Haines Borough clerk says tour-permit code leaves staff unable to enforce expansion rule; urges code review

The borough clerk told the Tourism Advisory Board that a provision in Title 5 governing commercial tour permits hinders fair administration and may force unequal treatment of tour operators. At a TAB meeting the clerk said the code’s “expanded tour” test — which triggers a public hearing and an additional fee when an operator is more than 10% larger than its original permit application — uses legacy operators’ historic, often non-numeric original applications as the baseline, while newer firms are judged against numeric applications.

“Some original permit applications didn’t include numbers — they were unlimited,” the clerk said, describing how that history can give legacy operators an effective pass while newer companies face the 10% threshold. The clerk said staff “cannot administer the current code equally to both companies” without direction from the assembly and raised equal-protection concerns tied to treating similarly situated businesses differently.

Why it matters: the baseline question affects whether renewals trigger a $250 public hearing fee (code section 5.18.025) and whether a company must return to the assembly for approval of expanded activity. Board members noted the issue carries real operational consequences for businesses and for sensitive public places such as the Chilkoot Corridor and the Battery Point Trailhead, where parking and visitor impacts were raised.

Discussion and options: TAB members and staff discussed several approaches. Suggestions included using the most recent permit application as the baseline rather than the original application, creating a phased-in baseline or grace period for legacy operators, setting a firm historic cutoff date, or removing the expanded-tour trigger entirely. Members also recommended community outreach with tour operators to collect accurate current-use data and to avoid sudden fee or reporting shocks to businesses.

Enforcement and data needs: staff and members agreed more-location-specific data are needed to judge impacts; current end-of-season reports tend to aggregate borough-wide figures, which leaves the clerk unable to determine how many visitors visit specific sites. A public commenter suggested GPS tracking of commercial vehicles as a potential data source, while others said land-manager reports and park-ranger checks could reduce duplicate reporting.

Next steps: the clerk said the memo will be included in the assembly packet and asked for assembly guidance. Multiple TAB members recommended referring the question to the Code Review Committee for a public, deliberative process and noted any change should be phased in to avoid unfair sudden financial or regulatory burdens on long-standing operators. The board agreed to continue the discussion at its next meeting.

Authorities and code cited: the clerk cited Title 5 (definitions including commercial tour), the 'expanded tour' clause and specific fee language in 5.18.025 that designates a flat tour-permit fee and a $250 public hearing fee for new or expanded tours. The clerk asked the assembly for direction because archive permit records often lack numeric baselines.

The TAB did not take a formal vote on a code amendment during the meeting; the clerk said staff needs assembly guidance before changing administrative practice. The clerk recommended broader community outreach and a possible CRC referral; the issue will appear in the assembly packet.