Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-12-11 Harbor Commission SummaryKENAI HARBOR COMMISSION P.O. Box b80 Kenai, Alaska 99611 REGULAR HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING HARBOR COMMISSION MEMBERS: EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: A-G-E-N-D-A 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes - November 20, 1979 5. Introduction of Guests Lieutenant Tom Spooner, U. S. Coast Guard B. M. 2 Bowles, U. S. Coast Guard 6. Communications December 11, 1979 - 7:00 p.m. at the Public Safety Building - Kenai, Alaska Mr. Robert Peterkin, Chairman Mr. John Williams, Vice-Chairman Mr. Tom Ackerly, Member Mr. William Burnett, Member Mr. Chester Cone, Member Mr. Bob Tepp, Member Mr. Tom Wagoner, Member Mrs. Betty Glick, Councilwoman Mr. Vince 0'Reilly, Mayor From: Governor Hammond Congressman Young Senator Gravel Mr. Gary K. Daily, Port Director - City of Homer 7. Reports From: Ike D. Waits - Ref: Woodward/Clyde (Written) 8. Old Business a. $5,000 Mini Grant for River Harbor Study b. $600,000 State Harbor Development Funds c. $100,000 Grant Funds d. Pacific Alaska Discussion -1- KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Regular Meeting Agenda Cont'd New Business 10. Persons Present Not Scheduled To Be Heard 11. Adjourn December 11, 1979 T -x~ ~ : t ~x . ,. ~ " , _ ` ~I HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING ,~ ' , . Y; ' PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING `' '. KENaI, ALASKA 99611 December 11, 1979 HARBOR COMMISSION MEMBERS: Mr. Robert Peterkin, Chairman ~ Mr. John Wi1liams, Vice-Chairman Mr. Tom Ac kerl y Mr. William Burnett ~ ~ Mr. Chester Cone . Mr. Bob Tepp ~ ~ Mr. Tom Wagoner EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: Mrs. Betty Glick, Councilwoman ~ Mr. Vince 0'Reilly, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Vince 0'~Reilly, Mayor OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Jim Hendricks, Borough Senior P1anner Mr. Ed Ambarian, Borough Public Works Committee Chairman Lieutenant Tom Spooner, U, S. Coast Guard ~ CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner Robert Peterkin called the meeting to order DEC at 7:10 p.m. ~ ,_. ROLL CALL: Tom Ackerly, Present William Burnett, Absent - Excused Chester Cone, Present Robert Peterkin, Present Bob Tepp, Present ~ Tom Wagoner, Present John Williams, Present AGENDA APPROVAL: The agenda for December 11, 1919, was approved with the following change; REPORTS #7 - 1(a} Ike D. Waits - Woodward/Clyde (Written) 1~b~ Bob Tepp - Report on Cordova OLD BUSINESS #8 8(b~ $fi00,000 State Harbor Development Fund *input from Mayor 0'Reilly 8(d) Pacific Alaska Discussion ~ ~ *Input from Mayor 0'Reilly APPROUAL OF The minutes of November 20, 1919, were approved MINUTES NOVEM6ER as written. Z0, 1979: U. S. COAST Lieutenant~Tom Spooner, U. S. Coast Guard, Kenai GUARD: Detachment, spoke to the Commission regarding areas of ~ responsibility for the Coast Guard here in Kenai. His ~ ~ job is three fold: l. Inspection on Ships and Nikiski Terminal Z. Oi 1 Po11 uti on 3. Investigation of Boating Accidents, and the area of ' ~ ~'~ , ~ . ~ , ` ; HARBOR COMMISSION ME~~ G .. , : December~ 11, 197~ ~ page 2 U. S. COaST ~ operations include the whole lower Cook Inlet A rea. GUARD (Cont'd); Questions by the Commission to Lieutentant Spooner; Do you work w~~i~th customs when a ship comes in? . Lt. Spooner reported the Coast Guard does not ~ work with customs, they do make sure certificates are in order. A1so, they monitor LNG Loading, ~Po1ar Alaska & Arctic Tote) and try to get out to check safety requirements with tankers, but we don't get into traffic control in Nikiski area. ~~ ~ Questions arose on the feasibility of traffic control if there were additional docks in the area, and who ~ would decide when traffic control is needed. It was reported by Lt. Spoaner that the 'Ca t'a~i~n~ of . . ~ the Port for Western Alaska wh~ch ~s Captaln Connor : would have input into that decision.~ There are 3 attached to the Coast Guard crew here now and perhaps 1 more will be added in a few months. It was reported that the Commission is now attempting to have Kenai designated as a Port of Entry, and inquired if the Coast Guard would be invoived with immigration when foreign ships come in, or does the Kenai Detachment act as a representative. Also does the Coast Guard have any idea of the number of foreign boats which visit these docks on an annual basis aside from the Polar A~aska & Arctic Tote? Lt. Spooner reported that the Coast Guard was a representative and wasn't involved with immigration, and as to the number of foreign boats he did not know the number of ships that came in. Other questions addressed to Lt. Spooner; What was the extent of freight or petroleum products other than oil that maybe unloaded across the dock. It was reported that only cement would be unloaded o~ some other petro chemical type products that is unloaded at Union, primarily for their own use and not for general public use. Rigtenders, most of their freight is in support of the platforms. Further questions addressed to Lt. Spooner; Monitoring oii loadings. What happens when an area comes under Coast Guard control. It was pointed out in a prev~ous statement that it was not so i ~ ' f~ y u r . J HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING December 11, 1979 page 3 U. S. COAST much the traffic as the number of docking facilities that GUARD ~Con~t'd): ~ere in a given amount of beach because of severe tides & . ice flows that the Corps of Engineers were concerned about. A few years ago it was reported that the Coast Guard did not want to see anymore docking facilities out there to speak of. Lt. 5pooner reported that at one time they were concerned about vessels breaking loose and being carried down to the next dock. Commissioner Peterkin inquired about the size of the faci 1 i ty at Kas i 1 of , the number of f i shi ng boats they can put ~n. Lt. Spooner had no information on this. Lt. Spooner reported that the Coast Guard did not control boat speed, however, if there was an accident or it could be conceiveable that the Coast Guard would step in if vessels were congesting the harbor. It is not the intent of saying you must do this or that in regard to boat speed. Other concerns by the Commission were the number of boats ~ tied to a buoy, the ~registration of these, and monitoring by the Coast Guard due to the fact that sometimes there are 6 to 8 boats tied on one buoy. This would create a hazar.d. in trying to get around a11 these boats. Lt. Spooner commented that the Coast Guard had been working with the people at Ninilchik because the number of boats far exceed the real capacity of the harbor. Also, we will be visiting canneries and their water front facilities. There were questions on inspection was learned that fishing boats are When time permits, the Coast Guard courtesy inspection with regard to extinquisher, life jackets, proper which enhance good safety. of fishing boats and it n't required to be inspected. will try to make a general safety, (fire ventilation, things like that There were general comments about'the..charter fieet at Homer which carr,y passengers and if these are inspected. The rule by which Charter Boats are inspected are: Any boat 6 passengers or less - no inspection. Any boat 6 passengers or over are inspected. Commissioner Peterkin commented that Lt. Spooner has mentioned that he intended to look at different parking areas for boats, would he be looking at the Kasilof River and if so, would like to ask a specific question to get an official , i ~ HARBOR CpMN~ISSION MEETING ~e.ce~~e.r 7 ~ , 1979 page 4 U. S. COAST answer if possible. He read an excerpt from the February l, GUARD ~Cont'd): 1976 Corps of Engineers Report as follows: "Criteria for Alternatives and Formulation, Although up to 400 commercial fishing boats may be seasonally operating~in northern Inlet waters, recent Federal and State improvements to the mouth o~f Kas i 1 of Ri ver 10 mi 1 es away wi 11 provi de ref uge for more than 250 boats. Therefore, space requirements at Kenai have been reduced to 150 craft equivalents. Based on moorage at 20 boats per acre, including allowance for entrance and maneuvering, a total basic size of 10 acres will be required. Th~s is one Qf the direct statements the Commissi~on is having to dea1 w~th and the Commission requested a recommendation from Lt. Spooner after an inspection as to whether or not the mouth of the river can accommodate 250 boats. It appears that the Commission ~s facing almost insurmountable odds againist this situation, and it was a consensus of opinion from visiting other ports and meetings with different Federal and State agencies that brought facts to the attention of the Commission, that Kenai should already have a Boat Harbor with the number of vessels that Kenai has when compared to some of the other sites getting grant monies. The Commission is trying to get all the facts together and would appreciate very much a recommendation from Lt. Spooner after he has visited the area. Lt. Spooner reported that he would look at the situation when he visited the area and would try and find out what the Federal and State improvements were. ~ The Commission thanked Lt. Spooner for attending the meeting and explaining his capacity with the Coast Guard. COMMUNICATIONS: Communications were received from; Governor Hammond - Ref: Kenai Harbor Commission Congressman Young - Ref:~Kenai Harbor Commission Senator Gravel - Ref:Keaa~ Harbor Commission Senator Stevens - Ref:Kenai Harbor Commission Mr. Gary K. Daily - News Release Harbormasters Meeting Mayor Vince 0'Reilly - Meeting December 20th with Legislators Mayor Vince 0'Reilly - Letter to Don Statter 11-19-79 Information regarding meeting with Mr. Len McLean-Pacific Alaska REPORTS: Commissioner Peterkin reported that Mr. Ike D. Waits, Planner for the Borough has submitted a written report which was includec in everyone's material, w~th attention being placed on excerpts in his letter to Mr. Charles Bigelow, Project Manager, for Woodward/Clyde Consultants, which directly affect Kenai. Commissioner Peterkin reported that Mr. Waits, had lnformed him n WaRBOR COMMISSION MEET~_.~' December 11, 1979 page 5 REPORTS ~Cont'd): that if Woodward/Clyde were back in the area for any more meetings the Cammission would be invited to attend and give any ~~nput they might have at that time. COM~IISSIONER TEPP ~ Commissioner Tepp reported on his visit to Cordova; . CORDOVA. He met with the Harbormaster, and he is also~serues on the H~rbo~ Commission. He provided infarmat~on on when they started working on their expansion which was in 1975 - or 1976. ~ Preliminary plans with the Corps of Engineers first. The contact person that they got along with best was, Carl Borash, Cheifi of Port Section, Pianning Grant's, phane number 152-3422. ~ The funds for planning and designing, Don Statter, Division of Harbors & Water. They did their p1anning through Harold Galliett. For their dredging & breakwater,they got another breakwater coming in and got a dredge out there and the water is shallow. They got the Corps of Engineers to do that and ~ they w~11 do this under Chapter #107 ~2 Million Cap}. What they dredge out the City has to provide a place to put the dredged out material. What they did on the first harbor, the built a pad out into the water and now have their Harbor y ' ' h new one. Bus~ness Park on the pad. They w~11 do the same with t e Commissioner Tepp reported that he had taken pictures which were not developed yet. When Cordova started their project in 1975-76, they had a Narbormaster who wasn`t effective. Their walkways were broken and not repaired. They now have a new Harbormaster and thi ngs are goi ng smoothly, thei r facil i ti es ~ are i n good repair and there is better relationship with the Corps of Engineers. In talking with the Harbormaster and inquiring on how Cordova got started, they met with the State Representatives, and the Representatives from Cordova brought the Governor down to look the situation over. They recieved good backing from thc State Representatives, on the Federal 1eve1 in Washington they received very little he1p. On the information concerning who they dealt with on the $600,000 Commissioner Tepp reported that he wi11 ca11 and get the information and also what agencies they dealt with. He will also inquire as to the silt back fill formula that they expect in that area. Their tides are sma11 and they have r~p-rap coverin on the fill. The Cit owns the dock and they run it. 9 Y There are no canneries right in the boat harbor, they are on the outer basin, the Industrial Park, the boats deliver right to the cannery and then come on around. It appears that there is no silt in the water and they have small tides. When the Corps of Enqineers evaluate your plan, they invest so much money, the harbor has to get a percentage of return of NARBOR COMMISSION MEETING December 11, 1979 page 6 REPORTS ~that mone~ before they will accept the plan. Say they COMMISSIONER TEPP invest 10 Million, then you wi11 expect a return of 1 Million, CORDOVA (Cont'd~: the Corps of Engineers expect 33/ return, t~en if this isn`t possible they won't approve the project. The City must get a certain percent of return for the investment that is put into the harbor. That is the / of how much the harbor is used for the amount spent. In the 1976 report it was indicated that the return for Kenai ~ would be $60.00 per boat per season, which was the return factor of the Corps of Engineers spending 10 Million. The whole return factor was $24,000 worth of value for the harbor. They have a per-capita on the percentage of boats that w~ll break loose, percentage of boats that will burn, etc., and they feed thi s i nto a formui a and the formul a for Kenai was 400 boats and it came..out to $24,000 and this was ridiculous. Commissioner Tepp wi11 report back with the names, addresses, and phone numbers of those persons and agencies that Cordova worked with. RECESS: At 8:15 p.m. by general cansent, a recess was cal~ed.. RE-CONVENE At 8:35 p.m. by general consent, the Harbor Commission re-convened in regular session. MINI GRaNT: On the $5,000 mini grant for a survey done on site proposals for a small boat harbor as requested from Cit~r Council, the Council felt that a mini grant of that type really would not have the desired effect which they wished to have sufficient material in hand for the State Legislators for this particular 1eg~slative session. There was comment that the Harbor & Dock facility that had been studied~previously, and there were ample maps available through the Corps of Engineers study, the request for the mini grant was denied. STATE HARBOR Mayor 0'Reill,y reported that the Council & members of the DEVELOPMENT Kenai Chamber of Commerce would be meeting with the Legislators FUNDS: on December 20th, and wi11 be presenting them with a list of projects which we would like to see funded by State Sources this legis1ative session. You have to understand the principal criteria that the Government and Administration has set up for , Capital Improvements projects are those that are of a long term job creating nature, so a list which totals 9.5 Million is aimed at those ~ypes of facilities that would create long term jobs. In the 9.5 Million figure there is 1.8 Million for pock & Harbor Facilities and this would include planning and engineering & design for what ever is necessary to correct the bluff erosion problem. Mayor 0'Reilly further reported that the City had been unsucessful in finding any funding source for the bluff erosion problem. In this 1.8 Million ~ _ , HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING December 11, 1979 ~~ page 7 STATE HARBOR some 400,000 will be for the planning, engineering and DEVELOPMENT FUNDS: designing for the Port & Harbor, and that the 1.8 Million would be combined with the $600,000 dollars in Bond Money stil~ presently available and that wo~ld be 2,4 Million for a total for Ports & Harbors & design Engineering. Also being requested is 3.5 Million for Commercial & Industrial Road Collector System including Water & Sewer, this would run between Beaver Loop and the river and would serve as an industrial raad, possibly~ would need to bu~r some rights ~n the area. Those are the two maj or requests that we will be makinq from the State Legislature. We feel the requests are realistic and are of a~job creating nature. There was general discussion on Law 85 and 86. The woodward/ Clyde study and the required feasiblility study before the City could apply for the $600,000. Mr. Ambarian reported that at the time of the study, there was a possibi1ity of a private deveiopment along the river, and for some reason Woodward/Clyde felt they would back out and the only ~ay they wauld address a study deve]oped on what wouid be sponsored by the Borough. They were re-directed to re-study a section on the Kenai River. A1so he had attended a meeting in Seattle on December lOth.,-with Mayor Gilman, Jim Arness, Woodward/Clyde, & Crow~ey Marine, and study or no study it has been pointed out there is.a need, Crowley is looking at other areas now to bring freight to the Kenai Area. Mr. Ambarlan further commented that he is on the Public Works Committee and they would like to cooperate with with the~~Harbor Commission which is very active, perhaps the Commission could benefit from the staff the Borouqh has. The Barough Assembly now has some indication that Homer & Seward want to be left alone, as they are doing well by themselves, and Mr. Ambarian`s position was that if Kenai or North Kenai could benefit from some of the efforts the Borough is putting forth then we should go ahead. TRACT A: There was general Peterkin requested dig out the amount and this item will updated. discussion on Tract A, and Commissioner the Acting City Manager to go back and of mone~ the City actua1~y spent on that, be set aside until we can ge~ our research Commissioner Williams pointed out that the request for funds based on Tract A is hinged on whether or not the City has spent the first $100,000 properly and whether or not that work was carried out. He further commented tha t the more study he makes of the information, there seems to be some major missing gaps between the previous Harbar Commission HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING ~ December 11, 1979 page 8 TRACT A and the present Commission, and the tremendous amount of (Cont'd~: fol1ow-up work that was not done. Commissioner Williams commented on correspondence from Deborah Daisey to Sharon Long Public Information Officer in which Deborah Daisey states " perhaps they are grasping at straws", meaning the Harbor Commission is grasping at straws, again a negative approach to a positive,subject is fa1ling right ~nto the negative trap these stud~es here have been, it's time to do something very positive toward this if we expect ta buiid any kind of Harbor or want any kind of Harbor. What is needed is a good honest study to determine if the need can be filled. What is needed is a good study looking at the over all picture not such a one sided slant. SMALL BOAT Commissioner Peterkin commented tk~at perhaps the Commission HARBOR: can direct some ideas to Mr. Ambarian since the Borough is spending money for the Woodward/C1yde Report, and he wi~l ~ be more in contact with them than the Commission, and the Borough wants to work w~th the Commission, so the Commission should direct their attention to possibly getting an un- bi ased stud,y for the mouth of ~ the ri ver. Mr. Ambarian suggested a meeting with his Committee and the Cor~nission. He reported that Jim Arness and Stan Long were on this Committee. Ne felt that this would open the lines of communication. Commissioner Cone commented that he felt that if the Commission waits too long on some kind of cooperation with the Borough another year wi11 slip by, and there already have been ~~ years that have gone by already. It was Commissioner Cone~s theory that if the City has any available money at all, and get some sort of study started and get an engineer working on it. Create interest and get it ~moving. The Legislature is ready to listen and to meet, and the money is available if we can get on the right track, some way we are missing out. Now is the time the City is going to have to do something if we are ever going to have a harbor. If we cou1d get something going then I think we might work through the Borough and work together. Th~s ~ust keeps going on, I know the Council is reluctant to put money into a feasibility study, but if we depend on someone else to fo our feasibility study they are going to wind up like that always. HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING December 11, 1979 page 9 SMALL B4AT HARBOR Commissioner Peterkin reported on corres ondence General Discussion ' p• ~ . . rece~ved from Senator Gravel about $300.M~ll~on cont'd: in Harbor Bonds. A reliminar list of sit p y es where ,harbor expansion or construction is needed or under- way includes Metlakatl.a, Hoonah, Kake, Juneau in Southeast and Cordova, Nomer, Ninilchik, Kenai, Anchorage, Dillingham, Naknek, Bethel, Unalakeet, Yukon Delta, Nome, Teller, Selawik, Kotzebue, St. Paul Island, and Shismareff. The Commission has sat here during this summer and early winter and have attended meetings in Seward with other people, 92-93 million of this mone has aly d y • . ea y been used up.and allocated. They are spend~ng mi 11 i ons of dol 1 ar~ ~ n towns w~ th boat popu 1 at i on , people population, canneries smaller than Kenai, and there is no comparison with the City of Kenai. I believe this is first and foremost of what is going thraugh the minds of the Commission. If the Commission slows down at ail that $300 Million wi11 be gone, the City of Kenai will sit here without a Small Boat Harbor. The Commission feels that they must push forward without any delay, with just the strength of the City and the available do]lars to get this Small Boat Harbor and the timing is now. Commissioner Williams commented that Don Statters office and the Department of Transportation is puttin in for . . , , g $93 M~ll~on doilars for var~ous things.all over the State for harbors and there isn't any mention of Kenai, Kenai's name is not even on~the list. It's primarily because Kenai has sat here for so long and haven't even bothered to ask anyone for money. To reiterate we have villages with 250 people out there who are going for $3.5 to 4.0 Million to construct Boat Harbors, and we have maps here showin Boa t ' ' ' ~ • g Harbors, Qusa~ Docking Fac~l~ties, and foot paths out across the swamps where they are spending millions of ~ dollars to take care of these people that absolutely make what Kenai i s askl.ng for look 1 i ke a house. The time has come to move, this year the cry is Boat Harbor~s, the money is going for Boat Harbors and if Kenai Doesn't get it's share the money is gone forever. Commissioner Wagoner commented the place to start on this, is loaking at what has happened in the City of Kenai for the last 4 or 5 years and the initiative we have taken, we have $650,000 sitting there for that long and bonds have been sold, the money is just setting there in Juneau. The amount keeps getting smaller because of inflation, and it keeps getting less and less. Before we get any more money we must show some initiative from the City of Kenai's stand- point that they want to spend the $650,000 before anybod,y ~ ~ " r HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1979 . page 10 . . SMALL BOAT HARBOR wi11 go in after any more for us, because they will say General Discussion you have had $650,000 since 1974 and you have never spent Cont'd: that, why should we go after $5.0 Million when you can't spend $650, 000. That~s the at~i tude :. I woul d.~a ke i f: I were ,in Juneau looking at a request for ~unds. If we don't have any money to do any feasibility study to get started on the $650,000, I don't think ~e have much chance to ask for $2.5 to 3.0 Million to do other things for Ports & Harbors. Commissioner Peterkin suggested that the Commission has a chaice, they can sit and wait and work with the Borough, we are not going to get any money because this law is still in effect. The City of Kenai is not going to get any more money for Boat Harbors until they can come up with a feasibility study that wi11 be acceptable, now the Corps of Engineers is one avenue we could go back to. The Corps of Engineers with Colonel Nunn at the same point in time we have the Borough and they are expending monies on the WoodwardJClyde study, and we are looking at about January 15th before we have a preliminary report. Sa it's kind of 1aid out, the Commission wi11 need to decide on what direction to ao. Mr. Ed Ambarian suggested that there is some help with the Borough that could be explored. Commissioner Peterkin commented that the Woodward/Clyde Study is not a feasibility study as such, i~ is a study which te11s the community whether or not they need a feasibility study. :Comm~ssioner Peterkin wondered if the Commission waited for that report would that report benefit the Commission? Mr. Ed Ambarian commented the report does not identify. Further comment on the Woodward/Clyde Study indicated that if it went in favor of the City of Kenai with the response of the rest of the Borough, it might very well be an effective means to re-present to the Corps of Engineers for backing this need because they speak of a feasibility study and actually the Woodward/Clyde is not a feasibility study. Commissioner Tepp inquired as to what the Borough would have to do with the Harbor Commission and who would own the land and who would run the harbor. Mr. Ed Ambarian indicated that most harbors started in Alaska had been started with municipal backing and the Borough has a tax base to work with. ~ '" s HA~RBOR COMMISSION MEETING December 11, 1979 page 1] SMALL B~AT HARBOR Commiss~oner Wi~liams sugqested that ~~e Comr~~ssi.on General Discussion could issue a formal statement to Nlayor 0'Rei~l - ~ Cont'd: and the City Administration advising them that the Commission is in favor of their makin~ a request , 'for funds as to be outlined to Qur legislator's so they will have a definite definitive list of things to go down there and ask for. The meeting with the . legislator's will take place on December 20th, and then the Woodward/Clyde Report will be availa ble about January 15th., and if the Woodward/C~y.de Report is more positive in it's approach, the Commission could forward this material to the legislator's as back up mater~a].in their request for funds. By doing this the Comm~ss~on w~ll have covered~both bases, if indeed the Woodward/C1yde Report comes about we have delivered to our legislator's our request's and then we wi11 follow it up with backup material to support it. Now if we are unable to obtain a favorab~e comment from WoodwardJClyde we have iost nothing in the request for funds, and to proceed along these lines and hope for the best. Mayor 0'Reilly commented that he had the opportunity to to talk with Phil Hubbard with the Alaska Renewab]e Resource on Mr. Roper and Renewable Resource has contracted with Dave Derry in Homer to do a feasibility report on Mr. Roper's property and Hubbard went on to say that the feasibility report would be available in general to anybody and Woodward/Clyde at best will not come down to a feasibility report. Commissioner Peterkin commented that the Commission is going to need the Corps of Engineers and their funds, and would be in favor of hearing some discussion on an application to the Corps af Engineers for another go-round under the new administration of Colonel Nunn. At the same time the finalization of the Woodward/Clyde project should be at least an indication of where they are heading, perhaps the report from alaska Renewable Resource on Roper wi11 be done within the same time frame. However, the Commission must include the Corps of Engineers, there is no other way, and the Commission must move in a coordinated direction so that everything will fall into line. Further we must have some safeties while we move in that direction, at the same time he did not~want to infer that he was agai~nst a work session~~w~ith Mr. Ambarian and his committee. Commissioner Tepp commented that the Commission could ride the fence or go ahead with preliminary planning and go to the Corps of Engineers to see if this would be possible and while the Commission is doing this surely by then a , ~. HARBOR COMMISSI~N MEETING December 11, 1979 page 12 SMALL BOAT HARBOR General Discussion Cont'd: report wauld be forthcomming on Mr. Roper's project. Commissioner Peterkin reported that Don Statter serves .as sort of liaison between everyone, and is very know- ledgeable and at the last meeting Mayor 0'Reilly indicated he would like the go-ahead from the Commission to contact Don Statter and from all indications it would be a proper time to meet and exchange ideas. Does the Commission still wish to do this. General discussion followed on different ideas, possible update on the 197~ Corps of Engineers Report, or material which would inspire the interest of Colonel Nunn so that he would~understand that the statements aren't all: true. Further comment revealed that the Commission cannot ~ obtain money for a.feasibility study to give Colonel Nunn any facts or any reason to get him to come back here. While this is true at this point, it seemed to be the consensus of the Commission to request the City Administration to request these funds on December 20th to be followed up by the Woodward/Clyde Study on January 15th as support. Also, if the Commission were to get the monies, than they would have $400,000 to do the study and engineering. Meanwhile in cooperating with the Borough on that study, with Derry on his report and with the 400,000 the Commission would have something tangible to go to the Corps of Engineers with. It was a~so reported that between this period of time perhaps a private entrepreneur might have a project put together. Qther comments were that Colonel Nunn had only been in Alaska a short time, and the monies have only been available for these projects a short period of time, and projects had been processed faster. It was generally agreed that an invitation to Colonel Nunn suggesting a meeting with him would be heipful for reassessing the feasibility of a Small Boat Harbor. Mayor 0'Reilly informed the Commission that to his knowledge a written reply had never been made addressing the Corps of Engineers Report by the City of Kenai or anyone e1se. INVITATION TO Commissioner Wagoner moved; that the Harbor Commission write COLONEL LEE NUNN Colonel Lee Nunn a letter explaining the history of the Kenai ACTION: Harbor Commission past and present, and rebutting some of the information in layman terms as contained in the report, "Kenai Harbor, Feasibility Report, Small Boat Harbor & Deep Draft Navigation Improvement, dated, 1 February 1976, by the Corps of Engineers," and tell him the Commission is interested in future Port Development in the Kenai River, and also expressing the wishes of the Commission to meet with him on January 8, 19~0, or at his convenience. -~ HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING December 11, 1979 pa9e 13 INVITATION TO COLONEL LEE NUNN ACTION ~Cont'd}: Commissioner Williams seconded, roll call vote, motion carried unanimously. ~ , APPOINTMENT OF Commissioner Peterkin appointed Cammissioner Wa oner C~MMITTEE CHAIRMAN as g Committee Chairman, and Comrnissioner Acherly AND SUB-CHAIRMAN~ as Sub-Chairman on the presentation project for Colonel Nunn's visit on January 8, 1980. REQUESTING There was general discussion by the Commission to ADDITIONAL FUNDS: request additional funds and follow this up with the report on meeting with Colonel Nunn and with the Borough. ~ . ~ ~ Mayor 0'Reilly reported that he had met with Charles Brown and Keith Kornelis the run down on proje~t and funding requested was: Dock & Harbor Facilities ............ $1,800,000 Planning & Eng~neering for Facilities & Bluff Erosion Air Freight Terminal & Warehouse .............................1,200,000 Commercial & Industrial Road Collector System Including Water & Sewer ............... 3,500,000 Ramp improvement & Water Sewer-Facilities to Provide B.L.M. Fire Fighting Facility ............................ 304,000 Airport Terminal Renovation & Enlargement ........................... 1,500,000 Float Plane Basin Facilities.......... 800,000 City Hall Portion to Provide Area-Wide Facilities .................. 400,000 Total: .., $9,500,000 There was discussion concerning Chapter #85, an ACT Providing for state assistance in the construction of port facilities, and providing for an effective date. Sec.30.30.010. State Grants for Port Facilities ~ ~ HARBOR C4MMISSI4N MEETING December 11, 1979 page 14 REQUESTING ADDITIONAL Construction. To the extent funds are appropriated by FUNDS (Cont'd}: the legislature, or from the proceeds from the sale of bonds, the state may make grants to municipalities to ,finance a portion of the cost of constructing loca1, regional or state port facilities. The state sha11 participate only in those projects approved by the governor on recommendation of the commissioner of public works. Sec. 30.30.020. Creteria for Establishing Elgibility. (a~ Before a grant may be awarded under th~s chapter, the commissioner of public works sha11 determine that; ~b} No grant may be awarded under this chapter for a port faci 1 i ty devel opment project unti 1 a study of i t's feasibility is conducted and submitted with the application for the grant. The project also must be justifiable on the basis of public convenience and necessity. The study shall be conducted by consultants, engineers or other technical experts, who may be officers or employees of the municipality making application for a~4rant. ~^ Ch~apter #86, an ACT providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $22,500,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of port facilities development projects; and providing for an effective date. Continuing in general dlscussion it was determined that any money Mayor 0'Reilly was asking for wou1d have to come under the same 1aw as the $fi50,000, futher, if the City Council doesn't want to give the Commission money for a feasibility study or if the Commission cant put one together from all the different reports it would appear that the Commission is spinning it's wheels. The Commission was ~e-activated and requested to do their job, yet the Councii, and rightly so,may approve or disapprove funds for a feasibility study. Yet without this it appears that the Commission can do nothing regarding a Small Boat Harbor. Mayor 0'Reilly commented on the reluctance of past & present Councils of total involvement, however, it is obvious the Commission is doing it's work and can identify where the problems are and it comes down to it, it has to have on record somewhere a feasibility report, keeping in mind , the feasibility report being done by Dave Derry at Nomer. , ~` ~.~ { HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING December 11, 1919 page 15 REQUESTING ADDITIONAL General discussion continued on ways and means of FUNDS (Cont'd~: proceeding to obtain funding for a Sma~] Boat Harbor. Commissioner Williams pointed out that the Commission is being asked in every level of the State Bureaucracy for a list of projects to be funded this legislature and he recommended that.the Commission ask for ~i.8 million, also ask them December 20, and to be aware of the fact that the Commission is aware of Law 85 & 86 of the 1974 Legislature as established. Aiso to be aware of the fact the Commission will have in their hands within the next few days the report from Derry in Homer, the report from Woodward/Clyde in the Borough and recommendations from the Corps of Engineers, that the Commission is not now ab~e to furnish, sometime after January 8th. He suggested the Commission act now and follow it up with paper work later. Commissioner Wagoner also brought to the attention of the Commission that the legislature reconvenes the 14th of January and it will probably be a longer session than last year and if the Commmission did not prepare their delegation before they leave, when they get down to Juneau, we sort of lose contact to a certain degree &. they have to make request for funds quick because the bush areas won't hold off for law 85 & 86. It was his concensus that the Commission should go ahead and try, and suggested a$10.8 Million figure. General discussion ensued concerning labor cost, cost of living increases, cost of inflation now, that perhaps a~12.0 Million figure would be more realistic. On the Corps of Engineers report they speak of dredging a 12,800 foot run~straight off the mouth of ~he r~ver with a 60 foot rock jetty beside it, they want to put a 12,000 foot jetty straight off the mou~th of the river off the East bank 60 foot tall & this will stick out of the water 15-18 feet, then cut a channel right out of the mouth of the river. There was concern about re-dredging and the silt infiltration coming out of the river and their biggest hang-up was digging because of the silt pouring back in, and the Corps of Engineers are strictly worried about siltation. Commissioner Peterkin recommended the Commission meet with Mr. Ambarian's Committee ~Mr. Long, and Mr, Arness} because the Woodward/Clyde report could be a vital part of our negotiations with the Corps of Eng~neers. Jim Hendricks fram the Borough reported that the Woodward/ . ,~ ~~ ~ ~ ti ~ HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING December~ 11, 1919 Pa9e 16 REQUESTIONG ADDITIONAL Clyde study was being done to determine if the Borough FUNDS ~Cont'd}: should get involved at all with the Port & Narbor. There i s enough frei ght .and shi ppi ng ta j usti fy a need for a Port & Harbor. , , ACTION: Commissioner Williams moved to; direct the City Mayor to advise the City Council that it is the desire of the Harbor Cammission to seek funds in the amount of $3. 9 Mi 11 i on to $12. 5 Mi 11 i on for the purpose of building and constructing a complete Small Boat Harbor in the Kenai River the size of which is to be determined by yet to be produced feasibility studies, and advising the City Council that these figures have been taken direct~y from the Corps of Engineers Report with an inflationary factor added for the four ~4} years since the report. Commissioner Ackerly seconded, ro11 call vote, motion carried unanimously. PACIFIC ALASKA: ~ Mayor 0'Reilly reported that he had been in contact with Len McLean of Pacific Alaska, and that he is bringing representatives from Los Angeles for the January~22nd meeting. Mayor 0'Reilly questioned the time frame schedule relating to the things the Harbor Commission is working on. Pacific Alaska indicated there were three options; (l~ Using the Crowle~ Dock, bringing the modules out on the road in front of the Union Oil Plant. ~27 Using the present facilities for the module load~ng dock. ~ ~3~ Some type module unloading dock 7/8 to a mile to the South of the present facility. Mayor 0'Reilly further commented that in looking at Pacific Alaska in abstract trying to determine if we should do it ourselves or jointly with the Borough, or port and harbor district,that type work has to be done in the abstract looking at the problems from different views so that when Pacific A1aska is ready to move their time schedu1e we are prepared to answer,,would you go with the creation of a port and harbor district for instance in the Kenai-North Kenai area, etc. ~ General discussion fallowed concerning; Intering into a quasi partnership with North Kenai for development of a large dock facility in the general North Kenai area that would benefit Kenai as well as North Kenai, as Kenai is the service center for North Kenai. •~ ~i ~ ~ , HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING December 11, 1979 ~ pa9e 11 PACIFIC ALASKA In coope~ration with Pacific Alaska the City of Kenai (Cont'd): would benefit by revenues. There is a$45.0 Mil1ion expansion at Tesoro, possibility of a gas liquid line , to Kenai, a Petro-Chemical P1ant and more freight and these kind of things to consider. MEETING DATE FOR Mayor 0'Reilly reported that a meeting date will be COMMITTEE ON set for the first meeting for the Committee on airport AIRPORT LANDS: Lands and thereafter the Committee wou1d set the dates ~ and carry on from there. Those serving on the Committee . are. Councilwoman Betty Glick Councilman ~dward Ambarian Harbor Commissioner W~lliam Burnett Harbor Commissioner Bob Tepp NEXT REGULAR The next regular scheduled meeting date is January 8, 1980, SCHEDULED at the Public Safety Building, at 7:00 p.m. MEETING DATE: ADJOURN: At i1:00 p.m. by unanimous consent the meeting was adjourned. _ Respectfully submitted, ~. ~~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ,. Lenore E. Jones Administrative Assistant . ~fi, ...~~~ M~, ~,ti«y~~ ~ A~PROV~D BY~ ~rm, ----_ _ _ ._ r: ~, A A' r /~ ~ ! ~ ~~ Rober~~ Pe ~erkin, C.air~an Harbor Commission