Kodiak Borough: Kodiak Island Borough Livestream

Do we have a quorum? That's it. Okay. All right. I will call the Kodiak Island Borough Lands Committee regular meeting of Monday, June 1st to order.

Roll call, please.

Mr. Griffin. Here. Mr. Johnson. Here. Mr. Whiteside.

Here. Ms. Frazier. Ms. Craig. Here. Mr. Grahn.

Here. Mr. Townsend, you have a quorum. All right, we'll take time for citizens comments for those who wish to call in. The Local number is 907-486-3231. Toll free number is 1-855-492-9202.

Please turn off your radio or any listening device to prevent feedback. For those in the room who wish to speak under citizens comments, please come to the podium and sign in. Turn on the microphone, make sure the green light is on before speaking, and speak directly into the MIC and state your name for the record. Address all remarks to the committee as a body and not to any member thereof.

We'll wait a few seconds.

It.

Okay. Seeing none, no comments, we will move on to the approval of the minutes. The May 4, 2026 minutes. Is there a motion moved?

So moved. Okay. Is there a second? Second voice vote on the motion? All in favor say aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Same sign. All right, minutes. That carries.

First on our agenda is a vice chair designation. We decided that just in case the chair, the mayor, cannot be here, someone just to run the meetings in their absence. I don't intend on being absent, but I guess it's good. Mr. Grahn, I'd move to recommend Beau Whiteside as the vice chair of the Borough Lands Committee. I second removed and seconded any discussion.

Okay, let's roll call. Vote on the motion. Mr. Griffin? Yes. Mr. Johnson?

Yes. Mr. Whiteside? Yes. Ms. Frazier. Sorry.

Ms. Craig? Yes. Mr. Gron. Yes. Motion passes.

All right, thank you. Next item is to rescind the action taken on the Kodiak Electric association request for the Terra Lake Hydroelectric four parcels of land. They submitted a letter of with draw on May 5th. Is there a motion.

Move to rescind the action taken on May 4, 2026, regarding the Kodiak Electric association request for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric 4 parcels of land? Is there a second?

I second. Okay, it's moved and seconded. Any discussion on that, Mr. Grohn? Yeah, thank you. I'm.

I'd like some clarity as to why we need to rescind this. Just for my understanding of why this needs to be rescinded. Yeah, I can answer that, Mr. Grahn. So you had already taken action on this request prior to them rescinding their request. So you, you still have to take an action on the rescind.

Rescinding. Although they, they withdrew the request since you had already made that motion previous to their notice coming in. So we just have to make it official. If I may do a follow up. So if we recommend parcel A for disposal to the public need and the Borough assembly says no later, we don't rescind that.

So why is this different? I guess I'm just trying to understand process. The request didn't come from the assembly, it came from kea and you guys took action on that request. So it wasn't the assembly that directed that action. So if that, does that make sense?

Yeah, I guess I'm still struggling that once it leaves our desk, it doesn't come back to us. It goes to somebody else's desk, PNZ's or the assembly. So I'm not trying to understand. We don't. See, it's not like a circular thing when we put a parcel up for surplus, is my understanding it does not come back to us as a actionable item.

So I'm curious as to why this different. I get why the requester asked us, but I think the. Yeah, okay, so since you had already taken official action that would have been sent to Planning and Zoning and then the Assembly. So we just have to take that back to the Borough Lands Committee since that's where it initiated. Although it's just to make it official.

And it hadn't reached, and it hadn't reached PNZ yet. If it had already reached PNZ then, then it would just be given back or go away from there. But because you guys were the initiators of that request, we just have to like take action on it and rescind that request. Although KEA withdrew it just to make it official. So if KEA were to put in another request in six months, they would have to come back before this body by rescinding this.

Okay, any other discussion or questions? Okay, roll call vote on the motion, please. Mr. Johnson? Yes. Mr. Whiteside?

Yes. Ms. Craig? Yes. Mr. Gron? Yes.

Mr. Griffin? Yes. Motion passes.

Okay, next, initial discussion of parcels 215-12-21582 and 2376 on 2926 East Rezanov Drive. 3034 Sheraton Road and 3235 East Rezanov Drive, Killarney Hills. So the Lands Committee asked the assembly when, since there's no strategic plan or any other kind of guidance, the. Oh, thank you.

Oh, okay.

So we have received some broad guidance of some general Areas that the assembly would like the Lands Committee to start looking at and investigating and then advise, advise them on. So three parcels came up. I'm looking in. Oops. The land viewer now.

Bo, you had brought up one of these. You want to kick us off? Sure. So I believe Lena's bringing up the map viewer for those in the room here. So this is property ID 23766, also known as Clarney Hills, aka the Cannonball Field.

This is a 16.389 acre parcel. This one has been something I've been looking at for quite some time, even before being on this committee. Reason being is it's. It has a great central location, good access to local businesses directly here in town. It's flat.

There's access to utilities, and as I understand it from Director French, there are no limitations that he is aware of as far as connecting to water, sewer, electricity for this parcel. So I'm viewing it as, what parcel could we consider forwarding to PNZ that would potentially have the lowest developmental needs as far as creating a subdivision, surveying, clearing the land, or grading the land, and then installing or extending water, sewer, electric? This one just really stands out to me. And then considering the adjacent lots, how many small lots we could fit in this parcel, I would imagine no less than 30 lots, including accounting for roadways, you know, utility needs or offsets. And then if maintaining some green space, you could even do that if you're creative with the development.

But that's why this one stands out to me. I understand it is being used for baseball practice, But I remember Dr. LeDoux stating that this was a temporary offer made some 15 years ago and was never rescinded. So. So acknowledging that folks do use that. I'm prioritizing the needs of the community over a practice field when there's numerous ball fields teams can practice on.

I'm thinking about growing up in all the different sports I played. I never had a practice field for football, soccer, or baseball. Not ideal as far as wear and tear, but I would say baseball, if any of the sports, is the least amount of wear on a surface out of any of them. So that's why I have this parcel in mind.

Okay, so we have these.

This screening document, the screening matrix. And what I might recommend is to just go down some of these, generate some questions for the community development staff, see if that's really what we want to go, and then come up with, and then through Amy, the borough manager, direct staff to prepare a memo for us, and then we can really start to dig into it. Does that make sense? Okay, so like, the first part is this municipal stability. So again, without a strategic plan, we have these questions, right?

Do we feel that the parcel is surplus to our current operations at the borough? What is the likelihood that this parcel would be needed for future borough facilities or services?

Does it avoid conflict with future needs? Roads, utilities, drainage access, build another school, build a park, public safety?

Does it. Do we feel that it will support housing, economic development, neighborhood infill? And would it create greater long term public value?

If we're retaining the parcel, would that create a longer term public value rather than selling it now? So any thoughts on any of those? And we also have Amy and Seema here. We might be able to. Just a couple points.

It's my recollection that there was going to be some utility challenges with this site through the public works. So I would ask that staff verify that, give us that information. I also understand that this site is a lot of. It is bedrock, so developmental costs will be increased. So I'd ask staff to consider that.

I'd go back to the borough and say the. Some of those outer parcels were deemed surplusable, but they never went out to auction. And I'd ask. Start with that. Sorry.

Yeah, yeah, there was several. And it's been some years. It is also my understanding that this parcel was purchased for a hospital site Many, many, many, many years ago. And this site has been utilized for recreation needs going back to the 2000s. So just from a point of clarity, it's been used for about the last 25 years plus us for recreational needs.

So I guess I would first start off with the utilities. You know, I think it's my understanding. I think they. It's been a long time since this parcel has been talked about, but I understand that they can't connect to that site. They would have to go straight across.

So there would be utilities. It's not a hookup thing. It was my understanding that they were going to have to put in new utilities. And so. And then I think the other question to that is I believe there is.

Also.

Wetlands as well. So I think identifying how much of the parcel is wetlands versus because I think it is 16 acres, but I think there's several acres that were wetlands.

So I spewed out a lot. And I don't know if you're taking notes. So.

Any information or feedback from borough manager or. Okay. Yeah. Okay, thanks. Mr. Grohn.

I'm trying to. Yes, Mr. Johnson. Yeah, I think Kodiak as a community is mature enough that there is no True low hanging fruit among the borough's holdings. If it was a lot that we could easily clear and put up a subdivision, I think somebody would have done it by now. So I think we're going to see challenges with any lot, any of these larger lots that we've still got left on the rules looking back.

Yeah, this was last looked at, it looks like in 2018. That said the borough was going to sell it or open it up to development. Obviously that didn't happen. So before we get too far down that road, it'd probably be worth getting a history lesson as to how far we got and why we didn't. Because I'm guessing some of those barriers that were just mentioned may have gotten in the way.

And yeah, it's, you know, if there was something missed in 2018 and this could, you know, be converted relatively cheaply and efficiently to a development, great. But yeah, wouldn't be super eager to plow over. And it's not just a practice field. The whole coach pitch league does all their games there. So it's more than just a practice.

But yeah, so I'd be a little reluctant to, you know, plow over a field if we don't have a good grasp on how developable it actually is. Absolutely. Yeah. And.

Well, I'll hold my thoughts, see if there's anybody else. Yeah. Just one more comment. Just as a reminder too, the borough is under a joint use agreement with the city and if they are to deem, I think this is a step that has been missed in the past. If they deem this property surplusable, I think they owe it, per the agreement to notify the city who is the manager of said parcel, who operates the programs.

And I believe that was missed in 2018. So just as a reminder, I think in the contract it states if they are to make any changes to their, you know, facilities, it's their right to do that, but I think they owe that obligation in writing form. So.

Yeah. Do you know off the top of your head exactly what is the nature? I know Parks and Rec uses it, but is that part of a shared use? In our three way agreement with the school district, the city and the borough, this is one of the fields that is listed as part of that, but it goes beyond that. We have an additional memorandum of agreement where the city is storing stuff on that space and then they mow our lawns for us, which has been a godsend.

But so, yeah, there'll be multiple things that we have to look at if we're looking to make A transfer of ownership for that property. Not only the joint use agreement, but also the storage that the city is currently utilizing there.

So for this one, I think. So I can send the. I mean, I think the department already has this, but send them this screening matrix. It sounds like we're interested, but we just didn't. We obviously want a lot more information, specifically the history, wetlands, bedrock, how it might affect some current relationships or agreements that we have there.

So.

Consensus to forward this on to staff. I think we should get our questions. It's really hard to make any support or against without anything limited besides looking at a map. So I think it's absolutely in the best interest to get information back. Okay.

And I just. I was always told too, that we couldn't tie in to water and sewer, that they had to make their own water and sewer. But I don't know if that's true. Yeah, that's what I've heard. But yeah.

Okay. And then the next ones, just right down the road. Oops, a little bit. I press the wrong button.

To the corner of Reznoff and Sheratin.

So it's the.

2152 And 21582. I mean, they're right next to each other. So either one.

Yeah, These.

So that's one. And then can you zoom out just a little bit to get the one that's on the right. Another weirdly shaped.

There we go.

So these were two more identified by the assembly as possibly interested in and wanted us to take a look at it and see if we wanted to get some more information from there.

I mean, I live over there. I know there are trails in there, but.

Right where it curves towards Canafield above the treatment plant.

So there on the left, that's Kodiak College, you know, University of Alaska land.

Yeah. Woody Way Housing and then. Yeah, Woody Way Housing right there.

I make assumptions that they'd have to access off Reznoff or. And. Or shared team, potentially. Right. Yeah.

Yeah. I think the same thing goes for these. For me, my question is, you know. Yeah, absolutely, we should get more information on them. I think I'd be interested in more information on them, Mr. Johnson.

Yeah, same thing. Daily Mirror, 2016. These lots were identified as being available for potential sale. Also approved in 2001 for sale to the public. According to this article, in 2016, the last time they considered it, staff had gotten to the assembly with a recommendation it go up for sale and planning and zoning changed the recommendation to not.

They received 37 written comments, 36 in opposition one in favor. A number of respondents brought to the staff's attention existing drainage issues in the area, in addition to uses of the land by the public that staff was originally unaware of. So it's been considered and rejected in the past. Yeah. And we don't really have, you know, there's nowhere in our process is like, what is the statute of limitations on looking at parcels again, that had already been previously looked at and offered up and PNZ or whoever has rejected.

So that goes back to my original point on the. On the kea earlier. Once it's left this table, where does our responsibility lie? Killarney Hills has left this table before in the past. Right.

So where, where is, where is the responsibility of this body for us to bring it back up? Whether the requester rescinds it or the assembly turns it down, where does our responsibility stop? And that's what I'm trying to understand is if these have been done to Mr. Johnson's point, I don't want to redo work. Yeah. 10 Years ago.

I mean, is that too. Too soon? Yeah, yeah, I struggle with that, too. But I appreciate Mr. Johnson's point is, like, we're not gonna. I don't think there's any parcel aside from like an individual lot here and there, but I think we've already teased those out that are suitable for this is, you know, bringing them back to the table because it has been some time, but I wouldn't like to know why those did not move forward.

But we're going to have to consider is do we prioritize housing needs or current use? And so we're not going to find a single parcel. I would be shocked if we did that didn't have some sort of community benefit or use associated with it. It's just not going to exist. And if it, if there is a parcel where there's no community use, that probably means that's something we don't want to develop to begin with because it's either, you know, it's a wetland or it's just the topography doesn't work or it's just.

Just not economically feasible. So thinking about what our role Here is to Mr. Grahn's concern is, or not concern, but point as I view this committee as kind of refreshing our perspective on available parcels. Do they fit the current need for housing development now, or could they? I should say, because we don't have all the information, but if we get the information back and these parcels, any of these parcels we're discussing are relatively straightforward to develop, we can Access and connect to utilities. Does that meet the goal of the committee of identifying parcels that are suitable for increasing, increasing land for workforce housing?

So that's kind of the, that's the lens I'm looking through right now and that's why I was looking pretty strongly or still am at Killarney Hills. But any parcel that anyone can think of, these are the ones that came up through the assembly as meeting that need. But potentially but so I again I guess I'm blabbering a bit at this point but as far as this role for me I'm considering would these parcels meet that need if those boxes are checked from our information gathering exercise And I would say that Clarney Hills does more than these two, mostly based on just how you would access these. That lot that's highlighted now likely on Sheratine I would imagine. But if both of these were to come out on the resin off, I don't, I mean it's already I'm watching people, I drive by the Woody Way access point a few times a day and folks just have to really roll the dice getting in and are getting out of there.

So I imagine if we add another entry or egress across the street from that that's going to compound that a little bit and just thinking about, you know, how safe would that be there. Whereas Killarney Hills you have very good entry and exit points for that if it were to move forward. But just another thing for us to think about too is how are folks going to enter and exit these potential subdivisions.

I'm just going to throw it if we're looking at other lots, you know, the borough's got, I think it's property 22050. It's got, trying to look at the acreage here but 35 acres right there on the corner of Abercrombie. So I mean there's also 35 acres there that's not currently being utilized for anything. So if you do think about a low hanging fruit, it's an underutilized asset because it's not being utilized for anything at all, at least to my knowledge. So maybe that's another parcel to consider.

Maybe going back to Mr. Johnson's points instead of asking more questions of the community develop. Maybe it's bringing back those 20, why those 26 or 2016 and 2018 parcels stopped and maybe that's our first starting point for those. But yeah, no, thank you for going on my tangent. Like I said, once they leave us it's like I don't want to revisit Exactly. Something that's already been done, and if it's done, you know, anyway.

Yeah, that's fair. So on these two, the 215-12-21582, we could just communicate to staff, not necessarily do a whole big screening thing, but just do some historical research. Why were they considered and why did they fail? Just give us a memo just for that. Something a little more substantial.

We're asking for 3235 East Rezanov Hills. Do. And I'll probably defer to the manager in terms of, like, workload. If we were to add 22050 to ask staff to start looking into. Is that too many parcels for staff?

We could start in 2015 on that one because that's the last time the Daily Mirror wrote about it,.

Right? Yeah. Yeah. So we have three already on the list. If we add the fourth, Madam Manager, if Director French and.

Or his staff could get to this fourth one, great. If not, like, maybe keep expectations managed on our end. Okay. All right.

I mean, we don't really need a. Is there a consensus for 22050, move forward on that? Okay. I thought it was the other one, the rounder one. Cities.

Yeah, that's ours. Okay.

Okay. Yeah. The one on the left is the Cities.

Wait, the one on the. The one on the left is the Cities. The. The one up above it. Oh.

Oh, okay. Okay. Yep.

Interesting.

Okay. All right. We'll work on the direction to staff on those. Thank you, everybody. Good discussion.

And then finally, we kind of have a. I asked if we could have just a standing final agenda item on just updating, just letting us know what is.

Of parcels that we've recently recommended through. Oh, Amy, go for it. Hello. So I just made copies of something that's directly out of the packet for Thursday night for you guys to see so you can see the progress of that resolution. It made it through packet review at the work session on the 28th without any questions.

I don't expect any. Besides fixing a typo. Thank you, Mr. Whiteside. Which has been fixed for the packet, which is not fixed in what you have in front of me because it's what I printed out, but when the packet gets republished, the typo will not be there. So I think that should move forward and then move on to the next phase Thursday.

So June 4th should be the next milestone. Any questions?

Okay, this. This is all the Island Lake property. Is that. Is that what I see? What about.

Didn't we also do something with Beaver Lake? Wasn't there something on Beaver Lake? That we also did a disposal on and the Cheniac stuff. So hadn't we done three in the past year and a half? I don't think we've.

I don't think.

Right. And those have been. Yeah, the minutes have been approved. So now they are in pnz. Okay, so both those parcels have now been forward to pnz.

Yeah. Okay, thank you.

All right. Okay. Committee members, comments? Does anybody have any comments?

All right, feels like we're getting work done. Next meeting, date and time. We've typically been meeting on the first Monday of the month. That still works for me, Mr. Mayor. I'm have problems with July.

The first Mondays, July and August. I have travel plans for both. Happens to be July and August, first Monday. So I'll just tell you my dates. I'm out of town until probably the 16th of July, and then again out of town until the 5th of August.

So I'm in. In and out for much of July. Can you do. No,.

Probably not. Probably not.

Yeah. One. Yep. Fishing. Fishing.

And then the other one's personal travel.

So with the twin. Are you here on the 20th? Yeah. And maybe just for staff and for us, maybe we only do one. Instead of doing.

Maybe we just do one meeting for July, August. And maybe that 20th covers both. As it's not uncommon to skip a couple meetings in the summer. I have a feeling that, I mean, the information we're going to get about all these parcels is going to be enough to kind of carry us through. We could skip July and go to August.

I mean,.

If the 20th captures both months, I'm. 20Th works. 20Th works for me. Okay.

I can do the 20th, but I can't do noon. I can do like 12. 15.

Okay. All right. Yeah, I'm doing a. That's a theater camp. And we go until noon.

So I just have to walk over here from the auditorium.

Okay. Monday, July 20th, little after 12.

Yeah. Mr. Chair, I was just going to say I could also reach out to Mr. Townsend and Sarah to see what their availability would be like to make sure we have a quorum for that date. Otherwise, we could maybe come up with an alternative as well. So we'll wait officially until we hear back from the other members.

Yeah, it sounds like everybody that was here was in consensus. And that's five. But just to make sure we have Sarah.

Okay. And with that, we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.

Oh, wait. We need them. So move. Move. Yeah, there we go.

Second. Okay, voice vote on the motion. Everyone say aye. Any opposed? Okay, now we are adjusting.