 for the emergency board. Okay. Yeah, faith. The only question I have faith is while you and I can talk another time. But I'm happy to try to help. Stay on when, yeah, when we adjourn. Great. Thanks, Chris. That would work. Okay, we are now streaming lives. I'm going to call the meeting to order. This is Senate finance January 19th, 2021. And we're going to abbreviated meeting today so that the chair can go to the emergency board and get the official. Revenue numbers. We've got online right now, Maria Royal, who's our ledge council who drafted whatever we did last year. And I thought it would be helpful to go through. The final work product that we passed out regarding broadband. So before we start saying no, we require these speeds and those speeds to go over and see what we actually did. I don't know who this is. I think it's the second notice for at least the 100th time. On my car. Okay. So anyway, Maria is going to go over that. Then some money came. Questions came up Friday. About how much money is left. From the money that was allocated for broadband. And Steve Klein is going to fill us in on that. So. I want us to all start. At the same spot. And then we can go from there. Good afternoon, Madam chair. Sorry. I arrived Lee. I was using an expired link. Recover hours come in new every day. Unlike some other sessions. All right. Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. Maria Royal with legislative council. And I'm going to share my screen. And I'm going to go through the document to review with you. Okay. And is that. Does that appear for everybody in a. Reasonable format. Looks good. Okay, great. So as the chair mentioned, we are going to review all of the bro broadband programs that you funded last session. With CRF Corona virus relief fund dollars. There are essentially. Oops. Let's go back. Okay. So the legislation that we're going to be looking at, and this is really just to review and make sure we're all looking at the correct authorization and the criteria for the various programs. That were enacted as part of act 137. You will recall that this bill allocated a significant amount of CRF money. Not just a broadband, but to housing and economic relief. As well. About upwards of $200 million of the total 1.25 billion that came to the state. You then made some tweaks to those programs in the big bill. And then you also made some changes to the bill. And then you also made some changes to the bill. In October, which was enacted on October 2nd. And also had some additional appropriations there. So those are the two pieces of legislation. Just to provide the largest context. So the first. Kind of umbrella program. And then you also made some changes to act 137. What's known as the accelerated broadband connectivity program, the ABC program. I said umbrella program because there are about five. Kind of sub programs that we will review in detail. That are part of this program. These next few slides are some general provisions that apply to all five of those sub programs. And then you also made some changes to the bill. And grant programs, if you will. The other kind of planning related recovery planning. Provisions are in other sections and we'll address those after we go through these, but in terms of. Some of the general provisions that apply to all of your broadband programs. And again, just to refresh her, this is about $17 million. And just also to remind you, you know, in terms of the purpose based on the treasury guidance and the cares act law, as you know, all of these expenses needed to be necessary in terms of dealing with the, and responding to the pandemic. Obviously unbudgeted. You cannot backfill any budgets. And then the real kind of. That's somewhat of an obstacle for broadband large projects is this requirement that they have been incurred. During the covered period, which started March 1st and ended December 30th. So that was your, your big constraint for broadband deployment. Because of equipment, all of the pre-built pre-construction work that's required in time consuming labor issues, et cetera. So you were working within those confines. Obviously that December 30th deadline. As of December 27th was extended for a year, but this is what you were working with. Back last session. So as I said, five programs and initiatives will go through those in details. We're still on the general provisions. We're still on the general provisions. We're still on the general provisions. We're still on the general provisions. We're still on the general provisions. We're still on the general provisions. You know, all of these programs had. Yeah. Just out of curiosity. It may be a, it may be a dumb question, but it seems like in housing renovation. Which could be more complicated than putting up wires. They managed to get all their money out the door and spent all of their money. So I think that's a big challenge. Broadband of why it was so hard to. Get this done by December 30th. So there may be many variables. Some that I'm not familiar with. One of the, the big issues, a lot of the companies said that they had already planned their construction for 2021. And they were doing. You know, their make ready work, and they had to get all their money out. They had to get all their wires to replacing any utility poles that needed to be replaced in preparation. And just going through that pole attachment process. I don't remember on average, obviously depends on the scale of your project, but it can take many months. Just to do that make ready work. So you are looking at a six months start to finish construction period. And I think that's a big challenge. I think that the whole of the network alone. You know, may have brought you right up, you know, to the deadline. And then, you know, some of the other issues. Certainly some of the challenges that arose. Because of the pandemic. Obviously lots of states are investing in broadband. So the access to equipment to fiber. You know, I think that may have been a supply. And I think part of that's because, you know, they're already buying, they were buying that already. You know, in 2020 for what they were planning in 2021. The other issue is weather. I think I remember in this committee, when you were talking about doing pole harvesting data, you know, and wanting to get money right away so that you could start doing some projects. You know, they were talking about November, December, you really can't do much beyond that. Because you just can't count on the weather being favorable. So, you know, probably other issues as well. But I think those are the big ones that tended to come up. So I hope that addresses. Thank you for that. Madam chair. Sure. I can't see you so. Maria, this is Chris break. Can you on the previous slide. It said incurred by whatever 1230 20. And I'm just wondering. Precisely what incurred. Means. Does that mean you sign the contract, but you haven't finished all the construction or what does that mean? Unfortunately, it had a very, a very narrow interpretation based on the treasury guidance. And actually on the next screen. You see the guidelines. That impart is taken from the treasury guidance that you had to have significantly increased broadband capacity for the big, the big three. Distance learning, telehealth, telework. Within the covered period. So that means you had to make service available. Not just signed a contract for construction that could happen in 2021, but you had to make the service available in response to the pandemic. And at that time. It was contemplated that that needed to be done by December 30th. So that was. That was a big challenge. I think everyone. Universely agree. Just to ask one more question about how people may have finessed this or not. If you were building out new service to a hundred customers, but you would only turned on customer number one, you know, like you did all the general infrastructure for everyone. You got one person over the line and a working connection going. Was that enough for you to check that box and say, we made it. We made it. We made it. We made it. We made it. We made it. We made it meet everyone on your project. You know, I think that's open to interpretation, but I, you know, again, I look, and we're just based basing this on guidance that's been provided. So the significantly increased capacity. I would say if you could just, if you just got one person out of. Hundreds. You probably haven't met the, you know, requirement. You know, I think that, and I think the treasury. The department. Allowed for that. And over time said, look, we know that there are labor shortages. We know that there are supply shortages. And so there wasn't greater flexibility to try to address that. We know that even if your project was completed, it might take up to three months just to process the claims and get the payment out. So. Those factors were certainly recognized. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point to allow for some of that. But, you know, I think at the time. The intent was your project is completed. And then of course, as you know, I think this committee is aware with respect to the broadband programs in particular. There was a hard stop of January 1st. You have a sun. You had a sunset to this program. It's not on this particular slide. I think the next slide. And so that, you know, based on all of the information you had about the federal government, the federal government, the federal government, you know, you were looking to end this program. And, you know, then whatever available funds, you know, came to you or additional funds came from the federal government to then go forward and decide how you want to spend those, but you had a hard stop. So that's one of the issues that. Was addressed and is being addressed as you know, and as I think it's 36, which I think is on the notice calendar. So I think that. That essentially allows the commissioner to proceed with projects that were under contract before December 20th. Because as you know, many of those projects were not completed. So kind of a technical change. That's a, that's a very long way of answering. I think your question, Senator Bray. Apologize for that. Madam chair. Thank you. Madam chair. Just add a couple of comments. One regarding. The projects being finished by December 30. There were some 18 projects. I know that I've looked at. That were on this list within this number. And of those only two were actually complete by December 30. And the guidance changed during the course of the year, Maria, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but there came a point in time. And I think it was around November, maybe a little bit earlier. That allowed projects that were underway to be able to be continued if there was a shortage in the supply chain, an error in the supply chain, for example. Well, that's been interpreted to be the supply chain, or in a number of cases. Folks said they didn't have the labor necessary. In order to complete the project. So it wasn't just supply and we knew in mid summer. That there was a long lead time in order to get fiber. So that was problem one. They in, I think it was December that the guidance changed to allow projects to continue beyond December 30. And that's what I think that bill that that approaches dealt with is designed to deal with because our bill did not cover anything after, after January one. There is still a question though, that's unresolved right now as to whether people, and this goes to Chris's question. I think that people actually get the service. And I asked this question of the commissioner in early mid December, and it took forever. And I got an answer back, which is still not entirely a clear, but it appears as if the issue is delivering the service so that the customer can get it, but there's not necessarily any equipment in the customer's home. So the department is not able to tell us how many people actually got internet. So we could have a situation in which we sent, we sent wires or signal out to a thousand homes and nobody had all connected to it. And we don't know the answer to that question, which is kind of concerning. I think we're starting to repeat some of our discussion from Friday. I'd like to let Maria get through hers. Yeah. When we did the bill, we were opera operating under the assumption. As it had been told to us. I assume with a vetting of guide house. That this, we couldn't do the pole harvesting. We couldn't do the get ready work. Which normally takes a good six months. It had to be service up. It had to be at least available. But it, it, the wire pole, whatever it was, had to be up and operational by the end of the year. And that was my recollection as to where we started. And what we were doing. Okay, Maria, why don't you. I think, I think that's exactly right. And I think Senator Brock, the treasury guidance. I think the language is actually pretty general. Wasn't just supply chain issues or labor. I think it was any issue that delayed construction. That was beyond the control of the state. So those were certainly examples of things that, you know, your, your intention could have a project complete by December 30th, but things beyond your control may have interfered with that. Okay. Okay. So let's. Go back and. Okay, so. Significantly, I think an issue that's come up with this committee last certainly last year and this year. In terms of the speed requirements for these programs. You required that any new services. Be capable of a minimum of 25, three megabits per second. You also added however your intent. That when feasible. Priority should be given to 100 symmetrical service. So 25, three is the minimum. You'd have to provide at least that. But then guidance to the department that if it's feasible, if you can get it built. Within the, I think that was kind of the big issue, the construction timeframe. You know, that you provide 100 symmetrical service. You also required that there be a. Public database maintained by the department that shows the location and capacity of any infrastructure funded through these programs. You had provisions that the existing telecommunications and connectivity advisory board. You also required that the commissioners, the commissioners, as well as affected CUDs receive notice. Of any projects. The commissioner was authorized to override any CUD. Objection provided. She put her reasons in writing. I don't believe based on the commissioner's testimony that there were. Any objections raised by the CUDs. I don't think there were any objections that allowed for some advance payments that funds be retained. Until the project is incurred or improperly documented. You ask the department to coordinate with other stakeholders with respect to all of these programs, including Velco and FirstNet to leverage any existing. Broadband assets. I'm going to go back to the general confidentiality provision. I'm going to go back to Senator Brock. It's very familiar with that through Jai talk. A general confidentiality provision for, you know, a lot of the data that was collected had to do with households. You know, Telehealth remote working needs. Any, any information that was personally identifiable was. Kept confidential. I'm going to go back to the state on December 20th. The program sunsets January 1st. So just to be perfectly clear. The, and we can look at the, if you haven't already seen the language that's in S 36, we can review that. That authority pertain to spending this money for these programs. Only for contracts that were entered into. Prior to December 20th. The commissioner has discussed and brought up the fact that there are unobligated funds, that there are residual funds available. And I think the figure is about $3.6 million and Steve Klein can just address that based on the information that he has. So that money is available to you, to the legislature to decide if you want to continue any of these programs. Change the criteria or whatever else the state's needs maybe. But I just wanted to make sure there's a distinction there. And that's hopefully clear. So with respect to the five programs. One was the line extension program. This was up to $2 million. This was the, you're not far from a cable network or a fiber network. You're a mile, two miles, whatever away. And they can quickly install a line. This was specifically meant to give money to help with any consumer, the customer costs of that line extension. As you know, for example, with cable companies, if you don't have the density, if you have less than, I don't know if it's five or whatever. I'm just not sure. But if you, if you don't have a certain threshold of households over a mile, you know, then the customers are responsible for some of the construction costs. So this allowed the customers to avail themselves of some state dollars to help pay for line extensions. So the cap was set at $3 million. God, I wish $3,000. There's a requirement that the locations provide data that they have remote help remote learning, telehealth or telework needs. There was a provision for healthcare providers and schools. To apply for this money on behalf of their patients or students respectively. And also requirement that these line extensions be the most cost effective and site appropriate line extension. In other words, you couldn't apply for underground conduit where an aerial option was available. And that's, you know, obviously given the limited funds. Then there was the get for monitors connected now initiative. These funds went used the infrastructure that this of the existing connectivity initiative. This money went direct directly to ISPs. For a very specific purpose though, to offset the customer costs of fiber to the premises installations, including underground conduit where required and service drops. And you'll see what this is getting at based on the priority that you specified. That there is prioritization for underground conduit projects to low income households with remote learning, telehealth and telework needs. So I believe that the issue that came up here that you were trying to address was there may be mobile home parks where based on permitting requirements, any connection to broadband needs to be needed to need to be underground. You can't do the above ground aerial connections, which is very expensive. And so it could be many households, many families within those communities who then don't have access because it's cost prohibitive. So the attempt was there are there existing fiber routes that go by such places and that this money would be available to get them connected to get that service. And that's something that you deemed achievable within a relatively short amount of time. And obviously you've heard from the department on all of these programs. And so I'm really just reviewing what the criteria were. So then you also asked the department to establish to the extent administratively feasible a temporary broadband. Lifeline program. This is the subsidy program specifically to help customers with their monthly subscriptions. Assuming that some people would have, have trouble financially paying those bills. This would provide some financial assistance for. At least a short period of time during the pandemic. And then you have, you allowed the, yes. Sorry to interrupt. A quick question. No problem. The, is there a dollar figure for that? Program number three there temporary broadband lifetime. You did not specify. One, I believe though, if I'm not mistaken, I think the department said that they were giving a $40 credit, monthly credit. I'm just looking at my notes. So somebody will correct me if I'm wrong. And when does that credit end? Uh, Well, I believe it's ended already. I don't know, you know, this is, this might, this is one of those. Oops, let me just go to the other screen. So it's not too confusing. You know, this, I know that a lot of the ISP. Yeah. A lot of the ISPs were also doing free hookup. Forgiveness of back bills. If you just can, there were a whole bunch of programs and. It's probably good to spend a day. Finding out what those were. They had different time frames and just get a handle on what was. What is, um, and how many people remain hooked up. You're absolutely right. A lot of providers did offer, um, programs, either free or discounted service. But I think some of them have expired. Some of them have continued. You know, I think center break. I think the, this temporary. Lifeline broadband lifeline program. I think that that has expired. Um, you know, because that's the money just ran out. The money was, you know, allocated until. Um, January 1st, but. Um, let me just, let me double check that. Um, if you will, this isn't considered. Um, I don't think it falls under the, um, amendment that you're going to be voting on. So if you wanted to continue this program, you may need to specifically authorize its continuation and, and specify how much money you want to put towards it. Well, let me just confirm that. Yeah. I mean, I'm thinking of center box questions from before with. If we set people up, get them going and then pull the plug financially on them. How many people will figure out a way to continue or we, you know, creating, um, uncertainty and disruption in our life. Like helping them get started, but not helping them make it all the way through the pandemic. Yeah. No, I think it's a good point. And just, um, also just to be aware, and I think you know this already, there is additional federal dollars in the last stimulus bill. That was set aside for a subsidy, a broadband subsidy program for low income households. And the details of that program have not yet been. Worked out. Um, I think it's $3.2 billion. Um, But you know, I don't, I don't know. I think that doesn't necessarily, that doesn't address your issue because that, that money would only cover a short amount of time as well. Um, And so what happens after that, whether it's continued or not. Uh, It's not really clear, but that's just to. To kind of flag that issue that that's potentially some additional monies that might be available for these households. Great. Thank you. Sure. So then, um, You also allowed, uh, the department to distribute some of their, this broadband funding through the existing connectivity initiative. This is a state program, a grant program that, um, does RFPs, uh, reviews proposals by internet service providers to build out in unserved and unserved areas. Um, again, you know, the, the big hurdle here was the completion date of December 30th. Um, But this could be for any, any project, um, that, that meet that met the 25 three speed requirement. Um, There are other criteria for that program. Um, I'm not sure. I think that, uh, I don't, I'm not sure that those criteria are necessarily relevant to this discussion. I think you're probably familiar with the ex, the existing initiatives. All right. Maria. Yes. Yeah. So just going back to the, um, The lifeline program of sorts. Um, I realized that there's no money to continue. Um, Paying. January and February's bills at this time, though, maybe we can. Find it somewhere, but is there a moratorium? On shutting down access. To broadband for those folks as there apparently is in. Other utilities. No, so, um, Oh, we're going to talk about the PECs. Moratorium on involuntary disconnections, which are right. Did not apply to broadband. Um, the arrear just program that you set up, which we will also review today because you use the CRF money. The, what the FCC encouraged providers. Um, to take what was called the connect America pledge. It was voluntary. Uh, where they voluntarily, um, Basically pledged. Not to disconnect individuals based on their inability to pay during the pandemic. I think a lot of those programs, which again, were voluntary have, uh, been discontinued, but I, I can. I can follow up on that and get a better sense. What was the authority for the moratorium on utility? Um, Disconnects. For the PECs moratorium. Uh, That was based on the PECs. Jurisdiction. Over the utilities. Um, And let's see. So that applied to, uh, voice, Plano telephone service in the telecom world. Um, Also to electric companies, natural gas. And then I believe also you expanded it to include. Water. Um, Uh, but I think it had to do because these are utilities regulated by the state. There's some additional authority that the state has for the provision of service. And ensuring that it's not, as you know, there are many more consumer protections. In general, that, um, Are available to consumers regarding disconnections of service in general. You can't disconnect somebody's electricity in the winter, or if they have a health need. So there's just greater jurisdiction. I can't point you off the top of my head. Um, not sure I could identify a specific statutory source, but I can certainly look into that a little bit more. So. Are you saying that the public utility commission. Does not have, would not have the authority to, uh, extend the moratorium to the broadband lifeline recipients. Uh, To, okay. To, so. Yes. So in turn, if it just forget about lifeline, but just discontinuing broadband service. I do not believe the PUC has the authority. I think it was questionable whether the FCC had the authority to do that. Given its reclassification of broadband as an information service, which is, I believe in part why, um, the FCC just asked providers to take a pledge and it was voluntary. So I mean, you're raising the fundamental issue and communications about who has regulatory authority over broadband. And for what purposes. Um, so the FCC didn't assert that authority. Again, that was voluntary. You know, and, and because of the reclassification of broadband as an information service, the state has very limited regulatory authority. Um, there is some consumer protection authority. Uh, but that's, you know, that's a pretty gray area. We'd have a, I mean, we went ahead and did a moratorium on evictions. Um, if we were to do a moratorium on this, you think we would run into preemption issues. I think you would definitely run into them, but the point is well taken. This is probably the most fundamental issue in the communications. Industry right now. And that's the jurisdictional question between. Recognizing that there may be changes. Under a new administration. Right. There may be a reclassification. I don't know. But just if things were just stopped where they are right now for regulatory purposes. At what point does a state have its traditional police powers to enact measures. To protect its residents. Um, irrespective. Of the FCC's. Uh, stated policy of not regulating broadband like a utility. Um, That's, you know, that question, um, Will raise, I can almost say with certainty preemption issues, how it's resolved going forward is would depend on. Many factors. Um, you know, and, and be based on the testimony that you take what. How does it impact the market? How does it impact the market? Interstate business. Um, what are the, how would it protect consumers? What are the consumer issues that are at stake? You know, that balancing, trying to, you know, think through that. Yep. I'm actually not thinking in terms of. Federal jurisdiction or. Technical preemption issues. And long term implications. I'm thinking that we're very much in the pandemic now. As we were in the summer. Could the governor, for instance, issue an executive order. And just say, we have a crisis here. People need these things as lifelines. Um, You cannot discontinue the service. I mean, I think there's been a lot of outreach of the executive. Authority in terms of the pandemic. Uh, ongoing and we're continuing policies. Tied to when that state of emergency is to clear over. Um, I'm just. I guess I would like to know if the legislature called on the governor to produce an executive order. To stop. Uh, any kind of shutdowns of at least poor people on broadband. Um, Is there no legal authority within the executive branch to do that? Yeah. So I am not up to date on the governor's authority in an emergency. Um, to take actions of that nature. I'd have to look at that a little bit more. Um, your respective of the broadband issue, but let me. Why don't I look into that a little bit more and just see if I can. Get some clarity. I would appreciate that. Thank you. I'd like to move us along. I'm watching. This is a review of what we did. It looks like we are going to spend a day finding out. If. If the service providers are in fact. Disconnecting people. Um, we're going to spend a day looking at the cost of not. Collecting when we put it, um, We had a fund to cover the cost of not. Collecting a rearage is in the electric. Um, field. So, um, we're going to have a day. To look at this. I think we should find out if there's a problem and then find out. What the solution is, but I think we do need to move on it very quickly. Cause kids are supposed to be going to school. But Maria, can we finish walking through what we did last year? Yep. Cause after this, you have the exciting, um, 45 minutes on. And we've got Steve still to tell us where the money is. And then we've got a common level of appraisal. Um, And I don't want you to miss that excitement. I don't want to come between the committee and common level of appraisal. So I wouldn't either. I know I'll go. I think, and I think we can go through this relatively quickly. So. Can I ask one really quick question before we leave this neighborhood? Yeah, that is the same kind of prohibition on regulating broadband. Doesn't that apply to cell service as well? Yes. Uh, So sorry, you mean voice service? Yeah. Right. Uh, yes, to a great to, there's a little more authority with respect to cell service. You can't control the rates. You can't regulate the entry into markets, but you can, there's some authority over the terms of service. So, um, I'll leave it alone there. I'm just thinking of so many people have dropped landlines. There's another whole vulnerable population. If they can't afford to keep their cell service going too. Yeah. Update on. Yep. Those programs. Okay. Okay. So you had some money for wifi deployment. Um, I don't think there's much to say about that. Those are hotspots, but wifi hotspots at the department installed. Um, Okay. So now we're moving on to, uh, the planning provisions. We're outside of the specific broadband. Funded services. You had, um, money that was allocated for the CUDs to help with their recovery planning. Um, you can see there, initially you appropriated 800,000. Um, the amendment was based on the amendment in the big bill. So that's, that's what those amendments are. But so you can see what you are originally appropriated than what you ultimately appropriated in the big bills. So $2.3 million grant program. Um, and you also increased the cap so that each CUD could get up to $400,000. And these are. Again, the recovery planning efforts of CUDs could be for consultant fees, administrative expenses. And I think there's an attempt to also try to, if it continues, if one of the things that was raised is perhaps using some of this money for, um, pole harvesting data that will help with any planning, uh, for future deployment projects. So then, uh, I believe your, you've already heard, um, you got a walk through of the telecom recovery plan. So I won't, um, go into that in any detail. Um, and as you know, the tenure telecom plan is due June 30th. And that comes with a $250,000 appropriation. You set up a telehealth connectivity program. You can hear from VPQHC. I believe they're prepared to present if this committee wants to, um, the outcome of that program. Then you gave some money to peg access for their pandemic activities. Um, you also, uh, you have a study coming on, uh, the AMO's access media organizations and their longterm financial stability, um, that you didn't actually appropriate money. And ACCD was not able to come up with money. Um, in the summer. So you, in the big bill appropriated $100,000 for this study. So I, you can see the due date was January 15th. Um, but, uh, because the money didn't, that wasn't available to delay things. And so there's been an extension, at least informally. So you'll be getting a, probably a progress report soon. The arrearages, the utility rate pay arrearages. The only thing, and you've probably read about this and you're familiar with what happened here. This is the money for people who are experiencing financial hardship with their utility bills. So the department found that, uh, because there was the moratorium on dis involuntary disconnections, a lot of people were not necessarily signing up to get this money, um, to help pay for their programs because they didn't need to, they weren't being confronted with the bill because their service was not being disconnected. So the moratorium actually was lifted on October 15th. Um, at that point, when people were faced with their bills, uh, then they were able to start processing, contacting the department, working with the utilities, uh, taking advantage of these dollars. Um, and that kind of got that program going since that time, the moratorium has been reinstated. It was in number 22nd. And we'll last through March 31st. You have money for cybersecurity. I'm not going to talk about that through agency of digital services. And that's something I've really worked on. You had money for 911. Um, for their pandemic activities. Um, in terms of other provisions in the big bill, you gave, uh, some money directly to CUDs to help pay for their, uh, their portion of a project if they applied through Vita, Vita's lending program, the broadband expansion loan program. And when you created that program a couple of years ago, all ISPs required to provide a 10% match, basically, or cover 10% of the project costs. This money was basically to help the CUDs because they are having trouble even coming up with the 10%. So this was, hopefully, um, we'll help them secure financing through Vita. Um, and you extended the deadline for the innovation, broadband innovation grant programs. So that is an overview. Of all of the 2020 broadband. Programs. No. Yeah. We were having some technical difficulties, but I know that will be posted. So folks can review it at their leisure. Senator Sorokin, do you have your hand up or is that an old hand? I'm just yawning. No, I've got a yellow hand. Yeah, I can't take them down. I need you to take them down. I'm sorry. That was my first venture into blue hands. I normally, I can take, I can take down blue hands, but not yellow hands. So, um, See Steve Klein is here. So I'm going to have some question came up about how much money is there left. So I was going to have Steve go over that. And then we're going to go on to Jill Rimmick and Jake Feldman. And common level of appraisal. So Steve. Yeah. So you're fiscal. And so I'll do a very short version. And then you can bring me back to another time if you want to go more, but we looked at it on Friday and went through all their numbers with the department. And, uh, they have about 3.63 million of available funds. And this is after the language that you corrected. The language of the Senate appropriations committee is doing that says that I'm not counting that that's being spent. That's money that's obligated, but unobligated available money is about 3.6 million divided between the various, uh, Uh, Lines and I have it broken out by lines. I think, uh, Maria made a really good point. I just want to flag this the way this language from your committee or from in this program was drafted in a very strict way that, uh, more strict than many of the other CRF funds. And one of the things that said is any unspent funds on October with December 20th shall be returned to the CRF fund. So under the way of the law was written that 3.6 million should have just gone poof and gone back to CRF and been available for everything else that the state might want to use it for. But what the administration did, and I think after talking with the joint official committee is it basically froze the money. So if your money was in an account, uh, like an appropriation at that time, they did not take it out, put it back in the CRF. So this money, when, when, if you were to want to spend it, you would still have to draft something, notwithstanding the language that you put in before, but the number that you have in your little world, the number that you have in your little world, the number that you have in your little world, that's sort of in your hands is the 3.632. There's more CRF money that's unobligated. There's more CRF money in other pots around the state that could be put into broadband. So, you know, there's a lot of flexibility and I don't want to, maybe I'll stop there. If you want me to go through detail of which ones there's money and which are, I can do that later. I don't, and you're on crunch. And Steve, if I'm remembering correctly that the administration did resend that money and joint fiscal at that point said, we're close enough to the session that we wanted to keep any unspent CRF money to go through the appropriations process. Right. So they did propose to resend it. We didn't, you're right. Exactly. We didn't do it. We didn't do it. Right. But it can't be sent out in another contract, right? Without. Right. Right now, the underlying law, Maria is better at this than I am is that money cannot be spent because you're past December 20th. Okay. Senator Brock. Mr. Question regarding the 3.6 million. The budget restrictions on that money, much in the same way that there were restrictions on cares, money generally. For example, it can't be spent on anything long term. Yeah. It's still bound by the overall cares money restrictions, which are now different than they were before. Now you can spend it up to for anything that gets spent before December 31st. 2021. So you have a lot more time. You have a lot more time. And the budget restriction is old news. You don't really worry about that. But yes, you still have to use it for the things that are related to the pandemic and, you know, Maria, the guidelines have. And change the only big change is you have a lot more time. Okay. Thank you. Steve. So the appropriations fall into different buckets like sections 13, 14, 15, 16, et cetera. And how do we, how do we, how do we do it? Do we have to do it in those buckets or it's can, it could all be thrown into one of the buckets. If the committee went that direction. Yeah. So this is the point is that it's all in your hands now because you're correct. The money is not left all from one bucket. The money is left in various buckets, but since it can't be spent with how you authorization, if you said take that 12, 3.63 and give it to housing, you could do that. You could also give it to one of those. The other bucket is, you know, the one that's left in the bucket. You could do it in a different way. So it's a little bit more simple. I don't know if I'm gonna put the language in to make it happen. But the world is stopped. So this money is stopped and left in it's. It's like musical chairs are all sitting in the chair that they're sitting at the time. The music stop. But you're now going to have taken action to get them out of their chair. And you can put it wherever they want. Thank you. Hardie. Thank you. And thanks Steve and Maria, Maria. last year so thank you very much. Just one really quick clarifying question and then a lot larger question. The you mentioned the telecom recovery plan which was supposed to be specific to recovery during COVID. Is that the plan that we got the presentation on last Friday from Matt Dunn and his partner? Yes. Okay. Yes. And then the I am almost a little worried to ask this question because I don't want to open a can of worms but I didn't hear clearly in in the the information we got last week about for example how many people applied for the LeeCAP or the line extension program that were denied because there wasn't time or there wasn't funding. Do we have that information anywhere? I think the department provided the information. I don't know if they provided in this committee. They certainly have it. They have their reports where they summarized all the work that they did. So roughly I think they got maybe like 400 applications. About half of them were granted and the money went out and about half of them were denied either because there wasn't enough time to do the line extension. I think also they said they didn't if it was a second home and there wasn't an identifiable need, health or schooling that they were not deemed eligible. So I think a little over 200 line extensions were made and another 200 plus were not deemed eligible. Okay. Do you think that was in the presentation they gave us last week? I didn't catch that from their presentation. I don't know. I actually wasn't here for that but I saw a presentation that they did earlier in the week. So you know what? Why don't I know exactly where it is in a report that they provided? So I will cut and paste and send it to you. That would be great. Thank you. Sure. Maria you may be able to answer this. I'm not sure but we allocated half a million dollars for this emergency broadband plan and I know that somewhere in the budget we're talking about 250,000 availability for the long-term 10-year telecommunications plan. Is it feasible to allocate some of the excess money we have to planning in a more general way for a longer period of time in other words for this calendar year that would apply to it as opposed to the 10-year plan in order just to get some more money in for planning than we have right now available which is simply 250. When you say is it feasible? Is it possible based on what you think guidepost or whatever the name of the firm is would allow us to do it? So yeah I think you could make that decision certainly just like you had some recovery planning already. I think you could yes it's a plan that you already requested and that was in the works but I think you could certainly make the case that because of the pandemic because of its ongoing nature because of the extended deadline that additional CRF monies could be made available so you know that's just off the top of my head but I will look into that as well. Thank you. Okay and I'm gonna have to wrap this because our next witnesses I think have a hard stop they may need to go to the eboard at three. So Senator Sorokin do you have a really quick question? I have a question but it's not really quick. Okay then if you can hold it or email it to Maria because I want to move on.