Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Harbors And Ports topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses dock and harbor funds, floating-dock concept and Swanson Harbor repairs
Summary
Committee members reviewed CPV and harbor enterprise funds, discussed using excess passenger-fee revenue or CIP funds for dock maintenance and a potential floating-dock design, and raised concern about Swanson Harbor pilings and the need for substantial removal or replacement funding.
The Haines Borough Commerce Committee spent substantial time reviewing ports- and-harbors finances, possible capital projects and maintenance priorities, and the constraints on how commercial passenger vessel and harbor funds may be used.
Speaker 1 explained that CPV (commercial passenger vessel) funds are tightly restricted—generally for dock-related uses that directly benefit cruise ships (mooring, port security, bathroom cleaning, kiosk staffing). Staff projected roughly $268,000 in CPV revenue for FY27 and said the fund had an estimated $686,000 balance at the end of FY25; projected end-of-FY27 fund balance after planned uses was about $54,000. Committee members emphasized legal restrictions and cautioned against using restricted CPV funds for broadly unrelated expenses without a clear legal justification.
Docks and harbors staff (Speaker 11 and Speaker 10) described a potential path to repurpose a portion of dedicated head taxes used by other ports: conduct a formal cost-analysis study to justify allocating a share of those fees to public-works needs. The committee discussed a conceptual floating-dock design and a separate fender project; attendees cautioned that early construction estimates grew rapidly when cost details were refined, and said a broader community conversation and careful phasing are needed before committing tens of millions in capital.
Swanson Harbor drew concern from members who described decaying pilings, sinking floats, and shallow channels that complicate navigation. Staff reported easement-renewal work and stated initial removal/replacement cost estimates (pilings and float disposal) could exceed a half-million dollars. The group noted state Tier 1 harbor grants exist but are 50/50 match programs with project caps and qualifying conditions, making match funding and qualifying status a barrier for non-revenue refuge-type projects.
Committee members asked staff to assemble CIP lists, projected multi-year uses for passenger and harbor funds, and options for smaller, immediate work such as decking repairs or targeted float refurbishment. They also floated revenue-bond feasibility and possible grant-seeking strategies, but no formal capital commitment was made during the meeting.
Next steps: staff will refine CIP entries and cost estimates for dock maintenance, produce a clearer breakdown of fund sources and allowable uses, and return to the committee with options for phased investment and grant opportunities.
