 Good morning. Welcome to the Vermont House Human Services Committee. And it is Tuesday, March 23rd. And we are having a presentation from Katie McClinn, from Legislative Council, on what the final resolution of what the amendment to H171 is. And this is the amendment that appropriations will be presenting. It'll be appropriations amendment. We'll be talking about it on the floor. But we need to have a straw poll. We talked about it in general on Friday without the benefit of Legislative Council. And you all, for folks listening, it is on our web page. And committee members, it's on our web page. And Katie can go through it for us now. Good morning. Katie McClinn, Office of Legislative Council, let me pull up the screen. Are you seeing committee on appropriations up at the line, too? Great. OK, so I will run us through this amendment. What I might do is try to highlight what is the same as your underlying version and kind of skip over those sections and then try to highlight the changes. So the Section 1 is legislative intent that has not changed. That is the same as your underlying language. Section 2 and 3, well, let me start with Section 2. Section 2 is the Child Care Financial Assistance Program. If you remember, this is where we flip to a family benefit versus a per child benefit. And this is where there's no longer a copay for families under 150% of FPL and where the upper limit of the program is now up to 350% of current FPL. This language is all the same. This hasn't changed since the committee worked on this. In Section 3, this was language. It still pertains to the CCFAT program, but this is language about how payments to providers is calculated. This is mostly the same. There had been a sentence in subdivision C1, not a sentence. There had been a second clause on line 10 that referred to updating the market rate survey with frequency and having the payment to providers keep up to date with that. Every time the market rate survey was updated, so that language has been gone. And now on lines 8 to 9, the language had been the payment schedule established by the commissioner may reimburse providers in accordance with the market rate survey. The previous version said shall reimburse providers. So this has taken a step back there. Now it's not required but permitted. Katie, Representative Small has a question. Sure. Katie, a small question. When we use the language of results from the most recent Vermont child care market survey, are we not asking them to update it, or is it just implied that if it's the most recent, it would be updated? Let me read this. I see your point. Let me look at the exact language that was cut to be able to answer that. Here's the as-proved human services version. So the language that was cut after Vermont child care market rate survey, the clause was and be adjusted following the release of each new Vermont child care market rate survey. So this language is saying in accordance with the most recent results and then the new language was and every time there is a new result that we're making that adjustment following the release of each new survey. I do take your point though that it almost seems that that second clause wasn't necessary because we're still saying the most recent survey in lines 10, 9 to 10. Am I understanding your point there? Yes, just clarifying that our language previously wasn't instructing to update and that this is still in line with the original intent. So it sounds like that. Thanks so much for sharing, Katie. So thank you. You're welcome. In subdivision C2, there was also another reference to the market rate survey. And I think as we discussed earlier that it was a second clause of the first sentence that that language was duplicative to what we had in C1. So that language was struck. So that is another change. Section four is the appropriation for sections two and three for the CCFAT program. And that language has not changed since the human services version. Is that? Nope, there has been a change. I'm sorry. So in subdivision, excuse me, subsection B, the intent of the general assembly, subdivision two previously, we had language that this subdivision two would take effect on fiscal year, by fiscal year 2023. And that date has been updated to October 1st, 2021. As the money, the funds would be available sooner than the fiscal year 2023 date. And there had been a third item in this legislative intent list. And that was that by fiscal year 2026, a family shall spend not more than 10% of the family's gross annual income on child care. And that language has been removed. Section five, there is also a change. I can't remember if I walked through with this committee. So first, the version that came out of human services in subsection A had an appropriation for the Bright Futures Information System. And then another version that I think you looked at on Friday, I can't remember, had like an approval, was that subsection seven? Hold that thought. I'm sorry. So section A had an appropriation. And that language of the appropriation has been moved to the Technology Modernization Reserve. So the appropriation itself doesn't go away. It just means it's not particularly addressed in this bill. Instead, it says funds for the modernization of the Bright Futures Information System are located within the Technology Modernization Reserve. So we're just cross-referencing that that appropriation sort of lives somewhere else right now. And then subsection B has not changed since the committee worked on it. Section six is the workforce supports. This has not changed since the committee looked at it. This is the three programs. I'm going to scroll through this. And I'll get to section seven. This is where I was going before. I was getting my section five and my section seven confused. So a previous version that I think you looked at on Friday morning had language about a process set up with joint fiscal determining the right source of funding to use for the appropriations related to the workforce development programs. That process, the language around that process has been removed from this version of the bill. So instead, what you see here is just the appropriation for the bill. What you will see at the very end of this version of the amendment is a new section that says, basically we're going to use federal funds. But if we find out actually these programs aren't eligible for federal funds, we're going to use general fund to fund these programs. So that's a piece we'll look at. I think it's section 15 off the top of my head. But otherwise the appropriations have remained the same. Katie, there's a question from Teresa. Katie just said what I was just going to point out to committee members that everything here remained the same to our original thing. So also thank you. Good, thank you. So subsection B, this is the same. This is the end user group. Is that right? Yes. No, this is not the end user group. This is the report back on the effectiveness of the three programs prior to the two of them being repealed. So evaluating the effectiveness and recommending whether the program should go on or be repealed as they are in this bill. So that language is the same. That has not changed. Section eight is the repeals of the workforce programs. These sections have not changed. Next, we have a new section. This is the building bright futures powers and duties. And I believe the committee did see at least a version of this on Friday. So basically what happened is in the version that the committee passed out, there was a temporary advisory group that was going to be hosted by a subset of building bright futures. And as part of setting up those responsibilities, there was a lot of focus on building bright futures looking at the administration and operation of the childcare system. Since that advisory group was no longer part of this amendment, there's language being added in statute to the ongoing responsibilities of the building bright futures council with regard to try to pick up that responsibility. So it's part of their ongoing responsibility. So this is a list of powers and responsibilities of the group. And under current law, this group is to advise the administration and the general assembly on. And we have subdivision A is existing law, what they're advising the administration and general assembly on. And I've added a new subdivision B that they're also providing advice on planning related to the administration and operation of Vermont's childcare system. In addition, under existing law, this group is responsible to develop an early care health and education system plan. And now we've added new language which shall reflect the growing diversity of Vermont's children and families. And also in the work you did in the testimony that you took, you heard from the business community of wanting to be included in these conversations. So now in codified law, we have a reference to the business community. So building bright futures is responsible to convene members of the childcare community, medical community, education community and now business community and other organizations to ensure that families receive high quality, excuse me, quality services in the most efficient and cost effective manner. So that's the new language and the bright futures responsibilities and duties. And then we have a new section 10. And this is maybe different from what we looked at on Friday. So there are federal funds coming in through the American Rescue Plan Act that can be used for childcare. I believe the version that this committee saw on Friday was only one section and one group that was being created to look at how the funding could be used under the federal law and to determine what purposes the state could use these funds for. So that one group has kind of been split apart into two groups and they sort of have the same focus. The section 10 group is looking at the childcare development block grant funds that are coming in through the American Rescue Plan Act. And then in section 11, the group is looking at the childcare stabilization grant funds. Let me make sure of that correct. Yeah, childcare stabilization grants that are also coming in through the American Rescue Plan Act. So we've just divided that group up and they have sort of a different focus. They're looking at different funds, but also they have sort of different charges. They're both providing recommendations, but the way they go about doing that and when the money can be spent is different. So this first group, we have the DCF in coordination with Building Bright Futures is to convene a childcare working group composed of mutually agreed to stakeholders that reflect the growing diversity of Vermont's children and families, including individuals who are black, indigenous and persons of color. And that members of this group shall include a representative from both this committee and Senate Health and Welfare as well as individuals representing families, childcare and afterschool providers, the business community, child welfare advocates and consultation with any other individuals necessary to make recommendations for most effectively utilizing the childcare development block grant fund received by the state under the federal law to meet the immediate and future childcare needs of Vermonters. In subsection B, this is the powers and duties of the group. So the group is to make recommendations to the general assembly to ensure that the hot of money that it's looking at that's coming in through the federal laws fully utilized. And the group is to consider the following priorities, but it doesn't have to be limited to only looking at these priorities. So this is a list I believe the committee looked at on Friday and this list hasn't changed, but I'll go through it again. In subdivision one, funding necessary to ensure that the copay for family participating in CCFAP shall not exceed 10% of a family's annual gross income. Subdivision two, expanding CCFAP to families whose incomes are up to 400% of current FPL. Three, funding necessary to complete childcare and early childcare education systems analysis and financing studies that were going, that were part of your original bill in sections 13 and 14 of this amendment. Funding necessary to implement the workforce supports that are in this bill, increased access to high quality infant care, access to high quality affordable childcare for culturally and racially diverse families, support and assistance to stabilize regulated privately operated center-based programs and family childcare homes. And identification of any statutory or regulatory barriers and using the federal funds to address the immediate and future childcare needs of remonters. So an earlier version you looked at had a report coming back April 30th and then another report coming back November 30th. The April 30th report back is gone and the language here is that by November 30th, DCF is to submit a written report to the Appropriations Committees and Policies Committees containing the workgroup's recommendations. And then in terms of meetings, we have the commissioner and executive director of Building Bright Futures are calling the first meeting and serving as co-chairs. The majority of the membership constitutes a quorum and the working group ceases to exist on December 1st of this year. So that's the first of these two groups looking at federal funding. The second of the two groups is looking at the childcare stabilization grants, as I said earlier. And this intro language is a little bit different. We still have DCF working in coordination with Building Bright Futures to convene the group of mutually agreed to stakeholders. And the stakeholders are to reflect the growing diversity of Vermont's children and families. The members of the working group, like the group before it are to include a representative of this committee and Senate Health and Welfare. But the other stakeholders, it's a little bit more narrow. So we have childcare and after-school providers in consultation with other individuals, but we don't have a representative of families or the business community or child health and excuse me, child welfare here. And we have this group looking to make a recommendation to most effectively utilize the childcare stabilization grant funding received under the federal act to meet the immediate and future needs of childcare needs of Vermonters. In terms of responsibility, we have this group making recommendations to ensure that the use of this federal pot of money is fully utilized in a timely manner. The spending of this money is more time sensitive as my understanding speaking to Sarah Truckel from the Department for Children and Families. And then we have language about a report coming and also approval for spending this money. So by September 1st, the department is to submit a written report to the Joint Fiscal Committee and to the chairs of this committee and Health and Welfare containing the working group's recommendations. Upon receipt of this report, Joint Fiscal has five days to approve or reject the work group's recommendations. If the committee, the Joint Fiscal Committee does not act within the five days, the recommendation is deemed approved and the department shall distribute the funds according to the recommendations. And if the Joint Fiscal Committee rejects the recommendations within the five-day window, it shall hold a meeting as soon as possible to receive testimony from the department. And then similar to the other working group we have the commissioner of DCF, executive director of Building Bright Future serving as co-chairs. And then this working group shall cease to exist on January 1, 2022. In terms of studies and reports, section 12 is what we were calling the, I guess the mini-study when it was moving through human services. It had two parts when it was moving through human services. It had also a look at co-pays. And so this version is only looking at the enrollment-based model versus the attendant-based model. Section 13 is the systems analysis. Section 14 is the financing study. These sections have been kind of truncated. They're a little bit shorter than the versions that were in your underlying amendment that came out of the committee, but in substance they should remain the same. I believe I walked through these on Friday. And if that memory is correct then these are both the same as you saw on Friday. So I might just scroll past them for now if that's okay. And then the section 15 language that I referenced before with regard to how we're funding the workforce programs. This is kind of what I was referencing before. So in section 15, we have language that to the extent the appropriation in the act is made from federal funds provided under the American Rescue Plan including state holding funds that are established as a result of the federal act. The commissioner of finance and management is authorized to make expenditures in anticipation of receipts as necessary. And in the event the money is received by the state under the federal act cannot be used for their designated purpose. Appropriations shall instead be made from the general fund. So this is saying that those programs will be funded either way either through the using the federal American Rescue Plan Act money or by the general fund. And the preference is given to using the federal funds if possible. And if not the fallback is general funds. And then this allows carry forward from fiscal year 2021. The effective dates should look familiar. We had a technical fix on line 17 changing October 1, 2022 to October 1, 2021 which was an error in the underlying committee report. And then the other change is just to reflect the fact that sections 10 and 11 which are the two working groups that are looking at the funding coming through the American Rescue Plan Act need to take effect right away. So we're having those take effect on passage. And that's it. Thank you, Katie. Representative Brumsted. Thank you. Katie, just a quick question about section 10 and 11. So we're looking on those two studies. The first study, the one that has to do with the childcare development block grant has all the specific things we want the committee to look at. But the second one, the childcare stabilization grants doesn't have all those specific. Is that because they don't have to look at those issues? Maybe that's a Teresa question. Thank you, Representative Brumsted. When we put the amendment together they were all part of one group. DCF wanted to separate them out because they have different timelines associated with them. And frankly, we weren't part of developing the second piece. Okay, so they really, I just wanna be sure if I today even get that question. I noticed that last night I was like, oh, it's only in one section, not the other side. Yes, no. And there are different guidelines for how each set of grants can be used. And that's the purpose of the workgroup. So we'll be able to have influence in those workgroups since we will have a rep there. Okay, and then lastly, on that same two points. Do we think that the same people will be in those same two groups? So they'll be different. No, they'll be different. Okay, thank you. Other questions? I just wanted to clarify, Madam Chair. I said they'll be different, but there will be crossover between the two. For instance, the people from DCF will be the same and likely the reps from the House and the Senate will be the same, I just want it. The purpose of the two groups is a little different and the expertise that is needed will undoubtedly be different. And we're trying to go on a new path which is not being totally prescriptive, which is hard for me, but we are trying to do that. If there are no further questions, I would entertain a straw, well, why don't we have a straw poll? And I no longer see Dan here. So, why don't we, I can't hear you, Teresa. I was just thinking we could just raise our hands. I was gonna say, I learned from other committees, we can just raise our hands. Representative Grigory, are you raising your hand or do you have a question? You're raising your hand. Okay, so all those who on a straw poll support the Appropriations Committee Amendment to H171. Please let me know. Me, I'm up there too. All those, please, please put your hands down. Representative- My hand function isn't working this morning. So I was raising my hand for the first option, but it didn't work. I wasn't looking at you, I was looking at some other members who were slower to take their hand down. And all those who do not support the amendment, the Appropriations Committee Amendment. Okay, so with toppers, with Representative McFawn's text to me, which says that upon reading that he supports it right now, we have a vote of 10. And being that this is a straw poll and not a formal poll, assuming that we see Dan before tomorrow, when he has, or even this afternoon, if people ask on the floor, we will add that because it's not a formal vote. So thank you all for your hard work on this. And I will see you this afternoon. If we are off the floor, that's probably, I'll probably see you on the floor and tomorrow, but if we are off the floor, let's say by 3.45, we will come back. But otherwise, I'll see you tomorrow. And I believe we're supposed to be on the floor right now. So this.