H.B. 453 Unspent Funding Amendments: transcript

Motion to approve. Thank you all, all, uh,

Uh, nope. Nope. Not as I am excited to be here. Would it be all right Mr. Chair? Um, I have a handout to pass out if it's appropriate. Yep, that'd be great. I go ahead. Appreciate it.

Alright, chair and committee. Um, I don't think I've ever presented in this committee before, so it's a day for first How exciting. Um, and I'm wondering if you will, uh, take a little journey with me on a theoretical, um, adventure to kind of paint a picture of what we're trying to do, um, here with this bill. So, um, in this story, I am going to take my car in for service, right? So I take it down to Guy Auto out in Kearns, and Chad tells me, okay, the work that you need to be done, parts of labor should be about $1,200, right? So I budget for it, I plan for it, I pay $1,200 and, and I leave my car with Chad and he does a great job. And when I go to pick up my car, Chad says, great news. We got it done in less time than we thought and we got a good deal on parts. So it was actually only a thousand dollars. So here's your $200 back. So I could take those $200 and put the whole thing back into my checking account to spend on whatever else, um, pay another bill, or I could put a hundred in my checking account and, um, to, to be repurposed and use the other a hundred dollars for something else that is also important that I just haven't been able to, um, to budget for and to, and to make space for in, um, in that month. So, we'll, my kids' shoes are getting a little snug, we'll say. So, um, essentially that's what we're looking to do with this bill at the end of the fiscal year when our agencies have, um, lapsing funds that, um, that we as a legislature have already allocated. We've already spent, they've already, they've already gone out, um, for, for expenditure. Um, and they aren't always spent as of right now. Those funds go back and they just kind of get swept back into the general fund for us to reallocate or reappropriate to something else. And so what we're seeking to do, um, with this bill is we'll still put 50% of those funds back into the general fund for us to allocate as, as we see fit. Um, but the other 50% we're going to put into a restricted account, um, to be specifically earmarked for things that we know are important, but we haven't necessarily been able to budget for, um, and, and fund, uh, to the appropriate levels to the, to the levels that they're needed. So, um, the, the three funds that we are, or excuse me, the three uses for the money in this restricted account will go to the three things that we feel like are most impactful for, for Utah's kids. Um, this is Utah. We love kids, there's kids here. We think they're amazing. And there are, there are three ways that we know that we can, um, serve our kids a little bit better if we have kind of a baseline funding that we know that, that we can allocate. Every year. 34% of the fund will go towards the Office of Childcare to help with the tuition support for our low income families that, that qualify for tuition assistance and childcare and early education. Uh, 33% will go towards the Behavior Health Commission. Um, every year they, they have to come to us and, and request funding to do, uh, the things that we've asked them to do as a legislature to fulfill their, uh, their requirements and their, uh, priorities. So just giving them, um, funding every year, I think will, will help them to do what we've asked them to do. And the remaining 33% will go to the state board of education, um, to divvy out through grants to schools so that we can get, um, intervention programs in through the K through three grades, um, to assist with our, uh, paraeducators for math and for English so we can get our kids literacy grades up, up and, um, get our kids on, on, on reading level before they fall too far behind. So we feel like kind of frontloading the support to our kids in the beginning of their educational career is going to save us money in the long run when we're not trying to triage it at the end. Um, so we all know it's easier to keep up than it is to catch up. So if we can get these kids where they're supposed to be and, and keep them there, it will hopefully help 'em out in the long run. So, and this way we can do it in a responsible way. We're not adding any additional burdens to taxpayers. Um, this is money that we've already spent. It's already, it's already cleared the checking account. And so we're just going to redistribute it to, to our kids because we, we talk about how much we love kids. And so this bill, we're going to not talk about it. We're gonna be about it. So I, um, with that, I guess I'm open to any, any clarifying Questions. Okay. I failed to mention you have a first sub and I'm assuming you were speaking to that. Yes, I definitely was. Thank you.

Very generous of you, Mr. Chair. Oh, in, in, in our state we have a, uh, restriction on the income tax fund to be used for children and for, uh, education and, and general. And then the general fund is used for everything else. And in general, we've seen the growth of the income tax fund, uh, is, is happening at higher rate than general tax revenues. This seems to say I'm gonna take x anything that's lapsing or and spent in the general fund and move it to the income tax fund. And our general policy has been trying to find ways to, uh, take things from the income tax fund and use it for the, the needs in the general, uh, fund where we've had, um, more restrictions on spending. So this seems to go a little bit counter to our, generally the philosophy of EAC in terms of our financial concerns. I absolutely support your goals. The things that you want to fund are, are laudable. The, uh, uh, in terms of paraeducators and childcare, those are, are, are really good. My concern is we're, we seem to be going the wrong way in terms of taking, if this was just the lapsing funds in the education or in the income tax fund and use those for those same purposes, I think that would be more consistent with our policy. But, uh, just wanted your reaction to that and, and if, if you, if you'd thought about that shifting between income and general tax.

Mr. Chair, can I call on my emotional support budget guru? Did she, did you, uh, emotional support what? Budget guru. Oh, okay. Yes. Yes ma'am. Thank you. You may, thank you.

Oh wow. Thank you Mr. Chair. I am the infamous, um, representative Jen Daly Provo. And, um, I'm actually really excited to have the opportunity to work with Representative Matthews on this. So to your question, Representative Cutler, um, the lapsing funds only come from the general fund. Like you said, these are none of the ING lapsing funds that would be pulled into this restricted account come from education. And that, that is intentional, obviously, because we could not do it the other way around. Constitutionally, um, the portion that would be allocated to the paraeducators yes, would supplant some, um, income tax funding that normally would come out of the income tax fund. But given that this is a parentally unfunded priority in the income tax fund, um, and something that is of extremely high importance to the representative and to, I mean essentially every parent in the state of Utah, this was one of the decisions that she made on how to spend that restricted account. And, you know, I think, I think that it's broadly recognized that this is underfunded and would not require us to fund that in the education fund because we're, even though it's relatively higher portion of the budget and it's growing relatively faster, it's still something that we have not funded as a legislature. Um, but, and I would leave it up to the sponsor to have a discussion about whether or not that is an appropriate use for the restricted account. I just know that it's in there because it is definitely her priority and something that I agree with her should be considered.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, and I, I, I'll just comment briefly because of that, that, um, I would say that we have increased, uh, public public education funding quite a bit. And, uh, while there's not a specific line item for that, that that is a big portion of, of where the hiring has been. And I think that's been in the intent of, of some of that funding. But my question comes along to, um, I actually think this is pretty clever and it's very, um, kind of unique way to try to capture some additional funding. My question, and I guess comes to a concern also is that, um, it's not only the concept of how to capture these funds, but also the policy of where that money goes that we have to evaluate both. Um, and so I'm, I'm curious, like we talk about how these are that areas that you've chosen, but I'm wondering why, for example, infrastructure housing, our first responders, the DSPD wait list, there's a lot of severely, uh, underfunded, uh, areas that we know we need, um, additional money to be sent to. And so the question is, is, is why are we choosing these three categories that are growing relatively quickly still, um, and not some of the other areas that have for decades struggled with, uh, with funding? Sure. And I, I mean, my, my first gut reaction is just that to me, there are a lot of things that are important and underfunded, as you said, but kids will always take priority. My kids, your kids, my neighbor's kids, their kids. Um, and I think we've seen even with the, the governor's priorities when he's talking about, you know, how our kids are, are not reading on level and he's talking about, um, holding kids back that aren't reading. If we're not, uh, if we are not redirecting resources and, uh, and giving any sort of support or intervention, then we're not actually solving anything. So, um, so just, I mean, in terms of, of the paraeducators, that's why, um, 'cause I think that's something that we had all the gov from the governor down, you know, across all branches agreed on. Um, but I think, I think there are, there are other ways and I think that that, um, as far as infrastructure and, and, and other things, those are, those are important things too. But I, I come back to, to the kids, like our, our, we talk about we're, we love kids, this is Utah, we're a family friendly state, but we, we need to put our money where our mouth is, I guess.

Mr. Chair, may I, Ms. Representative, may I also address your question, if that's okay with the chair? I'm with me if the chair approves. Thank you. I think, um, something else that needs to be, um, considered and addressed is, um, yes, we have everything you mentioned and more are things that absolutely need funding, but have most of which you mentioned have been funded even though they're not fully funded. You know, DSPD, perennial and perennially underfunded, I I harp on this constantly, but to the legislature's credit in the last two years, we've put in an extra 11 million toward that. Um, housing, we've, we all know we've been really focused on dedicating a lot of funding to housing. And again, there could, we could always use more funds for that. These three items that are listed in the bill have not gotten funding. Um, we might get some funding for the Behavioral Health Commission this year, but it has been an unfunded mandate on a very overtaxed volunteer board who are desperate for funds for the programs that they're trying to support. Um, the paraeducators, I would say that's not unfunded, but something that is definitely underfunded. Um, and Representative Matthews the child care piece was legislation that was passed last year, um, and only goes into effect when we find funding. And we have not found funding for that. And so I think that, you know, those are, like the representative said, these are things that, three of thousands that could be chosen that could be selected. Um, but also recognizing that the, the very heart of this legislation is to capture in inefficiencies, basically. So we're making the budgeting system a little bit more efficient, um, and intentional, and these seem to fit that overall philosophy.

And Mr. Chair, if I could ask a follow up question then you me, go ahead. The, um, so the fiscal note on here shows that just reflecting at last year's budget, that this would be about 5.2 million, um, that would be captured. Um, is there any caps on this as far as, um, if, if the unspent, uh, balances in these lapsing accounts end up being in the a hundred million range? I mean, is that, is that still gonna be captured there? I know that's a silly thought, but, well, I, I'm just curious if there are any caps that are either considered or A girl can dream and if we add a hundred million dollars, then certainly we could, we could revisit that. I can't imagine that we would have that much, uh, in excess, especially where we're only taking 50% of it.

We don't currently have a cap. But just to speak to the fiscal note with the substitution, uh, there actually shouldn't be, uh, a fiscal note that Actually zeroes out the fiscal note. Um, by zeroing it out, we're talking about, it's just essentially just moving it from one account to another. It, It, it just means it's not going to cost the general fund money because it's excess unspent funding, But it will be earmarking that money right. Rather than, so it, it will be, it'll be tying it up for future without actually putting a, an actual fiscal note on it. Correct. Okay. Thanks. You.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. How are you thinking about this as it relates to recession years where there's less relapsing, uh, lapsing funds and these, um, these groups that are receiving funding now become dependent and reliant on it, and then also the pressure of the following year to then backfill those costs because of a recession?

So the substitute does address, address some of that. Um, and I know my notes in here, um, because this is, this only goes into effect when we have a surplus. I mean, this certainly, I, I would hope that just because this bill is in place that we zero out and we don't allocate anything to those other spaces. But I mean, speaking to the childcare piece specifically, Utah doesn't actually invest any, uh, state tax dollars into childcare. So we, we wouldn't be in any different position than we are right now, um, as far as the childcare goes. But, um, Yeah, this, this would be one time money year over year. So if we're in a recession, those programs would not receive any funding. And that was also part of the criteria and why we chose them because if they're, they're all programs that will benefit from the funding if it's there, but they're not, the programs themselves are not dependent on ongoing funding if the funding is full, is pulled back.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alright.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, uh, representative McPherson's, uh, comments, uh, prompted this question for me and I think he makes a good point. You know, making sure that this kind of money goes to where it's really truly needed. And we've talked about how there's lots of different funds that are kind of, uh, underneath, but you mentioned, uh, kind of the governor's priorities and stuff like that. Have you talked to the governor's office? I mean, do you have any idea how he feels

his office feels about this? No, I'm confident that he loves it, but he hasn't told me that personally, so I have no doubts about that.

But no, but seriously, uh, any indications?

I, I haven't spoken with him, no.

Okay. Or him from his office. Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Um, you know, having been a a sub appropriation committee chair, the question I'd ask is how would this affect the subcommittee appropriations, uh, from reprogramming dollars into other programs? I mean, that's one of the, to be frank about the, about the way we do money around here, that's about the only power that a subcommittee appropriations committee has is to reprogram, uh, lapsing or unspent funds, uh, to other, uh, worthy programs within their portfolio.

Sure. And, and this is a really great question. I appreciate your perspective as somebody who has, um, who works really hard on, on those budgeting decisions. So because this is backward looking at the end of the year, it would go back and capture any Manti, any unspent funding in only a limited number of instances. Because as you know, so there are many accounts that are given non-lab seek authority. So there, you know, it doesn't, doesn't necessarily lapse back to the general fund. So this would not touch any of those funds. Um, if you were to make a decision to change a, a fund from lapsing to non lapsing, then that whatever money they have unspent, whatever efficiencies they've captured in their organization, that money would not be eligible for this. And we're talking, you know, if you, if you go and look at the, the budget report in, on the website, there are reports of little bits of money that lapse back to the general fund and it's tiny increments. It's like 5,000 here, 20,000 there. And I, to anybody listening, I hate to be flipping about five or $10,000, but we all know that in the budget discussion, those are little bits of money. But they do add up as evidenced by some of the financial, you know, the original fiscal note. Um, this, because as appropriations committees, we go in and we find pennies in the couch at the beginning of every session so that we've got internally, you know, in, we can fund things internally, you know, where we, we either pull back, we, we've, we look at our programs and say, well, we give you a million dollars, but it only costs you $750,000, so we're gonna recapture that $250,000. None of that changes. You still get to do all of the internal reallocation, but at the end of the year, regardless of where you reallocate those things, and where, regardless of where the appropriations subcommittees allocate funds and where EAC approves funds and agencies spend the funds, there will still always be those little bits of money that are left over at the end of the day. And so we're just trying to make, capture those efficiencies and be intentional about where they're spent instead of, you know, dumping 'em back in, like Representative Matthews said, dumping 'em back into the checking account to get gobbled up by the bills. Um, and, you know, being more intentional about, you know, with using the same metaphor instead of $200 back into the, in the checking account for day to day, you put half of it into a college savings account or, you know, as, as meant as it envisioned in the bill childcare, et cetera.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Corey Holdaway and I'm representing the Utah Private Childcare Association. Uh, we're very interested in this bill for a number of different reasons. Uh, we see this as a creative way of capturing funds, uh, that are lapsing funds, uh, and utilizing them in a way that, uh, that could benefit families, could, could benefit, uh, uh, families to be able to help, uh, provide childcare services. Uh, the cost of providing childcare services for a family, uh, typically it's either, uh, the second most expensive, uh, if not the second, then the third most expensive, uh, cost in a family's budget. And, uh, the state as was represented, the state has not participated in assisting, uh, families with this. Uh, there was a shortfall this past year of $22 million, uh, that the, the Office of Childcare has to, uh, to, to absorb. Uh, this could go a long way in helping with that. The other point that I would make is that, uh, that for two of the three issues, uh, childcare and behavioral health, we're talking about general fund money. Uh, I know there was some discussion about, uh, income tax money being used or, or income tax, uh, being used for education services. Uh, that's the paraeducator part of this. But, but we're talking about general fund money that, uh, for projects and, and things that are, are critical for families. So, uh, we see this as a very creative way of capturing those funds and, uh, and would, uh, hope that this committee would pass this on, uh, for further discussion, uh, for to the larger body.

Making An entrance. Uh, good morning everyone. Um, my name's Elizabeth Garvey. I am the Vice President of Public Policy for United Way of Salt Lake. And we also are, um, in support of this bill. Um, as Mr. Holdaway had just said, there was a $22 million decrease in the, um, federal CCDF funding that helps support childcare subsidies for families. That means that's a 15% decrease in federal funds that come in to support families that need childcare subsidies to, um, make sure that their kids are in a safe place, um, developmentally appropriate safe place during the day while they are at work, um, earning money to keep a roof over their head, um, and food on the table. Um, and that's happened for a few reasons and we expect it to continue. Um, Utah also does not, um, put any state funds into childcare subsidies. So this would be the first time that Utah's going to do it. This is a Vernal very creative way to add additional money into that and we would ask for your support. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Tamara Atala, um, and I'm testifying today as the first vice chair of our Utah Behavioral Health Commission. Um, our 11 volunteer member commission. Uh, really thanks our sponsor, the, the sponsor for her tireless efforts to improve Utah children. The health of our Utah children, families, and communities. Utahns are struggling with mental illness and substance abuse and substance use disorders. Um, suicide is the number one leading cause of death for our youth in our state. Um, one out of every three adults have mental health and mental illness, which also impacts our children, um, and the legislature. In, in response to that, the legislature created the behavioral health commission, which I have the privilege of, of, of participating in to really turn the tide to better coordinate incredible efforts that have happened, uh, to improve behavioral health and the wellbeing across the state. Since, however, since our creation in 2024, we've developed a strategic plan, provided the legislature with policy and budget recommendations each year. And however, our recommendations have received minimal funding because of budget constraints. If this bill passes, the commission would use this funding for the services we've recommended each year, uh, to the legislatures, such as the expansion of our state hospital, the capacity or the funding of, of mobile crisis, uh, outreach. So funding this care would improve. The Utah Health also has impacts on decreasing unnecessary law enforcement engagement and correctional costs and, and also impact, uh, reducing homelessness. And just in closing, um, on behalf of the Utah families with behavioral health needs, we strongly urge you to pass the bill. So thank you.

Hello, my name is Jennifer Stout. I am with Voices for Utah Children, an organization located in Salt Lake City. Um, I just wanna answer the question why these groups? Because children are our most precious item that we have. They're not even items, they're our kids and we are not funding them. 84% of parents feel overwhelmed by the cost of childcare. I have a son and my childcare bill right now is higher than my rent payment. For every three kids in need of care, there's one licensed care spot. In Utah, there is no funding for childcare. There's also proof that kids who start a program at three years old are more likely to be on reading level, and yet we still have no funding for that. Sorry, on reading level. By third grade, according to the Kinsey Gardner Institute, there are around 500,000 kids in Utah between zero to eight who experienced mental or emotional challenges. There is a need for early childhood mental services in Utah. National research shows Utah's among a group of states with the highest prevalence of child and adolescents mental health disorders, and the highest prevalence of youth with untreated mental health. We have been told to get creative with these issues. We are always Alaska funds or no funds for a age that shows the more spending we put in, the better the outcome in children. We have a neighboring state, New Mexico, who is paying for all of childcare for all of their children, the first in the nation because they have prioritized children. We are fighting for funds that other states prioritize in their general fund because they care about their children. My hope is that this bill passes this year, but next year we recognize that children are worth more than just pennies in the couch.

I I just have a very brief comment. You know, I'm listening to this testimony and I'm least listening to this bill and, you know, I understand I'm, I'm a mom of 10 children. I, I understand the complexities. I'm a single mom of 10 children, so I understand the complexities of all of this.

So, sorry, Tina Horlocker, Davis County. I'm representing myself, right? And I'm just listening to this testimony. Anyway, I, I under, I get all the complexities of this. I'm a mom of 10 children, but the reality of what we are talking about right here is this is socialism and the real solution is to lower taxes. And that is my only comment. Thank you.

Sure. Uh, I think more than anything people are, people are bummed that they didn't think of at first, but, um, I think, um, no, it's been, people have been very kind and they've been very open to the idea.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I, I move that we adopt HB um, five substitute HB 4 53 for Substitute. Okay. Yes ma'am. Alright, so the motion is to, uh, adopt first substitute to HB 4 53, which I speak to that. Yeah, I just think this is a really creative idea and, you know, someone who, um, depended on afterschool care childcare like this, this is really creative because that took a lot of my budget and I think it's important to remind members, and I know all of us are related to someone or are experienced this in our own family, childcare is expensive and some people don't have the choice they have to work. And so I think this is, um, a very inventive way and excited to see this discussed on the floor.

Can I do another Motion? We'll

Yeah, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I move that we pass out HB um, 4 53 unspent funding amendments as amended or as substituted. I just think it's a really creative way and I think it deserves a conversation on the floor.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh, I'm actually gonna just quickly, um, support that motion, but I want to explain a little bit why I do think that there needs to be some significant changes here. Uh, I do like the creativity. I think the concerns have come up about the Blanding of the, uh, general fund and income tax fund are valid. I think removing the Paradise from that and focusing on the childcare, uh, piece and the, um, the, the social services aspect of this is, is probably, um, a better idea. Um, also, I think there's some concerns about, um, caps, um, I I think that would be reasonable to consider, um, uh, making some adjustments there. But also I think there's a general idea of tying future legislators hands when it comes to some of this money and appropriations. So I'd like to really understand, are the balances, for example, in this account, are they lapsing? Do they, do they get swept into the general fund if not spent? And how, how we, how the restrictions on this account actually work. Um, and I think clearing that up is something that could be worked on. I know we're late in the session now, so I would support getting it to the floor if we could see something worked on in that area, um, under that. But I would be supportive of the motion.

I, I'd like to see those changes first, but, uh, I, I think I, I appreciate the creativity, but that, that's my personal opinion.

and then back to the maker of the motion. Go ahead. Sure. Oh, I was just gonna say, I appreciate the feedback that we've gotten. I think, um, I think this is a really good bill and I think we can work together to make it a really good bill. Um, there's a million bills on the board, so I am 100% confident that we can get it to where everyone on this committee feels comfortable supporting it on the floor. Um, if we can pass it out today.

Mr. Chair. I think I, I hate, there's like a lot of myths about us up here and I think all of us are concerned about the children of Utah and I think all of us have had honest conversations about how do we fund, um, childcare, how do we make sure we're protecting people with their mental health? And so I think this is a, a good reason to pass it so we can have that conversation on the floor and get more voices at the table on how we move forward. I think it's very creative.

Um, Representative MacPherson? Yes, yes, yes. Representative Maloy? Yes. Representative Romero? Yes. Representative Stoddard? Yes. Representative Welton? Yes. Representative Loubet? Yes. Representative Hayes? Yes. Representative Fiefia? No. Representative Cutler? No Representative. Pearson Peterson. Sorry. No, I was like, who's Pearson and Chair Burton? No. Alright.

Yeah. With those significant questions about the fun before we get on the floor.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tim, uh, motion to adopt.

Uh, sure. This, uh, substitute addresses some of the concerns that the committee had. Um, namely it removes paraeducators from the fund, it caps the fund, and, um, and it specifies that these funds are non-AP.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Board time. Motion to circle Motion is to circle. We'd like to speak to that. Yes. Uh, unfortunately the fiscal note has, well, it shouldn't be different. It just still hasn't made its way through the process, so, oh, I don't need to do that. Oh, then nevermind. I withdraw my motion. Thank you.

Awesome. Um, well, um, I was, okay. Alright. Okay. I wasn't planning on this. Um, so I would like to, uh, take you on a little journey, a theoretical journey, Mr. Speaker, pro Tem, um, to kind of explain, um, how we envision this bill will, will work. Um, so theoretically speaking, I take my car in to the shop. I know that there's work that needs to be done. Um, I've spoken to Chad about it. He's my car guy. Um, and he's let me know that with parts and labor, the, the work that needs to be done in my car will be $1,200. So I budget for it, I save for it, I plan for it. I take my car in and I pay my $1,200. So, um, when my car's ready and I go and pick it up, um, Chad tells me great news, we got a deal on the parts and we got it done quick, more quickly than we anticipated. So the total cost of your repair is only a thousand dollars, right? I could take the $200 that I had already spent and I could put them back in my checking account to be spent on whatever the next bill is. And in the, in the line of, uh, of, uh, operations. Or I can take a hundred dollars, put it back in my checking account, and I can keep the other half and use it for something else that is equally important. But I haven't been able to find room in my budget to, um, to address. So essentially that's what this bill does. Um, what this bill does is at the end of every fiscal year, um, the portion of lapsing funds from our various agencies that were, that would be swept back into the general account, it captures 50% of those funds and dumps them into a restricted account. That'll be used for two specific purposes. Um, 50% of that fund will go towards supporting our lower income families with their tuition reimbursement, uh, program through the Office of Childcare. And the other 50% will go towards the, uh, behavior health commission, um, which this body created, um, and has had a difficult time being able to fund appropriately, um, in order for them to do the work that we have tasked them to do. So, um, we are, we hope to be able to be more intentional and mindful in capturing these efficiencies and, um, and reinvesting them into things that we know that are important. And, um, and we are going to put our money where our mouth is. So with that, I call the question

Fine. I'll answer any questions you have.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tim. Um, I appreciate the creativity in this bill, but I do have concerns in it because it is shifting money from the general fund to childcare. We just did a bill where we put, um, money and tax credits, uh, toward childcare and we're increasing the, um, the childcare tax credit as well. And so to take additional funds and to put it toward mental health and childcare just seems to be a little over the top, especially at the tune of 50%. So I'm, and I'm opposed.

Um, you know, to to that, I would say, um, we all have heard, and we've all discussed how childcare is, it's, it's a bigger issue than I think we've been able to address. And there is no silver bullet to solve the, the crisis. Um, and I think, um, my colleague from Logan has done incredible work. We've had previous legislators that have done incredible work, but it's going to take multiple avenues in order to help our lower income families to be able to, to remain, um, participating in the economy. And I think this is just one way that we can, that we can help families and help the economy and help employers. So, um, I think these are things that we, because these programs already exist, this bill doesn't create new programs. These are programs that already exist and we as a state have not funded them. Um, so we are just finding a way to, to prioritize kids and, and two of the ways that, um, that we know we will get the biggest banging for our buck. So, thank

Uh, sure. This, uh, substitute addresses some of the concerns that the committee had. Um, namely it removes paraeducators from the fund, it caps the fund, and, um, and it specifies that these funds are non-AP.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Board time. Motion to circle Motion is to circle. We'd like to speak to that. Yes. Uh, unfortunately the fiscal note has, well, it shouldn't be different. It just still hasn't made its way through the process, so, oh, I don't need to do that. Oh, then nevermind. I withdraw my motion. Thank you.

Awesome. Um, well, um, I was, okay. Alright. Okay. I wasn't planning on this. Um, so I would like to, uh, take you on a little journey, a theoretical journey, Mr. Speaker, pro Tem, um, to kind of explain, um, how we envision this bill will, will work. Um, so theoretically speaking, I take my car in to the shop. I know that there's work that needs to be done. Um, I've spoken to Chad about it. He's my car guy. Um, and he's let me know that with parts and labor, the, the work that needs to be done in my car will be $1,200. So I budget for it, I save for it, I plan for it. I take my car in and I pay my $1,200. So, um, when my car's ready and I go and pick it up, um, Chad tells me great news, we got a deal on the parts and we got it done quick, more quickly than we anticipated. So the total cost of your repair is only a thousand dollars, right? I could take the $200 that I had already spent and I could put them back in my checking account to be spent on whatever the next bill is. And in the, in the line of, uh, of, uh, operations. Or I can take a hundred dollars, put it back in my checking account, and I can keep the other half and use it for something else that is equally important. But I haven't been able to find room in my budget to, um, to address. So essentially that's what this bill does. Um, what this bill does is at the end of every fiscal year, um, the portion of lapsing funds from our various agencies that were, that would be swept back into the general account, it captures 50% of those funds and dumps them into a restricted account. That'll be used for two specific purposes. Um, 50% of that fund will go towards supporting our lower income families with their tuition reimbursement, uh, program through the Office of Childcare. And the other 50% will go towards the, uh, behavior health commission, um, which this body created, um, and has had a difficult time being able to fund appropriately, um, in order for them to do the work that we have tasked them to do. So, um, we are, we hope to be able to be more intentional and mindful in capturing these efficiencies and, um, and reinvesting them into things that we know that are important. And, um, and we are going to put our money where our mouth is. So with that, I call the question

Fine. I'll answer any questions you have.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tim. Um, I appreciate the creativity in this bill, but I do have concerns in it because it is shifting money from the general fund to childcare. We just did a bill where we put, um, money and tax credits, uh, toward childcare and we're increasing the, um, the childcare tax credit as well. And so to take additional funds and to put it toward mental health and childcare just seems to be a little over the top, especially at the tune of 50%. So I'm, and I'm opposed.

Um, you know, to to that, I would say, um, we all have heard, and we've all discussed how childcare is, it's, it's a bigger issue than I think we've been able to address. And there is no silver bullet to solve the, the crisis. Um, and I think, um, my colleague from Logan has done incredible work. We've had previous legislators that have done incredible work, but it's going to take multiple avenues in order to help our lower income families to be able to, to remain, um, participating in the economy. And I think this is just one way that we can, that we can help families and help the economy and help employers. So, um, I think these are things that we, because these programs already exist, this bill doesn't create new programs. These are programs that already exist and we as a state have not funded them. Um, so we are just finding a way to, to prioritize kids and, and two of the ways that, um, that we know we will get the biggest banging for our buck. So, thank