The Sitka Assembly approved and adopted an updated historic preservation plan Tuesday night, with one contingency. It came after nearly two decades of planning.
The plan is meant to serve as a guiding document for the city’s Historic Preservation Commission in its efforts to identify and protect significant local resources. The previous plan — which was only two pages — was drafted more than three decades ago.
The approval came after lengthy discussion spanning multiple assembly meetings. The sticking point? Appendix G, which outlines the review process for construction projects on historic buildings.
“The reason why I didn’t want to pass the plan last time is because, without Appendix G correctly indicating for the public what to prepare for when they are involved with this process, I think it is an incomplete plan,” said Deputy Mayor Tim Pike. “Now, do I like the rest of the plan? I 100% like that, the work involved and the clarity of that is awesome, but this is a crucial piece.”
Four members of the Historic Preservation Commission spoke in favor of passing the plan Tuesday, with the caveat that Appendix G would be replaced at a later date.
Roby Littlefield is the chairman of the commission and has served since 2009. She said the new 26-page plan has been in development for 17 years. It’s gone through at least four revisions, and included multiple opportunities for community input.
“Our board has spent many hours reviewing and improving it to create the best possible guide for our community, and this plan is meant to help protect what makes Sitka unique, and to guide us into the future,” Littlefield said.
Assembly Member Katie Riley agreed that it didn’t make sense to delay the entire plan over an appendix that’s on track to be improved. She said with the busy tourism and fishing seasons on the horizon, it’s not a great time to call for public engagement.
“An extensive, extensive amount of that already happened,” she said. “As reported, 17 years of planned development, as well as over 10 opportunities to engage over the past couple of years. So I feel like the people who were passionate about historic preservation probably made their voices heard.”
The assembly unanimously approved the Historic Preservation Plan, with the contingency that the permit review section sunsets after a year and is replaced before then.
NSRAA lease
The Sitka Assembly on Tuesday voted against a proposed lease agreement between the city and a regional salmon hatchery nonprofit, which requested a well-below-market rate for the lease. The lease would combine two lots that the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA) is already leasing at the Gary Paxton Industrial Park.
The park’s board recommended an $800 a month fixed rate for the next 50 years, effectively subsidizing the nonprofit, citing the value their fish hatcheries provide for the fishing fleet. The rate would be adjusted based on land value increases every 10 years.
Assembly Member Kevin Mosher said he was 100% in support of the agreement because the value NSRAA gives to the community cannot be measured.
“My position, it’s more of a policy decision,” he said. “Because even though they’re paying money, we’re effectively subsidizing them. And I believe that we should, because I believe we get that money back many, many, many times over, incalculably.”
However, several assembly members were concerned over where, or which city fund, the subsidy should come from, while still providing long-term stability for NSRAA.
The industrial park’s enterprise fund is only a couple thousand dollars in the positive, according to Finance Director Brooke Volschenk.
Deputy Mayor Tim Pike suggested the subsidy come from the city’s general fund, which, as it currently stands, would require the nonprofit to come before future assemblies to ask for another rent subsidy.
“NSRAA made their case about their economic impact in the community. I’ve known this for years. And I totally agree with it,” he said. “They just asked the wrong group. They need to ask us. I don’t really think that an enterprise fund should be subsidizing things. We don’t want the electrical department to decide to give a cut rate to somebody just because they do good things.”
Assembly members were unanimous in their support for a low and stable lease rate for NSRAA, but said they hoped the park’s board would take up the issue again and propose revisions.
The assembly ultimately voted against moving forward with the suggested lease in a 2-4 vote, with just Mosher and Thor Christianson voting in favor.
The park’s board is expected to discuss revising the agreement at a future meeting. The assembly will separately consider extending NSRAA’s current lease, which is set to expire in May, to give everyone more time to find a solution.
