----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Brandt-Erichsen
To: 'Ketchikan Charter Commision'
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 9:47 AM
Subject: RE: Agenda Items


Debby,

Ý

In looking at Mr. Harrington s proposal accurately states the two questions.Ý I would suggest different amending language based on the answers.Ý Specifically, if you desire to have a pubic vote for all revenue bonds then you will want to delete the last paragraph from 11.05.Ý This paragraph currently reads:

Ý

The restrictions of Articles VIII, X, and XI of this Charter shall not be construed as limitations upon the authority granted by this section.Ý Non recourse bonds and other non-recourse revenue obligations may be issued pursuant to this section without ratification at an election.

Ý

I note that even if you do not delete this language the reference to Article XI as being waived should probably be deleted as part of Article XI is 11.05 itself.

Ý

Ý

Ý

If you desire to waive a public vote for revenue bonds then you will need to delete the phrase and ratified by the voters from 11.04. ÝI recommend against the language suggested by Mr. Harrington refers to general obligation bonds.Ý You do not want to refer to general obligation bonds as those always require the public to ratify them.Ý The reference should be to either revenue bonds or non-recourse revenue bonds depending on your wording preference. ÝYou would also want to amend 8.03(d) to delete and, to the extent required under Article XI, a majority of the qualified voters of the municipality who vote on the question of .

Ý

A third possibility is if you want to allow economic development non-recourse bonds, but not allow them to be used for KPU projects.Ý If this is the case I would suggest that 11.05 be amended to add a new subsection (d) reading Non-recourse revenue bonds issued under the authority of this section may not be used to avoid the requirement for voter ratification for revenue bonds issued for utility projects.Ý Utility revenue bonds must comply with sections 8.03 and 11.04 of this charter, including the requirement for voter ratification.

Ý

I would also suggest that the sentence The restrictions of Articles VIII, X, and XI of this Charter shall not be construed as limitations upon the authority granted by this section. be deleted alsoÝ for the reasons mentioned above.

Ý

Ý

Scott

Ý

Ý

Ý

Ý

Ý


From: Ketchikan Charter Commision [mailto:charter@kpu.net]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 6:31 AM
To: Scott Brandt-Erichsen; Steve Schweppe
Subject: Fw: Agenda Items

Ý

Good morning, worthy attorneys,

We are talking here about Section 11:05, non-recourse revenue bonds.Ý What is your take on these two options to be presented as agenda items?

Ý

Good job in Prince Rupert, Scott.Ý Bet you're having fun!!

Thanks for any help you can render.

Ý

----- Original Message -----

From: John Harrington

To: 'Ketchikan Charter Commision'

Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 9:43 PM

Subject: RE: Agenda Items

Ý

Hello Rose:

Ý

I ain t at my best, but here is a shot at the bond stuff: Probably should get a LAWYER to look at the wording in 1.)

But as I see it we should break the discussion into two simple questions. The have two action items one for each question.

Ý

Ý

1.)ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ Should the Utility (KPU) be required to gain voter approval prior to issuance of general obligation bonds for improvement or upgrades of the utilities? If the answer is no, then insert the following as the next to the last sentence in Section 11.05ÝÝÝ (c).

General obligation bonds issued under this section, which are to be used for capital improvement in, and paid for by revenues of Ketchikan Public Utilities may be issued without ratification at an election.

Ý

2.)Ý Should non-recourse revenue bonds be required to gain voter approval prior to issuance? If the answer is yes, then we need to delete the last sentence in Section 11.05.

Ý

Ý

Ý


From: Ketchikan Charter Commision [mailto:charter@kpu.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 12:41 PM
To: John Harrington
Subject: Minutes and Agenda Item start

Ý

John

Here are the minutes from the last meeting, as well as a start on an agenda item.Ý Please get the agenda item back to me as soon as possible, as I'd like to publish early this week.

Ý

Thank you.

Scott is correct. The use of the term "non-recourse" when discussing
revenue bonds confuses the issue because revenue bonds are by definition
secured only by the revenues of the enterprise or project they are
intended to finance. Since there is no full faith and credit pledge by
the issuing municipality, the bondholders cannot compel the municipality
to raise taxes or use other non-related revenue sources to satisfy debt
service on the revenue bonds. A municipality can issue bonds that have
recourse. These bonds are called "double-barreled" bonds. These type
of bonds are secured by the revenues of the enterprise or the project.
They also carry a full faith and credit pledge. They are generally
categorized as general obligation debt because of the full faith and
credit pledge even if the issuing municipal "intends" to use the only
revenues of the enterprise or project to pay for the debt service.

Bob

"Scott Brandt-Erichsen" <boroatty@borough.ketchikan.ak.us> 3/5/2005
10:39 AM >>>
Bob Newell can correct me if I am using the wrong terminology, but the
concept is best illustrated by a tangible example. The city of
Ketchikan currently has a charter provisions which requires a public vote in
order to pass revenue bonds. The Borough does not require such a vote for
revenue bonds. Generally there are two types of bonds, revenue bonds and
general obligation bonds. General obligation bonds pledge the full faith and
credit of the municipal entity while revenue bonds only pledge the revenue
from the designated project. As such, most revenue bonds are also non-recourse
bonds in the sense that the taxpayers are not responsible if there is a
default and there is no recourse against the municipal entity involved.

Revenue bonds are often used in connection with major construction
projects connected with enterprise activities such as the port, KPU and the
Airport.

The city has in the recent past been discussing revenue bonds for the
port expansion. As revenue bonds of the city these require a public vote.
If the new municipality were to issue the bonds as revenue bonds the
charter would call for a vote. However, if, rather than calling them port
revenue bonds, they are nominally labeled as non-recourse economic development
revenue bonds, then section 11.05 would appear to authorize them to be
issued without a pubic vote.

In our experience with economic development, the determination of
whether a particular expenditure is within the economic development powers is a
factual determination made by the assembly. A court will not reject
such a judgment call by the assembly unless it is clearly unreasonable. As
such, the range of projects for which an argument could be made that it
promotes economic development is very broad. So broad in fact that it is likely
that most items for which revenue bonds could be used could be asserted to
be economic development projects. As a result, the idea of requiring a
public vote for revenue bonds is undercut if you can issue "non-recourse
economic development bonds" which are paid by the revenues from the project
without a public vote.

You can leave the charter as is, but I wanted to let you know that the
public vote requirement for revenue bonds in 11.04 can easily be
avoided by the non-recourse bond option in section 11.05. If you want the public
vote to clearly apply I would omit 11.05. However, the law does not require
that a public vote be used for revenue bonds.

Scott

From: Ketchikan Charter Commision [mailto:charter@kpu.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 8:34 AM
To: Karl Amylon; Bob Newell; Scott Brandt-Erichsen
Cc: Tom Miller; Mike Painter; John Harrington; Jerry Kiffer; Glen
Thompson;
Dennis McCarty; Brad Finney; Dan Bockhorst
Subject: Work Session Lessons?

Attached is an excerpt from the minutes of the 2/25/05 Charter
Commission meeting regarding sections 11.04/11.05 of the Charter.

We are asking for some lessons at our next meeting on 3/11, if
possible.
Thank you.

Debby Otte, Secretary

Ketchikan Charter Commission

----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Thompson
To: John Harrington ; Mike Painter ; Jerry Kiffer ; Dennis McCarty ; Debby & Dave Otte ; Brad Finney
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 8:13 AM
Subject: Petition

Gentlemen (and Lady):
 
Tomorrow evening is our presentation of our charter petition to the Borough Assembly.  I hope that everyone plans to attend.
 
As you may or may not know, Mr. Bockhorst called to say that references to "draft" in the submitted documents are not acceptable, so Debbie has a new resolution for all of us to sign.  PLEASE MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO SIGN THE NEW RESOLUTION MONDAY.  You can sign it just prior to Monday's assembly meeting.
 
Best,
 
Glen

From: "Ketchikan Charter Commision" <charter@kpu.net>
Date: September 19, 2004 10:15:12 AM PDT
To: "Tom Miller" <tommiller@ketchikandailynews.com>, "Steve Schweppe" <steves@city.ketchikan.ak.us>, "Scott Brandt-Erichsen" <boroatty@borough.ketchikan.ak.us>, "Roy Eckert" <mgr@borough.ketchikan.ak.us>, "Rebecca Brown" <rebeccab@city.ketchikan.ak.us>, "Mike Painter" <sede@kpunet.net>, "Ketchikan Library" <library@firstcitylibraries.org>, "Katy Suiter" <katys@city.ketchikan.ak.us>, "Karl Amylon" <karla@city.ketchikan.ak.us>, "Judith Anglin" <juditha@firstcitylibraries.org>, "John Harrington" <johnharrington@kpunet.net>, "Jerry Kiffer" <jkiffer@kpunet.net>, "Harriett Edwards" <boro_clerk@borough.ketchikan.ak.us>, "Glen Thompson" <gthompson@akpacific.com>, "Dennis McCarty" <mccarty.law@worldnet.att.net>, "Dan Bockhorst" <dan_bockhorst@dced.state.ak.us>, "Brad Finney" <bfinney@kpunet.net>, "Bob Newell" <bobn@city.ketchikan.ak.us>, "alvin hall" <al.hall@borough.ketchikan.ak.us>
Cc: "Sitnews" <webmaster@sitnews.org>
Subject: Response Letter from DPS

Attached is a response to the Charter Commission's letter to the Department of Public Safety regarding Trooper presence should consolidation occur.
 
This document will be placed in a new section in the Petition, J-8, when the Petition goes to the LBC.
 
Should you have any difficulty with the document, please let me know.
 
Debby Otte, Secretary
Ketchikan Charter Commission

DPS Response

From: "Ketchikan Charter Commision" <charter@kpu.net>
Date: September 18, 2004 1:08:32 PM PDT
To: "Kevin Murphy" <KEVINM@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
Cc: "Sitnews" <webmaster@sitnews.org>, "Mike Painter" <sede@kpunet.net>, "John Harrington" <johnharrington@kpunet.net>, "Jerry Kiffer" <jkiffer@kpunet.net>, "Glen Thompson" <gthompson@akpacific.com>, "Dennis McCarty" <mccarty.law@worldnet.att.net>, "Brad Finney" <bfinney@kpunet.net>, "Dan Bockhorst" <dan_bockhorst@dced.state.ak.us>, "Tom Miller" <tommiller@ketchikandailynews.com>
Subject: Re: Typo

Kevin. Thanks for looking so closely at the petition. In fact, the City's
current rate is 7%, so the areawide TOT will raise to that level upon
consolidation.

Debby Otte, Secretary
Ketchikan Charter Commission

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Murphy" <KEVINM@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: <charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 4:22 PM
Subject: Typo

I just noticed a couple of typos on Exhibit F - under Transient Occupancy
Fund. (six percents seem to inadvertently turn into 7's)
Kevin Murphy

From: "Ketchikan Charter Commision" <charter@kpu.net>
Date: September 24, 2004 6:39:09 PM PDT
To: "John Harrington" <johnharrington@kpunet.net>, "'Tom Miller'" <tommiller@ketchikandailynews.com>, "'Dan Bockhorst'" <dan_bockhorst@dced.state.ak.us>, "'Brad Finney'" <bfinney@kpunet.net>, "'Dennis McCarty'" <mccarty.law@worldnet.att.net>, "'Glen Thompson'" <gthompson@akpacific.com>, "'Jerry Kiffer'" <jkiffer@kpunet.net>, "'Mike Painter'" <sede@kpunet.net>, "Ketchikan Charter Commision" <charter@kpu.net>
Cc: "Sitnews" <webmaster@sitnews.org>, "Scott Brandt-Erichsen" <boroatty@borough.ketchikan.ak.us>
Subject: Re: Meeting Minutes, 9/17/04 (SITNEWS, PLEASE POST)

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Ketchikan Charter Commision
To: 'Mike Painter' ; 'Jerry Kiffer' ; 'Glen Thompson' ; 'Dennis McCarty' ; 'Brad Finney' ; 'Dan Bockhorst' ; 'Tom Miller' ; John Harrington
Cc: Scott Brandt-Erichsen
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: Meeting Minutes, 9/17/04

I concur with John about following Scott's advice regarding the approval of the minutes.  They will stand until we are recalled.  I also agree with Glen that he can authorize payment of the vouchers.
 
So.  The prior vote was just a drill.  Scott did bring up when I saw him that what works for the Chamber doesn't necessarily apply to the Commission, since the Chamber isn't subject to the Open Meetings Act.
 
 ----- Original Message -----
From: John Harrington
To: 'Ketchikan Charter Commision' ; 'Tom Miller' ; 'Dan Bockhorst' ; 'Brad Finney' ; 'Dennis McCarty' ; 'Glen Thompson' ; 'Jerry Kiffer' ; 'Mike Painter'
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:20 PM
Subject: RE: Meeting Minutes, 9/17/04

Let's follow the attorney's advice.

From: Ketchikan Charter Commision [mailto:charter@kpu.net]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 11:18 AM
To: Tom Miller; Dan Bockhorst; Brad Finney; Dennis McCarty; Glen Thompson; Jerry Kiffer; John Harrington; Mike Painter
Subject: Fw: Meeting Minutes, 9/17/04

Just got this from Scott.  What do you think?

----- Original Message -----

From: Scott Brandt-Erichsen

To: 'Ketchikan Charter Commision'

Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 9:01 AM

Subject: RE: Meeting Minutes, 9/17/04

Debby,

I just got back to town.  Regarding the open meeting items I would recommend that you delegate the voucher authority to the chair up to some set maximum, but not tryto conduct a vote or meeting via e-mail.  The open meetings act calls for notice containing at least the time and place for the meeting  and if it is to be by teleconference where someone can participate.  I would also suggest leaving approval of minutes until the next time there is a meeting and not trying to do it by e-mail.  You can just leave it to meet at the call of the chair.

Scott

From: Ketchikan Charter Commision [mailto:charter@kpu.net]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 6:19 AM
To: Tom Miller; Steve Schweppe; Scott Brandt-Erichsen; Roy Eckert; Rebecca Brown; Mike Painter; Ketchikan Library; Katy Suiter; Karl Amylon; Judith Anglin; John Harrington; Jerry Kiffer; Harriett Edwards; Glen Thompson; Dennis McCarty; Dan Bockhorst; Brad Finney; Bob Newell; alvin hall
Subject: Meeting Minutes, 9/17/04

To the Charter Commission:  Per our approved agenda item from the last meeting, I am forwarding these minutes for Commission approval.  Please reply as soon as possible with your approval, disapproval, or approval with indicated changes.

Thank you.

Debby Otte, Secretary

Ketchikan Charter Commission

Road Powers by Schweppe

From: "Dan Bockhorst" <dan_bockhorst@commerce.state.ak.us>
To: "Ketchikan Charter Commission" <charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Question

> Debby: Thanks for your inquiry. The various requirements for filing
> and serving the petition are outlined below.
>
> At the time the petition is filed with this agency, the petitioner must
> submit to this office:
> (a) the original petition documents (complete petition and all
> supporting materials) in printed format, and
> (b) the petition documents in electronic format .
> [See 3 AAC 110.420]
>
> Following the technical review of the form and content of the petition
> and the acceptance of the petition for filing under 3 AAC 110.440, the
> petitioner must provide a complete set of petition documents in printed
> format:
> (a) to the Ketchikan Gateway Borough,
> (b) to the City of Ketchikan,
> (c) to the City of Saxman,
> (d) to other interested persons and entities designated by this agency
> (at this point, it is not anticipated that this agency will make any
> such designations; however, copies may be provided at the discretion of
> the petitioner to other interested persons or entities (e.g., those
> listed on pages 190 -191 of the draft petition),
> (e) for review by the public at central and convenient location such as
> a municipal office or public library (the draft petition indicates on
> pages 188 - 189 that the complete petition documents and subsequent
> public notices, responsive briefs, reply brief, and department reports
> will be made available at three locations: the Borough Clerk's Office,
> City Clerk's Office, and Ketchikan Public Library, and that those
> materials will also be posted on the Internet at www.sitnews. org.
> [See 3 AAC 110.460]
>
> When the petitioner provides proof of compliance with the notice and
> service requirements, it must also provide this agency with 5
> additional
> printed copies of the complete petition documents (one for each member
> of the Local Boundary Commission)
> [See 3 AAC 110.470]
>
> Dan Bockhorst
> 269-4559
>
> Ketchikan Charter Commission wrote:
>
>> We had a discussion Friday evening about what would be the preferred
>> format for the LBC to receive the Draft Petition and accompanying
>> documents.
>>
>> We can get virtually everything into electronic format and would be
>> happy to file that way, or a combination of electronic and paper. We
>> just needs some direction.
>>
>> At this point, we are planning on formally presenting the Draft
>> Petition and accompanying documents (budgets and Chitwood Study) to
>> the Borough Assembly on September 27th at their regular meeting with
>> the thought of using FedEx or Goldstreak to get it up to the LBC
>> timely for our September 30th filing.
>>
>> Would it be appropriate to forward an electronic copy either as the
>> true filing or ancillary to the paper one, but electronically, we
>> wouldn't have to worry about the weather?
>>
>> Please let me know. Thanks again for your help.
>>
>> Debby Otte, Secretary
>> Ketchikan Charter Commission

From: Ketchikan Entertainment Center
To: Ketchikan Charter Commission
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: Karl's Comments

Ketchikan Charter Commission
 
I would like to make a few comments relative to the City of Ketchikan (Karl & Steve's) comments.  While Bob & Karl obviously know their budget and some of their recommendations must be included for obvious reasons, I would also question some of the recommendations.
 
1.  Remove the tax cap.  Section 10.07
 
2.  Allow the new Assembly to increase sales & property taxes, not having one side go to the voters.  Steve makes a good argument on this.  Section 10.05(b).
 
3.  We do not want areawide road powers but keep them limited to the service areas that want to provide it to themselves.
 
4.  In Karl's comments I do have some questions?  How can 911 dispatch have such a variance since $100,000 is shown but he projects $560,000? 
 
5.  I also agree that the budget should reflect the insurance and PERS increases somewhat as suggested.
 
6.  I do not understand how the 45% & 55% were arrived at.  Perhaps this can be better explained and perhaps modified if needed.
 
7.  He also states that the City's general fund reserves should stay with Gateway Service Area.  That is ludicrous in my mind, as it would be the same as me saying that the Borough reserves should be shared with all the service area except the Gateway Service Area.
 
8.  I also disagree with his assertion that the City's Facilities Development Fund should stay with the Gateway Service Area.  This is the same argument as the previous item, as I could say the Borough's Land Trust Fund should be for all areas except Gateway.  The title of this says it all,  Community Facilities.
 
Anyway, I believe you get my idea towards some of the comments, as I believe Karl is strictly looking at the City, does not know the usage of Borough funds or accounts, and you would be in a better postion to suggest what to meld together or where to put it as an independent party, which you are.
 
I know that Karl's, Steve's and other's comments will require a lot of changes, thought discussion, etc., but it will all work out for a positive somewhere down the road.  Thanks for the opportunity to comment and keep up the great job!
 
George Tipton

----- Original Message -----
From: Ketchikan Charter Commission
To: George Tipton
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 7:44 PM
Subject: Karl's Comments

Attached is a memorandum that Karl used as his comments in our meeting Friday night.  THought you would be interested.  He also provided a spreadsheet, however, my scanner doesn't have the capability of doing that size paper.  If you'd like a copy of the spreadsheet, just let me know and I'll put it in your KGB mailbox.
 
THanks for your continued interest in the process.  Looks like we've got our work cut out for us this last month...but then, nobody said it would be easy.
 
Debby Otte, Secretary
Ketchikan Charter Commission

From: Harriett Edwards
To: 'Ketchikan Charter Commission'
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 8:30 AM
Subject: RE: Borough Requirements

The initiative question which was placed on the ballot at the October 7,
2003, election stated in part: "...and shall the Ketchikan Gateway Borough
file the petition, without modification, with the Local Boundary Commission
by September 30, 2004?" I interpret this to mean the Borough just mails it
to the LBC after receipt from the charter commission. No Assembly action
should be needed.

Harriett J. Edwards
Borough Clerk
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
344 Front Street
Ketchikan, AK 99901
PH: 907-228-6604

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Bockhorst"
To: "Scott Brandt-Erichsen"
Cc: "'Ketchikan Charter Commission'" ; "'Harriett Edwards'"
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Borough Requirements

> I agree with Scott -- no resolution or ordinance of the Borough Assembly
> is required.  However, the Petition should include a copy of the
> initiative approved by the voters, with a certification by the Borough
> Clerk that the initiative was approved.
>
> Scott Brandt-Erichsen wrote:
>
> > My initial reaction would be to just put it in the mail as the
> > obligation to submit it without changes was imposed by the initiative
> > and confirmed by certification of the election results.  Based on
> > recent experience I do not believe that putting it on the Assembly
> > agenda is either required or advised.  Requiring a vote of the
> > assembly implies an obligation for them to endorse it and raises the
> > issue of what if they vote down the agenda item.
> >
> >
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> > * From: * Ketchikan Charter Commission [mailto:charter@kpunet.net]
> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 22, 2004 7:41 PM
> > *To:* Harriett Edwards; Scott Brandt-Erichsen; Dan Bockhorst
> > *Subject:* Borough Requirements
> >
> >
> >
> > Having just learned late last week that Glen or someone on the
> > commission should be the Petitioner's Representative as listed in
> > Exhibit L of the Draft Petition, the question was raised at last
> > Friday's meeting about what, specifically, the Borough needs to do
> > with the Petition once it is passed into their hands?
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it required that they submit a Resolution or a letter of
> > transmittal to the LBC?  Do they just put it in the mail after
> > formally receiving it (we're looking at the 9/27 meeting to do this),
> > or what?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for any input you can provide.
> >
> > Debby O

TO: The Charter Commission... 08/20/04
RE: Draft Consolidation Petition (click to download)
FROM: Karl R. Amylon, City Manager

To: Mayor Bob Weinstein
Members of the City Council of Ketchikan
Karl Amylon City Manager
Date: 08/20/04
From: Steven H. Schweppe, City Attorney
RE: Draft Charter For Consolidation of the City of Ketchikan & the Ketchikan Gateway Borough
(click to download)

FYI.  An exchange of emails between Bob Newell and Debby Otte 8/17/04 a.m.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Debby,

Thanks.  FYI, the nonareawide mill rate is 1.20.

Bob

>>> Deborah S. Otte 08/17 9:09 AM >>>
I'm going to forward your email to Glen and let him answer directly.  I'm the wordsmith, he's the accountant :)

I know the areawide mill levy was set up using the present 7.5 Borough rate + the .93 which at this time is nonareawide outside the City.

Debby Otte
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Bob Newell
Debby,
Do you know what the proposed areawide mill rate is?  I've heard that it is suppose to be the Borough current mill levy of 7.5 plus the current nonareawide levy of 1.20 for a total of 8.7.  Page 4 of the  petition document states that it will be 8.43 (It looks like the an outdated nonareawide mill rate of .93 may have been used) .  The amount of property taxes projected for the MOK's General  Fund for the first year of operations doesn't compute using either number.   Can you help?

Bob

>>> Deborah S. Otte 08/17 8:15 AM >>>
He got in last evening and planned to call Karl first thing this morning regarding your concerns on the budget.  I'm sure he's inundated at work after being gone a week +, but he knows time is short for us, so I'm sure he'll mind his secretary (:) and call this morning.

Sure do appreciate all the effort and info you've provided.  Thanks.

Debby Otte
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note:  Prior to the above answer, Bob Newell had asked if Glen was in town.

From: "Ketchikan Charter Commission" <charter@kpunet.net>
To: "Flory Loughead" <floryknits@kpunet.net>
Cc: "Tom Miller" <tommiller@ketchikandailynews.com>; "Mike Painter"
<sede@kpunet.net>; "John Harrington" <johnharrington@kpunet.net>; "Jerry
Kiffer" <jkiffer@kpunet.net>; "Glen Thompson" <kccchair@att.net>; "Dennis
McCarty" <mccarty.law@worldnet.att.net>; "Brad Finney" <bfinney@kpunet.net>;
"Dan Bockhorst" <dan_bockhorst@dced.state.ak.us>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Draft Petition & Charter

Thank you so much for your words of support. We really appreciate hearing from you and will include your response in our Public Hearing comments.

Debby Otte, Secretary
Ketchikan Charter Commission

----- Original Message -----
From: "Flory Loughead" <floryknits@kpunet.net>
To: <charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 10:17 AM
Subject: Draft Petition & Charter

I will not be able to attend the Public Hearings but have read the on-line documents. I think you have done a great job and I am looking forward to the vote approving the consolidation of the city and borough.

Flory Loughead
1231 E 5th Street

From: "Ketchikan Charter Commission" <charter@kpunet.net>
To: "Tom Miller" <tommiller@ketchikandailynews.com>; "Mike Painter"
<sede@kpunet.net>; "John Harrington" <johnharrington@kpunet.net>; "Jerry
Kiffer" <jkiffer@kpunet.net>; "Glen Thompson" <kccchair@att.net>; "Dennis
McCarty" <mccarty.law@worldnet.att.net>; "Brad Finney" <bfinney@kpunet.net>;
"Dan Bockhorst" <dan_bockhorst@dced.state.ak.us>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 2:54 PM
Subject: Fw: Thank You

----- Original Message -----
From: "Deborah S. Otte"
To: <lkheiry@ketchikandailynews.com
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 11:15 AM
Subject: Fwd: Thank You

Hey, could I please add something to the clarification?

The Clerks offices have been inundated with people assuming they could get
copies of the petition at those locations. Could you make it known that
the copies in the Library and the City & Borough Clerks' offices are for
review only. People would have to email charter@kpunet.net and request a copy or
they can access that email through the sitnews website. The Draft
Petition and Budget are up on the web now and readily accessible to anyone with a
computer.

Thanks again for your help.
Debby Otte

From: "Katy Suiter"
To: DEBORAHO@city.ketchikan.ak.us
Cc: boro_clerk@city.ketchikan.ak.us; DORENES@city.ketchikan.ak.us
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 11:09 AM
Subject: Consolidation Petition

Hi Debby -

The article in the KDN has made people think they can pick up copies of
the
petition in our office. You might call the paper and have them say it is
"available for review" in the clerks offices, because the Borough has had
calls as well. We have been referring them to Sitnews, so hope that is OK.

Katy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Deborah S. Otte"
To: <lkheiry@ketchikandailynews.com>
Cc: <Charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 8:08 AM
Subject: Thank You

Thanks for the great article. Someone here at work said it sounded like I
wrote it myself :)

I would like to know if a clarification could be made, though. The
areawide property tax millage, at 8.43, is not an increase in taxes. Everyone but
Saxman has been paying the .93 nonareawide library tax, and now that it is
areawide, it is just combined with the other millage (7.5).

Thanks again. Give me a call if you have any other questions. I'll try
not to be so long getting it together. for the Charter Commission, charter@kpunet.net
Home # 225-7814

Debby Otte, Administrative Assistant
KPU Telecommunications
907-228-5440
Fax: 907-225-1788

Original Message -----
From: "Glen Thompson" <gthompson@akpacific.com>
To: "Ketchikan Charter Commission" <charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 1:34 PM
Subject: Fw: Commission questions

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Newell" <FINDIR@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
> To: <gthompson@akpacific.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Commission questions
>
>
>> 1. None, at this time. As of 12/31/03, $684,500 of the fund balance
was reserved for loans the Wastewater Services and Port Enterprise Funds
> and $477,925 was designated for the arts theater and the aquarium.
>>
>> 2. As of 12/31/03 the balance was $820,000.
>>
>>>>> "Glen Thompson" <gthompson@akpacific.com> 07/31 2:38 PM >>>
>> A couple questions arose during our Friday night meeting:
>>
>> 1) What projects are earmarked for the Major Capital Improvements
>> Fund?
>>
>> 2) What is the balance of the sinking fund for landfill closure?
>>
>> Can you fill in the blanks for us?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Glen Thompson
>> KCC Chair

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Brandt-Erichsen
To: 'Ketchikan Charter Commission'
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 12:54 PM
Subject: RE: Question

It would be a home rule Borough.  We can call it municipal assembly and municipality, but it would be treated as a Borough.  A unified municipality includes all cities.  Because we would still have a city in the boundaries it isn't a unified government.  Municipality also is a generic term which collectively refers to both cities and boroughs.  AS 29.04.010  sort of says that a home rule municipality is a city or a borough with a home rule charter, or a unified municipality.  Given the choice of the 3, ours would be a municipality which is a Home Rule Borough.

Scott

From: Ketchikan Charter Commission [mailto:charter@kpunet.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 12:26 PM
To: Scott Brandt-Erichsen
Subject: Question

I'm going through the Petition document and have a question.

It says we're consolidating from a general law borough & home rule city to a home rule borough.  Does that have to be a borough?  Can it be a municipality, or is borough the only designation?

What I'm looking at is we want to say the Municipal Assembly or refer to the government as just the Municipality, rather than borough assembly or borough.

Is this too weird a question?  Since I'm trying to make the document somewhat cohesive (like having the Petition and the exhibits agree on what's called what) I really need to find this out.

Thank you, oh wise one.

DebO

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Brandt-Erichsen
To: 'Ketchikan Charter Commission'
Sent:Wednesday, July 28, 2004 12:01 PM
Subject:budget

I had a couple comments on the budget spreadsheet and narrative.  In the  Gateway Service area budget the line for public safety sales tax indicates revenues from 1.5% public safety sales tax.  This is a typographical error.  The actual revenue numbers correspond to 1%, but the label is wrong.  Additionally, on a more substantive note, the 1.5% city public works sales tax goes to fund facilities for other functions such as maintenance of the library building, civic center, gateway mental health, fire buildings etc.  If some of these functions are going to become areawide functions, the revenue stream to maintain them should follow the buildings.  Thus, rather than 1.5% of the sales tax for public works being retained only within the Gateway Service area, there should be some portion split out to go with the functions (and public works facilities) which will become areawide.  I do not know the portion, but I do know that the costs to maintain those facilities or build new ones will not go away just because the power they are associated with has become areawide. A similar point can be made with the fund balance in the public works sales tax fund.  If 40% of the things which the City currently maintains are becoming areawide responsibilities, it would seem that 40% of the fund balance associated with their maintenance would travel with the facilities.

If fire or EMS service goes areawide, a similar division of the sales tax revenues and fund balance for the 1% public safety sales tax fund should be calculated as well.

With the Major capital projects fund it is unclear why this would go to the service area in its entirety.  Major capital projects may include items other than roads or police stations.  Some of the money could, in the absence of consolidation, be used for the library or museum.   If the library and museum become areawide, the portion of this fund which would correspond to their role in the city budget should go in an areawide fund for major capital improvements.  The same could be said for other facilities and functions which are going areawide.

On the self insurance fund, if there is a large contingent of employees and facilities which will be in the Gateway service area it may be worth evaluating whether some portion of the self insurance fund should be earmarked for that service area or whether there will be an intergovernmental charge for the insurance provided to the service area.

The KPU fund says that water services will only be offered in the Ketchikan service area.  How is Mt. point water treated in this budget?

Finally, the North Tongass service area will have some debt service, is that to be reflected in exhibit F?

Scott

From: Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net>
To: Kristie Smithers <mailto:KSmithers@ci.wasilla.ak.us>
Cc: Tom Miller <mailto:tommiller@ketchikandailynews.com> ; Mike Painter <mailto:sede@kpunet.net> ; John Harrington <mailto:johnharrington@kpunet.net> ; Jerry Kiffer <mailto:jkiffer@kpunet.net> ; Glen Thompson <mailto:kccchair@att.net> ; Dennis McCarty <mailto:mccarty.law@worldnet.att.net> ; Brad Finney <mailto:bfinney@kpunet.net> ; Dan Bockhorst <mailto:dan_bockhorst@dced.state.ak.us>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 5:37 AM
Subject: Re: Charter Commission

Kristie,
Yes, I'm the secretary to our elected Charter Commission. We were elected in January, and basically have met weekly since the end of January. I'd estimate my average time spent on Commission business, typing minutes, putting together agendas (writing and copying documents) and actual meetings to be 25 hours per week.

Our task has been somewhat easier in that there had been a fairly recent consolidation effort that had been defeated in 2001. Thus, we had the documents to modify to create our Petition and Charter. A lot of that modification was simply plugging in new numbers or reference years, however, there have been some thorny issues arise that seem to be the logical step in consolidation, but are perceived as politically impossible in our community. Not having a list of reasons as to why the prior effort failed has also made it more difficult to make changes to the original document. We also had as reference the charters of Juneau, Sitka and Haines, who within the past 20 years had either consolidated or unified their City and Borough governments.

All of our work is available on line at www.sitnews.org <http://www.sitnews.org> , which is a local website that is hosting our forum as a public service. The Charter Commission link box is on the right side of the home page, a little bit down. All our agendas, minutes, correspondence with the community and our draft petition document are located on this forum. We also meet in a location in town that affords the ability to broadcast our meetings on the local cable channel.

Our petition must be to the Local Boundary Commission by September 30th. That is what the referendum vote for the approval of the Commission stated. Our petition must also be channeled through the local Borough Assembly, who must pass a resolution forwarding our document, as is, to the LBC. So, time is running short and we still have a way to go.

I would love to answer any other questions you might have. My home number is 907-225-7814. I'm afraid my availability as Debby, the Charter Commission Secretary, is limited to off hours, and I am usually home evenings and weekends.

Good luck in your endeavor. Feel free to call or email any time if you have any further questions.

Debby Otte, Secretary
Ketchikan Charter Commission
----- Original Message -----
From: Kristie Smithers <mailto:KSmithers@ci.wasilla.ak.us>
To: 'charter@kpunet.net'
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:01 AM
Subject: Charter Commission

Hello Debby, I am the city clerk of Wasilla and would like to brainstorm with you about charter commissions. I understand you are the secretary to your charter commission in Ketchikan. The city of Wasilla is looking into creating a charter commission to go home rule. I'm wanting to pick your brain about how many times you meet, how many hours you put into it, etc.... Maybe I could get some samples from you on your minutes or other items you use. When would be a good time and what number could I call you at? Thank you for your assistance. Kristie

Kristie Smithers, MMC
Wasilla City Clerk
290 E. Herning Ave.
Wasilla, AK 99654
Office: 907-373-9090
Fax: 907-373-9092
ksmithers@ci.wasilla.ak.us

Read more.... Go to page 1

Provided as a public service...
Sitnews
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska