Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tlingit Park Transfer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal to transfer part of Tlingit Park to tribal ownership prompts community debate
Summary
A conceptual proposal to redraw a property line and transfer the grassy portion of Tlingit Park to the Chilkoot Indian Association drew public comment and committee debate on Nov. 19 about historical claims, cemetery stewardship, co-management, budget impacts and public access.
A conceptual plan to transfer part of Tlingit Park to the Chilkoot Indian Association (referred to in the meeting as 'CIA') drew extensive discussion at the Haines Borough Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee meeting on Nov. 19. The proposal, presented to the committee as an idea in early stages, would create a new property line separating the grassy park area — including a Tlingit house-style pavilion, a native gravesite area and some picnic facilities — while borough ownership of the senior center and an adjacent playground would be retained.
The presenter (identified in the meeting as the proposer of the idea) explained that the transfer is being considered in part because the original deed history ties the land to local native communities and because shifting stewardship could reduce borough maintenance obligations amid budget pressures (one participant mentioned a borough deficit of about $1,000,000). The presenter emphasized terms they had discussed with CIA leadership: maintain public trail access, keep the pavilion and gravesite open for public use, and draft deed conditions that preserve existing uses.
Public commenters and committee members raised mixed responses. Georgiana (speaker who introduced herself during public comment) described a long-term concept for the former Delta Western parcel that included parking, EV chargers and a small plaza; she supported returning cemetery lands to tribal stewardship. Other residents urged caution: one commenter (Fred Gray) said government should not interfere in private-property matters and questioned selling or changing ownership of parkland; another warned that transferring stewardship could impose financial burdens on an organization that relies heavily on grant funding.
Committee members discussed alternatives, including co-management arrangements, confirming grant restrictions tied to land use, involving the planning commission and seeking detailed legal and historical research on deed conditions. Several members said more information from CIA and borough staff is necessary before advancing any formal recommendation. The committee did not adopt any motion to transfer property; the item was discussed, public comment was heard, and the committee scheduled further conversations.
The mayor/presenter and others noted that any final action would require both tribal approval and assembly action. Committee members emphasized that preserving public access to important trails and community uses would be a precondition of any transfer.
