Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-01-20 Harbor Commission SummaryT ~ . ~. i::~^4'..+'~~ , . ' . rr... ~ . J! ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . - ~ . ~~ . ~ ~ ~ . ... . ~ ~ ,. . - '~"~'- ~~ , ' ` KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION P.O. BOX 580 ~ Kenai, Alaska 99611 AGENDA - January 20, 1981 OMMISSION MEETING: January 20, 1981 REGULAR HARBOR C ~ Kenai Public Safety Building EMBERS: Robert Peterkin, Chairman HARBOFt COMMISSION M ~ Joh~ Williams, Vice Chairman Tom Ackerly -. Ron Isaacs - ~ Marvin Dragseth Jimmie Davidson ., Charles Ross - IO MEMBERS: ~ Mayor Vincent 0'Reilly EX OFFIC Councilman Tom Wagoner AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Roll Call and Oath of Office - C. Agenda Approval D. Approval of Minutes 1. January 6, ~.981 2 . January 9._ { ~1981 ' ~ E. Introduction of Guests F. Communications , G. Reports 1. Gary Davis a. Feasibility Study (hand-out) b. Public Relations Relating to Harbor Proposition c. Wetlands . 2. Chairman Peterkin CH2M Hill Contract Negotiations of January 14, 1981 a. H. Old Business , ~ 1. Chairman Peterkin a. CH2M Hill b. Advertising c. Bu~.iness Cards ~f ~ °,~ J . . \~ ' ~ R ~ M ~. Kenai Harbor Commission Agenda Page 2 I. New Business 1. Chairman Peterkin a. Port and Harbor Task Force J. Persons Present Not Scheduled to be Heard _ 1. V,ince : p ~ Reilly K. Ad ~ournment ~ . i~ A Kenai Advisory Harbor Commission Regular Meeting, January 20, 1981 Kenai Public Saftey Building Robert Peterkin, Chairman ~ A. CALL TO ORDER ' Chairman Peterkin called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. B. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Peterkin, Vice Chairman John Williamsr Commissioner's Tom Ackerly, and Charles Ross. ~ ~ Ex-Off icio Members Mayor Vince 0'Reilly, and Councilman Wagoner. Others Present: Harbor Commission Coordinator Gary Davis, Councilman Jess Hall, and two members of the public; Mr, and Mrs. Waldo Coyle. Excused Absence: Commissioner's Marvin Dragseth, Jimmie Davidson, and Ron Isaacs. ~ ~ C. AGENDA APPR4VAL The following changes were made in the Agenda: B. Oath of Of f ice omitted. G. Reports: 1. -NiayQr 0'Reilly 2. Gary Davis 3. Chairman Peterkin H. Old Business: c. Business Cards omitted ~ c. Set Nets - added d. Addition of Overall Waterfront Review -added D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~ ' January 6, 1981 approved Januar~ 9, l9$1 approved E. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Peterkin introduced Councilman Jess Hall F. COMMUNICATIONS None submitted G. REPORTS l. Mayor Vince 0'Reilly reported information directly pertaining to the Harbor Commission. The Exxon Fluor Group visited Anchorage last Wednesday evening, January 14, and Thursday January 15. The~r reported to the Commonwealth North sub-committee that is dealing with gas, and gas liquids. Page 2 REPORTS ' cont.~ 1. Mayor 0'Rellly; Exxon Fluor Group Exxon has a world-wide point of view when they're looking at siting of the petrochemical industry. They emphasize the point of view that Alaska has the resources and is an area that they'll look at, in which they could site. Their study is proceeding and will be finished by September. The~ have had no contact with Dow Shell Group, nor do they intend to have. The reason was so they cannot get charged with collusion or any anti-trust activit- ies. It was gathered from rernarks that were made, that we best be prepared for their selection of Valdez as the site they will use in their study for determining course. They have emphasized in the past that the site they use in their study is not neces- sarily the site they will pick as the site for their facilities. Exxon Fluor invited the Mayor of Valdez and Mayor 0'Reill to 0 to Houston to show them ' '~ y ~g what a petrochemlcal facility looks like. Mr. 0'Reilly stated this information will be passed on to City Council tCC~ tomorrow, and we should be aware of this as art of p the installation of the Docks and Harbors Engineering. Mr. Peterkin asked if this was with Arco, Dow, or Exxon Fluor. Mr. 0'Reilly stated that Dow has had visits of an intensive nature in the Kenai Area, with the Wildwood people and the Borough; cutting it down to a very def initive site examination. This was all he had for his report. Mr. Peterkin reported that ~here was a contract signed at the last C.C. meeting; with CH2M Hill. Mr. Davis stated before this meeting began, that CH2M Hill had some people on the site today. They were experiencing some d.ifficulty with their wheeled vehicle getting onto the mud flat because of the tide situation. Mr, Peterkin asked if anyone had any further information to offer Mr. 0'Reilly on the situation. Mr. Wagoner asked Mr, 0'Reilly if it was ~he Dow or Exxan Study that was done down here. Mr. 0'Reilly stated it was Dow who asked for responses on two outlines. One is a Site Study, Thi~s deals with rights of way, property ownership, and port and harbor site availability. The second outline deals with social and economic factors. Both of these are being prepared by Borough staff. There may have to be some City involvement in order to be certain that the first study is done on time; which is February l6. The Borough finds itself in a position where Seward is doing their own study, funding their own study, and the Borough Administration feels that they woulr~ get into a very dif f icult s ituation if they were f unding a study out here, at the same time; doing the same thing as Seward. Mr. Peterkin stated that he had been invited to the Economic Development Task Force Study for looking into the Port Facilit~r Powers. In going through their minutes he found bits of infor- mation on what bonding can do. Page 3 REPORTS (cont.) Mr. Peterkin-Economic Development Task Force Study Valdez was the instrument fmr the first Trans-Alaska Terminal Facilities. The bond was $1,342,000,000. This program has a second project they have handled. That was the $17,000,040 dock at Unalaska for the American President Fund. In some of the negotiations with Valdez, they were awarded one per cent of the bonding when they sponsored this project. This amounted to $13 to $14,000,000 in interests. Valdez is currently look- ing at another bonding situation for $1,063,000,000. They are apparentl~ looking for an Internal Revenue Service ruling on this at this time. It ~~.s interesting to note that as far as what the City's responsibilities ar in t~is--it states in the minutes; the Municipality is essentially a financing vehicle for a major firm. Howe~er, it is not liable for the debt. The bond holder can only look to the company for payment of that debt. In view of this, with this Task Force going on, they should be able to have a good idea of what is going on with this_infor- mation; as they have some good people working with them. Mr. Peterkin ;~eported he would be at their next meeting, which is tomorrow; Wednesday, January 21, 1981, at 1:30 p.m~ He will give a report to the City. In regards to the City vs the Borough having these dollars, it would be a good position for the City to be in. Mayor 0'Reilly stated that when a firm was hired to come up with wording for the Charter change, there were a number of questions asked. One of them was "Can the City use Industrial Development Bonding outside the City Limits?" The answer was "no". He told them we hired you to develop the wording so we could use the Industrial Development Bonding inside the City Limits. He went on to explain that in orde~ to do this, two things have to occur. -- 1. The.city has to have the power, which we now have, by the Charter change. -- 2, There has to be an Internal Revenue Service Ruling specif ic to that site, for those.type of facilities. ~ Mr, williams asked if he was correct in assuming that Valdez sponsored the Docking Facility at Unalaska. f Mr. Peterkin answered the question; "No", by explaining that Valdez did sponsor the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Terminal Facilities. Assuming it was the City of Unalaska, or the Charter, that spon- sored it. The second portion of this relates to Valdez offering Alpetco the sam~~ financing program, and the City and eight attorneys are preparing a request for an Internal Revenue Service Ruling on $1,063,000,000 in tax exempt bond financing. This goes into the structure of the Ch~rter and the ruling an specific incidents, and gives a brief out~ine of whether it's multipurpose, etc. It states industrial bonding as it is today, was started twelve years ago when Congress cut back on local government powers to issue bonds for industrial p~rpases; allowing for re-issuance of tax-free bonds of up to one and ten million dollars in capital expenditure basis, as well as without limit or certain exempt purposes such as docks and wharfs.~ It is possible to finance a single p~rpose , privately owned, (dock or wharf ) if such is part of a public wharf ~ Also A a car~lmon carrier facility regardless if it is part of a public port. Pa~e 4 REPORTS ~cont.) Mr. Peterkin The other qualification is that the technical issuance of the bonds must be by a public enity such as a Municipality, Mayor 0'Reilly was excused from the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Davis reported on the Feasibility Study he had worked up on the 19?4 Port Facilities Grant. He stated the Study was not very long and he would like to go through it page by apge to see if the Harbor Commission (HC) agreed with the wording. When put in f inal draft, the Study will be submitted to the City Council (CC) for approval by Resolution, then sent to the Department of Trans- portation of Public Facilities Planning Department in Anchorage. Kit.Duke is the Director. Her assistant, John Tolley, will be reviewing this study. The determination will be made in the Anchorage office of whether this study is acceptable. They will process the papers to release the $643,500 the State has. The money is for a Port Facilities Development which has a~wide range of uses. Included are Site Acquisition, Planning, and the actual construction and engineering of a Marine Development Park. This is spelled out in THE SC4PE on page one of this Study. Mr. Davis noted one change to be made on page one; paragraph b. SCOPE of the STUDY. He inserted the words (and future~ to where the f irst line will read -- to meet the present and future demands of the f isheries industry. Mr, Peterkin suggested also using - recreational boating and sport fishing in that paragraph. Mr. Da~is agreed to incorporate that into his study. He asked for opinion on page two by reading the following under OBJEC~IVE -The primary objective of this project is to provide an area ~ conducive to an orderly development of the f ishing industry; to. enable them to perform in a more eff icient and productive manner. He explained that some people insinuate that it isn't operating ~ productively or efficiently now. Mr, williams stated that the State has long since proved the fact that our fishery is not operating in an efficient and productive manner. The study done last year on fish quality proves that. He suggested if Mr. Davis wanted to improve the wording, he ahould include "increasing" the quality of the fish. Mr. Davis stated the Stud~ speaks in more detail of this, in the DEMAND. Mr. Ross stated that increased safety will be provided. Mr. Peterkin stated that in going over paragraph (b}, something in the safety line, such as -- "this boat harbor will include a type of radio communication, Office of the Coast Guard, saf~ty inspections, etc." ~ Page 5 REPORTS (cont~~ Feasibility Study - Gary Davis Mr. Davis stated he would add something in the paragraph under Scope of the Study to include safety and the Coast Guard. The approach of the Study is to compile material through a literature search, ~indicating the need for this project and its con- vience tQ the public. This study will detail what the City feels is necessary in the development of the Marine Development Park (MDP) to make it attractive to those businesses most likely to utilize the area. The Bibliography lists the references used in the literature search. Everything in the Bibliography is included in the studies. This is done to save those who will be doing the re- viewing, from having to go through and find the critical items in ~the studies . The DEMAND--Development of the Small Boat Harbor (SBH) is the critical part indicated by John Tolley. They will be looking very strongly at the technical adequacies of the SBH, so it is included as a sub-paragraph under this section. Mr. Williams asked Chairman Peterkin when the City of Kenai was chartered. Mrs. Coyle stated it was incorporated in 1959. She be~ieved it was chartered in 1962 or 1963. Mr. Davis stated page three indicated the real demand. Kenai is currently an historic fishing community without a harbor or other facilities to keep pace with the modernization taking place within the commercial fishing and fish n~:c~cessing industry. Mrs. Coyle addressed the chair, stating she and her husband have been here since 1952, which is more than 30 years and Kenai has been a f ishing community since before that. , Mr Davis stated there was something in one of the report~s that directed him to the effect of 30 years. Mr. Peterkin and Mr. Williams agreed that the wording should be changed to state "for it's entire history". Mr. Williams directed Mr. ~Davis to return to the top sentence and omit the word currently. The sentence was corrected to read, "Kenai is an historic fishing community.'T There was more discussion on the use of the word "currently". The final decision was to omit it. Mrs, Coyle addressed the chair, questioning where Mr. Davis got his information that Kenai has been trying to build a boat harbor for 20 years? Mr. Williams stated that was the question he brought u,p. You would have to go out of context with the City. You couldn't have been trying to build a boat harbor for longer than the City has been in existe.nce. We have been attempting to build a boat harbor since we've been a City. Prior to that everyone else was trying to build it. Page 6 REPORTS (cont.} . Mr. Davis stated his williness to change the w~rding. Mr. Peterkin stated it was fine just the way it was. Mr. D~avis stated he hadn't included the attachment of the appendixes; as rr~st of the people present had read the transcript of the hearings frorL~ the Corps of Engineers Report. T~'HNI~, AD~QUACY -- In the technical adequacy of the S~iall Boat Har~or, many of the reports and studies indicated it can be built. T'here ha.s been new technology developed in geometric conf ~gurations, and things of this nature, that hold a lot of relevant discussions of the existing studies. The strongest one from Wince, Corthell, Bryson, and Freas which states: "the investigations considered conventional procedures and did not pursue engineered efforts to resolve the siltation problem for this specific application." T'he Corp of Engineers in their 107 reconr~aissance report have indicated an application of innovated designs have already achieved som~ success. 'I~ey are ac~nitting that t~here are some designs that can alleviate to some degree the siltation problem. Mr. Peterkin stated that after the first major paragraph,-- the next one is WC$F study-- the next line down, about the third to the last word, you have stated that CH2M Hill consulting engineering firm on "our" SBH. This should be the SBH. Ghange "our" to the. In the next paragraph, it is anticipated that the selected concept will include a dredged harbor with channel access to the river. Mr. Peterkin was not in agreen~nt that it was going to be a dredged harbor. Mr. Davis explained this as a quote from the study. He went on to state ~~2~~~ ~" is ~'~~ advertis~nt of CH2M Hill's Point Robert's Project that indicates it is in operation, it has been proven t,hrough actual con- struction that the design is readily accepted by the permi.tting agencies. At the end of the page, he included a sentence indicati.ng that CH2M Hill fur~her expounds on techincal adequacy of the harbor with the enclosed letter, which hasn't been received as yet. A letter has been rec~u~sted two weeks specifically addressing the technical adequacy of buildir~c~ a harbor here. John Aho and Loren I~~nan were out of the office today, and Mr. Davis said he w~uld call them again as he expected to include it here, and add it to Appendix ;~ if- it is received. He felt there was enough in the report without it if it wasn't received, to show technical adequacy. Included on page 5 in the report on Harbor Com~nission (HC7 efforts -- all of the agencies, the COE; what they've done; in deciding that this does warrant looking at with funding for som~ more money. Also indicated what t,he State has done with the City in providing the initial $10,000 for the Wc~F Study. The~ ha.ve provided the one-half million dollar municipal grant to develop the small boat harbor study and design. The Office of Coasta.l N~~nage,r~nt has provided aclministrative support. '~he City of Kenai has provided their f irst operating budget for the Harbor Commission (HC) . The 1980-81 annual budget is an appendix. The appendixes includ~ tY~e resolutions acc~pting these rnonies. These were pertinent inclusions to show the state people have faith in this proje~t. Page 7 REPORTS (cont.) Feasibility Study Mr. Davis stated that relating to the Wetland Report, he felt a need to include som~thing on the enviroru~ntal aspect. . After discussions wit~h various experts in h~rbor construction~and design, he will qualify that (after design) by indicating all of the engineering firms that suxxnitted proposals, and include the date of our Public Hearing r and the review of those proposals. Mr. Peterkin stated he felt that Mr. Davis was isolating Kenai to Salmon fishing, and that the scope should be broadened to include Hali.but, shrirnp, etc. Mr~ Davis agreed to make this change. He stated that som~ paragraphs under the demand of the fishing industry are limited. They were put t~ogether through the discussions heard here, and from readi.ng the Wince Corthell Studies. He did not have the qu~alifications needed for the Coast Guard Fueling Station as he could not get hold of people at tha~~~ office: Mr. Peterkin asked Mr. Davis to go back to the sub-headings regarding "f lying f ish" . It was f elt that airborne transportation of f ish was a better staten~nt. Mr, Iaavis agreed. He stated. he needed to get qualification on that Coast ~Guard Fueling Station before he could includ~ it. ~~ ~ ~ ,; Mr. Peterkin said if he couldn't get a qualification, to change some of the w~rding to the effect that none are Coast Gu~ard approved, or satisfactory to the safety of life and limb; but don't leave t~his portion out. Mr. Da.vis stated some additional changes in wording under Fueling Stations. He had not been able to get hold of all t~he processors but had talked with Doris Lashley and Marvin Drageth. He had discussed the fuel-handling situation with them, and felt the~ expressed ~hey w~uld be glad to get out of th~ fuel-handling business. He had also omitted "paying high prices for fuel". T'he w~rding has been changed to the fishermen are presently inconv- ienced by re-fueling accom~d.ations man~ are praviding their own p~p. Mr. Peterkin stated the wnrding was fine, but in the design of the fueling conception, to m~ntion that the fueling station will be a U.S. Coast Guard approved fueling point; and go on fr~m the last sentence. , Mr. Williams stated in the last part of the last sentence, it says the fisherm~n are pressed for paying higher prices for fuel; many are providing their own p~p and drum systems, which add to the danger of petroleLUn spillage in the river. - Mr. Davis stated ~~ w~uld include a safety factor there. All of the Stud.ies are negative on the recreational boating and sport fishing out of the mouth of the ~enai River. Mr. Peterkin stated we have a report form Fish and Game or Fish and Wildlife that show on any six-hour daylight day, from the base of Skilak Lake to the mouth of the Kenai R.iver, there was never a point in time where there were less than 1000 boats during salmon seasor~. Page 8 REPORTS ~cont.) Feasibility Study Mr. Davis stated he had seen those reports. They went on to say that none of those boats drift down belaw the m~uth of Beaver Creek. Mr. Peterkin stated. it didn't make any difference where they drift. You go where~_~he h~rbor conviences are. ~' - ~ Y Mr. Coyle stated it was claimed by economists that Kenai was "written off" because they felt it w~uld be taken over by the sports f ishe~rman. Mrs. Coyle addressed the chair with a question as to whether there should be som~thing in the report about the barges from the refineries coming into the small boat h~arbor; because at tim~s the winds in North Kenai prevent them fmm stopping there. It w~uldn't only be used by cc~ranericial and sport fisherm~n. Mr. Davis stated he had considered that. The biggest concern being the boats coming in to use the grids for repairs and annual maintenance. But, as he progressed in the report he found it wasn't possi.ble to include . everything. Page 7- Ir~act is where Mr. Davis felt he got tangled with isolating the Sa].mon f ishing industry. Mr. Peterkin stated here is where ~7th line up on page 6) the word can~rcial fishing fleet sh~uld be used instead of salmon fishing fleet. Mr. Davis agreed. Mr. Peterkin stated also to omitt the w~rd "som~" before Gharter Services to read Charter Services. Not-as well as sor~ Charter Services. Page 8- Project Details- T'he area description was pulled from both the Derry and Associates, and the Wince Corthell area descriptions. '~hese were included as appendixes. ~ Site IACation- includes the map on the front of the report. A'copy was marked up on Site A as being the best site, as brought out in the ~~lince CArthell Study. The over-all area which the City may also consider as t~he Marine Developrn~nt Park is also included. Planning - The initial planning will establish the long range needs of a Port and Harbor Developm~nt. 'The key question to be answered by t,his planning process, will be the feasibility of developing the Marine Industrial Park to the South of the Small Boat Harbor Site, as determined by ttem c- Priorit- ized areas for development.- '~he land to t~he south is owned by t~e city, The envixoru~ntal oonsiderations and restrictions were detearmi.ned by ~tem g- Determined Environm~ntal Effects - They necessitate locating els~where since this land is a Wet~.and and may have an ecalogical value placed on it as outli.ned by the Corp of Engineers section 404 guidelines. Should the city be required to deve~op to the North we need to purchase some additional private land to accomodate som~ of the vita.l aspects of our project, such as the dry harbor, public parking, or fuel facilities. Mr. Peterkin questioned if Mr. Davis was saying that th~re i.s~~ot_.:~nough_:~roam on ~.he current tracts for the design project with the wet and dry harbor as it now stands. Pag~ 9 REPORTS (cont.) Feasibility Study Mr, Peterkin asked Mr. Davis if he was saying that there's not enough room on the current tracts for the design project with the wet and dry harbor? Mr. Davis stated "no" he was leaving the option to locate anywhere, instead of saying it. Mr. Peterking stated with that sta.tem~ent as it is you might convey to them that there is not enough room for a wet and dry harbor. If the Roper land is purchased by the City, there will be enough land for both the wet and dry harbor. . Mr. Davis stated that is 22 acres (B&C) . He was told today there was 3~ acres. Mr. Williams stated he thought that tract A was t~ be incorporated along with it. Mr. Da.vis stated that what he was doing was not locating anywhere specific, as he indicated further-depending on the outco~ne of the actual engineering-~ this outcc~ne will also be identified as part of our wet harbor ba.se. Mr. Williams stated that a point on Tract A should be made soon. We are definitely going to utilize part of tract A for the Harbor System. Mr. Peterkin sta.ted the only potential use for Tract A is a greenbelt, and public launch. ..:Mr, ti~Tilliams agreed with th~at statement; also stating this will all be part of the incorporated system. He took exception to the letter Mr. Davis received in answer to the question of what we could use it for ,-based on e~ctly what the patent says it can be used for. T~ze man who wrote that letter was off-base. Mr. Davis stated his question was not addressed at all. Mr. Williams sta.ted t~hat the last letter we got back was grossly in error. According to the patent, it appears we can use that for anything we want as long as it is part of the public boat facility. Mr. Davis stated he agreed, It must be pursued, and checked into as to exactly what can be,done. Mr. Williams sta.ted thrat the way the conseptual design was, we could roll it over and put the launching facility on that end, leaving more space on the oppos ite end f or boat storage . I f we re~nember the way T~~MS boat harbor was designed, they had the launch facility for the boats on ~he south end of the harbor, and they were storing boats in the nor~h end. This m~eant you had to con~ all the way through the entire h~arbor in order to get your boat to t~he land and out. W'hy not bring the boat in.the front end of ~he hax~k~or ~d out . ~ Nt~. Wagor~r stated when he is coming in with his con~rcial boat, he doesn't want to n~ss with 6 or 8 boats milling around the rar~ space. This is why it should be away from the mouth of the harbor. Page 10 REpORTS (cont.) Feasibility Study Mr. Peterkin stated it could be designed that way also. The launch area could be directly out of the way. Mr. Wagoner stated he has seen people almost get killed in Homer with sport boats. The only thing that keeps it from ha pening is the ability of the commercial f isherman to handle p his boat. ~ williams asked Mr. Wagoner if he would rather traverse the Mr. . entire length of the harbor to get to the ramp. :~ a oner stated he would rather have them go the entire Mr.. W g length of the harbor. ~ Mr. Peterkin stated you have the same situatuon with everyone who drives a car, or Flies an airplane. Mr. Williams stated it could be worked out in the design, but we should get it worked out where tract A is a portion of the overall plan, by.some method or manner. He had no objection . at all to go out and aquire more land, for any of the facility if it is needed. we should address the fact tract A is avail- able to us. Include that in the overall design. Mr. Davis stated that the alternative he speaks of in this , re ort leaves it optional--that the City can purchase additlonal p ~ands if necessary. Mr. Peterkin stated after reading the f irst sentence he can now see what was intended. Mr. Davis stated it doesn't say we will purchase it, it doesn't sa we 'll urchase all of it, or a portion of it. He quallf ied y ,p this with this statement;--The owners of this land have indicated a willingness to sell this referenced land related to Port and Harbor Facilities. It is footnoted on the~bottom, as per conversations with Waldo and Ruby Coyle. If anyone in else in the re ort that needed to be qualified to saw anyth g P let him know. . Site A~~uisition: After close evaluation o~f the harbo~ site outliner~ in Wince Corthell's Study, tpage 26) , the City in con'unction with engineering consultant, CH2M H111, has J concluded Site A to be the best site for the harbor. This is within the roposed Marine Development Park (MDP). This is p the onl site which would meet the scope of our proposed small Y boat harbor. The scope of it is included in the requests for ro osals we sent in. We want so many slips, the dry harbor, p p fuelin facilities, etc. that is the scope of it. He didn't g include the RFP here because he didn't want to spell it out to them. . Page 11 REPORTS (cont.) Feasibility Study-Site Aquisition Features that make the site attractiv~ are listed in this study. The harbor site with its adjoining land will easily accommodate our initial facilities and still allow for further expansion as required. The City owns a portion of this area (Tract A) and will aquire rights to the remaining land under the terms of a proposal from the current leaseholder (Mr. ~Roper) . In addition to receiving all~rights, title, and interest to the land, it will also receive the current Corps of Engineer Section 104 permit obtained b~ the leaseholder to build a private small boat harbor, Appendix K is Mr. Roper's proposal to the City. Opinion was asked whether Mr. Roper's proposal should be left in or taken out. Mr. Brighton ~~ated you've been talking to the folks down in Juneau. You have a better idea than anyone else, what would be necessary for them to turn that money over to us. You have a check list you are trying to co~er in this proposal. It depends on what you think more than what anybody else thinks should be included in the proposal. Mr, Davis stated~he didn't think it would hurt to include it. The review and determination on this is going to be given by Kit Duke, and John Tolley. John Tolley knows exactly what the situation is. In his letter to us, he indicated if you wish to enter into a purchase option agreement for land acquisition before actual execution, of the grant, specif ic written approval must be received from the State prior to such action. Evidence should be provided to justify the necessity for obtaining an early purchase option agreement, to document the immediacy of the situation. This would not be hard to do. Mr. Davis stated he could document the urgency and immediacy of the situation and include a copy of the Roper proposal and get an opinion if they would allow the City to spend these monies. ' Mr~. Brighton stated he wouldn't want to give them the idea in the proposal, that we are trying to hide something from them. Mr. Davis stated that they know what the situation is. Mr. Brighton stated it would be to our disadvantage if it appeared we were trying to hide something from them. If they weren't aware of it, and we went on down the road two or three more steps and all of a sudden,-that raised it's ugl~ head, -we've traversed a lot of time that c~uld have been avoided. Mr. Davis stated if it weren't spelled out, he wasn't too sure how the members of Council will feel, about utilizing the money for that. Mr. Brighton stated that is right. Mr. Williams addressed the ~hair at this point, stating via this report, are we attempting to justify the necessity of obtaining an early purchase option documenting the immediacy of the situation? We are really justifying the request for the Page 12 REPORTS (cont.) Feasibility Study-Site Aquisition entire $643,500, which is a portion of the funds to be used for the purchase of this land. It is necessary for us to get this money here rather soon. I would say definitely then, that this would become a portion of documentation for the immediacy of the situation. So maybe we need this flooded with that too. Mr. Wagoner stated he agreed with that; but at the same time , this doe~n't say anything about buying back leases. The City alread~ owns the land. This is presuming you're going to~go out, make an arrangement to buy land, Not for just back leases. Maybe we need to address both options. That way if you lose it, you won't have to go back and take another three months dealing with the same office on the same ground, or just a different piece of property. Mr. Davis stated it is included. The option to bu~ Coyle's property is included. Mr. Wagoner stated that's what he was saying was that they shoula all be addressed in the same spot-saying these are the options for our land, and list them, Mr. Peterkin asked if he was to believe as on~page 10, that what we're saying is --"as previously mentioned an page $, the City, if necessary, will purchase the remaining area within site A from the owners." What we're doing is identifying the Coyle land then, as a portion of that within A, is that corre~t? Mr. Davis stated,"yes, that is correct". It needed to be in there because it is a site aquisition. Mr. Williams asked then if it were included in the documentation that.this site A adjoins pri~ate lands that can be purchased. Is it sufficently identified? If not, we need to do it at this time. Whether or not we are interested in discussing it at this point. Mr. Peterkin pointed out on page 9,--it says because of the importance of this North-South question we have included the funding alternative within this study. The alternative will provide as one of the options funds to purchase portions of the land ta the North, should the plan advise it. Down further in the subnotes he has included - Ruby and Waldo Coyle's information. This land is tied to tract A. Isn't the $643,Q~J~ tied to tract A? Not A-our Project, but A as in A,B,C,&D? Mr. Davis stated~ "no." Mr. Peterkin stated he wondered where he got the idea that it was tied to that tract? We've been dealing specifically with that piece of property and I"m sure that money is tied to that land. That's what the money was granted for. Page 13 REPORTS (cont) Feasibility Study-Site Acauisition Mr. Wagoner stated that was a general obligation bond issue passed by the State of Alaska for the Development of the Port and Harbors. It had nothing to do with tract A. Tract A was picked as the site for the small boat ramp, as it was avail- able and that was the purpose of that piece of property. The two don't tie together in any way. The money can be used for development of tract A, and related facilities put on it. Mr. Davis stated with his discussions with Mr. Tolley, he has never seen anything that indicated being tied to tract A. Mr.. Peterkin stated the question still exists. Do we want the Appendix K in here on Roper, or don't we? Mr. Williams answered yes. Mr. Peterkin stated to put it in the report. M~. Davis stated he had mentioned the possibility of purchasing the Coyle's land because,this paragraph is in site acquisitian Mr. Peterkin stated "okay." Mr. Wagoner reiterated the fact that we should include this as one of the possible sites. Mr. Peterkin asked Mr. Davis if there wa~ a way in which he coula expand it to where the land acquisitio~, isn't tied to the tract .~. Mr. Williams stated it appears that with the core drilling going on now, that you're going to have an answer within a period of days. The geotech is down here, and we should have the answer in a.matter of~da~s as to whether the soil condition is suffic= ient f or a harbor . Mr. Peterkin stated the entire scope of work is spread out to March 16th. The information on the core drilling can be answered by the engineers sooner than that date. Mr. Williams stated that if this whole thing was going to be held over until March 16th,-has anyone approached Mr. Roper about extending his option date yet? Mr~. Peterkin stated the City Council's position. They have the vote coming up. ~If this vote is negati~e, the whole project is gone. This is the position. The City Council (CC) is ex- pecting some information and some status reports from the en- gineer prior to Feb. 28th, which might give them enough infor- mation to aGt on. If r~~t, p~ssibly enough information to apply for an extension. ~Mr. willaims stated at this point in time he didn't see any rea~on to be-labor the point of other sites. We should stay where we are at. If we have to fall back and modify part of this--- Page 14 REPORTS (cont.) Feasibility Study-Site Aquisition Mr, Wagoner stated make one paragraph to take care of what we mig~~~ ever want to do, then we wouldn't have to go through this whole process. , Mr. Peterkin stated that in this instance, he agreed with Mr. wagoner. This should be opened up a little bit so that this step would not have to be gone through again. If the people. vote it down,-that is one thing,--if the soils tests say no,- site A isn't the area,---the commission is going to have to regroup and start from scratch. . Mr.. Davis asked if an inclusion was wanted in the report on something specific. Mr. Peterkin stated Coyle's land, Roper's, f ine. Don't tie it down to land aquisition in overall tract A. (we'll call it) Mr. Davis acknowledged by stating he would include just studies. Mr. Peterkin stated not to even go into that. Don't tie it down to land aquisition on tract A. Preferably just land aquisition~period. In the mouth of the River. Mr. Wagoner stated Roper's leases must be addressed, then all that would be needed would be a general statement. If those are not available, or not feasible, then there is other privately owned land the Harbor Commission can ~~quire. Mr. Peterkin stated just to state other land acquisition period. He then asked Mr. Davis if he could do that. Mr. Davis stated that he could. He still had some things to do on Roper. ~ - Mr. ~eterkin stated that'in previous letters they have'talked about the Roper situation. This has been all spelled out. The money, and what it's going to be used for. You've got that letter to that effect~ stating the $250,000 is to buy out Roper's leases. ~ Mr. Hall asked why we have to be covered under land ~cauisiti~n. Mr. Peterkin stated the City Manager has a problem with that. Mr. Brighton stated he didn't realize what Mr. Peterkin just got through saying. You just stated that the folks down there are well aware of what the situation is. At the time I made my statement, on the basis that I didn't want it to appear we were trying to hide something from them. Apparently, with our appendix in there--we weren't trying to hide anything bPcause they were already aware,--by letter. ~ Page l, REPORTS (cont.) Feasibility Study-Site Acquisition Mr. Davis stated the only letter he had from them was the one he had with him tonight, Mr. Peterkin a~ked if Mr. Davis had written a letter explaining in detail what we have. , Mr. Davis could not remember what he had said in that letter. He believed it was spelled out in it, but didn't remember the exact content. Mr. Peterkin stated the letter should have made it crystal~clear exactly what we were going to do with that money. No surprises, no hidden punches. Mr, Davis was sure he did specify but the only response was the ' letter he had with him. After t~s, he had a telephone con- versation with Ben, in reference to that letter and Ben ~Mr. Delahay) felt that this letter satisfied my request. Recess called at 8:55p.m. Back to order at 9:45p.m. M~. Peterkin stated on page 10,--Item K:--leave that in explain- ing the Roper situation. Try to rewrite on the situation of the . lands by not tying to tract A. Just other land aquisitions, On the North, South thing on page 9,--mentioning the Coyle's land, that's f ine. Loosen up the verbage a little bit on the aquisition of lands. Mr. Brighton addressed the chair stating Mr,. Hall has a problem with including the basic concepts of Mr. Roper's lease. My concern for getting it in there is the fact that if in fact, there has not been complete communication, that they will have an opportunity to address it at the time they address the whale document. They will at that time give us a yes or no, or a qualified yes or no. If it is not in there, and they give it a yes and something happens two weeks later that that comes about and they say now wait a minute, what's that Kenai trying to do, that it looks like a real (sponge?), lease; lease to somebody, then buy it back~ all I'm worried about is putting us down the road thirty days further because of some complex situation that was or was not, in the document. If it is in there, they have the opportunity to address t~e entire thing, then we'l1 be better off time wise. This is my concern. Mr. Hall stated he was under the impression that during one of the council meetings the money to buy back that lease had to be identified, an~ where it came from, and if it could be used for that. He thought it had been established that t~e money could be used for that purpose. Page l~ REPORTS (cont.) Feasibility Study-Site Acquisition Mr. Davis stated it has been established verbally, and somewhat vaguely in writing. Triere have been vibes from Council saying they wanted to make sure. They wanted it in writing so that it was right in front of their noses and there would be no question that during an audit three years down the road, they aren't going to have to pay back $250,000. This question I would think should be brought to C.C. tomorrow night. Mr. Peterkin told Mr. Davis to loQk for the letter. He was certain it had been copied had stated he would lookfor his copy also. Mr~. Williams stated he had to conc;~~~r with Mr. Brighton's consideration is this matter. In the letter from John Tolley dated January 6th, the ambiguity begots the statements by the writer. He does not specifically say, "yes, Gary, the purchase of the Roper leases is okay with this department". He says, "if you wish to enter into a purchase option agreement, for land aquisition, before actual execution of Kenai Port Facilities Grant, specific written approval must be received from the~State prior to such action." He does say,--but it doesn't attach itself to anything solid. Mr. Wagoner suggested that he put in writing what was discussed over the telephone. Mr. Williams stated that is where we have been at since this date. Did they acknowledge in writing? That's why Mr. Davis was directed by the H.C. to tell that man to get a letter down here. This letter is a result of our direct request. Mr. Peterkin stated in view of where we are now, the best thing to do is to leave the Roper appendix in and go from there. Mr. Davis continued the Feasibility Study under Marine Devel-~ opement. Part III- Engine~ring -- This will include design of the streets, water, sewer, electrical, gas, telephone, and etc., ~tc., as far as the money will take us. The desi~gn will be investigated thoroughly as to operational requirements, physical condition, permit requirements, material availabil- ity, (primarily gravel) evnironmental consideration, and ex- isting utilities locations. This will be complete through plans and cost estimates. Engineering completed under this phase will follow the recommedations of the planning report where applicable. - Summary-Indicated what this project will do for the City, and indicated the importance of the Bibliography and the studies and reports that have been provided. He tried to be as thorough as possible, even though the State Department of Transportation in Juneau recommended just a few pages and include all!those studies. I feel more comfortable, and hope the H.C., C.C., will feel more comfortable with it this way. , ~~ Page 17 REPORTS (cont.) Feasibility Study-Summary Mr. Williams asked when the final draft would be ready for Council's approval. Mr. Davis stated tomorrow. This will be a hand-out. Whether they will take the time to digest it, and authorize the City Manager to submit it, being there is a resolution tomorrow accepting this as ~ the resolution has to go along with the study. . Mr. Brighton stated he thought the Council would be little concerned with the doeument. In his opinion, they would assume that the H.C. would have put it together properly. The resolution that is on the calendar, is to go ahead and directly submit the document. He then asked Mr, Wagoner and Mr. Hall if they agreed with this. He asked, "would you think that Council would be concerned and have questions on this? ~' Mr. Wagoner thought Council could act on it tomorrow night. Mr. Brighton stated he didn't think there was anything in there the Council would have any prablem with. Just to verify documentation, and justification. MOTION Mr. Ackerly moved the Harbor Commission lend~their Seal of Approval to this Document and recammend the City Council approve the accompan~ing Resolution. Seconded by Charles Ross ROLL CALL Chairman Peterkin,yes; John ti~lilliams, yes; Charles Ross, yes; Tom Ackerl~~, yes. , : MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY Mr. Brighton asked Mr. Davis if he wasgoi~ngto do some more work on this before tomorroca nigizt before it is ~lanc~ed to C.Cr and do you think it will be in shape tomorrow night? ~~ Mr. Davis stated it should be in order. Mr. Peterkin directed Mr. Davis to continue with his reports on Item B. Mr. Davis stated that on the up coming el~ction there have been requests to find out if there were any City monies available to the H.C. to use for printing flyers, advertisement posters, etc,, to convey to the public positive ~oints of the Small Boat Harbor. r'aq~ ~ 8 REPQRTS ~cont.) B, Public Relations N1r. Peterkin stated it has been brought to his attention by the City ~~ ministration there could be m~nies uded withi.n the H.C, budget for these items. The City ~c~ministration has som~ serious problems with the ultimate funding tool. Possi.bly the H,C. could find itself in violation for different nodes of money within the State system if thi.s H.C., acting as a Con~ni.ssion supporting the City of Kenai, did in fact, advertise publicly for this project. Unless this H.C. the C.C., Mayor, City Manager, etc., wants to reach in his (or their} own pocket, -this is about the only way t,his H.C. is going to do any advertising of any sort, r~orrzoN Mr. Williams n~ved that the Harbor Comni.ssion request $200 of it's budget nx~nies allotted to be used for printing of-fliers and poster in connection with the election Febr~.~y lOth. SECOr~D by Tom Ackerly Mr. Williams asked permission to speak to his n~otion. Pern~i.ss ion Granted to Speak to the NY~tion . Mr. Williams stated his reason for making this m~tion is ;-- we have been told by City Council that we can spend up to $1,000.00 by requesting it through the City ~~anager wit~hout having to go bef or them for special requests. I point out the fact the City,of.Kenai's City Council did~in fact donate $5,000 of the City of Kenai's money to the Chamber of Con~rce. Presenting the possibility that the City of Kenai and the City Chamber of Corrm~rce may be diametrically opposed to each other on son~ specific items of interest to the City of Kenai; yet, tne City did m~ve to give tr.~m $5000 for wh~t they wanted;- advertising, and so forth. Therefore, unless I am shone by a written docum~nt, where we are legally in violation of son~ law, stipulating that we can not spend th~t n~ney advertising the harbor, I propose to spend that m~ney to advertise that harbor. Y doubt seriously that there are any strings attached to the $5000, when it con~s to spending that r~ney for advertising purposes. I believe in our budget of $21,950, we had r~ney set asid~ for printing and other items. With all these things in my mind,~I support this requ~st to the City Aarni.nstrat- ion in the amount of up to $200. . DISCUSSION aF THE ~~JTIQN Mr. Wagoner asked why did you say $200.00? ls that going to be enough? P1Ir. ~ailliums stated ~~r. I~avis said it c~uld cost us approxi.n~tely $fi0.00 for 1500 fliers, and $50.Da for 50 ~~oster~. T~~at only com~s to $110.00. P~Ir. ~~oss asked ~~~r. G~illiams haw would he hand th~n out. r~~r. ~~illiams stated lz~ had a r~thod. ~~~orked out. Fi.rst of all, the 50 posters ~~ld ~Yo in ever~~~ ~usir~~ss, ever~~ }~.~r, and every marina in tcywn. He ~aid r~e ~w~~ald ~ andle t~~at ~rsonall~~ ~ f he couldn' t get any ~,Tol~ant~e~s . Th~ f liers , if i h~a~~7~ ta st~nd ir. tr.e ~~st ot f ic~, or in t~:~ ma11 ~d rand t~h~~~n cut ~.~rs~r~li`j, ~1a~ ~ S~'.o~~ t~r~`1' l~. y~t d.is ~rib~t~d. . ~'age 19 ~ REPORTS ~cont.) Public Relations Mr. Peterkin asked if there was any other d.iscussion. He reiterated that there is money in the budget. There was no problem there. He ~uld not like to speak to, or justify, or get into any other staten~ents as to what the City did at any time or place , over this money. He d.idn't have t~he laws in front of him to back up the stater:~ent . Apparently, the conflict con~s wit.~ advertising in bonding. If this harbor is bonded through som~ method of bonding, he in~ressed upon t~he Cc~ission that although he could see some potential value in the advertising, he could not see that the $20a value in advertising to be put in the way of a possible funding block. There is no problem with the $500,000, or the $643,000 we already have. H~ was talking about the ultimate end of the financing to t~his harbor. It has been brought to attention by the City Administration that this could possibly foul the financing. ~ Mr. Williams stated he wished to draw on his para-legal,ex~~erience. It would appear that bonding after the fact, would have no bearing on the validity of spending the m~ney for th~ fact. Once the advertising has taken place, and the I~gislature chooses to bond aft~r t~he fact,-it's like closing the door. Mr. Wagoner offered to dip into his pocket to give mo~ey for this. His question whether the H.C. wanted to get into an arg~,~nt with the C.C. on $200 because of this project. He also questioned tne H.C. with the issue of giving the Clairion the opportunity to blow up t~he issue of the $2Q0, and . ruin a 20 million dollar project. He didn't know whether the Clairion was , for or against the boat harbor. They haven't said too man~ kind things in the paper about it. If in fact, the H.C. wants the City to spend som~ m~ney for education of the voters, as to what is coming up on the ballot. ~ That way, the whole issue, not only the harbor, but also Proposition #1 can be put before the people by the san~ C.C. He t~hought it should be done. It's no different than selling a bond issue to a high school for a theatre or anything else. The municipalit~'s responsibility is to assure that there is an inforn~ed electorate. N~. Brighton stated he felt they were obligated under certain circumstances. Mr. Hall agreed with Mr. Wagoner. Mr. Wagoner stated this wouldn't get the H.C. in an adversary roll with the C.C. Mr, tiailliams statE-~ he would go along with that if he were assur~d the Council tia~uld go ahead and riot argu~ with putting the $200 up. He made rn~nticn of the fact that consid~rable amount of m~ney has already been spent in advertising this ha~-bor, by virtue of the brochur~s printec~ to ~~sk ~.h~ people to public ~~~~-~rings, and asking if th~y support this project. titi~'ve already spent ~nies ~~:he City has for ~dverti~ing tl~is thing. titi'h.en it com~s doT~rn ~o the pouzt of the City saying "r~o", bc~cause they're afrai~ of tne legal prebl~ms involved, he thought t~7ey should take a look at what they've already done. 1~. Pet~rkin stat~d tr.~re oc~s a point tiahere th~r~ is a def inition of brochur~s ti,rher~ t~'~~re is a public h~arinq ~tir~g. It is t.o~ally d~.~- , fer~7~ ~:~d ~~~:la r~ot ~ i.~~ ~:~:e s~.; cat~o~~ as tr.e ~dvert~sing t~:ey are about to do. Pa~e ?~ REPORTS (cont.) Public Relations Mr. Brighton st~ted the technical term is the City is obligated to intorm. He felt they would inform, However, there is a difference in informing and promoting. What you (the H.C.) is interested in is promoting. He wasn't sure the C.C. is on very good legal grounds to bring out promoting for the Proposition. He will refer to whatever Mr. Delahay has ta say on this, but thought those were the words when the division would come in, in informing or promoting, Mr. Ackerly stated he thought they could be informed, and . be promated at the same time. It could be written in such a way_that the facts could be laid out specifying what would be vot~ed on. Such as:- this is it, this is what you will be voting on February lOth. You don't have to say snything else. Tell them what we're looking at; and do you want it, or not. Informing them has to include the benefits. That is informing them. Mr. Brighton stated that is one side of the coin. Let's look at the other side. There are some people here, in this town, who are totally opposed to a boat harbo~~. If the~ are,-you are transgressing their rights as individuals to a spouse and or have supported by the local City government, their ideal. They can come to C.C. and say I want the same amount of money and I want it to use to promote the defeat of the H.C. Ref~rendum, This is where we get into a real gray area. He didn't want to give the empression that he was trying to put a lid on it, because he was for it. But, we must reMember the C.C. also represents both sides of the question. The people who are for it, and those against it. If they promote, they are taking sides against one group or the other in the community. This is where the problem comes. ~ Mr. Wagoner stated he felt Mr. Brighton was co C.C.'s job to inform. The H.C.'s or any group contact to set up,--it's their job to promote. the promotion shouldn'~ come from the H.C. It too many concerned citizens, (two of which are and promot~ this. rrect. I~ is the that you would He wasn't sure doesn't take here) to go out Mr. Davis stated the possibility of any conflicts over a$200 item when the option of an independent public int~rest group, to pu11 together $2~0 amoung 20 or 30 people, wouldn't take much effort to get a group of concerned individuals. This would be a fairl~T simpl~ task, and wouln't jeopardize an~~ more conllict betT,aeen H,~,, and C.C. Mr. Ross stat~d he thought som~thing to be kept in mind is th~ H,C. asks to be a neutral party in this process. We can't sit here an~ r~~t h~ve our ~nilzds made up -one way or the o~her and go to th~ public and advertise on~ wa~r or th~ ot er. We set ~ur- - selv~s up to be crucified. ~'u~;~ Ll REPORTS (cont.) Public Relations Mr. Wagoner stated he wished to speak as a private citizen. He wished to inform the H.C. as President of the United Cook Inlet Drift Association, if th~ H.C. wanted,some money to push a small boat harbor there are places to get it. Mr. Williams stated to call for the question. Mr. Peterkin asked if there was further discussion. Mr. Ackerly stated "let's keep it out of that gray area." He thought the City instead of having a legal advertisement which usually occurs, in announcing elections, to make it something different saying these are the propositions that are going to be on the ballot, and put them someplace else ra~ther than on the legal page. Put it where it will be noticed by the people who look at the paper. Mr. Peterkin stated that this decision and the one you have just ~ stated, is not the H.C:s authority to state the policy of where it should be and what it should be. The C.C, is obligated to the to ~~he public.~Q.do things well within the law. With everything that has been said tonight, I believe the H.C. in view of the City policy, is not acting in a prudent manner at this point, over this proposal. There is a way to do it,--it can be for- warded to the C.C., then do it within the law, and within the City administration as the~ list or document what is to be a ballot on the election. Mr. Ackerly stated before we vote, there is another approach also, Maybe use the newspaper to our advantage one time and use Mary Ford to do a feature in her thing as she does every week. She is a fair person. Mr. Peterkin stated this would be tremendous but the method in , which~this commission is trying to do this is objectibnable to me. He sta.ted he was not prepared to sacrifice all of the work that has been done on this project up to this point, over this issue. CALL FOR TFiE MOTION t~ould move that the F~.C. request $200 from the City Adminis- tration to be used for the prirzting of f 1 iers and posters f or the up-coming election February lOth. R4LL C~~LL Ack~rly, no; ~~lilliams, na; Ross, no; Peterkin, no; ~-~n~cz~~ F~ILED Page 22 REPORTS ( cont . ) Public R~lations Mr. Z~lilliams ~~loved for Reconsideration of the Motion Mr. Peterkin stated on reconsideration there is no discussion. ROLL CALL Ackerly, yes; Williams, yes; Ross, no; Peterkin, no. I~~OTION FAILED ,. Mr. Williams addressed the chair statinq it appears to me since I have lived in the City of Kenai, many of the decisions have been either postponed or projects have failed to gain acceptance because of the inability of the City Administration, City Council, and other working cortmittees to bring to the public's attention in a proper manner, the benefits that the City would derive from such projects. You're faced now with the same situation. There's no reason why the City of Kenai should not become a more progressive City in attracting industry, growth of the population, etc. In looking back, it has been of a"go easy" approach or an approach that is soft-pedaled for the City of Kenai. I understnad full well that we can go out and get the money. I am a fund raiser myself. I've raised funds for projects for three or four different organizations. I know w~ can go out on the streets and get the $200. That is no probleM. It appears to me that at sometime, the City of Kenai, has to begin to take on the responsibility of fostering projects such as this that will do it some good, The past examples of the losses of the City of Kenai, of major projects and industry should be a lesson to them. You cannot attract industry, growth, and major monies to th~ City without putting up a little money. I still feel there is nothing illegal about requesting $200 from Cit~ Adminstration. ; Mr. Brighton addressed the chair stating he wasn't sure if w~ understood him to say it was illegal or not. He was saying there was a possibility of a gra~ ar~a which he was not know- ledgeable enough about to comment on. In order ~:o go ahead with it, he would need to ask the attorney if this is a possibility. If you remember, there was almost a suit brought against a school superintendant on t~ze ba~is of providing information on a bond issue that was on the ballo~. ~~e was providing information without neccssarily promoting i~. ~~r. Gailliams stat~d that that bonc~ mon~~f ~,~as ~lr~ady h~re. ~: ~~t didn'~ have to be votcd on. i~~r. Brighton st;~ted that ~ahat he was saying he didn' t kno~~ what the answer is to this question; other t~~~n to say that the City h~s the responsibility for informing the people on any refer~n- dum tht~t is on c~Il~l special ballot in this Ci~y. ~~1~zether or not the~~ can l~~ally i romote, I don.'t }.now the ~An~~~~r. ~:r, r~~a~oner s~a~ed ~h~at t~~at h~:d nothir:c~ to c~o yaith th~ lara o~f i~e, zhat ~,~{~s an or~~.n:~r~ce ac?{~pted ~lr the B4rough ~~~s~mbly ~age 2~ REPORTS (cont.) Public Relations that no public tax funds could be used to promote bond issues. Mr. Brighton asked if Mr. Wagoner knew if we had a like ordinance, because he didn't know. Mr. Hall stated that was brought up after the question was raised about this 3 or 4 years ago. Mrs. Coyle addressed the chair stating she might be able to clear this up a little by ex~_laining what actually happened. Mr. Gallager was here. T~~ schoal administration promoted and got ~ out.and pushed the bond issue when Soldotna High School was built. They had it all over the schools to vote yes. There was some of the opposition, who wanted to put vote no in the N, Kenai Elementary school. The taxpayers were deni~d putting anything to vote no against that bond issue. So, consequently, Karen Mc Gahan and some other people passed a petition and got it put on the ballot where this would not happen, and it passed. Now ~hat they're trying to do is to make it to not provide any m-oney. It will be more difficult for the school administration to tell the people what it is all about. This has gotten out of hand. The City of Kenai doesn't have anything like that. Mr. Peterkin stated the chair would recognize another motion; subsequently of the same information that would be based on the outcome of the City Attorney's opinion. Mr. Williams stated he felt we shoula let the C.C. resolve the question for us. Mr. Peterkin stated that was one way, he was one hundred per cent for getting out and informing the people in any way, method, or mode, that is available,~ and doesn't have this shadow falling on the top of it. He would be the first;to get out a~d help donate and whatever it amounts to. At the same tim~, ~s I've said the chair would entertain another motion pe nding the outcome of the legal advice. MOTION Mr , y?i 11 iams moved that the ~i . C. reque st o f the C. C., $ 2 0 0 f or the purpose of promoting, a positive reaction from the general public at the up-coming el~ction February lOth. Maybe I s~louldn't say for the purpose of promoting a positive reaction, but that i~ in fact, what we are going to be doing. Mr. P~terkin a~ked for a s~cond on the motion. Mr. ~~~illiam~ stated he would withdraw the motion b~fore it was S~c~r.dnd. NIr .~~aqoner stat~~d he thought ~a~ were going to as~ ~he C. C. to advertise. \ Page 24 ' e REPORTS (cont.} Fublic Relations Mr. Williams stated he did not want to go to a private organ- zation and ask th~m to promote this thing. RECESSE~ 9:50 p.m. BACK TO ORDER 10:00 p.m. Mr, ~~lilliams request~d that any previous motions requesting funds for the promotion of the harbor be withdrawn. MOTION WITHDRAti-~1N `Zr.~ Peterkin asked if there was futher discussion on this. There was none. Mr. Davis reported on Iten c.--Wetlands: At the public hearing last ~~lednesday, the C.C. accepted the concept of the MOA and requested some wording changzs and discussions with the Wet- lands owners to see if any agreement could be put together on the wording. He would contact the owners as they could be identified , and try to ptut the meeting together as soon as he could, y Hopefully by the end of next week, so C.C, will have some indica- tion as to how to approach it at the next C.C. Meeting which is February 4th. Mr. Peterkin reported there was a special meeting held with the C.C. last Wednesday night; (1-14-81, He stated as chairman of the H.C., he did his utm~st to convey the H.C. intent on the CH2M Hill contract. Mr. 0'Reilly was out of town. The Chair- person was Betty Glick. She asked me to make recommendations on CH2~i Hill contract. I was vigoro~zsly opposed to three items in this contract. I was asked by the chair to go into the back room and negotiate these items out with I~~7r. Leman. Mr. Leman was pushing C.C. to take action on that contract, that night. Mr. Davis was present, I praceded to discuss the contract, somewhat heatedly, at tim~s with ~1r, Loren Leman. The contract was accepted in the form it wa~ written. Th~y are going to work taday on it, so we are moving forward. l~fter going over the minutes of the meeting with Ch2M Hill I was under some misinterpretation. It specifically states in .here that unleas everything that the H.C. or City feels is promised to be done is included in the first four phases, it should b~ stated hos~ deep th~ holes a.~~e going to be and how many you ~x~ect to put in. In any wa~~~~~e do have a Signed contract on Phase l. You ha~~e in frol~t of you ~~ti~o tas~ orders. One with a lump 'sum af $65, C00. 00 and on~ ~~lith a lump sum of ; 72, ~~~. Th~ City Council w~nt with t~~e lamp sum ot $65,000.00. Tn~ oth~r one is th~ hourll~, plus ~~~~nc~s budget ceiling ~f Izat to exce~d $ i 2, 000 f irt~i~, ih~ ~;.C. , on my insistance, went ~aith the ~ir~t ta:~k c~rder. It specifically states exactly ~ahat tiley `re ~oinc~ to ~o; as i~ Soil Irzv~stigations--Item ~5, , ~~r~d t'~e mtetin~~ ~ th~ obje~,t~ ~:: ~?i~~:~ .~~~~s~ ~i~~ 3L0 li.neal ~~~t~ ~ 6, at ~~ndancG ot :~ ma.~i~~~ o~ t~.Y~e :~ee ~~.~~~; s ar~d I t~m K 7;_ a~naxi~~am ot ~~on~ep~~~l ~e~i~:~s, ~t that :~e~~ing also trle contrac~t states tl~~.t t~.ey ~aill '~e ~o~e wi ~~ t~~~ iii st phase Page 25 REPORTS (cont.) CH2M Hill Contract Negotiations 8. Peterkin of this January 15, through ~iarch 16, 1981. As the status reports come in, they will be forwarded to the City Administrat- ion through Keith Kornelis' office, as they come about with monthly meetings. I teel comfortable that we will be able to hav~e some of this information available before the March 16, date. Mr. Peterkin asked Mr. Davis if he had left anything out. Mr. Davis stated t~lere was nothing left out. Mr. Ross asked how many holes they were going to drill. Mr.~ Peterkin stated six. They wanted to go down a reasonable depth below the 40ft base of the harbor to see what is underneath. One reason was for anchoring, the other was the artesian wells. At a future date, they will come back and poke a bunch of holes in the Phase 3,preliminary to basically answer three questions; 1.-- is the content of the land suitable, 2.=-is there an~thing to anchor to,and 3.-- the artesian wells. These are three concerns that could knock the harhor out of this location. Then they will come up with the conceptual d~sign and do an 0&M study on it. Mr. Davis asked if the adr~ini~tration had sic~ned the contract. Mr. Brighton stated no. Mr. Peterkin stated the contract was agreed on and approved by C.C. with the contingencl~ that Mr. Delahay worked out a few wrinkles, and got a fe~~ verbage which were agreed with by , the city and Mr. Leman. , Mr. Brighton stated we theoretically have an agreement. ~~o~aever, he refused to sign it, until Ben could look at it. Mr.;Leman ~nforrned Mr, Brighton that he had agreed to all of Ben's re- quirements, and was told if he agrees, then he could go to work, but I wouldn't sign it until after Ben takes a look at it and makes sure that what Mr. Leman told me is fact. H. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Peterkin repor~ed CH2~~1 Hill is th~ first item. There is nothing we haven't alr~ady discussed. Mr. Davis asked r~Ir. Peterkin if he j,~as c~oinc~ to t~le ~3orough to~r~orrou~. i~.r. Peter~,in ac~:nowledged he ~aas. ~ ~~r.' Davis st~ted that Ray ~~ansen ~~~ill be her~ tomorrow af:ternoon. He is th{~ ~~e~;~ ~::in ~~~;i.ne~r fcr Ci~?:i Hill whom w~ m~t in Portland. r~~ jaill b~ i~a~~ring at 5:00 p.:~. tomorro~~. Pag~ 2~ REPORTS ~cont) CH2M Hill Contract Negotiations ~ Mr. Ross stated if we're going to negotiate the price of e~~h one of these as we go along, we need to do the rest of them as a unitl ~therwise we do this cne for 72, next one for 105, and the next one will be for more than we've got money for. Mr. Peterkin stated this is one consideration to be looked at. We will have to go within the biddin~ o~ the overall structural cost. We will have to assume they are~reasonable business ~en; and are going to do this project within the $425,000 limit that is set. . Mr. Ross stated he thought we would have a better bargaining p~sition if we make them go the rest of the entire len~th of the cantract as a unit, rather than step by step. Mr. Peterkin stated he didn't believe that that was the pattern it would follow. The next pattern that you go, you will have another contingency clause that will hang the whole project up again. Then it will be up to the Council, whether they want to spend the rest of the money and do the rest of the ~ design. Mr. Williams stated he thought at ~:his point in time, we're off the hook as far as the time crunch is concerned with CH2M Hill. They're doing the exact work that we need to be done within a specific amount of time. Therefore we should signal them to be~in preparing a detailed cost breakdown of what the rest of this project is going to cost. We now have plenty of time to take a look at the other four phases of this project, and either approve, disprove, negotiate, or re-~~rord, any portion of the future contracts we are going to look at. We should begin to do it now. Mr. Peterl~.in stated he felt we would be spending a lot Qf time now, while~ we do have it on t~1is project, that w~ still have too many rl:~~joi hurdles to go over. We lzave the Roper proposition to go through, and the vote . If those things come out positive, then we can start on the phases, with more time on them. Mr. Williams ~tated that was what he meant. j~lhen we'v~ reached that point wh~r~ ~,re are sure we are going ahead with the project, I would recomm~nd that we ask~those peopl~ to immediately get down here ~A~ith t~z~ir advic:es for us and don't critizc th~ situation that we've been in. N~r. Peterkin stated as I hav~ said tr.e ~I. C. srz~uld b~ looking at ~xactly researching t~~~ or.igir~al proposal that C~i2~~1 Hill made to us. Each or~e of you ~~~~~Ilcl be wor}~ing on breaking that do~an, so that wherl negotiations com~, you can compare notes, ~nc~ h~ve it pretty caell to~;etr.er. I~~r. ~~~a,gon~r ~tated ~~~ f~lt ~~r. Ross ~~ad a good idea. ~~1hen you ge~c Ci~~lti~ ~~ill do~tin h~r~, as'~ t:~~m ~~;n.at it i~ ~~oin~r to tak~ to fini~h.the prc~ect. i~ a ~~ ~: ~ ~ REPORTS (cont.) CH2M Hill Contract Negotiations Mr. Peterkin stated no matter cahat they say, it can not e~ceed the $425,~00 total. Mr. Williams stated now we have the opportunity to chip away at their prices and not have them chip away at our pocket book. Mr. Pc~terkin stated that from his experience of negotiation with Loren Leman, there isn't going to be any chipping. Mr. Williams stated the other four phases could be held by other engineering firms. Mr.~ Peterkin stated that in the qualifying statement in this contract -as to tr.e engineer agrees to provide engineering service to the City of Kenai, Alaska hereafter referred to as owner for the project generally described as a study design and financial an~lysis of a small boat harbor, dry harbor, and ' related facilities and bluff erosion study as more particulary described in preliminary feasibility stud~ dated April 1980, They have agreed to do the entire scope of work and have al- ` ready agreed that the price is $425,000. Therefore that part of the negotiation is over.. " :. Mr. Ross stated he has a problem understanding where it says, when in conflict the provisions contained herein, take recedence over relevant sections~of feasibility study proposal. p . ~~ ; So if we go th-rough sections 2, and 3, with them, what we're ,: , . deciding takes precede nce. On section 4,the~ can tell us we owe them another $100,000 and we'r~ stuck wit~i them, at that point. Now we're not. That's why I would like to see this tied down. ~ Nir. Williams stated he would like to see all the remaining portions tied down right to that $425,000 figure, in writing. Mr. Peterkin stated if you are prepared to document exactly what's going to happen, if the H.C. feels confident enough to lock horns with that engineering firm, and describe item by item, what's going to happen, that's fine. Mr. Williams stat~d we own the boat harbor, they don't. We ot them to set down right here ~xactl~ what they were C~OlIZ~' g to do after the proposal: That was the r~ason for the second meeting ~~lith them. It's not unreason~~ble to ask them to go back - and formulat~ task ord~rs ~wo through five, and give u~ a bottom liz:e num~er on those five. tiA~~1at ~a~ told them befor~ ~~r~s t.o bring us a contract, an~.~ we'll look it over arzd sce i~ w~ agr~e with it. Now ~~e'r~ goinc, to ask them to c~o the same thing. Bring us the task ordcrs # 2,3,4, and 5, and we'll look them over and s~e if we ~gr.ee with them. ~'a~~E'. ~ u REPORTS (cont.) CH2M Hill Contract Negotiations Mr. Peterkin stated what they would do then would be the same thing they did on this one, ti~e're going to sit here and say we're going to punch in 300 holes, put in 3--- ft. of steel pilings in the ground, and put in 8000 ~rards of hard gravel, --this H.C. is not capable of making those decisions at this point. Mr, ti~lilli.ams then asked how will ~~re prevent that last proj ect from going up to $525,000? We have to have a handle on that top number. , Mr.~Peterkin stated what should be done then, is to have them put in writing the whole thing for $425,000. They agreed to it at one of the earlier meetings but I don't think it is in writing. You people laid out the ground rules and they are playing by them right now. They're not going to give you a price unless you are prepared to discuss item by item, cubic yd, and so on, Mr. Williams stated they didn't tell us that here. If you ~ look at task order #l, it is a very well written document. The only thing they nailed down specifically was Item #5-- 300 lineal ft, of sample~ This is laid out in an orderly fashion, and I can associate with that. It also has a number at the bottom I can associate with. ~~1e've got to have a number at the bottom of every one of these docur~ents that add u~ to $425,400. Mr. Wagoner stated he understood it the wa~ Mr. Peterkin did. He n~ver heard Mr. Leman or John Aho say they were going to do that work for $425,000. I heard him say it is a tight budget, but I think we can sta~ within it. Mr. Hall stated it has been his experience ~aith his short tenure on the Council, -- that with these engineering firms, yo~'ve got to have figures in writing. Mr~ ~~lilliams stat~d that Mr. Davis was about to make public , a document that states site #3 for design, streets, etc., ~,~orth $150, 000. 'I'hey ~aill kno~a that is ~.here, and believe me they will try to get their hands on that. Mr. Peterkin stated the Chair will entertain CI~2i~~ Hill docu- ments and how they c~~ill b~ worked out at the next meetinc~ February 3, 1981. Item C. S~t Net Sit~s. Nir, ~~~ter~:in re~~ortc~d what h~ would li,~e to discuss G~rith the ~I.C. at this poii,t ~aould k~e -ca~Zile we ha ~~ .~ome s lack tirn~ o ~ approx~.mat~ ly t~~~o months ,~---we should get in~o this set net site si~.uation at least. I' m not sur~ llotia many of the set nett~rs liv~ in ~~l~~ska. Th~rc are SOI~l~ do`vJI1 in front of ~lv house, that I kno~a ar~ outside. T~~e firs~ sit~ o~f the river is leas~d. `~~~e ~irst t~ao G~?e.r~ not ~~~ork~d this ~~~f~ar. r~h~ t~~~.~~; si ~~ ~~,Tas. I:~r~o~ti1 t:~cs~ ~~op1~ liv~ ou~sic:~, ~-~~ /('~y1 ~r .J~..r y L v~ , C y ~.J 1~~ l„1 j i •. .l. 1 i 1 ~ 31.i ~-, ~-7 ~ v l. 1 1 i~ ~.. O 1. .l 1 1 lA V l.~ l.~ Yti~ 1 i~ i^ l.. l..- ~ 1 i.. ~.~i 4. ~`/ ~ O`~ ~~ ~.i~ }~r ~, ~ y Tv r'~ .i J _ _ l. l~.~t.~..iil ~~..liG~ ~ ~pQi '~. ul~ ~ t~.1~~ ~~ ~r..~l :C.~. l.L~. ~11C~ l.ui:~~ ~ ..C.~ ~J ~.~17 ~ ~~:n r~r~~~ ~ ~ ~.i~1 mail ~~ouiu be ~co s? c{v? and ~~ Nc~rt o~ t?:e nego± ~.ation o~~ this ~ ~ 3 ~ ; Page 2~ REPORTS (cont.) Set Nets ~ or at least give their testimony as to what they want, so that the Commission has a starting point, There are nine set netters. Mr. Wagoner stated he believed there were three families who controlled those set nets in that area. Mr. Williams informed the Commission in regards to the set net sites, -when we become involved with discussing leases,- the State of Alaska has opened a local office for the purpose of issuing leases on all State-Owned tidelands. Mr. Peterkin stated this would give us a guideline. He would refer that all of the people would come to a H.C. r-leeting P rather than make a decision and write them a letter. Mr. Williams stated the best thing for us to do first of all is to get out the City Maps that we have that delineate a11 the sites we have, and who owns them. Next would be to go through an educational seminar with the State people before we call any of the others in, so that we understand the ramifications of the ~tate leases. , Mr. Brighton asked to be informed on the set nets. He had no idea at all what they were about. Mr. Peterkin explained this to Mr. Brighton. On the tidelands you can not fish within a mile of the mouth of the river either way~. There are people (set-netters} on the beach who have fish sites. They set their nets out on their sites , var~ing in dimension and size. They have leased these site~ ~rorn ~he City--as when the City bought the land from the State, v~~e also inher~ted the leases. The City has to put a policy out as to how they are going to handle those leases. Not on~_~T what they will charge but how they are going to control;encroach- ment and wh~ther they can be sold, or if they are- theirs for~v~r and ever. This is not a simple matter. Mr. Brighton aske~ wh~ Mr. ~~lilliams says there ar~ three and Mr. Peterkin says there are n~~.ne. i~ir. Peterkin explained th~re are nine locations but one person may control as many as three of th~ sites. '1'here was much~ more discussion, not pertaininc~ directly to the ~~~ . C . I~~r. P~.~ter~~~.n ask~d i~1r. Davi~ to contact the people in Soldotn~ and s~e if they can come for a meeting h~re on th~ 3rd ot Febru- ar.y. Our next mee~ings are the 3rd and 17th o~ Februar~r. ~~~~ on~ ~~ t~l~ to ~~~em ~nd g~t them h~r~, ~u~: give them a run do~~rn on ~a~hat ~~1e' r~ irlvo~.ved ln w~.th the set n~ts . See i~ ~~ou can c;et a cop~~ of an ~xi~tinc~ lease ar~d get them to the co:~-~issioner~ as ~taic~kl~r as 1Jos~l~l~ ~~fare the meeti~g. ~-~age ~0 REPORTS ~cont, } Set Nets I~ir. ~~illiams asked if Mr. Davis couldn't bring the roll of prints that Galliet has of the entire river basin because they show the leased locations. ~ ~~ ~ Mr, Peterkin stated the other thing we were charged with when this ~Commission was set up was an overall development plan for the entire waterfront plan. We should press the Corp o~f Engineers and Fish and ~ Wildlife. Get things rolling on tract D and whatever they're ~oing to do, let's get them going on it now. Th~e site falls within the bounds of~ the Thorpe Report for the industrial portion the City wanted and yet we have a hassle with those people. ~The Federal Fish and Wildlife Department of Habitat wanted a two year biological study when we talked about building a boat harbor on tract D. They ~wanted a study on the mouth of that creek. Mr. Peterkin asked just who~would we talk to? Mr. Davis s.tated~there are studies that would be provided under the MOA of the Wetlands Plan. FWS has a study currently going on, not funded by the OCM Wetlands project. ~ Mr. Pete~rkin asked if it was the two year study we were talking about , Mr. Davis stated he would check on that. Mrs. Coyle questioned about a permit for a number of years. Mr. Peterkin stated he didn't want a permit. We just want to know if we can use the land. It's that simple. They told us that we ~ couldn't use the land. S~~ if we c~~~'t use it, the H.C. shoula find out why, and get this matter cleared up. Mr. Williams pointed out that if we ever get around to building that harbor, we've got between 750,000,000 cubic ~ards of earth we are going to have to put someplace. That's a lot of mud and dirt. The p~rf~ct place to put lt~ 1S on D. ~~1e've got to bring the elevation up above the tidelands, if it is useable soil. This would save us a tr~mendous amount of mone~ if in fact, ~ae could locate it as a base material ~or an industrial park.. Mr. P~ter~tin stated to ch~ck that out and find out who we're going to talk to. Mr. Ross brouc~ht up the subject of advertising cA~hich he felt a point hadn't gotten across,--there is no ~ublicity going out on thi ~ }~arbor . I~~r. Brigh~on stated the message will c~~:t to the Council. First of all, the qu~estion put to C.C. will b~ is the morl~y availabl~, and then, can ti~e do this. ~.r. Rosa stat~d he would li~;e to ~~e the public tducated on this. ~~~r. ~~ighton assured ~sY. Ross it ~~lould be discuss~d. F~dU~ ~1 ,, r' ~ 1 .K, "y ~ ~~ I. NE~~~I BUSINESS Mr. Peterkin reported on the Borough Port and Harbor TGsk Force. He will be goin~ to the meetings, and will be making s~ort reports at the Commission level to convey what the Task Force :s doing. Apparently they have been asked to study the bond issue and come up ~ith recommendations as to what to do. They have been assigned the function of making recommendations to the Kenai Peninsula , Economic Development Council and to the Borough Assembly on the question of Borough Ports and Harbor Po~ers as an industrial need following the proposals defeat in the October 7th election. This is the extent of his report. ~ Meeting Adjourned 11:00 p.m. Respectfull~, submitted by Marlene Canklin Secretar Approved Robert Peterkin Chairman