The Docks and Harbors board of directors debated the policy under which boat trailer permits are sold but ultimately decided to refer the issue back to committee Thursday night.
The board’s Operations Committee motioned at its Nov. 13 meeting to direct harbor staff to require that a separate permit be sold for each boat trailer. Port Director Carl Uchytil said letters were sent out to notify users who hold multiple trailer permits in advance of the board meeting, but acknowledged that they were not notified until this week.
“Admittedly, I thought we could get the letter out notifying the multiple holders earlier than we could,” said Uchytil. He added, “If it’s the will of the body, the discussion could wait until December.”
Uchytil said the goal is to clarify the policy. He said permits have been issued inconsistently, with some users paying a fee per trailer and others paying the fee just once and receiving complimentary additional permits for each of their trailers.
A number of users submitted written testimony, with most protesting the idea of having to pay to permit each of their multiple trailers.
In his written testimony, North Douglas resident John Bohan also argued, “Insufficient public notification was given to allow public testimony of the affected users. … Due to such short notice I am unable to attend this meeting and therefore have to write this testimony.”
Speaking as a member of the public at the meeting, Thomas Hanley sided with the majority of the written testimony.
“I think the system has worked really well,” said Hanley, who said he has been paying one launch ramp fee to permit his two boat trailers. “I think it’s consistent with the idea of a user fee rather than a trailer tax.”
But Dennis Watson disagreed. He charged that harbor staff have shown favoritism to certain users by granting them permits for multiple trailers for one fee and said he wants each user to pay per trailer.
“I think if you have two trailers, you should pay for two permits,” Watson said. “If you’re going to use a trailer, it should be permitted. I think that’s appropriate.”
While Uchytil said at the outset of the discussion, “As I read the ordinance … it infers that one trailer, one permit is kind of how the ordinance is written,” board member Eric Kueffner said his interpretation of the boat launch ramp fee ordinance is not the same.
Kueffner said, “I think this ordinance tells me that if I have a launch ramp permit, I can use the launch ramp.”
Kueffner also rejected the idea that the way the permits have been sold has been deliberately selective.
“It does seem unfair that it hasn’t been applied evenly, but it’s certainly not malicious,” said Kueffner. “I reject the suggestion that it’s been out of favoritism to particular people. It’s just not something that anyone thought about.”
Tom Donek, Budd Simpson and Mike Williams agreed with Kueffner’s interpretation of the ordinance.
But Williams said he is undecided on what the policy should be, though he contended that if people can receive multiple permits for the cost of one fee, they can potentially obtain permits under their name for trailers that they do not own.
After telling a story about how he lent his permit to a friend one time, Williams said, “Issuing three stickers to one household or individual, they’re going to start going other places to people that have not paid for it, or where they shouldn’t go. And that is going to get abused, because I have done it. I have done it.”
Greg Busch, chairing the meeting, favored the idea of a “one-permit, one-trailer” approach. “The simplest is to follow the same way you would for a car,” said Busch. “It’s a one-for-one. When you register a car, it doesn’t matter how many cars you own in your household. You’re paying the fee. You’re registering the vehicle. You’re paying the full amount. You’re not getting any special deals for owning multiple cars per household.”
Busch also echoed Williams in citing the “potential for abuse” in issuing multiple permits.
Simpson said he was “concerned” by the short notice of the issue.
“I’m concerned in the end that the notice didn’t get out until a couple of days ago, and I think we ought to continue to think about this, look for some solutions, and bring it back next month and try to address all these competing issues,” said Simpson, suggesting the discussion be put off until next month.
Busch agreed that it should be referred back to the Operations Committee, which will meet next on Dec. 11.
Donek said he believes all permit owners should be notified of the issue.
The board also voted at the meeting to revalidate its support of the Statter Harbor Master Plan, the blueprint for development and construction of the Don D. Statter Harbor facility in Auke Bay.
• Contact reporter Mark D. Miller at 523-2279 or at mark.d.miller@juneauempire.com.
Comments (22)
Add commentI can see both sides. If I
I can see both sides. If I have several skiffs and a big boat, its expensive to register them all. But on the other hand, it is being abused.
come on....
Easy fix issue the permit for the truck hauling the trailer, the sticker goes on the rear bumper. DA
How Many Registrations do I need?
My boat has its own registration.
My trailer is already registered with the state.
Now I need a City registration?
I have always needed to bring my trailer registration for both boats to get a second sticker.
Since I do not launch both boats at he same time why should I pay double?
How about a launch fee, based on usage?
$90 is nearly userus, but $180 for my six to eight launchings a year is over the top.
Plus tax you know.
Juneau is already the 2nd highest per capita taxed city in the state.
How much more more do they need?
User fees
My situationis almost identical to Theo. I have a Bayliner and a skiff. I have to show registration for each trailer before I can get launch permits. They put the trailer license number on the permit. So what's the problem with enforcement? This sounds like another excuse to gouge us for more money.
If Harbors is showing favortism then they need to put the policy in writing and make sure all employees follow it.
If users are abusing the system by lending their permits to others then they need to be dealt with.
This idea of punishing everyone because of a few dishonest people is not right.
A permit is a tax. They charge sales tax on the permits. How can they tax a tax?
85.20.030
"...to launch and recover recreational vessels, or use of the launch ramp for access by off-highway or other vehicles, or for any type of commercial use, must pay the applicable fee as provided by regulation and must display the launch ramp permit provided by docks and harbors upon payment of the fee."
To me the language implies that the permit allows me the authority to "launch and recover recreational vessels" (note - plural vessels". This view would be in line with a user fee.
As far as it being taken advantage of, first the city would need to be certain to monitor and enforce its proper use (i.e. the permit holder's name is on file with the permit), and why should the law abiders pay for others mistreatment of the system.
@ theo
The mill rate in Petersburg is 11.21, the mill rate in Juneau is 10.55.
The sales tax in Petersburg is 6%, the sales tax in Juneau is 5%.
"Juneau is already the highest per capita taxed city in the state."*
*Citation needed.
It's not a registration, it's a user fee.
We should not have to buy multiple launch permits. The harbor office always asks for each trailer registration to make sure I'm only getting permits for trailers that I own. If this procedure is consistently used there should be no abuse.
The harbor board should not equate the launch permitting process to a vehicle registration. My trailers are already registered with the state.
I can only use the launch ramp one trailer at a time. I only use the ramp for my big boat 2-4 times per year. I suspect this is the case with most multiple trailer owners.
And yes the late notice kept me from attending the meeting, but I will be writing the board a letter reiterating my arguments above. I encourage everyone to do the same.
I sit corrected on highest per capita taxed city
Bye the Bye,
What is Petersburgs launch fee structure?
Dumb
Only gonna tow one trailer at a time. The only reason they want to charge for every trailer is to fund the joke of a project going on at Auke Bay. Funny how they'll make you pay for a permit to use the Echo Cove launch in the winter when they refuse to maintain it during those months. If they do start with the multiple permits, just don't buy one at all. The tickets are cheaper than the permit and the money goes to the CBJ, not straight to the harbor division.
PSG Fee Structure
Not sure about that. I've never had a boat down there, I'm just down there for work pretty often.
“Williams said he is
“Williams said he is undecided, they can potentially obtain permits under their name for trailers that they do not own.” No they can’t, after 3 decades of buying these permits I had to show both registrations for both trailers that I own and those permits are to be adhered to the tongue of the trailer. “Also I don’t believe one bit there is favoritism, again after all these years and dealing with different people at the harbor I was always given 2 permits for one price. I do like Islandhoppers idea, one permit for the truck that will be using the ramps.
Funding Source?
Do you know where your trailer launch ramp fee goes? If you think the city is pooling that money and using it to repair launch ramps and provide for garbage collection and lighting, you are only fractionally correct. Your fee is actually placed directly into the Harbors Enterprise Fund, where it is used for every operational expense that is incurred by docks and harbors. This means you are helping to pay the salary of the employees who work at the harbors, even though you might not even see them or need their services.
A few years ago, there was no annual fee to use the launch ramps. Then, it was $30, then $75, then $90, and now they want to gouge us again for multiple trailers.
I can only assume Docks & Harbors feels comfortable about gouging recreational boaters to pay for other users’ costs because we don’t have as much political clout or don’t complain as loudly. Perhaps it is time we start complaining.
Forgot to ask, is this a
Forgot to ask, is this a trailer registration with the harbor or a personal use permit for the ramp? I’m asking because I would like to know if all those kayakers’ who tie up the ramps pay for a permit. I have nothing against kayakers but it should be fare for all that use the facility.
They need money for the 3
They need money for the 3 million harbor shortfall. It's no surprise they are going to try and figure out a way to increase user fees.
Simple
Is the intent to be a trailer registration fee (then all of those non-used boats throughout town would need to pay the fee) or is the intent to provide an avenue for users to pay for the privilage of use. If it is the latter, then it should be much like a gun permit (whichever gun I am carrying as long as I am permitted).
Don't F over your users CBJ. Clean up your end of the process, and all will be fine.
Launch Ramp Costs?
Increased user fees must be justified. If the historical practice has been to allow a user to get permits for two trailers (upon proof of ownership) for a single fee, then the proposal would effectively double the historical fee. That is NOT a reasonable fee increase.
What has changed to justify the fee increase? The boat launch ramps seem to be extremely low maintenance structures. If the main use of the fee revenue is to pay for enforcement to make sure people have paid the fee, then what we have here is beaurocracy run amok! The fees should be primarily used to support necessary maintenance. I also agree that the most simple solution would be to issue the user permit and require it be affixed to the vehicle rather than to each boat trailer.
Launch Ramp Fees
I cannot see how they can justify the per-trailer fees. For years, I have been able to obtain two permits for one fee as long as I produced proof of ownership. Buying more than one permit wouldn't bother me so much if the permit fees were less costly, but at roughly $95 per permit the cost per launch is pretty high for those who don't use the ramps very often. A per-launch vehicle permit would be much more agreeable, as Primrosey suggested. If it's funding that Docks and Harbors is looking for, the harbor department employees could likely gather revenue through the tickets that should issued to the kayakers who use the ramps without a permit. There have been a number of times that I have had to wait for kayakers without permits launching and retriving their watercraft at our local ramps. If the permit is looked at as a user fee, all ramp users should be treated equally.
Seems to me.....
Uchy is stirring this pot--- Let him find some other double dipping job!!
KarlaHart
Sorry about the impression that I'm painting the group with a broad brush, but in many cases over the years I have not seen a permit displayed on kayaker's vehicles. One time recently, I asked two fellows who were launching kayaks if they had permits to launch. The reply was no. On the other hand, I haven't seen many boat trailers without.
I think it's ludacris to
I think it's ludacris to charge someone money to put something in the water. My taxes should take care of maintenance on things that are public and city property. This is disgusting. What isn't double taxed now adays? I miss simplicity.
I know down in wrangell there is no launch permit or bs, and per capita there is probably 4 times the number of boats. They have four harbors for a town of less then 3000 with hundreds of stalls. That harbor dept seems to do just fine with the money they are allocated without finding ways to put added costs on the public. They even have cranes you can use to unload your boat with free of charge. A while back they built a new building for the harbor, they cut spending and saved up to build it. Novel idea huh? Something I like to call fiscal responsibility. Interesting, they also have a city owned public works, electricity, dump. You'd think a small backwards town like that would be full of corruption, guess that's just the big towns where the corruption is in plain site.