PETERSBURG — The city of Petersburg’s response to the comments on the proposed borough petition was filed on Nov. 15 and addresses comments for and against the proposal. The response also covers the study from the Juneau Economic Development Council which claims Juneau has greater economic ties to Stephens Passage than Petersburg and the amount of annual income attributable to Juneau in the contested area.
“Juneau supplied this table that showed the economic connections they were asserting by tour operator basis and they didn’t say what the source of that information was and some of our reply brief is addressed to that specific contention,” Attorney Jim Brennan of Hedland, Brennan and Heideman said.
The response to the comments includes three main items directed at Juneau:
• “First, they had exaggerated their economic connection, the level of revenue in many cases,” Brennan said. “Sometimes this would involve a tour which went through southeast Alaska and only a leg of it included Juneau. ...in many cases they included the larger dollar amount inappropriately.”
• “Secondly, with the number of operators, there’s about five of them, when we contacted them we found out what the tours were about, and found their connection with Petersburg was just as strong as with Juneau,” Brennan said.
• “Third, where there were connections with Juneau, in almost all cases the main connection was trips between Juneau and Tracy Arm,” Brennan said. “It’s not with the great bulk of contested area which lies south of there.”
The response document is 145 pages long and covers a diverse range of material, but the overall message in it is that Juneau does not have greater ties to the contested area as it claims.
“The reality here is that Tracy Arm is a big tourist attraction and it’s the target of many day tours from Juneau,” Brennan said. “What we then go into is that south of there they have very little connection and Petersburg has a greater connection with the fishing industries in that area.”
Another significant portion of the response to the comments is an analysis done by the state’s Commercial Fishery Entry Commission (CFEC). Juneau was the first to request an analysis from CFEC and then Petersburg requested a more in depth analysis.
“The most significant findings were the ex-vessel value of the fish caught in the contested area. Petersburg fishermen revenues were 93 percent of that value and Juneau’s were seven percent; that was $3.2 million for Petersburg fishermen in 2010 and $238,000 for Juneau’s,” Brennan said. “Petersburg processes about 89 percent and Juneau about 11 percent. In 2010 the value of the fish processed by Petersburg processors was about $3.7 million and Juneau was about $450,000.”
Among the comments in opposition to Petersburg’s borough formation proposal are from those living within the contested area. Comments in opposition stated that paying sales tax and user fees in Petersburg should be enough contribution on their part as inhabitants outside the city limits.
“The primary point is that the people who live on Kupreanof Island or down the road do rely upon the existence of the city of Petersburg,” Brennan said. “Though they pay sales tax and user fees, it doesn’t cover the full freight of what local government is.”
Other concerns from the opposition include transportation issues and being unable to get involved in borough government functions.
“We acknowledge that is a concern, but it is a lesser concern than many transportation situations in other existing boroughs,” Brennan said.
The boundary commission will hold a hearing in Juneau and Petersburg in May 2012 for people to testify for or against the borough, however, the commission is not bound by recommendations and may vote independently on the decision.
Reader Comments(0)