 Excellent, Bob. All right, we need to get started. So, Teresa, if we could go live, are we live? Good morning, everybody. This is the Friday 8.30 morning Appropriations Committee meeting. We're going to start right now with Sarah Clark, who is going to provide an overview of funding and what that looks like within the Agency of Human Services. We have a hard stop at 9.15. At 9.15, Adam is going to address the committee for, I should say, the Commissioner of Finance and Management will address the committee for 15 minutes regarding the language at the end of the BAA. At 9.30, we have Larry Coupoli to do the special education bill with the dates. And at 9.50, Steve Klein is coming on for 10 minutes to sew up a couple of areas that we needed from JFO. So I am going to make these hard stops because we're on the House floor at 10 o'clock. And Sarah, welcome. It's always good to see you. And we look forward to your presentation. And what I want to tell committee members, I'd like Sarah to get all the way through her presentation. And as your hands go up, I'll write names down, and then we'll take questions up until 9.15. I'm just sorry we're just on such a time crunch today. So let's get started. Good morning, Sarah. Thanks. Good morning. Thank you for having me. So I'm prepared today to talk to you a little bit about all of the variety of sources of federal funds that are coming to the Agency of Human Services to support us in the response to the COVID pandemic. As you are aware, there are multiple federal fund sources that have been made available to states throughout essentially four relief bills at the federal level. AHS has been working closely with finance and management on understanding those fund sources and what's available to us, but also establishing a funding hierarchy for how we want to spend those funds. You need to understand what you want to spend first strategically to ensure that you're able to leverage federal funds to the maximum ability. So this has continued to evolve, actually, as we've learned more and more about the federal funds that are available to us. Most notably, as you're aware, the $1.25 billion in the coronavirus relief fund. It's really only within the last two weeks that the U.S. Treasury has issued guidance about the uses of those funds. So as we think of the hierarchy of funding for human services, as it stands today, our current plan is to first spend the AHS-specific formula or block grants that are 100% federal dollars. We are looking to those first to cover our known incurred expenses. The second crunch is the coronavirus relief fund. Again, those would also be 100% federal dollars. And as you are aware, the Joint Fiscal Committee has set up a process by which we access and spend those funds. I think it's important to understand that as we learn more and move through this crisis, this funding hierarchy may change. But as of today, this is kind of the manner in which we are spending funds. The next tier down is FEMA to the extent that the Agency of Human Services has FEMA allowable activities, we would be looking to leverage FEMA dollars. Those are $75, $25. So the challenge there is coming up with a 25% match. And so we may want to contemplate using coronavirus relief funds that are 100% federal dollars as opposed to the FEMA dollar because of the challenges of the state match. And then kind of our last tier is Medicaid. And we'll talk a little bit more about it later. As you know, we talked about earlier this week, we did receive a 6.2% bump to our FMAP, but we're still, these are the most expensive of the dollars from a state perspective. We're leveraging now with the FMAP bump about 60% from the federal government that still leaves about a 40% share for the state to cover. And so that's the funding hierarchy as my team and I kind of navigate the expenses that we're incurring and determining what's the most appropriate fund source. This is the hierarchy that we keep in mind. So the next part of my presentation, I want to talk about the AHS specific grants. So these are those 100% either block grant or formula grants that come to the agency of human services. This aligns to finance and management did put out a COVID funding tracker. And so it's not organized in the same manner, but it aligns with the information that's presented in that tracker, which is a spreadsheet that tells you kind of by source how much has been issued to the CDC. So let me just, I'll kind of quickly go through the various sources of funding. So from the CDC, we've received a couple of tranches of the public health emergency response grants. The original was awarded in the COVID one bill that was $4.9 million. These are funds that the Department of Health is using in their response to the COVID crisis. And so it's paying for all of their staff time, the lab tests, all of the functions that VDH is doing. I should have probably updated this for today, but when we last looked at it, we had drawn down of that original $4.9 million. We had drawn down $2.6 million. We've received a second tranche of funding from this source of $5.4 million. It was awarded in the COVID three bill. There is a potential for a third, not yet received any award documents from the federal government, but we do understand from some sources that Vermont, it is expected to receive an additional tier of funding from the public health emergency response grant. But since we don't have the award yet, I wanted to make you aware of that possibility, but I don't have any dollars there yet. We are the health department is kind of following up with their chain and the federal government to try to understand how much and when could possibly be coming to Vermont. So based on the current spending trends, the Department of Health anticipates spending by June 30th, $17 million in their activities in response to the COVID crisis. We've got between the first two tiers, we've got $10 million of funding from the emergency health preparedness response grant, which will leave us about a $7 million short, roughly. And so our current strategy, and it was included in the materials that were sent to the joint fiscal committee, is that we would be looking to leverage coronavirus relief funds. Sarah, Sarah, I need to have somebody mute their, I hear a lot of noise in the background. Okay, I think we're muted. That was me. Sorry. Oh, sorry, Marty. Okay, let's continue. Well, Marty, that's somebody else. If you let everybody, let's mute everybody, Teresa, please, except Sarah. I'm checking for the culprit. Got it. Okay, so that's the public health emergency response grant. The next funding I'm going to talk to you about is the congregate and home delivered meals. There were, there was $1.2 million awarded in the COVID-1 bill that has been processed via excess receipts request at Dale. In addition, there was another $2.4 million awarded via the COVID-3 bill that has a portion of that has been processed via excess receipts at Dale. So you should have seen that in some of those excess receipts reports that have been admitted, provided to you by finance and management. And so those funds are being deployed now. In addition, underneath the family caregiver program, there is a half a million dollars that was awarded to Dale, and a hundred thousand dollar excess receipt request has been approved. And those functions are being carried out by Dale now. Similarly, in the Dale realm, there is a supportive services program. There's a million dollars that's been awarded to Dale. And we are in the process of spending those dollars. Moving on, we talked a little bit about this on Monday, because this was in the budget adjustment that was submitted. There is $4.4 million in childcare and development block grant that was awarded in the COVID-3 bill. These funds are being used to offset the cost of the stabilizing the childcare program that was stood up in March by Governor Scott. And so we talked about those funds. I think it was Tuesday or Monday. I don't remember the day that I was in earlier this week, but those funds are in the budget adjustment bill. In addition, DCF received from the community services block grant $5.1 million that was awarded in the COVID-3 bill. For the funding formula associated with that block grant, 90% of those dollars would go out to the cap agencies to help provide social services and emergency assistance to providers. DCF through the LIFE program was awarded $4.1 million in the COVID-3 bill. These funds are going to be used to extend the crisis fuel season, purchase wood, and provide funding for unpaid utility bills in response to the COVID pandemic. The emergency solutions grant ESG funds, those were also included in the budget adjustment that we discussed on Tuesday. There was an initial award in the COVID-3 bill of $4.6 million, but HUD in the end decided to only release half of those funds to states. And so Vermont has an award of $2.3 million, and that is what you saw in the budget adjustment that we reviewed. It's unknown if HUD will be distributing those funds in the future. We understand that they likely will, but we don't know if it'll be in a different manner or if those funds will come to Vermont similar to how the $2.3 million came to Vermont. Vermont's using these funds to cover housing costs and additional funds to support the homeless community and shelter programs. In addition, within the HHS rubric, there was additional funding released for small rural hospital improvement program. About $759,000 was awarded to VDH. These funds will be granted out to small rural hospitals. So that essentially, those are at a high level, all of the kind of 100% federal dollars that have flowed to the agency of human services in response to the COVID crisis. The next, and we talked about this when I was in for budget adjustment, so I can be brief, but as you know, we received a 6.2% bump in our FMAP in the COVID-2 bill. This has an estimated impact of $38 million based on our estimates from the January to June 2020 quarters. So as you know, we booked those savings in the budget adjustment to help with the overall resolution of the general fund revenue situation in fiscal year 2020. The next level that I want to talk about is, as part of the multiple relief efforts at the federal level, there's been significant dollars that have flowed directly to providers. There's a couple of those that I want to discuss with you today. Within the health resources and services administration, HRSA, there have been two levels of awards, one in the COVID-1 bill and the second in the COVID-3 bill. We received health centers, which is essentially FQHCs, received $683,000 in the COVID-1 bill, and then an additional $8.7 million in the COVID-3 bill. If you're interested, I do have that allocation by health care center that I could provide to you, so you can see how much flowed directly to those centers. The next tranche is a significant one. Within the CARES Act, so that was the third relief bill, they established Health and Human Services, a provider relief fund. This had a hundred billion dollars appropriated to this fund to provide relief to hospitals and other health care providers to support health care related expenses or lost revenue attributable to the COVID-19 crisis. In addition, providers have been instructed to use these funds to ensure that the uninsured Americans get testing and treatment for COVID-19. So again, these are funds that flow directly from the federal government to the providers, does not pass through the state of Vermont. Those that $100 billion has been released in a few tranches. $30 billion was distributed direct to providers by HHS on Friday, April 10th. That initial $30 billion distribution was based on Medicare fee for service reimbursements in 2019. Vermont received, Vermont providers received $54.5 million. Those funds were distributed to 1,011 Vermont providers. These funds do not need to be repaid. Just this week, a lot of questions that we get surrounding this hundred billion is how much are providers getting. Just this week, and I can share the link with you, the federal government has started publishing the distribution of these funds by state and by provider and the amounts that they were received. So shortly after the first $30 billion was released, the $20 billion was released by HHS the week of April 23rd. The idea was it was to augment the initial allocation of $30 billion, not million. I wrote $30 million there. It's $30 billion. So that the whole $50 billion would be distributed proportionally to the provider's share of their 2018 net patient revenue. In addition to that $50 billion, HHS has distributed $12 billion to facilities that have large numbers of COVID-19 patients. Vermont did not receive any of those funds from the $12 billion allocation. However, there is another tranche of $10 billion that was directed to providers in rural areas. Vermont has received $74.6 million of those funds to 80 providers. There is an additional allocation under development for HHS to distribute more of this $100 billion that will be based more on Medicaid providers. The concern being with the initial releases of funding, it was based on Medicare and so they are trying to address providers that may have a higher percentage of Medicaid or may not have Medicaid. And so we expect to receive those funds likely within the next couple of weeks. Hello. Hello, Sarah. I'm sorry. I just got booted off. I just got booted off for the last three minutes. I lost my power, so I'm on my cell phone. So I don't want to interrupt, but I don't know where we are in the process right now. Sure. I think I just wrapped up Representative Toll walking folks through the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund. That was the $100 billion that was directly appropriated to HHS. Provide relief to hospitals and other health care providers. And so essentially those funds have been released in a couple of different tranches. There's still some funds remaining to be distributed, but I walked the committee through what those tranches are. Okay. Thank you. And the last section that I wanted to talk about is in addition to the kind of formula funding, the Medicaid FMAP, the funds directed providers, there are also opportunities for states and agencies of human services to provide to apply directly for federal funding. So as we talked about a little bit on my testimony and budget adjustment and was approved by the Joint Fiscal Committee, I think probably about two weeks ago, the agency through DMH and VDH were successful in applying for and being awarded a substance abuse and mental health services administration SAMHSA grant for emergency grants to address mental and substance use disorders during the COVID-19 crisis. So the state of Vermont essentially received a $2 million award. In addition, the Department of Corrections is working with the Department of Public Safety to apply for a Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs grant that would provide some funding to help help corrections in their response to the COVID crisis. So we're anticipating that these funds could be used to cover some overtime, any equipment, supplies, those types of things. That grant hasn't been submitted yet to the federal government. I don't believe it has a deadline until maybe mid to end May. And so not clear yet whether we will receive those funds or not, but I wanted you to be aware of some of the things that we are contemplating right now. So that was pretty quick, 8.52. Okay, I'm trying to stop. Representative Toll, you need to turn off the other. You can't have two meetings at once or you get the echo. So your phone's still going, you'll need to disconnect that one. Okay, I'm back. I had to have my daughter disconnect to me. I apologize. So now let's open this up to questions. And Sarah, I might have to have a phone call later to catch up on a couple of things like this. I can't raise my hand. Bob, let me, Bob, do you have a question for Sarah? I do. I just want to tell you though, you can't raise your hand. So anyways, yes, I do, Sarah. So, and this is something you probably won't want to answer. And I doubt if you even can. But so, don't get me wrong, I appreciate the federal government and their involvement in this. Without them, we'd really be sunk. But if I'm not mistaken, they borrowed two trillion dollars to begin with. And now we hear the word extended out and dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty. dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty, dotty. So when we get done, we are going to have borrowed in excess of two trillion dollars on top of what I think was to begin with 16 trillion dollars from other stuff. Is there ever a point in time when the federal government gets into the same boat we are? I mean, how much of this can they withstand? I mean, because they're being affected the same as we are. I'm not sure if this is a question for Sarah or not if she can. Who would I ask the janitor. I don't know who to ask. I think that you would ask Patrick Leahy or Bernie Sanders. Well, I'm serious. I'm serious. I really think that it has to go to the federal level. But Sarah, did you have a response? I do not have a response. I'm sorry, Bob. I'm just going to wait till it happens. I guess. Dave Peter chip and Mary will send you the link and the information. Is it's an important. Thank you, Madam chair. Thank you, Sarah. Sarah. In the hundred. In the funds that came to Vermont that you said that were distributed based on fee for service. Was Vermont disadvantaged because we have a different payment methodology in part. And do you know if our congressional delegation is trying to remedy that in any way? And was it significant? Representative Yacoboni, that's a, an excellent point. In the initial release of the hundred billion, the $30 billion that went out on April 10th. Vermont was disadvantaged because of our. All payer model construct. However, working with the delegation and with our partners at CMS. I understand that. That kind of shortfall in funding and the original $30 billion tranche should have been rectified with the $20 billion that was released subsequent to that. Saying that I would want to confirm probably with the director of health care reform reform, Ina back this to make sure that Nolan's raising his hand, whether we've made up for the shortfall in the original tranche. And thank you. So people are focused on it. We'll learn more, but no one did you want to weigh in on. Yeah. The second tronche to 20 billion, we got 16 million. And my understanding was that was the sort of kind of offset. Reallocate. That was my understanding from Sander Sanders office. And then just if I may, one other question, and then I'll jump off kitty, if I may quickly. Though I have several, but under the supported services money for Dale, the $1 million. Do you, do you have any details on that in terms of what that means and whom it may be intended for? I can get back to you or the whole committee via an email. I do have that information. I just don't have your tips right now. Without taking a few minutes. And here's what's behind my question though. It's not apparent at all. We, I've heard from several providers saying, Oh my gosh, I hope you'll, you'll fund some essential services, wage supplements for the essential workers who are lower paid. And so my question, I said, well, if there's these other federal dollars and not knowing the end, the order of magnitude that might be needed, couldn't those dollars be determined by AHS and the respective departments to provide wage relief in the absence of a larger bill that's far more complex about who should be in or who should not be in. So that's, that's what I'm curious. Okay, that's helpful context. Yeah. I know we lost an adult daycare provider in Washington County recently. I just, I'm, I'm worried about the, what we don't know about what's happening with the social safety net. Thank you. I'll jump off so others can speak. Thank you, Katie. Thank you, Dave. Peter, Chip and Mary. Sarah, I want to thank you for, for this sheet. This is extraordinarily helpful. Really lays it out very, very well. Dave asked my, my first question. You know, the other question is regarding the FEMA piece. Do you have a similar sheet that shows, you know, what is being applied for through FEMA to backfill funds that are being expended either in the state emergency operations center operations or, or whatever. And if you would please, I've, I've actually worked in the state EOC many times. I understand the concept. If you could just briefly explain to everyone, all the different piece parts in the state EOC or at least some of them, I taught, I taught someone through the, the fact there's a logistics section in there. So they handle the PPE and things like that. But it just explained to folks what they do in there, please. Sure. And actually you might be better suited to, to do that. Representative Fagan, but let me talk a little bit how I think with this disaster, it's truly unlike any we've experienced before. And so I think for the agency of human services and the SEOC, something has arisen that perhaps didn't exist in the SEOC before. And that is we have stood up a human services branch of the SEOC because a lot of the crisis response is focused on human services areas. We've actually more rigor, rigorously staffed the SEOC than we historically would have, let's say for a flood response, for example. And so there is Jenny Samuelson has been tasked as the lead of the SEOC branch working with Jason Goslin, who is in the secretary's office, our kind of emergency response coordinator. That's his full-time job. In addition, Jill Gould, who some of you remember through her tenure in state government, she works for me now. She has been tasked as the kind of financial lead of the SEOC human services branch. And so that team and then Jill to me directly is how I got to get my communication out of the SEOC as we, as we go through various iterations of what response is needed so that we can track any sort of potential FEMA eligible costs. Is there anything that you would like to add about the SEOC structure? It's basically an enormous coordination and then developing decisions and then instituting action branch of federal government in situations where there's an emergency going on. They have many different portals in there from just one for transportation only to engineering type assets if necessary, certainly logistics. In this case, you talked about the agency of human services. Just it's been a while, but just there must be 15 or 20 different desks in there, each with a different function. So would you do us a favor though and get us that, that the FEMA piece to this, this, I can't tell you how, you know, this lays it out and it really is helpful. So thank you. Yeah. We have Chip, Mary and Diane. Thank you, Sarah. Dave asked my first question too. So I guess at some point I would be interested in a follow up from Diva or someone about just whether or not the amount that Nolan mentioned seems to be the right amount to take into account the fact that we have a different payment system for a somewhat significant number of patients. But my other two questions are the small hospital improvement program, small rural hospital improvement program. What's that money particularly for and how is it allocated? So that those funds represented an increase to an existing program that the Department of Health administers. I can follow up with you with more specific details in terms of how those dollars were actually allocated. Okay. Yeah. All right. But that, but those, those are additional federal dollars that are a result that came in response to a COVID, COVID response. Correct. Yep. All of the dollars on this, on the sheet were allocated as a result of response to the COVID crisis. Okay. Yeah. Just that doesn't have to be detailed, but just some general understanding of that would be helpful. And then lastly, the letter E down here to E the providers, money to providers in rural areas. So initially early on, there were a number of providers, individual, particularly private primary care providers who were really in dire straits. Is that what this money is intended to go to? And again, sort of the same question. How is this money? What's it to be used for? And how was it allocated? So my understanding is that, it was allocated for the purposes that you just mentioned. It is something that HHS allocated. I believe based on the Medicare fee for service. I don't have yet available. The federal government hasn't provided that yet in terms of provider by provider for that particular trancha funding. I'll share with Teresa. So the committee has it. I believe it's just yesterday or the day before where they, the federal government has made available more details in terms of this $100 billion and how it's been distributed by provider. Okay. I mean, my, my interest. Is not quite that down at the level of who got it, but more. What was, what was it eligible? Who was eligible to get it? And how, you know, how was determined, how it was allocated. And I guess just, yeah, that's it. So, yeah, we could get that at some point. That'd be great. Yeah. And again, when I can, I will, it's just not something that came through the state. Fine. Thank you. Thank you, Chip. Mary and Diane and Kimberly. Hi. I, I too was struggling with devices. So missed part of what you were saying, Sarah, and I'll listen to the link and try to catch up. Do you have two questions with regard to the department of justice grants? Do you know if there's a limitation on what the state can receive there? The reason I'm asking the question, I see that DOC is applying for this grant, which is fabulous. But I'm wondering about all the, um, judiciary taking advantage of that. And I know that there's, your obligation, but I'm just wondering if there's a limit to how much we can apply for there. Yeah. So I should say department of public safety is the lead on this grant. I think the intent of the grant is that it's specific to states, departments of public safety and department of corrections. Okay. And then you, um, referenced, um, an earlier, some money that was being used for emergency housing for folks without homes that, and I've lost wherever it is on the page. It, it was some money, but surely you need a huge amount more than that. Do you have, can you tell us what the needs, what you have spent there and what you anticipate needing. And what your thoughts are on big, figuring that out. Filling that. Yes. So, um, that's the emergency solutions grants, which was number eight. Underneath the AHS specific grants. You are correct. The need is much greater than what you are seeing. Reflected here. Again, this ties into the AA one for the Corona virus relief fund, because there you're going to see more of the need reflected in how the administration is proposing to use those funds. And at the kind of first emergency response to, um, the COVID crisis. I do think that the housing conversation is one that is going to be going on, um, in partnership with the administration and the legislature over the next months and years in terms of what response is needed. I would encourage you, and I think you had commissioner chats in, I know you had commissioner chats in, I'm not sure how much you talked about the housing components related to that, but I do think that he and his team, Sean Brown, Sarah Phillips would be better suited to give you a more full fleshed housing picture. But I can tell you there are costs in the AA one for the CRF. Um, that will need to be funded because for example, as you are aware, our general assistance motel program has essentially. The, the increase in need there has been significant in response to the crisis. Are you. Do you have a, are you running a spreadsheet on just the housing, you know, the emergency assistance housing related costs? And could we, I'm just trying to understand the magnitude of the problem. Yeah. So I think, um, Yes, we do have that information. And it is included in the AA one information that was the director committee, but we can get at a greater level of detail. I think as we kind of move forward with how we're using the coronavirus relief fund, you're going to want to have myself and others perhaps back in to talk in more detail on, on the proposed use of those funds. Okay. Thanks, Sarah. Yep. If we have Diane and Kimberly and we have seven minutes and Peter will get to your question. If we have time before nine 15 Diane. Thank you, Sarah. We'll, we'll luckily, you know, Dave and Chip actually had answered some of the questions I had written down here or asked them anyway, but my, the follow up will be on, um, very much where the federal funds direct, uh, where Chip was on letter E, uh, under the two, the 74.6 million distributed to 80 providers. And, um, rural areas. I was just. Can you give me an idea of what you mean by providers? Is it just the hospitals? Or is it something like, uh, a designated agency? Are they considered a provider that provide. Um, Medicaid. So. Yeah. I don't believe it includes designated agencies, but it's broader than just hospitals. Let me get back to you with the federal guidance that has been issued in terms of who they sent those funds to, like the, the kind of general, like, the providers. Yeah. Yeah. Who was the provider who received, you know, and who didn't receive it as a part of that. So, uh, this is a, this is a, you know, this looks really nice. There's a lot of money on these two pages and it's all welcome news to us, but I, but I don't see on here. And I don't know if you've got a handle. We don't have it yet is, um, you know, do we have any idea of how well this dollars are going to support and fulfill the needs that are out there. So we might have 10 million, but is it 30 million dollars? Of the need or is it 7 million? And we're really in good shape. That's what I don't get a sense for is how well we, how well the federal support is hitting the full target. Yeah. I think that's why, you know, the coronavirus relief fund and as we move forward together and appropriating those dollars, that's really going to be the key piece because I would say, for the most part, the funds that we've talked about today don't meet the need 100%. And so that's where that 1.5 billion is going to be critical to Vermont in all states. And then, then I'll finish with, and then how are we, the big way, how are we going about finding out what the need is out there to help to make sure that we don't over support some area, which I don't think we've ever seen before. And then totally under support other places. That would be the big question. Yeah. And I think again, like as we've talked about before, the agency of human services has stood up a variety of processes to respond to the immediate cash needs of some of our critical health care providers and beyond. So those efforts are ongoing. And again, is linked to the coronavirus relief fund, but I think that's a big question. Yeah. I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, it's ongoing and again is linked to the coronavirus relief fund, but I think this is an area where you're going to want us to come in and talk to you about what we've done. We've helped. And why? It's a conversation about potentially is there, are there other organizations that may need assistance in the future? Because it's not like we're going to get out of the end of May and things are going to be. Right on target. So I just, this is just AHS. I'm going to end with that. Sorry, Kenny. No, you're fine. Thank you. Kimberly. Yeah. Thanks, Sarah. My question was very much an echo of what's been said already. And I was focused on under AHS specific grants on number six, particularly the cap agencies getting to Diane's point about some sort of coordination mechanism. But listening to you, it also made me ponder whether. You are, you being AHS is going about this in terms of all moneys being put out the door as quickly as possible. Now, or is there some thinking of holding back throughout the summer or fall because we don't know what comes next. Yeah, that's actually a great question and strategically thinking about how we release funds and what type of funds we release. And so, you know, I would say for the funds that AHS specific grants that you see on this sheet in large part, our focus is on getting those dollars out the door first. And then as we move through time, leveraging the Corona virus relief fund, working with the executive branch and the legislature about what's the most appropriate use of those funds to shore up a healthcare system in our, all of our provider networks. And then outside of AHS, there's, I'm sure plenty of need. Right, because that gets us into the whole concept of the tension between short and long-term investments. Thank you. Let's see. We do have two minutes left. So Peter, we are back to you and Mary, your hand is up. Did you have a follow up? Thank you, Sarah. So very brief. Obviously we cannot use Corona virus relief funds to 1.25 billion to replace Vermont revenue where I lost revenue for the state of Vermont. But what about hospital? I'm concerned about hospitals. I'm concerned about providers. What about hospitals and providers that have realigned their services, stopped providing their services that for them made money, but their expenses continued because they continued to pay people. That's lost revenue to those providers. Is this, is this the same definition for them as us? Can we use Corona virus relief funds to make those folks whole? Yes. I'm just noticing, no one put a chat comments and I've never seen that function. Sorry. Yes. Representative Fagan. So our expectation in some of the processes that we've stood up to shore up the healthcare system, including hospitals and all other healthcare providers is that we would anticipate using the Corona virus relief funds as part of those stabilization efforts. I don't have like at the top of my mind, the kind of specific guidance from the Corona virus relief fund where we're saying, yes, this is why we can move forward in this manner, but that is our expectation. And as you, as you know, I think the committee is aware we have provided some relief direct to hospitals. And it's, it's a, it's a situation that we're actively monitoring. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. Nolan did put up in our chat. If you see hospitals also received 159 million advanced Medicaid payments to help with cash flows. And I think I understand Dave's question advanced. Does that mean have to be repaid? I think that means you receive. Yes. Coming in later. Is that correct Nolan? That's my understanding. It creates help now, but a tough situation later. Sarah again, with everything like this, the more information we receive, the more questions that we're going to have and use to point it out several areas where when you come back, you can expand on information that we need to have. But we're going to move right to Adam. Sarah. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Commissioner. We've wanted to focus in on the language at the end of BAA. And we have 15 minutes to do this. On a tight schedule, because we have to be on the floor at 10 for action. And we hear a bill voted out and hear from joint fiscal. So if, if we, okay, nice to see you. And if we could move right to that language. It's up on our screen. If you would like to talk about. The change made. And why the administration. That's necessary. Right. First of all, can everyone, can you hear me, Madam chair? Yes, I can. Okay. So we put that language in the. Budget adjustment because. At the time, and I believe currently, we were looking to give ourselves more flexibility coming into closeout. So a couple of points I'd make first. This is for the next seven weeks. And it, as you'll note the last line there. This broadened authority would end effective June 30th, 2020. So we're giving ourselves additional flexibility for close out. Which, you know, I think. You might agree. Could be a bit more chaotic than usual. With the emergency response to COVID-19. So this is one area that we thought it would probably be advantageous to have more flexibility. Currently the commissioner of finance with the approval of the governor. Has the flexibility. To move appropriations within an agency. Or a department. Up to $50,000. So for example, within human services, we could move it from. You know, within child development. DCF to another component of DCF, perhaps reach out for the like. So that. Flexibility exists, but it's for a very small amounts. And we thought that in light of the fact that it could be. More hectic this year than in other years, we would expand that flexibility. So the first point I'd make is, you know, this would allow us to increase the amount of money that we move for close out. It would also allow us to do it. Across state government. And it would allow us to, you know, move the money around as we, as the numbers become more clear on the dust settles. I would also note that we are not asking to increase. Appropriations. So the amount of money that is appropriated in the budget, it would also allow us to do it across state government as opposed to within one agency or department. And the reason we did that is again, because we're anticipating. Somewhat more hectic close out. And it may be that we need to move money around. So the amount of money that is appropriated in the budget will not grow or frankly shrink. It will be the same amount of money. We're just moving within that pot money around. And it will, as I said earlier, expire. This is really just to help us with close out in FY 20. So really that's, I think the big picture. As well as the small picture is really not a lot to this. So I'm happy to answer questions. I'm happy to answer questions. I'm happy to answer questions. I understand. You know, small amounts that, you know, that's why the 50,000 is there. But if there was a large adjustment that needed to be made. Wouldn't the governor want to use his authority to convene the board? Sure. The emergency board is an option. And typically I think if it's larger than $50,000, he would go to the board under current statute. And that would be a lot of money. So I think that this allows the flexibility amid the. Kind of the chaotic close out and, you know, close outs typically have lots of moving parts, but we're anticipating this year. It might be a little bit more moving. And so we thought that rather than go to the board with different requests, we would move it internally within the commissioner of finance and the secretary of administration's office. Okay. Okay. Okay. And then down and then I have chip. So. Is it me then? Mary, can you unmute. Commissioner, can you tell us where you're thinking that these needs are going to be? Well, typically. We have needs within human services, but we're anticipating potentially within transportation. That's currently, I wouldn't call it a holding pattern, but they've got projects that they may want to ramp up as the governor loosens the emergency order and allows people more to get back to work. So we're anticipating there. It could be a little bit more chaotic. And also within public safety. So I would say, you know, there's a lot of, you know, where, you know, we, the department of public safety has been kind of a purchasing agent for the state emergency operations center. And there's lots of moving parts there. So, you know, I would say those agencies. Those are the first three that come to mind, but there may be others. So that's interesting. I was assuming that we were talking about this. That we were talking about the money that was created in the budget. But in your description of what you might want to do. At in transportation. I presumed that that meant. Hey, we may want to, as a stimulus. Try to move money to projects that we could get going. Am I reading too much into what you just said? I think you're reading too much into what I just said. But what is the intention of this? What is it to fill existing holes. Within departments. It's no. I mean, again, I would emphasize that we're not increasing appropriations. So if say with, you know, human services, they have money that either unspent money in. In one particular DCF appropriation. That might be available with no harm to DCF. To move into another part of mental health, for example. It would be to allow the movement of existing appropriations around to areas where they weren't originally targeted. That's all. So I mean, in a sense, yes, it's filling holes, but it's not intended to handle large increases in appropriations or unanticipated increases in appropriation. It's really just trying to settle the amounts of money that we have and put them in place so that we can close out whole. And if one area has some excess and another area has some deficit, we can move money within that area. But you can already do that between, I didn't intend to interrupt Mary between DCF and mental health, but this would allow you to take maybe if there's extra money in DCF and move it to corrections or no, that's the same or move it to transportation. Well, we can, I mean, we do that very small amounts, I mean, $50,000. I think in the context of the several hundred dollars that we've paid spending under the emergency, at least at the, you know, $50,000 really is not any substantial amount of money. So, you know, I would argue we really can already do that. Yeah, I don't think you can move it from DCF to transportation. No, but that's true. But this would allow, but this language would allow that to happen. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Mary, I didn't mean to interrupt. Are you finished? Well, so would you use this money to replace similar money? Or I mean, so now I'm thinking if you move general fund dollars into transportation, which is typically, you know, it's paid for with transportation funds is, so we're going to start with kind of co-mingling special funds. Well, that, and that's a point well made. I think that was a poor example. I'm thinking of this more within fund balances. I mean, I guess in the extreme, we could think of that. But, you know, I'm really thinking more along the lines of balancing out the general fund and if there's extra money in one department that we can move over to another department. I think that would be the way I would think about it. I really, like I said, I think that was a poor example. I wouldn't think of this as much as moving between special funds. I think that would be a little bit more complicated. But it is allowable under this language. Yes. Okay. Chip. Kind of following up, I guess. I appreciate the need for this, I think. And to me, it makes sense. To be able to do it in this particular year. And I'm happy to see that you've got the language in there that limits it to the 2020 closeout or the 2020 budget. All that said, I get a little bit of heartburn over having, particularly having both the ability to move it kind of anywhere, you know, between agencies as well as between departments and having an unlimited amount of money for which you can do that. So I guess I'm wondering. It seems like being able to do that to help with closeout, which will be more chaotic, but I think in likelihood is probably the need isn't going to be an, you know, a huge amount. We're not talking millions of dollars. In fact, we're talking $100,000 or something. I mean, is it, could you effectively do what you want to do by limiting the amount of money still being able to transfer it between agencies or departments? And then, but if there is a particularly emergent need, I have the governor call the eboard together. I think that's a long way of saying. Is there, is it problematic to, to, to limit this to something that everybody can be comfortable within a dollar amount and have the governor call the eboard if it exceeds that amount? Is there a big, is that a hurdle that's difficult to get over in the time constraints you're thinking about? Well, I think the context in which we put this together, you know, which was, you know, a month ago when we originally come up with this and thought about it, we were in a, I would say somewhat different mindset. And as the dust has started to settle, I would not go so far as to say it's settled, but as I think the picture has become more clear, it, it, maybe it changes the need. I would not say, however, that it changes the need back to, say the ability to move $50,000 around it. Just that amount, I think would be kind of constraining in light of the fact that we have many moving parts, but to the extent that the committee would be more comfortable with a number, I would not object to that. I do think that the, the secretary would need more wiggle room than she currently has. And that I think is the intent here to reference the fact that $50,000 is probably too small. And it would be, I think kind of, I don't know, silly to require an e-board meeting to move $100,000 from Department of Children and Families to the Department of Mental Health. So, but, you know, should it be unlimited? I guess I would turn that back on the committee to choose, but the more flexibility that the secretary has, I think under the circumstances would be better. So just a quick follow-up. So do you have a number in mind? Like what, what would be a number that makes sense in your view that limited to? And secondly, maybe, well, maybe you can help me understand what the, what it takes to call the e-board together for the thing when we're doing all this stuff remotely and people generally are around. I guess I'm, I just, I don't know. I've never been to an e-board meeting. I don't know what they take. What is, what is involved? Well, I think the e-board can be called either by the governor or I think a quorum of e-board members, the chair, I don't know that better than I. I believe you're correct. But the governor typically, typically brings the, brings the group together. And in terms of, so, you know, how difficult that would be, I don't know, probably not difficult. Although again, I think calling a meeting to move $100,000 or even $200,000 between one department or another, just to allow close out. I think might, you know, strain the schedules of the people on the e-board, but to, to answer your first question about what size would be reasonable. When we originally put this together, we thought a million dollars would be reasonable. And as the crisis kind of deepened, we said, you know what, let's not limit ourselves. I think this, I think the more flexibility you have to manage in a crisis, the more, the better. But I think our original thought was a million dollars. Thank you, Adam. It is 930. And Kimberly, can your answer, can your question be a 32nd one? So that, yes. Yes. My question is, do you prioritize the ability to move within agencies over above the change in or removal of a cap with the amount is one more of greater importance than the other to you. I think not. I think not. Okay. Thank you, Adam. So we'll come back to this question. I'm trying to see where the time will, will fit to do that, but we need to move now to representative Coupoli, who I bet was all in the golf course yesterday afternoon on that beautifully sunny day when, but I don't want to assume anything. Are you with us, Larry? There you are. You're smiling. So I bet you were golfing. You're a little more tan than, than I am. Yeah, thank you, Madam chair. I was not golfing. Although I haven't been invited to golf today, but I was, you know, outside doing some lawn work under the pressures of my wife who said, get out there and mow the lawn and do this and do that. So anyway, I'm not an undercover legislator. I really am Larry Coupoli representative Larry Coupoli. I serve on the, for the record serve on house education. And I've been invited to present before your committee this morning. S 343, which. Basically is just a moving a time element. And it relates obviously to special education changes due to the covert 19. State of emergency and it reflects the delays to act 173. Which was signed in the law in 2018. I can briefly go over that a little bit if there's people in committee who are not familiar with that 173. We'll take the fly by on that one. Okay, good. Well, it's primarily relates to the effectiveness and availability and equity of services provided the students who require special education. I have a, I have a little chart here that might make this a little easier to understand. And also, you know, a little chart, look at this. But it's basically two major components of, of act 173. One was to reform special education funding from a reimbursement model to a census based model with support for school districts. The other is a requirement that approved independent schools to enroll students who are an IEP recommended by students local education agency. And last year in the big bill, the effective date for the change in funding was moved out for one year to fiscal fiscal year 22. For the 21 22 school year. And the date for the commencement of the associated rulemaking was also delayed. And that's 343 the delays by a further year. To FY 23. For the 22 23 school year. And that is, is an effective date change for funding. And those dates continue to move out. As you can see in the chart in front of you. To FY 26 FY 27. The delays are certainly needed. As you all know, there are no children in school today. We have literally shut our education system down and remote learning has become the mode of education for most of our children today. There are certainly a number of date changes as you can see in the chart in front of you there. They're all conforming changes. Also this bill as 343 contains technical changes recommended by the agency of education. They were passed by the house last year in house 521. The bill did die in conference when the Senate attacked act 46 delay language into it. That's 43 also will extend. The census based funding advisory group, which is advising the agency of education. On rulemaking. By an additional year to June 30 2023. The agency of education. And increases the frequency of their annual meetings. They do receive per DM compensation. And they go from eight months. The new advisor group to 12 months. And I think that one of the. One of the. Situations as I guess we're. Looking. And before your committee, because the appropriation does have to be approved. The house appropriation committee. 36 dollars to $9,018. So I guess the additional 3600 plus. Would be needed in. And approved by the house appropriation committee. And that basically is what I have to say. And. Very important part of this issue. Being this is a really big change in how we're going to fund special education. The average daily membership for each school district or supervisory union will determine the amounts of money that the agency of education will be. Distributing to these. To these districts and supervisory unions. So. Any questions from anyone. I think. I think you're there you go. Thank you, Larry. And thank you for the overview. Members did receive the bill yesterday when we were, when we looked at it late in the day. So we had last night to, to read over these changes. Do we have questions? I have a question from ship. I have a question for you. And second hand raise. Why don't you start and then Diane. Thanks, Larry. So why, what was the. I appreciate the need for this advisory committee. And I can sort of. Well, maybe I'll ask you a couple of things. So the advisory committee has been in existence. Does this. So this would. In a sense extend the, the lifetime of the advisory committee. And that would also increase, I think that. The months that they meet. Can you tell me the committee's rationale for, for both of those? Why, you know, if it was set up for the advisory committee to exist for a certain amount of time to start with. Why would we increase the. The amount of time that they meet at this point. Well, the, the advisory committee. You know, and then this again. Chip is a, is an extremely complex. Bill. And the advisory committee that has met. They, they have extended. From an eight month. I believe when they started. Last year. There was an eighth that they didn't have the full 20. To organize and put together the, the. Information that will be provided by the rule makers who are the state board of education. And this advisory committee is made up of. Of the. Any a superintendents. Principal association. Certainly the agency of education is the agency of education as well represented. But there, there seems to be a particularly with. The earlier track that you saw, there seems to be. A particular need for more. Of this. Meeting issue to really. Find out what census grants are going to be needed. What they're, you know, I think. The other issue is, you know, how do we deal with. With perhaps declining. Population in our schools. And how these grants. Will be done for uniform base amounts. There's just, there's a lot of, there's. A lot of information that's really going to be needed. To supply the. State board of education and the agency of education as well. And we, we. Did take this up in committee, as you know, and it went out of our committee, 11, zero. Then looking, certainly we. Address the, the issue of the appropriation. But these meetings. Do, do entail a couple of hours once a month to. Really put together a good plan that will work. In terms of providing. Special education for our school children. Thanks. I'm just trying to get a. I'll be reporting this for the, for our committee. And I just wanted to make sure that. I have an understanding of why your committee is. I think this is a valuable increase in. And the other question I have, I'll ask you, but it may be for. Our chair as well. So this, this would increase the. The amount appropriated for these meetings. For the, in FY 21. Do we need to pass it in, in this bill? Is it better in the 21 budget? If we choose to pass this bill, then we would reflect the dollars in our budget, but we, we've done this before where we pass a bill separately. As it's a COVID related bill that's very specific out of a committee. I think that it should continue on its journey. Okay. My opinion. I'd let the committee weigh in on that. We had, we do have two other questions. Chip, are you finished? I'm done. Thank you. Diane and Mary. Thank you. Mine's probably pretty simple. I hope. So just, I just want to make sure that. I've got the right bill that, that the house education passed with no changes to the bill is introduced and passed by the Senate. Is that correct? It's, it's the bill is S. Three, four, three. Okay. Good. I just want to make sure that I've got the right copy. Thank you. And Mary. When I looked at this quickly last night, I thought, oh, we're just adding another $4,000 to the cost. But in fact, we are adding 27 plus $1,000 to the cost. I. I understand. So. Thank you. And Mary. When I looked at this quickly last night, I thought, oh, we're just adding another $4,000 to the cost. But in fact, we are adding 27 plus $1,000 to the cost. That gives me a little bit more pause. I am wondering why we are appropriating money in 22 and 23 effectively. So that's just kind of one area of wondering that I have. And then the more. Relevant question for you. I think one of the things that was really, really representative is we were so excited when the underlying concept was introduced, what in 18. Or 19. One, because of the great benefits to kids, but being penny pinching appropriations, people, we also thought that we would see some serious cost savings and that we would be able to do that. I think that's one of the. My question is. When are we going to start seeing those savings? And in particular, if we're pushing this out. What seems like not just one year, but several years. That's. I think that's one of the. Relate. Go back to tips question. I think that's one of the things that I think is really important. I think that's one of the things that I think is really important. I think that's one of the things that the board. Are working with. Very, and it's difficult. I understand. The savings basically becomes. In my, in my conversations and reflecting back a couple of years here. The savings basically. Come to. Children on IEP still hopefully, you know, there's going to be more savings on IEPs as our population continues. But the other. Relative to the expense or the appropriation for the, for the advisory board. The advisory board will not exist. After this year, I mean, after this tooth after 2022. There is a sunset on the board and. There is a sunset on the board. The appropriation for $9,018. Will in fact give them this one year of meetings. And it is, as you see in the bill for the fiscal year 2021. Larry, what are the costs for 22 and 23? We would. We would come back and look at those. It is my opinion that you would come back and look at those. I think it is. I think that appropriation is part of the 9,000. And that may have, I may. And this is the, the meetings that they're going to have to go from eight meetings, which they had last year. To 12 meetings. Is my understanding. And we'll continue through 2023. And the appropriation will be that appropriation may change depending on depending on. The fiscal notes that we get in terms of what. Fuel mileage, et cetera, changes. Who knows? I, I don't know. But we know that the 9,018 is appropriated. That's right. I've not seen. Read page six. Of the bill. And what it does is direct the agency of education. To include in its budget. $9,000 for those two years. Yeah. In my way of thinking. That's an appropriation. We can deal with it when we get there. But we normally don't. Well, I don't know about that, but we are directing AOE to keep it. To put it in its budget. That's correct. Okay. I just need some clarification here. So we are on page six. It's a letter G. For reimbursements. So it's. Don't, don't. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's the reimbursement. Yeah. Then. Okay. I thought you said page six, Mary. I'm sorry. It is read. Read the top of page. I'll include on the budget request. For each of the. So it will be part of the budget request. So we're not committed to it. So it's part of the budget request for 21 and 23 for that. Okay. So this is asking for the $9,000. Biscal year 21 and four to continue. The agency is going to have to request it. It does not guarantee it a path forward. Yes. Okay. So we would not use the legislature's budget for this. We would use. I don't know the breakdown between the members. Down between the members on the group. Do I have that listed? I don't believe that is listed anywhere. I don't know. I don't know if you happen to know that. And from lunch council. Yeah. So there are no members of the legislature on this divisor group. There are six members who are. People who otherwise would not be compensated. That would not be so the way that's computed is six members. Times 125 or so. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. So there are 14 members of the advisory group. And six of whom are receiving conversation for. Could be. Okay. So, so currently when we pass this back. For the original group. The funding for that group came out of the general funder out of the. The. The. Go back to the original bill. Appropriation is from the general fund. In fact, as is now the appropriate. For. Initially it was for fiscal year 18. Yes, general fund. And then the agency was asked to include in its budget for future years. The same amount. Okay. Now that's jogging a memory. We agreed to do it for one year. And then we asked the agency to find it within the education fund. Is that correct? No. No. It's not correct. Can you move that page up Maria, please to page five for me so I can read that language. Can he remember that AOE is funded out of general funds, not out of the education fund. Right. Right. But were we moving. That page out of the general fund. Okay. And then move it to the education fund. No, that we would ask the agency to put it in their budget, which we would. Okay. Just to put it in their budget. Okay. Right. And so probably not an allowable expense from the education fund either. Would have to be a general fund. Okay. So we know it is a general fund expense. It wouldn't come out of the legislature's budget. It would come out of the general fund. But we know that there's more meetings, which will cost more money. And they're asking for the $9,000 now. And then to go forward, we're going back to the original plan where it would then be a request within the AOE's budget. Is that correct? Yes. Yeah. So the question before us now is. Is there a reason this needs to be expedited? Larry. Yeah. We had hoped. And they need an increase of time. And does the committee want to. Appropriate these dollars. That's, that's the question before us now. And this is for the FY 21 budget. Not. We would probably put this in the skinny budget. Not for the BAA. Right. Okay. So the reason this needs to be expedited Larry. I, I don't think there's a reason to expedite it other than. You know, we're looking at, we're looking at these times, these dates. And. School budgets. Of course, you know, there are 19 school budgets that have been voted on or have been turned down by, by the, by the voters. In getting, you know, getting ready for the FY 21, 22 school year, maybe. Interrupted again. We're not sure. Nobody is sure what's really going to happen. But it, it would be, it would be in my opinion. Good to have this move along as quickly as possible. I guess. My question is particularly. Particularly getting the advisory board. Online with, with. The census funding. And that would be by opinion. Marty. I guess I'm having trouble understanding why this is a COVID 19 emergency. I guess. You're just saying people can't get together and work on this and work on it. I mean, I don't understand why it's being described as a COVID 19 emergency. And I certainly don't see that those expenses. Could be legitimately charged to the CRF fund at some point. But maybe others have different ideas. Well, the, the, you know, here again. Marty, our, our, our, our school. Are closed. And they're closed because of. The COVID issue in this bill. Basically, again, we're, you know, we're talking about independent schools as well. And student participation and IEPs. And how they're going to be funded. And the, you know, it's, you know, it's, you know, and it's a lot of work I might add that it has gone into this. And, you know, our committee went over this bill. A number of times and. Found that it's very necessary to happen. We do need to continue to support special education for our students. At a time, hopefully soon. But I think the sooner that we, the sooner we start really putting these, the census grant together. And making it work effectively for the kids, our students. The better off we're all going to be. And. And it is. I think in the long run, based on a census rather than a block grant, I think we'll in fact. Save education dollars. I agree with all that. Just like concern is why can't some of this work go on. In the meantime. But that's up for the education department to decide. So what I am going to suggest is because gone over our time and we need to be on the house floor. Larry, we are going to revisit this maybe this afternoon or on Monday. And. The committee as a couple, I mean, I, there's a couple more questions that need to come back to you. Okay. We'll either do them through email or. Or maybe have you back in on Monday to complete. But I do need to move to Steve Klein and our last piece on the agenda. And I'm really sorry. We're crunch for time. Not a problem. On the floor. Thank you. Thanks, Larry. So that Larry can have them in advance so that we can move, move along fast on Monday. That would be great. We're going to, it's like the end of year, move from one thing to the next very, very quickly. Steve has received two pieces of guidance. We're going to move from one thing to the next very, very quickly. Steve has received two pieces of guidance. Regarding Corona dollars. And. To review that with the committee. Yeah. Given with the timing, which I realized it's like three minutes. I won't. Tell you about it. And then we'll, we'll find out how to do it. There's two things that happened this week. One is that the. The treasury offered to frequently asked questions, expansion of that, which created a lot more clarity. And that is not great clarity. And at some point we go over it. We're, it definitely. Put a real clear that we couldn't even use the money for property tax. Relief that we were planning on doing in. The houseways and means proposals that I think have been discussed with this committee. So that sort of went. Away for a while. Then on a couple of days ago, the administration issued a. C. R. F. Guidance, which is a mixture of, it's built on the federal guidance, but it's also takes it a little further in different areas. Creates. It creates sort of absolute in categories that I'm not sure are absolute. So it complicates it. So we, the administration guidance is only. What's interesting about them is they're both at guidance. Nobody's doing any rules. And so. Guidance doesn't go through the. What sort of joint rules process. The federal guidance doesn't go through the administrative rules process. So it's all subject to change. I don't really know that it's probably. You tell me, I thought you would need to leave a 10. So I'll just sort of say at some point we can talk more about this. I'll be writing about it in my. The weekly update, I think. Yes. And I, there's going to be many questions on this. So let me just. Steve. Guys, this was really more than a 10 minute. Discussion and, and it's going to open up a lot of questions. I need to know from the committee. We had. Not set in my book. We did not set the time to meet Friday afternoon. But we did say possible. In discussion. I wrote down possibly a half hour or something. After the floor if needed. There's a couple of things that is we need to get this. I'd like to make a decision on clean water today. I'd like to make a decision on the administration's language today. Monday. We'll decide on the end of your construct. I'd like to tell you a conversation I had with the treasurer. And we need to. Sort out any issues with this ed bill so that we can vote on it. On Monday. Or decision on its, its fade on Monday. Is there anyone who is not available? I'm sorry, it's Friday afternoon, but as we're getting paid to work. Is there anyone who's not available this afternoon? I'm not available. I'm not available. I'm not available. I'm not available. I'm not available. I'm not available. I'm not available. Is there anyone who's not available this afternoon? I'm not. You're not Peter. I am not available. Not available. What, what time are you available today? I mean, if you want to go, you know, after floor, that's fine. I have a hard stop time. Just a wee bit after one o'clock. I'm really stretching it. By saying a wee bit after one o'clock. I don't know when the floor is going to get done. So I, you know, I, we have three bills on the floor right now. Let's do, let's do a check in. How can we make this work? Peter, we may have to continue without you. That's fine. That's fine. I just text me when you think you're going to be close or something. Yeah, I don't know. I just have no idea why the floor, even after the three bills are out, if Mitzi has anything else planned, let's, let's check in a half hour after the floor. Is that good with everybody? Yep. Sounds good. Okay. And Teresa, you'll be following the floor. So you will send us a link that we'll find at the top of our emails. Sure. Yeah. Okay. I can send the link now and just adjust the time. Okay. So you'll, okay. So a half hour after the floor. And I know it's Friday and I'm sorry, but we've got to move this along. Okay. Okay. Kitty. Kitty. Kitty, hang on. You have a meeting at noon. So. Oh yeah, I do. Yes. Meeting at noon. So. If it's before that, let's, let's meet at one o'clock. And you asked for a meeting at two, I think I'm not sure the leadership meeting. Yeah, I know there's a two. I can miss the two o'clock meeting I can miss. So let's, let's, let's check in at one o'clock. And if the floor goes on until three, we'll meet a half hour after the floor. Okay. Okay. So I need to stop the live stream. So pause. Yeah.