ACCEE Fund Board Meeting, November 6, 2025

Hello, good morning.

Hello, good morning everyone. Good morning, we're just getting started here, so.

Hello, Austin. Hi. Morning. Looking pretty quiet in the room there. I know.

Hi, Chuck. Chuck is here. I thought I was in the wrong place at first. I know. And Bill and Carlos from the Health Department is here in the audience as well.

Great. Carlos, you should feel free to sit up there with the crew. There we go. Okay. I wasn't sure what the expectation was.

Come on up so they can see us. It looks like there are enough seats. Yeah. Is there a sign saying it's a group member? Hello.

You bike here? Yep. Nice. Wow.

Hey. Hi there. Carlos. Hello. How's it going?

Welcome. Thank you.

How did it go so far? Uh, good, good. Just kind of a learning curve. Yeah, systems, traditions. Yeah, culture.

What were you doing? Let me ask this, but what were you doing before this? Oh, let's do the Forest Service. Oh, cool.

Transition to different systems. Yeah. You can do grants and so many transitions and do a different job in every job. Oh. Which one is the same?

Hey Mildred, while you're here before we start, um, I've been kind of putting off the retention bonuses piece just because we've been focusing on trying to get the pilot project stuff done, and Trevor was thinking that would be a good project for the new ED is to start working on that to overlap. So anyway, that's why I haven't gotten back to you. Well, not that you were waiting for me, but just so you know. Thank you. No worries.

Yeah, I totally understand. I'm super busy right now with retention. Oh, good. You can teach us all you want. Yeah.

Are you guys— is THREDD doing that as part of the state grant? Yes, retaining our outstanding teachers. It's actually funding from the Preschool Development Grant. And so we are currently now reviewing applications. So it's super busy.

Great. So beyond what you've sent me, you and I will have more to talk about. Awesome. Okay. Yeah.

Great. I'll just let you figure it all out and you can pass it along. That's your case, Marie.

Okay, maybe a little bit more. What happened? Trevor's gonna be gone today and Jessica is sharing, but I haven't seen them join. I think, um, there's some sickness at home, so Jessica's joining by Teams. That's a new camera, Bill.

That's— you know, I broke the old one. What's that? Broke the old one. Oh no, cable directly hit the old projector and it's— oh man, oh, and it's decidedly worse than the old one. Well, I'll apologize.

I love my clock that I was leaving. Sorry, sorry. Yeah, I just didn't want to sit right in the middle.

Good morning. Good morning.

There you are.

Yeah, I don't get to do that often enough. Oh, so I guess I can't hear the camera from here anymore.

Oh, that's it. Camera is better when you're losing the hockey game.

Yeah, though you cook up, you guys cook up a little spice here and like look great and not like sweaty. And I'm pretty much sweaty when I bike, even I just try to hide it. I used to bike to school. Good morning everyone.

Good morning, and I think recording has started, so you're all Good. Let's see, did somebody else come? And for sharing, Jessica, do you want to see if you can share? I have the documents open too if we need somebody from here to share.

Kevin, are you comfortable sharing just in case? I have the two documents open that you will need. Does that work? Okay. Let me test it.

Oh, okay. Can you all see that?

Oh, okay. Yep, I can see it. Yeah, Erin's not on. Okay, great. Okay, so somebody—.

The documents are broken. Okay, so I should be able to share this. Okay, gotcha. Okay. Thanks, Marie.

Uh-huh, thank you. Are we ready to call to order then? Looks like we're ready, so we'll make it official. I have 10:19, and we'll start with our roll call. Trevor couldn't be here today, so I'm stepping in to help out, so I'm here.

And Branwen, I see Branwen.

Kevin. Here.

Kevin's in person.

Khalil? Here. And I have to leave early, I apologize. Okay, good to know. Georgina?

It looks like Georgina is not here yet. Mildred, I see. Yeah, here. Georgina's here. Yes, you got here.

Hello, welcome. And then Mildred's here. Jesse? Hello, here. She's here and I can see Chuck as well.

It's hard to see you guys when you're, when you're little. I had to, I had to come virtually, so thanks. The next piece of our agenda is finalizing our agenda and that one, if you guys want to take a look at the agenda and see if there needs to be any changes and then I'll entertain a motion to finalize the agenda.

I'll move. I'll second.

Did you get who that was, Austin? Okay, perfect. And then we're going to go ahead and approve the minutes for the October 2nd meeting we had.

You guys got a chance to look those over. You have any questions or need any notes? Go ahead, Austin. Can you just— for the agenda, there's no objections, right? Oh yeah.

Are there any objections?

No.

No objections. Agenda is good. So we're moving to the minutes.

And then if those look good, if somebody wants to make a motion to approve the October 2nd minutes. Motion to approve. Thank you. We got a second. Anybody oppose?

Okay, minutes approved. Would you say the first and second? Sorry, I missed it while I was typing. For the moving in second. Yeah.

Jesse, and I don't know who of you. Kevin.

Thank you. Thank you, Jesse and Kevin.

And then the next thing on our agenda is public comments. So we, throughout the whole process, have been making space for our community to come and, you know, tell us what we're doing well, what we need to consider, anything that's important. And we've had a lot of great involvement. Is there anybody— we have about 10 to 15 minutes for public comments. Is there anybody here who is here for public testimony?

I can't tell if anybody in the room is. I don't see anybody raising their hand. Anybody online here for public testimony?

You know, visitors are welcome too.

Okay, sounds like we just saved some time then.

So the next thing we're going to do is we're going to introduce Carlos de la Torre. Hopefully I said that right, which is the new Anchorage Health Department employee. Are they here with us?

Yeah. Oh, I see waving. Hello, welcome. You want to introduce yourself? Uh, yes.

Is this the mic? Um, yeah, to be closer, they should be able to hear us. Uh, you have to stand up or sitting down?

You're great sitting. Um, all right, well, uh, hello everyone. My name is, um, As Jesse was saying, you could say it in a Hispanic accent, De La Torre, or I don't expect that. My name is Carlos De La Torre. That's fine as well.

I am the new senior grants and contracts administrator at the health department, and my role is to support a lot of the ACE funds administrative duties, all the contractors to help administer these. But just a little bit about myself, I'm from Mexican descent. I grew up in Mexico. I know Spanish, Spanish is my first language, and from there on after that I had a, you know, cultural integration back into the U.S. where where I, you know, just got immersed into different culture. And from there, I pursued mostly the world of conservation.

So most of my career started with conservation. I was a park ranger in several parks for several years. I worked in the Peace Corps in Peru. So I worked with tribal—. Tribes—.

With tribal organizations. There for 2 years, and I continued on with my work and as a volunteer coordinator, I worked with internships. I managed at one point around 200 interns a year, and, and then I— and that's kind of when I started my trajectory on the partnerships world. So that's where ultimately led to my position before this, which was with the Forest Service. I was with the Forest Service for a little over 2 years as a tribal partnership coordinator and advisory committee coordinator.

I worked in a way to better connect with the tribes surrounding and at the Chugach National Forest and the Tongass National Forest. As I've learned, Alaska embraces a lot of that tribal culture. And I was there to, in a way, emphasize that importance that a lot of these lands, most of these lands, are Indigenous lands. And I wanted to make, in a way, a relationship where we were able to work together, to make decisions together, to bring people to the table and making sure that everyone is not left out. And so from that experience, that's what I hope to bring into this position.

I know we work with diverse communities. I know that we have a, you know, an EEO office as well, and I know that equity is at the heart of a lot of the access to, in our case, health services to the community here, and I want to promote that. I want to continue that, and You know, I personally, relating it to the ACE Fund, I personally have several friends and family members who do have kids, young toddlers. And I say, you know, my favorite thing is to be a great uncle, the uncle from Alaska that loves to visit them. So I'm able to understand a lot of these issues that they are going through and the rest of the US is going through.

And that's in a way, you know, gives them better understanding in order to connect better with the organizations that we're currently working with, that we may in the future work with in order to serve the community the best that we can and provide that service. That's in a way that option for individuals to not just have to choose, for example, to be, you know, stay home. Parent, but if they choose to also work and provide to the economy, to the workforce, that they have a service, child care, that they can depend on. So I really enjoyed my participation as an attendee to the THREADD conference recently. I really got inspired with all the organizations working together towards this common goal and really excited to be now working with the board here today and seeing how I can share my expertise in different ways.

I spoke with Austin and my interim supervisor on what is my expectation, what does my role look like. That's something that I believe is going to be developing over time as it's a new position. At the moment, I'm looking forward to mostly settling in into granting contracts role And after that, Austin and collaboration with my leadership, they'll maybe decide if there's any other things that I can take on. But looking forward to getting to know each of you. I like coming here and meeting everyone in person, but I look forward to meeting everyone on the video calls as well.

So thanks for your time, and let me know if you have any questions. What part of Mexico are you from? Jalisco. Are you— were—. Chihuahua.

Chihuahua. Okay, entonces podemos hablar español. Carlos, thank you so much for telling us a little bit about yourself and your background. I think that's really helpful, and we're excited to work with you and to bring all that knowledge with you here to the table. Can I add something, Jessica?

Yeah, go ahead, Austin. Just for members of the public who are listening, I know that there's been a little bit of delay. First of all, the pilot projects and capital program is brand new, so we're doing our best. But also there have been people out at ASD— or I'm sorry, AHD— and so we've been sort of leaning on other folks who had pretty full plates. But now Carlos is here and he's already been working to really quickly and efficiently process invoices and get everything done we need to make sure we get you your response as soon as we can.

So thanks for your patience. And as you— just to all of you, you can tell Carlos brings a lot of skill, and the ACE Fund is funding his salary. So if there is room outside of some of the contracts stuff he's doing, which we don't know yet, maybe we will be able to, you know, use him for other things like communications. And I've been wrapping him into meetings and other things so that he'll also have overlap when I'm no longer here. He'll have had some more time with the ACE Fund with the new ED.

So anyway, welcome Carlos. We're really lucky to have him. Thank you.

Thanks, Austin.

So the next piece of our agenda is the old business, and the first thing on there is the Executive Director search, like Austin was talking about, you know. Jessica, before you move to that, can you let Bill do an update on the tax? I think you just missed one line. Oh, sorry. Sorry about that.

Yep. Let's go to Bill with an update on the tax. All right. Thanks for having me, guys. I'm very excited to be here.

Those of you who participated in the THRED conference have already heard this story, but it's been increasingly well publicized that the mayor is on the cusp of introducing a sales tax measure. And from where we are sitting, there are 3 problems that have surfaced in the community that we are looking to solve with this proposal, one of which I think— well, I know— directly affects this board and could potentially make a big difference in all of our worlds. Um, first is sort of general, long-time surfacing view that despite the fact that Anchorage is one of the lowest tax jurisdictions in the entire country, our property taxes are disproportionately high. And Nolan Cloud and the mayor's office will tell us that We're pretty consistently in the top 10% of counties nationwide. So there is a desire to do a little bit of recalibration.

It's also not lost on us that just about every advisor who says, "If you're going to push something to the voters, it probably has to be a little bit of property tax relief in it." So 1% of the sales tax would go to property tax relief. Second, we are really experiencing a pretty incredible precipitous decline in the amount of state support that the municipality has traditionally received. If you think of it, in the last two decades, the two decadal blocks. 20 Years ago, we received millions of dollars annually as just a blank check from the state as community revenue sharing or a community dividend. And when the state was flush, it gave us giant capital dollars so that we could invest in new roads or buildings, whatnot.

And over that decadal period, we got about $1 billion from the state. In the last 10 years, community revenue sharing has now gone to about 1% of our budget. It's substantially smaller than it used to be. In 1985, it was 25% of our budget. Our—.

It used to be a big chunk, that's largely dried up and it seems like it's only getting smaller year after year after year. And if you exclude the port, the total capital dollars that we receive from the state is closer to zero. So billion to zero. We did get a chunky grant for the port, but that of course doesn't maintain any of the things in Anchorage Bowl. And the last, we're acutely aware that we are a community with an outmigration problem and with a declining workforce population.

And so the two things that have been surfaced as solutions to that problem have been increasing our housing stock, and we think that the big winner is childcare. On that front, we're mindful of the fact that your reports have surfaced, and I think what some of us have known, that the amount of money that's moving through the board is not really enough to solve the problem. It's not really adequate to the need. And so our proposal is the, the final third of the sales tax would go to childcare and really swap the current dedication of the marijuana taxes. After capitalizing a housing fund that would also free up the marijuana tax to then long-term address housing needs in the, in the form of nuisance property cleanups and offsite infrastructure improvements that have really trapped a lot of subdivisions.

It used to be the case that if you were a builder who wanted to build a bunch of new homes, the state would give you a big grant to bring the water and sewer lines to your property. And then you take care of the rest. Now we say, uh, in the absence of state dollars, you gotta do it yourself, which just means a lot of these parts are undevelopable. So we are mindful of the fact that we are coming into this at the end of the Project Anchorage proposal, which took up a lot of conversation about this time last year and then came through the Assembly but didn't get approval through the Assembly last spring. We tried to learn a lot of lessons on that front.

One of the things I think would be of interest to this group also, in addition to the child care piece, which you guys know better than anybody else, is that we're certainly mindful of the fact that traditionally the sales tax is looked at as a regressive tax. And so we have tried to hardwire the most progressive exemptions that we can to mitigate those effects to the greatest extent we can. Actually, a lot of the regressivity in the previous proposal came out of the property tax relief. So just reducing the amount of property tax relief has a pretty salutary effect on all of that. But mostly, I think we, we get as close as we can on the mechanism itself, and then overall have tried to design a package which is a progressive package because we use the money that is generated for progressive purposes.

In any event, I think it'll be a big community conversation. I'm hoping it'll be a big community conversation starting in a couple weeks and then taking us all the way through April, assuming we can get it through the assembly in January. But that's our timeline, the whole Big Click, and I'm happy to answer any questions on that front. Got a couple questions, and the answer might just be I have to do the homework. A comment first, a pox on the house of whoever taught people the term regressive and progressive taxation because You get just a lot of C+ answers when people try and apply those concepts pretty kind of not well.

I say that as an econ professor. Like, like you mentioned, you have to think about where the funding goes, whether or not that makes the tax overall progressive and what the opportunity cost is. And it's, it's not a good answer to just say sales taxes are regressive because it depends on what the funding is for. But you mentioned that the 1% for childcare would be split with capitalizing a housing fund. I'm just wondering what's the amount that you consider capitalized for that fund?

How long would you expect to get to it? And what are we what happens to revenues before that fund is capitalized? And then you mentioned some changes to the ACE Fund too. Yeah. I'll respond to every one of those bits.

The first is you're exactly right. And we actually are trying to be very transparent, play all the cards face up. So the traditional measure of regressivity and progressivity, as you know, is also based on income. But that's a little bit perverse too because a very wealthy retiree has no income. So it sort of skews the data.

So we're going to try to present it both on the historic income measure but also on the expenditure deciles. And if you do it on expenditures, actually not particularly regressive at all, though it is a non-traditional measure. In any event, um, to your next questions, the way that we have set it up now is ACDA has been talking about capitalizing a $50 million housing fund. And so we have said, as we are ramping up a child care program in the first 3 years, during that first 3-year window, a housing fund of $50 million would be capitalized. At the end of that window, that bucket locks down back to being child care exclusive.

The housing fund is really maintained— housing work is maintained by the now repurposed marijuana stream. So the idea is to keep it clean. So there isn't a competition between housing and childcare in perpetuity. And then the big change for the ACE Fund is actually a pretty simple change. The way it is written now, it says, so long as you're actually collecting sales tax dollars, the dedication of the marijuana taxes that's in Section 606 is suspended.

And instead, the third bucket goes to childcare, of which the ACE Fund would continue to advise how those dollars would be used. So I think it largely is not more than a recalibration that says the wrong amount of money was programmed to the need, reprogrammed to the correct amount of money. And so for that ramp-up period, like, what's the split? Because in my— because it's like—. No hard split.

So no hard split at all, which means in that first 3 years, it is a little bit of a jump ball. And if you— end up with only $10 million of expenditures in the first year, and you can squirrel away $40 million in the first year for that fund. The next year it could be $10 million, $40 million. But really, we just created a window to say, capitalize this fund and then get out of the game. And again, one more comment before I cede the floor to anybody else.

I'm just thinking in that run-up, one of the things we've discussed as a group is the need for these programs to exist at least in the same size for several years so they become dependable, so we can see impact, because of course we want to show voters that after they passed marijuana sales tax and they provided us with these resources, we've done something that has moved the needle in a positive direction. Although I agree the resources are not enough to cover the whole need. Would we expect that at least the same amount of money would be coming towards the ACE Fund and that this would be, if anything, an increase? Yeah, very much so. So the way it is written is that the current marijuana dedication stays in place until you're collecting the sales tax dollars, and then it changes.

So Ace Fund is going to continue in this form whether the voters approve this or not, at least for the next 2 years. Because I should also say it's a lift to create a sales tax from scratch. We're going to have to hire 2 dozen people, find a place for them to work, buy a bunch of software, and then inform the 30,000 businesses in Anchorage how they configure their point-of-sale systems or acquire a point-of-sale system to make this all go. So it's not going to be an instantaneous process. So Ace Fund is not affected at least until 2028 in this best-case scenario.

Okay, but so then after that, there may be a world where there's less money going towards child care until that fund is capitalized? No, after that— that was— that's actually a great question. Is there a scenario where we switch to sales tax and then we go, whoops, actually now we're spending the entire third bucket and nothing on child care? Frankly, I didn't even conceive of that as a plausible scenario, so that's a great comment, and maybe I can put in some trigger that says it will be not less than Right. That's a great comment.

I didn't even think of that. I can't speak for the board, but for myself, I would like that. Yeah. Yeah. Certainly that's not the intent to create any kind of whoops for the first few years it goes to zero again.

Just to clarify, because I was a little confused about it. Once we're taking in the money from the sales taxes, are we not collecting from the marijuana taxes anymore either? Or are those going to something different? The idea is to reprogram them and say that the 3rd bucket of the sales tax, which would be approximately $60 million, would be the child care bucket. And that number depends on a couple of design choices and how you do exemptions.

But suffice to say, it is for sure an order of magnitude increase. The marijuana taxes would go to—. To housing.

Austin, I see your hand.

Yeah, Bill, I was just a little confused. So, Bill, Trevor and I have been meeting with Bill and his team to try to talk through some of these things and just brainstorm ways that this money could be spent and how to talk about the tax. So we've had a few conversations about it, and I'm a little confused by the response to Kevin's question because the last question, because my understanding is that if the tax passed, it would be evenly split between housing and child care for the first 2 to 3 years, and I don't know which. And Nolan said 2, you said 3, so maybe they're— anyway, um, and so when Kevin just asked that question, you said, oh, I'm not sure, what if we spent less? Well, how would that ever happen?

I mean, it should be $30 million per year. So a couple things I'll say about that is we have had the macroscopic divide of the sales tax largely in place for a while, but we're still doing community conversations. We're moving through all the different communities who have some interest in this, and as it will it will not shock you to learn there are a lot of people with a lot of opinions and they're all diametrically opposed. And so the challenge of all of this is that we have to get something that both gets through the Assembly and that can be palatable to the voters. And that sometimes means the person that says only do this if it is entirely property tax relief, or the other person says don't do any property tax relief.

We gotta find some happy middle. So the— I think there was at one point some discussion about hardwiring a split in those first few years, but that's not in the current draft that we have now. As a result of the conversation we're having, I do think that they probably do need something that makes sure that the total amount of funding for childcare never goes down. Can you swap your days off next week and work Monday and Friday off? I'll take it.

Rachel, can you mute? I'm trying to mute you and it's not letting me. Thank you. It let me mute her. Okay, great.

Okay, I guess just in the spirit of the conversations we've had, I know that both Trevor and I would pretty obviously object to there not be— being a number that's defined in there. I think I feel comfortable sharing for Trevor saying that, you know, seeing what's happened with the alcohol tax, seeing what's happened with the ACE Fund, with ASD funding now being funded through there, I think the language should be as specific as possible. Strong as possible supporting early learning. And I know— and to clarify that, there was at one point a version where, because of all variety of reasons, there was a thought that that third bucket could be split 50/50. To clarify, the current version is that the final bucket in the long term is not split at all.

It is 100% child care, uh, and, and that has now created this weird donut hole that we're going to plug.

Yeah, that's great for long term, but that's in 5 years because the tax doesn't go into effect until 2028 if it passes, and then it takes 3 years to get there. So I'm just thinking about making sure that, you know, if we're selling it to the public as a child care fund, that you guys are spending the money on child care as much as housing. But anyway, I know you're working through it, and Bill and I have had many conversations about this. So really appreciative that you guys are doing it, but I just feel like I have to speak up and say, since Trevor's not here.

And then, Bill, one other comment. I think, Bill, when you're saying child care, just— I see people who are school-aged representatives on the line. You're speaking more broadly, right, about early learning and child care and early education. And there's not been any decisions that if this tax were to pass, it would only be spent on child care, i.e., more typically viewed as 0 to 5. You're just using that term as shorthand, right?

Yes, and that is the shorthand that lives on the ballot, but the uses are defined by the current ACE Fund Proposition 14 uses. Meaning right now Proposition 14 says you can use your money for A, B, C, and D, and we continue to say the new bucket would be for A, B, C, and D. Okay, great. I just want to clarify because we get a lot of feedback about that. Like, if we call it just child care, people have a certain vision of what that is. Are there any more questions for Bill?

I have one before we move, but I didn't want to leave anybody out if anybody else has questions or comments. I have a comment, but I can go after you, Jessica. Chuck, you can go first. It's fine. First, I just want to say I'm thrilled about the idea of massive investment in childcare.

I think that—. I think it's easy to get lost in the weeds of things, and I just want to express that that's a really exciting idea for me and figuring out how we can actually do that, because I fundamentally agree that it is hard to be a young family here, and it is, yeah, hard, hard to raise kids here and afford childcare and all of that sort of thing. And we need to figure that out. And then I think I would just share— I think I do worry in talking about it that maybe we're getting a little into the weeds of things, and I I am curious, and we don't have to have an answer today, but like, I know I don't have a clear conception, and I've been pretty into this. Like, what does $60 million actually mean for childcare in the city?

And I, I think anyone even more one step removed would have— it sounds like a lot and would have no real idea. And I think it is a lot. And so I, I think it would really work well for like selling this and getting support for this to have some clear tangible, like in 5 years, this, this is really what we're driving for. And I mean, I, yeah, I would very much advocate for something around the zero to 5 and that childcare, like very much in that, that space until that gets figured out. But yeah, I, I would be curious if there's a sense of that and how that can be really explained to people in non-capitalized housing fund.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like, like whatever you all just said, like what's another way we can talk about it? People can really get behind. I think that is a brilliant comment, and it allows me to do the Harvey Milk thing and say, I am here to recruit you. Because here's what we know now.

Right now we know the amount of money is totally inadequate to the need. Right now we know that there are models from the other lower 48 jurisdictions that have done this, that across the spectrum, right? San Antonio said, we're going to build our own buildings, we're going to staff them with our own staffers, and we're going to actually run childcares. Others have said, straight, simple, private free market, we are going to do a voucher for every kid. You guys have helped put us on a path.

We said, well, no, let us be sensible about this. We are going to do the enabling capital investments, the tiny toilets and the playgrounds you need to help the centers. We are going to do some subsidies that are maybe attached to actual parents and their kids, maybe they can be income-based, and then we are going to do some direct wage subsidies for the childcare providers. All of that is hard to design and should be thoughtfully designed rather than sort of simply designed, I think. And a lot of the implementation details, I think we're gonna have to leave to the future, 'cause we don't do all that work until we know if we have all this money to even program.

We will need your help on all of that. In the interim though, you're right. What is the thing that we are buying if we tell the community it is time to go a lot higher? One beginning of that story is that we go, well, we know we have a giant problem to solve, meaning that it is important for kids, important for families, important for our workforce, and the sector is cratering, meaning since 2019, We've lost 20% of our license slots. We just have to keep the system from failing in the interim.

That's not what we're buying. That's like a problem we know we need to solve. It's the beginning of the conversation. Um, the next is we go, well, is this even the right order of magnitude to solve the problem? And so far what we can say is if you assume that after fluctuations, whatever, whatever, that you're at $50, $55, $60 million for this third bucket, and you just divide by the number of kids we have, it's the sort of simplest metric.

You are in the something like $5,000, $6,000 a kid, which is still less than the cost of care that we learned from McKinley thing. And then when you marry that with the existing state subsidy program, you're not more than the cost of care. So I think we can say pretty confidently there is a real problem, there's a real opportunity, and we're in the ballpark of the right amount of money. We don't yet have the thing that says, and if you buy this, this thing, tangible thing, will come into reality the next few years. You could say you'll completely clear the Title I waitlist at ASD.

I don't know if people care about that. I don't know if that's what we'd actually immediately want to do. But I do think that's where I, Harvey Milk, and invite you guys to say, is there a thing that you guys who are so close to this problem can surface that says, man, if you could promise people that this amount of money would solve this problem in the first few years, after we're starting to collect it. What is that? Tell us, and then we'll put that into the conversation too.

I think there's one more comment, not to speak too much. I think it's important too to frame this as this is not one-time purchases that solve the problem. Like, the structural issue with childcare is that people with high-paying jobs who want to continue working, then can afford to buy childcare now. Like, there's not a market failure that's corrected by a one-time investment. Yes, it's that there's all these other positive externalities of enabling lower-income people to work.

Those are ongoing costs. Well, at the risk of practicing economics without a license, when I was at Thread, I said part of the problem here is that we're continuing to treat childcare, early education as a market good when most other countries in the world and increasingly jurisdictions in the world realize it is a public good and that it is supposed to be invested in like streets and schools and lighthouses, right? Exactly. I think my, my Thought behind that is that I'm not sure how you adjust this to sell it, but it's the idea, right, that we need to continue to pay for this year after year after year. Having a dedicated fund that's got a, a non-trivial amount of money in it, I think, is a useful way to provide that service over time.

So I do think my positive comment is that this really seems like progress in the right direction, having dedicated money that could pay those ongoing costs. The provider salaries need to be paid every 2 weeks, right? That's, I think, really an upside to this proposal.

Austin?

Austin, I see your hand up. Yeah, thank you. I was just going to say, Chuck, your comment is one that I made in one of our conversations. And actually, Bill, you weren't there this past conversation, but I volunteered Trevor and Stephanie Berglund and me to try to help put together, like, this is what it would cost to do this, or did very kind of a menu of ideas or an outline of things you all could do. Anyway, we can talk more about that, but just to say, Chuck, completely agree.

Thank you. I think we need to move on to the next part of the agenda. But I think that the sales tax is, is really interesting things that, you know, 'cause we don't know, we know that we don't have enough money.

And I think, you know, making sure that we're putting in language that we're being inclusive of childcare and early learning in that language, like we have in the ACE Fund about, you know, being birth to 12 years of age being really important. The next piece of our agenda is the replacing of Austin. Nobody cry, he's not gone yet. But that update is gonna come from the hiring committee. Was there somebody that wanted to do that update?

I'll go ahead and do that. Yeah, so we have,.

We had screened up to 30 people and we did our rating, reporting, I don't know, matrix scoring down to the top 7. We have interviewed 4 thus far and we will complete the additional 3 by the 10th. On the 10th or 11th, we will notify the top 2 or 3 candidates that they will move on to the second round of interviews that will be held on the 17th. Um, and then on the 17th or 18th, um, the one that is chosen for the next ED will be notified, and the hope is to start off the beginning of the year, January. The new EV, November or December?

I'm sorry, November.

They're going well.

And Austin, I see your hand up, or did you just not put it back down? No, no, I just put my hand up. Um, thank you, Jesse. One thing I was thinking about, um, while we're here with the board is the board won't meet again until early December, and so I think maybe just having a quick discussion about the full board's role and, and whether the hiring committee can make that decision itself or not.

So when we come to the 2 or 3 for the next round, and then they come out with a recommendation, does the full board want input, or do they trust the discretion of the That's what I heard. Yeah, I think it would just be nice for the board to say if they think it's okay. Yes, hiring committee, you are empowered to make that offer and decision.

And if they don't feel that way, to discuss that before we get to November 18th and wonder what to do. Absolutely. Let's, let's have anybody's comments, or, you know, if your thumbs up, go ahead, we can, or if you have any comments or questions. I can go through the board members. Did I do the economist thing on one hand, on the other real quick?

So I, I first, I trust the committee, um, and I'm all for allowing them to make the choice. I think that that just timelines and hiring and moving the process so we don't lose good candidates and people feel like it's moving quickly, there's a lot of perks there. On the other side, I'm for the whole board, the whole board having input too, uh, because I think that Whoever gets hired may feel more legitimacy if their packet's gone in front of the full Board, but waiting for a whole other meeting may be too much of a delay for somebody we're trying to hire. And so maybe if we can review materials via email or something beforehand, that might be good, but I'm highly in towards we trust the committee.

But— Thank you, Kevin.

Can I make a comment, Jessica? Yeah, go ahead. I mean, I think all the same things around trusting committee. I will say it feels pretty odd to me that I don't even know who's under consideration and that I would just be informed that we have a new executive director without, like, any steps along the way of, like, knowing who's under consideration, who those people are. Like, it feels I'm all for kind of efficiency within the process, and this is a pretty public-facing position, and I feel like we've been put in the role of kind of representing the public and figuring out who— yeah, like having input in that.

And so if there's a middle ground in which we at least know who the people are, like, yeah, that, that is part of it. But I, I would not be in favor of just like finding out one day who the new executive director is without any sort of knowledge of who or why, or having had a sense of who they are. Ideally, I think even a conversation with them would be helpful. Sorry, a conversation with the candidate? Is that what you're saying, or the committee?

I mean, I think ideally with the candidate, but I think with the committee potentially, or some sort of sense of who the new person is. A version I've seen of this would be to share like the resume of the top 3 candidates and maybe a recommendation letter, but I'm not sure what that does for open meetings. Yeah, that's a good question. You know what we've done so far, and I don't know exactly, I forget when you came in, Chuck, but what we did so far was we formed the hiring committee, which includes Trevor, um, Austin, Jesse, Khalil, Khalil, and Bill has been involved with that. So they started by drafting like the job description.

They did the Munis HR process of making sure it went through all of the coding, found that it would report to Bill, and then the committee put that application out, gathered applicants, and then they're doing a 2-round interview is what I heard with the update. So they're doing everybody that they thought would be acceptable first-round interviews, then they'll decide for a couple candidates and then do a second more in-depth interview. And I saw Branwen had a question or comment too.

Uh, I was just going to agree, and I think it would be odd to just be presented, um, with the candidate after it's all said and done, and if that we could at least be presented with that final round and probably, you know, the recommendation of the committee. And I assume we— that we would go with that, but at least have an opportunity to ask questions or say concerns before it was a done deal. Yeah. So Austin, what does that look like? Say the 10th, we do our last round and we come up with our final 3.

And then what does that look like for open meetings and saying like Here are our final 3 that are going— or 2 that are going to move to the second round. And here, do we ask for feedback or do we give like our suggestion? Yeah, I think so. The November 10th or the rest of the first interviews, we've been telling candidates that second interviews, if people were invited, would be on November 17th. I think after that the committee could meet, make a recommendation.

And then what I could do, because I am not subject to the Open Meetings Act, but the 3 committee members are, is I could send the rest of the board or the full board, you know, these are the candidates finalists that we interviewed, here are their application materials. The board or the hiring committee based on X, Y, and Z would like to recommend this candidate. If you would like to meet this candidate or otherwise learn anything more about them, before they're hired, let us know, and then I could set that up. I think that could be fine. I'm hearing maybe there's a couple board members who would want to meet them or talk with them, but maybe mostly it's just knowing the process and knowing who and why.

So that's my recommendation. And then remember too that the, the board appoints this person in consultation with the mayor. And so I'm sure, you know, Bill is part of the hiring committee, but I'm sure that Bill also will need to talk with the mayor and ensure that she's comfortable with whatever decision is being proposed. So I think there'll be a little bit of process around that. So I don't think candidates who would interview on the 17th would expect to know right after that, but hopefully we wouldn't just start that process at the December 2nd or whatever it is board meeting.

4Th. Does that sound good to everyone? That sounds like a really good middle ground, Austin. So I'd love to hear everybody's comments if they're for that or if they have concerns. Mildred, I see you're off mute.

Yes. So, Austin, did you— I just want to make sure I got an understanding. So after we—. You—. The committee, I'm sorry, conduct the interview with the last 2 candidates, then we would be presented with those candidates.

You would set up a meeting. I would like to also— I agree with Chuck, and I also agree Kevin, I would feel more comfortable if I had an opportunity to meet those two candidates. If we could all— if they could meet the— meet with the full board, if that's an option, just to share about themselves and just so we can see if they are a fit. I mean, I mean, I know that's sometimes that's kind of hard, but I just think I would feel more comfortable too if I could meet them and then also see their credentials as well. I think that if the full board wants to meet someone first, if you haven't decided if you're hiring them or not, the full board meetings are public.

And I have talked with the mini attorney's office in the past about hiring. And just because you're hiring someone, it's not— and Bill might have opinions about this too— it's not necessarily eligible for executive session. So I wouldn't recommend having a full board meeting with someone you're considering. It's going to delay the process several weeks and Oh, I mean, which is okay. It's not urgent that we get someone, but potentially for those candidates, if they're waiting for several weeks and they might be interviewing for other jobs.

So what I would recommend is that I contact all of the full board, you know, on the 18th or whenever around that time period and say, here are the— and we haven't— the hiring committee hasn't decided, but 2 or 3 final candidates that we interviewed. Here's how it went. Here's what we see as— here's what we recommend. Here's the person we recommend. And then if you— if people on the board would like to meet that person, I think they should just meet up with them.

And so maybe Mildred and Branwyn and Chuck, as those 3 want to meet for coffee with that person and get to know them a little. Maybe some board members don't need that. The email is enough. So I think we could do it like that, maybe so that we don't have to wait 2 weeks for maybe just a few people who want to meet them. As long as you're meeting outside, you know, you're the 3 people, up to 3 people can do these things together.

So you could, or you could meet separately if you want to with the candidate. I guess I would encourage maybe joint meetings. So we're not asking the candidate to have 6. 6 Meetings, but no. Okay, thank you, Asna.

Does that seem— that works for people? Branwyn and Chuck, would that work for you?

That sounds fine for me. Okay, make sense in terms of meeting. I think I'm still curious about what, what comes after that, like, you know what I mean? If it just— if we had concerns, we would raise them at that point, and then the hiring committee is take those into consideration.

I don't know. I mean, because ultimately we— just like you would take ours into consideration, I guess, right? Sure. I mean, it does seem like there is another option here, which would be to notice a meeting right now, right? Like, we are 2 weeks out from the dates we're, we're talking about.

So if the board actually wanted to have a, a discussion or meet this person. Like, we did notice that meeting, uh, but yeah, I'm just trying to figure out the steps there, but I'm happy to meet them in children. Sorry, Chuck, would that be an open meeting with potential candidates and the public? Just— I kind of like Austin's idea because I just don't know how that feels to have, you know, people who might be interviewing for several jobs in an open meeting when that's confidential. You know, one or more of these people are going to get declined.

Like, we can only hire one person. So I just don't know, like, how that would feel publicly.

I would agree with that. And I think from a candidate's perspective, some of these people may be currently employed. And I would not like it if it was publicly noticed that I was interviewing for different jobs, and my employer would probably not like it either. And so I think we might want to be careful with that because it may discourage good candidates. I agree, Kevin.

I mean, I think we're threading a difficult needle here, right? We want to avoid delaying the process that may cost us candidates or raising the cost by forcing somebody to disclose to their current employer that they're looking for a different job. But at the same time, we want to make sure that there's a reasonable amount of board input into this. And so I appreciate— I, I like the idea of individual meetings if somebody wants, and then maybe sharing like resume materials and the recommendation from the hiring committee for others too.

And there's no assembly confirmation, just confirming that. True. Yes, correct.

Bill, have you all talked on your end, um, just with what consultation by the mayor looks like? I mean, I mean, not more than I've shared who has applied and who we've interviewed and the process moving along.

And I presume— yeah, go ahead. Would it make sense that after the 10th, we, with the 2 or 3, provide you, since you can not do the open meetings, provide the board with the resumes of the 2 or 3 top candidates, and then after the 17th, or I guess, because they want to meet them before the 17th, right? I don't think they need— I mean, my opinion is that they don't need to. I, I think that board members would want to meet them before any offer is made, so I think if I were a board member, but tell me if you all are wrong, or, you know, you would want to know what the hiring committee thinks. And so I think the hiring committee should meet with the finalists November 17th.

I should shortly thereafter, the next day or something, send, here are the 3 finalists, or 2, I don't, we haven't decided that, but here are the finalists. Here's who we met. I can send the whole application packet too, so you see other people that applied and their skill sets. This is what the hiring committee left, the impression we left with, and this is what we recommend. Get back to me, you know, within a couple days if you would like to meet with this person, and let's set that up.

Mm-hmm.

One thing would be remember not to reply all. It would just be a direct email to Austin. I see Mildred is okay with that. Um, the only thing I will also wonder is since you guys are using a rubric in the hiring, would that be something that would be able to be provided to the board, and would that be helpful or no in making your decision? Like, this is how close we were, and this is who we are recommending.

I don't know. I don't know if that can be included or not, or if it would be helpful.

I, I think at this point the hiring committee is hearing all this feedback, and I think I would feel more comfortable if the hiring committee had a chance to talk about how it— because I'm, I'm not even heading up the committee— like how it would like to— Trevor's on it, he's not here— how it would like to convey the recommendation and what materials to include. But I think as much as we have sounds great and there's nothing to hide. It's just a matter of I don't know exactly how the hiring committee is going to make that recommendation.

I don't want us to get stuck here. Did anybody else—. I have a good sense of where we're headed. People are okay with this. Does this sound okay to you, Chuck, the way we're headed?

Yes. Uh, I, I would like to have an idea of, of who it is and all that sort of stuff, um, and open to whatever that looks like. Okay, we just get a thumbs up if every— if everybody's okay. I saw Mildred was okay. Branwyn?

Yep. Okay. Georgina? Thumbs up. Chuck said yes.

Kevin, thumbs up. Jesse, I can't see you, but I think— okay, I think that's your thumb. Yeah. Okay, so I think everybody's good with heading that way then. Thank you, Austin, and everybody.

So the next part is a report out about the October 9th assembly work session.

Austin. Um, yes, I'm going to talk about the budget briefly just so we go in order here. Sorry, I totally—. Sorry, I'm skipping notes. Sorry.

And, um, yeah, no, budget was first. My bad. No, no worries. I'm also looking at my notes about what I should do on November 17th or 18th, so a few things going on. Okay, so I just wanted to circle back quickly about the budget.

So you'll recall that the mayor's proposed budget that includes the ACE Fund budget came out right around the time that we met last month, and that, as Suzanne Fleetgreen stated last month, that budget looks really similar to the alternative budget that Trevor and I were trying to quickly work through when we learned that the ASD programming would be funded out of the ACE fund. And I can put it up if you'd like. I don't know that that's really necessary, but it won't hurt.

This is their budget that they, the administration's budget that they proposed to the assembly, and obviously, Bill, feel free to weigh in at any time. I don't intend this to be like a long conversation. I just wanted to show you what the final was. Is that big enough for people? Is that better?

That's good. That looks good on my end. Okay, great. So, child care subsidies program. We worked with them to find an amount that I think will accommodate the program, but that is a little less than the board originally proposed based on how much folks are using that program and potential growth.

Um, flexible operational funding, same amount as 2025. Pilot projects, unfortunately that was reduced, and this is again having to make room for the ASD funding. So, and not to, you know, I keep saying ASD funding like ASD is doing something wrong. ASD has been traditionally funded out of the alcohol tax. So it's to make room for the shift to funding that out of the ACE Fund.

This is the ASD funding. It says early grants to providers. I think it would be better. Yeah, well, I think it would be better if it said ASD. So the public understands what that is, just a note, Bill.

I think I've got a couple questions about that, that this is confusing because it's not to providers, it's to ASD. Um, and then sector worker retention bonuses and startup funds. So they wanted to support and move forward with both of those new ACE-funded programs. So anyway, that's where we ended, um, pretty similar to what the board proposed except for some.

Reductions in certain line items.

And then just wanted to go through what's happened since then. So, um, this came out first or second. On the 9th, Trevor and I presented to the assembly, and so we talked a little bit about the budget, but they were just seeing it. They had some questions, um, like the board has raised, you know, about what do we do long term if you're using part of the money from the ACE Fund to fund ASD programming that had been funded otherwise prior to this, you know, what do we do when there's no fund balance basically? And fund balance is our fancy muni way of saying leftover money.

So when there's no fund balance from, you know, that we've been taking advantage of since the funds start getting collected in 2024, we've had more to work with each year than just $5 to $6 million. We've had more like $8. And so the question was, you know, well, what will you do then? And I think that's a good question. And something that I know the mayor's office is thinking about too.

And they also gave feedback about all the programs that the board is suggesting that are funded and end up being funded. They simply really wants to see how we plan to evaluate their effectiveness and how we judge whether we should keep funding those programs. So it's definitely something the board has been talking about too through our strategic planning effort. And then on the 24th of October, the mayor's team presented the same document to the assembly, and they raised some of the similar— I think at least one member raised a concern long-term with the ASD funding, or just in general not having enough funding if we're, if we're using this bucket for that. And the assembly tomorrow has a work session to consider any budget amendments that members might put forward to this budget.

But if they don't propose any amendments, or even if they propose some, whatever they end up voting on will happen on November 18th. So after November 18th, we'll know the final budget and I'll keep you guys posted. But that's sort of the general budget process and what has happened since I saw you last.

Are there any questions, or Bill, did you want to— is there anything else I missed that you want to add? Nope, I think that captured it.

Any questions or comments from the board?

Okay, I could move on. It sort of rolls right into the October 9th work session, which I already referenced about the budget, but there were two primary things that were discussed at that meeting. One was the budget, and then the second, which we spent, I think, a little more time on actually, was the strategic plan. And the strategic agenda, and they gave some feedback on that. As you know, we also put out a survey and we've been really trying to solicit feedback not only from the Assembly but from the public.

The specific feedback from the Assembly on the strategic agenda was, one, how do you define stabilize when you say that that's a goal? What does that mean? It's a really good question, and we've been talking about that too, and it's also something that I know THREDD is looking at. I've been talking with Stephanie Berglund about something they're working on, which is how do you define crisis? How do you define stabilize?

How do you define sustainable? What does it mean if you're thriving? And so we know that's something we need to work on, and that's reflected in our strategic agenda. The second thing was they recognize there's a lack of data and wanted to know whose role is it to, to collect, even determine a lack of data, to use data, how, who holds data in the early learning sector. And they said, you know, that might not be the ACE Fund, that might be Thread or another entity, but we need to know who that is because that's part of the work we do to make sure we're getting there and being able to do what we want to do with our programs.

So that's a really good point. And something that in the changes I made to the strategic agenda now reflect a little bit more explicitly mentioning that. And the third thing is just that they brought up again how they want to make sure that we're evaluating the impact of our programs, which which I think is hard sometimes, right? Especially with limited data as a baseline. Um, so I think I also made an explicit change in the strategic agenda to reference that.

But that was the feedback from the Assembly, and I think, um, just personally having had a lot of experience with the Assembly, I felt really excited that we were there presenting to them. And instead of people asking questions like, oh, what, what fund, what are we funding? Or, you know, just not having a lot of familiarity because Trevor and I have been making an effort to really show up at those meetings and schedule regular work sessions and give regular updates by email. Their questions and comments were in the weeds, just like we are, because they understand the work we're doing. And I think that was really gratifying and just felt like we're in a really good place with communicating with them about our work.

So.

Thank you, Austin, for that update. And I do think it's really great, like, the amount that you've been connecting everybody so that way everybody feels like they know what's going on and doesn't have a lot of— like, it helps with their faith in us as well. Does anybody else have any questions about this?

Hearing none, I think we can move. Do we want to take a quick break and get lunch? Sounds like a great idea. Okay.

So we'll come back at 11:23 then.

Okay, sounds good. Okay, so far as I remember, there were no vegetarians. I hope that still holds. I think you're good.

I see it's 11:23. I need about 30 more seconds just to put a new onesie on Onyx who had a blowout. Okay, I don't see everybody sitting down, so looks like we're good.

Okay, and we're back. So I see Chuck. I don't think Georgina is back yet.

Austin's back. Branwyn and Mildred, are you back? Branwyn's back. Evan's back. Essence there.

Okay, so we're just waiting for Mildred and Georgina. Do we wait a second longer then? There's Georgina.

Or should we get started, Austin? I think maybe get started since we're a little behind. Okay, we're moving into the strategic planning with Erin. So Erin's name is on here, but, um, Erin, do you mind if I just give a little background on some of the feedback we received and stuff? Yeah, Austin, go ahead, that'd be great.

Okay, and then I also have you on here, but I realize I made all the edits to the document, so we can talk about it together, or I could run through it and then and then you could talk about thoughts you have. But, okay, so just as sort of background, you know, we did— I put out a survey in October. It was closed toward the end of October, and we asked about the general direction of ACE Fund and our strategic agenda. And we also— I also asked a lot of very specific questions that I'll talk about later about BidExpress and about insurance requirements, just because we were getting a lot of feedback about that for the pilot projects in capital. Projects.

So anyway, specific to the strategic agenda, that survey closed and 91% of those who responded said that the draft strategic agenda was on the right track, which I think is that— that's an A-minus. So I feel pretty good about an A-minus. I don't know. I wanted to share some feedback that we got with you all so you know what people were saying. First, because we don't hear this as much.

I thought I would share some quotes for people that, that are thankful. One person said, as a child care administrator, I greatly appreciate all the funding opportunities and feel that they have been invaluable to increasing quality for children, families, and our staff. I would like to thank the ACE Fund for all the work that has been done. That's the second one. Third one, operational assistance provided by the ACE Fund has been extremely helpful in retaining our teachers and getting them higher wages while keeping our tuition rates lower for families.

That is so great to hear. And thank you to the board for your hard work on behalf of Anchorage child care providers and families. So just wanted to pass that thanks along. Um, some of the more critical feedback, which is great because that's why we did it, is again a thing we hear all the time. Focus on operational funding first.

That is most important to the sector and what they feel they need the most. And that's because wage increases are the key thing that they want to try to solve. And so that was that person's Feedback similar to what we've been discussing, and I think the board understands that. There is a comment that, or two, that we should work to define terms like stabilize and thriving. To our earlier conversation, we are aware of that and agree, and we'll be working on that or partnering with organizations who are working on that.

Feedback about when designing programs to make sure entities have enough time to spend the funds. I think that's directly a comment on the pilot projects and capital program. We absolutely know that. We just wanted to be able to do it in 2025 and we couldn't do everything in January of 2025, but that will get better in 2026. I've already been— I met with Bill and Carlos and others yesterday to— we're troubleshooting BidExpress issues, insurance issues, things that are coming up, you know, whether grants have to be reimbursable, which has been a big problem for awardees.

And the hope— and Bill and I are talking about a possible code change he'd have to make in early December to make an easier process. Our hope is to get that out sometime in, in December so that the process is, you know, the last time it was months, it was April or something, so we would be months ahead. So we're hearing you and trying our best. Someone specifically said, you know, you really should be spending funds on legal residency and training workers who who are immigrants, that the worker shortage is not going away and we need immigrants to fill the gap in workers. That's not really specific to the strategic agenda, but just another comment that someone shared.

So with that, I think that I could just go ahead and go through the document. Erin, do you want to talk? Do you want to go through? How do we want to do this? We didn't coordinate a ton ahead of time.

No, that's okay. I think I can lead through and then if you want to jump in with specifics on it, just make sure we keep the timing element. I know you guys still have a few more things to talk about after this. I want to reiterate what Austin already said about, um, just the great job that's been done in getting public feedback and making sure that the conversations have been open to everyone, from the retreat to the assembly, uh, workshops that are being done. Just getting that feedback up front makes this for a much easier and smoother process, um, and really is a testament to the group that's been going through this that you're on the right track and you're heading in the right direction.

So with that being said, I want you to look at this with the lens of this is here for you guys, I believe, to motion to approve today and finalize, so that way we can move forward with the implementation planning of the strategies. So, um, we'll have discussion, and then I think there'll be maybe a request for a motion to vote on this. So if there's anything that you want to dive into while we're going through it, please, now is your time. Otherwise, we'll get to the end and hopefully this will be kind of set in stone. So feel free to interrupt.

With the purpose statement and core values, we've been over those a couple of times. There was no feedback on those to make any updates or changes. So those are how they have been since the last meeting. And then with the ACE vision, just clarifying and adding in that and early education sector, as I think we talked about earlier in the meeting, it's important that we clarify that it's the full thing and not just a child care. So that was added to it.

The vivid description, last time we met, we talked about how do we make sure that these are vivid enough and through the measurable outcomes that we have that clear picture of what success looks like for the board. And I know that you're getting feedback on stability and thriving and surviving. What do those keywords look like? And I'm so glad to hear that that's going to be a collaboration with your partners to really define those elements. With that being said, there was one addition to the last vivid description bullet that says, with a focus on making those resources predictable and consistent.

That was something that we hadn't put in and we got through the feedback, and I thought that was a really strong statement to add given all the conversations that we've been having.

Moving into the strategies, The strategic initiative number 1, evaluation and strengthening the fund programs. No major change to the description. For the why, again, adding some more context at the end to say, including allowing enough time in the grant process for development and completion of high-quality projects, which I think Austin just alluded to with some of the feedback that we got from the public, making sure that we have time and space for those, and then further defining that measurable outcome. So that— I'm going to read that in full now. Um, develop and implement an evaluation plan for all the ACE-funded programs and standing board responsibilities.

Having access to baseline data is essential to measuring impact, and these data are lacking. As part of its evaluation plan, the board will work with partners as needed to identify helpful data, discern whether those data currently exist, and make a plan for collecting any needed data. Because that's a bigger change, Austin, is there anything else that you want to kind of talk about with that update?

No? Any feedback from the group on that measurable outcome change?

Does that make sense to everyone?

Okay, hearing none. And just as the logistics, the mic to the room is muted, so if you're talking in the room, I don't know that we can hear you on Zoom or on Teams.

Solved. Thank you. Thanks, guys.

And then a couple of smaller edits again to the 1-year target of that first strategic initiative, um, just to clarify and help really make sure that it's clear of what is being said there. So any questions on strategic initiative 1? Does everyone feel good with that one?

Good. Hearing none, we'll move into the second strategy, um, which is the ACE Fund investment strategy. No real changes to this one. I don't think there was a lot of feedback on it specifically, just some tidying up of the grammar, I think, was all that it was.

For the third strategic initiative, no changes to the description or the why, but going into the what and the measurable outcomes, there were some further details there, so we'll go ahead and read the what in more clarity. So what does this project include? A quantitative description of what is needed in the Anchorage sector and identification of gaps to delivering those services. The ACE Fund should partner with aligned entities to create a broader vision for child care and early education in Anchorage and determine a plan for reaching that vision, ensuring that is building on any existing assessments and/or available data to reduce redundancies and workload This project should take into account key themes in the sector, such as access to affordable, quality care, the importance of workforce development, and a living wage for sector employees, and reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers. I know in our last meeting we did get some feedback that we talked about workforce development quite a bit, uh, within the retreat, and it wasn't necessarily called out within any of our strategies.

So here is a good place to integrate it. Into one of the strategies and calling it out specifically.

Pausing for a moment for any comments on the what.

Not hearing any, I'll move into the measurable outcome. And again, for trying to make some more of those, like, what do we know what success looks like, adding that sentence at the end. So the full measurable outcome will be to complete a community-wide assessment of child care and early education needs in Anchorage, including input from families, providers, and employers, and produce a published plan that identifies at least 3 priority gaps and outlines specific tools and strategies to address them. This will require defining or working with partners to define sector terms and goals like stabilized, sustainable, and thriving, as well as different types and methods of delivery of child care and early education services. So again, calling out that we will be working with partners to collaborate on those definitions, which I think is great to have a sector-wide definition for that in itself.

So everyone's on the same page and saying that we don't have that answer yet, but that will be something that we will have in the long term.

Any questions or comments on that strategy?

Nope. Okay. Moving into the fourth initiative, support sector collaboration and coordination. The what was updated based on feedback to include that the ACE Fund should look for opportunities to partner effectively to reduce the coordination workload where possible. There is a lack of, lack of sector data currently available, and collaboration and coordination will likely be needed to evaluate what data currently exists, what data is needed, and to determine whose responsibility it is to fill any data gaps.

So again, going back to that, who's driving the data conversation, really making sure that that's flushed out through this project. Because I think once you have the answers to that, then you can really start the evaluation phase. Once you know where the data is coming from, then you can really begin to assess how you're going to be evaluating your programs. With that, the measurable outcome and the 1-year target were also adjusted. So they now read, for the measurable outcome, those in the sector report less fragmentation and more collaboration and coordination.

Partners in the sector are aware what data is needed and whose responsibility it is to collect and house that data. And in the next year, identify the ACE Fund's role in facilitating collaboration and coordination in the sector and outline a plan for future action, including collection and analysis of missing sector data. Any questions or comments on that strategy?

Hearing none, we'll go to the last and fifth strategy, which didn't have any major edits or updates, and this is just making sure that we get that executive director in and onboarded in the next year, which I know you guys are well on your way to doing, but it's a lot of work, so we want to recognize that, that that's not just a, you —easy action that takes a lot of your resource and time allocation. So those were the updates and changes that we got from the feedback. Austin did a great job of collecting all of that information, gathering it all, and then synthesizing it. I'll open it up one more time. Is there any discussion that you guys want to have on anything particular on the strategic agenda?

Thanks. And I just comment really quickly that I think it's great how much work went into this, and I really like how much providing evidence of impact is sort of woven through the entire document. And I, yeah, I think it's a great job by everybody who took leadership roles in this.

Thank you for walking us through that. Anybody else before we Approve it.

Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the strategic plan. So moved. Is that Kevin? Yep. Thank you, Kevin.

Is anybody second? Second. Austin? Yeah, before the board votes, Bill, I just want to make sure the administration didn't have any comments. I know you've been part of this process and Nolan's been around and you've seen the drafts, but just so we make sure we're asking.

Oh, well, I will confess that I have not fully caught up to spending quality time with the strategic plan, so I have no comments and I probably can convey that no one else has either. So benign neglect continues, Austin. Great. I think you'll like it. I, I presumed that, you know, Bill would have also, like, if while as we were going through it, you know, that you're free to be involved here too.

We want you at the table.

And I'm so Kevin, can you remind me who made the motion? Kevin was the first for the motion, and then the second was that you, Georgina? That was Georgina, right? Yes. And then is anyone opposed to approving the strategic plan as it is?

Hearing no one, motion passes. Thank you for everybody's hard work on that, and thank you, Austin, for incorporating everybody's feedback and also getting the public's feedback in there as well. Yeah, for sure. Thank you guys. Before we move on to the next item, Erin, do you want to talk a little bit about next steps and what we're planning to do to make this a living document we're checking back with and working on.

Absolutely. Thanks, Austin. Um, thank you all again for all of the work that went into it. And so moving forward, now that we have this framework and structure, um, we are gonna meet, have a meeting with Austin and Trevor, uh, myself and John on the 12th, where we look at each of these strategies and really break out quarterly milestones. Of what we should be doing in the next year to ensure that this gets put into action.

So we're moving from developing the framework to developing the actual steps and tasks that will be done. And we're going to have that documented in a way that it can be a living document and updated along the way, but also passed on to the new executive director when they step in as a helpful onboarding tool. So it won't just be you know, somewhere where we can hide it and, oh yeah, we did that thing in that retreat and we put so much work into it and it was great, and then we didn't do anything with it. No, we want you guys to be successful. And so the next step is to really make sure we outline that plan with timelines, deadlines, and ownership and responsibility.

So that way we can see and make progress. And, and we like to do it in a quarterly step with defined outcomes for each quarter. So it's level loaded for everyone as well. So that's coming up next week, and I believe, awesome, will we give that back to the board at any point just as an update along the way of like, hey, here's what you're expecting to see? Sure, yeah, I assume the board would like that.

That was what I was thinking we'd do. Perfect. But up to them. Yeah.

Great. So it looks like next piece is the new business. So we're talking about.

The 2026 ACE Fund program administration with Austin and the Implementation Committee.

Yeah, great. Thanks, Jessica. So I just wanted to give you guys a quick update. I kind of alluded to it earlier, but where we are on thinking about programming, uh, for 2026. We don't have a passed budget yet for sure for 2026, but we have a sense of what may be in there.

And from what I've heard, I reached out to Assembly staff and then heard from a couple members. I don't think there are significant amendments planned, but you never know, right, Bill? That could happen at any moment. But looking like— feel pretty comfortable that the budget the mayor proposed might be the budget that we have-ish. So anyway, with that in mind, we've been— or I guess I've been working on improving particularly the pilot project and capital project program.

I just want to give you from the survey again some general feedback that we got from the public so you're hearing it. Two-thirds of people who responded agreed or strongly agreed that the ACE Fund is focused on the right programming, which is always good to hear. We didn't have a single person say they strongly disagree. There were some neutrals and disagree, but very few. So that was good to hear.

Again, same feedback. There's a lot of support for as much operational assistance as we can do and focusing, focusing on wage increases and ensuring consistent, reliable funding. So that language that I had added into the strategic agenda.

There's lots of feedback about insurance requirements being onerous, and so I, when I designed the survey and Trevor reviewed it and gave me some thoughts and specific questions that were helpful, we asked a lot of specific questions because, you know, it's easy to say, oh, it was difficult. It's like, if we're going to fix it or we're going to make it better, how are we going to do that? And so really trying to dig into What are the challenges and how do we improve those? Some really good news, I think, about BidExpress is Bill and I met with Purchasing, Carlos, and others yesterday, and I think there's an alternative route. We're still working on the details, but maybe to using a different method instead of BidExpress entirely.

We're still figuring it out, but we are planning to, to make that better for people. For those of you listening on the line too. Can maybe breathe a sigh of relief. Insurance requirements, one person said that their entity's insurance costs went up from $1,000 a year to $4,000 a year just as a result of having to get insurance that was required based on this contract. So that's just a really good example of, right, that's not really what we're trying to do, so how do we work through that?

And Bill and I have a meeting with Risk, and Carlos will join us to discuss insurance requirements in about 2 weeks. So working on all of that, I think with Carlos here, we're gonna do a, a better, more efficient job at processing invoices and just once there is a contract, getting things moving and being really responsive. So I'm excited he's here. One thing we still have to work on is how, how do we address concerns that grants should be not be reimbursable, that the funding should be given upfront because it's hard for entities that don't have a lot of cash flow to front that money and then do the work and then get reimbursed. But, you know, from HD's perspective, it's hard to just give out that money.

And what if the project isn't completed and it's very hard to collect it back? And, or anyway, so there will— we will continue talking about that and trying to figure out a plan that might be better for awardees. And yeah, so that's really where we're at with pilot projects and capital projects. Like I said, Bill's going to work on a small code change, and then I'm hoping that sometime in December we can get that whatever system it is. I don't know if it will be an RFP, but that award opportunity out.

With that said, I think of the 3 primary programs, the 2 remaining are the Operational Assistance Program and the Child Care Subsidies Program. These are currently administered, as you know, by THREDD and Alaska Family Services respectively. I think— did I say the order correctly? Just quickly, in the survey I asked a question about each of those programs, just a general question. They're each doing detailed surveys about their programs and application process and all kinds of things that Branwyn and Jessica and Kevin have helped with that survey, make it better.

It's going to go out this month with each of those surveys, but I asked a general question because I wanted to know for this conversation, for thinking about, you know, what do we do in 2026? How did those programs go? And 100% of respondents for THREDD said that their operational assistance program and application were easy to navigate. That is, is a big win. That's not what we heard about our program, so that we administered.

So I'm really glad to hear that and glad that it's easy for people. And 84% said the same about the Alaska Family Services Program, that it was easy to navigate. I think for first-year programs and brand new programs, that's pretty great and just speaks to the hard work that both of those entities did to make those processes accessible and understandable. So with that said, I haven't spoken with ASD about this, but just wanted to get the board's feedback. The contracts we have with THREDD and Alaska Family Services to administer these programs can be renewed.

It's either a total of 4 years they can do it or renewed 4 times. I can't remember, but in either case, we could renew them to run those programs in 2026. I think that's my and Trevor's recommendation, assuming that ASD agrees, and we will continue talking about this, and Bill and others agree. But we wanted to get feedback from the board. Keep in mind that if you have something to say, um, that you don't feel comfortable saying in, in public for any reason— I don't expect that, but I just want the board to know before we start talking about this— We could move into an executive session.

One of the reasons you can be in executive session is if you have the possibility of maligning the character of a person or entity. So if you have major concerns that I'm not aware of, because I'm not aware of any, that you want to share about either of those entities, you can, but just maybe say, I would like to discuss this in executive session, if you would like to. So anyway, that said, conversation with the board, assuming these programs are funded in 2026 as the mayor's budget, proposed budget includes, would the board support continuing using THREDD and Alaska Family Services to administer these programs?

Thank you, Austin.

I know, like you said, Kevin Branwen and I have been on the implementation team meeting with both Alaska Family Services and THRED as they've implemented this process.

And I don't have a lot to add except that the meetings, you know, we've had regular meetings and, you know, worked through things and it's really nice to be able to partner with both. I think they've been really receptive to feedback that we've input, you know, whether it was in the survey or their application process. It's really good to hear that the public also supports these programs, that they were easy process. Does anybody else on the board have any comments about these two contractors?

Uh, I just want to say, I think it would be very inefficient to switch contractors since we kind of put in quite a bit of work creating these programs. And then having to kind of start over would— unless, unless somebody had big concerns, which I didn't during our process, would be kind of a waste. I think that process would then be opening it up for people to apply, going through, selecting a contractor, getting that contract signed and okayed by the Assembly, and then getting them up to speed.

Yeah, it would likely slow the distribution of funds too and, and take more of my time versus building the newer programs.

Kevin, did you have anything to add? Just being on the Implementation Committee too, I know that you also are a board member for THREDD, so you might feel— yeah, but any general comments? Yeah, I think for this particular discussion I might remove myself just because of the conflict since I'm board president at Thread, but I appreciate everybody else's comments. I guess that's what I would say.

Anybody else have any comments or concerns? We need to take a vote, Austin, to continue that the board supports with these two contractors. And I think it would probably make sense for Kevin to abstain, which I'm sure he would like to anyway. And it looks like Mildred dropped off. She's an employee at THREDD.

Does anybody else have any direct financial or board conflicts with Alaska Family Services or THREDD?

No. Yeah, I abstain.

So I guess someone should make the motion to continue using these 2 contractors if they would like to.

So I'd like to entertain a motion that we support the board, that the board supports continuing with THRED and Alaska Family Services as the contractors, assuming that these programs continue in the budget. Anybody like to Make that second.

Brandon, you want to be the first? Brandon's the first. Anybody second?

I second. Okay, thank you, Georgina. Anybody opposed? We've got one abstaining. Okay, hearing none, passes.

Thank you.

So the final piece on our agenda is the ACE Fund chair and vice chair elections. And so the muni code language of 4.05.070 states that officers, a board or commission, shall annually elect a chairman and a vice chairman, and the vice chairman shall act in the absence of the chairman or in the ability of the chairman to act. And so we're going to do elections in the December meeting, but we wanted to talk to people if we wanted to nominate someone, or if people wanted to self-nominate. Austin, do you know if Trevor was gonna nominate himself? Trevor is interested in serving as chair again.

Um, and just to be clear, you don't have to nominate yourself today. It's just to let people know that we're thinking of doing that. So If that makes sense, you know, if you all are interested, be thinking about it over the next month. I nominate Trevor.

I second. Okay, so we'll be thinking about that, and if anybody else is interested in running for chair or vice chair, I don't mind continuing, but also don't want you guys to feel like you want— if you have a passion for being able to step in if Trevor isn't here, that's fine too. Jessica, I was going to nominate you too, but you're here. So I was going to wait until you're gone to nominate you. Thanks.

Yeah, sorry, Trevor. We already voted. You missed the meeting. That's what you get. Yeah, the next piece is moving into member comments.

Can I, um, oh yeah, go ahead. Jessica, this is a little off base, but I was just looking that we have 20 minutes. And Jesse, are you still presenting, planning to present next month about ASD? We've been talking about this for a while and finally found a date that aligned for us and Jesse. So Jesse is planning to present about ASD's programs and what kind of early education they do and potential areas for overlap with the ACE Fund.

And I think like efforts she has done to try to raise more money to do additional early ed work. So Jesse, just confirming that sounds good still. Okay. Yeah. Awesome.

I still have it planned. Great. And then if members want to hear something specific, I know Chuck, that you have raised in the past an interest in ASD's work and what they're doing. Feel free to share that with Jesse and you don't have to do it at this moment, but because then she can probably prepare to talk about that next month if she might not otherwise. And be nice, because I do have to.

Hmm.

Do we want to move to any member comments then?

I am still really excited to work with everybody. I'm really excited that we're making— I'm excited to see the steps to get to the goals.

We want to go around the room in person and then go around in the meeting, and we can just say any last words.

Sure. I'm happy to go first. Okay, Kevin, go ahead. I'm happy to go first because everybody else is looking down to avoid saying anything. Um, yeah, I think November, December is a good time of year to reflect on everything we've done.

And like you said, Jessica, we've got a lot done this year. We've set up some programs, we've proposed budgets, we picked officers, we have hired— we are getting close to hiring an executive director, we did strategic planning, and we are all still friends. Um, okay, so most of us are. Um, but yeah, I just think we've accomplished a lot, and, um, I think we've been good stewards, and that's, that's awesome. So, I'm excited for Jessica and Trevor to continue leading us.

Yes. Doing this. I've also been very excited to be part of this. I've never really knew how anything at the Muni worked. This has been a really good experience for me to have more faith in the work that we're doing for the community, not just here, but broader.

So I'm excited to learn more, to do more, and for that in the community as well.

Yep, Colleen. One thing that I will miss the December meeting, so none of my questions will go in. Oh no. But that is on me. Read the notes.

I accept it. Yeah, I'm appreciative of all the conversations today, and I think my— I'm still really thinking about this tax proposal and what that means for everything. And yeah, what it looks like to, to make that real to people, that this problem could actually mostly go away. And so, yeah, I'm sitting with that, trying to figure out what is— what does that look like, both from a board perspective but also from a personal perspective. So thanks for seeing everyone today.

I don't know if that's a coherent sentence, but good to see you all today. I'll pass it across the room. Not everybody agrees. Carlos, do you want to— thank you for being here. Do you want to?

Oh, sure. Yeah. As a non-member, yeah, I'm just appreciative that y'all welcomed me into the group that I'll be collaborating with in the future, including the individuals. Online. I'm excited to always hear, you know, where you're coming from, what you're working with, and just hear all the strengths that you're bringing to this thought process, and especially hearing all the work that you've done toward this year to make this happen.

You know, really happy to be among this group and looking forward to continuing supporting your work as soon as, you know, I get my basics trained on. Thanks. Do you wanna say anything, Bill? I wanna say I too am still learning how the municipality works. When the two of us figure it out, we're gonna tell everybody.

Well, we have meetings often at ASD and we have like, share good things. And I wanna say that oftentimes I bring back the ACE board as my good thing. And maybe it's one of the things that bring me a lot of joy in my job. Not that I don't like the other components, but it gives me hope for our community and our future with our littles. I like the work that we're doing here and I'm hopeful.

So I really enjoyed doing the strategic plan with you all and good work.

Thank you. And Branwen?

Hey, Branwyn, did you want to make any member comments?

Oh, you're muted again.

You can put them in the chat and I'll read them if you want. Austin, do you want to make any comments?

Just that we started doing it. We put— started putting this member comment thing on the agendas during the implementation team. Remember Jessica Branwen and Cameron really wanted to do it? Assemblymember Perez-Vidia. I was kind of like, we don't have time for this, we gotta get work done, and we never have time for this.

And now that we actually made time for it, I see why he wanted us to do it because This is really great and it's so fun to hear the pieces that you all love and like Kevin's comment about what we've got done, gotten done. It's so true. And then Jesse about this being this joy in her work. So just makes me feel really good and reminds me we need to do this more than we can. It's such a nice wrap up because it reminds me of pieces of the agenda, you know, like Chuck bringing up about the sales tax and, you know, if that's something that is going forward, like how can I explain that to my community?

So it's something that they and support too, 'cause it's not just us here at the table or virtually at the table. It's our whole community as a whole. And I'm really proud of the work that we're getting done and how active everybody is. Everybody's really involved. Yeah.

Well, in one group that really hasn't gotten,.

The public praise that they deserve is the implementation committee. I mean, Jessica Branwen and Kevin and I met with THREDD and Alaska Family Services, I don't know, I mean, 10, 12, 15 times or something over the last few months and then reviewed surveys and reviewed applications and review, I mean, all of this stuff. So that was, you know, I think those in addition to the work that Trevor is doing all the time related to the ACE Fund. And then you add the hiring committee, right? And Jesse and Khalil and Trevor are like designing interview questions, meeting with candidates.

Like, it's a lot. And this board is really active. And, you know, and then Chuck and Georgina were helping with the strategic plan, right? Like, everyone is playing a role. And without— you could have a board that just kind of didn't do that, and it would make for a pretty A really different experience, and I think because you all are so engaged and so committed, like, the administration is more committed to working with the board, right?

And making, making sure they're hearing your feedback. So it's really great.

All right, I've got to run to make another meeting, not sneaking out because of anybody. Bye, Kevin. Bye. I'll see you guys. Hi, Brandon.

I didn't want to skip you. Did you have anything to add? Sorry, I was having some technical difficulties, but I think I don't have anything big to say either, or not either, everyone else did, but it is nice to kind of finish on these positive notes. I agree with that.

Awesome. So we can adjourn then.

So we'll officially adjourn a little early. Everybody gets a little 11 minutes extra in their day at 12:04. Thank you all for coming and for all your participation, for the members of the community for coming just to listen and spread the word on what's going on.

Have a great day. Bye. Thank you all.

Bye. Hi, Jessica. Hopefully I'll see you in December in person. Carlos, nice to meet you. Oh, likewise.

Yeah, looking forward to it. All right.

See ya. Send your questions ahead of time. They're positive. I know, I'm just teasing you.

Are meetings like recorded? Yeah, he just said, oh, I have a lot of questions about ASD. Yeah, in one of the meetings that I was like, like everyone does, bring them. Yeah, and talk about this in my speech, my elevator speech down.