ACCEE Fund Board Meeting August 7, 2025

Morning. Morning. Good morning.

Ready to get started? Yes. So I can officially call us to order then. 2 Minutes late at 10:15, 10:17. Okay, it's a phantom line.

So let's see who we have. Oh, let me just— Trevor is there.

I am here. Oh, okay. Plus one. And then, um, Branwyn. Yeah, good morning.

Morning. Kevin is there.

I'm here. You're here, Khalil. Georgina. Georgina.

She's still out on maternity leave. I can't really hear you, Austin. You can't hear me? I didn't say anything. Oh, that's what happened.

Just nodding along, taking notes. Mildred is here. Jesse?

Jesse's not here today yet. And then Chuck is here. Okay, so we have plenty of people. Just minus 2. So the first thing we're going to do is finalize the agenda.

Um, did anybody have anything they wanted to add to the agenda?

I did just want to add like a brief announcement. Surrounding, um, children in out-of-home placements and their child care situation, an update. Um, so maybe we could put that in there before.

Uh, but if anybody have any other additions or edits to the agenda, we can entertain a motion to approve the agenda. Motion to approve. Second. Second. Second.

Second. Oh, Chuck. Okay, great, thanks. And then anybody opposed? The agenda is good.

I'd just like to add the part about, um, out of, out of care, um, placements. And then we need to approve the minutes. Minutes from the previous meeting.

Anybody want to approve minutes from the last meeting? This is Trevor. I so move to approve. Thanks, Trevor. Second.

And Khalil seconds. Anybody opposed?

No one opposed, so that passes too. Uh, the next part of our agenda is public comments. You know, we've really been wanting to involve the public along the way. And so that's part of our agenda. We reserve for a couple minutes per person to be able to speak and tell us who they are, where they're from, and any comments that they have.

Um, who is here for public comment today? Got one.

2 People, so we'll do a couple minutes, 2 minutes and 3. Okay, do you think 2 minutes is good, Austin? Okay, that's what we've been sticking to. Let me get my annoying stopwatch so we can make it official. So I think Nate raised their hand first.

If you want to go ahead and tell us who you are and where you're from. Any comments you have? All right, thank you very much. My name is Nate Rood. I am the President and CEO of the YMCA of Alaska based out of Anchorage, currently operating 13 licensed sites.

We are working on opening a new after, before and after program in Wasilla this fall, and we are introducing before and after school programming back into Kodiak Island. This fall as well and working on the licensing process. This funding goes a long way in supporting all of those programs. My comment focuses mostly— let me go to my notes— on the pilot projects and capital projects and the budgeted $2 million for that particular area. Being a company who operates several programs and serving thousands of kids annually.

It benefits us to have more money in the operational grants because of the flexibility those provide. So I'm proposing that it be reduced, the pilot projects be reduced to $500,000, moving $1.5 million into the operational grants to provide greater flexibility to programs. To be able to use the money where it's most necessary. Thank you, Nate. Does any of the board members have any follow-up questions?

Nate?

Okay, thank you so much.

And then, um, Melanie.

Hi everyone, good morning. Thanks again for just providing this opportunity and space for us as providers. I'm the president and CEO of Campfire Alaska. We are operating currently 18 licensed school-age child care programs here in Anchorage, and we're actually opening 3 additional ones this fall. And really, it's very similar to Nate.

My same comments here are about the 2026 budget here and really urging the ACE Board to look at strategically increasing the child care operating grants within that proposed budget, both from the perspective of Campfire and just— we talk regularly and interact regularly with dozens of providers, and I continue to hear that this is the most impactful investment into our sector right now and truly one of the only reasons that we're still able to operate in what is a long-term recovery out of the 2020 impacts. I'll just share too that, you know, I think Bright Beginnings publicly shared here in April when they closed that one of the contributing factors was smaller than expected child care operating grants from the state of Alaska this year. And I believe the sector continues to need investment from local, state, and federal. And while similar to Nate said, investments into pilot projects and capital are important, important. I believe if we don't invest into the current infrastructure of the sector, we're going to risk losing more programs.

So I would also urge you to shift funding from pilot projects and capital to move it into operating grants to allow more flexibility of use for providers. And I'll just share transparently, out of the 18 programs we're operating, we actually currently are evaluating the future viability of at least half of those programs. Over the past 5 years, Campfire's relied quite heavily on Child Care Operating Funds to remain open, but I will share that our reliance on those funds has slowly been reducing each year as we've been able to grow enrollment. We've grown almost 100 kids each year and open additional locations, and so we're trying to grow back that economy to a scale to make it sustainable for our operations and sector, but we're not yet fiscally stable and need continued operating costs to cover that. So I just, I really appreciate all the work you are all are doing.

I know that there's a lot of hard decisions here and just again appreciate you considering that shift of funding. Thank you, Melanie.

Any follow-up questions? Board members? Kevin? Kevin, we can't hear you.

You seem to be having Branwyn's challenge. You're not muted, but we can't hear you. Shifte.

Anybody else have any other questions? Maybe pop off and come back. That's worked for her.

Anybody else have any other questions while we're waiting for Kevin? I think maybe he's going to put it in the chat. Looks like he's typing.

And then, Chair, if you would just make sure to read the chat. The muni legal keeps reminding us that we need to read out everything aloud so that it's part of the record. Absolutely. And I just wanted to, for the record, it looked like Georgina had joined us. Did she fall off?

She's there. She's on Teams. Yep, I'm here.

Okay, so the question is, you mentioned declining state support. Can you please give us more context on that? How much has the support declined and when did it start to decline?

Kevin, thanks for that question. So, in 2020 was the first year that the child care sector started receiving the child care stimulus grants, and so those were in place 2020 through 2023, and I think the state distributed those really, really wisely. They spread it out over time to really help support the sector during recovery. When those federal child care stimulus dollars ended, the state of Alaska here in 2022 in their 2025 budget, they did put a one-time child care operating grant in, which was amazing because otherwise there would have been zero funding after the child care stimulus funds. But obviously, this, you know, those funds were $7.5 million last year compared to, I think, the year before it was $9.1 million distributed.

The year before that, it was $45 million distributed. So there's, there's been obviously a decline in federal investment, and the state is attempting to fill some of that gap.

Thank you.

And we did have another hand up. I believe it was Christina. Did you still want to do public comment?

Thank you. I just wanted to Second or third, what everybody was saying about adding more for the operational funds as we are seeing the decrease of state and we're still learning what the rollout of the federal funds and what the big beautiful bill is going to mean while we're experiencing inflation prices. I, we were just really, the focus should be on stabilizing our programs as we figure out what this new landscape looks like. An example for us that's really going to impact us is that OCS or the state has said that they're no longer going to pay to pay the above cost for above child care rates for the state for kids in out-of-home placements. And the families who are taking in kids with out-of-home placements do not often have the funds to pay for the true cost of care on top of what the state pays.

And so that puts kids even more risk and in having to lose placements because families can't afford the child care. And so we know that's going to be happening this fiscal year. And so I just really would urge the board to look at using funds for stabilization and operational costs because that allows us the most flexibility in how to spend the funds. Thank you. Thank you, Christina.

Does anybody have any follow-up questions? I think Thomas has a question.

Then it looks like there's a question. Can you share your name and affiliation, Christina? Yeah, thank you. Christina Eubanks with No Crest Children's Center. Thank you.

Thank you for all of your public testimony. You know, it definitely helps us to all make the best decisions that we can with— you know, we know that we don't have enough money to fix everything, but to be more strategic with what we do have.

So the next thing on the agenda is the budget.

And I know, do you want to start, Austin, with going over budget, or did you want me to go through it?

I thought it would be nice to just run through the survey, a quick sort of summary of the survey since we received quite a bit of public feedback, probably from some folks here, but definitely from additional members of the public. Does that sound good? Absolutely. Okay, so we got 34 responses and a lot of really thoughtful feedback to the 2026 proposed budget. So thanks to everyone who's been providing their thoughts.

I would say overall, nearly all respondents supported the programs generally that the board has put forward, which I think is great, and that shows us that we're probably on the right track. Obviously, there's some things to discuss about amounts for per program. Some more specific feedback from the survey. So I mentioned we had 34 respondents. I put the summary together when we had 33, so just keep in mind that one person's feedback is not included in there, and I just shut that survey down this morning, so we won't get additional feedback after this.

We had some providers, some parents, some— one person specifically mentioned, I'm not a provider or a parent, I'm just a member of the community and I care about this. People who are directors of programs, who are employers, community advocate, licensing specialists, so really broad group of people weighed in, which is really helpful. 79% Of respondents identified as women, 25% as men. People were really thankful for the ACE Fund and provided really thoughtful ideas and a lot of Thanks. You know, one quote, we're grateful for your thoughtful work.

Thank you to the board. We feel your support and advocacy. So thank you to people for knowing that we're trying our best even though this is a new program. Pretty much everyone agreed that the goals that were included at the beginning of the budget were, were right on. One person added a possible 4th goal we might include, so I put that in the updated version so that the board could discuss it and decide whether you want to include that.

Let's see, a number of concerns articulated about process mostly, so pilot projects, capital funding process, things we've heard before, mostly about insurance and just about how we should make sure the process is as easy as possible for folks. One person said that they shouldn't have to spend funds and then ask to be reimbursed, which I didn't realize, but is the standard for the RFP process for the pilot projects and capital. So something to be thinking about. And there were a couple other ideas there that I think that we can explore as time goes on and we think about next year. So specific program funding feedback for child care subsidies: 85% strongly agreed or agreed that we should include this program and fund it, 6% were neutral, 9% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Specific issues that people noted: one person said that we just need to make sure not that we're not leaving behind workers who don't have kids, who who can't take advantage of that benefit, and some suggested that value of that program should be higher or should be lower. And I think in response to the first point, this is something I've been talking about with Branwen and Kevin, both of whom are on the Implementation Committee, is, you know, they've been really good about reminding us that this program is not only to support workers and their kids, it's to support the sector, right, and to create additional spots for the community. So providing workers who might otherwise who might otherwise leave the workforce if they have children. This benefit keeps them there, and it's not just good for them, it's good for the sector and good for the community and then good for the overall economy. And it could potentially free up operational funding, like we've heard from a lot of you, that for employers that currently offer that benefit.

So, I think it's a good thing to think about, but just something to keep remembering that there's multiple goals with these programs. Pilot projects and capital funding, 85 strongly or strongly agreed or agreed, 6% neutral, 9% strongly disagreed. Comments included that only 10 capital projects were funded this go-round. That was what the comments said. It is around there, might have been slightly more, slightly less.

There were 20 total, some capital, some pilot projects, about evenly split. But some folks wanted to see lower awards to more entities, so that's something we can think about next year if we if you decide to move forward with this program and it's approved by the Assembly and Mayor. And again, another comment about not having to front the money and then get it reimbursed. So another thing to be thinking about. Operational funding was the most strongly supported program, as consistent with what we're hearing today.

97% Strongly agreed or agreed, none were neutral, and only one respondent, 3%, strongly disagreed. People who commented universally asked for the amount to be raised, noting that it should be the highest value item in the budget, budget, and more than the child care subsidies since it more broadly supports all workers. So that was the position of the person who shared that. And someone noted, which I think is a good thing to keep in mind, that reducing that amount from 2025, which was $2.4 million, does create some unpredictability for the sector. Retention bonuses, which would be a new program in 2026, 85% strongly agreed or agreed, 6% neutral, 9% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

People noted that not only formal training but also experience in the field should count, and we've discussed that, and I think the board supports that view as well. Some folks suggested that we could raise the value, some suggested we could reduce it, which I think when you have both of those, maybe, maybe it means you're about in the right spot. And one person wondered whether having this program and operational funding might dilute them both. So just a comment about how many programs does ACE Fund want to run overall. And just as a quick update, sort of aside, Mildred and I have been working on getting some initial data in a form that I can review it, that preserves confidentiality and answering questions that I have.

And it does look like the SEED registry should allow us to build a program that's based on trade training and experience. We know not everyone is in the SEED registry, but it will give us a sense of how many people out there might have certain levels of either training and experience that we can then build a program that, you know, overall would spend around the same or the right amount. So we'll keep working on that and talk with the board more about it soon. And then the last program was In-Home Startup Funds. 73% Strongly agreed or agreed, 18% were neutral, and 9% strongly disagreed.

So some worried that it wasn't enough money. You know, we— it's only $100,000 as proposed for 2026. I do think we— you could consider keeping it and then seeing how popular it is. I think those— the new programs tend to need a little room to grow, so it could be possible to raise that amount later. And most folks felt that $500,000-ish was a good award, but for those who who thought— well, about 58% thought that was a good amount, but for those who didn't, most of them thought it should be a little more, maybe up to $10,000.

So I think that's something we could shoot for if people need it to get started. So just last thing, and I know there's things to discuss, um, 73% of respondents thought we covered everything in the budget that should be funded. So that is reassuring to me, and I hope to you too. But there were some things that people said, if we had extra money, here's what we would spend it on. And just I'll keep track of these, but just so you hear them: making school-based child care more accessible for all families, funding a car that could transport children or food or supplies, funding mental health or neurodivergent screenings for kids before they enter kindergarten, things just to make the work environment more comfortable for workers, food, snacks, medication, Tylenol, Tums, pads, things like that in the break room for workers.

Offering counseling for sector workers, which I think Thread did a program like that for a while. I don't know if that's still operating, but we could look into it. Helping with medical insurance and benefit costs. And the most common response was if we wanted to add something, adding funding for training. And then one person suggested that the ACE Fund partner with the Alaska Afterschool Network and to develop a training program for child care admins and associate admins.

And then while not directly related, I just wanted to make sure to share it. Related to the budget, one person felt that the in-home maximum for kids should be raised. It's currently 8, I believe. So that's a summary of the budget. I think overall folks supported it, but did believe that operational assistance should probably be a bit higher.

So with that, I think I turn it over to you guys. Would you like me to put the most updated version of the budget up on the Teams screen? I think that would be helpful. Okay. We also have a hearing for person.

Yeah, so just to flesh out the last summary that you mentioned, awesome. This is Khalil. When you said most people thought there should be more in operations, did they make clear— I mean, obviously some of the commenters suggested money moving from the pilot projects and capital into operations. Was that trend or opinion expressed in the survey?

I was surprised to hear that today only because people didn't really say that. It wasn't as consistent in the survey. Some people said they thought that the child care subsidies program should not be higher than operational assistance because right now, as proposed, the subsidies program is $2.5 million. And so I saw that a couple times. But I didn't see a consistent theme like we did today of pilot projects and capital funding.

It seemed like overall people were just like, find a way to increase it.

Is my microphone working now? Yes. Cool. I saw heads moving when I spoke, so good. I think one thing that I'd just like to repeat too is, so we did have a big discussion about the early education childcare subsidies as an implementation committee.

And we came back to— and Brandon, please correct me if I get this wrong— that we saw a difference between thinking about increasing spots and access versus some of these questions about equity. And that those subsidies do free up, like we talked about, operational expenses for other people, because if you're offering that benefit already, this would be the city effectively taking that burden on for you and freeing up that money for other benefits or other expenditures. So I'm glad to see that. That's not where people are asking us to move money out of because one of the other things we discussed was the importance of that being predictable for families, that if we are providing that benefit to somebody and we are paying a share of their childcare cost, reeling that back next year may be a burden on people who are planning their families and planning their careers around that too.

Absolutely. So this piece of the agenda, we need to finalize a budget, and we've heard, you know, that, um, you know, possibly increasing the operational funding seems to be the biggest desire. Trevor has clear hand up. Yeah. Uh, are we ready for discussion?

I've got a proposal to the budget, if you're ready for that. Sure. So when I've looked at the budget, I need to pull it up and move through it, is, you know, the number one objective that we have is retain and strengthen this sector, and that's critical. And really appreciate the feedback we got today through the survey and so forth, and we're hearing that very clearly. And when I think about that, I also think about sustainability.

And what I mean by that is making sure that whatever we erect is truly one-time funding and/or we're ready to commit to it and it's going to be every year.

And we know that the programs we initially set up aren't just for a year or 2 years. And I'm really wondering, like, our bonuses, is that something we're going to be keeping? Things of that nature. And does it really stabilize the sector? And one of the ways of making it equitable is by giving money to the providers and allowing them to figure out how they stabilize just theirs until we have more dollars and a greater investment, whether on a local, state, and a federal level.

And we're just going to always butt up against this. And I would like to suggest that, and I just heard from Austin, the last count of stipends that are given out to care providers is at 75. And I made an estimate, and I'd be interested to hear from them, but if they were doing a, even a stipend of $1,500 per family per month, that is only $675,000 this year, and they had $1.25 million. We know we're going to have some extra money that's going to come over in overflow. We still don't know exactly how many families will and/or workers will take this, and I'm inclined to switch this out and put our child care stipends at the 1.95 and get operational at least back up to exactly what we have this year, which I believe was 2.5.

If I'm misspeaking, correct me, Austin, and make that change. And then we could even see a further increase. I would really like to discuss, is bonuses the right way of doing it, and are we going to be able to sustain that? Because if we give it this year, is it going to happen next year? Because if we are giving more money to the individual, as in the worker, That's what's going to retain them.

We will lose more by retracting versus never giving it in the first place and not setting it up for failure. And that's just my concern. So my two proposals are: one, get us up to the 2.4, 2.5 for operational, decrease our 2.5 for the subsidies, down to the 1.95, and then I would actually like to see us either reduce— actually, my second is actually eliminate the bonuses and put that towards operational. So those are my two suggestions. I'm not making them formal proposals yet.

I would just like to hear some discussion. Austin? Just letting you know, it was $2.4 million this year in operational assistance. Thank you. So I was off by— yeah, so my proposal would make it $2.4 million and then the remaining in the— and pull that out of the subsidies.

It looks like on the budget right now it shows $1.9 million in operational because the 5 is crossed out. Is that right? Yes, thank you.

That was actually kind of what I was thinking as well, was, um, you know, with the retention bonuses is maybe it's not time to try something new. You know, we, because of everything and starting up, like, it's still taking time to, to get those dollars out to the field, and so there's still a lot of, you know, we don't have the effectiveness, we don't have the data that we wanted to. And so that was going to be essentially my proposal too, was to maybe not do the retention bonuses, and we'll add it to operations. Kevin, are you off mute? I am.

I was waiting to see if anybody else had wanted to speak before I spoke again. But if nobody else is, I have a couple of thoughts on Trevor's proposal. I think one thing that I'm cautious about with dropping the subsidies so much is that we are discussing something like a rolling enrollment because the counts are low and it could climb over time as people find out about it and sign up. And like I said, I'm just, I'm very cautious about reducing that benefit in order to cover everybody in the future because one of the One way I could see us doing harm is offering somebody, say, $800 a month and then coming back later and saying it's $600 actually, because we don't have enough funds to cover everybody. And I know that we've discussed ways to make that work, but I think it's something worth keeping in mind.

I think removing the bonuses makes a lot of sense. I agree, Jessica, with you that I'm not sure this is the time to try something new when we haven't seen if the old stuff works yet. And just in my own head, and I'd be interested in what our public testimony members have to say about their thoughts on this, or anybody else who's running a center, like, would a one-time payment keep somebody in the sector? Like, I'm not sure. I don't think that if my employer was offering a one-time payment, I don't think I would hang around if I was truly struggling.

And if I did, I would quit right after. After I got the payment, I get the bonus and go.

And so I'm not sure about that. And the one thing that I've been thinking of the operational funds is, you know, to the extent those do provide flexibility, like, are we, are we certain it's all going to Anchorage and that we're benefiting our own city, or are we replacing declining state support in other places too? Like, are we trying to solve a statewide problem here sometimes with city funding as well for larger organizations? And I don't know I don't know how to solve that. I just think that the state needs to step up and support kids more.

If anybody else wants to remind our leaders that over and over and over that they need to take more interest in our children, that'd be great. Thank you, Kevin. And then I also saw Brandon came off. Yes, thank you.

I have a couple things. One, Kevin, Absolutely, I agree. A one-time payment will not keep someone in the sector, but that program, it would be designed to be like an ongoing, just like the subsidies where it was something they can expect. I think it would work better if it was like a 6-month, every 6 months they would get a certain amount and that would be something that, yes, we shouldn't do it if we don't want to commit to doing it at the same level every year because it definitely won't help to just do a one-time payment.

Secondly, I want to ask, there was some talk about the issue with the pilot projects and people having to pay and then be reimbursed. And I want to know, do we think it's likely that we'll be able to address that issue and, and have it done differently? Because otherwise, I think, and it sounded like that was coming across in the testimony earlier, that would be the most important place to kind of move money from because it's the least helpful if it's something that can only be a reimbursement for, like, personally for my program, I wouldn't be able to put the money up upfront for, for any sort of pilot project. So it's limited in its ability to really help stabilize. I think that question's probably for me and Val isn't here from the health department, so I can do my best.

I think the MUNI, and Bill might have thoughts too, I see that he, or he was on, I think the MUNI's general standard is to do these reimbursable grants or their contracts this time. We were able, like for Thread, for instance, to front the money that Thread is going to distribute so that they didn't have to distribute over $2 million in operational funds and then ask for reimbursement from us. But I think it's a little more risky for the muni to put out, you know, $50,000 with the hopes that someone follows through on procuring the playground equipment. My guess is that it's hard for them to do that and then have to claw back money if for some reason the goals aren't achieved of the grant. And so I, I'm guessing that's why they don't do it in general.

And we can explore what that would look like next year, but I don't know the answer from the ME&A.

And I'm realizing I should have shifted the agenda order because, you know, Desiree Schepler and Emily Kugel, I think, are both here, going to be here soon to talk about their program and funding being used. And then also we have time to talk about these other programs like what's going on with pilot projects. For instance, we have a few who haven't been responsive and we don't know, maybe there'll be a little leftover money if they don't come through. So anyway, I apologize for having you do the budget first.

And Trevor, yeah, uh, one, Austin, I think we've shared, uh, the budget. If we take that down and maybe even put it as a document inside, uh, chat anybody wants to pull it up, it's easier to see. Everybody, thank you. Also, just to answer that question, I think that is the advocacy. So we advocated really hard for others to get those dollars, and what we need to do is advocate around that issue and work with the city of what, what something would look like.

May not be the all money full out, or maybe they have to meet a certain criteria, but I think there is something we can do around that, and That's the role of this board. So I would hate to see us change it with that money because it was very, very popular and it's helping with a lot of things. And actually, I'm hoping that we can actually use that money to approach, like, Rasmussen to actually match it and also add to it because of the demand. So just some feedback. I'm going to put a proposal on the table.

Because I appreciate what people heard. I think we'll have some savings from this year that has, which we'll learn more about, and then we can deal with it in '26. But with what was said is I would like to propose, let me pull up the budget so I'm using the right language, that we remove the sector worker retention bonuses of $1 million and move that $1 million to flexible operational funding to make that $2.9 million. So it will actually be above what we did this year due to the fact of the comments that we have received on the survey and both in public comment today and yesterday— not yesterday, last meeting, my apologies. So that's my motion.

Second. Again, my motion is eliminate the sector worker retention bonuses, remove that from the budget, and move that $1 million to the flexible operational funding to make it $2.9 million. And then Chuck said second. Go ahead, Julie. I just wanted to discuss, so I think both Bronwyn and I, when we discussed this last time, were supportive of the retention bonuses, and I still am.

So I think I prefer that they stay in the budget. Uh, our first goal listed here is strengthen the workforce through wage supports, benefits, encouragement, and professional development. And I like the way the retention bonuses are structured to try to support providers with getting access to more training and rewarding their experience. And I think that it is well established that when you incrementally try to invest more in the workers, and there's going to be greater retention, and that is a way to strengthen the sector overall. I also definitely appreciate the feedback from the providers here that we need more in operational funding, and I, I liked Trevor, your earlier mention of potentially moving the child— early educator childcare subsidies, moving a portion of that into operations, or maybe the leftover funds that we're hoping.

And then I also wanted to mention that 85%— I thought I heard that 85% of the survey respondents supported the retention bonuses. So it seems like there is public support for this. And then I also wanted to mention to the providers that commented earlier, which I really appreciate, one of the things that we're balancing as the board is what we have heard from the assembly and from the mayor. And I believe we heard from the mayor that they liked the pilot in Capitol and that sometimes there have been concern from the elected officials about the operational funding, even though I think a lot of board members are receptive to, you know, increasing it given the need for flexible funds to stabilize. So I just wanted to share the reasons that I think the retention bonuses are worthwhile investment and starting a new program.

It looks like it was feasible because we thought there was a way to do it through the operational program as well. So to make it more administratively feasible.

Thanks. And then Georgina.

Yep, I appreciate that, that point of view. I also think that moving the bonus into the operational funding allows providers for flexibility in the sense that if they wanted to provide that bonus for their workers using operational funding, they could, right? Is that— that's my understanding. But if not, either way, I think supporting that sector in that way seems more beneficial from how people, the providers themselves, have told us. I think I agree with what everyone else has said about moving the, sorry, the bonuses into the operational funding.

Trevor, do we take more comments or do we take a vote on proposal?

Um, I would be open to a friendly amendment because I hear what's being said, and I do believe that we're going to have— well, we'll hear, uh, hopefully how much money has already been or expected to be spent from desirée, but I would even make a friendly amendment that we drop the bonuses down to $500,000, uh, have operational at 2.4, so equal, because I know it's going to take time to figure out how to implement this. And I think we need to do some more internal research around the bonuses to determine, is it a program or not? And how should it look? And what is the long-range commitment that we have? And I think we need to dedicate more time to it, but it allows it to stay there as a placeholder so we can do that and then implement it and knowing that there's some savings potentially from this year, we could do a budget amendment and get it up.

And I recognize that that will take trust that we as a board will do that, but as chair, I am committed to that. So my friendly amendment would be— well, I actually would withdraw the— the way we should do this is I withdraw the motion, and I would need my second to confirm, and then I can make a new motion. Chuck, would you confer that you would pull as the second?

Uh, I mean, I'm— I guess my— I'm just thinking through this on the fly.

I guess I do have concerns with— part of my concerns with the bonuses is setting up a pretty complicated new system with what would be this kind of long-range commitment. I'm not opposed to, like, the idea generally. I think we just need to, like, be really clear about what we're focusing on. And if we're promising that, that's making that commitment. So I— I'm happy to go along, but I'm not actually sure that I'm in agreement with the new motion, if that makes sense.

So I will—. Yeah, no, that's okay. You wouldn't have to second it. I will acquiesce to withdrawing the motion.

So I would make the motion of— let me pull up the budget. This is always interesting to be able to have this conversation. Reduce the sector worker retention by 5, uh, down to $500,000. Move the remaining $500,000 to flexible operational funding. That would be the motion.

Recognizing, uh, oh, with that with that motion that the board does an in-depth assessment of retention bonuses and their impact, so we don't move it forward without doing that and making sure that we're in line. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I would, I would second that.

Trevor, would you be able to clarify what an in-depth invest— like, when would that be? Is that before we implement in 2026? I'm just wondering what, what that is.

Um, so I should have wrote out a motion, uh, just from the discussion is within that I would say by, uh, by April of '26 that we do— and I don't know what that assessment would be, and I think that's part of our conversation looking at— it would be interesting to see how it— not how it works in Juneau, but what's the results, because I think that's part of where we're getting the idea from. Also We as a board have never really talked about if we do this, it's not a one-time thing. We would have to commit, let's say, $1 million every year. So that lessens something, and we need to really see, does that really impact, uh, equal to what we're doing around the other initiatives?

Thanks for clarifying. Yeah, I'm just hearing a lot of uncertainty. I hear some support, but not like, oh, I know it and here's the research where we know these other things do work. And that's why I think we need to have a greater discussion as a board before we move it forward.

Jessica seconded. Yeah, so it's open for discussion, and/or if there's no discussion, I'll call the question.

Sorry, can we repeat the whole motion again one more time? Yeah, yeah. So the motion is let me make sure I'm using my right language— reduce the sector worker retention bonuses to $500,000, move the remaining $500,000, uh, to flexible operational funding to 2.4. That'll be Motion 1. I will make a second motion about how we implement, or what's the next step around bonuses.

And I'll just note, correct me if I'm wrong, Trevor, but you're saying accept all of the edits made in the most recent version of the budget and then make those additional changes, correct? Or at least the number edits.

Yes. Okay.

Hearing no discussion, I call it to question. Chair?

Oh, yeah. So is it something we should do all, you know, all— is anybody opposed, or should we take an official—.

I think you could ask. Yeah, sorry, Trevor. No, that's okay. Is anybody opposed? Chuck is opposed.

Georgina is opposed. Yeah, I'm opposed as well.

So do you want to just do a quick vote then? That might make sense, Jessica, and I'm happy to read people out and if that's helpful for you.

So Trevor, are you in favor or opposed? Be in favor. We have to officially vote if we did the—. I vote yes. I would vote yes.

Then Branwyn?

I'll vote yes.

Kevin? Yes.

Yes. Yes. And then Georgina? Yes. Yes.

Mildred? Yes. Georgina, I'm sorry, I thought you said you opposed Am I—. I, I'm, I'm confused as to— I thought I posed the motion, but if we're officially voting on moving forward, is that on the— so we would vote on the motion to amend the budget? Yeah, I know.

Yeah, sorry. So Tina is no, Mildred Yes. Yes. No.

No. Foster. And then does—. Yeah, the motion passed. Yeah, majority.

Okay, and then we would move to the implementation update. Actually, Trevor wanted to make another motion about how we do, I think, consider the retention bonuses. Um, do you want me just to repeat what you said, Trevor, which is by April of 2026, before implementing the program, do an in-depth assessment of the retention bonuses and their impact to assure that we want to move forward? Yes, that would be my motion.

There's a separate motion.

Yes. Anybody want to second? Sorry, Jessica. I'll second for discussion. No seconds.

And then we'll open it up for discussion about study effectiveness and I'm making this motion just so we can have that discussion, and then we can make it as an informed decision as a board. Do we agree with these or not? And if we decide not to, then we can determine how to use those funds for something else. And if we do, we can then look at that funding and any additional funding to determine, uh, what those bonuses look like and how they're distributed. This just creates a placeholder, is what the budget is doing, and this ensures it doesn't move forward without a final decision from the board and research.

I think it makes sense to make sure that it's effective and that we're doing things that are strategic.

Anybody else have any comments? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] So Trevor, just to clarify, I mean, you want to research impacts from other states? I mean, I thought part of the challenge of this entire situation is that there's— we're in an imperfect data situation. Okay. We just want to gather as much as we can.

I think it's seeing what other states do, seeing any of the data from Juneau. I think it would be important to even ask providers, assess them, will this work? And the workers, like, really make this, uh, thoughtful, uh, because I think it's very targeted. And there's— yeah, so, but I think that's also part of— we could develop what the research looks like and share that with the larger board and try to make sure that we answer, or best to our ability, answer any questions that board members may have. So when we make a vote, we're making an informed decision.

As possible and decide to move it forward or not, as well as talking about, are we committed to this? Because it's not just for this year. When you set up these bonuses, it's like giving a raise. We're going to have to keep them or we'll do more detriment to this sector, is my belief. But we need space to be able to have that conversation, and I don't think we're able to have that today.

[Speaker:DR. BROWN] I agree with Trevor. I wanted to make some comments, but I was trying to wait because I know that we have a tight agenda. But I can also provide some information as far as when Alaska SEED was a part of distributing funds for the Roots Awards for the retaining our outstanding teachers. So I could also provide some data from that as well. One thing I can say is that, in my opinion, and what I have heard from the— from THREDD and the SEED Department, that funding did not help with retaining educators in the field and at their places of employment.

We had individuals that would apply for this stipend and then they would leave the field, or it did not really retain them as we hoped. So I know that we're saying that bonuses could possibly— yes, it's going to help someone, of course, pay their bills for that time, but if it's not consistent monies, then will it really help them and retain them at their place of employment? And so I can provide some of that data as well when we really dive deeper into that.

Thank you, Mildred. I appreciate that as well.

So are we ready to call this question? Would anybody oppose the motion to do the research?

Hearing none, motion passes.

Now, so we move to the implementation of the program. I want to because I'm— we're already a little bit behind schedule, but I guess I just like people to look at the budget and see if there, there are some edits made. They're small, um, really it's adding a few little notes based on public feedback or just clarifying notes, and there's a goal at the top. So I guess I'd like feedback on whether people want to add that goal. I assume everyone's okay with the smaller notes.

So on the first page, there's support continuous quality improvement and cultural responsiveness as an objective.

And I guess we could add this, or we could say this is something we want to consider as we develop our strategic plan and think about what we're trying to do. I don't think this has to be here. It's just nice that someone took the time to put this together, and it's very thoughtful.

Go ahead. I'm not trying to throw a wrench in things, but I feel like I'm hearing a fair amount of that bonuses were not shown to work through the research we have, um, and that we reduce them. And so I'm going to make this motion with the full knowledge we have taken a vote and see where things go, um, but moving back to the original motion Trevor and I had discussed. I will move to shift what is now the $500,000 in bonuses and move that into the operations because I've heard a fair— it sounds like there is a fair amount of that. It's not very evidence-based and that we could research that more, and we've only taken a partway vote.

So I'm going to make that motion and see if there's a second. And then, yep, are you saying you want to reduce it to zero? Yes. And put it where? In the operations.

Is there a second? I'd like to comment on that. Do I wait for a second?

I second. I'll second it for discussion.

I don't think— so I don't think that's true that it's been shown that it's not effective. Kevin said in the beginning that a one-time payment wouldn't be effective, and then I said that too. The bonuses we are not thinking of as a one-time payment, and that's what Mildred was referring to in the past has been done. It was just a random one-time payment. The employees didn't know if they'd ever get it again or when it would come, and it just came kind of out of the blue.

And we can all agree that that's not effective, it sounds like. But that's not what this program would— was, you know, would be designed as. And so I think saying that, oh, we already have found this not— it isn't effective is not correct because those are two completely different things. And there, it's definitely been used. It's been used in Juneau.

I think San Francisco has a program. So I don't— I mean, I haven't done— I don't have all of the references on hand, but I don't think it's true that it's not been shown to be effective if you have an organized like a dependable program in place.

As like I— that, that totally makes sense to me. And I think where my challenge is, is I don't think we're in the place to make a commitment to a long-term, organized, dependable program. And so that's, that's where my concern is. Not that if we really invested in this as a priority that it couldn't potentially shift the needle, but that to do it in a, what is kind of a pretty minimal way at this point. Like, I would prefer to not, like, to do that research we're talking about and really look into it and have full discussions potentially at our border treat if this is something that we really want to dive into in the future and have a really, I think, a meaningful commitment from this board in it in the long term rather than kind of a a small step that will kind of commit us, but that we're saying is not a long-term commitment.

So that's where I'm coming from. Yeah, from what I've read, which I don't have all of the articles now, but similar to what Brandon said, is that national experts say one of the top things that we can do to support childcare is to work toward increasing current wages and up. I supported the reduction that Trevor put forward kind of to balance a lot of factors and a lot of feedback. I don't think it's perfect. I mean, $500,000 is definitely a starting point.

And obviously $500,000 isn't enough to increase wages across, you know, Alaska child care employees. But I think what Bronwyn is saying is wise, that this is a starting point and that we build a sustainable system, even if it's a small step, and then we work over time toward hopefully building it. So I think it's a step in the right direction. I wish it were larger. I think that would have a bigger impact, but obviously there's a lot of different, you know, valuable priorities here.

So I think, yeah, to serve our goal at the top here, I think, you know, this is a step toward building a good program for wage supports. And so, yeah, I'm not— I hear where you're coming from, but obviously I would want to stick to this balance where we've already put some back in operations. So, Dr. Can I interrupt just to do a quick time check? We have 2 presenters here, so I'm sorry for not, um, setting the— I thought this would be a quick discussion and we were going to finalize, but it feels like you guys are sort of rethinking a lot of the elements of the budget that takes more time. I think the board should look at whether you have time to go beyond 12:15 and also whether our presenters are there and have time.

I don't want to have invited them and then not get to them.

We're probably about 15 minutes behind already, just as an FYI. Should we table the rest of the discussion and move on and maybe come back if we have time? Well, you might ask if there's a second, because if there's not a second for Chuck's motion—. I did, Austin, I did second it for the purpose of discussion. Just for the record.

Thank you. Yeah, I think we can wrap this up in a couple minutes. Kevin had his hand up, and then unless there's more discussion, I would just put it to the— I'll just call the question. I just wanted to say sorry if I inserted uncertainty or confusion there first. And second, I do think after the discussion it makes sense to set up the framework to be able to do this later, like a smaller program that starts small and we can grow.

I think is a— it's a wise step.

So putting it—. I'll call it the question. Yeah. Thank you, Trevor. Anybody oppose?

Yes. You want to raise your hand if you're opposed?

Yeah. That enough people to—. I would recommend doing a voice vote or raising hands if you support it, because it seems to me that most of the board members don't, and it's hard for me to track hands in person and on Teams. Let's just do that. Trevor, yes or no?

No, I don't support, support it. I would say no. Branwyn?

Can you repeat what we're supporting or not supporting? Do you support moving the $500,000 from the worker retention bonuses to the operation grants and not having anything in that category? No. Okay. Kevin?

No. Khalil? No. Georgina? Yes.

Mildred?

No. And then Chuck? Yes. So the motion fails.

I think it's a good discussion to have later. We're going to move to, um, the program. I'm so sorry, I know I'm trying to hurt you, but I need to know about that goal, whether to include it or not include it. My recommendation, since you haven't had time to evaluate it, is to leave it out for now and consider it for later. Is everyone okay with that?

Yeah, it doesn't even need to be put to a motion. Just great. Thank you. Thanks for bearing with me. Um, are you ready?

Yeah, sorry, I just have to take notes and try to present. Okay. Um, I am trying to decide how to do this because I don't want to take the presenter's time. I guess I'll just— I'm going to talk really fast, and if it's too hard, you let me know. So quickly, operational program.

I got an update from THREDD since July 9th, which was the deadline. They've been working to process all the applications, including verifying licensing status or American Camp Association accreditation, or those that meet the exempt qualification. They have 175 eligible license programs. I'm not sure what the numbers are now, maybe there's 185, 190, so that's most of them, which is great. They have 7 eligible American Camp Association accredited programs and 21 exempt, which is interesting because they've never funded the exempt category that we discussed before.

So they definitely got the word out for 203 total programs. They're working on doing some verification for a few of those and working on the formula. Branwen, Kevin, and Jessica and I have been helping to support them in coming up with their formula, and we're still working on that. They hope that they can start processing check requests perhaps next week and start to have the first programs that were processed get checks out in about 2 weeks. So we're on track to get that funding beginning to go out in August.

Quickly, pilot projects and capital funding. Tamaya's out, Val's been doing a great job filling in for her, and both she and Kim at purchasing have been really helpful. We talked about the reimbursement nature of that and how that's maybe something to discuss for next year. Just a quick update of the 20 awarded entities: 11 have the contracts completely final, they're free to begin work. Anchorage Montessori, Anchorage Waldorf Education, Carousel Childcare, Hillcrest, both of their projects, capital and pilot, Imagination Station, Kids Court, Little Bears, Rural CAP Infant Care Pilot, and Little Haven, and the United Way.

Of the others, there are most of them that are not final. We're working through insurance. Val and I have started talking in more detail about the insurance challenges and what they are We'll share that at a future meeting. We don't have time today, but most of those will be resolved. I think it's just taking time to get the right insurance.

So we have a third, essentially, that are not done. Most of them are either complete or just waiting on a few final signatures and the purchasing process, which can be a little slow sometimes. So we're, we do have a few, 2 to 3, that have not been responding recently. And Tamaya hasn't been able to get a hold of. So we'll have to decide.

Maybe I would go back to the evaluation committee to say, hey, this doesn't look like this project's going to happen. What do we do with those funds? So we'll keep you posted. We'll keep talking about that. And I think with that, I'm going to turn it over so that our guests have a little bit of time.

To Child Care Subsidy Program, and is— are Desiree and Emily in the room? Yes. Yes. Great. Desiree, do you want me to put that document you sent up?

Not yet. Okay, you tell me when. Okay. Am I okay to sit here? Can everybody hear me?

Okay. So, my name is Desiree Scheffler and I serve as the— [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] And I serve as the CEO of Alaska Family Services and we're here to talk about the child care subsidy program. So I want to start by just acknowledging that we've heard the concerns that were raised at the last meeting. So we heard that it was too cumbersome for folks to apply to child care assistance, so the state child care assistance program, as part of their application to the subsidy program if they knew that they were over income. So we're now allowing folks who say, you know, I'm over income, I'm not going to qualify to child care assistance to submit just verification instead of applying for child care assistance.

So they submit verification of their income. We heard that people are having a hard time reaching Alaska Family Services staff. It is our policy that all calls or emails are returned within 2 business days, but we decided to provide a couple of other opportunities for folks to get in touch with us. We hosted a Q&A about the program on Zoom to assist applicants and answer questions, and we put up a frequently asked questions section on the AFS website. We also heard some concern that the ACCE application process may be held up by the Child Care Assistance application process.

So the longest that an ACCE applicant has waited to hear for their CCAP eligibility determination is 16 days, and that was actually due to waiting for application materials from the applicant. The shortest time we've had an ACC applicant CCAP eligibility determination done was 4 days. They got us everything right away. We were able to move quickly on that application. And on average, ACC applicants waited 10 days for their CCAP determination, but we've also been moving forward with their ACC EE application processing without waiting for that CCAP determination.

So now we're going to talk a bit about the process for the subsidy program. So we distributed the family and facility applications via mail to all child care facilities with a Municipality of Anchorage child care license and all accredited day camp programs operating within the municipality. We also put the application on the Alaska Family Services website. Family and facility applications were distributed at different times, so we distributed the family applications June 1st and released those at the end of June, and both applications included a letter with information about the program. The facility application included information on how the program could benefit the facility and how facility staff could support their employees with completing the family application.

The language in the frequently asked questions section of the website and in the facility application made it clear that non-relative child care providers who provide legal Municipality of Anchorage child care license exempt childcare are also eligible to apply the program, but municipality licensing doesn't— couldn't provide us with a list of who those individuals were, so we couldn't reach out to them individually. At this point, we have received 75 family applications, so those represent 75 childcare employees. Of those 75 employees, 20 are employees who are confirmed as eligible and approved for child care assistance, state child care assistance. 6 If those employees have a child care assistance application in process. 2 Employees thought they were over income for state CCAP, but based on their income documents, they actually weren't over income.

And then 47 employees were over income for state CCAP, and we'll refer to those as ACC subsidy-only families. So those family applications represent 118 children who will receive subsidized care. That's 33 infants, 16 toddlers, 25 preschoolers, and 44 school-age children. We have 55 facility applications. 16 Of those facilities receive the subsidy as an employer and provide the child care to their employee.

8 Received the subsidy only as a child care provider, so they're not the employer. And then 2 are solely as an employer. They— we don't have a family who is actually using them as care yet. And then 29 facilities enrolled without either having an employee or being the employer. So, they just got out ahead of the process altogether and enrolled in the program.

So, we could pull up that table now, and I actually printed some of these out as well, because we're going to talk about the formula that we're using. So, to start, the focus when we were creating this formula was on benefiting facilities, essentially by freeing up operational dollars that they're currently using to strengthen and to strengthen the sector by supporting folks whose care is not covered by their employer. So we decided early on that based on facility owner feedback and—. Desiree, sorry, is there supposed to be a slide shared with us? We don't see it yet.

Often that's the table. Sure, I'll put it up. Thank you. Thank you. So, we were going to— based on facility owner feedback and family applications, we decided that we were going to change from a closed application period to an open application period.

This would allow us to extend the benefit to more facilities because we heard that staffing changes over the year. And so, that was a— rather than just close it, we could leave it open. For employees who pay for any portion of their child— of their child care, this is a direct benefit for them as we assume that benefit will keep them working in the sector. And we know that there are individuals because, again, based on the types of applications we're receiving, there are people whose children receive care not at the facility we work and they are paying that cost. We assume that this will help us continue to work or help them continue to work in the child care sector.

For facilities who offer 100% employee discount for child care, this fund will cover at least a significant portion of that cost and free up their operating dollars for other expenses. We're going to need to start— before I can get into exactly what this formula means, we're going to start by defining the state rate. So, and we're defining that because that state rate factors into both families who receive a child care assistance subsidy and families who don't receive— who only receive the ACCE subsidy payment. So, the rate that State Child Care Assistance Program pays by state region, facility type, and the age group of the child receiving care is the state rate. For the sake of our conversation, when we're talking about the state rate, we mean the rate State Child Care Assistance pays for licensed centers in Anchorage by age group.

So for employees who receive child care assistance, the ACC subsidy will pay their child care assistance copay plus $200 per month per child. So CCAP copay is determined by state child care assistance based on a family's size and their income. The average copay, CCAP copay for ACC subsidy families is $386 a month. The highest copay a family receiving the ACC subsidy has to pay is $688 a month. The lowest is $80 a month.

The average number of children in care for these families is 2. So that is an additional $200 per month per child. And that's meant to bridge the gap between state rates and the average of what we know facility costs to be. Without the ACCE subsidy, this gap is either paid for by the family receiving child care assistance or is paid for by their employer. For the ACCE subsidy only families, the subsidy will cover the cost of child care at 75% of the state rate.

So, I have a table there what exactly that means. The example being, if it's $1,135 per month, 75% of that state rate is going to be— for an infant, 75% of that state rate will be $851.25. We went with 75% of the state rate to ensure that we could continue to accept applications for the remainder of the year without having to decrease subsidy payments for those who are already receiving the benefit. In the event that we don't expend the full amount available to pay subsidies with this formula, we anticipated that we could, at the end of the year, let providers know that we were going to cover more for this short period of time to, to benefit the providers, to benefit the families, to use up all the subsidy, but make it very clear that this is for a limited period of time so that nobody gets less than they anticipate. Um, again, the cost of care currently is for most employers, if their employee is receiving care at their facility, they are covering most, if not all, of this cost already.

So even 75% of state rate is going to be a significant benefit. For them. With this funding formula and the 75 family applications we've received, you can see here the subsidy will cover $78,237 a month. That's, you know, $469,424 for 6 months. And over the cost of a year, if we received no other applications than the 75 we received, that would be just shy of $1 million.

So, next week we're going to— we expect we're going to begin mailing enrolled facilities their corresponding family eligibility notifications along with the facility payment request form, which will include instructions for how they'll complete the form and get paid. We anticipate facilities will begin submitting their payment request forms for processing very soon. September, we're going to start distributing payment checks to enrolled facilities where child care is or has taken place. And in September and October, we're going to work on the survey for participating child care employees, child care employers, and facilities without participating employees, but where care has taken place. And we're looking forward to working with the implementation team to make sure that we're surveying for all of the information they want us to receive.

Once we know what the program will look like moving forward, we're also excited about the potential to work with Tread to use this as a tool to potentially recruit new folks into the child care sector. So, what we see right now is, and what the survey will hopefully get at, is what does this look like as a tool for folks who are already working in the sector. But we actually think that this could be a really neat way to recruit additional people into the sector as child care is expensive. And if there is a way that they can cover that cost even if they're not making more than they would working in a different field, it really could benefit them to move into childcare.

Any questions? I went through that really quickly so that I could get to the any questions part.

Yeah. Okay, so I'm trying to catch up. Yep. In the chart, I think you talked about this. Okay, 54, but then 23 not confirmed.

Can you explain that again? They're going to be families who think they're over income, but they haven't submitted verification, or families who think that they— if they thought that they qualified for child care assistance, we put them in that not confirmed 54 because that's going to be a higher dollar amount. So it let us kind of conservatively budget until we know for sure where they go. Okay, so they're most likely in this category, but there's Yes. Okay.

That makes sense. Thanks. Any other questions? Yeah, it comes so fast thinking that there'd be a lot.

Desirée, this is Trevor. Hi, it's always good to see you and hear you. Appreciate what your team has been doing around this. Can you explain that $200 a month per child if they're already getting— I was a little confused of why we have that plus $200. Could you walk me through that again?

Yeah, so we know that child care assistance, state child care assistance, has their state rate. Most—. I would—. Without Emily elbowing me, I will say every family pays something more than the state rate. State rate.

So every family who is enrolled in state child care assistance has their copay to pay, and then there's this additional cost. For some families, their child care provider is their employer, and their employer says, we're going to cover that portion or some of that portion. But not every individual who's working in the child care sector has their children receive care from the place where they work. So in that case, they're going to be the ones putting up the difference between the state rate and what their child care provider bills them. So that extra $200 a month is meant to cover that cost that's above and beyond what state child care assistance pays, whether that's currently being paid by their employer or being paid by them as an individual.

Excellent. Two thumbs up. Well, I thought your presentation was really helpful. Thanks. For the update.

I appreciate it. And I was just curious, like, what were the biggest challenges you saw in terms of, like, getting it off the ground? I mean, it's a big deal to get this started. I mean, so I appreciate what you all have been doing and, you know, collaborators. Just trying to figure out how to make sure that we were receiving responsive to feedback.

And also, how do you build something when you have no idea how many people are going to apply for it? So the implementation team has been incredibly helpful in terms of like making the decision of, do we build something that expands quickly? Do we build something that expands over the longer term? Like, how do we make sure that, you know, when we heard feedback— like, we had— I don't even know if she's given birth yet, but we had an applicant who was like please, I want this subsidy. I don't have this baby yet.

Could I apply now? Like, so we know there are going to be people over the course of the year, or the provider who said, my staffing changes significantly in August and September as school starts. And so building something where it's just this unknown, I would say, has been the most significant challenge. But I'm really— again, the implementation team has been amazing with helping set those thresholds, and we've run a lot of potential, you know, splits of how the money could look, and I think it's in a really good place now. And this kind of goes with that unknown.

I mean, what's your take on the 75 applications so far? I mean, we know that there's way more people who would potentially qualify, right? So I mean, it seems like a good start, but you would expect it to grow significantly. Yeah, and I think part of that, I— it will be interesting to see what happens. Like, we have some facilities who did a great job right out at the gate of getting, you know, we saw a bunch of family applications with one facility as the employer.

I don't think everybody's kind of caught on to that yet. So, it will be interesting as checks start going out the door to see what that does. Also, I think there's going to be a piece of this that's just continued outreach for us. And I really do think it would be exciting to figure out how we partner with DRES to say, like, okay, when you're talking about people joining the child care sector, how do we make sure that this is part of the conversation you're having? Yeah, I like that piece that you had at the end.

Good idea. Thanks.

So are we ready to move to new business? Or did— We have another presentation. Another presentation? Yeah. Austin, you want me to pull up the presentation from John?

Or do you have it? Is that Diana? Yeah, sure. I have it too. So either way, but why don't you go ahead and share it?

Because then I can focus on taking notes and not have multiple screens going. And I think, um, Trevor, did you want to do a quick budget thing now, or you want to wait till after the strategic planning conversation?

Uh, we'll just do it quickly at the end. Okay.

While that's getting pulled up, I'm John Gregoire. I'm with Professional Growth Systems and I'm the strategic planning facilitator. I have 30 minutes on the schedule, but I think I can do it quicker and save you all a little bit of time. I have 2 primary goals for today. One is to walk you through the planning timeline and give you just a general overview of what process timeline looks like.

And then two, a request for two volunteers to join a subcommittee to assist us in between planning events to allow for us to move the plan along further without requiring the entire board to be on.

So, start—. I'm going to—. Do you mind following me so folks up there can see what— because I'm standing up here. So these things in green we've already done. So I've been working with Austin and Trevor to do the initial discovery, get a sense of, of the process, what your foundations look like, do a basic document review, and then plan the event itself.

So we've got a general outline of the planning event done. We have a schedule set. We're ready to go. Today we want to get 2 people to join the planning team, and I can talk a little bit about what the planning team would do, finalize the packets and get them to you on the 22nd. And then we'll have the planning event on September 4th and 5th from 10:30 to 5:00.

So it's a 2-day in-person, in here strategic planning event where we're going to get wild with sticky notes and markers and flip charts and solve major problems. It's going to be super fun, really looking forward to it. From the planning event, we'll get a lot of raw data. Some things will be taken close to finish, but most of it will, will need some polish. And that's where the planning team members will come in to help build roughly 90% draft.

So based on all the raw data that we pull during the 2-day planning event, that small committee will get together and try to pull that into about a 90% draft. So, a little closer to finish. We'll have— we'll call that the strategic agenda. So that'll be your draft plan, essentially. That'll be reviewed and approved by the board for, yeah, we feel like this is good to go on a road show.

We'll— once you approve that 90%, we'll take that and capture stakeholder feedback or go on a road show, put it in front of different people, see what their feedback is. Capture that feedback. And that may be something that just Austin, Trevor, and I do. That may be something that the members of the committee that are the other two folks may assist with that. We haven't made—.

Sorry, Austin, Trevor, we didn't really discuss that part yet, but we may be doing the road show unless you really want to jumping in on that. And then we'll come back and then—. Yeah, I just want to ask, I don't think Diana's seeing the chat. Diana, can you make this document bigger? People can't see it.

Sorry to interrupt you, John, but I want to make it more useful. No problem. Can you see now?

How's that? Oh, that's better. And then can you move it along as— so we're on the, um, where are— yeah, you can keep moving it actually because we've already hit the, um, that middle bit. Okay. Sorry about that.

No problem. So the Planning Committee would take the feedback that, that came from the road show, uh, and then try to incorporate that into a proposed final draft. So take it from 90 to 99 or 100, uh, and then that would be approved by the, the final, the full board. So bring that back to the full board. During this process, we'll have a concept of what implementation planning may look like.

So depending on what types of projects come out, we may do detailed implementation plans, or if the projects come out are really broad-based and don't require that level of detailed implementation planning, we won't necessarily do it that far. We'll have a standard report. So that's something we'll design and develop and bring before the board for that final approval that this what the implementation process will look like. If there is an implementation planning process, we'll do that sometime in December, as well as develop public-facing marketing collateral announcing your strategic plan to everybody. And then the plan will launch January 1st, 2026.

So that's the timeline. Lots of stuff to do. It's going to go by much quicker than it sounds. Any questions about that?

Would 2 people be willing to volunteer to be part of the planning committee? Can you share a little more detail on what that actually means? Like, are we— is that a few additional meetings where we're meeting to talk, or are we like drafting things? Like, what's the plan? It's a couple additional meetings.

There could be some work in between those meetings to just process data and give drafts, recommendations, but the idea being that we're going to walk out of the retreat with all this raw data. We're not going to— we don't have enough time to take it to full. So that committee will then sift that down and try to come back with a proposed, say, statement with more detail, take that raw material and and filter it down a little bit so that we can bring back to the Board something that's closer to finish. So it, it would probably be, if I were just completely looking at the timeline, 3 additional meetings, 90 minutes to 2 hours between now and January.

Between now and January, not between now and September. Yeah, yeah, no, between now and January. So there'd be a meeting after the retreat, and then a meeting after the stakeholder feedback, and then, you know, so just a few additional meetings. I'm interested.

John, isn't it also true that, that those folks would work with Trevor and me and you to put together the plan? So it's a couple meetings, but also a little bit of drafting work as well. Yeah, and that's a lot of what we would be doing in those other— is that drafting work? Yeah. Great.

Thanks, Chuck.

I'd be willing to volunteer as well. Awesome.

All right. We got two. Is anybody else interested? I don't want other people to feel like they can't participate, but if we're good with those two, that's great.

And everyone will see everything. It'll all come to be, but think of the folks that are volunteering as doing you a fantastic favor of doing some of the making the batter so we can finalize the cake. So it's a great service they're doing for you. Well, then I, I've saved you a bunch of time. I, unless you have any other questions about the planning process, or Austin, you have anything else you feel I should share, I will back out.

Yeah, thanks, John. That's great. I was just going to add that I've been working with the Assembly to get a work session scheduled. We've invited the members to attend, but because this is, the sessions are 2 days long, most members can't do that sort of thing. So You know, Cameron has said, Assemblymember Perez-Verdia, that he plans to attend, but in either case, we'll have an opportunity to get feedback from them.

We've also invited both Bill and Nolan and Don Skeet from Muni Licensing Plan to attend, because we know that this plan is the Muni's plan, right, not just the board's plan, and will serve as a basis for sort of where we go working within this sector. And then Trevor and I have invited a number of partners partners, including a school board member and a lot of different organizations. You all have seen the draft list. We've added a couple more, but we've gotten a number of confirmations and looking forward to working with our broader community and uni to figure out what we're doing over the next 3+ years.

Fantastic. And I think Jessica jumped on but stepped out. She's on her way to an appointment. So I will take over leading the meeting. Anything else on strategic planning, Austin?

I want us to go back. We had so much budget discussion and amendments of change, but what we didn't do is just also approve the overall budget. So let me quickly share.

And thanks to Chuck, he reminded us. Yeah, uh, hopefully you can see my screen. What I did was quickly I showed what was previous. This was what Austin shared out. This is what's now proposed, uh, with the change of that amendment, which was taking $500,000 out of here and putting it up.

Uh, I want to say this is correct. Uh, Austin, can you quickly look at it, make sure I did that? Looks right to me. So I would— somebody was saying something.

We thought, or I thought, that if you move $500,000 to operations, that instead of 2.4, it would be 2.5. Oh, I think it was originally $1.9, not $2 million. It was, yeah, that was my incorrect math of assuming it was 2.5 from last year. So, but in that confusion, third line, that column previous should say 1.9. That's what Khalil saying too, I think.

The third— oh, this. Oh, sorry. Yes. Thank you, Khalil and Chuck, or whoever else caught that. Yeah, you're correct.

Sorry, I did this quickly on the fly, so good eyes. Alex, what's good? Okay, I would entertain a motion to approve the proposed budget, which is in yellow and incorporates all of the edits sent to you by email, except for the additional proposed goal.

I would second.

Thank you.

And who made the motion, Khalil, or did I accidentally make it? I'll make the motion. Thank you.

Great. Anybody opposed?

Speak. I can't see everybody because I'm sharing my screen.

Hearing none, it passes unanimous. Thank you, and I just want to say thank you all for that very robust conversation. There's a lot of passion about this and trying to figure out how best to use— it seems like a lot, $5 million, but when we look at the scale of what we're trying to do, it's not. And just really appreciate it and really appreciate the feedback we're getting from the community, and I think that's really just shows how important our transparency is and how it then feeds into the overall work that we're doing, which I think hopefully everybody knows a kind of little bit on the strategic plan. We're also inviting a vast number of people from the community leaders around the sector to be in the room with us to really make sure that we are not working within a silo or a bubble, that we're really getting some great feedback, and how do we move our work along.

So Very, very exciting. Austin, I don't have the agenda in front of me. Is there anything else? No, we just have a placeholder for member comments. If anybody wants to share anything, feel free.

I'd also be happy to put up the strategic plan invite list if people want to be reminded and see who's confirmed, or if there's anything else you want to do in the 15 minutes we have left.

I will just share the announcement. So if we all remember when we brought Austin on as a contractor, it was for 1 year. It hasn't been a year. Contract ends either March or April, one of those months. It will come by fast, and I'm hoping that— and what our goal was then to bring somebody on, and my goal is to see somebody on so there would be a few months of overlap.

So I already sent out an email, it involves Khalil and myself, and reached out to Bill because we were— oh, and I need to include Jesse. I knew I was forgetting somebody, I'll resend it. But I'll have the hiring committee come back together and start working through that process because it will take time to make sure that we have some overlap and find a good candidate. So I just wanted to let folks know that I'll be re-moving that committee along. If anybody has any questions, let me know.

Any other announcements or comments from board members?

Just a quick question on the partners, which I don't have in front of me, but did we invite anyone who served on the state task force?

Uh, I didn't do a cross-reference, but I believe, like, I know Stephanie from THREDD is there. But I'm not sure who else. If you, Austin, you send out to the board the list of who we invited. Yeah, I think that's the only person where there's overlap. A lot of the folks who, some of the folks who were invited are not from Anchorage, obviously, so I think that's the only place where there's overlap.

Kluu. And we do have state people, they weren't on the Task Force because that was the Commissioner, but her support staff that was overseeing child care, they're involved, just so you know. Kalia? Okay, I mean, I know another member in Anchorage that— I don't know, they might not be available because of, you know, the time commitment, but I could— we could loop them in if we want. I'll talk to you all about it later.

If you recommend— Austin, did you share the list of who we invited with the entire board? I do. I'm just pulling it up here. One person I just thought of is Kim Hayes, who works for AFL-CIO. She's in Anchorage, and she was on the task force.

I could cross-reference the list, but if you have specific ideas for invites, I think we're open. Kim was the person I was thinking of in Anchorage. Okay. Yeah, I could extend— it'd be good to have that perspective. Thank you.

Great.

I can take this down unless anyone else, if people are looking at it. So we have—. And again, we were trying to have a cross-section without, like, it's not, uh, try to get input from the entire community. That's a larger discussion and a different process, but I thought that we brought in a good cross-section of individuals of expertise, funding, and relationships within this sector. So, but if there's somebody that you think that we need to include, please let us know, let Austin know, and there's always room for a couple more folks.

Great. Anything else? All right. As much as we got behind, I think Desiree talks so fast. She caught us up, which was great.

It was great to have them in the room and see that progress. Seeing 75, that's a great start. Okay, all right, entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion. Thank you. A second?

Anybody want a second? Thank you, Bronwyn. All right, it's passed. I know it's unanimous. Thank you all.

Have a great rest of your summer. Thank you. Bye, everyone.