All right. Good morning. This is the Senate Health and Welfare Committee. It is April 15th, 2021. And today we're going to be taking testimony on H171, the child care bill, which we're hoping to work on and to move as early as next week, early next week. So thank you all for being here to provide testimony. Let's see who is first on the list. Sarah Truckel and Sarah Truckel just popped in. Where are you? There you are, Sarah. Thank you for being here. There's a lot in the bill relating to child care financing. And you are the expert from the department from DCF on this. So we welcome your testimony. Do you have anything for us on our documents list? I don't. And if it's actually okay, I am, is it possible that the interim deputy commissioner could kind of give an overview of our department's testimony and then I could chime in on the financial sections. Absolutely. We would welcome that. And so, and I don't know that Miranda Gray, your interim deputy commissioner has been here since you were appointed. So thank you for being here. Deputy Commissioner Gray. Why don't you unmute yourself and introduce yourself to the committee and then you can give us the overview. So thanks for being here. Thank you so much for having me. So I am for the record I am Miranda Gray. I'm the interim deputy commissioner for the child development division. And I appreciate you providing the time for us to come and testify on each 171 today I have with me Melissa Regal Garrett, our policy director for the child development division. And then as you know Sarah Truckel who is our DCF financial director. Overall the administration supports the concept of the bill and supports the three studies and two advisory groups as outlined. However, there are still sections of the bill that we'd like to touch upon today. Those are section four appropriations and legislative intent child care financial assistance program. Section six through eight the workforce supports sections 10 and 11 the ARPA working groups and section 12 report child care financial assistance program program enrollment model. With this general overview of what we'd like to touch upon I'd like to turn over testimony to Melissa Regal Garrett. Thank you. Thank you. And, um, Melissa, thank you for being here. Absolutely. For the record my name's Melissa Regal Garrett I am the policy director for the child development division and it's a pleasure to be back and I want to start by thanking all of you for your leadership and partnership over the last year as the state has engaged in the COVID response period and all the support for childcare and early learning programs. It sure has been a year and the field has demonstrated its resiliency and also it's significant importance in terms of caring for our kids and families and also supporting our economy. So much appreciated the work over the last year. As deputy commissioner Gray stated overall the administration is in support of the concept of achieving access to affordable quality childcare for all Vermont families who need it. The administration also recognizes and appreciates the changes to this bill from the introduced version to the house past version. We do appreciate your time hearing some final areas of concern. And as I go through this I am going to reference the bill and I'm curious if you all are using the official version or the unofficial version as you are looking at the bill. Well, we'll be using the official version. Great. Thank you. I'm going to start on section four, which is page 46 of the official version. This is the appropriations and legislative intent related to the childcare financial assistance program. The administration is recommending a strike of the intent number two, as it is in the financing study section, and we support it being there. And at the very least a removal of the date of October 1 of 2021 in this particular section. If I could ask if I could ask for you to just slow down and remind us where you are in the beginning because once we all get on that page then we then then let the rains go. All right, sounds good. So let me know when you all have found me on page 46. How are we doing committee. So page 46 and the section that you're talking about is section for section four on page 46. Okay. So committee when you get there. Madam chair, I just want to note that the unofficial version is the one that doesn't have the the cross outs and the strikes. So page four. Melissa's on page four of the unofficial. Yep. Thank you. Thank you because I was on page four also and then look going back. Okay, so let's do that page four. Great. So, again, I'm looking at section number two under section four. And we're actually asking that this is this section is struck from this section because it actually appears in the financing study section. And at the very least a removal of the date of October 1 of 2021 for this section. And the reason for this is the child care financial assistance program five year plan really takes a very different philosophical approach to setting a family co payment. The administration study this pretty significantly before presenting the five year plan. Now almost two to three years ago. And what we base these co payments on is actually the joint fiscal offices basic needs budget. And assuming that a family has access to what's in that basic needs budget. We set the co payment based on whatever a family could afford for out of pocket childcare. They earn over and above that basic needs budget. And again, it's a fairly significant difference from setting it based on a 10% threshold. And while we provided testimony to house human services that they're fairly aligned as you move up the income scale is at the very higher end of the income scale where you see, you know, the co payments we've said go above the 10% threshold that this bill is interested in. And the two approaches don't really work together. And so what we'd really like is for this to have an opportunity to be fully studied and if this is in fact the philosophical approach that the state would like to take. You know that that we would be able to explore that and understand the ramifications of that both financially as well as policy wise before implementing it. And so that's that's why we'd like to see this removed or at the very least, the date removed. Madam chair, can I ask a clarifying question on this. Yes, go ahead please. Melissa, thank you. I'm just wondering, do you have a chart maybe that shows the differences and what what you're talking about because in numbers it's hard for me to understand what the difference between what what we're seeing versus the approach you're suggesting or the current approach. I believe that we can find that for you there was a chart presented to house human services so I think that we can snag that from that submitted testimony and get that to you, Senator Hardy. That would be great. Thanks. Yeah, please just send it into Nellie and she'll post it on our webpage. Thank that would be great. Great. Essentially what happens is when you get at higher levels of income for families up in above 300 350% of the federal poverty level. That's where you really start to hit. We have set based on the basic needs budget that are higher either at or higher the 10% threshold that this bill is looking at. And certainly as you get to higher and higher income levels, the consideration to go to potentially 400%. So that that gets exacerbated as you go up. And so there is actually a philosophical conversation to be had about families that are earning higher levels of income above the JFO basic need budget and what is their fair cost share in a market based system and what is fair for the state to bear. As we move forward. Considering this bill. And then I will defer to my colleague Sarah truck. If she wants to mention anything in terms of budgetary impact. Let's let's hold put a hold there and let Senator Hooker ask her question. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Melissa. And you talked about the date at least changing the date and do you have a suggestion for that. We'd love to just see the date left out and allow the financing committee to do its work and bring his recommendations back to the legislature and then be able to make a determination at that point. And then an effective date would make sense if we're going to move to this, this way of approaching the cost share for families. Okay, thank you. So now you wanted Sarah truck all to weigh in. Sarah truck all DCF financial director for the record, I would also add that to is not currently within the FY 22 governor proposed budget so in section for a the 5.529 million lines up with the FY 22 proposed budget and the governor's proposed CC back year three flip. That does not include the costs associated with section for B2. So there would be an additional financial cost. The other point that I would add here is just that the governor's original budget language didn't include that 5.5 million. So that in the house proposed it strikes that from our budget language and moves it and carries it in this bill, which creates the question of does it actually add to the base or is it one time in nature and there's just some technical clarifications that would be important to ensure because this shift would require this appropriation within the base. Thank you for that and just FYI, the money sections of the bill we're going to we're not going to tamper too much with the money in the bill that is really the appropriations committees work so we'll we'll hold that. But thank you for that and that'll, that'll help us when we meet with appropriations. All right, I'm going to move to the workforce sections section 6, which I believe in the version you're looking at begins on page 5. Yep. I just have some general comments here on behalf of the administration. Absolutely recognizes the need to support the childcare workforce and we currently are providing funds to support higher education for those currently working in the field. And you've got Sonya Raymond here who's part of the teach program, which is the program that receives those funds. So I look forward to hearing her help you better understand that. But there are a couple of concerns with this section and you may have already noted these concerns. The expansion of the current program, as well as establishment of a new scholarship program for prospective workforce and the establishment of the loan repayment program. Does provide an appropriation that's not currently within the governor's FY 22 proposed budget. And then it also seems to outline an intent that it's funded in future years as well. And then the other piece I want to just flag for the legislature while it's less of a barrier. We do want to have it noted that operationalizing to new programs could potentially take us up to around nine months. To allow for the establishment of the policies and guidelines and procedures as well as to run a procurement process. If that is the direction we move so I just want the legislature to be aware that as we are establishing new programs and operationalizing that at the administrative level that there is some time involved with getting programs up and running. Okay, thank you. Next I'm going to go to sections 10 and 11, which are the ARPA working groups and those begin on page 12. So we do support the working groups established in these sections and look forward to working with folks and making recommendations on expanding the ARPA funding stream in accordance with federal law and the allowable uses. We do have concerns with utilizing ARPA funding to raise the CC FAP income limit to 400% of the federal poverty level as well as moving co-payments to the 10% threshold for a family's income level. In addition to some of the things I mentioned earlier, and the potential additional base budget pressures that this could put on. Well, it actually is that using ARPA funding in this case does create a potential base budget pressure in the future if we are going to look to potentially continue the cost of these. So they're not one time in nature expenditures and the federal dollars are one time in nature. So, and you know as I mentioned before it is a major policy shift for how the five year plan is designed. And the working group itself that's established for this purpose isn't really designed or has the time to do the kind of analysis needed to determine if the policy shift is in fact the right way to go for Vermont and this program. So thank you for that. Was there, does someone else have a comment. Okay. Were you were you ready to stop there. That's I want one more piece on this section, which is, we are building the CBD is the childcare information system the new technology that will be using already. We're building it based on the methodology that we have used to determine family copay. So to make a shift in October of 2021 will actually interrupt the work that we're doing to launch that system. And the timing of this decision, if we leave it with a work group. And it will be a bit of a rub between the two pieces of work that we're trying to accomplish. Okay, that that's helpful. So I guess the, this is, is that the November deadline that you're talking about in the bill the reporting of this group is November. And that would conflict with the work that's ongoing on the it system. Yes. Okay, so then I'm also looking at the, the, the, what the group is doing and it's a, there's a lot, there's gonna, there's a huge amount in ARPA that is about childcare block grants CC FAP. There's a huge amount in there.  And I, I'm, I'm interested in thinking about having some relationship with the joint fiscal office in some way so that there's a more of a collaborative environment. And then the work that's coming back to the legislature is somehow integrated with our joint fiscal folks on just to let you know I'm thinking about that and how we might have something in place there. Okay, Senator Hardy. Thank you, Melissa. So I'm looking at the language that you were talking about is so my impression is that this group was just to make recommendations that just because they recommend something doesn't mean it's going to happen. So I'm wondering, is it, is it your concern because this would require this group would require more work for CDD or you're concerned about what they might recommend or are you, I guess I just want a little bit more clarity on the concerns about sort of where along the line, the concerns are. I mean, I hear you about the more money. Right, so it's, yeah, no, the two major concerns that we have is that this is the ARPA money is one time money, and the use of that money for something that would require ongoing investment by the state, and the placing that responsibility to make that decision both financially and philosophically with this particular work group. We haven't structured this work group to have the capacity or the skill set to do that study. That's why we put it in the financing process. And we're going to use it with, you know, JFO to really guide that. It's complex. You know, this decision is pretty deep and complex. It's going to require some significant analysis of what is that actual impact of using one model and asking the folks that are going to be involved in this work group who aren't necessarily financial people to be doing that kind of analysis seems a little bit unfair to them as well as those of us that are going to get these recommendations and have to actually work within those recommendations to make final decisions. Okay, that makes sense. I do want to point out that they are recommendations. We can, the legislature would have to make the final decision. This group would not have the ability to do anything besides recommend and, you know, we reject recommendations all the time. You know that. So that's just one thing, but I do understand your concerns for sure. Thank you. Yep. Okay. Sarah, this is touched a bit on finances. Is there anything else that you would want to add? I think you've highlighted the potential impact around one using one time funds, as you, as this committee knows from the past when we've increased FPL as well as shifting and rates the economic and the fiscal impact is quite substantial. For example, this year we're shifting and doing the flip and that's a cost of 5.5 million with the current with the expected underutilization. So just to highlight that it isn't a minimal impact that we would potentially be looking at for recommendations using one time funds but that it would have a sizable future potential obligation. Thank you. Yep. Yes, the distinction between one time and base funding is constantly on our minds. So thank you. All right. The final section that comments from the administration is section 12 and that's on page 16. And it's the report for DCF to do on the childcare financial assistance program and the enrollment based model. The department remains in support of studying this change as it's a complex change and won't only have financial implications. For example, it's not currently in the FY 22 proposed budget, but it also has policy implications that need to be fully understood and weighed in order to make a fully informed decision about moving in this way. I'd also like to provide the committee some information about Vermont's current system. In our childcare financial assistance program state plan, which is where we report to the feds exactly how we operationalize this program. Vermont's billing system is in fact an enrollment based system. Essentially, we are a hybrid of an enrollment model based on attendance. We chose this approach and we implemented very liberal policies around this approach in order to strike a balance between flexibility for families. Reliability for programs and accountability as stewards of taxpayer dollars. Moving from this hybrid approach that we currently employ to a true enrollment based system really requires an examination not only of the cost. But the level of comfort we have as a state with the integrity that will be lost as improper payments will increase. And there will not be checks and balances that we have currently built into the system to prevent that. Vermont is one of 18 states that reported in their pre COVID CCDF state plans that they were using an enrollment based billing system. Of those 18 states only six reflect a true enrollment based policy. Of those six, all of them require attendance be kept either through their licensing or their CC FAP attendance policies. Two of those six require attendance is submitted when billing is made for payment for the system. What Vermont changed during the closure period last year was not actually our payment policy. We remained in enrollment based on attendance system. The families in our program that are essential were family were children of essential workers, continued to have attendance submitted on their behalf and the program ran per usual. Families whose children were not allowed to attend care due to the governor's order also still had attendance submitted on their behalf. They use the code that enabled us to pay them, even though children were not attending care. And that ensured that there was in fact a space for those kids to return to when their care provider reopened. The administration fully understands the ongoing budgetary pressures of all childcare programs as we remain in the COVID response period and move into the recovery phase. Because the subsidy system only makes up 20% of the regulated system. It really is not the way to go to stabilize childcare during our COVID response. Rather, Vermont's created and invested millions of dollars in COVID response financial support programs intended to support restart of programs. And also specifically to make up the difference in operating revenue from pre COVID times. All regulated programs open and operating were able to apply for those funding opportunities. How our policies find a balance between flexibility for families reliability for programs and accountability a steward of taxpayer dollars really falls into three categories. In order to support families access to childcare for their authorized service needs. We base that on a parent schedule and families are authorized using a part time, a full time or an extended care schedule. So if you are a family working part time, and you work seven to 10 on Monday through Friday, while you may only have a 15 hour work schedule, you're actually approved a part time certificate, which allows 25 hours of childcare. This approach allows for the parents to use a program to meet the child and family's needs. And the hours of childcare can be used to determine between the family and the childcare provider, based on the needs of that family. In an attendance based system. How this looks is families are authorized for specific hours. Based on the parent's work or training hours, so that same family would be authorized to access care between seven and 10 in the morning. They may be allowed additional half an hour or an hour on either side for travel, but the specific hours are what are expected and they are what is paid for in a true enrollment based system. Cares authorized either based on specific hours or based on variable hours. So it's flexible how that looks. Are there questions on that aspect before I move on to how we try to do reliability for programs. There certainly will be questions but I think what it would be extremely helpful is to have your testimony and writing so we can fully appreciate what it is that we're hearing. A lot of what you're saying sounds like. Rules and guidance documents for childcare providers I'm sure we could dip into the rules a little bit as we've done in the past but so if you can provide this in writing and Nellie will put it up on our web page that would be terrific. Absolutely. All right. This Senator Hardy. Thank you madam chair. Melissa, I totally agree having it and writing would be helpful, but I'm also wondering if you or like can you guys hear me I'm getting that internet in connection unstable message. Okay. Okay, tell me if I start to sound weird. If you or Sarah have any kind of, you know, analysis of this just a quick analysis of the financial difference between doing the attendance based or enrollment based. You know how much more would it cost if we were to go to enrollment based. I see Sarah unmuted so I'll let her go ahead. So we were asked the same question from the house and there's kind of two complicating factors. One is that in order for us to do that estimate we actually need the flip to occur because it shifts that estimate. And two, we know that it costs more money because we saw an uptick in our expenses that happened at the end of last year during the governor's closure period. But that was under a different set of framework, because we're completely flipping the system in October and shifting to this family copay and going to 2019 at the 50th percentile for rates. There isn't a way for us to estimate what it would look like until we do that flip under the new CCFAP year three. I can tell you it will cost more because I know it will, but if I told you what the difference was last year it would be under a completely different framework and it wouldn't correspond to what it would look like this coming here. So, I guess. Madam chair could I thank you. So, I, I hear you this is complicated and I get that it's complicated. I'm wondering though if it might be beneficial to actually get this study. And I think if the date doesn't work, we could certainly consider a different date for when the studies do, but it might be helpful for all of us to understand what the difference is.  You know, it is hard to follow it without having the full context in the full city. So, you know, we're hearing from a lot of childcare providers that this would make a big difference and we did see it even though it might not be an apples to apples comparison we did see it make a big difference in during code. So, as, as much as I think I hear your concerns I think having the study would be really, really helpful. I think perhaps I wasn't clear when I started, Senator Hardy and I apologize. The administration is fully supportive of doing the study that's outlined in this bill and we are fine with the timeline in it. I'm actually responding to testimony that you've heard in the last couple of weeks about a request to not study this but actually implement it immediately. And the second position is, I think they're complicated that it absolutely needs to be studied before we make decisions about moving forward with it. Yeah, thank you. Thank you Melissa that's helpful I thought you were not done didn't want to do the study and I was like but this seems like a study kind of thing so alright thank you that's helpful. The testimony we heard of course was that during the pandemic COVID from, I believe it was March to June, last year that there was a full enrollment based coverage from our CRF CARES funds I forgot which one now. But, but that was extremely helpful in keeping positions open for kids and also keeping childcare facilities open. Yeah, technically though we didn't shift systems. We employed a code in our attendance based system that allowed us to pay for children. While those programs were closed and essentially right now, even if we continue to do that. What's happened as the system is reopened is many families and programs actually don't have these kids still enrolled in their programs. So we've dug into a handful of programs and what we're seeing is that they may have half the actual children certificates that are still with them. So whether we remained on that that approach that we took during closure or not right now, if the kids aren't actually enrolled in a program, we aren't going to be paying on behalf of those families. And those are family decisions. They're either taking their children to places that are operating five days a week full time because that's what they need. Or they are shifting their hours to a part time certificate instead of a full time certificate. And that's resulting of course in loss of operating revenue. And those families are making those decisions, whether they're on subsidy or not. And it's why we created and designed the operational relief grant program that we ran last fall. Our cursa program that we just closed the applications for and we had over 70% of providers apply for funds through that again was designed to help fill that operating revenue gap. So, you know, I would just say like we haven't ignored that this is an issue as a state Vermont has led the nation in ensuring that our child care system has been supported financially through this this crisis and we just haven't chosen to do it through the subsidy system. We've chosen to do it through these other mechanisms that apply across the board, whether a family is on subsidy or it's a private pay scenario for the reason for the loss for programs. Thank you. Thank, thanks for all that. And, you know, the struggle is to keep our child care centers open, even when the kids are not there. When they're coming back. It's it's it's very much I don't want to prolong the conversation but it kind of reminds me of having a school building and teachers there but fewer kids so you got to keep the infrastructure going. So having the analysis agree very helpful. Yeah, I know it's a tough one. So it's a really it is very tough and I think you know that the significant difference between childcare being a market based system and, you know, the public school being a publicly funded system. It really creates some very different barriers and things that we need to pay close attention to ramifications of policy change have ripple effects that can impact private pay families. Probably not in this case, but in other aspects of this bill that we really need to fully understand before we pull that trigger unless we're able to go to a fully universal system which I think we're probably not. It is a it is a high price tag to get there.  And if I could just talk a little bit about, you know, currently we do require providers to submit attendance. But we have a significant number of codes that providers are able to use if families are absent. And those include provider closed days. So if a provider chooses to be closed, they're up to 15 of those that they can use annually. If a child is sick, there's unlimited sick codes that can be used for those those kiddos. And we've extended that to COVID quarantine or other things decisions by the family to be used during this response period. In addition to that families can take up to 10 days a year of vacation. And then one other final policy that we have that's really significant is if a child attends one hour of care in a week, we pay the full week on behalf of a provider. So a provider can literally put in attendance of one hour on any day at any point during a day of a week. And we pay out the full rate of that allowable certificate. Okay, thank you. Any other questions. Sarah, did you want to add anything or commission, Deputy Commissioner Gray. The only piece that I would add around what we did last spring is that in addition to allowing this shift during the governor's closure period for CC FAP we also through the childcare stabilization program, covered the tuition of all families at that 50% and if a child was unenrolled we covered it at 100%. So it was a very different time where we were effectively covering the tuition of the system during that closure period in recognition that unless you were an essential worker that that care wasn't being provided. So that didn't just impact the CC FAP system but it also did significantly impact the private pay system and really stabilize providers on both sides because CC FAP is only I believe 20% of our overall system. Okay, thank you. And so as as we asked for previously to get this information in writing, it would be extremely helpful. Okay, Senator Hardy has a question. And specifically to Melissa, because when I saw you pop up on the screen I sort of got a flashback to a year ago, and the many many conversations we had as everyone was scrambling to try to figure this out and I know you were working a bazillion hours I'm sure everybody was but I specifically talked to you a lot so I just wanted to thank you and your whole team for all the work you've done over the last year because I know it's been really hard so thank you. I think as hard as it was for us. I can't even imagine when it was like being on the ground as a childcare program reopening under, you know, real restrictive health guidance, ensuring health and safety of those kids and families and the ongoing work that they have just done over the course of the last year. Under the circumstances so thank you very much, Senator Hardy but really the kudos go out to the field. I completely had a role in that too so. I think the kudos go across the board and it's been a difficult time and that Vermont has done so well as a testament to you folks as well as people out in the on the ground. Thank you. I agree. So any other questions or comments. Okay. Thank you for your testimony and we look forward to having it on our web page I know it's may seem like extra work but I think you've already done some of this. Yes, and so we'll we'll look for it. Thanks. Thank you all for being here. And so we're going to move on to. Sonya Raymond who's here. So, welcome back. And why don't you introduce yourself for the record. Thanks for being here. Thank you for inviting me this morning I really appreciate the opportunity for the record Sonya Raymond. I have a dual role I work for the Vermont AEC. I oversee programs such as teach and other scholarship programs and funds to support early educators, and I also own a program in Stowe Vermont really childhood program. Again, thank you for the opportunity. I, we all agree that quality early childhood has been essential to our economy. But in these times that we've been through accessing the early childhood education has become actually imperative and providing stability for the families that these programs are serving and ensuring the health and growth of development of the children is paramount. So when the pandemic hit and many people were working for home, as was mentioned there was a portion of our population the essential workers for whom that was not even possible and early childhood education programs stopped, stepped up, reopened their businesses and served the families. And it was really all of you in the legislature that we have to thank that really led the nation, honestly, in supporting these programs, until the state could reopen in some capacity. So I just really want to thank you for your leadership. It's been amazing. Well we're going to thank you as well. We all work very hard to make these things happen and we greatly appreciate that recognition for our work. It takes a village as they say. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. But it's also, you know, never been more clear that an investment in early education isn't only just key to our economic health, but it's going to provide the very foundation necessary for young children to develop into these well rounded happy productive members of our society. As before the pandemic the very existence of early education is in jeopardy families can't afford early education, some hang as much as 30% of their household income, even with state assistance, and early childhood educators, not being able to make a living basically the median wage right now is $14 and 80 cents an hour. And often this is without health insurance. So program capacity is continued to decrease. And challenges with hiring and retaining early educators has really reached a crisis point without specific and targeted investments, being fully realized, we're going to continue to see this decline. The quality of early education programs begins and ends really with well qualified early educators and program leadership. So unless we ensure that there are affordable entry points into this profession and the resources for those that are currently in the workforce and proper compensation for this important work that educators do. We will not be able to stop the exodus of early educators out of the field, and we will not be able to attract new early educators either. So addressing affordability for families also must be a top priority for us we can't hope to have a strong economies of families can't afford to go to work. Yet this is really the reality that we are facing at this point. Most families now face really difficult choices. You know, do I work and support my family when the majority of my paycheck is going for early education services or do I stay home and begin accessing other social supports for my family. So, we at Vermont Association for the Education Young Children really support strongly h171, which calls for several key actions and investments that are the first steps necessary to addressing affordability and accessibility to quality early education for our working families. We also have a few suggestions for how the bill could be changed to better support Vermont's children and families, in addition to Vermont's early educators as well. We'd like to highlight just our support for some of the components that you'll see in the testimony that I sent. One is affordability and accessibility. So, h171 keeps us on the path toward achieving a five year redesign plan for the child care financial assistance program that was just discussed, which continues to incrementally address family affordability. In 2021, that means aligning CFAP federal poverty guidelines with 2021 federal poverty guidelines, expanding income eligibility from 300% of the federal poverty level to 350% and extending full financial assistance to families earning up to 150% of the federal poverty level and changing how family contributions are structured from a per child payment to a family co payment. All of these changes coupled together will have an immediate and positive impact on Vermont families. These investments are crucial now and we all also understand and know that further changes in CCFIP are needed over time that move us from reimbursements to programs being based on a market rate of cost to a cost of care structure where families pay no more than 10% of their household income. And these changes when fully implemented will mean that the 70% of working families where all parents are in the workforce will be able to afford desperately needed early childhood services and programs. Well, the programs themselves will be able to compensate early educated wages that are commensurate with peers in other fields. And the studies in this bill are crucial and it's so important to help us chart a course toward that future. And the second point is around quality and supports for early educators in the early education workforce. So this bill takes a three prong approach to providing supports and resources to build a pipeline, which is desperately needed into early education profession and retaining those early educators currently in the workforce. All three prongs are crucial to build to building a much needed increase in capacity in the early childhood programs that are so desperately need. The first would be funding for scholarships for the current workforce. And those really are what are creating a true pathway for those who have little or no education. All the way to those who are working to attain their teacher licensure. We need scholarships that support early educators, attaining an apprenticeship certificate associates and degree and a teacher license endorsement. We need additional funding to sustain those 95 recipients. And additionally, we're missing crucially a BA scholarship. And the folks and that they're a they have no real substantive way and support of moving and attaining a BA, which is what is needed in order to get teacher licensure. So the governor's budget is allocating 150 for this purpose. And each one seven one includes 300,000 to fully fund the current program and expand to include a bachelor's program. And the second is the creation of a loan repayment program, which is designed for those newer early educators working in private community based programs that already have degree and their teacher license. And this is really a crucial piece to retaining quality early educators. It's this population that can't afford their basic living expenses car, food rent, and their monthly student loan. And fortunately, they often choose to leave programs that they work in finding positions that actually provide them a livable wage, and I can attest to that it's happened to me three or four times as a public pre K provider. It's 1.8 million in funding to support loan repro the loan repayment program that's outlined in each one seven one. This will also help with that pipeline piece that we're talking about in attracting folks to the early education field. And thirdly, it's scholarship funds for prospective early childhood educators and this is a program would be available to our higher education institutions to assist students who wish to attain an early childhood degree or early childhood special ed degree. And it includes 400,000 to fund these scholarships, which will make it affordable for students basically to our state colleges and universities to obtain the early childhood or early childhood special ed degrees. We also have some suggestions to strengthen each one seven one. So it sort of bears repeating that we strongly support this bill and we also would like to offer a few key points here in section one. We suggest, including legislative intent language. It states the legislative intent that no family spend more than 10% of their income on childcare and the early educators are compensated in a way that is commensurate with their peers in other fields. These goals are referenced in the financing study in section 14 of the bill but we believe that they specifically should be named in the legislation in legislative intent of the bill as well. Also in section two we suggest paying childcare financial assistance program tuition to programs based on child's enrollment instead of attendance. This change makes a huge difference in stabilizing the programs supporting CC FIP access and care. I also see firsthand the differences that this change could make. The legislation has been incredibly generous in their approach to, you know, all of the absences that Melissa outline that are allowed. It still creates an additional burden on families and programs to justify absences that are not present for other families in care. It's very difficult for programs. There are 15 provider closure days that were mentioned. Very difficult to encourage programs to really support their staff in taking care of themselves allowing for vacation proper vacation time closures for and professional development days. 15 days might sound like a lot but when you take into account all of the pieces that really create quality and incentives for your staff in a program that makes it very difficult. That's just one of those barriers. In section 10, we suggest amending the reporting deadline so that the legislature has the report and recommendation by January 2023 in time to take action during the next legislative biennium and making sure that the funds will be available this year for both this study and the systems analysis in section 14. The financing study and the systems analysis are critical in achieving our vision for Vermont's early childhood system and really need to be prioritized in this bill. As I said before, we're basically at a really crucial time and we know that early education is essential to the economy and to the health and growth and development of our children. And I really see the fragility in the system and it's just been exacerbated through the pandemic. If we don't address affordability, access and quality, we're going to start losing this industry altogether. And that would truly be a cost that I really don't feel like we can afford at this point. Thank you. Thank you. As usual, clear concise and comes from a place of from where you work and we really appreciate your insight. Thank you very much. Questions for Sonya.  Thanks. Hi Sonya thank you for your testimony. I have a clarifying question and then a further question about the scholarship stuff. You just mentioned section 10 and the report in section 10 and moving the date up. I'm wondering if you actually met a different section because I think the report in section 10 is due on November 30, 2021. Yeah, wrong. I apologize if I do. Yeah. You're talking about are you talking about the financing study report you in a few years. Okay, I think that's in a different section. I think that you moved it to 2024. Yes, thank you for that correction. Sure. I just want to make sure this since there are so many reports I wanted to make sure you know I'm sorry. You're fine it's confusing I can't. I'm having a hard time keeping track of the reports they all seem important but when are they and all that. And then I wanted to ask you because you're involved with particularly the professional development aspect of things. I mean, the, is there was a in Melissa's testimony, she made a comment about sort of getting these programs up and running and how that may be challenging in the timeline with everything else that's going on. And I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that and what role you and your organization would be playing in that and, and sort of how do you see the, the sort of logistics and administration and the programs going is there a way to tack on to what's already happening that would make it easier or yeah so just your thoughts on that. Well I understand completely what you're saying about the timeframe that it takes to write really create these program a create the programs and then systematize them and then again if they need to go out for procurement. So, then, you know, you have the all of that timeframe and honestly I can easily see where that sometimes takes up to nine months to a year. You know, I guess it depends how what the system is that's put into place right and how simple or complicated, we want to make the whole thing. The pieces around the current workforce is a is a obviously those additional funds. That is an easy lift and really shouldn't take any time to implement. But it's really, I believe what they're speaking about is the loan repayment specifically, which is a program that doesn't currently exist. And the scout the scholarship funds for early educated groups that are for the colleges specifically. And so, we would of course, assistant anyway that we could, but ultimately, and I think you know there's been a lot of research already done to tap into in the course of just writing this bill about how the programs could and be structured and how they've worked in other states. You know, what's worked what doesn't, who might be some of the potential folks that could administrate this work right once you pull it together. Who might actually apply to procure this right, these funds. I personally recommend using systems that are already in place right, whether you choose to use somebody like Vsac for the loan repayment program. You know, those kinds of things, I highly recommend that for expediency sake. Right, it is important the sooner that we can pull these together, the better. You know, because you know without these other two pieces, honestly, you're really going to continue to just lose, lose staffing, the loan repayment is something we've now been asking for for a few years. And it's for folks who have, which are many community based, qualified public pre K programs, they really struggle to keep their early educators, their licensed teachers, very difficult. And if you lose one you, you know, and you have 30 days to find another there isn't one to find. It's that simple. So, you know, this pipeline of allowing folks to see early education as a profession that they can afford to go into for their livelihood. That piece is crucial. And so is the prospective because, you know, folks, if they want to take the route of going out of high school and going straight into college. Then coming out with the debt is not proven to be helpful so these are really programs that we see is not necessarily meaning to remain this way forever in time. But as a way of helping move us to a place where we are building this pipeline, as well as supporting the current workforce to get the degrees and credentials they need. But not needing to be in place forever and ever in the same way. Right. I totally get it. I understand I was just trying to figure out if there's an easier way to get them up and running to reduce the administrative burden. So if you have, if you think of anything, let us know. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much Sonya, this is helpful. As usual. Really. Thank you. Any other questions. Okay, we're going to continue moving along. We've got three more folks and then our we're going to go through the bill with our Ledge Council. So let's see how far we can get. Dimitri Gardner is here, a CEO of Global Z. Dimitri. Thank you for being here. Good morning. Do we have something from you on or do we have testimony from you? No, I didn't submit written testimony. I'm happy to do so after the fact, but I wanted to focus on verbal testimony for now. Perfect. Thank you. Good. Well, good morning and thank you for the invitation to present testimony to the committee this morning. So I, we have some specific recommendations regarding h.171 but before I get into those I really wanted to frame our recommendations in the broader context of why the business community is so supportive of investments in early childhood education. And I want to start by saying that this is a fairly remarkable place where the business community is right now. And that really can't be understated. And we feel so strongly about this issue that we're actually favoring fairly bold moves and do favor, ultimately a fully universal system. And recognizing that there are challenges to get there. So I want to frame that in the context. So first of all, I'm, I'm Dimitri Gardner, CEO of Global Z International where an IT company located in Bennington. I'm also a board member of the Vermont business roundtable. The roundtable is a group of over 100 CEOs from across the Vermont business community. We're looking towards the larger employers but there's a fairly diverse membership or a nonpartisan group, and we're known for taking a deliberative approach to systemic issues with a long view. The roundtable has been working on early childhood education is one of our key policy priorities for over 10 years, because we believe that it's important for Vermont and I'll get into some of the specifics as to why. So we're really looking at the long term approach and the long term outcomes from these investments. I'm also part of business working group that's been looking at early childhood education over the past year that group includes Michael Siever, the president of People's United Bank, Michelle Ash, the vice president of twin craft skincare, I'm Drurt, the president of the Vermont Creamery, Mark Foley, owner of Foley Services in Rutland and Paul Millman, the retired CEO of Chroma Technology so we're fairly diverse and broad group of business owners and CEOs. Before I get into our thought process I just want to start with a story about a conversation I had with one of our employees. My company employees working professionals in the information technology sector. Most of them are highly educated, fairly well compensated. And one of my employees when talking about early childhood education said that if it weren't for the significant workforce flexibility that we provide as an employer. Back when she started to have kids she would have had to exit the workforce altogether because of the lack of access to affordable quality childcare. And despite the flexibility that we offer to our employees. She chose not to have more kids due to the pressure and the stress and challenges of finding access to childcare. So of course this is a tragic story. She was a working professional and was educated in the IT field, working for a company that provides significant flexibility so in other words, really has everything going for her yet is still having challenges so we can only imagine what other workers are facing as far as the challenges are concerned. In the business community care so much about early childhood education how did we get to where we are so first and foremost there's the impact on the children and we all understand that the science shows that most brain development occurs before age three, and we understand the impact on outcomes later in life. However we also view this as an economic issue. So every employer that we speak with every employer that's a member of the round table says the same thing the number one challenge to doing business in Vermont is access to a skilled workforce. It has been the case for a long time, and we view investments in early childhood education as being the single most important thing that we can do as a state to address that issue. We believe that this improves workforce access by at least two generations of Vermont workers. It helps bring parents back into the workforce who are currently not in the workforce because of lack of access to childcare. It also gives the Vermont kiddos a better chance of having access to quality jobs in the future due to all the outcomes I mentioned. And I would argue that there's also a third generation of workers that this impacts which is the providers themselves and previous testimony is really focused on the benefits to those folks and we fully support those those arguments. And we also believe that this would have a significant recruiting and retention impact on Vermont as well so fully funding a universal early childhood education system. We believe would have significant attractive benefits to the young families that we've been seeing leaving Vermont over time. And as a consequence of that the business community has ceased looking at this as a cost. And this as an investment in our future, and we believe that this is an investment that's going to have significant positive return. And the initial models are showing a three time ROI or higher. However, it's been stressed that that's only true if we focus on quality, and we strongly agree with with those studies. We support a full universal system. And we'd like to get there as soon as we can and we also believe that Vermont could have significant first mover advantages, being the first in the nation to fully fund a universal childcare system and we believe that that has significant strategic advantages as well. So we support of investments in early childhood education. This is a fairly remarkable place to be as a business owner to say that I represent a business group that believes so strongly that we need to do this that we're willing to support it even if it means looking at new revenue. Now I don't speak for everybody in the business community not everybody agrees with that, but broadly speaking, that's where the roundtable is and that's where our working group is. And we feel strongly that there are some guidelines that we feel need to be communicated around our support there. So in that frame, why we are where we are and how our support will continue moving forward so the primary guidelines of our support our number one urgency. So we knew that this was a problem before COVID. COVID I think increased awareness of the issue and we know that this is going to be a problem both in terms of the social and the moral and the economic outcomes for children and the workforce long term so we were looking at the long term. There are a lot of solutions here but we need, we believe we need to move quickly on this. Another key component of our support is around the identification of funding sources, we believe strongly that those that process needs to be prudent, rational and pragmatic, and really needs to favor neutrality and competitiveness which means the spending needs to be as low as it needs to be governed and managed as well and should be aligned with the outcomes that we're looking for. And that leads me to the third and possibly the most important point for us which is the governance in the accountability framework. And I'm going to get into my recommendations but a lot of them are really framed around this idea of governance that we believe that there should be significant business representation in a governance and accountability framework and early childhood governance, particularly if, as anticipated the business community is going to be looked at as a possible source for funding for the program, and we believe our involvement in the accountability would be really really important to maintain the outcomes that we're looking for. So, specific recommendations on H.171 we fully support the bill, we think that it can be strengthened. The business involvement in the working group was, we believe significantly weakened in the final version of the bill that the House passed. In particular, the working group contemplated in section 10 is temporary it winds down at the end of this calendar year, and is really focused around the use of ARPA funds. We would favor a longer term working group that looks at the longer term financing and governance aspects of the system that includes significant business representation. There were some business groups named in a previous version of the House bill we felt that that was stronger because it identified champions and stakeholders. We would favor language like that in in back in H.171. We also strongly support the studies we believe that they're critically important to determine what the spending is going to amount to, and look at ways of funding that. We agree with the points that the other groups made on that and in particular the timing on the financing study we agree with Sonya that the end of 2023 is to wait. In the interest of urgency we would prefer to see the report out by January 123. And lastly, while we're looking ahead here some some thoughts about possible ways of funding early childhood education again in the context of this being a long view for us. We don't have specific prescriptive ideas regarding specific financing mechanisms however we have established a set of guidelines that we believe are important to consider when establishing any funding sources, especially considering the fairly large investment here with the potential for new revenue. We feel that it's critically important that the funding is sustainable and has minimal overhead in other words leverages systems that we've already got as Sonya pointed out. There are systems that are already in place that we can leverage to help improve the on boarding of these programs. We feel strongly that the spending should be aligned with the benefits. So the benefits we see are largely in the area of workforce and aligning spending with the employer and the employee community is philosophically consistent for us. And we also feel strongly that spending should be fair and evenly distributed. We also propose the idea of significant carve outs whether it's individual employers that fall into certain categories. We believe everybody should be in employers employees, we all benefit from the outcomes of the program and we believe we should be all responsible for the funding. Lastly, we believe that the spending and the financing should be really tied to the outcomes that we're looking for so the quality and the access of childhood education, those metrics should really be driving ongoing funding and governance decisions on a long term basis, and including oversight by the business community so I am grateful again for the time this morning and happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. And again, if you can send your comments and writing that will help us as we review all the testimony will be happy to mark up the bill. Thank you very much. I'm going to, I'm going to suggest that we continue along. Because I'd like to have a little bit of time with our ledge council at the end for discussion. So I'm going to move to, I think, who is next. Sorry. Oh, Jordan. Giaconia. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Madam chair, and good morning all. It's a pleasure to be here so for the record I'm Jordan Giaconi the public policy manager for Vermont businesses for social responsibility. I'm very happy to be here and again appreciate the opportunity to offer some comments. And I'd be remiss if I didn't just open this up by just thanking you all for your Tyler's work to channel support to Vermont businesses to families who are impacted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic I know we're reaching the toward the end, hopefully very long and arduous session. So I know schedules are tight and we're all we're all very tired but have just cannot express how much we've appreciated the care and the tenacity of this committee and the legislature writ large so senators again thank you all. You know to that end, much like the roundtable we tend to try to think ahead here and look long term and see how we can build back better for our future. So to that end VBSR appreciates the opportunity to comment on each 171 and the value of an affordable accessible and accountable early childcare system and for clarity we greatly very strongly support this bill. So a little bit about us so VBSR we're statewide nonprofit business association with an enduring mission to create a just thriving and transformative economy that works for all people and the planet. The majority of our members are small to medium size employers roughly 35% employed 10 full time employees are less 65% employee 50 time. And only about 6% or about 40 companies go above that into about the 300 or more FTES so we strive to act as an advocate and educator and a convener for our members and we host a variety of webinars and series of educational events we give voice to members on on the sort of pending policy issues that will impact our communities. And more recently we've also provide some financial assistance to struggling member businesses via our small business resiliency fund. So, being in touch with our membership I think overall and this is just a common theme that being that the Kobe 19 pandemic is really brought to light a lot of major systemic challenges within our state that have been long standing but just cast a spotlight on them and one of them is certainly the critical role that childcare plays in our economy in our society overall, and we really see this as an essential form of infrastructure overall for a strong economy and a prosperous and equitable and just for month. But then again, again, we still have a very long standing problem being that over half of Vermont's youngest children don't have access to care. So, what does this mean for the business community I think Dmitri's done a wonderful job of casting some light on that. You know, in the workplace parents are struggling to balance childcare and work that can oftentimes result in absenteeism and tardiness instructions at work. So, looking beyond that to childcare access affordability challenges they force a lot of parents to leave the workforce altogether cost and their salary their potential wage growth, their retirement savings, and not to mention that also takes away from household buying power so one's ability to actively participate in our local economies, and also takes away from our tax base to. The last time a sort of a startling statistic was that over time apparently leaves the workforce loses up to four times their annual salary per year and too often that burden falls on working mothers. Overall employers need talented focused and reliable employees. So that lack of access to affordable and high quality childcare can be a major hindrance to maintaining that workforce. And what was identified consistently over the years is one of the top four obstacles to success for VBS ours members. We usually can get that data via either a policy survey or a membership survey issued one sort of alternating each and every year. And more recently, and I'm sure Morgan will speak to this as well we did a post COVID survey of our broader business membership and at that time a very, very large percentage I believe is 42 or 43% of those business owners indicate that lack of childcare was a major challenge to their employees ability to return to work so this is a burden for the business community. It's a very challenging time and it also again, drastically widens historical gender inequities within our state. A couple other pieces to I do want to mention that there's also some major disparities in childcare access and afforded for black Hispanic and indigenous families this is national data that I'm referring to but more than half of Hispanic and American Indian and Alaska Native families live in a childcare desert afforded affordability also as a major challenge, especially for black families, the average median income for black family with two young children. They'd need to spend 56% of their income on childcare which is a larger portion of total family income than that of any other group. As our businesses and our families grapple with these challenges providers are also trying to contend with a childhood educator workforce crisis here in Vermont as low wages, some lesser than competitive benefits, and a lot of increase health risk due to the pandemic or really I think costing us quite a bit. And these programs are struggling to find to retain good staff. And I, and that is a major major indicator for quality of childcare and a bbsr for a long time as you all probably know we've been real strong advocates for what we call livable jobs, which is a vision for having jobs for Vermonters that provide strong wages and strong benefits and the childcare system is absolutely no exception there. So we are very committed to building as an equitable and sustainable childcare system one that's universally affordable accessible and values that tireless work of our in the expertise of our childhood educators this we see this as an economic and moral imperative, one that promises not only to grow our economy workforce but also as Demetriator alluded to but to attract and retain new families looking to make a home in our little state I can safely say as a, as a young and fairly new Vermonter that one day hopes to build a family here that I'm deeply concerned about the cost of childcare it's kind of one of the bigger barriers and one of my bigger hesitations about starting a family here. It's just me kind of taking my bbsr hat off for a moment but you know the proposed so a couple of pieces we want to highlight here so the proposed expansion for eligibility for the CC FAP as outline H 71 171 would accommodate a much larger portion of Vermont's low to low to moderate income workforce, many of whom actually qualify for partial subsidy but and others may barely miss the cut off for any subsidy at all yet they're still facing significant financial hardship. Meanwhile, the bills proposed scholarships for student loan repayment assistance programs for existing and prospective childcare providers. We can again see that as a really invaluable opportunity to create predictable employment conditions, and also really create a critical tool for recruitment and retainment of of high quality caregivers. Building out that local childcare workforce. And as we've seen being strong advocates for for minimum wage and for for robust robust benefits like paid family leave when you invest in your employees your employees invest in your business or in this case, in your childcare facilities and those that you care for. A couple other pieces I want to make up really abundantly clear here that bbsr members are deeply deeply invest in this issue and we are committed to being part of the solution but we cannot do that alone. We have a lot of our members and again as you can see we kind of represent a fairly diverse swath of the of the business community, they've taken a lot of different approaches to trying to address childcare challenges so some have offered on site childcare facilities others have provided subsidies to help their employees cover costs. Others offer flexible work schedules and maybe a hybrid and remote work opportunities to accommodate the needs of working parents. While these are all really admirable solutions and I think are part of why I'm so proud of our membership and proud to represent them. They're only a patch fix for a much broader and more systemic problem so what we really need to do here is drive home solutions that are going to involve both state and employer investment and we have to do that in a way that's not prohibited, prohibitive, excuse me for our smaller businesses and startups, and frankly that begins with studying the problem. When a business is faced with a major challenge the responsible thing to do is to investigate options and to understand the repercussions before you move forward. The financing study is as detailed in each 171 would help to speak not only to the challenges that businesses and employees face in accessing affordable childcare but also to inform creative ideas. I think that could maximize those communities and economic benefits of childcare reform. This study needs to happen more quickly than is outlined in the bill passed by the House. So given the immense pressure that businesses are under and the urgency to address this crisis as our little state looks to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, a report back in 2024 is frankly much too late. We asked that the Senate amend the final reporting deadline for that study to January 1 2023 to ensure that the legislature has all of the data and the tools necessary at the outset of the next legislative biennium to get started in this problem. Our businesses, our children, our families, we frankly can't wait another three years for policymakers to gather the information that they need to advance long term solutions to this long standing problem. Additionally, we also ask that the funds be made available this year. And the reason being is namely to allow consultants to start working on those studies and get things started sooner rather than later. You know, let's just gather the information that we need to grow to address the challenges that we face, but let's do it at a pace that's commensurate with the needs of Vermonters and only then can we make really truly strategic and impactful investments. I also wanted to mention to that I appreciated Dimitri's comments as it related to business representation and advisory committees generally we were really appreciative of that very robust language that was originally house in the House bill. So to what extent practical we want to make sure that the business community is is actively active opportunities to represent themselves in this decision making process. As I mentioned, this is going to be a shared investment so let's make sure that we're all, we're all at the table. So with that I just want to thank you all for your time for your consideration of these comments and again to just reiterate our strong support for each 171 and happy to field questions. Thank you so much that was very that was comprehensive and I do want to move right along, but I can't resist one comment and that when you when you went to your personal comment. So three sessions ago I did a full, I did a whole set of interviews with remote workers in our state and then a couple of folks who were interested in coming to the state and what was the number one need. It wasn't. It was, it was strange because I thought it was going to be access to internet.  Much appreciated Senator. Thank you for your comments. Morgan, I'm going to turn to you and ask for your testimony and I know we also have it on our webpage. Thank you. And thank you all for having this on the webpage and your comments are really critically important to us. Thank you very much chair and thank you to the committee for having me. My name is Morgan Nichols and I'm the state director of Main Street Alliance of Vermont. We thank the committee and the legislature writ large for all that they are doing to support for monitors through this challenging time. And we thank you for the opportunity to present on behalf of Main Street Alliance of Vermont small business owners who believe that when policy serves our workers, our families and our communities. It serves to create a broader and more equitable economy, or businesses can thrive. Main Street Alliance of Vermont businesses represent the cornerstone of our communities, the places where we come together, and it is these businesses that help to shape the identity of our state. Many of our members are the smallest businesses here in Vermont, including our many sole proprietors. These businesses all harness their entrepreneurial spirit and creativity to make a living deliver goods and services provide good jobs and contribute to our economy. COVID-19 has laid bare the cracks within our systems and the glaring lack of high quality affordable and available childcare has had crippling impacts on our membership. We strongly support H171 and know that when implemented this policy will have positive and intersectional impacts throughout our state. Our membership are directly impacted by the lack of childcare from the business owner, whose employee can't return to work because there are no available childcare spaces in their community to the son who's had to make the crushing decision to leave his multi generational family business for a higher paying job to afford childcare for his infant. The lack of strong, vibrant and equitable childcare system has impacts on every rung of the economic ladder. We also know that the lack of childcare has had substantive barriers for women creates substantive barriers for women and women of color in the workforce as we have seen both here in Vermont and across the country with over 2.3 million women leaving the workforce nationally and at its highest women making up 73% of Vermont's unemployed decades of progress towards gender equity have been undone practically overnight. And I'll also reiterate in a survey issued by Main Street Alliance of Vermont and Vermont businesses for social responsibility, 42.7% of business owners indicated that a lack of childcare is a challenge for their employees ability to return to work. As we not only recover from COVID-19 but also grapple with our state shrinking demographics, the investment in our childcare infrastructure proposed in H171 will also help to further attract and retain young working families to Vermont and this will only help our economy recover more quickly. Within the last year I've had the privilege to speak to many women business owners from throughout Vermont when women women who have been doing everything they can to to make it work. And I often return refer to this as the Vermont hustle juggling their business juggling their families and their households and doing what they can to care for themselves during this pandemic. All of them childcare comes up as a significant barrier for their ability to sustain and or grow their business. And I just want to share a little story. I, and I just also want to say I got this story last night at 1030 last night because that was the only time this, this business owner had the opportunity to to write this. When the pandemic hit the most shocking thing about being pregnant, a solopreneur and a mother to a three year old wasn't the overnight cancellation of all my in store tastings events and eventually my business or the horrifying unknowns of giving birth during a global pandemic. I ran with the punches punches and by the time I gave birth six weeks after the state originally shut down. I had a return to work plan. I went back at the stove farmers market by August or September, and my three year old would be in preschool at the same time would force me to shut down my business was the permanent closure of my daycare two weeks after I gave birth. Finding a spot for my daughter that mirrored the care I gave her at home, primarily outside and child led had taken eight months of 18 months of searching interviewing and trying out a few daycares that weren't the right fit. So I couldn't take that on again with a newborn in tow, while trying to run my business and balance the pandemic, something had to give, and it was my career. We know that Vermonters need a child care solution as soon as possible, as we've all indicated will to meet you in Jordan. In order for this bill to move forward efficiently and effectively we support let's go kids call to move the financing study up to January 1 2023, and to ensure that it has funding to support those who are conducting these studies. We want to take the opportunity to champion bold solution that to develop a sustainable childcare infrastructure, so that families have the access to affordable and high quality childcare, and that are valued early childhood educators receive sustainable and equitable compensation. We thank you so much for the opportunity today and thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Thank you very much and you, the, the stories that you brought to us there was the other story that you didn't read but does make it real for us and we appreciate that and we, we need Arthur sauce back and Lady boss sauce back. It's very good. It's very good. It is excellent. And I cannot tell you how often I hear those stories time and time again, I lose childcare my business close so thank you again for the time and opportunity. Yes, thank you. And we hear you. Next we'll ask one question and then we're going to take a quick break and I think it's to Dimitri and Jordan you commented on the section of the bill that had business folks involved in the working group. Can you indicate to us a section that you're talking about. Yeah, this is section 10. Okay, which includes the working group, working with DCF and building bright futures. Thank you. Okay. I guess it was narrowed down once you start building a working group and everyone wants to be interested in it it makes it difficult but it's certainly something for us to look at we appreciate your interest in this. It's really refreshing to have so much business interest in what we're doing here with childcare. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so committee, we're going to take a five minute break. So, well be sick so come back at 1040 please. Nellie will go on break and then we're going to come back for to work with Katie on h 171. And after that we have some more testimony from yesterday on 120 and 132. So, 1040.