Haines committees struggled to choose between immediate safety or long-term goals as they reviewed repair and replacement options for the deteriorating Lutak Dock.
Members of the borough assembly, port and harbor advisory committee and the planning commission met Feb. 22 to give borough staff direction on how to move forward with plans to fix or replace the dock, which engineers have said is near failure.
Borough facilities director Brad Ryan said he and borough manager Debra Schnabel recommend a planned closure of the dock within 24 months.
“I don’t think the staff thinks it’s ok to play the game that we’re playing,” Schnabel said. “Every person with knowledge and the ability to analyze the situation and who has been asked to give an option has said ‘you’re on borrowed time,’ so I don’t want to be managing a crisis where we’ve got death and destruction.”
Ryan presented three options to the 21 committee members in attendance. The first is to renovate the existing facility for about $2 million. A second option was thrown out by engineers. The third option is to create a new dock face and roll-on-roll off ramp, priced at about $12.4 million, and the fourth option is to create a new causeway, which would cost about $10 million.
Committee members primarily discussed the first and last options, with mixed opinions.
The first option would allow safety improvements to be completed quickly, and construction would not interfere with current operations, Ryan said. This option would also preserve workable uplands space that dock users Alaska Marine Lines and Delta Western have said is valuable.
But AML’s Michael Ganey said not improving capacity of the roll- on roll-off ramp would increase handling costs by 50 percent.
“Twenty-four months of increased freight costs could make or break merchants in this community,” said assembly member Heather Lende.
Ryan said AML has stopped using the existing roll-on roll-off ramp to transport shipping containers from the barge onto the dock. Instead, containers are passed over the face of the dock.
Terry Pardee, chair of the Port and Harbor Advisory Committee, said the group unanimously recommends option one because the borough has the money to fund it and it prioritizes safety.
Option four was drawn up by AML and closely resembles docks that the company owns in other Southeast communities.
Schnabel said the staff and AML prefer option four with a 50-year life expectancy, good ramp orientation and no loss of uplands. Construction will not interfere with current operations, but engineers say it could take up to two years to complete.
“If the facility that we have right now was not in the shape it’s in, we would be building number four,” Schnabel said. “But the issue is, can we afford to allow ourselves to ignore the situation that we have at the dock?”
Some suggested fixing individual parts of the dock enough to make it safe while pursuing the fourth option, but staff said that might not be feasible with costs and permitting requirements.
Borough fiscal officer Jila Stuart said the $10 million cost of option four could be covered by bonding, increasing the port tariff by 32 percent or increasing the property tax mill rate by an average of $68, based on a home valued at $150,000.
But committee members like Fred Gray, who works for Delta Western, said AML has resources and political clout to help the borough raise funds for the project.
Assembly members Lende, Brenda Josephson and Tresham Gregg said they would like to see the borough go for option one but look for a more long-term solution.
Stephanie Scott, Don Turner and Diana Lapham said they would prefer option four, but the dock needs some immediate fixes to ensure safety.
Schnabel said she would gather more information about both options and invite AML risk assessors to also review the situation.