Daily Sitka Sentinel

Sitka Bill Payers To Share $4.5M

By SHANNON HAUGLAND
Sentinel Staff Writer

The Assembly on Tuesday moved forward with programs intended to provide relief to Sitkans and businesses harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

To that end, members passed three ordinances on introduction that would:

– establish the CARES Act Utilities Costs Subsidization Program. The ordinance sets up the requirements for the program to provide utilities relief of up to $1,000 for individuals and up to $3,000 for businesses experiencing economic hardships due to the pandemic.

– establish the CARES Act Moorage Costs Subsidization Program, to help with moorage payments.

– appropriate $4.5 million in federally provided CARES Act funds to cover the cost of the above ordinances. The funds would come out of the $14 million expected for Sitka in COVID-19 relief.

All three ordinances are to be up for final reading and public hearing at the June 9 Assembly meeting.

In related business, the Assembly unanimously passed a resolution accepting the $14 million in CARES Act funds. The Assembly has scheduled a special meeting for 6 p.m. Thursday to discuss uses of the remainder of the CARES Act relief funds.

Special reports at the meeting included comments by U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan, and information about the Wild Fish Conservancy lawsuit (see related stories, this page.)

Six members of the Assembly attended, all in person, at Harrigan Centennial Hall: Thor Christianson, Kevin Mosher, Valorie Nelson, Steven Eisenbeisz, Richard Wein and Mayor Gary Paxton. Kevin Knox was absent.

CARES Act Relief

Christianson and Mosher co-sponsored the ordinances on utility and moorage subsidies.

If the ordinances pass on final reading, the application period for those relief programs would run through July 31, with funds disbursed no earlier than August, the finance department said today.

City Administrator John Leach was listed as the sponsor for setting aside $4.5 million in CARES Act funds to cover the cost of the two relief programs, under a Special Revenue Fund for CARES Act spending.

Special Revenue Fund

Speaking in favor of setting aside funds for utility and moorage relief, Christianson said the $4.5 million cost was derived as a “worst case scenario” if all qualified Sitkans applied for the program.

“I don’t think everyone is going to apply,” he added.

Both Mosher and Christianson said their idea is to create a simple process to get help as soon as possible to those affected by the pandemic.

The vote on the $4.5 million appropriation was 5-1, with Steven Eisenbeisz opposed. He said he was in favor of both moorage and utility relief, but thought moorage should be considered with relief set aside for mortgage, rent and lease payments.

“It needs to be in a different phase of relief efforts,” he said today.

Paxton said he is looking forward to getting input from citizens and businesses on other relief needed, and create a strategic plan for spending going forward. 

Wein said he has his own draft list of priorities for spending CARES Act funds, including planning for the future of the community.

He added today, “It needs to be spent thoughtfully – we should act as though we will never get additional funding.”

On the question of whether $4.5 million was too much for the utility and moorage subsidy programs, Nelson said that the Assembly could do a budget adjustment at a later time.

Utility Relief

Ordinance 2020-28, authorizing utility bill subsidies, also sets criteria and an application process. Christianson said his goal is to “keep it simple, get money into people’s hands.”

A few noted that the money would end up back in city coffers, since utility payments go to the city.

The utilities cost subsidy for each eligible residential applicant is set in the ordinance as a “one-time credit on account in the amount of $1,000.”

The subsidy for eligible businesses is “a one-time credit on account” for $3,000.

Moorage Relief

Ordinance 2020-29 passed on introduction by a 5-1 vote, with Eisenbeisz opposed. He said he’s in favor of moorage relief, but felt it should be included with relief for rent, mortgages and leases.

Co-sponsors cited the need to help the fishing fleet, as well as the liveaboard community.

“The subsidy for each eligible applicant shall be the maximum of moorage costs billed for one quarter of the calendar year,” the ordinance says.

With its passage on first reading, it will be taken up for a final vote at the June 9 Assembly meeting.

Other Business

The Assembly in other business:

– voted unanimously on first reading to refinance about $7 million in an outstanding Alaska Energy Authority loan, through the Alaska Municipal Bond Bank. It will be up for final reading June 9.

– voted 3-3 to remove the requirement in city code that the fire department have an assistant chief. It will go on for second reading, since four “no” votes are needed to kill an ordinance on first reading.

The city code says: “The department shall consist of a fire chief and assistant chief (or chiefs) and as many other positions as may be necessary for the effective operation of the department.”

The position has been vacant since the last assistant fire chief retired a few years ago.

Voting in favor of removing it from the code were Wein, Nelson and Mosher, with some of them commenting that the administrator still has the flexibility to hire an assistant chief if necessary.

Christianson, Eisenbeisz and Paxton voted against removing it from the code.

Arguments for keeping the requirement for an assistant chief included the assistant’s role in overseeing training, filling in when the chief is on vacation, and other duties. Christianson added that cutting the position doesn’t necessarily result in savings.

In other business, the Assembly voted 4-2 on first reading to move the “Reports” section to the end of the meeting. Voting against were Wein and Eisenbeisz. It will be up for final reading June 9.

Passage of the ordinance would mean comments from the mayor, administrator, attorney, liaison representatives and city clerk will be at the end of the meeting instead of the beginning.

Nelson and Mosher co-sponsored the ordinance. Nelson said Reports came at the end of the meeting, when she served on the Assembly more than 10 years ago, and believes it worked well.

She said sometimes the Reports took a lot of time, and delayed action on other agenda items with citizens waiting to testify.

“(Reports) are lower priority and can be reported at the end of the meeting,” she said.

Christianson agreed.

“I’d rather focus more on the core business of the group,” he said. “And it’s the way we used to do it.”

Wein voted against. He said board and commission members put considerable time into their work, and the results should receive attention at the top of the meeting.

“This is the only time to give detail,” he said. 

Nelson agreed that boards and commission efforts are important, but felt the Reports worked better at the end of the meeting.

Mosher added, “This isn’t meant to be divisive. It’s been done (this way) before. It was tried and true.”