess administrative staff in the school district office then personnel should be cut there or in the schools if there is excess but not teachers. 50) Administration at the district level. Consolidate jobs. 51) As much as anyone loves children, they still need/pay bills. Ifyou lower the pay you risk lowering the quality and commitment ofour educators. 52) They probably don't get much as it is. 53) Quit cutting cost at schools every year. Cut costs in road building or maintenance. 54) House all special education, resource room, and intensive needs students in one school. 55) Depends on what personnel costs. 56) We do not need less teachers or to lower their pay. 57) Should not. 58) Reduce hours for district office staff. 9 months vs. 12 months. 59) District office personne1- yes; school personnel- no. 60) I wished the "good" teachers could be rewarded, the awful teachers pay deducted. That might be an incentive for them to actually teach. 61) I think the teachers' salary is okay compared to the average salaries in Homer. 62) "Retire" teachers that have been teaching "too long" just waiting for retirement benefits. Keep or hire the ones that care and still "love to teach" and are enthusiastic. 63) These teachers work hard and are paid less than other teachers on the road system. 64) It's not necessary. 65) Where - who - it doesn't seem realistic. 66) I don't have enough information to know ifthis makes sense - don't cut staff or salaries - so what does that leave you? Unless at admin levels - ?? But I doubt there is much "extra" there. 67) This can only be done by reducing staff- an option I disagree with. 68) Administrative jobs only! No more teacher jobs should be cut. In fact, move the admin. people to the classroom if qualified, rather than lay them off. 69) Have special services teach certified students in area of certification. Could some special ed services be sub-contracted? Increase Class Size Overall Rating: 3.52 Total Responding: 124 Stronl!lv Al!ree: 3 Agree: 17 Disagree: 16 Strongly Disagree: 88 1) Class sizes are already too high. Plus, this hurts both the students and teachers. A counter-productive solution. 2) Remain status quo. 3) Please do not do this. I pulled my son out of high school and am home schooling him because he had to sit in a Spanish class with 32 students. Students couldn't even walk down the aisle, had to climb over desks to get to their desks. Inexcusable! 4) We need all teachers that we have now. Ifwe had more it would be even better. 5) They are too large now! 6) No, my children are already in huge classes and one of my children doesn't get the attention or help that he needs. 7) Currently class size is OK but in many class rooms it is not possible to seat more students. 8) Classes are too big already. Examfle: French class in Homer - 39. 9) Classes are already too big from 4\ on up in Homer. I plan to homeschool one of my kids next year primarily because both her teacher and I feel she will be lost in these bigger classes. 10) DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT! Increased class sizes has had a very detrimental effect on the quality of education. 11) This will be very hard on the teachers since there are multiple grades in every class. 12) From personal experience I know class size does make significant difference in quality education for children. I know the statistics on both sides of argument. 13) Slight increase. 14) For a last resort. 15) Kids need small classes. 16) My primary education was in a Catholic grade school. Class size was 52 students. I still draw on that education today. 17) I think a classroom of twenty students would be appropriate - no more and no less. 18) Classes seem to be at their maximum. I believe there are other alternatives. 19) Absolutely NO!! It is already too high. If anything we need to reduce class size. 20) No! 21) Elimination ofblock scheduling is key. Larger classes lead to more problems. 22) Classes are already too crowded! 23) PTR is already higher than projected and higher than it should be for quality education at K-Beach and Soldotna Middle School. Increasing it more will spell disaster for standardized test and qualification exam scores. 24) Goes with reducing personnel. 25) This would decrease the quality ofeducation. 26) This would put students and teachers at a great disadvantage - instead oflearning taking place, crowd control is the focus. 27) Depends on age. 28) Our school needs a library, two classrooms, a teachers' lounge. How do you increase class size in an over-crowded school? 29) Our classes are crowded as is and we do need more teachers. 30) We don't want to lose teachers. We want more. 31) We as parents of Kachemak Selo don't have time to build a school because of a budget and time. We have bad seasons and no extra funds, and we also have to keep up with the seasuns too. 32) No this would mean fewer teachers and programs - something a school need to function at a level ofacceptance. 33) NO NO NO - all the research shows "teachers" plus pupil ratio make a real difference! 34) Because of the lack of stronger disciplining measures (on the part ofparents, teachers, and administrators) and the lowering ofstandards to the lowest common denominator, most teachers can't handle the class sizes they have already to produce the best educational environment for the majority. 35) PTR is already too high at all levels. 36) As a sub, I see the individual attention in training minimized by the large classes! 37) The class sizes are already large enough. Most classes have parent volunteers 5 days a week because teachers can't keep up with the students and all the papers and with kids who need extra help. 38) Absolutely no!! It is already too high. Ifanything we need to reduce class size. 39) No! 40) This would lower the academic standard we now have. 41) This should be a LAST resort. 42) Learning to reach its high potential is difficult to attain when the class size is big. 43) Classes are ridiculously large now!! 44) As it is the class sizes are too big; the teachers have a tough enough time as it is. Ifthere were an increase in class size there wouldn't be anyone on one, as it is it's hard enough to get that. 45) NO!!! 46) PTR's are already too high. We can't afford to lose teachers. 47) The teachers barely can handle what they already have - I want my child to learn - not be passed on! 48) NO! If we are teaching classes like board games and model building how can we even think about this. 49) NO! 50) NO WAY and you all know better! DECREASE class size - all the way to 12th grade. 51) I volunteer regularly and see how hard it is for teachers now. We will sacrifice our kids and their education ifthe classes get any larger. The ability levels in a class are already a huge endeavor to be sure each child is receiving the attention they need. 52) Increasing class size without increasing student teacher ratio is detrimental to students and teachers. 53) I think class sizes are big enough. 54) Not a best practice. 55) No more cuts in class size. 56) If you want to get KPBSD students to pass state/federal No Child Left Behind you need class sizes under 30 (K-3 24 students) 57) Absolutely not. They are already too crowded in the classrooms. 58) Class size is already too big due to prior year personnel reductions. 59) Only if necessary and upper grades. 60) They are overcrowded already. Too much for teachers! 61) Too many students get lost and are more progress to be aware ofeach student needs. 62) Disagree ifthey aren't learning well now larger classes who will be less capable ofpassing the HISKEX. 63) No - You just can't increase class sizes. Research shows especially in lower grades the importance ofsmall classes. 64) Absolutely NOT. Our kids are already "dropping through cracks". Increased classes will lead to more kids that do not get the individual attention and relationship with teachers they need to succeed and will result in spending money for remedial work. 65) You have got to be kidding. 66) Leave lower grades. Increase secondary ifnecessary. Have Special Ed. teach more core classes. Consolidate Schools Overall Rating: 2.43 Total Responding: 119 Strongly Agree: 39 Agree: 27 Disagree: 16 Strongly Disagree: 37 1) This would result in larger class sizes, and we have already discussed that topic. 2) Consolidate Skyview/SoHi High Schools; Kenai/Nikiski. Look also at elementary schools 3) Yes, I feel that schools with decreasing enrollment should be consolidated with other schools. Save on building costs and administration, food service. "Reality" is, can't have nice little community schools anymore. 4) It is ridiculous sending our children somewhere else, especially when we seem to have more kids here for such a small village than anywhere else. 5) Ifthat is what it takes to help solve the problems. 6) Yes, I feel that Skyview and SoHi could be combined with good savings. Chapman and Moose Pass Jr. High to go to Homer and Seward, Voznesenka could go to McNeil. Consolidation seems one of the best ways to cut costs. 7) This may seem like a good idea but what happens in a year or two when there is a large enrollment ofstudents? 8) SoHi and Skyview? 9) Not sure - I don't know enough about this to have an opinion. 10) Not ifit means larger class sizes. 11) I strongly disagree to send my children to another school. If that happens I'll be homeschooling. 12) Overcrowding buildings is no solution - nor is leaving buildings empty and paying the insurance, electricity, etc. 13) Bring Razdolna into McNeil. 14) If we need to consolidate schools the district should close Nikolaevsk. I do not want my children going to a Russian school with a different calendar. Chapman is on the highway, has a lunch program and should be the school to stay open. 15) Never. 16) If the school census falls short, shut it down and quit manipulating these figures to save jobs. 17) This should be a last resort, though! 18) If there is room for this action, it may be appropriate. 19) It has got to be done - get on with it. Quality schools must come before convenience. 20) Maybe, depending on schools, although that won't even put a dent in the 5 million shortfall. 21) Nikiski and Kenai need to merge as do SoHi and Skyview. Quit wasting time and money. Take action and then reopen if economy drastically improves. 22) The consolidation ofNorth Star and Nikiski good start! Consolidate SoHi and Skyview. Consolidate KCHS and Nikiski (and Soldotna Middle School). 23) Yes - North Kenai and Nikiski should have been consolidated for the current school year. Sterling and Testimony (Tustumena?) numbers do not justify current staffing when compared to K-Beach or Soldotna Middle School. 24) Only where truly necessary and where changes ofnumber ofpeople in community are expected to be essentially permanent. 25) This would have to be done very carefully - balancing funding with increased transportation costs and increased class size. 26) We built small schools to enable the student within their community. We need to continue that plan! 27) We what (want?) our kids in our own village. 28) Don't have a road for school bus. 29) Our children will have a hard time getting to school because ofthe switchback trail. 30) We don't want our children to go to any other school. 31) We don't want our kids to go to a different school. We want them to continue going where they're going now. 32) There is no way we can send kids to other schools. How can we? The switch back is steep, most ofthe time it is icy. In winter time at 9:00 a.m. it is still dark. The kids can't walk 3 mile hike to bus. Sometime it snows the whole night and there is like a foot or two ofsnow. We can't even make it up the switch back. 33) Skyview and SoHi; Nikiski El and Northstar - increase programs for students; Nikiski Sr? and Kenai High School. 34) Unfortunately, this may be a very practical way to save the district money. 35) If it helps cut costs, do it! 36) Unless absolutely necessary, this just causes overcrowding, causes division between large community groups, loses jobs and bring to waste buildings and all they contain ifnot utilized elsewhere. 37) Possibly some arrangement where bush schools go to a central location or can be absorbed by boarding and attending existing road system schools. 38) I don't know. The current bus schedules overlap. Example - 2 empty buses on the north fork route. There is no definite boundaries for Homer, Nikolaevsk, Chapman and Ninilchik. Overlapping bus routes. 39) Ifthe school has empty rooms and they provide the extra teachers this might be possible but most schools don't have the staff or space for extra students. 40) It has got to be done. Get on with it. Quality schools must come before convenience. 41) I have had three children attend Chapman K-8. My youngest is a 4th grader at Chapman now. We are a centrally located community based school. Before we think of consolidation in this area all schools must operate on the same calendar. 42) I would not want to see Chapman Elementary closed. 43) If schools are consolidated it needs to be very closely considered. I believe schools (as staff) that have been in existence longest should have grandfather rights - ifthey are providing adequate services. Schools must all be on the same calendar schools need to be located where travel to the school is convenient for the majority of the students. Student travel is a HUGE issue. 44) As a parent ofa 7lh grader going to Soldotna Middle School, I can't understand why it's allowed to have these many students compared to Kenai Middle School. 45) Consolidate if you can do so without increasing student-teacher ratio. 46) Paul BankslWest Homer should be put together - it's now a waste of money. 47) I think that re-doing school/residential boundaries would be more efficient. 48) The high schools, yes, as long as we get more teachers; as it is there are too many high schoolers to one teacher already. In elementary schools we don't have enough teachers to students. 49) Yes! Look at Sterling El, Tustumena El) part to Ninilchik. Combine Nikiski HS and KCHS. SoHi and Skyview. 50) OK, as long as PTR's stay reasonable. 51) Most schools (bigger) don't even have the room. 52) The Nikiski Elementary consolidation was a good idea but I don't see any other consolidations. 53) In extreme cases where reasonable alternatives exist. This does not include putting kids on buses for 1 hour + per day. Small schools and age-limited (Le. K-2) schools provide qualities large schools cannot. 54) Skyview and SoHi should have been consolidated a long time ago. All Soldotna area students should continue school together in grades 7-12. They could have more electives and better services. 55) This might be an option if it will actually reduce costs. IfPBE is closed and the alternative school stays and KPBSD still foots the bills for them then I don't see what we'll be saving. I agree with this if it will in fact reduce costs without sacrificing class size. 56) Student from village schools such as Nikolaevsk, Voznesenka, Razdolna should attend larger schools - Homer, Anchor Point, McNeil Canyon. 57) Only if this saves money. 58) Though there are extra rooms here not enough for K-6. Some classes would be stuck out in a bungalow. :59) Consolidate programs/do not close high schools. 60) Look at Sterling Elementary for a K-7 school. 61) Chapman School could possibly move to West Homer and Paul Banks. Less 1 principal, close a building, consolidate special services students. 62) As long as the class size does not increase - better yet if the PTR goes down. 63) 2 high schools in Soldotna not necessary. The middle school is too small. Make better use of existing buildings. 64) Too many schools - not enough students. 65) I don't know enough on the consolidation. 66) Combine Razdolna and Voznesenka or use McNeil Canyon for one of them. 67) I think consolidating schools to reduce budget cuts - I strongly agree. 68) May not be possible due to communities. 69) I would like to see the Russian Village schools out East End Road consolidated and use McNeil. 70) Worth looking at especially East End - I think Chapman needs to stay - vital to keep Anchor Point families involved (already difficult). 71) I feel that this is the way KPB can cut the most cost. 72) It's time to close the private religious schools (i.e. Russian Villages) - utilize McNeil. 73) Consolidate schools - yes! 74) Skyviewand Soldotna High. Eliminate Programs Overall Rating: 3.01 Total Responding: 112 Stron!!lv A!!ree: 12 Agree: 28 Disagree: 19 Strongly Disagree: 53 1) Programs are important for a diverse experience, but it could be a place to look for cuts. 2) Keep status quo 3) Yes to Quest; Battle of the Books and programs like that could possibly be run by parents or other groups. 4) We need our children to be taught Russian. That's how we communicate at home. And furthermore, the children need Russian to understand English and learn it better. 5) Depends on what it is. P.E. and music is very important. 6) What are elementary specialists and what do they do? 7) You have already cut as many extra programs and electives as the school can take. The cuts have always affected the students and their quality of education. 8) Already not enough choices. 9) Programs such as aviation at Soldotna Middle School, the SMS Quest program (advanced classes would be better). 10) We probably have only one program which is the Russian bilingual and that program is VERY important to us as a community and to our culture. 11) If this is an area under serious consideration - music and art should not be considered. They are way more useful to future endeavors than team sports, other than individual sports, swimming, track, etc. 12) Please leave musiclband programs. 13) I read the Federal Standards for Scholastic Achievement and they are too high. This will guarantee failure. 14) It may come to this - to concentrating on the basics of reading, writing, and math. Parents may have to do more to pick up the slack and make sure their children are well-rounded in their education. 15) Review on a case by case basis. Do not reduce those academic programs that make Kenai schools attractive to residents and potential new residents. 16) No! 17) Maintain programs such as Quest. DO NOT reduce or eliminate sports. 18) Which ones? Not academic. 19) We realize that some programs will need to be cut, but don't know which ones would be best, to affect the least students. 20) Keep school related programs. Cut only if necessary. 21) Most programs are as valuable as the basic curriculum - some are more important! i.e., do NOT eliminate Quest. If we don't emphasize our most talented we 'Illose them and the whole system goes to lowest common denominator. 22) The quality ofeducation in the district would be seriously compromised ifacademic programs, such as Quest, were eliminated or reduced. 23) Eliminating such programs as library, quest, and/or music would have a long tenn negative effect on students. 24) We have a primary blue dollar community. We must continue our vocational programs as well as maintaining our accreditation for college bound students. 25) We need Russian. 26) Our school is already being run on the minimum of programs. 27) We would like to keep our bilingual program. 28) We don't want to eliminate programs, especially bilingual programs. 29) Most of the time we speak Russian at home with our kids. We really like that the kids are learning how to read and write that language. So we would like to keep our kids learning that language. 30) The music and other arts are necessary at all levels. There is a direct relationship between music/art to academic perfonnance. Without programs other than "prep school" academia. Homeschool is an option (Galena that would offer extra curricular. 31) Please keep the arts, music and sports programs. These are vital to keep kids involved in positive activities. 32) Cut football. Increase skiing, hockey, soccer - more co-ed sports. 33) What programs exactly? Sports - no, they reach the widest range of students, and students can be involved on an exceptional array of different types of sports throughout the school year. Is a plus both physically and mentally. 34) Eliminate positions. Do away with vice-principals. With smaller enrollment, principals can handle all school needs. 35) Our schools have already suffered enough in this area. Ifthere is anymore cut backs in programs these schools should just be shut down. 36) Review on a case by case basis. Do not reduce those academic programs that make Kenai schools attractive to residents and potential new residents. 37) The public needs to be aware of what programs are being looked at. It is sneaky to just cut programs with no chance for public input! 38) We've done too much ofthis already. 39) The programs that effect the least number of students should be looked at first. The basics are still the most important - those are the things our children are tested on. 40) You can not eliminate art, music and athletic programs. While not on national tests - they are crucial in the development and education of children. 41) Programs related to 3R's ought not to be eliminated. Perhaps we can remind our kids that "school" is not merely a fun place to be in but a place of "learning". 42) How about sharing programs/classes? Years ago high school students commuted between schools to get the programs/classes they needed, i.e., shop classes, electives, foreign languages. 43) Consolidate special ed. Every sped kid should NOT have their own personal aide. 44) Programs have already been cut; our child does not have enough creative outlets. 45) Very much depends on academic relevance. 46) Last resort. If needed start by eliminating sports programs. 47) Eliminate programs like board games, model building and study hall. If they're at school teach them something worth while. Even if its Alaskan law or basic [mance. 48) Review Connections program. Ifparents are not utilizing current resources (buildings/staff) perhaps they should pay a premium for their choice, not vice versa. 49) What programs? Could put a freeze on acquiring more technology. Cut out Edutest. Use Title I money for classroom teachers in Title I schools. I can't answer agree or disagree - it depends on the program! 50) Connections - get these students either back in the schools or cut the program. 51) Some "fringe" electives might have to go. 52) Charge for bus transportation. Look at passenger vans with seat belts. 53) Very vague - what are we talking about? The sports program travel costs must be high! (Always a bus going up to Soldotna or Anchorage for a game.) 54) Some programs that are only used by very few students should be eliminated, otherwise - no. 55) Stop catering to the minority of special needs children. Cut some of their programs this time and leave the programs used by the majority of students. 56) Why bother keeping my kids in this district. 57) Phase classes out slowly - don't eliminate any 2 year programs until the 1st year students have been allowed to complete their second year ofthe class. 58) I think the ones we have, we need to keep. As a parent of3 children I would pay extra so they could participate in an extra- curriculum activity, or an elective. They need these activities. 59) We need Spanish back at Homer High! (0) Eliminating programs which benefit community, school and students are wrong. (1) What do you cut first? 62) We need Spanish. (3) No - put back Spanish in Homer High School- keep art/music at Jr High and High School. (4) Eliminate what? Weare already at bare bones. Brain research emphasizes how music, dance, art and P.E. help increase reading, math, etc. scores!! Kids need all of this. IT IS NOT "FRILLS" or extra. Second languages should start in primary grades!! (5) Keep all academic and sports. Increase the academic offerings to keep students here. People will move away ifschools are poor. Do away with home school programs. Get them back in the classroom. 66) No - too little already. 67) Please do not eliminate the Quest program. It is important to serve not only the "No Child Left Behind" students, but also the gifted students. Without Quest, some parents of gifted students may decide to home school or pursue other alternative education in order to adequately serve their child's needs. The district would then lose funding for that child, further deepening its budget problem. .Reduce or Eliminate Co-Curricular Funding Overall Rating: 2.61 Total Responding: 111 Strongly Agree: 26 Agree: 25 Disagree: 26 Strongly Disagree: 34 1) Co-Curricular sports and activities are fun, but not necessary for learning to occur in schools. 2) All co-curricular activities - fund outside of cap. 3) So much money goes to sports and travel for sports. Have to cut some of it out - know about the benefits, but something has to give. 4) We don't get any funds in this area, so this would be a good place to cut. 5) Kids that cannot afford to pay, usually are the ones that need the activities the most. Keep them occupied. 6) -Eliminate sports at middle school level- develop a good intramural sports program. Jr. High kids don't need to travel to play with other schools. Concentrate on the high school sports instead. 7) I'm not sure what this is. 8) Absolutely not if this means extra-curricular activities - students need these activities for a well rounded education. Direct link between delinquent behavior and lack ofextra-curricular activities. 9) What is co-curricular funding? 10) This is where you can cut costs. There are no sports available here. 11) Pay to play. We bought our own children band uniforms at one time. Parents need to take more volunteer and financial responsibility for athletic programs. Fund raises/number of coaches. 12) Only if the Borough will take over. 13) Sports must stay. 14) When the state was fat those programs were established. Is the state fat now? Concentrate on the basics. 15) I sure don't want to see sports eliminated. Our children need to be active and healthy. 16) Co-curricular activities are such a part oflearning and such a part of the school's spirit. This is a hard one, but we would like to see the funding preserved. 17) Reduce sports funding; it won't be popular but sports will get local funding. 18) Don't know what it means; if it's about class size or taking away specials, I'm not for it! 19) What is this? Don't eliminate sports and other strong programs like band, theater, debate. 20) Children are in need of quality education and co-curricular activities should be sacrificed before educational programs. 21) Should not be necessary. Sports are important. Poor kids should be able to play without begging, and kids and parents already pay too much. 22) Some reduction in funding of sports could probably be compensated for by increasing the contribution of parents, i.e. because sports has such a big program compared to other academic programs which better prepare students for real life. 23) This is truly one of the best "learning" areas we have. 24) Our school already doesn't have anything like that. 25) We still don't get anything from it. 26) Cut the funding. 27) We at Kachemak Selo are not getting any of these funds. Instead of reducing personnel costs, we would like to keep all the teachers and turn the funds towards them. 28) The community and families can pick up the funding for this. Have community sponsored sports/activities. Boosters are already paying for large sums. 29) Parents will just have to foot the bill for sports and other co-curricular funding. I'd rather parents contribute rather than eliminate these programs. 30) How better to keep kids motivated and out of trouble. My kids like sports and music. It costs me more than I can afford as a single parent and would like some HELP! 31) Extra-curricular activities are important for further education acceptance and admissions. 32) McNeil has little to no funding now for co-curricular funding. Parents pay for all activities and parents usually have to make sure that their own children have transportation to and from any co-curricular event. 33) Reduce sports funding; it won't be popular but sports will get local funding. 34) Let's make sure the basics are covered ftrst. 35) This is a very important part of an all around education. 36) If the Borough can take this over that would be great. 37) What is co-curricular funding? Funding for after schooI sports? Ifso, I do not support eliminating. 38) Perhaps a review of which programs are working or meeting its goals will help the committee in their decisions. 39) What is this - co-curricular? Do not cut sports - they are important!! 40) Students should PAY for sports programs - tax payers shouldn't. 41) Yes!!! Borough pick up of co-curricular is a beginning. 42) Use sales tax to fund sports - music and other clubs (local sales tax). 43) Maintain. 44) At least keep this as is. Kids need these programs. 45) This is a lesser evil. I'd rather some kids not be able to participate in some sport than to not get the best education possible. 46) Too many kids are out on the street as it is. But don't accept waivers for participation fees. Kids can earn the money to participate. Or let them outsource with no strings attached. 47) I don't know what this is. 48) Reduce (not eliminate). 49) Maybe parents could pay extra money for these programs. 50) Without co-curricular activities many families would probably move to another district that offers them. I would not want to deny my children the opportunities to participate and possibly win college scholarships through their participation. 51) Basketball, etc., are both beneftcial to school and children. 52) If it's eliminated what's going to happen? 53) Some kids really need sports. 54) Can the borough pick up some of these costs? I support taking the cap off of what the borough can support. 55) Also hard to do, as this is another important factor for keeping many kids in school. Also provides important opportunities for kids to develop life long habits related to activity and sports' vs. being couch potatoes. Look for other funding? Increase fees with waivers for those who cannot. 56) I feel that music and the arts enrich our children's lives and is vital part ofa complete education. 57) Every child gets a permanent fund check. Make it a cost share. Eliminate distant travel, Fairbanks, Southeast for instance, consolidate games to reduce travel. Sports that cost more, charge more. 58) No - too little already. Adjust Health Insurance Overall Rating: 2.52 Total Responding: 100 Stron!!lv A!!ree: 17 Agree: 39 Disagree: 19 Strongly Disagree: 25 1) I believe that a teacher could accept higher insurance cost much better than a pink slip. 2) Look to more co-pay by employees; eliminate spouse ofemployees if they are offered insurance by their company they work for. 3) All employees of the borough deserve health insurance and so do their families. 4) Our teachers need their beneftts. They walk down the switchback and most of the time the switchback is very slick. The KPBS District does not supply sand or salt for our village roads. 5) Ifneed be, we all have our insurance adjusted and some people have no insurance at all. 6) No, employees need and deserve this. 7) Teachers and other borough employees should receive the same average beneftts as the private sector. Take a look at what other local companies offer. I bet you could save much. 8) What are current beneftts? 9) Make health and other insurance coverage equal for all KPBSD employees the same. Administrators should be included. Extras such as orthodontics may need to be excluded. 10) Get people to spend less! It's ridiculous! 11) Increase co-pays and drug costs for employees. People need to be responsible for their health. 12) Maybe there should be a reward system; awards for employees that don't take sick leave? No accumulation of sick leave. 13) We have to do what we have to do, and it shouldn't be just the students making sacriftces - or sacriftces made at their expense. 14) Have employees pay more ofthe cost; it won't be popular but the kids beneftt. 15) Maybe - don't know what it entails. Health insurance costs are raising for everyone over the last few years. 16) All companies are raising health insurance costs. Perhaps you can help discourage bright students from becoming lawyers the rise in insurance and general cost ofliving is due to litigation. 17) Feel that employees deserve this benefit without further burden on them. 18) Too vague of a question. I don't understand what you are asking. 19) Goes with reducing personnel costs. 20) Some minor adjustments might save some funding in perhaps "non-critical" areas (eye and dental care?). 21) Health cost continue to increase. Unless that point becomes part of all ofour lives, we won't address it. There is no free ride here. 22) Getting to our school is sometimes for teachers. They need good insurance. 23) We like it the way it is. 24) Cut the funding. 25) Increase in health insurance takes away from spendable income from families in any employee situation, be it oil industry, public education, etc. Any increase teachers received in past for salary would be eaten up by any increase in health insurance. 26) Loaded question. 27) It's hard on employees, but many people don't even have insurance. This is an expensive fringe benefit. 28) Teachers have pretty decent health care insurance and here in Alaska they get paid a lot more than most teachers. 29) This is a contractual area that you should not discuss with anyone other than the bargaining units. 30) Parents are responsible for providing their child with health insurance. Teachers should be given health insurance through the district. All schools need to have accidental insurance in case a child is hurt at school due to negligence ofthe teachers and staff. 31) Have employees pay more ofthe cost; it won't be popular but the kids benefit. 32) I have no answer - this is a problem in all aspects and levels ofU.S. society. 33) Is this a contract issue? 34) As long as "fairness" is applied. 35) Adjust how? I would rather see teachers contribute more if the flip-side impacts students. It seems to me that Everytime the teachers gain something - the students lose something. 36) School personnel should pay part oftheir insurance. 37) I wish we have as good of insurance as the borough. 38) Definitely something to look into. 39) NO! Leave their insurance alone. 40) Maintain while continually looking for efficiencies. A national problem. 41) I'd have to see the planes) proposed before I could give opinion. But if it'd help hire more teachers, yes - adjust BOTH or ALL health packages including administrators! 42) Absolutely. I appreciate the teachers and their hard work but costs keep going up. They have good paying jobs for Homer. We personally pay $8000 a year for major medical with $5200 deductible so ifthe teachers' cost goes up too they are not alone! 43) I am not informed about this. 44) Could probably do some adjusting here. 45) Initiate single/married/family plans. Look for cheaper companies/options. Join Blue Cross? Don't charge married couples twice for health care. Work with local health providers for flat rates on services. Incentives for those who use few sick days. 46) Make sure plan requires as much use as possible for generic drugs. 47) I want my child's teacher to be insured. I don't want him to worry about medical bills or be unhealthy because he is uninsured. Teachers are professionals - would teachers want to work in a district that didn't have health insurance? 48) Probably a union issue but ifpossible would save money. Maybe just raise the deductible for starters. 49) Already happening - why is this on the survey? 50) Some instances small adjustments would not hurt. 51) Everyone is dealing with that school employees are no different than JQ Public. 52) This is a negotiated item and can't be changed. 53) Can this really happen? Teachers deserve good health insurance. 54) What does this mean? Teachers would pay more? I don't know what they have or pay but I do believe they deserve high quality affordable insurance. They work hard, long hours and we need quality teachers. 55) Do not take this out on the teachers. We want the best teachers, so keep a competitive salary and benefits package. 56) Yes. 57) I am unsure of what health insurance is offered for staff. I think it should be comparable to nationwide teachers. Other I) Look at school district bus routes - consolidation or elimination ofsome routes - close down 8-12 student schools. 2) On the state level: time for education endowment - raise sales tax - demand from legislature to fully fund education. 3) School year around or school 4 days a week save on utilities and upkeep. 4) Reduce cost: What is with the buses that pick up kids at their houses when they are not handicapped. The bus stop is approximately 1 mile from our house. My kids and neighbor kids seem to walk it just fine. But this one kid gets picked up and brought home daily. Something about he was missing school too much. That's his parents fault, not ours. We all get our kids to school. That is a big waste in my books! This is in Sterling on Midway Drive. You can email me at (email address). 5) Administration heavy? I am willing to pay more sales tax or a school tax provided it is paid across the board, not just by those who work. I would pay for busing and would pay more for sports for my children. 6) Take a good look at your special ed programs. I don't begrudge (name deleted) anything because they have potential to be productive people in the future, but some of the special ed kids have full time paid attendants that just seem to wipe drool off of the kids faces. I think there needs to be some standard as to when the investment of school money is helping a learning disabled or handicap student as opposed to being a baby sitter for a kid who may never leave home. 7) When is this going to end? We specifically moved to Alaska for our kids' education and now are re-thinking our move. 8) We need state income tax and increased school funding (thanks for asking). 9) More information should be given out with these surveys! 10) We need more money from the state. Seems like our school district is stretched as far as it can go. 11) As a property owner my taxes are over a hundred dollars a month. Any more increases and I will take by children and leave the area. Remember, you work for me. 12) Shut down central office. Seriously look at how much money this would save our district BEFORE considering any ofthe above "options". Farm those employees out to local schools. Put administration on Y2 administrator salary, and have them teach the other halftime to alleviate PTR. The priority needs to be "how to improve education in our schools" not "lets cut where it hurst the kids the most". Make our children a priority. Quit devaluing education by raising PTR, closing schools, and eliminating programs and START providing a better learning environment by lowering PTR and offering decent classes. Provide a quality education for our kids. That needs to be our priority. Most of our administrators are qualified to teach. Put our money to work for our kids and put these administrators in the classrooms. Currently in some of our district schools, building administrators are teaching classes. Why wouldn't this work at a higher level? Let the next consolidationlbuilding closure be Central Office. Let's see the administration on the front line fighting for our children's right to a quality education. I believe this is an option that must be tried before trying to solve budget problems by closing schools, raising PTR, or cutting staff, and certainly before eliminating any more ofour programs. 13) Funding for sports programs. How about getting more grants and matching donations from oil companies and big business? 14) Cut administration and dead weight teachers. 15) Combine services with community services, i.e., libraries, sports and support development ofvo-tech training for students and community. 16) Maintain the highest academic standards possible. Do not cut back Qn math, science and language arts. 17) Litigate this matter!! It is a shame this has gone on as long as it has. Litigate it! If you continue to make cuts you will only lose more students. The issue of the funding formula needs to be dealt with. It is the key to the immediate funding crisis and it is wrong, has been wrong for 20 years! Something needs to be first done about this! 18) Need to adjust where it will least affect the students! 19) Be fair to all schools as to PTR. 20) Renegotiate bus contracts! We need seriously competitive bidding. And ALL school start times should be an hour later! 21) Need to put money for kids education. 22) We need to truly finance education and not just lip service. Collect names of those of us that are willing to support with income tax. 23) We don't think that the health insurance should get cut in any way. 24) Institute state income tax. 25) Sue state for equitable funding, reduce number of school districts, increase tax (income tax). 26) Do an early retirement incentive, get some new motivated, hands-on less expensive teachers in the classroom! Give retiring teachers an effective way out! 27) Your Connections program is the best idea you've done in years. 28) Cut administration costs before cutting in the classrooms. 29) Close central office building. The few necessary positions like payroll and grants can use space in the schools. There are too many people at the office that have no direct positive impact on education. 30) If schools would be improved in some areas there would be a rise in enrollment instead ofa drop. We need to see that our schools have competent teachers and the proper updated materials to teach the kids. 31) Cutting co-curricular activities and keep class sizes small is what needs to be done. If you don't, none of these students would be eligible to play sports. 32) Maintain the highest academic standards possible; do not cut back on math, science and language arts. 33) Are all the financial records available for public inspection at any time? If a large company operated like the school district they would be out of business. 34) This is a difficult time for education. As a parent, what I believe is most important is keeping parents informed no matter what the decisions are. 35) If the public school system continues to cut programs such as music and art, then more parents will pull their kids out and put them in private schools or home school. We are considering this already! 36) If teachers are given "less paperwork" maybe they can "teach" more. 37) Cut central office staff. 38) Family and parent involvement needed in the schools. It would allow teachers to have more time with the students. 39) Look into not offering health insurance to board members except provision for them to privately purchase. 40) Eliminate health care insurance for school board members. 41) I don't want to pay any more money into the black hole of the general fund. None-zero! If you want money from me tell me exactly where it's going. Buildings or building upkeep, supplies or teachers paychecks. You can dedicate money for schools. It's all in how you do it. Michigan went from property tax to sales tax and I think it worked. Check it out or how about a borough sales tax to help. 42) Get off the mental track of scarcity and focus on creating resources through grants and development activities, cost-sharing and income generation. 43) Use Title r funding to hire classroom teachers in Title I schools. Use it also for classroom teachers instead of more central office directors and other Title I central office specialists and special programs. 44) Schools should receive funds for programs/classes that alternative education students participate in. (Can't read the last sentence.) 45) Increase the taxes. 46) We have made too many cuts already -let's have a state income tax to help support schools. 47) r support an income tax! Lobby Juneau for education dollars. 48) Elect a Democrat. 49) Store in the school. Fundraising allowed by outside parties. 50) 4 day week - is this a savings? (Colorado does this!) 51) Class sizes are way too big - a lot ofmoney is being spent on technology - maybe we need to put some ofthat money towards hiring more teachers. I strongly disagree with having text books put on computers! Students need books - children are getting away from reading books - they also don't need to sit in front ofa computer for hours reading a text book. We limit our kids' use on computers - it is bad for their eyes - they need books. 52) Ask administrators to take a pay cut or at least hold them to present salaries. The disparity is unwarranted. 53) Administrator pay cuts - administration should take a pay cut. 54) I have written to our legislators and our governor asking for more funds. 55) Lets lobby for income taxes and better school funding. This is just ridiculous! 56) The focus should be on building our schools. Everybody clamors for a growth industry! Make education that industry. I believe the infrastructure, personnel and capital expenses are already made. Promote and fully fund them and people will come! They will move here for good schools, and conversely, will move away if they are poor. Juneau must be made to understand this. Educate_the children the best we can, our retirements and futures depend on them. Thanks. 57) Restructure Quest to be honors and AP. Subcontract some Spec. Ed services, janitorial, food service. 58) Grounds maintenance, mowing lawns, janitorial, building maintenance, Painting, staining - be done by students in vocational programs. ID. NO DESIGNATION Total Surveys Returned: 66 Reduce Personnel Costs Overall Rating: 2.51 Total Responding: 57 Strongly Agree: 11 Agree: 17 Disagree: 18 Strongly Disagree: 11 1) Not teachers! Weed out the non-essential "overhead" positions, as we in the private sector refer to them. We must spend our money on fairly compensated well qualified teachers, not extra management we can manage without. Teachers are the producers of the public school system. 2) Lose 1 principal at Paul Banks and lose principal at McNeil Canyon. (Close McNeil if under 80 enrollment.) 3) Cut administration, curriculum, technology at central office. We don't see them anyway! 4) Quest services could and should be imbedded in regular instruction. 5) Personnel costs are pretty much dictated by contract/agreement. This is a people based industry (education). Reduced personnel =reduced costs = reduced programs = reduced quality education. 6) The personnel costs should be already at the minimum. Retirement incentive maybe. 7) Are there possible cuts at District Administration level? How about assessment administrators? Do not cut teachers! 8) Does this mean additional staff cuts? Absolutely not. 9) Not basics; need more details. 10) Reduce overhead expense through consolidation. 11) Reduce Administrative personnel and administrative costs first. The lower level workers are usually the ones "cut". I would like to see that trend reversed. Our highly paid administrative personnel should be able to "supervise" more people and projects. And, the individual budgets have some defmite "cut" room. 12) Administrative, but not classroom. 13) Eliminate aides in schools. Use video conferencing instead of transporting personnel to central office area for meetings. 14) Does this mean layoff more teachers? How can that be good for kids? 15) Keep teachers and salaries - reduce health care benefits if necessary. 16) Cut from central office mid-management - not school-based personnel. 17) Upper level (superintendent, etc.) makes way too much money. Teachers and supplies should be #1 priority! 18) Ifpersonnel are deemed unnecessary. Increase Class Size Overall Rating: 3.56 Total Responding: 61 Strongly Agree: 2 Agree: 3 Disagree: 15 Strongly Disagree: 41 1) Classroom overcrowding negatively affects learning by virtually assuring some kids get left behind. Kids need personal attention from the teacher to keep them interested and productive. 2) Increase to 34 to 40, but hire team teaching (2 per class at 34). Teachers work more efficiently if 2 are paired (no sluff off time); check the statistics for the few "swollen" grades that occur. 3) Class size is too high as it is. 4) Reduce services to a minimum until the state legislature and the people who elect them decide they want more. We should not serve steak when they are paying for soup. OtTer the minimum day, basic curriculum, no extra-curricular - one year with pain might be what it takes. 5) Lower PT ratio is likely the most crucial key to successful learning. 6) Despite pledges to keep PTR low, class sizes at all levels are increasing. 7) Need to have good PTR in primary - with consolidation could increase PTR in high school. 8) Classes already are too unruly and not disciplined. th 9) Go to a four day week! Four ten hour days = 40 hours week. It would eliminate 5 day busing and support personnel costs. 10) Not for lower grades or Jr. High. They are already big enough! 11) Last resort. 12) Larger classes will not benefit the students. 13) The larger the class size, the less the kids learn and the teacher is reduced to babysitting. 14) I do not think increasing class size can give us educated generation of future of America. Each student has to have enough attention. 15) Very bad for students and teachers. If we have to go there a mandatory teacher's assistant program would have to be in affect, so how much would it really save. 16) No, because there is too many as there is. 17) Remember - this is all about students. Consolidate Schools Overall Rating: 2.26 Total Responding: 62 Strongly Agree: 21 Agree: 17 Disagree: 11 Strongly Disagree: 13 1) Only if it will not force class sizes to increase. 2) Of course this assumes the state will have the money"to maintain roads to transport kids. 3) Make middle school grades 6,7,8 - like most middle schools in USA! 4) Close Paul Banks and sell it to the Borough for future hospital site, so badly needed (perfect 20 acre site). 5) Close McNeil Canyon. Merge Skyview and SoHi and change boundaries for some to go to KCHS. 6) This helps reduce maintenance personnel and general overhead expenses. 7) Time to quit dodging this one. Massive overhaul is needed now. We are bordering on the absurd in Central Peninsula. 8) Let's get real- 4 Central Peninsula high schools with a total ofless than 2000 students - why not 2 schools ofless than 1000. Same with elementary. 9) I strongly disagree with combining Paul Banks and West Homer. Packing 500 children into one building moves closer to a prison model. Why does each Russian Village need its own school? Why not combine Razdolna and Voznesenka with McNeil Canyon? How about Nikolaevsk going to Anchor Point? 10) Yes - some area schools could be consolidated with parent buy-in. 11) Only in rare, obvious instances. 12) It is clear the model of 5 high schools is not practical or sustainable. Ideal would be to consolidate from 5 to 3. 13) !fthere are schools whose square footage is not being fully utilized. This could save on bus costs, janitorial and maintenance costs as well. 14) SoHi and Skyview are both under populated. 15) Please consider to reduce class sizes. 16) If it helps to cut costs, but not if students suffer. 17) Eliminate the Russian schools. 18) Sure - close McNeil or Nikolaevsk and add kids to Paul Banks and West Homer, etc. Consider the extra Y2 hour both ways those little kids spend sitting in a bus every day. Still it would be my first choice here. 19) Strongly agree - if this acts to keep class size down and keep programs intact. 20) This should be a last resort. 21) I believe in consolidating schools to reduce costs and continue with same level of programs. 22) Not agree at all. 23) This would probably increase student teacher ratio = very bad. Fact - Chapman Elementary PTO proved it would cost more to bus Junior High to Homer. 24) No because there is too many as there is. 25) Numbers are down - close facilities and move kids to fill existing space in remaining facilities. 26) Magnet schools?? i.e. Russian, Science, VocEd ,Eliminate Programs Overall Rating: 2.96 Total Responding: 55 Strongly Agree: 7 Agree: 9 Disagree: 18 Strongly Disagree: 21 1) I do not trust the Budget Review Committee to fairly decide what programs should be cut. Budget committees nationwide have virtually removed the Arts, but we still have sports. 2) Cafeteria (use vending machines, soup, yogurt, fruit, etc.), or contract with Arby's, McD's, etc. like other big school districts do to save. 3) Football, due to high injury. 4) Let's determine necessities and wishes. Wishes come last. 5) Quest is an obvious cut but when we cut programs will we ever get them back? 6) Specifically - Quest program. This has become a program for the social elite. These high end students should be able to challenge themselves without special programs. Also, cut as many standardized tests as possible. Testing does not = learning. 7) We are already cut to the bone. The Arts, P.E., Shop (Industrial Arts), Foreign Languages are disappearing in the face of overtesting and overattention to "core" subjects. 8) Like what? Need more details. 9) Programs could be maintained or enhanced with consolidation, use of para-professionals. 10) Any that are not meeting their intended goals. 11) Not enough programs. 12) Some electives could be cut back, not necessarily eliminated. 13) Eliminate funding for sports/travel for sports. 14) We are already losing students to alternate schools because of cuts we have already done. It will just reduce our student numbers. 15) No, we have already eliminated more than we should. 16) Expand programs! !! As much as we could we have to pass to our children to be leaders in this world. 17) Another place where a grant writer is needed. 18) No because there is not very many as it is. 19) Depends on extra-curricular activities. 20) Depends on what programs. 21) Vague - if programs are evaluated and deemed ineffective then eliminate - otherwise, no. Reduce or Eliminate Co-Curricular Funding Overall Rating: 2.70 Total Responding: 53 Strongly Agree: 10 Agree: 9 Disagree: 21 Strongly Disagree: 13 I) Unsure what this is. 2) Eliminate - such as football. 3) Eliminate all elementary and Junior High co-curricular (intramural). Have only one varsity team per sport (no "B" or "c" teams - intramurals). 4) Not a district responsibility. At least streamline activities rather than doing everything. 5) Ifwe have to cut programs then we must cut co-curricular. 6) Physical education has already been reduced to below healthy levels. Research shows link between physical activity and cognitive processing. 7) Many students can afford these fees, though some cannot. Family income should absolutely be considered. However, if sports are cut, our public schools will continue to lose students. 8) Certain expensive ones. 9) If classroom instruction preserved with PTR constant, shifting cost to individuallborough makes sense. 10) Kids need that outlet and it keeps some on the straight and narrow. 11) Eliminate any curriculum that is not related to educational basics. 12) Where! I have already spent hundreds as a parent for transportation for my daughter to participate in All State this year, thanks to cuts here. 13) These are important - but I would reduce these to keep class size low and maintain programs. 14) No - sports is one thing that keeps some kids in school and working to keep their GPA up. 15) Only a good funding can provide good education and health to raise a great citizens of our country!!! 16) Use grant writers to help with additional funding. Seniors for senior projects could do it! 17) Depends on program. 18) Do not do this. 19) Club - sports? Adjust Health Insurance Overall Rating: 2.36 Total Responding: 50 Stronglv Agree: 7 Agree: 24 Disagree: 13 Strongly Disagree: 6 I) Ifhealthcare for teachers is the question, they should pay a portion just like most everyone else in the private sector. 2) _ This hurts but it is a U.S. wide problem. Needs addressing at national level. It's happening to everybody. 3) District needs to go with Blue CrosslBlue Shield, etc. Insure employees only. Let others in family buy coverage they want. 4) A lot of research out there says wellness programs reduce health care costs. Sometimes we have to spend money to make money. 5) It should be comparable to other agencies and districts and employers. I don't know if there is room for adjustment. 6) No - "co-pay" continues to increase for district employees. Many teachers/staff count on these benefits, especially with dependents. 7) Need more details. 8) A better balance between employer and employee with aggressive development of preferred providers and incentives for wellness could change dynamics of escalating cost. 9) Higher deductibles, lower co-pays. No double coverage. If someone is covered under one company by a spouse, etc., give them the premium - why should the borough pay a full premium and the insurance company only pay 20%? 10) There are many ways to help cut costs here. Don't use emergency room for Dr. Office. Use generic meds instead of brand names, etc. 11) For whom? 12) This is a negotiated item and is not subject to community input. Health insurance is essential to having healthy, productive personnel. 13) As part time - I don't even qualify. 14) Unfortunately, health care costs are high for everyone. Ifreducing coverage or increasing premiums and co-pays for KPBSD employees will help keep class sizes down and programs intact, I would be in favor of that. 15) The schools should not be responsible to funding health insurance. They are already strapped. 16) Since not so many families can provide medical health aid to their kids due to their financial situation and low economical situation in country in total we need more care from the top ofthe government, more help. 17) Not for the worst only for the better. 18) Offer categories with a co-pay fee scale. Most other businesses do this. With categories: 1) employee only; 2) employee and spouse; 3) employee and family. Some incentive for employees who never even meet a deductible, or go back to non-self insured if it would save money. gther 1) Privatize the school maintenance system and ditch the controlling union. 2) Remove middle management from ??? agency. 3) Pay teachers more and invest more in classroom supplies. 4) Eliminate tenure and non-performing teachers. 5) Privatize the food system. 6) Decrease salaries ofall administrators, superintendents, 5% - NOT TEACHERS (then we know it's real money shortages!) 7) Support a R.I.P. 8) Reduce or eliminate bus service or combine with a community public transit. 9) Cut or reduce personnel cost management first, teachers last. 10) Consider setting school schedules to allow for consolidating busing. 11) Some dollars are saved pennies at a time. Promote cost saving behaviors in supplies, utilities, technology. 12) Don't give all the PPD money to Alaska residents; use some for the schools. Kids are Alaska's future. 13) Don't give all the PPD money to Alaska residents; use some for the schools. 14) Larger class size forces teachers to do more "worksheet" teaching and less hands-on learning. This trend moves more students into the homeschool arena and away from (can't read rest ofsentence). 15) Reduce brought top heavy employees (?) 16) Why can't parents pay a school tuition? 17) Note: all these areas (except #2) are lacking in specifics - so this form is basically a waste ofmoney! 18) Reduce central office. 19) Too many field trips - parents should take their own children to movies, food bank, roller skating, etc. 20) This survey is anti-education - the district should be looking for ways to increase the ability to educate rather than reduce. 21) Please don't cut music. If band is cut at the high school here in Homer, I will be forced to find alternate education for both of my gifted children. They really want to stay here till they graduate, though, so this would be sad. 22) Reduce personnel in district office. 23) America has to have healthy and bright future to keep leadership in the world! 24) Revising teachers and/or programs/classes when 30% or more oftheir students are failing it! 25) I believe what the state has done is irreprehensible. IV. TOTALS FOR ALL SURVEYS Total Surveys Returned: 285 Reduce Personnel Costs Overall Rating: 2.82 Total Responding: 248 Strongly Agree: 36 Agree: 59 Disagree: 66 Strongly Disagree: 87 Increase Class Size Overall Rating: 3.89 Total Responding: 274 Strongly Agree: 7 Agree: 28 Disagree: 55 Strongly Disagree: 184 Consolidate Schools Overall Rating: 2.31 Total Responding: 263 Strongly Agree: 86 Agree: 74 Disagree: 38 Strongly Disagree: 65 Eliminate Programs Overall Rating: 2.93 Total Responding: 247 Strongly Agree: 27 Agree: 61 Disagree: 61 Strongly Disagree: 98 Reduce or Eliminate Co-Curricular Funding Overall Rating: 2.43 Total Responding: 245 Strongly Agree: 67 Agree: 62 Disagree: 59 Strongly Disagree: 57 Adjust Health Insurance Overall Rating: 2.62 Total Responding: 230 Strongly Agree: 35 Agree: 83 Disagree: 46 Strongly Disagree: 66 Kenai Peninsula Borough School District Budget Review Committee Suggestions to the Board of Education\ January 8 and 12, 2004 The committee suggests the Board of Education look at the following areas/ideas in its review ofthe FYOS budget. These suggestions are listed for consideration and are not listed in order ofimportance or impact on the budget. Please note: it is the consensus of this committee that increasing the pupil-teacher ratio should be the last area used to balance the budget. The following unprioritized suggestions were made by all groups: • Eliminate Co-curricular Program from the Operating Fund • Accelerate consolidation/closure of district schools • Reduce Quest delivery (program not mandated by IDEA or state standards) • Reduce District Office administration • Reduce school administrators • Reduce supply allocations Other suggestions for review unsupported by all groups: • Eliminate Food Service Program subsidy • Reduce transportation routes to allow for allocation of unexpended transportation revenue to the Operating Fund. • Reduce copier costs • Explore implementing Breakfast Program • Eliminate Vocational Educational Program • Never cut Vocational Education Program (note: cancels above suggestion) • Close District Media Center - transfer media to libraries • Eliminate Outside travel and/or reduce travel 20% • Renegotiate employee contracts to reduce personnel and/or health care costs • Reduce purchase of Connections computers • Purchase Connections computers every other year • Initiate lawsuit seeking adequate funding • Reduce specialists • Reduce Special Education Program by 5% • Reduce telephone budget • Implement purchasing efficiencies Budget Review Committee Group Ideas to Bring Forward January 12, 2004 Small group discussions and results: Group 1: Each person chose their own favorites tally of votes for each area is listed in bold, top four voted on are underlined Co-Curricular (1.3M) 5 Close District Media Center (DMC) transfer to libraries (161,000) 1 Travel outside district (reduce by 20%) (75,000) 3 Change delivery system for Quest (555,000) 5 Change delivery system for Special Education (Sp Ed) (some part of 11.5M) 0 Voc Ed $1.4M 1 Central Office (C/O) reductions (reduce by 20%) (720,000) 4 Suspend technology spending for 1 yr (300,000) 0 Cut Connections computers (purchase every other year) (489,000) 4 Site admin reduced from 2 to 1 (lose 4) (eliminate Asst Principals) 0 Consolidation 1 High Schools 1.5M (7-12 grades / 4 to 2 schools) C/S Elementary 1.3M Renegotiate contracts 1 Sue state for appropriate funding 1 Certified Specialists (reduce by 25% - Elementary Specialists, librarians, etc _ use support staff instead (1 M) 2 Oppose increase in PTR Group 2 PROTECT PTR Priorities for TOUGH Reductions: Consolidate immediately (1.3M) Co-curricular (1.3M) Supplies increase eliminated (900,000) Food Service subsidy eliminated (126,000) Quest goes only 3-8 as long as AlP classes remain at HS level (500,000+) Site Administrators (200,000) (Principal/teachers) C/O Admin (200,000) Scrutinize: Connections allotment/allocations Food at meetings Technology purchases Ice time rental School board meetings reduce from 18 to 12 Also look at: Negotiated health/salaries Students buy/rent texts Underlying Brainstorming Notes: PTR is last Consolidation immediately $126 K FS subsidy $906K addl in supplies Gifted/Talented (Quest) NP courses thru technol / Share programs Scrutiny of tech purchases Co-Curricular Eliminate technology in K-2 HEA contract renegotiation Addl Revenue from private sources "single supplier" (hotel contract) Ice time rental ($20K) _ in definitions of rental and maint agreements Connections _ replace computers less frequently (every other year) Supply budgets reduced Change in site / district office administration Reduce school board budget Group 3 Possible cuts: Consolidate principals Reduce transportation K-12 routes _ schools start at same time Co-Curricular Personnel costs Health care Accelerate consolidation Copier costs Reduce supplies Explore breakfast program Last resort PTR increase Never cut Voc Ed Possible savings in shutting off computers at night Group 4 1. Consolidation (1.3M) expedite if facilities can accommodate #s 2. Supplies _ cut 20% excluding Connections (450,000) 3. Reduce Quest by 50% (450,000) 4. SpEd 5% reduction (550,000) Consolidate extreme needs Cut budget by 5% 5. FS balance (120,000) 6. Co-Curricular ($1.2M) 7. Cut Administration 5% 8. Raise PTR (by 1) Long Term Recommendations • Reduce phone budget (Long Distance) • purchasing efficiencies • contract review • Look at smaller costs - everyday reductions • Consolidate programs _ save programs, be more efficient Kenai Peninsula Borough School District Community Input/Budget Hearing Survey Comments 1. Eliminate Outside district travel 2. All administrator meetings via teleconference - no travel 3. Reduce all district travel 30% 4. Eliminate any/all car allowances for district office 5. Cut district office administrators 70% 6. Cut district office support 70% 7. Eliminate vice-principals 8. Fund co-curricular outside the cap 9. Cut supply budget 30% 10. Freeze technology purchasing for 2 years 11. Gifted & Talented - reduce bUdget by $1,019,222.00 12. Eliminate staff physicals - $35,000.00 13. Consolidate McNeil Canyon students into West Homer and Paul Banks. Bring students in to Homer where everyone is closer to emergency services. This move impacts less families and less staff. It will be much more receptive to the community of Homer. If boundaries change and more students from the City of Homer are bused outside the city - 14 miles away from emergency services - there will be a hugh outcry in Homer. Safety should be the District's first priority. If a bUilding needs to be closed to save money, it is common sense that McNeil, sitting 14 miles out of Homer, should be it. 14. Make public the cost savings associated with consolidation 15. If we go with consolidation, will class size at West Homer go to less than 30 per class? Right now WHE is slated to have 30 per class next year. Right now we have most classes at 29-30. 16. Home schooling should be an option, but not a better option than public schools. Right now, we are creating a situation where home schooling is better, will attract more families, school numbers will decline, etc. 17. Publish realistic cost savings from consolidation of schools 18. Don't purchase new computers yearly for Connections 19. Lobby the legislature for increased funding 20. Look at the PTR at charter schools and see why it is so much lower than other schools - make it more equitable 21. Make offerings to Connections equal to what is being offered to students coming to regular classrooms 22. Change the funding formula 23. Hire a lobbyist to represent the school district in Juneau 24. Close the Russian Village Schools 25. Close the Hope School 26. Close Moose Pass School 27. The school district should hire a lobbyist to be in Juneau and assure that the needs of KPBSD are on the minds of all lawmakers 28. Look at Russian schools - how costly? McNeil School has room; Hope School and Moose Pass School-- cost of educating few students? 29. Recruit IDEA students 30. Cut travel budget 31. Please maintain student/teacher ratio 32. Cut district administration and district administration support services by 30% 33. Institute a 4 1/2 day week in elementary (M,T,R,F w/ 1/2 day on W) then save co-curricular and offer alternatives for students on Wednesdays 34. Keep foreign language and co-curricular 35. Sue! Kenai Peninsula Borough School District Community Input/Budget Hearing Survey Total by Prioritization - 46 Total Respondents Each category ranked from 1 to 5; 1 being first priority to cut and 5 being lowest priority to cut Avg. I. Accelerate consolidation/closure of district schools 2.24 Reduce school administrators 2.55 Reduce Quest delivery 2.69 Reduce District Office Administration 2.94 Reduce supply allocations 3.21 Eliminate co-curricular program from the operating fund 3.50 II. Explore implementing breakfast program 1.88 Never cut vocational education program 1.96 Reduce special education program by 5% 2.08 Eliminate vocational education program 2.09 Reduce copier costs 2.54 Close district media center - transfer media to libraries 2.55 Reduce specialists 2.56 Renegotiate employee contracts to reduce personnel and/or health care 2.58 Eliminate food service subsidy 2.65 Reduce purchase of Connections computers 2.75 Purchase Connections computers every other year 2.83 Reduce transportation routes to allow for allocation of unexpended revenue 2.85 Eliminate Outside travel and/or reduce travel 20% 3.00 Initiate lawsuit seeking adequate funding 3.07 Reduce telephone budget 3.17 Implement purchasing efficiencies 3.79 III. Reduce custodians 2.08 Reduce School Board costs 2.13 Reduce or eliminate unallocated budget 2.48 Across the board reduction in site discretionary budgets (postage, repair,etc. 2.60 Reduce secretaries 3.76 Reduce or eliminate curriculum adoption 4.11 Kenai Peninsula Borough School District Community Input/Budget Hearing Survey Prioritized by Parents - 26 Total Respondents Each category ranked from 1 to 5; 1 being first priority to cut and 5 being lowest priority to cut Avg. I. Reduce District Office Administration 2.13 Accelerate consolidation/closure of district schools 2.42 Reduce Quest delivery 2.67 Reduce school administrators 2.68 Reduce supply allocations 3.43 Eliminate co-curricular program from the operating fund 3.48 II. Eliminate Outside travel and/or reduce travel 20% 1.88 Reduce purchase of Connections computers 2.00 Reduce copier costs 2.13 Purchase Connections computers every other year 2.21 Initiate lawsuit seeking adequate funding 2.31 Close district media center - transfer media to libraries 2.33 Reduce transportation routes to allow for allocation of unexpended revenue 2.53 Never cut vocational education program 2.60 Implement purchasing efficiencies 2.63 Reduce special education program by 5% 2.85 Eliminate vocational education program 2.89 Explore implementing breakfast program 2.89 Reduce telephone budget 3.00 Renegotiate employee contracts to reduce personnel and/or health care 3.08 Reduce specialists 3.20 Eliminate food service subsidy 3.23 III. Reduce School Board costs 2.19 Reduce or eliminate unallocated bUdget 2.38 Across the board reduction in site discretionary budgets (postage, repair,etc. 2.64 Reduce or eliminate curriculum adoption 2.92 Reduce secretaries 3.38 Reduce custodians 3.55 Losing co-curricular has far-reaching negative consequences. People will leave! Don't cut co-curricular! -noted by 4 respondents Let Connections families supply their own computers; use email instead of phone - noted by 3 respondents Consolidate any school under 50% capacity over next 5 years Stop maintaining 3 each tracks and football fields in Central area Find a new home for Boys & Girls Club or Aurora Borealis so ABCS can meet their enrollment demand $50/year school bus fee; $50/year pkg. Fee for high school students Look at outsourcing custodians/food services Make Ninilchik HS a VoTech School and Homer High an Arts School; Skyview a Charter School Kenai Peninsula Borough School District Community Input/Budget Hearing Survey Prioritized by Public - 1 Total Respondent Each category ranked from 1 to 5; 1 being first priority to cut and 5 being lowest priority to cut Avg. I. Reduce supply allocations 0.00 Eliminate co-curricular program from the operating fund 1.00 Reduce Quest delivery 2.00 Accelerate consolidation/closure of district schools 3.00 Reduce District Office Administration 4.00 Reduce school administrators 5.00 II. Close district media center - transfer media to libraries 0.00 Eliminate food service subsidy 0.00 Eliminate Outside travel and/or reduce travel 20% 0.00 Eliminate vocational education program 0.00 Explore implementing breakfast program 0.00 Purchase Connections computers every other year 0.00 Reduce copier costs 0.00 Reduce special education program by 5% 0.00 Reduce specialists 0.00 Reduce telephone budget 0.00 Reduce transportation routes to allow for allocation of unexpended revenue 0.00 Initiate lawsuit seeking adequate funding \ 1.00 Never cut vocational education program 2.00 Implement purchasing efficiencies 3.00 Reduce purchase of Connections computers 4.00 Renegotiate employee contracts to reduce personnel and/or health care 5.00 III. Reduce custodians 0.00 Reduce School Board costs 0.00 Reduce or eliminate curriculum adoption 1.00 Reduce or eliminate unallocated budget 2.00 Across the board reduction in site discretionary budgets (postage, repair,etc. 3.00 Reduce secretaries 4.00 Close Hope School Close Russian Village Schools Kenai Peninsula Borough School District Community Input/Budget l1earing Survey Prioritized by Staff/Board - 11 Total Respondents Each category ranked from 1 to 5; 1 being first priority to cut and 5 being lowest priority to cut I. Accelerate consolidation/closure of district schools Avg. Eliminate co-curricular program from the operating fund 1.64 Reduce Quest delivery 2.22 Reduce District Office Administration 2.89 Reduce supply allocations 3.30 Reduce school administrators 3.86 4.25 II. Reduce specialists Reduce special education program by 5% 0.00 Initiate lawsuit seeking adequate funding 1.00 Never cut vocational education program 1.20 Reduce telephone budget 1.50 Eliminate food service subsidy 1.50 Eliminate Outside travel and/or reduce travel 20% 2.00 Purchase Connections computers every other year 2.20 Reduce purchase of Connections computers 2.25 Close district media center - transfer media to libraries 2.33 Implement purchasing efficiencies 2.67 Eliminate vocational education program 3.14 Reduce transportation routes to allow for allocation of unexpended revenue 3.67 Explore implementing breakfast program 3.67 Reduce copier costs 4.00 Renegotiate employee contracts to reduce personnel and/or health care 4.00 5.00 III. Reduce or eliminate curriculum adoption Reduce or eliminate unallocated bUdget 1.71 Reduce School Board costs 2.00 Across the board reduction in site discretionary bUdgets (postage, repair,etc. 2.50 Reduce secretaries 3.17 Reduce custodians 3.67 5.00 Close Hope School Never renegotiate employee contracts! Recycle paper to save supply money Make Connections people buy their own computers Review or eliminate the Board's health insurance - they have better benefits than the teachers and support staff Kenai Peninsula Borough School District Community Input/Budget Hearing Survey Prioritized by Budget Review Committee - 2 Total Respondents Each category ranked from 1 to 5; 1 being first priority to cut and 5 being lowest priority to cut Avg. I. Eliminate co-curricular program from the operating fund 1.00 Reduce District Office Administration 2.50 Reduce supply allocations 2.50 Accelerate consolidation/closure of district schools 3.00 Reduce school administrators 4.00 Reduce Quest delivery 5.00 II. Eliminate food service subsidy 0.00 Eliminate vocational education program 0.00 Explore implementing breakfast program 0.00 Implement purchasing efficiencies 0.00 Reduce specialists 0.00 Reduce telephone budget 0.00 Reduce transportation routes to allow for allocation of unexpended revenue 0.00 Renegotiate employee contracts to reduce personnel and/or health care 0.00 Initiate lawsuit seeking adequate funding 1.00 Reduce purchase of Connections computers 2.00 Reduce special education program by 5% 2.00 Eliminate Outside travel and/or reduce travel 20% 3.00 Purchase Connections computers every other year 3.00 Never cut vocational education program 4.00 Close district media center - transfer media to libraries 5.00 Reduce copier costs 5.00 III. Reduce or eliminate unallocated bUdget 0.00 Reduce School Board costs 1.00 Reduce or eliminate curriculum adoption 2.00 Across the board reduction in site discretionary budgets (postage, repair,etc. 3.00 Reduce secretaries 4.00 Reduce custodians 5.00 Kenai Peninsula Borough School District Community Input/Budget Hearing Survey Prioritized by No Designation· 6 Total Respondents Each category ranked from 1 to 5; 1 being first priority to cut and 5 being lowest priority to cut Avg. I. Accelerate consolidation/closure of district schools 2.25 Reduce Quest delivery 2.25 Eliminate co-curricular program from the operating fund 2.75 Reduce school administrators 2.75 Reduce District Office Administration 2.80 Reduce supply allocations 3.75 II. Eliminate food ser.,ice sUbsidy 0.00 Implement purchasing efficiencies 1.00 Initiate lawsuit seeking adequate funding 1.00 Reduce telephone budget 1.00 Purchase Connections computers every other year 1.25 Eliminate Outside travel and/or reduce travel 20% 1.33 Reduce copier costs 1.50 Reduce purchase of Connections computers 1.80 Explore implementing breakfast program 2.00 Reduce special education program by 5% 2.33 Eliminate vocational education program 3.00 Never cut vocational education program 3.00 Reduce specialists 3.00 Reduce transportation routes to allow for allocation of unexpended revenue 3.00 Close district media center - transfer media to libraries 4.00 Renegotiate employee contracts to reduce personnel and/or health care 5.00 III. Reduce School Board costs 1.00 Reduce or eliminate unallocated budget 1.33 Across the board reduction in site discretionary budgets (postage. repair,etc. 2.33 Reduce or eliminate curriculum adoption 3.00 Reduce secretaries 4.50 Reduce custodians 4.67 Page 1 of 1 Essert, Sue Ellen From: UFA Mark Vinsel [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 20042:14 PM To: [email protected] SUbject: Comfish Budget Cuts February 3, 2004 Dale Bagley Mayor, Kenai Peninsula Borough 144 North Binkley Street Soldotna, AK 99669 Dear Mayor, United Fishermen of Alaska would like to inform you ofthe proposed cut to the Commercial Fisheries Division of the Department of Fish and Game. The budget that is now before the legislature has the potential to cut into basic programs such as sonar counter time, personnel, and the scientific research that is necessary for the management of commercial fishing. The end result would be less revenues in raw fish tax, and declines in employment that generate economic activity in your community. The proposed cut to the Comfish division is $1.9 million, and a resulting loss of$350,000 in federal grant funds. Please contact our office at (907) 586-2820 or via email [email protected], or contact the Department ofFish and Game Commercial Fisheries Division at 907-465-4210. Comments should be sent to Representative Hugh "Bud" Fate, Chairman, Fish and Game Budget Committee at [email protected] . Sincerely, ,~ Robert Thorstenson, Jr. President 02103104 Essert. Sue Ellen I From: UFA Mark Vinsel [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 2:20 PM To: ufa1 @ufa-fish.org SUbject: FW: Fisheries Division Budget Report AD FG 05 Budget Proposal 01290... Dear Mayor, The attached Adobe Acrobat document shows the Department of Fish and Game budget referenced in the letter we recently sent you. We appreciate your consideration. Bob Thorstenson, Jr., President Mark Vinsel, Executive Director Jerry McCune, Government Relations United Fishermen of Alaska 1 Commercial Fisheries Division FY05 Budget Impacts GF Decrements and PERS Rate Increase Total Decrements $965.0 SE Region: -$152.0 Central Region: -$182.5 AYKRegion: -$190.7 Westward Region: -$205.7 HQFM: -$191.6 Fisheries Development: -$42.5 Projected PERS increase is $915.4 in GF SE Region: - $167.9 Central Region: -$206.1 AYK Region: -$140.0 Westward Region: -$223.8 HQFM: -$81.1 Fisheries Development: -$96.5 Southeast Region Fisheries Management Component: Decrement: The Southeast Region Fisheries Management Component general. fund reduction of $152.0 will affect management and stock assessment of salmon, shrimp and herring and public service activities. Several escapement monitoring activities for coho and sockeye salmon will be sc~.d back, eliminated, or transferred to federal funds. Funding for management of the region's shellfish fisheries will be reduced. Funding for management of several herring fisheries will be accomplished through increased test fishery harvests. Two seasonal positions will be eliminated and five positions will be transferred to other funding sources. A Boat Officer II will be split funded in the Special Projects Component. PCNs 11-1350 (FT), 11-1009 and 11-1876 CPT) are being deleted. PERS Rate Increase: Service reductions due to an increase in PERS costs will be significant, totaling approximately $167.9. These include funding all remaining herring management budgets from increased-test fishing operations. Funding for two ofthe region's most important long-term salmon escapement monitoring programs, on the Chi1kat and Situk Rivers, will be transferred to short-term federal funding sources. Eventual loss of funding support for these programs will cripple management of Yakutat set gillnet and Lynn Canal drift gillile! fisheries. Further cuts in services include a reduction in sea cucumber assessment surveys, which will reduce sea cucumber harvest opportunities unless an alternative funding source is found. Finally, a 6% cut in the budget supporting senior level administrative travel and employee training is included. Central Region Fisheries Management Component: Decrement: The Central Region Fisheries Management Component will absorb a general fund reduction of$182.5. To accomplish these reductions, part of the general fund operational funds for the region's vessel program will be transferred to alternative funding sources in the Special Projects Component, and the RIV Pandalus will be tied up and cease operations. A sonar project will also be eliminated in Cook Inlet and funding for the Bristol Bay salmon research program will be reduced. Funding for an Administrative Clerk 11 and a Fishery Biologist II is being eliminated. PCN 11-4018 (FT) is being deleted due to the general fund decrement and also due to the reduction in funds from HB208 in the Fisheries Development Component. PCNs 11-1307 and 1768 (FT) and 11-1495 (PT) are being deleted due to the general fund decrement. In addition, five non-permanent PCNs are being deleted. PERS Rate Increase: For FY OS, the Central Region will also reduce several projects due to a PERS increase of about $206.1. To accommodate this savings a number of projects will be eliminated including the Bristol Bay smolt program, a Bristol Bay research biologist, eliminate subsistence surveys in Bristol Bay and a reduction to the staffing at the Limnology lab in Soldotna. There will be a loss of service to the Bristol Bay area salmon fisheries since the department's ability to forecast and set escapement goals will be diminished. The loss of staff time in the Limnology lab will create a loss in service to the PNP hatcheries who utilize the lab and to the regions fisheries that depend on limnology data to set escapement ranges. AYK Region Fisheries Management Component: Decrement: The Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (AYK) Region Fisheries Management Component will absorb a general fund reduction of $190.7. To accomplish this reduction, one Administrative Clerk II position will be eliminated and the Northwest Alaska Bio Rehabilitation project will be discontinued. The impact of discontinuing that project is that the department will not be able to support the restoration of several depressed chum salmon stocks primarily in the northern Norton Sound area of Northwest Alaska, which are stocks of concern under the Sustainable Salmon Fisheries Policy. It also limits the department's ability to conduct restoration and enhancement activities for salmon in Norton Sound. This includes elimination ofthe Salmon Lake restoration/enhancement project that was designed to restore/enhance the sockeye salmon run originating from Salmon Lake and all artificial propagation projects designed to restore chum salmon runs to the Nome area tributaries. One FT Fishery Biologist III and one PT Fishery Biologist IV will be split funded in the Special Projects Component. In addition, herring fishery monitoring activities will be reduced in the Kuskokwim and Cape Romanzof areas. Five non-permanent positions will be eliminated in conjunction with this decrement. Finally, an RSA to Subsistence Division to estimate subsistence salmon harvests will be reduced by 24%. PERS Rate Increase: For FY OS, the AYK Region will also reduce several projects due to a PERS rate increase of about $140.0. To accommodate this savings a number of projects will be eliminated or reduced including: 1) elimination of the RSA to Subsistence Division to document the salmon subsistence harvest in the Norton Sound and Kotzebue and Kuskokwim areas, 2) reductions in the AYK Herring Aerial Survey Program used to document herring biomass in the Kuskokwim and Norton Sound Areas, 3) reductions in the Yukon Summer Season, Kuskokwim River (15%), and Kuskokwim Bay (42%) salmon monitoring programs, and 4) a 14% reduction in the GF portion ofKuskokwim salmon population estimation program. Westward Region Fisheries Management Component: Decrements: The Westward Region Fisheries Management Component will absorb a general fund reduction of$205.7. To accomplish this reduction, administration of the Bering Sea crab observer program located in Dutch Harbor will be transferred to test fishery accounts, thus 2 reducing the amount of those test fish funds available to actually-deploy observers onto crab fishing vessels. This will result in a 25% reduction in the annual number of observer-days at sea onboard commercial crab fishing for the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery and the Bering Sea snow crab fishery. Six non-pennanent positions are being deleted in conjunction with this decrement. PERS Rate Increase: For FY 05, the Westward Region will also reduce several projects due to a PERS rate increase of about $223.8. To accommodate this savings a number of projects will be forfeited including Bering Sea crab management inthe Dutch Harbor office, enumeration of salmon escapement in the Saltery River near Kodiak, and sockeye salmon stock separation and catch sampling in the Chignik management area. The potential exists for federal funding to replace state general funds for Bering Sea crab management, in which case there should be no net loss of services. No alternative funding is identified for the other projects. Thus, there will be a loss of service to the Kodiak area salmon fisheries whereby commercial harvests may need to be restricted along the east side ofthe island, potentially resulting in the loss oftens ofthousands of sockeye salmon from the area's harvest. There would also be a loss of service to Chignik salmon fishennen, whereby the distinction between the early and late sockeye salmon runs will be deemed to occur on a certain date (e.g., July 5), rather than being measured independently each year; the impact of this change is unpredictable but is not anticipated to be severe. Headquarters Fisheries Management Component: Decrement: The Headquarters Fisheries Management Component will absorb a general fund reduction of $191.6. To accomplish this reduction, a number of projects will be cut including elimination of one FT Human Resource Assistant and one PT Publication Specialist II, elimination offunding for statewide sonar equipment acquisition and training,·and reduced support for subsistence monitoring activities currently conducted by Subsistence Division and funded via RSA. Fisheries Development Component: Decrement: The Fisheries Development Component will absorb a general fund reduction of $42.5. To accomplish this reduction, several programs will be cut including field collection and laboratory analysis of genetic data on commercially important fish stocks, reduction of staff travel, and reduced response time in providing data to fishery managers. PERS Rate Increase: For FY05, the Headquarters office will also reduce expenditures on several projects due to a PERS rate increase ofabout $81.1 in the Headquarters Fisheries Management Component and $96.5 in the Fisheries Development Component. The Coded Wire Tag Lab will reduce expenditures by $25.0, resulting in lower quality control and slower response time on providing data to managers. The Fish Pathology Lab will reduce a laboratory technician's time by several months, resulting in reduced hatchery inspections and slow response time on requests from salmon hatcheries and aquatic farmers to analyze disease. Other reductions are in contractual expenditures involving local computer networks and other services, staff travel, and commodities. 3 Region I, Commercial Fisheries Division - FY 04 Decrement List Project Title Project Numbers Decrement Cumulative Comments SE Shellfish FB II (Tanner Crab Biologist position) FM-190 50.9 50.9 Reduce travel, staff training & education FM-104 10.4 61.3 Region II, Commercial Fisheries Division - FY 04 Decrement List Project Title. Project Numbers Decrement Cumulative Comments Regional Program Management (Misc Reductions) FM-300 7.0 7.0 Regional Resource Development Biologist (6mm to HB 208) FM-306 31.6 38.6 PWS/CR Catch & Esc Sampling FM-317 15.0 53.6 LCI Fert & Limno FM-385 11.4 65.0 BB Eastside! Grad Student FM-400 25.9 90.9 PWS Shellfish (Reduce FT Ill) FM-471 10.0 100.9 Region Ill, Commercial Fisheries Division - FY 04 Decrement List Project Title _ Project Numbers Decrement Cumulative Comments Upper Yukon Salmon (GF to Federal) FM-569 15.0 15.0 GF to Fed Tanana River Fall Chum Tagging (GF to Federal) FM-568 92.6 107.6 GF to Fed Anvik Sonar (GF to Federal) FM 564 80,8 188.4 GF to Fed Region IV, Commercial Fisheries Division - FY 04 Decrement List Project Title Project Numbers Decrement Cumulative Comments Cut one FB III and one FB II from BS/AI shellfish research FM-776 155.1 155.1 GFtoFed Cut remaining seasonal BS/AI research staff (4 positions) FM-782 96.0 251.1 GF to Fed Reduce/eliminate observer seasonal FB I FM-780 33.3 284.4 GF to Fed Headquarters Office, Commercial Fisheries Division· FY 04 Decrement List Project Title Project Numbers Decrement Cumulative Comments Eliminate GF support for Fisheries Library FM-934 49.5 49.5 Eliminate Statewide Workshop Support FM-938 26.0 75.5 Reduce Habitat Division RSA FM-909 115.0 190.5 Reduce RSA's to Subsistence Division FM-909 37.5 228.0 Transfer $50K for Insurance RSA to indirect SP-602 50.0 278.0 Eliminate RSA to Sport Fish for Enforcement toordinator FM-909 12.9 290.9 Eliminate RSA to Admin for Training Coordinator FM-909 31.0 321.9 Increase Federal Fund Support for Admin Clerk 12.9 334.8 Increase Federal Fund Support for Ext Jurisdid:tion Coord. 6.3 341.1 All Components, Commercial Fisheries Division - FY 04 Decrement List Component Total Cumulative Region I 61.3 61.3 Region II 100.9 162.2 Region III 188.4 350.6 Region IV 284.4 635.0 HQ 321.9 956.9 23-LS 1395\H HOUSE BILL NO. 396 IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA TWENTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE • SECOND SESSION BY REPRIlSENTATIVECHENAULT latroduc:ed: llZ3lO4 Referred: Hou!1 Special Committee Oil Fisheries, Resources ABILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED ..An Act relating to management of salmon and other fISh stocks and salmon fISheries 2 and to the use of funds received by an enhancement facility from the sale of fash." 3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA: 4 * Section 1. AS 16.05.251(h) is amended to read: 5 (h) The Board of Fisheries shall adopt by regulation a policy for the 6 management of mixed stock fisheries. The policy ~ [SHALL] provide for the 7 management of mixed stock fisheries in a manner that is consistent with mnimum 8 sustained yield of important and dominant salmon stocks and with sustained yield 9 of other wild fish stocks. In this subsection, "important and dominant salmog 10 stocks" means those salmon stocks that are either an important salmon stock or a 11 dominant salmon stock as those terms are defined under AS 16.05.740. 12 * Sec. 2. AS 16.05.730(a) is amended to read: 13 (a) Fish stocks in the state shall be managed consistent with maximum 14 sustained yield of important and dominant salmon stocks and with sustained yield "B03968 -1 H8396 New Text Underlined (DELETED TEXT BRACKETED) 23-LS1395\H I of other wild fish stocks and may be managed consistent with sustained yield of 2 enhanced fish stocks. 3 ", Sec. 3. AS 16.05.730(b) is amended to read: 4 (b) In allocating enhanced fish stocks, the board shall consider the need of fish 5 enhancement projects to obtain brood stock. The board shaD [MAY] direct the 6 department to manage fisheries in the state to achieve an adequate return of fish from 7 enhanced stocks to enhancement projects for brood stock; however, management to 8 achieve an adequate return of fish to enhancement projects for brood stock shall be 9 consistent with maximum sustained yield of important and dominant salmon 10 stocks and with sustained yield ofother wild fish stocks. 11 * Sec. 4. AS 16.05.730(c) is amended to read: 12 (c) The board shall [MAY] consider the need of enhancement projects 13 authorized under AS 16.10.400 and contractors who operate state-owned enhancement 14 projects under AS 16.1 0.480 to harvest and sell fish produced by the enhancement 15 project that are not needed for brood stock to obtain funds for the purposes allowed 16 under AS 16.10.450 or 16.1 0.480(d). The board shall [MAY] exercise its authority 17 under this title as it considers necessary to direct the department to provide a 18 reasonable harvest of fish, in addition to the fish needed for brood stock, to an 19 enhancement project to obtain funds for the purposes allowed under AS 16.10.450 20 or 16.10.480(d) [ENHANCEMENT PROJECT] if the harvest is consistent with 21 maximum sustained yield of important and dominant salmon stocks and with 22 sustained yield of other wild fish stocks. [THE BOARD MAY ADOPT A FISHERY 23 MANAGEMENT PLAN TO PROVIDE FISH TO AN ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 24 TO OBTAIN FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSES ALLOWED UNDER AS 16.10.450 OR 25 16.10.480(d).] 26 • Sec. 5. AS 16.05.730(d) is amended to read: 27 (d) In this section, 28 ill "enhancement project" means a project, facility, or hatchery for the 29 enhancement of fishery resources of the state for which the department has issued a 30 pennit,i 31 (2) lIimportant and dominant salmon stocksII means those salmon HB396 -2 HBOJ96a New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] 23-LSI395\H stoch that are either an important salmon stock or a dominant salmon stock as 2 those terms are defined under AS 16.05.740. 3 .. Sec. 6. AS 16.05 is amended by adding a new section to article 5 to read: 4 Sec. 16.05.740. Management of salmon stocks aod salmon fISheries. (a) 5 The commissioner and the Board of Fisheries shall manage the important salmon 6 stocks and dominant salmon stocks of the state for maximum sustained yield, to the 7 extent practicable, to achieve the greatest benefits for the people ofthe state. S (b) The commissioner shall adopt and revise as necessary escapement goals 9 and harvest goals for important salmon stocks and dominant salmon stocks utilizing 10 the best reliable scientific information available to the department To the extent 11 practicable, the commissioner shall expeditiously collect infonnation necessary to 12 manage important salmon stocks and dominant salmon stocks for maximum sustained 13 yield. The commissioner shall manage salmon fisheries through emergency orders 14 issued under AS 16.05.060 to achieve the escapement goals and harvest goals for the 15 stocks taken in the fisheries. The commissioner shall exercise the professional 16 judgment of the department to manage salmon stocks for which escapement goals or 17 harvest goals have not been established for the highest level ofsustainable yield that is 18 practicable. For a minor stock for which the commissioner finds that it is not practical 19 to manage the stock for maximum sustained yield, the commissioner shall exercise the 20 professional judgment of the department to ensure that the escapement level for the 21 stock is maintained at a level that provides for sustained yield of the stock. In the 22 absence of sufficient information to establish an escapement goal or harvest goal for a 23 salmon stock consistent with maximum sustained yield, the department shall manage 24 the stock for sustained yield. The commissioner shall manage salmon for sustained 25 yield in accordance with the foHowing requirements: 26 (1) where the presence of multiple salmon stocks or species in a 27 fishery or management area results in the inability to simultaneously achieve 28 escapement goals for all of the stocks or species, the commissioner shall seek a 29 balance during the fishing season of the escapements for all stocks and species in a 30 manner that does the least harm collectively to the productivity of all stocks and 31 species in the fishery or management area; HB0396a -3 8B396 New Text Underlined {DEtETED TEXT BRACKETED] 23-LS139S\H (2) the commissioner shall balance the harm of reducing escapements 2 below the escapement goal for weaker salmon stocks with increasing escapements 3 above the escapement goal for stronger salmon stocks without regard to the allocative 4 effects of the decision; 5 (3) the commissioner shall manage important, dominant, and more 6 productive salmon stocks for maximum sustained yield and minor or less productive 7 salmon stocks for sustained yield in order to achieve the greatest benefits for the 8 people of the state; 9 (4) in the absence of a management plan, when management measures 10 affect two or more competing groups of users, the commissioner shall regulate salmon II fisheries in a manner that allows for the best probability of simultaneously achieving 12 the escapement goals for all important salmon stocks and dominant salmon stocks 13 with the least disruption to users with no other alternative fisheries in the management 14 area; in this paragraph, "management area" means a salmon net gear registration area 15 established by the Board of Fisheries by regulation; 16 (5) the commissioner shall conserve depressed salmon stocks and, as 17 practicable, rehabilitate and enhance depressed salmon stocks; 18 (6) the commissioner is responsible for conservation of salmon stocks 19 and shall avoid overharvest that may threaten the sustained yield of a salmon stock; 20 (7) the commissioner shall avoid overescapement that may threaten the 21 maximum sustained yield of an important salmon stock, dominant salmon stock, or 22 more productive salmon stock or the sustained yield of other salmon stocks. 23 (c) The board shall adopt by regulation policies providing for utilization and 24 development of salmon stoc~, including the allocation of the harvestable portion of 25 each salmon stock among the fisheries of the state. The policies must be consistent 26 with the salmon escapement goals and harvest goals established by the commissioner. 27 The board shall allocate the harvestable portion of salmon stocks in accordance with 28 AS 16.05.258 and, except as otherwise provided in this section, AS 16.05.251(e), and 29 in accordance with the following requirements: 30 (I) for salmon fisheries that are fully developed, the board may not 31 (A) exclude existing, historic users from taking their historic H8396 -4 HB0396a New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED} 23-LSI395\H level of the harvest of a salmon stock except to achieve conservation goals 2 adopted by the commissioner; 3 (B) authorize escapement of more salmon than are necessary to 4 satisfy escapement goals adopted by the commissioner; 5 (2) the board shall give priority consideration to the history of use of a 6 salmon stock by a fishery and to the stability of fisheries when fishery management 7 decisions are adopted; 8 (3) where established fisheries have historically harvested a salmon 9 stock that originates in an area outside the area where the fisheries occur, the board 10 shall maintain harvests of that stock by those fisheries at historical levels except as J I necessary to achieve conservation goals adopted by the commissioner; 12 (4) the board shall provide that salmon in excess of the number needed 13 to satisfy escapement goals adopted by the commissioner are available for harvest to 14 prevent overescapement or waste ofsalmon. 15 (d) If there is a conflict between this section and AS 16.05.251, this section J6 shall prevail. 17 (e) In this section, 18 (1) "conservation" means the supervision, management, protection, 19 improvement, maintenance, and use of a fishery resource to ensure the highest social 20 as well as economic benefits from the harvest of the resource; 21 (2) "dominant salmon stock" means a wild salmon stock that is 22 consistently more productive and numerically more abundant or is consistently more 23 commercially valuable than other salmon stocks; 24 (3) "important salmon stock" means a wild salmon stock for which the 25 department has established a scientifically based escapement goal and a stock 26 management plan to maintain the stock at escapement levels consistent with maximum 27 sustained yield of the stock; 28 (4) "maximum sustained yield" means achievement and maintenance 29 in perpetuity of the highest level of annual or periodic yield of a renewable resource; 30 (5) "minor salmon stock" means a salmon stock that is not an 31 important salmon stock or dominant salmon stock; HB0396a -5 HB396 New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BAAC'D'TEDJ 23-LS 1395\H (6) "sustained escapement threshold" means the threshold level of 2 escapement of a salmon stock below which the ability of the stock to sustain itself is 3 jeopardized; 4 (7) "sustained yield" means an average annual yield of a renewable 5 resource that can be maintained on an annual basis. HB0396. -6 .. d I1ned (DELETED TEXT BRACJ{STED) HB396 New Text vn er Questions arising from introduction of House Bill 396 I). Why introduce this bill and for what? There seems to be some confusion as to the intent and design ofthis bill currently before the legislature. This bill is intended to put into law the successful fisheries practices utilized by the Department and Board of Fisheries. These practices have been developed since statehood and have generally resulted in healthy salmon stocks and salmon fisheries throughout the state. Nothing in this bill seeks to radically alter any existing department management practice, fishery or regulatory function. Instead it is intended to put into law current practices and coalesce the many regulatory policies developed over the years into a single statute to facilitate efficiency within the Department and Board and clarify for the public why actions are being taken in fisheries. It also hopefully will clarify where the lines of authority lie for both the Board ofFish and the Commissioner. That simply stated is the Department manages the fish stocks and the BoF allocates the fish surplus to escapement needs. The department has the trained field personnel capable of making rational scientific conservation decisions when necessary and the BoF typically has fishermen with fishing expertise who can insure that fisheries are prosecuted in an efficient manner to maximize the benefit from the state's fisheries resources. The careful blend ofthese two factions should give the state healthy fish stocks managed by the department and healthy fisheries developed by the BoF. We do not wish to manage all stocks for maximum yield but don't wish to see any further evolution towards some kind ofweak stock management as the administration allowed. Since 1996 the BoF began making radical changes to regulations in many areas of the state placing ''windows'' or closed periods in fisheries or limiting the Commissioners Emergency Order powers. This was not done in any scientific manner. It was done in an attempt to allocate fish through biology. Many of these regulations placed mutually exclusive goals in regulation that have created a great deal ofstrife between users with no benefit to residents of this state. In a recent Kenai Superior Court case these restrictions to emergency orders were ruled invalid ifthey restricted the commissioner's authority. The Department ofLaw representing the BoF has interpreted that these restrictions in regulation are not absolute restrictions because they can be modified by Emergency Order, but only with new information and then only ifa biological emergency exists. This interpretation is "loosely" based on the Peninsula Marketing case. In that case Commissioner Rosier wanted to change a quota in the False Pass fishery that the BoF had already refused to change in a public meeting. The entire case talked of"Emergency Powers" because the Commissioner has two types, Emergency Order or Emergency Regulation. Commissioner Rosier used neither, instead he announced his intent to change the quota and it was that announcement that was challenged. The litigants in this case including the State missed a key point of law with respect to the Commissioners powers, namely that Emergency Orders delegated by the legislature can not be written for anything other than time and area. In the conclusion of this case the court ruled that the Commissioner could not summarily change a fisheries management plan without new infonnation that a biological emergency exists. The problem is that neither of these tenns was defined and that has led to the power grab by the BoF, which the Department of Law has defended and that the Commissioner has allowed. We think the department should manage for the escapement goals that have been developed and refined over the years. If not why spend so much money counting fish? 2). Why was this bill introduced? This bill was introduced in order to delineate where the commissioner's authority granted in AS 16.05.060(a) and the BoF's authority granted under AS 16.05.221(a) overlap and to clarify that the BoF allocates fishery resources and the Department manages those resources and is responsible for setting and achieving conservation or escapement goals. The Department under Rue and continuing under Commissioner Duffy has allowed the BoF to usurp much of the power necessary to manage fish stocks. Ifthis bill is passed all fisheries will be managed for escapement goals and allocations will be clearly spelled out and managed for by ADF&G. This will greatly reduce the current strain placed on all users by the BoF process and allow the public to know beforehand what to expect from the fisheries they participate in. 3). What does this bill do? As already stated it puts into statute what is already in regulation. Most of the language in this bill was taken from the Sustainable Salmon Fisheries Policy, The Escapement Goal Policy, The Mixed Stock Fisheries Policy and many other regulations passed over the years since statehood. What it does is preserve the management style that has been so successful since statehood and protects all fisheries governed by these regulations from future power grabs by the BoF in future administrations. This will provide some stability to the fisheries within the state and allow the users to make long-range plans and investments without the worry and constant bickering for fish. 4). Why approach management this way instead ofleaving it the way it is? This bill is needed because of the radical and unnecessary changes that the BoF has levied on the salmon users within this state in the last few years. Many of these restrictions were dressed up as being necessary for conservation however many were really nothing more than bio-allocation. This bill would NOT stop the BoF from allocating fish between users. It would only prevent them from doing it under the guise ofconservation. One of the biggest problems this has caused over the last 8 years is the change within the department. The department is not really interested in managing salmon, a look at their recent submission ofproposal #2 and the widespread opposition to that proposal should serve as a warning of the problems that currently exist. We suspect that the department will be opposed to this bill because it does state in no uncertain terms that they are to manage salmon stocks as they have in the past. Basically requires them to do their job! 5). Why submit this bill now? This bill is necessary now because of the changes that have been occurring within the department and BoF in recent years. Many of the regions of the state are hurting from depressed prices or low returns. At the same time fish are being wasted over and above escapement goals because of arbitrary and unnecessary BoF regulations which were put into regulation by inexperienced and adversarial BoF members. We think that the harm done by these counter-productive regulations must be corrected immediately and on a statewide basis. 1. EXPLANATION OF WHERE THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN THIS BILL COMES FROM Pages one and two of this bill simply standardize the language in current statutes to confonn with the language of the newly created parts ofthis bill. Explanation for language covered in Sec. 16.05.740 (a) lines 4-7. Article VIII, Section 4 of the State Constitution directs that replenishable resources be managed for SUSTAINED YIELD, "Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses." Under section (a) ofthis bill sustained yield is defined to be Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) for those stocks that are either important or dominant within the region. These stocks should be managed for Maximum Sustained Yield in Order to provide for the maximum benefit to the people of the state as set out in 5AAC 39.222 Policy for the Management ofSustainable Salmon Fisheries and Article VIII, Section 2 ofthe State Constitution. In the State Constitution, SECTION 2. GENERAL AUTHORITY. The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people. While there are Attorney General opinions that Sustained Yield as used in the Constitution is consistent with MSY it is not specifically addressed until now. In addition for those stocks which are smaller andlor less important this bill directs that management for a "minimum" of sustained yield is acceptable, especially when the management of these stocks complicates the management of more important stocks in a mixed stock fishery. This paragraph outlines how the Board and Department should maximize the benefit by managing for dominant or important stocks for Maximum Sustained Yield. In practice this is what the department currently does where and when it can gather the necessary data. I. There are fisheries, which are managed for goals other than escapement such as an allocated interception of another areas stocks or treaties with other countries. Examples: South East Chinook, Area M (False Pass), Cape Igvak Explanation for language covered in Sec. 16.05.740 (b) lines 8-12. In this Paragraph the department is directed to manage smaller or less important stocks for Sustained Yield. Most fisheries in Alaska, sport, commercial, personal use and subsistence are mixed stock and mixed species to some degree. In order to allow for the orderly development of these fisheries and allow for the maximum benefit to the people, it makes sense to manage for MSY on the most productive stocks and SY on those that are less productive. It directs the department to manage the least productive stocks at a rate that they at a minimum are sustainable as defined in the Policy for the Management ofSustainable Salmon Fisheries 5 AAC 39,222. It also directs the department to gather data where necessary or practical for MSY and use it's collective judgment to sustain the remaining stocks. This paragraph protects both users and the department from "Spotted J. ?wI" weak stock management practices which the department is currently not funded to Implement. These weak- stock management practices have had disastrous effects in other areas outside of Alaska and should not be repeated in Alaska. This paragraph is consistent with the State Constitution and the Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries 5 AAC 39.222. Explanation for language covered in Sec. 16.05.740 (b) lines 13-25. This is currently common practice to change by Emergency Order seasons or open areas established by the BOF in regulation or in specific management plans. This has been heralded as one ofthe successes of Alaska's salmon management program, local biologists with the Emergency Order Authority managing fisheries on a real time basis to ensure escapements are achieved to sustain production. This program has been so successful that it has been adopted by the Pacific Salmon Commission to manage and conserve the salmon resources shared by Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Canada. Explanation for language covered in Sec. 16.05.740 (b) (1) through (7) lines 26 on page 3 to line 22 on page 4. In section I ofthis paragraph the department is directed to manage in a way that minimizes the harm to a single stock when there are stocks with different rates of production harvested in a fishery. This again is common practice in fisheries management, to try and get as close to the weakest stocks minimum escapement goal while exceeding the maximum escapement goal ofthe strongest stock to the least degree possible, "balance the hann". This is typically a balancing act the department encounters in managing many of its fisheries, commercial, sport or subsistence. This management philosophy basically prevents widespread "weak stock management". Widespread weak stock management leads to wide spread weak stocks and lower yields for all users. The idea is to achieve the weaker stocks escapement at a level at or slightly below the MSY escapement goal and stronger more productive stocks escapement at or slightly above the MSY escapement goal level, when necessary. In doing this the region or area receives the greatest benefit from local stocks by maximizing the yield over all stocks. Nothing in this style ofmanagement allows for the gradual extinction of any salmon stocks, because you are generally at or near MSY levels ofescapement in both stocks. In section 2 of this Paragraph the department is directed to ignore the allocative impacts of its decisions when managing under the previous section. This is already common practice and all harvesters share the burden of conservation. In section 3 ofthis Paragraph the department is again directed to manage for MSY or SY as appropriate In section 4 of this Paragraph the department is directed to manage in the absence of a management plan for all escapement goals and place the burden of conservation on users with other local alternative salmon fisheries when necessary. This has some allocative tradeoffs that would likely result in BOF management plans if implemented in season, however it places conservation of the resource above users needs to harvest. Sections 5-7 of this Paragraph are restatements for clarification of what is already in this bill or in other state statutes and regulations. Explanation for language covered in Sec. 16.05.740 (c), (d) & (e) . In these sections the powers ofthe Board with regard to development offisheries are defined. The Board shall allocate the harvestable surplus to all users using the allocation criteria in 5 AAC 05.751. In section I of this Paragraph in fisheries that are fully developed, the board may not exclude a user except for conservation reasons. Under B the board may not add to an escapement goal that will not be harvested by some user, this is consistent with sustained yield management. Section 2 directs the Board to give more weight to the first ofthe allocation criteria, historical use, in Sec 16.05.251. Section 3 allows for established intercept fisheries at historic levels not increasing levels, this is consistent with current Practice and the Policy for the Management of Mixed Stock Salmon Fisheries, 5 AAC 39.220. Under (e) Definitions ofMSY and SY are from 5 AAC 39-222, Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries. Alaska's Salmon Management A Story of Success Alaska's Conservation Mandate Successful Salmon Management, In Law and in Practice Conservation of salmon stocks is required under the Alaska state constitution. Alaska's constitution, unique among the 50 states, has an article solely devoted to the management and utilization of natural resources. The constitution mandates that renewable resources "shall be utilized, developed and maintained on the sustained yield .~i principle." >~ Alaska law states: "The Commissioner shall manage, protect, maintain, improve, and extend the fish, game and aquatic plant resources of the state in the interest of the Alaska's habitat conservation laws and regulations pro economy and general we)) being ofthe state...througb re vide clean, free-flowing waterways vital to abundant, sus habilitation, enhancement, and development programs, tainable salmon production. There are very strict laws and [the department must] do all things necessary to insure regulations governing industry and development activi perpetual and increasing production and use ofthe food ties, such as road building, logging, and mining, to protect resources ofstate waters and continental shelfareas." vital spawning and rearing salmon streams. The "Anadromous Fish Act" (AS 16.05.870) requires prior approval by ADF&G for any in-stream construction ac tivities in salmon streams. Under Alaska's "Forest Prac tices Act" (4I.l7.010) buffer zones are required between logging areas and salmon streams to protect spawning and rearing habitats from erosion and other problems. The Commissioner of ADF&G may also acquire water rights to protect fish. Stream flow and volume, necessary for salmon migration and propagation, are protected under· the "Water Use Protection Act" (AS 46.15,). In addition, Alaska's Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (ADEC) monitors and regulates the discharge ofpollut ants to ensure high water quality in both marine and fresh waters. Alaska has been willing to forego the economic benefits from activities such as hydropower development in order to sustain salmon resources for future generations. For example, although the option ofconstructing and operat ing large-scale, hydropower facilities on both the Susitna River and the Yukon River were closely examined, nei ther was built. The wild salmon resource from these drainages was a major reason that Alaska chose the no dam option. 250,000 Alaska Commercial Salmon Catches, 1878-2001 .c u:II) 200,000 0 -II) "0 150,000 c:: ra II) ::J 0 100,000 .c I 50,000 , ~. ~ M ~ M ~ M ~ M ~ M ~ M ~ M ~ M ~ M ~1 ~ ~ ~ m moo ~ ~ N N M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : : ~ tt'§i: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~~j~a~;~;.:nent History "-Season Abundance Based Mana emen~i-, :~r~~,~( Salmon Runs were not always bountiful: ,State ofAlaska management has been intensive, con 1;('1':s-"! Alaska did not always have healthy salmon stocks. Over- ducted on a real-time basis with regulations imposedln =-se~as=;;o~n~b:..L..;l:..:oc~al~bl::·o:.:.lo~·:::s.:::ts~w~ho~h:::a:.:.v:;.e-=::a~c~l~ear~c~o:!.:n.!>ls~e~rv~a~tI~·~-' :r 1 fishing under federal management was a major factor in the R' declines ofthe Alaska salmon fishery that occurred be- . mandate and authority to open or close fisheries as needed. tween 1940 and the time ofstatehood, 1959. Salmon stocks .l'lj, and the fishing industry were in such bad shape that Presi- Delegated emergency authority provides for immediate '" dent Eisenhower declared Alaska a federal disaster area in management decjsions by area bjologists. When runs are r~'l 1953, stron mana ers liberalize harvest re lations to utilize' I~ • sUlJ?luses. When oms are poor. managers close fisheries to In 1959, statewide harvests totaled only about 25 million provide for redetermined esca ment needs which ensure : salmon - less than 20 percent ofcurrent sustained produc ong-term sustainable yields. .: tion. Over the last 20 years, sound state management with gradually increasing funding for research and management Local biologists monitor returning salmon using various has rebuilt salmon runs from the dismal conditions inher methods: aerial surveys, weirs, streamside counting tow ited at statehood to the healthy levels experienced today. ers, fish wheels, sonar, test fisheries, and input from fish Alaska has been at the leading edge ofsalmon research. " . ermen ased on their in-season abundance count salmon managers open and close fisheries on a daily {~Alaska's Ma~n basIS to ensure spawning escapements are , Science-Based ~dequate $~~.';~)f, t to sustain production. ~~' ;,,} agemen 1'/ ,." ',. \\ . ;~t··F . Lettmg the Managers Manage ~aska's emphasis on in-season management ,,, ;: With the constitutional and statutory conserva- to maintain adequate spawmng escapements is { " tion mandates, the Alaska Department ofFish the key ingredient to successful salmon man "and Game has effectively managed Alaska's agement this in-season abundance based salmon stocks to ensure conservation and to management program was recently adopted promote sustainable production. As a result, by the Pacific Salmon Commission to manage stocks ofsalmon spawning in Alaska are !!ld conserve salmon resources shared by healthy, and fisheries dependent upon these Alaska, Oregon, Washin on and Canad stocks have benefited, with statewide harvests ranging from about 100 to 200 million salmo " per year over the past 15 years. Frank H Murkowski, Governor David Manin. Chair Central Peninsula Fish & Game 71605 Sterling Highway Advisory Committee Clam Gulch, AK 99568 Phone' S67.3306 January 17, 2004 Dear Commissioner Duffy. At our January 15, 2004 Central Peninsula Fish and Game Advisory Committee our members were extremely shocked and concerned that the Sport Fish Division was suspending the coho assessment programs in Knik Ann and unanimously supported sending you this letter and r~quest. We learned ofthis infonnation from the report your regional managers from the Anchorage Sport Fish Division gave at the January Soldotna Fish and Game Advisory Committee. The termination ofthese programs was not due to a budget cut but was because it had reached the fifth year of operation as "planned". It was also mentioned that the current program in the Kenai River was going to be scaled back as well. The Central Peninsula Advisory Committee is troubled a great deal by this dramatic change in coho assessments in Upper Cook Inlet for the following reasons. (l) In 1997 and again in 1999 there was no mention ofthe five-year limit by any of your staff as they led the charge for wide-scale restrictions throughout Cook Inlet at the special BOP meetings. (2) In 2002 during the regular meeting for this area your Sport Fish staff again rallied against any relaxation of the Coho restrictions because they wanted to see the result ofone additional years return, in 2003 from what was the poor return of 1999. (3) During 2002 and 2003 your staff comments on the petitions and ACR's effectively killed an additional 2-3 petitions and several more ACR's trying to get some relief for all users in Cook Inlet for these onerous and apparently wmecessary coho restrictions. (4) During each ofthese BOF meetings no mention was made ofthe tennination of the vary projects your staff had used to creat~ these coho restrictions. (5) Most alarming is the fuct that you are now tenninating these projects before you even mCll$ure the escapement from the first restricted year (2000) when excellent record escapements were achieved in all of these systems. (6) In 2003 your department proposal (#2) seeking changes to the Sustainable Salmon Fisheries Policy (SSFP) desired to see large "serendipitous" escapements to more effectively evaluate escapement goals. Did your lust for these serendipitous escapements die with the proposal? The impression that we the "restricted" users are left with is that these were long-term on going projects that were necessary to measure the long-term viability of these stocks. We were told that it was critical to have this very information before the possible removal of these restrictions on aU user groups. These projects now appear to be yet another hit and run attempt by your department to steer the allocation ofthese resources without the benefit of an open and impartial public meeting. Given the concerns stated above what is the department going to do to relieve the Upper Cook Inlet area of these unnecessary coho restrictions prior to the 2004 season? It would seem that the only responsible wurse of action would be for a petition submitted by your staff, immediately, requesting the BOF to remove all restrictions that were implemented as a result of these projects. It would also seem prudent for a \witten report Serving the Alaska Board of Fisheries and Alaska Board of Game Boards Support Section, 333 R8spbel1)' Roed. Anchonge, A1a.ske 99518-\599 to be completed detailing how these projects led to the erroneous conclusions that wide-. . spread restrictions were necessary in the fIrst place. We look forward to a quick resolution to this problem so that all user sport, personal use and commercial can return to harvesting what will hopefully be a bountiful coho return 2004. ~ ./ Steve Vanek, Committee Secretary cc: Governor Frank Murkowski Lt. Governor Loren Leman Senator Tom Wagoner Senator Gary Stevens Rep. Mike Chenault Rep. Kelly Wolf Rep. Paul Seaton Diana Cote, BOF Ed Dersham Dr. Fred Bouse Art Nelson Russell Nelson Rupe Andrews John Jensen Mel Morris COOK INLET FISHERMAN'S FUND Non-profit Advocate for all Commercial Fishing Gear Types in Area H P.O. Box 39408 Ninilchik, AK 99639 phone/fax 907-260-5614 Feb. 17,2004 Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Honorable Mayor Bagley Honorable President Peter Sprague Honorable Assembly Members, My name is David Martin. I am representing the members of Cook Inlet Fisherman's Fund in presenting to you this economic analysis. I have been a commercial salmon fisherman in Cook Inlet for 32 years. For over 25 years I have also been directly involved in Cook Inlet Aquaculture, Fish and Game Advisory Committee, Board ofFish and Game meetings, Fishing organizations and many other fishing issues. Many members of Cook Inlet Fishennan's Fund have the same credentials if not more. Cook Inlet Fishennan's Fund was created in Ninilchik in 1975 by a number ofcommercial fishennen that began fishing in Cook Inlet long before Alaska became a state. The organization was created to act as a single entity that would speak for all fishing gear types and advocate for a coastal community. The organization is an active member of Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association who's projects promote fishery rehabilitation and enhancement for the benefit ofall salmon users. The organization also responds to all fisheries policy changes proposed by the Alaska Board ofFish or any Federal Board, Alaska Department ofFish and Game regulations or changes, habitat issues and all other matters pertaining to fisheries. There are over four hundred and forty members. The proposed litigation is about a person's rights under both the United States and State of Alaska Constitutions with regard to being justly compensated for a wrongful taking, including regulatory taking. Regulatory taking ofthe fisherman's right to use their permit and other property to fish and to make a living has been the major factor in destroying the viability of the salmon fishing industry in Cook Inlet. This has been allowed to happen for no justifiable reason. Let us make it perfectly clear that this cannot be labeled as allocation. Allocation is taking the harvest of salmon from one group and giving that harvest to other groups. These regulatory restrictions over the years have allowed millions of salmon to go unharvested by anyone. Total runs of some salmon species go almost completely unharvested. We all can remember when the whole length ofthe Kenai River and the town of Soldotna stunk from the millions ofrotting pink salmon carcasses in 2000 and 2002. This is not allocation. This is an intentional waste of the resource and the intentional lost monetary value that resource would have produced. Officers Board of Directors Support Staff Doug Blossom, President Dan Ducker Butch Leman Joe Malatesta, Sr., Consultant John McCombs, Vice Pres. Teague Vanek Tim Keener David Martin, Treasurer Steve Vanek Mark Ducker John McCombs, Editor Janet Clucas, Secretary Chris Garcia Fishing families have been destroyed. Kids can not find adequate employment in the fishing industry because there are substantially fewer fishing days, fewer processors and fewer fishennen fishing. Young adults who use to get their start by working in the fishing industry or making the investment to become a fishennan have had to move out ofthe area because the constant restrictions have made it an unstable business environment to invest in. These are the same young adults that have kids that used to keep our schools full. Now our schools are losing enrollment and losing state funding. In 198821% ofthe employment ofthe whole Kenai Peninsula was from the commercial fishing industry. Commercial fishing still remains a large employer on the Peninsula and the largest employer in the state. There are 1404 Cook Inlet salmon permit holders. This represents 1404 businesses. 81% ofthese permit holders are Alaska residents. The majority ofthese are also Borough residents. The Borough has lost millions ofdollars from these regulatory taking. These cumulative losses are from less raw fish taxes, fewer processors, less support businesses, less workers and less money into the local economy just to name a few. Since 1980 the total estimated gross earnings from x-vessel prices is $910,147,923. That is almost a billion dollars since 1980. The estimated total raw fish tax paid to the Borough since 1980 is $13,652,218. This does not include the economic roll over factor offive. This is an enonnous contribution to the citizens of the Kenai Peninsula and should be of the utmost importance and command full support. This litigation is not about making people wealthy. It is about making them whole. It is about the people gaining their right to use their permit to fish. It is about gaining their right to use their permit to make a living for their families. It is about gaining the right for our kids to be able to fish and make a living for their families. This is also what the Constitution guarantees. The Borough has helped people in certain areas on numerous occasions. The Borough has also helped businesses and industries in the interest ofcreating jobs. The Borough has given very little ofthe thirteen and a halfmillion dollars collected from the raw fish tax back to the commercial fishing industry. The industry is now in need of the Borough's help. All areas ofthe Borough will be positively effected by the Borough's support. The Borough has an obligation to protect its citizens and to represent them. It has an obligation to support our industries and jobs so that our kids will have some of the same opportunities that we have had. We are fortunate here on the Kenai Peninsula to have a renewable resource in salmon to provide jobs into the future. Let us not squander this resource or the jobs it will provide for future generations. In conclusion we would request that you take the time and read the entire green covered packet. This packet substantiates our request and is the first time there has been a compiling ofdata that analysis the economic and social impact from the regulatory taking. Enclosed with the packet are a substantial number ofsignatures from Kenai Peninsula residents who also support the Borough contributing to the regulatory taking litigation. We would also request the Borough adopt a resolution ofsupport for Representative Mike Chenault's House Bill 396. We have enclose a copy ofthe bill, the intent language and support documentation that clearly explains why the bill is being submitted and what it will do. Basically HB 396 clearly defmes the powers of the Department ofFish and Game and the powers ofthe Board of Fisheries. It puts into law the Alaska Constitution's direction for managing the salmon fisheries biologically for maximum sustained yield. There are no substantial changes to the way the Department manages the fisheries now in most parts of the State. Also enclosed along with the packet is a letter from the Central Peninsula Fish and Game Advisory Committee to Commissioner Kevin Duffy requesting that the coho weirs and data collection be continued this summer for providing information to be presented to the Board of Fisheries in January 2005 to hopefully relieve the coho restrictions that were unnecessarily implemented on all user groups in 2000. These coho restrictions substantiate a regulatory taking from all user groups. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Cook Inlet Fisherman's Fund SIGNATURE PAGE We the undersigned residents of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, tax payers and concerned citizens, hereby acknowledge that we agree with the Cook Inlet Fishermen's position regarding the unfair and unjust treatment they have been receiving from the State of Alaska. We the undersigned individuals encourage the Borough Assembly to assist the Commercial Fishermen with the proposed litigation. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER ./ Sx8ct i(q5t1~r Cf9/pllJ dhR-3233 pax 59 ~))lol 9ff/tJ 26'~-3~33 ~ S?~~ ~LJ\nQ~:bL9q(a{1~~, r~ ~ fI ' n':Lq~/c4 . ;)'8:l . -1? 0 f:> U- ?8 s { Ac>i C?h" .1 (B'== ,55 2 (4/~Wadh /C~ tbx fer /;of/lof, ,AI:: fY;fltJ 2';2-/277 7 - _ ?ic2 -5t-~ I~Li kI ),Clt'j) ( I~'\r''-\ (dC(fl~ "Ak tJq ~ (; 0/ l~ox 39 H?i StlJ r' ,.1£ 7f~m -"S""-\O.J-/x.:>....-.J..f-L'?-,,,,0,--'S.L---....J..S...L.f.:::....!cr-!.-I-'-L1 r7+(j-,AC-.l-~k-+-.. _fL-.L..7'oh----'?:.~2_L..2....::::C,:...=O=__ -{; '11 &( Be x \CJ \ L/ Sol c\ 0 ~ V\C'-I b lC (1 cr (v (p C{ r • ~(:7)( lltf )ck!v--)10 /J-/d Cf?C G C,] q,Dl f)c,/ 'L'-\ 'SL''ctD~ A:L C1~lJ(; ~ ~\S"'It"~Vf' s:"\60~ 1\\ I ~~(jG~ lG.l"'o))(il ( / 317.2c 6, ;"It""'¢ccl)( ~cick 1-1'}(-\ /-4-) yq.(c(cC( Zj,j 2-3/b \)(), 13 0 y- '-J L( <1 I.T 5 c- ( d 0 b-:~ It i<. q fiG bt7) ; ,5G! 7{',) ) :'..~crc.f(H~ (n ~ l:/ :)"~~1/~j y'?; ::'/ ''I 1 SIGNATURE PAGE We the undersigned residents of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, tax payers and concerned citizens, hereby acknowledge that we agree with the Cook Inlet Fishermen's position regarding the unfair and unjust treatment they have been receiving from the State of Alaska. We the undersigned individuals encourage the Borough Assembly to assist the Commercial Fishermen with the proposed litigation. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER f:otJ:2j'( J;20 7 du.YJ1£ <; q t:O .~ I i?t?/ 8~x /rJ..t4· M1rrl£l2 4917(-)3 ~~-82a :?" J 5' - {£ 6 '3 ~3!>-'" rg 7{ Z. SIGNATURE PAGE We the undersigned residents of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, tax payers and concerned citizens, hereby acknowledge that we agree with the Cook Inlet Fishermen's position regarding the unfair and unjust treatment they have been receiving from the State of Alaska. We the undersigned individuals encourage the Borough Assembly to assist the Commercial Fishermen with the proposed litigation. I .-.' '---" SIGNATURE PAGE We the undersigned residents of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, tax payers and concerned citizens, hereby acknowledge that we agree with the Cook Inlet Fishermen's position regarding the unfair and unjust treatment they have been receiving from the State of Alaska. We the undersigned individuals encourage the Borough Assembly to assist the Commercial Fishermen with the proposed litigation. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER 0< u<~ -s () 0, I /jl\>J\~V'-.. \l ~o DoX ll\.\ !.N['\~\C\A,\Vl 33 ~t~ Q Box oc\ J K~L\3l.1-l.:\loJO..L-----L...U.4------l-...l..!L...L..LO~_ ~~ \EQ. ~QQJ,\11\\1I~~11i1\:: Qglo2:lL SIGNATURE PAGE We the undersigned residents of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, tax payers and concerned citizens, hereby acknowledge that we agree with the Cook Inlet Fishermen's position regarding the unfair and unjust treatment they have been receiving from the State of Alaska. We the undersigned individuals encourage the Borough Assembly to assist the Commercial Fishermen with the proposed litigation. 13;( ! 0 3 /V',n ,'j <" 1, -k s: 0> 2- j f 70 13, J5'r)t,,{ O/2/h£J Aft 95d·, BC)X'3t J\)JQ;IDI;tl~.~.T AIL 114?39 5/c'7'ID/J, fp~ J31iJf /54 tV (rn 1t/1 ilo j 8& 91leo/! .- 5k7-.?II . -(fi y¥!.>-o ,:itI:d. ~/ IIwr-rd/ftl! lCrjf1/<~/ /£, 97(£0'0;3 )1}).1i) ~. (d-l'-. (fet 7t-1 t/lL ilK CZ reo J ;2 J 5-~32: ~ 3~6 2te1:ll CG, ~ '7.r 2b2 byq/ 2 (je'J?39 &/3 . eA,;.;L :4Je ,?Vb '39. J I 4 5b~/'" t/3?3 1 ....,,-~ SIGNATURE PAGE We the undersigned residents of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. tax payers and concerned citizens, hereby acknowledge that we agree with the Cook Inlet Fishermen's position regarding the unfair and unjust treatment they have been receiving from the State of Alaska. We the undersigned individuals encourage the Borough Assembly to assist the Commercial Fishermen with the proposed litigation. I ~""'rf--f-i'r'r-~~':]: !?tJt /2 f) I 1 SIGNATURE PAGE We the undersigned residents of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, tax payers and concerned citizens, hereby acknowledge that we agree with the Cook Inlet Fishermen's position regarding the unfair and unjust treatment they have been receiving from the State of Alaska. We the undersigned individuals encourage the Borough Assembly to assist the Commercial Fishermen with the proposed litigation. PHONE NUMBER 5b)-37~ J...., -.. ( }-1 ,I ,,1' ~ / / .,' '; i./ -,/:..-c_)_{-,---=:\_~,,~,_-·-,--)--",/{~::-.~/~~' / -.:...-l,_._v"i_/_·..::.C---,~,:....;/....:..,·...,..-_:.-.:....'_i'~:::..-_._._,_.:.....;.. '-----'-_·,....;.z/ /)1 J""L --.--'~ .,...... -. J iJ ' r~~:-. ~ ;~.<}-- J 1 ;' :r-"-!-/ j.!.. -12 . .;- /I/) " I (/ / ' od) 'J I , ) Lf/t/l Uj(/;..4 I( .,' () I!! ,1 / P9(/O 3> /L/IU//i7 r /r-' /tl) ," J.-.(.....Jt.• .,I,:.!/' I , . I '!..J ...,0.').\ /) l /., / '7" /. (/...J J " I iii/I/( LII (( ,'! i 1 SIGNATURE PAGE We the undersigned residents of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, tax payers and concerned citizens, hereby acknowledge that we agree with the Cook Inlet Fishermen's position regarding the unfair and unjust treatment they have been receiving from the State of Alaska. We the undersigned individuals encourage the Borough Assembly to assist the Commercial Fishermen with the proposed litigation. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER Lt)~· c: ~~ Bcr-t I' 7 IV~(V. qC;f?s 'j 5 Le '1- S ');/7ov-lc ~~G-v-... pD i3 Ox -Jejl{ ¥;, tJ II~ ILl. Ii 1;( 5U I - 3foCj ;/'/-I)i·~·1< ::s (} R- (' 4eS'5' lb· trIo, J ?fS-r ~c:> -3'1')3 fl,Tt~. /4 J9(,t9 ;V,.;(d,:!C ')~ f"{ _ 7 7(1 Y .1/ .~ I.~ ;,' !!.//!i!~/; 5b7~ 5~7j¢;SG 1 SIGNATURE PAGE We the undersigned residents of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, tax payers and concerned citizens, hereby acknowledge that we agree with the Cook Inlet Fishermen's position regarding the unfair and unjust treatment they have been receiving from the State of Alaska. We the undersigned individuals encourage the Borough Assembly to assist the Commercial Fishermen with the proposed litigation. PHONE NUMBER /1,-/ / 1 - . (- - r7II '/C (.,7'-0 <' '-.., ~ ~~:;l !?xx d,;},;},~l ~ le&bAK- /)W~ -w 13 ;!ft{';//'4~ ~ d;J;},"6\ ~[J,~J AlL ;)Lpd,-IJPJ3 . ;>'~>+i;j A~Q\f ]:5'0 x ?-ul.,.Ak. ~7611 (107l31tf-171Ji z~ t (I if c:: 'Ii,! ,58 J(-e/;??£/ 'iJr 2f? 3- C; 2. J ) ----f.-,.A".C:~~:f ~) ,:) "')0 (' 1""1 (-f"! /11~)(!"/ A~>:(-tl>I.·-1 \.. I vI! 1"...... -r in ,-1:, A· is "LLr( ..... ,', " .J / '-;;, "II'L ./ l ' /-7-'J:-+rL y' . {\J(,<. ,. /; J ~ 1\-;"1 l,.....!C /' I It /( ":;?~ ~ 1 SIGNATURE PAGE We the undersigned residents of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, tax payers and concerned citizens, hereby acknowledge that we agree with the Cook Inlet Fishermen's posi.tion regarding the unfair and unjust treatment they have been receiving from the State of Alaska. We the undersigned individuals encourage the Borough Assembly to assist the Commercial Fishermen with the proposed litigation. NAME ADDRESS PHO~~ J\lJMBER \00 ~C)C. 57; K ~ V ~; ~v'- 9 Y 6 f'/ ..2 _'6,];"- ~..31 <-- ~~qa=~...d....L.:~--.J~C:~ AKCJ?(oll _~)·32L J t&~~~ k¥~(U: ~ lCf:/t!z7 ~~ ~~?Jo// 2trl-$.e~~ r-~d ~ ,eqi/lf#-"7?6A? Z(P2-7%Z3 R:JI.tJf~ Wi/'$( 4<:. 9'''/0 42' 7~l-1 ~------._-- 1 SIGNATURE PAGE We the undersigned residents of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, tax payers and concerned citizens, hereby acknowledge that we agree with the Cook Inlet Fishermen's position regarding the unfair and unjust treatment they have been receiving from the State of Alaska. We the undersigned individuals encourage the Borough Assembly to assist the Commercial Fishermen with the proposed litigation. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER L;4-I') t:/WI";' ~ ... ?~, ,,Z..,~ 0"7:>-- c!-b, (;vhl 41 99~"21:;b2-17;'i 90. {jot; 31 XQ~ilo{ tJ.I~ qq6/Q c26"02-3J90 Geqr{ 7&J/ul( fo &~ t:> -' ~\)'~\Br 1 SIGNATURE PAGE, We the undersigned residents of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, tax payers and concerned citizens, hereby acknowledge that we agree with the Cook Inlet Fishermen's position regarding the unfair and unjust treatment they have been receiving from the State of Alaska. We the undersigned mdividuals encourage the Borough Assembly to assist the Commercial Fishermen with the proposed litigation. ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER 71/(}f )"t-t'f-/,'y 1&-;'/ [iAn. bhbt,~dkJ"t/~3?tft: P,Q ]30X'" "ftt tJ//CiS!C,· f a Ie We:. d..$ 77(, -;<1 7(P &/' 70( ~ { 1:(.1.1 mil - 233>-6(22~36 c:::q~~~~~~" P6. IJox 2£ I /(i,silolo;%lo (707)z6 z-.JgfoCj ()S i.5~<6 J07. t.51 ~33D~ . aS2 I 05 '70);1, ~~ f· D . e6'/ {'127 5CrB -081.(1 1 SIGNATURE PAGE We the undersigned residents of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, tax payers and concerned citizens, hereby acknowledge that we agree with the Cook Inlet Fishermen's position regarding the unfair and unjust treatment they have been receiving from the State of Alaska. We the undersigned individuals encourage the Borough Assembly to assist the Commercial Fishermen with the proposed litigation. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER 7" 21()5 mt/if IUriJ &:.<'~ /ltfffU/ 22t ePb 7.2 tf!'J;).3o fk.dv('ry\J M ke.rg) Ilk.. 99&11 77&r- 37'-1ft? -P 0 . QD j. Lj gr P-- 1V'f>t • PrfL 7 ] 6- S6 J7 t~ 5 Lv 6&' e,{L <;'J)QhvA tJk. t~)'-7f31 /) I r5 1 " C(JOK INLET FISHERMAN'S FUND . •. '. Non-pro/it Advocate fOI all C\lfl1mercial fishing Gear Types in Area H • P.O. Box 39408 Ninilchik. AI< 99639 phoneifilx 907-260-5614 January 14. 2004 Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Honorable Mayor Bagley Honorable President Peter Sprague Honorable Assembly Members. The Cook Inlet Fisherman's Fund was created in Ninilchik. Alaska in 1975 by a number of commercial fishermen that began fishing in Cook Inlet long before Alaska became a state. The organization was created to act as a single entity that would speak tor all fishing gear types and advocate for a coastal community. The organization is an active member ofCook Inlet Aquaculture Association who's projects promote fishery rehabilitation and enhancement for the benefit of all salmon users. The organization also responds to all fisheries policy changes proposed by the Alaska Board of Fish or any Federal Board. Alaska Department of Fish and Game regulations or changes. habitat issues and all other matters pertaining to fisheries. The non-profit corporation has a current membership ofover four hundred forty members. Membership also includes non-commercial fishermen. Three hundred twenty two fishermen have made contributions to the Just Compensation litigation. The proposed litigation. known as Just Compensation. is about a person's rights under both the United States and State ofAlaska Constitutions with regard to being justly compensated for a wrongful taking, including regulatory takings. Conunercial fishing families that own land adjacent to their set net fishing location or own State ofAlaska Leases have a specific interest in the use of the waters that are contiguous to their land. Drift Gillnet Fishers as well as Set Net Fishers also have a right to utilize their Limited Entry Permit to make a living at their chosen industry. The Limited Entry Permit has a bundle ofproperty rights attached and when the right to the use ofa person's property is taken and given to some other beneficial users or the public, just compensation is required as a matter oflaw. Some ofthose rights are including, but not limited to. property for taxation purposes, property for inheritance, property for child support attachment. property with regard to divorce settlements and specific property for the use ofmaking one's living. (1) Ollicer1i .Board of Directors Support Staff Doug Blossoill. President Dan Ducker Butch Leman Joe Malatesta. Sr.. Consultant John McComb~. Vice Pres. Teague Vanek Tim Keener David Martin. 1 rcasurer Steve Vanek Mark Ducker John McCombs. Editor Janet Clucas. Secretary Chris Garcia The Commercial fishing industry within the Kenai Peninsula Borough's boundaries has been treated unfairly for many years and the family incomes have dwindled to almost nothing. The loses offamily incomes have trickled down to a point that the Kenai Peninsula Borough has lost millions oftax dollars. In this time ofcash shortfalls for both the State and Borough, no Assembly member should tum their heads when it comes to actual lost tax revenue for the Borough. It is the fiduciary obligation ofthe Borough to its citizens to attack this problem head on. As the Borough's Assembly, you should not just stand by and do nothing about this unjust treatment. The local aquaculture tax base is another prime example ofhow much tax base has been taken away from long time local families. The collected tax is at the lowest levels in history due to the fishing families being denied their rights to fish when the resource is healthy and strong. The enclosed information, data and charts were compiled from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, Kenai Peninsula Borough's Economic Analyst, Jeanne Camp and local commercial fishermen. This information shall explain in detail how the Kenai Peninsula Borough has lost millions oftax dollars due to this unjust an unfair treatment to a large group oftax paying residents. The attached signatures verifies the importance and support for the proposed litigation. With this in mind it is within the Borough's best interest to assist the fishermen with this litigation. We need $500,000 to initiate a lawsuit because we may have to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. We have been assured that we need enough money to go that far if it becomes necessary. The U.S. Constitution as well as the Alaska Constitution guarantees just compensation for.a government taking. The Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund has, in these hard times, been able to collect from fmancially strapped fishermen in Cook Inlet $335,000. We need $165,000 more. (2) Support Documents (3) The conunercial fishing industry has a renewable conunodity. The industry employees more people statewide and in the Borough than any other industry. In 198821 % ofthe employment ofthe whole Kenai Peninsula was from the commercial fishing industry. Peninsula fishing jobs have dramatically decreased but they are still substantial today. Fishing industry jobs have created great opportunities for employment ofour youth. Last season is a classic example ofhow the Cook Inlet fishery is managed unfairly and differently from other areas ofthe State. All biological escapement goals for sockeye salmon in all streams were exceeded by several hundred thousand fish. Additionally, there were no conservation concerns for any salmon stocks in Upper Cook Inlet. All the personal use, sport and guided harvesters operated without emergency order restrictions. There were numerous liberalization's ofbag and possession limits and additional harvesting hours given to these groups.. The Conunissioner of Fish & Game and the Directors ofSport and Conunercial Fisheries overrode the local biologist by not allowing emergency order authority to manage for the conunercial harvest ofthe abundant sockeye salmon stocks. These surplus sockeye were in addition to the number of sockeye needed for the biological escapement goal. They were not harvested in river. They were just plain wasted. Wasted salmon is not allocation it is strictly a financial loss to all parties. This particular loss amounted to $8,453,358.30 to the local economy. The direct Borough Fish Tax (1.5%) was $46,492. 87. (See Table 1.) This table only represents the lost harvest and lost economic benefits from sockeye in 2003 and does not show the losses from the other salmon species. In 2003 there were 1404 Cook Inlet salmon permit holders. This represents 1404 businesses. The majority of the permit holders are Alaska and Borough residents. Categorizing this number into gear groups there were 84 seine permit holders of which 90% are Alaska residents and only 27 fished in 2003. There were 574 drift permit holders ofwhich 70% are Alaska residents and only 410 fished in 2003. There were 746 setnet permit holders ofwhich 83% are Alaska residents and only 475 fished in 2003. Table #2 shows the number of permit holders and the number ofpermit holders that actually fished each year since 1980. It also shows the pounds caught and the estimated gross earnings. There has been a dramatic decline the last five years. Table #3 shows the number of Alaska "resident" permit holders and active permit holders, their pounds landed and estimated gross earnings. Table #4 shows the Kenai River surplus sockeye salmon escapement and potential lost revenue to conunercial fishermen. It does not show the losses from other salmon species. Table #5 shows the KasilofRiver surplus sockeye salmon escapement and potential lost revenue to conunercial fishermen. It doesn't show losses from other salmon species. (4) Table #6 shows the potential lost commercial fishing revenue from sockeye salmon surplus escapement into the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. It does not show the losses from other salmon species. Table #7 shows the decline in salmon enhancement tax to Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association and a comparison between the four Regional Aquaculture Associations. Table #8 shows the decline ofBorough employment in fish processing jobs. Table #9 shows the decline in Cook Inlet jobs by crew members and permit holders. Table #10 shows the average number of salmon that can be considered lost after 1995 when the Board ofFisheries closed commercial fishing after August 9th. The following represents a few but by no means all ofthe vast number of other losses that are the result ofBoard ofFish restrictions. These loss are more difficult to quantify but are never-the-less substantial losses to the people and the economy ofthe Borough. a. In 2000 Fisheries biologist predicted the enormous pink salmon return to Upper Cook Inlet was between 20 and 40 million. Board of Fish regulations prevents the commercial harvest ofthese pinks. Processors were willing to pay $.17 per pound. Soldotna stunk from piles of wasted rotting pink salmon carcasses. b. In 2002 Fisheries biologist predicted that another enormous pink salmon return to Upper Cook Inlet was between 10 and 20 million. Again Board ofFish regulations prevented the commercial harvest ofthese pinks. Once again Soldotna stunk from the piles ofrotting pink salmon carcasses. c. In 2000 there was a record return of coho salmon. The returns have continued to be good. Again Board ofFish restrictions prevented.all user groups from harvesting the surplus. d. Scientific data shows that over escapement produces smaller future returns. e. The younger generation is not able to work or invest in Cook Inlet's unstable salmon fishery. They move on and the Borough losses these young workers who are also ofthe child bearing age that used to keep our schools full. f. Many processors have left the Inlet or have not expanded because ofBoard of Fish regulations that have created an unstable business environment and substantially reduced the harvest. A big tax base has been lost along with the Inlet's daily processing capacity g. Cash buyers no longer come to Cook Inlet offering a higher price. Less competition. Less processing capacity. h. Many commercial fishing support industries have closed up and left. i. HEA's lost substantial energy consumption because of less processors. J. Substantial loss in purchases of groceries, insurance, vehicles, parts, supplies, etc. k. Value on loss from volunteer services from commercial fishers during off-season as they seek off-season employment. 1. Less gross earnings. Less purchasing power. (5) Cook Inlet is the only area in the State that is intentionally managed to allow the surplus and even entire runs to go unharvested by any user group. This is not allocation! It is a blatant waste ofour resource that negatively effects everyone even the resource itself. Other areas ofthe State are allowed more fishing time on increasing surpluses of salmon. Cook Inlet fishermen get less time and are more restricted the larger the surplus. This is not biological management for maximum sustained yield that is required by the State's Constitution. This is political management which produces less harvest and less yield. Less yield results in future restrictions on all users. Unharvested surplus salmon is not allocation. It is strictly a biological and economic waste ofa high protein food. Table #2 shows that the total estimated gross earnings from x-vessel prices since 1980 is $910,147,923. The estimated total raw fish (1.5%) tax paid to the Borough since 1980 is $13,652,218. This does not include the economic roll over factor offive. There have been many businesses the Borough has helped out by means oftax relief, land, grants etc. in order to support jobs and the economy. The Borough has given little of the thirteen and a halfmillion raw fish tax dollars back to the commercial fishing industry. The Borough has also done little to stop the Board ofFish from implementing regulations that have and continue to devastate the commercial fishing industry. The industry is in desperate need ofthe Borough's help. The relatively small investment to the industry now will greatly benefit the citizens ofthe Borough in the present and the future. The following is a briefchronology ofcommercial fishing regulations: Prior to 1951, commercial fishing was open five days a week and closed for forty eight hours. In 1951, fishing was open three and a half days per week, the periods were twenty four hours. Between 1952 and 1956, two twenty four hour openings were on Tuesday and Friday. From 1957 to 1960, openings varied up to five twenty four hour openings per week. From 1961 to 1968, there were two twenty four hour openings on Monday and Thursday. In 1969, three twelve hour periods occurred on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, until mid-July and then there were three sixteen hour periods on the same days after mid-July. From 1971 to 1999, openings were on Mondays and Fridays for twelve hours. In 1978, the Cook Inlet Management Plan was implemented. This plan recognized a commercial priority for the fishery during an eight week period each summer. In 1981, the five mile east-side corridor was created in order to harvest a large Kasilofretum. In 1982, the corridor was reduced to an area east ofa line from the East Forelands in the north to Cape Ninilchik at the south. A line was also drawn from Cape Kasilof to Light Point on Kalgin Island, In 1983, a line was drawn from the Clam Gulch Tower west to the southern tip ofKalgin Island. Drifting was allowed south ofthis line. In 1986, a three mile corridor was created and was used in conjunction with the newly created Blanchard Line, just north ofthe Kasilof River. In 1987 the Glacier Bay oil spill caused oil-related area restrictions. In 1996, the drift fishery was closed on August ninth. A cOlTidor (6) restriction on or around July 25, was codified. In the set net fishery openings are staggered from south to north and tied to biological triggers. In 1999, the board offish removed the commercial priority and replaced it with many allocation step down plans. In 2002, the set net fishery is further restricted with "windows", a concept that creates mandatory closures. With a forecast ofa two million sockeyes only twenty four hours of additional fishing time are allowed each week. On a two to four million return, a mandatory forty eight hour closure and only thirty six additional hours allowed, and on returns over four million the fishery must be closed for thirty six hours and emergency openings cannot exceed sixty hours. While these restrictions can seem very confusing to those unfamiliar with the fishery, apparent are the dramatic reductions in both time and area. For drift fishermen restricted to the "corridor" this would be analogous to in-river fishermen being confmed to just a one quarter ofa mile stretch ofthe Kenai River. With no flexibility in these management plans it is impossible to manage not only for sockeyes, but other species of salmon as well: for example pinks, chums and cohos. One processor who recently shutdown declared "we can no longer afford to do business in such a hostile regulatory enviromnent." With mandatory closures fishermen are forced to sit on the beach while returning fish make the charge for the river. The drift fishery is often open in areas where few fish are present. Current regulations have caused millions offish to be wasted and have cost the state, cities, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough millions ofdollars in lost revenues. These regulations can be changed and so could the future. This is consistent with the Borough's investment in the future with quality programs like salmon branding and the "Kenai Wild" program. Together we can change this for the better. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Cook Inlet Fisherman's Fund, Inc. (7) ,Table 1. Escapement Goals and Actual Escapements in Upper Cook Inlet Surplus Sockeye Escapement In-RiverIBEG Escapement* Crescent 122,909 25-50,000 85,409 Fish Creek 88,420 20-70,000 43,420 Kasilof 359,778 150-250,000 159,778 Kenai 1,181,759 750-950,000 331,759 Yentna 181,404 90-160,000 43,596 Susitna 181,404 43,596 Minor Systems 87,192 Total 794,750 4,768,500 lbs @ .65** Value $3,099,525.00 (Drift 56% ofharvest) $1,735,734.00 (Set net 44% ofharvest) $1,363,791 C1AA2%tax $ 61,990.50 BorouJili Fish Tax 1.5% $ 46,492.87 Processors 4,512,000 Ibs @ $1.10 $5,245,350.00 Total $8..453..358.30 * The mid-point ofthe in-river/BEG was used since the 2003 sockeye return was in the mid range of historic returns. ** 794,750 @ 6.0 lb. average equals 4,768,500 Ibs. of sockeyes that were wasted and not harvested as directed by the Board of Fisheries. This table only represents the lost harvest and lost economic benefits from sockeye in 2003 and does not show the losses from tbe other salmon species. Table #2 From: Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission CFEC Number Number Number of Number Total Estimated Salmon Fishery of Permit of Pennits Fishermen of Permits Pounds Gross Year Group Holders Issued Who Fished Fished Landed Earnings 1980 Seine 84 84 72 71 3.554.676 1.434.609 1980 Drift 597 597 563 553 11.206.278 6.894.765 1980 Setnet 747 747 596 593 9.403.926 6.175.824 1981 Seine 85 85 82 82 15.003.161 6.882.516 1981 Drift 598 598 594 584 11.754.272 10.227.361 1981 Setnet 747 747 602 600 8.458.968 8.835.161 1982 Seine 84 84 63 63 4.370.692 1.784.216 1982 Drift 590 591 591 577 30.315.342 24.514.672 1982 Setnet 748 748 603 602 14.133.076 12.203.219 1983 Seine 83 83 71 71 5.226.395 1.720.680 1983 Drift 587 587 590 581 31.414.787 19.609.390 1983 Setnet 745 745 631 627 14.442.928 10.161.888 1984 Seine 81 81 57 54 4.317.324 1.847.067 1984 Drift 588 588 590 578 14.574.301 10.381.577 1984 Setnet 744 744 622 620 9.292.264 6.962.581 1985 Seine 81 81 52 51 5.661.689 2.298.087 1985 Drift 591 591 594 584 20.091.293 18.974.711 1985 Setnet 745 745 625 625 14.764.101 16.870.880 "'I) 1986 Seine 83 .83 61 61 6.429.603 2.196.680 1986 Drift 588 588 592 584 30.140.018 29.957.099 U 1986 Setnet 743 743 655 645 16.892.412 18.259.195 {~ 1987 Seine 83 83 68 67 3.102.565 2.591.820 1987 Drift 586 586 595 585 41.806.312 61.784.789 ~\\~~ 1987 Setnet 743 743 657 650 29.030.515 41.946.286 1988 Seine 83 83 71 72 7.214.531 8.437.869 1988 Drift 585 585 589 584 35.218.949 78.124.815 1988 Setnet 743 743 659 655 22.330.850 49.936.893 1989 Seine 83 83 65 64 4.566.177 2.539.823 1989 Drift 585 585 Exxon Oil Spill Drifters Did Not Fishl 1989 Setnet 743 743 666 658 37.232.262 59.943.096 1990 Seine 83 83 72 71 1.775.490 1.444.426 1990 Drift 585 585 588 582 19.874.014 28.384.895 1990 Setnet 743 743 671 662 11.550.650 16.129.521 1991 Seine 83 83 69 68 3.286.704 1.360.809 1991 Drift 584 584 586 578 9.215.538 8.099.133 1991 Setnet 745 745 656 648 7.986.161 7.361.565 1992 Seine 83 83 61 61 1.458.139 1.107.528 1992 Drift 582 583 587 580 45.304.809 66.362.059 Table #2 From: Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission ~ - CFEC Number Number Number of Number Total Estimated Salmon Fishery of Pennit of Pennits Fishennen of Permits Pounds Gross Year Group Holders Issued Who Fished Fished Landed Earnings 1992 Setnet 745 745 661 654 22.876.698 33.100.968 1993 Seine 84 84 51 51 2.109.936 842.496 1993 Drift 583 583 593 580 16.815.486 16.537.133 1993 Setnet 745 745 645 641 14.671.119 14.317.093 1994 Seine 84 84 30 30 2.506.111 768.851 1994 Drift 582 582 578 569 16.289.701 18.766.136 1994 Setnet 745 745 624 617 13.162.797 15.272.678 1995 Seine 84 84 48 46 5.875.726 1.982.432 1995 Drift 582 582 588 577 15.485.598 13.912.083 1995 Setnet 745 745 628 625 9.131.234 8.936.995 1996 Seine 85 85 34 34 1.798.149 1.740.062 1996 Drift 582 582 564 560 16.874.926 17.736.374 1996 Setnet 744 745 609 604 12.716.723 13.570.507 1997 Seine 85 85 23 23 1.619.433 768.043 1997 Drift 581 581 580 572 16.021.059 17.448.194 1997 Setnet 745 745 606 603 14.316.576 15.637.913 1998 Seine 83 83 39 39 2.851.252 1.069.729 Nf 1998 Drift 579 579 531 528 5.406.367 4.296.966 "n-I 1998 Setnet 745 745 560 559 5.670.497 4.351.636 1999 Seine 83 83 43 43 2.272.370 1.912.728 ~\ .~ 1999 Drift 575 575 493 487 10.395.737 12.134.809 1999 Setnet 745 745 557 556 7.809.505 9.993.704 ~( 2000 Seine 83 83 36 36 2.384.579 1.029.272 2000 Drift 576 576 516 513 6.414.163 4.438.593 2000 Setnet 745 745 534 533 5.490.871 4.319.800 2001 Seine 83 83 25 25 1.896.155 721.111 2001 Drift 574 ·574 470 467 6.256.289 3.711.269 2001 Setnet 744 744 506 505 6.608.371 4.081.429 2002 Seine 82 82 26 25 4.800.042 715.976 2002 Drift 568 572 412 409 12.635.440 5.673.064 2002 Setnet 743 743 497 496 10.987.787 6.572.375 Tota! Estimated Gross Earnings X-vessel Since 1980 $ 910.147.923 Total 1.5 Percent Borough Raw Fish Tax Paid Since 1980 $ 13.652.218 ~t· ja. (e =7+3 S 01 H - Salmon, Purse Seine, Cook Inlet S 03 H - Salmon, Drift Gill Net, Cook Inlet S 04 H - Salmon, Set Gill Net, Cook Inlet 1 Number of Number Number of Number Nwnberof Number of Number of Number Number of Number Number of Number I Total Pounds Estimated Gr"", TotalPmmds Estimated Gross Total P01mds Permit of Permits Fish 1981 76 76 72 72 12,943,172 $5,952,152 324 324 322 315 6,410,669 $5,600,069 374 374 302 300 4,277,401 $·1,57 ! l(l.~ 1982 77 77 57 57 3,746,003 $1,512,310 319 319 329 320 16,911,241 $13,658,607 385 385 326 325 8,643,223 --~7,S08.230 1983 78 78 ; 66 4,718,262 $1,557,483 324 324 330 322 17,836,788 $11,142,288 373 373 323 320 8,758,866 -$6255,X7tt' 1984 74 74 53 51 X X 332 332 337 327 8,846,348 $6,283,538 364 364 314 314 4,839,082 _$3 ;liM;.S 131 I 1985 74 74 48 47 5,390,345 $2,171,850 333 333 346 340 11,947,370 $11,302,414 372 372 315 315 8,442,252 $9.8~7,8{'3~ 1986 77 77 58 58 X X 328 328 340 335 17,847,348 $17,745,077 380 380 340 338 10,094,188 :l:~11 _r" )i'>, -'('d.• 1. 1987 7 76 62 62 2,814,115 $2,338,894 334 334 348 341 24,712,917 $36,363,912 386 386 349 348 18,428,000 i -i-''''"17 ,d~_"'iX ( ....){lOI ---~ -' I J 1988 78 78 67 68 X X 334 334 346 342 21,079,795 $46,378,006 397 397 348 346 13,845,052 :.'1.1,751,33 II -~-1 1989 X X X X 23,726,623 1 78 78 62 61 332 332 7 7 398 398 363 359 .39,144.')]5, i 1990 76 76 65 65 1,648,724 $1,304,461 330 330 331 328 11,631,091 $16,340,356 397 397 374 372 6,678,149 -_._.$9MI.5De 1991 76 76 64 63 3,114,062 $1,245,786 336 336 339 335 5,876,848 $5,062,396 399 399 357 353 4,378,429 li4,225952 - 1992 76 76 56 56 X X 326 326 335 332 26,672,250 $38,918,702 394 394 353 350 14,200,908 ~2(),841,C)5('; , 1993 74 74 45 45 X X 321 321 330 322 9,577,895 $9,384,405 391 391 345 344 8,189,986 $R, 113,n i : ..---j j 1994 74 74 28 28 X X 316 316 318 316 9,486,126 $10,759,764 386 386 321 318 7,034,178 :b8"HI,530 -- 1995 73 73 43 41 X X 314 314 321 314 8,962,347 $7,978,391 387 387 323 322 4,778,539 .J3,H49,05'1 1996 71 71 28 28 1,378,981 $1,334,362 314 314 311 309 9,660,676 $10,143,087 387 387 320 317 7,503,404 ~l:,i 61.66I 1997 69 69 20 20 X X 318 318 327 321 9,298,021 $10,079,138 401 401 329 327 8,720,357 $9,5J9.9,:H 1998 69 69 33 33 2,222,680 $858,345 327 327 310 308 3,389,895 $2,644,415 406 406 303 302 3,462,538 ~~0~ 1999 67 67 35 35 1,883,667 $1,627,550 321 321 296 290 6,507,218 $7,586,893 410 410 310 309 4,647,685 ~5,985,,-)6'1 ! 2000 65 65 24 24 1,511,489 $615,605 322 322 298 295 3,815,175 $2,608,236 414 414 297 296 3,112,088 R·m.Wl' 2001 65 65 17 17 X X 323 323 282 280 3,709,498 $2,170,979 410 410 278 278 4,041,725 :b2~529.I-H" 2002 66 66 19 19 X X 320 321 249 246 8,098,402 $3,564,402 411 411 290 289 7,096,044 ;,Uii{l,l S;" 2003 i 2004 . - Fishing Industry Impact,Permit Activity Page 2 1/23/2004, 11 :32 AM Ta~/e #J 7""" r J -?l I 4i:? ! e .."... $l Kenai River surplus sockeye salmon escapement and potential lost revenue to commercial fishermen Spawning BEG Surplus Esc Avg. Avg. Lost Revenue Year Escapement Mid-Pt Upper Mid-Pt Upper Wt. Price/lb Mid-Pt Upper 1990 440,600 495,000 630,000 -54,400 -189,400 6.41 $ 1.55 1991 378,208 495,000 630,000 -116,792 -251,792 5.63 $ 1.00 1992 753,467 495,000 630,000 258,467 123,467 6.59 $ 1.60 $ 2,725,276 $ 1,301,836 1993 670,841 495,000 630,000 175,841 40,841 5.88 $ 1.00 $ 1,033,945 $ 240,145 1994 895,798 495,000 630,000 400,798 265,798 5.69 $ 1.45 $ 3,306,784 $ 2,192,966 1995 517,573 495,000 630,000 22,573 -112,427 5.65 $ 1.15 $ 146,668 1996 585,234 495,000 630,000 90,234 -44,766 6.31 $ 1.15 $ 654,783 1997 878,185 495,000 630,000 383,185 248,185 6.55 $ 1.15 $ 2,886,341 $ 1,869,454 1998 559,921 495,000 630,000 64,921 -70,079 5.48 $ 1.15 $ 409,132 1999 582,123 650,000 800,000 -67,877 -217,877 5.77 $ 1.30 2000 393,276 650,000 800,000 -256,724 -406,724 6.33 $ 0.85 2001 457,927 650,000 800,000 -192,073 -342,073 6.01 $ 0.65 2002 728,535 650,000 800,000 78,535 -71,465 6.42 $ 0.60 $ 302,517 2003 966,005 650,000 800,000 316,005 166,005 6.06 $ 0.60 $ 1,148,058 $ 603,102 Notes: BEG from 1990 to 1998 was 360,000 to 630,000 BEG from 1999 to 2003 was 500,000 to 800,000 r~ \~ ~ 1:./ I~ =# I;" I~P'-=- ".- Kasilof River surplus sockeye salmon escapement and potential lost revenue to commercial fishermen Spawning BEG Surplus Esc Avg. Avg. Lost Revenue Year Escapement Mid-Pt Upper Mid-Pt Upper Wt. Pricellb Mid-Pt Upper 1990 137,060 200,000 250,000 ·62,940 -112,940 6.41 $ 1.55 1991 228,114 200,000 250,000 28,114 -21,886 5.63 $ 1.00 $ 158,282 1992 176,753 200,000 250,000 -23,247 -73,247 6.59 $ 1.60 1993 140,265 200,000 250,000 -59,735 -109,735 5.88 $ 1.00 1994 190,674 200,000 250,000 -9,326 -59,326 5.69 $ 1.45 1995 191,208 200,000 250,000 -8,792 -58,792 5.65 $ 1.15 1996 237,647 200,000 250,000 37,647 -12,353 6.31 $ 1.15 $ 273,185 1997 256,704 200,000 250,000 56,704 6,704 6.55 $ 1.15 $ 427,123 $ 50,498 1998 262,400 200,000 250,000 62,400 12,400 S.48 $ 1.15 $ 393,245 $ 78,145 1999 301,509 200,000 250,000 101,509 51,509 5.77 $ 1.30 $ 760,959 $ 386,136 2000 245,937 200,000 250,000 45,937 -4,063 6.33 $ 0.85 $ 247,164 2001 297,344 200,000 250,000 97,344 47,344 6.01 $ 0.65 $ 380,230 $ 184,928 2002 215,790 200,000 250,000 15,790 -34,210 6.42 $ 0.60 $ 60,823 2003 347,782 200,000 250,000 147,782 97,782 6.06 $ 0.60 $ 536,898 $ 355,246 Notes: BEGfium 1990 to 2003 was 150,000 to 250,000 i, ~·" l \~ Irt- 1\ i :\tj ~t/~ :fit Potential lost commercial fishing revenue from sockeye salmon surplus escapement into the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers BEG Year Mid-Pt Upper 1990 $ - $ - 1991 $ 158,282 $ - 1992 $ 2,725,276 $ 1,301,836 1993 $ 1,033,945 $ 240,145 1994 $ 3,306,784 $ 2,192,966 1995 $ 146,668 $ - 1996 $ 927,968 $ - 1997 $ 3,313,464 $ 1,919,951 1998 $ 802,377 $ 78,145 1999 $ 760,959 $ 386,136 2000 $ 247,164 $ - 2001 $ 380,230 $ 184,928 2002 $ 363,340 $ - 2003 $ 1,684,956 $ 958,348 ~ ~. ~ Table -# 7 Table X. Enhancement Tax Comparisons Between Four Regional Aquaculture Associations elAA PWSAC NSRAA SSRAA FY Tax 5-year Avg. Tax 5-year Avg. Tax 5-year Avg. Tax 5-year Avg. 1980 1981 $437,000 $500,000 $691,000 1982 $347,543 $725,948 $937,181 1983 $704,186 $902,273 $1,077,222 1984 $765,524 $471,363 $1,105,142 1985 $367,300 $524,311 $650,000 $649,917 $1,080,000 $978,109 1986 $521,923 $541,295 $450,000 $897,536 $729.424 $1,317,097 $1,103,328 1987 $801,480 $632,083 $853,542 $188,151 $621,865 $1,831,127 $1,282,118 1988 $907,275 $672,700 $841,156 $703,087 $582,027 $1,964,182 $1,459,510 1989 $2,726,890 $1,064,974 $1,181,346 $1,246,105 $736,976 $1,277,059 $1,493,893 1990 $3,057,189 $1,602,951 $1,647,020 $994,613 $1,567,096 $920,395 $1,917,014 $1,661,296 1991 $1,433,105 $1,785,188 $1,080,917 $1,120,796 $1,164,430 $973,774 $2,685,329 $1,934,942 1992 $971,466 $1,819,185 $1,455,748 $1,241,237 $1,368,735 $1,209,891 $1,946,597 $1,958,036 1993 $ $1,637,730 $478,089 $1,168,624 $920,453 $1,253,364 $1,225,246 $1,810,249 1994 $2,671,268 $1,626,606 $538,234 $1,040,002 $1,235,837 $1,251,310 $1,544,521 $1,863,741 1995 $633,053 $1,141,778 $335,740 $777,746 $1,092,056 $1,156,302 $1,712,430 $1,822,825 1996 $715,707 $998,299 $685,615 $698,685 $1,901,789 $1,303,774 $1,401,276 $1,566,014 1997 $528,418 $909,689 $564,218 $520,379 $1,319,722 $1,293,971 $1,623,310 $1,501,357 1998 $639,715 $1,037,632 $611,444 $547,050 $879,823 $1,285,845 $1,145,554 $1,485,418 1999 $680,278 $639,434 $770,432 $593,490 $824,680 $1,203,614 $1,222,279 $1,420,970 2000 $192,701 $551,364 $657,605 $657,863 $1,001,618 $1,185,526 $1,177,207 $1,313,925 2001 $469,005 $502,023 $915,639 $703,868 $1,552,803 $1,115,729 $1,086,632 $1,250,996 2002 $244,555 $445,251 $784,135 $747,851 $1,235,609 $1,098,907 $665,216 $1,059,378 Decline from highest 5-year to recent low 5-year average 24.50% 56.70% 84.30% 54.10% tax Source: Fisheries Enhancement Revolving LOan Fund Program Overview. Fourth Edition. February 2003. Alaska Division of Investments, Department of Community and Econmic Development !, ~J i~ .. ~ \i ,.~, ,. , .----'14 1, Ie 11 8": Employment Food and Kindred Products Annual Monthly Average Employment Annual Averal[e Monthly Eamiul[s 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1,284 SI,857 1992 1,136 SI,800 1993 1,024 SI,796 1994 989 SI,954 1995 967 SI,989 1996 1,097 SI,761 1997 1,076 SI,434 1998 808 SI.544 1999 642 SI,864 20G0 660 SI,695 2001 474 SI,941 2002 2003 Fishing Industry tmpact,Employment Page 1 1/23/2004, 11 :32 AM CrewMembers Crew Permit Member Holders Licenses 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1991 1998 1999 1,535 2,017 2000 1,554 1,900 2001 1,542 NA 2002 1,411 1,246 2003 Fishing Industry Impact,Crew Page 4 1/23/2004, 11 :32 AM AVERAGE CATCHES AFTER AUGUST 9 CHINOOK SOCKEYE COHO AREA Min Max Ave Min Max Ave Min Max Ave DRIFT 1 74 15 617 12,675 5,806 2,604 32,703 20,087 NORTHERN 4 29 15 1,964 8,008 4,409 10,085 54,948 32,932 UPPER 25 457 191 2,390 30,051 16,011 3,033 15,741 9,967 KUSTATAN 0 9 2 43 1,190 419 790 5,183 2,127 KALGIN 1 17 ~ 2,669 31,174 10,598 4,002 12,802 8,241 WESTERN 0 12 3 959 3,960 2,154 5,908 15,318 11,684 CHINITNA 0 2 1 26 391 173 1,999 6,616 3,297 TOTAL 232 39,570 88,335 PINK (EVEN YEARS) CHUM lAREA Min Max Ave Min Max Ave DRIFT 3,884 99,291 34,468 370 20,486 10,466 NORTHERN 604 4,860 2,192 2,066 10,316 7,052 UPPER 20,710 160,505 72,083 70 674 309 KUSTATAN 22 343 137 25 252 115 KALGIN 485 3,620 1,833 100 2,046 670 WESTERN 136 1,592 601 1,178 7,229 2,594 CHINITNA 22 93 54 1n 14,243 5,650 TOTAL 111,368 26,856 Based on a 10 year average (1986-1995) except drift based on 1985·1995 less 1989. 58