ACCEE Fund Board Special Meeting May 29, 2025

A little bit of Chuck, but we can see a lot of— I don't know if that's possible. Hi, Chuck. And I can't hear— that's so much better. Thank you. Now we can see.

Okay, there we go. Diana, wow, the power of the remote. Okay, 2, 4, 5. What's our— so we have 5, so we have a quorum because there's 9 of us. All right, let's call it to order.

Let's do roll call, please.

I am here. Trevor. Jessica, not here yet.

Bronwyn? Nope. Kevin? I'm here. Khalil?

Here. Georgina is not. Mildred? Here. Yes.

Oh, I'll come back. Jesse? Said she was rushing between meetings. All right, she'll be here when she gets here. Chuck?

Here. And Bronwyn.

Hi. All right. We have a quorum. Fantastic. Pretty short but very focused agenda.

Was there any changes?

We're all good? Fantastic.

All right. We do have minutes from May 1st. I would entertain a motion to approve. Motion. Thank you.

Second. We have a second. So let's give a moment. Folks are just entering the room. Did we have— we have Jessica.

Let's, for the record, Jessica just joined us as well as Jesse just entered the room. So two more board members. Thank you very much. We just had a move for the minutes by Khalil. Second by Kevin.

Uh, was there any changes, any discussion?

Anybody oppose? Hearing none, passes unanimous. Uh, was anybody joining us today for public comment? I do see a couple people from the public. Did you want to, uh, share anything today?

Hearing none, we will move on closing public comment. Um, jumping into old business, um, so really today's focus, it's, uh, kind of like a work session for us, was just working out our '26 budget. We just didn't have enough time at our last meeting Plus really did not want to feel rushed and wanted us to have a good discussion before our June meeting, which I believe is June 5th. So today we'll focus on that. What you do see here is just, again, remind folks of the general timeline.

We had some public discussion in April. The mayor joined us at our meeting in May a couple weeks ago and just talked about her priorities, which really align currently what we have. Our goal is by our June meeting that we have a budget looked at and potentially approved, so by July we can have public comment on it, so it can be out to the public in plenty of time that folks can look at it, and we can encourage that public involvement. Then we take those comments, incorporate where we see fit. For the August meeting, we present that.

That will be Jessica and myself. We will present that to you all and then final approval from the board, and then we will move it to the mayor before our deadline, which is the 2nd of September. And in between, one of the things that Jessica and I are doing is we will actually meet with the mayor before our July meeting. With what's being presented, just again to make sure. We want to minimize any potential hiccups or disagreements, so we'll make sure that the mayor is aware of— also, they maybe have worked on their budget and making sure that they're truly aligned and that neither side is surprised with anything, which will hopefully make the whole process smooth, especially for the assembly members.

Austin, am I missing anything on that? I always like to double-check.

Hearing none. Fabulous. Um, so let's get into budget. So one of the things I did was I designed a quick sheet so we can be tracking. Diana will bring that up and we'll share the screen.

One moment.

Okay, can, uh, let's enable editing.

Um, and there we go. And can we shrink it just a little bit?

A little more perfect than the screen. So what I did was, this is just a working test. Yes. Diana, what we can see is the email that I sent. Okay, thank you.

Not the document.

That one, yeah, yeah, here we go. Okay, do you see it now, Austin? Perfect. Thank you. So all I did was wanted to create something as we're talking and looking at dollars that we have a running tally so we actually see, uh, how this all plays out.

You will see on the left-hand side are— this is just program cost. This is not including the $580,000 that goes to the treasury side of collecting the dollars. For the administration. This is just program. So if you scroll down, uh, and do you want me to run the show?

It's sometimes it's easier that way. Thank you. If you scroll down, you'll see total program. This was, was paid out. This is from our last meeting when we first started talking, what we've already allocated or suggesting This is the funds that are actually available for programs in '26, and this is what's unspent.

So as we're going through this, we can always be referring to this. How much money do we have, or how much have we gone over? And looking, um, granted, and I left it just so people could see in '25, like we— Mayor's Office, first quarter grant to Little Bears. This isn't going to happen again. Not the Boys and Girls Club, so you see that is zeroed out, things of that nature.

At our last meeting, what we talked about was the childcare subsidies. Reminder to everybody, these are the subsidies if you are a childcare worker in Anchorage and you have a child in childcare, you can get a full subsidy to cover that cost and allow you to go to work at a childcare facility. Last year, or this year I should say, for '25, it's at $1.25 million. The reason for that is we knew that we could not implement it by January, a full year, so they knew it's about 6 months and capped it at $1.25. So at our last meeting, we— everybody agreed that they want to see that continue, and we chose to go with the $2.5 for the full year.

Again, we will not know what the actual impact, we don't know the numbers, there's no data. The 2.5 was based off of numbers that I won't say I created, but I extrapolated like how many providers are there, how many people in Alaska, and if I could drill down to Anchorage, had children under the age of 6. That percentage I pulled out of. So I did some math to give a projection of what we thought. So, and that's where that 2.5 originally came from.

What were you projecting in that, can I ask? What we're projecting was specifically, and I'd have to pull it out, what we knew a full subsidy would cost. I forget what that number was. And going, all right, if we know that there's potentially And I would have to look at the math. If we had 200 individuals that qualified, that we were putting out $1,200 a month, what would that cost be for the year?

So that's what that 2.5 is.

I will have a better idea in a couple months if that's enough or too much. You will? I will. We will. Well, we'll see.

That's a question. I look at the economist going, you will? That's awesome. I guess because we'll know the uptake for the child care subsidies. Is there someone on the microphone?

Yes. I'm hearing some voices, but I can't see faces. If you're talking to us, repeat. If not, please mute. Yeah, I apologize.

You did the math the way that I would have. Yeah, well, good. I'm an amateur economist. So just so you know, we are hoping that this program will be released here soon. Hopefully, I think, uh, Austin, if I'm correct, by July, August, correct?

Are you talking about when funding will go out? When will we actually launch that project with Alaska Family Services? Is it targeting for July, August? So Alaska Family Services is already working on the application, but in terms of when funding would go out, we're aiming for August. Thank you.

So the application will go out, they'll start doing— we'll probably know— we'll start seeing data. Uh, we'll want a few months. It will take time to elevate and get people aware of it. So we probably won't know until November, December. And again, we also know that we may not even use the full $1.25 million, which means we may have more dollars But we won't know that.

And then what we would do is work with the administration on a budget amendment. And for the record, just want to recognize that member Georgina has joined us. Welcome. Thank you. Sorry, Emily.

That is okay.

Any other questions on that?

And one of the things we can even talk about is I If we think that all money is going to be spent and these are the numbers, great. But if we know that there might be more funding, we may want to even talk about, uh, what would an amendment look like? Where would we want some of that money to go? Maybe into an existing project and/or something that we just didn't have funding for but we'd like to see. So there's some definite opportunities.

Yeah, so probably for the next year or 2 years as this works into its cycle, we'll start seeing how our numbers are starting to play out and we'll have that data. Right. Welcome, Bill.

Then we had the stimulus funds for operational costs. These are the dollars that are going directly out to child care centers. $2.4 Million was set aside for that. That grant was given to THREADD. They are soon to put out the application on that.

I know I've reviewed it. I think it's now been finalized. So we should start seeing that come out in June and hopefully start seeing data by even potentially August or September on what the ask is related to that and how that all plays out. When we met a few weeks ago, when we were looking at that, And for the money, folks actually talked about increasing it and actually, again, getting more money into the hands of the providers and them determining. Again, just to remind folks, and some of this I say because we have people online that may not know, is when we were looking at this and trying to figure out how best to lift up the field, one, we knew we couldn't just do direct salary.

That was the number one thing, but we just don't have that kind of money to actually do it. And through conversations, and especially those when we were out in the community and those who have both been on this board and that implementation team board who are actually direct providers or past providers, they were like, one, don't make it complicated, and two, just give us the dollars and we will determine, 'cause different needs happen at different programs and that they did not want to be pigeonholed, especially if they couldn't sustain. So don't say I have to use this money for salaries, because I might not get the money next year, and what does that look like? So they can determine how best to use those dollars to keep their doors open for their families. So hearing that, that's why the board or the implementation team initially said put money towards stimulus, and then you all wanted to see even more if we could, $3 million to go towards that project.

Again, to remind folks online, I can't see you members. If you have a question, please just unmute, don't raise your hand. And of course, Austin, as the staff, if I'm missing anything or if I have misspoke, spoken, please just come off mute and correct it so we're working forward.

Any questions at this point? Okay, so today if we look at this, if we stick with these numbers, we have just over $1.5 available to us to still determine where it goes. We can and have a conversation about pilot projects and capital funding. We don't— I don't have a lot of data to share with you around this. I am part of the review committee.

We can't specifically speak of anything that's there, but I can tell you that if I'm remembering correct, we kind of created pots, and I use parentheses like, oh, $1 million for pilot, $1 million for capital. It may not play out, it may be a little more, a little less, but thinking in that sense, uh, capital, we, we total applications are 35. It's 20-some in capital, less than 15 on the pilot. In the capital side is, I believe, was around $1.5, $1.6 million in ask, if I'm remembering correct. And Austin, if you know those numbers, let me know.

And I believe the pilot projects are coming out to be roughly, close to $1.5 million as well, if I'm remembering correct. I've been reviewing them and actually tallying it up and seeing where we're at. So now, that doesn't mean that each one of those projects are actually good projects and should all be funded, but again, it gives you an idea of what the ask is or where people are putting dollars. I also want to put out there that want to be careful talking about the pilot projects because there is just the natural barrier that's existing this year is by the time the people put the money— we get the money out, they only have 4 months. So there's people maybe with projects that they had an idea, but it was like needing to be like 12 months versus that 4 months.

So things to just keep in mind as we're looking at this.

There's not a lot of dollars here. So I kind of want to open it up before I suggest anything is, what do you think we should do with that 1.5? And/or if you think some of the child care or stimulus funds need to change and go to something else, please share that as well. This is our opportunity to talk. Can— is there a way I can bring people back?

So I can just see—. Right there. Okay, now I can see, well, most of you. All right, but still just unmute. Let's start with online just so people feel, uh, not interrupting anybody.

Is there anybody online from the board that would like to share your thoughts and suggestions?

We're not muted. Okay. Wow, you guys are being quiet.

Bronwyn, go for it.

Can you— Austin, you can hear us?

I can hear you. Brandwyn just put in the chat that she's having trouble with her audio. She's going to switch computers. Oh, there— nope, not able to join us, so she'll try to come back. Do you want to take and share the screen, Trevor?

I mean, it's up to the board, but I think everyone knows now there's about 1.5 left to deal with, and then you could see everyone. We could see—. Sure, I was—. Yeah. I can switch back and forth.

Okay. Thank you. Um, let's do in the room. Yes, Kalia. Before getting into the chart that you put up, I just wanted to share, which some of you I think already know, but there's about $20 million in the state budget.

Of course, of course, it could be vetoed for child care purposes, and it's a combination of grants and tax credits for the employers. I just wanted to mention that several of those buckets are somewhat complementary to the purposes that we have in our draft chart because there's amounts for innovation, facilities improvements, and, you know, investing in staff. So I just thought the board members might want to know that the topics that we've discussed are somewhat in sync and in line with some of those purposes in the state budget. I say we'll see what happens. Thank you.

Well, and that's something like we'll propose, uh, we will see. We don't know when the governor will come out with this final budget and so forth. So that also could play into, like, if we're funding something that they're already funding and we could use the money for something else, that could also be a budget revision that we could do as well. So however we want to approach it. Yeah, and/or decide on something different, and then if they don't support it, do a budget amendment that way as well.

So we have options. Mr. Chairman? Yes? Sorry, go ahead. I was gonna say I think the state budget is a step in the right direction.

I don't think it's going to meet the needs, but, you know, it's all intended to help, obviously. Yes, thank you. Austin? I was just going to say along the lines of what Khalil raised, I just spoke with Rep. Fields yesterday, which I'm sure Khalil's spoken with him recently too, about the state budget, and he offered to come to the board and give a present— short presentation about the state funding and how it works. And just wondering if that's of interest to board members.

I'm seeing some nods.

Okay, I would think so, but it never hurts. But figured since it was on topic, I'd ask. Thank you. Right, Bronwyn, you had your hand up.

Can you hear me now? Yes, fantastic. I don't know, Austin can tell you that my mic works just fine in many other meetings, so I don't know why. I promise we're not trying to silence you. I don't know.

Um, I want— as far as other ideas, I wanted to advocate again for wage stipends, even though I know we've looked at it and realized we don't have enough to really make an impact if we're looking at how many providers there are, but I think a program that has a really targeted stipend would be a nice place to start where it's like only providers that have been in the field for 3 or more years, or certain things where we're just targeting that retention piece could have a really kind of an ongoing impact that would be useful. Thank you. Do you have any knowledge of anybody that's implemented something like, and maybe it's not a wage increase because we can't guarantee, but maybe it's a, I'll use the word bonus, a retention bonus approach? Do you know of anybody that has been utilizing something like that that we could be looking at? Well, we looked at the Juno program, right, and that seems like pretty a pretty effective program where they had— you got, I think it was every 6 months, there was X amount for, um, based on your education or based on your longevity.

And I think it was— we wouldn't— we, we did the math and then we're like, we wouldn't be able to do that here because it was too much money. But I think we could take parts of that, possibly.

Okay.

If you know of something or a suggested program that you want this group to look at, please get that to Austin, or at least to Jessica, I, and Austin as we try to develop this. We can look at it. Jessica, I saw your hand go up. [Speaker:JESSICA] Yeah, I'd say probably the most similar to that would, you know, there's the Juneau thing on a local basis, but on a statewide basis, Brett has done the Roots Awards in the past, and they're, you know, I think generally has been like just like a blanket amount to each person, but I know that there has been discussion in the past of, you know, of somehow scaling it so that it's based on some sort of criteria like either if it's education level or longevity level. I know they've talked about that.

It would kind of be an interesting one because, you know, then it wouldn't be just as low to everybody, but you could kind of target it. Right. Thank you. Jesse? I'm thinking that like ASG has something like this with the unions, right?

Um, and it's on a scale. Um, once you hit a certain point of years, you might hit a retention bonus. And so I can email or ask our HR department what that's looked like in the past. I know there also is a signing bonus if you already come with credentials and/or if you refer somebody to work and they stay for a year. After that year of work, that person who referred gets $1,000.

Okay. So, things like that, and I can explore those options. Yeah, any information— what would be interesting to also know, but I'm going to guess we don't have this data, But it would be interesting to maybe ask Dawn over at licensing. Does she have any— is there any records of the employees that are hired? What's the current level?

Like, I'd hate to create something that's like, oh, at 10 years you get $500, but we only have one person at that level that doesn't really do anything versus something of that nature. I don't know. I have a sense because we don't track That's something we will be talking about, strategic planning of data. But Kevin. So there is the SEED registry system that's statewide.

It's free for people to participate in. It tracks their education after they've, like, after they've started working in the sector. Right. And that might be nice because we don't necessarily just want to reward longevity, but also people investing in their education. Like, I would think—.

Hours. A new educator who's putting a lot of time into training is just as valuable as somebody who's been there for a couple of years. That has the same level of training, maybe, because it shows a commitment to the field. And that system is already set up. It's run by Thread, but it's statewide.

Kevin, thank you. I was— I had unmuted myself to talk about that. I'm actually the SEED manager, and so yes, thank you, Kevin. I just wanted to kind of go back with what Jessica was talking about as far as ROOTS, which is retaining our outstanding teachers. And last year in 2022, 2024, SEED actually was able to distribute $7.5 million out to the field with early educators, and this year we are preparing to do that again in the fall, trying to retain the teachers in the ECE field, but we're trying to open it up this year with not just approved providers, but also those that are in the field that are not approved.

So it's going to be a wider stretch than we have in the past. Also, as far as we do have data and information as far as those that are in the SEED registry, their education, we have their work, the facilities that they work in. So we do have a lot of data in the SEED system. That I could provide. Do you all provide already, if somebody finishes a level, a course, whatever that is, do they already get through the state funding a bonus, a reward?

What, what's currently done? No, no, right now no. This is a They can do reimbursements, so we can reimburse them for professional development up to $2,000 a fiscal year. We also reimburse for all CPR, first aid training. All of the threat training, of course, is currently still free at this time, but lots of reimbursements.

Also, we provide different stipends. We just did a $750 stipend for early educators that attended a training. So lots of reimbursements, Trevor, but they have to be at a licensed or approved facility in the state. Okay. You know what might be helpful, Mildred, if you're able to share not names but numbers, like, you know, how many Anchorage providers go through the training a year, or if you know And I don't know what data you have.

If you could initially put something together, what you think would be helpful, and get that to Austin, um, at least, or include Jessica and myself so we can look at it. We'll probably have other questions to see you have data so we could maybe internally formulate something that we could then bring back in June, uh, to share with the group. Okay, I can do that. Okay, as an option. Okay, and then we can also look and go, oh, like we wanted to do for Point of Conversation $100.

How much money would be needed if we wanted to do $200? So we could actually create something that could then be presented. Now before we even do that work, one of the things I should check in is, uh, this was one idea. How's the board feeling about that? I would love to see this interaction.

Silence. To me means you don't agree. I'm going to do the opposite because I actually want some feedback. Is this something you want us to explore and bring something back to you, or would you disagree with this, and if so, why?

I think it makes sense. I think I agree, especially with the comment that there's other grants from the MUNI that might cover some of the needs that we talked about previously. I think this is one that we specifically could help the community with if it makes sense with the data. Okay.

I like Bronwyn's idea. I mean, I think it's also complementary. It's possible to structure it so that if we have a large bucket of the stimulus funds and operational funds, that some portion of that could be allocated to or focused on this purpose. But Bronwyn, is that consistent? One way of doing it for you?

But yeah, I think, I mean, in terms of what we've heard from providers and from issues of the shortage, like the workforce shortage, I mean, I think this is definitely an important investment worth looking at. And I read about different policy ideas in other places related to investing in both retention and syncing it with training. So I can try to find some information to send to Austin. That would be great. I'm seeing other nods.

Kevin? I mean, I would agree. I think as a parent, when I think about access to childcare, it's quality as well as spots too. So tying things to training is really attractive to me. I mean, I could give my kids Hot Pockets and let them play Switch all day and they'd be technically safe.

I like the idea of people who are trained and they're learning and they're growing. So I think this is a good investment. We'll have to teach you about online safety. They're not safe on Switch anymore. Yeah, there we go.

That's a 3-hour training. At least, at least. Okay, I'm seeing other nods. Chuck, please. Definitely not opposed to it.

I think I'm still trying to feel out. I think I'm trying to— maybe I'm a little more skeptical of it. I think it sounds like that this would primarily be going through the big institutional daycare or childcare centers. And that those folks, like, if they were getting the operational funds, maybe giving a $200 bonus is what they'd want to do, but maybe that's not actually going to make a big difference for someone to be in a career field for 3 years. It's like a small retention bonus, it's that large.

And so I, I guess I tend towards more flexibility for the people who are doing it, unless there's like a really reason. And it feels like this way also kind of— yeah, like that there are folks who are— and maybe I'm wrong, maybe this would be available to folks who are doing like in-home daycare and that sort of stuff. But I guess I'm just not— I'm not opposed to the idea as a good idea. And it feels like if that's what centers wanted to do, they could make that happen on their own if they were getting this funding for baby 200. So going back to the point you made about I think less restrictions is better when we're just trying to get money out to make those settings better.

So, not opposed to the idea, just skeptical than maybe other folks. I do believe in-home can be licensed. So, I think that in-home could— Yes. Escape from it, right? Like, there are in-home that are operating unlicensed.

Yes. And maybe they just are not until they become licensed and go through the health and safety checks. Which I think it's an incentive to, to get licensed. Yeah. Mm-hmm.

Right, we might see more safe. Well, and really appreciate that. And that's, these are exactly the conversations of looking and like, and when we start laying out all the dollars. So I think what will be helpful is we kind of come back with some numbers and show And then we keep that in mind and thinking about the flexibility. And this is also why we want to put something out and then we really are going to push for public feedback.

And I'll work with Austin on that, whether not just meeting, but people can submit. We might even look at, I'll say, a survey. I don't know, because if all providers are coming back going, please don't give us that bonus, this is what we need, that's what we need to really be listening to. So I want us to also be keeping that in mind of how we're going to collect the data and the feedback. So we're hopefully moving something forward that's truly supportive of the industry.

Jessica.

Yeah, I'm kind of in the same boat as Chuck. Like, you know, it's— I think it's hard. You know, I see why you want to reward education, right? And people who are investing in that. But it's not necessarily the only way people learn in this field.

And, you know, I would like lean more towards, you know, having more weight on longevity if that was the case. Also, some things, some of the feedback that I heard during Roots Awards was, you know, my employees got this bonus. But they didn't necessarily equate it with my employer paying me more money. Sometimes it creates like tax situations where like the person then has to pay taxes on the bonus money and they don't always feel like it's the same as like my wages being more. And then also like there was no incentive necessarily to just like stay with that employer.

You might still hop to a different employer because I think there was like a small requirement Mildred could probably answer on, like how long you had to be in the field, but then there was no necessarily requirement of continuing or being with the same employer or— so there is just a little bit of a disconnect in how that works. I would think.

Yep, you're right. The eligibility was they had to be current and active in the SEED registry and currently employed as a paid employee of a licensed or approved child care facility. Those were the requirements for the last one. Did they have to be there for the past 3 months or the past 6 months, or was there something like that, or just currently? Just current.

Ronwen, I saw you. Yeah, because the Roots program is kind of the opposite of what I'm talking about because it really wasn't targeted and there were those so little sort of expectations and requirements that in my experience it caused some turnover, but I think overall, whether it's in a— and actually, to what Jessica said, the Juneau people did kind of address that and found that if they paid the bonuses to the providers, to the centers, so that the money was coming through that way, that made a big difference because there was that disconnect if they just got a check in the mail from a different organization. And so that can kind of address that piece, but whether it's going into general operational grants or these bonuses, I think the biggest thing is the stability of the program, because as a, as a provider, if I'm going to get sort of a random amount of money and then I can, yes, decide to use that for bonuses, but it doesn't create a thing where people know every 6 months they're going to get X, Y, and Z if they do X, Y, and Z. So it really depends, like, if we set up the operational grants in a way where it becomes a dependable thing so that the providers know kind of how much they're going to get. And I know that's not totally possible since, like, the total amount of money that we'll have will change.

But I guess it's kind of like when we were talking about the child care subsidy. Cities. The program's only going to work if we can continue it and it becomes something that people can kind of count on. And so I guess that's what I'm saying. It's the same for either the operational grants or wage stipends.

That's going to be the thing that makes the big difference. If it's something like that, we can some— in some ways count on a certain amount so that we can do actual— we can actually change things or have programs that people can depend on.

Well, let, uh, if you have info, send it to Jessica, I, and Austin, or at least just Austin. And as we start putting this together, we can look at those numbers. Let's see what we can come up with and present, uh, to you all for June with a suggestion of yay, nay, and how much, or not at all. And then, uh, we really start having that larger conversation and debate. Okay, and thank you, Christina.

I saw what you put in the chat. That was very helpful. Um, all right, other thoughts and suggestions of what you would like to see these funds be utilized? Again, thinking about how do we stabilize the industry, uh, and part of that is obviously something we've talked about is retention. And also, is there any potential of growing, although that's less because we just know the instability right now, but that's also something to be considering.

Mr. Chair? Yes. While people are thinking, um, would you read aloud what Christina Eubanks wrote? Um, technically I think we're not supposed to have chats in an open meeting because about substantive matters because the public who's watching the meeting later can't see it.

It's okay if you read it, it's okay, but we shouldn't use it as a way for interacting, just FYI. Thank you, I appreciate that. So Christina typed in, the state paid for a 3-year pilot project that was the first iteration of the Roots Award that was based on education attainment and staying in the same program. The focus was on Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. It focused on the attainment of CDA and college credits.

Thank you for that reminder. I'll probably have to be reminded again because I read the chat and it's done silently. You know, one of the things as you're thinking about this is I appreciate there was some conversation about licensed and unlicensed. And we know that if you have 4 and under, you don't have to be licensed. We also know that some people like having a childcare right in their neighborhood without it being a big facility.

It's a home and somebody is taking care of their child plus 3 others and have that. And we also know that being licensed is not easy and can be one of the barriers, just the cost to go through that. For just to have 3 more kids in your house, and it's easier just not to, and so forth. So one of the things we, we want to look at is how do we support either people to become licensed, and what does that look like? Is there a fund?

Or even potentially a fund that supports people of establishing their own in-home child care. So that they may not want to be licensed, but they still want to be meeting certain requirements like the fire extinguishers and so forth. Like, that's something we've talked about before is having available funding. It allows some level of stability while also creating expansion. Like a startup fund or something?

Yeah. The subsidies for the child care workers are those. Purely for licensed takers. If I'm correct, the subsidy is for licensed programs only, correct, Austin? Let's have, um, I mean, I could say it too, but Branwyn or Jessica or Kevin, do you want to talk through the conversation we've had with THREDD and what we landed on?

Or I can if you want me to.

Would you mind taking the lead on that? Yeah, yeah. So we've been discussing with THRED while they've been developing the application for the operational stimulus funds who should be eligible for that funding. We know most people, most entities, or many entities are licensed, so definitely those. We didn't want to leave out other entities that could have a high level of a legitimate outside organization that's you know, looking at what they're doing but is not technically licensed.

For instance, the American Camp Association oversees a lot of camp operations and there's a high level there of accreditation, but they're not licensed. So we included those and then we included one of the exemptions from licensing. So if you work in-home and you provide care to 4 or fewer kids who are not relatives, Right, Branwyn, Jessica, is that correct? Kevin, you do not have to get licensed, but we recognize kind of to the chair's point, there's a lot of value in having people doing that right in neighborhoods or people who know each other. And so we wanted them to be eligible as well.

It was a little bit of a push with Thread because Thread's trying to figure out, well, how do we verify these folks? How do we— we don't know who these people are. We all said great, this is a great opportunity to learn who's out there and what services people are providing that we don't know about because they're not licensed. So that's where we landed for the application, and those are the entities that will be eligible for stimulus funding.

Does that answer your question, Chuck? Yeah, I think that's okay. Before, fewer kids were done. Yeah, so there's a few options. And leading up to that, there were a lot of conversations.

I, I talked to school-age representatives to make sure they were feeling included.

I talked with Dawn to talk about what Dawn thought made sense, and we sort of whittled— talked with Jessica about, you know, got ideas about, or regulated, does that count? I mean, there were months, honestly, of conversations before the funding even happened. So anyway, I feel like that was discussed a lot, so I feel good where we landed.

Thank you. And thrilled to see that's where you landed. Much more inclusive and recognizing what's going on in the field.

What do we think about kind of that startup support funds?

And if you don't agree, that's okay too.

Yeah, I mean, part of me likes the idea because it does incentivize licensing, and there is a safety to a facility that is licensed. I think as a parent, you know, I— that's something that I would look for. Um, because I'm not saying it's easy to take care of kids, but like Kevin pointed out, you can just put them on a TV and then that's, you know, 8 hours of watching a kid. Um, so I see the, the benefit to it in that sense, while also recognizing that because of the need of child care, unlicensed facilities would also need the help, but I think a startup fund would be a good way to incentivize that while giving them money to, to qualify facilities, I guess.

My audio cut off for a second. What was there any discussion to like what sort of things would be assisted with in order to help do a startup fund type thing? No, not yet. We would have to develop that. And that's something we could somewhat do as a board, but also, if supported, work with the staff in creating that and drafting it.

Kind of like—. I don't think it's a bad idea, but I would point towards just like our priorities of being like, first stem the out flow of people, of people from the industry, and then stabilize. And I don't know, like, just creates a question, like, is that putting too much all together towards creating new when we haven't yet, um, really stabilized things? Which I don't know if we'll do right away too, but I think I'm more skeptical about how much demand there is for startup funds, just how many people are really like on the sidelines ready to start a child care center or start a business.

And I just don't know.

So for me, it's hard to think about what's an appropriate amount to set aside. It's not as easy as how many child care workers potentially have children. It's a math problem. Yeah. Well, what we could actually do is, when I was even thinking, and I've seen this in other places, is like depending on the amount, but some places it's like it's $2,000 or $3,000.

Like even if you set aside $30,000 to $50,000, it does 10 or so and just see, is there anybody who's even interested and we could provide that support? Even if you did $5,000, and I'm using the number without any backing to it. That's 10 placements, which could be 40 additional. They don't have to worry about staff because they are the staff, things of that nature. It would be interesting to see.

I don't know how else to gauge it unless we maybe look at— of course, we won't be able to do this for the budget, but this is something we even look in our strategic planning is how do we put things out to see if anybody's actually interested. Is there a survey, but does that— there's pros and cons to that, so I'm not married to it.

Austin, thank you. Yeah, thanks. You alluded to this, Trevor, but just to note explicitly that the implementation team discussed this idea a lot and really liked it out of all of the things that were options and actually included it in their draft 2025 budget that they submitted to the mayor's office, there was $200,000 in addition to the programs we currently have for funding for new, not yet existing in-home care facilities, and they were called In-Home Facility Startup Funds. And the, the blurb we gave on why was that while opening a new center requires a big investment, small amounts of startup funding for in-home facilities could be incredibly effective and therefore a very strategic use of funding to increase access to child care and early ed services. So not that that means you have to do it now, but it was something the implementation team prioritized.

So what stage was it taken out of the—. The mayor didn't include it with their budget. It was pre— as the board was forming, right? In between. Yeah.

And I think the thought there was— I mean, no, I saw Nolan a moment ago. I thought, but what wasn't that the program didn't have value, it was that starting up so many new programs in the first year would be a lot in addition to bringing the board on. So they just wanted to narrow the focus to a few programs, and that's how we ended up with the ones we did. Yeah, yeah, but I, yeah, and I am off camera, sorry. That's exactly right.

We had a little bit of fear about starting up too many programs at once, but I think that there wasn't like any opposition to the idea though. So I think, you know, I think it's on the table. And I think that's also just a good point as we look at the budget, especially in June, How much is continuing? How much is new? And is the capacity there to do it?

Like, that's always a piece of, of the conversation as well. That's what would be very important. Julio? The way you described it, like the example, like the 2000 seed capital press, I'm open to that. I think that makes sense.

One clarification I had, which I probably should know this, but if a startup was applying for one of the other buckets of money? Are they ineligible because they currently don't operate yet? Or like, if I had a startup child care in my home, would I have been eligible to apply for like operational for, you know, the new business? Or are they not eligible yet because they're not operating? I believe they're not, uh, because they're not operational, they don't qualify because they're not an existing program.

Because we could also— I mean, this is a brainstorm. Isn't it also possible that we change that eligibility standard so that—. I mean, I'm open to your idea of $50,000 example, but the other way is making it more flexibility on the eligibility standard for some other application to say startups are eligible to apply for however much they think is necessary, the $5,000. I was kind of thinking the same, that this maybe fits the operational funds. Start just for just expanding eligibility for that.

Yeah. And in theory, capital, like if I wanted to renovate a room for starting an in-home, that's another option, I would think. But I'm also open to the separate because there is a marketing aspect of like communicating to those startups what you're talking about. Yeah. I was just curious, are there multiple options?

I think that's something we need to explore. Um, I think Either way, if it could be incorporated into operations, it's already set up, we just have to tweak it versus set something up different. And either way, we'd probably want to market that specifically out. So that would still happen. So I love the idea of like, is there a way of marrying concepts and what does that look like?

Chuck? I'm very interested in that idea too. I would just want to make sure, like, I don't know the application rigor requirements for kind of the capital and pilot projects. But I can imagine if I was just trying to get $2,000 to like, yeah, change my basement and put a kid toilet in or something like, yeah, the amount of work I've done for applications before, like, I think that would probably discourage most folks who were just like, oh, I have a kid at home, I want to start a daycare, maybe I can get this subsidy and watch 3 other kids and I just need like safety improvements. So I would want to make sure that it's like a lower barrier to getting it through.

Yeah, make sure the administration costs doesn't cost more than what you're applying for. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just the overwhelmingness of grant applications. That's a good point because that is something that I've heard from providers of like, they're offering this incentive, but the amount of work that I need to do to get there is just not worth it, you know. Well, we've already received like feedback, like looking at these pilot projects as well as the capital, having to go through this online system.

There were some difficulties and challenges, things like that. So year 1, 2, and maybe hopefully lesson 3 is always going to be learning, but we're already getting feedback like that. But I really appreciate us being reminded of that. Austin, I see your hand. Yeah, I was just going to share that for the pilot projects and capital, to Chuck's point, that application is more comprehensive, and I think the idea being there that it's more competitive.

I think we assumed we would get more requests for funding than we had, and that we wanted to make sure the funding will be effective, right, and achieve the goal. The, the THRED operational stimulus funding application is intended to be a lot simpler and You know, many of us here have reviewed it, and I think I feel pretty comfortable that it would be much more accessible to people who wanted lower amounts, like to do something small that you mentioned, Chuck. So I think it could be if we continued with that program, we could add on, you know, startup piece. And then one other thing I wanted to add that I didn't mention earlier, the implementation team. So Branwyn, Jessica, and Kevin and I have been talking a lot with Thread about how we really want to to— I don't know if reward is the right idea, but put some funding toward entities that are doing things that cost more money, i.e., providing care to kids with disabilities, providing infant and toddler care, providing care in non-traditional hours, right?

If you're doing night care or something like that. And then was it learn and grow, being a member of I think learn and grow is the fourth. So we've talked about ways to build into the formula a little bump for those entities on top of the stuff I shared before. So sorry for so much talking, but I wanted you guys to all know that. No, please, you are interconnected to all this, so we need that feedback.

So no apologies required. All right, well, again, taking all this, Jessica, I, and Austin will figure something out and present. I'm not hearing any Hell no, but more of like, hey, let's explore and look. I'm going to give you a little bit of time to think. It's about quarter after 11.

Lunch has arrived. I'm going to give a 5-minute bio break for everybody and grab lunch, and then we'll come back, and I hope there'll be additional ideas. And we haven't even talked, do we want to continue with pilot in capital projects? We haven't even talked about that, and that's on that list. So we'll see you back at 11:20.

Thank you.

All right, it's 11:20. If you're with us, can you turn on your camera so I know, or give me a thumbs up? Just make sure. Jessica, are you still with us?

Mildred, yeah, perfect. Oh, in the sun. I don't want to see that camera. That's not fair. May you enjoy it.

All right. I just want to come back. Thank you. Thank you to the staff for organizing lunch. Appreciate it.

Okay, we've got a couple new, uh, I do want to circle back, uh, no one's brought up, we want to talk about the capital and the pilot projects, or let me not say specifically the projects, but that funding. Is there, uh, thoughts around that?

I can go. Um, I, I think that the programs are getting started so late that I'm kind of leaning towards, you know, doing some sort of pilot projects because, um, I would like to see more in that realm. And if there's, you know, some good ideas I'm not on the evaluation committee or anything. Um, but it's just such a short timeframe that I feel like getting rid of it completely is like, I don't know, seems wasteful.

I'd agree. Say again, Jessica. I would agree. It's a tight turnaround. Um, now it feels even tighter.

For 4 months, right? Okay. Yeah, I think that bucket of money should continue. I think there's clearly a lot of interest from the industry on those categories. And as a side note, I think the mayor, when she was here, said that she liked that concept.

So, I mean, to the extent it can be complimentary, that's probably a benefit. I'm also supportive of the operational buckets that we've been talking about, but I will Note that some of the Assembly members think it's, quote, have a, you know, strategy issue with it. So, in terms of the general operations bucket, even though I think it's important, there's a need. So, I think that having, you know, the pilot programs and innovation, hopefully we get more good ideas. And, you know, I think there are a lot of opportunities for the topics that we talked about earlier, like the brand one mentioned related to training and other programs that could fall into that category.

So. I know that the funding that we're talking about goes till this year, FY25, right? Is there a reason that we can't extend the time past into FY26? The Muni procurement rules. I think we've asked that and we were told it's a hard rule, but I can't tell you the But I guess so with that, we've brought money over year to year in this fund.

Yes. Yes. Okay. So if we allot X amount to Khalil's project, I know you don't have one, um, and we say you have these 4 months. And then January 1st, you're getting the next pot for, you know, 8 months for the same project.

Yes, so you're thinking of a workaround. I've thought the same. We are not— there's a couple things. So one, the system isn't really designed for that. Two, We can't then, let's just say $6,000, $6,000.

We actually have to get the mayor and the assembly to approve the $26,000. So you put that out, we can't guarantee because they could come and go, no, we don't want to continue that, we want to do that, but we've been telling people we want to do that extra $6,000. So that's a piece of it. And they don't approve that until late November. Until late, so they can't really guarantee.

So there's some timing and it is something that I have shared both with assembly members, past and current mayor, as well as with Bill as he's been looking at things, is finding a way if we put out a grant, we want it for 12 months, that it doesn't always have to be going out as of January, that there's a way of rolling that money over. They have to figure that out, uh, and or of course as we're doing this, one of the things we want to consider is for like something of this nature that when you may want to go to Austin, if once approved, that we want this to be priority to get out the door. So hopefully those monies can maybe get out the door by January, February at the latest versus later, and we should be able to do that now that we have a system in place, especially if we feel that system is the right system and be able to move it. So we're going to maneuver with that, but right now It's really a dead set of whatever money you don't spend by the 31st of December rolls over into our overall budget, and then we look at— we want that changed as well. But all of this is also new to the, the Muni.

But I'm like, it has to happen or somehow, because I know they have contracts for multi-years. And so we're just going to let the smart people actually We're going to encourage them and ask them to figure this out for us. It's new in some regard and old practice in others. I mean, the alcohol tax. Oh, no, the alcohol tax is the same way.

I am aware. Yeah, okay. Yeah, it's— so anyhow, uh, we're going to let the smart people like Nolan and, and, uh, others, uh, figure this out. Bill. Okay, so Yeah, oh, there's a message from Austin.

Bill could likely answer this well and quickly. Well, Bill ran away because he knew I'd ask this question. No, so can you, can you state the whole question then? I guess I was asking if we, let's say we are awarded $20,000 but we didn't get it until August. Okay, $20,000 between August and December could be spent, but Maybe.

It's just a tight turnaround. How do you roll over money from December 31st into the new year? Yeah, the single grant process. Okay, yeah, I want to make sure I get to the exact correct information on it, but yeah, it is typically— it needs to be spent in the calendar year situation though. Yeah, and I have talked to Bill.

I'll circle back. I know he's got a lot, but they've been looking at— I think there's a title to it, wasn't there, Austin? He's been looking at different aspects of grantmaking and updating it. And this is something that he is aware of, but I'll make sure to follow back up and make sure— find and explore a way, because I know the state has done in the past, but they sometimes are hard timeline as well. Feds will do extensions.

Like, what do extensions look like and how do you do that? So, yeah, okay, okay, thank you. All right, so Uh, we want to continue with Pilot and Capital. Great, we will incorporate that. Anything else that you want considered within the budget?

Anything that we may be missing, or maybe it's not its own thing? You've brought up a couple times like, oh, could that be added into what we're already doing? Is there anything that's coming to mind? I think that you want us to consider. Last time we, uh, talked a little bit about maybe an emergency fund that could be helpful.

Those projects we didn't count on and something comes up, right, that the mayor and the assembly and us could make recommendations if something— thank you for that reminder.

Like the Boys and Girls Club. Yeah, that money rolls over year to year too, right? So we might use it to smooth the budget out. We have it if everybody stops smoking marijuana one year, right? And the world stops turning.

Yeah. Okay.

Anything else? Austin? Yes, I was gonna just ask the board for sort of some conceptual feedback because I think if the plan is for you, me, and Jessica to work through this, this will maybe be the first question, which is, do you want— there have been a number of programs mentioned and people are interested in— do you want more things funded at a lower amount, or do you want fewer things funded? Like, for instance, if we're going to provide for an emergency fund and pilot projects capital program again, that might mean reducing the operational funds. I'm not including everything we discussed, but just as an example, is that what the group feels makes sense, or can we talk a little bit about that?

And maybe you were headed there, Trevor. I was actually going to ask you, um, that was one thing at some point, but I was also going to ask you from your experience and everything that you've been doing in the research and so forth, is there anything that you think that we may have missed that we should be considering from your expertise as well?

No, I think we're hitting on the right things. I think the challenge is that we don't have enough funding to do the things we really want, like more permanent wage increases. One thing that's come up a lot is training and recruitment, and we haven't really focused on that as much. But I think that that's a natural thing to be looking at right now, or not a natural thing to be waiting on a bit because we're trying to stabilize who's there now. So I think that makes sense.

But I know that, you know, sometimes Assembly members or other people get really excited about, oh, how about an educational thing or recruitment? And we're not focusing on that. Again, I think that makes sense. But just a note. Thanks.

Well, and I think when you start talking about conceptual, I'm sharing the screen on the budget, is again, if we, if you just give me a quick moment, and this is just hypothetical, if we did something for wage stipends that you talked about, we said a startup fund, uh, We continue with that, and then there's an emergency fund.

Okay, so if we start thinking about this, I was just thinking, and again, this is just me, hypothetical, we even just did $50,000 here as a way of testing the waters, seeing if you did emergency fund, what do we think is an appropriate amount? Like Boys and Girls Club got $400,000. Little Bears, they came in with a request for $200,000, and let's say we didn't have a capital project, or this is like someone came in and went, we weren't expecting this, but we got this windfall. If we got this matching dollars, we could do X, and we felt that was good. What is an appropriate emergency fund?

Is that $500,000? Is it only a quarter? What are your thoughts? I think $500,000. Just—.

Well, let's see what those numbers— sometimes just playing with the numbers helps. Uh, wage stipends, not sure. I'm just going to say $250,000. I don't think that's a lot, but I'm just going to throw that in there. And if we go back up to Pilot and even just did— if we did 2 million again.

Whoops, that's 20, a lot of zeros. So just the top, that puts us over by just under $1.3 million, just to give you an idea. And I think this is where Austin was getting in, is do we just do these 3 things again and do them well, or do we do less of— and again, less means less money usually— and be able to do these other things?

And I don't know if there's a right answer or wrong answer. It's what we think may be best.

I think the emergency fund is important that we keep it as its own thing, in my opinion, uh, something we didn't have last year that, you know, kind of got pushed on us anyways because of these programs that kind of needed it in a way. Um, but I can see the wage stipends or startup fund come out of the operational— yeah, if we wanted, because it kind of falls in my estimation in that same area, if that makes sense. It does potentially fall under that umbrella, right?

Good. So even if we drop this down to what we originally— is that right? That would need one more zero.

So that drops us down to $600. And if you somehow thought these could fall in, we're still just under $400,000 or just over $380,000 short.

You bring the emergency fund down to like $250,000, kind of in the realm of the Little Bears Playhouse project.

Mean by Xerox? That's a good question. On the, uh, I don't have a great understanding of the history of the Little Bears project. Uh, it seems like there's a world in which had the capital fund been available like ahead of time, they could have applied for that, and then it would not have been an emergency. Yes.

Um, and so I'm wondering kind of how much of the emergency is things that are an emergency because we don't have this other funding from year to year, and so they become an emergency, versus how much is truly, um, like, uh, yeah, that was right, was kind of planning versus— and obviously this funding wasn't available, but so I do wonder about like kind of setting aside money for that one instead. It could be, oh, if you know down the line, I guess there could still be like, right, I guess there's a buyer or something, but insurance, I don't know, like an emergency fund may not be the right word. So one, Little Bears, actually, it was through their own direct efforts with their assembly member and with the mayor and relationships and chose to just do a direct funding. I've been told that was a one-off because of that relationship, uh, and actually that decision was done after we actually released the capital project. So, and that was a different thing, and it wasn't emergency.

Pardon? Was there like an acute event? They're building a building and they have— I forget how much, but they've gotten some state funding federal funding, they've raised money, grant money, and this was going to be hopefully filling most of all, if not all of their final dollars. But because of some of the changes on the federal level, they've actually gotten a bigger gap, but they're still moving forward with the project with a loan. Khalil, you were adding and I spoke over you, my apologies.

They presented that they had a funding gap of when like the contractor was about to break ground, and I think the board at the time put the information in and thought, well, they could be eligible to apply for this capital funding. And then yeah, it happened through this other process that didn't really go through the board. I think that— I didn't think there was any queue to that, but the context was that Garwood doesn't really have any childcare, uh, so they— this is something that the whole community would benefit from. I think it increased number of spots to like an order Yeah, yeah. No, it wasn't that, but definitely it strengthens their service.

I'm not trying to cut you off. No, no, you're doing what you're supposed to be doing as a board member. Rachel is online. Oh, thank you, raising her hand. Uh, hi Rachel, we normally don't do public, but, uh, you always join, so please do share.

No, I'm just— I'm the executive director of Little Bears, and, um, I know there isn't a significant event, but I do want clear the air that our building was almost condemned in 2011 because of an unsafe roof. So we are at a risk of a roof collapse in the event of another earthquake. So it is kind of a huge emergency to get us in and out of here, and I just kind of want to clear the air about that, um, so that you understand that it's not just, oh, we're building a new building. Like, our children are unsafe and we've got to get them out. So these funds are just absolutely essential, and we're so grateful to have received them to get closer to the final budget completion of this.

So just want to put that out there. Well, in all projects, like anytime expansion and so forth, and I don't know, emergency fund is right. One of the things we've just noticed is sometimes there's things that may develop that either we didn't think of, and/or it's kind of the one-offs, and/or it could be also emergency, like we have a major well, major earthquake, it would be something different, but let's say a fire and money is needed to do, and we don't have another funding source. So it's a way of making sure that there's a little money off to the side so when those things happen, we don't find ourselves, uh, our hands tied, uh, not just as a board but more importantly as a city in the assembly. So that's where that came from, was really trying to think strategically long-term.

So I don't know if emergency fund is right. We, we use that word and we may want to change it, but it's having that little bit of, of cushion. But at the same time, we never know until about January, February how much money actually came in. So we may actually have more cushion because what we're basing it off of income is conservative conservative, uh, conservatory, um, conservative, I should say, is the word. Um, so we actually may, uh, have greater revenue because there's greater use and actually still have some money, which allows us to either increase and do more or add if that money is available.

So we could decide as a budget going, we really like having the, the startup fund. I'm just using that as an example, but with current money we can't do it. This is not something that has to start in January. We could wait till, I will say, March. I don't know if that would be the date.

We have to figure out that whole budget piece and come back and go, hey, we want to do this, and then put in an amendment to the assembly for that. So we do have some options to be thinking now and strategically forward. And we have a discussion about what happens with the emergency fund if there's no emergencies, because I guess in my head I'm thinking about this almost as a carryover fund too, that if there's excess revenue comes in above what we expected and we don't decide to do more, it's just, it's us saying we're going to spend this next year or the year after in the future. Or if there's a down year, or if there's a year where everybody starts smoking for a little bit, if revenues jump one year, it's a way of saving that windfall for a couple years. I'm thinking this almost as a savings account instead of finding emergency projects, but I'm just wondering, does anybody else have thoughts on what we do if we don't spend all this money in a given year?

Like a rainy fund? Yeah, rainy day fund. Interesting thought.

I'm going to stop sharing because we're getting more into conversation.

I like the idea because, yeah, we might not have— but to Rachel's point, if we have like another year of snow like last year, we might have more roof problems, right? We might need more than $250,000. So having $500,000 in the bank would be helpful, right? There's also a comment from Austin right here. That's sort of my thought is having it as a savings mechanism year over year.

Like we don't have to find an emergency every year. Yeah, I think Austin's question or statement and thing is, is it rolls over and stays in the ACE fund? We were just saying that it stays in the emergency sector. Section if we kept that money, the $250,000, keep it in emergency. So then it would be $500,000 the next year.

If you all feel more comfortable doing that, you certainly can. I don't think there's any reason you need to, because at any point, um, the assembly and mayor can do a supplemental budget amendment. So if there's money in the fund, you could say, oh, there's this incident we want to use money on this, but of course there'd have to be money there. So maybe your point is you're just reserving it over time. So, but you would have the same effect by not putting that amount in the budget and just leaving the surplus in the ACE fund.

Do you see what I'm saying? Like, you don't really need to specify because the leftover stays there anyway, but I think you get it. So, yeah, Chuck. Uh, just kind of being an outlier, I guess two thoughts on that. One, it feels like we're in the rainy day, like it, like it feels like it is the crisis.

And so I, I don't really want to like leave money unspent for some potential future when it's like right now. I think also realistically, I find it hard to believe that that money would not get spent. Like if we set aside money, my guess is that the assembly or the mayor's office would see crises happening every— right? Like I don't I don't think that that money is going to go unspent, nor do I actually think it should go unspent. Um, so I think the idea was to— that one of the reasons why it was brought up, if I remember correctly, last time was because we heard about Bright Beginnings closing, and the question was if we had something immediately available, an emergency fund, towards— they could apply and be like, hey, I'm going to close down if I don't X amount because even if they qualify for, say, operational costs, like, that's still not out and there's specific timeline where they have to apply.

So what if for some reason in the fall they don't get enough children and they're like, I'm going to close my doors, could that count as an emergency fund? And I think that was kind of like the question, I guess, also thinking for that. And with that, we'd actually have to think process. So there's a couple things that was discussed. One is if you had the emergency fund, it was $250 million.

So let's say every year we get $500 million, make it easy. This year we would just have $404.75 million to spend, and that $250 million, if it was never used, it would roll over. So the next year we have $5.25 million, and because we've established emergency fund, we— let's say we want it every year, now we're at that $5 million mark again. So it just continues. If we use it, then we would want to maybe potentially replenish it.

One of the things to also consider with this, exactly what Chuck and some others kind of alluded to, is if people see that money just sitting there and we do feel crisis, people don't always— the providers and the industry may be like, why are you just letting money sit there? We need it now. Worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. Pros and cons to that.

Chair, would you like to extend the meeting? Oh, we had— yeah. Oh, is it only till 11:45? Yeah, my apologies. In my head it was 12:15 because that's what we always do.

And Jessica, raise your hand. Yeah, thank you. Uh, so, uh, let's pause. Uh, let's— for extend the meeting, can we do, uh, 5-2?

Kevin made the motion. I think Jessica seconded. Perfect. So we have to just consider those things because time constraint. Jessica, you have your hand up.

Um, I was just— I had a question. You know, we, we have these pilot funds and everything in, in the budget, and I think that there's like a rule of like small things the board can approve and then big things have to go to the assembly. Is that right, Austin? Like, could we have some sort of discretionary thing where people have an application process to the board but not like large things? Like, yeah, so the reason that we can do that, um, so Yeah, what Jessica is referring to is within the RFP process.

If, um, because we have an evaluation committee and we have a process that we go through, if it's $50,000 or under, it doesn't need to then go to the assembly for approval. There's sort of a wrinkle in that, which is that that's normally the process, but because of some Title VII changes that happened, we have to process these as contracts and the limit is higher. So fewer things are going to go to the assembly, but that's kind of a side note that we're trying to figure it out because it's a brand new change to Title 7. Um, but yes, you could do that, but you would have to have a program that is like, here's the line item for that funding, and then here's a process to determine how to spend that funding, right? You couldn't just have some money and then be handing out funding without getting assembly or mayoral approval for that overarching funding amount.

Does that make sense? I don't know if that Yes, you have to have a process in place that's actually approved to then, then pushing it out. So there, we can't just have emergency and dole it out ourselves. Yes, correct. Okay, all right, um, a lot to think about, uh, really good information.

I'll be working with Jessica and Austin, and then we will bring something with a recommendation for us to further debate. You'll get it in advance so you can look at it and see it and be able to become prepared. Austin, am I missing anything else that we need to do or any other questions that come to mind? Or Jessica, because the three of us are going to be drafting this. I think this sounds good.

Just on a timing note, the June meeting is pretty full, which is next Thursday, right? We'll be going over the RFGP recommendations from the evaluation Committee, and we'll also be hearing from the Health Department on code changes that the Assembly will vote on one way or another in July. So Trevor, I think this discussion would happen at the July meeting. That's the reason. Thank you, yeah, because that would be next week, right?

I don't have time to get this prepped for next week. Right, then we have more time, yeah, to get information from Mildred or from Jesse or other people, Khalil, multiple people have offered to share ideas and thoughts So I would say over the next week or two, give those to us. I think Trevor and I are both out for a week in mid-June, not, not together, but similar timing. So we'll figure it out. But yeah, I think that the bulk of the conversation we would have in July, and we're trying to get a lot of the word out to the public too to make sure people are there in July or at least giving us feedback since that's their last real opportunity on our end to give feedback.

Thank you for that reminder. Yeah, I'm a little time lapsing here. I feel like it's the beginning of May, but it is literally the end of May. So it will be the July conversation. We'll have something and put it out.

All right. And Trevor, Trevor, did you feel like we got enough of opinions on like how to, like, do we want to do many new projects, or is there like a prioritization of these ideas, or— I feel like I did. I feel like I did, but if you want some clarity, you know, you're helping with this, Madam Vice Chair. I don't know if— would it be like— I don't use madam, but thanks. Uh, what if—.

My apologies. What if we just went— no worries. What if we just went around and like you know, give a quick opinion on like how many programs we wanted to do and if we wanted to see larger buckets or more smaller buckets, and that way we could kind of have an idea of where the majority of us land. Would that be helpful?

Sure. Do you want to kick it off? Or can we— Kaleo? I was going to ask on this note, Austin, since she has worked with Tamaya on a lot of the implementation, like, how feasible is it to add in another small to medium bucket, which is one of the things that's on the table? Like, do you see that as a— how big of a challenge is that?

I think it's totally doable. I mean, I don't want to speak for Tamaya or the administration, but I think that right now we have a system for both both the operational assistance and the child care subsidies, those can be extended up to 4 additional years with the current contractor. So if the board were to say they want to do that and the assembly and mayor agreed, it would be pretty minimal work for us to keep those going. We could even work with THREDD, for instance, as a contractor for operational funds to incorporate some startup funding, and we— the amount might be different, but we have the bones for those programs. So we also have an RFP that we put out for pilot projects and capital.

We might change it a bit, but we have a structure, so I feel really good about adding something else to that, you know, one or two something else's and being able to do it. And I think Tamaya would say the same.

Thanks. Okay, we just have a couple minutes, literally. Um, who would like to start this? Just how are you feeling about weighing things? If you had your, your kind of initial vote, I think I'd rather fund, give more money to fewer projects, keep it a little broad.

Thank you.

I think, um, do fewer Well, thank you. Kevin? I would agree with fewer and well. No sense spreading the money too thin to do it good. Chuck?

Simplicity and flexibility, probably.

Thank you. Leah? I agree, fewer, well, and with the note that I like the wage option within the Operational. Great. Mildred?

Same for me. Same for me. Yeah, the smaller buckets. Right. Bronwyn?

Are you froze? Yeah, I think more money for less things will help us. Oh, you can't hear me? No, you're good. I hear you.

I hear you. Go for it. Okay, you can hear me? Um, more money for less things. I think that will help us see if it's effective, um, and just have more effect than if we spread it out too much.

It will feel like, did we do anything? All right, perfect. All right, that gives us a lot of information. Great addition, Jessica, thank you. All right, everybody, uh, we're ending on the new time.

Thank you all, appreciate it. Thank you to the staff for your support, appreciate it. And I'll follow up with Austin and Jessica, and we'll see you at the June 5th meeting. Have a great day. Thank you.

Meeting adjourned. All right, thank you for everything.