Assembly directs staff to negotiate two‑year contract with Sitka Legacy Foundation to administer nonprofit grants

The Sitka City and Borough Assembly voted to direct staff to negotiate a contract with the Sitka Legacy Foundation to administer the assembly’s annual general‑fund nonprofit grants program.

On a motion to direct staff to negotiate the contract, the assembly vote was 7–0 in favor. The motion instructs the city administrator and staff to prepare contract terms for the assembly’s consideration; assembly members discussed a two‑year initial term with option years, a 5% administrative fee from the grant pool (for example, $2,500 on a $50,000 grant pool was used as an illustration), and a city reservation to set the annual budgeted grant amount each year.

Sponsors and rationale: Assembly member Kevin (first name only in the transcript) and co‑sponsor Chris (first name only) said the nonprofit community had asked the city to delegate grant administration to the Sitka Legacy Foundation, citing the foundation’s grant‑making experience and a simpler process that would reduce staff workload. Kevin said staff currently spend an estimated 25–30 hours administering the program and argued that contracting the work would free city staff time for other tasks.

Sitka Legacy Foundation role and fee: Chris, identified later in the meeting as the Sitka Legacy Foundation board chair, told the assembly the foundation would manage the whole process — advertising the availability of grants, handling applications, reviewing and deciding awards, issuing checks, collecting reports, and reporting back to the assembly. He said the foundation already conducts a local grant program, is an affiliate of the Alaska Community Foundation and uses that organization’s back‑office systems. The foundation said it could administer the city program within the $2,500 administrative amount discussed.

Public comment: Some nonprofit leaders and directors supported the delegation. Ben Hughey said the current city application is lengthy (the transcript records a 16‑page application) and that a professional grant‑making process would be more efficient and reduce nonprofit staff time required to apply. Several nonprofits signed a letter supporting the change, according to comments cited in the meeting.

Opposition and concerns: Richard Ween (also transcribed as "Wean" in some lines) urged caution and suggested the assembly could instead each donate from personal pay to cover the administrative fee; he characterized the administrative fee as a grant amount for a small group and asked the assembly to consider the fiscal implications.

Contract structure and oversight: City staff and the assembly discussed contracting mechanisms. The city’s attorney and administration staff said the intended approach is to issue the budgeted grant amount to the Sitka Legacy Foundation as a grantee and to establish a separate contract for purchased services for administration, with typical contract terms, option years and reporting requirements. Assembly members emphasized maintaining the assembly’s control over how much is budgeted each year and discussed including an out clause and a two‑year pilot commitment so the assembly can re‑evaluate the arrangement.

Final motion and vote: Troy (first name only) moved to direct staff to negotiate the contract; a second was recorded. The roll call recorded Mayor Eisenbeis, Mr. Christiansen, Ms. Carlson, Mr. Celine, Mr. Mosher, Mr. Ystad and Mr. Pike as voting yes; the motion passed 7–0. The assembly directed staff to prepare a contract for future assembly review and approval.

Next steps: staff will draft a contract with the Sitka Legacy Foundation outlining the term, fee structure, reporting and audit/oversight expectations and return it to the assembly for final approval. The assembly indicated a preference for an initial two‑year term with option years and for a clause that preserves the assembly’s ability to set the annual budget and to terminate the agreement if expectations are not met.