Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-01-12 Harbor Commission SummaryKENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Regular Meeting, January 12, 1982 Kenai City Hall Robert Peterkin, Chairman AGENDA A. Call To Order B. Roll Call Ce De Agenda Approval Approval of Minutes, December 1, 1981 E. Guest Speakers F. Communications 1. Letter to Gary Davis from PNWA G. Reports 1. Cook Inlet 'Lease #35 H. Old Business Ie Je 1. Consideration of Roper proposal 2. Discussion of CH2M Hill Contract 3. Coyle property appraisal 4. Seawall Project/John Wise 5. Discussion of the Resolution concerning the Planning and Zoning Commission and Harbor Commission New Business 1. Election of Chairman Persons Present Not Schedule to be Heard K. Adjournment H-6 Letter from Tolley with reply from Bill Brighton H-7 Public Notice from Corp of Engineers (Chevron USA- Nikiski) NOTE' The meeting of December 15, 1981 was canceled due to lack of quorum. The above agenda reflects changes made at the regular meeting of January 12, 1982 as requested in the minutes. KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR~ COMMISSION Minutes of January 12, 1982 Kenai City Hall Robert Peterkin, Chairman A. CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 7:15 p.m. B. ROLL CALL Ce De ge Fe Ge Present: Robert Peterkin, ~John Williams, Tom Thompson, Leon Quesnel, Marvin Dragseth, and Paul Weller AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Peterkin asked that the following items be added to the agenda: F-1 - Letter to Gary Davis from PNWA, G-1 - Cook Inlet Lease #35, H-6 - Letter from Tolley with reply from Bill Brighton, H-7 - Public Notice from Corp of Engineers (Chevron USA- Nikiski), and I-1 Election of Chairman Agenda approved with above changes APPROVAL OF MINUTES, December 1, 1981 The minutes were approved as submitted GUEST SPEAKERS None COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter to Gary Davis from PNWA Chairman Peterkin informed the Commission that Gary Davis has been re'elected to the Board of Directors of Pacific Northwest Waterways Association 2. A second letter from PNWA was received with a questionnaire to be filled out and sent to them. REPORTS 1. Cook Inlet Lease #35 This lease would consume all of the land from approximately half way from Kenai to half way to Anchor Point and would include across the bay, Kalgin Island, past Tuxedo Bay and to Oil Bay. · Chairman Peterkin would make all material available to the Commission. Kenai Advisory Harbor Commission Regular Meeting, January 12, 1982 Page 2 He OLD BUSINESS 1. Consideration of Roper proposal Gary Davis appeared before the Commission on behalf of Bob Roper who submitted an offer to the City to sell his leases on tracts B and C for $175,000. , Chairman Peterkin asked if the termination date on the. lease held since the date~was December 21, 1981 and had passed that date. Mr. Davis had been informed by Mr. Roper that the date was held open by Mr. Roper and that if the City and Harbor Commission were still interested, then the lease could proceed. Chairman Peterkin asked Ben Delahay if there would be any problem with the legality of this and Mr. DelahaY stated that if both parties agreed, there would he none. Gary Davis asked the CommiSsion if the Coyle property could be purchased if it became necessary at any time, Bob Peterkin asked where the City Administration stood with this, Bill Brighton stated that an appraisal would be made soon. Bob Peterkin asked if Bill Brighton had had any conversations with the C~s of Engineers concerning permits that are attached to the proposal for the sum of $50,000. Bill Brighton informed the Commission that both he and attorney Dela~hay had spoken to the Corp on a conference call. The man spoken to was with the department of regulatory functions and though the man could not be pinned down he did state that he felt the Roper permits would have no real value for the City, that there would be no difficulty in getting an extension of the Roper permits if the City wished, as that was something that was rdone routinely, and that they were renewable yearly. If the permits were modified it would be a bit more complicated, and if they expired, it would take three or four months for a new one. If the City took back the leases, and plans were made and ready to go, then it would take up to five months for a permit to' be' approved. Ben Delahay stated that, with regard to this offer, the value that Mr. Roper puts on the permits is relatively unimportant, that the key thing for the City to' consider is the value of the land itself and if the City feels it's worth what ~Roper. is asking for it, whether the value is in the status of the land or the permits, doesn't make any difference. John Williams asked Mr. Delahay what the dates of the first lease were, Mr. Delahay found them to be; tract B, 7/6/78 and tract C 4/1/79. John Williams asked Mr. Delahay what these leases cost per year. Ben Delahay answered that B was $1,880 and C was $4,562. Kenai Advisory Harbor~ Commission Regular Meeting, January 12, 1982 Page 3 Ben Delahay pointed out that the City should keep in mind that the City owns the land, they are not. buying the ~land, and are getting around $6,000 per year for it, and the lease, has a rent e~calation clause. .If the City buys back the leases they are losing an investment. Leon Quesnel asked if the City has a definite plan for the harbor. Bob Peterkin answered that the City is in the process of determining that answer. Alot depends on a forthcoming sediment study~and a continuation of a study as outlined by CH2M Hill. Gary Davis stated that he felt that the City does have a definite plan and that the state has issued $715,000 to the City to help implement the plan that has been developed already,-this money for site acquisition, but does not address the'wet harbOr. MOTION: John Williams moved that the Harbor Commission recommend to the City Council a purchase price of $100,000 be made as a counter offer to Mr. Roper for the purpose of buying back leases on Tracts B and C of the City owned harbor lands. Seconded by Leon Quesnel. John Williams, in support of how this proposal had come about, explained that since the permits themselves ~are virtually valueless and at this pokiest in time, if and when a municipality such as the City of Kenai would make application for a permit that they would be granted favorite status from the Corp~ of Engineers to obtain that permit and from experience over the last 3 years any time a permit is issued, for harbor construction and that the construction of that harbor, if changed, a permit modification must be obtained and can be either a simple or complete modification requiring a whole new permit .as in the case of Mr. Roper, The city attorney has stated that it may take approximately 4 months to obtain 'a permit which is not at all lengthy. The present permit is due to run out and the options for extension are not determinate at this point. Mr. Williams makes the proposal .of $100,000 based on; return of all monies expended on lease and tax payments to Mr. Roper, these monies being approximately $7,520 on tract B, $13,686 on tract C, further, reimburse him for documented out-of-pocket expenses at $30,000, a subtotal of $51,000, add to this estimated taxes'on this property he~ would have paid over the last three years of $4,100, and add interest in the amount of 18% which would be the maximum amount one could draw on an interest bearing account with any active mutual fund or money market certificate. Kenai Advisory Harbor Commission Regular Meeting, January 12, 1982 Page 4 This would bring the total to $65,000 approximately in actual monies that would be reimbursable to him as expenditures and interest. In view of the fact that Mr. Roper has spent a considerable .amount of time 'and effort in his search for a private enterprise that has not been deemed feasible or possible by other financial institutes and other people we might also add some for "blue sky'' oft $35,000 bringing the rounded pr. oposed offer to Mr. Roper of $100,000. This would be offered as recommendation to City Council to propose as a counter offer of his proposal of $175,000. At this point in time, it is not known if a harbor is feasible, if it can ever be built, there is a year ahead of silt and sedimentation studies, another year' after that in engineering, and two years has gone by since ef~forts have been made in obtaining maximum amounts~ of funding, the funding picture for' the entire state has changed dramatically, major projects in the state have taken up vast sums of the budgeted money both now and many years in the future, referring primarily to the hydroelectric plants, railroads, gas pipelines and things of that nature. Bob Peterkin, asked in clarification, if what the motion proposed was to ask the Council and City Administration to go back into renegotiations based on these facts. John Williams also pointed out that $715,000 had been requested from the State 1974 bond issue, and indicated at that~time that the City was putting aside $450,000 for land acquisitions for this project. In order to remove the cloud from the project so that the project can continue toward some definite end, be it a wet harbor, dry harbor, or an alternate mix or whatever is decided, the idea of reclamation of these City lands Should be considered and the lands be purchased. VOTE' Main Motion Motion passed, with Commissioners Peterkin, Thompson, Williams, and Quesnel voting yes; Commissioners Dragseth and We. ller' voting no. 2. Discussion of CH2M Hill contract Chairman Peterkin briefly reiterated the sequence of events leading up to the present time concerning the CH2M Hill contract, that being, the Harbor Commission had asked the City Council to terminate the contract on the sedimentation study. There was some discussion as to whether or not the sedimentation study was part of the contract .and the City Council had asked the city attorney to study the case and make a recommendation to the'City Council and the Harbor Commission. Kenai Advisory Harbor Commission Regular Meeting, January 12, 1982 Page 5 Mr. Delahay pointed out that the contract contains the right of termination after a 30 day notice and remove the possibility of a law suit. The question raised was if any part~'of the agreement had been done, since the agreement was in task order and if the first task had been done. Bob Peterkin pointed out that CH2M Hill views the~contrac.t that the sedimentatiOn study was not outlined as one of their task orders because they came back to the City with the first go-around at the $100,000 mark to complete this. Ben Delahay suggested that if that is the case then CH2M Hill should be asked for written acknowledgement that that is not a .part of the contract, and if they so acknowledge that that is not a part, then the City is free to go to another party. If they don't acknowledge it, the City is still free to terminate the contract and.go with another engineer. John Williams expressed the opinion that some time ago, the Harbor Commission had lost faith with CH2M Hill and' that to be able to move ahead, the Commission again suggest .to the Council that the contract be terminated in it's entirety. MOTION' John Williams moved, seconded by Paul .Weller that the City' Council be request.ed to contact CH2M Hill and terminate that contract in its' entirety. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION' John Williams moved that the City Administration through the City Council request a meeting with the representatives of Nortec to discuss a potential silt and sedimentation study to be done on the Kenai River and that the meeting take place with members of the Harbor Commission as soon as possible, seconded by Paul Weller. Motion passed unanimously. Paul Weller asked if the City could enter into any business with another engineering form before the 30 days was up. The answer was no, however, negotiations could be begun before a contract is entered into with another engineering firm. Kenai. Advisory Harbor Commission Regular Meeting, January 12, 1982 Page 6 3. Coyle Property Survey Bob Peterkin asked Bill Brighton if the appraisal on the Coyle property could be done. Bill Brighton stated that it would go ahead. John Williams asked Bill Brighton what some of the bids were for the appraisal and what they were for. Mr. Brighton stated that he could not remember the details, however, could state' that no bid was over $500. Bob Peterkin explained how the Coyle property became involved to the new commissioners. Originally, both parcels, the Coyle's .and Roper's wer.e included in the plans for the small boat harbor ~quite some time ago. 4. SeaWall Proj ect/John Wise Mr. Wise was not present, however,. Chairman Peterkin informed the Commission that the Harbor Commission had been directed by those handling the funding to study this, and in fact do a bluff erosion study on the mouth of the river as part of the process in~ designing the harbor as it continues. Mr. Wise would like very much to have money set aside from this budget to have a study.~done to build this rock dike. Chairman Peterkin advised that at this time it would be more expedient to postpone any discussion on fl~e subject until Mr. Wise could be present. Paul Weller asked the Commission how much such a project would cost, Jo~'n Williams explained that Chairman Peterkin had asked for $20,000 from the original~ budget from the State of Alaska for the purpose of studying the bluff erosion problem and making some determination if something could be done about it. Mr. Williams suggested that it might be wise that while .in negotiations with ~Nortec, investigate their expertise in these' type of investigations and studies. 5. Discussion of Resolution Concerning the Planning and Zoning Commission and Harbor Commission Chairman'Peterkin presented the resolution 81-97 in question and explained that there were some questions regarding the wording and intent. Chairman Peterkin asked Bill Brighton to elaborate. Bill Brighton explained that the resolution was asking for a grant for not only the Harbor Commission but also the Planning and Zoning Commission coordinator, that the two commissions were to remain two Kenai Advisory Harbor Commission Regular Meeting, January 12, 1982 Page 7 separate entities but would have administrative support that is working on behalf of both. Bob Peterkin stated that one of the specific questions were; was the Harbor Commission to report to the Planning and Zoning Commission and in turn the' report would take Harbor recommendations to the Council. Ben Delahaygave his opinion that when Planning and Zoning was originally set up it entailed "development of the city territory and may include development, sequence of public improvements" and several more items. When the Harbor Commission was set up that code read that "develop, alter, adopt, or revise, subject to approval by the City Council, a master plan for the physical development of harbor or port facilities for the City" Mr Delahay further read the code to the Commission and in summary stated that "when there is a conflict between two statutes the latter statute controls which is called an implied repeal. It would appear that in adopting the ordinance for the Harbor Commission, the planning function in tide and submerged lands, harbors and ports was removed from the planning commission and given to the harbor commission which would have more expertise on the subject. In disposition of rights by the Council, (11.20.770) regarding applications for consideration of lands, the intent appeared to be that recommendations concerning harbors, ports, submerged lands, these come under the Harbor Commission. The actual land issues come under the Planning and Zoning Commission. Bob Peterkin asked the status of the grant for the coordinator. Bill Brighton explained that there were problems with the-grant, however, the Council and administration were working on it and hoped that the ordinance would soon pass and money would be available. Bob Peterkin asked who would interview and who would select the coordinator and Mr. Brighton and Mr. Delahay felt that City Administration would have the final selection with input from both Harbor and Planning and Zoning Commissions. Ruby Coyle asked Betty Glick who was the person who originated the grant. Betty Glick stated that she didn't have her papers with her, but thought it was the Mayor on behalf of the Borough Planning Commission. Chairman Peterkin asked that before passing on to the next item on the agenda, did Mrs. Glick have anything to say on this item. Mrs. Glick stated, "I was going to make some comments, however, Kenai AdvisOry Harbor Commission Regular Meeting, January' 12, 1982 Page 8 I feel that anything I could say would just be moot at this point in time, that several of you were already prej.udiced simply~because I raised questions and ask questions and the commission feels that I am against the Harbor Commission, I am not, but I do have a responsibility as an elected official to make sure that what is happening in the city is in the best interest .of the city as a whole. And my intent was to continue with the grant but as Mr. Delahay so aptly put it on a broader (inaudible) if you interpret it to be on a more narrow scope, I'm sorry. I would like to have been able to explain alot of things but again, I feel like it doesn't make any difference, what I would tell you, several are already prejudiced and so whatever I say wouldn't make a bit of difference but I do think that we do have a contract between State and Borough, the Borough and the City and the City and Mr. Davis that specifically spelled out certain things that were supposed to be being done in order to keep these monies. .One of which was the operation or consideration of that memorandum of agreement. Now that was given considerable criticism at that September 28th meeting but this is right in the one contract that the city will participate in this and this is part of and Mr. Davis is sitting right over there and I think that if he chooses to he can varify that this is part of Addendum A or Appendix A of the contract and that was one of the reasons why we got that money to begin with. In addition to that we are supposed to be 'participating in the Borough Coastal'Management Plan.'. Well, at this point in time its moot. And again I would just point out that I was in conversation with several of the people with Community and Regional Affairs and Mr. Brighton also was. We were in discussions with Mr. LaBahn and there were some questions raised with the sense of direction of that grant and where it was going. And then a letter to Mr. LaBahn from Roger Maggard dated September 21st, it says, as we discussed during our meeting of September the 17th, 1981 this contract appears to be in need of stronger direction in terms of identifying objectives and a sense of purpose, also given the level of activity supported under this contract in recent, months it appears that a full time secretarial support is unwarranted'. Now we're trying to justify to the Borough the payment of the bills that are submitted to us and the Council sitting there approving it and then when the Borough is trying to justify them to the State and they're having somewhat of a problem, you see you have that chain reaction, I think, I say that I'm not going to put Mr. Brighton on the spot, if he chooses to he can corroborate what I'm saying but there were a number of questions being raised as to the sense of direction that that particular grant was taking and the fact that it was not totally complying with Kenai Advisory Harbor Commission Regular Meeting, January 12, 1982 Page 9 the contract that we had sO I'm saying hey, you know instead of losing the whole nine yards what we need to do is redefine it. That was what I was trying to do and evidently it stepped on every- body's toes and I~m. very sorry for that. But again, I would state that my main purpose is the interest of .the city as a whole and not a few individual persons. But again, I have all these letters that" (end of tape) Gary Davis stated that he didn't see the letters, that they weren't distributed to the Harbor Commission , "one letter about a meeting of September 16th which we never knew about and didn't discuss and if someone had a problem it would have been really nice for the Harbor Commission, especially myself to have a chance to say, hey we agree and here's how that can be solved". Bill Brighton pointed out that most of the letters are addressed to him, however, Betty Glick said, "this particular letter was written to Mr. LaBahn from Roger Maggard and copies were to Mr. Brighton and to Gary". Gary Davis affirmed that he had seen that one. Mrs..Glick stated that, "I would like to think that you can under- stand that I did not operate with. malice in my heart, that my concern was the continuation of a grant that at that point in time seemed to be having problems as per these letters and as per conversation. And again, if Mr. Brighton chooses, he knows that I was on the phone with him, back and' forth and we were trying to get 'something squared~ away that everybody could agree .with'~'. Bill Brighton affirmed, however, stated that he was not sure about the "lack of knowledge of the letters to other'people, it's been six months ago and it's tough for me to keep up". John Williams stated, "we could go on all night discussing what happened during the two weeks prior to September 28th meeting. I feel that there was a total breakdown in communciations somewhere between the administration, the City Council and the Harbor Commission and I'm quite confident after having reviewed the subject matter for some time that our coordinator at that time had no knowledge of the letters of which you're talking about and I would like to just mention for the record thjt the September 28th meeting was called specifically by the Harbor Commission to be a work session for the Harbor Commission to meet with the City Council to discuss mutual problems and that for a work session it turned out to be one hell of a meeting, we didn't get much work session out of it as far as the Council, as far as the Commission was concerned, and that the business for which that meeting was called never did take place, Kenai Advisory Harbor Commission Regular Meeting, January 12, 1982 Page 10 primarily because a motion was introduced that nobodY had any prior knowledge of, or reasonings for or understanding of and had none of ~ us really understood fully the implications of that motions or what it was going to lead to the only thing that we did know after~ we came out.of that meeting was that it wasn't the type of meeting that we. had considered it would be and when we came away from it we were without a coordinator and we've been hopping along on one wing as a lame duck commission 'since September 28th,-nowif that situation is going to improve with the introduction of this resolution and the obtaining of further funding for that-coordinator's position I'm in favor of it and I say that we should get on with it, however, we've got to point out that' fact that we've got one heck of alot of' work to do on this commission and we cannot do it without somebody sitting up there taking the responsibility of the full time operation of that position and all of the work that we generate for that positiOn to handle. So I would hope that in the coming .term, coming year, coming next three years of this Harbor Commission that alot of the ground'work that has been laid for is completed. I would hope that we would be able to move forward without alot of these problems we've had in the past". "I have one comment, John you referred to that Betty Glick stated, meeting as a work session,, the motion that was made was a special meeting and I think as such' it Was advertised as a special meeting which means that the Council takes action at a special meeting. At a work session, no action at all can be taken. So I'm not going to get into the mechanics of but just for the record it was not a work session it was a special meeting." John Williams stated, "the special meeting, Betty, you and I both know the special meeting was called specifically to discuss that what could be done about that administrative position and the motion that was presented was~dropped on the entire group like a bomb you have to admit that and I personally, I want to clear the record on that part too, I don't ever want to have that done to me again. So go on from there". 6. Letter from Tolley with reply from Bill Brighton Chairman Peterkin pointed out that the letter was questioning the progress of the small boat harbor and Mr Peterkin expressed appreciation to Mr. Brighton for his handling of the reply. Kenai Advisory Harbor Commission Regular Meeting, January '12, 1982 Page 11 Ie Re 7. Public Notice from Corp .of Engineers (Chevron U.S.A. - Nikiski) Chairman Peterkin briefly 'summarized for the,'Commission that the notice announced that~work was going to be done at the Nikiski site. Also that Ordinance 81-11 has been revised somewhat and it excludes the Kenai area. NEW BUSINESS 1. Election of Chairman Bob Peterkin brought to the attention of the Commission that he will be~out of town for the next meeting and that his commission expires-in March. Mr.-~Peterkin also pointed out that'the meeting times have been changed from the first and'third Tuesdays to the second and fourth Tuesday to better facilitate the passing of paper from Council to Harbor and would allow the Council time to consider any action taken by Harbor and.also give.Harbor time consider any action Council wishes them to take. Chairman Peterkin opened nominations for chairman, however, John Williams was nominated by unanimous opinion and he asked for time to consider. The nomination and election will be delayed to the next meeting. PERSONS PRESENT NOT .SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD Gary Davis asked that the Harbor Commission draft a' letter to Mr. Joe Webber of the Corp of Engineers thanking him for his assistance in the review of the sedimentation proposals. The suggestion was approved unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Kenai Advisory Harbor Commission will be Tuesday, January 26th at 7:00 p.m. There. being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9'55 p.m. Respectfully submitted: J ~a~et Loper, Secretary