 All right, well, thanks everybody for coming off the floor for a little bit. We have, I just wanted to have us know what had happened in the Senate to this section on housing and as well as services in the bill in H966. I would just say off the top of before David goes through it that I think we actually escaped most, most, what changed here is important, but also relatively minimal compared to what's happened in other parts of the bill. So I think that speaks to the level of the work that we were able to get done. So good on us for that. But David, if you're here, if you could just go through the sections, it's section 11 and then section 11A, which had been added is now called section 12, but that's the services section of the DCF section. And I don't think that there were any changes made to that. But David, if you could just start with section 11, that would be great. My pleasure. Are you all seeing section 11 on your screen? Yes. Great. Yes, so one minute backstory and the tortured history of your bill, H966 once it left the house, it got placed into pieces and then put back together into a Frankenstein massive CRF bill that had everything in it and then split apart again and then put back together. And at this point, H966 has provisions concerning broadband, economic development, housing, municipal government services and funding. You name it, some IT stuff, but as the chair indicated, I think it's a fair characterization to say the housing language came out largely unscathed relatively. You'll see in section 11 here, this is the bit that you and I worked on and in A1A, you'll see that the money is the same. The Senate Appropriations Committee was fairly insistent that the money flow through a state entity. So it is being funneled through AHS to legal aid, but for the same purpose and in the same amount, 550,000. B250, the DHCV for landlord counseling is unchanged. Number two here, 9 million. This does go directly to VHCV. It is unchanged. Three for closure protection was reduced from six to 5 million. It will go through DHCV to VHFA, but it's otherwise unchanged. Four rental assistance and eviction protection. This was reduced from 30 to 25 million. And it's through DHCV to the state housing authority, but it's otherwise unchanged. The last piece is the 6.2 million to DHCV for the rehousing investments. And that is unchanged. You'll see at the end subsection B, the language about assessing the allocations and possibly reallocating monies was changed from September 1st to September 15, but otherwise remains the same. And then section 12, the DCF money, 16 million through DCF is unchanged. David, did you have, were you given any indication in all of conversations about where the $6 million was reutilized? I mean, when I met with Senate economic development, it really was unclear. And sometimes it is from where that money may have been repurposed to, but basically they were given a, the number that they were given was to go from 91 to 85. And that's what this represents. You know, I will say that the Senate appropriations committee was very committed to increasing the amount of money directly available to businesses through the S350 emergency economic recovery grants. So that left the house, I believe at 70 million and came out of Senate appropriations at 82 million. So I think it's fair to say that the redistribution was in part motivated by that desire. And I think that they looked at the economic development and housing pieces together and recognized in part that some landlords are businesses and could be eligible for relief through the ACCD program. So I'm not gonna say they just, you know, took six from here and went straight to there. It wasn't obviously that linear, but that was sort of the motivation, at least for the discussions that I heard. And in the conversation I had with the Senate economic development, one of the things we had talked about this to a degree as well, which was by the time we pass this bill, it becomes law and things are set up. We will probably actually be pretty close to when we come back in August. So the idea that $25 million in the case of rental assistance may go out the door by then is perhaps less likely, but that's, you know, we took a gamble on that when we made the number 30, a guess on that if the guess is better than we're gamble. But, and that's why I think they took it from there as well as the foreclosure piece. But I was really happy to see that the legal fees were untouched, both the landlords and the tenants, the shelter capital was untouched and these services were untouched. So I guess the, you know, questions for David, any further questions for David or for us? I mean, the question for us really is, do we, you know, just take a quick straw poll and support of this worse. We are now a much, much smaller piece of this big bill, but we are going to all present these two sections on the bill when we go through them. And I wanna be able to represent what level of support the committee shows for those changes, basically. Sorry. Chip and then Lisa. So yeah, I just wanted to comment that, you know, removing $6 million with uncertainty as to where it may have gone. It doesn't sit very well with me. I certainly is not a deal breaker because we all know that this has to get done. This has to get back. This has to be voted through and we have to start getting this money into the communities. But, you know, the notion that we can delay getting this, or this will delay getting money into the communities as a result of it going through agency of human services prior to it going to legal aid. I understand the concept behind it, but legal aid knows what they wanna do with it. They know what they're gonna do with it. Getting it money to them gets money into the community faster. That's just the comments that I had to make. I'll vote for this. Thank you. Representative Hengel. I was just gonna sort of say the opposite that I think it could be more fluid if the money goes directly to the agency. And then, you know, if for some reason legal aid has a need, but somebody else has a need and one of the needs is higher than the other, it could be dispersed more quickly to the more immediate need. I don't know, I did like that change in it. A quick note for David. Section, sorry, I just saw, is it section 13 about broadband? And then I know this isn't even us, but broadband is spelled wrong. So you might wanna check that heading. And I think that's all I had. I think we are hiring for another editor position if you wanna join us. That's crazy. Good catch. John. I'm fine with the changes, in particular with the rental arrears and the eviction being lowered. It seems to me that when there's a tier two when we come back, we'll see what the demands were and they'll be able to shift money back into these two areas. The demand is there as we think it's going to be there. I thought we had good solid numbers from everybody from the administration and from the advocates about what these realities gonna be. But I appreciate that the structure of, and Tom, it was you, chair, you structured this whole thing in a holistic way and I think that still remains. So I'm good with where we are right now and when we come back, if we need to move the money again, we'll know. So I would say I'm good to go. Well, I think if we were going to go into conference, if this were a normal budget or something like that, I might push or get snarky about the fact that the Senate may not have taken testimony on the moving the money back and forth, but that's not where we are today. I think we all wanna be done tonight. Lisa. I just wanted to ask to make sure Representative Klackie, you okay with the dates? Cause the dates changed of the reporting of the funding? By two weeks. Yeah, yeah, I'm good. Yeah, thank you. Welcome. All right, anybody else? I mean, this is, I mean, we worked for a long time on this section. This really speaks to the whole committee's work on this and being prepared to act on it when we needed to act on it. And so I just think the fact that this is as little that was that we have to deal with it, that nobody's proposing to take 50% of what we're proposing and putting it into something else is, I'll be happy to do a five minute floor report on these two sections and duck right back off and hopefully get this money out. If it were two weeks rather than seven days, I'd probably have a lot more problems. I mean, the estimate is that it'll delay getting these out to the agencies in a, for about a week. I just got an email about roll call is starting. So can I just say that if everybody could just put their blue hands up? This is a blue hand for a yes. And Mary, I see your hand as well. And are there any no's? Everybody can take their hands down. Lisa, you're no. Oh, no, my hand was up for a yes. Okay. Sorry, I didn't take my own hand down. Okay, that's fine. And I didn't see representative Zotzo, but I'm just gonna just say that we supported the vote, that we concurred with the changes. All right, thank you everybody.