All right, we are live and this is a Senate Health and Welfare Committee. It is February 3rd and this morning we're taking up a run-through, a walk-through of S-56. You can just leave it there. Well, we're taking up S-56, which is a child care bill and our first person to come up to the hot seat is Pro Tem Senator Ruth, so welcome. Thank you Madam Chair. Good morning. I'm Senator Bill Baruth from Chittenden Central District and as the chair said, Senator President Pro Tem, I'm here today to talk about the need for S-56, the need for child care in our state at a level that we have never imagined. So, I think it's fair to say that as it stands now, we have many talented people in the field who are trying every day to provide child care in the state. My own kids were fortunate enough to have wonderful caregivers after long searches for slots and after paying for each of them about the equivalent of my mortgage each month. Fortunately, they were separated by five years, so I wasn't paying simultaneously. But at that time, which was 20 plus years ago, it was $1,200 a month for one child. I can't imagine what people are paying today. With that said, I want to congratulate the committee on just receiving the bill because it was not an easy task. Senator Lyon and Lyon's party have drafted a pretty mammoth bill, but that's because the task itself is staggered in its complexity. So, I want to thank them for their efforts getting here. But it is now on this committee and I don't want to raise the bar too high, but I will say that we're counting on us to solve this problem and to help us move forward this year on this bill. So, I regarded as one of our top three priorities along with our climate work and our housing work. And the reason for that, among many others, is our experience from the pandemic, which showed us in no uncertain terms that if parents can't find quality care, they can't work and the economy can't run. And we saw that very dramatic fashion restaurants not being able to open businesses having to go and reduce hours, all because we had childcare deserts, which preceded the pandemic, but then with the pandemic we had far less than we have care. In fact, there was even a crazy moment. I know the administration was doing everything they could, but for a while there was a policy where in order to keep your slot, you have to pay for your childcare and not receive it during that period of time. And again, there's a necessary move to keep the system running, but it shows the level of absurdity to which we have come in terms of taking care of our kids. And with that said, I wanted to just offer my office's complete support, anything you need. My hope is that crossover, which is March 17, we'll see this bill on its way to the money campaigns. I will leave it at that and ask any, if there are any questions of me, otherwise I'll leave you to your work, but mostly just wanted to highlight the task itself, which is going to be daunting, but also our thanks for taking it up and working on it quickly and efficiently this session. Thank you. We appreciate it. Now, we also feel the pressure of the words. Yeah, so we're ready to, we're ready for the task. We're ready to get to work. So thank you for coming in and supporting this bill in particular because it is critically important as you said it's one of our top three issues in the Senate. I think everyone around this table is ready to vote. Not today. So we're good. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Terrific. So we're going to hear. We're going to walk through the bill. And before we do that, just heads up on how we're going to go through the bill Katie. And there is a significant amount in the bill that relates to pre K education and in conversations with the chair of education with the program. Everybody will be looking at the education piece to understand implications for education overall. So folks who are on education heads up, you get a double shot at the bill. And then, there are elements within the education piece that relate to the childcare center. So we're going to want to take somewhat of a dive on that. And as well, are one of the questions that we'll be asking as we go through the bill is what effect if any does pre K changing on pre cases and moving four year olds. So we have a lot of information to gain just on that section. And then there are other sections that we will be working on financing because the policy decisions we make in here very much influence financing. However, the final decisions on revenue and on appropriations will rest with those two. We're in a place right now of trying to understand what's in the bill. And Katie's going to take us through there's some places maybe we'll say at the 5,000 or 10,000 foot level and other places were going to be right down on the ground level. And and then as we go along will we have testimony scheduled for next Friday. So next, we have some testimony will be back up. We will have testimony on Tuesday around the current status of funding for childcare CC FAP that we've already heard about it here but we're going to refresh our minds on that. And as well as on Tuesday we'll be looking at how childcare is administered within the agency of human services because that's also a large part of the bill. And then next Friday we'll begin to hear some expert testimony will try to get data that will help us understand how we change or keep or Amanda or whatever we do with the bill so we can get it out. I'm not going to say quickly, but as comprehensively as possible. What's the process for people to get to test? Well, if you have someone who wants to testify just send a note to Alex and to me as copy and what we'll do is we'll look at how many, if it's someone who's working in childcare or a parent will make sure that we have a good mix of folks and that'll be great. Okay. And I will say I should back up again further go back to the summer and the fall because Senator Hardy worked very hard on this bill, and we've worked together on it, and there are parts that we each absolutely love and parts that were a little hesitant about that. That's what a bill is and I think as we go forward, we'll be trying to find two minutes so we all have something that we can be proud of, and that will help improve childcare in the state. We're here. Okay. Good morning, Katie McLean Office of Legislative Council. So as we have noticed, this is quite a lengthy bill. Before we actually look at the language of the bill, I'm going to bring you to a document I put together that gives a very high level overview of the different parts of the bill so you can sort of understand how the bill is structured. Let me share my screen. Okay, so you'll see as you go through the bill there are these asterisks with different topic headings. That doesn't officially become part of the law. Those are called reader assistance headings. So that's just a sort of ground you in what part of the bill we're looking at, because all sort of like sections are grouped together. So in the first under the first reader heading, which is agency of education structure and pre kindergarten, we're looking at provisions that affect the agency of education that affects the pre K program which is entitled 16 the education title. Specifically, in those first 11 sections, there's language that establishes a second deputy secretary position with the agency of education, there's currently one and this would add the second. This language in these sections replaces the existing universal pre kindergarten program with a public pre kindergarten education program for children who are four years of age, and this would begin in fiscal year 25 so this is a year out. And we'll talk about this more when we look at the bill. This part of the bill includes a number of sections that are conforming changes to reflect the fact that there's a name change in this pre K program, and also changes and other places that have to be made as a result of making the changes the pre K program. And then there's a rulemaking section at the end of this part, and it requires the agency of education and the Department for Children and Families and consultation with building bright futures to amend roles to reflect programmatic pre kindergarten changes. So DCF and AOE jointly administer universal pre K, which means they have a joint rulemaking process. So a lot that's happening in that section is pulling that joint management or joint administration apart. So the authority for the rulemaking will lie with the agency of education. So that's the first part of the bill. The second part of the bill is property tax exemption property used by a child care provider. This is only three section long, excuse me only three sections long, but it establishes a property tax exemption for property that's used by a child to provide childcare services. So that might be somebody who's operating a program within their home, or it could be a business that's providing space for a child care program at a reduced rent, and this gives them a property tax exemption for doing that. So so look at that language. The biggest section of the bill, in terms of number of pages is the third part of the bill, which is the Department for Children and Families restructure and creation of the Department for Economic Empowerment. What this part of the bill does is it divides the existing department for children and families into two departments. So there'd be a creation of a new department called the Department of Economic Empowerment. And I put a chart together to sort of help visualize what would stay DCF and what would move to the new department. In general DCF is continuing to look at children and families and the Department of Economic Empowerment would have benefit programs at the Economic Services Division currently within DCF would move to the Department of Economic Empowerment. That's where ReachUp currently is administered in the general assistance program. The new department would have disabilities determination services. The Office of Economic Opportunity would be within this new department, as well as the Office of Child Support. So you'll see there is an economic theme for all of those services that are currently offered by DCF that would be moving. DCF would retain the child development division, which is where child care licensing and the child care financial assistance program currently exists. It would retain children with special health needs. It would retain the Family Services Division, which is the division which administers the foster care program. And then there is a division currently within the health department that focuses on maternal and child health that would move into the department for children and families. So hopefully that visualization helps you understand the moving pieces. In terms of the language in this part of the bill, you'll see there are sections that sort of reorganize DCF and establish the new Department of Economic Empowerment. What many of these sections is maybe I should just back up and tell you a little bit about the process because there's this division and separation of duties that up to now all been in the Department of Children and Families. I have gone through every time the Department for Children and Families is referenced in the Vermont statutes annotated and made a decision of whether that particular duty referenced is more aligned with this proposal of what will stay with DCF or what would move into the Department of Economic Empowerment and made an amendment based on that. So you will see amendments in this part from all different titles of the VSA. It's not limited to human services or to the health title. So we'll take a closer look at that. And then the last section in this part is a transfer of rulemaking authority because right now DCF administers the rules and adopts the rules for all these different programs. So if a program is moving to a new department, we have to transfer that rulemaking authority to the new department. Same thing with transfer of health department rulemaking from maternal and child health. So there's a little bit of shuffling as to who has the rulemaking authority under this proposal and that's taken care of in the last section. And then we move to the part of the bill on child care and child care subsidies. And I think we'll be taking a pretty deep dive here when we go through, but this expands the eligibility for the child care financial assistance program eligibility for the families who are eligible to receive a subsidy under the program. So this is tiered. There's an expansion under this proposal and fiscal year 24, and there's a further expansion and fiscal year 25. This also creates a tiered professional compensation standard for child care workforce that wouldn't go affect go into effect until fiscal year 25. There is the adoption of a cost of care model within the child care financial assistance program that would go into effect fiscal year 25, meaning it would account for the salaries for child care providers in a manner of work that would be commensurate with their peers working in a public school and early education kindergarten or early grades. This language also prohibits child care providers from having a wait list and application fees for children who are otherwise would otherwise be eligible for child care financial assistance. It establishes a non citizen child care assistance program that operates and looks just like the child care assistance program, but it would be individuals who are non citizens would be able to take advantage of that benefit. And then there is also workforce retention grants that are similar identical to what was in last year's project. And then we have effective dates and as you've already noticed we have different pieces taking effect at different times so I'll try to flag that for you as we go through. So that is the high level overview and now switch documents and I'll bring us to look at the actual bill. Okay, this is nice. This is helpful. Oh, great. Right. Now we have the bill itself. Okay. So as promised we have that reader assistance setting at the online to so that's telling us what part of the bill we're looking at so we're starting by looking at this agency of education structure and pre K language. In this first section. We're seeing it up to say that pre kindergarten education has the same meaning as in section 829 of this title 829 is kind of our section on pre case we haven't gotten there yet. We're also separating in this definition subdivision. We're moving the reference to pre kindergarten education. We're just separating out the definition of early childhood education or early education from pre kindergarten education. They no longer all mean the same thing, because early childhood education is available to three year olds and possibly five so it has sort of a slightly different meaning than what we're going to be referring to as pre kindergarten education with regard to this new program public program that's being established. In section two of the bill. This is language that creates deputy secretaries. So this language says that the secretary meaning the secretary of the agency of education shall employ at least two deputy secretaries. One secretary shall solely manage the division of student support services, which so governs special education, early education, and a multi tiered system of support. So that's sort of the new position is focused on these specific topics. And this individual will hold at least a master's level degree and early child childhood education special education child development or related field. Is it normal to have job description elements in a field. Yeah, we've been seeing that more and more. An example as we the General Assembly created the chief prevention officer position a few years ago and that had parameters. Next, in section three. This is language that is referring to the existing universal pre K program. And it is specific to that program so that language is being removed because the pre K universal pre K program is being repealed by this bill.  Let me give you the big picture of what this language does. Maybe I'll start with what the existing program is the universal pre K program. So the question so going back just one step. Public and school employees. That's the purpose for the leading the sections. So here's what my suggestion will be on all the whole education section is get an understanding of what's here. And then when you get into the Education Committee, I think you're going to be drilling down into this so you'll have a form of context for understanding what's here. Yeah. Yeah. It's the leading the independent school aspect. I think I can help. So if I give you the big picture, and then I'll answer your question I think it will tie back in. So right now the universal pre K program is a sort of, it's a program that's operated in both public and private entities. There could be a pre K program in a public school. There could also be the opportunity to receive the benefit if you're in a private pre K program. It's doesn't depend on eligibility at all it's available for two years so it's available to children who are three as of September one, and who are for as of as of September one. It's a 10 hour a week benefit. And the idea is that that program would be repealed and replaced with this new program the public pre kindergarten education program that program is aimed at four year olds children who are four as of September one. So it's only affecting that one group, and it's only offered in the public schools so the idea is that four year olds would be receiving a pre kindergarten education, full day full, full tuition. So the reason that that language that you're referring to Senator is no longer needed is because this is a remnant of the fact that private providers are providing this pre K service, and we will be moving to a public pre K for system. As this is, as this proposes. Super quick question, private does or does not encompass nonprofits like the Sarah Holbrook Center, the King Street Center in Burlington we have lots of different kinds of entities with private include those. Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you. We're from the education committee on this. Yeah, I'll be working in. Here this twice. Yeah, that's good. Okay, great. Yeah, and this bill, as you will see you might have other attorneys besides just me popping in and out depending what your questions are to a lot of attorneys were pulled in from the office in the course of working on this so James had a big hand in putting this piece of language together. Yeah, you'll be seeing her and we talked through this. Okay. So we have the general concept of what this public pre kindergarten education program does. The idea generally is that it's a bomb it's voluntary a family doesn't have to enroll their child in this public pre K program. But if they choose to their district. If they have an elementary school will have a pre K for program that the child can attend. If the district does not have an elementary school, they can tuition the child out to another district with an elementary school to receive their pre K for education there. Okay. So, first we'll go through the definitions pre kindergarten child means a child to honor before September one is four years of age, or five years of age but not yet enrolled in kindergarten. Pre kindergarten education means services designed for pre kindergarten children that are play based developmentally appropriate and foster early development and learning experiences based on Vermont's early learning standards. And then what do we mean when we say public pre kindergarten education program. The provision of high quality publicly funded full day pre kindergarten education at a public school, which is available to pre kindergarten children either within a child's district of residents, or paid for by a child's district of residents, if the district does not maintain an elementary school. So section B we talked about access to the program. Each school district that maintains an elementary school for its residents students shall maintain a full time public pre kindergarten education program, which shall be available to each kindergarten child whom a parent or guardian wishes to enroll. Public pre kindergarten education program is to operate for the school year, as defined in law, and a school district that does not maintain an elementary school and does not maintain a public pre kindergarten education program shall pay tuition for its residents students to attend a public pre kindergarten education program outside the district. If a parent or guardian chooses to enroll the pre kindergarten child in the public pre kindergarten education program, then the school district of residents shall pay tuition pursuant to a subsection that we'll get to next of this section upon request of the parent guardian to a public pre kindergarten education program outside of the district of residents. If that district itself does not maintain a public pre kindergarten program, or it would enroll the child in the public pre kindergarten education program that it operates. In sub division three, nothing in this subsection shall preclude a school district from operating a public pre kindergarten education program and a building other than an elementary school. So that means that the district could have a standalone building and it's designating for pre K for or maintain a public pre kindergarten education program within the district when the district does not maintain one or more elementary schools. So a district that doesn't maintain an elementary school might still decide to operate a pre K for program within the district subsection C program requirements. Public pre kindergarten education program shall have received a national association for the education of young children accreditation. And then you'll notice we're striking references to stars stars as a program operated by CDD to govern the quality of childcare providers because this is becoming a public program we don't need the references to stars anymore. In sub division two, at least one teacher who was licensed and endorsed an early childhood education, or an early childhood special education. Sub division three, meet the criteria for hours of operation and minimum number of school days pursuant to law. Public pre kindergarten child to attend on a part time basis on a schedule established by the school board policy in accordance with law. And finally, the last criteria is used to play based curriculum and programming. And then we get into subsection D tuition budgets and average daily membership. And a district that maintains a public pre kindergarten education program. A parent or guardian may enroll a child in the public pre kindergarten education program maintained by the district of residence by enrolling the child in the district of the top of page nine and a district that does not maintain a public pre kindergarten education program the district shall pay the tuition, as we've already described upon receiving notice from the child's parent or guardian that the child is or will be enrolled in a public pre kindergarten education program outside the district of residence and concurrent enrollment of the pre kindergarten child in the district of residence for the purposes of budgeting and determining average daily membership. I think that's a quick question format typically there's a definition section. But I don't see play based curriculum is out online. Play based is not a defined term. And that's a policy decision for the committee. Yeah. That might actually decide whether we want to put that definition and I don't want education play with it. I'll flag that. Please. That's important. I think it's an important definite it's an important concept for decisions. Yeah, here I'll drill into it but yeah. Just a question back to section four. Sometimes have a part time pre school. How's that going to affect those schools that are existing. So are you talking about a public pre kindergarten program. One time thinking of my district has a public full time free school. The other one has a different funding. I think that's something that the committee is ultimately going to have to take some testimony on in here. How this would play out in the community. Thanks. The private pre K programs could continue to exist and they would be. Continue to be able to kids can go could go to them this with a public pre K would not be required for parents so they choose to send their kid to the to any program they want to. And the private programs as long as they meet their qualifications for receiving subsidies under the CC that program the childcare financial assistance program which we'll talk about later in the bill. Parents could still send their kids there and qualify for CC that and get the subsidies to go to that private pre K pre K program so they both are still allowed and both would still be supported it would just be a separate funding. So if you were to do it on the stream. It wouldn't be the, the education fund that would be the CC back payments. That makes sense but but yeah it's a good question because you've identified the areas that local schools, as well as childcare centers are going to be sensitive to. And I think that that in education will also be looking at that in here so gets to be fun. Okay, thank you. Let's see. Sub division for pursuant to sub to the elsewhere in law, the district of residents may include within its average daily membership any pre kindergarten child for whom it has provided pre kindergarten education. Or on whose behalf is paid tuition pursuant to the section that is existing law that does not change. And then in sub section e rules, as I mentioned when we're doing kind of that high level overview. Right now, because the universal pre K program is jointly administered by DCF and AoE, they also jointly administer the rule making process. So this rule making section, the changes you'll see initially remove the commissioner of children and families from participating in the rule making process because this program is completely administered by the agency of education. The agency of education in consultation with building bright futures shall develop rules and present them to the State Board of Education for adoption. Now we have a list of what is in the rules. A lot of the language is being removed here with regard to the rules. It's talking about creating new or existing partnerships with school districts and division existing subdivision to We have the district can begin to expand a school based kindergarten education program. So some of these pieces aren't relevant anymore with this new program. That's why they're being repealed. Just one quick. If you could remind folks of what building bright futures. Oh, yes. Yeah. Um, it's a creation of statute. It is a public private partnership that is charged with watching early childhood education in the state, providing guidance and research on early childhood issues or early childhood education issues throughout the state. Um, it advises the general assembly when the general assembly said it's advice. So, building bright futures, you'll notice every time there's a rule making provision. Building bright futures as referenced as as being asked to consult with the agency, while the agency is developing rules on topics related to early childhood education, so that their expertise can be used in that rule making process. So first with regard to rulemaking to require the school district to require that the school district provides opportunities for effective parental participation and the public free kindergarten education program that's just to update the name of the program and subdivision to to establish a process by which a parent or guardian notifies the district the pre kindergarten child is or will be enrolled in a public pre kindergarten education program pursuant to the language we've already looked at subdivision three on page 12 to require a district to include identifiable costs for public pre under pre kindergarten education programs and essential early childhood education services and its annual budgets and reports to the community again the change there is to update the name subdivision for to require a district to report to the agency of education annual expenditures made in support of public pre kindergarten education programs and an update name with distinct figures provided for expenditures made from the education fund and from other sources which will be specified so you'll notice that the general fund is struck there. In subdivision five to provide an administrative process for a parent guardian or provider to challenge an action of a school district or a state when the complaint complainant believes that the district or state is in violation of statute or rules regarding public pre kindergarten education program again that's existing law just updating the title the title of the program and subdivision be to provide administrative process for school district to challenge an action of the state when the complaint complainant believes that the state is in violation of state statute or rules regarding the public pre kindergarten education program for removing provider because that references a private provider which is not part of the program as this is drafted and we're updating the education program. The top of page 13 to establish a system by which the agency of education shall monitor and evaluate public pre kindergarten education programs to promote optimal results for children that support the relevant population level outcomes is set forth in statute and collect data that will inform future decisions. The agency. Go ahead. So back on this. Here's again. I'm trying to get my head around this private public decision striking private systems not monitoring private private says, you know, part of the foundation of childcare. So the idea is sort of splitting the two systems right now the systems are sort of jointly administered. And the idea is that CDD would continue to license and regulate private providers. So the reason providers being struck here is because this is the rulemaking that the agency of education is going to do for public programs. So on Tuesday, we're going to hear from the agency of human services, how about how childcare is administered. So this is that we're starting with education but we're just really staying in childcare. So as we, as we hear from folks, you'll get a distinction between what's happening now moving toward education and the things that are going to be in the HS. Ruth and then center. You mentioned private schools being regulated. Right now under the universal pre K program, there is sort of a joint administration of the universal pre K program, where for example they jointly have a set of rules that govern pre K. And practice AOE is sort of overseeing what's happening and public pre K programs and CDD is still regulating and light their licensing childcare programs that are offering pre K services. Development. It's a child development division. Oh, yeah. Oh, thank you. Child Development Division and DCS. Yep. So, thank you. And then the childcare, the, the, the oversight of early childhood education and childcare is very complex, it's a dual oversight system. And it has been for the last since since the universal pre K program was passed I think 2014. And just to put it bluntly, nobody likes it. It's really complicated and the private providers don't like ALE being involved and the public providers don't like CBD being involved. It's really complex. There was a whole systems oversight. We're going to hear, I think we'll get into the complexity of the joint leadership on this and we will, first thing we will look at next Friday is the report that came in in the summer about administration of the programs and then we'll look at other studies that are available to us so we can fully understand. So here, so what the bill does is separate out the oversight so that there's, there's a public oversight for the public programs and or ALE oversight for the public pre-K and then AHS or ADC Human Services or CBD, the child care development division, child development division would oversee the private programs and community based and home based programs. So that's what's in the bill and then we're going to hear testimony from folks about whether this works for them if they love it, you know, people and from different perspectives so we can, and we'll hear. We're going to adhere to that our data acquisition process and sort of way that information. Is there a creative cheat sheet that shows what changes are actually going to be created by this bill as to what they are right now because I don't totally understand all, but it sounds to me like this is going to make significant changes that some people are doing right. There are some major changes here. I think what will this is our first walkthrough. So, and I'm, you know, I, I'm always, I always say please be patient because you have to be because you can ask all the questions right now. And I'd like to do that, but let's go through it once you have lots of questions write them down. Some are going to be really pertinent in here and, and some you're going to have the department of redundancy and education and they'll be able to get some answers there. Gradually it'll fall into place, but you're right. There's a lot of questions here. That's good. I knew this was going to be fun. Okay, okay. So our page 13. We're still looking at the rulemaking. We're going to look at the changes that are happening here. The changes that are happening here are straight through of jointly monitoring, because we're going to just have a OE overseeing the public pre kindergarten education program and also removal of the reference to department for children and families. We're going to look at the title changes referring to it as a public pre kindergarten education program in this section and removing references to private because this program is a public program for pre K for Let's see this language says at a minimum the system shall monitor and evaluate. And then a and B we have sort of conforming changes and see we have language existing language results for children including school readiness and proficiency and numeracy and literacy, and this changes it to social and emotional in subdivision seven, we're still on rulemaking. Again, you'll see removing references of public and moving to the new name the public pre kindergarten education programs. We're going to move ahead to subsection be limitations, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a private pre kindergarten provider from providing pre K education in accordance with rules adopted by CDD. So this is getting to your point so a private operator of a pre K program can continue to be a private operator of a pre K program, and that will be separate from what is happening in public schools with pre K for Yeah. So, I'm going to suggest that as we go through the education piece we go a little bit higher okay we don't want to get as high as the Chinese balloon that's up there but maybe, you know, sure. I'll move a little bit faster. Yeah, so that was that section four was really the heart of the proposed change. So section fives, some conforming changes we have a definition change to legal people, and you'll notice that we're specifying that we're talking about an individual who has reached a particular age on September 1. There is a definition of pre kindergarten and essential early education. This changes it just to essential early education because something else is met meant by pre kindergarten and it was confusing to have kind of both definitions. So we're going to go together. Subsection D. This has some more technical changes that is getting a heading. Section six. This is average daily membership definition. So we're adding in pre kindergarten children. So these are the pre kindergarten for children. It is. Yes. So why don't I move past it. Same with seven problems. Same with seven. They're talking about waiting. So I will save that. So the next two sections. These are, These are title changes. So a is talking about the public pre kindergarten education program. This is just a title change and title 23 same thing in section nine we're updating the name of the program to be the public pre kindergarten education program. Section 10. This is establishing the new deputy secretary position. We created it in statue already you saw that earlier in this part of the bill. This is the appropriation for it. And this is in session law. So this is one time law one time money for fiscal year 24. So the establishment of a deputy secretary position with a we pursuant to the language we've already reviewed is authorized beginning fiscal year 24 so that's one of the changes in the bill that would take effect right away. And the logic there is that even though the pre K program itself wouldn't begin until a year out fiscal year 25, this new deputy would be on board to help that transition. So we have rulemaking language and section 11, the Department for Children, the families child development division and consultation building right future shall amend the following rules to reflect the changes. As a result of the public pre K education program, and then there's a list of the rules that would have to be amended to conform with the statutory changes that are proposed in this bill. A few pages on that. And then we moved to the second part of the bill. So, can I go. The parts that sections are going to need to be changed further. How was that going to happen. Good question. So we have an administrative rule pro rulemaking process. And so this would require the departments and agencies to have to go through that process. It's outlined in statute but they have to propose rules there has to be an opportunity for public commenting. And then it goes through my car it's called interagency committee on administrative rules. So that's sort of the process. And if you want more details, I'm happy to get those for you. Okay. So we're moving to part two of the bill, which is the property tax exemption. And this is the up to $10,000 of value of real and personal property owned by a home based child care provider, and used to provide childcare services and or rented at not less than 25% below fair market value, as determined by the prevailing area market of a home based or property to a center based childcare provider, and as used to provide childcare services. So those are the two groups that would be eligible for this tax exemption and then we have some language necessary to make that piece work. So the statutory purpose of the exemption for property owned by or rented to a childcare provider of this title is to go with the cost of providing childcare services in Vermont. And then we have to amend the definition of a homestead. As notwithstanding subdivision, one of this subdivision seven page a homestead shall include a dwelling or portion of a dwelling otherwise qualifies as a homestead, and that is rented at not less than 25% below fair market value is determined by the prevailing area market prices. So we have sort of a conforming change here. Question on property tax exemptions precedent and other other retention or incentive programs. We're moving out of my subject. This is going to, this will be a dive for finance committee. Yeah, but we, I think in the construction building the bill was thought what possible incentives can we provide for make your sense. And this was, I think it was your creative thought. I think you came up with it. Oh, I did. It's something I might come up with. So anyway, but it's good. I mean, it's something to at least that and that's it's something we can vet and understand if it's possible, but what would be the cost and how does it relate to other I don't want C3 or other businesses. This is, this is in the end of that paragraph. Yeah, and if the committee has questions about the tax exemption I'll refer you to my colleague Abby shepherd who is our tax attorney and she can answer those questions. And the short answer to Senator weeks is yes. What was the question that there, there are exemptions. Yeah. So there are lots of tax, lots of property taxes. This is, this is the language is model law after others. The intent was to provide. You know, except for, yeah, well, there are lots of different kinds of tax exemptions and it's, that's a long answer. There's a long answer. Yeah, this is just as the chair said to provide an incentive for private land law boards to give rent, subsidy, or, you know, cheaper rent to childcare. I'm not a tax guy. We're going to turn the window. Right here. This will go finance committee will have to look at this and we'll try. Okay, so we've moved into part three of the bill or moving right along. What page are we on page 24 at the bottom of page 24. Okay, so this is the portion of the bill, as I said this takes up the most pages in the bill. A lot of them are forming changes to make this split of DCF work. So a lot of the sections will look through I'm going to do really high level and sort of tell you what they do because the idea is more to make a conforming change to make sure the right authority stays with the right department. So, in section 15 departments created this lists the different departments and state government, you'll see that the Department of Economic Empowerment is added at the top of page 25. In section 16. This is language about who could be a recipient of federal tax information. Currently the Department for Children and Families is listed in this adds the Department of Economic Empowerment as a recipient. In section 17 exemptions. This is from a sub chapter on contesting cases within the administrative procedure. Is there currently an economic development or economic development. Economic development. There's an agency of economic development and community. Right. I think you're. Which one are you asking about here. page 25. This is all about the establishment of the Department of Economic Empowerment. Okay, well, I don't. Good question. Keep listening, because what's happening here is taking some of the economic eligibility and work that's done in the agency of human services and consolidating them into a new department. So as you listen, we're still embedded in the agency of human services. And we're putting together some of the payment eligibility and payment pieces related to childcare. So, again, I would say just hold off for a bit and then. Yeah, sure. Senator Williams point of law diagram of agencies, very simple, high level. This is this is the movement would be very helpful to clarify. Yeah. I think that's what you're saying. So you want to see the different configuration as compared with what we've already looked at. And then what's been moved there. And we probably have that. Yeah. It's not as complicated as you think it might be. Yeah. The structure of government is sometimes confusing. There are agencies. And so there's the agency of education and the agency of human services that agencies are the topper. And then under the agencies that are departments or divisions. And one of the confusing places a AOE and a chess are organized slightly differently. So, AHS is our biggest agency in state government.  And it includes like corrections and mental health and health and et cetera. AOE just has doesn't have departments just has divisions. And so in AOE all the bill would bump up a division director to a deputy secretary in AO. So, AHS, it would split out a department right now. It would take one one department and make it two departments so that there's less. There's more of a focus on childcare and early childhood in the, in the department of children and families. There's a new department all still under the agency of economic empowerment that would focus on sort of programs that make payments like literally just pay for child, child. No, not CC child support and economic programs. That would be economic empowerment that would basically be the payment things. That's DCF would be the programs and services that support families. So, it will be you, it will clarify itself as we go through this and as we hear testimony, it really will. And I would encourage you to go back and look at the organizational administrative chart that we have for AHS. And then as we go through the bill, we'll try to pull out some of the differences and have testimony on this. So, more to follow. And if it helps that chart we looked at that when I was going through the high level overview. Everything on that chart right now with one exception is within DCF. So it's literally splitting the department in half. The exception is moving a division in the health department into what would be the new DCF. And that's the maternal and child's health. It's not a standard question. It's confusing and we've spent a lot of time on this center of lines and Katie and I have spent a lot of time. So we understand it, but it's your first time through so. So, so my, my, my, what I need to hear me have around is the relationship economic development. It's a sound economic empowerment economic development. So it's a difference economic development. It's its own agency of commerce and community development. Totally separate. Absolutely totally separate away from miles away from, I shouldn't say that, but it's away from this this is agency human services, looking at service needs and appropriations. So, we're good. Okay, you know, I know, not only do you have to learn it the first time, but then you have to think about what would happen if we did this combination of complexities. What page are we on the actual that the departments list. Yeah, so I might go a little bit faster. Yeah, so we get to the child care and we're going to hear from the agencies, we're going to hear from, especially aHS about this reorganization will also hear from other folks who are affected by it. So, and we'll gradually get in tune with what all is recommended. Okay, so in section 17, we're going to be seeing a lot of sections similar to this. This is moving an authority that currently sits with DCF and it would sit with the Commissioner of Economic Empowerment and DCF and as I was saying this is from a sub chapter and there are a lot of plastic cases within the Administrative Procedure Act. That's the act that governs rulemaking, for example, section 18. This is the creation of an agency this is all existing law, but there's the creation of a new department listed here so you'll see that at the top of page 27 the new Department of Economic Empowerment. In section 19. This is existing law pertaining to deputy commissioners. So this language says that for DCF, the Secretary with the approval of the governor shall appoint deputy commissioners for the following departments. We're striking out economic services division because it's moving to DEE. So we have child development and family services staying within DCF and subsection E we're creating new language that the Department of Economic Empowerment and the Secretary with approval from the governor shall appoint deputy commissioners for the following divisions. So we have a deputy commissioner for disability determination services and economic services division. And then we have language in section 20 this governs the department for children and families. And this is language that sort of talks about what the mission statement is of the department for children and families so this proposal would be to change this to reflect the changes that are happening with the split of the department. So DCF is created within a just to promote the healthy development of children and youth overseen support a system of high quality childcare programs and home and community based settings and provide assistance and support to parents and families, as shall include the divisions of child development and family services, and the offices of children with special health needs and maternal health. That's what we listed in our chart. And in section 21 this pertains to Human Service Board hearings, and we're saying that a recipient of benefits from Department of Economic Empowerment can apply for a hearing. In section 22 this pertains to the Office of Child Support, which is being moved to the Department of Economic Empowerment that changes reflected there. And then we have a new paragraph laying out with the Department of Economic Empowerment is sort of similar like the mission statement like we just did for DCF. The DEE is created within AHS to empower families and individuals through the provision of financial support case management and other assistance aimed at building skills and independence, as shall include the Office of Child Support, the Office of Economic Opportunity, disability determination services division and economic services division. Next to section 24. I think it's an obvious answer, but the Department of Economic Empowerment doesn't exist. It does not exist. No, the proposal is to create this department. Yeah. Thank you. This is section 24. This is from a chapter on a jury commission. This is where the court administrator can pull names names from and it can currently pull names from DCF and so Economic Empowerment is added here. This is section 25. This comes from a chapter on consumer protection, a sub chapter on financial privacy, and this adds language that disclosure of information sought by the Department of Economic Empowerment is an exception and that lines up with the existing paragraph four, which pertains to DCF and the cross reference there is to banks and agencies to finish permission information. So those types of disclosures are exempted and similar a similar disclosure for DEE would be exempted. And section 26. This is from a sub chapter on fair credit reporting. There are several of these sections. But there is language about a security freeze by credit reporting agency and currently it's referencing the economic services division which is in DCF that division would be moving to DEE so that change is made in section 26. It's made in section 27 and section 28. This has the has to do with the right to terminate a rental agreement. And so here we're adding, let's see, the leading language is technical direction and then adding. Yeah, so we're adding DEE where we're adding DCF. In section 29. This has to do with the suspension of licenses. This is in from this has to do with conservation. So when we talk about license, it's not driver's license hunting license. And right now there's the ability there. There's an interplay between child support and these licenses. And so because child support is moving to DEE we're making that change. So you're seeing that in section 29. So these are all I think what we're doing here through a number of sections and probably we can do the higher level higher level. Yes, please. And then it's really conforming changes because we have this new department. Okay, yeah. Yes. So lots of conforming changes section 30 conforming changes section 31. We're switching DCF to DEE section 32. We're adding DEE where DCF currently is. Section 33 same thing we're adding DEE where DCF is also listed section 34. We're adding DEE where DCF is listed section 35 same thing section 36 were replacing DCF with DEE section 37 were again doing a replacement of one department for the other. Section 38 were doing a replacement of DEE for DCF section 39 is an addition of DEE where DCF is listed section 40 is a replacement of one committee one department for the other. And section 41 is an addition of DE where DCF is listed as section 42. This is where we have salaries of various commissioner positions and because we're adding a new department. We're adding that salary at the bottom and that is the same amounts that are currently entered for DCF. Section 43 we're adding DEE where DCF is currently listed and section 44 same thing section 45 I'm going to slow down here section 45. This is a whole chapter. First chapter in title 33 this sets out what DCF general authorities are. So this section has been amended to reflect the fact that some of the responsibilities that currently sit with DCF are going to be moving. So there are kind of conforming changes throughout this chapter that maybe strike through some of DCF's existing responsibilities. And there are some places where there's language that sort of discusses more about the child development work and childcare system work that the department will be focusing on a little bit more through this split. The interest of time. I will move through this quickly. But it would be worthwhile to come back to that section at some point. I think when we hear testimony people will be talking about these various these sections. Sure. And then a lot of scrolling here. Okay. And so then next just so you know where I am on page 64. So we're adding a minute. Okay. And this will be another one that will scroll through fast but just so you know what you're looking at. So we're creating a chapter two within title 33. This is the authority the general authority and responsibilities of the Department of Economic Empowerment. I have cut it and paste it from the chapter one language on DCF. There might be a few small changes. It's the same language. So I've repeated that chapter so that it applies to be and now I'm going to scroll past it. So this is another long chapter got into that chapter. So I'm on page 81 now if you're following along. Section 47. Okay, we're continuing just to do that high level. What kind of conforming change. So tell me when you're ready for me to speak through those. I'm on page 81. Okay, section 47. Okay, so in this section we're changing the definition of commissioner from the commissioner of DCF to be the Commissioner of Economic Empowerment. Maybe I'll tell you what program this is. This was reached first. So that makes sense because reach first is moving to DDE. So we have that same change in section 1101 and I believe this is reach up. And then in section 49, we're also making the change to DDE because this is the reach up program, which would be moving in section 5012 section 1201 this is reach ahead. So again, make sense that we're changing it to economic empowerment. Section 51. This is a to the each blind and disabled. So that is moving to DE section 52 is the same thing. Section 53 is the same thing. Section 54 is the same thing they're all those sections are all in the same chapter. So we have snap snap would be moving to snap is supplemental nutrition for assistance assistance program that would be moving to the Department of Economic Empowerment under this proposal. We have two sections on snap then we have section 57. This is a Medicaid section, looking at eligibility. This is moving to Department of Economic Empowerment section 58. This is the general assistance program which would be administered by the Department of Economic Empowerment. So that is a conforming change there same thing in section 59 section 60 rental or mortgage rich. This is also GA general assistance. So we're updating the commissioner who is responsible for that program. Section 61 is the same change from the general assistance program. 62 has to do with the variables at public expense this has been administered by DCF this would move to Department of Economic Empowerment payment of people suppliers. Same thing this would be moving to economic empowerment section 64 enforcement of support. This one is a little tricky because we're talking about first children under the control care and control of the department for children and families. So we want to specify that we need Department of Children and families that would be, for example, children and foster care, but the program itself would be administered by the Department of Economic Empowerment. So, unless it specifies department in that chapter would mean Department of Economic Empowerment. Section 65 is the same program, same change. Section 66 is the same program. 67. 67 we've arrived at the end of this section this part. So this is the rulemaking authority. And as I noted when we were doing our high level overview that this is the language that moves rulemaking authority between departments. So you'll see we have two sections on that because we're moving authority from DCF to DE and we're also moving some health department rulemaking authority to DCF. So those are those two changes. I'm going to pause there. We've made it to the end of that very big part. Are there any questions or are you ready to move into childcare. There are absolutely zero questions. There certainly are questions but I think we understand that there's conforming language and that we're going to hear testimony from a number of folks regarding the restructuring piece, the governance piece. Okay, any questions. Sure, because it feels like we're climbing Everest right now and I mean I just, I have to say it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is huge. And I can imagine the amount of work that went into this and thought and empathy and all kinds of other things but it's really impressive. Well we'll see how far we can get with it. I mean the goal here is quality high quality childcare can do all of this as well at the same time as part of that. That'll be a huge that'll be top of the mountain, but you know we'll just see what we can do. Okay, and Katie really is the person to say thank you for the heavy work. Okay, so we're moving on to a new part. So we're no longer talking about this split between divisions. We're talking about childcare and childcare subsidies towards age 96. Yes. We're moving right along finally got to chat. Okay. So, the first section in this bill, I should set us up here. The next two sections amend the same statutory section. They take effect in different dates. So this section 69 would take effect fiscal year 24. The next section section 70 takes effect fiscal year 25. So when we say that we're sort of tearing when childcare financial assistance is increased this is where it's happening. So first effective this year, the childcare financial assistance program is established subsidized the extent that funds permit the cost of childcare for families that need childcare services. And there's a repeal of language that this is an order to obtain obtain employment, retain employment or to obtain training leading to employment. Family seeking employment shall be entitled to participate in the program for up to three months and the commissioner may further extend that period. So that language would be repealed. So section two, this is where we lay out who is eligible for a child care subsidy. So right now, if a family is at or below 150% of poverty level, federal poverty level. They don't have a copay for their childcare financial assistance. This would increase that. So under this proposal, families under up to 185% of FPL would not have a copay for childcare. However, the program serves more people than just people who are at 150 or 185% of FPL. Benefit for right now individuals families up to 350% of federal poverty level. This is offered on sort of a sliding scale basis so the more you earn the smaller your subsidy is so families who are at 350% of federal poverty level are not getting a full benefit they're getting a portion of the benefit. So the proposal here is to serve families up to 425% of federal poverty level. It would still be on the sliding scale so families who would be at 425% of poverty level would be getting the smallest benefit of all the benefits offered in the program. I think it is in there. The scale shall be structured so that it encourages them there. Let's see. The policy for us is we want to have these percentages. And then we're, what we'll be doing is asking for the sliding scale. We'll be working with our joint fiscal office and others to determine what the scale looks like. And then the final decision. I'm just wondering, because I like to read it, I'm just wondering where in your, can I help you? Oh yeah, it's online 13, 14 and 15. That's an existing law. So families. Page 96. Oh, I don't know how that lines up with your. Section 69. Section 69 paragraph two. And the sentences families shall be found eligible using an income eligibility scale based on current federal poverty level and adjusted for the size of the family. Do you see that. So section 69 subdivision a two minutes right here. We're so to understand how it slides. Oh, you want the numbers. That's what I was talking about. Okay, that's what I was talking about. The numbers are not there. So, should they be referenced like this is the sliding scale that you're, I, I think it's set up in rule to allow flexibility for it to change more frequently. But it must reference like, I just want to go look at the, you can look at the numbers. They are there on the website of DCF right now. Right. And when we have them in, I'm sure they'll talk to us about it. It's not in statute statute is hard to change. So it's in rule because they change every year as federal poverty levels change. And so if we put it in statute, we would have to update it every single year. I'm not looking at statuaries looking for the reference. It's on the DCP website. And the scale is determined by family size or poverty level. Just say, DCF comes in on Tuesday, when you when a chess comes in on Tuesday, they're going to talk with us about how childcare is funded. And we can ask Alex can ask to have them bring in that sliding scale, or at least a link to it. So you have it because I know how frustrating this is. I had the same sense a bit ago, but the rule change is important because it doesn't have to go through this process to get to it. I know. Generally speaking, though, as we speak to our constituents, was the goal to stay within around or under 10% of income with that? Was there a general goal? So, yeah, the act 45 set up a goal of 10%.  And as you move up the percentage increases, but on average, it's around the goal is to stay around 10%. And you'll see later in the bill that the subsidies themselves increase based on the cost of care. So what you find is exactly what Senator Hardy has said, so you have 10% the goal, and then can't be achieved with some of the higher income so maybe six or 7% might be even lower. So, it's a goal. And we are, in many respects for many of the income levels, you can ask the agency this question, and others will be coming to come and testify. We're very close. So this will allow for others to be close. Thank you. So joint fiscal can help us with that as well. I want to add something to that all this. Yeah, you're the expert. Not on the money. Listen, look, I can't tell you how many years I've been working on childcare and, and, and now Senator Hardy now has been working on for a bit so you get used to the language and you understand what's happening and that it's all of a sudden. I'll see. I'll see. We get there. Okay, so thank you moving please. Okay, also effective this year is this new paragraph and subdivision. Five, the department shall ensure the applications for the childcare financial assistance program. Use a simple plain format applications shall be available in both electronic and paper formats. Okay, next is section 70 and as I already said, this is effective fiscal year 25. So this language I'm going to scroll down. Okay, so this language further increases the population that is eligible for this program. So you would have already moved up the folks with no copay to 185% fbl you would have already moved up. Folks eligible for CC back to 425% of fbl. This makes another jump that moves up to 450% fbl of that is the population of people who would be eligible to receive. A type of subsidy under the childcare financial assistance program. So that's online 12 that change. Okay. And then we're adding a new subdivision that the department in consultation with building bright futures shall adopt by rule. So this is a shared professional compensation standard for employees of childcare providers, which is comparable to compensation received by early childhood educators in Vermont public school system, who serve children from pre K through grade three. So the commissioner shall amend the rule containing the professional compensation standard required by this section to account for inflation and increases due to renegotiated public school conference teacher compensation levels. The commissioner shall ensure that the professional compensation standard is posted to the department's website. I'm going to pause here because this is important. So what we're doing is department every year, you're going to look at the compensation for childcare providers, and you're going to set a tiered compensation scale based on experience based on education, and you're going to set that on is how teachers are compensated in public schools. So they're going to be looking at teacher public school teachers pre pre pre K through grades three, looking at that compensation, and that is going to inform the compensation scale that DCF commissioner is going to set every year in rule for childcare providers. So this language goes on to say to participate in CC FAP to be a provider who serves the CC FAP families. The childcare provider shall minimally compensate employees providing childcare services and accordance with the professional compensation standard established in subsection a childcare provider that doesn't have any children receiving childcare financial assistance program subsidies. They don't have to follow this tiered tiered scale. The reality is that the majority of providers are probably serving children that are receiving a subsidy through childcare financial assistance program in which case they would be compensating their employees at the rate that is set by this scale and role. Does that make sense so far. I think it does. Around compensation. We know that salaries are very much based on municipalities and school districts across the state so they're not centrally informed. And there's often a step system which I think is what you alluded to here. So the salaries still be at the district level based on. So this would be a statewide sort of scale and it would be comparable to doesn't mean it would be exactly the same so it's not like in Burlington it's going to be this level and Middlebury it's going to be this level and it is a scale that would be comparable so they could take averages it's not to it's not delineated in here specifically but it would be done how it's done you know yeah so we so the administration will have to respond to this and I can think of a number of ways based on median income by geographic area it could be based on district and the whole number of ways that this could happen or could be an average across the state so we're not writing it in stone here we're putting some we're proposing something that we need to hear from folks who will administer this or put it in place so we need to know how much time to take it to do this what what criteria what are you using the question you're asking is really good question. I was just saying just to be clear compensation includes salary and benefits so it's it's not just salary and I assume it won't affect the K through 12 system that already exists. We're not touching that one we're not touching that okay great. We're touching enough in here but yeah. Thank you. Senator weeks. Is there a precedent for this somewhere in the state system if we're not doing it for teachers not doing it for nurses. What was another example of where we do this that's worth success. I'd have to think about this is probably a new. I think you probably know I'm not sure nothing is coming to mind but I would have to put a little thought into it. Yeah. But it's Lisa it's the issue here is that childcare workers get paid very little for their qualifications and the work that they do. And one of the recommend one of the suggestions it was made in the bill that we passed last time with act 45 was to look at childcare worker compensation. This is one way of doing that there might be other ways of doing that but if this is really important if we're going to maintain the workforce that we have our childcare centers. Yeah I would say there actually is quite a bit of precedent for doing this because this is essentially saying that if a private provider wants to get subsidies from the state for their work. And that the subsidies are you know provided for the families that they're cared for in their system. Then they have to pay to a salary scale that is established by the state. And that's a really common sort of thing for state contracts or federal contracts there are federal contracts that require a certain salary level for certain types of employment. Employees that may be doing work under a contract so there's a lot of precedent for this in a sort of state contracting situation. And you know I think that the labor law attorneys might be able to speak to that more specifically but I think it's not an unusual thing if you want state funding. You need to adhere to these these state compensation standards for the people you employ. Thank you. Okay, we're moving along. So now we're looking at existing language and existing section on payment providers. Again this follows the same sort of format we've already done so this section 71 takes effect fiscal year 24. Section 72 is the same section repeated that takes effect fiscal year 25. So, in section 71 we're talking about payment providers. There's language now that payments shall be based on enrollment status or any other basis agreed to by provider by the division. So when they talk about payments here they're referencing subsidy payments from CCFAT. So saying that the payments. This amendment means that the payments can only be based on enrollment. I don't know if you remember but we spoke a couple weeks ago about a report that was coming back from the department that was going to look at enrollment or attendance based reimbursement for childcare subsidy payments. And so this is making the decision to use enrollment based versus attendance based. So that would take effect this year. And then we're seeing the same section again. Taking effect, the changes taking effect next year. And this says that the commissioner shall establish a payment schedule by rule pursuant to rulemaking authority in consultation with building bright futures. The purpose of reimbursing providers for fuller part time care services rendered to families who participate in the programs established here so participating in CCFAT. Here is where sort of the big changes payments established under the section shall reflect total cost of care. So total cost of care, meaning the full cost of providing childcare to children, including the new compensation rates. So when we're saying that CCFAT has to reimburse and the payment has to reflect the total cost of care. This is saying the CCFAT subsidy has to reflect the heightened compensation rates that will be set in rule. So total cost of care, including whether the provider operates a licensed childcare facility or registered family childcare home type of service provided cost of providing service and provider credentials for removing language about the prevailing market rate for comparable service, because instead we're moving to the total cost of care model. So we had, we had a few years ago, a couple of sessions ago, moved the market rate up to 273. Somewhere in there. Yeah, I used to have a post-it note on my computer. And then it goes on to say that the payment shall be based on enrollment and the professional standard that we just talked about. So when this cross reference is just referencing the standard that the commissioner is going to set in rule. So it's saying you have to take this professional compensation standard into effect into consideration and determining the payment. So that is the change that takes effect fiscal year 25. So we're moving language right now there's language about this market rate survey that happens, I think every three years in which DCF is looking at the market rate of childcare and coming up with a reimbursement formula based on the 75th percentile child care providers around the state are charging so that language is being removed language about the stars program is being removed and instead new language that annually the commissioner shall amend the rule. Continuing the payment schedule required by this section to account for inflation, the commissioner shall ensure that the payment schedule is posted on the department's website. So an annual update on the subsidies based on inflation. Again, that's effective fiscal year 25. Okay. So, we're moving on to a new section of law, hopefully a little bit lighter than the preceding section so this has to do with childcare wait lists and application fees. So if a parent family has to be entered on a wait list and pay and sometimes pay an application fee for being on the wait list, prior to their being a space available for their child. So this language says that the childcare provider shall not charge an application or wait list fee for childcare services, where the applying child qualifies for CCF. If a child would otherwise be eligible for CCF, there can't be a wait list fee or an application fee. So just for clarification, this would to qualify this would be those. I remember never correctly somewhere up to about 450% depending what year we're talking about the year. Yeah, but yes, so yeah, the 185. If we pass this with the 185. So this would, this would cover everyone who is. Yeah, so zero, zero percent of fbl to whatever year we're setting it up so it'll change over time. Yep. A childcare provider shall reimburse an individual who is charged an application or wait list fee for childcare services that's later determines that the applying child qualified for CCF at the time that the year fees were paid. So this stands is not to, it's not about the weight position in the wait list, it's about the wait list fee. It's about the fee. Yeah, some of the fees are quite high. A lot of families are getting on like 10. And hundreds of dollars in fees. And then some people are on many wait lists, but if we make improvements in reimbursement to care facilities and providers, then maybe this maybe these funds will be as important to the center. So far, there are wait lists. Yes, there are. So this isn't going to do anything to help that. I couldn't, it couldn't be an option. Yeah, we don't know we're going to have to listen to find out what what people think how do they think they'll be affected by this and the question is how long the fees been in place because some of us were unfamiliar with with the fees. Okay, so section 74. Okay, so section 74 this also takes effect fiscal year 25. And this adds a new chapter to our, our chapter that we asked me this as a new sub chapter to the chapter we've been working in on childcare. This creates a childcare assistance program for additional populations. And this creates a non citizen childcare assistance program. And it, this actually the structure of this years what went in place for the doctor dinosaur like populations last year so it's the same format. First we have an intent section and establishing the non citizen childcare assistance program to provide childcare subsidies for children who are not eligible for the childcare financial assistance program, because of their citizenship status. This is the intent of the general assembly that the benefits and eligibility criteria set forth in section three, the next section of this chapter should align to the greatest extent practical, but the benefits and eligibility criteria and CC FAP that we just looked at and corresponding rules. And then we have the language to put that into effect. And then we have the fees for certain Vermont residents for the purpose of this section the phrase Vermont residents who have a citizenship status for which CC FAP participation is not available includes children of migrant workers who are employed and seasonal occupations in the state. And some section three DCS shall provide state funded childcare subsidies equivalent to those offered in CC FAP to Vermont residents with a citizenship status for which CC FAP participation is not available and meet the service need and income eligibility standards established in the department and rule. The department shall not inquire about or record the citizen, the citizenship or immigration status of the applicant or any member of the applicant's family. All applications submitted in records created pursuant to the section shall be exempt from public inspection and copying under the Public Records Act and shall be kept confidential. If you have a request for information by US agency pursuant to federal law, the department shall not disclose any personally identifiable information regarding applicants of the US government. DCF may adopt rules in accordance with rulemaking authority to carry out the purpose of this section. So in essence this creates a parallel state funded benefit to CC FAP. It would be set up and structured like CC FAP, and it would be available to children who are otherwise ineligible for CC FAP because of their citizenship status. So this is all my appropriations money. This is all the general fund. And so we have to that's consideration. This is, this is above our pay break in terms of funding but it's something we need to hear from folks about the, the need that's out there and the numbers of people that might be affected. So this is a question to the founders of S-56 in this relationship to the item. Why not relate these benefits through a visa status, vice versa, open-ended, non-citizen status. There are, so CC FAP is both state and federal funded. So it is, it is governed to sell by federal regulations. And so non-citizens are not eligible for CC FAP. You have to be an American citizen for the most part and maybe some types of visas would allow you to be eligible for CC FAP. But then there are non-citizens who are not eligible for CC FAP either because they maybe have refugee status or don't have their full visas or they're undocumented and they are working in Vermont. And they are not eligible for CC FAP, but their families work and live in Vermont and contribute to our communities in our state and are not, they are not able to qualify for such fees for child care. And yeah, and a couple of years ago, we created a program that as Katie referenced is a sort of mirrors the Dr. Dinosaur Child Health Benefits Program for children and pregnant women that would do the same, allow them to have access to that program or a sort of a sister program. And this would do the same thing. In my community, and I'm certain also indoors, there are, for example, migrant farm workers who don't have immigration status that allow them to their kids to be eligible for CC FAP. So this would give them eligibility to a program that is a sister program to CC FAP. So, and we heard, I talked recently with the refugee resettlement program director, and there are folks who are here who've been coming to the country from Afghanistan or from Ukraine or other countries, and they're waiting. They have, they don't essentially don't have status yet. So this will help them. And they asked specifically about this when I talked with them. So it's, it's something we need to consider. I don't know what the costs are associated with it. And the testimony process is it possible to get an overview of CC FAP? CC FAP, it's on Tuesday. Right. Each visa eligibility specifically, but what they do, what they don't cover to have that subject. Absolutely. I would also like to request, and I can't remember the organization if like, I don't think it's CEDAW, but they put out data around the amount of income, or amount of income that money is generated into our economy every year by refugees and migrants. New Americans, non-citizens, and that would be really helpful. Okay, so that testimony, we won't get that right away, but if you have someone you'd like to testify, let Alex know. We'll try to fit that. Okay, about five more sections in nine minutes. So I think we're going to make it. You're doing a great job. So section 75 also relates to this non-citizen child care assistance program, and this language again is the same sort of format that followed the Dr. Dinosaur Non-Citizen Act that was enacted last year or two years ago. So this says that DCF shall provide information on the estimated FY25 costs of providing coverage to Vermont residents who have a citizenship status for which CCFAP participation is not available. Beginning on July 1, 2024, the start of FY25 as part of its budget presentation next year. So you'll be getting, this is asking DCF to come up, come back to you with an estimate of what this program would cost. So we'll see in the effective date section that it said, that it says this will take effect to the extent funds are available. So we'll look at that piece. So it's not next year, it's the following. Okay, next is special accommodations grant. This is a report on this type of grant. So by next January, this is requesting that the child development division submit a proposal to streamline the application process for special accommodation grants for children in child care settings, including moving to a 12-year month grant cycle, improving support and training for providing inclusive care for children with special needs, and determining how to better meet early learning needs of children with disabilities within a child care setting. So that's a report request. And then, Did you have a question? You said requesting. Yeah. Directing, you're right. That's a shall, directing. Okay. Is this important? Yes, it is. We're going to, people are going to have to pay for this, people are going to have to do what this bill tells them. Okay. Okay. Thank you for correcting me. I'm just saying, The next part of the bill has to do with the child care workforce retention grants. This is a repeat of what was put in the budget last year in terms of child care workforce retention. The sum of 7.3 million is appropriated from the general general fund to DCF for the early childhood staff and home based provider retention grant program that was established in the budgets. And then, Okay, we're getting for the end. So an act 45 there were three workforce programs that were created, two of them were set to sunset on July 1226 one was going to be ongoing. And so this removes the sunset for one of the programs that was going to be sunset. So that is what the strike through is on line six and seven scholarships for perspective early childhood providers would be retained it would no longer be repealed under this proposal. And then, related to these three programs their appropriations in the budget for these ongoing programs. So this is saying, and fiscal year 24 that an additional $500,000 over the base is appropriated to DCF for funding scholarships for current early childhood providers. So this is increasing the base appropriation. We're really close now. Let's see transitional assistance is section 80. And this is asking or directing the agency of education in the Department for Children and Families to consult with and receive technical assistance from building bright futures for the purpose of implementing the provisions of this act, including re kindergarten education, reorganizing DCF and implementing changes to CC back and establishing the non citizen child care systems program so this is asking building bright futures to be involved in the establishment and organization of all of these programs. And then we have our effective dates which I tried to kind of call out for you as we went through the bill but they're set out there. And we made it in two hours. Oh, Bill. Well done. Thank you. I know there were a lot of questions here. There's a lot of overlap with education, including the scholarships and the loan stuff, because I know we had worked on that last year, but that's long here too. And so, as I said before, we're just beginning. On Tuesday, we'll try to get our feet on the ground once again with funding, what happens now. And then we have then we'll on Friday next we'll have some testimony and from some national experts on childcare. Before we go from there, my request of you, before we take a quick break. Okay, I know. My request of you before we take a quick break is to remember this this is how we deal with information here. And we're going to listen to testimony. We're going to listen to the data. And if we can't do everything here, we will. But our goal is to do as much as we can. And we're going to listen to the data from child care. And then there's some things that we're going to have to say goodbye to. And that's going to go to education. And there are some things that we'll have to modify as a testimony. So we're at the beginning of a process. Please, Alex, let's go offline for a minute. So this is Senate Health and Welfare. We're back on February 3. And this is mental health advocacy advocacy day. Actually, I think it's all week. It's all week. Yeah, so it's great and Monday was big day for folks. So why welcome. Thank you. We're going to introduce ourselves to you first and then we're going to ask you to introduce yourself for the record and talk with us about team two. Hello, Senator Hulick. Hi, I am Senator Hulick from Burlington and I represent Chittenden Central. It's a huge. Good morning from Proctor and I represent Rotten County. Okay. What's your name? Oh, Dave Wittes. I'm going to scroll over some words. So it's kind of fine. How many lines from Chittenden Southeast? Good morning, Ruth Hardy, Senator from the Addison Distance. I'm Krista Chandler and I'm the coordinator of team two, which is a training program here in Vermont that I'm going to tell you about. And I just send our lines. I really appreciate your talk on Monday at mental health advocacy day, the intro. I am here as part of mental health advocacy week. It seemed like to fit this information just about what training police getting around mental health issues, because I'm involved in all of that. And so just very briefly, I'm going to tell you about that. So you're aware of it. And so we do have Margie LeMay behind you, ready to speak so whenever, and we're going to go until about 25 after. I think I have about 10 minutes. That's perfect. So in Vermont, what certified police officers receive that's required is eight hours of mental health training. It's called interacting with persons with mental illness. It's taught at the police academy by myself, police officer and a mental health commission. That's what they get. That's required by law. And then what's optional is after that, they can take team two, which is what I run, which has been an existence now for 10 years. My background is I was an assistant attorney general here for eight years with the department of health prior to that I was a staff attorney at the police. I was a prosecutor for 10 years in county. And for the last 10 years, I've been running T two and teaching that the world is an action. T two is a collaboration between the Department of mental health and public safety. It's a grant that's funded or run by their partners. It's statewide training that is offered in five different regions around the state for mental health crisis clinicians, law enforcement officers, EMTs, dispatchers, emergency department personnel invited states attorneys are invited. Sometimes DCF is there in the room. It's great to have their perspective. It's one day of scenario based training where all those first responders come together and work through scenarios to hear about the updates in the law from me. They hear from somebody with lived experience. And they hear about the resources that are available in their particular region. And that's why it's regionals because resources are so very different depending on where you are. It's not mandatory. It's totally voluntary. And the last few years, I've had waiting lists related to most of the trainings. The state police did make team to mandatory for all the tributes about four years ago, when Captain Scott was there, he recognized it as really valuable to have additional health training. And so I work with the state police to get all of their troopers to the training in those locations every year. Well, I want to make sure you know also there is a, there's an effort right now I'm part of that's a CIT pilot training. So CIT is crisis intervention training, which you may have heard of because it's sort of the gold standard in the country for police mental health training. And it's based out of Memphis started in Memphis, Tennessee. It's really designed for major metropolitan areas. And 10 years ago, we created team to sort of as an answer to CIT training because we recognize that here if they want, it's really hard for police departments to send people to a five day training. And so team two is sort of the answer to that whether we're really condensing that information to one day, because that is what police departments can send people to. And while team two is voluntary, I will say, I keep a list that's acquired by the grant there's probably only six or seven police agencies who have never attended team two and those are really, really tiny ones. So the CIT, there's a CIT pilot project going on right now in Washington County that has been going on for a couple of years. We're actually rolling out the training in March that will be five days. And we have turning point people, EMTs, police officers, a dispatcher, and some mental health folks currently signed up for it. But what we're finding out, which is kind of what we already knew is that it's, it's really hard for people to attend five days training that we're asking them to. And so we only have about 10 people signed up right now, but we're going to hold the training. And that also is scenario based and it also involves one of those five days involves site visits where the whole the group will go around and look and get to see like the emergency department psychiatric unit. He'll go to turning point will go to some other agencies that we think it's important for them to see. The Broad State Police does also they've added in the last three or four years, a pre basic training for their officers that I've conducted, and now morning Fox is doing it, and also a post basic training. The Montse please is really on their own recognize that the need for additional mental health training for their troops. So they're getting three hours ahead for the instructor academy, for the get any of the law they just get an overview of the mental health system. And then once they're finished with 16 with the Academy, they then get an afternoon of role playing where Fox burns in an actor. I've done it in the past I've brought in an actor and the troopers have to go through a scenario and talk some of the down this way and provide feedback. One of the things I just want to put a be in your body about that I hope will be kind of in the future it's a bill that will require refresher training for law enforcement mental health cases and this. I gotta tell you didn't really occur to me until I was a couple years ago I was helping a friend move into Boston University, and there was an officer standing around outside. And I just chatted him up. There were a few of us who were processing this talk. And I started asking about this now how train you tell me yeah we have to do 44 hours of the year. And I'm just 44 for four for every year. And he started talking about how helpful it was and how they, you know, we do have mandatory training for all the other tools on their belt tasers. We have firearms, domestic violence stuff that is required but we never require here in Vermont any follow up. And I have people officers in my team to training who've been officers for 20 years. And, you know, stuff changes things change and the whole culture has changed really and how we respond to mental health cases so. I have a student line at law which was also an intern at the month of PD. So he did some research for me and found that there are 17 states that require some follow up mental health training. I provided that to you in my testimony, what those hours are. Would you be willing to send us your testimony and writing. I did. We have. Yeah, I'm sorry. So that's fine. It varies from like one hour every year up to four hours. Yeah. Or it may be three hours every three years. It depends on the state. Okay. And I talked to a lot of officers because I thought I'd get resistance on this and they're all like, no, please, we would welcome this. We would really welcome this because. And it's at the state level. Yeah, for those other states. Yes, it is. Yeah. Yeah, because so much of what we do, it happens at more of a local level. Yeah. Yeah. But again, I think it would probably need to be reachable because of those. Yeah. At least. So any questions. So we have this testimony and we have your expertise. And so this committee will be talking mental health issues. Maybe not directly to a bill, but it will. So directly to a bill, but this might be something that we can consider recommend there's a cost to it, but it is a well over the cost. Stay connected with us. You bet. Yeah, great. I just had a quick comment. Thank you very much. First of all, I haven't seen this bill, but I'm very excited. My husband's an airline pilot every nine months he goes to a training that's quite intensive as a high school teacher I had professional development every year. And we throw the word crisis around a lot mental health crisis what that says to me is we have to do things differently. We're not doing things we've been doing them. And this will be huge, because we have so much evidence of what happens when police officers and folks in a crisis collide, and it's often doesn't end well. So I'm really excited about this and I, I look forward to learning more. Well, this is the other thing I just came from meeting we're talking about this. And I want to send you the, every year I publish a little thing called the team to training news about the good outcomes in Vermont because you don't hear about those good outcomes. You only hear about the negative ones and there's so many this we're really, there's a lot of really good work going on. And in fact, I've been able to take to some international conferences and talk about what we're doing here for training. The state is doing it this way with people in the room together at the same time, and building those relationships that are necessary and I'll tell you there's, there's really just some great work going on. I also serve as a vice chair on the Malhouse crisis review commission, and we'll review cases and we're still seeing that there's really good work going on. That would be really helpful to get some information. I live in Burlington and the narrative is. Yeah, I need some work. So thank you. So I'm going to, this is terrific and I think what we might do is invite back another time when we're ready to put something in writing. Happy to come back. That would be terrific. I really would like to hear Marge. So I'm just going to, I guess, I don't want to be respectful of Marge. Marge is on the street. It must, I'm going to say you look like you're very warm for this day. Yeah, I'm, I'm being held by a very close friend by her scarf. Introduce yourself to the record and let us give us some information about NAMI. Thank you for being here. Yes, certainly. Good morning. It's a privilege for me to be here today. I'm very grateful for the opportunity. So thank you. My name's Margie LeMay. My family has lived in Colchester Vermont for the past 30 plus years. I'm a member of volunteer and an employee of NAMI Vermont, the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Vermont. Part of America's largest grassroots mental health organization. Before I begin with my testimony, I would like to share something with you that I received from my daughter in law as a text. And it will make sense to you when I read you my testimony. She writes, When you've spent decades carrying a heavy weight, and it suddenly implodes into nothing. Your body, so accustomed to holding is shocked by the weightlessness. Your arms have atrophied in a now empty hug. Your feet are unsteady on flat ground. Your sense of time slips and twists back and forth, forth and back. Oh, your spinning mind, there isn't anywhere to a light that is firm and real. You are suspended from above by a thread while the world whirls around you. Faces and voices, kind words and touches from loved ones flow past you. And when they go, there is quiet, deep and smooth, yet buzzing with absence. The terrible moment you wake in the morning and remember. The possibility, the loss of possibility for him, the finality of it. Today, my family's story is one of failed systems, struggles, heartache and profound love. Today I'm talking about our son, our family, but there's hundreds of others in Vermont who are in one stage or another of crisis. No action can help my son now, but we can change their outcome. Today I would like to share with you my 31 year old son's journey on this earth. We lost him less than two weeks ago on one day, January 23rd 2023 to a lifetime of struggle with mental health and more recently addiction. Everyone who loves him is both devastated by this loss and comforted to know that his struggle and his pain in this life is now over. I'm here to tell you that at every turn in his and our journey, every social system designed to help us failed us. The mental health system, the physical health care system, the education system, law enforcement and court systems and our social service systems, every one of them underfunded, understaffed, overwhelmed and stretched beyond their limits were never able to function smoothly in a coordinated, efficient way to pull their resources and offer our family the right care at the right time and in the right place. The result is that the baby boy we welcomed into our life on October 11 1991 with incredible joy and hope is no longer with us. The NAMI Smart's training program that I co-teach with Laurie Emerson, NAMI Vermont's executive director, teaches people how to write an effective, concise story, deliver it to you, the legislators, and most importantly make an ask. I have given a lot of thought to what my ask is today. The systems designed to fix the problems are causing them. My ask is for everybody listening right now, whether you identify as a peer, a family member or community member, a provider or a legislator, please feel and adopt my urgency and help me fix what's broken. We need to start over and design a system where we communicate, coordinate and make efficient use of our extremely limited resources. Our systems must be generously staffed with people who are paid well, who have a workload that allows them to focus on providing all-person care from start to finish, supporting and guiding their clients until they are well into recovery. As a society, we must step up, stop talking, and start doing. How is it possible that my son could drive to City Hall Park and within minutes be approached by a half-dozen dealers all vying to sell him fentanyl? Because the police are so disrespected and reviled that no one wants the job and far too many positions remain unfilled. How is it possible that my son could be transported by ambulance after a near-fatal overdose last fall and then be released within an hour with no one having encouraged or offered a rehab placement or any kind of follow-up care? Because he was physically stable, there's no placement for them to offer, and there are two dozen people in the ER waiting to be seen. How is it possible that the only way we as parents could get him into a residential placement as a young teenager was to give up our parental rights and allow him to be placed in a foster home until a placement became available? Because the only placement in Vermont at that time was funded by the State of Vermont and was reserved exclusively for teenagers in the custody of the Department of Social Services. It's important for you, for me to note and you to know that we had private insurance at the time that would have paid 100% of the cost without time limits. My husband and I and everyone who loves our son is just now beginning to learn how to exist in this world without our brilliant, funny, compassionate son. Because despite investing every ounce of courage and resolve we had, all of our resources and the love and support of many family and friends, the systems designed to help us failed us every step of the way. I implore you to help me fix this now before we lose one more person we love. Again, today I'm talking about my son, my family. Hundreds of our neighbors, friends and loved ones are in the same cycle of crisis right now. Help me change their outcome. I don't want to hear one more person say, I'm so sorry for your loss. I want to hear them say, I hear you. I see you. I feel your pain. How can I help you fix this? What's broken? Thank you for listening. I very much appreciate this opportunity and I hope to have additional opportunities. Thank you very much, Margie. We do we do hear you. And your testimony is on our webpage. It's very compelling and you have offered some suggestions for improvement to the system. We greatly appreciate the work that you're doing. And we also, in spite of what you said, send condolences about your loss. Thank you. And we're unfortunately we're going to have to go offline at this time and we look forward to staying in touch with you as well so thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you.