Finance committee pauses on CPV study after members raise concerns about lower allocations for emergency services

The Skagway Municipality Finance Committee reviewed Resolution 25‑26R, which would accept an updated cruise passenger cost-to-municipality (CPV) study and use its percentages to determine how excise tax funds are allocated among municipal departments.

During public comment, resident Jay Burnham said he was concerned the packet’s proposed resolution "didn't think it was a very good idea to to lower that as per the resolution that is with the finance packet," arguing the change would shift CPV support away from critical infrastructure such as the fire and police departments and toward items such as the museum.

Manager Deech, who introduced the report, said the municipality had relied on earlier studies and that McKinley, the consultant for the update, "basically started from the ground up. They interviewed all of the department heads," and used those interviews to reallocate percentages. Deech told the committee the options were to accept the new study, revert to the prior study, or ask McKinley for clarifications or additional analysis.

Why it matters: the percentage assigned to each department determines how much of the finite CPV excise-tax pool can be used as direct CPV funding for that department rather than drawing on general sales tax or other sources. Manager Deech illustrated the practical effect with a grant-match example: for a $1,000,000 wastewater construction match the new study would allow roughly $330,000 in CPV to count toward the match, compared with about $680,000 if the prior study’s percentages were used.

Committee members said they were uneasy about some of the revised percentages. The chair questioned whether a reduction to 20% for police would reflect the department’s true seasonal burden, noting concerns such as increased dispatch and wear-and-tear during summer months. Multiple members said they would like to ask McKinley about methodology and seasonal baselines before endorsing the study.

Outcome and next steps: the finance committee made no recommendation on Resolution 25‑26R and agreed to pursue a McKinley presentation (either to the finance committee at a special meeting or to the full assembly) so members can question consultant methodology and discuss whether the new allocations should set CPV policy for upcoming budgets. The item remains on the assembly agenda for further consideration.

Quotes: "I didn't think it was a very good idea to to lower that as per the resolution that is with the finance packet," said Jay Burnham during public comment. Manager Deech said of the consultant work: "They basically started from the ground up. They interviewed all of the department heads." The chair warned that if the committee "did accept this report ... it would probably be pretty challenging to go back to the formal report."

Context: the CPV excise tax is a finite, tourism-linked pool of revenue; how the assembly and finance committee apply percentage allocations affects which capital projects and operating costs may be charged to CPV rather than to sales tax or other local revenue sources. Manager Deech advised caution—either adopt the new study whole or retain the prior study—rather than arbitrarily setting different percentages without a documented methodology.

What’s next: the committee asked Manager Deech to coordinate with McKinley to schedule a presentation for questions and to provide the assembly with the consultant’s methodology and any supporting data before the assembly acts on Resolution 25‑26R.