Ketchikan school board approves FY 2026–27 budget in first reading after public outcry to protect social workers and counselors

The Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Board of Education approved the proposed FY 2026–27 budget in a 6–0 roll‑call vote during a special meeting on April 15, after more than two hours of public testimony and extended discussion about personnel cuts and nonpersonnel costs.

Members of the public, district administrators and teachers urged the board not to eliminate social‑work and counseling positions and to avoid across‑the‑board cuts that would weaken programs in smaller or vulnerable schools. Jason House, a district administrator, told the board, “The school board is a governance body, not a management team,” arguing that micromanagement of staffing harms retention and district stability. In written remarks read aloud, school social workers cited more than 260 student contacts this year — including 79 involving suicidal ideation — to underscore the services’ role in safety and crisis intervention.

The board’s vote came after Superintendent Bollard and Business Manager Lisa Pierce presented a budget prepared under previous board direction to cover roughly $1.2 million in nonpersonnel shortfalls. Pierce said the most immediate adjustments reflected in the proposal include removing the curriculum director and IT director, cutting two teachers at Schonbar Middle School, eliminating two social‑worker roles and two counselor roles, and adding money for utilities, transportation, and SPED contractors. Pierce told the board that a lower‑than‑expected health‑insurance renewal (12.1%) yields about $263,000 in savings included in the current numbers.

Why it matters: Board members, staff and community members framed the session as a choice between meeting the district’s immediate fiscal constraints and preserving staff who provide essential daily supports for students. Multiple administrators warned that targeted cuts to central or specialist roles would create coverage gaps that cannot be absorbed without program loss. Kurt Lindeman, a principal, said central office capacity was “stretched to almost nothing,” and Al Jacobson, the maintenance director, cautioned that understaffing maintenance on aging buildings poses safety and operational risks.

Discussion and directions: After extensive Q&A on alternatives and numbers, the board amended the motion language and gave Superintendent Bollard latitude to revisit the reductions and reallocate funds before the second reading scheduled April 22. Several members said they considered social workers and alternative‑program staffing (Ravilla/alternative secondary programming) nonnegotiable priorities. The superintendent and business manager were asked to provide updated line‑item detail and analysis of the tradeoffs, including where unallocated reductions could be applied without disproportionately harming a single school or program.

Health‑insurance context: The meeting also featured a substantial exchange about the district’s partly self‑funded insurance arrangement and a potential transition to the Public Education Health Trust. A health‑task‑force representative said a PEHT quote could reduce the district’s health‑insurance cost by about $2,000,000; staff cautioned that switching requires a six‑month notice to the borough under the existing MOA, review of collective‑bargaining plan‑design provisions, and analysis of run‑out claims, so any transition would require careful timing and negotiation.

Numbers and clarifications: Pierce supplied several numerical clarifications during the meeting: replacing a high‑end teacher with a BA/step‑6 hire could save roughly $25,000 in the first year, the district’s current proposed budget counts about 271 FTEs, and the business manager flagged a PERS calculation alignment issue (a displayed $101,200 line tied to a 22% PERS rate on roughly $460,000 in salaries) that staff corrected during the meeting. Pierce and the superintendent emphasized that many federal and grant funding lines have historically been used to pay portions of positions, complicating staffing and long‑term sustainability.

What’s next: The board directed staff to return with a revised budget for second reading on April 22 that reflects the board’s priorities and protects essential mental‑health and alternative‑program positions where feasible. The board also scheduled a PEHT presentation for the next meeting so members can question the trust’s CEO and compare that option with the district’s current brokered, partially self‑funded plan.