Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons we enter into block funding agreements with taxed-based municipalities is really recognizing they are at a stage of development where they are really able to manage a large capital budget and to plan and get economies of scale, et cetera, on their own. It is in recognition of their capacity to manage their own capital budget and to make those decisions that block funding agreements offer them flexibility once they are funded, to respond to changes in community priorities. Now if they were not being block funded, the department would be bringing those changes in community priorities from year to year forward to the House, through our capital planning process. The difference is that block funded communities do not need to go to those extra steps. They can make those changes year to year, as they see fit. Their capital budgets are still approved through the local municipal budget development process and through a voting process there. It is not that they are off on their own, doing something in secret. They have to come back and have their budgets voted and approved, through their councils. What we typically see is some changes as they get into the future years of the block funding agreement from what we thought they would do, when we are in negotiations. That is what happens in the normal capital planning process as well. What we think nontax-based communities funding are going to be doing in year three of the plan changes, as we get towards that year. That is why we see that flexibility, creating some changes in the plan as originally negotiated. That is the whole purpose behind block funding, to give them that flexibility. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.