 For the record, as you can see, there are a few of us here in the room this morning. Our Chair, Representative Anne Pugh, our Vice Chair, Representative Teresa Wood, our Ranking Member, Representative Frances McFawn, and me, Representative Bremstead. We are all here because we care so much about this important legislation. Everyone on the House Human Services Committee has worked hard to bring forward H171, an act relating to the governance and financing of Vermont's child care system. As you know, these past couple of days have been a bit frenetic, as we work to understand the American Rescue Plan and its impact on H171. With help from Kimberly, we each member of the Human and all of the Human Services Committee have amended the bill. As we hear often in this virtual building, it has been a true team sport. Representative McFawn earlier today said this is the essence of our democracy, our ability to compromise. Hence, we are all here to answer, to help answer questions about this important work so that we can together bring forward the best legislation possible. And just quickly, I wanted to start by thanking all of you on the Appropriations Committee for all of your work over the past few years, like so many of us who have worked to improve our child care system. I'm sure many of you remember back in March of 2019 when our committee worked to meld together six different child care bills from many of our colleagues to come up with one, H531, a very similar bill to H171 that passed the full House 133-0. And the Appropriations Committee was right there with us to support this important work. And we are hoping today you will be with us again as we look to the next step in child care reform. H171, a bill that was cosponsored by 95 members, hence seems to carry the same overwhelming support from Republicans, Democrats, progressives, and independents, a priority for the House and Senate as well as our governor. The bill continues implementation of the five-year redesign we started two years ago and is a real support for working families. In its expansion of the Child Family Assistance Program, we are assuring that no family that earns less than 150% of the federal poverty rate will have to pay any copayment. Reach-up families, for example, that are trying to get back to work to lift their family out of poverty are presently paying a copay of $25 per child per week. This makes it close to impossible for them to figure out how to work and take care of their children. This bill will allow those folks to not pay any copay and will expand those that qualify for some subsidy to a family earning up to 350% of the federal poverty level and possibly even look at going all the way to 400%. As you know, solving the child care crisis is inextricably linked to creating a thriving economy with the workforce necessary to support growing businesses and that begins with a skilled child care workforce that is paid enough with the necessary benefits so that they too can have families that thrive in Vermont. 90% of this workforce is female. Nationwide early childhood educators are the lowest paid graduates of any college degree program and in Vermont the median annual wage for a preschool teacher trained is about $18 an hour, often without benefits. Comparatively the median annual wage for a kindergarten teacher is $30 an hour plus benefits. That's more than a $20,000 difference in wages, not including the value of the benefits. I believe both of our committees agree that the policy embedded in this bill makes lots of sense. Loan repayment and scholarship funds for both current and prospective early childhood providers will go a long way in helping the workforce make ends meet. You will also find in this bill a financing study that will among other things look into how we can have a long term financing strategy that expands financial assistance to more Vermont families and looks at how we can help early childhood providers receive benefits and compensation that are commensurate with their peers in other fields such as primary education so that we won't continue to lose some of our best trained providers to the public school system. But before I get ahead of myself talking about the details of the bill, let me turn to Katie to walk us through each of the sections. Thank you. Is it best if I share my screen or it sounds like folks may have the document already open on a second screen? I believe that I know that we have been emailed the document and we generally tend to prefer not to do screen shares. Okay, Madam Chair, can I just so that people aren't confused because there are two drafts online. There is the one that was passed at the amendment that was passed out of the House Committee on Human Services when it had possession of the bill and I believe the one they're about to review is the amendment they're proposing as the members from that committee. So I just want to make it perfectly clear for the people that are out there too what you are reviewing. Thank you. That's very helpful. So I am looking at draft number 3.1 dated today at 10.23 a.m. Is that correct? That is the draft and that is the amendment that the 11 members of House Human Services on a straw poll since we don't have the bill are presenting. Thank you. And we will have to sort how we manage this since you don't have possession. We do. We'll figure out what it will be. We absolutely will and we will do it. Our proposal will be to do it the same way we last year did another bill related to older Vermonters. Okay. I don't remember but we'll sort it out when we get there. Yeah. Thank you. So Ms. McClendon if you'll take us through this please. I would be happy to. And if I may we need to understand it and I appreciate the absolute importance of this work but give us try to stay up high on the broad issues until we get to the issues that affect money. And then we need to probably go down deeper into that and understand those. Sure. Thank you. So the first section is a legislative intent section. I won't spend time here. I'll move on to section 2 which is the child care financial assistance program or CCFAT. This is eligibility language that's codified in current law and you'll see that there are changes that are made in subdivision A2 of this section. So kind of the big picture of what's happening here. Currently the subsidy payments are based on each child and this flips it so that it becomes a family copayment versus based on each individual child. So it's kind of regardless on the size of the family. And you'll see I'm down on lines 14 through 18 says that families are found eligible using an income eligibility scale based on current federal poverty level and adjusted for family size and that the copayments are assigned to the whole family. That's what we just mentioned and shall not increase if more than one eligible child is enrolled. And families with an annual gross income of less than or equal to 150% of the current federal poverty guidelines would not have any family copayment under this proposal. And it also lifts or increases the upper income limit. So in this sentence at beginning on line 20 families with an annual gross income up to and including 350% of the current FPL adjusted for family size is eligible for the subsidy. Section three is also in codified law and there's some changes made. There's a new subsection C added that discusses how payments to providers are calculated. So under this language the payment schedule is established by the commissioner and may reimburse providers in accordance with the market rate survey and in subdivision to the payment schedule is to include reimbursement rate caps tiered in relation to the stars program and the lower limit of that rate cap is not to be less than the 50th percentile for similarly situated providers. Section three is the appropriation section for the previous two sections. So the previous two sections on CC FAP and provider payments under CC FAP. So in fiscal year 2022 5.5 million approximately is appropriated from the general fund to the child development division to implement sections two and three. And there's also legislative intent language and subsection B. So this language says that in the intent of the general assembly that in some division B1 consideration be made in fiscal years 2023 through 2026 to progressively adjust the upper income limit of CC FAP program fee scale each year. So continue the the proposal this year was to increase it to 350 so to progressively adjust and increase that upper income limit. And secondly it's the intent of the general assembly that by October 1st of this coming year the co-payment at the upper limit of the income eligibility scale for families participating in CC FAP is not to exceed 10% of the family's gross income. The next piece is section five this is the building right. Let me ask you to pause there. I should it may be as section by section if we see questions we can take them. Representative Harrison. Yeah thank you Katie I just want to understand section four. This number the five and a half million does that was that calculated using that 10% for a maximum for anybody up to 350% of the federal poverty poverty level. I believe this is all in line with the governor's proposal this year and I'll look to my chair and vice chair of human services to confirm that but I believe the 350% of FBL was part of the governor's package that was proposed and that 5.5 covers that. Yes yes that is true. Representative counsel is correct. Okay and secondly when we say consideration are we talking about raising the 350% or raising the dollar value of the 350% as there's just some inflationary pressures. To me the way it reads is that we're adjusting the upper income limit the 350% to be a higher a higher number. Okay thank you. Our other question went away okay. Representative Squirrel. Yeah just a small issue page three line 10 at the end you have shallon may I think it's got to be one of the other. Oh goodness oh you are yes you are right that's a type of on my part. Thank you very much. So the the version that the committee agreed to was the may may reimburse so I will fix that as soon as we're done here. And if I may reinforce this was a compromise on the part of the this was a this morning compromise on the part of House Human Services in recognition that this was something that the administration had had some being told what to do in future years. We had heard both from members of the Appropriations Committee as well as the administration that they didn't want a shall. Okay and may I will you please give me the reference to where this is. Yes we're on page three section three and in subdivision C1 line 10 I have a typo says that the commissioner shall may so the version that the committee agreed to this morning was may and I will need to strike out the word shall. Got it I actually am looking at an earlier version so I don't have your typo. Okay I hadn't made it yet. Okay exactly yeah. Representative Feltas. Yes thank you just as a point of reference can you tell me what the 350% of poverty level is for either a single individual or family of four? How is that calculated? I cannot give you that I wonder I see that Nolan's on maybe I'll see if he's available to answer that. Colleges what was the question again? Peter what is the point of reference what is 350% of poverty level in dollar amounts? So for 300 is 38,600 400 is 51,500 so I can get you the exact 350 in a second what I can do even better is I'll send a chart to the committee. We used to keep that chart taped to our desks. I will resend the chart right I'll add 350 then send the chart out. Yeah thank you. Okay thank you I think we're ready to continue Ms. McClendon. Sure so we are up to section five which is on page four and this has to do with the bright futures information system so this language says that in this coming fiscal year fiscal year 2022 4.5 million is appropriated to the agency of digital services to complete the modernization plan in subsection B subdivision one by October 1 of this year CDD is to make every reasonable effort to achieve full functionality of the first module of the modernization program and in subdivision two we have the creation of an end user group to provide feedback to the division on its rollout of the modernization program I don't know if you want any deeper information on that I think should I pause yeah I think we're good you're good okay so the next series of sections have to do with workforce supports for childhood providers or child care providers or persons thinking of entering the field so the first section section six creates language and statue it sets up three different programs two scholarship programs and a loan forgiveness program in section seven we look at appropriation language for these programs and then in section eight we look at our repeal these programs two of the three programs are time limited so they I kind of think of them together as a unit I won't go too deep into the specifics of the program but the first of the three programs in section six is a scholarship for current early childhood providers so this is a person who is working in a regulated either center-based program or family child care home and who's also working to acquire credits and early childhood development so that's the first program the second program and let me tell you where I am page six line nine um this is scholarships for perspective early childhood providers so this is the person who's not in the field yet but who would like to enter the field um so this is a need-based scholarship for individuals pursuing a college degree in either early childhood education or early childhood special education and this program provides financial assistance up to the full cost of tuition there's language about the eligibility criteria there's a clawback provision if somebody receives scholarship it doesn't complete their commitment to work in a regulated program for the requisite number of years after completion of their degree and then there's language there's language in all three of these sections that you can't simultaneously participate in a scholarship program and the loan repayment assistance program so the last of the three programs in statute um on line 17 of page eight is the student loan repayment assistance program um under this program an individual um there's eligibility criteria the person has to be working in a regulated program for at least an average of 30 hours a week for 48 weeks of the year they have to receive an annual salary of not more than 50 000 and have learned have earned an associates or bachelor's degree um with various major concentrations that are listed in the language um and then to be eligible the individual is to submit their interest into the department the department issues a repayment award notification letter and the participant may receive up to four thousand dollars annually in student loan repayment assistance which is distributed quarterly um let's see and then similar language about only participating in one program at a time so that takes us to section seven which is the appropriation and evaluation of these programs um mr clen thank you a bunch of hands went up okay thank you uh representative harrison thank you um katie maybe i was getting ahead of myself so i'm now in section seven um am i just a simple question uh the two and a half million here is that one time for an initial program or is that an ongoing appropriation um i can talk to us a little bit further but if you see online six this is an appropriation for fiscal year 22 but as um i mentioned earlier and when we get to section eight the repeals section you'll notice that one of these programs is ongoing and the other two are set to um be repealed july 1 2026 so that would suggest that these programs would need to be funded beyond fiscal year 2022 okay so it's basically for now for the next four or five years it's an ongoing expense correct okay thank you representative fagan thank you so um katie if you look back on page six of 19 line one it says the division what division and then there are other references to the department and what department in other words i'm asking here should this be more clear or is there reference somewhere else to the division that's going to be doing the the contracting for the administration in the department that's going to be overall responsible for it um so this is set up in um statue in title 33 and there's already a definition section that i believe already defines department and as dcf and division as cdd and i can confirm that um once i have a moment just to flip back into the statutes when you do confirm if it's anything different than that please let me know if not i'm good thank you okay thanks and representative shy thank you um katie i'm going back to page eight um and your line 15 a participant may receive up to four thousand dollars annually um is there a cap and annually for how long this i a participant under this could um participate in in multiple years and each year receive four thousand um up to four thousand um how long i think the fact that this program is set to repeal in july 1 2026 um you know would indicate that at some point these funds wouldn't be this program wouldn't be available anymore but in this language itself it doesn't limit somebody to participating to say one year or two years could it be four years uh there isn't a limitation um so i'm just trying to calculate years so this is fiscal year 22 and we have it expire um july 1 26 i think it could be four years yeah and if it was extended beyond 26 it could be longer so that's why i'm just wondering if there was a discussion maybe you know on on capping it for individuals or a time frame for that but it doesn't sound like there was um chair pew was that was there a discussion about capping this or i am going to say that the um discussion related to the year that it repeals and how long um is is that and i will look to uh representative um would and representative from sted to correct me if i am wrong that that's this is uh representative would that's correct madam chair and it also um requires the department to adopt policies and procedures related to the program okay so your assumption i think therefore would be that they would put some sort of management mechanism in place um do you think they need authority to say i think um you you're limited on how much of a grant you can receive what we're thinking about is particularly if this is not capped that one could receive this um loan um indefinitely and at some point or would they have the department will authorize this and when they don't know off the right so that's how it's managed yes and and it is on a first come first serve basis and um we are relying upon the department to implement what seems to be um logical uh rules uh not goal excuse me guidelines with regard to how this is implemented representative um if i might just add um sometimes our committee likes to micromanage um oh we chose not to and um we worked with um the department um on this section we have never micromanaged a single thing in the work that we do i would no idea what you're talking about um a question i have is did you take testimony from the department about their capacity to administer this program and are they able to do what we are asking them to do in these sections they testified that they were interesting one one of the things that we've experienced as you will recall we've set up um loan and scholarship programs elsewhere and statute for other things and um we're in fact going to be fixing in the budget something that we worked on four years ago with you about yeah um so we worry about the capacity of people to do this work but the DCF has said they can administer these three programs they have sufficient staff to do this work madam chair um uh the um bill gives them flexibility to administer these programs or to contract for the administration of these programs um and one of the programs um is in existence now is one that has been in existence for some time um and the other the other two are new so the department does currently contract out for the administration of the uh first scholarship program and we do give them the flexibility to um decide whether to do this in-house or to contract out for the administration of the programs okay thank you so the scholarship programs program described in six is an existing one uh yes okay great there is currently in the governor's budget $150,000 for that program and they can administer so or so this is just a continuation of the existing program it's not an expansion in in uh the the first one under workforce um the the program is current the $150,000 is existing uh and we are as you will see in section seven when um legislative council gets to that we are adding money to that program that's what I thank you all right so we should let you go to section seven because that's yeah thank you I do have an answer to representative Fagan's question um the definition uh there is an applicable definition of division that would apply to these sections there is not interestingly an applicable definition of department but I just went through and we're okay with the first section it doesn't the first of the three programs doesn't use department the third of the three programs indicates that we're talking about DCF the first time um department is used so I think that piece is okay um where I might suggest a change would be on page seven line one that's the second of the three programs and that first time that department is used there just adding for children and families after department and then we could reference um the department after that without worrying about which department we're referring to thank you um okay so on to section seven that is on the middle of page nine is where we start um so what this language does um I guess I should just pause and recognize that there's a in section 10 which we haven't looked at yet we're creating um there's the creation of a working group a child care working group that would look at the funding that's coming through um from the American Rescue Plan Act and how that money should be used so what this language does is it says that by December 15th of this coming year the commissioner finances to present a recommendation to human services and health and welfare consistent with the plan of the working group pursuant to section 10 as to whether the source of funding for these three workforce programs are to come from the general fund or the monies provided through the federal American Rescue Plan Act and then upon approval of the commissioner's recommendation by both of the committees the commissioner would submit a written certification to the joint fiscal committee as to the commissioner's recommendation and the requisite approval by both committees and once that written certification is submitted to jfc the appropriation um that we've looked at already in subsection b would be able to take effect and then in subsection b we have the appropriation itself in fiscal year um and the amount the breakdown by the three different programs okay why don't I ask you to pause there for a second sure um save their questions and i uh representative jessup right so i just want to just make sure we put on the record this is an or online 17 on page nine so depending how things unfold with the rest of the bill we'll get to um the intention here is that if the parameters fit with the american rescue plan that's how it's currently constructed with an or and i just want to make sure that's flagged yeah thank you and then in in sub b in fiscal year 22 it appropriates it proposes an appropriation of 300 000 the current year appropriation is 150 am i correct on that one okay um and so can you talk to us about why it would be doubled uh and i think that's a committee member who might have something okay i was just i was looking at my chair and i was trying to decide if she was going to respond or i can respond we received a testimony from the current programs that there's actually a backlog of individuals who are awaiting the ability to participate in this particular program the other two programs are new but this program they already have individuals who are waiting to participate in this probably frankly probably more than what the appropriation is putting forth here okay how many people are covered by the 150 000 in the existing appropriation i can get back to you with that information i don't have it off the top of my head and i guess we would similarly be interested in how many people could be served by the new appropriations and perhaps a sense of how that fits in the universe of what the need is thank you yeah thank you we will get back to you um represent uh upper um remember um the um the department will have some flexibility on how they structure this program as to the amounts that can be awarded and how it's how it's managed yeah so they could theoretically offer less and and spread it out over more people there's not um is there a minimum amount that is offered under each per participant it's it's capped at a max right yeah it is it is capped at a max and i think for for and i appreciate your comments for us the um when you say how many i'll go back to what representative wood said there is a backlog there are people who want to do this work who cannot um and we all know that um the lack of that there are that we need more quality affordable child care and one reason we don't have it is we don't have people who are um either keeping the jobs being able to stay in their jobs or enter their jobs yes and i would just add to madam uh chair pews um comment that uh as representative brumstead pointed out in our opening comments the wages that these people are currently earning prohibits them from seeking any kind of higher education um because of those wages and so um they're they're not able to further themselves in this field and uh as i don't need to um comment on the the status of this workforce uh like many other workforces is uh significantly lower than what we need yeah please do not infer from my asking questions of lack of support or criticism i'm just trying to understand um what is being accomplished as well as what the need is not not these are not judgmental questions um so thank you i'm not seeing any additional questions from the committee so i think we can move to the next section okay um so section we were still in section seven um there's a subdivision c this is just a report back before the programs are set to um be repealed um assessing the effectiveness of the programs and then um asking whether they should be repealed in accordance with the next section of the act or if they should be retained and funded in their current state or retained but amended in some way next um is section eight and this is the repeals language um this language has been a little tricky to understand um because only the latter two programs are being repealed the um subsection b and c the scholarship for perspective early childhood providers and student loan or payment assistance if you look at a we're just repealing um sub section d not the whole program which is the reference to the other two programs since they're going away okay thank you the next section um has to do with the powers and duties of the building bright futures um organization they currently have a list of powers and duties and statute this um just adds to it um this adds um responsibility of giving advice um to the administration general assembly um planning related to the administration and operation of vermont's child care system um it also um there's existing language on develop uh an early care health and education system plan and the language added was which shall reflect the growing diversity of vermont's children and families and um in subsection subdivision 12 um there is a current duty that has to do with convening members of the child care community medical community education community etc and the committee added business community to this list the next section is section 10 this is what i referenced earlier about a working group to look at um monies um coming from the american rescue plan act mrs mcclinney i just asked you to pause before we move there um i certainly am not and i am guessing that other members of the appropriations committee are not familiar with building um bright futures and it's um in and i see that it is a statutorily constructed group i i am kind of curious about is it part of state government is it can you kind of can someone please describe it's what it is um and its relationship to state government it set up as a public private partnership um and it is um responsible for convening and providing research and information on the child care and early education systems i think it's broader than that um i i don't have much more to add without pulling up the statutes but i'm sure the committee members could elaborate a bit on that um um if i may um representative brumsted um has been our liaison um to and if she can respond to that sure so um katie did a wonderful job actually uh letting you know the beginnings anyway that um bbf has been named to undertake um various analysis and evaluate and make recommendations to um the house and senate um regarding early care and education governance and overall early care so from nutrition to child care um and they do they go out they have um groups all over the state made up of um people who are impacted by the programs and they do focus groups and all kinds of research the um morgan colman who i think has been in to talk with your committee um is the executive director of that program and there is a state advisory council where there are four legislators who sit on it and i'm actually one of the legislators the other three spots right now are vacant um but but generally they're they're our arm to come to us they do all this research and then they come to us each year um usually uh inviting us to a big event in september where they lay out what they've learned and the policy um recommendations but they are both public private a partnership that we created uh back after the blue before the blue ripping commission actually and that was the first big project um and if i might um add or summarize to what representative brumsted um outlined um very nicely it's it's our state advisory council for early childhood um it's the primary um advisor to the governor and the legislature around um um early childhood um and we have uh we while we all of us received um a very full document earlier this uh session that in this particular um time focused um on uh mental health um and so this is um morgan croceman who is the uh executive director okay that answers that um and if i um if i might in um the ability of people um who know i need lots of help um your question about numbers um in terms of the uh scholarship 450,000 um in terms of how how it is being run this year the the program um would uh would fund 50 associate degrees 20 licensures and 25 bachelor's degrees so that kind of that's kind of the breakdown thank you will you say that again um this is this is what we um got from uh sonia whose name escapes me now back like i can pull out her first name is amazing 450,000 um fund 50 associate degrees 20 licensures people towards licensure and 25 bachelor's degrees sonia reymond sorry thank you this is this is this is why we're all here yep it's the way we work too so 50 and the um and the 150 proposed by the administration would fund a small portion of it they would fund some licensure and associates and um it'd be a um it's the a we'd have to maintain um which is why we've gone up we have to maintain a uh waiting list and so that's some of the numbers okay thank you just why we went up because there's a yeah so 50 associates degrees 20 licensures and what was the 25 um um the 25 was um b a's i believe now i have to go back to my um phone a friend yes madam chair the 25 was bachelor's degrees and you said 450 a 450,000 i think yep um i'm that's what we're doing with the current money yes i thought the current and the current money is what 150 i'm now what is the current money the current money is 150 and this bill seeks to add 300 so um the figures that rep you just gave you would be for the full 450 next so that's what 450 buys us got it thank you yes got it thank you very helpful isn't it nice to have electronic devices so you get answers quickly saves running around um i i stopped us on section nine and i think we were going to section 10 thank you so section 10 um again is just um it's the it's the working group that's being created to look at the use the appropriate use of funds that are coming to the state through the American Rescue Plan Act so the first subsection sets out the purpose of this group and the membership building bright futures and coordination with the department for children and families is to convene the group composed of mutually agreed to stakeholders that reflect growing diversity of Vermont's children and families including individuals who are black indigenous and persons of color members in the working group uh shall include a representative from both the house um committee on human services senate committee on health and welfare as well as individuals representing families child care and after school providers the business community child welfare advocates and consultation with any other individuals necessary to develop and recommend a plan for the most effective use of the federal funds coming through the new act and to meet the immediate and future child care needs of Vermonters and then in subsection b we go into the responsibilities of the group the group is to produce a plan that makes a recommendation to the general assembly regarding the use of funds in conjunction with other state and federal resources to maximize the amount of funding available and the plan is to ensure that Vermont's allocation um of the child care development block grant and the child care subsidy um stabilization grant are fully utilized the plan is to specifically address the following priorities but the working group group need not be limited to consideration of the listed priorities below so they have to look at these items but they can also be more expansive those items include um funding necessary to ensure that the co-payment for family participating in CC FAP is uh shall not exceed 10 percent of the family's annual gross income expansion of CC FAP to families up to 400 percent of the current federal poverty level funding necessary to complete the systems analysis and financing studies that we'll look at shortly funding necessary to implement the workforce programs that we've uh just recently looked at increased access to high quality infant care access to high quality affordable child care for culturally and racially diverse families support and assistance to stabilize regulated privately operated center-based programs and family child care homes and the identification of any statutory or regulatory barriers to using the federal funds to address the immediate and future child care needs of Vermonters should I pause there keep going um well we do have a hand so thank you for the pause shy yes thank you um in that section then I am just jumping ahead to line two of the next page but in that section uh there's sort of a general description of a mutually agreed upon group of people but I don't think I saw a number for this council was is there a number that's associated with it and will there be per diems at some point for that that's made up for deems that's correct there wasn't a number and then there's language that we're getting to that talks um well let me scroll down um I'm looking at um subsection f at the bottom of this section that members of the working group shall be entitled to either per diem compensation or reimbursement or of expenses or both as mutually agreed to by building bright futures and the department if I may and I may um uh if I may madam chair please um this is modeled um this section with consultation from representative jessef was modeled after um what is a process by which the um the necessary people are put in a room to figure out how to spend um the federal money and um resisting all of our desire to identify and to tell building bright futures and the administration who exactly has to be at the table um um on a process that needs to happen quickly and expeditiously um we did not put a limit nor did we put a minimum there the people who know how to know how to make the decisions who know what the money means um are going to figure out and we've outlined some um a few guard posts or a few suggestions okay and I can appreciate that and the need to be expeditious and get the right people in the room that makes sense and I am jumping ahead to page 15 line two the first report is due in a month April 20th 2021 is that realistic um as I said this was based on um working with representative jessef and based on a um we may know something and so it gets put in the um we may know something more so then it will be put in the budget or something else and now I'm going to um phone a friend okay this representative jessef so um thank you chair pews so and robin that's a great question so what I was after there is some other language I've been working on with the housing group which is um trying to realize that if these federal funds are coming and the legislature is going to adjourn in may and this bill goes over to the senate when there will still be a chance to work on it what might the guidance be for use of federal funds so that's kind of what I was aiming for now the exact um you know the number of people and so on um I'm not going to comment on that but um that that was the as chair pews said the goal there what uh the appropriations committee has not seen yet is a similar structure that um representative jessef and I have talked with members of the agency of housing of human services uh around the general assistance program and in with the GA program or the emergency housing program and the GA and what we're experiencing with emergency housing as we are here in the child care world is this vast unknown that is created and potentially wonderful opportunity created by the ARPA and we're trying to put in place an opportunity to do some smart thinking around um the the new money that is there the very thoughtful carefully crafted um work of the original child care bill had built um a series of studies and analysis um that was essentially based on forgive me for I hope a layperson's not understanding but it was based on kind of what was the past world the pre-pandemic world and we're trying to figure out how to take advantage of what will be and that thus the reason for this quick turn around trying to gather the right people together et cetera and and that that's what's being striven for here so with that I so we always ask how many meetings and how many people and that's the reason rep shy appropriately asked and we'll often have a conversation about the reimbursement piece of this well but let's take that offline well we'll sort that later we need to keep walking through here I think representative Jess up just a quick um idea is that it may be out of this quick and nimble group that's that seeks to put a stake in the ground with how the legislative branch seeks to use this money and who should be at the table when those decisions are made it may be that out of that same group comes different recommendations for further future uh analyses and so on but the point here is to work within the timeframe box and variables before us so I just am simply saying there may be a bridge between those two ultimately it's hard to predict yeah all of this is hard to predict um so let's let's go to section uh I'm sorry rep you did you want to add something uh nothing I just I was going to sleek away but I thought I might as well do it publicly I apologize I have to go teach now so um I am which is one reason why I brought half the committee here um and so I will um thank you all for your time and um the three members of the committee who remain are at your disposal and uh representative wood as vice chair um please will be in my stead so thank you very much and thank you for your work and thank you for your time yeah we are in good hands okay let's go on to section 11 okay um section 11 is a uh one time report back from the department for children and families about the costs and policy implications of moving from an attendance based model to an enrollment based model in the cc fat program is this the same as what was in before it is there was another piece of this on co-payments and now we're just this particular study is just looking at this issue thank you okay no not seeing any questions so 12 okay 12 is a systems analysis um this is also similar to what was in before it's been truncated a bit as as has the financing piece but um this requires that by September 1st of 2022 building bright futures is to submit an analysis and recommendations to the policy committees regarding different issues the existing child care and early childhood education systems and administrative stakeholders and structures including functions that are not currently staffed or understaffed emerging systems needs stakeholder engagement and decision making processes and state plan development mechanisms to strengthen system oversight and leverage current system strengths identification of existing needs and challenges and ensuring an anti-racist approach is utilized in modifying existing policies and procedures and creating new policies and procedures we have instructions that the findings of this group are to be divided in two categories first birth through age five and then six through 12 years of age and that this work is to rely on the advice of the section 10 work group that we just looked at the group looking at the federal funding and then we have a definition should I pause there move on to financing um no let's oh I'm sorry um I don't see any questions so I think we can move on okay the next section is the financing study um if you had looked at the earlier version of this the dates have all been um pushed back so um the and the earlier version had jfo contracting with a consultant this fall that date has been pushed back to January 1 2022 the jfo is to contract with an economist or independent consultant with specific expertise in this field um to excuse me evaluate the the economic impacts of and potential potential funding mechanisms to adjusting Vermont's child care system regulated child care system for children from birth through age five years of age with consideration given to the intersection of the impacts on child care for children from six through 12 years of age and also an alignment with the recommendations of the after school task force and that the work of the economists or independent consultant um shall be governed by the following first that a family does not spend more than 10 of its gross annual income on child care second that the child care providers receive compensation that is commensurate with their peers in other fields and third that utilization of a cost of care model versus a market rate model um in the cc fat program and then um we have a tiered um reports coming coming in um I'm on line 13 subsection b first by November 15th of 2023 the consultant is submitting preliminary results to jfo into the chairs of the very various committees policy and um money committees and then uh two months later january 15th 2024 the consultant is submitting to the same committees a final report um the results um include that um project the cost of expanding the state's child care benefit to more families in accordance with this section requiring commensurate pay for providers and utilization utilizing cost of care for cc fat and the feasibility of implementing each policy and vermont both separately independently of each other and jointly and then identify and determine the feasibility of implementing stable long-term funding sources to finance affordable high quality child care system for birth through age five so I could pause there or move along to affect me we have a hand to representative town son thank you madam chair um my question is with regard to the contracting of the um of the economist or an independent consulting entity with expertise in the field how is that being paid for how is that proposed to be paid for that contracting that's one of the items that um the the section 10 working group looking at federal money is looking at to um specifically they're um both this financing report and the previous analysis report um the section 10 group is looking at um whether that federal source of money can be used here thank you nicely done uh representative Harrison yeah thank you um sometimes we unfortunately get our news through media reports and there was some concern raised about if this was all implemented it could cost I don't know 200 million dollars a year which would obviously beg for new tax increases and I don't know if that's accurate or not or if I was misinterpreting what I had read or heard but um is there anything in this study that would allow the report to come back with possible options like let's say it's 10 percent here or you know another option might be 12 percent or some type of sliding scale or 15 percent um uh going forward I'm just I'm just trying to look at the political realities uh you know and again my numbers may be way off base but I just sometimes I know what I read and and it may not be accurate uh representative Harrison I I believe that you are reflecting um what what digger reported from hearing testimony in our committee so I I think that part's accurate uh the one of the reasons that um we are not obligating the state to do is that we're investigating this is an investigatory um process in this study um and there isn't anything here that precludes um a consultant from offering other options good luck sweetie okay thank you okay um a question that I have on this section is that we're directing here the JFO will be responsible for this uh did you have a conversation with them or with others about who could be doing this like DCF actually yes um Madam Chair we we had quite a conversation about that particular subject and um we went round and about and JFO came back to us with uh feeling like based upon their previous experience I think the most recent example that was given was the higher ed study that they felt that they could facilitate this they did not want to conduct it but they felt that they could facilitate it through a contractor and I believe Nolan is on if if he wants to comment on that but that was um that was the information that they gave to us okay thank you um thank you so I'm not seeing any other questions can we um I think we're at um affecting tanks we just did the 13 right yeah so the effectiveness the I guess the important things to take away is that because we have this section 10 report um that that is desired by April 30th that that particular section will take effect on passage um the other sections take effect on July 1 2021 with the exception that the two um CC fat pieces the sections two and three take effect on October 1st 2021 and I believe that's to be in line with the the federal government's calendar on um the redesign okay thank you uh representative Jessup yeah and just this was a question that was posed to me and I'm sure you all have thought about it supposing this uh bill isn't passed till after that date is the assumption that um the other body would adjust that that date yes representative Jessup and um I'm certain that between the people who are participating in this room and the people who are listening uh in on uh YouTube um and knowing that the administration uh and other advocates are already busily at work trying to understand the ramifications of the American Rescue Plan Act um I yeah we we may have to modify that date depending upon how things progress but um you know based upon your recommendations previously with the other work group that you're looking at is why we included that date and the in in particular we really um want this opportunity for the legislature to weigh in on how this substantial amount of money which is approximately 47 million dollars um will be spent uh so um that is why the quick turnaround time on these things right I'm actually asking in part to help me when I have to defend the housing group so thank you um so appropriations can we have gotten to the end of this bill um let's make sure that we ask um all of our questions here uh representative Feltas I would just like to a summary if we can figure out the amount of appropriations in this bill there was a five million I saw and then there are these various scholarship funds and is it just the five million plus 300,000 plus 400,000 plus 1.8 it's in the fiscal note uh with the like oh do we I'm sorry do we have a we have I apologize for interrupting or just trying to be helpful so yes I will of course go note Nolan is here so maybe we can address that in a moment but let us um make sure that we finish touching on with on the bill uh in particular in case folks need to run out to other work Dave are you your hand is up yes you you may have just covered this uh representing the boy um do we have the flexibility in this language or could we add language that says um in lieu of or instead of using general fund for the rate increases the 5.5 million we'll use new CFAP money um the the 5.5 million is in the base budget of the uh department for children and families it's existing funds it's not additional funds I'm sorry I thought I read where the language said it's in the governor's FY 22 recommend yes he may be recommending the expenditure but that doesn't mean the dollars are there um it's my understanding and represent Jessup can correct me if I'm incorrect on this and I believe that commission regression is also here someplace um that the uh the 5.5 million is in the base budget of the department for children and families it is from um under expended funding um in the child care financial assistance program um frankly as a result of changing uh workforce patterns during the pandemic but it is so it is in the base as far as I understand it and uh are you concerned are you concerned as we come out of the pandemic and the workforce participation rates change that the normal uh increase or pressures on CFAP coupled with the increase in the benefits 350 percent of poverty and the 10 percent limit and the no co-pays um will create a problem um that's a good question represent Yacoboni um I frankly think that um none of us right now sitting here know what the workforce situation is going to look like over the next two years um and right now the access to child care is something that is critical that we address and will there be changes in the workforce yes um will there be changes in the number of people working from home I think the answer to that is yes um but uh I can't sit here and tell you that we know all the answers to that sitting here today thank you so the appropriations committee will have a longer conversation about what funding is available but I just want to be clear particularly with the human services committee is yes the governor is proposing um the 5.529 million for CCFAP in his budget as a base spend he also proposed to add um Kino and sports betting as a revenue source that revenue source was covering the cost of doing this by our not adopting that revenue source we do not have the revenue that was proposed to be used in this way secondly I'd like to note that we used one time money to cover a hole in the CCFAP program in the current year and so in fact we are having to backfill that hole to get us up to the level that we are at but that's our job is to figure out if if we have the revenues to support the policy initiatives of the committee of human services but I just um to say that it's in the base is a little bit misleading because we have to make sure that the revenue was there to cover what the base costs were ma'am chair yeah uh that is a little bit different from the testimony that we heard from the department for children and families from the department um in our committee um they identified the uh three million dollars from uh Kino as um accommodating for what representative yakiboni um was just speaking of and that is if utilization increases that that three million dollars recover that piece but for the changes that occur in the policy in this bill um they testified in our committee that that five point five million dollars is actually currently available so I'm just saying that's what they testified to in our committee I I appreciate it I may not fully understand it what I know is we are not raising an additional five plus million dollars and therefore that money is not available for some spending somewhere within state government I think we've all kind of assumed that there was a relationship between the new spending proposed and I think the governor said that in his budget that it was being right maybe not I don't remember but we do have a an issue with where is the money to pay for that that's our job we'll it's our job to sort that out in in and we will yes I just wanted to let you know what they had testified to that's interesting and and we'll kick that around a little bit um if I can just add for one second on that one that was the area of the budget that I looked pretty closely so I went and talked with a lot of folks in the administration and really pushed on this three million was it really new or was it was it part of that five million and they were so clear in their discussions with me because we did work hard we understand what you are saying madam chair and we're concerned about that so we we we worked hard to figure out if uh if that's how they looked at it so I appreciate that we are not raising as much money as the governor proposed to raise therefore we have less money to spend that at the end of the day that's the um the arithmetic of um of of appropriations I hear you that you've been assured that there is available ongoing money that is somewhat at at odds with what I had understood be the case again we will that that's our job to sort out um representative Harrison yeah thank you um madam chair and I don't want to prolong this but um I just happened to look at Nolan's chart on the the various income levels up to 350 percent of poverty and you folks and human services are very familiar with the benefit cliff issue so I'm looking at it and I just picked you know family of four ninety two thousand um their maximum spend would be 9200 um child care for two kids could easily cost over 30 000 but you know just to make it easy they could be eligible for say a 20 000 dollar subsidy here um you get to the 95 000 um obviously it it doesn't make sense don't give me that uh pay increase uh because it's going to cost me 20 000 of subsidy I no longer get did you look at any type of phase out um I know you're working within the five and a half million but you know maybe it's 10 percent at 300 percent and then it phases out I don't know but we we've established a benefit cliff here um I I will say that we um have not established um I guess I'm I'm not sure that I agree with you representative Harrison um in terms of um that analysis we would take us um more time to look at what um JFO's consultants have previously looked at in terms of how that that slope and I I really refer to it as a slope now because we have done a lot of work in the legislature to reduce the cliff it is really no longer a cliff it is um there is a slope um and we have not looked at how this bill in particular looks at that slope and I I think um honestly that uh that is something that we we should do um and we um can ask JFO for their assistance with that um yeah no uh thank you and maybe no one has more information I'm just asking if you looked at that because I can see um you know a potential loss when you go over to the next you just above 350 percent and I know you're studying it and hopefully you get to another point in time but today for the foreseeable future um we have I think established a new benefit cliff that takes away incentive to earn a little bit more and better yourself uh potentially and I you can use the same money um not go as generous but the cut the 10 percent off earlier and then phase it out um so um folks I'm concerned about time we're a half an hour over our usual time and we're back together here in an hour um we need to take a look real quickly at the fiscal note um let me just say to the appropriations committee um I don't know if you realize that what we have just walked through has been a labor of the human services committee all session long this has been a tremendously important bill to them it is a tremendously important effort on behalf of brahmonters and they sent this actually you all got this out of committee in a rather timely fashion unlike some of the other major policy initiatives that they're just now streaming into our committee it feels like we're feeling a little overwhelmed you you got it to us in a very timely fashion unfortunately that gave some of us a chance to look at it and say oh my goodness in the new world some of this may need to be rethought and what i'm saying to the appropriations committee they rethought this in record time and substantively changed some of the studies and the and the work that was being done and rep wood and brumstead and mcfawn i hope you all convey our my appreciation to your committee for recognizing this new world and working so hard to try to to to to accommodate that and to take advantage of the wonderful opportunities that are coming down um uh from the federal government i mean it's all good work but you you need to be complimented on that in section seven i see what you were doing in terms of trying to say pay attention to the federal money that's coming in we may have a different way of phrasing that um and and but but we will accomplish the same thing there's some substitution language that i think jfo has come up with for some other bills that says use use the federal money and if you can't then use the state money but that that's just how we do money um i committee and i can't let you go until we just take a quick look at the um fiscal note i i i know it's like you've been sitting here since eight o'clock this morning and i deeply appreciate it um but no one can and so members you received an email i think it came from you no one or maybe from teresa i'm not sure uh german um but if we can just quickly take a look at the fiscal note no one i'll turn it over to you it's online it's online refresh refresh and just um and for the record and all night while the joint fiscal office and just so i know you don't want it on the screen right yeah yeah we we do not want it on screen okay um so i'll walk through this really fast um again as trisa mentioned it should be online uh i have draft written on it because i was doing it on the fly and there's still some typos and errors and clarifications that need to happen but i wanted you to have something so i'll just do this really quick so sections two three and four dealing with the ccc fap sorry cc fap um that is the 5.5 million as we just were talking about moments ago uh it's funded in the governor's budget recommendation testimony that we had heard was that it was being funded through underutilization of cc fap um there's also um intent language regarding consideration of the future of family out-of-pocket limits um i just always flag intent language this is it's pretty light intent language but i always fly it because i know committees often feel about that um but it's not uh doesn't tie anything up um section five you have 4.5 million again this is also included in the governor's budget so i won't go into it and then we have section six seven and eight i just sort of lumped them together because they're all tied um and those are the scholarships that we discussed that were discussed the the 300 the 400 and the 1.8 um and then then is a new section that would um seven which would require the commissioner finance to present the recommendations consistent with the final plan to the working of the working group that was highlighted in section 10 as to whether the funding should be general funds or federal funds um and there's a whole process where the recommendation is presented to i won't walk you through this again you already know that but there's a process for how determining whether this this particular fund should be federal or for state dollars um and then the total appropriation you have 300 400 1.8 and the sources of the funds are to be determined section 10 creates the committee this this that would look at the ARPA is what we're what i'm calling it um and as was discussed in this committee about per diems you know a lot of times per diem language has the statutory language listed this does not have statutory lesson uh it just sort of says members would be entitled to either per diem compensation or reimbursement of expenses or both as mutually agreed to by building bright futures and DCF so it doesn't tie the statutory amounts and it leaves some flexibility so that'll be part of the discussion as i heard the chair talking about when you figure out the number of people the number of meetings and in that discussion will be what would be the reimbursement what i do often say though uh is that when appropriations for per diems come in you know anywhere between three and five thousand given the size of these budgets i often say that they can be accommodated with the existing budgets it's only when they start getting above five thousand or ten thousand that i really start saying you really need appropriate money um so that's one thing that i just sort of flag in this case um the group is small and they don't meet much which it would cease to exist in december 1st 2021 so they may not have a lot of meetings they might determine it relatively quickly they might not be a lot of meetings um so i suspect this would be not a big number um and then we have the two studies we have the building bright future studies um and the jfo study both of them are tied to the section 10 language which is contingent so it's there's no appropriation in the bill um for these the only thing i would flag is that um even though the work really for in the jfo study isn't really till 2023 and 2024 it does say that we have to contract by um january 2022 and so the only thing i question i ask and this is something i have to talk to you about do we contract with contractors when we haven't had the money appropriated yet the flip side is is that we often worry about that when we put the amount of money in law that we're going to use for contractors contractors always come in one dollar below that amount so maybe not having the money make for a more competitive bit so i'm just throwing that out there for discussion um but i don't think it's a big deal and then the last page on the back is just the outline of all the money and as you'll see about 10 million of it is uh was included in the governor's budget and then this bill is 2.5 which is basically the three the two scholarships and the lower payment of the 2.5 million for a total of 12.5 great thank you for that rapid run for literally a run through uh kim representative jessa right thank you madam chair um while we still have two members or three members from um human services would anyone like to put on the record um how this may or may not align with your budget memo ask for 261 000 annually for building bright futures the advisory council sure thank you uh representative jessup for uh asking that question we had previously had a specific dollar amount in our the previous version of our bill for building bright futures but we removed that pending action by the appropriations committee on our budget recommendation in our budget memo could i just follow up if if we were to fund the um ask that was in the policy memo is it your view that building bright futures then would have the capacity to do all that is asked in h171 um i believe that they would however they also um uh in section 10 you'll see a notation that there is the opportunity for them to um work with the department in determining um whether any additional resources might be funded under arpa if there if there was a need for that okay um thank you all i have been privately told that i am wrong um with regard to the funding i am not letting go of this yes there is an underspend there will stop being an underspend at some point and in therein and that creates a gap and that's what we have to deal with but again that's our job and we'll sort that out but you know but let me acknowledge i i understand what would what the testimony i understand that position and i continue to be concerned because we did not see a revenue increase and that creates a pressure in terms of how we accomplish these goals um i i we are now 45 minutes over our normal breaking time um and we have to be back in here at 115 when we're going to hear actually no to health care bill i was gonna i was going to another human service bill uh health care bill so i want to let the committee go but however so let me say to the human services committee again our deep thanks for thank you for this work and in particular your flexibility in responding to our request to rethink um a good portion of the thoughtful work that you'd put into this bill uh that must have been hard and we really appreciate it thank you um you're welcome i did we would also just like to thank the committee for their consideration this morning and as you deliberate and um know that um we are available if you need any um further clarification of of our intent or any questions that come up and um we again deeply thank you for your time this morning yeah great thank you guys and before we uh uh appropriations committee we have a different business matter to attend to human service people you're it's safe for you to leave we are not going to talk about this i promise