 Good morning. This is February 9th. And this is the first day post our traditional town meeting recess. And this is the Vermont house human services committee. And we are today going to finish for and our work, marking up. Oh, it's March 9th. Sorry. We are, we are going to finish marking up h 171. The bill around childcare. Overtown when people have been following this on the Friday before town meeting recess, just as we were adjourning a small group of committee members representative from stead representative small representative. Whitman. And I believe Amy Schoenberger and Morgan, Amy Schoenberger from after school. Vermont and Morgan Crossman from building bright futures and I don't know. Sarah Kenny if let's go kids that you were not involved in this part. The small group worked on re taking our feedback and rewriting the work. We're redrafting making some more changes in these studies. And that is the major part of work that was done over the break. Not counting the work that joint fiscal did in terms of presenting a fiscal note. And the draft. Version five went out Thursday or Friday, the committee all got the draft on Monday or Tuesday. Thank you representative McFawn. You indicated that you had gotten it. The interested parties got the draft on Thursday or Friday and I've had those days to look at it. So that I believe is where we are right now. Katie. Good morning. Good morning. So I will pull up my document. I don't know if you remember how to do this after recess. There we go. Are you looking at section nine. Yes, we are. Okay. And I thought I would just address I know the document that circulated to members last week and other folks with draft 5.1, and we're looking at draft 5.3 today. There are not any major changes, but JFO pointed out a few minor corrections that needed to happen so that's why the number has changed but with regard to the sections we're going to be looking at there are no significant substantive changes that were made between 5.1 and 5.3. Maybe I'll just step back for a minute because it's been a little a couple days since we've looked at this to remind you what the last sections of the bill are. So first in section nine we have the advisory committee. This is an existing committee that will have altered membership to provide advice to both the child development division. This is the agency of human services and it lists all different items that the committee is to provide advice on. There's also in second 10. I'll go back and look at this in more detail, but in section 10. There are there's the systems analysis study in section 11 we have what we were calling the mini study. This is a report on two different items the attendance based model, and also reaching the co payment so families are not paying more than 10% of their gross annual income on childcare and then the last piece that I think we're looking at this morning is the financing study section 12. So those are the four pieces that are kind of in play here and I'll scroll back up to section nine. So as we were leaving on Friday afternoon, the conversation had a lot to do with what age group are each of these pieces focused on. Are we looking at children and families zero through age five are we looking a broader at families with children zero through age 12. And so one of the things that the small group was discussing on Friday afternoon was the age range that applied to each of these pieces. So you'll see with regard to this first piece the advisory committee piece. We have a definition at the very end of this section. So that highlighted piece. But there is a definition section here what do we mean by child care and early childhood education in this particular section. And here, we're saying that it has to do with children. I'm going to highlight children from birth through 12 years of age. I don't know if you can see my pointer but that's on lines 11 and 12 so with regard to this section, we're referring to a broader swath of families for through children 12 years of age. And I'm going to scroll back up to point out to you this highlighted language in yellow. This has to do with the report that is coming there to annual reports that are coming to the relevant committees. And this new yellow language specifies that all the findings and recommendations provided under this subdivision are to be divided into two first birth through age five years of age, and then six through 12 years of age so it makes a distinction of how the data will be presented in these reports broken out broken out by age. So that's the advisory committee. I'm going to keep scrolling down to section 10. And this is the systems analysis. And the conversation here was what age are we looking at. I have systems highlighted throughout because as we were leaving. This was called the governance study and we changed it to systems so I just highlighted everywhere where that change was made. And then you'll see this language with regard to the analysis and recommendations that's being submitted pursuant to this section on systems. It's the same language that the findings and recommendations are divided in the manner that they're presented, birth through age and then six through 12 years of age. And then again we have a definition section that is specific to this section 10, and it is the same as the previous section, and that when we say childcare and early childhood education, we are referring broadly to children birth through 12 years of age. So the definition is section 11 and I don't believe we made any changes in this section since the last time the committee looked at it so scroll past that. That was the mini study for lack of a better phrase for it. And then we have section 12 which was the financing study. So here is where there was a lot of conversation about who, who are we referring to and we're talking about childcare and early education. So the small group decided to handle this by removing the definition of childcare and early education, all together that you've seen in the previous sections that we just reviewed. So we said in the introductory language in this first subsection a specifying that we're looking at Vermont's existing childcare system for children from birth through 12 years of age. So in the introductory language we're setting up that we're kind of taking a big picture of you we're looking at zero through age 12. But then we go on to list the following goals that this financing. The report is going to be looking at. And one of those goals we're specifying that we only want data from birth through five years of age. So even though the big picture for everything else is birth through 12 years of age, as set up in this introductory language, when it comes to a family not spending more than 10% of its gross annual income on childcare. It's for children from birth through five years of age so we're kind of creating a carve out from the general rule that you've set up in subsection a. And then that language is mirrored further down. So we're in subsection C. We're talking about what is in the consultants evaluation, the committee chose to add language that this would take into consideration. The work of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and also the report issued by the universal after school task force and doing this work. So that's new language, and then here it is. So you have language in subdivision to on page 20 that the consultant is to submit a report, and it goes on to detail what is in the results of that report. And again, with regard to identifying and determining the feasibility of implementing a stable long term funding source for affordable high quality early child care system, we're doing it. We're adding another kind of carve out from the rule of zero to 12. And we're saying that this is specifically applies for birth through five years of age, given the childcare is rolling post pandemic stimulus and economic development. So, let me just restate so in subsection at the very beginning of this entire section we're kind of setting out as a general rule, the financing study is looking in all aspects at families with children zero through age 12. Except for when we have a specific carve out with regard to certain areas and those are the carve outs that I pointed out, and those apply to only families with children birth through five years of age. And then you'll notice that I don't have the strike through but there had been a definition section here and that definition section has since been removed to reflect the other changes. So that's it for those four sections, why don't I stop the share. There we go. Thank you. Thank you very much Katie. I am wondering. Representative from stead if you or someone in your in the group that you were part of and refresh our memory, because you were the group. I made some suggestions to the, all of the reports, building bright, the report related to building bright futures, as well as the financing report and the financing report that came in the bill as introduced was very specific around modalities used and how to do the assessment and those kinds of things and those were taken out so to refresh our memory around those two sections while the change that happened between 10 days ago and now 10 days ago Friday and now really had to do with how we balance the fact that after school is part and parcel of the childcare system. Jessica represent brimstead I see that you're, you are no longer that you're ready to speak. I'm muted. Yes, I am. I believe that we did that because we didn't want to narrow what we didn't want to say to the organizations that would be conducting both joint fiscal and building bright futures by naming the specific ways that they could do the research we would be narrowing what they there might be other opportunities and so we took it out but honestly I don't remember us having a long conversation about that as a small subcommittee I just remember us talking about it in the big committee so if anyone in our little committee could remind me I'm wondering honestly if Morgan might have something to add to that as someone who was going to be working on one of these studies and pulling this together. For the record Dr Morgan Crossman executive director of building bright futures and I apologize there's so much work happening in my office so you're going to hear a lot going on in the background. And one of the things that I would mention specific to the, the committee, the advisory committee is that we did include language in the membership membership section so I believe in draft 5.1 on page 12 lines five through nine. We tried to provide some flexibility in studying membership and as I mentioned to this committee. This is an existing committee that is part of a series of committees that advise the governor the legislature the administration on a range of different topic areas. This one is specifically the early learning and development committee but we do have six other committees that support broader efforts in this air in this arena, right so we have a families and communities committee we have a professional preparation and development committee, both of those groups have a series. Sorry, we also have a child outcomes accountability team. Those groups also address some childcare related barriers challenges and concerns so what we tried to do in this section is include broader language to say at the very end lines eight and nine, that the membership of this committee shall engage the following members. And there's a series one through 21 of folks that would be engaged in this work, it doesn't necessarily mean that every single committee will be brought into this committee but that we'll work to make sure that we are engaging those other committees and all of the groups represented here to make sure that we have consistency and alignment across some of our work there. With respect to the addition on page 14 lines six through nine, where there's a section saying all findings and recommendations will be divided by these subsections that is completely acceptable based on our work. Our work is broad in terms of the early childhood spectrum we actually operate prenatal and in some cases through age 12. It makes complete sense for us to have that breakdown of zero to five and six to age 12 and we're happy to do that in all the different areas of our work. Thanks for again, I wonder maybe Nolan could help them on this question of why we took out all of the. I'm just looking for the actual language that's not there in some of my older versions. Clarification Madam Chair are we were you asking about section 12 and the resources or tools that were expected that the committee would use because I think I was removed from the larger committee discussion we really focused on the language of zero to 12 and other group discussion following Friday's committee. Okay. Thank you for that clarification represents small. I was. I was asking about the. The broader discussion and partly to set the stage for. To bring us back as to why we did that so that when we hear from. Let's grow kids and sort of their suggestion and wanting to put it back in. Why we did what we did. And I. I am remembering the representative Rosenquist. I see your hand and break into that I just wanted to make a comment on this section here because okay go ahead. Before that I thought we should include the associated industries of Vermont. As far as one of the businesses because they represent. A broader spectrum of businesses not necessarily the larger businesses like the business round table. But they represent a key sector of our smaller businesses in the state of Vermont. So I believe they should be included in this group. Thank you representative Rosenquist representative Wood. Thank you madam chair. I was recalling the same thing that represents small did and represent from said in terms of our broader discussion, not wanting to limit the people who may bid on these studies. And the question was, I'm still struggling a little bit with section 12 and trying to understand the birth through 12 years of age so we have that broad, you know, introductory paragraph that Katie spoke to. And then we narrow it down so any of the financial reports deal with it seems like it's, it seems odd to me. That we go from this broad and but yet then we only want information for this carve out of children birth through five years of age in the financial I realize the other studies include both age groups. But in the financial part, it seems like we're only asking for birth through five years of age. We're asking for birth through five years of age on the financial side of things and any changes we make in birth through five will impact after school. So I am having a hard time understanding why we aren't asking for the birth through five and the six through 12. And it's kind of like, you know, we push in here, it is going to pop out here so I'm not sure how we can ask for one without understanding the implications for the other. Excellent question. And Amy Shullen, burger might help may be able to help this was one of the pieces that we all struggled with for a while after our meeting like how to limit how broad the study is but yet also get all the information that's necessary in order to make sure the after crowd felt that we were doing we were pulling the right information. Can you help Amy a little bit and how we came down to this. Is that okay madam chair. Absolutely we're having we're in the committee room and we're having a discussion. I'm Amy Schullen burger and I'm here representing Vermont after school today and again Holly more house since her regrets she's at the summer tasks task force meeting with the governor staff so a lot going on in this area. So first of all, I want to say I'm not 100% sure this is the right answer. It's the best to try to sort this out so I'm going to leave it to the committee's wisdom, but the idea that I was trying to get across was I know that originally, this study was meant to look at the early childhood, the whole system and the after school task force universal after school task force which rep Paula is co chairing is looking at the whole after school system. Also, and so I thought that rather than duplicating what the universal after school task force is doing that this study maybe could focus on just zero to five for the financing. And if I understand the language right this is not only CCF AP financing but the whole system which that's why my suggestion was to limit it to birth to five just for that particular area. But again if I misunderstood that or if the committee, obviously if the committee disagrees that that's up to you all. And that helps me in terms of understanding maybe what the intent was and see representative pile is got her hand up, but I think that if that's what the intent is because it seems like it's an when reading this it feels like there's an omission. And so, if that is the intent that maybe we need to put something in here about the after school study or something you know that this would be combined with the right and I know that said earlier in earlier parts of the of the bill, but maybe around this financing piece we also need to reference that if the the groups that represent pile is chairing is going to deal with financing as well. We have. Yeah, sorry. Yeah. No as we say we have lots of hands up. And for the discussion and just what I am under. When we began this journey, several weeks ago we were focused on zero to five and we were focused on what was and what is our law. What is our North Star or not our North Star being that no Vermonter with children would pay more than 10% of their income on childcare. We weren't ready to go there completely until we have a study, a financial study. And that that's, that's when we, some of what representative would and the after school program and others and representative would brought brought up or identified that. You know, the childcare, you know, this will have ripple effects, potentially. That's, that's where I believe where we sort of are right now. Representative by yellow small and McFawn. I just wanted to echo that what Amy had said about the fact that we were recognizing that the long term financing study. She was talking zero to five and that there's a separate discussion going on around long term financing for after school. And that we, we didn't want to duplicate efforts, but I like Teresa's thought that having another clarifying sentence or something. Making that a little bit more clear is a good idea. I think that the, the overlap of the two is really CCF AP but because that's only what 20% of the people utilizing the overall system. That isn't the solution to the whole problem for both for all age groups so and I think that the after school task force doesn't doesn't want to be in competition with zero to five in terms of whatever the long term financing mechanisms are. I just wanted to toss that in. It's likely to be likely to be different sources of revenue to to go to each system. Okay, thank you. Representative small and then representative McFawn. Thank you madam chair, three quick things I promise. The first is agreeing with representative wood and including that language so that it doesn't seem like we are leaving out use the six to 12. The second is clarifying for representative Rosengfest that we have three representatives from the business community in the building bright futures larger group and it's on the Vermont business round table Vermont business for social responsibility and then the application of independent businesses. I didn't necessarily touch the exact one that you were hoping for but wondering if it was one of those three. And the last is adding in, I think it would be great to hear testimony again from Nolan on the pieces to why we remove those tools in the first place from the financing study and those are my pieces. Thank you thank you representative small I think the man thank you for pointing out who is on who has been identified as members of the group. We went to organizations as opposed to lack of a better term industry specific because each of those organizations one has has on some level a different political bent. As one might say so we have. And each has as their members, a diversity of industries. And so that may not be what you are looking for representative Rosenguist that is I believe the impetus for how that was and there were if you recall there were no members in on this committee in the bill as introduced, and it was at the request of the business groups that we added them, and they're, you know, that there was a choice. There was a choice in terms of doing it by size or doing it by industry, or doing it by organizations that will that represented diversity and so that we certainly can revisit that if you like representative Rosenguist later, but that I I understand and I had forgotten representative small pointed out that representative of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and I've forgotten that on this list and they probably would satisfy the concern I had about some smaller businesses being represented. So thank you representative small. Thank you. Representative McFawn. Thank you madam chair. I want to put my two cents in on the language. If we're going to get a comprehensive financial report. I think we have to include the six through 12. Number two. I don't know what authority by what authority, the after school group is doing their study. I don't want to see things going at cross purposes. I don't want to engage a consultant to do this to do all of this. And that consultant is going to use certain tools to come up and they're going to be involved with certain identities, gathering this information for us. If we've got somebody else, taking, you know, approximately half of the people that may be in these daycare centers, or these childcare centers. I'm just searching out this information with a different tool all together. I'm just wondering whether or not that would run, you'd be running across purposes. If you understand what I'm saying you got two groups studying the day, day, day, the childcare program. One affects the other there's no question about it, because daycare a, if they have zero to six, and then people coming in after school. You're studying that particular business, you're going to, you understand what I'm saying you're getting facts from different places, and using a different tool. I would rather see the consultant do the whole thing. I think then you get, you get that. If they want to coordinate with somebody that's looking into it. I don't know if there's an official thing that the after school program is doing a lot. So representative McFawn, I'm going to put representative by Ella on the spot. And if she needs consultation from the after school group, or, or joint fiscal but she is the co chair of the after school, something group. And that she's going to be better than I am at pinpointing the where in statute or in the white books, there was the authority to do to have this group. So I've set the stage for you. So I'll actually point to page 19 line nine to point out where under what authority, the after school task force is operating and it, the task force was set up in the, the budget, built the end of last year. And so we're what the task force is doing is, it is in parallel actually to this it's kind of looking at what the long term goal is of providing universal after school statewide is both by increasing access and more equitable programming everywhere I mean that they're much like childcare there are gaps in parts of the state where after school isn't offered at all and then their programs that know have challenges with the number of people they can serve and the types of people that they're able to serve and their transportation issues just like in the childcare sector so, you know, it's dealing with that other age group of kids but it is essentially doing the same thing I think that what we're trying to do is is lay out a roadmap for what the system for after school can look like to, to have it be a more universal program and looking at all of the different funding sources that go into after school, because there are several programs and programs often use braided funding streams so, but there's still not enough money right like in all things there's not enough money so we're trying to in parallel with this we're looking at what a long term steady funding stream could be to to increase access everywhere and at the moment, the, the stream that the after school task force is looking at is the most money that would be hopefully continuing to go to the prevention fund and that prevention dollars would be used to help fund after school. But of course that's several years out so there's, you know, what we're able to do now in anticipation of a long term funding stream coming online in the future. I don't, does that answer all of your questions representative McFawn. No, I appreciate that explanation. My question, the question that comes up to me is, there are certain dates that the universal after school task force. Do they have certain dates that they have to meet to provide certain information on that are they commensurate with the dates that this consultant has to provide certain information because if the consultant is going along. And let's say on November first, they have to come up with some information for us, and the after school task force is going along. Their date to come up with the information is January. That means that consultant doesn't have that information. Right, so the short answer to that is yes the timeline is fine we've been meeting since right before session started our last meeting is going to be on the 29th, and the report that we are working on is do on April 15. So all of the work that year of what year this year. Okay, so, so you're going to have that information by April 15, which this consultant probably won't even have started by then. Correct. So all of the information that we are working on will be finalized and available for the consultant to use. In this study and the, the, it is the report that is due on April 15 is mentioned. Again, on page 19 lines eight and nine. So that will be available to be used in this study so that it's not a duplication of efforts or Okay, so I'm going to. Topper, excuse me representative McFawn. Yeah, DCF financial director Sarah Truckel has been waiting patiently and the wings with her hand up and given the fact that she's the finance director I'm thinking that she has something to add to this conversation. So before we get. I'd like to have her insert her comments and then we can go back. You asked me, you're asking me to relinquish my time. I will reserve some time though. I'm sure you will thank you represent McFawn. Sarah please. Thank you madam chair Sarah Truckel DCF finance director for the record. So that was important to bring up that in the governor's three year plan. So this year in our FY 22 budget we are actually moving to that family co pay in the CC FAP program, which means that we are including after school and school age children age six through 12 in that family co pay who are attending regulated care. In fact sheet is you may recall we did have some examples of families who are currently using the birth through five system for their younger children but are not accessing after school care for their older children and that now that family co pay would mean that they're not going to pay any more to access that care. So that's a really important part of where we're moving and that in addition to that from a data and payment methodology and as we're designing this first module of the new BFIS system. We are basing that off of the methodology of this family co pay which would be inclusive of those school age children in the regulated system of care. I don't know if Melissa would add any more of the programmatic elements but from a financial end, it is that family co pay that we've shifted to and in year three. Thank you Sarah Melissa did you want to add something to what the finance director was saying. I think the only thing I would add is that the after school world encompasses many different program types and the CC FAP program our purview really is regulated after school programs. So the report that's coming in April is looking at financing a full system of after school and CC FAP is included in that analysis, but if we're going to be studying a universal system using a CC FAP mechanism. So that does include children of families that are choosing our regulated system, and it would, it would be a bit of a false, I think, separation if we don't include after school and that financing study. Thank you. Representative Wood. And committee. I just want to say we have 15 minutes. We go on the floor and representative Wood has her hand up and represent McFawn and. Yeah. So I want to say we have 10 minutes before we need to break to go on the floor. Thank you Madam chair, I'll be brief I think that with the addition on on page 18 if there was another thing that followed after paragraph number one on online 13 that deals with birth through five if we right underneath that, but the reference to the after study that will inform this financial study that we're looking at. It feels to me like that would satisfy my, my concern as well as hopefully represent McFawn's concerned about looking at the whole system from birth to age 12. Okay. Hi. Yes, go ahead. Yes. I'm okay with that I just have one more question. What we just heard from the finance director does that include the piece where we're going from up to up to 350% of the poverty level. Yes, it does. It does. Then Madam chair. Thank you very much for having me back on. I agree with representative Wood. Completely satisfied. Oh, thank you representative on appreciate that. At the risk of I'm not quite sure what to be provide really not quite sure where we are. In terms of the studies joint fiscal Joyce Manchester you're you have your hand up to rescue me. Thank you. I do thank you for the record Joyce Manchester from the joint fiscal office. So I wanted to raise some parallels between what this study looks like to me, and the higher education study of the Vermont system and so forth. So at the time that we put together the RFP for that study. We knew that there were other groups that were working on some of the very same problems. So there was a board of trustees effort underway there was a advanced Vermont or some such name that was working on it there was another group of union folks that were working on the problem. And so what we said in the RFP is that the consultant would, would work with or would recognize these other groups and and and basically not step on their toes right, but take into account their, their findings and so forth. And it seems to me you would do the same thing in this study you would say, yes, the consultant should recognize the findings of this after school task force. And, you know, work along those guidelines, but certainly you want the consultant to be able to think on its own on his or her own, in terms of the best methods of financing. If you think about the entire zero to five and six to 12 systems together right there may be a way to, to put those financing sources together I don't know but you don't want to preclude that necessarily. So it seems to me that that adding some sentence right up front that says, yes, the primary emphasis may be on zero to five but we want to include the financing and the impacts and so forth of the six to 12. After care after school system would make a lot of sense. Thank you. Would that change and will direct this choice both to you and or Nolan. There is right now a figure that we have for what the what we are what we are suggesting is the needed appropriation to do the study. Does that change that needed appropriation. I don't know if no one wants to pipe in or not I will, I will say I don't think it should change. I think $500,000 is quite a lot of money going to a consultant to do the work that is prescribed here. And yes we want to get a very competent consultant to do the work because we don't have to, we don't want to have to go back. Five years down the road to say we botched it the first time. Let's do it again. So I think the 500,000 would be sufficient to look at the zero to five system primarily. You want to think about financing you want to think about how much it's going to cost to pay the providers reasonable wages and compensation and so forth. You want to think about the cost of the CC fat program. And then you want to come up with some financing mechanisms and analyze the effect of those financing mechanisms on the overall economy. It is a substantial piece of work. That's going to take some money there's always a question about whether you put the 500,000 in the legislation which tells the bidders bid at 499,000 right, or do you just put the bid out there with with no dollar amount and see what you get which is what we did in the higher education study. We've got a huge range of bidders from 150,000 to 900,000 so I'm just I like your idea we will take the money out and then our bill will will will be less when we go through appropriations. That's that's someone else's decision not my decision but it is worth considering. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that idea madam chair. Of course now we're on YouTube so people can go and, yes, and look and whatever. I'm nervous, Nolan, in that we only have. It's 952. In terms of moving to the fiscal note I don't know that we have enough time right now. I think. I can do it quickly but probably not in seven minutes so maybe until you come back. Okay. Okay. We also we we also have some a work in progress of suggestions from let's grow kids who have been talking with the treasurer because they have some concerns about what about how we have written the finance the language in the finance and how we took away some of the specifics and if you recall I began the conversation at one point with. Okay, why did we why did we make such a significant change in that section and as I have said on numerous occasions on the people person, not the money person. So taking out money stuff is fine with me, but I think there was a rationale. I mean I do think there was a rationale. Nolan. The major rationale was that the old language was too prescriptive. So it's one thing to tell us what you want us to do but when you start telling us how to do it, it starts making it more cumbersome and harder for the consultant to do their work. So I think that was a big part of it. That was the main part of it. You know, we were talking to Joyce earlier and and mentioned how Joyce's previous job not put there on the spot which you work for the congressional budget office and I remember we tell rational budget office how to do a study. So there was a, so there's, there were some limitations on, on thinking in terms of like, it's important to tell us what you want to get out of the study. When you start saying who we have to speak to who we need to include who we need to consult with. It gets a little bit more cumbersome. So that was the rationale. Okay. I don't give Sarah Kenny and let's grow kids the opportunity to go oh and you're misconstruing. Thank you madam chair. The only thing that I think is misconstrued is the idea that we didn't support the work that the committee has already done because we definitely do. I just want to say that we bring this language forward in this truly the spirit of a friendly amendment we actually really support the work that you all have done on this. I just want to make it better. I get it. And Madam chair as you were saying and convert when my colleague was talking to the treasurer last week she was just talking about her experience of putting these kinds of studies out to bed and that it was helpful for her to have some guidance in terms of the specific roles for all the entities with whom the bill already says the consultant shall be consulting just to give those folks an idea of sort of what their role might be in working with the consultant on this. So that's and it's truly a you know we're not went into any of this language we really do bring it in the spirit of trying to support folks seeing with themselves you know seeing what their role might be in this so not at all went into it. And the other component that I did want to highlight was in a conversations with the committee and folks at DCF around the questions about what does compensation commensurate with their peers mean, and what are the components of a cost of care model. Some of the language that's in here specifically in subsection six that was trying to address that and provide a little bit more framing around some of the national organizations and the state folks in the state who are thinking a lot about this and those conversations similar to the universal after school task force there are conversations happening that we would want the consultant to be, you know tuned into they're not at the place of having a report, handily this spring to inform it but just wanting to provide some guidance and so there may be language that could be, you know, just from all of this into a sentence or two just referencing that work moving forward so. Thank you. Thank you. Representative McFawn you have the last word in one minute. I can't hear you. Thank you madam chair. I only have one question. Up until this point, I know we'll look at let's go kids, their information this afternoon, their suggestions, and we might look at something else, but up until this point. I want to thank all of those people from the administration and Amy and all you people that have come into this process to help us. One question is this. How do you feel about where we are now up until this point. Hello. Hello. Okay, well we've, we've heard from Sarah. I got I heard from, and I heard let's grow kids say up until this point. We're okay, but we do have a suggestion. Right. And we'll look at that suggestion. I'd like to know where the other people that are going to be really affected by this, like the administration. Like the after school. I want to know how you feel so far, because we've done a lot of good work. Okay. Okay. Amy of after school I believe is okay and Sarah Truckel for the finance director. You now have a minute. I guess I would say I think we've identified some areas where we still see where we've pointed some issues in prior testimony and if it's helpful for the committee we're happy to have, you know, come back after your floor and go through those but we recognize the significant progress of the bill and the number of suggestions that you've included in our very appreciative of that as well. So, we're moving closer. Would it be helpful for us to identify those areas. I think it would be helpful. And, and without any promise, just as without any promise to let's grow kids that we will embrace all of the ideas but we absolutely will consider them. We are on the floor folks, and then we have caucuses and then we have lunch. So I you know and then we're back on the floor at one. So I would say we will be back at committee. At to ready to work so it if you have any time if any of you have any time between now and then to work on. Suggested language or to connect with relevant members of the committee of the administration to please do that between now and then. And if it turns out that the floors five minutes we will do that. Okay, I've now gotten the third notice that we're supposed to be on the floor. So this ends the morning session.