HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-21 Council Packet - Work SessionKenai City Council – Joint Work Session –
Kenai Waterfront Revitalization Assessment
Page 1 of 1
September 21, 2022
Kenai City Council – Joint Work Session
September 21, 2022 ꟷ 4:45 PM
Kenai City Council Chambers
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska
www.kenai.city
Agenda
A. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. INTRODUCTION – City Manager Ostrander
C. PRESENTATION
1. Kenai Waterfront Assessment Project Final Report, presented by McKinley
Research Group, LLC.
• Joint Work Session Presentation
• McKinley Research Group Kenai Waterfront Revitalization Final Report
F. ADJOURNMENT
Join Zoom Meeting OR
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87092139083 Dial In: (253) 215-8782 or (301) 715-8592
Meeting ID: 870 9213 9083 Passcode: 972752 Meeting ID: 870 9213 9083 Passcode: 972752
PREPARED FOR:
Kenai Waterfront Revitalization
Assessment
Joint Kenai City Council/Boards and Commissions Work Session
September 22, 2022
Celebrating 50 Years
2
Project Team
•McKinley Research Group
•Donna Logan, Senior Consultant, Project Manager
•Katie Berry, Director of Economics and Research
•Corvus Design
•Chris Mertl, ASLA, Principal, Landscape Architect
•PND Engineers
•Alexandra West Jefferies, Senior Engineer
3
Work Session Content
Summary of
Community
Visioning
Summary of
Programming &
Community-Developed
Concepts
Development
of Preferred
Concept
Investment and
Funding Strategies
Recommended
Next Steps and
Discussion
4
Study Area
City-owned parcel
on southern edge
includes gravel road
access, parking (238
vehicles with
trailers), dock, boat
launch, restrooms,
and an elevated
viewing platform
5
Summary of Community Visioning
•Public work session held February 24, 2022 at the Kenai Visitor
Center
•~40 Kenai residents attended
•SWOT exercise and other facilitated exercises conducted
•Residents were invited to add feedback on City of Kenai website
6
Visioning Process Overview
•The public desires and supports new development but not at the expense of impacting the
existing uses, primarily the seafood plants, and the ability to access the Kenai River and its
many resources.
•The public wants revitalization to be authentic, protective of the river and natural
environment, be accessible year-round, and provide economic opportunities.
•There is a need to protect and celebrate the area’s history, culture, and outstanding views of
the river, surrounding landscape, wildlife, and volcanoes.
•The phrase, “Build it for the locals, and the visitors will love it” is important in meeting these
criteria.
7
Vision
•Consensus on mixed-use
•Limit development to low impact uses, such as recreation and water dependent uses, was a priority
•Create a destination facility or ‘anchor tenant’ such as a convention center, lodge, hotel, or other
facility that meets local needs and draws visitors
•Support new businesses, such as restaurants, breweries, tackle shops, tour operators, and general
commercial and retail
•Support boardwalks, park and open space, campgrounds, and recreation, as well as expand and
improve river access and the needed support facilities
•Integrating existing seafood plants into the overall revitalization effort would meet the community’s
desire to represent an authentic working waterfront
8
Great Ideas
x River boardwalk
x Trails and pathways
x Restaurants and retail
x Dock and boat launch improvements
x Hotel
x Performance area (stage, pavilion)
x Park and open space (shelters, picnic, benches)
x Natural areas
x Improved river access
x Viewing platforms for wildlife and people watching
x Education center
x Defined roads and traffic patterns
x Interpretive signs
x Restrooms
x Utility extension and improvements
9
Programming Ideas (Facilities/Infrastructure)
x Kenai marketplace
x High tower for exceptional views
x Faster internet
x Statues and artwork
x Lighting for year-round use
x Wind breaks
x RV park and campground
x Co-working space
x Dock for food and drink pick-up by boats
x Brew pub
x Parking
x Tackle and fishing support shops
x Oyster bar
x Banquet and convention center
x Walking tours
10
Summary of Programming &
Community-Developed Concepts
11
Community Concept Session - May 2, 2022
12
Community Concepts
13
Summary of Team-Developed Draft
Concepts – May 3, 2022
14
Concept A
Features:
* Nature Road
* Outdoor Deck
* Playground
* Riverwalk
* RV/Campgrounds
* Green space
* Link across Bridge
* Access Road to
additional trails
15
Concept B
Features:
* Pavilion
* Playground
* Riverwalk
* RV/Campgrounds
* Green space
* Housing in wooded
environment
* Small-scale retail
16
Concept C
Features:
* Civic Center
* Boat Condos
* Riverwalk
* Mixed housing
and small-scale
retail
* Green space
* Commercial
Development
17
Preferred Concept
18
19
20
21
22
Private and Public Investment
•Rezoning
•Create clarity on community vision for redevelopment of the waterfront
•“Heavy industrial” to “Working Waterfront” zone designation
•Placemaking and Branding
•Historical, cultural, environmental, recreational, industrial, and economic
•Forging an identity and creating a sense of place, purpose, and community
•Tax Incentives
•Major policy tool to spur economic development and business opportunity
•Can be geographically limited to stimulate production in waterfront area.
•Examples: tax abatement, tax exemptions, Utility Special Assessment District
•Land Swaps
•Negotiated at fair market value (Kenai Municipal Code 22.05.135 –No purchase shall be made until a
qualified independent appraiser has appraised the property and given the Council an opinion as to the fair
market value….)
23
Attracting Private Investment
•City of Kenai roads, public trails/boardwalk, utility extensions, parks and
playgrounds, and public buildings and spaces. Construction of this
infrastructure would help encourage private landowners to develop adjacent
private land.
•Rough Order of Magnitude Project Costs: ~$74 million + contingency,
including:
•Paved Pedestrian Path -- $1.3 million • Storm Sewer -- $2.1 million
•Board walk -- $1.0 million • Shoreline Protection -- $1.6 million
•Day-use shelters -- $1.1 million • Civic Center--$19.5 million
•Water Line extension -- $2.0 million • Structure Demolition-$2.1 million
•Sewer Line extension -- $2.1 million • Intersection Improvements -- $1.3 million
24
Public Infrastructure Investment
25
Traditional and Alternative Funding Mechanisms
for Economic Development
Type Description Relevant Examples
Tax Revenue
Commonly used to fund local infrastructure projects that yield community-
wide benefits, i.e., parks and recreation. Taxes may be general taxes (i.e.,
sales tax, property tax) or more narrowly based taxes either in their general
fund or in special funds and dedicate these revenues to fund local
infrastructure.
Property taxes, sales taxes, bed taxes
User Charges
Imposed on local residents and businesses for their use of utilities and other
public enterprises, including water charges, sewer charges, parking fees,
among others. Infrastructure projects such as those related to water,
wastewater, parking facilities, and convention centers are sometimes funded
by user charges through an enterprise fund.
Boat launch fees, parking fees
Local Government
Capital Reserves and
Fund Balances
Can be designated to pay for recurring and small capital projects, and capital
asset replacement funding for the future replacement of government
buildings, equipment, facilities, vehicles, and certain other assets.
Federal and State
Grants
Represent a major funding source of local infrastructure financing. A variety
of federal grant and state-funded grant programs are available for helping
fund streets, water supply and wastewater utilities, parks and recreation, and
many other local infrastructure needs.
US DOT RAISE Grant Program
USDA Rural Community Facilities
Direct Loan & Grant Program
US EDA Public Works and Economic
Adjustment Assistance Program
ADFG Boating and Angler Access
Grant Program
26
Traditional Methods (Cash and Other Current Assets)
Type Description
Relevant Examples
General
Obligation Bonds
(GO)
Long-term obligations of local governments to repay bonds from
their general tax revenues. GO bonds are traditionally issued to
finance projects that do not generate revenues. City of Kenai GO
bonds are subject to constitutional debt limits and require voter
approval. Alaska Municipal Bond Bank
Authority General Obligation
and Revenue Bonds
City of Kenai General Obligation
and Revenue Bonds
Revenue Bonds
Typically issued to finance public facilities that have definable users
with specific revenue streams, such as utilities. Revenue bonds are
secured by the pledge of defined revenue sources generated from
the bond funded projects (i.e., user fees, facility rent). City of Kenai
has constitutional debt limits and require voter approval, with one
exception (utility development when revenue bonds can be issued
to pay the cost of a facility to be used by 10 customers or less for
the purpose of promoting economic). These might be used for
private activity bonds or leasing bonds.
27
Traditional Methods (Debt Financing)
•New Funding
•Special Assessment Districts
•Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
•New Financial Arrangements
•Public-Private Partnerships
•Private and Nonprofit Philanthropic Partners
28
Alternative Infrastructure Financing
29
Recommended Next Steps
•Additional Planning
•Waterfront Master Plan
•Civic Center Market Assessment and Feasibility Study
•Financial
•City of Kenai re-examine its financial incentives for economic and business development, such as SADs for
utility and road development and tax abatements for private investment in new and redeveloped properties
•Public Infrastructure
•To signal support and incentives for private investment, focus on:
•Utility buildout (water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, communications)
•Roads and intersections
•Attractions (River Walk, civic center, parks)
•Marketing and Attraction Development
•Implement community vision and clearly identify the area to attract visitor, commercial, and resident uses
30
Next Steps
McKinley Research Group, LLC is
a team of respected professionals
with 50 years experience providing
research, consulting, and advisory
services to clients seeking answers
to questions and solutions to
organizational complexities.
mckinleyresearch.com
Questions/Comments
Prepared by
Prepared for
City of Kenai
August 2022
Kenai WaterfrontKenai Waterfront
Revitalization Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 1
Kenai Waterfront Assessment Project Overview ......................................................... 2
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Project Components ...................................................................................................................... 2
Community Vision ......................................................................................................... 6
Kenai Waterfront Existing Conditions .......................................................................... 8
Zoning .............................................................................................................................................. 8
Uplands Area .................................................................................................................................. 9
Soils and Geotechnical ............................................................................................................... 10
Existing Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 11
Access ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... 12
The Economic Context ................................................................................................ 14
Demographics ............................................................................................................................. 14
Housing ........................................................................................................................................ 16
Economy ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Tax Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 19
Seafood Industry ......................................................................................................................... 20
Visitor Activities ............................................................................................................................ 24
Recreation .................................................................................................................................... 26
Visitor Attractions ........................................................................................................................ 27
Conference and Meeting Spaces .............................................................................................. 28
Preferred Concept and Cost Estimate ......................................................................... 30
Alternative Concepts................................................................................................................... 30
Preferred Concept ....................................................................................................................... 34
Preferred Concept Cost Estimates ............................................................................................ 43
Funding Strategy ......................................................................................................... 46
Public Funding ............................................................................................................................. 46
Attracting Private Investment ..................................................................................................... 51
Recommended Next Steps ......................................................................................... 54
Planning ........................................................................................................................................ 54
Financial ....................................................................................................................................... 54
Public Infrastructure .................................................................................................................... 54
Marketing and Attraction Development ................................................................................... 55
Appendix A: Community Vision Results ..................................................................... 56
Appendix B: Public Infrastructure Funding Sources .................................................. 66
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Population, Study Area, 2017 - 2021 ................................................................................. 14
Table 2. Alaska Native and American Indian Heritage, Study Area, 2015 – 2019 Five-Year
Estimates ............................................................................................................................... 15
Table 3. Age Distribution of Population, Study Area, 2021 ........................................................... 15
Table 4. Household Characteristics, Study Area, 2015 – 2019 Five-Year Estimates ................... 16
Table 5. Income Indicators, Study Area, 2015 – 2019 Five-Year Estimates .................................. 17
Table 6. Employment by Industry, Kenai Peninsula Borough, 2021 ............................................. 18
Table 7. Active Business Licenses by Industry, Kenai, 2022 .......................................................... 19
Table 8. Sales Tax Revenues, Study Area, 2017 - 2021 .................................................................. 19
Table 9. Kenai Commercial Seafood/Fisheries Indicators, 2017 – 2020 ...................................... 20
Table 10. Salmon Fishery Permits Returned (Used), Cook Inlet Personal Use Fisheries, 2017 -
2021 ....................................................................................................................................... 22
Table 11. Catch Counts, Kenai River Dip Net Fishery, 2017 – 2021 (fish caught, all species) ... 23
Table 12. Sport Fishing Catch, Kenai Peninsula, 2016 – 2020 ....................................................... 24
Table 13. Top Visitor Activities, Kenai/Soldotna and Southcentral Alaska, 2016 ........................ 25
Table 14. Average Length of Stay and Lodging Types Used, Kenai/Soldotna and Southcentral
Alaska, 2016 .......................................................................................................................... 25
Table 15. Deplanement Counts, Kenai Municipal Airport, 2010 - 2021 ...................................... 26
Table 16. Conference and Meeting Facilities, Kenai ...................................................................... 28
Table 17. Conference-Quality Rooms, Kenai .................................................................................. 29
Table 18. Cost Estimates, Rough Order of Magnitude, Kenai Waterfront Revitalization ........... 44
Table 19. Traditional Methods of Local Infrastructure Financing.................................................. 47
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Zoning, Kenai Waterfront Study Area ................................................................................. 8
Figure 2. Hydrology, Kenai Waterfront Study Area ........................................................................... 9
Figure 3. Topography, Kenai Waterfront Study Area ..................................................................... 10
Figure 4. Land Ownership, Kenai Waterfront Study Area .............................................................. 11
Figure 5. Utilities, Kenai Waterfront Study Area ............................................................................. 12
Figure 6. Population Projections, Kenai Peninsula Borough, 2021 - 2045 .................................. 14
Figure 7. Average Single-Family Home Sales, Kenai Peninsula Borough and Alaska Statewide,
2019 - 2021 ........................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 8. Monthly Employment, Kenai Peninsula Borough, 2019 - 2021 .................................... 18
Figure 9. Monthly Food Processing Employment, Kenai Peninsula Borough, 2019 - 2021 ...... 21
Figure 10. Alternative Concept A ..................................................................................................... 31
Figure 11. Alternative Concept B ..................................................................................................... 32
Figure 12. Alternative Concept C ..................................................................................................... 33
Figure 13. Preferred Concept, Land Ownership............................................................................. 37
Figure 14. Preferred Concept, Key Plan .......................................................................................... 38
Figure 15. Preferred Concept, Enlargement 1 ................................................................................ 39
Figure 16. Preferred Concept, Enlargement 2 ................................................................................ 40
Figure 17. Preferred Concept, Enlargement 3 ................................................................................ 41
Figure 18. Preferred Concept, Key Infrastructure and Land Ownership ...................................... 42
Figure 19. City of Kenai Infrastructure Development Funding Options....................................... 50
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 1
Acknowledgements
CLIENT
The City of Kenai
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Brian Gabriel (Mayor)
Jim Glendening (Vice Mayor)
James Baisden
Henry Knackstedt
Glenese Pettey
Deborah Sounart
Teea Winger
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
Jeff Twait (Chair)
Diane Fikes (Vice-Chair)
Alex Douthit
Gary Greenburg
Joe Halstead
Robert Springer
Gwen Woodard
CITY PROJECT TEAM
Paul Ostrander, City Manager
Randi Boyles, Assistant to the City Manager
Terry Eubank, Finance Director
Max Best, Interim Planning Director
PLANNING TEAM
McKinley Research Group, LLC; Corvus Design, Inc.; and PND Engineers, Inc.
OUR APPRECIATION
To Kenai’s citizens, businesses, stakeholders, and all who participated in the waterfront
assessment. Your involvement and voice informed this assessment.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 2
Kenai Waterfront Assessment
Project Overview
Introduction
The City of Kenai contracted with McKinley Research Group and its subcontractors, PND
Engineers and Corvus Design, to develop a Kenai Waterfront Redevelopment Assessment and
Vision. The City is considering redevelopment strategies to maximize the potential of the
waterfront area to support a thriving business, residential, recreational, and cultural community.
The waterfront study area covers about 160 acres and includes ten City-owned parcels and 18
privately-owned parcels. The parcels are located in upland and tideland areas adjacent to the
Bridge Access Road beginning at Scenic Bluff Outlook east of the Kenai Senior Center, and
stretching to the Kenai City Dock within the City of Kenai near the mouth of the Kenai River. Six
of the privately-owned parcels are under long-term leases for commercial fishing dock facilities,
fish processing, and associated accessory structures and parking.
The study team was asked to evaluate market conditions and economic context for potential
revitalization of the area; review existing plans, zoning, and regulatory issues to identify
constraints and opportunities; use community engagement to develop vision, core concepts,
and priorities; prepare a preferred visioning concept for potential redevelopment; develop an
associated cost assessment for public infrastructure; and identify potential City investments and
economic incentives to encourage development.
Project Components
Vision Work Session
The study team facilitated a Vision Work Session to collect ‘high elevation’ community input to
understand opportunities, concerns, priorities, and desired programming and infrastructure for
the area.
Prior to the Vision Work Session, the study team worked with the City of Kenai to refine the
session’s agenda and exercises. To build awareness and encourage participation, the City
constructed a webpage for the waterfront assessment with information about the assessment
and work session, sent postcards to property owners within and around the waterfront area,
created a public notice in accordance with the provisions of the Alaska Open Meetings Act, and
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 3
published a notice of public meeting in the Peninsula Clarion, as well as at City Hall, Kenai Post
Office, Kenai Community Library, and the City’s Facebook page.
The Vision Work Session was held on Thursday,
February 24, 2022, at the Kenai Chamber of
Commerce and Visitors Center. The session was
opened by Paul Ostrander, City of Kenai City
Manager, who extended a welcome and provided
background on the Kenai Waterfront Revitalization
Assessment. Corvus Design then led about 40
residents (including City staff) through a series of
facilitated exercises. The session length was two
hours.
Attendees were broken into small groups of 7-8 participants to share their insights and ideas. In
addition to collecting input, the facilitated sessions allowed community members to discuss the
project, listen to new and opposing ideas, and develop trust in the development process.
Community members who could not attend the session provided their input through a
Community Feedback Online Survey located on the City’s project webpage. A summary of the
key take-aways and input can be found in Appendix A: Community Vision Results.
Existing Conditions and Economic Context
Where available, data are presented for the City of Kenai and the waterfront study area. The data
reflects the economic context and existing conditions for waterfront redevelopment. Select
socioeconomic indicators also include comparison data for the “Kenai Region” (Kenai, Soldotna,
Kasilof, Nikiski, and Sterling) and the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
Alternative and Preferred Concepts Development
On May 2, 2022, the study team
facilitated a second series of public
meetings at the Kenai Chamber of
Commerce and Visitors Center. The
session was opened by Paul
Ostrander, City of Kenai City
Manager, who extended a welcome
and provided background on the
Kenai Waterfront Revitalization
Assessment. A summary of the February vision work session and economic context was
presented. Participants were then divided into seven groups of about 4 participants each and
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 4
were asked to put ideas directly on maps of the study area. Each group took turns presenting
their ideas to the full group.
The next day (May 3, 2022), during a day-long work session, Corvus Design synthesized the
seven concepts developed by the community into three alternative vision concepts. The public
was encouraged to visit the session throughout the day; about 10 community members
dropped in to offer further information and insights.
PUBLIC REFINEMENT AND SELECTION OF PREFERRED PLAN
On the evening of May 3, 2022, these three refined alternative concepts were presented to the
community and the City of Kenai, with about 30 members of the public in attendance. A
description of each alternative concept can be found in the Preferred Concepts section.
Community members were asked to note what they liked, didn’t like, or desired to see changed
for each concept.
Members were then asked to select one of the three alternative concepts that best met their
preferred vision. Concept C was selected. After the community meeting, City staff reviewed the
comments on each of the three plans and provided additional support and further refinement
for Concept C to be used as the basis for developing the preferred concept.
PREFERRED CONCEPT RENDERINGS
After Concept C was selected as the basis for developing the Preferred Concept, Corvus Design
further refined the Preferred Concept by integrating favored design components from the other
concepts, direction from the City, general site planning refinement, and factoring in other land
use features.
PREFERRED COST ESTIMATES
PND Engineers developed a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for site
preparation and infrastructure development, considering the responsibilities of the City of Kenai
(i.e., roads, public trails/boardwalk, utility extensions, parks and playgrounds, and public
buildings and spaces). The remainder of the preferred concept (e.g., commercial buildings,
retail shops, hotels, or residential buildings) was not included in the cost estimate. Cost
estimates were developed in accordance with the Association for the Advancement of Cost
Engineering (AACE). The cost estimate is presented in current, Q2 2022 costs and does not
include inflation or escalation. To account for non-construction related costs, such as preliminary
investigations, engineering, construction administration, and permitting, unit costs were
increased by 30%. In accordance with AACE recommendations, a 30% contingency was added
to account for the conceptual level of design presented in the preferred concept. Additionally,
due to the conceptual level of design and minimal scope definition, costs are presented in a
range. That is, a minus 30% and plus 100% range.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 5
OTHER COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Throughout the study individual interviews were conducted with businesses and landowners
operating in the study area or elsewhere in Kenai. On May 11, 2022, the project team also made
a special presentation to the Kenaitze Indian Tribal Council, providing a background on the
visioning process and development of the Preferred Concept, and soliciting comments and
suggestions.
Assessment of Funding Sources and Incentives
Finally, McKinley Research Group assessed applicability of a wide variety of grants and finance
programs available to support key components of the public infrastructure envisioned in the
Preferred Concept. Additionally, the use of existing and potentially new financial incentives to
attract private investment in the Waterfront Revitalization was presented for consideration by the
City.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 6
Community Vision
Based on information gathered at the Vision Work Session and following meetings, the study
team found that the community of Kenai supports new development in the project area but
conveyed that it should not be at the expense of impacting existing uses, primarily seafood plant
operation and the ability to access the Kenai River and its resources. Participants in the visioning
process also conveyed a wish to expand access to the area for both locals and visitors, while
protecting the natural environment. The community shared a wish for the waterfront
revitalization to be authentic, protective of the river and natural environment, accessible year-
round, and to provide economic opportunities. There is a need to protect and celebrate the
area’s history, culture, and the outstanding views of the river, surrounding landscape, wildlife,
and volcanoes. The phrase, “Build it for the locals, and the visitors will love it” is important in
meeting these criteria.
There is consensus that the waterfront area should be revitalized for mixed-use, including a
destination facility or ‘anchor tenant’ such as a convention center, lodge, hotel, or other facility
that meets local needs and draws visitors. The feasibility of creating an environment that
supports new businesses, such as restaurants, breweries, tackle shops, tour operations, and
general commercial and retail, will need to be investigated to determine if subsequent planning
is viable and if these businesses have market potential. The area may also support housing,
boardwalks, parks and open spaces, campgrounds, and recreation, as well as expand and
improve river access and needed support facilities. Integrating the existing seafood plants into
the overall revitalization effort would meet the community’s desire to represent an authentic
working waterfront. Further information is required to understand current landowner and key
stakeholder interests, including the seafood processor’s future safety and operation concerns,
and how these facilities could become vibrant components of the revitalization effort.
Bridge Access Road is a high-speed highway and site access is challenging in its current
configuration. Providing safe access to and within the site will be critical to its success. Motorized
and non-motorized users will need to be separated for efficient and safe movement of vehicles
and freight, and to create a pleasant setting for non-motorized users. Although utilities are in the
immediate vicinity, additional utility infrastructure will be needed to support the desired mixed-
use concept. The creation of gateways, improving visual access to the site, and creation of a new
community destination will improve the visibility of the project area.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 7
Finally, the study team also received feedback about the importance of maintaining and
protecting natural areas around the Kenai River, while improving public access. Limiting
development to low impact uses, such as recreation and water-dependent uses, was recognized
as a priority, as well as identifying unique or sensitive areas that support preservation of lands,
wildlife, and fish.
Critical to success will be the development of incentives and other programs that will bolster
economic development and facilitate private/public partnerships.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 8
Kenai Waterfront Existing Conditions
This section provides a description of the waterfront’s current zoning, hydrology, soils,
geotechnical features, infrastructure, transportation access, and utilities.
Zoning
Figure 1. Zoning, Kenai Waterfront Study Area
The Waterfront Study Area is zoned as Heavy Industrial and consists primarily of privately-owned
parcels; there are two municipal-owned parcels at the south end near the City Boat Launch and
four municipal-owned parcels near the northern end of the study area.1 The Heavy Industrial
Zone designation was established to allow a broad range of industrial and commercial uses. It
1 City of Kenai GIS
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 9
is intended to apply to industrial areas which are sufficiently isolated from residential and
commercial areas to avoid any nuisance effect.2
Uplands Area
Figure 2. Hydrology, Kenai Waterfront Study Area
The riverside area of the existing gravel infrastructure is a FEMA-regulated flood zone (Zone AE
to elevation 18 feet referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988); however, the
developed uplands appear to be above the floodplain.3 Wetlands, along with a small drainage,
span the southern portion of the study area and are within the floodplain. The entire study area
is near the mouth of the Kenai River and sees tidal differences exceeding 20 feet.4 The Kenai
River has a strong current with higher velocities acting on the outer bends of the river. Active
erosion is occurring just downstream of the study area along the north bank, and the City of
2 https://kenai.municipal.codes/KMC/14.20.140 (Accessed 3/16/2022).
3 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 02122C0140E, Effective October 20, 2016.
4 NOAA tidal predictions at the Kenai River Entrance ( Station TWC1983)
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/noaatidepredictions.html?id=TWC1983&legacy=1 (Accessed 3/14/2022).
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 10
Kenai is currently working through bluff erosion mitigation options at this location. Most of the
study area is developed with limited vegetated areas at the southern end and in other areas
along Bridge Access Road.
Soils and Geotechnical
Figure 3. Topography, Kenai Waterfront Study Area
Soils in undeveloped areas consist of a mixture of Kalifonsky silt loam in areas adjacent to Boat
Launch Road, and Typic Cryaquents (consisting of very gravelly sand topped with silt loam and
organics) in tidal and wetland areas at the southern end of the study area.5 These soil types are
both poorly drained soils with high runoff rates. Most of the study area is developed with gravel
surfacing. It is likely that remaining undeveloped areas can successfully be developed; however,
no subsurface geotechnical data are available for these areas and should be further assessed
prior to development.
5 NRCS Soil Survey, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (Accessed 3/14/2022).
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 11
Existing Infrastructure
Figure 4. Land Ownership, Kenai Waterfront Study Area
Infrastructure on the private lots and adjacent tidelands include gravel pads, commercial
buildings, canneries, and docks. The municipal-owned parcel at the southern end of the study
area includes a gravel road access, parking area, a dock, boat launch, and an elevated viewing
platform.
The City of Kenai operates the City Dock including a commercial
dock with three cranes, four boat launch ramps, parking for 238
vehicles with trailers, parking for 45 passenger vehicles,
accessible parking for individuals with disabilities for 12 vehicles
with trailers, and accessible parking for eight passenger
vehicles. The facility also includes restrooms with running water.6
6 https://www.kenai.city/dipnet/page/city-dock (Accessed 3/17/2022).
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 12
Access
Access to the waterfront is from Bridge Access Road, a two-lane highway with a posted speed
limit between 45 and 55 miles per hour adjacent to the study area. City right-of-way (ROW) exists
along Boat Launch Road, coming from Bridge Access Road at the south end of the study area to
the City Boat Launch. Other access within City ROW is through Childs Avenue, accessing the
Port of Kenai, and through Ervin Circle, which terminates at a municipal-owned parcel that is
currently leased to a private user. A portion of Boat Launch Road off Bridge Access Road is
paved. The remaining length of the road and other access points into the study area are gravel
surfaced and appear to be in fair condition.
Utilities
Figure 5. Utilities, Kenai Waterfront Study Area
Utility specifics within the study area are limited. Municipal water supply and sewer runs within
the Bridge Access Road ROW in 12-inch-diameter ductile iron pipe and 10-inch-diameter ductile
iron pipe, respectively. Some small-diameter service lines branch off the mains at Bridge Access
Road towards the study area, but sizes and locations are unknown. An 8-inch diameter water
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 13
main and an 8-inch diameter sewer main branch off from Bridge Access Road into the study area
within the Childs Avenue ROW.
Hydrants are provided on the west side of Bridge Access Road at approximately 550-foot
spacing, extending about 225 feet south of the Beaver Loop Road intersection with Bridge
Access Road. No municipal stormwater infrastructure exists within the study area. Stormwater
currently drains overland towards the Kenai River and is assumed to be conveyed under
driveways and roads through cross-drainage culverts.
Homer Electric runs overhead 3-phase power on the east side of Bridge Access Road from the
northwest end of the study area south to Beaver Loop Road intersection. Overhead 3-phase lines
cross Bridge Access Road at several locations adjacent to the study area. Power is carried from
3-phase overhead lines to 3-phase underground in various locations. Electrical service is
clustered in three locations: the northwestern end of the study area, the central area near the
leased municipal lots, and the southern area including the municipal parcel containing the City
Dock and the adjacent private parcel owned by the Port of Kenai.7
Enstar runs a 4-inch-diameter gas main along the southwest side of Bridge Access Road.8
7 Personal communication - Karla Appelhans (Homer Electric Association) (3/10/2022).
8 Personal communication – Joseph Dickerson (ENSTAR) (3/8/2022).
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 14
The Economic Context
The following section describes the key demographic and economic trends impacting Kenai
and the economic context and market forces for revitalization for the Kenai waterfront.
Demographics
Kenai’s population reached 7,380 in 2021, a 4.6% increase over the previous five years. For this
same period, the growth rate for the number of people in the larger Kenai Region (Kenai,
Soldotna, Kasilof, Nikiski, and Sterling) also increased, but only at 0.5%. In total, the population
of the Kenai Peninsula Borough increased by 764 people (or 1.3%) from 2017 to 2021.
Table 1. Population, Study Area, 2017 - 2021
Year Kenai City Kenai Region Kenai Peninsula Borough
2017 7,053 22,681 58,193
2018 6,985 22,483 58,387
2019 7,070 22,377 58,499
2020 7,424 22,665 58,799
2021 7,380 22,789 58,957
Change, 2017 - 2021 327 108 764
Percent Change, 2017 - 2021 4.6% 0.5% 1.3%
Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Population, 2017 – 2021.
Note: Kenai Region includes Kenai, Soldotna, Kasilof, Nikiski, and Sterling.
The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development projects the Kenai Peninsula
Borough population will grow to 65,048 by 2045, a 10% increase from the current population.
Projected annual rates of population growth for the borough are similar to the low growth rates
expected statewide through 2045.
Figure 6. Population Projections, Kenai Peninsula Borough, 2021 - 2045
Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Population Projections.
58,957 60,606 62,230 63,494 64,434 65,048
2021 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 15
About 19% of Kenai’s population identifies as Alaska Native or American Indian. The largest
proportion of Alaska Native and American Indian residents in all three regions are of Alaska
Athabascan descent. There are also high proportions of residents with unspecified Alaska Native
heritage, as well as residents with Unangan (Aleut) or Iñupiat heritage.
Table 2. Alaska Native and American Indian Heritage, Study Area, 2015 – 2019 Five-Year Estimates
Alaska Native/American Indian
Tribal Group Kenai City Kenai Region Kenai Peninsula Borough
Athabascan 24.7% 21.1% 24.0%
Iñupiat 17.7% 14.5% 14.5%
Unangan (Aleut) 15.2% 14.6% 17.2%
Yup'ik 13.8% 9.5% 8.9%
American Indian 6.9% 11.7% 9.8%
Tlingit-Haida 3.9% 7.0% 4.2%
Tsimshian 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%
Alaska Native - not specified 17.8% 20.8% 17.9%
Two or more American Indian or
Alaska Native Tribes 0.0% 0.8% 2.7%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015 – 2019.
Note: Kenai Region includes Kenai, Soldotna, Kasilof, Nikiski, and Sterling.
The median age of Kenai Peninsula Borough residents is 42.1, about 6 years older than the
Alaska median age of 36.0. In the Kenai Region, Sterling had the highest median age (46.5), and
Kenai had the lowest (36.3).
The City of Kenai has a younger population than the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Kenai has a
higher proportion of residents ages 0-19 and 20-39 than the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
Table 3. Age Distribution of Population, Study Area, 2021
Age Bracket Kenai City Kenai Peninsula Borough
Count Percent of Total Count Percent of Total
0-19 2,143 29.0% 14,341 24.3%
20-39 1,948 26.4% 13,611 23.1%
40-64 2,147 29.1% 19,236 32.6%
65+ 1,142 15.5% 11,769 20.0%
Total 7,380 100.0% 58,957 100.0%
Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Population, 2021.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 16
Nearly 54% of households in Kenai are classified as family households, defined as persons
related by marriage or birth living together. This proportion is lower than the Kenai Peninsula
Borough rate of 63%, and the statewide rate of 66%. In Kenai, the Kenai Region, and the Kenai
Peninsula Borough, about one-fourth of households include at least one person under age 18.
On average, households in the Kenai Peninsula Borough include 2.63 people. Households in
Kenai are slightly smaller on average at 2.45.
Table 4. Household Characteristics, Study Area, 2015 – 2019 Five-Year Estimates
Year Kenai City Kenai Region Kenai Peninsula Borough
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Family Households 1,684 53.6% 5,336 61.1% 13,603 62.9%
Nonfamily Households 1,459 46.4% 3,398 38.9% 8,027 37.1%
Households with Children 842 26.8% 2,321 26.6% 5,717 26.4%
Average Household Size 2.45 - 2.57 - 2.63 -
Total Households 3,143 100% 8,734 100% 21,630 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015 – 2019.
Note: Kenai Region includes Kenai, Soldotna, Kasilof, Nikiski, and Sterling.
Housing
Following statewide trends, single-family home prices in the Kenai Peninsula Borough have
increased over the last several years. Borough single-family home prices averaged $337,000 in
2021, nearly $60,000 (20%) more than in 2019 (See figure next page.) The number of homes
sold has also accelerated. In 2021, 788 loans were made for residential properties in the Kenai
Peninsula Borough, an increase of 22% compared to 2019.
Average rental costs in the Kenai Peninsula were $1,091 in 2021, lower than the statewide
average of $1,264. Rental vacancy rates have decreased throughout the state after the
pandemic. Kenai Peninsula Borough vacancy rates were 7.3% in 2021, slightly higher than
statewide vacancy rates (5.9%).
About 26% of households in the Kenai Peninsula Borough are cost-burdened, slightly lower than
the statewide percentage of 29%. The U.S. Census Bureau defines cost-burdened households
as owners or renters that spend over 30% of their household income on housing costs.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 17
Figure 7. Average Single-Family Home Sales, Kenai Peninsula Borough and Alaska Statewide, 2019 - 2021
Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis, Loan Activity by Housing
Type.
Economy
The average household income in the Kenai Peninsula Borough is $85,348, while the median
household income is $66,064. Average and median household incomes are slightly lower in the
City of Kenai, at $82,662 and $61,348, respectively.
Table 5. Income Indicators, Study Area, 2015 – 2019 Five-Year Estimates
Year Kenai City Kenai Peninsula Borough Alaska
Median Household Income $61,348 $66,064 $77,640
Average Household Income $82,662 $85,348 $98,606
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015 – 2019.
Government jobs make up the largest category of employment in the Kenai Peninsula Borough
(23% in Q1-Q3 2021), followed by trade, transportation, and the utilities sector (21%). While
natural resources and oil industry jobs only make up 4% of employment, they pay the highest
monthly wages ($10,046). (See table next page.)
$281,000 $305,000
$337,000 $335,000 $357,000
$389,000
2019 2020 2021
Kenai Peninsula Borough Alaska Statewide
+10%
+9 %
+ 9%
+ 7%
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 18
Table 6. Employment by Industry, Kenai Peninsula Borough, 2021
Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages,
2021.
Employment in the Kenai Peninsula Borough experiences seasonal surges in summer months
due to the salmon fishery. Peak employment in 2021 occurred in August, at 22,105.
Figure 8. Monthly Employment, Kenai Peninsula Borough, 2019 - 2021
Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2019
– 2021.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 2020 2021
Industry Average Annual
Employment
Percent of Total
Employment
Average Monthly
Wages
Government 4,752 23.7% $5,434
Local Government 3,214 16.0% $5,284
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 4,100 20.5% $3,649
Retail Trade 2,793 13.9% $2,794
Transportation and Warehousing 873 4.4% $4,403
Educational and Health Services 3,291 16.4% $4,504
Health Care and Social Assistance 3,155 15.7% $4,603
Leisure and Hospitality 2,554 12.7% $2,214
Accommodation and Food Services 2,300 11.5% $2,216
Manufacturing 1,061 5.3% $6,449
Construction 963 4.8% $5,103
Natural Resources and Mining 875 4.4% $11,564
Professional and Business Services 857 4.3% $4,289
Other Industries 1,583 7.9% $3,940
Total 20,036 100.0% $4,644
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 19
Of the 1,678 active business licenses registered in Kenai, the largest proportion of companies
are classified under Real Estate, Trade, and Other Services industries.
Table 7. Active Business Licenses by Industry, Kenai, 2022
Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development.
Note: Industry totals are not additive, as many companies are classified under multiple industries.
Tax Revenue
Kenai Peninsula Borough sales tax revenues have increased 23.9% from 2017 to 2021, an
increase of $7.3 million. Sales tax revenues in Kenai increased by 26.1% ($1.8 million) in the
same period.
Table 8. Sales Tax Revenues, Study Area, 2017 - 2021
Year Kenai City Kenai Peninsula Borough
2017 $6,941,134 $30,650,805
2018 $7,167,722 $31,915,183
2019 $7,497,734 $35,451,320
2020 $7,925,559 $30,045,236
2021 $8,749,554 $37,982,761
Change, 2017 – 2021 $1,808,420 $7,331,956
Percent Change, 2017 – 2021 26.1% 23.9%
Source: City of Kenai and Kenai Peninsula Borough.
Industry Number of Business Licenses
Finance and Insurance, Real Estate, Rental, and Leasing 263
Trade (Wholesale and Retail) 262
Other Services (hair salons, mechanics, etc.) 232
Professional, Scientific, Managerial, and Technical Services 179
Educational and Health Services 143
Manufacturing (including Seafood Processing) 142
Accommodation and Food Services 129
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 126
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 100
Construction 90
Administration, Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services 87
Transportation and Warehousing 56
Mining 20
Information 20
Public Administration 6
Total Active Business Licenses 1,678
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 20
Seafood Industry
Fishing – subsistence, commercial, and personal use harvest – plays a central role in the history
and the current economy of the Kenai area.
Commercial
Photo credit: Peninsula Clarion
All five species of Pacific salmon are found in Cook Inlet and are fished commercially from Kenai.
Other smaller commercial fisheries take place for herring, smelt (hooligan), and razor clams.
Commercial fishing for groundfish including halibut, Pacific cod, sablefish, and rockfish also
occurs in Cook Inlet, although fishing is concentrated in the lower inlet south of Anchor Point
and in the Gulf of Alaska.
Both the value and volume of Kenai’s commercial harvest fell sharply in 2020. This was due
largely to it being a poor year for salmon abundance and a poor year for most seafood prices
caused by COVID-19-related closures of restaurants, a key sales channel for Alaska seafood.
Table 9. Kenai Commercial Seafood/Fisheries Indicators, 2017 – 2020
2017 2018 2019 2020
Estimated Seafood Landings in Kenai
($millions) $31.7 $17.4 $20.0 $6.5
Estimated Seafood Landings in Kenai by
volume (millions of pounds) 31.9 17.2 23.8 8.2
Active Kenai Commercial Fishing Permit
Holders* 152 136 139 129
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.
*This row denotes Kenai residents who owned and used commercial fishing permits anywhere in Alaska each year. It
does not include crew members or commercial fishermen from other locations who fished in the Kenai area.
Note: Kenai landings data combines landings from Kenai, Kasilof, Nikiski and Soldotna.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 21
SEAFOOD PROCESSING
Kenai is home to three main seafood
processing plants, all owned by Pacific Star
Seafoods, Inc. Pacific Star operates two plants
on Bridge Access Road on the north bank of the
Kenai River (within the waterfront study area) as
well as the former Inlet Fish Producers (North
Pacific Seafoods) plant on the south side of the
river.
The food processing employment numbers
shown below are for the entire Kenai Peninsula,
which encompasses communities with seafood processing plants in addition to Kenai including
Seward and Homer. Specific seafood processing employment numbers are not available, but
almost all food processing in the borough is seafood processing.
Kenai Peninsula plants mainly process salmon, resulting in peak employment levels during the
summer salmon runs; the plants also process groundfish and crab caught in Cook Inlet and the
Gulf of Alaska outside the summer months.
Figure 9. Monthly Food Processing Employment, Kenai Peninsula Borough, 2019 - 2021
Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2019
– 2021.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 2020 2021
Photo credit: Peninsula Clarion
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 22
Personal Use
Photo credit: The Alaska Star
The Kenai River personal use dipnet fishery brings tens of thousands of fishermen to the mouth
of the Kenai River each summer. The fishery is open only to Alaska residents and is used heavily
by residents of nearby population centers of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
The fishery opens July 10th (if there are no closures caused by low fish abundance) and runs
through the end of July. Participants catch mostly sockeye salmon, but also smaller numbers of
other salmon species.
Permits are issued at the household level rather than for individuals, so the 20,000 permits fished
in recent years represents a significantly larger number of individual participants.
Table 10. Salmon Fishery Permits Returned (Used), Cook Inlet Personal Use Fisheries, 2017 - 2021
Year Permits Returned (Used)
2017 22,316
2018 18,536
2019 19,671
2020 21,458
2021 22,444
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Cook Inlet Personal
Use Fisheries, Salmon Fishery Harvest and Effort Estimates.
Catch counts for the Kenai River dip net fishery fluctuate annually. The 2018 harvest was
particularly low, but subsequent harvests have been higher.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 23
Table 11. Catch Counts, Kenai River Dip Net Fishery, 2017 – 2021 (fish caught, all species)
Year Count of Fish Harvested
2017 307,824
2018 176,439
2019 337,735
2020 274,072
2021 332,659
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Cook Inlet Personal Use Fisheries,
Salmon Fishery Harvest and Effort Estimates.
Although the Kenai River personal use fishery brings visitors and associated spending to Kenai,
it has also contributed to social and environmental problems including “trespassing on private
property, destruction of vegetated areas, fish waste on the beach, fire safety issues, and life
safety issues.”9 In 2021, Kenai Police Department handled 105 dip net-related calls.10 The City
of Kenai and other stakeholders are working to address these problems.
According to the City of Kenai
Public Works Department, there
were 2,873 boat launch and parking
passes, 557 day use passes, and 26
drop off transactions at the City
Dock Facility in 2021 – many of
these transactions are directly
associated with personal use
fisheries. This activity generated
$106,066 in city revenue.11
Sport Fishing
Kenai is an important location for sport fishing for both Alaska residents and non-resident
visitors. Freshwater salmon fishing on the Kenai River is especially popular, although saltwater
sport fishing also takes place.
9 Kenai Chamber of Commerce & Visitor Center. “Dip Netting”
10 https://www.kenai.city/sites/default/files/fileattachments/dipnet/page/1481/dipnetreport2021.pdf (Accessed
3/17/2022).
11 https://www.kenai.city/sites/default/files/fileattachments/dipnet/page/1481/dipnetreport2021.pdf (Accessed
3/17/2022).
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 24
According to logbook data from 2014 (the last year freshwater logbook data was published) the
lower Kenai River (between Cook Inlet and the Soldotna bridge) was one of the most heavily
fished sections of fresh water in the state, with 12,875 angler days recorded (number of anglers
times the number of days). This number includes only anglers who hired guides, which is not
required to participate in rod-and-reel sport fishing. More than 16,000 angler days were
recorded in upper sections of the Kenai River, according to logbook data from guided fishing
trips. Most guided anglers were non-Alaska residents.12
In general, salmon is the most important freshwater species throughout the Kenai Peninsula.
Salmon have made up over 95% of catch counts in freshwater Kenai Peninsula fishing areas for
the last five years.
Table 12. Sport Fishing Catch, Kenai Peninsula, 2016 – 2020
Year Total Catch Count Percent Salmon
2016 478,480 95.0%
2017 442,275 96.1%
2018 341,106 96.4%
2019 664,327 96.2%
2020 397,548 95.4%
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fishing Survey, Kenai Peninsula.
Visitor Activities
As illustrated by personal use and sport fishing data, fishing is a significant draw for Alaska
resident and non-resident visitors to Kenai. Personal use permit data provide a conservative
estimate of the size of the Alaska resident visitor market to Kenai (22,444 fished permits in 2021).
In summer 2016, the last time the non-resident visitor market was measured, Kenai/Soldotna
welcomed 127,000 non-resident visitors.13
The most popular visitor activities in the Kenai/Soldotna region were fishing, wildlife viewing,
hiking, and nature walks. Over 30% of the region’s 127,000 visitors participated in fishing,
compared to 15% of all visitors to Southcentral Alaska.
12 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Participation, Effort, and Harvest in the Sport Fish
Business/Guide Licensing and Logbook Programs, 2014.” (Accessed 3/17/2022).
13 McDowell Group, Alaska Visitor Statistics Program, 2016.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 25
Table 13. Top Visitor Activities, Kenai/Soldotna and Southcentral Alaska, 2016
Activity Kenai/Soldotna All Southcentral Alaska Visitors
Fishing 32% 15%
Unguided 19% 8%
Guided 15% 9%
Wildlife Viewing 24% 36%
Hiking/Nature Walk 13% 27%
Camping 5% 4%
Source: McDowell Group, Alaska Visitor Statistics Program, 2016.
Kenai/Soldotna visitors stay in Alaska longer, on average, compared to all Southcentral visitors.
A higher percentage of visitors to Kenai/Soldotna also report staying with friends/family (31%)
and at a campground/RV park (24%) compared to all regional visitors.
Table 14. Average Length of Stay and Lodging Types Used, Kenai/Soldotna and Southcentral Alaska, 2016
Kenai/Soldotna Visitors All Southcentral Alaska Visitors
Average length of stay in Alaska 12.6 days 10.8 days
Lodging Types Used
Hotel/Motel 55% 63%
Friends/Family 31% 21%
Campground/RV 24% 10%
Lodge 21% 25%
Bed & Breakfast 11% 7%
Vacation Rental 11% 5%
Wilderness Camping 5% 3%
Cruise Ship 4% 36%
State Ferry 1% 1%
Source: McDowell Group, Alaska Visitor Statistics Program, 2016.
The Kenai Municipal Airport is considered the commercial air transportation gateway to the
Kenai Peninsula and West Cook Inlet with both scheduled and charter passenger service for air
cargo and general aviation. It also has commercial and industrial lease lots, a float plane basin,
and a conference room in the terminal. In 2021, nearly 70,000 passengers arrived at the Kenai
Municipal Airport. Passenger counts to the airport have not rebounded after the COVID-19
pandemic and are nearly 30,000 less than 2019 levels.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 26
Table 15. Deplanement Counts, Kenai Municipal Airport, 2010 - 2021
Source: US Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Passenger Counts, Kenai Municipal Airport.
Recreation
Recreation is an important aspect of Kenai resident quality of life and visitor activity. Below is a
brief description of key recreational assets in Kenai.
• Kenai Sports Complex: This area contains 24 acres including a large gravel parking lot,
access road, and four natural turf soccer fields. The fields are extensively used by two
youth soccer programs.
• Municipal Park: This large community park is located next to the Kenai Scenic Bluff
Lookout, which overlooks the lower Cook Inlet. A playground area, restrooms, two
pavilions, and a large turf area are located at the north entrance to the park. Over a mile
of walking trails meander through the park along with a basketball court, sanded
volleyball court, and trail access to the Kenai Beach.
• Kenai North and South Beach: Both locations provide access to the beaches of Cook
Inlet and mouth of the Kenai River, often used for walking, beach combing, kite flying,
and fat tire biking. South Beach has a small parking area. A large parking area is
provided on the North Beach. Permanent restrooms are available at both North and
South Beach.
• Ryan’s Creek Trails (Kili Betnu): This gravel trail follows a wooded stretch of Ryan’s Creek,
located in the heart of Kenai. There are multiple trailhead locations, each marked with
sign and post. The 1.3-mile trail includes directional arrows, benches, and trash
receptacles. The trail segment leading north from Airport Way to Marathon Road was
Year Passenger Deplanements Year over Year Percent Change
2010 84,435 4.0%
2011 93,031 10.2%
2012 96,488 3.7%
2013 98,463 2.0%
2014 100,125 1.7%
2015 97,289 -2.8%
2016 92,374 -5.1%
2017 92,823 0.5%
2018 93,562 0.8%
2019 95,035 1.6%
2020 32,847 -65.4%
2021 67,873 106.6%
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 27
completed in 2014. This final segment will connect with Daubenspeck Family Park, a
popular local park with water access, restrooms, BBQ grills, and shelters.
• Kenai Municipal Park Trails and Meeks Trail: Accessible from Municipal Park, this trail
meanders through a natural forest. Remnants of underground cold storage pits and
traditional Dena’ina house pits remain throughout the park. Continuing along Kenai
Avenue leads you to the historic Meeks Trail (1.4 miles) and up the bluff to Old Town
Kenai, offering excellent views of the Upper Cook Inlet and tidal zones of the Kenai River.
• Kenai East End Trails: Popular for biking, hiking, and cross-country skiing, a gravel trail
(0.76 miles) winds through a wooded area and the 9-hole Kenai Eagle Disc Golf Course.
These trails link to the 18-hole Kenai Golf Course where ski trails are maintained
throughout the winter months.
• Kenai Spur Highway: Trails (8.4 miles) run parallel to the south and west of the Kenai
Spur Highway; uses include bicycling, running, and Nordic skiing.
Other recreational assets include Cunningham Park access to the Kenai River, the softball green
strip, Kenai Recreation Center, Kenai Little League Fields, Leif Hansen Memorial Park, Erik
Hansen Scout Park, Tarbox Wildlife Viewing Platform, Skateboard Park, Peninsula Oilers
baseball field, Challenger Center, and Millennium Square.
Visitor Attractions
Key Kenai visitor attractions include:
• Kenai River Flats and Wildlife Viewing Area: This a public
viewing area overlooking the Kenai River tidal flood plains.
Many different birds, such as snow geese and cranes, migrate
here. Other wildlife is often spotted as well, including caribou,
coyote, moose, and occasionally bear. During clear weather,
the Aleutian Mountain range can be seen across Cook Inlet,
including volcanoes such as Mt. Redoubt.
• Kenai Scenic Bluff Overlook Park: This open area is right on the
bluff, overlooking the mouth of the Kenai River and lower
Cook Inlet. There are multiple picnic tables and a
birdcage-style gazebo, often used for events.
• Kenai Visitor & Cultural Center: The Kenai Visitor &
Cultural Center is open year-round and offers visitor
information and a gift shop. The Kenai Cultural Exhibit is
a permanent collection of local historic and cultural
artifacts, as well as wildlife displays.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 28
• Holy Assumption of the Virgin Mary Russian Orthodox Church: Constructed in 1894, this
building is one of the oldest standing Russian Orthodox churches in Alaska. A National
Historic Landmark, the Russian Orthodox church still holds regular services.
• Parish House Rectory: Built in 1881, this building is believed to be the oldest building on the
Kenai Peninsula and has continued to be used as a residence.
• Fort Kenay: This building was constructed in 1967 by the Bicentennial Commission to
commemorate the purchase of Alaska in 1867. Fort Kenay is a replica of the original Russian
Orthodox Church school built in 1900. It was built in the vicinity of the original Russian
Redoubt Nikolaevsk (1791) and America’s Fort Kenay (1869).
• Kenai Cabin Park: Built by a succession of settlers in the during the Early Community Era
(1895-1925), these cabins preserve over 100 years of the community’s recent history.
Conference and Meeting Spaces
Kenai has several facilities that host meetings and events. There are currently five facilities in
Kenai that can seat more than 100 people banquet-style for a meeting or event. Five facilities
can host receptions for 180 to about 400 people. Three have some breakout room capacity.
Table 16. Conference and Meeting Facilities, Kenai
Facility Banquet
Seating Reception Commercial
Kitchen
Breakout Room
Capacity
Old Carrs Mall in the Kenai Center ~350 400 No No
Kenai Senior Center 200 200 Yes No
Challenger Learning Center of Alaska 168 180 Yes
Lobby: 125
2 rooms: 75
1 room: 60
1 room: 35
Cannery Lodge ~150 ~300 Yes 150/30/30
Kenai Visitors and Cultural Center 120 184 Warming
kitchen
Board room: 16
Conference: 80
Quality Inn Kenai 53 53 No No
Aspen Kenai Suites Hotel 12 12 No No
Kenai Airport Terminal Meeting Room 26 26 No No
Kenai Public Library - 40 No No
Source: McKinley Research Group.
Conference-quality rooms are defined as accommodations located relatively close to the
meeting or conference venue, are large enough to allocate room blocks, and offer amenities
that meet business travelers’ expectations. Kenai has about 250 conference-quality rooms,
including the five hotels located near downtown and the Cannery Lodge located across the river.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 29
The newest hotel is the Kenai Aspen Suites hotel, which was constructed in 2008. The rooms at
the Cannery Lodge were renovated in 2013.
Table 17. Conference-Quality Rooms, Kenai
Property Number of Rooms
Kenai Aspen Suites Hotel 78
Kenai Airport Hotel 11
Main Street Hotel 32
Quality Inn Kenai 52
Uptown Motel 50
The Cannery Lodge 29
TOTAL 252
Source: McKinley Research Group.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 30
Preferred Concept and Cost Estimate
Alternative Concepts
Three waterfront revitalization concepts (A-C) were initially developed, synthesizing public input
on the project. Each of the three concepts were presented in a public forum. Concept C was
selected through this public forum and in consultation with the City of Kenai as the base
foundation for the Preferred Concept.
Alternative Concept A
Concept A expanded and enhanced the existing project area as a 'working waterfront' through
the expansion and development of a marine service yard and boat storage area. The areas
currently used by the two seafood plants were left unchanged, allowing for future growth and
use. The existing RV Park would be improved, being expanded to include a campground setting,
and moved from the waterfront to a location more inland to preserve the waterfront for public
use. A large new “anchor” development is centralized along the waterfront at the site of the old
cannery and provides a focal point along the river. This facility would house various commercial
and retail shops within the refurbished (or replaced) cannery building. Adjacent to this
development would be a community gathering or festival space along the waterfront that could
host various outdoor events. A small park and playground would be associated with the festival
space. Along the entire river from Pacific Star Seafoods to the south end of the project area, the
River Walk follows the shore of the Kenai River as a pedestrian walk. The River Walk moves inland
to bypass the seafood plants and connects to Scenic Bluff Overlook. A new trail connects the
site to the golf course, schools, and residential neighborhoods to the north. The existing City
Dock and Boat Launch remain, and trailer parking is relocated to the north to allow the natural
revegetation of the southern portion of the trailer parking and create a transition to the adjacent
natural wetlands. A small nature center is located at the south end of the trailer parking and is
linked to the trails.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 31
Figure 10. Alternative Concept A
Alternative Concept B
Concept B prioritizes the site for recreational use and includes a variety of trails and open spaces,
a large campground, and day-use recreation facilities. A large portion of the site is returned to
a natural state to complement the recreational uses. A centralized pavilion or shelter provides a
community gathering space along the river's edge. A small retail area is located near the existing
boat launch to provide support services to those using the site. The current City Dock and Boat
Launch remain, and the trailer parking expands to the north. A small nature center is located
near the existing nature boardwalk and overlook linked to the trails. Existing commercial
development remains along Bridge Access Road and a new residential neighborhood is
developed in the middle of the project area along Bridge Access Road. This residential
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 32
development is within a semi-rural environment with wooded lots, curved roadways, and single-
family housing. The River Walk runs along the shoreline until it reaches Pacific Star Seafoods,
where it turns inland to Bridge Access Road and the multi-use non-motorized route along the
south side of the road. It then links to Scenic Bluff Overlook.
Figure 11. Alternative Concept B
Alternative Concept C
Concept C builds out the site through a variety of developments. The plan transitions from
commercial development along Bridge Access Road, and, moving toward the river, to smaller
commercial developments, boat condos, residential areas, and pedestrian-scaled mixed-use
along the river. Buffers provide a transition between the different land uses. Access to the larger
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 33
commercial lots along Bridge Access Road is via a service road to limit access conflicts on and
off Bridge Access Road. Moving toward the river, the development includes smaller lots and
land uses with fewer impacts, providing economic opportunities and meeting housing needs.
The housing consists of boat condos and higher density housing as condos or townhouses. A
mixed-use development along the river includes smaller retail shops (restaurants, brewery,
stores) and housing clustered around a waterfront plaza with a small-scale pedestrian focus. A
sizeable civic center is found along the waterfront and adjacent to the mixed-use area. The civic
center could include a visitors' center, restrooms, a ballroom (multi-use space), and perhaps a
River Center that highlights the Kenai River. The civic center would include a park and open
space around it. The existing City Dock and Boat Launch remain, and the trailer parking is
expanded to the north with a small area of seasonal retail to support users of this area and
several larger lots for marine-dependent commercial development. The River Walk runs along
the shoreline until it reaches Pacific Star Seafoods, where it turns inland to Bridge Access Road
and the multi-use non-motorized route along the south side of the road. It then links to Scenic
Bluff Overlook.
Figure 12. Alternative Concept C
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 34
Preferred Concept
The Preferred Concept provides the greatest build-out, the most opportunities for economic
development, and is believed to best meet community needs while preserving the waterfront
for public use.
Commercial Development and Road Access
Larger 2- to 3-acre commercial lots are along Bridge Access Road, and access to these lots is by
a service road which serves to reduce traffic impacts to Bridge Access Road and improve the
intersection at Childs Street. All roadways within the project area are within a 60-foot-wide right-
of-way to meet City design standards. Along the south side of the service road, smaller 1-acre
commercial lots transition from the activity and larger scale development found along Bridge
Access Road.
Boat Condominium
Mixed with the smaller scale commercial developments are boat condominiums, providing
facilities for outdoor-minded Alaskans. These are typically two-story residential buildings with
an oversized high-ceiling garage to accommodate the storage of larger boats, other motorized
equipment, and gear. Above the garage is a roughly 1,200-square-foot condominium. These
are in blocks of 5-6 units, with the residences above the taller garages providing views of the
Kenai River and surrounding landscape.
Residential
Transitioning closer to the Kenai River, development focuses on residential units with fewer
impacts on the waterfront. Housing would be in the form of 2- to 3-story condominiums or
townhouses in blocks of 5- to 8-units. The lower floor at street level would be for a typical garage,
with two levels of housing (about 1,200-1,800 square feet) above, providing outdoor patio space
and views of the river and surrounding landscape. Access to this development is via the Childs
Street extension.
Mixed Use
Along the waterfront, the development becomes predominately pedestrian-scale as a walking
destination comprised of mixed land-use that includes the desired brewery, restaurants, and
smaller retail shops such as cafes, food carts, gift stores and stalls, and art galleries. These are
clustered around open space to include landscaping and create a pleasant shopping and dining
destination year-round on the waterfront. Residential units are located above the retail shops
and limited to one or two-story structures to maintain the pedestrian scale along the river and
allow views from the housing to the north. Within this mixed-use development is a mid-sized
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 35
hotel (60 to 80 rooms) or similar, located to bring additional people to the waterfront and create
an outstanding destination with the adjacent mixed-use area for both visitors and locals. Despite
the primary pedestrian use, vehicle access is provided for deliveries and needed service from
the Childs Street access road. At the end of the road adjacent to the hotel is a large parking area
that provides access for those walking through the mixed-use neighborhood and the hotel.
Civic Center
Adjacent to the mixed-use development to the east is a new civic center. This 25,000-square-
foot facility could include a visitors' center, restrooms, a ballroom (community multi-use space),
and a River Center that highlights the history and importance of the Kenai River. Located on the
old cannery site, it provides a centralized location and outstanding river views and beyond.
Dedicated vehicle access to the civic center is via a new road and an improved intersection at
Beaver Loop Road that may require a traffic light. A large parking lot supports the civic center
and provides access for those who want to park and walk the mixed-use neighborhood. The
civic center could be considered one of the catalyst properties for the redevelopment of the
waterfront.
Recreation
Surrounding the civic center and creating an interface with the neighboring housing and mixed-
use is parkland and open space that includes a destination playground and day-use recreation
facilities (picnic shelters, BBQ, and trails) within a natural landscape. Trails link to the neighboring
residential neighborhoods and destinations.
Community Gathering
On the waterfront, between the civic center and mixed-use area, is an ample multi-purpose
community gathering space for festivals, farmer's markets, and other community events. A large
outdoor pavilion or shelter supports the gathering space for hosting formal events. The
gathering space becomes an extension of the neighboring civic center, with the civic center
providing the needed support for outdoor events that will need restrooms and other facilities.
The intent is that programming in this space and facilities in the adjacent parkland and
playground can provide a family destination for locals, visitors, and family members of those
visiting for fishing opportunities.
City Dock and Boat Launch
The existing City Dock and Boat Launch remain, and a portion of the trailer parking is relocated
to the north to allow the natural revegetation of the southern part of the trailer parking and to
create a transition to the adjacent natural state of the wetlands. The vehicular circulation of Boat
Launch Road and the trailer parking remains as is.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 36
Nature Center
A small day-use recreation area and nature center are located at the south-end of the trailer
parking and linked to the trails. The nature center would be a small 2,000-square foot facility for
school children and visitors to understand the science and provide nature education about the
wetlands and Kenai River. The small day-use area includes picnic shelters for those who use the
launch facility.
River Walk
Linking waterfront elements is the River Walk, running from the south end of the project area
near the nature center, to Scenic Bluff Overlook to the north. The River Walk would be
pedestrian-oriented but allow occasional motorized use for service and emergency needs. The
walk would be 12-16 feet wide and hard surfaced for year-round use, including skiing in winter.
In some areas, the River Walk would be elevated boardwalks through wetlands, over drainages,
and where slope stabilization may be environmentally or cost prohibitive. The River Walk follows
the shoreline from the nature center and through the community gathering space and mixed-
use development. The existing dock adjacent to the proposed hotel is less used and could be
converted to a promenade, allowing pedestrian access onto and over the Kenai River. The dock
promenade could include a shelter and allow viewing of wildlife and activity over the river. Just
south of the existing Pacific Star Seafoods plant, the River Walk continues along the river's edge
through the seafood plant property and connects to the estuary to the north.
River Walk development in front of the seafood plant would be an excellent opportunity to
celebrate Kenai's working waterfront and provide opportunities for interpretation and interest
to those on the River Walk. There are some safety concerns related to providing public access
along the waterfront through an active seafood plant operation; however, other communities
have worked with plant operators to make a route in a similar location successful. Should a
waterfront route not be possible through the Pacific Star Seafoods, the path would follow the
west side of the Childs Street extension and connect to a new multi-use non-motorized trail
along the south side and/or north side of Bridge Access Road. The southern route would
continue northwest along the road and includes a spur boardwalk route and overlook along the
estuary scheduled for restoration. The spur trail provides opportunities to see salmon and other
wildlife in a stream setting and would include interpretation. The River Walk continues along the
south side of Bridge Access Road and enters the back and upper elevation of the seafood plant
property, where limited activity is occurring. The River Walk continues up the slope to Scenic
Bluff Overlook. It includes several overlooks with interpretation to describe the seafood plant
operations and its history for those on the pedestrian route. The current design is underway for
the bluff stabilization project and includes a lower river trail. The lower path would be linked to
the River Walk.
N
Project Limit
LEGEND
City Land
Private Land
State Land
KENAI WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION
REV. 07/07/2022Vision Plan - Land Ownership
Bridg
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
a
d
Ke
n
a
i
R
i
v
e
r Childs StreetBoat Launch Road
N
KENAI WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION
REV. 07/07/2022Vision Plan - Key Plan See Enlargement #1Project Limit
City dock
City boat launch
Project Limit
Bluff Overlook Park
Pacific Star
Seafoods
Bridg
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
a
d
See Enlargement #2See Enlargement #3Ke
n
a
i
R
i
v
e
r Childs StreetBoat Launch Road
N
600FT3001500
KENAI WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION
REV. 07/07/2022Vision Plan - Enlargement 1
Boardwalk
Riverwalk to Bluff
Overlook Park (coordinate
with seafood plants)
Overlook
Trail to residential neighborhood,
schools, and golf course
Estuary trail, overlook,
and creek rehabilitation
Improve intersection (turn lane)
Multi-modal trail
Riverwalk
Alternate Riverwalk (needs
seafood plant approval)
Pacific Star
Seafoods
Riverwalk
Overlook
Bluff Overlook Park
Proposed lower bluff
stabilization trail
Bridg
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
a
d
Kenai River
N
600FT3001500
KENAI WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION
REV. 07/07/2022Vision Plan - Enlargement 2
Commercial (1-2 acre lots)
Multi-modal trail
Commercial (2-3 acre lots)
Boat condos (20)
Boat condos (10)
Existing commercial
Vehicular circulation
Improve intersection (turn lane)
One way (out only)
Improve intersection (traffic light)
Pavilion/Stage
Seasonal retail
Civic Center (visitor information,
restrooms, ballroom, River Center)
Playground
Plaza and festival/community space
Parkland with day-use shelters
Small pedestrian scaled mixed
use (brewery, shops, cafes)
Hotel or retail
Parking
Improve intersection (turn lane)
Promenade walk with
overlook shelter
Kenai River
Parking Beaver
Loop
Road
B
r
i
d
g
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
a
d
Childs StreetCondos or townhouses (20)
N
600FT3001500
KENAI WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION
REV. 07/07/2022Vision Plan - Enlargement 3
Kenai River
B
r
i
d
g
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
a
d
Commercial (3 acre lots)
Multi-modal trail
Reduce speed
limit to 35 mph
Seasonal retail
Relocated trailer parking
Existing trailer parking
City boat launch
City dock
Riverwalk
Nature/education center
Day-use recreation and parkland
Existing overlook
and boardwalk
Riverwalk (boardwalk)
Improve intersection (turn lane)
Improve intersection
(turn lane)
Beaver
Loop
Road
Boat Launch Road
N
Project Limit
LEGEND
City Land
Private Land
State Land
KENAI WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION
REV. 07/07/2022Vision Plan & Land Ownership
Bridg
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
a
d
Ke
n
a
i
R
i
v
e
r Childs StreetBoat Launch Road
Pacific Star
Seafoods
Commercial
Boat condos
City dock
Civic center
Mixed use
Housing
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 43
Preferred Concept Cost Estimates
Limitations
The Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for the preferred concept includes site
preparation and infrastructure development considered the responsibility of the City of Kenai,
such as roads, public trails/boardwalk, utility extensions, parks and playgrounds, and public
buildings and spaces. Construction of this infrastructure would help encourage private
landowners to develop adjacent private land. The remainder of the development displayed in
the Preferred Concept (e.g., commercial buildings, retail shops, hotels, or residential buildings)
was not included in the cost estimate. The cost estimate was also generally limited to the study
area. Trails to the golf course, tie-in to the lower bluff stabilization trail, and boardwalk into the
wetlands at the south of the site were excluded. Likewise, the multi-modal trail along Bridge
Access Road was not included in the estimate as it is assumed that project, being designed by
the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, will be constructed by others at some point in the
future. The alternative River Walk through Pacific Star Seafoods was also excluded from the
estimate.
Cost Assumptions
Cost estimates were developed in accordance with the Association for the Advancement of Cost
Engineering (AACE). The cost estimate is presented in current, Q2 2022 costs and does not
include inflation or escalation. To account for non-construction related costs, such as preliminary
investigations, engineering, construction administration, and permitting, unit costs were
increased by 30%. In accordance with AACE recommendations, a 30% contingency was added
to account for the conceptual level of design presented in the Preferred Concept. Additionally,
due to the conceptual level of design and minimal scope definition, costs are presented in a
range. That is, a minus 30% and plus 100% range.
In development of the cost estimate, it was assumed that some of the existing infrastructure will
be in adequate condition for use in future development. This includes existing bulkheads along
the waterfront as well as the existing dock that is converted into the promenade in the preferred
concept. A structural assessment of the existing infrastructure would be required prior to use,
and the cost of any required structural repairs or replacement was not included in the estimate.
Additionally, costs for the remediation of contaminated or hazardous materials that may be
present was not included in the estimate.
The riverbank, within the study area, consists of both active erosion areas and areas protected
from erosion (mostly by way of bulkheads and retaining walls). At the request of the City, erosion
protection was added to the estimate. This cost would consist of armor rock revetment along
exposed bank areas (those not already protected by retaining walls), and outside the vicinity of
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 44
the seafood plant. It was assumed that the armor rock size and vertical extent would match that
of the 65% plans for the Kenai Bluffs Stabilization Project, located just downstream of the study
area. Additional analysis should be conducted to size and design the revetment specifically for
this location.
Table 18. Cost Estimates, Rough Order of Magnitude, Kenai Waterfront Revitalization
Cost Item Quantity
and Unit
Construction
Unit Cost
Project
Unit Cost Total Cost
Paved Pedestrian Path (6 feet wide) 6,000 LF $170 $221 $1,326,000
Widened Pedestrian Path/Road, Paved (9 feet
wide to allow for emergency vehicle traffic) 1,000 LF
$255 $332 $332,000
Boardwalk (6 feet wide) 1,100 LF $750 $975 $1,073,000
New Roads (2-way) 6,000 LF $690 $897 $5,382,000
New Parking Lots (Near park & expanded trailer
parking near boat launch) 250,000 SF $30 $39 $9,750,000
Playground 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000
Park Pavilion/Plaza 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000
Day-Use Shelters 10 each $85,000 $110,500 $1,105,000
Parkland 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000
Promenade (existing dock improvements for
pedestrian promenade (i.e., railing)) 1 LS $210,000 $273,000 $273,000
Turning Lanes (intersection improvements on
Bridge Access with added turning lane) 3 each $60,000 $78,000 $234,000
Intersection (intersection improvements on
Bridge Access with added turning lane and
signal)
1 each $1,000,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000
Water Line Extension (includes hydrants at 500
feet on center) 6,000 LF $260 $338 $2,028,000
Sewer Line Extension (includes sewer manholes
at 300 feet on center and at all bends) 6,000 LF $270 $351 $2,106,000
Storm Sewer (includes storm sewer manholes at
200 feet on center and at all bends) 6,000 LF $270 $351 $2,106,000
Lift Stations – Sewage (assumes (2) manholes per
each, power, pumps and controls) 2 each $300,000 $390,000 $780,000
Buried Electric Extensions (includes junctions and
transformers per developed parcel; there are
fewer parcels, but could be subdivided in future)
20 each $7,500 $9,750 $195,000
Gas Line Service 6,000 LF $30 $39 $234,000
Shoreline Protection (includes riprap bank
stabilization from boat launch north to existing
stabilization; no riprap required at sheetpile wall
in front of civic center; assume about 15' high
Class III riprap)
2,000 LF $625 $813 $1,625,000
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 45
Source: PND Engineers estimates.
Note: Project Unit Cost includes 30% for engineering, permitting, construction administration, and project
management. Cost estimate based on conceptual level of design. SF=square feet. LF=linear feet. LS=lump sum.
Cost Item Quantity
and Unit
Construction
Unit Cost
Project
Unit Cost Total Cost
Civic Center (i.e., visitor
center/museum/multipurpose community
building)
25,000 SF $600 $780 $19,500,000
Nature Center 3,000 SF $300 $390 $1,170,000
Structure Demolition 46,000 SF $35 $46 $2,093,000
Clearing and Grubbing 6 acres $20,000 $26,000 $156,000
Contingency (30%) $17,100,400
Rough Order of Magnitude Project Cost Total $73,668,400
Cost Range
(based on accuracy of design)
Low (-30%) $51,567,880
High (+100%) $147,336,800
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 46
Funding Strategy
As envisioned in the Kenai Waterfront Revitalization Preferred Concept, funding support may be
public or privately sourced. Typically, infrastructure that can be used by all public members is
funded through public sources; however, depending on the infrastructure, a public-private
partnership and social investment (i.e., foundations) may be considered.
Public Funding
There are a wide variety of public funding sources for infrastructure development, including
commonly used traditional methods and alternative financing options. A brief description of
these is found below.
Traditional Methods
As described in the table on the next page, local governments often rely on two traditional
methods of financing infrastructure:
• Cash and other current assets: This form is often used when capital project sizes are
small and local governments are closely approaching their debt limits, or there are
prohibitions on use of debt.
• Debt financing: This form includes issuing long-term debt in the form of general
obligation bonds or revenue bonds to fund capital projects. Some infrastructure
projects involve large or lump-style investments and benefit both current taxpayers and
future generations -- spreading out the costs of public infrastructure investments
throughout life of the asset.14
14 For more information in infrastructure financing, the International City/County Management Association published,
Infrastructure Financing: A Guide for Local Government Managers, 2017.
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/pubadfacpub/77/ (Accessed June 15, 2022).
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 47
Table 19. Traditional Methods of Local Infrastructure Financing
Type Description Relevant Examples
Cash and Other Current Assets
Tax Revenue
Commonly used to fund local infrastructure projects that yield
community-wide benefits such as parks and recreation. Taxes
may be general taxes (i.e., sales tax, property tax) or more
narrowly based taxes either in their general fund or in special
funds and dedicate these revenues to fund local infrastructure.
The key advantage of earmarking special tax revenues is
protecting local infrastructure projects from competition from
other uses of these funds.
Property taxes, sales taxes, bed taxes
User Charges
Imposed on local residents and businesses for their use of
utilities and other public enterprises, including water charges,
sewer charges, parking fees, among others. Infrastructure
projects such as those related to water, wastewater, parking
facilities, and convention centers are sometimes funded by
user charges through an enterprise fund.
Boat launch fees, parking fees
Local Government
Capital Reserves and
Fund Balances
Can be designated to pay for recurring and small capital
projects, and capital asset replacement funding for the future
replacement of government buildings, equipment, facilities,
vehicles, and certain other assets.
Federal and State
Grants
Represent a major funding source of local infrastructure
financing. A variety of federal grant and state-funded grant
programs are available for helping fund streets, water supply
and wastewater utilities, parks and recreation, and many other
local infrastructure needs.
US DOT RAISE Grant Program
USDA Rural Community Facilities
Direct Loan & Grant Program
US EDA Public Works and Economic
Adjustment Assistance Program
ADFG Boating and Angler Access Grant
Program
Debt Financing
General Obligation
Bonds (GO)
Long-term obligations of local governments to repay bonds
from their general tax revenues. GO bonds are traditionally
issued to finance projects that do not generate revenues. City
of Kenai GO bonds are subject to constitutional debt limits and
require voter approval.
Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority
General Obligation and Revenue
Bonds
City of Kenai General Obligation and
Revenue Bonds Revenue Bonds
Typically issued to finance public facilities that have definable
users with specific revenue streams, such as utilities. Revenue
bonds are secured by the pledge of defined revenue sources
generated from the bond funded projects (i.e., user fees,
facility rent). City of Kenai has constitutional debt limits and
require voter approval, with one exception (utility
development when revenue bonds can be issued to pay the
cost of a facility to be used by 10 customers or less for the
purpose of promoting economic development). These might
be used for private activity bonds or leasing bonds.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 48
Alternative Infrastructure Financing
Alternative infrastructure financing supplements traditional infrastructure funding involving new
funding, financing mechanism, and financial arrangement strategies.
NEW FUNDING
Special Assessment Districts (SADS) are formed to include a geographic area in which property
owners or businesses agree to pay a special property tax assessment to fund a proposed
improvement or service from which they expect to benefit directly. Strengths of SADs include
matching payments with benefits to a designated area and voter approval is not required.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is used to finance a wide array of infrastructure development
projects, such as sidewalks and sewer extensions. This mechanism captures newly created or
incremental taxes from revenue produced through redevelopment of underused and vacant
properties (under a TIF district); these taxes are used to pay the debts incurred for
redevelopment infrastructure improvements. Often tax revenues are collected for a designated
period (e.g., 15 or 30 years) and go to pay debt service on the TIF financing and not the local
government taxing jurisdictions. At the end of the TIF period, tax revenues return to the local
government. Local governments use TIFs as an incentive to develop identified areas and can
attract private sector investment what would not necessarily occur without this public subsidy.
TIFs can be significantly risky if the property value gains fall below expectations, and the costs
can spill over outside the TIF areas.
NEW FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) are contractual arrangements in which governments form
partnerships with the private sector to design, finance, build, and operate and/or maintain
infrastructure. Many different types of P3s exist because each of the five elements of
development (design, finance, build, operate, and maintain) can be combined. For instance, in
a design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM) arrangement, contracted private entities are
responsible for project design, construction, operation and maintenance of the infrastructure
project. Public agencies oversee financing and theoretically pass all the risks related to
operating costs and project revenues to the private partner. Public agencies still retain the
ownership of privately built projects. P3s are attractive because they shift project finance risks
and long-term operations and maintenance responsibilities to the private sector while
leveraging private capital and private sector expertise. They also avoid more debt issuance and
preserve bond capacity.
Private and Nonprofit Philanthropic Partners can invest in planning for, building, or operating
local infrastructure. In addition, foundations can sometimes make program-related investments
to support their philanthropic mission and leverage their donations. While the funding support
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 49
can attract new investors from philanthropic partners, funding can be limited and subject to
donor requirements and control.
There are several federal and private foundation grant and finance programs that may provide
support for public infrastructure development on Kenai’s waterfront. Each funding type can be
used for different types of infrastructure as seen in the following matrix (see the next page). More
detailed descriptions of specific funding and grant programs can be found in Appendix B.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 50
Figure 19. City of Kenai Infrastructure Development Funding Options
Cost Item AMBBA
Bonds
Kenai
CIP
SOA
CIP
U.S. DOT
RAISE Grants
USDA Rural
Loans & Grants
U.S. Public Works
& Econ. Asst.
SOA Boating &
Angler Access
USACE
Civil Works
Clean
Vessel Act
Rasmuson
Foundation
Private Partnership
Investment
Paved Pedestrian Paths
Boardwalk
New Roads
New Parking Lots
Playground
Park Pavilion/Plaza
Day-Use Shelters
Parkland
Promenade
Turning Lanes
Intersection
Water Line Extension
Sewer Line Extension
Storm Sewer
Lift Stations – Sewage
Buried Electric Extensions
Gas Line Service
Shoreline Protection
Civic Center
Nature Center
Structure Demolition
Clearing and Grubbing
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 51
Attracting Private Investment
The vision of the Kenai Waterfront Revitalization includes features that would be supported
through private investment, such as residential development (i.e., housing, boat condominiums)
and commercial development (i.e., hotel, small businesses). The following sections describe
concepts that may be used by the City of Kenai to incentivize private investment in the Kenai
Waterfront Revitalization area.
Rezoning
Currently the waterfront study area is zoned as heavy industrial, yet the Preferred Concept
considers other uses. To create clarity on community vision for redevelopment of the waterfront,
the City of Kenai may consider creating a new zone designation for the study area. This zone
could be labeled “Working Waterfront” which supports activities that range from seafood
processing, housing, commercial, and open space that derive an economic or social benefit
from a waterfront location. These uses would relate with commercial/economic enterprises,
tourism, or recreation. Land would continue to be reserved to meet current and future use for
seafood processing, recreational boating, and other water-dependent activities. Park space,
pedestrian connections, and public recreational space would be encouraged in the working
waterfront.
Placemaking and Branding
The Kenai River’s significance is historical, cultural, environmental, recreational, industrial, and
economic. These attributes can contribute to a strong branding identity for businesses, as well
as for residents and visitors.
The concept of placemaking goes beyond simply naming the Kenai Waterfront area, it is also
about forging an identity and creating a sense of place, purpose, and community. The
placemaking approach inspires the community and developers to reimagine and reinvent
public spaces. Developing a brand narrative for Kenai Waterfront can help build awareness of
the location, as well as attract new tenants and investors. This placemaking identity can be
incorporated into signage, promotional materials, and even infrastructure design.
Tax Incentives
Tax incentives have been a major policy tool to spur economic development and business
opportunity. Eligibility for tax incentives can also be geographically limited to stimulate
production in specific parts of town (i.e., Kenai Waterfront).
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 52
Tax abatements reduce the total amount of taxes owed, generally for a fixed period, and are
one of the most popular tools used by local governments to reduce financial barriers facing
businesses wanting to invest in commercial (i.e., hotels), or residential (i.e., boat condominiums)
development. When used as an incentive to stimulate new development, owners typically
receive a discount on their tax bill for the duration of the abatement. The discount may be all or
part of a particular taxing jurisdiction’s share of total property tax revenue. An abatement could
be used to spur rehabilitation, with the tax reduction size based on the scale of the development.
Tax exemptions adjust the value of the property subject to taxation; the resulting assessed value
is then used to calculate the total amount of tax owed. For example, local governments wishing
to stimulate new development or redevelopment on vacant lots or in a depressed area can
exempt the value of any improvements on the lot (such as a new building) for a defined period
when calculating property tax liability. Currently, the City of Kenai does not offer tax exemptions,
but it is a tool the City can explore.
Utility Special Assessment District (USAD) is a process used to finance the extension of public
utility lines of service which are regulated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Applications
and processes for SAD designation can be found in Chapter 16.05 of the City of Kenai Municipal
Code. The City of Kenai could provide financing for installation of infrastructure for streets,
roads, street lighting, curbs, gutters, driveways, and sidewalks; storm sewers, drains, or settling
basins; sanitary sewer systems, including mains, connections, and extensions; changes in
channels of streams or watercourses; and water supply systems, including water mains, water
distribution lines, water service connections, and fire hydrants.15
Land Swaps
Land swaps are another tool that can empower cities to trade municipally owned sites with
privately owned sites for areas that may be slow-changing due to market inertia. Government
entities can use land swaps to support development or redevelopment and qualitative
transformation of places such as this once-flourishing industrial waterfront area whose allowable
land uses no longer match the market. In a land swap scenario, the City of Kenai might negotiate
with the owner of a site located within the target revitalization area to swap this site for the
negotiated fair market value of a city site located elsewhere (perhaps even within the same area).
This would be a one-time, negotiated transaction in which either (a) the existing owner does not
want to sell the site but is open to a land swap for the negotiated fair market value of the existing
site, or (b) the city does not want to or cannot afford (or legislatively is unable) to pay cash to the
existing site owner for the value of the land. In some instances, a swap might be less costly for
the City than having to come up with capital funds.
15 Chapter 16.05.020 City of Kenai Municipal Code.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 53
According to Kenai Municipal Code 22.05.135, “The City…may lease, purchase or acquire an
interest in real property needed for a public purpose on such terms and conditions as the Council
shall determine. No purchase shall be made until a qualified independent appraiser has
appraised the property and given the Council an opinion as to the fair market value of the land
unless the Council, upon resolution so finding, determines that the best interest of the City will
not be served by an appraisal.”
Additionally, according to Kenai Municipal Code 22.05.110, “a) Whether land shall be acquired,
retained, devoted, or dedicated to a public purpose shall be determined by ordinance…(b)
Whether land previously dedicated to a public purpose should be dedicated to a different public
purpose or should no longer be needed for public purpose shall be determined by the City
Council by ordinance….”
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 54
Recommended Next Steps
Converting the vision for Kenai’s waterfront revitalization into reality will require a multi-pronged
effort to address the planning, financial, infrastructure, and marketing needs that will be required
to attract public and private investment. If the City of Kenai proceeds with revitalization of the
Kenai Waterfront, some immediate next steps should be considered.
Planning
This document captures the initial vision to support additional planning that will be required for
redevelopment of the waterfront. The next logical step is to prepare a Waterfront Master Plan.
The Waterfront Master Plan will support the Kenai Waterfront Revitalization vision and Preferred
Concept, making the connection between buildings, social settings, and surrounding
environments, and include more detailed analysis, recommendations, and proposals for
rezoning (i.e., Working Waterfront), planning, rights-of-way, or easements.
Additionally, one of the catalyst components of the revitalization vision is a civic center. Prior to
development, a Civic Center Market Assessment and Feasibility Analysis should be updated and
include costs for acquiring land that is currently privately held; the analysis should also assess
bulkheads and dock structure features adjacent to its proposed location.
Financial
This document has outlined several financial tools appropriate for public financing and
attracting private investment. Given the extensive public input on the vision for revitalization,
there is community interest in redevelopment of the waterfront area. Redevelopment will come
with considerable costs that may be too great for the private sector to absorb based on the
current market condition. To stimulate new infrastructure and commercial development the City
of Kenai should use this as an opportunity to reexamine their fiscal incentives for economic and
business development. These may include use of special assessment districts for utility or road
development and tax abatements for private investment in new and redeveloped property.
Public Infrastructure
Developing and enhancing public infrastructure in the waterfront area will provide clear
incentives for private developers and lay the groundwork for the amenities and access as
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 55
envisioned in this document. Based on the Preferred Concept, public infrastructure needs are
as follows:
• Utility build-out, including water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, and communications
infrastructure
• Roads and intersections bringing users into the site area and streets allowing traffic
circulation within the waterfront area
• Attractions such as River Walk, civic center, park, nature center, or others that require
public funding
The Preferred Concept includes public infrastructure located on lots currently held by private
owners. Developing this public infrastructure will require coordination and collaboration with
private owners within the waterfront area. In limited instances (i.e., civic center), public
infrastructure called for by this document may be infeasible to construct on privately owned land
and may require the City of Kenai to consider land purchase at market value or swap options.
Some combination of the publicly funded attractions listed above will be necessary to attract
users to the area for recreation, residential use, and commercial activity.
Marketing and Attraction Development
Developing the attractions listed in the section above will draw users to the waterfront area,
creating a market to be served by private businesses. Private developers will absorb risk in
redevelopment if there are strong market signals and levels of commitment by the City of Kenai
to support implementation of the community’s vision. Marketing the waterfront area, improving
public infrastructure, and committing to financial incentives all send these signals of support.
Further, branding and marketing campaigns that clearly identify the area to users will be an
important aspect of place-making, attracting visitors, and serving residents with public
amenities, residential development, and commercial development.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 56
Appendix A: Community Vision Results
Exercise #1: SWOT Analysis
The first small group exercise was to discuss the strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and
threats (SWOT) related to the project and the site. The following matrix (see next page)
summarizes community input given during the public work session and through the online
survey.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 57
STRENGTHS
Existing Internal
Advantages
WEAKNESSES
Existing Internal
Disadvantages
OPPORTUNITIES
Potential External
Improvement
THREATS
Potential Negative
Impacts
• Location and access to
Kenai River
• Fishing location
• Views of volcanoes
• Wildlife viewing (birds
and whales)
• Cultural and historic
resources
• Existing recreation
facilities
• Adjacent to City center
and connectivity
• Volume of visitors to
area (economic
opportunities)
• Good commercial
opportunities along
Bridge Access Road
• Sensitive habitat and
permit restrictions
• Underutilized site
• Shore and bluff
stabilization needed
• Safety
• High amount of land in
private ownership
• Tidal influence and
shallow water depths
• Lack of public access
throughout site and
challenging to access site
• Aging and unused
buildings/development
• Bridge Access Road is too
fast with high traffic
volumes in summer
• River access can be
challenging (limited
facilities and low tide)
• Public has not fully
bought into project
• Maintenance will be high
• Too far from City center
• Improvements will be
costly
• Windy site
• Lack of utilities on site
• Expand recreation (RV's, campground,
park, trails, and open space)
• Education (river ecology, history,
fishing, natural resources)
• River boardwalk along length and
connected to City center
• New businesses and investments
• Capitalize on tourism
• City/private partnerships and
incentives for development
• Make waterfront public (boardwalk)
with parks and trails
• Offer social opportunities for residents
• Make visually and financially
attractive for new investment
• New commercial and retail business
in a neighborhood setting
• Provide facilities for those that do not
dipnet
• Develop eco-tourism opportunities
• New housing
• Expand commercial fishing
• Increase/upgrade facilities to support
sport fishing
• Increase sales tax revenue
• 'Put Kenai on the map'- create an
authentic destination for all, year
round
• Increase property values
• Encourage and support longer stays
(activities, hotels, restaurants)
• Potential harbor development and
improved river access
• Allow transportation of cargo
• Remote work opportunities
• Repurpose empty buildings and
under-developed land
• Instill a sense of pride in community
• Economic development opportunity
• Private development
• High end restaurant
• Condominium development
• Guided fishing
• Event and community space
• Habitat restoration
• Private ownership of land
• River and bluff erosion
• Lack of public knowledge/awareness
(and support) of project
• Shallow water and need to dredge
• Preserving a healthy river and its fish
• Weather and winter
• Sewer and water utility challenges
• Lack of interest and financing
• Not having a clear vision of project
• Chance for failure
• Other communities move faster and
are more attractive to investment
• Lack of private/public partnership
follow through
• Costs and funding
• Supply chain issues and shortage in
workforce=higher costs
• Economic challenges locally and
nationally
• Adjacent traffic congestion
• River congestion and dipnet traffic
• Sport fish vs. commercial fishing
• Tidal challenges (access and
mudflats)
• Not all property owners will support
or have same vision
• Bad press
• No investors=no project
• High management and
maintenance costs
• Permitting and EPA requirements
(red tape)
• Variability in fish returns
• Lack of community buy-in
• Close mindedness of community
members
• City dock improvements/needs
• Funding and cost to taxpayers
• Pollution
• Loss of motivation over time
• Decrease in user traffic in winter
• Blocked views
• Shift in economic priorities
• Increase in visitor traffic
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 58
Exercise #2: Goal
Development
The second small group exercise
explored the desired waterfront
experience, and the facilities and
services needed. The exercise also
explored the long-term vision/tagline
for the project and asked for any key
insights that were made during the
exercise.
Desired Waterfront
Experience
• Natural and river oriented
• Thriving
• Inspirational
• Relaxing
• Exciting
• Quiet
• Inviting
• In awe
• Walkable
• Enjoyable
• A true (authentic) Alaskan experience
• Enjoy awesome views (river and
volcanoes)
• Provide postcard moments
• Allow to see Alaskans in action
(working waterfront)
• Eating and socializing
• Shopping
• Local craft/art opportunities
• Highlight cannery row
• Balance of commercial fishing and
sport fishing
• Experience local history
• Sustainable development
• Beautification
• River preservation
• Continuity along waterfront
• Experience arts, music, and culture
• Vibrant mixed-use area
• A fun place to spend money and
time
• Make it Kenai appropriate, not a
carnival
• Usable for all
• Needs to fit in with river
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 59
Facilities and Services Needed
• River boardwalk
• Trails and pathways
• Restaurants and retail
• Dock and boat launch improvements
• Hotel
• Performance area (stage, pavilion)
• Park and open space (shelters,
picnic, benches)
• Natural areas
• Improved river access
• Kenai marketplace
• High tower for exceptional views
• Faster internet
• Statues and artwork
• Lighting for year-round use
• Wind breaks
• RV park and campground
• Co-working space
• Dock for food and drink pick-up by
boats
• Viewing platforms for wildlife and
people watching
• Education center
• Defined roads and traffic patterns
• Interpretive signs
• Restrooms
• Utility extension and improvements
• Brew pub
• Parking
• Tackle and fishing support shops
• Oyster bar
• Banquet and convention center
• Walking tours
• Toboggan hill
• Rezone district from industrial
• Slim trash receptacles with windproof
lids
• Walk and bike access
• Public bathroom access and lighting
Long Range Vision/Taglines
• Kenai Waterfront Voted Alaska’s Greatest
Gem.
• Turn Right to Kenai/Turn West at the Y.
• Kenai Named the Best Alaskan Community
to Live In.
• Kenai Riverfront Comes to Life, Year-round.
• Kenai Celebrates Thriving Waterfront.
Visioning Insights
• Just do it…make it happen!
• Needs to be a well-planned, year-round attraction.
• Include private landowners in process.
• Include history and culture in project.
• Keep public involved.
• High quality amenities.
• Kenai needs something to get people to visit us year-round.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 60
• The site is an amazing ‘invisible’ resource (invisible to the community).
• What to do with the kids during dip netting? Provide family/children attractions.
• Responsible river access-critical.
• Economic diversity needs to guide development.
• Public dock is underutilized.
• Community, City Council, and Department support is critical.
• Everyone wants success.
• Development will enhance quality of life in Kenai.
Exercise #3: Near-and Longer-Term Vision
To gather perspectives on near- and longer-term future visions, groups were asked the
questions, “What will the project look like in 5-7 years?” and “What will the project area look like
in 25-30 years?”
In 5-7 years, the waterfront will be…
• Starting to be walkable.
• Moving forward as planned.
• A great place to go for a nature walk.
• Open for business.
• Just completing the waters of US permits.
• Used by the public.
• More community developed using the vision of this group. Maybe tax incentives to help.
• With project design and search of funding and PPP negotiation.
• In the development stage.
• Have an anchor facility such as a park that will attract investors.
• Under construction.
• Finished design and environmental impact statement- ready to begin construction.
• The place to be!
• Amazing!
• Stabilized.
• A visitors’ center for all Alaska.
• A tourist site extraordinaire.
• A developing and vibrant mixed-use development.
• Finished new anchor business.
• Attracting investment in construction and remodel of buildings.
• Building and conceptual plan.
• A booming center of commerce- the place to meet.
• Somewhat planned out and funding options are being pursued.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 61
• Expensive and hard to get.
• Transforming and developing.
• Instafamous.
• Thriving!
• A year-round facility and experience.
• Have a waterfront boardwalk.
• Fighting with Corps of Engineers to get approval to proceed.
• Booming with lots of revenue.
• Small business and wildlife viewing, no more big box stores.
• I want a place to have a good dinner and feel like I’m getting away.
• Follow through with planned trail and resolve private access.
• Condominiums with walkable trails.
• Land developed for construction.
In 25 years, the waterfront will be…
• Complete growing and being renovated
because revenue is great.
• A nightlife and shopping destination.
• Full of life and business.
• Thriving.
• A historic waterfront destination.
• The year-round destination on the peninsula.
• A commercial fishing economic center.
• Bustling for all to enjoy its scenic views by way of RV park, trails, boardwalk, and boat-
ins for coffee while dip netting.
• A tourist attraction.
• Place for youth to play, great for seniors.
• Alaska’s premier experience.
• Booming.
• Robust mix of business, tourism, and quality living.
• Developed as the community center for all to enjoy.
• Maxed out for space.
• A destination that is highly visited by tourists and locals.
• The city center and thriving.
• A park full of trees and customers.
• A vibrant community center that brings pride to Kenai.
• Restored and rehabilitated to functional recreation and public use facility.
• An economic and cultural driver on the peninsula.
• A vital part of the community that is well known.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 62
• A destination.
• Thriving year round.
• Economically independent.
• All taken.
• A thriving center of Kenai, with restaurants, and the world-famous Kenai Market
Boardwalk.
• Renovating and expanding - maybe.
• A destination for visitors year-round. Community with public space, housing, and retail.
• Crowded with families, laughter, and successful business.
• Established and vision of success.
• Thriving and still expanding.
• Shops, Restaurants, Businesses. No big box stores.
• Sustain the environment.
• Move all industrial use away, develop tourist/food/lodging/retail use.
• More infrastructure upkeep as needed.
• Community hub that supports locals and drives tourism.
• Large hotel with satellite businesses.
Exercise #4: No Matter What…
Groups were then asked to set some limits on their vision of waterfront revitalization by defining
what needs to change and what cannot be changed.
No matter what, change…
• The functionality, aim, and purpose of portions of the property.
• The zoning to match the vision of the people.
• Access to amenities on the waterfront from boats.
• All but the dock.
• Need more development but continue asking for input from public.
• That we will not sell out for money.
• Must consider best management practices to maintain ecological sustainability.
• Has been good.
• Will happen.
• Highway frontage needs to be cleaned up!
• Has to happen to stay relevant.
• Public access.
• Upgrade basic systems and signage.
• The community access and engagement.
• What’s going on right now!
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 63
• The lack of easy access to the river, especially at low tide.
• Lack of vision currently.
• Lack of access to city land.
• City dock!
• The fact that there are things to do in Kenai.
• The waterfront district by adding infrastructure and parks for all to enjoy.
• Our community sense of the area. It should be visible.
• All the rundown businesses. Road needs improvement.
• Healthy.
• Will happen so let’s get in front.
• Needs to be positive for the citizens of Kenai.
• Will be inevitable.
• Is bound to come, so we can get involved and make sure it is sustainable for Alaskans.
• Will inspire the imagination, growth, ownership within our city.
• Access to the river.
• Lack of appeal.
• Industrial use and noise/environmental pollution.
• Priorities and follow through.
• Emptiness.
• Ugly Appearance.
No matter what, do NOT change…
• Views of river and mountains.
• The health of the Kenai River.
• The Kenai history.
• The rich history of the area.
• Our vision for our future.
• Nature’s beauty.
• Healthy habitat.
• Public access.
• The opportunity to grow and improve access to the riverfront.
• The views available to the public.
• Functionality of the waterfront and its history.
• No comment- I like change and progress
����.
• The part of the river that reflects fish, nature, and how we can experience.
• The small town feeling.
• The fishing and canneries.
• Existing cultural, historical, and natural qualities.
• Without thinking all the way through the end of possibilities.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 64
• The ecology of the waterfront. Develop with sensitivity to the environment.
• The natural beauty.
• The views of the area. Get public buy in for any project that moves forward.
• The view!
• Growth.
• The ideals of good stewardship for our beautiful river.
• Kenai’s heart, and don’t chase off the caribou.
• Access for the people and commerce.
• Views open to the public.
• Subsistence.
• Historical commercial fishing and public access.
• Historic buildings.
• Public access.
• Good views.
• Nothing - change everything.
• Just change all of it.
• Wildlife viewing platform.
• Harbor access.
• Kenai docks and existing boat ramp.
Exercise #5: Great Idea
The last exercise of the vision work session asked groups, “My great idea for this project is…”
• A walkable waterfront community that has something to offer visitors and locals all year
round. A Brewery!! Kenai can make it happen.
• Should have mixed use - need to take advantage of commerce/industry with access to
the river and mix with tourism initiatives.
• Animal conservation center.
• Walking trails and boardwalk.
• Park.
• Boardwalk.
• Large building for year-round use.
• Multi-function center.
• Convention center. (3X)
• Music venue in the park.
• Public space for city.
• Centralized event location.
• Review city basic plan every ten years.
• Usable buildings.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 65
• Should be usable year-round - continued community input because it won’t be
successful without it.
• Convention/banquet facility to put Kenai on the map.
• Tax incentives by the city, so private development can make it happen.
• To finally see Kenai as another wonder of the world; groups like this need to keep up
the push!
• Anchor business to bring people to the area (figurative anchor, not literal).
• Water taxis to deliver on the river (pizza and coffee to your boat!).
• Mixed use for commercial and personal access.
• Theme is Kenai centered, unique to our city.
• Pikes Place type area. This can happen if city and public work together.
• Food with the view! Renewable income every year.
• Incorporate the history and culture of Kenai.
• Shuttle around city, or bike rentals with map of city.
• Kenai River boardwalk. From bird viewing platform to bluff erosion zone. A co-op
between City and private landowners.
• Working with, not against, those currently using the space.
• For the winter, build a toboggan run as a family activity. Kind of like a water slide.
• A high tower with restaurant and viewing platform.
• The Kenai Revitalization project could develop a unique destination city. Using timber
products from the area and incorporating the vision the Kenia's rich historic history.
• An RV park.
• A nice, modern restaurant.
• Tourist activity for Kenai, kayaking, and guided fishing.
• To have a comprehensive list and drawing of different development scenarios which can
be interchanged in different areas along the waterfront to accommodate development
as it happens.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 66
Appendix B: Public Infrastructure
Funding Sources
Traditional Financing
CASH AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS
City of Kenai Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
The City of Kenai has a variety of funding options available to support a capital improvement
plan, including property tax revenues. A concept that has garnered attention in other areas –
“value capture” –involves collecting additional revenue from those most benefiting from a
development. The most common mechanism for “value capture” is a temporary property tax
increase on the land value of lots adjacent to infrastructure development.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities CIP
ADOT&PF CIP program works with three main streams of funding for transportation projects in
the State of Alaska: federal highway funds, other federal funds, and state capital budget funds.16
US Department of Transportation Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and
Equity (RAISE) Grants
Formerly known as TIGER or BUILD grants, RAISE grants help fund surface transportation
projects such as roads, bridges, transit, rail, port, or intermodal transportation. Half of available
funds ($500 Million of $1 Billion in FY21) are designated for rural areas of the United States.
There is no matching requirement for projects in rural areas. The minimum project award for
rural areas is $1 million, and the maximum is $25 million. Selection criteria focus on “safety,
economic competitiveness, quality of life, state of good repair, innovation and partnerships with
a broad range of stakeholders.” Cost benefit analyses are welcomed, but not required; the DOT
recognizes that these analyses are not always possible in the early feasibility stages of the
planning process.17
US Department of Agriculture Rural Community Facilities Direct Loan & Grant Program
Funds may be used to purchase or construct various types of community facilities, including
street improvements, community centers, museums, community gardens, and many other types
16 http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/cip/index.shtml
17 https://www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 67
of facilities. Priority is given to communities with fewer than 5,500 residents and/or median
household incomes below 80% of the state nonmetropolitan median household income. Loans,
grants, and loan guarantees are available through this program. Applicants must be unable to
finance the project from their own resources and/or through commercial credit at reasonable
terms.18
US Economic Development Administration Public Works and Economic Adjustment
Assistance Program
Grants of $600,000 to $3 million are provided under this grant program to “leverage regional
assets to support the implementation of regional economic development strategies designed
to create jobs, leverage private capital, encourage economic development, and strengthen
America's ability to compete in the global marketplace.” Grant applications are accepted on a
rolling basis.19
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Boating and Angler Access Grant Program
Funds for this program derive from federal excise taxes and import duties placed on recreational
fishing and boating equipment and supplies – as set up by the Dingell-Johnson Act. This
program will cover up to 75% of the cost of an eligible project and requires a 25% non-federal
match. Funded projects must primarily benefit the recreational boating and sport fishing public
(not primarily benefiting subsistence or commercial fishing users).20
US Fish and Wildlife Services Clean Vessel Act Grant
Funds for this program derive from federal excise taxes and import duties placed on recreational
fishing and boating equipment and supplies (Dingell-Johnson Act funds). Clean Vessel Act
grants fund building, operating, and maintaining sewage pump out stations that benefit
recreational boaters. Related educational programs also qualify. A 25% non-federal match is
required.21
US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program
USACE’s civil works program supports selected projects from the planning and feasibility stages
all the way through to construction.22
18https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/community-facilities/community-facilities-direct-loan-grant-program
19 https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=334743
20 https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishingSportBoatingAnglerAccess.main
21 https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/CVA/CVA.htm
22 https://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works-and-Planning/
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 68
DEBT FINANCING
Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority General Obligation and Revenue Bonds
AMBBA can assist eligible Alaska borrowers with bond financing for capital improvements such
as water and sewer systems, public buildings, and docks. General obligation bonds are backed
by a city’s taxing authority, such as a local property tax. Revenue bonds are backed by specified
revenues from an income-producing project.23
City of Kenai General Obligation and Revenue Bonds
The City of Kenai can issue general obligation and revenue bonds. There is a debt limit and voter
approval is needed for general obligation bonds. Voter approval is also required for revenue
bonds except for revenue-producing utilities and enterprises. Article 6-3 of Kenai’s City Charter
says
“The City shall have power to borrow money and to issue revenue bonds or other such evidences of
indebtedness therefor, the principal and interest of which are payable solely out of, and the only security
of which is, the revenues of revenue-producing utilities and enterprises; but only when authorized by
the Council for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, improvement, extension,
enlargement, and/or equipment of said utilities and enterprises, and ratified at an election by a majority
of those qualified to vote and voting on the question. Revenue bonds issued to pay the cost of a facility
to be used by ten (10) customers or less for the purpose of promoting economic development in and
around the City, may be authorized by the Council without an election if the debt is payable solely by the
users.”
Article 6-1(b) limits the amount of debt to:
“Such outstanding general-obligation indebtedness of the City incurred for all purposes shall not at any
time exceed twenty percent of the assessed value of all real and personal property in the City. In
determining such debt limit of the City, any amounts on hand or on deposit for debt retirement, and any
general-obligation indebtedness assumed by the State of Alaska, Kenai Peninsula Borough, or other
municipality and any portion of reserve funds or accounts pledged to the payment of the principal
amount of any outstanding general-obligation indebtedness shall be deducted from the amount of the
outstanding indebtedness. This debt limit shall not apply to refunding indebtedness of the City.”
The City’s debt capacity for fiscal year 2023 is an estimated $189.7 million.24
23 https://treasury.dor.alaska.gov/ambba/
24 Per email correspondence with Terry Eubank, Finance Director, City of Kenai, July 19, 2022.
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 69
Alternative Financing
Private or Public/Private Partnership (PPP) Investment
Private enterprise can bring additional financial resources, different cost structures and cultures,
and other resources to waterfront projects. Some of the most successful public/private projects
in Alaska have been supported by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
(AIDEA). PPPs can be supported by construction and services contracts, lease arrangements,
concessions, joint ventures, or partial divestures.25 The Kenai Municipal Code does not allow for
speculation on City-owned lands. All leases, sales, and other disposals of City-owned land must
meet the intent to “provide land policies and practices that encourage responsible growth and
development to support a thriving business, residential, recreational and cultural community.”
(Section 22.05.010)
US Department of Transportation Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(TIFIA) Rural Project Initiative
The goal of DOT’s Rural Project Initiative is to make TIFIA financing more accessible to small
communities (<150,000 residents) to support projects between $10 and $100 million in cost.
Eligible projects include pedestrian infrastructure, and roads connecting ports to the National
Highway System (intermodal connectors), among other types of transportation infrastructure.
Selected projects can access loans for up to 49% of project cost at fixed, low interest rates.
Application and borrower fees can be covered as well.26
Rasmuson Foundation Grants
This grant program is designed to support capital projects of “demonstrable strategic
importance or innovative nature that address issues of broad community or statewide
significance.” The Foundation specifies that they are rarely the largest or only contributor and
generally expect the project have multiple other funding sources that demonstrate widespread
community support. Two different grant programs (Tier 1 and Tier 2) are available, one for grants
up to $25,000 and the other for grants of more than $25,000.27
Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Small Business
Economic Development Loan Program
Loans through this program are to be used to start or expand businesses creating long-term
employment, may not exceed $300,000, and must be adequately secured. These loans are
designed to step in or supplement in situations where private banks are not willing to fund an
entire project.28
25 http://www.aidea.org/Programs.aspx
26 https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/financing/tifia/tifia-rural-project-initiative-rpi
27 https://www.rasmuson.org/grants/
28 https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/ded/FIN/LoanPrograms/SmallBusinessDevelopment.aspx
MCKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP 70
McKINLEY RESEARCH GROUP, LLC
3800 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 1100 • Anchorage, AK 99503 • (907) 274-3200
801 West 10th Street, Suite 100B • Juneau, AK 99801 • (907) 586-6126
info@mckinleyresearch.com • mckinleyresearch.com