Committee sends seasonal sales‑tax ordinance to full assembly after adopting amendment that removes food and utilities exemptions

The Assembly Finance Committee voted July 9 to send ordinance 2025‑32 — the assembly’s draft seasonal sales‑tax proposal — to the full assembly after adopting an amendment that removes proposed exemptions for food and utilities.

Mayor Weldon moved the committee’s referral of ordinance 2025‑32 to the full assembly and the committee debated multiple amendments and legal implications before adopting the Bryson amendment to remove the food and utilities exemptions. Assemblymember Bryson explained the amendment’s strategy as an effort to avoid competing ballot measures in the same election and to “simplify” the question for voters. Bryson said removing exemptions would leave the committee’s seasonal sales‑tax question focused solely on the temporary seasonal rate.

City attorney Wright told the committee that CBJ Charter §7.11 governs outcomes when two ballot measures on the same topic both receive majority support: if both pass, the measure with the most votes prevails. Wright cautioned that as currently drafted the assembly’s package and the citizen petition could be treated as competing measures; she advised possible drafting strategies including separating items into multiple questions, passing a substantially similar ordinance to knock a citizen initiative off the ballot, or otherwise redesigning the propositions.

Director Flick presented revenue estimates and said the various versions under discussion would change total projected sales‑tax revenue. Staff reported that Juneau currently collects roughly $65 million in sales tax under existing law; the assembly’s original package as introduced was estimated to generate about $73 million and to cover exemptions for food and utilities. According to staff estimates discussed in the packet, Bryson’s amendment (which removes the exemptions) would increase projected receipts to about $79 million. Another staff example noted that changing some percentage points in the proposal would alter revenue by roughly $2 million.

Committee members raised enforceability concerns about a citizen initiative that would exempt utilities for “principal place of residence,” noting the city’s current reporting and billing systems do not distinguish residential versus commercial sales inside a single account. Staff said implementing a residential‑only utilities exemption would be “very labor intensive” and described the need to audit accounts, establish new reporting procedures and adopt code changes to make such an exemption enforceable.

The committee advanced the ordinance to the full assembly as amended. A subsequent committee motion to direct staff to prepare an ordinance that would exempt food and utilities prior to the election — a move that, if enacted, could have been “substantially similar” to the citizen petition and remove it from the ballot — failed on a roll call vote, 3 ayes and 6 nays (roll call recorded in the committee minutes). That roll call is recorded in the packet as: Assemblymember Wahl: yes; Assemblymember Bridal: [no response recorded]; Assemblymember Smith: no; Assemblymember Kelly: yes; Assemblymember Hall: no; Mayor Walden: no; Assemblymember Hughes Candies: yes; Assemblymember Steininger: no; Chair Atkinson: no. The committee discussion and staff advice stressed that passing something “substantially similar” would remove a citizen initiative from the ballot but also entail risk to city revenues if the associated seasonal tax did not pass.

No final tax rates or spending allocations were adopted by the committee; the matter will proceed to the full assembly for final action and ballot scheduling.