HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-01-09 Harbor Commission Summary~ ~ r~t ~ __ ~~~! ~,
i
4 -_ t ,
KENAI HARBOR CQMMISSION
SPECIAL NlEETING
January 9, 1981
A. CAI~L TO ORDER
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL
Harbor Co~nissian me~nbers present were Ron Isaacs, Charles Ross, John Williams,
and Chairman Peterkin. Me~nbers absent were Tam Ackerly, Jin~nie Davidson, and
Marvin Dragseth.
C. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS
Representing CH2M Hill: Loren Leman, and John Aho.
City Council me~nbers: Betty Glick, Ray Measles, Tom Wagoner, and Jess Hall.
City Officials: Bill Brighton, Ben Delahay, and Keit~h ~~ornelis.
Members of tne audience were encouraged to take part in this inform~l meeting.
~
Opening Statement
Chairman Peterkin stated that the Contract does not accurately descri.be the
projeGt. The phase we are initially concerned with is the first phase page 4,
Article 2, paragraph 2, stating "for additional services not specifically
-~ provided f or in lump stun ~mount f or the e~gi~eers" . There are too ~any things
in this first phas~ t,hat are not answered specifically.
There are verbage and wordage problems here, and if the Harbor Ca~mission
e;~~ects to take this to City Council, we are going to have to fill in the holes.
The Harbor Cca~nissian will.take t,he contract Article by Article in the first
Phase. This will give us an "idea of ~ti~hat we're getting into in the remaini.ng~
. Phases.
Chai .r~n Peterkin stated that City Attorn~ey B~n Delahay had to leave in a half hour;
Harbor C~nissior~ 1~~~ ~utes (cont' d) page 2' ~
~ .
so if there were any specific problems, dealing with legalities of this contract,
w~ should do so naw.
John ~~illiams stated that pertaining to the structure of t~he contract, it would
be better if we developed a contract based on five individual sections, so that
after each one, if it was not found to be feasible, or we couldn't continue, then
we would have a stopping point.
The feeling was that perhaps after the first phase, or second phase, or third
phase, we may find that we have no funding available. Then we should have sam,e
area where we could tezmi.nate the contract. Totally ending it. This would protect
both parties. .
Nir. Delahay pointed out we have the ability to stop the contract on a certain
30 or 64 day notice. Hawever, we may be able to change that at the end of a
phase. In the proposal tnere is also a suggestion that sane of these phases are
going to be going on simutaneously in order to speed up construction. Therefor,
we have to take into consideration, t~he engineers' point of view. If one phase
-~ is ccxnpleted, and another }~~gun, when we discover a prflblem with funds, or
whatever, we will still have to pay for a portion of the phase which was started.
This is a fair representation.
Loren Leman stated if you want to termtnate the contract, you can ternu.nate the
contract. Then there wouldn't be any involvement. There is a 30 day notice if
-~e want to termtnate and believe you'd want to be given sufficient time to wrap
things up. We want to be g~iven sufficient notice to wrap up any loose ends to
turn the doc~nentation over to you.
Chairman Peterkin said t~hat one thing we want to be sure of is in case something
should happen that causes this project to be stopped for a period of time, that
we have the assurance that we can cut it off at a specific point without continuing
-~- thru the whole p~se. We're talking ~ut payment in l~unp sum amounts to be
paid for the entire Site Selection, the e~ntire Bluff Erosion, the entire Design
Service, and the t~he entire Financial Plan. We need to break this down better.
As an example, perhaps the design of it has not been cc~npleted, perhaps we've
starte~ the design and we find out that half way through, we find that it isn't
practical to build, or we just can't do it, instead of paying for the entire
design service, we want to be able to terminate at this point.
Mr. Delahay noted the provision on page 6, paragraph 15 which provides the
c~mer or engineer may tern~.inate by giving 30 days written notice to th~ other party.
In such case the awner will pay the engineer in full, for all work previously
authorized and p~rformed prior to notice of termination. It still leaves 30 days
to wrap it up. This gives eit~h~.r party the right to pursue that.
You can put into a contract where things are built in phases , a provision t~hat
t~ey won't proceed with any phase until they are authorized to do so. This alerts
the owner ~o lQOk at the whole card and see if they are in position to go ahead
with the next phase.
John Williams stated this is what he was looking at. Some protection on our part.
WE've l~p~d the ~ahole t,hing together in four portions; worrying about t~he
~
1Lm~ sum pa`~~ent o~ each one . If we could incorporat~ sca~ethi.ng of that sort, it
could solve our problem.
r „
Page 3
,.
.
Chairman Peterkin asked Mr. Williams if he was saying that if Ch2M Hill had been
instructed to do a full phase, that he would want a stop order so that they wouldn't
continue wit~h. that full phase if we found our financing fell through, or sc~nething
of that sort.
Loren Leman stated that that is essentially what item 15 says. As an exam~le he
said a lump s~n payment, if one of t~hose ite~ms is a l~np sum of $64, 000.~ and we
spend $10,000 we arenlt going to bill you $60,000.
~ Mr. Delahay stated he had in mind that if the engineers are working on the whole
contract, and we're observi.ng the first contract, and giving notice runs out,
and they have b~~gun tne 2 nd phase, and gone into it further than we've realized,
althoug~ they haven't finished the first phase, sc~r~etimes they are entertwined.
John Aho stated that no phase will be started without prior authorization.
Mr. Peterkin stated they may overlap~
Loren Leman said that even if -khey do, you will ha~re to give written a,athorization.
.- Mr. Williams questioned Mr. .I~~man if it were set in concrete, as to how they're
to proceed, ~s in Article I-- l. Site Selection, 2, Bluff Erosion, 3. Design
Services, and 4. Financial Plan, is this ~he way the engineering firm intends to
proceed?
,:,~: Loren Leman stated t~~e Site Selection Study is first. The B1uff Erosion Study is
~ a separate item.
.:.~ John Williams asked. if it would be the 2nd stud~.
- ~ Loren L~nan replied not necessarily.
John wi~lliams stated he wanted to be sure you were going to proceed the way
it is laid out in the contract. The Harbor Com~i~sion is more interested in the
Site Selection, Design Services, and Financial Plan prior to~.any heavy involti~ement
in the.,Bluff Erosion Study on the basis of a time situation t~hat we are under at
this point.
.. Mr. Delahay stated the Bluff Erosion should be made #4.inst~a~ of #2•
Loren Leman stated if you want to do it next year, that's fine with us. F~cept
for costs and services.
Mr. Davis stated that Article 4.paragraph 1 will answer same of the questions
John was addressing. It reads: That the Engineer will not begin work on any of
the services listed in Article 1 until the Owner directs him in writing to proceed.
So even if they do ovPrlap, t~zey will still need aut~hority to begin a phase.
Chairman Peterkin asked Mr. Williams if ~.his satisfied him. His answer was yes.
Cha'irman Peterkin asked if t~zere we.re any more questions on the legal side of it.
.- Mr. Isaacs stated yes everything is a little sketchy campared to t~h~ ~r~po~al. ~
~. j~hen we started of f in the b~ginning, it ~ay~ in the contract se.r~ric~s not
specifically provided for hereunder. This should be spelled out more clearly.
Anything that is n.~t spelled out in here can be additie~al cost. Mr. Delaha~T
agreed.
Page 4
.
Mr. Delahay said if there's anything that you feel within the proposal that
they agreed. to do that isn't listed, it should be listed in one of the first
four phases or in an additional phase.
Loren Leman explained that the proposal is part of the contract. This is in the
first paragraph. This is done simply so we are not reproducing the proposal.
,
Mr. Williams stated this is one of the points we discussed at our previous
meeting. If Scope of Service was to in fact make this a legal portion of this
contract. If the proposal itself is a legal and binding doc~unent, as spelled
out by the contract, under Scope of Services, then a lot of the questions that
we may have, are covered and answered. Orur concern is that the proposal might
be having less emphasis placed upon it naw that we're entering into a contract.
Chairnlan Peterkin asked Loren I~em~an if that is what he had visioned. Mr. L~nan
Gai~ ves, The pr~posal: except for the changes when we met on t~he 17th of Dece~nber..
we have to a~kno~ledge those. 4therwi.se there haven't been any changes of the
proposal. Mr. Peterkin asked what t~he changes were.
Mr. Davis reported -- the prunary changes were in the amount ot w~rk to be done
in the site selection process. It was felt they could do limited amount of work
on the alternate sites and consentrate on the preferred site. If the preferred
site proved feasible it would reduce the amount of work on the alternate sites.
Mr. Peterki.n asked if he was talking specifically about test bori.ng. Mr. Davis
said "right, elinlinati ng the possibility of test boring on the alternate sites,
and expressly doi.ng some test boring on t~he preferred site."
Mr. Peterkin stated that any changes made at specific meetings should be doc~nented
and set forth and disbursed to con~ni.ssion members. Also keep the city administration
up on it. He asked what our responsibility to tne Council at that level was.
Mr. Davis said just the inform,ation phase, as long as there is no ma'or chan es.
,J g
Because they would be looking at the contract and would have questlons concerned
as to haw the contract relates to the proposal. If there has be~n any changes they
would need to knaw why the chang~s when, and what preen~ted the phases.
~,
Mr. Peterkin asked if there were any other changes of significant value.
Mr. Davis said there were dates. Some phases were requested to b~ c~leted by
a certain date, to provide us with information for legislature decisions on land
purchase, and get so~ne inform,ation before a certain dat~. Th~re was a recomendation
to include some budget cost est~nates, as indicated in the draft contract
paragraph 2, ~ahich isn't really an item in site se~ection, but we wanted it in that
area so we could get sc~ne of the figures the HC and CC r,~ay need to approach the
legislature. Other than that, there were no additional changes.
N`ir. Peterkin asked ~ir. Lem~n if that is what he had do~an for that meeting. Mr.
L~nan said yes those were the additionals, but they had not anticipated doing
any soils work in t~~e sit~ selection phase. Esp~cially no~ on the twn unpref~rred
sites. The i.ndication was that scune drilling did need to b~ done on the other sites.
titiTe' d like to address that ~~vhen. this meeting is done.
~Ir. Delahay referr~d back to t~he other problem of what the Scope of Se.rvic~s is. ~
T~e in~ oductory paragraph reads to provide engin~ering in the prelimi.nar~ Feasibility
Study, m~ade in t~~e ~roposal of Sept~m~er 22. ~rticle 1 says t.hese seruices srlall
incl~a: e those ser~~ices indicated in Sco~ af ~ervices. If Sco~e of Servic~s is
in ~en~? ~ct ~ to ref er to t~at ~ro~osa 1, it will have to be put in "as provided f or in t~~~e
prc~osal".
Unless eve~rything that th~ HC or the city feels is pramised to be done is included
i.n the first 4 phases, as for instance, if we're going to do test drilling in
site selection, under this change, it should be stated how deep the holes are
oing to be and hc~a many you expect to put in. So it can't be said later we'll
g
ha~re to charge you say costs, plus 10 per cent, if you had onl_y planned 3 holes
and the ut in ten. This is haa ~ou can keep down later problems as to what's
Yp
~.ue in payment and this type of thing.
Put in the things that are felt to be necessary at this time, for each of these
studies, under each of the phases and if there's anything left out it should be
brought to the attention of the engineers and faced i.n there. If this changes tr~e
1~ s~n then you accept it reject it, go to someone else, whatever, but then
you' d knaw what you' r~e going to get f or that l~np s~n. The city af ter the
results of this work cames out, wants additional services, then this falls ur~der
the 5th category and ~ou'l1 have to pay for it. But none of the things--i.n the
ro sals that were promised to be done or e~~pected to be done, should cc~r,e under
p ~
the 5th phase,--Additional Services. This is the important thing• This is what
we're trying to get both parties to understand.
Loren Len:~an Suggested. to have the key things of the proposal reiterated in the
contract, then we don't need to go back tQ the proposals once the contract is
accepted.
Mr. Peterkin stated t~his was a good idea.
'' stated we could robabl save a lot of problems. One of the big
Mr. Willlams p . Y ,
thi.ngs we've discussed at meetings is the test borings. We need the test
borin data earl in order to prove or dis-prove the feasi.bility of the project
g Y
~'``" on that site. If we wait until such time as field work begins, then we go for
what this proposal calls for-- additional borings and tests to be made as appro-
~`' '`~'~ iate, we may not have received enough informa~ion earlier on to determl.ne
p
,
~~`~~ the actual feasibility study. This test boring has to be taken care of ln e
,,
" . first phase.
John Aho stated that unfortunately, the borings we had anticipated during the
desi n hase will amount to about 20 to 25 test borings and there's not really
g p
enough time to do this entire test boring program before February 12th.
~~e would anticipate an e~~pez'ienced marina design geotech engineer cc~~ning in,
locatin holes where he felt they would be necessary i.n drawing conclusions from
g
the material caming out of the holes, as apposed to a full blown laboratory
testin eotech report. We have a person who has been involved in major marina
gg
desi and he wants to see what comes out af these holes rather than go into
~
a full blown geo~echnical investigation that would be required for the design
itself. Through his investigation of these holes he would be able to say if
this site is feasibl~. .
Mr. ~lilliams stated th~re lies most of th~ proble~~n we're faced with. ~~Jhether or
not that site~could actually be used as a harbor. We've run into this time fran~e.
We'v~ ut ourselves into a position of n~eding the in.form.~tion relatively early
~ p r ~ r ~' ~; n~tia tr.at it' s almost not f easible to de~,~elc~-:
on ln ~~e NrG~ram. Ycu ~e t..llir~~ s
a full t~st boring program, within the time frame that we`re looking at.
Mr. Aho stated that we wouldn' t~~ant to. Once ~ti~e det~rniine t,hat thru several,
five or si~~ test holes, that a site is feasible, we go into the preliminar~~~ ^
desi n of tr.~ harbor. ~~~e locate ~~here the har~r will %~, ~hen 1,.~.e test borings
q
will be within tr~e rir~eter of tr:e actual harbor its~lf , inst~ad of boring all
~-~ .~ m r~ ~aluable inf ormation to us .~~~'e
ov~.r a bunch of flat lund. Thls ls a much o
r~ally w7ouldn't be at that point in three to four weeks.
P ~c~~ ~ ;
,,
Mr. williams asked if any problems were seen with getting the necessary test
boring done in four weeks.
Mr. Aho stated they have a drilling rig ready to go on site next Wednesday and
a geotech who is ready to be on site. we see no problem in getting started.
As far as getting the i.nformation to make a decision as to whether that site is
feasible or not, tr,e problem is with the extra thinqs-like the geotech doing the
e~timate of the site selection phase. These are necessary but it costs mone~.
We think the budget is extremely tight. But also feel that we can do it for the
-•budget allotted but ti~~'ll have to have some really tight controls on the way
- money is spent, and the way the decisions are made techincally to stay within
that budget. We've gone back to previous designs and the involvement of things that
- were necessary in prev~.ous designs, to see if the budget in fact was adequate.
It's tight.
Nir. Williams replied that according to the minutes of previous meetings with
cx2~~ xill, we mentioned the budget, discussed it, and specifically stated that
we must sta~ within that budget. We are hoping almost mandating, there shall
not be any extra and other ser~rices that are across, over, and above the scope
of this contract, h7e just don't have the money.
Mr. Aho stated that t,his would have to be controlled by the Harbor C~anission.
Mr. Williams emphazized one fact of the budget. That is the Harbor Can~nission
operati.ng with this budget is unlike ~khe City of Kenai, as far as the Council, in
their awarding of contracts. This money is allotted to us by the State.
There's absolutely no going to the city budget for additional funds. It's
irnpossible for us to attach t~he city budget for additional funding.
Loren Leman stated there are a couple of things that have happened since t~hat
interview. The budget went from 500,000 to 425,000. Decreasing the fee and
increasi.ng the wor}~, tnat is really tight.
Mr. Peterkin stated that at one meeting the element of $50,000 for the entrance
channel design was m~re or less "put on the shelf" until you~~,get further down the
road.
Mr. Aho stated that if they were going to be doi.ng this other work, we may just
have to el~mi.nate it. ~ ~
Mr. Peterkin asked about the other additional work.
Loren Leman replied, the geotech, or th~ $5Q,000 physical model?
Mr. Peterkin stated the physical model. While Mr. Delahay is still here, are we
still dealing with the same company, or corporate structure now since the proposal
acc~ptance? Are th~re any facilities that are not pres~ntly available to you?
~~r. Aho replied ~~Ye have the same corporation. --CH2~'~ Hill . ti~~hat you've disco~rered
is our leqal co.r~orate name. There is no structural change.
~- ~ir. Peterkin state-d ~.hat if CH?'~1~ Hill could arran~e a contract for Mr. Dela.h~ay's°
e~~a~~ninatio~ that ti~r~ould more closely include specif ic poi.nts of the proposal, or
tirhtly tie the ccr.tract to th4 proposal, we'd all feel a lot happier about it.
~~~r. I~.~ asked ti~Thv ~ti~e ~on' t.~a'Ke t~~~e contract and t~h.en we can shelf the pro~sal.
~~1e can ~ut ev~xytr:ing ti4~e n~ed into t~~e contract.
~~ ~~ 1
Mr. Peterkin asked NIr. Delahay's opinion. Mr. Delahay said it would be ~asier
to look into. There's no problem if the certain things that are listed in the
proposal refering to it by paragraph, page, etc. if all of it is included. But to
refer to just the proposal in general, and not same phase underneath, in what
part of that proposal you're doing, you could crowd your troubles. A reference
to the proposal as long as it's specific and refers to specific things in the
proposal that are being done, under these "tied ends" rather than general, would
be alright. But this is what bothers me, if you can tie t~hat in, and make it
shorter, by tying in certain references, ~ahen it gets down to what is tied
in that's not legal, and I don't have the background knawledge. Samebody that
does, of the orginal proposal and what was asked for is going to have to go into
that to see that the contract includes all that. Frankly, I never saw ~he proposal
until a few da~s ago and today I had only about 20 minutes to go over it~.
Mr. Le~nan stated he thought it would be easi~r if we took the key elements out of
the contract, then we don't have to refer to two different contracts.
Mr. Peterkin agreed with Mr. T~:man.
N~r. Kornelis stated he didn't see anything on schedule in there. For instance,
V~hen will a phase be done?
Mr. Peterkin explained that you'd have to go to the proposal. There is a sequence
of events. The months and dates would change. The date now, would change.
`-~ Mr. I~ornelis stated a lot of the items ref erred to Other Services . There shauld
be a clause in there stipulating that specific services should not be rendered
~`'~`~ unless written perm~.ssion is given.
Mr . L~nan told him~ to ref er to Article 4, paragraph 1.
Mr. Bri hton explained t~hat Article 4 explains all that, if they went out and did
g
all that work without written authorization, they did it at their own peril.
Mr. r eli5~ stated it didn't seem clear enough~to him. ~.,
Ko n
r Mr. Delahay stated t,his is norm~al and this has been one of my probler.~s. The f act
the services under each of these first four pages does not specify. S~ of these
s ecial services might be considered to came under one of these phases that it .
p
.- would be necessar~ for this, they might go ahead and do some of ~hese phases.
without some of these other services. Anything that rec~uir~s more than t~he lum~
um should r 're written authorization. If the engineer runs into samethi.ng,
s , equs.
.- he can make a decision wit~ direction, or, they will have to move out. Vu~en they
do t~hat, there is some kind of an estimate of the amount that this is liable to
be put to an additional cost.
Mr. Peterkin asked if aft~r looking at the documents, did he have anything to offer?
~~r. D~laha said no, except in the f irst four phases. I' d like to s~e each of those
Y
b the lt 1 sum, and specified unc~.er each it-em ~ahat is to be done. Then it is
Y ~
for the Harbor Cc~nission and City Courjcil to go over and make sure it covers
r eV ir.g that they ~cted to be done for t~ l~np sum. Irl the Additional ~
earyth
Services, it cc~es up on an item by ~.t~m basis . It cam~s up with if t~he engineer
feels it's necessar~r t~~at this 5hould be done, then ~~ou make the decision wltn
~~~atever ccnsultation ~~ou want.
l~~r. Bri hton ~~ated that what you've said is exactl~~ what has created a pr~blem
~
wi~~ the Harbor C.~ :' ssion in that ycu're beir~g ver~ specific and ~-~~y feel t~r.at
~ay~ 3 ~
,
y
wh~t they are looking at is relatively vague and they can't put certain items under
certain items under certain lists.
Mr. Delahay reminded everyone of the special election on next Wednesday.
Mrs. Glick stated that we keep talking about the time schedule. The City
Council is more interested in having an accurate ~roject. We-do have some kind
of a decision to make before the 28th , bu~ that could be extended or post-poned
for another 30 days. The majority of council is interested in an accurate factual
proposal or design, or contract.
Mr. Williams addressed the chair in consideration of the council's wishes and
Ben's statement, that it would relieve a lot of problems and fears if we did ~
create a separate contract. He asked CH2M Hill if they saw any reason why we
couldn't create a separate contract , or s~nething that could get tnem started
as soon as the Council could pass on it.
Mr. L~~nan replied that the easiest contract to read would be to list Article 1.
All we ~~ill be negotiating is the first phase.
Mr. Peterkin stated that his intention of this meEting was specifically to get
Phase 1 goi.ng.
- Mr . Peterkin asked Mr . Wagoner if he had any con~nent bef ore Mr . Delahay lef t.
Mr. Wagoner stated that he didn't see anythir~g wrong with Article 4 the way it
stands.
Mr. Delahay replied that the question cames as to just what has been authorized.
Mr. Peterki.n stated that his opening remarks were specifically toward Phase 1.
He suggested we stay with it and the rest of the contract would follow in sequence.
It would be written as ~khe scheduling of events would occur and the detailing
as of Phase 1, but noted it is very premature now to get into more than Phase 1
because of the time element. The city is basically with the land aquisition. The
rest of t,he phases of the contract can be taken at a slo~,~er pace as weath~r
provides, with different circ~m~stances and events.
Mr. I~~m~an stated there is no problem.
Mr. Peterkin stated that the scope of events showed a 414 to 492 phasing. ;~A~
w the meeti.ng of t~he 17th that $ 50, 000 eleme~lt was taken and set aside samewhat.
As the engineering and the design develo~d for the harbor whether or not that
would actually be involved or not, that is a d~cision to be made dawn the road.
~~ With th~ spread of dollars and that $50,000 element, I don't think ~~e're too
critical on dollars with everyt~hing that has been discussed. I hav~ a probl~.~n
with the $30,000 for t~ze meetings and the schedul~d hourly ~ven~s of the meetings
here. I'd like to straighten this out.
I~~r, L~nan stated that what they would give us is possibly a work plan to indicate
where the time is going to be spent. ~ae w~uld have to do t~zat before we could ~
real ly make s~r-e arrangements .
~r. ~.o stated t~hat ~ti-::at t~~:ey had in t~hle pro~osal was ~sed cn in~cr: x~t~ion
trlat has been sup~l~.r?':ented. So, t;'~ings s~ach as :~eeting t~<<es and all ~he
ho~rs put into it j~Tould r.ave to be identiried.
~' ~e ~
~ z ~i..
. ,t
Mr. Williams stated we put $50,000 into the proposal so we would have it for the
modeling so ~~e wouldn' t over run the budget. I feel cc~forta.ble that the whole
project can be handled within this scape of financing. we have included monies
f or proj ect admin.istration.
Mr. Aho said that if t~here is any intent to cut money out of the administration,
we will have a total disaster on our hands. Schedule wise,~design wise, and budget
wise, wit~h this project. This is an extremel~ important aspect of this phase.
We have a lot of engineering disipline working on the project and they are going
to require same ve.ry tight controls. Our e~~penses are going to run 15 to 20 per
cent.
_
Mr. Williams stated if we drop the $50,000 and hope and keep our finger~ crossed
we don't need any modeling, then we drop back to $364,000 mini~~num; $442,000
maxim~n. That should bring us within our $425,000 budget. We will need ~he rest
of the money to go on f or matching f unds .
Mr. Peterkin thought that a lot of what John said is in the minds of City Council
as well as those of the Harbor Con~ni.ssion. We need and explanation of why
figures like that are in there.
Mr. Aho stated that subsequently, we've gone back to past marina projects.
We've looked at design costs, geotechical costs, and tried to relate those to
this project. We found that with the money available, it's going to be very
tight budget. We feel with tight control we can perform within the budget.
Mr. Peterkin stated he had problems with understanding six man visits. He asked
this to be explained.
Mr. Leman stated there were two of them here so this is a t~ro man visit.
Mr. Peterkin stated that it was 6.of tnese visits for $30,000 is what is bothering
him.
Mr. I~~man suggested setting that aside. He explained by saying they would draw
up a work plan on what we're actually going to do. We're not talking about $5000
a visit. ~hen those 6 man visits were put into t~ his con t rac t, we rea l ly can' t
relate~them back to the $30,000 in ~he proposal. ~~1e are getting paid for approximately
2 hours of our tim~ when we ccme to one of tnese meetings. That's what would be
billed to the project, plus ~:~penses.
Mr. Aho explained that they have here 6 meetings at 8 man davs preparation, meeting
time, etc., per meeting for 48 man days of pre~aration. at $30,000.
Mr. Williams stated you are sa~ing then that your figure of man days actually
repr~sents 48 man days. The figure that's written in th~ pro~osal?
Mr. T~man repli~d it may not take that.~ It may take more. Sometimes the best
rESUlts c~ne about `~1hen t~her~ is a once a~~Teek visit with a cli~.nt. I would hape
that within your ~udget ~ae can have r~gularly scheduled meetings.
Mr. ~ai11i~.Tns stated trie budgct hasn' t be~n set, so pick the n~r,ber you want .
, ^
I~~r. Peterki~ stated that a lot had ~~n ~.~~plained to us. ~ 6 m~an visit has b~en
clari~ied. ~
~ ` %~. ':.j ~.: _L. .,
,
i~~~r. Zsa~~c ~~t~.tet~ r1e rec~ ~ivcd ~~. 1.~tte~ ~'ror~1 Cr~2l~~~ I-~ill s~~rin~ for
~a;~? doj~~x~ an th~ contrac~; for the ~ro jc~ct, r'or ~0'`~ ~~~hat are wP
goin~ to ha~re to shoti~a ~'or that? ~~ docum~nte ~ t~ ~
~ d r~port. S ti~ould
eyp~ ct ~~. pro je ct rey~ort if ~sk~d :Cor a~ercenta~e.
,
Pf7r. ~~ ho stated ~ha-~ ~~rith a f i~~ed ~ricc contrac-~ the~r ~~r~ not r~quir~d
to luz~nish detail~d c~ocume~zt~~tio~1 0:~ this p~rc~rltame of ~n~ ~ro 'ect.
~ 1 J
lf they~ ~hrough their oti~m d~:Cici~nties, or '~y nega~~iation, Qnly s~end
~~;~ of the r:~~ne~r, and Still on a fi1 ~d price cant~act th~n ou ~av
r ~ ~ ~
our full fee. Or, ti~~e can ~o hourlv,
~~Zr. ~~~lilli~l~s st~ ted at thi~ point in time ~,~~ should decide firml~'
with the fzx~d fee. The contrac~or has been in business long enou~h
t o knoV~ tha~ he can do it .~ or th is f i~~ d f e e. ~~
~:~~r. Peterkin agr~ed ~~rith I~~Zr. ~°~ill.iams. If ~~~e were ~oin~ to ~o to
a cost ?~lus, or ~~,n hourl~r rate, we tiAJOUldn't ~~ave contract~d with CH2M
Hi~.I.
i~~~r. Kornelis stat~d he didn't see anything in the pro~osal or contract
on billin~.
11r. Pe~~rkin explainied that this is the pr~oble~n we have. This is T~~hy we
have decided that they're ~oing to cx~eate a.n ac~ual contract and
explain in detail exactly what is goin~ to be done~
~'~~r. Isaacs stated tryat in the con~ract th~re should b~ a me~had af
payment.
I~~r. ~eterkin asked G~2~~~ Hil~. if th~v had an~,r probl~ms wi~h documentin.~
, this so t'~at ~the ~:arbor Com~nission can acce~t this on a t;~~ of ste
~y p
re~ort.
I~17r. Leman didn~t t~ink ther~ tin~ould. be any problerl~s if it ~~~xe reasonable.
I~~ir. Pet~r~~in therl asked if th~re ~~1ere an~r questio~s on ~he szte
s~lect~ion tha~ ti~1Er~ no~ covered. ~-~~ s~,ated ~hat he `~~as still con:~us~d
on ~he ~;es - ' ~
, ~, b or li~,~ e
i4~x. L~~an asked ~~~h~.t h~ ~~a~ confu~ed abou~.
. .
~~~r. Pe~erl~~.n ~~anted to kno~~~ cxactl~r hov~~ th~ site borin~~s ~~ere ~oa.n~
~o b~ don~, ~~nd i.~ there v~ere ~oin~; to be anv done ~
~`YZr. I~eman st~,~ed tney came toni~;h~ ~;o d~~id~ what ti,1e ~ropo~e to do~
~'~hat ~~~ ~~rc~ ~o~e ~;o ao is ~o~ c only that u~p~r site. ~~Jh~.tev~r it is.
~dlr, x~~cr~~in stated ~n ct~ll it Site ~~.
~J~r. L~ra~ n~x~o~osed ~a ~~ ve nlon~y an ~he a~.~;~ ~;~v~luat ion ~ort ion.
To CLI~ i~; '~~ck and l~av~ ~.s 1i~~1~ ~f'fart i.n th~.t as possi~a.le ~to hav~
.. ,
b or zn~. a T' ~'our, f'~ ~.vc: , or ti,~ha~; cver d~ c~. ~ ion of ho~~~r nlan ~ hol~ s~hat are
.~
n~edect~ to ~in th~.~ do~~~n, ~.nd ho~~ dee ~~h~~~~ ~re ~oin~~ ~o bc,
. /j .. "~ i ~')
1 C.L t~.s ~ .J.. i~.~
L
I~~Ir, Aho st~~ted th~ arbinal reauest f~r ~eot~chinc~.l d~.t~~ came about
b~caus~ concer~ ~~~~.s ~xpr~~~ed as to ~~~~h~ther ~th~ soils in the preferred
sit~ jJ,~erP adequ~t;~ to hold the ~lop~ ~tability. He aaid that tvpic,~ll~
they ~1ol~lc~ ~o in and do a lot of ~rillin~ on thi~ if concern hadn't
b~en ~~~.~r~~~ec~.
1
Mr. P~ter~in e~xp.ress~d his concern of two problems ~hat h~.v~ been
brou~h~ to the ~.ttentian of the H~~rbor Commission.
One is the ~ r~ake--up of the so il. `~~~.~hether or not the make--up of the
soils ti~~~s such to held up by sheet pilin;. It was felt the soil ~~rould
erode severly. Tf a harbor had to be anchored, how deep would yQU go
to anchor it? -
Second ~rablem is the artesian wells running up and down the river.
No one kno~ls j~rhere th~y are. Th~re may b~ one in the middle af the
harbor. No one '~nows how d~e~ th~se wells are either.
These are two r~asons for the~ borirl~. The Harbor Commission has a
respons ib ilit~r not just to the C it~r Gounc il, but the peo ~le of the C ity
of Kenai. CH~~~~~ Hill ~r~ill have to justify tne site sele ct ion. If you
roll back mone~r with this phase, the~e still has to be documentation
that the Harbor Commissiozl can take to the Ci~y Council that sa~~ this
s it~ is better than B Qr C. Thos~ things ha~re to be don~ ~
T~Tr. Bri~hton stated a third reason~ The fa~t the City has been "burned"
~ on inadequate SOll ~~St112~ before.
::, Mr. P~~erkin ask~d if he was speca.f ica.ll~r S~~c~K11'l.a of t.he bo:~ino no~f~.
. ~
T~~~r. Brl~h~on ~ s ans~~~er ~~as ye ~. .
~~Ir. Peterkin st~.ted that ~~hat stimulated him to ask Mr. L~man ~he
qu~stion on ~h~ borin~ tir~as trle fact ~,hat there could be t~~~o different
round~ of bori~l~. One to c~~ec}~ the thinUs v~re just ~~~nt thro~~gh. The
other, wha.c~? wc~u~d be '-~or~d v~~her~~ the Har~or ~.s ac~,uall~y ~ozn~ to be ~
~~e then ask~d ~NZx°. Leman if that ti~as a car_r~cfi~ t~nd~rst~,ndin~.
~~~~r. Lem~n ~~~lained ~hose j~~er~~ ~thL C~.PS1o11 ~orix~~~s, l~r~ere ~.ll the
1.aborator~ ~e:s~~a.n~ v~~auld ~ak~ ~~ ac~, `~hzs ti°~~.s incluc~ed in ~he ox~~inal
~ropQ~~.l.
. . .
~~~~x. r~~~ex~~~~ n s~~.t~d ~~ c~ic?n ° t ~~no4~,~ ho!~~r uhc ~n~zn~eriz~~ f a. ~m ~~oul
~o a~a~~~~t rn~~i~~~ ~~~e ~~t~ ~~l~ct,;_o~. ~~~, ~,h~.;~ has ~o ~~ti~~y ~the
ri~;r C~zl~.c~.l, f~.nd the ca_~a.~~n~:, ~~~~~~h~u~ t-,h~ cr~~a_neera.n~; .f~..r~ ~'~.~l~.n~;
~hc~r jd~f~r~ ~;~~~~fi,a.~z~ ~rc~~~L~r~ :~'r{~a{~ t~!~~ ~;arbor Cc~r~~n~.ssion fi~o ~.~ thi~ on
,
r~~~ c ~t, !~ .
r`~~~' • Le m~..~n ~ ~~~. i~ ~. ~'~.at t~ at ~t.~~ ~~~,rr~? ~~ th ~ y~~~r,~ ~~ e ~~. t. o C~. Z S Cll~ a~~. ~ d~~~T.
1
T:~ thP ~~~c~~.~~.~~ y~.~~ ~eczz r~,ta~~~, t,?,P Jr ~~~~aA~.taed ~~o c~n:~irm the ~GC~~~a~l~ lt~f
~ ~ ~ a.. p ~., .~ -; ~r ~~ -~ h ,, ~ -; ~~ ~ ~ , -~ ~ ' R ~; ~ -~- .
b~r so.~ ~J~~ ~.n,~a ~x ~~h~~. ~r a f~.~.~~. ~ oyrp ~v-~~_~..~..~a~~.o~~ ti~~a~, ti~ran~~c~.
.
T~~ ~~n~,-~~~'~:~ 1.:3`~. ~`.~r{C!~ f QZ' ti.;~JI:~~ 0~~ i~? 1~J~ :~~'?~OIn ~~'].~ G l~ f~QL~~ZG1~ .
~a~~ ~~
~~~r. Da~~Tis cammen~ed th ~,t a f' S a.te ~~ is ~.c cept~.~lA from ~;cat~ cl~nic~.1,
in~'orm.a~ion, ther~ w~~ I10t r~~,~ch ~oin~ ~.n lookin~; at th~ o~h~rs throL?~h
an ~v~.lu~tio~. pro~~ss. '
.
~ her~ ~~J~~s c~uestian ~s ~o jf~,rhere ~it~ ~~ is located.
lv~1r. T~?a.l.li~.ms ~ried tio clar~ fy ~;he l~osition .of t~.e 3~~it~es
Sit~e ~~ :~ under l~ase fro~ th~ ci~~ by l~~ir. Roloer, :~djacent to it is
an additional 3~ acr~s that can be ~urcnased for t~~~ same ~urpos ~ if we
w~,nt ta ~~~and later. ~~~ far ~.s o~rer-all size, ~his is p~rfect,
~i~e B is betv~reen Salamanoff and th~ Ci~y Dock. This is in ~r-ivate
oti~nerUhi~ and in order to obtain enough land to acco~ncdate th~ si7e
of t~~e ~acility, ~r~e have to aquire l~nd from more tha.n one o~~nPr,
The h~.rbor ~~~~ould be extr~~ely clos~ to Beaver Loo~ Road which ma;~
:necess itate reali~;nin~ th~ road, and ~.ov~ r~o the gas line ~
S ite C is the area near the m~u~h o~' the river. This has limited
acc~ss. Access ~~rould be dov~n S~ruce Street, past the ball park~ and
doj~~n av~r the hi1l~ Prop~r~ty ~~~r~ is own~d bV m~altil~le numbers of
~ri~rate pro~er~,;y holders. This site has the undesirabilit~r of be~n~
clos2~~r as~ociG~ted ~~ith residenti~.1 ~reas that mav frown on a bo~.t
rlarbor in theiz° back~rard. :? l~so, this would not be feasible for an
in~.ustri~l ~ark becavse of the limit~d access.
S ite ~ is ac ~ual1~ a pre~'f ered~ s ite ,
~~r• Pe~~rkin stated tr~e r~a~~n .for br~ n;in~ this u~ w~~ he didn ~ t
w~.~.-~ th~ I~~.r~~or Corr~ission in a~o~~~i~~n to .force this upon ~he
- C ity C a~nc i1. ~ They ~r~ ~o i~~ co be ~hE on~; to make the de c a.s ion.
I didn't 4~r~n~ th~rn to thin~~ th~ t-~,r~ did ~.oU take ~. 1.00~~ at th~ ~fi~her
s~te,~~ I~~aul~. li'~e ~he Co~~nci~ rnembers to s~ Jr som~thin~ noti~r; b~c~use
~~re'r~ g~~n~, ~o t~ke th~.~ in~o cQnsider~.tion ~n~. directly rel~t~ ~o
the ~tr~actur~ Qf t11e can~rac~ ma?~e ~n ~oti~i. `'~~~
I~~r~ , Glic~ e~~~_res ~~d her o~in~on ~o the ef ~u ct ~hat if ~op~r ~ s leases
doe~ not ~?ro~re to be thc~ x~_1~ht ~z~~, the o~rlher ~lt~S should ~~ ev~l.u~ted
bu~, ~~ ;reed tl~e ~na jority o~ tl~.~ ti~Qrk ~haulc~ bP c~nu~.re~. ol~ S~te a~
~.~r. ~~.~~~~r:~e~ stt~,~,ed ~r,h~.t :~o c~oubt ~~_t~ l~ .zs the best s:~~~ ~rov~c~ bv
~ ~
~oil c~^~.~~~.ri~., ,et,c. ,~~n~. Gc~uldn't se~ ~.nv x~~~sc~~, to s~~nd mone~T on
the o~~i~r ~~~.~c~, if a~_~. ti~~Te ~~r~~~e u0111f~ ~o do, is ~o come b,~c?~ to Si~,~ ~.
~~~ir. ~,~~~zs~_e;s ~, rr~ec~ wi.t~. ~Y~r~ ~t~u~1.~r~ T~~Zx~. I-I~l~. ~~.id ~,ot, a~t ~this ~im~.
S~~~r. Ko~~7~.cl~.i..s ~~.~r~r~~~~ed ~~ c~u~~~tia~~ to CI-I~~`4~ ~~i.ll ~~~ ~o ~hei.J» o~~~.n.lOZ1 ~f
~h~ a~'zc~~~ ~ it~~ ~ ~~.f ~h~ f ~~~d. ~~c~ne ~~.n~y fe~.~s~_~i L~.ty ~tudi~s ~r~ loo1~i:~ ;
~t tz~~~~, ~~.nt~. ~.z ~~~ ey cc~uld x~u~E~ ou~ ~.n ~hc ir ~inc~~ t~~ c~th~r t~~a s ite s.
~4~r. Iae~~.~i-~n ~~~~~~d t,he: 1.04~~~~ ~i~~ h~~~ some iarobl~~~~~~ ~ Hi~ und~r~t~~ndir~~.
r~~r~~, ~ ~o c~1~a.~ ;~ r~.o~ ;~.z~t ~'1c~ ~y~o~d.~.~~>> ~~~t t~~~ ~r~~ol~ in~ten~ ~.n ~he Sit~ ~
. , . . r~ . .
~v~~_ ~~~~.~ta.~~.. ~,Q g~o~~c:~zc~~l ~.n~r~~a~,~ -f~.t~.o11.
~
,:s ~, „E.; .l ~.
t ;~ -
~~f~r. I~~.~1 h~d a c~~uestion p~rtainin~ to th~ ~eotech.
I~~r. Lem~~17 st~.ted th~ ~eotech ~.s ~1L~c.ri~nced and will be makin~ on ~it~
decisions as ta whe~h~r they wi11 make 1~ or ~, or 6 noles. He will
make no~c of informa~ion you ti~il1 ne~d for tha~t ~it~. He stated the~r
were not ~ro~os in~ any e~t~ns ivQ laborator~r test in;.
T}~~r. ~~ue~.~~ ask~d that now th~ Site Selection has be~n chan~ed to Sit~
Evaluation, what happens if it is determined that the soil is unstable
in this area, if so, do we ~till have ~he alternate of going to the
other si~es. ~ .
Mr. L~man st~.t~d that i~' ~hat happened, they would stop, ~et back to
us , l~t us kno V~ wnat is found at that po int , then ti~re would b e d ir e ct ed
to ~o to ~he other sit~s.
iti~r. Peterkin stated at tha~ poin~; we would have to regroup; and the
City Council would have to make some new decisions~
.~- i~2r. `~'J~.lliams sta~ed tha~we were al~ r~latlvel~r f~rm in o~.r bel~ef of
,-~h~~re th~ har~o~ should ~o ~ its s~~e, and the init ial des ibn f or it.
~u~~e know -~hat if it isn~t ribht, we ought to 0o in and take a look a~
the ent ir~ pro je ct . It is t~a~ s i~nple .
l~~flr. Pet~r~~in sta~ed tha~ in the ~rocess of' selecting the En~ineering
~~ ~~ f irr~1, s~veral oi the .~ irms s~ated tlha.~ the bi~g~s~t pro~lem ~~i~h ~he
''` oth~r t v~o lo cat ians was tllat they c ould b e ruled out im~ne d iat e ly
becaus~ o~ size.
T~~r. ~oss ask~d ho~~~ oft~n ~id thdt ~ro~lem cor~~ up ~~~re s i~es re je ct~d
b~cause of siZe?
T~1r. L~man ansjfrered that alr~ost any~hin~ can be built on ~ny s ite.
~ He stated ~h~t sor~~ o~ t~.~ buildings in ~nchara~,~ ax~~ buil~ in tlle
T~~ors ~ ar~~~.s. ~ut, the~r ax~ ~her~, ~.nd they did cost the ot~~ner ~ome
money.
~`~1rC. ~licl~ asked if ~~h~~ I~~~r. I~e~nan ~~Jas ~ayin~; w~s that anythznz~ could
b~ ~Z.~~.l~ ~nyT~~~7er~ f'or ~:~ price ~
~~~~r. L~man x~e~l~.cd, ~~ es, l~e ~rras r~~.sona'~.1~~~ :~}ure ~ harbax~ coul~. b~ a~~~t
~~ i,hc~re, ~ut, thx~ou;h ~a~~ elipEr~.~ncc~s ~~~ l~z~ow ~~h~.t ~h~ cost snould ~~
~~0~' ~~. ~~r0 ~~ Ct 0~~ ~~115 ~~;~~'~C.
I~~~~r, .x~ho :~~~.t~d ~~zat t~ey ~~~ou~d z eel coanfo~t~ ~a~.e ~~~.lin~ cauncil a.f
th~ ~o~~t v°1e~~e ~oo ~nuc~z, ~.~' ~~~~e~r saTV°J ~arn~ unu~ual C~J?1C~1~IOx1S Qr ~.f
it ~f~er~ ~:~eyon~ r~ac~1. ~~I~z~.~ ~.~ ty~ic~~.l ~'or th~.~ tyo~ o~` pro j~c~. ~
~~~r. ?et~,raL~.~1 ~~~~Le;~ ~~t ~~~i~ ~till~~, ~.f ~h~,~e ~~~~;re ~n~;~ a~h~r ~oin~;;
~~~Z~~u ~hou~ d b~ adc~r~s~cd on t~~~ ~~it~ ~~~.ec~z~~~ ~~~u~;~.
;~,;~,, ^~; 1 ~
~ i r
l~~r. Korneli s asked i~ ther~ nas been any ch~.nf~e by the I~arbor
Camu~i~~ ion in the proro~al of the Si~e a~l~ction.
~~7r. Peter~~in s~a~ted that ~f.t~r th~y produc~ a contr~.ct, and ~en ~;oes
t~7rou;~;h it, the l~arbor Commission ti~~ill ~o ~hrou~h i~ to make sure
that ev~rJrthin~ is in ~her~ ~hat th~ Commission ~nt~nd~d. . Tf it is
a c c ~pt ~b le , it ~~rill b e br~ught ~, o C ity C ounc il.
~~~r. Peterkin asl~ed IYir r Davis ii' ~.n~r~hi.n~ had b~en ~;aken out of th~
contract proposal in Sa.te Sel~ction. r~ir. Da~ris stat~d it has stayed
the ~same . .
1~~7r. ~~J~agoner asked if the one ~hase is site evaluation of Site ~ s
a.f ~J~~e couldnt c chan-oe the in~ent af the whole thing?
~~1r. Leman statEd that they intend to ~o bac~~ and look at these
tasks that ~~e have said n~ed to 'oe done, and r~-eva~.uate each site.
List those t~at still need ~o be done for evaluati~~n of Site A; if
ti~re don't lis ~~.i, it doesn't ne~d ~o be done; in our opinion.
~~~r• I'~ter~~in ask~d hoT~~ the ~est borings ti~lould be lis~ed in ~ne lump
sum.
ly2r. Le~~~.n stated tha~ they V~ill 1.ist Site Evaluation to include so
ma.ny hol~s at so .1~uch depth for maybe 3~0 lineal feet of soil borings.
~hatever we ~'eel is necessary.
~~~~r, 4~~1~illiams asked hoW d~ep did the~r plan on going ~~i~~. the test borin~s
-T~Zr. Leman stated that they ~orefe~ to have the ~;eotech make that deciszon.
~~~rir. Davis asked hor~~ much of i~~hat th~ Council and Harbor Commission
~rrants is to be included in that, on the c~rtain time`~~rame ~~uch as
the 0~~~~~ ~preliminary f i~ur~s. Gr~ill we scrap t~lat? Do ~~re v~~~nt to include
in -~he ini~ i~1. co~ztract, some of these o~h~r ~hings we ti~~ere loo'~in~ ~.t
~the artist sketch, nr~liminar;~ O~~l~z fi~,ures, etcf?
i~yir. Pe~exliin s~ut~d ~he con~e~tual desi ~~ ~~ri1l be in ~her~, so it ti~ras
assurncd ~h~r~ 4~~rould ~~ an artis~' ~ sketch.
I~~r. D~~vis s ~~t:~d h~ ~hou ~ht thc~y ti~~ould ~~raz~t a t im~ of com~le ~ ior1
on a speca.f~c ~i~e ~'rame.
~ 7 ,~ .~ T K ' ' • • •
J y
i'ir~ ~~c~er~~in c.~~l~.~inec~ ~o Cr-~?:I'~~1 ~~Zll that ~.~le Cl~y C~unczl has a tlrne
e~_er.lpn~ ~,~ ~c ~.n~rol~~ ~d zn. `1~~z~.s a.~ zi~~bru~~r~ ~~th. I~~ ~~.~?~~~c~ GH2i~~ I~ill
y~h~t zh~ir f~elln ;s ~1ex~ on ~ha.~~ Gou1d ~t~ey do ~he ti°JOrk ti~ritihin
~,h~~-~ t~.r1~ frar~ne ti~11~r10U~ cut~;ins; an~r cQrn~z~s ti'Ilthln that schec~ule?
R
~~r+ Le~an ~tat~~ h~ ia~~ ie~~Ted ~hc;Tl ~ould r~~.rfor~ the ~.tc~~ns neeess~.r~~
a~Qi V?i° j~.v~ ..~7~~~CL LQ~7 1.1~ ~~~ul~i ~~y`~t~ ~~'c~l~~e
i
' r r}
y i ~ ~ ~~V~ V
\
~
ry~r~ Lem~,n ~tated ~h~ ~ he ~~~las hearin~ thin~s ~.ike ~xtiJt' ~ sketch
and co~~s~ a~u~l ~esi~n; ~r5rh.~.c~z ar~ ~tr~a dif~'erent t~in~s. The arti~t' ~
sket~ ch is s~.m~nl~r a~ ictur~ ~ C ons e~tL? ~,l ~Je s i~n is ~ 5; ~ oz ~h~ de ~ i~n
pro ject. `:~~e ti~rill do an ~rt~ s~ ~~~kc~chr This is n~~ent~ ally ~~.
shoti~~ l~i~c~,- so ~~1hen yau ;a ~.oti~Ir1 ~~ld tallL to th~ 1 e~~_slature ~he,~,r can
see ~~rh~.t ;~ou are talkin~ a~~ou~.
i~~r, pe~,erl~in s~ate~ t'.~.~.t the counc~ 1 has st~.~ed the~ ao not ~~ra?~t the
time frarne to i~.terf~r~ with the qua~ ity of the job.
~~~rs. Glic1~ stated she didn't ~~~ant to hold ~h~m to a~i: e fr~.me bu~
believed council ~ s in~erested in ~ood fac~~ ~.nd f i~ures. I~' -the
~ro j~ ct is wor~11 c~o in~ 9~.t ~ s~~~orth do in~ r ioht . You can ~ t do it
right if ~~Q,~ d~n ~ t have :~ ~ood ~~s is from ti~hich to be~in.
I~~r. ~et~rk~.n asked l~y~r` ~a~ris if tr~re V~ere any other i~ems j~~te should
~o over,
~~~.~r, Da~r; s r~~1 i_~~. ~res; on ~a~~ ~, under the lin~s allo~~red for lump
sum amount. It's the in~~nt I~:n lookin~ at ra~h~r than a time frame.
Gou1 d there be ~n incl_us io n tl~~re throu~,h r~o ~'au~t of ~h~ C i~;~? ~
I~~~Zr. Peterkin rela~~d that the whole pro ject hin~es on ~his first phase~
He didn't thin~-~ ~°~e nee~.ed to ~o anJr zurther ti~lith th~.t ~o~tian of the
~ con~ract~
~~~~rs. Glicl~ stated that ~.n orcler to ~et operation~.l and main~en~nc~
cos~s, ~rou havc to ~~~tiTe the co~~.c~~~uaa_ desion so that you can se~
hoti~r it ~ll a.s ~oin~ to fi~ to~e~he~n ~~~f~re you c~.n come ~,~r~~h rela~t~.v~
proo^~ fo~~ o~eratzol~a~. ~.nd m~.i~.uen~.nce eosts. T~is is what Gar~r was
.
x~~~err2n~ to.
1~~~:~. L~man s~ated it ~J°~ould be be~~ to do th~ so~.l a nvesti~~tions and
the p.relimin.~~~ f ~ eld ~~ror~~ a.nv~sti~ata~ons and re~or~ bac~L bv Feb~u~.r~r
12th. ~ ~'h~ ske~ ch ~~~i~ 1 -~~ ~.one .
I~~~rs ~ G1-icl~ to~~~ T~~:?~. I~ema~. he sr~o~a~ d not fe~l ~ied to F~bru~ry 12~h
~ ither ,
~~~~x~ Ler~an _f. el~ ~ha~t i~' ~h~~ cou~ ~. ~~~ ti~~.n~~ ~oa n~, ~,he~r shou_ld h~.ve
a ~oQ~~ ?~.~nr ~_~ an ~. ~~~ thc~ ~~.d a:~' ~'~~ r~ont,11.
i~1~x~o P~t~~~'Li~z ~~~a~~d ~1~~~fi~ ~}~1~ Cifi~~r Counc_til ti~J~.~.l ~~avc ~;o ma1~e fi~he
c~~c~. aiof~. on r~1~,1I1~~11~?1C~ c~~~' Tz' ~~~~~~ cak~ts dr~ ;~ ~~,z~; ~o ov~x~-x~~~~~.
~;h~ ~o~,~Y~~~a_~.l ~.n~or~~ ~~.~ ~11~ IF ~z^b~~1, ~h~ ~:~t ~ Counc~.1.. ~~~v d.~c.zc~e not
'~ 0 ~ 0 ~:?. ~ Jr :I:~U~' ~ .~ ~ r ~'~ l~ ~ ~ "~ ~.~ ~ C t~ ~. +Y-?^ ~. C ~ . ~ f. ~ ~1 l ^~ ~.,5 c:j, 01`lc? ~~7 ~r' ~ ~~1 C~ ~ u ~ ~"t ~
or ~~ Y~~~ ~z~:~ v~ to ~~~ ~~'o:~ ~ ~~ ~~.~e~:r~ ~ a_~n. s~ha~; .~.s ~. ~c~ c~~ ion tlz~ C it~r
' ~ r ti, _lT_ f~ .~
CQUnc7 ~_ 'n~~,:~ ~c ~~~~.rl~. .~h~ c~~~1~ c~Y1 0.~ t~h~t ~~ro~~x~~y r1~n~~ 01.~~ an ~h~ ~~~th.
m~~~~r }~~~:v~ ~~~~. o~~~r..~~;~:i~ion ~~~ fh~~ ~rot,ti~x~s ti1 ~~ th~y'r~ not ~o~ n~ to be R
"~'.1_~ ~.~,1~ ~~?~,'::i ~Qi:~C'tf~ ~ ~i~ U~~li~.~ ~'~ ~.~._.~. ~0 a~, ui 1' Iilll~.l{~~1. C~.~~.~;:1~"" ~~. ~ E~c~~' ~Q
.il.~.~i, t~~'~?~;-~ ~ ~ ~'~1~`=~t~ ~~1(' (1~?~.` ~'~L1,:"1C:~~ 1.S ?JrO~'~'~.EC~ ~~b~Jl.~.t•
F-~.; ;.. n ~ ~i
_ .. ~;
,. ,
~~~Zr~` Glic~i ~tzted sh~ ti~rantc~. ~he enuinee.r~ to f~~l comfortabl.e so if
it i~ ~oin~ to ~ake 1_on~er th~.n February 2~th to co:nc up with th~ir
f i~ur~s, th~.t is f in~.
~~~~r. ~rnelis stat~d th<~.t con~e~~tual design should be :included in the
contrac~. This would incl.Lld~ some of ~h~ ti1l1~~S Gary has m~nt ioned.
-~ ~~v~~luation, co~ts, struct~~r~, sa ~'et~, and ~'uture ~xpandability of ~
the pro j~ct. ~~~~e woul.d en~. uio with a maintenance cost here ~
~~r. Pe~erkin asked if maintcnance costs .V~~re not part of' the Site
S~lection~
~~Zr. ~fJ~illiams sta~ed th~t he didn't want to say no ~~ to that, but wanted
ta point out that the f irst ~hin~ ~~re have to do is de~~rmine the site
to determine ~~het.her or not w~ can ~o on T~r~ th desi~n. ~~~e have to ha~re
~~ite evaluation first, before determination. Once tha~ is accomplished,
then th~ next phase of i-t in which the des~gn begins to take shape,
~~1a.11. be interdevelo~ed with ma:in.tenance f i~ures as ~~rell. Qur nrimar~y
conc~rn no~~~ is to get on with that evalua~ion ~.nd f in.d out whether
or not it can be done. I ti~ant ~o ~oint out a~ain that v~~e do have
the mone~r to proceed ~~ith a full ~la~~n conseptual design of the
entir~ H~.rbor sys ~em~ ti^J~e ~re not assured at this ~oint ~hat we Wll~.
ever ~uild it, u'~e are simply desi~nin~, A.fter it ~ s completely
designed, and ~~e kno~~ exactly j~rhere the nurnbers a~E i~ it is going
to cost too much money or not then ti~~e can ~;o back and decide whether
w~ want t o build i~ .
l~-~r. ~oss as~~ed if there ~ras still ;oinb to be a vote b~r the people
on the harbor.
~~~Zr. ~~~~a~oner sta~ed he didn't se~ where it would make any diiference.
I~~-ir. Isa~.cs replied i~ Uaas because af the har'~or having some op~ration
and maintenance casts.
~~~Zr. Hall sta~ted that i~ tir~r~.s ~,oin~; ~~ be put ~~efore ~~}1e ~~e~ple to ~.~11
the.r:~ if . v~~h~th~r or not th~y want a boat harbor. ~
~~l~r. Zoss repl~.~d that ~,hat is wh~~~ he ~r~a~ aska nv• Th~n do ~ou need
~hat O~N~~~~ r~port? I~ua~est ~hat a.f jrJ~ have solne preliminary f'i~ures
priox ~o the lOth it tir~oul~. help.
i~~~r. I'ei~~r~in st~~ed ~h~ w~,y it ~.s schedul~d out is: thex~e is ~oin~ to be
a vQ~~ on ~he l~th o~' ~~bru~.~~~r to ~~.sk th~ ~~ople if' ~he~ v1an~ a boat
~Zarlao~ ~a~Pc~ on ~he in~'or.i ~.tion ~~~~ counc~.l c~.n ~rov~.d~ no~~~~ ~~t th~~t
point, t~~e Q~I'~~~ and ~~e con~ep~u~:~l dcsi~;n com~ in~ if ~hey shoU1 some
~_n~dec~uacie;~ in dol1~~~ ~, --:revenu~ v~ rit~.in~~n~nce, ~~t th~~~, point ~.f it
loax~s 1~.~~~ t~.~ h~:~rbor ~~~:i 11. ~~enerate c~oll~~.rs, t~.P City ~ounc~ 1. V~roul~.
f~~1 co~or~~~.'~le ti~~ith th~ proL7~ct ,~oinz~ on' Ii z~ ~ho~,~s 1t's ~oa~~t; ~c~
cos~c th~ j~~o~~.~ a 1~ r~~~ l~ c~n , doll~.~.r ~~to run ov~x th~ ineor~e !~he
Cy ~~- C~u;~c~.l ~~~~.y ~~~c~ ~o ~0 1~ac~~ ~o ~h~ ~ublic for ;~nathc~r v~te. M
.i'~~~r~. ~1ic'~ ~~~~~e~. v°~ny ~~.r~ ~°s~ ~.n suc~1 ~. hurx~~T ~o ~;~.~ ~h~ ~e ~;h.~.n ;s don~
~f V M Y ~ l.~ N i ~i ~~ ~ ~`~ J~ ~ ~ r,,~ ~ ~I ~,/ V ~~ V ~ ~-~ ~~~ ~ ~.J ~ ~ `r ~~ i~ l~ :
V 1..,,
.~ ._ u S~- ~`.J J. v
. I
~ + , ~
~Y~r. ~4~~illi~.ms ~~~~l~in~ d the ~°rhol~ ~dc~, is the fundin~ i~' it b~ corr~~s
~.v~~.l~.bl.~. Th~ ti~Jh~~ e ide~~. in conc~~~ is thc lo;ic ~that if it can
be buil~, ti~~~ have ~to have ~he f in~ancin~. One of th~ rea ~on~ we h~.ve
de cidcc~ to ~o f or f undin~, this year is that this may b~ ~,h~ l~st
ye~~r th~t rna jor iundin~ is available, I~ is better to have th~.t
20 million la in~ on to~, than not to have it at all.
~
l~~r~ Pe~er~~in felt that th~se nuest~.ons ~~ill be adec~uately ~.nsti~ered
ti~rell withi~ ~he ~ime frame of aps~roachin~ Jun~a~ after the Sit~
Selection and E~raluation is made of Tract A. ~.Chen th~ second phase
woul.d b e the C onc e ptual D e s i.gn, th~ O~I'~~ y and at th at po int the de c.is ion
will be rr~ade f or the pac?~~.ge o~ ~he ~otent ial f inancin~. This -will
~r~o r'~ it s~ lf out .
~~ t this time 1~~2r. Pet~rkin asked if there ~~~~as anythin~ ~lse that sh~ti~l~
be said in order ~o release CH2~~~ Hill rA~r~sentatives.
iu~r. T~aacs sta~ed '~~ ~r~asn' ~ sure on the deadline ~
T~~~1r. Peterkin stated tl~.~.t an actual deadl~.ne had been released~
i~ir. Kornelis stated this should b~ ~ut into tne con~ract also.
r11r. P~terkin s~ated his onl~ con.c~rn on th~ o~her side ~~~as ~hat this
is not b~ a~ l m~~ns to sa~r °' dr~~g your f eet°' , jr~~e s~ zll need this as
saon ~~.s it can ~.d~quatelv '~e ~.one.
~lir~. Le~~~.n re~lied i-t has to meet this bud~et so we wo~'t dra~ ou~ feet.
r~~~eet zrzu A.d ~journed ~.t ~~ 0~ p. m.
~es~cctf~
1
I'ti<:~.rl~ne i
Approved
Robert Peterkin
~hairman