A town hall referred to as “the front end of the process” by the borough’s Lutak Dock advisors gave residents a forum to voice opinions, but provided few answers.

The seventy-some residents who attended the town hall came bearing plenty of comments on the high-profile project Thursday. Borough officials had been advertising the meeting as a place for residents to speak about desired outcomes and qualities for the project, more than specific design points. 

At the meeting, however, were copies of conceptual drawings for three existing design possibilities, and residents at multiple points rehashed design debates that have become familiar: the merits of encapsulation versus rip-rap designs, or the capacity of different materials to hold up to corrosion. 

Despite the familiar and controversial territory, residents also praised the tenor of the conversation, which was respectful and measured. 

Representatives from the borough’s newly contracted advisors Moffatt & Nichol provided few answers to broad-stroke questions about what the dock might look like, deferring larger questions to the borough assembly. 

Moffatt& Nichol engineer Paul Wallace, lead engineer on the company’s Lutak Dock team, said his company does not have a “dog in the fight” as it relates to the design debates. All three existing design concepts, or some combination of them, are technically feasible, Wallace said. 

“Moffatt & Nichol’s job is not to make the decisions on this dock,” Wallace told the town hall. “We’re your technical and contractual resource… (R&M Vice President Sean McFarlane) and I will offer advice, but ultimately the final decision is going to be the borough assembly’s.” 

Both the company and borough officials spoke about the outlines of the decision-making process, which will include further discussion with stakeholders — including residents, current dock users and local supermarkets — before a preferred design is selected. 

But neither the company nor borough officials spoke in detail about how that decision will be made, given the design debates and bigger-picture differences. For one, two competing visions were clear at the meeting, where some asked for a dock large enough only to serve the borough’s “current needs,” while some advocated leaving room for expansion. 

The contractors running the meeting did face at least one pointed question.

Near the start of the meeting, Moffatt & Nichol’s McFarlane said he had reached out to “both tribes and received positive responses from both of them” as a part of what he called stakeholder input. He followed that comment by saying he had received feedback from the “Chilkoot Indian Village” — misspeaking when referencing the Chilkat Indian Village. 

Resident Tommy Thompson brought up that error later in the meeting. “Sean, you said you had a positive interaction with Chilkoot Indian village,” Thompson said. “If you didn’t know the name of exactly who you were meeting, I was wondering if you could give more evidence of those positive interactions you had.”

The Chilkat Indian Village’s response letter, written by CIV tribal council president Kimberley Strong, was provided to the public by the borough. It did raise some issues with the borough and borough consultant’s outreach.

“As a sovereign Nation, CIV engages with other governments on a government-to-government basis,” Strong wrote. “Should the Borough seek to meet with Tribal leadership, such discussions

should involve senior Borough officials with comparable decision-making authority, consistent

with the respect and protocol afforded in federal and state government-to-government

engagements. Initial engagement through consultants or staff, without the presence of high-level

Borough leadership, is not appropriate for government-to-government discussions.”

Elsewhere in the letter, Strong said the Chilkat Indian Village “appreciated” the borough’s efforts to “re-engage stakeholders and rights-holders,” but would be engaging with the dock project through official government-to-government consultation processes with the project’s funding agencies. 

McFarlane did say he would be meeting in-person with officials from the valley’s other sovereign tribal government, the Chilkoot Indian Association, this week. 

Moving forward, Moffatt & Nichol’s McFarlane said there were plans for another four or five town-hall meetings. McFarlane said residents could expect one more town-hall meeting before a preferred design alternative is selected.