Wasilla Community Grants Program postponed indefinitely

The highly contentious ordinance that would set aside $400,000 for grants to local non-profit organizations was postponed indefinitely after weeks of heated debate surrounded the proposal during the Wasilla City Council meeting on Monday.

Public opinion remained divided as previous council member Mark Ewing asked the council to consider tabling the ordinance, saying, “I don’t think this is the right political move for anybody.”

He went on to say that during his time on City Council, fiscal mistakes were made when money was given to organizations such that he said didn’t hold true to their word.

“Come back with something more tangible, more fair,” he said.

“There is a reason why former mayors and former councilmen take time out to come here,” started Steve Menard who returned to speak against the ordinance. “In the past when we (the city council) gave money to WASI, it was on a case-by-case basis and I’m in favor of that. The problem now is the amount of money now and where I see the need in the city.”

“These large chunks of money don’t come around too often. There is a lot of great opportunity that is tangible,” Menard added, then urged the council to talk to the constituents, and that they want to see things that they can see and touch.

Diane Woodruff also returned to urge the council to not move on the ordinance, reminding the council that as inflation has caused prices to rise, so too does the sales tax the city collects.

“I’ve had the chance to go shopping and I can tell you that inflation really is a thing and that not only are we paying more for each item, but we’re also paying higher sales taxes based on those higher sales, and that’s a stretch for a lot of people, and there’s a lot of folks hurting. I know the people behind this mean well, it doesn’t seem like a good thing to do right now,” she said.

Supporters of the ordinance appealed to the council to consider passing the ordinance, recognizing that people are living in challenging times right now.

Brenda Sheldon, board member for Wasilla Area Seniors, Inc (WASI), spoke in support of the ordinance, stating that nonprofits of the community do not give handouts, but instead give hand-ups.

“Inflation is in every sector right now. It’s asking our seniors what has to be paid or what will I go without-medication, food, fuel. Now is the time to approve this ordinance. Most of your community nonprofits provide very basic services,” before adding, “We ask that you approve this ordinance to support them (WASI), as well as every other non-profit.”

Mary Robinson spoke in support of the ordinance while also pointing out fiscal contributions to WASI made by previous administrations, several members of which have spoken out against the ordinance.

“As far back as 2007, this has been a lightning rod,” she said.

Then there were public commenters who spoke in favor of the ordinance but urged the council to be fair when considering grant applications, and urged caution, saying that if the ordinance does pass, there is not much time left in the year, and the ordinance is set to expire at the end of the year.

“I support that you do it in a fair manner with a fair application process, so it’s not just a select few that get the money and that its open to all non-profits,” said Michelle Sturgeon, who works for the Children’s Place.

It was a sentiment echoed by Carol Shea, founding director of Alaska Assistance Dogs.

“We are a little non-profit that just uses things like golden retrievers to bring joy and love and calming. We are the ones, the teeny nonprofits that would benefit the most if this passes,” she said.

One resident issued caution. Ann Kilkenny applauded the council for their “out of the box thinking and generous impulses that are supporting it.”

She noted the somewhat historic nature of the last council meeting in which two former mayors and three former council members spoke against the ordinance.

“Learn from what they tell you. This is really, really dangerous territory. I’m afraid you’re being impulsive even though you’ve been working on this since back in June. You now have less than 6 weeks to complete the process,” she said.

Kilkenny said she is a life member of WASI and in the past has spoken in favor of and against receiving money, at times due to mismanagement.

“It points to a real serious issue-you really don’t know how these organizations are run,” she said.

She was emphatic that because the council is not made up of auditors and lacks financial statements from the nonprofits.

“This is taxpayer money. This is not what we agreed to be spending money on when we agreed to give you an extra half-cent (tax increase),” she said.

Meanwhile, many who spoke at previous meetings to urge the ordinance does not pass, or at least table the matter until next year. Others reiterated concern over an accelerated application process and could be viewed as skewed in favor of bigger nonprofits, as some smaller organizations may mot even be aware of the ordinance.

During council discussion of the ordinance, Councilwoman Colleen Sullivan-Leonard said that the process is “exactly where we’re supposed to be within the guidelines of what council had approved.”

She went on to reiterate an earlier point that the funds that have made this ordinance possible were coming from a CARES Act offset.

“These funds are very specific, and they’re very specific because the CARES Act funds were utilized for police, personnel, and payroll. The $400,000 is not the ‘full kitty,’” she said.

She said the council and committee discussed the amount of money set for the ordinance, along with the vulnerable within the community, pointing to specific needs such as gas prices and the cost of food that led to the mission of the community grant program.

“As to the need to approve the ordinance now, rather than table it for early next year, doing it today allows this one-time grant process to proceed to its finish,” Sullivan-Leonard said. “These funds can be readily used for these grants.”

She also argued that the infrastructure projects are well-funded and “going through the process,” and that they are following code with 50-60% in reserve and that the city is fiscally very healthy.

Councilwoman Alina Rubeo moved to postpone the motion indefinitely, effectively ‘killing the bill’ without the council having to vote it down, a move that Councilwoman Sullivan-Leonard felt was a blindsided maneuver.

Councilwoman Sullivan-Leonard, who is Chair of the Grants Policy Committee, accused Councilwoman Rubeo of blindsiding her with the motion to indefinitely postpone the legislation.

“I would have liked to have maybe a hint that you were going to bring this forward Rubio, so that I’m not blindsided here at the table…I don’t appreciate that. So in the future, if we can communicate maybe a little bit clearer on what the intentions are from the council,” she said, adding that months of work went into the ordinance under a directive the city council gave to utilize the offset from CARES Act funds to the most vulnerable within the community.

A majority of the council spoke in favor of tabling the bill, and perhaps re-examine the proposal at a later time next year.

“My general conviction has been I have voted consistently against this since day one. I do not believe ideologically that public money should be given to private organizations,” stated Councilman Timothy Johnson, who then suggested that he would make an exception if the ordinance were to run as a referendum and the general public said ‘yes’ since the public will have spoken.

He also argued that the money the city received during the COVID pandemic was fully spent, and that the money made available e for the proposed grant program is a “budget windfall due to COVID funding.”

“In essence, this is public money. This is Wasilla’s funding money,” he said.

“This ordinance appears to be tearing the city apart right now,” said Councilman Simon Brown while repeating a call from the last meeting to be ethical and respectful within the council and with public commenters when discussing the ordinance.

“You have the right to testify, but you need to testify honestly and with good intentions,” he said without further elaborating as to which testimony may have been dishonest.

He also voiced concerns for the proposal as it seems to have divided the Wasilla “family” and the council itself.

“After the last three meetings, the family dysfunction that has resulted out of this, and the dysfunction among the city council itself has caused me some strong concerns,” while later adding that “maybe the best thing is for the motion to pass, and maybe if everybody is testifying in good spirit and from the heart, maybe this will get us back to being a family and moving forward in Wasilla.”

He also challenged those opposing the ordinance to dig into their pocketbooks, “I hope those who are testifying against this are willing to go into their personal pockets and make sure 150 organizations are taken care of.”

Councilman Stu Graham, who has remained steadfast in his opposition to the proposal said he believes it blurs the line of what city government should do in regard to non-profit funding.

“The function of government in the case of non-profits is to come up with policies that are friendly to non-profits and benefit non-profits, not to provide funding for individual non-profits,” he said.

Council infighting regarding whether or not the Grants Policy Committee bypassed original Wasilla City Code, dominated parts of the discussion, even after the City Attorney attempted to clarify that the ordinance on the table was in accordance with the Code.

“Tonight this ends, and that’s just the way it is. I would appreciate if people would bring some truth to the table…to profess untruths is really degrading of our council and to the people in Wasilla,” said Councilwoman Sullivan-Leonard, before saying the committee and the program would come to a halt at the end of December and said she can’t imagine anyone is going to bring forth grant requests during the upcoming budget discussions in early 2023.

Meanwhile Councilwoman Rubio said her motion wasn’t personal, that it was a change of heart

“Call it following what you believe. I’m not picking sides. I’m just doing what I think is right at this point.”

Councilman Graham, during final comments, reminded the audience and council that though the ordinance was postponed indefinitely, the idea is still out there, and that it could be brought up again anytime.

“The idea is still out there and still being talked about. It killed the particular ordinance, but not the idea.”