Cordova: Harbor Commission Regular Meeting on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, at 6 PM

Oh, this is how it would be read by the— Thank you, Amanda. You're welcome. Hey Andy, we're ready. We got, we got Chuty online here. Got— so that makes 3.

Welcome Ryan, welcome Gary. Yeah, thanks. Okay, uh, call to order, Harbor Commission, June 10th. Uh, roll call. Andy Craig here.

Ryan Schutz. Here remotely. Kitan Sores. Ryan Kruthoff. Garrett Collins.

Here. Okay, we have a quorum. Um, yeah, motion to approve the agenda. Motion to approve the agenda as written. Second.

Second. Okay, anybody have any changes to the agenda that they propose?

Hearing none, we will, um, I guess, uh, anybody— any opposed to approving the agenda as written? I guess we— hearing none, then the, the motion is approved. Um, motion to approve the minutes. Uh, move to approve the minutes of the March 11th, 2026 regular meeting. And second.

So it's been any, uh, moved and seconded. Any additions, deletions, corrections that anybody noticed?

Anyone opposed to, uh, approving the minutes as written. Hearing none, go to communications by visitors. And you're not— this is where you're going to be part of this staff report, right? Okay. Um, our master's report is on page 3.

Think I add to that, Tony? Um, yeah, because this one is old. I didn't really update it from the last other meetings. But, um, we get the 10,000-pound crane on the drive down. Um, it's been tagged, locked out.

We have a new pump ordered for it. Pump has gone bad along with other things, leaks that are going to get fixed. Aurora Crane says they're working on a quote to get up here, send their tech up here, go through all both the cranes, tell us what's wrong, why it's wrong, whatever. Um, So, and during that, when they're here, if they ever come through and finish on this, is I'm going to have, um, Calvin with them. We have someone local that knows and can pass it on to me that, or whoever, that this is what's wrong, this is what we got to be fixed, or anything like that.

So I talked to them yesterday. Randy, was it Monday or Tuesday that they called? I think it was Tuesday. I talked to the guy, one of the guys at Aurora Crane. He he called me and said they were still working on the quote to get a tech up here.

So, um, that's the plan right now. Um, Travelift tech will be here in August to do their annual inspection along with any maintenance that we want done, anything changed, or any other issues we might have. Um, as you notice, floating dock at the ramp here in the harbor is in place. The one at the North Ramp is in place. Um, I think of anything else, it's—.

Yeah, anything pressing, I can't think if there's a question or not, but okay. Um, thanks, uh, we got the business in front of us and We take them in order, I guess. A is a land disposal letter of interest or portion of ATS 220. And you want to speak to this? Should we just summarize it?

Is this first one is the 360 square feet, the little triangle? Yeah. Um, if you— did you go through the memo? If you will have any questions, I can answer them, or I can give you a summary of if that's what you want. Anybody want more information on this?

This is— looks— appears to be a parcel of land that's already part of what they're driving over to get to their land, and it's very small. And he just wants to ensure that it can't be sold. He wants it to just ensure access to his property. Is that—. Seems straight forward.

Yeah, put it in. Yeah. Yeah, um, uh, do we got to make a motion then, or what's the—. Yeah, so, uh, the recommended motion is written there, um, on the next page, I think it is. And then, no, I think— would it be the, um, I move to recommend the city council dispose of the requested portion of ATS 220, approximately 360 square feet in size as outlined in Cordova Municipal Code 7.40.060 by— I would suggest number 1, negotiating an agreement with the party who submitted a letter of interest to lease or purchase the property.

Thanks, Ryan. That sounds like a—. Yeah, good motion.

Should we—. So So second? Yes, second. Second. Second.

That announces the motion. Yeah, we have any, um, discussion on this? Uh, it seems this one seems extremely straightforward. I don't have any, um, questions about it. Does anybody else pick up anything that seems— okay, uh, let's just do voice call.

Um, so, um, Randy, you want to do the first vote just because we're—. Andy Craig? Yes. Ryan Schutzey? Yes.

Derek Collins? Yes. Okay, motion passes. The second one is the portion of Lot 4A toward B. And again, Amanda, do you want to say anything about this?

Um, it's— this one's pretty straightforward too. They use it as a driveway, um, already. There's a floating access easement across that portion. It's right up against Harville's house. And so what the Rutzers and Harville had talked about was that the Rutzers want to do an addition onto their home, and they wanted to purchase a portion of his property.

And he said, how about we do some kind of land swap? If you can acquire this from the city, I can give, uh, swap with you that portion of property that you need for your addition on the back side. So it's, it's property that would go into being taxable property. Um, it's a small area, and then hopefully we can clean up all of these lot lines across the area and consolidate them when they reflat. These portions of property.

All right, okay, so we need a motion to go any further. Thank you. Motion to adopt agenda item 10B. This is out of this— well, or we could— or, or we could actually put that, um, I move to recommend the city council— it's under the recommended action. Okay, yeah, I move to recommend city council dispose the requested portion of Lots 4A and 4B of Marble subdivision, approximately 1,780 square feet in size, as outlined in current Doherty Municipal Code 7.40.060B.

By—. I think 1 is the, um, appropriate— the negotiated agreement with the party who submitted a letter of interest to lease or purchase the property. That's the correct path. I'd second that. Okay, so it's been moved and seconded.

Uh, I, I, first I, I was curious, did you ever run into this before? Like, like buying something in order to swap it? It just seemed like—. Um, I have not seen that yet, but I've only been here a year and a half, so, um, but they need it to meet their setback requirements. I understand.

Yeah, I read through it and I'm— my only question is that when I'm going to the white, black, red, and blue, so there's a proposed lot lines after replot of— if a land sale and swap as proposed were to occur. So this is like the final outcome, let's say. And I look at the city land, still goes all the way across in front, and there's still an easement somewhere in between there. Um, yep. So he has a floating access easement across that property to access his driveway.

Okay. So that's why, uh, boat parking, when they're pulling out of the, um, harbor and then they go to park over there, they can't park in his driveway because there's already an access easement across. Is that lot 4B here you're referring to? Um, yes. Okay, so it doesn't really eliminate that.

The floating easement is still there because the city still owns that whole strip across there. Okay, I see. But this is just a portion that's right up against his house, right? Right. Yeah, that— can't use that.

Basically his driveway. Yeah, his space. I see. It's not yet being used for boat storage or anything right now anyway. No, I— it was unclear until I saw that one.

And thanks, whoever—. Kind of like the corner of the fence to Harvest, right? Yeah, yeah, whoever put this forward, because it made it clear that that whole rectangle was basically still the city's, and then there was that sliver that pretty much is what he's using now, is of course making it his property means that we can gain revenue for taxes and stuff like that and, uh, formalize. I, I don't have any problem with it, but I just wanted to clarify this, just trying to understand if that was helpful.

But, uh, all right, anybody else have anything that—. I'd say that it's— I mean, it seems like it's pretty necessary there, right? I'm thoroughly confused as to why the lots are cut up like they are. It is very— I don't— that's some fractal imagery right there. It's hard to wrap my head around it.

But yeah, I mean, this just seems like if somebody is going to have— they need to have access to their property, it seems like a no-brainer here. Yeah, I agree. It seems like that sliver that they want to I guess that Rutzer would acquire and then swap with Harwell. It doesn't seem like it's being utilized for anything right now anyway, that if get it on the tax rolls and they could come to it. Yeah, Rutzer could swap it and build a little add-on house, Artican or whatever.

It's kind of an odd piece, but that's not our job. So yeah, yeah, however he wants to build a house under there. Yeah, okay. Uh, I'd say the same, let's just do a roll call vote because then it's clear. If there's any questions.

May I pray? Yes. Ryan Schutzke? Yes. Eric Collins?

Yes. All right, um, that leaves us one more, and this one is, um M2 and Tyler. And, um, you know, I guess I move to recommend the City Council dispose of the requested portion of ATS 220, approximately 4,100 square feet in size, as outlined in current Municipal Code 7.40.060B, by negotiating agreement with the party who submitted a letter of interest to lease or purchase the property.

Can, can we open it to discussion before we just move it, um, to that? Just some clarifications, or if it doesn't get a second, then we, we're done. We can't really—. Yeah, but we could— if I second it, we can discuss it before we approve it, make adjustments. I, I'll second it.

Okay. All right, so discussion. Yes, that's the time. Um, I assume they want to jut out there with a dock or something. Um, I think that's my concern is the— it's right now we're just working on assumptions and, um, not a really, uh, clear path that I just— I have expressed concerns and still have concerns on pinching that north access, that's the deeper water coming into the harbor there, and boats have been kind of messed up on that southern breakwater in the past.

Having pinching that harbor entrance is a concern of mine. I, they, at the same time, I, I like the fact that there could be a dock there that could potentially break any north swell out or protect the harbor from more north swell. So I'm, I realize they need access, they need a dock there, but I just have reservations and concerns about pinching that harbor access. I am also looking at the photo, and from my I'm, I'm just pulling it up because in my trips in and out of the harbor, it doesn't seem like the City Dock is that far back away from the corner. And, um, you know what I mean?

Like, it, it seems like it's kind of poking out there, like it's right there, uh, when you're using it. And part of that might be because the tide's always ripping, so you're kind of getting set and Yeah, I'm— I agree. I don't want it to get smaller. Um, but so do they—. Does she own a portion of this Lot 1 Block 7A?

Is that— and she just— they want to extend, square it up a little bit? Is that just— is it just the little orange triangle they're trying to acquire right now? Yes, and that's 4,100 square feet. Yeah, so currently we're in negotiations with them for this Lot 1, Block 7A, Tidewater Development Park. That's the Breakwater Fill Lot.

Uh-huh. And so we— when they put in a proposal for that, they gave a concept plan of what they wanted to do. Um, and when you go to sell it, you have to have the purchase and sale agreement give a more concrete plan of what they are doing out there. So they started having engineers look into things and design things and then went to a surveyor to have the surveyor check the lot lines and make sure everything was within the boundaries. And basically what this goes down to is that it extends into this ATS 220 and how they would like to re-flat the lot would be this portion.

So they would add this portion into the portion that they're buying of, or would like to purchase of this Lot 1, Block 7A. So they have not purchased Lot 1. They have not purchased Lot 1, um, they— and it's just a portion of it. They had requested 75% of that lot, um, is what they were going to be purchasing, and then they would make a part on a portion of the lot and leave that for the city. So my other question is, that leaves the city dock, just the one end, or the, the T sort of, is what they would be acquiring?

No, they wouldn't be acquiring any of the city docks. That 75% would cut out the city dock, and it would also cut out the park that they're proposing.

The park they're proposing. So the park they're proposing wouldn't even be on their land. No, it would be on land that the city retained. Yes. Okay, so yeah, I got you.

So they're not—. In a re-plat here, does this— that little wedge right now, I imagine Lot 1, Block 7A is square in that Tidewater Development Park. Now, are we just adding that little wedge? So it's going to have a little dog leg on it, or if— because the intent is to build their own dock access that extends beyond the city dock, is my understanding. And then that is— is that still— I, I'm still a little confused on what they've submitted before.

It seemed like there was a couple different options and And, um, the— I remember seeing the park and things like that, but I just haven't seen anything that is, this is what we're doing. It's, it's just there was a lot of options on it. So I guess the, the question is, is this little triangle going to be a dog leg that's added on to the Lot 1 Block 7A, or it's not going to square off, is it? Um, It, it's gonna be like more proportionate. They'll have, they'll have that replatted into one lot when they do.

They're still working with the engineers. So this is getting more of a plan versus what they had for their concept. So we don't have actual design plans that we can see. It's not just gonna be a big triangle here. They're gonna add it in with this lot portion that they're that they're hoping to purchase.

So, um, but if they're cutting out the city dock, it's going to be— it's going to stick out weird, it seems. So at least by this drawing, like, it's going to be sort of a— out there. Maybe they add a little bit of land next to it and put a dock kind of— what would that be, like east-west? Is that the idea? I guess we're kind of only getting part of the information as we think about— I, I think the concern is constricting the mouth of the harbor.

So if you put a dock there, then you put a big wide boat there, then you got a problem. Yeah. So that's why I— is that what you're seeing too, Ryan? Yeah, exactly. I mean, you extend the dock and then you have a 30-foot wide tender sitting outside of it, and it's— that, that constriction is, is noticeable for those of us that have larger vessels and the ones that enter the harbor at all.

So it's, uh, it's just— we're not looking at how the finished product— you have to imagine it 30 feet wider. Yeah, I look at it as kind of like a blind spot coming around the corner. Once there's a dock there, you know, and, you know, we know how the boats come in, especially the small boats, you know, whether they should be or not is another story. As they're coming out of the harbor and they're just trying to get on step, the other guy's coming back from fuel, or, um, that's a— it's a blind spot there, especially when you have— if you've got a tender up against it. Yeah, I would say that a tender with another boat outside of that often, um, And especially if you're jutting out there, like, it's difficult because the way the tide runs when you're run— if you— especially if you're pushing something bigger and less maneuverable, um, and slower, that you really need to get in position to turn to get in there.

And if something's in there, it's going to be it's going to constrict them off the harbor more than I think is safe, and in plenty of circumstances.

It looks like if you stuck to the red line, it would already encroach enough because the tender might be in that yellow area. And the, you know, or the two tenders, as it might be, very easily and often side by side alongside of wharf. So could potentially have— you're going to have dock, you know, bow pickers delivering too, where there's going to be coming and going, people cutting loose from the dock and trying to pull out and land tenders. It's just like, so the cross current there, that could create a kind of an additional traffic hazard right there. I mean, everybody can do what they want, but in my opinion, there's a reason all of our city docks out there go the direction they go, because you need to lay into the weather that way.

And if you're crosswise to it, it's not going to be good. And plenty of times, um, and especially on a big, um, big flood, it's going to be hard to get against that dock. I think that's what my— this— what the wedge is confusing is my understanding is they were going to have a dock face that ran parallel and even to the city dock there, and that's what— unless this is going to be one that runs east-west, and that's what I don't understand how this wedge plays a role and how it's effective in doing anything. I just, I'm, I'm confused as to the plan here. They're going to be running in line with the city dock there.

Oh, okay. But they just, it hang, the dock would hang over into that wedge portion. So the, the city dock will end and there will, it will be not connected to the dock that they intend on building, and it will say a foot or whatever, just some physical break that will then extend to the harbor end of that triangle, and then their tenders will lay as they do to the city dock currently. I'm not sure exactly how far into that triangle they're requesting. They're just requesting that portion.

Obviously it's not drawn all the way to scale. It's, it's close, but you know, the lines are thicker and stuff than what, um, you know, a surveyor would probably put it so that you can see where, what portion they're requesting. But it's, the dock is going to run along with the city dock and then just enter into that triangle portion. And where would the approach be to that dock? Essentially the harbor entrance, or from the other side, depending on which way the tide's running.

My issue is if the approach went right there along that outer edge of that triangle, then they could basically park a boat on one side and park a boat on the other side and almost block the mouth of the harbor, which is not for a bottom picker obviously, but for a bigger boat or pushing a barge or something like that, it's pretty tight. And as Tony says, visibility is even more, probably more of a problem a lot of times than actual, like, you know, if you think of driveways and parking lots, because you can stop and look and turn and stuff like that. But you're moving sideways with the tide, and, uh, yeah, you've got to kind of commit. Yeah, turn that corner and all of a sudden there's 6 bow pickers coming at you, all spread out though, not in a line. Yes.

Yeah. To be fair on that, we can, you know, give a pon pon when entering, exiting the harbor. Valdez does it. It's, it's not an uncommon thing. Whether or not people listen to that remains to be seen, but, um, you know, or I guess it'd be a security, right?

Uh, whatever. We can, we can make our intentions known on the radio, um, but, uh, that You know, I really want it to work. I just have reservations because I think that harbor, you know, it gets overused and they become pinch points, which puts other— it makes accidents a lot more likely.

I would definitely want to see more of a design before I was happy with it because, or, and realistic then. Because if there was just like the approach was in the middle of that lot and it was kind of coming out on the other end and you could, you know, maybe had a piling or two along that yellow line, I can see it working, but it If you put the approach right along the riprap and then go out and go the other way, it's— that wouldn't be good. That would be, um, it'd be a lot of impact.

I agree. I'm not opposed to this, them doing some construction there, but I think like Andy said, I think seeing more of a plan to ensure that it's not just let's do it and you do what you want. I feel like it really has to be, um, come from all the harbor users because it is such a— it's the, it's the entry point and we can't put— make it worse for other harbor users.

Yeah, um, they have no interest in buying the Science Center. Not selling the Science Center, we already said that. Oh right, that whole area we're keeping, right? They did have interest in that. Um, it's a better spot for a dock, that's why we wanted to put one there, right?

Huh, okay. So, um, as written, which is really all we can talk about, um, we have a motion that's seconded for disposing of that 4,100 square feet in size. And, um, I guess we could do, you know, a roll call vote again. Yes is in favor of disposing it as written, and no would be Um, we need more information. Um, and as written, this would not pass.

Yes. Any more discussion? Can they do refer to staff for more information? Yeah, but they would, um, they would have to vote this down, right? Yeah, they'd have to vote this down and then refer back to staff for more information.

Fair enough. Yeah, I think seeing a little bit more of a concept of what they're proposing—. Not necessarily everyone's against it per se, it's just like you guys are saying, more information. Yeah. Okay, uh, any more discussion and we'll do a roll call vote.

I think we— we're gonna— Ryan, got anything else you want to add to this? No. Gary? Okay, good. Okay, Andy Craig?

Uh, no. Ryan Schutze? No. Eric Collins? No.

Okay, and then we'll get more—. We're making a motion to refer to staff for more information. Oh, okay. I'd like to— yeah, I'll make a motion to request more information from staff on the, the concept of maybe some engineer drawings of what they're proposing for the DOC and stuff access. I'd second that.

Okay, anybody opposed to that? None. Referred it back. Now voting. Just be official.

We have this category here, miscellaneous business. Oh, what? Sorry, I would just do a roll call just to— yeah, be consistent. Sure. Yep.

Uh, roll call vote to, uh, on the motion to refer the, uh, land disposal back to staff for more information. Andy Gridt? Yes. Ryan Schutzey? Yes.

Derek Collins? Yes.

Uh, okay, miscellaneous business.

How's our, how's our, uh, map coming? Isma, stop. What happened? We were doing so well. I know.

We had a concept. We talked about it. Next time. Yeah, sure, sure. You got to get this done.

I know. That's what I've been saying for 3 meetings of this, right? Okay. Yeah, I will get back on it. Yes.

Go to commission comments and, uh, next meeting agenda item. So I, I'll, I'll actually put in that next meeting agenda item. We'll get an update on that hopefully August, September. Um, but anyways, uh, of course Aurora Grain update is terribly disappointing to have such a beautiful piece of equipment give us nothing but grief. I tried to sell those grains but I couldn't get a buyer.

Yes, that was my question. So if they come up and there's a a design flaw? I mean, the thing's been noisy, it seems like it's been problematic. Is that—. Is there any type of recourse or warranty?

And it's probably out of warranty. It's definitely out of warranty. I don't know if there's a recourse. I mean, um, we have, you know, because Calvin's been involved with all of it and everything, so, you know, we know the issues we've had from the beginning with it, just in manufacturing issues and different things. Um, you know, the warranty was a 1-year warranty.

And that's when Turnigan bought it, because they're the ones technically that purchased it. And then I got to put in a year later, and then it's been another year. So yeah, it's— so I don't know. I, I mean, there's definitely—. When they—.

If they show up like they keep telling me they're going to, we will cross that bridge, because I mean, I, I think there should be something. Yeah, it seems like it. I mean, it's blowing seals out of the filters, so there's obviously some back pressure or something. Yeah, there shouldn't be any on the return side. Yeah, no, that's pretty—.

No. And then, um, as I was saying, you know, we ordered new pump for it, but you know, the 2,500-pound now is— the winch is starting to leak, which we've already replaced that once. We bought a PL5, which is a better pump than what they have. Uh, so we got to make a bracket or a plate for that to mount on there, but I don't want to switch anything else out right now until Aurora gets here so they can see it sitting there and doing what it's supposed to do but doesn't. Um, but yeah, so, but we did lock out that 10,000-pound.

It just—. Yeah, there's too many issues with it. I mean, and all the electronics on it— I mean, the safety items are great when they work, but they never—. Yeah, gradually start to fail. We can threaten to change the name to Don't Buy Ant.

But I mean, it's just—. Yeah, it's been—. It's frustrating. I mean, for everyone. Complicated.

No, it's not that complicated. I don't get it. Yeah. So, all right, anybody have anything else, comments or agenda items? I just once again want to— I think that we're all on the same page here and wanting to see something work with CAM 2 there, and it's not a no on the project, it's just we all have concerns about the harbor entrance and making it good use for all the harbor users.

I don't want them to feel like we're, we're trying to just shut them down. I think it's just, you know, just as— I mean, we just need to watch out for all the harbor users. So let's make something work here that's in everybody's best interest. I'm looking forward to seeing them buy more fish and keep more money in town. So I think we can make something work.

We just need to see a little bit more information. Yeah, and I would agree with that. I think that when I was looking at it and realized the possibility that you could pretty much follow the riprap right out and then turn and have an L and have boats on both sides of that, where I was like, oh wow, that could be— this could be an issue, um, that we'd at least want to Yeah, you know, if you try to head off beforehand if possible. So I think it's clear that we, we want it to work for him, but we need it to work for everybody else as well.

Anything, Gary? No, thank you guys all for being there. We got one more motion. Motion to adjourn. Second.

Thanks. Any opposed? Nope. We're adjourned. All right, thank you.

Thanks, Ryan. Good sailing. Thank you, man. Yeah, we'll see you. Thanks, Amanda.

Thank you. How long did it take us to do that? 3 Weeks? 3 Months? 38 Minutes.