, h Ordillance 200}·1 0: /\ulhorlzing n I ,ong-I'elill 1.,lIld I jsc l'enlllllVlth the floys ,1"'\ Girls C1uh amll'lead Slnrl Prngr,ul1 in Seldovia (M"yor) \SIHlIlencd Ik"rtng ,111 OSlO I/O I) IRckrred 111 LlIlds ('Ollllllllte,,) 2~(1
§~ ld' li ~~ j~~ ,~~~,... "'. ~ ? 2 s ~ § i5 ~ ~ 9 ~ :? g
~~i B§ §()rJinnne" 200 I·OX: AlilborizlI\g the Negoliated Snle or Land Il)J' (ir:lvcl to dI t; ~ e ~Ci~ ",;:) ;;a ::::.J :: ~e~ ::::Ci-;CO "- , - ~?, ~ Pruvide d Gr,lvd Resource It)r lh~ North Road 1~:-\lcJ1.,iull [)rojed (13ro\VI1) CO ::: en :; H~jIR"lerr"d III I"lIllls Cumnlilt"c) (Second Hearing on 05/15/0 I) 1 en.:;:- ~~3~!H Hh HH Hh lH~~:; -: ..;~1~'1 itll~ -= -§'~!J i ;:iI~S ()n(lll(lIll.:e~()(JI ~()l): ,,\ulllOJ lZlllg the [(emil Peninsula 13nl"uugh lo !::.'\~(uk <5 0-0 .:: C 0 :::Ii~~ ~ .~ rlix ~ 'f: Hil L,;"O~V' HH ~ ~ ~ ~ ]~J j l,1Ild IJcliv~r .][1 [quiplllcl1l L~a.'ie ()urchase i\gn:elllenl ill ~ln Aggregate :::;l:;:C-:,.r u=:: ~U"
"rillclp,1! Amllllni NIII I'" Fx"eeel $\ ,-lOO,OOn 10 Pay the Cost ul .'\cquil'lng lI11IIIl'lal[illg Il'T Se'"11l~r lilr Ihe l'clllrall'cnIl\SlIl,1 (;,,"erall [()spilal: and ~ ai i ~
~ Z I rrll\"iLlliig r()1 RcL·IL~d ivldllc['S lNi<lynrJ II-iei.lI'Jllg UI1 0510\1(1) (Rel~rred 10
,J. MAYOR'S I{EI'ORT ,13 Resolulion 2001-042: Authorizing the TranslCr uf Surplus Projcct Ordinancc 7()OO-19-24 Appropriating $24,000 in Supplemental Funding Funds to Inere<lse Funding lor Nllrlh l'eniLlsula Recreation Service I'rnm the Nikiski Senior Service Area f'und l3al1nee tu the Nikiski Senior
Agrccments and Contracts Area Ra'luetball/Wallyblll1 Additiun (Mayor) (I~clerrccl to FinanceService Area Operating Budget (Mayor) (Referred to I-'inance Committee) 71 Committee) 220
Approval 01' Lobbying Agrcement between KPB and Mark I·riggins a 2. Ordinance 2000-19-25, Providing a Supplemental Apprupriation 01' $2,000 ·"d,1<J1 I,ubbying Serviccs dming the lirst legislative scssion 01" the Resolution 2001-043: Authorizing the Transler 01' Surplus PrOleellor the Transpurtatiun ufSix Individuals from Remute 130rough Locations to I'wcnty-Second Alaska Legislature 15 Funds to Increase Funding lor the Purchase 01'<1 Pickup Truck lor theAttend a Schooll3oard and A~~embly Mecting (Martin, Brown) (Rekrrccl to
Nikiski Fire Scrviee Area (Mayor) (Referred to Financc Commillee) Finance COlllmittee) , ,73 b. Appruval 01' Prulessional Serviccs Agreement belwccn KPB and 222
Alaska Consulting and Environmental Enginccrlng I'ur North Kcnai 3, Ordinance 2001-06: Amending KPI3 14.06, Road Construction Standards *e,Soil Investigation 21 Resulution 200 1-044: Determining the AmouLltthatlVili be Provided(Mayor at rcquest uf Road Service Arca 13uard) (Referred to Land~ Ii-um Local Sources lor School Purpuses Jor Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Cummittee) 76
Approval ol'ProrcsslUnal Services Agrecmcnt bctween KPB and EB (Mayor) (ReJerrcc! to Fimlllcc COl\llllillee) , . 224 Consulting Scrvices for Delinqucnt Tax Collection Policy & 4. Ordinance 7001-07: Designating Cerlain Admimstrativc Employees as Proccdurc I'm thc KprJ Finance Department 29 '" 1'. Resolution 2001-045: Authorizing the Establ ishment 01' lJmeservedMiddle Management and Mlldifying Their Disciplinary Appeal Procedures
Fundl3alnnce l'olicy (Mayor) (Referred to Cnmmillee of the Whole)(May,)r) (Rderrcd 10 I'olicies and Procedures Cummillce) . 8(, Appruval 01' Prolcssiunal Serviccs I\grccmcnt between KPI3 andd. 227 Medical Priority Consultants I'm National Academy or Emcrgency
39 Ordinance 200t-08: l\utllLlriz,ng lhe Negutlaled Sale 'lll.'\nd I'm Cinrvelto .I-Medical Dispatcl\ Certilication Tnl1ning g Resolution 200 1-046: Authorl"L.ing the EstabJisl1ll1eLli ofLllcaJ Scholl I PrOVide a Gravel Resuuree lor the North Road ICxtensilln PrUlcCI (I3rown) Funding Policy (Mayor) (ReJerred III C'lLllm,llcc "I·thc WllOleJ 233(RclCrrcd 10 l.ands ('ommillee) (First ol'TlVll He<lri'l;;s) 90
Kenai Peninsula Borough I. Postpuncd Itcms
A. CALL TO ORDEH a, Resolution 2001-026: J)esignatmg Property Near the WildwoodAssembly AKenda
B, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Currectional Complex 1(11 tl1c Pri~un Site Subject to Cerlail] Conditiuns and AUlhori/.ing the Mayur \0 Negoliate with [(enai,\priI17, 1001 -7 fill P 11I Ih.:gul,lI Meeting '~IJrtl\I~ll 1\~~emlJl)' (:ll,Illlllel"'i, S(lldotll.::J
c. INVOCATION Native~ Association lor Tmnslcr by Sale or Long-Term Lease with a Purchase Option (I'opp, Long) (Second ufTwu Ilearings) (Relerred to Committee 01' the Wbole)D. ROLL CALL 15~
c. Approval of Agrcement lor Services bctween KI'I3 and Frontier 2, Notices 10 RecunsiderE. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT A(;I~NDA Community Services lor Specilieation~ I'or Janitorial Services lor the
(1\11 itellls lislell wilh;1II astensh. (*) arc considered to hc routille ilnd 1l00H;olllrovcfsi,,1 by thc Maintenilllce/Public Works Departments and Kenai River Ccnter , . 45 l\sscl11bly ami will be ilpproYc:d by one motion. There will he 110 ~epal"illt,; tllsl:ussiUt\ ul'thcsc a, Resolution200 1-036: Urgmg the Alaska State Lcgislature 10 SUPPOIt il~11lS unless ,11I/\sselllbly tvlClIlbcl so requcsts, in whidl case the Helll will bc ICllloved from the
Huuse 13 ill 165 (0 Include Additiunal State Land intu the Kcnai Rivcr (:nllsclll/\gclHla and t,;OIlSldclCtllll its 110rmal scqucncc nil thc agcnd,l Approval 01' bid award to Climate Control 01' Fairbank~ lor I'roject Spccial Managcment Area (Navarre) (Rcl'erred to Lcgi~lativeImpact I'rogranl/Earthquake Mitigation Wmdow Salety Film Committee) /lecul1.l'ide/'llliun given h), A.I".I"ell/h1j! Mell/her Merke.l· \{liF. COMMENOING RF,SOLUTIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS Installation I()r variuus 13orough buildings mthe Homer area 54
N. NEW BUSINESS1\ Resolution Commending thc Sk)'view Iligh School g. Appruval of bid award to The Survcyur's Exchangc lor a Largc Wrcstlcrs on Winning the 2000 Stiltc hlil Wrestling Format Scanner for KPrlPlanning Department 56
rlid Awards Championship (Spraguc) h Approval ol'bid award to I3rad and Paula Dickey lor their artwork 1'01'
2, A Resolution Commcnding thc Winncrs 01' the Prcsidcnt's Art of the Kcn"i Ilcalth Building Project 58 *a, Resolution 7001-038: Authorizing Award 01' a Contract lor Construction Services 1(11' the Nikiski I'nol Handball Court Addition Environmcntal Youth AWilrd I·or I~cgion 10 (Nilvilrrc) 3
2. Other & Remodel Project (Mayur) (Relerred to Finance Committee) 179 3, A Rcsolution Cummellliing the Ninilchik High Schuol Girls
l3asketball team 101' winning thc Class 2A Tille (Fischcr) Letter from U,S. Postal Service regarding the proposed Post Ol'lice ina, *b. Rc~ulution lOO 1-039: Authorizing Sole Suurce Conlracltu Sea rood Market Developers (Mayor) (Relerred to Policies and Procedures Cummittee)
LAYDOWN Cooper Landing 611 182
G. l'UBLIC COMMENTS AND I'HESENTATIONS - "elm ,1I1i" 'liall Llillse b, 13udget Revisinns - March 200 I 61 2 Resolutions
e. Revenue Expenditure Report - March 200 I , , . 63 Mikc Wcidmer, llabitat Hiologist. Alaska Fish & (jame 'n. Resolution 2001-040: Declaring thc 130rougl1 Assembly 10 be "Luwer Kenai Pcninsula ATV Trail Stream Crossing Malapportioned and Authorizing the Asscmbly President to Appointd. Quarterly Investment Report as 01' 03/] 1/01 , , . 66 Inventory" (I () 1l1111UlcS) . ,5 a Re,lpportionment Committee (Navarre) (Referred 10 Committee oi'
the Whule)e. Quartcrly Litigation Rcport 68 186 I·\. COMMITTEE REPORTS
*b. Resolution 2001-041: Approving Projects lor Coastal ImpactK. ITEMS NOT COMPLETED FROM PIUOR AG(i;NI>A - None I. REI'OHTS OF COMMISSIONS AND COUNCILS Assistance l'rogram (irant FlInd~ I'ur the Year 20() I (Mayur)
(Referred to Finance Committee) L. PUIlLIC HEARINGS ON OIUJINANCF,S (Testimony limitedlu 3 minutes per speaker) 188
1. Bonnie Golden, Borough Grants Manager - Discussion on Grants and How to Address Matching Requirements
2. Discussion with Administration on the Prison Project Feasibility Study Process
DISCUSSION ITEMS
I. Discussion of Items Appearing on Mayor's Report
M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
]. Postponed Items
a. Resolution 2001-026: Designating Property Near the Wildwood Correctional Complex for the Prison Site Subject to Certain Conditions and Authorizing the Mayor to Negotiate with Kenai Natives Association for Transfer by Sale or Long-Term Lease with a Purchase Option (Popp, Long) (Second of Two Hearings) 158
N. NEW BUSINESS
2. Resolutions
*a. Resolution 2001-040: Declaring the Borough Assembly to be Malapportioned and Authorizing the Assembly President to Appoint a Reapportionment Committee (Navarre) 186
*f. Resolution 2001-045: Authorizing the Establishment of Unreserved Fund Balance Policy (Mayor) 227
*g. Resolution 2001-046: Authorizing the Establishment of Local School Funding Policy (Mayor) 233
*Consent Agenda Items
Staff requested:
Borough Clerk
Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Page 1 of 1 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
:\~ 161718lQ '\01 ":.aAGENDA ITEM.D1L.a...- ,,0 A O~
~ T ~
KENAI PENINSULA BOR ....U~~ 2001, \~ 144 N. BINKLEY • SOLDOTNA, ALASKA • 99669- ~9 K;1,'~ f 9fflrce t; BUSINESS (907) 262-4441 FAX (907)262-1 ~ 8cro~~gr~SlJ a f:
". \ ...~ A..JCj \~~.;:. rt,V" "-". --""'
~ L LE BAGLEY MAYOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Timothy Navarre, Assembly President Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Members
THRU: Dale L. Bagley, Borough Mayor (16
FROM: Robert Bright, Planning Director ~)
DATE: April 17,2001
SUBJECT: Resolution 2001-026: Designating Property Near the Wildwood Correctional Complex for the Prison Site Subject to Certain Conditions and Authorizing the Mayor to Negotiate with Kenai '~atives Association for Transfer by Sale or LongTerm Lease with a Purchase Option
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the subject resolution during their regularly scheduled April 9, 2001 meeting. One member of the public testified. A representative of the architectural firm provided information dunng the public hearing.
A motion to recommend adoption of the resolution passed by a majority vote with one abstention. Draft. unapproved minutes of the pertinent portion of the meeting are attached.
AGENDA ITEM F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Resolution 2001-026: Designating Property Near the Wildwood Correctional Complex for the Prison Site Subject to Certain Conditions and Authorizing the Mayor to Negotiate with Kenai Natives Association for Transfer by Sale or Long-Term Lease with a Purchase Option
Memorandum from Bill Popp as read by Bob Bright. PC Meeting: 4-9-01
The accompanying resolution would authorize the borough administration to negotiate with the Kenai Native Association ("KNA") for the acquisition of approximately 60 acres of land for the proposed prison facility. The subject property is part of 420 acres owned by KNA situated next to the Wildwood Correctional Complex. Further engineering studies are needed to determine the best location for the facility within the 420 acres.
This resolution is intended to begin the public process for site selection. Accordingly, two regular hearings are requested, and it is anticipated that this will be considered by the Planning Commission. Additionally, I request that the assembly schedule a special meeting in the City of Kenai as thle proposed site is immediately adjacent to the City of Kenai boundaries.
As the terms and conditions of the transfer have not been discussed, in addition to designating the general site, this resolution authorizes the administration to negotiate with the owners for terms and conditions of the transfer, and requires that any contract be submitted to the assembly for approval. Any transfer would be contingent upon approval of the project by the state legislature and approval of a contract with the state to lease a prison facility.
END OF MEMORANDUM
Chairman Hammelman opened the public hearing for comment.
Vice Chairman Bryson asked to make a statement before the publiC comment began. The firm for which he works is proposed to provide civil engineering services to the architect for the project. The work will generally consist of site work and external improvements. Vice Chairman Bryson said he would be abstaining from discussion unless the Commission had specific questions. He asked to be excused from the table.
Chairman Hammelman asked if the Commission objected. Commissioner Troeger commented that the resolution before the Commission dealt with acquisition of land and authorizing the administration to negotiate with the property owners. The resolution does not address technicalities of investigating the property. He believed Vice Chairman Bryson did not have a conflict of interest with the subject resolution.
Vice Chairman Bryson requested a determination from the Commission. Chairman Hammelman said a yes vote would honor Vice Chairman Bryson's request to abstain. A negative vote would state that Vice Chairman Bryson has no conflict of interest and does not have to abstain from discussion and voting.
VOTE: The motion failed.
HAMMELMAN I BRYSON I BAYES l BOSCACCI HOHL JOHNSON YES ABSTAINED NO NO YES YES
I '-- l ONE VACANT SEAT ~ Assembly Member Brown explained how the Assembly addressed this situation. Chairman Hammelman noted the Commission adhered to Robert's Rules, and the Assembly followed Mason's.
Chairman Hammelman left the decision to abstain or participate to Vice Chairman Bryson. Vice Chairman Bryson excused himself from the table.
1. Tom Livingston, Livingston Slone, Anchorage
Mr. Livingston said he was an architect for Livingston Slone. His company is the design firm for the
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 9,2001 MEETING PAGE 17
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
project. He distributed some information on prison facts and a site map to the Commission. (Clerk's Note: A copy was provided for the meeting file.)
The facility will be designed for a general population of 800 beds. The Borough advertised that the facility would have 800 - 1,000 beds. The facility is a medium security, full-time custody facility. It is not a halfway house. No work release program is planned. A full high security perimeter fence with electronic sensors and lighting will surround the building. A perimeter security road will encircle the facility. A 72hour back up electrical power system will be in place for the security systems and all critical functions within the complex. The facility is adjacent to an existing medium security prison, Wildwood Correctional Center. The facility will meet all State requirements for locating a medium security facility. Livingston Slone acquired all State standards that pertain to siting and site requirements for a correctional center. Approximately 420 acres of land are available. Mr. Livingston anticipated utilizing approximately 60 acres. The present layout encompasses about 50 acres; however, until details are finalized with engineering and the State of Alaska, the exact size of the facility is not known. The facility could use as much as 60 acres. Transportation of inmates outside all correctional facilities is provided by the State Department of Corrections.
The facility will be owned by the Kenai Peninsula Borough and operated by a private professional correctional company. Cornell Companies, Inc., Texas, leads the project team. Cornell Companies is a client of Livingston Slone and in association with the Kenai Natives Association. NeeseI' ConstructionNECO Construction is joint venturing with Livingston Slone. Bill Kluge & Associates {architects), Kenai, and Wince-Corthell-Bryson (engineering), Kenai, will be assisting Livingston Slone. Phil Bryson is available to answer specific engineering questions about the site.
The proposed site is very accessible. It is adjacent to a hi!~hway and has the potential in the future for secure access to the airport. The site is near the State courthouse in Kenai. The site is a relatively isolated location within the confines of the Kenai area with generous surrounding natural buffers, which enhances security of the facility. The site is level and readily developable. Part of the property is wooded upland, and part of the property is lowland wetlands. The area proposed for the site is a non-wetland area. Mr. Livingston pointed to the proposed site on a large map. The large parcel allows design of the facility for optimum security. Being relatively close to commercial services in Kenai and Soldotna is an advantage. Adjacent providers and companies can provide major medical services, food services, etc., to the facility. An existing sewer and water infrastructure serves the Wildwood complex. Mr. liVingston talked with the City of Kenai several times about utilities. He offered to answer questions.
Commissioner Smith asked if the proposed facility was SUbstantially different than a facility that would be constructed by the State. Mr. Livingston did not think so, especially regarding site issues. The security fencing to be used is exactly the same perimeter system currently used by the State in medium security facilities. He anticipated putting an extra coil of razor wire at the top of the fence.
Commissioner Bayes asked if the square footage of the facility would be increased if the prisoner capacity would be 1,000. Mr. Livingston replied the building would need to be larger if the prisoner capacity was 1,000 instead of 800. The site would not be larger. The site is being planned for a facility that would accommodate an 800 to 1,000 bed general population. Approximately 88 segregation beds are provided in a medium security prison. About 10 percent of the total number of beds is set aside to segregate individuals from the general population, and eight beds are set aside for medical beds. Mr. Livingston commented this was a typical setup for medium security prisons. The State of Alaska requires 10 percent of the general population beds to be administrative/punitive segregation cells.
Commissioner Bayes understood the Department of Public Safety made arrangements for prisoner transportation. She asked if a site requirement would include offices for the Department of Public Safety, State Troopers, etc. Mr. Livingston replied an intake structure was planned for the facility. A secure vestibule would be provided for vehicles as well as a secure intake area for prisoners.
2. Vicki Duggin, P.O. Box 42, Kenai
Ms. Duggin urged the Commission to consider purchasing the property. If the community must have a prison, it is a perfect site. She adamantly opposed a private prison. She preferred the prison to be operated by the State. She believed a contingency plan was needed in case the State has to take over
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 9,2001 MEETII\lG PAGE 18
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
the facility if the contractor defaults. By owning the land and the facility, the Borough could maintain authority and take over the facility, if necessary. This would also ensure that the 800 to 1,000 prisoners would not be displaced through any violation of a private landlord or private operator.
If KNA chooses not to sell their property, then the other alternative might be the 150 acres adjacent to the maximum security prison in Seward. The City owns this land. It would ensure any take over cost would not cost the taxpayer double in buy-back liabilities of land or facilities.
Ms. Duggin believed funds should be acquired to investigate allegations by the Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA), which represents the Alaska State Troopers, court service officers, fire marshals, airport safety officers, City of Juneau police officers, and Alaska State Correctional Officers.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Hammelman closed the public hearing and opened discussion among the Commission
MOTION: Commissioner Troeger moved, seconded by Commission Boscacci, to recommend the Assembly adopt Resolution 2001-026.
Commissioner Bayes asked for clarification about the hearings scheduled by the Assembly. It appears the Assembly will conduct three hearings. She asked if this item was time sensitive. She asked if the dates were part of the ongoing negotiations at the State legislative level. Mr. Bright commented that recommendations were needed as soon as possible. Commissioner Bayes asked if a time line was needed in relation to the negotiations and the work currently occurring in the legislature. Mr. Bright did not know the time line for the project in the negotiation process. The item is very timely. The administration and Assembly are interesting in proceeding.
Commissioner Hohl noticed the Assembly amended the resolution. She asked if the motion needed to be amended to reflect the Assembly's amendment. She referred to Page 74 of the mailout packet, which showed the Popp amendment. This amendment is not shown on the resolution before the Commission. Mr. Bright recommended the Commission consider the same resolution before the Assembly.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Commissioner Hohl moved, seconded by Commission Bayes, to support the Popp amendment (4 th Whereas to read: public testimony will be taken on the prison site location at the March 13 and April 17 regular meetings of the Assembly and at an additional publicly noticed hearing on March 27, 2001, beginning at 7:00 p.rn. at the Kenai Senior Citizens Center, in Kenai, Alaska; and) to Resolution 2001-026.
Commissioner Troeger commented that the resolution before the Commission had the same hearing dates included in the amendment.
Commissioner Hohl remarked that it appeared the land acquisition was a sole source, rather than by request for proposals (RFP). She requested clarification. Chairman Hammelman replied the site was established. The Borough was seeking the ability to negotiate acquisition of 60 acres with the property owner.
Commissioner Hohl inquired about the point in time when the process became sole source, rather than by RFP. Chairman Hammelman recognized Bill Popp. Mr. Popp explained that the process began in early August 2000 when the Kenai Natives Association (KNA) made a proposal to the State of Alaska to proceed with establishing a private prison on the Kenai Peninsula. KNA approached the Assembly and requested a resolution of support, which was adopted. The State of Alaska through Statute and administrative policy is unwilling to enter into this type of agreement. At this time the State prefers to deal with the project in the same manner as the community of Delta -- only one authorized site is available for the Depal1ment of Corrections to work with. The State legislature and the Department of Corrections requested a number of clarifications regarding site location for the proposed prison. Legislation moved out of the House Finance and will be before the full body of the House later this week. Current legislation designates the Kenai Peninsula Borough as an authorized site. A number of requests to identify specific locations have been made. In view of past public tl3stimony, the KNA site has been top profile since the process began. The intent of the resolution was to determine if an RFP process, which could take months or years, was needed. The resolution does not finalize anything regarding the site; it identifies the preferred site for the record. After action is taken on the resolution, feedback from the legislature and the Department of Corrections is needed. If the State says the proposed site is not appropriate, then per the resolution the matter is concluded. On the other hand, the legislature and Department of Corrections could approve the location, and the process would move forward. The final determination would be reached through the KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 9.2001 MEETING PAGE 19
U1'lAPPROVEJ MINUTES
negotiation process and contract process with the Department of Corrections and State of Alaska if House Bill 149 passes the legislature and is signed into law by the Governor. If the resolution is adopted, there is no guaranteed outcome.
Commissioner Bayes noticed Section 2 authorized Borough administration to negotiate with KNA for purchase or long-term lease with an option to purchase the property. She believed that if the Borough constructs a facility, it should be located on land to which the Borough has clear title. She wondered if the long-term lease with an option to purchase might be clarified to indicate that it would be executed as a purchase option before actual construction takes place Mr. Popp was trying to be careful in the process and did not want to obligate the administration. He did not know how the negotiation process would proceed in terms of the position of KNA or the administration. Since this building will require a substantial investment, he personally preferred that the Borough own the site. However, he did not wish to obligate the administration in case some bargaining impasse occurs and the site is no longer available. If another site is chosen for the facility, it may not have the public support the KNA site apparently has. The resolution asks if the subject site is appropriate if a prison is constructed on the Kenai Peninsula. Approximately 2/3 of the testimony heard to date indicates the subject site is appropriate for a prison.
Chairman Hammelman noted many variables about the site were still unanswered. He asked when negotiations with KNA begin. He asked if negotiations would start immediately if the resolution were adopted. Mr. Popp replied it would be a lengthy process. He believed it would be parallel process. Ultimately, this process depends upon passage of HB 149. If HB 149 fails, the process ends. If HB 149 were signed into law, it would probably take place in July. At this time negotiations with the State could begin regarding contract issues, how the process will go forward, etc. At this time the contract is valid through 60 days beyond the legislative session. After the expiration date, the contract needs to be reviewed and a decision about how to proceed needs to be made. The Assembly wanted to identify the prison site so additional information, such as engineering costs, can be identified and estimated expenses can be determined.
Commissioner Johnson recalled comments made during the public hearing about a potential 150-acre site, which he understood either the State or Borough owned, near the Seward prison. He wondered about the advantages of having a prison near Kenai, other than jobs. Mr. Popp noted the property near the Seward prison was owned by the City of Seward. The City would expect compensation for providing land for a facility owned by a third party. Another issue is infrastructure. Long-term housing for guards has been a problem. Based on discussions with the City administration and Department of Corrections, Mr. Popp learned several guards share apartments due to lack of housing in the Seward area. The central peninsula offers benefits such as airport transportation, existing court system, existing sewer and water facilities, etc. The City of Seward has not expressed interest in having a prison facility on their property. Based on legislation currently before the Senate, it appears the City of Seward wants a 150-bed expansion of their present maximum security prison, which they believe is more appropriate in relation to their infrastructure.
Commissioner Hohl commented the housing situation for the guards was due mainly to the week on/week off work schedule. This schedule lends itself to not having to re-Iocate families. She doubted lack of housing was an issue.
Commissioner Smith supported the concept for the siting. He believed it was a good location and a good idea. He was not in favor of private operation of the complex. Hopefully, this matter will be discussed at a later date. If the Borough can obtain land and build the facility, then it is possible to lease it to the State instead of a private operator. He supported the motion.
Commissioner Bayes supported the resolution. She understood the intent was to provide some flexibility to administration, and a final agreement would be brought back to the Assembly. She hoped clarification would be in place that the Borough would construct a facility on land owned by the Borough.
Ms. Sweppy asked if the amendment was a friendly amendment. Chairman Hammelman re-stated the amendment. He asked if everyone understood the amendment. Commissioner Skogstad asked if the amendment only addressed the public hearing dates. Chairman Hammelman replied yes. Commissioner Troeger viewed the amendment as a technical matter and requested unanimous consent.
VOTE: The amendment passed by unanimous consent with one abstention.
I HAMMELMAN I BRYSON I BAYES I BOSCACGl I HOHL I JOHNSON
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 9,2001 MEETI:'JG PAGE 20
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
YES ABSTAINED YES I YES YES YES MARTIN ABSENT
SKOGSTAD YES
SMITH YES
I TROEGER
J YES
VACANT SEAT EIGHT YES ONE ABSTAINED ONE ABSENT ONE VACANT SEAT
Chairman Hammelman re-stated the motion as amended.
Commissioner Johnson understood that if the resolution were adopted, the decision to build a prison near Kenai was not definitely set. Another site could still be chosen. He conSlidered the land as a major issue. Chairman Hammelman commented there was no guarantee. The resolution was one part of the process to continue to move the project forward. The resolution provides authorization to enter into negotiations with the Kenai Natives Association.
Commissioner Troeger commented the resolution addressed a specific parcel of land and authorizes Borough administration to negotiate with the owner of the land. The legislature must act favorably, and the administration must negotiate with the Department of Corrections. The subject property is unique. Commissioner Troeger supported the resolution.
VOTE: The motion as amended passed by a majority vote with one abstention.
HAMMELMAN YES MARTIN ABSENT
BRYSON ABSTAINED SKOGSTAD YES
I I
BAYES I BOSCACCI YES YES SMITH I TROEGERYES YES
I
HOHL YES VACANT SEAT
JOHNSON NO SEVEN YES ONENO ONE ABSTAINED ONE ABSENT ONE VACANT SEAT
Chairman Hammelman thanked everyone for their comments.
ITEMS NOT APPEARING ON THE REGliLAR MEETING AGENDA
1. Bonnie Golden, Borough Grants Manager - Discussion on Grants and How to Address Matching Requirements
Discussion with Administration on the Prison Project Feasibility Study Process
DISCUSSION ITEMS
l. Discussion of Items Appearing on Mayor' s Report
M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Postponed Items
a, Resolution 2001-026: Designating Property Near the Wildwood Correctional Complex for the Prison Site Subject to Certain Conditions and Authorizing the Mayor to Negotiate with Kenai Natives Association for Transfer by Sale or Long-Term Lease with a Purchase Option (POpp. Long) (Second of Two Hearings) , , 158
N. NEW BUSINESS
'l Resolutions
*a, Resolution 2001-040: Declaring the Borough Assembly to be Malapportioned and Authorizing the Assembly President to Appoint a Reapportionment Committee (Navarre) .... , ..... ' .... , .. , ..... 186
* t', Resolution 2001-045: Authorizing the Establishment of Unreserved Fund Balance Policy (Nlayor) ". ".'" .. ,."., .. ,., , .. 227
*g. Resolution 'l00 1-046: Authorizing l:he Establishment of Local School Funding Policy (Mayor) . , , , , , , , .. , , , , 233
·ConSI:nt Agenda [terns
Statf requested:
Borough Clerk
Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Page 1 of I COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (ClAP) Update to the Assembly
April 17, 2001
Resolution 2001-041 seeks Assembly approval of borough projects for CIAP funding. This resolution has been scheduled as an action item for the May 1, 2001 meeting of the Assembly. This was done to provide an additional opportunity for the public to comment on the ClAP program and borough projects. A separate resolution will be developed (September) for acceptance and administration of ClAP monies.
1be Assembly Packet includes Resolution 2001-041 and the grant packet for the ClAP Program. Detailed plans, like ours, should receive funding shortly after plan approval by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - If DGC has legislative approval to accept the funds.
The ClAP grant packet includes detailed project descriptions of nine (9) proposed projects.
The State is starting its public input process to identify statewide coastal issues and suggestions for types of projects to address statewide issues. The Kenai Peninsula Borough plan includes comments and suggestions on state issues (floodplain mapping, coastal erosion, expansion of cost sharing for bank restoration on anadromous streams). The state is allowing 15 days for submittal of public comments (April 27, 2001). There will be a second comment period of 30 days on the plan itself.
On the back of this page is a copy of Alaska and local district funding allocations. The Kenai Peninsula Borough is scheduled to receive $208,665.
The Kenai Peninsula Borough will be a recipient of ClAP funds because we participate in the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) through the adoption of our own coastal management program. These funds would not be available if we did not participate.
An updated ClAP grant packet will be submitted to you before the May 1, 2001 Assembly meeting. It will include updates oIl' project priorities based on CIAP allocations.
Both the State and the Borough are under extreme time constraints. To meet these deadlines the following accelerated schedule has been implemented:
March 13, 2001 - Assembly Land Committee receives briefing on ClAP and time constraints.
April 17, 2001- Update to Assembly Finance Committee. Introduction of ResolutiOlL April 23, 2001 - Planning Commission agenda item. April 27, 2001 - Deadline for submitting comments to DGC on statewide issues. May 1,2001- Assembly vote on Resolution. May 7, 2001 - Borough and CRSA plans must be submitted to the state. May 7-14,2001 - The state plan is refined and borough plans are incorporated. July 1, 2001 - The state plan is submitted to the Secretary of Commerce. October 1, 2001 - NOAA reviews and makes approval decision on state plalL
Kenai Peninsula Borough Leases
LESSEE/LEGAL DESCRIPTION ADL# ACRES LEASE
BOROUGHAC. END LEASE LEASE
PYMT COMMENTSMO DY YR Boyce, Allison & Dennis 267 640 640 11 17 2018 65 100% Borough selected, school Land
Jerrel, Dan & Viola 19581 1015 360 02 17 2024 428.48 360 ac. Borough selected, rest within CHA
Tietjen, Larry J. 20824 267.5 267.5 11 17 2018 40.00 Kachemak Nordic Ski Trail (McNiel Canyon Trail) on this lease property. Reappraisal received, notified Tietjen 8/27/97. In arrears.
Jerrel, Dan & Viola 21412 280 40 10 11 2006 40.00 40 ac. Borough selected, rest within CHA
IJerrel, Dan & Viola 52922 290 290 07 27 2003 87.92 100% Borough selected, school Land
Van Oss, Jim 56309 4435 4435 07 11 2001 205.62 Management authority to this lease retained by State per Rachel Reeves - KPB holds patent only to small portion to date. 11-5-96
Jerrel, Dan & Viola 59921 2020 320 10 11 2006 104.84 320 ac. Borough approved, Rest in CHA
Roberts assigned to Domela 63238 634 480 07 11 2001 38.40 480 acres transferred to KPB, 154.02 acres remain with DNR. Lease expires before reappr'sl is due. Assignment to Domela & Schnipke in progress.
Broste, Ron and Charlotte 63239 1400 1170.64 07 11 2001 60.42 1,170.64 acres ± conveyed to KPB. 110 acres retained by DNR. Lease expires before reappraisal is due. Lease terminates 7/2001.
Garcia, David, Ward 63240 2560 2560 07 11 2001 129.08 Lse expires before appraisal is due. In arrears.
Rollins,Leo 63241 2560 2560 07 11 2001 664.00 Reappraisal ordered 11-6-96 based on 1-1-94 value, and in accordance with 11 AAC 60.050. Old lease pymt was $200 per annum.
Kinney, Neil 63242 1760 1760 07 11 2001 88.60 Lease expires before reappr'sl is due.
Garcia, David, Ward 63244 2561.8 2561.76 07 11 2001 129.08 Lse expires before appraisal is due. In arrears.
Jones, Cecil R. 63248 2560 2560 07 11 2001 80.00 Mgnt Authority retained by DNR until date of patent
TOTAL 23222 20243 2245
PENINSULA BO
BUSINESS (907) 262-4441
KENAI
-.,. .. - ...... •• ;-P'
TO: Timothy Navarre, Assembly President Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Members
THRU: Dale Bagley, Mayor ()/,-~
FROM: Jeffrey Sinz, Director of Finance C:;<6: J
DATE: April 17,2001
SUBJECT: FY02 General Fund Budget Projection
Attached please find the GENERAL FUKD Preliminary Budget Projection and the RECAP OF DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS for FY2002. This information should be considered preliminary and is provided to assist you with your deliberations of the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District Budget scheduled to be presented to you by April 17,2001.
The GENERAL FlJ1\ID BUDGET PROJECTION was developed based on a number of key assumptions. They include:
Assessed Valuations • Real Property - FY 2002 increased S81.5 million, or 2.9%, over the FY 2001 level based
on the Preliminary Main Role. • Oil & Gas Property (AS 43.56) - FY02 mcreased $153.3 million or 33.9% from FY 2001
based on SOA Preliminary Assessment. • Personal Property - FY02 increased $6.8 million or from FY 2001. • Future years - Two percent (2%) annual increase for all property valuations over FY
2002 except Real, which is expected to increase approximately 3 Y2% in FY 2003 due to the completion of the BP gas to oil plant.
Mill Rate • FY02 - Projected mill rate of 7.0 is a .5 mill reduction from that approved for FYO 1. • Future years - No change from the FY02 level although fund balance policy compliance
could result in an additional mill rate reduction.
Sales Tax Revenues • FY02 - Three percent (3%) increase from current year projection. • Future years Three percent (3%) increase.
FY02 General Fund Budget Projection Page 2
Federal Revenues • FY02 and Future Years - no change is projected.
State Revenues • Revenue Sharing (Based on DCRA forecast)
• FY02 - No change is projected from current year. • Future years - - No change is projected from current year.
• Safe Communities Program (Based on DCRA forecast) • FY02 - No change is projected from current year. • Future years - - No change is projected from current year.
• Debt Service Reimbursement • FY02 - Decrease of $7,154,213 due to payoff of debt in FYO 1 • Future years - Little change based on level debt a~,sumption.
Operating Expenditures • FY02 - As requested by Department Directors and Service Areas with some mmor
adjustments after mayor's review. • Future years - Two percent (2%) annual increase.
Debt Service • FY02 - Reduction of $8,799,543 due to retirement of debt net of new issue. • Future years - Little change except for Issuance of Solid Waste Debt in FY04.
School District Transfer (Operations) • FY02 - Maximum local contribution per AS 14.17.025 (BASED ON SD PROPOSED
BUDGET - EXPECTED TO REQUIRE FURTHER ADJUSTMENT) • Future years - Maximum local as calculated by the School District using their latest
enrollment projections including increase in local full and true caused by reduction in assessment ratio.
A breakdown of the FY02 general government operating budget is presented in the RECAP OF DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS document. The recommended amount of $10,810,198 is $523,189, or 5.1%, more than the original FYOI approved budget of $10,287,009. Approximately $250,000, or 48%, of the increase is associated with the comprehensive plan within the Planning Department, $110,000 for the hiring of a lobbyist within Non-Departmental and $75,260 for increased senior citizen program funding.
IFUND: 100 GENERAL FUND
FUND BUDGET: FY2001 FY2001 FY2002 FY1999 FY2000 ORIGINAL AMENDED MAYOR FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET PROPOSED PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION
ASSESSED VALUE (OOO'S) REAL 2,540,677 2,682,359 2,839,622 2,847,696 2,921,154 3.064,577 3,125,869 3,188,386 PERSONAL 251,714 173,212 '194,805 205,021 204,473 208,562 212,733 216,988 OIL & GAS (AS 4356) 512,562 452,600 452.561 462,171 605,922 618,040 616,040 630,401
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE 3,304,953 3,308,171 3,486,988 3,514,888 3,731,549 3,891,179 3,956,642 4,035,775
TOTAL REVENUES 56,255,714 57,283,542 56.512,578 56,512,578 SO,032,447 51.598,197 52,567,290 53,650,959
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: SALE OF FIXED ASSETS 16,726 5,822 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 152,544 93,628 82,922 82,922 98,302 85,265 86,970 88,709
TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 169,270 99,450 97,922 97,922 113,302 100,265 101,970 103,709
TOTAL REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 56,424,984 57,382,992 56,610,500 56,1510,500 SO,145,749 51,698,462 52,669,260 53,754,668
Is 13,000 S 25.000 $ 12000 I $ 47,993,267 540.467587 S \752568011 $58,280276 $ 51.277.787 $ ,7,002 489/1 ·1202%1 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 7 525 680 \ 47.993267
Introduced by: Fischer Date: 04/17/0 I Action: Vote:
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH COMMENDING RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE NINILCHIK HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM AS STATE CHAl'@IONS
WHEREAS, the State high school basketball championship games were held in Anchorage during March 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Ninilchik High School Girls Basketball T(:am. the Wolverines, qualified to participate in the state championship games by having an exceptional season record of 24-2; and
WHEREAS, under the direction of Coach Dan Leman, Assistant Coaches Kendra Nicholson and Chris Hanson and Manager Katie Moerlein, final victory was achieved by an overwhelming score of 48-36; and
WHEREAS, members of the winning team are Jessica Russo. Kourtney Hansen, Molly Bosick, Janelle Moerlein, Brieanna Leman, Whitney Leman, Kelsey Dieman, Maria Johnson, Amanda Matson, Amanda Petersen, and Jessica Sullivan; and
WHEREAS, the Lady Wolverines have been Distnct III. 2A Champions for 9 consecutive years and State Champions for 4 out of the past 6 years: and
WHEREAS, the performance of the winning basketball team was superb and a credit to their parents, school and community:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH:
SECTION 1. That the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly commends the Ninilchik High School Girls Basketball Team for their outstanding performance in winning the Year 2001 Class 2A State Cham pionship.
SECTION 2. A special Certificate of Achievement shall be presented to each member of the winning team.
SECTION 3. That a copy of this commending resolution shall be given to Ninilchik High School, Coach Leman and Assistant Coaches Nicholson and Hanson.
SECTION.... This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption.
ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH THIS 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2001.
Timothy Navarre, Assembly President ATTEST:
Linda S. Murphy, Borough Clerk
Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska Commending Resolution Page I of 1
AGENDA ITEM l5
From: Njaa [stitch@kenaLnet]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 942 PM
To: Colette Thompson; Drew Scalzi: Chris Moss Bagley Pete Sprague, Timothy Navarre, Bill Popp
Subject: Ordinance 2001-08 in opposition
Dear Borough Assembly Members:
Concerning the land under consideration for a trade In Ordinance 2001-08; I would like to describe the listed parcels In more detail, to explain why they seem so undervalued, in my opinion, I would like to ask that classification be delayed, or coincide with a more accurate appraisal, then perhaps the amount of land only that would satisfy the terms of the trade could be classified and traded to James T Hall if the gravel/land trade were to proceed, I am not In favor of this large acreage being traded to one individual in the manner proposed,
Borough Parcels:
013-010-01 This IS just under 65 acres at a value of $'1 ,985 per acre
The property has a lot of beach frontage on Cook Inlet. to the west of where I live, also on the beach, The property has a year round road on the south side, put in this past: fall by Merle McGahan, as he built access to his own property to the West.
013-020-11 This piece of around 115 acres is valued at less than $800,00 per acre It is primarily a high ridge With a lovely view of Suneva Lake There was a homesteader's seasonal road that was blocked by James T. Hall in 1998, The road had been in use since the late 1950's ThiS fall. Merle McGahan built a year-round road that runS along the north side of the property This property adjOinS the preViously listed parcel, and they share the year-round access road,
O~ 3-020-12 Almost 60 acres of gorgeous lake front prcperty on Suneve Lake (Caroline Hundori and Tom &Robin Bennett live on this lake) is appraised at $1,095 per acre, Very little of the acreage is swamp, There is no access directly to the property, but the seasonal homesteader's road is close by
013-020-13 At $76600 per acre, thiS land IS a steal I A year-rounj road, privately bUilt and In use since the late 1950's, meanders through the middle of the approximately 140 acre chunk, and the south side IS bounded by the new access put In by Merle McGahan In the fall of 2000 ThiS property fronts Jeep Lake on the Northeast. The road running through thiS property is the road that we use, as well as the McKay's, the Palms, and the Hundorfs
013-020-58 This 35+ acre piece is appraised at $1400 per acre, The land borders Lucy's Lake(Twln Lake on the Southeast. and has year-round road access on the corner to the Southwest. running north south,
013-020-59, Around 11 acres is appraised at an amazing $2,700 per acre, which seems high in comparison to the other properties There is no access, and no lake frontage, as the lake which seemingly borders the property to the east washed out several years ago, and is now an enormous mud hole, The land is high, and overlooks Jeep Lake on the West. but does not touch the lake
013-020-66 This approximately 44 acre parcellS appraised at $2,223 per acre. This is beach frontage with no access, although access in the form of a year-round road is close by The property lies to the West of the Palm's property
Please note, that With Cook Inlet as north, the lake bordenng the rrght Side of the proposed trade has not been in existence sillce 1980.
Thank you for your consideration;
\slncerelY,
H. Ross and Barbara Njaa
d(f\~j~ + AGENDA ITEM L·s It APR 2001
Fro~:-- Nj~a -[stitch@kenainetjCi:; .TmR s Office . ';::. K,-oj Peninsula A.
To: Colette Thompson Drew ScalzI: Chris Moss Paul Fischer Patrick O'Brien; Grace'M~rkes: Dale :1,v Bagley, Pete Sprague Timothy Navarre Bill Popp " c....,> 1.(Q
-l_ ~£O£6Subject: In regards to Ordinance 2001-08
To the Borough Planning Commission,
In regards to Ordinance 2001-08,
Proposed Land Trade for Gravel
Apr" 16.2001
I would like to ask for removal of Ordinance 2001-08 from the Agenda of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly on the grounds that the trade is inequitable. and not Jr1 the best interests of the Borough and its constituents. Although I would like to see the transfer of government lands Into private hands, I am concerned with the manner In which thiS IS done, and that consideration IS given to each unique and diverse region within the Borough, with an attempt to maintain that diverSity as the transfers are done ThiS particular area of the Borough is a long settled region of homesteads. fishing sites, and long established families. Progress is. Inevitable, and desired by many but I would hope that the character of a region might be considered as 'that progress takes place ThiS IS not an undeveloped region where one could throw open doors to progress without fear of trampling on the desires and dreams of others
Ordinance 2001-08 proposes trading the gravel contained in 80 acres of land owned by James T Hall for 46953 acres. more or less (as stated in the parcel deSCriptions within the ordinance Section 1). James T. Hall would retain title to the 80 acres he now owns. and receive a quit:lalm deed for the 46953 additional acres now owned by the Borough According to Section 4 in the last sentence of Findings "The volume of vacant land in the Nikiski area also indicates lack of a market for a competitive sale of the land at this time." This assumption is incorrect, and I would invite any Interested Assembly members or those of the Planning Commission to come out and look at the land In question True, recorded Interest In the land has been lacking, as few of us thought that a shift from government hands, into pr:vate was probable. I am now learning that applyin1j for land has indeed been possible. but that few such proaosals were granted
The land In questlor has a road up to Borough specifications runrllng along the section line between Sections 22 and Section 15, for over half its length There IS a year-round road meandering through Section 22 to the POint where the previously mentioned road takes off, that has been In use and under constant improvement since the 1950's. The new road was put in this fall by Merle McGahan, who owns 40 acres in the adjacent Section 21. Access to all the land In the proposed trade has chanqed, and surely the property values assigned in Seclion 1 of Ordinance 2001-08 are far below fair market value Even before the new road was punched in thiS fall. our home property, on the beach. was valued by the Borcugh at S8.000 an acre. Our neighbor bought 15 acres last year along the beach, and hiS land IS valued at $3500 per acre. When I diVided the acreage into the purchase price of the various parcels up for trade. the highest value was for less than :52,250 an acre, and the cheapest price per acre was S764 Much of thiS land fronts lakes one with beaver dams, ducks, swans, muskrats, and otter; the other smaller, yet nonetheless a favorite SWimming place for many of us over the years, as well as home for a pair of loons There was a third access road of a seasonal nature put in during the 1950's by homesteader John Yerman, which James Hal blocked In 1998. when he acqUired adjoining homestead land from Lee Dunn. I know that according to KPB 17 10 100, the Borough can choose to trade iand for resources when deemed in the best Interest of the Boroush, and this opportunity to extend the North Road by matching funds IS tempting. I attest that this is not a fair tr·ade. and as a Borough constituent, I ask for reconsideration
Section 7 of Ordinance 2001-08 lists three standards for approvln9 the trade
That special circumstances or conditions eXIst.
2. That the exception is necessary for the reservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and is the most practical manner of complying with the intent of this chapter,
04/17/2001
Page 2 of2
3. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area.
I agree that special circumstances exist, but should they? Have other sources for gravel actually been considered or sought? If the exception is necessary for the reservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, I ask why the property rights of others nearby are not considered? My home since 1967 would be thoroughly surrounded by the land in this trade. Berry picking, sf\ijoring, snow machining, and pursuit of our commercial fishing business might be changed dramatically. Other family homes and fishing operations are also affected by the proposed trade. I do believe that this exception will be detrimental to public welfare and injurious to other property in the area.
Please look into this carefully. I am concerned about the precedence that might be set as progress begins to affect our corner of the Kenai Peninsula, and I do not wish it to do away with the attractions that our region has. Believe me, there is more to the North Peninsula than prickly homesteaders and devil clubs. Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.
Long time Borough residents,
Ross and Barbara Njaa
04117/2001
Ht't<- 1c:-c:UU j I HU 1~: lU PJ1 ~UAL llY A::5PHALl ANI) PAY. ~AX NU I~Uljqqbl~~ 1". U1
g ,01112 7;J 1.AGENDA ITEM L S '\CO .. lot7.s
ltJ10 '1' *~
Cl)
':1' APR 2001 ~
N crerk' 5N~ s Office \ Kenai Peninsula f1QUALITY ASPHALT PAVING, INC. Borough A":'~
0C' ~/I,.)-'General Conrra'tors ~~LZm; c:;t "31,;
240 W 68th AVENUE, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99518
Tel"phone (90:) 522-2211 Fu (907) 344·5i98
April 12,2001
Kenai Peninsula Borough Mayor & Assembly 144 N. Binkley Soldotna, Alaska 99669
RE: PROPOSED KPB ORDINANCE 2001-08
To Whom It May Concern:
We believe that the negotiated sale of gravel proposed under Ordinancl!! 2001-08 is not in the best interest of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The fair market value of the remarkable array of prime land parcels that the borough is willing to exchange for James T. Hall's eighty acre parcel IS far greater than the value of Mr. Hall's property, or of the gravel contained on his property. Ordinance 2001-08 is not in the public's best interest.
Furthermore, your findings in support of Ordinance 2001-8 do not hold merit. We are in the gravel business. We own parcel 1304104, all 7.38 acre gravel pit with a Prior Existing Use Permit, which is adjacent to Mr. Hall's parcel, with North Road frontage for efficient truck access. If the KPB is searching for gravel for the NR extension, why were we not contacted? Attachment B of Mr. Hall's application is clearly a false statement. Our gravel pit is clearly visible from the North Road. We are not interested in whether you purchase gravel from us or not, but with the quantities involved, we would be willing to grant you a substantially lower price than the in bank val ue of $ 1.50 per cubic yard that the borough has placed on Mr. Hall's gravel.
You should all ask yourselves one further question Why were no testholes dug on parcel's 013-020-13 and 013-020-11? The borough alre;:ldy owns these parcels. They clearly surround and adjoin Mr. Hall's parcel. A section line easement provides access co the North Road. Common sense would dictate that they also contain gravel.
We understand the borough wishes to minimize cash contributions in their 20% match to the federal government's $6 million 'TEA grant, but giving away $600,000.00 worth of the publics real estate for free to one individual to achieve this goal is not logical. Passing Ordinance 2001-08 . at be in the public's best interest. Other avenues should be explored.
on P. Hayes, Jr. sident, QualilY Asphalt Paving, Inc. p~
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING KPB 21.44., LOCAL OPTION ZONING, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH KPB 21.18, ANADROMOUS STREAMS
HABITAT PROTECTION
WHEREAS, KPB 21.18 protecting anadromous stream habitat allows for certain structures within 50 feet of the shore: and
WHEREAS, KPB 21.44 prohibits more types of structures than are permitted by KPB 21.18 within 50 feet of the shore; and
WHEREAS, allowing structures as permitted by KPB 21.18 in local option districts will not undennine the purposes of KPB 21.44 and will promote anadromous stream habitat protection;
NO\V, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH:
SECTION 1. That KPB 21.44.160(C) is hereby amended as follows:
C. Development Standards. Development standards apply to principle and accessory structures.
1. Setbacks. Setbacks shall be 30 feet fTorn the front yard line, 20 feet from the rear yard line, 15 feet from the side yard lines, and 50 feet from the shore subject to the provisions of KPB 21.18 where applicable.
2. Maximum building height. Maximum building height shall be 2 1/2 stories above ground or 35 feet above average grade, whichever is less
3. J'vfinimuJn lot size. Minimum lot size shall be 40,000 square feet. 4. Drainage Ways. Existing natural drainage ways shall be retained. 5. Buffers. A forested buffer of at least 20 feet shall be retained between the building site
and the roadway. Dead and diseased trees which are a safety hazard or which threaten structures may be removed. This section does not require revegetation of a buffer area that was cleared before the fonnation date of the local option zoning district.
6 Accessory structures. Accessory structures commonly associated with residential dwellings, i.e., garages, storage sheds, greenhouses, workshops, and a single, noncommercial guesthouse per parcel, are allowed within the district.
7. Dog Lots: Dog lots and kennels are prohibited.
SECTION 2. That KPB 21.44.l70(C) is hereby amended as follows:
Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska New Text Cnderlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] Ordinance 2001-12 Page I of6
C. Development Standards. Development standards apply to principle and accessory structures:
1. Setbacks. Setbacks shall be 60 feet from the front yard line, 40 feet from the rear yard line, 25 feet from the side yard lines, and 50 feet from the shore subject to the provisions of KPB 21.18 where applicable.
2. iHinimum lot size. Minimum lot size shall be 100,000 square feet. 3. Drainage ways. Existing natural drainage ways shall be retained. 4. Buffers. To provide for screening, aesthetics, and the reduction of surface water run-off,
no lot shall be clear-cut more than 50 percent of the total lot area except that trees may be selectively pruned and thinned, and dead and diseased trees which are a safety hazard or which threaten structures may be removed. Undergrowth may be removed provided that the area is promptly re-seeded or sodded. A forested buffer of at least 30 feet shall be retained between the building site and the common drive or roadway. This section does not require revegetation of a buffer area that was cleared before the fonnation date of the local option zoning district.
5. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures commonly associated with residential dwellings, i.e., garages, storage sheds, grec::mhouses, workshops, and a single, noncommercial guesthouse per parcel, are allowed within the district.
SECTION 3. That KPB 21.44.180(C) is hereby amended as follows:
C. Development Standards. Development standards apply to principle and accessory structures:
1. Setbacks. Setbacks shall be 60 feet from the front yard line for MF units, 40 feet from the front yard line for R-l units, 40 feet from the rear yard line for MF units, 20 feet from the rear yard line for R-l units, 25 feet from the side yard lines for MF units, 15 feet from the side yard lines for R-l units, and 50 feet from the shore subject to the provisions of KPB 21.18 where applicable.
2. Minimum lot size. Minimum lot size shaH be 80,000 square feet for MF units and 40,000 square feet for R-l units.
3. Drainage Ways. Existing natural drainage ways shall be retained. 4. Buffers. To provide for screening, aesthetics, and the reduction of surface water run-off,
no lot shall be clear-cut more than 50 percent of the total lot area except that trees may be selectively pruned and thinned, and dead and diseased trees which are a safety hazard or which threaten structures may be removed. Undergrowth may be removed provided that the area is promptly re-seeded or sodded. A forested buffer of at least 30 feet shall be retained between the building site and the common drive or roadway. This section does not require revegetation of a buffer area that was cleared before the fonnation date of the local option zoning district.
5. rlccessory Structures. Accessory structures commonly associated with residential dwellings, i.e., garages, storage sheds, greenhouses, workshops, and a single, noncommercial guesthouse per parcel, are allowed within the district.
SECTION 4. That KPB 21.44.190(C) is hereby amended as follows:
Ordinance 200 I-12 New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska Page 2 of6
C. Development Standards. Development standards apply to principle and accessory structures:
1. Setbacks. Setbacks shall be 30 feet from the front yard line, 20 feet from the rear yard line, 15 feet from the side yard lines, and 100 feet from the shore subj ect to the provisions ofKPB 21.18 where applicable.
2. Minimum lot size. Minimum lot size shall be 40,000 square feet. 3. Drainage Ways. Existing natural drainage ways shall be retained. 4. Buffers. A forested buffer of at least 20 feet shall be retained between the building site
and the roadway. This section does not require revegetation of a buffer area that was cleared before the formation date of the local option zoning district.
SECTION 5. That KPB 21.44.195(C) is hereby amended as follows:
C. Development Standards. Development standards apply to principle and accessory structures.
1. Setbacks. Setbacks shall be 30 feet from the front yard line, 20 feet from the rear yard line, 15 feet from the side yard lines, and 100 feet from the shore subject to the provisions of KPB 21.18 where applicable.
2. Minimum lot size. Minimum lot size shall be 40,000 square feet. 3. Drainage Ways. Existing natural drainage ways shall be retained. 4. Buffers. A forested buffer of at least 20 feet shall be retained between the building site
and the roadway. This section does not require revegation of a buffer area that was cleared before the formation date of the local option zoning district.
SEeTIOi' 6. That KPB 21.44.200(B) is hereby amended as follows:
B. Development Standards: 1. Sethacks. Setbacks shall be 40 feet from the front yard line, 20 feet from the rear yard
line, 25 feet from the side yard lines, and 100 feet from the shore subject to the provisions ofKPB 21.18 where applicable.
') lvlinimum lot size. Minimum lot size shall be 40,000 square feet. 3. Drainage Ways. Existing natural drainage ways shall be retained. 4 .. Buffers. To provide for screening, aesthetics, and the reduction of surface water run-off,
no lot shall be clear-cut more than 75 percent of the total lot area except that trees may be selectively pruned and thinned, and dead and diseased trees which are a safety hazard or which threaten structures may be removed. Undergrowth may be removed provided that the area is promptly re-seeded or sodded. A forested buffer of at least 30 feet shall be retained between the building site and the common drive or roadway, and a forested buffer of at least 50 feet shall be retained between the Industrial and other local option zoning districts. This section does not require revegetation of a buffer area that was cleared before the formation date of the local option zoning district.
SECTION 7. That KPB 21.44.21 O(D) is hereby amended as follows:
D. Development Standards. Development standards apply to principle and accessory structures:
Kenai Peninsula Borough. Alaska New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] Ordinance 2001-12 Page 30f6
1. Setbacks. Setbacks shall be 30 feet from the front yard line, 10 feet from the rear yard line,S feet from the side yard lines, and 50 feet from the shore subject to the provisions of KPB 21.18 where applicable.
2. Maximum building height. Maximum building height shall be 2 1/2 stories or 35 feet above average grade, whichever is less.
'I
J. Minimum area. Minimum area shall be 20 contiguous acres of gross project area in size. 4. Minimum lot size: Minimum lot size shall be 10,000 square feet (provided that an ADEC
approved community sewer and water system is utilized. 5. Drainage Ways. Existing natural drainage ways shall be retained. 6. Pollution Control. The location and nature of the septic systems which will serve the
homesites individually or collectively will assure that effluent from the septic systems \vill not reach the ground or surface waters in a condition which would contribute to health hazards, taste, odor, turbidity,. fertility or impair the aesthetic character of navigable waters
7. Buffers. To provide for screening, aesthetics, and the reduction of surface water run-off, no lot shall be clear-cut more than fifty (50) percent of the total lot area except that trees may be selectively pruned and thinned" and dead and diseased trees which are a safety hazard or which threaten structures may be removed. Undergrowth may be removed provided that the area is promptly re-seeded or sodded. A forested buffer of at least 20 feet shall be retained between the building site and the common drive or roadway. This section does not require revegetation of a buffer area that was cleared before the fonnation date of the local option zoning district.
8. Open Space. a. At least 50% of the gross project area shall be dedicated as pennanent open space.
Open space shall be restricted to prohibit development and may be: I. dedicated to the public; 11. retained by the fonner owner; Ill. held in common by the residents of the residential conservation district; or iv. held as outlots by individual owners of the conservation district.
b. Lands dedicated to the public must be accepted by the planning commission as part of the platting process.
c. Open space shall be deed restricted to forestry, recreational and environmental protection uses. However, a sanitary waste disposal system may be located in the area provided no suitable site is available on the lot served by the system. Open space shall be contiguous.
9. Access01)' structures. Accessory structures commonly associated with residential dwellings, i.e. garages, storage sheds, greenhouses, and workshops are allowed within the district.
10. Dog lots. Dog lots and kennels are prohibited. 11. Density: The number of platted homesites shall not exceed 150% of what would have
been possible if the same land were platted in accordance with the minimum lot sizes and setbacks provided by the applicable provisions of KPB codes and ordinances. The maximum number of home sites shall be detennined by dividing the gross project area of the subdivision, excluding streets, by the minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, plus 50 percent of that number.
12. Design standards.
Ordmance 2001-12 New Text Underlmed; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] KenaI Peninsula Borough, Alaska Page 4of6
a. Roadways, lots and building envelopes shall be located in areas where they will have the least effect on wetlands, rivers, streams and other environmentally sensitive areas, cropland, pasture, meadow, and historic structures, and where they will retain or enhance the visual character of the rural landscape. However, in resolving conflicts between these interests, priority shall be given to protection of waterways and their buffers, steep slopes, regulated floodplains and avoidance of a fragmented landscape.
b. Consideration of the design of the subdivision and the open space provisions shall include the Borough Comprehensive Plan, Trails Plan and community plans, Coastal Management Plan~ as well as recommendations from Alaska Department of Fish and Game and other permitting authorities.
c. Building Sites. The following standards apply to building sites. i. Building sites shall include at least 2,500 square feet of buildable area
excluding sites designated for sanitary systems and all areas where construction of buildings and related infrastructure is precluded by the provisions of the Borough's ordinances.
II. Buildings and roads shall be located as to minimize conflicts with uses of adjacent lands.
1l1. Building sites shall not include wetland.s or floodplains. d. Roadways and Infrastructure. The following standards apply to roadways and
infrastructure: I. Roadways and, where practicable, infi-astructure shall not be located in open
fields but shall be sited along forest edges and shall be designed to maximize the amount of forest in the conservation district which is contiguous with adjacent forested lands.
II. Roadways shall follow existing contours to minimize the extent of cuts and fills.
Ill. Roadways shall be located to minimize the amount of wetland fill. IV. Where sites include linear features such as existing access roads, tree lines and
fence rows, roadways shall, where practicable, follow these features to minimize their visual impact.
v. Road and utility crossings of anadromous streams shall be minimized and consolidated at a single location to minimize impacts to both individual stream channels and watersheds.
VI. Bridges and culverts shall be large enough to provide free passage to anadromous fish and shall be positioned to minimize changes in direction or velocity of stream flow.
vii. All driveways shall serve a minimum of two units. viii. The maximum number of units served by a common driveway shall be four
unless the applicant demonstrates that a greater number will promote the obj ectives of the residential conservation district.
IX. Maximum length of common driveways shall be 1,000 feet. x. All roads must be constructed to Kenai Peninsula Borough standards, KPB
14.06, Appendix A.
Kenai Peninsula Borough. Alaska New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] Ordinance 2001-12 Page 5 of6
e. Site Development and Land Disturbing Activities. Existing natural vegetation shall be preserved in areas where disturbance outside the building envelope is not essential.
13. Procedure for Establishing a Residential Conservation Dislricl. The procedure for establishing a residential conservation district shall be as follows: a. Pelilion. A petition in compliance with KPB 21.44.210 shall be submitted to the
planning director. b. Review and Hearing. The petition shall be: submitted to the planning commission,
which shall give notice and hold a public hearing. The planning commission decision shall reflect the recommendations of any federal, state or local agency with which the Borough Planning Department consults.
c. Findings and Conditions ofApproval. The planning commission shall make written findings as to the compliance or noncompliance of the proposed residential conservation district with each of the applicable requirements set forth in KPB 21.44.210. If the plat is granted in whole or part, the planning commission shall attach such written conditions to the approval as are required by and consistent with KPB 21.44.210. The conditions and approval shall in all cases establish the specific restrictions applicable with regard~o minimum lot sizes, setbacks, location of septic systems and the preservation of ground cove:r and open space.
d. Planning Sludies. A landowner or petitioner may at his own expense develop the facts required to establish compliance with the provision of KPB 21.44.210 or may be required to contribute funds to the borough to defray all or part of the cost of such studies being undertaken by the borough or any agency or person with whom the borough contracts for such work.
SECTION 8. That this ordinance takes effect immediately upon its enactment.
ENACTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH THIS * DAY OF *, 2001.
Timothy Navarre, Assembly President
ATTEST:
Linda S. Murphy, Borough Clerk
Ordinance 200 1-12 New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska Page 6 of6
Introduced by: Mayor Date: April 17,2001 Hearing: May 15,2001 Action: Vote:
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $235,665 FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA FOR SKYVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND K-BEACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND DEFERRED
MAINTENANCE PRO~TECTS
WHEREAS, the memorandum accompanying Ordinance 98-06 enacted by the assembly in March of 1998 indicated that the borough administration expected $269,859 of surplus Tustumena Grant funds to eventually be available for redirection and that $179,862 would be used to reimburse the general fund for costs associated with the Ninilchik School fire and the balance, then estimated at $89,997, would be redirected to the Seward Pool Renovation project; and
WHEREAS, availability of the surplus Tustumena Grant funds was delayed for several years because of a requirement by the Department of Education that a 1% Arts project be completed prior to the release of any surplus grant funds; and
WHEREAS, the borough's FY2000 assembly approved budget included a $65,648 general fund advance for completion of the Seward Pool Renovation project to be reimbursed from surplus Tustumena Grant funds when authorized by the legislature and released by the Department of Education; and
WHEREAS, the Alaska State Legislature subsequently enacted legislation authorizing redirection of the surplus grant funds and the Department of Community and Economic Development has notified the Borough that surplus grant funds originally approved for the Tustumena School Project in the amount of $235,665 are now available for redirection by the Borough for other school capital improvement and deferred maintenance projects; and
WHEREAS, the borough administration believes that the surplus grant funds would be better used to accomplish additional school capital maintenance projects rather than to reimburse the general fund; and
WHEREAS, the Borough Maintenance Department, in conjunction with the School District's Operations Department, are responsible for identifying capital improvement projects and deferred maintenance items for each school within our school district; and
Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska Ordinance 2000-19--xx Page I aD
AGE:NDA ITEM rJ1)f Substitute April 17,2001
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH POLICY
Unreserved Portion of Operating and Capital Fund Balances
Purpose: To establish unreserved fund balance ranges for the Borough"s general fund and Service Areas' operating and capital funds.
Background: Fund Balance by definition does not equal cash, nor is it the difference between revenues and expenditures. Rather, Fund Balance is the cumulative difference of all revenues and expenditures from the government's creation. It can also be considered to be the difference between fund assets and fund liabilities, and can be known as fund equity, From a practical standpoint absent significant liabilities, fund equity approximates cash.
A distinction is made between reserved and unreserved fund balance.
Reserved fund balance consists of portions of fund balance that are either legally restricted to a specific future use or are not available for appropriation or expenditure. The portion of fund balance that is not available for appropriation or expenditure represent assets that are not considered "expendable available financial resources." Reserved fund balance is often further broken down into several categories based on the purpose of the assets held. Typical fund balance reserves include:
• Reserved for advances to other funds • Reserved for debt service • Reserved for encumbrances • Reserved for fixed assets held for resale • Reserved for inventories • Reserved for prepaid items
Unreserved fund balance represents expendable available financial resources. Unreserved fund balance is often subdivided into designated and undesignated portions. Designated fund balance represents management plans for the future financial resources use. Expressed another way, designations reflect a government" s self-imposed limitations on the use of otherwise available expendable financial resources in governmental funds. Undesignated fund balance represents available financial resources, which have not been designated or obligated to a specific purpose. Typical designated fund balance accounts include;
• Designated for working capital. • Designated for subsequent years expenditures. • Designated for future capital expansion. • Designated for operating contingencies.
The accumulation of unreserved fund balance can greatly assist a government's ability to provide services to its residents. Unreserved fund balance allows government to provide a stable taxing policy and revenue structure to fund its services. Adequate levels of unreserved fund balance enables a government
Page I of 4
S ,FINA'\oCE\Fund Balance Policy\FUND BALANCE POLICY ~E\V doc
Substitute April 17,2001
to spread the effect of such items as economic uncertainty and natural disasters over many years. An adequate level of unreserved fund balance is also a major consideration of credit rating agencies during their evaluation of a government's credit worthiness.
Operating Funds Establishment of unreserved fund balance range should include the following:
• Designations for working capital requirements. • Designations for operating contingencies
Revenue volatility amount Unexpected expenditure
• Designated for future capital expansion and contingencies
Designations for working capital requirements: Working capital provides the amount necessary to cover cash flow requirements and normal variations in revenue and expenditure estimates. Each funds unreserved fund balance shall include an amount equal to at least 10% but not more than 40% of their budget expenditures for working capital. The range shall be detennined as follows:
1. Funds with expenditure levels in excess of $1 0,000,000 10% to 15% 2. Funds with expenditure levels from $2,000,000 to $9,999,999 15% to 25% 3. Funds with expenditure levels from $500,000 to $1,999,999 20% to 30% 4. Funds with expenditure levels from $0 to $499,999 25% to 40%
Designated for Operating Contingencies: Revenue volatility amount A revenue volatility factor will provide an amount necessary to offset the sudden decline of significant sources of revenue. Unreserved fund balance shall include amount for revenue sources subject to significant declines. as a result of external forces, and constituting a significant portion of a fund's revenue. The amount designated will be calculated by first calculating the percentage of a funds revenue derived from each revenue source. Secondly a ten year or since fund inception average, which ever is less. annual revenue change will be calculated. Using the percentage of fund revenue and average change. the appropriate volatility factor will be extracted from the following table and multiplied by the prior years actual revenue generated by the revenue source. Deviations from this policy may be necessary when annual changes are caused by reimbursement of extraordinary, non-recurring expenditures such as Federal Disaster Assistance Funds during the 1995 flooding and changes in taxing practices such as the $100.000 personal property tax exemption.
Page 2 of 4
S \fINANCE\Fund Balance Poltcy\FUND BALANCE POLlCY NEW doc
Substitute April 17,200 I
Low Volatility Moderate,VolatiUtjr 'High Vo a..I"'ti'·oU·ty"·'.......i,L 0/0 Revenue from Source 0% - 5% Average 5% '. 8%"~verage'" 9%+ Averag·.·'."e.·.,.•·.?:,.
'.. -;,i'
Volatility Factor VolatilitY.FaCtor Volatility ¥~~or 0% to 10% 0% 0% 0% to 25% 11% to 20% 0% 0% to 10% 25% to 75% 21% to 35% 0% 10% to 20% 50% to 100% 36% to 50% 0% 20% to 30% 75% to 125% 51% to 70% 0% 30% to 40% 100% to 150%
71 % to 100% 0% 40%to 50% 125%to 175%
Unexpected Expenditures From time to time unexpected expenditures will be incurred. Each operating fund shall maintain umeserved fund balance to meet these contingencies. The appropriate factor from the following table shall be multiplied by the prior fiscal years total expenditures and operating transfers less transfers to capital project funds. The amount shall be determined as follows:
1. Funds with expenditure levels in excess of $1 0,000,000 5% 2. Funds with expenditure levels from $2,000,000 to S9,999,999 10% 3. Funds with expenditure levels from $500,000 to $1,999,999 15% 4. Funds with expenditure levels from $0 to $499,999 25%
Designated for Future Capital Expansion and Contingencil~s:
Operating funds without a related capital projects fund will establish a ten-year financial plan for major capital expansion and maintenance. An amount of unreserved fund balance from 10% to 25% of the total expenditures for the ten-year plan shall be designated.
Operating funds having established a capital projects funds for the acquisition of major capital items and scheduled equipment replacement will not have a designation for future capital expansion and contingencies. The fund balance of such capital project funds will be evaluated using the Capital Funds Portion of this policy.
Capital Project Funds Establishment of unreserved fund balance range should include the following:
• Designations for capital requirements.
Designations for capital requirements: Equipment replacement capital projects funds were I~stablished for services areas to provide for major capital replacement and acquisition. These funds accumulate resources through operating transfers from the service area' s operating fund and interest earnings on the balance of the fund. Operating transfers from operating funds are intended to be level contributions thus minimizing large variances to operating fund budgets from year to year. The fund balance of these capital projects funds should support the funds ten-year capital replacement and acquisition plan. The: service areas update this plan annually.
Each fund's ten-year average of undesignated fund balances shall be no less than 25% but no more than 100% of the average expenditures for the ten-year capital replacement and acquisition plan. The range shall be determined as follows:
Average expenditures for ~~,e t~n. Minimum Maximum' year capital replacement an<l1
$500,000 25% 40% $250,000 to $499,999 25% 50% $100,000 to $249,999 50% 75%
$0 to $99,999 50% 100%
Policy It will be the policy of the Borough to apply the above criteria for annual analysis during its budgeting process. A range of fund balance will be presented to the assembly for approval as part of the annual budgeting process, any deviation from the policy shall be documented and presented at this time. If a fund balance is outside of the established range, the proposed budget must include a five-year plan of action to achieve compliance with the established range.
Page 4 of 4
S \fINANCE\fund Balance Policy\FUND BALANCE POLICY NEW doc
FY2002 GENERAL FUND UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE POLICY ANALYSIS
BASE VALUE
MINIMUM MULTIPL.YING
FACTOR
MAXIMUM MULTIPLYING
FACTOR MINIMUM AMOUNT
MAXIMUM AMOUNT
WORKING CAPITAL COMPONENT (BASE VALUE EQUALS FY2000 TOTAL
EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES) $58,637,734 10.00% 15.00% $ 5,863,773 $ 8,795,660
OPERATING CONTINGENCIES: UNEXPECTED EXPENDITURES
(BASE VALUE EQUALS FY2000 TOTAL
EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES) $55,132,871 ~j.OO% 5.00% $ 2,756,644 $ 2,756,644
REVENUE VOLATILITY COMPONENT: OIL & GAS REVENUE
(BASE VALUE EQUALS FY2002 ESTIMATED
REVENUE FROM OIL & GAS PROPERTIES) $ 6,478,625 25.00% 75.00% $ 1,619,656 $ 4,858,969
STATE REVENUE SHARING (BASE VALUE EQUALS FY2000 ACTUAL REVENUE
FROM STATE REVENUE SHARING) $ 266,706 0.00% 25.00% $ $ 66,677
SAFE COMMUNITIES REVENUE SHARING (BASE VALUE EQUALS FY2000 ACTUAL REVENUE
TOTAL UNRESTRICTED FUND BALANCE $ 12,430,017 $22,330,786
FY2000 ENDING UNRESEIWED FUND BALANCE $ 26,701,571 $26,701,571
DIFFERENCE $(14,271,554) $ (4,370,785)
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH POLICY
FY2002 Unreserved Fund Balance Policy D~:viations
Deviations from the Fund Balance Policy Revenue Volatility Component occur when single identifiable events of extraordinary and non-recurring nature have a significant effect on the ten-year average volatility creating the appearance of a revenue source being volatile when it truly isn't. Proposed deviations for the FY2002 include the following.
Motor Vehicle Tax The ten-year average change for motor vehicle tax revenues is 11.59% and thus should have a high volatility classification. With a high volatility classification a minimum fund balance designation of $0 and a maximum designation of $234.336, based upon FY2000 actual motor vehicle tax revenues. should be made. No designation has been made for motor vehicle tax revenues due to the ten-year average variance being skewed by non-economic and self-imposed factors. A significant portion of this variance is related to self-imposed increases in the rate per vehicle. In addition to rate increases, the State of Alaska. collectors of motor vehicle tax, instituted a two-year taxation and collection procedure. Changing the collection schedule of motor vehicle taxes has also increased the annual variance. Based upon these factors motor vehicle tax is far less volatile than it appears and thus no designation has been established.
Interest Revenue: The ten-year average change for interest revenues is 18.25% and thus should have a high volatility classification. With a high volatility classification a minimum fund balance designation of $0 and a maximum designation of $744,808, based upon FY2000 actual interest revenues, should be made.
Borough Policies creating or reducing fund balance through taxation or spending create self-imposed volatility \vithin interest earnings. Significant changes in fund balance cause interest revenue volatility that is unrelated to the true volatility factor. changes in investment rates.
In addition to Borough Policies, governmental accounting rules with the adoption of GASB 31 "'Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External Investment Pools" create apparent volatility in interest earnings. Interest earnings each fiscal year do not represent actual cash earnings as it is adjusted for unrealized gains and losses caused by interest rate changes. The unrealized gains and losses have no impact on cash inflows unless the investment is liquidated. Investments held to maturity, which is the nonnal borough practice, has no actual impact on cash flow.
The inclusion of interest earnings is not practical as the volatility does not represent actual changes in cash flows. When significant cash tlow volatility occurs it is caused by significant changes in fund balance which is influenced by other borough taxing and spending policies.
Federal Revenue: The ten-year average change for federal revenues is 11.35% and thus should have a high volatility classification. With a high volatility classification a minimum fund balance designation of $0 and a maximum designation of $264,347, based upon FY2000 actual federal revenues. should be made. No
Page I of2 S Ff:-Jr\:-"'CEFunl1 Balance Pohc\'\2001 DeViations doc
designation has been made for federal revenues due to the ten-year average variance being skewed by the federal revenues received in FY 1996 as reimbursement for flood damage expenditures incurred under a Presidential Disaster Declaration. Removal of this unusual and non-recurring revenue shows federal revenue as having an average change of 0.29%. An average change of 0.29% indicates low volatility and requires no designation.
Other Revenues: The ten-year average change for other revenues is 15.70% and thus should have a highly volatility classification. With a high volatility classification a minimum fund balance designation of $0 and a maximum designation of $199,547, based upon FY2000 actual other revenues, should be made. No designation has been made for other revenues due to the ten-year average variance being skewed by the one time receipt of funds from the settlement of a lawsuit n~garding lost raw fish tax from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill received in FY1993. Removal of this unusual and non-recurring revenue shows other revenue as having an average change of 6.15%. An average change of 6.15% indicates moderate volatility and requires no designation.
Tim Navarre, Assembly President 144 N. Binkley Street Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Dear President Navarre;
This is a letter of resignation from my assembly seat effective 12:01 a.m. May 16th, 2001. I have highly valued the opportunity to serve as an assembly
member for nearly fourteen years. I will always think back with fond memories of the battles won and lost and the outstanding individuals with whom I have served.
The reason for my resignation is that I will be continuing Illy pUblic service with the Kenai Peninsula Borough Community and Economic Development Division. This position will not allow me to simultaneously serve as an assembly member.
It is my understanding that SUbmitting my resignation today it will allow the assembly to appoint my replacement expeditiously.
Again I would like to thank the voters for their support and opportunity to serve for nearly fourteen years.
Sincerely,
~~L wcn<-~ GBrown Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly - District 3
cc: Mayor Dale Bagley Assembly Members
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Assembly Agenda April 6, 200 I - 7:00 p.m.
Tim Navarre President Seat 2 - Kenai North Term Expires 2002
Pete Sprague Vice President Seat" - SoldotnLl Term Expires 200 I
Jack Brown Assembly Member Seat 3 - Nikiski Term Expires 200 I
Paul Fischer Assembly Member Seat 7 - Tustumena Term Expires 200 I
Ron Long Assembly Member Seat 6 - Seward Term Expires 2003
Milli Martin Assembly Member Seat 9DiamondiSeldovlG Term Expires 2003
Grace Merkes Assembly Member Seat 5 - Sterling Term Expires 2002
Chris Moss Assembly Member Seat 8 - Homer Term Expires 2002
Bill Popp Assembly Member Seat I - Kenai South Term Expires 2003
Recessed Mecling of April 3,2001 Borough Assembly Chambers, Soldotna
CALL TO ORDER THE RECESSED MEETING OF APRIL 3, 2001
ROLLCALL
RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 2001-037: Approving the Agreement with Cornell Companies Inc. for Planning and Promotion of the Prison Project (Mayor)
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS (3 minutes per speaker)
ASSEMBLY MEETING AND HEARING ANNOUNCEMENTS
April 17,2001 7:00 PM Regular Assembly Mtg-Soldotna
ASSEMBLY COMMENTS
NOTICE OF NEXT MEETING AND ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly will be held on April 17, 2001, at 7 :00 P.M. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, Soldotna, Alaska.
Copies ofagenda items are available at the Borough Clerk's Office or outside the Meeting Roomjust prior to the meeting. For further information, please call the Clerk's Office at 262-8608 or tollfree within the Borough at 1-800-478-4441, Ext. 308. Visit our website at www.borough.kenai.ak.usfor copies of the agenda, meeting summaries, ordinances and resolutions.
Page 1 of 1April 6, 2001
Introduced by: Mayor Date: 04/03/0] Action: Postponed until 04/06/0] Action: Vote: Date:
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH RESOLUTION 2001-037
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH CORNELL COMPANIES INC. FOR PLANNING AND PROMOTION OF THE PRISON PROJECT
WHEREAS, the borough assembly passed Resolution 2001-016 authorizing the negotiation of a contract to assist the borough administration with the planning, promotion, and potentially the design, construction, and operation of an 800-1000 bed medium security correctional facility; and
WHEREAS, the administration has negotiawd a contract with Cornell Companies Inc.; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 2000-59 required that the assembly must approve by resolution any such contract before it may takt~ effect;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH:
SECTION 1. That the proposed contract between Cornell Companies Inc. and the Kenai Peninsula Borough, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, is approved.
SECTION 2. That this resolution takes effect immediately upon its enactment.
ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAl PENINSULA BOROUGH THIS 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2001.
Introduced by: Mayor Date: 04/03/01 Action: Postponed until 04/06/01 Action: Adopted as Amended Vote: 8 Yes. I No,O Absent Date: 04/06/01
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH RESOLUTION 2001-037
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH CORNELL COMPANIES INC. FOR PLANNING AND PROMOTION OF THE PRISON PROJECT
WHEREAS, the borough assembly passed Resolution 2001-016 authorizing the negotiation of a contract to assist the borough administration with the planning, promotion, and potentially the design, constmction, and operation of an 800-1000 bed medium security correctional facility; and
WHEREAS, the administration has negotiated a contract with Cornell Companies Inc.: and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 2000-59 required that the a.ssembly must approve by resolution any such contract before it may tak,~ effect:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH:
SECTION 1. That the proposed contract between Cornell Companies Inc. and the Kenai Peninsula Borough, a copy 0 f which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A is approved.
SECTION 2. That the mayor is authorized to execute the contract as amended by the assembly.
SECTION 3. That this resolution takes effect immediately upon its enactment.
ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI PE~INSULA BOROUGH THIS 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2001.
Timothy Navarre, Assembly President
ATTEST:
Linda S. Murphy, Borough Clerk
Kenai Peninsula Borough. Alaska Resolution 2001-037 Page I of 1
Revision 10 KPB
4/6/01 Version
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CORNELL COMPANIES INC.
AND
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH
THIS CONTRACT is entered into between KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH (hereinafter "Borough") and CORNELL COMPANIES [NC. (hereinafter "Cornell").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the State of Alaska. Department of Con'ections currently houses 800 inmates at a facility in Arizona because adequate facilities to prop\~rly house these inmates are not presently available in Alaska; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Corrections Master Plan proposes that by 2003 an 800-bed facility will be available in Alaska to allow the return of prisoners from Arizona; and
WHEREAS, confinement of prisoners thousands of miles from family and support systems is not a preferred correctional practice nor sound public policy. Confinement thousands of miles from villages. family and cultural support systems is of particular hardship to Native Alaskan prisoners; and
WHEREAS, the chief executive officers of all of the ANCSA regional corporations have passed a resolution calling for the return of Native Alaskan prisoners to their homeland. 7% of the State general population are Native males; but 37% of the State prison population are Native males, including over 300 Native prisoners currently confined in Arizona; and
WHEREAS, the Kenai Peninsula Borough in Ordinance 2000-59 authorized the mayor to solicit (:ompetitive bids or proposals for the lease or purchase of land, the design, construction and operation of an 800- to LOOO-bed prison facility. effective upon passage of enabling legislation, reaching all necessary agreements. and issuance of the necessary bonds; and
PSA - CornelllKPB Page I of 13 April 2001
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law and the terms and conditions of the Request for Qualifications dated December 15, 2000, and associated addenda, following a competitive selection process, Cornell was chosen to assist the Borough with planning and promoting an 800- to 1000- bed medium security correctional facility to be located within the Kenai Peninsula Borough; and
WHEREAS, in Resolution 2001-016 the Borough Assembly authorized the borough administration to negotiate a contract with Cornell to assist the Borough with the planning and promotion of the Project and potentially to enter one or more contracts for the design, construction and operation of an 800- to 1,OOO-bed medium security correctional facility, if the Project is approved by the state legislature and other conditions are met and
WHEREAS, the Borough wishes to obtain the benefits of Cornell's expertise in the field of corrections management by retaining Cornell to assist in activities related to the legislative approval of the project subject to the terms and provisions of this Contract; and
WHEREAS, Cornell. through an agreement with the Kenai Native Association, can provide property that may be suitable for construction of this prison facility in the vicinity of the Wildwood Correctional Complex: and
WHEREAS, the private operation of prison facilities has been shown to save money while maintaining quality of services in other states and can allow governments the opportunity to transfer associated financial risks to private contractors; and
'VHEREAS, such a prison facility would enhance long term employment for the citizens of the borough, and would promote construction jobs during the construction of the facility;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and subject to the conditions herein set forth, the parties hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE ONE DEFINITIONS
ASL - means the Alaska State Legislature.
Assembly - means the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly.
Commissioner - means the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Corrections.
Contract - means this document.
Department or ADC - means the Alaska Department of Corrections.
Facility - means the 800- to 1000-bed medium security prison to be designed, constructed and operated within the Borough and which shall include appropriate housing units, administrative offices and all other structures and improvements of a related nature, including but not limited to
PSA -- ComelVKPB Page 2 of 13 April 2001
all support buildings, roads, fences, utility systems, etc., for the incarceration of adults assigned by the Department.
IGA - means the Inter-Governmental Agfei~ment between the ADC and the Borough for the purchase of a guaranteed minimum of 800 prison beds in the Facility.
Mavor - means the Mayor of Kenai Peninsula Borough.
Phase Two Contracts - means the contract or contracts for the design, construction and operation of the Facility.
Project - means passage of legislation in support of the development of the Facility.
Project Manager - means the Mayor or his designee.
RFQ - means the Request for Qualitications issued by the Borough on December 15, 2000, together with all addenda thereto.
State - means the State of Alaska
ARTICLE T\VO ENGAGEMENT
Section 2.1 Appointment. The Borough hereby contracts with Cornell to provide planning and promotion assistance as set forth in Article Three of this Contract. As further set forth below, and subject to those limitations, it is also the Borough's and Cornell's intent to negotiate in good faith the Phase Two Contracts.
Section 2.2 Term. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein this Contract shall take effect upon the date set forth at the end of this contract and shall continue in force until sixty (60) days after adjournment of the first session of the Twenty-Second Alaska State Legislature. The parties agree that upon completion of this period, if no legislation has been adopted authorizing the Project. the parties shall meet to determine whether the Contract shall be continued. The Borough retains the right to terminate this Contract at that point without the obligation to compensate Cornell for expenses incurred. Alternatively. upon written agreement of the parties, the Contract may be extended for two additional one-year terms on the same terms and conditions as this Contract. In the event authorizing legislation is adopted, the term of this Contract shall continue for so long as necessary to enter the Phase Two Contracts, or until negotiations are concluded without entering any such contracts in accordance with the terms of this Contract.
Section 2.3 Relationship Between the Partie~!. Cornell and the Borough shall cooperate with each other in good faith to carry out the purposes of Ihis Contract. The parties shall meet as required by the Project Manager to facilitate successful completion of the Project.
PSA - ComelllKPB Page 3 of 13 April 2001
Section 2.4 Compensation.
a) Cornell's compensation shall be limited to having the first opportunity, under certain circumstances, to negotiate Phase Two Contracts in accordance with the provisions of this Contract, and the opportunity to work 10 collaboration with the Borough for the passage of enabling legislation that may be beneficial to the Project which the parties agree is good and valuable consideration for this Contract. The parties agree that this Contract in no way guarantees that Cornell shall receive such Phase Two Contracts.
b) In the event that the ASL approves legislation authorizing the Facility and the ASL ADC, or the Governor require that Phase Two Contracts be let through a subsequent competitive process (e.g. request for proposals, bids} or Cornell and the Borough are unable to negotiate Phase Two Contracts satisfactory to the Borough. Cornell shall be reimbursed its actual costs. up to a total maximum amount of $1 00,000. Actual costs shall consist of coach airfare within the State of Alaska, hotel, rental car, and meal expenses while traveling, and other fees at actual cost up to $100 per hour. Cornell agrees to provide copies of support documentation along with any request for reimbursement under this section and shall make available upon request by the Borough all records. reports. worksheets or other material related to this Contract for audit purposes. The Borough will have the exclusive authority to determine what qualifies as a legitimate Project expense. Any such payment is subject to the availability and appropriation of funds. Under no other circumstances shall Cornell be reimbursed for its expenses. Nothing in this Contract shall be construed to create any right whatsoever of reimbursement from the Borough for any of Cornett's subcontractors or agents.
c) Under the following circumstances. Cornell agrees that it is not entitled to any reimbursement as it took this project on at its own risk: • Failure to obtain legislative or executive branch approval for the Project during the term
of this contract. • Failure of the Borough to negotiate all necessary contracts with the ADC for construction
and long-term utilization of the Facility. • The Borough's good faith determination that Cornell has materially breached this
Contract as further defined in Article Six.
ARTICLE THREE CORNELL SERVICES
Section 3.1 Scope of Work and Cornell's ResponsibiWies. Cornell shall assist and cooperate with the Borough in the planning and promotion of the Project as directed by the Borough's Project Manager, to act in good faith. and to do all reasonable things necessary to aid and affect the Borough's performance under the terms of this Contract. subject to the limitations. terms and conditions in this Contract. The planning and promotion functions of the Project are the responsibility of the Borough. It is expected that Cornell shall incur costs as necessary to accomplish what this Contract requires. and agreed that such expectation does not create any right to compensation or reimbursement except as expressly provided in this Contract. Cornell shall, to the extent directed by the Borough:
PSA - Comell/KPB Page 4 of 13 April 2001
a) Assist and cooperate with the Borough in the development of legislation and/or amendments thereto:
b) Appear before legislative committees for the purpose of addressing the benefits of privatization, e.g., speed and cost of construction, cost of operation as related to locating a prison in the Borough, and other purposes the parties agree is conducive to the passage ofauthorizing legislation:
c) In conj unction with the Department of Corrections and the Borough. provide concept design drawings, construction cost estimates. and operating budgets to calculate reimbursement rates.
d) Advise the Borough on methods of obtaining support for the legislation and provide such support as authorized by the Project Manager:
e) Assist the Borough in developing strategies for addressing the concerns of communities and others affected by or opposed to the Facility;
t) Assist and cooperate with the Borough in developmg a positive working relationship with the ADC and the ASL;
g) Assist and advise the Borough with the development of specific tenns and conditions to be included in the negotiated IGA reasonably required for the Phase Two Contracts. as further described below in Article Four;
h) Assist the Borough in the development ot' a bond otIering to finance the design and construction of the Facility;
i) Assist the Borough in the initial phases of planning and promotion of a site for location of the Facility;
j) Take such other actions as are mutually agreed to by the parties.
Section 3.2 Limitations. Under no circumstances shall Cornell engage in any activity contrary to the Borough's interest, including but not limited to:
a) S~eking to change, through lobbying or otherwise. any provision of any legislation affecting the Project without the approval of the Borough's Project Manager:
b) Having contact with legislative members. the Governor. the Commissioner, members of the Borough Assembly. or their staffs regarding the Project without advising the Project Manager within twenty-four (24) hours following such contact. Cornell may advise the Borough's legislative lobbyist of such state level contacts. and such communication shall be deemed acceptable by the Borough.
c) Failing to cooperate with the Borough in perfoffiling Cornell's responsibilities under this Contract.
ARTICLE FOGR DUTIES OF PARTIES
Section 4.1 Cooperation with Cornell. The Borough hereby agrees to cooperate with Cornell in the performance of Cornell's duties and responsibilities under this Contract, to act in good faith, and to do all reasonable things necessary 1:0 aid and affect Cornell's perfonnance as an independent contractor under the tenns of this Contract. The Borough shall not unreasonably withhold any approval requested by Cornell. and shall be readily available within reason for the purpose of discussing legislative strategies and receiving communications.
PSA - Comell/KPB Page 5 of 13 April 2001
Section 4.2 Project Development. The Borough agrees to work toward the successful passage of legislation supporting the Project. and, if received, to enter into negotiations for an lGA with the State of Alaska as expeditiously as reasonably possible, and to seek input from Cornell concerning negotiations with the State of Alaska regarding the terms of the 1GA as those terms relate to design, construction. financing, or operation of the Facility. or compensation for operation of the Facility. The Borough shall retain final approval and signature authority for the 1GA.
Section 4.3 Negotiation of Phase Two Contracts. Upon passage of legislation supporting the project and successful negotiation of the 1GA, unless restricted by such legislation or as otherwise provided in this Contract, the Borough and Cornell agree to participate in negotiating in good faith subsequent Phase Two Contracts. Both parties recognize and agree that actions of the ASL, ADC, the governor's office. and Cornell in their performance of this Contract may impact the ability of the Borough to successfully negotiate Phase Two Contracts. The following items (a) through (i) shall collectively be referred to as the Material Terms. The parties agree that if the following items (a) through (f) are all accomplished by Cornell and the Borough, the parties will proceed with negotiating Phase Two Contracts. Execution of Phase Two Contracts shall also be conditioned upon accomplishment of items (e) through (h) below, and performance of Phase Two Contracts shall further be conditioned upon successful completion of item (I) below:
a) The passage of authorizing legislation by the ASL 'with terms acceptable to the Borough; b) The negotiation of an IGA with the ADC on terms consistent with the authorizing legislation: c) The entry of an agreement for the acquisition of the land necessary for the Proj ect on terms
economically compatible with the 1GA and acceptable to the Borough: d) The approval by the Borough Assembly of the desire to proceed with a privately operated
prison project through an 1GA with the ADC and authorization to negotiate and enter Phase Two Contracts with Cornell. This approval and authorization will be made after conducting a feasibility study completed by an independent third party, selected and paid for by the borough:
e) Cornell does not materially breach this Contract: and f) Cornell does not persistently or repeatedly fail or refuse to cooperate with the Borough, or to
substantially fulfill any of its obligations under this Contract. including without limitation the scope of work and responsibilities listed in Section .3. L unless excused by Force Majeure.
g) An operating agreement that provides for full defense and indemnification of the Borough, its assembly members. board members. officers, agents and employees by CornelL from and against any and all liability, claims. damages, losses. expenses, actions, attorneys' fees, costs and suits whatsoever caused by or arising out of the performance. acts or omissions under any Phase Two Contract by Cornell or any of its officers. agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors, or arising from or related to a failure to comply with any state or federal statute, law, regulation or rule by Cornell or any of its officers, agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors, except in the case of che sole negligence or willful misconduct by the Borough:
h) An operating agreement that recognizes tr"at the administration of this contract justifies the imposition of a payment in lieu of property taxes (P1LT), and also that the economic development value of the project. and its {:xtensive capital value justifies a recognition of a
PSA - ComelllKPB Page 6 of 13 April 2001
credit against such PILT; a good faith estimate of such a PILT based upon current information is that it would be approximately $1.00 per bed per day for an 800-bed facility and $1.50 per bed per day for a 1,000-bed facility, which estimate is subject to change based upon the determination of the actual co~:ts incurred by the borough related to the prison, as determined and approved by the Borough Assembly.
i) The issuance of tax exempt revenue bonds funded by the IGA that are non-recourse to the Borough, that provide that IGA revenues are first dedicated to the retirement of bonded indebtedness, then to the payment of land costs, If any. then to payments in lieu of taxes or other acceptable payment to the Borough, then to any other costs mandated by the state or other government, and then all remaining monies to the operator. All operating expenses shall be incurred by CornelL and the Borough shall not be liable for any operating expenses.
Failure to achieve any Material Term shall be a basis for termination of this Contract, and Cornell's rights to compensation shall be limited to the provisions of Section 2.4.
In the event the Borough and Cornell cannot in good faith agree upon the terms and conditions of Phase Two Contracts, then either party may give notice to the other of its last best and final offer. The party receiving such an offer shall have 10 days to accept or reject such offer. In the event the last best and final otTer is not accepted this Contract shall be terminated. If the Contract is terminated pursuant to this provision, then the Borough shall reimburse Cornell for approved costs to the extent provided in Section 2.4.
Section 4.4 Permits and Licenses. In the event it may be necessary for the proper performance of this Contract, or any rights hereunder. on the part of the Borough or Cornell, that any application or applications for any permit or license or authorization to do or to perform certain things be made to any governmental or other agency by either party, the parties agree to execute promptly, upon the request of the other. such application or applications.
ARTICLE FIVE INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
Section 5.1. Indemnification.
a) Except in the case of the sole negligence or willful misconduct by the Borough, Cornell shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Borough and its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all liability, claims, damages, losses, expenses, actions, attorneys' fees, costs and suits whatsoever caused by or arising out of the performance, acts or omissions under this Contract by Cornell or any of its officers, agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors or arising from or related to a failure to comply with any state or federal statute. law, regulation or rule by Cornell or any of its officers, agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
b) Cornell and the Borough shall cooperate in defending claims tiled against either of them. Any claim in which both Cornell and the Borough are named may not be settled by one party on behalf of the other party without the written conse'nt of that other party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. No such settlement shall be etTective without this consent.
PSA - ComelJlKPB Page 7 of 13 April 2001
c) The right to indemnification will be in addition to, and not in lieu of. any remedy otherwise available to the Borough. Cornell's indemnification obligation is not diminished or limited in any way by the total limits of insurance required to be held by Cornell.
d) In the event that Cornell does not provide full indemnification, the Borough may, in addition to any other remedies available to it, set off against any monies owed to Cornell an amount equal to the amount not indemnified by Cornell.
Section 5.2 Insurance. Cornell shall continuously maintain and pay for such insurance as will protect Cornell and the Borough and their officers. agents and employees from all claims, including but not limited to actions by a third party against Cornell or the Borough for personal injury, death, damage to property, whether tangible or intangible. or other damage arising from the performance or nonperformance of the Contract by Cornell. The Borough shall be named as an additional insured on all policies. which coverage shall be primary and exclusive of any other coverage available to the Borough. The Borough shall be provided thirty days' written notice prior to the termination of any such coverage.
Section 5.3 Tvpes of Insurance. Prior to execution of this Contract Cornell shall provide insurance policies and endorsements. in a form and for terms satisfactory to the Borough, evidencing occurrence based coverage of the following types. for the following purposes, and in the following amounts:
a) Standard Worker's Compensation in the statutory amount: b) Employers' Liability Insurance - $100.000 each occulTence~
c) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance. in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each occurrence with an aggregate of at least five million dollars ($5.000.000). Coverage shall also include defense coverage in an amount not less than maximum attorney fees recoverable under Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82 in addition to the limits of liability; and
d) Automobile and other vehicle liability insurance in an amount not less than $1.000,000 combined single limit.
Section 5.4 Subcontractors. Cornell shall require all subcontractors to obtain, maintain, and keep in force insurance coverage in accordance with Section 5.3; however, general liability coverage shall not be required to exceed a combined single limit of one million dollars ($1,000.000) for each subcontractor.
Section 5.5 Defense/Immunity. By entering into this Contract. neither party waives any immunity defense which may be available to it by operation of law, including any limitation on the amount of damages which may be awarded.
ARTICLE SIX CONTRACT COMPLIANCE
Section 6.1 Borough Breach.
PSA - ComelllKPB Page 8 of 13 April 2001
a) The persistent or repeated failure or refusal by the Borough to substantially fulfill any of its material obligations under this Contract, unless justified by Force Majeure or unless excused by Cornell's default shall constitute a Breach of the Contract on the part of the Borough.
b) In the event of a Breach of Contract by the Borough, Cornell shall notify the Borough in writing within ten (10) days after Cornell becomes aware of the Breach. Said notice shall contain a description of the Breach. The Borough shall be afforded a thirty (30) day period in which to effect a cure or in which to take reasonable steps to effect a cure.
c) Failure by Cornell to provide the written notice described in subsection (b) above shall constitute an absolute waiver by Cornell of the Borough's Breach.
d) Unless otherwise provided by remedies obtained pursuant to subsection (e) herein, Breach on the part of the Borough shall not excuse Cornell from full performance under this Contract.
e) In the event of Breach by the Borough, Cornell may avail itself of the following remedies; provided, however, failure by Cornell to give the Borough written notice and opportunity to cure as described in this section operates as a waiver of the Borough's Breach: i) Termination of the Contract; or ii) Specific performance of the Contract. Cornell agrees that it is not entitled, and specifically waives any right whatsoever, to seek any damages or expenses as a result of a Breach by the Borough. beyond those expressly provided for in Section 2.4.
f) Failure by Cornell to give notice of arbitration as provided by Section 7.1 within thirty (30) days of the thirty-day cure period described in subsection 6.1 (b) shall operate as a waiver of said claim in its entirety. It is agreed by the parties this provision establishes a contractual period of limitations for any claim brought by CornelL
Section 6.2 Cornell Breach.
a) The following shall constitute a Material Breach of this Contract by Cornell. For purposes of this Article. the items below shall hereinafter be referred to as "Material Breach":
a) failure to perform. or partial performance ot: Cornell's duties to effect. accomplish, or perform, as applicable, any of the Material Terms set forth in section 4.3;
b) failure to maintain insurance at all times as required by this Contract: c) failure to comply with any applicable laws; or
d) violation of its obligation to cooperate in good faith with the Borough. including but not limited to those terms set forth in section 3.2.
b) In the event of a Material Breach by CornelL which is not timely cured as provided below. the Borough shall have available any or all of the following remedies as described further herein:
a) actual damages and any other remedy available at law or equity; b) specific performance; c) partial default; d) termination of the Contract; e) relief from any obligation to compensate Cornell for expenses incurred; and
PSA - ComelllKPB Page 9 of 13 April 2001
t) relief from any obligation to negotiate othl;;r contracts with CornelL including Phase Two Contracts.
In the event of Material Breach by Cornell, the Borough shall provide Cornell written notice of the Breach and a ten-day time period to cure said Breach. In the event Cornell fails to cure the Breach within the time period provided, then the Borough shall have available any and all remedies described herein. However, if the Material Breach cannot reasonably be cured within ten days and Cornell undertakes significant steps reasonably calculated to cure the Material Breach within the ten day period, then Cornell shall have up to 30 days to cure the Material Breach. before the Borough avails itself of its remedies. This 30-day period may only be extended if additional time is agreed to in writing signed by the borough. which agreement will not be unreasonably withheld.
c) All other breaches by Cornell of the Contract shall be governed by the notice and cure provisions of Section 6.2; however, the Borough's remedies shall be limited to the remedies set forth in section 6.2(b)(i-ii).
Section 6.3 Termination.
a) In the event of a Material Breach by CornelL not timely cured, or the failure to successfully negotiate any Phase Two Contract as provided herein, the Borough may terminate the Contract immediately or in stages. If the Contract i5 terminated pursuant to this provision, notwithstanding the requirement to perfonn in section 7.1. the borough shall not be required to continue performance of its obligations under the Contract during the period the issue is under arbitration if a meeting and arbitration are pursued. and may require Cornell to immediately discontinue its performance during the period of arbitration.
b) Cornell shall be notified of the termination in writing signed by the Mayor. c) The notice may specify either that the termination is to be effective immediately. on a date
certain in the future, or that Cornell shall cease operations under this Contract in stages. d) Cornell agrees to reasonably cooperate with the Borough in the event of a termination. e) In the event of a termination caused by a Material Breach by Cornell. Cornell shall be liable
to the Borough for any and all damages incurred by the Borough. To compensate the Borough for its costs, the Borough may withhold any amounts which may be due Cornell without waiver of any other remedy or damages available to the Borough at law or at equity. Nothing in this provision, or any other part of this Contract shall be construed to obligate the Borough to compensate Cornell tor any expenses or damages incurred under this Contract except as expressly provided in Section 2.4 above.
Section 6.4 Termination Due to Unavailabilitv of Funds. The payment of money by the Borough under any provision hereto is contingent upon the appropriation and availability of funds to pay the sums pursuant to this Contract. In the event funds become due under this Contract and then become unavailable due to nooappropriation, the Borough shall have the right to terminate this Contract without penalty on the date funds are no longer available. The Borough shall notify Cornell of the possibility of non-appropriation at the earliest possible time. The Borough
PSA - ComeJliKPB Page 10 of 13 April 2001
shall do all things lawfully within its power to obtain and maintain funding for this Contract during its term.
Section 6.5 Other Termination. The parties agree that upon completion of the current legislative session, if no legislation has been adopted authorizing the project, the parties shall meet to determine whether the contract shall be continued. The Borough retains the right to terminate this contract at that point without the obligation to compensate Cornell for expenses as provided in Section 2.4. Should the Borough terminate this Contract pursuant to this provision. and if Cornell is not in default or breach of the agreement at such time. then Cornell shall not be obligated to compensate the Borough for its expenses.
ARTICLE SEVEN DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Section 7.1 To the extent permitted by law and unless otherwise specified herein, any controversy arising out of this Contract, which the parties are unable to resolve by mutual agreement, shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. Unless otherwise provided. the parties shall continue performance of their respective obligations hereunder notwithstanding the existence of a dispute.
a) Meeting. Before arbitration any party may from time to time call a special meeting for the resolution of disputes that would have a material impact on the cost or progress of the Project. Any request for such meeting must be tiled within thirty (30) days that the dispute occurs. Such meeting shall be held at a location determined by the Borough within five (5) working days of written request therefor. which request shall specify in reasonable detail the nature of the dispute. The meeting shall be attended by the Borough's Authorized Representative, Cornell's Authorized Representative and any other person who may be affected in any material respect by the resolution of such dispute. Such Authorized Representative shall have authority to settle the dispute and shall attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute.
b) Arbitration. Any controversy or disput~ not resolved shall be submitted to binding arbitration. Either party may initiate arbitration by giving written notice to the other party within ten (10) days after the meeting discussed in Section 7.1 (a) above. The notice shall state the nature of the claim or dispute. the amount involved. if any. and the remedy sought. The dispute shall be submitted to an independent arbitrator mutually selected by the parties. If the parties do not mutually agree on an arbitrator who is willing and able to serve, the parties shall then utilize the American Arbitration Association (or another entity acceptable to the parties) to provide the required independent arbitrator(s). The decision of the appointed independent arbitrator(s) shall be tinal and binding on the parties. In rendering a decision, the arbitrator(s) shall comply with the Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association in effect as of the date of this Contract. The arbitrator(s) shall have no direct or indirect social. political or business relationship of any sort with any of the parties. their respective legal counsel. or any other person or entity materially involved in the Project.
PSA -- Comell/KPB Page II of [3 April 2001
ARTICLE EIGHT MISCELLANEOUS
Section 8.1 Confidentiality. Any information provided to Cornell in perfonnance of this Contract shall be kept in confidence and will not be made available to any individual or organization by Cornell without the written approval of the Borough. However, nothing herein shall prevent Cornell from using infonnation available through public records, or which Cornell possessed prior to entering into the Contract.
Section 8.2 ~otices. All notices shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested to:
Borough: Borough Mayor 144 N. Binkley Street Soldotna, Alaska 99669
with a copy to: Colette G. Thompson, Borough Attorney 144 N. Binkley Street Soldotna. Alaska 99669
Cornell: Steve Logan President Cornell Companies 1700 West Loop South, Suite 1500 Houston, Texas 77027
with a copy to: Don McClintock Ashburn and Mason. PC 1130 W.6th Ave. Suite 100 Anchorage. Alaska 99516
Section 8.3 Subcontracting and Assignment. 11 is agreed and understood that Cornell represents a team including all parties as proposed in the response to the RFQ. Cornell may. upon notice to the Borough. assign the proceeds of this Contract. Except as set forth in its response to the RFQ, Cornell shall not subcontract or assign any of the services to be perfonned under this Contract without the consent, guidance and prior express written approval of the Borough, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event that approval is granted. Cornell shall ensure that the subcontractor or assignee complies with all the provisions of this Contract. and such assignment shall not release Cornell from the obiigations of this Contract.
Section 8.4 Amendment. This Contract shall not be altered, changed or amended except by instruments in writing executed by the parties hereto.
PSA - ComelllKPB Page 12 of 13 April 2001
Section 8.5 Scope of Contract. The RFQ and Cornell's proposal and amendments thereto. are specifically incorporated herein by reference except for provisions in the RFQ that are clearly inapplicable. This Contract and the documents incorporated by reference incorporate all covenants and understandings between the parties concerning the subject matter hereto. Other than such documents which are incorporated herein by reference, no prior writings, agreements or understandings. verbal or otherwise, of the parti,es or their agents concerning the subject matter hereof shall be valid or enforceable unJ!ess embodied in this Contract.
Section 8.6 Applicable Law. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Alaska.
Section 8.7 Headings. The parties agree that the headings used in this Contract are for convenience or reference only.
Section 8.8 Severabilitv. If any clause, provision. or section of the Contract be held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable by any court. the illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability of each clause, provision or section shall not affect any of the remaining clauses, provisions or sections hereof, and this Contract shall be construed and enforced in a manner consistent with the intent of the parties as if such illegal, invalid, or unenforceable clause. provision or section had not been contained herein.
Section 8.9 Release. Cornell, upon final payment of any amount due under this Contract. releases the Borough. its officers and employees. from all liabilities. claims and obligations '..vhatsoever arising from or under this Contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, intending to be legally bound. the parties have caused their authorized representative to execute this Contract as of the day of _ 2001.
BY: Date::
BY: Date:
PSA - Comell/KPB Page 13 of 13 April 2001
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH 144 N. BINKLEY. SOLDOTNA, ALASKA. 99669·7599 BUSINESS (907) 262-44~: 1 FAX (907)262·1892
-. " "-.",._.~.
DALE BAGLEY MElVIORANDUTvl MAYOR
To: Timothy Navarre, Assembly President Kenai Peninsula Borough A5sembly .\1embers
Thru: DLi6 Dale Bagley, Borough Mayor
From: ~~olette Thompson, Borough Attorney 'Cf~J Jeffrey Sinz, Finance Director
Date: April 6, 2001
Subject: Resolution 2001-037 Proposed Modifications to Cornell Contract
Following the assembly meeting on Tuesday, April 3, 2001, the administration and Cornell agreed upon the following modifications to the proposed contract. The administration requests that the assembly move to adopt these changes into the contract under consideration in Resolution 2001-037, with additions !l1!!!erlm~<t~~d in bold and deletions erossed out and in bold. In summary, they clarify that the contract concerns a "medium security" prison, that payments in lieu of taxes would be based on a daily rate, that if the borough breaches Cornell shall give notice of arbitration within 30 days after the end of the borough's cure period instead of by the same day the cure period would end. and finally, that the pre-arbitration meetmg must be called within 30 days of a dispute. The earlier version did not provide c. deadline for calling the meeting. Following are the proposed changes:
Article One, Definitions: Eacilitv - means the 800- to lOOO-bed medium security prison to be designed, constructed and operated within the Borough and which shall include appropriate housing units. administrative offices and all other structures and improvements of a related nature, including but not limited to all support buildings, roads, fences, utility systems, etc., for the incarceration of adults assigned by the Department.
Article 4, Section 4.3 (h) (This change is already shown in the version distributed today to the assembly):
a) An operating agreement that recognizes that the administration of this contract justities the imposition of a payment in lieu of property taxes (PILT), and also that the economic development value of the project, and its extensive capital value justifies a
recognition of a credit against such PItT; a good faith estimate of such a PILT based upon current information is that it would be approximately $1.00 per bed per day for an SOO-bed facility and $1.50 per a--bed perA!!Y for a 1,OOO-bed facility, which estimate is subject to change based upon the determination of the actual costs incurred by the borough related to the prison, as determined and approved by the Borough Assembly.
Article 6, Section 6.1 CO: a) Failure by Cornell to give notice of arbitration as provided by Section 7.1 within
thirty (30) days of the ten-thirtv-day ftffiiee ~:Ul~!iod described in subsection 6.1 (b) shall operate as a waiver of said daim in its entirety. It is agreed by the parties this provision establishes a contractual period of limitations for any claim brought by Cornell.
Article 7, Section 7.1: a) Meeting. Before arbitration any party may from time to time call a special meeting
for the resolution of disputes that would have a material impact on the cost or progress of the Project. Anv request for such Ineteting must be filed within thirty (30) days that the dispute occurs. Such meeting shall be held at a location determined by the Borough within five (5) working days of written request therefor, which request shall specify in reasonable detail the nature of the dispute. The meeting shall be attended by the Borough's Authorized Representative, Cornell's Authorized Representative and any other person who may be affected in any material respect by the resolution of such dispute Such Authorized Representative shall have authority to settle the dispute and shall attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute.
Your consideration 0 f these changes is appreciated.
2
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH 144 N. BINKLEY • SOLDOTNA, ALASKA • 99669-7599 BUSINESS (907) 262-4441 FAX (907)262·1892
.. " ..-...... _.~.
DALE BAGLEY MEMORANDUM MAYOR
To: Timothy Navarre, Assembly President Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Members
,J l'From: Grace Merkes, Assembly me:mber
Date: April 6, 2001
Subject: Resolution 2001-037 Proposed Amendment to Cornell Contract
[n reviewing the proposed contract with Cornell I would like to move to amend the resolution to require that a feasibility study be performed to detennine whether a medium security prison facility would be feasible for this area .. This would provide infonnation to help the assembly in detennining whether it supports the private prison project.
Article 4, Section 4.3(d) would be amended by inserting the following underlined language:
(d) The approval by the Borough Assembly of the desire to proceed with a privately operated prison project through an IGA with the ADC and authorization to negotiate and enter Phase Two Contracts with Cornell. This approval and authorization will be made after conducting a feasibility study completed by an independent third party, selected and I~id for bYJhe borough;
!!PR-C:-2~J 1 "W 03: 42 PM SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON FAX NO. 907 485 4779 P. 02/08 ----~
']..3 456 70' /'\ S,?
~ + O~ o ~
~
~ ~ APR 2001
ALASKA STA'TE LE:GISLATU c~;~;l~'~;rn~jl;e SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON ~ orough ~
Mayor and Assembly Kenai Peninsula Borough 144 N. Binkley Soldotna, AK 99669
RE: Proposed Prison Facility
Dear Mayor and Assembly Members;
First of all, let us publicly resolve any questions on our stance on this project - we support the development of a prison on the Kenai Peninsula. At issue is ~he process by which it is developed, from the plans and design, to the enabling legislation, to the construction and operation of the development.
We can not support a sole source for the entire project. as yOli proposed initially and as is proposed again in the contract with Cornell Companies Inc. (eel). We also can not support public funds for a project that has yet to identify costs. These are reasonable and prudent public policy practices.
Since the discussions began on the project last fall, we have individually reiterated our concerns to the various members of the assembly on numerous occasions. The concerns are that:
(1) it not be a sole source contract; (2) a plan for construction and operation be finalized by the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB)
prior to passage of authorizing legislation; (3) a site be identified and obtained by the borough; (4) numbers on costs of the project, construction and operation, be clearly identified; and, (5) the involvement of the KPB and legal risks surrounding that involvement be fully identified.
!1) Sole Source Senator Torgerson voted against the last bill for a project such as this (the Delta· Fort Greely proposal) because of the sole source that was involved as well as other factors, including the lack of actual numbers regarding the costs of construction and operations. That process was flawed, as is evidenced by its failure to be completed.
On Tuesday, April 3, 2001, the House Finance Subcommittee introduced a draft Committee Substitute of HB 149, the enabling legislation. That working draft (versio,n \R) very clearly allows the KPB to go forward with this project with one contractor - eel. (See page 2. lines 24 - 27.)
As a result of that language, the only public bid involved in this project would be the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in December. We note that the respondent with the highest points in that particular process was not selected. Awarding a construction bid of somewhere between $75 million to $100 million and an operating bid of around $125 million to $150 million to the second highest firm in an RFQ process sounds like something the pentagon would do.
The RPQ process can not ensure a competitive bid result on the construction phase of a facility - there was no "bid" involved. Equally, an RFQ process can not provide for a competitive bid on the operations of a facility.
f2 & 3)Plans & Site We ask you to provide information to the legislatum and the public so we have the opportunity to review the project in a reasonable manner. The size and scope of this should automatically trigger such a review. We believe this should be accomplished before legislation is adopted. Otherwise, neither the public nor the legislature will have adequate infonnation from which to make a decision.
We understand you have not obtained a site and there has not yet been a deremtination as to whether the site will be owned or leased by the borOUgh. We point out th(~ difficulty of supporting a project that will construct a public facility on a ''to be detennined" site.
~ Costs The draft substitute for fiB 149 indicates certain e};pectations, such as costs at some 18 to 20 percent less than the current all-state facilities rate. Also, payment of $89 per day per prisoner (excluding certain medical, transportation, etc.) with cost-of-Iiving adjustments is anticipated. We point out that it is only intent language and we do not have numbers from you to indicate that this payment will in fact defray the anticipated costs.
To prOVide you with a comparison, we are enclosing infonnation on the maximum security prison in Seward - Spring Creek Correctional Center (SCCC). That fa,cility has institutional costs of $77.48 per day. Additionally, the lease payment costs are some $22.50 per day. The bottom line remains; it's hard to detennine feasibility since we have no infonnation on the facility bonding costs or potential operating costs at this point in time.
!2.L Liability As l'esidents of the KPB, we are concerned about the legal liability or exposure the Borough may have in this project. In the current legislation, the Borough has the direct contract with the State of Alaska and is re:sponsible for the operations of the prison, which will be done by a third party - Cel, assuming you approve the contract.
At this point, we believe the work draft clearly places the KPH as the principal in the arrangement, for both leasing a facility for a minimum of 20 years and for operations of the facility through a third party operamr.
'11 1\ vu-C.UU I nu Uj: 42' ~M ::>I:NAlUI\ JOHN 'JURGEHSON ~AX NQ 8U1 4eb 4(78 p, U4/08
Apri16,2001 Page 3 ofl
Finally, we have reviewed the conU'act that will be before you on this matter, We direct your attention TO Page 4, Article Two, subsection (b). Why do you look tCI the legislature to require a bid process on a project of this scope?
If tJ.le contractor works with you in developing the plans for this project, they will already have the inside track on the project and should be able to bid from a position of strength given that knowledge. Why is there fear of a public bid process?
Again on page 4, Article Three, subsection (b) specifically mentions the "benefits of privatization", In discussions with members of the assembly, they have expressed a desire to have the Department of Corrections submit a bid for operations. That language is opposite of some of the concerns that have Ix:en expressed.
The entire Article Four deals with continuation of the contract into the construction and operation phases, which we have already objected to as being non-competitive.
We stand willing and able to work on a project that will benefit the Kenai Peninsula. We do not believe th'lt the current direction of a sole source contract is bem~ficial and until some numbers are made available on the scope of the project, it will be impossible to determine how this will benefit either the residents of the State of Alaska or the Kenai Peninsula.
We urge you to take steps to provide infonnation on the facility and costs of operation of a facility in order [0 work successfully on adoption of a bill to authorize a facility. We also urge you to take whatever steps are necessary to authorize, on your own, a competitive bid process for the remainder of the proposed project.
We will be opposing this legislation until the Borough or its <:ontractors can supply us with a complete business plan, outlining through a competitive bid process, how they are going to proceed with the project.
/~LA=_ Representative Lancaster
End: Commissioner Pugh Letter dated March 22,2001 to Senator Robin Taylor regarding SCCC - 1 page Letter to Commi~~ioner Pugh dated March 19,2001 from Senaror Torgerson - 1 page Letter from Commissioner Pugh (in response to above letter) dated March 22.2001- 2 pages
Senator John Torgerson: Stare Capitol. Rm 427. June,lU, AI( 99801 Ph 907/465-2828 Fx 907/465·4779 Representative Ken Laneaster: State Capitol, Rm 421. Juneau. AK 99801 Ph 907/465·2693 Fx 907/465-3835
Representative Drew Scalzi: State CapiU>l. Rm 13.1uneau. AK 99801 Ph 907146S.Z6tf Fx 907/465-3472
REpJUo:SENTlNG 1lIE KENAI PENINSlJLA
fDq-~:-2JOl FRJ 03:43 PM SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON FAX NO. 907 465 4779 p, 05/08
TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR
431 N. Franklin Srrlilst, Suite 203 JlJneau, AK 99801
PHONE: (907) 465-4652 DEPARTMENT OF CORREC"nONS £..19<: (9071 465-33DO
Commissioner's Office
March 22, 200 l
The Honorable Robin Taylor Alaska State Senate State Capitol, Room 30 Juneau, Alaska 99801
R: SB~~
DeaIS~~ At Wednesday's Senate Judiciary hearing, several questions arose regarding SB 142, relating to the expansion of the Spring Creek Correctional Center for a youthful offender education program. This letter is to provide answers to some of those questions.
The first question related to the cost ofcare for prisoners at Spring Creek. The institutional cost of care at Spring Creek is $77.48 per prisoner per day this fiSl;a! year. The statewide average cost is $78.96, which is VI.'fY close to Spring Creek's costs. The total cost of care (as opposed to the institutional costs) is an additional $32 per prisoner per day. The break down for these additional costs is $6.00 fot inmate programs, $16.70 for health care, $4.00 for the Division ofAdministrative Services' costs, and $6.23 for statewide indirect costs.
This $32.00 amount is added to each facility's institutional costs to produce a total cost ofcare figure. Thus, while the institutional cost of care for the inmates at Spring Creek is $77.48, the total cost of care for those inmates is approximately $109. Simllarly, the average statewide institutional cost of care for prisoners is approximately $79, while the &verage st~tewide total':lost of care is approximately $111.
As to class sizes, although there is no formula per se, we are anticipating approximately 20 students per class. We are working with the Department of Education and Early Development to address the questions raised about funding for instructors, etc.
If you have any further questions that I can answer, please let me know.
Sincerely,
M~~VU-?<-Corrunissioner
()PR-Cf-2~C~ l;R: 03: 43 PM SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON FAX NO, 907 465 4779 p, 06/08
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON
CJwII. SINATIR.Esovaars COM'GT'J'BB CB.A.m. SENA1"£ COMMllMTY AND bGlONAL A....AlRS COMMlTl'BB
Commissioner Margaret Pugh March 19,2001 Department of Corrections 431 N Franklin Ste. 203 Juneau,AK 99801
Dear Commissioner.
As a follow up to out meeting on Friday, I need more infOl1.llntion regarding the construction of a prison by the Kenai Peninsula Borough. As a way to just get to the point, I have listed them in question fonnat.
1, Cost of constmct!on: The Borough numbers are between 60-80 million dollars to construct this facility, but I heard that the department is using numbers that range from 110-130 million dollars. If this is we. please explain the differences in construction costs.
2. Cost of operation: The backers of this project hav,e Dlade many proposals around the state, all of which have con~luded with a $70.00 per diay cost to both operate and retire debt. After Jooking at what they called a business plan for Delta, which I never thought it penciled at $70.00 per day. what cost per day are you estimating this facility will run?
3. Halfny housing: A few years back, the department wanted to lease some facilities for the openltion of half way bouses on the Kenai. Ifa new prison is built (800-1000 beds) are half way houses going to be required to be on the Kenai, and if so, what discussions or plans do you have for their construction, operation and location?
4. StamP, reglllrements: Are there any roles of rhumb that are used for requiring that the facilities has and maintains the proper staffmg levels?
5. Trainlgg regufremmts: I would assume, but don't know, that there is training required for aU personnel who in private prisons. If'true, where is this training taking place in Alaska?
As I stated to you before, I want this private prison to be built 011 the Kenai, but I also want to see a clear business plan, with accurate numbers and projections. and as many of the policy questions answered up front as possible.
Thank you for your time.
REPRESENTING THE KENAI PEMNSULA Anchor Point Bw O'fd Clam Gukh COOP" lmulin6 Crown Point l"" Cr"k HapP1 Ya&, HaJllJuI COy,
C\pR-OP-2~O 1 F.R: J3: 44 PM SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON FAX NQ 907 465 4779 P. 07108
TONY KNOMES, GOVEliNOR
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Commissioner's Office
March 22, 200 I
The Honorable John Torgerson Alaska State Senate State Capitol, Room 427 Juneau, Alaska 99801
..".-i Dears~~on; Thank you for your letter of March 19,2001, regarding HB 149, relating to a private prison in. Kenai. In this letter, you asked five questions. Our answer to these questions is as follows:
Cost ofconstruction: You indicate that the Borough has estimated capi~ costs at between 560 and $80 million, wWle the Department ofCorrections has estimated higher numbers; you ask for an explanation of these differences. The Department ofCorrections does not know what facility design the Borough is envisioning and thus we cannot speak to the costs oftbeir proposal. We can arrive at a very rough estimate, however, ofwbat it would cost to build an 8oo-bed medium security facility by applying certain asswnptions:
a gross square footage per inmate of434 square feet, an infrastructure gro'Nth factor of 1.10, construction costs of$215 per square foot, costs for needed site improvements and a perimeter fence, and a project factor of 1.45 for the design of the facility, managem.ent ofthe construction, FF&Es, and contingencies
Given.the above assumptions, the state estimates total capital costs between $105 and $125 Inillion. This does not include land acquisition costs. These figures calculate out to between $131,250 and $156,250 per bed. For informational pwposes. the costs for the Anchorage jail were limited in HB 53 to S146,OOOper bed.
Cost ofoperation: You asle, '"what cost per day are you estimating this facility will run?" The Department does not have sufficient information to be able to e:stimate costs for the facility. Costs are driven by numerous factors such as design, staffing lc~vels, location, capacity, security level, etc. We can advise you that the institutional cost ofeare at Spring Creek (8 maximum sec:urity facility for approximately 0500 inmates) is $77.48; at P~llmer (which consists ofboth a minim\UD and a medium security facility for a total ofapproximately 400 inmates) it is $62.03;
and at Arizona (a medium security facility where we have 800 inmates) it is $54.57 per prisoner per day. Please note that these figures are just the institutio:l1al (or. in the case ofArizona, just the contract per diem cost) and does not include other costs such as medical.
Halfway housing: You have inquired whether the Department will require one or more halfway houses to be located in Kenai if a new prison is built there. The need for a halfway house in the Kenai area already exists and the Department looks forward to working with the Borough on this issue.
Staffing requirements: There is no "industry standard" or formula for detetmi.ning proper staffing levels. Instead, a number offactors must be care1illly considered to determine proper staffing levels. These factors include: Design ofthe facility, tunction of facility (jails vs. prison); its rated bed capacity; the security level ofthe institution; the custody level ofthe prisoners to be held in the institution; the level ofadmissions to the facility; and the programs to be provided. .
'.' ....
Training requirements: The Department is not aware ofany s:pecific standards that apply for the training ofpersoJUlel who work in private prisons. It is our understanding that training standards are set by the employer, perhaps with a certain level having been agreed to in i~ contnlCt with the public sector partner. Alaska statutes require correctional officers in public facilities to be
" certified by the Alaska Police Standards Council. One of1he requirements for certification is that the officer meet specified training standards, both during basic training and on an annual hasis thereafter. Basic training is usually accomplished by thc~ officer attending and successfully completing a program held at the state's Training Academy. Personnel who work in private prisons are not required by state law to be certified.
Ifyou have any further questions, please let me know.
Sincerely.
'~--tk~~ Margaret M. Pugh Commissioner
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH SOLDOTNA / ,M<
SEQUENCE 509 APRIL 6, 2001
7:03 PM
BILL AU'l'HOR TI'I'LE DESCRIPTION
POSTPONEMENT SPRAGUE MOTION TO POSTPONE POSTPONE UNTIL APRIL 17, 2001
ACTION WITHDRAWN BY SPONSOR & PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
YES : 9 BROWN FISCHER MARTIN POPP MERKES
MOSS NAVARRE SPRAGUE LONG
NO : 0 EXCUSED : 0 ABSENT : 0 ABSTAIN : 0
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH SOLDOTNA , ,~K
SEQUENCE 510 APRIL 6, 2001
7:27 PM
BILL R 2001-037 AU']'HOR SPRAGUE TI'I'LE POSTPONE UNTIL APRIL 17, 2001 DESCRIPTION POSTPONE UNTIL NEXT REGULAR MEETING
ACTION POSTPONE
YES : 3 MARTIN LONG SPRAGUE
NO : 6 BROWN MERKES FISCHER MOSS POPP NAVARRE
EXCUSED : 0 ABSENT : 0 ABSTAIN : 0
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH SOLDOTNA, l\K
SEQUENCE 511 APRIL 6, 2001
7:43 PM
BILL AU'l'HOR TI'I'LE DESCRIPTION
ACTION
R 2001-037 AMEND#1 MERKES AMEND 4.3(D) THIS APPROVAL }~D AUTHORIZATION WILL BE MADE AFTER FEASIBILITY STUDY BY 3RD PARTY-PAID BY KPB
