House Bill 877 would create a childcare pilot program built around a public-private partnership to reduce the cost of opening and operating a childcare facility. The Legislative Services Office, working with the State Construction Office and the Department of Administration, would design and run a competitive process to select a third-party operator, issue a request for proposals, and negotiate a base contract. The pilot would use publicly owned land or a university-owned site, with the State providing a low-cost ground lease and a shell building, while the private operator would handle the upfit, maintenance, utilities, and operating costs.
The bill is designed to lower childcare prices by reducing major upfront capital costs such as land, site infrastructure, utility connections, and construction financing. It also invites a UNC constituent institution in the same county to participate by contributing a site or funding, with a corresponding share of childcare slots reserved first for its employees if it joins the project. The facility would need to be licensed under Chapter 110, serve at least 180 children, and provide childcare rates at least 25% below local market rates based on a modified pro forma.
The bill also sets workforce and access requirements for the selected operator. Childcare workers would have to be paid at least 180% of the federal minimum wage in the first year, with annual raises of at least 2.5% for four years, and full-time employees would have to receive health insurance with the employer paying at least half of premiums. In addition, 80% of the facility’s childcare capacity would be reserved for State employees, including UNC employees if a university partner participates.
HB877 would appropriate $5 million in nonrecurring General Fund dollars to the Legislative Services Office for fiscal year 2025-2026, and those funds would not revert until July 1, 2027. The appropriation is the main fiscal change in state law, alongside the authorization and structure for the pilot project, the leasing arrangement, and the selection process for the operator and site.
The available context suggests generally positive or at least constructive support for the bill’s goals, but there is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials. The bill’s emphasis on workforce support, childcare affordability, and public-private collaboration indicates a policy approach aimed at expanding access to childcare while leveraging state assets rather than building a traditional state-run program.
HB877 would create a new state-administered childcare pilot program and direct the Legislative Services Office to manage procurement, site selection, and contract development for a public-private childcare facility. It appropriates $5 million in nonrecurring General Fund money for the pilot, authorizes use of state- or university-owned land, and establishes lease and operator requirements that would shape how the facility is built and run. The bill would not broadly amend the childcare licensing framework in Chapter 110, but it would add a targeted pilot structure and funding mechanism within state law.
The bill appears to be framed positively as a workforce and affordability measure, with findings emphasizing childcare access, labor force participation, and economic development across the state. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or amendment debate in the record supplied here. Overall, the bill’s tone and structure suggest support for a practical pilot approach to lowering childcare costs through public-private partnership.
The main potential points of contention are the use of public funds and public land for a private operator, the requirement that 80% of slots be reserved for State employees, and the wage and health insurance mandates imposed on the operator. Some may view the low-cost lease and state capital support as an efficient way to reduce childcare prices, while others may question whether the pilot primarily benefits state workers rather than the broader public, or whether the operating requirements are financially feasible for providers. No specific objections are documented in the provided committee materials.