1.       Does he see any conflict voting as a borough assemblyman, while also being selected by the city to serve as their assistant manager and represent the City of Kodiak in that capacity? Does he see a conflict:


a.       Voting to assess the new fees for an e-911 system and services, that committed borough residents to pay the maximum allowable fees permitted by law (without having to put it to the voters) when those charges will obviously directly benefit the city by helping to fund their police services);


b.      Did he draft or significantly participate in the drafting of the recent annexation paper presented to the city council during their recent meeting? If not, when was he made aware of it?


c.       Did he advise the borough assembly, mayor, or staff of the cities pending annexation presentation? If not why, since, as a borough assemblyman he must have been acutely aware that this is something that will obviously significantly impact borough residents, will be highly controversial, and will be of significant interest to the assembly.


Note: The Annexation proposal was provided to the City Council during their August 7th meeting. The Packet Agenda lists the topic as “Budget/Annexation Discussion” however the proposal deals exclusively with Annexation. The document appears to have been primarily developed by Assemblyman/Assistant City Manager Matt Van Daele. He wasn’t able to attend the Borough Assembly work session that occurred on the same evening because he was attending the city council meeting. Did the City Mayor, Manager, or Council demand that he be there instead of the Assembly Work Session, so that he could present this information and answer any questions? No one on the Assembly was advised of this Annexation proposal prior to the city council meeting. 


The proposal shows the Annexation will require ten new firemen at a cost of $1,292,312, eight additional police officers at a cost of $1,306,480, more public works employees and equipment with a cost yet to be estimated, more parks and rec workers, new equipment, etc.) for a total estimated cost of well over $3 million dollars, while offering: (a)  a “marked reduction in property taxes” for the Annexed area tax payers, (b) providing the City with $732,716 in additional tax revenues,  and (c) Service District 1 property owners will “see a marked reduction in their property taxes.”


The elected city representatives expressed disappointment and frustration when the borough proposed consideration of consolidation without first formally bringing this issue before them. Hasn’t the city done the same thing in this instance?


d.      Did he ask to be relieved of his assembly assignment on the boroughs fisheries work group because it conflicted with his work demands as the assistant city manager? Has he also asked to be relieved from other assembly commitments, such as participation on the lands committee? If not, why? If not, how is it that he is able to make time for the Lands Committee and not the for the Fisheries Work Group? Note that the Fisheries Work Group requires a significant amount of time for research and participation and there are currently few contentious issues, however the lands committee is currently dealing with making more city and borough lands available for sale to the public, and the city has expressed a desire to limit future development because of  “infrastructure” capacity concerns.


e.      Matt submitted written comments to the Borough Mayor opposing the State of Alaska Otmeloi Road reconstruction project, requesting that they be read by the Mayor during the 9/14/17 Assembly Work Session that he did not attend. The majority of the Service Area voters approved this reconstruction; however it is apparent that the proposed road reconstruction design will unavoidably impact Matt Van Daeles personal residential property, by creating a steeper driveway onto the reconstructed road. Does he see a conflict in opposing this project as an assemblyman?

Annexation 9-14-17 Work Session Packet