Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lutitac Dock topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Haines Borough harbor committee views three draft Lutak/Lutac dock concepts; consultant stresses design‑build flexibility
Summary
Consultant Moffett Nickel presented three high‑level alternatives for the Lutak (Lutac/LUTAC) dock: limited encapsulation, a sheet‑pile/pile‑supported fixed dock, and a transfer‑span solution. The committee asked about uplands, fuel operations and budget framing; the assembly will select a preferred alternative for development.
Consultant Paul Wallace of Moffett Nickel told the Haines Borough Harbor Committee on April 1 that the consultant team had provided three high‑level concept alternatives and is seeking the committee’s guidance on which to develop into bridging documents for a design‑build solicitation. "These alternatives are not super well developed at all," Wallace said, calling them starting points for the assembly to choose a preferred alternative that will later be right‑sized for scope, schedule and budget.
Wallace described Concept 1 as a limited encapsulation approach that would preserve portions of the existing dock by installing a combi wall and placing riprap where demolition is required. He explained that Concept 2 is a pile‑supported fixed dock with a small bulkhead and catwalks, presented in 2a/2b variants that either preserve or remove an existing dolphin and associated catwalk. Concept 3 uses a transfer span supported by a float and guide piles; Wallace said the trestle would move with the tide and could ease barge operations.
Committee members pressed for operational detail. "Is there such a design that we can pick? I like that idea," said Diana Lapham (S4), endorsing the transfer‑span concept’s tidal performance. Mike Ward (S1) and others stressed the need for usable uplands and safe maneuvering room for equipment; Wallace said exact vehicle and equipment loads and clearance requirements would be developed only after the assembly selects a preferred alternative.
Several participants asked whether the designs account for fuel operations. Norman (S8) urged fuel‑line considerations and safety be included on the conceptual drawings or at least noted; Wallace said the consultant team is already talking with fuel suppliers including AML and Delta Western and would incorporate fuel‑operation needs into later design development.
On cost framing, Wallace repeatedly stressed that the presentation was intentionally qualitative: "We're not talking scope, schedule, and budget at this moment specifically…we believe…any one of these that you select, we can right size for your scope, schedule, and budget available." Mike Denker, the clerk (S9), noted the borough manager has recommended a $22,000,000 project budget with a 12% contingency; that recommendation remains with the assembly for consideration.
The consultant and staff urged the committee to treat the concepts as negotiable and to consider combinations of features from different concepts rather than a single fixed schematic. The committee was reminded the next step is a joint working group meeting with the planning commission and assembly to refine selection criteria and consider stakeholder input.
The committee did not take a formal vote to forward a preferred alternative during the April 1 meeting. Wallace advised the committee the project would move into the bridging‑document phase only after a preferred alternative is selected by the borough assembly.
