Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marijuana Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly declines to send 3% marijuana retail tax to ballot after amendment and close votes
Summary
The Kodiak Island Borough Assembly considered a 3% area‑wide retail sales tax on marijuana with proceeds to be tracked for health, education and economic programs, but after amendments and debate the motion to send the question to voters failed 4–2.
The Kodiak Island Borough Assembly debated whether to place a 3% area‑wide retail sales tax on marijuana products before voters and how any proceeds should be used, but the motion to put the amended ordinance on the October ballot failed on a roll call vote.
Clerk Nova told the assembly the ordinance, FY2027‑05, would require retailers to register each location, collect the tax at point of sale and remit funds quarterly, with net revenues tracked and subject to a three‑year performance review. The ordinance initially proposed creating a new "community well‑being fund" to support health, education and economic development; staff noted the packet included a substituted version that adopts the statutory definition of marijuana from Alaska statute 17.38.900.
During the public hearing several residents raised concerns. Carly, a member of the public, said the well‑being fund language was "kind of vague" and asked that people harmed by addictions or homelessness benefit if the measure passes. Janice Stevens, who identified herself as a vertically integrated marijuana business owner, said the proposal would unfairly burden local businesses and described existing state excise taxes she said already result in very high effective tax rates on product.
Assembly members debated administrative costs, effects on small businesses, the possibility of encouraging gray‑market sales, and whether to broaden the proposal to include alcohol and tobacco. Assembly member Woods moved to replace references to a new community well‑being fund with deposits to the borough general fund while maintaining required tracking and the three‑year review; staff confirmed the ballot question wording would be adjusted to reflect any change.
After a roll call on the main motion as amended, the clerk announced the vote: four members opposed and two supported; "This motion failed with 4 no's, 2 yes," the clerk stated. With that, the assembly declined to advance the ordinance to the ballot at this meeting.
The ordinance had been sponsored by Assembly member Roberts and cosponsored by Assembly member Woods; staff said a substituted ordinance with a statutory marijuana definition was in the packet. The clerk noted that if the assembly had sent the measure to the ballot it would have required voter approval at the regular election on Oct. 6, 2026, and—if approved—would take effect Jan. 1, 2027.
