Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Natural Resource Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly debates a fish-box/natural resource excise to fund Kodiak fisheries and access
Summary
Assembly members and residents discussed a proposal to levy a fish-box or broader natural resource excise aimed at capturing revenue from nonresident extraction (charter boats, transporters, hunters) to fund habitat, access and matching grants; members raised legal, enforcement and resident-exemption concerns and directed staff to investigate feasibility.
Assembly members spent extensive time June 25 discussing a proposal to impose a fish-box-style excise — or a broader "natural resource excise" — aimed at raising money to repair and enhance fisheries and access infrastructure.
Assembly member Mr. Woods introduced the idea, pointing to Sitka's $10 box fee as a model and citing Fish and Game data that roughly 74% of deer harvested in Unit 8 are taken by nonresident hunters. He said revenue would be dedicated to fisheries and wildlife enhancement, trail and access repairs, and matching grants for grant-funded projects.
Supporters on the dais described the idea as a way to diversify revenue and reduce reliance on property taxes. Assembly member Mr. Whiteside said an additional $10–$20 per nonresident shipment "is not going to change their budget" and could provide meaningful local revenue if enforcement and administration are feasible.
But several members flagged legal and operational hurdles. Mr. Smiley warned that a tax that explicitly exempts residents may be legally vulnerable; he urged caution given constitutional and statutory constraints on fish and game management. Mr. Gardner and others raised practical questions about how to distinguish resident and nonresident harvests in a defensible way.
Staff and members discussed collection points and enforcement: options included charging shippers or airport carriers as fish leave the island, collecting at processors, or using state harvest records and charter logbooks to identify nonresident harvests. Assembly member Mr. Wits noted Fish and Game harvest reporting and public records as potential sources but said it is unclear how readily usable that data would be for recurring administration.
Public commenters during the earlier citizen-comment period had varying views: Charles Glagolich, a longtime charter operator, urged a box fee to discourage off-island exports and cited Sitka and Gustavus as examples; Afognak Native Corporation representative Valerie Ursin urged public input and warned against using an excise to bypass a public vote.
No ordinance was adopted. Members directed staff and legal to evaluate feasibility, enforcement options, resident-exemption structures (including rebate possibilities), and potential interactions with state law; Assembly member Mr. Woods and staff were asked to research models (Sitka) and data availability from Fish and Game for a follow-up report.
The Assembly did not take a vote; next steps are staff research and legal review to determine whether a viable ordinance or ballot measure can be drafted.
