Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kenai council declines proposed vacation of Wildwood Drive adjacent right‑of‑way amid ownership, timing concerns
Summary
After extended debate and a member recusal, the Kenai City Council on May 21 voted down a resolution to vacate a 60‑by‑156‑foot portion of an unnamed right‑of‑way along Wildwood Drive, citing unresolved ownership questions and ongoing negotiations with state and Native association stakeholders.
The Kenai City Council on May 21 rejected a resolution that would have declared a 60‑by‑156‑foot portion of an unnamed road by Wildwood Drive not needed for public purpose and vacated it to adjoining owners. The vote failed after a lengthy council debate about timing, local drainage needs and a parallel dispute over Wildwood Drive’s underlying ownership.
Council discussion and recusal Councilmember Douthat had earlier publicly recused himself on this matter because of property ownership ties to nearby lots. The resolution — numbered 2025‑532 on the agenda — drew divided comments at the dais. Supporters, including the applicant (a property owner who described flooding and drainage problems on the lots), said vacating the narrow right‑of‑way would allow the owner to remediate ponding and combine adjacent lots for future development.
Opponents, including the mayor, the city manager and several council members, said the timing was wrong. City Manager Greg Eubank and Mayor Gabriel said negotiations over the broader Wildwood Drive ownership and potential state paving funding were ongoing with the Kachemak Native Association (KNA) and the Alaska Department of Transportation. Council members warned that vacating the adjacent right‑of‑way now could “muddle” talks with the state or KNA and could undercut the city’s leverage in negotiating access or compensation.
A second line of concern was public perception. Several council members said vacating a right‑of‑way closely associated with a council member who stood to benefit would create an appearance problem even if the legal procedures were followed; that concern added weight to arguments about delaying action until ownership and negotiations are resolved.
Vote and outcome After debate, the roll call was: Council member Askin — No; Council member Casana — No; Mayor Gabriel — No; Council member Daniel — Yes; Council member Sonar — No; Vice Mayor Nakstead — No; Student representative Tanner — No. The motion failed; the resolution did not pass. Councilmember Douthat had recused earlier and did not vote.
Why it matters Council members and staff described Wildwood Drive as a priority road for improvements; state participation and KNA’s land claims (ANCSA allotments) were cited as complicating the effort to obtain state funding or a negotiated access agreement. Opponents argued that acting now could jeopardize progress on a larger repaving/drainage solution; proponents argued the vacation was needed to fix immediate drainage problems and to allow a property owner to consolidate lots for future development.
Ending The council’s vote preserves the status quo for the disputed right‑of‑way. City staff told council they will continue negotiations with state DOT and KNA and that a future request could return to the council once the broader ownership and financing questions are clearer.
