Kenai residents, spill-response group urge study of deepwater port; commission schedules site visit

At its April 7, 2025 regular meeting, the Kenai Harbor Commission heard multiple public speakers press for a study of a deepwater port and expanded harbor facilities in Kenai, saying such infrastructure could boost local commerce and oil-spill response capabilities.

Proponents told the commission they regularly move large volumes of freight through Homer because Kenai lacks a deepwater facility. "I'm sort of lobbying to get interest to build a harbor in Kenai," said Robert Peterkin, a Kenai resident and owner of Triangle Recycling. Peterkin said his company ships "about 5 to 10,000,000 pounds of steel to Homer every year" and that other shippers move tens of millions of pounds of material through Homer because Kenai cannot accommodate deep-draft vessels.

Why it matters: Speakers and commission members framed a harbor as both an economic asset and a public-safety improvement. Todd Paxton, representing Cook Inlet Spill Prevention & Response, Inc. (CISPRI), said having calmer, enclosed harbor waters would improve oil-spill response and reduce environmental risk compared with fueling and transacting directly on the river. "If you lose fuel there in the river, it's a bad situation," Paxton said, arguing a harbor would allow safer, isolatable operations.

Details of proposals and local interest

Robert Peterkin proposed a general location north of town near the Wildwood corner and said past harbor proposals, including plans his father saved from the 1970s, focused on in-river development. Peterkin suggested a larger concept: terracing shoreline parcels and building out roughly a half-mile into Cook Inlet to create deepwater berths, with rock armor and dredging as needed. He said some property in the proposed area is already city-owned and that a limited number of landowners control most parcels.

Tom Pellegrum, a Kenai resident and former CEO/president of Pequay Oil Field Service Company, said he had used the Port of Kenai for freight, fuel and guiding and that much commercial marine traffic now moves to Homer. "The harbor is very limited now," Pellegrum said, urging commissioners to consider the economic activity that would return if Kenai added harbor capacity.

Spill-response perspective

Todd Paxton of CISPRI said federal and state regulations require oil-spill preparedness and that CISPRI maintains vessels and equipment to respond in Cook Inlet. He told the commission his organization keeps most contract vessels in Homer because Homer currently offers better marine infrastructure to support a large response fleet. Paxton said a Kenai harbor would make local spill response "a game changer" and could reduce the risk of long, difficult cleanups arising from fuel operations in fast-moving river water.

City staff and commission next steps

City staff member Mr. Frey provided project updates unrelated to a new deepwater port but relevant to waterfront capacity: the Bluff erosion project is scheduled to begin May 16 and is expected to run through the construction season, with an approximate completion later this calendar year. Frey said materials for new floats are being purchased, the city opened the dock on April 3 (the earliest opening in recent years), and the city plans to build additional floats inhouse and to repair concrete ramps over the coming months.

The commission asked proponents to produce a concise, paper presentation that outlines a target facility (ship/boat sizes, likely users, and a proposed footprint) so commissioners can refine a referral to the mayor and city council. Commissioners also set a Kenai dock site visit for June 9 to inspect current facilities and waterfront conditions.

Formal actions taken

At the start of the meeting the commission approved the agenda and the February minutes without objection. The commission also appointed a new chair and vice chair by unanimous consent. The transcript nominated Jeannie Veil as chair and the commission confirmed that appointment. The nomination and appointment process for vice chair in the transcript referenced different names during the discussion; the commission nonetheless appointed a vice chair by unanimous consent. (The transcript records both the names "Mr. Herlovis" and "Mr. Mappas" in the nomination/appointment exchange.)

What remains undecided

Speakers and commissioners emphasized that building any deepwater port would require engineering analysis, dredging plans, shoreline and property negotiations, and funding sources such as state grants; none of those technical steps or specific funding commitments were advanced at the meeting. Several speakers suggested federal or state grant programs might support port work, but details and grant names were not specified at the meeting.

Commissioners asked proponents to return with a short, focused presentation that identifies the desired harbor type, target vessel sizes, likely user groups and an initial list of potential funding sources; the commission said it would forward such a packet to the mayor and city council if the commission judged it suitable.

Ending note

Public interest in exploring harbor options appeared to find broad sympathy from commissioners at the meeting, but the record shows the discussion remained at an early, exploratory stage: proponents were asked to prepare more detail and the commission scheduled a June 9 site visit to inform further recommendations to city council.