HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-03 Council PacketAGENDA
KENAI C%TY COUNCIL -REGULAR MEETING
MAY 3, 2006
?:00 P.M.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
http: / /www.ci.kenai.ak.us
ITEM A: CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Approval
4. Consent Agenda
*All items listed with an asterisk (') are considered to be routine and non-
controversial by the council and will be approved by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a council member so requests, in which case
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal
sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders.
ITEM B: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (10 minutes)
1. Les Krusea -- Astroturf/Multi-purpose Facility
2. Robert Ruffner/Kaleidoscope School of Arts & Sciences Teachers
and Students -- Clean-up of No-Name Creek
3. Ricky Gease, Kenai River Sportfishing Association, Inc. --
Management Oversight Reports and Economic Information of Upper
Cook Inlet Salmon Fisheries.
ITEM C: UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 minutes)
ITEM D: REPORTS OF KPB ASSEMBLY LEGISLATORS COUNCILS
ITEM E• PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ordinance No. 2158-2006 -- Amending the Official Kenai Zoning Map
by Rezoning Lot A-1 and Lot A-2, Bazon Park Subdivision No. 6, From
Split-Zoned Light Industrial (IL) and General Commercial (CG} to General
Commercial (CGj Only.
2. Ordinance No. 2159-2006 -- Enacting KMC 7.40 Titled, "Grant
Administration," Which Adopts Procedures for the Administration of
Grants by the City of Kenai.
3. Resolution No. 2006-20 -- Authorizing the Amendment of the city of
Kenai, Alaska and Public Employees' Retirement System (PERSj
Participation Agreement to Exclude All Elected Officials, Effective May 3,
2006.
4. Resolution No. 2006-21 -- Transferring $11,000 in the General Fund
for Shop Department Utilities.
5. Resolution No. 2006-22 -- Transferring $12,458 in the Water and Sewer
Special Revenue Fund for Engineering.
6. Resolution No. 2006-23 -- Awarding a Lease for Two Fish Seasons (May
15, 2006 to September 30, 2007) of Kenai Dock Station No. 3 to Copper
River Seafoods for the Seasonal Base Bid of $4,379 Plus $0.03/Ib. For
Any Poundage Over 1,333,333 Lbs. of Total Weight From Both Stations
No. 2 and No. 3 Plus $307 Per Manth for Boat Storage Area No. 3.
7. Resolution No. 2006-24 -- Expressing Fntent to Donate Up to 25 Acres
of a 77-Acre Parcel Near Mommsen Subdivision to Frontier Community
Services and Kenai Senior Connection Upon Certain Conditions.
8. Resolution No. 2006.26 __ Transferring $19,149 From Construction to
Engineering in the Terminal Modifications Capital Project Fund.
ITEM F° MYNUTES
1. *Regular Meeting of April 19, 2006.
2. *April 17, 2006 Work Session Notes
3. *April 19, 2006 Work Session Notes
ITEM G: UNFINISHED BUSINESS
ITEM H:
1. Bills to be Ratified
2. Approval of Purchase Orders Exceeding $15,000
3. *Ordinance No. 2160-2006 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and
Appropriations by $28,000 in the Airport Land System Special Revenue
Fund for Utilities.
4. *®rdiaaace No. 2161-2006 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and
Appropriations by $21,000 in the Terminal Enterprise Fund for Utilities.
5. *®rdinance No. 2162-2006 -- Amending KMC 11.20.790 to Change the
Annual Minimum Rental Rate for Shore Fisheries Leases to $3,000.
6. *Ordinance No. 2163-2006 -- Enacting KMC 7.05.035, Adopting a
Community Purposes Property Tax Exemption as Authorized by AS
29.45.050.
7. *Osdiaance No. 2164-2006 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and
Appropriations by $60,000 in the Airport Land System Special Revenue
Fund and the Runway Safety Area Improvement Capital Project Fund for
Engineering Services.
8. Approval -- Updated Kenai City Council Policy for Commission,
Committee, Board and Council on Aging Meetings and Work Sessions.
9. Discussion -- Schedule Proposed Library Expansion Work Session.
ITEM I: COMMISSIONJCOMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Council on Aging
2. Airport Commission
3. Harbor Commission
4. Library Commission
5. Parks 8c Recreation Commission
6. Planning Sv Zoning Commission
7. Miscellaneous Commissions and Committees
a. Beautification Committee
b. Alaska Municipal League Report
YTEM J: REPORT OF THE MAYOR
ITEM K:
1. City Manager
2. Attorney
3. City Clerk
YTEM L: DISCU
1. Citizens (five minutes)
2. Council
-- None Scheduled
ITEM M:
MAY 3, ZOO6
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Requests for chances to the agenda:
BY:
REMOVE: B-3, Persons Scheduled to be Heard -- Ricky Gease
(rescheduled for May 17, 2006 Council Meeting) CITY CLERK
ADD TO: E-?, Suggested amendments to Resolution No.
2006-24 (Frontier Community Services/Senior
Connection and donation). COUNCIL MEMBER
MOLLOY
ADD AS: H-10, Approval -- Council on Aging Letter to Kenai
Borough Assembly supporting purchase of
Heritage Place (attached letters of support from
Ninilchik Senior Citizens, Inc., Soldotna Area Senior
Citizens, Inc. ,Daniel E. Issacs, Betty Coulter, and
Sterling Area Senior Citizens, Inc.). SENIOR DIRECTOR
CONSENT AGENDA
NO CHANGES.
MAYOR'S REPORT
w
0
~)
a
i~
0
c~
z
w
w
J_
V
Z
d
U
w
0
`'6
d
R
a
~wzw
W W ~ ~ -
}~OQv~jcn
OOO~QO
m~~u~~~
A ~>
`s
--e.
rLi
tie
~Ory
V
Z
W
cttt
L
J
V
Z
V
D
`\~
0
e~
W
ZW
~CC
G
I>
I~
F
I e I
LL
W
W
a.~~
0
d
a~
w
a
i~
0
c~
z
w
w
U
Z
O
V
N
w
O
w
w w
z
w
w
~ J } ~ O Q (n (n
s
.
,
~
, w
fn O
J w
J w
I- w
0 z
Q w
~
~
o
o
o
o
~ (n
a t~
o
` Y ~ Ca d. ~ cn ~ ~
~.
W
W
W w
W
O W ~ ~
~ J } ~' O a u~, vim,
Y m d ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ S `i r~ _ ~ ~ ..
~ }
~~
o z
w >-
O
w ~
w
w
2~ w
z
~
w
°"
"~" fn
~ J
J J
~.. l-
~
O
Q f/~
cn fn
v~
Y m d ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~..
w
w
W O W w ~ ~
= J } w' O a (~ (n
~ 0 0 0 0 5' a 0
~ ~ m a ~ cn ~ ~
w
O
w
w
w w
z
w
~ J r ~ O a cn tA
0.
Y 0
~ O
OO O
~ O
~ ~
tn a
~ O
0.'
/" %,~~
May 3, 2006
City of Kenai
Mayor Pat Porter
210 Fildago Ave.
Kenai, AK 99611.
Mayor Porter,
The Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Association is the primary voice of Cook Inlet's 745 set
net permit holders. We have recently celebrated our 50~' anniversary. The City of Kenai has
always been a strong advocate of conunercial fishing families and the fishing community.
One only needs to behold the terminus of the Kenai River to understand the social and
economic significance the industry has on the City of Kenai.
Your agenda for May 3, 2006 under "new business" refers to "Ordinance No. 2162-2006".
KPFA is concerned that the City of Kenai may not understand the historical intent of the
ieaSeS that the State has aL~uilrPalst°vrv°d 3inCe the early 60's. Prier tC the Implemcntatlvii, the
rule of possession was the only way that a set net f shel-mar. could establish a location for that
year's fishery. Simply, "first in time and first in place". The gold rush process did not allow
for an orderly fishery. To be clear, the state with the request and efforts from fishermen
established a set net tide lease program to protect fishing families who utilized an upland
headquarters site or who may not have land interests to utilize the waters for commercial
fishing after establishing a prior history, surveying and publishing a notice. The protection is
only from other set net fishermen. Other uses and users are not prohibited within the state
guidelines.
The state adrninistrationanl legislature within the past five years have reviewed, made
changes and raised the fee to the current $300.00. This fee is to pay for the administrative
expenditures and this program has paid its way since inception. The change in fee was an
adjustment due to a reduction in program participants. It is not necessary to possess a lease to
commercial set net fish.
We are concerned as is the state in precedence setting. The state lease document does not
limit local governments from establishing other rules to protect their interests. The state does
not take a position of controlling the opportunity by establishing a lease system. The City of
Kenai has taken a different path equating this to ownership of the resource and thus believes
that it needs to establish a value to each location. Does the city agree to defend the
43961 Kalifornsky Beach f~oad ®Suite E ®Soldotna, Alaska ®99669
(907) 262-2492 ®Fax: (907) 262-2898 ®E Mail: kpfa@alaska.net
opportunity directly related to the valuation of these locations? What then would be tihc
position of the Kenai Peninsula. Borough? Would there now be a need. to assess al'1 set net
fisherman by area and catch records to detoranine value? This is not passible under current
laws as the personal records are sealed by state law. Then how will. the assessment proceed?
The state and. other lending agencies like CFAB and commercial tending institutes will not
hold as collateral set net leases. 5/aluaiions are not apparent through public records.
Please be aware that a group of canaemed citizens have challenged the state by filing a
takings lawsuit. The premise of this case is in establishing property rights and the direct
relationship with resource oppartnnity. Does the city wish to include there intent to establish
value a direct correlation with this takings Lawsuit?
KPh`A wishes to continue the goad shipmate relationship with the Cite of Kenai. Wo would
encourage the City in the future to contact our office to discuss rotated. issues. fishermen who
reside in the Kenai area are morn than eager to assist the city,
Thank You,
r
Paul A. Shadura II
Execuftvo Director
43961 I~alifornsky Beach Road • Suite F • Soldotna, Alaska 99669
(907) 262-2492 • Fax: (907) 262-2898 • E Mail: kpfaCaalaska.net
~~ ~ ~~
I I
~ r'
and the
~ I ~
i
k!
11e a.m. to ~® p. 4th Avenue in nni
r
For More Information Contact Shelly at the
Kenai Watershed Forum ° 260-5449 or 398-9497
~~.
~: ;
~' ~~
u
. ;~;~ `~!~ Kaleidoscope School's "No Name Creek"Data Sheet
Date: ~-~/~ -(7(trz
Student Scientists:
l._
2. Ca ~
3. r~e~t
Weather:
.fir Temperature: ~ c>
Water Temperature: L~~
Water Surfac cte)
.:
Calm ~ pple~ ~~
Foam Bu tiles
Oily Other
Description (circle all that apply)
C Sunny
®verc s'' Pact,1,~Cloudy
__._
__._n Sl
g
Foggy nowen
Stream Ope or lirozen (circle)
or Flooded
Signs of Stream Health {circle and list all that apply)
~, ll / . ~
,Plants~`~v _~~~ii~~i6~lZza
Stream Insects-
Iron Color
Turbidity of Stream Water (Clarity):
F,nimals//`:t"
Soil ~~Z~l~--~' `~ ~7~CWE`h~
e~
Litter l,; ' "~® ~.~ a~ S~~t^L~Lt.,'~..
Number of Drops of Solution ~_ X .5 ml per drop= B
pH of Stream Water: ~® ~ OK f'or salmon? ~J~
Dissolved Oxygen of Stream Water:~~ OK for salmon?~
Report Research Data to: The Kenai Wcitershed Forum 360-.5449
---
1Jpstream o Downstre , (circle one)
4.~~/'~
5.
b.
People speaking on B-2, Report on Clean Up of No-Name Creek:
Robert Ruffner, Kenai
Kelli Stroh and Nicole
Students:
Kirstin Nyquist
Alex Bergholz
Danielle Updike
Grace Ramsey
Aedrenna Nicks
Watershed Forum
Shelden, Teachers at Kaleidoscope School of Arts & Sciences
TESTIMONY SIGN-IN SHEET
~`
~. u..._...W-' ~ ^r r ,.~:x:. may
.
r'~~~.'~/ /'
w ,,
~ ~r S._... 7 ~ l~ '/
~~~
1
~~~~~ ~1,~ ~~'<3
~GPG" ~ l
~~ yy
r'~~~... ~ ~~. 1 ~ ~ f~ V~~~a L~~ ~1 ,
`}
j ~~,,~~ ,,,F„ti~
t ~~ ~,~
(_
MRY 02 2006 14:44 KENRI SENIOR CENTER 907-283-3200 p.i
May 02 06 02:36p Ninllchik Senior Center (90.5673968 P•~
May 2, 2006
Executive Director
Kenai Senior Center
Kenai, AK 49611
To Whom It May Concern:
Tfte Ninilchik Senior Center stra:tgly supports the construction of additional assisted living
facilities on the western shows a:'the Kenai Peninsula. There is a strong need for assisted living
facilities on the Kenai Peninsula, where seniors may age in place or in close proximity to family
and friends.
The Ninilehik Senioe Center strop tgly supports the construction of addilionat assisted living
facilities in Kenai. The seniors p refer the moee Waal setting of the Kenai Peninsula where
they°ve lived many decades, rath:r than relocating to Anchorage, a very urban center and much
farther away from family and friends. The seniors prefer and desire the more rural, caring
atmosphere of the Kenai Peninsula than the urban, bustling, busy and noisy setting of
Anchorage.
As seniors age and need an assisted living environment, they generally also require nearby
medical and emergency professionals. Medecal facilities, emergency professionals and medical
care are all etu•retrtly available in Kenai. The ocean, the boats and the mountains are also visible
from Kenai, which contributes to the atmosphere and gives the seniors cotnfart and a sense of
home.
``,, ~~ r
Wiz. j~G~
JULIE WELCH MARTHA OGRIsN
Director President, Hoard of Directors
BIGGEST LITTLE SENIOR CENTER on the PENINSULA
NiNLL.CEi1K SeNBOR Crt1ZtrN8, IvC. PO BOX 39422 Nirrilchik, AK 99439-0422
Phone: 907-Sd7-3988 senlorsg otialaska.net Far:: 907-567-3968
MRY D2 2006 15:51 KENRI SENIOR CENTER 907-283-3200 p.l
FROM Soldotna Sensor Center PF~lE N0. 907 262 2147 May. 02 2006 02:46PM P1
May 2, 2006
l2achael Craig, Executive Director
Kenai Senior Center
361 Senior Court
Kenai, AK 99611
Dear Rachael:
This letter is written in suppo ^t of the Kenai Senior Connection Resolution before the
Kenai City Council for consideration and approval in securing property (ta be donated
by the City of Kenai) far an assisted living facility,
The need far an assisted living facility In Kenaf Is vital for health and well being of area
seniors, and to remain in their own community. With the Kenai Peninsula's rapidly
growing senior population it i> crucial that there are adequate skilled assisted living
facilities.
1 wish you every success in your pursuit of securing properly and building an assisted
living facility in Kenai.
~'olr,!otnp Area Senior Citizens, Inc.
197 U'sst Park Avenue *Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: (907) 2f 2-2322 * FaX: (907) 262.2147 * solsrctr@alaska.nei
MRY 03 2006 14:00
KENRI 9EIVIOR CENTER
May 2, 2006
To Kenai City Council;
907-283-3200
This is to inform you that I scpport the Kenai Senior Connection, Inc. 'S
project to build an assisted living. There is a big need within our community
for an assisted living facility. Seniors, such as myself, like being in
a community of other seniors and remaining in our community.
p.l
~~~ ~' `
NflY 03 2006 15:29 KENRI SENIOR CENTER 907-283-3200
p.l
MFY 03 2006 18:25 KEfVRI SENIOR CENTER 907-283-3200 p.l
•^•• •+_ .+v as ..ao ti Pt til tRL (Nd FYREp SENIOR CEN 4072623853 p, 0y
1
Rachael Craig, Executive Director
Kenai Senior Services
861 Senior Caurt
Kenai, Alaska 69811
May 3, 20013
Dear Rachael:
As a fellow DirE~clor I am pleased that the Ken
Assisted Living to their program services, We are facing,
of available choices far our seniors particularly when fac
level of home care and needing assistance but no4 to t
care, These decisions of where to go when help is
nearly on a daily basis. The Kenai Peninsula is becami
retirees and we know Pram experience that the facility n
this population of retiree s.
I hope that the Itenai City Cauncii will wholly
Ssrrices in this cffor< to acquire land and canstructRs
Sincerely,
yudy V'NArren, Director
Sterling Area Senior Cittlens, inc.
282.3883
i Seniors want to add
crisis with ihd amount
with leaving a comfort
level of nursi~sg home
ceded are popping up
1 an attractive; area far
ds will grow along with
art the Kenai Senior
Living facifitjes.
F~
i
i
unH o~wrsi
B-1
'The Issue
Cun~ently the ConocoPhillips Multi-purpose Facility is essentially a hockey rink
in the winter and sits as an enclosed space for the balance of the year. in reality the
community has yet to realize or benefit from the facility's fiill potential. By installing an
artificial turf surfacing within the facility for the shoulder and summer months the period
of use and enjoyment of the facility by the community at large would be extended to
become useful year round.
Specs
The artificial turf would be purchased fi~om the company Reo-Turf and would cost
about $70,000. The area to be covered spans 180 ft x 70 ft and the turf comes in rolls of
1.00 ft x I3 ft, minimizing seams is important due to the fact that the majority of serious
turf injuries occur on them. Each roll weighs 800 lbs. There is a layer of artificial turf
Chat is placed on top of a thin pad that comes with the turf and an additional and
recommended cushion that is placed underneath the two layers and direcCly on the
concrete.
Beneficiaries
A multitude of local organizations would find that an indoor practice facility,
complete with modern artificial surfacing, would be tremendously useful and pragmatic.
Due to current available spaces peninsula soccer teams are shackled by the remnants of
snow that litter the fields and are forced to spend the crucial first weeks in gyms that do a
poor job of simulating a real soccer field. Most Valley and Anchorage teams have the
benefit of playing on a surface that plays more like grass during the early season, which
is reflected in their quality of play.
Local Little League Baseball and Softball teams would find the new facility
beneficial as well. Bali practices are often inhibited by the weather in much file same
way that soccer is. Mucking around ui the wet cold grass is no fun at ail, and makes it
impossible to practice anything except rudimentary throwing drills. Further practicing in
cold weather can lead to season ending injmies and chronic pains. The availability of the
proposed facility would mitigate these issues by providing a warm, grass-like, and
expansive space to practice in.
The Arctic Winter Games demonstrated just how electric indoor soccer is. At this
time there is no outlet for people interested in playing indoor soccer beyond the
elementary school age Boys & Girls Club teams. Indoor soccer is a sport that flourishes
in Anchorage as well as across the nation, the only difference between us and them being
the availability of resources and facilities. The turf comes with indoor soccer lines
already painted on the surface.
There is a burgeoning lacrosse community in the area with a ton of interest, but
nowhere to play or practice. The ConocoPhillips Multi-Purpose Facility is the ideal arena
for Lacrosse. Right now there are a total of 65 kids in the lacrosse league, but the
league's leaders envisions many more participants who will be separated into age
classifications. In fact the proposed turf comes ready made for lacrosse play, complete
with lacrosse lines painted on.
Finally the facility would be open to the public when it is not reserved. From ball
players driven indoors by inclement weather to a doting parent teaching an up and
coming athlete the perfect mechanics or a throw or the keys of a solid kick, the facility
would be available to all who need it.
Maintenance
The surface would have to be installed after the ice is removed, and removed in
order to make way for the ice. The material itself would require little to no maintenance,
but lamentably there are irresponsible people out there who may decide to leave trash on
the field or otherwise damage/vandalize it. Finally there surface would have to be
cleaned periodically, as there is no rain or dew to cleanse the surface nor is there soil for
the water to seep away through.
Distribution of'Pime/Reservations
There should be a constant stream of organizations in need of time in the facility
and it would be wise to have a reservation system in place. The obvious decision would
be to emulate the example set forth by the reservation protocol of ice team during the
winter months. The individual organizations could act as middlemen in the reservation
process in order to streamline the procedure, i.e. Little League or The American Legion.
There would of course be a cost to reserve the facility to be used to mitigate maintenance
costs and help defray the initial cost incurred by purchasing the surface. For unscheduled
use a donation box with suggested donations based on age would be the most practical
method as an attendant would be cost inhibitive as well as not terribly practical
When
The facility would probably see its most frequent reserved use during the spring
shoulder [tlolitiis, that 1s fr0iii the tiIlie tiic ice %otiics Dill riIltii ficid5 have dried and
evening temperatures have risen to comfortable level. The summer and autumn months
would still see extensive use from indoor soccer and lacrosse teams, but the amount of
time reserved time would drop considerably while the unscheduled use would continue.
Why?
The introduction of an artificial surface to the Multi-Purpose Facility would
significantly extend the time that the facility and increase the opportunities for the
community's enjoyment of the facility. It is important to understand that this facility
would not generate revenue; in fact it would probably run in the red. In this case though,
the bottom line is noC crux of the issue. It is a quality of life issue; it will provide a whole
host of healthy and positive opportunities for kids as well as the community at large.
While it is the city's responsibility to generate revenue in order to pay for services and to
progress, it is also the city's duty to provide places for it's residents to stop and smell the
roses to maximize their overall enjoyment of the Cime that they spend in the city.
Business Opportunities
As there will be more traffic in the facility there will be many many more sets of
eyes, from soccer moms to the participants themselves. As a result there will be a
noteworthy increase in the nuriber of people who will see the advertisements, which
would thusly increase the value and price of advertisement spots within the facility.
There is plenty of rhetoric being tossed about by the City of Kenai concerning its
lofty goal, yet attainable, ambition of becominn the business hub of the Peninsula. The
vision is that consumers will flock to the city to spend their money on commodities
within the city. The artificial surfacing in the Multi-Purpose facility would create another
commodity of sorts, while the facility itself would not earn a profit soccer moms need gas,
hungry and tuckered out kids need food, victorious teams need a place to celebrate, and
teenagers with their heads in the clouds need a place to buy replacement equipment.
VELCRO SEAMlNO TAPE
~~(~-~ U
PERFORATIONS
REC-PAD CONCRETE SUB-FLOOR
~v B-3
KENAI RIVER SPORTFISHING
ASSOCIATION
RE~~'!1
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk ~-~"' °- -~ •%._.
210 Fidalgo Avenue j
Kenai, Alaska 99611 ~ APR 2 6 2006 f
Dear Carol: ~tGr~f.^'~ (~ ~ EIS
Apri126, 2006
At the Kenai City Council meeting on Wednesday, May 3, I wouCd like to update the council members on
four reports released this spring by the Kenai River Sportfishing Association:
1. KRSA 2005 Annual Report of Progress -Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
2. KRSA 2006 Strategic Plan for Focusing Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds on Priority
Habitat and Fisheries Concerns in the Kenai River Watershed
3. KRSA 2006 Call for Proposals -Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund -Kenai River Watershed
4. Economic Values of Sport, Personal Use, and Commercial Salmon Fishing in Upper Cook Inlet
The first three reports relate to KRSA management oversight of Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds
for the Kenai River Watershed, while the last focuses on economic information of Upper Cook Inlet
salmon fisheries.
All four reports are available in electronic format, which I can provide at your convenience. The handouts
I will have at the meeting are: the strategic plan (2), the economic values report (4), KRSA's annual
neWSletteY and a KRSA DVD fOr tl"ie KenaY River. Pieasc ict iiie know hOw many COjyicS of haiidoiitS are
necessary for the meeting.
The update will be verbal, with a brief overview of each report, and a shoe comment on future trends for
participation (growth) in the recreational sportfishery, with consequences and needs for infrastructure and
public access. For background, I have attached the executive summary of each report.
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I look forward to the council meeting next week.
Respectfully,
~~ ~.R-
Rtcky Gease, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association
Attachment: Executive Summary of KRSA reports released in spring 2006
Dedicated to preserving the greatest Sportfishing river in the world, the Kenai.
PO Box 1228 •224 Kenai Ave., Suite 702 • Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: (9071262-8588 • fax: (907) 262-8582 • www.kenairiversportfishing.com • E-mail: info@kenairiversportfishing.com
--
__
~~, ~ --
~_
,~~;~- '
KENAI RIVER SPORTF(SHING
ASSOCIATION
Executive Summary of KRSA Reports released in springy ?006
KRSA 2005 Annual ReporP of Progress -Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
This is the 2005 Annual Report of Progress for Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA) management of Kenai
River/Russian River appropriations under the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Pund/Southeast Sustainable Salmon Fund
(PCSRF/SSSF). In FFY 2004 $1.910,000 was appropriated to the Kenai River watershed. and $955,000 was appropriated
to the Russian River watershed (a tributary river to the Kenai.) to FFY 2005 $956,000 and in FFY 2006 $750,000 were
appropriated to the Kenai River watershed, with a cumulative total of $4,571,000 to date under the management direction of
KRSA.
2005 was the first year in which KRSA actively managed and recommended approval of projects through the PCSRF/SSSF
appropriations. In 2005 KRSA established a framework for strategic planning (planning approach, priorities, and project
evaluation criteria,) fast track and standard track project approval, call and review of pre-proposals, call and review of
proposals, statements of work, awarding of funds, and monitoring and evaluation of projects. KRSA worked in conjunction
and close cooperation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) throughout this process. The ADFG
Commissioner provides final review and signature of ail projects recommended for approval by KRSA. Fisheries projects
totaled $831,447(33%), habitat projects totaled 51,747,941(67%). Within habitat projects, 12°io of funds have gone to
habitat research projects and 88% of funds have cone to restoration /access projects.
In 2006, KRSA will update the strategic plan created in 2005, meet with resource managers and nut forth a call fnr
proposals in order to use the remaining balance of PCSRFlSSSF for the Kenai River. KRSA will continue to monitor fast
track projects approved and implemented in 2005 and monitor the standard track projects approved in 2005 that will be
implemented in 2006. Once projects are completed. KRSA, in conjunction with ADFG and other resource managers, will
evaluate project results, and update the strategic planning document for the Kenai River watershed.
KRSA 2006 Strategic Plan for Focusing Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds on Priority
Habitat and Fisheries Concerns in flee Kenai River Watershed
The Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA) initiated a strategic planning process in February 2005 to ensure that
monies received through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) are focused on priority informationiaction
needs (hereafter referred to as "needs") for the conservation and restoration of habitat, and salmon research in the Kenai
River watershed. To update the plan, KRSA convened a half day informational meeting on March 30, 2006 and a one day
planning workshop on March 31, 2006 in Soldotna. At the informational meeting, 33 attendees registered, and about a
dozen members of the public viewed the meeting. At the planning workshop, a total of 25 representatives from local, state
and federal government agencies and non-governmental organizations with land and fishery management responsibility
participated in discussions to identify and prioritize needs. Results from the planning process form the basis of KRSA's
2006 call for proposals. This report details the results from the informational meeting and p(anningworkshop held in 2006.
Dedicated to preserving the greatest sportfishing river in the world, the Kenai.
PO Box 1228 • 224 Kenai Ave., Suite 102 •Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: (907) 262-8588 • Fax: (907) 262-8582 • www.kenairiversportfishing.com • E-mail: info@kenairiversportfishing.com
tfRSA 2006 Call for Proposals -Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund -Kenai River Watershed
Kenai River Sporttishing Association (KRSA) is seeking habitat restoration, and salmon and habitat reseazch project
proposals suitable for funding by the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF), managed in Alaska through Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) as the Southeast Sustainable Salmon Fund (SSSF). A portion of that fund has been
dedicated for work on the Kenai and Russian rivers. KRSA, in collaboration with representative land and fishery
managers, has identified action and information needs for protecting salmon sustainability. You are invited to identify yow
interest and to submit pre-proposals for use in the development of a list of potential projects to address the specifec
objectives, action and information needs for the Kenai watershed.
Economic Values of Sport, Personad Use, and Commercial Sadmon Fishing in Upper Cook Inlet
Upper Cook Inlet is unique among atl of Alaska's maritime regions in its relative proportions of recreational and
commercial fishing. Sport and personal use fishing is heavily concentrated in the region, and the economic values
associated with these activities are very substantial. Commercial fisheries in Upper Cook Inlet yield a minor fraction of the
state's commercial harvest values. Economic values of sport and personal use salmon fisheries in Upper Cook Inlet now
significantly surpass those of the Upper Cook Inlet commercial salmon fisheries by every available measwe.
Economic factors are among the considerations taken into account by the Alaska Board of Fisheries when making
allocations and other regulatory decisions. Tnis report reviews published studies and agency data on participation,
economic significance, net economic value, and potential economic impacts in Upper Cook Inlet's sport, personal use, and
commercial salmon fisheries.
Participation: Cook Inlet supports Alaska's lazgest and most economically valuable recreational fisheries. Nearly two-
'huds of the state's residents (61%) live in the three Cook Inlet boroughs (Anchorage, Mat-Su, and Kenai), and almost 60%
if Alaska's sport fishing occws in these boroughs. More than 250,000 anglers-Alaskans and visitors-fish each yeaz in
the Cook Inlet boroughs. In good fishing years, recreational anglers collectively approach one million days per year fishing
on the Kenai Peninsula.
More than half (51%) of all summer fishing trips in the state are in Upper Cook Inlet. And almost three-quarters of alt
summer fishing trips in Alaska are for salmon. Salmon fishing in Upper Cook Inlet accounts for well over one-third (37%)
of all recreational fishing in the state.
Economic Significance: Sport and personal use fishing in Southcentra( Alaska generate direct spending of $415 million
(2003 dollars) and total sales of $532 million that support some 6,100 "full time equivalent" or "average annual" jobs that
produce $171 million in income. Recreational salmon fishing in Upper Cook Inlet generates direct spending of $246
million (2003 dollars) and $290 million in total sales that support 3,400 average annual jobs producing $95 million in
income.
Net economic value: The average value (over and above expenses) that individual Alaskans place on their annual
recreational fishing is $714 (2003 dollars). Sport and personal use fishing in Southcentral Alaska accounts for fow fifths
(80%) of the statewide recreational fishing net economic value or NEV total. The net economic value of recreational
salmon fishing in Upper Cook Inlet is estimated at $104 million (in 2003 dollars)-almost half (47%) of the statewide
recreational fishing NEV total-with $56 million of that amount going to Alaskans.
Future Trends: Demand for recreational fishing opportunities in the Cook Inlet boroughs is expected to grow by 2.3% per
yeaz through 2010-a net increase of almost 60,000 anglers over 2001 levels. A record 19, 110 personal use permits were
issued in Upper Cook Inlet in 2003.
Allocation and Management: Commercial fisheries are currently allocated 80% of the Upper Cook Inlet salmon harvest,
while sport and personal use fisheries are allocated 20% of the harvest. The success of recreational fisheries relies not only
on receiving an appropriate share of the salmon harvest but also on receiving those fish in a way that is meaningful to
recreational users.
2006
Strategic Plan for Focusing Pacific Coastal Salmon
Recovery Funds on Priority Habitat and Fisheries
Concerns in the Kenai River Watershed
Developed by Kenai River 5portfishing Association
PO Box 1228
Solclotna, Alaska 99669
907-262-8588
Apri12006
KENAI RIVER SPORTFISHING
ASSOCIATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................................ii
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................... ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................................1
The PCSRF Appropriation ............................................................................................................................................ I
The Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................................................2
Overarching Legislation, Policy and Plans ....................................................................................................................2
THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................3
INFORMATIONAL MEETING .............................................................................................. .....................................3
Review of Selected PCSRF Projects Funded Through KRSA in 2005 .................................... .....................................3
Potential Partnerships ............................................................................................................... .....................................6
Permitting ................................................................................................................................. ..................................... 9
PLANNING WORKSHOP ...................................................................................................... ...................................10
Planning Approach ................................................................................................................... ................................... 10
Structuring and Establishing Priorities ..................................................................................... ................................... l 1
Structural Adjust ...................................................................................................................... ...................................12
Results ...................................................................................................................................... ...................................12
Overall Pfan Framework ...................................................................................................... ...................................12
Needs Identified for the Fisheries Goal ............................................................................. ...................................13
Needs Identified for the Habitat Goat ................................................................................ ...................................16
oyeuue>is of Frforiiics for uuu[umuuwn.c~wn Needs ........................................................ ................................... i
ACCESS PRO7ECTS .............................................................................................................. ...................................19
APPLICATION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN TO PCRSF ALLOCATION ...........................................................21
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................21
LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................................................22
APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................................................23
APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................................................24
APPENDIX C .............................................................................................................................................................26
APPENDIX D .............................................................................................................................................................28
APPENDIX E ..............................................................................................................................................................30
i
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Outline of the strategic planning process for KRSA, 2005 .............................................................................2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Framework of goals, problems, objectives and informationlaction needs, including unadjusted weights
of importance, for the Kenai River watershed, 2006 ....................................................................................14
2. Adjusted synthesis of information/action needs for the fisheries goal, Kenai River watershed, 2006..........18
3. Adjusted synthesis of information action needs for the habitat goal, Kenai River watershed, 2006 ............20
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
Page
A. Synopsis of relevant legislation and policies to assist KRSA in defining goals and objectives which
meet mandates from governing bodies ..........................................................................................................23
B. Attendees at the KRSA informational meeting, March 30, 2006 ..................................................................24
C. Participants in the KRSA planning workshop, March 3 L, 2006 ...................................................................26
D. Outline of the strategic planning and proposal process for PCSRF through KRSA, 2006 ...........................28
E. Crites developed during the 2005 pta.^.ning preeess for evalaating Proposals ............................................30
11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA) initiated a strategic planning process in February
2005 to ensure that monies received through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF)
are focused on priority information action needs (hereafrer referred to as "needs") for the
conservation and restoration of habitat, and salmon research in the Kenai River watershed. To
update the plan, KRSA convened a half day informational meeting on March 30, 2006 and a one
day planning workshop on Mazch 31, 2006 in Soldotna. At the informational meeting, 33 attendees
registered, and about a dozen members of the public viewed the meeting. At the planning
workshop, a total of 25 representatives from local, state and federal government agencies and non-
governmental organizations with Land and fishery management responsibility participated in
discussions to identify and prioritize needs. Results from the planning process form the basis of
KRSA's 2006 call for proposals. This report details the results from the informational meeting and
planning workshop held in 2006.
INTRODUCTION
The mission of KRSA is to conserve and protect the greatest sportfishing river in the world -the
Kenai River. To further this mission, KRSA was appropriated approximately $4 million through
the Southeast Sustainable Salmon Fund, which is Alaska's federal allocation of funds from the
PCSRF. Two goals within KRSA's mission are authorized under the enabling legislation:
• foster fishery research to advance information for sustainable salmon management; and,
• conserve and rehabilitate habitat to maintain and improve the Kenai River watershed for
sustainable salmon fisheries.
To ensure that projects aze focused on the highest priorities for fish and their habitat in the Kenai
River waters bed, KRSA initiated a coiiaboraiive strategic pianning approach to clarify the request
for proposals and define evaluation criteria for proposals. Clarification of strategic priorities should
improve the quality and focus of proposals. In 2005, approximately $2.58 million was awarded to
principal investigators for project proposals addressing priority fisheries and habitat research and
evaluation needs as stated in the plan. The purpose of this report is to describe and present the
updated 2006 strategic plan developed through facilitated discussions with workshop participants.
THE PCSRF APPROPRIATION
The PCSRF was established by Congress in FY 2000, with the support of Senator Stevens, to
contribute to the conservation, restoration, and sustalnability of Pacific salmon populations and their
habitats. Since FY 2004, a portion of the Alaska allocation of the PCSRF ($4.571 million) has been
earmarked for KRSA use in the Kenai and Russian rivers (Table 1). KRSA has directed PCSRF
funds to a series of habitat and fishery projects through a formal strategic planning and project
evaluation process. This process was funded entirely with other KRSA funds to ensure that
maximum value would be gained from the PCSRF dollars.
1
Table I. Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds earmarked for use by the Kenai River
Sportfishing Association.
Federal Fiscal Year.. Kenai River-
watershed ,Russian River watershed Total Allocated.
2004 $1,910,000 $955,000 $2,865,000
2005 $956,000 -- $956,000
2006 $750,000 -- $750,000
Totals $3,616,000 $955,000 $4,571,000
In 2005 KRSA actively managed and recommended approval of projects working in conjunction
and close cooperation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). The ADFG
Commissioner provides final review and signature of all projects recommended for approval by
KRSA. A total of $2,579,388 were allocated to fishery research and habitat projects under this
fund. A balance of $1,991,612 remains in the fund to be allocated for future work.
TAE SCOPE OF WORK
Proposals will be solicited according to the following categories:
1. Fisheries research
These projects address abundance, composition, timing, migration, substock
identification, harvest statistics, factors influencing productivity, and management.
2. Habitat research and evaluation
These projects examine and improve the effectiveness of habitat rehabilitation,
identify critical areas, and assess environmental factors that influence fish ecology and
production.
Habitat rehabilitation and access
These actions or projects seek to restore degraded fisheries habitat, mitigate impacts
from development or access, and provide for future angler access.
The salmon species of primary interest are Chinook, sockeye and coho; however, studies on other
species acting as significant factors (e.g., years of high pink salmon returns) in the production of
target species will be considered. In regards to funding fisheries research, the Kenai River
watershed includes marine migratory routes in Cook Inlet and the Russian River watershed. Multi-
year proposals up to five years in duration will be considered; however continuation of funding
beyond the first year is contingent upon evaluation of an annual progress report. See Appendix A
for an outline of the proposal process.
OVERARCHING LEGISLATION, POLICY AND PLANS
The strategic plan should be considered in the context of over-arching legislation, policies, and
plans pertaining to the Kenai River and administration of PCSRF. Thus, a brief summary of
governing legislation, policies and plans was prepared to assist the KRSA in defining goals and
objectives which meet mandates from governing bodies, and consider the intent of relevant policies
and plans (Appendix B).
THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS OVERVIEW
The strategic planning process in 2006 consisted of:
1. an informational meeting a day prior to the planning workshop (March 30);
2. a planning workshop to update the plan's needs (March 31); and,
an inventory of opportunities for developing access to the Kenai and Kasilof rivers, and
access projects that are scheduled.
INFORMATIONAL MEETING
At the informational meeting, 33 attendees registered (Appendix C), and about a dozen members of
the public viewed the meeting. The purposes of the informational meeting were to:
1. inform the interested public and professionals about the status of selected PCSRF fisheries
and habitat research projects funded through KRSA in 2005;
2. foster a more robust understanding of partnership potentials among agencies and
organizatians concerned with the Kenai River watershed; and,
3. review permitting requirements for habitat restoration projects in an attempt to clazify and
streamline the process.
REVIEW OF' SELECTED PCSRF PROJECTS FUNDED TFIROUGFI KRSA IN 2005
Kenai River Chinook Salmon Genetics Baseline Development and Testing
Tim McKinley, ADFG, Sport Fish Division
The Kenai River supports two temporal runs of chinook salmon annually. Overlap in the returning
timing of these two groups of fish is unknown. Recent technological advances in assaying genetic
markers may provide a tool to identify genetic marks that differ between these two groups of fish.
If such differences exist, sampling chinook salmon in the lower river would provide information on
the return timing of tributary and mainstem spawning fish. In addition to developing an
understanding of genetic diversity of chinook salmon in the Kenai River, information on return and
harvest timing for tributary vs. mainstem spawning fish will help fishery managers refine
regulations and maintain genetic diversity. Kenai River Chinook salmon genetic information will
add to a coast-wide database maintained by the Pacific Salmon Commission Chinook Technical
Committee.
Project objectives are to:
1. develop a genetic baseline database for Kenai River chinook salmon; and,
2. estimate and determine overlap in the return timing of tributary and mainstem spawning
Kenai River chinook salmon.
Better information on the return timing and exploitation of these two runs will improve assessment
of stock productivity and genetic diversity, and accuracy in estimating yield and biological
escapement goals.
Reconstruction of Late Run Russian River Sockeye
Tim McKinley, ADFG, Sport Fish Division
Estimates of the total run (harvest plus escapement) are unknown for Upper Russian River late-run
sockeye salmon because the contributory harvest of this stock to the mixed stock commercial,
personal use, and mainstem Kenai River recreational fisheries is not known. The goal of this
project is to provide the information required to estimate production and exploitation, and develop a
biological escapement goal for Upper Russian River late run sockeye salmon. Additionally,
identification and estimation of the harvest of these fish in mixed-stock fisheries will improve
knowledge of the overall spatial and temporal exploitation of these fish.
Project objectives are to:
1. estimate the annual abundance of the Upper Russian River late-run sockeye salmon in 2006-
2008; and,
2. estimate the annual abundance of the Upper Russian River late-run sockeye salmon past
Kenai River rkm 31.4 in 2006-2008.
Tissue from fish sampled in the various fisheries, and collected at the Kenai River sonar and
fishwheel site at rkm 31.4 will be sent to ADFG, Division of Commercial Fisheries Gene
Conservation Lab in Anchorage for SNP analysis. The analysis will estimate the probability of
whether the fish is of Upper Russian River or another Kenai River sub-stock origin by comparing
its DNA with a baseline DNA database from a large number of Kenai River sub-stocks. This
analysis will be used to estimate the proportion of Upper Russian River late-run sockeye salmon
harvested by each fishery and the abundance of this stock passing rkm 31.4 estimated by a
companion capture-recapture experiment. The contribution of Kenai River and of Upper Russian
River late-run sockeye salmon to each fishery will be estimated by multiplying the sample
proportion by file estimated total harvest. The sport harvest cf Upper Russian P.iver Izte-rzr.
sockeye salmon upstream of rkm 31.4 will be estimated by subtracting the count of Russian River
sockeye salmon at the weir from the abundance of Upper Russian River sockeye salmon at rkm
31.4. The sum of the estimated number of Upper Russian River sockeye salmon harvested in the
fisheries downstream of rkm 31.4 with the estimated number passing rkm 31.4 will provide the
necessary data to reconstruct the entire run.
Kenai River Sockeye Salmon Inriver Abundance
Mark Willette, Commercial Fish Division
The escapement goal range for Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon has been based, in part, upon
the number of wild sockeye salmon estimated to spawn within the watershed, estimated from the
total sonar count of sockeye salmon escapement, excluding harvest in recreational fisheries
upstream of the sonar and hatchery-origin fish counted at Hidden Creek weir. Sonar technology has
been used since 1968 because high glacial turbidity precludes visual enumeration. Annual sonar-
derived estimates have unlrnown bias because the counts have not been verified with other
escapement estimation methods. While sonar is used to count fish that swim through the sonar
beams located along both banks, the entire river is not ensonified. This project will use mark-
4
recapture techniques to independently estimate the escapement of sockeye salmon migrating
upstream past the sonar counters located at rkm 31.4 on the Kenai River in 2006.
Project objectives are to:
1. estimate the population size of adult sockeye salmon migrating upstream of rkm 31.4 on the
Kenai River from 3uly 1 to August 17; and,
2. estimate the length distribution of the population.
A task of the project is to use radio tags to monitor the spawning distribution of Kenai River
sockeye salmon.
Fishwheels will be used to capture sockeye salmon; a sample will be marked in proportion to
abundance with PIT tags (10,000 sockeye salmon) or backpack radio transmitters (100 sockeye
salmon); an adipose fan will be clipped as a second mark.. Fish will be recaptured using one of
three methods: fishwheels located at rkm 45.3, the entire population passing Hidden Creek weir,
and the entire population passing Russian River weir. Fish with PIT tags will be detected through
scanning with electronic PIT tag detection systems. Movements of radio-tagged fish will be
monitored using fixed, land-based radio receiving stations, supplemented by mobile tracking
missions.
Kenai River Habitat Restoration, Evaluation and Strate~y
Ray Beamesderfer, S.P. Cramer and Associates
Healthy habitat is key to maintaining the tremendous salmon productivity seen in the Kenai River
watershed. Much effort has been invested in fisheries habitat protection and restoration, yet it is
unclear to what extent these efforts have influenced fish production. The goal of this project is to
review and summarize available information on the relationship between habitat condition and fish
productinn, The siimm~ry wii_1 prnvide a framewnrk fnr use in guiding filhire rectnratinn
evaluation and research. Amulti-disciplinary approach will be used in accessing information, such
as through the literature and interviews with fluvial geomorphologists, hydrologists, etc.
The project consists of four objectives:
1. Describe habitat conditions. Knowledge regarding cureent shoreline and riparian conditions,
patterns and trends, habitat forming processes and human impacts will be ascertained.
2. Describe past and present restoration efforts. Habitat problems that have been identified,
actions taken to address those problems, the effectiveness of actions (projects), and
remaining issues will be examined.
3. Relate conditions and restoration to fish production. Studies relating habitat to fish
productivity will be inventoried and inferences drawn; data gaps will be identified.
4. Identify a framework for future habitat restoration, monitoring and assessment. The intent is
to provide guidance for future habitat projects, and identify long-term monitoring and
evaluation needs.
5
POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIPS
Potential partners concerned with fisheries and habitat-related issues in the Kenai River watershed
were requested to give a presentation about their organization and intended planning efforts to
promote greater understanding and coordination. The availability of funds for future work was also
discussed. A synopsis of these presentations follows.
Grou /Activi US Forest Service Master Plannin Por the Russian River watershed
Mission Develop a plan to guide management of recreation in the Russian River area for
the next 5-10 years.
Rationale and Multiple landowners (e.g., USFS, USFWS, Kenaitze Indian Tribe) and
Opportunities jurisdictions have resulted in a piecemeal development of oversight,
For Partnering management, use and conservation of the Russian River watershed. To address
this confusion, the US Forest Service is leading a Master Planning effort to
develop a comprehensive vision and coordinate services among partner
agencies. Key resources that will be included in the plan are fisheries, wildlife,
recreation, archeology, water, and soils.
The planning effort will consist of phases. Discussions will include review of
the Russian River Landscape Analysis conducted in 2004, and identification of
issues, challen es and opportunities.
Potential Funds unknown
Contact Karen Kromrey kkromreynfs.fed.us or
Information Debora Coo er dbcooper fs.fed.us
Grou /Activi Kenai National Wildlife Refu e
Mission To conserve species, fulfill treaty obligations, ensure necessary water quality
and quantity, provide for scientific research, interpretation, envirorunental
education, and land management training.
Rationale and The KNWR hosts Alaska's most populaz salmon fishery. Historical aerial
Opportunities photographs and videos show a clear trend in the decline of bank habitat; with
For Partnering increasing use, the Kenai River watershed is losing cultural resources as well.
A mid 1990's "Limits of Acceptable Change" assessment conducted by
agencies and users of the Kenai River concluded that human impacts to the
refuge were at their upper limit, however since this assessment a 50% increase
in refuge use has occurred.
The KNWR is joining with the US Forest Service in their Master Planning
effort regardin the Russian River watershed.
Potential Funds
Contact http:/lkenai.fws.aov
Information Robin West robin west fws.gov
Grou /Activi National Fish Habitat Initiative, volunta ro rant
Mission A nationwide effort to encourage diverse partners and stakeholders to more
effectively use existing and new resources to successfully execute conservation
efforts to rotect, restore and enhance fish habitats.
i Rationale and A National Fish Habitat Action Plan was developed. The National Fish and
+Opportunities Wildlife Foundation has committed over the next 5 years to implement the plan.
For Partnering State, federal and private partners have contributed funds to support the
initiative to im lement the plan.
Potential Funds Through the Multistate Conservation Grant Program, the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has directed over $3 million to
national and regional fish habitat conservation projects 2004-2005.
Contact www.fishhabitat.org
Information Christo her Estes christo her estes fishgamestate.ak.us
Grou J Activi USDA Yatural Resources Conservation Service
Mission The aim of the NRCS is to use an incentive-based approach in helping private
landowners and local and tribal governments rotect their natural resources.
Rationale and Technical consultants are available through several programs to help people
Opportunities conduct resource inventories, curb erosion, conserve and protect water quality,
For Partnering predict flooding risks, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and more. Financial
assistance is available through additional programs to implement watershed
plans, establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat, and more.
Potential Funds The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program is a 75% cost-share program; funding is
dependent on annual allocation to the Alaska NRCS.
Contact See www.ak.nres.usda.gov or contact
Information Meg Mueller meg.mueller ak.usda. ov
Grou /Activi The Conservation Fund, national non- ro£t or anization
Mission Dedicated to protecting America's most important landscapes and waterways.
Through apartnership-driven approach, the Conservation Fund works to
preserve each region's unique natural, cultural and historic heritage. There is a
dual purpose to promote economic development and environmental protection,
using corn rehensive real estate solutions and sustainable technologies.
Rationale and The Conservation Fund accomplishes its mission primarily though land
Opportunities acquisition. There is a current opportunity to purchase the Corr property on the
For Partnering Kenai River at RM 18 - 138 acres is severely threatened by suburban
development. It will cost $2.5 million; part of the purchase cost has been raised
and $1.35 million remains to be secured. Upon purchase, the land and its uses
will be managed by ADFG or DNR State Parks.
Potential Funds The Conservation Funds acts as a fixnding magnet rather than as a funding
source.
Contact www.conservationfund.or~
Information Brad Meiklejohn BradMeiklejohn aol.com
Grou / Activi Kachemak Herita a Land Trust, local non- rook or anization
Mission To preserve for public benefit, land with significant natural, recreational or
cultural values by working with willing landowners on the Kenai Peninsula.
Rationale and Property owners work with land trusts to protect areas including wetlands, river
Opportunities corridors, trails using a variety of tools such as conservation easements and I~
For Partnering acquisition, depending on the wishes of the landowners and natural values of the
property. To date, the Kachemak Land Trust holds 21 conservation easements
on parcels totaling 1,429 acres; and, through purchase and donation, has
acquired 826 acres for conservation.
Current projects include work on a conservation strategy for the Kenai
Peninsula -gathering data and makin OIS layers to identify priority areas.
Potential Funds The Kachemak Land Trust offers services as a private partner for match I
funding, where private foundations serve as a key source for fiznds.
Contact www.kachemaklandtrust.or~
Information Barbara Seamens barb(a~kachemaklandtrust.org
Group /Activity North Sterling Byway Corridor Planning Project. This effort also includes
the South portion of the Sterling Highway State Scenic Byway (Stariski Creek
to the end of Homer S it).
Mission To recognize and celebrate routes that provide access to scenic areas, cultural
riches and recreational resources. Additionally, to improve access to these
resources for both residents and visitors.
Rationale and Through public workshops and questionnaires, identify and prioritize
Opportunities improvements to create a highway corridor that reflects the objectives of local
For Partnering residents and users of the corridor.
After a Corridor Management Plan has been developed for an Alaska State
Byway, the project is it is eligible for National Funding. Designation of a route
as a National Scenic Byway through the America's Byways program, makes the
ro'ect much more competitive for federal funding.
Potential Funds Throughout the US, $25 million is distributed annually through 80-20 matching
grants (20% local funds). Byways in Alaska received almost half a million
dollars in 2006. Local matches can be made by any group or agency, including
another federal agency, such as US Fish and Wildlife Service. Monies cannot
be used for maintenance, or for improvements which are typically the
responsibility of the Alaska Department of Transportation, unless it is shown to
be a need that was generated b the desi anon as a B ay.
Contact Scenic b ays dot.state.ak.us
Information Nancy Casey caseys alaska.net
Grou / Activi NOAA Communi -Based Restoration Center
Mission The Restoration Center enhances living marine resources to benefit the nation's
fisheries by restoring their habitats.
Rationale and Working in partnership with non-federal funds, the Restoration Center offers
Opportunities financial and technical assistance to: restore degraded habitats, advance the
For Partnering science of coastal habitat restoration, transfer restoration technology to others,
and foster habitat stewardship and a conservation ethic.
There are national and regional funding opportunities. Nationally, under a
competitive review process, community-based projects are selected for funding
based on ecological benefits, technical merit, level of community involvement,
and cost-effectiveness. Projects encourage meeting a 50:50 match; however
typically have leveraged $3-$5 non-federal dollars for every NOAA dollar
invested. In Alaska, there are open competitions for grant funds that protect and
restore marine habitat and salmon habitat.
~ In the past, the NOAA Restoration Center has partnered with the Kenai
Watershed Forum and ADFG.
Potential Funds Typical re Tonal fundin is $25,000 to $50,000.
Contact www.nmfs.noa.eovJhabitat/restoration
Information Erika Ammann Erika.ammann noaa.gov
PERMITTING
Review of proposed alteration to fish and wildlife habitat is required through the permitting
process- this includes fish habitat restoration projects. An overview of the permitting process and
advice on how to expedite review of the perrr?it annl;cat;nn waa presented ar rhP ;nfo,,,,ar;onal
meeting to assist landowners and agencies. A synopsis of these presentations follows.
The Kenai River Center
The Kenai River Center is amulti-agency permitting, information and education center dedicated to
working cooperatively to protect fish and wildlife resources in the rivers and watersheds of the
Kenai Peninsula. The five agencies at The River Center are: Alaska Department of Natural
Resources Office of Habitat Management and Permitting, Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Kenai Peninsula Sorough Resource Planning
Department, US Environmental Protection Agency and the Kenai Watershed Forum. The River
Center assists people in navigating through the permitting process, and expedites review and
approval of the permit application through coordination with local offices of the US Army Corps of
Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and others.
Permits for various activities are available for downloading on-line at
www.borough.kenai.ak.us/KenaiRiverCenter/
To ensure compliance with applicable regulations and to obtain necessary permits, aMulti-Agency
Permit Application must be submitted to the Kenai River Center describing the location and project
9
plans before starting the work. Permits are reviewed and issued within a 30-day period for
allowable activities that include minor vegetation management, construction of light penetrating
gratewalks, platforms, steps, docks, and fish cleaning stations. A Conditional Use Permit
Application process is for activities or projects that include major clearing, excavation, filling,
building, construction, commercial recreational uses, and any other activity that causes significant
erosion or damage to riparian habitat, or results in an increase ground or water pollution. A
Conditional Use Permit must be approved by the Borough Planning Commission, which may take
up to 3 months to process. Projects are encouraged to comply with the established allowable
standards rather than applying for exemptions under the Conditional Use Permit process. The
Kenai River Center can assist applicants in determining which permit is best for their proposed
project. For further information contact the Kenai River Center at 260-4882 or by email:
KenaiRivCenter(tiborouQh.kenai.ak.us
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Archeological Office
All US Fish and Wildlife Service streambank restoration projects are reviewed by the agency
archeologist for potential impacts to archeological or cultural sites. The review process for each
project takes about 30 days. Detailed assessments for each stxeambank restoration project are likely
not warranted, so in an effort to streamline the review process we will identify projects meeting
defined criteria such as situations where good information exists about sites, and approved
techniques are used in the restoration process. In these cases, review of the project by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service archeologist may be sufficient. In situations outside these parameters, review
of the project for potential archeological or cultural impacts may be subjected to a more involved
j process. For further information contact USFWS-Anchorage office, Debbie Corbett
Debbie Corbett(a~fws.~ov.
PLANNING WORKSHOP
The plan's needs were updated by representatives from governmental agencies, and non-
governmental organizations during a workshop (Appendix D). Participants represented a cross
section of perspectives from regional and statewide professionals from either habitat or fisheries
disciplines. A professional facilitator, Dr. Margaret Merritt (Resource Decision Support), guided
discussions and assisted in documenting results.
PLANNING APPROACH
A systems approach, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to structure the problem using
expert judgment (Saaty 1999}. Expert judgment is defined as "previous relevant experience,
supported by rational thought and knowledge" (Saaty and Kearns 1985). The AHP has been used
extensively for decades to address planning, conflict resolution, and prioritization in such areas as
policy development, economics, engineering, medical and military science, and has more recently
been applied to fisheries research and management (NEFC 1990; Merritt and Griddle 1993, Merritt
2000, 2001, Merritt and Skilbred 2002, USFWS 2005, 2006). The AHP is a tool for facilitating
decision-making by structuring the problem into levels comprising a hierarchy. Breaking a complex
problem into levels permits decision makers to focus on smaller sets of decisions, improving their
10
ability to make accurate judgments. Structuring also allows decision makers to think through a
problem in a systematic and thorough manner. The AHP encourages people to explicitly state their
judgments of preference or importance.
STRUCTURING AND ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES
A top-down structuring approach was used in the planning process, whereby the mission forms the
top of the hierazchy, goals form the second level, the third level consists of specific problems that
KRSA wishes to address within each goal, the fourth level are specific objectives, and the fifth level
consists of information or actions needed to achieve the objectives, overcome the problem and
ultimately attain the goal. Levels 1- 4 were developed in 2005, and remained the same for the 2006
plan. In the 2006 planning workshop, only the needs in level s were addressed.
Workshop participants identified new needs, and provided input on those needs that are being
addressed through funded projects, or those that are on hold pending initial research results or
analysis. Needs considered as having been addressed through funded projects or on hold were
deleted from the 2006 plan.
Workshop participants were asked to use their expert judgment in individuatty assigning ratings of
importance to needs for each objective. A positive ratio scale with associated verbal equivalents
was used to rate importance, where numbers between those listed (e.g., 2, or 2.5, etc.) were used to
interpolate meanings as a compromise:
Scale of Importance Definition
9 Extreme importance
7 Very strong importance
5 Strong importance
3 Moderate importance
1 ~ Slight importance
Elements judged to be of equal importance were given equal scores. Dialogue advanced the
understanding of important concepts, clarified definitions, and encouraged the formation of a group
solution.
To assist in judging importance among needs, the workgroup were mindful of the following:
• the extent of resource use;
• degree of conservation concern;
• the state of knowledge (how big are the data gaps);
• the practicality of the project and its likelihood of success in resolving uncertainty; and,
• the degree to which an important priority is addressed (e.g., does the need address a big.
problem that, if answered, could resolve a lot of questions).
11
Expert Choice decision software was used to derive priorities. Priorities approximate the strength
of importance for each element, adjusted to reflect the importance assigned to the element being
addressed in the level above. Mathematically, relative ratings of importance are entered into a
vector and normalized. The values from the vector are then multiplied by the weight in the next
highest level, and the result is the weight of importance for information needs. The total score for
each information need is then calculated by adding the weighted proportions over all objectives
within a goal (see Saaty 1999).
STRUCTURAL ADNST
Structural imbalance in the hierarchy can lead to dilution of the weight of many information needs
under a single objective, so an adjustment feature in Expert Choice was used to restore priorities to
their respective proportion of weight. While approximate balance is sought and desired, complex
problems do not always lend themselves to balance -thus the advantage of the structural adjust
feature.
In a conceptual example, consider that if an objective (A) has four needs, and another objective (B)
has two needs, then there are six needs in all and structural adjusting multiplies A's priority by 4/6
and B's by 2/6. Thus, the overall priorities for A's needs are not diluted simply because there are
many of them.
RESULTS
Overall Plan Framework
The goals and problems identified and prioritized in 2005 remained the same for the 2006 planning
exercise. Objectives remained in the plan framework as long as they were related to a need. During
the workshop, participants recommended deleting a total of 12 needs that had been identified in
2005 because these needs have been addressed, or sufficient progress is expected to be made
through either PCSRF or state funding sources. If all of an objective's needs were deleted, then that
objective was considered as having been met, and was also deleted from the plan framework. The
list of needs considered as having been addressed since the 2005 planning workshop concern either
sockeye or Chinook salmon fisheries research, and are as follows:
1. Commercial fishery time and area catch samples for sockeye genetics. ('T'here is $250,000 in
state funding allocated to research this need, and the allocation is expected to become
annual; ADFG Commercial Fish Division is the contact for further information).
2. To estimate exploitation, first need good basic harvest and escapement data for sockeye
salmon. (This is being addressed by ADFG through PCSRF funds awarded in 2005).
3. Determine if "early" and "late" designations of the Chinook sahnon return are genetically
distinct by sampling tributazies and mainstem spawning areas. (This is being addressed by
ADFG through PCSRF funds awarded in 2005. Sampling will be completed in fall, 2007).
4. A DNA baseline (spawning area} for all sockeye salmon stocks. (This state-funded study
will analyze archived samples and is expected to be completed in fall 2006. The study may
be supplemented in the future to fill in holes in the baseline, for example including more
Susitna stock information).
12
5. Conduct chinook salmon genetic sampling at the river mouth. (This is being addressed by
ADFG through PCSRF funds awarded in 2005).
6. Identify important chinook salmon spawning areas using radio telemetry. (This is being
addressed by ADFG through PCSRF funds awarded in 2005).
7. Identify important sockeye salmon spawning areas using radio telemetry. (This is being
addressed by ADFG through PCSRF funds awarded in 2005).
8. Conduct sockeye salmon genetic sampling at the river mouth. (This is being addressed by
ADFG through PCSRF funds awarded in 2005).
9. Verify sockeye salmon sonar counts with abundance estimate and telemetry. (This is being
addressed by ADFG through PCSRF funds awazded in 2005).
10. Upgrade sockeye salmon sonar when better technology is available. (Need is being
addressed; ADFG Commercial Fish Division is the contact for fixrther information).
11. An analysis of alternative chinook management approaches (e.g., GSI). (Need is being
addressed; ADFG Sport Fish Division is the contact for further information).
12. Synthesize historical data to examine effects of enhanced runs on wild stocks. This need.
was under the objective to "Evaluate the effects of Hidden Lake enhanced sockeye on wild
sockeye salmon production and fisheries". (The need, and its objective were determined as
having been addressed in a mid 1990's ADFG review).
Four needs identified in 2005 that were determined to be ineligible for PCSRF funds were deleted:
1. Funds to augment enforcement in the commercial fishery.
2. Feasibility of gear modifications to minimize chinook salmon byeatch.
3. Continue summarizing economic work relating to Kenai sport fishery benefits.
4. Integrate ratrh quality Int^ eo:rr.:erc.al fishery '::a^age^.:ent - enCOL: age .nd:;3t. ~' tv^ Ytpdate
methods to improve quality, value.
Additionally, it was recommended by workgroup participants that issues relating to invasive species
(e.g., pike) be omitted from this plan because the state already has a large amount of funds
identified to address invasive species that can be applied to the Kenai River watershed. For
example, some work in this area has occurred in Soldotna Creek. People who may have concerns
about invasive species are encouraged to approach ADFG.
In the 2006 workshop, a total of 34 fisheries and habitat-related needs were identified (Figure 1).
The distribution of needs was unbalanced; for example, one objective was addressed by four needs,
whereas another was addressed by only one need. To correct for this imbalance, ratings were
adjusted using the structural adjust feature in Expert Choice to restore priorities to their intended
proportion of weight.
Needs Identified for the Fisheries Goal
For the fisheries goal, a total of 16 needs were identified (Figure 1). Seven of these needs are
specific to coho salmon. A few points raised during discussions of needs regarding coho salmon are
summarized as follows:
13
E E aS
D ° ° r a s° E= '~,~i ~°
W~? 'c cvE ~s i ° V'E cc ~ wa
Lr7 ~ .'. 9 a Q i ~ c c „ "~ .. ~ '~ d3 v ~
E ~ c.S n n v- E ~ ~o c E ~ ~ _ u
Z E c E m o._ v ~ m cw. ~ _ ~ _ ..~
~° `c t '9r, ~ c c r E .~ ° n s ~ c i. C v 'E ,° ~,° 'v
'~ F 0 4 C ep L F C ' 3 = E x C~~ u ~ p~~-' y
U c - E v v ~"~ - n c 3 c A o .. v r, r ~ c
o ~ m .E c ~« oL dS c ~ w `3 E a°i c x ~ a' ~ ~ o
Z o ~ E s v "o e, = y ' H N °~ - v o ~L o n o .°. 'o
v o F n u ',~ „°, c~ Y a c a m v o ~~ .y n S o° n
E" c_ o °' ° s c a c U >°, a c G E- u „? .~ E a s c o ._ c'-.'. ~ .~ a5
4~ E. '." E~ o ~.. aS ~ v+.. v s' ~ ti c~v c Z'v
.E ~,;, ~ on [7 v'^ v s $ ~ ~ ~ V o3 ~'o "^ v o v o o.= ° E E
on ~ ° _ ~ N ~ .,, q eo
C 5 v c '- c v= a cv°i ~~ v .c ` -' an c o~ v o ~ 'E n ~ i ~j a CnC
Ov[=i llNaCxC PL'00.~ 6C?..'p mU Naa N°t"jv~V JK %Nt0
Z 2 ~ Z a y o c °~ 4 .c U~~ Z -c_ n ~~ z~~ Z `o. ~ z ~ ~ z m 2 E
~-. m d a~ ,~ A a o' A d a ~ v v a .o
~~ ~~
E ~ c +~ t
v `o .o a c v ~ y a
o ~E. ~ y~ m a ~ ~°~ ~ ~ o u a~ ~ .E ° c on
c~ c o E° E c = m ~' c c v m N Y _= y o
^ o c
O TE ~ ^'O C OL C O i .~ V L1 'V ~. Y '.. C v 6
v uu v `m ~ E ~ '~.° o F E
° v a? _
'` ~ v m .E c .~ ,c o .Y $ u E q c c `o o c .E ."~'- ~= ~ v °o+
n v x %? 'E. ~ ~o g n y° , E E ~~-'o c ~ o. E ~ v
T O L T O C a N T ~p > N ~ a ~ J U O p,
ro~ °c_ v ~~ ° m m m E~ '~ m m c o,'o_ E ~ ~ E ~ `°
c v v c H
W v a U°" co t° 9~~ cv ° c ~ v~ E m o°~ a
F' c :~ c ~^'? c'~ s n °'s c S~ r o c s o o. E ._ r E .T ~
m c~ n u c :'. ~ ~ e-~
m -2 g, ~oooc v.LH "a1' sc.° 'm0
m ~ v C ^^ m D a a s y ~ E w° ~ m~ v v o 'S. O° ~.°. w', E c
I ~~ ~ ~ I
ti ~y ~v
.6 'E ~ N o ~ n ,E ~o v k ~J ~ ~ o•- o
~ ~ ~ ~: ~ '
o E ~ ,2,' u.:° E v v s-° o'cZ w am c c
m i c a °i 'c 'a 'S ~ N E o c ~ s eci co- o° ~ 'm v
v. ~ .o h ~ v ,x o v ~~ o d .? c ,_; ' o i6 E v y E
J~° .ym.. m ~o E E E x :? v v Wis., v c .o v °" 4°, i, v ea
05 N c o° A v.°_ > ,$ vo L° E `° ~ o E o v v ou c E E o
ai = ° ~ O :a y E m ° °' v - c v °'
c~¢~~ ~ aia °~~ ~=~+3 cix~at~ ~ ctiUE o
.~ o
0
d o 0 o c
s
,`~ ,o
v n
o a
Z, € a E
L.EEN
J v v
'^' v a
Q :: ~ ~ c .:
c ~ E:?s
O w ° ~ y
C7
m
e
h
d
7
.-+
L ~ T
c ~, r, c ~ .' ~ g a w a
`v .. is m
~ ,o m ++ o o c° .. c o~
c t E u v
W° o a sc` ° c ~ v ~ co c~ E J ~~ .y ~ c 0 9 2 1 .U., ~ o
Z~ o. ~ ~~ u ;~ ~ c ~, ~ y 3 y E .. r. .c 2 c '~ c ~ c ~~ ¢ c .v,
5 c^o ~ _ n
ZG ~'=~- E o~ ~,o°u _ o 9 ' G: 7 'Es.C a .'. ti G c o o~ a@!
W
O G u U O. O 0 .. 'v ~ m yN ° G v V V O m 0~0 G O W
~^. d; c '° = n ~ 'm u a 3" F c y v T_~ .E .c ~ c .V .'c o a ~ aJ o f r
'~ . ~ E m ao t` a c o .y ~ `v ~ ,u~ :a A G ~ ~ w3 `A
C~ c°..~ ~~ c w c c Y w ,Y a ~ ' o.,`a ~ o n e ~='.- nc`n ti 2, _a _ c c~ N v~ o a,
~ a ,oG a c v u> s a c ° G G`aa ~ c 5 L 'a m ao u `c° .o ° ° v :~ ~ E ~ `~ °
z Y i t c o c ~ 'c .o 'eo ~ J v j ~ m o n o V w u E `o 'c y r ~ o G m 3_ N w~
C 'v, U 4'. CU .. G V w u E n 'J `C a~+'O E C O c' c O O CCCO pq .~ R C y V
.V.. n_ E ~ .U' ~~ J V O V T L 6 a ci ~ U G "~ G i b tGi ~ ~ 6 V` O N-J. y Tu'
a' ° 'a c m v n v n '.o ~ .c ~ c i i c = c~ u ~ m a~ v w '''- m tea. r= cu a x E '~ 'p m
m 'm $$c °~°0 vvv v v ou° .E a~° ocn~ a~`moW c~ ca
v o. v E u .c ~~ o o = E a a a ;v v o: 9 .°cv z o o ~ r m n .c - c A d a n
CL ° v° r n u° ~ 'E. a o° °: 9 0 °~ E o ,~ E> :~'' E .= ~ H 3 c .~ ~ ~~" ~ c
~ a= 'o > a a :e .c >, s~ .a 3 o a '~ 'y s a u G a c 'x m n v= E rn S„' °
v u~ v v t G m v~ o o s o6 "' ~ ~ c € E
'~ Z wZ. 'G'Z 3,Z, ~ "L o /~ ro;Z u Z z Zw.E ~~ c Q c'O °' 3 v Q~,Z~W E ~a~ ay
m a u a A A ~ m A a a .c ti m m a ti m t
r ~ ~ ~ I
an
G .. ~C
N U V'Y' V ~. N "~ o'j~ e-y C y' N C
N C O N u S U 'y ~ L 9 C E j
m r o a ~ v ~^ ~ °o i, ~ oq E '~ t .v
.v, °~ w c m .'9G E ~, 6, G a~ w o
ti n '° .. a ~' °° U ~ a R E ,c c n o
m ~ w.. m ~ H m ~,~__
0 0 ~ @! w ~ m~ v v m e
~, c A c ~A u " m .~ °a a ~ c o
c aoa ~~ y ci m o ~ v.
~Fi `~ O ~ v` > o S
4t V L ~ u ~ ~ C ~ ~ G' q «. d'~
._ N tti ~ ~ N ~ ~ CO J N ~ .n O U n k tyC
W L_ v. W y mac' a s .V. .Vi O U _T aGi C V ~' E .C
N N N !1 V W
(ia ~ tV.0 N 4 N ~ O .V.. ~ f" ~ N .'9. ~ .G.. ~ 'Q ~
O O O aGi G a
m L] y r O ,~ a` n. C a, ~ ° v ro ~ '~ s C] s$ v C c t
® -+ tV -+ N M V ^~ tai y m C'
O O O O C C ~ OO O O
V y
N N u
v y G ~ ~ G
~. ~ eo.E .v. ~" a ~
W `33 °> di v °' 9 an ~wo~a
rl v nS' o c~ dl v? v ,~ o
~ G Y C V .C Q 44
..o/ t~ GJ V J V v 'GU N ~ y_ ~~j
F4 ~ G~ 0 0 ~ `~ V G C w
Qn R1 ': 4 6 0. N ~ w v C 3 3
W VIn
W N_ _
O O G
y
v C G
V ,- = O
~ N c v E
uc "E ~ o y
v v E v w v
C Gy-~° .Y°.t °c
® V .~C N 6 N `~ L ... N
L7 ~i ~X £ 3 ~w w
0
N
N ~
< ~
O
V^
• Currently, the coho salmon return is managed as one stock. It is unclear whether the return is
comprised of spawning stocks with varying entry patterns (e.g., early and late); and, further,
annual variability in entry timing of spawning stocks is unknown. An initial step in identifying
run composition is to examine the genetics of spawning stocks. The US Fish and Wildlife
Service has analyzed archived stocks and identified genetic differences. The groups that can be
segregated include upper and lower tributaries, Russian River, and Killey/Funny Rivers.
However, the fact that there are genetic differences within the return does not suggest that
management as a single stock is inadequate to sustain the fishery.
• The ongoing loss of wetlands and effects on coho salmon is of concern. Coho salmon juvenile
rearing habitat is affected by changes in beaver trapping, however observations of these changes
have not been quantified. An additional factor is the slow rise in elevation of the Kenai
Peninsula, documented through regional mapping.
• Escapement is not estimated for coho salmon, thus there are no escapement goals. At issue is
whether the current management system is satisfactory; further, are escapement targets even
feasible for coho salmon? It would further understanding if the regional managers clazified the
current basis for coho salmon management, perhaps in a meeting.
Because many sockeye and Chinook salmon research needs were funded or resolved in 2005,
participants found only three remaining needs specific to sockeye salmon and three specific to Chinook
salmon.
Within the fisheries goal, the majority of needs (6) fall under the "Management Units" problem: "Failure
to identify sub-stocks in mixed fisheries risks overexploitation of those that are less abundant" (Figure
1).
Needs Identified for the Habitat Goal
For the habitat goal, a totai of 18 needs were identified (Figure 1). Needs articulaied in 20"v°~ were not
considered by the workgroup as having been fully addressed, nor is sufficient progress expected to be
made through other funding sources. This may be explained in part because, in comparison to fisheries
research, evaluation of habitat restoration is a more recent field of inquiry with fewer defined
procedures. Additionally, restoring sites and providing access are activities that can occur over and
over again, accoss a broad area. One area of progress has been through the cost share program -
degraded sites and landowners willing to participate in restoration have been identified, and funds have
been allocated. ~.
In regards to designing and evaluating restoration efforts (before and after assessment), participants
raised concerns of a practical nature. A few points raised are summarized as follows:
• Landowners may have to voluntarily delay work while data is gathered for the "before
restoration" baseline.
• It was mentioned that the Alaska Department of Transportation has evaluated bank restoration,
and results on which techniques work best in certain areas can be found in a report. Another
16
source of information that may be useful is a restoration manual completed with the cooperation
of such agencies as the Environmental Protection Agency, ADNR and ADFG.
In regards to culvert installation, most of the workshop participants agreed that identifying where
working culverts are most needed, and which culverts are most in need of maintenance is important.
However, culvert maintenance and repair can run into "the million of dollars" and would quickly deplete
the PCSRF. Therefore, habitat needs in this plan will focus on research and evaluation, access, and
restoration activities. A few points raised during discussions about culverts are summarized as follows:
• Multiple agencies are involved in culvert projects. For example, the US Forest Service is
starting a culvert project near Tern Lake and is also working on lower Cooper Creek. The Kenai
Watershed Forum and ADFG are partnering on a culvert project at Shkok Creek. Despite these
efforts, there continues to be dozens of problem culverts.
• Partial passage is an issue in many cases. Passage depends on species, size and flow rate.
Because it may not be feasible to evaluate passage benefits in every case, managers should apply
information learned in other situations.
• There is controversy regarding what makes an effective culvert. For example, the current state
standard for width is 80% bank full width based on road protection needs.
• It is important to profile the risks and longevity of culverts and their maintenance needs. Culvert
maintenance is expensive. A preliminary assessment of culverts on state roads has been
completed and has identified replacement costs.
• Guidelines are needed for assessing the necessity of culverts, and their sizing and installation `
(what size culverts to place where). For example, what are the appropriate design standards for
culverts on the Kenai Peninsula addressing hydrology and engineering concerns?
The majority of needs (9) fall under the "Inventory and Assess" problem: "Influences of humans and
natural habitat disturbances on fish production are unclear".
Synthesis of Priorities for Information/Action Needs
Synthesis of priorities for needs was conducted within each of the two goals. Synthesis at the goal level
allows partitioning of needs into specific areas of study: (1) research to foster management of
sustainable salmon fisheries and (2), and conservation and rehabilitation of habitat. Examining needs by
goal could be helpful to collaboration with other planning efforts, or if organizations wanted to allocate
resources according to one of these two areas of study.
For the fisheries goal, the top 25% of needs (Figure 2) are:
• accurate coho sport and commercial catch and stock composition estimates;
• good basic data on Chinook stock composition including river of origin, early/late stock, age, sex,
length;
• distribution of major coho spawning areas; and,
• upgrade Chinook sonar when better technology is available.
17
InformationlAction (Needs for Fisheries Goal
Accurate coho sport & conmercial catch &
composition estimates
Good basic data on chinook stock conposition
Distribution of major coho spaw ning areas
Upgrade chinook sonar w hen better technology is
feasible
Ckterrnine rf current nenagennnt provides adequate
coho protection
Understand & estimate coho population entry patterns
Estimate KenaURussian sockeye smolt production
Synthesize GSI & other data to deterndne w hether
run portions drffer
Collect & synthesize environmental data from
unpublished sources
Baseline annual tenperature & fbw in tributaries to
relate to substocks
Understand MDN baseline in the Kenai w atershed
Identify freshwater linrting factors affecting
production of sockeye
Examine efficacy of regulatory approaches for
chinook management
Evaluate effects of shrinking wetlands on coho
Re-evaluate factors related to sockeye productivity
Meeting to explain & discuss coho managerrs;nt
approach
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Priority
Figure 2. Adjusted synthesis of information/actions needs for the fisheries goal, Kenai River watershed, 2006.
18
For the habitat goal, the top 25% of needs (Figure 3) are:
• examine fish passage before and after culvert replacement/installation (research only);
• evaluate use of the estuary by juvenile salmon and effects of estuary loss;
• evaluate sites before and after restoration (e.g., physical effects, effective life span,
costfbenefit, fish use and production);
• develop access at identified sites; and,
• identify sites critical to life stages to evaluate development proposals.
ACCESS PROJECTS
The workgroup was asked to identify potential access sites for the lower, middle and upper Kenai
River, and Kasiiof River. Opportunities to develop new sites on the Kenai- River, as well as projects
that are already scheduled, are outlined in the table below.
Kenai River:
Priority Lower river section Middle river section U er river section
High Corps propert North side ferr crossin
Medium West Redoubt
Centennial Park
Bluff project
Bike trail extension
Low Soldotna Bridge Moose Ranch Meadows-south Planning for Jim's
side (this project is on the Landing (out-year).
books but is not active) Cooper Creek
Ca.upg~.vand (v iit-year).
Pending Boater access Kenai River ranch
Restrooms campground
City of Kenai 318 acres
19
InformationlAction Needs foe Habitat Goal
Examine fish passage before & after culvert replacement
Evaluate use of the estuary & effects of loss
Evaluate sites before 8 after restoration
Develop access at identified sites
Identify sites critical to life stages
Document presence/absence in tributaries at risk
Need culvert design standards
Incorporate expertise on hydrology & engineering
Restore degraded sites for willing owners
Collect data & process flow applications for at-risk tributaries
Identity extent of critical rearing habitat near spawning grounds
Examine long range rates of change & development
What is significance of shoreline disturbance to juveniles
Assess habitat restoraton progress
Document Chinook juvenile movement 8 habitat use
Workshop to discuss & document baseline habitat
'. Integrate watershed into cumulative effects model
Assess effectivenesslcompliance of permitting system
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Priority
Figure 3. Adjusted synthesis of information action needs for the habitat goal, Kenai River
watershed, 2006.
20
For the Kasilof River, comments regarding access include:
• improvements at the boat launch are ongoing;
• the Swanson 50 acre parcel is available -this might be an opportunity for a new boat
launch;
• Crooked Creek confluence for restoring and providing access; and,
• a culvert washout by highway (near hatchery) requires repair (or create a fish viewing
area).
APPLICATION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN TO PCSRF
ALLOCATION
The strategic plan is used as rationale to guide funding allocation decisions. The call for
proposals of intent includes all needs within the two goals. Proposals will be evaluated
according to criteria (see Appendix E}, including the extent to which they address strategic
priorities of the plan, where those studies addressing the highest priorities will be given a higher
evaluation score.
CONCLUSIONS
Achievements from strategic planning in 2006 include:
• greater understanding and the potential for coordination of expertise and funds among
partners concerned with fisheries and habitat-related issues in the Kenai River watershed;
• review of the permitting process for proposed alteration to fash and wildlife habitat,
including habitat restoration projects;
• identification and prioritization of needs for goals relating to habitat conservation and
rehabilitation, and fishery research in the Kenai River watershed;
• increased knowledge and awareness of research and management concerns fostered
through facilitated discussions; and,
• learning about a systematic approach to planning and problem-solving.
This strategic plan identifies information and actions needed to assist KRSA in focusing PCSRF
monies towards the highest priorities for sustainable salmon fisheries in the Kenai River
watershed. The plan is envisioned as being dynamic in that needs can be updated annually.
21
LITERATURE CITED
Merritt, M. and K. Griddle. 1993. Evaluation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process for aiding
management decisions in recreational fisheries: a case study of the Chinook salmon fishery in
the Kenai River, Alaska. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Management
Strategies for Exploited Fish Populations, Alaska Sea Grant Program, AK-93-02, pp 683-703.
Merritt, M. 1995. Application of decision analysis in the evaluation of recreational fishery
management problems. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Merritt, M. 2000. Strategic plan for Chinook salmon research in the Copper River drainage.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Special Publication No. 00-03, Anchorage.
Merritt, M. 2001. Strategic plan for salmon research in the Kuskokwim River drainage. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Special Publication No. 01-07, Anchorage.
Merritt, M. and A. Skilbred. 2002. Planning for sustainable salmon in Southeast Alaska, and
prioritization of projects for the Southeast sustainable salmon fund. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Fishery Special Publication No. 02-01, Anchorage.
Northeast Fisheries Center (NEFC) 1990. Guidance on the NEFC Research Program for 1991.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole Mass. 02543.
Saaty, T. 1999. Third edition. Decision making for leaders: the analytic hierarchy process for
decisions in a complex world. RWS Publications. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Saaty, T. and K. Kearns. 1985. Analytical planning: the organization. of systems. RWS
Publications, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Strategic Plan for the Subsistence Fisheries Resource
Monitoring Program, Southcentral Region, -2004. Office of Subsistence Management,
Fisheries Information Services, 3601 C Street Suite 1030, Anchorage Alaska 99503.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Strategic Plan for the Subsistence Fisheries Resource
Monitoring Program, Bristol Bay-Chignik area, 2005. Office of Subsistence Management,
Fisheries Information Services, 3601 C Street Suite 1030, Anchorage AIaska 99503.
22
~A~p~p~iendryix A. Outline of the strategic planning and proposal process for PCSRF through
Y1d\IJAy 6®®6.
Phase Time frame Activi
Plan Develo ment Mar 30-31, 2006 Facilitated worksho to u date and prioritize needs
April Complete strategic plan re ort
Proposal
Solicitation and
Selection Apr 24 Letter soliciting interest and pre-proposals
May 31 Pre-proposals due to l~ d' SA office
June KRSA review and rank pre-proposals to identify
candidate rojects
June KRSA Board reviews candidate ro'ect list
June Selected candidates invited to submit formal proposals
and work lans
June Letter of notification for unsuccessful applicants
Sept 30 Detailed roject pro osals/o erational plans due
Nov KRSA policy and technical review of proposals and
work Tans
Dec Proposal and work plan revisions identified by KRSA
and ADFG
Jan 2007 Project a royal by KRSA Board, forward to ADFG
Feb Project forms submitted to ADFG for contractin
ny
Program
Implementation
and Reporting Annual Written project progress reports to KRSA and ADFG
(key activities and findings)
Annual KRSA annual renort of progress
As available Draft final ro'ect reports to KRSA
As available KRSA and ADFG review and comment on draft
reports
As available Final project reports published (agency technical reporC
of ublication)
June 2010 KRSA final program report synopsizing results of all
projects
23
Appendix B. Synopsis of relevant legislation and policies to assist KRSA in defining goats
and objectives which meet mandates from governing bodies.
PACIFIC COASTAL SALMON RECOVERY FUND
Aim of Fund
In 2000 the U.S. Congress, recognizing the need to assist states with Pacific coastal
salmon recovery, appropriated funds (the PCS12F) to states and tribes in the Pacific Northwest,
including Alaska. The Southeast Sustainable Salmon Fund (SSSF) is comprised of Alaska's
allocation of funds from the PCSRF. The Alaska State Legislature approved the use of these
funds for salmon habitat, stock enhancement, research and implementation of the 1999 Pacific
Salmon Treaty Agreement.
Goals • Implement the Pacific Salmon treaty
• Support programs and projects to ensure salmon stocks, and salmon
habitat are sustained.
UPPER COOK INLET SALMON MANAGEMENT PLAN 5 AAC 21.363
Aim of Plan
The Alaska Board of Fisheries establishes provisions for the management and
conservation of upper Cook Inlet salmon stocks. Adopted in 1978, the plan has been amended
several times and is comrnoniy referred to as the ` urnbreii3 plan".
• Provides for harvest of salmon for customary and traditional
subsistence uses.
• Provides for management and allocation of salmon resources.
• Adopts specific management plans for salmon stocks, salmon species
and fisheries (e.g., for late run sockeye salmon, and late run Chinook
salmon).
• Considers protection of freshwater and marine fisheries habitat
throughout the Cook Inlet basin.
• Considers the various needs and demands of user groups.
24
POLICY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SUSTAINABLE SALMON FISHERIES $AAC 39.222
Aim Of Polley
To effectively assure sustained yield and habitat protection from wild salmon stocks,
fishery management plans and programs require specific guiding principles and criteria and a
framework for their application. The policy consists of four sections: an introduction, principles
and criteria, implementation through Action, Research and Fishery Management Plans, and
definitions of terms. Action plans shall include research plans as necessary to provide
information to address concerns. The research plans shall include options to address salmon
stock or habitat concerns.
Goals • To ensure conservation of salmon and their aquatic habitats.
• To ensure protection of customary and traditional and other uses.
• To ensure the sustained economic health of Alaska's fishing
communities.
POLICY FOR STATEWIDE SALMON ESCAPEMENT GOALS SAAC 39.223
Aim of Policy
This policy addresses Alaska constitution Section 4, Article 8, which mandates ADFG to
manage on the sustained yield principle. A wide range of sustainable yield levels is possible with
salmon fisheries. The ADFG manages for maximum sustained yield (MSY) where the scientific
information and management program exists. Where there is insufficient information, fishery
management measures will be adopted to ensure that harvests are sustainable. Scientific
information to manage for MSY includes escapement enumeration, estimates of salmon carrying
capacity of freshwater rearing environments, and inseason management programs to determine
the relationship between the number of spawners resulting in a level of return.
Purposes • Define concepts relating to escapement goals.
• Specify criteria and procedures for establishing and modifying
escapement goals.
• Establish a process that facilitates public review.
Guidelines • Analysis for a new escapement goal will be developed in the region.
• An inter-divisional team will technically evaluate the new
escapement goal.
• With no significant allocative impacts, the goal's submitted to the
director.
• If the team lacks consensus, resolution occurs at the director level.
• With significant allocative impacts, the BOF establishes an optimal
goal.
• The public will be informed.
25
N
N
~~ _
8
W
~
N
W
Q U
~
.-r ~
~ ~
O
d
N
~
~
M ~
O
~
N
~°'
L
~ O
~
N
~
a
~ T
N
+
~
~ ~
k
R
O
F,
~»
a
L
w
•~ C
~ o
l~ Y
•~
N
~
y ~
~ w
4+
~
® 0
~
b ~
A
a
.~
w
d
a
o
m
a°
N
qq
V
•a ~ ~
Qn
W
Qa L V
QI U
O
~ a
N
X
N
R
ro
b0
.r
3
FI
E
rn
N
O
N
x
N
C%
F
E
U
w
Q
Q
F
R
a
4~
.n
r
rn
O
h
W
L
N
"v
N
0]
R
w
4,
0
0
v
M
C
N
N
N
0
0
0
Q
a
r°•n
O
v
aN+
0.
C
N
m
r
N
i
N
a.
U
m
a
°~
O
C
E
W
M
r
N
C
Q
W
a
o
N y
`A R
G
] °
.D .
c
m
Q
y ~
~ ~
cn
w
°
a z z
.~
a
i
L
n.
L
w
~o~
V
v
.a
0
~I
-a
M
M
r
N
0
U
a
A
Q
v
w
O
L
.°c
G
w
7
ac°n,
V
E
w~
0
ro
b
00
N
N
~.
0
Q
U
W
0
.~
w
7
abD
V
ro
~I
b
O~
b
N
W
V
44".
0
x
3
~~~
~l
v~
3
c'
0
w
N
O
r
N
b
N
5
0
R,
w
a.
W
a
3
a
O
K
x
a
y
N
'~.
N
h
00
N
N
y
v
4
y U
x~
~ o
~ R
z>
Q N
A U
E3
r
.Ci
N
bD
a
~~
m
r
0
N
N
N
EJ
~c0
0
x
ro
v
Q
.C
'w
O
a.
Q
N
O
N
N
N
m
m
0
a
Q
N
v
(~~
L/
G
0
.a
~I
0
O
N
lC
N
N
7
X
°o
~1
0
F
u
O
w
A
a
N
N
b
N
N
d
W
d
a
0
N
.~
U
.y
.~
N
c
0
z
N_
N
N
.f
N
W
X
N
U~
~I
s
0
O_
b
V1
7
U
ti
'w
.~
U
w
Q
x
N
N
E
U~
N
w
w~
3
0
r
M
N
r
N
t°
3
..l
w
L
E
O
U
w
a
ro
X
O
O
v
w
00
h
N
b
N
iw
G
ro
y
z
Q
e+
C
V
N
N
w
0
N
v
b0
R
?a
U
'~
O.
.~
N
~ ~
W ~
ai
C
b
~~y ~
4
O
/dr vii
I^n ~
N
N
d 6
.~
~ c
F.
ro
ti
fs°
O
.~ y
~ ~
Or
~ N
® ~
v%
C
.X
ti
[tl
3
r
M
O
N
N
N
G
Q
N
N
O
U
.~
P~
C
x
Q
a
G
O
o`
0
0
E
N
m
7
O
b
N
U
.~
0
s
0
L
.°c
0
-~
tD
0
`o
co
.5?
C
.~
n-I
.~
v
C
O
i+
~ O
rj yd c3
rr ,, .~
C3 V 'O iE
U O
Q a
RS
u
b
0
m
0
.a
N
N
d
N
0
E
h
0
O
O
U
:,~
0
b
N
N
R
3
Y
a
O
b
7
7
a,
IIMF~''
~-r
v
0
w
w°
m
N
3
.~
x
m
c
~ ~
~ O
O N
~ m
o °.,°
zo
G
N
ti
v
v
O
b
N
N
U
T
z
bL
Q
eu
C
C
v
ro
U
O
u
N
L
a
m
b
r
M
M
00
N
'd
W
ro
U
O
N
a-'',,
Q
C
x
0
0
U
O
y
Q
w
ti
M
M
N
G
0
m
N
0
.~
W'
0
0
U
bA
O
m
~u\
~l
y
N
N
N
M
00
N
ro
r
N
C
N
U
c ,
o•
'gin c
~ O
N U
ti L
O
o
U Q
0
u
~ti
V
E
A
M
00
N
N
G
,~
O
U,,
S'
C
N
N
N
ro
0
~'
v
U
~+
Y
h~.p
O
N
R
av
V
C
~°.
b
M
M
00
N
O
w
F
~v
a
F
G
«~
.~
~,
x
s
0
U
~~
V
C
0
Y
W
b
O
O~
d
a,
~C
1~
O
Y
z
ro
b
w
0
.~
C
0
U
s
F
0
R
ro
U
X
.n
,itla
b
N
h
h
M
N
C
L
R
.~
N
F.
C
.]
.`G
G
U
^~
0
N
C
b
1"
L
O
H
N
N
x
x
a
v
~~
~)
1
a
v
a~
'00
°~
p
d
N
N
b
N
C
~o
~~a
h
N
W
O
e.i
dD
W
Oa
O
0
N
M
.~"
SVi
eyRsl
A-~
O
L
0
.'Z
C°s
e~
C
,mod'
X
v
.~A
G
.y
V
A
'°u
«~
s,
Oa
Q
ti
b
Or
a
Q
~~ ~ bA
~ C
W
Y
v
a
~r
~3
~ N
^ M
.Y
a ~
N
"~
a+ G
G
L
a ~ ~C
v
~ a°'.
V
z
a
Gw
Q
~~ N
G ~
c
® ¢I
u~~
Z
0
bA
.. ~
~ a
~.+
y ~
Fe ~
O
C
H y
.d
w
1
bA
~w
V
E
a
RI
0
N
s
w
X
E
0%
0
(1
N
V
W
O
.c
~n
I
w
bA
~'
b
N~
.`o
b
N
b
N
X
Q
N
U
W
O
c
x
I
3
w
7
bzzD
~G
N
.n
0
U~
D
b
M
b
r
b0
C
0
c
z
y
U
A
Q
U
W
ctl
`o
c
Q
aw,
y
3
a
0
N
O
N
N
X
N
3
0
a'
v
aq
w
N_
3
G
,o
z
c
x
w
4,
O
7
M
V
N
N
C
0
0
z
O.
0
L
0
v
Q
N
0
^o
A
3
v
ro
w
W
N
y
S
0
V
hl
V
7
N
N
X
v
0
W
N
Q
~o
3
m
v~
X
tl
N
E
N
L
R
0
N
N
N
N
r
N
s
w
X
'~i.
U
0
s
C
0
Vim]
w
Q
d
N
E
O
N
N
N
E
y
N
S.'
r
O
N
N
N
X
y
bq
x
v
Q
H
w
0
O.
C7
w
Q
N
N
N
.~
W
•o
A
E
.~
.~
b
O
N
N
y
w^
X
b
U
N
m
m
Q
N
u.
0
a
w
d
O
h
N
N
A
t
X
Y
0
0.1
0
F
w
0
0.
w
Q
x
cC
N
E
N
W
y
Y
N
N
s
O
v
N
N
N
A
~'
X
v'
W ',
~,
a
ti
t
U
7
R
R it
w
o'',
ro
2
N
6J
a~+
E
W
U
.C~
.o
O_
b
b
d'
w
X
`~
U
x
ti
N
.~
E
E
U
C7
w
Q
X
A
M1l
E
y
~N
W
3
0
m
N
r
b
w
X
.~
w
3
a
L
(Iw
U
E
E
U
w
Q
a
N
G
~^.~
/~
L
N
w'
ti
00
h
N
b
ro
ro
X
ti
W
C
N
N
m
Qr
P.:
ro
Q
N
ti
m
J
U
N
m
ro
s
X
U
C
ti
A
Q
9
X
L
0
t
0
E
N
W
V
O
N
R
s
X
r
`o
O
s
0
ti
W
O
N
.c
n.
.E
c
Y
C
N
O
U
a°
x
G
b
0
x
0
r
O
O~
N
N
ro
x
x
N
W
E
0
F
0
0
w
0
Y
U
h
3
R
c
/Y/~~~~
\J
0
d
d'
d
rn
M
ro
X
v
~i
C
0
cC
O
w
s
L
.E
ro
3
.~
x
N
C
O
.~
'E
O
G
E
O
O
z
O
C
.U
'b
h
M
N
n
><
.F
w
U
v
O
N
Qi
V
Q
0
V
b
D pp
N
Q
U
£ ~'
~ o
W
0
N
A
~ M
~ ~
Q M
QI M
W
N
~ ~
~ ti C
~ O ~
.y a o
w
~ z
a, "
0
w
z F
b
N
N
o
:a ,n
.~ H
~ ~
b
ti
.~
N
x
N
W
O
N C
~ bD
~ ~
rte V
Q ++
YE ~
b y
~ ~
ra
E
0
c'
0
w
.c
O_
h
M
N
bA
C
O
0
z
0
w
N
m
x
c
a
0
.~
~'
o'
O
U'
,.
0
8
.c
a
.~O
(`J
N
C
O
0
z
G
a
.a
_N
F
a
x
v
U
a
0
c
s
c
A
d
L
O
N
N
bA
C
O
0
z
m
x
~'
11
~'
~r
v
a
O
.O
d
r
N
N
o-0
C
O
0
z
c
0
E
ti
d
°c
m
a
r
V
Cq
G
0
z
oTp
w
d
0
N
Q
N a0
`~
o
y U
~ w
w
«`p.
O
d
0.
0
u
0
a
.~
W
00
N
b
N
C
O
0
z
m
c~
A
U
X
W
Q
ryn
a
0
0
.~
J
w
C
.ry
W
h
W
N
N
CD
G
O
0
z
b
8
3
w
:-'~
y
Y
.~
9
~ '',
Q
~i
H
•o
ro
a
b
r
~O M
7 C
b0
C
O
a
z
ro
N
.~
rnTT
L'
y
W
h
r
ri --
O Q~
v1 V
CD
C
O
0
z
w
b
y
8
N
m
O
U
v
S.
h
w
Appendix E. Criteria developed during the 2005 planning process for evaluating
proposals. Page 1 of 2.
Criteria to evaluate habitat rehabilitation project proposals
To evaluate habitat rehabilitation project proposals, KRSA modified ADFG's decision
matrix that has a proven record of utility. The modified matrix has 16 weighted criteria.
that are scored against elements on a 0-4 scale. The score is multiplied by the weight and
these products are then summed across criteria to give each proposal a total score that can
be ranked across proposals.
Weight=5 Weight=4 Wei t=3 Wei t=2 Weight=L
I. Quality of fish 4. Protects native 10. Provides 12. Reasonable 14. Stabilizes bank
habitat in project vegetation native vegetation cost
area
2. Protects fish 5. Provides fish 1l. Includes 13. Education I5. Uses multiple
habitat habitat artners o ortuni techni ues
3. Integrates with 6. Improves tish L6. Benetits
before & after passage adjacent property
habitat research
7. Removes
harmful structure
&. Likelihood of
success
9. Provides boat
and/or bank angler
access
Criteria to evaluate fish and habitat research project proposals
To evaluate fish and habitat research proposals, recommendations for funding are based
upon eight weighted criteria, scored on a 0-4 scale:
1. Strategic Priorities (weight = 5)
Proposal should address priority objectives or needs of the strategic plan.
2. Conservation Mandate (weight = 5)
Degree to which proposal addresses a fishery that is intensely managed because
there is a conservation risk to species and populations that support sport fisheries.
3. Allocation Conflict (weight = 5)
Degree to which project results would resolve or lessen conflict, e.g., through greater
understanding, helpful modifications of existing methods or techniques, etc.
4. Data Gaps (weight = 5)
Amount of information available to guide management. A higher priority is given
when a lack of information exists, and project results will answer a lot of questions.
5. Technical-Scientific Merit (weight = 4)
Technical quality of the study design must meet accepted standards for data
collection, analysis, and reporting. Studies must have clear objectives, appropriate
sampling design, and correct analytical procedures. Judgments in this regazd will be
deferred to ADFG Sport Fish Division's biometrics section.
Continued
30
Appendix E. Page 2 of 2.
6. Past Performance-Administrative Expertise (weight ° 3)
Investigators and their organizations must have demonstrated technical and
administrative expertise to complete projects, or have co-investigators or appropriate
partnerships with other organizations to meet all requirements of the study. Studies
must be non-duplicative with previously funded or existing projects.
7. Partnership (weight = 2)
Studies partnering with other funding sources or other ongoing projects may be more
efficient in using resources and thus more cost effective.
8. Public or political concern (weight = 2)
Proposal concerns a high profile fishery, with many participants.
31
i~
KE1!!I RI1/E SP~RTFISHII®!G
associarioN
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund /
Southeast Sustainable Salmon Fund
Kenai River, Alaska
Annual Report of Progress
For 2005
February 2006
I~ENAI RIVER SPORTFISHING ASSOCIA~'IN
The Kenai River sportfishing Association, Ina (KRSA) is dedicated to ensuring
the sustainability of the greatest sportfishing river in the world -the Kenai. The
corporation's area of responsibility encompasses the Kenai River watershed,
greater Cook Inlet Basin and Alaska. Established in 1984 and incorporated in 1992
as a S01(c)(3) nonprofit organization, KRSA accomplishes its mission through four
principal program areas: Habitat, Fisheries Management, Research and Education.
• Habitat: habitat conservation and rehabilitation to maintain and improve the
Kenai River watershed for sustainable fisheries;
• Fisheries Management: promotion of predictable and meaningful sport and
personal use fishing opportunity;
• Research: fishery, economic and conservation research to advance
information for management of sustainable fisheries; and
• Education: public education, scholarships and outreach to promote
stewardship of fisheries resources.
Fishing in Alaska is a way of life, an important part of its history, and in many
ways defines the Alaskan experience for residents and visitors alike. World
renowned for its king, red, silver and pink salmon, as well as Dolly Varden and
rainbow trout, the Kenai River is Alaska's most popular destination for anglers.
With over a quarter million people making use of sportfishing opportunities in
southcentral Alaska, more than one third of all recreational fishing in Alaska takes
place in Upper Cook Inlet for salmon - on a good year up to a million angler days
takes place on the Kenai. Participation in these world premier fisheries is expected
to grow by 60,000 anglers over the course of the next decade.
Through its conservation efforts in habitat, fisheries management, research and
education, KRSA works tirelessly on behalf of Alaska's recreational fisheries to
make certain their long term sustainabiliry in this unique environment. Since its
inception, KRSA has invested millions in the Kenai River watershed and has
worked with its partners to leverage millions more. Built upon a conservation
model that coordinates local, state and federal agencies, the Kenai River is
recognized as one of the best managed waterways in the world. In 2002, KRSA
received the Conservation Service Award, the U.S. Department of Interior's
highest recognition for conservation work in America.
2
Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................4
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 6
Fast Tract Project Selection ......................................................................................................... 7
Strategic Planning ......................................................................................................................... 9
Planning Approach ...................................................................................................................9
Priorities .................................................................................................................................10
Goals .................................................................................................................................10
Problems ...........................................................................................................................11
Objectives & Needs ..........................................................................................................12
Project Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................................18
Project Identification .................................................................................................................. 19
Proposal review and selection ....................................................................................................21
Statements of Work and Awarding of Funds ........................................................................... 22
References .................................................................................................................................... 23
APPENDIX A -Proposal Requirements .................................................................................. 24
APPENDIX B -Project Descriptions ....................................................................................... 29
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the 2005 Annual Report of Progress for Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA)
management of Kenai River/Russian River appropriations under the Pacific Coastal Salmon
Recovery Fund/Southeast Sustainable Salmon Fund (PCSRF/SSSF). In FFY 2004 $1,910,000
was appropriated To the Kenai River watershed, and $955,000 was appropriated to the Russian
River watershed (a tributary river to the Kenai.) hr FFY 2005 $956,000 and in FFY 2006
$750,000 were appropriated to the Kenai River watershed, with a cumulative total of $4,571,000
to date under the management direction of KRSA.
2005 was the first year in which KRSA actively managed and recommended approval of projects
through the PCSRF/SSSF appropriations. In 2005 KRSA established a framework for strategic
planning (planning approach, priorities, and project evaluation criteria,) fast track and standard
track project approval, call and review ofpre-proposals, call and review of proposals, statements
of work, awarding of funds, and monitoring and evaluation of projects. KRSA worked in
conjunction and close cooperation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG)
throughout this process. The ADFG Commissioner provides final review and signature of all
projects recommended for approval by KRSA.
FAST TRACK PROJECTS:
A total of 3 Fast Track Project Proposals were submitted for funding consideration and were
approved under PCSRF/SSSF. The Fast Track process was one where easily identifiable
projects, that were discussed and agreed upon in 2004, were funded as expeditiously as possible.
These projects were time sensitive, meaning that to accomplish stated objectives it was necessary
to move them through the approval process as quickly as possible. There were three such
projects which totaled $1,004,449 this year, all of which were awarded to ADFG, with one
fisheries project at $184,628 and two habitat projects at $819,821. The projects approved were:
Fisheries Proiects:
Kenai River Chinook Salmon Genetics Baseline ADFG $184,628
Habitat Proiects:
Kenai River Restoration Cost Share Project ADFG $500,000
Slikok Creek Fish Habitat and Angler Access ADFG $319,821
FAST TRACK 2005 Total $1,004,449
STANDARD TRACK PROJECTS:
A total of 11 Detailed Project Proposals (6 related to habitat restoration and research and 5
related to fisheries research) were submitted under the standard track for funding consideration
through PCSRF/SSSF, of which 8 were forwarded by KRSA to ADFG for approval. For each
project, the Technical Review Committee provided an Overview, Budget Analysis, Technical
Review and a Recommendation. The Technical review committee met with Department staff on
several occasions and amongst itself on numerous others. Three projects were put on hold for
further refinement and development. The total amount of funding recommended for approva[
4
under the standard track was $1,574,939, with fisheries projects at $742,741 and habitat projects
at $832,198. The projects approved for fisheries and habitat were:
Fisheries Projects:
Kenai Sockeye Abundance ADFG $471,157
Late Run Russian River Sockeye Run Reconstruct ADFG $256,424
King Fishery Selectivity SPCA $15,160
Habitat Proiects:
In-stream Flow Reservation ADFG $11,974
Kenai-Russian Bank Restoration USFWS $428,089
Restoration and Angler Access Project KPC $189,840
Habitat Progress Report and Evaluation SPCA $51,595
Culvert Evaluations for Chinook and Coho ADFG $150,700
STANDARD TRACK 2005 Total $1,574,939
FAST TRACK 2005 Total $1 004 449
OVERALL 2005 Total $2,579,388
ALLOCATION FFY 04-06 Total $4,571,000
REMAINING BALANCE Total $1,991,612
Fisheries projects totaled $831,447(33%), habitat projects totaled $1,747,941(67%). Within
habitat projects, 12% of funds have gone to habitat research projects and 88% of funds have
gone to restoration /access projects.
In 2006, KRSA wilt update the strategic plan created in 2005, meet with resource managers and
put forth a call for proposals in order to use the remaining balance of PCSRFlSSSF for the Kenai
River. KRSA will continue to monitor fast track projects approved and implemented in 2005
and monitor the standard track projects approved in 2005 that will be implemented in 2006.
Once projects aze completed, KRSA, in conjunction with ADFG and other resource managers,
will evaluate project results, and update the strategic planning document for the Kenai River
watershed.
5
INTRODUCTION
The mission of the Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA) is to ensure the sustainability
of the greatest sportfishing river in the world -the Kenai. KRSA accomplishes its mission
through four primary program areas: Habitat, Fisheries Management, Research and Education.
• Habitat: habitat conservation and rehabilitation to maintain and improve the Kenai River
watershed for sustainable fisheries;
• Fisheries Management: promotion of predictable and meaningful sport and personal use
fishing opportunity;
• Research: fishery, economic and conservation research to advance information for
management of sustainable fisheries; and
• Education: public education, scholarships and outreach to promote stewardship of
fisheries resources.
In the past, funds to support KRSA projects have been raised primarily from the Kenai River
Classic -the organization's annual fund raising event. Beginning in 2004, federal salmon funds
have also been dedicated for use in on Kenai and Russian River under the direction of KRSA.
The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) was established by Congress in FFY 2000,
with the support of Senator Stevens, to contribute to the conservation, restoration, and
sustainability of Pacific salmon populations and their habitats. Congressional appropriations for
PCSRF have been made for the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California and Idaho, and
to Pacific Coast and Columbia River tribes. The funds are then distributed through competitive
processes for salmon recovery and conservation projects by various governmental agencies and
other organizations and entities. A total of $524.4 million has been appropriated for the fund
from FFY 2000 through FFY 2005. The PCSRF is administered by the National Marine
Fisheries Service and Alaska's appropriation is managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADFG). Appropriations for Alaska have ranged from $14 million to $27 million per
year. Since FFY 2004, a portion of the Alaska allocation of the PCSRF has been earmarked for
KRSA use in the Kenai and Russian Rivers (Table 1).
KRSA has directed PCSRF funds to a series of fishery and habitat projects through a formal
strategic planning and project evaluation process. This process was funded entirely with other
KRSA funds to ensure that maximum value would be gained from the PCSRF dollars. Tltis
report describes the KRSA funding process and projects selected for funding.
Table t. Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds earmarked for use by the Kenai River Sportfishing
Association.
Federal Fiscal Year Kenai River watershed Russian River watershed Total -
2004 $1,910,000 $955,000 $2,865,000
2005 $956,000 - $956,000
2006 $750,000 -- $750,000
Totals ~3,6t6,000 $955,000 $4,571,000
6
FAST TRACK PROJECT SELECTION
Funds allocated to projects within the Kenai River by KRSA in 2005 were the product of two
processes. The Fast Track process was one where easily identifiable projects, that were
discussed and agreed upon in 2004, were funded as expeditiously as possible. These projects
were time sensitive, meaning that to accomplish stated objectives it was necessary to move them
through the approval process as quickly as possible. There were three such projects (Table 2)
which totaled 1,004,449 this year, all of which were awarded to ADFG.
Table 2. Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds earmarked for use by the Kenai River
Sporffishing Association and awarded using fhe FasC Track Process in 2005.
Kenai River Restoration Cost Share Project ADFG $500,000
Kenai River Chinook Salmon Genetics Baseline ADFG $184,628
Slikok Creek Fish Habitat and Angler Access ADFG $319,821
2005 Total $1,004,449
Project descriptions for the Fast Track Projects are found in Appendix B.
STANDARD TRACK PROJECT SELECTION
Kenai River Categories and Work Plan
Kenai River watershed projects were developed in the following categories:
Fisheries research -Objectives address abundance, composition, timing, migration, sub-stock
identification, harvest statistics, factors influencing productivity, and management factors,
including examination of alternative management methods.
Habitat Research and Evaluation -These projects examine the effectiveness, life-span and cost
of habitat rehabilitation projects in regazds to influences on fish ecology and production.
Habitat Rehabilitation and Access -These actions or projects seek to restore degraded fisheries
habitat, mitigate impacts from development or access, and provide for future angler access.
The salmon species of primary interest are Chinook, sockeye and coho; however, studies on other
species acting as significant factors (e.g., years of high pink salmon returns) in the production of
target species will be considered. In regards to funding fisheries research, the Kenai River
watershed includes marine migratory routes in Cook Inlet. Multi-year proposals up to five years
in duration were considered; however continuation of funding beyond the first year is contingent
upon evaluation of annual progress reports.
The work plan process followed a five step sequence that included:
1) Strategic Planning - KRSA staff believed that to make the greatest use of the funds being
made available a detailed and documented planning approach was essential. A contractor (using
KRSA funds) was hired to organize this aspect of the project. A process labeled the Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP) was invoked, the product of which was a detailed list of prioritized
research and habitat needs related to the Kenai River watershed.
2) Project Identi acation -Following the planning process, a general call was made for pre-
proposals to test the interest and subject areas that potential project leaders might desire to work
in. These were summary proposals which were evaluated on criteria including the importance
(priority) of the project, cost, and technical merit.
3) Proposal Review and Selection -Based on the evaluation of the pre-proposals, a call for
detailed proposals and operational plans was made for those projects deemed worthy of a more
thorough review. Detailed operational plans were provided with more detailed budget and
objective descriptions. Based on the technical review and in consultation with KRSA technical
staff and the investigators these plans were refined. This was a time consuming but necessary
effort to ensure that projects were designed to address the most pressing fishery and habitat
research and habitat projects.
4) Statements of Work and Awarding o Funds -Following the review of detailed project
proposals a final Statement of Work was requested for each project that was to be forwarded on
for final approval and funding. The SOW serves as the contract between KRSA and the
agency/entity conducting the work.
~) Reporting -The last phase of the work plan involves monitoring, evaluation and reporting.
KRSA will prepare annual program summary reports, track project implementation progress and
accountability, coordinate and conduct annual program workshop and presentation, review and
provide comments on project technical reports. Implementation of this stage of the work plan
will start in 2006.
8
STRATEGIC PLANl~ING
To ensure that the best possible projects are solicited and funded, KRSA used a formal approach
in calling for and evaluating project proposals. KRSA conducted a collaborative strategic
planning effort to ensure that funds are focused on the highest priorities for conservation of fish
and their habitat in the Kenai River watershed.
The strategic plan consisted of two products:
1. A framework of goals, problems, objectives and needs to guide the call for proposals, and
2. Criteria for evaluating proposals.
Strategic planning occurred in three phases (Table 3). During Phase I, KRSA members engaged
in facilitated discussions to clarify the interests and concerns of the group, re-stated as goals
(long term achievements), problems (categories of issues to solve, or uncertainties to address),
and objectives (measurable statements of purpose). In Phase II, broad spectrum of professional
resource managers from local, state and federal agencies and organizations responsible for
fishery and habitat research and habitat restoration projects in the Kenai River watershed were
invited to a workshop assist in identifying needs. Information needs are data gaps or
uncertainties that are usually addressed with a research project, and action needs are activities
that would help to achieve the given objective, such as hosting a regional workshop. Phase III
involved discussions to develop criteria for evaluating proposals.
Table 3. Outline of the strategic planning process for KRSA, 2005.
Phase Time frame Activity
I Feb 8 Initial sco in meetin
Mar i4 & 16 Facilitated KRSA meetin s to identify and rioritize oats, robtems, ob'ectives
II Maz 9 Stakeholders invited to artici ate in a tannin worksho
Mar 30 Workshop in Soldotna, where participants identified and prioritized needs relating to
objectives, robtems, and oats.
III Mar and A ril KRSA en a es in discussions re ardin criteria to evaluate ro osals.
Planning Approach
A systems approach, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to structure the problem
using expert judgment (Saaty 1999). Expert judgment is defined as "previous relevant
experience, supported by rational thought and knowledge" (Saaty and Kearns 1985). The AHP
has been used extensively for decades to address planning, conflict resolution, and prioritization
in such areas as policy development, economics, engineering, medical and military science, and
has more recently been applied to fisheries research and management (NEFC 1990; Merritt and
Griddle 1993, Merritt 2000, 2001, Merritt and Skilbred 2002, USFWS 2005). The AHP is a tool
for facilitating decision-making by structuring the problem into levels comprising a hierarchy.
Breaking a complex problem into levels permits decision makers to focus on smaller sets of
decisions, improving their ability to make accurate judgments. Structuring also allows decision
makers to think through a problem in a systematic and thorough manner. The AHP encourages
people to explicitly state their judgments of preference or importance. A professional facilitator
and decision analyst, Dr. Margaret Merritt (Resource Decision Support), guided discussions
through all three phases, analyzed results, and developed this report.
9
Priorities
The planning process used atop-down structuring approach to establish priorities (Table 4).
Tabte 4. Hierarchy of priorities addressed in the planning process
Level Hierarch
1 Mission
2 Goals
3 Problems
4 Objectives
5 Information & Actions Needs
KRSA. members rated the importance of elements at each level of the planning hierarchy based
on their expert judgment and criteria including degree of conservation concern or vulnerability,
degree of allocation conflict, and sequential nature (where one thing is pending the results from
something else). Criteria help to think about what makes an element more or less important than
another within the group. The relative importance of the goals under consideration was
evaluated, then that of the problems within a goal, then objectives within each problem was rated
on a scale of 0 to 9.
Consensus within a range of two to three points on the rating of elements was often achieved.
Disparities were discussed to clarify important concepts and often resulted in a clearer definition
of the goal, problem, and objective. A total of 35 elements comprise the framework developed
by KRSA: 2 goals, 8 problems, and 25 objectives. Expert Choice decision software was used to
derive priorities based on the assigned scores (KRSA 2005). Values at each level were weighted
in the next highest level, and the result is the weight of importance for information needs.
Goals
After thoughtful discussion, KRSA rated the fisheries research goal slightly more important than
the goal pertaining to habitat conservation and rehabilitation, primarily because in the past
decade KRSA has successfully addressed significant habitat issues in the Kenai River watershed,
yet great uncertainty surrounds basic fish stock knowledge.
KRSA Goals
it Foster fishery research to
advance information for
management of `
sustainable fisheries
Conserve & rehabilitate '
~ fisheries habitat to maintain
& improve the Kenai R
~. watershed
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Mean Score
Figure 1. KRSA goals related to PCSRF priorities.
10
Problems
For the fisheries research goal., five problems were identified and prioritized by KRSA as:
Fisheries Problems
Fshery Factors: Data on stock composition & explodation
rates in fisheries are unclear or suspect
Management Units: Failure to idenfrfy sub-stocks in rrpxed
fisheries risks overexploitation of those that are less
abundant
Stock AssessmenC Inaccurate estimates of escaperr~nt
contribute to managerr~nt errors
Productivity: Relationships between escapement,
enhancement & environmental factors as related to
production are unclear
Management Paradigms: Current focus of management may
be inadequate to ensure sustainabiiity over long time
periods
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Mean Score i,
Figure 2. Fisheries problems related to KRSA goals.
The group believed that further identification of stock and substock composition and exploitation
rates in sport and commercial harvests were of highest priority for advancing management.
For the habitat goal, three problems were identified and prioritized by KRSA:
Habitat Problems
Evaluate & Guide: Benefits & long term effectiveness of
various habitat protection & restoration projects are unclear
Protect & Restore: Shoreline development & intensive sport
fishing can result in habitat disturbance
Inventory 8 Assess: Influences of human & natural habitat
disturbances on fish production are unclear
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Mean Score
Figure 3. Habitat problems related to KRSA goals.
The group thought that with all the rehabilitation work that has been accomplished to date, the
highest priority is to evaluate the extent to which various methods have been effective at
attracting or producing fish.
11
Objectives & Needs
Information and action needs were identified in Phase II of the strategic planning process in a
workshop of resource managers based on goals, problems, and objectives defined by KRSA. A
total of 14 participants represented a cross section of perspectives from regional and statewide
professionals from either habitat or fisheries disciplines. Workshop participants identified at least
one need for each objective, and provided input on those needs that currently have funding, those
for which funding is uncertain or absent, and those that are on hold pending initial research
results or further analysis. Workshop participants also developed criteria for judging importance
among needs. These included the state of knowledge (how big are the data gaps) and the degree
to which an important priority is addressed (e.g., does the information need address a big
problem that, if answered, could resolve a lot of questions). A total of 47 information or actions
needs were identified to address objectives; following the workshop, I{RSA supplemented this
list, for a total of 49 needs (Figure 4).
For the fisheries goal, 32 needs are listed -the majority (10) of which fall under the
"Management Units" problem: "Failure to identify sub-stocks in mixed fisheries risks
overexploitation of those that are less abundant." For the fisheries goal, the top 25% of needs
(Figure 5) concern all three salmon species of interest (Chinook, sockeye and coho):
• commercial fishery time and area catch samples for sockeye genetics,
• to improve coho catch statistics,
• funds to augment enforcement in the commercial fishery,
• to understand how sensitive productivity is to catch and escapement,
• to analyze the existing commercial harvest data base more extensively to examine
Chinook time and area stock composition,
• to determine if "early" and "late" designations of the Chinook return are genetically
distinct by sampling tributary and main stem spawning areas,
• to estimate exploitation, there is a need to first obtain good basic harvest and escapement
data, and,
• tC eht»in a TINA IJaselinr• (frnm tha cina~jng araal fnr all cnel{eye gtnrkc,
A total of 25% of the needs described in the fisheries goal involve some aspect of Genetic Stock
Identification (GSI) -both tissue collection and processing, or interpretation and implementation
of results. Additional techniques suggested by stakeholders include sonar and radio telemetry.
For the habitat goal, stakeholders identified 17 needs that were evenly distributed among the
three problems in that goal. Stakeholders primarily focused their discussions on evaluation and
research aspects of habitat, or building baselines to protect habitat, with limited reference to
specific rehabilitation needs. Four of the 17 needs involve holding a workshop, public meeting
or planning meeting. For the habitat goal, the top 25% of needs (Figure 6) concern evaluation of
restoration projects and fish movement. These needs are:
• Examine sites before and after restoration to address the question - do restored sites
attract or produce fish?
• Examine fish passage before and after culvert installation or replacement, document
Chinook juvenile movement in their habitat using PIT tags and other monitoring
technology, and
• Organize a restoration assessment workshop, encouraging regional attendance.
12
C S
yy
F O " O i J]
-~
® ~ o o c~ 'c .~
9 ~ co- ~ O
p~ Q° ~` 4 9 9
C ^J v ~ ~ ~ E ~~ L V
/ A J e O.
. _ ~ N C
N P ~j .~- C O q U a .^~ ~
~ F O O
\ ~
~ W 'O
'
i ~ O y ~
r O G
O O O dS ~ 'E _
_
O C ~ C E
^
=~
~ ^.0
C C _ C v. ~ y
O O9 'p ~
O ,
9
y
Fr _
~ C y
~ O u 3 4 ~ O
O° «. G G~ p
.
. 'i: J_
~ y~ ~ ~ ~ '^ CO i iJ
4
C ~ .C H E N ~'m ~ a G ~
d C
~ n •'• ~ G O y m O C rn o G C
P4 '/r 0 G ~_ 'O O ^CJ
? L V ~ V j C C E cOi
O r n V
_ ~' OU
T. tl0 O 4-.
O ~ U O
9~ C N
2
F f
a `' E
c'
~ ~ c `
~ ~ ~ ~ c '~ - F E '~ o ~ U 'y c u ' v 3 ° ° v c 3 .
c ."
.
v A v o -
0 .
0~ o c a c, ~ '' c z c° sS F' ~ c .
o
~
c c c_
°
° ~ a ~~ d a m .~. v s v y v ~ u ~ .~ ~
-
5 :
a o°i `^ c ~ un
~ t v y a ~ C 'y s c ~ z m ~=' ~ n M L m ^u c ~1 ~
~ ° ~ t ` 'w ~ n .
~ ~ = ~ 9 V 9 .o .X o a R'm ~ L .5 ~ oo a $ 4 s 'o ~ tv
p
°
'
°
.
o~
f
v
°
~ `~
°
' ° -'
g
> o_
v E , ~ o~ `~ o ° o o
. . y o 3.
_ c m e
Z 3
v
~ "
~ ~ t v'
" ~ a c ~S ? v '~ ° ~ E ~ n v a '° E o ^°~~° "°'
M
-a Z
G
2
Z z ~ z z z ` z 3.. ~'"z~~~ °
~ a ~
c e = e I o 0 o e)
I o o e
c o 0 0 0 0 o c
_ mH
c
q
o
a t c c ~ ~ r ~ n
a v
A~ ~? ~ c c c E E
- .
c
~ 1 4 $' A o
O-
H
~u n
~
C
9
~~ Y
E N 9 «
aS > en V W pC
C J
b0 n 'F C.
O c `~ ti _.~ E m> rub
~ p o :y C
L
6 .E
i
0
R
rvCj v
v' C
aI ~ O N v.
N U
W ~ O
`n 3
~
u p6
,
J
U ~~ ~ L V
[~'~ .JJ
N C
~
V ~.
L ~
V ~ k m
d
Y•1 `
.n v n ~ i
F ,G G.S ._
T Y ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .E 3 ~
~ C
N
c ~
W v n o
n v ~ v° v c ° s
v
v~
~`c' c° on o^
E
w e
c v
c v
L > °' a 5 v m ~ ~ ~~ m E c
` '
a c x a _ p p
q
I
O O O O O O p p O
'
O
m e E V E v
J L
O
t q
~ ~~
C ~ ~ A
L
O
O O v ~N
L - '~ C
N O N
r 9 ~.
c
~° 6
~ m
A5
r
~ ~
m
~3 = ~ a1 v C
E i a :'c
ai s
o F° ~
µ
}yy 'J~ O 0 N
J ~ N
L T A O
® v+
? J
G> O
~ O
` A S 6
v c v v
.
> c v`
~ ..
o
~ c
~ ~ A s
= m
=
^ww o
a
~'~':: a s c v
p'
E
L a a y
r
n .
~ ." ~ c o a
~ ti tiI
O O O
_v
~ a
V O O
i ~ E
m
o
c o v y
av. G R
~ r E 3
d .
a"~
z = i
l
O _
V
N.
`v c ro h
`u
o L 'a ~ s
.
N
M
O
L
~i
\/Y
W
d
w
i~
ti
u
G
0
d
E
`o
en
3
a
a
0
R
G
G_
y
Y
G
C
0
w
e
0
w
E
w
c
9
C
R
a
u
.G
O
m
E M
O C
L ^~
O. v
R ~
~~
~ N
L
~ ~
$ s
d y
E atia
R~
s`i 3
z ~ ANN` ~ w
A A c o v .o. ~- v ° ,.. w m ~ a ~
~~ ~~ a ~ °_ c 'c `m °p ~ C o c
}~I ~ U O ~ C L .Gj .~ G .=0^ i ._ ~y .G 0. F N N C 1 S C O
F `m E ou v T c ~ u ~ -' a ~' 3 ~°- D E m ~ m E N~ ~' a
u
Z.E.. ~ ~~'~9 ,w r.?>_:` E ~ -mu cCE ~F "c'o >. '~E ~E ^.'o " °' c co
Q ~' ~ o. ~ a ~v a L u _° a u d$ ~~ ~ Q~.='n y~ c ~~ u u ~ n E .e
lel L V O 'GU y C C V X ''C W .O ~T C E .G 1 v. ~'A p v L O G O :1 E U G
'p.e u. e'"i r m E N c E ~` °' eui ~ c o iO ~ °3 G ° E c a '.=. ~.+", ° ~ a'c ~ ~~ .~ E E H
`~.,i ~` ~ '-' u n `u4O ~ m 'a ~= c E ~ = c w ~ ~ ~ T o ~ ~ ~ 2 ~,~, ~ .~. ~ G °d m vi ~ o
iG E ~ c. 'Yi °i ~n :~ 3 .` m ° ~E ~ U o .S .c > u o'_i ~ .a a ~ v ° u ~ c s A y -° ~~ v
® c = .G ~ E ~ u o °c 'a ', c ,~ .^ Y U E t ~ m i,~ ~ c'g ° -a ~' ~ E u 4. m E a~i
v o o H o v o^ u- o ~ o 0 0 ~ o .o ~ a
c° ,t E ~ E 'c c C ._ y ~ E se c .x a
a Ea'3 v ~a;c a E v s y.G a'S a ~o uv a:aza ua ~ E u a~~- `~
~ ti~ 3 0 z °~ U ~ °u T a o s c u o a m u° G o ;o v .~ E3 U u° v '.. o c c"i ~ .o
.-i z z ~-- z z r 3 z z c, ti z z z z F z n.
O O O. O. C O' O O O O O O OO O O O O
G C W O
O E
L C a 9 "G'
E .f°. Y 0. N V ~ G' ~ C v' G Y
,a ~ G ~ U V ~ _C ~ O
o L al y ° ~~ n E G
N A ~ .L l+ a
O ~. .o G C ~n C E .. V d ~
G ~ n O N _
CD v N
~, U ~ O y C iu`E ~ = a H Gp v
S r ?' v
S O J a m w .~ L O O U C~ ~~.
M ~ G' ~ q 'O ~ L 'C L ~ V t a U
N N ~j N 4~ E .4 V+ V~ W ~ .tl
W °- m v$ ~ E 2= °- o
qh ~.~ E y° o u t E S C € E ~ m~
MY r N i i~ 4~ d U J N v C4 N d ,~ 00 ttJ
® O m W Q ~
of of o of o of
111~~~~ c ~I
j Q a_
a
°' w s .
W O y °~ ~ 0. G v O
~N O p C `n E 'O E y 'f
N O ~O .'`a" ~ W d' p t
® L ry 6 O 4J N~ `,1 y
V y
Pa .~ Q V aKi E ~ cc y c -5
M Y
ry_ N_
O O
'G O
V ._
`d ~'^ G
O .j
o c E
Z' ,`c_ F y
~ s
m .o
of `^~`~E=
."' ~ EEC
e
a
C
ri
0
N
bA
_ _
~i q c c G L
Fr " u ~ 9 ~E c m t` A
® .c ~ 1 ~ m V ~ ~d r c s E y -_ a
U J c L• !i aJ+ G t0 V O C ~ h F y .~ ^
0 0 4 E ,° u a-"i ~ ~ ~-° n ~, V C7 m 'n v .4 u a E m 3
_ o•
y ~ V J~ en u N O V C ~ N H S '~ r~ C9 V V^ G N O p Q
/-, '- G O Gi C Y i G .°.. O i C j J .~ E c G O u
® 5 u c . o, c =, c o. '< ~ Y E ~ u n o C a u ~.:. o v a
H c a o ° @i ° ~ 9 2- ~_ "' o U c R ,vy ~ E .u. c v~ .E E
~^, .. ~ ~. v .. ~ m 'o .o ~' s° c ,-3 m o a on o ~ a D ~ °
v '~ 5 v o 0
Q' m m' ~ ~ ~ o E u _ o =~ v. o `o w E o a r ~° m ~' .E ' E a
Lr ° '^ ~ c u ~v ~ ~ t U" c ~E - E _~ ~ u w @3 m c c ^_vn
/-• s CO '~ E t Y ~ C~ ,R ~ 'C ~ „~-, v C C t~ ~ Nc v A ~ O V F .1L ~ C
O V G ~ 094. rC'i 9 L N Y ~~ .= N Y .E C ,/~ 6 n N~ 4Y`i N N° y pp B E i
O v
m .c " c E .T c° iO ~ 2 ° ti ~' ° U t o _>. ~ a 'n ° ~ `° v e u 'L` c
a' c E o a ~ c pp o c '`A, u a
~. c~ ~ '~ ~ '= m a .= v~ F~ ~ v v .o v .,~'m, c o q E v E2 ,r3 v E ~ v~ o
Iii .. Z > _. X ~ v z Z a Z Z W ~ U C
p p ( ~ p p p O O O pO O
p C C Z T ~ N
~~A E ~~ TAE <'+~ E q ~ ~ ~ u
~~ ~ ~ ~ -~ '~ ~ c ~ ~ v c ~ o .E v c en
%' c~ ~ c Y c~ .o E c c .' u ~y E c .v. c
~ ~u E ~ ~ ~ a. E ~ 3 u .= ~ o ei c ~~ c ° E s
°_' @3 c o ~ E aj ~ ~af <+ .v v v n 'A o o w
~ 0 3~v c v s "~ .Y u~ u E
o u r ~° m - c R 1 v .u ~ v E 2~ eau ~ v E a 5 3
o ~
'cui o_' a ° v ~ ~a= ~d v ~ o.. o cS E n.uJ " v ° E
ny. °E v cv ~.x v c '~ o °9'oc ue o.c v ~ `o ~
.. v i a C > u U C N ~ O W ~i
c °n m G„ oo "a .~ `v w °' c. o c E a E E m
~v~, o f L o ~ g E t$ u o u p `° ~~ `° .0 4°. ° Z,
p ~ V
W m c a `ni o u o ca m u w .E ° a E :c E m^ a ~c
cs~ ac'_ cove Ep u° u~u~i ao ~a.c~' m
~ E V v o 2 ~c € .`d ~ ~ E n 3 ca .E Y 9 a v "" :'. 'ro o ~ u-
u c v v '.~ y c 09 v o c c c~ v n ~G c E c c C
~ m [,'~
~ tpif~ N~ l O ( ~ OD
p p O O O O O ~ M
p O
C O C C O O O OO p
C ~
O ~ m G ~
~ E ~ O C9 N n r rn
c m~~ 3~" o tQ E a m y
W E .E o c a~ -`~° o o. o ~~ a
a v Da u a ~ .u ,E v
c ~ Eo ~ E..
v .o v ..
® °~ ~ '= H v c ~ E o
° .i°. E G c E o 'v v u ~- ,~ v m
py V ° E O R N ~V C N
U N ~ v V
a N c ~ o a`. C a dl `na `m ~ U E ° o
°I cl o
®I C
6
b
R
Q
.~
Information/P,ct
Need time & area catch samples for sockeye genetics
Need to improve coho catch statistics
Funds to augment enforcement in the commercial fishery
' How sensitive is productivity to catch & escapement?
''. Anatyze commercial harvest data for chinook catch
Are early/late chinook runs genetically distinct?
'. To estimate exploitation need good catch 8 escapement data
', Need sockeye DNA baseline (spawning area)
~', Analysis of alternative chinook management approaches
', Synthesize historical data to examine effects of enhancement
'.. Need to know limiting factors to production
Upgrade chinook sonar when better technology is available
Need escapement goals for coho
Verify sockeye sonar counts with mark/recap
Pending GSI outcomes, identify spatiaVtemporal aspects
~, Conduct chinook genetic sampling at river mouth
Upgrade sockeye sonar when better technology is available
', Conduct sockeye genetic sampling at river mouth
'', Need area specific escapement estimates
Identify chinook spawning areas using radios
Identify sockeye spawning areas using radios
Identify practical management applications of MDN
': Continue summarizing sport fish economics
', To identify coho stocks, need genetic samples at fishwheel
I Examine size selectivity on chinook escapement
Analysis of alternative coho management approaches
Need baseline temperature 8 flow data in tributaries
', Project effects of shrinking wetlands on coho
~~~.. Synthesize historic data to examine productivity factors
~~ Integrate catch quality in commercial fish management
Feasibility of modifying gear to minimize chinook bycatch?
Examine effects of regulatory changes on populations
18
Figure 5. Adjusted synthesis of information/actions needs for the fesheries goal, Kenai River watershed, 2005.
Needs showeng hatched bars are ineligible for PCSRP funds.
16
Information(Action Needs for Habitat Goal
Need to examine sites before & after restoration
Need to examine culverts for fish passage
Need to document Chinook juvenile movement using pit tags
Need a restoration assessment workshop
Need consultation on hydrology, engineering
Need to evaluate restoration techniques for their Irfe span
Need to synthesize the role of the estuary
Need to identify critical sites for development planning
Need to identify opportunities for additional access
Need to update existing plans far future access
Need to identify degraded sites & willing landowners
Need to assess restoration progress (re-do 309 study)
Process flow applications for middle river tributaries
What is significance of shoreline disturbance to juveniles?
Need a workshop to document baseline habitat conditions
Need to use photogrammetry to examine change
Need to integrate watershed into cumulative effects model
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Priority
Figure 6. Adjusted synthesis of information/action needs for the habitat goal, Kenai River Watershed,
2005.
17
Proiect Evaluation Criteria
Habitat rehabilitation projects. - To evaluate habitat rehabilitation project proposals, KRSA
modified ADFG's decision matrix that has a proven record of utility. The modified matrix has
16 weighted criteria that are scored against elements on a 0-4 scale. The score is multiplied by
the weight and these products are then summed across criteria to give each proposal a total score
that can be ranked across proposals.
Wei ht=5 Wei ht=4 Wei ht=3 "'Wei hY=2 Wee ht'=1
1. Quality of fish 4. Protects native 10. Provides native L2. Reasonable 14. Stabilizes bank
habitat in ro'ect area ve elation ve elation cost
2. Protects tish 5. Provides fish 1l. Includes partners 13. Education I5. Uses multiple
habitat habitat o ortuni techni ues
3. Integrates with 6. Improves fish 16. Benefits adjacent
before & after habitat passage property
research
7. Removes harmful
structure
8. Likelihood of
success
9. Provides boat
and/or bank angler
access
Fish and habitat research project proposals. - To evaluate fish and habitat research proposals,
recommendations for funding will be based upon eight weighted criteria, scored on a 0-4 scale:
Criteria Weight :Description.
I. Strategic Priorities 5 Proposal should address priority objectives or needs of the
strate is lan.
2, Conservation Mandate 5 Degree to which proposal addresses a fishery that is intensely
managed because there is a conservation risk to species and
o ulations that su ort s ort fisheries.
3. Allocation Conflict 5 Degree to which project results would resolve or lessen conflict,
e.g., through greater understanding, helpful modifications of
existing methods or teehni ues, etc.
4. Data Gaps 5 Amount of information available to guide management. A higher
priority is given when a lack of information exists, and project
results will answer a lot of uestions.
5. Technical-Scientific Merit 4 Technical quality of the study design must meet accepted
standards for data collection, analysis, and reporting. Studies
must have clear objectives, appropriate sampling design, and
correct analytical procedures. Judgments in this regazd will be
deferred to ADFG S ort Fish Division's biometrics section.
6. Past Performance-Administrative 3 Investigators and their organizations must have demonstrated
Expertise technical and administrative expertise to complete projects, or
have co-investigators or appropriate partnerships with other
organizations to meet all requirements of the study. Studies must
be non-du licative with reviously funded or existin ro'ects.
7. Partnership 2 Studies partnering with other funding sources or other ongoing
projects may be more efficient in using resources and thus more
cost effective.
8. Public or olitical concern 2 Pro oral concerns a hi h rofile fishe ,with many artici ants.
i8
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Based on the results of the Strategic Planning process conducted in the spring of 2005 a general
Call for Pre-Proposals was issued by the Fisheries Committee within Kenai River Sportfishing
Association. The call for proposals of intent included all needs identified for fisheries and habitat
goals. All interested parties, Universities, and independent researchers who had expressed an
interest in this program received a letter of solicitation. Information was provided each prospective
applicant on the results of the Strategic Planning session and the list of priorities. It was decided
that a call for pre proposals would be followed by a call for detailed proposals. The thinking was
that we wanted an opportunity to review the subject areas of the pre proposals against the agreed
upon priorities and make a decision as to which ones to forward for detailed proposals based upon
that assessment the Call for Pre-Proposals went out on May 2, 2005.
The initial call for pre proposals resulted in 15 project pre-proposals being submitted. A Technical
Review Committee within KRSA evaluated these pre-proposals based on criteria developed by
KRSA during the Strategic Planning process including:
• The extent to which the proposal addresses strategic priorities and has a direct association
with the Kenai River and species of interest,
• Technical and scientific merit of the proposal,
• Past performance and expertise of the investigator(s), and
• Public support for the proposal and opportunities for collaboration within the local
community.
Based upon application of the evaluation criteria 11 detailed project proposals were identified as
worthy of further consideration. Of the 11 projects that were forwarded for detailed project
proposals 6 were related to Habitat issues and 5 addressed Fisheries Concerns. The strategic plan
was used as rationale to guide funding allocation decisions. A 60% allocation of the $2.5 million
available for the Kenai River as of 2005 was given to fishery concerns ($1.5 million), and 40% was
given to habitat concerns ($1 million), approximately following the intended rating of importance
for those goals of the strategic plan.
19
L
N
= L w0 ~ R L u L~ L w6 w0 L L L~ L L L L L
a N t/l L d Q N .° N N N a L N Ul N Q N N N f~ N
~ ~ ~ S 2 2 LL' 2 ~ ~ ~ 2 2 ~ lL I.L SN W W tL LL tL
(0
2
-'..N O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O V7
C 'O O O O t0 O O O W W N N m M O O ~O O~ 0 0
'C i~ O O M O tt~ M M m M 0 V' N c0 M M N V' r r 0
V3,,~~ N r CO N M e{ V' N r r
d~,,O = M
U o
._,. .c
>
i
p
y 0 ~+ O O O O .
.
~
C '1 ~ ~
i C i
Q i
C~
t _
i Q Q Q i G Q N N O
U U C
U
~ U(n U U U (n (nU
E C C C
o w m m
1. N t/I 41
C ~ ~
~ ~ ~ m ~
~ "m m 'm 'm 'm 'm 'N 'm m 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm
C C C C C C N C C C C C C C C C C C C C G
~ Y Y Y Y Y Y~ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
c
~ °
m
3 ~ ~
Q
~ N
~ N U
N C
~
~
~ C
O (
N
~ N > L
'O ~ L ~ C
t0 qfi
> _
~ m ~
O C
B °-
~
Y
~
~ N
N
a U
O O G U -
m y
c o ~ ~ .: m. N >„ ~ I- ~ Y E T ~ o.
°~ ~ m a ~° ~ m o m y c N~ min a~ c E
c, c m n as C w E aci ~ ~ >, m ~ '~ ~ ~ cn
° Y m °- m °- c ->> m c m m to S m
tL E -o Q >
0 0? i~ .~ ~ u E o m o m~ o g o o E
N u! y o25 ~S a` o f E o n .N c o c >~ i, ro
(q N ~ U O y N ~
`? ~ o~ Z` o Y~ g o m N~ E °' .~ a~ C7 c c
c c'0 0 ~ 5m.~~ c~ ~~° °~ ° ~ °QY~c
Uo C7 N ~+- E U~ c c U> Q m c° °~ ° c °~ `~ E
E ~ o ~ a _
Y N N E~ N C O LL N~ °~ .O N N C ~ N
O~~ (0 m .C N m 'C ~ O U m~ W U N w U
N
O Y Y ~ N O T (p 'C O ?~ _ a 0
C U C O j N L N j C a N pQ C~ (0 a O C m
s o m N L~ c o=~ d m> ° m c v o c
U (n CO ~ D. -~ ~ U Y~ Y S ~~~ S Q~ c tti Y
.`
y
a
L
a
a
0
y
V
m
o` a
ca (ZncnrnoU Y aci aci Q
ae~tdiLLUU.wW ~~~~UUmavQQQQQa
-~aoooocnrncnz ~a~ c ca aaaa~
QQQQQQS»SUYNYYtn to (n to (nY
r M V° ~O (O h N m O r N M V ~O (O f~ N O O r N
~ ~; N r r r r ~- ~- ~- r r r N N N
.d
vi
F
PI20POSAL REVIEW ANI) SELECTION
Based on the evaluation of the pre-proposals a Call for Detailed Operational Plans was made for
those projects deemed worthy of a more thorough review. Project leaders were contacted June
27`h 2005 and asked to submit a Detailed Operational Plan. Detailed project proposals were due
back to the KRSA office by Thursday, September 15, 2005. Appendix A presents detailed
instructions concerning information to be included in Detailed Operational Plans. This format
has its origin in one used by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport
Fisheries. These detailed plans were provided with more detailed budget and objective
descriptions as well as sufficient description of methodology to allow a technical review of the
project.
Table 6. Pre-proposals for which detailed operation plans were requested.
~ A. Habitat Project # 4 ADFG Bank Restoration Evaluation
B. Habitat Project # 5 ADFG Instream Flow Reservation Detailed Proposal
C. Habitat Project # 8 USFWS Kenai-Russian
D. Habitat Project # 13 KPC Restoration and Angler Access Project
E. Habitat Project # 17 SPCA Habitat Progress
F. Habitat Project # I I ADFG Culvert Evaluations
G. Fisheries Project # 3A ADFG Kenai Sockeye Abundance
H. Fisheries Project # 36 ADFG Late Run Russian River Sockeye Run Reconstruct
[. Fisheries Project # 18 SPCA King Fishery Selectivity
J. Fisheries Project # 19 SPCA Sub-stock Management
K. Fisheries Project # 21 SPCA Hidden Lake Hatchery
KRSA conducted a full technical review of the projects and provided a report on its findings to
the Department of Fish and Game as well as the KRSA Board. Based on this review, and in
consultation with ADFG technical staff, these plans were refined. This proved to be a very time
consuming, but necessary effort, to ensure that projects were designed to address the most
pressing fishery research and habitat issues.
Based upon ±he technical review and i~..,onsultation vrah Department staff the u'eeision was
made to forward 11 projects for funding. The KRSA Fisheries Committee and full KRSA Board
voted to approve this action on December 1, 2005. In subsequent discussions with upper level
staff within ADFG and KRSA the final list of forwarded projects was reduced to 8. The deletion
of some projects at this point does not suggest they will not be forwarded in the future. Rather,
they needed additional refinement and planning. The decision was made at the Fisheries
Committee Level to move the remaining 8 forward and continue to work on the others.
21
STATEMENTS OF WORK AND AWARDING OF FUNDS
Following the review of detailed project proposals a final Statement of Work (SOW} was
requested for eight projects that were to be forwarded on for final approval and funding. The
SOW serves as the contract between KRSA and the agency/entity conducting the work. These
statements follow a prescribed format. There were five projects related to Habitat projects and
three addressing fisheries related programs. All of the approved projects addressed important
(high priority) needs identified during the Strategic Planning process.
PROJECTS FORWARDED FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Fisheries Project ADFG Kenai Sockeye Abundance $471,157
Fisheries Project ADFG Late Run Russian River Sockeye Run Reconstruct $256,424
Fisheries Project SPCA King Fishery Selectivity IS 160
Sub Total $742,741
Habitat Project ADFG In-stream Flow Reservation Detailed Proposal $1(,974
Habitat Project USFWS Kenai-Russian Bank Restoration $428,089
Habitat Project KPC Restoration and Angler Access Project $189,840
Flabitat Project SPCA Habitat Progress $51,595
Habitat Project ADFG CulverC Evaluations for Chinook and Coho $150.700
SubTotat $832,198
Grand Total $1,574,939
Projects Descriptions for each of the KRSA approved projects are found in Appendix B
The recommended project package for the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund totals
$1,575,039 in proposed funding. Once the approval by the Commissioner of Fish and Game, has
been received then the successful projects will be forward along with the funding to the project
leaders. This will leave approximately $900,000 from the FFY OS appropriation and $750,000
from the FFY 06 ear mark (total $1.65 million) within the fund for additional fisheries and
habitat projects related to the Kenai River.
REPORTING
The last phase of the work plan involves monitoring, evaluation and reporting. KRSA will
prepare annual program summary reports, track project implementation progress and
accountability, coordinate and conduct annual program workshop and presentation, review and
provide comments on project technical reports. Implementation of this stage of the work plan
will start in 2006.
22
REFERENCES
KRSA. 2005. Strategic plan for focusing Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program Funds on
priority habitat and fisheries concerns in the Kenai River watershed.
Lane, D. 1989. Operational research and fisheries management. European Journal of
Operational Research 42:229-242.
Merritt, M. and K. Griddle. 1993. Evaluation of the Analytic Hierazchy Process for aiding
management decisions in recreational fisheries: a case study of the Chinook salmon fishery in
the Kenai River, Alaska. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Management
Strategies for Exploited Fish Populations, Alaska Sea Grant Program, AK-93-02, pp 683-703.
Merritt, M. 1995. Application of decision analysis in the evaluation of recreational fishery
management problems. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Merritt, M. 2000. Strategic plan for Chinook salmon research in the Copper River drainage.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Special Publication No. 00-03, Anchorage.
Merritt, M. 2001. Strategic plan for salmon research in the Kuskokwim River drainage. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Special Publication No. 01-07, Anchorage.
Merritt, M. and A. Skilbred. 2002. Planning for sustainable salmon in Southeast Alaska, and
prioritization of projects for the Southeast sustainable salmon fund. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Fishery Special Publication No. 02-01, Anchorage.
Northeast Fisheries Center (NEFC) 1990. Guidance on the NEFC Research Program for 1991.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole Mass. 02543.
Saaty, T. 1999. Third edition. Decision making for leaders: the analytic hierarchy process for
decisions in a complex world. RWS Publications. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
USFWS. In review. Strategic plan for the subsistence fisheries resource monitoring program,
Southcentral region, 2004. USFWS, Office of Subsistence Management, Anchorage.
23
APPEI~TDIX A -PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
A Guide to providing a detailed project proposal for projects being considered for funding
under tl:e Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund/Soietheast Sustainable Salmon Fund
PREFACE
The following document is a recommended outline for developing a detailed project proposal as
requested by Kenai River Sportfishing Association. There are two components to this proposal.
The first component is a synopsis and the second a detailed project plan. The synopsis is
essentially the same format as the initial pre-proposal. The synopsis satisfies the administrative
requirements of ADFG. The only changes made to the synopsis over the pre-proposal are those
necessary to strengthen the proposal or to address changes requested by KRSA.
The Detailed Project Plan is a complete review and plan of the proposed work. This document
borrows heavily from ADFG planning guidelines and provides a much more detailed description
of objectives, methods and analysis that are planned for the project.
Incomplete project proposals will make it difficult to evaluate the technical merit of a project and
may therefore resultrn a proposal being rejected. Please be as complete as possible when
developing these detailed project plans.
If you have questions regarding this step please feel free to contact me at (907) 262-8588 or
info(cikenairiversportfishing.com.
Thank you,
Ricky Gease
Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association
24
sYNOPS>rs
The synopsis of the project is essentially the original pre proposal submission and reflects any
changes of focus or reprogramming that may have been requested. It should be no more than
three pages in length and serve as a stand alone summary of the proposal.
I. PROJECT TITLE
A clear statement of the title of the project
II. AFFILIATION
What organization does the principle investigator represent or is affiliated with.
III. STUDY OBJECTIVE
A clear statement of project objectives is included in this section. There is no need to include the
objective criteria at this level as that is requested within the detailed plan
IV. SUBJECT
Provide a brief statement as to the subject of the study (e.g. Kenai River Habitat, Chinook
Salmon, Coho salmon).
V. APPROXIMATE COST
What is the expected cost of the program? This need not be a detailed description of the budget
as that is asked for in the detailed plan section
VI. PROPOSED APPROACH
Provide a general description of the approach that will be applied.
VII. DELIVERABLES AND PRODUCTS
Provide a summary of all reports and products that are expected at the end of the project
L'III. SCHEDULE
Provide a summazy of the schedule the proposed project.
IX. PROJECT MANAGER/PRINCIPLE INVESTOGATORS AND QUALIFICATIONS
Provide a list and description of the project staff that will be involved in the project and a brief
statement of qualifications
X. PARTNERS
Identify any partners that may be part of the project and what their role will be.
XI. COST SHARING
Describe the plans to include cost sharing within the project.
25
DETAILED PLAN
L INTRODUCTION
The Introduction should contain material that provides a context for the project.
IL OBJECTIVES
This section contains a clear statement of the project objectives and when appropriate inclusion
of the objective criteria to be used. In this case objectives concern estimates and tests that
"drive" the study through determination of sample sizes, experimental designs, and/or sampling
designs. If sampling is involved in attaining an objective, objective statements begin with the
infinitives "to estimate" or "to test." Objective criteria are attached to each objective statement.
Por example: To estdmate the abundance of mature burbot in Lake Louise such that the estimate
is within l0% of the actual abundance 95% percent of the time.
Specification of obiective criteria when appropriate is of paramount importance; this is the
means by which appropriate levels of sampling can be determined. Other ways to specify
objective criteria aze acceptable just so long as they are understandable and unambiguous.
III. STUDY DESIGN
A. Experimental and/or sampline designs
Experimental and/or sampling designs used in the project are listed here and are linked to the
objectives of the project. A reference in the literature for each design should be included as well.
Terminology common to the statistical design of experiments and surveys is used. The number
and kind of strata, primary units, secondary units, tertiary units, clusters, experimental units,
factors, blocks, and/or sub sampling units are identified. Rationales behind the specific layout of
each design are given. If this rationale is based on analyses of data collected previously by this
project, that analysis is cited if published or included in an appendix if not. Sampling dates are
listed in this section, usually in a table or cited in an appendix.
u. Cvamplc SveS
Sample sizes are listed in this section, often, but not always, in the same table with sampling
dates. Literature is cited on the source of the preliminary statistics (variance, abundance, etc.)
that were used in the setting of sample sizes (if the source is informed professional opinion, a
"personal communication" is given). Any rationales behind modifying statistics to make them
relevant are described. Also, the literature is cited on the methods used to combine objective
criteria and preliminary estimates of variation and/or abundance to obtain sample sizes. If an
"unpublished" method to derive sample sizes was used, the method is described in an appendix.
Note that if the same sample is used to meet two or more objectives, the sample sizes to achieve
each objective are derived and the larger (or largest) sample is the one that will be taken,
References to other operational plans as published literature are not allowed.
C. Sampline methods
This section provides a description of sampling gear, the means by which it is used, and the link
between sampling effort and sample size. For instance, location of sampling gear, duration of its
application, size of sampling crew, and the amount of sampling effort expended per day can be
discussed here. Expenditure of sampling effort is linked to capture rates of "samples" to assure
that the sampling effort is sufficient to meet sampling goals. This link is based on information
from data previously collected or from other situations as cited in the literature or from personal
26
experience. The requirement for experimental permits issues by the appropriate agency should
be addressed here as well.
IV. DATA COLLECTION
This section contains a description of the data collected from each sample or experimental unit
and the protocols for collecting them (i.e., "all fish will be tagged", "scale samples will be taken
from each fish", "every fifth fish handled will be measured", "fish will be measured to the
nearest mm FL", "all fish will be anesthetized with MS-222", etc.). If a protocol is used that is
described in the literature, a citation is provided [i.e., "...three scales will be removed from the
preferred area of the body"]. Descriptions of sampling protocols developed specifically for this
or similar projects can be put in an appendix.
V. DATA REDUCTION
This section is a description of the path the data will take after they leave the "field." How the
data will be edited, how often they will be edited, on what media will the data be "captured" and
later transferred, what software will be used to store the data for analysis are all topics in this
section. Problems found in editing and transferring data collected last year are listed and
discussed along with their solutions for this year.
VI. DATA ANAL~i'SIS
Conditions necessary to obtaining unbiased tests and/or estimates and statistical tests that will be
used to detect if these conditions have been met aze listed and cited. Procedures that will be used
to correct tests and/or estimates for bias are also listed and cited. If no statistical tests of
conditions are possible, rationales as to why conditions will be met, why bias in estimates or tests
will be insignificant, or why changes in design will negate this bias are given.
All but the most basic equations behind the calculations in the analysis will be in this section.
All equations are consistent with the sampling/experimental designs listed in STUDY DESIGN.
Equations for the following statistics and tests are considered "most basic" and are not listed:
• Mean and variance of a normally distributed variable; and
• Any hypothesis test, including all ANOVAs.
All complex equations will be cited as to their source in the literature (i.e., equations describing
stratified, multistage sampling designs"). Citation of a spread sheet is not a substitute for
explicitly writing the equation. If statistics from this project are combined in mathematical form
y = f(x) to achieve a final product, the equations that comprise f(x) are included. All notations
aze defined.
This section should clearly identify how the data will be used to address the objectives. It should
list test hypotheses and how corresponding results would be interpreted. It should describe a
clear path from the data to the results to the objectives to provide a detailed rationale for the
proposed study design. It should include a clear vision for how results will be related to
management questions of interest. (E.g. If study results are X, then Y.)
VII. SCHEDULES AND REPORTS
This section contains a timetable of the milestone dates and activities for this project and a list of
the annual reports that will be published. Deadlines for sampling events and other field
activities, data compilation, and analysis, and report writing are listed.
27
VIII. RESPONSIBILITIES
All personnel involved in the project are named and their responsibilities listed in this section,
regardless of their affiliation.
IX. DETAILED BUDGET ANALYSIS
In this section provide a detailed description of the budget provided in the synopsis.
X. LITERATURE CITED
References to all citations to the scientific literature in the SYNOPSIS and DETAILED PLANS
are in this section.
28
APPENDIX B -PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Projects Approved and Forwarded by KRSA 2005
FAST TRACK
Kenai River Restoration Cost Share Project
The Kenai River Restoration Cost Share Project is a proactive financial incentive and
educational program that provides funding and technical project design assistance for public and
private landowners to sustain and enhance valuable salmon habitat in the Kenai River drainage.
Through pre-application consultation and onsite inspection, staff will educate landowners on the
components offish habitat, the value of that habitat and provide technical restoration design and
permitting assistance. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) with the cooperating
partner, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), will conduct a programmatic
approach to restore and sustain fish habitat on approximately 130 riverfront properties on the
Kenai River over the next four years. This project augments funding of the Kenai River
Restoration Cost Shaze Project originally started on the Kenai River in 1995. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) funded the initial Kenai River project from
1995 through 2000, and funded the geographic expansion to the entire Kenai Peninsula in 2003.
Using the funding from the Southeast Sustainable Salmon Fund (SSSF) and existing restoration
project selection criteria, the ADFG will continue an aggressive education program and the use
of financial incentives to private landowners, to sustain and enhance critical juvenile fish habitat
and ripazian functions in the Kenai River Drainage.
Kenai River Chinook Salmon Genetics Baseline Development and Testing
ADFG will collect baseline information to implement a genetic stock identification program for
Kenai River Chinook salmon. Chinook salmon that spawn in the mainstem and in tributaries of
the Kenai River will be sampled to develop a genetic baseline database. In subsequent years
Chinook salmon will be captured in the lower Kenai River to estimate and determine overlap in
the return timing of tributary and mainstem spawning fish. The baseline data will be added to
the coast-wide genetic database maintained by the Pacific Salmon Commission Chinook
Technical Committee.
Slikok Creek Fish Habitat and Angler Access Project -SSSF Funding
The Slikok Creek Recreation Site (SCRs) is an angler access site where the upstream and
downstream fishing access points are distinctly separated and isolated by Slikok Creek. The
SCRS has been an area of concentrated sockeye angling pressure that resulted in trampled
riverbank, increased erosion and decreased fish habitat on both the upstream and downstream
accesses. This project will construct bank protection grate walks and angler access stairways,
install cabled spruce trees revetments for fish habitat, bank protection and erosion reduction, and
re-establish bank vegetation for better riparian function, banks stabilization and fish habitat.
Specifically the following installations will occur:
29
sTaNVAxn T~ACx
In-stream Flow Protection for the middle Kenai River
Currently, the middle section of the Kenai River from Skilak Lake to Soldotna Creek is the only
section without an application for a reservation of water (also called an instream flow
reservation). An instream flow reservation is a legal water right for instream purposes. In
Alaska, a water right is a legal right to use surface or ground water under the Alaska Water Use
Act (AS 46.15). A reservation of water for instream use is a water right that protects specific
instream water uses, such as protection of fish and wildlife habitat, migration or propagation,
recreation, navigation, or water quality purposes.
Russian River Bank Protection and Kehabilitation Project
The Kenai -Russian River Access Area, within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR),
provides angler access to one of the major sport fisheries in Alaska and one of the richest areas
of archaeological resources on the Kenai Peninsula. The Russian River Ferry accommodates
approximately 35,000 anglers with an estimated 30,000 additional anglers accessing the site by
walking in from the Russian River campground and the Sterling Highway. The intensity of the
foot traffic results in impacts to the riverbank vegetation, riparian function, important fisheries
and native archaeological resources and increased erosion rates. This project will re-establish
bank vegetation for better riparian function, fish habitat and bank stabilization and protection of
native artifacts. The new vegetation will be protected with the construction of
interpretive/educational signage, angler access stairways and fencing.
Kenai Peninsula College Fish Habitat and Angler Access Project
The University of Alaska/Kenai Peninsula College (KPC) receives concentrated sockeye and
coho angling pressure resulting in decreased fish habitat, trampled riverbank and increased bank
erosion. The KPC closed access to their riverbank in June 2005 to reduce these impacts. Using a
variety of bank restoration and protection techniques, this project will provide improved fish
habitat, riparian vegetation, riverbank stability and reduced bank erosion. This project will also
n,•.
redirect aiigier access rrom the KFC property to trio enriarrcea mrrastructure ac me ~uxoK c.reex
Recreation Site (SCRs) by providing improved and safer access for the angling public.
Kenai Habitat Restoration Evaluation and Strategy
The Kenai River supports the most diverse, productive, and popular sport and personal use
fisheries in Alaska. Nearly two-thirds of the state's population lives within easy driving distance
and accessibility, services, and the world class Kenai king salmon fishery also attract anglers
from throughout the world. As a result, the Kenai and Russian Rivers are the most heavily sport-
fished waters in the state. Portions of the Kenai watershed have been subjected to intensive use
and/or developmental pressures.
The significance of use and development on Kenai salmon habitat and production are unclear
and controversial Habitat changes are small in comparison with those affecting many salmon
rivers outside Alaska but significant by Alaska standards. Local habitat impacts, particularly of
riverside development and bank angler access, are readily apparent. The cumulative scale of
habitat changes, their significance relative to large-scale habitat-forming processes in a dynamic
natural river system, and the importance of affected habitats to fish production have been
considered by a variety of studies over the years but a comprehensive assessment of current
conditions and effects is not available.
30
A wide range of habitat protection and restoration programs are underway in the Kenai system.
Many river bank restoration and protection projects have been completed as part of a state-
.. federal cost share program for local landowners and dedicated efforts by various parties. Large
expenditures for habitat protection and restoration have been made by local landowners, the State
and Federal governments, and other groups including the Kenai River Sportfishing Association.
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds dedicated to the Kenai and Russian rivers include over
$2 million in additional habitat work. Habitat protection and restoration on the Kenai has
historically been undertaken on aproject-by-project basis to address obvious problems and
capitalize on available opportunities. Many of the problem areas identified in past studies appear
to have been addressed and future priorities and needs remain to be determined.
This project will answer the questions: "What has been accomplished by Kenai River habitat
restoration efforts?" and "Where do we go from here? The project will summarize current
habitat conditions and problems based on existing information, evaluate habitat restoration
progress to date, describe implications for fish production, and identify a strategy for further
restoration and evaluation. The project will focus on the lower river between Skilak Lake and
the river mouth.
Evaluation of Culvert In,Jluence on Seasoual Movements of Juvenile Salmonids in a Kenai
River Tributary
Increased population and development on the Kenai Peninsula have resulted in increased road
construction with the concurrent installation of culverts within anadromous and resident fish
streams. Many culverts prevent or hinder fish movement from saltwater to freshwater and from
one stream reach to another. Culvert installations may have evolved to fish passage barriers
because of poor culvert design (slope, outfall conditions, water velocity, water depth) or through
inadequate culvert maintenance (debris blocking the culvert, sediment build-up within the
culvert). Preliminary results from three seasons of "rapid assessments" indicate a high
percentage (>70%) of culverts likely act as barriers to juvenile salmonid movement at some flow
condition. To better characterize juvenile fish passage, information is needed for streams whose
widths (< ~7m) dictate culverts as the most cost effective means of road crossing. Specifically,
more information is needed concerning 1) seasonal movement patterns of juvenile Salmonids,
and 2) how these movements relate to stream flow, particularly near culverts. These data would
be valuable to engineers when developing design criteria to improve juvenile fish passage at
culverts.
Passive integrated transponder (PIT} technology will be used to monitor juvenile salmonid
behavior near a culvert located at Slikok Creek, a tributary to the Kenai River providing
spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook and coho salmon. The study will assess fish
movements during two phases: 1) for the existing culvert (2006-2007) and 2) for the replacement
culvert (2007-2008). During each phase juveniles will be marked with PIT tags and released in
designated reaches of the stream upstream and downstream of the culvert. PIT antennae located
upstream and downstream of the culvert, and on each end of the culvert will collect information
on fish movement in the vicinity of the culvert and fish attempts (successes and failures) to pass
through the culvert. These movements will be compared to hydraulic conditions (flow, depth,
temperature) of the stream and culvert over time. Fish passage and hydraulic conditions for the
existing culvert will be compared with that of the replacement culvert to evaluate whether or not
juvenile fish passage conditions were improved. Results will provide better understanding of
culvert function relative to natural stream conditions and juvenile fish movement: 1) are older
culverts necessarily a barrier, as determined by current assessment criteria? 2) do new culverts
with improved design criteria significantly increase juvenile fish passage?
31
Kenai Raver Sockeye Salmon Inriver Abundance
A capture-recapture experiment will be conducted cooperatively between Commercial Fisheries
and Sport Fish divisions, and Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (CIAA), to estimate passage
(abundance) of Kenai River sockeye salmon at river kilometer (rkm) 31.4. For the
capture/marking event, Commercial Fisheries staff will capture sockeye salmon with fishwheels
at rkm 31.4 and mark them with either a passive integrated transmitter (PIT) or radio transmitter,
and clip the adipose fin as a secondary (external) mark. The fish will then be released. Some
marked fish will be sampled for age, length, and sex, and have the axillary process removed for
SNP (genetic) analysis. As a series of recapture events, Sport Fish staff will operate fishwheels
at rkm 45.3 and a weir on the Russian River and CIAA will operate a weir at the outlet of Hidden
Lake. Adult sockeye salmon captured at rkm 45.3 will be sampled to determine the proportion
of Kenai River sockeye salmon marked with a tag (PIT or radio) at rkm 31.4. The number of
sockeye salmon examined for marks and the number with an adipose finclip will be recorded.
Sockeye salmon missing the adipose fin will be detained and have either the PIT tag number
verified using a RFID (Radio Frequency Identification Detector) or radio frequency verified
using a receiver. The transmitter number/frequency will be recorded. A sample of fish will be
measured each week for testing assumptions of the capture-recapture model. Fishwheels at both
sites will be operated on both banks of the Kenai River to minimize any bias associated with
bank fidelity of marked or unmarked fish. At the weirs, all sockeye salmon migrating through
each weir will be counted. A RFID mounted near the opening of each weir will be used to detect
tag number of PIT-tagged fish. A radio receiver and data logger placed along the shore near
each weir will be used to detect frequency ofradio-tagged fish. Age, sex, and length data will be
collected at each weir.
Reconstruction of Upper Russian River Sockeye Salmon Late run
Harvested sockeye salmon will be sampled from the mixed-stock commercial, personal use, and
sport fisheries. The axillary process will be excised from each sampled fish. Axillary process
samples from the various fisheries and those collected at the Kenai River sonar and fishwheel
site at river kilometer (rkm) 31.4 will be sent to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Commercial Fisheries Gene Conservation Lab in Anchorage for SNP analysis. The
analysis will estimate the probability of whether the fish is of Upper Russian River or some other
Kenai River sub-stock origin by comparing its DNA with a baseline DNA database developed
from fish sampled from a large number of Kenai River sub-stocks. This analysis will be used to
estimate the proportion of Upper Russian River late-run sockeye salmon harvested by each
fishery and the abundance of this stock passing rkm 31.4 estimated by a companion capture-
recapture experiment. The contribution of Kenai River and of Upper Russian River late-run
sockeye salmon to each fishery will be estimated by multiplying the sample proportion by the
estimated total harvest. The sport harvest of Upper Russian River late-run sockeye salmon
upstream of rkm 31.4 will be estimated by subtracting the count of Russian River sockeye
salmon at the weir from the abundance of Upper Russian River sockeye salmon at rkm 31.4.
The sum of the estimated number of Upper Russian River sockeye salmon harvested in the
fisheries downstream of rkm 31.4 with the estimated number passing rkm 31.4 will provide the
necessary data to reconstruct the entire run. Age data collected from the fisheries and at rkm
31.4 will allow estimating age composition of the run.
Analysis of Size-Selective Kenai King Salmon Fisheries and Regulations
Kenai king salmon are among the premier sport fish in the world and are renowned for their
large size. Management of intensive sport and commercial fisheries has effectively maintained
32
spawning escapements at sustainable levels but instability and trends in size and age composition
are a source of significant concern among anglers and fishery managers.
Fishery exploitation is ideally spread evenly among all portions of a fish run. However, highly
selective fisheries may risk depleting some portions of the population. Decreasing trends in
returning numbers of large Kenai kings and increasing percentages of younger age classes could
reflect the effects of angler size selectivity for the larger fish. Anglers may currently retain only
two Kenai king salmon per year and frequently release smaller fish and keep big fish. As a
precautionary measure to address this trend, a size slot retention limit has been adopted to reduce
harvest impacts on the large 44-55" early run chinook. Size restrictions have not been enacted
for late run Kenai chinook. Considerations of size selective sport fisheries are also complicated
by high king harvest rates in size selective commercial fisheries.
ADFG has committed to a comprehensive assessment of Kenai king salmon management issues
related to trends in size composition, size selectivity of fisheries, and the unique size slot
regulation. This will ideally include an update of previous analyses as well as comprehensive
analysis of the management framework and assumptions underlying the slot limit regulation.
This contract is for technical assistance with this work by an independent scientist in order to
facilitate the incorporation of the full suite of management concerns by stakeholders and
effective communication of results back to the fishing community.
This project will evaluate current information on the effectiveness and assumptions of fishery
regulations designed to address size selectivity of Kenai king salmon fisheries. The Kenai
produces the largest king salmon in the world and this project addresses a concern that the
biggest fish in the run might have been selectively over fished by historic fisheries.
33
Call for Proposals
Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF)
Kenai River Watershed Projects
Pre-Proposal Due Date: May 31, 2006
Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA) is seeking habitat restoration, and salmon and habitat
research project proposals suitable for funding by the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF),
managed in Alaska through Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) as the Southeast Sustainable
.....Salmon Fund (SSSF). A portion of that fund has been dedicated for work on the Kenai and Russian rivers.
`RSA, in collaboration with representative land and fishery managers, has identified action and
,nformation needs for protecting salmon sustainability. You are invited to identify your interest and to
submit pre-proposals for use in the development of a list of potential projects to address the specific
objectives, action and information needs for the Kenai watershed.
Please find the following attachments to assist in your submission ofpre-proposals:
• Attachment A: "Kenai Priorities for Sustainable Salmon Fund Projects" is a narrative summary of
action and information needs for 1) habitat conservation, rehabilitation, and angler access, 2) fishery
research, and 3) habitat research;
• Attachment B: "Kenai Plan Framework" is a table outline of the weighted goals, objectives, action
and information needs;
• Attachment C: "Ranked Habitat Restoration, and Fish, and Habitat Research Goals" is a graphic
representation of the ranked information needs;
• Attachment D: "Funding Information and Evaluation Criteria" includes 1) funding information on
SSSF projects, 2) criteria to assist KRSA in evaluating habitat rehabilitation project proposals, and
3) criteria to assist KRSA in evaluating fish and habitat research project proposals.
For the Kenai River, nearly $2.6 million was allocated to fishery and habitat research projects last year.
There remains nearly $2.0 million to be allocated from the FFY 04-06 appropriations. For the Kenai, a
trtion ($500,000) of the available funds has been allocated to the habitat restoration Cost Shaze program
KENl~i i21~/Ei2 SP®RTFiSi-i11VG
ASSOCIATION
implemented cooperatively through ADFG and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Small to
moderate scale habitat protection and restoration projects will be referred to that program for further
consideration, while the large scale habitat protection and restoration projects will be considered through
SSSF.
Responses should include a cover letter expressing interest and apre-proposal of not more than three pages
which includes the following:
Project Title: Brief description
Affiliatiou: Organization or Agency
Objective Addressed: Specific objective, and action or information need as identified in
Attachments A - C by the KRSA strategic planning process
Subject: Fish species & work location (e.g. Russian River sockeye)
Approximate Cost: For the pre-proposal, ballpark estimates will do -detailed budgets will be
requested in full proposals
Proposed Approach: Brief summary of methods, materials, test hypotheses, analytical framework,
and direct application to KRSA objective
Deliverable Products: Results, reports, etc.
Schedule: Start and end dates including fieldwork where applicable and key
deliverables
Project Manager/
Principal Investigator List of key personnel with brief descriptions of experience and expertise
& Qualifications: specifically applicable to the proposed work
Partners: Include direct participants or others contributing resources. If this project
requires approval of a specific land manager please provide appropriate contact information and a
synopsis of their support for the project.
Cost Sharing: Includes substantive contributions of funds, in-kind or other resources
Pre-proposals will be evaluated and prioritized according to criteria outlined in Attachment D. Following
evaluation, a subset of projects will be selected for further consideration and those project investigators will
be invited to submit full proposals. Funding will be awarded to selected projects based on reviews of full
proposals. Funds are available for the period 2006-2008. Multi-year projects will be considered with out-
year funding contingent on annual results.
TIMELINE
Stage Projects starting in 2007
Call for pre-proposals 24 A ril
Pre-proposals & letters of
interest due to KRSA
~ 31 May
Committee review June
KRSA Board review June
Letter of notification June
Full proposals due 30 Se tember
Interest letters and pre-proposals are due by mail, email, or fax (262-8582) to KRSA by 5 pm on
Wednesday, May 31, 2006.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 262-8588 or ricky rr~kenairiversportfshin~.com. We look
forward to your interest and ideas.
nclosures:
Attachment A: "Kenai Priorities for Sustainable Salmon Fund Projects"
Attachment B: "Kenai Plan Framework"
Attachment C: "Ranked Habitat and Fish Goals"
Attachment D: "Funding i ~fo_~a_n_ation anri Fvai„ation Criteria"
Attachment E: Project Milestones and Timelines
Attachment A
~ ~_.
~=~- ~ STAINABLE
KENAI PRIORITIES FOR SiJ
,
T
SALMON FUND PROJECTS
KEN i RIVER SPORTfISHING
---ASSOCIATION
GOALS & PROBLEMS
Habitat Restoration and Research
Protection & Restoration -Shoreline development and intensive sport fishing can result in habitat
disturbance.
Extensive shoreline development and intensive recreational Fishing use which disturbs or damages
streamside and bank habitat can reduce habitat quantity and quality for fish. Projected future population
growth and developmental pressures will increase use and demands for land and water. Current angler
access is limited and can crowd anglers into small areas and concentrate habitat disturbances.
Inventory & Assessment -Influences of human and natural habitat disturbances on fish production
are unclear.
Our understanding of the relationships between human and natural habitat disturbance of stream banks and
shorelines, the relative contribution of angler use, and the significance of affected habitats to fish is not
adequate to accurately evaluate whether angling uses cause meaningful damage which warrants further i
restrictions or current habitat protection and restoration efforts are adequate or even necessary.
Several studies have inventoried the occurrence and nature of habitat disturbance (e.g. vegetation trampling
and bank sloughing) or studied human factors that might affect physical habitat conditions (e.g. boat
wakes). These studies have been variously represented as evidence of damage by sport anglers and
advanced as a rationale for further fishery restrictions, despite no direct or indirect evidence for significant
fish effect. It is unclear if angler use results in a significant effect on potential fish habitat, to what degree
observed conditions are natural or human-caused, or even what habitat is significant for fish.. Habitat-fish
relationships have proven to be extremely difficult to investigate in the Kenai system. Many studies might
be considered to examine various aspects of habitat condition, fish use, and human impact and more work
is clearly needed but additional work will have limited value unless it has direct application to effective
implementation of significant habitat protection and restoration measures.
Evaluation & Guidance -The benefits and long term effectiveness of various habitat protection and
restoration projects are unclear.
A variety of habitat protection and restoration approaches have been employed over the years and
significant effort and funds invested in these projects, particularly for stream bank restoration. Protection
and restoration practices have evolved over time but the relative effectiveness of different alternatives and
net value of all projects has not been evaluated. Fish benefits, project life spans, and cost effectiveness
have not been systematically compared. Concise guidelines or criteria for identifying and guiding
implementation of effective measures are not available.
Fishery Research
tanaQement Units -Failure to identify substocks in mixed fisheries risks overexploitation of those
shat are less abundance.
The single largest human impact on these fish is from fishing and current fishing rates are based on
assumed stock structure, run timing, and stock characteristics. Several recent studies in the Kenai and other
parts of Alaska have determined that fish runs are often comprised of a series of unique substocks that are
specifically-adapted to different areas. Fisheries are currently managed to meet run-specific escapement
goals which may be inaccurate if substock structure exists. Intensive and continuous fisheries might
disproportionately deplete some run segments where different stocks return at different times or more
vulnerable sizes. If some substocks are overfished, then specific spawning and rearing areas may be under
seeded which will reduce future returns and yield. Consistent over fishing of some substocks risks long
term sustainability.
This information might have a variety of implications for fishery management. Previously overlooked
stock structure might help explain a declining trend in numbers of large early run Kings. Kenai coho are
currently managed as one stock unit and the front part of the run is heavily fished by combined commercial
and sport fisheries during July and August. If these early coho go to different areas than later fish, then
lower fishing rates on later fish will not offset the high fishing rates on the early fish. Late run sockeye are
managed for Russian River and basin wide escapement goals although they return to two large lakes and a
variety of smaller systems. If sockeye destined for Kenai Lake rearing return earlier on average than
sockeye destined for Skilak Lake rearing, then one or the other systems can be under or over escaped
depending on the timing of the commercial fishery even where total escapement falls within the desired
-3nge
;hock Assessment- Inaccurate estimates of escapement may contribute to management errors
Management errors resulting in imprecise or inaccurate estimates of Chinook, sockeye, and coho
escapement can lead to unnecessary fishery restrictions or risk future sustainability. Inriver escapement
estimates based on sonar counts (chinook and sockeye) or other indices (coho) are fundamental to
developing sustainable escapement goals and managing fisheries to meet those goals. Errors in these
estimates can produce a cascade of problems in fishery management. In many cases uncertainty in
estimating numbers may dwarf the precision of other evaluations upon which fisheries are based.
For instance, estimated sockeye exploitation rates of 70-80% which are well above species norms could
suggest that the Kenai sockeye sonar is significantly underestimating actual numbers. Sockeye estimates
may be confounded by large numbers of pink salmon, difficulties in distinguishing individual fish during
large runs, or limitations in detection fields. Chinook estimates might be confounded by difficulties in
distinguishing small chinook from other species. Coho estimates are confounded by the protracted timing
and wide distribution throughout the system.
Fishery Factors -Data on stock composition and exploitation rates in fisheries are unclear or suspect.
In many cases, data on the impacts of commercial fisheries on specific runs and times and areas is not 1
adequate to accurately assess impacts. Catch allocations to stock of origin in commercial fisheries are
particularly suspect. Uncertainty in estimating stock composition and exploitation rates may dwarf the
precision of other evaluations upon which fisheries are based.
Commercial fisheries driven by a desire to maximize yields of Kenai and Kasilof sockeye continue to drive
UCI management at the expense of other species and fisheries. Commercial fisheries continue to take
disproportionate shares of Chinook and coho despite a sport fishery management priority for these species
and much greater economic values of the sport and personal use fisheries. Extended periods of commercial
fishing and unpredictable openers can seriously reduce meaningful and predictable in-river fishery
opportunities.
Productivity -Relationships between escapement, enhancement, and environmental factors as related
to production are unclear.
Effects and management implications of environmental factors such as turbidity and ocean conditions,
hatchery supplementation, and marine derived nutrients are highly uncertain. Interactions of lake turbidity,
escapement, and future production of sockeye have been a source of particular controversy in the Kenai
system with serious implications for fishery management. The sole hatchery program in the Kenai system
involves sockeye releases into Hidden Lake but the effects of this program on wild sockeye production and
fisheries have not been recently evaluated. Marine derived nutrients have been widely observed to have
significant impacts on productivity in other systems but their importance in glacial systems like the Kenai
and the practical applications to fisheries management are unclear.
Management paradigms -Current management focus may warrant adjustments based on new
information.
Alternative management paradigms and practices might more effectively address issues of fish allocation
among fisheries, large Chinook and coho bycatch in commercial fisheries, data limitations for developing
escapement goals of all stocks, and conservation issues related to escapement quality and stock structure.
° c E ~ ~ ° a.
L ° ~ ~ = E ~ ~ '^ o
Z ~~ ~ c y o R- 3 ~ = n o v ~ .°c
J .^• VL j F y~ ~ O' O C v Oil ~ Nn .w L C ~_ °
E° c CEJ " c> v tcJ s c v c m c G s ~_ d
.- U u o ° c> E .- ~ ~ L J u >` n5 y ~E ±• ° r w 'O W
°~ E ~ a o on st .-Ei ~ `° E x ~ m w ~ .~' .c ~ d1
ra s ~ E z'a .E w ~° ti v F E ~ _ _. v E ~ ~ f s ° ~ L '~ K o. {~
s N o N °' ,., c c E „-, .< ~~ L~ y a s w a 5 0 3 y '~I
=3 c s o
U O 9' O v N i V C~ R N r ~ OJ
a... Fti o._ ~E='d .. ~o ~,= ~T .'ily w.E .cE LL~E=~ ~ uv~~
as _E ~,- ~ m(~ v m ~ 'v' c ~ y c' v ~`::; v oq .a v °o = 9 a.. ~ E ~ a+ sr
y o c ep y v w v~ ~ `~ v v a o m'c o '~ a oo c E ~ v E E
8 c c >.w •o' am ~ a ~+ L 5 •- 'a o ~ _ E 3 ,E y v o s c F~ F.
vs ~ ~°Y~c ~'~`c6 Y c~c° ~ `v' ~s 'O :° u ~o .o ~c v> n°' ° ~ ~°v 'w~"
w v° ~' a° v ° c~ a c o - ~o a u 'o o ;~ ° ~ y;; o z K u l
~.2v Ztic-°'O -~¢s U° Z, .Ea D~ Z~',~ ~$~dz ro...v Z3 W2E ~VI
H N F SI N X01 N L( U N N (p .D V F W L y,
C ~ .N
_ _V C C T
° a n 'm
m~ o c v o6 ~, h ~ on ~ a o ,- ~ ~ °~! c .m c
$ Z c° °' n.E E.5 t v o o ~ u.y - a"-, _ ~ o o
A ~ _
~ c= u~~ _ .._ v _u . c .o E ~ E c Y .y a~ a.
~ `~C ti v, ~ o m c - u v1
. o ~=° E ~ ~` ° o'y + d u as c c o o ''c c E r '9 Z v. n
(~ ~ ~ °^ :d F a.v :o ~ ~.-..- h iy., ~ v pE, E u :_ .a E a c. ~ o aEi "O
~j `~ C =~ ° At R R N° "' R Na '3 O .O E ~ a E y F b
~y u y U° 1 Oy0 .F. ~~ J v°i C " u v C ~~ C 'd °~ L
V.cV ~~'' a.T ws'`m~ ~cm ~,~o v°c.E u,RE vc~`..~+
F
W€ ~ E~-° E o 0 2 E a v o c'G m%°'~ ~ c2 m'm$ b
h E ~v, v v~ c~ vu U~ '- E ~G c° .emu .o v c m O
v .L v m C v i a u c > v~ m '~ u~ .°.. Y c`' 'E ~ .o V
O~~ CGm ~o. ^L OEw Gmo wEH'S, Q°~ WEwO
N M N - N
~ u I~ c
c c
L -in v O N v.
Tn 6 vi = ma y .~ I V p y0 J V ~w
N V~ y i w U E~ L °
V° Eu' ~~ a 'J = E E c `~ 'v ~ °o cEn w m c va O
F c d C y O OU ~ .o C 'O ° m u
~ ~` c ~~ ,c, oEvn ° .~ v m~ ~ E v '" :c c E ° `~ v .°o y .E s
V/ .L` o d m ~ L' Ora o c y~ o p y m v °° c E p~ Yn
^fy E v v ~ v x ti ;n v A E °`, n~ ~° '•,~ k c° w
~G.d~at ~ [C ._' ~~LO. U, vg DC u~ ~ ~ C[1U E o o,C~.'
I w
c o o e o C
E. ~
° a
v€oo
~w~E w
s S E y O
~ u ~ ~ ~ ~
'~ °? ~ ~ c .R Qa
w°" E ~= s° ri..
-. ° w° ~ w y
L
v b®
0
N
0
~I
bA
a
y
O
7~.
Y
3
L y G 1 ~
- ~ 4 p J «. e~i " t0 ~~ C n G ~
., N ? R .~ G° r G
y^ 4 Ll. aYi ~ ~ ti V O .E '° ~ y _ ~ E u ~ L COj C 9_ ~ C C v
E ,i. V ~i r 6 Cn L~ U 4vi _ _ 6f u.
~ G~ n c ~ o ~ > 'c ~., U D c ~ ,.. E c
a
.Q `3! „ s ._ y : '~ r ~ E q ° A c ~ ~ ~ ~ .E 'c .. ~ ~ .E ~'OV ~ ,ZS ~ E o c
~~s E " n_° m ~ E cu on c` '.,^ n c '~ ''-~, ° = >_ ':s on ~ u `~ ~ `c > c `~ `o Z' s ~o u v
F-. e"'i y n G p v t O C u v`=~ o '~ C a 9 J ~ C "' h~ =~ '~ E' O N O v V .~V. ~~ O` h
o D o 6 C '.: ° L V V .n V G' n 'O C V G m a V ^0 C O a '.'. ` E R V~ 9' .+
_ E y yn E ~ C
~° E ._ o .5 wo ~~~ en a o "c m~ E o 'E B o a ~ 3? y y `~
~ o o E ,., _ ~ C U c o ~ D c C v
in U V ~ G^ N V~ O u" G. C 9 ~ ~! C G j v° eCi .3E iG'J .~ 'G' O q~ n=j ~ V iJ ^u
c~~ "Y-..' n ~ .~ ~ _~ ~.` c off" G ~ E ai y ~ °' ~ u o m L ~°> v Y
E N V e! n 6 d Cn G C> > G N A ,0 ~~ 0' E N G C~ 9 2 L C 0. V a V O
} F f v~ Q o~ G 'O 'O 'O '6 V W 'O n D C O u .:` GI L y ~ L C= r R 4 0. DR
N 6 V ~ N O .N E 'O L p+ m M O N 9
® ° ~ S c m ~ ° E 'E, a o ° r ~ ° ° ~ ~ g c ~ ~` E .= `n3 L 3 c .~ ~ 'a y ~ o
w a ~''-' o > a L v v °v .c c i °v - y v 'o ~ a ~ c ° eci c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ eein .E n E
Z Z,~Z "Z 3Z y Z c /: a'Z v Z Z Zw ~ Z,c C c° c 3 °~ ¢' Z Lcu E ,E a'~ € m
1~9 R .D U ':.t R R .D I 0 R N N A U Rt 4 L V tO A
~~ u
O
G R V
f >T i
N V U L L ~ ~. N ~ J w F C
E i, a v. L ~ ~ ~ o~ ``c, m ~~ r .°
c y n w
Ro ° m `° s e'n L ° v E ~ ° o. o
~.. m n a `v a! v U ~ti Y ~ n m ~~ 'c
c o ,c ~ oo .VC m~ v ,~ v v nn ~
° _ .°~. - " .mod °"' .°. u a .~ '° ~ c c
'' ~: v .. m a E '~ y ~'~. C o t',~'n
~••~ v ~'' o 'E £ n E 4 m o m 'c o ... °
NO°~ 0.v L V Ly, 'G Nm °S'C ~wC
h 'n o ~ v ~ 0 0 0 ~ v ~ ~ e. mz o a'm " ° c
® ^ N - N M d' N M C
~ C O O C O O O O O
O O O O O C O O O O
I 1 I
e°i m aj ~ m
~ q.g c onD ~' s v
E
s H ~ g m
a € ~ ° ~ 'o c 4 ° E'" o
C~ oq o N ~ y v 2 L a '-
~ a5-° ~~ c x'u as dl `oEv'
c ~ L ~
~y ° v c u v o E c> ~~ ~r v
as ~ W '~ $. o. a y c d ~~ L e o
a°po rv
c e o
y~
v c . c
~.E c °
~ t 'c v E
~ E v s° ~
~1I ~ y 0 u 4
~y ~ > t C.y .;:.
® C~ `R .D 6 .V.. ro t
~J N EY ~ 3 Hc=. N.
W
O
N
N ~
T O
O Q"
Attachment C.
InformationiAction Needs for Fisheries Goal
Accurate coho sport ~ commercial catch &
composition estimates
Good basic data on chinook stock composition
Distribution of major coho spawning areas
Upgrade chinook sonar w hen better technology is
feasible
~termtine d current management provides adequate
coho protection
Understand & estimate coho population entry patterns
Estimate Kena/Russian sockeye smolt production
Synthesize GSI & other data to determmne w hether
run portions differ
Collect & synthesize environmental data from
unpublished sources
Baseline annual temperature & flow in tributaries 40
relate to substocks
Understand MDN baseline in the Kenai w atershed
Identify freshwater limiting factors affecting
production of sockeye
Examine efficacy of regulatory approaches for
chinook management
Evaluate effects of shrinking wetlands on coho
Re-evaluate factors related to sockeye productivity
Meeting to explain & discuss coho management
approach
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Priority
Information/Action Nexds for Habitat Goal
Examine fish passage before & after culvert replacement
Evaluate use of the estuary & effects of loss
Evaluate sites before & after restoration
'. Develop access at identified sites
Identify sites critical to life stages
', Document presence/absence in tributaries at dsk
Need culvert design standards
Incorporate expertise on hydrology & engineering
', Restore degraded sites for willing owners
', Collect data & process flow applications for at-risk tributaries
', Identify extent of critical rearing habitat near spawning grounds
'~. Examine Tong range rates of change & development
What is significance of shoreline disturbance to juveniles
'. Assess habitat restoration progress
', Document Chinook juvenile movement & habitat use
Workshop to discuss & document baseline habitat
Integrate watershed into cumulative effects model
Assess effectiveness/compliance of permitting system
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Priority
Attachment D: Funding Information and Evaluation Criteria
~~.~ ~~ FUNDII~TG IIvTFORMATION A1~1D
KENAI~RIVERSPORTFISHING EvALUaTIO~r CRITERIA
_ ............. ASSOCIATION ....___.._._..
FU1~1III1~G I~iF®RIVIATION
1Cenai/Russian River FFY 04 -FFY 06 Earmarks
through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
(Managed in Alaska through ADFG as the Southeast Sustainable Salmon Fund, or SSSF)
FFY 04 -Kenai River watershed: $2,000,000 at appropriation
$1,911,709 following rescission, performance reporting tax, and
3%ADFG administration
FFY 04 -Russian River watershed: $1,000,000 at appropriation
$955,854 following rescission, performance reporting tax, and
3%ADFG administration
FFY 05 -Kenai River watershed: $1,000,000 at appropriation
$956,949 following rescission and 3%ADFG administration, but
not performance reporting tax (that amount is as yet unknown)
FFY 06 -Kenai River watershed: $750,000 at appropriation
$727,500 following rescission and 3%ADFG administration, but
not performance reporting tax (that amount is as yet unknown)
Information on SSSF Projects
Funding: These are capital appropriations with a 5-year life. Projects are set up utilizing the State's
fiscal year, July 1 -June 30. In general, SSSF money-since the source of funding originates with the
Federal government-cannot be used to match other federal money as per federal policy.
Cost Reimbursement: This is acost-reimbursable process. A minimal amount of planninglstart-up
monies may be advanced if receiving entity has no other financial resources.
Project Set-up: The process begins with a Statement of Work (including line-item budget) and a
Project Approval Form (templates of both enclosed and available electronically) that are provided to
the ADFG Commissioner for approval in order to assure responsible use of public monies. From the
time we receive an acceptable SOW we are generally able to gain the necessary project approval and
set-up within a couple of weeks. Exceptions to this are when seeking to contract for work with a
federal agency, and/or for all FFY 04 funds forward, approval for certification of compliance with the
.National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The first requires approval by NMFS in D.C. and
requires about a two to three week approval turnaround. It will require review by NMFS, Alaska
Region and NMFS in D.C. Upon completion of project set-up, a contract or cooperative agreement is
prepared; once it is signed and returned to us for our signature, the project is ready to get underway.
Reporting: There is semi-annual reporting and performance metrics requirements associated with this
funding. The performance metrics will be provided when the project is approved because they vary by
project type.
Tndirects: Because of the intense scrutiny on the uses of this fund by Congress and others, we strive
for as low an indirect rate as possible. As noted above, in order to administer these funds, ADFG takes
a 3% indirect. and KRSA has a 0% indirect. In our MOU with NMFS, we have agreed to keep
indirects as low as possible. Indirects above single digits are thoroughly scrutinized and will only be
approved with adequate justification.
Project Contact: All non-ADFG projects will be assigned an ADFG project contact. This person will
be responsible for approving payment of billings, securing project reports from the project manager,
and acting as a liaison with the SSSF staff.
Project Revision: Because it is almost impossible to foresee everything, project amendments are
possible. Time extensions and budget revisions (as long as they don't exceed available funding) may
be approved upon written request to the Department.
Project Closeout: A project is considered closed when the final report or deliverable is received.
Accountability: If selected, you will be receiving public funds. Given that, you, KRSA and ADFG
have a responsibility to provide the best product possible to the public. We expect you to provide
documentation proving expenditures presented for reimbursement. Please also be aware that because
the PCSRF is the largest conservation appropriation that NMFS receives, it is under much scrutiny by
the public, Congress, and the federal Office of Management and Budget. It is also important to
understand that we are unable to fund "proprietary information" with public funds.
CT2ITEIaIA TO ASSIST KTiSA Ili EVALUATING HABITAT
RESTORATI01>i PROJEC'T' PROPOSALS
To evaluate habitat rehabilitation project proposals, KRSA has adapted ADF&G's decision matrix that
has a proven record of utility. The modified matrix has 16 weighted criteria that are scored against
elements on a 0-4 scale. The score is multiplied by the weight and these products are then summed
across criteria to give each proposal a total score that can be ranked across proposals.
Weight = 5 Weight = 4 Weight = 3 Weight = 2 Wei ht = 1
i. Quality of fish 4. Protects native 10. Provides 12. Reasonable 14. Stabilizes
habitat in project area ve etation native vegetation cost bank
2. Protects fish 5. Provides fish 11. Includes 13. Education 15. Uses multiple
habitat habitat partners op ortunity techni ues
3. Integrates with 6. Improves fish 16. Benefits
before & after passage adjacent property
habitat research
7. Removes
harmful structure
8. Likelihood of
success
9. Provides boat
and/or bank
angler access
These evaluation criteria will be used for large scale public projects on both the Kenai and Russian
rivers. Suitable small and medium scale projects for the Kenai River will be funneled through the Cost
Share program jointly administered by ADF&G and USF&WS, and will make use of their program
criteria.
~'RITEIA TO ASSIST I~RSA IN EVALUATING FISH AND
HABITAT I2ESEARCII PR®JECT PR®POSALS
To evaluate fish and habitat research proposals, recommendations for funding will be based upon eight
weighted criteria, scored on a 0-4 scale:
1. Strategic Priorities (weight = 5)
Should address priority objectives or information/action needs of the strategic plan.
2. Conservation Mandate (weight = 5)
Degree to which proposal addresses a fishery that is intensely managed because there is a conservation
risk to species and populations that support sport fisheries.
3. Allocation Conflict (weight = 5)
Degree to which project results would resolve or lessen conflict, e.g., through greater understanding,
helpful modifications of existing methods or techniques, etc.
4. Data Gaps (weight = 5)
Amount of information available to guide management. A higher priority is given when a lack of
information exists, and project results will answer a lot of questions.
5. Technical-Scientific Merit (weight = 4)
Technical quality of the study design must meet accepted standards for data collection, analysis, and
reporting. Studies must have clear objectives, appropriate sampling design, and correct analytical
procedures. Judgments in this regard will be deferred to ADFG Sport Fish Division's biometrics
section.
6. Past Performance-Administrative Expertise (weight = 3)
Investigators and their organizations must have demonstrated technical and administrative expertise to
complete projects, or have co-investigators or appropriate partnerships with other organizations to
...eet all requirements of the study.
7. Partnership (weight = 2)
Studies partnering with other funding sources or other ongoing projects may be more efficient in using
resources and thus more cost effective.
8. Public or political concern (weight = 2)
Proposal concerns a high profile fishery, with many participants.
Following proposal evaluation, KRSA will use an optimization process to find the combination of
projects that provides the most information and benefits for the given cost, without exceeding the
amount allocated to fish and habitat research. This step in the selection process considers project cost,
and whether proposed resources will be used in a cost-effective manner.
Attachment E: Project Milestones and Timelines
Strategic Plan Development
Facilitated strate is planning process Mar 2006
KRSA identify and rank oals and objectives Mar 2006
Stakeholder worksho to identify and rank information needs Mar 2006
Identify project evaluation criteria Apr 2006
Complete Strategic Plan Report includin information priorities Apr 2006
Proposal Solicitation & Selection, 2006
Letter soliciting interest and pre-proposals 24 April
Pre-proposals due 31 May
KRSA review & rank pre-pro owls to identify candidate projects June
KRSA Board review of candidate roject list "
Selected candidates invited to submit formal ro owls & work Tans "
Letter of notification for unsuccessful applicants "
Detailed Project Proposals/ Operational Plans Due 30 Se t
KRSA policy & technical review of proposals & work plans November
Proposal and work plan revisions as identified by KRSA &ADFG ' December
Project a royal by KRSA Board, forward to ADFG Jan 2007
Project contract forms submitted to ADFG for contractin Feb 2007
Program Implementation & Reporting
Pro ram overview summary Jul 2006
Written project progress reports to KRSA (key activities & findings) Annual
Written roject progress re orts to ADFG Annual
Program workshop with project prese:,tations and stakeholders i r1n,-Iiidi
Draft final project re orts to KRSA As avail.
KR5A &ADFG review and comment on draft reports As avail.
Final project reports published (agency technical report or ublication) As avail.
KRSA final program report synopsizing results of all projects Jun 2010
E-i
Suggested by: Planning and Zoning
CITY OF KENAI
ORDINANCE NO. 2158-2006
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AMENDING
THE OFFICIAL KENAI ZONING MAP BY REZONING LOT A-1 AND LOT A-2, BARON
PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 6, FROM SPLIT-ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (IL) AND
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ONLY.
WHEREAS, the property contains approximately 14.279 acres and is currently split-
zoned both Light Industrial and General Commercial; and,
WHEREAS, rezoning the property would enlarge an adjoining zoning district; and,
WHEREAS, Section 14.20.270(b)(2) of the Kenai Municipal Code allows areas
containing less than one acre to be rezoned if its zoning amendment enlazges an
adjacent zoning boundary; and,
WHEREAS, the property is owned by the City of Kenai; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai has approved an application for a retail development;
and,
WHEREAS, the General Commercial and Light Industrial zones allow for retail
development; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2006 the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission voted
unanimously to rezone the parcel.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA that the official Kenai Zoning Map is amended by rezoning Lot A-1 and Lot A-
2 Bazon Park Subdivision No. 6 from being split-zoned both Light Industrial (dL) and
General Commercial (CG) to being zoned solely General Commercial (CGj.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 3~d day of May,
2006.
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
Amended & Introduced: April 19, 2006
Adopted: May 3, 2006
Effective: June 3, 2006
:~-,:?~:' CITY OF KENAL
~-~ ~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
'- RESOLUTION NO. PZ06-24
rh«ryoF REZONE PERMIT
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAivNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
KENAI RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE KENAI CITY COUNCIL OF THE
REQUESTED REZONING SUBMITTED BY
NAME: RICK R. KOCH CITY MANAGER, CITY OF KENAI
ADDRESS: 210 FIDALGO AVENUE KENAI AK 99611
LEGAL: Lot A-1 and Lot A-2 Baron Park Subdivision No 6 as shown on Attachment A
PARCL-L #: 04336030 and 04336031
WI-IEREAS, the Commission finds the follo~i~ing:
I. The subject property is currently zoned Split "Coned (General Commercial & Lieht Lldustriall
2. The present land use plan designation is AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL.
3. The proposed zoning district is GENERAL COMMERCIAL
4. An appropriate public hearing as required was conducted on Aoril 12, 2006
5. That the fpli~~xr,ng addEtlonal facts ha.'e been found tv eniSt: NCne
6. Applicant must comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
of Kenai that the petitioned REZONING of Lot A-I and Lot A-2 Baron Park Subdivision
No. 6 as shown on Attachment A is hereby recommended to the Kenai City Council.
PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
KENAI, ALASKA, April 12, 2006.
CHAIRPERSON. -~.ll~c':- C~(~ ~L ATTEST ~,~~ C~:cr1
E-~-
Suggested by: Councilor Swarner
CITY OF KENAI
ORDINANCE NO. 2159-2006
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, ENACTING
KMC 7.40 TITLED "GRANT ADMINISTRATION," WHICH ADOPTS PROCEDURES FOR
THE ADMINISTRATION OF GRANTS BY THE CITY OF KENAI.
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai does not currently have a set of rules and procedures
regarding the administration of grants: and,
WHEREAS, loss or liability to the City of Kenai from grant administration may occur
from administrative costs, loss of interest income, ineligible expenditures, and a
grantee's failure to perform; and,
WHEREAS, adopting standard grant administration procedures can reduce the loss or
liability to the city for grant administration; and,
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Kenai to adopt KMC 7.40.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA that KMC 7.40 is adopted as shown on Attachment A.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 3*d day of May,
2006.
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
Introduced: April 19, 2006
Adopted: May 3, 2006
Effective: June 3, 2006
7.40 GRANT ADMINISTRATION
7.40.010 Purpose.
(a) The purpose of this chapter is to set forth the procedures for handling pass-through grants,
which are governed by AS 37.05.315. The procedures are designed to minimize any liability or
loss to the city which may arise from administering said grants, while at the same time
maximizing the amount of said grant funds going to the purposes of the grants.
(b) Loss or liability may arise out of the following: administrative costs, loss of interest income,
ineligible expenditures, and the grantee's failure to perform. Most administrative costs can be
determined soon after the completion of construction or of the grant project. Ineligible
expenditures can be determined only after a state audit. A grantee's failure to perform can only
be determined after a term equal to the practical life of the facility constructed with the grant
funds.
7340.020 Definitions.
(a) "Administrative costs" means the costs to the city of administering the grant
(b) "Grant" means all grants to or administered by the city, to include without limitation, a state
grant governed by AS 37.05.315, other state grants, federal grants or other grants; provided,
however, the term "grant" excludes all grants for which the recipient or administering agency is
prohibited by law from retaining or taking an administration fee.
(q) aa(7YaAt agrv_r_manY' meang the CC.^.traet doc'.:.ment, iaaeiud'a:g but nvt limited to iuicS,
regulations and laws, pertaining to the grant between the city and the grantee.
7.24.030 General provisions.
(a) The city council may authorize the mayor or city manager to enter into grant agreements with
grantees which set forth the terms and conditions of the grant and its administration.
(b) The grant agreement with a grantee shall set forth all terms and conditions for administering
the grant including but not limited to scope of work, payment and process schedule, State of
Alaska Municipal Grant Agreement, and such security devices as are deemed reasonable by the
city manager.
(c) Grant funds are not to be disbursed until the city and grantee have entered into a grant
agreement.
Ordinance No. 2159-2006 Page 1 of 2
Attachment A
7.40.040 Grant administration fee schedule.
(a) To administer grants, the City may retain fees from the grant funds computed as follows:
Grant Amount Base Amount % Fee
$ 0 - $ 10,000.00 $ 0 +10% $
$ 10,001.00 - $ 50,000.00 $ 1,000.00 + 8% over $ 10,000.00
$ 50,001.00 - $100,000.00 $ 4,200.00 + 6% over $ 50,000.00
$100,001.00 - $150,000.00 $ 7,200.00 * 4% over $100,000.00
$150,001.00 - $200,000.00 $ 9,200.00 + 2% over $150,000.00
$200,001.00 - Upward $10,200.00 + I/2%over $200,000.00
(b) If the City Manager determines that administration of a specific grant will place extraordinary
burdens upon the City, a higher administrative fee maybe charged with authorization of the City
Council if in compliance with the terms of the grant.
Ordinance No. 2159-2006 Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
E-3
Suggested by: City Council
CITY OF KENAI
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AUTHORIZING
THE AMENDMENT OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT TO EXCLUDE ALL
ELECTED OFFICIALS, EFFECTIVE MAY 3, 2006.
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai wishes to amend the agreement dated July 1, 1969 to
exclude all elected officials effective May 3, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA, that effective May 3, 2006, Subparagraph 2 on Page 2 of the Participation
Agreement be amended to read as follows:
2. The political subdivision agrees that all eligible employees
except in the following designated category will participate
in the Retirement System:
All Elected Officials
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this third day of May,
2006.
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
Approved by Finance:
(4/21/06) clf
MEMO DUM
To: Chuck Kopp, Acting City Manager
From: Larry Semmens, Finance Director
Date: January 10, 2006
Subject: PERS for Elected Officials
Representative Seaton recently published his analysis of the cost of PERS
for elected officials. The results are quite surprising. He estimates the
entity's total liability to be over $434,000 for an elected public official that
vests after 10 years of service and retires to collect benefits for 22 years.
The majority of the liability is generated from the medical benefit provided
by PERS. Representative Seaton estimates this to be $368,545, but could
range upward to $450,000 depending on variables.
The PERS system seeks to accumulate sufficient assets while an employee is
working to pay for benefits paid out over the term of retirement. Employees
must contribute 6.75% of salary in addition to what the employer pays.
Since council members have a relatively low salary, the amount that they
pay into the system is also relatively small. The employer must make up the
difference in the total cost of benefits and the amount the employee puts in.
In the case of council members the City will have to put in over $13,000
annually such that there would be about $200,000 available at the end of 10
years using the PERS earning assumption of $.25%.
One other aspect of elected officials participating in PERS is that if a city
council member ever works for a PERS employer in a regular salaried
position, the cost of the pension benefits will be apportioned strictly by the
number of years of service at each employer. For example if a council
member served for 12 years (at a low salary) then went to work for a PERS
employer (at a high salary) for 4 years, the City would be liable for 75%
(12/16) of the pension liability. Depending on the salary level the City could
incur greater liability than would be for just the 12 years of City
employment.
The cities of Seward and Hamer have opted elected officials out of PERS.
w
0.
.~
R
~v
w
b
~0+
.-fir
(.7a
O
W
C
O
N
.~
W
b
w
.~
y
W
N
N
N
C
N
L
C
T
C
c
R
a
C
G
N
N
C
ti
O
U
E
M
c
U
a
c
0
.n
E
O
N
~ ~
Q
O ca
N .~
C N
y U
C ~
~ C
,p O
.a
~ ~
E
4 ~
Yi W N
O C O
E ~
E E •`-'
~Y
.~
.~
c
y
A
O
r
N
d
C
R
°~'
O
N 3
x
O
oq "
c v
.? s
9 w
N =
o v
~~
cC~ ~
A
iC E
~ ~
.C E
v
~~ K
L
p C
O O
~ ~
.fl ~
'U-' U
~ ti
V) ~ a
Tm Q
U
.~
h
w
O
N
G
C
N
.n
4'.
c
m
M
O
w
N
O
0
E
O
i..
a
of
G
R
~'° ~
fy' ~
~] ~O
m ~
~U
~+.'
r/] O
~ ~
® d
L O
Q ~
N
Q ~
C~
O ~
y
C
O
N T 00 Q\ ~
C _
~ ~ - Vn N .a
D
0 to ~ r
`
~
O~ v M
M M 7
y
C
O i
~ ~ V
I
C - U N
~ ~ a
n ~
ODD
N
O '=s EN r
N
N r
N
..
C *µ
~ ~ #
d
.O U
y y
~ ~ ~
O 0 > w N ~ ~ ~
E- 4- O O .~ M ~ r1 t'~1
w w
y O
O ~ Q.
•
~ ~ y y
_ U '-
C ~ m
• iF
a
~ O iF
n- w
•- O iF
-- w
-- O'
C ~- y U
0 0
t~1 v1 .
N C'
by C y .~ N ~~ h W W ~-~.
O i N
O ~ 00 r1 N~ N ~
. .
y
C
O
•
N
O G
~ d
N Y
•
cC0 ~ e O+
O ~O
oc o0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn
O ca . +~, vi a\
c
~ .~
O~
h ~
~O
~ ~ N N d:
Q n ~n o0
N
~
~.. E-
V
T ~ T 4.
M bA ~
:D ~O Vl 00
_
S L ~ 7 M 09
W)N.~ N _
~
~v~O
N _
7
O
i
® o e
a
_ ~ y
°'
'
~ a d ~
$° ~ ~o ~
U .U ~ O '00 O O
] H m ~
4 O Lt bD V1
v
.C
C
R >
Y t
y y
4
C ~
C
'y G
v tv
7
N ~
V
~ 6
L ~
4. ~
cC
a
~ c
t
U `~
`v
o ~
o ~
~ ~
y
O ~
b
~ U_
O
_.
0 y V~1
G N
~ R c
U c c
y > U
~ O C
o`
'C N
c ~ ~c
O C ~
y C
aai >
_ c ~ c
c0 U O O
Q y O R
J ._ p" N
O a, ~ >
V p O O
~ U Q. }
E E ~ E"
O ~a+
R ~ CM
U
R m ~'
O O ~ J
C > ~ N
~ G Z
~ ~
~V= O
U a~ Q
R
5 ~ :.' N
o~a~ z
C £ d
". " U
O ~ r ~
~ ~ ~ O
y
0 .~
N O
:a
.~ ~
,d,
- ~
W cc 7
O ~ ~
y
Q ^
~- N
T ~ N
~
~ ~ V T
, ~
h
0
~U
O ycN
O • ~ E u 0
M
C y
~_ R r
O.
S1 U
y y
P ~ ~
Y ~ ` L
O ~ > <.. N ~
~
(- ~- C O r1
N
y ,=" O
O L N T
'w ~ ~ N
y
N
Ct~ ~ {F
#
_
_
C O O O
~
C N 0 0
O Q. Q ly.. ~ N
y C
C. •N
O C
A a
N ~
C ce - O
W C ~
° O
o
O ~ •--
c
.y
C ~
Q C. a O
t~1
R
~
?~ y'
H1 Cp
R
~
~
~ ~ O
~
C
O
C
.O y
o O .~
•..c
~
a ~ o
~
.R F
N
V C
}U
^
O ~ O
O V
.
e
0
~ y
~. ~
C ~
U c
N
c64 O
O u
~ ~V
C rte.'
O
L ~w
V T
c~V N
Q a
O a
U
.~
E
O
.D
O
C
•C ~
yVI ~
O ~
~ ~
U O
~ ~
4. C
O :O
~ ~
>, ~ ~
C.a Uo
O
.C¢ y0
O .= y O
V
~ ~ O ~
N ~ y ~
N ~ E ~
. 'y
~ •~ ~ ~
y ~ O G
E!+~o~°
E
C ~ C ~
O
'N V N
~ \ a~
~~ ~,~a
o~~sa~
E o ~
'E := ~ ~ ~
R M w 6.
W
0.
.~
R
U
w
Q
b
W
O
W
~'
~ll
1~1
L"
O
N
.~
O
bLp
O
b
C~
G
.N
W
C
C
t
a
i
G:
a
c
a
6Y
w
EJ
~"' >
a °
~ ~
Q a
~d
Z R
L
d ~'
N ~
OWN/
® W
. i
~
o
'
~ -
.O
~
C e 'w
~O ~
T M
h
`a 7 7 l~
0
b0 is ~ O+ .a
O ~ O
N N
N ~
N
~ N
C
O ~.
~ h
~ e(
~
~ N b
~ A 'Y V j,
~ M M M
Oq .p
5 ~' ~g Y N
O . E ~ N
a` N
o+ N
rn
a ~, ~ »
w
S = ~, n.
~.`v~w v 'N- ~n w ~n
~- ~_ = a`~i v v v
`~ E ` ~ `
~
N
O
w
N o0 00 o0
:E°
O O M M M
i ~.,
I Tw ~
H = ® ~
~ p ~ ~ >.
'...~ A.
N
N Cw.... •
ht e
Nit ~
h w
~ '
C ~ "~ N ~ N M N
~
~C ~ = M
~O~ M M
h~ ~O \O
~O
I O Q O v
i ,~, y~j M O ~/'1 ~
y s
o '~
'Y C
N O. ~
C ~ ~
7 •- h
~ M
7 ~
~n
~ O A
~~
O vi ~O n
w
c
~
~
C
n
~ N N
Ce C ~ O
Q ~. N N N
N
T
v
~
b ~ ~
~ y
W
~
M bUiD V'1 OUA O ® 7
~ ` s ~ O
C O o0
dq y,~y ~ O
_
~
~' ~ v
~
f
C 7 Vl 6S
o
. ''
0
=
'tip
y
~
F'° ~
O
O
•
G
U~ O Q O ~ ~
y •~ ~ O O a`i •v .`" aEi
a~ ~
'E E ~
b a~ N >
O
d O ~
v
S~ VT (n Q
c
O
N
v
O ~
~y
Y ~ d
~ ~
C v
O
r
~ U
>_
N 'a
R O
b
.
O N
L
~ ~ T
`,. ° ~
•- o 'o
J
® ~ ~
~°
.~ V
e C d
C =
m ~
O
U
~
~
~
a"C. 6.
O N W
Q
a N
a ~ P
Um o0
>
~ ~
~
O ~
O ~ tC
C ~ .~C
_
Q ~
UC N `C
•
a o
c ~
U
B N 4 U
~
J .= p °
O ~ ~ a
i
~
Ni
U p
O 4.
O
R U
E E ~
'~
~
o
U
m c
~ `v ~
N
N ~ C ~ R
~
C> R
U
0 ~
~ O O O
\
~ r]i !:' ~ ~O .p ctl L
~ °b' = I I goo it E
~
~ ^ N
C'p ro
U ..
~0~
.
~ ~ ~ O Q
O ~N ctl ~ n h h N=
Cep ,~c>
0~ 9 L L b 6.
~ ~
=
~ ~ o ~
# M _
_ (~
.
hFE-F- b O
Om .
:
p„
KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 18, 2006
PAGE 2
Council Member Moore MOVED for approval of the agenda as amended and Council
Member Massie SECONDED the motion.
MOTION TO AMEND:
Council Member Boyle MOVED to amend the agenda removing Item E-5, Resolution
No. 2006-02. Council Member Swarner SECONDED the motion.
Council Member Boyle explained he believed council was lacking information on which
to base a good decision and suggested it would be more appropriate to bring the
matter before council during budget work sessions with the discussion of PERS.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT:
*Student Representative Krusen: Yes
Mollo Yes Bo le Yes Porter Yes
Moore Yes Swarner Yes Massie Yes
Ross Yes
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
VOTE ON MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED:
*Student Representative Krusen: Yes
Mollo Yes Bo le Yes Porter Yes
Moore Yes Swarner Yes Massie Yes
Ross Yes
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
A-4. CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION:
Council Member Molloy MOVED to approve the consent agenda as presented and
requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Council Member Boyle SECONDED the motion.
There were no objections. SO ORDERED.
ITEM B:
Mayor Pat Porter -- Presentation of Legislative Citation to Kenai Firefighters
Association.
E-4-
Suggested by: Admmistrauon
CITY OF KENAI
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA,
TRANSFERRING $11,000 IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR SHOP DEPARTMENT
UTILITIES.
WHEREAS, utility costs have increased during FY2006; and,
WHEREAS, as the Shop department utility budget is insufficient to cover estimated
FY2006 utility costs; and,
WHEREAS, funds are available in the Non-Departmental Contingency account.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA, that the following budget transfers be made:
General Fund
From: Non-Departmental -Contingency
To: Shop -Utilities
$11,000
$11,000
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this third day of May
2006.
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
~~,,~, ~~
Approved by Finance:
(04/26/2006) hl
~-5
Suggested by: Administration
C%TY OF KENAI
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA,
TRANSFERRING $12,458 IN THE WATER AND SEWER SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
FOR ENGINEERING.
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai agreed to pay the State of Alaska for services rendered to
install water and sewer crossings when Forest Drive was upgraded; and,
WHEREAS, the funds for this purpose were transferred from the Forest Drive Redoubt
Capital Project Fund when the project was completed and closed out in June 2004;
and,
WHEREAS, the City recently received an invoice for engineering services from the
State of Alaska in the amount of $12,457.19; and,
WHEREAS, funds are available in the Contingency accounts of the Water and Sewer
departments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA, that the following budget transfers be made:
Water and Sewer Special Revenue Fund
From: Water Depaztment - Contingency $5,229
Sewer Department- Contingency 6,229
12 458
To: Water -Improvements other than Buildings $6,229
Sewer -Improvements other than Buildings 6,229
12 458
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this third day of May
2006.
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
Approved by Finance:
(04/26/2006) hl
E-b
Suggested by: Admmisrranon
CYTY OF KENAI
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AWARDING A
LEASE FOR TWO FISH SEASONS (MAY 15. 2006 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2007) OF KENAI
DOCK STATION NO. 3 TO COPPER RIVER SEAFOODS FOR THE SEASONAL BASE BID
OF $4,379 PLUS $0.03/LB. FOR ANY POUNDAGE OVER 1,333,333 LBS OF TOTAL
WEIGHT FROM BOTH STATIONS NO. 2 AND NO. 3 PLUS $307 PER MONTH FOR BOAT
STORAGE AREA NO. 3.
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai put Dock Stations No. 2 and No. 3 and Boat Storage Areas
No. 2 and No. 3 out for bid; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai received the following bid for the lease of Dock Station
No. 2 and Boat Storage Areas No. 2 and No. 3 on February 21, 2006:
Bidder Station
No. 2 Boat Storage
Area No. 2 Station
No. 3 Boat Storage
Area No. 3
Co er River Seafoods $35,621/ $500/mo. 0 $307/mo.
;and,
WHEREAS, Copper River Seafoods' bid was the only bid received; and,
WHEREAS, the minimum bid was $20,000/fish season each for Station No. 2 and for
Station No. 3 and $300/month each for Boat Storage Area No. 2 and Area No. 3; and,
WHEREAS, Copper River Seafoods submitted a proposal to lease Dock Station No. 2 for
$35,621 plus $500 per month for Boat Storage Area No. 2, plus $307 per month for
Boat Storage Area No. 3; and,
WHEREAS, Boat Storage Area No. 2 was awarded with Station No. 2 yearly base bid;
and,
WHEREAS, the lease includes the dock area, parking, boat storage area, offices, and one
crane; and,
WHEREAS, Copper River Seafoods has offered to negotiate a lease for Dock Station No. 3
because no bids were received for it; and,
WHEREAS, Copper River Seafoods has offered $4,379 for Dock Station No. 3 and had
already bid $307 per month for Boat Storage Area No. 3; and,
WHEREAS, the recommendation of the City Administration is to award the lease of Dock
Resolution No. 2006-23
Page 2 of 2
Station No. 3 and Boat Storage Area No. 3 to Copper River Seafoods; and,
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Kenai has determined that awarding the 2006
Lease of Dock Station No. 3 and Boat Storage Area No. 3 to Copper River Seafoods is in
the best interest of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF Tl-IE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA, that the City of Kenai award a lease for Two Fish Seasons (May 15, 2006 to
September 30, 2007) of Dock Station No. 3 to Copper River Seafoods for the seasonal
base bid of 54,379 plus 50.03/lb. for any poundage over 1,333,333 lbs of total weight
from both stations No. 2 and No. 3 plus $307 per month for Boat Storage Area No. 3.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OP' THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this third day of May
2006.
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Carol L. Freas, City Cierk
Approved by Finance:
E-7
Suggested by: City Council
C%TY OF KEN.SI
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, EXPRESSING
INTENT TO DONATE UP TO 25 ACRES OF A 77-ACRE PARCEL NEAR MOMMSEN
SUBDIVISION TO FRONTIER COMMUNITY SERVICES AND KENAI SENIOR
CONNECTION UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai is the owner of a 77-acre tract of land near Mommsen
Subdivision, which address is 2300 Redoubt Avenue, and described as KN T06N
R12W 525, that portion of the SE 14 lying east of Mommsen Subdivision, Addition No.
2, Borough parcel number 039-010-18, which the City acquired by foreclosure for
overdue taxes and water and sewer assessments; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai may by ordinance retain that property for a public
purpose upon payment of the amounts owing for property taxes, and water and sewer
assessments; and,
WHEREAS, KMC 22.05.080 allows donation of real property to IRS Section 501(c)(3)
non-profit corporations for anagreed-upon. consideration if the donation is
advantageous to the City; and,
WHEREAS, to ensure the property is used for the intended purposes, the deed would
provide that the property would revert to the City of Kenai if it is used for other than
non-profit support services for people at risk of or experiencing a disabling condition.
or if Phase I of the project and master plan for development of an administration/
program building, a daycaze/program building, and an assisted living facility are not
substantially completed within three yeazs of the date of the conveyance; and,
WHEREAS, Frontier Community Services and Kenai Senior Connection should pay a
yet-to-be-established share of the amounts owing for property taxes, water and sewer
assessments, and surveying and re-platting costs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA, that the City of Kenai intends to donate up to 25 acres of the 77-acre parcel
near Mommsen Subdivision owned by the City to Frontier Community Services and
the Kenai Senior Connection for use of non-profit support services for people at risk of
or experiencing disabling conditions; upon satisfactory arrangements to pay ayet-to-
be-established share of the costs of surveying and re-platting, property taxes, and
water and sewer assessments owing. To ensure the property is used for the intended
purposes, the deed would provide that the property would revert to the City of Kenai if
it is used for other than support services for people at risk of or experiencing a
disabling condition or if Phase I of the master plan for development is not
substantially completed within three yeazs of the date of conveyance, unless otherwise
extended by the Kenai City Council.
Resolution No. 2006-24
Page 2 of 2
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this third day of May
2006.
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Carol L. Freers, City Clerk
E®RANDUlVI
TO: Rick Koch, City Manager
FROM: Larry A. Semmens, Finance Director
DATE: Apri128, 2006
RE: Taxes and Assessments Owing on 77 Acre Viommsen Subdivision Parcel
Here is a breakdown of the taxes and assessments owing an the 77 acre parcel near Mommsen
Subdivision as of May 1, 2006.
According to the borough, the property taxes that would need to be paid are from 1979 until
1986 (thejudgment year). The total amount of city and borough property taxes is 538,521.75.
That breaks down to borough taxes of 518,289.67 and city taxes of $20,232,08. While we would
initially pay the borough the entire $38,521.75 amount, it would disburse the city taxes of
$20,232.08 back to the city.
The amount owing for water and sewer assessments on the property as of May 1, 2006 is
$87,479.82. That breaks down to $23,526.96 for principal, $50,446.66 for interest and $3,506.20
for penalty. In my opinion the city could waive the interest and penalty, but should repay the
principal of $23,526.96 to the water and sewer fund.
Please let me know if you have any question or need any more information.
E-1
Suggested by: Council Member Molloy
C%TY OF KENAY //
x~soruzxox xo. aoos-2a (nmenaea- ' ~JiV'
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, EXPRESSING
INTENT TO TRANSFER OR DONATE UP TO 25 ACRES OF A 77-ACRE PARCEL NEAR
MOMMSEN SUBDIVISION TO FRONTIER COMMUNITY SERVICES AND KENAI
SENIOR CONNECTION UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai is the owner of a 77-acre tract of land near Mommsen
Subdivision, which address is 2300 Redoubt Avenue, and described as KN T06N
R12W S25, that portion of the SE 14 lying east of Mommsen Subdivision, Addition No.
2, Borough pazcel number 039-010-18, which the City acquired by foreclosure for
overdue taxes and water and sewer assessments; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Kenai may by ordinance retain that property for a public
purpose upon payment of the amounts owing for property taxes, and water and sewer
assessments; and,
WHEREAS, KMC 22.05.080 allows donation of real property to IRS Section 501(c)(3)
non-profit corporations for anagreed-upon consideration if the donation is
advantageous to the City; and,
WHEREAS, KMC 22.05.025 allows conveyance of Citv land to encourage a new
industrial enterprise upon such terms, conditions and contineencies as may be set
forth by the City: and,
WHEREAS, to ensure the property is used for the intended purposes, the deed to
Frontier Community Services would provide that the property to be conveyed to
Frontier Community Services would revert to the City of Kenai if it is used for other
than non-profit support services for people at risk of or experiencing a disabling
condition or if Phase I of the project and master plan for development of an
administration/program building, and a daycaze/program building, [AND AN
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY] aze not substantially completed within three years of the
date of the conveyance; and,
WHEREAS, to ensure the property is used for the intended purposes, the deed to the
Senior Connection would provide that the property to be conveyed to the Senior
Connection would revert to the City of Kenai if it is used for other than non-profit
substantially completed within three veazs of the date of the conveyance: and,
WHEREAS, Frontier Community Services and Kenai Senior Connection should pay a
yet-to-be-established share of the amounts owing for property taxes, water and sewer
assessments, and surveying and re-platting costs.
~,..
Resolution "i4o. 2006-24
Page 2 of~^+
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA, that the City of Kenai intends to transfer or donate up to 25 acres of the 77-
acre parcel near Mommsen Subdivision owned by the City to Frontier Community
Services and to the Kenai Senior Connection, in separate pazcels by sepazate deed, for
use of non-profit support services for people at risk of or experiencing disabling
conditions and for non-profit senior assisted-living facilities; upon satisfactory
arrangements to pay ayet-to-be-established shaze of the costs of surveying and re-
platting, property taxes, and water and sewer assessments owing, and upon such
other terms, conditions and contingencies as the Citv Council may require. To ensure
that the property that may be conveyed to Frontier Community Services is used for the
intended purposes, the deed to Frontier Community Services would provide that the
property to be conveyed to Frontier Community Services would revert to the City of
Kenai if it is used for other than support services for people at risk of or experiencing a
disabling condition or if Phase I of the master plan for development is not
substantially completed within three years of the date of conveyance, unless otherwise
extended by the Kenai City Councff. To ensure the property that may be conveyed to
Senior Connection is used for the intended purposes, the deed to the Senior
livine facilities or if the assisted livine portion of the proiect and a master plan for
development of an independent senior housine proiect aze not substantially completed
within three years of the date of the conveyance, unless otherwise extended by the
Kenai City Council.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this third day of May
2006.
ATTEST:
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
~~~
~~~
Cazol L. Freas, City Clerk
E-8
Suggested by: Administration
CYTY OF KENAI
RESOLUT%ON NO. 2006-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA,
TRANSFERRING $19,149 FROM CONSTRUCTION TO ENGINEERING IN THE
TERMINAL MODIFICATIONS CAPITAL PROJECT FUND.
WHEREAS, additional funds are needed in the Engineering account for inspection
services, storm drain system permitting, and closeout costs; and,
WHEREAS, funds are available in the Construction account.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA, that the following budget transfers be made:
Terminal Modifications Capital Project Fund
From: Construction
$19,149
To: Engineering $19.149
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this third day of May
2006.
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Carol L. Freas. City Clerk
Approved by Financ
(04/27/2006) hl
F-I
AGENDA
KENAI CITY COUNCIL -REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 19, 2006
7:00 P.M.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
http: / /www.ci.kenai.ak.us
YTEM A: CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Approval
4. Consent Agenda
*All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-
controversial by the council and will be approved by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a council member so requests, in which case
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal
sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders.
ITEM B: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (10 minutes)
Peter I{lauder, Klauder & Company Architects, Ync. -- Proposed
Library Expansion Presentation (30 minutes requested).
ITEM C: UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 minutes)
YTEM D: REPORTS OF KPB ASSEMBLY LEGYSLATORS AND COUNCILS
%TEM E: PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Ordinance No. 2148-2006 -- Repealing the Existing Landscaping/Site
Plan Regulations at KMC 14.25 and 14.20.115(1) and Replacing It With a
New KMC 14.25 (Landscaping/Site Plan Regulations).
(Clerk's Note: There is a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 2148-2006 on the
floor from the March 1, 2006 council meeting. The ordinance was then
tabled. A motion to remove Ordinance No. 2148-2006 from the table is
needed to be made and acted upon prior to consideration of the original
ordinance or consideration of the substitute ordinance.)
a. Substitute Ordinance No. 2148-2006 -- Repealing the Existing
Landscaping/Site Plan Regulations at KMC 14.25 and 14.20.115(1)
and Replacing it With a New KMC 14.25 (Landscaping/Site Plan
Regulations).
2. Ordinance No. 2155-2006 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and
Appropriations by $24,000 for Utilities for the Challenger Learning
Center (Challenger Center) of Alaska.
3. Ordinaace No. 2156-2006 -- Rezoning From Rural Residential (RR) to
Recreation (R) that Land Described as Tract A, Ballfield Subdivision and
Those Portions of the NE 1/4 and the NE '/< NW '/4 Which Lie Northeasterly
of the Kenai Spur Highway and South and West of ASLS 79-57 Amended
and North and Northwesterly and Southwesterly of Ballfield Subdivision,
Containing Approximately 39.53 Acres.
4. Ordiaaace No. 2157-2006 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and
Appropriations by $4,073.11 in the General Fund to Replenish Police
Department Overtime Depleted by the Arctic Winter Games.
5. LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL. -- WITIIDRAWAL OF PROTEST
Amy Bowerz, d/b/a One Stop Liquors
ITEM F: MYNUTES
1. *Regulaz Meeting of April 5, 2006.
2. *April 10, 2006 Budget Work Session Notes
ITEM G: UNFINYSHED BUSINESS
Discussion -- Community Purpose Property Tax Exemption
ITEM H•
Bills to be Ratified
Approval of Purchase Orders Exceeding $15,000
*Ordinance No. 2i5zs-2006 -- Amending the Official Kenai Zoning Map
by Rezoning Lot A-1 and Lot A-2, Baron Park Subdivision No. 6, From
Split-Zoned Light Industrial (IL) and General Commercial (CG) to General
Commercial (CG) Only.
4. *Ordinance No. 2159-2006 -- Enacting KMC 7.40 Titled, "Grant
Administration," Which Adopts Procedures for the Administration of
Grants by the City of Kenai.
ITEM I: COMMISSION/COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Council on Aging
2. Airport Commission
3. Harbor Commission
4. Library Commission
5. Parks & Recreation Commission
6. Plann;ng gy Zoning Commission
7. Miscellaneous Commissions and Committees
a. Beautification Committee
b. Alaska Municipal League Report
ITEM J: REPORT OF THE MAYOR
ITEM K: ADMINISTRATYON REPORTS
1. City Manager
2. Attorney
3. City Clerk
ITEM L: DISCUSSYON
1. Citizens (five minutes)
2. Council
-- None Scheduled
ITEM M: ADJOURNMENT
KENAI CITSt COUNCIL -REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 19, 2006
7:00 P.M.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
p q q ~yhttp: ! / www. ci.kenai.ga~ki.~ups9~gqq
1Y16>S®R PAT P®RTERy P1VJOlLll\G
MYNUTES
ITEM A: CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Porter called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers irr the Kenai City Hall Building.
A-I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Porter Ied those assembled in the Pledge of Allegiance.
A-2.
ROLL CALL
Roll was taken by the City Clerk. Present were:
Rick Ross Robert Mollo Michael Bo le
Pat Porter, Mayor Joe Moore, Vice Mayor Linda Swarner
Cliff Massie
A quorum was present.
Absent: Les Krusen, Student Representative
A-3. AGENDA APPROVAL
Mayor Porter noted handouts were available related to Item B-l.
MOT%ON:
Council Member Moore MOVED to approve the agenda as presented and requested
UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Council Member measles SECONDED the motion. There
were no objections. SO ORDERED.
A-4. CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION:
Council Member Moore MOVED for approval of the consent agenda and requested
UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Council Member Swarner SECONDED the motion.
MOTION TO AMEND:
KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 19, 2006
PAGE 2
Council Member Molloy MOVED to amend the consent agenda by removing Items H-3
and F-2 and Council Member Boyle SECONDED the motion.
Council Member Molloy explained his request for removing the items from the consent
agenda, noting a correction needing to be made to the fifth whereas of H-3 and a
clerical correction in Item F-2.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT:
*Student Representative Krusen: Absent
Ross Yes Mollo Yes Bo le ~ Yes
Porter Yes Moore Yes Swarner Yes
Massie Yes
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
VOTE ON MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED:
There were no objections. SO ORDERED.
ITEM B: SCHEDULED PUBLYC COMMENTS
E-I. PCte_* I~Iaaxder, Klasder 1<s Coffigany a*ehiteets, Inc. -- Proposed
Library Expansion Presentation (30 minutes requested).
Mr. HIauder reviewed a building program, siting, and expansion study related to the
proposed library expansion and provided a handout of his presentation as well as
option site plans. A work session on the subject will be scheduled to discuss further
what opfion to pursue.
BREAK TAKEN: 7:48 P.M.
BACK TO ORDER: 8:55 P.M.
YTEM C:
C-l. Mya Reaken, Executive Director, Kenai Visitors 8s Convention
Center
Thanked the city for its cooperation in opening the boat launch road and allowing
signage to be placed on city property related to area birding activities. Renken also
noted a board meeting would be held on Monday, Apri124 and the summer art show
reception would be held on April 28.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 19, 2006
PAGE 3
ITEM D: REPORTS OF KPB ASSEMBLY LEGYSLATORS AND COUNCILS
D-1. Assembly Member Margaret Gilman -- Assembly Member Gilman
reported on actions taken at the April 18, 2006 Borough Assembly Meeting, including
the passage of the School District funding ordinance. Gilman noted, the ordinance
funded to the cap and would reinstate 18 teachers, however 63 teachers would be lost
district wide. Gilman encouraged all to contact legislators and urge their funding of
education.
ITEM E: PUBLIC HEARINGS
E-1. Ordinance No. 2148-2006 -- Repealing the Existing Landscaping/Site
Pian Regulations at KMC 14.25 and 14.20.115(1) and Replacing It With a
New KMC 14.25 (Landscaping/Site Plan Regulations).
(Clerk's Note: There is a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 2148-2006 on the
,floor from the March 1, 2006 council meeting. The ordinance was then
tabled. A motion to remove Ordinance No. 2i 48-2006 from the table is
needed to be made and acted upon prior to consideration of the original
ordinance or consideration of the substitute ordinance.)
MOTION:
Council Member Molloy MOVED to remove Ordinance No. 2148-2006 from the table
and Council Member Ross SECONDED the motion.
VOTE:
*Student Representative Krusen: Absent
Ross Yes Mollo Yes Bo le Yes
Porter Yes Moore Yes Swarner Yes
Massie Yes
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
E-la. Substitute Ordinance No. 2148-2006 -- Repealing the Existing
Landscaping/Site Plan Regulations at KMC 14.25 and 14.20.115(1) and
Replacing it With a New K1YIC 14.25 (Landscaping/Site Plan Regulations).
MOTION:
Council Member Ross MOVED to move the Substitute No. 2148-2006 and Council
Member Molloy SECONDED the motion.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 19, 2006
PAGE 4
The floor was opened for public comments.
Jason Carroll, 407 Eadies Way, Kenai, KEDS Team Member -- Carroll stated the
Team was pleased to be able to assist the city with its review of the ordinance and
appreciated the changes made to the original ordinance.
There being no further comments, public comments was closed. There were no
council comments.
VOTE:
*Student Representative Krusen: Absent
Ross Yes Mollo Yes Bo le Yes
Porter Yes Moore Yes Swarner Yes
Massie Yes
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
E-2. Ordinance No. 2155-2006 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and
Appropriations by $24,000 for Utilities for the Challenger Learning
Center (Challenger Center) of Alaska.
MOTION:
Council Member Massie MOVED for the approval of Ordinance No. 2155-2006 and
Council Member Boyle SECONDED the motion.
The floor was opened for public comments.
Larry Porter, 310 Rogers Road, Kenai and Darector, Challenger Center of Alaska --
Porter spoke in support of the ordinance, noting the passage of the ordinance would
allow time for the implementation of the organization's new business plan. He urged
passage of the ordinance.
Bill Osbora, 423 Rogers Road, Kenai -- Urged support of the ordinance.
Council Member Moore declared a conflict of interest and explained his employer was
assisting the Challenger Center with accounting and would be billing Challenger for
the time. City Attorney Graves concurred with Moore's request to be recused. There
were no objections from Council.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 19, 2006
PAGE 5
Mayor Porter passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Moore. She identified Larry Porter as her
husband and explained Mr. Porter was was not receiving financial benefit from his
appointment as Director of the Challenger Center. Graves noted, the code speaks to
fmancial relationship; because the Challenger Center is anon-profit, Mr. Porter was
basically a volunteer; and, since Porter was receiving no financial benefit from her
husband's position, Graves agreed Mayor Porter could vote on the issue. There were
no objections from council.
Council discussion followed and comments included:
• If the Center failed, the facility would be a city facility.
• Some negative constituent comments received suggested other uses for
the facility, i.e. a library.
• The $24,000 could be used to purchase new public safety equipment.
Concern of setting a precedence; will be dipping into the Fund Balance;
there are city buildings in need of repair; and, citizens have the opportunity to
personally contribute to support the program.
• The Center is an important educational tool.
VOTE:
*Student Representative Krusen: Absent
Ross Yes Mollo No Bo le Yes
Porter Yes Moore
-- Abstained . Swarner Yes
Massie ~ Yes
MOTION PASSED,
E-3. Ordiaaace No. 2156-2006 -- Rezoning From Rural Residential (RR) to
Recreation (R) that Land Described as Tract A, Ballfield Subdivision and
Those Portions of the NE '/4 and the NE '/4 NW i/4 Which Lie Northeasterly
of the Kenai Spur Highway and South and West of ASLS 79-57 Amended
and North and Northwesterly and Southwesterly of Ballfield Subdivision,
Containing Approximately 39.53 Acres.
MOTION:
Council Member Moore MOVED for the adoption of Ordinance No. 2156-2006 and
Council member Swarner SECONDED the motion.
There were no public comments. Council Member Boyle stated concerns for children
to get to the area safely. Council Member Ross noted the question before council was
KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 19, 2006
PAGE 6
whether they would approve the rezoning of the property and he noted the Planning &
Zoning Commission recommended approval.
VOTE:
*Student Representative Krusen: Absent
Ross Yes Mollo Yes Bo le Yes
Porter Yes Moore Yes Swarner Yes
Massie Yes
MOTION PASSED UNAN%MOUSLY.
E-4. Ordiaance No. 2157-2006 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and
Appropriations by $4,073.11 in the General F~znd to Replenish Police
Department Overtime Depleted by the Arctic Winter Games.
MOTION:
Council Member Molloy MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 2157-2006 and Council
member Swarner SECONDED the motion.
There were no public comments. It was noted, the funds were received through grants
and were being tra*xsferred into ±he police overdme account to replenish these
unexpected overtime costs incurred through the Arctic Winter Games.
VOTE:
*Student Representative Krusen: Absent
Ross Yes Molio Yes Bo le Yes
Porter Yes Moore Yes Swarner Yes
Massie Yes
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
E-5. LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL -- WITHDRAWAL OF PROTEST
Amy Bowen, ci/6/a One Stop Liquors
MOTION:
Council Member Moore MOVED to withdraw the protest and Council Member Swarner
SECONDED the motion.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 19, 2006
PAGE 7
VOTE:
*Student Representative Krusen: Absent
Ross Yes Molio Yes Bo le Yes
Porter Yes Moore Yes Swarner Yes
Massie Yes
MOTION PASSED
ITEM F• MINUTES
F-1. Regular Meeting of Apri15, 2006 -- Approved by consent agenda.
F-2. April 10, 2006 Budget Work Session Notes
Council. Member Boyle requested the notes be corrected at Page 2, Item 2-a, explaining
the resolution had been removed from the agenda and not tabled. There were no
objections to the correction.
ITEM G•
G-1. Discussion -- Community Purpose Property Tax Exemption
Attorney Graves reviewed information included in the packet and noted the Borough's
Finance Director had asked if the city was interested in adopting the tax exemption or
should the borough tax the entities in the next budget yeaz. A brief discussion took
place and Graves was requested to write an ordinance for introduction at the next
meeting. It was also suggested "a limit of five yeazs if the property is not in use"
restricfion be incorporated into the ordinance.
ITEM H• NEW BUSYNESS
H-1. Bills to be Ratified
MOTION:
Council Member Massie MOVED to ratify the bills. Council Member Moore
SECONDED the motion and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
H-2. Approval of Purchase Orders Exceeding ~ 15,000
MOTION:
KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 19, 2006
PAGE 8
Council Member Molloy MOVED to approve the purchase orders exceeding $15,000
and Council Member Boyle SECONDED the motion.
Discussion related to the comfort station purchase order indicated cost for placement
of a new facility was altered due to cost. The facility now planned would use the
existing foundation and tanks.
VOTE:
*Student Representative Krusen: Absent
Ross Yes Mollo Yes Bo le Yes
Porter Yes Moore Yes Swamer Yes
Massie Yes
MOTION PASSED UNANYMOUSLY.
H-3. Ordinance No. 2158-2006 -- Amending the Official Kenai Zoning Map
by Rezoning Lot A-i and Lot A-2, Baron Park Subdivision No. 6, From
Split-Zoned Light Industrial (IL) and General Commercial (CG) to General
Commercial (CG) Only.
MOTION TO
Council Member Molloy MOVED for the introduction of Ordinance No. 2158-2006 and
CouncIl Member Massie SECONDED the motion.
MOTION TO AMEND:
Council Member Molloy MOVED to amend the fifth whereas from "the City of Kenai
has accepted a lease for a retail development; and," to "the City of Kenai has approved
an application for a retail development." Council Member Massie SECONDED the
motion.
VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND:
*Student Representative Krusen: Absent
Ross Yes Mollo Yes Bo le Yes
Porter Yes Moore Yes Swarner Yes
Massie Yes
KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 19, 2006
PAGE 9
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
VOTE ON INTRODUCTION AS AMENDED:
*Student Representative Krusen: Absent
Ross Yes Mollo Yes Bo le Yes
Porter Yes Moore Yes Swarner Yes
Massie Yes
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
H-4. Ordinance No. 2159-2006 -- Enacting KMC 7.40 Titled, "Grant
Administration," Which Adopts Procedures for the Administration of
Grants by the City of Kenai.
Introduced by approval of consent agenda.
ITEM Y: COMMISSION/COMMITTEE REPORTS
I-I. Council oa Aging -- Council Member Boyle reviewed the meeting
summary of the Apri16, 2006 meeting which was included in the council's packet.
%-2. Airport Commission -- Council Member Molloy reviewed the meeting
summary of the April i3, 2006 meeting which was included in the council's packet.
I-3. Harbor Commission -- Council Member Massie reported there had been
no quorum present for the meeting scheduled for Monday, April 10, 2006.
I-4. Library Commission -- It was noted the next meeting was scheduled for
May 2, 2006.
I-5. Parks fa Recreation Commission -- Council Member Moore reported the
April meeting had been cancelled and the next meeting would be held on May 4, 2006.
I-6. Planning 8v Zoning Commission -- Council Member Ross noted the
April 12 meeting minutes were included in the packet.
Y-7. Miscellaneous Commissions and Committees
I-7a. Beautification Committee -- Council Member Swarner reported the
April 11, 2006 meeting summary was included in the packet and reminded all of the
June 3 Planting Day.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 19, 2006
PAGE 10
I-7b. Alaska Municipal League Report -- Noted a message received from AML
urging comments be emailed to legislators related to revenue sharing prior to their
consideration. She also reported she would be in Juneau at the end of the week on
Food Bank business and would be meeting with area legislators.
ITEM J: REPORT OF THE MAYOR -- Mayor Porter reported the following:
• Will travel to Juneau Apri126-27 and planned to meet with area
legislators.
• Met with Mayor Cazey, other area mayors, the Superintendent of Schools
and the Dean of the Kenai Peninsula College. She noted, the College librarian is
willing to partner with cities to access their library.
• There are approximately 20 jobs related to Peninsula Counseling Services
that will be leaving Kenai when they move their offices.
ITEM K: ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
K-1. City Manager -- City Manager Koch noted the following:
• Wal-Mart representatives are currently working on a traffic analysis
study and would begin soils analysis in mid-May.
• Lowe's representativeswlll be visiting Kenai on May 3. They will be
collecting information related to the Kenai site and will make a presentation to their
executive board in mid-May to determine Lowe's further direction.
• A resolution will be before council for consideration on the May 3 agenda
to approve an amendment to the Copger River Seafcod lease to include Crane Station
#3 and the associated boat storage area.
• He will be attending VISTA training from April 24-27 and during his
absence, Finance Director Semmens will be Acting City Manager.
• City representatives will be meeting with the State Fire Marshall on May
23 to discuss the state managing training operations at the PRISM facility.
• SB247 related to PERS and Municipal Revenue Sharing will be scheduled
for hearings after the Legislature acts on the percent-of-profits tax for oil.
• Finance Director Semmens, as a member of the Alaska Retirement
Management Boazd, testified to members of the Legislature earlier in the week
regarding PERS/TERS indebtedness.
• He requested reimbursement from Arctic Winter Games of $36,000 for
unbudgeted overtime and other expenses related to the Games.
• The leasing director of Carr-Gottstein is putting together a proposal
related to developing an events center in the old Carrs MaIl. The proposal should be
completed next week.
• He received a call from a representative of Senator Murkowski's office
who requested information on the bluff stabilization project. The representative
explained a request fora $1.5 million federal appropriation for the project would be
- included in the appropriations hill. He will report back when more is learned.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 19, 2006
PAGE 11
® Clint Hall amended his offer to purchase 26 lots in Inlet Woods
Subdivision at the City's full asking price.
• He has given permission for a Special Use Permit to the Soccer Club for
Millennium Square for the summer (the Permit allows for joint use by other parties,
i.e. Boys & Girls Club, etc.). The Permit is revocable at the City's discretion.
Porter questioned the lease renegotiation list included as an information item in the
packet. She noted Decor Industries leases four lots but has improved only two of
them. She asked if code requires the lots to be developed within a certain amount of
time.
Airport Manager Cronkhite explained, administration had reseazched that issue
previously and learned, because it is an old lease, their site plan for development of
the property had not been enforced, it would be difficult to require them to develop the
lots into parking, etc. (as indicated on the site plan) if they aze current with their lease
payments.
City Manager Koch is to review the language in the lease and report back to council.
Moore requested administration to review all city lots to learn if the development plans
are up to date if not, if they can be enforced.
Swarner suggested the dock road be open for binding enthusiasts during the weekend
and until seven in the evening.
K-2. Attorney -- Attorney Graves reported the first batch of the airport code
revisions had been sent to the KEDS Action Team and the Airport Commission for
review. After receiving comments back, the next batch of amendments will be
forwarded to them for review.
K-3. City Clerk -- No report.
ITEM L:
L-1. Citizens
John Mellish, 1132 Walaut, Kenai -- Referred to an earlier comment of the Mayor
who stated she believed if there were no comments in opposition to the city paying for
six months of the Challenger Center's utility bills, the public was approving the
expenditure. Mellish stated he did not agree with the statement and suggested no
comment was the same as giving the Center a chance to implement its new plan, etc.
Barry Eldridge, 2679 Bowpicker Lane, Kenai -- Noted he appreciated the budget
concerns related to paying the Challenger Center's utility bills and added, he believed
KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 19, 2006
PAGE 12
council should look ahead to the development to come (Lowe's and Wal-Mart) and not
cut itself short.
Bob Peters, Old Town, Kenai -- Stated his concern with selling off prime real estate
in Kenai and not holding it for future generations.
L-2. Council
Moore -- No comments.
Swaraer -- No comments.
Massie -- No comments.
Ross -- No comments.
Molloy -- Suggested administration request additional information related to
the request for property from Frontier Community Services and the Senior Connection.
It was noted, the items which Molloy suggested were all part of the United Way grant
request application which they would have already prepazed.
Boyle -- No comments.
Porter -- No comments.
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- None Scheduled
ITEM M:
There being no further business before the Council, the meeting adjourned at
approximately 9:30 p.m.
Minutes transcribed and prepazed by:
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
"The student may cast advisory votes on all matters except those subject to executive
session discussion. Advisory votes shall be cast prior to the official council vote and
shall not affect the outcome of a vote. Advisory votes shall be recorded in the minufes.
Student representatives may not move or second items during a council meeting.
F-~-
1. KEDS Action Tem Goals
a. Yeazly Joint Work Session/Review City's role in Economic Development
and Set Annual Priorities.
b. Annual City-Wide Economic Forum
2. KEDS Recommendations
a. Millennium Square Development Plans
b. Section 36/Re-Platting the Area Lying Southwest of the Kenai Spur
Highway.
3. Branding Discussion
NOTES
CouncIl present: J. Moore, P. Porter, B. Molloy, R. Ross, C. Massie, L. Swarner
(arrived at 7:55 p.m.)
Staff present: C. Freas, J. La Shot, R. Koch, C. Graves, R. Craig (arrived at 7:55
p.m.)
KEDS members: J. Carroll, S. Mattero, G. Feeken, B. Eldridge, M. Renken, P.
Hansen, R. Baldwin
Mayor Porter opened the work session at approximately 7:00 p.m. Mr. Baldwin gave
an overview of KEDS Action Team involvement and, referring to the letters included an
the packet, he noted they were requesting feedback from council and wanted them to
know they were interested in assisting the city as a resource.
ITEM 1: l{EDS Action Tem Goals
1-a. Yearly Joint Work Session/Review City's sole in Economic
Development and Set Aaaual Priorities -- No comments.
1-b. Annual City-Wide Economic Forum -- Baldwin stated, the Team
decided not to pursue an annual forum this year. Council was asked what it
envisioned the forum to include. Comments included:
• Schedule for May 1, 2008.
• What to do as a city to have business want to come to Kenai.
• Plenary sessions
• Full day event and with formal recommendations made after it is held.
• Conduct brainstorming but center on what is doable.
%TEM 2°
2-a. Millennium Square Development Plans -- The Team suggested the city
develop a request for proposals to see if there is interest for development of Millennium
Square. Discussion followed and comments included:
• Before a request for proposal is prepazed, the city should invite
interested groups, i.e. West Tours, Princess Tours, etc., to discuss what they believe
would make an investment into the property development, etc. attractive.
• The Team would be interested in assisting in reviewing development
proposals.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
APRIL 17, 2006
PAGE 2
• It was suggested the city move ahead with the development of the
property and not wait for the bluff stabilization project to be completed.
• An environmental report is expect in mid-June related to the Millennium
Square property.
• It was suggested the rezoning of the property should move forward.
Finding: Administration is to contact entities that may be interested in
development of the property, but wait for the June environmental report.
2-b. Section 36/Re-PYatting the Area Lying Southwest of the Kenai Spur
Highway
Baldwin explained the Team believed the Section 36 subdivision should be repiatted in
order for it to be more attractive for development. Discussion followed and comments
included:
• Because there is a small number of property owners (other than the city),
the property owners could be contacted to suggest the lots be repiatted, placing them
perpendiculaz to the bluff, which the Team believed would make the lots more
attractive.
• Suggested the subdivision would be more desirable if water/sewer was
extended to it.
• Placing the lots perpendicular to the bluff would compensate for the
eroded portions.
r indine: Administration was requested to contact the property owners and ask if
the would be interested in reglatting the subdivision. Administration is
to report back to council whether a replat would be feasible.
Other recommendations of KEDS Team:
• Incorporate a wall~lg corridor from the Senior Citizens Center to Old
Town with the bluff erosion project.
Lighting sidewalks.
• Expand water/sewer along Beaver Loop.
• Extend Swires Road to Lawton Drive with water/sewer.
• Future commercial zoning change -- more into reality, but may not be in
concert with the Comprehensive Plan.
Porter noted the following:
• City is working with Frontier Community Services (FCS) and the Senior
Connection in their combined projects to build FCS administration building and an
assisted living facility. She noted, the two entities will be partnering and FCS will
manage the assisted living facility. The project will use 25-30 acres of currently city-
KENAI CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
APRIL 17, 2006
PAGE 3
owned property along Redoubt Avenue. The issue is to be discussed during the May 3
council meeting.
• Central Peninsula Counseling Services will be moving offices from their
Lake Street building to the Cottonwood Facility in Soldotna.
• An effort to encourage more activities in the city is being made, i.e. snow
machine races, Red Hat Society parade; and the city's first mazathon race, scheduled
for October 1.
Additional discussion:
• Placing signs about Kenai in kiosks at locations where visitors could
acquire information about Kenai and want to travel to Kenai.
• Create a business inquiry/point person to answer business inquiries and
contact new businesses in the city.
• Post most asked questions about Kenai on the city website.
• Hold a work session with the Council, Chamber Boazd, KVCB Board, and
KEDS representatives.
• City meet with new VISTA representative and Chamber.
Long-term goal -- add the Kenai azea to the fast ferry schedule.
• Include park benches along Frontage Road, etc. to allow rest areas for
walkers, bikers, eta
ITEM 3: BRANDING DYSCUSSION
Porter reported, funds included in the draft Legislative budget were removed during its
1,'llt3al " SJ by adriauuSuauvII. .c91ie Suggested thuSc eatereSied lri utc iuridS being
replaced for a branding purpose, attend the budget work session and speak to the
issue.
The work session adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m.
Note"s"pr"e~pareydby~':/,.,9
Cazol L. Freas, City Clerk
F-3
KENAI CITY COUNCYL WORK SESSION
APRIL 19, 2006
6:00 P.M.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
COUNCIL BRIEFING OF CITY MANAGER/VAR%OUS TOPICS
MAYOR PAT PORTER, PRESIDING
NOTES
Council present: P. Porter, J. Moore, L. Swarner, C. Massie, R. Ross, R. Molloy and
M. Boyle
Staff present: C. Freas, R. Koch, C. Graves and L. Semmens
Mayor Porter called the work session to order at 6:00 p.m. Issues/discussions were as
follows:
Historical Buildings:
Juliussen cabin/Oilers Bingo Hall -- City Manager Koeh reviewed previous discussion
related to the Kenai Historical Society's desire to move and donate the building to the
City. The City has no hard policy regarding historical buildings. He noted,
administration's reseazch estimated approximately $20,000 could be invested into the
building (moving and repairs); the Society would like the building situated close to the
Visitors Center; the City would be responsible for maintenance of the building.
Finding: Though the city holds some responsibility in preserving the past and it is
important for the Old Town area to be focal point of tourism, the city's
involvement would be costly. Administration is to suggest the Native
corporations and Kenaitze Indian Tribe be contacted. Concerns expressed
the city is supportive, but not wanting to become the owner and incur the
associated costs.
PRISM Buildin
Koch noted, the existing lease will expire in 2007; the program envisioned did not
come to fruition; the city currently subsidizes the program; and, he asked for council's
input.
Finding: Administration to investigate State of Alaska interest (State Fire Marshall has
expressed interest in housing office there, manage the building and offer training
programs); investigate whether the University would consider using the facility for
classes; talk with chair of the KEDS subcommittee on education; and, use the
building for the E-911 back up in the communications room. It was also noted, the
Arctic Winter Games was still using the facility and desire to continue using the
facility until June.
Millennium Square:
KENAI CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
APRIL 19, 2006
PAGE 2
Koch requested input from council as to the schedule and timeframe for development
of the property. Comments included:
• Retail area combined with a convention center or small hotel with
convention center (bluff stabilization is a big concern).
• Not in a rush -- the city is in a position to wait for the right project.
• Contact those who may be interested in development and ask how they
would want to develop the property.
• What can the city do to encourage redevelopment of old buildings.
• Millennium Square property should be the crown jewel of Kenai.
Additional discussion:
• Koch encouraged council to contact him with questions or concerns.
• Does council want administration to monitor Kenai River Sportsfishing,
Inc. meetings -- be objective, participate when necessary.
The work session adjourned at approximately 6:45 p.m.
Notes prepared by:
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
N-i
~
Z i°n °i ~ coo m
~
g ~
W
t~ ~
N ~
~ ~
r
Q ~ r r N ~
F-
Z Z
=
W
~
{-
W
~
J F-
-i .l
m J_
~1 H
-~
V
Q W
2 I-
~ Q
_I Q
J {-
~
h
Z
W
~
W
W
W
W
~
Q O O O O O
Z a
o m
> ~
> cc
> c[
> m
>
O
h
Q
U
a
Q
J
U
Z
o
U Z CW7
W
~ ~
U Q
= Z
d Z
J
eo
~
~
U
~ 6
. U'
m
U N
iy ai ~
~ W ~
cL ~
~ ~
o ~
0
0
o ..
o `y
P
~ ~ ~
W U_
~
W
O W
~ m w a ~ O
J
Z ~' ~
W
V
V
d
~
O ® ~
Q
U
Q
U O
d
U ? d = Q
Z O ~ O o 0
O ~_ Q O O ~ ~
Q O ~. c0 u'i M
..I m
h
H
O O O
z o 0 0
~ 0 0 0
~ o m° °
Q N
C9 C7 j
Z Z_ ~
Z Z W
Z
~ ~ ~ Z
H w z ~ ~ OO
z
Z O tY ~ U
U C7 Q > > D ~
Q W ~ OU Irl UO I}i Q Z
H ~
Z ~
w
~ ~
J
Y
~ ~
w ~ ~ a
® ~ a
W 7k N to O
F W
7 W ~ o O O N
~ (n 0. OJ W r
a.
a o
d ~ Z
z o W W
~ U U U w
v
°w z o o W
W - ® Q Q
z ~W o o XX~
O ~ ~ O ~ CW7 F
0 o U O Z ® U ~ ~ Q
N ~ K
`O } D D V y O a a Oa.
s~ a
U
K
W U d ZO
® ® ~ C7 r
~ (7 Q ~ Z Z m
W z us y o o J
J
'`r z x ~ ~
,, W O W ~ ~ 2
W
~ z w g ¢ o
Q /n (/l
U~ _ ~ Q W ~ Z Z U
~ O W J V W W W Z
a U > ~ ? > a a ~
}}-3
Suggested by:
CITY OF KENAI
ORDINANCE NO. 2160-2006
Aflmmistranon
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA INCREASING
ESTIMATED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS BY $28,000 IN THE AIRPORT LAND
SYSTEM SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR UTILITIES.
WHEREAS, utility costs have increased during FY2006; and,
WHEREAS, as the Airport Maintenance and Operations department utility budget is
insufficient to cover estimated FY2006 utility costs; and,
WHEREAS, funds are available in the fund balance of the Airport Land System Special
Revenue fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA
that estimated revenues and appropriations be increased as follows:
Airport Land System Special Revenue Fund
Increase Estimated Revenues:
Appropriation of fund balance $28,000
Increase Appropriations:
Maintenance & Operation -Utilities $28,000
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 17th day of May,
2006.
ATTEST:
Carol L. Freers, City Clerk
Approved by Finance:
(04/26/2006) hl
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
Introduced: May 03, 2006
Adopted: May 17, 2006
Effective: May 17, 2006
.~.
305 N.IM6I.OW SY.SURE 200 KENAI, ALASKA 99811
Tfl.EPF{ONE 907 283-T951
FAX X7283-3737
To: Larry Semmens -Finance Director
From: Rebecca Cronkhite -Airport Manager ~~~
Date:. April 26, 2006
Subject: Airport Utility Costs
The large increases in the cost of utilities require significant reallocation of funds to meet this
year's expenses. I have researched the possible causes for these increases and discovered
the following:
Natural Gas: Reports from EnStar show that usage at the Operations facility has remained
stable in relationship to average monthly temperatures. The increase in this account is
attributable to a 34% increase in cost. In the Terminal account there is a significant increase in
usage coinciding with the installation of heated sidewalks, exacerbated by the increase in cost.
Electrical Costs: In reviewing the electrical costs the usage appears consistent with
temperature fluctuations. In speaking with HEA, the power costs fluctuate quarterly, however
we have experienced a blended rate increase of approximately 22% this year. It should be
noted that the percentage increase in electrical includes all the runway lighting.
It is apparent that we need to take steps to assess utility usage in all of our properties. We
currently have a policy of turning off lights in the Operations Facility when workers leave for the
day. The Terminal is more difficult as it is practically a 24 hour facility when you factor in the
janitorial staff cleaning after the last flight. The security cameras in the Terminal and parking
lots also function more effectively with the lights on. It should be noted that all leases and
concessions in the Terminal include heat and lights. We should evaluate the increased utility
costs and consider an increase in rental rates. We also provide outside plug-ins for ground
handling equipment to the air carriers. We are looking at the cost of installing a separate meter
for those outlets or charging an additional monthly rate for their usage. We are also evaluating
the need to increase the rate for aircraft electrical parking. The increase cost for the heated
sidewalks is offset by reduced costs in snow and ice control and safety of the traveling public.
www. ci. kenai. ak, us.
Municipal Airport
H-~
Suggested by:
CITY OF KENAI
ORDINANCE NO. 2161-2006
Administration
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA INCREASING
ESTIMATED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS BY $21,000 IN THE TERMINAL
ENTERPRISE FUND FOR UTILITIES.
WHEREAS, utility costs have increased during FY2006; and,
WHEREAS, as the Terminal utility budget is insufficient to cover estimated FY2006
utility costs; and,
WHEREAS, funds are available in the Terminal Enterprise fund unappropriated
retained earnings account.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA
that estimated revenues and appropriations be increased as follows:
Terminal Enterprise Fund
Increase Estimated Revenues:
Appropriation of Retained Earnings
$21,000
Increase Appropriations:
Utilities
$21,000
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 17~ day of May,
2006.
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
Introduced:
Adopted:
Effective:
Approved by Finance:
(04/26/2006) hl
May 03, 2006
May 17, 2006
May 17, 2006
H-s
Suggested by: Admmistration
CITY OF KENA%
ORDINANCE N®. 2162-2006
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AMENDING
KMC 11.20.790 TO CHANGE THE ANNUAL MINIMUM RENTAL RATE FOR SHORE
FISHERIES LEASES TO $3,000.
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Kenai to review the fees charged for
the leases of tideland leases used primarily for shore fisheries at least every ten years,
and,
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Kenai to charge a fair rate which
reflects the value of the property being leased, and,
WHEREAS, a rate of $3,000 annually reflects an assumed value of $50,000 for a lease
at 6% of market value, and,
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Kenai to set lease rates for shore
fishery leases independent of the amount charged by the State of Alaska for similaz
leases.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA, that KMC 11.20.790 be amended as follows:
I~L.~®.7~® Tideland leases for shore fisheries.
(a) The annual minunum [RENTAL] lease rate for tideland leases used
primarily for shore fisheries shall be three [HUNDRED DOLLARS
($300.00)] thousand ($3,000} per year. [HOWEVER, SHOULD THE
STATE OF ALASKA SET AN ANNUAL LEASE RATE HIGHER THAN
THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($300.00) FOR SIMILAR TIDELAND
LEASES FOR SHORE FISHERIES ON LAND OWNED BY THE STATE,
THE CITY MAY AMEND THE ANNUAL RENTAL TO A RATE EQUAL TO
THAT CHARGED BY THE STATE OF ALASKA.] At least 60 daysprior to
the expiration of a tideland lease under this section the City Council
shall review the lease rate chazeed. Any money owed pursuant to KMC
11.20.150 shall be in addition to the annual m;n;mum set forth above.
(bj Neither KMC 11.20.160 nor KMC 11.20.620(a} shall apply to
tideland leases for shore fisheries.
(c) The provisions of KMC 11,20.110 and KMC 11.20.130 requiring
agpraisals of tideland property shall not apply to leases of tidelands for
shore fisheries. However, the survey provisions of KMC 11.20.110 are
applicable to shore fishery leases.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 17~ day of May
2006.
Ordinance No. 2162-2006
Page 2 of 2
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
Introduced: May 3, 2006
Adopted: May 17, 2006
Effective: June 17, 2006
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
Thru: Rick Koch, City Manager
From: Larry Semmens, Finance Director
Date: April 27, 2006
Subject: Shore Fishery Leases
Ordinance 2162-2006 would set the lease rate for tideland leases known as shore fishery leases at
$3,000 per year, and would require council review at least every ten years. It would also remove
the language tying the lease rate to whatever the State of Alaska charges. Alaska bases its fee on
the cost of administering the program, not on the value of the lease.
The City of Kenai typically leases land at 6% of fair market value (FMV). FMV for tidelands
may be difficult to determine. The Kenai Peninsula Borough does not assess the property and
has not assigned parcel numbers to the individual properties. I talked to a fishing permit broker
who told me that the leases are not appraised and the value is always a private matter decided
between the buyer and seller. She was not aware of an appraiser that could help with this
determination.
It is clear that there is value in the leases of tideland property owned by the City. The question is
should the City receive a reasonable return on the value?
The value of the lease will fluctuate with the price and volume offish, so I considered using fish
caught as the basis for the fee. The problem with this approach is that lease holders may have
state leases in proximity to our leases and it is not possible for them to keep track of which lease
a fish was caught on.
The simplest way to do this is to keep the flat fee structure, but raise it to a more appropriate
level considering the value of the lease. I suggest $3,000 annually because it is very unlikely
that the value of one of these leases would drop to less than $50,000. Mr. Kopp's memo
suggests that the value is likely to be around $200,000. One of the owners told me he would be
very pleased to sell at that price.
If we assume the value is $50,000 or more, a fee of $3,000 is a reasonable return on the assets
owned by the citizens of Kenai.
Due to the infrequent renewal of these leases, a review of the lease rate prior to renewal is
prudent. Most other leased properties require appraisals every five years with lease rates
adjusted accordingly.
H-6
Suggested by: Administration
C%TY OF I{ENAI
ORDINANCE NO. 2163-200fs
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, ENACTING
KMC 7.05.035, ADOPTING A COMMUNITY PURPOSES PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
AS AUTHORIZED BY AS 29.45.050.
WHEREAS, AS 29.45.050(b)(1)(A) authorizes municipalities to enact a Community
Purposes Property Tax Exemption; and,
WHEREAS, that exemption would provide the City of Kenai a property tax exemption
for property of an organization not organized for business or profit-malting which is
used exclusively for community purposes if the income from the property does not
exceed the actual cost to the owner of use by the renter; and,
WHEREAS, such an exemption would help non-profit entities that are providing
services to the community by providing property tax relief to them; and,
WHEREAS, the Kenai Peninsula Borough and the City of Soldotna have adopted such
an exemption; and,
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Kenai to enact a Community
Purposes Exemption.
NOW, THEREFOP.&..`, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COTJNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAS,
ALASKA that KMC 7.05.035 entitled Community Purposes Exemption is enacted as
follows:
7.05.035 Commuaity purposes exemption.
Property of an organization not organized for business or profit-malting
purposes and used exclusively for community purposes is exempt from
taxation under this chapter. Property or a part of the property from
which rentals or income aze derived is not exempt from taxation unless
the income derived from the rentals does not exceed the actual cost of
the owner of the use by the renter.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 17~ day of May,
2006.
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
Ordinance No. 2163-2006
Page 2 of 2
ATTEST:
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
Introduced: May 3, 2006
Adopted: May 17, 2006
Effective: June 17, 2006
} \
r_--
_~ -
- /,
tticdtyaf //
KENA~ SKA
r~%ifla9e wit~t a Past Gc°~ with a Futc~~'e"
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794
Telephone: (907) 283-7535 /Fax: (907) 283-3014
www.ci.kenai.ak.us
EOAlO1DU
TO: ~ Mayor Porter and the Kenai City Council
FROM:C~. Cary R. Graves, City Attorney
DATE: April 26, 2006
I2E: Community Purpose Exemption
During the during the last discussion on this issue, Councilor Swarner asked a question regarding
the application of this exemption to the old Kenai Supply building, now owned and occupied by
the Salvation Army. The question was whether the Salvation Army could receive the exemption
while it owned [he building but before its operations were moved there.
I posed the question to Shane Horan, the KPB Assessor. He informed me that the property did
noC receive the exemption while vacant. It only received the exemption after the Salvation Army
moved into the facility and used it. He also stated that the thrift store portion does not receive
the exemption (and is taxable) because that portion of Che building is used fora "dominant profit
mative.°
Please let me know if you have any questions.
N-~
Suggested by:
C%TY OF KENAI
ORDINANCE NO. 21fs4-2006
Adrnmistrauon
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA INCREASING
ESTIMATED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS BY $60,000 IN THE AIRPORT LAND
SYSTEM SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AND THE RUNWAY SAFETY AREA
IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL PROJECT FUND FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES.
WHEREAS, the FAA requires projects to be bid prior to awarding a grant; and,
WHEREAS, the Runway Safety Area Improvement Project needs an additional $60,000
for engineering to carry the project through grant submission; and,
WHEREAS, upon adoption of this ordinance the total amount appropriated to date is
$300,000, all of which is grant eligible; and,
WHEREAS, funds are available in the fund balance of the Airport Land System Special
Revenue fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA, that estimated revenues and appropriations be increased as follows:
Airport Land System Special Revenue Fund
Increase Estimated Revenues:
Appropriation of Fund Balance $60,000
Increase Appropriations:
Transfer to Capital Project Fund $60,000
Runway Safety Area Improvements Capital Proiect Fund
Increase Estimated Revenues:
Transfer from Special Revenue Fund $60,000
Increase Appropriations:
Engineering $60,000
Ordinance No. 2164-2006
Page Two
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 17th day of May,
2006.
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
Approved by Finance:_,~~
(03/27/2006) 1-~l
Introduced: May 03, 2006
Adopted: May 17, 2006
Effective: May 17, 2006
ftC i ~s ,~ ~ i .6-j ~ 7D
N. WILL&NJ SY.SRrE~ K®VAi, ALASKA S96'li
PAX ~7~ffi3373'T
~~ ' •. ,.
~-
To: Larry Semmens -Finance Director
From: Rebecca Cronkhite -Airport Manager ~~
Date: April 26, 2006
Subject: Airport Project Funding
In recent years the FAA Airports Division has changed their policy on project
grants to require the Airport to engineer, design and bid the project prior to
applying for the grant. There is a preliminary cost estimate and a process where
the FAA "programs" the funds for the project. This programming acknowledges
FAA concurrence with the need for the project and pieces the funds in a budget;
however the sponsor (Kenai) is required to forward fund the preliminary costs.
All of the incurred costs are eligible for reimbursement from the grant at 95%
Federal and an additional 2.5% State match.
The project was started with $240,000 from the airport fund. This amount was
based on 2.5% of 9.5 million, which was the preliminary cost estimate for the
project. The cost of engineering, design and bid document preparation will
exceed the budgeted amount and therefore a transfer from airport fund balance
is required to complete the process and apply for the grant. Once the project is
complete any funds in excess of the required 2.5% match will be deposited back
in the airport fund.
www.ci.kenai.ak.us.
Municipai Airport
F
r y`% \
i ~_. ,
tl7eu'>yaf
KENAA~ SKA
// a e • e .d
l/illa~e wctti a Past, GLty wct,~ a
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794
Telephone: (907) 283-7535 /Fax: (907) 283-3014
www.ci.kenai.ak.us
1VIli~I DU
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Carol L. Freas, City Clern~c ,
DATE: April 19, 2006 D ~~
RE: KENAI CITY COUNCIL POLICY FOR COMMISSION, COAIlVIITTEE,
BOARD AND COUNCIL ON AGING MEETINGS AND WORK SESSIONS
In August, 2005, following the council's Strategic Planning Work Session, at your
request, a memorandum was forwarded to the City's commissions, committees and
Council on Aging to discuss problems in achieving quorums for meetings and request
suggestions in how participation might be improved. The memorandum asked the following:
Keeping in mind the standard meeting day, time and place will remain as it is currently, please
consider the following:
i. Would you prefer the commission/committee or board meeting to return to a bi-
monthly schedule?
2. Would you prefer meeting only during summer months? If so, which months?
3. Would you prefer meeting only during winter months? If so, which months?
4. Do you, as a group, have other recommendations for Council to consider related
to commission/committee and board participation, i.e. combine commissions and
responsibilities, increase membership, etc.?
Attached are copies of the meeting summaries/minutes where the issue was discussed
and the suggestions made. Also, attached is an updated Kenai City Council Policy for
Commission, Committee, Board and Council on Aging Meetings and Work Sessions in
which the meeting schedule change requests have been incorporated.
Does Council have any further amendments to make to the Policy?
Does Council approve the amended Kenai City Council Policy for Commission,
Committee, Board and Council on Aging Meetings and Work Sessions?
clf
Attachments
KENAI CITY COUNCIL POLICY
FOR
COMM%SSION, COMMITTEE, BOARD AND COUNCII. ON AGING
MEET%NGS AND WORK SESSIONS
Commission, Committee Board Reappointment:
If, after a term (or consecutive term) of appointment has been completed, a commission,
committee or board member would like to be reappointed for an additional term, an application
must be submitted to council for consideration and approval.
Formation of Subcommittees of Commissions Committees or Boards:
A subcommittee of a commission, committee or board may be formed for a specific function if
upon review by administration, it is indicated the subcommittee would be a governmental body
and a subcommittee of a public entity and if the formation is approved by Council.
If a subcommittee is approved by Council, the meetings of the subcommittee must be open to
the public; meeting notices shall be posted on the Official City Bulletin Board in Kenai City Hall
and on the city website at least five (5) days prior to the meeting; and the meetings may be
recorded with a portable tape recorder and the tapes (the official record) stored in the City
Clerk's Office.
Meetin¢ Schedules:
Until further notice, the commission/committee meeting schedule is as follows:
Commission/Committee Meeting
/Board Sehedule Scheduled Mcetia Da s
Planning & Zoning Twice monthly January through December, Second &
Commission Fourth Wednesda s
Libr Commission Monthl^ First Tuesda
Harbor Commission Monthly First Monday after first council meeting of
the month.
Council on A ' Monthl First Thursda
Beautification Committee [MONTHLY] No Second Tuesday
meetings Jan.,
Feb., Nov. & Dec.
Parks & Recreation (MONTHLY] Bi- First Thursday
Commission Monthl
ort Commission Monthl Second Thursda
1. Commission, committees and boards, including Library, Harbor, Parks 8v
Recreafion and Airport Commissions and Beautificafion Committee, shall meet [ON A
MONTHLY BASIS] as listed above.
2. Council on Aging shall meet monthly at the Kenai Senior Center.
3. Planning & Zoning Commission and the Personnel Arbitration Board is
exempted from this meeting directive.
4. Commissions, committees, boards and the Council on Aging may, with the City
Clerk's approval and notification of Council and City Manager, hold special meetings (for a
specific purpose) on an as-needed basis.
5. Commission, committee and boazd meetings may be cancelled by the City Clerk,
with notification of Council and City Manager, if cancellation is warranted, i.e. lack of agenda
items, pre-knowledge of lack of quorum, etc.
6. All commission, committee and board meetings (except Council on Aging) will be
held at Kenai City Hall and begin at 7:00 p.m. Exceptions for subcommittee meetings may be
made with advance notice to and approval by the City Clerk.
7. Any additional commissions, committees, or boazds formed will be set and
incorporated into the following meeting schedule by the City Council.
Minutes/Meetin¢ Recordine:
8. Excepting the Planning & Zoning Commission and Personnel Arbitration Boazd,
responsibility of taking notes and electronically recording the commission, committee, board
meetings, falls to the departrnent liaison (staff member) to the specific meeting group.
9. Summary minutes will be produced by the City Clerk from the department
liaison notes and provided to the City Council as official records of the meetings.
10. Electronic recordings of the meeting group, except the Planning & Zoning
Commission, shall be kept for two years.
11. Planning & Zoning Commission meeting recordings shall continue to be kept for
six years.
Wosic Sessflons•
12. Commission, committees and boazds shall receive the City Clerk's approval to
hold work sessions to be held on a date other than that of a regularly scheduled meeting or at
a time immediately prior to a regularly scheduled meeting, i.e. a 6:00 p.m. work session before
a 7:00 p.m. meeting.
I3. Work sessions may not be held without the approval of the City Clerk unless
they occur on the night of and at the time of a regulazly-scheduled advertised meeting.
14. During work sessions, only items on the work session agenda may be discussed
and no formal actions may be taken.
15. All commission, committee and board meetings must be given appropriate
public notice.
(THE SCHEDULE FOR ALL CITY OF KENAP COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND
COUNCIL ON AGING IS AS FOLLOWS:]
[TABLE MOVED TO ABOVE.]
This directive shall take effect on [JULY I, 2004] Mav 3. 2006 and remain in effect until
modified by the Kenai City Council.
Approved by the Kenai City Council on the [FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2004] third day of Mav.
2006.
ATTEST:
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
PAT PORTER, MAYOR
Clf
[7/30/04] Revised 513/06
Bryson asked what advantage leasing of the area would be to the city and Kebschull
responded, the lease payment to the city would be $300 a yeaz.
VOTE:
Glick Yes Hammelman Yes B son Yes
Twait Yes Eidrid e Yes Amen Yes
Barrett Absent
MO'T'ION PASSED UNAIQIMOUSLY.
?-b. Hiscussion/Recommendation -- Commission/Committee/Board
Meeting Schedules
\ _ Kebschull referred to City Clerk Freas' memorandum, included in the packet, which
~1~/ indicated problems arising with some of the city's commissions, committees and
boards related to attendance; lack of quorum achievement; costs, including staff time
and postage, etc. and requested suggestions from the members as to what might help
in encouraging better attendance, etc.
City Clerk Freas noted, the council recognizes the value of participation from the
volunteers who make up the memberships, but problems with attendance impacts the
city from costs of postage, costs of staff time involved in preparation of packets of
information, collecting packet information, meeting attendance, etc., but more
importantly, the impact to the members who do attend and there's not a quorum and
the public who may be attending for consideration of an issue and receives no
direction because of the lack of a quorum.
City Council Member Butler reviewed the intentions of the council ni collecting
suggestions from the ditferent commissions/committees and boards to consider in
possibly amending the code related to the current membership standazds, etc. He
noted, he was a proponent of what makes the most sense, which could include
combining groups that have connections, i.e. Hazbor/Airport, Pazks/Beautification,
etc. in order to maximize the efforts and make sure the public is well represented.
Butter noted, because of statute mandates, the Planning & Zoning Commission was
different, but council still wanted their input as to thoughts and ideas of what might
make the process work better.
A lengthy discussion took place in which comments included:
• The quorum concerns have not been from the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
• Have bi-monthly meetings.
• The public impact is the driver for attendance and the feeling of
accomplishment when the member leaves the meeting.
• Cancel meetings if there are no agenda items.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 2005
PAGE 5
• Combine commissions Jcommittees that have similarities, i.e. Parks &
Recreation with Beautification, Harbor Conunission with Airport Commission, etc.
• Make sure the public feels acommission/committee meeting is
something they want to come to and participate in the public process.
• Earlier meetings, i.e. 6:00 p.m. or 6:30 p.m.
• Change the number of members to the cormnission (seven to five).
• Appoint alternates to the commission/committee who may participate as
a voting member if needed to make the quorum required.
• Have seasonal meetings.
• Because there are different legal requirements/responsibilities for the
commissions/committees, they cannot be evaluated with the same criteria.
• Be sure a council member is in attendance of meetings.
• Hold joint meetings of commissions/committees when issues are of
importance to two or more groups.
• Consider teleconferencing ability.
• Allow excused absences.
• Change the day of to better accommodate meeting participation.
• Expand the responsibilities of the Planning & Zoning Commission
beautification/landscaping, etc.)
• Provide subcommittees to commissions {currently Beautification to Parks
Recreation).
• Offer a stipend.
• If combining the Harbor and Airport Commissions, perhaps it should be
nine-member roster.
7-c. Approval of August 24, 2005 Meeting Minutes
Kebschull reviewed her memorandum included in the packet, noting she received a
request from Cliff Baker of Integrity Surveys asking to have the minutes changed to
Cla^!y d:s^,L:~usEOn on Rcsoiuuon P''i05-52. Stlcl:iuCauy, to [:liange "ine plat would
vacate a 33-foot right-fo-way easement and replace it with a 30-foot uility easement" to
state "The plat vacates a 33-foot right-of--way easement on Government Lots 94 and
105 and creates a 15-foot utility easement on both lots."
MOTION:
Commissioner Bryson MOVED to approve the minutes of August 24, 2005 and
Commissioner Eldridge SECONDED the motion.
Bryson stated he felt the Commission should first request City Clerk Freas to review
the minutes and confirm they were correctly written and they would remain the official
minutes is no change is made. Separate from that, if there's a recommendation from
staff that 15-foot easement be provided on each of the lots, they might provide a
clarifying statement and the Commission could either concur or not concur with the
intent of the statement, i.e. a letter in the record.
MOTION TO AMEND:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 2005
PAGE 6
6-a. Discussion -- Kenai Soccer Park/Draft Use Management Procedures
Parks & Recreation Director Frates indicated a change needing to be made to Item
2.3.9 of the Management Procedures to reflect written field improvement requests
needing to be submitted to the Parks & Recreation Department for review.
A general discussion followed related to operating hours and restrictions on
amplification equipment, as well as the possible need for defining unauthorized
vehicles by adding examples to the document.
The Commission recommended the following:
• Add examples of unauthorized vehicles to include at least snow machines
and ATV vehicles.
• Include the entire 25 acre parcel in the unauthorized vehicle restrictions.
• Amplification equipment should be allowed beyond 5:00 p.m. upon
submittal of a written request from the user group to the Parks 8v Recreation Director
(or his appointee) and receipt of subsequent approval from the Director (or appointee).
ITEM '7: NEW BUSINESS
7-a. Discussion -- Kenai Kennel Club/Request for Dog Park -- Ballfield
Subdivision, Tract A.
Kenai Kennel Club representative, Rhonda Oglesby gave a brief summary of the Kenai
Kennel Club's need for a dog park and azea to hold agility trials. She also reviewed the
azea within Section 36 the Club is interested in using and detailed how the Club would
be involved with construction and maintenance of the azea.
Frates indicated, in his reseazch he found many dog parks are located adjacent to and
within other designated recreation azeas.
MOTION:
Commissioner Molloy MOVED to support the dog park as presented by the Kenai
Kennel Club and for the request to go before the Kenai City Council. Commissioner
Hagen SECONDED the motion.
VOTE:
Brown Absent Sandahl Yes Fo 'a Yes
Carroll Yes Wortham Yes Ha en Yes
Mollo Yes
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
`~, 7-b. Discussion/Recommendations -- Meeting Schedule
`~d
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER I, 2005
PAGE 2
Frates reviewed the memorandum included in the packet from City Clerk Freas. A
general discussion took place in which the members expressed difficulty in attending
summer meetings and questioned whether summer meetings were needed.
Sandahl suggested there was a definite need for pre-summer and fall meetings and
suggested meeting bi-monthly. Molloy agreed with Sandahl's suggestion and added, he
liked the flexibility of adding special meetings if needed and thought combining with
another commission could be discussed further.
MOTYON:
Commissioner Molloy MOVED to recommend the Commission change to regularly
scheduled bi-monthly meetings with the flexibility to schedule additional meetings as
needed. Commissioner Wortham SECONDED the motion. There were no objections.
SO ORDERED.
ITEM 8: REPORTS
8-a. Commission Chasr -- No report.
8-b. Director -- Frates reported on the following: Bernie Huss Trail
upgrades, cemetery gazebo status, multipurpose facility improvements, possible adult
softball infield upgrades, and FY 2006 designated legislative grants.
8-c. City Council Liaison -- Council Member Moore noted the designated
legislative grants, council's discussion related to ConocoPhillips sign proposal, and the
possible sale of wetlands.
YTEM 9: COMMYSSION QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
Molloy noted the success of the Industry Appreciation Day event and how the park
strip is well suited for the event.
ITEM 10: PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD -- None.
%TEM 1 is
11-a. Council Action Agendas of August 3 and 17, 2005.
11-b. Beautycation Committee Meeting Summary of August 9, 2005.
ITEM 12:
The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:23 p.m.
Meeting Summary prepared by:
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2005
PAGE 3
KENAI LIBRARY COMMISSION
KENAI CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
7:00 P.M.
CHAIR EMILY DE FOREST, PRESIDING
MEETING SUMMARY
ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 8s ROLL CALL
Chair DeForest called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. Roll was
confirmed as follows:
Commissioners Present: K. Heus, E. DeForest, J. Jenckes, C. Brenckle, E. Bryson
(arrived at 7:20 p.m.~, B. Peters.
Others Present: Library Director E. Jankowska and Council Member B.
Gilman
ITEM 2: AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION:
Commissioner Brenckle MOVED to approve the agenda as presented and
Commissioner Heus SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO
ORDERED.
ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY --
3-a. June 7, 2005
3-b. August 2, 2005
MOTION:
Commissioner Brenckle MOVED to approve the meeting summaries of June 7 and
August 2 as presented and Commissioner Peters SECONDED the motion. There were
no objections. SO ORDERED.
%TEM 4: PERSONS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD -- None.
ITEM 5: OLD BUSINESS -- None.
ITEM 6: NEW BUSINESS
6-a. Discussicn -- Meeting Schedule
The Commission reviewed the memorandum included in the packet related to meeting
scheduling. Discussion revealed the members would prefer keeping a monthly
schedule.
MOTIONc
Commissioner Brenckle MOVED to recommend the Library Commission maintain a
monthly schedule, year-round schedule. Commissioner Peters SECONDED the
motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED.
6-b. Discussion -- Library Funding
Director Jankowska reported on the Homer Library campaign for raising funds for its
library. Discussion followed and comments included:
• The need to reach a wider audience, i.e. a brochure to introduce people to
the idea.
council.
MOTIONa
Request a resolution of support and offering matching funds from the
Invite community leaders to a general meeting.
Review plans at October meeting and decide which to support.
List forwazded to city council on September 7.
Commissioner Peters MOVED for Emily DeForest to present a request to the city
council for a resolution supporting the use of $500,000 in matching funds and put the
library addition on the capital improvement list as the number one priority.
Commissioner Bryson SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO
ORDERED.
MOTION:
Commissioner Heus MOVED to support an addition of up to 16,000 square feet to the
library acid Cut?u?iiSSiOner BreriCklc SECa?~PeDED tiie rIIUtiori. There weie ziG objections.
SO ORDERED.
MOTION:
Commissioner Brenckle MOVED to recommend Emily DeForest be on the Library
Director Search Committee. Commissioner Bryson SECONDED the motion. There
were no objections. SO ORDERED.
YTEM ?: REPORTS
7-a. Direct®r -- Jankowska presented an annual and monthly report of
library activities.
LIBRARY COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
PAGE 2
There should be prime riverfront property.
Public Works Manager Kornelis reviewed his memorandum (included in the packet)
and mentioned the full study was available for review in his office.
%TEM 6: NEW BUSYNESS
6-a. Discussion -- Meeting Schedule
The Commission reviewed the memorandum included in the packet and, upon
discussion, concluded the monthly meeting schedule should continue, requesting
meetings be canceled when there are no agenda items or quorum concerns.
6-b. Recommendation -- Tideland Application for Shore Fishery -- Ted J.
Crookston
The Commission reviewed the application and information included in the packet.
Ted Crookston -- Noted the following:
• He's fished in the area since 1965 and in this section for approximately
four years -- all were in-shore and leased.
• The sites referred to in the application are off shore.
• He wanted to include a longer and narrower area, however after
discussion, he decided to leave the application as presented in the packet.
MOT%ON:
Commissioner Eldridge MOVED to recommend to the city council the tidelands lease,
as described and presented to the Harbor Commission from information included in
the packet, be made available for lease. Commissioner Romain SECONDED the
motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED.
ITEM 7: REPORTS
7-a. Director -- Kornelis reported the following:
• There had been little activity at the dock, however there were piles
remaining to be pulled.
• Council approved the land trade of properties for the launch ramp/exit
road project.
• Discussion will continue related to a sale of wetlands.
7-b. Dock Foreman -- No report.
7-c. City Council Liaison -- No report.
HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2005
PAGE 2
• Brown is working with the Kenai Rotary Cub to purchase a bench to be
placed at the Rotary flower bed and suggested eight to ten orange Queen Trollius be
placed there as well.
• General landscaping for the old library building take place next summer.
• Hollyhocks and coleus be purchased for placement at the visitors Center.
• Plantings for placement in the circle planters at the Holiday gas station
and Arbys was discussed.
The membership recommended adding hollyhocks, orange trollius and yellow daisies
be added to the purchase list as well as placement of rocks on the front side of the
Rotary bed to serve as a border.
5-a. Discussion -- Anchorage Site Visit
It was noted, a visit of the Anchorage beds was too late for this year but could be
discussed again in the spring.
ITEM 6: NEW BUSINESS
6-a. Discussion -- Meeting Schedule
Frates reviewed the information included in the packet and discussion took place on
the most advantageous time for the Committee to meet with regard to their work.
~` MOTYON:
Member Hatch MOVED to meet March, April, May, June, July, August, September,
and October. Member Dimmick SECONDED the motion. There were no objections.
SO ORDERED.
o-®. Discussion -- Summer 2006 Flower Purchase
Frates reported his desire to establish the 2006 flower list in order to pre-order the
flowers in an attempt to get a small discount and purchasing from the local nurseries.
He noted, most of the national flower markets, including the locals, have gone to larger
pot sizes and larger plants, which cost more. Other concerns are blooming times, pick-
up times and other necessary criteria.
The membership recommended using the new flower list and pre-ordering for next
season.
ITEM 7: REPORTS
7-a. C®mmittee Chair -- No report.
BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING
OCTOBER 11, 2005
PAGE 2
The Commission reviewed and discussed the request information which was included
in the packet. Discussion noted:
• If a 1-c becomes required, then the applicant should be 1-c.
• Discussion on set fee rather than percent of gross.
The Commission recommended to move forward with the request or set up a Request
for Proposal. Return the issue to the Commission with a designated space or set rent.
6-c. Recommendation -- Amendments to Airport Regulations, Chapter 6.05,
Entitled "Parking "
The Commission reviewed the proposed amendments.
MOTION:
Commissioner Bielefeld MOVED to recommend approval of the amendments as
presented and Commissioner Zirul SECONDED the motion. There were no objections.
SO ORDERED.
6-d. Discussion -- Meeting Schedule
The Commission reviewed the information included in the packet and suggested the
~( ability to attend by teleconference.
" ~ MOTION:
I Commissioner Zirul MOVED to not have a meeting in December and July, but
continue the remainder of the year on the regular schedule. Commissioner Versaw
SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED.
ITEM 7: REPORT
7-a. Commission Chair -- Chair Knackstedt noted the following:
• An advertisement in the Civil Air Patrol magaaine, i.e. Alaska Wing Tips.
• He spoke to Air Supply Alaska owners and welcomed them to the airport.
The owners told him the lack of the airplane tax enabled them to operate on the
airport, however they almost walked awaked away from the lease because of
bureaucracy. Commissioner Zirul stated he felt this was a prime example of why the
leasing process was needing to be streamlined.
7-b. Airport Manager -- Airport Manager Cronkhite noted the following:
• Referred to Item 7b of the FAA concerns related to runway incursions
(information was included in the packet).
7-c. City Councii Liaison -- No report.
AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 2005
PAGE 3
Director Craig reported the project was on schedule and, if all the equipment
arrives on time, the kitchen should be complete and back in operation
November 15-22.
5-b. Discussion -- Assisted Living Update
Craig reported it the architect's preliminary drawings would hopefully be
available for the City Council's review on October 19. She will contact Council
on Aging members to remind them to attend the council meeting.
5-c. Discussion -- Meal Cost
Removed from agenda.
ITEM 6: NEW BUS%NESS
6-a. Discussion -- Meeting Schedule
The members reviewed the memorandum included in the packet and stated
their support of the meetings remaining monthly at held at 7:00 p.m. at night
at the Center.
6-b. Discussion -- Capital Projects
Director Craig asked for input of what the members would like to be considered
as capital projects. Responses included more administrative office space,
telephone by the driveway, and, an area for a gift shop.
6-c. Discussion -- Senior 1-ligh Projects
Craig encouraged the group to attend the October 8 event and support the
intergenerational projects.
ITEM 7: REPORT5
7-a. Council on Aging Chair -- No report.
7-b. Director -- Craig thanked Council Member Gilman for his
participation.
7-c. Council Liaison -- Council Member Gilman encouraged the
seniors to attend/show the whole project.
ITEM 8: OUESTYONS & COMMENTS -- None
COUNCIL ON AGING MEETING
OCTOBER 6, 2005
PAGE 2
Mad/ ®®
courocrc/coMn~rssronr n'EErrivG cALEn+®a~
H-q
1 2 ,6~•d,~ p 3 4 ~w
to i,p. 5 6
Library CITY COUNCIL Council on
Commission, MEETING, 7P, Aging, 7p,
7p, Council COUNCIL Senior Center
Chambers CHAMBERS
Parks &
Recreation
Commission,
7p, Council
Chambers
7 8 9 10 I1 12 13
Harbor Beautification Planning & Airport
Commission, Committee, 7p, Zoning Commission,
7p, Council Council Commission, 7p, Council
Chambers Chambers 7p, Council Chambers
Chambers
C~LG/iGY%~/
~~
'4 IS 16 l7 18 19 20
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING, 7P, ~
~
COUNCIL ~
"
4~~7,~/
'~
CHAMBERS ~'"
~
~ y
~/
~
~'
~~
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Planning &
Zoning
Commission,
luyci~~
7p, Council ~ytt
Chambers
ooDD ,,//
T~WV ~~ /~V7"Y~-'l~.
2 ~7 3 0 3 `
" Apr 2006 Jun 2006-
HOLIDAYtCITY S M 'P W T E S S M T W 'I' E S
OFFICES I 1 2 3
CLOSED
2 3 Q 5 6 7 8
4 5 6 7 8--9-10
9 10 II 12 13 14 IS I1. 12 U I4 ]$ 16 t7
I6 17 18 I9 20 21 22 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 25 2b 27 28 29 30.
30
Jun
COUNCIL/COMMISSION MEETING CALEN®AR
1 2 3
May 2006 ]u12006
S M T W "i' R S S M T W T F g Council on
1 2 3 a 5 G t Aging, 7p,
7 8 9 t0 11 72 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Senior Center
14 IS 16 17 IR I9 20 9 IO II l2 L3 ld 15 Parks&
21 22 T3 25 35 2G 27 I6 17 18 19 20 21 Z2 Recreation
2& 29 30 3t ?3 24 25 26 27 28 29 Commission,
30 31 7p, Council qa„~~~
Chambers ~~
4 ~ S 6 7 8 9 10
Library CITY COUNCIL Airport
Commission, MEETING, 7P, Commission,
7p, Council COUNCIL 7p, Council ~
Chambers CHAMBERS Chambers i
~1 12 13 14 IS 16 17
Harbor Beautification Planning &
Commission, Committee, 7p, Zoning
7p, Council Council Commission,
Chambers Chambers 7p, Council
Chambers
~ //
-G~CG~
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING, 7P,
COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
5~ Nvf>z-~/'
ZS Z6 27 28 29 30
Planning &
Zoning
Commission,
7p, Council
Chambers
~~ aa -- ~~ ~~,,
L~'~
1
May 2, 2006
Ron Long, President and Members
Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly
144 N. Binkley Street
Soldotna, AK 99699
Dear President Long and Assembly Members,
This letter is being written in support of the Kenai Peninsula Borough's intent to purchase
Heritage Place in Soldotna, Alaska.
Heritage Place is the only skilled nursing facility on the Peninsula. It serves people of all ages in
need of skilled health care. The Kenai Council on Aging enthusiastically supports the continuum
of care this nursing home has offered since its creation by Banner Health. This facility provides
an indispensable choice alternative critical to meeting the health care needs of our Peninsula
residents.
This council understands that seniors thrive and maintain their independence longer if they are
able to live within their own community. We support the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly's
intent to purchase this skilled nursing facility and establish it as an extension of Central Peninsula
General Hospital. If this or no other alternative comes to fruition, elders would be forced to move
away from their homes and would not be allowed a reasonable alternative, other than to move
from this azea to Providence Extended Care or Mary Conrad Center in Anchorage, or possibly
further away to another facility in Fairbanks. It is of our opinion that this choice is unacceptable,
as it would place them further away from their homes and, inmost cases, their extended families.
As our population continues to grow and age here on the Peninsula the need for facilities like
Heritage Place is only going to increase. This fact alone lends strengthened justification for
vigorously pursuing this course of action. This council would like to commend those responsible
for initiating an endeavor of this nature. The outcome of this endeavor will positively affect the
lives of every citizen who may, at some point in their lives, need a service such as that offered at
Heritage Place. To that end...its availability to meet our own future health care needs maybe in
question here!
Sincerely,
CITY OF KENAI COUNCIL ON AGING
Bill Osborn, Chair Joanna Hollier Fiocla Wilson
Gina Kurtzman, Vice Chair Richard Jorgensen Earl Jones
Linda Flowers
cc: John Williams, Borough Mayor
MRY 02 2006 14:44 KENRI SENIOR CENTER 907-29J-3200 p,i
May 02 O6 02:38p Ninllchik Senior Center (907)5873968 p.t
May 2, 2006
Executive Director
Kepi Senior Center
Kenai, AK 9461 d
To Whom dt May Concern:
The Ninilchik Senior Center stro:tgly supports the construction of additional assisted living
facilities on the western shore's o:.'the Kenai Peninsula. There is a strong need for assisted living
facilities on the Kenai d'enitnvla, where aenfors may age in place or in close proximity to family
and friends
Tit: Ntntl«i12.t` .t'.ent.^.r :,°.°rStC $$F®I9gly ~u`ypolw ah°r iunSu Suiwn Cif additlUnai a$61:~i•cd't1~Ving
facilities in Kenai. The seniors p refer the more rural setting of the Kenai Perrinsuta where
thoy've lived mmny decades, rath a than relocating to .Anchorage, a very urban centee and much
farther away from family and friends. The seniors prefer and desire the mote astral, caring
atmosphere of the Kenai Peninsu to than the urban, bustling, busy and noisy setting of
Anchorage.
As seniors age sad need an assisted living environment, they geneaally also require nearby
medical and emergency peofessic•nels. Medical facilities, emergency professionals and medical
care are all currently available in Kenai. The ocean, the boats and the mountains are also visiblo
frorn Kenny which contributes to the atmosphere st=d gives the seniors comfort and a sense of
home.
^~/~, r
,~~"''' 1
v'~ut.te Waa.ctt MAk'ntA CtRITf
DirecWr President Hoard of Directors
BIGGEST LITTLE SENIOR CENTER on the PENINSIIL7A
AItNU.C[sIK SeN~e CrraENS, tYl:. PO BOX 39422 Nurilcltik, AK 99639-04'22
Phtme: 907.567-3988 se~tiors ptialaska.net Fax:907-567-3968
MRY 02 2006 15:51 KEIYflY SENIOR CENTER 907-283-3200 p.l
FROM t Soldotna Senior Center PFYINE FYI, : ~7 262 2147 May. 02 2005 02:46Ph1 PS
May 2, 2008
Rachael Craig, Executive Director
Kenai S®nior Center
38t 5enlorCourt
Kenai, AK 99811
Oear Rachael:
This letter is written in suppo^t of the Kenai Senior Connection Resolution before the
Kenai City Council far consideration and approval in securing property (to be donated
by the City of Kenai) far an a ssisted living facility,
Tha need tar an assisted living facility In Kenai is vital for health and well being of area
seniors, and to remain in their own community. With the Kenai Peninsula's rapidly
growing senior population it i.; crucial that there ara adequate skilled assisted living
facilities.
I wish you ®very success in your pursuit of securing properly and building an assisted
living facility in Kenai.
Soicfotna Area Senior Citizens, Inc.
197 VI'eat Park Avenue * 3okbMa, Alaska 99869
Phone: (9o7j 2E 2-2322 * Fast (90~ 262-2147 * eabrctr®alaska.net
NRV o3 zoos I4:o0
KENRI SENIOR CENTER
May 2, 2006
To Kenai City Council;
907-283-32Cw
This is to inform you that I scpport the Kenai Senior Connection, Inc.'s
project to build ari aesiated living. There is a big need within our cocc¢ounity
for an assisted living facility. Seniors, such as myself, like being in
a community of other seniors and remaining in our community.
/ ~~ ,
P- 1 ,
NRY 03 2006 15:29 KENRI SENIOR CENTER 907-283-3200 p.l
.. i.
MRY 03 2006 18:25 KENRI SENIOR CENTER 907-283-3200
..... ,.7 rv v~ ..,o se,v a i tai ~ Ne a(aea sewsoa eEro s®azezaesa
Rachael Craig, Executive Director
Kanal S®nlor Services
361 Senior Court
Kenai, APaska g®811
Mey 3, 2006
Dear Rachael:
Aa a leilow Dirr~Cior I am pleased Yhat the Ke
Asalated Living to their Grogram services, We are facin
of available choices for our seniors particularly when fat
level of home care end needing assistance but not to t
care, These decisions of where to gc when help is
nearly on a dally basis. The Kenai Peninsula is becarr
tetireers and we know from experience that the facility n
HMIs population of retirees,
I hope that the ICenai City Council will wholly
uervicea in this effort to acquire land and construct Ae~
Sincerely, 1,
E,~ ~.Gt ~ de0r`~~
yudy VNArren, Director
Sterling Area Senior Citi:lans, Inc.
282.3683
Seniors waht tc add
crisis with thA amount
with leaving a comfort
level of nursi~sg home
eded are popping up
an attractive; area for
is will grow along with
~rt the Kenai Senior
Living facilities.
P• +
P. 01
uw,..e
~~el o~~r4 "
~~ -~D
~~~~~
~N
fGeafyaj~
DATE: i7! ~' 1 ~ ya D6
't
CITY OF KENAI -'
"Village with apast -- City with a future. "
BACKGROUND AND PERSONAL DATA -
CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT COMM%TTEES AND
COMMYSSYONS
P, EC E~` ,~ ~ RETUIUI To:
~, e_._.
~ KENAY CITY CLERK
APR 12 2~ ~ 210I~ENA~I,GAKA 9961E1
PHONE: 283-7535, EXT. 231
F~ ~~'';";P C(~TY CLEF FAx: 2s3-soes
NAME: ~~i3~~T t~ ~~+~^~~
Resident of the City of Kenai? 6~E5 How long? 9 Hv...TNS
Residence Address y o 6 ~ F kc s ~ i}~-' 'j ' /L ~'~ 4 t ~4K ~ ~~ ~~
Mailiag Address S~"'~ t Home Telephone No. .Z y 3 -~S Y 9
Home Fax No. Business Telephone No -2~z 96 B
Business Fax No. 2`63 - z `i ~ `~ Email Address: ,2oA~ F2i Ea D e~ t.~t/TL2 ~7 Te n K,+15
May we include your contact information on our web page? ALL If not all, what information may we
include? ,..g~-,~ '~ prto.~+e ,,,ursi3sra-~
EMPLOYER: 5`'s"E of A-K• -Uuc. /LE/t.cPi Job Title ~-`tf'T~hi~-b ~~-+`' cvrrzD,.~<~°"
NAME OF SPOUSE: ~/ ~+
Current membershipsn organizations: ~ L/tf
Past organizational memberships: .aa~r7 ~aX z~~~Fa-~-a- ~ ~ i?c.z.acY c~u-r~sE~ T'~rT°z-~
- L i.- ~ t ~ v f- - L~
COMMITTEES OR COMMISSIONS IN WHYCH YOU ARE YNTEl2ESTED: ~iti"~ ~- e' '~ ~ `+ ' ^~ 4
WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE YNVOLVED WITH THIS COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE?
?.SSUES £~ S~rZlJ~ctj j-o~ S~ratLS t5 MoK~ Ham-amt-v4F~-tL A-> ~ ~-i
fJ Lnta / ~f ~4/~ tT E~-c-~ 77fi ti/H~/S ;4i3c~-Ir r~N/S gK'-.A !fin .4 C~V/~~
t
WHAT BACKGROUND, EXPERYENCE, OR CREDENTIALS DO YOU POSSESS TO BRING TO THE BOARD,
COMMISSYON OR COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP?
,95 cvtiP sc/ i35 - n47 hPA s-r4"~ ~hP~~Yct- w iT~t t/~c_~„,ava~
CITY OF K.ENAI
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
April 26, 2006 - 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
a. Roll Call
b. Swearing in of Commissioner Fullinck
c. Agenda Approval
d. Consent Agenda
*All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the
Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent
Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders.
2. *APPROVAL OF 1dHNUTES:
a. *April 12, 2006
3. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT:
4. CONSH)ERATION OF PLATS:
a. PZ06-30 -Preliminary Plat - Sungate Park Subdivision Schweitzer Addition -Plat submitted by
McLane Consulting, PO Box 468, Soldotna, Alaska.
b. PZ06-31 -Preliminary Plat -General Aviation Apron Subdivision No. 4 -Plat submitted by
Tinker Creek Surveys, P.O. Box 2342, Soldotna, Alaska.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6. OLD BUSINESS:
7. NEW BUSINESS:.
8. PENDING ITEMS:
a. PZOS-16 - An application to rezone the area known as Tract C, Daubenspeck Property
Subdivision, (170 Bridge Access Road), from suburban residential to general commercial.
Application submitted by John Hammelman, Chair, Planning & Zoning Commission, City of
Kenai, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska. (Tabled)
9. REPORTS:
a. City Council
b. Borough Planning
c. Administration
10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED:
11. INFORMATION ITEMS:
a. Zoning Bulletin (3/25106)
b. Citizen's Guide to Appeal
12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
13. ADJOURNMENT:
C%TY OF KENAI
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CITY CIOUN~gCIL CIiyAMBgEy RS
AI'RDJ 26y 2®®6 - l:®® 8'.M.
CHAIR BARRY ELDRIDGE, PRESIDING
MINUTES
ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER
Chair Eldridge called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1-a. Roll call
Roll was confirmed as follows:
Commissioners present: J. Twait, S. Romain, B. Eldridge, P. Bryson..
Commissioners absent: J. Jenckes, L. McLennan
Others present: Council Member Ross, Departmen*. ~' scant Carver,
Ronald F~Ilinck, and Contract Secretary Roper
A quorum was present.
1-b. Swearing in of Commissioner F~lliack
Department Assistant Carver administered the Oath of Office to Ronald Fullinck.
Commissioner b`ullinck took his seat on the dais.
1-c. Agenda Approval
MOTION:
Commissioner Bryson MOVED to approve the agenda and requested UNANIMOUS
CONSENT. Commissioner Twait SECONDED the motion. There were no objections.
SO ORDERED.
1-d. Consent Agenda
MOTION:
Commissioner Bryson MOVED to remove the minutes from the Consent Agenda to
correct the meeting date from April 5, 2006 to April 12, 2006 and requested
UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Commissioner Romain SECONDED the motion. There were
no objections. SO ORDERED.
MOTION:
Commissioner Bryson MOVED to approve the consent agenda with the correction of
the minutes and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Commissioner F`ullinck
SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED.
ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- April 12, 2006
Approved by consent agenda.
ITEM 3: SCHEDULED PUBL%C COMMENT -- None.
ITEM 4: CONSIDERATYON OF PLATS
Commissioner Bryson advised he would abstain from voting on both items due to a
conflict at the Borough level. There were no objections from the Commission.
4-a. 6-30 -- Preliminary Plat -Sungate Park Subdivision Schweitzer
Addition -- Plat submitted by McLane Consulting, PO Box 468, Soldotna,
Alaska.
MOTION:
Commissioner Twait MOVED for approval of PZ06-30, preliminary plat for Sungate
Park Subdivision Schweitzer Addition. Commissioner Romain SECONDED the
motion.
Department Assistant Carver reported the following:
• The plat would remove lot lines from three parcels to create one large
parcel; resulting in approximately 37,525 squaze feet.
• The resulting lot size would meet the requirements for the Rural
Residential zone.
• No permanent structures could be built within the 20-foot utility
easement running through the pazcel.
• No water or sewer service is available to serve the parcel.
• Staff recommends approval.
There were no Commissioner comments or questions.
VOTE:
Twait Yes Jenckes Absent Romain Yes
Eldrid e Yes B son Abstain Fullinck Yes
McLennan Absent
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
4-b. PZ06-31 -- Preliminary Plat -- General Aviation Apron Subdivision No. 4
-- Plat submitted by Tinker Creek Surveys, P.O. Box 2342, Soldotna,
Alaska.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMYSSION MEETING
APRIL 26, 2006
PAGE 2
Carver reported the following:
• The plat would remove a lot line to create one large parcel; the resulting
lot would be approximately 1.071 acres and would meet the lot size requirements for
the Light Industrial zone.
• City water and sewer is available to serve the parcel.
• The lot line is being removed for the planned development of the pazcel.
• The final plat should verify the 1988 utility easement and if it is still in
effect, it should be noted on the plat.
• The subdivision name will have to be changed.
MOTION:
Commissioner Romain MOVED for approval of PZ06-31, preliminary plat for General
Aviation Apron Subdivision No. 4 with the requirement that the final plat verifies the
1988 easement and they aze indicated on the plat. Additionally, the subdivision name
will be changed. Commissioner Fullinck SECONDED the motion.
Bryson noted the 100' taxiway A2 designation is no longer used and the new
designation should be noted on the plat.
Brad Zubeck, Kenai, Alaska asked the following questions:
• What is the new designation for Taxiway A2? It was noted the
information could be obtained from City Planner Kebschull.
• Who will rename the subdivision? It was noted the Borough would make
the change. Carver indicated the new name would be General Aviation Apron
Subdivision No. 5.
There were na additional public or Commissioner comments or questions.
VOTE:
Twait Yes Jenckes Absent Romain Yes
Eldrid e Yes B son Abstain Fullinck Yes
McLennan Absent
MOT%ON PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chair Eldridge explained the appeal process, noting there is a Citizen's Guide to
Appeal included in the meeting packet.
ITEM 6: OLD BUSINESS -- None.
ITEM 7: NEW BUSINESS -- None.
ITEM 8:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 26, 2006
PAGE 3
8-a. PZ05-16 - An application to rezone the azea known as Tract C,
Daubenspeck Property Subdivision, (170 Bridge Access Road), from
suburban residential to general commercial. Application submitted by
John Hammelman, Chair, Planning & Zoning
ITEM 9: REPORTS
9-a. City Council -- Council Member Ross provided a report on action taken
at the City Council's April 19, 2006 meeting.
19-b. Borough Planaing -- Commissioner Bryson provided a brief report. on
action taken at the Borough's April 24, 2006 meeting which was held in Homer.
9-0. Administration -- Carver reported Mary Toll of the Borough's planning
department will attend the next Planning and Zoning meeting to discuss platting.
ITEM Y0: PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCIiEDULED -- None
ITEM 11:
11-a. Zoning Bulletin (3/25/06)
11-b. Citizen's Guide to Appeal
ITEM 12: COMMISSION COMMENTS 8s QUESTIONS
Commissioners Twait and Romaia welcomed Commissioner Fullinck to the
Commission.
Commissioaer Fullinck expressed his appreciation to be appointed to the
Commission.
Chair Eldridge also welcomed Commissioner Fullinck and requested staff have a
report on site plans for current projects at the next meeting.
ITEM 13: ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Commissioner Bryson MOVED to adjourn and Commissioner Twait SECONDED the
motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:24 p.m.
Minutes transcribed and prepazed by:
Barbara Roper, Contract Secretary
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 26, 2006
PAGE 4
INFORMATYON ITEMS
KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 3, 2006
1. 4/25/06 P.O. Hansen letter regarding Challenger Learning Center of Alaska.
2. 4/24/06 Kenai Lions Club invitation for Council to attend the dedication of the
Kenai City Cemetery Gazebo at Noon on Saturday, May 20, 2006 at the Kenai
City Cemetery.
3. 5/2/06 Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Meeting Agenda.
4. Purchase Orders Between $2,500 and $15,000 for Council Review.
~,~-i
Carol Freas
City of Kenai
210 Fidatgo Avenue
Kenai, AK 99611-7794
Dear Cazol,
iEIEPHONE (907) 263-4611
EAX (907) 283-3992
KENAI, ALASKA 99611
APR 2 72006 ~ ~
~~-~'".i C9~Y CLEa '
Thank you for supporting the Challenger Learning Cemer of Alaska at last week's City
Council meeting by assisting in payment of its utilities the neat six months. Our
Challenger Board of Directors is working diligently with our pro bono director, Larry
Porter, in developing means to make it self sustaining.
This facility in Kenai is providing science and space technology for hundreds and
hundreds of students who come through it each year from all parts of Alaska. It is a
privilege having it located within the city of Kenai, and the nature of what it will do for
educating Alaska's future generations is revealing to Alaskans everywhere the
progressive stand our community is making in Alaska.
Sincerely, /
~~~
3ENC0 6UILDING
SU;iE 123
l 1355 KENAI SPUR HWY.
Apri125, 2006
Peter O. Hansen, M.D.
Board member
Challenger Learning Center of Alaska
RPR-24-2006 02:45 PM PENZNSULR MEM
CHAPEL. O. 19072836116
~,~-a
April 24, 20017
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avc. Suite 200
Kenai, Alaska 99611
I ~~Ct `t
Aft 2 g 2006 ~r
Kf-`!~I C._ i_ Tel' ~LE~:
I'at Porter,
We are excited to announce the completion of the Kenai City
Cemetery Gazebo. The Kenai Lions Club would like to formally
invite the Mayor of Kenai to the dedication of the Kenai City
Cemetery Gazebo which will be held 12:00 p.m., Saturday, May
20.2006 at tlye Kenai City Cemetery. We will also be coordinating
for the cemetery cleanup to be held from 10:00 a.m. ~ 12:00 p.m.
on the same day. Please feel welcome to bring your family and
friends to help cleanup the cemetery and enjoy free hot dog picnic
follawing the dedication,
Please let me know ifyou receive this and need any further
information. In advance, thank you for your assistance.
Sine ely,
... ~~~
Ryan Mills, Kenai Lions Club President
P.O. Box 298, Kenai, AK 99611
Phone (907) 283a3333 Fax (907) 283-6116
VI/~ -1/
S
May 2, 2006 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Sewazd City Council Chambers, Seward, Alaska
ton Long
Assembly President
Seat 6 -East Peninsula
Term Expires 2006
Pete Sprague
Assembly Vice President
Seat 4 - Saldotna
Term Expires 2007
Dan Chay
Assembly Member
Sea! 1 - Kalifornsky
Term Expires 2006
Paul Fischer
Assembly Member
Seat 7 -Central
Term Ezpires 2007
Germano
ry Member
Seat 8 -Homer
Term Expires 2008
Margaret Gilman
Assembly Member
Seat 2 -Kenai
Term Expires 2008
Milli Martin
Assembly h4ember
Seat 9 -South Peninsula
Term Expires 2006
Grace Merkel
Assembly Member
Seat S-Sterling/FunrryRiver
Term Expires 2008
Gary Superman
Assembly Member
Seat 3 - Nikiski
Term Expires 2007
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGL4NCE
C. INVOCATION
D. ROLL CALL
E. COMMITTEE REPORTS
F. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
(All items listed with an asterisk (*) aze considered to be routine and non-controversial by the
Assembly and will be approved by one motion. There will be no sepazate discussion of these
items unless an Assembly Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the
Consent Agenda and "considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. ,
G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
* 1. ~ April 18, 2006 Regulaz Assembly Meeting Minutes ........... 1
COMMENDING RESOLUTIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
H.
PRESEPdTATIONS.WlTH PRIOR NOTICE (Limit to 2u" minutes total)
I.
1. Discussion on Spruce Creek Bridge, Lowell Point
by Gary Davis, KPB Roads Director (to minutes) ................ 14
with Limited Public Comment Period (!0 minutes)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT APPEARING ON THE
AGENDA (3 minutes per speaker, 20 minutes aggregate)
J.
K
REPORTS OF
AND COUNCILS
May 2, 2006 Page 1 of 6
L.
MAYOR'S REPORT
1. Agreements and Contracts ........:.....:...........................17
a. Spruce Bark Beetle Mitigation Program:
• Approval of Contract with Paul's. Services for Sterling
Highway, Mile 111 Right of Way Project ..................18
• Approval of ContractwithDougKochTreeServiceforNorth
Fork 2-A Add-On # 1 RO W Project ....................... 21
• Approval of Contract with Steve's Tree Service for Birch #1
Right of Way Project .................................. 23
b. Approval of Contract with ACS for Telecommunication Services for
Borough Building and Outlying Offices throughout Soldotna ........ 26
Mt
c. Approval of Contract with ProComm Alaska, LLC far Radio Project
Mapping related to new Soldotna Dispatch Centex ................. 27
d. Approval of Contract with Steam on Wheels for Sweeping Various
Borough Facility Parking Lots ..... . ........................... 28
e.. Approval of Contract with AeroMap U.S. for Aerial Photography and
Surveying for Central Peninsula Landfill Expansion Area ........... 30
2. OLtler
a. Investment Portfolio Re ort - A ril 10 2006 ...:.. 31
P P ~ ...............
° b. March Unemployment Figures for Kenai Peninsula Borough ....:..:. 33
,ITEMS NOT COMPLETED FROM PRIOR AGENDA
I. Ordinance 2005-19-46: Correcting Ordinance 2005-19-19 Which Accepted
and Appropriated a Grant from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources
in the Amount of $3,550 for the Anchor Point Fire and Emergency Medical
Service. Area (Mayor) (Refeaed to Finance Committee) ................... 37
2. Ordinance 2006-01 (Martini Substitute: Repealing KPB Chapter 21.26 and
Enacting KPB Chapter 21.29, Material Site Permits (Martin) (Second of
Three Hearings) (Referred to Lands Committee) ........................ 40
May 2; 2006 Page 2 of 6
3. Ordinance 2006-09: Enacting KPB 16.12.115 Authorizing Billing for
Ambulance and Emergency Medical Services by the Nikiski Fire Service
Area (Mayor at Request of Nikiski Fire Service Area Board) (Referred to
Finance Committee) ...............................................65
4. Ordinance 2006-10: Adopting a Revised Fee Schedule for Billing of
Ambulance, Equipment, and Other EMS Services Used in Emergency
Responses by the Central Emergency Service Area and Central Peninsula
Emergency Medical Service Area (Mayor) (Referred to Finance Committee)
...............................................................70
5. Ordinance 2006-11: Amending KPB 5.12.050 to Require that Agents and
Assigns Demonstrate Their Authority to File a Boazd of Equalization Appeal
on Behalf of the Property Owner (Mayor) (Referred to Policies and
Procedures Committee) ............................................77
6. Resolution 2006-036: Establishing a Cost Allocation Plan (Mayor) (Referred
to Finance Committee) .............................................80
N. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ORDINANCES (Testimony limited to 3 minutes per
speaker)
1. Ordinance 2006-12: Authorizing the Conveyance of Tracts C, G, and K, °
ASLS 2003-2, according to Plat No. 2005-10, Seward Recording District in
the Cooper Landing Area to the State of Alaska (Mayor). (Referred to Lands
Committee) .....................................................84
2. Ordinance 2006-13: Amending the Tax Code to Increase the Motor Vehicle
Tax (Mayor) (Referred to Finance Committee) .......................... 97
Ordinance 2006-13 (Mayorl Substitute: Amending the Tax Code to Increase
the Motor Vehicle Tax (Mayor) (Referred to Finance Committee) ..........104
3. Ordinance 2006-I5: Amending KPB 5.12.119 to Require that an Application
to the Mayor for an Extension of Time to Request a Property Tax Exemption
be Filed on or Before February 15 (Mayor) (Referred to Policies and
Procedures Committee) .......................................:....109
4. .Ordinance 2006-16: Providing thatthe Uniform Electronic Transactions Act,
AS 09.80.010 et. seq., Shall Apply to KPB Chapter 5.18, Sales Tax,
Electronic Transactions (Mayor) (Referred to Policies and Procedures
Committee) ............:.....................'..................114
5. Ordinance 2006-19: Appropriating Funds for Fiscal Yeaz 2006-2007 (Mayor)
(First of Two Hearings) (Referred to Finance Committee) ................117
_
May 2, 2006 Page 3 of 6
O. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None
P. NEW BUSINESS
2.
3.
Bid Awards
*a. Resolution 2006-040: Authorizing Award of a Contract for the
Purchase of Landscaping Equipment (Mayor) (Referred to Finance
Committee) .........................'.....................122
Resolufions
*a. Resolution 2006-041: Adopting- the 2005 Determination of the -
Population of the Borough for FY 07 as Revised by the Department
of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (Mayor)
(Referred to Policies and Procedures Committee} .................125
*b. Resolution 2006-042: Authorizing Transfer of Funds from the
Endoscope Project to Miscellaneous Equipment Project (Mayor)
(Referred to Finance Committee) ..................:..........135
*c. Resolution 2006-043: Authorizing the Acceptance of Late-Filed
Senior Citizen and Disabled Veteran Exemption Applications
(Mayor) (Referred to Policies and Procedures Committee) ..........139
Ordinances
*a. Ordinance 2005-iy-50: Appropriating $885,868 to the Fiscal Year
- 2006 Road Service Area Capital Improvement Projects (Mayor)
(Hearing on 06/06/06) (Referred to Finance Committee) .......... ,175
*b.. Ordinance 2006-22: Authorizing the Kenai Peninsula Borough to
• Execute and Deliver an Equipment Lease Purchase Agreement in an
Aggregate Principal Amount Not to Exceed $2,000,OOO,to Pay the
Cost of Acquiring and Installing a CT Scanner and a Picture
Archiving Communication System for the South Peninsula Hospital,
and Providing. for Related Matters (Mayor) (Hearing on 06/06/06
(Referred to Finance Committee) , .............:..............182
*c. Ordinance 2006-23: Replacing the Flat Tax with an Ad Valorem Tax
on Certain Watercraft in Excess of 100 Feet in Length (Sprague)
(Hearing on 06/06/06) (Referred to Finance Committee) ...........187
May 2, 2006 Page 4 of 6
4. Other
*a. Petition to Vacate a Portion of a 33-foot Section Line Easement to
Accommodate the Existing Building near the South Boundary of Lot
1 C. H. Miller Subdivision (Plat 78-81); within Section 2, Township
4 South, Range 15 West, Sewazd Meridian, Alaska; and the Kenai
Peninsula Borough; KPB File 2006-046; Location:. West of Sterling
Hwy in Anchor Point; Anchor Point APC (Referred to Lands
Committee) ....:.........................................192
[Clerk's Note: The Planning Commission approved the above
referenced vacation by unanimous consent at its regularly scheduled
April 10, 2006 meeting.]
Q. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS (3 minutes per speaker)
R. ASSEMBLY MEETING AND HEARING ANNOUNCEMENTS
May 16, 2006 7:00 PM Regulaz Assembly Meeting Soldotna
S. ASSEMBLY COMMENTS
T. PENDING LEGISLATION (This item lists legislation which will be addressed at a later date as noted.)
1. Ordinance 2005-19-47: Appropriating $1,000;000 From the Borough's
General Fund Balance to Reimburse the CES Capital Project Fund for its
Contribution for Construction of an Emergency Response Center (Mayor)
(Hearing on 05116/06) (Referred to Finance Committee)
2. Ordinance 2005-19-49: Appropriating Funding for Replacement of the
Disinfection System at the North Peninsula Recreation Service Area Pool
Facility (Mayor) (Hearing on 05/16/06) (Referred to Finance Committee)
3. Ordinance 2006-O1 (Martini Substitute: Repealing KPB Chapter 21.26 and
Enacting KPB Chapter 21.29, Material Site Permits (Martin) (Final Hearing
on 05/16106) (Referred to Lands Committee)
4. Ordinance 2006-17: Amending KPB 5.12.100 to Exempt Senior Housing in
Ninilchik from Real Property Taxation (Fischer) (Hearing on 05/16106)
(Referred to Policies and Procedures Committee)
5. Ordinance 2006-18: Amending KPB 2.60.035 to Increase the E911 Surcharge
on Local Exchange Wireless Telephones from $.75 to $1.15 Per Month
(Mayor) (Hearing on OS/16/06) (Referred to Finance Committee)
May 2, 2006 Page 5 of 6
6. Ordinance 2006-19: Appropriating Funds forFiscal Year 2006-2007 (Mayor)
(Final Hearing on 05/16/06) (Referred to Finance Committee)
Ordinance 2006-20: Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Agreement to
Purchase the Assets of Heritage Place, a 60-Bed Skilled Nursing Facility,
Which Would Be Leased and Operated by Central Peninsula General
Hospital, Inc. (Mayor) (Hearing on 05/16/06) (Referred to Finance
Committee)
8. Ordinance 2006-21: Amending KPB Chapter 5.12 to Require That a Senior
Citizen or Disabled Veteran must Be Eligible for a Permanent Fund Dividend
for the Same Yeaz or for the Immediately Preceding Year in Order to Receive
the First $150,000 Exemption from the Assessed Value of Real Property and
That, in Order to Qualify for the Unlimited Exemption above $150,000, the
Seruor Citizen or Disabled Veteran must Have Been Absent from the Kenai
Peninsula Borough for No More than 90 Days in the Calendar Year with
Certain Excepfions and Have Met a Residency Requirement (Superman,
Germano) (Hearing on 05/16/06} (Referred to Policies and Procedures
Committee)
9. Resolution 2006-029: Reclassifying Certain Borough Land in the Sunrise
Area Pursuant to KPB 17.10.080 (Mayor) (Referred to Lands Committee)
(Tabled on 04/04/06)
U. INFORMATIONAL MATERL4LS AND REPORTS
V. NOTICE OF NEXT MEETING AND ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly will be held on May 16, 2006,
at 7:00 E.M. in the Borough Assembly Chambers, Soldotna, Alaska:
This .meeting will be broadcast on KDLL-FM 91.9-(Central Peninsula), KBBI-AM 890 (South Peninsula),
K201A0-FM 88.1(East Peninsula).
. Copies of agenda items are available at the Borough Clerk's Office in the Meeting Room just prior to the
meeting. _For further i»formation, please call the Clerk's Office at Z14-II ti0 or toll free within the Borough at 1-800-
478-4441, Ext. 1160. Visit our webstte at www.borough.kenai.ak.us for copies of the agenda, meeting summaries,
ordinances and resolutions.
May 2, 2006 Page 6 of 6
w
W
__
0
U
O
V..
0
0
0
O
O
ui
0
Z
Q
0
0
o ~
o ~
u~ c
N
~ M
W ~Q
W '`~
W
m
W ~
~ Z
F
w
w
,.._~.. Se..
N J
ay U
~ O
d U
Z N W O O O O
o c00 ~ N ~ N O
Q V [t V' CO (O ~t
W (n
J
a ~
z
~ z z
O C7 ~ ~ Z m
~
~
~ z
F- ~+
K °~
~ w
Z C
O
d
Q ~ O ~ ~ w ~
~i
d
g
w
Q
z
~ o
~ w
LL
~ o
U
F
W ~
Z
K
Q ~
d U O ~ d. Z Q
O ~ ~ m Q ~ m
J
Q
U
~
~ Y
U
w a
U
J
W W
~ U Z
U ~ O
~ ~ (~ ~
Z
J
v °¢ a Q
w aw
H a
z ~
o ~ a w o
w a g
i ?n
.
Z O
n: O
0 ~- N
w
U m O
~ ~
~ H J m
w U w
w U
O w
~ ~ ~ ~
o
Z Z Q J
~
~ w w w ui
D w ~ C7 U
Z U Z
cc~~ _
~
~ 'S Y t~ ~
Tn~-~+
A T
a~~
COUNCIL PACKET DISTRIBUTION
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
Ma or/Council Attorne f° Ta for/5 rin er/Kebschull ,~'
Clerk Cit Mana er ,F'` Public Works
Police De artment d Finance ,~' En ineer -~'~
Senior Center Air ort ~"' Kim
Librar ~' Parks & Recreation Clarion ~'
Fire De artment 1` Schmidt ~` Mellish
VISTA ~~~~~f Student Re . KSRM
(~ ~ Brenckle
AGENDA DISTRIBUTION
DELIVER
Council and Student Representative Packets to Police Department Dispntch desk.
The Clarion, KSRM, Mellish & Schmidt's Office will pick their packet up in my
office. The portion of the agenda published by the Clarion should be emailed as
soon as possible after Noon on pncket dny. The camern-ready ngendn
c:/myfiles/documents/minutes/agenda form for pnper) is emailed to Denise at
Peninsu/a C/arion (at email folder Work Session/Specinl Meetings, or Composition in
Contacts or IbeIlC~aesnlaskn.net). Home Page documents (agenda, resolutions,
ordinances for public hearing, and ordinances for introduction) are usunl-y emailed
to me and I hold them in my HTML file. Place them onto the city's website from
there ns soon ns possible before leaving the office for the weekend.
AGENDA
ENAI CITY COUNCIL -REGULAR MEETING
m' MAY 3, 2006
7:00 P.M.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
s[ fi.,gtp&itn hHp:1/www.ci.kenai.ak.us
ITEM B: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (10 minutes)
1. Les Krusen -- Astroturf/Multi-purpose Facility
2. Robert RuffnerlKaleidoscope School of Arts & Sciences Teachers
and Students -- Clean-up of No-Name Creek
3. Ricky Gease, Kenai River Spo~shing Association, Inc. -
Management Oversight Reports and Economic Information of Upper
Cook Inlet Salmon Fisheries.
ITEM E: PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Ordinance No. 2158-2006 -- Amending the Offcial Kenai Zoning Map
by Rezoning Lot A-1 and Lot A-2, Baron Park Subdivision No. 6, From
Split-Zoned Light Industrial (IL) and General Commercial (CG) to
General Commercial (CG) Only.
2. Ordinance No. 2159-2006 -- Enacting KMC 7.40 Titled, "Grant
Administration,' Which Adopts Procedures for the Administration of
Grants by the City of Kenai.
3. Resolution No. 2006-20 -Authorizing the Amendment of the city of
Kenai, Alaska and Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS)
Participation Agreement to Exclude All Elected Officials, Effective May 3,
2006.
4. Resolution No. 2006.21 --Transferring $11,000 in the General Fund for
Shop Department Utilities.
5. Resolution No. 2006.22 -Transferring $12,458 in the Water and
Sewer Special Revenue Fund for Engineering.
6. Resolution No. 2006-23 -- Awarding a Lease for Two Fish Seasons
(May 15, 2006 to September 30, 2007) of Kenai Dock Station No. 3 to
Copper River Seafoods for the Seasonal Base Bid of $4,379 Plus
$0.03/Ib. For Any Poundage Over 1,333,333 Lbs. of Total Weight From
Both Stations No. 2 and No. 3 Plus $307 Per Month for Boat Storage
Area No. 3.
7. Resolution No. 2006-24 -- Expressing Intent to Donate Up to 25 Acres
of a 77-Acre Parcel Near Mommsen Subdivision to Frontier Community
Services and Kenai Senior Connection Upon Certain Conditions.
8. Resolution No. 2006-25 -- Transferring $19,149 From Construction to
Engineering in the Terminal Modifications Capital Project Fund.
ITEM G: UNFINISHED BUSINESS
ITEM H: NEW BUSINESS
1.Bills to be Ratified
2.Approvai of Purchase Orders Exceeding $15,000
3. ""Ordinance No. 2160-2006 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and
Appropria0ons by $28,000 in the Airport Land System Special Revenue
Fund for Utilities.
4. "Ordinance No. 2161-2006 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and
Appropriations by $21,000 in the Terminal Enterprise Fund for Utilities.
5. "Ordinance No. 2162.2006 -- Amending KMC 11.20.790 to Change the
Annual Minimum Rental Rate for Shore Fisheries Leases to $3,000.
6. "Ordinance No. 2163-2006 -- Enacting KMC 7.05.035, Adopting a
Community Purposes Property Tax Exemption as Authorized by AS
29.45.050.
7. "Ordinance No. 2164-2006 --Increasing Estimated Revenues and
Appropriations by $60,000 in the Airport Land System Special Revenue
Fund and the Runway Safety Area Improvement Capital Project Fund
for Engineering Services.
8. Approval -- Updated Kenai City Council Policy for Commission,
Committee, Board and Council on Aging Meetings and Work Sessions.
9. Discussion -- Schedule Proposed Library Expansion Work Session.
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- None Scheduled.
ITEM N; ADJOURNMENT
The public is invited to attend and participate. Additional information is
available through the City Clerk's office at 210 Fidalgo Avenue, or visit our
website at http://www.ci.kenai.ak.us.
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk D896/211