ACCEE Fund Board Meeting June 5, 2025

Member Berry? Okay. Member Witham? Here. Member Brock?

Here.

Member Parker?

She's here. She's muted, but she said here. Member Nesit? Here. And member— is it Siaka?

Siaka. Siaka, even cooler.

Okay, so I just have member Berry absent, and I imagine that Trevor, the chair, is arriving any moment.

Perfect, thank you, Austin. I am pulling up my Agenda. The next item is to finalize the agenda and the minutes. And then the minutes. Yeah.

So just with respect to the agenda, Jessica, I didn't share this with you, but I spoke with Trevor. We might want to move Rep Fields up a bit if we end up talking about the budget a little more than was anticipated. So that could be the only change, but we can, I think, see how that goes. As we see how much time we have. Was that Trevor that just walked in?

It is. Sorry, my apologies. I thought it was so—. And then the minutes are from the special meeting that we had just last week. So, does— we want to take them separately, or can we do them together?

Is that okay to do them together?

When you say them, do you mean the agenda and the minutes, or what do you mean? The agenda and the minutes.

I would do them separately. I don't know, Jess. Okay, have a different opinion. But let's do the minutes from the special meeting that we had last week. If somebody wants to make a motion to approve those.

Who is the second? Jesse, that's it. Okay, thanks, Jesse. Thank you. And anybody opposed?

Hearing none, the minutes pass unanimously. And then we may adjust the agenda a little bit, but if somebody wants to make a motion to approve today's agenda. Motion.

I said, yeah. So, Member Parker seconded. Who was the person who made the motion? It's hard for me to hear and see in the— Georgina. Okay, thank you.

And anybody opposed?

Okay, hearing none, the agenda passes. And then, Chair Storrs, are you ready? You want me to hand it back to you? Sure. Thank you very much, Vice Chair.

Okay. All right. Uh, I see there's people on. Uh, we have public comment. Uh, I also know people might want to do public comment after the, uh, Health Department, uh, just shares, uh, their recommended changes.

Put that out. So is anybody here to speak, uh, outside of the Health Department recommendations? Want to use this public comment. If not, we're gonna probably shift it.

Not seeing any, but— Hi, Thomas.

Yeah, it's Thomas from Alaska Afterschool Network. The one request we've had from program partners— so we work with school-age, licensed school-age child care programs— is just if the meetings on the website, if it can just be clear the time of the start of the meetings listed on the Care for Kids website. Just been a little hard for partners to find out what time the meetings are starting and the dates. So that was just a request we've had from program providers in the municipality. Thank you.

We'll look at those. Austin will look and make sure Thank you. Can I just say briefly, Thomas, if you have any feedback that's more specific, can you send it to me because we list the dates and the times already. So if there's somewhere else it should be or something, a better way to do it, please let me know.

All right, anybody else for general public comment?

Hearing none, we'll move that. I do see Representative Fields in the room, and thank you very much. Why don't we move to that and give you that opportunity, Representative? Does that work for you? Sure.

Fantastic. Well, great.

Well, thank you, Representative. I know last minute Austin reached out and said, hey, do you have some time to just share related to the state budget and just the different aspects of childcare, early education, potential funding until the governor fully approves that budget and will definitely help us as we're also figuring out how to use our dollars here locally. So I'll turn it over to you. Thank you. And y'all can call me Zach because we all know each other.

Yeah, just a real brief overview. The legislature passed Senate Bill 95 and Senate Bill 96, which repassed last year's House Bill 89/Senate Bill 189. So that legislation had been litigated under the single subject provisions of the Constitution. So we basically repassed the bills as individual provisions to moot that lawsuit and ensure continuity. Childcare programming and funding.

I think the two key elements of those bills are expanding eligibility from families earning up to 85% state median income. So federal funds support childcare availability up to 85% state median income. With the passage— with the repassage of these bills, now there are state dollars that will be layered on top of those federal dollars for families between 85% and 105% state median income. Under the provisions of the bill, the Department of Health can provide greater subsidies for people closer to 85 than 105, so they kind of taper down as you reach that eligibility cutoff. And there's provisions that the department can support quality programs, try to provide some support for that.

And passage of Senate Bill 96 repasses the Child Care Tax Credit. So that's a 50% tax credit. A taxpaying corporation in Alaska would be a C-Corp, and it's up to $3 million per employer. It's pretty flexible what those credits could be used for—child care subsidies, building out child care facilities, and so on. And in addition to that, the legislature passed $7.75 million in child care grant funding.

Last year, these funds went directly to child care employees for those centers that reported those employees. This year, that would continue to be an eligible expense, assuming the governor doesn't veto it. However, we also added language saying that that money could be used for innovation grants or facilities. That was a suggestion of the department. So the money's a lot more flexible this year, and assuming it's not vetoed, I think there's this question of how providers engage with the Department of Health to get that money out the door efficiently.

That was something that we'd pushed for in the past, but also allow for whatever flexibilities— flexibility providers might want if they don't just want to pass it straight through to their workforce. So that's it. I just want to provide it for context.

Thank you. Questions? How can providers and when access those funds? You should engage with the governor and the Department of Health right now to urge support for it. The budget was transmitted to the governor last week, so he has 20 days plus Sundays to take action on it.

So that what the department does right now is basically provide input on each budget item. So it's a very good time for providers to be engaged with the department to say, hey, this is great, here's what we want to spend it on. Department of Health? Yes, Department of Health Child Care Program Office.

Other questions?

I guess I should have mentioned, and so in aggregate, the cost of the SB 95 and 96, the tax credit subscription is uncertain because any taxpaying corporation could use that funding, but the cost of the expansion from 85 to 105% state median income is over $6 million a year. So it's a meaningful increase in support for childcare, that on top of the $7.75 million. And if there's any meaningful participation in the childcare tax credits, that would also be a boost in state investment in childcare. That's very positive in my view. Barry, Chuck?

Just a question on the tax credit. Um, has that been around a while? It's only been around a year. And I know Was it, or like, what is? I don't know that—.

We don't know that a single business has actually successfully subscribed to it, and that was partly because almost immediately after we passed that bill, there was litigation. So I think some businesses were uncertain would it last. I know that— well, my understanding is that businesses were exploring it both through the chamber and with individual providers. Like, I know Christina at Hillcrest was talking to businesses about it. I don't know how far those conversations have gone, but I really hope that some businesses subscribe to it and test it.

So that we see some success in the next year. Is there any effort in providing education to businesses or even doing anything on a state level? Is there anything that we can do to encourage utilization of that tax credit? I mean, the tax credit was basically an idea that came out of the Labor and Commerce Committee 2 years ago, Justin Rafferty and Julie Colombe, the Chamber of Commerce, really championed the tax credit. So I know that Katie Kaposi is talking to our members.

I don't know, like, I have no idea. Does the average taxpaying C-Corp in Alaska know about this? I think it's a good question for business groups. Yeah, well, we're Anchorage, so thinking from the statewide perspective, but yeah. Be interesting to follow up with Katie on that.

How are you all feeling with the potential passing? Do we think the governor is feeling good about these? I mean, this is all stuff that he supported in the past, and he did put in the— in his budget the funding for what we repassed in '95 and '96. So I'm not particularly concerned, but I think it's always good to weigh in and explain why these are positive things. All this stuff came out of his child care task force, by the way.

Right. It's good to just remind him of that.

Other questions?

Well, thank you for coming in, Zach. And as always, thank you to you and the legislature for addressing this and passing this SIS. It is one-time funding. It's actually in each year. I think the 7.75 is now actually in the base.

It's going to be in the base. Yeah, that's how we passed on the House budget and in conference committee we won and got what we wanted. Okay. And then the bills, because they're statute, are also law. So, okay, at this point we've hopefully kind of passed the issue of it being one time.

It's the third year we've done it, so it wasn't— and that's what we argued for, is this is no longer one-time funding. This is This is the base of what we have to do. Okay, fantastic. Cool. All right, nice to see you.

Thank you, have a great day.

Okay, um, all right, uh, we're going to return to old business. Uh, first thing is implementation update of the ACE Fund programs. Austin, do you want to lead that?

Sure, good morning. Thanks again to Zach for being there. So just quickly, the Educator Subsidies Program, which Alaska Family Services is operating as a contractor, they're about to finalize their application and it should go out relatively soon. We, the Implementation Committee and AFS, have been working with the state to see what information, because AFS operates the state assistance program in the same region in Anchorage, what information they might be able to borrow from so that we don't have a heavy burden on applicants to submit that information again. So we've been working through that process in partnership, and I'm working with Alaska Family Services just to make sure that they're getting the word out.

I think this program needs less broad publication because it's targeted for providers who have kids, and I think their initial way to get the word out is to work directly with providers and see what employees might be eligible. So they're working on that. The operational assistance program that THRED is operating, the application is planned to go out June 9th, and we— they'll collect applications through July 6th. They plan to do direct email outreach to all the licensed entities in the muni to let them know about this opportunity, and then if after a week folks who haven't applied, they're going to do additional outreach and say, you know, you know this opportunity, you look eligible for this, you know there is this opportunity, right? Do you need help?

Like, what can we do to help you? They're also putting on their website a program description. I've run through that with them, looks really good, and they have a bunch of plans to share via social media, etc., especially because we are allowing for that exempt category of folks who serve for fewer kids who they're not related to, who aren't licensed. So want to make sure that they know about this opportunity so that we can collect data on that population. And also anyone that's accredited through the American Camp Association.

So Thomas, that's helpful for your group, probably they're going to be eligible as well. So they're doing, planning to do outreach, and both of those contractors, THREDD and Alaska Family Services, will be at our July meeting to give a more comprehensive update on where they are and just allow you the chance to ask them a bunch of questions. Applications should probably be closed, well, just about to close, and they'll be starting to think about funding formula and how to get funding out, hopefully starting in August. So it's a good time, I think, for the board to check in and hear sort of where we are and how we can support them and make sure they're doing all of that well, which they are.

Just quickly wanted to touch on— Tamaya, are you here with me? Yeah. Okay, great. Yeah, I just wanted to touch on the RFGP. Status for pilot projects and capital funding.

You know, we— the deadline passed on May 15th, and we received many responsive proposals. I'd love to talk to you more about that, but we're not allowed to because Title VII limits discussion around anything related to proposals that were received via an RFP process. And, you know, as you know, we were planning to come to the board meeting and discuss it here, but there's just this internally within the MUNI, uh, conflict between Title VII, which is the procurement code that says the evaluation committee can't share it with anyone, and you're not all on the evaluation committee, right? And then there's Title XVI, which says the board can weigh in on procurement decisions. So we're just in this— kind of exciting— we're in this unique place where this is the first board that is able to do this kind of thing, and we're trying to figure out internally within the MUNI how those code sections align and whether we might need changes.

But for now, it was just too risky. We didn't want to risk the, the RFP process and, you know, cause any issues with that because we want to get funds out as soon as possible. So our plan is to bring you in July, hopefully hoping that things, awards will be public, and then we could bring those to you and talk with you then about them. And I'm sorry for that switch, sort of a late-breaking discovery that there was disagreement within, you know, just how to approach those code sections. So Jess Willoughby, who's there, and also obviously Tamaya helped me sort of navigate this over the last week.

Is there anything else you all want to say about that process or just about the RFP or anything else that I missed? Are we allowed to share how many applications we received and total amount? That was asked for? Can't talk about anything? Okay.

I believe no, but Tamaya can confirm. No, we can't talk about anything, including whether or not the committee has met. Okay.

I think I feel comfortable saying I'm very excited about this process, and I think that you all will be too.

And the only other thing that I was going to add that Austin and I have talked about is obviously this is the first time we've gone through this process. There were a lot of growing pains, and so, you know, we're always open to feedback from all of you and any providers that have talked to you about the process and already have a running list of ways to kind of improve it. Moving forward. So, you know, please reach out to Austin or myself with that feedback, and we may also survey, you know, providers, either people who did submit applications or— and more general, because there may be people who didn't because of issues they ran into. So we definitely recognize that it wasn't a perfect, smooth process, and we are already planning on how we can do that differently as we go forward.

Yeah, that's great. Thanks, Tamaya, for adding that, particularly if there were challenges with, you know, entities even applying. Like, we heard about some of those challenges more vaguely but didn't get a lot of specifics. So if there are specific aspects of this process that did not work, it's really helpful for us to hear those specifics so that we can try to make it better. And just make it more accessible.

And Tamaya and I have talked about ways that, you know, the alcohol tax, which is another pot of funding that's used for really cool things in the community like this, they offer a technical assistance. We— they use a portion of their budget for technical assistance to help applicants to hire a third party because we can't do that, help applicants apply who might not have the capacity or sophistication or just you know, sort of experience doing this sort of thing, but have a really good idea and could make a real difference in the sector. So we've been talking about that with Trevor and Khalil on the evaluation committee. So, and Nolan too. So I think there's a lot of, yeah, excitement about the process moving forward, but some code things we need to figure out.

Fantastic. Hi, Scott. I had a question. In a hypothetical future that may or may not exist, I mean, I, it sounds like we'll be able to see grants are awarded, obviously will— are the grants that— for the applications that weren't awarded, are those publicly available? Are those available to us?

And it feels like it would be helpful to get a sense of like where the appetite and where like the whole scope of who was applying for this as we're making these decisions. But I, I'm not familiar enough with this process to know if that's a possibility.

Yeah, I think Tamaya might have thoughts to, but as soon as the process is over, anything that was part of the process is available publicly, correct, Tamaya?

Yes. So yeah, once the, the confidential part of the process is over, proposals that were awarded, proposals that weren't awarded, if there were any proposals deemed non-responsive, which means they wouldn't have even gone to the committee, all of those become public. And, you know, can be requested through records requests, or if there's an interest by the board, you know, we can coordinate, like, putting information together for the board. You might not want all of the full applications, but it's a lot. But yeah, that information all becomes public.

And if I— oh, go ahead. If I can share an idea. We suspect that everything should hopefully be public by end of June, if I'm remembering correct, is the goal. So that would be before our July meeting that what we could do is a very short presentation on what's the total ask, because we set aside $2 million. Part of this is also like, let's just hypothetically say we got $10,000— $10 million in applications.

In asks that were really legitimate, that might also influence what we do for '26, right? Whether find more money or maybe save people the time and be even more specific to certain demands and things of that nature. So people aren't writing and then being denied things of that nature. So I think what we'll do is I'll work with Austin and the review committee on providing like those numbers. And then we can also provide you with our kind of feedback of what we're all suggesting with the system, as well as maybe what, what moving forward with this program looks like and how best to do it.

Does that work for folks? Yeah. And I would hope that we get the same, like, when we, when Thread is done, I want them to come in and share with us how many applications all that and then have them come back and go, all right, what's the impact of that? Things of that nature. We'll do the same with Alaska Family Services to keep us informed of how these dollars are going out.

What do they ask? What they look like? And how do we make sure that they're achieving our goals, but also hopefully not being a burden on the community?

Yeah, and then just one other note about timing. One of the last pieces we're trying to figure out is whether these need to go to the assembly or for approval or not, and even if they don't, whether we want to just to engage the Assembly. But I think we're trying to balance engaging them with delaying funding going out. And so I see that we have Member Silvers and Member Baldwin-Day on the call. I'd be happy to chat with you about that offline at any point around sort of how we're trying to— you know, there's always this balance of Do you go above and beyond and say, here's the, here's the stuff we're thinking of doing, we don't really need your approval, but we want you to know, or do we say, let's get the money on the, out to people in the sector who really need it ASAP and then report back.

And so anyway, we're trying to figure that out internally.

Any other questions for Austin?

I have one. Austin, you said that if we're hearing feedback to direct that to you. The reason I'm asking this is because I did hear quite a bit of feedback from some of the Spanish-speaking providers. They said it was very difficult for them to apply. They didn't know what to do, so I did give them the address of where to go and who to speak with at City Hall, but they were very nervous, they're very, um, just unsure, and of course I could not support them And so it was hard.

So I just hope that, and maybe I should know this answer, but I don't. I hope there's also some type of support for them as well. We have a huge population. Yeah, thanks for bringing that up. And I forgot to mention that when Tamaya and I met with the woman in purchasing who was working on this RFP, she said that, I can't remember all the details and I have it in an email somewhere, but that there was more interest, more calls about this than she had seen on an RFP in a long time.

I think the good news is people are really excited about this and we were attracting people who are non-traditional applicants. The bad news is she was getting questions she's not allowed to answer from people who couldn't navigate even the language barriers. There were definitely some barriers for people, so I think that the silver lining is if we improve our process, we can really reach people who aren't really being reached. Tamaya and I have talked about possibly using translation services. She brought up that that happened in the alcohol tax.

The problem, of course, with that is the more we spend on technical assistance and translation, etc., the less we spend programmatically. And I'm not saying we shouldn't spend it on the former, but just something to keep in mind. And, you know, Tamaya reminded me that not only are you translating the application itself, you're then translating all of the responses, right, that have to be translated back to English. And so I don't— I think we could do that. And we've been talking with the evaluation committee too, like how, how would we approach it next time?

So thanks for that on-the-ground reminder that that's really happening and is a barrier for people.

Jessica?

Yes, I know one thing that Fred did and does on their forms and stuff was they use, like, they suggest using Google Chrome, and then at the top they have like a statement of how to translate it. And Google Translate usually does a pretty good job. So, you know, the Spanish-speaking providers, or they were able to just like submit in Spanish and then you could translate back, and then it translates each of those boxes so you know what goes in there. That is such a good reminder because THREDD is actually doing that in their application for operational assistance. So that's, that's great.

Tamaya and I will talk about that and see how we could incorporate that maybe in kind of a more cost-effective way to do it.

Right. Any other questions?

All right, thank you again. This has been a really, really heavy lift getting all these dollars out in all the systems. So thank you to the board members that have been doing the reviewing and assistance and process. And again, thank you to the entire team, Austin and Tamaya and everybody else. Really, really appreciate this.

Let's quickly just talk about the '26 budget. Uh, thank you all for who are able to join us, I guess it was last week, uh, and sharing your thoughts and feedback. Austin, I, and Jessica have been talking via email. This is really draft form. Um, so what we started doing was when we looked at this, we just didn't want to come out with just numbers in the budget, and one of the things that we started doing was creating a little bit of an explanation, and this is really rough.

Let me—. Let's do this.

Okay. That, and we're going to work on this. Please don't get into wordsmithing. We just wanted to get a sense from you if this is the right direction. Our ultimate goal right now, we've been talking about this as a board, is it's real, uh, focused on field stabilization.

That's what we're working on. And then what I did was created some objectives, again from our conversations past several months, of how we would do that. You'll see that we created 3 objectives. One was just sustain and expand operations The other was retain and strengthen the workforce, and then increase access.

And then what I tried to do was give a little bit of a, a narrative. Jessica and Austin haven't really had a chance to go through this. So again, don't worry about wordsmithing. We're gonna develop this and then get it out to the public. But from everything that you talked about, we created like the stabilization grants.

Which we currently are using at THREADD. We talked at $1.5 million. The pilot projects and capital funding, I specifically— and this is a note for us— was to include, like, money for technical support, like what we just heard from folks needing assistance. I put in $50 million. I'm not sure if that's the right amount, more or less, but again, realizing that out of this $2 million, we would want to do that.

But there could be another way of doing this.

We created the Educator Childcare Subsidies at 2.5%. Again, that is what Alaska Family Services is doing in implementing. People talk and share a lot about trying to do retention bonuses. Of course, it needs to be developed. I wrote in based off of training experience.

Again, we have to create some detail. And one of the things we will do as a side note, under each one of these, we'll provide a narrative. So when we put this out to the public, we may know what, like, what Educator Childcare Subsidies means, but the public won't. So we will provide a description again to help people know what we're suggesting so they can give feedback. But how the retention bonuses— we're not going to get into how they go out, but talk about what they are, that larger picture.

Uh, there's going to have to be more discussion on what this looks like and what is that matrix. And then under increased access, we talked and I just put up startup funds for the home-based programs.

Again, explore, but I just thought, oh, up to $5,000, which would allow 10, kind of a pilot approach, and specifically put aside $5,000 for administration. I wasn't sure if this would stay in-house because it's so small. We might do the full amount that goes out to an organization to manage it. We might actually even add this to what Thread's doing. I don't know.

Again, I'm talking hypothetical, but there's always administration and I didn't want the— off of the $50,000 to drop down to $45,000. I actually wanted to see at least $10,000. So, again, that's how it was approached. Total amount is just over $7 million. The amount that we have available is just over $7 million.

There would be actually a shortfall of just under $38,000. We would develop the budget. We know administrative, we get up to 10%. The full amount has been dedicated. We could easily know that we're not going to use all of that.

$38,000 Come from that. We also know that probably this year we may not use all the funding that was expected, as well as we might actually gain more. We'll know by the end of the year the amount of revenue that was brought in. $38,000 Is completely manageable to be over, and we would develop the budget as such that it was covered what our plan was. So just to share with folks, this was— again, this is just initial from our conversation and thought.

Uh, wanted just to get your take on this, board members. Was this the path that you were hoping to see us take? Are we missing anything?

Again, open discussion. It's not the final budget. We're going to— the numbers, I think, are final. We're going to create the narrative piece. The goal is to have it out to the public in plenty of time that they can review it so we can have a hearty conversation in July to get feedback and then be able to make any adjustments from that feedback.

To then bring you the final budget in August. Austin, is there anything that I'm missing or that you want to add to this conversation before I open it up to the board? I think, you know, the first objective, recognizing that the board initially said $3 million toward operational assistance, but trying to build within that some maybe more strategic and innovative pieces. So that's why you see that $3.5 million that captures both pilot projects, capital funding, and just general stabilization grants. One other thing you might want to mention, Trevor, is just why we didn't include an emergency fund.

There was some discussion around that. I'm happy to share my opinion of why, why we didn't, but I think you probably can articulate that. Thank you for that reminder. So looking at this and from the conversation, there's pros and cons to it. I think right now, uh, the The big issue is we don't have a process in place.

It would take time to be able to do that. And I think that's something we could look at as one of the things we work on for next year, if we so want to. But also heard not just from some members of this board, but also the public. It's like, what's it going to be like with everything that's going on that if we were holding, for example, $500,000 off to the side and it wasn't being used. But yet there's a need, and are we really in that position to really defend that at this point?

Feeling like we weren't with everything still being so new and going out. And really wanting to also make sure if we go down that path, that there's conversations with the Assembly, because then it's just money sitting there. Are they determining that, like, do they access it for things that may not be emergency because money hasn't been? If someone does a really good job in advocating and getting an assembly member and reaching the mayor, we don't have those final decisions. So they could access— so I think there's a lot more to it and a lot more conversation.

I think the idea is interesting and good, but potentially may not work within the municipality system that we're working within, but deserves more conversation before we put it in. So that was, uh, why I didn't include it. As well as there's just still such a large need. Austin, is there anything you wanted to add to that? Nope, perfect.

Opening it up to board members, any initial feedback that we can incorporate before this goes out to the public? And I would actually love to hear yays or nays, like if each board member would just take a quick minute to go, yes, I like this, yes, you captured what my thoughts Nay, I would like to see this, whatever that would be. We'd really love to hear your direct feedback. I'm going to stop sharing so folks can— I can see everybody, if that's okay.

On the retention and bonuses, we came up with $1 million. Is there—. Is that just a number we threw out there? Solid round number? Yes, that's exactly what I did.

Uh, not doing it, not knowing how many employees, not knowing what the matrix will look like, went with that because no idea. But if you have a sense of something different, please give that feedback. I didn't have a reference point, uh, for it. I guess that's where I wonder with Mildred, I wonder if we can come up with a better sense of licensed child care, right? Mildred, you had said that you had, is that right?

Am I misunderstanding what you said last time of licensed child care in the state? No, I can, actually we use the state CPO website to see the licensed child care But as far as SEED, we have programs, all licensed programs that have applied with the SEED registry. So all of them have not applied to be a part of the SEED registry, but I do have a large number right now in SEED. We have 1,773 individuals that are part of the SEED registry, but that's statewide. Of course, I have to break that down to see how many we have in the registry that are Anchorage only.

However, remember, all licensed programs are not a part of the registry. It's open for everyone, but everyone's just not in the registry. Mildred, could you get me what that number is? And are you able to share— and I don't know what other data— I think when Jesse shared, like, there's some that are based off of longevity, like, you're just a year, you get this percentage. If you, uh, there for 10 years, you get a different amount.

Do you have that information by chance? Yes, I have the information as far as when they apply for the C-registry. I can see how many years they have been an early childhood provider if they, if they put that information in, so I can share that, yes. And is it the number of years they've been a provider or the number of years they've been apt The organization? Both.

I can, I can see both. That would be great because, um, sorry, I took over your mouse. Um, if you could get that info so we could maybe create a little bit of a matrix just to see, is the million the right number or not? Thank you.

Great. And then could I ask, Mildred, can you also identify in that same population of Anchorage providers that are part of the SEED registry, how much training those folks have had. Yep, I have that too. Great. And then I think if there are levels of training, like, oh, there's 50 who have done this many blah blah blahs, there's 25 who've done this many, like levels I think would help us think about where to set different bonuses based on different levels of training.

Yes, I can do that. I actually just provided that list with, um, with the state actually a couple weeks ago. Great. I don't know how hard it is to pull that together, but I'm trying to because I'm going to be out from the 12th to 17th, so I'm trying to do this. But well, we can coordinate after.

I just did. Yeah, because I just did the report last week, so I'll just— I'm going to see you there. See you there. Just Anchorage stuff though, obviously. Yep, I just have to redo it for Anchorage.

Yeah, thank you. Thanks. I see Jessica, your hand up online, and then we'll go to Chuck next.

Yeah, I just wanted to see if we were thinking this bucket and providing those dollars to the program to go to the person or directly to the person.

That's further down in the weeds that we have not determined. How that would be done. That would have to be figured out once the budget was approved and we move the program forward.

But as always, open to suggestions, feedback. Also, we have to look at what's going to be the easiest way of doing this administratively as well. But I think we could say that we've heard a lot of feedback from this board and otherwise that it's best to go through the organization where the employees work. So I think that would be the goal if we could do that, if that's okay with you, Chair, and other members of the board. Yeah, why— thank you, uh, Jessica.

I saw your thumbs up. And as we work through these things, like, there might be a committee or the whole board could help figure this out. And, and again, uh, we've been given some models, and I know Juneau also does it, so let's follow the processes that seem to already be working well and not reinvent the wheel, as they say. Great. Chuck?

I think I'm still remain unsold on maybe the concept of retention bonuses in this whole thing. I see them as very like the goal similar to the operational and stabilization support. And if I'm misunderstanding, please let me know, but both are kind of How do we really stabilize the industry right now through whatever the operational needs are of an organization, which includes salaries for staff and that sort of thing? And I guess I haven't seen research or data that kind of backs up broad-based retention bonuses based on education and longevity as being really impactful. And it seems as though it adds a pretty complicated process that would require a lot of paperwork, a lot of tracking, could potentially be leaving folks out who don't fill out that paperwork, and it's going through the organization anyways.

And so I, I guess I don't run one of these organizations. I know folks here do, so please tell me otherwise, but I imagine if I was running one of these, I would rather just apply for one piece and get a chunk of money and then figure out how to spend that rather than apply for one piece, make sure all my employees are registered in a database, figuring out kind of what these varying levels of bonuses are for them and that sort of thing. So I guess I— where I am now is I, I would advocate that we kind of move the retention bonus money into the operational stabilization piece and just keep that simple and try to get money out quickly, as simply as possible, and verify that the organizations are real, doing good work, all of that sort of stuff, and then let them figure out the best way to stabilize their own organizations rather than us figuring out this end.

Thank you. So I guess that's where my question kind of stemmed from, is like, did 1 Million just kind of was it a pretty number? Because just giving based on we're going to leave people out, it's going to be hard to track, and it's up to the individual employer to decide the wage, right? Uh, I hear constantly that ASD is stealing the employees from child care because we just increased our wages. So I feel that that's the— this is the opportunity for the child care industry to be able to use this money, right, to increase their wages.

That could be the operational.

I agree with Jeff that it makes sense to put it under the solicitation grants because it does make it easier for the providers to just apply and say I'm going to use it for the retention bonus as opposed to, say, having two separate applications. I do think it would be easier, especially if there's like navigation of language barriers, trying to understand one application and then another application. That could also complicate things.

Trevor? Yes. I don't know if this is an option or not, but we had a meeting a couple months ago. This one of our board meetings a couple months ago, and Melanie, who is the CEO of Campfire, came on and she shared that she would like funding or would propose that there would be funding for operational costs, you know, and that's something that she's been dealing with. I wonder, would it be beneficial, or if we could, if we could do this, have her to come in to speak to us, who is the CEO of Campfire, large afterschool network program, if she could share, like, what are those costs?

Like, I don't know if it would maybe give us a better understanding of what she's dealing with and what others might be dealing with. So then that would kind of give us a number, you know, to kind of, I don't know, to help with this process.

I don't know. I'm thinking out loud here. No, love. And that's what this discussion is. Be happy to bring in more people One, hopefully she or others will come in July and do the public comment.

Don't know if I would necessarily bring in one singular organization to speak, because it is large and there's different sizes. We need to do further research or bringing in an expert that could hopefully come from all directions as we're looking at this, uh, will be very important. That would be my only hesitation of just inviting a singular entity. I agree. Uh, but one, I'm hearing, like, let's do some research and look at the retention, uh, and so forth.

Uh, but I'm also hearing, which is always the case, is how do we lessen that administration burden and what does that look like? And us keeping that in mind. Khalil. Yeah, so just a comment on the question of why do we think wages are linked to retention. I mean, I think most like national research that I've read says that this is one of the top issues for retention and that basically wages have to go up in order to keep people in the industry.

Otherwise, they'll go on understandably to other related jobs where they can get a pay bump. So, I think there is some level of consensus on that's like one of the top things that can be done. I definitely hear you on, is this going to add an extra process that the providers have to deal with? So, I mean, maybe that's something we should look into. Like, is there a way— let's say we ended up doing 2.5 for stabilization grants, but could we— I mean, this is a question maybe for the people who do logistics, like say, make sure that, you know, half of that or something like that is somehow going directly to the workers, since we know that is one of the top things that can be done.

Which I know that you said in the last meeting that you like flexibility, so this, this would be a, you know, one parameter, but then there would be other built-in flexibility too. But I do think, I mean, from the last budget meeting, I thought several board members thought getting retention, some form of incentive was a priority, and I agree with that. So I think there should be some form. I like that there's a $1 million to that purpose, but I also could see maybe there's a more efficient— if we— maybe there is more efficient way to find it to streamline the process. But I'm in favor of it in some form.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else online that want to share? Jessica, and then I'll come back to you, Chuck.

I wonder if, like Chuck was saying, there's a way to build it into, like, the formula and put it in the operational money. And then depending on the size of the program and how many employees they have and their longevity, like, give them a chunk and say, like, this chunk is for X versus this chunk is for spend as you need in these categories. I wonder if there's just a way to do something like that, but that way it's just like one application, one, one check. Go ahead, Austin. Okay.

I was just gonna say that I just looked at this this morning and sent it back to Trevor, so I haven't had a chance to connect with Tamaya yet, but I think there's potentially— there's some things we need to talk through about for instance, if this went through the operational assistance RFP but it wasn't identified in the RFP last year and it's a new aspect, whether we could still renew that or would require a new one and what— how much that could be amended or not and still operate with the same contractor without going through that process. So I think I'm hearing what you're saying and I'm taking notes on it. I think ultimately it's going to have to depend on the muni logistics and how we can do it, but I get the point that the less burden, the better, and I agree that the more we can combine programs, the better. Yeah, we, when we had a meeting with Tamaya, can't discuss what that meeting was. One of the things we came back and as we were thinking was, as we developed this budget, we actually wanted her to look at it, not in the sense of numbers, but in process and looking at, like, can we continue doing what we're doing with these changes in our thoughts?

Was it going to add? And also just look at the administrative to make sure that again, we don't find ourselves the money coming out so late, really trying to get this front loaded. And because right now we're still working kind of behind, uh, like right on the edge of everything. We're getting further ahead as longer we meet as a board, but some of the stuff we would have wanted really planned out even like a year ago. So we're getting better, but Tamaya, we're gonna tap into her, her knowledge and her perspective to make sure that we're not creating something that we're going to regret because of process.

And we'll incorporate all of this and share in greater detail. Chuck, you wanted to share something? Yeah, I just— I fully agree. I think that probably like wages are the most important part of retention, and I'm not trying to like— that's not at all what I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't have money available for that. I just imagine that a center could choose to give retention bonuses to their employees, right?

Like, and I think I would hesitate towards saying you have to use X percentage towards that. Like, I think I would trust that organization to figure out what is the best thing that's going to stabilize our organization, because it might very well be that, and they could say these bonuses are because we got this one-time funding and we really want you to stay, or it might be something entirely be different. Um, and it just seems pretty like broad brush to think that in all cases it would be the retention bonuses or the same amount of retention bonuses or for whatever year. Like, it seems like being able— like, having that space to be able to figure that out. Uh, well, but I think definitely I would hope that that would be an option under the stabilization fund in case, right, that you could—.

I think it already exists the way it operates currently. Yeah. So this is trying to place an emphasis on value on, you know, increasing the money that actually goes into the— well, is there a big concern that that's not happening? I guess. Well, I'm going to take all this and come back with you.

Really good. Uh, Bronwyn, uh, go for it.

Um, I'm trying to explain in my mind the difference between the operational funding and the retention bonus in terms of the ability for it to be more stable, but without knowing how they're going to do the formula for the operational grants, to me, we don't— I don't know what that formula is or if it's going to change or if we're going to be set at this time and then it's going to be the same every year. But from the provider side, if I'm getting a random amount of one-time funding, I can maybe do like a one-time retention bonus, but that's not going to be super effective. I can't raise wages unless I know that I'm going to get X amount every year or every this amount of time because I'm not going to be able to keep up with it. If there— if on the other hand, I can say to a new hire like, oh, your wages are this, But there is this yearly thing you're eligible for, or, you know, twice yearly thing you're eligible for if you have ex-retention, and that money is just like a set thing. It's not going to change based on maybe my enrollment or my whatever we end up calculating in terms of the formula for the operational grants.

Then it's something that they can depend on, and it, and it, and it kind of helps like bridge that gap where I can't raise the wages not knowing what that funding is going to be. Does that kind of help make sense? Yeah, no, it helps a lot. Thank you. I have a question.

So now that the operational grants are gonna go live here soon, could a provider actually apply asking for retention bonus for this pot of money this year? Yes. Okay, so it is kind of already included in that, sort of. Well, and it always comes down to like looking at things. So one of the things we even thought about on our operational, because like all grant, uh, granting programs, people won't be surprised that probably the asks outpace what funding is available.

So We're like, okay, if we do this next year, what is that? It's like, oh, do we also create bonus structure that you've never received the funding, you get a bonus point or two to make sure that those who have never gotten funding get it before somebody who maybe had in the past year or two. So we're looking at ways of creating equity within the system as well as we've been going through it and thinking about it. And Then also looking at, all right, if they got an operational, do they get this? Like, how do all those play out without it also making sure that people— that we create all these pots that everybody's applying for?

Is there a way of, again, streamlining it? So trying to get to what you're suggesting. Sure. Okay. I think I've heard from everybody.

Thank you. Again, we took what you did, started developing, and this is giving us more thoughts around this. This is the tough thing. It's only $5 million. Well, $7 million.

It's only $7 million. It's not a lot. And next year we'll actually have less because any of the unspent is most likely being used up. So we're getting into tighter and tighter. So, but this is great conversation.

All right, a lot for us to work on, Austin and Jessica.

So next is the proposed changes to municipality licensing. So we have Don. Thank you for joining us. I'm not sure who else you may have with us. I'll let you do intros and lay it out.

As I mentioned to everybody online, afterwards, that's when I'll open up public testimony again to see if folks want to share any additional thoughts, both in support or maybe they have concerns of what's being proposed. So again, that we can then make a determination, do we support this? This is something the Assembly has been wanting us to do is when childcare or early education things come forward, that they want to know that we have looked and where do we stand. So at the end of this, we will be— I'll be asking for somebody to make a motion to support, not support, or what are the conditions of our support, things of that nature that we can then put forward to the assembly. So when it's brought to them, Don will tell us, I believe it's in July, or maybe it's end of this month, that they know that we've looked at it and where we stand.

Okay, Dawn, it's all yours. Thank you again for joining us. Hi everybody. Well, this is some really robust conversation that's taken place. It's so impressive.

I love what we've just heard. I do see Darcy Montalvo is my division manager and Darcy is here today. There's a couple of staff from CCL, Ashley and Alyssa, and earlier I saw Janine. I don't know if I'm missing anybody else. So, um, from the licensing office, um, as Trevor mentioned, we do have some proposals moving forward with— let me see here.

I'm trying to make sure that this is— and everybody see what I just pulled up or no? We can't see it. And, um, Dawn, I also have your presentation if it hasn't changed from Monday or whenever you sent it. It hasn't. Okay.

And I think Diana— I did share it with Diana, so she might be able to pull it up in the room. I don't know what's better for people to see, if it's on Teams or in the room. But I'm happy to pull it up if that's easier. Um, yeah, let's go ahead and try that. For some reason I didn't see it.

One moment, let me get it up. So we have— this all originated quite a little while ago. We had a change in leadership with CCL a couple of years ago, and one of the things that we first started with was what are some things that we think is needed in the community? What What can we do as the municipality's licensing office to support child care? Everybody knows that there's a need.

So one of the things— we had a, a few things on our list of long-term goals, and this is one of them. And one of them was, how can we go through and evaluate our code and try and make sure that what we have is still relevant? That it is still applicable and that it's meeting the needs of the community for the administrators and for families. So my name is Dawn. I'm the program manager for child care licensing with the municipality, and I'm really happy to be here today.

I'm thrilled with all the work that's being done with the AC Fund, and every time I listen in or I'm involved in a meeting, it's just profoundly impressive, all of the work that's going into this. All right, so next screen.

And we can, okay, we can go on to the next one. We are part of the Health Department and these are our 10 essential public health services with equity in the middle. We really do want to make sure that as a department we are doing our piece in reaching the community and meeting the needs of the community and I do think in the Health Department there are some just some amazing work that's being done. And when— I've been in the Health Department quite a long time, and I think that what I've seen overall is when the different programs in AHD are running along smoothly and doing their— doing what we do best, it's kind of behind the scenes, and people reap the benefits without even realizing how much is being offered. So it's a privilege to be in the Health Department, really.

And I think overall we have just an incredible staff that are CCL and in each program because everybody is so passionate and dedicated to the services we provide. Next screen.

Okay, so, and we can go on to the next one. So I don't want to read all this, but to summarize a little bit, our code has been in place since 2004, and the code that passed at that time was really encompassing. We took— we had complete autonomy that was given in 2004 for center licensing and for homes. Previously to 2004, our office had licensed centers forever, but we had never done homes. And so when that passed, It was a new process and it took a little while to get our feet underneath us because we were completely autonomous.

We still had to answer to the state because we do get a pass-through grant, but we, we did everything ourselves. All, all of it was done ourselves. Fast forward to some time in 2016, we actually changed the process and adopted the state's PMPs and much of the state code, which meant that AMC shrunk a little bit. It went from being, I don't know, it was originally like 65 pages to being quite a bit smaller because a lot of what was in our code was also had been in the state code. So one of the ways that we wanted to continue supporting the community was to reevaluate it, and we know that during and post-COVID our child care sector in Alaska and throughout the country really was just— the word decimated is what comes to mind, and that seems really severe, but really it was just so tremendously impacted.

And for the first time in what, for me, felt like maybe my tenure working in the field, during COVID it really bubbled to the surface at all levels. It wasn't just those of us working in the field, finally, who acknowledged and realized how important it was. COVID really kind of peeled back the layers of the onion so that everyone at every level, all the way up to the policymakers in DC, could really see the necessity for it. And we have seen closures at a record number and for all different reasons. Some people just really gave everything they had during COVID and they were kind of burned out.

They just needed a change. We've had other programs that could no longer operate in the black and they just after a certain period of time, they couldn't do it. They couldn't provide any more, any more services any longer. They're really— we have seen everything during and then post-COVID. I think as far as families that are receiving services, that changed too.

You know, all of a sudden we had parents working from home and they're trying to juggle having kids running underneath their feet while they're doing Teams meetings and trying to meet deadlines. And, and they did it. No matter how well it may or may not have worked out individually for each family, they managed to do it. And then over time it kind of pivoted and people didn't necessarily go back to work full-time. They didn't necessarily need care full-time.

So there were just some real changes that took place that impacted child care all the way around. Staffing has always been an issue and just like you that the comprehensive conversation we just had on listening to the need and retention bonuses and wages, and it has always been a challenge to retain staff, and in large part because no matter how dedicated they are and how much they love the field, how much education they get and the training, they need to have worthy wages. People need to be able to make a living, and, and it it is impacted whether or not they stay in the field. So these are some of the challenges we've seen during and post-COVID that kind of prompted us to reevaluate the code and go from here to make some proposals. Next screen, please.

So I've heard this number a lot, and the REDD has said statistically throughout the state post-COVID, during and post, we've lost like 25% of our licensed facilities. Anchorage is right on target for that number. Our jurisdiction is from the Knik River Bridge to Gerdwood, and, and we have seen it. The next screen, actually, I laid out a few of the statistics. Right before COVID hit, we had 250 licensed facilities the month before COVID started.

Fast forward 5 years later and we are well under 200 and we are working feverishly to get people licensed, homes and centers, but we have really seen a loss.

We've— and we're still continuing to see closures for a variety of reasons that really runs the gamut, but we're still seeing closures. We're also seeing openings But we still have a bit of a net loss even for 2025 with the number of closures versus the number of openings. And we're working feverishly to get them open and we want people applying. We want to work with them as much as possible. But overall, in the last 5 years, we're down 25%.

Next screen, please.

Somebody had asked, how are we getting feedback and what are we doing to demonstrate that we're listening to the community? We hear from parents on a pretty regular basis, and a lot of that contact comes when they're frustrated or when they can't find care, and we'll get a complaint and they'll let us know, you know, this is what happened, or this was the last straw. And so then in the process of maybe getting that feedback about their current dilemma, we'll hear other situations or concerns and that they've expressed. We do hear a lot from parents Additionally, from those phone calls and follow-up calls that we make to them, we send out annual evaluations every year for each facility, and parents have gotten really savvy over the years that I've been at licensing. There's no longer the days when I was a kid, and as long as we were alive at the end of the day, it was good enough.

That is not what parents expect. They want quality care. They want to know their children are in a learning, nurturing, loving environment where they're exploration is being fostered, and they are being supported in ways that will nurture them and set them up for success in school later. So we are getting, I would say, a pretty good rate of return on evaluations that are sent out. We— way more, a way higher percentage on the rate of return than we used to.

And, and we listen to that, we read through those evaluations, and if there are concerns, we follow up and we call, we talk to the parent as long as they've provided contact information. Sometimes those concerns turn into complaints. Sometimes we can call and reassure them that what they're seeing is exactly what they're supposed to be seeing. So we are in contact with the, with the parents. We do partner.

We had a big partnership a year ago with the Afterschool Network, and they brought forward to licensing a big concern, and it was an excellent concern because it was How are we going to meet the needs of school-age care? And this was a year ago, so we were rolling into the '24-'25 school year when we all know how much publicity circled around the change in schedules for all school-agers—grade school, middle school, and high school—and how are we going to meet those needs when switching those schedules is suddenly going to impact the availability of, say, the high schoolers who had been helping. We've got a lot of qualified high schoolers that go— that their job after school is to go to one of our after-school programs, and they, they provide— some of them actually count in ratios, they provide an extra set of hands, they're integral in their care. And the concern with the after-school network is how is this going to affect them with these changes changes in schedules, and we really partnered for quite a while and came up with a variance that we were able to offer. We put it out there.

Normally that's not how the variance process works, but in this case we were really trying to be proactive with the Afterschool Network and put it out there so that school-age programs, or any program that was offering school-age care, had the option of applying for this variance and changing the ratios. We did increase ratios with it, and we had 42 programs that applied and said, yep, that would be really helpful. So in that variance, we leaned into the state ratios for school-age care, and it allowed some flexibility and some support in— from our office to the programs, which then also offered that support to families. So they had more spaces available, they didn't have to worry so much about the 1 to 10 ratio that is a requirement for the city. They could lean into the ratios for the state school-age care, which they're 1 to 14 for school-agers or, sorry, kindergartners, and then up to 1 to 18 thereafter.

And then they've got a little bit of a ratio that they use depending upon the majority of the— the age of the majority of children in care. And a lot— being able to provide 42 of those variances so that they just had some flexibility really did help the school-age programs in supporting the community. And then with administrators, we are in contact with the administrators a lot of times on a day-to-day basis. They will call. We, I think, overall we have great working relationships.

I'm proud of the efforts that our staff makes to communicate and collaborate with, with the administrators. I used to— I did this for a long time in the field as a specialist, and I really wanted them and encouraged the administrators I worked with to contact me if they needed questions, reach out in an email, call me and leave a message, I'll get back as soon as I can. And occasionally, especially in homes, I used to tell them, if you just need to talk to somebody who's older than 4 years old, it's okay to call me. We have really good working relationships with our administrators and we listen to what their needs are. And then lastly, the Governor's Task Force had some really good suggestions and we really have paid attention to those.

As you read through the suggestions from the task force, they're kind of targeted at the state's CCPO office, but then that impacts us too because a lot of the a lot of the suggestions that apply and impact the CCPO and what they could be doing, we can too. So we have tried to do things like we put our, our forms online and we opened them up so that they were fillable PDFs. That was just, it was an easy thing that was really helpful to them. One of the biggest things that people really gave feedback on with the Governor's Task Force, I think from input from the statewide from administrators was eliminating a requirement for a child care associate. And that was a requirement and a piece of the code that had great intentions, and it was in there, was in there with great intentions, and overall it really ended up being very hard to meet.

So by eliminating that, changing that code and amending it to now being much less restrictive, it's there's instead of a child care associate, it's called an associate administrator. It's no longer required on the same level of a 1:30 ratio. That was one of the biggest things that this task force heard feedback from, and the state responded immediately. They really did take effort on— take action on that. So we are really trying to be very intentional with changes that we're proposing and what we're hearing from the community all around.

Next screen, please.

So last year we did put out a survey through SurveyMonkey. It was out for a couple of months and we had 60 responses. They were from administrators from homes and centers, and because we wanted to hear first— we wanted to hear first person from them, and I was heavily pleased with how many responded. The next couple of screens we can go forward with. The questions that we asked are, are on here so that we can make it really clear.

I hope you— I hope everybody can see that. I tried to make it so that they weren't too terribly small. Our questions were pretty generalized to start with because we wanted to know what some of, some of the issues were that were impacting our programs.

Next screen.

And, you know, some of them, like number 3, that was, that was something that we got a lot of results on, and it was interesting to see what we were hearing from the community versus what people put in writing. And the very last question on, on this survey, we asked in general, what else can we do? So we're really trying to be very comprehensive. I wanted— if we were going to move forward with changes in the code, we wanted it to be a very open and transparent process, and we wanted people— we wanted the community to know we were listening. Next screen, please.

And then I think the last screen has the very last question plus the open-ended, and I— the open-ended questions. That was on there and we can go to that one.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear that. That was somebody in the hallway. Oh, sorry. Okay. And we, so I'm hoping that we continue to hear from the community.

We do want to know what what we can do that would be the most supportive. So the intention of codes, you know, nobody, nobody usually looks at code enforcement and is overly thrilled by it, but the intention of the code is to support the community, the providers, while also making sure that we are still ensuring basic health and safety for, for children. So some of the proposed changes that were moving forward with. The primary focus on these, really on, on this first round of proposed changes, the primary focus was what can we do that would maybe relieve some of the financial barriers for facilities. And so with the annual codes, we have annual fees that are required, usually at renewal or when somebody's first getting their provisional first-year license.

For a home, it's $50. It's a pretty nominal fee. For centers, it can range from $125 to $375 for their fees, and that depends— annual— their renewal fees, and that depends. It's based on capacity. And for their plan review fees, it's the same.

It's based on capacity, and it ranges from as little as $15 to $130.

Removing the requirement for liability insurance provides the facilities options to make decisions if they're going to continue operating with coverage or not. This aligns with the state. The Child Care Program Office does not require liability insurance, and we did actually run this question through our legal department and through risk management ahead of time. But this would— I suspect that a lot of our programs may continue to keep this coverage because they want protection, but it again could put the decision-making on it back onto the facility.

The next one with requiring— removing the requirement to have a minimum of 2 caregivers on site. It— this one could— it was intent— again, these were put in here 20 years ago with the intention of providing for overall health, safety, and well-being of children, and it was a good code at the time. But sometimes I've had administrators say, well, by requiring 2 caregivers, specifically, then I have 3 people coming in at 6:30 in the morning because I need someone at my front desk. And really, staffing-wise, I don't need that many people here. It's just expensive.

So programs can have the option, and they can decide based on their own business decisions if they want one adult who's approved, and that person is going to be at the front desk, and they're going to have another caregiver because they know that kids are going to be combined into the one preschool classroom instead of three until 7 o'clock. This allows, this one allows them to have, administrators to have more opportunities again to make business decisions based on their staffing, based on their children's attendance, and it's not quite as restrictive as what's in code right now.

Removing the minimum age of 6 weeks This also aligns with the state. They don't have a minimum age requirement and we now have been getting feedback from families that say, look, I don't have 6 weeks of parental leave, I need to go back to work before then and I can't find anyone, the 6 weeks is a barrier for me. So we've heard that from people. So we, this again would allow it to be a business decision on the facilities There is no minimum age in the code for homes, but this would allow it to be a business decision for centers. So if they wanted or had a need to be able to accommodate families with younger children, they could.

I touched briefly on this with increasing the school-age ratios, and this one we're looking at letting go of the 1:10 that we've maintained for years in the municipality and adopting the state's the state's ratios for school-agers.

It gives, it does give them more flexibility. We had a lot of people that applied for that variance say, you know, we really actually only intend, we don't intend a lot of our programs, so we don't really intend to go up to a 1:18 ratio, but what we do want is to have some flexibility so that maybe we go to a 1:12 or maybe if we're operating right at 1 to 10 but we have a caregiver who needs to go to the bathroom or needs to go to the kitchen to prepare snack, we don't have to then figure out ways to make that work or take 10 kids with us to the kitchen so that we can get snack. This gives a little bit more leeway. So we're looking at leaning into what the state is already requiring.

I did a little bit of number counting and currently we have 27 school-age only centers with an additional 12 to 14 all-day programs that are offering school-age care. So if we can open up more slots by changing the ratio, this meets the needs of the community and the facilities a lot easier.

Increasing the capacity for a provisional first-year license in a home. While it's only 2 slots right now in the first year, they're limited to 6 children at any one time, it's still 2 spaces that we could increase to 8. This is, this is a state requirement now, or it's not a requirement, it's something the state allows now. Facilities certainly have the option to have as many children as they want, up to 8, but it, it allows homes some flexibility in that first year and we do have some that will come in and they've got all kinds of experience. They've worked for years and they've done this.

They've managed multiple— they've managed the needs of multiple age ranges all at one time, and we end up actually granting variances for this in that first year quite often because somebody will come in and say, I've been doing care in a center for 20 years. Now I want to do it in my home. I have the experience. Can I do that? So this feels like a piece of code that would better meet the community by opening it up a little bit.

A little bit more. The last one with removing specific bathroom requirements. So what we have encountered was again 20 years ago when the code was put into place, there was some— there was great intentions and it worked for a long time. But now we are seeing that we have programs in Anchorage that want to open. We've had a tremendous amount of interest which has been fabulous, but a huge amount of interest in opening centers.

And most people don't come in and say, well, I'm gonna build a brand new building and we're gonna invest $8 million and we're gonna start from scratch, we're gonna meet every code requirement and we're gonna do this from the jump. What we normally find is that somebody will come in and they want to take over and maybe purchase or lease a building that's been in existence for a long time in child care or maybe it's a building that needs to be remodeled for child care, and they are encountering hurdles because these requirements cannot easily be met, and they're causing, they're causing financial hardships. So there's a couple of different avenues regarding bathrooms that we really wanted to, we really wanted to look at. So one of them is no longer requiring separate adult bathrooms. So some facilities, if you have school-agers, there's no reason that with a working plan they couldn't make it work to use the same bathroom.

That, that has been a problem for some of our programs. There's a code in the Municipal Code that's specific that says sinks need to be in the classrooms, but if they're going to be designated for the bathroom, they need to be outside the bathroom. This was set up for supervision purposes so that you didn't get kids in the bathroom with access to the toilet, into the sink, behind a closed door, behind a curtain, however it was set up, so that for supervision you could see what was going on, what they were doing, they were washing their hands appropriately, and that the sinks were outside the toilet area. And then the last bathroom requirement was that programs that come into play after the passage of the code in 2004, and we've had a lot of them since then, are supposed to have have wall height around the bathroom of no more than 42 inches so that they can be supervised. Well, we end up writing variances for this a lot because it's just not practical in all cases to be able to modify existing programs and modify existing structures.

So these are some of the, some of the areas that bathrooming actually is causing hurdles for programs and that we wanted to be able We wanted to be able to provide this especially for new programs coming on board. We've— there are some that want to expand, and then when they go to expand, this is considered a new change, so then they have to meet this requirement. Okay, next screen. We have— and we were asked, how did we let people know? So in April, we sent out a mass email to all of our administrators.

Letting them know that we were proposing changes, and then I summarized the changes and we sent that out there, and we asked for feedback. Last week we sent out an update after the May 20th— I think it was on the 20th— that the proposed changes were introduced to the Assembly, and then the Assembly did set a date, and that was mentioned earlier. So right now that date is July 15th for public testimony. And that went out last week just to remind people that yes, this went out. It's been introduced to the assembly, and we want feedback on it.

There is a link on our home page on the city's website so that we can get feedback. And so, so far there's what I wrote in here. This feedback was as soon as we sent out the post changes. In April, we got feedback from 2 different people, and these are the summary comments. And then we've also put a link online for feedback once the proposed changes went to the assembly and they were public, so that people can let us know what they're thinking.

And we've gotten a couple, a couple bits of feedback from that. One person had some questions about playgrounds in homes and what what the requirements were or what they might need to do. And the other one actually had feedback that said it kind of summarized to say, thank you, these are things that are actually— these proposals will make it easier. These are supportive of the community. So we've been— we're making an effort to make sure that administrators are aware and that people— I did see too, and that people can provide feedback on the code changes as much as they'd like.

And then I did see, Austin, that you had also put the information on the AC website too, so thank you for that.

Next screen.

This kind of wraps up what we've done, and I wanted to say thank you for everybody who's participating in the board. I'm really impressed and proud of the work that's being done and the support that's being put out there through all of the board's work. The intentionality of everything that's going into these grants that are going to support the community. And then lastly, from here on the next screen, just to say, does anybody have any questions? All right, thank you.

Darcy. Hi, great presentation, Dawn. Thank you for all your hard work on that. I just wanted to jump in and just add a couple of things. One regarding the proposed change for the liability, because we've kind of struggled with that.

But we have been following up and across the country it's becoming more and more difficult for child care providers to even find liability insurance and we're seeing a trend where they're also getting dropped very easily. So that was one of the reasons for adding that liability in. Dawn and team took a really hard look at what would be the most impactful changes to the code immediately. But I think we mentioned this our very first go-round, this is just the beginning for us. We wanted to put this out in different increments in the interest of time because we know that, you know, the wheels of going through everything can take a while.

And so we wanted it to be able to take effect as quick as we can. But we are already looking at an additional round And so we are really open to hearing your feedback on what you see today and then also suggestions for going forward. Thank you. Thanks, Darcy. I— that was an excellent point, and I had forgotten about that with the insurance.

We have gotten feedback that, that it is becoming harder and harder to obtain it and retain it for programs.

All right. Board members, any initial questions before I open it up to public testimony?

Liam? Well, first, it was a really helpful presentation. I can tell a lot of thought went into how to respond to the feedback from the public. So thank you. And I was just curious on the liability insurance, did risk management have any comments that you can share?

I mean, I hear what you're saying about difficulty with finding coverage, but just curious if there were any comments from risk manager. There really were not. I was surprised. I actually had an expectation of what our response was going to be, and I didn't think that the muni would want us to drop that requirement, but we— they kind of put it back on us. They did not really have any requirement.

And they didn't really have much feedback.

Thank you. Austin. Thanks, and I didn't mean to butt in front of board members. I just want to ask a question before we started the public feedback portion. But so for school-age ratios, Dawn, I know this is a thing folks have been talking about, and I don't know if Rep I don't know if Dr. Blackfield is still in the, at the meeting, but he's been talking about needing to make this change as well for years.

So great idea, I think. Can you clarify what the new ratio would be? You just said eliminate the 10, but I don't know well enough what the alternative would be. Sure, good question. We were looking at adopting what the state does for school age.

So the state has for kindergartners, it's 1 to 4 14, and for ages older than that, it's 1 to 18. And then they have kind of a clarifying statement in there that the ratio falls to the age range that's in the majority of care. And yeah, you're right, Darcy, I just realized— I don't know how I missed that— but we also significant change that we are looking at is removing and amending some of the language that is in the playground requirements because that is another area that programs really struggle. So right now AMC 1655.250 has some pretty clear parameters about playground requirements, especially for centers. And the requirement for certified playground inspections, the shock absorbing material, fall zones, it's listed in what Consumer Products Safety Commission suggests, but then it goes into more detail.

So we have amended some language in that so that it's really going to be applicable more when changes are made or there's a change in ownership, but it's not it's not such a restrictive requirement.

The inspections to be conducted on playgrounds by a certified playground instructor or inspector rather are required in the muni only. That is not a state requirement. So some of these, a lot of these changes that are being proposed are not necessarily new and different to the state. They're new and different to Anchorage because when we created the code originally, and we were adopting, adopting some of the state requirements and then adding some of our own in 2004. This was one of them.

And so now we are looking at opening it up a little bit and leaning into more, more of what the state has been doing. Thank you, Darcy. I— you said that, and you're right, it wasn't there. And it— sure, no problem. And I wanted to just kind of add on that We've been walking through with a wonderful lady that's trying to get ready to open, and she's been sharing her experience with us in regards to trying to find inspectors for the playground.

And as I understand, she reached out to 4 of them. I may have that number wrong, but one was only serving J-Bear, one person is out of town for the entire summer, One is no longer doing it, and I don't remember about the last one, but this, this may be an area that we continue to look at. I think COVID really changed the ability for inspectors for playground equipment, so just wanted to add that on there. Thanks, Dawn. Yeah, and as with other things, there actually used to be more certified playground inspectors in Anchorage, and the number has dwindled and it makes it even more difficult to meet that requirement.

And sometimes you just— our position is in enforcement, that's what we do. But you have to look at the code and examine the requirements, and sometimes they just become obsolete, or maybe they're just broken pieces of code that there were great intentions, but they didn't roll out in a practical manner the way they were intended. So we are trying to reevaluate. All right, just in the interest of time, anything else from board before I just open it up for any public testimony?

Seeing none, uh, reopening public testimony specific to this topic. If anybody would like to testify, we'll keep it to a couple minutes. Crystal.

Hi everybody, I just wanted to comment in regards to bathroom regulation. I am really excited to see that you guys are taking a look at reevaluating that. From somebody who is just coming out of designing a brand new facility, the bathroom was a huge hurdle and the requirements are so intense that the result was we actually had to reduce square footage of the building, you know, in order to accommodate these bathroom requirements. So in my, in my mind, um, you know, more square footage for the kids would be a better way to suit them, and we definitely took a financial decision to do these bathrooms. Um, and then the other thing is currently, um, and this is for the new child care facility in Girdwood, We have currently no funding for the playground equipment or the playground, and that is a lot has to do with the intense regulation that goes with it and basically not being able to afford doing the playground.

So at this time, our playground will consist of a fenced-in area, our play space will, but I just want to come voice my support for these changes because they are definitely having an impact on our project, and I would like to see it be easier for other programs going forward. And also, especially from a real estate perspective, I see a lot of vacant commercial property in Anchorage that could be really well suited for childcare, but because of these bathroom rules, it's not possible. So more flexibility there to expand access would be great. Thanks. Thank you.

Thomas.

Yeah, I'm Thomas. I'm the Executive Director for the Afterschool Network, which full disclosure is a program of the Alaska Children's Trust. Trevor is my boss, but I will share as well. So we are a statewide organization, but we do a significant amount of work with Anchorage, in particular with Anchorage school-age childcare providers. Over the past, I'd say, 6 years or more since COVID has been a kind of inflection point for us to really bring together that provider group.

And I just have to just give a huge amount of thank you to Dawn and her team at Child Care Licensing for their partnership throughout both the pandemic and then now into that kind of recovery and stabilization mode. The changes here that are being presented really show that the Child Care Office is listening to providers. It's listening to parents. It's listening to administrators. It's listening to the educators as well.

And just want to thank you because all these code changes will have a significant impact on the cost and feasibility of folks opening and expanding programs. Specifically, I want to talk about the changes to the school-age child care regs. So this was an item that we brought to the Child Care Licensing Department with Dawn overseas and with her fabulous staff there. And we chatted about this and about what were the challenges that school-age programs are facing. And actually one of the largest items that causes retention issues inside of child care programs, especially school-age child care programs, is not just the wages, it's actually around job stress.

And one of the number one contributors to job stress is having the inability for staff to be able to do things such as going to the bathroom, to take a personal phone call, to take a moment and refresh themselves because they are caught in a ratio. And in particular, that 1-to-10 ratio for school-age provider has continually been a challenge for us to maintain with staffing ratios and really allow that flexibility for those providers to have the ability to address, you know, child behaviors. And, you know, when you're caught in a 1-to-10 ratio, it's the amount of staff you need to have is very kind of tight on that. And this really has allowed us the ability to be flexible with our staffing. Most of our providers are not even at that 1-to-14 or 1-to-18 ratio.

They're using this to address as there are needs for calls for care or to do parent consultations, or to be able to engage, you know, address child behaviors, or like I said, to take that 5 minutes to go to the bathroom during their shift. So these changes help, they're supporting, they're allowing our sector to grow. The variance has been instrumental in allowing school-age programs to recover from the pandemic, and we're just thrilled at the ongoing partnership we've had from the municipality child care license. Thank you again to the team. Thank you.

Any other public testimony?

Seeing none, we will close public testimony. Anything else from the board?

Seeing none, I entertain a motion A motion in support of the recommended changes as presented by Dawn and her team.

Chuck moved. Second? I second. I second. Thank you, Mildred.

Anybody opposed?

Hearing none, we will— so passes, and we'll get that out to the Assembly. Don, remind me, when are you presenting to the assembly? Uh, the— it's scheduled right now for July 15th for public testimony, right? Um, Austin, can you draft that and then I can review it and then get it signed and we can get it turned in? Thank you, appreciate it.

All right, any announcements or any other discussions from the board?

Hearing none, entertain a motion to adjourn. Thank you, Jesse. Second? Second. Thank you, Khalil.

Anybody opposed to leaving early? Hearing none, meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everybody, for your time. Thank you to the public for showing up and sharing your thoughts. Have a great weekend, everyone.

Thank you.

Uh, grab a lunch.