In the borough’s newest rendition of tourism code, administration is allowed unscheduled site visits and operators are required to submit a safety plan.

Last month, collaborative efforts between the Tourism Advisory Council and Haines Borough administration brought forward changes to Haines’ title five code that operators have called “unfair” and “crazy.”

At Tuesday’s assembly meeting, borough clerk Alekka Fullerton proposed a substitute ordinance that allows the borough unscheduled tour visits, requires operators to submit a safety and operating plan, mandates operators report their numbers at the end of the season and lowers the previously proposed permit fee.

The assembly voted to add unscheduled tour visits and a mandated safety plan after the Jan. 22 assembly meeting, where it imposed the two conditions as part of Robert Murphy’s Alaska Excursions’ permit approval.

“When you do for one, you have to do for all,” assembly member Sean Maidy said.

Four operators suggested improvements to the code during public testimony. Andy Hedden, owner of Haines Rafting Company, requested the borough create a checklist for unscheduled visits so operators know what they are looking for, and provide minimum guidelines for a safety plan. “This shouldn’t be a test, it should be an aid,” Hedden said.

Assembly member Sean Maidy said he didn’t think a check-list was a good idea because “that’s what inspectors do.”

Jeanette Baker from Chilkoot Lake Tours asked the borough to clarify the code’s language in order to keep tour numbers confidential.

Other proposed changes include increasing permit fees from $25 per company to $25 for each vehicle owned by a company. Joe Ordonez, owner of Rainbow Glacier Adventures, said that the new vehicle permitting fee would unjustly affect his company that runs several small vans instead of a few big buses. He suggested smaller vehicles pay $10, since “two or three small vehicles can fit into one big bus parking space on the dock.”

Assembly member Brenda Josephson asked the assembly and staff why they are rushing to pass the ordinance. “I feel discomfort when stuff is rushed,” she said. “Especially when there is so much concern from the industry.”

Assembly member Heather Lende said she agreed with Josephson. “I do think that overall it really needs too much work to move ahead,” she said. “The whole thing is written assuming the worst.”

Fullerton said the administration’s push is a result of reporting requirements. “We asked operators to self-report and few of them did,” she said. “We felt we had to put it in code to compel the reporting so we know who is actually where,” she said.

Fullerton said that the draft ordinance’s fee structure is only for 2019. “We just thought we needed to get something in place that’s easy to understand,” she said.

The assembly unanimously voted to adopt the substitute ordinance. It will appear in front of the Commerce Committee on Feb. 19, and the assembly for its second public hearing on Feb. 26.

Author