ACE Fund board recommends pausing two proposed programs to cover projected shortfall
Loading...
Summary
The Anchorage ACE Fund Board voted unanimously to recommend pausing two planned 2026 programs and use existing admin levers to cover an estimated $460,000 shortfall; staff will work with Alaska Family Services to model any impacts on childcare subsidy recipients before further cuts.
The Anchorage ACE Fund Board voted unanimously to endorse staff recommendations to pause two planned 2026 programs and draw on administrative levers to address a projected 2026 budget shortfall of about $460,000.
Chair Trevor said board staff and consultants had prepared a set of options to close an identified gap and asked the board to consider staff’s prioritized approach. "We have a projected overspend for 2026 at the moment of about 460,000," Christina said during the budget presentation, citing confirmed revenues, carryforward and projected expenses.
The recommendations staff presented would: pause two new programs planned for 2026—sector worker retention bonuses and startup funding for in‑home providers—freeing roughly $500,000; prioritize preserving existing operational grants and workforce supports; and draw on the board’s budget amendment process and administrative funds as needed.
Austin, who helped summarize prior program performance, said last year’s early educator subsidy was administered by Alaska Family Services (AFS) and that the program’s structure is "scalable": AFS paid an amount last year that left $400,000 returned to the fund. "Last year for the 6 months, the amount was 1,250,000 for the early childcare subsidies," Austin said, adding that AFS initially planned to pay 75% of the state childcare subsidy amount and that this year’s plan assumes paying 85%.
Board members pressed staff for details on how reductions would affect families. Member Kevin raised concerns about changing household budgets on short notice and asked whether families who received commitments would be protected. Christina and Austin said staff would work with AFS to model whether modest reductions would reduce per‑family payments or more likely cap the number of new enrollments; Christina told the board a small reduction of $100,000–$200,000 would probably limit new enrollments rather than reduce payments for families already approved.
Chuck moved the motion to approve the staff recommendations; Kevin seconded. The board discussed a friendly amendment that would prevent reductions below amounts already pledged to families for the year; the amendment was accepted and the motion passed unanimously, with no abstentions.
Trevor said staff and the board will follow up with more detailed projections for the mayor’s office and the assembly. Austin noted that the evaluation committee will review proposals after the April 10 deadline and that any formal budget change will go through the mayor and assembly in April. "We’ll get clearer numbers and projections to help us see exactly where this is going so we can be prepared," Trevor said.
Next steps: staff will work with AFS to model impacts on families and present updated numbers to the board; the mayor’s office will assemble a municipal budget amendment for assembly consideration. The board also reiterated that it will continue public outreach during the municipal budgeting timeline.
