HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-03 Council PacketKenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 1 of 3
November 03, 2021
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting
November 03, 2021 ꟷ 6:00 PM
Kenai City Council Chambers
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska
**Telephonic/Virtual Information on Page 3**
www.kenai.city
Agenda
A. CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Approval
4. Oath of Office
5. Election of Vice Mayor
6. Consent Agenda (Public comment limited to three (3) minutes) per speaker;
thirty (30) minutes aggregated)
*All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the
council and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a council member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the consent
agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders.
B. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Public comment limited to ten (10) minutes per speaker)
1. Galen Hecht, Kenai Watershed Forum - Kenai Peninsula Stream Watch Program
2. Tim Navarre, Kenai Peninsula Homelessness Coalition - Strategic Plan Update
3. Sharon Efta - Censorship
C. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Public comment limited to three (3) minutes per speaker;
thirty (30) minutes aggregated)
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Ordinance No. 3252-2021 - Increasing Estimated Revenue and Appropriations in the
Water & Sewer Fund for Operational Costs in Excess of Budgeted Amounts at the Waste
Water Treatment Plant. (Administration)
2. Ordinance No. 3253-2021 - Accepting and Appropriating a Donation from Hilcorp Energy
Company to Assist with the Annual Areawide Senior Thanksgiving Dinner. (Administration)
3. Resolution No. 2021-62 - Establishing the Dates for Regular Meetings of the City Council
for 2022. (City Clerk)
Page 1
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 2 of 3
November 03, 2021
4. Resolution No. 2021-63 - Approving The Execution of a Lease of Airport Reserve Lands
Using the Standard Lease Form Between the City of Kenai and Schilling Rentals, LLC on
General Aviation Apron Sub No. 1 Amended Lot 2, Block 3. (Administration)
5. Resolution No. 2021-64 - Awarding An Agreement For The Kenai Waterfront
Redevelopment Assessment And Feasibility Study. (Administration)
6. Resolution No. 2021-65 - Supporting Kenai Peninsula Borough Ordinance 2021-40, an
Ordinance Amending KPB 2.40.015 Regarding Planning Commission Membership and
Apportionment. (Council Member Glendening)
7. Resolution No. 2021-66 - Authorizing a Professional Service Contract With Dr. Angus
McRae Warren for Medical Direction and Oversite of Kenai Fire Department and Kenai 911
Dispatch Center. (Administration)
8. Resolution No. 2021-67 - Awarding an Agreement for the Purchase of Computer
Equipment. (Administration)
E. MINUTES
1. *Joint Work Session of October 11, 2021. (City Clerk)
2. *Regular Meeting of October 20, 2021. (City Clerk)
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
G. NEW BUSINESS
1. *Action/Approval - Bills to be Ratified. (Administration)
2. *Ordinance No. 3254-2021 - Amending Kenai Municipal Code Section 14.05.025 –
Telephonic Participation at Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings, to Provide for
Remote Electronic Participation in Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings by
Commission Members. (Administration)
3. *Ordinance No. 3255-2021 - Accepting and Appropriating Grants from the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security Passed Through the State of Alaska Department of
Military and Veterans’ Affairs for the Purchases of Public Safety Radios for Police, Fire, and
Communications Departments. (Administration)
4. Action/Approval - Mayoral Nominations of Council Liaisons for Appointment to
Committees and Commissions. (Mayor Gabriel)
5. Action/Approval - Utilization of Healthy and Equitable Communities Grant for Capital
Projects. (Administration)
6. Discussion - Kenai Dog Park (City Council)
7. Discussion - Utilization of Remaining CARES Act Funds and Consideration of New Shop
Local Program. (Administration)
H. COMMISSION / COMMITTEE REPORTS
Page 2
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 3 of 3
November 03, 2021
1. Council on Aging
2. Airport Commission
3. Harbor Commission
4. Parks and Recreation Commission
5. Planning and Zoning Commission
6. Beautification Committee
7. Mini-Grant Steering Committee
I. REPORT OF THE MAYOR
J. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
1. City Manager
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
K. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
1. Citizens Comments (Public comment limited to five (5) minutes per speaker)
2. Council Comments
L. EXECUTIVE SESSION
M. PENDING ITEMS
N. ADJOURNMENT
O. INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Purchase Orders Between $2,500 and $15,000
2. Thank You Letter from HEA
3. KHS Newsletter October 2021
The agenda and supporting documents are posted on the City’s website at www.kenai.city. Copies of
resolutions and ordinances are available at the City Clerk’s Office or outside the Council Chamber prior
to the meeting. For additional information, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 907-283-8231.
Join Zoom Meeting OR
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81034667245 Dial In: (253) 215-8782 or (301) 715-8592
Meeting ID: 810 3466 7245 Passcode: 615261 Meeting ID: 810 3466 7245 Passcode: 615261
Page 3
Sponsored by: Administration
CITY OF KENAI
ORDINANCE NO. 3252-2021
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, INCREASING
ESTIMATED REVENUE AND APPROPRIATIONS IN THE WATER & SEWER FUND FOR
OPERATIONAL COSTS IN EXCESS OF BUDGETED AMOUNTS AT THE WASTE WATER
TREATMENT PLANT.
WHEREAS, several events have transpired resulting in unanticipated expenditures for the Water,
Sewer, Waste Water division of the Public Works Department; and,
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is intended to restore the affected accounts to allow normal operations
to continue through the fiscal year; and,
WHEREAS, a fire that occurred at the Longview Westlake Chemical Company Plant located in
Longview, Washington in June 2021 caused chemical shortages industry wide throughout the
Pacific Northwest and Alaska; and,
WHEREAS, as a result, Univar Solutions our vendor under current contract to supply chemicals
informed the city that they may have a period of time where they will be unable to meet demands
within the state; and,
WHEREAS, in an effort to ensure continued operations Public Works staff sought out alternative
sources of Sodium Hypochlorite, the chemical the City of Kenai uses to provide safe drinking
water as well as disinfection of waste water leaving the waste water treatment plant; and,
WHEREAS, Brenntag Pacific Inc., a known vendor to the City, was able to provide the Department
with four totes, totaling 11,000lbs of chemicals, which provided a much needed three month buffer
of chemicals on hand to allow the supply chain time to recover from the disruption; and,
WHEREAS, appropriation of funds to cover Purchase Order 123045 in the amount of $9,892 to
Brentagg Pacific Inc. is requested to restore the existing budget; and.
WHEREAS, the 1981 GMC Dump Truck used by the Waste Water Plant to haul sludge to the
landfill requires repairs beyond the useful value of the vehicle to the City; and,
WHEREAS, staff issued a request for quotes for dumpster services and Alaska Waste was found
to be the lowest responsive responsible bidder at a per haul cost of $247.50 for a 30CY roll off
dumpster and $91.86/month for a 6CY dumpster for screenings; and,
WHEREAS, an initial purchase order number 123019 was opened to Alaska Waste in the amount
of $10,000 to meet the emergent need of hauling sludge; and,
Page 4
Ordinance No. 3252-2021
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, this Ordinance authorizes an increase to that purchase order to a new total amount
of $30,000 which will provide approximately $1,100 for the 6CY dumpster to be dumped once a
week for the year and approximately 110 hauls of the 30CY roll off to the landfill plus fuel
surcharge and regulatory fees; and,
WHEREAS, appropriations from the Water and Sewer Special Revenue Fund are in the City’s
best interest to cover these expenses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA,
as follows:
Section 1. That the Administration is authorized to increase Purchase Order 123019 to Alaska
Waste from $10,000 to $30,000 to provide waste hauling services for the Waste Water Treatment
Plant.
Section 2. That the estimated revenues and appropriations be increased as follows:
Water and Sewer Special Revenue Fund:
Increase Estimated Revenues –
Appropriation of Fund Balance $39,892
Increase Appropriations –
Waste Water Treatment Plant Operational Budget
010-467-2022 Operating, Repair & Maint. Supplies $9,892
010-467-4531 Professional Services $30,000
Total $39,892
Section 3. Severability: That if any part or provision of this ordinance or application thereof to
any person or circumstances is adjudged invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision, or application directly involved
in all controversy in which this judgment shall have been rendered, and shall not affect or impair
the validity of the remainder of this title or application thereof to other persons or circumstances.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have enacted the remainder of this ordinance even
without such part, provision, or application.
Section 4. Effective Date: That pursuant to KMC 1.15.070(f), this ordinance shall take effect
upon adoption.
ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 3rd day of November,
2021.
BRIAN GABRIEL SR., MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jamie Heinz, MMC, City Clerk
Page 5
Ordinance No. 3252-2021
Page 3 of 3
Approved by Finance: _________________
Introduced: October 20, 2021
Enacted: November 3, 2021
Effective: November 3, 2021
Page 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Brian Gabriel and Kenai City Council
THROUGH: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
FROM: Scott Curtin, Director of Public Works
DATE: October 13, 2021
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 3252-2021
The purpose of this memo is to request Council’s approval to appropriate additional funding from
the Water and Sewer Special Revenue fund in support of operations to cover unanticipated
expenses totaling $39,892.
The public works department received word in July, shortly after a June 2021 fire (possible
electrical failure, see link Longview chlorine plant downtime causes shortage of chemical used
to treat water supplies across West Coast | The Spokesman-Review) that severely damaged a
chemical manufacturing facility in Longview, Washington, that chemical shortages should be
expected imminently. Our counterparts at DEC reached out and requested we do everything
possible to remain within permitting requirements. Staff immediately began calling to source
materials and were successful in securing a three month supply of Sodium Hypochlorite.
The department generally maintains a month’s supply on hand. In the current environment we
are targeting closer to three months now, to ensure the City’s ability to maintain our permitting
requirements as well as our obligations to the community. This unanticipated emergent expense
totaled $9,892 and we are requesting those funds are now added to our operational budget.
Additionally, the forty year old dump truck the department has used for hauling sludge to the
landfill finally reached the end of its useful life in mid-July. The Shop division has performed
admirably to keep this vehicle in service for as long as it has, however due to the ongoing
expense of maintenance including tires, brakes, general availability of parts, etc. it was time to
move on.
The Public Works department in coordination with the Finance Department, in an effort to
maintain a reasonable fleet size, are not recommending replacement of this truck at this time.
We have been researching the benefits of utilizing a dumpster service and will weigh out the
benefits over the next 12-24 months. Immediate benefits include the roll off dumpster is larger
than our truck bed, 30CY vs 10CY, and while we cannot fully fill a 30CY dumpster based on the
weight, it does afford operations a longer runtime on the press between hauls. The dumpster is
lower to the ground than the truck, making it easier for staff to see and level the load. The
Page 7
Page 2 of 2
screenings have now been separated. Previously the screenings, which are very wet, were
placed in the dump truck. The moisture added to the weight of the sludge, adding cost, and were
disposed of at the higher landfill rate of $45/ton. Today they are placed in a separate smaller
dumpster and disposed of as standard household trash.
The net result is sludge sent to the landfill is dryer, which the landfill regulators prefer, and is
costing us slightly less by volume. The potential liability of having staff travel icy roads with a
loaded dump truck have been removed as well as the costs associated with the ownership of the
truck including fuel, insurance, maintenance, etc. Staff are able to be more efficient as the time
spent offsite traveling to the landfill can now be refocused on plant operations.
We are asking at this time to approve a purchase order to Alaska Waste in the amount of $30,000
to cover these costs. Approximately 110 hauls to the landfill are anticipated with these funds,
which equates to one trip every 3.3 calendar days year round. As this expense was not included
in the original FY22 budget we are requesting approval of appropriation of funds to supplement
the budget at this time to avoid budget shortfalls in the spring.
Approval of this Ordinance is in the best interest of the City and will allow the department to
continue operations in support of permitting requirements and community expectations.
Council’s support is respectfully requested.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/jun/18/longview-chlorine-plant-downtime-causes-
shortage-o/
Page 8
Sponsored by: Administration
CITY OF KENAI
ORDINANCE NO. 3253-2021
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, ACCEPTING AND
APPROPRIATING A DONATION FROM HILCORP ENERGY COMPANY TO ASSIST WITH THE
ANNUAL AREAWIDE SENIOR THANKSGIVING DINNER.
WHEREAS, annually the Kenai Senior Center hosts a Thanksgiving Dinner that is open to seniors
from all over the Central Peninsula; and,
WHEREAS, the City has received a donation from Hilcorp Energy Services in the amount of
$2,500 for the purchase of food and supplies for the dinner; and,
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the city of Kenai to accept and appropriate this donation
for the purposes described above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA,
as follows:
Section 1. That the City Manager is authorized to accept a donation from Hilcorp Energy
Company in the amount of $2,500 and to expend the donated funds to fulfill the purpose and
intent of this ordinance.
Section 2. That the estimated revenues and appropriations be increased as follows:
Senior Citizen Fund:
Increase Estimated Revenues –
Donations $2,500
Increase Appropriations –
Congregate Meals – Operating Supplies $1,000
Home Meals – Operating Supplies 1,500
$2,500
Section 3. Severability: That if any part or provision of this ordinance or application thereof to
any person or circumstances is adjudged invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision, or application directly involved
in all controversy in which this judgment shall have been rendered, and shall not affect or impair
the validity of the remainder of this title or application thereof to other persons or circumstances.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have enacted the remainder of this ordinance even
without such part, provision, or application.
Section 4. Effective Date: That pursuant to KMC 1.15.070(f), this ordinance shall take effect
immediately upon enactment.
Page 9
Ordinance No. 3253-2021
Page 2 of 2
_____________________________________________________________________________________
New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 3rd day of November,
2021.
BRIAN GABRIEL SR., MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jamie Heinz, MMC, City Clerk
Approved by Finance: _________________
Introduced: October 20, 2021
Enacted: November 3, 2021
Effective: November 3, 2021
Page 10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Gabriel and Council Members
THROUGH: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
FROM: Kathy Romain, Senior Center Director
DATE: October 11, 2021
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 3253-2021 – Hilcorp Energy Services Donation
Hilcorp Energy Services has again donated $2,500 for the annual Areawide Senior Thanksgiving
Dinner which will be held on Tuesday, November 23, 2021. This is the eighth year Hilcorp has
provided funding for this event. In agreement with Hilcorp, as a precaution with the current COVID
numbers, we will only be serving pick up and home delivered meals for this event.
The Areawide Senior Thanksgiving Dinner is a tradition which began in 1976. A Homemakers
Club provided and served the first meal. From there it grew and has been passed on through
Unocal, Agrium, Marathon Oil and since 2012, Hilcorp has continued the tradition by providing
the funding and the volunteers. We are fortunate to live in a community which celebrates the
elders who helped make Alaska what it is today.
The donation will be used as follows:
Congregate Meals – Operating Supplies $1,000
Home Meals – Operating Supplies 1,500
Total Donation $2,500
Thank you for your consideration.
Page 11
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored by: City Clerk
CITY OF KENAI
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-62
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, ESTABLISHING
DATES FOR REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR 2022.
WHEREAS, pursuant to KMC 1.10.040(a), regular meetings of the Council shall be at a time set
by a resolution of the Council on the first and third Wednesdays of every month; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to KMC 1.10.040(b) on or before the last meeting of December, the City
Clerk shall introduce a resolution, on behalf of Council, establishing the dates for the subsequent
year’s Council meetings; and,
WHEREAS, this calendar must include a minimum of twenty regular meetings each year and at
least one regular meeting each month; and,
WHEREAS, the City’s Charter allows for cancellation of meetings by the Mayor due to lack of a
quorum or for an emergency, or by a majority of council members for any reason as long as at
least twenty (20) regular meetings are held each calendar year and at least one each month; and,
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City for the Council to provide as much advance
notification as possible to the public and administration of their meeting schedule; and,
WHEREAS, timely adopting a calendar of meeting dates, including any cancelled meetings,
provides advance notice to the public and administration; and,
WHEREAS, cancelling the second regular meeting of the City Council in July allows for Council,
administration, and residents to participate in the personal use fishery and other seasonal
activities; and,
WHEREAS, cancelling one Council Meeting in July complies with the minimum standards for
meeting requirements as provided in the City’s Charter and Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA:
Section 1. That the City Council of Kenai establishes the following Calendar of Meetings for
2021: regular meetings shall be held every first and third Wednesday of each month, except that
there will not be a second meeting in July.
Section 2. That this Calendar may be further amended by Council in compliance with the City
Charter and Kenai Municipal Code.
Section 3. That this resolution takes effect immediately upon passage.
Page 12
Resolution No. 2021-62
Page 2 of 2
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 3rd day of November, 2021.
BRIAN GABRIEL SR., MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jamie Heinz, MMC, City Clerk
Page 13
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Gabriel and Council Members
FROM: Jamie Heinz, City Clerk
DATE: October 19, 2021
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2021-62 – Setting Council Meeting Calendar
Pursuant to KMC 1.10.040(b), this Resolution is intended to establish a calendar for the regular
meetings of the City Council in 2022.
Pursuant to City Charter, a meeting may be cancelled by the Mayor due to a lack of a quorum,
for an emergency, or by a majority of council members for any reason as long as at least twenty
(20) regular meetings are held each year and at least one each month. The proposed resolution
maintains at least one regular meeting each month and more than the minimum twenty (20)
regular meetings each year.
After reviewing previous calendars, this resolution proposes scheduling regular meetings every
first and third Wednesday of each month, except for the month of July, when the second meeting
would be cancelled. The second meeting of July coincides with the peak season of the personal
use dipnet fishery which consumes the full attention of the administration and is a busy time of
year for other residents.
The second meeting in November is often cancelled as it coincides with the AML conferences in
Anchorage; however, there are five Wednesday’s in November in 2022 and having five weeks
between meetings makes it difficult for Administration to accomplish the business of the City.
The calendar attached to this memo is included for your reference and is not an exhibit to the
Resolution.
Your consideration is appreciated.
Page 14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 1 2 1 2 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31 31 30 31
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 28 29 30 31 27 28 29 30
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
27 28 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
2022
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Page 15
Sponsored by: Administration
CITY OF KENAI
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA APPROVING THE
EXECUTION OF A LEASE OF AIRPORT RESERVE LANDS USING THE STANDARD LEASE
FORM BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENAI AND SCHILLING RENTALS, LLC ON GENERAL
AVIATION APRON SUB NO. 1 AMENDED LOT 2, BLOCK 3.
WHEREAS, the lease to Schilling Rentals LLC, for General Aviation Apron Sub No. 1 Amended
Lot 2, Block 3 expires on June 30, 2022; and,
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2021, City Council approved the Schilling Rentals, LLC, temporary
development incentives application, where credit for eligible work activities may be applied
towards rent for a maximum of five (5) years; and,
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2021, Schilling Rentals, LLC submitted an application to renew a lease of
City owned properties within the Airport Reserve, described as General Aviation Apron Sub No.
1 Amended Lot 2, Block 3; and,
WHEREAS, the Schilling Rentals, LLC lease application states plans to remodel/expand the
existing hangar, upgrade parking apron/pad, to accommodate an FBO and act as a medevac
service location; an investment of an estimated $1,500,000 that gives a lease term of 45 years
according to the term table in Kenai Municipal Code 21.10.080; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed development would be mutually beneficial and would conform with the
Kenai Municipal Code for zoning, Kenai's Comprehensive Plan, the Airport Land Use Plan, Airport
Layout Plan, Federal Aviation Administration regulations, Airport Master Plan, Airport
Improvement Program grant assurances, and Airport operations; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai did not receive a competing lease application within thirty (30) days
of publishing a public notice of the lease application from Schilling Rentals, LLC; and,
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 13, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission
reviewed the lease application and recommended approval by the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 14, 2021, the Airport Commission reviewed the
lease application and recommended approval by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA,
as follows:
Section 1. That a Lease of Airport Reserve Lands is approved and the City Manager is
authorized to execute a lease between the City of Kenai, Lessor, and Schilling Rentals, LLC,
Lessee, as follows:
Page 16
Resolution No. 2021-63
Page 2 of 2
_____________________________________________________________________________________
New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
Lot improvements as outlined in lease application from Schilling Rentals, LLC, remodel
and expand the existing hangar, upgrade parking apron/pad with an estimated $1,500,000
value of improvements to be completed within two (2) years of signing the lease;
The evidence must be submitted to the City within 60 days of the completion of the
development and improvements;
The lease term will be 45 years;
Lot developments will prevent unauthorized access to the airfield;
Structures will be built behind the 100 foot building restriction line;
Paving will be completed up to the existing transient aircraft apron pavement;
Schilling Rentals, Inc. is responsible for all snow removal, and snow may not touch the
perimeter security fence or be piled to a height that would allow access to the airport.
Section 2. That this Resolution takes effect immediately upon passage.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 3rd day of November, 2021.
BRIAN GABRIEL SR., MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jamie Heinz, MMC, City Clerk
Page 17
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Brian Gabriel and Kenai City Council
THROUGH: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
FROM: Ryan Foster, Planning Director
DATE: October 25, 2021
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2021-63 – Approving The Execution Of A Lease To
Schilling Rentals
On September 20, 2019, Schilling Rentals, LLC entered into an assignment of lease for General
Aviation Apron Sub No. 1 Amended Lot 2, Blk 3 with Soar International Ministries, Inc. This lease
terminates on June 30, 2022.
On August 18, 2021, City Council approved the Schilling Rentals, LLC temporary development
incentives application with an estimated value of eligible work in the amount of $150,000. Credit
may be applied towards rent for a maximum of 5 years.
Schillings, LLC proposes to remodel and expand the existing hangar, upgrade parking apron/pad
with an estimated $1,500,000 value of improvements to be completed within two (2) years of
signing the lease. Activities noted on the application is a medevac service location. The requested
lease term is 45 years.
Pursuant to Kenai Municipal Code 21.10.060 Lease application review, notice of the lease
application was posted in the Peninsula Clarion and stated competing applications may be
submitted for the parcel within 30 -days to the City. The 30 -day window from publication ended
on October 16, 2021, and no competing applications were submitted to the City.
The parcel is within the Airport Light Industrial (ALI) Zone. Pursuant to KMC 14.20.065, the
purpose of the ALI Zone is to protect the viability of the Kenai Municipal Airport as a significant
resource to the community by encouraging compatible land uses and reducing hazards that may
endanger the lives and property of the public and aviation users. The proposed aeronautical use
is a permitted and compatible use in the ALI Zone.
The Imagine Kenai 2030 Comprehensive Plan outlines goals, objectives, and action items for the
City, including this one pertaining to the Kenai Municipal Airport:
Page 18
Page 2 of 2
Objective T- 1: Support future development near or adjacent to the airport when such
development is in alignment with the Kenai Municipal Airport's primary mission, "To be the
commercial air transportation gateway to the Kenai Peninsula Borough and Cook Inlet."
The proposed use by Schilling Rentals, LLC complies with the Imagine Kenai 2030
Comprehensive Plan by supporting development on lease lots with development that is in
alignment with the Kenai Municipal Airport's marketing strategy.
The Airport Land Use Plan was developed to identify the highest and best uses of Kenai Municipal
Airport land. The Airport Land Use Plan discusses leasing land and enhancing opportunities for
local economic development. The proposed use by Schillings, LLC complies with the Airport Land
Use Plan and would enhance local economic development.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the lease application at their
meeting on October 13, 2021. The Airport Commission recommended approval of the lease
application at their meeting on October 14, 2021.
Thank you for your consideration.
Attachments:
City of Kenai Land Lease Application from Schilling Rentals, LLC.
Aerial Map of 110 FBO Road.
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
110 FBO RoadGeneral Aviation Apron Sub No. 1 Amended Lot 2, Block 3Parcel 04324024
FBO RDMAIN STREET LOOP RD GRANITE POINT CT.Data Source: Kenai Peninsula Borough. Data is for graphic representation only. Imagery may not match true parcel boundaries.
0 5025 Feet
LEGEND
Su bject Parcel
Date: 8/6/2021
Page 22
Sponsored by: Administration
CITY OF KENAI
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AWARDING AN
AGREEMENT FOR THE KENAI WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT AND
FEASIBILITY STUDY.
WHEREAS, the City issued a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Kenai Waterfront
Redevelopment Assessment and Feasibility Study on September 7, 2021 with the following
proposals received on October 8, 2021,
BIDDERS TOTAL PROPOSAL SCORE
McKinley Research Group, LLC 274.65
PDC, A Division of RESPEC Company, LLC 257.5
Agnew :: Beck 252.25
; and,
WHEREAS, proposals were evaluated by the evaluation committee according to the criteria set
forth in the RFP the week of October 11, 2021; and,
WHEREAS, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for
proposals, responsive proposals were awarded points as set out in the RFP, and the proposal
submitted by McKinley Research Group, LLC was awarded the highest points and determined to
be the most advantageous to the City; and,
WHEREAS, the recommendation from City Administration is to award an Agreement to McKinley
Research Group, LLC for $94,890; and,
WHEREAS, the attached agreement for services includes the scope of services provided in the
RFP, including the Kenai Waterfront Feasibility Study, Conceptual Plans and Financial Feasibility
Analysis; and,
WHEREAS, sufficient funds have been appropriated for this purchase.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA:
Section 1. The Council authorizes award of an Agreement for the Kenai Waterfront
Redevelopment Assessment and Feasibility Study to McKinley Research Group, LLC for the total
cost of $94,890.
Section 2. That this resolution takes effect immediately upon passage.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 3rd day of November, 2021.
Page 23
Resolution No. 2021-64
Page 2 of 2
_____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
BRIAN GABRIEL, SR., MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jamie Heinz, MMC, City Clerk
Approved by Finance: _________
Page 24
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Brian Gabriel and Kenai City Council
THROUGH: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
FROM: Christine Cunningham, Assistant to City Manager
DATE: October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2021-64 – Awarding an Agreement for the Kenai
Waterfront Redevelopment Assessment and Feasibility Study
The purpose of this memo is to recommend awarding an agreement for the Kenai Waterfront
Redevelopment Assessment and Feasibility in the amount of $94,890.00 to McKinley Research
Group, LLC.
The City advertised the Request for Proposals (RFP) three times at least two weeks prior to the
date bids were due, as well as on the City website. The following proposals were received on
October 8, 2011:
BIDDERS TOTAL PROPOSAL SCORE
McKinley Research Group, LLC 274.65
PDC, A Division of RESPEC Company, LLC 257.5
Agnew :: Beck 252.25
Taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals,
responsive proposals were awarded points as set out in the RFP, and the proposal submitted by
McKinley Research Group, LLC was determined to be the most advantageous to the City.
Ordinance 3237-2021 appropriated $95,000 for this study with an estimated cost of the f easibility
report being $75,000 and a $20,000 contingency for additional items (e.g. conceptual plans and
financial feasibility analysis). The RFP included a cost proposal form that requested proposers
provide a base bid for all services, and a deductive alternate, which provided for elimination of
services to provide conceptual plans and Financial feasibility analysis.
The attached agreement for services includes all items included in the scope of services provided
in the RFP, including the Kenai Waterfront Feasibility Study, Conceptual Plans and Financial
Feasibility Analysis.
Council's approval is respectfully requested.
Page 25
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR
KENAI WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered by and between the CITY OF KENAI and MCKINLEY
RESEARCH GROUP, LLC.
Section 1. Definition. In this Agreement:
1. The term “City” means the City of Kenai.
2. The term “Consultant” means McKinley Research Group, LLC.
3. The term “City Manager” means the City Manager of the City of Kenai or authorized
representative.
Section 2. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall perform all the services provided for by
this Agreement:
1. Kenai Waterfront Feasibility Study
i. Project Meetings
Engage City personnel to discuss the project, scope, project plan, and timelines and
acquire necessary materials (e.g., mapping, zoning, available lands information).
Establish project meetings at the beginning of the process, with additional meetings to
be scheduled as necessary. Attend City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission
meetings to present the final Feasibility Study and attend any additional public
meetings as necessary.
ii. Communications
Maintain communication with designated City personnel to provide regular updates
and discuss the progress of the project. Communication will be provided to the City
Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, and the public as necessary throughout
the project.
iii. Community Engagement
Engage the Kenai community to develop vision, core concepts, and priorities, including
an initial meeting with the City of Kenai Administrative team to develop a program to
work with members of the public and identify a multifaceted community engagement
strategy and process that is transparent and inclusive.
iv. Elements of Study
Develop a comprehensive feasibility study, including the following elements:
1) Engage Kenai community and develop vision, core concepts, and priorities
2) Evaluate market conditions and identify opportunities for potential
revitalization of the area
Page 26
3) Review and assess existing plans and area characteristics, including
infrastructure, access, zoning, and regulations to identify development
constraints and provide recommended changes to support a thriving
business, residential, recreational and cultural community
4) Review existing infrastructure and assess infrastructure needs to support
redevelopment, including roads, water, sewer, stormwater, electrical,
alternative power generation, and broadband infrastructure
5) Identify economic strategies, including private-public partnerships, external
funding opportunities, improvement districts, and incentives that encourage
redevelopment of the area
6) Develop an implementation strategy and recommendations
v. Final Report
Provide five (5) bound copies and an electronic version of the final feasibility study in
an accessible file format. The final report should include results of public involvement,
background review, assessment of existing conditions, risks and opportunities related
to redevelopment, infrastructure needs, redevelopment strategies and concepts to
revitalize and incentivize redevelopment, recommendations regarding zoning or land
and development code changes and potential economic incentive programs,
conceptual development design options, and potential for combinations of uses and
activities to support revitalization of the area to maximize the potential to support a
thriving business, residential, recreational and cultural community.
2. Conceptual Plans and Financial Feasibility Analysis
i. Prepare examples of conceptual plan(s) for potential site redevelopment alternative(s)
that are reproducible and in an accessible file format
ii. Prepare financial analysis to evaluate the feasibility of redevelopment alternative(s)
Section 3. Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant shall commence November
8, 2021, and shall terminate May 31, 2022, subject to appropriation of funds from the Kenai City
Council. The period of performance may be extended for additional periods only by the mutual
written agreement of the parties and subject to appropriation of funds by the Kenai City Council.
Section 4. Compensation.
1. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the City shall pay the Consultant as
compensation a total sum of Ninety-Four-Thousand, Eight Hundred and Ninety Dollars
($94,890.00) for those services to which the parties agree in this Agreement.
2. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the City shall not provide any additional
compensation, payment, service or other thing of value to the Consultant in connection
with performance of Agreement duties. The parties understand and agree that, except as
otherwise provided in this agreement, administrative overhead and other indirect or direct
costs the Consultant may incur in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement
have already been included in computation of the Consultant’s fee and may not be
charged to the City.
Page 27
Section 5. Method and Time of Payment.
1. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of an approved
invoice.
2. Any expenditures identified as reimbursable under the request for proposal shall be
included with the billings for professional services. Billing shall include a summary of
expenditures to date by line item categories (e.g., personal services, travel, lodging,
meals, and other). Documentation of expenditures need not be submitted with billings but
must be retained by the Consultant in the event the City requests said documentation.
3. No payment will be disbursed until the completed task and associated expenditures have
been approved by the City.
4. All invoices should be submitted in duplicate and addressed as follows:
City of Kenai
Attn: City Manager Office
210 Fidalgo Avenue
Kenai, AK 99611
Section 6. Ownership. All finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, and
reports or other material prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement are the property of the
City.
Section 7. Termination of Agreement for Cause. If, through any cause, the Consultant
shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner the obligations under this Agreement or if the
Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, the
City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the Consultant of
termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least five (5) days before the effective
date of such termination. All finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys and reports
or other material prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement are the property of the City
and shall be delivered to the City by or upon the effective date of termination. The Consultant
shall be entitled to receive compensation only for work completed to the City’s satisfaction in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
Section 8. Termination for Convenience of City. The City may terminate this Agreement
at any time by giving written notice to the Consultant of such termination and specifying the
effective date of such termination. All finished or unfinished documents and other materials as
described in Section 7, above, are the property of the City and shall be delivered to the City by or
upon the effective date of termination. The Consultant shall be entitled to receive compensation
in accordance with the payment provisions of this Agreement only for work completed to the City’s
satisfaction in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. If this Agreement is terminated due
to the fault of the Consultant, Section 7 of this Agreement shall govern the rights and liabilities of
the parties.
Section 9. Causes Beyond Control. In the event the Consultant is prevented by a cause or
causes beyond control of the Consultant from performing any obligation of this Agreement,
nonperformance resulting from such cause or causes shall not be deemed to be a breach of this
Agreement which will render the Consultant liable for damages or give rights to the cancellation
of this Agreement for cause. However, if and when such cause or causes cease to prevent
Page 28
performance, the Consultant shall exercise all reasonable diligence to resume and complete
performance of the obligation with the least possible delay. The phrase “cause or causes beyond
control,” as used in this section, means any one or more of the following causes which are not
attributable to the fault or negligence of the Consultant and which prevent the performance of the
Consultant: fire, explosions, acts of God, war, orders or law of duly constituted public authorities,
and other major uncontrollable and unavoidable events, all of the foregoing which must actually
prevent the Consultant from performing the terms of this Agreement. Events which are peculiar
to the Consultant and would not prevent another Consultant from performing, including, but not
limited to financial difficulties, are not causes beyond the control of the Consultant. The City will
determine whether the event preventing the Consultant from performing is a cause beyond the
Consultant’s control.
Section 10. Modifications.
1. The parties may mutually agree to modify the terms of this Agreement. Modifications to
this Agreement shall be incorporated into this Agreement by written amendments.
2. It is expressly understood that the City may require changes in the scope of services and
an unreasonable refusal by the Consultant to agree to modification in the scope of services
will be the basis for termination of this Agreement for cause. It is expressly understood
that the total amount of compensation for successful performance of this Agreement will
not be modified, under any circumstances, without prior written approval of the City.
Section 11. Interest of Members of City and Others. No officer, member or employee of the
City and no member of its governing body, and no other public official of the governing body shall
participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects their personal interest or the
interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which they are, directly or indirectly,
interested or having any personal or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the
proceeds thereof.
Section 12. Assignability. The Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement and
shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation) without the prior
written consent of the City thereto; provided, however, that claims for money due or to become
due to the Consultant from the City under this Agreement may be assigned by court order or to a
bank, trust company, or other financial institution without such approval. Notice of any such
assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to the City, or the Consultant shall be
responsible to the City for any moneys due the assignee of this Agreement, which are paid directly
to the Consultant.
Section 13. Interest of Consultant. The Consultant covenants that it presently has no
interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner
or degree with the performance of services required to be performed under this Agreement. The
Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement no person having any
such interest shall be employed.
Section 14. Findings Confidential. To the extent permitted or required by law any reports,
information, data, etc., given to or prepared or assembled by the Consultant under this Agreement
which the City requests to be kept confidential shall not be made available to any individual or
organization by the Consultant without the prior written approval of the City.
Page 29
Section 15. Publication, Reproduction and Use of Materials. No material produced, in
whole or in part, under this Agreement shall be subject to copyright in the United States or in any
other country. The City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute and
otherwise use, in whole or in part, any reports, data or other materials prepared under this
Agreement.
Section 16. Jurisdiction; Choice of Law. Any civil action arising from this Agreement shall
be brought in the superior court for the third judicial district of the state of Alaska at Kenai. The
law of the state of Alaska shall govern the rights and obligations of the parties.
Section 17. Non-Waiver. The failure of the City at any time to enforce a provision of this
Agreement shall in no way constitute a waiver of the provisions, nor in any way affect the validity
of this Agreement or any part thereof, or the right of the City thereafter to enforce each and every
protection hereof.
Section 18. Permits, Laws and Taxes. The Consultant shall acquire and maintain in good
standing all permits, licenses and other entitlements necessary to the performance under this
Agreement. All actions taken by the Consultant under this Agreement shall comply with all
applicable federal, state, and local regulations including, but not limited to, those laws related to
wages, taxes, social security, workers compensation, nondiscrimination, licenses, and
registration requirements. The Consultant shall pay all taxes pertaining to its performance under
this Agreement.
Section 19. Agreement Administration.
1. The City Manager or designee, will be the representative of the City administering this
Agreement.
2. The services to be furnished by the Consultant shall be administered, supervised, and
directed by Susan Bell, President, with Donna Logan, Senior Consultant acting as primary
contact and day-to-day project manager. In the event that the individual named above or
any of the individuals identified in the proposal to perform work under this Agreement is
unable to serve for any reason, the Consultant shall appoint a successor in interest subject
to written approval of the City.
Section 20. Integration. This instrument and all appendices and amendments hereto embody
the entire agreement of the parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions or obligations other
than those contained herein; and this Agreement shall supersede all previous communications,
representations or agreements, either oral or written, between the parties.
Section 21. Defense and Indemnification. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend, save and
hold the City, its elected and appointed officers, agents and employees, harmless from any and
all claims, demands, suits, or liability of any nature, kind or character including costs, expenses,
and attorneys’ fees resulting from Consultant or Consultant’s officers, agents, employees,
partners, attorneys, suppliers, and subconsultants’ performance or failure to perform this
Agreement in any way whatsoever. This defense and indemnification responsibility includes
claims alleging acts or omissions by the City or its agents which are said to have contributed to
the losses, failure, violations, or damage. However, Consultant shall not be responsible for any
damages or claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, or
employees. Consultant and subconsultants shall also not be required to defend or indemnify the
Page 30
Owner for damage or loss that has been found to be attributed to an independent contractor
directly responsible to the City under separate written contract.
Section 22. Interpretation and Enforcement. This Agreement is being executed by the
parties following negotiations between them. It shall be construed according to the fair intent of
the language as a whole, not for or against any party. The titles of sections in this Agreement are
not to be construed as limitations or definitions but are for identification purposes only.
Section 23. Relationship of the Parties. The services to be rendered under this Agreement
are those of an independent contractor. The Consultant will not at any time directly or indirectly
act as an agent, servant or employee of the City or make any commitments or incur any liabilities
on behalf of the City without the City’s express consent. The City shall not supervise or direct the
Consultant except as set forth in this agreement.
Section 24. Insurance. Consultant and all subconsultants, if any, shall maintain the following
insurance coverage in effect during the term of this Agreement and shall file certificates of such
insurance with the Owner or City prior to the commencement of its performance under this
Agreement. Such insurance shall be by a company/corporation currently rated “A-“or better by
A.M. Best.
A. A policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with limits of not less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence covering injury to or death of any person or persons, and
with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence covering property damage.
B. Auto liability with included operations, contractual liability, and owned, leased, hired
or borrowed, and non-owned vehicles with limits of not less than $1,000,000 combined
single limit per occurrence.
C. Worker's Compensation and Employer's liability insurance in accordance with
applicable laws.
D. Professional Errors and Omissions insurance in the amount of not less than
$1,000,000.
If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City
requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the
contractor.
E. Primary Coverage for any claims related to this contract, the Consultant’s
insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers,
officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by
the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the
Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
F. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions any deductibles or self-insured retentions
must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require the Consultant to
provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration,
and defense expenses within the retention.
G. Claims Made Policies if any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-
made basis:
Page 31
1) The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the
contract or the beginning of contract work.
2) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided
for at least two (2) years after completion of the contract of work.
3) If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another
claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective
date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a
minimum of three (3) years after completion of contract work.
H. Verification of Coverage Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates
and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting
coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be
received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to
obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the
Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require
complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements
required by these specifications, at any time.
I. Subcontractors Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain
insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein.
Said liability insurance shall provide that such insurance may not be canceled or reduced until
twenty (20) days after the City shall have received notice of such cancellation or reduction.
Consultant shall maintain said insurance policies in effect and shall cause all parties supplying
services, labor, or materials to maintain insurance in amounts and coverage not less than those
specified above in effect.
A lapse in insurance coverage is a material breach of this Agreement, which may result in
immediate termination of this Agreement, pursuant to Section 8.
Section 25. Severability. If any section or clause of this Agreement is held invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, or is otherwise invalid under the law, the remainder of this Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 26. Understanding. The Consultant acknowledges that the Consultant has read and
understands the terms of this Agreement, has had the opportunity to review the same with counsel
of their choice, and is executing this Agreement of their own free will.
Section 27. Notices. Any notice required pertaining to the subject matter of this Agreement
shall be personally delivered or mailed by prepaid first-class, registered or certified mail to the
following addresses:
Page 32
City: City Manager
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avenue
Kenai, AK 99611
Consultant: McKinley Research Group, LLC
3800 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 1100
Anchorage, AK 99503
Section 28. Consultant’s Violations of Tax Obligations.
1. This Agreement can be terminated for cause, pursuant to Section 7, if it is determined that
a Consultant is in arrears of any taxation, lease or rental agreement that is due to the City
that is not remedied within ten (10) calendar days of notification by regular mail.
2. The City reserves any right it may have to offset amounts owed by an individual, firm,
corporation or business for delinquent City taxes, moneys owed on sales, assessments,
leases and rental agreements, against any amount owing to the same under an agreement
between the City and the same.
CITY OF KENAI CONSULTANT
By: By:
Its: Its:
Dated: Dated:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BY:
Jamie Heinz Scott Bloom
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 33
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
STATE OF ALASKA )
) ss.
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of , 2021, by
, Mayor of the City of Kenai, an Alaska municipal corporation, for
and on behalf of the corporation.
_________________________________
Notary Public for State of Alaska
My Commission Expires: __________
STATE OF ALASKA )
) ss.
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of 2021, by
_(name)_________________________, the _(title)____________________________ of
_(name of corporation)______________________________________for and on behalf of the
corporation.
_________________________________
Notary Public for State of Alaska
My Commission Expires: __________
Page 34
Sponsored by: Council Member Jim Glendening
CITY OF KENAI
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, SUPPORTING KENAI
PENINSULA BOROUGH ORDINANCE 2021-40, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING KPB 2.40.015
REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP AND APPORTIONMENT.
WHEREAS, Resolution 2016-31 opposed Kenai Peninsula Borough Ordinance 2016-25 as
introduced, which proposed to reduce Borough Planning Commission membership from 13 to 9
and eliminate the designated seat for the City of Kenai; and,
WHEREAS, Kenai Peninsula Borough Ordinance 2016-25 Substitute amended Borough Code
2.40.010 to reduce the Borough’s Planning Commission membership from 13 members, including
one member from each of the five first class or home rule cities of the Borough, to 11 members,
without providing a process for how the five cities would share the four remaining city seats; and,
WHEREAS Kenai Peninsula Borough Code 2.40.010 does not identify specific city seats, how
they would equitably rotate each year and term, or require that the 4 city seats be filled by a
resident of the respective cities; and,
WHEREAS, Kenai Peninsula Borough Ordinance 2021-40, which has been introduced and is
scheduled to be heard on December 7, 2021, would re-establish the number of Borough planning
commissioners at 13; and,
WHEREAS, the Ordinance would also establish a designated seat for the cities of Homer, Kenai,
Soldotna, Seward, and Seldovia and require that the individual appointed to that seat be a resident
of the respective city; and,
WHEREAS, the Ordinance further clarifies that the city resident serving on a planning
commissioner city seat shall be selected by the Borough Mayor from a list of recommendations
submitted by the city council that consists of at least one applicant; and,
WHEREAS, current Borough policy requires that each Council provide a list of recommendations
with more than one applicant, limiting the ability of the respective Council to comply with the policy
in instances where only one applicant applies for a city seat; and,
WHEREAS, that same policy does not require that an individual that is appointed to a City seat
be a resident of the respective City; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai has the largest population of any city in the Borough, with a
population of 7,424, or approximately 12% of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, according to the 2020
Census data; and,
WHEREAS, membership on the Borough’s Planning Commission allows the City to provide input
and weigh in on important development and economic activities that affect the City; and,
Page 35
Resolution No. 2021-65
Page 2 of 2
_____________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, specific representation on the Borough’s Planning Commission for municipalities and
population centers is critical as evidenced by the Alaska Statute 29.40.020 which sets out a
specific apportionment for home rule and first class cities located in the borough; and,
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the residents of the City of Kenai to be served by
representation on the Borough’s Planning Commission as well as the residents of our neighboring
home rule and first class cities within the Borough by re-establishing the number of Borough
planning commissioners to 13 and reinstituting City seats.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA:
Section 1. The Council supports Kenai Peninsula Borough Ordinance 2021-40 as introduced
and recommends the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly reestablish designated seats for the
cities of Homer, Kenai, Soldotna, Seward, and Seldovia, and clarify that a planning commissioner
serving on a city seat must be a city resident, and a list have at least one name.
Section 2. That a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the Kenai Peninsula Borough
Assembly and Mayor Pierce.
Section 3. That this resolution takes effect immediately upon passage.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 3rd day of November, 2021.
__________________________________
BRIAN GABRIEL, SR., MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jamie Heinz, MMC, City Clerk
Page 36
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Gabriel and Council Members
FROM: Council Member Jim Glendening
DATE: October 25, 2021
SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-65 – Supporting Kenai Peninsula Borough Ordinance
2021-40, Amending KPB 2.40.015 Regarding Planning Commission
Membership and Apportionment
The Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly will be considering Ordinance 2021-40, Amending KPB
2.40.015 regarding Planning Commission Membership and Apportionment at its December 7,
2021 meeting. This Ordinance re-establishes city seats, including the City of Kenai, on the
Borough Planning Commission, which were reduced by Kenai Peninsula Borough Ordinance
2016-25 Substitute.
Since the enactment of Ordinance 2016-25, which was opposed by the City of Kenai at
introduction, the five home rule and first class cities of the Borough, including Homer, Kenai,
Soldotna, Seward, and Seldovia have shared four city seats by rotation. Kenai Peninsula
Borough Code does not provide clarity as to how these seats would be distributed; however, the
current policy of rotation means that at all times, one of these cities will not have representation
on the Borough’s Planning Commission for matters of importance to that city.
As the city with the largest population in the Borough, it is important that the City of Kenai has
representation on the Borough’s Planning Commission and not be required to share a rotating
seat. Re-establishing the city seat lost by the enactment of Ordinance 2016-25 Substitute by re-
establishing these seats and clarifying that the commissioner serving on a city seat must be a city
resident, and a list have at least one name is in the best interests of residents of Kenai as well as
the greater Kenai community.
Your consideration is appreciated.
Page 37
Introduced by:
Date :
Hearing:
Action :
Vote:
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH
ORDINANCE 2021-40
Cox, Chesley
] 0/26121
12/07121
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING KPB 2.40.015 REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERSIDP AND APPORTIONMENT
WHEREAS, Ordinance 2016·25 (Mayor) Substitute reduced the planning comm1ss1on
membership from 13 members to 11 members, but did not specify how city seats
would be distributed; and
WHEREAS, AS 29 .40. 020( a) requires that planning commission membership be apportioned so
that the number of members from home rule and first class cities reflects the
proportion of borough population residing in home rule and first class cities located
in the borough; and
WHEREAS, based on curren t census information the required apportionment ratio for an 11
member planning commission would be 7 at· large seats and 4 city seats; and
WHEREAS, there are five incorporated first class or home rule c ities wi~in the borough; and
WHEREAS, current code does not identify specific c ity seats or how they would equitably rotate
each year and term; and
WHEREAS, Kenai Peninsula Borough cities have voiced a preference to continue having each
of their cities represented on the planning commission each year; and
WHEREAS, based on cunent census information the required apportionment ratio, for all 5 cities
to have a seat on the planning commission each year, the planning commission must
be composed of at least 13 members with 8 at-large seats; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of all affected parties that this issue b e resolved and defined
in code by establishing the seats apportionments that work for all parties while
remaining in compliance with state statute; and
WHEREAS, clarity of code is of the utmost importance; and
WHEREAS, the assembly, as the legislative branch of the borough, has the responsibility to
define and clarify any portions of KPB code that may come under scrutiny due to
opposing interpretations or views as to its meaning; and
Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED) Ordinance 2021-40
Page 1 of4
Page 38
WHEREAS, borough code is wiclear as to whether or not borough residents who live outside a
first class or home rule city's boundaries are eligible to serve as a planning
commissioner in a city seat; and
WHEREAS, all members are subject to appointment by the mayor and confirmation by the
assembly, provided that members serving on city seats must be selected by the
mayor from a list of recommendations submitted by the city council; and
WHEREAS, borough code and state law are unclear as to whether or not the required list of
recommendations from a city council for their respective commission seat must
include more than one recommended applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission at its regularly scheduled
meeting of , 2021 recommended _____ _
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI
PENINSULA BOROUGH:
SECTION 1. That KPB 2.40.015 is hereby amended as follows:
2.40.015. Membership-Apportionment.
In accordance with AS 29 .40.020(a):
A. The planning commission shall consist of a maxi.mum of [ELEVEN] thirteen
members. Commission membership shall be apportioned so that the number
of members from home rule and first class cities reflects the proportion of
borough population residing in home rule and first class cities located in the
borough. No more than one member of the commission may be from any
single home rule or first class city in the borough unless more are required
to satisfy the statutory apportionment · requirement.
B. City Seats. A city resident [MEMBER] serving on a planning commissioner
city seat shall be selected by the mayor from a list of recommendations
submitted by the council. The list will consist of at least one a pplicant from
the res pective city whose city seat is vacant or expiring [OF ANY CITIES FROM
WHICH NO MEMBER WILL BE ON THE COMMISSJON WHEN THE VACANCY IS
EFFECTIVE, UNLESS APPORTIONMENT REQUIRES MORE THAN ONE MEMBER
FROM A CITY. IN TIIAT EVENT ALL ELIGIBLE CITY COUNCILS lvlAY SUBMIT A
LIST OF RECOlvlMENDATIONS FOR TIIE ADDITIONAL SEAT PROVIDED THAT NO
CTIY MAY HA VE GREATER THAN ONE MEMBER MORE THAN ANY OTIIBR HOME
RULE OR FCRST CLASS ClTY.] Appointments shall be subject to confirmation
by the assembly. The city seats are as follows:
Ordinance 2021-40 New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED) Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska
Page 2 of 4
Page 39
1. Homer;
2. Kenai;
3. Seldovia;
4. Seward; and
5. Soldotna.
[BJ C. At-Large Seats. Planning commissioners residing [FROM] outside of first
class and home rule cities shall be appointed at-large by the mayor and
confirmed by the assembly and may be as representative of the following
geographic areas as practical:
1. East Peninsula;
2. Southwest Borough;
3. Anchor Point/Ninilchi.k[/CLAM GUL TCH/KASILOF];
4. Clam Gulch/Kasilof:
5.(4.) Kalifornsky Beach;
§J5.] Ridgeway;
7.[6.] Sterling;
8.[7.] Northwest Borough.
[THE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS REFERENCED IN IBIS SECTION ARE DEPICTED IN
THE MAP ON FILE AT THE BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE BEARING Tiffi BOROUGH
SEAL AND IDENTIFIED AS THE PLANNING APPORTIONMENT MAP APPROVED IN
ORDINANCE 2001-29.]
[C] D. All planning commission members shall be appointed for their expertise and
knowledge of the community and shall represent the entire borough.
SECTION 2. This ordinance becomes effective immediately upon enactment.
Kenai Peninsula Borough. Alaska New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] Ordinance 2021-40
Page 3 of4
Page 40
ENACTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH THlS *DAY
OF * 2021.
, Assembly President
ATTEST:
Johni Blankenship, :M:MC, Borough Clerk
Yes:
No:
Absent:
Ordinance 2021-40 New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED) Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska
Page4 of4
Page 41
DocuSign Envelope ID: 313C4FCE-D7C2-40E9-A2A5-BC4F2EBC92F5
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Assembly
MEMORANDUM
TO: Assembly President
Members, Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly
FROM: Tyson Cox, Assembly Member jt,
Lane Chesley, Assembly Member ll
DATE: October 14, 2021
SUBJECT: Ordinance 2021-40 Amending KPB 2.40.015 Regarding Planning
Commission Membership and A pportionment (Cox, Chesley)
This ordinance amends KPB 2.40.015 to clarify code pertaining to planning
commission membership and apportionment.
The Assembly w ill have three questions to contemplate:
How many city seats should be on the planning commission?
The KPB currently has an eleven-memberplanning commission. There are four
city seats which are subject to an informal rotation between five home rule/first
class cities and seven at-large seats. This aligns with apportionment rules, but
is difficult, if not, impossible to accomplish with five cites rotating four, 3-year
term seats. It is mathematically impossible to create an equitable rotation. This
is most likely why Ordinance 2016 -25 did not specify how city seats would be
distributed:
This ordinance would change the number of p lanning commissioners from
eleven back to thirteen with each of the five home rule or first class cities within
the borough having a seat and eight at-large seats. This change would solve
the rotation dilemma the borough currently has. It would solve any argument
between t he cities and the borough as to which cities are to be left on the
commission and which cities will be required to sit out.
Should cities be required to submit more than one applicant to the KPB Mayor for
selection to the planning commission?
Thi s year the KPB Mayor and legal departme n~ have made it known that they
interpret state statutes and borough code to say that the city-approved list of
recommendations submitted to the mayor should be more than one person.
The city of Soldotna understands the same statutes and code to allow for a list
to consist of only one applicant. Over the past several years most cities have
only subm itted one applicant for their designated planning commission seat,
Page 42
DocuSign Envelope ID: 313C4FCE-07C2-40E9-A2A5-BC4F2EBC92F5
as neither borough code nor state statutes designate the specific number of
applicants required to be considered a list. Several KPB Mayors have
accepted lists with only one city seat applicant. including our current KPB
Mayor.
This ordinance would specify that t he list of recommendatio ns given to the
borough mayor as approved by the city council would consist of at least one
applicant from the respective city. In this case one applicant se ems the best
definition for a list because we o ften have very few people who choose to
apply to serve as a commissioner. If two or more applicants were required, a
process would need to be defined to deal with the situation of a city with only
one applicant willing to serve on the commission .
Should any eligible resident of the borough be allowed to apply for planning
commission city seat or should the applJcant be required to be a resident of that
city?
Recently the KPB Mayor and legal department made it clear that they believe
state law allows for any eligible KPB resident to apply for a planning
commission city seat. The city representatives _and constituents that w e have
spoken with do not feel the same. Many of them disagree with this
interpretation of the law.
This ordinanc e would 'specify that an applica nt for a city seat on the planning
commission would be required to be a resident of the respective city. Defining
who can be seated in a city seat on the planning commission would eliminate
any argument that the apportionment to the unincorporated borough could
be too high to comply with State of Alaska requirements. If city seats were to
be fill ed with residents from outside the cities, the cit ies would b~ inequitably
served on the commission.
Your consideration of this ordinance is appreciated.
Page 43
Sponsored by: Administration
CITY OF KENAI
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-66
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AUTHORIZING A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT WITH DR. ANGUS MCRAE WARREN FOR MEDICAL
DIRECTION AND OVERSITE OF KENAI FIRE DEPARTMENT AND KENAI 911 DISPATCH
CENTER.
WHEREAS, The City of Kenai was notified by its current physician sponsor (Dr. Justin Warix) that
he will be leaving the state at the end of the year and will not be able to complete the current
contract as our Medical Director; and,
WHEREAS, the Fire Department and 911 Dispatch Center are required by 7 AAC 26.620 – 7 AAC
26.690 and 7 AAC 26.26.655 to have oversite by a physician who approves medical operations
performed by its agencies; and,
WHEREAS, Dr. Justin Warix recommended Dr. Angus McRae Warren take over his
responsibilities; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to KMC 7.15.030(a) and 7.15.060(b) the City Manager has waived the
requirement for a competitive purchase requirement for this contract with a total amount of less
than $35,000 as Dr. Warren has provided a proposal that is of no monetary change from the
current contract with Dr. Warix and cannot reasonably be improved upon through a competitive
process when considering the relationship between the physician sponsor and Fire Department
is of a unique nature requiring special compatibility; and,
WHEREAS, sufficient funds have been appropriated into Fire and Dispatch budgets to cover costs
associated with medical sponsorship.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA:
Section 1. The Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract through June 30,
2022 with the option for three one year renewals by mutual consent with Dr. Angus McRae Warren
to provide medical direction and oversite of Kenai Fire Departments Advanced Life Support
Ambulance Service and Kenai 911 Dispatch Centers Emergency Medical Dispatch Program. The
total cost for these 2 programs is $7,000.00 per year with an additional cost of $325.00 for
membership fees for the Association of EMS Physicians and up to $3,500.00 per year of expenses
to attend EMS Medical Director continuing medical education training.
Section 2. That this resolution takes effect immediately upon passage.
Page 44
Resolution No. 2021-66
Page 2 of 2
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 3rd day of November, 2021.
__________________________________
BRIAN GABRIEL, SR., MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jamie Heinz, MMC, City Clerk
Approved by Finance: _________
Page 45
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Gabriel and Council Members
THROUGH: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
FROM: Tony Prior, Fire Chief
DATE: October 26, 2021
SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-66 Professional Service Contract with Dr. Warren
The Fire Department was notified by Dr. Justin Warix, the current Medical Director for the Kenai
Fire Department and Kenai 911 Dispatch Center, that he has been accepted into a fellowship
program for palliative care out of state. We have been extremely happy with the leadership,
training, and oversite that Dr. Warix has provided for our departments since the beginning of 2020.
He has notified us that he will not be able to function as our Medical Director beginning January
1, 2022.
With the assistance of Dr. Warix, we have found another emergency room physician who is willing
and able to take over as Medical Director as is required in State Regulation/Alaska Administrative
Code/Title 7 section 26.620 through 26.690. The Medical Director is responsible for the
development, implementation, and evaluation of standards and guidelines for the provision of
medical direction within the state’s EMS system.
An emergency room physician must work closely with EMS agencies and be familiar with
medications and procedures performed by Paramedics and EMT’s and able to direct protocols
for medications and procedures based on current medical practices. We feel that this is a key
component to providing the best possible treatment to the residents of Kenai and/or anyone
needing medical treatment within our service area. Dr. Angus Warren is willing to take over for
Dr. Warix beginning Jan 1, 2022 at the same cost as we are currently paying for medical direction.
The City currently has within its budget the funds to award this contract and the agreed upon cost
to provide medical direction for KFD and Dispatch is a fair and equitable price which provides a
great service to our departments. I requested a sole-source approval for this contract that was
approved by the City Manager as Dr. Warren was recommended by Dr Warix, Dr. Warren has
provided a price proposal that cannot reasonably be improved upon by a competitive process,
and Dr. Warren is well suited for the unique role and will likely function well with Departments
served.
I respectfully request your approval of this contract.
Page 46
Professional Services Contract | 1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
FOR PHYSICIAN SPONSOR OVERSIGHT OF KENAI FIRE DEPARTMENT AND
911 DISPATCH EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE
PART I: PARTIES
This contract is between the City of Kenai, Alaska, a municipal corporation in the State of Alaska,
hereafter “City” or “COK” and Dr. Angus McRae Warren, MD, licensed as a physician in the State
of Alaska, License number 6170, hereafter “Contractor” or “Medical Director”
PART II: CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
All communications concerning this contract shall be directed as follows, any reliance on a
communications with a person other than that listed below is at the party’s own risk.
City: Contractor:
Attn: Kenai Fire Chief Attn: Angus Warren, MD
City of Kenai Fire Department PO Box 117
105 S Willow St Kasilof, Alaska 99610
Kenai, Alaska 99611 (907) 398-2201
Phone: (907) 283-7666
PART III: CONTRACT DESCRIPTION
This contract is a Professional Service Contract for Physician Sponsor Oversight of Emergency
Medical Care for the Kenai Fire Department and 911 Dispatch.
PART IV: SCOPE OF WORK
A. Contractor shall carry out in a professional and prudent manner all of the services required
by this Contract. Contractor agrees to provide all services in a timely and responsible
manner. Contractor agrees to fulfill the Medical Director responsibilities set out in 7 AAC
26.620 – 7 AAC 26.690, and to provide the following services:
1. Oversight of all emergency medical care provided by Emergency Medical Technicians
(EMT’s) and Paramedics employed by the City of Kenai and working as a registered
member of City of Kenai Fire Department with the State EMS Unit.
2. Approval of continuing medical education program for each sponsored EMT holding a
current State of Alaska EMT Certification, as well as each Paramedic holding a State
of Alaska MICP License and National Registry Paramedic License.
3. Approval of Expanded Scope Medications, Procedures, and Training Program to
implement Expanded Scope of Care for EMT’s. The Medical Director will work
directly with the City of Kenai Fire Department (KFD) Training Officer to formalize a
training plan that will be submitted to the State of Alaska EMS Unit for approval.
4. Quality assurance will be accomplished through evaluation of written medical incident
reports. Initial review of all medical reports will be conducted by Peer Review from
City of KFD members. The Medical Director will review incident reports and select
significant reports for review at quarterly run-review training with department
members.
Page 47
Professional Services Contract | 2
5. The Medical Director must approve any new medical device, techniques or educational
programs before they are used and/or placed into service, and shall provide KFD with
his/her review within a reasonable time frame.
6. The Medical Director will be the communications liaison between COK and Central
Peninsula General Hospitals Emergency Room Physicians.
7. The Medical Director shall provide quarterly run-reviews, of which, two shall include
review of medical skills verification and training at KFD or at Kenai Peninsula College
Paramedic Lab. KFD Training Office will be responsible for coordinating and
scheduling dates and venues for training and run reviews. Run reviews shall be no less
than 2 hours of review and training per session.
B. Contractor shall also function as the Medical Director for City of Kenai 911 Dispatch and
will provide all services required of a Medical Director by 7 AAC 26.655, and provide the
following services.
1. Approval and oversite of IAED priority dispatch system for use by Emergency Medical
Dispatchers (EMD’s).
2. Provide indirect supervision of medical triage decisions and treatment instructions
provided by EMD’s.
3. Periodically review on at least an annual basis, a sample of medical triage decisions
and treatment instructions provided by EMD’s to callers.
C. COK, by and through the KFD, agrees to the following:
1. COK will be responsible for the premium cost of medical malpractice insurance for a
Sponsoring Physician Program, including training and EMS Medical Direction CME.
Beginning January 1, 2022, KFD will reimburse the Medical Director for registration,
airfare, lodging, per diem, and transportation to annual NAEMSP meetings and State
of Alaska Annual Statewide EMS training, not to exceed $3500.00 per year.
2. KFD will pay the Contractor’s membership fees for the Association of EMS Physicians
in an amount not to exceed $325.00 per year.
3. KFD Training Officer will be responsible for scheduling dates of training as well as
scheduling venues for training to accomplish the goals and requirements of the medical
education program. This includes: EMT Refreshers, Paramedic Refreshers, ACLS and
PALS training, Expanded Scope training and BLS training.
4. KFD will provide the Medical Director with limited clerical support, including: light
typing, photocopying, and AV equipment set-up.
PART V: TERM
The commencement date of this contract is effective as of January 1, 2022 and shall terminate on
June 30, 2022 unless the City exercises option to renew. COK and Contractor may opt to renew
this contract for up to three one-year terms. Should the COK and Contractor elect to renew, the
contract terms shall remain unchanged absent written agreement to do otherwise signed by both
parties. Should the COK choose to exercise its option to renew, it will give the Contractor notice,
in writing, no less than 30 days prior to the end of the existing contract’s termination date. If no
notice is given and contract is not otherwise terminated contract shall proceed on month to month
term.
PART VI: COMPENSATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT
Page 48
Professional Services Contract | 3
COK agrees to pay Contractor the total amount of $6,000.00 per year for work provided as
Physician Sponsor of City of Kenai Fire Department. In addition, COK agrees to pay Contractor
the total amount of $1000.00 per year for work provided as Physician Sponsor of City of Kenai
911 Dispatch Center. Total annual cost equal to $7,000.00 in equal installments of $583.33 per
month starting on January 1, 2022. The first term of this contract from January 1, 2022 through
June 30, 2022 shall be prorated to $3,500.
PART VII: CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP
The parties intend that an independent Contractor relationship is created by this contract. COK is
interested only in results to be achieved as provided in this contract. The conduct and control of
the work will lie solely with the Contractor. Contractor is not considered to be an agent or
employee of COK for any purpose, and the employees of Contractor are not entitled to any benefits
that the COK provides for the City’s employees. COK does not agree to use the Contractor
exclusively. Contractor does not agree to work for the City exclusively.
PART VIII: PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
A. Except as noted otherwise in this contract, Contractor represents that he/she has or will
secure at their own expense, personnel, equipment, and supplies required in performing the
services described in this contract.
B. All of the services required hereunder by Contractor will be performed by Contractor.
C. None of the work or services covered by this Contract shall be subcontracted without prior
written approval of COK.
D. Contractor is to be considered a Business Associate for the purpose of compliance with
Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and will conform to all
requirements of said act in the performance of services required by this contract.
PART IX: CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS
Contractor warrants that he/she is fully qualified and is licensed under all applicable local, state,
and federal laws to perform his/her obligations under this contract. Contractor warrants that he/she
is and will remain while providing services hereunder, fully licensed as a physician under all
applicable local, state, and federal laws.
PART X: CHANGES
The COK may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of services to be performed under
this contract. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of the Contractor’s
compensation, must be mutually agreed upon in writing before they will be regarded as part of this
contract. No claim for additional services, not specifically provided in this contract, performed or
furnished by the Contractor, will be allowed, nor may the Contractor do any work or furnish any
material not covered by the contract, unless the work or material is ordered in writing by the COK.
PART XI: NO ASSIGNMENT OR DELEGATION
The Contractor may not assign or delegate any interest in this contract without the prior written
consent of the COK. Contractor may assign his/her rights to any payment under this contract
without prior written consent of COK; however, notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be
furnished promptly to the COK by Contractor.
Page 49
Professional Services Contract | 4
PART XII: TERMINATION
The COK may by prior written notice, terminate this agreement at any time, in whole or in part,
when it is in the best interest of the COK. In the event that this contract is terminated by the COK
for convenience, by mutual agreement of parties, or by default of a material condition, the COK is
liable only for payment in accordance with this agreement for work accomplished prior to the
effective date of termination.
PART XIII: RECORDS RETENTION
The COK requires and maintains a records retention policy to comply with state and federal laws.
The Contractor shall maintain records and provide in a reasonable time, records and financial
documents relating to the performance of this contract for a minimum period of 7 years, or the
resolution of any audit findings, claims or litigation related to this contract necessitating a longer
period.
PART XIV: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because
of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, changes in marital status,
pregnancy or parenthood. Contractor shall include these provisions in any agreement relating to
the work performed under the agreement with contractors or subcontractors.
PART XV: COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Contractor shall, at Contractors sole cost and expense, comply with all applicable requirements of
federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations now in force, including safety,
environmental, immigration, and security enactments, or which may be subsequently enacted, and
must obtain all required licenses, permits, and registrations regulating the conduct of business with
the State of Alaska and the City under this contract.
PART XVI: CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Contractor warrants that no employee or officer of the COK has violated the conflict of interest
provisions of COK Code or Ordinance regarding this contract. Contractor also warrants that it has
not solicited or received any prohibited action, favor or benefit from any employee or office of the
City, and that it will not do so as a condition of this contract. If the Contractor learns of any such
conflict of interest, the Contractor shall without delay, inform the COK Attorney or City’s
representative for this contract.
PART XVII: INDEMNIFICATION
Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless COK, its employees, consultants, and
insurers, with respect to any action, claim, or lawsuit arising out of the Contractor’s performance
of this contract, without limitation as to the amount of fees, and without limitation as to any
damages resulting from settlement, judgement, or verdict, and includes the award of any attorney
fees even if in excess of Alaska Civil Rule 82. This indemnification agreement applies to the fullest
extent permitted by law and is in full force and effect whenever and wherever any action, claim,
or lawsuit is initiated, filed, or otherwise brought against COK relating to this contract. The
obligations of Contractor arise immediately upon actual or constructive notice of any action, claim,
or lawsuit. COK shall notify Contractor in a timely manner of the need for indemnification, but
Page 50
Professional Services Contract | 5
such notice is not a condition precedent to Contractor’s obligations and may be waived where the
Contractor has actual notice.
PART XVIII: OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENT
All designs, drawings, specifications, notes, artwork, and other work developed in the performance
of this contract become the sole property of the COK and may be used by the COK for any other
purpose without additional compensation to the Contractor. The Contractor agrees not to assert
any rights and not to establish any claim under the design patent or copyright laws for documents
and procedures established in the performance of this contract. The Contractor, for the period of 5
years after final payment under this contract, agrees to furnish and provide access to all retained
materials at the request of the COK. Unless otherwise directed by the COK, the Contractor may
retain copies of all the materials.
PART XIX: IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS
All reports, maps, and other documents completed as a part of this contract, other than documents
exclusively for internal use within the COK, shall carry a COK or KFD notation or logo as directed
by the COK.
PART XX: CHOICE OF LAW; VENUE
This contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Alaska. Venue shall be in the State of
Alaska, Third Judicial District in Kenai.
PART XXI: CONTRACT EXECUTION
Contractor and City represent that the person signing below on each parties respective behalf have
the authority to do so and that it is a valid and binding contract enforced in accordance with its
terms.
City: Contractor:
Date: _______________________ Date: ________________________
By: _______________________ By: ________________________
Paul Ostrander, City Manager Angus McRae Warren, MD
Content Approved by: ___________________________, Fire Department
Content Approved by: ___________________________, Police Chief
Form Approved by: _____________________________, City Attorney
Page 51
Sponsored by: Administration
CITY OF KENAI
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-67
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AWARDING AN
AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT.
WHEREAS, the City issued a formal Invitation to Bid for FY22 Dell Equipment Rev 2 on October
6, 2021 with the following Bids received on October 25, 2021,
BIDDERS BASE BID TOTAL
Hypertec Direct $56,301.93
Zones LLC $54,021.17
Insight $61,622.00
CDWG $56,134.85
; and,
WHEREAS, Zones LLC was found to be the lowest responsive bidder; and,
WHEREAS, the recommendation from City Administration is to award an Agreement to Zones
LLC for $54,021.17; and,
WHEREAS, purchase includes Dell Computers, Monitors, and Laptops; and,
WHEREAS, sufficient funds have been appropriated for this purchase.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA:
Section 1. The Council authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement for the project
entitled "FY22 Dell Equipment" with Zones LLC for the total cost of $54,021.17.
Section 2. That this resolution takes effect immediately upon passage.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 3rd day of November, 2021.
__________________________________
BRIAN GABRIEL, SR., MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jamie Heinz, MMC, City Clerk
Approved by Finance: _________
Page 52
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Brian Gabriel and Kenai City Council
THROUGH: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
THROUGH: Terry Eubank, Finance Director
FROM: Dan Castimore, IT Manager
DATE: October 26, 2021
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2021-67
The purpose of this memo is to recommend awarding an agreement to Zones LLC for the
purchase of Dell computer equipment.
The City advertised for bids through the Anchorage Daily News and Peninsula Clarion, as well as
on the City website. The following bids were opened on October 25, 2021.
BIDDERS BASE BID TOTAL
Hypertec Direct $56,301.93
Zones LLC $54,021.17
Insight $61,622.00
CDWG $56,134.85
The purchase includes computers, laptops, and monitors.
Each year funds are budgeted to replace computers on a five-year rotation. This purchase
represents the equipment that is scheduled to be replaced in FY22.
Council's approval is respectfully requested.
Page 53
KENAI CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 11, 2021 – 5:00 P.M.
KENAI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND VISITOR CENTER
11417 KENAI SPUR HIGHWAY, KENAI, AK 99611
MAYOR GABRIEL, PRESIDING
NOTES
Council present: B. Gabriel, H. Knackstedt, B. Molloy, T. Winger, J. Glendening, G. Pettey, V. Askin Airport Commission Present: P. Minelga, J. Zirul Harbor Commission Present: M. Dunn, B. Peters, D. Peck Planning and Zoning J. Twait, G. Woodard, G. Greenberg, A. Douthit Commission Present: Parks and Recreation Commission Present: J. Dennis, S. Kisena, M. Bernard, J. Joanis, D. Rigall, Others present: City Manager P. Ostrander, Assistant to the City Manager C. Cunningham, City Clerk J. Heinz, Planning Director R. Foster, Public Works Director S. Curtin, Parks and Recreation Director B. Frates, Airport Manager E. Conway, Parks and Recreation Administrative Assistant T. Best, City Council Member Elect J. Baisden, City Council Member Elect D. Sounart A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Gabriel called the work session to order at 5:00 p.m. B. Introduction and Presentation of Land Management Plan – City Manager City Manager P. Ostrander introduced the draft Land Management Plan (LMP) noting the purpose of the meeting is to explain how the plan was put together, and what the next steps will be over the next few months. The reason for creating the plan was because the City was looking to evaluate and develop recommendations for City-owned lands that encourage responsible growth and development for the community. He provided a background on the City’s acquisition, use, and management of lands, and noted that three years ago the City Council directed Administration to take a City-wide approach to land management which led to the current draft LMP. He highlighted the City Lands Inventory and Database, noting it would result in an improved response to the public when providing information about City-owned lands. He reviewed how the Plan will provide recommendations for lands based on the categories Retain, Dispose, Dispose (lease only) and Mixed (Retain/Dispose). He discussed a timeline for review, additional meetings, and final council adoption.
Page 54
City of Kenai Council Joint Work Session Page 2 of 4 October 11, 2021
He provided a tour of the online GIS mapping developed by Gary Greenberg, showing layers highlighting all municipal lands, lands recommended for sale or lease, and lands recommended for retention. He also showed a filter feature which allowed toggling lands for disposal, lands for leasing, etc. It was noted that revisions and recommendations would be taking place over the next few months through commissions and Council work sessions. He noted that comments could be submitted via an online or paper comment form distributed at the meeting, and all comments would be captured in a document which would include the commenter’s name, comment, and map the comment refers to. If the comment is incorporated into the final plan, the original comment will be referenced. C. Public Comment
Council Member Pettey asked about the acreage of the City and how much is privately held. Council Member Knackstedt asked how the document would be updated as a living document, and was clarified that the Planning Department would be responsible for updating the plan. Updates would be accomplished through the GIS database, and written plan updates would be done through regular sequence. Planning & Zoning Commission Chair Twait asked if it was possible right now for people to purchase a piece of property, and it was clarified that this can be accomplished immediately and this was a tool for management moving forward. Harbor Commission Chair Mike Dunn asked when the GIS would be available for the public, and it was noted that Administration hoped to bring the tool online as soon as possible. Planning & Zoning Commissioner Alex Douthit asked if lots would be assessed only by the Borough or if there would also be independent appraisal. It was clarified that current assessment information was from the Borough, but that some small amount of properties might be appraised separately. Mayor Gabriel asked whether legislation would be required to deem some properties for a public purpose. It was clarified that those lands are assumed needed for a public purpose, and legislation would deem them not for a public purpose. Council Member Elect Baisden asked whether Administration would be making changes based on submitted comments or if Council would make those decisions. He also asked if the City is going to be doing auctions for the land. It was clarified that Administration may be making changes to correct inaccuracies or include additional information, but recommendations from commissions or public would be brought to Council for approval. Baisden noted that sales of City lands can evoke an emotional response from residents. Clarification was provided that Title 21 and 22 require development and for the City to sell property. Mayor Gabriel asked regarding lands with retain/disposal recommendations if subdivisions needed to take place beforehand, or at the time a developer is interested. City Manager Ostrander noted it was part of the implementation plan, and would also depend on what Council wanted.
Page 55
City of Kenai Council Joint Work Session Page 3 of 4 October 11, 2021
Council Member Askin asked how difficult it would be to change the zoning of a parcel that was designated Municipal Use, and referred to a parcel in the presentation. It was noted that Administration would have to work with the State to change this. Planning & Zoning Commissioner Alex Douthit asked if there was a standard process for land sales, and asked about buyers obtaining their own appraised value. It was clarified that per Kenai Municipal Code, an appraisal is required before sale. Mayor Gabriel thanked City Manager Ostrander for the work he and his staff put into this, and that Kenai’s lands are one of our largest assets that could be better utilized and this is an excellent start. D. Council Discussion and Comments Council Member Pettey thanked Administration and Council for authorizing the implementation of this plan, and was looking forward to receiving input from the commissions. Council Member Askin also thanked Administration, expressed appreciation for the tool, and thanked Greenberg for his work on it. She stated that she is excited to how the program go live online for the public, noting that this will be good for the City. Council Member Knackstedt noted that Administration did a great job on the document, that it was easy to follow and well organized. He thanked Greenberg for his work on the GIS mapping. Vice Mayor Molloy thanked Administration, Greenberg, and everyone who put together the Plan, noting that it was comprehensive and detailed. He made a recommendation to divide the document into smaller chunks to make smaller digital file. He noted that he agreed with Baisden that land use one of the most contentious issues that Council deals with. He stated the timeline was pretty tight and goes over the holidays, and that it would be very important to get the engagement and input from the public. He commented that it seems that there is a lot of land with a “dispose” recommendation which would lead to misunderstanding that the City is up for sale, and agreed with Commissioner Douthit regarding land values. He noted that some changes may take a while, especially those which involve the State. He noted that the Plan does not discuss potential acquisitions of land, and is also missing discussion on reviewing and evaluating future needs of the City. Council Member Winger thanked Administration for their work, stating that this is a good starting point for drawing business. She noted that she agreed with Vice Mayor Molloy that if the City if wants the most input from the community, holiday time may not work well for people and the timeline could be adjusted. Council Member Glendening thanked Administration and agreed that holidays are not a good time for work sessions. He noted that he would like to see a zoning map and a land use table included. He noted he was unclear on how the value of the land is determined, and clarification was provided that Kenai Municipal Code required an appraisal to determine fair market value, and that the applicant pays for appraisal and would be credited back after sale. Mayor Gabriel thanked those for attending and noted there would be more opportunities for the commissions and public to flesh out this plan. He noted that the City has a good inventory and documentation of its lands, and this will be a good foundation moving forward. Thanked
Page 56
City of Kenai Council Joint Work Session Page 4 of 4 October 11, 2021
City Manager Ostrander and Gary Greenberg. He reminded Commissioners that they can reach out to Administration. E. Adjournment The work session adjourned at 5:53 p.m. Notes were prepared by: _______________________________ Jamie Heinz, MMC City Clerk
Page 57
City of Kenai Council Meeting Page 1 of 14
October 20, 2021
KENAI CITY COUNCIL – REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 2021 – 6:00 P.M.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
210 FIDALGO AVE., KENAI, AK 99611
VICE MAYOR ROBERT MOLLOY, PRESIDING
MINUTES
A. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Kenai City Council was held on October 6, 2021, in City Hall Council
Chambers, Kenai, AK. Vice Mayor Molloy called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Gabriel led those assembled in the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Roll Call
There were present:
Brian Gabriel, Mayor (virtual) Robert Molloy
Henry Knackstedt Teea Winger
Jim Glendening Glenese Pettey
Victoria Askin
A quorum was present.
Also in attendance were:
**Aleea Faulkner, Student Representative
Paul Ostrander, City Manager
Scott Bloom, City Attorney
Jamie Heinz, City Clerk
Meghan Thibodeau, Deputy Clerk
3. Certification of the October 5, 2021 Election Results
The City Clerk read the results of the October 5, 2021 election as follows:
Candidate Poll Votes Received Absentee, Etc., Votes
Received
Total Votes
Received
Duffield, James “Jim” 47 16 63
Douthit, Alexander 203 73 276
Baisden, James 279 47 326
Sounart, Deborah 302 40 342
Askin, Victoria 233 79 312
Write-Ins 14 3 17
Page 58
City of Kenai Council Meeting Page 2 of 14
October 20, 2021
Absentee (in-person, by-fax/email, personal needs, by-mail)
and Questioned Ballots Voted
152
Absentee/Questioned Ballots Rejected 9
Absentee/Questioned Ballots Counted 143
Poll Voter Turn Out 619 / 9.87 %
Total Voter Turn Out 762 / 12.15 %
MOTION:
Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to certify the election results of October 5, 2021 as presented
and Teea Winger SECONDED the motion.
VOTE:
YEA: Glendening, Molloy, Pettey, Winger, Askin, Knackstedt, Gabriel
NAY:
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
4. Agenda Approval
MOTION:
Vice Mayor Molloy noted the following additions to the packet:
Add to item D.4. Ordinance No. 3251-2021
• Supplemental Memo
Add to item G.7. Discussion of Kenai Dog Park
• Supplemental Memo
Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to approve the agenda with the requested revisions and
requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Council Member Pettey SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: There being no objection; SO ORDERED.
5. Oath of Office for Student Representative, Aleea Faulkner
Vice Mayor Molloy administered the Oath of Office to Student Representative, Aleea Faulkner.
6. Consent Agenda
MOTION:
Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to approve the consent agenda and requested UNANIMOUS
CONSENT. Council Member Askin SECONDED the motion.
The items on the Consent Agenda were read into the record.
Page 59
City of Kenai Council Meeting Page 3 of 14
October 20, 2021
Vice Mayor Molloy opened the floor for public comment; there being no one wishing to be heard,
the public comment period was closed.
Sharon Efta asked for clarification on why the Council certified the election if the Canvass Board
certified the election. Clarification was provided that the Council was the judge of the elections and
Ms. Efta was assured the municipal code was being followed.
Buck Steiner spoke in favor of the onsite maintenance manager at Vintage Pointe.
VOTE: There being no objections, SO ORDERED.
*All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by
the council and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a council member so requests, in which case the item will be removed
from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part
of the General Orders.
B. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS – None.
C. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
Garret Ennis discussed ongoing rallies for medical liberty and freedom. Provided an overview of
the reason for the rallies and provided a copy of an essay titled, “not yours to give” and also a
declaration of medical liberty. Also supported newly elected Council Members and current Council
Members. Encouraged acting to prevent mandates coming down.
Queen Aleta Parker quoted the constitution and spoke against government intervention in medical
choice.
Jason Floyd spoke about the rally he attended; expressed appreciation for no mask mandates and
that Kenai and its buildings were open. He referred to the bible and that the love of money is a
root of all evil and noting that there was an open tap of federal money coming into our community
to influence government and coerce the people to do things with their bodies. Mr. Floyd pointed
out he has been watching Council’s decisions with government funds and cautioned Council
against using their positions to presume they have knowledge outside of the public’s.
Christine Hutchison expressed concern that the public does not hear from anyone about
preventative medicine and noted that she wants doctors and pharmacists to be able to prescribe
and distribute ivermectin to patients in and out of the hospital adding that she understood that
Council didn’t have that power but wanted the message out there.
April Orth spoke about her personal experience having COVID, provided some resources for
acquiring treatment such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Her biggest suggestion was if
you thought you were getting sick get to a front line doctor, be in contact with one of them so you
don’t have to go to the hospital.
Ann Hoffman encouraged the Student Council Representative to do research and reach out to
other students about health alternatives.
Page 60
City of Kenai Council Meeting Page 4 of 14
October 20, 2021
Carol Freas congratulated Mr. Molloy on 16 years on the City Council; thanked him for his
dedication to community, citizens, and staff. She also thanked Bob Frates for his many years of
service to City.
James Baisden thanked Carol Freas for bringing up the work that Mr. Molloy has done for the city
and echoed the gratitude to both Mr. Molloy and also Ms. Askin. Thanked those that testified this
evening noting he has been very outspoken about mandates; will be a voice against mandates.
Mr. Baisden also noted the experience he and his family had with COVID and seeking treatments
and medicine.
Kristine Schmidt thanked Council and Administration for all the help they have given Bob over his
16 years on the Council. Ms. Schmidt also thanked the Fire Department for their work so she,
Bob, and the community could get vaccinated as quickly as they could.
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Ordinance No. 3248-2021 - Accepting and Appropriating a Collection Equity Award
from the Network of the National Library of Medicine Region 5 for the Purchase of
Health and Wellness Titles for the Kenai Community Library Collection.
(Administration)
MOTION:
Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to enact Ordinance No. 3248-2021 and Council Member
Pettey SECONDED the motion.
Vice Mayor Molloy opened the floor for public comment.
Sharon Efta asked for and was provided clarification on the materials the library intended to
purchase with the grant which included topics such as stress relief, self-care, mental health,
healthy habits, living with a chronic disease, caregiver support, books about Medicare and
Medicaid, health literacy books, cancer, ADHD, and women’s and men’s health titles. Ms. Efta
encouraged the Council to look at titles before rubber stamping an approval.
Dave Peck noted an email from the Library Director to Council Member Askin listing subjects of
books noting the topics were fine but that his issue was with the grant being a health equity grant
pointing out that in the whereas clauses there was mention of underrepresented groups. Mr. Peck
wanted to know who was underrepresented and wondered what the grant required other than
purchasing materials; noted his main issue is with the word equity as it created division instead of
unity. Mr. Peck also wondered if the grant was enhancing a federal agenda or requirements
attached to the money which would not necessarily represent the views of the people of Kenai or
the Council.
Christine Hutchison suggested there was government overreach related to money into states and
cities. She also suggested cut backs were needed, there were plenty of books on these subjects
already in the library; asked Council to reject the ordinance and federal money.
There being no one else wishing to be heard, the public comment period was closed.
Clarification was provided that the final report was due in May 2022; wanted to purchase the books
in the end of November.
Page 61
City of Kenai Council Meeting Page 5 of 14
October 20, 2021
It was noted that the funds replenish certain topics of books in the library. Reference was made
to the banned books that libraries have available and a word of caution was provided noting
rejection of a title due to a perception was a slippery slope.
MOTION:
Council Member Glendening MOVED to postpone to the first meeting in December to give more
time to get information requested by the public and Council Member Knackstedt SECONDED the
motion.
Administration asked for clarification on what information was being requested; titles or an
expansion on the topics; able to provide an expanded understanding of what is going to be
purchased.
The Library Director noted a sample of titles could be provided within the timeframe.
Clarification was provided that the Library Director has a $59,000 budget for purchasing books at
her discretion and that the library staff is always looking at titles to weed out or replace or expand
with new titles to meet the needs of the residents; ways to supplement the purchasing power are
also always looked for
It was suggested that if constituents come to Council Members with concerns of specific book
titles, it was the Council’s job and obligation to look into it. The library director was thanked for
applying for the grant. Concern was expressed with the Network of National Library of Medicine
noting the content they provide was not items the library would be carrying.
Clarification was provided that the Library Director was not restricted by the grant to specific titles
or subjects. Ensuring that books representing different points of view and not censoring
information and protecting freedom of speech and freedom of access was very important and how
rejection of specifics could jeopardize freedom of speech, access, and being censored. Agreed to
postponement so more information could come forward.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT was requested.
VOTE: There being no objections, SO ORDERED.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. Ordinance No. 3249-2021 - Accepting and Appropriating Funding from the American
Library Association for the Kenai Community Library’s Participation in the NASA@
My Library Programming Initiative. (Administration)
MOTION:
Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to enact Ordinance No. 3249-2021 and Council Member
Glendening SECONDED the motion.
Vice Mayor Molloy opened the floor for public comment; there being no one wishing to be heard,
the public comment period was closed.
Page 62
City of Kenai Council Meeting Page 6 of 14
October 20, 2021
Clarification was provided that the Challenger Learning Center agreed to be a partner; also
provided that the Library will be getting information out to schools and putting STEM kits together.
VOTE:
YEA: Glendening, Molloy, Pettey, Winger, Knackstedt, Gabriel, Askin
NAY:
**Student Representative Faulkner: YEA
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
3. Ordinance No. 3250-2021 - Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations in
the Vintage Pointe Enterprise Fund and Awarding a Contract for a Resident
Maintenance Manager for the Vintage Pointe, Congregate Housing Facility.
(Administration)
MOTION:
Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to enact Ordinance No. 3250-2021 and Council Member
Askin SECONDED the motion.
Vice Mayor Molloy opened the floor for public comment.
Yente Verg-In spoke in support of the maintenance manager.
Mr. Steiner’s asked that his previous comments from approval of the consent agenda, in support
of the maintenance manager, were applied to this agenda item.
There being no one wishing to be heard, the public comment period was closed.
Clarification was provided that because the maintenance manager is a contractor, a cell phone
stipend is not provided as it would be to an employee.
MOTION TO AMEND:
Mayor Gabriel MOVED to add a new section 2 that reads, “that the City Manager is authorized to
execute a contract for the Resident Maintenance Manager for the Vintage Pointe Congregate
Housing Facility with Sadler Property Management for the remainder of Fiscal year 2022 in the
amount of $55,503 and for Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024 in the amount of $74,004 annually,” and
renumber the remaining sections and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Council Member
Knackstedt SECONDED the motion.
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: There being no objections, SO ORDERED.
The Senior Center Director was thanked for finding and nurturing the maintenance manager
position; the excellent quality of the facilities and the value to the senior community was noted.
Clarification was provided that the RFP solicited a contractor due to the number of apartments and
the average of the tenants living independently. Clarification was also provided that the contractor
would be paying rent in the facility for the first time. Finally, clarification was provided that the
contract was for a three year term with two one year extensions so that administration wasn’t
Page 63
City of Kenai Council Meeting Page 7 of 14
October 20, 2021
coming back to Council annually to approve a purchase order; having an onsite maintenance
manager has saved us from potential damages that happen during non-business hours.
VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED:
YEA: Molloy, Pettey, Winger, Knackstedt, Gabriel, Askin, Glendening
NAY:
**Student Representative Faulkner: YEA
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Ordinance No. 3251-2021 - Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations in
the General Fund, Clerk Department, for Costs in Excess of Budgeted Amounts Due
to the Resignation of the City's Clerk and Onboarding of a New City Clerk. (City
Council)
1. Motion for Introduction
2. Motion for Second Reading (Requires a Unanimous Vote)
3. Motion for Adoption (Requires Five Affirmative Votes)
MOTION FOR INTRODUCTION:
Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to introduce Ordinance No. 3251-2021 and Council Member
Pettey SECONDED the motion. UNANIMOUS CONSENT was requested.
VOTE ON INTRODUCTION: There being no objection; SO ORDERED.
MOTION FOR SECOND READING:
Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to hold a second reading of Ordinance No. 3251-2021.
Council Member Pettey SECONDED the motion and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
VOTE ON SECOND READING: There being no objection; SO ORDERED.
MOTION FOR ENACTMENT:
Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to enact Ordinance No. 3251-2021 and Council Member
Glendening SECONDED the motion.
Vice Mayor Molloy opened the floor for public comment; there being no one wishing to be heard,
the public comment period was closed.
VOTE ON ENACTMENT:
YEA: Pettey, Winger, Knackstedt, Gabriel, Askin, Glendening, Molloy
NAY:
**Student Representative Faulkner: YEA
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. Resolution No. 2021-61 - Opposing the Doyon Coalition Redistricting Map as
Presented. (Council Members Knackstedt and Pettey)
Page 64
City of Kenai Council Meeting Page 8 of 14
October 20, 2021
MOTION:
Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to approve Resolution No. 2021-61 and Council Member
Pettey SECONDED the motion.
Vice Mayor Molloy opened the floor for public comment; there being no one wishing to be heard,
the public comment period was closed.
An affirmative vote was encouraged so our City would not be broken up and reducing confusion.
Vice Mayor Molloy reported that he attended the Redistricting Meeting and, as an individual
member of Council, testified against the Doyon proposal, making it clear that it was not the position
of the entire Council, and that a resolution would be coming forth. He also provided a report of the
testimony at the meeting noting that there wasn’t much favor for the Doyon proposal.
An overview of the specific area being cut out of the map was provided.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT was requested.
VOTE: There being no objection; SO ORDERED.
E. MINUTES
1. *Special Meeting of October 1, 2021. (City Clerk)
Approved by the consent agenda.
2. *Regular Meeting of October 6, 2021. (City Clerk)
Approved by the consent agenda.
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None.
G. NEW BUSINESS
1. *Action/Approval - Bills to be Ratified. (Administration)
Approved by the consent agenda.
2. *Ordinance No. 3252-2021 - Increasing Estimated Revenue and Appropriations in
the Water & Sewer Fund for Operational Costs in Excess of Budgeted Amounts at
the Waste Water Treatment Plant. (Administration)
Introduced by the consent agenda and Public Hearing set for November 3, 2021.
3. *Ordinance No. 3253-2021 - Accepting and Appropriating a Donation from Hilcorp
Energy Company to Assist with the Annual Areawide Senior Thanksgiving Dinner.
(Administration)
Introduced by the consent agenda and Public Hearing set for November 3, 2021.
Page 65
City of Kenai Council Meeting Page 9 of 14
October 20, 2021
4. Action/Approval - Re-appointment of Rachael Craig to Council on Aging. (Mayor
Gabriel)
MOTION:
Council Member Askin MOVED to approve re-appointment of Rachael Craig to Council on Aging.
Council Member Pettey SECONDED the motion and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
VOTE: There being no objection; SO ORDERED.
5. Action/Approval - Approving an Employment Agreement Between the City of Kenai
and City Clerk Michelle Saner. (City Council)
MOTION:
Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to approve an employment agreement between the City of
Kenai and City Clerk Michelle Saner. Council Member Askin SECONDED the motion.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT was requested.
VOTE: There being no objection; SO ORDERED.
6. Action/Approval - Special Use Permit to Alaska Geographic for a Vending Kiosk in
the Airport Terminal. (Administration)
MOTION:
Council Member Winger MOVED to approve a Special Use Permit to Alaska Geographic for a
vending kiosk in the airport terminal. Council Member Knackstedt SECONDED the motion.
Clarification was provided that Kenai National Wildlife Refuge knickknacks would be sold in the
vending kiosk.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT was requested.
VOTE: There being no objection; SO ORDERED.
7. Discussion - Kenai Dog Park.
It was asked if this item could be postponed until members of the group could contribute to the
discussion.
A brief overview of the journey of the Dog Park was provided. Appreciation was expressed for
former Mayor Pat Porter’s fundraising work noting she will likely reach her goal; appreciation was
also expressed for Home Depot for their contributions.
Administration was thanked for the memo in the laydown.
It was decided this item would be on the agenda for the next Council meeting.
Page 66
City of Kenai Council Meeting Page 10 of 14
October 20, 2021
A conflict in the Ordinance No. 3250-2021 and the contract it authorized was noted.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER:
Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to reconsider Ordinance No. 3250-2021 and Council
Member Pettey SECONDED the motion.
VOTE ON RECONSIDERATION:
YEA: Askin, Knackstedt, Gabriel, Winger, Glendening, Molloy, Pettey
NAY:
**Student Representative Faulkner: YEA
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION TO AMEND:
Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to amend Section 2 by inserting the words, “and for 2
successive one-year terms by mutual written consent of owner and contractor,” after the year,
“2024,”mand Council Member Pettey SECONDED the motion.
Clarification was provided that the amendment would allow the contract to be extended as written
in the agreement and Request for Proposal.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT was requested.
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: There being no objection; SO ORDERED.
VOTE ON ENACTMENT OF THE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED:
YEA: Knackstedt, Gabriel, Winger, Glendening, Molloy, Pettey, Askin
NAY:
**Student Representative Faulkner: YEA
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
H. COMMISSION / COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Council on Aging – No report. Next meeting November 10, 2021.
2. Airport Commission – Council Member Knackstedt reviewed the actions of the
October 14, 2021 meeting. Next meeting November 9, 2021.
3. Harbor Commission – No report. Next meeting November 8, 2021.
4. Parks and Recreation Commission – Council Member Winger reviewed the actions
of the October 7, 2021 meeting; also thanked Director Frates for his years of service
to the City. Next meeting November 4, 2021.
Page 67
City of Kenai Council Meeting Page 11 of 14
October 20, 2021
5. Planning and Zoning Commission – Council Member Glendening reviewed the
actions of October 13, 2021 meeting. Next meeting October 27, 2021.
6. Beautification Committee – Council Member Askin reported on the meeting of
October 12, 2021.
7. Mini-Grant Steering Committee – Mayor Gabriel noted an upcoming meeting to
consider an application received from the Disc Golf Group.
I. REPORT OF THE MAYOR
Mayor Gabriel reported on the following:
• Thanked those who testified;
• Thanked all the candidates that ran for election;
• Thanked Council Member Askin for serving noting that she served the citizens
well;
• Congratulated Deborah Sounart and James Baisden on their election;
• Expressed appreciation for Vice Mayor Molloy’s service to the City and the work
he has accomplished on the Council; presented Vice Mayor Molloy a plaque.
J. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
1. City Manager – City Manager Ostrander reported on the following:
• Working on a preliminary design for the airport runway rehabilitation noting the
main runway will be completely rehabilitated in next 2-3 years,
• Looking for short and long term shelters for those experiencing homelessness;
• Legislation coming forth to select McKinley Research Group for the Waterfront
Revitalization Feasibility Study;
• Interviewing for a new Parks and Recreation Director;
• Senator Murkowski had announced appropriation in a bill before congress for
spruce bark beetle mitigation;
• Retirement Party for Parks and Recreation Director Frates on 10/29; encouraged
Council Members to attend;
• Bluff Erosion Project Update - met with the design contractor and expect first
project deliverables in December;
• Congratulated Deborah Sounart and James Baisden on their election noting he
looked forward to working with them;
• Thanked Council Member Askin for the time she served on Council;
• Thanked Vice Mayor Molloy for his service on Council noting he worked with
several legislators and Vice Mayor Molloy was one of the best.
2. City Attorney – No report
3. City Clerk – City Clerk Heinz reported on the following:
• Advised postponement of Ordinance No. 3248 would result in falling off the
agenda pursuant to KMC 1.15.050 and a new ordinance could be brought forth
at the next meeting;
• Recruiting for Commissioners due to terms ending on December 31;
Page 68
City of Kenai Council Meeting Page 12 of 14
October 20, 2021
• Thanked Vice Mayor Molloy for support for the Clerk’s Office and the work
accomplished together.
K. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
1. Citizens Comments (Public comment limited to five (5) minutes per speaker)
Ann Hoffman spoke in support of Alaska made items for the Alaska Geographic kiosk. She also
spoke in support of striking and adding new language for amendments to make legislation easier
to follow.
Kristine Schmidt explained Alaska Geographic as described on their website noting that you can
see their materials at many parks around Alaska.
2. Council Comments
Student Representative Faulkner reported on current sporting events noting increased school
spirit, Halloween activities, school vandalism, mental health in the school, and test fees for AP
classes being expensive. She also congratulated Deborah Sounart and James Baisden.
Council Member Askin noted Director Frates will be missed; noted the huge impact Vice Mayor
Molloy had serving on the Council; thanked the City Clerk for her service to the City and Council
and wished her the best; thanked the Administration for their support and patience noting she
learned a lot from them and thanked the Council for appointing her to the Council.
Council Member Winger welcomed the Student Representative and highlighted the student civics
fundraiser; congratulated James Baisden and Deborah Sounart; thanked Council Member Askin
and Vice Mayor Molloy noting it’s been great working with them; provided a reminder for the
ongoing Dog Park raffle adding that the group was looking for businesses that would be willing to
partner in that effort; recognized fallen Nikiski firefighter; noted the Fire Department was currently
going through schools to practice drills and expressed appreciation.
Council Member Pettey thanked all community members who shared comments tonight noting the
City strived for full transparency; encouraged them to reach out to Council and Clerk to get
information; thanked Department Directors for their staff reports in the packet; noted it had been
an honor to serve with Council Member Askin; welcomed new Council Members Baisden and
Sounart noting she looked forward to working with them; thanked Student Representative Faulkner
for her insight; noted Director Frates would be greatly missed; thanked Vice Mayor Molloy for his
professionalism, attention to detail, and leadership.
Council Member Glendening thanked the City Manager for responding to his abandoned vehicle
request; gave congratulations to new council members and Student Representative; expressed
appreciation for the Public Works staff report; thanked Vice Mayor Molloy for his service noting he
has enjoyed working with him; attended the Pumpkin Festival which was well received; expressed
gratitude for Vice Mayor Molloy giving assistance to those that had questions during public
comment; noted Director Frates would be missed; added that there was nothing meant to be critical
Page 69
City of Kenai Council Meeting Page 13 of 14
October 20, 2021
regarding the library but will learn how the library purchases materials; deadline is December 8th
for applying for Commissions; asked if certification would be better as a resolution.
Council Member Knackstedt thanked Vice Mayor Molloy noting he was thorough and thoughtful
and his insight improved the legislation; thanked Director Frates for his service to the City; noted
he enjoyed working with Council Member Askin thanking her for her dedication; congratulated new
Council Members Sounart and Baisden; congratulated Student Representative Faulkner; thanked
Shellie Saner for becoming the City Clerk noting he looked forward to working with her; attended
the Pumpkin Festival; noted Kenai Aviation’s upcoming annual pumpkin drop.
Mayor Gabriel recognized the new Student Representative, echoing previous comments
expressing appreciation for her input.
Vice Mayor Molloy appreciated the Joint Work Session on the Land Management Plan and
encouraged Council to consider adopting the plan by ordinance rather than resolution because it
gave more time to the public; welcomed Student Representative Faulkner and mentioned other
past Student Representatives; thanked his wife for her support; thanked voters that have elected
him, past mayors, current council members, and past council members noting the service they
have provided the City; welcomed Council Members Sounart and Baisden; encouraged everyone
to keep the Mission Statement of the City in mind; thanked City Managers, Attorneys, and City
Clerks noting the administrative team has been important to his success and the success of the
legislation; thanked Director Frates for his service to the City; noted the mil rate has been reduced
and low sales tax because the Councils have followed the mission statement. Thanked City Clerk
Heinz for work with him on legislation. Vice Mayor Molloy reiterated that it’s been an honor and
privilege and is excited for future of City.
L. EXECUTIVE SESSION – None.
M. PENDING ITEMS – None.
N. ADJOURNMENT
O. INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Purchase Orders Between $2,500 and $15,000
2. NOAA Fisheries Letter
There being no further business before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
I certify the above represents accurate minutes of the Kenai City Council meeting of October 20,
2021.
_____________________________
Jamie Heinz, MMC
City Clerk
Page 70
City of Kenai Council Meeting Page 14 of 14
October 20, 2021
**The student representative may cast advisory votes on all matters except those subject to
executive session discussion. Advisory votes shall be cast in the rotation of the official council
vote and shall not affect the outcome of the official council vote. Advisory votes shall be recorded
in the minutes. A student representative may not move or second items during a council meeting.
Page 71
PAYMENTS OVER $15,000.00 WHICH NEED COUNCIL RATIFICATION
COUNCIL MEETING OF: NOVEMBER 3, 2021
VENDOR DESCRIPTION
PERS PERS
INVESTMENTS
VENDOR DESCRIPTION
DEPARTMENT ACCOUNT AMOUNT
VARIOUS LIABILITY 90,516.24
MATURITY DATE AMOUNT Effect Int.
Page 72
_____________________________________________________________________________________
New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
Sponsored by: Administration
CITY OF KENAI
ORDINANCE NO. 3254-2021
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AMENDING KENAI
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.05.025 – TELEPHONIC PARTICIPATION AT PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS, TO PROVIDE FOR REMOTE ELECTRONIC
PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS BY COMMISSION
MEMBERS.
WHEREAS, telephonic participation in Planning and Zoning Commission meetings was provided
to increase participation by allowing members to take part in meetings when work or family
matters require their absence from Kenai; and,
WHEREAS, during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency ordinances were suspended allowing
for remote electronic participation, virtually; and,
WHEREAS, providing virtual remote electronic participation has proved to provide a better
experience for the Commission member participating remotely and those participating in-person;
and,
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 13, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission
unanimously supported amending KMC 14.05.025 to allow for remote electronic participation;
and,
WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that it is vital for Planning and Zoning Commission members
to have effective participation in meetings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA,
as follows:
Section 1. Amendment of Section 14.05.025 – Telephonic participation at Planning and
Zoning Commission meetings of the Kenai Municipal Code: That Kenai Municipal Code, Section
14.05.025 – Telephonic participation at Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, is hereby
amended as follows:
14.05.025 [TELEPHONIC] Remote electronic participation at Planning and Zoning
Commission meetings.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (e), if at least a quorum is physically
present at a Commission meeting, other commissioners may participate via [TELEPHONE]
electronic means in the Commission meeting, if the commissioner declares that
circumstances prevent physical attendance at the meeting. If the chair chooses to
participate via [TELEPHONE] electronic means, the vice-chair shall preside.
Page 73
Ordinance No. 3254-2021
Page 2 of 4
_____________________________________________________________________________________
New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
(b) No more than the first two (2) commissioners to contact the Clerk’s office regarding
[TELEPHONE] remote electronic participation in a particular meeting may participate via
[TELEPHONE] remote electronic means at any one (1) meeting.
(c) The commissioner shall notify the Clerk’s office in writing as soon as reasonably
practical, but not less than six (6) hours prior to the start of the Commission meeting that
the member proposes to attend by [TELEPHONE] remote electronic means. Such
notification shall state whether such [TELEPHONIC] remote electronic participation is
pursuant to subsection (n) or (o), and, if needed, shall provide the physical address of the
location, the telephone number, and any available facsimile, email, or other document
transmission service. Failure to provide the notification within the period of time provided
herein shall result in the member’s exclusion from attendance of a Commission meeting
through [TELEPHONIC] remote electronic participation. The Clerk or designee shall notify
all Commission members of the request.
(d) At the meeting, the Clerk or designee shall establish the [TELEPHONE] appropriate
connection when the call to order is imminent.
(e) A commissioner participating by [TELEPHONE] remote electronic means shall be
counted as present for purposes of discussion and voting except for matters and agenda
items appealable to the Board of Adjustment.
(f) The commissioner participating by [TELEPHONE] remote electronic means shall make
every effort to participate in the entire meeting. From time to time during the meeting, the
presiding officer shall confirm the connection, if necessary.
(g) The commissioner participating by [TELEPHONE] remote electronic means may ask to
be recognized by the presiding officer to the same extent as any other member except for
matters and agenda items appealable to the Board of Adjustment.
(h) To the extent reasonably practicable, the Clerk or designee shall provide backup
materials to commissioners participating by [TELEPHONE] remote electronic means.
(i) If the [TELEPHONE] remote electronic connection cannot be made or is made and then
lost, the meeting shall commence or continue as scheduled and the Clerk or designee shall
attempt to establish or restore the connection.
(j) Meeting times shall be expressed in Alaska [T]Time regardless of the time at the
location of any commissioner participating by [TELEPHONE] remote electronic means.
Page 74
Ordinance No. 3254-2021
Page 3 of 4
_____________________________________________________________________________________
New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
(k) Participation by [TELEPHONE] remote electronic means shall be allowed for regular,
special and work session meetings of the Commission.
(l) Remarks by commissioners participating by [TELEPHONE] remote electronic means
shall be transmitted so as to be audible by all members and the public in attendance at the
meeting, provided that in executive session the remarks shall be audible only to those
included in the executive session.
(m) As used in these rules, “[TELEPHONE] electronic means” means any system for
synchronous two (2) or more way voice and/or virtual communication. “Chair” includes the
vice-chair or any other commissioner serving as chair pro tempore.
(n) Each commissioner may attend a maximum of two (2) meetings by
[TELECONFERENCE] remote electronic means during the twelve (12) month calendar
year.
(o) A commissioner may attend an additional two (2) meetings by [TELECONFERENCE]
remote electronic means during the twelve (12) month calendar year if the member
declares that he or she is physically unable to attend the meeting due to the need for
extended medical care and treatment of the member or member’s immediate family.
(p) In this section, “immediate family” means the spouse of the person, another person
cohabitating with the person in a conjugal relationship that is not a legal marriage, a child
(including a stepchild or foster child) of the person, a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt or
uncle of the person, or a parent or sibling of the person’s spouse.
(Ord. 2734-2014)
Section 2. Severability: That if any part or provision of this ordinance or application thereof to
any person or circumstances is adjudged invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision, or application directly involved
in all controversy in which this judgment shall have been rendered, and shall not affect or impair
the validity of the remainder of this title or application thereof to other persons or circumstances.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have enacted the remainder of this ordinance even
without such part, provision, or application.
Section 3. Effective Date: That pursuant to KMC 1.15.070(f), this ordinance shall take effect
30 days after enactment.
ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 1st day of December,
2021.
Page 75
Ordinance No. 3254-2021
Page 4 of 4
_____________________________________________________________________________________
New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
BRIAN GABRIEL SR., MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jamie Heinz, MMC, City Clerk
Introduced: November 3, 2021
Enacted: December 1, 2021
Effective: December 31, 2021
Page 76
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Brian Gabriel and Kenai City Council
THROUGH: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
FROM: Ryan Foster, Planning Director
DATE: October 25, 2021
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 3254-2021 – Approving amendment to Kenai Municipal
Code Section 14.05.025 to provide for remote electronic participation
Telephonic participation in Planning and Zoning Commission meetings is provided in KMC
14.05.025 to increase participation by allowing members to take part in meetings when work or
family matters require their absence from Kenai. During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency,
ordinances were suspended, which allowed for remote electronic participation, virtually, via
videoconference. Virtual remote electronic participation has proved to provide a better
experience for the Commission member participating remotely and those participating in-person.
At their regular meeting on October 13, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously
approved amending KMC 14.05.025 to allow for remote electronic participation, including
videoconference capabilities. This ordinance would amend KMC 14.05.025 to allow for remote
electronic participation in Planning and Zoning Commission meetings.
Thank you for your consideration.
Page 77
Sponsored by: Administration
CITY OF KENAI
ORDINANCE NO. 3255-2021
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, ACCEPTING AND
APPROPRIATING GRANTS FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
PASSED THROUGH THE STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS’
AFFAIRS FOR THE PURCHASES OF PUBLIC SAFETY RADIOS FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND
COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENTS.
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai received a notice from the State of Alaska Department of Military
and Veterans’ Affairs that it was awarded a total of $259,000 for grant projects under the 2021
State Homeland Security Program; and,
WHEREAS, two projects were awarded funding under these grant programs, including $84,000
for police and fire mobile radios and $175,000 for dispatch radio system upgrades; and,
WHEREAS, the public safety departments in the City of Kenai have been involved in a multi-year
project to upgrade all radio systems to newer manufacturer supported technologies that meet
current industry standards; and,
WHEREAS, acceptance of these grants and appropriation of funds is in the best interest of the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA,
as follows:
Section 1. That the City Manager is authorized to accept grants from the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security passed through the State of Alaska Department of Military and Veterans’
Affairs for replacement of public safety radios, execute any required grant documents, and expend
the funds in accordance with this Ordinance and the grant’s provisions and conditions.
Section 2. That the estimated revenues and appropriations be increased as follows:
Public Safety Capital Project Fund:
Increase Estimated Revenues –
Federal Grants $259,000
Increase Appropriations –
Mobile Radio Replacement Police -- Machinery & Equipment $ 42,000
Mobile Radio Replacement Fire – Machinery & Equipment 42,000
Communications Radio Replacement – Machinery & Equipment 175,000
$259,000
Page 78
Ordinance No. 3255-2021
Page 2 of 2
_____________________________________________________________________________________
New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
Section 3. Severability: That if any part or provision of this ordinance or application thereof to
any person or circumstances is adjudged invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision, or application directly involved
in all controversy in which this judgment shall have been rendered, and shall not affect or impair
the validity of the remainder of this title or application thereof to other persons or circumstances.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have enacted the remainder of this ordinance even
without such part, provision, or application.
Section 4. Effective Date: That pursuant to KMC 1.15.070(f), this ordinance shall take effect
immediately upon enactment.
ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 1st day of December,
2021.
BRIAN GABRIEL SR., MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jamie Heinz, MMC, City Clerk
Approved by Finance: _________________
Introduced: November 3, 2021
Enacted: December 1, 2021
Effective: December 1, 2021
Page 79
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Brian Gabriel and Kenai City Council
THROUGH: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
FROM: David Ross, Police Chief
DATE: October 25, 2021
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 3255-2021, Accepting and Appropriating DHS Grant
Grants were applied for by the City of Kenai, under the 2021 Homeland Security Program, and
two of those grant requests were funded totaling $259,000. The City received notice of award of
an $84,000 grant for the City to continue its police and fire public safety radio replacements. The
second grant awarded is for $175,000 for dispatch radio system upgrades. This grant to upgrade
dispatch radios is the second and smaller phase of a two phase project to completely replace the
dispatch base station radio system.
I am respectfully requesting consideration of the ordinance accepting and appropriating the
currently awarded grant funds for the purposes they were intended.
Page 80
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Gabriel and Council Members
FROM: Jamie Heinz, City Clerk
DATE: October 29, 2021
SUBJECT: Liaison Nominations
Pursuant to KMC 1.90.010, “….At the organizational meeting of Council, or as soon thereafter
as practicable, the Mayor, after consultation with Council, shall nominate Council Members as a
council liaison to any board, commission or committee.”
The following individuals are being nominated pursuant to KMC 1.90.010. Your consideration is
appreciated.
Council on Aging Council Member Henry Knackstedt
Airport Commission Council Member James Baisden
Harbor Commission Council Member Glenese Pettey
Parks and Recreation Commission Council Member Jim Glendening
Planning and Zoning Commission Council Member Teea Winger
Beautification Committee Council Member Deborah Sounart
Mini-Grant Steering Committee Mayor Brian Gabriel
Supervisory Sub-Committee TBA
Page 81
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Gabriel and Council Members
FROM: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
DATE: October 27, 2021
SUBJECT: Action / Approval - Utilization of Healthy and Equitable Communities
Grant for Capital Projects
The State of Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) has announced the
availability of $11.5 million in funding to local governments through memorandum of agreements
in support of creating healthy and equitable communities around the State. The funding will be
for a minimum of three years. The City of Kenai was allocated $43,298.45 this year. In addition,
the Kenai Peninsula Borough has dedicated $43,298.45 of their allocation to the City, bringing
our total allocation to $86,596.90.
In their funding announcement, DHSS directed that funds must go towards creating community
plans, supporting and facilitating local coalitions, or activities that fall into one of the following five
categories:
1. Improve COVID-19 health outcomes among higher risk, underserved populations by
expanding existing or developing new mitigation and prevention resources and services.
2. Increase/improve data collection and reporting for populations disproportionately
affected by COVID-19 to guide current and future pandemic response.
3. Build, leverage, or expand infrastructure support for COVID-19 or future pandemic
prevention and control among populations that are at higher risk or underserved.
4. Mobilize partners to improve spaces in their community where people live, learn, work,
and play, allowing individuals and families greater opportunities for better health
outcomes.
5. Improve access to COVID-19 vaccine, as well as other necessary vaccines for
individuals who are at higher risk or underserved.
Based on this guidance, administration identified this grant as an opportunity to utilize these funds
to complete projects that were identified in the City’s 2022-2026 Five Year Capital Improvement
Plan (Capital Plan) that support category 4 above. We identified two projects in the Capital Plan
that, based on their estimated cost, could be completed with the year one funding of $86,596.90:
Municipal Park Trail Boardwalk. This project was scheduled for funding in FY 2023 from the
General Fund for $85,000 and would construct an engineered, elevated boardwalk to the Shqui
Tsatnu Creek drainage to connect with the existing trail, connecting the east and west sides of
Page 82
Page 2 of 2
Municipal Park. A future phase of this project that would continue the trail along the east side of
the creek requires an easement from the Kenai Peninsula Community Care Center.
Softball Green Strip Playground Equipment Replacement. This project was scheduled for
funding in FY 2024 from the General Fund for $85,000 and would replace an aging and obsolete
children’s playground located at one of Kenai’s most heavily used outdoor locations. This area is
near the adult softball fields and adjacent to a large green strip with a shelter and restrooms.
Both of these projects have been pre-approved by the DHSS Grants Administrator, a requirement
of the grant. The grant application deadline is October 29, 2021; however, we were granted a
one-week extension to allow us to bring this action / approval item to Council for your
consideration. Funds will be awarded in November of 2021, and funds must be expended by
June 30, 2024.
Administration respectfully requests that Council select one of the two projects listed to include
on the application.
Page 83
Funding Announcement
The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) announces $11.SM in funding to local
governments through memorandums of agreement (MOAs) in support of creating healthy and equitable
communities around the state. The funding will be available for a minimum of three years to support
activities of greatest need identified by the local community.
The goal of the funding is to create and support local coalitions to develop and implement sustainable
plans to improve the overall health of the community by preventing and addressing COVID-19 among
underserved Alaskans at higher risk for COVID-19 related illness and death, including rural populations.
The pandemic has highlighted that many groups are prevented from having fair opportunities for
economic, physical, and emotional health. For example, communities with barriers to internet access
may have difficulty accessing telehealth services or vaccination appointments; housing conditions or
access to support can be barriers to isolation or quarantine to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Some
communities may have limited transportation options, making it difficult to easily access COVID-19
testing, vaccination, or other health ca re services. For those that do not speak English as their first
language, medical services or accurate information that can assist in making healthy decision may be
difficult to access.
The previous MOA funding opportunity for local governments in support of COVID-19 testing and
vaccinations was intended to support tactical plans and immediate response needs. This MOA can be
used for both immediate COVID-19 needs and to develop a community plan and build a local coalition to
provide input for additional community projects. DHSS will provide funding through multiple avenues to
support the implementation of this plan.
Alaska communities contain much of the insight necessary to assure optimal health for their residents.
These funds will add capacity for communities to prevent illness and death from the current and future
pandemics among their underserved residents and will be accompanied by assistance to develop and
implement their plans. Communities can, for example, support information sources that don't rely on
internet access, provide support for people in isolation and quarantine, support transportation to access
testing and vaccination services, and provide services using language people understand. Applications
that will be released in early September will include more details about use of these funds.
If communities do not have a local government to apply for these funds, or if government entities are
unable to execute the funds effectively, they can designate a community partner to accept the funds on
their behalf. These partners must have sufficient capacity and willingness to implement necessary
activities. The state will make every effort to accommodate these alternate requests, but funding will
made available later than the initial MOAs. Partner organizations must be identified no later than
October 10, 2021.
Funds must go towards creating community plans, supporting and facilitating local coalitions, or
activities that fall into one of the categories listed:
• Improve COVID-19 health outcomes among higher risk underserved populations by
expanding existing or developing new mitigation and prevention resources and services;
• Increase/improve data collection and reporting for populations disproportionately affected
by COVID-19 to guide current and future pandemic response;
• Build, leverage or expand infrastructure support for COVID-19 or future pandemic
Page 84
prevention and control among populations that are at higher risk or underserved;
• Mobilize partners to improve spaces in their community where people live, learn, work, and
play, allowing individuals and families greater opportunities for better health outcomes;
• Improve access to COVID-19 vaccine, as well as other necessary vaccines, for individuals
who are higher risk or underserved.
The funding allocations for this opportunity takes into account both population size and local or regional
factors that affect health outcomes, such as housing, household composition and disability status,
transportation, along with several other factors.
Additional information about this funding opportunity will be made available in early September,
including the dates for two pre-award information meetings, the application, and the application
deadline. If release of the application is delayed, deadlines for submission and identifying partners to
receive funds will also be delayed.
Award amounts for the first year are attached to this announcement. Funding amounts for years two
and three have not yet been determined. We expect more funding to be available in years one and two
than in year 3.
For questions please contact Maria Caruso at maria.caruso @alaska.gov.
Page 85
Kenai Dog Park
Kenai, Alaska 99611
September 26, 2021 Mayor Gabriel and Council,
It has been a joy to get the Kenai Dog Park on a path of opening in the summer of 2022. Some of the
challenges, associated with this type of project, have been interesting. We have achieved so much with a
tremendous amount of community support. That support continues and will throughout the winter
months.
Your expectation of a community project being driven by the community, and funded by the community
is unrealistic. This project was request by the citizens, submitted to council and approved. Council never
mentioned they expected it to be 100% user funded. Other projects driven by user groups, the
community, approved by council and financially financed through the budget have been:
Soccer Fields, Baseball Fields, Children Playgrounds, Picnic Areas, Hockey Rinks,
Neighborhood Parks, Daubenspeck Park, Trails, Bike Trails, etc.
None of above, were ever required to provide the funding to achieve their goal. There might be two
exceptions to that statement:
1. Very early, in the development of the city, the baseball fields may have had some
community fund raisers with lots of city financially assistance.
2, Municipal Park Playground Upgrades were provided by the city and a fundraiser, chaired
by the Mayor, to help make it an Enchanted Forest.
The general thought is, the Soldotna Dog Park Committee raised all the funds for their park. This is not a
true statement. I contact Andrew Carmichael, parks director, regarding any city funding. I was quite
surprised to learn how much the city was involved both in services as well as financially.
We have included a copy of two pieces of information for your review. You will see that:
1. Three Friends banqueted to the city $55,000 to help build the park
2. The city added/or transferred funding coming from two sources
A. 50/50 grant received from cities insurance carrier for a parks project. Funds were
transferred to the dog park project in the amount of $10,000.
B. Transferred funds from Parker Park Gazebo to dog park approximately
$30,000
Page 86
It appears they also provided funding for lights, security and a water fountain. As you can see, City of
Soldotna, is very much a financial partner in their project. They do have a community volunteer, Connie
Hocker, who was and still is very much involved. Andrew told me it is the 2nd most used park in the city!
As our park moves forward, we would like to request the Daubenspeck funds no long come with the
expectation of them being reimbursed. We expected Home Depot to follow through on their fencing
proposal and only requested Daubenspeck funds to provide for the fencing until that happened. We greatly
appreciated the cities effort to help with this problem. Home Depot has dropped the ball on our request.
As of this date, we have not received answers to two questions, nor have they returned the phone call they
scheduled. We needed to use $22,000 from Daubenspeck to have the fence installed by the end of this
month. The pressure to refund this amount very much on our minds.
We have generated tremendous community involvement. We have attached to our letter, a copy of the
in-kind contributions we have received, and it changes oflen. Recently, receiving notification from the Kenai
Lions Club their commitment to donate a small pavilion for the park. They will do this to honor one of the
members and former Mayor Ron Malston.
We are requesting the council take action in three areas.
1. Appropriate the Daubenspeck Funding as a grant, removing the expectation of these
funds being reimbursed.
2. Consider appropriating addition funding from the Daubenspeck Funds toward finishing
this park in the way it should be for its citizens.
3. Consider writing a Tier I grant to the Rasmuson Foundation.
Please remember, no other parks project has ever been asked to raise the funding needed to achieve
their goals. Why the dog park? Kenai Dog Park is very much needed. The community needs to know their
city is treating this park like all the others. We have had great support administratively, but not financially.
As a council, I hope you consider the financial side of the long term goal and help make it happen.
I appreciate the tremendous effort already given by this community and ask you to reconsider your goal of
100% user funded. I suggest you look at some of the facilities on line and see how beautiful and inviting
they are. We are extremely proud that our community has already donated over $60,000 in in -kind service.
We expect more to come. It takes commitment from everyone.
Thank you for consideration of our requests and remember to buy your raftfe tickets,
Pat Porter, Retired Kenai Mayor
Kenai Dog Park Friends, Chairperson
Page 87
Income and Expenditures To Date
Mike Navarre $ 100
Eagles 1,000
Elks 250
Jim Glendening 1,000
Dave Schilling 1,000
Scott Gomez 5,000
Twin Cities Vet. 500
M &J Plumbing 800
James and Rhonda Baisden 1,000
Kenai Rotary 3,000
Kenai Community Found. 10,000
Daubenspeck Funds 25,000
Go Fund Me 320
TOTAL INCOME $48,970
Moore Landscaping 2,000
Fireweed Fence 22,000
TOTAL EXPENCES 24,000
CASH ON HAND $24,970
Kenai Dog Park Proposed Budget
Income and Expenditures
September 28, 2021
Estimated Total Budget $56,800
Current Income 43,970
Current Expenses 24,000
Current Cash on Hand 24,970
Added Reimbursement to Daubenspeck Funds
$25,000
NEED TO RAISE $32,830
Funding in Question
Daubenspeck Funds: Council provided funds from this
account to move forward with the fencing. However,
they are expecting these funds to be reimbursed.
Kenai Community Foundation: Awarded $10,000
towards the park. They need to approve what the funds
with be designated towards, before granting.
Page 88
Kenai Dog Park
In-Kind Contributions
September 28, 2021
Volunteers Cleaning of Land $15,000
Salmantof Native Assoc. Leveling/Clearing of Debri 30,000
Volunteers Removal of Stumps 5,000
Senior Center Quilt Construction 500
Senior Center Brochure Folding 100
Tim Navarre Printing of Brochures 300
Moore Landscaping Reduced Price for Seeding 1,000
Volunteers 4th of July Parade 300
Pat Porter Misc. Supplies 2,490
Lions Club Small Pavilion 5,000
IN-KIND TO DATE …………$59,670
Page 89
PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III
Ground Work
Volunteer Labor
In-Kind Services
Seeding
Cash…………………………$2,000
Fencing
Cash………………………. $22,000
Signage 7
Rules/ Direction Signs
Bulletin Board 1
Park Name 1
Paw Tree 1
Cost……………………………$5,000
Benches 8
Cost……………………………$4,000
Picnic Table 4
Cost…………………………$2,000
Covered Areas 2
Cost……………………………..$18,000
Agility Equipment
Volunteer Labor
Supplies Cash………………..$3,000
Trees/Boulders
In-Kind Services
Trash Receptacles
In-Kind Donations
Pooper Scoopers 4
Cost………………………………….$800
Estimated Cash Funds Needed $56,800
Note: The more we are able to secure
in-kind or donations the less the needed
cash funding becomes.
Page 90
0 L D 0 T /,rw. / Andrew Carmichael
Parks and Recreation Director
City of Soldotna, Alaska
MEMORANDUM
TO: Soldotna Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
DATE: July 27,2016,2016
SUBJECT: Aspen Park/Dog Park
In prior meetings,the advisory board approved and ultimately the Council endorsed converting
approximately half of Aspen park to an off leash dog park. The City is in the process of having
bequeathed to it approximately$55,000.00 for development of a dog park at Aspen. While,this
amount is skinny in terms of full dog park development the administration is proposing to augment
the available funding to include upgrade of the overall park to include, dog park,thinning of trees to
make the park more welcoming,replacement of the playground equipment as well as upgrading the
fall protection to rubber mulch. Funding from the City will come from two sources. This past June
the City embarked into a multi-year project to replace existing playground fall protection material
with rubber mulch that lasts in perpetuity almost. This was made possible by a 50/50 grant match
from the City's insurance carrier Alaska Public Entity Insurance group.The material was swapped out
at Riverview last June and Aspen is slated for this fall/next spring. Essentially this allows us to
purchase up to$20,000 of fall protection material and be reimbursed for$10,000.00. Because fall
protection is usually up to or exceeding 30%of a playground equipment project this is an awesome
project to leverage improvement dollars. In addition to this$20,000 for fall protection then,the
administration is proposing to shift the monies that had been appropriated for a gazebo at Parker Park
but never was completed to upgrade Aspen Park.There is presently$39,700 available if transferred.
Connie Hocker will be presenting the conceptual design for the dog park The proposal then is:
Accept the$55,000 for development of the "Three Friends Dog Park" space at Aspen Park,re-
appropriate$39,700 originally budgeted for Parker Park Gazebo to the Aspen Park Re-development
project and continue with the APEI Grant program to replace fall protection in Aspen Park.
DRAFT BUDGET:Funding,Of the total of$114,700 proposed the funding sources broken down are:
55,000 bequeathed,$49,000 Gazebo/APEI Match,$10,000 APEI.City Funds$49,000 Non City Fund
65,000.
Paved Parking 35,000
Fencing 22,000
Water feature/dog water fountain 8,500
Lighting 10,000
Playground Replacement 30,000
Fall Protection 20,000
Total: 100,500
Page 4 of 8
Page 91
From:Pat
To:Jamie Heinz
Subject:Fwd: Kenai Dog Park
Date:Thursday, September 30, 2021 1:50:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Please place this information in Council Packets.
Thanks Pat
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Stephanie Queen <squeen@soldotna.org>
Date: September 30, 2021 at 1:28:50 PM CDT
To: justpat44@hotmail.com
Cc: "Paul Ostrander (postrander@kenai.city)" <postrander@kenai.city>
Subject: Kenai Dog Park
Hi Pat,
It was nice speaking to you yesterday. Andrew's memo to the Parks Board in
2016 proposed improvements at both the dog park and the adjacent Aspen
playground. It doesn't reflect actual expenditures or appropriations, so please
refer to the information below instead.
Our Finance Director confirmed that the City appropriated a total of $99,896.27
for the 3 Friends Dog Park. Of this, $55,320.87 was bequeathed from the Martha
Brewer Estate; $7,500 was from various other small donations; and $37,075.40
was from the City's General Fund. More info about each, below.
Martha Brewer left 10% of her estate ($55,320.87) to the Soldotna Animal Shelter
in her will. When she passed, the Mayor and City Manager met with the executor
and attorney for Ms. Brewer's estate, and agreed that helping fund the new dog
park would meet her intended purpose of helping dogs in the community.
Other Donations to the City included $2,500 from Rotary Club of Soldotna,
$2,500 from Kenai Peninsula Association of Realtors, $1,000 from the Friends of
the Aspen Dog Park. Soon after, an additional $1,500 was donated ($750 each
from the Friends, Kelly Griebel, and Alaska 1st Real Estate).
The $37,075.40 from the City's General Fund was originally appropriated in 2011
for a downtown beautification project at the Y. In 2013, the funds were
reassigned to the Parker Park Gazebo project after determining that the original
project was not feasible. And in 2016, the Administration again asked the
Page 92
Council to reassign the funds - this time to the Dog Park project where they were
eventually used.
Not captured above is any of the in-kind labor - which was fairly substantial (both
from Parks and Rec staff, community volunteers, and other organizations).
I hope this information is helpful, and please let me know if we can assist in any
other way.
Kind regards,
Stephanie
-----Original Message-----
From: justpat44@hotmail.com <justpat44@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 3:09 PM
To: Stephanie Queen <squeen@soldotna.org>
Subject: Kenai Dog Park
Hello Stephanie,
I really appreciate you trying to help us clarify the funding that Soldotna provided
for that dog park.
For some reason, the city was under the impression that the citizens or user group
of Soldotna actually funded it at 100%. There was a time, when industry was
very active that might have been possible, we are finding that is extremely
difficult to do now!
I look forward to hearing from you. Your information hopefully will change the
direction the council snd administration has adopted.
Stay warm,
Pat Porter
907-252-5992
Sent from my iPhone
Page 93
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Gabriel and Council Members
FROM: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
DATE: October 18, 2021
SUBJECT: Discussion Item – Kenai Dog Park
Pat Porter, former Kenai Mayor, provided a letter to Council on September 26, 2021, requesting Council take action in three areas:
1.Appropriate the Daubenspeck Funding as a grant, removing the expectation of thesefunds being reimbursed.2.Consider appropriating additional funding from the Daubenspeck Funds toward finishingthis park in the way it should be for its citizens.3.Consider writing a Tier I grant to the Rasmuson Foundation.
This memo is intended to provide background information for Council and to address these three requests.
In 2018, the City Council passed Resolution 2018-52, authorizing the use of an approximately 22,500 square-foot area of Daubenspeck Family Park for the construction of a Kenai Dog Park after a formal presentation by the Kenai Dog Park Committee at the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Resolution states a committee of community volunteers have offered to design and construct an off-leash dog park at no expense to the City.
Ordinance 3211-2021, adopting the annual budget for FY2021, included a $25,000 grant to the Kenai Community Dog Park from the City’s General Fund. At the May 19, 2021 public hearing on the Ordinance, a letter from Ms. Porter requested the City Council appropriate $25,000 from the Daubenspeck Fund and stated, “every effort will be made to reimburse the Daubenspeck funding.” A motion to amend the Ordinance to appropriate $25,000 from the Daubenspeck Fund for the Kenai Dog Park was made; however, the amendment failed. Funding in the amount of $25,000 from the City’s General Fund was approved. Although Ms. Porter stated that their intent was to return the money to the City, and discussion by Council when considering the motion indicated that Council hoped that the money would be reimbursed, Council included no requirement in the motion that the Kenai Community Dog Park reimburse these grant funds.
The City has deposited $21,120 of the $25,000 appropriated for the Kenai Dog Park in the Kenai Community Foundation bank account to pay for fencing. In addition to funds donated by the City, there have been additional private donations of $28,970.
Page 3 of 4
Page 94
Page 2 of 2
In addition to funding, the City has provided support from the Parks and Recreation department on improvements to the property, including drafting the concept plan through the River, Trails and Conservation Assistance program and assisting with volunteer planning meetings, coordination with Peak Oilfield Services and L&J Enterprises for clearing and dirt work and with Salamatof Native Cooperation for dirt work and leveling of area, assisting volunteers with brush clearing, tree pruning and original measuring/staking of the park, removal of approximately 30 beetle-kill trees, mowing grass growing in a cleared area, measuring and staking out property for fence work; meeting with Fireweed Fence to review layout, grubbing out a 15’x25’ area for small dogs, providing an update to the Kenai Rotary Club, and storing donated tires at the City yard along with trash cans that volunteers will paint.
It appears that City and community support and fundraising have been successful. Between private donations and the grant from the City, the funding gap between income and budgeted expenditures to complete the park has been reduced to $2,830. Fundraising over the course of the winter will likely close most if not all of this gap, indicating that an additional appropriation is not necessary at this time.
In July, the City hired a Temporary Grant W riter who is primarily focused on grant opportunities to fulfill match requirements for our Bluff Stabilization Project and pursuing funding for water and sewer projects that have been identified in the City’s five-year capital improvement plan. Based on the limited amount of additional funds needed to complete the park and the importance of continued focus on funding for the Bluff Stabilization Project and needed water and sewer improvements, tasking the Temporary Grant Writer to apply for a Tier 1 Rasmuson Grant for the Kenai Dog Park is likely not the best utilization of that position.
Page 4 of 4
Page 95
KENAI
COMMUNITY PARK
CONCEPT PLAN
Page 96
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
VISION, MISSION & GOALS
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
PUBLIC INPUT
PARK CONCEPT
DESIGN ELEMENTS AND GUIDELINES
MAINTENANCE
PRELIMINARY BUDGET
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Page 97
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This part comes last when everything is finalized.
Page 98
We aim to establish a fenced-in, off-leash dog
park for well-behaved canine citizens and their
human companions to exercise in a clean, safe
environment without endangering or annoying
people, property or wildlife. Our goal is to create a
beautiful, well-maintained space open to all
dog lovers and friends who are willing to uphold
the park's rules and regulations. We view this as a
community enrichment project, in partnership with
the City of Kenai, designed to satisfy the needs of
dog lovers and non-dog lovers alike.
MISSION, VISION & GOALS
A safe, accessible space for all,
canine and human alike.
5) To provide a space that has been seeded,
that is accessible to all beyond the gate,
with groups of vegetation planted while
providing for a sanitary environment which
may include plastic doggie bag dispensers.
6) To provide rules and regulations for each
section of the park to ensure safety and
maintenance of the space.
Vision Goals
Mission
1) To provide a fenced-in, off-leash area.
2) To provide spaces for different types of
canines that are catered to their needs/size.
3) To provide human space that is covered.
4) To provide a welcoming and inviting space
that includes seating.
7) To provide a financially sustainable plan
that addresses all facets of the space in
perpetuity.
Page 99
COMPLETE FENCING -
DOUBLE ENTRY GATE -
SEPARATE SMALL AND LARGE DOG AREAS -
SURFACING PLAN -
DOG WASTE PLAN
A DESIGN TO ENCOURAGE MOVEMENT
WATER FOUNTAINS OR FEATURES
SEATING FOR HUMANS
PARKING AND BIKE RACKS
SHADE
SIGNAGE
VISUAL ATTRACTIVENESS
EASE OF MAINTENANCE
around the perimeter of the dog park
a standard in dog parks to allow humans to leash and unleash their dogs safely
allows differently sized dogs to play separately, and creates space for shy/new-to-the-park dogs
surfaces sustain lots of use, and depending on the type, must be renewed/cleaned/replaced periodically
- humans are encouraged to bring their own bags and "pack it out", but dispensers and waste receptacles should be provided
- opportunities for exercise, agility, chasing objects, and socialization are key to a successful dog park
- for both humans and dogs
- everyone needs a break, and this feature makes the park accessible to more people
- so that people can come via different transportation means
- dogs and humans alike enjoy the variety and coolness that shade provides; planting trees is a great way to do this
- a community park first and foremost, signage is needed to inform users of rules, park hours, and opportunities to get involved
- this park is part of the larger Daubenspeck Family Park, and its design should be cohesive and inviting for all
- service gates and trash barrels should be located such that maintenance vehicles may easily enter
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
An area of approximately 22,500 square feet has been
designated within the Daubenspeck Family Park, along the
northeast side of the pond, for the new dog park. A resolution in
support of the project was passed on September 19, 2018 by
the City of Kenai. Currently, the cleared area is approximately
0.5 acres, and the front wooded area is approximately 0.25
acres. There is a natural entrance on the southeast corner,
facing the parking lot.
CONSIDERATIONS
Dog parks have taken off across the United States, and there are
excellent resources available with best practices, lessons learned, and
inspiration for future dog parks. The following considerations have been
compiled from the experiences of other dog parks, including the nearby
3 Friends Dog Park in Soldotna, Alaska.
Page 100
PUBLIC INPUT
The Kenai Community Park is driven by widespread community participation. The following people and organizations
contributed to this concept plan:
Robert J. Frates, Director of Parks & Recreation, City of Kenai
Jodi Stuart, Kenai resident
National Park Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program
City of Kenai
Scott Hamann, Metal Magic
insert photos here
Page 101
PARK CONCEPT SITE PLAN Page 102
ENTRANCES
Main entrance:
An entry corral will consist of at least an 8' x 8' fenced area with two gates. This will allow pet
owners to safely unleash their dogs prior to letting them into the dog run area.
Surface material: The 3 Friends Dog Park in Soldotna uses crushed gravel, as well as playground fall
attenuation material made from recycled tires. Wood chips are another possibility, although this
material degrades more quickly and needs to be replenished regularly.
The entrance will be covered by a structure similar in design and size to the structure at the
Soldotna Dog Park (shown to the right).
Amenities at the entrance will include: dog leash rack, memorial, community bulletin board with
rules, water feature, and trash receptacles. Please see page X for details.
Secondary entrance:
A secondary double-gated entry will provide people and canines
more convenient water access as well as a connection to the
Daubenspeck Family Park trail system.
DESIGN ELEMENTS & GUIDELINES
WATER MANAGEMENT
Water management plan, to be further developed by RTCA to
ensure the site drains properly.
Page 103
Location: As indicated on the
Site Plan
Materials and design:
Community-built, this sign will
likely be cedar sand-blasted.
See the Daubenspeck Park sign
to pictured to the left.
Design considerations:
Legible from a distance,
welcoming
1. KENAI COMMUNITY DOG PARK ENTRANCE SIGN
2. COMMUNITY BULLETIN BOARD
Location: Just past the entrance gate inside the park
Materials and design: Community-built
Design considerations: Rules section that is clear and
concise (maximum 5 main rules), community announcement
section
3. CITY SIGNAGE
Location: Northern end of parking area
DESIGN ELEMENTS & GUIDELINES
PARKING
SIGNAGE
Current parking is adequate, to the east of the park.
SEPARATE SMALL DOG AREA
A small dog area will be accessible through an additional gate,
for use by smaller dogs and per the dog park rules. The exact
size of this area, and the amenities it includes, have yet to be
determined.
FENCING
Height: Minimum of 4 feet. Recommended height is 6 feet.
Recommended materials: Galvanized or vinyl-coated steel
chainlink
LANDSCAPING
Utilize current land and native landscaping
Consider designing bio-swales on the southern boundary of
the park to remove silt and pollution from surface runoff
water
Utilize permeable materials, such as permeable pavers
Follow rain water Best Management Practices (BMP)
Reuse, recycle and repurpose! Consider reusing materials
that need to be moved during construction, such as cut
wood from trees
Landscaping principles for the park:
Page 104
TRAILS
MAIN, ADA-ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
SECONDARY, PERIMETER TRAIL
TERTIARY TRAILS
ADA Accessibility: Grade not to exceed 5%. Routine grading
that is uniform, firm and stable with no protrusions or
obstacles.
Trail width: Double-width, 10 feet wide
Recommended materials: Crushed gravel
This trail will run from the park's main entrance area, in the
southeast corner of the park, along the southern boundary to
the southwest corner of the park. Benches will be installed along
the trail.
Dimensions: To be determined
Recommended materials: Crushed gravel
Dimensions: To be determined
Recommended materials: Crushed gravel
A
A
B
B
C
C
DESIGN ELEMENTS & GUIDELINES Page 105
LAWN
Dimensions: About 0.5 acres
Possible surface materials:
-Planted grass: Cheap and accessible material, highly susceptible to degradation with heavy use
-Synthetic turf: Popular in wet environments, higher cost of installation
-Engineered wood fiber: Popular in wet environments, higher cost of installation
Maintenance: The City may consider a rotation of uses on the lawn to allow sections of grass to rest and regenerate. Off-
leash usage will be allowed in one-half of the lawn until maintenance decides it is time to switch usage to the other half,
allowing the grass to rest and regenerate, and be reseeded if necessary. This strategy is employed in parks in Portland,
Oregon with success.
DESIGN ELEMENTS & GUIDELINES
MEMORIAL FEATURE
Recommend installing a drinking fountain by the main
entrance that includes a dog drinker/bowl.
Location of water utility: TBD
Example water features:
A memorial feature is often the centerpiece of a community dog park.
The heart of the dog park design, it can make a park uniquely reflect the
community.
Community members have brainstormed ideas for this memorial feature.
Conceptual ideas include:
- Commissioning a small arched bridge ending in a rainbow (in
partnership with Davis Block or Best Concrete, who can make pavers).
- Installing sponsored benches with memorial information.
- Providing a place for animal ashes with engraved bricks or dog paw
designs. This area could be called the "field of dreams" and include an
eternal water feature.
An additional public participation process is needed to determine the
memorial feature.
WATER FEATURE
Page 106
AMENITIES
BENCHES
TRASH RECEPTACLES
PLAY ELEMENTS
OTHER AMENITIES
Trash receptacles and waste removal bag holders will be
provided in the dog run area, making sure they are located
with easy access for maintenance vehicles.
These will be provided through community in-kind
contributions.
There are many creative ways to make this dog park fun and
challenging for dogs. Single structures can be custom
ordered, or built by community members. Packages of agility
structures are also available from such sources as Dog Gone
it Parks (see citation on Page X).
Boulder/dirt mounds with tunnels
These will be provided through community in-kind
contributions.
Tire tunnels
Location and number of benches: It is recommended that
seven benches are installed, at a minimum. Two will be
located at each entrance, with three benches spaced along
the main ADA accessible path.
Security camera
Additional covered area for humans
Rainbow bridge water feature
A-frame
Agility walk
Adjustable jump bar
Flexible
weave
poles
Source: https://www.dog-on-it-parks.com/classic-agility-equipment-1.html
DESIGN ELEMENTS & GUIDELINES Page 107
MAINTENANCE
Schedule annual brushing of trails using volunteers
Seek out partnerships that can help maintain the park
Continue to write grants and explore fundraising opportunities
Set up a monitoring plan to note areas of trail and lawn that need maintenance
The Kenai Community Park does not currently have a budget for operations and maintenance. At this point, the
following should be considered:
Page 108
PRELIMINARY BUDGET
Fencing
Trash receptacles
Signage
Benches
Pooper-scooper station
Waste bags - case of 3200
SIte work/tree removal/disposal of trees/clearing site as needed
Grading, spreading mulch, stump grinding
Park bulletin board
Park rules sign
Picnic tables
Entry cover
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST*
*not including maintenance
27,300
2,400
5538.50
5,244
590
145
5,000
1,096
814
2,006
5,227.87
15,927.87
75,668.37
TBD
In-kind
In-kind
In-kind
TBD
TBD
In-kind
TBD
TBD
In-kind
TBD
TBD
Work description Total estimated cost Source of funding
Page 109
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Gabriel and Council Members
FROM: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
DATE: October 28, 2021
SUBJECT: Discussion - Utilization of Remaining CARES Act Funds and
Consideration of New Shop Local Program
In May of 2020, the City Council enacted Ordinance 3130-2020 appropriating $7,700,832 of
CARES Act federal funding that was allocated to the City of Kenai as a pass-through grant from
the State of Alaska. In September of 2020, Council enacted Ordinance 3158-2020 appropriating
$2,675,524 passed through the Kenai Peninsula Borough, bringing the City’s total Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding to $10,376,356. An additional $527.35
in investment earnings since the receipt of funds brings the total to $10,376,884.01.
The City of Kenai approved expenditures of CARES Act funds for First Responder and Incident
Management Team Payroll ($4,915,569.50), Business and Nonprofit Entity Recovery Grants
($3,726,872.00), CARES Act Administration and Non-Payroll ($415,775.12), and Individual
Assistance Grants ($1,234,801.00), including programs to provide relief for small businesses,
commercial fishers, rental and mortgage relief, and food assistance. The City was projected to
make all expenditures for CARES Act funds by the initial deadline of December 31, 2020 before
the deadline was extended to December 31, 2021. A breakdown of the City’s COVID-19 CARES
Act expenditures and available balances is attached, showing $63,432.14 in unencumbered funds
remaining as of October 28, 2021.
In January and February of 2021, the City Council enacted ordinances approving two additional
programs to provide economic relief for businesses and individual assistance using funds from
the City’s General Fund. Ordinance 3177-2021 authorized the Shop Local Economic Stimulus
Program in the amount of $350,000, amended by Resolution 2021-33 to $361,250. Ordinance
3191-2021 authorized the Groceries and Necessary Household Goods program in the amount of
$215,000. Both programs were administered by Kenai Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center.
The combined total for these programs was $576,250.
The Shop Local program ran from March to May and rewarded local shopping, promoted Kenai
businesses, and assisted in our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. If the City is interested
in pursuing this program for the 2021 holiday season, the Kenai Chamber has indicated that they
would be interested in administering the program.
Page 110
Page 2 of 2
Administration recommends utilizing the remaining COVID-19 CARES Act funds in the amount of
$63,432.14 for First Responder and Incident Management Team Payroll. If Council supports
utilizing the remainder of the COVID-19 CARES Act funds in this manner, Administration will
prepare a resolution for your consideration at the meeting of December 1, 2021. The resolution
would authorize a budget transfer within the CARES Act Recovery Special Revenue Fund from
the Individual Assistance and Administration and Non-Payroll categories to the First Responder
and Incident Management Team Payroll category to facilitate expenditure of the remaining funds
by December 30, 2021.
Additionally, Administration requests City Council consider authorizing funds from the General
Fund to support a Holiday Shop Local Program that would mirror the Shop Local Economic
Stimulus Program for the month of December, 2021 in the amount of $100,000 plus the
administrative fee for the Chamber. While the utilization of General Fund money to stimulate our
local economy is not a core service of the City, the once in a generation pandemic that all of our
residents have been navigating for over 18 months could warrant supporting a program that will
benefit our local businesses and community members that shop in our City. Administration does
recommend that moving forward, the City focus on the core services we provide to the residents
of the City.
If the Council is supportive of a Holiday Shop Local Program, Administration requests that a
special meeting of the Council be scheduled on either November 12 or 15, 2021 to consider an
ordinance that would authorize the Program and appropriate the necessary funding. The
ordinance would need to be introduced and heard in the same meeting to provide sufficient time
to advertise the program before it begins on December 1, 2021.
Your consideration is appreciated.
Page 111
Current Budget Actual FY20 Actual FY21 Actual FY22Total Expenditures & EncumbrancesAvailable BalanceProjected Expenditures RemainingProjected Excess or (Deficit)4,915,569.50$ 2,005,476.77$ 2,910,092.73$ -$ 4,915,569.50$ -$ -$ -$ Round 1: Small Business and Nonprofit Grants2,215,000.00 1,905,000.00 310,000.00 - 2,215,000.00 - - - Round 2: Small Business Grants1,511,872.00 - 1,511,872.00 - 1,511,872.00 - - - Total Business and Nonprofit Entity Recovery3,726,872.00 1,905,000.00 1,821,872.00 - 3,726,872.00 - - - 447,068.53 146,609.73 269,122.49 42.90 415,775.12 31,293.41 20,434.25 10,859.16 Small Business 14,000.00 - 14,000.00 - 14,000.00 - - - Commercial Fishers 50,000.00 - 50,000.00 - 50,000.00 - - - Rental and Mortgage Relief 1,072,373.98 - 1,019,801.00 - 1,019,801.00 52,572.98 - 52,572.98 Mental Health Services - - - - - - - - Small Business Marketing Services 24,000.00 - 24,000.00 - 24,000.00 - - - Food Assistance Services 127,000.00 - 127,000.00 - 127,000.00 - - - Unassigned- - - - - - - - Total Individual Assistance Grants1,287,373.98 - 1,234,801.00 - 1,234,801.00 52,572.98 - 52,572.98 10,376,884.01$ 4,057,086.50$ 6,235,888.22$ 42.90$ 10,293,017.62$ 83,866.39$ 20,434.25$ 63,432.14$ Note: Total budget includes $527.35 in investment earnings since inception of program.Business and Nonprofit Entity Recovery GrantsCARES Act Administration & Non-Payroll Individual Assistance GrantsTotal AllOctober 28, 2021City of Kenai COVID-19 CARES Act Relief and Recovery Grant ProgramsExpenditures and Available BalancesFirst Responder and Incident Management Team PayrollPage 112
KENAI AIRPORT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2021 – 6:00 P.M.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CHAIR GLENDA FEEKEN, PRESIDING
MEETING SUMMARY
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Feeken called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
a. Pledge of Allegiance
Chair Feeken led those assembled in the Pledge of Allegiance.
b. Roll was confirmed as follows:
Commissioners Present:
Commissioners Absent:
G. Feeken, J. Bielefeld, P. Minelga, J. Zirul, D. Leichliter
K. Dodge, D. Pitts
Staff/Council Liaison Present: Airport Manager E. Conway, Airport Administrative Assistant
E. Brincefield, Council Liaison Knackstedt
A quorum was present.
c. Agenda Approval
MOTION:
Commissioner Bielefeld MOVED to approve the agenda with requested revisions and
Commissioner Minelga SECONDED the motion. There were no objections; SO ORDERED.
2. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT – None.
3. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT – None.
4. APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY
a. Regular Meeting of September 9, 2021
MOTION:
Commissioner Minelga MOVED to approve the meeting summary of September 9, 2021 and
Commissioner Bielefeld SECONDED the motion. There were no objections; SO ORDERED.
5. NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion/Recommendation – Special Use Permit to Alaska Geographic for a
Page 113
____________________________________________________________________________________
Airport Commission Meeting Page 2 of 3
October 14, 2021
Vending Kiosk.
MOTION:
Commissioner Zirul MOVED to approve the Special Use Permit to Alaska Geographic for a
Vending Kiosk and Commissioner Bielefeld SECONDED the motion.
Clarification was provided that the vending kiosk would sell interpretive and educational products
related to the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and Alaska Maritime W ildlife Refuge.
There were no objections; SO ORDERED.
b. Discussion/Recommendation – Schilling Rentals, LLC Notice of Application to
Lease Land Within the Airport Reserve.
MOTION:
Commissioner Zirul MOVED to approve the execution of a lease to Schilling Rentals, LLC and
Commissioner Bielefeld SECONDED the motion.
Clarification was provided that the execution of lease was for 45 years to Schilling Rentals for
110 FBO Road.
There were no objections; SO ORDERED.
c. Discussion/Recommendation – Reschedule November 11, 2021 Airport
Commission meeting to November 9, 2021
MOTION:
Commissioner Bielefeld MOVED to approve rescheduling the November 11, 2021 meeting to
November 9, 2021 and Commissioner Bielefeld SECONDED the motion.
Clarification was provided that due to the holiday, November 11, 2021 Airport Commission
meeting needs to be rescheduled.
There were no objections; SO ORDERED.
6. REPORTS
a. Airport Manager – Airport Manager Conway reported on the following:
• He will be conducting interviews for temporary equipment operators;
• Table top exercise to review Airport Emergency Plan;
• Annual snow and ice control meeting is scheduled for October 28, 2021;
• Drainage project postponed to Spring 2022;
• Enplanements are up, but still lower than a normal operating year pre-COVID-
19;
b. City Council Liaison – Council Member Knackstedt reported on actions taken during
the September 22nd and October 6th City Council Meetings.
Page 114
____________________________________________________________________________________
Airport Commission Meeting Page 3 of 3
October 14, 2021
7. NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION – October 14, 2021
Commissioners Zirul and Minelga noted that the may be attending via Zoom.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS – None.
9. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT – None.
10. INFORMATION ITEMS
a. September 2021 Mid-Month Report
b. August 2021 Enplanement Report
11. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:24 p.m.
Meeting summary prepared and submitted by:
________________________
Meghan Thibodeau
Deputy City Clerk
Page 115
KENAI PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 7, 2021 – 6:00 PM
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
VICE CHAIR T. GRANT WISNIEWSKI, PRESIDING
MEETING SUMMARY
1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Wisniewski called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
a. Pledge of Allegiance
Vice Chair Wisniewski led those assembled in the Pledge of Allegiance.
b. Roll was confirmed as follows:
Commissioners present: T. Wisniewski, J. Dennis, S. Kisena, M. Bernard, J. Joanis
Commissioners absent: C. Stephens, D. Rigall, R. Tomrdle
Staff/Council Liaison present: Parks & Rec Director B. Frates, Parks and Rec
Administrative Assistant T. Best, Council Liaison T. Winger
A quorum was present.
c. Agenda Approval
MOTION:
Commissioner Joanis MOVED to approve the agenda as presented and Commissioner Kisena
SECONDED the motion. There were no objections; SO ORDERED.
2. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS – None.
3. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT
Karen Seitz noted that the Kenai Rotary Club is selling tickets to raise funds for the Kenai Dog
Park, and the revenue will help offset costs such as obstacles and amenities.
Chris Westerbilt gave a report on the disc golf course and noted he formed a nonprofit called
Kenai River Disc Golf Club. Their interest is to have a bigger presence in the community and
provide tournaments.
4. APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY
a. June 3, 2021
MOTION:
Commissioner Kisena MOVED to approve the meeting summary of June 3, 2021 and
Commissioner Dennis SECONDED the motion. There were no objections; SO ORDERED.
Page 116
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Page 2 of 2
June 3, 2021
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion/Recommendation – Free Little Library
Eileen Bryson noted that she is working with the Parks & Recreation Department and Friends of
the Library to have three more Little Free Libraries placed in the community. Director Frates will
be reaching out to the Wildwood Correctional Center to see if they would be interested in
constructing the libraries, and that materials and supplies would be provided by Friends of the
Library. It was noted that Kenai Central High School vocational program may be able to contribute
as well.
7. REPORTS
a. Parks and Recreation Director – Director Frates reported on the following:
• Frates is retiring at the end of the month, and he was thankful to the Commission
for all their hard work through the years
b. Commission Chair – No report.
c. City Council Liaison – Council Member Winger reported on the actions of previous
City Council meetings, including waterfront revitalization and feasibility study, and the
hiring of a new City Clerk. She thanked Parks & Recreation for the work done with
the Kenai River Marathon.
8. NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION – November 4, 2021
9. COMMISSION QUESTIONS & COMMENTS – None.
10. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT – None.
11. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. October Multi-Purpose Facility Schedule
12. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Commissioner Kisena MOVED to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Joanis SECONDED
the motion. There were no objections; SO ORDERED.
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Meeting summary prepared and submitted by:
___________________________________
Meghan Thibodeau
Deputy City Clerk
Page 117
KENAI BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2021 – 6:00 P.M.
KENAI CITY HALL
CHAIR LISA GABRIEL, PRESIDING
MEETING SUMMARY
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Gabriel called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
a. Pledge of Allegiance
Chair Gabriel led those assembled in the Pledge of Allegiance.
b. Roll was confirmed as follows:
Committee Members present: Chair L. Gabriel, T. Wilson, E. Heale, B. Roland, J. Phillips
Committee Members absent: S. Douthit, L. Craycraft,
Staff/Council Liaison present: Parks & Recreation Director B. Frates, Parks & Recreation
Administrative Assistant T. Best, Council Liaison V. Askin
A quorum was present.
c. Agenda Approval
MOTION:
Committee Member Heale MOVED to approve the agenda and Vice Chair Wilson SECONDED
the motion. There were no objections; SO ORDERED.
2. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS – None.
3. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT – None.
4. APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY
a. September 14, 2021
MOTION:
Committee Member Heale MOVED to approve the September 14, 2021 minutes. Vice Chair
Wilson SECONDED the motion. There were no objections; SO ORDERED.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Discussion – Fall Pumpkin Festival
Page 118
__________________________________________________________________________________
Beautification Committee Meeting Page 2 of 2
October 12, 2021
Director Frates introduced Tyler Best, the Parks & Recreation Department’s new Administrative
Assistant. Best discussed the upcoming Fall Pumpkin Festival, noting activities, business
sponsorships, and food vendors. Clarification was provided about the marketing plan of the event,
and Best noted that social media and flyers had been used to promote the event. The
recommendation was made to contact the local radio station as well.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion – 2021 Summer Beautification
Director Frates discussed issued he had noted during the Beautification Committee Garden Tour
work session, including Old Town bed around the sign and the Doctor’s Cabin. The Committee
also discussed the trail and entrance to the Doctor’s Cabin, Old Town statue, additional plaques
and fountain and the Leif Hansen Memorial Park, edging work done at parks, and no camping
signs.
7. REPORTS
a. Parks & Recreation Director – Parks and Recreation Director B. Frates reported that
he will be retiring at the end of the month.
b. Committee Chair - Chair Gabriel thanked Director Frates, and asked for the
Committee to be included in the Land Management Plan discussion.
c. City Council Liaison – Council Member Askin reported on the actions of the
September 15th and October 6th Council meetings, and discussed the Land
Management Plan work session on October 11th and the Story W alk grant.
8. NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION – October 12, 2021
Committee Member Heale noted she may be absent.
9. COMMITTEE MEMBER QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS – None.
10. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Susan Schwartz discussed how happy she is about the Pumpkin Festival and that she is going to
volunteer. She gave kudos to the City on the marketing of the event.
11. INFORMATION – None.
12. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Meeting summary prepared and submitted by:
___________________________________
Meghan Thibodeau
Deputy City Clerk
Page 119
5th Annual KSSD by the Numbers
September 2021
Total Income: $17,442.28
Total Ticket Sales: $4,200.00
194 Tickets Sold
Total Sponsorships: $13,242.28
Marathon Oil – Gold Buckets - Supporting
Tote Maritime – Silver The Cannery Lodge - Supporting
Kenai Coolers – Silver Little Alaskan - Contributing
First National Bank Alaska - Bronze East Rip - Contributing
IGA Country Foods – Supporting Northrim Bank – Contributing
Total Expenses: $14,805.38
Payouts $ 6,800.00 Breakdown below
KCF $ 6,621.14 50% of Sponsorships Commitment
Greatlander $ 150.00 Ads
Sound Publishing $ 93.50 Tickets
Kenai Neon Signs $ 576.74 2021 Banners
Jackets $ 144.00 Overall Winner Jackets
KCCVC Staff time $ 120.00
Gaming Permit Fee $ 300.00
$ 14,805.38
Income Less
Expenses $ 2,636.90
Total to KCF $ 9,258.04 $6,621.14 + $2,636.90 = $9,258.04
Total Payouts: $6,800.00
Prize Category Fish Weight Winner Payout
Adult -Day 1 11.00 Tomi Mcmurruuy $100.00
Adult -Day 2 10.98 Kristina Stineburg $100.00
Adult -Day 3 13.01 Dave Dias $100.00
Adult -Day 4 9.52 Leanne Dias $100.00
Adult -Day 5 9.00 Tim Wilkins $100.00
Adult -Day 6 5.84 Ron Toblinson $100.00
Adult- Overall 4.96 Angela Covey $5,000.00
Prize Category Fish Weight Winner Payout
Youth -Day 1 - - $50.00
Youth -Day 2 - - $50.00
Youth -Day 3 6.52 Calvin Abott $50.00
Youth -Day 4 8.46 Grace Craig $50.00
Youth -Day 5 8.44 Calvin Abott $50.00
Youth -Day 6 5.82 Willow Wolak $50.00
Youth - Overall 4.98 Joseph Craig $1,000.00
Page 120
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Brian Gabriel and Kenai City Council
FROM: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
DATE: October 26, 2021
SUBJECT: 2021 Personal Use Fishery (Dip Net) Report
____________________________________________________________________________
The Personal Use Fishery took place July 10, 2021 through July 31, 2021. In 2021, sockeye
escapement to the Kenai River was the highest in recent memory, with over 2.4 million fish
passing the counter, exceeding the escapement goal by over 1.2 million fish. Participation was
consistently strong during the 21-day Fishery.
The following table depicts the run strength in 2021 relative to the previous three years:
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Kenai River Sockeye Counts
2019 2020 2021
Page 121
Page 2 of 4
The timing of the 2021 Kenai River sockeye run was delayed – a change that has been observed
over the last number of years. The disparity between August and July escapement numbers
continues to grow. In 2020, over 1.1 million sockeye were counted in August compared to only
687,000 sockeye counted in July. In 2021, over 1.5 million sockeye were counted in August
compared to only 924,000 sockeye counted in July. Despite the fact that escapement numbers
were lower in July than August, Fishery participants reported good fishing.
Operations in 2021
The no-wake zone along approximately 6,000 lineal feet of the Kenai River continued to work
extremely well this year from the first day of the Fishery until the last. Fishery participants
expressed their appreciation for having a portion of the River in which to fish and not be buffeted
by the wake from speeding boats.
It is the Administration’s intent to continue to manage the no-wake zone in the same manner in
the future.
Operational Changes in 2021
There were several operational changes that occurred in 2021 worth noting:
• New permanent restrooms were completed on North and South Beach, providing
improved facilities for both fishery participants and other beach users.
• Signage related to the Fishery was improved by updating information and removing
conflicting or confusing signage.
Dip Net App
In 2018, the City built a Dip Net App for iPhone and Android devices, free to download, that
provided up -to-date information on the Fishery, including tide information, fish counts, weather,
fee calculators, general Fishery information, webcams, and additional information that was
relevant and useful for Fishery participants. The App also allowed the City to provide “push
notifications” with timely information to improve the experience and safety of anyone who
downloaded the App.
Over the first four years of availability, the App had been downloaded over 20,900 times . Use of
the App was down 28% this year, indicating that after 5 years, an update of the App is likely
needed. The City will look to update the App prior to next year’s Fishery.
2021 Financial Summary
The Council-adopted budget for the P.U. Fishery included revenues of $483,151, expenditures of
$525,146, and a lapse of $11,337, netting to revenues under expenditures of ($30,658).
Revenues are projected at $452,123, and projected expenses are $448,566, with the projected
lapse still at $11,337 netting to revenues over expenditures of $14,894. A transfer of $75,000
was made from the P.U. Fishery Fund to the General Fund to support general operations of the
City, an increase of $25,000 over the prior three years.
The P.U. Fishery Fund began FY2022 with a fund balance of $276,857. Given the above, the
ending fund balance for FY2022 is projected to be $291,751.
Page 122
Page 3 of 4
The purpose of a fund balance is to provide funding for present and future capital expenditures to
support City operations during the Fishery and to safeguard the City’s General Fund in the event
that the Fishery is closed by emergency order and the City is unable to recoup expenditures.
Personal Use Fishery Fund Management
Prior to FY2014, the City had instituted accounting controls so that expenses and revenues
associated with the Personal Use Fishery were identified as discretely separate from other City
operations. In many ways, this accounting mirrored the manner in which enterprise funds capture
financial information.
The creation of the P.U. Fishery Fund provides a funding mechanism where Fund balance can
be utilized to provide funding for larger one-time capital expenditures or other purposes deemed
appropriate by the Council. Fund balance since inception is shown below:
Administration believes that the Personal Use Fishery Fund balance is sufficient to support
capital expenditures to support City operations during the Fishery and protect the City’s General
Fund. The continued use of revenues generated from the Fishery to support General Fund
capital projects or operations will need to be considered annually during the budget process.
Page 123
Page 4 of 4
Capital Improvements for the Personal Use Fishery Fund
As the Fishery has evolved, the City of Kenai has responded by creating its overall management
plan. A growing component of that plan has been meeting the capital requirements to manage,
react, and respond to the needs of the Fishery participants.
The City received a capital grant in 2015 for Kenai River South Beach Dip Net Access, of which
there is still an unallocated balance of $238,173. During the 2019 legislative session, a grant
language change was made that allowed the utilization of these funds for improvements on North
Beach. During FY2021, Council approved the construction of vault bathrooms on North Beach,
construction of permanent restrooms at the Little League Fields, and construction of the fee shack
for South Beach. The fee shack and vault restrooms are completed, and the permanent restrooms
at the Little League Fields are slated for construction next year. Once the final cost of the
restrooms at the Little League Fields is known, Council will need to determine how best to utilize
the remainder of these funds to the greatest benefit to the personal use fishery participants and
the residents of the City.
Given the State of Alaska’s fiscal issues, it is doubtful that the City of Kenai will receive additional
State grants for capital improvements to respond to Fishery needs in the foreseeable future.
Proposed Changes to the 2021 Fee Structure
Administration does not recommend any changes to the fee structure for the 2022 Personal Use
Fishery.
If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Page 124
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Brian Gabriel and Kenai City Council
THROUGH: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
FROM: Terry Eubank, Finance Director
DATE: October 19, 2021
SUBJECT: 2021 Personal Use Fishery (Dip Net) Report – Finance
Dipnet Smartphone App
202 1 marked the five-year anniversary of the Dipnet Kenai smartphone app. Use of the app was
down 28 % from last year. This is likely a result of lower participation in the fishery this year, and
the fact that the app has now gone five years without a major update.
Improvements
There were no significant changes in 2021.
FY21 Revenues
The FY21 fee structure remained the same as that of FY20. FY21 fishery revenues, not including
capital grant revenues and net of sales tax and transaction fees, are projected to be $446,714,
$30,991 less than budgeted and $70,742 less than FY20 fishery revenues. Capital grant revenue
is projected to be $380,435. A comparison of FY21 fishery revenue to prior years is shown below,
the breakdown by site and service for FY14 thru FY21 is based upon actual transactions.
Revenues FY2014
Actual
FY2015
Actual
FY2016
Actual
FY2017
Actual
FY2018
Actual
FY2019
Actual
FY2020
Actual
FY2021
Actual
FY2022
Projected
Day Use Parking $271,770 $219,704 $182,739 $182,854 $174,613 $118,308 $144,330 $175,980 $161,580
Overnight Parking 64,838 199,203 230,729 238,752 210,269 129,939 149,788 214,248 186,387
Dock Launch & Park 91,011 100,970 133,181 128,109 111,528 91,358 105,275 115,304 95,425
Dock Parking Only 14,689 15,868 15,238 14,807 12,009 9,547 11,736 13,377 10,641
Participant Drop-off Fee - - - 10,717 7,481 5,943 4,698 4,792 4,019
Interest Earnings 665 680 1,580 671 1,522 7,624 8,836 469 750
PERS Grant - 17,437 2,167 2,688 1,546 2,743 3,355 3,969 4,696
Miscellaneous (2,401) (3,234) (6,888) (3,681) 675 (3,250) (4,306) (10,592) (11,375)
Total Revenue 440,572 550,628 558,746 574,917 519,643 362,212 423,712 517,547 452,123
Page 125
Page 2 of 5
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
FY2014
Actual
FY2015
Actual
FY2016
Actual
FY2017
Actual
FY2018
Actual
FY2019
Actual
FY2020
Actual
FY2021
Actual
FY2022
Projected
Revenue by Fee Type
Participant Drop-off Fee Day Use Parking Overnight Parking
Dock Launch & Park Dock Parking Only
Municipality of
Anchorage
52%
Matanuska-
Susitna
Borough
14%
Other State or
Unknown
13%Other Area of
Alaska
5%
Kenai
7%
Soldotna
5%Homer
1%
Sterling
1%
Other KPB
2%
Kenai
Peninsula
16%
Total Transactions
Page 126
Page 3 of 5
Total transactions this year were down 11% from 2020 . Transactions on North Beach continue to
increase, accounting for 61% of the total this year, up from 57 % in 2020. South Beach accounted
for 20% and the Dock accounted 19%. Participant numbers were down 13% over 2020. The
percentages of participants from different regions didn't vary significantly from previous years.
Future Considerations
As the number of transactions continues to grow on North Beach it may be necessary to provide
a third fee shack at this location. The third shack would be located in the lower parking lot and
would serve as an information booth as well as a fee shack. Users could renew their permits or
upgrade from drop off passes without having to go up to the top of the hill. This would also provide
an extra employee that could be used to backfill other shacks if an employee is sick or resigns.
This facility would also serve as an information booth, answering questions, dealing with lost and
found items, and could provide a safe location to store the AED.
The cost to provide this third shack would include both capital costs to setup the facility, as well
as ongoing costs to cover the employee.
Page 127
Page 4 of 5
FY22 Financial Projections
Council *
Adopted Amended YTD FY2022 Projected %
FY 2022 Budget Actual Projected Variance Available
Revenues
Beach Parking $183,775 $183,775 $161,580 $161,580 $(22,195) -12.08%
Beach Camping 179,725 179,725 186,387 186,387 6,662 3.71%
Dock Launch & Park 109,600 109,600 95,425 95,425 (14,175) -12.93%
Dock Parking Only 13,400 13,400 10,641 10,641 (2,759) -20.59%
Participant Drop-off Fee 4,205 4,205 4,019 4,019 (186) -4.42%
Interest Earnings 750 750 - 750 - 0.00%
PERS Grant 4,696 4,696 - 4,696 - 0.00%
Other - - - - - 0.00%
Credit Card Transaction Fees (13,000) (13,000) (11,375) (11,375) 1,625 0.00%
Total Revenue
483,151 483,151 446,677 452,123 (31,028) -6.42%
Expenditures
Public Safety $106,173 $106,173 $87,735 $106,173 $- 0.00%
Streets 53,332 53,332 26,857 29,487 23,845 44.71%
Boating Facility 52,588 52,330 36,454 39,174 13,156 25.14%
Parks, Recreation &
Beautification 196,800 225,138 191,255 176,812 48,326 21.47%
Total Expenditures
408,893 436,973 342,301 351,646 85,327 19.53%
Transfers Out:
Transfers - Transfer to General
Fund 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 - 0.00%
Transfers - PU Fishery Capital
Proj Fund 50,000 21,920 21,920 21,920 - 0.00%
Total Transfers
125,000 96,920 96,920 96,920 - 0.00%
Total Expenditures & Transfers 533,893 533,893 439,221 448,566 85,327 15.98%
Contribution To/(From) Fund
Balance: (50,742) (50,742) 7,456 3,557 54,299
Projected Lapse (11,337) (11,337) (11,337) (11,337) -
Adjusted (Deficit)/Surplus (39,405) (39,405) 18,793 14,894 54,299
Beginning Fund Balance 289,217 276,857 276,857 276,857
Ending Fund Balance $249,812 $237,452 $295,650 $291,751
* Council Adopted Budget includes annually adopted budget and carryforward encumbrances.
Page 128
Page 5 of 5
$380,435 remains in a State of Alaska Department of Commerce Community and Economic
Development grant. The City successfully, with the assistance of the late Representative Knopp,
secured a change in scope making improvements on either the City’s north or south beach
eligible. A project currently underway which will utilize these grant funds is the construction of a
new restroom at the Kenai Little League Fields.
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
Estimated
Expenditures
Total Expenditures Operating Expenses Capital Projects
Page 129
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Brian Gabriel and Kenai City Council
THROUGH: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
FROM: Scott Curtin
DATE: October 25, 2021
SUBJECT: 2021 Personal Use Fishery (Dipnet) Report – Public Works
The Public Works Department provided support services for another successful year of the
Fishery. The Streets Division, currently consisting of five full-time employees, recruits additional
temporary staff to manage the boat launch and parking at the City Dock Facility. This year five
Temps were recruited and worked a combined 857.5 hours over the three-week period in support
of the Fishery. Additionally, Streets Division Staff prepares for the Fishery annually by performing
the following:
1) Installing temporary access roads at both North and South Beach locations
2) Placement of over 100 jersey barriers for the direction of traffic
3) Fee shacks are placed and set up for operation
4) Dumpsters and portalets are coordinated with a subcontractor whose services are
competitively bid annually
5) Temporary signage is installed throughout various locations of the City
6) Roads and parking areas are graded, and dust control measures placed
7) Speed bumps deployed on Eagle Rock Dr.
8) No wake signage and buoys are placed within the river
9) City dock parking area is striped
10) Removal of the above at the conclusion of the Fishery
The Division continued to rely heavily on Temps this year to effectively manage the process,
allowing our full-time staff to work on other City Maintenance Projects. As a result, actual hours
worked in support of the Fishery came in well under budgeted amounts.
Total transactions for the dock were 3,456. Comprised of 2,873 Boat Launch & Parking Pass,
557 Day Use Passes, and 26 Drop Offs generating approximately $106,066 in revenue compared
to $135,605 last year.
This year the new vault restrooms were placed into service on North and South beach. Additional
roadway dumpsters were provided on North Beach along Kenai Ave. Both were received well by
the public.
Page 130
Page 2 of 2
Aerial photos below are a good indication of when the fish are in!
Page 131
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
FROM: Dave Ross, Police Chief
DATE: September 20, 2021
SUBJECT: 2021 Personal Use Fishery (Dip Net) Report - Police
The 2021 Dipnet fishery opened on July 10 and ended as scheduled on July 31. In 2021 the City
employed five Temporary Enforcement Officers (TEOs) dedicated to Police dipnet operations.
Significant 2021 Police dipnet information includes:
- Police handled 105 dipnet-related calls for service during the month of July. Those
calls included a wide variety of issues: 37 (9 -1-1) misdials, 5 parking problems, 1
traffic congestion, 3 motor vehicle crashes, 8 lost & found property, 8 disorderly
complaints, 1 boat collision, 3 lost children, 4 animal problems, 5 stuck vehicles, and
30 miscellaneous calls for service.
- TEOs wrote 169 dipnet related citations (primarily for paid parking and other parking
related violations).
- Salmon Frenzy volunteers returned to assist in the fishery after cancelling last year
due to COVID. Volunteers assisted at the beach with traffic flow along Kenai Avenue,
and at the City dock. Their numbers of volunteers were fewer this year than in prior
years, but they provided valuable assistance to operations.
- COVID did not appear to have any impacts on our dipnet operations this year.
- For the second year, pay shacks did not accept cash. This continued to reduce the
commitment of time and resources to handle that cash. TEOs were able to focus their
time on other fishery related issues.
- TEOs also proved invaluable in assisting with other police emergencies/operations
over the busy summer months, including assistance at a motor vehicle collision that
included multiple fatalities.
The 2021 fishery went smoothly from the perspective of the police department.
Page 132
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
FROM: Tony Prior, Fire Chief
DATE: September 22, 2021
SUBJECT: 2021 Personal Use Fishery (Dip Net) Report – Fire Department
Fire Department dipnet related call volume was similar to previous years in 2021. This season we
conducted 2 vaccine clinics at North beach, in addition to other dipnet related calls. We conducted
3 “No Wake” patrols in coordination with KPD. Total overtime hours for boat patrols were 11.5
hours.
The Fire Department had the following service calls f or Dip Net season.
Actively dipnetting 6
Here for dipnet, but not actively dipnetting 3
Fires 2
Automobile fire 1
Falsely Reported fire 1
EMS calls 7
Trauma/ Assault 2
Medical 5
Cardiac Arrest 0
Service Calls 2
Vaccine Clinics 2
Boat Patrols 3
Page 133
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Brian Gabriel and Kenai City Council
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Paul Ostrander, City Manager
Robert J. Frates, Parks & Recreation Director
October 1, 2021
2021 Personal Use Fishery (Dip Net) Report - Parks and Rec
The purpose of this memo is to summarize the Kenai Parks & Recreation Department’s
activities related to the 2021 Kenai Personal Use Fishery.
The dipnet fishery started July 10 and continued through July 31. Dipnetting was only open
between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. There were no emergency orders issued this
season by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game affecting either openings or closures.
Moreover, there were no DEC advisories issued for fecal coliform or enterococci bacteria
exceedances as part of the Kenai Beach program.
As in years past, City departments played a key role in meeting a wide range of operational and
maintenance challenges. Whether City services aided in the direct support of the fishery or
indirectly as a result of increased visitations to our facilities, all departments are to be
commended for a job well done. Additionally, local businesses contributed and benefited by the
extra traffic in town. This provided a much-desired boost to the local economy which assisted in
recovering from some of the negative impacts of Covid-19.
The newly constructed vaulted restrooms along Kenai Avenue and on Royal Street were
completed in time for dipnet season. Although the anticipated rental (portable restrooms)
savings were not realized as originally projected, much improved services were provided for the
participants both in terms of increased capacity and cleanliness.
The Alaska Missions and Retreat had a presence this season after not participating last year
due to Covid-19. Although their presence was smaller in numbers as compared to year’s past,
their contribution was far reaching. Whether helping direct traffic, picking up litter or sweeping
restrooms, their effort was felt and greatly appreciated.
Below is a summary of dipnet related tasks and activities the department was engaged in:
Reinstalled 100 lineal feet of post and chain along Kenai Avenue on the backside of the
newly constructed restrooms.
Page 134
Page 2 of 2
Coordinated with the Kenai Watershed Forum for their educational booth setup and
presence.
Coordinated the Kenai Central High School Nordic ski team for Tuesday and Thursday
clean ups on the north beach. They estimated 6,500 sq. ft. of trash was collected
during the fishery and had a total of 71 participants.
Coordinated with staff at the Wildwood Correctional Facility for end of season clean up.
A total of 30 labor hours were provided. The department logged 23 hours of clean up
after the season.
Cleaned out and relocated 15 to 20 fire rings on the north beach.
Installation and removal (65 hrs) of temporary signs related to the fishery.
Installation and removal (38.50 hrs) of temporary fencing.
Striping (14 hrs) the north beach and Little League parking lots.
Restroom cleaning and waste management (115 hrs). This is an increase from previous
seasons and largely attributable to the additional vaulted restrooms.
Participated in “all hands training” and conducted training in-house for key personnel.
Total training time was approximately 14 hours.
Coordinated with Kenai Little League for their hosting of the District 1 Minor Division
baseball tournament (July 10-17).
Our Beach Assistant provided 276 hours patrolling the north and south beaches and
worked closely with the Temporary Seasonal Officers. The focus this season was
almost exclusively on the north beach.
Page 135
PURCHASE ORDERS BETWEEN $2,500.00 AND $15,000.00 FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
COUNCIL MEETING OF: NOVEMBER 3, 2021
VENDOR DESCRIPTION DEPT. ACCOUNT AMOUNT
WEST COAST PAPER MEALS TRAYS , BOWLS , FILM TITLE Ill OPERATING SUPPLIES 7,000.00
ZUMAR INDUSTRIES SIGNAGE SUPPLIES STREETS .OPERATING SUPPLIES 7 ,840.50
NEOGOV ONLINE RECRUITMENT SOFTWARE HUMAN RESOURCES SOFTWARE 4 ,786.11
DEMCO SHELVING FOR KIDS AREA LIBRARY IMPS Oil BUILDINGS 4,957.20
CDW GOVERNMENT NETWORK SECURITY EQUIPMENT VARIOUS SMALL TOOLS 6,203.91
COOL AIR MECHANICAL WATER BOTILE FILLERS ADMIN SMALL TOOLS 14,134.25
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ELECTION COSTS CLERK VARIOUS 4,771.53
FRIGID NORTH COMPANY NETWORK CABLE AND PARTS NON-DEPARTMENTAL SMALL TOOLS 2,574.99
AUTOMATIONDIRECT.COM CABINETS VARIOUS SMALL TOOLS 2,740.00
Page 136
October 25, 2021
Keriann C. Baker,
Director of Member Relations
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
280 Airport Way
Kenai, AK 99611
Dear Ms. Baker:
On behalf of the Kenai Senior Center, a sincere thank you for the $500.00 donation in
celebration of National Cooperative Month.
The Kenai Peninsula is one of the fastest growing areas for our aging population. Since
1971, the Kenai Senior Center has been providing services to seniors allowing them to
safely remain in the home environment as long as possible. Your contribution to our
program will help to continue these efforts.
Again, thank you for your support of the Kenai Senior Center as we work to meet the
needs of the aging in our community.
Sincerely,
CITY OF KENAI
Kathy Romain, Director
Kenai Senior Center
Page 137
Officers:
President—June Harris
Vice President—Virginia Walters
Secretary—Sharon Fisher
Treasurer—Ron Fullinck
Board of Directors:
Jim Glendenning Joe Harris
Henry Knackstedt Bill Nelson
Marion Nickelson Frosty Walters
KENAI HISTORICAL SOCIETY NEWSLETTER
Written by Sharon Fisher
If you would like to contribute ideas and information to the newsletter, please contact me at 776-8254. I welcome and would
entertain any ideas you may have for articles, and would appreciate being contacted if you see errors in the information con-
tained in the newsletter.
October 2021 Newsletter
Kenai Historical Society
P.O. Box 1348
Kenai, Alaska 99611
INSIDE THIS
ISSUE:
• PRESERVING HISTORY
• BRINGING THE PAST
TO LIFE
• SEPTEMBER 2021
MEETING MINUTES
• ANNOUNCEMENTS
PRESERVING HISTORY
I cannot think of any effort by a historical society that is more im-
portant than the preservation of history. This can be done in a
number of ways: displays in a museum, collections of histories of
the community (personal and organizational), newsletters or
newspaper articles that are written and/or saved, working with
future generations to relate the local history.
All of these efforts require a dedication by the members of the in-
dividual society in order to be accomplished. If people belong to
an organization they must think that the goals of that group are
important. But, do they think it important enough to be actively
involved in the project? I pose the following thought:
If not you, then who?
• Are you actively engaged in your organization?
• Do you serve on the Board of Directors?
• Do you work actively on organization projects.?
• Do you offer constructive ideas and then follow through to see
them implemented?
Page 138
BRINGING THE PAST TO LIFE
Peggy Arness has been an active member of the community of Kenai for decades. She is the daughter
of Allen and Jetret Petersen who were involved in this community since the 1930s. She is an inveter-
ate collector of Alaska history and Kenai history and has articles, notes, photos, and physical objects
that tell the story of our community. She has worked on projects to help the Kenai Historical Society
organize, and she has given information to us any time we ask. Now, she is going one step further: she
is opening her home to a group of us to sit down and look at her collection of local history and is will-
ing to share it with us so that it will be available to future historians.
This committee is meeting with her for a series of visits to determine what written and photographic
information that we might want to obtain copies of to add to our own society files. These meetings will
create an inventory of her collections—-both for her descendants and for our future society members. I
am going to share in this newsletter a few photos that were obtained from the first meeting so that you
will begin to understand the value of this opportunity.
I invited several people to be involved in this project based on their demonstrated interest in preserv-
ing our local history, coupled with my knowledge of their ability to recognize and identify items that
add to our understanding of Kenai area history. The first meeting was very productive, and headed us
in the direction of what to look for and how to identify items of interest.
Having access to a collected history can be very daunting at first because you don’t always get to start
at the beginning and work your way forward in time. Items may be randomly placed, or they may be
put with other items of similar value. Sometimes they are just thrown into a container with nothing
sorted or orderly.
About 10 years ago we first unpacked the boxes of stored history of the Kenai Historical Society, which
had been boxed about 30 years earlier. There was some order to the packing, but not much, and our
first task was to create a system to organize the collection. Luckily, we had several filing cabinets to
move photos, clippings, and books into. We used one cabinet to create a filing system of events, busi-
nesses, organizations, and government, and we sorted generally into those categories. A second filing
cabinet was used to sort items based on individuals or families, using the initial of the last name.
Items that were identified would go into the general file (i.e. A, B, C ….). Later in time, we would have
enough material on one family name to add a file folder for all items pertaining to them. Other cabi-
nets were dedicated to a specific subject (sometimes just storage for collections of photo albums that
had been gifted to the Society. It took a really long time to unpack and place all the contents.
Fortunately, Peggy is an organized person by nature and by years of various organizational experience;
thus, much of the above work has already been done. As we visited and took some breaks to enjoy the
delicious food she had provided for us, we spent a wonderful six hours looking at her collections. She
started the visit by telling us some of the history of her family so that we would understand what was
going to become available in the binders and albums she was sharing. She talked about making al-
bums for each of her family members so that they would have a sense of the family and the community
they were born into and were being raised in. She related that when the great grandchildren visit, they
are introduced to their family be being allowed to look at their own album/binder. At future visits,
they immediately gravitate toward “their book”. Peggy’s years as a teacher bring the experience of
knowing how to engage children and I cannot image a better way than this to encourage learning.
The task of this committee will now be to obtain copies of the material she has provided and to imple-
ment it in our records. That will take some time to make it properly identifiable and locatable, but not
near as long as if we had to sort through random boxes by ourselves. I cannot begin to express how
very grateful we are to have this opportunity to obtain and ultimately to share with others who love the
Kenai area as much as Peggy does.
Page 139
3
This photo (from Peggy Arness) of the village of Kenai, circa 1900, is one of a few early photos of Old
Town Kenai that the Kenai Historical Society has in it’s files. In the upper left area, you can see the
cross of the Russian Church, so the other buildings are oriented toward the river and going in an up -
river direction. If you look to the extreme upper left of this photo, you can see a flag flying at the front
of a building. At the very edge of the photo, you can see what appears to be a cupola on top of the roof
of that same building.
There is a photo on the page 4 of this newsletter that I believe to have been a school in Kenai from the
early 1900’s (based on the clothing). It is my belief that this photo is the 1st territorial school in Kenai,
which was replaced by the 2nd territorial school (located where the Kenai Fine Arts building is to-
day—-formerly a firehouse/jail built in the 1950s).
I’ve wondered for some time where the 1st territorial school was located. Could this be the building in
the above photo? I don’t want to suggest that it absolutely is the school, but the location is consistent
with a couple of other photos I’ve seen relating to the 1st territorial school (which was later used as a
Territorial Marshall’s dwelling that burned in the 1930s).
We’re long past the point of having anyone around who could identify the location of various build-
ings, so we’re left to ferret out the information from photos and written documentation that we can
find. Do you have, or do you know of anyone who has, old photos or written accounts relating to the
area of Old Town Kenai? If you do, I suggest that you encourage them to share with the Kenai Histori-
cal Society what they might be able to contribute.
Page 140
The photo above is of a Kenai School, and based on clothing, I’d suggest from the early decades of
1900 (1910-20).
This photo below is of a building that was used by Federal Marshall Charlie Watson, and it
burned in 1930. I believe they are the same building. Now, if the school was located where the flag
and building with a cupola are in the picture on page 3, we would have the approximate location
of the 1st Kenai Territorial School. The below photo is from Ruth Grueninger, who wrote the in-
formation on the back of the photo. Per her
comments, this was a residence, jail, and
post office, with Grace Watson as postmas-
ter (one would presume she was the Mar-
shall’s wife). Now, being critical of my
thinking, I will note that the chimney is in a
different location in these two pictures, and
I have no real explanation for that. So either
the chimney was moved or there were two
very similar buildings in Kenai.
Page 141
5
Here is another wonderful discovery I made from a picture provided by Peggy Arness. Below
is an aerial photo of Kenai Airport in 1947. The lower end of the runway is approximately
where the Kenai ball fields are today (Main Street and Spur Highway). There was not much I
could see at first to identify any of the buildings until I paid some attention to the lower left
of the picture. You see a cluster of buildings on the river side of the runway, and to the right
of those is a rough road in the direction of the river. To the right of that road is a rather larg-
er light-colored building (a center 2nd story window and a roofed set of steps) and when I
really looked more closely at it, I realized that this was probably the 2nd Kenai Territorial
School, of which we do know absolutely where that was located—-the Kenai Fine Arts Center.
The front of that school has become iconic with photos of various school classes posed on the
steps of the school. That school building (replaced by the 3rd Kenai Territorial School) be-
came the property of the Kenai Civic League, with plans to use it as a community center, but
the building began to deteriorate and was torn down and replaced by the Kenai Civic League
building and by the Kenai Fire Department/Jail building (now Fine Arts Center).
Page 142
6
P.O. Box 1348
Kenai, AK 99611 kenaihistory@gmail.com
MINUTES *** SEPTEMBER 12, 2021 Abbreviated
On Sunday, September 12, 2021, the Kenai Historical Society met at the Kenai Visitor and Cultural Cen-
ter in Kenai. President June Harris opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
President Harris noted the status of the cabins for the summer of 2021; the park was open for July and
August with tours conducted by docent Mary Weybark; with focus on keeping cabins clean and addi-
tionally working on the grounds cleanup. She hosted 415 visitors despite the continued issues with
Covid.
We gave out two scholarships this spring of $2000 each, one to a young man attending Alaska Voca-
tional Center in Seward who is majoring in plumbing and heating; and the 2 nd to a young woman at-
tending Oklahoma Christian University with a major in elementary education. Received thank you
notes from both winners. We had a good turnout of 8 applications total.
No Kenai Peninsula Historical Association fall meeting in October, and they are hoping for a Spring
Meeting in May.
The meeting adjourned with a potential next meeting on November 7 (unless it appears not a good idea
for public gatherings). No other announcements were forthcoming.
Introduces guest speaker Clark Fair.
Respectfully submitted by Sharon Fisher, Secretary.
Page 143
KENAI HISTORIC SOCIETY
Our Organization
There has been a Historic Society
since the days before Kenai becom-
ing a city. The Society was formed a
few years before Statehood in 1959,
and then went inactive in the early
60’s. It restarted in the latter part of
the 60’s and has met regularly since.
The Society had a museum in Fort
Kenay for some years, and then
continued to meet after that closed.
The non-profit Society implemented
and operates the Kenai Historic
Cabins Park, open for tours in the
summer months. We have office
space at the Moosemeat John cabin,
but are not open to the public in
that building. Our member meetings
are Sept., Nov., Dec., Jan., Feb.,
Mar., and April at the Kenai Visitor
Center. For Oct. and May, we meet
with the Kenai Peninsula Historical
Association. Please check the Meet-
ings and Announcements section on
this page for date information.
MEETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Kenai Historical Society Monthly Meeting
November 7, 2021 —1:30 p.m.
Kenai Visitor Center
Discussion Panel
Peggy Arness, Evelyn Boulette, Ray Rawley
Barb Jewel, Dick Reger
will be talking about their years in Kenai
and will attempt to answer any questions
from the audience about their recollections
from the time period 1940 to 1960.
PLEASE
PLACE
STAMP
HERE
Kenai Historic Society
P.O. Box 1348
Kenai, AK 99611
Phone: 283-1946
Phone: 776-8254
E-mail: ak.kyaker@yahoo.com
www.facebook.com/Kenai-
Historical-Society
Page 144
NOVEMBER 3, 2021
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL/REVISIONS
REQUESTED ADDITIONS TO THE PACKET:
ACTION ITEM REQUESTED BY
Add to item J.1. City Manager Report
• Amendment 14 to Fishery Mgmt. Plan
for Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ City Manager
Add to item O.4. Information Items
• Chamber of Commerce Christmas
Festivities Information Council Member Winger
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendme…1/41
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook
Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
LEGAL STATUS
This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal
Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.
The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site
includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on
FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register
(ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications
and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.
The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the
objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has
been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based
PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal
Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not
provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.
LEGAL STATUS
A Rule by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on 11/03/2021
Printed version:
PDF (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-11-03/pdf/2021-23610.pdf)
Publication Date:
11/03/2021 (/documents/2021/11/03)
Agencies:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/national-oceanic-and-atmospheric-administration)
Dates:
Effective December 3, 2021.
Effective Date:
12/03/2021
Document Type:
Rule
Document Citation:
86 FR 60568
Page:
60568-60588 (21 pages)
CFR:
50 CFR 679
Agency/Docket Number:
Docket No. 211025-0215
RIN:
0648-BK31 (https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/0648-BK31/amendment-14-to-the-fishery-management-plan-for-the-salmon-fisheries-in-the-
eez-off-alaska)
Document Number:
2021-23610
DOCUMENT DETAILS
Page 2 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendme…2/41
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY:
DATES:
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 14 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the
Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Off Alaska (Salmon FMP). Amendment 14 will
incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea into the Salmon FMP's West Area, thereby bringing the Cook Inlet
EEZ Subarea and the commercial salmon fisheries that occur within it under Federal management by the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS. This action will apply the prohibition on
commercial salmon fishing that is currently established in the West Area to the newly added Cook Inlet EEZ
Subarea. This final rule is necessary to comply with a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling and
to ensure the Salmon FMP is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This final rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Salmon FMP, and other applicable laws.
Effective December 3, 2021.
Electronic copies of the Environmental Assessment and the Regulatory Impact Review (collectively referred
to as the “Analysis”) and the Finding of No Significant Impact prepared for this final rule may be obtained
from https://www.regulations.gov (https://www.regulations.gov) or from the NMFS Alaska Region
website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ region/ alaska
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska) .
Doug Duncan, 907-586-7228 or doug.duncan@noaa.gov (mailto:doug.duncan@noaa.gov) .
PUBLISHED DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT DETAILS
Page views:
21
as of 11/03/2021 at 2:15 pm EDT
DOCUMENT STATISTICS
DOCUMENT STATISTICS
Page 3 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendme…3/41
Background
This final rule implements Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP. NMFS published the Notice of Availability
(NOA) for Amendment 14 in the Federal Register on May 18, 2021 (86 FR 26888 (/citation/86-FR-
26888)), with public comments invited through July 19, 2021. NMFS published the proposed rule to
implement Amendment 14 in the Federal Register on June 4, 2021 (86 FR 29977 (/citation/86-FR-
29977)). Comments submitted on the NOA and the proposed rule for Amendment 14 were considered jointly.
The Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 14 on August 12, 2021, after considering public comment
and determining that Amendment 14 is consistent with the Salmon FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and
other applicable laws. No substantive changes have been made from the proposed rule in this final rule.
The following provides a brief summary of the background for Amendment 14. Additional information is
provided in the preamble of the proposed rule and the Analysis.
The Council's Salmon FMP manages the Pacific salmon fisheries in the EEZ from 3 nautical miles to 200
nautical miles off Alaska. The Council developed the Salmon FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and it
first became effective in 1979. The Council has divided the Salmon FMP's coverage into the West Area and
the East Area, with the boundary between the two areas at Cape Suckling, at 143°53.6′ W longitude. The
Salmon FMP authorizes commercial salmon fishing in the East Area, and prohibits commercial salmon
fishing in the West Area. Through Amendment 12 (December 21, 2012, 77 FR 75570 (/citation/77-FR-
75570)), three small areas in the EEZ—including the Cook Inlet EEZ—where commercial salmon fishing with
nets was originally authorized by the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North
Pacific Ocean, as implemented by the North Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954, were excluded from the Salmon
FMP and therefore not subject to the West Area prohibition on commercial fishing. Amendment 12's removal
of these three areas in the EEZ from the Salmon FMP's West Area allowed the State of Alaska (State) to
manage these areas independently and outside of an FMP.
Cook Inlet commercial salmon fishermen and seafood processors challenged Amendment 12 and its
implementing regulations, including removal of the Cook Inlet EEZ from the Salmon FMP. United Cook Inlet
Drift Ass'n v. NMFS, No. 3:13-cv-00104-TMB, 2014 WL 10988279 (D. Alaska 2014). On appeal, the Ninth
Circuit held that section 302(h)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1852
(https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/1852?type=usc&year=mostrecent&link-type=html)(h)(1))
requires a Council to prepare and submit FMPs for each fishery under its authority that requires
conservation and management. United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. NMFS, 837 F.3d 1055, 1065 (9th Cir. 2016).
Because NMFS agreed that the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery needs conservation and management by some
entity, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fishery be included in the Salmon
FMP.
Through its public processes, the Council spent significant time from 2017 to 2020 developing and
evaluating management alternatives to comply with the Ninth Circuit's ruling. The Council considered four
alternatives, which are described in Section 2 of the Analysis: Alternative 1, status quo management;
Alternative 2, Federal management of the Cook Inlet EEZ with specific management measures delegated to
the State; Alternative 3, independent Federal management of the Cook Inlet EEZ with specific management
measures for the commercial salmon fishery sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ; and Alternative 4, independent
Federal management of the Cook Inlet EEZ with a closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ to commercial salmon
fishing. Alternative 1 would have been inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit ruling, and at the December 2020
Council meeting, the State announced it would not accept a delegation of management authority. Therefore,
Alternatives 3 and 4 were the only viable management alternatives for the Council by the time it took final
Start Printed
Page 60569
Page 4 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendme…4/41
Amendment 14 and This Final Rule
Comments and Responses
action. After this extensive public review and development process, the Council recommended Alternative 4
as Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP in December 2020. In accordance with section 304(a) and (b) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS approved Amendment 14 and implements it with this final rule.
Amendment 14 incorporates the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea (defined as the EEZ waters of Cook Inlet north of a
line at 59°46.15′ N) into the Salmon FMP's West Area, thereby bringing the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea and the
commercial salmon fishery that occurs within it under Federal management by the Council and NMFS.
Amendment 14 applies the prohibition on commercial salmon fishing that is currently established in the
West Area to the newly added Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. Most other existing FMP provisions that apply to the
West Area also apply to the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. This action specifically addresses management of the
Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea and the commercial salmon fishery that occurs there. With Amendment 14 and this
final rule, the Council and NMFS are amending the Salmon FMP and Federal regulations to comply with the
Ninth Circuit's decision, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This action (1) takes the most precautionary approach to minimizing the potential for overfishing, (2)
provides the greatest opportunity for maximum harvest from the Cook Inlet salmon fishery, (3) avoids
creating new management uncertainty, (4) minimizes regulatory burden to fishery participants, (5)
maximizes management efficiency for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery and (6) avoids the introduction of an
additional management jurisdiction into the already complex and interdependent network of Cook Inlet
salmon fishery sectors.
This final rule implements Amendment 14 by removing the regulation that excludes the Cook Inlet EEZ
Subarea from the directly adjacent West Area. This final rule revises the definition of “Salmon Management
Area” at 50 CFR 679.2 (/select-citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-679.2) to redefine the Cook Inlet Area as the
Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea and incorporate it into the West Area. This final rule also revises Figure 23 to 50
CFR part 679 (/select-citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-679) consistent with the revised definition of the Salmon
Management Area at § 679.2. As part of the West Area, the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea will be subject to the
prohibition on commercial fishing for salmon at § 679.7(h)(2).
This final rule does not modify existing State management measures, nor does it preclude the State from
adopting additional management measures that could provide additional harvest opportunities for the Cook
Inlet salmon fishery, including commercial drift gillnet fishermen, within State waters.
As this action prohibits commercial salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea consistent with existing
Federal management in adjacent West Area waters, no additional Federal fishery management measures are
required. The West Area prohibition on commercial salmon fishing will continue to be enforced by State and
Federal authorities under the revised boundaries resulting from this action. For additional information about
Amendment 14 and implementing regulations, see the preamble to the proposed rule (June 4, 2021, 86 FR
29977 (/citation/86-FR-29977)).
NMFS received 56 comment submissions on the NOA for Amendment 14 and the proposed rule. NMFS has
summarized and responded to 67 unique and relevant comments below. Several comment submissions were
duplicates or addressed topics outside the scope of the proposed rule. The comments were from individuals,
environmental groups, State government personnel, local government personnel, and industry participants.
Comments are organized by topic into the following categories: Comments in support of this action, General
Page 5 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendme…5/41
Comments in Support of This Action
General Comments
comments, National Standards 1 and 3, National Standard 8, Economic impacts, Consistency with other
National Standards, Impacts on marine mammals, Comments on the development of Amendment 14,
Comments on State salmon management, and Comments on legal issues.
Comment 1: This action will protect valuable Cook Inlet salmon runs for future generations of users from all
states and is supported by the available scientific evidence. This action is necessary to preserve and protect
this vital resource.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
Comment 2: This action will support sustainable management of all salmon stocks in Cook Inlet, provide
harvest opportunities to a wide variety of Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors, and reduce the likelihood of
future fishery disaster declarations.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
Comment 3: The State has appropriately managed the Cook Inlet salmon fishery since before statehood and
is better situated to continue in-season management of the Cook Inlet salmon fishery than the slow and
cumbersome Federal management process.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
Comment 4: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) supports implementation of Amendment 14
as outlined in the proposed rule. The proposed rule and Analysis use the best scientific information available
and provide a sufficient basis for NMFS to approve and implement Amendment 14.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
Comment 5: ADFG agrees with the conclusions included in the Analysis that implementation of Amendment
14 to prohibit commercial salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ is not expected to result in a significant
change in the conditions of Cook Inlet salmon stocks and other living marine resources and their habitats.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
Comment 6: The impacts of Amendment 14 are uncertain at best and disastrous at worst because it would
severely complicate effective sustainable fishery management for biologists by limiting the entire drift gillnet
fleet into a three nautical mile State waters corridor to harvest the returning fish.
Response: As described in Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis, NMFS acknowledges that this action would
decrease the area available for the drift gillnet fleet to harvest Cook Inlet salmon relative to the status quo.
Section 4.5.2 of the Analysis notes that during peak commercial fishing times the fishery can already be
limited to State waters by the State for conservation and management purposes.
NMFS disagrees that Amendment 14 would complicate effective and sustainable management of the Cook
Inlet salmon fishery. Closing the EEZ to commercial salmon fishing avoids creating the significant new
management uncertainty associated with Alternative 3, the only other viable management alternative.
Start Printed
Page 60570
Page 6 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendme…6/41
Additionally, during Council deliberations and in public comment submitted on Amendment 14, the State
concurred that, of the viable alternatives, Amendment 14 is most likely to achieve the salmon conservation
and management objectives established by the Council and the specific requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis for the Upper Cook Inlet
(UCI) salmon fishery. The State also agreed that Cook Inlet salmon stocks could be harvested successfully
and sustainably within State waters and did not identify significant management concerns associated with
this action.
As detailed in the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS has determined that Amendment 14 best optimizes
conservation and management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks when considering the viable management
alternatives.
Comment 7: Salmon management under the Salmon FMP should include cooperation between the Council
and ADFG and be fair to benefit all Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors. Amendment 14 is not fair and creates
an imbalance within the fishery.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the importance and benefits of cooperation from all fishery sectors when
developing an FMP. This final action was developed through the Council process, which provided substantial
opportunities for public input. Sections 1.3 and 2 of the Analysis and the preamble of the proposed rule
describe the range of issues that the Council considered in selecting this final action, including Federal
jurisdiction that is limited to Federal waters.
Amendment 14 limits user group conflicts by prohibiting commercial salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ
subarea. This allows competing interests and conflicts among all Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors to be
balanced and resolved by the government entity (the State) with management authority to regulate harvest
by all Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors. Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of the Analysis describe the multiple salmon
fishery sectors managed by the State within Cook Inlet. Federal fishery management under the FMP would
apply only in the EEZ, where the drift gillnet fishery is the only commercial fishery sector and the
predominant user group.
Independent Federal management of a separate commercial fishery sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea, an
option considered and rejected by the Council under Alternative 3, would have changed the forum for some
fishery sector conflicts in Cook Inlet from the Alaska Board of Fisheries to the Council. However, this
management structure would not, in and of itself, lessen the conflicts inherent in the difficult task of
allocating salmon, a finite resource, to all Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors—subsistence, recreational, and
different commercial gear types—that harvest Cook Inlet salmon from EEZ waters through to the headwaters
of Cook Inlet streams and rivers. Under any of the action alternatives, NMFS would not manage the harvest
of salmon within State waters, but would have to account for removals within State waters by all Cook Inlet
salmon fishery sectors and the attendant uncertainty when determining the appropriate level of harvest in
Federal waters.
Comment 8: Amendment 14 is contrary to and undermines Alaska's long-standing tradition and standard of
excellent fisheries management.
Response: NMFS agrees that the State of Alaska has a long-standing tradition and standard of excellent
salmon fisheries management but disagrees that Amendment 14 is contrary to or undermines the State's
management of the Cook Inlet salmon fishery. The Council worked for more than 3 years on the development
of Amendment 14 with input from stakeholders, NMFS, and ADFG. As detailed in the preamble to the
Page 7 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendme…7/41
proposed rule, this action maximizes utilization of Cook Inlet salmon resources while minimizing the
potential for overfishing. Further, this action is consistent with longstanding Federal management of the
West Area that has facilitated successful State management of Alaska's salmon resources throughout the
region.
Comment 9: Multiple commenters supported delegating management authority to the State in the Federal
waters of Cook Inlet and opposed the adoption of Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP.
Response: The State announced it would not accept a delegation of management authority at the Council's
December 2020 meeting. NMFS cannot require or compel a state to accept a delegation of management
authority for a fishery in Federal waters.
Comment 10: Several commenters, including the State (ADFG), indicated they would prefer the existing
management structure analyzed by the Council as Alternative 1, status quo.
Response: As a result of the Ninth Circuit decision, the Council and NMFS cannot defer management of the
Cook Inlet EEZ to the State by excluding the area from FMP management given that the commercial salmon
fishery within the Cook Inlet EEZ requires conservation and management. Because the Cook Inlet EEZ must
be included in the FMP, the State cannot continue to manage the Cook Inlet EEZ without explicitly being
delegated management authority in the FMP. Therefore, Alternative 1 was not a viable option. Instead, the
FMP must be amended to incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea into the FMP, as described in Section 2 of
the Analysis.
Comment 11: Cooperative Federal and State management takes place in other fisheries in Alaska, including
other salmon fisheries in the East Area. Why can the Federal government work together with the State in all
other regions except Cook Inlet?
Response: NMFS worked with ADFG throughout the development of Amendment 14. Cooperative Federal
and State management is only possible to the extent the State is willing to accept a delegation of management
authority, which the State has accepted for salmon fisheries in the East Area. As stated in the response to
Comment 9, NMFS cannot require a state to accept a delegation of management authority. Prior to the
December 2020 Council meeting, the State had not adopted a position on its willingness to accept a
delegation of management authority for the Cook Inlet EEZ. The remarks that were made on the record by
ADFG's voting representative at the December 2020 Council meeting provide the State's rationale for
refusing a delegation of management authority.
Comment 12: Amendment 14 would increase the risk to public safety by moving hundreds of fishermen (each
trailing 900-1,200 foot-long gillnets) into the already congested area within State waters.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment. As described in Section 4.7.4.2 of the Analysis, fishery
congestion may increase and, together with the potential for decreased revenues, could have an indirect
impact to vessel safety. That said, this action does move the fleet closer to other vessels for mutual assistance
as well as shore-based emergency resources. Combined with ADFG's and the Alaska Board of Fisheries'
consideration of safety in their management decisions, Amendment 14 is not expected to have a significant
impact on safety. Section 4.5.2 of the Analysis also notes that during peak times, the fishery can already be
limited to State waters and no significant safety issues have developed. For these reasons, the Council and
NMFS determined that Amendment 14 is consistent with National Standard 10.
Start Printed
Page 60571
Page 8 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendme…8/41
National Standards 1 and 3
Comment 13: Closing an area to commercial fishing that has been heavily utilized for nearly a hundred years
is not a management plan.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Area closures, including those specific to a fishery or gear type, are commonly
used by the Council and NMFS to achieve conservation and management objectives for FMPs.
Comment 14: People who have spent their lifetime honing their craft and knowledge will see it taken away by
the Council process and its recommendation to close the EEZ. Do not approve this action.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment, but notes that there is opportunity for the drift gillnet fishery
to continue within State waters where it currently harvests over half of its average annual catch. Further, of
the viable management alternatives, the Council determined and NMFS agrees that closing the Cook Inlet
EEZ to commercial salmon fishing is the management approach most likely to avoid uncertainty and
maximize harvest of Cook Inlet salmon stocks while preventing overfishing.
Comment 15: Appendix 12 provides the State's answers on the impacts of its own proposal to close fishing in
the EEZ. The State calls the EEZ portion of the Cook Inlet a small area. That is not accurate. The area is
about 1,000 square miles and comprises about one-half of the Central District.
Response: NMFS interpreted “small” as relative to the entirety of Cook Inlet. NMFS acknowledges that the
Cook Inlet EEZ is a substantial portion of the Cook Inlet Central District where the UCI drift gillnet fleet may
operate, as described in Section 4.5.2.1 of the Analysis.
Comment 16: Amendment 14 is inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including National Standard 3,
because it does not apply to the entire salmon fishery, including State waters management practices ( e.g.,
escapement goals, management plans, allocations, and in season management decisions). Commercial
fishers want a management plan that covers salmon stocks throughout their range to ensure management is
consistent with the National Standards. This is not a request for preemption. NMFS' own regulations
require: “The geographic scope of the fishery, for planning purposes, should cover the entire range of the
stocks(s) of fish, and not be overly constrained by political boundaries.” 50 CFR 600.320 (/select-
citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-600.320)(b). This action abdicates all Federal responsibility to the State to
manage the fishery in State waters however it deems fit.
Response: NMFS determined that Amendment 14 is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including
National Standard 3. National Standard 3 states that, to the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish
shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or
in close coordination (16 U.S.C. 1851 (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/1851?
type=usc&year=mostrecent&link-type=html)(a)(3)). National Standard 3 guidelines explain how to structure
appropriate management units for stocks and stock complexes (§ 600.320). The Guidelines state that the
purpose of the Standard is to induce a comprehensive approach to fishery management (§ 600.320(b)). The
guidelines define “management unit” as “a fishery or that portion of a fishery identified in an FMP as
relevant to the FMP's management objectives,” and state that the choice of a management unit “depends on
the focus of the FMP's objectives, and may be organized around biological, geographic, economic, technical,
social, or ecological perspectives” (§ 600.320(d)).
Page 9 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendme…9/41
The Council and NMFS determined that prohibiting commercial fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ subarea would
best enable Cook Inlet salmon to be managed as a unit throughout their range. The best information about
salmon abundance is available as salmon move into freshwaters and the number of spawning salmon can be
counted. This is referred to as escapement, and provides State managers the information they need to
increase or decrease fishing effort in-season based on whether enough salmon are making it into freshwater
to reproduce sustainably. Amendment 14 recognizes that management of salmon is best conducted through
monitoring escapement—the point in the species' life history that is most appropriate for assessing stock
status—and that escapement happens in the river systems, not in the EEZ waters. Under Amendment 14, the
State manages for all sources of fishing mortality. The State monitors actual run strength and escapement
during the fishery, and utilizes in-season management measures that are closely coordinated across all Cook
Inlet fishery sectors, including fishery closures, to ensure that escapement goals are met. Therefore,
Amendment 14 best achieves the objectives of National Standard 3 and avoids reductions in catch that are
expected to account for the uncertainty and preseason management requirements created by the only other
viable management alternative (Alternative 3).
Amendment 14 does consider the entire Cook Inlet salmon fishery and does apply to the entire Cook Inlet
salmon fishery that occurs within the EEZ. Federal management must consider what occurs within State
waters for planning purposes, in order to adequately determine what level of fishing may sustainably occur
within the EEZ under the FMP consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, the Magnuson-Stevens
Act limits the jurisdiction of the Council and NMFS to Federal waters ( i.e., the EEZ) for the implementation
of management measures. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, Amendment 14 considers all
commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishing that constitute the Cook Inlet salmon fishery. However, in
order for a Federal FMP to govern fisheries occurring within State marine waters, the conditions for
preemption under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 306(b) (16 U.S.C. 1856
(https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/1856?type=usc&year=mostrecent&link-type=html)(b)), listed
below, must both be met.
1. The fishery must occur predominantly within the EEZ.
2. The results of the State's action or inaction must substantially and adversely affect the carrying out of the
FMP.
As indicated by data presented in Sections 3.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Analysis, the conditions for preemption are
not met in Cook Inlet. Under no circumstances does NMFS or the Council have authority to manage fishing
within State internal waters.
Comment 17: NMFS incorrectly assumes that Alternative 3 requires Federal management to be responsive to
State management to support Alternative 4. If NMFS sets maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield
(OY), and annual catch limits (ACLs) for Cook Inlet salmon stocks, then the State must modify their
management to comply with those limitations. If there is more harvest in EEZ waters then State waters
harvest must be reduced to achieve OY. If the State is already managing the fishery in a manner consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, then the dual management by the Council and the State should be seamless.
Relatedly, some commenters suggested that NMFS implementing an OY that included State waters harvest is
inconsistent with NMFS's stated inability to implement management measures within State waters.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that differences between Alternatives 3 and 4 were important in its
consideration of Amendment 14. The State was not willing to accept a delegation of management authority
so Alternative 2 could not be implemented. Consistent with the Ninth Circuit ruling, the status quo was also
Start Printed
Page 60572
Page 10 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…10/41
not a viable option. This left the Council with a decision between Alternatives 3 and 4.
NMFS does not agree that Federal management supersedes State management of a State fishery absent
preemption, or that State management of a State fishery must be responsive to Federal management. NMFS
has an obligation to prevent overfishing in fisheries under Federal jurisdiction, and must account for all
sources of mortality when determining the allowable harvest for Federal waters, consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 1 (50 CFR 600.310 (/select-citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-
600.310)(e)(2)(ii)). NMFS must consider a fishery that occurs within State waters; however, NMFS cannot
modify fishery management within State waters. Therefore, NMFS will take action in the fisheries under its
jurisdiction to prevent overfishing. NMFS has maintained this position throughout the development of
Amendment 14. In other instances where a fishery occurs in both state and Federal waters, Federal
management of the Federal portion of the fishery is responsive to state management of the portion of the
fishery that occurs in state waters. Examples of this are Pacific cod fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and
Aleutian Islands. In specifying the Federal Pacific cod total allowable catch, NMFS must account for the State
harvests so that total catch in state and Federal waters does not result in overfishing.
Management in Federal waters must adhere to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 14 closes the EEZ
waters of Cook Inlet, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The State is not
bound by the Magnuson-Stevens Act for its management within State waters, but this does not equate to
State management being inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Under NMFS's National Standard 1
Guidelines, MSY, and OY can be specified at the fishery level (50 CFR 600.310 (/select-
citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-600.310)(e)). In Cook Inlet, the salmon fishery has historically occurred in
both State and Federal waters, and therefore specifying MSY and OY at the fishery level requires NMFS to
consider fishing activity in State waters. However, though NMFS must consider fishing activity in State
waters when establishing reference points, it cannot manage fishing activity in State waters. Thus, while MSY
and OY account for State-water harvest, NMFS is only specifying an ACL for the Cook Inlet EEZ commercial
salmon fishery. This is consistent with the National Standard 1 Guidelines, which instruct NMFS to establish
a Federal ACL for State-Federal Fisheries like the Cook Inlet salmon fishery, because “Federal management
is limited to the portion of the fishery under Federal authority.” 50 CFR 600.310 (/select-
citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-600.310)(f)(4)(iii).
Absent the conditions for preemption, which are described more thoroughly in the response to Comment 16,
NMFS does not have jurisdiction over State marine waters. As salmon stocks can be fully utilized in State
waters consistent with appropriate conservation and management, additional harvest in EEZ waters is not
necessary to achieve OY, and introducing an additional, independent management jurisdiction in the EEZ
could increase the risk of overfishing as explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and the response to
Comment 33.
Comment 18: The State's process for setting escapement goals does not comply with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, which requires the Council to set ACLs for each fishery based on peer-reviewed Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC) recommendations. State management plans that affect harvest levels are based on flawed
escapement goals set by Alaska Board of Fisheries.
Response: This action establishes an ACL of zero for the commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ
Subarea, consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS
must consider, but cannot modify, fishery management within State waters. The State is not bound by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act within State waters. Additional description about the relationship between State and
Federal management measures is provided in the response to Comment 17.Page 11 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…11/41
Further, the SSC found that State management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks relied on the best scientific
information available and the resulting harvest levels were consistent with harvest levels that could be
expected under Federal management. This information, along with additional consideration of the State's
escapement-based management system, is provided in Section 3.1 of the Analysis. NMFS also determined
there is not better scientific information available to manage Cook Inlet salmon stocks than the information
reviewed in the Analysis.
Comment 19: The preamble to the proposed rule states that the Council and NMFS determined that the
proposed OY would be fully achieved by the Cook Inlet salmon fishery within State waters “because
compensatory fishery effort among various sectors in State waters is expected to make up for closing the
Cook Inlet EEZ to commercial salmon fishing.” There is no evidence that the Council made any such
determination, and that determination is not supportable. National Standard 1 requires that an FMP achieve
OY, which is defined both in terms of the greatest overall benefit to the Nation as well as achieving the MSY.
The State has made no attempt to achieve OY on most stocks of salmon.
Response: NMFS determined that Amendment 14 will achieve OY. The Analysis before the Council and
NMFS, including the retrospective review of State management against proposed Federal management,
demonstrated that managing salmon within the escapement goals established by the State prevented
overfishing, allowed harvest by all Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors, and that no management alternatives
under consideration were expected to increase harvests of Cook Inlet salmon stocks. Therefore, of the viable
management alternatives, Amendment 14 produces the greatest net benefit to the Nation by allowing harvest
of Cook Inlet salmon by all fishery sectors to the extent possible while still protecting weak stocks from
overfishing.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not prescribe the method for determining OY, and NMFS uses various
methods to determine OY throughout the Nation, depending on the information available and the unique
characteristics of specific fisheries.
Magnuson-Stevens Act section 3(33) defines “optimum,” with respect to the yield from a fishery, as the
amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food
production and recreational opportunities and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems; that
is prescribed on the basis of the MSY from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or
ecological factor; and, in the case of an overfished fishery, that provides for rebuilding to a level consistent
with producing the MSY in such fishery (16 U.S.C. 1802 (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/1802?
type=usc&year=mostrecent&link-type=html)(33)).
Under National Standard 1, OY must be achieved over the long-run but not necessarily with precision each
individual fishing year. Further, while OY is derived from MSY, National Standard 1 does not require that a
fishery achieve MSY in any particular year or over the long run. Accordingly, as the preamble to the proposed
rule states, achieving OY in the Cook Inlet salmon fishery is complex and must incorporate management
measures that limit the harvest of healthy stocks in order to prevent overfishing on co-occurring weak
stocks. Because of this complexity, OY is specified at the fishery level for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery rather
than for each individual stock. Specification of OY at the fishery level is consistent with National Standard 1
and guidelines that direct that “OY may be established at the stock, stock complex, or fishery level” (50 CFR
600.310 (/select-citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-600.310)(e)(3)).
Start Printed
Page 60573
Page 12 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…12/41
The OY range for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery is defined as the combined catch from all salmon fisheries
occurring within Cook Inlet [State and Federal water catch], which results in a post-harvest abundance
within the escapement goal range for stocks with escapement goals, and below the historically sustainable
average catch for stocks without escapement goals, except when management measures required to conserve
weak stocks necessarily limit catch of healthy stocks. This OY is derived from MSY, as reduced by relevant
economic, social, and ecological factors. These factors include annual variations in the abundance,
distribution, migration patterns, and timing of the salmon stocks; allocations by the Alaska Board of
Fisheries; traditional times, methods, and areas of salmon fishing; ecosystem needs; consideration of the risk
of overharvesting; and inseason indices of stock strength. Factors of particular importance to NMFS include
providing harvest opportunities for all Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors and preventing overfishing by
accounting for the co-occurrence of weaker stocks. Therefore, achieving OY may result in the harvest of some
Cook Inlet salmon stocks that is below the maximum potentially allowable amount in any given year.
Information regarding the potential for limited utilization of some Cook Inlet salmon stocks was reviewed by
the Council and NMFS prior to the recommendation and approval of Amendment 14 and more information
on this topic is provided in the Response to Comment 23.
Further, the only other viable management alternative (Alternative 3) presented additional challenges to
achieving OY through the creation of new management uncertainty expected to result in reduced or
eliminated EEZ harvests in any given fishing season and to impose additional costs on participants, as
described in the preamble to the proposed rule and as provided in the responses to Comments 27 and 33.
Comment 20: Amendment 14 is not consistent with MSY management as required by the Magnuson-Stevens
Act because salmon management would continue to rely upon flawed escapement goals set through the
Alaska Board of Fisheries process. Existing escapement goals result in overescapement in the Kenai and
Kasilof river systems which lowers harvests, decreases future yields, and reduces fish size. Lower escapement
goals would allow more harvest by all users. Several commenters provided specific data the commenters
argued support this comment and stated that the negative impacts of overescapement were not sufficiently
addressed in the Analysis.
Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not require management that achieves MSY. Rather, as codified
by National Standard 1, conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving,
on a continuing basis, the OY from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry. Additional discussion of OY is
provided in the response to Comment 19.
Further, NMFS has determined that MSY as defined by Amendment 14 is consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS must ensure the capacity of the fishery to produce
MSY on a continuing basis. In the National Standards guidelines, MSY is defined as “the largest long-term
average catch or yield that can be taken from a stock or stock complex under prevailing ecological,
environmental conditions and fishery technological characteristics ( e.g., gear selectivity), and the
distribution of catch among fleets” (50 CFR 600.310 (/select-citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-600.310)(e)(1)).
This information is considered, when and where known, during the State's escapement goal setting process,
described in Sections 3.1 and 11 of the Analysis. Further, it is consistent with National Standard 1 to reduce
harvest from MSY based on relevant economic, social, and ecological factors to achieve OY and prevent
overfishing. This is also consistent with National Standard 6, which acknowledges the inevitable changes in a
fishery that result from biological, social, and economic occurrences, as well as fishing practices, and dictates
that “[t]o the extent practicable, FMPs should provide a suitable buffer in favor of conservation” (50 CFR
Page 13 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…13/41
600.335 (/select-citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-600.335)(c)). Management measures that reduce harvest
levels below MSY to account for uncertainty, protect weaker stocks, and provide harvest opportunity for all
fishery sectors are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Multiple commenters expressed concern about overescapement for Cook Inlet salmon stocks.
Overescapement means that the number of spawning salmon exceeds the upper bound of the escapement
goal range established for a stock, and is considered in Section 3.1 of the Analysis. Commenters' concerns
focused on two potential adverse impacts of overescapement. First, that overescapement results in forgone
yield in the year that it occurs because more harvest is theoretically allowable at sustainable levels and any
surplus fish not harvested cannot be harvested in the following year ( i.e., more harvest would keep
escapement goal ranges from being exceeded and still be sustainable). The second concern asserted by the
commenters is that when escapement goals are exceeded, or an escapement goal is set inappropriately high,
too many fish spawning will decrease future yields, a concept referred to as overcompensation. The
commenters assert that the potential drivers of overcompensation are likely density dependent and may
include competition for habitat, competition for prey among juvenile salmon, disease, predation, or some
combination of these and other factors that may also be exacerbated by other environmental variables.
The Council specifically conducted an independent analysis of MSY and the potential for overcompensation
in Kenai and Kasilof river sockeye salmon stocks, which is presented in Section 13 of the Analysis. SSC review
determined that the conclusions of this analysis were consistent with ADFG's analysis of escapement goals,
that ADFG's escapement goals were established within the range expected to produce MSY, and that there is
limited evidence for overcompensation across the observed range of escapements. This information indicates
that the escapement goals established by the State for these stocks are appropriate estimates of MSY. Thus,
while instances of overescapement will result in foregone yield in the current year, they are unlikely to result
in reductions in future recruitment and yield for the primary stocks harvested by the drift gillnet fleet in
Cook Inlet.
Information is not available to analyze overescapement or its potential impacts for the Cook Inlet salmon
stocks without escapement goals, as described in the following comment. In the absence of specific stock
information, conservative management using suitable proxies while following the precautionary principle is
consistent with the National Standard 1 Guidelines for dealing with data-poor stocks (50 CFR 600.310
(/select-citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-600.310)(e)(1)(v)(b) & (h)(2)). The Guidelines provide flexibility in
setting MSY and other reference points based on insufficient data and in consideration of stocks with
unusual life history characteristics, including salmon. The risk of overfishing as a result of harvest rates that
are too high is much greater than the uncertain and speculative risk of under harvest or overescapement.
Therefore, in the absence of information, the State is managing the data-poor salmon runs consistent with
NMFS's approach to management of data-poor fish stocks.
Start Printed
Page 60574
From a practical perspective, it is not possible to manage mixed stock salmon fisheries for MSY on all stocks
as the composition, abundance, and productivity of stocks and species in the fishery vary substantially.
Overescapement is a common occurrence in Cook Inlet, as noted in the Analysis Section 3.1. Overescapement
usually results from (1) a lack of fishing effort, (2) unexpectedly large salmon runs, or (3) management or
economic constraints on the fishery. Management constraints result, in part, from State management of
salmon fisheries for maximum harvest of the largest, most productive salmon stocks, while protecting less
abundant salmon stocks and species. The State has established clearly-defined goals to manage salmon to
provide for escapement of identified stocks of concern within mixed-stock fisheries as described in Section
3.1 of the Analysis. Independent Federal management of a separate commercial salmon fishery in Cook Inlet
would not be expected to reduce the potential for overescapement or address any of the factors that causePage 14 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…14/41
overescapement. As discussed in Sections 2.5 and 4.7.1.3 of the Analysis and the response to Comment 17,
independent Federal management of a separate commercial fishery in the EEZ under Alternative 3 would be
responsive to State management decisions and would also be more conservative to account for new
management uncertainty in order to prevent overfishing. No management alternatives under consideration
were expected to increase harvest levels above the status quo.
It is also noted in Section 4.5.2.2 of the Analysis that several recent years have been particularly challenging
with respect to salmon management in Cook Inlet. In 2018, the sockeye run in UCI deviated particularly
sharply from most previous runs, both in terms of size and timing. The total sockeye run was about 32
percent below what was forecast, and sockeye landings were 22 percent of the 1990-2017 annual average. As
of 2018, this was only the second time that more than half the Kenai River sockeye run arrived after August 1.
These challenges would be further exacerbated by the additional management uncertainty and lack of
Federal management flexibility that were identified as concerns under Alternative 3 and described in the
preamble to the proposed rule. Fishery managers do not have the benefit of complete information during the
fishing season and must make decisions based on what is known. In these situations, conservative
management decisions that may reduce the total harvest are prudent in order to avoid overfishing.
Comment 21: The Council and NMFS never conducted stock assessments for the nearly 1,300 Cook Inlet
salmon stocks, and the FMP purports to conduct no annual stock assessments. This action allows MSY to be
set at what harvest the State allows based on its escapement goals, which are often not set at biological MSY.
Only one stock in Cook Inlet (Kasilof River Sockeye) has a biological escapement goal. Also, most salmon
stocks in Cook Inlet have no escapement goals. For those stocks, the FMP would set OY at whatever level of
fish get harvested, making OY equal actual yield. For example, for pink salmon, which commonly have
returns of 20 million fish but no escapement goals, OY could be one fish. This does not satisfy National
Standard 1 to ensure the greatest benefit to the nation or MSY.
Response: NMFS used the best scientific information available to evaluate MSY for Cook Inlet salmon stocks
and specify MSY and OY for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery. Section 3.1 of the Analysis describes the
escapement goals established for Cook Inlet salmon stocks, the approaches used in their development,
salmon management considerations, and a retrospective analysis comparing proposed Federal reference
points to State salmon management which found that State management would have overwhelmingly
prevented overfishing had the Federal reference points been in place. Further, the State's incorporation of
uncertainty into escapement goal development and management was reviewed the SSC, the Council, and
NMFS and is presented in Section 11 of the Analysis.
There are not established escapement goals or monitoring for all the salmon runs in Cook Inlet due to
practical and logistical constraints. However, the State, in conjunction with salmon resource users, has
identified and monitors the most important salmon stocks. These include heavily utilized stocks of chinook,
sockeye, and coho salmon. For the smaller stocks of sockeye, Chinook, pink, chum, and coho salmon, there is
other information available (catch and indicator stocks) to indirectly monitor abundance. The State manages
all the salmon stocks in UCI based on the information it collects from indicator stocks (stocks that can be
assessed) and the performance of salmon fishery sectors in UCI. In the absence of specific stock information,
the State has managed these stocks conservatively, with suitable proxies for MSY, following the
precautionary principle, and NMFS finds that the State's escapement-based management is consistent with
the National Standard 1 Guidelines for dealing with data-poor stocks (50 CFR 600.310 (/select-
citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-600.310)(e) & (h)(2)). Therefore, in the absence of information, the State is
managing the data-poor salmon runs consistent with NMFS's approach to management of data-poor fish
stocks.Page 15 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…15/41
NMFS does not independently monitor returns of Cook Inlet salmon stocks or assess Cook Inlet salmon
abundance. The biology of salmon is such that escapement is the best time for routine assessment and long-
term monitoring because the number of spawning salmon can be counted with a high degree of accuracy.
Accordingly, the State collects information on Cook Inlet salmon escapement—returns of specific salmon
stocks to specific river systems—from sampling sites ( e.g., weirs, sonar stations, counting towers) that are
generally located within State waters and NMFS relies on this information. It is not possible to collect
complete information on escapement or run strength from sampling in the EEZ alone. Given that the
Magnuson-Stevens Act does not generally provide NMFS with the authority to manage salmon resources
within State waters (as discussed in the response to Comment 16 ), and that extensive information is already
collected by the State on numerous salmon stocks, NMFS has limited ability to independently collect
escapement information.
Additionally, NMFS, like the State, has limited funds for stock assessment research. NMFS allocates research
funds based on national and regional priorities, and would need to eliminate or reduce existing projects to
start a new project to gather the scientific information necessary to conduct a stock assessment for any given
salmon run.
Because the State uses the best scientific information available for the management of Cook Inlet salmon
stocks, State escapement goals were integral to the reference points developed for Amendment 14 and every
other action alternative considered by the Council and NMFS.
NMFS is not proposing to specify OY as equal to actual yield for any salmon stocks. Instead, NMFS is
specifying an OY for the entire Cook Inlet salmon fishery that is intended to achieve long-term average yields
consistent with the State's escapement goals, reduced from MSY as necessary to protect weaker stocks. In
specifying OY for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery, which includes a number of interrelated stocks, NMFS must
also remain consistent with National Standard 1's instruction that fishery management measures prevent
overfishing. Under the State's escapement-based management system, as well as under all of the
management alternatives reviewed by the Council and NMFS, lower utilization of some stocks may occur to
prevent overfishing of others. NMFS finds that this is consistent with the dual mandates of National
Standard 1. Further, no alternative reviewed by the Council and NMFS was expected to increase the harvest
of Cook Inlet salmon above the status quo.
Start Printed
Page 60575
Comment 22: Amendment 14's justification of preventing overfishing seems duplicitous: The main problem
for both the main salmon runs of Cook Inlet (the Kenai and Kasilof) has been overescapement, not under-
escapement. Properly-regulated fishing provides the solution to overescapement. While some species ( e.g.,
Kenai Chinook salmon) face declining return numbers, that does not impact the drift gillnet fishery as
Chinook salmon do not swim close enough to the surface in the EEZ to catch. Closing the EEZ due to
overfishing is not correct. There is no overfishing problem for this area.
Response: Certain salmon stocks within Cook Inlet are of conservation concern. These are identified in
Section 3.1 of the Analysis. NMFS agrees that the Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery has minimal catch of
Chinook salmon within Cook Inlet, and that Amendment 14 is not likely to significantly increase the drift
gillnet harvest of Chinook salmon.
However, NMFS disagrees that preventing overfishing is not an essential and valid rationale for this action.
As noted in Section 3.1.2 of the analysis, the drift gillnet fleet can substantially interact with other stocks,
such as Susitna River and Fish Creek sockeye, that the State has previously designated as stocks of concern.
Page 16 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…16/41
Similarly, Tier 2 coho and sockeye salmon stocks that the drift gillnet fleet utilizes were identified as briefly
subject to overfishing. Conservative management that necessarily reduces the harvest of healthy stocks to
avoid overharvest of weak stocks is appropriate management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Finally, NMFS has an obligation to not only correct overfishing when it occurs, but to prevent it from
occurring in the first place. As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, Amendment 14 takes the most
precautionary approach to preventing overfishing.
NMFS acknowledges that Kenai and Kasilof River sockeye salmon stocks can exceed their established
escapement goal ranges. The response to Comment 20 provides information about the causes and potential
impacts of overescapement.
Comment 23: Amendment 14 ignores the fact that most of the coho, pink and chum salmon go unharvested.
Pink salmon are the largest stock of salmon that enter Cook Inlet, some years exceeding 20 million fish, and
our harvest rate is about 2 percent instead of the 53 percent that ADFG says achieves MSY. The commercial
fishery and processing sector are eager to use these underutilized stocks. As there is little recreational and
subsistence harvest of pink and chum salmon, there will be little to no harvest of these underutilized stocks if
the fleet is restricted to State waters, which is not consistent with achieving MSY or OY.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the potential for limited utilization of some Cook Inlet salmon stocks under
Amendment 14 in Section 3.1.4 of the Analysis. The Cook Inlet salmon fishery is complex with mixed-stocks
and many divergent users. It is difficult to manage a mixed-stock salmon fishery, like the Cook Inlet salmon
fishery, for MSY on all stocks as the composition, abundance, and productivity of co-occuring salmon stocks
vary widely. The Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery sector targets mixed salmon stocks, and is unable to catch
individual stocks without incidental catch of others.
As explained in Sections 3.1 and 4 of the Analysis, the State does not fully utilize pink and chum salmon in
UCI, in part due to efforts to conserve coho, chinook, and sockeye salmon and to provide harvest opportunity
for all commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishery sectors. Commercial fishery sectors targeting pink
and chum salmon, including the drift gillnet fishery, also catch coho and sockeye salmon. Several sockeye
and coho salmon stocks in Cook Inlet have been designated as stocks of concern or were subject to brief
periods of overfishing, and other fishery sectors in Cook Inlet, including the recreational and subsistence
sectors, utilize these stocks. Consideration of recreational and subsistence fishing opportunities, in addition
to commercial fishing, are required under National Standard 1. The State has attempted to ensure the
conservation of Cook Inlet salmon resources and allocate the harvest of the resources in a manner consistent
with the goal of maximizing the benefits across all users. As a result, commercial harvest of some stronger
stocks (pink and chum) is constrained to protect weaker stocks (coho and sockeye) that are important to all
fishery sectors.
Comment 24: How can NMFS assume that salmon management in State waters, which has resulted in
multiple fishery disaster declarations for Cook Inlet, including those made in 2018 and 2020, will result in
OY being achieved?
Response: On March 8, 2021, the Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy requested the Secretary of Commerce
determine a commercial fishery failure due to a fishery resource disaster for the 2018 Eastside set net fishery
in Cook Inlet, and all 2020 salmon fisheries in UCI, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1861
(https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/1861?type=usc&year=mostrecent&link-type=html)a(a). These
requests are under review and the Secretary of Commerce has not made a determination. The Secretary of
Page 17 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…17/41
Commerce can determine a commercial fishery failure under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Act provides
that at the discretion of the Secretary or at the request of the Governor of an affected State or a fishing
community, the Secretary shall determine whether there is a commercial fishery failure due to a fishery
resource disaster as a result of—
(A) natural causes;
(B) man-made causes beyond the control of fishery managers to mitigate through conservation and
management measures, including regulatory restrictions (including those imposed as a result of judicial
action) imposed to protect human health or the marine environment; or
(C) undetermined causes.
The State's request cited natural or undetermined causes that would fall outside the control of fishery
managers to correct, regardless of jurisdiction. Specifically, the State's request cited unfavorable ocean
conditions and the impacts of recent marine heatwaves that contributed to low salmon abundance and poor
marine survival which have resulted in fishery closures and restrictions. None of the management
alternatives considered could directly address these factors, which are outside of the control of fishery
managers. However, when considering all factors within the control of fishery managers, and the ability of
management to respond to the wide variety of factors that can affect a fishery, NMFS determined that
Amendment 14 will achieve OY for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery.Start Printed
Page 60576
NMFS also notes that the fishery management actions taken in these years allowed escapement goals to be
met for most Cook Inlet salmon stocks, at levels which would be consistent with the OY range being specified
under Amendment 14. While this resulted in lower fishery revenues, it is consistent with the precautionary
management approach to preventing overfishing that NMFS is obligated to apply under National Standard 1.
The Gulf of Alaska pink salmon disaster declaration for 2016 did not apply to the UCI management area and
is therefore outside the scope of this action. However, it is again noted that the cause for this disaster fell
outside the control of fishery managers.
Comment 25: Amendment 14 will preclude essential fishery management tools, such as data from early
commercial harvests in the EEZ and the test fishery, which are necessary to achieve OY.
Response: Amendment 14 does not prohibit scientific research, which may include test fisheries, nor does
Amendment 14 purport to regulate scientific research activity as “fishing” under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
(see 16 U.S.C. 1802 (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/1802?type=usc&year=mostrecent&link-
type=html)(16)). Both the Anchor Point Offshore Test Fishery and the Port Moller Test Fishery (which
currently occurs in EEZ waters off Alaska closed to commercial salmon fishing) receive Letters of
Acknowledgement from the Alaska Fisheries Science Center supporting their scientific activities.
Amendment 14 would not change the State's ability to conduct scientific test fisheries in this manner.
NMFS acknowledges that fishery dependent data, such as early season harvest, can play an important role in
salmon management. However, early season harvest occurs before there is more complete information about
realized run strength and can result in fishery exploitation rates that are too high. An important factor in the
consideration of Amendment 14 is that it would minimize both scientific and management uncertainty
Page 18 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…18/41
National Standard 8
related to harvests in the EEZ relative to the other viable alternative. Further, the State indicated that it could
obtain this needed information through the offshore test fishery in Cook Inlet. Therefore, this action is not
expected to limit the data and management tools necessary to achieve OY.
Comment 26: NMFS has not sufficiently analyzed the environmental and conservation impacts that will
occur to Cook Inlet salmon stocks as a result of Amendment 14 and this final rule. These impacts are
unknown, untested, and highly controversial, and raise serious questions as to whether the approval of
Amendment 14 will significantly damage the long-term conservation of the fishery.
Response: NMFS disagrees, and notes that Section 3 of the Analysis comprehensively evaluates the
environmental impacts of Amendment 14. A copy of the resulting Finding of No Significant Impact is
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). This evaluation includes Cook Inlet salmon stocks. The response to
Comment 34 reviews the uncertainties that were presented to the Council, NMFS, and the public prior to the
recommendation and approval of Amendment 14.
Comment 27: Amendment 14 fails to meet National Standard 8's requirement to minimize to the extent
practicable adverse economic impacts on communities and allow for their sustained participation.
Amendment 14 would essentially put UCI drift gillnet fishermen and processors out of business for no good
reason and harm associated communities. This could be a final blow to the commercial fishing industry of
Cook Inlet.
Response: NMFS has determined that Amendment 14 is consistent with National Standard 8. National
Standard 8 provides that conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation
requirements of the Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take
into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and social
data based on the best scientific information available, in order to (A) provide for the sustained participation
of such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such
communities (16 U.S.C. 1851 (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/1851?
type=usc&year=mostrecent&link-type=html)(a)(8)).
Regarding the sustained participation of fishing communities, Section 4.5.5 of the Analysis describes the
relative importance of Cook Inlet salmon resources to fishing communities. Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis
acknowledges that Amendment 14 may have negative impacts to the drift gillnet fleet, but that other Cook
Inlet salmon fishery sectors, which are also part of fishing communities and provide corresponding benefits,
would be likely to benefit as a result. Therefore, NMFS determined this action will not negatively affect the
sustained participation of fishing communities.
Regarding minimizing adverse economic impacts to fishing communities to the extent practicable, NMFS
and the Council anticipated similar impacts under both Alternatives 3 and 4. Both available options were
expected to significantly constrain or eliminate drift gillnet harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ. However,
Alternative 3 would have created additional management uncertainty, imposed additional costs on
participants to operate in the EEZ ( e.g., installation and operation of a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)),
and increased the potential for an unanticipated closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ to commercial salmon fishing
before or during each season. NMFS concluded that an unexpected EEZ closure after participants had made
significant investments to operate in the Federally-managed fishery for the season and were prepared to
operate would be more disruptive than the potential for a marginal reduction in catch and deliveries but a
Page 19 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…19/41
certain fishery season in State waters under Amendment 14. Furthermore, given the increased management
uncertainty under Alternative 3, it is possible that any additional fishing opportunity in the Cook Inlet EEZ
would not have resulted in increased harvests relative to Alternative 4 and that the available harvest
opportunities would not be sufficient to recoup the additional costs associated with Alternative 3.
Amendment 14 reduces uncertainty regarding whether a Federal fishery will open in any given year and
results in less additional costs and burdens on fishery participants who can continue to operate in State
waters without incurring the additional operating costs necessary to fish in the EEZ; therefore, Amendment
14 minimizes adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable. Additional discussion of the potential
economic impacts to harvesters and processors are provided in the responses to Comments 30 and 33.
Further, as required by National Standard 8, Amendment 14 balances the needs of fishing communities with
required conservation of Cook Inlet salmon stocks. NMFS has a mandatory obligation to prevent overfishing,
and must minimize adverse economic impacts only to the extent practicable in light of this conservation
mandate (50 CFR 600.345 (/select-citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-600.345)(b)(1)). Between the two viable
management alternatives identified by the Council, NMFS finds Amendment 14 is most likely to prevent
overfishing and will minimize adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable. Understanding that this
action does not change allocations or modify management within State waters, this action is likely to
optimize conservation and management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks beyond the other viable alternative
available to the Council and NMFS.
Start Printed
Page 60577
Comment 28: The loss of revenue from commercial fishing will negatively affect Kenai Peninsula and other
fishing communities. Local spending on support services and associated tax revenue will decrease. NMFS did
not sufficiently analyze the proposed EEZ closure so the community and economic effects are not known,
however, it is safe to say there will not be an increase of economic activity if the EEZ is closed.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that a loss of revenue from commercial fishing could negatively affect fishing
communities on the Kenai Peninsula and elsewhere. However, NMFS finds that this negative impact is
uncertain, that community impacts may not be discernable compared to the status quo, and that negative
impacts may be offset. As described in Section 4.1.7.4 of the Analysis, the drift gillnet fleet may be able to
increase their harvest within State waters. Further, the State may modify fishing regulations to further
account for the EEZ closure. If the drift gillnet fleet cannot achieve its historical salmon harvest within State
waters, other Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors may increase their harvest, which is expected to offset
reductions in economic activity as a result of the EEZ closure.
Generally, communities, support services, and tax revenues more associated with the drift gillnet fleet will be
more likely to experience adverse impacts if the drift gillnet fleet cannot achieve its historical harvest.
Conversely, communities more associated with other commercial salmon sectors in Cook Inlet, as well as
recreational, subsistence, and personal use users, would benefit if overall decreases in harvest by the drift
gillnet fleet provide additional harvest opportunities within State waters. Compensatory fishing effort in
State waters, as well as increased salmon availability and catch rates within State waters, as a result of the
EEZ closure to commercial salmon fishing are expected to offset losses and minimize forgone yield. Given
the complexities involved with the diverse and interdependent network of salmon fishery sectors within Cook
Inlet, it is not possible to precisely estimate the magnitude and distribution of these potential benefits across
specific communities and users. It is likely that impacts would be distributed across many communities given
the different users involved. It is also likely that some benefits would accrue to some of communities that
would potentially also experience adverse impacts based on their engagement in or dependence on the UCI
Page 20 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…20/41
Economic Impacts
salmon drift gillnet fishery ( e.g., Kenai and Kasilof, both of which have residents and business enterprises
engaged in the commercial set gillnet, sport, and personal use salmon fishery sectors in addition to the UCI
salmon drift gillnet fishery sector).
Comment 29: Closing the EEZ will result in lost revenues to the city of Homer, home to 20-25 percent of the
drift gillnet fleet (more than 100 permit holders). It would no longer be practical to operate out of Homer
because of increases in transit times, expenses, and extended hours on machinery and crew required to fish
exclusively in State waters. It is a huge burden to relocate to Kasilof or Kenai rivers for the season, where the
fishery is crowded with boats, openings are in a much smaller area, the quality of fish is deteriorating, and
prices are lower than the fish caught in open waters of the EEZ. These permit holders will be forced to either
move or go out of business.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that communities with vessels that are more dependent on the Cook Inlet
EEZ for access to drift gillnet fishing opportunities may experience greater adverse impacts as a result of this
action due to the relatively high costs to access productive fishing areas within State waters when operating
out of the southern UCI. Further, NMFS acknowledges that the drift gillnet fleet may shrink as result of the
reduced profitability for some participants. The Analysis before the Council and NMFS included this
information.
As summarized in Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis, changes in the harvest levels of the UCI drift gillnet fleet
due to an EEZ closure would have the potential to differentially affect communities, including communities
associated with the UCI drift gillnet fishery and those associated with other salmon fishery sectors. With
respect to the former, communities would be affected differently based on their relative engagement in and
dependency on the UCI drift gillnet fishery, as measured by gross revenue diversification of locally owned
drift gillnet vessels, gross revenue diversification of the larger “community harvesting sector,” gross revenue
diversification of local UCI drift gillnet fishery permit holders, or some combination thereof, or the metrics
used to categorize levels of community engagement. While a few different communities ranked high on a
single engagement or dependency indicator, the data in Sections 4.5.5.2.1, 4.5.5.2.3, and 4.5.5.3.2 of the
Analysis taken together suggest that the communities of Kasilof, Kenai, Nikiski, Nikolaevsk, Ninilchik, and
Soldotna are among the communities potentially the most vulnerable to community-level adverse impacts
specifically associated with the drift gillnet harvesting sector resulting from an EEZ closure, although the
larger and more diversified Homer fleet has, by far, more revenue potentially at risk in absolute terms than
the fleet of any other community.
NMFS expects that reductions in harvest by the drift gillnet fleet will be largely offset by increases in harvest
by other fishery sectors. Further, during Council deliberations and in public comment submitted on
Amendment 14, the State concurred that, of the viable alternatives, Amendment 14 is most likely to achieve
the salmon conservation and management objectives established by the Council and the specific
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield on a
continuing basis for the UCI salmon fishery. The State also agreed that Cook Inlet salmon stocks could be
harvested successfully within State waters. All fishery sectors within Cook Inlet provide revenues to fishing
communities and associated support businesses. NMFS also notes that Amendment 14 minimizes adverse
economic impacts to the extent practicable when compared to the only other viable alternative.
Page 21 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…21/41
Comment 30: Homer depends on Cook Inlet salmon stocks, but for about 20 years has realized decreased
benefits with the decline of harvested Cook Inlet salmon stocks. A major processor in our community had a
devastating fire at its location. The company, a major player in the processor sector, decided not to rebuild
the facility, with the uncertainty surrounding the management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks being a factor in
its decision. This facility used to employ residents year-round along with some seasonal summer help, mostly
from out of state. Amendment 14 would continue these problems.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the importance of Cook Inlet salmon to fishing communities including
Homer and that uncertainty creates challenges. However, NMFS determined that independent Federal
management of a separate commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ, the only other viable
management alternative, would not increase the stability of the commercial environment because it would
impose additional costs on vessels, increase uncertainty for harvesters and processors, and potentially
impact fishing communities.
Start Printed
Page 60578
The complexities associated with salmon management and fluctuations in salmon abundance can make it
difficult to create a stable and predictable commercial environment. NMFS would not expect the only other
viable management alternative, Alternative 3, to provide additional regulatory and harvest certainty for
commercial salmon harvesters and processors. As described in Sections 2.5 and 4.7.1.3 of the Analysis,
Alternative 3 would create additional management uncertainty and result in the increased potential for an
unanticipated closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ to commercial salmon fishing before or during each season.
NMFS concluded that an unexpected EEZ closure during a time that a processor was prepared to receive
deliveries of fish would be more disruptive than the potential for a marginal reduction in catch and deliveries
but a certain fishery season under Amendment 14. Additional discussion of the potential impacts to
processors is provided in the response to Comment 33.
Comment 31: If you look at the fishermen now, you won't see many young faces. It's hard to get deckhands
when the pay has been repeatedly cut due to regulatory restrictions that limit commercial harvest. Young
fishermen who were encouraged to get into this fishery and borrow money for permits have had their feet
knocked out from under them.
Response: Section 4.5.3.2 of the Analysis describes the trends in the age of UCI drift gillnet fishery
participants which indicate the average age of a permit holder in the Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery is
increasing. This indicates that older harvesters may be continuing to fish beyond their expected retirement
age or younger harvesters have been slow to replace them, or some combination. However, the median age
increase of Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery permit holders was lower than the 28 percent increase for other
State fishery permit holders as a whole over the same time period. This indicates that the Cook Inlet drift
gillnet fishery may be providing more new entrant opportunities than other State fisheries in Alaska.
Regarding economic conditions in the fishery, biological trends and associated socioeconomic conditions
within the Cook Inlet fishery have fluctuated widely over time, even with access to the EEZ. These cyclical
trends are not expected to be modified by any of the management alternatives that were considered for this
action.
Comment 32: Many commenters stated that Amendment 14 eliminates a viable fishery by closing waters
traditionally fished by the drift gillnet fleet prior to the establishment of the EEZ. They indicated this would
devastate the lives of hardworking families, and will eliminate the potential for future entrants to participate
in the fishery. This will destroy longstanding commercial fishing heritage and culture in the region negatively
impacting a struggling group of 500 small boat fisherman and small communities in Alaska.Page 22 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…22/41
Response: NMFS acknowledges that this action may have adverse impacts on drift gillnet fishermen.
However, NMFS disagrees that this action would eliminate the drift gillnet fishery, and NMFS determined
that no other viable management alternative considered by the Council during the development of
Amendment 14 would have less adverse economic impacts. Section 4 of the Analysis describes economic
trends in the fishery over time. It is noted that there are cyclical periods of high earnings and low earnings. In
recent years, revenues in the fishery have been low. None of the action alternatives were expected to result in
significant changes to the existing economic conditions. As described in Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis, this
action will have the greatest impact to drift gillnet participants that fish primarily or exclusively in the EEZ.
This action closes a portion of the area previously open to the drift gillnet fleet; all commercial salmon
fishery sectors within Cook Inlet have operated, and will continue to operate, within the State waters of Cook
Inlet. This includes State water areas where the drift gillnet fleet currently harvests over half of its annual
catch, on average, and where all other commercial salmon harvest in Cook Inlet occurs.
Comment 33: Many commenters noted that the proposed rule preamble states that the economic impact of
the closure “would be proportional” to the extent that individual vessels rely on the EEZ or will impact
fishing communities only to the extent that they are dependent on fishing in the EEZ. Closing the EEZ was
not sufficiently analyzed and will have more severe economic impacts than expected. Many commenters
suggested that a closure of the EEZ is likely to collapse the commercial salmon fishing industry in Cook Inlet
altogether. One of the last remaining Cook Inlet processing companies gave public comment that losing fish
landings due to closing the EEZ would drive them out of business. Set net fishermen cannot operate without
processors, and processors have explained that closure of the EEZ makes business in Cook Inlet impractical.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the impacts of closing the EEZ to commercial salmon fishing were not
sufficiently analyzed. Sections 3 and 4 of the Analysis present a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of
each alternative using the best scientific information available, including Amendment 14.
NMFS is aware that a majority of commenters had significant concerns with the economic impacts of this
action. There were many assertions to the effect that Amendment 14 would collapse commercial fishing
within Cook Inlet. However, these commenters did not present additional information to support the
conclusion that the commercial salmon fishery in Cook Inlet would collapse; NMFS disagrees with this
conclusion and the Analysis does not support it. The drift gillnet fleet will still be able to fish within State
waters where they currently harvest over half their average annual catch. Further, this action is not expected
to decrease the harvest from other commercial salmon fishery sectors in Cook Inlet or other commercial
fisheries that deliver to Cook Inlet processors. Compensatory salmon fishery effort is expected within State
waters, and NMFS anticipates that at least some of the fish that the drift gillnet fleet previously harvested in
the Cook Inlet EEZ will be harvested by the commercial fishery sector within State waters. However, even if
there is no additional commercial harvest within State waters, which is not anticipated, the majority of the
commercial salmon harvest will continue to occur within the State waters of Cook Inlet, consistent with
existing conditions.
Existing processors in Cook Inlet, as well as the other processors outside of Cook Inlet where commercially
caught Cook Inlet salmon are transported for processing, are described in Section 4.5.4.1 of the Analysis. Six
processors accounted for an average of 91.8 percent of the ex-vessel value of the UCI drift gillnet fishery
harvest from 2009-2018. During this same period, the UCI salmon drift gillnet fishery accounted for an
average of 61 percent of the total seafood purchases (salmon, halibut, crab, etc.) of the three most dependent
facilities and accounted for an average of 19 percent of the total purchases of the three least dependent
facilities. Given the number of processors, including operations that are well diversified into other fisheries,
it is unknown if this action would impact processing capacity beyond other factors outside of the control ofPage 23 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…23/41
fishery managers such as natural variations in salmon abundance and market conditions.Start Printed
Page 60579
Additionally, this action does not change the ability of drift gillnet fleet to direct market or process their own
catch for sale, or for new entrants in the processing sector to take advantage of a market opportunity.
It is also noted that the only other management alternative available to the Council and NMFS was expected
to have more adverse economic impacts. That alternative, Alternative 3, would have required participants to
obtain a Federal Fisheries Permit, VMS, logbooks, and accurate GPS positioning equipment as described in
Sections 2.5.7 and 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis. Alternative 3 would also have required NMFS to set total allowable
catch (TAC) before each fishing season. As a result, TAC would be set conservatively relative to the status quo
in order to reduce the risk of overfishing and could not be increased in a timely manner if inseason
information indicates that run strength is stronger than predicted. Commercial salmon harvest in the EEZ
would be prohibited if the Council and NMFS did not project a harvestable surplus, with an appropriate
buffer for the increased management uncertainty. Further, as described in Section 2.5.3 of the Analysis, gaps
in data could have required closing the EEZ to commercial fishing in any given year. Finally, Alternative 3
would have increased uncertainty each year for fishery participants in developing a fishing plan because
NMFS would have determined whether the Cook Inlet EEZ could be open to commercial fishing on an
annual basis and shortly before the start of the fishing season. If the EEZ was open, NMFS could have closed
it unexpectedly early if harvest limits were reached. NMFS concluded that these factors would create more
adverse economic impacts and instability than the consistent management approach under Alternative 4.
Comment 34: The economic impacts of Amendment 14 on Cook Inlet commercial salmon fishermen are not
adequately analyzed. It is not clear whether a drift gillnet fisherman's commercial catch will be reduced by 5
or 95 percent and this action could be the tipping point to put Cook Inlet commercial drift gillnet fishermen
out of business.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that there is uncertainty regarding the economic impacts of Amendment 14.
This uncertainty was before both the Council and NMFS in making their decisions to recommend and
approve Amendment 14, respectively. A number of factors, summarized below, make it difficult to predict the
exact impacts of this action despite the Council and NMFS using the best scientific information available;
nonetheless, there is enough information to conclude that, on average, the drift gillnet fleet could continue to
harvest the majority of their existing catch.
Generally, NMFS expects that the Cook Inlet drift gillnet fleet could maintain their existing levels of salmon
removals in State waters, which currently constitutes over 50 percent of their average annual catch, as
described in Section 3.1.4 of the Analysis. Vessels could also relocate their previous EEZ fishing effort to
State waters. However, as stated in Section 4.1.7.4 of the Analysis, on a vessel by vessel basis, the impact of
Amendment 14 would be proportional to the extent that they rely on the EEZ for target fishing. As different
vessels have different levels of dependency on the EEZ, as well as ability and willingness to adapt to fishing
only in State waters, the impacts are more variable to individual harvesters and are not possible to predict
with available information.
Additionally, the State may modify management of the drift gillnet salmon fishery sector within State waters
to account for the EEZ closure. This could include providing additional time and area openings for the
fishery sector within State waters. Under current State regulations, the drift gillnet fishery sector typically
operates for two or three 12 hour periods per week, with the potential for additional time if salmon
abundance is high, as described in Section 4.5.2.1 of the Analysis.
Page 24 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…24/41
Furthermore, the conditions within the fishery during any given year have a substantial impact on the ability
of each fishery sector to harvest their target stocks. These include, but are not limited to, overall salmon
abundance, run timing, management measures required to conserve weak stocks, and management
measures required to provide each fishery sector with a harvestable surplus of their target stocks.
Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis does acknowledge that the loss of EEZ fishing opportunities may cause the
drift gillnet fleet to shrink. However, this may provide additional harvest opportunity for remaining
participants in the drift gillnet fishery sector, as well as other Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors.
Analysts have obtained and synthesized the best scientific information available, presenting conclusions and
recognizing uncertainty wherever possible. Consistent with National Standard 2 guidelines on FMP
development (50 CFR 600.315 (/select-citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-600.315)(e)(2)), “[t]he fact that
scientific information concerning a fishery is incomplete does not prevent the preparation and
implementation of an FMP (see related §§ 600.320(d)(2) and 600.340(b)).”
Comment 35: According to a 2015 McDowell Group report, the seafood industry in Southcentral Alaska
directly employs over 10,000 people seasonally and has an annual economic output of $1.2 billion.
Amendment 14 jeopardizes that industry. The closure of the EEZ reduces the effectiveness of the fleet
dramatically—48 percent of the historical harvest of the drift fleet is from this area. All of the Cook Inlet
salmon fishery sectors that rely on our annual salmon returns are important to the City of Kenai.
Amendment 14 effectively eliminates one of those sectors and should be opposed.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the significant economic importance of Cook Inlet salmon resources and
commercial fishing and processing to fishing communities. Section 4.5.5 of the Analysis presents detailed
information about community engagement in the Cook Inlet salmon fishery, dependency, and fishery tax
related revenue. NMFS disagrees that this action would effectively eliminate the drift gillnet fishery in Cook
Inlet. As described in Section 4.5.2.3 of the Analysis, more than half of the annual average catch of the drift
gillnet fleet occurs in State waters. While this action may have adverse impacts to the drift gillnet fleet
operating in the EEZ, it is expected to provide continued harvest opportunities to the drift gillnet fleet within
State waters and potentially increased harvest opportunities to all other harvesters within State waters.
Comment 36: Amendment 14 would disrupt the steady supply of fish over the summer which keeps the
processing sector operating efficiently. By waiting for the fish to enter the proposed State waters corridor, the
quality of the salmon is less than when harvested in the EEZ. This results in lower prices to the harvester and
potentially less market value for the processor.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that this action may reduce processing efficiency and could result in lower
prices in some circumstances. These considerations are described in Sections 4.5.4 and 4.5.5.2.2 of the
Analysis. The potential impacts of these adverse conditions are presented in Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis.
Comment 37: It costs thousands of dollars to prepare for fishing each year. If the EEZ is closed the
commenter indicated they will have to look at cutting insurance or other expenses and take higher risks
and that the harvest opportunities in state waters are not sufficient to keep a business going. Relatedly, some
commenters indicated that they would be unable to make boat and permit payments under the conditions
resulting from Amendment 14.
Start Printed
Page 60580
Page 25 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…25/41
Consistency With Other National Standards
Response: The potential impacts of reduced revenues on harvesters are described in Sections 4.7.1.4 and
4.7.4.2 of the Analysis. This may include a reduction in active drift gillnet fleet size, as well as potential
indirect adverse impacts to vessel maintenance and safety due to the potential for reduced revenues. The
Analysis shows that the adverse economic impacts resulting from the only other viable management
alternative (Alternative 3) were expected to be worse, due to increased uncertainty, significantly reduced or
eliminated EEZ harvests, and additional regulatory expenses for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
NMFS disagrees that harvest opportunities in State waters are insufficient to support commercial fishing.
Over half the drift gillnet harvest, and the entirety of the set gillnet harvest, currently occurs within State
waters. This includes an average of $10.9 million in gross revenue just from State water drift gillnet harvest
from 2009 to 2018, and an average of $12.6 million in gross revenue from the UCI set gillnet fishery sector
over the same period. Participants can maintain or increase their participation within State waters, and the
State may modify its management measures to account for the EEZ closure.
Comment 38: The UCI salmon fishery provides most of the funding for the Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association (CIAA). The loss of that funding as a result of Amendment 14 will force the CIAA to close, wiping
out years of effort on salmon rehabilitation projects, closing all their hatchery and stocking programs, and
more.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that if this action decreases harvests by commercial users in Cook Inlet,
revenues to CIAA may be reduced, as noted in Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis. However, as summarized in the
response to Comment 35, the majority of commercial salmon fishing in Cook Inlet is expected to continue.
Comment 39: I had planned for my retirement based on income from fishing and the sale of my limited entry
salmon permit. Because of the State's mismanagement and the reallocation of salmon away from commercial
fishermen my retirement nest egg is non-existent and the price of permits is very low. Amendment 14 will
exacerbate these problems.
Response: Sections 4.5.3 and 4.6 provide a detailed description of the harvest and economic performance of
the Cook Inlet drift gillnet salmon fishery sector including permit prices, as well as other Alaska salmon
fisheries, over time. The Analysis shows that the performance of the Cook Inlet salmon fishery, as well as
other Alaskan salmon fisheries, have varied significantly over time. No alternatives were expected to modify
these cyclical trends, although NMFS determined that of the alternatives, Alternative 4 (Amendment 14) best
facilitates management of the Cook Inlet salmon fishery by allowing for predictable, flexible management
within State waters without additional management uncertainty.
Comment 40: All of our catch has been caught within the EEZ. Amendment 14 will have severe impacts and
eliminate our ability to participate in the fishery.
Response: NMFS is aware and acknowledges that Amendment 14 may have more adverse impacts on
participants unable or unwilling to relocate their fishing activity to State waters. As described in Section
4.7.1.4 of the Analysis, the impact of Amendment 14 will be proportional to the extent that participants rely
on the EEZ for target fishing, and that the drift gillnet fleet may shrink as a result of reduced profitability.
Comment 41: Amendment 14 is a political decision not supported by the best scientific information available
as required by National Standard 2 and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. One commenter cited a donation by a
prominent sport fishing advocate to the governor as evidence.Page 26 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…26/41
Response: NMFS determined that Amendment 14 is consistent with National Standard 2. The Council's
decision to recommend Amendment 14 and NMFS's decision to approve Amendment 14 and publish this
final rule were supported by the Analysis, which contained the best available scientific information. The
Council and NMFS considered and weighed all of the information available in making the decisions,
including public testimony, to recommend and approve Amendment 14, respectively.
Comment 42: The Analysis did not use the best available information because it omits the dismal harvest in
2019 and the disastrous harvests in 2020. This information was available to NMFS and the Council but not
used. This missing information was critical to the decision to close the fishery in the EEZ because much of
the reduced harvest in 2019 and 2020 was the result of State closures of fishing opportunities in the EEZ.
Restrictions on fishing in the EEZ in 2020, despite relatively high abundance of salmon returns, resulted in a
fishery disaster with the average drift permit holder grossing only about $4,400 for the entire season.
Complete closure of the EEZ will be far worse.
Response: The Analysis constitutes the best scientific information available. Final data from the 2019 and
2020 Cook Inlet salmon fishery was not available to analysts at the time of Council consideration. Consistent
with the National Standard 2 guidelines (50 CFR 600.315 (/select-citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-600.315)(a)
(6)(v)), mandatory management actions should not be delayed due to the promise of future data collection,
nor should non-final data be introduced late into the Council decision-making process. That said, data now
available on these seasons is summarized here.
The 2020 UCI commercial salmon fishery harvest and value was historically low. The total UCI drift gillnet
harvest in 2020 was approximately 273,067 sockeye salmon, which was approximately 82 percent less than
the previous 10-year average. The 2020 drift gillnet harvest of 47,689 coho salmon was 56 percent less than
the previous 10-year average. The 2020 drift gillnet harvest of 25,223 chum salmon was approximately 84
percent lower than the previous 10-year average, while the pink salmon harvest was estimated to be 293,676
fish, or 40 percent higher than the 10-year even-year average. 2020 personal use fishery harvests of Cook
Inlet salmon were approximately 11 percent below the 10-year average. Cook Inlet recreational salmon
harvest data are not yet available for the 2020 season. Escapement for UCI salmon stocks in 2020 were
mostly above or within established goal ranges for sockeye, chum and coho salmon, but were poor for
Chinook salmon.
The total UCI drift gillnet harvest in 2019 was approximately 749,101 sockeye salmon, which was about 53
percent less than the average annual harvest from the previous 10 years. The 2019 drift gillnet harvest of
88,618 coho salmon was 17 percent less than the previous 10-year average harvest. The 2019 drift gillnet
harvest of chum salmon was 112,518 and the pink salmon harvest was estimated to be approximately 27,607
fish. 2019 personal use fishery harvests of Cook Inlet salmon were 6 percent below the 10-year average.
However, recreational salmon harvests were approximately 23 percent above the 10-year average, driven by
some of the largest harvests on record for the Kenai mainstem and other Kenai drainages. Escapement for
UCI salmon stocks in 2019 were mostly above or within established goal ranges for sockeye, chum and coho
salmon, but were poor for Chinook salmon.
Start Printed
Page 60581
For both 2019 and 2020, the State took management action to avoid overfishing on weak stocks which also
limited the commercial harvest of healthy stocks. Primarily, weak Kenai River Chinook salmon runs resulted
in the State taking restrictive actions in the sport fishery and the Eastside set gillnet fishery (Upper
Subdistrict). For the Eastside set gillnet fishery, this meant the State restricted fishing time to less than what
can be allowed under State sockeye salmon management plans and imposed gear restrictions, both of which
limited the ability of the set gillnet fishery to harvest additional sockeye salmon.Page 27 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…27/41
While the drift gillnet fleet realized lower than average catches in 2019 and 2020, the catch by other Cook
Inlet salmon fishery sectors likely increased as a result. The 2019 and 2020 Northern District commercial
coho salmon harvests were approximately 41 and 27 percent greater than the 10-year averages, respectively.
In 2019, the Northern District harvest of sockeye salmon was approximately 89 percent greater than the 10
year average. The State suggested that increases in Northern District coho harvest may be due to less overall
fishing time in the drift gillnet fishery because the State's management actions kept the drift gillnet fleet in
the Expanded Corridors to target Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon and conserve Northern District coho
salmon in July and August. For sockeye salmon, the State indicated that decreased fishing hours in the
Central District by the drift gillnet fleet may have increased sockeye salmon abundance in the Northern
District, where these fish are harvested by the Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors in the Northern District.
Similarly, decreases in harvest by the drift gillnet fleet may have also contributed to one of the highest Cook
Inlet recreational salmon fishery sector harvests on record in 2019.
However, decreased fishing in the Central District can also increase escapements of sockeye salmon into the
Kenai and Kasilof rivers, which occurred in 2019 and 2020. As described in Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis,
NMFS notes that catch rates of Northern District salmon stocks, as well as Kenai River salmon stocks are
generally higher in Federal waters, and it is unknown whether additional EEZ harvests by the drift gillnet
fleet could have been allowed in these years without resulting in overfishing of weak stocks or limiting
harvest opportunity in other Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors.
Factors outside of the control of fishery managers were a significant contributor to reductions in harvest
during these years. In 2020 sockeye salmon run timing was highly atypical, with the highest daily sockeye
salmon passage recorded in August in the Kenai River, and the latest peak of sockeye salmon movement
recorded. This meant abundances of sockeye salmon were relatively low during traditional peak fishing
times. Further, the State had implemented low abundance sockeye salmon management plan provisions in
combination with restrictive management measures to avoid overfishing late-run Chinook salmon. As
discussed in the response to Comment 24, the State cited factors outside of the control of fishery managers
and undetermined causes as the causes of the fishery disaster declaration request for UCI in 2020. NMFS
notes that these variations would be particularly challenging to address through Federal management under
Alternative 3, as harvest limits would be established preseason and there would be limited flexibility for
NMFS to adapt them to rapidly changing conditions inseason. These challenges are described in Sections 2.5
and 4.7.1.3 of the Analysis.
In summary, drift gillnet harvests were significantly lower than average in 2019 and 2020. In both of these
years, the drift gillnet fleet had relatively limited fishing time in the EEZ compared to historical conditions as
they were limited by management measures required to conserve Northern District coho and sockeye salmon
stocks. Catches of these stocks by Northern District fishery sectors did improve substantially for 2019, but
were limited by weak stock management measures in 2020. Freshwater sport harvests in Kenai drainages
were some of the highest on record in 2019, but data is not yet available for 2020. Personal use harvests were
slightly lower but largely consistent with 10-year averages. The Eastside set gillnet fishery was significantly
limited by weak Chinook salmon stock management considerations in both years and realized significantly
reduced harvest as a result.
This information is largely consistent with conclusions presented in the Analysis. With limited fishing time in
Federal waters, harvests by the drift gillnet fleet did decrease, while some other fishery sectors realized
increases. Escapement of Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks did increase above target ranges during
these years, and while some of this increase is likely attributable to reduced drift gillnet harvest in Federal
waters, management action required to prevent overfishing on Kenai river late-run Chinook salmon andPage 28 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…28/41
conserve Northern District salmon stocks was a significant driver of constrained salmon harvests throughout
the Cook Inlet salmon fishery during this period. Further, for the Kenai River late-run sockeye, record late
run timing presented significant management challenges under the established management framework.
NMFS notes that the limitations imposed by weak stock management and the challenges of unpredictable
run timing would be exacerbated by the only other viable alternative considered by the Council and NMFS.
This information is consistent with recent trends in fishery performance and the conclusions of the Analysis
presented to the Council and reviewed by NMFS prior to making their decision on Amendment 14.
Comment 43: The best scientific information available shows that closure will have no appreciable
conservation benefits.
Response: Of the viable management alternatives, NMFS determined that Amendment 14 takes the most
precautionary approach to preventing overfishing and maximizes conservation and management benefits as
detailed in the preamble to the proposed rule and as provided in the responses to Comments on National
Standards 1 and 3.
Comment 44: Amendment 14 violates National Standard 4, which requires that all allocations not
discriminate between residents of different states. Amendment 14 effectively allocates the entire fishery to
the State. The State discriminates against out-of-state fishers, including the Alaska resident-only dipnet
fishery that harvests hundreds of thousands of salmon per year to the detriment of other resource users. The
Analysis points out that it is highly likely that closing the EEZ waters of Cook Inlet will reallocate fish
resources from the drift gillnet fishery to the other Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors.
Response: The State's management decisions regarding allocations among fishery sectors under State
jurisdiction are State decisions that are outside the scope of this action. For the action under review, NMFS
determined that Amendment 14 is consistent with National Standard 4. As summarized in Section 4.7.1.4
of the Analysis, this action does not allocate or assign fishing privileges among commercial salmon fishery
participants or other salmon fishery sectors, but it may result in changes in historical patterns of harvest
between Cook Inlet fishery sectors. However, it is not possible to estimate the magnitude of the harvest
benefits to these other fishery sectors because of the complexities of the Cook Inlet salmon fishery and
intertwined State management plans.
Start Printed
Page 60582
Further, Amendment 14 does not discriminate between residents of different states. The closure of the Cook
Inlet EEZ to commercial salmon fishing applies equally to all participants regardless of residency. As
described in Section 4 of the Analysis, the majority of the salmon fishery within Cook Inlet, regardless of
sector, has historically occurred within State waters.
Comment 45: Amendment 14 does not treat all Alaska stakeholders equitably. Amendment 14 unfairly
discriminates against the drift gillnet fishery and has negative economic impacts on only the drift gillnet
fleet. Nearly half of the drift gillnet fleet's harvest and income comes from the EEZ and it would be far more
than half our harvest if we were allowed to fish there throughout the season.
Response: Amendment 14 and this final rule treat all stakeholders equitably. The drift gillnet fleet is the only
commercial fishery sector and the only significant salmon harvester that operates in the Cook Inlet EEZ. As
discussed in the response to Comment 16, NMFS only has authority to manage the portion of the Cook Inlet
salmon fishery that occurs in the EEZ. This action applies equally to all participants in the Cook Inlet drift
gillnet fishery in the EEZ regardless of residency.
Page 29 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…29/41
NMFS analyzes the impact of management actions relative to existing conditions within the fishery.
Historical conditions within the fishery are described in Section 4 of the Analysis.
Comment 46: NMFS should disapprove Amendment 14 because it turns all control of the fishery over to the
State, which is inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requiring all Federal fisheries be managed in the
national interest.
Response: Amendment 14 and this final rule implements Federal management of the commercial salmon
fishery within the Cook Inlet EEZ consistent with the national interest. With Amendment 14, the Council and
NMFS are directly managing the commercial salmon fishery within the Cook Inlet EEZ and are not turning
over control of the portion of the fishery that has occurred within the EEZ to the State. Of the viable
alternatives, NMFS expects that Amendment 14 will maximize harvests consistent with conservation
requirements in the State waters of Cook Inlet and that this action will not change net benefit to the nation.
Further discussion of this is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule and the response to Comment 19.
The Council and NMFS may choose to revisit management of the Cook Inlet EEZ at any time if a
management measure becomes available that will better achieve OY. Absent the conditions for preemption
being met, which are described in the response to Comment 16, neither NMFS nor the Council would be able
to modify management within State marine waters.
Comment 47: Amendment 14 was driven by the following Council policy: “The Council's salmon
management policy is to facilitate State of Alaska salmon management in accordance with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, Pacific Salmon Treaty, and applicable Federal law.” The facilitation of State management is not
a policy goal of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The State's role is to participate through the Council process, not
as a substitute for the Council.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the Council's salmon management policy is inconsistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. While the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not include this specific objective, a Council has broad
discretion to adopt management policies that are consistent with the goals of Magnuson-Stevens Act,
including achieving OY, preventing overfishing, and managing stocks as a unit throughout their range.
Comment 48: The Magnuson-Stevens Act gives NMFS the authority to manage anadromous species,
including salmon, “beyond the EEZ”. Amendment 14 fails to manage salmon within State waters as required
by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Response: NMFS interprets “beyond the EEZ” as granting authority to manage anadromous species further
than 200 nautical miles (nm) from shore, beyond sovereign jurisdictional limits, rather than within 3nm.
Marine waters from the Alaskan coastline out to 3 nm are under State jurisdiction. Absent the conditions for
preemption, NMFS does not have jurisdiction to manage fisheries, or fish stocks, within State marine waters.
Under no circumstances does NMFS have jurisdiction to manage fisheries or fish stocks within State internal
waters ( i.e., landward of the coastline).
Comment 49: The only thing standing in the way of resolving this issue is the State's refusal to accept MSY
principles as outlined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Ninth Circuit recognized this fact when ruling in
favor of Cook Inlet fishermen and requiring Federal management of the Cook Inlet fishery.
Page 30 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…30/41
Impacts on Marine Mammals
Response: As detailed in the responses to Comments 19 and 20, MSY was appropriately considered when
evaluating management alternatives to address the Ninth Circuit ruling and in the decision to approve
Amendment 14.
The Ninth Circuit did not consider the whether State management of the Cook Inlet salmon fishery is
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as the State is not subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in its
management of State salmon fisheries. Rather, the Ninth Circuit ruling required the portion of the Cook Inlet
salmon fishery under Federal jurisdiction to be incorporated into the Salmon FMP.
Comment 50: ADFG agrees with the conclusions included in the Analysis that Amendment 14 is not expected
to result in a change to the incidental take level of marine mammals, including beluga whales, Steller sea
lions, humpback whales, and fin whales, or have a significant impact on prey availability to these species.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
Comment 51: The State is concerned with NMFS's statement that prohibiting commercial salmon catch in
the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea under Alternative 4 could improve the density of salmon prey available to
endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales present in northern Cook Inlet during the summer months as noted in
Section 3.3.1.1 of the Analysis. Contrary to assertions by Norman et al. 2020, it is unlikely that salmon
abundance is limiting beluga whale recovery in Cook Inlet, as the overall abundance of salmon in Cook Inlet
largely remains at historical levels and therefore most likely is not driving the Cook Inlet beluga whale
decline due to density dependence.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
Comment 52: NMFS should present the comparative conservation benefits and detriments for Cook Inlet
beluga whales associated with a Federally managed salmon fishery in the EEZ.
Response: NMFS analyzed the impacts of each management alternative on Cook Inlet beluga whales in
Section 3.3.1.1 of the Analysis. This section provides information and analysis on the impacts of each
alternative on Cook Inlet beluga whales, including Alternative 3. Start Printed
Page 60583
Comment 53: Salmon, particularly Chinook, are among the most important prey species for Cook Inlet
beluga whales and prey availability is a known factor potentially limiting the recovery of Cook Inlet beluga
whales. NMFS suggests that the impact of the proposed action on Cook Inlet beluga whale prey availability is
uncertain. NMFS should describe relevant research on Cook Inlet salmon, especially Chinook. NMFS should
also address the extent to which salmon fishery management in Cook Inlet is expressly accounting for beluga
prey needs, or could be modified to do so. Additional attention to these factors might benefit Chinook
populations and, in turn, the Cook Inlet beluga whale population. All this to say that details like place and
species matter greatly in terms of importance for recovery.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that salmon, particularly Chinook, are important prey for Cook Inlet beluga
whales. All of the action alternatives considered and examined in the Analysis were expected to maintain or
increase salmon prey availability for Cook Inlet beluga whales. As described in Section 3.3 of the Analysis,
the current level of fishery removals in Cook Inlet is not known to be a threat to Cook Inlet beluga whales,
but there is uncertainty regarding beluga whale energetic needs. Significant changes in the abundance of
salmon stocks are not expected under Amendment 14. This action would maintain salmon abundance at orPage 31 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…31/41
above existing levels. Further, the drift gillnet fleet has de minimis catch of Chinook salmon which is not
expected to increase as a result of this action, as stated in Section 3.1.4 of the Analysis. Therefore, additional
information about Chinook salmon research is outside the scope of this action.
Additionally, the State must still meet all salmon escapement goals, plus maintain a harvestable surplus for
in-river users, for all salmon stocks within Cook Inlet. Therefore, this action is not expected to reduce prey
availability for Cook Inlet beluga whales.
Comment 54: NMFS should consider the potential for increased disturbance and displacement of beluga
whales and salmon from Cook Inlet beluga whale critical habitat, including key foraging areas, and
opportunities for NMFS to better conserve and recover beluga whales that could help inform future recovery
efforts. The proposed action will concentrate the fleet into a smaller area, potentially causing new sources of
disturbance and displacement of belugas. The same increased noise could also displace or disperse the
salmon themselves. NMFS should assess whether the noise and commercial activities in new places that are
triggered by its decision are likely to disturb and/or displace belugas from foraging areas.
Response: NMFS undertook a review of this action consistent with its requirements under section 7(a)(2) of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The NMFS Protected Resources Division concurred that this action may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Cook Inlet beluga whales or their critical habitat. Based on the
available data for Cook Inlet beluga whale distribution in the action area, the whales have not been recorded
in recent years in the portions of the action area surrounding the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers during the most
active part of the salmon drift gillnet fishing season from June to mid-August.
The fishing season duration is not expected to change as it is driven by the timing of the salmon runs. While
drift gillnet effort may concentrate within certain areas of State waters, these areas minimally overlap with
the range of Cook Inlet beluga whales during the salmon fishing season and no documented take of Cook
Inlet beluga whales has occurred there, as described in Section 3.3.1.1 of the Analysis. Further, as noted in
Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis, participation in the drift gillnet fishery could decline as a result of this action,
which could result in fewer vessels on the fishing grounds during summer and less gear deployed.
As described in Sections 3.1.4 and 3.3.1.1 of the Analysis, decreased harvest of Northern District salmon
stocks by the drift gillnet fleet as a result of the EEZ closure would increase availability of these stocks to
other Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors in Northern Cook Inlet and marine mammals that forage in Northern
Cook Inlet, and could also potentially lead to higher salmon escapements in Northern Cook Inlet. NMFS does
not expect overall salmon harvests or fishery activity to increase as the State must still achieve escapement
goals. Salmon migration patterns or distribution are not expected to change as a result of this action.
NMFS does not expect that Cook Inlet beluga whales would be affected by any increase in vessel noise as a
result of this action. Overall increases in vessel noise are not expected as a result of this action. Any
incremental localized increase in noise as a result of this action would likely be immeasurably small given the
high baseline level of vessel noise and activity throughout the inlet and the fact that most drift gillnet vessels
already fish in State waters for a significant portion of the fishery. Thus, NMFS does not expect that the
effects from potentially increased vessel noise on listed species could be measurable or detected, and
therefore considers such effects to be insignificant.
Comment 55: In response to the proposed action, the State could open the Northern District to the drift
gillnet fishery, particularly since it may be difficult for the fleet to maintain past harvest numbers otherwise.
The Analysis should assess the impact of that reasonably likely reaction, which could place the fleet at the
Page 32 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…32/41
Comments on the Development of Amendment 14
mouths of numerous additional rivers critical for beluga foraging, potentially resulting in far greater
disturbance and displacement. NMFS's Biological Opinion should also assess this potential impact and
NMFS should consider conditioning any jeopardy finding on the State agreeing to keep the Northern District
closed—with consultation re-initiated upon any attempt to open it. If NMFS cannot require reinitiation of
consultation in that event, then it should find jeopardy.
Response: NMFS completed informal consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA regarding the potential
impacts of Amendment 14 and determined that the action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect,
Cook Inlet beluga whales or their critical habitat. This action is not expected to result in the Northern District
being opened to the drift gillnet fleet. Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis suggests that additional harvest
opportunity for the drift gillnet fleet could be provided north of the EEZ line, but within the Central District
where drift gillnet fishing already occurs there is no or minimal potential temporal overlap with Cook Inlet
belugas during the fishing season. Existing commercial fishery restrictions within State regulations for the
Central District, which minimize harvest of Northern District salmon stocks by Central District fishery
sectors ( e.g., the drift gillnet fishery) and generally prohibit fishing near river mouths, are not modified by
this action or expected to be changed as a result. Therefore, this action is not expected to increase
disturbance or displacement of Cook Inlet belugas.
NMFS acknowledges that the State may change management measures for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery in
State waters as a result of this action. Such changes may warrant reinitiating ESA section 7 consultation if
there are effects of this action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not
previously considered. Start Printed
Page 60584
Comment 56: Multiple commenters felt that Amendment 14 is a punitive or unjust management solution.
They suggested the Ninth Circuit ruling required the FMP to be amended, and that the Council and NMFS
responded by punitively closing the fishery.
Response: NMFS disagrees that Amendment 14 is punitive. Amendment 14 implements the Ninth Circuit
ruling by amending the Salmon FMP to include the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. The Analysis provides a
comprehensive description of the purpose and need for this action, the management alternatives considered,
and an analysis of their respective impacts. The Council and NMFS carefully evaluated costs and benefits of
each management alternative and, of the two viable management alternatives, selected the alternative
expected to minimize adverse impacts. NMFS provided its rationale in support of Amendment 14 in the
preamble to the proposed rule.
Comment 57: The Council did not identify a preliminary preferred alternative until it made a final decision
on Amendment 14, and withheld key information that the State was not willing to accept a delegated
program until after the close of the Council's public comment period. This is contrary to the Council's
published principles for stakeholder involvement that require the Council to make key information readily
available to stakeholders to facilitate public input, before making a final recommendation to NMFS.
Response: All Council standard operating procedures and policies as well as Magnuson-Stevens Act
procedural requirements were followed in the process of developing Amendment 14. All information
considered by the Council and NMFS during the consideration of Amendment 14 was posted to the Council
eAgenda and available to the public.
Page 33 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…33/41
Selecting a preliminary preferred alternative is not a required step in the Council process. Closure of the EEZ
was considered under Alternative 3 (Federal Management) where it could have been adopted as an inseason
management measure, or a preseason decision, as described in Section 2.5 of the Analysis. At the October
2020 Council meeting, the State's representative on the Council expressed concerns about the existing
alternatives, and the Council specifically chose to separate a proactive EEZ closure out of Alternative 3 to
create Alternative 4 (Amendment 14) so it could be better analyzed and reviewed, as well as to give the public
notice of its specific consideration. The Council's analysis of management alternatives for the Cook Inlet
Salmon FMP amendment, including Alternative 4, was completed and publicly available more than three
weeks (26 days) prior to the Council's consideration and final action at the December 2020 Council meeting.
A total of 225 members of the public provided written comments or public testimony to the Council at that
meeting.
NMFS did not have a predetermined policy position before the December 2020 meeting, consistent with
substantive consideration of public comment, and had no role in the State's policy decision to decline
delegated management authority (Alternative 2).
Comment 58: The Council heard from hundreds of fishermen and Alaskans who testified against the
adoption of this EEZ closure proposal. Many believed none of the available alternatives provided a scientific
or balanced management plan. Producing an amendment to the Salmon FMP that includes all of the Cook
Inlet fishery, including State waters and the EEZ, is not an insurmountable task as NMFS and the Council
have made it seem. It will however require that the agencies work with the stakeholders cooperatively instead
of continuing their adversarial and unreceptive behavior. Stakeholders are asking that salmon management
in Cook Inlet comply with the Federal law and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We only want what the law
already requires.
Response: NMFS is aware that many members of the public testified or commented to the Council and
NMFS against adoption and approval of Amendment 14, as well as expressed dissatisfaction with all of the
alternatives considered by the Council. Developing an FMP that optimizes conservation and management of
Cook Inlet salmon stocks while complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, as well
as successfully integrating with the highly complex and interdependent network of Cook Inlet salmon fishery
sectors, is a challenging and controversial task.
Section 2 of the Analysis identifies the management alternatives considered by the Council and NMFS. This
includes detailed discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Sections 1 and 2 of the
Analysis provide an overview of the requirements for amending the FMP, including consistency with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and Ninth Circuit decision.
The Council specifically considered the management recommendation developed by stakeholders on the
Council's Salmon Committee. The Council did not choose to analyze this recommendation further because it
proposed to apply Federal management measures within State waters, which is outside of Council and NMFS
jurisdiction. More detail on the Salmon Committee recommendation and its consideration by the Council is
presented in Section 2.7 of the Analysis.
Comment 59: Multiple commenters that participated in the Council consideration of the FMP amendment to
address Cook Inlet asserted that the process to develop Amendment 14 was not fair or well considered.
Specifically, commenters expressed concerns with the process, unfairness in consideration, conflicts of
interest, perceived misdirection, the Council's perceived facilitation of the State's desired outcome of EEZ
Page 34 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…34/41
Comments on State Salmon Management
closure, and that there was insufficient notice and opportunity for public comment. One commenter
requested that NMFS extend the comment period citing overlap with the drift gillnet fishing season in Cook
Inlet. All of these commenters opposed approval of Amendment 14.
Response: Under the Magnuson-Steven Act, the Council is responsible for developing FMPs and FMP
amendments, and stakeholders have an opportunity to express their opinions on the action and alternatives
being considered. All Council standard operating procedures and policies as well as Magnuson-Stevens Act
requirements were followed in developing Amendment 14, and all Council deliberations were open to the
public and are part of the public record. Sufficient opportunity for public comment was provided throughout
Council development of the action from 2017 through 2020. These opportunities occurred at public meetings
noticed in the Federal Register as well as at regularly scheduled Council meetings. The Council took public
testimony and considered written and oral public comments, providing stakeholders with consistent
opportunities for involvement on this issue. In addition, the public was able to review and comment on
analytical documents being developed by the Council during these same meetings.
Specific to the rulemaking for this action, the window to submit comments on the relevant Federal
Register documents was from May 18, 2021, through July 19, 2021, which provided ample opportunity for
comment outside of the fishing season and a large number of comments were received. Additionally, under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a 60-day comment period is required for proposed amendments to FMPs (16
U.S.C. 1854 (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/1854?type=usc&year=mostrecent&link-type=html)
(a)(1)(B)), and NMFS does not have discretion to extend this statutorily-set comment period.
Start Printed
Page 60585
Comment 60: Cook Inlet salmon stocks were built up between 1970 and 1990 and there were enough fish for
everyone. However, for more than 20 years the State has been systematically sabotaging the commercial
fishing industry in Cook Inlet to benefit recreational and personal use fishery sectors. Year after year there
have been a series of increasing restrictions on all the commercial fishermen, limiting the time and the area
where we can fish. This fishery was once the second largest salmon fishery in the State, in terms of economic
value, now we are having back-to-back disasters because of State mismanagement. Amendment 14 would
exacerbate these problems.
Response: The conclusions in this comment regarding adverse impacts to Cook Inlet salmon stocks due to
State management are not supported by available information. Sections 3 and 4 of the Analysis present
information about returns of Cook Inlet salmon and fishery harvest over time with a brief summary provided
here.
Salmon that return to Cook Inlet are harvested by numerous commercial and non-commercial fishery
sectors. While the non-commercial fishery sectors have grown over time as the population of southcentral
Alaska has grown, the claim that this growth has disadvantaged the commercial sector is not supported by
available information. Commercial, recreational, and subsistence harvests have all generally increased and
decreased in proportion to salmon abundance, as described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of the Analysis. From
2010 to 2014, revenues in the drift gillnet fishery were near or above long term averages, while more recent
fishery performance has been consistent with earlier periods of lower revenues.
As shown in Sections 3.1, 4.5.2, and 4.6 of the Analysis, salmon abundance is cyclical and harvest fluctuates
over time. Exact causes for poor salmon returns are variable and frequently involve a variety of factors
outside the control of fishery managers to mitigate, including unfavorable ocean conditions, freshwater
Page 35 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…35/41
Comments on Legal Issues
environmental factors, disease, or other likely factors on which data are limited or nonexistent. The ocean
and freshwater environments are changing, and the impacts of those changes on salmon abundance are
difficult to forecast because they, in turn, depend on somewhat uncertain forecasts of global climate as noted
in Section 3.6.3 of the Analysis. Further, the decline in productivity for some stocks have required that
managers implement measures to conserve them, which often reduces the harvest of healthy stocks. These
conditions, and others outside the control of fishery managers, are cited as the cause of fishery disaster
requests, which are described in greater detail in the response to Comment 24.
Regardless of the management alternative selected, the FMP is limited to implementing management
measures within the EEZ. As explained in Sections 2 and 2.7 of the Analysis, NMFS generally has authority
to manage only the fisheries that occur in the EEZ. The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not provide authority for
the Council or NMFS to manage fisheries occurring predominately in State waters, which would be required
for the Council to change escapement goals or to allocate more salmon to a specific user group.
Comment 61: The State, the Council, and NMFS have not updated commercial season openings and closures
to coincide with changes in the timing of the runs of the several species of salmon in UCI. Sockeye salmon,
for example, have been running later than in previous decades. ADFG nevertheless closed the commercial
season in much of UCI on August 1, before significant numbers of sockeye salmon had run.
Response: NMFS evaluated the average harvest timing from 2009 to 2018 in Section 4.5.2 of the Analysis.
While some recent years have had later run timing which has complicated management, there is significant
variability in salmon run timing that is not predictable within and across salmon fishing seasons. This
variability is particularly problematic for the relatively inflexible and data limited Federal management of a
separate commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ that would have been required under Alternative
3, the only other viable management approach. In contrast, under Amendment 14, State management has
less uncertainty to account for, is more flexible, and can be more responsive to variability as the State can
readily increase harvests inseason if realized run strength is greater than expected or more rapidly close the
fishery in the event of a conservation concern.
Comment 62: State management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks has resulted in lost food production estimated
to be at least 150 million meals, assuming a third of a pound per meal, because of wasted salmon and
overescapement. This enormous loss of interstate commerce and national food production has occurred for
years under the State's mismanagement. The State did nothing to relax its restrictions on the commercial
fishermen in UCI to help the national need for nutritious food during the COVID-19 pandemic as meat
packing plants, farms, and other closures of food production occurred throughout the nation.
Response: NMFS notes that food production is inclusive of commercial, recreational, and subsistence
fishing. As described in the response to Comment 19, Amendment 14 is expected to achieve OY from the
Cook Inlet salmon fishery.
Comment 63: Amendment 14 fails to comply with any of the statutory requirements for closing a fishery.
Under 16 U.S.C. 1853 (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/1853?type=usc&year=mostrecent&link-
type=html)(b)(2)(C), an FMP may designate areas where all fishing is prohibited, but the FMP must “ensure
that such closure”:
(i) Is based on the best scientific information available;
Page 36 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…36/41
(ii) includes criteria to assess the conservation benefit of the closed area;
(iii) establishes a timetable for review of the closed area's performance that is consistent with the purposes of
the closed area; and
(iv) is based on an assessment of the benefits and impacts of the closure, including its size, in relation to
other management measures (either alone or in combination with such measures), including the benefits and
impacts of limiting access to: Users of the area, overall fishing activity, fishery science, and fishery and
marine conservation.
Response: Amendment 14 does not constitute a closure that prohibits all fishing under 16 U.S.C. 1853
(https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/1853?type=usc&year=mostrecent&link-type=html)(b)(2)(C).
Amendment 14 closes the Cook Inlet EEZ to one salmon fishery sector. Under the Salmon FMP, recreational
fishing can still occur in the Cook Inlet EEZ.
Comment 64: The fishery management Council system is unconstitutional because there is not sufficient
discretion for appointed Council members to be removed from their positions.
Response: The constitutionality of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is outside the scope of this rulemaking, and
NMFS has approved Amendment 14 and promulgated this final rule consistent with the requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS continues to interpret the Magnuson-Stevens Act in a manner consistent with
the Constitution, particularly because NMFS retains significant discretion to reject Council
recommendations.
Start Printed
Page 60586
Comment 65: Amendment 14 is not consistent with Alaska's authority under the Statehood Act.
Response: To the extent this comment is arguing State management is inconsistent with Federal law, that is
outside the scope of this rulemaking. Alaska is not bound by the Magnuson-Stevens Act in its management of
salmon in state waters, and NMFS does not have jurisdiction over state water fisheries under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act absent preemption in accordance with section 306(b).
To the extent this comment is arguing the State's escapement-based management does not produce the
greatest net benefits to the nation, NMFS disagrees. The Analysis demonstrates that the State's escapement-
based management has historically consistently allowed harvest by all Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors after
accounting for limitations necessary to protect weaker stocks from overfishing. No management alternatives
under consideration were expected to increase harvest levels above the status quo; in addition, NMFS
determined that the alternative selected (Amendment 14) provides the greatest opportunity for maximum
harvest from the Cook Inlet salmon fishery while minimizing the potential for overfishing and avoiding
additional management uncertainty.
Comment 66: The Alaska resident only personal use fishery violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution and is unconstitutional.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of Amendment 14.
Comment 67: This action is not consistent with the Alaska State Constitution (Art. 8, Sec. 15) that prohibits
an exclusive right or special privilege of a fishery, as it may cause economic distress among fishermen and
those dependent upon them for a livelihood.
Page 37 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…37/41
Changes From Proposed to Final Rule
Classification
Small Entity Compliance Guide
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Response: This action applies to the Federally managed waters of the EEZ and the Alaska State Constitution
is therefore not applicable. Regardless, this action creates no exclusive right or privilege of fishery, and
minimizes adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable as described in the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA).
There have been no substantive changes in this final rule to the regulatory text from the proposed rule. A title
heading has been added to Figure 23 to 50 CFR part 679 (/select-citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-679).
Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator (AA) has
determined that this final rule is consistent with Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP, other provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
NMFS prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for this action and the AA concluded that there will be no
significant impact on the human environment as a result of this rule. This action closes a portion of the area
open to the Cook Inlet drift gillnet fleet but will not result in significant changes to the Cook Inlet salmon
fishery's total harvest, or result in other changes that would significantly impact the quality of the human
environment. A copy of the EA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A
copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). The Council recommended and NMFS
approved Amendment 14 and these regulations based on those measures that maximize net benefits to the
Nation. Specific aspects of the economic analysis are discussed below in the FRFA section.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or
group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or
more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as
“small entity compliance guides.” Copies of the proposed rule, this final rule, and the small entity compliance
guide are available on the Alaska Region's website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ region/ alaska
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska).
This FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant
issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a
summary of the analyses completed to support the final rule.
Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that, when an agency promulgates a final rule
under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code (5 U.S.C. 553 (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/5/553?
type=usc&year=mostrecent&link-type=html)), after being required by that section or any other law to
publish a general notice of final rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a FRFA (5 U.S.C. 604
(https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/5/604?type=usc&year=mostrecent&link-type=html)). Section 604
describes the required contents of a FRFA: (1) A statement of the need for and objectives of the rule; (2) a
statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of thePage 38 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…38/41
Public and Chief Counsel for Advocacy Comments on the IRFA
Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Final Action
Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements
Description of Significant Alternatives Considered to the Final Action That Minimize
Adverse Impacts on Small Entities
assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made to the proposed rule as a
result of such comments; (3) the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed
statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments; (4) a
description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation
of why no such estimate is available; (5) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject
to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and
(6) a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small
entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes including a statement of the factual,
policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted and why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
A description of this final rule and the need for and objectives of this rule are contained in the preamble to
the proposed rule (86 FR 29977 (/citation/86-FR-29977), June 4, 2021) and final rule and are not repeated
here.
An IRFA was prepared in the Classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule (86 FR 29977
(/citation/86-FR-29977), June 4, 2021). The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any
comments on the proposed rule. NMFS received no comments specifically on the IRFA, but the majority of
comments expressed concern about the potential economic impact of this action. No comments provided
information that refuted the conclusions presented in the IRFA. Start Printed
Page 60587
This final rule directly regulates holders of State of Alaska S03H Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Limited Entry salmon permits (S03H permits). In 2021, 567 S03H permits were held by 502 individuals, all
of which are considered small entities based on the $11 million threshold. Additional detail is included in
Sections 4.5.3 and 4.9 in the Analysis prepared for this final rule (see ADDRESSES ).
This final rule does not add reporting or recordkeeping requirements for the vessels participating in the Cook
Inlet salmon fishery. With the Cook Inlet EEZ closed to commercial salmon fishing, no recordkeeping or
reporting requirements are needed. The NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and the State of Alaska
Department of Public Safety would continue their existing enforcement activity in Cook Inlet under the
revised West Area boundary resulting from this action to monitor and respond to any illegal commercial
salmon fishing occurring in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. Additional detail is provided in Section 4.7.2 of the
Analysis.
The Council considered, but did not select three other alternatives. The alternatives, and their impacts to
small entities, are described below.
Alternative 1 would take no action and would maintain existing management measures and conditions in the
fishery within recently observed ranges, resulting in no change to impacts on small entities. This is not a
viable alternative because it would be inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the Cook Inlet EEZ
Page 39 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…39/41
Collection-of-Information Requirements
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 (/select-citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-
679)
Alaska
Fisheries
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
must be included within the Salmon FMP.
Alternative 2 would delegate management to the State. If fully implemented, Alternative 2 would maintain
many existing conditions within the fishery. Fishery participants would have the added burdens of obtaining
a Federal Fisheries Permit, maintaining a Federal fishing logbook, and monitoring their fishing position with
respect to EEZ and State waters as described in Sections 2.4.8 and 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis. However, the State
is unwilling to accept a delegation of management authority. Therefore, Alternative 2 is not a viable
alternative.
Alternative 3 would result in a separate Cook Inlet EEZ drift gillnet salmon fishery managed independently
by NMFS and the Council. Alternative 3 would increase direct costs and burden to S03H permit holders and
fishery stakeholders due to requirements including a Federal Fisheries Permit, VMS, logbooks, and accurate
GPS positioning equipment as described in Sections 2.5.7 and 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis. Alternative 3 would
also require that a total allowable catch (TAC) be set before each fishing season. The TAC would be set
conservatively relative to the status quo in order to reduce the risk of overfishing without the benefit of
inseason harvest data. Commercial salmon harvest in the EEZ would be prohibited if the Council and NMFS
do not project a harvestable surplus, with an appropriate buffer for the increased management uncertainty.
Further, as described in Section 2.5.3 of the Analysis, gaps in data could also require closing the EEZ to
commercial fishing in any given year. Finally, Alternative 3 would increase uncertainty each year for fishery
participants in developing a fishing plan because NMFS would determine whether the Cook Inlet EEZ could
be open to commercial fishing on an annual basis and shortly before the start of the fishing season.
As discussed, Alternative 3 would impose substantial direct regulatory costs on participants but would not be
expected to result in consistent commercial salmon fishing opportunities in the Cook Inlet EEZ. Alternative 4
will include the Cook Inlet EEZ in the Salmon FMP for Federal management by NMFS and the Council,
consistent with the Ninth Circuit ruling. Alternative 4 will close the Cook Inlet EEZ but not impose any
additional direct regulatory costs on participants and will allow directly regulated entities to possibly recoup
lost EEZ harvest inside State waters. As a result, Alternative 4 minimizes impacts to small entities.
Based upon the best available scientific data, and in consideration of the Council's objectives of this action, it
appears that there are no significant alternatives to the final rule that have the potential to accomplish the
stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and any other applicable statutes and that have the potential
to minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the final rule on small entities. After the public
process, the Council concluded that of the viable management alternatives, Alternative 4, Amendment 14,
will best accomplish the stated objectives articulated in the preamble for the proposed rule, and in applicable
statutes, and will minimize to the extent practicable adverse economic impacts on the universe of directly
regulated small entities.
This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
■
■
■
Page 40 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…40/41
§ 679.2 Definitions.
PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF
ALASKA
Dated: October 26, 2021.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 (/select-citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-679) is
amended as follows:
The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 (/select-citation/2021/11/03/50-CFR-679) continues to read
as follows:
1.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/773?
type=usc&year=mostrecent&link-type=html) et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108-447
(https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/108/public/447?link-type=html); Pub. L. 111-281
(https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/111/public/281?link-type=html).
In § 679.2, under the definition of “Salmon Management Area”:2.
Revise paragraph (2) introductory text; anda.
Remove and reserve paragraph (2)(i).b.
The revision reads as follows:
*****
Salmon Management Area * * *
(2) The West Area means the area of the EEZ off Alaska in the Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, Beaufort
Sea, and the Gulf of Alaska west of the longitude of Cape Suckling (143°53.6′ W), including the
Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea, but excludes the Prince William Sound Area and the Alaska Peninsula
Area. The Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea means the EEZ waters of Cook Inlet north of a line at 59°46.15′
N. The Prince William Sound Area and the Alaska Peninsula Area are shown in Figure 23 to this
part and described as:
*****
Revise Figure 23 to part 679 to read as follows:3.
Figure 23 to Part 679—Salmon Management Area (see § 679.2)
Start Printed
Page 60588
Page 41 of 46
11/3/21, 11:26 AM Federal Register :: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/03/2021-23610/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendm…41/41
PUBLISHED DOCUMENT
(https://images.federalregister.gov/ER03NO21.009/original.png?1635780919)
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[FR Doc. 2021-23610 (/a/2021-23610) Filed 11-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Page 42 of 46
9th Annual9th AnnualGingerbreadGingerbreadHouse ContestHouse Contest
SUBMIT YOUR GINGERBREAD HOUSE TO THE KENAI
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BETWEEN NOVEMBER 8-12, 2021.
24'' x 24 '' max size, bases must be included,
platforms for display for provided
Kenai Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center · 907-283-1991
ANYONE MAY PARTICIPATE BUT THE PRIZESANYONE MAY PARTICIPATE BUT THE PRIZES
ARE FOR AGES 18 AND UNDER ONLY!ARE FOR AGES 18 AND UNDER ONLY!
YOUTH PRIZE WINNERS WILL BE
SELECTED BY AGE CATEGORY.
HOUSES WILL BE ON DISPLAY
FROM NOVEMBER 15- DECEMBER 17.
Page 43 of 46
Christmas Comes to Kenai
Sponsorship Form
Please join us in presenting Christmas Comes to Kenai.
Listed below are the different levels of Sponsorship Opportunities available.
Northern Lights Grand Finale Fireworks Sponsorship –
Partner with KCCVC and the City of Kenai to bring the Grand Finale Fireworks to Christmas Comes to Kenai. Your logo will be
prominently displayed on all print media and on our website with a clickable link. Your company name will be mentioned as “Northern
Lights Grand Finale Firework Sponsor” on all media to include print, social media and radio.
$3,500
Rudolph’s Reindeer Games Sponsorship (One Available)
The exclusive Rudolph’s Reindeer Games sponsor is the activity sponsor for Children’s entertainment while they wait for their turn to take
photos with Santa. Your logo and business name will be prominently displayed at the entrance of the main room of the Kenai Vi sitor &
Cultural Center from November 25th through December 21, 2020. Your logo will be displayed on all print media and on our website with a
clickable link.
$1,500
Santa’s Workshop Toy Sponsorship (One Available)
Be the exclusive Toy Sponsor for Christmas Comes to Kenai. Your logo will be prominently displayed next to Santa’s Chair during
Christmas Comes to Kenai at the Kenai Visitor & Cultural Center as the “Santa’s Workshop Toy Sponsor”. Your logo will be disp layed on
the children’s giveaway bags, estimated quantity of 350. Your logo will be displayed on all print media and on our website with a clickable
link.
$750
Snowflake Sponsorship
Contribute to Christmas Comes to Kenai as a Snowflake Sponsor. Your logo will be displayed on our Snowflake Donor Wall at the Kenai
Visitor & Cultural Center during November 25th through December 21st. Your logo will be displayed on all print media and on our website
with a clickable link.
$300
Sugar Plum Fairy Sponsorship
Contribute to Christmas Comes to Kenai as a Sugar Plum Fairy Sponsor. Your business logo will be displayed on the Gingerbread House
Pedestals at the Kenai Visitor & Cultural Center during November 12th through December 21, 2020. Your logo will be displayed on all print
media and on our website with a clickable link.
$100
Yes, _____________________________________, will sponsor at the following level:
Business name
$1,500 $750 $300 $100
I ________________________________, agree to make this donation in support of the Christmas Comes to Kenai.
Representative’s name
Please return agreement and high resolution logo to the Kenai Chamber of Commerce by Tuesday, November 10, 2020
Email: gloria@kenaichamber.org /Fax: 907.283.2230/Mail: 11471 Kenai Spur Hwy Kenai, AK 99611
Company Name:
Contact Person:
Phone/Ext:
Email:
Mailing Address:
We will pay by Check MasterCard/Visa Invoice Me
CC# Expiration Date:
Page 44 of 46
ENTRY NAME: _______________________________________________________
ENTRY ADDRESS: ______________________________________________________
CONTACT NAME: ______________________________________________________
TELEPHONE #: ______________ E-MAIL ADDRESS: ___________________________
DESCRIPTION OF ENTRY:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please circle a category:
Commercial Organization Individual Youth Other
(All Businesses)
Signature: _________________________________________ Date: ____________________________
Please complete both sides of this form and return to the Kenai Chamber of Commerce
Via Fax: 283-2230 or email: info@kenaichamber.org
Please note that both sides of this form must be signed in order to participate.
26th Annual Electric Lights Parade
Christmas Comes to Kenai
Friday, November 26, 2021
Kenai Chamber of Commerce & Visitor’s Center
The 26th Annual Electric Lights Parade
Page 45 of 46
Contract and Line-up Instructions
Please read carefully and return signed copy to the Kenai Chamber by
Wednesday, November 24, 2021
1. All parade entrants are encouraged to get creative with their float decorations based on a Christmas
theme.
2. All Parade entrants are to pick up their entry number from parade officials on the corner of Spur
View Drive and Frontage Road (next to Uptown Motel). This number is for judging purposes only.
Entries will be lined up on a first come, first serve basis, beginning at 5:00PM Friday, November 26,
2021.
3. After check in: Proceed toward the Kenai Senior Center past Frontage Road on Senior Court Drive to
line-up. Line up officials will be on Senior Court Drive and Spur View Drive to assist with the line-up.
4. The parade will start at 6:00 PM on Spur View Drive and will continue down Frontage Road toward
Main Street Loop, then turn left on Main Street then right on Overland Avenue and into the Chamber
parking lot where there will be a section blocked off for you to display your float for onlookers.
5. Parade Officials will be there to assist with direction and anyone needing to get off the floats.
6. Many children eagerly wait to see Santa, who will be on the last float. We ask that you support the
Kenai Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center by NOT having a Santa on your float.
7. For Safety reasons, NO CANDY OR TREATS may be thrown or handed out from any vehicles at any
time.
8. For Safety reasons, each entry is required to have at least TWO FLOAT WALKERS.
9. A copy of this contract shall accompany your parade float.
I have read the above instructions and will be the responsible party for our parade entry.
Printed Name ______________________________________________________________________
Signature _________________________________________________Date_____________________
Please complete both sides of this form and return to the Kenai Chamber of Commerce
Via Fax: 283-2230 or email: info@kenaichamber.org
Page 46 of 46
[Reminder: Put Mic on corner of desk if doing Ceremonial Oaths]
November 3,2021 -- CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Nominations for Vice -Mayor:
I�-�M 1Gnaf
J�
Nominations for Vice -Mayor:
Elected Vice Mayor:
Heinz, MMC
KENgi
Vote:
3
Round Two Vote:
Stream Watch in Kenai
Community Stewardship of the Kenai River & Coast
Galen Hecht
Stream Watch Coordinator at Kenai Watershed Forum
Joined by Volunteer Kathy Heindl
1
Kenai Peninsula Stream Watch
●Founded in 1994 by volunteers
●Expanded to Central Peninsula
in 2011
●Volunteers assist land
managers with stewardship of
the river and public outreach
2
Kenai Watershed Forum
3Students from Global Leadership Adventures helped manage invasive species in Kenai in July 2021
4
Partners
Cumulative All Time Impact
●23,338 volunteer hours
●68,171 members of the
public educated
●36,378 pounds of trash
removed from fish
habitat
●889 pounds of fishing
line recycled
5
Stream Watch in Kenai
6Kenai Rotary Club conducted a pre-dipnet beach cleanup in 2021
7
Dipnet
Booth
●Began in 2018
●State and local
partners
●Educational messaging
●Beach cleanups and
community
engagement
●Partners: City of Kenai,
ADFG, ADEC, KWF
Leah Ellis (ADFG) educates kids at the Dipnet Booth in 2021
Impact in Kenai Since 2018
8
Volunteer
Hours
Public
Contacts
Pounds of
trash
Cigarette
Butts
227 1,829 255 607
Interns Cam Blackwell and Austen Erickson at the Dipnet Booth in 2020
9Long time volunteer Kathy Heindl winning the King Maker award (left) and at
the Dipnet Booth in 2020 (above)
10Staff from the Marathon Petroleum Refinery conducted a beach cleanup and survey after the 2021 dipnet.
Thank You!
Questions
11
Contact: streamwatch@kenaiwatershed.org - (907) 398-4304
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 1 of 4
November 03, 2021
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting
November 03, 2021 ꟷ 6:00 PM
Kenai City Council Chambers
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska
**Telephonic/Virtual Information on Page 3**
www.kenai.city
Action Agenda
A. CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Approval
4. Oath of Office
5. COUNCIL MEMBER GLENDENING ELECTED VICE MAYOR. Election of Vice Mayor
6. Consent Agenda (Public comment limited to three (3) minutes) per speaker;
thirty (30) minutes aggregated)
*All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the
council and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a council member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the consent
agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders.
B. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Public comment limited to ten (10) minutes per speaker)
1. Galen Hecht, Kenai Watershed Forum - Kenai Peninsula Stream Watch Program
2. Tim Navarre, Kenai Peninsula Homelessness Coalition - Strategic Plan Update
3. Sharon Efta - Censorship
C. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Public comment limited to three (3) minutes per speaker;
thirty (30) minutes aggregated)
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 3252-2021 - Increasing Estimated Revenue
and Appropriations in the Water & Sewer Fund for Operational Costs in Excess of Budgeted
Amounts at the Waste Water Treatment Plant. (Administration)
2. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 3253-2021 - Accepting and Appropriating a
Donation from Hilcorp Energy Company to Assist with the Annual Areawide Senior
Thanksgiving Dinner. (Administration)
3. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2021-62 - Establishing the Dates for Regular
Meetings of the City Council for 2022. (City Clerk)
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 2 of 4
November 03, 2021
4. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2021-63 - Approving The Execution of a
Lease of Airport Reserve Lands Using the Standard Lease Form Between the City of Kenai
and Schilling Rentals, LLC on General Aviation Apron Sub No. 1 Amended Lot 2, Block 3.
(Administration)
5. POSTPONED UNTIL 12/15/2021. Resolution No. 2021-64 - Awarding An Agreement For
The Kenai Waterfront Redevelopment Assessment And Feasibility Study. (Administration)
6. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED. Resolution No. 2021-65 - Supporting Kenai
Peninsula Borough Ordinance 2021-40, an Ordinance Amending KPB 2.40.015 Regarding
Planning Commission Membership and Apportionment. (Council Member Glendening)
7. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2021-66 - Authorizing a Professional Service
Contract With Dr. Angus McRae Warren for Medical Direction and Oversite of Kenai Fire
Department and Kenai 911 Dispatch Center. (Administration)
8. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2021-67 - Awarding an Agreement for the
Purchase of Computer Equipment. (Administration)
E. MINUTES
1. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Joint Work Session of October 11, 2021.
(City Clerk)
2. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Regular Meeting of October 20, 2021. (City
Clerk)
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
G. NEW BUSINESS
1. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval - Bills to be Ratified.
(Administration)
2. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA/PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 12/1/2021.
*Ordinance No. 3254-2021 - Amending Kenai Municipal Code Section 14.05.025 –
Telephonic Participation at Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings, to Provide for
Remote Electronic Participation in Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings by
Commission Members. (Administration)
3. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA/PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 12/1/2021.
*Ordinance No. 3255-2021 - Accepting and Appropriating Grants from the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security Passed Through the State of Alaska Department of
Military and Veterans’ Affairs for the Purchases of Public Safety Radios for Police, Fire, and
Communications Departments. (Administration)
4. APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. Action/Approval - Mayoral Nominations of Council
Liaisons for Appointment to Committees and Commissions. (Mayor Gabriel)
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 3 of 4
November 03, 2021
5. MUNICIPAL PARK TRAIL BOARDWALK APPROVED FOR GRANT UTILIZATION.
Action/Approval - Utilization of Healthy and Equitable Communities Grant for Capital
Projects. (Administration)
6. Discussion - Kenai Dog Park (City Council)
7. Discussion - Utilization of Remaining CARES Act Funds and Consideration of New Shop
Local Program. (Administration)
H. COMMISSION / COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Council on Aging
2. Airport Commission
3. Harbor Commission
4. Parks and Recreation Commission
5. Planning and Zoning Commission
6. Beautification Committee
7. Mini-Grant Steering Committee
I. REPORT OF THE MAYOR
J. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
1. City Manager
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
K. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
1. Citizens Comments (Public comment limited to five (5) minutes per speaker)
2. Council Comments
L. EXECUTIVE SESSION
M. PENDING ITEMS
N. ADJOURNMENT
O. INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Purchase Orders Between $2,500 and $15,000
2. Thank You Letter from HEA
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 4 of 4
November 03, 2021
3. KHS Newsletter October 2021
The agenda and supporting documents are posted on the City’s website at www.kenai.city. Copies of
resolutions and ordinances are available at the City Clerk’s Office or outside the Council Chamber prior
to the meeting. For additional information, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 907-283-8231.
Join Zoom Meeting OR
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81034667245 Dial In: (253) 215-8782 or (301) 715-8592
Meeting ID: 810 3466 7245 Passcode: 615261 Meeting ID: 810 3466 7245 Passcode: 615261