Anchorage Assembly: ACCEE Fund Board Meeting 2026-08-19 Meeting Recording

Okay, so roll call. Trevor Storrs? Here. Jessica Simonson? Here.

Branwyn Collier? Here. Kevin Berry? Here. Khalil Wythen?

Here.

Wythen? Wythen. Wythen. I'll remember that next time. Georgina Broke?

Here. Mildred Parker. Here. Jesse Nessett.

And Chuck Shaka. Here. And we, uh, just reviewing the agenda, any additions, changes, suggestions?

All right, as always, we always have a little flexibility, so we will— can always make changes as we go. Let's get the last minutes out of the way. Hopefully you had a chance to review them, and any— I will entertain approval of the minutes.

Thank you. Khalil, do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Georgina. Open for discussion.

Hearing none. Anybody opposed to passing them?

Abstain. Hearing none, passes unanimous, and we will move on to public comment. Is there anybody here that wanted to speak today?

Either raise your hand or go off mute.

Did Jessica put herself on hold?

Bessie. Yeah, okay.

Make sure. All right, seeing no public comment, we will close.

And we'll jump into the new business. Uh, board discussion on the '27 budget. I guess it's new, but it doesn't feel new. It's ongoing. I guess it's not new, new.

Uh, but our goal today, as you all know, uh, just to remind everybody in the room, uh, we need to turn in our proposed budget to the mayor September— by September 2nd. So this is our final meeting to finalize it. Thank you to Christina. She put out a survey. She will go through that.

We'll have a chance to go through. Just to remind folks, we have a recommended budget, which is again moving ASD and the early literacy, uh, Best Beginnings, either back to the alcohol tax or to another funding source. That's for the mayor to finalize. Uh, so we have the full approximately $5 million to work with. But we also recognize that may not, and to better be prepared, we as a group will also present the alternative budget if that is not an option, or they choose differently, and what we then recommend on how, how that funding works, and is it full or not, and so forth.

So we'll be going through that today and finalizing it. What will then happen is Christine and I have been drafting a letter to the mayor's office that outlines the process that we did. What are the 2 budgets? Uh, we will also incorporate data from this and outlining why we made the decision and what— how the feedback came back from the community to make sure they're as, as informed as possible. So hopefully they can follow our recommendations and original budget.

And make very few changes because we didn't do it lightly or in a vacuum. So, uh, what, uh, Christina will help remind me, uh, we're putting the draft together. What I would love is a couple board members who would volunteer, or maybe we could just do it now so it's done. I would love for other eyes to review the letter, one, making sure that we are capturing the essence and the goal of the board, as well as it's always just good to have second set of eyes. And I'd love a couple board members to be able to do that because we can have 3 and be able to do that by email without, uh, having to make it a public meeting.

Do I have any volunteers that are willing to do that? It should not take long.

Thank you.

Oh, you have great experience in doing such letters, so having you and your perspective, that would be great. Anybody else? Any board members online that would be willing to do that?

And Mildred's raising her hand. Mildred, are you volunteering? Yes, I'm volunteering. Thank you, I appreciate it. All right, you'll get that, well, probably in the next week to week and a half.

I really appreciate you volunteering, and it shouldn't take too long. Okay. And when the final letter is submitted to to the mayor, we will be sharing that out to the full board so you see what was submitted. Okay, with that, we have a presentation. Yeah, Christina, it's all yours.

Okay, so make sure Many of you received— so board members received an overview, a high-level overview of a summary of the survey results. We're going to go over a presentation. It's a little bit more high-level than what you received. You also received the raw data and able to look at all of those. So if you have any questions, feel free to share them throughout the presentation, and we will be able to— this is more of a deep dive into what we saw as a result.

Just to let the board know online, if you have a question, just unmute. Um, we won't be able to see you raising your hands because we had to hide the faces to be able to do the presentation.

So the objective today is to review the public input And I've also put in the presentation the Menti poll so we can look at how the board was leaning towards some of these decisions and right next to the public input that we received. So align on what we're prioritizing and make some final decisions on our 2027 recommendation.

So we put the survey out for 21 days. We had 58 responses. You can see mostly we had licensed programs as a response. We had some, um, 16% early childhood partners, and then some parents and Head Start programs as well.

So just as a reminder, this slide is grounding us in what the budget recommendations were in the survey and where we are currently with our discussions from last month. So we have our recommended budget. And that includes moving ASD Invest Beginnings back to the alcohol tax.

And then we have the contingency budget, or sometimes we're talking about the alternate budget, which is if we, um, are going to remain responsible for funding the ASD and early literacy programs.

So one of the first questions that we put out, uh, was asking for participants to rank what was a priority, what was the highest priority for them. So operational assistance came out in both our recommended budget and the contingency budget as the number 1. Worker subsidy followed in both as well. And then pilot capital.

And you can see in the contingency budget, um, some ASD Pre-K. One of over here on the right, we had some open-ended questions asking why they ranked certain programs. And so what we heard consistently was flexible funding is what's needed. This helps them to cover staff wages, rent, etc., and everything else comes second to that. So once they can be more stable, um, This is, you know, we consistently hear this in every survey and every response from programs for the workforce subsidy. So one thing I wanted to bring attention to is actually this year we've been paying families covering 85% of their tuition.

And so last year was 75% up until the last 3 months, and then they were able to cover 100%. We had a lot of discussion about this in our last couple meetings. Our Menti poll as a board still prioritized 75% as what we wanted to cover.

Um, for the input, public input, 85% was the top and 75% came next. So, as we get into discussion later, I think we can consider what we can do with 75 to 85% of coverage and how many children we want to include in that. So there's some flexibility there. And for clarity, I think when we did the Menti board, we were under the assumption that they were at 75 and not 85. So we voted for the 75, it was to keep it at that level and being able to have growth.

So if— so all of our numbers were the raw numbers when we're using the amount of money, it would still equate to the 85% if we wanted to. So when we get into that discussion, just wanted to remind us why we lean towards that 75%. Yeah, that was likely behind some of your decision-making, was voting for what we currently were doing.

So I threw this slide in here for discussion. This is some— what we're currently— current participation, just to get us up to speed as that number has been changing and growing throughout the year. So right now we have 165 children currently participating. The average new enrollments per month is about 5 per month, and that was based on data when they started this program in July of last year.

Average about 1 to 2 children per month are coming off of the program. So this is just a good turnover rate for us to keep in mind as we're thinking about growth.

There are 75— I didn't get to add this— 75 children of the 165 are currently on child care assistance.

So right here, when we asked for Alaska Family Services to give us an average cost per month at the 85%, families with ACE Fund only, that's about $782 a month. Families who also receive CCAP, that drops all the way down to $338. So it's helpful to think about how many families are also on child care assistance, right? If an average of both of all combined is $5.72. So when we're, when we're doing the math, I put some possible scenarios over here using the all combined as the daily rate.

And this is about how much we would spend per year at these 3 different intervals. So if we covered 200 children at 75%, it'd be about 1.2 million. We wanted to go 85%.

Oops, sorry.

I don't know. Hit the back button. And we can play around with this and double check my math because I played with it like 5 different ways. But this is a tool just to help us get an estimate. It's obviously not perfect, but it's helping us to land in— I think the conversation is not just the percentage that we want to cover, but also getting closer to what's the amount of children that we want to aim for when we're making this budget.

Are the numbers for 80% and 85% flipped? Possibly. Maybe. Here.

I also think I started to do— once I saw how many kids were on child care assistance, I started playing with those numbers too. Okay, good. So just looking at it off the bat, I feel like there's something there. Not correct.

I just did a back of the envelope and it should be about an extra $80,000 for every 5%, uh, 5% it goes up.

I love you said back of the envelope math.

I love it.

Um, yeah, so it should be something like Let me figure this out real quick.

Oh, shoot.

$100,000 Or $1,292,000 to get to 200 kids at 85%. Okay, $292,000. Yep.

So We don't have to make that decision right now, but I wanted to put it here as we were looking at the results of what the public response was as far as 75 to 85%.

Does anyone want to talk about that a little bit more before we move on, or we'll circle back to it? When we're playing with our final budget numbers. Basically, what we're saying is we could lower kind of what we expected and still keep everything the same and be fine. Yeah, so I think there's room to lower because our budget, you know, right now we currently had $1.6 million. For workforce subsidy, and I think we have room to grow children and still do 85% and be able to reduce that amount.

Um, looking at operational versus capital, public input says 75% capital or operational. So we were still prioritizing operational at the highest. I think that, you know, nobody wants to see Pilots of Capitals go away.

As a board, we put 75/25 at number 3, but here's a comparison.

And if you were able to look at some of the feedback, some of these open-ended questions that were in the survey that I sent out, there was a lot of conversation about wanting, you know, operational being high enough amount that it makes a difference for these programs as a pot of funds and being cautious to dilute our programs to be able to do more programs. But the impact will be a lot less.

Later in the slide deck, we'll look at how much money providers are saying is needed for them to stabilize based on their size, and we can compare that with the budget that we've been dedicating to operational.

Uh, when we asked about the greatest financial challenge, staffing, wages, and benefits was the number one. That's no surprise to our conversation, but helpful here. Um, tuition not covering costs, so that gap came in second.

Wanting to highlight that providers said that a meaningful support of operational funds is starting in the $20,000 to $80,000 range.

So looking here, um, we asked a question that said, how much funding would help you stabilize over the next 12 months? So what amount of funding do you need based on the size of the program? So we really saw a range here. Like I said, the majority is saying $20,000 to $80,000.

With our $2.4 million budget that we have done for 2025 and 2026, our range for programs was $1,000 to about $34,000. So we just were touching that helpful base. Looking at the per— the amount of children that they're serving also was a range. Yeah, do we have— did they have to— I can't remember— specify how many children they were serving so that we could divide the number of children by the amount of money? Yeah, so in the attachment, which I can pull up now if we want to look at that.

We have a table.

So this is the amount that they said would make a meaningful change to their program. And then this is the amount of children that they were serving, seeing on an average day.

Okay, so right, we know right now we're, we've been giving X amount per license spot, right? I don't know what the amount is, but yes. And so could we look at what they're saying in terms of I need X amount per child? Yeah, so take what their response was, put that into an X amount per child. Yeah, and then we can compare it with what we just said.

Yeah, so what we will need to do for that is group these in because someone who had 8, like, there'll be different answers for someone only serving 8. Well, just maybe not, maybe just qualitatively, it looks like those who are in the $5,000 to $10,000 range are like in-home care providers, right? And the bigger you get, the more money they want. So, I mean, yeah, yeah. So we're eating, yeah, a lot of our smaller programs are saying the $5,000 to $10,000 range.

Yeah. We looking at what we provided with our $2.4 million, they were getting about $1,000. A small in-home program got one. Yeah, 8, up to 8 children. That was their check.

So just comparing to even if we dropped our budget down to $1.2 million, that takes that in-home program down to $588 as a base.

So, if we can get into the details, but just as a quick snapshot, I wanted to show how the range would change.

So, basically what you're—. Christina, what you're saying is— this is Jessica— that we were really kind of below what everybody was and maybe close to Some, but we were already below, and then if we reduce that budget in this bucket next year, we're way below the impact that they're saying they need. Correct. So we don't even need to take that part. It's weird.

Yeah, well, and that's exactly, Jessica, this is Trevor, why we asked this question. The question was more on the supplemental or the alternative budget.

If we drop that operational down to what level that it no longer becomes impactful, that whether we put $1.2 million or zero, either one is not impactful, even though it's still $1.2 million. And so we were trying to figure out what that was, and this helps us get there. Now that we see the results, I'd probably ask some of the questions differently to be able to dig, but it gives us an understanding What is actually impactful? So when we really need to make a decision.

So this will definitely relate to that alternative budget.

Yes. What are the numbers on the Y-axis? The 0 to 1400? Yeah. What's that represent?

Children. Is it? If you look at the Excel table. It's the—. So it's combining, like, this is combining different program types.

That's the total kids in the program types, not that parents and licensed providers are providing 1,200. It's total.

Yeah, though I would have done something different with that Y-axis, but—. Okay. Another, I think that for our discussion, this is another piece we'll come back to and talk more about when we know what we're working with, with the budget numbers.

So for the ASD Pre-K, we've got our mentee poll and the public input survey. So the public input put 50% funding at the top, 100% funding in the middle, and 75% there. So we all went 100, 50, 75.

Early literacy. Um, we had 50% as board discussion as our number 1. The public input survey had 0% as number 1 and 100% as number 2.

Very different. Yeah. Separated by 2 votes. Yeah. So more discussion for us that this is helpful.

Talking about in the survey, what program has had the greatest impact to your facility? Operational grants. Was clear, a standout, the child— followed by the Child Care Workforce Subsidy, Capital Pilots, etc.

So looking at the public input, It's really clear that we— 2 pieces really rise to the top. The worker subsidy and the operational grants are the most effective. They have the greatest impact. They're the most asked for by our providers and those who respond to our input. We also, as a board, prioritize those pieces, reserve only targeted dollars for capital and pilot projects.

And that I think is something that will come based on the review of data. It's secondary to what funding do we have left.

And number 4 that came out of that is treat ASD pre-K early literacy as measurable commitments, not open-ended growth areas. Like, how can we make decisions if we are going to have those in our budget again, how we make decisions that continue to provide services that maybe are a little more equitable to the rest of our programming.

So, do we have questions? Let's pause and maybe Trevor, you want to lead some discussion around what we've reviewed. Yeah, well, and we'll get into that. Is there any initial questions or thoughts before we bring up our two budgets?

Okay, why don't we bring up the, our first budget, the recommended budget.

And let's share screen.

So, yeah, give me that header. So again, we all just to center ourselves, Treasury is Treasury, that's determined Uh, we dropped our admin down to 9%, if I'm remembering correct. We prioritized operational grants, child care worker subsidies. Uh, those are our priorities, and then the rest went into pilot and capital. There is some desire for capital and pilot and opportunities of partnering and maybe honing in.

That will come later. We might even create some space. If we have it today, let's use it. But as we look at this, uh, operational grants, it's the number one, has the greatest impact. And even at 2.4% of what people give, what is helpful.

Now, there's no science behind it. We gave them a range, uh, we didn't ask people to give numbers and then we figure it out. We just asked for opinion. And we just know that any funds are greatly helpful, that they're under-resourced. It's—.

The more is helpful. But we don't know what is the right number and/or what is that maximum amount. We just know that we're definitely under.

There— if we wanted to see some piling capital, there could be some room in child care worker subsidies. Uh, so Christina pointed out when we created this was based off of 75%, it's actually 85%. Just so you know, again, 165, 5 added per month. We don't know when that will plateau. There's going to be a point where that plateaus.

We don't know what that is, and nor did we ask or have the time to go, all right, for the past year, show us each month to see was the first month high and the other months has already plateaued. We don't know that yet. We're still figuring this out. But we also know that at least about 2 people, just shy of 2 people fall off a month. So if we did 3 per month added, guaranteed, that's about 36.

That is approximately 200— well, it's 201. So the 200 is a good number.

We also don't know some questions we should be asking and getting them to explore is I'm actually personally surprised that families that are also receive a state subsidy is actually smaller than those who don't, and I actually thought it would be reversed. Don't know why. Uh, so as we're getting more sophisticated with the data and figuring these things, uh, we need them to be giving. So Christine and I will be working on that as we do more and more of this, we get and we get better and better. But there could be some cost savings there.

But again, we can only go off the data. So based off of that, $200 at 85 is about 1.2— well, no, that was wrong. What was 285?

Is about 1 point— $3,700,000. So we would have room if we wanted. We could probably drop that by about $100,000 and move that over to Pylon and Capital.

We could also drop it more if we really wanted the 75%, but we've already established the families are at 85%. Does that impact them negatively, potentially? Don't know, and again, don't have the data to be able to tell. So we want to make sure that we're just conscious of that, but there could be additional wiggle room. And ultimately, you could also look at operational grants, 2.4.

We could say 2.3 or 2.2, everything has to give, or we just also live that we just won't have as much for capital and pilot.

So those are the scenarios. I'm not presenting what it should be. I would love to hear conversation from the board. What stands out to you? What's important to you?

And it could be a completely different scenario that I just shared.

So, uh, Can we— we're going to stop sharing.

We can always pull this stuff back up just so I can see faces. Would anybody like to start off the conversation with what I shared with agreement, disagreement, or add your own thoughts? Uh, what could be a potential option for us?

Leo. Okay, my initial thought was that when you brought up, as you know, in the menu of options, moving kind of $100,000 from the subsidy program to the pilot capital, I like that concept and I'm open to that because I think that stability was mentioned in the survey. And I'm aware that the pilot in Capital didn't rank among the public survey at the top, but I think there is value to the sensibility and the projects that have been out there and see what can be accomplished. And then one thing I was— question I had, which we might not have the answer about the data, is for the families that aren't receiving the state subsidy, yeah, I mean, I'm curious of the reasons. Is it because of an eligibility issue or if we know, you know, the main reasons why?

So everyone who's participating in this program has to apply first to state subsidy. So if they're not participating, it's because they were denied. And if they were denied, the eligibility is income-based. And if they're working in a— if they have a job or school. So if they're working, if they're participating in this program, they have a job.

So that would lead to say it's eligibility. And our income eligibility. And I, I'm actually not surprised. I think our— there's a big gap of those who can't afford childcare but are making too much money to be able to be on state assistance like that. But that they're not eligible for is not— it's still not a livable wage, right?

So it's about 45% of the participants are on CCAP. And I think the other pieces, I'm not surprised, aren't. They probably just missed the cutoff income-wise, and that's who we're hoping to serve. That's where they have to make the decision. Like, I barely make enough to continue working here, but—.

Yeah, it would be hard to get by, right? And it's household income too, so they might not be making very much, but if they have a spouse that's making it, then it puts them out of eligibility. So it's that thing of there may be, you know, point in them working. And the other thing to worth mentioning is that the state has regulations out right now to— so right now it stops at 85% state median income, and they have regulations now to cover up to 105% state median income. So more families will qualify.

If those regulations passed. Those are out for public comment right now. That would make a difference here. That would take some of the, the other 50% of our providers, and I would, I would guess that some of them would also qualify after that. But it would take some time.

Yeah, for the, for that all, that's probably a year out. Yeah.

We also asked the state. They haven't decided if they're going to do a similar program to this or not. So we didn't want to discontinue this. So maybe in a year we'll know both with that and the state, and we might be able to cut this, or it's, I'll say, obsolete on the local level, and we're able to have more dollars to do other work. So, so is the status that the state is still considering?

It's not ruled out, it's just not decided, right? Yeah.

As we all know, a lot of attention's been going to rural health, and I don't know how— where other things are at, and just space-wise.

Jessica.

Uh, the other thing I was going to say, that the state was doing the CCG pilot and they were sending out the extra dollars based on the kids' age that were enrolled. And that, you know, from providers was probably also helped with operational. And if they continue to do that, I know they have a meeting coming up to figure out what they're doing, but if they were to continue doing that, maybe our operational dollars we could spend elsewhere.

Thank you. And just to remind folks, and I can't remember what it stands for, what's CCG stand for? Child Care Grant. Thank you. Yep.

So, yeah, and Branwyn, I think, You know, we've had some discussions about the magnitude of those funds when they were putting them out. Those were essentially operational grants. Yeah. Same categories that you're able to spend them. The only requirement for a program is to be participating in child care assistance.

And so there's a few requirements there, but it's another piece if they choose. Right now we have to make our decision on 2027. With the unknown what those programs will be to move forward, but those are two that are being, are in discussion that they do have funding that they will be putting out. So I think we make our decision on what's best for our providers now and know that we're watching the outcome of those two programs. Well, and even with the state giving, we don't know what that amount will be And what we saw is we're already under.

So us stopping doesn't mean because the state is giving that they're meeting the needs. So for local, so there's a lot around that.

It's, it's been, this is where data becomes really important. And as we're trying to figure out that piece, at times we are making, I don't want to say best guess, but in working with the data that we have, which can be a challenge. Other thoughts from the board? I'd love to hear from everybody.

Hi, this is Mildred speaking. For me, just reviewing the report and also just reflecting on the presentation that Christina just just facilitated here. I mean, we see very clearly that operational grants is a high priority with our providers. And also throughout the report, I continue to read how program stability was highlighted. I did read a few statements where there were— I don't know if it was— it was more than one individual state.

Please consider the stability and— I'm trying to think of the words. Consider the stability of the current programs and to lower the amount for the pilot piece. So I just think our providers are really just loud and clear informing us that the operational grants is really important to them because with the operational grants, then they can use those funds for staffing, for rent. They were saying how the rent, the cost of rent has increased. So they're really needing support right now.

So Yeah, that's, that's what I— that's where I am right now. Thank you, Mildred. Kevin, I saw you had muted. Yeah, so I'm, I don't know, I'm racking my brain because I'm wondering what is normal turnover in the sector, in a healthy sector. You know, I saw the same thing as Mildred did, that the sector supports operational grants, and I think operational grants are great because it gives you a lot of flexibility.

You can use that money for salaries, you can use it for rent, you can use it for utilities, you can use it to subsidize childcare for your employees, you can use it for a lot of stuff. And it makes sense that centers would want that first. But thinking through our role too in this, right, our, our objective is not to represent the sector specifically, it's to make sure that there's quality affordable childcare spots for kids. And so I think on top of that, the stability in the program for childcare subsidies is important because we don't really even know if that works yet, right? Like it's not been in place long enough to know for certain how big the impact is and how durable that impact is.

And so I think when we think of stability, that one is my top. But then I think on top of that, like if this was the restaurant business, right, we would expect a certain number of restaurants to fail every year and certain number of new restaurants to open every year.

And if we invest in capital projects for restaurants, we'd get more openings. We might on net get more restaurants in town. And so if we think about childcare centers in the same vein, some number of sectors probably should be closing every year. I know I'm not supposed to say that out loud. Please, I'm glad I did this remotely so nobody can hit me.

Expect some amount of turnover of new centers opening every year too. And I'm wondering if we completely cut pilot projects, are we losing new openings as well? And so like, I don't know what the balance is, is what I've been trying to think through. But I think all 3 are worthy objectives because of that. Like, we want to see some churn because who knows, maybe the new opening is going to be a big one, or it's going to be some innovative idea that solves the childcare problem entirely.

Maybe there's centers that need to close because they just don't make sense, or there's something structurally wrong with their, their business plan. But we want to make sure too that we're giving support to those current programs that are doing the work. And so I'm coming— I'm talking to a circle to say I'm not sure what we should do, and this is a difficult decision, but I think we need balance between the three things.

Kevin just brought something to my mind. I hope it's okay if I speak on this. Please. But another thing that comes to my mind when we talk about the pilot and capital projects Right now, THREADD is, has a grant opportunity for individuals that are opening licensed programs. And right now we have about 20 individuals that are in the program, and THREADD will be, of course, supporting them as well as financially supporting them to open these new programs.

So I think we have to also consider that there's other entities that are supporting, um, like capital, these projects, um, that are so that we can use that funding, uh, for, for something else.

Thank you. Yeah, uh, that's one of the reasons we didn't, uh, really push, but we were looking at creating a small fund for covering the opening knowing that the state was doing that. So that's one of the reasons we didn't. I also know most of our capital projects— pilots were maybe wasn't so much about new, it was like a concept, but most of our capital was in existing and whether it was creating some room for additional kids, sometimes doing infant and/or a lot was around playground and just creating their space. And being able to have that covered.

So they either use other funds for other things or the operational side of stuff. A lot wasn't based off of, I want to start a program, I need starting money, or I've just started and I need some additional capital.

I want to share that I have been sitting with a lot of, you know, looking through a lot of the feedback that we've received, but most importantly, visiting and meeting with each program who's gotten a capital project this year or last year. And I've learned a lot by visiting with the providers. And one of the things that I wasn't expecting to see is how impactful the funds were beyond the project that they listed and what they were completing. And so When we sit— when I've been sitting with these providers and Carlos has been with me, they want to show us the whole program. They want to talk about something completely different that they're also doing.

They want to talk about something they're applying for now because it's like starting this trajectory of now I see what's possible and I see that we can do it. And I know there's opportunities out there and they're like partnerships are strengthening and Um, so while there are other opportunities, and we know Rasmussen, you know, we're partnering with them, they have some capital opportunities for nonprofits. It's really both. I'm seeing that both are so critical. The operational— we can, we can do a startup fund.

We can help with a capital project to make a classroom beautiful. There's parents on the waiting list. They're ready, but the workforce is still the bottom, the biggest issue. So these operational funds are providing some stability for the program to support their staff, support their workforce. And that's the top number one— flexible funding is what they're asking for and what they need.

And then partnering that with these capital projects and these opportunities, I think, is really key. That's really what's supporting growth and almost like buy-in ownership. Like, those are the programs that aren't going to turn around and close, that are more dedicated to the success of childcare. And the more they're participating, the more they're getting connected in this whole system. So I just wanted to point that out.

It's kind of underscoring what Kevin was saying that, you know, all 3 of those are really important. And that would be my, my note to share with everyone while you're discussing this.

Any other comments from board members? Chuck, anything you want to share or put in the chat?

Um, I guess just to share with everyone, I developed Bell's palsy, so, uh, hopefully it's only temporary, but that's why I'm not very talkative right now. Uh, it's kind of hard for me to talk, but, um, yeah, I think I remain. I think all three are important.

I do struggle with— I think the data on the operations was really helpful to see kind of what people thought would be meaningful, but I would support some distribution between all three and making sure we continue to invest in capital projects.

Thank you, Chuck. Georgina. Um, I am, I don't know, it's like supporting the operational grants a little more than the pilot if it came to that. Um, but I do recognize the, the value in all programs. Um, I do like the idea of moving maybe those $100K from the subsidies just because we see that we maybe not need that much money for it into— for me personally, I like it to go to the operational grants, um, but if it goes to the capital and pilot projects, I'm okay with that too, if that's what the majority wants.

Um, yeah, and I know it's not a lot of money, like, from the question of, like, how much money would you need to make it a meaningful difference. Obviously, we're not providing all the money that would make that meaningful difference for them, but I think Just a little bit of it helps for sure, just like many programs like WIC or supplemental programs, right? They don't pay for all the groceries, but they help quite a bit the family. So I feel in a similar way, the operational grants provide some relief. I was reading also some of the comments, and one of the providers just was talking about how they barely get month by month because they have an in-home license program.

So yeah, it's hard for the, I think, smaller programs sometimes, the bigger ones too, but one of the comments was that they don't see as much help coming for them. So something to keep in mind.

Thank you all. So Uh, we heard you very clear, Chuck. Thank you. Uh, question, remind me, when we created this budget, was based off of $5.5 million or $5.2 million? $5.2 Million.

That's what we're projected to get in, right? Yes. So what I'm, I'm going to make a proposal and, uh, hopefully somebody will make that motion, second, and we can open up for discussion, is I'm going to make a proposal or ask somebody to do it, is that we actually drop child care worker subsidy down to $1.4 million, move $100,000 over to capital, and make that our budget with also the understanding that we're going to ask Christina. One thing we have not talked about is What are the potential rollover dollars? Now I say that because right now child care subsidy was at— is that $1.625 million.

We won't be spending all that. There should be, I'm going to say, at least a couple hundred thousand rollover, potentially 3 to 4, that we asked Christina to find and let us know rollover And we build that into the overall budget that we turn into the mayor knowing we're also predicting approximately this much that it would go into the capital project. And then in the new year, we will confirm that that is and making sure the right amount goes out, but that should get us to about— I'm going to say around the range of $1 million, whereas last year or this year it was at $1.25 million. And we increased it by how much? Because we had to add $50,000.

So technically, we actually budgeted for $1 million last year, but because of process, uh, numbers weren't being watched and we over-resourced, as we all know, and we moved out $250,000 from the child care workers. So it would put us almost equal at what we had for capital projects. And level things out. So that's what I would recommend, and as Chair, I'm not going to make that proposal. I'll make a motion.

Thank you. Can you state what the motion is? Okay, I'll move that in terms of the draft that we're looking at, we will move $100,000 from the child care worker subsidy into the pilot capital and any rollover funds to be calculated from that same program worker subsidy into the pilot capital with the goal of getting to around $1 million. Is that a fair summary?

Yes. Does that work for everybody? And what I need is a second. Can we stop sharing the screen? Sorry, so I can just see faces.

Thank you. Do I hear a second?

And a second doesn't mean it goes forward. It opens up for discussion. I second. Bronwyn got it just before you, Mildred, but thank you.

Open for conversation. Like it, dislike it, friendly amendments?

The only friendly amendment I might make is we said just any leftover funds from child care workers. We might actually have some from capital as well that we move all of the rollover funds to the capital project. That's the only friendly amendment I would make. Do you accept that? I accept.

Okay, Bronwyn. Okay, any other feedback, thoughts?

Can we go Christina, can you remind us, so how many kids would this cover at our current level of support? It's like all of them, right? Yeah, so we're currently at 165 kids with 85%. So, and that—. It would cover current kids plus growth of what they anticipate.

Yeah, I was gonna say, even with this move, we'd be able to still make everyone whole from last year and grow the program potentially.

Correct. Okay. Any other discussion? Sorry, just finishing the thought out loud. I think that that takes care of some of the concerns about being like stable for those people who are already in the program because we wouldn't be, we wouldn't need to be pulling the benefit from anybody in order to fund this change, which I think is really good.

Or reducing it. Pulling it or reducing. Yes. Right.

Seeing no other discussion, we'll call the vote. Anybody opposed?

Hearing none, it passes unanimous. Budget 1 done. Not the hard budget. Great, and thank you all. What a great conversation.

So appreciate it and love seeing how we're looking at the data, what we have, also asking for more data as we're looking at this and how best to support this viable service in our community. So I just really appreciate it. Okay, do you have everything on your side right now, Christina? I do. Great.

Okay, let's look at the alternative budget. This is where it gets tough.

We'll give Christina a moment to bring that up. Yeah, sure. Adobe is trying to play as you're trying to—. The computer process. Just a clarification of going back to something that you mentioned earlier about the two scenarios.

So, are we— is your suggestion that we bring up the 2 scenarios when we first present it to the administration? Yes. Okay. And is there any risk that it's going to make it— well, first of all, I strongly support the Plan A budget. Obviously, seems like there's consensus on that, but I guess my concern, just to share, is that I'm a Right.

If we propose a contingency budget, will it make it easy for— easier for decision makers to just go to the contingency budget? I know that's not the goal, but that's just a concern. And I don't— there's probably pros to the plan, but I just want to put it out there that to make sure that we've thought through that, that is which way is more effective. And I don't have the answer, but I wanted to kind of see if you all have, you know, reasoning for that, because the alternative is that we bring up the contingency later, right? Conversation, which I'm sure— and you work in this world, so you probably thought about it, but I guess I was just curious of the reasons for this being the, the plan.

Yeah, no, appreciate that. It's a great question, and let's do that before we get into it. And I am completely open to not following that plan, so One, I thought, and from last year, was we were rushed to try to figure out an alternative. Second is by having a conversation about alternative, I'm assuming, Bill, any one of them can look at the minutes, but they've been in the room, so they already know. So it's not, I guess it's not hidden in that sense.

So if they really, and I don't know if they know we even talked about it or not. I don't know if you've had a conversation with Bill with as your supervisor. So any of that, and we did, they never came. And the biggest issue would be, and maybe this is what we do, is they never came back to us going, yeah, we can't meet, this is what we recommend, what are your thoughts? Or going, actually, no, it needs to change.

Um, they never came to us, and then we were scrambling to work with the assembly to what that looked like. So I was trying to be preemptive of going, if you're going to make the change, at least make the change based off of the recommendations of not just quote unquote the board, but from the community feedback who are experts, lived experience, and the expertise of this board and all the work that we have done, that it's, it's not a waste. So that's how I was approaching it. So there could be maybe another approach. Would love that feedback, and I really appreciate that question.

Maybe it's like, if you don't agree with this and you're thinking of doing changes, is there a way to have a meeting with us first so we can give feedback? Something of that nature. Or maybe there's another option. Would love to hear people's thoughts around this. And just in response, I mean, I think that reasoning It's— I can see the logic of the reasoning.

So I think there's kind of, you know, positives about both. Yeah, I appreciate that explanation. I mean, Christina, I don't— since you're with these folks day to day, I mean, do you have thoughts about— it is efficient in terms of making sure that we communicate the priorities and then they see the impacts of any cuts. But I guess I'm open to others' feedback on that process. Yeah, they— I— I know that Bill will watch our, you know, he's in touch with, with our meetings and what we're doing.

And I have mentioned that we're wanting to make sure that what happened last time and not us scrambling to, you know, that decisions are made. I think even as we're discussing with assembly members, as we're meeting with them, we're wanting to stress what Trevor was saying, which is we're getting public input. We have expertise on the board where we want to have a say in what our budget looks like at the end of the day. So if so, I think if there's knowledge that we're working on, our main goal is our recommended budget, and if that doesn't come forward, we have opinions on what we would like to see this program based on. So I think that's public knowledge.

So I would say, like, the transparency piece of what Trevor is mentioning of putting them up front in the same budget is there.

And I also think it would be acceptable to request a meeting to say, please have a, you know, can we have a discussion if what we put forward as a recommendation is not what's going to be put forward to the assembly? Both could, I think both would be acceptable on the administration side. Yeah. I'm okay going with the mapped course. I think adding the meeting request to me doesn't hurt on top of that.

I just wanted to kind of understand the whole process, but I'm good with the plan. So thanks for the explanation. Yeah, well, I never explain why you ask a question as board members. I want you to ask questions, and you should be asking those questions. So we're making it as a board decision, and I thought that I probably— and maybe did— so really do appreciate that question and would love to hear other board members.

Are you along that same line? Do you differ? What would you like? And this is a great time 'cause we're only having 2 others review the letter and then we're gonna share it out. So we'd love your feedback.

What do you wanna ensure that we add in? What are we maybe not thinking about? Or is there another approach that works better? And as a side note, we also heard, but we haven't got confirmation, like we met with the mayor and they're like, we don't know. We've been told that they were trying to look at where ASD could go.

And not under us and work towards that. Haven't heard anything. Now, I haven't personally reached out and asked, and maybe that's something we should do even before our letter, and I can work with Christina on doing that to see where they're at. But I also know that they're kind of working on their budget and they're probably working with bigger, and it seems like our stuff happens later. So we're ahead of the game.

It would be nice to know maybe that we could get this later to them. I don't know. So. That's a piece of it, is timing is a part of it. Others' thoughts?

Again, I also would love to hear, yeah, we like what you outlined, go forward, or not. Please give us that. I need that sounding board.

I think one thing that's been in my mind since we heard about the you know, the changes initially of moving some things from the alcohol tax onto, onto the ACE Fund board, and whether or not we'd move it back has been how this is sold to voters and what our objective is as a board and for the fund and the program. And I don't know if it's our place to raise those concerns directly with the mayor, right? But I don't remember our objective when this fund was started being funding AST programs, but those programs need to be funded. They're incredibly high impact, and like, they need to find another source, like because we can't let them go, you know, and I think that's where I've lived. So I don't know how much it is for us to comment on the political side of things since we are— we're not really charged with doing that as a board.

But I think my concern too is it makes it harder to find those resources in the future when we magically manage to move things around at the last minute all the time and sort of be flexible with the promises that we made in the past in order to achieve things as much as we can. But we're really just rearranging, like, chairs on a sinking ship.

No, I appreciate that, Kevin. I'm grumpy this morning, if you guys can't tell. I didn't sleep well. I like when you don't sleep well.

A little more ornery. I like it. Other thoughts? I will comment to that and also what we're kind of that larger plan that we've talked about. But, um, other thoughts?

It's kind of respond— so, Kevin, as the, the guy who got the ballot passed, it was never intended that ASD would come over, and recognized that we had extra funds at the time We also thought better things of how we could really set things up. I think it actually delayed us, but I also recognize the challenges that the mayor was facing in the work that they've been doing around the homelessness and that balance.

Seeing it in 2 years in a row and then recognizing there was going to be a point where we don't have extra money, it was always like the idea that we had $5 million plus $2 million going towards early childhood, not just 5, and things rolled over. So I can be an— and the mayor and them are absolutely right. What ASD is doing does qualify for these dollars. We didn't write in the ordinance, these dollars just only go to— and ASD can never touch, right? You would never write that.

So, uh, they were— they are correct. They aren't breaking anything on the ordinance and so forth. It is, I believe, this job, and the reason we created a board and asked a board was one, to make sure that experts, those with lived experience, uh, the economics, and also just understands the industry, were coming together to make the decision, and it wasn't being placed on people that just had good ideas but didn't have the knowledge or that experience. So making sure that we had expertise and guidance but it was also to make sure that there was a voice connected to these dollars because the Children's Trust and myself, we're only going to be around for so long and we can't be that single voice. That this board was always advocating what the city's role needed to be, not just with these dollars but the bigger picture.

That's why we have started working on how do we get not just the larger data but what is our role around early childhood and being a leader and really galvanizing our community. That is the role of this board, and that's why we wanted the board, is that it was that voice. And that's why we've asked you all— we're meeting with assembly members, letting them know what's going on, heads up, and building the support of looking at, yes, investing in homelessness is needed, but if all we invest in is at the bottom end and nothing at the top end, let's not be surprised this bottom end only seems to grow. And we're not asking for $50 million. We look at the amount of money our city's putting towards the tertiary, that endpoint homelessness, and we're just asking for $2 million.

It's a very small amount. And we as a board should and need to be communicating that. That's why we are at the table. And then outside advocates like the Children's Trust is also forming, figuring out, okay, what's the advocacy that we need to do as well? And yes, I recognize I can sometimes have to play the dual role.

So I support us having that voice but done in a respectful way. Uh, the mayor knows that we're meeting with assembly. We're not hiding it. Uh, we've been very direct with her in voice and sharing and so forth. So I think we're being a good board and a transparent board and doing what we've been mandated to do.

Which is not just manage these funds as best to support and stabilize this industry, but to make sure that there's a stronger voice in this system of bureaucracy of the importance of it.

You're much more tactful than I am. Only today.

You bet.

Okay. Um, all right, it sounds like, uh, we will definitely ask about a meeting. I—. Let's make sure that's in— you got that written down because we didn't actually have that in the draft. It's a really good point.

Um, we'll also follow up with the mayor on, um, to ask to meet, even to talk. Like, I don't want them just to read the letter. We'll set up a time to meet, um, and we'll put it out there that 2 additional board members if they'd like to join, because again, if we have more than 3 of us in the room, it becomes a public meeting that we can meet with the mayor. So we can get that, and once we have that, we'll see what people's availability is. So other ways of making sure you as board members are involved and that voice is there, and it's not just your chair, and making sure we share that.

So Okay, great stuff. Love these conversations, and I don't feel like we're being rushed because we actually have the time. This is perfect. All right, so let's get into the more in-depth conversation, I think, and this is where it's going to get hard. Is so, Best Beginnings Early Literacy is what we're calling it, and trying to ask if they want early literacy in there that's not dedicated to a single organization.

We put it out The likelihood is best beginnings, but we're trying to be equitable. ASD is a little different around that, but this is what we had. So this is where it gets tough. So we had child care work subsidies at 1.5. I'm going to just right now suggest we change to 1.4 to represent what we had.

So we just have that and move that $100,000 to operational, so make that 7. Our admin stayed at that 9%. We still need that, and again, that is based off of having our salaries covered of the 2 team members and then some room to be able to do some of the additional work that we have to do. Treasury is Treasury. If AASD stayed in, we know January through June, which we need to fund because they can't just end their program, is that $941,000, that's the unspent dollars.

Then we, uh, because it was $2 million, we were going 6 months, 6 months is $1 million, that we went with 75%, which is $750,000. And then we, uh, and just so you know, once we had that, we divided operational and pilot evenly. That's where we got that 640, and we left it at that knowing we need more data. We wanted to survey and have conversation.

I'm happy to maybe walk us through a little bit, but I also want to just open it up to discussion. Um, can, uh, board members— uh, we can't— oh, we're just going to stop sharing. Does anybody have an initial thought? So looking at that budget, I'll pull it back up here in a moment if you need it, but does anybody have initial recommendations when you see this that you would like to see a change to begin that conversation? Or I'm happy to be that person and start leading us down that.

You all like Trevor, go for it. All right. Go for it, Trevor. Okay, well, let's bring up that budget. So let's just deal with ASD first, and I think there's always value in looking at what the community was telling us.

And I think there's good, and it was more providers, it wasn't families. I don't know if we targeted, and maybe next time we do something with providers different from the general public. And I don't know what we want from general public, but it is what it is. When we look at, at this, you know, people were suggesting like 50% funding. So really what it does is say it would change it by $250,000.

One of the things we know, if we look back, one of the reasons we went with 75 was It went— took us down just to 7 classrooms, but still served 140 kids, and some of the other services remained. So it was the closest thing to whole, recognizing that is probably the most kids that we can serve at a high level of quality. I think, as Kevin pointed out, about part of our investment needs to be about quality. And we know what the standards are with ASD and so forth. Not saying that providers outside ASD don't have quality, but it's a high range, and it's established programs.

Um, dropping down to 50 would half the program. Uh, those kids would need to go somewhere, and I don't know where they would go. I don't know by taking $500,000 moving it to any one of those other categories, those, uh, half of the kids, so 70 kids, would be served somewhere else. So looking at this, my recommendation would be keeping ASD at that 75%.

Thoughts on that piece? I would agree. I think I'm gonna get a t-shirt made with this written on it, but I know this sucks. But you're right, it's a high-quality program. Where else are these kids going to go?

And if we're the backstop, we're already, right, like the source of funding people figured out as the place to go. I, I, if they had a third place, they would have gone there. So I support keeping it at 75. And just so you know, I wear a medium-sized shirt. Sorry, Mildred.

I'll make one for everybody if they want them. I'll take it, Kevin. I was just saying I agree with what Kevin just stated. Where are these children going to go? So I agree, I support the 75%.

Okay.

Chuck or Jessica?

I support the 75.

Okay, Chuck, if you want to put things in the chat, we'll be monitoring that. Or you can do a thumbs up. Yeah, or that emoji in the chat. He just said he supports as well. Thank you.

Thank you, folks in the room.

As far as A&C goes, I think that makes sense, the 75%.

You gotta look though. What are your thoughts other than it sucks? Yeah, I know. If we have to, we'll do it. Yeah, I mean, my biggest— what I don't know for sure is those ASD programs— I should have already asked this, but they're half-day programs, right?

The classrooms. So I just think we need to be aware those aren't—. They're not helping adults work. So they are high quality on the early education side, but they're not doing that other thing of providing— truly providing child care. Because if you have a program from 9 to 12 or something, it's pretty hard to work around your full-time jobs.

So thank you. I was not thinking from that standpoint. This is why we're opening it up for conversation and questions. Yes, some parents on that note, I think, have to pick up their kids and take them somewhere else. So you're already adding on other childcare in addition to the— often the folks I know, it's in the morning.

I don't know if that's all of them, but—. I'm just getting up to grab some water. No, no, no, you're fine. I had a hot chocolate. Does that change people's thoughts?

It's a good point.

I'm not hearing anything. We're going to leave as that 75, and then we can always come back around. Other conversations may lead to things. Okay.

Um, let's just talk about Best Beginnings. We did— we zero— we said zero.

Originally? Yeah, I thought we— oh, we did. Okay.

Well, there was a Menti poll, there was lots of discussion. So in our Menti poll, we had cut it to 50%, uh, was the top one. And then through conversation, conversation, this is where we landed. Okay, thank you.

Public, and again, this isn't about value of Best Beginnings, the work they do, who they are as an organization. This is literally coming down to money of what we can and can't do and where will be the best return on investment at this point in time.

So public said 0 and then 100. Ours said 50%. So I'm just pointing that out. Yeah, at the Menti, and then we had the conversation. Yeah.

What was the number originally for 100% funding? 100% Is $125,000. Yeah. Really, 50% is just 75. It's not even 75.

Right? It's about 67, 62, yeah, 62.5 basically. Thank you.

So we could do something small. We also need to think, we know an Assembly member, this was very important. It may still, do we want to have at least something in there and not be surprised? It's, and/or we let them figure that piece out and we just recommend. And early, early literacy is very important.

Doesn't do anything with child care, but our fund isn't just child care. It is about early, but we know the primary focus is child care because that is the thing that's most vital to people when we think about the economy, jobs, and the reason why they passed this.

My current thought is that if we have around $100,000, $125,000, I think it's best spent in the other 3 buckets. I think some of those other funding streams already go to some programs that also support early literacy. It's not their number one, but I mean, a lot of the preschool and other programs do lay a foundation. I know that one of the positives referenced about the book program was that it's reaching children who aren't in these, you know, programs or maybe are at home more. So I'm taking that into consideration, but I think that in terms of like the survey results, keeping that 100,000 or so in the operational and pilot, which are already very low and will make it difficult to hit any of those, it will make a difference.

Impact points from the survey, so I'm comfortable keeping that in the other categories right now. Thank you. Anybody have a different opinion?

I do agree with Khalil. I also think that maybe that assembly member is still going to force that hand, and having, like you said, a contingency plan to that, even if it's just like $40K out of the capital impel it, just to say that we are trying to adhere to what you said, but this is really all that we can do, just as an option. But I, I'm fine with just keeping it at zero too. Or maybe for once they maybe just not give $100,000 to homeless out of that $11 million. So, okay, well, that will be something when we meet with that assembly member, that will be a key thing that's talked about is this conversation and really working with that individual if this is what they want, how to support them without impacting this and what that looks like.

So, okay, let's move forward then. We're keeping that. So we come down to operational and pilot. So similar, we know there's going to be some rollover dollars. Can be $200,000, maybe up to $400,000, uh, and we'll figure that out and do some estimating.

So I'm just gonna go off of conservatively, I think at least $200,000.

So we could— so this is where it comes into, we really have to have a conversation about operational grants. It's the number one thing. But when we look at, and that was the idea of that one question, um, trying to figure out, you know, What is actually impactful? And if we get too low, is it just a waste of money? And to be honest, I can't really answer this.

And there are people in this room that can, like, is any amount better than no amount? Like, and/or we have to sacrifice. And Bronwyn, you've got this look and we're gonna rely on you. Yeah. Just looking at this graph, I think it shows us that the amount that people are going to get with the $740 goes— is nowhere on the chart of what could be helpful, right?

Like everyone else said it too, it seems like. So it's just you're giving $12 per kid to people and what's that going to do? It's not enough. I think another way to say it also is, of course, every provider, any dollar is helpful, but at the same time, the— our funds, their impact by spread, like they're saying it's not impactful unless it's a certain amount. And even if we said, we know it won't be impactful, but we still want to give you some, the spread of the funds that we have loses its impact if we reduce it that way.

Well, we reduce also capital, so that also reduces them. Is it worth it? So, so the question would be, so if we put it all into operational, which is the top, it would be, uh, that's $1.3 million, just shy of $1.4 million with $200,000 with a little bit of change, it would be $1.6 versus the $2.4, and that includes the rollover dollars of at least that $220,000, and it could be higher.

That would make a difference. That would be much closer and be realistic, and then we don't have piloted capital.

I think when it comes to this conversation with ASD and Best Beginnings, having— we, we have data to show what is impactful and also having a, like, it's a bigger statement to say we can't even do any pilots in capitals if we include ASD. Here is a more impactful statement. We've got all of these great stories, these impact one-pagers on our website of what these funds did for pilots and capitals over the last 2 years. And so, providing 2 budgets may seem like, well, we'll just, we can, we can still do this, we'll eat it. But having these talking points to say, we can't even offer pilots and capitals is a strong move.

I would say, and it is also where we're at. We can't provide less operational grants, which is our number 1 recommendation.

If they're not going to be impactful, so where else are we going to take those funds to make that happen?

So you're kind of saying it's the ugly truth, right? We obviously don't. Like this scenario, but it's a good strategy in terms of communicating the priorities and the impacts and the impact of the already key programs in our budget. Yeah, I just want to mention, I mean, I don't— definitely concerning to me to see the zero for pilot capital, but I know this is our contingency, but I also am aware that it is labor intensive. For the team to be administered.

If we shrunk down highly capital to something so small, it's labor-intensive just in terms of the process that you all go through. And then also, it's obviously very limited in terms of what's available for the applicants, you know, to go through all that work if we're not even offering very much, unfortunately. So that was a consideration for me.

I think Cleo's point is a big one, that like, if there's so little money that the pool is tiny and nobody's going to be funded, we're actually putting a burden on programs to apply. And we're— if anything, we might be hurting them, right? Because they have to find the time to fill out the application, come up with the project and everything else. And then we have a pool of money that we never intended to fund 90% of them. Like, that's just unkind.

And I, I also agree, zero is a really powerful number for message, right? That we're just— because I think it, it does give cover to people if there is any funding there. If somebody shows up and complains that they didn't get funded, they can go, well, it must have been your application, or because somebody else scored higher when the real mess— the real reason would be that there's just insufficient funding.

Other thoughts? Yeah, this is when the shirt is really true. It sucks. I agree with Kevin. I think it's, you know, it's going to take a lot of time for people to come up with a good idea and write that.

You know, really, there's just not enough.

And I think, like, we can highlight maybe going back to the letter how much this sucks. I think we've got somebody with Little Bears here with us, but that to me was one of the best spent, best uses of money. I know the process was whatever, but right, like, that capital project was a great example of we helped build a childcare center. Like, we created a bunch of spots. Capital projects matter.

But a pool of capital that's close to zero, like, you just can't do those kind of things.

Yeah, we don't want to keep adding if we can't also provide operational because we know the model is flawed without.

Any other feedback?

So if we can, we're going to now make you reshare the budget. That way. I know. Thank you.

So, zero operational, just really quick. Okay, so we can see operational. Yeah, just so we actually see what full money is left over.

So put in, uh, 1.38. That'll be close enough. We know what it is because there'll be some change there. But so what I would suggest is someone would make, uh, approval, or it might be even 1.381, but, uh, that you approve that this budget as is, or if you can see the full amount, do it. Um, yeah, let's do that.

Give us one second. So, you know, 62— no, 0862.

Okay, that, uh, the motion should read something of support budget as proposed here with all rollover funds available go to operational grants, which again will range between $200,000 and probably $400,000. Fingers crossed.

I will entertain such a motion if somebody would make it.

I'll make the motion to approve the contingency budget as is and have any rollover money go to operational grants. Thank you. Do I have a second?

Second. Thank you. I think that was Jessica, correct?

Thank you. All right, let's— any discussion?

Hearing none. Anybody opposed?

Hearing none, passes unanimous. Actually, that was easier than I thought in that sense. So thank you all, um, great conversation. And again, it's always great to be able to give out funds, but always the need is greater and it's very, very difficult. Uh, it's not as easy as people think, and today was a great example of that.

So thank you all for just sharing and sharing your opinions, but yet coming together and figuring out how best to move the sector forward. So congratulations and thank you.

Is there anything else we need to discuss? We do have a little bit of time. I'm thrilled to give it back to people, but Christina, was there anything that you needed from this group or we needed to talk about? And if not, that's fine as well. I'll just update that some of us have had a few meetings with Assembly members.

I'm still waiting on some Assembly members to respond so I can set up those meetings, but I appreciate the support and those have been going well. Um, I will go ahead and move forward. We can discuss after about requesting these meetings. I do want to say for the one budget that we recommend that doesn't include capital and pilots, I would like to pull back together the evaluation committee who worked together for these last pilots so we can discuss a little bit about— there was some feedback that some, some of us had after that opportunity and see how we could set that up. We want to be proactive in getting— if we are moving forward with some next year, what does that look like and what will be the platform?

But mostly, how do we want to make use of those funds? And in shaping that opportunity. So I'll be requesting that the evaluation committee come back together, and then we can bring feedback to the rest of the board. And the goal of all that is, is we want to try to get the funds out sooner, to even have an RFP out before the end of year, recognizing it's not guaranteed till the budget is approved, but moving things forward. But we'll have an idea where things at, even if we do that, depending on which budget that goes forward to really get ahead of things.

Christine and I have talked. One other thing is just grant system where you will look at a different grant system and not the— what is that? BizExpress. BizExpress. It's been very difficult.

And actually, the Children's Trust has offered, if they so choose, they can use our system. We'd give them full access to use Foundant as something different, one test pilot, see if they like it, but give time because we would not have time to find our own system. Now that we've been told that we can actually do that. And then do you want to give a status because the work has also been that Carlos is completely with you versus the Department of Health. Where is that and what stage is that at?

Yeah, we're working through that process still and hoping that'll be accomplished by the end of the year. Well, I'm being really forgiving with the time. So, um, one other thing I want to mention is anyone who's coming up for, um, changeover, their term ending with the board, if you'd like to continue, just all you have to do is send me an email saying who are those. I know it's me, um, Khalil, Khalil, and Brandon. Okay, the 3 of us.

Okay. I'll be looking for your email.

Okay.

Anything else for the good of the order? Any announcements?

Hearing none, give you back about 20 minutes. Thank you again for everybody's time. Thanks for the public for joining, and we will see you in September. Enjoy the rest of your summer.

Meeting adjourned at 11:39.

Dropdown. See the dropdown?