[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
ehensive Plan PPCIFIC PIM PLPNNGR,6, INC. ompr CITY OF SELDOVIA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MARCH, 1980 Prepared For Qr- CITY OF SELDOVIA AND KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ta LiN e1i _So By Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. 5606 14th Avenue Northwest P. 0. Box 70324 Seattle, Washington 98107 (206) 789-3340 Property of CSC Library The preparation of this Comprehensive Plan was financed in part by funds from the Office of Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, administered by the Division of Community Planning, Department of Community and Regional Affairs. Matching funds and local administration were provided by Kenai Peninsula Borough. Introduc .ed by: Mayor, at request of Planning-Commission Date: Mar. 4, 1980 Hearing: April 1, 1980 Vote: 80 Yes, 6 No Action: Enacted KENAI PENINSULA-BOROUGH ORDINANCE 80-18 ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF SELDOVIA AS A PORTION OF THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHEREAS, the Borough Planning Commission is required to prepare and recommend to the assembly a comprehensive plan for all areas encompassed by the Borough; 'and WHEREAS, the Borough . Planning Commission is required 0 by statute to review and update the Borough comprehensive plan every two years; and WHEREAS,- the City of Seldovia has formed a comprehensive plan steering -committee which has recommended, - after public hearing, adoption of a comprehensive plan for that area of the Borough within the bouiidaries of the City of Seldovia; and WHEREAS, the Seldovia City Council has reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan and recommended that t h e proposed Seldovia comprehensive plan be adopted by the Borough Assembly and approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Borough Planning Commmission, after public hearing at its regular meeting of 17, 1980, has al recommended that the proposed Seldovia comprehensive plan as amended be adopted by the assembly; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ENACIE-1) BY 'l-HE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH: Section 1. That the asse-,bly a'_;opts the "Seldovia Comprehensive Plan", 1980, prepar-_:@d by Facific Rim Planners, Inc. as the official Borough comprehensive plan for that Kenai Penlnsula Borough C----!. 80-18 P,ge 1 of 2 Pages portion of the Borough within the boundaries of the City of Seldovia, the amended form approved by the Borough Planning Commission at its regular meeting of March 18, 1980. Section 2. That the comprehensive plan adopted by this ordinance shall be known as "Seldovia Comprehensive Plan-Pacific Rim Planners, Inc.-1980" and each copy of the Plan shall be annotated on its cover to include the following, legend: "Adopted by the Assembly of the Kenai Peninsula Borough April 1, 1980, pursuant to Ordinance 80-18". Section . 3. That this ordinance takes effect immediately upon its enactment. ENACTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ON THIS Ist DAY OF April 1980. JoAnn Elson, Assembly President ATTEST: Borough Clerk Kenai Peninsula Borough Ord. 80-18 Page 2 of 2 Pages RLSOLUT10N #80-b A RESOLUTION OF T14E COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SELDOVTA APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF SELDOVIA. WHEREAS, a Comprehensive Plan has been prepared for the City of Seldovia by the Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and the Pacific Rim Planners have heed numerous workshop sessions, public meetings and have obtained suggestions and comments from the citizens of Seldovia, and WHEREAS, the Steering Committee have recommended approval of the Draft Comprehensive Plan with certain modifications, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Seldovia that: Section 1: The Seldovia Draft Comprehensive Plan prepared by Pacific Rim Planners and modified by the attached list of Amendments and Corrections is hereby approved and adopted as the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Seldovia. Section 2: This plan is hereby recommended to the Kenai Peninsula Borough for adoption as the official Borough Comprehensive Plan within the Seldovia planning area. PASSED AND APPROVED this ay of 1980 XJ APPROVED: Darlene Crawford Mayor AT EST: .1/ -/ - /_ -, @ " t-e ' 7@) - . Flaine M. Giles Clark-Treasurer ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS City of Seldovia City Council City Staff John Crawford Darlene Crawford, Mayor Henry Gain Elaine M. Giles, City Clerk Claire Glotfelty Crystal Kashevarof, Secretary Betty Hamlin Bi I I i Jo Anne Kaho Fred Newmeyer Cheryl Reynolds Chris Wheeler Gerald Willard Seldovia Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Darlene Crawford, Chairperson Don Caswell John Crawford Fred H. Elvsaas Henry Gain Jon Johnson Judi Johnson Bi I I I Jo Anne Kaho Sharon Overman Cheryl Reynolds David C. Smith David West Chris Wheeler Gerald Willard Seldovia Advisory Planning And Zoning Commission Randall Bond Crystal Kashevarof, Secretary Fred H. Elvsaas Rod Hilts Sharon Overman Michelle Raymond Alan Smith Linda Williams Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Department Ike D. Waits, Principal Planner Primary Consultants Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. Howard D. Hillinger, Project Manager Adina Currier Henry Leon Frederick Seaborne Charles A. Warsinske Subconsultants Harper/Owes Limpo/Ward Associates Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I SUMMARY Chapte Page 1. SUMMARY 1-1 Issues, Goals, And Objectives 1-1 Population And Economy 1-1 Housing 1-2 Land Use 1-2 Municipal Watershed Management 1-3 Social Services 1-3 Municipal Utilities 1-4 Transportation 1-4 Local Government 1-5 Economic Development 1-5 Capital Improvements Program 1-6 PART 11 BACKGROUND 2. INTRODUCTION 2-1 3. POPULATION AND ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS 3-1 Planning Area 3-1 Background 3-1 Population Characteristics 3-2 Economic Base 3-7 Economic Projections 3-11 Future Population 3-14 PART III PLAN ELEMENTS 4. HOUSING 4-1 Projected Demands 4-3 Issues, Goals And Objectives 4-7 Possible Solutions 4-8 Planned Solutions 4-12 5. LAND USE AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT 5-1 Issues, Goals And Objectives 5-1 Background 5-2 Planned Solutions 5-23 Land Use Plan 5-25 6. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 6-1 Issues 6-2 Possible Solutions 6-5 Watershed Management Authority 6-8 Planned Solutions 6-12 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter Page 7. SOCIAL SERVICES 7-1 Health Related Services 7-1 Planned Solutions 7-6 Education 7-8 Parks And Recreation 7-9 8. TRANSPORTATION 8-1 Background And Possible Solutions 8-3 Planned Solutions 8-18 9. PUBLIC FACILITIES 9-1 Background 9-1 Issues, Goals And Objectives 9-6 Possible Solutions 9-7 Planned Solutions 9-19 10. LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10-1 Issues, Goals And Objectives 10-1 Fiscal Analysis 10-2 Planned Solutions For Fiscal Issues 10-16 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Municipal Reconveyances 10-21 Annexation 10-27 11. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 11-1 Issues, Goals And Objectives 11-1 Possible Solutions 11-2 Planned Solutions 11-29 12. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 12-1 Uses Of The Capital Improvements Program 12-2 Financing Of Capital Improvements 12-3 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Glossary Of Terms Used A-1 APPENDIX B Sample Watershed Management Ordinance B-1 APPENDIX C- Compliance With State Of Alaska C.M.P. C-1 APP ENDIX D Example Environmental Impact Assessment Checklist D-1 APPENDIX E Funding Sources E-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page 3-1 Seldovia And Vicinity 3-3 3-2 Comparison Of Age And Sex Of Residents 3-5 3-3 Seldovia Economic Base 3-9 3-4 Growth Scenario Assumptions 3-12 3-5 Preliminary Population Projections 3-16 5-1 Existing Land Use 5-3 5-2 Land Ownership (Outside Seldovia) 5-5 5-3 Land Ownership (inside Seldovia) 5-7 5-4 Existing Zoning 5-11 5-5 Permissable Land Use Activities And Possible Conflicts 5-13 5-6 Natural Constraints Inhibiting Development 5-19 5-7 Development Constraints Outside City 5-21 5-8 Planned Land Use 5-27 6-1 Seldovia Watersheds 6-3 7-1 Recreation Use 7-15 8-1 Arterial Connections 8-5 8-2 Platting/Vacating Worksheet 8-8 8-3 Evaluation Of Proposed Street Platting And Vacating 8-10 8-4 Street System 8-11 8-5 Passenger Embarkments And Disembarkments.. Seldovia, Alaska 8-14 9-1 Existing And Planned Water And Sewer Systems 9-3 9-2 Projected Municipal Water Requirements 9-10 9-3 Sewer Extension Service Areas 9-15 10-1 General Fund Balances, Yearly Revenues And Expenditures 10-5 10-2 Elements, City Financial, Planning, Budgeting, Management 10-10 10-3 Example Short-Range Budget Format 10-11 10-4 ANCSA 14(c)(3) Municipal Reconveyance Alternatives 10-25 10-5 Standards Of The Local Boundary Commission 10-30 10-6 Service Obligations, Municipalities Towards Annexed Areas 10-32 10-7 Procedures To Complete Municipal Fiscal Impact Analysis 10-36 10-8 Mountainbrook Heights Preliminary Plat 10-37 11-1 Outline For Possible Community Economic Development Strategies 11-9 11-2 Location Requirements Of Marine Service Bases 11-25 12-1 Seven Year Capital Improvements Program 12-4 LIST OF TABLES Table Title 3-1 Selected Population Characteristics 3-7 3-2 Economic Base Analysis 3-8 3-3 Average Annual Planning Area Employment 3-13 3-4 Projected Planning Area Population Growth 3-15 3-5 Comparison Of Population Growth Rates 3-16 4-1 Planning Area Housing Trends. 4-2 4-2 Projected Number Of Resident Households 4-4 4-3 Projected Development Of Year-Round Housing Units @4-5 4-4 Projected Number Of New Year-Round Housing Units By Type 4-6 4-5 Projected Seasonal Housing In Planning Area 4-7 5-1 Amounts Of Land In Seldovia Zoning Classifications 5-10 5-2 Projected Land Requirements Versus Availability, City 5-17 7-1 Projected Seldovia Student Population 7-10 8-1 Seldovia Street Classification 8-7 8-2 Design Guides For City Street And Roads 8@7 8-3 Air Passenger Volume, Seldovia To Homer 8-16 10-2 Sources Of General Fund Revenues 10-4 10-3 @Comparison, Revenue And Expenditures, Seldovia, Alaska,U.S. 10-8 10-4 Comparison, Seldovia Tax Rates, Other Alaska Cities 10-9 10-5 Projected Basic Municipal Land Ownership Needs 10-22 10-6 Mountainbrook Heights, Operating Expenditures Impacts 10-38 10-7 Mountainbrook Heights, Capital Costs Impacts 10-39 10-8 Projected Changes In Municipal Revenues, Mountainbrook Heights 10-41 10-9 Projected Annual Cost Revenue Impact, Mountai.nbrook Heights 10-43 11-1 Comparison, Employment Growth, Kenai-Cook Inlet, Alaska, U.S. 11-12 12-1 Projected Capital Improvements Financing Potential 12-8 12-2 Projected Long-Term Debt Financing Potential 12-9 12-3 Projected Financing Of Capital Improvements Program 12-11 I w Part I I ;w 11.1. 11 ,,J . , Summary V Chapter 1 Summary Introduction For more than 100 years, Seldovia has been a unique part Overall population projections are illustrated in Figure of Alaska. Like most communities, Seldovia has faced its E-1. Under the low scenario, employment is projected to share of good fortunes and adversity. Unlike many com- increase by only 27 jobs by the year 2000; population munities, however, Seldovia has succeeded in its efforts was projected to increase by 42 persons during the same to achieve and maintain the best aspects of small town period. The basic assumption in this scenario is that life. These qualities include stability; extensive Seldovia would not participate in OCS-reiated economic involvement by a majority, rather than a minority of activity. residents; a relaxed pace of life; diversity of life styles; mutual respect and concern for fellow citizens; The intermediate scenario assumes that the City would and a pleasing environment. These qualities are a direct receive some OCS activity and other economic growth, result of planned, concerted efforts by residents to hence that employment and population would increase by create a superior quality of life for present and future 186 jobs and 412 residents over the next two decades. Seldovians. The high scenario reflects a heavy impact by OCS activ- The comprehensive plan represents the culmination of over ities in Seldovia and rapid growth in fisheries, tourism a year's efforts by community leaders and other concerned and forest products employment. Both population and citizens who served on a steering committee to guide the employment would more than double between 1980 and 2000 development of this plan. This summary document briefly to 1,517 residents and 453 year-round full time jobs. touches on each of the elements of the plan and highlights The projections do not reflect a steady increase during some of the implementation measures and actions to be taken. the next twenty years, but suggest periods of slow and The plan is intended to serve as the basis for continuing rapid increases and in some cases declines. efforts to guide Seldovia's future, By working together, city officials, citizens and public and private organi- zations can see to the realization of many community Each of the elements of the comprehensive plan are based objectives. upon an appropriate scenario (in most cases, the inter- mediate scenario was used) and tailored to meet the community's requirements as Seldovia moves toward achievement of its desired future state. Issues,Goals and Objectives For further explanation of t ,he methods used to derive the population and economic projections, please refer At the outset of the comprehensive planning project, a to Chapter 3. page 3-1 of the comprehensive plan. steering committee comprised of interested citizens was appointed by Mayor Crawford to guide and direct the development of the plan. Working with a professional planning consultant, the Committee identified the pro- blems and issues facing Seldovia, translated these into goals and formulated more specific, measurable object- FIGURE E-1 ives to achieve the goals. The goals and objectives served to direct the preparation of the plan by iden- Population Projections tifying areas of need which were addressed by the study itself. Each of the goals address a specific element, Planning Area issues, goals and objectives, along with implementing Dolicles and actions, are listed in each of the elements of the comprehensive plan. 1500 HIGH 'PROJECTION 1400 Population and Economy 1300 Population and economic forecasts are a critical ingredient in a comprehensive plan, for they serve as the basis for 1200 INV -11 predicting other areas addressed by the plan. For example, residential building site needs are based on new population 1100 growth expected. Likewise, needs in other ares can be related to these projections. However, the reliability of these estimates can be greatly influenced by outside, 1000 unknown or seemingly unrelated factors. Other factors may 900 INTERMEDIATE be the result of community decisions which have yet to be PROJECTION made (for example, a decision to expand the boat harbor). 800 Due to the many uncertainties which could affect Seldovials 700 population and economy, three separate projections or scenarios (low, intermediate, high) were developed based 1500 upon possible combinations of local and regional events. . . . . . . . LOW The scenarios represent a broad range of possible outcomes; 0 which projection is closest to the actual outcome will 50 PROJECTION depend on events beyond Se I dov i a I s cont ro I as we I I as decisions which Seldovia can make. Th@ ossible combina- 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 tions are shown in Figure 3-4)n page 3-12 of the full report. YEAR 1-1 Housing Housing is one of the most basic of human needs. Seldovia restricting development in the upper Fish Creek water- is endowed with a fairly large number of well-built, well shed. The City will also take action to create a maintained homes when compared with other Alaskan com- voluntary open-space taxing district (which would munities of similar size. However, many Seldovians have include unbuildable lands) to preserve the natural difficulty securing adequate housing at an affordable elements and land forms in Seldovia. For a full price. This situation could worsen in the future as OCS- discussion on land use, please see Chapter 5, page 5-1. related or other POPUlation growth catalysts are intro- duced to the area. This section of the plan reviews Seldovia's existing housing stock in terms of number and condition, and projects the number and type of additional new units needed in the future. Various IGH DEM public and private housing assistance programs were I A RE reviewed as to their appropriateness to the Seldovia situation. PUBL C Actions which the City will take to ease the housing situation include the establishment of a housing land banking program to reserve sites for subsidized or AIRPORT other year-round housing needs and to explore methods the City can take to make more residential land avail- E able to residents. The City will work with public and private lenders to increase access to and knowledge of R ID housing finance opportunities, and will strive to gauge PUB its capital improvements program to serve the greatest number of developable building sites at the least pos- sible cost utilizing state and federal assistance., The M City will also attempt to provide additional mobile home USE housing opportunities and to encourage the improvement of existing mobile home park facilities. For a complete discussion of housing in Seldovia, please refer to Chapter 4, page 4-1 of the comprehensive plan. ESIDEkTIAL Legem Land Use The future use of I and i n and around Seldovi a w! I I mod i fy the City's character and could possibly conflict with existing uses. Since developable land within the City's T. boundaries is at a premium (due to natural conditions) it is likely that a large proportion of Seldovia's future M D_UBE R. 5ME"IAL growth may occur outside of existing city boundaries. MIXED@GSI Much of the new growth will require city services; con- Li sequently, it is important for Seldovia to decide how outlying areas are going to develop and where various uses or activities will .occur. Figum 5-8 During the formulation of this plan, existing land uses Planned Land Use were studied and opinions of the residents were received. Projections were made of future land needs based on various growth scenarios to determine the amount of additional land -hich will be required for residential, commercial, industrial and other uses. Guiding the formation of the land use plan was the recently adopted zoning ordinance. The land use map, Figure 5-8,1s a general guide as to the community's intent regarding future land use. Future proposals for development should be evaluated as to their consistency with the land use plan and with the zoning ordinance. The actions to be taken in regard to land use include the modification of the ASHA Zoning Contract (con- trolling uses in the redevelopment area) to be cc 7ENW and to modify the Residential district and the Water- front-Residential-Commercial district to exclude multi- family uses. Other actions pertain to commercial activities outside the existing commercial core and nsistent with the adopted Seldovia Zoning Ordinance 1-2 Municipal Watershed Management Social Services Seldovia receives its water supply from the Upper Water- The residents of Seldovia receive the benefits of several shed and the Fish Creek watershed. The quality and social services which have been developed by the efforts quantity of these sources directly effects everyone in of concerned citizens over many years. These services the community. Preservation and enhancement of the water include the health clinic, and educational and recrea- quantity and quality is a major factor in the accomodation tiona@ opportunities. Each of these services were of future growth of the City. Due to proposed activities reviewed as to their existing development and function, in the watersheds and recent problems with Seldovials and suggestions were made as to their continued improve- water supply, these watersheds were studied to determine ment. the City's options in their utilization. The actions to be taken pertaining to social services Both watersheds were studied as to their geology, soi Is, include the detailed study of the relationship between vegetation, water flow and ownership, as they pertain to the City, the operation of the health clinic and health accepted watershed management practices. providers (physicians, nurses, etc.) in regards to services, income and expenses, the improvement of the Actions pertaining to the management of the watersheds community-based alcohol and drug treatment program and include the restriction of public access to both reservoirs, the support of a multi-purpose community and youth the installation of a water filtration and chlorination center. Other actions relate to continuing education system and limiting traffic on the road paralleling Fish and recreation lands acquisition. For a complete Creek during periods of high run-off. Other actions discussion on social services, please refer to Chapter include the performance of engineering studies to 7, page 7-1 of the comprehensive plan. determine the feasibility of improving the water collect- ion and storage systems of the watersheds and to seek and secure additional water supplies. The major action concerning the water sources is to adopt a watershed management ordinance which spells out protection and enhancement measures for the two watersheds. For a complete discussion of watershed management see Chapter 6, page 6-1 of the comprehensive plan. A draft watershed management ordinance is found in Appendix B of the plan. Seldovia Pt ovia 2 Figure 6-1 .......... 2 2 '0 Soo-, x 695 Seldovia Watersheds bn N N 30 Creek Includes those areas, In most cases adJment to stresnn bed, which 86 regularly welve high water strearnflow, or Incidence of high (ground level) water table. ot .. .. ..... . N Gr* C1 1500- camel Ami, 0. Assoelated Indi-tly ith.t-mfl-. Wetland F%d K-1 j Watch 31 SELDOVIA En 0 !X @5;7@ a T 11 "fd e k 2474 V 7 I tcr @7 4@ip@reh g C I i ? P c Plan A 1-3 Municipal Utilities Transportation The proper development of Seldovia's public utilities Seldovia relies on transportation services which are out- are critical not only to maintain the welfare of its side the City's direct control. Being isolated from the residents but to attract new commercial and industrial remainder of the Kenai Peninsula, the City is heavily development. The water, sewer, waste water treatment dependent on private air and barge services and the state and solid waste disposal systems were analyzed as to ferry system. The road system in and around Seldovia is their existing conditions, and the City's present and frequently inadequate due to either informal construction anticipated needs were evaluated, along with the practices, weather conditions, or both. Many of the opportunities available to the City for improvement concerns dealing with transportation (air, land and water) of these systems. were studied and reviewed as to possible solutions and improvements on the part of the City, the Borough, the Actions to be taken by the City include the expansion State and private individuals. The actions to be taken of the existing sewage collection system, the con- include the improvement of the ferry and air service, struction of a waste water treatment facility and the the upgrading of several streets and vacation of others, improvement of the city's water system (see watershed and the improvement and expansion of the boat harbor. management, Chapter 6, page 6-1). Other actions deal For a complete discussion of transportation pertaining with a solution to the disposal of solid waste and to Seldovia, please refer to Chapter 8, page 8-1 of the sludge from the sewage treatment plant. comprehensive plan. 1-4 Local Government Seldovia's local government is faced with many demands The reconveyance of not less than 1280 acres of Seldovia for public services and facilities by the residents of Native Association, Inc. (SNA) lands to the City was the community. Three areas of local government activity stipulated in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. were selected by the City Council and Steering Committee However, the location of these lands was not specified. for detailed study. These areas are acquisition and Intended to provide for community expansion needs, the management of financial resources, methods of extending selection and transfer of these lands is complicated by public services to areas outside the city limits and several factors, not.the least of which is the fact that alternative land reconveyances from the Seldovia Native few lands directly adjPcent to the City were selected Association, Inc. to the City under the terms of the by SNA. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Community expansion needs of Seldovia were identified To arrive at solutions to the problem of obtaining and and translated into acres of land and land ownership managing financial resources a fiscal analysis was com- maps were reviewed. From this analysis, three recon- pleted for Seldovia. This analysis reviewed the revenues venance alternatives were defined for consideration. and expenditures of the City and the procedures used to allocate and monitor the transactions. Techniques in For a complete discussion of municipal finances, budget management were suggested. Actions to be taker, annexation and reconveyance of lands, please refer to by the City include periodic review of grant-funded Chapter 10 of the complete report. programs, consideration of special assessment service districts and improved tax equity of all personal property. Rates and fees for city-operated enterprises will be based Economic Development upon who receives its benefits and how much recipients can afford to pay. The City will also endeavor to implement Traditionally, Seldovia has relied upon the harvesting its capital improvements program by providing regular of natural resources to maintain its economic viability. allocations of dollars to a capital fund to use as a local The periodic rise and fall of the supply of and markets match for Borough, State and Fed--al grants-in-aid. for these resources has in the past created both positive and negative impacts on the community. This lack of Annexation of unincorporated lands to the City was also stability imposes financial and psychological hardships examined to identify methods by which annexation may be on many of the residents. carried out and standards which are applied to annexation actions by the State Local Boundary Commission to deciding To broaden the economic opportunities in the area, on proposed annexations. The report also identifies a general methods for stimulating economic development simple method by which Seldovians can determine the are discussed in the plan, along with specific actions potential impact of annexation on the city's finances, which various individuals, organizations and the city and presents 3 sample analysis of an example annexation government can implement. Several sectors of business action. Although simplifying assumptions must be made, and industry were reviewed, including fisheries, tourism, the analysis method makes it possible to at least estimate forest products, marine service and local services and the financial soundness of proposed annexations given trade. different approaches to financing public services. @2 Figure 10-4 2 '00 ANCSA 14(cX3) lj Municipal Reconveyance r, Alte natives ALT. 1 Seldovia Native C.bi Grs Cliff J, LO . . . . . ... . .................. ........ ....... . ...... . . ...... ji ALT. 2 Reconvey Watershed Pv - Lands Watch ALT. 3 Recornrey 31 Lands/Wa SEUDOVI OL V 7 Comprehenshie Plan 1-5 Actions to be taken in improving the economic development climate of the area pertain to improvement of water transportation, public water supply and the sewage treatment 1@1 system. Other actions deal with ensuring adequate water- front for water dependent industry, establishing local aquaculture programs and encouraging local organizations to act as builder/developer, leasing facilities to small businesses lacking capital to build their own facilities. For a full discussion on economic development, please refer to Chapter 11, page 11-1 of the comprehensive plan. W Capital Improvements Program The culmination of the comprehensive plan lies in the capital improvements program (CIP). The CIP is basically a schedule of projects which the City plans to undertake FIGURE E-2 during the next six years to achieve some of the goals set out in each of the comprehensive plan elements Summary of Proposed described above. It outlines each project, what it will Capital Improvements cost, when it will occur and the methods of financing. The CIP provides a framework on which to base public policy and assures that projects will be executed in accordance with established priorities. It also ensures T-1 Com f that projects are gauged to the community's ability to 0-id. So.,- pay for them and enables city officials to coordinate Cily S...... projects in such a manner as to produce efficiencies in both time and money spent. Figure is a summary chart of the capital improvements program. For a 2000- complete discussion of the program, please refer to 1900- Chapter 12, page 12-1 of the comprehensive plan. 1800- 1700- 0 1600- 1500- 1400- Z I a00 - SLMMARY OF PROPOSED 0 1200 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS' 1100- 1979-1980 1980-1981 1981-1982 1982-1983 1983-1984 1984-1985 Six Year 12 1000- (Thousands of dollars) Total 900 - Planned Capital a lmlpro@ements Z 800 - Total Cost 1055.7 835.2 1916.1 786.7 1606.3 722.8 6924.8 700- 600- So urces Of 500 - Financing Amount To Be 400 - Raised From: 300 - Outside Sources 625.0 454.6 1698.5 475.3 1344.9 417.0 5015.3 200 - Own (City) Sources 430.7 380.6 217.6 311.4 263.4 305.8 1909.5 100 0 Project cost figures inflation adjusted (@9.2%/Yr. 79180 80181 81182 112183 83184 84185 YEAR JAI 111100.01 14 -0 WAA1 ZMM 1-6 .: // Part 11 m i I : ll-@ ...... I'll.."",:a B ckground I", m :q @ Chapter 2 Introduction For more than 100 years, Seldovia has been a unique part of Alaska. Like most communities, Seldovia has faced its share of good fortunes and adversity. Unlike many communities, however, Seldovia has succeeded in its efforts to achieve and maintain the best aspects of small town life. The qualities include stability, extensive involvement by a majority, rather than a minority of residents, a relaxed pace of life, diversity of lifestyles, mutual respect and concern for fellow residents and a pleasing physical environment. These qualities did not develop or persist by accident. Rather, they are the direct result of concerted efforts by residents and interested outside groups to create a superior quality of life for present and future Seldovians. This plan serves these efforts. During the late 19601s, several plans were prepared to serve as a guide to Seldovials recovery from the effects of the 1964 Good Friday Earthquake. A decade later, expanded use of the region's natural resources poses an entirely new challenge to the community. Planning can again serve as a guide and catalyst for Seldovia's efforts to adapt to new challenges and continue to improve its quality of life. This document represents the culmination of more than a year's efforts by community leaders and other concerned citizens who, working together with professional consultants, served on a Steering Committee to guide the develop- ment of this plan. From the outset, the Steering Committee identified specific issues of concern in the community. These issues were consolidated into the major elements of housing, land use, watershed management, social services and other aspects of community life and local government. Each chapter in this report dealing with one of the issues begins with a discussion of the background of the problem under consideration, the existing conditions and projections of future conditions. Issues are then summarized and related to a planning goal and specific objectives which respond to the issues. (Appendix A contains a glossary of issues, goals, objectives and other terms used in this document.) The chapters then discuss the authorities available to the City to achieve those objectives, and outline a number of possible solutions which the City might pursue. These possible solutions were presented to the Steering Committee during the development of this plan. The alternative which the Committee believed best suited the community's needs was developed further and presented as a planned solution. The planned solution is a step-by-step approach for the City, the Borough, the Seldovia Native Association, Inc., and other parties to take to resolve the issues and achieve the goal. Organized around the objectives, the 2-1 planned solutions include policies which the City can aElopt to serve as guidelines for future decision making. Most importantly, these recommended solutions outline specific actions or procedures to follow to implement each policy. The watershed management element, for instance, includes a draft of a watershed protection ordinance to implement its policies, and identifies other agencies which can assist the City in implementation. The section dealing with municipal finance outlines a step-by-step procedure for developing a City budget and financial plan. Rather than being a static document, this plan is intended to s-erve as the basis for continuing efforts to plan for Seldovia's future. As such, the document is updated as changes in conditions warrant. As individual pages are revised and approved by the City and Borough, old pages are replaced with amended pages noting the date and ordinance or resolution number approving the revision. By working together, City officials, public and private leaders, other residents and outside organizations can see to the realization of many community objectives. This plan can help to direct and focus such efforts, and serve as a catalyst for the continued betterment of Seldovia. 2-2 Chapter 3 u a ion and Economic rojections To be effective, comprehensive plans must be based upon careful, reasoned analyses of population and economic trends. Detailed projections are needed in order to tailor each element of the plan to needs and demands which the community is likely to face. This chapter develops such an analysis of Seldovials economy and population.* Past, present and future conditions are examined, and projections of future employment and population are developed. These are utilized in the different elements of the comprehensive plan found in succeeding chapters. PLANNING AREA As used in this report, the term "city limits" refers to the municipal boundaries of the City of Seldovia as of 1980, unless otherwise noted. The term "Planning Area" refers to all areas likely to exert a significant direct or indirect impact on Seldovia. As such, the "Planning Area" includes the area within city limits plus present and potential municipal watersheds and potential residential and industrial development areas outside of city limits. Consequently, the planning area includes generally Seldovia Bay and the lands draining into it, plus the Barabara Creek Watershed (Figure 3-1).** "Seldovia precinct" refers to the boundaries of the Seldovia Voting Precinct, which is used for censuses and determination of Seldovials representation in the Borough Assembly. The term "South Kachemak" refers to the southern arm of the lower Kenai Peninsula bordered by Kachemak Bay and the Gulf of Alaska. BACKGROUND Seldovials population has varied considerably since its modern founding in the first half of the 19th century. During its history, Seldovials fortunes have Economic development is covered in Chapter 11. In many cases, planning area maps in this document focus on a par' ricular part of the p I ann i ng area I n order to show a max imum of deta i I for the f eature of interest. Po P 3-1 risen and fallen on the success of its major enterprises. In the 19th century, sea otter hunting was a major activity. In the first half of this century, salmon fishing became prominent, with as many as four canneries operatin, i g i n the community. In 1950, the population stood at 437. By the mid-1950's, however, salmon harvests had declined, and two of the salmon canneries closed, and the population began to decrease. At about this time, however, king crab fishing became an important activity. The population began to grow again, reaching 460 persons in 1960, and an estimated 550 in 1964. In that year, however, the Good Friday Earthquake struck, sinking la.nd in the area by 3.7 feet. Commercial and industrial buildings along the waterfront were hardest hit, and many closed. An urban renewal project rebuilt the waterfront, but only one of the original four canneries was rebuilt. Population dropped temporarily as some residents moved away in search of better employment opportunities (ASHA, 1969). By 1970, however, improving prosperity caused population to increase again to 437. The 1969 comprehensive plan contained two sets of population projections. One assumed that Seldovia would not grow ("Continuation of Status Quo"), while the second ("Economic Development") predicted that the community would grow -to 470 in 1975 if king crab and Tanner crab harvests increased, shrimp production began at the Wakefield plant, and tourism and/or timber expanded into major "basic" industries. Comparison with actual growth experienced by the community indicates that the short-term "economic development" projection has proved fairly accurate. In fact, Tanner crab harvesting and processing have become important, and shrimp processing recently began on a limited scale. Log harvesting also increased, and a sawmill at Jakolof Bay became an important employer. Accordingly, the City's population grew, exceeding the projected 1975 popula- tion level. In 1978, despite recent population declines associated with closure of the Jakolof Bay sawmill, a special census recorded the City's population at 485 persons, with an additional 99 persons residing outside of city limits but within the Seldovia voting precinct (Kenai Peninsula Borough, 1979). The overall growth in the City's population during 1970 to 1978 averages 1.3 percent per year, which is a very moderate growth rate. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Seldovia can be characterized as a rural village in transition. Many residents have lived in Seldovia for many years. Community stability is reflected by the fact that the medium age of the city was nearly 29 years in 1970, compared to 28 years for the nation as a whole and 23 years for Alaska during the same year. Nearly one-third of the population were Native, and over 60 percent of all residents were males. Table 3-1 and Figure 3-2 summarize.Seldovia.'s demo- graphic characteristics for 1970 and 1978. Since 1970, Seldovials population characteristics changed considerably, despite little apparent change in total population. Most of the changes are quite similar to those experienced by larger, growing Alaskan communities. As 3-2 FIGURE 3-1 SELDOVIA AND VICINITY r ALASKA V00010 0 0 0 Ott@ Ja olof PLANNING AREA 00e B 0 00000 ;0;00 CIO 0 CD .10@ 00000 Seldovi English Bay Port Gra a 0 Home 0 1 2 3 4 5 SCALE IN MILES 3-3 FIGURE 3-2 COMPARISON OF AGE & SEX OF RESIDENTS SELDOVIA, ALASKA & UNITED STATES 1970 and 1978 City of SgIdovia 10% - Male %1970 c Female ---- .0 8% Male %1978 Female issom 0 CL 6% 4- 0 -all U 4% Now CL 2% 0 -0-4 10-14 20-24, 30-34 40-44 50-54 60-64 5M-y 15-19 25-29 35-39 45-49 55-59 65 up Age Alaska and the United States 10% Ala@ka Male % 1970 Femaleoeosee 8% .2 U jLtC_d hi a I e btates t 1970 Female*** 0 6% 'o *00, 0 .4-1 - -- c 0 w 1 0 A U 4% RINI" CL 2% 0 0-4 10-14 20-24 30-34 40-44 50-54 60-64 5-9 15-19 25-29 35-39 45-49 55-59 65 up Age I @- TABLE 3-1 SELECTED POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS CITY OF SELDOVIA 1970 and 1978 1970 1978 NO. (PERCENT) NO (PERCENT-) Sex Male 264 ( 60.4) 253 ( 52.1) Female 173 ( 39.6) 232 ( 47.8) TOTAL 437 (100.0) 485 (100.0) Race White 299 ( 68.4) 347 ( 71.5) Native, other 138 ( 31.5) 138 ( 28.5) TOTAL 437 (100.0) 485 (100.0) Median Age Male 30.3 years 27.8 years Female 26.8 years 26.4 years Combined 28.9 years* 27.0 years Weighted average of male and female medians. Source: Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Kenai Peninsula Borough and Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. measured by the 1978 Special Census, Native population has remained at 138 persons, while non-Natives increased by 48. As a result, the percent of population which is Native fell from 31.6 to 28.5 percent. Median age fell significantly, from 28.9 to 27.0 years. This was apparently caused by in-migration of a significant number of young adults (ages 25 to 34 years). Although not falling in absolute size, the relative proportion of residents age 45 or more fell during the same period. Another significant change is that the proportion of females in the population rose from less than 40 percent to nearly 48 percent of the population. The latter figure is more characteristic of larger Alaskan cities and the nation, and reflects the transition of Seldovia from rural to a more urban status. ECONOMIC BASE One useful method of analyzing a community's economy is to determine sources of revenue, sales or income for major employment activities. Such an examina- tion, called an economic base analysis, may be used to determine how developed 3-7 TABLE 3-2 ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT IN PLANNING AREA BY SOURCE OF REVENUE OR SALES 1979 Estimated Full Time Emp oyment Source Of Revenue, Sales Or Demand To Support Employment Basic (Export) Employment) Employment Category Ist 2nd 3rd 4th Average English Bay Temp.Residents Other Total Basic Non-basic Fof Year State Gov't. Federal Gov't. Port Graham (visitors) Organizations (Secondary) (Percent) (No.) (Percent) (No.) (Percent) (No.) (Percent) (No.) (Percent) (No.) (Percent) (No.) (Percent) (No.) Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 50 95 120 50 79 (100%) 79.0 (100%) 79.0 0%) 0 Mining - - - - - Contract Construction 0 5 11 7.5 6 (20%) 1.2 (20%) 1.2 5%) 0.3 45%) 2.7 55%) 3.3 Manufacturing (including Fish Processing) 51 47 49 47 48 (100%) 48.0 (100%) 48.9 Transportation, Communications & Public Utilities 5 5 5 5 5 5%) 0.2 5%) 0.2 (20%) 0.8 (10%) 0.4 5%) 00.2 45%) 1.8 55%) 3.2 Wholesale And Retail Trade 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 2%) 0.5 3%) 0.7 (10%) 2.5 (10%) 2.5 5%) 1.2 30%) 7.3 70%) 17.@ Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 3.5 2.5 4 3.5 3.5 - (14%) 0.5 33%) 2.9 97%) 3.4 3%) 0.2 03 Services 2 2 2 2 2 (10%) 0.2 (10%) 0.2 (20%) 0.2 10%) 0.2 50%) 1.0 50%) 1.0 Government Federal 2 2 2 2 2 (100%) 2.0 State 0 0 0 0 r, Local (Includes Sch-)ol) 27 31 16 27 25 6%) 1.5 (20%) 5.0 - - - - - - 26%) 6.5 (74%) 18.5 GRAHD TOTALS 165 214 233.5 168.5 195 2%) 3.6 4%) 7.3 2% 3.6 2%) 3.6 67%) 131.5 77%) 149.7 (23%) 45.4 Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. or mature the community's economy is relative to the economies of similar communities. This can be helpful in estimating how the economy may change as the community grows. The analysis is also useful in identifying major sources of support, and their relative importance, to Seldovia's economy. To provide such an anlysis, a direct survey was conducted of representative employers and self-employed persons in Seldovia during the summer of 1979. This survey was used to compile the employment and economic base analysis shown in Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3. 150 Jobs (77%) FIGURE 3-3 Other SELDOVIA -ECONOMIC BASE 1979 Trade & Gov't. Fish Processing 45 Jobs Other Fishing T rade Government BASIC EMPLOYMENT SECONDARY EMPLOYMEN"I' Source: Pacific Rim Planners,inc. Table 3-2 Is divided into two parts. The left side presents estimated 1979 full-time employment by calendar quarter and annual average for 11 major employment categories. The right side indicates sources of revenue, sales or income for each employment category. The sources indicate the degree to which 3-9 each category is dependent on local or non-local sources of revenue. Cate- gories which depend on local sources of revenue, sales or demand are called 1'non basic" or "secondary" activities. Since secondary activities may be presumed to be dependent upon basic or export activities for their support, their ratio is often used to indicate how a change in a basic activity would affect: total employment in the community (Tiebout, 1962). A useful example of the manner in which activities are classified would be the government category. An annual average of 25 employees currently work for the City and Borough (school) in Seldovia. About three-quarters of the total employment can be attributed to local tax revenues or local demand; for example, the Post Office is supported by local demand, and hence is a secondary activity. Similarly, most of the employment at the Borough-operated Susan B. English School are paid out of property tax receipts which the Borough collects in Seldovia plus State and Federal per-student reimbursements; hence, most school employment can be considered as secondary or locally generated. Local govern- ment employment treated as basic includes only that percentage which cannot be attributed to local revenues or demands, such as special one-time economic or community development grants. Based upon the analysis, several observations may be made concerning Selclovials economy. The first is that Seldovials employment shows a great deal of stability over the course of the year compared to many Alaskan communities. Of Course, much of this is due to the fact that fishing, the major economic activity, continues throughout much of the year, and that many residents engage in two or more income-earning activities during the course of a year (for example, construction and fishing). A second observation is that Seldovia has a relatively large number of Secondary jobs (about 45) compared with other communities of similar size. The community's basic to secondary employment ratio of 1.00 to 0.30 (meaning that 3 1/3 basic jobs support roughly one secondary job) is usually found in somewhat larger communities of 1,000 or more population. It is likely that at least part of the reason for this relatively high state of economic development is that some residents have earned enough income in other pursuits (pipeline construction or fishing, for example), to enable them to establish a business. This does not imply, however, that Seldovia's economy cannot be developed further. A number of both basic and secondary employment opportunities can still be developed, as will be discussed in Chapter 11. Third, the figures indicate that fishing and fishing-related employment are clearly the major source of employment in the study area. Fishing, fish processing and indirect (secondary) employment attributable to the two cate- gories account for 85 percent, or more than four out of five, of all present jobs. The columns labelled "Sources of Revenue, Sales or Demand to Support Employment" also indicate the importance of other economic activities. State government spending directly and indirectly accounts for slightly over two percent of total e'mployment. Although small, State expenditures have been growing rapidly since the development of the Prudhoe Bay oil fields brought additional income to the 3-10 State. With rapid increases in world oil prices, moreover, future State revenues will probably allow continued rapid increases in State expenditures (Goldsmith, 1978). Hence, State expenditures are likely to account for an increasing portion of revenues in Seldovials economy. Federal expenditures are slightly larger, accounting directly and indirectly for nearly five percent of total employment. While federal expenditures in general are not growing as rapidly as are those of the State, special Federal programs (such as the Coastal Energy Impact Program) designed to alleviate problems of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil development could become quite important if the Lower Cook,Inlet oil fields are developed. Surrounding communities of the South Kachemak Bay area, such as Jakolof Bay, English Bay and Port Graham, are also somewhat important, accounting directly and indirectly for slightly more than 2 percent of total employment. The primary employment categories affected are Transportation, Communications and Public Utilities, and Wholesale and Retail Trade. Temporary residents and visitors also account directly and indirectly for just over two percent of total employment. This category includes tourists, non-resident construction workers and other persons temporarily visiting Seldovia (including those on business). Finally, the category in Table 3-2 entitled "Other Organizations" are primarily U.S. and Japanese fish processors and trading companies who purchase Seldovials fisheries products. ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS The major force which might affect Seldovia's economy would be development of the Lower Cook Inlet oil fields. Depending on the level of finds and the timing of development and siting of onshore service bases, up to 292 OCS-related employees might move to the planning area in the future. The intermediate range number would be 37 to 74 employees. OCS employees would, in turn, encourage other economic growth (in secondary employment) by purchasing local goods and services. Other employment growth might also be stimulated through growth in fisheries, tourism and wood products employment. Possible changes in Seldoviats economy during the next two decades are depicted by constructing three possible outcomes, or scenarios. The scenarios (low, intermediate, high) were developed to indicate the range of potential outcomes. They demonstrate the effects of external events outside of the control of the community (such as the outcome of oil exploration in Lower Cook Inlet) as well as the effects of actions which the community may take (such as providing suitable accommodations for a developing bottomfish industry). Each scenario assumes a particular combination of external and community-influenced events. Important characteristics of each scenario are depicted in Figure 3-4. Detailed descriptions of the actions which Seldovia can take or influence may be found in Chapter 11. Table 3-3 presents projected employment, and change in average annual employ- ment, for the planning area between the years 1979 and 2000. Under the low scenario, planning area employment is projected to increase by only 27 jobs, 3-11 FIGURE 3-4 GROWTH SCENARIO ASSILHIPTIONS LOW INTERMEDIATE HIGH O-iT-& Gas Mining Exp!oration peaks in 1979, Moderate discoveries. some Large discoveries. Some terminates in 1980. No construction & production construction & production impact on Seldovia,_ workers reside in Seldovia, workers reside in Seldovia. but no marine service bases located in Seldovia. Contract Stzibic thr*ough 1986, Increases proportional to Increases proportional to 'Construction incroasing at 2.3% per growth in Seldovials growth in Seldovia's basic year thereafter. basic employment. employment. Fishing Fisherman income increases Moderate increases in Seldovia Significant increases in only through price increases and crab harvests due to salmon harvests due to of fisheries piroducts. No management and enhancement aquaculture , Large scale appreciable rise in fisheries efforts. Moderate scale entry into new fisheries catch. Seldovia maintains entry into new fisheries (bottom-fish, clams, oysters, share of fishing fleet. (bottom-fish, clams, oysters, etc.) Increased income to etc.) Seldovia maintains fishermen from crab and share of regional fishing salmon price increases. Crab fleet. catch stable. Seldovia maintains share Of fishing fleet. Fish Processing Stable at current levels. Increases proportional to Increases proportional to Seldovia maintains share increases in fishing employ- increases in.fishing employ- of processing. ment. Seldovia maintains ment. Seldovia maintains share of processing. share of processing. Federal Employment Stable at current levels Small increases (proportional Moderate Increases (proport- (no federal employment to Borough-wide increase of ional to Borough-wide increase in Seldovia). 1.2 percent per annual of 2.3. percent per year). increase). State & Local 1.5 percent annual 'increase. 2.5 percent an'nual increase. 3.4 percent annual increase. Employment Other Manufacturing- Small scale logging by Increased logging by State Increased logging by State Logging & Wood State and Native Corp- and Native Corporations. and Native Corporations. Processing orations. Round log Some round log exports, no Reconstruction of sawmill in exports sales only. processing. Employment Jakolof Bay. Employment increases by 4.2 percent increases by 4.9 percent per per year. year. Other Employment Small increases due to Moderate increases due to Large increases in tourist tourism. Secondary further development of trade. Secondary employment employment increases tourism trade. Secondary increases proportional to proportional to basic employment increases basic employment increases. employment increases proportional to basic employment increases. Probability Of 95% 50% 5% Actual Outcome Exceeding Pro- jection Probability Of 5% 50% 95(t Actual Outcome Less Than Projection Source: Environmental Services Ltd. (1979) and Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. TABLE 3-3 AVERAGE ANNUAL PLANNING AREA EMPLOYMENT BY SCENARIO 1979 and 2000 Employment Category 1979 LOW INTERMEDIATE HIGH (Est.) Total Change Total Change Total Change Yr.2000 1979-2000 Yr.2000 1979-2000 Yr.2boo 1979-2000 Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 79 79 0 108 +29 147 + 68 Mining 0 0 0 37 +37 145 +145 Contract Construction 6 8 +2 12 + 6 14 + 8 Manufacturing (including Fish Processing) 48 48 0 76 +28 101 + 53 Other Manufacturing 0 3 +3 8 + 8 11 + 11 Transportation Communication & Public Utilities 5 7 +2 13 + 8 20 + 15 Wholesale & Retail Trade 24 34 +10 61 +37 109 + 85 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 4 6 +2 15 +11 28 + 24 Services 2 3 +1 6 + 4 11 + 9 Government: State & Federal Gov't. 2 2 0 6 + 4 17 + 15 Local Government 25 32 +7 39 +14 45 + 20 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 195 222 +27 381 +186 648 +453 Average Annual Growth Rate + 0.6% + 3.2% + 5.9% Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. for an average annual growth rate of 0.6 percent. The only employment categor;es with significant increases would be Wholesale & Retail Trade,- and Local Govern- ment (the latter category includes school employment). Other employment categories, including fishing and fish processing, would grow little if at ail over 1979 levels. 3-13 Under the intermediate scenario moderate scale OCS development, in addition to fishing and fish processing expansion, would-stimulate increases in other sectors of Seldovia's economy, causing total employment to grow by an annual average rate of 3.2 percent per year (OCS workers and fishermen residing in Seldovia are included in planning area employment). OCS-related employment would actually be higher during the period 1982-1987, when construction of OCS drilling platforms and related facilities would occur. OCS-related employment would peak at 74 in 1987, and decline to 37 by 1991. Under the high scenario, major development of the Lower Cook Inlet oil fields, nearby location of related onshore facilities, and major expansion and diversi- fication of Seldovia-based fishing and fish processing activities would cause major growth in all categories of Seldovia's employment averaging 5.9 per-cent per year from 1979 to 2000. OCS-related employment would increase rapidly during the early 1980's, coinciding with construction of drilling platforms and related facilities, reaching a maximum of 292 Seldovia-based workers in 1983, and falling slowly to a production level of 145 jobs. Other employment growth would probably occur more evenly throughout the period. FUTURE POPULATION Tables 3-4, 3-5 and Figure 3-5 present preliminary population projections for the planning area for the year 2000. The projections are based on employment scenarios and projected labor force participation rates. For the sake of clarity, the projections are divided into direct OCS-related population (OCS workers and their'families) and other residents for each of the three scenarios. The low scenario projects continued growth, but at a 70 percent lower rate than the 1970-1978 growth rate. Under this scenario, no OCS-related.households would reside in the planning area. Total population in the year 2000 would be 542. The intermediate scenario would result in a more than doubling of the planning areals 1970-1978 growth rate of 1.4 percent, to an average of 3.1 percent per year. Population growth rates would be very high during the first half of the 1980's as oil fields are developed, and would drop to fairly moderate rates by the end of the 1980's. Total population in the year 2000 would be 913, nearly double estimated 1978 population. If the high scenario were to occur, the population would increase dramatically during the first half of the 1980's., coinciding with OCS development. Following completion of development, population would decrease temporarily for theremainder of the decade, but during the 1990's would return to a growth rate about twice the 1970-1978 rates. Total population in the year 2000 would be 1517, or roughly three times the present population. This threefold increase translates to an average annual growth rate of 5.4 percent. By comparison, recent population projections for southcentral Alaska estimate growth rates'ranging from 2.8 to 5.0 percent, with an intermediate estimate 3-14 of 3.7 percent, for the same period (Scott, 1979). Hence, projected Seldovia growth rates represent a wider range, with an intermediate or mid-range estimate only slightly lower than the regional average. TABLE 3-4 PROJECTED PLANNING AREA POPULATION GROWTH BY SCENARIO 1979 to 2000 LOW INTERMEDIATE HIGH Non OCS_ OCS- To--tal Non OCS- OCS- Total Non OCS- OCS- Total Related Related Related Related Related Related 1979 500 0 500 500 0 500 500 0 500 1980 505 0 505 525 16 541 576 35 611 1981 505 0 505 538 10 548 610 209 819 1982 506 0 506 562 45 607 635 249 884 1983 504 0 504 575 63 638 653 324 977 1984 507 0 507 592 66 658 660 514 1174 1985 508 0 508 612 74 686 727 493 1220 1986 505 0 505 632 122 754 769 516 1285 1987 506 0 506 642 148 790 786 468 1254 1988 506 0 506 650 100 750 798 360 1158 1989 507 0 507 659 94 753 814 326 1140 1990 512 0 512 669 86 755 855 300 1155 1991 510 0 510 686 80 766 883 290 1173 1992 515 0 515 708 74 782 925 290 1215 1993 520 0 520 722 74 796 956 290 1246 1994 522 0 522 739 74 813 991 290 1281 1995 527 0 527 754 74 828 1027 290 1317 1996 527 0 527 766 74 840 1064' 290 1354 1997 532 0 532 786 74 860 1098 290 1388 1998 539 0 539 803 74 877 1142 290 1432 1999 5 39 0 539 817 74 891 1181 290 1471 2000 0 542 839 74 913 1227 290 1517 Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. Excludes Seasonal Residents. TABLE 3-5 COMPARISON OF POPULATION GROWTH RATES IN PROJECTED PLANNING AREA POPULATION BY SCENARIO PERIOD LOW SCENARIO INTERMEDIATE SCENARIO HIGH SCENARIO 1979-1982 0.4% 5.7% 20.9% 1982-1985 0.1% 4.2% 11.3% 1985-1988 -0.1% 3.0% -1.7% 1988-1991 0.3% 0.7% 0.4% 1991-1994 0.8% 2.0% 3.0% 1994-1997 0.6% 1.9% 2.7% 1997-2000 0.6% 2.0% 3.0% Average Yearly Rate For Period 0.4% 2.9% 5.4% Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. Estimates based on Environment al Services, Ltd. (1979) and CH2M-HiII (1978). Excludes seasonal residents. FIGURE 3-5 PRELIMINARY POP ULATION PROJECTIONS PLANNING AREA 1600t- 1500 1400 XX 1300 0 N XX 1200 1100 z 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 - 100 - 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 i // Part III f i : I' ".1 . """. . ...... I',- ',,,i . ...... "I . ...... "I Plan Elements V % ... Chapter 4 Housing Along with health and safety, the desire for adequate shelter is one of the most basic of human needs. Currently, many Seldovians have difficulty securing adequate housing at an affordable price. Some types of public and private community actions, however, may diminish or correct many of Seldovials existing and potential housing problems. Like many communities, a wide range of sizes, styles and conditions exist in Seldovials housing stock. Indeed, the diversity of styles found is one of the community's greatest physical assets. The difficulty which residents experience attempting to obtain suitable housing, however, is also quite common given Alaskan prices. Further, OCS-related or other population growth, coupled with vacation home demand will likely continue to drive up the prices of many homes and homesites, and would make it even more difficult for many residents to obtain adequate shelter in the future. Yet there are many possible approaches available to the City which could either avert or substantially ease housing problems given the right applications. This chapter examines some of those possible actions, and presents a series of adopted approaches to achieving community housing goals and objectives. BACKGROUND Seldovia has been endowed with a fairly large number of well-built, well- maintained homes, compared with many other similarly sized communities in Alaska. Moreover, the relative prosperity of fishing enabled many families to improve or replace their homes during the last decade, reducing overcrowd- ing and substandard conditions among Seldovials housing stock. Recently, the South Kachemak area has become increasingly popular as a summer or vacation home location for Anchorage area residents. Consequently, seasonal housing has become a rapidly growing component of the planning area's housing stock. Table 4-1 describes trends in the number and types of housing units in the City's housing stock. Overall, the total number of units increased by more than 25 percent between 1970 and 1978, while the number of year-round units increased by 23 units or 15 percent. Vacancy rates in year-round units dropped by over half. As a result, the number of occupied year-round units increased by 34 units or 25 percent. Since population increased by only 11 percent during the same period, average household size (and presumably overcrowding) decreased correspondingly, from 3.3 to 2.9 persons per house- hold. Seasonal units registered the largest increase during 1970 - 1978. The number of seasonal units in the City increased from 3 to 20, or a nearly seven- fold increase. 4-1 TABLE 4-1 PLANNING AREA HOUSING TRENDS 1970 AND 1978 April 1, 1970 July 1, 1978 City Remainder of Total City Remainder of Total Planning Area Planning Area Year-Round Units Occupied 1321- 2 133 166 4 170 Vacant 211- 0 22 10 0 10 TOTAL 153 2 155 176 4 180 Seasonal Units 31' 2 5 20 4 24 TOTAL NO. OF UNITS 1561- 4 160 1962. 8 204 Sources: Alaska Department of Community and Reglonal Affairs. 2 Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. estimates based on Kenai Peninsula Borough f igures. Although no published figures are available, current estimates of housing outside of the City but within the planning area are 2 year-round units and 10 seasonal units. A majority of the homes in Seldovia are owner occupied. This ratio has increased over the last decade, from 61 to about 70 percent, indicating con- tinued recovery from the effects of the Good Friday Earthquake and the relative prosperity which many residents have a 'chieved. The current rate of home owner- ship is about the same as other cities in the Borough and non-farm households nationwide. Should Seldovia's economy remain healthy, it is likely that the ratio of home ownership will remain at or grow somewhat from current levels. Since some households will probably prefer to rent, however, some units will likely continue to be rentals. The current home ownership levels are less than home ownership levels for oil industry employees currently living in the Borough. Consequently, if Seldovia experiences an influx of OCS-related households it is likely that the fraction of home ownership may rise. Seldovia's housing has shown fairly stable proportions of single family., multiple family and mobile homes. From 1970 to 1977, single family homes have remained at about two-thirds of all housing. Multiple family and other housing types fell in share from 19 to 15 percent during the same period, while mobile homes doubled in number and increased in share from 14 to 18 percent of all units. Recently, construction has begun on an 18 unit elderly housing project financed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development near Lake 4-2 Susan. While this will have a positive effect upon housing quality of Seldovia's elderly, few additional units will be made available, since six existing elderly housing units are scheduled for demolition upon completion of the project; further,several of the project's new residents will be from out of town. By contrast, other urban areas of the Borough have larger, and more rapidly growing, percentages of mobile homes. The rate of growth in mobile homes is particularly noticeable in rapidly growing areas such as Homer. Other con- ventional housing has diminished in share to between 50 and 60 percent in these areas. The clear implication is that mobile housing is heavily utilized in rapidly growing areas. As such, it could become an even larger component of Seldovia's housing if OCS-related population growth occurs in Seldovia and City or Borough zoning and platting standards do not make mobile homes in- feasible. (See Chapter 5 for discussion of zoning and platting standards). Housing quality is somewhat more difficult to judge because of lack of con - sistent, comparable data. A city housing survey in March, 1978 estimated a substandardness rate of 30 percent among occupied nonseasonal housing, and 33 percent when vacant nonseasonal housing was included. Most substandard units were rated suitable for rehabilitation. It is possible, however, that the rate of substandardness was overestimated; all other indicators (income, home owner- ship, household size) indicate improvements in housing quality since 1970. PROJECTED DEMANDS If either the intermediate or high scenarios are achieved, housing demands will increase substantially over the next twenty years. By contrast, under the low scenario housing demands will be quite minimal. Demand For Year-Round Housing Table 4-2 describes the number of resident (year-round) households likely to be located in the planning area at yearly intervals through the year 2000. As the table indicates, the total number of year-round households is likely to increase as little as 8 and to as great as 226 percent during the next two decades. Under the intermediate scenario, the number of households would grow by 88 percent. Projected production of housing units (Table 4-3) shows even greater variation, with totals ranging from 62 new year-round units in the low scenario to 518 units in the high scenario. Under the intermediate scenario.- a projected 226 new year-round units will be produced.* Housing production figures include allowances for vacancy and replacement or net conversion of existing housing stock. Both subsidized and non- subsidized housing is included, but seasonal units are not included. 4-3 TABLE 4-2 PROJECTED NUMBER OF RESIDENT (YEAR-ROUND) HOUSEHOLDS IN PLANNING AREA BY SCENARIO 1979 - 2000 SCENARIO YEAR LOW INTERMEDIATE HIGH 1979 179 179 179 1980 180 196 224 1981 180 197 322 1982 181 223 351 1983 180 237 395 1984 181 244 493 1985 181 256 506 1986 180 287 533 1987 180 303 515 1988 181 282 515 1989 182 278 504 1990 183 282 505 1991 182 285 460 1992 184 290 475 1993 186 295 486 1994 186 301 499 1995 188 206 512 1996 188 311 525 1997 190 318 537 1998 193 324 553 1999 193 329 567 2000 194 337 583 Total Projected Change, 1979 to 2000. Number +15 +158 +404 Percent + 8.4% + 88.3% +225.7% Note: Excludes Seasonal residents. Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. estimates. 4-4 TABLE 4-3 PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT OF YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS IN PLANNING AREA BY SCENARIO 1979 - 2000 SCENARIO YEAR LOW INTERMEDIATE HIGH 1979 20 20 20 1980 - 5 34 1981 - - 102 1982 - 32 34 1983 - 16 48 1984 - 9 103 1985 - 14 19 1986 - 36 33 1987 2 20 - 1988 2 - 1989 3 - 1990 3 - 1991 2 - 1992 4 1 1993 4 8 - 1994 2 10 6 1995 4 8 18 '1996 2 8 18 '1997 4 10 18 '1998 5 9 21 " 999 2 8 21 '1000 3 12 23 Total Number Of Units Likely 62 226 518 Note: Excludes seasonal units. Source: Pacific Rim Planners.. Inc. 4-5 As discussed earlier, mobile homes have tended to accomodate a large part of population growth in fast growing.areas of the Borough during the past decade; their proportion was somewhat lower, but still growing, in slower, growing areas of the Borough. Hence, mobile homes are projected to aCCO.Unt for the largest fraction in thehigh growth scenario. Table 4-4 summarizes projected housing types for estimated new housing production under each scenario. TABLE 4-4 PROJECTED NUMBER OF NEW YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE LIKELY TO BE DEVELOPED IN PLANNING AREA BY SCENARIO 1979 - 2000 SCENARIO HOUSIN(5 TYPE LOW INTERMEDIATE HIGH No. (Percent) No. (Percent) No. (Percent) Conventional Single Family 40 (66%) 124 (55%) 259 (50%) Multiple Family 11 (17%) 34 (15%) 78 (15%) Mobile Homes 11 (17%) 68 (30%) 181 (35%) TOTAL NEW UNITS 62 (100%) 226 (100%) 518 (100%) Note: Excludes seasonal units. Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. Demand For Seasonal Housing A separate, but nevertheless important, component of housing demand is that for seasonal units. In recent years, a small but significant portion of the plan- ning area's growth in housing units has been in units which are only seasonally occupied. Most of the owners are Anchorage residents who spend part of or all their summers in Seldovia. The attractiveness of the south Kachemak Bay area, the likely continued growth of Anchorage and the increased availability of homes and building lots, makes it likely that seasonal housing will continue to grow in numbers and importance. There are currently an estimated 20 seasonal units in the planning area; projected growth is likely to be related to growth in population and real income of the Anchorage metropolitan area. Hence, seasonal units are projected to increase to 37 units in the low scenario, 42 units in the intermediate scenario and 50 units in the high scenario by the year 2000. Table 4-5 summarizes trends in seasonal housing. 4-6 OCLC: 8209227 Rec stat: n Entered: 19820303 Replaced: 19950302 Used: 19881116 $ Type: a Bib lvl: m Source: d Lang: eng Repr: Enc lvl: l Conf pub: 0 Ctry: wau Indx: 0 Mod rec: Govt pub: Cont: b Desc: a Int lvl: Festschr: 0 Illus: ab F/B: 0 Dat tp: s Dates: 1980, % $ 1 040 UDA 'c UDA % $ 2 090 HT393.A42 'b S45 % $ 3 090 'b % $ 4 049 N0@M % $ 5 245 00 City of Seldovia comprehensive plan / 'c prepared for City of Seldovia and Kenai Peninsula Borough by Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. % $ 6 260 Seattle, Wash. : 'b The Planners, 'c [1980] % $ 7 300 263 p. in various pagings : 'bill., maps (some folded) ; 'c 28 cm. % $ 8 500 Cover title: Seldovia comprehensive plan. % $ 9 500 Funded by the U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. % $ 10 500 "March, 1980." % $ 11 504 Includes bibliography. % $ 12 650 0 City planning 'z Alaska 'z Seldovia. % $ 13 651 0 Seldovia Alaska) % $ 14 710 1 Seldovia Alaska) % $ 15 710 1 Kenai Peninsula Borough (Alaska) % $ 16 710 2 Pacific Rim Planners. % $ 17 710 2 National Ocean Survey. 'b Office of Coastal Zone Management. % $ 18 740 01 Seldovia comprehensive plan. % TABLE 4-5 PROJECTED SEASONAL HOUSING IN PLANNING AREA 1979 - 2000 LOW INTERMEDIATE HIGH Number Ann. Avg. Number Ann. Avg. Number Ann. Avg. Change Change Change (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) 1979 20 - 20 - 20 - 1985 23 1.5 23 1. 5 26 3.0 1990 26 1.3 28 2.2 32 2.3 1995 31 1.9 33 1.8 39 2.2 2000 37 1.9 42 2.7 50 2.8 Note: Assumes growth proportional to population growth in Anchorage metropolitan area. Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc., et. estimates. ISSUES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES To date, six issues have been identified which bear on housing. These are: (1) Lack of low cost rental housing for small families or transient workers. (2) Increased ownership of area housing by non-residents (increased seasonal housing and speculation). (3) Placement and appearance of mobile homes, and lack of mobile home parks. (4) Quality and diversity of existing housing. Needs to be retained and improved. (5) Lack of suitable and financeable lots for homes. (6) Financing capital improvements costs of new housing. Housing goals and objectives which respond to these issues include: GOAL: Opportunities to obtain affordable, adequate quality housing, with a diversity of housing type, tenure and styles to choose from. OBJECTIVES: (1) Increase the number of low or moderate cost units available. (2) Increase the porportion of families owning their own homes. (3) Accomplish the upgrading of existing, and establishment of additional, mobile homes and mobile home parks. Assure compatibility with surroundings if located on single lots. 4-7 (4) Maintain and improve the quality of existing and future housing. (5) Determine and implement best and most equitable way to finance public services. (6) Increase number of useable building sites available. (7) Control undesirable effects of seasonal housing and non-resident housing ownership. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS For each of the objectives identified above, a number of possible approaches can be taken by the City and other public or private groups to reach desirable solutions. In some cases, several alternatives can be pursued at once, while in others, a choice must be made between the alternatives which are outlined. Planned solutions and implementation follow in the concluding section. Increasing The Number Of Low Cost Units Available Given strong market demands for housing and high local housing construction costs, rental housing probably cannot be provided cheaply without direct and indirect subsidies from most or all levels of government, and even from private enterprise. These subsidies include: federal construction and operational subsidy programs, advance land purchase programs, favorable local land use regulations, employer subsidies, state loan financing subsidies, grants and technical assistance. Workability of different solutions also depends on whether the persons or households needing to be served are year- round or temporary residents. Construction, operational and financial subsidy programs are operated primarily by the Federal government, but the State also-has a subsidy program. Several different approaches are employed. Conventional public housing programs (such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Indian Mutual Help and Elderly Housing Programs, Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) Self Help Housing, and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Housing Improvement Program) typically utilize private con- tractors to construct housing units, then rent or sell the units to low or moderate income occupants at a reduced, or below market, price. The difference between actual cost and rates charged represents a direct subsidy by the Federal government. Assisted persons or households often must also contribute labor, materials, land or cash to the cost of the project. Very low Income persons are usually served only by rental units. Home ownership financing subsidy programs (such as HUD-Federal Housing Admin- istration loan guarantees, FmHA direct loan interest subsidy program, BIA Indian Financing Act Loan Program, and Alaska Housing Finance Corporation loan purchase program) subsidize purchasers of private market housing by reducing interest rates and down payment terms,,and by extending credit to persons or households who are not able to obtain financing from private lenders. 4-8 Targeted primarily to moderate income (but not low income) households) the programs either issue reduced rate loans directly or agree to buy specific loans from private lenders on favorable terms which the lender passes on to the consumer. Land use regulations are often used to reduce housing costs for worthy projects. Approaches include allowing additional lot density (thereby spreading fixed land and site improvement costs over more units and lowering per unit costs), or exemptions from specific design standards. To the extent that other devel- opers might then be required to provide more open space, and other amenities to make up the difference, this approach represents an indirect, almost hidden subsidy. In some instances, large developers may be required to provide a certain percentage (such as 10 percent) of their units for sale or rent at below-market rates. Direct grants-in-aid or in-kind services to local governments or other local non-profit groups (such as regional housing authorities) from agencies such as HUD (Community Development Block Grants) BIA (roads and housing replacement grants) and the U.S. Indian Health Service (sewer and water service to Native households) are also used. In many cases, if sufficient benefit can be shown to low and moderate income households, grants can be used to pay for a large percentage of site acquisition and improvement costs. Advance land purchase (land banking) programs work especially well in areas where rapidly rising land prices threaten the ability of local housing agencies to obtain needed housing sites for prices which meet federal housing program guidelines. Funded by donations of ca5h or land from local governments, pri- vate groups or state or federal grants, land banking programs serve to short circuit speculation - driven price inflation by holding fixed or even lowering the cost of housing sites at levels acceptable to granting agencies. Land banking also avoids time consuming delays in obtaining title to housing sites prior to constructing new units. If housing site prices are rising extremely rapidly, and funds are too limited to purchase sites, some land banking programs purchase options to desirable sites, holding the option until funding materi- alizes. Alternatively, such sites could be part of the Seldovia Native Association, Inc.'s municipal reconveyance to the City (see Chapter 10). Employers often participate in subsidizing housing costs for workers who may have trouble securing acceptable housing at affordable prices. In many cases, employers can play an important role at little direct cost to themselves. For example, some employers build or purchase housing or mobile home sites, in large lots,'renting or selling them to employees at reduced cost and passing on savings from volume purchases. Alternatively, some large employers in small communities sign rental or sales committments with housing developers, thereby improving the ability of housing developers to obtain financing. Other possi- bilities include direct contributions to the cost of site improvements in a mobile home park, and direct loans to local agencies or private developers to finance housing-related development. Technical assistance is often made available to individuals in the form of classes, written materials, and loaned tools to assist individuals to build their own housing. FmHA offers grants to undertake such work. 4-9 Increasing The Proportion Of Home Ownership Increased proportions of home ownership will probably occur if the economic development of Seldovia succeeds in providing increased income-earning oppor- tunities to reesidents, and residents desire to purchase rather than rent their own housing. Under the intermediate and high scenarios, economic growth and increased income-earning opportunities will probably lead to increased home ownership among resident households. If economic growth does not occur, little improvement can be expected in the present ratio of home ownership. Three aspects of the home ownership process deserve attention from the com- munity if the level of home ownership is to be maximized. These aspects are: access to financing, access to purchase subsidies, and availability of suitable building sites. Each aspect is discussed below. Access to financing can be increased by ensuring that residents are aware of and have ready access to sources of financing. Although Seldovia probably would not support a full-time bank and lending office with its current popula- tion, part-time offices could be established for use by major public and private lenders. Lending information could be ke'pt on display, enabling residents to readily find out about financing opportunities, terms, require7 ments, application procedures and the like. Access to purchase subsidies can also be similarly assisted. Housing agencies such as the Cook Inlet Housing Authority could be encouraged to visit Seldovia regularly to determine local interest in subsidized housing projects and carry out planning and construction management. Availability of suitable building sites can also have a great impact on the ability of residents or builders to construct new housing suitable for local ownership. Developable areas identified in the land use chapter could receive first priority for City capital improvements t'o encourage development and utilization of the most suitable building lots. Prior to undertaking capital improvements, special attention might be given to these sites to ensure that improvements are likely to be utilized, particularly if public funds will be used to underwrite part of the costs. Increasing The Number Of Desirable Mobile Home Sites Or Parks Strong demands for mobile home sites can be recognized and accommodated by taking action to assure acceptable siting and development of mobile home parks. Such action will be especially important if the intermediate or high growth scenarios occur, as mobile home housing would probably be heavily utilized if rapid growth occurs. Several public and private groups can contribute to the achievement of this objective. The City may undertake any of several possible roles: o Regulatory - Zoning and other land use controls can be used to allow and encourage mobile home parks or other high density residential uses in specific areas, and to require good building and development practices. 4-10 � Indirect (Proprietary) - The City could obtain title to specific, selected sites through lease-option agreements or outright purchase, and lease or sell the site(s) to private developers with specific covenants regarding development and operation. � Direct (Proprietary) - The City could obtain title to speci fic selected sites through reconveyance or outright purchase, and develop the site directly, with full control over design and construction. After com- pletion, the City could manage the site or lease it to a private operator with covenants governing maintenance of the site. The City's access to grants-in-a.id and low cost loans can lower development costs below that which private developers can achieve. Private developers, such as SNA, can similarly participate either directly or indirectly. Maintaining And Improving Housing Quality Housing repair and rehabilitation can be encouraged by several methods. First, the community can encourage greater awareness of public and private housing improvement finance opportunities by establishing greater local presence of public and private lenders. This could include part-time local offices, an information center at City offices, and preparation of brochures explaining housing finance, contracting, subsidy programs, and the like. For persons with housing improvement needs but with limited financial means who are unlikely to be served by outside programs, the City could establish its own program to provide subsidies or outright grants of materials or funds depending on recipient's needs. Health and safety repairs could be required as a condition of receiving assistance. Repayment, if required, could be channeled through a private lender, and could be deferred until the occupants either move or sell their house. A variety of State and Federal grants are available to finance this type of activity, including FmHA'Section 504 Housing Repair Grants, HUD Community Development Block Grants and Section 312 Housing Repair loans and grants, BIA Housing Improvement Program Grants (for Alaskan Natives), and weatherization grants from the Community Services Administration and Federal Energy Administration. The drawbacks to such grants, however, are that assistance is limited to low and moderate income households, and admin- istrative requirements may be substantial. Finally, home construction and repair training could be offered to homeowners through the community college, the Seldovia School or FmHA grant-funded training programs. Financing Capital Improvements For New Housing Four approaches can be taken to finance capital improvements in public services for new housing. First, hookup fees, special assessment districts and the like can be used to have private developers share the financial burden, and enable the City to stretch public funds to service more areas. 4-11 Second, per unit costs can be reduced by encouraging infilling, or construc- tion on vacant lots In areas of exksting develnpment. This will absure maximum use of new capital improvements. Additionally, prior improvements will be better used. Private housing construction on close-in, easily-serviced building sites can be encouraged by scheduling city capital improvements to service large areas of suitable land. This would encourage private developers to proceed with housing construction if availability of necessary public services is assured. Finally, State and Federal grants may be obtained (to the extent possible) and added to City and private funds to increase the amount of improvements that can be financed. Increasing The Number Of Lots Suitable For Building And Financing Again, a combination of public and private involvement can address this problem. This includes land development policies of major landowners, but can also include favorable public service extension policies. Essentially the same types of public and private actions which will improve low cost housing opportunities would increase the number of financeable home building sites. Controlling Undesirable Effects Of Seasonal Housing And Non-Resident Ownership Of Housing It is difficult to restrict non-resident ownership in a private market given the presence of a strong, persistent outside demand. Practically any type of land use control which might be devised strictly for seasonal housing would be of questionable legality. One approach, however, is to encourage separate location of such units by city taxation and service policies (such as differ- ential taxation zones). Also, land use regulations (such as zoning and sub- division controls) can control some of the worst aspects of seasonal housing development (see Chapter 5). PLANNED SOLUTIONS Seldovia can achieve many of its housing objectives by combining the many resources available in a concerted effort. The costs of meeting housing goals and objectives, however, can be substantial under any growth scenario. Given the City's limited financial resources and pressing needs in other areas, outside sources of assistance can and will be used when avaiable. Planned solutions to the issues, goals and objectives are described below. GOAL: Opportunities to obtain affordable, adequate quality housing, with a diversity of housing type, tenure and style available to choose from. OBJECTIVE: Increase the number of low or moderate cost units available. 4-12 A broad range of public and private involvement can accomplish this objective. Actions range from a greater local presence by public and private lenders, to flexible City land use regulations, to capital improvement programming and direct development by public bodies. No one single approach will solve this problem; rather, a number of approaches must be blended to attain success. Planned solutions are presented below. POLICY: The City and concerned local groups shall explore and utilize a wide range of housing assistance available to increase low and moderate cost housing opportunities, and wherever possible shall tailor acti- vities to the unique needs of the individual and households to be served. ACTION 1: The City shall establish a housing land banking program to reserve low cost sites for subsidized or other year-round housing using ANCSA muni,,cipal reconveyances, grants or donations of land from private parties. ACTION 2: The City shall explore with Cook Inlet Housing Authority and Federal housing agencies the possiblity of constructing low cost rental or ownership housing, and shall cooperate to bring projects through to completion. ACTION 3: Seldovia Advisory Planning and Zoning Commission shall recommend, and Borough Planning and Zoning Commission and Borough Assembly adopt, amendment to zoning ordinance to allow consideration of low rental or sales price of housing as positive factor in favor of applicant in platting and zoning actions. ACTION 4: Advisory Planning and Zoning Commission shall endeavor to obtain and utilize Borough, State and Federal financial assistance and ANCSA municipal land reconveyance to allow low cost or other subsidized housing land and site improvement costs to be reduced or eliminated. ACTION 5: The City shall condition extension of services to industrial developments upon employer participation in providing for housing needs of employees. Such participation may include, for example, site rental committments, site purchase and lease-back programs, or direct loans to housing developers. ACTION 6: The City shall work with Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, Kenai Community College or other public agencies to develop pro- grams to train interested residents in home construction skills, tool loans, etc. OBJECTIVE: Increase the proportion of families owning their own housing. POLICY: The City and other community groups will support efforts to increase the proportion of residents owning their own housing. ACTION 7: The City shall work with public and private lenders and housing providers (such as Cook Inlet Housing Authority) to increase access to and knowledge of housing finance opportunities, require- ments and procedures, including establishment of a regular lend- ing office. 4-13 ACTION 8: The City will gauge its capital improvements program to serve the greatest number of developable building sites at least possible cost. This will be accomplished by using outside financial assistance, cost sharing by benefitted property owners, and following the Capital Improvement Program shown in Chapter 12. OBJECTIVE: Accomplish upgrading of existing, and establishment of additional, mobile homes and mobile home parks. Assure compatibility with surroundings if located on single lots. Actions to meet the mobile home housing objective are based upon a three part approach. The first is active, direct involvement in mobile home park develop- ment by the City. The second is the combination of the Cityfs efforts with those of other public and private organizations. The third part is.ensuring that proper design, siting and construction standards are followed. This approach is described in the following adopted policies and planned actions. POLICY: The City will provide additional mobile home housing opportunities built to acceptable standards and located so as to be compatible with other uses. ACTION 9: Identify desirable sites for additional mobile home parks based on land use plan (see Chapter 5, Figures 5-7 and 5-8). ACTION 10: Determine ownership of sites, and negotiate with owners for trade or purchase (with lease back), obtain grant assistance, develop park. ACTION 11: Determine most suitable operator for park; lease to private operator if feasible. ACTION 12: Review proposed platting and zoning actions involving potential mobile home housing with reference to mobile home park siting criteria contained in Chapter 5. POLICY: Existing mobile home parks shall be encouraged to improve facilities or to relocate if present location is not consistent with mobile home park siting criteria. ACTION 13: Determine feasibility of leasing operation and management of City-owned mobile home park to private operator. ACTION 14: Evaluate operation of existing mobile home parks with present owners, and assist owners to obtain financing for corrections to deficient aspects. ACTION 15: Enforce City building, housing, zoning and fire codes. OBJECTIVE: Maintain and improve the quality of existing and future housing. All of the possible solutions identified earlier are planned for implementation. Again, a significant number of sources of outside assistance can be utilized, with assistance geared to the financial ability of the homeowner to contribute. 4-14 POLICY: The City shall attempt to locate and bring to bear on housing quality problems outside sources of financial and technical assistance, scaled to the ability of residents to contribute their own resources. ACTION 16: Determine feasibility of establishing and implementing if accept- able, a partial exemption on increased property taxes due to home improvements for fixed length of time following completion of improvement. (For example, first 30 percent of assessed valuation increase due to improvement could be exempted from taxation for first three years). ACTION 17: Explore possibility and desirability of obtaining funding for technical assistance from State and Federal agencies for financing housing improvement through grants or loans. Es- tablish if desirable. OBJECTIVE: Determine and implement best and most equitable way to finance public services needed for new housing. The primary emphasis here would be to minimize costs of capital improvements through a capital improvements program aimed at serving the greatest number of developable lots for the least cost, thereby spreading costs over a larger number of users, and lowering per lot costs. Also., improved City financial management to provide a healthy General Fund can enable the City to better avail itself of State and Federal financial assistance. POLICY: Public services necessary to serve specific housing sites shall be financed primarily by available Borough, State and Federal assistance and benefitted property owners. General or Capital Improvements Fund revenues shall not be used unless benefitted property owners have contributed in proportion to benefits received from the service. ACTION 18: Explore and utilize Borough, State and Federal grant assistance wherever possible. ACTION 19: Explore and utilize special assessment districts (LID's), hook-up fees, subdivision service standards and other payment mechanisms to ensure that benefitted properties share cost in proportion to benefit received. ACTION 20: City establish Capital Improvements Fund, and make annual appropriations to it to provide "own source" of revenues to finance public improvements. OBJECTIVE: Increase number of building sites available. (Addressed under Actions 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12). OBJECTIVE: Control undesirable effects of seasonal housing and non-resident housing ownership. (Seasonal housing and non-resident housing ownership are addressed under Actions 1 through 6, 22 and 23. 4-15 Chapter 5 Land Use and Coastal Management Seldovia's use of the land reflects the natural constraints of the area. Buildings along the steep shoreline of the slough are built on pilings, while rock outcroppings and wetlands meander in and out of developed lots, creating a sense of open space. Contrasting this is the more recent urban renewal project, by the Alaska State Housing Authority, of the waterfront after the 1964 earthquake. This area is characterized by a large plain of fill used to restore waterfront areas to elevations above the range of high tides. ISSUES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Several issues have been identified regarding the way in which land is used in Seldovia. These issues include: (1) Lack of a strong sense of a commercial center in Seldovia. (2) Desire for stronger links (such as views, pedestrian access, etc.) to waterfront. (3) Desire to retain diversity, individuality and compatibility in community design. (4) Desire to preserve and maintain historic features of community (water- front housing, pioneer homes, churches, boardwalk, etc.) All of these issues point to a desire for the City to return-to the pre-urban renewal period, when the commercial district was more indentifiable, the link between the waterfront and the rest of the City was strong and greater diversity in community design prevailed. To address these issues, the following goal was developed: GOAL: Well-defined order to the land use fabric of Seldovia; continued development of Seldovia preserving, maintaining and enhancing valuable and unique features of the community. Five objectives define how the goal is to be achieved: (1) Update land use and community development plans to reflect current conditions, adopt and implement through zoning ordinance. (2) Ensure location of most commercial uses adjacent to existing commercial area. (3) Create strong physical links between waterfront and community through private and public actions. (4) Retain diversity and individuality in public and private development. (5) Preserve and enhance valuable.. unique and historic features of Seldovia. BACKGROUND Seldovia is situated in and around several steep hills and rock outcroppings, which have had two major effects on development of the community. The hilly setting provides the residents with a variety of vistas and interesting housing sites. These features lend not only character to the City but also provide open space relief from the relatively high density of buildings in developed areas of Seldovia. However, this natural condition renders the construction of roads and utilities both difficult and expensive. The hilly topography and areas of poor soils render approximately 77 acres within the city limits unsuitable for building. Another constraint on development is that the original platting of Seldovia was apparently done with little regard to topography. Platted, unimproved streets traverse steep grades, making many quite expensive and, in some cases, nearly impossible to construct. Also, existing roads have not always been established within the assigned right-of-ways. This causes conflicts between the City and the property owner on whose land the road crosses (see Chapter 8, Transportation). All of these factors contribute to the difficult task of developing Seldovia and the problems which the City is faced with in attempting to enforce municipal policies, codes and ordinances. Existing Land Use The land use pattern within the city limits of-Seldovia has not changed a great deal since the comprehensive plan was completed in 1969. Although residential use has increased throughout the City, the physical relationship between com- mercial and industrial activities are mostly located along the waterfront-of Seldovia Bay, while residential uses remain located on the uplands. Marine- oriented residential uses cluster around Seldovia Slough. Seldovia presently has approximately 25.50 acres of land used for residential purposes. With approximately 300 houses within the city limits, the.average residential density of Seldovia is very high, averaging 11.7 dwelling units per acre. The acreages for other uses are: commercial, 2.2 acres; industrial 4,0 acres; and public (school, churches, municipal buildings) 9.3 acres. Due to topography and the scar-city of large tracts of vacant land owned by a single party within the City, residential development pressure has occurred outside the city limits. To date, there has been no large scale residential development. However, a 97 lot subdivision has been proposed in the area of Fish Creek Watershed, and Seldovia Native Association, Inc. has conveyed to its members a large lot subdivision near Barabara Point along Kachemak Bay. Figures 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3 show present land use in Seldovia and existing land ownership patterns in Seldovia and vicinity. x: I X X ol V--X Legend "00"14 Residential Commercial Public Industrial Vacant SCAU IN FEET 400 WO 200 100 0 200 400 Figure 5 -1 co@ /A IM&DOW Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use W-IFIC RIM PLANN&W. 1W-. Seld6via Pt so:) ovia 2 'VA 2 5uu 3; RI X 695 IJ 30' 1486X M 06 Camel R- /z a M@TE j V. (x 1332 .. ...... i1v Watch; T 455 SELDOVIA 00 Ca X 157"*--... X 873 --@1857 wder I x 2474 1175 0 W Legend City EoState Federal Borough Private SCALEIN FEET 400 300 200 100 0 200 400 Figure 5-3 PACM MH PU*#TM 1W_ Comprehensive Land Ownership Plan PACIFIC RIM PLANN&R6, IW-. Zoning The City of Seldovia, with approval of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, has selected the method of zoning to regulate land use within the City. Presently, the City has both a zoning contract and zoning ordinance. The contract covers the lands within the Alaska State Housing Authority (ASHA) sponsored, urban renewal area, and the ordinance covers all areas of the City. Although diffe- rent, the two documents seem, on the surface, to be compatible. Under Alaskan law, planning, platting and zoning powers for land and areas both within and outside of Seldovia are vested with the Kenai Peninsula Borough. By decision of the Borough Assembly, advisory powers have been delegated to the City of Seldovia. Planning, platting and zoning powers are referred to the Seldovia Advisory Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation prior to Borough action. Planning ordinances (such as zoning or subdivision codes or plan adoption actions) are also referred to the City Council, and are often adopted without amendment by the Borough Assembly. ALASKA STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY (ASHA) CONTRACT Effective as of November 5, 1971, the contract between the City of Seldovia and ASHA was established for a period of 40 years and encompasses the urban renewal area along the waterfront of Seldovia Bay. The contract classifies and defines five basic uses - residential, commercial, marine commercial, industrial and public. However, there appears to be an inconsistency between the zoning contract text and the zoning map attached to the contract. The zoning map reflects a zone entitled commercial-residential (CR) for which there is no provision in the contract document text. SELDOVIA ZONING ORDINANCE During the spring of 1979, the Seldovia City Council approved a zoning ordinance expending land use controls to portions of the City outside of the ASHA urban renewal area. This ordinance was subsequently adopted by the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly. The ordinance classifies and defines six basic uses. These include residential, residential special multi-family, waterfront, commercial residential, commercial, marine commercial and industrial. All but marine commercial are represented on the zoning map adopted by the Borough. The ordinance also accepted the terms of the ASHA contract. The ordinance and contract, as noted, seem to be compatible, with the exception of the commercial districts. The ASHA contract allows single family, duplex, and multi-family residential development in commercial areas. The only residential developments allowed in the regular commercial districts are complexes with more than four dwelling units. Most land in the City is zoned in the RG (Residential General) and WCR (Water- front Commercial Residential) categories. Table 5-1 summarizes the total area of land classified into each of the zoning categories. Due to the relatively unrestrictive nature of the zoning ordinance and zoning contract, a variety of land use patterns could be realized. Of the eight district classifications, four allow commercial development, and six allow 5-9 TABLE 5-1 AMOUNTS OF LAND IN SELDOVIA ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS ACRES PERCENT ZONE CLASSIFICATION (INCLUDES ROAD) OF TOTAL Residential General (RG) 115.5 42.2 Residential Special Family (RSM) 1.8 0.6 Waterfront, Commercial Residential (WCR) 104.6 38.2 Commercial Residential (CR) 15.0 5.5 Commercial (C) 11.0 4.0 Commercial Marine (CM) 6.4 2.3 Industrial (1) 11.6 4.2 Public (P) 8.0 3.0 TOTAL 273.9 100.0 Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. some type of residential development. In general, however, commercial and industrial uses will be concentrated along the waterfront of Seldovia Bay. The only exception to this is an eleven acrea area zoned commercial on the southeastern side of Winifred and Anderson Way, across from the school. This commercial area is surrounded by residentially zoned land. The uplands not adjacent to the water are zoned residential, with single and multi-family residential use allowed. Lands.adjacent to Seldovia Slough are classified Waterfront Commercial Residential (WCR). This.district allows single family and multi-family residential use and commercial use as long as they meet specific performance standards. As defined in the ordinances, each district (with the exception of (RSA) allows many different and potentially conflicting uses. Because of this condition, it is important to monitor the effects and impacts of any of the possible or allowable uses on the adjacent neighborhoods and the City as a whole. Should it be found that the impacts of one use upon others in a dis- trict are undesirable, this use should be either eliminated or measures taken to reduce the impacts. Figure 5-4 shows existing zoning district boundaries, and Figure 5-5 reviews -the zoning districts in terms of their purpose, possible uses, and potential impacts between allowable uses. As the chart indicates, land use conflicts have the potential to occur where a variety of uses are permissable in a single zone. Most noticeable conflicts; are likely to occur in the Residential General District (RG) and the Waterfront Commercial Residential District (WCR). 5-10 P RG WCR CR M. P R Legend 001,14 RG Residential General '04k Res! dential Special RSA Apt. C Commercial CM Commercial Marine R Commercial CR Residential WCR Waterfront RG Commercial Res. I Industrial P Public SCALEIN FEET 400 300 200 loo 0 200 400 Figure 5-4 PACIM W LDOWU Pu*wmlw-. I Comprehensive Existing Zoning Plan PACIM RIM MMKR6, INC.. FIGURE 5-5 PERMISSABLE LAND USE ACTIVITIES AND POSSIBLE CONFLICTS IN SELDOVIA ZONING DISTRICTS USES OF ACTIVITIES 4) 0 ly 171n@ 6) 71Y 0 0 *'Y qj C) vU 0 N 0 IV 10, @y 14 (0 44 .0 6) 0" ej 0 '0 -1Y -Y -Y qj- 'V '^Y" C,* -4j qj 0 'U POTENTIAL IMPACTS *4(@' Aj 4 Zr Xe I& @@' p V qj WITHIN DISTRICT DISTRICT PURPOSE C@ lq@ C@ 'Q" RG Residential High Density MF & MH Impacts Development 0 0 0 0 SF W/Traffic Noise,Light Etc. RSA Elderly Multi- None Family High Density MF & MH Impacts WRC Mixed Use 00000 0 0 SF W/Traf f ic Noise, Li g-ht Etc, Residential CR Commercial None Mix I 1"MF Impacted By Commercial C Business Development Water CM Dependent 0 0 Commercial Impacts Residential Uses Industrial I Uses None P Public Uses None Legend: P0 Permissable use in districts Not permissable use in district Residential General (RG) District Within this district, permitted uses include single family, multi-family (less than 5 dwelling units per acre), mobile homes and home occupations. The major possible conflicts between these uses stem from their varying densities. Multi- family and mobile home park developments generally have more dwelling units per acre and therefore more traffic, people, noise and glare, all of which impact the single family residents. This impact could be recognized by either estab- lishing a high density residential district or by establishing measures to mitigate the impacts. 'This could be accomplished by requiri,ng features such as buffer strips, parking standards, street development standards, yard require- ments, and the like. Waterfront Commercial Residential (WCR) District This district stresses multiple uses ranging from commercial development to single family use. Unlike the other districts, WCR requires that each permitted use meet a series of performance standards. General in nature, the performance standards may not be strong enough to reduce possible conflicts between adjacent residential and commercial uses (such as no noise limitations between adjacent residential and commercial uses). The overall designation of the various zones in the City is good. Each zone reflects the dominant use of the area with the exception of the commercial zone along Winifred and Anderson Way across from the Seldovia School. This area was zoned in this designation as a means of responding to and controlling the effects of residential growth north of the city limits. This commercial area was intended to serve these non-city residents without their having to go into the "center" of town. Also, this may be the only presently vacant area within existing city limits capable of accommodating expanded commercial uses oriented to traffic from outlying areas. There are three major drawbacks to this designation. First,.the fact that many other services, such as the post office, city offices, and community health center which the non-city residents come to Seldovia for, are located in the central area of the City. A second drawback to consider is that a city of Seldovials size is not likely to be able to support two commercial areas. Finally, the Winifred/Anderson Way commercial area has the potential to nega- tively impact adjacent land uses, particularly the school and surrounding residential properties. One additional classification which is needed in the zoning ordinance is a high density residential zone designated for multi-family and mobile home units. By including this designation, multi-family uses can be dropped from the list of permissable uses in the RG and WCR Zones, and the impacts of this high density use on predominantly single family neighborhoods could be reduced. Typically, multi-family and mobile home residential uses are located on the fringes of commercial areas. In the case of Seldovia, however, these lands are either already developed or are undevelopable. The Homer Electric Associationts power plant at the intersection of Anderson Way and Winifred Avenue has been given special treatment in the zoning ordinance due to its unique status. Currently used only during power outages, the plant 5-15 assures continuous electric power to fish processing plants and the community, and is consequently of great importanc-6 to the Seldovia economy. Even though other industrial uses are not encouraged in this area, the HEA power plant site has been zoned Industrial to ensure that zoning will not be an impediment to continued operation of the plant or- reconstruction in the event that the plant is destroyed by fire. SITING HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES Multi-family housing, mobile home parks and other high density uses have proven to be difficult to site without impacting adversely on other uses. General criteria which could be used to site high density residential development indicate that such uses should be located: � In areas of compatible land use and surrounding environments; � In areas with adequate utility and road support systems; � In areas with reasonable convenience to community facilities; � In areas of similar density, such as a mobile home density of 4 to 7 dwelling units per acre; � In areas of logical extension of infilling (development of vacant land in otherwise developed areas) or existing urban growth pattern; � In areas where soil conditions, groundwater level, drainage, flooding and topography does not create hazards to the property or the health and safety of the residents; � In areas which are not subject to adverse influences of adjacent land uses. Applying these criteria to the existing conditions in Seldovia, there appear to be three sites which could be developed as high density residential areas without significant adverse impacts on either the surrounding community or future residents of the area. The first potential site is located in the northwest corner of Seldovia on the northwest side of Main Street, opposite Spring and Kodiak Streets. The area is presently zoned Industrial, although residential-general zoned lands are adjacent to both the west and east. The site is also adjacent to the existing mobile home park. The advantage of this site is that it is on a major street, is relatively flat, is served by utilities and will probably not adversely affect adjacent land uses. The second possible site is located on Anderson Way, on or near the school property adjacent to the school. The area is presently zoned Residential- General, and is somewhat restricted due to slope. This site is advantageous for high density use because it is close to community facilities, is on a major street and is served by utilities. The third possible site is located near Site 2 on Anderson Way. It is bounded on the north by Malcom Street, on the east by Spillum Street and on the south by Young Street. This site is also served by existing utilities, is near a major street and is near community facilities. The area is presently zoned commercial. The site is limited by wet soils and seasonally swampy conditions, and would have to be filled and drained to accommodate intensive residential development. 5-16 Each of the three sites could meet the suggested criteria mentioned above. Design of the development is critical, however, in determining the extent of impacts on the community design. Elements such as buffer strips, individual lot fencing and screens, assigned parking areas, and aesthetic considerations will considerably affect the acceptability of high density housing development. Accommodating Future Development At the. present time, Seldovia is feeling some growth pressure from residential developers. In the future, if the intermediate or high growth scenarios are achieved, this pressure will likely increase. The decisions on land use which the City makes now will determine if the impact of growth is positive or nega- tive. Buildable vacant land within city limits currently totals 27 acres. Based upon population and employment projections, there appears to be adequate land available within the City to accommodate commercial, industrial and public uses. However, the amount of residential buildable land available in the City can only accommodate about 35 single family homes. This means that much of the residential growth will probably be located outside the present city limits, unless additional developable areas are annexed. Table 5-2 summarizes projected additional land use demands versus availability under the intermediate scenario. TABLE 5-2 PROJECTED ADDITIONAL LAND REQUIREMENTS VERSUS AVAILABILITY WITHIN CITY LIMITS UNDER INTERMEDIATE GROWTH SCENARIO 1980 - 2000 LAND USE PROJECTED ADDITIONAL Present Availability LAND REQUIREMENTS, of Vacant, Suitably 1980 - 2000 (Acres) Zoned Land Within City Limits" (Acres) Residential 200.* 14.0 Commercial 3.14 4.43 Industrial 2.57 4.76 Public (Not Including Parks) .60 2.34 Based on low density lots (1 dwelling unit/2 acres) in planning area, outside city limits, assuming no public sewer or water service is available. Based upon the amount of land zoned for specific use which does not have overly high water table or slope greater than 20%. In zones which allowed more than one category of use, existing development ratio between uses was applied. Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. RESOURCE LIMITATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT Major limitations to residential growth such as steep slopes and poor drainage lie on all sides of the City. Several criteria were used to identify devel- 5-17 opable lands outside the City. These included the degree of slope, soil perme- ability, proximity to existing roads and land ownership. The degree of sl.ope affects development because it is usually more expensive to build upon steeply sloped (20 percent grade or more) than on moderately sloped or level ground. Not only are building costs higher, but utility and road construction costs are also usually higher. Although individual site conditions and building design vary, 25 percent grade is typically used as an upper limit of slope for most buildable lands. (Home building and other develop- ment can utilize steeper slopes, but only at the expense of extensive site preparation and foundation work). Based on this criteria, developable lands include only those which are less than 25 percent slope in addition to meeting other criteria. Soils play an important role in the determination of buildable lands. For this analysis, developable lands also excluded those whose soils are poorly drained, susceptible to flooding, slides or massive earth movement. The degree to which access and city services can be provided depends on the utilization of existing roads and rights-ot-way. Again considering cost as a limiting factor, buildable lands were limited to those within 2,000 feet of exist.ing roads. Lands in public ownership are indicated separately as areas potentially unavailable for residential expansion. Applying these criteria to the land, Figures 5-6 and 5-7 show the location of lands inside and outside of the present city limits which are available for future development. If either the intermediate or high growth scenarios are realized, particularly in the absence of additional land use controls, it is likely that residential expansion (at varying densities) would occur throughout the area mapped as "developable". Buildable land outside Seldovia's city limits exists in a largely lineal pattern north and south of the City. As Figure 5-7 shows, a great percentage of land potentially available for development lies directly south and east of Seldovia Point. Additional land is available contiguous to the north and south boundaries of the city limits, south of Fish Creek Watershed, and, based on physical capa- bility alone, within selected portions of lower Fish Creek Watershed. The Fish Creek Watershed poses particular problems when considered for the purposes of residential expansion. These factors will be discussed separately in Chapter 6. Given continued use of Fish Creek as a public water supply source and enactment by the City of recommended watershed management controls;, however, growth would essentially be restricted to two areas in the lower portion of the watershed. Considerable land (approximately 186 acres) is required outside the City to meet projected residential growth needs. This requirement could be met partially through development within the two "developable" areas contiguous to the north and south boundaries of the City. Lower density development could also be accommodated east of Seldovia Point. 5-18 Legend oN I 00"14 Natural Constraints Inhibiting Development Det @IniU n of Natural Constraints boundaries basZ on analysis of topography, soils and wet- land zon- Topography greater than 25t deemed r..itable for d-lop,ent. @4 IT ... I SCALE IN rEET loo o Figure 5-6 Natural Constraints Comprehensive Plan Inhibiting Development PACIFIC RIM PLANNrRO, 114C. Selddvia Pr f16 SoO ovia 2 3 X 6ox; 0 '30" r6 P % 1486X ............ Gry 4;IW '1506 or Camel 40CO N ............. Watch' ... ........ 31:: SELDOVIA 110 Ca ... ....... x 57'X tect* ....... 73) Q deft os -A tliei wit .1i X 2474 owi g s N Consistency With Alaska Coastal Management Program Although not a complete district program, this comprehensive plan addresses many of the items required of local districts (cities and boroughs) by the State under terms of the Alaska Coastal Management Act of 1977. Appendix C contains a listing of the requirements contained in the Alaska Administrative Code, the guidelines which are addressed in this plan and sections of this plan which best address the guidelines or standards. Summary Most new residential development within the next five years will likely occur on the northern edge of the City. Utilizing pockets of buildable lands, the natural constraints (steep slopes, poor soils) will create open spaces between clusters of homes, much the same as the existing development in the City. Lot size will vary but will likely be two acres per dwelling unit or more depending on the site conditions.. unless both sewer and water service is extended to these areas. Lands to the south of the City, in the lower part of the Fish Creek Watershed, will likely stay undeveloped until the Fish Creek Reservoir is either relocated or the City no longer depends on Fish Creek as a public water supply source (see Chapter 6). If this is accomplished, some of the lower watershed could be used for development (under certain restrictions, see Chapter 6). Due to the recently improved access to this area, development on the fringes of the watershed will likely occur in the near future. As the City grows, annexation, expanded zoning, extension of services and/or special service districts become viable considerations if controlled and measured growth continue to be desired. PLANNED SOLUTIONS Based on the preceeding discussion, planned solutions center on two separate areas. These include minor revisions to the present zoning ordinances, and actions to encourage desirable development in suitable areas while discouraging undesirable development in poorly suited areas (both within and outside of the city limits). The planned actions emphasize cooperation between public agencies (such as the City and the Borough) and private parties (such as land developers) to develop workable solutions with minimal delays, unnecessary costs or need- less environmental degradation. GOAL: Well-defined order to the land use fabric of Seldovia; continued development of Seldovia preserving, maintaining and enhancing valuable, unique features of the community. OBJECTIVE: Update land use and community development plans to reflect current conditions. POLICY: Update land use and community development plans to reflect current conditions. 5-23 ACTION21: The Alaska State Housing Authority (ASHA) Zoning Contract should be modified to reflect the Seldovia zoning ordinance to ease the enforcement of regulations of development. The procedures for modification are included in the ASHA ammendatory application for loans and grants for Seldovia, Alaska, Part 1, August 24.', 1970 and Part I I, November 5, 1971. ACTION22: New residential development should be encouraged on buildable land first, within the city limits and then on lands to the north of the City (see Action on Watershed Protection Ordinance). ACTION23: The City can provide incentive to areas in the City where resi- dential development is desired, such as reducing utility hook-up charges. ACTION24. Land developers shall be responsible for ensuring adequate access and utilities to the development to lessen the economic impact upon the City and the townspeople. ACT I ON 25: The Residential - General (RG) and Waterfront - Commercial - Resi- dential (WCR) districts should not include multi-family as a permitted use.. OBJECTIVE: Ensure location of most commercial uses adjacent to existing commercial areas. POLICY: Commercial and industrial developments shall be limited to the land within the City presently zoned for these uses. ACT I ON 26: Implement revised city zoning ordinance. ACT I ON 27. Proponents of new commercial or industrial activities, proposed for outside the commercial core shall be subject to specific setbacks, buffers and height restrictions to lessen the activity's impact. The proponent shall also justify the location in terms of land use, traffic, circulation and utilities. OBJECTIVE: Create strong physical links between waterfront and community through private and public development. POLICY: Wherever possible, public access and amenities shall be included in any commercial development along the waterfront.@ These may include walkways, sitting areas, viewpoints, etc. POLICY: The City shall ensure that street and road improvements emphasize linkage with waterfront and include provisions for pedestrians. OBJECTIVE: Retain diversity and individuality in public and private development. POLICY: The City shall establish a high density residential district to accom- modate multi-family and mobile home park development. This district should allow a density of from 4 to 10 dwelling units per acre and require adequate parking, outdoor living space and buffers from adjacent uses. 5-24 OBJECTIVE: Preserve and enhance valuable, unique and historic features of Seldovia. POLICY: The proponent of new developments shall ensure that the natural resources of the developed land or adjacent areas are not unduly impacted by their actions or resulting activities. ACTION2&- The City will control development in Lower Fish Creek Watershed and restrict it in the Upper Fish Creek Watershed by a watershed protection ordinance (see Appendix B), ACTION29: The City will create an open space taxing district which would include unbuildable lands (steep, rocky slopes, wet, marsh lands) to preserve the natural elements and land forms which are a part of the character of Seldovia. The open space taxing district will be a voluntary agreement between the property owner and the City. No development or substantial modifications of these lands would be allowed; in exchange, the property owner's taxes on this portion of land would be reduced. LAND USE PLAN The land use plan (Figure 5-8) was developed to illustrate the land use goals, objectives, policies and actions. The plan embodies general designations of commercial, residentialP industrial and public uses. The plan, unlike a zoning ordinance, shows the intent of the City towards land use in Seldovia. On the other hand, zoning is one of many legal and administrative devices by which city plans may be implemented. Some of the confusion between a zoning ordinance and a land use plan stems from the fact that many cities have adopted zoning ordinances before embarking on full scale plan. An adopted zoning ordinance without a carefully worked out plan may: o Tend to freeze development in the existing pattern. o Produce wholly unexpected results, frequently of an undesirable nature. o Soon be amended to such an extent, on behalf of individual property owners that no comprehensive pattern of development in the City can be recognized. A land use plan gives expression to other than the materialistic aspirations of the people of the community. The plan should be: o A balanced and attractive general design suited to present and projected needs. o In scale with the population and economic prospects of the Community in scale with the community's financial resources. o In keeping with community sentiments. The land use plan generally follows the work done by the City on the zoning ordinance and graphically indicates the comprehensive planning effort. Many 5-25 of the concepts and land use modifications shown in the plan have been dis- cussed in the previous text. In cases of apparent conflict between the zoning ordinance and the existing land use, the plan does not demand immediate changes. Differences between existing and planned uses dictate only that changes in use take place after the economic life of existing structures hasexpired and new structures are proposed. Even though the HEA power plant is in an area suited for non-industrial uses the plant site is designated for industrial use in view of the significant benefit bestowed on the community by the plant. In the future, when individuals make application for zoning changes or variances, the Advisory Planning and Zoning Commission can refer to the land use plan to determine the overall use intent of the area in question, to assist in their decision. Land use decisions can be more easily made and justified when they are compatible with an overall plan. 5-26 HIGH T DENS RE PUBLIC AIRPORT R ID PUBLI M ED U C M ESIDE TIAL Legend MIXED USE R AL MIXED E SCALEIN FEET 400 300 200 100 0 200 400 Figure 5-8 PU*NrA%, 1w- Comprehensive Planned Land Use Plan PACIFIC RIM PLANNGRO, WIC. Chapter 6 Watershed Management The City of Seldovia draws its water supply from two sources. The smal ler of the two, the Upper Watershed, has an area of nearly 600 acres and feeds a five million gallon reservoir at an elevation of 600 feet above sea level. The larger, Fish Creek Watershed, is about 2450 acres in area and feeds a small reservoir and pump station across Seldovia Slough from the city. Both watersheds, as well as much of the surrounding area, are underlain by igneous and metamorphic rock. Although this rock contains some groundwater in fractures and faults, its crystalline structure prevents percolation of any large quantities of water. Rather, the rainfall, after seeping through the soil and contacting the bedrock, runs off until it emerges as surface water feeding a stream. The annual average of 28 inches of precipitation, therefore largely runs off into the streams, yielding an average of up to nine cubic feet per second from the-two watersheds. The geology also influences the formation of soils in the watersheds. Because the rock does not break down rapidly, the soils appear to be made up largely of partially decomposed organic material from vegetation. In the planning area this soil type reaches its greatest extent in the valley bottoms through which the streams meander. On the steeper side slopes of the valleys the soil is thinner and, because of the slope, more likely to erode. The peaty soil of the valley bottoms appears to have poor structural characteristics, making these areas generally unsuitable as construction sites without considerable site preparation. The Fish Creek Watershed is densely forested with Sitka spruce and western hemlock, with a thick understory of blueberry, salmonberry, devil's club and other shrubs. Along the streambed, openings in the tree canopy permit the growth of thickets of willow and Sitka alder. Poorly drained depressions scattered throughout the watershed, unable to support tree growth, are vegetated with grasses, rushes and sedges. The Upper Watershed is less forested, due partly to its higher elevation and partly to the incomplete inland migration of Sitka spruce from the shoreline. While spruces partly cover the west slope of the watershed, the east slope is vegetated largely by alder and other high brush species. Alder and willow thickets follow the streambank here as well, but away from the stream the valley bottom is an open meadow of grasses, lupine, fireweed and yarrow, with scattered clumps of shrubs. Neither stream is large; even Fish Creek, the larger of the two, seldom exceeds a foot in depth and eight feet in width. Nevertheless, they respond rapidly to rain, and can flow quite swiftly, eroding sediment from exposed banks and shifting gravel bars. 6-1 The average f lows of about seven cubic feet per second (cfs) in Fish Creek and between one and two cfs in the Upper Reservoir Creek, if evenly distributed and sufficiently stored, could provide water enough for a city of nearly nine thousand people (including two seafood processing plants) at Seldovials rate of water use. Figure 6-1 shows the location and configuration of the two watersheds. ISSUES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Unfortunately the water supply is sometimes deficient in both quantity and quality. Freeze-up in the winter and dry spells in the summer lower the water supply to the reservoirs. These shortages are exacerbated when they coincide with peak water use by the seafood industry and inefficient water use in many homes. Water quality is another problem. Although neither watershed is subject to a great deal of activity at present, the ownership patterns and one sub- division proposal in the Fish Creek Watershed point toward increased activity there by people, their pets and their vehicles, all of which can contaminate the water supply. Even with present levels of activity in the watershed, bacterial counts in the City's drinking water have sometimes been measured at high levels. As of early 1980, the water is not treated, but will soon be filtered and chlorinated; this process will probably successfully treat existing contaminaints, but may not be sufficient if additional contamination occurs. An additional issue centers around possible approaches to watershed manage- ment. Many approaches adopted by other municipalities have proved so restrictive that land use in the watersheds has been severely curtailed. In the case of Seldovia, much of the land viewed as an area for community expansion lies in the Fish Creek watershed. There are concerns in the community that protection of the water supply and private use of land near the city are incompatible. Recognizing these problems, three major issues were identified to be addressed in this watershed management plan: ISSUES: (1) Seldovia's water supply is sometimes deficient in both quantity and quality. (2) Potential watershed management measures may be unduly restrictive. (3) Public uses of watershed lands may conflict with private objectives (e.g., not all of the land in -the Fish Creek Watershed is currently owned by the City). To address these issues, this plan includes the following goal and supporting objectives: 6-2 Seld6via ovia 2 ...............2 Of 10 3 ou x 695 V in . ..... b 30' Gry iff 0 Camel Rock v V-- t .... ............ Watch' 31 .....3 SELDOVIA on 4 U: CAI C) X 167 le 73) UN rj der 9* F h /,-j 74 1175 .......... GOAL: Adequate quantity and quality of the City's water supplies without unnecessary restrictions on otherwise desirable development or use of private and public lands. OBJECTIVES: (1) Prevent deterioration in quality of City's existing water supply sources. (2) Assure adequate quantity of water to serve existing and projected demand. (3) Minimize conflict between private land development and watershed management needs. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS Seldovia is faced with an already unsatisfactory water supply that, without prompt and adequate remedial action, is likely to become worse. There are a number of possible solutions, however, that address the problems of water quantity and water quality. These alternatives center around changing the present watershed alignment and source of water, and exercising more City control over the use of the watersheds. Alternatives To Present Watershed Alignment GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT Although many towns of Seldovia's size derive their water from deep wells, the prospects for developing groundwater in Seldovia are not good. The area is underlain largely by crystalline rock which is nearly impermeable to water. Very little water can percolate into the rock, and very little water can be extracted from it. Recent test wells drilled in the area by the U.S. Geo- logical Survey have yielded only small quantities of groundwater, insufficient for a municipal water supply. DIVERSION FROM BARABARA CREEK OR SELDOVIA RIVER Either of these streams would likely provide a reliable source of water of sufficient quantity and quality for a town several times the size of Seldovia. The cost of diversion and several miles of pipeline construction, however, may be massive, and would probably be difficult for the City to accomplish alone. Should the City experience a great deal of population growth (such as might come from OCS oil drilling activity) and obtain additional funding, either Barabara Creek or the Seldovia River would be a likely prospect for a water supply. Continued coordination with the Borough, the State and the Seldovia Native Association, Inc. will be necessary to maintain the integrity of these watersheds for future use. 6-5 DIVERSION FROM FISH CREEK WATERSHED TO UPPER WATERSHED The gentle drainage divide separating the head of the Upper Watershed from the Fish Creek Watershed appears to be a possible site for a water diversion, project. Cutting through this divide would allow some water now flowing into Fish Creek to flow into the Upper Reservoir. The advantage of such a diversion is that water which presently must be pumped from the Fish Creek Reservoir to the City would flow by gravity from the Upper Reservoir. In addition, if lower Fish Creek became too polluted to use as a water supply, the diverted water would probably remain safe in the Upper Reservoir. The amount of wate ir which could be diverted inexpensively would be small, however. Only four small tributaries, draining 165 acres of watershed, could be easily diverted toward the Upper Reservoir. Such a project would add a mean annual flow of only 1.03 cfm to the Upper Reservoir's creek, increasing it by only 25 percent above its present flow. It would also, of course, reduce the flow of Fish Creek by that amount as well. A further drawback to the project is that the water to be diverted originates at high elevations (mostly from over 1000 feet above sea level) and would likely be subject to the same winter freeze-ups which currently plague the Upper Watershed. UPSTREAM IMPOUNDMENT OF FISH CREEK The present location of the Fish Creek Reservoir near the creek's mouth allows the reservoir to receive all the water flowing into Fish Creek. It also makes the water supply vulnerable to sedimentation, bacterial contamina- tion, or chemical pollution from anywhere in the watershed. If there is to be development in that watershed, it will likely be located in the lower portion near the city. An impoundment located above the developed area would help protect the water supply from activities which might pollute the lower reaches of the creek. A likel@ location for such an impoundment is about 6,000 feet upstream from the present reservoir (see Figure 6-1). The largest tributary enters Fish Creek at this location, bringing the flow to near its maximum level. The site is upstream from the Backer Farm and would probably be safe from activ- ities there if the farm is subdivided. This alternative might also allow the establishment of permanent salmon runs in the lower part of Fish Creek. Although the streamflow at this site appears suitable, the topography and soils may not be. No engineering or cost estimates have been undertaken to determine whether an impoundment at this site is feasible. This alternative would also have the disadvantage of requiring the City to abandon its recently constructed reservoir at the mouth of Fish Creek. Upstream impoundment, if feasible, would reduce or eliminate costs of pumping water from the present reservoir, and could lessen or obviate the need for a storage tank. However, its feasibility should be evaluated in greater detail prior to committing funds for either reservoir relocation or storage tank construction. 6-6 RAISING OR RELOCATING THE UPPER RESERVOIR DAM Because the main problems with the Upper Reservoir center around water quantity rather than quality, it might be possible to increase the reservoir's storage capacity by raising the level of the dam, or by relocating the dam downstream. Because the dam is built in a canyon, with the sides continuing to rise gradually to the east and west, raising the level of the dam even a few feet would very likely add considerably to the reservoir's storage capacity. Increasing the depth would also increase the effective winter storage, or the amount of water which remains unfrozen and available for use in the winter. No engineering analyses have been conducted to determine whether the structure of the dam or underlying soi I structure would be suitable for such additions, however. Relocating the dam downstream is another possibility that could improve the total storage capacity, and the effective winter storage. A downstream location would have a lower elevation and would be subject to less freezing weather. Such a location would also draw water from a larger area, and would therefore receive more streamflow. Depending on the location, it would likely have better access from Seldovia, which would facilitate maintenance. As with the previous alternative, relocating the dam would require a good deal of engineering in advance, and the construction cost would be considerable. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ,Regardless of which alternative in watershed alignment Seldovia uses, pro- tecting the water supply will require that the City, Borough and State take a more active stance in managing the watershed(s). The following alternatives are based on the need for a safe, reliable water supply. They vary, however, in the approach to maintain this. Where some alternatives protect the water supply at the source, others allow some pollution of the source, but require treatment before the water can be used. Open Watershed This alternative would permit residential development, roads, etc., with State- required setbacks from the stream. There would be no restrictions on recrea- tional activities in the watershed. Logging would be permitted with controls to protect the stream corridor. Water quality in the stream would likely deteriorate under this alternative. People and their pets, vehicles and their exhaust and oil leaks, and storm- water runoff from roofs, driveways and roads would contaminate the stream with bacteria, sediment and unsafe chemicals. To maintain the water supply, the City would have to install and operate a full water treatment plant, utilizing chemical floculation, fine filtration and chlorination. Such a facility would cost several million dollars to construct. 6-7 Open Watershed With Controls The sophistication and cost of the water treatment could be reduced if the uses of the watershed are subject to some controls. In this alternative, residential development and associated roads would be permitted with State- required setbacks from the stream and mandatory city sewer hookups. The set- backs would be reinforced with fencing installed in areas along the stream where people would be likely to walk or drive. Recreational and other activ- ities would be permitted but only at a distance from the stream. Logging would also be permitted with controls and setbacks to protect the stream. Because the access to the stream would be limited, the pollution of the water supply would probably be less than in an open watershed. In this alternative, the water could probably be safely treated with a chlorination and limited filtration system such as the City plans to install this year. Restricted Watershed Development would be less extensive and stream access more restricted in this alternative. The upper reaches of the watershed would be available for limited recreational use (such as hiking, berry-picking, etc., but not fishing or overnight camping). Where development is permitted it would be required to meet a strict set of performance standards to protect the water quality. City sewers would be required (most of the costs paid for by the developer) and all storm drainage from houses, yards and roads would be diverted out of the watershed or downstream from the reservoir. Access to the stream and reservoir would be restricted by fencing, with trespassers subject to mandatory fines. Logging would be permitted outside the stream corridor with controls to limit sedimentation into the stream. Because this alternative would provide a high degree of protection to the water supply, the treatment needs would be reduced and a simple chlorination system would probably be adequate. Closed Watershed This alternative would permit no access to the watershed except for carefully controlled logging at some distance from the stream. Fencing and/or other enforcement would be necessary to restrict the access. Even with a closed watershed and little or no access, a chlorination system would be needed to control natural outbreaks of bacteria in the water supply. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY Seldovia has available several viable methods that it can use to implement one or more of the above alternatives. In addition, the Borough, the State and even the Federal government can provide legal and administrative authority to assist the City in its watershed management efforts. 6-8 City And Borough Regulatory Authority Inside the city limits, Seldovia has most of the powers of an Alaskan First Class city, subject to several important exceptions. First class powers allow, for example, the City to pass an ordinance regulating building or electrical wiring practices, require lndividual@, to apply for permits, issue, condition or deny permits, and assesss civil or criminal penalties upon in- dividuals who fail to comply. An important exception to the City's powers are the areawide planning, platting and zoning powers held by the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Under Alaskan law, boroughs have authority to plan, plat and zone all areas, both incorporated and unincorporated, of the Borough. Under terms of the Seldovia district zoning ordinance, Seldovia has been accorded responsibility for administrating the zoning ordinance within its boundaries. Decisions on zone changes and zoning outside of Seldovials City limits, still are made by the Borough. Most of Seldovials watershed area is outside the city limits, however, and, were it not for one provision of the Alaska Statutes, the City might have little control over its watershed. However, State Law, in AS 29.48.037, gives cities broad authority over land in their watershed, even if outside of city limits. Seldovia could, for instance, pass an ordinance to protect its watershed; that ordinance would carry the force of law both inside and outside the city limits. Depending on the form of the controls (for example, building permits versus zoning), Borough approval would also be needed before Seldovia could enforce such an ordinance. As an alternative to this extraterritorial jurisdiction, the City can consider annexing the land in the watersheds. The pros and cons of annexation are discussed further in Chapter 10. While the City might choose to provide some municipal services and utilities to residents of the area, it has the option, through a watershed management ordinance, to prohibit any residential con- struction in the watershed, and thereby limit the number of.persons who can demand city services. Again, legal clarification and/or Borough concurrence would be needed prior to implementing such controls. Of course, if the City passes an ordinance, it is responsible to enforce that ordinance. The limited funding and manpower available to the City must be considered before it adopts restrictive measures. There are fortunately several other ways for the City to ensure some protection of its watersheds without using its own regulatory authority. These methods include proprietary authority and coordination with State and Federal agencies to take advantage of their authorities. City Proprietary Authority One way for Seldovia to control the land in its watershed without regulating private land is to own the land itself. With the exception of the reservoirs, the City does not own the land in its watersheds. Most of the land in the Fish Creek Watershed is owned by private individuals,, developers, and the Seldovia Native Association Upper Watershed, land ownership lies largely with the State and the SNA 6-9 (See Figure 5-2,,Chapter 5). Although the City has limited funds with which to purchase these lands, it might, through arrangement with SNA under the provisions of Section 14(c)(3) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, obtain title to the most critical areas of the watershed. This possibility is discussed further, with illustrative maps, in Chapter 10. State Authority The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has two roles which relate to management of Seldovials watersheds. First, it is responsible for monitoring and regulating water quality (for drinking water as well as other uses). In that capacity DEC can prohibit activities which cause, or are likely to cause, the water quality to deteriorate below its published standards (Table 6-1). DEC also has the authority to approve or disapprove of sewage disposal systems. Any septic tanks or other sewage collection and disposal systems proposed for the watersheds must meet DEC guidelines. These guidelines are currently being revised, but it appears that they will prohibit any sewage disposal system, including municipal sewer connections, within 200 feet of a public water supply. (18 AAC 72.020(d) and 18 AAC 80.020(d), Table A). TABLE 6-1 SELECTED PARAMETERS OF STATE OF ALASKA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY (AS APPLIED TO SELDOVIAfS DRINKING WATER) PARAMETER LEVEL Fecal Coliform Bacteria (FC) Mean shall not exceed 20FC/100ml. No more than 10% of the samples shall exceed 40FC/100ml. Dissolved Gas Dissolved oxygen shall be greater than 4.Omg/1. pH 6.0 to 8.5. Turbidity Shall not exceed 5 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units). When natural turbidity is 50 NTU or less; no more than 10% increase in turbidity. When natural condition exceeds 50 NTU, not to exceed a maximum increase of 25 NTU. Temperature Shall not exceed 15*C. Source: 18 AAC 70.020.(b) Any development proposed within the watersheds must, therefore, meet DEC's standards for sewage disposal, and must also satisfy DEC that it will not harm the water supply through any means besides sewage disposal, such as stormwater runoff, pets, etc. 6-10 If, after revision, the DEC guidelines do not appea 'r strong enough to protect Seldovials water supplies, there is another avenue available to the City to have DEC enforce stronger standards. The Kenai Peninsula Borough is in the process of developing a Coastal Management Program (CMP). The Alaska Coastal Management Act encourages State agencies to be consistent in their permitting activities with approved local CMP's. Should the Borough's CMP, when adopted, specify that these watersheds remain undeveloped, DEC would probably be obliged to deny permits for development activities in the watersheds. One method to specify uses for a watershed in a CMP is to designate it an Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA). As defined in AS 46.35.2100) an AMSA is an area which "is sensitive to change or alteration and which, because... a claim on the resources ... would preclude subsequent use..." Because inap- propriate development in a watershed could preclude use of that water, the City's watersheds, particularly Fish Creek Watershed, certainly qualify as an AMSA. Further coordination with the Borough would be necessary to ensure that the watershed is adequately addressed in the Borough's CMP. Federal Authority The federal law which could most likely assist in the enforcement of the water- shed plan for Seldovia is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and amend- ments of 1972. Section 404 of that act requires U.S. Army Corps of Enginner's permission for "discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States." That section has been construed broadly by-both Federal courts and the Corps. The term "waters of the United States" includes not only lakes, streams and marine waters, but also wetlands associated with those waters@ Thus, any individual w4shing to place fill in a wetland to build a house or any other structure must first secure a "Section 404" permit from the Corps. While this law certainly does not apply to the.entire area of both watersheds, it probably does apply to certain areas characterized by braided or sinuous stream channels and vegetated with wetland plants such as willows, sedges and rushes. In particular, much of the land bordering Fish Creek in Sections 5 and 6 is wetland as is much of the open marshy land nearby, whether or not a direct connection with the creek can be easily observed. The Anchorage District of the Corps of Engineers periodically sends inspectors to observe proposed building sites to determine whether they are wetlands. Upon request from the City of Seldovia, the Corps might give an official evaluation of the likeli- hood of their issuing a "Section 404" permit for much of the critical areas near the stream in both watersheds in advance of any permit applications. Among the criteria the Corps uses in evaluating permit applications is whether the wetlands "perform functions important to the public interest [including purifying water] through natural filtration processes..." (42 Federal Register, 37136, 1978). The Corps might therefore reject a permit application if it appeared that the results of that project might impair the ability of the wetlands to purify water. This possibility appears even more likely in light of the review 4 4 function of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Before issuing a 404 permit, the Corps receives review comments from a number of agencies, including the EPA. The EPA considers among its review criteria whether a project will affect municipal water supplies.,@, Should the Corps, in spite of the City's need for clean water, issue permits for filling with subsequent construction in Fish Creek's wetlands, the City could, with assistance from the Alaska Office of Coastal Management, pursue the federal consistency requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Just as State agencies must be consistent with the local coastal management programs, the federal agencies must also use their permitting authority in a manner con- sistent with Alaska's approved coastal zone management program. Again, this course will require that the City coordinate now with the Borough in the development of the Borough's program. PLANNED SOLUTIONS At this time, with the City's present population and funding levels, the best solution to the problems of watershed management appears to lie in a phased approach, combining several of the alternatives over the short, intermediate and long-term, as the needs present themselves and opportunities arise. This phased approach can be summarized as protection, improvement and replacement. Short-Term Program In the short-term, the next several years, the City must rely on protection of its existing sources. Even if the funds should appear today for large- scale water resource development it would likel' be several years before any y such project could become operational. Seldovia must therefore continue to rely on the Upper Reservoir when it has sufficient volume to meet the City's demands as a gravity flow system. During times of freeze-up, low flow, and algae blooms in the Upper Reservoir, Fish Creek must be called into service. It is imperative that t.he integrity of both watersheds be protected or the quality of the water may not be suitable for drinking. The State ownership and limited access in the Upper Watershed appear to be effective protection there and will likely remain so. In Fish Creek Watershed, adequate protection will require the combined efforts of the City, Borough and State agencies. First, in anticipation of using at least the upstream reaches of Fish Creek for a number of years, the City, with its own authority and assistance from the Borough, must prevent any development or other major alteration (mining, excavation, etc.) above the major tributary entering Fish Creek in the south- east quarter of Section 6. In addition, to protect the lower reaches of the creek in the short-term, the City must prevent development within at least 200 feet of the creek along its entire course. The City can be backed up on this action by the DEC which does not permit septic tanks "or other potential sources of pollutants" within 200 feet of a public water source. 6-12 Outside the 200 foot buffer zone, development may be permitted, but only if accompanied by connection to the City sewer system. The high water table and frequently saturated soils in this area suggest that septic systems would not function well, and might contaminate the creek. Stormwater runoff from houses and yards is also a source of pollution and must be collected and diverted to downstream of the reservoir. Whether the existing road, with its present level of traffic, also contami- nates the water supply has not been determined, but the probability is high. Heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons frequently accompany runoff from roads. The DEC should expand its monitoring of the City's water to determine whether these pollutants are present in the creek. If they violate DEC's standards (in 18 AAC 70.020), traffic along the road is the most likely source, and must be limited until runoff from the road can be diverted. Although diversion of stormwater runoff from private homes and roads can be an expensive undertaking, most of the pipe can be laid at the time of sewer extensions, thus nearly halving the cost of excavation. Although the pipe for the runoff may be laid parallel to that for sanitary sewers', the runoff itself should not be channelled into the sanitary sewer lines, but should remain separate. The cost of installing sanitary and storm sewer lines along the 4,500 feet of road in the area in which development may be permitted will be a minimum of $1,000,000. (This figure does not include individual home connections or the cost of grading the road to direct the runoff to a diversion channel). To protect the quality of the water in the reservoirs, it will be necessary to install fencing around both reservoirs. Because of the ease of access, first priority for this project should be given to the Fish Creek Reservoir. Finally, because the water quality is not adequate even with the present level of activity in the watershed, the City's plans for a chlorination and filtrat- ion plant must be carried through to completion. The short-term program for watershed management, to be implemented over perhaps the next five years, is as follows: OBJECTIVE: Prevent deterioration in quality of City's existing water supply sources. POLICY: The City shall protect its existing water sources as long as they are used, and shall coordinate its efforts with other agencies. ACT.ION30: City will adopt with Borough concurrence, a watershed management ordinance (Appendix C). ACTION 31: No new residential or commercial development will be permitted within 200 feet of any permanent or intermittent stream or wet- land in the city watersheds or anywhere in the Fish Creek Water- shed upstream from, and including, the southeast quarter of Section 6. (Enforced by City and Borough through Borough planning, platting and zoning authority or the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction authorized by AS 29.48.037). 6-13 ACT I ON 32: Any new residential or commercial development in the City watersheds shall be connected to City sewers at owner's expense. All stormwater runoff from roofs, roads and yards shall be collected and diverted to a point downstream from the reservoir. (Enforced by City, Borough and DEC). ACT I ON 33: The City will request Borough to implement watershed management through Borough Coastal Management Program. ACT I ON 34: The City will complete purchases of reservoir lands, will install fencing around and prohibit public access to both reservoirs. ACT I ON 35: The City will install, maintain and the DEC will monitor the effectiveness of a water filtration and chlorination plant. ACTION36: The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation will regu- larly monitor Seldovials drinking water, with additional analysis for heavy metals, oil and grease. Should these constituents appear in violation of DEC standards, the City and Seldovia Native Association, Inc. will install a gate and limit traffic on the road paralleling Fish Creek until all stormwater runoff from the road can be diverted to a point downstream from the reservoir. OBJECTIVE: Minimize conflict between private land development and watershed management needs. POLICY: The City shall avoid unnece5sary regulation of private interests. ACTION37: City shall adopt, with Borough concurrence, a watershed manage- ment ordinance based on draft ordinance shown in Appencix C. ACTION38: The City shall purchase, through negotiation or condemnation, lands underlying and immediately surrounding reservoir to provide a buffer from adjoining uses and allow future expansion. Intermediate-Term Program In the intermediate-term, the City can improve upon its present water supplies, and then can relax some of the use restrictions in the Fish Creek Watershed. Several water projects have been discussed by local citizens and officials, and were reviewed as possible solutions earlier in this chapter. While none of the intermediate and short-term solutions can increase the water available in the watershed, they might, by diverting it, deepening it, or collecting it at a different location, improve upon the water quality or availability. One of the main advantages to this approach is that a good deal of land near the lower reaches of Fish Creek could be opened for development. While the area will likely experience problems with high water table and soil foundation strength, these problems will not affect the City's drinking water. The intermediate term watershed management strategy, to be implemented over a period of five to twenty or more years will be as follows: 6-14 OBJECTIVE: Assure adequate quantity of water to serve existing and projected demand. POLICY: The City shall improve upon the water collection and storage systems in its present watersheds. ACTION 39: The City will evaluate the feasibility, from points, of view of engineering, economics and environmental values, of: (a) Raising the dam to deepen the Upper Reservoir. (b) Relocating the Upper Reservoir downstream. (c) Diverting water from the upper reaches of the Fish Creek Watershed to the Upper Watershed. (d) Relocating the Fish Creek Reservoir upstream. ACTION 40: The City will investigate sources, obtain funding for and complete the most feasible of the projects. ACTION 41: After such a project is constructed, if the lower Fish Creek Reservoir is no longer needed, the City will repeal the part of the ordinance implementing Action for the area of the watershed no longer supplying water to the City. Long-Term Program In the long-term, the City's water needs are uncertain. While one or more of the intermediate term projects should see the City through at least twenty years, Seldovials population, as noted in Chapter 3 might range from as few as 536 to as many as 1563 persons in the year 2000 depending on uncertain variables such as fisheries and oil development. If the population should grow rapidly, and the demand for water exceeds the capacity of the two streams now in use, it would be necessary to explore and develop other sources. The two most likely are Barabara Creek and the Seldovia River. Neither of these projects need be initiated now, but several years lead time will certainly be required before such a project is on-line. In the meantime, it would be desirable for the City to apply to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources for water rights to one or both of these streams. Then, as soon as it appears that Seldovia will undergo a major influx of population or other increase in water use, the City can begin feasibility and engineering analyses and funding applications to get the necessary project underway. It must be emphasized that if the City uses a new watershed as its water supply, the same protective measures will be needed to ensure the integrity of the water supply. The City must begin planning with the Borough soon to ensure that these watersheds are not contaminated before they are even used. The long-term program for watershed management, then is as follows: OBJECTIVE: Assure adequate quantity and quality of water to serve existing and projected demand. 6-15 POLICY: The City shall seek to secure larger water supplies for future use. ACTION 42: The City Manager, with authorization from Council, will initi- ate applications for water rights for Barabara Creek and Seldovia River. ACTION 43: The City will extend its watershed ordinance to these watersheds, with Borough concurrence, to protect them when it has secured water rights. ACTION 44: If population trends begin to follow those of the "intermediate" or "high" scenario (Chapter 3) the City, through its engineers, will begin feasibility and engineering analyses and apply for funding to develop a new reservoir and water transmission line at Barabara Creek or the Seldovia River. 6-16 Chapter 7 Social Services Of the many services which Seldovia has organized for itself, social services are unquestionably among the most important. This chapter discusses a range of social services provided in Seldovia, analyzing problems and outlining step-by-step programs to achieve community objectives. For purposes of clarity, this chapter is divided into three separate sections, outlining health related services, education and recreation. Each section describes the background and trends, goals and objectives, possible solutions and implementation of recommended solutions. HEALTH RELATED SERVICES A major priority of many Seldovians is the provision of adequate health related services. As early as 1935, the City and community groups had established the first clinic building and hospital using only local resources. Through many years since, the community has maintained a high standard of local health services. This section addresses the subject of community-based health and health-related services, discussing how Seldovia can maintain and improve its existing standard of services without imposing undue financial burdens on the City, providers, users or other community groups. The section is concluded with policies and actions designed to address each of the community's planned goals and objectives. Background And Trends The development of health-related services in Seldovia and the nearby communi- ties of Port Graham and English Bay has been hampered in the past by a combina- tion of factors. The small resident populations of the communities have not provided a consumer base large enough to support private physicians. The relatively low economic base of the communities has also discouraged health care providers. The geographic location of the communities has allowed them to be served by the regional health providers at a low level of service. In- frequent visits by the dentist, eye specialist, and Native Health Service professional do not meet the needs of the community. The projections for population growth and economic growth in the Seldovia area indicate that both population and the regional economic base could increase substantially in the next five to ten years and beyond. The ranges in the projections reflect the uncertainties in the future of oil exploration and fisheries harvests. It is clear, however, that health services planning in Seldovia must incorporate the demands for services that will be associated with population and economic growth. 7-1 The recent construction of the Seldovia Health Clinic has contributed signi- ficantly to the improved level of health care in the community and has pre- sented an improved opportunity to maintain full-time resident physician services. Outside funding of the construction of the clinic and purchase of new X-ray equipment has provided the needed capital base for health services in the community. The equipment for the clinic, donated by the Seldovia Hospital Guild, has similarly relieved the financial burden to the City of establishing the clinic and attracting a full-time physician. ROLE OF SELDOVIA HEALTH CLINIC Several basic questions related to the Seldovia Health Clinic must be addressed by the clinic board and the City. These questions are 'crucial to the com- munity's desire and ability to retain the services of a full-time physician in the community. There is no question that Seldovia has placed a high priority on having a full-time physician to provide high-quality health care services. However, the relationship between the Clinic and the physician must be clari- fied in a policy decision that will affect the City's financial role in the operation of the Clinic. It is assumed that the existing health service payment system will continue in the future. That is, patients of the physician will be charged at rates deter- mined by the physician and will pay the physician either directly or by means of governmental or third-party payers (insurance companies). The physician will, in turn, pay the City of Seldovia to lease the clinic office and medical facilities. This system is a standard arrangement used by the majority of clinics or medical office facilities. The central issue that will determine the form of the physician-clinic lease arrangement is the philosophy of the lease. The City can choose to either balance its expenses related to the capital expenditures and operation of the Clinic with revenues obtained from the Clinic, including the lease income from the physician, or can partially assure adequate income to the physician by setting low lease payments. Any financial policy adopted by the City will directly affect the cost of health services, what segments of the community pay for the services, and the risks that the community will lose its resident physician. DEVELOPMENT OF BETTER HEALTH SERVICES The primary determinant of the level of health services provided to a community is the ability of the community (or region) to pay for the services. In general, a certain minimal level of service will be provided by Federal, State and Borough public agencies, and private for-profit and non-profit organizations. These services, however, do not provide the desired level of service. The professIionals are not available with the desired frequency,'the services provided are not intensive enough to meet the needs of patients, and local treatment is not always available to residents without loss of privacy. Alcoholism treatment and programs to reduce drug abuse are not effectively meeting the needs of the community. If possible, expanded services should be obtained to provide better treatment programs that will improve the mental and physical health status of the community. To effectively address this problem, increased funding for health services must be generated. 7-2 Need For A Community Youth Center The community has expressed its desire for construction of a community youth center. Such a youth center could provide many benefits to the youth of Seldovia. Development of a center could result in reduced drug abuse or alcoholism rates in the community by providing a focus for organized or spontaneous recreational activities that can be integrated into the community- wide system of social and health services. The community youth center acti- vities could provide healthier, more attractive alternatives to drinking or using drugs. It is very likely that funding could be obtained to construct a community youth center. A problem arises in funding the operating and equipment expense for a center. City revenues or user revenues may be used to cover the operating expenses. These expenses would include utilities, new and replacement equip- ment and supplies, administrative and maintenance staff salaries, and costs of special programs or activities. The current financial and budgeting problems faced by the City indicate that other sources of revenues would be needed to defray the operating expenses of a youth center. Issues, Goals And Objectives Several major problems addressing the provision of health-related services have been identified: (1) Definition of the role of the Seldovia Health Clinic; (2) Development of better social services; and (3) Need for a community youth center. Goals and objectives include: GOAL: Adequate, affordable and accessible health-related services for all residents. OBJECTIVES: (1) Establish and maintain high quality medical services with adequate operational funding, management and local participation in medical services. (2) Improve community-based alcohol and drug treatment programs to lower alcoholism and drug abuse rates. (3) Establish a multipurpose youth and community center in Seldovia to provide additional social and recreational opportunities for Seldovia youths, and alternatives to drugs and alcoholism. These problems will be analyzed below and potential solutions will be addressed in the following sections. 7-3 Possible Solutions For each of the issues and problems identified above, one or more possible approaches may be envisioned which address the problem and can achieve the objectives. Possible solutions are discussed below. ROLE OF SELDOVIA CLINIC In essence, the problem of the physician-clinic relationship and retaining the services of a full-time physician reduces to a question of who will pay for the health care services. Two basic approaches are possible: A. Partially guarantee physician a reasonable income. B. Balance City revenues and expenses from the clinic. The implications of each of these possible solutions will be discussed. Partially Guaranteed Physician Income Under this approach an equitable income would be negotiated with the physician or offered to a potential resident physician.' The physician would establish charges for clinic services that fall within reimbursement guidelines for Medicaid/Medicare or other payers and which would be comparable to charges in other comparable communities. Clinic revenues minus clinic expenses (which include lease payments) would be the physician income. If the combination of service charges and the utilization of services by the community is such that physician income is equal to or greater than the guaranteed physician income, then no City subsidy (in services or cash) would be required. If utilization of services is so low that revenues minus expenses is less than the guaranteed physician income, then the City may not balance its clinic revenues and expenses. The risk involved in the alternative is that service charges that are too low may benefit the users of the facility but would result in a City subsidy which would spread the costs over the entire community. Also, physician income may not be sufficient to guarantee presence of a resident physician. However, it is possible that the required physician income would be generated when lease payments are large enough to balance the City's clinic revenues and expenses. To some extent, the likelihood of a subsidy being needed would be difficult to predict. Balance Revenues And Expenses Under the approach, the lease payments by the physician for use of the clinic must cover the clinic expenses paid by the City. City revenues will balance expenses; there would be no City subsidy to the physician. Once again, physician income will be clinic revenues minus clinic expenses. However, the physician income will depend upon the rates charged for services and the utilization of those services. If rates are reasonable, and utilization is low, then physician income will be low. If utilization is high, then physician income will be high. Several risks are involved in this alternative. The first risk is that low utilization of physician/clinic services may result in physician income so 7-4 low that the physician will leave. Rates could be increased to generate more income, but at some level rates would be high enough to cause further reductions in utilization of services. And further increases in rates would only result in even lower utilization. This presents the second risk; that high cost of services will discourage residents of the community from seeking needed medical services and thereby reduce the health status of the community. IMPROVED SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES Several approaches may be taken to improve the quality and amount of social and health services available to the citizens of Seldovia and neighboring communities. Uontinue Regional (Consortium) Service Planning The communities in the region can continue to seek funding for a better in- tegrated and more comprehensive system of social services that will provide improved programs to the communities. Better Resource Utilization The community can attempt to improve the education and skills of Community Health Representatives and utilize its 11 trained Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT's). Other Reimbursement Mechanisms The community can investigate the possibilities for additional sources of reimbursement, particularly in the treatment of alcoholism. The establishment of a regional treatment program may generate not only capital funding to initiate a program but may also make patients eligible for governmental or insurance payment of medical treatment costs. Improve Prevention Programs The community can intensify efforts to prevent the need for health services by improving educational programs aimed at prevention of drug abuse, alcoholism, pediatric illness, and other illness. Community Center The solution to providing funds for operating expenses and equipment for a community youth center is not simple. The required revenues could be generated by a user charge for the facility or by means of coin-operated game machines. Charging users could restrict the usage of the facility or equipment by those persons who most need the facility. General revenues from the City could be used, but in the absence of balancing income to the City, the existing budgeting problem would be worsened. Another approach is to minimize personnel costs by utilizing volunteers to run the center or maintain the facility. CETA funding may also be available for maintenance staff, as in the Seldovia Clinic. 7-5 Planned Solutions The following section outlines planned solutions, including policies and actions actions, to achieve goals and objectives for health-related services. GOAL: Adequate, affordable and accessible health services for all residents. OBJECTIVE: Establish and maintain high quality medical services, with adequate operational funding, management and local participation in medical services. It is recommended that approach B (page 7-4) be implemented initially. Given the high priority placed on attractiveness of the facility, the benefits of reliable physician services in the community can probably be achieved without direct financial subsidy; this can also be supplemented by low lease rates, contributed services and outside @rants. If the charges for patient services are set at reasonable and comparable levels, there should be minimal need for subsidy. The clinic board should review charges for services to ensure that they are not set too low or too high. POLICY: Rates and charges shall be set for the Seldovia Clinic to ensure that City revenues and expenses are balanced. Beyond this objective, lease rates, contributed services and outside funding may be used to improve physician income if needed. Clinic rates and charges shall take into account fair and equitable charges by providers to users. ACTION45: Conduct survey of physician incomes and charges for services at comparable locations or communities. ACTION46: Negotiate reasonable target salary with physician, taking into account cost of living and other variables (annually). ACTION47: Review projected utilization of services, based on previous data and population projections (annually). ACTION48: Review charges for services at clinic to ensure reasonableness, compliance with reimbursement guidelines of insurers, and ability of non-covered or uninsured patients to pay (annually). ACTION49: Project physician income and consider possible need for lower lease rates, contributed services and outside funding (annually). ACTION50: Establish incentive program for clinic to control expenses and thereby increase physician income without increasing cost to patients (annually). OBJECTIVE: Improve community-based alcohol and drug treatment programs to lower alcoholism and drug abuse rates. All of the previously identified alternatives should be pursued in efforts to improve the quality of health-related services provided. POLICY: The City will continue to work with other public and private organiza- tions to develop networks or other cooperative arrangements to provide social and health services. 7-6 ACTION 51: Identify needs for individual services. ACTION 52: Identify how current level of services is inadequate. ACTION 53: Identify potential improvement with better services. ACTION 54: Identify cost savings due to adequate treatment compared to repeated treatment. ACTION 55: Identify efficiencies to be achieved by a coordinated consortium of communities and service providers. POLICY: The City and other private and public groups will encourage improve- ments in the skills and utilization of health service providers serving the community. ACTION:56: Investigate training programs for Community Health Aides and Community Health Representatives to improve their effectiveness. ACTION 57: Seek information on new programs offered in other communities. POLICY: The City and other public and private groups will continue to seek other sources of financial support for health-related service programs needed by the community. ACTION 58: Determine requirements for alcoholism treatment programs which qualify under Federal or State reimbursement programs. ACTION 59: Identify need for level of care as offered in such treatment programs. ACTION 60: Investigate regional need and interest in regional treatment programs. POLICY: The City and other public and private groups will continue to support efforts to develop cooperative means of preventing social and health problems. ACTION 61: Integrate programs of clinic, school nurse, visiting social service and health professionals, and youth center to prevent occurrence of drug abuse and alcoholism. ACTION 62: Educate community on causes, symptoms, and treatment of diseases. OBJECTIVE: Establish a multipurpose youth and community center in Seldovia to provide additional social and recreational opportunities for Seldovia youths, and alternatives to drugs and alcoholism. POLICY: The City and other public and private groups will support efforts to construct and operate a multipurpose community and youth center in Seldovia. ACTION 63: Determine types of activities needed in youth center. ACTION 64: Translate activities into rough design and cost. ACTION 65: Estimate operating and equipment expenses. 7-7 ACTION 66: Investigate funding sources for construction. ACTION 67: Determine if operating expenses will be funded by: o General City revenues o Selective tax assessment by City o Contributions o Voluntary labor o User charges ACTION 68: Document activities and programs, numbers of users, and antici- pated community benefits. ACTION 69: Apply for construction funding. EDUCATION In accordance with Alaska Statutes, Seldovia's public school system is the responsibility of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The Borough builds and maintains public school facilities and finances school administration with local funds in combination with State and Federal grant monies. Issues, Goals And Objectives During the work sessions of the Steering Committee, early in the planning process, the following issues pertaining to education were identified: (1) Lack of adult educational opportunities. (2) Lack of diversity in local education. (3) Continuation of maintenance of school buildings. (4) Continued access to school facilities for community.recreation and other non-education activities. (5) Establishment of hot lunch programs. These were expressed not in dissatisfaction with the existing education program but to identify areas in which the community would like to see more emphasis placed. To address these issues, the following goal was developed: GOAL: High quality, diverse educational opportunities for all residents. To achieve this goal, the following objectives were outlined by the Steering Committee: OBJECTIVES: (1) Establish college credit and continuing education courses. (2) Bring in outside lecturer. (3) Improve Borough building maintenance. (4) Diversify curriculum of Seldovia School. 7-8 (5) Re-establish the community school program. (6) Maintain access to school facilities for recreation and other non- education activities. (7) Establish hot lunch program. Several of these objectives are presently being addressed by the school admin- istration and the Borough school board. Others, by their nature, require a somewhat larger student or community population, and as the community grows can probably be attained in the future. The Susan B. English School is attended by elementary, junior and high school students. The enrollment for the 1978-1979 school year was 134 pupils, down from a high of 168 pupils in the 1976-1977 school year, and only 58 percent of its capacity of 230 pupils. The school, constructed in 1971, is on a site of about 512 acres. Due to the physical constraints of the present site and of adjacent lands, expansion of the school at its present location is questionable. Based on the population projections (see Chapter 3) for the three scenarios (Low, Intermediate, High) and on the following assumptions, the need for more classrooms will arise in the future. Table 7-1 on the following page shows the number of students for each year through the year 9-000. Using the projections for the intermediate growth scenario, the existing school facilities will exceed capacity in the year 1999 by three students, and again in the year 2000 by,nine students. Although this exceeds the calculated capacity, it is doubtful that this small shortage will necessitate the addition of more classroom space. If the high scenario is achieved, however, the capacity of the school will be exceeded in the year 2000 by an amount of students which will necessitate an additional six classrooms. Should this growth be realized, it is likely that another school site will be needed, due to the physical constraints on the existing site. The site for the new facility should be located near the existing school to utilize the existing gymnasium and other school facilities whose capacity will not be exceeded. One possible school site is the U.S. Reserve site in the north part of Seldovia. Other sites should also be considered, including the possibility of purchasing private land, if the high growth scenario appears to be taking shape. PARKS AND RECREATION In every area of city management, Seldovia must anticipate what needs and opportunities will exist at some point in the future, and decide what course of action will best assure the satisfaction of community needs. This is 7-9 TABLE 7-1 PROTECTED SELDOVIA STUDENT POPULATIONS GROWTH SCENARIOS Additional Classrooms Needed Under High Scenario (Based On High Case) YEAR LOW INTERMEDIATE HIGH ADDIL. ROOMS NEEDED ADDIL. PERMANENI- (ADDED TO EXISTING ROOMS NEEDED PERMANENT AND PORTABLE SPACE) 1980 133 143 160 3 1981 133 144 209 3 1982 134 158 225 3 1983 133 166 1 4 .......... ..................... .......................... .. .... 1984 134 171 K::ij:]x 22: 2 5 1985 134 179 3 6 1986 133 195 4 7 1987 134 203 3 6 1988 134 195 3 6 1989 134 196 3 6 1990 135 197 3 6 1991 135 199 2 5 1992 136 204 3 6 1993 137 208 4 7 1994 138 212 4 7 1995 139 216 4 7 1996 139 219 5 8 1997 141 225 5 8 1998 142 229 5 8 1999 142 ...... 6 9 6 9 2000 143 9 Note: Based on 2.0 persons per OCS-related household, .46 pupils per OCS- related household; 2.8 persons per non OCS-related household, .74 pupils per non OCS-rolotod househ@)Id. Exceeds Present School Capacity of 230 Students (includes portable and permanent space) Sources: CH2M-HiII (1978) and Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. 7-10 especially true in addressing the recreational needs of the residents. Priorities in many small cities often tend to concentrate on satisfying basic requirements, often eliminating needed park and recreation facilities. Through planning, however, Seldovia can take advantage of funding and other outside assistance opportunities as they arise, and consequently enhance the recreational environment of the area without jeopardizing other essential services. This section outlines some of the important aspects of Seldovials recreation, describes strategies for accomplishing recreation goals and objectives, and outlines policies and actions designed to achieve objectives for Seldovia's recreation. Background In and around Seldovia there are several areas which either have been histor- ically used or have the potential to be used for recreational purposes. Each is unique as to its location, amenities and constraints, and therefore its opportunities for development and use. Each area is described below and shown in Figure 7-1. OUTER BEACH The Outer Beach between Gray Cliff and Seldovia Point along Kachemak Bay has been used by residents of Seldovia for many years. The land north and south of the beach area is pubi ical ly owned and has also been avai lable for recreational use. Approximately three-fourths of a mile north of the city limits, the Outer Beach is presently used for day use activities such as pic- nicking, hiking, and sightseeing. The State of Alaska owns approximately 20 acres of land in the Gray Cliff area. LAKE SUSAN Lake Susan, located near the center of the City, has been used by the residents of Seldovia as a skating area in the winter and for day use activities in the summer months. Surrounded by privately owned residential property, it is likely that with future development the access will become more and more restricted. The City presently owns a twenty foot easement around the lake- shore as well as the lakebed, but does not own any easements from a platted street to the lakeshore. WATCH POINT PARK Watch Poi nt i s a sma I I pen i nsu I a extend I ng i nto Se I dov I a Bay on the north end of the harbor already owned by the City. A navigational aid is located there, and unimproved trails circle the point. One can achil@eve a very good view of the harbor, Seldovia Bay and, on a clear day, Kachemak Bay and beyond. SELDOV I A WATERFRONT With the Alaska State Housing Authority's redevelopment of the Seldovia water- front, the City has an opportunity to develop a small waterfront public area. With links to existing and future commercial developments, the community center and library, the public area could enhance the downtown area of the City. It would also serve as a permanent access to the shoreline. 7-11 SELDOVIA SCHOOL LANDS All the previously mentioned recreation areas are basically "resource oriented." School property provides the opportunity for the City and the Borough to jointly develop a facility-oriented recreation area. HISTORIC LANDS AND BUILDINGS The two structures which seem to be important to the heritage of Seldovia are the waterfront boardwalk along Seldovia Slough and the Russian Orthodox Church. These structures are currently in need of repairs to prevent signi- ficant deterioration. INDOOR RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES In Seldovia there is a desire for indoor recreation facilities such as a bowling alley or movie theatre. As with most small cities, the economic realities of this type of enterprise prohibit their development in the private sector. TOURISM The development of "second homes" in the Seldovia area points out the fact that Seldovia is an increasingly popular place for people from Anchorage and other areas, to spend their leisure time. If the ferry system and f I oat p Ian e moorage improve, the tourism impact will affect Seldovia. This can be a positive or negative impact, depending upon how the City reacts. The two arms of this industry, overnight/day use tourist and non-resident second home owners, have very different needs and requirements. They also have different impacts on the environment and on the economy of the City. Issues, Goals And Objectives Identified issues pertaining to recreation center upon the need to develop facilities to accommodate both indoor and outdoor activities. Among these are tennis courts, an athletic field, movie theater and bowling alley. Other issues are maintenance of access to existing recreation areas, the financing of resident and tourist-oriented recreation facilities and second home develop- ment by non-residents. Goals and objectives for recreation include the following: GOAL: Diverse opportunities for recreation activities and quality tourist trade. OBJECTIVES: (1) Establish a bowling alley. (2) Establish a movie theatre. (3) Develop tennis courts. (4) Develop a multipuprose athletic field (baseball, football, etc.) (5) Establish, maintain road access to outdoor recreation. 7-12 (6) Maintain access to existing recreation area (Outer Beach, Seldovia Slough, Lake Susan, etc.) (7) Increase private capital available to develop recreation/tourism facilities. (8) Take advantage of positive effects, control adverse effects of vaca- tion home development by non-residents. (9) Improve access to television for education, cultural and recreational enrichment. Possible Solutions If intermediate or high growth is to be achieved without major sacrifices in quality of life, concerted efforts will be needed to preserve existing recrea- tional opportunities and provide direct and indirect incentives to recreational development by outside public and private groups. OUTER BEACH At the present time the Outer Beach (Figure 7-1) is divided into two publicly owned areas, to the north and west of private land through which the access occurs. Approximately 50 acres of the publicly owned land is under City ownership. The remaining 90 acres is State owned. Opportunities for the development of day use and overnight facilities exist, along with areas for nature study, hiking and other passive activities. With public control of the land, the City can ensure the continued access to and use of this popular area. LAKE SUSAN The City should secure continued access to and use of the lake through owner- ship of land somewhere along the lake, or through formal easements or use agreements with property owners. Once obtained, facilities should be developed on the land(s) to improve the recreational experience and also to protect the area from environmental degradation. WATCH POINT PARK This park could easily be developed further with a relatively small expenditure of development funds, and, because of its location could be easily maintained. Accommodations for parking are also needed at the access point. SELDOVIA WATERFRONT A public area could be developed in the vicinity of the existing civic center and small boat harbor which would serve residents of the City and tourists alike. The area could, if desired, be designed to enhance the waterfront aspect of Seldovia which is emphasized so well by the boardwalk. 7-13 SELDOVIA SCHOOL LANDS Completion of development of basketball courts, tennis courts and a playfield will provide additional outdoor recreational opportunities for the residents of Seldovia. Completion of the present development could be undertaken jointly by the City, the Borough and other public or private groups in Seldovia. HISTORIC LANDS AND BUILDINGS Attempts could be made by the City or community groups (such as the Chamber of Commerce) to classify the boardwalk, Russian Church and other important land- marks as historic sites, so that they can be preserved for the benefit of future residents and visitors. Financial aid can be obtained from outside public and private sources to complete needed repairs, while maintenance would be the joint responsibility of the City, the Chamber of Commerce and, in the case of the Church, the present owners. INDOOR RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES Demands for indoor recreation opportunities can often be met through the cooperation between institutions such as the school, the library association or board. For example, if it can be documented that a movie theater is truly desired, the above-mentioned groups could organize to provide this service. The library could reserve and obtain films from the state-wide library system or commercial outlets, the school district could provide the room or building to show the films. Acquisition and installation of a satellite TV receiver could provide an alternative, and could be funded by outside sources. These types of cooperation can be utilized on many projects where it is economically unrealistic for a private enterprise to do so. TOURISM Tourism-oriented development, in no matter what form, can be either beneficial or detrimental to Seldovia, depending on how Seldovia responds to its chal- lenges. As with other aspects of recreation, tourism should be further addressed in a complete parks and recreation plan, with specific visitor- oriented projects spelled out, and conceptual plans and financing strategies developed. The overnight or day use tourist requires a publicly or privately developed destination where immediate needs for food and shelter are met. This can be accomplished through the development of lodges, motels, restaurants and/or campgrounds. Typically, the private sector has provided the lodges, motels and restaurant facilities. However, the City and the Seldovia Native Assoc- iation can assist in their development by offering private investors incentives such as prorated utility charges, favorable lease arrangements of public or private land, and deferred taxes. In many areas, campgrounds are developed, operated and maintained by the public sector, be it City, Borough, State or Federal government. There are also private campground developers who construct campgrounds in "high traffic"- areas. For the City of Seldovia, it may seem inappropriate to develop, operate and maintain a campground based on limited present demand. 7-14 -64 Seldo'via ovia 2 lie 2 2 jo 50U X 695 bin IJ 0, RECREkTION - 6-X RE /4, r ................ 0 )6 If A(K x 2;- @.TCH POINT PARk' ............. . 19li5 , MT@l Watch' SSITORI "s VI MINI P R LK Ca x 0 1857 X 73 v 0 x 2474 9710 7 >W75 0 To encourage this type of economic development, the City may wish to obtain, for example, the Outer Beach for recreational purposes and reserve a portion of the area for a campground. This portion could then be leased to a private concessionaire for the development and operation of a campground. Should this occur, money from the lease of the property could be used by the City for the development and maintenance of the day use facilities at the Outer Beach which the residents of Seldovia would more likely use. Alternatively, the State could develop and operate a campground for use by tourists in this area VACATION AND SECOND HOME DEVELOPMENT As mentioned earlier, the non-resident second home owner's needs are different from visitors or tourists. Second home development can have significant economic benefits, but care must be exercised to avoid adverse impacts of poorly conceived development. Second home development has the same environmental impacts as any other type of residential development. However, their impacts may be greater due to their lack or inadequacy of basic site improvements. Second homes also have a tendency to be located on sites which are environmentally sensitive, of special public concern due to their unique natural features,tor in areas which lack the natural capacity necessary to sustain intensive development. Two of the most common impacts of this type of development ar*e ground and surface water pollution from septic tanks and erosion and siltation from runoff generated by dirt roads and unvegetated (bare) construction sites. Some of the positive impacts of second home development are in the economic benefits to the City or Borough. Second home development can stimulate local economies through increased tax revenues and developer and consumer spending. While in most cases, second homes are taxed at the same rates as first homes, many are only seasonally occupied and therefore, place few burdens on local public schools, utilities and emergency services. This is only a brief discussion of some of the impacts of second home development . Other aspects of second home development are considered in the Housing, Land Use, and Economic Development chapters of this plan. DEVELOPMENT OF SELDOVIA PARK AND RECREATION PLAN Another method of addressing park and recreation objectives is to develop a complete park and recreation plan for Seldovia which would build upon the information and recommendations found in this document. In most park and recreation plans, a scope of seven separate, although related, areas of work are found. These are discussed below. 1. Goals And Objectives The plan should contain a statement of the long range park, recreation and open space goals of the City, plus a set of objectives which describe short- range steps and specific actions aimed at achieving the goals. The plan's goals should reflect the comprehensive planning program to avoid overlap and conflict. 7-17 11. Public Participation A citizen task force should participate in the conduct of an opinion and recreation demand survey to determine the recreational desires of residents and visitors. Supplementing this, public review meetings should be held throughout the formulation of the plan. 111. Description Of The Planning Area To assist in understanding the goals and objectives of Seldovia, the historical trends and the physical, economic and social setting of the community and its environs should be described. (This can be based on the Comprehensive Plan). IV. Demand And Need The identification of the demand for outdoor recreation opportunities and need for recreation areas and facilities may be determined in a number of ways. Some of these include the use of population standards based on public forums, sample interviewing or the identification of specific issues and problems. It is important that a systematic method be used and documented in the plan. V. Existing Areas And Facilities The plan should contain a discussion and identification of existing areas and facilities available to citizens residing within the planning area. These may be local, State, Federal or private facilities and may be located outside the geographical planning area. VI. Action Program The action program describes the methods and procedures to be used to accomplish the goals and objectives contained within the plan. It should include the acquisition or development of facilities, the use of public facilities, private enterprise and undertakings. VII. Capital Improvements Program A four to six year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) should be developed based on the action program. The CIP should include the project name, estimated cost of acquisition and/or development, the scheduled completion date and possible funding sources. (This can be a revision of the recreation component of the City's CIP). With the completion of the revision of Seldovials comprehensive plan, many of the ingredients of the park and recreation plan will be partially or com- pletely addressed. The description of the planning area and the existing recreation facilities are fully covered, leaving more work to be done on park and recreation goals and objectives, a detailed action program and a revised recreation component of the City's Capital Improvements Program. Citizen input specifically directed toward parks and recreational needs is also required to responsibly complete a plan. Once the City has adopted a complete park and recreation plan, Seldovia will be in the position to take advantage of oppor- tunities in financial assistance, land grants and the like as they become available. 7-18 Chapter 8 Transportation Seldovia's transportation I ink with other communities is by air or water; there is no road connection. Presently, the City of Homer is the gateway to Seldovia for both modes. With the existing level of transportation service, the community is handicapped in maintaining and developing its economy, and even in meeting its basic needs, due to the limitations of the transportation service. If Seldovia is to attract industry (OCS activity, etc.) and accomo- date an increased population, transportation services and facilities must be improved. The following chapter discusses existing conditions of Seldovia's air, water and road transportation services, and outlines a plan for improving them. ISSUES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Seldovia's street and road system appears to be a haphazard solution to the daily movement of traffic in and around the City. Only a few streets appear to be the result of formal construction. Many of Seldovia's 4 3/4 miles of street are very narrow, follow the contour of the ground and have numerous sight deficiencies. Few streets are paved, and of those which are, the asphalt surface has deteriorated. Several streets in the City which are regularly used are unplatted and may technically trespass across private property. In many cases, the existing travelways meander in and out of the platted right-of-way. Most of these problems, although inconvienent, do not cause great hardship to the citizens of Seldovia. As the City grows, however, and traffic increases, several of these problems will likely become intolerable. The principal means of water travel to and from Seldovia is by the M.V. Tustumena operated by Alaska Marine Highway System. The system provides scheduled service to Seldovia approximately ten months per year. Service is eliminated for about two months each year, usually during the winter season, for annual maintenance and refurbishment of the vessel. The isolation imposed by the ferry shutdown makes it difficult and expensive to ship or receive goods, and hinders Seldovia's economic development. In addition, ferry scheduling allows only two days of ferry service per week on consecu- tive days. Again, ferry service deficiencies hinder the development of the south Kachemak Bay area, and prevent the community from enjoying a desired level of mobility. Commercial air transport is provided by two air charter services which operate between Seldovia, Homer and other nearby communities. The services provided by the existing airport and air charter operators are adequate, but improve- ments are needed in both if Seldovia is to achieve its growth objectives. 8-1 Seldovia's port and harbor facilities are similarly situated. Growth in moorage demand has exceeded the capacity of the existing small boat harbor, and new and expanded services are needed to enable Seldovials economy to grow. Transportation improvements are particularly needed for growth in fisheries and tourism. Recognizing these problems in Seldovials transportation services, the nine issues were identified which relate to transportation: ISSUES: (1) Ferry arrival and departure times are inconvenient. (2) Roads are not adequately maintained. (3) Lack of pedestrian links between housing, stores, jobs, public facilities, etc. (4) Freight shipping rates and services need to be improved. (5) Direct air service to Anchorage is desired. (6) The small boat harbor Is undersized. (7) Winter shutdown of ferry service leads to excessive isolation, and increased cost of goods and services. (8) Access of residents to ferry (e.g., "bumping"). (9) Access to Jakalof Bay barge loading and unloading. To address these issues, the following transportation goal was developed: GOAL: Convenient, reliable and economical transportation within and between Seldovia and nearby communities. The issues and goal were restated in the form of the objectives to guide the development of Seldovials transportation system: OBJECTIVES: (1) Reschedule ferry arrivals and departures to more agreeable times to facilitate improved resident and tourist access, and relocate home port closer to area. (2) Establish winter ferry service, such as from Jakolof Bay to Homer. (3) Improve cargo handling - ensure weekly cargo and forwarding service. (4) Establish and maintain pedestrian links within Seldovia, connecting housing, schools, public facilities, recreation areas, shops, etc. (5) Vacate unnecessary streets. (6) Complete platting of needed, existing streets. (7) Maintain and improve street and road system to Improve traffic circulation and safety. (8) Complete improvements to airport navigation and capacity. 8-2 (9) Expand small boat harbor and associated facilities. (10) Ensure greater access to ferry. (11) Insure winter maintainance and access of roadway to beach and provide an easement for loading and unloading the barge adjacent to the boat float at Jakolof Bay. BACKGROUND AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS This section describes existing conditions and possible improvements in Seldovials transportation services. Later sections of this chapter present planned solutions to problems. Streets And Roads Seldovia has over 4 3/4-miles of improved streets and roads within city limits. Outside of city limits, road travel is limited to Jakolof Bay and the Windy River area, approximately 15 miles north and east of the City. Figure 8-1 shows existing streets and roads within Seldovia. An informal survey of streets open to traffic in May of 1979 revealed that a majority of Seldovials roads are deficient in one or more aspects. Each street segment was rated in terms of sight distanceP condition of travel surface and ability to safely accommodate two-way traffic. Combining these criteria, only 0.8 miles or 17 percent of the City's streets were rated as adequate by virture of having no visible defects. Of the remainder, 1.5 miles of 33 percent were slightly deficient (one defect), another 1.5 miles or 33 percent were moderately deficient (two defects) and the remaining 0.8 miles or 17 percent were rated excessively deficient, exhibiting deficient conditions in all three areas. The survey served as the basis for street classification and capital improvement plans presented in the remainder of this chapter. STREET CLASSIFICATION Seldovials streets can be classified into categories for planning, programming and budgeting purposes. Utilizing criteria such as the area of town the street services, the amount of traffic which uses the street and land use, the streets in Seldovia have been classified into three categories of arterials, collectors and local access streets. Figure 8-1 and Table 8-1 summarize the classifi- cation of Seldovials streets and roads. Street classifications are important to determining construction and right- of-way standards for Seldovials streets. Local access streets typically have the most lenient standards, while arterial streets are usually built to meet much more demanding specifications. These classifications need not remain fixed, but can (and should) be reviewed periodically and revised as needed to accommodate changing conditions in the community. For example, should the activity at the airport increase and the property adjacent to the north side of Seldovia Slough be fully developed, 8-3 TABLE 8-1 SELDOVIA STREET CLASSIFICATION Street Justification For Classifications: A. Arterials 1. Seldovia Street/ Anderson Way o Very good vertical and horizontal align- ment. � Less expensive to maintain than existing route. � Removes heavy traffic from in front of the school. 2. Main Street (from Dock Street through parts of Kachemak Street, across Seldovia Slough bridge to airport).o Heavy use by traffic. o Serves industrial, commercial uses and links airport to the City. B. Collectors 1. Alder Street (including extension) o Both streets are used as secondary routes in the City. 2. Young Street o Both streets serve neighborhoods as links to the arterials. C. Local Access (All remaining streets) o All remaining streets are used for and are classified for local access. Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. and Moore,-Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. the City may wish to upgrade the classification of Shoreline Drive from Local Access to Collector or even Arterial. With the change in classification, the City's efforts should begin to focus on upgrading the street to meet the new classification standards (as will be described in the next section). STREET STANDARDS Possible street standards could be of two types - design and tolerable. Design represents the preferred condition, while tolerable represents the minimum acceptable condition. The latter principally applies to the upgrading of a few important streets. Even larger right-of-ways and roadways (shoulder to shoulder width) are desirable if conditions permit, and may even be essential if topographic conditions dictate (such as a steep grade). Table 8-2 sum- marizes design and tolerable standards for city streets and roads. PLATTING AND VACATING CITY STREETS Street platting is the process by which the legal right-of-way for a street, sidewalk or other thoroughfare is defined and established. The process usually involves defining the boundaries by survey and legal description, establish- Ave. 4 Legend 00'@14 Arterial Local Collector LocalAccess (All Oth- Roads) SCALEIN FEET 400 300 2oo 100 0. 200 400 Figure 8-1 aPILDOWEA PUNWRA5, IW- Comprehensive Arterial Connections Plan PACIFIC RIM PLANNER-5, INC. ment of public ownership (by gift deed, condemnation, negotiated purchase or other means) and recording of the transaction at a public land title recording office. Conversely, vacating is the process by which a public body determines that a right-of-way is no longer necessary, and transfers public ownership to a private party, often in return for payment of a fee. TABLE 8-2 DESIGN GUIDES AND TOLERABLE CRITERIA FOR CITY STREETS AND ROADS Arterial Streets Local Access Streets Feature Design Tolerable Design Tolerable Right-of-way 50 feet 40 feet Surface Type Bituminous Gravel Gravel Gravel Number of Lanes 2 2 2 2 Lane Width 12 feet 10 feet 11 feet 9 feet Shoulder Type Gravel Grav.el Gravel Gravel Shoulder Width 6 feet 3 feet 3 feet 2 feet Roadway Width 36 feet 26 feet 28 feet 22 feet Minimum Roadway Width, Two-way Traffic & Parking On Both Sides 36 feet 36 feet 36 feet 36 feet Minimum Roadway Width For Two-way Traffic & Parking On One Side 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. and Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. Platting allows for the orderly development of street alignments, and should be considered an integral part of any street improvements. Platting is particularly important if subsequent legal and use conflicts are to be avoided. Seldovia has a significant number of unplatted roads crossing private property, and platted roads which adjoining property owners wish to see vacated. Al- though not a serious problem in terms of safety or community development, potential or proposed platting and vacating actions are a consistent problem for City leaders. This section addresses the problem of platting and vacating Seldovia's streets, outlining a method to systematically review and decide on platting or vacating actions. The method is then applied to specific plats or vacations of concern. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules that can be applied to arrive at decisions regarding platting and vacating of existing travel ways and rights-of-way. Each street must be evaluated in light of its individual con- ditions, but on a uniform basis. To ensure uniformity, a worksheet can be used; an example worksheet is shown in Figure 8-2. By using a worksheet, candidates for possible platting or vacation can be selected on logical, rational grounds. 8-7 F I GURE 8-2 PLATTING/VACATING WORKSHEET Right-of-way Yes No Remarks is there a platted R/W? is there an existing travel way? Is the existing travel way within the R/W? Does existing facility meet design guidelines, except for R/W? If no, does it meet tolerable criteria? Does the existing R/W meet design guidelines? Does the facility serve daily traffic? If no, does it serve seasonal traffic? If no, or seasonal, will it serve daily traffic in the future? If no to future traffic, should the R/W be retained as a pedestrian trail and/or utility easement? Are there utilities within the R/W? Will improvements facilitate traffic flow and/or reduce hazardous conditions: on this street? on another street? Can the street be improved to design guidelines within present R/W? Are construction costs higher than average for street construction? Does the travel way in its existing location present any problems; very steep grades, poor drainage, hazardous objects, etc.? Are there utilities outside of the existing R/W? Would relocation to existing R/W result in an improvement or an enhancement to the environment? Are construction costs to relocate in existing R/W higher than costs for new or additional R/W and platting? Can another street or streets provide better access and service to abutting property? Six major questions should determine the outcome of a platting or vacating action. These are: (1) Is a right-of-way or easement required for access to land, business establishments or dwellings? (2) Is a right-of-way or easement required for access by emergency vehicles? (3) Can a right-of-way use be limited to pedestrians and emergency vehicles only? (4) Is a right-of-way needed for utility construction and maintenance? (5) Will elimination of a platted right-of-way enhance the environment? (6) Will improvement to one street help relieve traffic or reduce hazardous conditions on another street? In a street vacation action, vacations should occur only where present and future needs can be handled with no appreciable decrease in quality of street service. It is often desirable to retain utility easements, or to retain the street for emergency vehicle and pedestrian use only where possible. Simi- larly, street platting should improve access to lands and ease traffic flow. The platting and vacating worksheet was used to evaluate 6 proposed platting and vacating actions. Conclusions and planned actions based on the platting and vacation analyses are shown in Figure 8-3. The analysis process was utilized on several other streets in the City such as Alder Street, Alaska Street, Church Street and Kenai Street. Figure 8-4 presents planned street system improvements. Pedestrian Ways Although Seldovia is relatively small and compact, foot travel is often difficult, expecially in the winter. Snow and slush pile up in and adjacent to the street, forcing pedestrians to walk in traffic lanes. A system of walkways which are maintained would ease this situation. The walkways should connect community facilities and businesses with the residential areas of the City. A possible walkway system is suggested in Figure 8-4. The walkway could be constructed as a standard sidewalk or alternatively be an informal, although maintained, trail or boardwalk. Private Boats Approximately 400 private craft call at Seldovia each year. It is estimated that 95 percent are pleasure craft and the remainder are commercial fishing vessels. The major portion of this traffic occurs between May and September. In addition, as previously mentioned, there is a Homer-based barge service (Flyme Transport), which operates two landing crafts. During ferry layup periods, the barge service is the basic means of delivering van and truck- loads of supplies, provisions, etc., to the community. The barge service FIGURE 8-3 PLANNED STREET PLATTING AND VACATING ACTIONS PLANNED ACTION COMMENTS 1. Plat Cedar Street from Willow Street to Lake Street. 2. Kachemak Street should be one- way northbound between Alder Street and Lake Street. 3. Cedar Street should be one-way southbound from Lake Street to Alder Street. 4. The area bounded by Main Street, The interior development within Alder Street (extended north- this area, particularly the mobile westerly), and the existing home court, requires access. travel way of Route S-434. Until Neither the existing platted other access is provided in the rights-of-way nor the existing area, that portion of Route S-434 narrow travel ways provide ade- should remain open as a local quate access, especially for fire access street. If rights-of- fighting equipment. In addition, way are platted for this area, the units and accessory buildings they should be wide enough to appear too close to each other and accommodate roadways which to the existing travel way. conform to the design standards, Grades of most of the travel ways and street grades should be as serving the area are too steep to gentle as possible. ensure year-round access. 5. Plat extension of Spruce Street. 6. Discontinue through traffic on unplatted road between Winifred and Alder Street extension. operates.throughout the year and carries construction supplies and equipment during the construction season. It also serves vehicles which miss or cannot be accomodated by the ferry. Port Facilities The municipally-owned City Dock is located in the industrial section of Seldovia adjacent to Wakefield Fisheries. The State Ferry utilizes the City Dock. The 208-foot long structure is constructed of metal and concrete and is in good condition. Freighters and barges also use the dock. There are two other deepwater facilities - the old City Dock and the Wakefield Fisheries Dock. 8-10 0 EP AT A (0) EXIS Co. OWN IRS RETAIITMAL LM STREET FOR A CCESS ND UTILITIES IR 11 T U TION: M -9 L S Spff U@ M P UM:@AN T RE r @T, (@EEP UTILITY EA MEN @.U TAI L AIT YEA UT TTY AIA "' T XT F FWR E ENS OF UPGR E AND WIDEN SHORELINE DRIVE 0 NOT ALLOW PARKING ON STOP TH UGH THE S EET AF 4D D IN THEL U RE ARTERIAL FULMER OR OB LE HOME P EXT EDAR STREE FROM T WILLOW S TO AR AIAL KE SHORELINE DRI E FROM All RT EN UE TO LAKE ST DRTH ,A CEDAR EET -RO AK TREET ER ST EET ONE W Y OUTH AT PRES zT T@ME DO NOT EN OUR- AGE EXTEh SON F AIRPORT A@ ENUE ARO NO SEL 3 3VIA LOUGH DUE r) HIGH )STS EXTENSIDN. JIF THE AIRPOR r AND T' i FACILITIES 'ROW IT h AY SE NrrESJAR1 TO LXTE NO HIS S _T To IT E .LTT 0 R THE A R 0 T TRA Legend Major Arterials Local Collector SCO "U OF UNPLATTED S E I EA AD ON. DO NOT VAC D,C, B TREET. EVENTUALLY C R G WAY FROM C STREET ST E T nigh Priority Extensions Future Extensions 0000000 One Way Street L I Vacate Street 100 0 FEET 200 400 Walkway Figure8-4 T R-1" IIT M.'L@ -__S E AND IVE0NOT PAC= 04 puff"a, IIHIC, sz Comprehensive Street and Walkway Plan System Plan PACIFIC RIM PLANKRO, INC. The small boat harbor, constructed in 1963, serves the local fishing fleet and other small boats. The facility is owned by the State of Alaska and is operated by the City. The harbor has a seaplane float, 83 slips for boats and has a total capacity for about 100 boats. There are two dry dock grids, one for smaller boats up to 32 feet in length, and a second which accommodates boats up to 62 feet in length. Available facilities include electric power, fresh water and lighting. There is ample parking space available; however, to ensure orderly development of the port and downtown area, additional parking areas should be set aside. The harbor is currently at full capacity, with 102 slips rented. Of that number, 39 are local commercial fishing vessels and the remainder are pleasure craft. Near i y a I I of the p I easure craft are owned by persons who do not reside in Seldovia. There is a waiting list of about 80 applicants for moorage; most of the applicants are non-residents. Enlargement of the facility could accommodate not only additional pleasure craft, but also larger fishing vessels in the 70-foot to 150-foot class. According to current moorage rates, $24,000 to $30,000 in yearly revenues could be added through the provision of 80 - 100 additional moorage spaces for pleasure boats. This degree of enlargement would be consistent with the current demand for additional moorage. These additional revenues would be available to support further harbor maintenance and development. Ferry Service The Alaska Marine Highway System operates the M.V. Tustamena between Seldovia, Homer, Kodiak and Seward. The system provides scheduled, two day a week service to Seldovia. Service is eliminated for about two months each year, usually during the winter for annual maintenance and refurbishment of the vessel. Based on the system's records, it appears that there is a considerable year- round demand for service. Passenger embarkment and disembarkment figures for Seldovia indicate substantial use regardless of the month of the year, particularly if vessel layup periods are excluded. F)rry passenger traffic increased by a very significant 62 percent between 1_',72 and 1973. The increase coincided with a summer schedule change that provided two Homor/Seldovia round trips on Tuesday and Wednesday each wook. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the total 1974 passenger traffic occurred during the months of June, July and August. Since that time, ferry traffic at Seldovia has increased to approximately 4,650 passengers per year with about two-thirds of the traffic occurring during June, July and August. During 1978, 1,508 passengers and 874 vehicles embarked at Seldovia and 2,147 passengers and 813 vehicles disembarked. Records of passenger tickets sold at Seldovia indicate that about one-fourth were purchased by persons not residing in Seldovia; during the summer, this fraction increases to nearly one-half. 8-13 The Alaska Marine Highway summer schedule for 1979 provided service between Seldovia and Homer on Tuesdays and Wednesdays each week May through September. The winter schedule provides this service once a week, except during annual layup period. The one-way summer passenger fare between Seldovia and Homer is $5.00, an additional $16.00 for auto. In winter the $16.00 counts for auto and driver. Rate hikes of $1.00 to $2.00 are expected in 1980. Increased ferry and cargo service would benefit Seldovia residents, parti- cularily in light of the lack of options available for scheduled trips to Homer and points further inland. During peak summer loads, ferry travel is limited to two consecutive days a week. With projected local population growth taken into account, as wel I as increasing tourist interest in the Kachemak Bay area, ferry traffic loads are expected to increase considerably in the future. The increase would be particularly acute during summer months. Additionally, because of the one day per week winter ferry schedule and the annual layup period, the expense and difficulty in transporting goods and people to and from Seldovia increases. As can be seen in Figure 8-5, summer peak passenger loads have attained a high of 3,390 embarkments and disembark- ments, considerably surpassing winter, spring and fall demand. FIGURE 8-5 SEASONAL NUMBERS OF PASSENGER EMBARKMENTS AND DISEMBARKMENTS, SELDOVIA, ALASKA 3000 summer 2500-' 2000 1500 1000 Fall 500 S fin Winter 0 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 Yen r @ Decreased ferry runs because of annual layup Source: Alaska Department of Transportation, Marine Highway System The winter layup period, occurring on an annual basis, requires that ferry users plan their trips accordingly to avoid requiring travel inland during the time the ferry is not operating. As vehicular access is severely limited during this time period, it is difficult, and expensive, to make trips or obtain supplies from Homer, and particularily such inland points as Kenai and Anchorage. Other, more expensive means of travel must be utilized during the layup period. Flyme Transport, based in Homer, operates two limited capacity landing craft type barges (38 and 25 ton payloads). The rates are currently $75.00/hour on the 4 hour round trip from Seldovia to Homer. The barge is available for some passenger and vehicular transport as well as cargo and supplies, on a unsched- uled "as needed" basis. Cook Inlet and Homer Air provide year-round air service to Seldovia, with costs of between $15.00 and $17.00 per passenger one-way. Because only the barge service can accommodate vehicles and supplies in any capacity, the air service is only useful for more immediate needs, or connecting flights inland. Broader economic questions additionally are posed by the lack of resident, visitor, and cargo access, particularily during the winter season. These will be discussed more fully in the Economic Development Chapter, however, several points need to be considered in relation to future transportation development in the area. The establishment of a marine service base for OCS support would require relatively unimpeded access to goods, and supplies from inland sources. Tourist access, important to community service activities and growth, is impeded currently because of the uneven weekly ferry route scheduling. The free movement of fish products and other industrial and service supplies is inhibited on a seasonal basis. Costs of basic food items, clothing, and incidential needs have risen proportionately to the increased costs of transport due to interrupted, or limited ferry scheduling. One possible solution to the shortage and distribution of ferry runs would be relocating an additional ferry in the area, on a seasonal, or alternate basis. This would allow the scheduling of trips throughout the week, partic- ularily on weekends. Additionally this would allow for the provision of ferry service throughout winter, avoiding a layup period. It appears possible that, given increased demand, through both tourist traffic and resident popu- lation increases, the State will eventually increase the scheduled number of runs between Seldovia and Homer. Another method of alleviating summer and winter cargo and vehicular passage wou I d be the estab I I shment of a loca I I y based charter tug and barge. The barge would be available on a regular basis for the transport of vehicles, and a substantial amount of cargo. This service would be particularly needed during the summer peak months and in the event of continual ferry layups, during the winter. A third method of increasing the number of runs available, in this case of foot passengers, would be the establishment of a private or publically sub- sidized scheduled craft, based in Seldovia, which could shuttle passengers and their belongings back and forth to Homer on a daily basis. It is possible that, given the longshoring ferry tie-up charges ($500.00 and up) at the public dock in Homer, and the fluctuating numbers of passengers transported on the current State ferry, the State would consider the possibility of increasing the number of runs through the use of a less expensive craft. 8-15 Air Transportation The Seldovia Airport is located approximately one-half mile east of the city center, across the Se)do%@Ia Slough. The airport is owned by the State of Alaska and maintained by the City. The runway is gravel surfaced and approximately 2,600 feet long. Due to unauthorized vehicles being driven on the runway and causing ruts and potholes, the City has had to increase their maintenance of the sur- face during the past year or so. The airport is surrounded by hills and mountains. This, coupled with frequent gusty winds, makes takeoffs and landings difficult. There are no electronic navigational aids at the airport, thereby limiting operations to daylight hours. During the winter months, the situation al lows operation of the airport for only 4 or 5 hours per day. Facilities at the airport are limited to a private hangar and a small auxiliary building. The airport is not served by the city sewage system. Area residents would be allowed freer access to and from the airport through construction of a roadway I ink around the airport and connecting the Jakolof Bay Road. This would improve access to points north of the City as well as provide an alternative route to Seldovia in the event of a bridge failure. The City does not have a separate float plane dock or facilities to support this type of operation. Presently, float planes use the small boat harbor for landings, takeoffs, loading and unloading. This causes conflicts with existing harbor operations and could be potentially dangerous. AIR SERVICE Alaska Aeronautical Industries (AAI) provides daily scheduled air service between Anchorage and Homer. Some flights are scheduled with an intermediate stop at Kenai. Wien Alaska Airlines provides one flight per week between Homer and Anchorage. The leg between Homer and Seldovia is usually by an air taxi service from Homer. The current round-trip air taxi fare (Seldovia to Homer) is approximately $30.00. Two operators provide regular service between Seldovia and Homer: Cook Inlet Aviation and Homer Air Service. These operators carry passengers, mail and freight. A recent study (Homan-McDowell Associates, 1978) provided the following air passenger volume information (Tabl'e 8-3). TABLE 8-3 AIR PASSENGER VOLUME SELDOVIA TO HOMER Quarter CIA (Seldovia) HAS (All Points) 1st 946 1,807 2nd 1,052 3,113 3rd 1,141 4,089 4th 411 2,616 1976 Totals 3,550 11,615 Source: Alaska Transportation Commission The study estimated the Seldovia portion of the traffic was 5,325 one-way trips and that the actual number of persons fly!-.ng was approximately half, or 2,663. At that time the air taxi carrier estimated that 1/4 to 1/3 of the traffic to Seldovia was non-resident, i.e., State or Federal employees, loggers, fishermen, utility workers, etc. According to quarterly reports by Cook Inlet Aviation for their base opera- tions at Seldovia during 1978 (filed with the Alaska Transportation Com- mission), the total passengers carried was 6,662 or approximately 3,330 passenger round trips. The percentage of the total traffic by quarter was as follows: First Quarter - 19 Percent Second Quarter - 28 Percent Third Quarter - 32 Percent Fourth Quarter - 21 Percent 100 Percent As of October 1, 1979, quarterly reports for Homer Air Service were not available from the Transportation Commission. Based on present traffic volumes, AAl has indicated direct airlines service between Seldovia and Anchorage is not feasible at this time. AIRPORT AND AIR SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS With the growth projected for Seldovia (see Chapter 3), it seems reasonable to expect that at sometime in the future.. scheduled air service between Seldovia and Homer with links to Kenai and Anchorage will be initiated. Predicting when this will occur, however, is quite difficult. One recent study (CH2M-Hill, 1978) stated that unless the existing facilities at the Seldovia airport are improved, the air traffic will remain 'relatively light. This seems to imply that if the facilities are upgraded air traffic will increase at the airport. In part, this may be correct. However, economic activity and population growth must also occur to justify expenditures at Seldoviats airport. To encourage economic growth and better serve the community, several improve- ments should be made to the airport. Navigational aides should be installed to allow use of the airport during evening and night time hours. These aids or I i ghts, shou I d be screened so they do not i mpact adj acent res i dent i a I properties. Facilities at the airport should include a waiting room, rest- rooms and hangars. To do this the sewer system should be extended to this area. An all-weather surface should be considered to reduce maintenance costs and improve landings and takeoff conditions. The City should seek State funding to design and construct a float plane dock and ramp facility in Seldovia Bay. The placement of this facility should be carefully studied to reduce the conflicts between the boats using the harbor and the float planes. 8-17 With these improvements, the City may be in the position to encourage one of the air services to coordinate their service to and from Seldovia with flFghts from Homer to Kenai and on to Anchorage. It seems unlikely that direct sched- uled service between Seldovia and Anchorage will be realized in the near future. However, scheduled service to Homer with links to other cities, could be expected and encouraged if these airport improvements have been made. It is also unlikely that the Seldovia airport could serve OCS development in any major way. A recent study (Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1976) stated "where neither road nor rail connections are available to many coastal communities, it is essential that a service base be road-connected to an airport, perferably one with scheduled main-line service and with facilities to handle Hercules- type cargo service..." This statement seems to relegate the Seldovia airport to very limited OCS involvement. PLANNED SOLUTIONS Based upon the preceeding discussion, planned solutions are shown below. Many of these require cooperation between the City, State and Federal govern- ment to realize these solutions in the areas of improved air, ferry and street service. Avenues of communication must be opened as soon as possible. GOAL: Convenient, reliable and economical transportation within and between Seldovia and nearby communities. OBJECTIVE: Reschedule ferry arrivals and departures to more agreeable times and relocate home port closer to area. POLICY: The State will be encouraged to schedule the ferry service to accomo- date more summertime and winter travelers. ACTION70: City send resolution to Alaska Marine Highway Service requesting year-round service, and increased frequency of summer service by relocating home port of ferry or adding additional ferries to Seldovia-Homer run. ACTION71: City, Chamber of Commerce work through State legislators to increase funding for additional and better service. OBJECTIVE: Establish winter ferry service, such as from Jakolof Bay to Homer. POLICY: The State shall be encouraged to supplement Seldovials ferry service during the winter maintenance of vessels regularly assigned to serve Seldovia. ACT I ON 72., City contact Alaska Marine Highway Service, State legislators to arrange supplemental service. ACT I ON 73: City, Chamber of Commerce contract with private tug and barge operator to provide winter freight and vehicle ferry service between Seldovia and Homer. OBJECTIVE: Improve cargo handling - ensure weekly cargo and forwarding service. POLICY: Means will be sought to increase ferry traffic to and from Seldovia or to supplement the existing barge service. ACTION74: Encourage the establishment of a locally-based chartered tug and barge service. ACTION75: Encourage the State to increase the number of ferry runs per week, year-round. OBJECTIVE: Establish and maintain pedestrian links within Seldovia, connect- ing housing, schools, public facilities, recreation areas, shops, etc. POLICY: The City shall incorporate pedestrian-related improvements into future roadway construction projects (see Figure 8-4). ACTION76: City seek funds and community support to design and construct the pedestrian walkway system and to extend this system to serve future growth. OBJECTIVE: Vacate unnecessary streets. POLICY: The City shall vacate those streets determined to be unnecessary. In instances where it is decided to vacate a street right-of-way, the City should retain an easement for possible future utility construct- ion and for pedestrian walkways if desired. ACT ION 77. Vacate streets indicated in Figure 8-4. ACT I ON 78: Evaluate future proposed street vacations using criteria shown in Figure 8-3 and platting/vacation worksheets (Figure 8-2). OBJECTIVE: Complete platting of needed or existing streets. POLICY: When new streets are constructed or developed, they should be built within the platted rights-of-way. In cases where this is not feasi- ble, the plat should be changed and the right-of-way acquired for the City. Private improvements should not be allowed within the platted right-of-way. ACTION 79: Require survey of roadbeds of new streets prior to construction and approve construction drawings prior to issuance of building permits. ACTION 80: Replat streets as needed. POLICY: When right-of-way is dedicated (platted) for new streets, the minimum right-of-way width should conform with the design guidelines established for the street according to the street's classification (see Figures 8-1 and 8-3). 8-19 POLICY: Plats for new subdivisions should have complete road design drawings for construction before the plat is approved. ACTION 81: Advisory Planning and Zoning Commission request Borough Planning and Zoning Commission and Borough Assembly to amend Borough sub- division ordinance to require subdivision applicants to submit road design drawings as part of subdivision plat applications for land in or near Seldovia. OBJECTIVE: Maintain and improve street and road system to improve traffic circulation and safety. POLICY: Private improvements in existing rights-of-way will be removed by the owner of said improvements at the owner's expense. If Vacating or replatting is considered as an alternative to removal all costs of replatting, including land, surveys, legal fees, etc., should be at the owner's expense. ACTION 82: City Implement the improvements shown in Figure 8-4. OBJECTIVE: Complete improvements to airport navigation, capacity and safety. POLICY: Airport improvements will be encouraged which improve Seldovia's ability to develop its economy and provide safer, more accessible air service to residents and visitors. ACTION 83: The City shall investigate funding sources to improve facilities and navigational aids for the airport. ACTION 84: Improve the airport facilities and navigational aids. ACTION 85: Encourage scheduled air service to Homer with links to other cities. OBJECTIVE: Expand small boat harbor and associated facilities. POLICY: The City shall encourage the further development of the boat harbor. ACTION 86: The boat harbor shall be expanded to accommodate not only addi- tional pleasure craft but also larger fishing vessels. OBJECTIVE: Ensure greater access to ferry. (Refer to Actions 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75). 8-20 Chapter 9 Public Facilities The proper development of the community's public services, including the water, sewer, wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal systems, are critical not only to maintain the welfare of its residents, but to attract new commercial and industrial development. In this chapter, the existing conditions of each City public utility will be reviewed; present and anticipated needs will be defined; and recommendations presented for system betterment. BACKGROUND Wastewater Collection And Treatment An existing sewage collection system (Figure 9-1) serves approximately three- fourths of the residents within the city limits. The collection system was constructed in the mid-sixties, and the gravity lines are generally in excellent condition. The system also contains two pump stations. Pump Station No. 1, on Bay Street, receives flow from the east third of the service area. Pump Station No. 2, on Main Street 'discharges the total system flow to a 12-inch raw sewage outfall extending 300 feet into Seldovia Bay. The discharge of raw sewage has contaminated shellfish within the bay and is esthetically objec- tionable since the outfall is exposed at low tide. The Pacific Pearl (or Wakefield) seafood processing plant presently discharges cooling water, saltwater and process wastes to the City sewer on Main Street. Flow monitoring conducted in September 1978 indicated approximately 70 percent of the total sewage flow is industry-generated (Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, 1978). Since the 1978 studies, an additional seafood processing plant (S.A. Packers, Inc.) has been built. Its impact, however, has probably been minimal, since the plant separates shells from and reprocesses wastewater. Extended pump times and high solids and saltwater concentrations caused by the seafoood discharge have resulted in continuing excessive operation and main- tenance costs at Pump Station No. 2. A plan is currently being prepared for a proposed sewage treatment facility which will provide secondary treatment in accordance with EPA regulations. The draft facility plan (published in November, 1978) evaluated four treatment methods, recommending that the City pursue the "oxidation" concept since it had the lowest equivalent annual cost. The report also noted that if an agreement for landfill disposal of sludge cannot be obtained,, an aerated lagoon located near Gray Cliff, north of Seldovia, is the next best alternative, since it offers the advantage of greatly reduced sludge disposal requirements, albeit at a higher cost (Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, 1978). 9-1 Since they constitute such a large component of Seldovials wastewater flow, industrial wastes have become one of the principal issues which remain to be resolved prior to final adoption, by the City and State, of the facilities plan. Variables which remain to be finalized include: (1) Extent of City involvement in coordinating industrial waste disposal. (2) Level of treatment required by State and Federal agencies. (3) Location of outfall. (4) Possibility for joint use of facilities by agreement of processors. (5) Use of existing raw sewage outfall for discharge of seafood processing wastes. (6) Type and number of additional fish or seafood processing plants anticipated. Solid Waste Solid waste is collected by a private company licensed by the City. The present landfill is located south of the City.and is maintained by the Borough. Assuming that the solid waste collection and landfill management functions continue to be performed by others, the City's involvement in solid waste management will continue to be minimal. Water System Seldovials drinking water is supplied by impoundment of two separate drainage basins. The Upper Reservoir, with a 5 million gallon storage capacity, is the City's primary source, but problems with insufficient year-round flow, winter freezeover, fall algae blooms and leakage in the 10-inch diameter wood stave transmission line make it an unreliable source. Water from the reservoir is chlorinated and flows through a pressure reducing valve prior to entering the distribution system. The quality of this water is excellent, except during periods of algae bloom. The second source that has recently been developed is Fish Creek, which flows northwest to Seldovia Slough. This source has been developed by construction of a low cement dam. The Fish Creek Reservoir is located near city limits in an uncontrolled watershed. Some of the lands within the reservoir are privately owned. Recommendations to protect the quality of Fish Creek are discussed in Chapter 6. The Fish Creek pump station contains diesel-driven pumps with a capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) each. One of these pumps must be run constantly when the Upper Reservoir is unavailableY since the Fish Creek Reservoir is situated at too low an elevation to provide gravity service to the City. The pumped water enters the distribution system downstream of the existing pressure reducing station. In the past, Fish Creek has not been chlorinated; the City's current water improvement program includes provisions to chlorinate water from both sources. 9-2. Is "P. 0 0 4 0,@ 0 Legend 0, EXISTING: 0 0 Sewer Lines 0 0 c Wat er Lines PROPOSED: c Sewer Lines Water Lines 0000000 SCALEIN FEET 400 300 200 100 0 200 400 Figure 9-1 A PAczr- 0M Existing and Planned Comprehensive Water and Sewer Systems Plan PPCIRC RIM PLANNER6, INC. Intermittent stream gauge readings taken by the USGS between 1967 and 1972 indicate the minimum observed f low in Fish Creek to be 1.49 cubic feet per second, or 670 gpm (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1973). TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION The transmission system consists of a 10-inch main running from each reservoir west across Seldovia Slough to the City distribution grid. Portions of the I ine downstream of the Upper Reservoir are wood stave pipe having relatively high maintenance costs. The remaining portions of the line are either cast' iron or steel. The distribution system consists of six through 10-inch mains, most of which were installed after the 1964 earthquake. The lines are generally well-looped and capable of supplying peak flows for fire protection in the residential and commercial areas. The distribution system also contains some two-inch line in the southeastern residential section of the City. EXISTING AND PROJECTED WATER USE Residential water consumption averages 120 gpm, or 350 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) during summer months. This rate nearly doubles to 210 gpm during winter months, whereas typical per capita consumption generally ranges between 150 and 200 gpcd. The higher consumption in Seldovia is attributable to the absence of residential metering and water wastage during winter months to prevent line freezing. While population within the planning area is expected to approximately double by the year 2000, it is anticipated that total resi- dential water consumption will not increase significantly due to reduction in amount of water wastage with the onset of metering (Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, 1978). Industry uses a significant portion of the City's total water consumption during the crab processing season, which runs August 1st to September 15th and December Ist to May 31st. Data obtained for the period January 30 through February 1, 1979 indicates Pacific Pearl Seafoods uses a daily average of 150 to 165 gpm, which is 40 to 45 percent of total city-wide consumption. S.A. Packers, the second seafood processor in Seldovia, is not presently operating at full capacity, and crab processing comprises a smaller fraction of the business volume than at Pacific Pearl. For purposes of planning, ultimate water consumption for S.A. Packers is estimated at 75 gpm, while domestic water consumption (including winter wastage) accounts for another 210 gpm. Based upon these estimates, present peak day consumption is approximately 450 gpm. Thus, any assured source capacity in excess of 450 gpm would be available for system expansion. Significant demands on the City's water supply would occur if a service base for offshore oil development is sited in or near Seldovia. Research conducted by the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (1976) estimated that freshwater requirements to support offshore oil operations in Lower Cook Inlet are: o 10 to 35 gpm (daily average), peaking in 1980, to support exploration; o 35 to 145 gpm, peaking in 1983 to support development; o 150 gpm maximum to support exploration and development in year 1983. 9-5 Fire protection requirements vary within the City. Residential areas and the small commercial establishments in the business district have a fire flow requirement of approximately 500 to 1,500 gpm. The City's network of mains, six inches in diameter and larger, are capable of delivering these flows. Some of the developed portions of the City have substandard mains (smaller than six inches in diameter). These include the east side of Seldovia Slough and along Anderson Way, south of Malcolm Street. For planning purposes, the cannery and the shopping center on the waterfront are considered to have fire flow requirements of approximately 2,500 to 3,500 gpm, based on National Board of Fire Underwriters criteria for similar building size and type. A recent report recommended construction of a 10-inch line between Winifred Way and Main Street to complete the looping of the system across the north side of the City (Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, 1979). This strengthening of the supply system will ensure that required flows for fire protection can be delivered at the dock area from a distribution viewpoint. From a supply standpoint, however, fire protection at the dock area is limited when the system is supplied from Fish Greek by the nominal 2,000 gpm pumping rate of the existing pump station. Storage requirements for fire protection are typically established by insurance underwriters, based on the composite risk within the City and not the highest risk. For planning storage requirements, a 2,500 gpm flow is assumed. The 1973 Grading Schedule for Municipal Fire Protection requires a two-hour duration for a 2,500 gpm flow. Accordingly, required fire protection storage is estimated to be: 2,500 gpm x 2 hours x 60 min/hr = 300,000 gallons The 300,000 gallons of storage required for fire protection is not reliably provided by present facilities because of the previously mentioned seasonal limitations of the Upper Reservoir. Electrical Power Electrical power is currently supplied to Seldovia by Homer Electric Association via the transmission line running from China Poot Bay to Seldovia. The line cuts a swath through areas which are heavily wooded and of varying topography. Power interruptions due to falling trees and blowing limbs have been frequent. Much of this problem may be attributed to inadequate maintenance of the right- of-way. ISSUES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Based upon the background discussion and citizen input, issues, goals and objectives relating to public utility services have been identified. ISSUES: (1) Unavailability of reliable, adequate quality public water supplies on a year-round basis (e.g., winter freeze-up, algal blooms, pollution, etc.) 9-6 (2) Lack of adequate reservoir storage and delivery system water supply capabilities, particularily with respect to provision of adequate fire protection. '(3) Per capita cost of water to local residents. (4) Discharge of untreated sewage to, and possible pollution of, Seldovia Bay by the City sewer system. (5) Discharge of raw sewage by some residents into Seldovia Slough. (6) Discharge of industry-generated waste water flows to City sewers. (7) Unavailability of sewer service in portions of the City (i.e., East Addition) and difficulty of financing sewer service extensions. (8) Extension of City sewer service beyond present city limits. (9) Visual impact of Homer Electric Association's electric power lines. (10) Lack of municipally-owned gravel or crushed rock source. These issues have been used to develop an overall goal and specific objectives for Seldovials public utilities. GOAL: Provide dependable, adequate public utilities for present and future Seldovians at a reasonable cost. OBJECTIVES: (1) Provide adequate water supply and distribution facilities to all customers within the city limits. (2) Improve consistency in availability of quality drinking water on a seasonal basis. (3) Provide reliable water storage capacity to meet fire protection, equalization and standby requirements. (4) Provide sewage treatment meeting all applicable State and Federal requirements at an affordable cost. (5) Provide municipal sewer service to all existing residential and com- mercial buildings within the city limits. (6) Assure availability of standby electric power. (7) Lessen visual impact and power interruptions, from electric power lines and utility corridors. (8) Assure availability of environmentally sound solid waste disposal services. (9) Obtain municipal ownership of a gravel or crushed rock source. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS A wide range of approaches may be employed to achieve the public utility objectives stated above. This section describes possible approaches which may be employed, and serves as the basis for planned solutions presented in the final section. 9-7 Water System Alternatives A wide range of construction options have been set forth in other reports which could meet Seldovia's water supply needs (Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, 1978 and 1979). These alternatives include: (1) Construction of a filtration plant and a 500,000-gallon steel reservoir. This course of action includes continued use of the Fish Creek pump station when supply by the Upper Reservoir is not possible. (2) Raising or relocating the Upper Reservoir Dam. (3) Increasing flow to the Upper Watershed by diversion from Fish Creek. (4) Relocation of the Fish Creek Reservoir upstream from the present location. The filtration plant proposed in Alternative No. 1 will remove debris and micro-organisms such as algae from the water. Filtration, however, may not be required if an adequate settling basin is.pro- vided. It is possible that relatively inexpensive modifications to the Fish Creek intake pipe could greatly reduce the amount of debris entering the system. Such modifications could include constructing a baffle at the intake and/or modifying the shape and discharge point of the relatively small reservoir to reduce turbulence. This work could be accomplished while the system is being fed from the Upper Reservoir to minimize adverse effects on water quality. If the minor modifications discussed above will not prevent debris from entering the water system, the City may wish to accelerate the preliminary planning and feasibility study for relocating the Fish Creek reservoir up- stream of the present location (Alternate No. 4). Additional study could then confirm whether an intake structure with a sufficiently large reservoir can be designed to eliminate debris problems associated with the Fish Creek supply. Alternate Numbers 2 and 3 may improve water quality and availability, but as noted in Chapter 6, this construction will not substantially increase flow within the Upper Watershed. Thus, substantial expenditures such as dam con- struction within the Upper Watershed probably cannot be justified since the small size of this watershed limits both the quantity and reliability of the impoundment. A reservoir sited at upper Fish Creek could offer many potential advantages, including elimination of pumping requirements by providing gravity service to the City and possible elimination of filtration plant requirements if adequate settling is provided. If a suitable impoundment site cannot be obtained in upper Fish Creek., the City could consider a fifth storage and supply scheme by combining Alternate Numbers I and 4. In this scheme, a steel reservoir would be sited to provide gravity service to the City and fed by a transmission line from upper Fish Creek, eliminating the need for a pump station. 9-8 As with any of the Fish Creek supply alternates, a proper intake is required to prevent debris from entering the system. While construction cost per million gallons stored is generally less for surface impoundment behind an earth-filled dam than for a steel reservoir, other cost factors need to be considered such as site acquisition, soil con- ditions, topography and maintenance. It would appear that the City may be able to minimize capital expense for water system improvements by constructing the upper Fish Creek Reservoir, Alternate No. 4. The final determination should be based on a detailed engineering evaluation examining the minimum flows in Fish Creek as well as a cost- effectiveness analysis of all alternate solutions to the source and supply problem. A possible outline of required planning steps to determine feasibility of upper Fish Creek Reservoir would include five basic steps: (1) Hydrologic analysis to determine minimum flow and suitability of Fish Creek as long-range supply source. (2) Site analysis to determine possible locations for reservoir con- sidering elevation required to provide adequate water system pressure, extent of land flooded by impoundment, depth of water, length of dam, proximity of suitable embankment material and soils analysis. (3) Evaluate site acquisition, water rights, environmental considerations and measures to protect watershed (see Chapter 6). (4) Cost-effectiveness analysis. (5) Determination of grant/loan eligibility and funding sources. As noted earlier, the minimum flow observed in Fish Creek was 670 gpm which would be adequate to supply average daily requirements in the intermediate growth scenario, but insufficient for the high growth scenario. It should be emphasized, however, that no definitive conclusions can be reached at this time regarding the adequacy of Fish Creek as a long-term source for the City, since there is insufficient stream gauging data to establish minimum stream flow. In addition water rights have to be established and it is possible that a certain minimum year-round flow has to be maintained for other environmental reasons. Coordination with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation is needed to establish an allowable withdrawal rate from Fish Creek. Further study is also needed to establish the minimum flow in Fish Creek for a conservative recurrence interval such as 50 or 100 years. This could probably be achieved by additional stream gauging and correlation of gauging data wi-th rainfall. Detailed flow information for Fish Creek will then enable the City to better plan required water system improvements. WATER STORAGE REQUIREMENTS Storage is typically provided in a water system to increase fire protection, provide standby storage, and provide equalization of flows within the system. 9-9 F I GURE 9-2 PROJECTED MUNICIPAL WATER REQUIREMENTS UNDER INTERMEDIATE AND HIGH GROWTH SCENARIOS INTERMEDIATE SCENARIO HIGH SCENARIO USER DEMAND USER DEMAND Residential Consumption 210 gpm (Present peak Residential Consumption 210 gpm (Current winter peak winter residential for 500 capita, unmetered) flow) + 65 gpm (477 capita @ 200 gpcd assumes new construct- ion to be metered) Industrial Consumption 240 gpm (S.A. Packers Industrial Consumption 315 gpm (Assumes ' 3rd seafood (24-Hour Average) at estimated full (24-Hour Average) processor size of S.A. Packers) capacity plus Pacific Pearl) Marine Support Base 50 gpm (1/3 of total Marine Support Base 100 gpm (2/3 of total Cook Cook Inlet requirement Inlet requirement year 1983) Year 1983) TOTAL WATER DEMAND 550 gpm TOTAL WATER DEMAND IN 690 gpm PEAK YEAR (1983) Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. and Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. Total storage required is generally calculated as the sum of flow equalization storage plus fire protection storage, or flow equalization-storage plus standby storage, whichever is greater. A minimum of 800 gallons per service is frequently recommended for standby service. Based on year 2000 population of 913 and assuming three persons per service, needed residential standby storage is: 913 Capita x 800 gpcd 243,000 gallons capacity 3 Persons7Service Storage to provide one-day standby service to the two existing seafood processors based on a 240 gpm flow averaged over 24 hours is: 240 gpm x 1,440 min/day 346,000 gallons capacity Fire flow requirements within Seldovia vary from 500 to 1,000 gpm in resi- dential areas to 2,500 to 3,500 gpm along the waterfront. Storage requirements for fire protection are typically established by insurance underwriters ' based on the composite risk within the City and not the highest risk. For planning storage requirements, a 2,500 gpm flow is assumed. The 1973 Grading Schedule for Municipal Fire Protection requires a two-hour duration for a 2,500 gpm flow. Accordingly, fire protection storage is estimated to be: 2,500 gpm x 2 hours x 60 min/hr 300,000 gallons The amount of storage required for flow equalization will primarily be con- trolled by industrial consumption patterns, and the minimum sustained flow of the source. If the minimum flow in Fish Creek is less than approximately 400 gpm (year 2000 population = 913 @ 800 gpcd + industry at 240 gpm), a relatively large impoundment would be required to equalize seasonal variations of the source (not considering maintenance of any minimum flow downstream of intake). However, if the minimum flow is greater than 400 gpm, storage is only required to equalize demand. It appears that a 500,000-gallon reservoir would be adequate to provide the storage requirements for standby service, fire protection and demand equaliza- tion. Prior to finalizing plans for any of the storage options, the City should establish the minimum design flow of Fish Creek to verify if.supply equaliza- tion is required. The City could continue using the Upper Reservoir as the favored source until a high quality, reliable source is developed on Fish Creek or elsewhere as may be required. When an alternate source is developed, the Upper Reservoir can be shifted to a standby basis. The City can monitor leakage rates in the Upper Reservoir and also observe whether deeper ponding would reduce algae problems. Maintenance costs, both current and projected, could be evaluated as we'll as reliability of the new source to determine if continued use of the Upper Reservoir is justified. The City's 1976 Water Plan and 1979 Water System Improvements Report (Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, 1978 and 1979) contain detailed plans, indicating distribution system improvements required as additional areas of the City are developed. 9-11 The public works standards noted earlier could be adopted to establish City standards for water main size, type of material, spacing of valves and hydrants and service line details. Any improvements to the water system should comply with the watershed management plan, presented in Chapter 6 and summarized as follows: SHORT TERM - Protection of existing sources., Fish Creek and Reservoir Creek, for approximately the next five years. INTERMEDIATE TERM - Improvement of water collection and storage within present watersheds, to be implemented over a period of five to 20 or more years. LONG TE1W - Develop Larger sources, either Barabara Creek or'SeZdovia River. Other possible actions regarding new construction include:- (1) Minimum cover for privately-installed main and service lines should be established to provide protection from freezing. (2) Water main standards could also be established. Water mains could be ductile-iron pipe because of its superior strength and durability. This pipe can also be thawed with electric current if frozen and bedding requirements in rock are less stringent than for other types of pipe. Ductile iron will interface with cast-iron pipe previously installed. (3) Included in the public works standards could be a policy establishing that extensions to the water system be a minimum size (such as eight- inch line for dead-end service or six-inch line if looped). City policy could also be established specifying that substandard portions of the distribution system be upgraded prior to allowing new connect- ions. Improvements could be financed by ULID assessment procedures, hook-up charges, or from general or capital improvement funds if the work is an improvement benefiting the-entire system. If extensions are made as noted above, the City's water distribution system will be adequate for consumptive and fire fighting requirements within the residential areas to year 2000. At the completion of the ongoing inventory of the water system, the City can review location and spacing of valves and fire hydrants, and establish a construction program to correct any deficiencies that affect system adequacy and reliability. Wastewater Treatment Additional study is needed to determine what treatment is necessary for sludge dewatering prior to land disposal. Once landfill criteria are established, alternate processes can be evaluated which will consider the volumes of sludge anticipated; climatic limitations affecting open-air drying, landfill manage- ment practices, and availability of service support and technical expertise required for operation and mechanical sludge dewatering equipment. 9-12 At present, two seafood processors discharge to the City's sewage collection system. A recent study of water quality management needs completed for the Kenai Peninsula Borough noted: "...it is very doubtful that industry will choose to discharge its waste into the Setdovia municipal system under the presently established conditions for Federal financing of sewage collection and treatment works. As in the case of Seward, the industry would have to pay a very large share of the overall cost, but the present effluent discharge criteria for seafood processing wastes can be met with a much smaller investment than would be required to pay the industry's share of a system which would meet the requirements for treatment of municipal wastes". (Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, 1974). Seldovia's Draft Facility Plan (Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, 1978) is based on separate disposal of seafood processing wastes. Even though industry may be required or choose to provide separate treatment facilities, it is desirable for the City to be involved in the facility planning to ensure that common facilities can be expanded to enhance the industrial development potential in Seldovia, and that the industrial effluent will not adversely affect fisheries or use of the bay as a source for seafood process water. BOAT PUMP-OUT FACILITIES Federal regulations require installation of a grinding device or holding tank on all new vessels with toilets offered for sale after January 30, 1977. Stricter discharge standards for grinding devices go into effect January 30, 1980. Since construction of boat pump-out facilities would be financed by a user charge system and since the regulations do not restrict discharge of untreated sewage from vessels beyond a three-mile limit from shore, it appears construction of boat pump-out facilities would not be economically feasib le at present. Should regulations change and the City be required to provide pump-out facilities, the existing gravity sewer fronting the harbor on Main Street is available to handle wastewater pumped from the vessels in the boat basin. SEWER EXTENSIONS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA As discussed elsewhere in this report, population within the study area is projected to increase from approximately 500 at present to 913 by the year 2000 if the intermediate growth rate is realized. Within Seldovia, the most likely areas for development are in the vicinity of the school on the north side of the City and the East Addition area southeast of the Seldovia Slough (see Chapter 5). A recent request for a State grant to fund construction of sewer collectors for the East Addition was turned down. State policy apparently is to withhold funding of any additional sewer lines until plans for the proposed sewage treatment plant are more definite. A review of the grant eligibility of the 9-13 sewer and pump station construction discussed in the Draft Facility Plan may identify increased levels of funding which may be available if this construct- ion is included with the sewage treatment plant project. The other large area within Seldovia that is unsewered is the northeast portion of the City, generally lying east of the school and north of Malcolm Street. Construction of sewers in this area would make considerable land available for development, particularly the two potential high-density residential sites along Anderson Way, discussed in Chapter 5, pages 5-16 and 5-17. Sewer extensions to serve both of these areas must be constructed prior to or in conjunction with new development in these areas. Planned routes of the actual extensions are shown in Figure 9-1 and the Draft Facilities Plan (Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, 1978). As noted in Chapter 5, the limited amount of developable land within the City is expected to generate increased pressure for growth outside the present city limits. Lands within the planning area which were identified as being available for development are north of the City, along the Seldovia-Jakolof Bay Road and southeast of the City within, and west and south of The Fish Creek drainage basin. Because of severe soils and groundwater limitations, a considerable portion of these developable areas would require non-septic sewage disposal. Figure 9-2 designates three general areas, A, B and C, within which sewer extensions would need to be made. Areas A and B, north of the City, are approximately 120 acres each. A report by the U.S. Geological Survey (Nelson and Dauskin, 1979) indicates that the depth to bedrock within these area (along the Seldovia-Jakolof Bay Road for 114 miles north of the city limits) is three to four feet near Seidovia Point, where the Jakolof Bay Road turns east, depth to bedrock along the roadway increases to 10 to 18 feet for 112 miles east of Seldovia Point. The soils information contained in the U.S. Geological Survey report is based on a limited number of test pits along existing roads. Subsurface conditions elsewhere may vary considerably from the general patterns noted in the report. For purposes of planning, it is assumed the presence of shallow bedrock will prevent use of conventional septic tanks and greatly increase costs of any gravity sewer construction within Areas A and B as shown in Figure 9-3. One possible method of providing sewage disposal in Area A is by constructing a pressure sewer system which would discharge to the proposed City treatment plant to be sited either at the northwest corner of the City of at Gray Cliff. A pressure sewer system is comprised of a small pump which discharges sewage collected from one or several houses to a force main or shallow gravity sewer. Soils within Area B northeast of Lake Irene are also generally underlain by shallow bedrock, precluding septic tank installation. A pressure sewer system within Area B could discharge either to the City treatment plant, if it is sited at Gray Cliff, or to a community drainfield located on suitable land north of Area B. Soil conditions in the vicinity of Seldovia Point will generally allow use of septic tanks for low density (one unit/acre) resi- dential development. 9-14 Seld6via Pt So VA ovia 2 2 2 500 3.:: - X 695 bin Q) b 0' (4 6 X ht C, ry lof )0 mel I x Cal k(QC a 3 ---- \-@ ............ . . ................ ULL-1 Watch. ..... 34@' SELDOVIA Ca X 157' -- X 0/3 1857 X 73) r J?O'wder I 0 V X 2474 W 4*k 947 710 7 j W75, ...... Pressure sewers are generally more economical to construct in conjunction with high density developments, such as mobile home parks, than as piecemeal extensions to individual properties. Consequently, low density development within Areas A and B may not be economically feasible if ground conditions preclude installation of septic tanks. Grant funds are generally not available for extending sewer service into un- developed area; however, if sufficient pressure for development in Areas A and B occurs, a Utility Local Improvement District (ULID) could be formed and all benefiting properties asessed for the system costs. The higher operation and maintenance costs of a pressure sewer system could be partially offset by standardization of parts and local availability of spare parts and service. Area C, Figure 9-3, designates developable land within the Fish Creek Basin. Shown is that area which would I ikely require storm drains and city sewers. Any development here would be subject to the restrictions discussed in Chapter 6. As long as the City uses the Fish Creek Reservoir, any upstream development would necessarily require non-septic disposal, as well as location and setback restrictions consistent with the Watershed Management Plan. FINANCING EXTENSIONS TO THE COLLECTION SYSTEM As new construction takes place within the City, it may be necessary to extend the existing system to provide sewer service to currently unsewered areas. One method of financing sewer construction is by Developer Extension Agreement, whereby the developer agrees to bear all costs of design, construction and inspection, and turns ownership and maintenance of the completed work over to the City. Much of the new sewer construction in Seldovia could be by developer extensions to the existing system. A second method of financing new sewer construction is by Utility Local Improve- ment District (ULID). The City finances the work by selling bonds and recovers its costs by assessing benefitting properties over a 10 to 15 year period. ULID's are generally created for larger scales of construction and could be established for sewer construction in the northeast and East Addition sections of Seldovia. Another method of financing sewer and treatment plant construction is by revenue bonds backed by the operating revenue of the utility system. Alternatively, bonds can be "general obligation", (backed by the taxing power of the City). General obligation bonds are most commonly used to finance projects which benefit the entire population within the City and which usually are not revenue producing, such as schools and parks. They would therefore not be appropriate for sewer extensions. An additional method of financing for construction of new sewer facilities is Federal and State grant and loan funds. Generally, the grant or loan covers less than 100 percent of the project cost and the balance of the cost is funded locally by bonds or assessments. As discussed in the Annexation section of Chapter 10 (Local Government), analysis of the cost of services and projected revenues is often a helpful tool 9-17 to deciding upon proposed annexations. Additional planning considerations could include checking capacity of existing sewer facilities to accommodate increased flows. In some instances, where future development is likely, it may be desir- able for the City to assume a portion of the cost of sewer construction in order to provide increased line size or pump station capacity to avoid later duplication of costs. City costs of providing reserve capacity can be recovered by "latecomers" charges assessed as property subsequently is developed and connected to the sewer facility. Solid Waste The new sanitary landfill is located south of Seldovia, just opposite an artifically filled berm, constructed on a ridge separating the landfill from the primary tributary headwaters of the Fish Creek Watershed. Although it appears that adequate protective measures have been undertaken in preventing contamination of the adjoining Fish Creek Watershed, monitoring of the creek headwaters would assure that no seepage of contaminants has occurred across the narrow watershed boundary. Coordination with the Borough is required to determine if wastewater treatment plant sludge can be disposed of in the landfill. If the sludge can be disposed of in this manner, subsequent determinations of water content and level of sludge treatment need to be made. As discussed in the wastewater section, this information will influence the treatment scheme selected. Electrical Power Additional maintenance is required along the current China Poot to Seldovia power transmission lines to prevent additional power interruptions. Because of vegetation growth within the right-of-way, as previously mentioned, additional cutting of trees is required to eliminate the dangers posed through failing trees and blowing limbs. It would be desirable, through communication with the Homer Electric Association, for the City to arrange for even cutting within the right-of-way alignment. Ultimately, the undergrounding of the transmission lines would increase service reliability and allow revegetation of the existing swath. This action would provide a future alternative to the existing network. Gravel Source In addition to water and sewer improvements discussed in this section, a City- owned gravel pit could substantially reduce public construction and maintenance costs. The community desires ownership of a gravel pit to provide a cost effective alternative to the existing use of the State owned pit. The City will need to study the cost feasibility of acquiring property to be used as a local gravel source. Particular attention needs to be paid to siting such an operation so as to minimize transportation costs. 9-18 Standards For Public Works Construction In order to assure quality and minimize future capital and maintenance costs, the City can adopt materials and workmanship standards for public works con- struction within the city limits. Standards for public works construction would become especially important should Seldovia experience a high growth rate resulting from offshore oil production or other economic development activities. Basic references for establishing Public Works Standards include Standard Specifications For Municipal Public Works Construction, published by the American Public Works Association (APWA), Washington State Chapter, and Standard Specifications For Road And Bridge Construction, published by the Alaska Highway Department. These basic standards could be modified as required to meet local conditions and provide specific information regarding type of materials to be used, standards of workmanship, standard details, procedures for design, inspection and acceptance, and warranty provisions. PLANNED SOLUTIONS Because of the interrelatedness of water system development with watershed management alternatives, specific policies and actions which follow are necessarily tied to the planned solutions outlined in Chapter 6, (Municipal Watershed Management). Other policies and actions relate to sewage disposal, electrical power and solid waste disposal, and like water system development, are comprised largely of specific measures required to achieve desired goals and objectives for specific facility improvements. OBJECTIVE: Provide adequate water supply and distribution facilities to all customers within the city limits. POLICY: Water system improvements will emphasize orderly, efficient develop- ment, affordability and adherence to basic construction standards. ACTION87: The City shall establish public works standards for extensions and improvements to the water system. ACTION88: Extend 10-inch line on Winifred Way to complete loop across north side of City. A route south along Winifred Way is recommended if reservoir is not constructed in U.S. Reserve. ACT I ON 89: 10-inch main construction of "C" Street, Augustine Avenue and across Seldovia Slough to provide service in the growing East Addition in the southeast part of the City. ACTION90: Construct 8-inch main on Anderson Way between Malcolm Street and Alder Street. ACTION 91: Install telemetry to monitor and control, at a minimum, the following parameters: reservoir level, pump status and system pressure 9-19 ACTION 92: Study cost-effectiveness of water meter installation and pro- tection of services from freezing to reduce water wastage and, consequently, reduce water system capital and operation costs. OBJECTIVE: Improve consistency in availability of quality drinking water on a seasonal basis. POLICY: Water sources will be managed to retain present water quality as long as they may be needed for present or potential use. Improvements will be sought to provide lasting relief to quantity and quality problems. ACTION 93: The City will install, maintain and the State will monitor the effectiveness of a water filtration and chlorination plant at the Fish Creek source (action repeated, Chapter 6). ACTION 94: Determine minimum design flow of Fish Creek to establish its suitability as a long-term source for the Seldovia water system. ACTION 95: Complete cost-effectiveness study of alternate concepts for water system supply and storage. OBJECTIVE: Provide reliable water storage capacity to meet fire protection, equalization and standby requirements. POLICY: Water system improvements will emphasize increasing capacity and reliability at least cost. ACTION 96: Construct additional storage, minimum of 500,000 gallons. ACTION 97: Explore feasibility of deepening or relocating existing reservoirs. Implement most feasible alternative. OBJECTIVE: Provide sewage treatment meeting al'I applicable State and Federal requirements at an affordable cost. POLICY: Sewage treatment capabilities will be obtained which are most consistent with regulatory, environmental, cost effectiveness and affordability needs of Seldovia. ACTION 98: Evaluate additional sludge disposal options, and revise treat- ment facilities equivalent annual cost analysis if a different sludge disposal option is selected. ACTION 99: Evaluate options for separating seafood processing wastes from domestic sewage in conjunction with sewage treatment plant facility plan. ACTION 100: Finalize sewer facilities plan. ACTION 101: Construct sewage treatment facility. ACTION 102: Rehabilitate existing sewage pump stations. 9-20 OBJECTIVE: Obtain municipal ownership of a gravel or crushed rock source. POLICY: The City will pursue ownership of economical gravel source. ACTION 103: The City will study, with the Seldovia Native Association, options for reconveyance of land, containing gravel source, to City ownership. ACTION 104: The City will determine availability of gravel source on Fed- erally owned property, and determine requirements for obtaining a possible use permit. OBJECTIVE: Provide municipal sewer service to all existing residential and commercial buildings within the city limits. POLICY: Sewer service extensions will be accomplished to minimum standards using own sources, grants, loans, and private contributions where private benefits will be created. ACTION 105: Establish Public Works Standards for extensions to the sewer collection system. ACTION 106: Require developer extensions to the existing collection system as required by new construction. ACTION 107: Provide sewer construction in East Addition. ACTION 108: Perform sewer and pump station construction in northeast section of City. ACTION 109: Evaluate impact of seasonal flow variations due to winter water wastage and summer population and boat influx on wastewater treatment processes discussed in the Draft Facility Plan. OBJECTIVE: Assure availability of standby electric power. ' POLICY: Consideration of availability of adequate, dependable electrical power will preclude applicable zoning decisions and development restrictions. ACTION 110: The City Council shall pass resolution, allowing continued use of power facility site within currently zoned classification. ACTION III: Request Homer Electric Association to maintain operation of Seldovia Power Plant. OBJECTIVE: Lessen visual impact, and power interruptions, from electric power line and utility cooridors. POLICY: The City will maintain an active role in monitoring power failures, contributing to determining causes. ACTION 112: The City Council shall pass resolution outlining increased maintenance desired within the main line transmission cooridor, addressed to the Homer Electric Association. 9-21 ACTION 113: The City shall instigate cost analysis of undergrounding transmission line. OBJECTIVE: Assure availability of environmentatly sound solid waste disposal services. POLICY: Assurance of sound and adequate solid waste disposal will prevent long- term environmental damage. ACTION 114: The City shall provide continued cooperation with the Borough in determining sludge and solid waste disposals needs. ACTION 115: The City shall monitor and determine possible contamination of watershed water supply resulting from solid waste transport and disposal. 9-22 Chapter 10 Local Government Provision of the wide range of public services and facilities improvements desired by the community's residents is an important step in implementing goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Many service demands are placed on local governments, yet most local governments face severe restraints in financial resources and legal authorities to meet these demands. Seldovia's local government faces these problems, as do many other local govern- ments. Three pressing areas of concern include: the acquisition and manage- ment of financial resources, methods of extending public services to newly growing areas which are presently outside of city limits, and alternatives for the Seldovia Native Association, Inc.'s land reconveyance to the City of Seldovia under terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. This chapter addresses these three areas. ISSUES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES During the course of development of this comprehensive plan, issues, goals and objectives relating to organization of Seldovia's local government were formulated. Issues include: (1) The City has had increasing deficits in its General Fund balance. (2) The City has had difficulty meeting grant-in-aid requirements. (3) Some aspects of the City's tax policies are inequitable. (4) Some City enterprises are not self-supporting. (5) The City has difficulty raising its own funds to match grant-in-aid req u I rements. (6) City capital improvements are not scheduled, funded and regularly carried out. (7) Rapid growth may create additional financing problems for City. (8) Per unit costs of City services are high. (9) City officials have difficulty balancing changing revenues, costs and service demands. (10) Alternatives for ANCSA 14(c)(3) municipal reconveyances need to be analyzed. (11) Methods of managing and extending services to unincorporated areas need to be analyzed. The goal for local government which responds to this issue is: 10-1 GOAL: Equity and efficiency in local public (City) taxation and finance, with sound municipal financial health, quality public services to all resi- dents, and provision for future needs of Seldovia. Objectives specify what results must be accomplished for the goal to be realized. Objectives for local government include: OBJECTIVES: (1) Restore a healthy balance to the City's General Fund. (2) Achieve compliance with grant-in-aid requirements. (3) Improve equity of City tax policies. (4) Make City-operated enterprises self-sufficient wherever possible. (5) Improve ability of City to match grant-in-aid financial requirements. (6) Improve planning, scheduling, financing and implementation of City capital improvements. (7) Improve ability of City to manage and finance needed services for rapid growth. (8) Reduce per unit costs of City services. (9) Improve ability of City to wisely balance revenues, costs and public service demands. (10) Achieve ANCSA 14(c)(3) municipal reconveyance which is fair to both Seldovia Native Association, Inc. and City. (11) Explore and implement most cost effective and suitable method of extending public services to and development of unincorporated areas near city limits. The following three sections address the attainment of objectives for municipal finances, ANCSA municipal reconveyances and annexation. FISCAL ANALYSIS One of the most significant problems facing many small cities is the financing of public services on a limited tax base. In Seldovia's case, urban renewal following the 1964 earthquake imposed an even greater strain by expanding the City's long-term debt to levels at which it is difficult to finance additional capital improvements. The purpose of this section is to briefly examine the finances of the City and discuss possible solutions to the City's financial problems. Background A total of nine major issues in local government relate to municipal finances. These are discussed in the paragraphs below. 10-2 GENERAL FUND DEFICITS During the past several years, the City has had an increasing deficit in its General Fund at year end (see Figure 10-1 and Table 10-1). The reasons for this deficit are quite diverse and are identified further below. Deficits in the General Fund are of concern for several reasons. First, the General Fund is the accumulation of the Clty@s "own source" revenue, and is the only reliable source of matching funds for State and Federal grants-in-aid. Second ' deficits in the General Fund are often borrowed from grant funds, in violation of grant requirements. Third, General Fund revenues are the only fund revenues which are unrestricted and available to respond to emergencies or unexpected drops in revenues; deficits severely restrict the City's ability to respond to emergencies. COMPLIANCE WITH GRANT-IN-AID REQUIREMENTS In the last year, the City has had to reimburse some "restricted" (grant) funds with revenue from its General Fund because of violations of State and Federal Grant requirements. Difficulties have included failure to file required reports when due, failure to ensure that expenditures are allowable, and deficiencies in budgeting and spending actions. TABLE 10-1 CITY OF SELDOVIA GENERAL FUND CHARACTERISTICS REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND FISCAL YEAR END BALANCES FISCAL YEAR REVENUES EXPENDITURES SURPLUS OR END OF YEAR ENDING JUNE DEFICIT FOR BALANCE 30TH YEAR 1970 $117,129 $ 90,172 $ 26,957 ($85,222) 1971 $129,635 $110,561 $ 19,074 ($66,148) 1972 $130,008 $121,618 $ 3,390 ($57,758) 1973 $127,335 $133,751 $ 50,902 ($ 6,656) 1974 $134,720 $160,066 ($ 25,346) ($32,002) 1975 $199,595 $172,592 $27,003) ($ 4,999) 1976 $219,582 $230,832 ($11,250) ($16,249) 1977 $275,671 $287,766 ($12,095) ($28,344) 1978 $263,323 $249,068 $14,255 ($14,089) 1979 $467,857 $495,568 ($27,711) ($41,800) Average Annual Change +20.3% +26.1% * Note: Includes transfer of $57,318 of General Fund deficit to long-term debt. Source: Arthur Young & Company, various years. EQUITY OF TAXATION AND OTHER REVENUE SOURCES Over half of the City's General Fund revenues are derived from the City's property and sales taxes. Other smaller, though significant portions are derived from shared state revenues, user fees and miscellaneous sources (Table 10-2). Some residents have raised serious questions about the equity of the City's financing; comparison with public finance principles suggests that reexamination of financial sources may be in order. 10-3 TABLE 10-2 SOURCES OF GENERAL FUND REVENUES CITY OF SELDOVIA 1979 AMOUNT PERCENT OF TOTAL State of Alaska Shared Revenues $30,301 6.5% Alaska Business License Tax $ 4,582 1.0 Electric & Telephone Tax $ 3,861 0.8 CETA $45,270 9.7 Raw Fish Tax $ 1,151 0.2 Liquor Licenses $ 3,300 0.7 Road Contract $95,000 20.3 Miscellaneous $22,920 4.9 Dock Revenues Ferry Contract $13,800 2.9 Wharfage & Handling $ 5,024 1.1 Commissions $ 5,287 1.1 Building Rent $ 6,264 1.3 Other $12,611 2.7 Sales Tax $26,547 5.7 Property Taxes $86,929 18.6 Sewer Property Tax & Assessments $12,223 2.6 Small Boat Harbor $30,524 6.5 Building Permits $ 2,417 0.5 Sewer Use Fees $18,078 3.9 Business Licenses $ 820 0.2 Building Rent $ 1,343 0.3 Interest & Penalties $ 1,478 0.3 Miscellaneous $20,866 4.5 Transfer From Special Revenue Funds $17,261 3.7 TOTAL REVENUE $467,857 100.0% Source: Arthur Young & Company, 1979 A basic principle of public finance holds that taxation should be based on either ability to pay or on benefits received (Aronson et.al., 1973). General property taxes are often criticized on two bases. The first is that property taxes tend to fall more heavily on lower income households and therefore violate the first part of the principle. In addition, some property taxes are used to finance services not received by all (for example, sewer lines), violating the second part of the principle. 10-4 FIGURE 10-1 YEAR END GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND YEARLY REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES CITY OF SELDOVIA -90,000 -80,000-- -70,000-- Deficit Amount L., . J. -60,000-- -501000-- ....... ........ -40,000-- -30,000 -20,000 -10,000-- 0 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 275,000 250,000-- Revenue 225,00 Expenditures 200,000-- 175,000-- 150,000-- 125,000-- 100,000 0 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 10-5 It should be noted, however, that cities are strictly limited by Alaskan law as to both methods and allowable rates for raising revenues. Further, in some cases, long-term committments have been made where capital improvements have been financed. For these reasons, changes in financing approaches may be taken only on an incremental, step-by-step approach. OPERATION OF CITY ENTERPRISES The City operates a number of services on an enterprise or service-for-fee basis. In some cases, rates charged for the service are less than the total costs of providing the service. While direct costs are usually recovered, the rates or fees set often do not include allowances for overhead costs (such as administration or depreciation of equipment used). In effect, then, these services are subsidized by other City revenues. Related to this issue is the question of sizing public facilities such as sewage treatment plants or water storage reservoirs. Since much of the potential development under the intermediate and high growth scenarios may occur outside of present city limits, the City will likely be faced with new, additional demands for its services from residents of unincorporated areas. Hence, sizing facilities and setting rates for services will depend on the City's stance regarding extension of services to unincorporated areas. RAISING "OWN SOURCE" (CITY) FUNDS TO MATCH GRANT-IN-AID REQUIREMENTS Owing primarily to General Fund deficits discussed above, the City has had great difficulty raising and allocating funds from local sources to serve as a local "in kind match" or contribution to carry out projects funded with State and Federal grants-in-aid. As a result, a number of opportunities to secure outside funding to meet local needs have had to be foregone. FUNDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Currently, the City does not regularly allocate General Fund revenue to a capital improvement budget, aside from a reserve fund for dock replacement. Without a regular set-aside of funds to finance replacements and new facili- ties, the capital improvements have had to be financed primarily out of a few grant-in-aid sources available to the City. Again, this predicament contributes to the difficulty of financing and carrying out capital improvements. CASH FLOW AND FINANCING DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH RAPID GROWTH Although Seldovia has not experienced rapid growth recently as have other areas of the Borough, achievement of either the intermediate or high growth scenarios could create additional financial problems for the City. If growth is rapid, major expenditures will probably be needed to finance needed services before sufficient new revenues are available. In some cases.- such as when industrial or residential development occurs outside of the city limits, needed revenues may not catch up with added demands for public services for a decade or more. HIGH PER-UNIT COSTS OF PUBLIC SERVICES The City also faces high per-unit costs of providing many City services. High transportation and construction costs are typical in Alaska due to the 10-6 State's remote location and seasonally harsh climate. Two other factors, however, combine to push Seldovia's costs above even Alaskan averages (Table 10-3). First, spreading fixed costs of many services among Seldovia's rela- tively small population tends to increase per-unit costs. Second, some services (particularly water service) have no conservation inducements in their fee structures. Consequently, per-resident use often is high even during periods when additional use is not needed (such as spring, summer and early fall, when water freeze-up is not a problem). BALANCING CHANGING REVENUES, COSTS AND SERVICE NEEDS Since many of the sources of revenue and expenditures are variable and difficult to accurately predict, the City Council, Mayor and administration have had great difficulty planning for the City's financial needs. In addition, the City Council and Mayor have had difficulty ensuring that actual expendi- tures for City functions are in keeping with adopted budgets. Possible Solutions For Fiscal Issues A wide range of possible solutions can be employed by the City and the Borough to achieve public finance objectives. This section describes possible solutions corresponding to each objective. RESTORING A HEALTHY BALANCE IN THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND Several types of actions could improve the health of the City's General Fund, these include: � Decreases in expenditures; � Increases in "own source" (locally generated) revenues; � Increases in revenues from State and Federal sources; � Improved short and long-range financial planning; and � Improved control of budgeted expenditures. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce (1977), fiscal year-end cash and security holdings of Alaskan cities averaged $663 per resident in 1977; the U.S. average was $351 per resident. Based on these averages, Seldovia should seek to attain year end General and Capital funds balances of at least $150,000 to $250,000. This figure can include liquid, or easily sold, securities which can provide the City a cushion against unexpected changes in revenues or expenses. Decreases in current expenditures might be achievable in some areas of the City's operations, and are discussed in a subsequent section. Long-term debt payments, however, are much more difficult to change, and in fact are probably best considered a "given" when developing short-term financial plans. Increases in "own source" revenues may occur as additional persons move to Seldovia, additional taxes of charges are imposed, or additional area is annexed to the City.* Each is subject to limitations imposed by State law, If additional area is annexed, services will need to be provided to the newly- annexed area in proportion to taxes levied, and the City will incur additional costs. It, however, many of these services are already provided without 10-7 TABLE 10-3 COMPARISON OF PER CAPITA REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES OF SELDOVIA WITH THOSE OF ALASKAN AND U.S. CITIES UNDER 2,500 POPULATION 1976 - 1977 SELDOVIA ALASKA U.S. Revenues By Source From Federal and State GovIts. $ 602.25 $ 601.27 $ '66.90 From Own Sources Taxes $ 215.43 $ 300.31 $ 56.07 Charges & Misc. $ 266.17 $ 209.76 $ 86.08 TOTAL REVENUES $1,083.85 $1,111.34 $ 209.05 Expenditures, By Function Education - $ 493.45 $ 3.40 Hospital & Health $ 7.16 $ 14.07 $ 2.63 Public Safety $ 39.94 $ 90.42 $ 28.46 Other Expenditures $ 900.70 $ 573.75 $ 171.75 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 947.80 $1,171.69 $ 206.14 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce (1977) and Arthur Young & Company (1977). 10-8 City ordinance and public opinion. As Table 10-4 demonstrates, however, City property and sales tax rates are among the highest in Alaska; hence, additional increases in rates are probably undesirable. Additional increases in taxing and other revenue-raising efforts, therefore, are unlikely to result in net additional revenues sufficient to restore the health of the General fund. TABLE 10-4 COMPARISON OF CITY OF SELDOVIA TAX RATES WITH OTHER ALASKAN CITIES Property Tax Sales Tax Millage Rate,1978 @Rate, 1978 (Mills)* (Percent) Seldovia 21.0 4.0 Homer 18.5 5.0 Kenai 18.1 5.0 Soldotna 15.7 4.0 Seward 18.0 2.0 Kodiak 16.1 3.0 Palmer 7.3 2.0 Dillingham 10.0 3.0 Valdez (Zone 1) 17.6 - Cordova 18.0 4.0 King Cove 8.4 1.0 Yakutat 13.7 2.0 Note: A tax rate of 20 mills is equal to an effective rate of 2.0 percent of assessed property value. Figures include Borough and special district levies where applicable. Source: Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, 1979. State and Federal revenue sources might be increased if the City is able to compete effectively with other cities for grant-in-aid funds and has suffi- cient financial resources to "match" grants-in-aid to meet State and Federal requirements. This approach would require investment of additional funds and effort to locate, obtain and successfully manage grant programs, and would need to be combined with other approaches to succeed in meeting the City's objectives. The major action which the City can undertake is to institute improved finan- cial planning, budgeting and expenditure control measures. Currently, city budgeting and financial management is only short-range oriented, and does not recognize prior and projected changes in the balances of each of the City's funds. These are represented by steps one through four in Figure 10-2. charge to unincorporated areas, a net surplus of revenues would result. The annexation analysis section later in this chapter describes a method for determining the fiscal impact of possible annexations. 10-9 FIGURE 10-2 ELEMENTS OF CITY FINANCIAL PLANNING, BUDGETING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ELEMENT DESCRIPTION 1. Preliminary Budget Prepared by City Manager, summarizes trends, expected changes in revenues, expenditures and fund balances for last year and following years. Summarizes by function. 2. Adopted Budget Action taken by City Council, approved by Mayor. Specifies only functional catagories (streets and roads, health, etc.). 3. Administrative Budget Prepared by City Manager for Mayor and City Council. Specifies functional categories and individual line items. Serves as basis for monthly and quarterly summary reports during fiscal year, and financial audit. 4. Monthly Budget Reports Prepared by City Manager for Mayor. Summarizes revenues, expenditures and encumbrances for period, year to date, compares with budgeted and projected amounts. Serves as basis for control of expenditures, alerts of developing problems. Not distributed to Council except in a summary form. 5. Quarterly Budget and Prepared by City Manager for Mayor and Financial Summaries City Council. Summarizes actual last year, actual year to date expenditures and encumbrances, revenues and changes in cash balances, compares actual with projected, and projects next fiscal year's operations. 6. Long Range Budget and Prepared by consultant and City Financial Plan Manager for Mayor and City Council. Summarizes future operating revenues and expenses, existing debt service, recurrent capital expenditures, major capital expenditures, outside sources of financing, and financing require- ments. Projects timing of capital improvements, used to examine impacts of major decisions and changes in external conditions (see Table 12-3). 7. Capital Improvements Program Summarizes major proposed capital improvements, financing, timing. Pre- pared by consultant. (Example in this report, Figure 12-1). 10-10 FIGURE 10-3 EXAMPLE SHORT RANGE BUDGET FORMAT Previous Year This Year Budgeted Actual Proposed Approved* Next Year Income Taxes Non Tax Revenues Enterprises Grants Other TOTAL INCOME Expenditures Operating Expenditures General and Admin. Police Dock & Harbor Sewer Garbage Collection Water Streets, Roads & Airfield Fire Protection Planning, Zoning and Code Enforcement Health Library/Community Center Existing Debt Service TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES Capital Improvements Expenditures Total Expenditures Surplus (Deficit) Beginning Cash Balance Ending Cash Balance * Filled in only after final approva.1 (by ordinance) of budget. Note: Backup (working) documents summarize amounts by line item (detailed revenue and expenditure categories), and analyze past trends in revenue and expenditure categories. 10-11 Budgeting (i.e., the act of designating, by City ordinance, uses and dis- position of revenues likely to be received) should include recognition of past, present and projected balances of individual funds. In addition, long- range, multi-year financial planning is needed to establish a sense of con- tinuity and purpose to the annual budgeting process. Figures 10-2 and 10-3 describe the elements of a possible revised City financial planning, budgeting and management system. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL GRANT-IN-AID REQUIREMENTS The City Council could designate an individual or group (such as a council committee) to periodically review the progress of grant-funded programs to determine their compliance with grant requirements. If reviews are conducted frequently, there is much less chance of requirements being unmet or improper actions taken by the City. Granting agencies are normally willing to assist and answer questions, and are often willing to send field representatives to Seldovia upon request. In this way, agency staff can become an important source of assistance to City officials. Given the significant number of grant, revenue sharing and contracting pro- grams with which the City is currently involved, additional City staff would need to be hired if outside revenues and compliance with requirements are to be increased. Alternatively, consultants may in some cases be used to assist in preparing grant applications, planning and managing program activities and completing periodic evaluations of grant-funded activities. RESOLVING INEQUITIES IN TAXING Tax equity is best addressed in a step-by-step, rather than all-encompassing, fashion. As each major revenue or expenditure decision arises, equity can be considered as one criteria for making a choice. Three areas in which such decisions might occur are listed below. One possible decision would be to consider instituting charges for capital costs of City-provided improvements for which only certain residents or property owners receive benefits. For example, residents who receive services of a new water line could be assessed part or all of the line's costs by forming a special assessment district (sometimes called a Local Improvement District, or LID). Service charges or hook-up fees can also be used. The size of charges can be based on either the value of benefits received or the amount of funds which need to be raised in addition to available grant and City capital bLdget funds. A second possible example is where a service provides both direct and indirect services. If benefits are unevenly distributed, but all residents receive at least some benefit, (such as the medical clinic or recreation facilities), the revenue scheme could reflect this feature (e.g., combine user charges and general tax support). Third, if usage by persons living outside of city limits (and therefore not paying general property taxes) becomes significant, dependence on the general property tax could be decreased, and financing could shift to methods which 10-12 would be more equitable. Possible alternative methods include higher service or user charges, increased sales taxes or formation of an areawide service district. OPERATION OF CITY ENTERPRISES Prices, user fees and service charges for City-operated or subsidized enter- prises could be set according to who receives the benefits of it, how import- ant the benefits are to general public welfare and how much the recipients can afford to pay. For example, sales of City-purchased materials (such as sewer pipe) for private use could be priced at cost plus a markup to cover administration, use of City equipment in handling the goods and risk. These charges could be based on existing or additional City finance records, such as personnel time sheets. Records could be developed for each enterprise or type of item sold indicating direct costs of materials, services, and equip- ment use, and indirect costs (labor overhead, borrowing costs, administration, depreciation, etc.). The City Council can establish rates based on the com- bined totals, with allowance of an additional margin for risk and even profit where deemed appropriate. RAISING "CITY" FUNDS TO MATCH GRANT-IN-AID REQUIREMENTS The major possible improvement towards solving this problem is, of course, to restore a surplus to the General Fund. This can only be accomplished by instituting financial planning and awareness in City Council budgeting pro- cesses, instituting tighter review and controls on expenditures to ensure that budgets are adhered to, improving grant compliance and carefully managing cash flow. One specific action, in addition to those mentioned above, might include: budgeting a certain percentage of General Fund revenue (say 10 or 15 percent) to a capital projects budget. This would establish a "Savings" account for equipment replacement and could be available to match grant offers consistent with the City's capital improvement program priorities. A second possible action would be to charge grants-in-aid with indirect administration costs (as has been done for CETA grants). Although rates vary, most grant programs allow a specific percentage of the budget to be allocated to the General Fund, rather than one of the restricted funds, to cover admin- istrative costs. This revenue then effectively becomes "own source" revenue and is available to be used as a local match for other grants-in-aid. Third, if major development appears likely, the City could negotiate with the developer(s) for advance payment of taxes to be used as "own source" funds for grants or loans needed to provide services to the project or its employees. Fourth' rental or lease rates on City-owned facilities or lands could contain clauses indexing the rate to one of the federal price indexes (such as the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Workers). In this manner, rental or lease income will provide a more fair return on the City's investment. Fifth, rate structures might be altered to encourage efficiency or conserva- tion in use, and thereby reduce capital and operating costs. For example, water use might be on a fixed plus variable rate basis. The fixed rate would be set to accomodate the amount of water necessary to prevent winter freeze-up, 10-13 and the variable rate might apply only during low f low summer months when freeze-ups would not occur. FUNDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The major potential action which would improve the City's ability to schedule, finance and carry out capital improvements would be to establish a capital improvements fund and make regular allocations to it from the General Fund. This would provide a regular, available source of local matching funds for capital improvement grants. A target could be set for the annual appropria- tion in percentage terms, such as 10 or 15 percent of General Fund revenues. Two additional elements could improve the financing of capital improvements. First, development and implementation of short and long-range financial plans and'a capital improvement program (described earlier in this section and in Chapter 12) would provide improved continuity and direction to City financial management. Second, capital improvement financing could also be improved by instituting greater cost sharing by residents benefiting from services (if identifiable) through user charges, utility hook-up fees and formation of special assess- ment districts. The following section describes additional financing methods. I FINANCING SERVICES NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE RAPID GROWTH As mentioned earlier, a variety of financing mechanisms are available to pay for new development. These include: � Prepayment of taxes by the developer to the City; � Hook-up fees for connecting to City services; � Co-development of facilities by City and private developers; � Direct loan or grant of funds by developer to City (to install services); and � Developer installation of facilities with dedication (transfer of ownership) to City. Each of these mechanisms has been utilized in other areas. Since each features direct negotiation as a key element, it is important for the City to be in as strong a bargaining position as possible prior to entering negotiations. Major.sources of influence, i.n descending order of importance, include: � Direct ownership of site by the City. � Extension of needed services to site (sewer, water, etc.). � Land use regulatory powers (these are avilable only through annexation or some forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction). � Alteration of financing mechanisms for developer (Dornbusch, 1976). Prepayment of taxes is appropriate when revenues needed to finance services required by an industrial development or its employees will not be realized by the City for some time, and long-term financing is difficult for the City to obtain. Of course, the residences or businesses to be served must be within the taxing jurisdiction of the City; hence, this method is not appropriate for development outside of city limits. 10-14 Hook-up fees are appropriate for servicing development both inside and outside of city limits. The method is only appropriate for the few services (water, sewer, natural gas, telephone, power) for which fees are normally charged for the service. Hook-up fees are not appropriate for other types of services (police, fire protection, libraries, medical, roads, etc.) for which no fees are usually charged or for which use is difficult to measure accurately. Co-development of needed facilities by the City and an industrial developer (such as an oil company) is appropriate for development of any public service inside or outside of city limits. An industry can work with the City to plan, finance and develop needed facilities. Alternatively, the City can directly develop needed public services using grants or loans from the developer, or the developer can install needed facilities and services and dedicate these to the City for public ownership and operation. Care must be exercised, however, in negotiating such arrange- ments with developers to ensure that costs and revenues will balance over time, and that dedicated facilities are suitably constructed. Inability to levy property taxes and Alaskan statutory restrictions on services which cities may provide outside of municipal boundaries, however, make it imperative that negotiations be conducted carefully. If major development is likely to occur outside of city limits, annexation should also be considered. Dornbusch (1976) states: A Community must have jurisdiction over sites for OCS support facilities in order to adequately guide that development. Consequently, when potential sites lie outside present city boundaries, annexation will be necessary. REDUCING HIGH PER-UNIT COSTS OF SERVICES Several approaches can be taken to respond to high per unit costs. Some have been discussed in preceeding sections of this-chapter or in'other chapters of this report. First, rates can be set to encourage conservation, or greater efficiency of use. Services which appear to be candidates for conservation efforts are primarily public utilities. Second, joint use of facilities or equipment might be possible. For example, the City might lease construction equipment from private contractors on a daily rate if the rate times projected usage is less expensive than the cost of separately purchasing, insuring and maintaining the equipment. Alterna- tively, City-owned equipment could be rented when not in use. Third, services can be extended to additional users (provided that the new users pay extension costs) to increase the number of users on public facili- ties. For example, per resident costs for the sewage treatment plant would be less if more users were hooked up to the system and sharing fixed costs. Care must be exercised, however, to ensure that attempts to expand the service area for one service does not adversely inpact the finances of other services. 10-15 BALANCING CHANGING REVENUES, COSTS AND SERVICE NEEDS The best method of dealing with a changing financial environment is to improve city financial planning, budgeting and expenditure control systems. At a minimum, these should include the seven elements listed in Figure 10-2. An example long-range financial plan in shown in the Capital Improvements Program (Chapter 12). Financial planning is particularly important for small local governments such as Seldovials, since it enables City officials to determine City policy on long-range considerations. Where external conditions are changing rapidly, or service demands are growing, preparation and updating of this document gives the City a tool by which to measure the effects of varying city actions or policies, or to measure the effects of other decisions or events on the City (such as the possible impact of development of lower Cook Inlet oil fields). Long-range objectives can be established, giving city officials and others better ability to develop contingent plans and establish continuity. Planned Solutions For Fiscal Issues Based on the financial objectives noted earlier, appropriate policies and actions can be outlined. The following sections describe recommended actions to achieve city financial objectives. For sake of clarity, objectives are also repeated. OBJECTIVE: Restore a healthy balance to the City's General Fund. All of the five possible approaches outlined earlier will be pursued in order to achieve this objective. Of the five possible approaches, improved financial planning and expenditure controls will probably have the greatest long-term effect. POLICY: The City will plan its financial affairs emphasizing a long-term financial strategy to achieve greater financial security as evidenced by its General Fund balance. ACTION 116: Achieve decreases in expenditures by encouraging conservation in utilization of city services, encouraging joint use of facilities, use of special assessment districts for utility improvements. ACTION 117: Increase revenues by: (a) Expanding utility service areas where possible; (b) Using appraisals and escalation clauses in leases of City- owned facilities; (c) Setting enterprise rates or user fees to make enterprise self-sufficient if desirable and feasible; (d) Increasing grant revenues from State and Federal governments (see Appendix E, Funding Sources). ACTION 118: Improve financial management by instituting financial planning, budgeting and expenditure control methods (see Figures 10-2 and 10-3, this chapter, for example forms and additional information.) 10-16 ACTION 119: Increase General Fund revenues available to capital or grant- funded projects by charging grant or contracted programs (such as CETA) for indirect, administrative costs. OBJECTIVE: Achieve compliance with grant-in-aid requirements. Most of the actions discussed earlier could be applied to improve the City's compliance with grant requirements. Although each of these actions should help, the large volume of paperwork accnmpanyl.ng most grants-in-aid might make it advisable to add a grants adminis- trator to City staff if grant activity continues at its previous high level. POLICY: The City shall work to ensure that grant-in-aid requirements are met and that adequate checks and balances are provided in grant management. ACTION 120: City Council designate an individual or group (such as a Council committee) to periodically review progress of City's grant- funded programs. ACTION 121: Request periodic technical assistance from granting agency field representatives to determine compliance with grant requirements. ACTION 122: Review grant management and compliance workload periodically, and hire additional staff or consultants to assist City Manager if needed. OBJECTIVE: Improve equity of City tax policies. Since many of the City's taxing, revenue and expenditure decisions carry with them multi-year committments and are tightly constrained by State and Federal law, tax policy decisions are best made gradually, on a case-by-case basis. It is important, however, to establish a sense of direction or desired objective so that tax policy decisions will have continu.ity. All of the possible solutions should be applied, although the extent to which each approach is utilized depends on the merits of each policy. POLICY: Revenue, taxation and expenditure decisions will be based, at least in part, upon equity and benefits-received criteria. ACTION 123: Consider possibilities of special assessment districts, hook-up fees and user charges when financing capital improvements which do not have general, community-wide benefits. ACTION 124: Consider possibilities of grants, user charges, fees, use taxes, special service districts orannexation to finance services from which all area residents benefit. ACTION 125: Improve tax equity on a step-by-step, case-by-case basis. ACTION 126: Assure that taxes are applied equally to all (e.g., apply personal property tax to all major personal property, including boats). OBJECTIVE: Make City-operated enterprises self-sufficient where possible. Although an important objective for public enterprises, when 10-17 establishing financial policy self-sufficiency needs to be care- balanced with important public service needs of the community, administration costs and ability of those benefitted to pay fees. POLICY: Rates and fees for each City-operated enterprise shall be based on who receives its benefits, how much recipients can afford to pay, and how easily benefits can be determined and costs assessed. ACT ION 127: Utilize hook-up fees, service charges and special assessment districts to pay part or all of local utility and road improve- ments. ACT ION 128: Utilize service charges, sales taxes, areawide service districts or annexation to finance services used by non-residents. OBJECTIVE: Improve ability of City to match grant-in-aid financi-al require- ments. Each of the possible solutions outlined earlier can be employed to reach this objective. Given the rapid growth in the last decade of State and Federal grant-in-aid programs, increasing the City's own financial resources and financing mechanisms can have a major positive effect on the City's ability to carry out its capital improvement program and implement the comprehensive plan. POLICY: The City will develop reserves of funds and financing mechanisms to enable it to meet matching requirements of State and Federal grant-in-aid programs. ACTION129: Allocate, through City's annual budget, a fixed percentage (such as 10 or 15 percent) of General Fund revenues to a Capital Projects fund. ACT ION 130: Negotiate with developers for advance payment of taxes for necessary capital improvements. t\CT ION 131: Have private landowners benefitted by local streets and utility improvements share in part of cost through special assessment districts or hook-up fees. Also see actions to increase General Fund revenues. OBJECTIVE: Improve planning, scheduling, financing and implementation of City capital improvements. Completion of this comprehensive plan and capital improvements program represents a major step towards achievement of this objective. Other steps outlined in the discussion of possible solutions can also be utilized. POLICY: The City wi I I endeavor to arrange to carry out its capital improvements program by provi.ding regular allocations of General Fund revenues to a capital fund, obtaining grants-in-aid, and regularly updating the capital improvements program and financial plan. 10-18 ACTION 132: Establish and make regular allocations to a capital projects fund. ACTION 133: Obtain grants-in-aid and loans consistent with the capital improvements program. ACTION 134: Develop,.maintain and regularly update financial pl-an and capital improvement program (see Chapter 12). OBJECTIVE: Improve ability of City to finance needed services for and manage rapid growth. Implementation of the above policies and actions would improve the City's ability to provide services to existing developed areas as well as accommodate some add-itional growth. Servicing rapid growth (such as may accompany OCS development), however, is another matter. Financing very great service needs from Seldovia'5 small existing tax base is impractical unless different financing mechanisms have been established. Each of the possible solutions outlined earlier could work in a different situation; what is most important is that the City utilize the approach which is most appropriate for the situation. POLICY: The City will utilize special methods of financing public services to accommodate rapid growth, and will endeavor to utilize a method best suited to the needs which develop. ACTION 135: Utilize prepayment of taxes if development is within city limits and the City has difficulty obtaining financing from other sources. ACTION 136: Utilize hook-up fees for utility extensions inside or outside of city limits. ACTION 137: Co-develop needed services if development is within city limits and the City has some type of ownership interest in the site and/or improvements. ACTION 138: Have developer provide utilities, and grant or loan funds to the City, for other municipal services, when development is within or outside of city limits. ACTION 139: Consider annexing likely development areas to adequately guide development. OBJECTIVE: Reduce per-unit costs of city services. Although many of the factors which contribute to the City's high per-unit costs of.services are beyond the City's control (small size of community, remote location, difficult construction con- ditions, etc.), some measures can be taken to reduce costs without sacrificing quality of services. POLICY: The City will endeavor to reduce high per-unit costs of public services with minimal sacrifices in desired quality of service. 10-19 ACTION 140: Set rates and user fees for public services to encourage con- servation wherever feasible (for example, metering water use during non-freezing periods of year). ACTION 141: Utilize joint use of facilities and equipment with other individuals and organizations in Seldovia wherever possible (for example, lease construction equipment from local private contractors). ACTION 142: Make utility service area as large as economically possible to allow fixed costs of utility plant (reservoir, treatment plant, etc.) to be spread among as many users as possible. OBJECTIVE: Improve ability of City to wisely balance revenues, costs and public service demands. This objective can be met by implementing each of the financial planning solutions mentioned earlier. Much of the information needed to begin improved financial planning is contained in Figures 10-2 and 10-3 and in Chapter 12. POLICY: The City will endeavor to improve its financial planning efforts to allow the City Council to base its financial decisions on firm knowledge of short and long-range implications of the decisions. ACTION 143: Implement, utilize and maintain the financial planning methods outlined in Figures 10-2 and 10-5 and Chapter 12. 10-20 ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT MUNICIPAL RECONVEYANCES The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of December 18, 1971, provided, among other things, that 200 Native villages in Alaska would form corporations to receive title to Federal lands. Twenty-two million acres were selected by Alaskan village corporations in 1974. The total acreage selected by each village (except in southeast Alaska) ranged from 69,120 to over 161,280 acres, with most entitlements being either 69,120 or 92,160 acres. The Seldovia Native Association' Inc. will eventually receive more then 100,000 acres of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act-authorized lands. Section 14(c)(3) of the Act requires village corporations receiving land from the Federal government to transfer certain of those lands to various individ- uals, organl@zations and government agencies. The Act's three major provisions which pertain to the transfer of Seldovia Native Association, Inc. lands to the City are: (1) The village corporation must transfer not less than 1,280 acres to the municipal government. This includes the surface estate of improved lands within the City which are not transferred to individ- ual and non-profit organizations. (2) The reconveyance should include as much land as required for community expansion, public right-of-way and other forseeable community needs. These lands can be outside the city limits if they are suitable to meet the needs of the City, and the total reconveyance may exceed 1,280 acres if conditions warrant. (3) In addition to the 1,280 acres, village corporations are required to transfer title to the surface estates used for existing airport sites, airway beacons and other navigational aids. Additional acreage and/or easements which are necessary to provide services related to air transportation and to ensure safe approaches to airport runways must be conveyed. Other than specifying a minimum quantity of land and referring to certain community uses, Section 14(c)(3) of ANCSA provides little guidance on what lands should be transferred. Presumably, any of the lands which SNA has or will receive directly from the Federal government may be conveyed to the City with the approval of Cook Inlet Region, Inc., the regional Native corporation. The lands may be from the core township or any other township. Possible Amendments To ANCSA As of this writing, proposed Alaska National Interest Lands legislation (such as H.R.3651) would, if passed, amend Section 14(c)(3) of ANCSA. Added to the existing wording would be the following passage: UnZess VilZage Corporation and MunicipaZ Corporation or the State in trust can agree in writing on an canount Zess than 1,280 acres, provided further that any new revenues derived from the sate of surface resources harvested or extracted from the tand shaZZ be 10-21 paid to the Village Corporation, providing that the word 11saZell in the preceeding sentence shaZZ not include utilization of resources by the municipality or State in trust nor the issuing of free use permits. This amendment would make it possible for the village corporation to reconvey less than 1,280 acres to the City if mutually agreed upon. It also says that revenues received by the City from the sale of timber from the reconveyed land must be paid to the village corporation.* The City could use the land itself (for community expansion purposes), or presumably could sell or trade the lands to obtain more desirable or suitable lands. This amendment essenti- ally reinforces congressional intent that reconveyances be for public rather than private purposes. Community Expansio n Needs No matter which provisions will apply, it will be advisable for SNA and the City to negotiate and agree upon a pattern of land transfer. The negotiations will likely center upon the City's existing and future needs for community expansion. The City's land requirements for community expansion include lands for such uses as park sites, sewage treatment plant sites, airport expansion areas, and the like; these can be considered as basic public needs which only the City is likely to provide. Based upon growth projections for the City, land areas needed for specific "Basic" public use total 75.0 acres (Table 10-5). TABLE 10-5 PROJECTED BASIC MUNICIPAL LAND OWNERSHIP NEEDS USE ACRES NEEDED � Park lands 10.0 � Water source & associated wetlands 14.0 � Airport expansion 20.0 � Cemetery expansion 1.0 � Sewage sludge disposal site 5.0 � Sewage treatment plant 5.0 o Low income housing lands 10.0 � Gravel or crushed rock pit 10.0 TOTAL BASIC NEEDS 75.0 Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc., estimates. The Seldovia Native Association does not hdVe, nor is likely to receive, lands directly adjacent to the city limits. Assuming that the lands for the City's basic needs should be in or near the City, it is unlikely that the Whether the restriction on revenues from timber or other harvesting would apply to succeeding owners is unclear, and may only be settled through litigation. 10-22 City will receive any lands from SNA which it could use directly for community expansion purposes. However, the lands which are conveyed could be used by the City to trade or sell in order to obtain lands in or near the City for community expansion. If this approach is to work, however, the land reconveyed to the City must be of such value that it is readily marketable, and the City's right to sell or trade reconveyed lands must be well established. The lands best suited to satisfy the basic community expansion needs (out- lined above) are located at the north boundary of the city limits. In this area, the lands are suitable for development (see Chapter 5). However, most of this land is presently in private ownership and would have to be obtained by the City.* Reconveyance Alternatives Three possible reconveyance approaches are outlined in the following sections. These are outlined in order to assist SNA in determining which approach would be most beneficial to both its own shareholders and existing and future city residents. The alternatives do not represent all possible approaches which might be conceived; indeed, should currently proposed Alaska National Interest Lands legislation be passed in the form of H.R.3651, many other reconveyance alternatives could be envisioned. The alternatives outlined in this section do, however, present fairly well the wide range of possible approaches which can be taken. RECONVEYANCE ALTERNATIVE #1 The f i rst a I ternati ve i s one wh i ch has been proposed by Mr. Fred E I vsaas, President of Seldovia Native Association, Inc., in a letter dated June 26, 1979: Other than the U.S. Reserve site, which SNA will automatically reconvey to the City of SeZdovia, there are no native selected lands adjacent to the City boundaries. It is our feeling that the land encompassed in the S-21 of Section 27, S21 Section 28, and all of Section 34, of Township 8 S, Range 14 Seward Meridian are the most logical lands for reconveyance. This is watershed land which feeds the primary source of City water-, the upper reservoir. If this alternative were to be chosen, reconveyances to the City would be; All of Section 34, Township 8 S., Range 14 W. 640 Acres S12 of Section 27, Township 8 S., Range 14 W. 320 Acres ST of Section 28,* Township 8 S., Range 14 W. 320 Acres U.S. Reserve (in City of Seldovia) 10 Acres TOTAL RECONVEYANCE 1,290 Acres The value of any lands conveyed would probably be less than comparable properti.es since the subsurface estate would remain in ownership of Cook Inlet Region, Inc., and additional restrictions might cloud title to the land. 10-23 The average slope of this land ranges from 17% to 38%. All of this land is on or above the 700 foot elevation level and ranges to 1955 feet (Figure 10-4). The major drawback to this proposal is that little of the reconveyance falls within the Upper Lagoon Creek Watershed. The area does, however, include a large part of the Barabara Creek Watershed, and could become important if the City chooses to develop Barabara Creek as a water source (see Chapters 6 and 9). Unless such development appears likely, this reconveyance alternative would appea,r to have little usefulness. RECONVEYANCE ALTERNATIVE #2 An alternative which the corporation might consider is to-reconvey to the City certain lands within Seldovia's Fish Creek Watershed. Although outside the City limits, the City has the right through Alaska Statutes to regulate land use within the watershed. Due to the environmental sensitivity of the Fish Creek Watershed and the fact that the City uses it for drinking water, there is likely to be little activity which can reasonably be allowed, at least in the near future. (See,Chapter 6, Watershed Management). If portions of the Fish Creek Watershed lands were to be reconveyed, the conveyance would include: All of Section 5, T. 8 S., R. 14 640 Acres N 41 of Section 8, T. 8 S., R. 14 320 Acres N I of Section 9, T. 8 S., R. 14 320 Acres 2 U.S. Reserve (in City of Seldovia) 10 Acres TOTAL RECONVEYANCE 1,290 Acres With this reconveyance, and restrictions on land use in the watershed Seldovia could better protect its water quality and supply needs. Other community needs, however, would not be met unless land trades were executed. Figure 10-4 shows this alternative. .RECONVEYANCE ALTERNATIVE #3 Another alternative which SNA may consider is to reconvey lands to the City which are suitable for development purposes. Figure 5-7 shows the lands around Seldovia which have the potential of being developed based upon slope, soils and access characteristics. The village corporation lands in this area which have the best potential to be developed fall mainly in the SI of Section 21, T. 9S.,R.14. However, most of this area has previously been conveyed to SNA shareholders. Should the City receive this type of land it could (Linder. the existing Section 14(c)(3)) trade or sell it for lands closer in for purposes of park development, utility requirements or other community expansion needs not met directly in this or other alternatives. In addition to this land, the City could be reconveyed lands in portions of the Fish Creek Watershed to make up the minimum acreage. For this alterna- tive the lands to be reconveyed would include the following: All Section 5 except the NEI of the NE14, T9S, R14 600 Acres N12 of Section 9, T 9S, R14 320 Acres NW!4 & NEI of NW14 and the NW14 of the NEI and the S -4 0 4 W' and SE4' f the NEI of Section 8 T 9S, R14 320 Acres SW14 of the SW14 of Section 9, T 9S, R14 40 Acres U.S. Reserve (in City of Seldovia) 10 Acres 1,290 Acres 10-24 Seld6via Sol ovia ................2 10 0() 3. - X 695 bin 30' rc; \@3 8 QX 9 -Cl h' ................ @1506- Y%. IJ32 ---------- Cdo . .......... ......... .. V 11 0 9@ Watch SE 3 1: R -lA SELDOVIA T IRS -0 Ca X /5" ,lop. /8 x VI�H C, 73 R @@Owder 1** rl @,A@[E f 24 ..... ..... ... WE 7 Uhl N3, SUMMARY The major drawback to these alternatives is that not all identified community needs can be met by a direct reconveyance of SNA lands which are available for reconveyance. The only way in which all community needs can conceivably be met is to convey lands which may in turn be needed or otherwise marketed by the City to obtain lands better suited for identified community needs. Jenks (1977) noted: The Municipal Corporation and the Village Corporation have a joint, bilateral, and cooperative role in negotiating a settle- ment of lands which will be surveyed by the BLM and subsequently transferred from the ViZZaqe Corporation to the Municipal Corpora- tion. The interests of all parties would be best served by carefully selecting a reconveyance package which would directly or indirectly (through trades or sales) meet the identified community needs. Reconveyance of low-valued lands, on the other hand, would only deter the economic and social develop- ment of Seldovia; cooperation is essential to the achievement of a satisfactory solution. ANNEXATION Occasionally, growing communities extend their municipal boundaries to take in additional areas to finance the extension of public services to the area and manage the effeCt3 of the area's development. In Seldovials case, the area within present city limits may be too small to accommodate projected growth if the intermediate or high growth scenarios are achieved; consequently, annexation of additional areas to the City may be a desirable means of both accommodating and managing Seldovia's growth. Annexation, however, is often controversial, and its process and effects are poorly understood. The purpose of this section is to describe the process of annexation and di-scuss how possible annexations might affect residents of newly annexed areasP other residents and the operation of municipal government. Included in the discussion is an example method of analyzing the costs and benefits of annexation. Background Alteration of municipal boundaries is governed by State statutes and regula- tions. AS 29.68.010 establishes the Local Boundary Commission as the official State agency to establish detailed rules and standards consistent with legisla- tive objectives, and to act as an administrative decision-making body for the Legislature (subject to some legislative overview). The Local Boundary Commission is empowered with a broad range of authorities to review and approve of proposed local boundary changes, subject to the review of the legislature. The powers of the Commission can be summarized into three basic categories. First, it may establish procedures for annexa- 10-27 tions initiated by local action (i.e., by municipalities, boroughs or resi- dents of areas to be annexed). These procedures are embodied in Title 19, Part I of the Alaska Administrative Code. Second, the Commission may consider and decide upon any boundary change involving a particular area, provided that the change has been proposed by petition from any of the following parties: o A municipality whose boundaries are to be changed or; o An organized borough in which the territory is located; o Ten percent of the qualified voters of the area;* or o The Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (ADCRA), as provided in 19 AAC 10.020. Actions using this provision are referred to as having been initiated by State action. A third basic feature is that decisions of the Commission take precedence over local decisions, without regard to priority in time, unless specifically reversed by the Legislature within the first 45 days of the session at which the change is proposed. This is an especially important feature, since it empowers the State to both initiate and decide on proposed annexations regard- less of local preferences. Similarly, residents of an area theoretically could have the area annexed to a city or borough without the support of the local government's elected officials. In practice, however, such situations have occurred only infrequently. Methods of Initiating Annexations If a municipality desires to change its boundaries, it may initiate action by passing a City Council resolution directing the Mayor or City Manager to prepare and submit a petition to the Local Boundary Commission seeking annexa- tion of a specified area. If the municipality owns the area to be annexed, and the area is contiguous to its corporate boundaries, the land may be annexed by municipal ordinance without the approval of the Local Boundary Commission. If a resident of an area desires to have that area annexed to a city or borough, he or she may initiate the action by collecting the signatures of 10 percent of the qualified voters of the area on a petition approved in advance by the Local Boundary Commission (supplied by ADCRA), and filing the petition with ADCRA. If an area is sparsely populated, or has a clear need for an organized muni- cipality or borough, the Commissioner of ADCRA may initiate action by filing a petition with the Local Boundary Commission seeking annexation of the area to an existing municipality or borough, or creation of a new municipality or borough (AS 29.68.010). If all qualified voters in an area to be annexed sign the petition, the annexation action may take place without an election. The Commission may also order an annexation without holding an election, as described later. 10-28 Procedures For Deciding On Annexation Proposals For State or locally-initiated cases alike, the petitioner is responsible for serving a copy of the petition and supporting exhibits upon every munici- pality and borough affected, and for making the documents available for public inspection at a designated place in or near the territory to be annexed. As staff of the Local Boundary Commission, ADCRA will then review the petition and exhibits for correct form and content, and may return them to the peti- tioner for correction prior to accepting it. Once the petition has been accepted, ADCRA schedules a public hearing on the proposal, and arranges for a public notice of the proposed action and hearing to be published in a local newspaper. Affected residents of the areas proposed to be annexed, or of the borough or municipality affected, may file an "answering brief" to the petition with ADCRA prior to the hearing. The petitioner may file a "reply brief" to respond to any questions raised by the "answering brief". ADCRA also prepares a report to the Local Boundary Commission on the proposed annexation prior to the public hearing. The Local Boundary Commission then holds the public hearing in or near the affected locality, and may subsequently decide on the proposed annexation by majority vote. Alternatively, the Commission may condition the approval on a majority vote of the qualified voters of the area proposed for annexation, or may decide to consider a different area. If the Commission approves an annexation without a majority vote by qualified voters in the area to be annexed, the Commission must then present the proposed changes to the Legislature at the beginning of the next regular session. The changes become effective within 45 days thereafter unless disapproved by a majority of both houses.* Standards Applicable To Proposed Annexations Figure 10-5 summarizes the standards of the Local Boundary Commission per- taining to proposed annexations. The figure indicates that annexations must generally serve a public purpose, such as to extend needed services to a developing or potentially developing area. The standards differ, however, depending on whether or not the area proposed for annexation is contiguous to (i.e., abuts) city limits and whether or not the municipality intends to provide all municipal services supported by general taxes immediately. Contiguous areas may be annexed for a much wider range of reasons than non- contiguous area; consequently, proposed annexations of contiguous areas usually meet the standards of the Local Boundary Commission much more frequently than do proposed annexations of non-contiguous areas. Annexation actions may also propose different taxation and services for annexed area ("step annexation"); such proposals must be submitted for approval by a majority of the voters in the area to be annexed (19 AAC 10.190, et. seq). 10-29 FIGURE 10-5 STANDARDS OF THE LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION PERTAINING TO ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED AREA TO EXISTING MUNICIPALITIES STANDARDS PERTAIN ING IF THE AREA IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY STANDARDS PERTAINING IF THE-AREA IS NOT CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY (A) TERRIWRY WHICH IS CONTIGUOUS TO A CITY (B) TERRITORY WHICH IS NOT CONTIGUOUS MAY BE ANNEXED TO THAT ClTY IF UNE OR TO THE CITY MAY BE ANNEXED TO THE MORE OF THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS ARE MET: CITY IF: (1) All land to which the territory is (6) The health or safety of City resi- (7) All the land in the territory contiguous is within the City's dents is endangered by cowlitions is wholly owned or leased by boundarie3; or existing or developing in the the City or used primarily for (2) All land in the territonj is wholly territory and annexation will the performance o? City functions; owned by the City; or enable the City to remove or and (3) The territory is urban in character. alleviate those conditions; or (2) Annexation is necessary to enable 1n determining whether territory is (7) The extension -into the territory the City to achieve adequate urban -in character, the commission of City water, sewer, street, or control, protection or mamegement may consider, without limitation, other facilities. or of City of the property. whether the property is platted or policy, fire, health or other held for sale for urban. residential services is necessary to enable Source: 19 AAC 05.010(b) or comercl.al purposes, whether the the City to provide adequate population density of the territory service to City residents; and it is (C) TERRITORY WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE approximates that of the annexing impossible or impractical for the [contiguity] REQUIREMENTS OF' 0 City, whether the population of the City to extend such facilities or [19 AAC 05.010(a), shown at left]. territory stems primarily from actual services unless the territory is gvowth of the Clity beyond its legal within the City's boundaries; or May neverthless be annexed to a boundaries, and whether the propert 'z/ (8) Residents of, or owners of property City if such territo2nw lies between is valuable primarily by reason of in, the territory receive or may be the City boundary and territory its suitability for prospective reasonably expected to receive the which could be annexed under urban Purposes; or benefit of City services without [19 AAC 05.010(a), shown at leftl (4) The territory is presently in need of commensurate tax contributions but for the requirement of contiguity. a municipal service or services which whether such services are rendered the City can provide more efficiently or received inside or outside the Source: 19 AAC 08.010(c) @han another municipality; or territoiy. In determining whether (5) There is a likelihood that future this standard is met, the Commission growth and development of the City wiV consider alternate methods will occur within the territo2nj available to the City foe offsetting and annexation of the territory the cost of providing services to will enable the City to plan for and individuals or property beyond its control that deoelopment; or property taxation powera@ or (9) The annexation is otherwise necessary to accomplish a valid public purpose. Source: 14 AAC 05.010(a) The majority of proposed annexations would probably be consistent with these guidelines. Indeed., most proposed annexations have not only been approved, but many have actually been increased in size in a manner which the Com- mission believed would better meet its standards. To some extent, this may represent a State (or legislative) position that more public services should be provided by local governments, and fewer by State agencies. Also, the State Legislature has indicated a strong committment to strengthen local govern- ments, and apparently regards expansion of local boundaries by annexation as consistent with this objective. The Local Boundary Commission often conditions its approval of proposed annexations on receiving assurances from the city or borough that residents and property owners of the area proposed for annexation will receive services in proportion to taxes paid. The city or borough has two options for satis- fying this requirement: (1) Full services equal to services provided other city residents may be provided immediately, in which case taxes must be levied at the same rate paid by other residents; or (2) Full taxation may be phased in over a period of not more than five years, timed to coincide with phased extension of full municipal services to the area. For example, if fire and police protection cannot be extended immediately, this must be reflected by reducing the property tax millage rate and sales tax rates paid by residents of the annexed area until these services are available. This provision usually does not apply to services or facilities financed by user fees or special assessments, such as neighborhood streets and roads or water and sewer lines, since these are usually paid for directly by the residents of the area served. State regulations also stipulate that if a city or borough fails to provide services to newly annexed areas as agreed, the Local Boundary Commission may revoke the annexation action and order the area detached from the city or borough. Figure 10-6 summarizes Local Boundary Commission regulations covering provision of municipal services to newly annexed areas. Evaluation Of Proposed Annexations The costs and benefits of annexation are often difficult to predict accurately without knowledge of future development of an annexed area. From an overall standpoint, annexation usually has more positive than negative effects. Certain individuals or groups, however, may be adversely affected if taxing, financing or expenditure methods are not carefully applied. Three major categories of annexation impacts could be examined. These include: (1) Direct effects on local government costs and revenues of providing services to the area; (2) Social and environmental effects; and (3) Indirect economic effects on local government and private parties. 10-31 FIGURE 10-6 SERVICE OBLIGATIONS OF MUNICIPALITIES TOWARDS NEWLY ANNEXED AREAS STANDARDS PERTAINING IF THE STANDARDS PERTAINING IF ANNEXING MUNICIPALITY INTENDS ANNEXING MUNICIPALITY DOES TO PROVIDE FULL MUNICIPAL NOT INTEND TO PROVIDE FULL SERVICES TO THE ANNEXED AREA MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO THE ANNEXED AREA ("step annexation") No annexation will be approved unless (3) The commission may conduct An annexation petition submitted TAXES. The percentage of city taxes the annexing city demonstrates to the public hearings or investi- to the local boundary commission on newly annexed properties is deter- satisfaction of the [local boundary] gations subsequent to the may request that during each of mined as follows: commission that it is capable of effective date of any annexa- not more than five full fiscal (1) City services to be provided extending and willing to extend tion to determine whether the years after the annexation takes during each year are scheduled by services to the annexed area extension of services or effect, the rate of taxation for the petitioners of the local as follows: taxation, and/or utilization city services on the annexed boundary commission in consulta- (1) Except in the case of [ a step of differential taxation properties shall be at a specified tion with city officials; annexation, described at right], zones, is proceeding in a percentage of the full city tax (2) The cost of each service as a per- full municipal services shall reasonably expenditious and rate. The proposal shall provide centage of the gross general fund be extended to the annexed area equitable manner. If the an increase from fiscal year to expenditure for the fiscal year immediately except where im- commission determines that fiscal year until the percentage immediately preceding the annexa- possible for want of necessary the extension of services or equals 100 percent of the full tion is computed; capital facilities. Where full taxation, and/or utilization city tax rate. The city may not tax (3) New annexed residents pay municipal services may not be of differential taxation annexed property at a rate other than a percentage of the full city provided immediately, the zones, is not progressing in the percentage authorized for that year. property tax rate equal to annexing city shall satisfy a reasonably expeditious and Provided, however, that the municipality the total percentage costs of the commission that it will equitable manner, it may pursuant to AS 29.53.405 may levy taxes all services provided. provide those services within institute detachment pro- in the annexed area at a different a reasonable time; ceedings a under 19 AAC 02.050. percentage from that authorized for ORDINANCES. City sales tax ordinances (2) Notwithstanding (1) ... of this the year in question, if such difference and all other city ordinance except section [and step annexation, Source: 19 AAC 05.020 is attributed to the cost of provision those applicaple to city services not described at right], annexa- yet provided are immediatley effective tion by a city possessing not supported by the general municipal in the annexed territory. authority to establish and levy. operate differential taxa- BOROUGH SERVICES. The city must tion zones may be approved Source: 19 AAC 10.190 accept immediate responsibility for if the commission is satisfied non-areawide borough services currently that the city is willing and provided in the newly annexed terri- able to use such authority In the case of [a "step annexation"], tory. to: annexation will be approved only if the (local boundary] commission is (A) Provide the territory satisfied that the city's plan for Source: 19 AAC 10.210(et.seq.) with such services as may gradual extension of services is be necessary; and reasonably correlated with the Note: As 29.53.405 states: (B) Insure that the annexed area gradual extension of taxation and is not subjected to unfair provides for extension of full Cities may by ordinance establish, taxation for services not municipal services to the annexed alter and abolish differential tax available in the annexed area. area within the transitional period. zones to provide and levy property taxes for services not provided Source: 19 AAC 05.020(b) generally within the city or a different level of service than that provided generally within the city. The purpose of this section is to describe a method for analyzing these effects for annexations likely to be proposed. An example analysis is also applied to a particular area. ANALYSIS OF DIRECT COST-REVENUE IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Cost-revenue impact analysis has been applied to a wide range of local govern- ment or private actions, and numerous techniques have been developed. Un- fortunately, most types of analysis are complex, unwieldy and expensive to undertake, or are not well suited to analysis of annexation in Seldovia. Further, very little field testing has been undertaken to validate most of the methods. Consequently, the reliability of numerical estimates is not well established. Four major factors should be considered when evaluating the direct costs and benefits of any particular annexation proposal. The first factor is the type, amount, and timing of development likely to occur once the area in question is annexed. Type and amount of development can be partially answered by examining existing and proposed subdivision plats in the area. In addition, the City's comprehensive plan has an effect on potential zoning of the area, since it serves as the basis for zoning controls the Borough might extend to an area once it becomes annexed to the City. One can also examine the zoning of similar nearby areas to develop an estimate of what potential zoning controls might be. Adopted City or Borough subdivision ordinances and appli- cable State and Federal regulations (such as DEC guidelines) would also affect potentially allowable uses, and are important to consider when determining who will pay for public services to the area, as will be discussed later. A second factor which should be addressed is the timing of potential develop- ment in the area to be annexed, and the resulting growth rate in public service demands likely to face the City. Rough estimates can be made by using as a basis for estimating the rate at which similar areas were developed in the past, adjusted for likely changes in the projected overall'growth rate of the community (derived from the population and economic projections presented in Chapter 3). The Capital Improvements Program will also affect the rate at which the area is developed. For example, if soil and water table conditions in the area preclude the use of septic tanks or other onsite sewage disposal systems, then development of the area to be annexed would be precluded until sewer lines were extended to the area. Third, the analysis should focus on incremental costs and benefits whenever possible; average costs should not be used. For example, if the annexation of a particular area results in the need for an expansion of water storage capacity, then the incremental cost of water storage should include the cost of expanding water storage capacity to provide services needed by the area. If existing capacity can accommodate the increased demand, then no improvement costs need be allocated in the analysis. A fourth factor which should be considered is the level or quality of service which will be provided. Quality of service provided is usually based on three considerations: 10-33 (1) Legal mandates of minimum services which must be provided (for example, requirements that. the City provide a certain minimum level of treatment to all sewage which it collects prior to discharging into any navigable bodies of water). (2) Demands for services by new residents. Often changes in living standards and attitudes among residents will lead to a change in services requested by residents; if population growth is experienced, the preferences of new residents will also come into play, and may either raise or lower the overall level of services requested. For example, if new residents are from larger communities and are used to more or higher quality services, they are likely to request that additional services, such as paved streets or more developed recreational opportunities, be provided. Conversely, if the new residents are accustomed to fewer public services, they may request fewer public services than do existing residents. (3) Financial capability and willingness of the City to finance additional public services. Even though some services are desired by residents, and may even be mandated by law, there may be substantial delay in their provision because of financial constraints (such as tax limits or prior commitment of funds) or attitudes of City officials. Hence, there may be a substantial delay in actual expenditures for needed services. This delay is often called an "expenditure lag", and is common in growing communities. CASE STUDY FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS METHOD A recent discussion of fiscal impact analysis (Burchell, et. al., 1978) suggests that a "Case Study" approach incorporating these factors would be most appropriate for annexation analysis in a small community. The method has the advantage that it can be individually tailored to a wide range of annexa- tion alternatives. Its disadvantage is that the figures it uses are somewhat less objective, and more susceptible to criticism, than other methods available. In brief, the Case Study Method looks at specific potential annexation areas on an individual basis, and attempts to predict what types of actions will be taken in developing and servicing the area. The analysis relies heavily on estimates by public officials as to, for example, how rapidly water service will be provided to the annexed area, and how the costs of the extension in services will be financed. Central facilities are a special problem. As discussed earlier, the most appropriate measure of impact on, for example, sewage treatment plant costs, is the marginal or incremental effect on cost. If additional users can be serviced for no additional improvement or treatment costs, the fiscal cost to the City is zero, while projected user charges are counted as revenues for a net positive fiscal impact. On the other hand, if projected development of an annexed area would necessitate improvements to the sewage treatment plant, the cost of the improvements should be included in the tally of fiscal impact. 10-34 Figure 10-7 summarizes the method used to complete an analysis of the fiscal impacts of an annexation using the Case Study Method. EXAMPLE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: MOUNTAINBROOK HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION An example analysis was performed on a possible annexation action similar to ones which may be proposed in order to demonstrate the method. The Moun- tainbrook Heights Subdivision (Figure 10-8) has been proposed to the Borough Planning and Zoning Commission; on the advice of the Seldovia Advisory Planning and Zoning Commission, the plat has been denied pending completion of the Seldovia Comprehensive Plan update. If the recommendations of this plan are implemented, (including the watershed management plan and ordinance), the proposed subdivision could be developed subject to stringent restrictions. The restrictions include required collec- tion of sewage and storm drainage, ana grading of roads. Due to these restric- tions, potential costs of public services necessary to develop the subdivision are probably greater for this subdivision than for any other likely to be proposed. Hence, this potential subdivision is a good subject for an example analysis, since it would show the upper bound of potential fiscal impacts of a small to medium-sized annexation at this time. The rate of development of the area was also projected in terms of an upper bound to determine what the maximum cost impact might be on the City. According to the population projections presented in Chapter 3, a 97-unit subdivision might be fully occupied as early as 1982 if the high growth scenario occurs. Capital and operating costs, and revenues, were projected under maximum development conditions (i.e., complete development in a single year) in order to depict maximum fiscal impacts. Cost and revenue fiscal impacts were projected for each area of the City's operations based on four factors: o Excess capacity or deficiency of capacity of the City's resources (for example, can present police services accommodate present population) as compared with the community's standards and national averages for small cities; o Demands for additional service posed by the development of the annexed area (based on national standards, such as 1 police officer per 500 residents); o Predicted service responses by the City (for example, hiring of additional part-time police officer) given likely financial resources and service demands; and o Continuation of past City, State and Federal taxation and revenue- raising practices. Tables 10-6 and 10-7 present additional annual City operating and capital costs at full development of the subdivision. Annual operating costs at full development would be fairly small, about $30,000, based on the observation that present staffing is adequate to serve the subdivision with little additional hiring needed. 10-35 FIGURE 10-7 SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES TO COMPLETE MUNICIPAL FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS USING CASE STUDY METHOD STEP NUMBER ANALYSISACTIONS 1. Contact "key" public officials, e.g., city manager, municipal administrator. 2. Categorize public service functions, delineate responsibilities by local municipal services. 3. Determine presence or absence, and magnitude, of any existing public operating and capital excess or defi- cient capacity for various public services. 4. Project population increases through the use of appropriate multipliers. Estimate population-induced service demand, using primarily service standards and capital ratios. 5. Interview local public officials to determine how their respective depart- ments will respond to growth (given identified areas of existing service excess of deficiency and the rough gauge of population-created demand) in terms of expanding or not expanding their operating and capital capacities. 6. Project the costs that will be incurred by different public jurisdictions as a con- sequence of the manpower and facility expansions pinpointed in Step 5.- 7. Project total annual public revenues. 8. Determine cost revenue surplus or deficit by comparing projected total revenues to projected total costs. Source: Adapted from Burchell, et.al., 1978. 10-36 FIGURE 10-8 MOUNTAIN-BROOK HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY PLAT C4 ,.4 (A Of 31 ov. Ask M r 0 Scale V 641 Drawing taken from Ability Surveys Plat Plan a Topographic contours generalized Lj TABLE 10-6 FISCAL IMPACT CASE EXAMPLE MOUNTAINBROOK HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION OPERATING EXPENDITURES IMPACTS Governmental National Current Capacity Determination Additional Local Local Cost Functions Service Employment Excess Deficient Population- Service Operating Local of Standardl/ Induced Response Cost Per Response?/ Demand Unit General (1.46) 4.0 3.3 0.4 No Response Government, 0.7 Finance, Admin. and General Control Public Safety Police (2.00) 1.0 - 0.5 Time $16,000/ $8,000 1.0 Police Full Time Officer Officer Fire (0.85) - - 0.4 0.2 No Response Protection 0.4 Public Works Streets & (1.48) 3.0 2.3 - 0.4 No Response Roads 0.7 Sewerage - 1.0 1.0 - +12 Time $14,000/ $7,000 Maint. Full Time co Worker Maint. Worker Sanitation (0.01) 1.0 1.0 No Response .Water Supply (0.01) 1.0 1.0 No Response Recreation & Culture Parks & Recreation - - No Response Libraries 0.5 0.5 - - No Response TOTALS - 12.0 9.1 0.4 1.5 $25,000 2.8 $15,000 $30,000 Notes: Average employees per 1,000 population In cities Inss than 2,500 population In western reg i on of U. S. , 1972. Al I operating costs borne by City. Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. based on Burchell, et. al., (1978). TABLE 10-7 FISCAL IMPACT CASE EXAMPLE MOUNTAINBROOK HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION CAPITAL COST IMPACTS Local Cost Of Local Response Total Cost Service City Privately Response Share Borne General Government Finance, Admin. & Control No Response Public Safety Police Protection Fire Protection Housing & Urban Renewal . Public Works Streets & Roads -0- $186,000 $186,000 Sewerage, Storm Drainage Pump Station $ 60,000 -0- $ 60,000 Sanitation Storm Water Line Water Supply Sewer Line $225,000 $393,000 $618,000 Water Line $ 40,000 $104,930 $144,920 Health & Welfare Public Welfare No Response Hospitals No Response Health No Response Recreation & Culture Parks No Response Libraries No Response TOTAL CITY FISCAL IMPACT $325,000 $603,930 $1,008 920 Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc., based on Burchell, et. all, (1978) 10-39 Capital costs are more substantial. Utility and road costs, excluding side sewers, water connections and driveways, would total nearly a million dollars; however, implementation of financial policies shown earlier in this chapter would li-mit the City's share of these costs to slightly under $36,000 annual costs. About two-thirds of streets, utilities and site improvement costs would be paid for by the developer. No other additional capital costs were projected, again based on the City's capacity to serve some new development with existing resources. Table 10-8 summarizes the projected change in the City's annual revenues following annexation and development of the subdivision. Annual revenues are predicted to increase by over $171,000; this is more than proportional to the population increase since the area is likely to be occupied by higher valued units (and, consequently, paying higher property taxes) than existing homes in the City. Table 10-9 summarizes the net fiscal impact of annexation and development of the annexed area. Projected additional revenues would be more than twice additional costs, leading to a large net fiscal benefit. It is worthwhile not i ng that even if private I y-borne uti I ity and road costs are 1 nc I uded as costs to the City, additional revenues would still outweigh the new or marginal costs. It is important to note the limitations of this analysis when applying these figures to other situations. A positive fiscal impact is projected because the City presently is in the unique position of having the necessary capacity to expand its service area with little or no increase in its costs. Its present small size compared to minimum city sizes for most services (for example, a single fire truck can serve more homes than it presently does) allows additional residents to be served cost-effectively. Should large scale development and rapid, sprawling growth occur, however, it is likely that this fiscal surplus would be reduced or even eliminated, since excess service capacity would be used up and costly service expansions needed. Consequently, each proposed annexation should be analyzed carefully based on its own unique characteristics to determine fiscal impacts. ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ANNEXATION PROPOSALS Social and environmental impact analysis does not need to be as structured or quantitative as does a fiscal impact or cost-revenue analysis. To date, no reliable method is available to arrive at a composite, quantitative figure for impacts in such diverse areas as culture and water quality. The best approach, however, might be to utilize an environmental checklist to point out possible impacts which should be identified and evaluated. An example of such a checklist is shown in Appendix D. If economic quantification is desired, there are available approaches which can be used; however, these would probably be time consuming and expensive to prepare in relation to the value of the information generated. Another factor which could be considered is the "sense of community" which Seldovia presently has, and how this might change with certain annexation proposals. For example, the Mountainbrook Heights subdivision annexation is 10-40 TABLE 10-8 PROJECTED CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL REVENUES FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS EXAMPLE MOUNTAINBROOK HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION (Actual FY Fiscal Impact 1978 Revenues) (Projected Change) 1. LOCALLY GENERATED A. General Fund Revenues 1. Taxes a. Real Property Tax ($74,709) +$ 73,322 b. Sewer Property Tax ($10,338) $ 10,146 c. Sales Tax ($21,269) $ 11,485 2. User Fees a. Sewer User Fees ($16,533) $ 4,656 b. Other User Fees - 3. Licenses & Permits a. Dog Licenses ($ 230) $ 124 b. Busibess Licenses ($ 700) $ 378 c. Building Permits ($ 1,434) $ 774 d. Other Licenses & Permits - 4. Enterprise Revenues a. Dock Revenues (1) Ferry Contract ($1-3,050) No Impact (2) Wharfage & Handling ($ 5,491) $ 2,965 (3) Commissions ($ 4,537) $ 2,450 (4) Storage & Dockinq ($ 60) 32 (5) Building Rent ($ 6,264) No Impact b. Small Boat Harbor Revenues ($18,987) No Impact c. Propane Sales ($ 7,782) No Impact d. Building Rent ($ 2,615) No Impact e. Equipment Rentals ($ 4,188) .$ 2,262 5. Other Revenues a. Interest and Penalties ($ 1,217) $ 657 b. Miscellaneous Revenues ($ 9,376) $ 5,063 B. Water Service Area Fund Revenues 1. Property Taxes ($25,765) +$ 15,472 2. User Fees ($26,854) +$ 20,092 TOTAL LOCAL GENERATED REVENUES ($241,399) +$139,878 11. INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS A. Transfers From Federal Govtt 1. General Fund Revenues a. Revenue Sharing Funds ($14,140) +$ 8,233 2. Capital Projects Fund Revenues a. Grants ($572,000) No Impact See Discussion TOTAL FEDERAL TRANSFERS ($586,140) +$ 8,233 10-41 TABLE 10-8 (Continued) (FY 1978) Fiscal Impact B. Transfers From State Gov't 1. General Fund Revenues a. Shared Revenues (S 30,432) +$ 15,178 b. Alaska Business License Tax ($ 5,397) +$ 2,914 c. Electric & Telephone Tax ($ 3,324) +$ 1,795 d. CETA Employment ($ 1,649) No Impact e. Raw Fish Tax ($ 1,233) No Impact f. Liquor Licenses ($ 4,600) +$ 2,484 g. Road Contract ($ 2,468) No Impact h. Miscellaneous ($ 1,300) +$ 702 2. Capital Projects Fund Revenues a. Grants ($247,000) No Impact See Discussion C. Transfers From Kenai Peninsula Borough - TOTAL STATE AND BOROUGH TRANSFERS ($324,403) +$ 23,073* TOTAL ALL REVENUES ($1,151,942) +$171,184* Note: State and Federal grants not included in totals. Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. based on City audits. 10-42 located on the south side of Seldovia Slough and inland from Seldovia Bay. Historically, the City has developed on the north side of the Slough, with a strong relationship to the shoreline. Through annexation and development of the Mountainbrook Heights subdivision, the character of the City may be diluted. An annexation proposal to the north of town, being of similar natural character to the existing development may not have the same impact. It is often the subtle changes in a community which make the greatest impact upon the people who live there. TABLE 10-9 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS CASE EXAMPLE MOUNTAINBROOK HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION PROJECTED ANNUAL COST REVENUE IMPACT CATEGORY CITY OF PRIVATE TOTAL SELDOVIA Increase In Annual Revenues $171,184 NA $171,184 Increase In Annual Costs Operating Costs $ 30,000 -0- $ 30,000 Capital Costs 1 $ 35,683 $68,504 $104,187 Net Fiscal Impact +$105,501 ($68,504) $ 36,997 1 Capital costs assumed to be financed by 15 year bonds at 7 percent annual interests, annual payments. Total costs to.be financed would be $950,000. Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. 10-43 NOTES: (1) Impact assumed proportional to population increase - or impact (500+272 - 1) = +54%. 500 (2) Impact assumed proportional to property valuation increases - (residents assumed to be hooked-up to sewer and water system prior to occupancy per City Watershed Management Ordinance) - assume $60,000/residence x97x.017. (3) Sewer user fees are $4.00 per household/mo - (97 x $4.00 x 12 - $4,656). (4) Annual impact same as for other parts of City - first year major impact but spread out over 20 years same as proportional increase. (5) No increases in number of ferry trips presumed - increased traffic not sufficient to increase short-term number of trips. (6) Building rent fixed by contract - no impact. (7) Harbor presently at capacity - capacity increases will be filled from waiting lists - no revenue impact. (8) Propane sales by City terminated in 1979. (9) Water user fees are $8.67 per household/mo. - 97 x 4 x 12 = $4,656. (10) Federal revenue sharing was $23.10/resident - for Seldovia in 1979 - assume 20 percent increase for 1980 - 23.10 x 1.20 x 297 = +$8,233. (11) No impact projected - highly variable category - see discussion. (12) State revenue sharing was $55.80 per resident/year for Seldovia in 1979 assume 10 percent increase for 1980. (13) Increase assumed proportional to change in Seldovia population. (14) Increase assumed proportional to change in Seldovia population. (15) No impact on CETA employment revenues. (16) No impact on raw fish tax revenues - proportional only to commercial fish landings in Seldovia. (17) Increase assumed proportional to changes in Seldovia's population. (18) Increase assumed proportional to changes in Seldovia's population. (19) Increase assumed proportional to changes in Seldovia's population. (20) No impact projected - (highly variable category) - see discussion. 10-44 Chapter I I Economic Development Seldovia's economy traditionally has been heavily dependent on the harvest of a few natural resources. As a result, the fortunes of the community have risen and fallen with the strength of the resource. Declines in one resource were compensated for by shifting efforts to another resource: trapping gave way to whaling, to be succeeded by fishing for herring, salmon, halibut and, most recently, king and Tanner crab. Fishing activities have made it possible for other income-earning activities to exist; fish processing, retail trade, services and government activities have all become important activities. Logging and sawmilling have also been carried out., although sawmi I I operations at Jakolot Bay have recently been halted. Although Seldovia has fared well compared to many small Alaskan communities, dependence on a few major activities creates a roller coaster-like effect on the community. This lack of stability imposes financial and psychological hardships on many; for example, boat payments must be made regardless of how fishermen have fared. Fishing, however, is unpredictable, so diversification (into other fisheries and other economic activities) is desired by many to restore greater stability to Seldovia's economy. Economic growth is also desired by many Seldovians although disagreement exists over what types of activities are acceptable. Aquaculture, fishing and fish processing, of course, are well accepted and desired. Marine service and tourism activities are also generally favored, but not by all residents. "Heavy" industry, such as a marine service base to serve offshore petroleum exploration and development, petro-chemical processing and wood products processing, are viewed with apprehension and skepticism by many residents, but nevertheless have substantial support (Heasley, et al., 1976). The purpose of this chapter is to examine Seldovia's economic development prospects and describe what steps Seldovia can take to further develop its economy. The first section describes general methods for stimulating economic development which are applicable to virtually all types of activities. The second section describes actions likely to stimulate the types of economic development presumed in the Intermediate and High economic growth scenarios presented in Chapter 3. ISSUES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES In spite of Seldovia's many successes, continuation of economic development is among the community's highest priorities. Quality of development and impact on Seldovia's quality of life are also of great concern. Seven i ssues were 1 dent I f i ed wh i ch re I ate to econom i c deve lopment. I SSUES: (1) Desire to expand fish processing activities. (2) Desire to establish new marine-oriented industrial activities (boat repair, boat supply, etc.) (3) Desire to establish marine service function for offshore (Lower Cook Inlet) oil development, but with minimal impact on existing way of life. (4) Lack of water, sewer services for industrial development. (5) Financing of necessary capital improvements is difficult. (6) Few adequate industrial sites are available. (7) Lack of diversity in the retail businesses of Seldovia. These issues were restated in terms of a general goal and specific objectives for Seldovia's economic development: GOAL: Large, stable and diverse economic base with new income and employment opportunities compatible with existing quality of life, and emphasizing resident ownership. OBJECTIVES: (1) Establish bottomfish capabilities at one or more new or existing fish processing plants. (2) Establish a marine service function to serve offshore industries (oil, fishing, etc.), while minimizing impacts on community. (3) Establish other basic industrial activities to provide employment and income-earning opportunities for residents. (4) Investigate feasibility of alternative financing mechanisms for industrial development-related improvements. (5) Assure availability of sites for new or expanded industrial activity. (6) Strengthen existing commercial activities, and establish new or additional commercial activities. Following sections of this chapter discuss possible strategies to achieve this goal and accompanying objectives, and present a program of recommended policies and actions to achieve these objectives. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS A number of basic principles apply to successful economic development by communities, be they large or small. According to Fernstrom (1973) factors which influence the location of business firms include: 11-2 � Raw materials o Municipal water supply � Transportation o Climate � Markets for finished products o Ecology � Labor supply o Community factors � Sources of capital for expansion o Site factors � Industrial energy The role of which each factor plays in determining the location of industrial activity varies widely; general principles applicable to each are discussed in the following sections. The Role Of Raw Materials The importance of raw materials tends to vary according to the type of industry involved. Raw materials.can affect the location of a firm in five major ways. First, if raw materials can be found everywhere, they may tend to pull the location of the firm towards the ultimate market. For example, if water must be added to a product before it is to be sold, the savings in transportation achievable by locating the plant near the market are usually great enough to prevent location of the plant in rural areas. Second, the location and relative importance of a raw material have a great influence. For example, sawmills usually locate fairly near to sources of supply since it is cheaper and easier to transport finished product than the raw materials. Third, substitutibility of materials or products also affects location decisions. For example, the invention of plastics removed the need for many. industries to locate near to wood or steel sources. Fourth, perishability of raw materials or finished products may have a signi- ficant effect on location decisions. A perishable material, or one that travels badly, will naturally attract to itself the processes using it. Fish processing products is a good example of this. The extreme perishability of both raw and processed fish make it imperative that processing plants locate close to f ishing grounds, with ready transportation I inks to intermediate and final markets. Finally, if the material is heavy or bulky in relation to its value, producers will tend to locate near to markets because transportation costs will be a large proportion of the cost of the final product. For example, in most parts of the country, sand and gravel producers must locate within a few miles of their customers in order to be competitive with other producers. Gold producers, on the other hand, are virtually unaffected by transportation costs. Role Of Transportation Another factor typically emphasized in firm location decisions is transporta- tion. Fernstrom (1973) points out: It is well to emphasize that wise selection of the plant location requires the attainment of two transportation objectives - low 11-3 cost and satisfactory service.... The aspects of transportation service which are of significance to plant location decisions includes special facilities, frequency of service, convenience of service, and time in transit. Savings can be achieved in services available that may be significant to the location decision. For example, special handling devices that permit expeditious loading and unloading of materials or products can provide savings. There are other examples, i.e., once a week service in or out might require larger storage space and or increase inventory costs significantly. The quality and dependability of transportation service are some- times of greater importance in the location of a plant than the achievement of the lowest possible transportation costs. In many cases the location of plants is conditioned on the availability of regular shipments within certain time limits. The Role Of Markets The location of the business customers considerably influences the location of the business. Fernstrom (1973) points out: many businessmen consider the attraction of the market to be so strong that they may regard the location central to the market as the "norm". Location other than market induced would need to be explained by cost advantages that would outweigh the attractions of the market. Local development groups representing communities that might not appear to meet the norm the businessman has in mind must develop a rationale for the cost advantages that would prevail for a location in their community; e.g., lower labor costs for market shifts might balance favorably against transportation costs. Communities understanding the role of markets could apply this understanding in their efforts to contact those market - oriented industries they believe have the most potential for their area. Role Of Labor The importance of labor varies widely from industry to industry, depending on the extent to which labor is used and skills needed. Fernstrom (1973) points out: A firm will normally wish to find an adequate pool of the kinds of labor it requires in a prospective location.... There are many reasons why industry seeks a location where the labor force is already in place. Probably the most compelling reason is that few firms can afford to pay the cost of moving large numbers of people. Labor cost variations are not entirely, or even mainly, a question of differing wage levels. High wage rates are not in themselves disadvantages. Of equal or greater importance are such factors as labor attitudes, turnover rates, fringe benefits, absenteeism, and the possibility of having to compete with other firms in the vicinity for available labor. All these factors directly affect productivity.... 11-4 The size of town can also affect labor costs, and not only because of the wage differential between large and small centers. Although a large town possesses many advantages, some firms favor smaller centers where they can maintain certain other labor cost advantages apart from the slightly lower wage level. Such added advantages include a lower rate of labor turnover (fewer alternative jobs are available), lower rates of absenteeism and generally favorable labor attitudes. At the same time, because of size of the labor force, there may be less freedom in recruiting workers or in terminating their employment than in a large center. Role Of Capital Another element in location decisions is the availability of capital, or funds available to loan, to new or expanding businesses. Many small town businesses have difficulty obtaining loan capital because they are located at large distances from major financial centers 'and consequently have difficulty establishing the kind of relationship with lenders necessary to provide adequate financing. Further, local lenders are often hesitant to lend funds due to inexperience with business and industrial loans. The problem may be particularly acute for small firms, who often pay high interest rates in order to obtain any capital at all. State and local agencies and community groups seeking to promote economic development of small communities often seek to overcome this problem by offer- ing financial incentives as a means of offsetting financing difficulties. The strategies usually involve differentials of taxes, or long term, low interest loans to reduce borrowing costs. The intended effect is to increase potential profitability of locating the firm in the community, or even to make a new venture or investment possible where it might otherwise not have been. Such financial assistance is usually available from three different sources: local business development corporations, federal or state loan and loan guar- antee programs, and municipal and industrial bond financing programs. Miller and Camil (1964) identified three maj,or categories - tax concessions, revenue bonds and other subsidies - which are used: (1) Tax concessions (a) Exemptions (b) Stabilization (c) Favorable property valuation (under-assessment) (2) Revenue bonds (a) Bonds for financing buildings and/or equipment (b) Bonds for providing long-term risk capital (3) Other subsidies (a) Cash donations 11-5 (b) Payment of moving expenses (c) Payment of repair and installation costs (d) Sale of sites or buildings at low prices (e) Donation of sites and/or buildings (f) Low rentals on buildings and/or sites (g) Advance agreements on utility rates and/or service Financial inducements appear to have been effective only when all other factors necessary for economic development (labor force ' available sites, public ser- vices, transportation system, favorable location with respect to raw materials and markets) are also present. Financial inducements alone cannot attract new business to the community. The most serious drawback, however, appears to be in terms of equity. Miller and Camil (1964) note: Special municipal inducements that apply only to businesses that are new or expanding constitute privileged treatment. Such privi- leged treatment must be paid for by other taxpayers, including existing businesses. In a particular instance the cost to a community might be worth it when the question is one of economic survival for a substantial part of the community. But both for locality and for state, special municipal financial inducements to industry are gener- ally undesirable as public policy in view of their negative tendencies toward undermining the fiscal and moral repute of local governments. The Role Of Industrial Energy Availability of a low to moderate cost, dependable 'source of energy is a factor whose importance cannot be overlooked. While energy costs may play relatively more or less important roles in the choice of firm location, in all cases, supplies must be adequate and reliable. It is important that community develop- ment efforts emphasize the maintenance of adequate, reliable and reasonably priced sources of energy. Role Of Water Water is one of the most widely used raw materials for industrial and other economic purposes. It is particularly important in the case of Seldovia because many of the potential industries which might be attracted to Seldovia depend greatly on the availability of an adequate quantity and quality of water. Fish processing plants, fishing boats, and marine service bases all require significant quantities of high quality water. Water supply is an essential service which must be available if economic development of a commun- ity such as Seldovia is to proceed. Waste water disposal is also important. Fernstrom (1973) notes: With stricter federal and state standards now in effect, an increasing number of industries which normally consider treating their own wastes 11-6 will be looking for community situations where public sewage disposal systems can take over. Or, industry will look for open space loca- tions where they will only be responsible for treating their own portion of pollution. For a community to be attractive to industry, it must have procedures well established for waste water disposal. The Role Of Community Factors Another factor is the role which the community plays. Businesses often look for a favorable taxation climate, adequate government services, cultural amen- ities, and favorable attitudes on the part of community government, including planning and zoning regulations. Tax rates are often overemphasized in importance, since availability of quality public services is usually far more important in determining location of a new business. In planning, platting or. zoning decisions, businesses usually look to see that the following conditions are met: (1) Surrounding properties will ultimately be occupied by like businesses; (2) There will be a minimum of congestive traffic mix; (3) There will be adequate utilities, and sewer and water facilities to serve the site; (4) There will be a minimum of causes for friction between the facility and the community; (5) The community recognizes the importance in economic relationships of having a balanced community, and is seeking to preserve the balance; (6) If there is a need for additional land in the future for expansion, the surrounding land will be available as industrial land (preserved through zoning or other community action, such as.City ownership of industrial sites). (Fernstrom, 1973). The Role Of Site Factors Suitable sites must also be avai.lable if economic development Js to occur. Fernstrom (1973) notes: ... Because land prices are a factor in a location decision and because this is a plus factor for rural areas, every attempt should be made to avoid local speculation in land for industry sites. Speculation can drive industry away. Many communities or local development groups have found it necessary to own or option land to protect the community's interests. It is almost pointless to show an industry land that does not have the stated and fixed price... Possible Economic Development Strategies Five major types of strategies can be employed to strengthen a community's economic base. According to Fernstrom (1973), possible strategies include: 11-7 (1) Job development: Creating employment opportunities to generate personal income through wages and salaries. (2) Resource development: Efficient use of resources to generate other forms of personal income. (3) Manpower development: Educate and train local people to increase their earning power. (4) Community development: Improve services, increase efficiency of the local public sector, and enhance the environment and community's support for economic development. (5) Management development: Provide leadership institutions, pro- cedures, coordination, planning, research, and promotion to achieve economic growth. Figure 11-1 presents an outline for community economic development strategies suggested by Fernstrom (1973). To a large extent, most of the possible actions outlined in the figure are either covered elsewhere in this comprehensive plan, or suggest a far more intensive level of involvement by community leadership than may be appropriate for Seldovia. Nevertheless, it is important to keep these factors in mind while reviewing the actions outlined later in this chapter. Financing Econo-flc Development One of the most common approaches in Alaska is the use of direct loans and loan guarantees available through the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. The State assists business expansion by borrowing money at a lower cost than is available to private firms and passing the savings on to qualifying firms. Essentially, the Federal government in effect subsidizes the project by not collecting income tax on interest received by lenders. Although this approach has become increasingly popular in recent years, it appears likely that its use will be restricted severely in the near future. An alternative device is for the public agency to guarantee a loan made by a private lender to the expanding business. This is particularly useful where the business may be small or does not have sufficient financial assets to rate favorable terms from private landers. Again in this case, cities must be care- ful to assure themselves that the business will not default on the loans and . leave them saddled with the debt. This also makes it more difficult for other worthwhile projects to be financed. Another method by which communities assist businesses to expand involves estab- lishing a local business development corporation or port authority. Such organizations are initially financed by sale of stocks and bonds, grants, legislative appropriations or even tax assessments. The organization often will use these funds to build facilities directly for interested businesses, and lease the facility on favorable terms varying from five to twenty years. From the firm's viewpoint, this approach is very advantageous, allowing the business to retain its working capital and financial flexibility. It can also reduce income taxes, since lease payments can be deducted as an expense, in contrast to purchase payments which must be treated as acquisition of assets. 11-8 01 FIGURE 11-1 OUTLINE FOR POSSIBLE COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES OBJECTIVE 1. Job Development. Create employment opportunities to generate OBJECTIVE 11: Rescurce Development. Efficient use of natural resources to personal income through wages and salaries. generate cther forms of personal income. POLICY: Upgrade and expand existing employment opportunities. POLICY: Identify and develop markets for area resources and products. ACTION: Identify employment opportunities in growing Industries in the ACTION: Identify resources now being exploited. area which produces wages sufficient to raise the local income average. ACTION: Determine products with highest potential for developing markets outside the area. ACTION: Work with industries which have potential for upgrading or expansion. ACTION: Determine those resources which will contribute most significantly to income generation. ACTION: Participate in upgrading and expansion through information dissem- ination, research, and development funding. ACTION: Identify underutilized resources and evaluate potential for future use. POLICY: Attract new industry employment opportunities. ACTION: Implement program to bring about earliest and highest use of ACTION: Identify major industry sectors and companies that are growing or re5curces compatible with long range goals. are expected to grow. POLICY: Develop investment/venture capital resources within the area. %0 ACTION: Study location criteria used by companies. ACTION: Collect current information on availability of venture capital. ACTION: Correlate locatioi, criteria with area resources and facilities. ACTION: Determine policies of investors operating in the area. ACTION: Develop locational information for industry decision making appropriate to the area. AC71ON: Encourage capital ventures by: (a) Possible financial support of a development bank. ACTION: Disseminate results of analysis and information to appropriate (b) Obtaining authority to act as a financial agent in State industry sectors. and Federal programs. (c) Attempting to establish bank lending policies to promote ACTION: Identify and/or control industrial sites, buildings, or industrial local growth. parks. OBJECTIVEIII: Manpower Development. Educate and train local people to increase ACTION: Provide location assistance to industry. their earning power. POLICY: Establish new employment opportunities (homegrown industry). POLICY: Develop and coordinate educational programs directed toward meeting future needs for employees in professional positions within the area. ACTION: Gather information on new products, services, processes, and technology from all available sources. ACTION: Identify current educational level of area population. ACTION: Identify those which constitute an opportunity and seek local ACTION: Determine capacity and quality of existing post-high school implementation. institutions. ACTION: Assist new entrepreneurs with potential by performing research and ACTION: Estimate future requirements for various disciplines related to development on manufacturing, securing venture capital, market employment development and resources development. analysis and management development. ACTION: Communicate relevant data to states for incorporation into planning for higher education. ACTICN: Assist state planners in establishing goals and objectives for higher education. FIGURE 1! -1 ( cont OUTLINE FOR POSSIBLE COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES POLICY: Develop and coordinate training programs directed toward relevant ACTION: Identify state and federal resources to support and implement skills for production of future employees in skilled jobs. community development programs. ACTION: Estimate skill requirements based on employment and resources ACTION: Secure funds to operate industrial development organization and development. obtain professional staff or assistance. ACTION: Determine current and projected labor availability and need. OBJECTIVE V: Mangagement Development. To provide leadership, institutions, procedures, coordination, planning, research, and promotion to ACTION: Estimate future requirements for various disciplines related to achieve economic growth. employment development and resources development. ACTION: Cor,municate relevant data to states for incorporation into POL!CY: Establish attitudes and institutions to support established goals. planning for higher education. ACTION: Develop communitywide acceptance of job development programs. ACTION: Assist state planners in establishing goals and objectives for ACTION: Obtain institutional support for development programs; i.e., higher education. equitable taxes, services, and facilities to support programs. POLICY: Develop and coordinate training rpograms directed toward relevant ACTION: External promotion of area advantages for industrial locations. skills for production of future employees in skilled jobs. ACTION: Encourage and support area planning programs. CD ACTION: Estimate skill requirements based on employment and resources development. ACTION: Determine current and projected labor availability and need. ACTION: Determine training required to produce required number of skills. ACTION: Assist in selection, counseling, testing, and placement of persons trained. OBJECTIVE IV. Community Development. Improve services and increase efficiency of local public sector and enhance the environment for economic development. POLICY: Determine existing conditions in such community facilities as housing, health care, water and newer facilities, public education, etc., as key factors in improving the development base. ACTION: Identify relative importance of environmental conditions in industrial location decisions and relate to community attitudes. ACTION: Estimate future requirements for community facilities, housing, health care, school facilities, etc. ACTION: Identify services that could be operated more efficiertly. ACTION: Communicate relevant data to responsible agencies for incorporating into investment and other plans. Source: Fernstrom, 1973. This approach is most common in larger cities, where startup and administrative costs can be more easily 3ccommodated; however, it is an extremely effective and flexible tool for smaller communities if used properly. Initiating Economic Development Locating and dealing with business prospects can be a long and difficult process for a community, often requiring full-time staff or committees. Although tech- niques vary widely, they can be summarized into several different categories. Fernstrom (1973) contains a good discussion of this process, as summarized below. Generally, communities begin by assembling a list of potential prospects upon which to base their efforts. The prospects are systematically contacted, and efforts of the local development committee are subsequently focussed on those prospects who have shown interest. In small communities, where full-time staff may be impractical, it is usually better to relay on area economic development organizations, such as the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic Development Committee, to do much of the prospecting work. A single contact person must be designated from the community and know what it is he or she should be doing. Likewise, the representative should have a local committee of interested citizens to work with, such as Chamber of Commerce, when business prospects can be identified. Fernstrom (1973) suggests-that area economic development organizations, such as the Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic Development Committee staff, be considered as part of Seldovials "team", and noted seven basic rules for communities to follow in working with them: (1) When you have an important prospect, tell the team member about it. (2) Have State and Borough economic development representatives talk with local groups to gain community understanding and support. (3) Ask team members for help on specific research problems. (4) Make sure the team members understand local facilities and resources, and have available supporting publications. (5) Answer promptly all requests for information. (6) Become more involved in State and Borough economic development programs. (7) Accompany State and Borough economic development officers on prospecting trips. Potential Economic Development Opportunities From the discussion of basic economic development concepts, attention is now turned to examining possible methods of expanding economic activities in areas with major promise. Table 11-1, which presents a comparison of historical employment growth in the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Division, the State of Alaska and the United States from 1970 to 1978 gives a good indication of possible economic growth which Seldovia might a4ract. As the table indicates, both Alaska and Kenai-Cook Inlet employment have grown rapidly in some categories, 11-11 TABLE 11-1 COMPARISON OF HISTORICAL EMPLOYMENT GROWTH UNITED STATES, ALASKA AND KENAI-COOK INLET CENSUS DIVISION 1970 - 1978 Percent Change In Employment 1970-1978 Kenai-Cook Alaska United Inlet States Mining 28.3 85.8% 34.3 Metal Mining -f8.3 Oil & Gas Mining 96.0 Other Mining 56.7 Contract Construction 28.9 77.6 19.1 Manufacturing 43.7 47.9 5.1 Food Processing -29.2 70.4 -5.0 Logging-Lumber & Pulp 33.2 31.1 Other Manufacturing 175.8 5.3 Transportation, Communications and Public Utilities 100.0 79.7 7.9 Trucking and Warehousing 36.3 Water Transportation 12J.1 40.7 Air Transportation 63.3 47.4 Other Transportallion 235.9 Communications & Public Utilities 104.3 Trade 134.8 87.8 28.9 Wholesale 134.0 76.4 28.3 Retail 135.0 90.9 29.1 General Mdse.& Apparel -5.7 Food Stores 72.7 100.3 Automotive & Service Stations 202.0 49.0 Eating & Drinking Places 376.6 166.2 Other Retail 156.1 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 250.0 165.6 26.8 Services 189.0 141.0 37.5 Hotels, Motels & Lodges 242.3 113.5 Personal Services 254.5 36.5 Business Services 64.8 158.7 Medical Services 304.0 153.1 Other Services 218.8 154.7 Government 104.6 47.0 23.2 Federal -21.4 6.0 0.8 State 127.9 38.4 29.4 Local 144.8 Miscellaneous & Unclassified 8.0 252.1 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 87.8 76.6 20.9 Notes: All figures are positive (increases) unless otherwise noted. * Denotes data not available. Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce,- 1978 and Alaska Department of Labor, various years. but only slowly or even decreased in others, Based on these figures, cate- gories can be classified as either rapidly growing, slowly or moderately growing, or stagnant or decreasing, as shown below. RAPID GROWTH SLOW OR MODERATE GROWTH STAGNANT OR DECREASING (Below Average-Growth) Transportation Manufacturing Fish Processing Communications and Contract Construction Federal Government Public Utilities Mining Wholesale Trade General Merchandise Retail Trade and Apparel Finance, Insurance State Government and Real Estate Logging, Lumber and Pulp Services Local Government For the most part, Seldovia appears to have followed these trends, with the exception that fish processing has apparently increased in Seldovia in contrast with the boroughwide trend. Five potential kinds of economic development in Seldovia can be identified based on past and projected employment growth and Seldovia's areas of comparative advan- tage. The five activities include fisheries, tourism, forest products, marine services for offshore petroleum activities and local trade. The following sections describe methods which can be used by Seldovia to attract or expand each activity. The general discussion of small community economic development presented in the previous section applies to each of the activities. The following sections are more specific about activities which may lead to economic development in the Seldovia area. FISHERIES Unquestionably the largest and most vital of Seldovia's industries, fisheries can continue to grow if the right combination of public and private actions occur. Whether such actions occur, of course, is dependent on Seldovia's ability to build on its strengths and eliminate its disadvantages. Recent reviews of fisheries prospects for Southcentral Alaska and the Gulf of Alaska have indicated that high-valued fisheries (such as king and Tanner crab, salmon, halibut and shrimp) are currently being harvested at or near their maxi- mum sustainable yield. Rapid increases in fish prices in recent decades, however, have enabled many additional fishermen and vessels to enter these fisheries (with the exception of the salmon fisheries now under limited entry), reducing average catch per vessel in each fishery. Lacking additional regula- tion (such as imposition of limited entry), additional fishermen and vessels are likely to enter the high valued fisheries. If sufficient harbor, service 11-13 and processing facilities are available, Seldovia will feel the effects of fleet expansion. If increased competition reduces fishermen's income, efforts will likely be turned to lower-valued fisheries, such as bottomfish and some species of shell- fish (e.g., razor clams) which are being harvested at levels well below their potential (Earl R. Combs, Inc., 1979). Also, aquaculture and other intensive management actions which hold promise for increasing harvests of many species of f ish have not been pursued in the south Kachemak area to any great degree. Finally, recent State and Federal legislation (notably the U.S. Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976) have changed State and Federal fishery policies from regulatory to active promotion of the development of Alaska's fishing industry (Alaska Governor's Office, 1979). Seldovia has many of the essential requirements to participate in fishing industry development; however, many other nearby communities also wish to participate, hence Seldovia will need to actively work to build on its strengths and overcome its weaknesses in order to participate. A recent review of bottomfish development prospects for the Kenai Peninsul-a borough concluded that market prices and fish stock availability could support the expansion of the Borough's fishing fleet by 6 to 8 large trawlers (60 feet or greater) equipped to lc@nd an estimated 50,000 metric tons of pollock and black cod per year by fishing 10 to 11 months per year (Earl R. Combs, Inc., 1979). Recent research has concluded that a commercial Alaskan pollock fishery appears to be feasible given recent increases in the wholesale and retail price of pollock (Gorham, 1979; Martin, 1978).* Homer and Seward currently seem more likely to attract the bottomfish industry because of the access to transporta- tion, fleet capacity and support services (Earl R. Combs, Inc., 1979). The current advantages and disadvantages of Seldovia with respect to Homer and Seward are compared below. Seldovials relative advantages include: (1) Available fish processing capacity and willingness of processors to move into new product lines; (2) Availability of fleet of suitable large fishing boats (i.e., crabbers) capable of conversion to bottomfish harvesting, and financial capacity of many fishermen to finance new gear and equipment; (3) Favorable community attitudes; (4) Available waterfront land for fishing-related expansion; (5) Usable port facilities; (6) Steady power supply; (7) An attractive community and amenities; (8) Location near to f ishing grounds. Offshore processing is even more feasible; however, State and Federal policies will probably prevent offshore processing from taking a significant share of bottomfish catch. 11-14 Seldovia's relative disadvantages, in comparison to Homer and Seward include: (1) Inadequate transportation links for shipping supplies and fishery products, particularly during periods when State ferry service is unava i I ab I e; (2) Inadequate quality and quantity of public water supplies (now being remedied); (3) Lack of supplies and services for fishing boats. Other disadvantages or obstacles which are shared by Seldovia, Homer and Seward include: (1) Lack of sewage treatment capabilities to treat fish processing waste; (2) Small resident labor force; (3) Lack of housing for workers; (4) Lack of available moorage in 80 to 120 foot slip length range (10 to 15 foot depth) to berth large fishing vessels; (5) Fishermen may be reluctant to commit funds ($200,000 to $300,000) and effort to a year-round high-volume, low price fishery; (6) Fish processors may not have the financial resources to raise funds ($500,000) to add bottomfish processing capabilities. Because the fishing industry is interdependent (fishing boats often choose home ports near to processors, and processors usually locate in ports with large fleets), Seldovia's efforts to expand its fishing industry must attempt to balance processing expansion with fleet expansion. If one is out of scale with the other, Seldovia's industry could be affected adversely.* The key for successful fisheries expansion is to actively build from and pre- serve Seldovia's strengths while eliminating relative weaknesses wherever possible. Hence, actions should focus on improvements wherever possible, as described below. Improve Transportation Systems - Addressed in greater detail in Chapter 8, year round service and greater frequency of service must be established, either by the State Marine Highway System or the community in cooperation with a private carrier. In 1976, for example, crab meat production totalled 318,000 pounds (Pacific Packers Association, 1977). The addition of S. A. Packers and imple- mentation of limited bottomfish processing capabilities in Seldovia could easily double or triple this figure. Complete Improvements to Public Water System - Processors must be able to obtain adequate quantities and quality of water regularly; Seldovia has been greatly hampered by its water supply deficiencies. Completion of water supply improvements outlined in Chapters 6 and 9 is essential if existing processors are to remain viable and expansion encouraged. In fact, this appears to have happened recently. Establishment of a second processing plant (S. A. Packers) was not accompanied by a commensurate fleet expansion. As a result, both plants have experienced difficulty purchasing adequate supplies to operate efficiently. . 4 4 @ Increase Supply of Worker Housing - One of the reasons processors have difficulty obtaining workers when needed is that Seldovia has few housing units suited to the needs of workers (i.e., small, low cost rental units). Implementation of actions described in Chapter 4 would solve most worker housing problems, and would probably also make it easier for Seldovia to attract and retain an adequate supp I y of workers. Increase Moorage Space Available for Fishing Fleet - Seldoviats harbor is, like other nearby harbors, currently at capacity with a long waiting list for slips. Expansion of moorage space would attract additional boats, and would probably enable Seldoviats processors to increase fish deliveries and improve viability of the processors. Also, since bottomfish processing is efficient only at a large scale of operation, processors need to have a sizable local fleet to draw on in order toassure adequate deliveries of fish. (See Chapter 8 for actions to accomplish necessary port improvements). Improve Access To Sources of Financing Available For Expansion Or Improvement Of Fishing Fleet and Processing Plants - At present, bottomfish industry expansion is considered risky, and many interested fishermen and processors have difficulty obtaining financing necessary to enter the industry. In particular, local fish- ermen and processors need to be exposed to State and Federal agencies with low cost loan programs oriented to the fishing industry's needs. Such exposure could include, at a minimum, regular visits by agency representatives. (See Appendix E for a description of major sources of financing). Other possible sources of financing include joint ventures with Native corporations, or domestic or foreign fish processors or trading firms (as was used to establish . - S. A. Packers), or establishment of a non-profit local development corporation (LDC) (which could receive grants and loans from public agencies for business development and take a strong entrepreneur role). Improve Sewage Treatment Capabilities - Although industrial sewage disposal pro- bably will not be handled by the City's proposed sewage treatment plant, lack of adequate sewage disposal appears to be limiting the City's ability to expand sewer service to new areas and increase its housing stock. Fishing boats, too, now have to meet sewage discharge requirements. Improvement of both industrial and non-industrial waste disposal, therefore, is important if Seldovia is to expand and retain its fleet and processing capabilities. (See Chapter 9 for a discussion of sewage collection and treatment improvements). Ensure That An Adequate Amount Of Waterfront Land Is Available For Expansion of Processing And Marine Services - If fishing industry expansion is to occur, addi- tional land will be needed for processing expansion, marine services (boat and gear repair services) and gear and equipment storage. Approximately two acres of Industrial zoned (and five acres of Commercial Marine zoned) waterfront land is owned by the City. It is imperative that City, LDC or other public owner- ship or option ownership of these lots be maintained and directed to ensure that space is available for expansion when needed. (See Chapter 5 for land use and coastal management plan and actions). Expand Marine Services offered - Currently, Seldovia boats must travel to other parts for all but very minor repairs and service. Establishment of repair services could improve Seldoviats attractiveness as a home port for fishinq boats, 11-16 and indirectly aid processors. Services could range from those requiring little investment (electronics repair, gear repair, supply sales) to major (marine ways with hull repair, painting and engine maintenance capabilities). The best sites appear to be the Commercial Marine (CM) zoned sites adjacent to the small boat harbor and the Industrial zoned land by the processing plants. Develop Aquaculture Potential - Seldovia could also benefit greatly from aqua- culture development. Salmon, shrimp, oysters, clams and mussels are all successfully raised artifically in other areas. Methods range from intensive (e.g., salmon hatcheries) to small scale.. limited actions (e.g., improving stream beds for salmon spawning and "seeding" tidelands with imported oyster seed). State law provides that fisheries enhancement be carried out by regional non-profit associations such as the Cook Inlet Regional Aquaculture Association. By working closely with interested local fishermen, processors and non-profit research and aquaculture associations, Seldovia can begin to enhance existing fisheries as well as pioneer new ones. In all of these activities, a great deal of outside assistance can be obtained from the Borough and State and Federal agencies charged with assisting fisheries- related development. The Alaska Governor's Office (1979) noted: Where a community makes a concerted effort to develop and act on its position regarding bottomfish development, the State shall adapt its actions to support those community priorities to the extent that such actions also reflect fair consideration of statewide, regional and minority interests. TOURISM Seldovia is geographically centered within a region of both dramatic and passive scenic attractions. Seldovia's proximity to Kachemak Bay State Park and the unique scenic attributes of the Bay and surrounding uplands play a major role in drawing visitors from other areas, particularly Anchorage. Fishing is the primary focus of tourist interest in the area, although other activitles such as hiking, hunting, camping, and sightseeing are becoming increasingly important as well. The attractiveness of the South Kachemak Bay area is evidenced by figures indi- cating summer peak loads in ferry traffic which are increasing yearly at a rate considerably greater than overall resident population growth (Chapter 8). Another indicator of growing visitor interest is the amount of seasonal housing being develo.ped in the study area. According to the intermediate projection of seasonal housing demand, second homes are likely to double in-number to 40 units by the year 2000., Much of Seldovials appea.t to both visitors and residents alike stems from the quaint, water-oriented charm of the community. Seldovia has developed histor- ically according to a pattern dictated by a need for self-sufficiency and inherent lack of automobile access. Maintenance of the character of the City and surrounding area is important if the quality of life enjoyed by residents is to be sustained and local tourism business encouraged. 11-17 The isolated nature of Seldovia may act to encourage the more favorable, des- tination minded visitor to the area. It is apparent, however, that considerable potential exists for the encouragement of higher level of positive tourist growth in the area. A recent study of tourism in small Alaskan communities sug- gested that a community must have four basic features if it is to attract tourism: 0Attractions - Something which tourists want to see and do in or near the community. 0Access - Regular, scheduled means of transportation to and from the com- munity. Frequent service, ability to travel by more than one means (such as airplane, private boat and ferry) and cost of travel are also important. 0Accommodations - Clean, overnight facilities with baths and good mea!s must all be available. 0Advertising - Tourists must have some means of finding out about the attractions, access and accommodations of a community. Methods can range from brochures to magazine, newspaper, television and radio advertisements to personal sales efforts with travel agents, airlines and potential tourists. (Homan-McDowell Associates, 1979). Tourism can be of positive benefit to Seldovia if it can be controlled and it is generally accepted by the community. Homan-McDowell Associates (1979) outlined three basic steps to successful development of tourism in small Alaskan communities. The steps are: (1) Making the decision - whether the community desires tourism; (2) Planning - minimum requirements for access and accommodations include shelter (lodging), food, restrooms, transportation to local attractions, and a visitor information center; and (3) Complete a community inventory and advertise the community's attractions - this can include brochures, detailed information folders (to follow up information requests), publicity (such as hosting travel writers and photographers, working with the Alaska Division of Tourism, and news releases). The Alaska tourism market can be divided into two groups - independent tourists and package tour groups - and f ifteen separate market segments. The market segments include: (1) Airline touring, (2) Ferry touring, (3) Crulseship touring, (4) Motorcoach touring, (5) Camper/travel trailer touring, (6) Passenger car touring, (7) Local tours, (8) Unassisted sport fishing, (9) Guided sport fishing, (10) Hunting, (11) Camping, (12) Winter touring, (13) Skiing, (14) Miscellaneous outdoor activities, and (15) Yachting. Seldovia's proximity to Kachemak Bay and Kachemak Bay State Park have attracted primarily outdoor oriented, self-sufficient tourists whose positive economic impact on Seldovia has been minimal. Positive economic benefits could be increased by stressing four major improvements: ( 1) Improved and expanded air and water transportation to and from Seldovia (such as expanded frequency of ferry service during summer); ( 2) Improved accommodations for lodging and eating to compete with other areas; ( 3) Developed activities (e.g., charter fishing and hunting, visiting cultural and recreational sites) for the tourist to engage in once he/ she arrives in Seldovia; ( 4) Expanded and better organized promotion of Seldovia with independent tourists and travel agents. The satisfaction of these needs are logically and traditionally assigned to vari- ous groups including city government, community organizations and individuals. In Seldovia's situation, each of these groups could address one and participate in each of the aforementioned elements. Improved Transportation - This element, discussed in Chapter 8, is best dealt with by the City. It is equipped to work with the State and Federal agencies which must be involved to attain better and expanded service, particularly increasing scheduled ferry runs to and from Seldovia during summer months. Improved access could attract a significant fraction of the large numbers of independent tourists who come to the Homer area each spring and summer. Weekend travelers from the Anchorage area and out of state require more frequent and dependable service than is currently offered by the State ferries; improved ser- vice would probably significantly increase tourist travel to Seldovia. Simply adding one additional round trip per week between Seldovia and Homer during May through early September (and decreasing intervals between trips to three days during that period) would probably increase passenger and vehicle traffic by a minimum of 20 percent over present levels, resulting in 300 to 500 additional visitors per year. Another transportation improvement which would assist tourism is increased tran- sient boat and floatplane moorage. During many summer weekends, the harbor becomes overcrowded with the arrival of visitor boats and floatplanes. Increased transient moorage would improve Seldovia's ability to attract this type of tourist. 11-19 Improved Accommodations - To accommodate a growing number of tourists ariving in Seldovia, increases in the number of lodging alternatives and rooms is required, as well as a greater variety of eating establishments. For example, a new inn or lodge would attract the destination tourists who stay the longest and pur- chase the largest quantity of goods and services. Homan-McDowell Associates (1977) found that a 20-room lodge or inn might be feasible. Also, developed campgrounds outside Seldovia with utility hookups and restrooms would serve the auto-camper market and create local employment. This could be developed and operated by the State Parks Department at Kachemak Bay State Park or Outside Beach. Improved Local Attractions - To a large extent, Seldovia has many features which can be used to attract tourists. Packaging and accessibility can be improved by organizing local boats to conduct charter fishing as part of a weekend package tour promotion aimed at Anchorage residents. Likewise, hunting and fishing guides could help attract small fly-in hunting and fishing groups by improving access to the attraction. Other examples of improved local attractions include establishment of a museum, visitor center, and renovation of historical attractions (St. Nicholas Church, pioneer homes and the boardwalk), improved access to waterfront (beach access sites) and implementation of the park plan could also increase the number and quality of Sledovia's attractions. Advertising and Promotion - Existing brochures describing Seldovia are helpful to tourism promotion, but additional efforts undertaken could significantly improve the effectiveness of Seldovials tourism promotion efforts. Examples suggested by Homan-McDowell Associates (1979) include: � Advertise in travel journals such as the Worlds of Alaska! (published by the Alaska Division of Tourism, Department of Commerce and Economic Development). � Prepare information brochures to send to travel agents, airlines or potential tourists desiring current, detailed information such as mail- ing addresses and telephone numbers of lodges and restaurants, ferry and air charter rates and schedules, fishing and hunting season dates and area openings, etc. � Work with travel agents and Chamber of Commerce to organize small package tours, oriented to Anchorage-area residents, such as in con- junction with community events (fishing derby, fourth of July, etc.) � Host travel agents and photographers in conjunction with Alaska Division of Tourism promotion activities. � Improve circulation of brochures describing Seldovia, such as placing at displays at airports and hotels throughout Alaska, and in "lower 48" states in cooperation with Alaska Division of Tourism. 11-20 FOREST PRODUCTS Among the commercially valuable natural resources accesstble to Seldovia are relatively modest stands of commercial grade timber. Logging and sawmilling have been carried out in the past, but sawmilling ceased with the closing of the Jakolof Bay sawmill. Since then, logging has continued on a fairly limited scale on Native corporation lands, with most production lightered aboard freighters at Jakolof Bay for export to Japan. Across southcentral, central and southest Alaska, the forest products industry is important but relatively undeveloped compared to the "lower 48" industry. Along with Canada and the Soviet Union, Alaska supplies a large amount of wood fiber to Japan. Japanese sawmill capacity is quite well developed, and milling can be carried out in Japan for much less than is possible in Alaska (Glass, 1974). Hence, Japanese markets emphasize a distinct preference for sawlogs in the round, unprocessed form. The preferences are so strong that Alaskan pro- ducers have a significant economic incentive to sell logs in the round (unprocessed) rather than undertaking any milling in Alaska. Given these market incentives, the only major reason for the existence of sawmilling in Alaska are State and Federal laws mandating primary processing (namely, to "square up" the logs into cants) of Alaskan timber logged from publically owned lands prior to export to foreign countries. The laws are intended to develop an Alaskan forest products industry, and have lead to the development of a large number of sawmills which perform only the minimum of processing prior to export. High processing and transportation costs also prevent Alaskan mills from competing effectively in "lower 4811 markets. With Alaska's recent population growth, Alaskan markets for lumber and other wood products have increased significantly. Further growth in demand is expected through the forseeable future, particularly in the.Kenal Peninsula, Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. Surprisingly, however, imports from Canada and the Pacific Northwest have risen sharply, and the percent of Alaska's consump- tion of wood products consumed in Alaska which were produced in the State has fallen dramatically in both absolute and real terms. From 1961 to 1968 alone, Alaskan lumber producers' output fell from 25.5 million board feet (46 percent of 1961 Alaskan consumption) to 13.9 million board feet (23 percent of 1968 Alaskan consumption). This fall appears to have been caused by increased competition from cheaper Canadian and Pacific Northwestern lumber, increased Japanese demand for round log exports and poor quality control of domestically produced lumber. Recent studies have also questioned whether Alaskan markets are large enough to support efficiently sized processing plants, particularly for specialized products (Lindh, 1979). Since most of the timber in the south Kachemak Bay area will be privately owned, increased logging and export of round logs may be expected over the next two decades. This presumes that Japanese demand remains strong, primary processing requirements are not extended to timber harvested from privately owned land, and logs from State and Federally-owned land will continue to require primary processing. 11-21 Given these conditions, two major options exist for the role of forest products in Seldovia's economy. The first option is to maximize economic return at the expense of creation of employment. This, of course, would be accelerated log- ging by Native corporatfons with round log export. Seldovia could participate through local Seldovia Native Association, Inc. employment and profit distri- butions to SNA shareholders residing locally. If the harbor was dredged and the City dock lengthened, it might also be possible to load round logs and cants aboard oceangoing freighters for export to Japan. This would create some benefits, such as increased stumpage receipts for timber owners, increased City revenues, relocation of longshoring jobs to Seldovia and some increases in Seldovia's retail trade. The potential disadvantages of this option, however, include the high costs of improving and maintaining the dock and harbor, traffic congestion and safety hazards from increased log truck traffic, noise, air pollution, and possible interference with ferry and fishing boat movements in the harbor. Long-term employment gains would also be minimal. On balance, costs appear to outweigh benefits. The second option for Seldovia's forest products industry development would involve developing a small to medium size sawmill in or near Seldovia to pro- cess cants for foreign export (from logs originating on State and Federal lands) and/or produce dimensional lumber for southcentral Alaskan markets. Private income from timber sales would be reduced in comparison with the first option, but would be partially or fully offset by gains in local employment, trade and community development. Should this option be pursued, several basic requirements would need to be met. First, the mill owner/operator would need to be guaranteed a source of log supply at prices which would enable the mill to compete in local and/or export markets. (Since Native corporations would be giving up future income to enter into such an agreement, participation in ownership of a sawmill enterprise would assure that stumpage value losses would be partially offset by mill profits). Second, transportation links would need to be improved. Improved loading of ocean freighters or transportation links with Homer would be needed to enable the mill to effectively compete in local and export markets. A sawmill would also require specific site and service features, including land for plant, log, product and chip storage, waterfront access for log rafting from roadless areas (this may be separate from the plant itself) and a good electrical power source. It might also be possible to have two separate sawmills in the area. One could cut large sawtimber for export markets, while a second could cut small timber into dimensional lumber for sale to the South Kachemak Bay area and other parts of Kenai Peninsula. Such an operation could utilize a small, portable sawmill and could initially employ two to four persons. Whichever approach is chosen, Seldovia can diversify its economy and expand its participation in the forest products industry if public and private organizations 11-22 from both Seldovia and other areas work together for mutual advantage. Without mutual cooperation, Seldovia's potential simply may not be realized. MARINE SERVICE FOR OFFSHORE PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT A recent report prepared for the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1976) identified six basic location require- ments for marine service bases. The requirements were: � Proximity to offshore oil or gas activity; � A sheltered harbor of suitable size and draft with available capacity; � An adequate waterfront site with contiguous back-up lands; � A good airport/heliport; � Adequate roads; and � Proximity to an established community with a reasonable infrastructure. Other intangible factors, such as a favorable community attitude, and avail- ability of sites which exploration operators can exclusively use, are also important. Even though lower Cook Inlet oil exploration has not yet shown commercially feasible discoveries, additional oil lease sales are scheduled for the area, and exploration efforts are likely to continue. Seldovia's ice-free harbor, port and utility facilities, and proximity to lease sale areas, when coupled with the scarcity of adequate nearby port sites, make Seldovia an attractive potential location for a service base for oil exploration and development. Figure 11-2 is reproduced from a recent study of oil-related operations and requirements for servicing exploration activities, although water storage and treatment improvements are needed for Seldovia to assume a substantial supply role. Should commercial quantities of petroleum be found, Seldovia could become the site of marine service base, if public service improvements are made to achieve the requirements noted above 'and Seldovia is able to offer a readily available site at a competitive price. Improvements which would increase Seldovia's attractiveness as a marine service base site are listed in the following paragraphs. Airport Improvements - Seldovia's airport is capable of accommodating single engine and small multi-engine airplanes. Surrounding topography and runway length, however, limit size of airplane which can safety land at the airport, and lack of navigational aids limit flying time to daylight hours with good visibility. According to Alaska Consultants, Inc. (1976), heavy aircraft and foul weather navigation capabilities are important, although not essential, attributes to service marine developments. Helicopter landing capabilities are also needed. 11-23 Water Transportation Improvements - If heavy cargo aircraft accessibility is not feasible, year-round water access is essential to movement of necessary supplies. Again, if State ferry runs cannot be extended to year-round opera- tion and frequency increased when needed, then other means of transport, such as chartered or scheduled tug-and-barge, must be available. Loading and unload- ing facilities must be adequate, and probably can be reasonably served by the existing City dock. Potable Water Supply Capability - According to Alaska Consultants, Inc. (1976), a marine services function usually requires that the service boats be able to purchase 200,000 gallons of potable water at least weekly from the community in which the service base is located. Hence, Seldovia would need to improve its storage capacity significantly if other needs (residential, fish processing, institutional and fire flow) are to be met simultaneously. Chapter 9 discusses how water supply needs can be met. Access To Deep-Water Dock And Fuel Supplies - Since most of the boats supplying drilling and production rigs are quite large (150 feet or more), deep-water docking and turning basin capability must be available. Exploration companies often are willing to pay a premium to obtain exclusive use of a deep-water dock to gain greater control over supply ship movements. Fuel supply capability is also needed. Seldovia's dock and fuel supply capabilities appear to meet this requirement particularly well. Flat Upland Areas Capable of Equipment and Supply Storage - In an effort to avoid supply bottlenecks, oil companies and construction and drilling contrac- tors often seek to stockpile materials and supplies (such as pipe, drilling mud and spare parts) well in advance of anticipated use. Stockpiling requires large, flat, well-drained upland areas ranging in size from as small as a few acres to as large as 100 acres, averaging 25 acres. Of course, the storage area or areas must be accessible by road to loading and unloading docks. Small areas are available within the City at the north end of the industrial area along Main Street; larger suitable areas are available n6rth of the City in the developable lands identified in Figure 5-7. Housing For Workers - Although most exploration and construction workers choose to live in areas well removed from the service base, some housing is needed for land-based workers. Housing needs are usually moderate (10 to 50 units, depen- ding on the size and scale of operation), and are mostly temporary as OCS-related employment drops following completion of construction. Additional housing is often needed to house local service and trade workers. (See Chapter 3 for employment and population projections and Chapter 4 for housing demand projections). Even though lower Cook Inlet oil exploration finds have not been promising, exploration will continue and additional oil lease sales held. Since supply bases already exist at Nikiski, exploration contractors have utilized, and will probably continue to utilize, existing facilities until commercial discoverJes and start-up of large scale construction make use of existing bases impractical. Commercial discoveries, of course, are extremely difficult to predict, hence timing of potential marine service base development cannot be reliably predicted. 11-24 FIGURE 11-2 LOCATION REQUIREMENTS OF MARINE SERVICE BA5Eb SERVICES and Accommodation Ports Transportation Communications Supply Handling Engineering/ Inclustria I suppiies and Services FA ITI S and Catering and Storage Individual CO. - - -t s 1> 10 A o 0 Caiegorle t co A: -6 a 0 r 0 Cc, E a a, S S 0 .2 t 0 t: J9 13 A V g .2 E E ti 12, , 2 2 'e I - ; OPERATIONS ili 'I 'A C, arranged in sequence c lo M V SO E 00 = : I -C 01 i I ! @ ` - of development .9 0 TX I Z A a is - -j 1 :1 z 1! 0 31: 1 it 0 a -j 20 1 C11 V I FL I. Geophysical and -Oceanographic Exploration 0101010 01010 01010 Ole 0 01010 01010 *101010 01010 0 Ole 0 2Construction of Service Bases and Ports 0 0 0 0 01010 01010 0 0 0 0 010 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 010 0 'a Service Basd Operation 000 0 0010 0 OIC C 000 000 00 0 C 0 0 0 00 0 * 9 0 4Oil Rig Operation 000 0 0 010 0 OIC.C 0.00 0 Ole 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0-00 0 0 50 Production Platform Construction 010,01 0 0 010 001CC 01000 00 0 0 0.0.0 00 0 0010 0 01 5b Module Construction *1010 0 0 010 0 OIC 0 010 010 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 .0000000 Collection Station 6 Construction ooiooooioooiccoiooooo0000000000000 7. Tanker Terminal Construction 0 010.0 0 010 OIOIC C10io 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 010 0 0 0 V-n 8a Pipe- Laying Sea 0 0 010 0 010 0 01C 0010 0 0 01010 0 0 0 0 01010 010 010 0 and Burying Land 0 0 0 0 010 0 OIC CIO 010 0 01010 0 0 0 0 01010 010 0 0 0 8b Production Platform 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 01010 0 010 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 Installation 9. Production Platform Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 C C 0 0 0 0 01010 0 010 0 0 010 0 0 0 0101 Production Platform 10CL Operation and Workover -OOOIOOOIOOCCCOIOOOOI000010000000000 Collection Station (Oh Operation O_qOjOOOjOeOOOO1O1OOOOO0O1 000000000 loc. Tanker Terminal 000 IC1010 0 010101C 0 0 Operation 0 010 0101010101 M and Production -Fololololololoi0ioloioioioiololo 00 00 anagement of Exploration 101 1 101 1 1010101010101010 Required &tC Other existing local services which have to be greatly expanded to serve the oil industry include: hotels, bars, restaurants, car rental and taxi services, travel agencies, banking and insurance, secretarial services, lawyers, real estate agents and employment agencies. r,OFAC'L'T IIES Individual Caiegar.s' P 0 S ERA @N KEY Possibly required IC Building and construction trades are particularly heov4 employed, wdh labor shortages quickly dieveklping. A Not required Reprinted From Alaska Consultants, Inc. (1976). In light of such uncertainty, Seldovials actions should probably continue to be limited to planning and those investments which can also be utilized for other uses (such as the proposed water system improvements). Speculative development could follow after firm committments have been received from oil companies or contractors to fully support construction of the facilities. Steps which Seldovia can take include: 0 Continuing discussions with oil companies and contractors regarding potential interest in and use of Seldovia as a marine service base site, including potential sites. All parties which may potentially be involved (including the community at large) should be included in the discussions. 0 Initiation and completion of public improvements necessary for marine service base use but also useful for other activities. o Improvements necessary only for oil industry use are best deferred until firm committments can be obtained. If committments cannot be obtained but improvements are essential to attracting oil firms, the Federal Coastal Energy Impact Program provides loan funds which can be forgiven if planned utilization of the improvement does not materialize or is cut short unexpectedly (see Appendix E for a description of this program). LOCAL SERVICES AND TRADE Seldovials local services and trade sectors are surprisingly well developed given the size of the community and local trade area. Many full and part-time businesses have been established by enterprising residents, and while not all attempts have succeeded, the successes are much greater than many other commun- ities of Seldovials size. There are perhaps three major reasons for Seldovia's accomplishments to date in this field. First, some local residents have prospered in other endeavors (princ-lpally fishing and construction work) which have given them investment funds with which to start a business; tax laws tend to give such individuals strong incentives to start a business to avoid heavy taxation. Second, Seldovians appear to have a strong entrepreneurial spirit. The com- munity's tradition of independence and adaptability apparently endows many with a strong desire for being self employed, rather than working for someone else. Finally, the community itself is generally quite supportive of local businesses, to the point that local purchases appear to be preferred whenever possible, even when greater selection and lower prices may be obtained in larger communities. Still, Seldovials trade and services sector has not yet reached its potential, and a number of promising enterprises have not persisted. Although individual reasons may vary, most failures or undeveloped opportunities can probably be traced to one or more of the following factors: 11-26 � Financing - New businesses have difficulty raising sufficient funds to purchase land, construct buildings, purchase inventory, hire and train workers and survive the first few lean years until a steady trade can be built up. Even where private or public financing is available, down payment and collateral requirements are large enough to dissuade all but the.most financially able from starting a business. � Size Of Trade Area - With only 600 year-round residents within driving range of Seldovia, potential markets are limited for most businesses. A small amount of trade also comes from Port Graham and English Bay, but lack of road access limits trade. � Cost And Reliability Of Transportation Linkages - With present trans- portation methods, Seldovia lacks a reliable, low cost, year-round transportation linkage with supply sources. Small, low volume businesses are especially affected as they have difficulty lowering per unit transportation costs to a competitive level. � Lack Of Available, Suitable Sites - Although not as critical as other problems, new businesses have an especially difficult time securing suitable sites at affordable prices. Even fully serviced, subsidized sites in Seldovia's urban renewal area may be difficult for a new business to finance successfully. � Lack Of Experience - Some entrepreneurs attempt to start a new business in which they have no managerial experience; the lack of experience leads to significantly more mistakes than an experienced entrepreneur would make. Often, such mistakes can be fatal to the business. � Greater Income-Earning opportunities Elsewhere - Most small business owners earn relatively low incomes during the first few years of the business operation, since most profits must be reinvested into the business and a steady trade built up. Much greater income-earning opportunities are often available in fishing or construction work; as a result, some businesspersons become impatient with their business and take higher paying opportunities in other occupations. A wide range of actions could be pursued to improve the size, strength and vitality of Seldoviats trade and services businesses. One study of nine small communities across the country had the following eleven suggestions for improving the survival of services and trade businesses (Deran, 1963): � Choose location carefully; � Obtain experience, preferably managerial, in the same or a related line. � Be sure to have a large enough capital fund. � Do not hope to become a (business owner) unless you are a bright, competent person. � Do not plan to hold a job at the unskilled or semiskilled level while operating, a (retail or service) establishment. � Develop new merchandising opportunities. � Consider non-price competitive methods (e.g., advertising). 11-27 � Be flexible in pricing. � Pay your sales personnel well; use sales incentive techniques. � If a full-time bookkeeper is impractical, arrange for a outside accountant; compute and use at least the simpler cost ratios. � Put your family to work in the store. While not all of these suggestions are appropriate for community action, some are very appropriate, as is described below. First, capital sources can be improved. One of the major mechanisms which many communities (including Homer, Kenai, Seward and Soldotna) use to help small businesses obtain capital is to organize a local development corporation, a locally-chartered non-profit economic development organization.* Such organi- zations may obtain government grants and low cost loans, and may pass such financial assistance on to new or existing local businesses. Alternatively, low cost publically-subsidized or guaranteed loans may be obtained through a local private lender, State agencies (such as the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development), bond sales to community residents or as a cooperative undertaking of all combined. Second, trade area size could be increased by establishing year-round road access to Port Graham and English Bay. Better accessibility could substantially increase the amount of trade Seldovia businesses could capture from these communities. According to Kenai Peninsula Borough (1979), year-round popula- tion in these communities currently totals 340 year-round residents. Year-round road access between these communities and Seldovia, then, would effectively increase Seldovia's primary trade area by more than 50 percent, and could sub- stantially improve trade volume for many busi,nesses. In addition, increased trade area size could put Seldovia above the threshold, or minimum market size, for some businesses currently not feasible in Seidovia. Examples of new or expanded businesses affected by such an increase in trade area size include: o Bank (limited service) o. Mo I-e I � Movie theater � Bowling alley o Radio station � Boat repair and supply * Barber shop/beautician * Newspaper * Bookkeeping service * For further information, see Practicing Law Institute (1970). 11-28 � Appliance Sales and service � Furniture sales Third, transportation improvements are greatly needed. Specifically, year- round, reliable, lower cost water transportation between Seldovia and Homer would lower costs of goods to retailers and improve the ability of merchants to stock a wide selection of goods. Stock turnover rates could also be increased, improving merchant inventory stocking capabilittes. Capital and financing problems could also be relieved greatly by establishing build-to-suit and lease-back sites. Many businesses or organizations lacking capital to build suitable facilities will sign a lease committment for desired facilities with a builder/developer, who builds the facility to suit the leasee and leases the facility back to the lesee for 10 to 20 years. At the end of the lease, the leasee is usually given the facility or has an option to purchase for a low price. Since some individuals and organizations appear to have suit- able capital available for investment, private organizations could fill the role of builder/developer. Alternatively, a potential local development corpor- ation could act as builder/developer. Sites need to be kept available for business expansion, and necessary public improvements (water, sewer, etc.) made available. Again, a local development corporation or private organization could purchase sites and put in necessary improvements, perhaps as a build-to-suit combination office-retail-warehouse- industrial park. City decisions on sale or use of urban renewal lands also need to take availability of sites for business expansion into consideration. Financial inducements, such as tax deferments, could be used to assist in the establishment of service trade businesses. This could be tried, but in view of the substantial help needed by many small businesses, would. probably not be cost effective. Finally, technical assistance could be made available either through a local development corporation or by local, State and Federal agencies (such as the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs). Results of these programs could be quite good. PLANNED SOLUTIONS Given the range of possible solutions outlined in the previous section, this section outlines planned policies and actions for Seldovia to achieve its economtc development goal and associated objectives. The adopted goal and objectives, together with recommended policies and actions, are produced below. GOAL: Large, stable and diverse economic base with new income and employment opportunities compatible with existing quality of life and emphasizing resident ownership. 11-29 OBJECTIVE: Establish bottomfish capabilities at one or more new or existing fish processing plants, and expand other fishing opportunities. POLICY: Seldovia will support public and private efforts to expand and diversify Seldovia's fishing industry in public actions taken by the City and local private organizations. Assistance by outside organiza- tions will also be utilized where appropriate. ACTION 144: Improve water transportation system to provide year-round, reliable freight service for shipment of up to 600,000 pounds processed fishery products per year (through either State Marine Highway System or private carrier). (See Chapter 8 for further information). ACTION 145: Improve quality and capacity of public water supplies by completing scheduled improvements to municipal water wystem. (See Chapters 6 and 9). ACTION 146: Increase moorage space avai lable for f ishing f leet in 80 to 120 foot length range by completing proposed port improvements. (See Chapter 8). ACTION 147: Improve municipal sewage treatment capabilities by completing sewage treatment plant and investigating alternative methods of processing and fishing boat waste disposal. (See Chapter 9). ACTION 148: Improve access to sources of financing available for expansion or improvement of fishing fleet and processing plants by in- creasing contact with public and private lenders, joint ventures and establishment of a Seldovia local development corporation (if public and private sources are Insufficient). ACTION 149: Ensure that waterfront land is available for expansion of processing and marine services through public (City or local development corporation) ownership of waterfront sites. Implement by establishing short-term leases for temporary use of one or more desirable sites until acceptable proposal for suitable use is received. ACTION 150: Expand range of services available to fishing boats to increase employment and fleet size through increased access to public and private lenders, local development corporation construction of facilities, and revolving loan program. ACTION 151: Improve fisheries harvests by establishing local aquaculture programs (salmon, shrimp, oysters, etc.) in cooperation with Cook Inlet Regional Aquaculture Association and/or University of Alaska. OBJECTIVE: Establish a marine service function to serve offshore industries (i.e., oil exploration and development) while minimizing impacts on community. POLICY: Limited marine service functions will be encouraged, and consultations with oil companies continued, provided that public improvements will be made only when firm use committments, alternative uses or loan forgiveness are available to minimize Seldovia's risks. 11-30 ACTION 152: Request State to investigate feasibility of improvements to Seldovia Airport to expand airplane size capacity and foul .weather or darkness navigational capability. ACTION 153: Request State to increase ferry service to establish year-round, reliable service between Seldovia and Homer, with minimum of two round trips per week year-round, and minimum three round trips per week with maximum three day interval between trips between mid-May and mid-September. If State is not responsive, work with a private carrier to establish supplemental service. (See Chapter 8). ACTION 154; Improve municipal water system. (See Chapters 6 and 9). ACTION 155: Reserve housing and equipment storage sites for potential oil industry use (carried out by City, SNA or local development corporation). ACTION 156: Continue discussions with oil companies concerning use of Seldovia for marine service base, involving community and Borough, State and Federal-agencies, and initiating improve- ments only when firm committments for use or loan forgiveness are received. OBJECTIVE: Establish other basic industrial activities to provide employment and income earning opportunities for residents. POLICY: Economic diversification will be encouraged where compatible with existing lifestyle and quality of life. ACTION 157: Explore with State, U.S. Forest Service and local Native corporations and private timber companies feasibili,ty of reopening or establishing new local or export market oriented sawmill in or near Seldovia. OBJECTIVE: Investigate feasibility of alternative financing mechanisms for industrial development-related improvements. POLICY: Community efforts will be oriented towards increasing access to public and private lenders (both local and non-local) as well as creation of new mechanisms or organizations to finance worthwhile enterprises when appropriate. ACTION 158: Encourage representatives of public and private lenders to visit with potential borrowers in Seldovia frequently. ACTION 159: Encourage local organizations to act as builder/developer, leasing facilities to small businesses lacking capital to build their own facilities. ACTION 160. Consider establishment of a Seldovia local development corpora- tion to act as a local non-profit lender and developer, and implement if appropriate. OBJECTIVE: Assure availability of sites for new or expanded industrial activity. 11-31 POLICY: Potential demands or needs for economic activities will be a prime consideration in community decisions. ACTION 161: Consider future economic development needs in advisory zoning decisions and urban renewal lot disposal decisions (e.g., if site is only suitable one available for desired use, allow only short-term uses until desired activity begins or is no longer viable). ACTION 162: Local private organizations or potential non-profit Seldovia local development corporation purchase options and/or full title to potential sites. OBJECTIVE: Strengthen existing commercial activities, and establish new or additional commercial activities. POLICY: Tourist trade will be encouraged where quality of life can be main- tained and economic benefits maximized. ACTION 163: Identify types of tourist trade with the greatest economic benefits and least disruption to Seldovia. ACTION 164: Determine community support for tourist trade. ACTION 165: Increase accessibility by improving air and water trans- portation links to Seldovia (such as float plane moorage and expanded summer ferry service). ACTION 166: Improve accommodations for visitors (particularly new motel/ hotel and remote seasonal lodge). ACTION 167: Request State to develop campground at Kachemak Bay State Park or Outer Beach to accommodate recreational vehicle demand. ACTION 168: Increase attractions for tourists, such as museum, events (Fourth of July, fishing derby, performing arts, etc.), organized charter fishing, renovated historical attractions and waterfront access and parks. ACTION 169: Increase advertising and promotion of Seldovia by selected advertising in travel publications, organization of package tours with travel agents, and hosting of touring travel agents and photographers. POLICY: Development of local services and trade activities will be encouraged in community actions and with outside assistance. ACTION1 70: Improve sources of-financing available to existing and potential service and trade business (See Actions 158, 159, 160, 161 and 162). ACTION 171: Increase trade area market size by encouraging extension of South Kachemak road network to Port Graham and English Bay. ACTION 172: Improve water transportation links with Homer to increase merchant's buying power and selection of goods for sale. 11-32 ACTION 173: Arrange for improved sites to be available for business expansion. ACTION 174: Arrange for technical assistance to local small businesses through public agencies, Seldovia Native Association, Inc., or potential Seldovia local development corporation. 11-33 Chapter 12 Capital Improvements Program This capital improvements program is the culmination of the previous sections of this comprehensive plan which analyzed the probable development of Seldovia and recommended policies and actions to meet the community's objectives. This chapter recommends a program for the construction of immediate and anticipated community facilities. The planned capital improvements, ab outlined in Figure 12-1, are fitted to the ability of Seldovia to finance such physical improvements. In order for this program to be realistic, however, it was necessary that the City's financial situation be analyzed and financial strategies evaluated. The pressing need to rebuild and further develop Seldovia during the past decade and half has created enormous problems for community leaders; one of the most vexing of these has been the task of financing needed and desired community facil'Fties. Were the City to depend solely upon revenues derived from taxes and miscel- laneous sources of income, a large number of the recommended capital improve- ments would necessarily have had to be curtailed. Most of the City's revenues must be devoted to operating and maintaining existing services; consequently, most capital improvements have been financed by outside assistance (grants- in-aid from State and Federal agencies) and by long-term borrowing. State and municipal laws limit the types of borrowing the City may engage in, and set strict limits on the procedures which the City must follow. (AS 29.58.010, et. seq.) In addition to the City's ability to borrow funds for financing community facilities, State and Federal funds are often made available. A combination of funds left over from the City's General Fund (when such is the case), Capital Projects Fund, borrowed funds (through the sale of bonds), and State and Federal grants-in-aid is expected to realize the recommended Capital Improve- ment Program outlined in and described in Figure 12-1. The program assumes that the 21 mill property tax levy to which the community is I'Mited by State lax will prevail throughout the study period, although periodic reassessments by the Borough Assessor may increase the total amount of assessed valuation of real estate and personal property as used for tax purposes. This chapter is presented in two parts. The first, the Capital Improvements Program, sets forth a schedule of construction, stating estimated costs for each individual project. The scheduling reflects the urgency or desirability of each project. The first six year period is treated in the greatest detail since conditions and priorities may change considerably by then. 12-1 The second section evaluates past revenue, expenditure and debt structure trends of the City of Seldovia during the past decade. Its purpose is to determine the amount of money available to the City from its own and outside sources to pay for recommended capital improvements. The section also explores alternative financing strategies, and develops a financial plan best suited to the needs and resources of Seldovia. USES OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM One of the most important uses for this Capital Improvement Program should be to provide a framework on which to base public policy geared to the implementa- tion of the City's comprehensive plan. Additional advantages of a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are that it: o Assures that projects will be executed in accordance with established priorities; o Protects the community against political and vested-interest pressure; o Ensures that projects are gauged to the community's ability to pay for them; o Enables City officials to coordinate projects in such a manner as to produce efficiencies in both time and money spent; o Allows City officials to take advantage of favorable bond markets; o Aids local employment by allowing projects to be staged in such a manner so as to provide local employment during lags in the regional and national economy; and o Encourages desirable development by assuring developers that needed public services will be available at a specific time and price. The program outlined in the following section is not rigid or unchangeable. On the contrary, it is advisable to review it each year and to adjust and refine, where circumstances warrant, the construction schedule and cost estimates. As was stated previously, the schedule of public works as outlined in the program extends from 1979 to 1990, particular attention paid to the period 1979 to 1985. Projects recommended for the period between 1985 and 1990 are not scheduled in the same detail as projects in the first six years of the program. Annual reviews of the program will assure the proper scheduling, financing, and coordination of those projects grouped in the period 1985 to 1990. After each subsequent review of the program, the detailed six-year program should be up- dated by dropping the previous year (1979) and adding a year (1986) so that the detailed program will cover a six-year period at all times. Capital Improvements Program Figure 12-1, on the following pages, presents the capital improvements program for Seldovia. The figure describes the cost, timing, sources of financing, status of plans and operating budget impact, where available, for each proposed 12-2 project. The projects are listed according to their rated priority. (Figure 9-1 in Chapter 9 shows the location of each proposed project). Table 12-3 summarizes the program for the period 1979 through 1986. Costs of all proposed capital improvements during the period totals slightly over $5.4 million in 1979 prices. Over half of total costs are for improvements to the City's water and sewer system. One-sixth of the cost would be for streets and roads improvements, and the remaining third is for other public facilities. Over four-fifths of the amounts needed to be raised would proably come from outside assistance (State and Federal assistance grants-in-aid). Even though outside financial_aid would probably reduce the City's share to less than one- fifth of total costs, the nearly 1.1 million of cash which the City would need to raise from its own sources is much greater than is likely to be reasonably diverted from the General Fund. Additional funds will need to be raised from long-term borrowing (bonds, loans) and direct contributions from private in- dividuals (such as Special Assessment Districts or developer utility hook-up fees). Several precautions should be noted by the reader in viewing these figures. First, grant-in-aid sources are projected, but cannot be guaranteed. Avail- ability of grant funds to Seldovia depends on many factors which cannot be predicted, such as amount of funds available and degree of competition from other communities for available funds. If particular grant-in-aid sources are not available as anticipated, other grants-in-aid might be obtained, or the difference financed out of local funds, or the project might be delayed until revenues are available. Second, future price inflation has not been projected in the costs shown. Inflation is very difficult to project over a long-range period; however, City General Fund revenues have increased at slightly more than the rate of price inflation during the last decade,- so inflation would probably not affect the viability of the program. Also, since the improvements will serve additional areas of Seldovia, additional development will likely occur and increase the City's revenues further. Finally, the City's operating budget will be impacted by the implementation of this program. Although not estimated in most cases, operating costs in many categories of service may rise if new facilities (such as the sewage treatment plant) are to be properly maintained. FINANCING OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS A variety of sources can be used to finance capital improvements. The sources can be classified into three major categories: o Ongoing Qperations of the City (funds remaining after debt service and operations expenses have been covered); o Issuance of long-term debt; and o Cash contributions by other governments or parties (particularly grants- in-aid from State and Federal governments). 12-3 F I GURE 12-1 SEVEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM CITY OF SELDOVIA F"ej -.- PROJECT Est. Oper- Prior EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL.YEAR AND SOURCE OF FUNDS Seven Year Cost Beyond Status T@UIA�KS No. ating Bud- Expendi- 1979-1980 1980-1981 1981-1982 1982-1983 1983-1984 1984-1985 1985-1986 Total Program Of get Impact tures (Thousands of dollars) Period Plans 1. Water Filtration Plant NA - GOB $119.7 $316.1 - 3 Design underway GIA $196.4 2. Chlorination Facilities NA - WB $43.4 - 3 Do-,ign underway For Water System GIA $71.3 $114.7 3. 500,000 Gallon Water NA - GOB $217.6 $574.9 - 3 Dcsign Completed Storage Tank At GIA $357.3 Bid 12/79 U.S. Reserve Site CFO-LLB- 4. Alder Street Fxtension - GIA $32.2 $ 80.5 - I CFO $28.2 LLB $20.1 5. East Addition Water NA - GIA $64.8 $108.0 - I Proposed Line Extension LLB $43.2 6. Water Pressure Reducing NA - CFO $3.0 $ 3.0 - I Station 7. Police Station NE NA GOB $35.8 $178.8 - 3 (Including Jail) GIA $125.2 8. East Addition Sewer NA 9@ 11T4,5 $429.1 - 1 Extension CFO $107.3 LLB $107.3 9. Rehabilitate Existing 14A GOB $14.3 S 35.8 2 Combined With Sewer Sewer Pump Stations GIA $17.9 Trentment Plant CFO $ 3.6 Project 10. Fire Hall NE NA GOB $18.3 $260.0 - 3 GIA $208.0 CFO $33.7 II. Sewage Treatment Plant $40.6 GOB S137.4 $1,656.1 - 2 Draft Facility Plan (Oxidation Ditch Design) Increase GIA$1490.5 Proposed CFO $28.2 12. Airport Avenue 14A GIA $89.5 $149.1 - I Proposed Watermain Extension CFO $22.3 13. Interconnect 10" Water NA LLE$37.3 $ 78.1 - I Proposed GIA $46.9 Lines At Winnlfred Way CFO $11.7 LLS $19.5 14. Ferry Terminal AE NA GIA $16.0 $ 21.3 CFO $11.7 15. Extend Sewer On Hill St., 14A LLBS32.0 $127.8 CFO $19.1 Church St., Alacka St. And GIA $76.7 Vista Avenue FIGURE 12-1 SEVEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM CITY OF SELDOVIA Proj. PROJECT Est. Oper- Prior EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR AND SOURCE OF FUNDS Seven Year Cost Beyond Status REFIARKS No. ating Bud- Expendi- T479-1980 1980-1981 1981-1982 1982-1983 1983-1984 1984-1985 1985-1986 Total Program Of get Impact tures Period Plans 16. Shoreline Drive Sewer NA GIA $246.2 $410.4 1 Pump Station CFO $61.6 LLB $102.6 17. Harbor Improvements NE NA GIA$1046.3 $1,162.5 CFO $11.6 LLIS $104.6 18. Airport Improvements NE NA G(A $f45.0 $155.0 CFO $10.0 19. Extension Of "A" Street GIA $48.8 $ 81.4 CFO $12.2 LLG$20.4 20. Construct "B" Street NE NA GIA $17.5 S 34.9 CFO $8.7 LL6 $8.7 21 Extension Of Vista Street GIA $34.9 $ 69.8 CFO $17.5 LL13 $17.4 22. Construction Of NE NA GIA $34.9 S 69.8 Willard Way CFO $17.5 LLB $17.4 23. Extend Augustine Avenue NE NA GIA $17.5 34.9 CFO $8.7 LLB $17.4 24. Spillum Street NE NA GIA $44.4 S 88.9 Extension CFO $22.3 LLD $22.2 25. Dog Pound NE NA CFO $3.4 $ 3.4 26. Signing & Survey Of CFN $6.1 $ 6.1 One-Way Couplet (Cedar And Kachemak Streets) 27. Fulmor Street Extension NE NA GIA $50.8 $101.6 CFO $25.4 LLD $25.4 28. Morgue NE NA CFO $8.5 $ 8.5 29. Upgrade Shoreline NE NA GIA $71.0 $142.0 1 Drive CFO $42.6 LLD $28.4 FIGURE 12-1 SEVEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM CI1Y OF SELDOVIA -Froj -.PROJECT Est. per- Prior - EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR AND SOURCE OF FUN@Z_ Seven ear Cost Beyond S a us-RiMARKS No. ating Bud- Expendl- 1979-1980 1980-1981 1981-1982 1982-1983 1983-1984 1984-1985 1985-1986 Total Program Of get lmp:@ct turcs io_d Plans_____ 30. Outer Beach NE NA (3011 126.9 $1 2r;. 9 - I Regional Park GIA $100.0 31. Construct "C" Street NE NA GIA $12.7 $ 35.4 - I CFO $6.3 LLB $6.4 32. Improve City Storage NE NA CFO $16.9 $ 16.9 - I Yard 33. Waterfront Park NE NA GOB $26.9 $126.9 - GIA $100.0 34. Extension Of Malcolm GIA $38.1 $ 76.2 - Street CFO $19.1 LLB $19.0 35. Construct Cul-de-sac NE NA GIA $16.6 $ 27.7 Off Of "D" Street CFO $4.2 LLB $6.9 36. Bloch Street Extension NE NA GIA $66.4 $110.7 CFO $16.6 LLB $27.7 37. "D" Street Extension NE NA GIA $10.0 $ 27.7 CFO $7.0 LLB $10.7 38. Lake Susan Park NE NA GOB $47.6 $147.6 GIA $100.0 39. Cemetery Improvements NE NA CFO $5.5 $ 5.5 (Fencing, Crosses) 40. Daycare & Youth Center NE NA GOB $30.0 $ 64.6 1 Questionable (Remodel Old Hospital) GIA $34.6 41. TV Satellite NE NA GOB $25.4 $ 55.4 Receiver Station GIA $30.0 42. Museum NE NA GOB $47.6 $147.6 1 GtA $100.0 43. Construction Of Gravel I Pedestrian Walkways 1 44. Construct Cul-de-sac In Russian Church Mobile Home Park TOTALS $1,005.7 $835.2 $1916.1 $786.7 $1608.3 $722.8 $669.1 Legend: Sources Of Funds: GIA Grants-In-Aid from State or Federal governments CFO Cash from operations GOB General obligation bonds (long-term debt) LLB Limited liability bonds (financed from user fees or special assessments; e.g., special assessment districts or revenue bonds) Potential financing from each of these sources is discussed in the following sections. Potential Financing From Operations Funds potentially available to apply to capital improvements can be calculated based upon analysis of past, present and future trends in Seldovia's finances. The analyais, presented in Table 12-1, projects operating revenues, operating expenditures, currently committed debt service costs, and net operating budget impact of planned capital improvements. The remainder of revenues less costs is the financing potential for capital improvements from operations. Revenues likely to be available from operations totals slightly over one million dollars in the seven year period from 1979-1980 to 1985-1986. Potential Financing From Long-Term Debt Since cash from operations do not appear to be sufficient to completely finance improvements when needed, the City may incur long-term debt in order to finance the improvements. The debt may be of either limited or unlimited liability - the former includes primarily bonds backed only by specific revenues, such as special assessments or utility system revenues. Unlimited liability debt, usually in the form of general obligation bonds, must be paid before any other city obligations. Nationwide financial standards for general obligation debt vary, but frequently suggest that general obligation debt be no larger than 10 percent of the full market value of taxable real and personal property within the City. Limited liability debt is usually not included in this figure, but in no case should combined long-term debt exceed 15 percent of real and personal property value. Exceeding this figure would result in such large debt service obligations that services would need to be curtailed in order to.meet the obligations. Seldovials combined property values have increased at a fairly rapid rate in recent years as a result of the continued economic recovery of the community. The increase has averaged about 19 percent per year in recent years. While this rapid growth rate may not be sustained, some continued growth may be . expected. Based upon a statistical analysis of past rates of assessed valuation increase, a conservative projection of property value increase indicates a projected increase of about 9 percent per year. If this increase occur and tax rates remain about the same, the City's property tax receipts would increase proportionately. Additional long-term debt financing would then be possible. Applying the 10 percent standard to potential general obligation debt, the City may issue additional long-term general obligation bonds to finance capital improvements. An additional $1.1 million in long-term general obligation bonds can be issued using the criterion (Table 12-2). Other Sources Of Funds The most common sources of financial assistance which might be made available to the City are grants-in-aid from the State and Federal governments. In the 1?-7 TABLE 12-1 PROJECTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FINANCING POTENTIAL GENERATED BY OPERATIONS BY FISCAL YEAR 1977-1978 1978-1979 1979-1980 1980-1981 1981-1982 1982-1983 1983-1984 1984-1985 1985-1986 Seven Year Tota I s (Actua I (Actua I ) (FY1980 - FY 1986) (Thousands of dollars) Projected Revenues Operating Revenues I Intergovernmental 47.9 123.9 108.2 118.8 129.5 140.1 150.7 161.3 172.0 980.6 2. Enterprises 65.4 180.0 124.7 133.8 142.9 152.0 161.1 170.2 179.3 1064.2 Taxes & Licenses 3. Property Taxes 100.8 120.9 119.0 128.9 138.9 148.8 158.8 168.7 178.7 1041.7 4. Other Taxes 64.7 71.8 72.5 80.4 88.2 96.0 103.8 111.6 119.4 671.9 5. Other Revenues 57.5 43.1 43.9 48.0 52.2 56.3 60.4 64.6 68.7 394.1 6. TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 336.3 3-9 -.6 T6 -8. 3 _@_l -0. 0 551.6 593.2 634.8 676.5 718.1 4152.5 Projected Expenditures Operating Expenditures 7. Labor Costs 100.1 195.6 156.4 170.0 183.6 197.2 210.8 224.4 238.0 1380.3 ,a. Other Operating Expenditures 84.4 171.1 127.7 138.7 149.6 160.6 171.5 182.5 193.4 1124.0 Cumulative Net Impact of Capital Improvements - - - 48.4 52.9 57.7 63.0 68.8 75.2 366.0 9. TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES T-84-.5 T6-6.8 T8-4-. 1 357.0 386.1 Ti-5.5 T4-5.3 T7-5.7 506.6 2870.3 10. Existing Obligated Debt Service 55.5 29.4 29.9 29.4 28.9 29.4 29.8 29.2 206.0 II. TOTAL EXPENDITURES -4'2-2-.3 3-13.5 38-7.0 415.5 _@_443 474.7 505.5 535.8 3076.3 12. Projected Financing Potential From Operations 117.4 154.8 123.0 136.1 149.0 160.2 171.0 182.3 1076.2 (Excluding Capital Projects Grants and Additional Long-Term Borrowing) Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. 01 TABLE 12-2 PROJECTED LONG-TERM DEBT FINANCING POTENTIAL BY FISCAL YEAR 1977-1978 1978-1979 1979-1980 1980-1981 1981-1982 1982-1983 1983-1984 1984-1985 1985-1986 (Actual) (Actual) (Thousands of dollars) 1. Estimated Full Value 7,820.0 8,449.6 9,401.1 10,352.6 11,304.0 12,255.6 13,207.0 14,158.5 15,110.0 (Jan. I Of Year). 2. Long-Term Financing Potential 782.0 845.0 940.0 1,035.3 1,130.0 1,226.0 1,321.0 1,416.0 1,511.0 At 10% Of Full Value Less Obligated Debt 3. General Obligation Bonds 491.0 477.0 462.0 446.0 430.0 414.0 397.0 378.0 359.0 4. Revenue Bonds 69.0 66.0 63.0 59.0 55.0 51.0 47.0 43.0 39.0 5. Other (Contracts, Notes) 40.0 24.2 7.6 - - - - - - 6. TOTAL DEBT OBLIGATED 600.0 .2" 532.6 505.0 485.0 465.0 444.0 421.0 398.0 7. Net Cumulative General Obligation 182.0 277.8 407.4 530.3 700.0 761.0 877.0 995.0 1,113.0 Financing Potential At 10% Of Full Value 8. TOTAL NEW LONG-TERM DEBT FINANCING NA 95.9 129.6 123.0 170.0 61.0 116.0 118.0 118.0 POTENTIAL GENERATED BY YEAR Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. past decade, grants have provided most of the City's capital improvement funds; if the capital improvement objectives are to be met, a substantial amount of the necessary funds will need to be obtained from this source. Although Federal Aid has diminished recently, State aid has increased significantly, and is expected to provide most grant funds. Financing Plan The capital improvements financial requirements can be matched with available sources of financing to produce a financial plan for the capital improvements program, presented in Table 12-3, the financial plan describes amount and uses of financial resources available. Sources of funds used, cost of improvements financed, and ending financial resources available for each year of the program. Two precautions should be noted. First, project costs are assumed to increase at a 9.2 percent annual rate from a mid-1979 base.- based upon recent nationwide construction rates. Since inflation varies greatly it is difficult to predict accurately, the cost estimates should be revised as better estimates become available. Since sources of financing are also variable, estimates of financial sources should also be revised as better figures become available. 12-10 TABLE 12-3 PROJECTED FINANCING OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 1979-1980 1980-1981 1981-1982 1982-1983 1983-1984 1984-1985 1985-1986 (Thousands of dollars) 1. Unadjusted Total Cost of Projects Needed X Inflation From Previous Period (@ 9.2%/yr.) 5469.5 4966.9 4588.7 3094.8 2592.8 1223.0 612.7 2. Inflation-Adjusted Project Cost 5972.6 5423.9 5010.8 3379.5 2831.3 1335.5 669.1 Available Sources Of Financing: 3. Cash available from operations tcumulative)* 154.8 177.8 144.0 221.1 251.3 326.1 347.8 4. Cash available from Capital Projects Fund" - 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100. 0 5. Long-term G.O. debt financing potential aval lable*** 407.4 149.7 170.0 75.3 191.3 309.3 373.5 6. Projected Grants-in-Aid 625.0 454.6 11698.5 475.3 1344.9 4-17.0 397.6 7. TOTAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE 1187.2 832.1 2229.2 841.7 1867.5 1142.4 1218.9 Uses Of Funds: 8. Allocation to Capital Fund balance 50.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9. Costs of projects constructed 1005.7 835.2 1916.1 786.7 1608.3 722.8 669.1 10. TOTAL ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 1055.7 845.2 1926.1 796.7 1618.3 732.8 679.1 Source Of Funds Used. 11. Cash generated trom operations (incl. Cap. Fund) 50.0 169.9 71.9 130.0 96.2 160.6 60.2 12. Long-tem G.O. debt incurred 380.7 50.1 155.7 - - 53.8 165.6 13. Long-term limited liability debt Incurred - 170.6 - 191.4 177.2 101.4 55.7 14. Grants-In-Aid 625.0 454.6 1698.5 475.5 1344.9 417.0 397.6 15. TOTAL OF FUNDS USED 1005.7 845.2 1926.1 796.7 1618.3 732.8 679.1 Remain g I Ijbf1e Sources Of Financing: It. Cash i;,n:,v:t. rom operations 104.8 7.9 72.1 91.1 155.1 165.5 287.6 17. Capital Fund balance 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 18. Long-term G.O. debt potential remaining 26.7 99.6 14.3 75.3 191.3 255.5 207.9 19. TOTAL AVAILABLE 181.7 167.5 156.4 246.4 436.4 521.0 605.5 20. Cost Of Remaining Projects: 4966.9 4588.7 3094.13 2592.8 1223.0 612.7 .0 Source: Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. Notes: Derived from cash available from current year (Line 12, Table 12-1) plus ending balance from previous period (Line 16, this table). Shows net allocations to Capital Projects Fund from General Fund (cash available from operations). Derived from G.O. Debt Financing Potential gained from operations for current year (Line 9, Table 12-2) plus ending balance from previous period (Line 18, this table). BIBLIOGRAPHY Alaska Consultants, Inc. 1976. Marine Service Bases For Offshore Oil Develop- ment. Prepared for Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. 1977. Planning For Offshore Oil Development. Juneau, Alaska. 1978. City Budget Manual. Juneau, Alaska. 1979. Alaska Taxable 1978 - Municipal Property Assessments And Equalized Full Value Determinations. Division of Local Government Assistance Vol. XVIII No. 1. Juneau, Alaska. Alaska Department of Labor. Various years. Statistical Quarterl . Juneau, Alaska. Alaska Governor's Office, Bottomfish Coordinator. 1978. Community Planning For Bottomfish Development. Juneau, Alaska. Alaska State Housing Authority. 1969. Seldovia Comprehensive Development Plan And Capital Improvements Program. Two Volumes. Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Statutes, Alaska Urban Observatory. 1977. A Profile Of Five Kenai Peninsula Towns. Anchorage, Alaska. Aronson, J. Richard and Ell Schwartz, eds. 1975. Management Policies In Local Government Finance. International City Management Association. Washington, D.C. Arthur Young & Company, Inc. Various years. City Of Seldovia Financial State- ments. Anchorage, Alaska. Brogan, Michael A. and Ike D. Waits. 1977. OCS Development: A Blessing Or A Headache? The Choice Is Seldovials! Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Department. Soldotna, Alaska. Burchell, Robert W. and David Listakin. 1978. The Fiscal Impact Handbook, Estimating Local Costs And Revenues Of Land Development. Rutgers University, The Center For Urban Policy Research. New Brunswick, New Jersey. Cannelos, George. 1976. Memorandum. Marine Service Base Site Options In Seldovia Bay. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. Juneau, Alaska. CH2M Hill. 1978. Offshore Oil Development In Lower Cook Inlet, Implications For Kenai Peninsula Borough And Alaska. Prepared for Kenai Peninsula Borough. Anchorage, Alaska. Combs, Earl. 1979. 'Prospectus For Development Of The United States Fisheries. Prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Deran, Elizabeth. 1963. The Successful Shopkeeper - A Study Of Retailer Survival In Nine Communities. University of Illinois. Champagne, ITlinois. Dornbusch, David M. 1976. Management Of OCS-Related Industrial Development, A Guide For Alaskan Coastal Communities. Prepared for the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Community Planning by David M. Dornbusch and Company, Inc. San Francisco, California. BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued) Fernstrom, John R. 1973. "Bringing In The Sheaves", Effective Community Industrial Development Trograms. Oregon State University Extension Service, Corvallis, Oregon. Fullerton, Howard N., Jr. and Paul 0. Flaim. 1976. New Labor Force Projections To 1990. Monthly Labor Review. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Glass, Ronald J. 1974. An Assessment Of The Demand-Supply Situation For South- east Alaska Timber. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. In cooperation with Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of -Alaska. Juneau, Alaska. Goldsmith, 0. Scott. 1978. Alaska's Revenue Forecasts And Expenditure Options. Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions, Vol. XV, No. 2. University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Fairbanks, Alaska. Gorham, Dr. Abby H. 1979. 'An Investigation Of Joint U.S./Foreign Ventures In The Developing-Of Commercial Fishery In Alaska. Final Report. Sea Grant Report 78-7. Prepared for North Pacific Fishery Management Council. University of Alaska. Fairbanks, Alaska. Heasley, Robert and Michael Baring Gould. 1976. Seldovia Survey, Attitudes Toward Local Growth And Development. Department of Sociology, University of Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. Homan - McDowell Associates. 1977. Market Feasibility Study For Possible Hotel Development At Seldovia, Alaska. Prepared for Area Industrial Develop- ment Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Juneau, Alaska. . 1979. Tourism In Alaska Native V,illages. Prepared for the Alaska Division of Economic Enterprise and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Juneau, Alaska. Jenks, Robert L. 1977. Municipal Lands Trust Program, A Statement Of Trust Philosophy And An Assessment Of Principles And Primary Policy Issues. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Community Planning. Anchorage, Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough. 1976. Overall Economic Development Program. Kenai Peninsula OEDP Committee. Soldotna, Alaska. 1977. OCS Development. Baseline Study. Planning Department. Soldotna, Alaska. . 1978. A Profile Of The Commercial Timber Industry. Soldtona, Alaska. . 1979. Growth Monitoring Program, Special Census Of The Population. Soldotna, Alaska. Lindh, Craig. 1979. An Assessment Of The Domestic Market For Alaska Wood Products,For Period 1986-2000. Homan-McDowell Associates. Juneau, Alaska. Martin, John B. 1978. An Evaluation Of The Economic Feasibility Of Pollock Processing In Southeast Alaska. Thesis. Oregon State University. Sea Grant Report. Corvallis, Oregon. BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued) Miller, Ernest G. and William Camil. 1964. Municipal Financial Inducements To Industry: Financial Consequences. University of California, Davis. Institute of Governmental Affairs. Davis, Dalifornia. Nelson & Dauskin. 1979. Hydrogeology Of The Seldovia Area, Alaska. U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, Water Resources Division. Anchorage, Alaska. Pacific Packers, Inc. 1977. Pacific Packers Report, 72nd Edition. West Coast Directories of Processors - Brokers. Practising Law Institute. 1970. The Local Economic Development Corporation, Legal And Financial Guidelines. Prepared under direction of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, Office of Minority Business Enterprise. Washington, D.C. Scott, Michael J. 1979. Southcentral Alaska's Economy And Population, 1964- 2025: A Base Study And Projections; A Report Of The Economics Task Force. Prepared for the Alaska Water Study Committee, Southcentral Alaska Water Resources Study (Level B). University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Anchorage, Alaska. Tiebout, Charles M. 1962. The Community_Economic Base Study. Supplementary Paper No. 16. Committee for Economic Development. New York, New York. Tryck, Nyman & Hayes. 1974. Comprehensive Water And Sewer Study For The Kenai Peninsula Borough. Anchorage, Alaska. . 1978. Facilities Plan For Sewage System Additions, City Of Seldovia. Anchorage, Alaska. 1979. Draft Seldovia Sewer Facilities Plan. Project No. C-020071. Anchorage, Alaska. Tuck, Bradford L. 1979. Econo ic Projections For The Kenai Peninsula Borough, 1978-1992. Prepared for Environmental Services, Ltd., for Kenai Peninsula Borough. Anchorage, Alaskal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. 42 Federal Register, 37136. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1977. Census Of Governments Finances Of Municipalities And Township Governments. Vol. 4, No. 4. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1973. Water-Resources Reconnaissance Of Seldovia, Alaska. Prepared in cooperation with the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Anchorage, Alaska. University of Alaska. Review Of Business And Economic Conditions. Fiscal Data For Alaska: 1975-1978. Alaska's Revenue Forecasts And Expenditure Options. Anchorage, Alaska. Woodward & Clyde Consultants & Associates. 1979. fort And Harbor Demand And Feasibility Study For Kenai Peinsula Borough (Draft). Anchorage, Alaska. Appendices APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED Action. An officially adopted course of operation to attain an objective. (Example: Secure site and design treatment plant). Budget. A plan to allot certain resources for defined items. (Example: I , million dollars is appropriated to complete Project "A". Criterion. Any established rule for testing or judgement. (Example: If grade of slope exceeds 25 percent, a site is considered unsuitable for home building). Fund. A governmental account to which specific revenues are deposited, and from which only certain types of expenditures may be made. (Example: General Fund). Goal. A desired level of achievement which reflects values. (Example: Adequate housing for all people). Issue. A point, matter, or dispute, the resolution of which is of special or public importance. (Example: Lack of rental housing). Liberty. Implies choice. The minimum amount of development adequate for survival is not satisfactory. There must be diversity in the environment so that people, within the limits of their personal resources, can make their own selections of where to live, work, shop, play, worship, learn and travel. Life. An adequate supply of various items necessary for health and safety. To maximize our value of preserving life, planning policies should be aimed at the goal of providing adequate supplies of housing, commerce, industry, public facilities, transportation and open space. Objective. A measurable short-range step toward achieving a goal. (Example: Build 9,000 units of low income housing by 1975). Plan. A detailed method, formulated beforehand, for doing something. (Example: Land use plan). Policy. An accepted or professed rule of action. (Example: Close-in building sites should receive priority for water and sewer extension). Priority. An assignment of precedence in time, order or importance. (Example: Utilities before landscaping.) Program. A plan of procedure or activity. (Example: Building maintenance program). Project. A proposal of something to be done, a scheme. (Example: 20 units to @e built on site "B"). A-1 Pursuit Of Happiness. Requires that people be able to achieve satisfaction and enjoyment in their activities. Thus, a certain quality must exist as well as an adequate supply and choice. Standard. An approved basis for 6omparison which is measurable. (Example: Units must rent forunder $300 per month). Value. That which is believed to be intrinsically desirable. (Example: Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). A-2 APPENDIX.B SAMPLE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE The sample ordinance on the following pages, when reviewed by the City's attorney and then finalized and adopted, can be used by the City of Seldovia and the Kenai Peinsula Borough to implement the watershed management plan. This ordinance reflects the !!Planned Solution" described in Chapter 6, and re- presents a combination of the "Open Watershed With Controls" approach, and the "Restricted Watershed" approach. The ordinance allows construction in most of the Upper Watershed and in the Fish Creek Watershed, subject to controls on sewage disposal and stormwater runoff disposal. Timber harvesting and agricultural uses of land in the water- shed are also permitted, subject to controls designed to minimize erosion and sedimentation into the streams and to prevent chemical contamination of the stream. Assuming that municipal counsel finds no objection to use of AS 29.48.037, Seldovia could adopt and administer the ordinance with the concurrence (by resolution or ordinance) of the Borough. Alternately, the ordinance could be adopted by the Borough with City concurrence, and administered jointly by the Borough and City in a manner similar to that employed for zoning. The ordinance presumes that the City chooses to adopt and administer its own ordinance in order to have maximum participation in all phases of watershed management. Other approaches might also be chosen, since some enforcement and administrative costs could be partially borne by other governments; however, all approaches require some local participation and costs. Because of the City's limited staff size and funding, the ordinance relies on coordination with State resource agencies for approval of technical aspects of watershed activities (such as road design and sewage disposal), but places the City in the role of administration and enforcement. Leaal Basis Under AS 29.48.037, the watershed management ordinance must specifically state that i"I applies outside of city limits; Borough concurrence (in the form of a resolution or ordinance) must also be obtained. Complex legal issues, such as the "taking of private property without compensation" issue, are involved, and should be addressed by qualified legal counsel prior to adopting the ordinance. Implementation The ordinance may be adopted by City Council action following normal parliamen- tary procedures (resolution, hearing, etc.) Following City adoption, Borough approval must also be obtained. Portions of this ordinance, specifically the portions relating to areas covered, can be repealed or revised as the City proceeds to develop new sources of water or to relocate its reservoirs. Thus, controls might b& relaxed in the Fish B-1 Creek Watershed and enforced in the Seldovia River Watershed if the City develops the river as a new water supply. Again, it should be emphasized that this sample ordinance should be reviewed and approved by City and Borough attorneys before City and Borough action is taken. B-2 DRAFT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Section 1. Title For Citation - Jurisdiction Chapters through of the City of Seldovia Code of Ordinances shall be known and cited as the "Seldovia Watershed Protection Ordinance". As authorized by. AS 29.48.037, this ordinance shall be applicable to all lands and waters within the municipal watersheds of the City of Seldovia, which watersheds are located outside the city limits of Seldovia. Section 2. Findings And Purpose Of Provisions The City of Seldovia finds that the water supply for the City of Seldovia is derived entirely from the "Fish Creek Watershed" and the "Upper Watershed", and that at certain times of the year it is necessary to derive water solely from the "Fish Creek Watershed". The City further finds that contamination caused by uncontrolled development in the watersheds would pose substantial danger to the health and safety of the people and business of the City of Seldovia. These chapters are therefore adopted to protect and enhance the public health and safety by preventing the contamination, by sewage, sediment and other pollutants, of the water supply of the City of Seldovia. Section 3. Definitions "Logging roads" means a road, restricted from use by the general public by a locked gate or other barrier and prepared for the purpose for travel exclusively by log trucks, timber harvesting machinery and other vehicles necessary for timber management. "Mining" means extraction from the earth, sediments or waters of any metallic or non-metallic mineral, sand, gravel, peat or construction rock. "Person" means any individual, public or private corporation, political sub- division, government agency, municipality, industry, partnership, association, firm, trust, estate or any other entity. "Roads" means any street, highway, or other course, paved or unpaved, for the purpose of motor vehicle travel,, with the exception of logging roads. "Waters" means any creek, river, tributary, pond, lake, or other surface drainage or associated wetland. "Wetland" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal conditions do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. (After 33 CFR 323.2(c)). "Toxic substances" means those materials, or combinations of materials, in- cluding disease-causing agents, which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into any organism, either directly from B-3 the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will, on the basis of information available, cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, malignancy, genetic mutations, physiological abnormalities (including mal- functions in reproduction) or physical deformations, in affected organisms or their offspring; the term includes the following substances, and any other substance identified as a toxic pollutant under Sec. 307(a) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. Sec. 466 et. seq.): Adrin/Dieldrin; Arsenic; Benzidine; Carbon tetrachloride; Cadmium; Dichlnrobenzidine; Chlorinated ethanes; Chloroform; Chormium; Demeton; Dishlorethylenes; Dinitrotoluene; Fluoranthens; Dipheny- 1hydrazine; Endrin; Hexachlorocyclopentadiene; Ethylbenzene; Lindane; Mercury; Nickel; Nitrobenzene; Naphtalene; Silver; Vinyl Chloride; Acenaphthene; Antimony; Chlorinated benzenes; Chloralkyl eithers; DDT; Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene; Halomethanes; Malathion; Tetrachloraethylene; Trichloroethylene; Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; Endosulfan; Mirex; Penta- chlnrophenol; Phennl; Acrylonktrile; Asbestos; Benzene; Beryllium; Chlorinated Naphtalene; 2-Chlorophenol; Chlorophenols; Chlorophenoxy herbicides; Cyanide; 2, 4- Dichloraphenol; Acrolein; Chlordane; Nitrosamines; Copper; Dichlorobenzenes; Guthion; Haloethers; Hetpachlor; Hexachlorobutadiene; Hexa- chlorocyclohexane; Isophorone; Lead; Methoxychlor; Nitrophenois; Parathion; Phyhalate Esters; PCBIs; Selenium; P-Dioxin; Thallium; Toluene; Toxaphene; Zinc; 2, 4-Dimethylphenol. Section 4. F-stablishment Of Watersheds The watersheds of the City of Seldovia are hereby divided into the following areas: (1) Fish Creek Watershed, lower portion; (2) Fish Creek Watershed, upper portion; and (3) Upper Watershed. The location and boundaries of the watersheds are set forth on the watershed map which accompanies this ordinance and is incorporated herein. Section 5. Watershed Permit Required No person shall engage in any use referred to in Section 6 of this ordinance until he has first obtained a watershed permit from the Seldovia City Council and unless he complies with the conditions imposed by that permit and with the conditions imposed by that permit and with the provisions of Section B. Section 6. Watershed Permit Procedure (1) A watershed permit applicant shall submit his watershed permit application to the office of the Seldovia City Manager. The application shall include the fol lowing: (a) Use or uses proposed; (b) Location of each use; (c) Duration of each use; (d) Description of the manner in which the applicable provisions of Section 8 will be met; and B-4 (e) Indication of the manner in which the applicant has complied or will comply with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations affecting water quality. (2) Within 60 days of receipt of an application, the City Manager shall recommend to the Seldovia City Council whether to approve or deny issuance of watershed permit. In formulating this recommendation, the City Manager may consult with State and Federal agencies whose regulations affect water quality. (3) Within 30 days of its receipt of the City Manager's recommendation, the City Council shall approve or deny the issuance of a watershed permit. If the permit is denied, the Council shall state in writing the reasons for the denial. If the permit is approved, the Council shall state in writing any conditions it may have imposed to ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 7 and with State and Federal requlations affecting water quality. Upon approval by the Council, the City Manager shall issue the permit. (4) Any person affected by an action of the City Council taken under this ordinance may appeal that action by filing a written statement of appeal with the City Clerk within 30 days of the action appealed. Appeals from the City Council action shall be heard by the Superior Court. Section 7. Initiation Of Amendments (1) Amendment of provisions of this ordinance or of the boundaries of the watershed areas, may be initiated by the City Council, or the City Advisory Planning Commission. (2) Any person may request an amendment to this ordinance if supported by petition of at least 50 voters registered in the Seldovia voting precinct. (3) A request to initiate an amendment to this ordinance shall be submitted to the City Manager, who shall forward immediately the request to the City Advisory Planning Commission. (4) A public hearing on the proposed amendment shall be held by the Advisory Planning Commission, and shall explicitly consider the consistency of the proposed amendment with the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City, including the Watershed Management Plan. After public hearing, the Advisory Planning Commission shall send its recommendation to the City Council, together with certified copies of minutes and public records relating to the proposed ordinance. (5) The City Council shall consider and act upon the proposed ordinance at its earliest convenient time. Section 8. Watershed Uses Subject To Conditions (1) Timber harvesting and removal and forest management are permitted in the Fish Creek and the Upper Watersheds subject to the following conditions: (a) Except with respect to watercrossings as provided for in subsection (d), there shall be no timber harvesting or removal or construction of logging roads within 2001, measured in a horizontal plane, of any B-5 10000- waters. In the event that the Department of Natural Resources has recommended to a particular applicant that a greater distance than 2001 be left uncut, that recommendation shall supercede this sub- section. (b) There shall be no timber harvesting or removal or construction of logging roads on land where the slope exceeds 34 degrees or 70 percent. (c) All logs shall be yarded using high-lead or similar cable yarding systems. Logs shall be yarded in an uphill direction only, with at least the leading end of the log suspended above the ground. No logs shall be yarded through waters. Tractor-yarding is prohibited. (d) Water crossings by logging roads shall be minimized. Bridges shall be used and shall be constructed with no part of the bridge in the waters. Rechanneling of the watercourse and channeling through a culvert are prohibited. (e) All cutover areas shall be replanted before the second winter after logging, unless the City receives written assurance from the office of the State Forester, Department of Natural Resources, that natural revegetation will be sufficient to prevent erosion of sediment into the waters. (f) There shall be no application of fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides or other toxic substances. (g) All trucks and other motorized equipment except stationary yarders, shall be stored and maintained at an operating base established by the landowner or logging contractor outside the watersheds. All fueling, lubricating and other maintenance, except for emergency repairs, shall be conducted at this operating base. (h) The provisions of the Alaska Forest Practices Act of 1979, AS 41.17.0.0, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder shall be strictly complied with as a minimum standard of water quality protection. (2) Agricultural uses are permitted in the Fish Creek and Upper Watersheds subject to the following conditions: (a) There shall be no application of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, or other toxic substances. (b) There shall be no application of any fertilizer, chemical or organic, within 200 feet of any waters. (c) Grazing of livestock is prohibited within 200 feet of any waters. (3) Construction activities, building development, mining and related uses are permitted in the Fish Creek Watershed and the Upper Watershed subject to the following conditions: (a) Mining, excavation and construction of buildings and roads is prohibited within 200 feet feet of all waters, provided that this shall not prohibit the City of Seldovia from operating, maintaining or improving its water system. (b) All buildings and roads shall both during and after construction be equipped with collection and disposal systems to transport stormwater runoff to a point downstream of the City's Fish Creek Reservoir. (c) No buildings or roads shall be constructed until the applicant has complied with or demonstrates that he will comply with 18 AAC 72.010, 18 AAC 72.020, 18 AAC 72.065 and 18 AAC 80.020. The City may require that the applicant obtain proof of compliance in writing from the Department of Environmental Conservation. R-6 (d) All buildings or structures, constructed or used for residential, commercial or industrial purposes shall, before occupancy, be connected to the sewage collection system of the City of Seldovia or such other sewage collection system that the City approves. (e) There shall be no mining in the Upper Watershed or the upper portion of the Fish Creek Watershed. (4) Other commercial or industrial uses not referred to in this section shall be permitted provided that all applicable State and Federal laws and regula- tions affecting water quality are strictly compiled with. Section 9. Abatement Of Violations (1) When a violation of the ordinance is discovered, the City Manager shall notify the person responsible for the violation by certified mail or by notice posted at the site of the violation. The notice shall specify the violation and order abatement as soon as is necessary to protect public health. (2) If the violation is not corrected within the specified period the City Attorney is authorized to initiate an action to enjoin the violation and to recover civil penalities. Section 10. Penalties Every act or omission prohibited by this chapter is unlawful and any person who commits a violation is liable for a civil fine not to exceed $500.00 for each violation. Each act or omission of violation and every day upon which a violation occurs constitutes a new and separate violation. Section 11. Severability If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person and circumstance is held by a competent court to be invalid, the remainder of the ordinance or the application of the provision to other persons or circum- stances is not affected. B-7 APPENDIX C COMPLIANCE WITH STATE OF ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Based on the regulations and guidelines of the Alaska Coastal Management Program, the Seldovia Comprehensive Plan substantially complies with many of the provisions of the Alaska Coastal Management Act of 1977. Compliance with specific guidelines and provisions of the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) is shown in the figure below. ACMP MEETS PART OR ALL COMMENTS GUIDELINE OF GUIDELINES Yes No 6 AAC 85.020 Statement x See Chapter 2 Issues, Goals Of Needs, Objectives, and Objectives Goals 6 AAC 85.030 x Description Of The Program Organization For Coastal Management 6 AAC 85.040 x Map Of Boundaries Of The Coastal Area Within The City Subject To The Program 6 AAC 85.050 Resource Inventory Of Habitats Offshore Areas x Estuaries x Wetlands & Tidelands x Rocky Isiands/Sea- x Cliffs Barrier IsI. & Lagoons x High Energy Coasts x Rivers, Lakes, Streams x See Chapter 6 - Watershed Management Important Upland x Habitats Major Cultural Resources x See Chapter 7 - Social Services Land & Resource Mngt. x See Chapter 10 - Local Govern- Responsibilities ment Historic/Arch. Resources x See Chapter 7 - Social Services- Recreation 6 AAC 85.060 x Partially satisfied Resource Analysis See Chapters 3 - Background Which Describes: For Planning, Chapter - 5 Significant changes Land Use, Chapter 6 - Water- in the resources in- shed Management ventoried, evaluation of environmental C-1 APPENDIX C (CONTINUED) ACMP MEETS PART OR ALL COMMENTS GUIDELINE OF GUIDELINES Yes No capability & sensiti- vity of resources and habitats, assessment of present and anti- cipated needs & demands for coastal habitats & resources 6 AAC 85.070 Description of Land & Water Uses Subject To The Program Including: Coastal Development x See Chapter 5 - Land Use Geophysical Hazard Areas x See Chapter 5 - Land Use Recreation x See Chapter 7 - Social Services Energy Facilities x Transportation & Utilities x See Chapters 7 and 8 Fish & Seafood Processing x Timber Harvest & Processing x Mining & Mineral Processing x Subsistence x 6 AAC 85.080 x Not 3-pecifically Mentioned Description Of Uses & Although Related Subjects Activities Which Will Are Addressed Be Considered Proper & Improper Within The Coastal Area 6 AAC 85.090 Summary of Policies That Will Be Applied To The Land & Water Uses & Activities Subject To The Program Coastal Development Geophysical Hazard Areas x Recreation x See Chapter 7 Social Services Energy Facilities x Transportation & Utilities x See Chapters 8 and 9 C-2 APPENDIX C@ (CONTINUED) ACMP MEETS PART OR ALL COMMENTS GUIDELINE OF GUIDELINES Yes No Fish/Seafood Processing x Timber Harvest/ Processing x Mining/Mineral Processing x Subsistence x Habitats x Air/Land/Water See Chapter 6 - Watershed Quality x Management Historic/Arch. See Chapter 7 - Social Services Resources x 6 AAC 85.020 x Statement Of The Cityls Needs, Objectives Or Goals, Or The Comprehensive Land And Resource Use Plan c-3 APPENDIX D EXAMPLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST Yes No Maybe ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geological substructures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcoveri ng of the soi I? (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (f) Changes in desposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or bed of a river, stream, lake, bay, inlet, or ocean? 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of objectional odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoffs? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any altera- tion of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity? D-1 Yes No Maybe M Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters? (9) Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (h) Deterioration in groundwater quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the groundwaters? M Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 4. FLORA. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. FAUNA. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or micro-fauna? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? D-2 Yes No Maybe 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? 10. RISK OF UPSET. Does the proposal involve a risk of any explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas? (a) Fire Protection? (b) Police Protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (f) Other governmental services? D-3 Yes No Maybe 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new soures of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natura I gas? (b) Communications systems? (c) Water? (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (ex- cluding mental health)? 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of any aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. ARCHAEOLOGICAUHISTORICAL. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archaeological or historical site., structure, object or building? D-4 APPENDIX E FUNDING SOURCES Accomplishing the many capital improvements and community actions outlined in the preceeding chapters will require significantly larger amounts of funds than can be raised from local sources by the City and Borough alone. There are available, however, sources of financial assistance from the State and Federal governments which can make it possible for Seldovia to attain its goals and objectives. This appendix is a sL=ary of major State and Federal financial aid programs which can enable Seldovia to achieve the actions outlined in this plan. The programs covered are primarily those designed to provide financial assistance to specific capital improvement projects, but attention has also been given to important business, housing, and general economic assistance programs as well. Together they represent an important network of funding sources affecting both public and individual financial aid opportunities. TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS, STATE OF ALASKA Program: Revenue Sharing Program-Municipal Services Under this program, the State provides 100% funding for a variety of municipal needs, including transportation development and assistance. Projects may include small boat harbors and ports, airport development, and public and ice roads. Application forms are sent to municipalities and organized boroughs during August of each year. Whom To Contact: Director, Division of Local Government Assistance Department of Community and Regional Affairs State of Alaska Pouch B Juneau, Alaska 99811 AGENCY: STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Program: Boat Harbor Aid This program is designed to provide aid for the construction of small craft harbor facilities, including docks, launching ramps, floats, etc. The State provides 100% funding, distributed on a project by project basis. The amounts available vary, depending on legislative action. E-1 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES(Continued) Program: Port Facilities Developmen This program provides 90% funding (for municipalities under 5,000 population) to aid communities in the improvement of municipally owned and operated port facilities. The state funds are distributed on a project by project basis. Program: Flood Control Projects The purpose of this program is to aid, through state funding, the financing of federal flood-control projects. For any municipality required to participate in a federal flood control project, the State will fund 90% of the non-federal costs of planning, land acquisition and construction. The availability of funds varies. Following the signing of an agreement, monies are paid to municipalities in reimbursement for actual expenditures made by the municipality. Whom To Contact: Director, Division of Harbor Design and-Construction Department of Transportation and Public Facilities State of Alaska Pouch Z Juneau, Alaska 99811 Program: Local Service Roads Arid Trails Program This program provides 100% state funding to local jurisdictions for the purpose of developing roads and trails on routes that are not eligible for federal aid matching funds. organized boroughs are eligible for a direct allocation and are encouraged to provide any additional funding toward completion of a given project. The organized borough submits a three year project program, indicating construction priorities, to the Regional Engineer for Design and Construction. The deadline for submittal is October lst of each year. Whom To Contact: Commissioner Department of Transportation and Public Facilities State of Alaska Pouch Z Juneau, Alaska 99811 Field Office: Central Regional Engineer for Design and Construction Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 E-2 AGENCY: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Program: Highway Research, Planning and Construction Through coordination with the State Transportation Department, local jurisdictions can apply for federal aid for use in planning, designing, constructing, repairing and acquiring rights-of-way for local roads, bridges, pedestrian walkways and related improvements. The initiative lies largely with the State in securing funding for projects at both the borough and city level. This is a large program, having funded the nationwide interstate highway system and, in February 1978, having completed construction of 13,000 miles of highway and 3,480 bridges. This high level of funding is expected to continue through 1980. To be eligible, most projects must be located in a "Federal aid" system, and approved by the State for submittal for federal funding. Whom To Contact: Richard B. Gillette III Federal Highway Administration Federal Building, 709 West Ninth Street P.O. Box 1648 Juneau, Alaska 99802 586-7418 AGENCY: FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Program: Airport Development Aid Program Grants, advisory services, and counseling is available under this program. State or local government agencies are eligible to apply for funds to be used for the construction, upgrading, or repairing of airport facilities. Assistance is available for use in land acquisition and on through the stages of obtaining and installing specialized navigational equipment. The federal government funds a maximum of 80% for commuter service airports. Whom To Contact: Federal Aviation Administration Alaska Region Hill Building 632 Sixth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 272-5561 AGENCY: MARITIME ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Program: Development and Promotion of Ports and Intermodel transportation This program will provide advisory services to State and local governments to promote port and port facilities development, and utilization. Some examples of programs funded include port facilities assessments, facilities feasibility studies, and port capability and productivity projects. Projects funded to date have tended to be large scale and statewide in nature, however, local government agencies and port authorities are eligible. E-3 Whom To Contact: Thomas J. Patterson Maritime Administration Western Regional Office 450 Golden Gate Ave. Box 36073 San Francisco, California 94102 (415) 556-3816 AGENCY: ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Program: Navigation Projects The objective of this program is to provide services in fulfilling general navigation needs, including harbor and waterway improvement projects. The local sponsoring agency holds responsibility for assuming project costs exceeding the $2,000,000 federal limit, as well as contributing land, public access facilities, and certain construction and maintenance costs related to the benefit of the community. Projects at 10 locations were under construction in 1978. Program: Protection Of Essential Highways, Highway Bridge Approaches And Public Works The Army Corps of Engineers will provide specialized services to provide bank protection of highways, highway bridges and certain public works which are endangered by flood-caused erosion. The project must be "justifiable economically" and "engineeringly feasible". A total of 31 projects were under construction in February 1978. Program: Protection, Clearing And Straightening Channels The program provides specialized services for the improvement of channels for navigational purposes, or for flood control. As with other Army Corps of Engineers projects, the project must be deemed "economically justifiable" and "engineeringly feasible". The local sponsoring agency must provide land, easements, public access, and at least, ii-nitial annual maintenance costs. Annual expenditures are limited to $300,000. Navigational improve- ments for other than short-term or emergency use may require congressional approval. Whom To Contact: Col. George R. Robertson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 752-2605 or 279-1132 Additional general funding for transportation facilities such as; E.D.A. and H.U.D. (Block Grant) programs, may be found listed in last section of this chapter. E-4 WATER, SEWER AND HEALTH FACILITIES AGENCY: STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Program: Water And Sewer Aid The State will fund, through this program, 50% of the non-federally funded portion of water and sewer capital improvements costs for any given municipality. The type of assistance is financial in nature with state bonds sold to provide applicable funds. Program: Village Safe Water Program The purpose of this program is to provide safe water and hygienic sewage disposal and bathing and laundry facilities in Alaskan villages. The type of assistance is financial or technical with funds coming from the sale of state bonds. Eligible communities are those comprised of between twenty-five and six hundred people residing within a two mile radius. Whom To Contact: Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation State of Alaska Pouch 0 Juneau, Alaska 99811 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS, STATE OF ALASKA Program: Revenue Sharing Program - Municipal Services This state aid program provides 100% funding for a variety of municipal capital improvements and services needs, including health facilities and services. Application forms are sent to municipalities and organized boroughs during August of each year. Whom To Contact: Director of Division of Local Government Assistance Department of Community and Regional Affairs State of Alaska Pouch B Juneau, Alaska 99811 AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, STATE OF ALASKA Program: Health Care Facilities This program also provides funding for improvements to community health care facilities. Projects must be eligible for Public Law 93-641 Title XVI funds. State or local funds are matched with federal construction funds; the matching percentage varies. Funds are distributed to projects having the greatest need in accordance with the State Construction Plan. E-5 Whom To Contact: Commissioner Department of Health and Social Services Pouch H-01 Juneau, Alaska 99811 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Program: Mortgage Insurance - Hospital This federal program provides for guaranteed/insured loans to insure lenders against loss of mortgages. The loans may be used to finance the construction or rehabilitation of private non-profit and proprietary hospitals. The maximum mortgage amount may not exceed 90% of facility replacement cost. Whom To Contact: Insuring Office Department of Housing and Urban Development Region 10 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 272-5561 AGENCY: OFFICE OF WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Program: Construction Grants For Wastewater Treatment Works This program provides project grants for the construction of municipal and privately owned wastewater treatment facilities. Many communities have received assistance through this program for the construction of sewage treatment plants and the construction or rehabilitation of municipal sewage collection systems. The grantee must be responsible to require pre-treatment of industrial wastes and improving specific user charges. The federal grant may be for 75% of eligible project costs, or 85% for "innovative" or alternative technology projects. Program: Loan Guarantees For Construction Of Treatment Works The objective of this program is to provide incentive for construction of municipal sewage treatment works which meet state and federal water quality standards, particularly in cases where the inability to borrow necessary funds would prevent such construction. Loan guarantees are provided, with no matching requirements over and above an application fee of 1/8 of 1 percent of loan amount. Whom To Contact: Jackie Dailey, Chief Grants Administration Office Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200-6th Ave. Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 442-1096 E-6 AGENCY: HEALTH RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE Program: Medical Facilities Construction - Project Grants The federal project grants may be used for the replacement or renovation of publicly owned or operated medical facilities. Specific objectives are to eliminate safety hazards, with grants available to cover a wide range of construction or re-construction. The grants may not exceed 75% of the eligible costs. Program: Medical Facilities Construction - Formula Grants These grants, combined with local funds, may be used for the construction or replacement of facilities, the expansion or remodeling of existing facilities or buildings and equipment necessary for a construction project or for the provision of a new service in a community. The federal share may be up to 2/3 of total eligible costs but can also rise to 100% in rural poverty areas according to the State Medical Facilities Plan. Program: Medical Facilities-Guaranteed/Insured Loans This program provides direct and guaranteed/insured loans for the con- struction or replacement of health facilities, or the expansion or remodeling of existing facilities. Formula allotments are allocated among states based on population, per capita income, and need. Whom To Contact: Facilities Development Branch Health Planning Division Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Region 10 1321-Second Ave. Seattle, Washington 98101 AGENCY: FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Program: Water And Waste Disposal Systems For Rural Counties Oriented toward rural areas and small communities, this program provides project grants and guaranteed loans for rural water facilities and waste disposal systems. The funds are allocated to the State based on rural population and nunber of households under proverty income level. Whom To Contact: John R. Roderick Farmers Home Administration P. 0. Box 1289 Palmer, Alaska 99645 (907) 745-2176 Additional general funding for water and sewer facilities such as E.D.A. and H.U.D. (Block Grant) programs, may be found listed in last section of this chapter. E-7 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, STATE OF ALASKA Program: State Aid For School Construction This program provides State aid to organized boroughs or cities for retirement of debt and reimbursement for cash expenditures for school construction. Eligible applicants are those jurisdictions mentioned which have incurred.debt beginning two years previous to pay costs of school construction, or those having existing debt equal to 12% of the city assessed property valuation, on a prior approved project basis. State funds pay 80% of the cost of school construction. Whom To Contact: Director Management, Loan and Finance Department of Education State of Alaska Pouch F Juneau, Alaska 99801 AGENCY: DIVISION OF STATE LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STATE OF ALASKA Program: Public Library Construction Grants Under this program, state grants are provided for construction and equipping of community libraries. Communities under 2000 population may apply for 90% funding. Program: Grants-In Aid For Purchase Of Library Materials This program provides assistance in the purchasing of library materials, books, periodicals, audio/visual aids, etc. Up to $1,000.00 can be provided annually in 100% State grants. Whom To Contact: Coordinator, Southcentral Region Alaska State Library 650 International Airport Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 AGENCY: OFFICE OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE Program: School Assistance In Federally Affected Areas - Construction Project grants are provided under this program to provide assistance for construction of minimum school facilities in school districts experiencing rapid increases in school membership, because of federal activities or where re-construction of facilities is necessary because of a natural disaster. Aid amount is based on projected increase in membership resulting from federal activity. E-8 Whom To Contact: William Stormer Division of School Assistance In Federally Affected Areas Office of Education 400 Maryland Ave., S. W. Washington D. C. 20202 (202) 245-8247 Additional general funding for education related facilities'such as E.D.A. and H.U.D. (Block Grant) programs, may be found listed in last section of this chapter. E-9 RECREATION AND TOURIST FACILITIES AGENCY: DIVISION OF PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF ALASKA Program: Outdoor Recreation, Open Space and Historic Properties Development Fund This State program is designed to assist in the cost to acquire, develop, or extend outdoor recreation sites and facilities and to acquire, preserve, or protec-L historical sites, buildings, and monuments. Up to one-half of the non-federal share is provided. Program: Trails and Footpaths This program is designed to assist in the establishment o f public ways for trails and footpaths. The Department of Natural Resources receives an appropriation based on a percentage of federal aid highways program funds. Whom To Contact: Director, Division of Parks Department of Natural Resources 619 Warehouse Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 AGENCY: DIVISION OF TOURISM, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Program: Tourist Attraction Development Matching Grant Program This program provides matching funds for the purpose of developing tourist attractions of historical or contemporary interest. The State will match funds on a one-to-one basis. Program: Visitor Information Center Matching Grant Program The State, under this program, will match funds on a one-to-one basis to assist communities which undertake programs to operate local visitor information centers, or construct visitor information facilities. Program: Convention And Incentive Travel Matching Grant Program The purpose of this program is to promote convention and incentive travel to the State of Alaska. The program is funded 50% state, 50% local. Whom To Contact: Director, Division of Tourism Department of Commerce and Economic Development Pouch D Juneau, Alaska 99811 AGENCY: DIVISION OF BUSINESS LOANS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Program: Historical District Revolving Loan Fund The State will provide funds to restore and maintain historical structures within the boundaries of a historical district established by the Historical Sites Advisory Committee. A maximum of $100,000 is provided per structure. E-10 Whom To Contact: Director, Division of Business Loans Department of Commerce and Economic Development Pouch D Juneau, Alaska 99811 AGENCY: ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF ARMY Program: Small Beach Erosion Control Projects Under this program, the Corps of Engineers designs and constructs the beach erosion control project. The project must be deemed engineeringly feasible and economically justified. The determination of local cost is based on the public use and ownership of the beach protected, however, the federal participation cannot exceed 70% of project cost. Whom To Contact: Col. George R. Robertson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 AGENCY: FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Program: Resource Conservation And Development Loans The objective of this program is to provide loan assistance to local jurisdictions where acceleration of resource conservation, development, and utilization will increase economic opportunities for local people. Eligible agencies are those located in an authorized resource conservation and development area, having a correct financial status. Funds may be used for water oriented recreation facilities, soil and water control and use facilities, shift in land use facilities, water storage facilities, and special purpose equipment. Whom To Contact: John R. Roderick P. 0. Box 1289 Palmer, Alaska 99645 AGENCY: SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Program: Watershed Protection And Flood Prevention This program provides financial and technical assistance in planning and carrying out works of improvement to protect, develop, and utilize the land and water resources in small watersheds. As an example of matching fund requirement, program funds may pay 100% for flood prevention, up to 50% of agricultural water management, public recreation and fish and wildlife purposes; and none of the costs for certain other non- agricultural water management purposes. E-11 Whom To Contact: Weymeth E. Long Soil Conservation Service Professional Bldg., Suite 129 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska 99504 (907) 276-4246 Additional general funding for tourist and recreation facilities such as E.D.A. and H.U.D. (Block Grant) programs, may be found listed in last section of this chapter. E-12 HOUSING PROGRAMS AGENCY: FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Program: Section 502, Rural Housing Loans This housing program provides guaranteed/insured loans to individuals needing assistance for construction, repair or purchase of housing. The dwelling, financed for families with low or moderate income, must be modest in size! design, and cost. Program: Section 504, Housing Loans and Grants Secion 504 provides direct loans and project grants to assist owner- occupants in rural areas who do not qualify for Section 502 loans to repair or improve their dwelling. The removal of sanitary and health hazards is of primary consideration. Maximum assistance is $5,000. Program: Section 523/524, Site Loans Loans are made to public and non-profit organizations for land purchase and site development. The housing development of these lots must be affordable by families with incomes within FmHA limits. This program is usually canbined with FmHA Section 502. Program: Section 515, Rental Housing Loans are made to non-profit, or limited profit organizations to purchase or construct low and moderate income housing for rental purposes. Whom To Contact: Farmers Home Administration John R. Roderick P. 0. Box 1289 Palmer, Alaska 99645 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Program: Mutual Help Home Ownership Under this program the homeowner agrees to contribute cash, work, land, materials or equipment (or a contribution) toward construction of the home. Monthly payments are made based on income and the homeowner is responsible for all maintenance. The home buyer becomes the owner at the end of the payment period. Natives are eligible. Program: Guaranteed And Insured Home Loans (FHA) H.U.D. also provides, through private lenders, direct guarantees and insurance on loans to construct or purchase housing to be occupied by the owner. The program encourages lenders to make loans available to middle income home buyers on down payment and interest terms somewhat better than is available through strictly private sources. E-13 Program: Section 236, Rental This program may be undertaken by private developers or individuals. The program provides interest subsidies to owners of rental units so that monthly rents can be reduced for eligible families. Program: Section 8, Housing Assistance Payments Program For Lower Income Families Housing assistance payments are provided to supplement renter payments so that renters can afford housing within certain standards of housing acceptability. Assisted families are required to contribute not less than 15, nor more than 25, percent of their adjusted family income toward rent. Whom To Contact: Department of Housing and Urban Development,Region 10 1321 Second Ave. Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 442-5415 AGENCY: BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Program: Indian Housing Assistance This program, combined with H.U.D. and H.E.W. assistance efforts, is aimed at providing housing improvements for eligible Native families. Applicants must meet eligibility requirements of the BIA Housing Improve- ment Program (HIP), or, under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the regulations of a legally established local or regional Native Housing Authority. Whom To Contact: Bureau of Indian Affairs Juneau Area Office Box 3-8000 Juneau, Alaska 99801 586-7171 Or: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region 10 1321 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 442-5415 AGENCY: ALASKA STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY Program: Public Housing, Acquisition And Construction The State will provide assistance to local governments to provide low rent housing through acquiring existing housing from the private market, procurring construction by competitive bidding, or letting contracts to private developers. Annual contributions are made to guarantee debt service and to maintain rents at or below 25% of tenant income. Whom To Contact: Executive Director Alaska State Housing Authority P. 0. Box 80 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 E-14 AGENCY: ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATIONS Program: Secondary Market Housing Loan Purchase Program This program offers low interest home mortgages through private lenders around Alaska. Mortgages are purchased from local private lenders (such as banks and mortgage companies) with proceeds from state revenue bonds. Lower interest rates are offered through pooling mortgages from different areas of Alaska, and by lower interest rates generally available to public agencies (since interest on public bonds is not taxable). This program may be restricted in the future if proposed federal legislation is enacted. Whom To Contact: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation 201 East 3rd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99504 (907) 274-4621 (Or local banks or mortgage companies) Additional funding for housing rehabilitation, site improvements and related community development activity can be obtained through H.U.D. Community Development Block Grants, described at the end of this chapter. E-15 OTHER COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS The following aid programs fall into a general category dealing with economic development and assistance on a business and community-wide scale. Grants are awarded on the basis of overall community need and may finance specific capital improvements and facilities or assist the small businessman in the operation of key commercial or industrial enterprises. AGENCY: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE E.D.A. administers a variety of general economic assistance programs; grants are awarded on the basis of community economic need. Applicable programs include: Program:_ Economic Development-Grants And Loans For Public Works And Development Facilities Grants are provided for such public facilities as water and sewer systems, access roads to industrial parks or areas, port facilities, public tourism facilities, vocational schools, and site improvements for industrial parks. Local jurisdictions are eligible to apply for assistance under circumstances which warrant an improvement in the economic well being of the community. The basic grant rate can be up to 50% of project cost; re-development areas located within designated economic development districts may, subject to an 80% maximum federal grant limit, be eligible for a 10% bonus on grants for public works (sewer/water) type projects. Program: Economic Development-Business Development Assistance The objective of this program is to stimulate, or sustain industrial and commercial viability within designated areas by assisting key businesses through direct or guaranteed/insured loans. The federal participation in a direct, fixed asset loan may not exceed 65% of project fixed asset costs, with the balance taken from the applicant's equity, and commercial lender. Program: Economic Development-Public Works Impact Projects Project grants are provided for construction of public facilities to provide immediate jobs to the unemployed and underemployed in the project area. The basic grant rate is 80 to 100 percent. Program: Grants To States For Supplemental And Basic Funding Of Titles I, II, III, IV and IX Activities Project grants and direct loans are available for construction of a wide variety of public works and facilities. The State sets priorities for the use of funds in those localities in which economic development is lagging. E-16 Whom To Contact: Economic Development Administration Western Regional Office 1700 Westlake Ave., Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98109 (206) 442-0596 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF ALASKA Program: Commercial Fishing Revolving Loan Fund Resident Alaska fishermen are eligible to apply for loans up to $500,000 at 10% interest, for up to 15 years term, to aid in bottomfish develop- ment. Program: Small Business Revolving Loan Fund Loans of up to $300,000 are available, to State residcnts, at 91% interest for up to 15 years' term. These funds can be used for initial capital expenditures, real estate, equipment, and operating capital. Whom To Contact: Department of Commerce and Economic Development Division of Business Loans Pouch EE Juneau, Alaska 99801 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Program: Community Development Block Grants/Small Cities Program This program, provides assistance in the form of project grants to a wide range of community development activities. Examples of projects include: public works facilities, clearance, housing rehabilitation, relocation payments, urban renewal and economic development activities. There is no matching requirement. Criteria for selecting recipient communities includes: percent of residents under poverty level income, degree of substantial housing, and projected local and regional economic benefits. Whom To Contact: Merril Ash Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region 10 1321 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 AGENCY: NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Program: Coastal Energy Impact Program Local assistance is provided under for aid programs: Formula Grants - These grants are available to ameliorate the effects of OCS drilling activity upon local recreation and other environmental resources. Grants are provided to states on a 100% basis. E-17 Planning Grants - Project grants are provided for land use planning, public safety, and public facility plans, provided they are related to the social, economic and environmental impacts resulting from new, or expanding energy activity. The federal share of grants does not exceed 80 percent; the remainder coming from State or local sources. Loans and Guarantees - Direct loans are available to provide financial assistance for public facilities (transportation, utilities, health care, etc.) necessary to support increased populations stemming from new or expanded coastal energy activity. Up to 100 percent federal funding is provided to the State. Environmental Grants - Assistance, through Project Grants, is available to prevent, reduce, or ameliorate loss of recreational or environmental resources due to the operation of a coastal energy facility. Up to 100 nercent federal funding is provided to the State. Whom to contact: CEIP Coordinator Division of Local Government Assistance Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs 225 Cordova, Building B Anchorage, Alaska 99501 E-18 3 6668 14103 7947 1 I