Docks, Jewelry and Proposition 3

Last Wednesday the Assembly Finance Committee addressed a number of issues- two of which are worth noting. First, we approved by an 8-1 vote for Docks and Harbors to replace the downtown cruise ship docks with the option known as 16B. This option creates floating docks about 100 feet offshore to replace the docks on the wharf. They do several things. First they remove the security issues from the Sea Walk. By putting the docks 100 feet offshore, the current docks will no longer be roped off by Homeland Security and will be available for anyone to walk. Secondly, they allow a larger ship to dock at the steamship wharf rather than docking in the channel. Thirdly, and probably most importantly, it essentially pre-empts any effort to build a new dock at Gold Creek. The remodel will be paid for totally by cruise ship passenger fees and will not pose any tax burden to Juneau citizens. I think this is the best choice for us to follow.

Secondly, the Finance Committee approved (with me opposing) a proposal to remove the sales tax cap for jewelry. Juneau has a sales tax cap of $7,500. That means big ticket items are not charged sales tax for the price above $7,500. My colleagues felt this would only tax tourists who buy expensive jewelry from out of town owned stores. While I understand the logic, I have a problem treating any group, person or product differently from others. I believe so strongly in equal treatment that I could not support this. The exemption will be introduced as an ordinance at our next meeting and have a hearing at the meeting after that. If you have a position on this, please contact us all

There are three propositions on the October 5th ballot. I addressed Prop 1 last week- the Auke Bay Elementary School bond. This post I want to address the least controversial proposition, Prop 3 – asking citizens whether they want to call for a Commission to revise the Borough Charter. Next week I will address the most controversial one—Prop 2 on the North Douglas Crossing.

According to our current City Charter, every ten years we must ask citizens whether they want to form a Charter Commission to revise our form of government. We can always amend the Charter one issue at a time – but a Charter Commission would be better able to address a number of issues at once – if that was what we wanted to do. We might want to do this if we feel the Borough government just is not working and we want big changes. We might want to change from a council manager to a strong mayor government or abolish all the Enterprise Boards or elect Assembly members differently or have MORE Assembly members. We could do this one issue at a time, but it would be easier to make many changes at once with a Charter Commission. I don’t think drastic structural changes would make our government better, but I also am not opposed to taking a look at this. It really depends on what you think. If we approved this, we would have another election to select Charter Commissioners. They would propose changes to the Charter and those changes would be put to citizens for approval. So I leave this one up to you. There is an article interviewing me in the Empire Voters Information Guide which is just “ok.” I will also address this at an October 1 “Evening at Egan” on the UAS campus.