 Good afternoon, everyone. This is a joint presentation to the Senate Finance and Senate Appropriations Committee. So Senator Cummings and I are co-chairing the presentation. But most of it is going to be provided by our economist, Tom Covet, who's had a very busy day presenting our updated revenue forecast, which we've just accepted at the e-board meeting with the governor about an hour ago. About an hour ago. And some of you who are on joint fiscal also got a preview of this as well. So we are going to go through the update. And so it's encouraging. And I will turn it over to Tom Covet, who am I? I know he's here. I'm not seeing him. Yeah, he's right beside me. He just doesn't have the waves or the snow behind him this time. I can fix that if you want. No, but the bookshelves are fine. All right, so Tom, do you want to? And there is the document, I believe, is over 50 pages. It's the usual, very detailed with lots of graphs, looking at trends, property, sales, electric usage. It's quite detailed. So if you really want to get into the data behind what we're going to get today, it's available. And I think, Chrissy, you sent it out to everyone. Yes, I did. OK. All right, so why don't we get started then with Tom? Yeah, I actually think it might be best not to be too far down in the weeds, because I think most of you have heard some semblance of this at least once, and some maybe three or even four times. So I think it might be most useful just for a very quick overview, and then just do Q&A and see what things there are questions about. And then we can drill into any part of it you're interested in. We always review thousands and thousands of pieces of data. And we've created some new data just because the standard economic statistics that we use are almost all backward looking. And so much so that with a situation like this that's moving so quickly, we can't really get a read on things without better and different information. So yeah, there are some examples of some of the data that we've been able to create with the utilities in the state who've been, by the way, extraordinarily cooperative. Nobody had to go along with our request for information or anything else. And just the way people have come together in a lot of different spheres, a lot of the administration, the tax department has been absolutely phenomenal in processing enormous amounts of information that we've needed that's different than usual and done it working remotely and been incredibly productive, a group that's doing the epidemiological analysis under Commissioner Pitchak also has done a phenomenal amount of work that we've relied on heavily. And there are a bunch of charts that are in the deck there that come from his shop. We meet regularly with them to go over the epidemiological developments because this is not a forecast that's based on economics as we've traditionally done. This is the whole path that we're looking at for revenues and economic activity is a function of the pandemic primarily and, secondarily, a function of federal government offsets and federal government fiscal and monetary policy to try to blunt the negative impacts of what's required to deal with a health crisis. So it's a very nontraditional forecast and a great deal is unknown. I mean, that's always the case that they're unknown things, but they usually fall within pretty narrow bands and you can quantify risks and look at that. Right now, they're all over the map. I mean, is anybody's guess as to how the pandemic develops? If you look back a month ago, everybody's reopening. Looks good. Then some areas really ran into trouble reopening. They've had to close back up. And you've seen a lot of metrics that are more coincident start to flatten off and even drop, not so much in Vermont, but we're not in Iowa and we're affected by the rest of the country too. So these two big areas are what are driving everything that we've got in this forecast. But just, I said a couple of times, I don't think this thing will have a shelf life of anywhere close to six months, which is the normal forecast cycle. But it's potentially already out of date if nothing happens in Washington with a next tranche of spending. And that's anybody's guess as to what's going on down there. It seems there was in everybody's interest to do something and we had baked in a pretty conservative, what we thought was conservative, maybe trillion and a half or so, compromise next round and that that would include some unrestricted state and federal government money as well. And that was an assumption that's not playing out. So that alone would have enormous impacts on what we're looking at. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal today, some of you may have seen quoting Mark Zandy of Moody's, who we work with in developing the state economic model. And his estimates are that without second round and the executive actions are a drop in the bucket compared with what was assumed in this last model run. Without that support, particularly with state local governments, that component alone, which was probably 500 billion or so, you pull that out and you've got about 4 million fewer jobs and about 3 percentage points off GDP over the next two years. That's a big move just in and of itself. They're just these cascading momentous things that are hanging out there and very uncertain. So we're standing on quicksand with this and the decisions you make that are based on these numbers are gonna be comparably uncertain. So I wouldn't surprise me if we've gotta revisit this more frequently, typically when there's a lot of uncertainty, you increase the frequency of forecasting and you start to do scenario planning so that you have different contingencies. So far the state has not done a lot of scenario forecasting, but there's just such variability and it could affect your decisions immediately. But I think there's a lot still to come. So just broad brush, that's the essence of the forecast is that there's a tremendous amount that's unknown. We're watching developments of the pandemic closely, we're watching federal responses closely and those are the things that are gonna make the difference. Not underlying economic fundamentals and not really state policy at this point. Tom, it might be helpful. I don't know if Chrissy can bring it up, but the page in your report, the bar graph that shows it all is on the left-hand side of the line now. Yeah, let's page 15, Chrissy. That summarizes sort of the revenue forecast as it relates to January. So that might be probably the first place that people would wanna say, well, what does this all mean in terms of the revenue? Yeah, so that's page 15. Okay, I'm gonna pull that right up for you. Thanks. Yeah, that's the typical chart that we've got where we have the next two fiscal years broken out by fund change relative to the last formally adopted forecast. So one page past that, I think is where we're at. Yeah. So you can see everything's to the left of the zero line. It's actually a little better than the June projections and quite a bit better than some of the, even earlier May and March potential projections. Several things have happened. I mean, at the start, the epidemiological models were suggesting that the shutdown might need to last through June. So we were conservatively saying that, that might be the parameter that we'd be assuming we'd see these impacts that in Vermont, especially developed more favorably so that reopening can happen earlier. Then also the deferred revenues for personal income and corporate income that would have been in April, May and June were higher than expected when they came in in July. It also came in very, very slowly. We were getting mail that was postmark the 15th at the end of the month, which is unusual probably shows the stress that the Montpelier post office was under in getting that deluge of returns in a stress situation, but that was really unusual too to be getting so much money so late because even early in that process, it didn't look that far out of sync. From what we know about that event too, it was very top heavy. There were a relatively small number of really large events that reverberated through a lot of tax liability channels and gave rise to extraordinary amounts of income. And I think that's been an increasing feature of both personal income and corporate tax revenues for a while, but it was really on display and fiscal 20, but that created some good news in terms of both the fiscal 20 close and also just gave us a better, a higher starting point without quite as long a shutdown. So this is what we're looking at right now that adds up to about $275 million across all those funds in fiscal 21 and about 158 million in fiscal 22. That's not chump change, but it has been worse and it still could be worse. There's a lot of things that can happen in all directions. So certainly without the enormous amount of money that's come to the state and federal transfer payments, we would not have seen the year end strength either in a couple of other categories. And that also spills over some into fiscal 21, although a lot of that assistance will just pay pretty quickly, particularly the unemployment benefits. Some of the other payments, CARES Act stuff, it's not fully spent or even fully committed. And savings rates have also gone up. I mean, this is, you really see this dichotomy in impacts and who's affected and not all this money was terribly well targeted. The idea I think was to get it out quickly, but there's a lot of it that landed in places that weren't affected by COVID and to individuals and businesses that were either minimally affected or not affected. And so what you see is on the one hand, monies that went to people that were unemployed and really high levels of impact that just kept them afloat, that kept a roof over their head and food on the table and essential basic needs covered. Then you had also people that could just bank the money. So the savings rate nationally in the quarter went from 8% to 20%. You had a lot of high end purchases, automobiles especially, but also housing real estate was really juiced by a lot of that money as well. The PPP money had a pretty low bar for qualification. It really was sort of more, if you felt at risk to be impacted, you didn't have to show actual loss. Whereas with something like unemployment, you had to lose your job before you qualified and with some of the state programs that are providing assistance to businesses, they're basing it on actual year over year losses. So if you look at the PPP money and where it went, there are a lot of sectors like the leisure and hospitality sector, which is probably the single most affected sector is about sixth on the list of where that money went. And it actually didn't make sense for a lot of people to take just the way it was structured. If you were really down and out and not necessarily expecting to come back, you didn't need a two month lifeline. You needed something different. And to take that wasn't advantageous. So the money's out there, it's showing up in a lot of places. It's certainly stimulating the economy and it certainly underpins what would be an even worse revenue forecast than if it hadn't been there. But anyway, that's what we're looking at in aggregate in the numbers. So pretty severe. Let open it up for questions. I guess when we look at this, this is relative to January. But for those of us who have been had the benefit of interim forecast, in fact, this is an improvement in terms of revenues over what we were having presented to us in June. So, although it's not on the right side of the graph, it certainly is a much better scenario than what we were projecting even in June by, I guess it was about, according to the joint fiscal chart, about $54 million on the plus side between all the funds. So at least it was moving in a good direction for, for us coming back in August. So questions of the, from any one listening? Yes, Senator Starr. Yeah, I'm waiting. So how much, how much are we projected to be behind when we put this next budget together next week? Well, this, this is an add on it, something we got to join fiscal this morning. And it's a sheet that was prepared by Stephanie Barrett that walks us through where, what we're going to be dealing with when we come back. And it's, it's really, it's manageable. I guess that's what I would say. And everybody's been concerned that it would be, have to be very substantial. And I don't know, Stephanie, are you on? Yeah, I am on. Okay. I don't know if you've got that sheet. We could put it up quickly, but maybe we can go back to Tom's projection. But what it does is take what we have from close out. It looks at the revenue. And it's, it's, it's, it's manageable. I guess that's what I would say. But it looks at the revenues that. Were received in July that ordinarily would have been paid. In the prior fiscal year. Remember, we had that delay. Those revenues turned out to be really better than we thought. So we've got between carry forward between. Those 20 revenues. We're, we're coming into the August budget process. We're coming into the August budget process. We're coming into the August budget process. With this better forecast. And then with these other sources of revenues. In a way that we think we can. That we will survive this. And there are a couple of things that we can run through very, very quickly. But I don't want to take Tom's. Time, but Stephanie, if you want to run this through very quickly. We other know that. There's a lot of ways that we can run this through. So there's going to be Medicaid that, that bump would continue. So there are ways in, if you look at the bottom, that 66.6. That there is some. Ways in which that can be. That addressed without. Without a slashing and burning, so to speak. So we'll put that sheet out for you to refer to. The general fund forecast. You can see the one 82 that Tom was talking about. Then what we had for revenues available and so forth. So I, I think it's really important to take. The revenue projections and then see what we have here. To help with that. As we. Come back in. In the third week. Fourth week, whatever week of August, August 25th. I'm sorry, Bobby, go ahead. I was just going to say that's great news. And you don't need to pull with this on my behalf any longer. We can get on back with Tom. Okay. Senator McCormick, you have a question of Tom. Yes, thanks. Apologies to people who've been doing this and enjoying fiscal and so on. I'm actually just coming back to this now after a six week. Absence from the issue. I just want to make sure I'm understanding things correctly. Tom, when you mentioned a scenario planning, I take that to mean if X happens, we'll do this. If Y happens, we'll do that. That's what scenario planning is. Right. So there, but there, there are a series of assumptions that underpin every forecast. And if you change those assumptions, you can have scenario a. Assumes that we only get the executive action. But if you change those assumptions, you can have additional money and scenario B assumes. The house bill flies through or gets through it. North of $2 trillion and here's what the two trillion looks like. And you do that or you say, we assume that a vaccine. Is widely distributed in the middle of 2021. Or a version that says the middle of 2023. Yeah. I guess they're always subject to revision, but in this case, especially so. That's massively so. I mean, any one of those things that I just mentioned. What's your guess? No, it's thank you. That was my understanding. The other thing is how are we planning? Now we come back. Are we planning a budget through the 1st of January or through the end of the fiscal year? Through the end of the fiscal year. Okay, but we'll be doing a budget adjustment act in January. I'm sure hopefully not as many as this year, but yes. Okay. That's all. Thanks. Other questions. I can see. Senator Brock center Pearson. This is the first year. Like Senator McCormack are hearing it for the first time. Any questions or. I know it's a hot day. People are probably. They're probably. It's straightforward if you have a lot of time and. Have trouble going to sleep. Then you can read that 50 page report. It has too many comics in it. The one thing is that the Ed fund is also in a much more manageable position. Then when we left. The other thing is that. Some of which may be able, depending on what each school district does, some of the ESSA funds may be used to supplant. Money that is currently being paid for with. Ed fund dollars. So that could equally. Help. The situation. I don't know. Don't forget appropriations. We had allocated a hundred million that we have not appropriated for K through 12 anticipating higher costs. Of startup. In the fall. So it, we've got the ESSA money, but we've got the, some of the Corona relief money that's out there to help us as well. Cause there's quite a lot of concern about what would be the money that we're going to be able to pay for. And so. I think that. Are not going to respond as well to remote learning or may not have the same. Opportunities in their home setting as some of the other kids. Senator Pearson, you had your hand up. Well, I just, my question was around the Ed fund. We've covered it, but. Am I right. That we think there was 38 in reserves. And this is about 60. So, I mean, that's a decision, that's a decision. That's a decision. That's a decision. That's $60 million shortfall. We've come a long way. Oh, absolutely. And I, I don't know. Did a copy of the latest Ed fund projections. And of course. That gets back into Tom's revenue because some of that, some of that revenue is coming from. Sales. Sales tax and. Yeah, absolutely. The strength in the sales tax has been. I'll tell you, without the quill Wayfair money. We'd be in horrendous shape because the brick and mortar stores were hammered and the internet providers. Vendors just have been rolling in dough. And so we. We saw probably. $35 million just in. Wayfair quill. And that was really critical to this year's fiscal 20 growth. And. Internet sales when you include Amazon as a share of total sales and use. Is north of 11%. And we hadn't expected that to get there for maybe three years, four years. To be at those levels. So. That component has been really strong. As well as building. Home improvement. Start building material stores. And of course grocery stores have also. Got a lot of. Taxable sales as well as. Non-taxable. I say to people. Toilet paper is taxable. And so this big run on toilet paper. Toilet paper is taxable. So. You know, when people hoard stuff like that. That's tax revenue for the state. There's just, you know, they're spending money in different places, but it's showing up. In sales and use. So those areas were critical without the growth. Without, without the new revenue from the. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, So, Jane. Yeah, Senator Westman. I just say for Chris is, um, um, Mark Perot's, um, Ed fund sheet is on the appropriations website. And, and Mark lays it out pretty. It's, it's the standard, um, Ed fund outlook. Um, um, So where we were, as you pointed out, Chris, you know, a few months ago, it's, it's so it once again, it appears manageable as opposed to overwhelming. So, um, yeah, that's important. And it's, it's out there. Um, Stephanie sheet, I think will be out there as well. So, um, put it all together and it gives you a pretty good sense of where we are right now. Yeah. So, um, other questions. Or, or, um, Brian. Um, just want to make sure if you've got a question. No, I'll see him straightforward. Okay. Um, other. High points, Tom. I know that at this point. It's not, it's hard to remember what you've said to whom, but, um, it's, um, it's just incredibly, these forecasting in this environment, it's just a whole new, uh, new, um, frontier I'm sure. So it's, um, um, it's, as Senator McCormick says, we'll probably, there's, if you're a betting person, um, you would want to bet that we're going to have a budget adjustment. Yeah. I think that's, I think that's likely. I mean, just a couple of things there, there are these charts on daily consumption of electricity by end user. Um, I think that most of the 50 pages of the document. Um, are just, you know, full page charts that were instead of embedded in the text, a few here and there. I just put that whole deck in for reference in doing these zoom sessions. And then sometimes there's a question that comes up that has to do with one. And we'll just pull that up. It's not meant to be, you know, part of some presentation, uh, uh, document. Uh, uh, uh, canvassing all the possible areas that we might get questions from, but it's really interesting because it shows on a daily basis. Um, the difference between what would be expected in a, a comparable period. Uh, and we got the utilities to pull this data and then a group in Boston called itron who does load forecasting for most of the remind utilities to normalize the data. So we're looking at apples and apples. What you see though is, uh, immediately a whole lot more residential consumption of electricity as people are staying home and, and then a reduction in small commercial and larger commercial industrial. Um, but then you see after that, you know, very low period, mostly April, early May. So late March to early May, uh, there's, there's a significant difference in, you know, five to 20% less electricity consumption, uh, in the, in the, uh, business sectors then, but, but it's coming back, um, more with a large commercial, uh, sector than the small, but, uh, still there, there's a lot more residential electricity consumption. So clearly a lot of people are continuing to work from home. And that could be the longer this goes on, the more likely that is to be a feature of work in the future. And a lot of things that, that will be affected by that. So there, there are a lot of things that are too early to say, yeah, that's definitely how it's going to work. And here's what's how it's going to affect commercial real estate prices or something else, but, but those things are all being talked about and they're all being affected in some way, shape or form. Uh, all the people that are moving to Vermont, uh, you know, because they can work, work remotely, I know I've sounded like a broken record over the years saying, you know, Internet access and broadband, uh, uh, investment for economic development is the most important things they can do. Uh, it shows at a time like this, because even some really rural, very socially distant areas that, uh, haven't gotten a lot of economic development are, are seeing, uh, uh, real estate transactions and interests from out of state buyers and things like that, that, uh, they hadn't seen for a long time. Can I just comment? Yes. Yeah, I'd be careful about your residential electricity. Um, if you look at your line goes back down in August, we just had the hottest July on record. And, um, um, you know, I'm on the board at Vermont Electric and what we saw was a lot of people with air conditioners on. You're absolutely right. So the weather adjustment is not a part of it. And we have a whole another set of, of metrics that show, uh, with different temperature levels, where some of those would be, you still have the biggest impact in differentials being, uh, uh, uh, COVID related. Um, but you also have a, a weather factor that's a big part of, of, uh, you know, you'll see these weekly fluctuations and they'll be because people are turning on air conditioners and people are buying air conditioners, you know, big ticket items like air conditioners, chest freezers. You can't buy things like that. I, it's, it's interesting. Um, all the different ways consumption's been redirected. Wired. You can't buy chicken wire in Washington County. You had it finally in Bennington County, but you're right at, we went for. We couldn't find it for a month. It's rather interesting, Tom. As you say, consumption patterns. It's like, why? I mean, how do you get any rationality off of some of this? Um, air and gardening. Yeah. I guess it's a survival. Maybe that's it. You know, yeah. Other questions of, of Tom. Senator Brock. Yes. This may be more a general question or general observation rather than something specific for Tom. But you know, we're talking at a very high level and now you're saying that, well, things aren't as severe as they appeared before. And they may be manageable. But to the citizen who's watching this. On YouTube. The question is, well, what does that mean? When we say it's manageable, does that mean that we only have to increase property taxes by 20% instead of 30%. Does it mean that we have to close some schools? Does it mean we have to cut state employee. And I think it would be useful if we just took a couple of seconds to say, well, what, when we say it's manageable. To what scale. What are we really talking about? About manageable. Is it mildly manageable? Is it serious things that we still have to do that we face? And what are the kinds of things that we may be thinking about doing when we come back to deal with this manageable situation? I guess I was referring to the sheet that Stephanie put together that would suggest that we can get to a balanced budget for the remainder of this fiscal year. With. With a. Without experiencing massive kinds of. Changes. I think it can be done. Within the revenues and as some people will remember, we do have some reserves as well to help us in this kind of environment. So. I mean, I was looking forward to the where those reserves are at the end of this period and recognizing that there's still a lot of contingencies that having reserves are critical. To be able to potentially deal with. Yes, you're absolutely right. And the other thing we know 22. This is, I'm just talking about, you know, the remain, the three quarters of 21. And so 22. Is still an uncertain future in terms of what that's going to be the extent to which we're going to see. Impact on the stock market. I know people, you know, we're talking with Tom earlier. People are like the banks, but people, if you've got cash. You know, keeping it and how that's going to affect the market. Commercial real estate. So there are a whole host of. You know, potential impacts that extend beyond the remaining nine. Months of. Of this current fiscal year. So I was, I'm much more short term in my comment on that. So thank you for. Bringing that up because I think that is. We've got to remember this. Just like the first quarter was to get us to. Some sense of what the world was going to be like. And this will get us through the year, but there are still a host of unknowns and uncertainties out there. And the issue of planning for at least some of them now and looking forward rather than narrowly within this. Particular window. I think it's critically important because we're going to be facing those contingencies sooner than, than indeed we think. Yeah. Senator McCormick has got his hand up. And then, and did you have a comment or something? Well, I just, I don't. It's probably for Tom. I don't think these forecasts. Figure in any future federal aid that can be made. There's an awful lot of other things out there that could happen. Well, well, actually they do assume that that will be available, but that's not saying that's how you'll choose to. Apply that. But it actually does assume that there'd be. About a $1.5 trillion next round. And that would include unrestricted state and local government money. So without that, this will be worse. Yep. Because, you know, there will be then these actions that. Senator Brock's talking about, you're going to shed jobs. You know, nationwide state and local governments, employ about 13% of all, all workers in Vermont. It's closer to 15%. Which is typical of smaller states where you don't have the same efficiencies across. You know, larger, larger population groups, but that's, that's a big chunk of. Income and economic activity in the state. And if there are a lot of layoffs and. You know, aside from the individuals, but the aggregate economic impacts are also. Can be enormous. So. You know, that's, that's still up in the air. So that reality, I guess we'll keep. It's going to be surrounding all of this discussion. Thanks. Understanding that we're going to make. Budgeting decisions in the coming days. That what we're doing today is just getting a sense of the terrain. But in that regard. It seems to me that despite our best efforts in May and June, we were going to find flaws because it was unknown territory. I think it's coming to everyone's attention now, various areas. Where we frankly miss the boat on just particular. I don't know if we did enough for self-employed people. I don't know if we did enough for married couples who are not sold for proprietorships or. Companies with employees, you know, that kind of, I think our chambers of commerce are in trouble financially. But I think that's a good point. And broadly, Tom, what is our capacity. Between now and, and, and. We'll say as we develop the rest of the fiscal year's budget. What is our capacity to come up with yet additional aid. For the people who we've neglected. It's entirely contingent on, on, on federal. Assistance because. You know, unless you're going to raise money by. You know, you're going to have to pay taxes or cutting spending somewhere and reallocate that money. You know, and. Any capacity you have to assist businesses. Is flowing from federal dollars. Yeah. Yeah. So, so the whole thing turns on that. So there's. You know, there. There's been a lot that's been allocated so far, but there's some that hasn't. But just these unemployment insurance. Change with the executive order. So, you know, I think that's a good point. Right now it looks like. The state would be required to chip in. A hundred dollars a week in order to get the 300 from. The White House. And if that's true, that could cost the state as much as $20 million a month. So if you. You know, if you run that out for, for. Six months or something, you're, you know, you're down another hundred million dollars is just. There are a lot of needs like that. And there's. You know, there's that. Any capacity is going to stem from federal government. Transfer payments. Let's. But we did hold back. We didn't spend every. No, no. We did. We did not for this very reason. Because. Yeah. Like we, the last threshold from 75 to 50%. Was based on actual, the benefit of experience. So. We felt it was prudent to have some money. But it's as Tom's pointing out, it's because the, these are federal dollars that are available to the state. That allow us to do it. The need nevertheless is going to be. Yeah. Much greater than what we have. Unless we get another federal. Bill. And that brings more money. To the state. But we did not mention, we had money set aside to help with the K through 12 pressure. But we have. Oh, Stephanie, was it a hundred? It's over a hundred million that we have. Available. We've got this UI. It's just about 200 million. 200 million. So we've got this UI proposal. That's just come forward. I know the chamber has, you know. You know, and the single proprietorship and some of that is going to be up for discussion once we return. But that hundred million can go very, very quickly. As we know. Got the EMTs yet. Yes, we have, that was all taken care of, frankly. Okay. It's just. Which bucket they get funded out of the end out of that local. And then we have. A bucket or whether hazardous pay, depending on whether they're municipal or whether they're. Non-profit. I just, I want to make sure that when I, when I tell my constituents, I don't know, I'm making no promises, but we're on it. That I'm not putting them in a fool's paradise. It's not like the money is all spent. We. No. There might be something for these people. That's correct. Okay. Senator star, you had your hand up. Well, I was just going to ask the question. About the money for sheriffs and local police. Well, I'm going to. That's in the local government. That's in local government. And I can explain it. And there's money for county and it's based on per capita. So if that's not enough for actual expenditures, then the towns all have an appropriation and like the sheriffs, they can build the town. So that, that gets into some of the negotiation, but the money is about $13 million. We appropriated to local aid between municipalities and counties. And there was money set aside for waste district costs as well. So that's, that's, that's a big part of the conversation. And I think that's a big part of the conversation. And I think that's a big part of the conversation. There's a lot of confusion around this because we wanted to avoid. Duplication of responses. And so. Chris, you remember these bring back a lot of conversations that we had when we're putting together that hazard pay proposal. And trying to delineate. Which groups would. Get the funding through which pod of CRF money. But I've already been in touch with Trevor Colby. If that's what you're. Tom, anything else for Tom? Otherwise. It's five 18 and we still have a lot of work to do. And a lot of unknowns ahead of us. And you have any other comments? This is my third time today. I think we're going to continue to work through. We're not in anywhere near a good position, but it's less worse. Than when we left in June. The end of June. And. You know, there's still a lot of unknowns out there. But it's the same thing. So that's what you guys are going to do until three days before the next election. So. That's going to make it difficult. But. That's the way it is with the mercy of the federal government and the virus. All right. Well, it's good seeing you, Chris, I've missed you in your. Sunflower yellow. And. and Dick, you're not in your backyard. Bobby, you're in the same place. Another rock, it looks like a spoon collection in back of you that we get to see. So Tom has his books and Senator Westman, you just seem to be very modern white back there. So good to see everyone. And unless there are further questions, yes, Chris, you had a question or comment? No, okay. Okay. Then we'll adjourn.