The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05032007 Planning & Zoning Packet I I I . ~ Seward Planning & Zoning Commission . May 3, 2UU; ; Marianna Keil Chair Term Expires 02110 - 1. - --Call to_Order Tom Smith Vice-Chair Term Expires 02110 Margaret Anderson Commissioner Term Expires 02109 Kevin Clark Commissioner Term Expires 02109 Lynn Hohl Commissioner Term Expires 02108 Sandie Roach' Commissioner Term Expires 02110 Bob Hicks Commissioner Term Expires 02108 Phillip Oates City Manager Vacant Planner Donna Glenz Planning Assistant Vacant Executive Liaison 7:3U p.m. Re~,:!~~!!~~:!=! 2. Opening Ceremony A. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call 4. Special Reports & Presentations A. City Administration Report 1. Reported Violations, Interpretation and Abatement B. I Other Reports, Announc~ments & Presentations 1. KPB Planning Commission Report - Tom Smith 2. Liaison from Seward Bear Creek Flood Service Area Board 3. Previous work session review - Chair 5. Citizens' Comments on any subject except those items scheduled for public hearing. [Those who have signed in will be given the first opportunity to speak Time is limited to 2 minutes per speaker and 30 minutes total time for this agenda item) 6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda. [Approval of Consent Agenda passes all routine items indicated by asterisk (*). Consent Agenda items are not considered separately unless a Commissioner so requests. In the event of such a request, the item is returned to the Regular Agenda.] Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Regular Meeting Agenda Page I 7. Public Hearings [Limit comments to 5 minutes. Those who have signed in will be given the first opportunity to speak] A. Unfmisbed Business Items requiring a Public Hearing - None B. New Business Items requiring a Public Hearing - None 8. Unfmisbed Business - ~ A. Jammry 4, 2907 Regular Meetiag Mimttes (pulled from agenda by staff, required information not received at time of packet printing) ................................................. 9. New Business A. Select a Work Session date for review and recommendations of the Seward Marine Industrial Center Development Plan ................................................Page 03 B. Resolution 2007-08, approving the 2007 P&Z Commission Priority List ..Page 06 C. Discussion and recommendation to Council regarding Annexation of area North of Seward City Lirnits...................................................................................Page II 10. Informational Items and Reports (No action required) A. Special meeting notice of Public Hearing set for May 15,2007 ..................Page 59 B. A Request by Brad Snowden to purchase City of Seward land on the West side of Nash Road; approximately 5 acres of Tract HI, Fourth of July Subdivision, Roberts Replat (Staff plans to place item on the May 15, 2007 Special Meeting Agenda).........................................................................................................Page 60 11. Commission Comments 12. Citizens' Comments [Limit to 5 minutes per individual - Each individual has one opportunity to speak] 13. Commissions and Administration Response to Citizens' Comments 14. Adjournment . . Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 2007 Regular Meeting Agenda Page 2 I I I MEMORANDUM City of Seward Community Development .. Date: May 3, 2007 To: Planning and Zoning Commission Donna Glenz, o.~ Planning Assistant From: Subject: Select Work Session Date and Time for Review and Recommendations of the Seward Marine Industrial Center Development Plan The Commission should set a date and time for a Work Session to review and make recommendations on the Seward Marine Industrial Center Development Plan. The work session of May 15,2007 has been scheduled as a Special Meeting. A Public Hearing of the Library/Museum Rezone of Lots 1-6, Block 8, Original Townsite of Seward and possible Public Hearing of the request by Brad Snowden to purchase property on the West side on Nash Road have been scheduled. ~ RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should discuss and set a date and time for a work session to review and make recommendations on the Seward Marine Industrial Center Development Plan. 3 Sponsored by: Administration .... CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2006-131 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY. OF SEWARD, ALASKA, ASSIGNING THE PORT AND COMMERCE ADVISORY BOARD (PACAB) TO REVIEW AND UPDATE THE SEWARD MARINE INDUSTRIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Seward Marine Industrial Center Development Plan was adopted by Council by Resolution 1995-007; and WHEREAS, Seward City Council recommended the Kenai Peninsula Borough approve the Seward 2020 Comprehensive Plan by Resolution 2005-26; and WHEREAS, the Seward 2020 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by Kenai Peninsula Borough Ordinance 2005-48; and WHEREAS, the Seward 2020 Comprehensive Plan recommended, "Update the Seward Marine Industrial Center (SMIC) Plan"; and WHEREAS, the-Seward--2020-Comprehensive-Plan recommended "Revisit the 1995 ___ SMIC Development Plan to include new market trends and modem technologies for ship repair and construction, shipping of natural resource products, boat storage, and other compatible industries, soliciting support from Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority . (AIDEA) and the US Economic Development Administration (EDA)." NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, that: Section 1. P ACAB is asked to review and facilitate public workshops and public hearings for the Seward Marine Industrial Center (SMIC) Development Plan update. Section 2. The SMIC Development Plan should be reviewed and updated with . Community Public Work Shops and Public Hearings. <1// Section 3. PACAB is authorized to provide a SMIC Development Plan update to the V" . ~ Planning and Zoning Commission to gather their input. -;"' ~ Section 4. PACAB shall consider the Planning and Zoning Commission's,..., L 6f recommendations and submit a full SMIC Development Plan to Administration. r Section 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. .... ~ Seward City Council Resolution 2006-131 l . PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the city of Seward, Alaska this 27th day of ...J November 2006. I I THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA -i~~ !~ Vanta Shafer, Mayor . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Dunham, Valdatta, Schafer, Bardarson, Thomas, Amberg, Shafer None None None ATTEST: J ~t!iI14~ Jean LewiS, CMC J City Clerk (City Seal) "',......,,, ~........." Of S~~'##,#. .... ~~ ........ '.4A".". ~ c} ..~~~o""...:?() ~ = l~r;;r ~=" ~ . . ~ ........ "'0 ~ ~ : I \ = .~ 0: SEAL : () : ~ ~ : - ~ . ~ : = ~ a. ft_ : .. . ,,:\ "YGrA. n"'''''.~ ;: ,. v:\' _. 'y, ~ ..- "-" ~ '~, ~~~'::.~.'Jj.. C,)" $' #1" .~. 0:= p..\."i\........ "I"lInn'" J 5 P&Z Agenda Statement From: Marvin Yorder, Interim City Manage~ ../ Donna Glenz, Planning Assistant d~~ Meeting Date: May 3, 2007 Through: , Agenda Item: Review of the P&Z Priorities List as reviewed and revised at the annual March 27, 2007 City Counci1/Planning Commission work session BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: The City Council Rwes of Procedure, adopted March 14, 1994, state that the Council showd meet in an annual joint work session with the Commission every March to address areas of mutual concern. The Council and the Commission held a joint work session on March 27, 2007. The 2006 List of Priorities was discussed, reviewed and updated. These revisions and updates have been incorporated in Resolution 2007-08 for the Commissions review and approval. RECOMMENDATION: Commission approve Resolution 2007-08 to Sponsored by: Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEWARD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITIES FOR 2007 WHEREAS, the Seward City Council Rules of Procedure, adopted March 14, 1994, state that the Council should meet in an annual joint work session with the Commission every March to address areas of mutual concern; and WHEREAS, the Commission and Council held a joint work session, updated and reviewed the Planning and Zoning 2006 Priorities List on March 27,2007; and WHEREAS, at its May 3, 2007 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved the updated and revised List of Priorities for 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Seward Planning and Zoning Commission that: Section 1. The following updated and revised List of Priorities for 2007 is hereby approved: Plannm!! Proiects . Municipal Lands Management Plan (1995) - Recommend to Council that it be updated. This update could be done by administration. . . ADA Transition Plan - The ADA Transition Plan needs to be completed. Encourage increased communications between the Building and Engineering Department and the Commission. Encourage the Independent Living Center to provide facility inspections and status updates. Capital Improvement Plan -The Capital Improvement Plans may be reviewed. by the Commission prior to submittal to Council. If a two year budget cycle were approved by Council, this type of review could be done in the off year. It is a policy decision that usually never brings the CIP to PZ. 7 Seward Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 2007-08 Page 2 of 4 ARRC Master Plan - Maintain involvement with the process and review the ARRC Master Plan. Encourage the ARRC to make presentations. Airoort Master Plan - Submit recommendations on the Airport Master Plan to the Alaska Department of Transportation,-Public-Facilities. The draft should be_ready_for.review once the environmental studies have been completed. , Parks and Recreation Master Plan (1993) - Currently in the process of being updated by Parks and Recreation, encourage Planning & Zoning involvement. State Lands and ROW Recommendations. Become more involved and provide recommendations to Council on local DOT projects. Research the level of involvement provided by the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) and/or similar bodies. Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. - Develop and adopt. Code Revisions Nonconforming structures and setbacks - Ongoing, beiiig~ reviewed - thrOugh work sessions and applicant driven commission actions. Review and recolnmend vacation of excess easements. Subdivision Ordinance Revision - Ongoing, the application forms need to be revised. Historic Overlay District - Investigate historic structure construction exemptions with the full involvement of the Historic Preservation Commission. Encourage a joint work session and resolution. Definitions - Consolidate the Title 15 definitions and consider reformatting sections. Waterway buffers - Research buffer options and seek training. Encourage the involvement of the Seward Bear Creek Flood Service Area Board and the United States Forest Service. , . City Land. Rig:hts-of-Wav & Platting: Proiects City Land disposal policies and procedures - Clarify, emphasize land use permits when more appropriate than leases and emphasize use of the Municipal Lands Management Plan. f Seward Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 2007~08 Page 3 of4 Two Lakes Park Replat - Ongoing, all private in-holdings have been acquired. Vacate interior lot lines and right-of-ways, and ensure accesses are maintained. Acquire the 29 adjoining acres in USS 1931. Hopefully Parks and Recreation will be able to seek grants to assist with this project. I I Waterfront Park Replat - Vacate interior lot-lines and right-of-ways. Administration needs to initiate action on it. Transfer the old National Guard armory to A VTEC - Encourage but continue to maintain access to Two Lakes Park. Staff will need to do research and forward recommendations to the Commission and Council. ARRC Lands - Continue to work with the Borough and the ARRC to ensure orderly development and subdivision activities take place prior to development. Invite the ARRC to make presentations. Nash Road bench study - Use dedicated proceeds from sale of City land to the Andersons. Forward recommendations to the Commission and Council during the budget sessIOns. Enforcement Applications need specific packets with checklists - Encourage tight response times for permit reviews. Conditional Use Permits - Have staff bring before the Commission for an annual review. Zoning Code Violations - Proactively evaluate methods to obtain compliance including researching techniques and procedures for issuance of citations. Encourage public education about the need for the requirements in the zoning code. Training - Seek training on land use regulation processes, Conditional Use permits, spot zoning, overlay districts, platting, Open Meeting Act and overall review of duties and responsibilities of the Planning Commission. . . Community Values Meeting - Hold an annual work session which will encourage the public to speak out on the community values they want changed or sustained, preferably in the third week of September. Street Addresses - Publicize the need to post street addresses. Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. cr Seward Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 2007-08 Page 4 of 4 PASSED AND APPROVED by the Seward Planning and Zoning Commission this 3rd day of May, 2007. . - THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA Marianna Keil, Chair AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Jean Lewis City Clerk, CMC (City Seal) , . If) MEMORANDUM City of Seward Community Development Date: May 3, 2007 - . From: Planning and Zoning Commission Donna Glenz, Planning Assistant ~~~ To: Subject: Annexation At the April 5, 2007 Planning and Zoning meeting the Commission requested the topic. of Annexation be added to the May meeting agenda for discussion. Staff has placed this item on the agenda under New Business and provided the following information from past Council and -public-discussions on theissue.----n--- --- --- . . . } I !\ r1\') ~ ~~ ~\ jfJ~ II n f~ ~ ~~rJ~ j'] j\l !\fJT! ~ 11 ~ ~ fn r~~rt0 December 28, 2004 100 questionnaires were turned into tbe Clerk's Office. 76 stated NO they were not for annexation. Of that 76, 48 of those respondents were from outside the city limits, 20 were inside city limits, and it could not be determined where 8 lived. 16 stated YES they were for annexation. Of that 16, 12 of those responding were from within the city limits, 3 were outside city limits, with ] undetermined. . 8 stated MAYBE they would consider annexation. 6 of those were outside the city limits, and 2 were within the city limits. ......................................................................... PEOPLE WHO VOTED AGAINST ANNEXATION STATED: Why did you choose to live in the Seward area? Why are you for annexation? Why not? **The outlying areas of the City recommended for annexation. Under what conditions do you think outlying areas should be annexed? --Only if a majority vote for it. X9 -When it would be beneficial to the area being annexed, instead of being beneficial to the city. X9 --!flifestyle is not affective for residents --Only if outside city property values and businesses increased enough to make it economically feasible. X6 --Under no circumstances. X45 --When they want it and ask for it. X5 --When the economy is better. X2 , . }L Name a city service for which more of your tax dollars should be spent? --Basic services. X37 -Birth control for women requesting it. -Creating a business friendly condition within city limits. --Encourage business interests --Marketing and industry. X2 --More on the locals X3 --None X21 --Parking -Parks --Parks and Recreation --Planning and zoning/Building inspections --Public safety X2 --Schools X3 -Services for our youth and disabled. X3 --Street Maintenance and upkeep X36 --The north dock -Utility polls --Water and sewer X2 **Should the City assess higher user fees for those outside city limits? 14 Yes 49No 13 Not sure - . What is the single most important problem facing the community today? ---Be more responsive toward the citizens --Better budget planning X24 --Better judgment by city officials --Better treatment of the locals -City Management --Convincing outside businesses to come to Seward. --Fiscal Responsibility --Health care --Lack of city employees in community development and clerks office --Lack of industry -Lack of support for positive change is Seward; such as interagency visitor's center. --Lack of trust between the city and the people X2 --Local economy --More planning for the future --Need more money for the schools --New era vs. stagnation. With all the big changes coming down the pike, like the harbor expansion, interagency visitors center, etc... How are we going to progress and prosper? --Not enough year roundjobs X7 -Potholes X3 -Rising costs of general health insurance fees -Sorting out the Police Department --Soverancey --The boat harbor --The cost of living is too high X3 -Too much development on the waterfront --Too much government -Too much tourism and not enough of a diversified job market )3 --Zoning /flooding "Prefer to shop in or out of city limits _31_in, 30 out. -- "How many own a business or work inSide city limits _39- **Would you like to vote in city elections? **Age 18-30 31-40 51-50 51-60 61-70 Over 700 , , **Own or rent? 57 people answered that they own a home. 7 said they rent, and 12 did not answer the question. * * Support Natural Gas line? --33 people say yes. 15 say no, and 28 said they need more information Questions - 1 don't understand because the population starts at miles 7. -Would water, sewer, and road maintenance be included? Will more law enforcement staffbe a must? -Why not get Seward services and in town problems solved before any such annexation talk? -Wh)' do~we need another school? Why don't we get teachers here to teach our kids? --From where? Why stop at mile 24? From Seward to mile 24? From the western Kenai Peninsula? From the North Slope? --Why would the city support a gas line that would not come to mile zero? Why would the city support only large amounts of money on tourist projects? Why would the city want to sell its only moneymaker the electrical company and than have to buy electricity back from another company? Why does the city support a conference center with city money? --If the city follows through with the annexation, are they willing to take on Eansville's liability? That place is an ecological nightmare, and there are no grandfather rights by the D.E.C. This is only one of the many questions? What are the projections of litigations from the different agendas outside the city? --To mile 24 from where? X4 -Why does the city seem to embark on several different projects at one time instead offocusing on one at a time and getting it done first? --Can Seward afford to annex anything? --Why would the city annex an area that does not want to be annexed? -Why does the government want to spend all money that is allocated to each department? Couldn't we cut the budget to find our shortcomings and when it affects our lifestyle we can certainly look at taxing more in the future. --If annexation takes place, is it going to be necessary to double the size of the police, fire, street, and electric departments? Build a complete sewer and water system? Pave all the roads? -How do you think annexation will help? -Why did we spend an extreme amount of money for two public restrooms in the downtown area that are not even open year round? --Would a gas line affect the wild life refuge? -I live outside city limits and have no running water, is this a service that the city is willing to provide? Could the city build reliable sewers and water lines past the three bridges? --Why doesn't the city support more environmental concerns? Why does the city give discounts to new commercial builders in electrical hookups? --Where are our pavilions? . . /1 -Why won't the city do a budget evaluation and save and manage current funds that are available? -Can the city prove themselves to be financially stable? -Why do we own mostly fishing and tourism? Why do we have such high gas prices? -With so few people showing support for annexation, why do you continue to pursue it? --Who would own it? Who would build and set tarift'l Would Lindsay have anything to do with it? -Why in a fairly affluent tourist town, with a 6% sales tax, is there even one stinking pothole? --Why is the city so eager to annex people into the city when these people are clearly saying they do not want to be annexed? What would be the I" year and subsequent annual costs for all services provided by the city if the areas are annexed into the city? -Why weren't these mailed? --What is the motive behind wanting annexation if the cost is greater than the benefit? -Why didn't Foster Singleton do anything when he was provided with photos and samples of Pruitt dumping toxic waste in Fourth of July Creek in 1996? --Will a gas line result in cheaper utilities? --Would there be a mandatory property assessment with the gas line? If so I want no part of it. -Why not solve the problems in town before we take on the problems of others? _ J Comments --Want to see an analysis of how Homer's annexation had worked out. --Why don't the council and administration use $] ]4,000.00 we give C ofC and hire a marketing agent? If we had gone with our agent, Gates, we would be several hundred million dollars ahead. Why not contact VECO, TODDS, or others? -I get so frustrated when city management offers cutting senior services or other basic services as an alternative to raising taxes. I never see the city offer to cut spending. I see and question 5 macho trucks with city LD. running around town they probably cost 35 to 45,000.00 each. ]s that necessary to get this job done? This entire sole source-purchasing going on is wrong to. Government agencies are required to _ use _a_mil!imum 3 ~tten quote process. Large ticket items should be advertised both in Seward and . Anchorage papers for quotes. Spend wisely and we will have more to spend. -The council needs to find a way to bring money back to Seward without taxing and annexing the residents to death. --I'm not sure that the added extra mill rate from properties that are currently outside city limits would generate enough revenue to fund all the added employees that it would take to service the area Police protection is the example that I am thinking about. If the area up to mile 8 were annexed, we would need at least 5-]6 new officers to patrol. This alone is very expensive. Road maintenance is another concern. -I live outside the city limits on purpose. I have a pistol target range and own property that would have to be grandfathered in. --We moved outside city limits so that we could be at peace and not have city problems facing us all the time. Leave us alone. --In light of the other big issues on the docket these days, perbaps now isn't the right time to take on annexation. How full can your plate be and still be able to do a good job on any single issue? -I do not support the annexation of the Lowell Point and Bear Creek Service Area's into the City of Seward. I would support both monetary and publicly to fight any effort the City of Seward tried to make towards annexation of these areas into the City of Seward. The City of Seward has extremely over charged for its water, Sewer, customer charge and electricity. I would want no part of this in the outside areas. -The city cannot supply me with water, sewer or the assurance that road services will be as good as we get now. The reason annexation is even an issue is for the sole reason 1 can vote? That's the best that the democratic mayor could come up with? We use her dear library? Give me a break! She probably knows what's best for all mankind. I can live without the council and mayor. --Money is spent to trying to entice tourists to visit Seward, so they will come back and spend their money. How much more do you think year round residents from outlying areas of Seward spend locally? I am more than a little offended with the thought. I have heard from several council members that "we are all a bunch of free loaders" comments like we come into town, walk on the sidewalks, use the library, and hold jobs.etc. and contribute nothing back just created division within the community. Personally, I spent over $5,000.00 last year just shopping in town. This does not include money spent on utilities, attending I r I I J~ movies, and eating out. If this don' make me a contributing member of the community I don't know what would. I should be at least half as desirable as a visitor who spent I week here and a few hundred bucks. -When and how can the city afford to provide us with water, sewer, road upgrades/maintenance, etc. When they are always whining about lack of funds as it is? The people outside of the city limits do not want to be in the city otherwise they would be living there now. --We understand the City of Seward could receive more emergency funds etc. if they can show a larger population. However, the folks that live from 3.5 to 7 miles we feel will not receive any benefits from the city. The city cannot afford to bring water and sewer. They cannot afford to pave the subdivisions, upgrade our electricity, which is upgrade now. The city cannot afford us. -The purpose of government is to provide services to the people that would otherwise not be available. My services from the borough are perfectly adequate. I think my quality of services would deteriorate if annexed. -If we were to be annexed I believe I would be forced to sell my hoe and move elsewhere. I enjoy the freedoms with which living outside of the city provides me, and am willing to deal with any inconveniences (which there are none) that it entails to live there. -Everyone I've talked to doesn't want the city involved in their lives any more. The city needs to find money elsewhere. -We are adamantly against annexation. --The administration fmance department said a I % sales tax would balance the budget. Now they want an increase in property taxes. This is poor management. We need to cut employees, cut expenses, have less high paying positions. Look at privatizing parks and campgrounds. Place higher user fees on recreation or have better management. -Vou clearly do not wish to know the peoples minds or you would have simply mailed this with the utility bills. As ever you all just do as you please. --If we wanted to be in this or any city we would have settled there. We are where we are by choice. Consider the make up of the city council after the first election following an unwelcome annexation. -The city time and again makes ill-advised choices at the expense of the taxpayers. I don't like the city's history of irresponsible development, allowing the environment to be polluted Le. S.M.l.C : The harbonnaster knew Pruitt was dumping toxic waste in 1996 yet did nothing about it. I can live without this type of irresponsible government I trust the borough and state to look out for me. I do not trust the city at all. Only a few of the council members have the where withal to ever manage their own lives responsibly. --The Seward city council would lead city residents to believe that annexation is the cure all to city budget woes. The truth is that the city council has consistently failed at proper fiscal management Instead of working to slow down the voracious money gobbler called city government the council simply allows the finance department to spend pretty much as they wish. When money is short, they need to be willing to cut back to include layoftS ifnecessary, not just expect the citizens to cough up more money. --Recently city councils and administrations seem to have a penchant for authorizing study after study at a substantial cost for various ideas and projects and then letting these studies languish without acting on the recommendations or following through with the project or idea in a timely manner. Again, I feel that annexation with its association's grand ideas and projects will only aggravate this condition. --This city government is for the Pruitt's and Lindsey's and all the old families. They are given preferred status in everyway. -At some point the city's leadership needs to understand that they must reface the runaway costs of city government instead of raising taxes every year, and devising schemes such as annexation as a means to increase revenue. -Yes I do use the City of Seward for many things because I support the business and locals of Seward. I buy all my groceries most of my clothing, and most of my gifts. I also use your library and your roads but just ask yourself where would Seward be if everyone outside city limits refused for one day as a collective, to enter the city. What a devastation it would be on the economy of Seward, we should not be thought of as a burden but as half of your economy. -If outlying areas are annexed, then instead ofmising taxes, they should be lowered, because of the extra income from the new areas. --For Margaret Brauson, I pay $44.00 a year for a post office box, which entitles me to say that I'm from Seward. I don't want protection from the dysfunctional police department I don't want road maintenance from a department that can't seem to maintain roads in town, even with all that new heavy equipment. . . . /0 . . . --We live out of town because we prefer that lifestyle. . Our taxes support our schools, roads, and other services. When Seward can take care of their own finances and problems then perhaps we could trust them to be capable of doing it for the other areas. __I know that the only purpose that the city has for annexation is revenue, but all of the non-resident (city) population currently pays enough taxes. And many of us feel that services are already limited to compensate for the taxed paid. We do not feel it would be justified for us to pay yet more taxes. --Get over the idea that the way to solve your problems is to raise taxes. Ba]ance your budget first. -How you people can think that this is the way to go about this process is incredible. You lie to the community, and you purposefully misled people as to voting locals and in general are greedy and self- serving. -This town is development crazy. Our views are being obliterated. The employee benefit system is too sweet to expect the private sector to pay. Employees are driving around in new trucks and the city now doesn't have enough money to buy needed snow removal equipment something stinks here. --I don't think the city can afford to annex out oftown. -We do not want to live within the city limits. That is why we chose to put our home on property outside of the city. --Fix the potholes. -We now have a road service and a fine service that we have a close input and they listen. We outsiders see how the council handles city, fire, and road maintenance. Snow removal is the best I've seen in years past, but fire, and road conditions are not at all what they could be. Budgets are limited to council. _] feel Seward needs to push for natura] gas line. This will aid to promote more industry and attract future construction and residency. Such a gas line can also be export instate to islands via spruce ships. -The city's study on annexation put out this summer does not make a compelling case in support of the idea It does not compute in the financial sense. -The City of Seward needs to get itself straighten out by taking care of priorities before taking care of ones own interest. --Annexation done in the proper format is not negative, however, considering options currently available. There is no positive for those affected. _ -Even if you annexed only the highway out to only the Southside of Exit Glacier rd. and obtained taxes on SBS it still wouldn't be cost effective to run sewer, and water that far. Plus police services. Suggestions: -Charge for the use of the dump station on Ballaine. It's a myth that the fees pay for that! RV's come from Anchorage and allover the peninsula to use it. Why do RV's get free dumps while residential rates go up? --Seward Fire dept. needs to keep their hands off Bear Creek and its equipment. -Start over. -Look further into possible city proposals. Seward Common Ferry as Mat Valley and Seldovia are planning to regulate possible loss of the Tusty to other state proposals. -Move the dog pound outside down town. -Get the city in order by firing the lawyers. They haven't won a lawsuit yet. Appoint Jim Pruitt to division of finances and give him 10% of all revenue above past year only ifhe promises not to sue for his term. --Fix the potholes. -We do not mind paying for city services that we use. There is nothing wrong with charging non-residents user fees for both local residents and tourists. There is also nothing wrong with charging all residents users fees, including the welfare recipients. If you need money increase the sales tax straight across, so everyone who shops and does business in the city pays. --Drop the issue. --Quit spending beyond our means. --Clean house, issue pay cuts across the board. Make employees pay for there benefits, reduce pensions. Operate honestly. /7 --Make pay cut 10% across the board, benefits 50% across the board, and pensions 100%. --I have not met anyone outside city limits who feels they would benefit from annexation. Reconsider the expense of trying to annex and save us all the headache and the money. Thank-you. --Take care of your city before you try to annex us. The crime and drug problem that the city police seems to be unable or reluctant to address. Fix the roads instead of buying new vehicles for all of those city employees to drive. Make Seward something to be proud of. Them maybe people would want to be annexed. . -I would suggest that city council be fully aware and forthright of cost and responsibility to those annexed. I know as well as city council Seward cannot afford this. I am happy living as.I am now. Please do not destroy that by pushing yourselves into my territory. _ Try increasing revenue the old fashioned way; increase spies tax revenue by creating an environment where business can thrive in our city. --Focus on current city limits and on how present services can be maintained and improved upon. Take a long hard look at the costs associated with this annexation proposal including the costs of making the lower point and Bear Lake areas loose the funding available them as unincorporated areas. . --Get your act together before taking on more. --Try cutting the budget Stand up and admit our present budget does not d~d to be increased. Hold on all salary increases to all employees. --One month before all city elections, put a list of all city employees with the yearly wages and benefits as reported to I.R.S. in the log. After all it is public tax money being used. -Learn to live within your means. Proper money management is the answer to your problem. --Leave the people outside of the city alone! --Fix the city problems and don't export them to me. n i think it would be fair to ask for a user permit fee, like the city charges contiactors that are outside the city limits. Folks pay a flat fee per ear to use city facilities. However, tourists are not charged?!?' --Clean up and rearrange your own house before trying to annex citizens who do not want to be a city citizen. --Tighten up the city's bell, provide us \\,itl1servic~s withoutJorming user groups. There is tremendous growth outside the city limits. Wonder why? The lack of city cOdes regii1atlons:-Ifyou annex, groWih- will come to a standstill. All the people that live, visit the 8&8's, visit the city and pay taxes keep that growth happening the city will still gain in the long run. Its economics IOI! --City council and administration needs to start focusing on the people of Seward not on making the tourists comfortable. They need to make a budget and live with it. They need to stop supporting the chamber. --Promote positive changes in Seward that will make a better city and promote more tourism. There should be plenty of revenue from tourists in Seward if promote tourist friendly development. Don't force unwanted annexation for the sake of poor budgeting. --Fix Seward's problems first and leave us alone. X2 --The result of this survey should be published and posted on a website and in the hallway. --Do not tax outside city limits or try to make people pay for services they will never receive. --Please try to remember we are a small town. We do not have enough ofa tax bear to support all of the grandiose wants that you are killing us to support Stick more to needs and what we can afford. Keep up city spending like we are and we'll spend ourselves out of existence. . PEOPLE WHO WERE IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION OR ANSWERED MAYBE STATED: . . Why did you choose to live in the Seward area? Why are you for annexation? 1'1 . --To equalize the cost of living between inside city limits and outside city limits. Why should just city residences pay for things like the library and hospital and parks and recreation etc., when these services are available for everyone whether they live inside or outside the city? --Think it is a necessary step for Seward to grow. --There is a building boom going on in Bear Creek and we should be part of the city. --Current duplication of services. FT police in and out, animal control. Realistic population statistics to benefit/justify funding, bonds, etc. Increase services with economy of scale. -City tax base needs to be wider. Need better unity and less division. -Costs should be spread to all parts of the community --Request the services of police fire, etc. --Zoning. --The Seward area should work together for the good of all. Division is counterproductive and we are all Sewardites. --More people from outside city limits use city services and resources than residents do. Annexation would show development of additional services. --People outside city limits have as much right to be a part of the city with the same opportunities as inside. --Increased city funding possibly reducing current costs. -All citizens of the surrounding areas benefit from the services, businesses, schools, hospital, etc. --To equalize the cost of living between inside city limits and outside city limits. Why shouldjust city residences pay for things like the library and hospital and parks and rec etc., when these services are available for everyone whether they live inside or outside the city? --Think it is a necessary step for Seward to grow. --There is a building boom going on in Bear Creek and we should be part ofti)e city. --Current duplication of services. FT police in and out, animal control. Realistic population statistics to benefit/justify funding, bonds, etc. Increase services with economy of scale. -City tax base needs to be wider. Need better unity and less division. --Costs should be spread to all parts of the community - ---::'Requestthe services of police me, etc. - - - --- --Zoning. --The Seward area should work together for the good of all. Division is counterproductive and we are all Sewardites. --More people from outside city limits use city services and resources than residents do. Annexation would . show development of additional services. --People outside city limits have as much right to be a part of the city with the same opportunities as inside. --Increased city funding possibly reducing current costs. -All citizens of the surrounding areas benefit from the services, businesses, schools, hospital, etc. Why not? **The outlying areas of the City recommended for annexation. . . Under what conditions do you think outlying areas should be annexed? --Any-annex out to Grouse Lake. --Same as in city --Popular vote. X6 --The Seward area is 100 + miles from the nearest city. The Seward area should all be one city. -No conditions, just do iL --To receive government services. --Any or all. --City council should select an area-refer to state local boundary. __ When it's beneficial to the area being annexed. X3 19 -If it's economically feasible. Name a city service for which more of your tax dollars should be spent? -Environmental monitoring. --Planning the small boat harbor. --Programs to occupy the youth. -Road maintenance. -The hospital and Nursing Home. -Snow removal around business' -PUblic safe~- - -Snow removal -Parks and Rec **Should the City assess higher user fees for those outside city limits? --Fourteen people answered yes --Nine people said no What is the single most important problem facing the community today? --Finances ' -Jobs good paying jobs --Education funding --Splits between; inside/outside; progress/status quo; tourism/anti-tourism; shop locally/shop Anchorage. --Education -Not enough after school programs. -Payroll. There are community gouts that are volunteer time for public officials. (Expense optional) -City taxpayers paying for others outside city boundaries, benefiting from our facilities, services, schools and hospitals. --Department cost accountability. ___----=!3udget gap, rising costs of services. -Lack of industry to attracfjobS:-- - - -- - - --Crumbling infrastructure. (Roads and bike path) We cater too much to the cruise ships and tourists to the detriment of the locals. -Long tenn fiscal planning -The new hotel at the harbor, there are too many hotels. * * Prefer to shop in or out of city limits _17 _in, X2 X8 - - X6 X2 . X3 X3 X2 3 out. * *How many own a business or work inside city limits 16 "Would you like to vote in city elections? -17 people said yes -4 people said no "Age 18-30 31-40 51-50 51-60 61-70 Over 700 **Own or rent? --18 people said that they own their own home --3 people said that they rent . . "Support Natural Gas line? -17 people said yes Questions -Where are the pavilions? -Who will own the gas line? :20 . --How will annexation affect my monthly utility bill? Will I be paying water and sewer bills ifI'm noton water and sewer services? --Will a building built before annexation, be expected to comply with city building, and fire codes? --If great towns have great schools and ok towns have ok schools, what kind of schools do Medicare towns have? --Why can't a feasible study be done on getting natural gas to Seward from either sterling or portage? Whichever is less expensive. The city should not be held hostage by corporate influence i.e.; Petromarine services. --What services could feasibly be provided? What services would be lost? State troopers for example. How would zoniIlg rules be applied to annexed area? Can the city annex without permission of residents in that area? --When will the new library be finished? -Do we have a natural gas pipeline in Seward? -Where are the pavilions? Comments . , --I don't like the hotel going up in the harbor area; parking is bad enough as it is. --I'm not sure that the ability to participate in City of Seward elections is much of an enticement. The main attraction of annexation of the outlying areas is new services. The distraction is the cost. I just hope that adequate input from inside and outside the city limits is allowed. I have seen how annexation in Homer brought revenue to the city but brought no services to the majority of those in the newly annexed territory. --I would like to be able to vote in city elections. --I fail to see annexation of my neighborhood as advantageous to me. I note with horror the mismanagement ofS.M.LC for 15 years and the eco-disaster there. Would my road be next? --I am also for increasing the bed tax to 8% -Alaska has dropped from #1 in America (1990) to #51 today for maintenan~ of school funding. (aft.org) There is not one school in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Matsu or Juneau that has had 40% cut of staff and . students as Seward has. What was our share of the $5 million to KBSPD? We had two positions cut from the MiddleJhigh School, and 3.5 cut from the elementary. ..Ifwe get outlying areas annexed right away, how about looking into a hospital service area maybe all the way out to the Y (about mile 35). Have everyone pay 1% sales tax on all their expenses i.e. utilities local phone service, long distance, cell phone, internet, etc. Taxes for area wide services should be area wide, not just within the city boundaries. --Practice city services that are non-public, and are safety in nature. --Margaret Anderson's commentary in the Nov. II Log were well spoken. I live outside city limits but I'm from Seward. I would be willing to pay taxes to the city in return for services, protection and the right to vote in matters that affect me, however, ] don't think there are many people out there who feel the same as 1 do. It will be a hard sell. 1 don't think they will vote for it. --Drink Coke-a-Cola! --Emerge the public at all levels; however, be firm about goals, and staying with them. Re-emphasize area wide services provided such as Health care Providence (Seward facilities) police, fire, parks and recreation, Sr. citizens and youth center, Museums, etc. --Harness Tidal energy, and stock more sockeye. Eadsjunkyard, what's up with that? . . Suggestions -The Seward City Council needs to wake up. ] can name a score of families that have left Seward because they are discouraged with choices at our schools. Our kids in junior high are 36% down. That is ridiculous. The City Council needs to get involved before parents with a choice take their child out of public school. The teacher/administration are great. It is the state that has under funded us for years. jJ --Continue increases in fees and taxes; "make it more and more difficult to run a business in town. You will force businesses to close or move out of town. Decrease you operating budget however you can. Why do small businesses pay a higher service charge and higher kilowatt rate for electricity than anyone else? It's the same service; it should be the same fee. -Lowering utility costs by setting up a windmill, form and tidal generators. The citizens of Seward could have free or reduced utilities. Excess energy could be sold back t power companies. This would help Seward reduce our dependence on petroleum. Form a co-op for the citizens of Seward similar to Golden Valley Electric in Fairbanks. -Drive Safely. ---Start with a smaller area like Nash road and out to the Pit. Work with service areas (Bear Creek) on roads and public safety Issues. --The best water in Alaska is here in Seward. Access to roads and railways are good but need more use. Airports needs ability to land larger planes and become a port of entry to the U.S., which equals jobs, jobs, jobs. --Be prepared for court battles if annexation moves ahead. Another significant cost for the city. There will be inteose opposition from those being annexed and better feelings afterwards. --Never consider annexation without the full support of those being annexed. .. J~ , , I f . , , 0, ' , i ' " Seward City Coun,cil Annexation'Study' , July 27, 2004 , Public Work Session City CQ"_cil Clulmber$ Beginning at 7:00 p',m, )3 Work Session - Annexation Study Table of Contents Introduction -Exhibit 1- Land Use Type - Exhibit IT - Ownership Type History - Exhibit III - Proposed Annexation Seward Meridian Valley Annexation Process Standards That Govern Annexation Transition Plan Pro & Con Arguments - Arguments Favoring Annexation - Arguments Opposing Annexation - Alternatives to Annexation Baseline Information -Statistical Data - Annexation Impacts Special Issues Summary Appendix - Resolution 2004-60 - 2004 Mill Rate by Service Area - City of Seward Preliminary December 31, 2003 General Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, Other Financing Sources (Uses) and Changes in Fund Balance - Information provided by Kenai Peninsula Borough for Service Areas - 2005 Bear Creek Service Area Budget - Kenai Peninsula Clarion, February 15, 2004 article: "Poll: Borough residents don't want to pay for more services" by Hal Spence . . ;)'-/- Introduction The City has been here for the past 100 years. The question is where will we be in another 20, 50 or 100 years? A look at any map will show that future growth and development will likely occur along the Seward Highway and in the Lowell Point area. I .1 I . . This study focuses on the area bounded by the Bear Creek Fire Service Area and the Lowell Point Emergency Service Area (Study Area). lbis is because much of the statistical information from the Borough is available on a service district basis, is contiguous to the City and meets many of the requirements for annexation. See Exhibit I for a land use map and Exhibit II for an ownership map including boundaries of the Study Area , I I The intent of this memo is not to champion one position or the other, but to share. concerns, experience and projections in an effort to encourage healthy dialogue among parties involved. These parties may include the citizens of Seward, the citizens of the adjacent service areas, staff and public officials of the city, borough and state. At this stage all parties involved need more information in order to make decisions that will allow them to meet their goals. Finally, I would like to thank all the employees of the City, particularly Rick Gifford and Malcolm Brown, for their assistance in providing this material as'well as the City Council for providing the opportunity to-stiidy the-issue iiiio foTiliCludingpublic involvement in the process. J.,.5 EXhibit I ................... ..- ~ le..... parc:eJ5 ~:.......... ,..-.usE_'IY1'E _- ~';j' :~.....,!. :........... ~ r::]T-*- Use Type ~ o I 2,550 5,100 I 10,200 I F~ w+e s I", Exhibit II : LOWELL POINT EMERGENCY SE ~ Logond parcel. I;S~i-'I"""" ~Is.OWN_TYPE _~.... -- ..-- .:- ~- I .j-- Ownership ~ :17 2,550 5,100 I I I I I 10,200 I I I N Fe~1 + ::",-w E S ...-- ...--- History Since Seward was founded, it has steadily expanded north and east due to several boundary adjustments: 1912 - Incorporation . 1951 - Clearview/ Jessie Lee Home detach from City ~- 1952- BayviewSchoolannexed 1964 - To facilitate disaster rebuilding, Fort Raymond, Forest Acres, Airport, Nash Road and Folz subdivision containing 6400 acres were annexed. 1966 - Final boundaries set from 1964 with 3200 acres north of Resurrection River being removed and 3200 acres along the mountain side added. 1977 - Fourth of July Creek valley annexed for industrial development - 6400 aCres. 1992 - Proposed annexation of the Seward Meridian Valley cpntaining 5455 acres was dropped. .. See Exhibit III for a map describing lands proposed for annexation in the past. Selections authorized under 6A of the Statehood Act to transfer federally committed and controlled land to the state, its communities and its people for the benefit of individuals, expansion of communities, economic development, recreation and other worthy purposes have largely been met and are no longer a consideration in this matter. . . ~g I,,~.,~::- ,:( ,'t,:;'> P; Exhibit III ;. . " ~, .~ '\ .\/~ v , ; ; ... ~ ft:l 5 ;.. Current city lfmdts (14,080 acres) ~q ... Annexation Process Participation in the annexation planning process by city residents and those who live, work, and/or own property in the territory contemplated for annexation is strongly recommended. It is also recommended that officials fonn the Kenai Peninsula Borough be invited to p~cipate in the annexation planning process. Territory that meets all other applicable standards-may-be annexed to cities in Alaska by anyone of seven methods, all of which require Local Boundary Commission approval. The city must petition the Commission for annexation on forms provided by the Department of Community and Economic Development. Those seven methods are summarized below: 1. Annexation City-Owned Property. City-owned property that adjoins the existing corporate boundaries of the city may be annexed to the city. 2. Annexation by Ordinance of Adjoining Territory upon Unanimous Consent of Property Owners and Registered Voters. Territory that adjoins the existing corporate boundaries of a city may be annexed to a city provided all of the property owners and residents of that territory have first petitioned the city for annexation. Typically, this method is used for the annexation of a small number oflots in need of city utilities or other services. - 3. Annexation by Election in Territory Proposed for Annexation. Territory that adjoins the existing corporate boundaries of a city may be annexed to a city subject to approval by a majority of the voters who vote on the question within the territory proposed for annexation. 4. Annexation by Aggregate Election. Territory that adjoins the existing corporate boundaries of a city may be annexed to a city subject to approval by a majority of the aggregate voters who vote on the question within the area proposed for annexation and the city to which annexation is sought. 5. Annexation of Uninhabited Territory by Election. Uninhabited territory that adjoins the existing corporate boundaries of a city may be annexed to a city subject to approval by a majority of the voters who vote on the question within the city to which annexation is sought. , 6. Annexation by Legislative Review. To implement an annexation under this method, the Local Boundary Commission must present an annexation proposal to the Legislature during the first ten days of a regular session of the Legislature. The annexation becomes effective forty-five days after presentation or at the end of the session, whichever is earlier, unless disapproved by a resolution concurred in by a majority of the members of each house. ~2J 7. Gradual Annexation. The Local Boundary Commission may present to the legislature during the first 10 days of a regular session proposed local government boundary changes, including gradual extension of services of incorporated cities into contiguous areas upon a majority approval of the voters of the contiguous . area to be annexed and transition schedules providing for total assimilation of the contiguous area and its full participation in the affairs of the incorporated city within a period not to exceed five years. . . Standards That Govern Annexation I I l In order for any annexation to be approved, all of the thirteen standards listed below must be met. Additional standards for particular annexation proposal must also be met depending upon the method used. , , General city annexation standards . 1. The territory proposed for annexation must exhibit a reasonable need for city government. 2. The city to which annexation is sought must be capable of providing services determined to be essential city services more efficiently and more effectively than another existing city or an organized borough. , 3. The territory proposed for annexation must be compatible in character with the city to which annexation is sought. 4. The economy within the proposed expanded boundaries of the city must include the human and financial resources necessary to provided services determined to be essential city services on an efficient, cost-effective level. 5. The population within the proposed expanded boundaries of the city must be sufficiently large and stable to support the extension of city government. 6. The proposed expanded boundaries of the city must include all land and water necessary to provide the full development of services determined to be essential city services on an efficient, cost-effective level. 7. The territory proposed for annexation must be contiguous to the existing boundaries of the city and must not create enclaves in the expanded boundaries of the city. 8. The proposed expanded boundaries of the city must include only that territory comprising an existing local community, plus reasonably predictable growth, development, and public safety needs during the 10 years following the effective date of annexation. 73/ 9. The proposed expanded boundaries of the city must not include entire geographical regions or large unpopulated areas, except where justified by the application of the standards. 10. If the Petition describes boundaries overlapping the boundaries of an existing organized borough other than the one in which the existing city is located, the Petition must address the procedures and the brief must address the standards for either annexation of the enlarged city to the existing organized borough, or detachment of the enlarged city from the existing organized borough. 11. Annexation to the city must be in the best interests of the state. 12. The proposed annexation to the City may not deny , any person the enjoyment of any civil or political right, including voting rights, because of race, color, creed, sex, or national origin. 13. The Petitioner must prepare a proper transition plan. Transition Plan An annexation study will require a transitionI>laJ:.l identifying those municipal services proposed to be extended and establish a time schedule for so doing. The first step is to consider the cost of extending all services being provided in the city. If the full package of services exceeds the city's financial capability, relative priorities should be established and each service should be extended when it is financially possible. The proposed date for doing this should also be shown in a time schedule. Services that will require no extensive capital outlay, such as road maintenance and cleaning, might be provided within a short time. Such road maintenance might initially consist of continuing the service district contracts only on borough maintained roads while requiring all substandard roads to be brought up to standards before accepting them for maintenance. Police protection should be provided immediately, even though this might require spreading out existing man power and equipment. Fire protection should also be provided as soon as possible, either by the city or by making arrangements with the existing fire service districts. With respect to other services involving capital outlays, such as roads and utilities, extension should be based on previously approved policies and standards. For example, extension of water and sewer lines, roads, etc. can be built by local improvement districts upon petition of affected property owners. Residents of the annexed area do not expect to be taxed without benefits, but they should also not expect disproportionate improvement at the expense of the city residents. Thus, 8 3;( the transition plan should take into consideration the tax contribution of the property owners of the area of need, as well as other sources of revenue, to determine the amount of annual expenditure to be made in the annexed area. The transition plan should be scheduled over several years indicating when the annexed area can expect to receive the new or improved services. If the property owners in the annexed area are to assume their proportionate share of the city's bonded indebtedness, the plan should so state. Reference should also be made to zoning in the area. The transition plan should specifically address: 1. What specific powers, services, taxes, license requirements, and zoning or other regulation will be extended to the area proposed for annexation; t I 2. What schedule will guide the extension of powers, services, taxes and license requirements and regulations; 3. Whether differential tax zones or other special circumstances are contemplated in conjunction with anticipated levels of services and taxes in the area proposed for annexation; 4. What costs are reasonably anticipated in connection with the proposed extension _________~fp~~rs, services, taxes, license requirements, and zoning or other regulations; ~~ -- 5. What revenues are reasonably anticipated to be gained by the city as a result of annexation; . 6. What financial impacts annexation would have on other governments; 7. What assets and liabilities the city would assume from agencies and organization currently providing services to the area proposed for annexation; 8. Plans for transition of relevant local laws currently in place in the city; 9. The effect that annexation will have on powers or services currently provided or exercised by an organized borough in the area; and 10. If the territory proposed for annexation is within one or more service areas of an organized or unorganized borough, how annexation will affect the nature of the service area (e.g. abolition or detachment ofterritory). 933 The Pro and Con Arguments There are certain basic arguments, pro and con, that invariably surface during discussion of annexation. Some of these may be based on fact, partisan interest or fear of change. Arguments Favoring Annexation I. After annexation, the new territory will obtain its necessary services from city departments that are professionally staffed and experienced. Duplication of services can be avoided. Considerable economies can result from the coordination of services over a larger area. 2. A city zoning ordinance will be extended to adjacent areas in a logical manner, . thus helping to assure orderly growth. 3. Political boundaries will, after annexation, more nearly reflect the true and existing sociological, economic, cultural and physical boundaries of the community . 4. Annexation increases the city size and population and in some instances raises its level of political influences, its prestige, and its ability to attract desirable commercial development. It may also increase its :ability. to attract grant _____ _ _ _______assistance_oLmore_money under propos~ prQgril1I!s such as the Community Dividend. 5. Annexation increases valuation of the city resulting in greater bonding capacity. 6. Annexation may allow a city to achieve improved economies of scale by serving a larger area. 7. Annexation enfranchises individuals allowing citizens of the greater community to be appointed to city boards and commissions, hold elected office in city government and vote in city elections. 8. Annexation enhances the city's tax base in order to provide more reasonable taxes for all who benefit from city government. 9. Annexation provides additional areas for community expansion and growth. 10. The city already provides a number of services utilized by rural residents such as the library, parks, recreation, harbor, hospital, etc., as well as essential services such as utilities and public safety for employers and business utilized by rural residents. The city allows rural residents to drop of dogs and cats at the animal control facility and provides backup to the troopers for enforcement for the area. . II. Growth is a normal function of community vitality. 10 31 12. Annexation furthers city objectives such as rlUsmg more revenue and or controlling aesthetics and zoning outside of the existing city boundaries. Arguments Opposing Annexation 1. Annexation may be considered unnecessary if the community's needs, or . resources, are limited. 2. Residents may wish to retain the areas "rural" character and for this reason may oppose annexation as a step toward greater urbanization. As an example, there may be opposition to municipal animal control - both leash laws and restrictions on large animals or uncontrolled use of motorized recreational vehicles. 3. Residents may desire a higher degree of community identity that they believe they .. enjoy in a smaller area. 4. There may be distrust of the government and politics of the city to which annexation is proposed. 5. The city may not be able to finance additional services expected by residents of the area proposed for annexation and the territory that is annexed to the city may be a financial drain upon it for many years. As an example, existing police or fire force may be over extended, reducing the level of protection to the entire community. 6. There may be a fear that annexation will lead to a progression of municipal . problems in that extending services may cost more for each unit than the existing per unit cost. I I ~ 7. Interest in annexation may be limited to a select group of citizens and not shared at the grass root level. 8. Opponents of annexation may assert that they chose to live outside the jurisdiction of the city to pursue a lifestyle free from intrusive local government such as ordinances, regulations and licenses. 9. Annexation is just a "cash cow" for the city. 10. Rural residents already provide support for the city in that they pay sales tax for goods and services purchased within the city, serve as volunteers such as fire fighters, and they pay user fees for city services. 11. Nonresidents may loose certain privileges and entitlements with annexation such as eligibility for rural funded programs for water, sewer and-housing. 11 35 Alternatives to Annexation Once the objections have been defined and potential arguments against annexation considered, those encouraging annexation may wish to explore whether there . are alternatives to annexation that may be a more suitable means of accomplishing the objectives. For example, an-alternative to annexation as a means to remedy inequities and reduce liabilities might be to eliminate all extraterritorial services delivered by the city. Of _ course, such alternative may have serious shortcomings. Eliminating all extraterritorial services including police and emergency medical services might be morally unacceptable to city officials or the community as a whole. . Other alternatives to annexation that are often proposed include: (1) increasing property and other taxes within the present city boundaries, (2) establishing borough service areas to provide services, and (3) imposing new user fees or increasing existing user fees on nonresidents. An example of a new service area that might be established is for the hospital, thereby providing a separate tax levy spread over a larger area similar to Homer and Kenai. - Other examples include formation of service areas to provide a specific service such as _ ______police protection or animal controL _~ _ _ 12 3 c:, Baseline Information - 2004 Estimates This study. focuses on the areas bounded by the Bear Creek Fire Service Area, the Lowell Point Emergency Service Area, and comparisons to the City of Seward. The common asswnptions are that the newly annexed areas will be provided a level of service roughly similar to what is presently provided to the City residents. Since many of the service costs are ilirectly !"elated the population, nwnbers of parcels, acres, structures, miles of roads, etc. this has been included to provide a baseline. Bear Creek Lowell Subtotal Seward Total Point Population 1,823 89 1,912 2,7331 4,645 Maintained roads 17.73 1.91 19.64 27.47 47.11 Structures 961 70 1,031 914 1,945 Acres 9,568 1,495 11 ,063 9,543' 20,606 Parcels 1,526 97 1,623 1,449 3,072 2004 Real Property $88,196,500 $6,860,600 $95,057,100 $159,136,100 $254,193,200 Tax Value x 3.12 mills $275,173 $21,405 $296,578 $496,504 $793,082 2004 Personal $1,097,665 N/A $1,097,665 . $49,752,111 $50,849,776 Property Tax Value (boats not (boats not included) included) x 3.12 mills $3,425 N/A $3,425 $155,227 $158,652 2004 Total Taxable $89,294,165 $6,860,600 $96,451,343 $208,888,211 $305,339,554 Value, Real & Personal Pronertv x 3.12 mills $278,598 $21,405 $300,003 $651,731 $951,734 2004 Sales Tax $300,000 $40,000 $340,000' $2,980,000 $3,320,000 Revenues (x 4%) (estimate) (estimate) 2004 Bed Tax $25,000 $5,000 $30,0004 $215,000 $245,000 (estimate) (estimate) (estimate) Total Tax Revenues $ 643,598 $ 26.405 $ 670,003 $3,846,731 $4,516,734 I Population _ Spring Creek prisoners nwnbering approximately 484 are counted towards Seward's census, but they are obviously not involved with the community, including activities which involve voting. 2 Acres _ The City has a total of 14,800 acres, of which 5,257 acres are tidelands. 3 Sales tax - One cent of the sales tax is allocated to the hospital. One cent of the sales taxes collected from the annexed areas would also be allocated. . 4 Bed tax _ The Windsong Lodge has 109 rooms, the Chamber of Commerce states that there are 16 B&B's in the study area. The total nwnber of rooms in the B&B's, the rates charged and the total taxable sales revenues are undetermined at this time. 13 37 Annexation Impacts The impacts of annexation on the following city departments will focus on their operating and capital costs both before and after annexation. Many departments will have increased responsibilities both prior to and after annexation, and some new tasks will be necessary during the process. Cost increases will come from the need for additional . personnel, purchasing and/or upgrading equipment, additional maintenance costs,. workspace,-and-storage space for large equipment. ---- - - Citv Attornev: Pre-Annexation . Will be involved with preparation of transition docunients and .possibly legal challenges - cost TBD. Post-Annexation . Will depend on the amount and type of legal challenges as well as responding to additional requests from newly annexed residents for issues such as zoning, etc. - cost TBD. - Citv elerk's Office: Pre-Annexation . Copy costs, including manuals, flyers and/or pampWets - $10,000. . Media and advertising - cost TBD. . Personnel, increased workload may require at least a half-time position - cost TBD. Post-Annexation . Automation and storage, new records assessments and software packages will be needed - cost at least $100,000. (Will be needed without annexation.) . Copy costs and additional advertising - $8,000. . Business licenses will require additional staff time and file space - cost TBD. . Will need to hire at least one full time position, even with the automation needs previously mentioned having been met - cost $40,000. . Equipment and supplies will need to be increased and will require computers, desk, supplies, and office space - cost $7,000 (not including additional office space). . Emergency services, the disaster response work space will need to be upgraded and the phone systems will require upgrading - cost TBD. . Council Chambers and meeting rooms, will need more space - cost TBD. . Elections, re-districting would be required - $3,000 additional cost for elections. 14 38 I I I I I City Manaeer's Office: Pre-Annexation . Providing the public with information and providing necessary reports/studies will require a significant amount of time from all city staff. Consultants and/or. temporary help will be needed to complete annexation. materials for the Local -- Boundary Commission - cost TBD. Post-Annexation . Risk Management and safety officer are currently staffed as additional duties. . The additional work load will require a full-time safety officer - cost TBD. . Personnel Officer will have to devote more time to the:riew positions which will be needed; less time will be available for administrative assistance to the City Manager. Will require additional secretarial support - cost TBD. Community Development Pre-Annexation . Additional studies, meetings and responding to public information requests about -------zoning, creation of zoning districts, nonconforming- uses/structure recognition - procedures, floodplain administration, subdivision requirements, street addressing transitions and studying existing plans for infrastructure in the new areas would require at least a half-time position, for which workspace, a computer and _ additional office equipment will be needed - cost $19,000. Post-Annexation . Additional staff time for creating new zoning districts, code enforcement, nonconforming uses/structures recognition, floodplain administration, platting, easements, street addressing, printing maps, issuing permits, creating and updating files for properties, assisting in the creation of new plans, issuing permits and assisting in the review of permits for building and lodging and business licenses. . One additional full time positions with workspace, equipment and supplies will be needed - cost $40,000. . A full time GIS technician for mapping - cost $40,000. This could be contracted. 15 :31 Electrical Pre-Annexation . No impact, already serving the Study Area and charging users for the services provided. Post-Annexation . No impact. Encineerio2. and Buildin2. Pre-Annexation . Minimal impact, other than answenng questions about Building Code requirements. Post-Annexation . The Building Department will need a full time Building Inspector and a part-time Plans Reviewer. Salaries plus the additional expenses, including vehicle, training and travel, etc. - cost $62,200. .-The~City~Engineer position will require at least a half time position and an additional full time administrative assistant position to support Building and Engineering. Salaries plus the additional expenses, training and travel, etc. - cost $115,200. Finance Pre-Annexation . Impacted primarily by preparing alternate budgets for studies. Post-Annexation . Impacted by the level of support which is required for the operations of the departments which would be expanded, including grants for activities/infrastructure in the new areas, additional expenditures such as payments for outsourcing for services and more staff time for processing more payments received for additional licenses and permits - cost TBD. 16 JjO Fire Department Pre-Annexation . Minimal impact, other than answering questions about the Fire Code and inspection procedures for commercial properties, B&B's and hotels: Post-Annexation . Two additional full time emergency responder (firefighterlEMT) positions and a part-time administrative position will be needed for increased equipment, vehicle and facility maintenance, inspections and responses- cost TBD. . Lowell Point Emergency Service Area will need a facility - the one currently under construction has not received funding yet - cost mp. . Larger facility will be needed for joint traininglbusiness meetings. Proposed . Forest Acres Satellite Station could be used - cost TBD. . Bear Creek Fire Service Area budget - $287,633. . Lowell Point Emergency Service Area budget - $12,296. Harbor Pre-Annexation . . No impact, already serves the Study Area .and charges users for the services provided. . J Post-Annexation . No impact. Library Pre-Annexation . Minimal impact, other than providing info' on the annexation process. Already serves the Study Area, however, the services are paid from the City General Fund revenues, not through user fees. Post-Annexation . No impact. 17 1-1 MIS Pre-Annexation . Minimal impact, other than assisting departments with electronic formats for making annexation info readily available to the public. post-Annexation . Will depend on the number of new positions created and their computer/automation needs - cost TBD. Parks & Recreation Pre-Annexation . No impact. Already serves the Study Area with many recreational and youth provided programs. Charges for services are funded through fees and City General Fund revenues. Post-Annexation __ .--Impactfrom dedication of trails, cemeteriesandneighbJllhooQ, p.l1!ks,_~l1ich will have capital and maintenance costs- cost TBD. Police Department Pre-Annexation . Minimal impact, other than becoming more familiar with the areas and the prevalent activities. Currently provides backup for troopers. Post-Annexation . Some of the four Seward based State Troopers will probably be relocated. Eight full time patrol officers will be needed to provide 24-7 coverage - cost $451,000. . Additional vehicles, uniforms, radios and related equipment - cost $166,000. . The State Troopers will probably not be able to offer the same level of support for the 4th of July activities or other non-routine emergencies which will require additional staffing by the police - cost TBD. . Additional animal control for impoundment will require an additional full time position, an adequate vehicle to safely transport animals and an adequate facility - cost TBD. . A new public safety building will be required due to increased staffing- cost TBD. 18 'iJ- I I Public Works Pre-Annexation . Minimal impact, other than becoining more familiar with the areas and providing information to the public on the potential for public works services in their areas. Post-Annexation . The existing Borough road maintenance contract can be continued initially - cost $105,000. . If the City takes over road maintenance, additional equipment including graders, loaders, blowers, trucks and shops/storage area will be needed - cost TBA. . Shop operations inCluding additional vehicle maintenance and personnel- cost TBA. ' . Maintenance and supplies required to support additional work space, new vehicles, added infrastructure - cost TBA Special Issues Some activities in which the City will be involved if annexation takes place will have financial impacts, but it isAifficult to project the costs, due to a variety of factors which are unknown at this time. Planning & Zoning . Zoning issues, due to the lack of zoning in the Study Area, will present special problems and issues that will require additional time and cooperation among all the users to develop appropriate zoning that could be implemented over a period of time. Other City Code Issues . Other City Code issues will need to be addressed, such as use of snow machines, guns, noise ordinance, animal control, building inspection, etc. Public Works Bridge maintenance . DOT does bridge safety inspections and the Borough performs the upgrades. Current costs to maintain and upgrade bridges were unavailable from the borough. Many of the bridges are in floodplains and are impacted by the frequent flooding events. It is difficult to determine the frequency and level 19 13 which they will be damaged or the costs of the repairs and replacement as well as providing additional new structures such as for Questa Woods. Road standards . The amount of sub-standard non-maintained roads that exist throughout the study . Area is undetermined at this time. The costs to upgrade them have not been -projected. Funding likely to be grants and improvement districts. Water and Sewer . The costs to construct, operate and maintain new water and sewer lines as well as the sewer treatment infrastructure can not be determined at this time' and will require extensive engineering studies. The most likely funding sources will be bonds, grants and/or improvement districts. Lowell Point Water and Sewer grants , . Lowell Point is in the process of obtaining a sewer grant for $2.8 million and a water grant for $2.4 million from the State. A large part 'of their eligibility is due. to their inability to use local sources to fund this infrastructure. If Lowell Point were to become part of the City, it is unlikely that the eligibility for this type of a __ grant-would continue to exist._ ---- -------- Architectural and Engineering Design Costs . Infrastructure upgrades and other activities require plans. The City will have design and engineering costs associated with preparing new plans. These activities must be completed before seeking grants and other funding. Seward Bear Creek Flood Service Area . Since this service area has a larger boundary than the annexation study area, it is assumed that it will remain. The extent to which the City and the SBCFSA will interact on mitigation issues is still being developed. . Since the SBCFSA will be prioritizing initial efforts on flood mitigation activities, the City will be responsible for emergency responses and repairs in the newly annexed areas. Incorporating the Bear Creek Fire Service Area and the Lowell Point Emergency Service Area into the City of Seward . It is possible to have three volunteer fire departments in the City, but the management/administrative issues associated with having three departments 20 L/-Lj I which provide the same service in a small area are substantial. The City could contract with the existing departments to continue to provide those services. . The budgets for the two service areas total $299,929. Hospital and Long Term Care . One cent of the four cents City sales tax is allocated to healthcare. This will also apply to the sales tax collected by the City in the annexed areas. The amount is estimated to be $85,000. Selective Annexation . Selecting portions of a service district for a annexation due to their ability to generate taxes (cherry picking) will likely not be allowed by the Local Boundary commission due to adverse financial impact on the remainder of the Service District and its' capabilities to support that function. Additional Services . Additional services (police, animal control, etc.) could be provided on a service district basis rather than through annexation. This approach has been suggested by the borough. Municipal Lands Entitlements . The City has approximately six acres remmmng. in the Municipal Lands Entitlement. Annexation will have no impact on the amount or types of land available. I I 21 '-IS- Summary Before we can go very far in considering annexation, it would be helpful to know what council and the community are thinking concerning their primary objectives. Is there interest in annexation in order to: 1. Raise additional revenue? --2:-Require those living outside current city boundaries to pay more for services? 3. Control aesthetics of the corridor leading into the city? 4. Control land use outside the existing city boundaries? 5. Provide area for future growth? , If for example, the primary goal is to raise additional revenues, it is unlikely that annexation will accomplish this goal. Costs associated with continuing the Borough Road Maintenance Contracts ($105,000); continuing the two existing fire service contracts ($300,000) contributing one cent of the additional sales tax to the hospital ($85,000) along with decreasing the service district mill rates to match the city rate of 3.12 mills plus assuming other costs associated with providing general government services including police protection to an additional area as large as the City itself will likely out weight the benefits derived from increased taxes estimated to be $670,000. If on the other hand the benefit is assumed to be addressing other issues such as land use, areas for- growth,- enfranchising _voters, _oLcreation_oLaJa.rgeL~Q_mmunity representative of the entire area, then these objectives should be weighed against the costs of providing additional service. Given the time and costs to develop the petition to the Local Boundary Commission, Council might consider a survey to determine whether the community might be interested in annexation. Finally if the consensus of the greater community is to pursue the issue of annexation, we would strongly recommend use of the election-by-aggregate-voter-method set out in 3AACllO.600 (c). Under this method, the Local Boundary Commission grants an annexation petition subject to voter approval and the outcome is determined by the majority of the total votes cast (combined existing city and area proposed for annexation). In other words, the election-by-aggregate-voter-method of annexation does not require approval by voters in both the city and separately in the area proposed for annexation but rather a simple majority of all combined votes. ; 22 Lj t . APPENDIX 23 ~1 , I I Sponsored by: Branson and Dunham CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2004-60 , A RESOLUTION OF-THECtrY CbUNCIL OF THE-CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO EXPLORE THE POSSffiILITlES OF EXPANDING THE CITY BOUNDARIES TO ANNEX ADJACENT AREAS SURROUNDING THE CITY OF SEWARD AND TO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC INPUT REGARDING A POSSmLE ANNEXATION BY HOLDING A PUBLIC MEETING IN JULY WHEREAS, over the years a continuing interdependent relationship has developed between the residents living within the boundaries of the City of Seward and residents who live outside the city boundaries and; WHEREAS, residents living outside the city boundaries benefit from services provided by the City of Seward including but not limited to; flood control, electrical services, city police, harbor -- and fire protection services, health service, library, access to businesses, and recreation and schools to name a feW;.MId___ WHEREAS, the City Council desires - to explore the possibility of further uniting the residents within the boundaries of Seward with those outside the boundaries of Seward; and - <'- WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to explore the feasibility, public interest, and cost benefits of annexation. - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY OF - SEWARD, ALASKA THAT: Section 1.. The administration is directed to bring recommendations back to council with regard to solicitirig public input and advice for developing a plan of annexation. ~ Section 2. The city council hold a public meeting the week of July 26, and invite residents of Lowell Pt and Bear Creek, Kenai Peninsula Borough Administration, and a representative from .. Homer. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Lj8 CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA .RESOLUTION 2004-60 PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the city of Seward, Alaska this 24th day of May, 2004. THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA '1U/ . . jJ~~~. Vanta Shafer, Mayor' AYES: Dunham, Branson, Valdatta, Amberg, Anderson, Clark, Shafer NOES: ABSENT: . ABSTAIN: ATTEST: o 1 {~L-c tl- (/teA/~ Erin Leaders, Assistant City Clerk J~~~~~~'''''P~ .... ~--\. "'"'''' ~~.~ ;? C"'r..... ...;~?:tJOFt{~... () ~, ;:... f...:~1.:''''' ~ '., ~ .... :"_.. _-0--- <::> -:. .. .... .. . ... ,.. .. ~AL' ... ....'";@: ~;::'"'. :0: ~~ : ......,~- .. .. ;:: .,. .. ..-.0-- . .. '~~ o. .. :: "1',> '1 V/, ....IV.' n- __ .' ;S". ......,VI:: 1 "9..'.D ~ .e'... /.~ '."__ , .. .....r f."-:- .. '\~'. ",,~~............... ~'i> 'ttV . ':,.c:,~:r.t;-' OF p...\.- to'\, ~ . """"UH~."~' I~~' lIS '-19 2004 MILL RATE SEWARD Seward 3.12 Seward/Bear Creek Flood 0.50 Borough 6.50 KPC ~10 10.22 LOWELL POINT EMERGENCY SERVICE AREA Lowell Point Service Area. 1.75 Seward/Bear Creek Flood 0.50 Borough 6.50 Road Maintenance 1.40 KPC 0.10 10.25 BEAR CREEK FIRE Bear Creek Fire Seward/Bear Creek Flood Borough Road Maintenance KPC 2.25 0.50 6.50 1.40 0.10 10.75 ; . .. 50 GENERAL FUND Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, Other Financing Sources (Uses) and Changes in Fund Balance Year-to-date Preliminary December 31,2003 For Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2003 Estimated FY2003 'Fo of . . Throu2h 12/31 Budl!eI Budl!et Revenues: Taxes 4 280 608 4,409,815 97.1% Assessments. 1084 4,000 27;1 % Licenses and Permits 280,128 135 500 206.7% InterJrovernmentaJ 944,3f8 898,846 105.1% Charges for Services 1,854082 2, I 82,088 85.0% Fines and Bails 20 152 .15,000 134.3% Interest 98,509. ] 40,000 70.4% Miscellaneous 91,966 If],4oo 82.6% Total Revenue: 7.570.847 7.896.649 95.9% Expenditures: . . Current: General Government ],847,]25 2,005,775 92.]% Public Safetv , . 2;294714 2,386080 96.2% Public Works 1,460,787 1,52] ,068 96.0% Parks and Rccreation 997,557 ],007,324 99.0% Library 287,971 304,36] 94.6% Debt Service .217,]92 2]7192 ] 00.0% Total Expenditures: 7.105.346 7.441.800 95.5% Excess of revenues over expendItures 4650501 454.849 102.3% Other financlnl! sources "(uses): OncratiDlz.transfers (to) other furids (999,275 (] ,034 629 96.6% Oncratin2 transfers from other funds . 187,237 192.623 97.2% Net other financinl! sources (uses) (812.038 (842.006" 96.4% . . Excess (deficlency) of revenues aud other sources over expenditures and other uses . (346.537 (387.157 Fund balance at January 1,2003 5,252,376 5,252,376 Residual equity transfers (to) from other fiuids (20 000 (20,000 Fund balance Estimated at December 31. 2003 Desil1nated for Workim: Capital Needs 1.5.00,000 1,500,000 100.0% Desil!:nated for Hosoital Line of Credit 500,000 500,000 100.0% Designated for Unrealized Gains on InvestmentS , 81,315 81,315 100,0% Desil1nated for Insurance Reserves ' 519,418 519,418 100.0% Undesil1nated . 2,285,]06 2,244,486 101.8% Total Fund Balimce r:" J . 4,885.839 4.845.219 100.80/0 . ..:..,; , I I I I I I , - TCA (Tax Code Area) 42 Lowell Point ESA Based on 2004 Certified Roll Total Parcel Count 97 Total Assessed Values $13,645,000 Raw Land $10,395,700 TCA (Tax Code Area) 57 Bear Creek Fire Raw Land 70 Stuctures 1 Apartment 1 B&B 1 Lodge 32 1-4 Residental 28 Cabins/Cottage 1 Warehouse Q Misc 70 Total Parcel Count 1,526 961 Stuctures 2 Apartment. 4 B&B 1 Lodge 694 1-4 Residental 196 Cabins/Cottage 4 Warehouse 33 Misc 4 Hotel/Motel 23 Commercial 961 R:/ShanelExcellPresenlationILOWf:n PoInt and Bear Creek Numbers Total Assessed Values $126,162,100 $54,435,300 .52 Total Taxable Assessed Values $6,860,600 Total Taxable Assessed Values $88,196,500 Total Acres within TCA 9,747.69 ~ Total Acres within TCA 40,950.35 ; " KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH BUDGET DETAIL FUND 207 DEPARTMENT 51210. BEAR CREEK ADMINISTRATION . FY2004 FY2004 FY2005 FY2005 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FY2002 FY2003 ORIGINAL AMENDED MAYOR ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY ADOPTED & ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET PROPOSED ADOPTED CURRENT BUDGET % PERSONNEL . 40120 TEMPORARY WAGES $ 585 $ 10,640 $ 14,040 $ 11,040 $ 14,456 $ 14,458 $ 3,416 30.94% ~ 40210 FICA 45 837 1,095 1,095 1,128 1,128 33 3.01% TOTAL: PERSONNEL 630 11,677 15,135 12,135 15,584 15,564 3.449 2B.42% . SUPPLIES 42110 OFFICE SUPPLIES 59B 874 750 1,515 1.000 1,000 (515) -33.99% 42120 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 86 - 250 5,378 250 2SO (5,128) .95.35% 42210 OPERATING SUPPLIES 1,166 2,604 1,750 1,456 1,750 1.750 294 20.19% 42220 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 537 255 500 971 SOD 500 (471) 48.51% 42222 FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 108 3,9B7 1,500 2,923 1.500 1,500 (1,423) -48.68% 42230 FUEL, OILS AND.LUBRICANTS 2,103 I,S06 2,000 2,000 2,000 2.000 - 0.00% 42250 UNIFORMS 3,408 3,757 5.000 2,993 5,000 5,000 2,007 67.06% 42263 TRAINING SUPPLIES - 1,661 - 576 500 500 (76) -13.19% 42310 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - 369 - 100 - - (100) - 42360 MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR 8,816 3,469 6.000 6,000 6,000 6,000 - 0.00% 42410 SMALL TOOLS 361 299 500 1,200 500 . SOD (700) -58.33% TOTAl: SUPPLIES' . 17,183 18,781 18,250 25,112 .19,000 19,000 (6,112) -24.34% SERVICES 43011 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 16,652 7,161 9,750 14,798 9,750 9,750 (5,048) -34.11% 43014 PHYSICAl EXAMINATIONS 9,241 10,466 10,000 2,328 10,000 10,000 7,672 329.55% 43110 COMMUNICATIONS 3,209 3,865 3,000 3,000 3,500 3,500 SOD 16.67% 43140.POSTAGE 523 506 500 SOD 500 ,500 - 0.00% 43210 TRANSPORT/SUBSISTENCE 6,534 3,619 5,250 5,250 8,650 6,6SO 1,400 26.67% 43260 TRAINING 2,922 1,097 5.000 4,325 5,000 5,000 675 15.61% 43310 ADVERTISING. 23 12 SOD 500 500 500 - 0.00% 43510_INSURANCE PREMIUM 3,901 7,851 10,206 10,206 11,303 11,303 1,097 10.75% 43527 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 1,500 1,500 - - - - - - 43610 UTILITIES 4,628 5,747 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0.00% 43720 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1,799 1,293 3,000 414 3,000 3,000 2,586 624.64% 437BO BUILDINGS & GROUNDS MAINT. . 12,606 12,447 5,500 14,750 6.000 6.000 (8,750) -59.32% 43920 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTION 315 666 400 400 400 400 - 0.00% TOTAl: SERVICES 63,853 56,230 58,106 61,471 61,603 61,603 132 0.21% CAPITAL OUTLAY 48210 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT - - 5,000 10,000 - - (10,000) -100.00% 48513 RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT - 4,987 - - - - - - 48514 FIREFIGHTINGIRESCUE EQUIPMENT 35,456 8,027 - 36,651 20,000 20,000 (16.651) -45.43% 48710 MINOR OFFICE EQUIPMENT 77 1,351 - 4,868 - (4,86B) .100.00% 48730 MINOR COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT - - - - 5,000 5,000 5,000 . #DIV/OI 48740 MINOR MACHINES & EQUIPMENT 949 6,657 3,000 400 - - (400) -100.00% 48755 MINOR RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT - 21,186 - 225 - - (225) -100.00% 48750 MINOR MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 1,785 .7 2,000 414 - - (414) -100.00% 48760 MINOR FIRE FTG EQUIPMENT 4,775 2,585 20,000 46,357 - - (46,357) -100.00% TOTAL: CAPITAL OUTLAY 43,042 44,800 30,000 98,915 25,000 25,000 (73,915) -74.73% TRANSFERS S0442 BEAR CREEK CAP PROJECT FUND 70,000 75,000 90,000 90,000 160.000 160,000 70,000 77.7B% TOTAL: TRANSFERS 70,000 75,000 90,000 90,000 160,000 160,000 70,000 77.7B% DEPARTMENT TOTAL $ 194.708 $ 206,488 $ 211,491 $ 287,633 $ 281,187 $ 281,187 $ (6.446) -2.24% L1NE-ITEM EXPLANATIONS 40120 Temporary Wages. Cover the cost of one 48730 Minor Communication Equipment. To pay temporary administrative employee. match contribution for antiCipated grants for purchasing communication equipment. 48514 Firefighting/Rescue Equipment. Purchase the following components for new EMS vehicle:($3,OOO) fire hose, ($5,000) tools, ($3,000) lighting, ($2,600) monitor, ($1,000) cribbing, ($1,400) saw, ($1,600) blower, ($500) gas detector, ($1,900) and various parts. 50442 Transfer to Capital projects. Annual transfer to fund long-term capital replacement requirements. Increase to cover new station design. See the Capital Projects section of this document. FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS INFORMATION ON THIS DEPARTMENT. SEE THE CAPITAL PROJECTS SECTION. PAGES 255 &264 Kenai Peninsula Online _ Alaska NewspaperPoll: Horough residents don't want to pay.tor... page 1 or;) , ,,'" Powered by CLARioN ~ Local Interest " Home " News ,i Sports " Obituaries " Editorial " Art + Events Features )i Business )) Religion " Seniors " Health " Stocks >> Movies Peninsula Guide >> Web Guide )) Web Search " Forms >> Yellow Pages " Circulation iMore Links )) Legislature )) Outdoors-.-- " Community >> Classifjeds )) Letters to Editor )) Schools " NIE )) Dispatch )) Forums " 1V Listings )) For Kids )) Pets )) About Us " Churches " Archives )) Online Services >> Exploring ~ More LOCltll Wetltlltlr . .. A..-.. ,44. Deadhorse " . ... 75. Fairbanks . .... 64. Anchorage ...... .::::.~ 66. Kenai ... ,.. ""64. Homer 1\.. 79. Juneau !Choose your city ~ July s M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Powtlr SBlIr~h ..' ". . r- Our Stories ( Web C Yellow Pages I,. Stocks ClasslfJeds r..- _Search j Miss a day? Web posted Sunday, February 15, 2004 Poll: Borough residents dQn't wantto pay for --more services . By HAL SPENCE Peninsula Clarion . Mitigating land-use conflicts, supporting economic development, expanding fire and emergency services, and aiding senior service programs were among the Issues raised most often and seen as Important in a telephone survey conducted by a contractor working on the update of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. The survey showed an apparent willingness by many residents to accept stricter regulation of sensitive environmental resources such as fish-bearing rivers and streams, floodplains. and wetlands. It also showed a desire for expanded recycling and hazardous waste disposal. . The survey demonstrated that, by and large, residents remained cool to the idea of paying for additional borough services and facilities, though in some cases sizable minorities said they would. The survey was conducted in December by the McDowell Group, part of the borough's plan update team. Surveyors called 607 borough households to measure opinions about land use, public facilities, the economy, the environment and more. "The telephone survey results report is very interesting and provides citizens and decision-makers with a lot of useful information," Max Best, the borough's director of planning, said in a press release. The report can be found on the borough's Web site. , ""' Assembly President Pete Sprague of Soldotna said he found no surprises in the results. "I don't see any glaring needs that the borough isn't addressing at this time," he said. "There is no need to change what we are doing. I see no glaring omissions in our policies." Assembly Vice President Gary Superman of Nikiski agreed there was no call for drastic changes in the survey results. He said he was looking forward to discussing the survey with McDowell representatives In the near future to get a clearer http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/021504/new _ 021504new00300 1.shtml 5f; 7/16/2004 Kenai Peninsula Online'- Alaska NewspaperPoU: tlorough resIdents don't want to pay ~or ... rage L. or:> Use the PowerSearch below to search by topic, or click on the day to see the stories from the past week. Wedl Tuel Monl Sunl Fril Thul . ~ understanding of the demographics, surveying methodology and an Interpretation of some of the results. Among the survey results: . Residents overwhelmingly said land regulation to protect private property rights and prevent conflicts is important. Some 77 percent of residents said land regulation Is either important or very important, with 46 percent calling It very important. However, just over half (53 percent) said they thought current borough regulations were "just right." Only 7 percent thought there was too much regulation. I I .. A majority saw industrial land use and gravel pits as ripe for stricter regulation. Less support was seen for stricter rules for subdivision, residential areas and private airstrips. Only about a third, however, indicated they'd be willing to pay for more regulatory enforcement. . I I I A strong majority supported efforts to increase environmental protection. Seventy percent wanted improved water-quality monitoring, 67 percent wanted stricter regulations near rivers and streams and 63 percent wanted stricter regulations on floodplains. Again, only about a third said they'd be willing to pay higher taxes for such added protections. -- When it came to helping the elderly, fully 84 percent believe the borough should continue support for senior center programs. Two-thirds supported expanding recycling services and Improving fire and emergency services in their areas. Fewer than half said they wanted to pay for changes In facilities for animal control, hazardous waste disposal, fish waste disposal, and garbage disposal. Among several economic development initiatives, borough residents are most in favor of vocational/technical training, followed by small-business support, the survey reported. Nearly three out of five favored land-development assistance programs. When it came to tax issues, the survey found 45 percent of borough residents supported tax relief for new or expanded business developments. Another sizeable minority, 43 percent, supported instituting a borough bed tax. The survey was designed in collaboration with Cogan Owens Cogan, the Kenai Peninsula Borough staff, borough Planning Commission members and members of the Kenai Peninsula http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/021504/new _ 021504new00300 1.shtml .55 7/16/2004 Kenai Peninsula Online _ Alaska NewspaperPoll: Borough residents don't want to pay for ... Page 3 of 5 Borough Assembly. To ensure a significant sampling of smaller unincorporated areas, those areas were "over-sampled, n while urban areas were "under-sampled," McDowell Group said. Once survey results were In, the data were weighted to reflect the true distribution of population in the borough. The survey's maximum margin of error was plus or minus (:1:) 4.1 percent. Some of the regional attitudes revealed by the general questions posed in the survey were interesting. ~ For instance, it was residents of Nikiski (93 percent) and Seward (87 percent) who proved most likely to say land-use regulation was important or very important. ~ Homer area residents were supportive of regulating industrial land-use, while rural residents were least supportive (65 percent and 48 percent, respectively). Seward residents (64 percent) wanted better control over gravel pits. Again, rural residents as a grouping were least supportive of pit regulations. Those with annual household incomes of less than $40,000, and people under the age of 25 were less likely to see land regulation as important. Borough residents clearly showed an interest in enacting stricter regulations of land use around valuable rivers and streams. The least support for stricter rules was found in Nikiskl, but even there, 56 percent were in favor. If the idea of actually enforcing tighter rules around waterways essentially split opinion in Nikiski, that wasn't the case when it came to keeping tabs on the condition of those waterways. Nikiski respondents overwhelmingly supported better water- quality monitoring. In fact, only 3 percent said they were strongly opposed. That was a better showing than the 80-percent favoring the idea in Homer, an area perceived by many to be politically "green" when compared to central peninsula communities. ~ Homer assembly member Chris Moss suggested that experience might be the equalizer in this case. Nikiski residents live near the most industrialized part of the borough. They may be tuned in to impacts to the environment even though many residents may make their living at or because of the industrial complex, he said. "Maybe they see what can happen if things are not monitored," Moss said. Assembly President Pete Sprague said he found nothing http://peninsulac1arion.com/stories/021504/new _ 021504new00300 l.shtml 56 7/16/2004 Kenai Peninsula Online _ Alaska NewspaperPoll: Borough residents don't want to pay tor .,. page 4 ot, . especially surprising in the fact that residents believed land regulations to protect property rights and prevent conflicts were worthwhile. But he also noted that half believe the. current level of regulation Is about right, so the survey shouldn't be seen as a mandate for taking a new direction. As for the Nikiski data, Sprague said he believed there was "a real awareness" of the heavy industrial activity in the area. . "The survey reflects concern about water quality," he said, adding that the borough has the tools to help with such things as local-option zoning. Superman said he found nothing surprising about Nikiski's interest in water quality. He helped institute a groundwater study around 1990 in response to questions he and his Nlkiski neighbors had. ' "Everybody Is concerned about groundwater," he said. "These are ongoing concerns. It is natural that people In industrial areas want to know what is going on." In the area of economic development, 62 percent said they supported the borough using its resources to recruit and support small business. The greatest favor for that idea was found In Seward,' which also led all areas in backing vocational training. The least support for using resources to recruit small business was found in Homer, but even there, 52 percent were in favor. Exactly why Homer should be so split on the Issue is a good question, Moss said, because some recent debates might suggest no real antipathy to small business in Homer. For instance, Moss said, the Homer City Council recently rejected a ban on smoking In restaurants and bars, while Soldotna and Kenai have both adopted such bans for restaurants, a move that opponents saw as anti-business. . "We are constantly hearing the barrage about how green Homer is and about all the tree-huggers down here," Moss quipped. "But you never know what Homer Is going to do. Maybe they actually are more into personal freedom than folks up north," Superman said he found it interesting that people in his district showed as much interest as they did in tourism. He said there isn't much in the way of tourism industry activity there. He suggested that perhaps it was an expression of the community's support of diversity In the borough economy. A majority of residents (57 percent) opposed a boroughwlde pollee department. Only 30 percent were in favor. That may have been reflective of concern that taxes would be needed to http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/021504/new _ 021504new00300 1.shtml 5? 7/16/2004 Kenai Peninsula Online'- Alaska NewspaperPoll: Borough resIdents don't want to pay tor '" .rage:> 01:> pay for a police department, and also that cities that have their own forces might have to relinquish some powers to the . borough. There was less opposition to adding law enforcement in areas currently without a city police department. In those areas, only 47 percent were opposed. On animal control services, Nikiski area residents remain the most supportive (72 percent), and rural residents the least. supportive (43 percent). . Discuss this story in our Discussion Forum ~ 8'" ~ . 'I ,.. E-mail this Story E-mail a message Read our paper Havs our Headlines . a friend to the editor on your PDA e-malled to you Cornments or questions? For questions about the website contact the weh master at Kenai Peninsula Online Box 3009 Kenai, AK 99611 907 -283-7551 Copyrighted by Peninsula Clarion, a Division of Morris Communications Privacy and terms of Use. http://peninsulaclarion.com/storiesl021504/new _ 021504new00300 1.shtml 5t ., . ~ 7/1~/2004 . SEW ARD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING . SEWARD PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, May 15,2007 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Seward Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a work session and public hearing on the following matter on May 15,2007. A RESOLUTION OF THE SEWARD PLANNING AND WNING . COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEWARD,ALASKA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDING THE LAND USE PLAN AND THE REWNING OF LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 8, ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF SEWARD, FROM AUTO COMMERCIAL (AC)TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) I I I I I Copies of the Application and staff review are on file in the Community Development Office for public review. The Public Hearing will commence at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as business permits, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 410 Adams Street, Seward. All interested persons are invited to attend. For more information, contact the Seward Planning and Zoning Commission, c/o City Planner, PO Box 167, Seward, AK 99664, or e-mail dglenz@citvofseward.net. - PUBLISHED: Will be published in the Seward Phoenix Log on Thursday, May 3, 2007 and May 10,2007 under City Calendar. POSTED (4/18/2007): City Hall bulletin board U.S. Post Office Harbormaster's Building 59 Marvin Yoder Seward City Manager P.O. Box 167 Seward, Ak 99664 03/21/07 RECEIVED ~'6D. '>. -1' 20fl7 .'il. .l. .: .... CITY OF SEWARD r-'---' , I , f~AR 2 1 2007 OFFiCE OF THE CITY CLERK Dear Mr. Marvin Yoder Ll...... .,.. .....- ._._~_,__--i Pl i\I"NING OFFICE ----.-- I am writing to purchase 5 acres of City of Seward land at Fair Market Price as set by"Macswain Associates Appraisal Report" dated January 5, 2006, File number 05- 1323. The land I am proposing to purchase is adjacent to land recently purchased from the City of Seward by Wade and Carol Roberts March of 2006. I am planning to build my home toward the front of the property and would need to construct a road to reach it. . I have had the land surveyed and originally was seeking a 10 acre parcel. Please see attached plat and highlighted 5 acre parcel that I am requesting to purchase. Thank You Sincerely /' .b Brad Snow en P.O. Box 670 Seward, Ak 99664 907224-3474 907491-0427 brad@seward.net cc. Seward City Council bO \ I , \ I I . ~ 1 ~ ."' .:J.;..,~": , ''''.'' ;~~{~ t~ j: . ~ " .:';:k ::::.':,' -,,-,,-'.'-~'-' " .. ",'{-?i.j .......-, "~,' -..... -"...- r'- '. ... .. ~ ...; == ~ -" = ~: . J ....:.... ..::...... :::;........ ., -..... , ~; -'-' ~ .-.'",,'-., --:= ~ ~""'_' r :--...... ~ i .~ "" ~ '- ".: !~...- .J , , ~ f; ! t . , ? :--.,. "'.~./ ~J\ .~.:;:::-. .-. :::~ '- ..:.~ -. ~ <... ~~. I "" ~.... " ;....~~iE-. ~::5~. -... 1 - - - :'---=.. /i .f l j l , j ~f. t. /~t / ir~~~_' ,~ ~ :- :..,:, __,'7 l -.: r ;1 1 i i .. . i , ..' e.C.'-:.: i -:t Q ./~. .r T r~:'~~'-r,.J~ ~~'.:)J.8 ,;t.-.. ~. :fF _is:': :.T~ t J...:.- '~.IL \~'::R~ -, ,~. /1 ,<- . --:"7"'! .::sf{ " .- " 8'q-'r-Q" ~ -.:)...; HL: :-;._:' - "'~ '-- .=+ES.?(:'" ~ ;. \ r . :~""'r.. .., _ ;L!- ~e~'.'.Chi :~ ~s:t...:; :--c, ~ 'C~~ ; .-.' i', __ - r- ' :.:;. '. ..... '-- ~ -'= ..:::.' 1'" ~ ~4.. C' "t' ~ f'1n . ~ -..... . l",;;::.c,: ~ . .,. , . ~'. ..., ;..": '!. ':;";l : , - '- == .- - ; . . . ~: '. : , '.. ., ,;~ . .- ~:..~"i 1'0 ,- f..' 'l.' .~ ~ '-.:.-- 9.4[:3 c:..: ~ 'oJ' ^''-'~6 - , :?y -.i ,. -.- ,:'=:", iJ -" ~::;-==:.. I~. -=.'" $! . > I I .....~l ,';.,.').??-;'-" ., .';' .:: ., . 1 : t . . ; : .~~,i'c.) ;;....../ i :.: ~. 1 , . ! ....... '.:j->.... . , l'~=! ., , // ....". ~ -.; . s ../ ... ; ~ ,. ~f' ->-. 'f ."/ '/ " ']' :~~ ~.... 2~4. -.:. ')- ., .f;' ;'- ""'-.. ~ 'Y '" --; .! " ,j '- -.; -'" ,. ;l .~'-, .l.0 . ":-- i'.::...;. ) ,:~~ ~ ;,il ~~ ~;I ! I J it"<.. } ~ i 'l.","" . ... 1'0 /Ct:' .I !~ { .... 'r-- fr?) l-~ ;; .~ .y ~ l' OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK :?:: "-' .::. :::: -+- ~: -<.. ,=' '"- ....' "" , :--~ "" . " "'. ") "- ,,' '-' 2007 '"'- RECEIVED MAR 2 I .-~ '0..:...., :-.>:::5 .Y ~ ..." " I:'=:-..- [..... r,O "'"<, G/ May 2007 Monthly Planner 6 7 13 14 7:30 PM City Council Meeting 20 21 27 28 Memorial Day Offices Closed KPB Assembly Meeting (All Day) 8 15 6:30 PM P & z Spec~1 Meeting ~ 29 7:30 PM City Council Meeting '2:00 PM PACAB ~eemg 7:00 PM KPB Sales Tax on Recreational Use 7:00 PM -9:00 PM Reception at Sealife Center for PhiUip Oates 9 16 12:00 PM PACAB Work Session 6:30 PM Historic Preservation Meeti"lg 23 30 7:30 PM P & z ~eeti'\g 10 17 24 31 11 12 18 19 9:00 AM -1 :00 PM Social Security Rap 25 26