 Thank you. Thank you, Teresa. It's so nice to see all of you. This is the our first meeting. How many months ago or weeks ago and the end of June. So this is the house appropriations committee. House Ways and Means Committee is also joining us to hear. Commissioner, where are you commissioner Greshan? I'm looking around my Hollywood squares box. There you are. Thank you. Thank you. To hear the governor's proposal. For the continuation of the Y 21 budget. As we all remember, we did a quarter year budget. And this will. Through up any. Any needed. 20 in that quarter and 21. But also be the full year. Budget for the year 21. We will hear from commissioner Greshan and then start our work. As the plans a version of the budget. Welcome committee members. Welcome Ways and Means members. Representative Ansel chair of Ways and Means. I'm looking for you on the screen. I heard your. There you are. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have anything you would like to say before we get started? No, just appreciate that. Inviting us to join you. I assume that we'll drop. We'll drop off at two 30 after we finished the basic presentation. But if people from the committee want to stay. I assume that that's okay. And I want to be sure everybody on Ways and Means had got the link. To the documents. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 30 what we had scheduled was to complete the presentation with commissioner Greshan, which we made complete before that. And then we had 15 minutes. So the, our committee and your committee could exchange. Any questions or anything that we wanted. Additional information on. So we'll just see where we end up, but we have that last 15 minutes scheduled. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Greshan and you have with you. Matt Riven. And is there anyone else from the administration that is joining you today? The two of us will. We'll take it from here. Excellent. So we have several documents from you. And if you would just always remind us which document you're working offers. I'm excited to hear your presentation. I'm happy to screen share as well. Yes, that would be. Would you prefer to screen share? Yes. Teresa, would you. Will you hand that I'll be. Referring to it's called the. General fund overview dated eight 1820. That may be the. The best one to put up there. And while she gets it up there, maybe I would just start with a couple of introductory remarks. My colleague Matt Riven is also with us as the chair pointed out. So. I would say probably the most. Notable part of this budget. Is that there's a really very little change if someone were not. And I realize I'm speaking to somewhat of a wonkish audience, but were you not a wonkish audience and you were just the man and the woman in the street. They. Took advantage of services or programs that the government. Overseas you would not notice a difference in this budget versus the one that the governor presented in. In January. It is very similar and that's purposeful. We tried to do that. We did not think that now is the time to make any dramatic changes. And any dramatic turns. I think it's particularly appropriate that. The appropriations committee. I think it's very appropriate. I think it's very appropriate that you're hearing this together because, you know, I would argue that this budget is a much of as much about. Kind of revenue and, and. Revenue changes as it is about appropriations and appropriations changes. In fact, probably the more dramatic. Changes between January of this year and this month are revenue as opposed to appropriation. We did not use reserves. We had major changes when we did not do is we did not use reserves. That is quite a bit. I'd say quite a bit different from what I was thinking. You know, six weeks, two months ago, we were dealing with a different revenue environment. We thought things changed in the past month or two months. So we now realize we do not need to use reserves. We do not need to use reserves. We do not need any reduction in critical programs. You won't see any reduction in critical services. Like I said, it's predominantly a steady as you go status quo budget. That you will be looking at. You will, however, see the use of a one time money that typically in budgets, we do not use particularly for base spending. And I'll explain, you know, how we do that and how we do that. But you know, the concept really is that. Hope and prayer, we are dealing with a one time event, a pandemic. We don't intend to be dealing with this over the long term. That's, I hope we won't be, but it's a one time event. And we thought that to deal with that, we would also use revenue. We have available one time. We have available one time revenue. We have available one time revenue. And we know that the next year's revenue will rebound back towards base level. We know that won't happen next year. But we do anticipate in future years, we'll get back to a more normal revenue stream. So we do use a one time revenue. And I'll explain exactly how we do that. But I thought, you know, just to start off, I'm going to go back to the previous table. That late the, we call current law revenue. If we use. Those of you who either were at or listened into the emergency board meeting last week will recognize these numbers. And in January, the governor presented a budget that used current law revenue of just under $1.6 billion. $1.596. When we were in the middle of the pandemic, you know, kind of looking out and seeing the, you know, virtual shut off of the Vermont economy as well as a national economy. We looked at a revenue outlook that was updated last June 8th, looking at about a $218 million general fund shortfall. Subsequently, in July, when, when deferred tax revenues deferred tax payments came in. And the economy seemed to refine its footing. We revenue estimates increased or went up. And last week, the emergency board consensus was on the revenue figure you see in front of you. The $1.414 billion. So that is the current law. And then we looked at the revenue figure. We looked at the revenue figure in front of you. And on add to that direct apps, direct applications and property transfer tax revenue. It's kind of an interesting story here in that. The kind of maybe counterintuitively in a challenging environment. The direct applications actually over the past two or three or a revert more to the general fund than we anticipated even a month or two ago, certainly in January. What that means is that some of our funds that generate revenue and that we draw upon for the general fund had more to contribute than we thought, notably in unclaimed property. There was an extra million and a half, two million there in the DFR fund through licensing of insurance companies, broker dealers and the like. There was more revenue there than we anticipated, about $2 million. And in addition in liquor, liquor and lottery, there was higher direct applications than we had anticipated as a result of people's activities during the pandemic. So that actually is a good story. The property transfer tax, the revenue projection was a bit weaker than originally it was in January, which resulted in a small amount of leakage. However, that was made up for and more by a slightly smaller amount to be turned over to the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board. So the net of direct apps and property transfer tax was $95 million, which was about $7 million more than we had anticipated in January. The total current law and direct apps and the like is about 1.509 billion. So that is our total base rate. Now, the unusual part of this year, as you will see at the lines directly below, there is a prior year surplus, which again was the subject of a fair amount of conversation last week at Joint Fiscal as well as the Emergency Board. And there's also some more reversions than are typical in a budget. The prior year surplus resulted from predominantly two factors. You'll recall this committee had a very unusual second budget adjustment last year that we worked on in May, and I believe the governor signed in early June. That was done kind of the height of the pandemic when our revenue forecast was not as it is today. And we thought that we needed to move. We needed to reduce spending and look at different revenue sources. And really, I think that's one of the great things about this state that when we have issues, we get together and we deal with them rather than wait. So we had a second budget adjustment. The net of that as the committees will remember was about $84 million that we saved from the general fund. In addition, the second, I think contributor to the surplus was frankly, the revenues that were in normal years would have been paid in April, tax revenues in April, as well as in May and June estimated taxes, as well as sales in use and purchase in use and the like. Those payments were deferred predominantly until July. Not all of them, by the way, not everyone elected to defer payments. Some people paid right along as they should. Other people took the federal and the state government up on the ability to defer. And so they made their payments in July. When those payments came in, not only did they come in at forecast, but in fact, they came in above forecast, which was a pleasant surprise. Maybe in hindsight, we should not have anticipated that a pandemic in the first part of 2020 would affect what happened in 2019. 2019 is a very good year. Tax payments were very hardy. And so combination of raising money during the budget adjustment as well as tax payments above forecast resulted in a substantial surplus of just under $130 million for fiscal 20, which we're carrying forward into fiscal 21 to help us achieve balance in this budget. The other interesting occurrence in 2020 was the March to June quarter during the pandemic, many parts of government were either curtailed or shut down. And that resulted, as you might imagine, in more savings than we anticipated. And that showed up in terms of carry forward. So things, simple things like travel budgets. People have budgets to go to meetings and to travel in state, not a state. And those obviously were not used during the March to June quarter. So there was some travel budgets. State parks were open later than normal. So seasonal workers were hired later. Certain grants weren't fully distributed because they were not applicable at the time. So anyway, that resulted in a carry forward number of just under $60 million of leftover appropriations as authority from FY20. A little under half of that, $28 million, we reverted to the general fund. That's almost half. That's much higher than it typically is. Not only were carry forwards, probably four times, I think only, but the reversion of 50% of carry forwards is also somewhat unusual. To, I think in line with the unusual period. So the combination of a prior year surplus and 20 of carry forward reversions, approximately $158 million of one-time money that we can add to our base revenue to help us achieve the revenue to meet expenses. There were two small deductions. People familiar with the FY21 budget as well as I think every budget that the governor has submitted will be familiar with the monetary pension tax exemption request that is in this budget too, as well the downtown and village tax center or center downtown tax credit, which was also in the FY20 budget and will be in this or is in this restatement. So that's a revenue deduct of roughly 2.7 million. So in constructing the budget, we're trying on 1.664 billion dollars. We started with base appropriations, which include the pay act of 1-6-8-3. And then here are some changes all over our time period, but they helped us get to balance. You know, as I mentioned, I think this budget is as much about revenue and how we achieved it as it is about appropriations. And you know, one, I think fairly substantial difference this year is funding source changes. People remember that during the January through the third of this year, the last two quarters of FY20, the federal government stepped up and provided an enhanced federal match for Medicaid expenditures. That FMAT bump was a little over 6%. I think it was 6.2%. And that was part of the budget adjustment in May and June. That was roughly, I think then $38 million for the January through June period. We are, we know that that enhanced federal match will be in effect through September 30th of this year. And we project that it will be in effect through December 31st. In that projection, we are in very good company. Many states have made the same, have come to the same conclusion and we're reasonably confident of that. So the combined Q1 and Q2 of fiscal 21 enhanced federal match will be slightly under $40 million of money that the federal money that we're putting into our Medicaid program and we are drawing out the general fund in that. So that net net represents a general fund decline. In addition, the second source of funding that I would put is there were a number of federal funds that were put into the fund. There are some payments in the restatement that represent Coronavirus Relief Fund, money that we have notably in a couple of human service departments, mental health corrections and children and families. That's in and around $10 million of money that is Coronavirus Relief Fund money that is generally trying out. So there were some funding source changes which represented a decline in general fund spending, which were very helpful to us in getting to balance. I mentioned earlier that we did not make any notable changes in programs, services. One, I think interesting part of this budget and when we were kind of when the dust settled and we were looking the numbers of department spending and the like, one notable or interesting part was that programs were actually up in this restatement relative to where it was in January. And I think there are two or maybe three main contributors to that. First, as folks who were present at the emergency board last week, you'll remember there was a slight adjustment to the consensus Medicaid forecast. I believe the gross number was I think $12 to $15 million. The net to the general fund was about $5 million. So that's part, you'll see reflected in program changes. There was also a projection of higher reach up caseloads. We've benefited over the past really three or four years with steady declining reach up caseloads. And we're thinking that that will reverse itself this year. So there is higher reach up caseload in our program spending. In addition, there's one program in Department of Public Safety that some of you may be aware of that we are continuing in this restatement. In fact, we're augmenting in this restatement. May I remember in the governor's original recommend in January, there was a mental health case worker that was integrated into public safety. The idea being that state police should have more access to mental health professionals. And our goal was to have at least one mental health professional per police barracks. So we started small in the January statement. And in this budget, you'll see almost, I think there are another six full-time equivalent mental health case workers that are integrated into state police. We believe it's a necessary program. I believe the legislature was in agreement on that. We think it's time to continue to roll that out. But that also is a pressure. So in total, when you add these together, there's about $9 million of upward pressure in programs. The departmental changes number is a little bit, there's a lot of moving parts to it. And it kind of washes out to very little change but kind of underlying that 0.4 number or a number of changes both up and down. In terms of the down one request we made of departments when we were going into this budget is we were going to try to achieve savings and internal service funds. This is always a challenge. The internal service funds are kind of what departments use to run themselves. I mean, it's everything from heat and electricity to mowing the lawn to data storage, different property management, human resources and frankly, finance and management. Many of our expenses are through internal service fund. So, but we told departments that we're paid for through internal service funds. We had to find savings and departments stepped up. So there's a 5% savings internal service funds which about $2.5 million net, which I think was very helpful. There were small changes here and there that also contributed. There was also an increase in parking costs and human services largely involved with Woodside taking some of the savings out that were originally in the FY21 budget. But the net of the departmental savings and program changes and funding sources brought our total base appropriations down to 1.644. So, we're getting to where we need to be in that regard. There are a number of one-time appropriations that have to do that are involved with governor's initiative and we will talk to you about. Some of them that I would highlight would be there's about $6 million that goes to the agency of transportation. A million of that goes to town highway aid. Another million goes to maintenance and roadside mowing. We've received a fair amount of feedback and that was unfortunately one of the reductions we had to make when we ran into lower projected revenue for transportation. Many people have taken notice. The governor has wanted to change that. And so with some of the excess that we've had in the general fund, we're going to send it to transportation to boost their maintenance and roadside mowing program. There's also $4 million in this budget sent to AOT for additional leveling and try to get the upper hand on some of our road surfaces. There's a little over a million dollars. Yes. Adam, you made just a clarification. So within that 6.4, 10 million of it is being transferred to the transportation fund out of the general fund. Six million. Oh, I thought you said an additional four million for paving. Yes, of that six million. There's a million that goes to maintenance and roadside, a million to town, highway eight. I thought four million was an additional on the six. Thank you. There are a few other initiatives I would highlight. One is to the public service department for grants to distribute to CUDs, the communication union districts for broadband rollout. I mean, I think no mystery. This is something that the governor has been pushing as well as the legislature. And so we're trying to keep the momentum going in that. And also there is a $2 million allocation for what we would call economic stimulus equity. As many people know that the federal government distributed to many people stimulus checks up to $1,200. Those checks didn't go to everyone. And so we're acknowledging that and where this is really what I would call more placeholder to start a dialogue with the legislature about how we can kind of equalize the stimulus payments to sectors of our economy that did not receive it. But we think it's an important initiative and we look forward to speaking with you guys more about that. That's kind of a brief overview of some of the extras that you'll see in this budget. Filling up, there were actually kind of a, one of the few bright spots, I guess you might say, from living through this package with the decline in the general fund that represented a small savings in our stabilization reserve contribution requirement. So you notice that that went down a little bit. But in total appropriations and transfers, the recommended restatement comes out at 1-664 or just under, which as you can see is a decline from the original budget that was recommended in January. But nonetheless, I think it's a reasonable budget that continues the programs that are important to Vermonters and that we believe in. I will, however, finish with one more comment that is kind of a premonition of what we'll see in FY22. And that is that if you recall at the e-board last week, Jeff Carr and Tom Cadet not only forecast revenue for this year, but they also forecast it for FY22. And the FY22 forecast will be the forecast on which we build our FY22 governor's recommended budget. And that number for total current law revenue, if you look at the outline of this law revenue, the number that is the FY22 number is 1508, which by coincidence is almost equal to our total base revenue this year. The 1508 number, if you just add say $100 million of direct apps and property transfer and the like comes out to be about 1608 or 160, just for round numbers. That compares, that's still about 60 or $55 million less than what this year's total appropriations and transfers are. So we know that we will be going into FY22 with a challenge and that probably represents the best look today at what the challenge may be. Keep in mind that that $55 or $60 million deficit does not account for typical pressures, say more caseload pressures, retirement contributions. We don't know what those will be cost of living allowance for state employees and the like. So we're acknowledging and we're sober about the fact that we face a challenge next year. It may well be like this year that there are other pools of money that we can draw on. It may well be that the federal government steps up or it may well be that the economy bounces back stronger than we think, anything could happen. But as of today, this is what we face and something that we feel that we will be spending a fair amount of time this fall, if you will. So that was a pretty whirlwind go through, but I thought I would leave a fair amount of time for questions and that you may have. Thank you, Adam, for this overview. It's a pretty high level overview. Before we open it to questions, I'm wondering if you would like to highlight a few initiatives that maybe the committee would be interested in, either our committee or Ways and Means, that we're into the bit of a deeper dive of the pieces that helped you balance this budget. I do, I asked to look over some of the, I've been trying to look over some of the documents, but I realized there's a change in the community high school of Vermont funding. And I was, I would like, if you could expound a little bit more on changes to the lottery, it appears that that has been expanded, the definition of the lottery, but I haven't been able to find where the additional money is reflected or if that would come in in 22, that's in section 236. So if there's just some areas that there are initiatives of the governor that you'd like to highlight for us, I think that would be helpful. And then we would open to questions. Sure. Taking that in order, your first question, community high school, that resides as it did in the FY21 budget that resides in the education fund. I realize that is often a topic that the legislature deals with, but that is in the education fund where it has been for a number of years. It is taken out, I think a couple of years ago and we're advocating, putting it back in as part of cradle to career education. You will also, some of you may remember that there was a CCFAP initiative that was in the education fund and that was going to be funded by an expansion of the lottery to Kino. That is not on the table that was taken back because we are not advocating for Kino in this time. However, to answer the chair's question, there is an initiative on iLottery and sports betting. That is something that sports betting, I think has been a topic of conversation in the state house this year and prior years. There's something the governor would like to make happen in Vermont, as well as iLottery, which has a younger demographic and it's very popular. But we were not comforting revenue estimates for those two in part because of the time that it will take to actually fully launch those proposals. So there may be some revenue that comes in towards the latter part of FY21, but we just didn't feel confident enough to put that into our revenue forecast. So you'll see the initiative in the budget, but there is no revenue component to that. Thank you. That's why I couldn't find a number of things. Right, yeah. And kind of continuing along those lines, there are some asks from the Coronavirus Relief Fund that you'll see in the language that are predominantly not part of the main budget. In other words, they're not helping us achieve balance. They would be extra initiatives. There are a few that are in the budget, notably DCF Reachup, Corrections and Mental Health about a $400,000 allocation to the Agency of Agriculture, Farm and Markets. In part to, or in large part to help them run the economic grant programs, the four different programs that they're supposed to. That I think are reasonable to point out. Adam, can you shut your video off? We missed an important piece about the agriculture. Your words, we could see you, but your words went out. Okay. So, what I was going to mention is there are some requests in this document for Coronavirus Relief Fund funding. Some of those requests are in the budget as by that, I mean that they are replacing general fund spending. I mentioned them earlier within DCF Reachup, Corrections and Mental Health, as well as about $400,000 in the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets. And that ag allocation from the Relief Fund is to offset the cost of administering the four different programs that the Agency is administering for economic grants you may remember from the Coronavirus Relief Fund bills that were passed at the end of the session. But there are additional requests in there that you will see most notably, there is $133 million request for economic development grant program carried out through ACCD. And in this, the governor is saying that we have revenue in the Relief Fund that has not been allocated, that was left for various either initiatives or revenue replacement or perhaps to replace appropriations that are deemed ineligible, but there was a number of reasons why there was money left on the bottom line. We're now the third week of August, we have to the end of the year to spend it and we think it's important to lay down some requests or some purpose for that money. So there's $133 million of economic development money that ACCD will be very happy to come in and talk to you about. And there are also a number of different allocations that predominantly deal with running the government services that we run under a COVID environment. So if you look through the language, you will see them there. There is also some, what I would call waterfall language to the extent that the federal government changes eligibility requirements or to the extent that there is money that comes back to the Relief Fund either because appropriations were deemed ineligible or to the extent that there is additional money added from Congress later on this year. But we wanted to make sure that we noted certain appropriations that we feel would be good for a good use of this money included in there, I would note is $30 million to the Mont State colleges that we believe in. We have more flexibility to use the money that we have or if more additional revenue comes in that we put to. So, you can, I would leave that for your reading pleasure but I did want to make sure you make sure to note that. But I reviewed the governor's initiatives you'll see in there and I should mention that as part of the initiatives I mentioned earlier, but I'll repeat, there were a couple of tax programs in there, the Downtown and Village Center tax credits as well as the military retirement tax credits that have been featured in other budgets that the governor has submitted. Thank you, Commissioner. And just for clarification, the military number that is being shown the 1.4, that's not for a full year, is it? That would be a half year with the full amount of the military tax credit be 2.8 million? Yes, that would be for 12 months, this is for six months. That's six months, okay. I just so the committee knows. So let's open it up to questions, ways and means committee, please use you have a virtual hand. If you have a question, we'd like to hear from you as well. Representative Lantz. Thank you, thank you, Adam. So underneath that flexibility of that 44 million that you have listed as to possible ways of funding, some of those things that many of us have found very important. Is it my understanding then that the 30 million that there's no money in the governor's budget for bridge funding for the state colleges or the national guard tuition? Or is this just how you might be able to pay for it if something changes? There is no funding in the main budget for the bridge funding for the Vermont state colleges. I would note that their base funding is $30 million. And they're also received the $5 million bridge loan. And the governor is committed to the state college system. And if we can find more flexibility from Congress or more money comes to the state, we would certainly consider as one of the main priorities providing funding for the state colleges. Thank you. You're welcome. Representative Joseph. Yes, thank you. Adam, could you please speak to how the administration is handling year two of the pay act? The administration has not addressed that yet. And that is certainly something that we will address when we do the FY22 budget. But we are committed to the agreement that we signed and we will deal with that when we do the 22 budget. Great, thank you. You're welcome. We have Representative Helm and then Hooper. Okay, Adam, thank you. Can we go back to college is just for a minute? Can you talk to me more about that $30 million? Where's that coming from and what is it used for? Or are you talking about their annual allotment that we've been giving them plus a little bit every year? I know this does not deal with their annual appropriation. We are making no changes to what the governor submitted in January. They receive, I think it's $29.8 million in the FY21 budget and they receive the same amount in the restatement. This would be additional funding for the state colleges. As many of you know, there's now a study committee or commission going on looking into the future of the state colleges. There are any number of decisions they have to make and we think that we certainly believe and the governor certainly believes that we need a thriving state college system but they are in the middle of studying where they'll be in future years and we're happy to provide funding if there is additional funding available and additional flexibility on the use of our existing funding towards the state colleges. But this has nothing to do with the appropriation that we provide annually in the budget. This would be an answer. So are there any strings attached to this $30 million? What is that to be used for? Well, as you're aware, there was a request from the state colleges for additional funding to meet what they anticipate will be a substantial operating deficit. And so in part, I think this would be to help them bridge that deficit. But I can't say more than that. I guess then I'm going to assume there's no strings attached. They can use it to pay their bills or whatever they feel the need is, what need is necessary. I would say that if we get to the point when we can make an appropriation to the state colleges that we would want to speak with the legislature about what they anticipate or what they would like to, this would be a dialogue. Right now we just wanted to acknowledge that we have an interest there, that we don't have the funding for it but we haven't forgotten it. All right, well, and I'll finish in just a second, but I worry because as we progress further and further beyond the beginning of COVID-19 and as it becomes as a little bit rested from what it was, if that's a good word, back in March, I'm hearing terms like if available, if the money's available and things like that. I hear that in conversations here and there. And it's telling me, watch out, there's a shift here in the air that might not be the best thing for Vermont State Colleges. We know, I think, how financially strapped they are. I don't, what I think we don't know is what I'm going to assume is colleges are not gonna be the same as they were ever again. They're going back and they're gonna go back to heavily online, it's my opinion, but I believe it's gonna start a change that will change the whole way the colleges function and they're gonna need dollars to deal with this because they're on a national stage. As you know, I just want to put that on record as being said, it frightens me that as we get, we're gonna get crunched down for the next two or three years. As we do, we're going to backpedal our first statements. Thank you, Adam. Thank you, Bob. I would like to continue on Vermont State Colleges or several hands up so that Adam doesn't bounce from there to tax expenditures to DCF, third state college questions so that Mary, you were next, is yours a state college or a different topic? Okay, then we'll just continue, Mary, and then it's Dave, Marty, and... Yeah, I raised my hand for state colleges and then Adam said something else, but I will put that aside for a moment. I wrote myself a note, so I'll try to remember. What I am inferring from the budget overview that you have presented to us is that it is not the governor's first priority to provide the $30 million in bridge funding. And in fact, I mean, the way this is structured is based on the assumption that the feds will give us some leeway at a later date. And I think that's a fair way of restating what you told us. I'm really concerned about what that means in terms of the messages that we are sending to that community and to the communities that host the state colleges. We already watched them have a down in enrollments because of the former chancellor's announcement that his proposal to close. And this has such a profound kind of knock-on effect in our communities. I mean, and so I'm deeply worried and I would like to know what the administration's plan is for supporting Randolph, Johnson, Linden in making sure that those communities don't see just a real loss of employment, property taxes, you know, retail activity, the list goes on and on. So what is the state's strategy for addressing this if we do not provide the bridge funding? Well, I'll make a couple of comments. First, the governor signed happily the Q1 budget that included some bridge funding for the state colleges. That was not something he was unhappy about. He believes it was a good idea. He also believes that it's a good idea that there is a commission of wise men and women who are studying what should happen to the state colleges. We all have opinions, I have mine and I'm sure you have yours, but there's a commission of people who are looking at all the angles and coming out with a recommendation. So rather than front running that, I think it's a good idea to stand back and listen to what they have to say and then form conclusions. And those conclusions will be both subjective or be financial as well as policy-driven. So it's not as if we're doing nothing and it's not as if we have little care to the contrary. I think the governor and the administration is deeply caring about the state colleges and there is a process that is being followed. There are a number of people who are looking at the different options and we anticipate a report. We just don't want to front run it. So thank you. And we obviously thought that it was important that a group of experts be brought together. That's the reason we set up that structure. So you disagree with the report that we have received that was an analysis of the system that we need $30 million on the order of $30 million to bridge us to what that report that group of experts tell us what we need to do. I don't disagree with that. I don't have an opinion on that. Okay. So there is a view that we need to have the $30 million as a bridge to get us to whatever the other side is of supporting the state colleges. I think you agree with me. I agree with that. Yeah, thank you. No. Thank you, Mary. I have Dave, Marty, Mehta, and then Representative Enzo. Thank you. I just want to underscore the point that Mary made and Bob and I think Diana alluded to too. It's been not clear to me being happy about finding some money for short term, a short amount for bridge is one thing, but leaving it up in the air to me is very troubling. The report that's being done, I think we'll get a portion of it in December, then the balance of it I think comes sometimes in calendar year 21. And yet the system will need money far before then. This feels to me like a lifeline that's a few yards short of the people that are in the ocean bobbing around needing help. It's troublesome and I don't mean to be disrespectful. I appreciate all the challenges, but it doesn't feel very definitive to me. It feels up in the air. Would the governor be willing, assuming the CRF funds can't be used and you stated twice setting commissioner that the governor feels the state college is very important? Would he be willing to use some of our reserve funds to build that bridge, to keep them going as we continue these conversations? So our first hope would be that we would be given additional either revenue or flexibility from DC. And second, yes. I think the governor would be willing to use reserves if necessary. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Somebody has a bird chirping. It's a cricket in my room. It's a cricket in your room. I thought it was in my room, Marty, because it was a chipmunk that's in the house. All right, well, it's loud. Along the same lines, I'm not concerned at all about the governor's commitment nor the legislature's commitment in order to figure out what we need to do for the state colleges. My only concern is that this $30 million is in this second category that's called if flexibility. Can you explain what clarification we would need in order to feel comfortable that the CRF funds could be used for this? What is the uncertainty about that? And I'll turn it off my quickie. Well, I think the original uncertainty would still hold is that there was a prohibition in the original guidelines against revenue replacement. And there was a requirement that the revenue from, or the money from the Coronavirus Relief Fund had to be used for COVID related issues. And taking a look at it, and I think wise men and women in the administration as well as in the legislature had looked at that and are doubtful that the Coronavirus Relief Fund or money as it is now directed would be, state colleges would be ineligible use. So clarity from Washington that this money can be used as the state sees fit or for greater or more purposes than currently are allowed. But it would be, we're looking for clarity that $30 million would not be put to the state colleges and then clawed back again because it's deemed ineligible. Really the restrictions I think on the use of the Relief Fund prohibit the use of plugging or bridging a $30 million budget gap, but that may change. So I think we'll know it when we see it. So we're just waiting to see if they come through with different guidelines or are we actively seeking some guidelines that would make us feel far more comfortable? Well, we in many other states have asked for greater leeway. I mean, one thing I would note is under current guidelines this money needs to be spent by the end of the year. I think December 30th was the date. And so putting $30 million into any institution not just state colleges and having it sit in the bank as it's used progressively throughout the year does not work. We've run into that problem with many different issues. Representative Fagan will know that, for example, with the National Guard, this fall tuition that we'd like to help pay for in the spring tuition. Well, the spring tuition doesn't happen until after December 30th. So that's not an eligible use. So we've run into that with many, many different issues that just can't all be dealt with in the next five months but are worthy causes nonetheless. So we would need the thumbs up from Congress or from the U.S. Treasury that would say that we could use this money past December 30th. Marty. I just started clarity. It's not the 30th. It's the 20th, I believe. So we have to be really careful about that. Yeah, I think the 20th is self-imposed. I think 30- Self-imposed, right. The status is the 20th or the 30th, not the 31st. Okay, yeah. Mada, and then we'll move down to Janet. Okay, thank you very much. Adam, still within the list for the waterfall, could you talk to us a little bit about number four, the statewide grant portal and what that's all about, as contrasted with say the statewide business portal? Right, so actually, I think this year is perfectly representative of the fact that we would benefit, I think, dramatically from having one granting, call it, mechanism so that grants that are issued to farmers or working lands would be the same grants that would be issued to the Vermont Mountain Biking Association or they would all go through the same portal for acceptance or for application. Maybe in past years, it wasn't obvious that this would be needed. I think this year has represented us that it is an obvious need. That it would make it far more efficient for us to have kind of one portal through which all grant applications would be viewed. And this would include the various grant applications, for instance, through ACCD and all the rest of these grants, which we have all grants. Yeah. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Representative Ansel, thank you. I've got a couple of fairly specific questions and then one general one. There were a couple of changes that the tax department recommended last session that we passed in the House, but that haven't made it through the Senate. One having to do with the rent a rebate program and another having to do with changes in the use tax table. And I'm wondering whether those continue to be a priority of the administration or sort of what their status is. And then my more general question, I'll just get them all up and then I'll get myself. My more general question has to do with the education fund and whether you will be making recommendations at some point to deal with the gap, the projected gap in the education fund. So with rent a rebate and use tax, they are still priorities for the administration. I think Commissioner Folio will be very happy to talk about those, but there hasn't been a change there. Adam, what are you losing you? In terms of the head, I'm sorry? Your voice went down. Sorry. There hasn't been a change in the administration's request or desire to kind of bring the rent a rebate program into a more usable fashion. And I think ways and means what they heard from the administration in January, we stand behind that, similar with use tax tables. And I think Commissioner Folio would be very happy to come in and talk to you about that. In terms of the education fund, I don't have them. I need to go to the side of it anyway. Okay. Yep. Sorry. Go ahead. Sorry. In terms of the education fund, I don't have in my back pocket a proposal to deal with that. I would note, however, that the deficit they were looking at is substantially smaller than what we were looking at earlier this year. And we intend to work with the legislature on that. We also are anxiously waiting for perhaps changes at the federal level that will make that deficit less onerous that there's still extra money that could well find its way into the education fund that I think would make the deficit substantially lower. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Janet. Representative Conheiser. Thanks. Hi, Adam. I am curious if you could tell me a little bit about this $2 million in economic stimulus equity and what that means. So, and I think the answer is this is a conversation that should be a broader conversation between the administration and the legislature. But there were various residents in Vermont who did not qualify for the economic stimulus grants that were sent out to many people. And, you know, we acknowledge that. And I think it's something that we need to work on. So we wanted to put some money in the budget. The governor was very concerned to put some money in the budget. And because we didn't come to you with all the answers, but we're looking to develop a program and we thought it would be appropriate if this is something that's important to the governor. He should put some money in the budget. So that's what he did. But he's predominantly a way to reach out to a larger audience for economic stimulus. Thank you. Thank you, Emily. We have Representative Conquest and then Representative Hooper. Your hand is new again. Right? Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Adam, I just said a little clarification. So you had said earlier that there was the agency of AG was looking for, in their request for CRF funds, $400,000 to administer those four grant programs that fall into their jurisdiction. And then when Mayda asked you about the agency of administrations, $2.2 million for administering grants, she mentioned ACCD, but it sounded to me like you were saying that would cover sort of grant funding generally. And I'm just wondering, are those, are we two pots of money to do the same work or was the agency of AG just completely separate, not included under the agency of administrations grant portal? No. So, and thank you for that, actually, if I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. No, starting with the agency of agriculture, there is a request in the documents in the language that you see in front of you for coronavirus funds for the agency of agriculture food and markets. The total request is about a little over $1.5 million, approximately 1.3 million of that is to help them run the programs that they are overseeing. There are I think four different grant programs that were in age 966 or S351, I believe, that were in the coronavirus relief fund bills that were passed. Agriculture for reasons that I can't tell you was unlike the other agencies and sub-recipients like VEDA or BHCB was not given permission or authority to use some of the grant money for administrative expenses. So this would acknowledge the substantial administrative expenses they have incurred in administering those grant programs by giving them a small amount. The $450,000 I mentioned would be the amount of that 1.5 million that would be used as a general fund offset. So that would you would notice a or will notice a decline of roughly $450,000 that normally would have been in the ag budget because those are staff and resources that are typically budgeted for various agricultural pursuits that are being substantially devoted to COVID response, specifically economic grants. But the grant portal that I referred to is something entirely different. That's to set up a way to kind of funnel all grant applications, including agriculture and ANR and human services and the like through one portal. There's a procedure for applying for grants. It's, you know, owner is to some less owner is to others but this would allow us to kind of have one portal for application as opposed to what it is now, you know, every agency and department does its own thing. So, but that is entirely separate from what I've mentioned on Ag. So the portal would be for non-CRF grant. Well, it would be for grants, CRF grants or otherwise. Okay. All right, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Chip. Mary. Thank you. Adam, you've said something significant in response to a question from Rep Landfear early on which I wanted to thank you for because there's been some uneasiness among folks out there. And you said we are committed to, in reference to the state employee contract, you said we are committed to the agreement that we signed. And I think there has been some concern that there might be an interest in renegotiating that. So I was really happy to hear you say that. And I just wanted to acknowledge that. Thank you. Yeah, welcome. I'm interested that there is this proposal to spend $6 million in general fund dollars for what has traditionally been funded by transportation funds. And I'm curious if this is a new philosophy that we should be spending GF money in over in transportation. And that's a fair comment. I think that the various kind of downward trends and then reversal and upward trend with revenues and various funding sources have been more of a general fund phenomenon. The T fund I think has quite as favored in that regard. And yet they have like many agencies in government, they have expenses that just keep, that you need to pay, do you pay a dollar today or you can end up paying a dollar 50 tomorrow. And with many of our maintenance tasks, when you're low on cash that you postpone them and it comes back to buy two. And so we're trying to acknowledge that some of these needs, regardless of which fund is paying them are important. And I think the governor took to heart the fact that he's on the roads probably more than most and he sees the work that needs to be done. But our intention is not to make this a trend. I think it's just an acknowledgement that the general fund ended up in a better shape than the T fund and we have expenses in the T fund that we need to meet. I would not anticipate seeing this very frequently in future budgets. I appreciate that. I'm kind of interested in the priorities for spending that money, roadside mowing versus some of the other issues that we generally apply general fund dollars towards. But that's our process, we'll sort it out. Right, yeah. Thanks. Thank you, Mary, Diane. Thank you. So following in that same vein, so $6 million and if I'm understanding this correctly, Adam, the administration was so comfortable with where they were with all of the rest of the general fund funding of state government that they could say, you know what, we're so okay, we can give $6 million over to transportation projects, which I'm not just, not a bad thing. It's just, I'm just even just starting to get the initial of where some of the balancing came to make some of that come about. And I can't imagine that the conversation wasn't there that didn't say that, you know, there are things and what's blatant here is like the Vermont State Colleges but I'm sure there are other things that were maybe didn't make your waterfall list that are not occurring and what that $6 million is being moved away from for this instead of that. And I think that's the part of what we're gonna have to figure out. Somewhere there's something that's not getting funded that we may not totally agree with on that particular use and I'm not able to see it as clearly right now with these documents where that shift occurred. But I would say looking at if you felt comfortable enough with the general fund to have such excess that we could do this, that we should not find any other places that have anything diminished. Well, you know, I think it's prioritization. I mean, I would just say that, that, you know, you're right, I mean, there are all kinds of ways we could spend $6 million, but you know, I think the governor is very tuned into what he hears and sees and, you know, we've received comments on our transportation maintenance areas and we also, we know that, I mean, we postpone maintenance and it just costs us more in the future. So we're just trying to keep up with it. And, you know, I think your comments are right on. I mean, what you spend on one thing you're not spending on another, but you know, it was prioritization. Thank you, Diane. Diane, were you finished? Thank you, Adam. Thank you. Adam, I just have a couple of quick questions on the direct applications to the general fund. You went over most of them. And I'm assuming the unclaimed property that that's a number that came in after the legislature is we updated number in June. And this is an additional 1.4 that the treasurer's office has identified. Is that correct? Yes. That's right. Okay, I just wanted to make sure. And then on that, on your direct applications, you show $3 million from the state healthcare resources fund. Could you comment on how that, where that $3 million, how it became available? I knew there would be a reason to ask Matt to help me out on this. Can you all hear me okay? Yes, we can. We can. So as you'll recall, the majority of the sources of revenue that used to go into the state healthcare resources fund is now directed into the general fund. However, there was a balance in the state healthcare resources fund at that time. And the decision was made to leave that balance in the state healthcare resources fund, just in case when we made the transfer, we were somehow leaving the agency of human services short on that special fund source. Well, after that was done and the dust all cleared, there still was a meaningful balance in that fund. And so by direct tapping it into the general fund, we can use it. And ultimately, I think Adam mentioned that Medicaid trend is expected to be up by $15 million. So ultimately that general fund support will make its way back to AHS, but from a mechanical standpoint, it's being transferred from the state healthcare resources fund to the general fund. And when we take testimony from the central office, we can dive deeper into that. Thank you, Matt. And then my last question, you talked about the 5% targeted savings with BGS and ADS across all departments. We also heard about a 3%. Can you, Adam, can you highlight where some 3% targeted savings may have been achieved that you haven't spoken to? Well, there were many departments that put forward savings plans. I mean, to highlight one in particular ANR that has done a fair amount of analysis into its departmental operations, DEC and Fish and Wildlife and FPR, all of them. And they put forward a savings plan that was actually originally in excess of 3% and then kind of dialed it back and fine tuned. But yeah, there's one department that I think is appropriate to highlight as having achieved what we asked and they would say that it took a fair amount of work but were no worse for it. And what is broad 3% or is ANR the poster child here? No, every department showed some savings, some more than others. You can't just go to every department and say I want 3%. It just never, mathematically, it's hard to make that work. And frankly, it ends up, every budget has to have certain priorities in it. But statewide, we are actually slightly below 3% statewide. But keep in mind that part of the budget is off limits. I mean, we don't touch our retirement obligations, we don't touch our debt service. So really, when you need to reduce overall spending by 3% and you take out what amounts to $300 million off the table, that kind of increases the amount that every department has to save by quite a bit more than that. But it's very hard to be precise with every department. We'd just like to, we prefer to say statewide, there was a little more than actually 2% savings. I'm just thinking of a plan testimony on this very limited time schedule. I mean, we're on a tight time schedule, who we need to have in. So to understand the 3%, whether it's the council on the arts or the Vermont Symphony Orchestra or some of those other entities that are funded through the general fund. So we'll soon see a list of if there's reductions like with the Vermont Symphony Orchestra. Yes, you will. As a general rule, the Symphony Orchestra, the Historical Society, the Humanities Council, the Arts Council, they all gave us savings. We asked them to, and I take, actually, interestingly, I take my hat off to them. There was no mourning and groaning. They knew we had financial issues. And so, yes, they all provided savings for us. Thank you. That's what I needed to know for testimony. Thank you. Any final questions? We have Dave and Mary. Yes, I just wanted to follow up on that last comment. You made, Katie, is it unreasonable to ask or some type of spreadsheet to just list all those reductions? And if not too hard, if there's any corresponding federal funds that are lost because of the general fund reduction, it just might help expedite things. A lot of it might be self-explanatory. I presume the departments have already done that for someone and if they could just collate it into one. But if that's unreasonable, given our timeframe, I understand, we're gonna have to find it anyways because our members will probably ask us of that. Thank you. Is there a feed, Adam, that you have or this is something that we would need to develop on our side? I think the departments can share with you the information they have. I don't have something in my fingertips that I'm sharing. Diane, nope, you're done. I don't see any other questions. Are there any final? Chair Tolle? Yes? Chair Tolle, this is Suzanne Young. I joined by phone, so I had a chance to listen to some of the hearing. With your permission, I'd like to perhaps clarify the answer for Representative Hooper about the contract. Certainly, and I'm sorry, I didn't recognize, I don't see the whole phone number. I wouldn't have recognized it, but Secretary. That's okay. I'm sorry I couldn't join from the beginning, but so Representative Hooper, I know you asked about the contract and I just wanted to clarify so it's clear that the administration did enter into a two-year contract with the BSEA last fall. And we did support full funding of that two-year contract before adjournment. And the legislature, as you may recall, only funded the first year of the contract. And that first year was one-time payments to state employees, which we did honor and immediately paid in the first pay period of July 1st of this fiscal year. But because the legislature did not fund the full pay act by operation of law, that contract goes back to bargaining. So, you know, we and the legislature took away the sea attitude, I think because of all the uncertainty around the virus, around our revenues and around what would be available for funding that in the next fiscal year. So we're, I believe the BSEA understands that we're going back to negotiations after adjournment and before this fall, and that we will have something that we both support to you in the January budget. So that's kind of the status of the contract. I just wanted to make sure, you know, if we can support the deal that we negotiated with the funding and the situation that faces us come the fall as we're at the bargaining table, we certainly do support the deal that we entered with the contract last year subject to available funds and pay act appropriation. Thank you, secretary. Could you make one clarification? You said that since we took a wait and see approach and only funded the first year of the pay act and not the full two year contract that it automatically opened up negotiations. Does it automatically open up negotiations or does it allow for negotiations to be opened if you choose to? Well, I believe that by operation of law that there is technically not a contract. So I mean, we will have to go back and at least discuss and negotiate a contract for a three or two. So that's my understanding from your alleged counsel's advice to the committee, but. Mary? Well, actually that was not our interpretation of our counsel's advice and not our intention I think I'm not just speaking for myself but I think in terms of what our committee's understanding was that was that we were taking a wait and see position and but not to be opening up the contract again. Well, I guess then that's certainly that certainly then I guess is subject to interpretation that is, you know, is not how we have understood the action of waiting and not expressing some intent to fund the pay act. So I mean, it's something that we'll have to work through but I just wanted to clarify that it was not funded and we are going to be sitting down with CBCA this fall and looking at available resources to fund the deal and whether there need to be any adjustments made with them and I'm sure that we'll have a fruitful conversation then. And we'll see the consequence of that in the 22 budget. That would be our intent, yes. Yeah, I think that was our intent too that we funded in the 22 budget. Not that the contract be renegotiated but that we address this in 22. Not before then. Yeah. All right, well, I appreciate, I appreciate the clarification of your understanding. Thank you. Are there other questions? Secretary Young, did you want to comment on any other parts of your proposal of the proposal from the administration? No, I don't think so. I think commissioner Gresham did a good job covering a lot of ground in a short time and there'll be plenty of time I think for further discussions and clarifications as you guys roll up your sleeves and dive in. We thank you for your time today. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. We can't see you, but we can hear you. So thank you for coming on to the call. There's just a couple of pieces wanted to clarify. Matt, do you want to join us? Sure, thanks Madam Chair, very quickly. I don't want to keep you, but I think there's some technical issues that may be helpful for you all too, bear in mind as you dive in. We were really an unprecedented, an unchartered territory in trying to approach the restatement budget. And so the approach that we worked out in consensus with JFO is that we would introduce to you a bill that covers the entirety of FY21. So I try to correct people in my side of the house when they refer to it as a three-quarter bill because you will not be receiving a three-quarter bill, you will be receiving a full year appropriations for all departments. So in some cases, those will override the quarter appropriation that you already did. And it makes it a little bit complicated. We are working from the GOVREC as the starting point. Departments will be presenting to you what we call a budget addendum which will look like an ups and downs and it will be only changes from the GOVREC. So we ask that if you can get access to your GOVREC materials for departmental hearings, that will form the decisions that we recommended to you through January and then there will be a short material in the departments that could be just as simple as one page that identifies the changes from that. And those two combined will generate what the department's annual appropriation will be. On the language side. You're working off the January proposal. We're working off of the January proposal, exactly. And it sometimes gets a little bit tricky for the things that were appropriated either in part or in whole in the first quarter bill, but we've tried to address those clearly in the restatement so that it either overrides so that you can clearly see whether it overrides or not what was done in the Q1 bill. From a language standpoint, same thing. We will be the language document that we've posted to you uses GOVREC as a starting point. If you see items that are shaded out in gray in that document, that means that those are things that since that time we have removed and we are no longer requesting. Whereas blue are new items that we have added since GOVREC and white just means that we are sticking with our original GOVREC proposal. And hopefully that'll be more clear to you as you look at it, but we think that the approach with the language and the numbers is the one, it was certainly the most expedient on our end and we think you'll find it's the most expedient on your end as well. Okay, so white are your original proposals from January. Anything in blue is new and anything in gray is something you put out in January, but they're off the table. Correct, thank you. Thank you, Matt. We are at 2.30, is there a final question for either the commissioner or Secretary Young or for Matt Riven? Thank you for coming in. We look forward to our work with you and we know it's going to be quick compared to our normal budgeting process and looking at the schedule that Theresa has put forward they're going to be jam-packed days. So we look forward to keeping communications open and finding a spot that we all can agree on. That's gonna be quick, Madam Chair, but it's gonna be fun. I'm gonna hold you to that, Adam. Take care of you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Ways and means could stay on. We had scheduled just 15 minutes so that it's our only way really to connect with one another about what the priorities are and with your committee. Obviously it's the two tax credits that you will be talking about, but are there any points as we are working through our testimony that you would like to make sure that we get clarification on or things that you're concerned about before we get a recommendation back? Janet, it's the downtown village tax credit and the military pension tax credit. Were there any other pieces that were directly related that you would? So it's interesting that those two tax credits, we actually did take action on in the house before we left. And at least our committee had taken action on them. We supported the downtown credit and we didn't recommend the military credit. The other two issues that come to my mind, actually there are several, but the two that I mentioned, the use tax change in the use tax table had a million dollar impact down. We think it's an important thing to do. It's in the miscellaneous tax bill and the Senate has not acted on it, but it does have a budget impact, but it's an important policy change. And the other work that we spent a lot of time on was the rent and rebate changes. And someone on my committee can remind me, I don't think that had a fiscal impact the first for fiscal 21, but it had a potential out-year impact. I mean, it was a real restructuring of the program, but that passed the house and it's sitting in the Senate. So that's another fairly important piece. The community high school of Vermont, we've talked about. That's right, that's a certain moment. And we didn't recommend it. We also glad that, speaking for myself and glad that Kino's off the table, there are other changes I see in the lottery that I think might bear some attention and time. Anyone on my committee want to jump in with some things that I've forgotten? Just jump right in, don't have thoughts or comments. Janet, I have a question about the downtown tax credit. Adam's number, I think I'm looking for it was 1.3 million. Yeah, I don't think we recommended, I think we recommended 400,000. And someone remind me on the committee, Sam was the reporter for the bill and I'm just not remembering for sure. I don't think we recommended the entire thing. I think what we recommended was that we increased the credit to a $3 million a year program. I think it's currently 2.6. That's right, yeah. And I think we went to three, which frankly, I think is a good, whether we can afford to increase it this year is a separate question, but I do think 3 million is a good target for. And that was a $400,000. I think so, I think it's 2.6 right now and I think it went to three. And so obviously you'll be following what the Senate does with the renter rebate since we've already passed it out at the house and the use tax changes. Yeah, I suspect that million dollars is not a, although Adam said they continue to support it, my guess is it's not accommodated in the budget that you were just presented. So that is a million dollar negative change. Negative change. Yeah, although I think it's, there's a timing issue and a few other issues, but basically the use tax table that we have is much higher than it should be. The so-called safe harbor for taxpayers is higher than it should be because most people pay the sales tax when they buy something online now with the changes in Wayfair. So it's really not, it's not fair to taxpayers the way it's structured now. And you will take a position on the the lottery policy, your committee? Well, you know, often that has been general committee and our committee, I think general is the policy committee on gambling and lottery. So that they may take a little bit on it. There were estimates of- I don't think they put any money in on any of those changes. So it may be more of a policy question. Thank you, Janet. Any final thoughts? Well, I've got some committee members here. I think I've got five or six of them. Anybody come up with something that I've forgotten? No. No. Mary has a question or a comment? Yeah, I'm a huge fan of the downtown tax credit. And so it was appreciative of what you did. I just had to shake my head at this proposal in this year. I cannot imagine, I sure wish that folks were going to be building and be able to take advantage of the tax credits, but it just doesn't make sense to me. And so I just wanted to offer my opinion since I have a chance to right now. But we haven't talked about it as a committee, but that would be an easy thing to go to $3 million next year. Do it now, but change it. Later, yeah. Have the change to perfect later. And the other thing that is in your jurisdiction, or I guess, is this proposal to use general fund. We can certainly use general fund dollars in the transfer to buy transportation stuff. But to me, that asks an interesting question, which lies in your realm. And I just wanted to highlight that again. As you know, we wrestle over tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands and for $6 million to be just kind of shipped off to the transportation realm. Yeah. I'm guessing, I mean, because it's really a question of where the money goes, which is more of an appropriation question than a revenue question. We can look at it if your committee wants us to, but I think it would be really house transportation and house appropriations that would sort that out. The reason I was connecting it with you is the alternative, obviously, is if there is a need in that realm, there's another way to find the funds. Exactly. Yeah. Thanks. We get more involved in the education fund because there's an immediate impact on property taxes. So there's, on education fund issues, it really, it sort of turns into a property tax issue whenever we make changes. That's not true with a transportation fund. We would have to do something. I see. Thank you. So, Janet, at your convenience, but also rather quickly, if we could just have an informal letter from Ways and Means, and so we don't need all the formal language or citing just the broad topics, what you agree with, what you're watching to pass, and if it doesn't pass, if there's another swipe of it through the budget, if we could get a memo from your committee on these topics, that would be wonderful. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I'm happy to do that. And I went through the language as I was listening and I think I picked up what looked to me like Ways and Means issues. But as I keep saying, I may have missed something in which case, well, you'll let me know or I'll figure it out. We do not have time to get letters out to every committee. So this is why we're doing that. And Bob will follow up with transportation and Mary has an interest as we all do on the use of that $6 million. And if you want to weigh in or you find it could be Ways, please do that. Thank you to you and to your committee for joining us. I think this is moving expedited. Thank you. So we'll say goodbye. Enjoy your day. Jump right into military. Okay, so Madam Chair, this means that we need to end this one. Everybody needs to go to the next link. Okay, but three now. Theresa? Yeah. It is 2.43. I'm going to give the committee a five minute break. We all need to stand up and walk around. So we're going to. I'm just gonna.