Heli-ski data debate
A debate has been brewing, and will stretch at least into next month, over GPS data collected by heli-ski companies.
The GPS data in question is logged by heli-ski helicopters, tracking where heli-ski tours fly and land. In July, the Commercial Heli-ski Map Committee voted to recommend the borough assembly request the last four years of the data for future map committee use.
The map committee includes representatives from the tourism advisory board, conservation organizations, and from one heli-ski company each year.
The recommendation, however, did not make it into borough manager Alekka Fullerton’s proposed changes this year to borough heli-ski policy. She drafted those changes alongside the borough clerk, tourism director, and owners of Haines’ three active heli-ski companies, she wrote in a memo.
Fullerton said at Tuesday’s meeting that implementing the recommendation would be impossible because past years’ GPS data no longer exists.
“We don’t have that data,” Fullerton said. “Our code doesn’t require (heli-ski companies) to keep it and they don’t keep it.”
In light of that, some, including map-committee member Thom Ely, have asked the policy be to keep the data going forward. But Fullerton distinguished between that ask and the official recommendation as voted by the committee. “If we’re making a change for that data going forward, that was not the ask of the map committee,” Fullerton said.
One major reason for resistance to borough GPS collection is the idea that it is proprietary information in the industry. Critics included Reggie Crist, owner of heli-ski company Stellar Adventure Travel.
“We have spent decades investing in learning where to land the (helicopters),” “It’s not something we want to share even with other operators…. Handing over the playbook of decades of hard work and investment is something I’d be opposed to.”
Assembly member Gabe Thomas compared the issue to commercial fishermen reporting fishing area to regulatory agencies, but not the exact location of their set. “To me, it’s proprietary information,” Thomas said. “I’ve been in this seat long enough that’s exactly the intention (of GPS data request): to use as a weapon against the industry.”
On the other side, however, supporters of the recommendation argued it was just a matter of enforcing rules already on the books.
Borough code states that GPS information “shall be cataloged in a manner requested by the borough and provided when requested by the borough during each commercial ski tour season.” The existing administrative regulations for the industry reiterates that GPS flight data be provided to the borough when requested, and that the GPS flight data “is a public record and [is] available upon request.”
The companies currently record the data each day and report them during “spot checks,” when the borough requests GPS data for certain days — not every day.
“This seems like just pressing save at the end of the day, which doesn’t seem like an invasive ask,” assembly member Eben Sargent said.
Proponents of collecting the data included assembly member Kevin Forster, who called himself a longtime supporter of the heli-ski industry.
“I personally support the industry, and I don’t see this as necessarily harmful,” Forster said. “When (former manager) Kreitzer put together an end of season report, we saw a full map and where they were flying. It showed me, if anything, we had to expand some areas of the map. I’m supporting this for safety reasons. If I was on the map committee I’d like to see some of those areas of overlap.”
After lengthy back and forth, the assembly voted to postpone the vote on the full set of new regulations until the next assembly meeting.
Campbell Settlement
The assembly voted 4-2 to accept a settlement offer in a lawsuit with residents George and Lynette Campbell.
The suit was filed by the Campbells in March of this year, appealing the borough’s decision on a conditional use permit for their 26 Mile heliport.
Under the settlement deal, each party will pay their own legal fees, and the planning commission will review the conditional use permit in the coming weeks. The borough has spent $7,240 to date on the litigation, Fullerton said.
Borough officials said they were accepting the settlement mainly because of advice from the borough attorney, who advised they would be unlikely to win more in the case than would be paid in legal fees. In other words, regardless the outcome of the suit, the borough’s spending would only increase Fullerton said.
Despite accepting the settlement, borough officials said they believed they had a good chance of winning had they continued on with the litigation.
“We believe we would win, and I think (the Campbells) think we would win, which is why we got a settlement offer,” Fullerton said. “You usually don’t get a settlement offer if you think you’re going to win.
Assembly member Eben Sargent was one of two, alongside Craig Loomis, who voted against accepting the settlement.
Sargent argued that settling would encourage a back-door appeal route. Currently, residents who appeal a conditional use permit to the assembly need to secure a supermajority to overturn the decision. If they sue, however, only a simple majority of the assembly is needed to approve a settlement offer. Suing the borough, Sargent argued, could therefore represent an easier way to overturn a decision than the process laid out in code.
This particular settlement will not overturn the CUP decision, but just earn it a review by the planning commission.
“We’ve consistently heard from our lawyers that this lawsuit is without merit, so I’m in favor of taking it to trial so people know that if they take their desired permit outcome to court, they will at least have to be prepared to spend some money,” Sargent said.
Assembly member Mark Smith pushed back on that notion in no uncertain terms.
“The Campbells are two of the most esteemed residents of our community,” Smith said. “It’s almost tyrannical we would move forward with this suit to teach them and everyone else a lesson.”
Lutak Dock
The assembly voted unanimously authorizing Fullerton to negotiate a contract with engineering firm Moffat and Nichol to act as the borough’s advisors on the Lutak Dock rebuild.
A contract with previous advisors R&M Consultants was terminated last month.
The borough is directly negotiating with Moffat and Nichol rather than opening the contract to competitive bid. According to borough code, that can be done for more specialized services like engineering — termed “professional services” — as opposed to general construction, which in most cases must be awarded to the lowest bidder.
Borough officials see skipping competitive bidding as a way to save time, given that they see Moffat and Nichol as uniquely qualified for the role.
“It’s my opinion and the opinion of everyone I reached out to that Moffat and Nichol is the most equipped in our area to do this and has the best record of doing so for design builds,” harbormaster Henry Pollan said.
Fullerton plans to bring a contract proposal to the assembly at next month’s meeting.
Visit chilkatvalleynews.com for more reporting on the topic.