Government

Petersburg’s plan to form a borough is drawing opposition from several surrounding communities. While Juneau, Kake and Kupreanof say they don’t oppose a Petersburg borough, they are concerned about its boundaries.

Petersburg is on Mitkof Island, where the Wrangell Narrows meet Frederick Sound. Its proposed borough would be about 4-thousand 347 square miles – both land and water.

The new Petersburg boundaries would stretch into an area previously identified for annexation to the city and borough of Juneau: All the territory from the southern boundary of the CBJ and east to the Canadian border. It includes the Tracy Arm / Ford’s Terror Wilderness, Endicott Arm, as well as Holkam, Windham and Hobart bays.

Thirty-thousand acres at Hobart Bay are owned by Goldbelt, Juneau’s Native Corporation.

Mayor Bruce Botelho says Juneau has never filed to annex the area, in deference to Goldbelt, which previously opposed putting its Hobart Bay land in a borough.

In 2007, Juneau made the decision to wthhold trying to move in that direction “unless there was some triggering action,” Botelho says. “One of those that was contemplated was the possibility that another community would start the annexation or incorporation of those lands.”

Goldbelt Corporation says it is currently neutral with regard to which borough – if any — should encompass Hobart Bay. In a letter to both Botelho and Petersburg Mayor Al Dwyer, Goldbelt Operations Vice President Derek Duncan says the Goldbelt Board of Directors will decide its borough preference over the next couple of months.

Petersburg’s new boundary line would abut Juneau’s boundary at Holkum Bay. Dwyer believes the lines are justified, based on past use by Petersburg fishermen.

“You know we expect there’ll be development in those areas we’ve delineated,” Dwyer says.

Is Petersburg’s petition to include those areas in a borough the trigger for Juneau annexation? That’s the question Juneau will answer over the next few weeks, after research, public input and much deliberation.

Juneau Assembly member Peter Freer believes it is. Over the last decade several Southeast communities have expanded their boundaries: Ketchikan through annexation, Wrangell and Skagway have incorporated, and a number of other communities are examining new boundaries.

“It is in our interest to act and define that area that we believe should ultimately be part of our borough,” Freer says.

Meanwhile, both the city of Kake and the organized village of Kake plan to protest the Petersburg borough. The small first class city of about 560 is on the northwest coast of Kupreanof Island. The new borough would encompass a large part of the island, which Kake says are ancestral lands.

John Janik is Kake city administrator.

“They’re taking up what appears to be half of the island if not more,” Janik says. “And the land they’re trying to encompass is historically Native cultural land.”

On the northeast shore of Kupreanof Island, the tiny second class city of Kupreanof – population about 30 –– is also opposed. But Wrangell, which became a borough in 2008, says it doesn’t have any major issues with the proposed Petersburg borough boundaries.

The Local Boundary Commission will consider the concerns of other communities in its decision. October 26 is the deadline for filing competing petitions and opposing briefs with the LBC.

The Juneau Assembly will take up the issue again later this month.

The location of the Alaska Commercial Fishermen’s Memorial has been laid to rest by the Juneau Assembly.

The panel Monday determined the memorial should stay where it is on Juneau’s working waterfront, even though a floating cruise ship berth will be built in front of it in the next couple of years.

The memorial board has asked that the granite wall with names of deceased fishermen be moved to Marine Park. Board members have said the Blessing of the Fleet won’t be the same because fishing boats won’t be able to get close enough to the memorial and people on shore.

The question has gone before the Docks and Harbors Board and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. While they recommended the memorial stay where it is, they said Marine Park should be an option because the park will be redesigned over the next year.

The Assembly was to make the final decision on the memorial. Mayor Bruce Botelho made it clear a decision needs to be made.

“It’s important that we bring some finality to this,” Botelho said.

Port Engineer Gary Gillette said fishing vessels will be able to pass in front of the memorial at its present location. He told the Assembly the closest boats can get now during the ceremony is 75 to 80 feet.

Though the actual cost of a move isn’t known, the city has set aside $2 million for the relocation. Botelho said that money can be better spent.

“There are going to be ways of celebrating even with the new configuration,” Botelho said. “Twenty, 30, 40 years from now (this issue) will not seem like it’s a big deal. There will be ways to truly be able to integrate the memorial with the new waterfront.”

Deputy mayor Merrill Sanford said the Assembly shouldn’t go against the memorial board’s wishes.

“Right now the memorial committee itself has delved into this in great depth and this is their preferred site if we’re building 16-B. So I would have to vote no on this proposal,” Sanford said.

The Assembly last year approved construction of the floating berth system, called Concept 16-B.

Since then, the Docks and Harbors Department has identified several sites for relocating the memorial as well as the no-move option. The memorial board dismissed all but Marine Park, mainly based on the needs of the annual ceremony.

On a vote of six to three the Assembly said the fishermen’s memorial will stay where it is. Those voting for the motion were Mayor Botelho, Mary Becker, Karen Crane, Johan Dybdahl, Malcolm Menzies, and David Stone. Sanford, Ruth Danner, and Peter Freer voted against.

The recent rezoning of a parcel of land at the corner of Atlin Drive and Mendenhall Loop Road is illegal, according to Juneau’s city attorney.

Earlier this month the Juneau Assembly changed the two-plus acres from residential to light commercial — against the recommendation of area neighbors, CBJ Community Development staff and the Planning Commission. And when Assemblyman Peter Freer brought up the zone change for reconsideration last week, it failed.

City Attorney John Hartle was out of town when the issue first came before the Assembly. He has since analyzed the arguments pro and con.

“Continuing with that rezoning would likely result in litigation. And a safer course would be to undo it and try again,” Hartle says.

He says he was persuaded the rezoning needed more study when he read a letter from neighborhood resident Chuck Cohen who argued the city’s own zoning laws made the change illegal.

“Chuck Cohen, happens to be a lawyer, made a legal argument that the proposed rezoning would violate CBJ 49.75.120 which is entitled Restrictions on Rezonings,” says Hartle.

Cohen argued that zoning has an importance beyond the individual landowner and gives predictability to the community, the developers and the neighbors.

The land is owned by Developer Richard Harris of RH Development.

Harris applied to change the area from residential to light commercial in January. Since then Atlin Drive and Teslin Street residents have put a lot of time into fighting it, concerned because Harris has never developed a plan for the property.

And there still is none, says consultant Murray Walsh.

“As we have said steadfastly throughout, there is no plan,” Walsh says.

A former CBJ Community Development Director, Walsh helps developers through the government morass.

“Typically you look at a piece of land for what you think might be the best thing for it and if the zoning is right then you go out and solicit development ideas,” Walsh says. “But if you think the zoning is wrong, then you fix the zoning before you spend money trying to generate or solicit development ideas.”

Assembly members voting for the zone change agreed with Walsh that Harris should have a lot of flexibility in determining what’s appropriate for the parcel – 40 percent of which is unusable due to a stream and wetlands.

But now they will have to come up with another plan, says city attorney Hartle.

The Assembly holds a special meeting tonight (Monday) to introduce an ordinance repealing the Atlin Drive zone change. The ordinance will come up for a vote at a September Assembly meeting.

The Juneau Assembly will meet tonight (Monday) as Committee of the Whole, as members try to decide what to do with the Alaska Commercial Fishermen’s Memorial, now that a floating cruise ship dock is to be built in front of it.

The assembly asked the city’s Docks and Harbors Board to work with the memorial’s board of directors to, if necessary, come up with a mutually acceptable plan for relocating the monument. But Docks and Harbors was unable to come up with a recommendation at its meeting last week. The CBJ Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee previously recommended that the memorial not be moved to Marine Park until there’s a plan in place.

The memorial board prefers to have it stay where it is – on the south waterfront near Taku Smokeries – but not with a dock in front of it. Marine Park is its second choice, and a third option is moving it to the recently completed seawalk south of the current location.

The memorial board’s is concerned with how the dock will affect the annual Blessing of the Fleet. Port Engineer Gary Gillette explained at last week’s Docks and Harbors meeting that boats would still be able to pass in front of the memorial with a dock there, but it might be a tight fit.

“It’s not meant to say that in all conditions or all boats in a series might be able to make this particular route,” Gillette said. “We’re just showing that a boat could physically go through there, which is important to us for maneuvering to our facility, as well as the potential to go in front of the memorial for the blessing.”

Gillette will present the three options for what to do with memorial at tonight’s Committee of the Whole meeting. The committee may choose to make a recommendation to staff or to the full assembly for action at a regular meeting.

Also on the agenda for tonight’s meeting is a presentation by the Association for the Education of Young Children on childcare – an assembly priority; and ongoing discussion of the AJ Mine. The meeting gets underway at 6 p.m. in City Hall Assembly Chambers.

Are Juneau shoppers willing to pay 15 cents for each plastic shopping bag they carry home from the store?

Voters will have a chance to answer that question in the October municipal election.

Grocery, hardware, sundry and liquor stores with total annual sales of at least 15-million dollars over the last five years would collect the tax for city coffers as a way to reduce the use of the bags.

The citizens’ initiative will be on the ballot as well as renewal of the CBJ temporary 3 percent sales tax, two school bond issues, and an ordinance exempting municipal officials from the state’s financial disclosure law.

Three assembly seats and two school board seats are also up for election.

The sample ballot is now on the city’s website at juneau.org/clerk/elections.

Sunday September 4th is the last day to register to vote in the CBJ municipal election, which is October 4th.

Voter registration forms are available at the city clerk’s office, all state elections offices, Juneau public libraries, and online at elections.alaska.gov.

On Monday, the Juneau Assembly Committee of the Whole is scheduled to discuss relocating the Alaska Commercial Fishermen’s Memorial to Marine Park. But it will do so without a recommendation from the city’s Docks and Harbors Board.

When the assembly approved a floating cruise ship berth to be built in front of the memorial, it told the Docks and Harbors Board to work with the memorial’s board of directors, and if necessary recommend a new location.

The memorial board believes the monument should be left where it is – near Taku Smokeries on the downtown waterfront – but not with a dock there. The memorial board is concerned with how the floating berth might impact the annual Blessing of the Fleet, as well as the view of the water from the memorial. If the dock is built, the memorial board says it should go to Marine Park.

Last night (Thursday) the Docks and Harbors Board considered two completely different options for making a recommendation, but couldn’t pass either one and had to table the issue.

Chairman Kevin Jardell argued that the assembly directed the board to make a recommendation on a “mutually acceptable location,” and in his eyes Marine Park meets that definition.

“From a Docks and Harbors Board member’s perspective, it would be acceptable to me if they put it in Douglas,” said Jardell. “If they move it to Parks and Rec’s park, it really doesn’t impact me. I may have personal beliefs that it shouldn’t move, but from our perspective it’s acceptable to move it outside of our bailiwick, and if there’s only one that’s acceptable to the fishermen’s memorial, we wind up with only one mutually acceptable place.”

Jardell read from a lengthy letter, which he proposed sending to the assembly as the board’s recommendation. While it said Docks and Harbors finds Marine Park acceptable, it also encouraged the assembly and memorial board to give the current location a try with the cruise ship dock in place before ultimately deciding to move the memorial.

Earlier this month the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee unanimously passed a recommendation, saying the memorial should stay where it is until a plan is developed for Marine Park.

Jardell’s recommendation failed to get the five votes it needed to pass the Docks and Harbors Board. With three members absent, the vote was 4-2.

Board member Eric Kueffner was one of the no votes. He offered his own recommendation that the memorial stay where it is.

“For the very limited impact that this cruise ship construction would have on the memorial, it’s really not worth the trauma that it would cause to all the people who are so invested in it to try and move it anywhere,” Kueffner said. “Second of course is the cost of this, which we don’t really know the cost, but it strikes me that there’s no particular reason to do anything about it now. As three or four people testified tonight, we don’t have to do anything now.”

But Kueffner was the only board member to vote in favor of his recommendation, which failed 5-1.

The issue was tabled until the board’s next meeting, even though the assembly is scheduled to discuss the matter on Monday. Deputy Mayor Merrill Sanford was at last night’s meeting, as was the assembly’s Docks and Harbors liaison Ruth Danner. Sanford said it’s possible the Committee of the Whole will still make a recommendation to the full assembly on Monday.