By SHANNON HAUGLAND
Sentinel Staff Writer
Last week, the Assembly approved the full amount of local funding requested by the School Board for the 2022 school district budget.
But at Thursday night’s Assembly budget meeting, the School Board president was back, explaining that the board, by mistake, had not addressed some $500,000 in programs that in the past have been funded by the city.
Last week the Assembly approved funding schools to the state-mandated “cap” for instructional purposes. For many years school district practice has been to obtain a separate city appropriation for non-instructional purposes, such as operation of the Blatchley pool, activities travel and Community Schools, which aren’t counted in the funding limit set by the state. It was this $500,000 item that was missing in the School Board’s funding request last week.
School officials spoke under Persons to be Heard at the outset of Thursday night’s Assembly meeting on the city budget.
“I apologize for what happened,” said board President Amy Morrison. “We’ve been using different language (related to the cap). ... It was after last Thursday’s meeting that I really started digging, and some of this stuff came up. I apologize I didn’t dig sooner and didn’t find this misunderstanding before the meeting.”
The Assembly’s approval last week was for $7,764,150 from local funds, the limit that Sitka is allowed to give schools for instructional purposes, and including building maintenance and utilities for the Performing Arts Center.
(City officials say this was a $395,000 increase from last year, but district officials say the increase is closer to $150,000.)
In past years, the School Board request has included funds for the non-instructional items, Blatchley pool, activities travel and Community Schools, as well as the money limited by the cap, but not this year.
Morrison said some of the problem is the difference in definitions of what it means to “fund to the cap.”
“That being said, we don’t want to just come to you to ask you for more money,” she told the Assembly. She said the funding situation continues to evolve, with the possibility of federal stimulus funds, and a health insurance increase that may be less than expected.
“Where we’re at right now is we want to just hold tight, look at the numbers, look at the money as it comes in,” the board president said. “And then figure out, if we need to come back to you and say, ‘hey, we need more money,’ then we want to have the opportunity to do that, but we don’t want to do that tonight.”
No motion was made by Assembly members to change the local school support figure or any other aspect of the general fund budget as presented by the city administration.
Finance Director Melissa Haley asked Assembly members for any proposed changes as the city staff crafts the draft budget for final review by the elected officials. Thursday’s was the fourth meeting to discuss the general fund budget for the year that starts July 1.
“The core question is, do we pull back from what we’re doing, assuming things are going to get worse, or take a more optimistic outlook, maintain cores but be prepared,” Haley said.
Assembly members in general had few comments, although Thor Christianson said the budget is “a living document” and can be changed at any time.
The general fund covers such services as public works, public safety, the library, Harrigan Centennial Hall and school support, which is about a quarter of the budget. Capital projects in the general fund over the past few years have taken the biggest hit.
The present draft of the general fund budget shows a $1.9 million gap between income and expenses. City staff has proposed closing most of the gap by using the $1.5 million surplus from the current year’s budget. The budget gap is expected to shrink somewhat because health insurance increases are not as high as expected.
In the general fund discussion, the Assembly and staff also discussed the potential $1.9 million that might be coming Sitka’s way in federal pandemic relief. Other CARES relief money went mostly to individuals and businesses, and were specifically not intended for revenue replacement for municipalities.
City staff built a budget around assumptions that it would receive no pandemic relief or Secure Rural Schools funds. It also anticipates that the economy will not recover to pre-pandemic levels this year or next.
If the cruise ship passenger figures had come in as expected in 2020 and 2021, the city would have received some $6.6 million in additional sales tax revenues.
The next budget meeting, on March 18, will be on enterprise funds, including electric, water, marine service center, industrial park, airport, garbage, sewers and harbors.
