Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-07-24 Harbor Commission Summary.. . - . =st.' , 1 ~ REGULAR MEETING ~ KENAI HARB~R COMMISSI~ON 1:00 PM, KENAI PUBLI~C SAFETY~ BUILDING TUESOAY, JULY 24, 1919 CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE 606 PETERKIN PRESIDING A ROLL CALL Present CHESTER CONE, JOHN WILLIAMS, ROBERT PETERKIN, BOB TEPP AND EX OFFICIO MEMBERS, COUNCI~LWOMAN BETTY GLICK AND MAYOR VINCENT 0`REILLY Absent TOM ACKERLY, BILL BURNETT A~JD TOM GJAGONER 1 Agenda Approval The agenda was approved as presented 6 MINUTES 1 The minutes were approved as written C OLD BUSINESS ~ 1~Chairman pro tempore Bob Peterkin asked that the Ti~delands Ordinance be divided into three sect~.onsto be consi~dered separate1.y~. '~l'be first section would be the preference ri~ghts problem in order to give it to Council for enactment at the, earliest possible moment so that the clock can be running on the preference rights two year time period for filing. The second portion of the Tidelands 4rdinance would be the leasing policy for these lands and the final one would be the set netters leasing policy. The Chai~rman asked City Attorney Schlereth his feelings on the subject. The City Attorney agreed this was a logical division. The set netters, the City Attorney stated, wished to come before the Harbor Commission themselves to present their problems. They would be looking for some sort of lease writh regulations for the set net permits. City Attorney Schlereth stated that the Tide~ands Ordinance follows the state statues closely, especia1ly as it deals with preference rights. The first portion of the Tidelands, dealing with preference rights, currently sets forth two classes of preference ri~hts holders, those who made improvements to the Tidelands prior to statehood ~n 1951 and after 1957. It sets up procedures for these preference rights holders to make application for their claims and for the City to ascertain that the improvments were made. The land would, upon va1idation of the claims, be quit claimed to the claimant. The City Attorney continued, stating that he had spoken with Dean Nation of the Department of Natural Resouces in Anchorage concerning the Tide]ands who told him the state statues even follow the federal regulations. The state had set up the procedures for preference rights claimants even before the land was deeded to the City. The claimants logically should have come forward at that time. Mr Nation di~ say that perhaps we should add that those persons who made i~mprovements prior to 1951 should have the stipulation that they waive all their rights under previous federal statutes. Oringal1y, we did not think this was necessary. ~ Mr Nation did add that he felt we should not try to se11 any of this land because of the va1ue of it. I, therefore, only made provisions for long term lease. The Harbor Cor~nission, under the Tidelands Ordinance, sets up certain tracts of land and advertises t~at i~t is for lease. Persons make application at public hearings and the Harbor Commi ss i on determi r~s who wi 11 do the best j ob f or the publ i c and recommends REGULAR MEETING KENAI HARBOR COMMI~SSION 1:00 PM, KENA~ PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1979 CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE BOB PETERKIN PRESIDING page 2 that p~erson to the City Council. All o~F these steps are advertised to make the public fully aware of the process and the choices. The advantage of doing this is ~'~~~ increase the competition for the leases; therefore, we should have a wider range of choices for the leases. Concerning splitting the Tidelands Ordinan~e into three sections, the City Attorne~r stated, would probably make a more maleable amount of work to deal with. The entire Tidelands involves too many controversies. ~- Mayor Vincent 0'Reilly voiced the concern that too strong a mention of the preference rights holders in the lease might cloud the land to such an extent that the lessees could not obtain financing on the project. _ City ~ttorney Schlereth stated that the state enacted a statute that the municipalities had to also give two years from the t~me the ordinance is enacted for the preference rights holders to come forward, and the City should be protected by noting this. Chairman Pro Tempore Peterkin noted that the ordinance did not state that preference right ~laimants would have to come before the Harbor Commission and asked when the claims would be checked for authenticity. He continued stating that the only provision for mediating a claim is in the case of a dispute between two claims. The City Attorney stated that he had anticipated three~a~t~ davits beinq submitted to prove the claim. In response to the Chairman`s observation that the City is now without a City Manager to settle even a dispute. The City Attorney replied that he fei t the best thi ng to do mi ght be to have al 1 cl aimants ~~~;~~:~ ~'rio~'~~~~,~i~.n ci i~~~p~«t~e before the Harbor Commission to prove authenticity of claims. Chairman Pro ~Eempore Peterkin noted that Anchorage claimed the TidPlands at th,e three mile mark. The City Attorney replied that he did not now how that was establ,~ished except that the state established the line through the director's line.and t,his was used on our deede Commissioner ~lilliams noted that paae four, Section BB ~f the Tide~ands Ordinance draft stated that submerged 1ands means lands out to tl~~ree ,~~ miles. ` ;~ , Chairman Pro Tempore Peterkin stated that the tidal changes are not consFidered in respect to Preference Rights improvements. The ordinance does not say what th~ improvements are except that it does mention recreational improvements~ the ordin~nce does not really set up criteria. The City Attorney exp1ained that this was left vague, but did intend permanent improv~ments. Tl~e question o~ the nature of the improvements is a good one, but he does not know how to write the ordinance in a more specific manner. ~. The Chairman asked that,if a preference rights claim was pressed for land that erosion of t~e river and changes in the channel had destroyed, or that was already under iease, could the ordina~nce be worded so that other ri~er property could be substituted~ REGULAR MEETING KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION ~ 7:00 PM, KENAI PUBLIC S~FETY BUILDING TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1979 CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE BOB PETERKIN PRESIDING page 3 The City Attorney replied that we could certainly try. The ordinance has 'as its intent on the part of the mu~~T~~pality not to give a~hole section of ]and simply because a preference right claimant had a dock. Chairman Pro Tempore Peterkin noted that this would have a direct relationship to someone trying to develop the land. The lessees would have no chance for financing until the two year period is expired currently. Commissioner Williams stated that in any sort of cloud on the title means it is up to the financial institution whether or not the institution wants to take the risk. The title company will not issue a policy without a heavy fee until the seven year time period has passed when there is a cloud on the title. a cloud is difficult to work with. It almost appears we should enact the Tidelands Ordinance and then hold the ~and for two years until the time period is passed. City Attorney Schlereth stated that another way to meet the prob1em of writing leases with preference rights still in the air would be for the City to absorb the risk if we felt the chance of a preference right claim were to be very, very small. Commissioner Williams noted that the Commission asked ~e~ai Harbor Development`s attorney Breck if he would investigate any prior cases of preference rights claims ~ and get back to our City Attorney. City Attorney Schlereth replied that he had not been contacted by Mr Breck, but would call Mr Breck himself and ask if the investigation had been done. City Attorney Schlereth observed that the City does ha~e leases of tidelands now that do ignore the preference rights problem; however, he felt that the City could not ignore the Preference Rights problem now that the C,ity was aware of it. Commissioner Williams stated that currently most of the loans in the tidelands areas come from the Federal Government and they would be iiable, not the City. In respon~e to a que~tion f~om Commissi~ner Tepp, Ci~ty Attorney Schlereth stated that the st~te retained the mineral rights in their patents and the City cannot lease or sell these rig~ts. Commissione~ Cone sa~d that he felt the Commission should ~o ahead and make a recommendation to go ahead ~ith the first section of the Tidelands Ordinance, but shauld ask the CQUnci1 and the Planning Commission to investigate the mineral rights futhere Commissioner Cone contin~ed,citing a recent ruling that all gravel and sand was class~fied as minerals and somewhere down the line there should be something spelled ou~ to differentiate between gravel and sand as qualifying as part of mineral ~ights~ C~ommi ssi oner Wi 11 iams responded that i n the majori ty of a11 1 eases, ~+~en~~::,~~~~~~~ n~ `.ra~~~~~i ghts are retained, i e, ~~~nof the petroleum companiesi ~these companies forfeit the space for the first 500 feet and they claim from 500 feet down. We could very well attach that regulati+~n so that the leassee could use the first 500 feet of gravel and so on. I~CIVf11 ntlnUVt~ l-UI'll'll JJ 1 VIY ,~:00 PM, KENAI PUBLIC SAF~TY BUILDING ~~k~,t~;,l~~~D;~y, JULY 24, 1979 ~ CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE BOB PETERKIN PRESIDING page 4 City Attorney Schlereth stated that he would double check that the state has retained the mineral rights to all of the Tidelands. What causes him a problem; as Commissioner Cone pointed out, is that the other Tideland Ordi-~ances from other cities speak of mineral rights; he will investigate why Anchorage can include mineral rights in its ordinance. Commissioner Williams stated that, since we do have documented that we have mineral rights to 16 acres of land, perhaps there is reason to believe that we have more. Mayor 0'Reilly explained that Union Oil, in their documentation, of 16 acre~s of mineral rights, was to full rights, ~re do have limited rights on some other land. ~ Commissioner Williams asked if Council knows how many acres the City acually does have mineral rights to. - Mayor 0'Reilly responded that Union Oi~`s investigation shows that we have fu11 rights for 16 acres.only; we wil7 have to do our own investigation. Commissioner Williams asked if the City Attorney would look into the mineral rights questions while he is investigatin~ the mineral rights question for just the Tide]ands. Perhaps this investigation, the Commissioner requested, could be expanded to include the whole of the City land. MOTION ~:~ '~ Commiss~oner Williams moved, seconded by Commissioner Tepp, that the Tidelands ~. : Ordinance be split into three sections and considered separately by the Harbor ~~~ Commissioner. Passed unanimously by a roll call vote. City Attorney Schlereth relayed a question from Kenai Harbor Deve~opment`s 6i11 Breck who would lik~ to know when the Harbor Commission would be considered their request to lease more Tidelands as an agenda item. ~~i~~F~i~n-~ P=r~~=~ Tempore Peterki n stated that he fel t the Commi ss i on shoul d be abl e to look at the first two phases of the Tidel~nds before it could get back to the Kenai Harbor Development question. The time element would probably be longer than six weeks. The City Attorney said that at the next meeting he would have a final draft of the Tidelands Ordinance ready. Commissioner Williams asked if the Administrative assistant would have the names and addresses of all the set ne~~ters within the City limits. The Administrative Assistant responded this would be done. ~ The next meetin~ for the Harbor Commission, Chairman Pro Tempore Peterkin would be on August 14, 1979. at 7;00 PM at the Kenai Public Safety Building. He asked the City Attorney to place the Tidelands Ordinance on the Council agenda for the August 15, 1~79 meeting. _____----- __ _.Me~_~ 1 nQ~d_~ ou~ned ~~._~~fl_.~__-- _ _ ---___ __ _ Pi nk Wti pi 1 Administrative Assistant