ADUs

After a year of consideration and reconsideration, accessory dwelling units have officially been voted down by the assembly. 

The arguments on each side are well worn at this point, and Tuesday was no different. 

There was some talk of amendments to make the proposal more amenable to skeptical assembly members and residents. 

One was a set of recommendations from the planning commission to increase minimum lot sizes for ADUs in Mud Bay. That failed to get support from assembly members.  

Another possibility came after assembly member Gabe Thomas named a number of changes he wanted to see in the proposal. Thomas’ ideas included aesthetic guidelines, a requirement that the property owner live on the property, and a limitation on use as short-term rental. 

But when asked by mayor Tom Morphet if he wanted to propose any of those suggestions as amendments, Thomas declined. 

After assembly member Kevin Forster went ahead and proposed one of those changes, a requirement that property owners live on the property, Thomas voted against it. 

“I’m not going to vote for this, period, the way it changes zoning,” Thomas said. 

In a final vote on allowing ADUs, Eben Sargent and Forster were the only votes in favor. 

The vote might be the end of ADUs in code for now, but not in practice.

Borough planner Chen Wu said at the meeting ADUs were widespread in the borough, rented out illegally. 

Residents get permits to build structures on their property as sheds or carports — both allowed uses — before later adding kitchen and bathroom facilities and renting them out without borough permission, Wu said. 

Wu said he’s seen evidence of the practice in permit applications, Facebook groups advertising rentals, and in conversations with residents who had previously lived in such structures. 

Planning commissioners this month said they agreed with Wu’s assessment.

Severance Tax 

The assembly agreed unanimously to reintroduce a severance tax ordinance after it failed to pass last meeting. It was a long road to get there. 

The main complication was Sargent asking for a commitment from assembly members that they wait to take a final vote on the proposal until all assembly members were present at a meeting. 

That came after last meeting, where assembly members voted down the ordinance with only four members present. Sargent said he was frustrated by the action given how much time had gone into developing the proposal.

“What I heard last meeting from Gabe (Thomas) was ‘I’m gonna kill it,’ after we asked to postpone,” Sargent said during discussion Tuesday. 

Not everyone was amenable to being asked to make such a commitment, namely Thomas and Smith. “Why wouldn’t we have that agreement for everything?” Smith said. “This is classic projection.” 

The lengthy and loud back and forth ended with middle-ground proposals from Forster and Stickler. Forster proposed a version of the tax structure roughly splitting the difference between the two proposals brought to the meeting: the previously-considered version, from the commerce committee, and a new version from Smith. 

Stickler proposed scheduling the proposal for two public hearings, with two more to follow if necessary. 

The amendments carried unanimously. 

Unfortunately, the discussion on procedural issues didn’t resolve any of the stickier questions about the actual tax structure — a question to be ironed out in coming public hearings. 

In numerous public hearings and committee meetings in the past year, as well as hearings in past assemblies, the severance tax has failed to reach a consensus to pass. 

Still to come

The assembly voted to close its Tuesday meeting at 10:30 p.m., with some of the agenda left for a Wednesday night addendum. Here’s what was bumped over to that meeting:

The cost of playing ball

The borough has received a $34,000 check from telecommunications company GCI for improvements at the Oslund Park baseball fields. 

The payment comes as the company considers applying for a cell-tower project, calling into question whether the borough can ethically accept the donation.

The GCI cell towers have for over a year faced strong opposition from residents.  

Tanani Bay sewer outfall

The assembly will vote whether to authorize a sewer maintenance service area for residents at a Tanani Bay development. 

The development’s sewer outfall is out of compliance with state regulations, and there’s debate over who’s responsible for addressing the issue. Developer Don Turner Jr. says the borough agreed in principle to assume ownership of the sewer system decades ago but never followed through. The borough’s attorney said the borough does not currently own the development’s sewer system. 

What is clear is that residents who have built new houses connected to the outfall want a solution fast, as the sewer issues are preventing them from moving in. 

If the assembly votes to approve the new service area, residents connected to the development’s sewer system who are registered to vote in Haines will then vote on establishing the service area. 

Seasonal sales tax and plastic bag ban

More discussion will come on two familiar topics. The assembly will consider a citizens’ petition to lower the seasonal sales tax rate for coming months in response to high fuel prices and elevated cost of goods downstream of those fuel prices. 

Also up for discussion is re-introduction of legislation to fully ban plastic bags in the borough, such as the ones used at Olerud’s. Identical legislation was voted down last assembly meeting, notable with only four members present, and has been brought back at the start of the legislative process. If introduced, it will need to go through a fresh round of public hearings before being eligible for another vote.