ACCEE Fund Board Meeting May 1, 2025

I know, right? Oh, you're so kind. Give me some pom-poms. I'll be your best cheerleader, I promise. Well, good morning, everybody.

Let's call this meeting to order and let's do roll call.

So I am here. Jessica? I'm here. Fantastic. Bronwyn?

See you on. Kevin? I'm here.

Khalil? Here.

Uh, Isabelle? Here. All right, you didn't bring the baby. I know, I know. We love seeing you though, but congratulations.

Yes. How is she? She's great. All right, well, pictures afterwards. Yes, you would love them.

Mildred? Here. There we go, thank you. Jesse? Here.

And Chuck, I believe, is on a plane to DC, so he won't be joining us. I did get to see him yesterday for something else. All right. We have a quorum. So again, thank you all for joining us this morning.

Uh, the agenda is before you. Is there any changes?

Hearing none, let's jump to approval of minutes, April 3rd. I'm assuming everybody had a chance to read through them.

Perfect. Thank you.

Entertain a motion to approve. Motion to approve. Thank you. Second. Second.

That was— that you, Jessica? Correct. Thank you.

All right, any comments, questions, changes?

Hearing none, anybody oppose?

Passes unanimous.

Do we have anybody from the public today on?

I see a lot of initials. Is there anybody online here for public testimony?

Hi, Crystal.

So public testimony, we keep to 2 minutes. So welcome, Crystal. It's all yours.

You're frozen.

As we wait for Crystal to reconnect, And Crystal, if you can hear us, it might help to turn the camera off. Is there anybody else for public testimony?

All right, let's see if Crystal— we will move, and when Crystal comes back on, we'll create the space for her to do public testimony.

Old business. Our first thing on the agenda is the executive director, uh, just update. Actually, last time we all met, uh, it was moving forward with the contract with Austin. It went to the assembly, uh, so that passed. I forget on what day, was close to the end of the month, like the 22nd, Bill.

So do you want provide kind of maybe next steps now that that's passed, or just an update from the administration? Yeah, next steps are all internal machinations. So it's now on me to finalize the actual contract form with Austin and then to push it through with what we call an SAP shopping cart. I will take that on, and I'm actually working on that this afternoon. But from the board's perspective, smooth sailing.

Every approval that we needed has been granted, and so we should be seamlessly transitioning from the prior arrangement to the Fantastic. Does anybody have any questions?

Oh, thank you. I just want to say thanks to Bill and Austin because they put a lot of work into this behind the scenes, more than we could have imagined, getting everything prepped at the last minute for the assembly. So, just want to say we appreciate it.

I ditto that. And I was remiss at the start, we do have 2 Assembly members joining us. I think it's just 2, one online. I see Cameron Perez Verdia and Ms. Silva? Silvers.

Silvers, thank you. So thank you for joining us today. Did either one of you need to or want to say anything?

No? Okay, just wanted to put it out there. Okay, uh, report out on Assembly work session. Well, one, um, that was great being able to meet with the Assembly. Uh, thank you to the team for putting that together, and thank you to all those who were able to attend.

Um, it was great to provide an update. There was great conversations, but it also provided an opportunity just to do some clarity. The Assembly members wanted to understand, uh, some of the contracts that that we were selecting and wanted to make sure that processes were also in place. One of the good feedbacks is that we want to ensure when we're putting things forward to the Assembly that there's a way that us as a board shows that we actually support items. So they're not just making the assumption it's coming from a singular entity or individual, that it's actually gone through the board, where do we stand with it.

There's a formal name for that, and I never wrote it down. There's a memo, but there's a formal name, right, Bill? When we put something before the assembly, uh, like a memo, an assembly information memo. Thank you, that's the formal name. Appreciate that.

So we will be instituting that. Austin, as our interim executive director, will help lead that. So anytime things go forward, as well as we will continue to communicate with the assembly, keep them apprised of what's going on so it's as smooth as possible, and hopefully minimize delays with timing and is able to get things through the system quicker, or at least with greater ease, is the goal. Oh, there she is. Yes, we're going to let Crystal in.

Hi, Crystal.

Can you hear us?

I can hear you. My computer completely froze there. Did you guys hear anything that I said? No, we did not. So we moved on.

However, we know you're here for public testimony, so we're going to go back to that and give you that opportunity. And for the record, please, please state your name and if you're affiliated with anybody. And you have 2 minutes. Okay, sorry about that. Crystal Hoak from Girdwood.

Some of you might remember I came in December to speak to the board and request capital for construction for the Girdwood Workforce Childcare Project. I am affiliated with Girdwood Inc., and which is in a joint project with Little Bears Playhouse, and I just wanted to— I think that there's a discrepancy on the December minutes It states that Ms. Hoak responded that Little Bears is seeking recurring annual funding, and I just wanted to make it clear that what we were asking for was a single allocation for the capital project for the Girdwood Workforce Childcare Project. And then separately, I serve as co-chair on Girdwood Housing and Economic Committee, and in that committee we've passed a resolution of support and it forwarded on to Girdwood Board of Supervisors, um, and it, it did pass, uh, for in hopes to— for Girdwood Valley Service Area to receive 1% of marijuana tax funds returning back to Girdwood. So it is very separate and different, um, from what I think the minutes say. So I just wanted to make sure that it was clear, and there's actually two separate resolutions to it to address.

Both of those things. So I also see that Little Bears is on the agenda, so I am happy to listen in on that and answer any questions or follow up if there is additional information needed. Thank you. Oh, and also just want to say we're really excited about being in the Q1 budget revision, and we are also re-breaking ground on our civil work tomorrow. We just received our building permit yesterday from the Planning Department, Permit Department, and construction is set to begin in 15 days.

So thank you. Well, congratulations, we're excited to hear it, and congratulations on the funding. I believe that closes your gap, correct?

So not completely closes our gap. We were expecting $980,000 from the from the federal government to be approved on December 20th, but you know that budget did not pass and they are now in a continued resolution state through March and then extended again through September. So we do still have a gap, but we are proceeding forward and we'll have to take out a loan if needed.

Sorry to hear that. Welcome to the club. There's a few of us that have experienced similar things. I'm sorry to hear that. Thank you for the update.

And actually, what we should maybe do is go back to the minutes and obtain— what is our reconsideration of the minutes? I appreciate Crystal bringing up that there is an incorrect, and we should make that change. So the Do we— did we capture the changes, Marie? What month? I was going— so I'm the one that takes notes, Mr.

Chair, and I was going— yeah, I was going to ask you to say it slowly again, Crystal, what the committee associated with Gerdwood Inc. was, because I didn't catch that.

No problem. So it is Gerdwood Housing and Economic Committee. And they voted unanimously in support for Girdwood Board of Supervisors to write a resolution regarding 1% of marijuana tax funds returned to the Girdwood Valley Service Area. And I realize that's a mouthful, and I'm happy to put it in the chat. Um, I think I got it, and you and I can follow up by email if I have any questions.

I just needed you to say that slowly again so I could get it down. Thank you. So I can make that change. Um. Maybe, Mr.

Chair, you could entertain a motion to change the minutes to reflect that update, and I'll make it. Absolutely. So entertain updating the minutes and making the change as outlined by Crystal. I'll make the motion. Thank you.

Got it. Did you get that, Austin? Kevin motioned. Khalil second. Everybody's going fast.

I love it. Okay, any questions? Anybody opposed? All right, that passes. Thank you again, Crystal, for providing that clarity and making sure we document that accurately.

And again, also congratulations.

Can't wait to show up to the ribbon cutting.

Okay, uh, let's return to old business. Uh, we're at the implementation update of fund programs. I'll turn that over to you, Austin. You've been leading that work.

Great, sounds good. And I've been doing this work with Tamaya from Health Department and also with the board's implementation committee, which includes Brannwyn Collier, Kevin Berry, and Jessica Simonson. So I'll give a quick update on where our programs are, and then if any of them want to weigh in or add to what I said, please do. So the first two programs, of course, we have THREDD serving as a contractor to get out the stimulus funding that will go out this summer. That's $2.4 million, and we've met with them twice, the implementation committee and Tamaya and I, first in early April and then just last week.

So just a short summary of where they are. In March and April, they assign staff to the program, start thinking about how internally they would operate it. They started drafting, drafting the application that they plan to get out in the community. They're almost done with that, and we'll be sending it to the Implementation Committee soon so that we can take a look at it. We've had some robust conversations about, you know, who should be eligible, licensed entities?

What about entities that are exempt from licensing? How do you ensure that they're somehow regulated and that you can track attendance, etc.? How do we treat ACA, American Camp Association, accredited entities who are not licensed but technically might even have a higher standard of regulation? So there's a lot of ins and outs to that that the board has been really helpful at talking through with THREDD, and I think we're in a good place. So we'll see that application draft soon June and then be able to weigh in.

But if any other board members have thoughts or want to take a look at it, I could certainly share it with you. THREDD plans around mid-May to do a bunch of outreach and do a big public announcement. They'll plan to have the application out in June for a couple of weeks, and they'll do a lot of outreach to make sure that folks are aware that it's happening. They're going to put out a press release. They'll be doing a bunch of social media posts, sharing with their partners, doing email blasts in the community, including it newsletter, etc., and we also can do our best to share, share, spread the word.

They're going to directly share the application with all of the active MUNI programs and then do specific follow-up with them by phone to make sure they got it, and they're going to offer technical assistance for folks who are having a hard time completing the application just to make sure that they can get one in. Then once they receive all the applications in June, they'll spend July coming up with a funding formula The objective, since it's a one-time payment for the stimulus funds, is to spend all of that funding. And so depending on who's applied, how many applicants there are, they'll create a funding formula, you know, depending on scale, probably children served, other factors like that. We're still working on that, and then they plan to get funding out starting in August. Are there any— before I move on to child care subsidies— any questions about that one, or is there anything board members or Tamaya would like to add?

Okay, and I did ask THREDD and I plan to ask Alaska Family Services, our contractor for the child care subsidies, as well, if they'd like to come here at some point to our board meeting and give an update themselves on where they are in the programs. Thought it might be nice for you all to hear from them and be able to ask more detailed questions about the ins and outs of what they're working on, and I was thinking perhaps in July. I want to look at our calendar and see how it's looking but if we have time then, right before money is planned to go out, that could be a good time to do that. So think about whether that sounds good, but I'll plan to try to find a time. Okay, an update for the Child Care Subsidies Program.

This program is $1,250,000 for 2025. It's a little less than we, we think we might need for a full year because we knew it would only start in the summer. That contract was just approved at the last assembly meeting on April 22nd. Thank you to members Perez-Verdia and Silvers who are here today. We've had lots of emails with them in our first meeting with Alaska Family Services, the committee, and Tamaya and I was on April 22nd.

This program is more complex than THREDDS program. There are lots of decisions to make and lots of things to think about, how to pair we integrate our assistance program for those who work in the sector with the state assistance program? Because some of those people will be eligible, some will not. How do we make it as smooth and the burden as low on those who are applying for the program? So can we partner with the state to get certain information so that they don't have to do a whole other application?

How might that application be mirrored to or with the states? And what amount are we trying to reach? We had a lot of discussions in our last meeting about the cost of care, recent cost of care study that was done for the Governor's Child Care Task Force. We know that monthly care costs more than the state reimbursement rate. So how do we approach that with our program?

Just lots of conversations about, about all of those things. Right now, Alaska Family Services is focusing on developing eligibility criteria and how much the program will pay consistent with those comments I just raised earlier. I've reached out to the state to try to get a joint meeting with them and with Alaska Family Services. Some board members might remember that in Kentucky, where this program was modeled, this is a statewide program, and so we're now doing it on the city level, and we— it's a little more complicated because we're not just adding these folks to be eligible for state assistance, right? We're creating a new program.

So lots of ins and outs to figure out, but we're really excited about the potential benefits. I've shared with AFS the application from Kentucky and all the information and notes I have from my meetings there so that they'll have a leg up on thinking through their application. And they're also, you know, on top of the eligibility criteria and putting together that application right now, they're working with their accounting department to figure out how all their payments will be processed. The THREAD payment is a little simpler because it will be a one-time payment to a bunch of entities, right? And We have about 200 licensed entities in Anchorage, and so maybe including some camps, it probably won't be much— or I'm sorry, some accredited by ACA— probably won't be much more than that.

But in this case, we don't know how many folks who work in the sector have children and will take advantage of this program, and it's just a little more complicated data-wise. And then theoretically, the way the state program works is that assistance payments are made monthly to the entity, so where the child goes to care. And so if payments are being made monthly, or we've been talking about bi-monthly potentially, that's a lot of work on an accounting department. Maybe, you know, more several hundred monthly or bi-monthly payments. So anyway, they're working through that, figuring out how that will work best internally with them In May and June, they plan to continue solidifying those program details and then do direct outreach to child care sector employees about the opportunity, and they'll also plan to accept applications in June.

So we're on the same timeline for applications. Hopefully they were a little delayed because the Assembly wanted more time to consider the proposals, so hopefully they'll still be able to get the application out in June. In July, they'll be working, doing a lot of internal work with accounting on getting ready to issue the payments that will hopefully come out in August. And yeah, I think that's it. I just made a note to ask if you wanted quarterly updates, but again, I'd like to invite them and THREDD to come and talk about their programs and how it's working, if that sounds good to everyone.

Anything the committee or Tamaya you wanted to add about our meetings with AFS or their process?

Okay, I've asked both of them for a timeline, so I have a written timeline from both of them to make sure that we can stay on track and get this funding out to folks in the community as soon as possible, and we're meeting regularly with them to talk through issues as they come up and keep the program moving.

So the last update I wanted to give was on the Pilot Projects and Capital Funding RFGP. You'll recall that we put that out in early April. The deadline is May 15th, so just around the corner. Tamaya and I have been working on various aspects of the RFGP process. We participated in a question session that purchasing holds for RFGPs and RFPs to provide an opportunity for anyone who's thinking of maybe applying to ask questions, because after we put it out, they're not allowed to contact us and ask direct questions, just so that it's fair and people don't have an opportunity to talk with us directly about it.

So we answered a bunch of questions there, and then Tamaya and I worked on a written response to those questions and to other questions actually, so that the community could benefit from those. After the deadline closes in a couple weeks, Tamaya's team will distribute all of the proposals we've received to the evaluation committee. And just as a reminder, that's me, Nolan, Jeanette Lee from Rasmussen Foundation, who is the newest program officer who will be working as part of her portfolio on child care and early education, Khalil and Trevor, both from the board. And we plan to meet on June 2nd. We already have that set up for a big chunk of hours to go through.

We expect to get a lot of proposals and come up with initial award recommendations. We'll then bring those to the full board on June 5th. So I'll be working with— that's our next board meeting. I'll be working with legal between now and then on how to evaluate those proposal— those recommendations. There will be confidential information potentially.

There will potentially be conflicts with board members. So there's a lot to think through and how the board weighs in in a way way that is transparent to the public but also doesn't share anyone's confidential information. And of course, that doesn't involve any conflicts. We've been talking about if any member of the valuation committee, particularly board members, happens to have a conflict, what we might do. Tamaya, can you talk through that a little bit?

I mean, we have 5 members right now. What would we do if Trevor or Khalil were to have a conflict?

So right now I am an approved alternate to serve on the committee because I have to read all the applications anyways. So I could step in as an alternate if we have one conflict. If we have more than one, we could move the committee down to just 3 members because with the amount of money that we're distributing, we could have only 3 members. We just chose to have 5. Great.

So we have a plan in case there are any conflicts come up. So keep us posted. I think board members, it might be useful if you can think through what conflicts you might have or not have and send me an email. You know, if folks know that they're going to have a conflict with a specific proposal, I can think through that as to how we design our June meeting and talk through recommendations. So just give that some thought, you know, if you're the board— on the board of a an entity that you know is going to be applying, give me a heads up.

I think I'm generally familiar with most of your connections, but I might not be, and certainly if anything's changed, let me know. So we'll do— we'll make those recommendations, the board will, in June. Our hope is to then forward those to the Assembly. If they are under $500,000, under $50,000, assembly approval is not required, so Tamaya and her team will work to get checks out, hopefully in July, starting in July for those entities. For those who are $50,000 or above, the assembly will need to approve them.

And so Tamaya, maybe you could talk a little bit just about that process and when that might happen.

Yeah, so with the assembly process, it takes us a little bit of time with the timelines for agendas to get on the meeting. And so we would hopefully have anyone who's over $50,000 approved at the assembly meeting on July 15th, or at least going to the assembly on July 15th. And then, you know, hopefully they can approve at that meeting and not have to delay it to another meeting. And so then we would look at getting those grants executed the week of July 21st and kind of those last 2 weeks of July. So that's our goal in terms of getting all of those grants in place.

Awesome, thanks, Tamia. So we're on track with all 3 of our programs, which are all brand new programs, to get funding out hopefully in August by the latest, which I know sounds late because it's summer, but given that we stood up 3 programs and built all of this, I think I'm feeling pretty good about. So, and we'll have this infrastructure to then move quicker in future years. It's always a little difficult because we don't have the final budget until the end of November, and then we have to move from there, right, and do RFPs, etc. But like last year, Tamaya and I had already drafted the RFPs prior to the assembly budget being approved, hoping that it would, you know, no, I think knowing from hearing assembly discussion, etc., that it would be what they were comfortable with.

So we were ready to roll. So we'll keep doing that. Anything else from Implementation Committee? Did you all want to share any thoughts about how things are going or things that are interesting about the— this process, our partners, etc.?

Okay, I think that's it then. Thank you for letting me give that update. Absolutely. Was there any questions from the board?

I just have one question, Austin. Um, in thinking about timing for the capital projects and the innovative, one of the things that again we noticed when we were dealing with the contract with the Alaska Family Services, the one of the asks was, oh, did the board approve this? What is our thoughts about when this final selection is made that it's shared with the board and the board approves? I don't know if that's required, or how do we want to make sure that the assembly, again, when we do the informational memo, shows that the board is aware of this and that we're in support of not just of the process but even the final selection? Has that been thought of?

Yeah, so for both of the, the THRED and the AFS programs, the Child Care Subsidies and Stimulus, you know, they were selected as a contractor to identify who's eligible and then issue funding. So I don't think in that case the— there's nothing going into the assembly, so we don't have to worry about those. For the RFGP, I think under $50,000 the board has authority with the evaluation committee to make that decision, but for $50,000 or above, the assembly will need to vote on those potential awards. And so in that case, I think at the June meeting, since the board will be reviewing given, you know, assuming we have to work through conflicts and everything, but some version of the board will be reviewing those and putting forward its stamp of approval. So I think the board could pass a motion or some sort of resolution.

I can think about how to do that, that we would then submit the materials to the assembly. Fantastic. I know the way we've done it at the Children's Trust, when we do it with the board, the committee presents their their slate if there's any questions, but otherwise they trust that the committee and the process can approve it unless there's something standing out. So at least bringing them forward so the board can just see and be aware and stamp the full process versus just what the selection was. Yeah, we could plan to give— oh, sorry, we could plan to give the evaluation committee a short presentation too on just how many proposals we received, how did we approach reviewing them, what were discussions like, sort of an overall, like, this is how we got to where we are, and then have an opportunity to talk in a little more detail about the proposals themselves.

Fantastic. I'm seeing a lot of nodding of heads, so that's great. Thank you. I appreciate it. Yeah.

Hey.

Um, let's jump into, uh, new business. And the mayor is going to join us at 11:35. That's probably also going to influence some of our discussions around budget, but that's the primary focus of today. Just to kind of center everybody on the timeline around the budget, uh, public hearing on programming policy and funding, uh, So that was this month in May. We know that was last month.

We are in May, aren't we? It is May Day, May 1st. The mayor's joining us. We specifically set that up to get and understand where the administration may be. There is, there was some use of the funds this past year, looking at using those again, like for example ASD.

The preschool or is that going to go back to the alcohol? That was our understanding, but it's that kind of conversation today with the mayor, but also a larger of the conversation is how does the mayor want to utilize this board and also what does that communications look like? And again, as we are developing as a board and an entity, these are those open conversations so we can start figuring out how does this really work and making sure that we're working in collaboration. And moving things forward. So I'm looking forward to that conversation.

June— and after today's conversation, myself with Austin and Jessica as vice chair, we will take everybody's feedback and try to put together a draft budget for you all, which will then be presented in June's meeting with what our thoughts are. I'm hoping actually today we can actually almost rough it out so you actually see, but we'll see how the conversation goes. We will get your feedback so we have a final budget draft for July. We will then present it and get your approval of it. Uh, if I'm correct— it's a lot of text here— also we'll be soliciting public feedback on that draft, so not just yours, but the public will be encouraged to come, ask questions, share their thoughts around it.

August is, we take all that information, make any necessary changes from those recommendations, final budget is presented for August. That way we're able to turn it in and meet our deadline of no later than the 2nd of September to present it and pass it on to the Mayor. And we'll definitely be giving the draft to the mayor as well so they can look at it. So hopefully if there's anything that they feel like we've missed or any changes that may be happening on the administration level, because this is over several months, they can give it to us. So again, the goal is to be as much in sync with the administration as well as the assembly.

So hopefully it's smooth and we're really working again interlocking arms, working together versus potentially in opposition. Anything I'm missing on the timeline, Austin?

You're always my fact, facts checker, so perfect. Okay, so to begin the conversation, if we can, you should have a budget in front of you, a kind of layout. If we can do my presentation. I took all this information that Bill has already provided us, kind of put it into a presentation. To kind of break it down and give us an idea of, again, to set the stage of where were we, what have we spent, and what do we have potentially to put out in '26.

And I assume it would be too small. Oh, I was going to say I could share as well.

Okay. Yeah. Enable. Yeah, it's enabling. Yeah, it didn't go.

Click it again. There we go. There we go. If you go to the bottom to the right. Yeah, that— no, the other one, the next, that way.

No, to the right. That one. Yeah, there we go. Fabulous. Great.

So I can just do it. So in '24, the tax revenue that was shared with us was just over $6.3 million. Expenses. Again, Treasury just— Yes, ma'am. We can't see it.

Those who are on Teams, it's not being shared with them. We're going to take care of that. Thank you. Thank you. Can you see it?

Oh, there it is. I think I should see it now. Do you see it now? Fabulous. Sorry, uh, just let you know, I've— I can't see faces, so if you have any questions, uh, or if something's happening, please just let us know.

Okay, so start again. Uh, total tax revenue was just over $6.3 million. Our expenses, again, to remind the board, we always put out, uh, it's approximately $580,000 towards the treasury. That is to manage the tax, collecting it, all those pieces. And board expenses were just over $30,000.

So that left a total of almost $5.7 million.

So in '25 revenue, again, this is expected, we're still in '25, but we're still on track for $5.9 rollover from '24, which you saw was just under the $5.7 million, which gives us a total or subtotal for '25 of just under $11.6 million.

Remind folks of what our expenses were. We have the child care subsidy, the stimulus. You can see the list. I won't go through it. Uh, things that weren't necessary part of us, just to remind, is the ASD.

That was the $2 million. The Boys and Girls Club, the Assembly, uh, gave $400, and then most recently in the adjusted budget was the $200 for Little Bears. So subtotal of those expenses is, uh, $8.25 million. Again, you see the Treasury, and we've left in the full administration of $535 million. That's the full 10% that's available to us.

Current expenses in general, this is not down to the dollar. Uh, we will be talking about this, um, because you haven't seen it, but, uh, hopefully you will approve. We'll have this conversation is a grant manager within the Department of Health. I've added that in with the assumption that you will most likely support it because we talked about it, but that way you at least see it. I added the contractor, which was Austin just as a standard contractor, 4 months was $40,000.

And then with her current contract over 8 months as interim executive director, it's just, uh, shy of $117,000. So you see it's just under $218,000 of expenses. We still have room. We've been looking at trying to get a contractor, an RP, out to do strategic planning. I suspect this year we will not use all $535,000.

That will roll in, but we do have the full amount of $535,000 in this formula shown as expended. It's always nice to have a little extra money than versus not enough what we are predicting. So we always go on the conservative side. Again, these are all the numbers that Bill put together. Uh, that is, uh, $9,365,000.

Is what's expected to be at the end, uh, or I'm sorry, for total expenses for the year. My apologies. So when you take the revenue minus those expenses, we're expecting remaining funds to be just over $2.2 million.

So we're now having to put '26 together to give us an idea of '26. Again, we're using the $5.9 as a projection If we are way under 5.9 for '25, although we're not expecting, it seems to be on track, we'll make that adjustment. We may have to come back, but we're going to use this. And as the years go, this will even be better set. We'll have better predictions.

The rollover from '25, so it gives us just over $8.1 million of funds. There are expenses. Again, the standard treasury doing the full administration, but where we're at currently with administration, there will be 4 months of contract of Austin left. We're going to talk about the grants manager position full-time is $131,000. The executive director, we will be bringing on a full-time executive director.

I based it off of some general conversations and basically almost using the $175,000 that we're giving Austin. When you add a potential salary as well as all the benefits. After talking with Bill, I use that as a marker. Again, I think it is at the high end. It will probably be less, but again, trying to be conservative, would rather have extra money than not enough.

So that's 10 months' worth. And then miscellaneous are those other costs like the lunches, whatever I just added that in. So again, we're under the $535 million and we may still have other expenses, but it gives us an idea of what we have available to do on the administrative side of things. Those total expenses are just over $1.1 billion. So the available funds for '26 are basically just, just slightly above $7 million.

Any questions?

Bill, did I get that all correct? Yes, and I think you even cleaned up my errors. I wouldn't even know if you had an error, that's how good you are. Hey Trevor, this is Cameron. I have a question.

Yes. Just a small clarification. The title, is it not executive officer? And not executive director?

That is a great question. I thought it said executive director, but Austin, do you remember? I'm just pulling up the ordinance. I think it says both. I think it says there shall be an executive, or there can be an executive officer that will be called the executive director, but I can confirm.

Okay, thank you for the clarification. Appreciate it. Yeah. Thank you. Again, I can't see faces because we've been sharing and I minimized so we could see the slides on this end.

I see a couple questions. Bill, did you want to add something here? Just to add to Austin's last comment, that is exactly right. The charter said a principal executive officer and implementing ordinance says the principal executive officer position shall be executive director. Okay.

Thank you. Thanks, Phil. Is there a need to say officer versus executive director? Just asking internally, or that works for us?

And I'm asking for clarity on a legal side, so I'm looking at you, Bill. I don't think there's a difference. Okay, I didn't think so either, but lawyers have corrected me many of times. I saw Khalil, Kevin, and Aaron, Aaron, my apologies. Thank you.

So with the grants manager, is that a position that exists that we'd be funding, or is it a new position that would be hired? Just going to be a new one. Can I put a hold on that because it's something that I wanted to bring up and be shared because it's, uh, and I'll circle back with that. Kevin, my question might be something to bring up when we have our conversation with the mayor, but I'm just curious, the funding for ASD, the grants, the Boys and Girls Club, and the grant to Little Bears, how often should we be thinking about those kinds of investments? Testing in the future?

Um, because two of those seem like they're ongoing expenses. I know you mentioned one is being pushed back to the alcohol tax, but is that something we need to keep in the back of our heads? I think that's a great part of the conversation for '26. Um, like, the Boys and Girls Clubs was one time kind of emergency, like, do we need an emergency fund? Uh, that was brought up in, I want to say, actually in the work session somebody mentioned that.

So I think getting clarity from the administration what they're maybe hearing or hoping for, and then maybe be looking at that concept of emergency fund. And then what does that look like and who utilizes that and what's our role? I think that's very fair, right? Because we don't want to be rolling money over that should be being used. But yeah, when I think about emergencies, it looks like it's raining outside.

Well, yeah, and that's a lot. Like, when are you always— when do you get out of that emergency and what's that? And that's a bigger conversation. I appreciate that. Hi.

Hello. New Assemblymember. New Assemblymember from Midtown. Yes, correct. Last name, my apologies.

Baldundé. Baldundé. Congratulations and thank you for joining us. I have a question about the Pilot and Capital Projects line item. Is this the innovation projects that were under it by a different name?

Yes, they are. That's the official name. They're both the innovative and capital. They're together. Great.

Uh, and, um, is there an RFP active for those projects now? Yes. And will funds be dispersed in 2025 for those grantees? Yes. And will there be an expectation that those funds will actually be spent in calendar year 2025?

They are required to be spent in calendar '25. There is not a current system within the Muni to start a grant for 12 months outside of starting January. So if you start in February ends in December, same as if it started in July. So what would the timeline be then based on the RFP and such for actually dispersing the Pilot and Capital Projects Fund? We just went over that.

Sorry, I'm a smarty. That's, that's okay. You're new, we'll allow it. Austin, you're managing that. Would you please take that question?

Sure. I'm not sure how much detail to go into since we just went through it, but essentially funds will be released in July and August. August for pilot projects and capital funding, and we expect— you didn't ask about this, but just so you know, for the other two programs, the child care subsidies and the stimulus funding, that those funds would start being disbursed by August as well. Okay, and has there been any conversation about whether or not that timeline for expenditure for pilot and capital projects is actually realistic inside of like a 4-month timetable? Oh yes.

Okay. Yes. All right. So one of the things we've heard it as well as recognized that capital actually is usually quite easily depending on what the capital is and already set. It is the innovation.

So we're going to actually see what people come back with the innovation and then that will also help us as we develop the budget to go Is this something that we even look at and try to get out quicker for next year? It is working within the system, the Department of Health. I'm actually quite impressed we can get these out in August, to be honest. 3 Very large projects because of the system. We'll do, hopefully work with the community around systems for coming time, but our hope is with now us in place with this budget, that we can actually hopefully maybe set things up so when the budget gets approved, especially if we're in sync with the budget, and hopefully minimize any barriers, that we could actually be ready to go and be able to release things and have the money out much sooner, like in January or February.

So I think, yeah, that might be connected to my, my thought process a little bit here is You know, and again, forgive me, I'm new to the conversation. Um, has there been any discussion about potentially waiting until January to distribute pilot and capital projects funding at all to actually allow an entire 12-month timeline for folks to really be able to spend that money wisely, as opposed to having, you know, such a tight deadline for— I mean, especially if you have a capital project that, you know, isn't completely specced out or you don't have a contractor for them, and I'm thinking about the, just the pressures of, of, um, you know, our building season. Um, you know, if, if those funds aren't actually into the hands of folks who are, who are doing those sorts of things until, you know, July or August, that leaves a really, really tiny window for project completion and for those funds to be spent. Um, so yeah, just thinking about like timelines, would it make more sense to has there been any conversation about pausing disbursement until 2026 so that those funds could be allocated in a different way? I'll share what conversation, and please, board members, if I'm missing anything, please add to it or please share.

So yes, we have had that conversation. What we decided was move forward and let's see what the projects are and part of the review process will actually be taken is going, can these actually be completed in that time frame? So let's see what the need is and what people are proposing, and then what we can do is come back because if money isn't spent, it, it doesn't disappear, it rolls in. So we were also having to manage with also the approach of, okay, there's a kind of back to what, uh, board member here Kevin was speaking of is the current emergency and the need, uh, and if we held off on this kind of money, uh, what was going to be the perception, uh, within the community. So we decided to be able to move it forward, uh, hopefully meet current needs, see what other projects may be there, and then help determine, okay, is it better to move these— some of these projects and create a line item for '26 versus just holding on to the money.

Am I remembering that all correct? Anything to add?

Yeah, I'll just add that—. Oh, go ahead, Khalil. I mean, we're about to start our upcoming year discussion for the budget, so it seems possible that the board would be considering similar buckets of innovation or pilot projects and then capital for that year as well. So I don't think they're necessarily mutually exclusive, although I know we're getting ready to start those discussions. Yes.

Okay. Helpful. Thank you. Tamaya. Yeah, so I think this is something that comes up a lot with any of the grant programs we have.

So just in terms of how the budget works, if the funds— so the funds we're talking about right now are part of the 2025 budget. We only have the option currently to spend them in 2025, and to be able to spend them in 2026, they would have to be part of the 2026 budget. And so that is the challenge. I think, um, Austin kind of was mentioning that with the timeline. When the budget's approved in November, that's when we then know what can we do in the next year, and that gives us a really short timeframe to go, okay, these are the, uh, projects that were approved in the budget, and we need to now get RFPs out for those projects to try and get the contracts and grants started January 1st.

And this current year, because there was no staff for the board or an executive director, We, while we did start right after the budget was passed with the programs being totally new and kind of having to create them from scratch, that's sort of where we're at. But we don't have that option of saying, well, these are funds from 2025 and we're not going to disburse them until 2026. For us, they disappear out of our budget on, after December 31st, and then the Assembly has to reappropriate the funds. To a specific budget or project.

Okay, uh, let's move forward. Uh, so that was the outline of the budget, uh, and the dollars that we have. What I want to do is now circle back. Austin, was the memo from the Department of Health shared with the board?

I don't think so. I think, Bill, you might have just sent that to us. Do you have it and can you pull it up, Austin? I can try to find it. Yeah, it's buried in an email.

We did have the discussion about this position with the board last month, so I know they're familiar with it, but I'll, I'll try to find the memo. Right. So one of the things that the board knew, again, Tamaya has been phenomenal and has really stepped up and made all this happen, but they are short-staffed, and to be able to get these types of grants out the door, also to manage them, we could not just have the Executive Director. We know we need a grants person, and the department does not have the capacity to absorb this. And we actually knew this when we were creating the fund and knowing how we're going to use it.

So we were actually hoping it would have been in Quarter 1. It did not make it. Packet for whatever reason, doesn't matter, but the director did join, or I should say sent us, or sent Bill, who shared a specific memo with us outlining the hiring of, I believe it's called a Senior Grants Manager, if I'm remembering. I thought it was a critical part of the packet today, so I didn't bring a copy. Did you find it?

Or Bill, can you provide? I have it, I'm just pulling it up. Thank you, appreciate it. Yeah, it's around $131,000 cost for the year. Uh, I specifically asked— thank you.

Um, I'm going to just pause, uh, let people read this memo. If we can scroll up a bit.

There we go. We'll just hold. How's that? Can people see it? Yeah.

Okay.

I think one thing, Trevor, just to note is it says a recurring amount of $535 is set aside. That's the board administration amount. That's not static, of course. That's determined by the board. I think that when Director Rash wrote this, she was just assuming the board would stick with that 10%, but just a note.

Thank you. Again, while it's not static, because if we actually get less, our 10% amount is less, we get more, actually it could increase. We just set it at 535 for the conversational purposes based off of the projection of 5.9. So as you can see, the position is being put forward of $131,000, just under. If you remember in the budget, I, I specifically asked, are they expecting to hire for '26 or '25?

She's like, no, '25. So we would have about 6 months is the goal to bring somebody on and get them trained, give or take. So that's why you saw 6 months in '25 of approximately $61,000. To be added in, and then, uh, we have the full position. So we have discussed this, we know the need is there, uh, if we don't do this, we don't get Tamaya, um, as much as we want her.

She's been outstanding, truly has been. However, we know— and this position falls under you, Tamaya, correct? You'd be supervising? Yes, that's correct. Correct.

And one of the things we asked, and Robin is not with us, is she? I see an RB, but is the director with us today? Oh, Kim, Kim Rash. Kim, my bad. Why was I thinking Robin?

My apologies, Kim, thank you. No, one of the things that I asked is what is our role? Because this position will be working with us. Not under us, uh, and she's very much open. We can work that out if having maybe a board member part of the interview process, things of that nature.

Of course, we want Austin a part of that as well because they're going to have to work together. So very friendly and very supportive. So those— I knew that would be the most probably most important question that you all had was Who supervises? That will be Tamaya. And then what is our role in the hiring process?

Seeing the memo, we've had discussions but want to— were you adding? Please. Yeah, just apologies for not getting the memo to you sooner. We are still sort of building this plane as we're flying it, but the memo really was part of trying to give you actionable information as complete as we can. I think from the administration's point of view, we did hear the board last time saying we were interested in this.

We want to brighten it up for a decision. I think ultimately what we're hoping is that you guys give it a thumbs up, official imprimatur, and then we can go make it happen. Does this have to go before the assembly approval? That's just internal. Okay, great.

Kalia. Okay, just so from reading the memo, seems like with this amount of expected revenue, about $5 million plus more each year, do you believe it's reasonable and necessary to have that inclusion, right? Yes, the amount of work that Tamaya has been shouldering to get just these things out the door, I think we are a bit strained. So yes, that's helpful. Well, I'll make the motion to support the action memo.

Thank you. Do I hear a second? I second. Thank you, Mildred. Questions?

Comments?

Kevin, what does this bring us to our total staffing? Is it then just Austin as the executive director, Tamaya helping, and this new position as well? So 3 people for that? Well, the goal will actually be 2, if I'm correct. It will be Austin, this position.

Tamaya will supervise the position and provide senior-level experience when required as a supervisor. Oh, can we do this? Something like that. But will greatly drop off so she can focus on her other work. Is that correct, Tamaya?

Yes, that would be the idea. Okay, great. Tamaya, isn't it true that next year if we have new RFPs or an RFGP, you would still assist with that? This person administers those programs once we have them up and running, is that correct? So our senior grants and contracts administrators are actually the ones who run the RFPs and RFPs and help write them.

Obviously, because it's a really new program and this will be a new staff member, I will probably be more involved than I might be with, you know, our recurring programs and other staff. But this position over time would, would take that work over. Okay, great. Thank you. And Tamaya has so far— so far, Tamaya's time and any time at AHD has been volunteered.

It hasn't been charged to the board's administration fee, just so folks know. I had no idea. Well, it's— and let's make clear, she was not a volunteer. No, no, no. It's like, let's make this very clear.

People started going, I don't like that. She did not work over 40 hours. Okay, that's true, because nobody was working for free. Nobody was working for free. Yes, yes.

No, uh, the administration, whatever covers her salary, was still covering that. We weren't being charged for it, is what Austin was saying, for clarity. I started seeing some faces over here. Austin's like, no, sorry, we had a A whole moment. That's okay.

So I do have a motion to approve. I'll second. Thank you. Kevin second. Open for discussion.

Questions? I'm sorry, I think Mildred already seconded. Oh yes, thank you. Sorry, thank you for that. We don't need that.

Thank you though. So many things happening at once. Thank you, keeping me on track. Hearing none, anybody opposed?

All right, it passes unanimous. Great. Well, Tamaya, we still want to see you once in a while, but we're also looking forward to allowing you to get back to all the other stuff you've been doing for our city. So thank you so much for everything. Thank you all, and I won't be going anywhere.

Fabulous. Okay, so thinking back, um, so again, you saw those numbers. It still leaves us about just over $7 million. What I was thinking was, for the conversation of the budget— and I'm open, if this doesn't work, let me know, and if you think of something else— so one of the things I think we should start with in the conversation is looking where our money currently is going. ?And are there expectations that some of these programs would continue?

Like, for example, the child care subsidies. I don't think we're just trying to do these for 6 months, that these would need to continue. So things like that, let's look at what we are spending our dollars on and what are we thinking is going to continue and even maybe discuss what we're thinking for money. Recognizing we have no data because they haven't gone out. So we may do a budget amendment once we know, like, oh, we're either really short, uh, and there's not a lot of people that want this, or not as many people as we thought, but we still want the program to— wow, we got a lot more applications, we need more money for the program.

So just knowing that we have to work off with what we have. So if you look at your list that was provided, so the first thing actually up there is the child care subsidies. It's at 1.25. We originally had it at 2.5, but knowing that the money would not— we would not start in January, that it was halved. And again, we came out with 2.5 recognizing we did some— I did some mathematical formula of what the potential could be off of how many staff we had— sorry, how many potential staff there were, which was like, I think it was around 1,600, right, Austin, that we were told?

How many of those, what's the percentage that probably have children based off of census data? What could be the debt and general cost. So we kind of worked that out and came out with the 2.5. I'd have to bring that formula back up, and I— it was completely predictions with, uh, based off some data, but limited data, knowing that. So my question for this board is, do you see this something continuing for '26?

And this is now open discussion. We don't need motions or anything like that. We just get to talk about, about the budget. Thoughts? Still just have the childcare subsidy?

Yeah, for right now. I'm going to go down the list. Yeah, I think my instinct is similar to yours, that it seems like a logical thing to continue and evaluate as we go, as we have more time in it. I agree. I would agree too.

I mean, I think the point that we have very limited data is worth keeping in mind, and we talk about stability for people. People so they can plan and stay. I mean, childcare subsidies are probably more effective when they've been in place longer, so not continuing them too seems like we'd be like not allowing the program to work before we even evaluated it. Yes, I agree, Kim. I think it goes to some of the workforce issues that, you know, I think through the surveys and all the research that you all did in the implementation team, it seems like workforce issues were an important theme.

And so I think this continuing it for longer would go to kind of hopefully stabilizing the workforce as much as we can in that incremental step.

Those online, thoughts?

I even need thoughts of even if you agree, if I can see a thumbs up or if you can unmute and share that. I don't want to take sides. Yeah, I would agree as well. I would really agree because, you know, I want to see something, have some data behind it, and, you know, give it a chance to be successful. So I would be in agreement.

Thank you, Jessica. Ronwen?

We can't hear you. You're unmuted, but your mic's not picking you up.

I saw some very vigorous nodding by Brandon. And I got a thumbs up. If you want to play with your mic, because I would love to also hear your voice. So, okay. So looking at that, I think everybody's in agreement, and definitely by end of '26, we'll have data.

Yes. Where we're at. And also part of the process is evaluation. They're collecting data. I actually just reviewed, Austin shared with me the evaluation form of like, what are we seeking to help us as a board determine, is this being effective or not?

So—. Trevor, would we expect that to go up to 2.5 as well from the 1.25? I was just gonna ask. I think that for a full year, we should probably be, going with the 2.5, and then again by December we'll have an idea if we really mass marketed this. We're not getting like— I think we'll have more data to tell us, but I would suggest that we go with the 2.5, which was the original for a full year.

How do people feel about that? Makes sense.

Okay, um, stimulus funds for operational costs.

This was 2.4. Uh, I know that we shared in the email, we heard that Bright Beginnings is closing their final place. It's 127 spots. It was definitely a blow reading that email. It's gotten attention even on the state level as they're debating supporting or not supporting the 7— I think it's 7.5 in the budget.

13.5.

If it's 13.5, great. I should know it. I thought it was 7.5, or maybe we're just happy if we got 7.5. Anyways, as they debate that, and then, um, so again, this is a brand new project that we're doing. We don't know how many, what's the need.

We know that there's a need for just operational. We don't know what that impact will look like, but it is direct cash into a system that is very much struggling? I think this should be one of the things where we put, I don't want to say most, but maybe more money into it. As we saw with, you know, Bright Beginnings closing, it's something that providers really struggle with. And maybe even if they want to put money or ask for money for pilot projects or capital funding, It's hard from what I've heard to think about innovation when they're struggling to just make ends meet.

So, I think that it's one of those really important things that we not just have moving forward, but also maybe funded more if we can. Okay.

That's Georgina, right? Yes.

I think that makes a lot of sense. Kevin agrees. Other thoughts?

Thank you, Rachel, for just nodding your head. I see it. Appreciate that, seeing the nod from a provider.

Bronwyn, I see you unmuted. Still can't hear you. Yeah. If you want to, sometimes jumping off and jumping back on helps.

If you want, I'll watch for you. Austin, were you saying something? I wanted—. Oh, Jess. I wanted to say that I was in agreement with keeping operational and also with the idea of having, you know, some oomph behind it, because until our entire state is committed to an ongoing contribution and, you know, even our federal level with an ongoing contribution, We need this, you know, the sector needs this, and so I would really greatly support it.

Bronwyn, do you want to unmute and speak?

No, I'm not sure why. If you want to put something in the chat, I will watch that chat.

Can I just ask a quick clarifying question about operational costs? Does that include wage subsidy to childcare workers? So we give— it was determined that every provider, they have different needs, whether it be they want to subsidize wage or give a bonus. That one of the things what we were very conscious of is if we gave just for wage and then that money wasn't continued, how would they then fill that? So we give money and they determine how best to use it.

For keeping their doors open. So it could actually go to capital, or it could be just end-of-year bonus, or it could be signing bonuses, or they determine what works best for them because they know what's best because it's their program. Sure, but wage subsidy is not out of the question. Nope. Great.

We do, we just ask them how to use it, but they're currently— Austin, do we have outside, like, They can't buy a— well, that's— what limitations do we have, if anything, other than like— and it's not going to be enough that they can buy a van, but are there any limitations? Remind me. Yeah, well, this is part of the stimulus, right, the program that THREDD is running. And so they're working through the application and eligibility criteria now, but the idea and the direction they got was to make it as flexible as possible and to allow for anything the entity needs, like Trevor said. So there's no limitations that I'm aware of right now, but I'm sure there'll be some, you know, some sideboards on there to make sure it's a reasonable expense.

And we also know that if there's a limit, they want something, but it's for whatever reason not eligible, they can use this money for something else and then take that money and apply it. So we're really making it flexible and quick. Cameron.

Yeah, thanks for this discussion, and I had to step out a bit, so I may have missed this. So if you've already talked about this, but I wanted to just sort of help me understand this in context to the larger sort of goal and purpose of this work. And my memory was, if it was a few things, was The operational grants were, you know, a first-round thing to do because there is immediate need and there is— the ACE Board is still trying to sort of like get clear about what long-term sort of investments and strategies and those kinds of things need to be in place. Also that we would learn a lot from them, right? Is that what people use them for through the reporting back, we learn about what some of the needs are.

And so it's almost like a little bit of an information gathering tool as well, so that there may be more targeted investments down the road once that learning is there. But I wanted to just sort of throw out that I think part of this is the question from the public of, you know, what are the results? What is the impact? What are these investments doing and making? And so I think That's the piece that whenever we're talking about the operational grants, I'm thinking about is what's the long-term plan here?

And what are we learning from these? And what are the results of them? And I know that that's part of the process. But the more we do grants like this, if we continue to do them year over year, the pressure to get results and show results from them is going to be higher and higher. And so I just want to put that on the table and, and, and hear any response you have to that.

Absolutely. I'll share, and then again, I always open it up to the board, please add to it. I think one, evaluation is absolutely correct, and we are making sure there's evaluation so we know what's the money going to, what's the impact, how's this helped, and is there something else that's needed. One of the things, so we are collecting that, We're not going to have that until like December, and we have to have the budget in September. So we hear it a lot.

I say it, Bill says it. We are literally flying, flapping our little wings as we're trying to build this plane, trying to get the dollars out, being conscious about those dollars. Hello, Madam Mayor. Hello. Please.

And we're going to use that, knowing that we don't have that and we have to have a budget. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I think we're going to look at this, but part of our job will be more in November, December, trying to look at this data and go, all right, what amendments are we needing to make, any changes to that budget, what that looks like, uh, and being prepared. On the bigger side of impact, one of the things, as you know, we are working on trying to develop a strategic plan for this group, and one of the things that I want us to be really looking at is our role isn't just about managing these funds. I want us to be looking at what is our complete sector for child care and early education, what do we want as a city for that, and how do we get there. And that doesn't mean that it's just us and that $5 million, but what is that bigger work and how does this $5 million get tied to that.

And until we have that, Again, uh, I forget even where we're at with trying to get an RFP out. First was trying to get this money out, and now getting the RFP out, uh, to actually start that strategic planning, which I would hope in time will also help us decide how to use some of the administration. For example, even thinking we have schools that aren't being used at full capacity. Is there a relationship or a study that we do with the school district to fully understand that and how could we implement investment in that and having childcare right there. I'm just bringing ideas, not saying this is what we're doing, but we're going to need that space to be able to do it.

We're just not there yet to go, hey, we're funding this because we don't have that vision, which we need to also then bring in the community. So we are balancing the now and the future. Yeah, and I just want to— and I think we all know this— that the grants that are going to get the most probably opposition initially are these operating grants from folks who are like, you know, what's it, you know, that it's a, there are, we have a sector that is hurting, that is challenged, and these are grants that are out there to try to help. And I think as long as we have a long-term plan of using funds that are going to be leveraged, that are gonna be, that are gonna be looking at long-term solutions, then I think it makes sense to do these kind of grants. But I think as the years progress, if we continue to do operating grants, we're going to have to justify them more and more.

So I just want to make sure we're all aware of that. Absolutely. I saw Jessica's and then Bill. Jessica?

Yeah, the one thing I wanted to add was in the implementation team, You know, through all of our research and our talk of strategy, you know, we want to see the sector be more sustainable and have people earning a livable wage. We want to increase access and, you know, more supply for families and workers throughout our community. But we also heard like loud and clear that this is like the lowest point that we've ever been in licensed programs. And it's very much like we're hemorrhaging. I can think of like two kind of larger centers and also, you know, Bright Beginnings being multiple locations that have closed just recently.

And so, you know, I think the first part is like stop that outflow and then, you know, strategically, how do we, how do we lift up this sector?

Thank you, Bill. And then recognizing that I am part of the peanut gallery and not actually part of the board, I just wanted to say that I appreciated Cameron. You're a great peanut gallery. Also, I went to peanut on the board in Cameron, and I just want to say, as we're just doing color commentary for the mayor and Nolan who've just joined us, we're still talking through the board's current expenditure plan and then looking forward to '26. The Kentucky model seems really interesting to me because it is the way that you get a force multiplier, right?

Throw more providers and you're basically— as an outsider peanut gallery who's looking at this one, I think I'm both past my folks with Cameron's position that this one's going to draw a lot of scrutiny, but also it seems like not enough money to move the needle. So if there's 1,000 providers or 1,500 providers and you just did this pro rata, then you have like $1,500.

Provider, which is not— that's just taking a cup of water and pouring it in a couch. So as you guys design what's going forward, this totally makes sense as like, oh my God, the system is cratering right now and we got to push money out the door quickly. I think to the extent you use this first RFP as the information tool that Cameron was describing, that seems like good advice from where I'm sitting, just to come from the beginning. Thank you. Kevin?

And then some of them in there, Silver and Trevor. Just to know that Branwyn's comment is in the chat, so I know that the mayor is here and we might want to postpone that, but just it's there. Thank you. Yeah, I have the chat up so everybody can read it. I think Branwyn maybe stole a bit of my thunder here, but I think we should, because I agree and I think she's right, and I'm going to say that in more words in a second.

Like, I think maybe we should reconsider the term stimulus for these funds. Long runs. When I think as an economist, oh, it's stimulus, I think about a temporary problem that we need to spend a little bit of money on and it goes away. Like, we do this in recessions and things. It's a temporary program.

We build some roads or something to get people back to work. But we're talking about a, a long-run mismatch between the value of child care and what it costs to provide that's causing it to be underprovided. I mean, we all know there are families that can easily afford quality child care in this city right now that fine. I'm, I'm one of them. That's not who we're trying to solve this for.

We're trying to increase supply to drive down the cost for people who are on the margin, to make it more available for everybody. And that's an ongoing expense. And I agree that we can think about how to target these investments in the future, but I think we should think about this category as a commitment. Because on top of that, when providers are making decisions about the number of spots, I would assume that they care much more about reliable revenue in the future than they do about a one-time stimulus that that they can pay for wage premiums today that are then gone and they lose those workers in 6 months. So I think for these first two, first two categories in particular, we need to think about what's sustainable over the long run and what's effective as well, because we should think of these as commitments.

Great. Assemblymember, and then I'm going to put pause because the mayor has joined us and I want to make sure we're considerate of your time and Exactly. You touched on it briefly, emergency funds, but I wonder if you could just talk a little bit more about what you envision for like a rapid response funds that could help stop some of these centers from closing. Yeah, I'm gonna put a pin in that because I want to get through these and then talk about what other things we could be doing, and that's definitely one of them, and hopefully we'll get there. As always, I need about 4 hours of everybody's time.

Anyways, we're gonna put a pause again. The mayor has joined us. Thank you, Madam Mayor, for coming today. What we really wanted to hear from you, as you know, is one, just wanted to really kind of set the stage of communication and how to utilize this. I think the Little Bear support is an example of, okay, how is that working with us, not with us, and how do we really interlock arms and be successful in that communication level?

We definitely want to see you at least once a year that we have these kind of conversations. And then as we're talking about the budget, we really want to hear from you what maybe you and your administration are looking at. Like, for example, as we look at existing, um, are you sticking with what we talked about at the beginning of the year or end of last year about ASD money going back over the alcohol tax because that's $2 million? Are you expecting any other funding that you want to see happen that we may not be aware of, like those one-time monies, like for Boys and Girls Club or Little Bear, so we can do the best planning of the dollars and again working in concert. So really today is about how do we team up so when this does go to the Assembly, that there's few to no roadblocks and we're able to move this forward as quickly as possible in get the funds out to our community.

So with that, I'm going to turn it over to you. Well, thank you, Trevor, and thanks to all of you who are serving on this board. It's really exciting to be here today with all of you. I appreciate your service and the expertise and the passion that you're bringing to this project. And thank you to the board chair as well, and Austin too, for doing so much strategic legwork to get us moving here and develop the structure.

And so I just really appreciate this work, and I'm grateful to you all. I know I don't need to stress how important child care and early education is to our economy and our community and our families, and I just appreciate that we're all starting from that point and know that quality child care is just so critical, and that what we're seeing is a really troubling spiral. I think, Jessica, you said hemorrhaging is the word you use, and hopefully, you know, not a death spiral. And with the providers struggling and the closures we're seeing and the financial challenges with the sector, and I know too that infant care is also a part of that challenging piece. And then just, you know, a couple words about Prop 14 and recognizing how important and how critical child care and early education is.

I was really happy to have been a part of sponsoring that with Cameron and then working with Trevor and others to bring that to the Assembly, and just recognizing too that this has been a long project where many people have, you know, played a role in bringing this to fruition. And so Definitely huge thanks on that piece. And when I think about this fund, and I'll just start with that point and then address some of the specifics that you raised, you know, I think about it in terms of how do we leverage what, Bill, you kind of noted. It's, I mean, it's a limited amount of funds for something that really in a perfect world I think would require a big ongoing subsidy like we do with education, and although maybe that's not a great example. In this state because it also suffers from lack of stability.

But, you know, there are other models, right, that we can look at. And so I think about, you know, how can we leverage and invest these funds to maximize the impact? How can we, or is it possible, you know, to structurally change the business model of the child care industry industries, wrong sector, you know, what might that look like to, again, given, you know, these are limited amounts of funding. I appreciate the emphasis on innovation, and I think the whole question of like, you know, what can we try, and appreciate the early educator child care subsidies. I think you guys are calling that the Kentucky approach, the Kentucky model, Kentucky model, and also, you know, the concept of the child care sector pilot projects, which I understand are more focused like on the capital piece.

And so the innovative, innovative approach around, you know, what can we learn, what can we try, what will really make a difference, what will make an impact, I think is important because all options are on the table here. And whether or not it makes sense to really focus in a targeted area, and for example, you know, there's a lot of enthusiasm among some individuals here about can we explore what municipal childcare facility would look like that is intended to serve first responders and those who have shift work, who operate the plows, right? I mean, what would it look like to do something like that that would also bring value to the public safety responsibilities that we have here at the municipality? Or exploring models that pay a living wage and what could that look like, or even, you know, real options and possibilities for pooling benefit costs. I know that those ideas have been put out there, but I don't know that there's— to what degree things have been tested or tried.

And so I view you all as the subject matter experts who are taking very— bringing all your experience and expertise and taking a very thoughtful look at at these issues, and I'm excited to hear your recommendations around that. I also think that the accountability to the public piece— and I know this was initially called an accountability board, right, and I'm glad it has moved beyond that part— but defining what success looks like, how are we going to measure it, what are the impacts tied to, you know, the budget items here I think is important to convey the public value of this fund and of the work. But I'm really excited to move forward. Little Bears, I view that as a one-off, something that, you know, was in the works and carried over, and don't anticipate that that's how— I mean, it's not how I look to address those kinds of funding requests. I think that As I believe it came up in a work session too, it's important to keep in mind the budget process and that it involves amendments from the Assembly oftentimes, and that ultimately they approve the budget.

And so I think to your point about communication and talking along the way and how important that is, how we team up, the question around ASC money going back to the alcohol tax, I think we're going to have to take that one as a follow-up and a to-do on our end, because I know the alcohol tax is really tight as well, and there's, especially in this environment of tremendous uncertainty and slashed budgets, and at the federal level, that people are looking, as it's, you know, been mentioned, I think Cameron brought that up too, are looking closely at you know, the local level and any kinds of grant opportunities there and what, what process is used. So that's kind of like my big picture approach of looking at this. Um, and I'm just really excited to hear, you know, your recommendations, appreciated, you know, the economic piece of it because that is clearly at the center, you know, of all this and and how do we make this a sustainable business model is key. More sustainable model. I was writing down some of the words you all use because it's a really exciting conversation.

So, thank you. It's nice to be here and I'd like to come more often. Well, you're always welcome to come. We're right next door to each other. Yeah, yeah, that's very convenient.

It is very convenient. Make it easy. Commute is—. For me anyway. And we always provide lunch, so please.

Questions, comments from board members? We have the mayor. It's not often we get her, so this is a great opportunity to ask, explore. And I'm happy to listen because that was a really great conversation. So all we're having— very impressed.

Great.

Uh, in the sense of the ASD money, it would be great to know sooner than later, um, with working with that. Uh, do want to emphasize that that money was always designated when we passed Prop 14. The goal was never that this now replaces, so it was never let's get $5 million and then only have $3 million to put out because $2 million was dedicated. It was always the expectations that the $2 million stayed with the alcohol because the alcohol tax, which we also supported at the Children's Trust, was around the prevention and early childhood does that. It's a really good investment and we wanted those dollars and worked hard for those.

So just to lay that history for board and people and new Assembly members of those dollars. And that we would hope that we would be able to do the $5.9 million. And yes, we have $7 million right now, but that is because we had that 1 year of cushion, and that's greatly dwindling. And we want to make sure that we actually grow early childhood by that $5 million to $6 million versus, uh, whatever that is minus the $2 million. So If there's nothing for the mayor, uh, I would like to suggest a quick 5-minute recess.

People can grab some pizza, use the washroom. We've been talking, and then we'll come back around to, uh, the budget.

All right, uh, so just a couple minutes before 12. Thank you. Great, great group. I feel like we've met before. I'm like, you have my purse.

Okay, thank you for making it. Yeah, no, definitely. I'm so glad you're a part of this conversation. Yes, um, like, I'm really good, excited about it. I was just thinking, I want to talk to Trevor about—.

We're trying to get the money out of the application. Yeah, the bureaucracy is really slowing stuff down. Yeah, I know, double— yeah, we can also have—. Frustrating. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I know why it is. It's like we just use our money— I use these phones for a playground. Trevor, do you want to put the room on mute while you're on break? Yes, thank you. Yeah, I was thinking my voice carries.

Adu.

All right, everybody, we'll come back.

If folks can let me know you're with us. Thank you, Austin. Thank you, Jessica. I saw your thumbs up. Let me add— Ronwen, great.

Okay.

All right, again, I put a plug if you can be here. No, can't hear you yet, not sure why. Oh, um, plug for our board members, anytime you can be in person, uh, you don't know what it will be, but it's always a good lunch. So, and it would be great to see in person. Uh, we kind of put a pause on, uh, the conversation around Changing from stimulus, really appreciate it.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Have a great day. Appreciate it. Thank you. People were feeling 2.4 may not be enough.

Now, I also agree with Bill when he brought up, it's like impact. That's one of the reasons why we didn't dedicate $5 million to just salaries, because it was up but not enough that it would actually move that needle. Now, we don't know to what degree this will or will not move the needle until we get feedback and see results and so forth. But I was hearing from the board that they also felt that maybe 2.4 wasn't enough. Uh, would love to entertain somebody.

Did you have a number that you would like to see? Again, where things lie, um, and land can differ, but would love to hear from you some thoughts. Jessica, you were thinking maybe not enough. Georgina, maybe. So do you have a number that you would hope for?

I'll just throw out 3 out there, but I'm not an economist. I don't know how to look at the budget, but just to start the conversation. Thank you. Any other thoughts?

That's a good question. I like the idea of 3.

Thank you. Sorry, we ended up If they came back and were trying to do the ASD funding plus that, that would end up being like close to the average revenue, right? Yeah. Well, we have $7 million, so just so you know, and again, we'll take your feedback and we'll start plugging this in and seeing the numbers. But, you know, $2.5 for the top, we said $3, we're already at $5.5, that leaves us $1.5.

Just FYI. So, and this is where the tough decisions come from. And we try to use data to make our decisions if we have the data. We try to use the information from the implementation team. There was a lot of research and again, a lot went out to the community.

I think those were the most impactful aspects. And Austin, please chime in. Hearing from providers and the families, And of course it was like, how do we up salaries? Knowing that we couldn't really do that, one of the best ways was the, that Kentucky model. But, and then the other piece was hearing from providers, get rid of barriers, make it easy to get the money and allow us to make the decisions.

So more around that operational, less about stimulus. So that's what we were hearing. Will that have the impact or not? Time, and it's always painful when you, you have to wait during a crisis to see if it results, and it's not a fast, like in a month. So again, I'm just putting that out there.

So we can go with 3, don't know if we'll actually get there, or we might have different models of going, hey, this is what one budget looks like, this is another, and Jessica, I, and Austin will work that out. I would like to like mentally make a note that any money that doesn't get taken for the ASD Pre-K school funding to replace alcohol tax, maybe we commit towards— or we just put a note that it like sort of first passes, it goes towards the stimulus fund. I mean, if we get the full $2 million instead of going to ASD, we could commit that, and that's quite a bit more. But I agree as well, it sounds like we, we don't want to have a big burst of funding and then have it disappear one year later too. I'm not sure what the balance is.

Thank you. Okay, um, pilot projects. Yes, sorry, um, I thought maybe board member Nesset was here, but I don't—. I thought she was on Teams and I don't see her. Are you in the audience, Jesse?

Okay.

I was just going to offer that she might be able to, and I could too, but describe what sort of the origin of that ASD funding and what it's used for and what it funds and why it was moved over this year. You could probably do that too, Trevor, but if board members are interested, I could share a little more info. I would like to know. Me too. Sure.

Okay. Do you want to start? You want me to? I can, and I'll try to be fast. So when the alcohol tax came online in 2020 and we did the first budget with it, we realized there was an opportunity to expand early childhood education.

And a big part of the alcohol tax being successful was the third of it could be used for prevention. And these are important prevention techniques. So we, the assembly at the time, put— and mayor's office put— well, at the objection of the current mayor, at the mayor at the time, but we did it, put $2 million toward ASD Title I programs. So Jesse, who operates the programs there, was able to open up 8 early education classrooms in Title I schools, and there was a really successful program, really exciting. It has been funded from 2020 until this past year out of alcohol tax funds.

This past year, the mayor's office wanted to make more room for other expenses out of the alcohol tax and shifted that $2 million to the ACE Fund. And as Trevor said, that was a bit of a surprise to us and not really as we all saw the intent of the program. So we've been advocating and actually asked the mayor's office to put language in there saying it would only happen once because we felt it wasn't appropriate. And so anyway, that's a little bit of the background, but I think those programs are really important, but hopefully aren't funded by the ACE Fund.

You did a great job of summary. I have nothing to add.

Well, let me say, the only thing I would add is we gave the money to ASD knowing that they were set up to be able to do and expand preschool versus trying to give it out in little increments. It was the quickest and most efficient way. Give them the money, done, and they were set and ready to go.

And it's really an example of how you could partner with ASD to potentially expanding and using their systems and buildings and so forth. So there's some great opportunities moving forward. If she were to say this is an ongoing cost, maybe expand it a little bit to where, like you were talking about, using those buildings that are not at capacity to implement those pre-K programs, but that could also other providers in the community jump in on that, that it isn't just close to ASD. Does that, that make sense? You mean use the buildings?

Yes. So ASD has been looking at that. I think there's some great opportunities to potentially partner and explore that. Is there an opportunity to have somebody from ASD join a meeting and talk directly to them about it? Let's, I know Jessica, Jesse has been part of that, but yes, let's try to find some time.

You got that, Austin? Thank you. Nolan? Yeah, I did want to add one thing with the move of that Title I school funding from alcohol tax to cannabis tax funds was that, you know, we were looking at, you know, with the alcohol tax, there had been a lot of, like on paper, it had really swelled up with a lot of funding that wasn't getting out the door in the last administration. So stuff was getting added money to it that wasn't really getting distributed.

And so, we did a, we did a very careful truing up of the alcohol tax of like, okay, we really get this stuff out the door, we have to have a smaller alcohol tax budget. And we also saw, we saw that funding as being particularly important. And with ACE funds having kind of a little bit of extra cushion for the initial year because we've had collection but hadn't had a program year to distribute, it seems to make sense in that context. And we were not necessarily as the rule that would be going forward, but seemed very mission-aligned with the intent of the funding and an important use that we saw as at least a one-time solution.

Thank you.

Okay.

So we have about 6 minutes. Okay, we'll figure this out. Um, basically we have pilot projects and capital funding.

That's $2 million, and right now, just so you know, we have only $1.5 or we decrease something.

Thoughts around pilot projects and capital funding?

I will share my two cents. Capital funding, I think, can get tied into operational pilot projects. I've always been concerned about this because what we're doing is we're funding something that we then don't have money to continue. It's usually, here's a pilot project, now go find your own money. As a person runs a nonprofit, there's the only money is, is to provide grants.

There's no money tree, there's no secret stash of money. That sustainability plan is to apply for the same grant and other grants and hope and cross our fingers. Many times we invest in pilot projects and they get a little liftoff and then we cut the funding off. I use that as a global we. And then nothing happens with them.

To me, it doesn't change the needle and actually is a waste of funding. That's my personal view. I actually did not support pilot projects for this, and partly because I knew the money would not actually come out. And I'm actually equally concerned that it's 4 months, um, that I'd rather just give capital. Um, so, but I always love to be proven wrong.

And I can't wait to see what people come out with, but I have concerns about trying to do pilot projects. I'd rather see capital and go, let's make it 3 and consider capital projects a part of that and allow it. So open for conversation, I'll put that out there. Kevin, I'd chip in my 2 cents, so we have 4 cents total. All right, I, uh, I agree to some extent, and I think that the Little Bear's Playhouse budget line sort of fits what in my head would be an ideal pilot project capital funding thing, and that they lined up all sorts of other funding sources.

They just needed a little bit of money to close the gap, and we were able to step in and do that. I think that's much more impactful than, like, a pilot project that gets defunded in the next 6 months or the next year. And so I, I agree with what you proposed.

Kalea? So, are you proposing to continue the pilot programs? Because it seems like the short-term— I mean, it kind of cuts it, but you're saying cuts it both ways. I mean, in a way, if we want to see if there will be success of ongoing pilot project, it would favor continuing it. But I understand your overall point that you're a skeptic of that concept.

I would be open to, if something developed, that we do a budget amendment and find a way to invest it. But just to open up and go, what are the pilot? I just can't think of— and I think what you will see in pilot projects is recommendation of what other states are doing because they've already done it. So I'd rather us do a search of best practices, and we've got some of that done with implementation, and use that as a way of guiding our work, especially with the strategic planning of going, all right, we're going to invest in this versus Here's a little bit for this pilot. Here's pilot.

I don't know how many we're going to do or how many we're going to get. And it's just my opinion, just to start the conversation. We as a board get to decide that. I don't support it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't get into the budget. If you all think there's a value of it, I say that we make capital part of operation and pull up pilot project and dedicate what we want to it.

I think I agree with you and with Kevin, and I think maybe the name of it could be changed a little bit, or like the scope of what it covers, um, because the Little Bears project kind of does fall into the pilot projects, but it's not an ongoing expense. So maybe allocating those pilot project funds to something that's more in the scope of what Little Bears did, uh, and I'm not sure if we move forward calling it pilot project or not, but I think that could help. Khalil, you have some thoughts? Yes. What if—.

Oh, go ahead, Jessica, and then we'll go to Khalil.

I was just wondering if we could use some of that maybe to create an emergency. You know, that would be the other idea that I would have. Well, and that's part of the question is there's something here we could be doing different. Leah? Okay, well, I want to ask Austin— well, I have a comment, but I also want to hear what Austin thinks since I know she did— I mean, I know the implementation team helped, but she did a lot of the research on the best practices, and it'll probably be ongoing conversations, but I'm curious about her thoughts on the pilot programs.

And then the other kind of theme that I want to put out there, kind of build on what the Assemblymember mentioned about how do we support wages which we know from the report, like, we don't have enough money to actually just dramatically raise wages, of course, in our ideal world. But I'm curious, at least to put it on the table for the next couple of months of budget, you know, discussions, what other strategic programs are feasible? Obviously, the childcare subsidies seem popular and hopefully are effective. But are there other strategic initiatives? And I don't know which bucket they would necessarily fall into.

So it's more of a question for all of us. Are there other steps that we can take to support, you know, a livable wage since that seems like an area of agreement from what I've heard from Assemblymember and the Mayor. But what steps are feasible and how can we work on that? And I don't know yet which bucket it would match that. So I'm not, I'm not ready to take the pilot programs off.

I think we should keep them in the discussion over the next month or so. But I'm curious if Austin has comments since she did that research. Before we do that, we're at 12:15. I would entertain extending up to 15 minutes.

I move that we extend for 2 weeks. Thank you, Khalil. Second? Thank you, Mildred. Anybody oppose?

All right, thank you. Austyn, there was a question put to you. Yeah, sorry, it's always hard when I'm taking notes and talking. I know. Yeah, so I think Trevor's mentioned at past meetings that what all of the public research we did, you know, public survey, hearing from folks, talking with providers, and then looking at sort of nationally what's going on in the sector.

And I'm sure folks who are actually in the sector, like Branwyn, would agree that the top issue that kept rising to the top was raise wages. And to raise wages, you have to have consistent funding coming in, right? You can't do, oh, here's $2 million for the sector here, oh, next year we're not doing it, because then people can't pay their— you know, they raise wages and then all of a sudden they can't pay for it. And so So in the implementation team, and you know, Trevor and Jessica and Brandon were all there, um, so they could speak to it too. We sat down and we looked at a number of different ideas.

I came up with a matrix of, I think, 29 different things we could potentially fund, and we narrowed those down and we said, well, the most important thing is raising wages. So if we took all the money we have, $5-6 million a year, at that time we thought was $4.5 million. $5 And put it toward wages, how much would it raise someone's pay with considering there's 1,500 providers, etc.? And what we looked at was it was something like a dollar an hour. So it's like, okay, if people are making a poverty wage, typically under $30,000 a year, they're getting a dollar more an hour.

Is it really going to change the needle? And we worried as a group that it wouldn't. And so that's how we came up with this budget was let's try some specific things like the child care subsidy that has sort of a triple effect, right? It helps the provider, the entity, because they're getting funding for child care for their workers. It helps the workers, they want to stay.

It helps the kids, it makes more spots for the community. We loved that one. But I think, and then we recognize this sort of hemorrhaging of funds and drop in the sector with providers, providers closing, and said we need some We need some, some operational funding to just hopefully slow that down. But I think that, you know, what you're asking, Khalil, reflects the broader problem, which is there's— to really raise wages, which is the most important thing, we can't do it citywide for $5 or $6 million a year. And so I think we could go back and evaluate some of the other ideas.

They included things like, you know, looking at code barriers, like how How could we change the code to make it easier to function? But I think ultimately what we found was, okay, there are a few little things we could change, but this is a structural problem in the sector. It's not that the rules are too onerous, or, you know, I mean, maybe there's little things, but that's not the large problem. We looked at other things. I'm trying to remember, there were so many ideas.

I think I could send you that matrix. And you could look through it. And I think maybe, Trevor, we can think about how as a board we want to consider that. I think maybe part of the strategic planning would be looking back to the stuff that we've worked through and start thinking about how to use it forward. Um, but I guess without getting into too much detail, maybe I'll stop there.

Just a quick follow-up. I was also curious, so they raised not continuing the pilot program, so I guess I was curious off the if you want to share your thoughts on that based on all of that research. And yeah, it was a really great paper. So I think the way, the way that we split things up, and again, IT members speak up too if you have a different view, was we said this child care subsidy program is really exciting. That's the thing we're most excited about.

We know that some operational funds would be helpful and maybe stop places from closing, and our first goal was to stabilize, and so we'll do that. And then we said what So that's kind of the third thing we want to do. And we thought, well, maybe there are ideas out there that we're not thinking of. Maybe there are innovative approaches that we're not taking, and we want to give people an opportunity to show us that. I think people who are in the sector and people like Trevor— and I don't know what Branwyn's feelings are on the pilot projects, but I think people, a lot of people said this isn't a problem of lack of innovation, it's a problem there's not enough money in this sector and that it is structurally unsound.

You know, the average, you know, per capita contribution to kids K through 12 in Alaska is around $20,000 a year. It's $500 for 0 through 5. That's the problem, right? That's the problem. Not that there is a lack of innovation.

And so I think Trevor's right that we thought, like, how is this going to— it's not that there's some big idea out there that we're just waiting to hear from. That said, we wanted to give folks an opportunity to show us that we were, we were wrong. And so I think I generally agree with Trevor, but I'm also open to exciting approaches. And I don't know if, like, Branwen, as someone in the sector, you know, Jessica has worked in the sector, other folks might have thoughts. And please correct me if you think I'm getting it wrong.

Of course, Brandon can't talk, so that's why I asked her. Can you hear me now? Yeah, yeah, I went to my laptop. I gave up. It was weird because it worked at the beginning of the meeting, so I didn't understand.

Um, I agree with, um, pretty much everything you just said. We spend a lot of time towards the end of the implementation, implementation team on the idea of a wage stipend to and they had a good program in Juneau that made a lot of sense that like depended on how long people were working and what education they had. And I was really all for that and kind of pushing for it. But in the end, like Austin said, when we did the math, we couldn't figure out how to have it make any difference if we were giving wage stipends that ended up changing people's wages by 50 cents. And so, so we did sort of go, okay, well, let's just put that money into an operational and let them figure it out.

But, but now that we're talking about it, I do think that we could look at that again and, and think about a more like structured way of doing that and weighing the different amounts. What that—. I was kind of thinking about at the end of that, but it would be nice to kind of revisit that idea.

Other thoughts? I was just going to add one more thing, Trevor, which is that— and I'll try to do it quickly— one thing we've talked about that could be a pilot project is something like— and I have no idea if they're planning to submit this, this was like a year ago we talked about— ASD, maybe ASD wanted to remodel a school building to be used for early ed, and that would be a one-time capital sort of pilot project cost that then could be made long-term make sense because the reduced cost for the provider to come in and operate something. So I think there were certain ideas we had about how a pilot project could work that was a one-time thing, but concern overall that that would work for a lot of different projects. Sorry. Yeah, no, and to me that's like capital.

It's one-time funding, move buildings, walls, things like that, versus I always think pilot is, oh, I want to try this, whereas that's actually programmatic. But, and I'm open, whatever the group— do you have a— if we let pilot project in, what would you hope you would see? Well, I think we're gonna, um, Oh, go ahead.

Sorry, I was also just thinking like that, you know, we've tried to put that, you know, we put it through, but we're getting the funding out late and then everybody has to spend it really quickly. So, I'm not against having pilot projects on there in some sort of capacity, but also talking about other options. And one really interesting thing that comes to my mind, you know, I like what Austin was saying, but also, um, the legislature last year was talking about the Alaska INN funding, which is funding for kiddos who have special needs, and there's some extreme barriers to getting that funding because those families have to qualify for child care assistance. And having a kid with special needs doesn't just happen if you're low income. And so it's, it's not, it's a very underutilized program, and they were working on trying to make that more accessible.

But we're also seeing a lot more kids who do require extra care in the classroom. We're seeing a lot of programs who, you know, aren't able to care for the child at that level. And so people are hitting their capacity. And so maybe something that would be really interesting to me to see as a pilot would be some way to address those gaps of special needs and the increased cost of caring for those children. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Well, and one of the things we could always be doing, of course, this is later as we do our strategic planning, is our own research going, we want to try this in Anchorage.

We, rather than going, hey, what's your idea? This is ours, who would like to do it? And put it out kind of like what we did with those other two. In the interest of time, I at least put $500,000 for pilot projects. And again, we have to work this out.

We'll come out with some templates and so forth. I realize I'm the peanut gallery in the room, but I'm aware of a couple of pilot projects in development. One is a worker-owned child care cooperative and one is a workforce development pilot. Yeah, I'm aware of those. Yeah, ASD funding, we'll hear about that.

Boys and Girls Club was one time, and then the Little Bears was one time, so we know So those won't be there. We have like 4 minutes.

Just to clarify, would the capital funding be put together with the operational then under that 3 umbrella for now? Jessica, I and Austin will figure some of that out and bring it to you all. I don't have an answer for that. I didn't have to think about it.

I feel like we need another hour to have this conversation, and I personally feel like I would have to walk away and come up with something and then try to bring it to you all, and I feel like that doesn't really involve our members. What— one, would people— one, are we able to do, I'll call it a special meeting, an additional meeting between this and our June 1st so we could talk more about budget that's just focused on budget. And I'm asking for clarity from you, Austin. Can we do that? Do we have to give so much notice to be able to do that?

And then would that be helpful to— one, let me ask the board, would you be open to that? Yes. Okay, um, I'm not hearing any nays. Can we do that, Austin? What's our technical requirements?

Yeah, we just have to notice the meeting publicly. I think it's a 48-hour notice, and as long as Marie and Diana can make sure the room is available, we could definitely do it. I think we could say, oh, we could push it to June, but the problem is in June we'll be evaluating, making recommendations for the RFGP. Yeah, we need at least an hour to an hour and a half to really not feel rushed and have the conversations I want us to have. And it's not then feeling like it's a Jessica, Trevor, Austin budget and you're all just going, "Yes." I do not want that.

So, uh, well, I'll work with Austin looking at dates. We'll put out a survey to all the members and find something. And as much as we could even be in person together, I think also helps, and we'll see what we can do. Okay, fabulous. Um, I think any comments from the board?

Announcements? Asna, is there anything I'm missing?

All right, uh, with that, uh, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Khalil. Do I hear a second? Second. I'm going to give it to Georgina this time. Georgina, do you second?

Anybody opposed? Hearing none, thank you, and see more in the emails. Really appreciate, really robust conversation. Thank you, really do appreciate it. Have a fabulous Thursday and a weekend.

Austin, I'll follow up with you. Sounds great. Thank you.

Okay, uh, stop recording. So Nolan, are you— should you be part of this conversation also around the budget? I see you, Bill, and.