 Good afternoon everyone. This is the afternoon of March 9th and we are continuing to take testimony and not take testimony markup and hopefully vote this afternoon on H171, the child care bill. So welcome back everyone. Hopefully you were able to get out and get a couple of minutes of sunshine if the sun is shining where you are. That would be, that would have been nice to be able to do. So welcome back. We have continued to work at refining some language during the, during the break. And I'm just looking to see, is Katie on? Katie is here. Okay. Katie, I'm just wondering if you might review the, the language around the, the end user committee that we worked on. And then I'll ask representative Whitman to maybe share a couple of thoughts about that. Sure. I'm trying to scroll to the right place right now. We share my screen. Where do we find this? Is this, is the person on our page, Katie? Yeah, I'm still. Yeah, I work from draft 5.3. It hasn't changed. I've renumbered my document. This is my kind of internal document. Not an official draft. So let's see. Okay. Is it more, is it confusing to have my language up on the screen? Would you prefer if I just take it down and you use a second device to review the language? I think it's helpful here because this language is not actually in the 5.3 version that we have on committees on the page. Is that right? No, I haven't made any changes from 5.3 to this section. Right. So let's, let's keep it up on the, on the page so that the public can see it. Okay. So this is the, I'm in section five about the bright futures information system. And in subdivision two, there is language about a, an end user group to review the rollout of the new BFIS system. And so the language in 5.3. And again, it remains unchanged. Is that by August 1st of this coming year, the divisionist convening consult with a bright, with the bright futures information system end user group composed of childcare providers, eligibility specialists from community childcare support agencies and families participating in CCFAP division shall provide monthly updates to the end user group regarding the division's progress and completing the modernization project and any successes or challenges identified once the system is operational and the division shall actively seek advice and feedback from the end user group regarding the system. And the group shall be dissolved. August 1, 2022. So this is 5.3 that has been posted on the website as of this morning. And this does not contain any changes that were discussed today. Okay. So representative Whitman. There you are. Okay. Thank you. Would you please just, oh, I see a representative may find your hand is up. Did you have a question? No. Okay. I'm taking it down. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. ranking member. Representative Whitman, could you just preview some thoughts that you've had about this and then we will take a look at some of the questions that Katie just went through. Thank you. Madam vice chair. Yeah. So if we remember the reason we added this end user group in the first place. Was receiving some testimony from childcare providers. We heard from a lot of people that they had not been contacted or included in the development of the first module. So we wanted to just ensure that we had language saying that providers. Family members would be included in the development. The change that we're suggesting is that the August 1st, 2022. Date for the group to end. Is extended. Out to completion of the entire system. That August 1st, 2022 would align with only the first module being completed. But we understood that other modules that could be completed in the future would also be relevant for providers, family members to be involved in. So we just wanted to. I'm suggesting that we change that date from August 1st, 2022 to. Full functionality of the bright futures information system. So representative Whitman, if I'm understanding you correctly, it's. The committee had agreed that we should have an end user group. After hearing testimony. So I'm not going to go into the specific about a date when that ends, but when the full functionality of the new and improved beef is system or whatever it will be called. Is achieved that that's when the end user group will cease to exist. Is that essentially what you're. Suggesting. Yeah. And a little bit more. About the modules. The first module is going to be CC FAP. And then we're going to talk about some of the things that we're looking at completing in the long term. We don't have an end date yet, which is why we're keeping the language kind of vague is licensing. Workforce development. And children's integrated services. So we have reason to believe that providers, families would also be interested in looking at, say licensing. Workforce development just so that they can have access to that information. So that's what we're looking at. And then we're going to talk about some of the things that we're looking at. I think it's developed from their user and. And we also, I'd also like to suggest. Adding just one phrase. To the people that are included in these end user groups. To include providers, eligibility specialists. Families participating. And any other relevant stakeholders. In case if we want somebody from children's integrated services. To be included. It's just the idea that. We have an active. End user group throughout the implementation of beefess. And what you're suggesting is allowing some flexibility there. With regard to who is. Excuse me, who is on that group. Okay. All right. So let's take a couple of questions and then we'll have Katie put up. The suggested revised language and. Sarah Truckel, I think you were first and then representative McFawn. Yeah, Sarah Truckel DCF financial director for the record. I guess I would first start. CIS is not included in the beefess. Data system. In our current or in our planned existing data system. I'm also not sure where those particular modules came from. But I'm not sure where they came from. Because there's obviously a lot of components to the current existing system and a lot of architecture that's been mapped, but that isn't. Kind of consistent with, with how we obviously have to go through procurement in different pieces and. Haven't mapped all of those different pieces yet because we're just focused on the first module. So would want to clarify that. We did in addition over the break. I think that's one of the areas of the bill that we. Wanted to highlight and we too highlighted this section as. Somewhere where we would, you know, recommend some different language. So if, if now's a good time to have that discussion, we're happy to do so. Or if you'd like us to wait, we are also happy to do that as well. Sarah, thank you. And why don't we wait for just a second to see what the. First set of revised language is, and then we'll look at your thoughts and feedback about, about this section as well. Is that okay? That's perfect. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And representative McFawn. Representative McFawn, you have your hand up. Got to get my thing on muted. Thank you. Madam vice chair. I have, I have the same question. That was just asked. Maybe it's in a different way. We did the. The modules that. Representative Whitman just mentioned, where did they come from? Where, where is that information? That is from reviewing, if I may. Madam vice chair. That's from reviewing my notes from the energy and technology. Meeting that we had. I thought I actually received it from Sarah. I think it's from the energy and technology. I think it's from the energy and technology. I think it's from the energy and technology. So maybe I missed it. But that's where I did get that. Those three modules. Named. Thank you, representative Whitman. I think that it's, it's probably actually not even. As critical those, the modules aren't named in this section. So I don't think we really need to get sort of caught up in what the names are or what they cover. I think the concept here is that the. That the user group would, the end user group would remain in effect until the completion of the system, whatever that system entails. So. I see madam chair is back. Welcome back, madam, madam chair. We were just about to look at the suggested revised language. For this section and then Sarah. Truckel also has some comments from the department about this section. Oh. Well, please go ahead. I haven't finished yet. Oh, I'm sorry, representative. That's okay. Sorry. If I thought that. Whitman was. Asking to include them. In the. And then my, the only, the only, uh, I was not saying to, that was just context for why. Um, my suggestion is to simply say that we continue having an end user group. Period. Period. Because other components of the BFIS upgrade beyond CCF AP are likely helpful for providers. To be involved in. Okay. And, um, When you named all that. The families, you gave a whole laundry list of. People. That's currently in the language. That's in there. And also, um, building bright futures has a catch all phrase that they use. Anybody else that they think. Something to that anybody else they think. They would benefit from having them on that. So, um, So, Both ways we should be able to get what we want. Thank you. Thank you, Madam vice chair. Now you can turn this. Meeting over to madam chair. Thank you, representative McFawn. Um, and I will do so. And, uh, Katie, I think it's okay now for you to go ahead and put up the, um, Suggested revisions to the language. I think it will make it clear for people what it is that is going to be. I think it will make it clear. I think I left the wrong document hanging. There we go. Um, so here's the language and the changes that representative women just proposed or highlighted in yellow. So it expands the participants of the end user group to any other relevant stakeholders. And instead of having the end user group, um, being dissolved on August. Um, 20, 22. Um, thank you, Katie. And I thank you. And thank you, uh, representative Wood and committee for. For starting, um, are there. Further questions as it relates to this language and this section about the. Befis group. Befis. Are we okay with your, I think. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Didn't Sarah truck will have something that she wanted to say. Yes, thank you. Okay. Is now an appropriate time. Absolutely. I couldn't find you. No worries. Um, we too highlighted the language around, um, having that end user group, uh, go to the completion. So we appreciate that. Um, we also identified that, um, we would recommend that we continue to stress that, that October 1st language, um, we would recommend that that be stricken based on that. It's subject to our third party vendor and we, we have, uh, obviously we're managing a pandemic and we can't predict the potential for unforeseen obstacles, but our, uh, moving forward with that October 1st date and the development timeframe, we would also recommend shifting from monthly reporting to periodically reporting. Um, we would also recommend for this as we would tie that to things like our, um, development sprints or, um, Other required milestones. So there's going to be specific parts that our vendor identifies where end users have to be identified and worked with. And we're not sure if that'll be monthly. It could be weekly. There's points where we do daily sprints and development projects. So, um, didn't, I would just recommend that we have a, uh, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a. A, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a? I just wanted to kind of clarify that it's the modernized project or a new system to just provide some clarity. But our big point here is just, um, the continued recommendation to strike b1. are in terms of this. So what's going to happen if you don't, what is the department concerned about happening if the pandemic worsens so you can't move forward or the contractor falls short? So what is the fear of having a wished for date, which do you have but which you don't know, which is always the possibility won't happen? I can provide kind of some general thoughts. And then I know Ledge Council also identified this. I think the way the language is currently written provides that it requires the Department for Children and Families, Child Development Division, shall ensure full functionality of that first module. And I could see an example being all of the development team comes down with COVID and is offline for eight weeks. That could put us significantly behind. And that would not be something within our control that we could mitigate or do anything about. So what will we do? I mean, so that happens. What are you afraid that we're going, what's the concern? Whether it's you or Katie, if Ledge Council has the same concern. Help us understand what is so awful with all due respect. I can't tell you how many times I get requests for the reports won't get in on time. We need an extension on this. And that happens on a regular. And I will go OK, fine, mix. So I don't understand the resistance to the day. So from our end, we're already under that immense pressure, obviously, with the federal requirements. So we have we have that pressure again. I would defer to Katie on the potential that it creates some some potential liability for the state. I think she had highlighted that in an earlier testimony. Katie. Yes. So I've thought a lot about this language, particularly over the past week, and I reached out to some some colleagues for their thoughts. And I'm not sure what the exact remedy would be if this was challenged. It could be actual damages for the amount that a family would have received if the system was in place. Another thought that I had, and I'm not sure how this would be carried out within the agency, but could there be a challenge to the human? I believe it's the human services board. And I'm not exactly sure what that would look like or what the remedy would be in that case. So in my mind, it's sort of an open question as to you know, if it if it could be challenged and what the remedy would look like as a result of a challenge. Represent Greg War. Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to thank Sarah Chuckle and Katie for that. That's what I said a week ago, that there would be issues potentially of liability. So thank you for that. So committee, what is your pleasure? Representative McFawn. Thank you, Madam Chair. We're in the contract with the contractor. There's going to be, this is one of the, this was going to be part of the contract, wasn't it? The October 1st date, I mean part of the contract would be to build towards that date. And if the contractor doesn't meet it, then there's probably going to be some repercussions in terms of do they get paid or not? If they've got a timeline that they have to follow, that's all the contract. You make sure you get it done on a certain time. If this October date, if the department had to have it done fully functional by a certain date, would that not back into the contract? Last time we talked about this, you were talking about negotiating with the contractor. So how do we fix it so that we all win? Representative McFawn, I believe that the suggestion from the department is to just delete that whole section. Is that correct? That's correct. And to answer representative McFawn's earlier question, we did include the October 1st within our RFP. And it's how we're currently framing, you know, our contract negotiations and the timelines that we're identifying internally, but there are different provisions in contracts. So until those contracts are finalized, I can't tell you what the repercussion would be other than we are, as we've said, operating under a pandemic at this point too, which just creates this whole level of complexity and uncertainty. I mean, the example I think that's most poignant is if our entire development team got COVID, what would that do to the project? So you have the date in the RFP. So the contractor knows what you're expecting them to do. Right. And that's the date that we put out. And that's the date that we've been working under. And that is as we've evaluated all of the different timelines, our expectation. So if we added a phrase, something like this. On or before October 1st, 2021. And somehow putting in something that said, we're not going to be doing this. So we're not going to be doing this. We're not going to be doing this. We're not going to be doing this. Extend waiting. Not withstanding. Extend waiting circumstances. Would that solve the problem? Would that take care of everybody getting cold? Or any other kind of thing you can think of that might. Get in the way. I would want to have our general counsel look at it from a, a legal liability standpoint with regards to the human rights. We don't have the legal representation for the department, but I recognize that what you're trying to achieve is, you know, some, some common ground around those extenuating circumstances. We already have that October 1st deadline required by our federal partners. So for us, it's not something that we're not already really under pressure for. And if we don't achieve, we face the potential for those financial penalties, which are sizable. So we, we already have that pressure and we're working towards that goal. And it's consistent with our 22 budget proposal. Representative McFawn, that's a helpful suggestion. Keep that in there. And our representative Bromstead has her hand up as well. Thank you, Madam chair. And thank you, Sarah. I, um, that's what I was thinking is that the other big requirement here is that the federal government does have the ability to, um, withdraw or somehow their, their ability to make us pay for, um, not meeting that deadline is, uh, pretty strong. Um, so one of the things I wondered is what if we said, shall set the goal for full functionality of the first module instead of insurer. Since it's like the North Star, that's the goal. I don't know if we can do that in legislation. Katie would be able to tell us better, but I was trying to just think of a better word than insurer since even legislative council is a little concerned with the language. Although I would be supportive of keeping it just because we know the feds are making, are going to push us on this too. Um, so I think that aside, is there a better word or a better way that we can express legislative intent to get this done by October 1st? Um, thank you representative from state. It sounds like you and representative McFawn are. Sort of in the, are moving in the same direction, which is to keep section. Five number B one in the bill, but to somehow soften. The sentence that says shell and shore. Um, my question to the, um, thank you. Sarah for, um, being so clear. And, um, thank you, Katie for adding, um, putting that into having thought about that. Um, what is your, um, thoughts about whether it's. Putting in a. Something similar to what representative McFawn said in terms of absent. Unexpected extenuating circumstances or something similar. To, um, you know, a goal and maybe representative Wood has a third or different. Suggestion represent would. Uh, no, I don't have a third or different suggestion. I was just, uh, uh, giving you a response to your question. I was, I should have waited till you were finished asking it before I put my hand. That's okay. So, uh, but thank you. So that's, I mean, so let me find out from the committee, if that is the direction that you want us to go. The soften. I was going to say that, but that was, that was what I, um, had my hand up about. I think it's still important to keep it in there. The, the date, but I think that, um, you know, something along the lines of, you know, what represent, um, McFawn or Brumstead have said, uh, you know, I would, for me, I would be okay with that. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Wood, representative Rosenquist. Thank you. Yes. I agree with representative McFawn. And to some extent with representative Brumstead, her comment about the North Star or something like that. I agree. We should probably come up with some better language at that. And as far as representative McFawn's concern, my concern is the 10%, you know, 10% of what is recommended by a group of people, but I don't know if we've really fleshed out that that is really the right number for the future or not. To me, it seems like a relatively low number. And I think I've brought that up before. And I would rather that we possibly use it as, uh, you know, what do you want to call it a goal, but not say we shall do this. Okay. I think that's very, uh, what do you want to call it? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Proactive language that should not be in here. And I think it would help, uh, get this bill through over the, over the hurdle at the end. If that was not in there. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Rosenquist. And we can go back to that second comment. Later right now, we're going to focus on the, the, um, beef is system as I believe what I walked into the discussion about. Um, and I've heard you say that you're on board, um, with Katie figuring out a way how to soften the sentence. As is, um, Teresa and what I under, uh, Representative Wood and what I understand represent McFawn. So I am looking to, okay, represent. Okay. Um, can people, um, I'm not, I certainly can't read people's. Madam chair. The question. Who does not want to do that. Okay. Who does not want to do that? Please raise your hand. I just need to make sure I know what it is that we're not doing. Um, Um, Who does not want to soften the sentence lack of a better term on section five number B. Around the October 1st date. For, um, The beef is system. And, um, the question was who does not. And, uh, Representative Whitman is raising his hand that he does not want to soften it. I might qualify that if I may, madam chair. I think, um, I'm not opposed to softening the language. I just think we need to be careful about how we do it, given that there are federal requirements that we don't put in language that somehow says that. We can relax our federal requirements. So I would say that maybe setting a goal. Makes sense, but saying that. If something happens, we don't need to follow it. I'm a little bit less comfortable with, with that suggestion. Thank you. I am not seeing any other hands. Um, Katie, do you have enough to go on? Sure. I think I do. Um, I think probably the way to do it is to change the verb from ensure to something else. Um, something like shall seek to achieve or shall aim for full functionality or make every. Dilligent effort to achieve full functionality, something. Something along those lines. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, uh, I walked into this meeting late where we, um, focused on the beefess. Have we gone to the, um, I would think the next piece is, uh, the, um, language. Um, And the work that was done. Um, Um, by the, um, Around the financial study. Do we have something, um, Katie to representative Whitman. Yeah, thank you, madam chair. Um, just while we're still on beefess, I was wondering if we could address the, um, Suggestion from Sarah Truckel to change monthly to periodic. Um, I would be supportive of that personally. I don't know how the rest of the committee feels. Um, Um, Folks, um, who is, um, um, You have a thumbs up from representative rose and quest. I'm going to end from representative small and representative would. No. Okay. Um, I, we have a majority. Um, Sarah, you got one thing. And then madam chair, Um, I would also support that for this section. Uh, thank you representative Whitman. Uh, Representative Bromstead. I think the way that I've heard it referred to. In the past is the modernized beefess system. Um, I don't know if Katie has a easy solution to that. To suggest, but. I, I would also support that for this section. Uh, Thank you representative Whitman. Uh, Representative Bromstead. I think the way that I've heard it referred to. Is the modernized beefess system. Is that right, Sarah? We haven't chosen a specific name yet, but I know we've talked about it as, um, the modernization plan or the, the new system. Um, I think maybe there's just an eloquent way of just delineating that particular. You know, even if it's just the modernized plan. Um, the end user group regarding the division's progress in completing the modernization project in any successes or challenges identified. Once. Then we do it wrong in the next sentence, right? And in the first sentence. Um, Oh no, you say the bright futures modernization plan. Yeah. I think that's a good term for now. In light of just because now the systems are going to run concurrently. We didn't want to have confusion. Okay. So you would suggest on page four. Instead of bright futures information system, modernization plan, you would suggest modernization project. Or whatever it is. Yep. Okay. And then I'm sorry. Legislative councilizer and up or she gets to go first. Would it be okay to just use the term modernized bright futures information system. Because it's not planned. I mean, it's a system. It's a, um, could we just use modernized as, you know, as a modifier before references. Does that work? I think that would meet our needs and just, we haven't identified what we plan to name that system. So. Obviously that'll be a component in the future, but for the purposes of this, it will clearly identify that it's the new system that we're developing. Okay. Thank you. And represent Whitman thing. Thank you for. Having a circle back before. We moved on and completely. I believe that the. Last sort of. I believe that what we have in front of us is to, um, Is to. To get the language, to, to look at language. It was modifying or editing. The financial. Study section. I don't believe we've heard the fiscal note from Nolan. Um, and. Uh, Sarah, are there other, I imagine there are other pieces of feedback that you have from the department. Okay. Um, committee. Um, It is two o'clock. We can't leave today. Until we vote this bill out. So Katie, how much time when we, when all is said and done, how much time will you need to provide us with, um, a copy that we can. Or a draft, you know, whatever a version that we can vote on. I've been making changes as we go. So you could vote on, um, the draft I have, which is 6.1. Uh, if you want an edited draft, it would take longer. Um, but it's okay. So whatever, while we're talking, if we're closing out sections, I can start sending them to the editors now to get them reviewed while you continue to talk. For example, if we've just closed out five, I'll send that one to the editors now so we can keep moving. Okay. That sounds perfect. Okay. Thank you. Did we, did we change the monthly to periodic or not? Yes, we did. Thank you. The fiscal study, the fiscal analysis, I believe there is new language. And I'm not sure who is presenting that. Is that are you. Okay, Nolan, thank you. The fiscal fiscal note or the financing. The financing, I'm sorry, not the fiscal note, the final study. That's not me. That's not you. Is that, is that Katie is that. Oh, that's Katie. Okay. This is a joint effort between myself and Joyce. So Joyce, I don't know if you're there, but jump in if I misspeak. Let me first scroll on my document to where the language is and then I'll share it. So we're in section 12. And Joyce and I are suggesting a rewrite of the introductory language. Okay, here it is. I believe that part of the. That Jessica that representative Bromstead. And representative would we're part of the discussion or as well as there was some discussion with. Let's grow kids. Is that correct. I, yes, there was email traffic between myself and representatives would in Bromstead. Okay. Okay, so just to take a step back. We've, the new language is obviously in yellow. So the concept here was to emphasize that the financing study is really focused on birth through age five, but also have kind of a recognition that you can't make changes or really review the system birth through age five without recognizing that there is an intersection with childcare for older children as well as impacts on the system for older children. And also recognizing that there's been substantial work already done or in process by the universal afterschool task force. So that's what this language aims to do is kind of right up front kind of set the framework of what the financing study is looking at. So the language now reads that by September 1 of this coming year, JFO is to contract with a consultant with expertise in the field of childcare and early childhood education to examine the economic impacts of and potential funding mechanisms to adjust for months existing childcare system for children from birth through five years of age with consideration given to the intersection of and impacts of childcare for children from six years of age through 12 years of age and alignment with the recommendations of the universal afterschool task force. And then there's a cross-reference to where that task force was created in statute. The work of the consultant shall be governed by the following goals. These goals are the same with the exception that in draft 5.3, this subdivision one regarding the 10% specified that it was for ages birth through age five. That language has been removed as it is now captured in the introduction language. Should I leave this language up or should I? Is it easier to see folks if I take it down? Maybe for right now can you keep it up as we talk about this. When we went on, when we broke for the floor and caucus and lunch and the joint assembly, there was discussion and some desire to more clearly outline or meld what was going on between the afterschool and the goals of this. So let me represent it would I believe you had some questions initially. Representative Bromstead and where are you with this language? I was one of the people who felt like we needed to address the age six to age 12 and incorporate the things that will be coming forward from the afterschool task force. I feel like this language for me does that. It still gives the priority for what we're considering but the consultants will need to consider the impacts for years and years to come. I think that's a good point. Representative Bromstead and representative Payella. I agree with everything that representative would just said and also just curious if we could know what Amy Schollenberger thinks. Thank you. That's next. I was going to explain why that whole piece is important. Below this we had also highlighted C. Did we keep C, Katie? I just wondered if you lifted that up a little. There are additional questions I have for the committee. I wasn't sure if you wanted to look at this piece and make a decision. That was my goal. They all fit together. I'm good with the upper piece. Representative Payella, since you are co-chair of the afterschool task force, does this fit as far? Yes. Thank you. Representative McFawn. I agree with the changes. Thank you. Amy Schollenberger. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is a more elegant way to do what we were trying to do before. I don't know. Okay. Okay. Sarah Truckel, how about we save your comments to this section when we finish the whole section? Does that make sense? Sarah Truckel. Yes, that makes sense, Madam chair. And this is consistent with what we previously identified with the family co-pay issue. So. Okay. Great. So my question was. We reference the universal afterschool task force up above in the introductory language. Are we referencing it a second time still? In this subsection C, this is taking into consideration the analysis of the blue ribbon commission and the universal afterschool task force. The consultant's evaluation shell. So I'm curious if we're going to be keeping that reference a second time. While you're thinking about that. I'll scroll down to show you the next piece. In draft 5.3 that we looked through this morning. There is this subdivision two. That describes what will be in the consultant's report. The consultant is to. Submit the following results and then subdivision B. And we had language identifying determine the feasibility of implementing a stable long-term funding. Sorry. Identifying determine the feasibility of implementing stable long-term funding sources to finance an affordable high quality early child care system for children from birth. Through five years of age. Given child care's role in post pandemic stimulus long-term economic development. So this highlighted language was in the draft that we looked through this morning 5.3. And we had it here. Because initially the whole section applied. To families of children birth. Through age 12 and we were doing a kind of a carve out here specific to. Birth through age five. Now that we've changed the lead in language to be more focused on this group. Birth through age five I'm wondering. At the committee would still like to retain this language. But I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't think there's no longer necessary in your opinion. Is there a problem with having it? On. Besides repetition. Katie. But now I see Joyce. I'll see Joyce. And let. Joint fiscal. Respond. Yes. Thank you, Madam chair. Joyce Manchester joint fiscal office. And I'm wondering if you have any questions. If you have any questions. If you have any questions. If you have any questions. If you have any questions. If you have any questions. Is whether the committee wants the consultant. To offer ideas about financing. The after school program for children six through 12. Or. Whether the committee wants the consultant to focus only on financing. The. Early care and education. System for children zero through five. The after school task force. And they're financing methods and just say, that's what it's going to be. And that's the end of the story. Then they should focus on the zero through five. Financing. If they want to, if the committee wants to say. Well, we're hiring this consultant. Maybe it makes sense to have them look at the overall picture, both zero to five and the after school financing. So that's in my opinion, this is a committee choice. That's a good idea. That's a good idea. Representative McFawn, you have your hand up. Thank you, madam chair. I think one affects the other. I think they should both be in there. So. Representative McFawn, what you are. At. Proposing is that the highlighted language be removed. Or that the, or that it be added to the after school. And that's what I'm suggesting is. We, I, I, there's my own personal opinion. We need to go from. Zero to 12 years old. What we're talking about the consultant. Taking into consideration what. The Kelly's committee does. And they're going to be finished. Before the consultant. So he's going to have. She's going to have that information. And so I, I say that. We should have it read up to 12 years old. It includes all of them. That's what we're trying to find out. I'm a representative Whitman. Thank you, madam chair. I'm wondering if there might be. A solution similar to what we had earlier. Where we keep. The highlighted section. That's what we're trying to do. To state that it's mainly for children from birth through five years of age. But we add with consideration. Of the after school task forces findings. So that the consultant can. Not sort of duplicate their efforts. But. Yeah. Focus on zero to five in case of. In the future. The general public school task forces financing plan. Thank you. Represent. Paella, could you. You spoke about what is the purpose of the after school. Committee that you are co-chair of. What is the outcome? So. Still working on the outcome. So I don't want to. Be too. About what's in the final result because we don't have it. But. In regard to this conversation, I guess I'm a little worried about. Exploiting efforts. And. I think. What we are currently thinking at. We are looking at is that there would be different. Long term funding streams for the different age groups. Even though there. There is the CCF AP where there's interplay between the two. So. I'm. Not as concerned. That this bill. Also. I don't think that there would be one source that would fund. All of it. Thank you. And just for the committee to remember. This bill as it was introduced. Focused on. For lack of a better term early. Care and education and our goals. Relate to early care and education as it relates to. Cost to families. Sarah. Thank you, madam chair. We would just highlight that the area of crossover. As we say. Earlier is the family co-pay. So to the extent that the. That CCFAP includes the regulated after school system. Families are going to have that. Family co-pay for six through 12 under the CCFAP. Redesign. And this language. Conflicts with that kind of move that we're making. And could obviously defer to. Melissa around it is just a slice of the after school, but it is really the regulated system of care that we're talking about for six through 12 where we, we have that funding mechanism being through CCFAP. So. Didn't know if that was helpful context as you're discussing this language. Okay. So, Sarah, what you are. Concerned about is what is on our. Screen right. Right now, which is to identify and determine the feasibility of implementing a stable. Long-term funding source. Or an affordable high quality. Early childcare system for children. Birth through five. Children in their care. And then the. To the extent that the regulated system extends through 12. Through CCFAP. So not all after school is included in that, but the. Just like family childcare home providers have both birth through five children in their care, as well as after school. Children in their care. And all of those children may receive CCFAP. As a financing mechanism. Thank you. Thank you. My, I, there are lots of hands up. Katie, I. I need, because I'm looking at. 5.1. So I, this section. Relates to all of childcare. Correct. And not just the regulated system. I'm not going to look at the introductory language, but. Yes, this isn't. This is. This is applicable to all, all childhood childcare and that early. In early education. It doesn't say anything of introductory language that's specific to regulated care. So I'm wondering, Sarah, if that. Increases the concern or worry. Or if that. Or if that. Or if that. In terms of it being a conflict with CCFAP. Or not. I would certainly defer to Melissa on the level of regulation. I think it's just that. As, as we move forward with our year three plan for CC FAP. A family who has children under the age of five is going to have that family co-pay. So we've now gone from an individual co-pay. To a family that has children under the age of five. And we've now gone to the same level of. In terms of the extent that they're in the regulated, and this is now kind of asking us to pull a portion of that apart. Okay. I don't really see. You know, I have to say I'm not really seeing that. I appreciate that. But I'm gone. I see representative wood and representative. Hello's hands are both up. So we'll start with representative wood. Thank you, madam chair. you just said because the way I'm reading section 12, the introductory language that Katie has up right now references the after-school sort of portion and considerations that we talked about earlier today and I look at that and this is I guess a question for Katie. So I look at that introductory sentence as applying to everything that follows after that in section 12. Is that accurate, Katie? I think the intent was to set that up. I'm trying to think it through because you know subsection A is sort of a standalone subsection. What do we have in B? The way I read it is A is setting a frame for what is in the entire study. Right. That's the way I was reading it and if that's accurate then I feel like the concerns that the department is raising are covered are addressed I guess is what I'm saying. Thank you. I would just agree with that. You would agree? Okay. Madam Chair and representative. Thank you. Thank you. Melissa. Thank you. Melissa Rio-Garrett, Policy Director for the Child Development Division. Am I understanding that you're saying your intent here is to examine financing of all child care regulated and unregulated? I believe so. So I'll just offer. I'm saying that. I want some, that is my understanding of this and I'm going to, I'm going to punt initially to the bill primary sponsors and or let's grow kids. That's true. That is what's here. Yes. I was going to concur from Stan. I just, I don't want to send this down a different path. Okay. I would offer that I believe in Title 33 that there's some real specific language about what constitutes regulated and what programs are potentially considered legally exempt from regulation. And then there's an entire world of programs that are essentially illegally operating in the state. And that the committee may want to be specific about what they are trying to cover when you when you say all programs. If we, if we were to use the word regulated, programs have to be regulated otherwise they're illegal. There are programs that are legally operating. They have, there are exemptions that are spelled out in Title 33. So for example, a person could care for their own children and the families of two additional children and not be regulated and they are considered legally operating and exempt from our regulation. But once a person takes on a third family, that is considered illegal operation. And there are other exemptions that exist within that Auditorium Title 33. So is there a Title 33 section, blah, blah? If you'd like, I mean, you know, this would include nannies, you know, if nanny, if the world of nannies taking care of children in people's homes, if you leave it broad and wide. So just ensuring that the committee is getting to the to what you are actually wanting to understand financing. It was not my understanding that we were interested in nannies, but I could be wrong. So I am again looking to the primary, I was going to say Representative Kenney, Sarah Kenney. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do, I appreciate the question. I do think it probably makes sense to reference regulated. And I do think it makes sense to also include legally exempt because correct me if I'm wrong, Melissa, but some of those legally exempt providers are eligible for CCFAP support for the kids at those programs. No, I do think it's a, I think it makes sense to include legally exempt because I think it's part of the bigger conversation around what the current costs in the system are and what they would be in the future. And it's, I think, especially important is some of the conversations in Vermont and nationally are thinking about culturally specific child care and those kinds of conversations. I think that that the legally exempt universe is a part of that conversation. So, and I do think that those programs are specified in Title 33. Does cover approved relative child care, but that is not the world of legally exempt. I was hearing Representative Rosenquist. I just wanted to make sure I understood what Sarah was saying that then it would cover just those regulated programs. That's what we're focusing on. Is that correct? Sarah, I believe the question is, is the question to Sarah Kenny of Let's Grow Kids? Yes, correct. Thank you. Yes, I was suggesting that it be limited to regulated programs and legally exempt programs as well, which is referenced in the Title 33 language that would provide further definition for the consultants working on this. I don't know that it's, I'm sorry Representative Rosenquist, I was going to say I don't know that it's possible to do an analysis of all of the illegally operating programs out there. I think that's, I think that's what Melissa is getting at, is that's a whole other or nannies or all the, I don't, that would probably be a several years perhaps. Melissa, in the Title 33 definition section that you're going to show or give Katie, family, family child care, are they, is that part and parcel of the regular, yes. Okay, so Carl, the Representative Rosenquist, so family, not, not only child care centers, but family based providers, family are also included. Understood. As long as it's a regulated program, but Sarah's saying that to make them, what do you call it, that the two family exemption would also be included. Yes, that would be part and parcel of what is in the definition. I'm looking to now, Melissa, in the definition in Title 33, the legally exempt. Yeah, so Title 33, and I'm frantically trying to find this section to get to Katie, but that spells out several options for legal exemption that include a family that takes care of the children from two additional families, but we don't regulate them. So our licensors do not go in to view and inspect their sites, and they don't register with the state of Vermont in any way, shape or form. So our, for example, our data at the Child Development Division, we don't necessarily have a list or even know what the scope of that is or entails. So it does add to the study in terms of being able to find them and understand family views of them, but just so you're aware that that's what we have for data. Representative McFawn. If I might ask one question, Madam Chair, how does somebody, how does an entity become legally exempt? Is there a process for that or how does it happen? Do I just say to myself, I'm legally exempt? I see, I see Melissa shaking ahead. Yes, I say, okay, I'm legally exempt. And so there's nowhere the consultant is going to be able to be involved with them because they don't, we don't even know who they are. Nobody who knows who they are. I don't even know why we're talking about them. So I am looking for some, I guess I would say that it's somewhat that's true, Representative McFawn, but somewhat most people do know by word of mouth what's available in their community. And if this were a study, I'm not, I'm actually not sure, but I would think that there's some ability to collect that data just by word of mouth, but maybe we don't want it. I don't know. I looked to let's grow kids on this one, actually. Were you, that you wanted this data in the, maybe I'm not supposed to. Representative, sorry. Sarah, Kenny, and then the committee has Representative McFawn has another question. So Sarah, Representative Bromsted has a question for you. I would say I would, in some ways, defer to Melissa and the folks at CVD about how much information is actually available about that universe of folks. I thought because they were defined in Title 33 that there was some data available about, but if there is not, then if there's no information available, then it probably doesn't make sense. Okay. So if there's no, if there's no information available, it probably doesn't make sense. Melissa, what I'm hearing you say is there is no data available for that group. Is that correct? Okay. My, my suggestion to the committee is that we not then include the legally exempt. I'm seeing some nods and I see Representative McFawn has his hand up. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would agree with you. And I would ask the committee, does anybody disagree with that? Please raise your hand if you disagree. Just trying to think it through, because what you're doing is exempting these people from participating in the scholarship program as well, presumably because so they would not get any educational benefits or they right now can't qualify for the CCFAP or whatever you call it. Okay. Is my understanding from, from Melissa. Is that true? But they could qualify if we don't, if we, how should I say it, if we include them, they would be eligible for some of the financial assistance for education. Carl, I believe where we are right now is in terms of Section 12 is the financing of the system. And with the following goals and that the, oh, okay. Never mind. I'm keeping my mouth shut. It's not just the fine. I mean, it's not just the financing. It's also the childcare providers receive compensation that's permissive. Representative Bromstead has her hand up and Representative McFawn. And I believe Representative Rosenquist that if you are unregulated and outside of the system, then you wouldn't have any of the rules around needing education to be able to take in maybe one or two families that you're helping out with. So the, that you wouldn't have that same impetus to need loan repayment and scholarship funds. And so it might be okay to leave them out, I guess is what I'm saying. Or it might function as, and it might function as a impetus for people to come in, to come in, Representative McFawn and then Representative Wood. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm agreeing with Representative Bromstead as well. If we, if we don't have the information on them, we, and I, and the example I used is I could declare myself legally exempt. To me, let's deal with the people that we can regulate and we can, we have the information on, we can, we're already working with them based on the Governor's five year plan. I just think we need to, I'm okay with the age, you know, up to 12. But when we start talking about people like me that can open up the back of my house and say I'm legally exempt, there's no way the consultant is going to be able to find those people and do a good job of it. We've got, we've got him working with Kelly's group, or her working with Kelly's group. So that, that seems to me fine. We can, we can give scholarships to them. We can do loan repayments. We're building the system that we, we can, we regulate and we can control a little bit. I think if we get off in the, in the swamp of the weeds with these other places, there's no end to it. And even if we find out the information, there's no way we can say to them, you have to do this. Yeah. I think Tapper represent my phone. That's a great point. Thank you. Representative Wood. I just wanted to point out to Representative Rosenquist that our scholarship programs in chapter, sub chapter five are related to people who work or will commit to working in a regulated childcare setting. So I just wanted to. I acknowledge that I, I agree with you at this point when Topper was very persuasive. Okay. And I do want to point out, Representative Rosenquist that in the scholarships for prospective early childhood providers could be open to people who are currently non, you know, working in a non-regulated system, but they would commit to working in a regulated childcare at the completion of their coursework. So that actually is open to people who do not currently work in in regulated childcare. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Now, are there other additions, suggestions for the financing study? Representative Brumsted and Representative McFawn. Okay. So we still haven't really resolved the issues on page 20. Well, my page 20, line 12, the whether or not we include or get rid of for children from birth under five years of age, which is somewhat repetitious of the beginning. And then also online 14 on page 18. Same thing. So I agree with Kelly. I think that there's a lot of work being done in that other. Jessica, I apologize. I think we passed that. Oh, I thought that we had we passed that. Thank you. We passed that. So we decided we yes, Sarah Kenny and then Representative McFawn. Okay. Madam Chair, I just wanted to say I had submitted language earlier with proposed changes and then had a conversation with Nolan from JFO over the lunch hour and have some updated language to propose. Generally, I defer to JFO on these matters though, since they're going to be running the study. So we had talked about potentially including some May language just so that there's language in the bill that discusses some of the national entities and the folks in Vermont working specific to the question about compensation commensurate with peers and other fields and the cost of care modeling. PCF and others had raised questions about what exactly that meant. So we wanted to provide some potential language to help flesh that out a little bit, which I'm happy to walk through with folks whenever that makes sense. That probably makes sense right now. But before you do that, Representative Rosenquist has his hand up. Thank you. It was just related to this section because one of the portions here is that the goal would be to presumably provide for people so they would not have to spend more than 10 percent of their salary or their gross income. So I was wondering, is that limit us? Let's say the study shows that it's just economically unfeasible to go for 10 percent and maybe a higher percent is more workable, you know, like 20 percent or something like that. Anyway, I just wouldn't want to limit us on that because the study is going to show us how much the total dollars are and whether it's practical to think we could raise that much money and that we wouldn't want to just possibly scrap the whole concept because of that 10 percent. Representative Rosenquist, I think you raise a very important point and I think that is where we have tried to make some of the changes, which is that there needs to be a financial analysis and I'll look to the financial people and Dr. Grossman, but my assumption and what I know is that they'll do an analysis and they may come back and go, you know, if you do it this way, it'll only cause, you know, it will only be 5 percent of a person's income. What if you do it this way? It could be 10, but if you do it this way, you know, you can't do it, you know, no one will have any money for anything else or the economy, whatever. But if you do it this way, we propose this way and it would be 20. So I do not think that, I guess the long and short of this, I don't think this limits it. It says what our goal is and we got information from, we got data from CDD that in fact in terms of where it's coming close to that already in terms of the five-year plan for CDD and so for that. So, but it does not limit it and I want to, I'm looking to the PhD scholars and the finance people to make sure that I'm not misspeaking. Oh, Carl, you're agreeing with me and you're muted. You're still muted. My spacebar is doing that temporary thing now. I apologize. That's okay. Click on it. So, but I understand. I just wanted to make the point that I didn't want to lock us in on that percentage necessarily, but okay. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Rosenwood. Sarah. Thank you. I wonder, does it make sense for me to share my screen and am I able to do that? I believe you're able to do that if Julie makes you a co-host. I'm sorry. Who said that? That is Sarah Kenney. All right. One moment. You should be able to now, Sarah. Thank you, Julie. So can folks see that? Yeah. So this, just looking at this highlighted language here, we're recommending that we insert some language specific to the compensation commensurate with peers in other fields language, but just as the consultant may consult with the National Association for the Education of Young Children, the Vermont Advancing as a Recognized Profession Task Force and the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment for Determining Models for This, and just a guidepost that public school salaries may serve as a relevant benchmark for comparable compensation, assuming comparable qualifications, experience, and job responsibilities. And this is a nod to some of the conversations that are happening both in Vermont and nationally around these questions of cost of care and what does comparable commensurate compensation look like. So this, again, I offer as a very friendly amendment. We are not wedded to it. And I just wanted to put it out there for the committee's consideration. Okay. Committee is your preference that I get comments from Sarah Truckel and Joint Fiscal First, or do you want to weigh in first? I would like to get the other people's information first. Okay, Tapper, you're the only one, Representative McFawn, you're the only one who spoke. So we're going to follow you, and Nolan or Joyce? Sure, I can comment on it. Yeah, I think we had seen some language prior to this that had a lot of shouts. I think that May is fine. It doesn't tie the consultant to having to do it, but it also sort of flags for the consultant about these national organizations that they may not have been aware of. And I think that our consultant is going to try to reach out to as many people as possible regardless. So, and then the public school salaries, that was what we came up with is sort of like trying to find that what might be a good benchmark. And this sort of just, again, flags for the consultant that look at teachers or public school salaries. So I think the May language is fine. It doesn't tie our hands. Thank you, Sarah Truckel. We too are in agreement with the May language and emphasize that, you know, from our standpoint, we agree with JFO around not being prescriptive and providing that deference to the consultant and whatnot. So this seems to allow for that and make sense. Okay, I want that to go into the column of, we took your feedback, Representative Wood. I think that this does a good job of trying to thread that needle of providing some information for the potential consultant without legislating what exactly that it is. So previously people were looking for some more guidance around what is commensurate salaries with other peers. And this seems to do it from my perspective. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Brumstead, because this was something that you brought up earlier today. I agree. I agree with Representative Wood and with number three here. I had looked at or heard about this, actually, and it makes sense. It doesn't seem too prescriptive and I agree with Nolan. Okay. Tapper, your question. But Tapper, I can't hear you. Representative McFawn, I apologize. I still can't hear you. That's okay. That's okay, Madam Chair. I would just ask the normal question. Is there anybody on the committee that would not want this in the draft? All right. That sounds good. Okay. Thank you. Adi, do you have what you need to put that section in? I just asked Sarah for a word document, so I could drop that language in. But once I have that, yes. Okay. Okay. Katie, have we gone through section 12? We've gone through all the changes, yes. And so we're talking about in section 12, A is the broad. A sets the framework sort of as a broader piece and that when we're talking then about the goals, we're beginning to get narrower. And so we're keeping four children birth through five on A1. I'm sort of saying this and waiting for people to. And I don't know that we did we follow, are we keeping the yellow, I did not hear and I came in late that we were making any changes to taking into consideration you know the sources of information and then that identifying the feasibility of implementing a stable long-term funding sources to finance an affordable hike. And then this was where you're going to put in Katie language right identity to whatever it is the title, title 33. Yes, would you like to see that? Yeah. So this is the language in green. Okay, so maybe you know maybe Katie it would be helpful I'm going through this but if we all sort of looked at what it is now. Representative McFawn has his hand up. I can't hear you. I'm trying to read this as long as it gets into six through 12 years old. That was my point as you were flying through there. Okay, so you were five years of age and if it's if we're talking about the long-term funding taking in into consideration from children six years, zero to 12. That's what we're saying here, right? That's that's in the broad piece. Yes, that is what we're saying. No, I'm not talking right on before September 21st and a Yes. Yes. Yes, that. Oh, in this subsection a we're laying out the framework for the entire section and we're saying that our focus on the financing study is birth through age five but we're have added language that's highlighted in yellow saying that we're also giving consideration to the fact that the system for children six through 12 years of age intersects with the zero through five and also impacts any changes on the zero through five system impacts six through 12 and we're directing the consultant to take that fact into account and also the recommendations of the after-school task force and that that avoids the duplication. Correct. Correct. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I just got to check with all of you and with Katie. Definitely. Katie, can you keep going? Sure. This is the new language you just dropped in about the consultant. This is B3 that Sarah just reviewed. And then I had a question about whether you wanted this universal after-school task force to remain in at worst. I think it's duplicative, but I don't otherwise see a reason why it should be omitted. So that was a question for the committee, but I don't see a problem with leaving it in if you would like it there and to be clear. And then the last piece was on this subdivision to what is going to be part of the consultant's analysis and we had the question of whether we should continue to specify with regard to financing or funding sources, children, birth through age, five years of age. And I believe the decision was that should remain in. So that's still there. And that was it for this section. Thank you, Katie. Could you stop sharing your screen? And before Amy Shulemberger, do you have any issues with what is going on? No, Madam Chair. I think it looks good from our perspective and I'd like to thank the committee. Thank you for your work. Thank you. Sarah Truckel, have we heard all your concerns? We may not have addressed all of them, but have we heard your concerns? Yep. I think we are also, we've raised our concerns and I believe you actually addressed them as well. Okay. Unbelievable. Sorry. Just teasing. Okay. Any by Morgan or Sarah or Melissa. Melissa. Okay. Representative McFawn, your question. Does anybody? Well, I gotta get unmuted before I can do it. Is there anybody on the committee that at this juncture is not satisfied with what we have in this draft in its entirety? Oh, wait a minute. The dates at the end, okay? The implementation dates? I don't know, but I'm getting a yes from Representative Brumsted. But go ahead. I did look at those because just so the committee knows, I've worked on an updated timeline. And so once we get through hearing from Nolan and all that, I'm happy to pass that along. But we have a timeline now that is about as complicated as it gets. And Topper, really the question that we're at, although I wish it is for this section, not for the whole bill. This was the second law section. Yeah. Okay, we all an agreement with this section. Anybody that's not in agreement? Okay. I see none. Thank you. Okay. Sarah Truckel, I want to give you an opportunity to, as you have reviewed, we've gone through various sections. And what are, you walked away and you said, okay, I will come back with our views. So we've addressed the components that we had had in section five, as well as in section 12. The only two other sections that we had flagged during the break for review is one is in section three, which I know we've kind of consistently said just creates that unfunded budget pressure. We would continue to stress that that is going to be a future unfunded budget pressure, and that it could have a policy implication, should it not be funded in subsequent years resulting in CCFAT moving to a waitlist, which would mean that families could effectively receive no assistance instead of receiving kind of that lesser payment. So for us, that's a continued concern. Okay. And section three, and we'll get more of that from Nolan, section three relates to reimbursing in terms of the most current Vermont Child Care Rate Survey, et cetera. Correct. And we are moving to the most current market rate survey in the governor's 2022 budget. So it's just the fact that it creates that obligation for future years. And then the only other section that we flagged was section nine. I'm not sure if it's helpful for us to identify some thoughts there. I'm fine with section nine. A section nine has to do with the Building Bright Futures, right? Yes. The advisory committee. Yep. Please share what your concerns are. So as we've talked about before, BBF is already established as the State Advisory Committee through Act 104. So we wondered if creating some language around that in effect that their Act 104 already creates them as the State Advisory Council and that they already have established committees under that, including the ELD committee that's named here, but also other committees that address some of these same points and wonder around if there's a way to rather than having all of those listed points just simply say that in accordance with Act 104, BBF is the State Advisory Council and advises the department on services pertaining to child care and early education rather than being as prescriptive because that is already their role as defined. And then the only other suggestion that we would provide is that the membership is limiting it to the ELD committee. But as I know, Dr. Crossman has talked about, there are multiple committees that take up these issues. So rather than naming ELD, could we just say Building Bright Futures Committees? And then we did wonder with those 21 named participants if that's always going, if the goal is engagement, do we want to add in some language around whenever that's feasible given that parents might choose to provide input via a survey or might not be able to always attend a committee meeting? So if the goal is really engagement, obviously Dr. Crossman has a lot of different representatives on that committee and works with many different people, but wouldn't want to prolong or not be able to move forward with work if not everybody could be at every meeting. So just those were some of our suggestions. And that's it. Thank you. Representative McFawn. Madam Chair, I thought that Dr. Crossman said that if somebody didn't show up, if they couldn't show up, that was okay. That they could get the information other ways. She did. She did say that and she talked about that was the addition of the word engagement, I believe, to put into play that there are different ways of people participating. Right. Well, let me look around here. Is Dr. Crossman on? Yes, Dr. Crossman is on. I might ask her without putting her on the spot. If she can answer the question, I would appreciate it. Is she okay with what we've got written? Dr. Crossman, are you okay with what is currently in the draft? For the record, Morgan Crossman, Executive Director of Building Break Futures. You know, I agree that what's written in the draft does reflect what we are able to do if it's required as part of the bill. But I also want to remind the committee that what the state has outlined as our role in statute and the existing committee infrastructure is in place. Right. So we do have the Early Learning Development Committee alongside six other VCAP committees. So I appreciate the inclusion of the word engage because it does allow more flexibility in the fact that at one committee table, it will be challenging to have 21 plus people in addition to the existing committee infrastructure that's there attend every single meeting. And we absolutely do want to have the flexibility to be able to engage other committees, like the Family Engagement Committee, the Professional Preparation and Development Committee in a lot of these tasks. This bill does very clearly prescribe the work of those committees that has not been the standard practice for what we do currently at VBF. We have a very broad charge for all of our different committee work. So this bill is absolutely being more prescriptive in who is at the table, how often they are at that table and the types of discussions that we would be having at those tables. So just wanting to be very clear with the committee that this would be a change to how we run existing committees. Thank you. Representative Whitman. Thank you, Chair. My follow-up question would be, it's stated in the bill that a quorum of the committee is a majority of the members. Do you foresee any issue with having a simple majority of membership present? It's a great question. And if required membership of one through 21 in this list were not at that table, I could absolutely see that being an issue for having to call a vote, for example, on certain components of this bill. The way these committees are currently run is by both a public and private co-chair that come together. They do have discussions and do come to consensus on making recommendations as a body. But I think to the state and our administration's point, there are several committees that do take up different components of what are required in this bill. So for example, if we are talking about, you know, broadly the administration of childcare and early education, we do have multiple committees that are working on that same topic in different ways, different smaller ways over time. So I think coming to a quorum would be really challenging, depending on which topic, because not all committees are meeting in the same place at the same time. Our network is over 450 people every single month. So just wanting the committee to be very mindful of what that looks like, which is why we do really need that flexibility in being able to have different ways of engaging all of these different stakeholders, whether or not it's in the same exact meeting time. And so you don't feel that this language as is gives you the flexibility? Correct. I would say that removing language around a quorum would be helpful there. Again, you know, we do have this existing infrastructure. What this bill is doing is very clearly prescribing the topics, the timelines, it's requiring reports, all of which is feasible. But the membership around a specific committee, you know, we can add all of those different individuals to the existing Early Learning and Development Committee and consult with all of these other different committees through both meeting times, surveys, you know, focus group type sessions to come to recommendations that are eventually voted on by the State Advisory Council and supported by these smaller groups. But I would say that removing language around a quorum is important. Thank you. Oh, Representative Wood, you get to talk and then we're going to have to change subjects because we're going to lose our joint fiscal person. I'll pass Madam Chair. Okay. We're going to have to get back to this. And I'm going to turn it over. So Representative Rosenquist, we're going to get back to this discussion because right now we have limited time with our, with the fiscal note. So Nolan, please take it away. Thank you for the record. Nolan, I'm all the joint fiscal office. I actually am glad that we didn't do it this morning because I was able to link it up to draft 5.3 so it matches Katie's most recent draft. And because we've walked through everything section by section, I don't think I need to rehash everything. So I'm going to focus on a summary, but I'm going to pull up the screen and this should be on the website. It is. Okay. Can everybody see that? All right, let me blow that up a little. So I'm just going to focus on page four because we've already walked through all the sections. I flagged some of the things that Sarah Truck will discuss about potential fiscal pressures and out years regarding section three. And then, so if we just focus on the summary, I don't know that actually look at all the numbers combined. So this breaks it out by the sections. So you can see section two, three, and four. We've got the 5.529 million. I put a flag by it because that's, as you all know, it's already included in the governor's recommended budget. Same with section five, which is the BFIS system, the 4.5 million. That's also in the governor's budget. Then six, seven, oh, what one? And 5.5 just to be clear encompasses both the CC FAP language and the provider payment section. So it's both of those combined. So they're intertwined. Six, seven, eight, that's our scholarships for early childhood, for prospective early childhood providers, and the student loans. So you can see I've broken out 300 to 400 in the 1.8 million. And then section nine, this is the part, this is the committee work. There was 25 in the bill. It's combined now. Earlier language, I think was appropriating directly to building Bright Futures. And we don't actually generally appropriate directly to contractors. We appropriate to agencies and departments who then contract with contractors. So in the light, it just says $33,000 to build to DCF, but it's supposed, it specifics for 25,000, but building Bright Futures or advising the committee. And then the other 8,000 would be for PDEMs for the new committee members. Because currently the committee members, my understanding is they're not eligible, the public members are not eligible for PDEM reimbursements. So this is language that would make them eligible for PDEM reimbursement. And we estimate that to be about $8,000. Then we have the building Bright Futures system analysis study is 200,000. And then the financing study, we have 500,000 appropriate. So all these dollar amounts are specifically already specifically appropriate in the bill for a total of $13.262 million. And then the last thing I just, we always, we put a little note in here, just a reminder that the federal bill is going to be passing soon. And that that would be at the most recent version, we can see as much as $80 million for childcare, for the childcare stuff, through tax credits and other assistance. And so that there could be some potential overlap there. So that's good news. No, Lynn, I'm going to interrupt you because Morgan Grossman has her hand up. And so I'm presuming it has something to do with what you have just reported. And so I wanted to give her the chance to ask the question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to let folks know that there is already a mechanism by which Building Bright Futures State Advisory Council receives funding routed through the Child Development Division specifically through the Office of the Head Start Collaboration Office Director. So there would be an opportunity to just adjust that scope of work to, to route funding through that mechanism. Thank you. And Representative Bromstead, do you have a question for Nolan about the fiscal note? Yes, just a quick one. He put little stars next to the areas that are in the governor's budget. And there's also 150,000 of the loan repayment for current providers in as well. So I just wanted to make that note. I know it's only a small amount, but every dollar helps. Well, I mean, it's not really, we're not really passing a bill with 13 million. It's only three. Sorry. Representative Wood and actually Representative Wood perhaps will let Sarah Truckel and then we'll have Representative Wood. Dr. Grossman, use your hand still up because you have another comment. Okay. And Representative Bromstead, is your hand up because you have a comment? No. Okay. So Sarah Truckel and then Representative Wood. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just going to try. We do have the money that you're speaking of Representative Bromstead in our base, but this is an addition to the base appropriation. So this is new money that is being identified here. It wouldn't, it would be an addition to the current and existing budget, at least in my understanding of I'm seeing nodding heads. Representative Wood. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just going to make that one point that Sarah Truckel just made as well. But I am also wondering if it is possible Nolan for this to be for the the dollar columns to have a column for in the Governor's existing budget column for what's in the bill that's not in the budget and then the total. Because I think it's, you know, I'm just trying to anticipate, you know, on the floor when people they always look to the bottom line and that's what they're assuming is the quote unquote new investment and it is not. And I've already had conversations with people in appropriations that that's what their impression is. So I think it would be clearer if we could adjust that how that's presented, but thank you very much for your work on this. I am happy to add that and make that adjustment when I update this for as recommended by the committee. So when it goes appropriations, I'll have that column. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm not quite sure when it goes. This is I'm not quite sure the path is taking representative Rosenquist. Thank you. Just following up on Representative Woods comments. Just wanted to ask Nolan if the federal money could cover portions of the portion is not in the governor's budget, such as the it cost and the study itself the $500,000 for the financial study. It's a great question and the answer is I don't know. I'm not familiar enough with the federal budget and what the specific languages of what the money can and cannot be used for. I think there could potentially be opportunities that but I would defer to DCF or other folks who are more familiar with what is going to be coming through than I am. Thank you. And you don't want me to talk because I will say even if the money has to be directed towards one place, then money that would have gone there, you know, you can do you move money around as it is appropriate. And as it so it could only be a help representative Rosenquist, although it might not be directed exactly at this, it could be directed somewhere else. And so that money could be put into some of this representative Wood. Madam Chair, I just wanted to I know that we're just dealing with the last section, but section two I don't think is is quite accurate at the beginning. It it or at least the way I'm reading it. It makes a sound that we are expanding from a zero copay from 100 to 150%. And we are expanding from 100 to 150%. However, currently, there is a copay. So maybe I'm the only one who was reading it this way. There is a copay at the bottom end of the of the fee scale right now. So you are looking at page two of the bill. I know I'm just I'm looking at section two of Nolan's fiscal note. Sorry, Nolan, could you put your fiscal note back up so that we all can see it since I went to the bill. So I'm just I'm asking maybe for Melissa or Sarah Truckel to just carefully review that language to ensure its accuracy. I was reading it one way and perhaps I'm just overthinking it. If it's characterized in any way, I'm happy to change it. I was just trying to outline describe what I thought was right. No, no criticism implied. A group effort. I don't know. Sarah Truckel or Melissa, if you can read this section right now, if you see it on your computer. Think it's consistent moving to that 150% of the FPL at the base. And we both I'm just Melissa's just texting me. She agrees. So we don't see this as being any concern. Okay, thank you. I thought I might be over over reading it. But thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Do we have other questions for Nolan as it relates to the fiscal note? Okay. Going back to thank you Nolan very much. Thank you for your work over the weekend and over the week. And it's really very much appreciative. Because I know we kept changing things. So thank you very much. Okay, I stopped a conversation in the middle. Representative Wood and then Representative Rosenquist. So who did you want to go? I think Representative Wood, unless she doesn't want to speak, both of you had your hands up and Representative Wood said, okay. I'll go ahead momentarily then I guess. Unless she wants to buddy. But I was just curious, Ms. Truckel had suggested the how should I say it that committee that the committee be replaced with what already exists with building bright futures. And I was curious how the chair of building bright futures feels about that. Okay. I mean, I think she was trying to say some of what she was doing that. But Dr. Grossman. Sure. Thank you for that question. And thank you for coming back to this. It is a really complicated topic, right? So for the committee, again, we have seven Vermont Early Childhood Action Plan committees that address a range of topics to support moving forward Vermont's Early Childhood Strategic Plan. Three of those committees are really integral to talking about childcare, the primary one being early learning and development, which is named in this bill or is potentially named in this bill as the body that would serve in this advisory role. In addition to that committee, the professional preparation and development committee and the families and communities committee would be important to engage in these different conversations. So in the membership of this one committee that's being defined, it is challenging to say, for example, that we would be calling for a quorum on a specific vote because there are other committees that we want to engage in that discussion, as we're making those recommendations. So we do have existing infrastructure to ask those questions and host those discussions in different ways, specifically through committee meetings, but also through holding focus groups, holding surveys and information gathering efforts. So what I was trying to articulate is that we would want the flexibility in this membership and in this bill to be able to make sure that we are engaging all of those groups. So I mean, I guess I appreciate that explanation, but it still doesn't specifically address the fact would you embrace the change suggested by Ms. Turkle that your committee as it currently exists can do the job that we've put and tasked this additional committee to. So it's a challenging answer and the answer as it stands is no because what we don't have is this prescriptive nature in our existing committees. What this bill asks for is very clear questions around child care one you know lines 14 through through one on pages 11 to 12 and that is very clearly asking the committee infrastructure to monitor specific components and bringing together very concrete membership associated with making those decisions. So the way that our committees are currently operating do address a lot of these issues, not all in one place not within one committee across multiple. So what this bill is asking for is an additional scope of work. It's asking for two and a half reports to the legislature that we do not currently do so it is an additional scope of work. What I'm saying is if the committee is set on prescribing this scope of work building bright futures can execute it by adjusting membership and if the committee is not set to prescribing the scope of work we could use our existing network and build the membership around it. But we do not have the capacity as it stands right now to without additional funding. All of a sudden do additional work with you know two reports per year and that type of thing. So it really is committee's decision about the prescriptive nature of this section of the bill but either way building bright futures can execute this role. It's just a question of how you want to move this forward and whether or not there's funding associated. I thought we were in this bill there was $200,000 extra to building bright futures to do some of this work. So you're saying if you would need additional money beyond that to do that. No. So there are two sections in this bill that Building Bright Futures is named. Section nine is hosting this advisory body. There's $25,000 a year for the two years that that advisory body would be in existence dedicated to Building Bright Futures to address the big descriptive scope of work that's in here to include additional committee members host additional meetings and provide two reports to the legislature and to the administration in that advisory role separate from that advisory body. There's also a governance or now a systems analysis study that Building Bright Futures is tasked with executing and that scope of work in and of itself is $200,000 that would be allocated to Building Bright Futures. So Dr. Grossman the question being there's $200,000 in the bill to do the work. I believe Representative Rosenquist's question was do you need money in addition to that and I'm hearing you say no. I apologize if I'm not being clear but no I'm because you're talking I'm getting it into question and quick and short answer so that we can understand it. So $200,000 we need to do section 10 which is the study and just nine as it's currently written bbf needs $25,000 a year which is and both of those are in the bill right now correct okay so no additional money outside of what is in the bill correct um and what I also heard you say Dr. Grossman is that it was your and the use of the word engage was to provide some flexibility in the way people were engaged and that maybe it would work better you might you might suggest taking out the word quorum in terms of things that that might give you the flexibility in terms of the way you engage people. Representative Wood. Thank you Madam Chair I I'm going to acknowledge first off that I'm getting frustrated by this conversation and it feels like we keep um uh it feels like you know frankly one thing's being said and then something's being backtracked and now we're you know trying to go down a different path here and I feel like um we have uh with all due respect to the department um the this is a child care bill and we have very specific things that we want to see from this committee about child care um and I granted I understand that current statute that establishes bbf is broad and provides you know a broad array of things as Dr. Grossman has said um I believe that we should keep in the specificity of what it is that we are looking for because if we don't um we don't really know what we're going to get frankly um and um with with regard to um the specificity with regard to the the composition um we have heard previous testimony from Dr. Grossman that essentially most of these things are already met and that that committee could be adjusted to include the additional members as necessary um I I think that what is intended here is that the recommendations would be coming forth from this committee um not necessarily the committee that sits above this um because this is the committee that has the broad representation including businesses um on it that may or may not exist on the on the other committee um so you know with all due respect to the input that we've been receiving in the last 45 minutes I I think that the language here is language that we have previously agreed to thank you I was just trying to follow up on what the suggestion was from Ms. Turkle so I take it that the rest of the committee doesn't uh doesn't want to pursue that further is that correct I'm just whose voice uh Representative Rosenquist I was just voicing my um personal um thoughts about it um so I don't know what the other committee members feel and um Representative Rosenquist I don't either but I do see that Representative Small has her hand up as does Representative Redmond Representative Small thank you Madam Chair um I have a motion that we remove the word quorum and that is about it from this section in relation to understanding that BBF is doing a wonderful job in getting folks to the table and if quorum is what would set them back on this process then I think that's the one word I would recommend to remove okay thank you um that is uh Katie um number um at least on an old version page 14 number three a majority of the membership shall constitute a quorum maybe the majority of attendees or something um we can get back to that Representative um sorry because clearly Representative Small and I are the same opinion I don't know if the rest of the committee is um Representative Redmond yeah I have very little to add other than I completely agree with Representative Wood her point that she made and I'm eager to move forward so just wanted to confirm that um we'll we'll start with the broad question are we ready um to broadly move um complete this discussion of this section and move forward are we making the change that Representative Small made um are we making the change um that Representative Small suggests we have thumbs up from Representative Rosenquist and Representative Small and everybody at Representative McFawn of course too um Katie do you see where we are yes I've changed a membership to attendees the majority of the attendees shall constitute a quorum um committee are you um where are we in this process um are you do how much more um what how what else do you need to go through Representative McFawn uh thank you Madam Chair uh last time we got to this point um I asked the question about the effect of dates are they okay um good question Representative McFawn I believe that Representative Brumsted said she had looked at them and they were okay but let me um um uh look to um Sarah Truckel who has disappeared Sarah Truckel has disappeared so I can't um but Melissa is here and so is Miranda okay so we're the deputy commissioner um deputy commissioner um uh Gray is here yes I'm sorry um Sarah had to leave and Melissa is now um actually en route um somewhere so we'll have a hard time answering questions timely if you restate the question for me one more time I can do my best or I will get back to you yeah that's um I think the question um uh was the last section has to do with um implementation dates and um I believe that that they are fine but um uh the question was asked yes we don't have any concerns thank you okay thank you then Madam Chair yes maybe it's time to ask the committee um we've gone through 13 sections um is anybody does anybody on the committee feel that we have not exhausted all of the information um that we could and we have put it together into a bill and uh Katie is going to final draft everything and um we make a decision are we okay with the bill to go forward now um Representative McFawn if I can summarize the the import is that um are we ready to um perhaps ask Katie if she needs anything from us um and then are we ready to move forward and make a decision that's okay okay um Representative Whitman you have your hand up thank you Madam Chair and uh I hate to do this uh hope it's simple but the last change that we recommended changing members to attendees for a quorum I'm not really sure how that would be interpreted for attendees a majority of attendees what would that mean I'm wondering if we just strike the whole line well you can say those that are attending no I I think what um that I mean that is what we have said I think the question Representative McFawn is what what what does that mean um how how will that impact the product or the work of the committees and um I would uh Representative Wood Madam Chair I think that perhaps we are being a bit too prescriptive in this section I would agree with Representative Whitman committees usually decide among themselves um how they will constitute um you know who is chairing the committee and what constitutes a quorum um Representative McFawn or Representative Greg War could you put yourself on mute because we're double hearing um did it um that's okay um Representative Wood is agreeing with Representative Whitman that we just delete that sentence at this point um I'm going to ask the Representative Wood do you still have your hand up to add something no um I'm going to ask um the Representative McFawn question before we do that oh okay Katie are we okay with that it's fine if you remove it I think it's a policy question whether you want the general assembly to decide or the committee to decide good that takes care of that so my next question is is there anything else that the committee needs to move this build forward so we don't need anything else Madam Chair I think we're ready to move the bill forward nice job everybody and all our help was too um I would um entertain a motion on um draft six Katie is it draft six it'll be 6.1 yep draft 6.1 and I see Representative Brumsted I'd like to make a motion to that the committee approve section I mean the child care bill section 6.1 or or what is it draft 6.1 sorry okay there's been there's been a motion by Representative Brumsted that the committee accept or approve draft 6.1 of H171 do I have a second already did it okay represented there's been a second by Representative McFawn um is there um any discussion as the person who made the motion can I just say thank you as well this is really the first really hard bill that we have done virtually that was complicated and we somehow worked with all folks inside and outside the committee and really unbelievable so I just thank you thank you and I am sorry that Sarah Truckel is not here because she very good naturally participated very fully in this and I appreciate her acknowledgement that that we came quite forward we didn't necessarily come all that became quite forward and I appreciate each and every member of the committee but more importantly and you know of the whether it is let's grow kids whether it is building bright futures whether it is DCF the after-school program and the childhood alliance I'm sorry Matt's group I don't know what it is and riva and riva and katie and legislative council who worked all the time but more importantly I think that this this bill represents a step forward we have set a goal and in that for the future in terms of making child care more affordable quality child care and at the same time taken some very concrete steps for the immediacy in terms of the workforce in terms of providing you know educational opportunity we're doing that and we all know that this is very important in terms of ensuring that the Vermont's recovery works for everyone and that in fact people can get back to work and that families have the resources that they need and children can grow so I think it took us a long time I felt badly from time to time I want to say especially for the new members when you see other bills that oh and we forgot to thank Nolan who just came in and joined fiscal but anyway I mean I appreciate in particular our two new members who maybe have seen other committees vote out lots of bills as we have very systematically looked at this so thank you and representative McFawn yes and madam chair I just want to add to that that I feel this bill is studying the right things before we make our final decisions we're doing a lot of studying we're doing a lot of looking into things okay so that's very very important well thank you you're welcome if there are no other comments the clerk shall begin I don't know the clerk shall begin to call the roll representative noise thank you madam chair I believe I just go right in order as it is on this sheet so I'll start with representative McFawn yes sorry representative Wood yes representative Whitman yeah representative Rosen quest I'm sorry you're muted representative sorry about that yes representative small yes representative redmond yes representative pale yeah representative greg owing what representative greg owing you know he knows that's not my name no greg war sorry no sorry representative noise yes representative brumsted yes and representative pugh yes vote is 11 0 0 thank you um thank you committee um the uh along with um the joint um the fiscal note to the bill will go to the floor for notice today I believe and the clerk will connect with legislative council um and with the committee assistant Julie Tucker in terms of next steps but committee while it will be on notice um it will be going to another committee um and uh it's last stop will be um and the row sorry thank you um and the reporter um will be um uh representative brumsted and sorry so um representative brumsted you will work with um the the clerk the clerk takes the bill to the to the clerk's office do the house clerk's office um but we'll take the bill um connect with legislative council in terms of that um tomorrow we will um go to the other end of the age spectrum is that right representative wood um yes most mostly not all but mostly okay um oh okay um and um and because we're going to start working on a um a much simpler bill um of which um our goal is that we get it out by the um end of the week it is our second um priority uh area um and then representative noise are we starting your bill um I'm sorry are we start are we starting um the office of child advocate this this week or next week I believe it's on the calendar for this week okay we're doing that um and um I will be asking it's either tomorrow or the next day um a member of the appropriations committee who wants to uh has a proposal for the budget um representative yakiboni wanted to know if I approved it what I thought of it and I'm like I'm not I'm not speaking for the committee um so but congratulations committee um with that um I will see you tomorrow at 9am and this ends um our work for the time being on um H171 and representative brumsted um are you something around policy and this bill right now I'm not sure if it's policy so that's why I raised my hand quick I just wanted to mention that representative paella is going to help introduce the or report the bill on the floor okay and I didn't know if that needed to be said here or not okay we can we'll figure out how we can all work that out but I would like us to um um allow the um our guests to be able to leave because we are finished our um discussion and our work on H171 as we um have just voted it out unanimously thank you very much it ends