the House Appropriation Committee's Monday morning meeting and first on our agenda, we have the joint pistol office in here and we're going to take this hour or 50 minutes to review a couple of documents and the first document we're going to review is the base budget document so that the committee understands where we left off in March. And all that work we did that Friday is proving to be really, really valuable and you'll see it here and you'll see it when we're doing the language. It's going to put us so far ahead. I thought it was all for naught and it's proving to be important. So Steve, do you want to pop up your document and Maria? I'm not sure which Steve was doing in which one. I think Maria is going to start off doing the stake base document and I'll give it. So I thought it was important that we understood the base part and then Steve and then are we doing where we were sitting with CRF funds so everyone understands exactly where the CRF funds are. Was that the second thing? Yeah, that would be the second thing. So we thought we'd start with this and then do the CRF funds. Okay, let's get going on this then. Maria, thank you for... Kitty, do we have this? Teresa? I just sent it to you through email and it's also in your OneDrive under fiscal office updates. Excellent. Thank you. I'm going. Oh and I did post this on the committee website. Thank you, Teresa. Okay, Maria, let's look familiar because this is we've already covered back in January and early March. Right, so right, this is like a trip down memory lane here. I think when we were keeping track of the dollars, the decisions that the committee had made, you may not have actually seen the document but you're going to recognize the issues. This was like my spreadsheet so I could keep track of what was changing in the budget. So I just want to tell you that the way this is structured, this is all base money from the governor's recommend and it's as of March right before you left. So then, so I listed all those items that were in play and then in red I've included a comment about the restatement notes. So some of these issues are going to be reversed or go away but you'll see that as we go through the list. So at the top of the sheet, you have all the items that are in all of the budgets. For instance, the pay act from 2020, the rollout of that, the increased cost of benefits, the increased cost for fee for space and then all the internal service fund increases like the ADS, the vision, the human resources. So those are already, those were dollars that you had agreed or assumed would be included in the 21 budget. So now I'm going to go through the sections that were in play back in March. Most of these things you had made decisions on. The first one, Maria, can I stop? So on that top, we had made a decision on all those pieces. The one thing we need to make a decision now is in the restatement budget that includes a percent reduction in some areas and there can be pressure on others. So that's the only piece we have left there to make a decision on. Okay. All right. So section B120, that's in buildings and general services and this had to do with an internal service fund appropriation of 97,462 for a staff person to handle gun sales that the guns that get received in the surplus property program and Commissioner Cole was in, I want to say Friday or maybe it was Thursday and he was, he reiterated that position was not needed. And I believe that he's had a conversation with Representative Fagan about this. But the reason you don't see a dollar amount in that column is because it's an internal service fund change. So that's an item that's been talked about this session. And it's not a table. Yes, right. And one that I think we were warming to anyway. And now the governor's removed it. So I think that's one we can check off is off the table. Representative Helm, Bob, can I see a hand up? Yeah, there you go. So why would anybody think that there would be a person needed in that position? I mean, where did that come from? So, Bob, I think we would have to have BGS back in for that or Peter can do that. Peter, if you have a quick explanation, if you remember that, that would be good. I didn't ask the question that way. He just said we don't need the person and because we've got it covered by other personnel. So it's okay. Next. But I can ask the question.  Fish and Wildlife has their own little program in which they operate separately from BGS. BGS does put state police stuff and, you know, that kind of thing. But all they do is turn it over to an auction guy. Last I knew that's how it worked. And he basically manages it for his percentage.  Anyways, I won't waste any of your time, but I totally agree with taking it out. Marty, thank you, Bob. Marty. But I was just remembering and I thought they asked for it because there was an increase and they had a huge, I mean, an increase in the number of guns that they were having to process and they were trying to keep track of them better. And I know, at least in this more recent budget, Cole has talked about having some software to help manage the inventory control better. But as I recall, back in January and February, they thought they needed the extra person because the volume coming into them was, was more than necessary. But if they've been able to figure out how to do it with existing personnel, I'm fine with that too. We don't need to add another person for that. So I believe unless I hear any disagreement, we can check that off as an okay and let's, and let's move. Marty, thank you for that memory. You take better notes you and Diane than I do or have better memories. Let's move to Sergeant at Arms. And when we get to the Sergeant at Arms, Diane had sent some information on where we have made decisions and there's something that has impact, COVID has impacted it, where we made decisions in March. I think that we have to keep the decisions that we already made or we will never get this budget done in nine days. We had made probably 95% of the budget decisions. And now we need to address the things that remain open and the new change from this wreck. And does anybody, we need to set that ground. So we come, unless, unless there's some reason to open back up, are we good with keeping the decisions that we have made? I'm not hearing any opposition or hands. So let's start. I agree. Does this may tell us if we all agree? Let's go. Yeah, I know, I agree. I didn't know if there was a question around the bodycams that we had taken the money out with because there was questions of the policy and storage costs and a lot of things that we were going to basically pick that to the, for continued conversation, maybe over in the Senate. But I didn't know when I wrote that up if the, if certain, I don't know, is it true that now we've required body cameras of all law enforcement or almost all? That may come back again. But not only is the 21,000 out, but in their new revised, restated budget, their request for the funding for the new officer where they had had that position, but it wasn't filled, but they wanted to fill it with the budget was 84,000. In their restated budget, they take that out as well. But they, but they did not, they were silent on where they were. And I'm going to assume that their silence was that they still wanted the money for the, the body cameras. And so there's some flexing going on there. Diane, we have not taken a position on the new officer yet, but with the committees of jurisdiction, you were checking back in with government operations to get the body cameras. So that's been in and you'll continue. But I realize I've just moved this in a different direction. And Maria, you were walking through this. So let's, let's continue with you. Okay. So let me just jump one more thing. I hate that on the sergeant arms thing. Part of what's going on there, just to be able to flag it is, yeah, they don't, they took out the position and they're, you know, there's a lot of uncertainty about where the legislature will meet in January. And if it turns out that we meet in many places around the area, like if somehow I don't know this will happen, I don't think it will. But then there may be a need for more police. And the budget would have to be adjusted in BAA, but this one assumes no new police officer and a fairly minimal expansion. So just, it is one that could be subject to change depending on what you all decide. I think the first one we've closed off Diane has the second one opening and Maria, I'll let you continue. Okay. Okay, good. So section B 130 is the auditor and there was a request for an increase in the internal service fund of $40,000. And I believe that that position request was withdrawn. And so that's what you see in the red. And we address the auditor in the Q1 budget. Yes. Yes. Section B 142, there was a conversation in the pilot program that's the payment in lieu of taxes about possibly increasing the amount of special funds that would go out to the towns based on the local option tax revenues. We and Steve is usually the one that tracks this and he has suggested that we don't change the number from the governor. Originally we talked about maybe 500,000, but then with all this COVID, we decided or Steve is suggesting that we keep it at the governor's level. Part of the problem is that the revenues from the rooms and meals and sales tax have declined in the forecast. And so that it's hard to justify the extra 500. But the thing about this fund is it does have a fairly substantial balance. So I think that you can at minimum do what the governor did, which was an increase over last year. And since we don't think the sales and meals and meals go on forever, there is a little room there. But I think it would be a little more conservative to stick with what the governor proposed, but it's up to you. And Mary, I believe are the pilots in your budgets, Mary? Nope, they're in mine. They belong to Diane. No, I just, I think they're in Bob's budget. They're in mine. Okay. No, I haven't had them for years. I'm sorry, Bob. I just always ask questions about them. I like to kill two birds with one stone here. So we're getting the review, but Diane, would your proposal for the committee? And if there's no outstanding questions, we could move on this and start making our work, you know, lessening our work. I agree, Madam Chair. We actually had closed this section when I was looking through to see where we had closed and what we hadn't. And we only, we had closed it with the thinking that maybe town meetings, there'd be a new number. So I'm not having any problems with this right now. So unless I see any hands up for not agreeing with Diane and it was an action we had taken before, let's close out 142 years. So one, Mary, with the auditor, we had already made those adjustments while I had checked off 130. And so. Yes, I just want to clarify a point. I think Maria said that they were with through the position request. I'm not sure that they have. I just don't think they needed the funding that I'll double check that. Okay. Mary, I believe that through the requesting in the budget, they did have a position. And we took care of it. Yeah, we've already taken care of it. Right. That's the bottom line. So yes, close that one off. Okay, let's go to the. Yeah, so section B 200 is the attorney general. And if you recall, they had two big positions in the program, the internet crimes against children. And so they had a request of 158,519 to buy down that vacancy saving rate to fill those two positions. So that's still open with made up. Yeah, that's my understanding. Yeah, unless somebody's heard something different, and we can check on that one. But as far as I know, that's still open. Yeah, we're going to jump in here on that. If you if you I talk with them on Friday, that's in that's in my budget, they still Yeah, okay. All right, I'm sorry. All right, so we'll come back to the attorney general at another day. Okay, Maria. Okay, so, so the judiciary had a request of 200,000. But because of all the Sierra funds they've received, that's no longer a request. And let's do you have a recommendation that we could agree to that or do you want to leave it open for further information? Maria, can you remind me I'm forgetting what that Yeah, I need to look at their documents. And I can remind you, but I will send you an email. How about that? And I'll tell you I've been walking through mine and I can't find Yeah, we'll come back to that then. Yeah, we'll come back to that. I mean, I do have I have my big binder on my lap, but it's a little awkward to flip through it right now. So I'll send you an email on that. No, that's fine. Okay, so Section B221 is the Criminal Justice Training Council. And I have a note next to this that they had asked for $47,360. And I need to check on that to see if that was somehow accommodated in some of our other bills. So as far as I know, that's that's something that's outstanding because I need a little more information. Okay, that's open and data. I believe that's within your budgets and you will I will double check back as to what that was supposed to be for because it we had already closed on the training council back in March without any change. Okay, so I'll double check with the council. Okay, that's good. And some of these some of these items, you know, you have closed but you know, sometimes the money isn't finalized until that last day of the budget deliberations. And so that's why they're sort of on this list in this in this position where okay, they're not they're not super final. I don't know how and before we before we leave the council I'll just toss in we as a committee or maybe it was just me I don't know had at the time there in March still been hoping it was for $37,808 to bring a temp position to full time. So I don't know if there's some linkage there but I think I think the 47 360 had to do with meals related to their training program. That's what my notes say but we'll find out what we will laborers will find out. Okay, so the next section B 312 is the health department and the governor had a recommendation for a million dollars for this newborn visitation program. And the comment that I have next to that is it's not funded due to the COVID distancing requirements. However, there may be more conversation about that. You may recall additional conversations on this. And the two committees of jurisdiction are going to want to weigh in and fully understand what delayed means and if the policy will still go forward. But Peter, I think that's within your budget. Yes, it is kitty and so they're currently doing 375 children. It's a two-year program. So it's birth to age two. That will not change. The intent here was to add an additional 550 children's capabilities. That was one million dollars GF plus federal funds that would match it. Bringing it up to almost 2.2 million. So I guess you're correct. There are committees that are going to be weighing in on this and figuring out what we can do. But the one thing that is you remember Dr. Levine saying with everything that they're doing, they just don't have the time to be able to do more right now given that they are the tip of the spear, sorry for the military violence for the pandemic for the state of Vermont. Knowing it's a priority, we want to make sure it doesn't go away It may be delayed a year, but we don't want it to go away. Yes. Right. So you'll work on that. That intent is very clear. Let's move to 314. Right. DMH that is just a placeholder rate increase for the DA's. And that's you didn't have a number, but that's it's just on the list. 314 again, DMH, the suicide prevention program that 575,000 is funded with CRF monies. And then I have a little note that it may vary from the one originally proposed by the governor, but this issue has been addressed in other bills. And Mary's just going to follow up and Donahue had some had some concerns that different strategies and programmatic pieces may have changed and she wants to know all their what's left behind. So Mary, we'll get an update from you on that before we cross it off. Okay. So the next thing is B318 the child development program DCF. So your committee had decided to the governor had $2 million of education funds in this appropriation and your committee had decided not to spend education funds. And then I have a note that the governor's new proposal proposes to use the substance use disorder funds, the tobacco funds that were appropriated back, I think in 2018. But we have a spreadsheet on that that I think this committee has looked at. And these dollars are going to be used to fund year two of a five year plan to update the child care financial assistance program. So what we'll do is align the preschool and school age rates to the 2015 market rate survey. And it'll adjust the income guidelines to the 2020 federal poverty level. And and so can I suggest that here from the DCF child development down to the DCF OEO where it shows a negative 4.5 million, Kimberly is working with with the human services committee on all these moving DCS. So if we could, those are all going to remain open and Kimberly will bring a package back to the committee. That's great. That's good. Let's move to the micro business development there. Kimberly, are you good with that? No, that sounds great. They're working on it this week. Thank you. Okay. So the micro development, the micro business development, I'm sorry, was funded with CRF funds. I think that was in 966, but I can get you the site if you if you need it. The next one is before we move, agree that we can check off section 320. Actually, I wish to jump in there because I am look, I'm trying to scroll through some emails. I'm getting conflicting information on exactly how much was funded with CRF. And there's a little bit of mixing of dollars. So I need to clarify that unless Diane, you you're also on some of those emails. So can I so I would not be in favor of saying that this was just funded with CRF dollars. There was there was support for them within that realm, how and how much is one thing. But unless we actually put some money in here, their base, the governor's recommend continues and in this new restated budget to basically remove their base funding, we often take their base funding much like working lands. And whenever possible, we know that it's a good investment and we and we we do our best to provide some one time. But this, unless we put their base back in, this would eliminate their base dollars. So I would want to see the base, some number for their base continue. So let's, let's leave that open and note about base funding. And that will be a decision as we move along. So that one is especially if I could just pop in with one more comment on that, the fact that CRF dollars are all going to be out the door come December. That is an important consideration as well. So we'll be back to square one. Thank you. Okay, I think we're there with ideas as well, the same the same conversation. Right, I do not believe that the ideas were funded with CRF, but that's why I have checked next to it. So I need to check on that. Okay. And so again, are we ready to go to be 333 the Dale, the rate increase for days that that's on there as a placeholder. Maria, just before we move from the micro business and IDAs, ensure that Kimberly, those are both out of DCF that you not just check in with human services, but with Mike Markoff and Lily too. And I think it's on his committee memo. Great. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now Dale, Maria and I'm sorry. Okay. No, that's quite all right. So that's just a placeholder. There's no dollar. You can see that. But it's on the list of things that the committee had been discussing. Okay. So be 337. This is the community high school of Vermont. The committee had made a decision to not accept the governor's recommend to fund this from the education fund and fund it with the general fund instead. So that's a 3.3 million dollar issue as you can see. So just for the committee, it came from a recommendation from two of the policy committees to keep it in the general fund and not move it to the ed fund and we had decided to agree. So unless I'm hearing anything differently from anyone, we can check that off as a decision that was made and based on our discussions and from the committees of jurisdiction. Okay. Let's move to E 400. Okay. So this Labor Department project works safe. I believe that Representative Hooper was focused on this one. Am I right, Mary? Or is this? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So they had proposed to use a little more general fund dollars to support the VOSHA project work safe. And we had agreement in March with Labor that we would use some workers comp fees to cover the cost of that. And that's the reason it frees up that money. And as you note there, Maria, it says fund swift from switch from GF to SF. Well, the SF is workers comp. We had a long conversation and the committee agreed with that and I'll raise it with them again. I'll remind them of that. But for our committee, I would recommend we continue doing this. And is there any opposition? Is a decision that we made back in March? Let's check that off and if Mary finds anything different from the jurisdiction, we can come back to it. Otherwise, we will accept that proposal. Thank you, Mary. Okay. The next one is the section B 400 as well. The Department of Labor, it's the funding for return ships. And I believe that the Commerce Committee opted to remove the funding for this. And that is why I don't have a number in that column. But there may be other people have more information on this. Mary, do you remember the that that is also in the Department of Labor and they had it was not one of their Oh, no, you may be more reason for video lack of support, but I take it off.  Yeah, we didn't hear most of what you said. Commerce agreed that it ought to be taken off the list. All right, I'll double track with them, but they agreed it ought to be taken off the list in March. So for committee members, that was a piece that we had moved on. We agreed with the Commerce Committee from their letter. Is there any opposition to taking to agreeing with our change and checking this off to remove the 100,000 unless we hear differently from Commerce. So I'm not seeing any hands. So we can check that one off unless Mary brings it back to us. Okay. Okay, so moving on to session B 702, Forest Parks and Recreation, there was a request for $280,000. And this included money, 170,000 I say the comments at unfreeze steps 60,000 for some interpreters and then 50,000 for maintenance. Now I've asked A&R whether or not this is still a request and I haven't received an answer. Well, actually it was a request from A&R. It was a request from inside our committee. Oh, okay. All right. So that's what happens when months go by. I forget these things. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. This was something that we had hoped to build in. Okay. Yeah. And Senator Feltas has a handout. So my question is why is this unfreezing the steps already taken care of with the new pay act? And also we put a ton of money of CRF money into the parks for not only general maintenance, but for precautionary maintenance for the COVID issue. And they had commented they didn't really expect much as high park attendance. So I'm not sure that this year is the time to add more money for the interpreters that we had talked about. I was in favor of all this back then. But I think we have spent an awful lot of CRF money and passed the pay act that would opiate most of this, most of this request. Thank you, Marty. Those are all good points. So this is your budget, Mehta? Yes, it is. I think you bring those points back up to it and make sure that it's possible that this is no longer an issue that between the CRF money and the pay act that many of these issues may have been taken place. And I know, Bob, you were also interested in this. So they connected with Mehta on this issue. Yeah. And I'll check back in with the commissioner. Thank you. Okay. So the last two items on this on this list, the section B806 Vipers Association Grant and the Convention Bureau, both those things were included in the Commerce Committee memo and they suggested removing funding for it. So I believe that your committee made a decision to defund that. And that's why you see those negative numbers there. Yeah. And those decisions back in March, Linda, do you have those? Yeah, those are fine. Okay. Is there any opposition to Linda has said that they're fine that that is what our decision was back in March? Is there any opposition in that decision? Not seeing any. So we can check off the two E806s. Okay. Okay. So I just wanted, okay. So on your other bills, I wasn't sure if I should include this on the list, but back in March, we had age 692 on the list as a possible bill that was going to be funded. And that's for cybersecurity. And this bill was proposed to fund cybersecurity awareness training program for municipalities. However, in age 966, that you passed, that was, there was some cybersecurity initiative funded with CRF for a slightly different purpose to mitigate cybersecurity risk posed by state employees working from home. So that's not exactly the same purpose. But I just put it on this list. I kept it on the list, I should say, just because I didn't know how your committee wanted to move on it. So Marty, I believe this is within your budgets in ADS. Will you follow up? Yes, it is. And I was going, yes, I had they, we put that that energy and technology committee put money into or use CRF money. And I thought it was on the final list, but I guess I should double check. There was a different method of providing assistance to municipalities. The original bill, they were going to have a training program for employees of municipalities that interfaced with the state. And instead, in the CRF discussions, they decided to spend that equal amount of money on CRF funds before December by hiring consultants to work with individual municipalities to help them make sure their systems were okay and, and upgrade their, their training. And I guess that wasn't part of this 2 million, you're right, Maria, but I thought there was another piece in CRF funding that was to hire consultants to help municipalities specifically for this same purpose as the bill 692. So I will double check that to make sure, but I think that was covered by CRF. Okay. Thank you, Marty. So we'll leave that open until you come back with it. Those that are left open, there's several places that are still left open, but our work is nearly done. And they're all topics that you're well familiar with to get right back to the policy committee. So I think these base pieces are going to close up quickly, either with modification or not doing them or agreeing with the recommend. Does anybody remember anything else that was left open or that needs to be considered that's not on this list?  Well, I just, I've got my folder of that ongoing dollars for those documents that we had. I'll take a look at this and see if there's anything missing, but I don't know where we're going to go. But I think, didn't we pass the global warming solutions, or at least fund it? I don't know. Maybe that was one time. That is in the Senate at this time. And that bill moves or not. If it's going to. Kitty, I'm sorry, the Global Warming Solutions Act. The Senate passed a version of that, but they did take the funding out, as I recall. It was at the very end in June. The Senate took it out. I don't think that the appropriation was removed. That's correct. So that is that bill is still up in the air. It's back in the house. It's been in conference committee. If it moved out of the Senate, it's in conference. So if it moves without any funding, it won't impact the budget. If it moves with funding, we'll have to accommodate it. Okay. So that's, that's just a moving piece. Thank you, come back over. I'm sorry. I was just, it was a question basically for, for, for made of that, I couldn't figure out, and I know she will know this is the Secretary of State's web portal. Like we had on our ongoing dollars and yes, we, we did that. It's, it's covered by state CRF money. We did it in the, which of the bills. I think it was the Q1. I've got it here. I just, I'm looking at our old list. Yeah. The business, the business portal lives at $2 million. It was funded with CRF and it was the Q1 budget, right? CRF dollars there. Okay. Thank you. And so I do want to bring to the committee's attention the use of one-time money. When we go through the, that ribbon in just a few minutes, you'll see that all of that one-time money that the governor had put out to be used to fund initiatives in January or off the table. And, and, and there's this whole new proposal before us, you know, with, with the stated budget. For many of those people who are with CRF money, we may have this one-time money for us that will come before us. So all one-time money, we're starting completely brand new. We don't have much money. So don't get too excited. So our whole list that we had decided for one time in the whole list of governors, those, those are no longer in play. And anything that comes before us will have independently. Marty and then Mary. Well, I was just going to bring up the two big items that I felt were hanging over our head, where the Global Warming Solutions Act, not knowing how that was going to shake out. That was a million dollars. And however, marijuana might shake out. And as we know, both of those are still in conference committee, but those are two big items that we would have to accommodate at some point if they get resolved, or maybe they'll push to next year. That would be my hope. Those are two big items. Global warming solution. And what was the second one? Marijuana. Because it's been passed by both bodies over the different amounts of money. Thank you. Those are still in play. Mary. I just put my question in the chat, and it was just trying to follow some other money. I'm going to log out and come back in on a better network connection. So I'll be back in a couple of minutes. That's okay. So now we have about 20 minutes, and Steve is going to switch us so that we have a clear understanding of CRF money. And I'd like Steve to walk through the whole page. It's clear. And then we'll do questions at the end. It just simply tells you the decisions we've already made, and what money's been spent, and what money's left over where everything is.  I don't know what's happening, but sound is really, really bad. And I don't know if it's just the network or what's going on, but I'm missing huge chunks of what people are saying, and my computer is working fine now. So that's not so maybe I might be the only one connection. So a lot of Mary's was muted, but did you miss your pieces besides Mary's? Not enough that I missed it. Mary's was the one that I missed most. So Yes, she has the bad connection. Okay. Okay. So Steve, let's move to CRF funding. And Linda, if the connection is bad, chime in so we can see if we can get you better connected. Okay. So this is just an attempt to sort of bring us up to date on where we are in the CRF funding. And so the very top of the sheet is the 1.25 billion that we receive from the federal government. And then the first thing we did, Hey Steve, is this, is this anywhere where we can grab it and have it to look at on our own device? Teresa? Yes. So it's on the one drive under the fiscal office updates of your budget. And I just put it on the committee website and I sent it to you this morning and email. Thank you. And Teresa, do you have a pointer? So when Steve talks about money, you can point to yeah, perfect. And we probably could have numbered the lines. I should have thought of that. So the 1.25 billion, first thing we did is held 225 million. You can see it down here. I was 75,000 was for immediate response for the administration. And 150,000 was for the joint people before the legislature had a chance to address them. So you can see it just as a note, we spent about 206,000 of that money. So there's a little bit left about 18 million.  So that's 225 million of the 1.25. The next thing are the acts that you passed last session. And you can see them all here, 826 million of money that was out the door and what you did in June. One of the things that's going to have to happen, and you've raised this issue yourselves about looking at this thing and seeing what there is where there's extra money or areas where there's shortfalls. And that'll have to be dealt with, for example, the first one, 2.7 million from municipal education tax parolings. My understanding is it was not used. So that might be an example where we would reclaim it. But for right now, that's the amount you spent, the 826. So then if you take the 1.25 million, which is the total amount, and you subtract the 826 and the 225 up above, that left $198,000 for what we walked into this budget with. So then we can slip down to the next set of numbers. And if this is, I guess I should go through it, then I hope I haven't confused everybody. So we start with the 198. The governor, in his restatement, basically spent that, and we're going to go through it. You can see in your actual line items, there's about 18 million of spending, you can see the, and these, we can go through that individually, but it's you can see the breakout, the, oh I'm sorry, the 3.7, the 1.5, and the 10 in human services. And these are, this total is about 18 million built into the budget in the various line items. Then there's the 133 million for economic development the governor spent. The 125 for the Wi-Fi hotspots and the guide house contract. This is in addition to the 1 million we already put in. They proposed another 500,000 to cover additional costs. And so then the next thing is this strange thing, which is called the waterfall appropriations, because it's really not a waterfall, it's actually in the money. And so what it is, I think that they're referring to is they have 30 million for state colleges, and you heard on Thursday that it may not be 30 million, it may be a lesser amount, probably. I think their proposal was 23, but that's 23 general fund. We might need to spend more CRF money if, if, if we can accomplish some of it through CRF, but there's 30 million held there, 10 million for ABS technology, and the secretary of state's money, I've got to call with them later and we probably, you probably want to track it down because it's to cover absentee ballots. That's probably a good thing, and I don't know whether that'll produce further general fund savings or what the story is. And then this proposal AOA has a proposal to set up a uniform sort of grant track system. That's an issue where is the timing even possible given the money ends in December, and it may be why it's on this sort of waterfall contingent appropriation list National Guard, the 72,000. So all of that, even if you include all of that, you still have about 1.8 million left. And so one of the things that's really important about this list, that basically spends all but 1.8 million of the 1.25. There's some big chunks that are missing. I just want to flag that because that's some of the issues you're going to have to deal with. One is that we had talked about in June of setting aside between 90 and 100 million dollars for K through 12 education costs beyond what was already spent. So to the extent that there are schools have been spending money in CRF and to the extent that there really are costs in schools for getting the schools ready for kids, that's going to be an issue that we're going to have for address. And that would, and so you'll have to find that money somewhere in this already spent area of funds. There's other questions to come up like I know that we've been hearing and I haven't seen any numbers on it that the money that we put into local government, I think it was about 13 million plus two 15 million would be there. And that may not be sufficient for local government needs. So if you wanted to increase that amount of money, you would have to essentially find it either out of the existing bills that have already been passed or out of the governor's proposals that he's made. So that's just sort of a general, you know, run through this. And I realize you don't have a lot of time, so I should be quiet but you ask questions. Can I just add one thing about that waterfall money? I believe that the administration had said that they would need greater flexibility with the federal guidelines in order to spend that money. I think that's up for grabs. And I think that's an area where we're going to have to look at. I am not, I think in some cases that's true. ADS money might be a timing issue. The SOS money, I think that's unclear about why the absentee ballots would need more flexibility. We'll have to check that out. Those are good questions. So we have two questions. Teresa, can you put the whole, put the, you know, reduce it so we can see the entire page again? And then we have a question from Diane and then Dave. Diane? Sorry, my phone is ringing in the background. I apologize for that. I had similar thoughts or was going to bring up that Maria just did that. Any of that, I don't know if it's all of the waterfall or most of the waterfall all requires some sort of waiver forgiveness or federal change in the current rules in order to use it in that manner. So that, that's why, well, it's got issues beyond just funding it with CRF. But I notice that, I know that you brought up that there are requests that are coming before the joint fiscal committee today. And I think the National Guard is one of them. And I'm sure we will, we will tag, tag that up as well as some of the other requests that they have later on today. But do I have a question? No, I just wanted to reiterate what Maria was saying. Thank you. And if you, if you notice at the very top of the fiscal committee that set, that set aside 225 million, there's 206 million left to that had not left that has already been appropriated out or granted out. And so there, there's about 19, 18, 5, 19 million left in that, in that, I don't want to call it a pot of money, but it's that pot of money that the joint commissions or emergency purposes only. And unless it's an emergency, the, the, the initiative should really go through the legislative process. Those are four that cannot wait for the legislative process. And I would remind committee members that the legislature will be back in action tomorrow morning. I was going to jump in the, in the joint fiscal process. There's, there is only that 16 million in one count, two in the other available money. One of the issues that comes up is money that's already been spent or already been appropriated. They didn't get replaced by FEMA dollars. And it creates essentially more room. And that's something the administration is interested in figuring out how to spend. Does that something that gets spent through appropriations get spent through the joint fiscal. And that's one of the reasons why their request is larger than the money available at joint fiscal, but it's something that the joint fiscal committee may push back to you all to, to appropriate if, if it's actually there. So I have Dave, Chip and Kimberly. Steve, has there been a determination made yet, although it may be too premature that the, the CRF dollars we've appropriated that are out there that in all likelihood will not be able to be spent for some operational or logistic reason, or is it just too soon? You know, that's a really good question. I think that there's a lot of, you know, you read in the paper that the ACCD is having trouble spending 60 million as they increase their thresholds. And that's something that we're going to have to go back and maybe the standing committees will help us go back and say, how are they doing on spending that? It is soon and that there's a lot of potential to spend, but, but still there is, it's worth that you look at it and seeing what's there. We have a lot of CRF to address in this issue, in this budget. And so we will be relying on our standing committee because they work very closely with that policy to put the money out the door. And so the individuals on our committee that either worked with, you know, human services or healthcare or with the commerce committee, you will continue that work to understand where those programs are now. What dollars have gone out? What adjustments need to be made? And so on top of your regular budget work, you also have your CRF work to be paying particularly close attention to once those committees are all back tomorrow. And then after CHIP, I think in Kimberly. Thank you. So Steve, this is just kind of an accounting question. So I take it that total 196 million includes the waterfall appropriation, is that right? Correct. The quote waterfall appropriation is really from what I'm hearing you describe is areas the administration did not feel right now could be done in the current regulation. So it's not a case of the money's not there. It's just a case of they haven't officially appropriated. So we're going to have to think how to treat that. But you're right. It is part of the 198. Okay. So and I heard you say that there are sort of at least in your mind and JFO's mind questions whether or not some of those things may or may not be able to under present guidance use CRF money like, you know, you pointed out the Secretary of State, perhaps in the balance.  Oh, yeah, me too. And to me, I have to check. I mean, that's we have to check things like that. Right. So I guess my point is that if there's still questions about whether or not we could use that money for state colleges and ADS, that's $40 million of CRF money. I think we need to it seems like something we need to figure out really quickly about whether or not to use that. And then if not, think about how else we might use it as you suggested that K to 12 education is one likely spot. Yeah, the problem with the state colleges is, as you know, we pretty much committed to a $23 million bridge. So there's a real incentive to try to find ways to use that CRF money because it would reduce the general fund demand substantially. So I think we are going to have some conversations with them. One of the questions is in some cases, the guidelines for using CRF money is not a black and white case. In some cases, it is if the money can't be spent by the current deadline, that would be an issue. But to the extent that it's gray, the question is how great does one allow? And housing were in a very gray area, but I don't see it. We have, I want to move on to the last three questions. We have two minutes and I didn't mean to cut off. I'd like to move on to Kimberly, Mary, Marty, and then we get about one minute for your question. Okay. The second block, the final column where it says fiscal year 2021, I don't understand what that final block does. It just reflects back the appropriation of the act. It doesn't indicate anything other than that, right? Yeah. So the total is in the total line and we appropriated some of the money in FY20 for expenditures and some for FY21. And so that just totals those two categories. Thank you. Thank you, Kimberly. Mary and Marty. Mine is perhaps just a continuation of what Kimberly just asked. Within each of those acts, we said spend these dollars in certain ways. Is there a spreadsheet which shows, you know, that additional degree of detail? And that would be helpful then in tracking with the policy committees about what's getting out the door and not out the door. Yeah. And that's on our website, under each individual act. So you can look at that. And there will be attempts, I know, with the policy committee to try to figure out how to detail that. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Thank you, Mary. And Marty, our final question. I was just going to offer my comments on those items down in the waterfall. It would seem to me that the Secretary of State's money is not eligible because it was for municipal meetings in 2021. And under the current regulations, I don't think that would happen. And I very much doubt the $10 million for the ADS, for the modern ERP system, plus the $5 million they're asking for from JFC, that the timing would be impossible to put in a whole new ERP system or even to buy it. So I would think if the timing is the issue, as far as the Fed is concerned, I think both of those are not possible. So we will continue the discussion of the use of CRF money. We have Guide House and we also have our joint fiscal office and our legal staff at Legislative Council to help us get through these lines and see what the need is and how those monies go out the door. But I want to be very respectful of Matt Ribbon's time. First, I want to thank Maria and Teresa. I know this was Maria, Teresa and Steve's. A ton of work all weekend long to get these documents and all the work we've been doing on Saturdays and Sundays and way beyond the regular workday. So thank you all very much. But I'd like to move now to Matt Ribbon who is here. And I have to say the language is so easy to follow. It is so much easier than figuring out the crosswalks. The crosswalks we can figure out. It's just more time consuming, jumping from document to document. So for committee members, Teresa sent language out to you if you want to pull it up. Some of you may have received it in the mail this morning. If not, it should be coming shortly. What I found yesterday was really easy was to take our language that we had been working on in March and follow along section by section. And you can see the areas that we've already come to agreement on. And so I believe the language is going to be very easy to move forward in. So Matt, welcome. And we understand this is one of your last couple of days with us. And we want to thank you for your service to the state of Vermont and for putting up with us in house appropriation. And we really wish you the best as you find a new adventure and a new path to pursue. But I sincerely thank you. And it's been a pleasure working with you on behalf of the whole committee. Thank you, Chair Toll. I really appreciate that. And it is indeed my last dance with house appropriations today. So it's been a pleasure working with all of you. And I wish you well with the fiscal challenges that Laia had. So but thank you. Thank you very much. I'm glad to hear that you said that the language was relatively easy to follow, Chair Toll, because we tried to make it as clear as we possibly could given that this is a set of circumstances that we've never encountered before. So there is a code at the top of the language that hopefully will be helpful for you to follow along. I am going to cover today just those items that either Commissioner Gression or I'm going to cover items that were not covered by Commissioner Gression or will be covered by departments when they come in for their hearing. So in theory, the things that I'm going to talk about now or the things that if I didn't talk about them now, you would never hear them because they weren't covered by Commissioner Gression or a department. So hopefully that will be helpful. And I will probably move quickly, but feel free to stop me at any point on page one down at the bottom in section a 102.1. We are making the point here that the FY21 restatement is a full year bill. And I have mentioned, I think that I correct folks on my side of the house when they reference a three quarter bill, because this is not a three quarter bill. This is intended to cover the entirety of FY21. But we also have to bear in mind that Act 120, the first quarter bill did address some things with the intent of covering them for the entire year. So that at times makes things a little bit complicated.  Sure. So plain white means that the language that we proposed in January in Govrack is unchanged from the current time. So for instance, what Teresa is highlighting right now, that is the same language that you'll find in the FY21 Govrack language. Blue, like at the bottom of page one, reflects new language that has been added in the restatement because of a change of circumstances requires it. And each blue item, just like each white item has an explanation. You're used to seeing those where we try to give explanations as to why the language is what it is. And in this case, we try to explain why it may have changed since Govrack. If we skip down to page six, and down at the bottom of page six, you'll see language that was in the Govrack in the C-section that is not in the restatement. And in this case, it's in that those language items are shaded dark gray. And so again, we try to provide some explanation as to why those items are not there. In the case of the C-sections, it's relatively straight forward. C-section is always reserved for amendments to the prior fiscal year. But since the prior fiscal year in this case has now closed, those items were all addressed either in the second BAA. They might have been addressed in the restatement, I don't recall. But in any case, FY20 has closed, and so those items are no longer needed. So we could have left that out entirely, but we thought it was helpful to you all to see items that were in the original Govrack language that are not in the restatement. Skipping to page nine in section D100. We have one question. Kimberly? Hi, Matt. When I see that the liquor transfer fund shows up with one number grayed out, and then on page 11, you see the liquor control fund with a higher new amount. That's your new substituted number, correct? Yes. So I'm sorry. Tell me where you are again. When you just noted that the grayed out sections... Oh, so if you're looking... On page six. Right. Yes, exactly. Those are different fiscal years. One's 20 and one's 21. Correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you. May I, Madam Chair, because when I went through like on that one, Kimberly, and I don't know if I've got this right, Matt, you can correct me on that 18.3 from the liquor. When you look at the budget adjustment bill, it was at 23. So do I have it right that when I look through and tag these up, it's about comparing it to what we made changes in BAA2. And there are three numbers, no, three numbers in here that were shifted in the BAA2. That may be so. I don't recall off the top of my head, but yes, the BAA2 would be the defining final number for that. And certainly I believe in the case of liquor, those revenues were higher than we had anticipated. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So, Matt, what page do you want to start on now? Where are we? Page nine, section D100. Okay. Pity, I have just one more question in that section, if that's okay with you. Sure. So, Matt, in this section here, I could tag up where all in any of this, as you said, has been moved over and happened in another bill, except for, and you maybe helped me to find where the transportation funds in here on page seven, number four, the transportation fund account that was the transportation rail, those two items, four and five, did not happen in the BAA to the best of my knowledge. And so, I'm not sure if they're just totally dropped or weren't needed. You'd have to get Lenny from AOT to get back to you. I don't know off the top of my head. I do know that when we wrote this in January, we had a very different outlook, not just for GF and Ed fund, but for T fund as well. And so, the picture, I'm sure, changed dramatically for the T fund by the time that the second BAA was done. I just couldn't find it. So, I want to make sure it didn't get missed in the shuffle. Thanks. Yep. Thank you. So, Diane, you'll follow up with Lenny on that. Thank you. On page nine, D 100, one issue there in the property transfer tax section, you'll, it may not be immediately apparent from the words, but you'll see it in the explanation that as part of our savings efforts, we did contact VHCB and they agreed to take a 3% reduction to the amount of property transfer tax that they receive. And as a result, our property tax number that comes up to the general fund is up by that amount accordingly, which I think is around 325,000, we'll call the exact number. So, that's reflected as additional general fund revenues. And it's in the context of, otherwise, the PTT is down about 2 million from the January forecast. So, it's down from the forecast, but then up a little bit from that because of VHCB agreeing to the, to a savings item there. Matt, I have a quick question. Is this an ongoing base reduction or a one-time base reduction? Does it impact to its base in 22? You know, I think Adam's on the line. I'll defer to him. I don't think I ever thought about, I don't think I've considered that question one way or the other. So, but Adam may have an opinion. I think we're thinking along the lines of one time. And, you know, that's obviously going to be actively discussed in the fall of this year. But our feeling and the same holds for other departments that may have had, for example, those discussion earlier about replacing base with CRF. We are keeping track of all of those events to make sure that we're being fair to departments. But I think in this case, it was more, you know, the thinking was along the lines of everyone's got to contribute and they know very nicely. It wasn't, you know, I would also add, it wasn't just VHCB. VHCB, I think, needs to be pointed out. But you also saw the Arts Council, the Historical Society.  And I've got a lot of good words to say about that. But we're, I think, thinking along the lines of one time. Thank you. I think I had two hands up. Kimberly and Chip, yours went down. So I don't know if it was up from before. I forgot to lower, sorry. Okay. And Chip, was yours just lowered from before? No, but I guess I just, VHCB seems a little bit unusual in that we not withstand what they're supposed to get every year. So this is just a continuing, I mean, another change. But I wouldn't, I don't know that VHCB would be said to have a base really. I mean, given that we decide every year. That's an excellent point, Chip. And so this is the 3% off this year's amount. So probably 3% off what they should be getting would be much greater. So I'd be happy if this is so ongoing. Mary? I would just like to single signal for committee discussion at a later time, whether or not we're considering any of the 3% or 5% reductions as reductions to base going forward. Commissioner Greschen and his response to, is this a one-time or going forward, was very well done in its ambiguity. And I think we should be clear about what the expectations are. Thank you, Mary. Okay. Matt, I think we're ready to move past VHCB. And Dave, we'll follow up on that language. It's within your sections. So at the bottom of page 9, D100.1, this is new language. It is language, though, that you would normally see in the Budget Adjustment Act. We have inserted it, and I would just offer this metaphysical question as I walk out the door as to whether there will be a Budget Adjustment Act for FY21, given that we are already in the middle of FY21 and the finance manager is going to be busy doing FY22 shortly. Will there be an opportunity to squeeze in a Budget Adjustment Act in there? Will you include those provisions in an FY22 bill? I don't know the answer to that. So in order to make sure that this provision, which is absolutely necessary for departments to carry forward funds from one year to the next, we've put it in here. It doesn't have to be, but we just wanted to make sure it didn't get lost in the shuffle. It really doesn't have any purpose if there is a Budget Adjustment, but in the event that there is not, it allows the language to be present. Exactly. Thank you. On page 10, section D100.2, this is a little bit of old business, but I think it's probably worth a quick refresh that we knew that the state on a cash basis was going to close in a deficit position in FY20, but we also knew that we had deferred revenues from the deferral of the tax deadlines into July that would collect revenues that were more than exceed that deficit. And the Legislature put in place a mechanism that would allow an interfund loan from the Coronavirus Relief Fund. And so that's what we did. We borrowed 51.1 million, I believe was the figure, from the Coronavirus Relief Fund on June 30th for the purposes of closing the books. And then as Adam has presented to you, we collected far more than that in July and August. And once we confirmed that those revenues that were collected in July and August were attributable to deferrals under the provision of the mechanism, we paid off the loan. So that loan had a brief lifespan and is now paid off. In doing so, we had to true up to make sure that the T's were cross and I's were dotted of that loan provision. We updated the budget stabilization reserve to the correct amount, which you'll see in section three there. Okay, thank you. On page 10 and 11 in the D100 transfers, you'll see the, in D100.1, I'm sorry, D, keep going down, Teresa. Yeah, right there. I'm sorry, D101. I'm sorry. Okay. Those are our annual, that's our annual section for transfers from one fund to another that requires legal authority. I'm not an expert on the Clean Water Fund, but my understanding is that that update reflects the lower transfer amount, reflects the Clean Water Board's current estimate of funds available. But I would defer to them for any greater explanation. Okay, thank you. Marty, those are within your Clean Water Fund, so you can follow up on those, please. On the top of page 11 or midway down, section five, you'll see that we've made a transfer from the general fund to the ERAF, the Emergency Relief and Assistance Fund, in anticipation of FY21 and FY22 needs. Historically, we used to do that in arrears when ERAF would tell us how much of a deficit position they were in, but then that left, whatever that amount of that deficit was, was reported in our financial statements. So we have tried to move to a situation where we try to dole out money to them in a way that either provides no deficit or a small deficit. I don't know what the projected status of their fund is now, but we're trying to keep that deficit from dropping to the bottom line of the state books. In section B1, the Liquor Control Fund, that estimate is up, gosh, I can't remember, Adam may remember, several billion dollars off of what we were anticipating for FY21.  I think we talked about the State Healthcare Resources Fund. We did. Would you just a brief summary for those listening who may be new? Sure. So the, gosh, last year, the year before, several of the revenue sources that go into the State Healthcare Resource that used to go into the State Healthcare Resource Fund are now directed into the general fund, the largest being the provider payments that healthcare provider taxes that the healthcare providers pay. And that had the effect of raising the general fund by close to 300 million dollars, which at the same time was when the ed fund transfer was removed. So it had the effect of keeping our general fund nice and healthy for the purposes of rating agencies and general fund debt commitments. So that was an important change that we made. But when we did that, and there still are a few small sources that go into the State Healthcare Resources Fund, like legal settlements and when members in certain health plans pay their premiums to diva, those get deposited in the Healthcare Resources Fund. But what we did at the time was there was a balance, we weren't quite sure how much it was going to be after the dust settled, and we let that balance of stay in the Healthcare Resources Fund. And now it appears that there is $3 million of balance that is not spoken for that can be taken from the State Healthcare Resources Fund to the general fund. So that was one of our items in order to balance the budget this year. Thank you. In unclaimed property, that's an update from the Treasurer's Office, and that's up about a million or a million and a half from what they had estimated back in January. The Public Investigation Fund, if you have detailed questions, I'll refer them to the Attorney General, but this was a fund that they believe has outlived its useful life. There was $100,000 in it, which we transferred to the general fund, and they believe that it, that the fund itself can be eliminated, but I would defer to them as to why. And then in the, yeah. This is one of these special funds of our many, many, many special funds that we maybe, you know, to whittle down some of these special funds. So, Meida, if you could just find out about this, but this was a priority of our committee to see if we could empty out some of these special funds that are no longer needed, no longer being useful and have no useful life. And so you'll get the details on it Meida for our committee, but. Now which, which special fund? The Public Funds, the Public Funds Investigation Fund. I think it's in the Attorney General's Office, Kitty. That would be me. Oh, I always confuse that, that AG's office, Diane, I'm sorry, I always get it. Meida and I sit right next to each other, so we're almost interchangeable, right? Kitty's just, Kitty's just checking if I'm on my toes. That's all. I've got it on my left. Thank you. I just wish, Matt, you had a lot more special funds that we could clean up. Yes, yes. And, and amen to that, Chair Tull, I will editorialize on my way out the door that I think Vermont has probably as many special funds as any state or more and, you know, being the 49th smallest state, it complicates our work incredibly. And, you know, I, in many cases, I question the value add of having them. I certainly wish you well on that endeavor. Attorney General, their litigation, I think it's their litigation fund, and then the Secretary of State fund, both of those do estimates for us in January, and both of them gave us updated estimates. The Attorney General is up 250,000. The Secretaries of State is up as well. I can't remember by how much. He was 2.4. He was 2.4. Okay. Thank you. So up a couple hundred grand there as well. And again, that may be a matter of just because we're much later in the annual cycle, they have a much better idea of how much they can transfer when they're making an estimate for us in November, December, they're, you know, 18 months away from when the actual transfer takes place. Now that they're much closer to it, they may be able to give us a better estimate. Thank you. On page 12, at the top, you can see that DFR's estimate is also increased from FY from the from the GovReq bill. It was 38. Right. Thank you. So another 2 million increase there. Again, I would finish in a question for Marty. I just thought I would defer to Commissioner Picek as to the reasons. But again, you know, it may be a matter of just having a better estimate now that they're, you know, 10 months away from having to make that transfer rather than 18 months. Thank you, Marty. Thank you. My question is on the next section, I was trying to anticipate a delay here. On the next section, we're reverting funds to the general fund from a whole variety of places. I'm questioning why there's a reversion on the communications and information technology, which is an internal service fund that's in deficit that we've been trying to cut down on its deficit over years. Why would we revert $23,000 back to the general fund? So these are reversions from general fund appropriations. So this would be ADS's general fund budget, which is a relatively small budget. But I'd have to go back and look, but they must not have spent the entirety of their general fund budget. And as we reviewed the department's carry forward requests, we made a judgment that they didn't have a compelling need for it in FY 21, which I would say is sort of the general theme for all of these. But all of these are general fund appropriations that were not spent at the end of FY 20. And after reviewing the department's carry forward request, these are the amounts that would be reverted. We sent to the committee a list of all of department's unspent general fund appropriations. Adam may want to jump in with sort of some big picture remarks, but I think he's already mentioned that this year, more than any other year, there was a large amount of unspent appropriation, about $60 million. We reverted, I think, $27 million approximately. It was a little over $28 million, but that included a prior quarter of a dollar version. And so each of these was the basis of an analysis first by the analyst, and then by Adam and I. And the department's made requests for their ability to carry those funds into 21 for purposes that they expressed. And I would say that the combination of a much bigger unspent amount and then the need and desire to balance the FY 21 budget without unduly harming department's base appropriations, we were certainly more aggressive, I guess you would say, than we have been in past years in terms of the number and amount of reversions. And you can see that it goes on for a couple pages. Okay, I think I understand. Thank you. So if you have particular questions about individual ones, I would have to get back to you. I don't remember off the top of my head, but we can certainly get back to you with any particular reversion. You're also certainly welcome to take it up with departments when they're in and they may feel aggrieved, as they sometimes do, about reversions. But I think that if I were a department, it's better to take a one-time reversion than a hit to their one-space appropriation. So that was the mindset that we tried to approach balancing FY 21. Commissioner, we have a question from Mary Hooper. Mary? Matt, I was assuming that some of these reversions were possible because of CRF money coming in and not replacing existing services, but say in the example of DOC, they had to spend, I mean, they had a lot of CRF money coming in, which may have meant they were not able to spend some of their other money. Am I similarly DMH because of other initiatives? So am I thinking about that correctly when I look at some of these numbers? Yes, in some cases. In some cases, departments may have had operating expenses, personnel or equipment or whatever that were CRF eligible, and therefore that generated GF savings. And as a result, they had unspent GF appropriations. And so that may be in many cases or some cases, some of the reason why there's additional GF on the bottom line. I have to believe that that's a factor in us having $60 million of carry forward, the other being that because so many state employees were working from home, there was less travel, there was less, you know, all the expenses that come with running in departments were probably running light as well. I don't remember specifically off at the top of my head and Adam might as to whether we reverted, whether the reversion in DOC was related to CRF or not, I just, I could get back to you. I don't remember Adam might. I can follow that up. But those were just two budgets that I was familiar with and trying to kind of sort in my head. And that makes sense. I can sort it myself. It was more just the big picture that yeah, thank you. Yep. Similarly to GF, Ed Fund does reversions each year. Oh, I guess I should also mention in the context of these reversions, which is that similar to the carry forward language that we started started with, we generally do reversions in the Budget Adjustment Act. But again, because we are already into FY21 at this point, we have a good sense of what departments ended 20 with. We could make a decision about whether or not to revert at this time rather than waiting to BAA. And it allowed us to to recoup revenue in the form of reversions rather than cutting departments based appropriations. So these are things, my point being that reversions are not, you would normally see them in a Budget Adjustment Act, but instead you're seeing them here. But we're not usually doing a budget in August and September. Right. Right. Right. Ed Fund had significant. Can I ask a question on this? Sorry. I don't think you saw. Thank you. I'm looking at, for visual, at the very beginning when Adam brought this sheet in, the comparative like the budget summary piece on there has the 2.8 for transfers. I'm making this is where that is. Right. So this is the detail of what you guys brought in back in last, I guess it was last week. I don't know if you recall, Matt. Yeah. So the reversions number should tie to that $28.2 million that's on the top of right where Teresa's cursor is right now. Exactly. It does. But here's my question on that. I see that in June, you had a number of 4.8 there and so it's come down. So that's maybe a good thing. I'm not too sure why and not to change documents, but I didn't know if you, doesn't have to be now, but if you could explain at some point, the reduction. Sharon, I can explain that. That's the Budget Stabilization Reserve, right? Right. Yeah. So the Budget Stabilization Reserve, because our FY20 appropriations were significantly lower than we had originally anticipated and now that we know exactly what they are, we can update our calculation for the Budget Stabilization Reserve and that went down significantly from $2 million and changed to $500,000. I think I might have skipped over that when we were talking, but I can find you the exact section of where that is. That's okay. I just want to try to figure out what might have happened there. Okay. Thank you, Diane. Okay, Matt, I think we are... Yeah. So now we're on Ed Fund reversions. I would defer to the Agency of Education in terms of what the source of those reversions are, but then that by reverting those funds, they go back into the Ed Fund and are available to help address the FY21 Ed Fund balance. Chip, you will follow up on those as needed. Section 3, down at the bottom of page 15. So that relates to a one-time appropriation from, I think, FY18 that was available from... There was an additional tobacco fund payment from the Master Settlement Agreement. I believe when the tobacco companies settled up on prior year disputed amounts, I think, if I recall. And so there was an additional slug of money into the tobacco fund and there was a one-time appropriation for substance abuse treatment of 3.5 million. And I believe that AHS and the legislature went back and forth a couple times with trying to develop a plan for the specific plan for the use of the money and that there never was a final agreement on what the plan would be. So what AHS recommended and we thought was a good suggestion was that it may just make sense at this point to transfer that, to essentially revert that appropriation and allow that money to drop back to the bottom line of the tobacco fund. And then the RFI21 budget has the CC FAP initiative that was in the governor's recommend of $2 million. Instead of being funded with KINA, which was the original proposal, would be funded at least for FY21 with tobacco funds that are now available at the bottom line of the tobacco fund. Thank you, Matt. I just want to remind committee members that this is the fund that Peters talked quite a bit about. It started out at 5 million and 1.5 million was used for the workforce development in substance use treatment. However, the $2 million that is reflected here is one-time money and that money would be used to bring the CC FAP rates up to 2,000 levels. And so this would simply be a bridge funding. It would not be to keep those at 2,015 levels. In addition, that would be 1.5 million. There's a bill hanging out in the Senate that Peter has talked about as well that is for, and Chip, the primary care provider bill to boost that workforce with a million dollar investment in part of these same funds. So we will be working with the committee of jurisdiction to determine if this works for CC FAP and if it does, we have to be very aware this is a one-time bridge and that $2 million will continue into fiscal year 2022. And it leaves a balance of $1 million. But that, Matt, you dropped that half a million dollars back into the tobacco fund, right? Is that correct? I'm sorry, say that again, Churchill. Well, if everything is spent, what's left is a half a million dollars and that would no longer be in this special SUD fund. It would just be back in the tobacco fund. Is that correct? Correct. I thought I saw a question and Peter, that's in your hand. Yes, Kitty, it is. So, Kitty, one thing we can, occasionally, you're cutting in and out. I think you're just, you know, you're inflicting your voice and we cannot pick up something. So I think you just, you just have to continue to speak with the appropriate force, please. Matt and or, and or Adam. So I believe this leaves $1.5 million on accounted for from this reversion. Am I correct? 1.5, not 0.5. Right. And I, and I had missed the beginning of, of Churchill's comment. So I was unclear to me what the other one million was. My, what I was agreeing to was that whatever is unspent of the 3.5 would drop to the bottom of the tobacco fund. Okay. So the other million was the primary care bill that we've got outstanding that we, it's not done, but that was where it was potentially being funded from. That's what I outlined. And so I apologize if my voice was going in and out. So, so that piece of it, I don't, I don't know about, but mechanically speaking, whatever you use that is less than the 3.5 would reside at the bottom line of the tobacco fund. Okay. So the question, all right, I got it. I got it until we, yeah, I got it until we passed this bill, the funds remain in the department of health and we could use those funds $1 million to fund the H 607. And then the reversion would be 2.5 million and 2 million would still be used for CCF AP, putting the other 500,000 in tobacco funds. What does, how does that impact the tobacco funds? Is there a base amount that we have to leave in that funding? To the first part of your question, I will defer to JFO as to how they want to work the mechanism on their end. In our case, what we did was we essentially released that use of the 3.5. And so then that becomes available. And we used 2 million of that for CCF AP, which would leave a million five in the fund. And that leaves the fund in balance for FY 21. But the reality of that fund is that it is challenged going forward. Sure.  And so the settlement fund goes down each year. But the commitments that we have pegged against it do not go down. So in the long run, something will have to be done with that fund. Gotcha. Thank you. Can you, Matt, I'm sorry, I'm moving closer to my Wi-Fi so I don't keep breaking out. The only thing, other thing I had to mention was I think it was Representative Lanford was asking about sub-civilization reserve. And I did find that section. It's in, it's in, it's at the top of page 16 subsection D, right before D 102. And you'll see that the, the, we are estimating we only have to make a $541,000 contribution to the stabilization reserve this year in order to get it to the 5% maximum. And so that saves us as compared to what we expected we were going to have to make when we did this drill in January. You had there 2.9 million and now you have 541. So there it is. So that, that's all I have. Chair Toll, members of the committee, I'm happy to answer questions. Otherwise, as I said, it's been a, it's been a, been a good time working with you. Thank you, Matt. I'm hoping that I moved a little closer to my Wi-Fi. So I hope it's not breaking up. I know members look through some of this language and are there any questions in other language that wasn't covered that you would like to ask Matt? Hi, Matt. First, thank you so much, Matt, for all your dedicated service. It's really been phenomenal and it's, it's been, much of it has been during a challenging environment, really has. I really appreciate it. I do have a language question here. I'm, I've been jumping from the web. I'm on your document now and I can't move it, but I'll try to explain this. I believe it's in the human services section. It's language that's grayed out. So my understanding is it's proposed to be deleted. And here comes my confusion or I hope I can express this accurately. My understanding was that some of the savings in diva could not be achieved because the PPL around the HIV drugs, the language wasn't available to allow the department to do what was requested, not a criticism or anybody. It's just my understanding of how it was presented last week to us. And so when I saw this language being grayed out, I said I must be confused. There's the language and yet it's being deleted. Why would we delete the language? It would seem like we would need to keep it so that diva could do the work around the preferred drug list for the HIV population. Now I'll ask any of the other members. It's my section of the budget, so you may not have been following it. I was, but if they think I've misunderstood this. Can you just say what section it is? Well it's E, try E300, E0, I see E318.  Keep going down page. Was it 312? I think so. It was somewhere in that vicinity, but I don't see it gray. Okay, maybe it was just my slow down here now. Global commitment. Keep going. Mary, did you say it wasn't grayed out? Well, I'm just reading the AIDS HIV section where they're talking about the, those are grants. They grayed out the explanation at the top of 29, but that's just about extending. I don't know. I didn't read it closely.  I'll find this on my own. Maybe I'll work with Maria and just ask her if I'm interpreting it right, etc. I thought it was pretty clear. My notes. So, Dave. So I'll, yes, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, Dave. I was, I was moving into another room to get closer to the Wi-Fi. Were you looking for the new HIV language that was brought to us by Commissioner Gustav Susan? Yes. So on the bottom of page 12, that appears to be the old language and I was looking for it as well that, that new language was coming. So should we be expecting new language? Matt, do you know on the preferred drug list? I'm afraid, I'm afraid I don't know. I would defer to Diva and AHS. Okay. So if we, thank you, Kitty. Yeah, my understanding was the, that old language, I guess that they want to pull should be replaced with new language. And if somebody could flag that and that's something Diva should be doing with finance and management, everything just to update the language. Thank you, Matt. Yeah. Thank you, Dave. Diane? Yeah. Thank you. So three things and I'll just piggyback on that. On that, it's on page 29 there. That's the E307 that you're talking about, the preferred drug list. In the healthcare letter, the healthcare committee actually presented us in their letter a whole new construct of language for this section. I don't know if we still, we were in the process of deciding whether or not we were going to replace what the administration has here with what the healthcare letter indicated. So that I did have a note on, so I don't know where we are on that, Dave, but that was, I noted that on this when I went through it. Well, I have two other, my other section 307. Yeah, that's it. 307. 307. And we had, we had written in our original go through that healthcare letter on page three starting actually had recommended new language. And I don't know if we agreed to it or not, but that's, that was where we left, or at least I left off. So I have two other places to go that I don't, as on page 22, section E138, which is the renters rebate, and here the department withdraws this proposal of using 500,000 to go towards the modernization of that. We, and maybe the, maybe I can answer my own question here, because in my note, when I went through it, I thought, Oh, well, there don't have that money now to be able to be used because we took $1.4 million from that area because it was underutilized. So the 1.4 that we used to balance FY 20, did that zero that out? And that's why we don't have $500,000 for this modernization program. I don't, I don't know the answer. I'd have to defer to Adam or tax department tax department. Okay. I just want to think tax will be able to provide you a very swift answer on that. Okay, great. And then my other question was on page 28, E301.3, which is the waiver request for the 1115 waiver. I think we had left off and the Senate had had some language and there was something in there, even in our budget, it was either in the quarter bill or the budget adjustment. There's a second sentence there and I may have to get with my, the department on there. The first, the new language there that starts with the, the secretary of human services is authorized to seek a no change extension. The house position was a little bit different than what the Senate position was back in the shorter bill. But then the, the administration here is adding that second sentence, which says if a true, if a true no change extension is permitted by CMS, the secretary is authorized to seek extension. I don't know if you could explain that new sentence. I would have to defer to AHS for that. Okay. Can we flag that as a, as a question? I don't know if that's for Dave or for me. I'm not too sure. I can follow up. This is Maria. I'll find out. Thank you, Maria. Are there other pieces of language we'd like to flag for questions? Okay. Mayda? Thank you. Before I move to Mayda. Okay. Mayda? Okay. Thank you. Mine is the hydrants, the dry hydrants. That's section E212. What page is that on? Page 25. Mm-hmm. And does everybody see where I am? Section E12. Public safety, fire safety. Page 25. Yes. And, and it says that the appropriation is the same as it has been for a few years now, I guess, $55,000. The thing that I wanted to point out, maybe ask about is that in the Q1 budget, we had 13,750 going for the dry hydrants. The theory being that the difference between the 13,750 and the 55,000 would be brought in to place now. And I didn't know if this 55,000 was appearing because this is the full year FY21 or what. But in the Q1, as past and enacted, there was 13,750 toward the 55,000 for the hydrants. Right. So that's a good question in terms of the overall premise of our statement, which was that unless otherwise noted, we are intending to provide the entire FY21 appropriation and wipe out. If the two things are in collision with each other, Act 120 and this bill, this bill wipes out what was done in Act 20. So we're not intending to do 55,000 plus 13. We're intending that the 55,000 would replace the 13,000. Okay. And personally, I have no idea if the 13,750 has gone out. How do I find that? I'll work this out. No, you'll work that out with the fire safety division. And the person who's in charge of the hydrants. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Are there any final questions on language? If not, Matt, I'd like to thank you for this.  Yeah, mine. Sorry. Yes, Chip. I'm sorry. Okay. So Matt on the education flexible pathways, we changed the amount that's available for dual enrollment, reduced it, and then there's the stipend. What page are you on so we can all get Sorry, page 36. Anyway, my question for Matt is, so the original appropriation for high school completion generally is $4 million, but that doesn't change even though we're reducing flexible pathways by close to a million between the things on line one. Is that, is there, should it have changed or are there just other ways that we're spending that money? Yeah, I'm afraid you'll have to ask the agency of education. I know that for some of their programs, they had less demand because of COVID. I don't know if this is one or if there's other reasons why there's a reduction, you know, agency that had some reductions to grant programs that they took that I think that, you know, you heard about. So I don't know whether this cross references to those or not. I just don't remember. All right, I'll check with them. Thanks. Just stepping away to try to find my agenda. I found it. Are there any final questions regarding language? I'm sure there's lots of questions and we will check in with our policy committees and also with the departments and other entities regarding language, but any questions that would be appropriate at this time? If not, again, I want to thank you for the presentation of it. It is so easy to follow and it will make at least the language part easy to address and close out. The numbers part is a bit more challenging working between documents and also sorting out the CRF money. Matt, you were scheduled here until 11, so we're going to let you go on time so you can be on schedule. I don't want to hold up retirement. Again, our very best wishes to you. Thank you and my best wishes to you as well. Good luck and take care. Thank you. Thank you. I'm happy he walks and grinning all morning. Bye-bye. So, Teresa, we're going to have some committee discussion right now at 11. Members have been sitting for two hours. Do you want a quick 10-minute break and then we'll come back just for a few minutes and frame up where we're going? Yes, please. Can we just go off YouTube or do you want us to stay on YouTube? It would be better if you just stayed on YouTube. How long are you going to be taking a break? We'll come back in 10 minutes. Then we should go off YouTube.