Lands committee considers acquisition of perpetual easement for school site near Kachemak area

The Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Lands Committee discussed Resolution 2025-034, which would authorize acquisition of a perpetual easement of roughly one-third of an acre adjacent to property recently acquired in the Kachemak area to site a new school facility.

Assembly member Hughes introduced the resolution and said the easement would provide space for an above-ground wastewater treatment facility and for playground and other school-related activities. Hughes said acquiring an easement was “far less expensive to acquire an easement as opposed to the property and fee.”

John Hedges, borough staff called to the podium, described a downsized version of the school project developed to fit available funds. “We have a downsized version of the project that we've come up with based on the educational specification that meets the current budget we have available,” Hedges said. He said the borough’s available matching funds total about $8.5 million and that the state had provided a $10,000,000 grant that remains available. “The full 10,000,000 is available. We currently don't have enough match funds,” Hedges said. He added the borough expects to finish design and bid before the 2026 construction season and that the project could be completed through 2026 and possibly into 2027.

Assembly member Dunn asked whether the downsized version represented the total project cost or just the borough’s share; Hedges replied the $8.5 million figure represented the borough's match including bond funds. Assembly member Johnson questioned why the borough would buy an easement with broad rights instead of purchasing the fee interest; Hedges said a separate existing agreement tied to the property required participation in maintaining a permanent switchback trail across state property, which made fee purchase less straightforward and made an easement the best option.

Assembly member Cox and others asked whether the advisory board or planning commission had significant discussion of the item. Hughes and Hedges said there was little substantive discussion at the review bodies. Assembly member Don clarified that the Kachemak Bay advisory planning commission has been inactive for several years and that recommendations listed under that advisory-board category in the packet were actually from the planning commission.

No committee vote was recorded at the lands committee meeting; the item remained positioned to proceed through the legislative process and for potential placement on the consent agenda.

Background: The resolution cites a need for additional site area to accommodate wastewater infrastructure and outdoor school activities adjacent to a site recently acquired for a new school; staff presented funding figures and a rough construction timeline but did not present a final construction schedule or total project cost in committee.