 This is Houseways Mains, it is September 16th, I think it's Wednesday, and we have an hour or so scheduled right now, the subject being the December 1st letter and possible legislation, temporary legislation on the letter that we were looking at off and on over the last week or so. So we've invited Craig Bolio to speak, but we've also, Jeff Francis and Sue Siklowski, and I think one or two others are here, Bill Bates. I haven't scheduled testimony exactly, but what I'd like to do is to make sure that we, and Brad, I see you here too, that we give everybody a chance to, maybe not as formally as usual, but give people a chance to make comments about the letter, whether it's a good idea to do it, whether we're on the right track and the way we're doing it. If we don't make a decision about it this morning, I think we're not going to get anything done this year, so I want to stress that time is, the time to do this is now, if we're going to do it, so we don't really have time to spend any more days on it, not that we don't have the days, but that the legislative clock is running out. And in that connection, if we come up with language that the committee all agrees on, I think what we're likely to do is use a Senate bill to amend a Senate bill that's in our committee so that we can move it more quickly, because I'm not sure that we'll have time to move a committee bill at this point. So before we start actually working on the bill, let me see if anybody on the committee has any announcements that they want to start with. I don't see anybody raising their hand. We're going to stop at 10. Unfortunately, I've got a telemedicine appointment that I need to do, so I'm going to have to stop. If we haven't finished, we'll reconvene at 11, and we've got some time set aside at 11. So hopefully we'll get done. And Jim, Madison. Not that it's very important, Janet and everybody, but after a month or weighing the same tie, I decided to put on a different tie today. I don't know if anybody noticed at all our cares, but here we are. Thank you. All right, so I think what I'm going to do is start with Abby and have her go over the language the way we had it most recently, so that we're all looking at the same thing and understanding the same thing. So let me do that. And then see if Mark has a couple comments. And then what I'd like to do is ask Craig to comment on it. And Craig, I'm focused specifically on you because this is the text department's letter. So I feel that your voice on this is a critical one. So okay, Abby. Great. Good morning for the record. Abby Shepherd Office of Legislative Council. Okay, great. Thank you, Sorcha, for pulling the language. So this hasn't been put in any sort of format as an amendment or a committee bill, so it's still very in movement. There are two subsections to this that we went over yesterday. The first is findings and purpose and starts by laying out current law in the first two sections and explains that current statutory requirements for the commissioner of taxes is that by no later than December 1, the commissioner must calculate and recommend the state education property tax rates. So for fiscal year 22, for this upcoming December 1, and in making that recommendation, the commissioner must take into account the any projected fiscal year 21 deficit. And the commissioner must also assume that the stabilization reserve is maintained at 5%. So those are the current requirements in setting the tax rates. This language then lays out the intent that was expressed in Act 122 that was passed in June that the General Assembly intends to address any projected deficit by taking any manner of the following actions, which could include applying reversions or drawing down the stabilization reserve as well as using federal funds. Starting on line 15, really the meat of the intent here that was laid out in this first subsection is that the actions in Act 122 are the expressed intent of the General Assembly to relieve school boards from having the burden of accounting for this projected fiscal year 21 potential deficit through school board budgeting decisions. So given that this Act 122 intent conflicts with the current statutory requirements, the General Assembly would be posing new requirements on the December 1 letter and requires the commissioner to calculate statewide education property tax rates for fiscal year 22 as set out in the second subdivision. So that's subdivision or subsection B. Subsection B talks about the December 1 letter for fiscal year 22 in setting the rates for the commissioner's recommendation. The first aspect that would be different from the current statute is to disregard any potential deficit, any projected fiscal year 21 deficit, and the second assumption the commissioner would make is that the stabilization reserve is maintained at its current amount as of December 1st on or before. So rather than the 5%, additionally, this would preclude assuming that the stabilization reserve is used to reduce any projected deficit. And I know that there are some questions about whether the first subsection should be in there, what intent needs to be expressed, but really the meat of what is being required in this language is in subsection B. Great, Abby, thank you. Mark, do you have anything you want to sort of throw in at this point by way of explanation? I know the committee heard from you yesterday, but I'm trying to make sure that everybody has the same information before we launch into a discussion about this. So I prepared an education fund outlook that attempts to illustrate why there's a relationship between the deficit and the stabilization reserve and I can go over that. But if people are comfortable with the language right now, we don't need to do this right now. I don't think I can. I sent Sorsha the sheet, but it's up to you whether you want me to delve into it or not. Let's take a couple minutes and put it up there and just, yeah, I think it'd be good. Yeah, so Sorsha, could you pop the balance sheet up? Yes, give me a second. I did post it, but my connection must be weak with the server because it's not showing up on the website, so I'm going to pull it up from your email. Sorry, give me a second. Actually, Mark, do you have it handy? It might be easier if I just make you the co-host. I had trouble sharing yesterday, but I can try. I'll try to get it reposted. So why don't we hear from Craig while we're working on the technology of getting that posted, and then if there are questions, we'll have it up there and we can go to those then. Sorry, George. I was just going to say it is posted and openable on our website right now. Yeah, I've got it open as well. I don't know if everybody is able to do that. So thanks. Craig. Good morning. Can you hear me okay? Yeah. All right. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, Committee. Thanks for the time. So I think I was looking at two big questions as I looked at the language. The first, I think that you guys had asked me, is do I get it? Do I understand what it's mechanically trying to achieve? I think the answer to that is yes. And so then the second question is, is it a good idea, in my opinion? And I think my general answer to that is yes. I do have a few thoughts and maybe some tweaks that we could make. Let me say clearly, certainly it should come as no surprise that the administration supports the goal of not having a big property tax spike in fiscal year 22. So we're all on the same page there. And I also totally understand the predicament that you folks are in that full accounting is not going to be available by the time you folks adjourn. And so what do you do? So again, I get the predicament there. Two alternatives that I might propose that the committee could consider, one would be instead of only calculating it without the deficit to calculate it both ways. One with the deficit and one without. And that would give sort of a range of options. It would also provide a contrast of here's where things would shake out without intervention, and here's where we think things will shake out because there has been intervention. The other alternative may be that we will have some insights, not complete insights, but some insights into, for instance, CRF eligible expenses by the time that we write the December first letter. And so we could try to do an accurate accounting at the time of what we have to see how that would impact rates. And the other thing that I would say, just on the December one letter generally, maybe not this specific language, but certainly we're hoping that it will help continue the conversation of, I think the bumpy road ahead that we have on the Ed Fund. And so my intention, I think intention will be to bring some recommendations that fit within Act 122 that we can continue the discussion of how to handle this in the medium and long term. But if at the end of the day, the committee really wants to take the path that's in the language right now, I understand it and we can live with it. But I would just ask consideration for those alternatives. Let me see if there's any questions. Hey, Craig, those two options that you talk about, does the tax commissioner have the flexibility in the writing of the tax letter and the narrative to discuss those two possibilities? Yeah, that's a great question. My read would be yes. So I don't know if you folks have to put it in the section law. If that's the approach that we just have the understanding that we're going to do that, I think that's a viable path as well. Okay, thank you. Peter. Yeah, Craig, I think you use the word alternatives. But I think what you mean is add-ons. In other words, you're not suggesting to displace what the committee has tried to convey so far. Yeah, I certainly appreciate that clarification representative. I would fully agree. On George? Yeah, I'm just worried that if we in the letter show both where we would be with including the deficit and without that, we're going to cause a lot of heartburn among the school board because it's not clear that we are saying if that's both in the letter, both things are in the letter. It's not unless it's written very specifically to say this is what it would have been had we included the deficit, which we are not doing. But if they're placed as two alternatives in the letter, I think that is going to send some people off the cliff. So I'd be very hesitant about that. And I can guarantee that any news stories would be about the higher amount. I do think it complicates the messaging a little bit. I take that point. Jenny, and I want to be sure I get the school boards and superintendents. I'd agree with George and when we have a moment would be interested in hearing what Mark would have to say about the same thing. Because as yesterday we were trying to convey I'm not sure what I'm looking for, but a calm, straightforward, here's what we're going to do message to school so that they had predictability. Thanks. Craig, as far as the deficit, assuming that it was we followed this language and it was not included in the yield rates, I wouldn't think we would be able to completely ignore it in the tax letter. Thinking that if we did, would that create problems with the rating agencies? If we just like try to hide a deficit, is there a way that we could thoughtfully say, you know, explain it for that purpose? Yeah, that's a good question. And I don't think we're, well, I don't want to speak for the committee, but my reading is not that we will completely ignore it in the letter, it's just that it won't factor into the math. So I guess my take is that, you know, we would speak to that in the narrative to say this figure is not in the math, this is why it's not in the math. So I don't think it would be completely ignored. And I would agree with you that doing that would not be a good idea. Let me see if some of our other participants are wanting to weigh in on the discussion here. And I'm looking particularly at AOE, superintendent, school boards, somebody want to jump forward? I'll jump forward just very quickly if you don't mind. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Brad James says, do you have education for the record? I think the messaging you're sending out is very positive. I think that will help quite a bit. I will actually, because there's two suggestions in clarification on page one, and this is kind of more for Abby and you guys to listen on page one, on line 16 and 17, talk about the deficit. It says, actions outlined in Act 122 with respect to a projected deficit are intended to relieve school boards of the burden of accounting for I would just suggest you make Brad, you're here and make the projected deficit you're talking about. Am I breaking up? Yes. Can you shut off the video and because we want to hear the words. Thank you. Okay. So I'm not sure where, can you hear me clearly now? Yes. Start on page, start on line 16. I'm going to read it to you as Abby had it drafted and I didn't get a chance to send this it says the actions outlined in Act 122 with respect to a projected deficit are intended to relieve school boards of the burden of accounting for any projected deficit through school budgeting decisions. I would suggest making it clear that the projected deficit you're referencing is strictly the education fund and not their own deficit. I just know how questions sometimes bubble up in the background and that I have to put them out. So I would suggest just adding in with respect to projected deficit in the education fund are intended to relieve school boards of the burden of accounting for any such projected deficit through school budgeting decisions. I will happily send that to Abby so people can see it but it's just I do know that people sometimes think differently than how the words are intended to be read. Yep. That's why we're getting input on it. I think those are clearly we're talking about the ed fund deficit projected deficit and I'm assuming that the committee will be in agreement with that. All right. I'll send that to Abby and Mark. Okay. You had another one or was that it? That was it. I think the messaging is very good and I think that will be helpful and I think again agreeing with what you are saying that keeping it keeping the math as simple as possible and just having the one number in there I think probably better than having two. Yeah. Okay. Jim and Scott. Yeah. Thank you Brad. I had exactly the same thought reading this over this morning and it's the word any preceding deficit that concerned me and I think your proposed language is excellent. Good. We'll fix that. Scott. Yeah. I'm actually looking at the same sentence that Brad just brought up and I agree with his input there. I wonder if though if for clarity's sake at the end of that sentence we should say in FY 22. Yeah. That sounds agreeable to everybody. I think that's what we're talking about. Yeah. Okay. Good. So Abby will make both of those changes. Thank you Brad. So let me let me go back to I'm going to keep listing off all our guests here. Jeff Francis, Jeff Bannon. Hi, this is Jeff Francis. I'm happy to go next. Okay. Thank you. So first of all, thank you. I'm in agreement with everything that's been said so far. Brad's comments with regard to the intent here resonates with me. So I'm in agreement that this is something that you should do and I'm appreciative of the fact that you're doing it. I also had comments that centered on line 15, 16 and 17 and have actually just sent to Sorcia a potential consideration for an adjustment to the language that starts on line 15 and the intent is to make it clear what role the school boards play in this. So the current sentence and I see Sorcia is going to put that up says the actions outlined in Act 122 with respect to a projected deficit are intended to relieve school boards of the burden of accounting for any projected deficit through school budgeting decisions. You've already addressed the term any and you've made it clear the time period. I got hung up on the term of accounting because accounting can have a double meaning in one instance it means measurement and the actual accounting of and in another instance it means take responsibility for and I think that the intent of the language at least as I understood it was that you wanted to absolve school boards of the responsibility for responding to any projected deficit. So I don't have any pride of ownership here. I would willingly accept it if you say no. You think that the current language is better but my eye was drawn to the phrase burden of accounting and I wondered whether responsibility for responding to was a way that would be more clearly understood by folks at the local school district level, business managers, superintendents and school board members. So I'll pause there and let people reflect on that suggestion. Thank you and you know this is intent language. This is not the operational language and I speaking just for myself I will do whatever communicates most successfully to the school board so whatever whatever whichever version they're more comfortable with is fine with me. Peter. Just I think for Jeff's point instead of using the word accounting what you would want to do is the school boards needn't incorporate and use the word incorporate the deficit into blah blah blah their calculations and so on just get away from that word accounting. Sue do you want to respond to Jeff's suggestion. Yes thank you very much for having me this morning. We do agree with that suggestion to use a word other than accounting and also with the suggestions that were offered by Brad to clarify this language and representative Beck as well. So thank you for the opportunity to convey that to you. Perfect that sounds great I mean this is really about communicating and reassuring frankly and so we want to choose the right words and if those are the if those are better words that's fine with me at committee in agreement with that I'm looking for head nods I'm getting getting some so good. So did you have any other comments or Jeff did you have any. I just have one further comment regarding December one letter we do do agree with the points that were raised by representative Till about how school boards will be focusing in on that letter and that the language is very important to not have it be set forth as alternatives but just have it be very clear so thank you. Thank you. And Jeff Francis I've got Jeff Fanon here too who also wants to speak I think is that right but no I'm all you're all set. Okay. Thank you. Jeff Fanon. Thank you for giving me a few minutes here. Jeff Fanon from Vermont NEA. Good morning. So I agree we're all in agreement here it's a very agreeable morning. Yeah it is good. I do think that giving folks an alternative well understandable I see the need or the desire for it I don't think it helps the communications bit at all so I would stick with just one to be very clear in the messaging we got enough going on in the schools I think they have enough on their plate they don't need to be contending with people asking them questions of what if and what if you know what about that. So I agree with all the comments by representative Beck and that the one I note that representative Anthony mentioned the word calculating it on page two on line six that is what the letter actually calls for is the calculation so maybe that's the the right word to be used to address the the accounting question mark so with that said I'm having to answer questions but I think it's a good applaud and appreciate the effort doing so to put you on the left. Great. Any questions for for anybody who's been speaking I guess I wait Emily. I'd love to come back to Craig about this idea of sort of clarity versus options and if you have further responses to that. So I mean one of the reasons that that I'm even proposing these these additional calculations is that you know at least in my eyes and I would guess I've been the steward of the December one letter once so I can't say that I'm a historical expert on this but my goal is always to have the math be a very straightforward exercise sort of bean counting so to speak so this is an unusual year right so it might be that that it's worthwhile to tweak that bean counting exercise this would just allow us to do the straightforward math and then also do the math that that we hope sends the right message again I don't have strong feelings on this if the committee's preference is to do the one calculation we can do that. I'll send Emily. Let's see Peter and Jim. Thank you. I just wanted to return to a worry that Mark advanced a day or two ago namely and this this reflects I think Commissioner Bolio's purpose one of his purposes Mark O'Pine last week when we first addressed this he was worried that school boards might not be as penurious that is to say they might not worry so much about the fund deficit in terms of trying to squeeze as much value as they could out of their work and leave as much internal surplus as possible I it's an incentive question and I don't know whether what Commissioner Bolio is suggesting might go a ways to address Mark's worry that people might take advantage of the fact that they're being relieved essentially of the the hurt of a rise in property taxes given the fact of the matter the fact of the deficit and so maybe Mark could comment on that thanks. I don't know if Mark wants to weigh in on that quick. Yeah I don't remember saying that but I don't think I have anything to add to that. Excuse me for jumping in but that was in response to my question about why don't we just go ahead and set the tax right now that was when Mark said that. Oh not in connection with this language. Jim and George oh you are George you already spoke Jim. Yeah thank you I just soon sticked with the way we have it without the alternative but there's nothing to prevent the tax department from working up on the side at an alternative calculation and letting us know. I mean I'm not sure if people want to see it but it could be done but I wouldn't want it as part of the the letter. Thanks. Yeah I actually feel pretty good about the language that we have with the changes that we've talked about. Yeah exactly. Jeff Francis' and Scott made a couple and so on and I think what I'd like to do let me look around the room and make sure I'm out of the room my screen and see whether anybody has any still wants to say something has any anything additional that they'd like to add and if not what I'd like to do is to give Abby a chance to redraft it and then if we can get it voted today that would be wonderful. As I said earlier what I think I'm going to do if it's agreeable with people is use I think it's S127. Saoirse can you double check that for me? No S27. S27. Who would have thought that we had a Senate bill sitting on the wall it has nothing to do with education whatsoever it's a home health bill but it's a short bill that we don't need we addressed it in another bill so that it's just sitting there and if it's okay with people my thought is to put this language on that bill so that we don't have to wait for a committee bill there seems to be general consensus that this would this is a positive move and may help some of the concerns about budgeting this fall and I also want to say that we understand that school boards have a huge task in front of them putting these budgets together and this is not going to solve your problems but we hope that at least takes away one set of concerns which is what we're trying to do here but we we're doing it in full realization that there's a great deal that you're still having to deal with so does that seem like a good path to everybody I got lots of thumbs up that's the way we vote now so abby why why don't you go ahead and do whatever needs to be done on that I want to thank everybody for coming you're welcome to stay and you're welcome to hang around if we abby how long do you think it'll take to do it sorry having trouble getting the mute off madam sure I did just send you an updated draft but it doesn't have the lead in language I don't know if you want to just look at what was just discussed or if you want to wait till I have it in a amendment format it's oh oh the lead in language no I don't worry about the lead in language you mean the the that we're amending as 27 that yes I think our committee will trust that it works the way it should I don't think we need to see that anybody wants to wait please speak and let me know so I did just send language then to a good one with you and sort of that's excellent okay so let's put that up George yeah we were going to hear from mark back when we started about the you know how something on the Ed fund balance sheet and I didn't know if we still needed to do that or not I don't know that we need to but if people want to we will it was it was more setting the table so that everybody was understanding what was happening um but it feels like everybody pretty much does so um I mean that's fine with me I just okay let me see if anybody raises their hand and says they want to hear it hear from we always want to hear from you mark but maybe not this minute um okay um so Abby why don't you go through the language and then um if somebody besides they want to hear from mark we'll go right back to that great so this is um if you can scroll down sorcia down it starts on lines uh 16 the only changes that have been made if we keep scrolling it should show up in okay so I've highlighted the new language so the new section raised the actions outlined in act 122 with respect to a projected fiscal year 2021 deficit in the education fund are intended to relieve school boards of the responsibility for responding to a projected fiscal year 21 deficit through school budgeting decisions for fiscal year 2022 uh abby the only thing I would change is online 18 rather than the word a I would say to the okay seems weird to have the word a in there somehow um uh comments from uh frankly well committee members but all our guests as well anyone have any thoughts about the language again people a minute to raise their hands george yeah I think the to the projected fiscal year 21 deficit in the education fund online 18 might I mean we want to be really clear that it is just the education fund deficit or somebody use the word such which is better than the and better than a and then you don't have to repeat that again at some point yes yes the word don't mean anything anymore um such would be great yeah let's do that okay I have the same same comment as george there just to be crystal clear yeah is the word such work for you okay yeah okay uh anything else anyone else have anything pausing this giving sometimes it takes a minute for people to raise their hands so effective date on this abby would you like it to be effective on passage or october 1st um I think I'm I think on passage right now it's doesn't have an effective date right so we would need one so let's just make it effective on passage uh people want to see that before they vote on this uh robin you had a question thanks um sorry when it was up there there were two places where it said uh projected deficit are we changing the uh to a the in both places I've lost the oh because I don't have the version you don't have it right on the on the screen I think that the first a would make more sense um the actions outlined in act 122 with respect to a projected fiscal year 21 deficit I think that that makes sense because it's still a projected it's still a possibly online yes online 16 it's at sign 18 and we're going to change it to such to such projected depth okay thank you yeah but people want to see the language before uh with the effective date um looking to committee members specifically if somebody wants to see it before we vote um raise your raise your hand let's do lost on my list here there okay got everybody looks like we're going to be okay um so can I have a motion on this language and it would be uh you know we we vote in in two steps so uh the first would be to endorse the language and the second would be to amend us 27 with it so um George yeah I'll go ahead and move to um pass the language as we have just amended okay and that looks like Jim mess on second second years um and um so Robin may you ready to call the roll so just to be clear that the proposal is to um uh adapt the language and draft 1.4 no it's not 1.4 I haven't got it up on my screen is it 1.5 so in in the amendment it will be a draft 1.1 I don't know if that matters that's fine I just want me uh Robin needs something for her so uh draft 1.1 um with two changes we're going to add an effective on passage and we're going to change the word a in line 18 to such is that right on both okay uh so that's the proposal um yeah so we're endorsing the language of draft 1.1 of s 27 is that right yeah okay close enough yeah all right I'm ready okay uh representative Anthony yes representative beck yes representative brennan is he here today he's not no okay representative donovan yes representative cornheiser yes representative masland yep representative shy is yes representative till yes representative young yeah representative canfield yes representative ansel yes 10 01 awesome that's great uh all right so um a motion to vote s 27 out favorably as amended sure okay jim and george i'll second it okay i'll just put you in reverse order hang on a sec or she will never read my writing okay so we're voting the bill out representative anthony yes representative beck yes representative brennan is not here representative donovan yes representative cornheiser yes representative masland yep representative shy is yes representative till yes representative young yes thank you representative canfield yes representative ansel yes 10 01 excellent very good um thank you everybody and thank you to all the people who joined us on search short notice and craig you particularly because I know you had to redo a bunch of things to get here so um I appreciate that um all right so I'm going to shift gears very briefly here um and mention another couple bills that I think we're going to we may get or we may not get but I just want people to be aware of them um one of them is the bill that has the dispatch in it and um if you remember we heard bill canfield asked us if we would look at the bill um it's a bill I think it's a racial justice bill I haven't looked at the rest of it but the it included some uh dispatch fees or rates for dispatch and the committee was sort of generally saying we think those ought to be set by the legislature not by the agency um that bill may come in here what they've done is they've redone they've rewritten it so that the um any fees or rates will have to come back to the legislature to be set so they basically did what we were asking them to do I just uh if we get it um we're going to have to vote it out very quickly so I just want to alert the committee to it um and kind of check in to see if people have any issues at all and questions about it or whether they feel like understanding that the rest of the bill is non-revenue and we're probably not even going to be briefed on it it's just just need to move this piece out um people have concerns about that or questions or uh things that they would like me to do to prepare for uh are moving that bill quickly if we do get it anybody uh bill yeah bill hi yeah this thing isn't let me raise my hand I guess um will we have will we have time to take any testimony on this uh we may not um and that's that's really why I'm raising the question um the um if we if we if you feel that we need to um on the dispatch area um we should get it set up really soon and we should do it ahead of time and I suppose we could do that at 11 is who would you want to hear from well I gave Sorcia a couple of names as a representative and then the very police chief did testify in um gov ops so yeah I'm sure if I'm not sure if he's eager to come back or not right sounds like we're gonna we're not gonna do much with this we're gonna send it on I think so that's my hope but I'm not you know and um it's up to the committee how they want to proceed with it so that's why I'm raising it now so that we can be prepared if we need to be um I'm sorry I'm double tasking because I've got this appointment coming up too and I'm trying to deal with it sorry um do you want to uh check with Sorcia and uh see whether um it was uh what Shah who had spoken right who was just thinking will you talk with him and see whether he still wants to speak on it and and so that we can get it set up and get it set up quickly if we get the bill I'm sorry you're asking me or Sorcia asking you to work with Sorcia to figure that out so that we've got it all set anyway so if you want to be at 11 o'clock well we could I don't know for sure if we're even getting the bill that's that's part of the puzzle here things are happening awfully quickly and I just don't know um but if we could have it all set to go if we do get it we won't get it before 11 because we're not on the floor until two right um Robin and Sam and Peter thanks could you just remind me the number of that bill so we could look at it ahead of time if we wanted to um I think it's s124 124 I was going to guess 128 I would have been wrong um it's still there okay yeah s124 so uh bill you'll work with Sorcia so that we'll be ready if we do get it and if committee members could take a look at it um the redraft of it has the recommendation for uh fees or rates coming back to the legislature that that much of I'm sure of um Sam and Peter um I I guess I just want to say that I'm concerned about the just the setting of the fees that doesn't come back to the legislature at all that though so I'm sorry but I probably haven't been very clear um it's been rewritten so that they will come back to the legislature okay well that alleviate some of my concern yeah that was that was the concern I shared with Sarah um about our committee's discussion and she had her committee make that change okay great yeah I appreciate that I'm sorry I wasn't clear about it um who else did I have here Peter I'm okay thank you very much okay and the other bill um I've totally forgotten what it was oh I know there was a bill that we will get um which is coming out of general committee the senate version of the bill had uh tax credits um it was this that neighborhood downtown tax credit program um general committee has taken those out of the bill I said we didn't agree to do them you know we would definitely want to weigh in if if they were in the bill um so general committee has removed all the tax credit language it has to come into us because it's in the senate version of the bill so we'll get it no matter what again I'm hoping that we can turn it around really quickly um it won't have the version of it that general committee has worked on does not have any impact on revenue but um but the rules require that we look at it and I should have the name number of that film I'm not sure I do hold on it is h67 oh no that's a different one oh that one I need to bring up as well um now all I have here is is general committee's housing bill I don't have the number so maybe sorcia if you can find that for us and share it um the final one is h6784 um if you remember the ag committee um did a bill on current use that we took in the committee because it was current use we agreed with the ag um proposal this was back in I don't know February March February um it's now come back with it from the senate with some minor changes um I think we went over them briefly one of them is that um in order to be in current use you have to be in good standing on taxes um you remember that and then there was one other minor change um I what I'm hoping is that we're um either silent on the floor on it but ag committees say that they agree with the changes or if we speak that we'll um concur with what the senate um did so are there questions about that bill um that anyone has jim is that what your hand is up had a had a question on the on the tax credit um business and I can I finish the thought on the ag stuff first I'm sorry um did anyone have any concerns about the um h6784 the ag current use bill and the senate changes we're all good on them okay we got briefed on them a while back but I think we were fine okay good so I'll convey that to the speaker that we're good if we get called on we'll say we're fine with them um jim has yeah on on removal of the tax credits in the um general bill um I'd be curious to know what the background was that but I can certainly wait until we get the bill if we get the bill we will get the bill but the version of the bill that we get will not have tax credits in it yeah okay and just curious to know the background that's all thanks me too okay um good anything else sorry that was a lot of stuff madam chair yes I understand that we're also going to get uh h952 which contains burlington and barry charter changes burlington apparently involves money okay um so let's um let's reconvene I don't know if we really need to reconvene at 11 because the we won't have a floor session between now and 11 so nothing is going to happen that I'm aware of but if if if I'll be in communication with the speaker if it makes sense for us to meet at 11 you'll get a note from sorsha please just hold the time um but don't sign on unless you hear from sorsha okay okay thank you I'll see you all uh sometime later