Ports and Harbor Commission Special Meeting – June 29, 2026 – Rates and Fees Discussion
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Ports and Harbor Commission Special Meeting – June 29, 2026
The Ports and Harbor Commission held a special meeting on June 29, 2026, to discuss proposed rates and fees for the use of Valdez Harbor facilities and to consider repealing Resolution No. 26-29. The meeting included public testimony from harbor users, followed by commissioner deliberation. The commission directed staff to remove several contested fees and to schedule a follow-up meeting for a final vote.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Catherine Walters (38-year harbor resident) requested a change to the nine-month upland storage rule, proposing an annual cycle to avoid winter boat launches. She noted the rule is impractical in Valdez due to ice.
- Jim Gifford (annual boat ramp pass holder) opposed the new daily parking fee for trailers, arguing it punishes local users and that enforcement should apply equitably to all vehicles. He suggested a 48-hour free period.
- Kyle Klaus (liveaboard for 4 years) criticized the 1,200% increase in liveaboard fees from $75 to $900, calling it poor public policy during high inflation. He argued that liveaboards paying property taxes should be exempt and that the fee unfairly taxes a low-value asset. He also noted that liveaboards provide security and maintenance benefits to the harbor.
- Thane Miller (commercial fisherman) opposed the proposed $23-per-day skiff moorage fee, explaining that his skiff cannot be safely loaded onto his vessel and that the fee would force avoidance. He emphasized the commercial fleet’s economic contribution to Valdez.
- Ethan Sandlin (commercial fishing captain) seconded Thane Miller's comments and suggested using the former Totem Inn site for a restaurant to generate revenue.
- Bernie Culbertson (former commissioner) acknowledged the need for revenue but noted that safety concerns previously derailed similar fee proposals.
- Anonymous speaker (harbor user) accused the harbor of operating as both a state entity and a private LLC, favoring certain users. He cited favoritism in enforcement of vessel fees and questioned the legality of parking fee notices.
- Mike Baldon (commercial fisherman) suggested exempting skiffs or providing designated parking areas to avoid navigational hazards.
- Dustin Klein (commercial fisherman) requested that skiff fees be included in the annual moorage fee rather than charged daily.
- Paul Smith (incoming liveaboard) opposed mooring fee increases and new trailer fees, noting that trailers provide secure storage without cluttering parking lots. He also argued that fish-cleaning stations should not be charged a business license fee.
- Hope Finley (commercial vessel owner) opposed the skiff fee, stating it would drive vessels to other ports and that many boats cannot safely carry skiffs.
- Nikki (concerned harbor user of 43 years) attended but did not speak in detail.
- Larry Cologne (recreational fisherman) opposed the additional parking pass requirement, questioning whether it would guarantee a parking spot during derbies.
- Joe Prox (local business owner) expressed concern that parking fees would deter tourists and fishermen, harming the local economy. He noted the harbor is an enterprise fund but urged the commission to consider the negative impact.
- Edward Mattson (commercial fisherman) opposed the skiff fee, noting that fish prices have only recently improved after years of struggle. He argued that the fee increase was implemented without adequate notice and that locals bear the burden.
Discussion Items
- Parking Fees (Section 2, Subsection H): Commissioner Steve moved to remove the daily parking fee for trailers, suggesting instead that the cost be bundled into launch or slip fees to simplify enforcement. The commission reached consensus to eliminate the parking fee.
- Skiff Moorage Fees (Sections 1A and 2C): Commissioner Steve noted safety concerns if skiffs are parked perpendicular to docks. The consensus was to remove the skiff fee, provided that skiffs do not impede navigation. The commission agreed to return with language exempting skiffs tied alongside vessels.
- Commercial Kayak Operators: The commission discussed that current codes do not differentiate between commercial kayak operations and personal auxiliary vessels. They directed staff to propose wording clarifying that a slip rented for commercial kayaks covers multiple kayaks within the same slip, without additional per-vessel charges.
- Liveaboard Fees: Commissioners acknowledged that liveaboard fees had been set through a working group two years ago and had not been revisited. Given council priorities on housing and a potential primary home exemption, they expressed willingness to form a new working group or hold an annual liveaboard meeting to reassess the fee structure.
Key Outcomes
- Votes and Directives:
- The commission directed staff to draft a revised resolution that removes the daily parking fee for trailers.
- Staff to remove the skiff moorage fee, with a note that skiffs must not impede navigation.
- Staff to clarify language for commercial kayak operators, allowing multiple kayaks in one slip without additional charges.
- Next Steps: The commission will hold a special meeting on July 6, 2026, to review the revised resolution and vote on a recommendation to the City Council. If a quorum is not available, an alternative date will be posted.
- Future Consideration: The commission may revisit liveaboard fees through a new working group, pending council actions on housing exemptions.
Meeting Transcript
Have hit 6 30, and so we're gonna go ahead and call this meeting for the Ports and Harbors Commission to order. Um for roll call, all commissioners are present and accounted for. So next on the agenda is public business from the floor. So public business on the floor is on a non-agenda item. Um, if there is any comments on an agenda item, we have to wait until that agenda item. And the item just to review on our agenda right now is discussion uh naming of rates for facilities in the Valdez Harbor. So if you have an issue that's not relative to that agenda item, you're welcome to come to the microphone now. But if you're here for making a comment on that agenda item, we'll wait until we get to address it at that point in time. So Catherine, something on non-agenda. Well, I don't think so. You can tell me. If it's relative to a rate, then it's on the agenda item. But I mean that's still the background of it. But Catherine Walters. Um, just in fact, I've um and and I'll just I'm gonna preface everyone has five minutes. And so if I raise my hand, it's not that I'm being rude. It's in your five minutes, it's comes. No, thank you. Um, Catherine Walters. Um, a background, I've lived on a boat for 38 years, 30 of those years in the Valdez Harbor, um, end up seeing a lot of changes over leadership over the years, uh, from 84 on till now. Um, and um helped start years ago the Valdez Harbor User Association, which we don't have anymore, which was really great for helping facilitate changes and stuff, which would be great to have something like that again. But anyway, my main issue today, there's several. Oh, I should mention too, while we lived in the harbor, you know, we we shoveled a lot of other people's boats, we tied boats up, we we we tried to help as part of the community. And one thing I feel like that is lacking lately is and maybe because I don't live down there anymore, is that there's a sense of community, I don't feel like we used to have where it was helping each other out a little bit more. So it would be nice to get back to that where we didn't feel like we were always um battling to keep our rights or not pay this fee or that fee. But my issue that I want to bring up is not so much a fee, but the nine month um upland storage time. Um, I know I'm not sure of the logic of the nine months. I was um I'm guessing it comes from maybe someplace in Washington or California where the weather and the seasons are not the same, but it is very, very difficult to have a boat be nine months if you're if every nine months uh you have to put your boat in the water and bring it back out. Eventually it cycles around. So you're taking your boat in and out of the water in January on the lift, which is totally doesn't make sense. It's not logical to have to do that. If it could go back to go to an annual time when if you take your boat out in July, it's a year-round thing so that it isn't offsetting at different months throughout the year. It's I know the harbor doesn't want to put a boat in the water in January. I know I don't want to have to put our boat, it doesn't make any sense. There's ice in the harbor. So if we could change the time frame of that upland storage, um fees is another issue. I won't talk about the fees right now, but but mostly it's the time frame of having your boat go that that because it's I know it's for derelict boats. Um, our boat is definitely not a derelict boat. People in the staff and the community know it's not. We're actively trying to sell it if anybody wants a nice 46-foot sale boat. Um, it's for sale, and we're trying very hard to sell it. It's just gotta be the right person, and they haven't shown up yet. So, with that in mind, um, yes, I can see where you don't want a bunch of derelict boats up there. And I I get the reasoning behind that, but the nine months is just a little bit unreasonable for us here in Valdez. So, with that, thank you for listening, and uh, I'll let you carry on. Thanks. Thanks. I believe that's in the policies document, so that'll have to be something that's addressed when we review that. So I see Sarah nodding her head that she's taking a note to be able to put that forward, but that's in a policy document. Thank you.
openpublica.com