Haines Borough seeks owner's adviser and bridging document to keep $23M Lutak Dock grant on track

Haines Borough officials on Thursday laid out next steps to revive the long-running Lutak Dock replacement after months of stalled work and community distrust, hearing technical advice from marine engineers and agreeing to bring a proposal back to the assembly on contracting an owner's adviser.

Mayor Tom Orford framed the discussion by warning the borough could lose a $23,000,000 federal grant if the project does not move forward. "We can't afford to lose an opportunity for $23,000,000," he said, pressing for urgency while committing to broader stakeholder engagement including tribal representatives and conservation groups.

The assembly and staff focused on three tasks: defining the dock's "must-haves" for operations and safety, selecting a procurement approach, and deciding whether to hire an owner's adviser to produce a bridging document that translates community priorities into requirements for bidders. The manager and several assembly members said the goal of the meeting was to begin that process; no formal contract was approved.

The borough invited Sean McFarland of Moffett and Nickel, a coastal and marine design firm, to explain options. McFarland said a bridging document bridges concept-level public input and code requirements into performance-based material that can be used to solicit a design-build team. "The bridging document then takes that solution. It articulates what all the must haves are," he said.

On schedule and cost, McFarland said preparing a preferred-concept package could be done in roughly "9 to 12 weeks," depending on public engagement, and recommended carrying significant contingency at early estimating stages. At concept stage he advised a contingency around "15 to 25%" to allow for unknowns before bids are received. He warned that environmental permitting and the EA were likely the largest hurdles: the borough must have its grant agreement and permitting alignment in place by September 2027 to meet the award conditions, he said, and "there's no time to waste."

Assembly members raised several operational concerns they want reflected in requirements: maintaining existing fuel and freight continuity during construction, conforming to American iron-and-steel requirements tied to federal funds, staying within the existing Lutak Dock footprint where feasible to reuse earlier environmental work, seismic durability standards, and preserving upland space and existing nonessential facilities when practical.

Public commenters and ports-and-harbors representatives asked the borough to consult regular dock users and fuel operators during planning. One commenter urged the assembly to coordinate closely with Delta Western and AML because those operators understand day-to-day needs at the dock. Don Turner asked how active litigation could affect the borough's ability to commit funds if the borough were sued; the assembly said staff would take that question under consideration.

Staff said they have considered multiple procurement paths'design-bid-build, progressive design-build and design-build'and that a straight design-build with a clear bridging document and owner's adviser could limit repeated redesigns and help the community coalesce around a single, workable concept before going to market. McFarland said his firm could prepare a scope and fee proposal in time for the assembly's December meeting if the borough wishes to negotiate a sole-source agreement; he also offered to respond to a competitive RFP if required by procurement rules.

Next steps: assembly members signaled general support for pursuing an owner's adviser and a bridging document and asked staff to return with a contract proposal and funding details for consideration at an upcoming meeting. The assembly made no final vote or contract award Thursday.

The meeting record shows the borough remains constrained by federal grant conditions and permitting timelines; staff and consultants emphasized that a publicly vetted bridging document and an owner's adviser would be the practical steps to protect the grant and reduce the risk of costly surprises in later bid stages.