Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-03 Harbor Commission SummaryKENAI HARBOR C4MMISSION P.4. BOX 580 ~ Kenai, Alaska 99611 AGENDA - February 3, 1981 REGULAR HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING: February 3, 1981 Kenai Public Safety Building HARB4R CO~iMISSION MEMBERS: Robert Peterkin, Chairman ~~hn Williams, Vice Chairman Tom Ackerly Ron Isaacs . Marvin Dragseth ~ Jimmie Davidson ~ Charles Ross EX-OFFICIO MEi~iBERS: Mayor Vincent 0'Reilly Councilman Tom Wagoner AGENDA . A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Agenda Approval D. Approval of Minutes ~ January 20, 1981 E. Introduction of Guests F. Communications G. Reports l. Mayor 0'Reilly ~ ~ ~ 2. Gary Davis a. Special City Council Meeting 1/24/81 ~-- 1974 Feasibility Study b. Alaska Wetlands Task Force Meeting c. ACMP Cordova Meeting ~ d. Update on the MOA e. Drilling Report ~ f. Proposition #2, Special Election - Small Boat Harbor H. Old B~~siness . l. Mr. Peterkin a. CH2M Hill Status R~port b. Set Net Leases I. New Business ~ . J. Persons Present Not Scheduled to be Heard K. Adjournment ~ ~ ~ K.~ena~ Advi sory Ha~; ~~ Commi s s ion ~ ~~~~ `7 ~ ~"Reg~l~..~ Meeting, ~~~...ruary 3, 1981 ~ ~ ~~~ Kena~i P~blic Safety Building ~~ ~~ ~Rober~ ~e~~rkin, Chairman ~ ~~. CALL TO ORDER ~ ~ Chairman Peterkin called the meeting to order at 7:]~2 p.m. ~~B. ROLL CALL ~~ Present: Chairman Peterkin, Vice Chairman John Williams, Commissioners Jimmie Davidson, Marvin Dragseth, Ron Isaacs, and Charles Ross. ~ - Ex-Officio Member Tom Wagoner Others Present: Harbor Commission Coordinator Gary Davis, Councilman Ray Measles Absent: Commissioner Tom Ackerly, and Mayor Vince 0'Reilly ~. AGENDA APPROVAL ~ Agenda approved. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of January 20, ].981 approved. E. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Chairman Peterkin introduced Councilman Ray Measles. , F. COMMUNICATIOr1S None submitted that were not already covered in reports. G. REPORTS 1. Mayor 0'Reilly - absent 2. Gary Davis a. Special City Council Meeting 1/24/~l--Fea~sibility Study Mr. Davis reported that this meeting dealt with reviewing the narrative of the 1974 Feasibility Study, voting on the Resolution accepting the Study, and submitting it to the State Department of Transportation & Public Facilities ( DOT ). The Study was acted upon af t~er a f ew changes to the Draft, Specifically, it was felt the Study needed to be more descr~ptive in buying back Roper's leases. That change was madP. An amendment was made to the Resolution to ~larify that the Resolution was acce~ting the Operations and Maintenance and expenditures dealing with just the amount of money listed in. the Study. Ke~ai A~visory Harb~~f`'ommission ~ . February 3, 1981 '~ ' , Mr. Davis felt there seemed to be some ambiguity in the Resolution. As it appeared~ it included the entire Harbor project; not just the Marine Development Park excluding the harbor. There were some changes made to that; then things seemed to go rather smoothly, The Study was passed. , The following Monday the Study was retyped, and Mr. Davis hand-carried it to Mr. Tolley in Anchorage on Tuesday. It .was accepted, and Mr. Tolley stated he ~ould send a capy to . Juneau for a review to get feedback from them. Mr. Tolley is aware of our time schedule and our need to have the ' money released. As of Tuesday, he hadn~ t from them (,Tuneau~ . Hopefully, by the 18th of February we will hear from them. b. Alaska Wetlands Task Force Meeting . ~ Mr. Davis reported that this is another wetland~ group other than the Kenai Wetlands Groupo Alaska Wetlands Task Force is an off-shoot from Senator Gravel's hearings in ~_ Washington D.C, which Councilmember Bett~ Glick attended. The testimony of those hearings indicated a lack of public awareness in Alaska dealing with the permit guidelines and rationale in the wetlands situation. All of the state and federal agencies involved, formed this Task Force. Since we are invol~red to some degree, Mr. Davis attended the meeting to gain further knowledge and input into the situation. They are working towards a public brochure so the wetlands won't be such a big question ~n everyone's mind as to why the state and federal agencies are involved and why it exists. Their purpose is to simplify, to some degree, so people everywhere will know what it is all about. c. ACMP Cordova Meeting February 9 and 10 there is an Alaska Coastal Policy Council Meeting in Cordova. Mr. Davis has been attending most of those meetings. There is going to be discussion on the Coastal Management wetland issues--as to what their feelings are on this. Mr. Davis didn't think it was important for him to go to this meeting, but he eYpressed his willingness to attend if the Commissioners fel~ he should attend. There were no opinions expressed at this time on the matter. d. Update on the MOA At the last Council meeting and public hearing, Kenai Wetlands ~Working Group initiated a meeting between wetlands owners and Coastal Management to see if they could get tagether and have Coastal Management explai~n to the local wetlands owners the value of their plan, a~~d that there is no big threat to them by the City signing the plan. The meeting is set for February 24, 19~1. -2_ ~ ~~ ~'f r ~ : ~ .. ,. ~ \ ~ 1 /' ! ~t~~~.~, Advisory Har~.,r Commission ` ~'eb~r~~ary 3 , 19 81 Coastal Management plans to send Mr. Davis material to be distribut~d to the wetlands owners he locates, so they may have a little more knowledge about the agencies and why they are involved as the are. e. Drilling Report CH2M Hill has completed their core drilling. They have dril3.ed f ive holes. Indications appear to be that Site A is a feasible site. The sub-soil tests show twenty to thirty feet of silt and clay, then pure sand the rest af the way down. ~Sand is a good bottom material for anchoring, though there wasn't any gravel which we had hoped for. The final report should be out this week to show the exact gradiations of the sand, how much silt is involved in it, and also the moisture content~. Mr. Davis was not sure when the Operation and Maintenance f igures or anything in their Task 0-rder #1 will be completed. ~ Mr. Peterkin asked about the artesian. Mr. Davis stated there was no artesian. They went se~enty feet to make sure there was none, as the bottom of the pilings will be going at least that far. :,. :;~. ~ fo~ Proposition #2, Special Election - Small Boat Harbor .. The last Harbor Commission meeting (January 20, 1981} requested the City Council pursue some sort of public knowledge of the Small Boat Harbor Proposition. There have been publications in the press twice. They were full-page advertisements of the election with a sample ballot. Miscellaneous Discussion: Inlet Dock Permit Request There have been discussions on the Inlet Dock Company and what they are doing on the riverfront. There have been ads in the paper indicating they are going to build a 450 foot bulkhead, put fill in the river, and place floats there~for the local fishermen. Mr. Davis researched this to some degree and found that Inlet Dock Company is an~ ther name for Cherrier & King--the two companies share the same address. Harold Galliet is doing their engineering. Mr. Davis' concern was that the City would h~~ve to be notified in their lease of the name change~ Set Net Leases: Mr. Davis stopped by the Land Office in Soldotna and picked up copies of their applications and leases that the set net leasees now have in effect. The City needs to work up their own under their own g~~idelines and conditians.. He stated he had neglected to include .. these items ~.n the packet, but he will be sure they are included for the next meeting. He also received a copy of all current tideland leaszl~,olders in the City. -3- Kenai Advisory Harbc Febar~ary 3 , 19 81 /~ !~ ~ • , „ommission Mr. Peterkin asked what the leaseholders were pay~ing for their leases. Mr. Davis stated he had made several phone calls but was unable to get that information. Mr. Williams stated they pay $40 per year~ per lease to the State. Feasibility Study: Mr. Davis stated~he would be glad to make copies for the Harbor Commission members if they would like to have one. Mr. Peterkin stated that Mr. Davis did a great job on the Feasibility Study and also saved the C~ty between $10,000 and $25,040. . Mr. Davis stated 194 hours went ir~to the Stud~. Miscellaneous Discussion: Mr. Brignton asked if the word "appears" was Mr. Davis' word or that of CH2M Hill in describing the core drilling. Mr. Davis stated it was his. CH2M Hill was more positive than thato Mr. Brighton questioned what a"bulkhead" was. Mr. Davis stated it is a wall. Mr. Brighton asked if there would be any conflict if Inlet Dock Company went ahead with what they are doing. Will they do some of the things we plan to do? Mr. Davis stated that the Harbor Commission should respond to some degree as they will require a CO~PS permit. Mr. Brighton replied,"We were told there weren't going to be any more C~RPS permits~ Mr. Peterkin didn~t know what the Inlet Dock Company's position was in changing the physical characteristics of the river; whether they were responsible to report to the City through their leases, or if they owned the land, the~ still had to report to the Cit~~. The problem with this is: If the engin~ers so design the entrance channel, we are liable to run right into one of their floats in the middle of the channel. Mr. Peterkin didn't know the City's position, or the responsibility of the land owners or land leaseholders to the City. -4- / _, ~~~n~~ ~~~i sory Ha~~ ~ Commi s s ion `( ~, ~Febru~~~ 3, 1981 ~ Mr. Brighton stated the lease we ma~ have with them is the lease they had with the State or Federal government. When the land was transferred, the City got the lease which ~~hey alre~~dy had. He hadn't seen any of the leases and. had no idea what was in them. Mr. Wagoner stated he wouldn't think that the type of construction the Inlet Dock Company is doing would require a permit from the CORPS if all they are doing is expanding their dock facilities. Mr. Davis stated that the Cherrier & King lease is the ~ same situation as the set net leases. Part of the tidelands were conveyed from the State to the City. The City seems to be in a position to review those leases and establish their own leases, Also, whether they need notification whenever any additions are proposed on the leased lands. It was felt this could be checked out quite easily. Mr. Williams made a suggestion through the Chair to Mr. Davis to research the Cherrier & King leases, and to correspond with Inlet Dock Company requesting information as to their plans on the construction of the bulkhead, and bring this report to the Harbor Commission. Further replys were asked from those in attendance. :.: , : ~~~ ~~ Mr. Wagoner agreed with Mr, williams. The only way he ~ could see for Inlet Dock Company expansion was up ri~er. Mr. Peterkin advised Mr. Davis to find out specifically where Inlet Dock Company intends to put their floats. The nu:n~er of floats they intend to p~t in is twenty-one, Thi~s can cause a lot of congestion in the mouth of the river. Mr. Dragseth stated they cannot put them in the channel. That has already been opened by the Coast Guard. They would have to go above their property limits. Mr. Peterkin stated they may be going to line that whole side of the mud flats area where the proposed harbor ~~ould ~ go. Mr. Isaacs asked what kind of floats they were talking about. Were they standard f loats? Mr. Peterl~in stated.they were 12' by 20' floats and 6' by 20' f loats . -5- j' " ~ienai AdJisory Harbr'' f.ommission ~ , ~ . , February 3, 1981 ' H: 4LD BUSINESS , 1. Mr. Peterkin a. CH2M Hill Status Report Mr. Brighton and members of the Harbor Commission were asked by Chairman Peterkin if there were any comments on the signed contract of CH2M Hil1 included in the packet material. The Commissioners were informed to go thro~ this contract for th~e City Administration, interests, and the City's legal interests. pertaining to the scope of work to be done Have it worked up to that when Loren Leman come down and we will all be familiar with is wanted in that next phase. There was more discussion. ~~ ugh and research the City Council's This was in each phase. and/or John Aho exactly what Mr. Davis wanted to discuss the Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Peterkin informed Mr. Davis that the Environmental Impact Statement should come in the second phase when the actual design will be done. Mr. Davis informed the Commission that at the Alaska ~etlands Task Force meeting on January 29, 1981, he had spoken to the Co-Chairman of the CORPS. The Co-Chairman talked about a situation in Valdez when the Port of Valdez went to extend their dock, they didn't know whether they needed an Environmental Impact Statement. They called some meetings of all the agencies and discussed the possibilities of what they could do, They got away with ar~ Environmental Assessment. They didn`t need a statement. In Mr. Davis' opinion, this was something we could do with our engineers and the CORP when we get to that phase. This may preclude an Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Peterkin stated we should ha~re the conceptual design by thP end of this month or the first of next month. At that time, the Harbor Commission should take that conceptual design and go dir~ctly to the C~rps of Engineers and start negotiations with them. He felt there may be a different way to approach the situation with Roper's existing leases. ~ It may b~ an expansion of what is already there. Tf the encroachment were to go into Tract D, they wouldn't ~ get upset. The problem with Tract D is the 1800 foot down- river footage toward the creek. We could wait until the conceptual design. Then we would have a better idea of ti: ~at it i s go ir.g to look 1 ike . -6- ~ ~,' ., ~ , K~~~lai Advi sory Ha~ ~ Commis s ion ~ ~February 3, 1981 Mr. Pet~rkin reported that Mr. Reynolds is no longer with that ~~anch of the Corps of Engineers. He has been promoted to an~~her position. We now have a civilian, Mr. Weber. Mr. ~~ynolds contacted Mr. Peterkin by telephone and assured him t~at Mr, weber has an open mind and has been through this project in extensive detail, and he would back us all he ~~ould within the division. Mr. Reynolds also stated ~ if any of the people involved in this project were ever in Anchorage and wanted to talk to him, to feel free to stop by his office and do so. He was willing to listen and do anything he could to help us with our project. Mr. Peterkin reported he had attended a meeting with the Borough. This was a Task Force meeting headed by - Earl Billingsley. Several people were present, including Borough Mayor Stan Thompson and the Mayor of Soldotna. This meeting was basically about wanting to~come back to the electorate with the proper wording for the next election; not whether the Borough should have port and harbor powers. The concern was if they miss this time, they may not be able to co~e back with it at all. The Borough's position is that they do need those powers for the betterment of the Borough, ar~d in order to help any large corporation that is going to come in, The Borough Mayor was going back and forth on the service area versus non-area wide but with bounds. The Borough has the right to develop a .., _ service area without going to the people. . : Mr. Williams stated the main thing to impress on their minds is that the City of Kenai is not going to enter into, or give up any port and harbor p,owers at this time. Mr. Peterkin stated this is understood by them. They ~nderstand that Homer, Seward, and Kenai don't want any part of it. The choice will come to the City. . ~ Mr. Dragseth questioned if the cities were taken out, who would pay the bill? Mr. Peterkin stated that this-seems to be a lot of the problem. He was asked why it didn't go through. He told them there w~s a lot of confusion betweEn understandi.ng port powers and port authority; also, whether the City should or should not be included in th~ vote. Stan Thompson kept bringing up the fact that he cannot put mi~l rates on an area of which he cannot establish power,~ Th~~e was discussion on whether the Borough Assembly should ha~~ control of it, or whether they should have an advisory co~~cil similar to the Harbor Commission. ~~ Mr. ~~terkin's ~pinion was that they didn't want t~he autharity, jus~ ~he power. He expre~sed the difference bAt~~een the port ~uthority and port powers as follows: Port authority has ~~.~cted of~ycials, their own buc?get, and they collect their a~an taxes. Port ~ower set down the rules and regulationso -~- ~-. r Kena i Advi sory Harb~ '~ ~rnmi s s ion ~ ` ~, t F February 3, 1981 Recess called: 7:55 p.m. Back to Order: 8:05 p.m. Mr. Peterkin stated he would ap~reciate some help from the Harbor Commissioners in finding the proper wording to present to the Borough at their next meeting. If anyone had any suggestians, contact him. ~ Mr. Peterkin told Mr. Davis to check with Mr. Delahay ~ when he goes to City Hall to pull the Harbor Ordinance and see if there was any language in it about the City intending any response from the people on the r~iver and if they are supposed to let the City know what they're doing. (This pertained to the construction the Inlet Dock Company is doing on the river at present.~ More discussion on the CH2M Hill Status Report. , Mr. Peterkin asked when we would have written results on the borings. Mr. Davis stated the~ hoped to have the lab analysis ` done this week then they will finalize the drilling report. We will know for sure by the end of this week, or possibly the next. Mr. Brighton asked what the Council would need besides the drilling report, in order to act rationally on the option on the 28th of February. He asked if a schematic of the design was needed. ~ Mr. Davis stated the report will be a t~chnical report. In addition, there should be a letter indicating what it means. Mr. Brighton stated the City Council is meeting tomarrow night {February 4, 1981), and they don't have any of that information. They will meet only one more time after that before February 28. ~ Mr. Peterkin stated his thought was tha~~ the Harbor Commission left the Council with the though~ that if Geotech found the core drilling to be sufficient, that would be enough. Mr. Wagoner stated he felt that the Council would like to hear if it is or is not feasible within certain limitations. There becomes a point in construction costs that even though it is feasible, it isn't feasible. -g- . ,K~na~. ,Adv-sor Hai.I ~ Commission ~ , , Y . ~ Febr~~r~ 3~ 1981 ~ir. Peterkin stated that the Operation and Maintenance ~0&M) is number seven in the Task order. It may not be the seventh item they are going to do. Basically, if the test drilling proved to be satisfactory to the Council, the only thing left open is the 0& M costs. If the items are followed in sequence, the City Council will not have the 0& M b~ February 28. Mr. Davis was asked if he would hear from John Tolley before the 28th. He replied he expected to hear from Mr. Tolley soon. Mr. Peterkin requested that Mr. Davis call Loren Leman tomarrow to find out when the 0& M will be done. The 0& M and the evaluation would be enough for the City Caun~cil to act on. They will meet on the 4th and 18th of February. Mr. Williams stated the Legislature is back in session and ~ suggested we put the legislative ~elegation on our mailing list for the minutes of this meeting. He had talked with the legislative assistant to Hugh Malone, who said he wasn't able to get any information as to what is going on with the harbor. He couldn't understand why we were asking for $645,000 when we had received $500,000 last year. Mr. Williams explained to him what the situation 1 is with the engineers, and assured him copies of our minutes. He felt that a report from Mr. Davis would be enough. Some of the other ~egislators should k~~ contacted, such as ~ the legislative assistant to Don Gilman, Bernie Huss, on the Pat 0'Connell side, and Jay Kurtula. Mr. Williams said ~ to make sure ~ou get the report to Hugh Malone, in care of Royce Weller, who is heading up the Capital projects. Mr. Peterkin informed the Commissioners to contact Mr. Davis if they had other names of legislators to receive an executive letter of the minutes. ~ In further discussion of the CH2M Hill Task 4rder, Mr. Peterkin stated that item number f ive is what has been done first, so there is a poss~ibility that everything will not follow in the way that it is listed. Mr. Ross stated he didn't see why they couldn't do the order of magnitude listed in item number seven under 0& M. ~ Mr. Peterkin asked ~'-ouncilman Measles if he could see anything else the Council would need other than the ~&~ and the e~aluation.. Mr. Measles was under th~ impression that Mr. Leman would h.ave that to us before the last Council meeting in Februar~~. He thought th~t would be enough. Mr. Wagoner st~ted he would feel fine with a statement froin CH21~2 Hill stating it is a feasible site for a boat harbor. -9- Kenai Advisory Harb~~~ ~ommi5sion Feb~uary 3, 1981 Mr. Peterkin asked Mr. Davis picked up his information on an information center. ~~ if the place where Mr. Davis the set net leases was just Mr, Davis stated that Mr. James Schweithelm is the person to contact at that of f ice .~lhile , he was there, he picked up copies of the Shore and Fisherey lease information brochure, and the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forest Land and Shore Fisherey Lease Agreement presently in effect. Mr. Williams clarified what Mr. Davis had said by stating that the State of Alaska Shore Fisheries Lease Division in Anchorage was overcrowded with paper work regarding the Shore Fisheries Leases. They decided to move all the documents pertaining to Shore Fisheries Leases in the Lower Cook Inlet, including both the east and west side to Kenai. This facilitated faster mo~ement af those leases and the evaluation of the people leased to. They pulled a trailer beside the main building of the State Forestry Division and set up t~ieir off ice. Even though you apply through that office, it still goes to the dire~tor's office in Anchorage. It is all done by the State. Once it is approved by the director's office, it is sent back down here and published the the loc~l paper. The documents are kept locally where they ma~ be reveiwed by everyone. This office is actually a branch of the Anchorage office. Mr. Isaacs stated it all works ve~y smoothly as indicated by Mr. Williams. The leases are $40 per year and are good for ten years. Mr. Williams stated if it is possible to get G-0 markers and legitimate boundary markers to define the limits of a l~ase, it is done. If it isn't, it may become necessary to hire a surveyor to survey the leases. The State prefers this to be don~. On file in the City of Kenai is a complete set of plans that delineate every shore fishery's lease within the City limits. There should be no problem as to whose site is whose. The State does not have criteria as to how far apart those leases should be from one another and how many feet are involved. You can only run a net no closer than 600 feet and absorb enough to set three nets, if you only have one set net license. This is stipulated by the State. If you do not have a set net license, you can not apply for a 5tate lease. You must be a holder of a limited entry permit in order to apply for a shore fisheries lease. Mr. Isaacs stated and so much land This keeps it so have the sites. there are so many limited entry permits that is opened by the State for those sites. that the people wha have the pPr~its -i0- ~ .K~nai ~dvisory H~~ ~ Commission , ~ ~~ , ~ ~~~~February 3, 1981~ ~ ~ ~ Mr. Peterkin stated the City would have to make some decisions. He questioned if the City would say that there were only going to be~ those four sites, forever, in the City of Kenai. Mr. Williams stated,you can only put s~ many sites in according to how many feet they are. Mr. Peterkin asked if the Harbor Commission invisioned following the State's requirements. Mr. Isaacs thought they should, as~it makes sense. There are people who will take leases just to tie up miles of beach. Mr. Williams stated we don't have anything (leases) from the mouth o~f the Kenai River to the City limits on that side of the river. On the Kasil~of side we don't have anything, then nothing from the mouth of the Kenai River to one mile north. There is a space between that one mile mark and th~ City limits which is only a couple~miles. Nine sets are all we ha~re. ~ Mr. Peterkin stated that only two sites were worked last year, Mr. Williams stated some of those leases are delineated out in the water. They are not on the shore. If all nine ~,;: were spread out, there would be six thousand lineal feet of ~ that beach under lease, but they aren't spread out as such. There are some in and some out in the water. Mr. Wagoner stated that sometimes after the 17th and 19th of July, when the reds go through, the people fold up their nets and go home. Mr. Peterkin stated this subject was brought up to get the Harbor Commission thinking on some of the problems that ~ve may run into. Mr. Isaacs stated--just to give us all something else to think about--that if you have a site and don't fish it, someone else could come in and fish it leg~lly. This confuse~ Chairman Peterkin when he read the St~te regulations. Mr. Williams explained that if two different parties were in ~riolation by fishing the same site, a court ruling would be ~ in favor of the one man who holds the lease. Mr. Wagoner stated that whoever sets his net fir~t-~is in the right if he has a limited entry permit. If another p~rson who has a lease comes to fish while Mr. Wagoner is fishing, Mr, wagoner gets to fish that day b~cause he set his net first. A limit~d er.tr~r permit c~n be taken any~~here in the Cook Inlet on a set net site. _11_ . Kenai Advisory Harb~~~ ';ommission ~ , . . . Y . . ~ . ~`R ~ February 3, 1981 ~~ Mr. Peterkin believed in the 4rdinance. It is the responsi- bility of this Commission to set the regulations for the set net leases. Mr, wagoner feit that we should have told the City Council at the time the Harbor Commission was formed, to adop~ the rules and regulations set forth by the State. Mr. Williams suggested to Mr. Davis to contact a variety of other cities in the State who received tidelands from the State - to find out whether or not they are participating in Shore Fisheries' lease programs. I~ they are, we can pursue this further-. If they aren't, I would recommend, to the City Council that we ask the State to continue~ operation of the Shore Fisheries' Lease Program. b. Set Net Leases Mr. Peterkin stated: (1} That the set net leases may not be able to be separated from the land that was given to the City. (2) With potential for industrial expan~ion within the City area, the City Council may find that they def in~tely want control of those leases in case they want to build a port. Mr. Davis was asked by Mr. Peterkin to check with Ben Delahay to find out if it is the responsibility of the City given ~to them by the State with the water-front lands. There was more discussion. Mr. Brighton asked what the set net sites sell for. Mr. Dragseth stated there were four sites sold a few years ago for $400,000. Mr. Davis stated a letter from United States Fish & Wildlife Service is included in the packet for this meeting. It~ regards inforrnation on the AMSA that Fish & Wildlife wanted to propose on Tract D, C, and above {the mudflat area). Because of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA} and the Wetlands Management Plan, they sent this letter stating their decision not to finalize the report at the present time. They believ~d their concerns could be adequately addressed in a Comprehensive Wetlands Management Plan for the Kenai Ri~rer Corridor. If the Wetlands Management Flan is not carried through, they will probably come back with the AMSA for that area. This just means it will be studied. Commissioner Williams was concerned about the AMSA earlier, so it will be addressed ar~.d taken care of , Mr, ti~~agoner stated he had read the AMSA. Murray Walsh told Vince 0'Reilly, John ~ailliams, and myself that he was aware of it, as he had a hand in creating it, and we were told n~t to worry about it. _12_ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~`~~~Kena~i Advi sory Harb~ _ Commi s s ion ~~ ~ ~ Febr:uary 3, 1981 ~Mr. Peterkin~stated when a consulting group from Seattle was hired~to do ~hat report, we were not even contacted the time they were here. Mr. Dragseth asked if you had to go through the City if you~ wanted to build a dock. He asked i~ this was the que~stion with the Inlet Dock Company. Mr. Peterkin stated the City will have to~make up its own mind on restrictions on the~people that have leases. Mr. Brighton says he's not sure exactly what the leases say. They were transferred from the State to the City. The new l~e~ases anyone might have will be of totally different language. They ~~ill be~required to inform the City of anything they do. ~ Mr. Dragseth asked if the CORPS would have to come back with that permit for the City's approval. Mr, Peterkin answered, "No. The City is on the Corps of Engineers' mailing list, but they don't have anything to say on this." ; Mr. Williams had a question that has never been successfully : answered. Mr. Isaacs has brought it up again. It seemed to him that before a lease can be transferred, th~re has to come before the City Council--either the transferor or transferee--someone requesting permission to transfer the ~ lease. In conjunction with the Salamatof property, you remember when Doris ~T~ashley) was getting ready to go into bankruptcy, there was a possibility they were going to hold an auction at the Courthouse to sell it out from under her. I questioned then whether or not they could let the lease . go without going before the City Council and making pravisions for it. Now AARC has, in fact, become the owner--100 percent-- of Salamatof. I don't remember AARC coming down and asking if they could take the lease over from City Council. Mr. Peterkin stated that all the Harbor Commission could do was to make recommendations to the City Council and City administration. Mr. Br~ighton stated that the City's position is this: They owe us money. AARC assumes that responsibility. The City's lease is prior to ~RC's loan of $2,000,000. They cannot take a thing off that property or anything else, until they come to us first. Mr. Williams stated as a member of an advisory group, he recommends to the City Council that they don't transfer those leases yet. -13- / Kenai Advi sory Harr ~ommi s s ion ~ ~~, ~~ February 3, 1981 K. Mr. Brighton stated Mr. Delahay is qoing to meet with them Monday to make sure it is understood that the City of Kenai comes before anyone or anything else. , There was further discussion of the 5alamatof business, filing of bankruptcy, and AARC. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. Respectfully ~ubmitted, Linda G. Ullerick Secretar~ APPROVED BY: Robert Peterkin, Chairman Kenai Advisory Harbor Commission -I 4-