Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-12-06 Harbor Commission PacketKENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, December 6, 1983 Kenai City Hall John Williams, Chairman AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. AGENDA APPROVAL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of November 8, 1983 4. GUEST SPEAKERS a. Presentation by Jack Lloyd 5. COMMUNICATIONS 6. REPORTS a. Review of TAMS Report on Fredrickson Proposal 7. OLD BUSINESS a. Response from TAMS RE: Boat Ramp Project 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 10. ADJOURNMENT KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Kenai City Hall John Williams, Chairman 1. ROLL CALL Present: Williams, T. Thompson, Houtz, Weller Mayor Wagoner, Public Works Director Kornelis, and City Engineer LaShot Absent: Dragseth, Quesnel, M.W. Thompson all excused 2. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Williams asked to place Mr. Jim White on the agenda Agenda approved with the addition 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of October 25, 1983 Chairman Williams noted that the name "Dan Fredricks' should read "Donald Fredrickson In the last large paragraph of page one, change to "the rail cars could be brought in at the airport for shipment to all parts of alaska instead of into Anchorage." MOTION: Commissioner Thompson moved to approve the minutes as changed, seconded by Commissioner Weller. There were no objections NOTE: Due to the technical aspects of the following subjects, portions of the minutes were recorded verbatim, sections of which appear in the text of this document. 4. GUEST SPEAKERS a. Jim White Docking Proposal This is a returning item. Mr. White was asked to obtain a written letter from Mr. Fredrickson detailing his proposal. The original letter was entered into the record, Chairman Williams read the letter for those present. Chairman Williams had requested a financial statement from the finance director, Chairman Williams read it to the Commission to review what money was available for harbor projects. KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 2 Chairman Williams pointed out that the lands suggested by Mr. Fredrickson had been selected as a prime location for a harbor by the Corps of Engineers, CH2M Hill, and TAMS due to the way that the river washes out that area. Chairman Williams suggested that when TAMS engineers come to Kenai for the meeting with the Council that they be asked to do a cost and feasibility study for this concept. MOTION: Commissioner Houtz moved that the city authorize TAMS to undertake a limited feasibility study including specifically, 1) how much land is the minimum required to accomodate a facility as suggested, 2) frontage and total area, 3) what would be the approximate cost, motion seconded by Commissioner Thompson. Commissioner Weller asked if the intent of Commissioner Houtz was to proceed with having the study made or first ascertain the cost of the study. MOTION WITHDRAWN The Commission decided to draw up a list of items to be considered. 1) total area that would be required for usable facility of this type 2) frontage required 3) cost of construction 4) size of barge expected to utilize the facility. MOTION: Commissioner Houtz moved to recommend to the City Council that the Harbor. Commission requests TAMS to prepare a cost estimate of a feasibility study to include the above items and other as required, seconded by Commissioner Thompson. Chairman Williams noted that the City of Kenai spent $100,000 to regain City property and in this case the gentleman was willing to donate property. If and when developed, both the owner and the City would stand to gain. The Commission further discussed the project. NOTE: Mayor Wagoner joined the meeting Commissioner Houtz asked how much land was involved in the donation, there is a big difference between say 50' where the dock itself will sit and 90 acres. Commissioner Weller brought out the point of demurrage and land needed for that purpose. Mayor Wagoner stated that he wondered if the City KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 3 should he involved in this project at all because the City can enter into, more or less a partnership with any private party be selling tax free revenue bonds for this, which seems more like an ideal situation. "We're looking at a service for industry and the population of Kenai /Nikiska area and maybe tie into the airport overall NOTE: Chairman Williams will be abstaining from voting due to a possible conflict of interest. VOTE: Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote. 6. REPORTS a. Report from Commissioner Houtz Chairman Williams explained that the request for Comm- issioner Houtz to do this report was brought about by the letter from TAMS on October 19, 1983 in which Mr. Horton requests confirmation that the work has been completed. It as decided at the last meeting not to recommend payment, however it has been established that payment has been made The question brought out was whether or not proper en- gineering procedures were followed. This question was brought about because of concerns with the mud at the base of the ramp, the fine fill that seems to be filtering out from the head of the ramp and other apparent inadequacies. While this is not for the Commission to determine, whether or not the engineering was correct because the City had full and total responsibility for inspections both before, during and after, the Commission does wish to consider the issue. From the conversations Chairman Williams has had with the engineering firm, they indicate that the boat ramp was built exactly according to specs, that there was some discussion between the -City and the contractor as to the depth of the boat ramp at its base, whether it should have been lower or higher, and that in one discussion they said that it was their feeling that the contractor used, as far as fill is concerned, not quite up to specifications, that in fact they may be too fine. Keith Kornelis stated that Jack LaShot was the inspector for the job. Mr. LaShot stated that he had not had any conversations with TAMS directly about the ramp being higher or lower, but it appears that they specified. KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 4 There was further discussion, the Commission then viewed the slides presented by Commissioner Houtz. (Discussion during presentation) Commissioner Houtz I specifically raised the point with TAMS, we were asking why the thing is in a depression and how would they establish the depth below the line at the top of the sheet rock. Mike Horton said that his analogy to the North Slope snow was completely in error. He felt that there would tend to be a stagnant place behind there that would fill with silt. Mr. Horton said, "it doesn't work that way with silt Commissioner Houtz further asked about the incline of the ramp and the terminal foot elevation of it there because it was specified to go to -26 or something like that and wondered why it was specified to end at that depth and how its length was established and Mr. Horton stated that "the only thing that was done to establish that slope was to follow the line of the existing sheet rock." In other words there was no big engineering decision made there. Mr. Horton said that their position was that it was too steep,m this one in 12 and that the City wanted it steeper. Now when he said City I got the impression he was claiming that the harbor division or Jack or Keith. The slides and discussion turned to the sheet pile and the original construction. A photo was shown of the dock adjacent to the boat ramp. It appears that the area in front of the dock is dredged, the mud dumped further out into the river which then is washed toward the ramp on the incoming tide. The discussion and slides turned to the higher portion of the ramp. Mayor Wagoner suggested several truckloads of aggregate to shore up the retaining wall. Keith stated that in the spring the crews would be going in with a backhoe and backfilling the dockside. Commissioner Houtz stated that he felt the ramp is constructed according to the drawings and "if we really take issue with that I think we should take TAMS to task, of course there is nothing that can be done financially at this point. The Commission agreed that the grade of the slope was no different from the original ramp, that the top of the ramp was buried as the ramp got older. Mayor Wagoner stated that the contractor had asked if the design engineer had gone down to the ramp and looked at it at low tide, the contractor showed 6 different items that he had to cut out of the way in order to build the ramp that were never shown on the drawings, and perhaps they had been buried in the mud. KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 5 The Commission adjourned to view the maps in Mr. Brighton's office which showed the ramp before the recent construction. Mayor Wagoner noted that a shovel and a pair of boots, move about 2' of dirt and take a line of sight down through the sheet piling on the lower side about 50' and the sheet piling could have been found. The Commission next discussed the fill and methods of measuring it plus the class of fill which was not designated fully in the bid documents. It was the consensus of the Commission that public works draft of letter listing the concerns and inadequacies with the ramp to be available by November 16th. Chairman Williams will hand deliver the letter and speak with TAMS. TAMS will be asked to respond to the letter but not on that date. 7. OLD BUSINESS a. Design Concepts from TAMS Chairman Williams stated that TAMS is prepared to go before the Council with the recommendation that Alternative 2 be the harbor plan that is chosen due to its contour design to the pipeline and the fact that the pipeline would not have to be moved in this design. Alternative 5 would cause more problems within the river but is still better than the other 3 originally presented to the Commission. Chairman Williams asked that any Commissioner able to attend the Council meeting, please do so. b. Letter from TAMS Returning Item No further comments or discussion 8. NEW BUSINESS a. Request to Lease City Lands Lot 1, Kenai Spit S /D, Schmidt, Ducker, Edelman Fisherman's Packing Along with the lease application and memo that was included in the packet, a memo was handed out at the meeting relating to the history of the lot itself and the subsequent lease applications. Chairman Williams informed the Commission that he had requested this history due to the tremendous struggle that has gone on concerning this business.Mayor Wagoner pointed out that R. Lee Seafoods was never officially disbanded as a corporation nor were the assets KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 6 VOTE: ever disposed of, merely left in limbo and Seacatch then came into being through name change so Seacatch officially and legally was still R. Lee Seafoods. The lease application asks for the maximum length of time allowed by the city, expansion of the present fisheries processing plant and the need for extra space for boat storage plus an additional building. Mayor Wagoner voiced his concerns that the original application asked for the lot across from Columbia Street then changed the application and asked for waterfront land. This operation already has all the docking space they need, and have already tied up all the river frontage they need. There have been two other parties interested in the lot along the river for putting in another fish processing plant. Mayor Wagoner stated that he does not feel that it would not be in the City's best interest to lease additional frontage along the river. The Commission next discussed the ROW's on the maps. Chairman Williams stated that it is the Commission's responsibility to see that all the lands along the river are used properly and efficiently. The utilities that are being requested, i.e. an ice house, a cool room, and boat storage have nothing in common whatsoever with water front usage. Mayor Wagoner voiced concern over filling in wetlands; it may not be possible to fill in either lot 1 or 2 as that is snow geese habitat. Commissioner Weller asked if it was appropriate to inquire as to the current status of their existing lease, Mayor Wagoner stated that it was appropriate, however he was not aware of the current status. Commissioner Weller noted that the cost estimates were not half of what the current cost of constructing buildings of this type. MOTION: Commissioner Thompson moved to approve the lease application for Lot 1, Kenai Spit S/D as described, seconded by Comm- issioner Houtz. Motion failed unanimously by roll call vote. Mayor Wagoner stated that he would like to see the lease application go on with the recommendation that they go back to the original lease requested (the lot to the west), state that the Harbor Commission has no problem if the City and KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 7 the Planning Commission enter into discussion regarding the that original application. b. Financial Report C.A. Brown The Commission again went over the money available for harbor projects. No action. 9. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm. The next regular meeting of the Harbor Commission will be Tuesday, December 13, 1983. However, Chairman Williams will not he in attendance. A meeting may be scheduled upon receipt of correspondence from TAMS. Janet Loper Secretary I TLPPE"' TS- ABBETT -Mc CART IIY STRATTON A PROFESSIONAL, CORPORATION ENGINEERS Mr. Jack LaShot City Engineer City of Kenai P.O. Box 580 Kenai, AK 99611 Subject: Boat Ramp Improvements Dear Mr. LaShot: December 1, 1983 In reply to your letter of November 10, 1983, we note that the Harbor Commission and City Administration have expressed their concerns with certain aspects of the recently completed boat ramp improvement project. In general terms we feel that most, if not all, of the items mentioned could have been effectively resolved without resort to additional expense had we been actively involved in the inspection of the contract works. While I and other TAMS staff visited the project several times during the construction period, we had no authority to do more than observe the works and discuss the project with the City Public Works Department. With regard to your specific concerns we have the following comments: Your Item 1: Our original scheme submitted to the Commission and PWD was extremely basic in response to the Commissioners instructions. The existing service float was to be reused at minimum cost and no filling, paving or utilities were included. We also considered that strengthening works to the retaining wall could not be justified at that time for the following reasons: 1. Considerable work would be required in order to do a satisfactory job on the wall. This would have involved excavation of fill, removal of the landing mats, replace- ment with either concrete or a timber crib wall, backfill- ing, etc. all at a cost on the order of $100,000. This would have been unacceptable to the Commissioners in view of their directives that the total cost of the ramp improve- ment should not exceed $150,000. 4791 BUSINESS PARK BOULEVARD, SUITE ONE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 TELEPHONE (907) 562 -2822 TAMS Mr. Jack LaShot -2- December 1, 1983 2. With the possibility of major harbor work in the area in the near future, this expenditure could in all prob- ability have been completely wasted if it were found necessary to relocate the ramp at a later date. 3. We appreciate that the wall was not in excellent condition but it has worked well for a number of years. Since there were also a number of unused landing mat sheets at the rear of the lot it was considered that these could be used in the future if necessary. I also recall being told (I believe by Keith or yourself) that repairs had been made this way in the past. Alternatively, salvaged concrete planks from the boat ramp could also be used to reinforce the wall whenever necessary. 4 The consequences of failure of the wall are more aesthetic than structural. You will recall that the upstream revet- ment has no retaining wall whatsoever and it is subject to similar erosional forces. We therefore did not include any work on the wall in our February 1983 submittal to the Commissioners and the Public Works Director. The resulting cost estimate for the ramp project at that time was on the order of $125,000 and in line with our instructions from the Commission. Your Item 2; In his review of our 90% submittal, Keith Kornelis then asked for a number of additional items including increased parking lot area, lane marking, signs, barriers and an exten- sion of the ramp. In discussion with the Harbor Commission Chairman this list was cut back to include just the parking area increase. No excavation item was included since we were aiming for the highest elevation possible, but we did permit the Contractor to use cut material as fill. We cannot agree that the lack of an excavation item caused a cost overrun on the parking lot fill work. The drawings stated that fill from the graded areas "meeting Class 'C' requirements could he reused for Class 'C' fill Since it was not paid as excavated material it was reasonable to pay for it as fill at the unit rate. In that way you were not paying twice for the same material. TAM 8 Mr. Jack LaShot -3- December 1, 1983 The yard grading plan shown in Dwg. 144 -3 indicates less than six inches of cut over approximately 2000 square feet a total of 37 cubic yards and well within the definition of grading as per Measurement Item 4(a). This therefore could not possibly have led to the 1304 cubic yard overrun mentioned in your letter. Without reference to your contract measurement records we cannot comment on the overrun. However, had it been brought to our attention at the appropriate time we would have modified the total fill requirement under the provisions of Article 11.9 of the Special Provisions of the contract in order to maintain the contract expenditure within budget. Your Item 3: We were aware of the old pilings and removal of these is included in the intent of Section 02050 (Demolition) and also in Part 1.3 of the Method of Measurement. The record of the prebid conference also shows that the Contractor was informed of the existence of the piles and advised that he would be expected to cut them off if they interfered with the placement of the new planks. Part 1.1(A) of Section 17000 (Measurement and Payment) also refers. Your Item 4: The ramps are not lower than the river bank. They are, however, lower than the surrounding sheet piles and follow exactly the same elevation as the old ramp (see photo). The river bank is some 6.0 feet lower than the top of the ramp and crosses the sheet pile wall at about MLLW. Normally, boat ramps incorporate a curb to prevent trailers dropping off the edge while backing down a ramp. In the case of the Kenai ramp this would have been expensive and so we used the existing sheet pile walls as was done for the original ramp. In answer to your question therefore we consider that the new ramp will not silt up any more than the old one since: 1. The elevation and slope is exactly the same as before. 2. The overall width (sheet pile to sheet pile) to be cleaned each spring is the same as before. As a side note you should be aware that the location of the boat ramp appears to cause an accumulation of sediment in the area, particularly on the downstream section. Although the amount of this siltation and level of the river banks vary from year to year, the sheet pile bulkheads will however help to reduce siltation of the future entrance channel to the proposed small boat harbor. We consider the trade -off to be worthwhile. I AM S Mr. Jack LaShot -4- December 1, 1983 It is also quite likely that a new ramp would be constructed within the new harbor in order to eliminate the annual cleaning problem but that the existing ramp would remain for overflow use or launch /retrieval when the new harbor was closed or inaccessible at extreme low water. In conclusion, had we been in a position to respond to these questions during the construction period, we are confident that they could have been resolved without resort to additional funds. Please also bear in mind that we were asked by the Harbor Commission to provide a low cost improvement with maximum recoverable elements. We feel that the project as constructed has achieved this very effectively and will be of considerable value to the City and the fishing fleet in the years to come. I hope the above adequately addresses your concerns. Should you have any other questions or comments please do not hesitate to call. cc: John Williams, Chairman Harbor Commission Yours sincerely, TIPPETTS -A33 T -McC RTHY- STRATTON Micha l G. Horton Pacific Northwest Waterways Association 50TH ANNUAL MEETING SUMMARIZED The 50th Annual Meeting of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association held last month in Boise was a resounding success. Our 250 members, friends and guests participated in three action packed days of meetings, ceremonies, tours and social events, all of which focused on the past accomplishments of PNWA and its committment to the programs and policy needs of today. Keynote speaker to the Energy Committee, Ralph Lewis of Gulf Oil Corporation wove a spellbinding web describing the world energy picture, its current activities and its future. He noted (in a rather timely remark) that 60% of the United States' imported oil moves through shipping lanes past Grenada. Joe Jordan of International Engineering Company presented a description of the recently completed Panama Pipe- line Project constructed by Morrison Knudsen Connie Brooks of the Mountain States Legal Foundation presented to the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee a summary of Mt. States' conservative voice in governmental and environmental matters of public policy. The Port and Transportation Committee heard a broad variety of speakers: Admiral Harold Parker, 13th Coast Guard District Commander,, summarized P.O. Box 61473 Vancouver, WA 98666 November 9, 1983 (206) 699 the many responsibilities the Coast Guard has and noted that new equipment additional funding are beginning to catch up with their workload. Howard Watters, Inland Waterways Deputy for the Maritime Admini- stration, spoke to the status of user charge legislation as set forth by the Administration. He also said that MARAD doesn't feel the cargo preference principle should be expanded. Harry Cook, National Waterways Conference President, spelled out in detail the activities in Congress surrounding water resources development proposals and the user tax /cost recovery proposals. He noted that Congress has not agreed to the new tax schemes set forth by the Admini- stration, therefore, the solutions will be multi- faceted and hard to come by. Crowley Maritime Corporation Vice President Torn Garside spoke to possible changes in the Jones Act; the problems that private dock operation raise; the splendid future unfolding in Alaska; and the recent Crowley sealift activities. Speaking to the Flood Control, Conservation and Coastal Manage- ment Committee, Mayor General PNWA NEWSLETTER PAGE John Wall, Civil Works Director for the Corps of Engineers provided a broad analysis of the status of major civil works efforts and discussed the many complications affecting their chances of construction. He also spoke to Corps' budgeting needs, noting that more money will be spent on maintenance and rehabilitation than on Construction, a reversal of traditional ratios. J. Roy Spradley, Deputy Director of the Office of Surface Mining at Interior, described the new emphasis on "quality, rather than quantity" in administration of Interior, and linked reasonable development of domestic energy and mineral resources to chances for improved United States productivity. Emil Berg, Portland Attorney, addressed the Comprehensive Planning and Development Committee about an alternative to litigation called "environmental mediation" when development activities are questioned by environmental interests. He demonstrated that mediation can bring parties to mutually acceptable solutions, rather than the "win- lose" alternatives set down through court decisions, as well as being faster and less expensive. To the same group, General Jirn van Loben Sels, North Pacific Division Engineer, spoke to Corps activities in the Northwest and Alaska. He noted we have two of the new members of the hopper dredge fleet; that reductions -in -force will hit our region, too, by 8 -9X; the jobs bill brought over 100 jobs to the Walla Walla District this summer; that streamlining of the Section 404 permitting process is coming about; and, that a number of projects are starting to mature from planning to design and implementation, especially the Mouth of the Columbia Deepening and the new navigation lock at Bonneville Dam. November 9,1.933 Cowlitz County Commission Chairman Van Youngquist illustrated the County's "Cowlitz /Toutle Wastershed Management Plan" and emphasized that the problems (and solutions) are regional in scope and impact through- out the Northwest. Luncheon Speaker Governor John Evans of Idaho detailed his recent trip to the Orient, especially China, and urged that PNWA help expedite the trade opportunities arising on the Pacific Rim. He did caution that certain adjustments will be required in the way we expect to do business, but urged that business indeed, be done R. J. O'Connor, President and Chief Operating Officer of Idaho Power Company told a later luncheon crowd of his pride in being involved in PNWA and urged PNWA to take a very active role in economic development, especially as it relates to trade development from the Northwest and Alaska to Asia. Staff members to Congressman Larry Craig and Senator Jim McClure addressed the general membership pointing out activities of interest to PNWA conducted by their bosses in the Congress. President Ronald Reagan sent a letter commending the work of PNWA and offering "best wishes for an enjoyable, productive and memorable annual meeting and Golden Jubilee. Programs and Policies for 1984 were adopted with six Items of Urgency designated for particular emphasis: the need for a new lock at Bonneville Dam; continued relief from the threats of further damage from Mt. St. Helens and the siltation and watershed problems thereupon; continued efforts to assure the multiple -use concept of Columbia River System waters is preserved and protected; continued opposition to additional waterway user taxes; support for widening the navigation channel below Ice Harbor Dam and Lock to 500 feet; and con- tinued support of local land use Planning controls in lieu of federal management of the Columbia Gorge. PNWA-NEWSLETTER PAGE The membership was updated on PNWA objections to predatory pricing by railroads in grain hauling areas competitive with the truck barge option. PNWA has entered testimony into the record of House subcommittee hearings which are overseeing the railroad de- regulation. Elections saw the addition of six new members to the Board of Directors: Lloyd Anderson, Port of Portland; Herbert K. West, Coast Marine Construction; Joe Piedmont, Washington Water Power; Joe Jordan, International Engineering Company; Steve Felkins, Port of Astoria; and Al Raap, Port of Benton. All officers were re- elected. Ceremonies were conducted recognizing the PNWA Life Members. Seven of the sixteen were in attendance, as was Sadie West, widow of the PNWA founding Executive Vice President Herbert G. West. Remarks from President Logan Lanham and past President Carl Moore recalled much of the fascinating history of PNWA and a video -tape was shown depicting not only history, but much of present work and interests of the organization as well. PNWA offers its thanks and gratitude to the Idaho members for their wonderful hospitality and planning efforts which made the meeting so successful. Special thanks to Logan Lanham and the Idaho Power Company; Leon Stoddard and Morrison Knudsen Company; Joe Jordan, International Engineering Company; and Bob Wittman and the Port of Lewiston! REMINDER: PNWA has moved its offices in Vancouver. We are located in Suite 300, 915 Broadway. However, our mailing address and telephone number have not changed! PJuvember 9, 1983 OTHER NEWS The Northwest Power Planning Council has concluded after recent re -study that the completion of WPPSS plant #3 is cost effective to the region and should be preserved. However, financing at near market rates is one of the financial considerations which makes resumption of construction a difficult task. November 1 wa's the effective date for new wholesale priority firm power rates for power sold by the Bonneville Power Administration to publicly owned utilities and investor owned utilities for their small farm and residential customers. The increase amounted to a 22% hike, going from 1.8 cents per kilowatt -hour to 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour. Rates for direct service indus- tries of BPA went up 9% to 2.68 cents per kilowatt hour. Washington Public Power Supply System plant #2 is offcially complete. The 1100 megawatt nuclear power plant, costing some $2.4 Gill ion, has yet to undergo final inspections, fuel loading and testing before being put into commercial operation. Col stripp1ants #3 and #4 were dedicated recently in Montana. The twin coal fired plants, generating 700 megawatts each, cost nearly $2 Billion. Unit #3 was tested in October. Unit #4 is 80% complete. They await completion of 500 miles of transmission lives across Montana to be able to tie into the BPA distribution grid. The House of Representatives approved revision of Amercian export control policy in legislation sponsored by Congressman Don Bonker. The House also passed H.R. 1234, known as "Domestic Content" legislation 214 -199, which would requirethat a certain percentage of the components of imported (Japanese) automobiles be made in America. NOTICE: If you have news for publication by PNWA, please submit it in writing to our office. REMEMBER. Suggestions are being so,icited from the PNWA membership for Life Member nominees during our 50th year. Details are available from PNWA headquarters. Commemorative Coasters are available from PNWA for $15 /pair. Cast in bronze, they are a handsome memento for home or office. Cruise and dinner information for the sternwheeler "Columbia Gorge" is available from the Port of Cascade Locks, (503) 374 -8290 or (503) 228 -5408. CALENDAR. November 16 American Water Resources Association conference in Spokane; "Washington and Idaho Lakes and Their Future." Details from Dale Anderson at Seattle Metro. November 17 -18, Washington State Water Resources Association Annual Meeting, Kennewick. Information at (509) 966 -9713. PACIFIC NORTHWEST WATERWAYS ASSOCIATION P. 0. Box 61473 Vancouver, Washington 986b6 'November 17 -i8, Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway Development Opportunities Conference, Mobile, Alabama. Details at (601) 328 -3286. November 21 Workshop in San Diego, titled: "Present Developments in Water Rights Law General Adjudication: Equitable Apportionment, Reserved Rigr and the Public Trust Doctrine." Details at (801) 521 -2800. November 30 December 2 Annual Meeting of the Washington Public Ports Association. Information at (206 943 -0760. January 12, 1984 PNWA Mission to Washington Planning Meeting, Portland. March 4 -8, 1984 PNWA Mission to Washington, D.C., Hyatt Regency Hotel, June 27 -29, 1984 1984 PNWA Mid -Year Meeting, Agate Beach Hilton, Newport, Oregon. October 16 -19, 1984 PNWA. 51st Annual Meeting, Sheraton Spokane Hotel, Spokane, Washington. John Williams, Chairman Kenai Advisory Harbor Comm. P.O. Ix 580 Kenai, AK 99611 rganization U.S. Postage Paid Permit No. 56 Vancouver, WA 98660 Volume 1I, Number 45 Could cost $3.3 million City held liable in d ckk disp to By Steve Rinehart Managing Editor A panel of arbiters has held the City of Horner liable for up to 53.3 million in cost overruns on the city dock project, accepting contrac- tor McKinney-Alaska's argument an all four con- tested points. The final cost of the dispute has not been deter- mined. At the close of two weeks of hearings Sunday, the city offered to pay up to 5395000 on the claim. That of fer followed a deci- sion by the arbiters last Thursday that the city be held liable for cost overruns on the 59 million project. The arbiters also ruled that at- torney's fees and hearing costs be awarded to the con tractor. How much of the award and fees will be borne by the city and how much by its engineering firm, Tippetts- Abbet- McCarthey- Straiten (TAMS), is also undetermin- ed, according to City Manager Larry Pitmen. The actual amount of the award will be set by the ar- biters, who Sunday indicated It will take several days to make their dectoion. Legal and witness fees are also undetermined, but are expected to exceed 5100,000. For example, an auditor Balled In as an expert witness by the city testified he was being paid 580 an hour for between IN and 80 hours work on the case. Several expert witnesses were on hand for the pro- ceedings. The city will ask TAMS to pay part of the award, said Steve Yoshida, the city's at- torney on the case. He re- quested that the arbiters designate which portions of the award have resulted from which of the three ma- jor claim areas; the Sadie Cove quarry, the slope design and the pile driving. Two of these, the slope and the piling, draw from alleged d ficiencies in TAMS dock design. f the city cannot reach a sa isfactory agreement with TAMS over sharing the costs, Mr, Yoshida said, a lawsuit may b€ required to settle the matter. Documents filed with the arbiters indicate TAMS is carrying 53 million in llabili- See "City," Back Page t Thursday, November 10, 1983 Homer, Alaska 50 ce es City held ®able Cont. from Page t ty insurance on the project. Mr. Yoshida said that in- surance is intended to cover the types of claims that arose from the project. A fourth area of the claim, acceleration, grew from the other three. The award for acceleration costs will have to be apportioned to the other three areas, and also settled between the city and the engineering firm, Mr, Yoshida said. .Attorneys for each side gave their closing arguments Sunday after- noon McKinney- Alaska's at- torney, John Stewart, of the Portland firm Kobin and Meyer, told the arbiters the added costs were the result of a poor design and misrepresentation on the part of the city and the engineer. There was no testimony that the contrac- tor failed to perform com- petently, he said. The contractor asked for about $409,000 for losses which stemmed from inabili- ty to obtain the required amount of rock from the Sadie Cove quarry. Also, McKinney-Alaska seeks about $841,000 for costs in- curred while dredging and shaping the harbor slopes, which the contractor says were designed too steep. In a third claim area, the con- tractor asked for about $532,000 as a result of added costs of pile driving. Delays arose because of those dif- ficulties, the contractor maintains, which cost another $1.2 million to over- come. "This is a small town, and this was an important pro ject,"Mr. Yoshida told the panel_ He said McKinney should be granted fair com- pensation, but that much of the claim was not reasonable. The contractor, he argued, was aware of the plans before bidding the job, assumed a certain amount of risk, and should be accoun- table for what it cost to do the work. Asked what the city felt was fair, Mr. Yoshida con- ferred with other city of- ficials, then suggested pay- ment of $341,000 for several claims, plus 10 percent pro- fit. The difference between the contractor's claim and the city's offer describes the different approaches taken to figure costs and apply responsibility. Under the "incremental approach" taken by the city, the contractor would be paid unit prices for yards of material, lengths of piling, hours of equipment time, labor and other specific costs of the job beyond those anticipated in the plans. The contractor's "cost approach" presumes that despite competent work, it cost more than could reasonably have been ex- pected to do the job in accor- dance With the plans. If tite contractor's costs exceeded the incremental costs, it must be due to ineffi- ciency, Mr. Yoshida said, adding it is not fair to make the city pay for the contrac- tor's poor performance. There was no mention of inefficiency in TAMS engineers' daily diaries of the work, said Mr. Stewart. The contractor had to work with a poor design, he said, and should be paid the added cost of doing so. Last Thursday the arbiters ruled that the contractor may recover payment for the rip-rap claim, the piling claim, the harbor slope claim and the acceleration claim. The latter refers to the cost of overcoming delays from the other three. In finding for the contrac- tor on the slope claim, however, the arbiters noted they "are particularly con- cerned with the contractor's affirmative duty to mitigate his damages, and whether the contractor's claimed costs are due in part or in- creased by the contractor's particular construction methods." In other words, the ar- biters suggested, McKinney Alaska could have taken more action to keep the slopes from sloughing back into the harbor, even at add- ed cost and effort. If such measures had worked, perhaps it would have lessened the overall claim, Mr. Stewart replied, but added there was no assurance it would have. The total legal fees to be assessed had not been calculated Sunday, par- ticipants said. According to Dave Call, a Fairbanks at- torney for McKinney- Alaska, an agreement reach- ed between he and Mr. Yoshida last February stated that all legal witness costs would be paid by the losing party. That is correct, Mr. Yoshida said. But the intent was to cover "reasonable" witness fees, he said, and he asked the arbiters in a brief filed Sunday to use discre- tion in awarding legal costs, KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, December 6, 1983 Kenai City Hall John Williams, Chairman AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. AGENDA APPROVAL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of November 8, 1983 4. GUEST SPEAKERS a. Presentation by Jack Lloyd 5. COMMUNICATIONS 6. REPORTS a. Review of TAMS Report on Fredrickson Proposal 7. OLD BUSINESS a. Response from TAMS RE: Boat Ramp Project 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 10. ADJOURNMENT KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Kenai City Hall John Williams, Chairman 1. ROLL CALL Present: Williams, T. Thompson, Houtz, Weller Mayor Wagoner, Public Works Director Kornelis, and City Engineer LaShot Absent: Dragseth, Quesnel, M.W. Thompson all excused 2. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Williams asked to place Mr. Jim White on the agenda Agenda approved with the addition 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of October 25, 1983 Chairman Williams noted that the name "Dan Fredricks' should read "Donald Fredrickson In the last large paragraph of page one, change to "the rail cars could be brought in at the airport for shipment to all parts of alaska instead of into Anchorage." MOTION: Commissioner Thompson moved to approve the minutes as changed, seconded by Commissioner Weller. There were no objections NOTE: Due to the technical aspects of the following subjects, portions of the minutes were recorded verbatim, sections of which appear in the text of this document. 4. GUEST SPEAKERS a. Jim White Docking Proposal This is a returning item. Mr. White was asked to obtain a written letter from Mr. Fredrickson detailing his proposal. The original letter was entered into the record, Chairman Williams read the letter for those present. Chairman Williams had requested a financial statement from the finance director, Chairman Williams read it to the Commission to review what money was available for harbor projects. KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 2 Chairman Williams pointed out that the lands suggested by Mr. Fredrickson had been selected as a prime location for a harbor by the Corps of Engineers, CH2M Hill, and TAMS due to the way that the river washes out that area. Chairman Williams suggested that when TAMS engineers come to Kenai for the meeting with the Council that they be asked to do a cost and feasibility study for this concept. MOTION: Commissioner Houtz moved that the city authorize TAMS to undertake a limited feasibility study including specifically, 1) how much land is the minimum required to accomodate a facility as suggested, 2) frontage and total area, 3) what would be the approximate cost, motion seconded by Commissioner Thompson. Commissioner Weller asked if the intent of Commissioner Houtz was to proceed with having the study made or first ascertain the cost of the study. MOTION WITHDRAWN The Commission decided to draw up a list of items to be considered. 1) total area that would be required for usable facility of this type 2) frontage required 3) cost of construction 4) size of barge expected to utilize the facility. MOTION: Commissioner Houtz moved to recommend to the City Council that the Harbor Commission requests TAMS to prepare a cost estimate of a feasibility study to include the above items and other as required, seconded by Commissioner Thompson. Chairman Williams noted that the City of Kenai spent $100,000 to regain City property and in this case the gentleman was willing to donate property. If and when developed, both the owner and the City would stand to gain. The Commission further discussed the project. NOTE: Mayor Wagoner joined the meeting Commissioner Houtz asked how much land was involved in the donation, there is a big difference between say 50' where the dock itself will sit and 90 acres. Commissioner Weller brought out the point of demurrage and land needed for that purpose. Mayor Wagoner stated that he wondered if the City KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 3 should be involved in this project at all because the City can enter into, more or less a partnership with any private party be selling tax free revenue bonds for this, which seems more like an ideal situation. "We're looking at a service for industry and the population of Kenai /Nikiska area and maybe tie into the airport overall NOTE: Chairman Williams will be abstaining from voting due to a possible conflict of interest. VOTE: Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote. 6. REPORTS a. Report from Commissioner Houtz Chairman Williams explained that the request for Comm- issioner Houtz to do this report was brought about by the letter from TAMS on October 19, 1983 in which Mr. Horton requests confirmation that the work has been completed. It as decided at the last meeting not to recommend payment, however it has been established that payment has been made The question brought out was whether or not proper en- gineering procedures were followed. This question was brought about because of concerns with the mud at the base of the ramp, the fine fill that seems to be filtering out from the head of the ramp and other apparent inadequacies. While this is not for the Commission to determine, whether or not the engineering was correct because the City had full and total responsibility for inspections both before, during and after, the Commission does wish to consider the issue. From the conversations Chairman Williams has had with the engineering firm, they indicate that the boat ramp was built exactly according to specs, that there was some discussion between the Cit y and the contractor as to the depth of the boat ramp at its base, whether it should have been lower or higher, and that in one discussion they said that it was their feeling that the contractor used, as far as fill is concerned, not quite up to specifications, that in fact they may be too fine. Keith Kornelis stated that Jack LaShot was the inspector for the job. Mr. LaShot stated that he had not had any conversations with TAMS directly about the ramp being higher or lower, but it appears that they specified. KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 4 There was further discussion, the Commission then viewed the slides presented by Commissioner Houtz. (Discussion during presentation) Commissioner Houtz I specifically raised the point with TAMS, we were asking why the thing is in a depression and how would they establish the depth below the line at the top of the sheet rock. Mike Horton said that his analogy to the North Slope snow was completely in error. He felt that there would tend to be a stagnant place behind there that would fill with silt. Mr. Horton said, "it doesn't work that way with silt Commissioner Houtz further asked about the incline of the ramp and the terminal foot elevation of it there because it was specified to go to -26 or something like that and wondered why it was specified to end at that depth and how its length was established and Mr. Horton stated that "the only thing that was done to establish that slope was to follow the line of the existing sheet rock." In other words there was no big engineering decision made there. Mr. Horton said that their position was that it was too steep,m this one in 12 and that the City wanted it steeper. Now when he said City I got the impression he was claiming that the harbor division or Jack or Keith. The slides and discussion turned to the sheet pile and the original construction. A photo was shown of the dock adjacent to the boat ramp. It appears that the area in front of the dock is dredged, the mud dumped further out into the river which then is washed toward the ramp on the incoming tide. The discussion and slides turned to the higher portion of the ramp. Mayor Wagoner suggested several truckloads of aggregate to shore up the retaining wall. Keith stated that in the spring the crews would be going in with a backhoe and backfilling the dockside. Commissioner Houtz stated that he felt the -ramp is constructed according to the drawings and "if we really take issue with that I think we should take TAMS to task, of course there is nothing that can be done financially at this point. The Commission agreed that the grade of the slope was no different from the original ramp, that the top of the ramp was buried as the ramp got older. Mayor Wagoner stated that the contractor had asked if the design engineer had gone down to the ramp and looked at it at low tide, the contractor showed 6 different items that he had to cut out of the way in order to build the ramp that were never shown on the drawings, and perhaps they had been buried in the mud. KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 5 The Commission adjourned to view the maps in Mr. Brighton's office which showed the ramp before the recent construction. Mayor Wagoner noted that a shovel and a pair of boots, move about 2' of dirt and take a line of sight down through the sheet piling on the lower side about 50' and the sheet piling could have been found. The Commission next discussed the fill and methods of measuring it plus the class of fill which was not designated fully in the bid documents. It was the consensus of the Commission that public works draft of letter listing the concerns and inadequacies with the ramp to be available by November 16th. Chairman Williams will hand deliver the letter and speak with TAMS. TAMS will be asked to respond to the letter but not on that date. 7. OLD BUSINESS a. Design Concepts from TAMS Chairman Williams stated that TAMS is prepared to go before the Council with the recommendation that Alternative 2 be the harbor plan that is chosen due to its contour design to the pipeline and the fact that the pipeline would not have to be moved in this design. Alternative 5 would cause more problems within the river but is still better than the other 3 originally presented to the Commission. Chairman Williams asked that any Commissioner able to attend the Council meeting, please do so. b. Letter from TAMS Returning Item No further comments or discussion 8. NEW BUSINESS a. Request to Lease City Lands Lot 1, Kenai Spit S /D, Schmidt, Ducker, Edelman Fisherman's Packing Along with the lease application and memo that was included in the packet, a memo was handed out at the meeting relating to the history of the lot itself and the subsequent lease applications. Chairman Williams informed the Commission that he had requested this history due to the tremendous struggle that has gone on concerning this business.Mayor Wagoner pointed out that R. Lee Seafoods was never officially disbanded as a corporation nor were the assets KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 6 MOTION: Commissioner Thompson moved to approve the lease application for Lot 1, Kenai Spit S/D as described, seconded by Comm- issioner Houtz. VOTE: ever disposed of, merely left in limbo and Seacatch then came into being through name change so Seacatch officially and legally was still R. Lee Seafoods. The lease application asks for the maximum length of time allowed by the city, expansion of the present fisheries processing plant and the need for extra space for boat storage plus an additional building. Mayor Wagoner voiced his concerns that the original application asked for the lot across from Columbia Street then changed the application and asked for waterfront land. This operation already has all the docking space they need, and have already tied up all the river frontage they need. There have been two other parties interested in the lot along the river for putting in another fish processing plant. Mayor Wagoner stated that he does not feel that it would not be in the City's best interest to lease additional frontage along the river. The Commission next discussed the ROW's on the maps. Chairman Williams stated that it is the Commission's responsibility to see that all the lands along the river are used properly and efficiently. The utilities that are being requested, i.e. an ice house, a cool room, and boat storage have nothing in common whatsoever with water front usage. Mayor Wagoner voiced concern over filling in wetlands; it may not be possible to fill in either at 1 or 2 as that is snow geese habitat. Commissioner Weller asked if it was appropriate to inquire as to the current status of their existing lease, Mayor Wagoner stated that it was appropriate, however he was not aware of the current status. Commissioner Weller noted that the cost estimates were not half of what the current cost of constructing buildings of this type. Motion failed unanimously by roll call vote. Mayor Wagoner stated that he would like to see the lease application go on with the recommendation that they go back to the original lease requested (the lot to the west), state that the Harbor Commission has no problem if the City and KENAI ADVISORY HARBOR COMMISSION Special Meeting, November 8, 1983 Page 7 the Planning Commission enter into discussion regarding the that original application. b. Financial Report C.A. Brown The Commission again went over the money available for harbor projects. No action. 9. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9 :45 pm. The next regular meeting of the Harbor Commission will be Tuesday, December 13, 1983. However, Chairman Williams will not be in attendance. A meeting may be scheduled upon receipt of correspondence from TAMS. Janet Loper Secretary r PROPOSAL CITY OF KENAI PROPOSED BARGE TERMINAL NOVEMBER, 1983 TAMS Engineers TIPPETTS ABBETT- McCARTHY- STRATTON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Anchorage, Alaska IAMS TIPPETTS ABBETT Mc CARTHY STRATTON A PROFESSIONAL. CotiRORA ioN ENGINEERS Mr. John Williams, Chairman Advisory Harbor Commission City of Kenai P.O. Box 580 Kenai, AK 99611 Subject: Proposed Barge Dock Frederickson Property Dear Mr. Williams: November 23, 1983 Further to your request of November 16th, please find attached a proposed study plan and cost estimate to investigate the feasibility of construction of a barge dock at the Frederickson property. We have attempted to target the key issues involved and hope that this "broad brush" type of analysis meets your needs at this time. The total estimated cost of the study is $25,268. The staff listed in this proposal are available to begin work on the project immediately following a notice to proceed with the work which we would expect to complete within 12 -14 weeks. In the meantime, should you have any questions or comments on the attached proposal please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, TIPPETTS -ABB TT- McCARTHY STRATTON cc: Wm. J. Brighton, City Manager P. Perdichizzi, P.E. President 4791 BUSINESS PARK BOULEVARD, SUITE ONE .ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 TELEPHONE (907) 562 -2822 INTRODUCTION KENAI BARGE DOCK PRE FEASIBILITY STUDY The Harbor Commission has been offered the opportunity to acquire approximately 15 acres of waterfront land located on the Kenai river immediately upstream of the Salamatof Seafoods processing plant. The owner of the land, Mr. Donald Frederickson has however offered to donate the land contingent upon the City providing financing or finance /construction of a barge unloading facility at the site. The scheme as envisioned by Mr. Frederickson and his associates would involve the construction of a barge dock with landside open cargo storage and transfer facilities, distribution system, possible future rail link and infrastructure. Poten- tial outbound cargoes might include processed seafood and urea while inbound cargoes would include building materials, general and project cargoes (receipts) with destinations in the Penin- sula. Most of these cargoes are currently being handled through Anchorage or Seward. OBJECTIVES Before recommending that the City commit financing or resources to the project the Commission require an indication of the viability of the concept from an economic and engineering standpoint. The following key questions should be addressed. e What is the existing cargo traffic pattern? e What is the range of achievable cargoes that might be diverted from existing facilities and handled at the new facility? e What revenues will be earned? o What form should the development take? e How much will it cost? o How much will operation and maintenance cost? Will income exceed expenditures or is an operations subsidy required? Will the facility benefit the community in terms of reduced transportation costs for consumer products? o Will the facility assist in the future growth of Kenai as the favored industrial center for the region? What financing alternatives are available? We understand that a complete and indepth analysis is neither required nor justified at this stage. Our report should, however, touch upon the principal study objectives outlined above and also give an indication of the timetable and work required to bring the scheme to construction. METHODOLOGY Our study sequence is depicted in the attached flow chart. While it will not be possible within budget and time con- straints to carry out an indepth analysis of each element it is our intent to provide a balanced study with each major compo- nent receiving equal level of analysis. Data Acquisition We have on hand a considerable amount of data relevant to the project. We will draw upon our ongoing work for Anchorage, Kenai, Homer and Bristol Bay for economic indicators and cargo 2 J <p w Q LLJ U CD oa mw 0 w w z w wrt forecasts. Our Seattle office will also obtain input directly from barge carriers currently serving Alaska, almost all of whom are based in the Lower 48. Little, if any, soils or site information exists for the project location. We understand that DOT /PF carried out investigation boreholes some years ago and these could prove to be useful in the analysis. Data from the CH2M Hill boreholes at the boat harbor site and the TAMS bluff erosion studies might also give an indication of ground conditions in the area. Forecasts Development of a useful cargo base for the project is at best speculative and it follows that there is a wide range of achievable cargo movements. The actual level of business attained will depend very much upon marketing, markets and competition from other ports such as Anchorage, Homer and Seward. Using a broad brush approach we will provide a three level set of projections for a 20 year period to include: o Low or baseline forecasts o High scenario o Most probable Functional Requirements Based on the forecasts and our knowledge of the Alaskan barge and shipping industry we will provide a set of functional requirements for the facility to include: Optimum barge size. Maximum potential barge size. Tug bhp, size, etc. Dock length. 3 o Minimum and optimum berth depth. o Navigational requirements (e.g., minimum current, tidal state for entry and exit). s Open and covered storage needs. o Access needs and preferred transportation links. o Utility and infrastructure needs. Conceptual Layouts At the present time it appears that two development options exist: o Dredged basin o Open pier in the river. While the dredged basin offers a protected berth it will also present an ongoing maintenance dredging requirement. Using the Kenai river model developed during the Sedimentation Study we will obtain an estimate of annual siltation rates for a full tide and half tide basin. Conversely, a pier in the river would not require maintenance dredging. However, the dock would be a significant navigation hazard since it would need to be almost at mid channel. Capital costs are also high. Capital, Operations and Maintenance Costs Cost estimates will be based on current bids for waterfront projects, Means cost indices, local information, Alaska Depart- ment of Labor data, and in -house data. Three levels of costs will be provided to meet the range of cargo projections discussed above. 4 Revenues and Benefits In the final analysis the feasibility of the project will depend upon the revenues that will be generated. At worst they should cover operations and maintenance costs, at best they should cover operations and maintenance, provide a return of capital invested and show an adequate profit margin. Revenues will be derived from docking fees, storage and hand- ling charges, ancilliary business developments such as fuel sales or repair facilities. Provision of a barge facility may also provide economic bene- fits which might include: o Direct employment o Indirect employment o Creation of new business opportunities o Reduced costs for transportation and consumer goods. A detailed estimate of benefits is not possible within this analysis. We do, however, have on file a considerable amount of information on accepted yardsticks for the relationships between waterborne cargo movements, employment and induced income. These will therefore be included in the study. Financing Options A key element of the study will be our review of financing options for construction and operation of the facility. These range from direct state or federal grants through municipal, revenue or industrial revenue bonds. Private participation is also very much under discussion in the state recently and we will discuss the potential for private participation in the project. 5 Conclusions All the study elements will be brought together in a set of conclusions indicating the potential feasibility of the pro- ject. In the event that the results show that a development scenario might produce an acceptable return we will provide a program of the required steps necessary to take the project to final construction. PROJECT MANAGEMENT The study will be managed by Mike Horton as a continuation of his association with the ongoing Kenai studies. Paul Sorensen will be senior economist, drawing upon his recent experience in port planning and marketing studies for the cities of Anchor- age, Haines, Ketchikan, and Nome. Gary Schneider has also been involved in the Kenai projects since the outset and will be responsible for the preparation of cargo forecasts and data acquisition. TIMETABLE AND DELIVERABLES The work will require approximately 465 man hours of technical input. We will submit a working paper on cargo projections and potential revenues four weeks after authorization to proceed, followed by a draft report for review and comment at the 8th week. Production of 25 copies of a final report will follow receipt of comments on the draft. BUDGET We estimate the total cost of the study to be $25,268 as shown in the attached sheet. Since the study period is short we suggest payment be made on a lump sum basis to be billed monthly in a similar manner to the ongoing work on the Kenai Small Boat Harbor project. 6 SITE STUDIES No site investigation studies will be carried out at this stage. In the event that the project appears to be feasible we will itemize the site investigation program required for final design and construction. 7 KENAI BARGE BERTH FEASIBILITY STUDY STUDY COST ESTIMATE 1.TECHNICAL SALARIES NAME DISCIPLINE TIME RATE COST (hours) /hr) A. Economics M. HORTON Proj. Manager 15 21.44 322 G. SCHNEIDER Forecasting 45 23.04 1,037 P. SORENSEN Economist 75 15.36 1,152 J. LYMAN Engineer /Economist 15 15.36 230' S. COX Technician 75 13.76 1,032 Secretarial 20 9.50 190 B. Engineering M. HORTON Proj. Manager 20 21.44 429 A. BALLOFFET Senior Coastal Eng. 15 31.04 466 T. YASUDA Senior Structural 10 22.40 224 D. NORTHEY Structural 30 18.28 566 R. FENTON Civil /Structural 75 16.96 1,272 Drafting 55 10.00 550 Secretarial 15 9.50 143 2. EXPENSES SALARIES TOTAL SALARIES OVERHEAD (30X) SALARIES COST MLILTIPLIER 2 2.45 8 TOTAL 3,963 TOTAL 3.649 7,612 2,284 9,896 24,245 Printing etc 250 Shipping 55 Phone, Misc. 225 Computer 150 Travel Anchorage /Kenai 250 TOTAL 930 SERVICE CHARGE 2 10% 93 EXPENSES COST 1,023 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 25,269 I AM S TIPPETTS ABBETT Mc CARTHY STRATTON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ENGINEERS Mr. Jack LaShot City Engineer City of Kenai P.O. Box 580 Kenai, AK 99611 Subject: Boat Ramp Improvements Dear Mr. LaShot: December 1, 1983 In reply to your letter of November 10, 1983, we note that the Harbor Commission and City Administration have expressed their concerns with certain aspects of the recently completed boat ramp improvement project. In general terms we feel that most, if not all, of the items mentioned could have been effectively resolved without resort to additional expense had we been actively involved in the inspection of the contract works. While I and other TAMS staff visited the project several times during the construction period, we had no authority to do more than observe the works and discuss the project with the City Public Works Department. With regard to your specific concerns we have the following comments: Your Item 1: Our original scheme submitted to the Commission and PWD was extremely basic in response to the Commissioners instructions. The existing service float was to be reused at minimum cost and no filling, paving or utilities were included. We also considered that strengthening works to the retaining wall could not be justified at that time for the following reasons: 1 Considerable work would be required in order to do a satisfactory job on the wall. This would have involved excavation of fill, removal of the landing mats, replace- ment with either concrete or a timber crib wall, backfill- ing, etc. all at a cost on the order of $100,000. This would have been unacceptable to the Commissioners in view of their directives that the total cost of the ramp improve- ment should not exceed $150,000. 4791 BUSINESS PARK BOULEVARD, SUITE ONE ANCHOR.AGE, ALASKA 99503 TELEPHONE (907) 562 -2822 it IW S Mr. Jack LaShot -2- December 1, 1983 2. With the possibility of major harbor work in the area in the near future, this expenditure could in all prob- ability have been completely wasted if it were found necessary to relocate the ramp at a later date. 3. We appreciate that the wall was not in excellent condition but it has worked well for a number of years. Since there were also a number of unused landing mat sheets at the rear of the lot it was considered that these could be used in the future if necessary. I also recall being told (I believe by Keith or yourself) that repairs had been made this way in the past. Alternatively, salvaged concrete planks from the boat ramp could also be used to reinforce the wall whenever necessary. 4. The consequences of failure of the wall are more aesthetic than structural. You will recall that the upstream revet- ment has no retaining wall whatsoever and it is subject to similar erosional forces. We therefore did not include any work on the wall in our February 1983 submittal to the Commissioners and the Public Works Director. The resulting cost estimate for the ramp project at that time was on the order of $125,000 and in line with our instructions from the Commission. Your Item 2: In his review of our 90% submittal, Keith Kornelis then asked for a number of additional items including increased parking lot area, lane marking, signs, barriers and an exten- sion of the ramp. In discussion with the Harbor Commission Chairman this list was cut back to include just the parking area increase. No excavation item was included since we were aiming for the highest elevation possible, but we did permit the Contractor to use cut material as fill. We cannot agree that the lack of an excavation item caused a cost overrun on the parking lot fill work. The drawings stated that fill from the graded areas "meeting Class 'C' requirements could he reused for Class 'C' fill Since it was not paid as excavated material it was reasonable to pay for it as fill at the unit rate. In that way you were not paying twice for the same material. AM 8 Mr. Jack LaShot -3- December 1, 1983 The yard grading plan shown in Dwg. 144 -3 indicates less than six inches of cut over approximately 2000 square feet a total of 37 cubic yards and well within the definition of grading as per Measurement Item 4(a). This therefore could not possibly have led to the 1304 cubic yard overrun mentioned in your letter. Without reference to your contract measurement records we cannot comment on the overrun. However, had it been brought to our attention at the appropriate time we would have modified the total fill requirement under the provisions of Article 11.9 of the Special Provisions of the contract in order to maintain the contract expenditure within budget. Your Item 3: We were aware of the old pilings and removal of these is included in the intent of Section 02050 (Demolition) and also in Part 1.3 of the Method of Measurement. The record of the prebid conference also shows that the Contractor was informed of the existence of the piles and advised that he would be expected to cut them off if they interfered with the placement of the new planks. Part 1.1(A) of Section 17000 (Measurement and Payment) also refers. Your Item 4: The ramps are not lower than the river bank. They are, however, lower than the surrounding sheet piles and follow exactly the same elevation as the old ramp (see photo). The river bank is some 6.0 feet lower than the top of the ramp and crosses the sheet pile wall at about MLLW. Normally, boat ramps incorporate a curb to prevent trailers dropping off the edge while backing down a ramp. In the case of the Kenai ramp this would have been expensive and so we used the existing sheet pile walls as was done for the original ramp. In answer to your question therefore we consider that the new ramp will not silt up any more than the old one since: 1. The elevation and slope is exactly the same as before. 2. The overall width (sheet pile to sheet pile) to be cleaned each spring is the same as before. As a side note you should he aware that the location of the boat ramp appears to cause an accumulation of sediment in the area, particularly on the downstream section. Although the amount of this siltation and level of the river banks vary from year to year, the sheet pile bulkheads will however help to reduce siltation of the future entrance channel to the proposed small boat harbor. We consider the trade -off to be worthwhile. TAM S Mr. Jack LaShot -4- December 1, 1983 It is also quite likely that a new ramp would be constructed within the new harbor in order to eliminate the annual cleaning problem but that the existing ramp would remain for overflow use or launch /retrieval when the new harbor was closed or inaccessible at extreme low water. In conclusion, had we been in a position to respond to these questions during the construction period, we are confident that they could have been resolved without resort to additional funds. Please also bear in mind that we were asked by the Harbor Commission to provide a low cost improvement with maximum recoverable elements. We feel that the project as constructed has achieved this very effectively and will be of considerable value to the City and the fishing fleet in the years to come. I hope the above adequately addresses your concerns. Should you have any other questions or comments please do not hesitate to call. cc: John Williams, Chairman Harbor Commission Yours sincerely, TIPPETTS -AB. 'T- McC•.RTHY STRATTON Micha G. Horton Pacific Northwest Waterways Association 50TH ANNUAL MEETING SUMMARIZED The 50th Annual Meeting of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association held last month in Boise was a resounding success. Our 250 members, friends and guests participated in three action packed days of meetings, ceremonies, tours and social events, all of which focused on the past accomplishments of PNWA and its committment to the programs and policy needs of today. Keynote speaker to the Energy Committee, Ralph Lewis of Gulf Oil Corporation wove a spellbinding web describing the world energy picture, its current activities and its future. He noted (in a rather timely remark) that 60% of the United States' imported oil moves through shipping lanes past Grenada. Joe Jordan of International Engineering Company presented a description of the recently completed Panama Pipe- line Project constructed by Morrison Knudsen, Connie Brooks of the Mountain States Legal Foundation presented to the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee a summary of Mt. States' conservative voice in governmental and environmental matters of public policy. The Port and Transportation Committee heard a broad variety of speakers: Admiral Harold Parker, 13th Coast Guard District Commander, summarized P.O. Box 61473 Vancouver, WA98666 November 9, 1983 (206) 699 4666 the many responsibilities the Coast Guard has and noted that new equipment additional funding are beginning to catch up with their workload. Howard Watters, Inland Waterways Deputy for the Maritime Admini- stration, spoke to the status of user charge legislation as set forth by the Administration. He also said that MARAD doesn't feel the cargo preference principle should be expanded. Harry Cook, National Waterways Conference President, spelled out in detail the activities in Congress surrounding water resources development proposals and the user tax /cost recovery proposals. He noted that Congress has not agreed to the new tax schemes set forth by the Admini- stration, therefore, the solutions will be multi- faceted and hard to cone by. Crowley Maritime Corporation Vice President Tom Garside spoke to possible changes in the Jones Act; the problems that private dock operation raise; the splendid future unfolding in Alaska; and the recent Crowley sealift activities. Speaking to the Flood Control, Conservation and Coastal Manage- ment Committee, Mayor General PNWA NEWSLETTER PAGE November 9,1983 John Wall, Civil Works Director for the Corps of Engineers provided a broad analysis of the status of major civil works efforts and discussed the many complications affecting their chances of construction. He also spoke to Corps' budgeting needs, noting that more money will be spent on maintenance and rehabilitation than on Construction, a reversal of traditional ratios. J. Roy Spradley, Deputy Director of the Office of Surface Mining at Interior, described the new emphasis on "quality, rather than quantity" in administration of Interior, and linked reasonable development of domestic energy and mineral resources to chances for improved United States productivity. Emil Berg, Portland Attorney, addressed the Comprehensive Planning and Development Committee about an alternative to litigation called "environmental mediation" when development activities are questioned by environmental interests He demonstrated that mediation can bring parties to mutually acceptable solutions, rather than the "win- lose" alternatives set down through court decisions, as well as being faster and less expensive. To the same group, General Jini van Loben Sels, North Pacific Division Engineer, spoke to Corps activities in the Northwest and Alaska. He noted we have two of the new members of the hopper dredge fleet; that reductions -in -force will hit our region, too, by 8 -9L; the jobs bill brought over 100 jobs to the Walla Walla District this summer; that streamlining of the Section 404 permitting process is coning about; Land, that a number of projects are starting to mature from planning to design and implementation, especially the Mouth of the Columbia Deepening and the new navigation lock at Bonneville Dam. Cowlitz County Commission Chairman Van Youngquist illustrated the County's "Cowlitz /Toutle Wastershed Management Plan" and emphasized that the problems (and solutions) are regional in scope and impact through- out the Northwest. Luncheon Speaker Governor John Evans of Idaho detailed his recent trip to the Orient, especially China, and urged that PNWA help expedite the trade opportunities arising on the Pacific Rim. He did caution that certain adjustments will be required in the way we expect to do business, but urged that business indeed, be done R. J. O'Connor, President and Chief Operating Officer of Idaho Power Company told a later luncheon crowd of his pride in being involved in PNWA and urged PNWA to take a very active role in economic development, especially as it relates to trade development from the Northwest and Alaska to Asia. Staff members to Congressman Larry Craig and Senator Jim McClure addressed the general membership pointing out activities of interest to PNWA conducted by their bosses in the Congress. President Ronald Reagan sent a letter commending the work of PNWA and offering "best wishes for an enjoyable, productive and memorable annual meeting and Golden Jubilee. Programs and Policies for 1984 were adopted with six Items of Urgency designated for particular emphasis: the need for a new lock at Bonneville Dam; continued relief from the threats of further damage from Mt. St. Helens and the siltation and watershed problems thereupon; continued efforts to assure the multiple -use concept of Columbia River System waters is preserved and protected; continued opposition to additional waterway user taxes; support for widening the navigation channel below Ice Harbor Dam and Lock to 500 feet; and con- tinued support of local land use planning controls in lieu of federal management of the Columbia Gorge. RNA PAG The membership was updated on PNWA objections to predatory pricing by railroads in grain hauling areas competitive with the truck barge option. PNWA has entered testimony into the record of House subcommittee hearings which are overseeing the railroad de- regulation. Elections saw the addition of six new members to the Board of Directors: Lloyd Anderson, Port of Portland; Herbert K. West, Coast Marine Construction; Joe Piedmont, Washington Water Power; Joe Jordan, International Engineering Company; Steve Felkins, Port of Astoria; and Al Raap, Port of Benton. All officers were re- elected. Ceremonies were conducted recognizing the PNWA Life Members. Seven of the sixteen were in attendance, as was Sadie West, widow of the PNWA founding Executive Vice President Herbert G. West. Remarks from President Logan Lanham and past President Carl Moore recalled much of the fascinating history of PNWA and a video -tape wa:, shown depicting not only history, but much of present work and interests of the organization as well. PNWA offers its thanks and gratitude to the Idaho members for their wonderful hospitality and planning efforts which made the meeting'so successful. Special thanks to Logan Lanham and the Idaho Power Company; Leon Stoddard and Morrison Knudsen Company; Joe Jordan, International Engineering Company; and Bob Wittman and the Port of Lewiston! REMINDER: PNWA has moved its offices in Vancouver. We are located in Suite 300, 915 Broadway. However, our mailing address and telephone number have not changed! November 9, 1983 OTHER NEWS The Northwest Power Planning Council has concluded after recent re -study that the completion of WPPSS plant #3 is cost effective to the region and should be preserved. However, financing at near market rates is one of the financial considerations which makes resumption of construction a difficult task. November 1 was the effective date for new wholesale priority firm power rates for power sold by the Bonneville Power Administration to publicly owned utilities and investor owned utilities for their small farm and residential customers. The increase amounted to a 22% hike, going from 1.8 cents per kilowatt -hour to 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour. Rates for direct service indus- tries of BPA went up 9% to 2.68 cents per kilowatt hour. Washington Public Power Supply System plant #2 is offcially complete. The 1100 megawatt nuclear power plant, costing some $2.4 Billion, has yet to undergo final inspections, fuel loading and testing before being put into commercial operation. Colstripplants #3 and #4 were dedicated recently in Montana. The twin coal fired plants, generating 700 megawatts each, cost nearly $2 Billion. Unit #3 was tested in October. Unit #4 is 80% complete. They await completion of 500 miles of transmission lives across Montana to be able to tie into the BPA distribution grid. The House of Representatives approved revision of Amercian export control policy in legislation sponsored by Concr"ssman Don Bonker. The House also passed H.R. 12.34, known as "Domestic Content" legislation 214 -199, which would requirethat a certain percentage of the components of imported (Japanese) automobiles be made in America. NOTICL: If you have news for publication by PNWA, please submit it in writing to our office. REMEMBER. Suggestions are being solicited from the PNWA membership for Life Member nominees during our 50th year. Details are available from PNWA headquarters. Commemorative Coasters are available from PNWA for $15 /pair. Cast in bronze, they are a handsome memento for home or office. Cruise and dinner information for the sternwheeler "Columbia Gorge" is available from the Port of Cascade Locks, (503) 374 -8290 or (503) 228 -5408. CALENDAR. November 16 American Water Resources Association conference in Spokane; "Washington and Idaho Lakes and Their Future." Details from Dale Anderson at Seattle Metro. November 17 -18, Washington State Water Resources Association Annual Meeting, Kennewick. Information at (509) 966 -9713. PACIFIC NORTHWEST WATERWAYS ASSOCIATION P. 0. Box 61473 Vancouver, Washington 98666 'November 17 -18, Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway Development Opportunities Conference, Mobile, Alabama. Details at (601) 328 -3286. November 21 Workshop in San Diego, titled: "Present Developments in Water Rights Law General Adjudications Equitable Apportionment, Reserved Rigr and the Public Trust Doctrine." Details at (801) 521 -2800. November 30 December 2 Annual Meeting of the Washington Public Ports Association. Information at (206 943 -0760. January 12, 1984 PNWA Mission to Washington Planning Meeting, Portland. March 4 -8, 1984 PNWA Mission to Washington, D.C., Hyatt Regency Hotel. June 27 -29, 1984 1984 PNWA Mid -Year Meeting, Agate Beach Hilton, Newport, Oregon. October 16 -19, 1984 PNWA 51st Annual Meeting, Sheraton Spokane Hotel, Spokane, Washington. John Williams, Chairman Kenai Advisory Harbor Comm. P.O. Box 580 Kenai, A K 99611 on of lrganization U.S. Postage Paid Permit No. 56 Vancouver, WA 98660 7 74 Volume 71, Number 45 Could cost $3.3 million y held liable dock /spate By Steve Rinehart Managing Editor A panel of arbiters has held the City of Homer liable for up to 83.3 million in cast overruns on the city dock project, accepting contrac- tor McKinney Alaska's argument an all four con- tested paints. The final cost of the dispute has not been deter- mined. At the close of two weeks of hearings Sunday, the city offered to pay up to 5395,000 on the claim. That offer followed a deci- sion by the arbiters last Thursday that the city be held liable for cost overruns on the 59 million project. The arbiters also ruled that at- torneys fees and hearing costs be awarded to the con- tractor. How much of the award and fees will be borne by the city and how much by its engineering firm, Tippetts- Abbet -Mac art h ey -S tra ttett (TAMS), is alsoundetermin- ed, according to City Manager Larry Farnen. The actual amount of the award will be set by the ar- biters, who Sunday indicated it will take several days to make their decision. Legal and witness fees are also undetermined, but are expected to exceed 5100,x.. For example, an auditor called in as an expert witness by the city testified he was being paid 580 an hour for between CO and 60 hours work on the case. Several expert witnesses were on hand for the pro- ceedings. The city will ask TAMS to pay part of the award, said Steve Yoshida, the city's at- torney on the case. He re- quested that the arbiters designate which portions of the award have resulted from which of the three ma- jor claim areas; the Sadie Cove quarry, the slope design and the pile driving. Two of those, the slope and the piling. draw from alleged deficiencies in TAMS dock design. If the city cannot reach a satisfactory agreement with TANIS over sharing the costs, Mr. Yoshida said, a lawsuit may b€ required to settle the matter. Documents filed with the arbiters indicate TAMS is carrying 53 million in liabili- See "City," Back Page Thursday, November 10, 1983 Hamer, Alaska City held liable Cant. from Pagel ty insurance on the project. Mr. Yoshida said that in- surance is intended to cover the types of claims that arose from the project. A fourth area of the claim, acceleration, grew from the other three. The award for acceleration costs will have to be apportioned to the other three areas. and also settled between the tidy and the engineering (trot, Mr. Yos11lda said. Attorneys for each side gave their closing arguments Sunday after ntx)n kick inn ey Alaska 's at- torney,John Stewart. of the Portland firm Kabin and Meyer. told the arbiters the added costs were the result of a poor design and misrepresenta on the part of the city and the engineer. There was no testimony that the contrac- tor failed to perform com- petently, he said. The contractor asked for about 5706,000 for losses which stemmed from inabili- ty to obtain the required amount of rock from the Sadie Cove- quarry, Also, McKinney Alaska seeks about 5841,000 for costs in- curred while dredging and shaping the harbor slopes, which the contractor says were designed too steep. in a third claim area, the con- tractor asked for about 5532,000 as a result of added costs of pile driving. Delays arose because of these dif- ficulties, the contractor maintains, which cost another 51.2 million to over- come. "This is a small town, and this was an important pro ject, "kin. Yoshida told the panel. He said McKinney should be granted fair com- pensation, but that much of the claim was not reasonable. The contractor, he argued, was aware of the plans before bidding the job, assumed a certain amount of risk, and should be accoun- table for what it cost to do the work. Asked what the city felt was fair, Mr, Yoshida con- ferred with other city of- ficials, then suggested pay- ment of 8341,000 for several claims, plus 10 percent pro- fit. The difference between the contractor's claitn and the city's offer describes the different approaches taken to figure costs and apply responsibility. Under the "incremental approach" taken by the city, the contractor would be paid unit prices for yards of material, lengths of piling, hours of equipment time, labor and other specific costs of the job beyond those anticipated in the plans, The contractor's "cost approach" presumes that despite competent work, it cost more than could reasonably have been ex- pected to do the job in accor- dance with the plans. If the contractor's costs exceeded the incremental costs, it must be due to ineffi- ciency; -Mr. Yoshida said, adding it is not fair to make the city pay for the contrac- tor's poor performance. There was no mention of inefficiency in TAMS engineers' daily diaries of the work, said Mr. Stewart. The contractor had to work with a poor design, he said, and should be paid the added cost of doing so. Last Thursday the arbiters ruled that the contractor may recover payment for the riprap claim, the piling claim, the harbor slope claim and the acceleration claim. The latter refers to the cost of overcoming delays from the other three. In finding for the contrac- tor on the slope claim, however, the arbiters noted they "are particularly con- cerned with the contractor's 50 cents affirmative duty to mitigate his damages, and whether the contractor's claimed costs are due in part or in- creased by the contractor's particular construction methods." In other words, the ar- biters suggested, McKinney ,llaska could have taken more action to keep the slopes from sloughing back into the harbor, even at add- ed cost and effort. If such measures had worked, perhaps it would have lessened the overall claim, Mr. Stewart replied, but added there Wen no assurance it would have. The total legal fees to be assessed had not been calculated Sunday, par licipmts said. According to Dave Call, a Fairbanks at- torney for McKinney Alaska. an agrecment reach- ed between he and Mr. Yoshida last February stated that all legal witness casts would be paid by the losing party, That is correct, Mr. Yoshida said. But the intent was to cover "reasonable" witness fees, he said, and he asked the arbiters in ahrief filed Sunday to use discre- tion In awarding legal costs.