Sitka assembly accepts child‑care needs analysis and begins planning funding options

The Sitka City and Borough Assembly voted unanimously May 12 to accept a child‑care needs analysis that estimates a substantial local shortfall in licensed child‑care capacity and outlines policy options for the city and partners to consider.

Blue Shidler, executive director of the Southeast Childhood Collective, presented the report the assembly commissioned, saying the Department of Labor–based analysis shows “a need of approximately 485 children needing childcare, with a supply of about 204 that are currently being served,” and characterized the resulting deficit as an estimated gap of about 281 child‑care spaces. Shidler called the situation “a market failure” that depresses workforce participation and harms economic resilience.

The report outlines three broad choices: workforce incentives to raise wages; a per‑child operating grant paid monthly to licensed providers; and a blended model that mixes operating grants, workforce supports and affordability measures. Shidler cited Juneau’s per‑child operating grants as a working example that helped raise starting wages there from roughly $13 to around $20 per hour.

After extended questions with Shidler by phone, the assembly discussed next steps. Several members endorsed the operating‑grant model (Report Option 2) as the most immediately workable way to “move the needle.” Sponsors and staff sketched funding scenarios the assembly might evaluate: a 1% seasonal sales‑tax increase (estimated in prior staff discussion at about $1 million annually), a 2% alcohol tax (~$500,000 estimate), or changes to the local sales‑tax cap (estimates for eliminating the cap were discussed by staff in the meeting as roughly $2.1–$2.2 million in potential revenue, but members said that option needs detailed analysis because of potential impacts on construction and boat‑building businesses).

Assembly members emphasized process: they repeatedly said they want to clarify “what we are doing” before asking voters for revenue, and they asked for public outreach and a work session within about a month to draft options, assess tradeoffs and develop ballot language if needed. Multiple members said a voter‑approved funding stream should support administration by an outside nonprofit or agency, not direct city operation; Blue and other speakers said an outside administrator (including her agency) could apply to run a program if the assembly directed that path.

Shidler pointed to state‑level developments that could affect local planning: a recent state increase in the base per‑child subsidy for infants and toddlers and competing budget proposals in the Alaska legislature, including a debated $7.5 million workforce line that had been in one house proposal but removed in another chamber and remained in conference committee at the time of the meeting.

The assembly accepted the report 7–0 and moved without final decision to schedule a work session to refine program design, revenue options and a public‑engagement plan. “First, let’s figure out what we’re doing,” one member summarized; “then we can figure out how we get the money for it.”

What happens next: the assembly asked staff to prepare background materials, schedule a work session, and coordinate with the Sitka Chamber‑led childcare summit funded by a separate $15,000 Rasmuson Foundation grant, which several members said could feed community input into any ballot or program design.

Provenance: The presentation and question period occurred during the special reports and item H (child‑care needs analysis) and the acceptance vote and subsequent detailed funding discussion took place later in the meeting. The assembly’s acceptance vote was recorded as unanimous 7–0.