 So this is Mike O'Grady with Legislative Council. As you remember, 863 was about amending the requirements for remittance of the unclaimed beverage container deposits, also known as the sheets, changing or eliminating really the requirement that the beverage manufacturer or distributor, that's the initial deposit initiator maintain a separate interest bearing account and deposit into that account. Every deposit collected within three business days of collecting the deposit, destructive interest bearing account requirement and with no account requirement, you don't need the three day provision. But the department of taxes wants to collect based on their model for collecting sales use and alcohol taxes, which requires a reporting and remittance by a certain day of the month. So you will see on page 19, lines 10 through 13 that the report that the initial deposit initiator makes is made to the secretary of natural resources and the commissioner of taxes beginning January 1, 2020. It's submitted on or before the 25th day of the calendar month, succeeding the quarter ending on the last day of March, June, September and December of each year. Then on page 20, that report is linked to the remittance. So on page 20, line nine and 10, on or before January 1, 2020, quarterly thereafter at the time a report is filed. So quarterly requirement, each deposit initiator shall remit for the commissioner of taxes and any banded beverage container deposits from the preceding quarter. So, okay, so then on page 21, there was a request by the one of the beverage associations to clarify the language about reimbursement by the commissioner when the beverage manufacturer and distributor has paid out more in deposits than they collected. So reimbursement paid by the commissioner to the deposit initiator shall not exceed the amount paid by the deposit initiator under subdivision one. Less amounts paid to the initiator pursuant to the subdivision in the previous four quarterly filings. So they wanted to reference the previous four quarterly filings instead of the 12 month period. Does that work for you? So in a 12 quarter five, someone says we have paid out more than we received. We have paid out more than we received. And so they can't get reimbursed more than they paid in the previous four quarterly filings. So they're drawing on the bounce improved for a higher quarter. They don't get to a windfall effectively. What was the windfall? Well, if they hadn't paid in as much as they are requesting the act in person. So on page 21, line 17, going on to page 22, there are three new subdivisions added. These all relate to the department of taxes, ability to enforce, collect, and hear disputes regarding their enforcement and collection. So page 21, line 17, all administrative provisions of 32 BSA chapter 151, which is the department of taxes enforcement authority, including those related to collection, enforcement, interest, and penalty charges, shall apply to the remittance of the defendant that would container deposits. Page 22, a deposit initiator has the ability to request a hearing from the commissioner of taxes for determination on a notice of deficiency, a partial denial of request for a date of an assessment. The hearing is subject to the APA requirements for contested case hearings. Then 30 days after determination, agreed deposit initiator may appeal to the commissioner of taxes, appeal determination by the commissioner of taxes to Washington Superior Court or the Superior Court of the county in which they are located. And then notwithstanding any appeal upon finding that a deposit initiator has failed to remit the full amount, the commissioner of taxes may treat any refund payment owed by the commissioner to a deposit initiator as if it were a payment received and may apply the payments in accordance with 32 BSA 31. So if somebody's got an income tax refund and they haven't paid their sheets, the commissioner can treat that refund as a payment of the sheets. It's kind of like the offset one which that's there. All right. Page 22, line 20E, the language about confidential business information of sales data remains the same. What is new is on page 23 going on to page 24. As I think most of you know, A&R has a default enforcement chapter and a default appeals chapter. And that enforcement chapter says that they get to enforce any provision of 10 BSA chapter 53 relating to beverage containers. But you just gave the department of taxes the ability to enforce the sheets for requirements. So you have to accept from A&R's authority that provisions, those provisions you're giving to DOT department of taxes. So A&R gets to take enforcement action under 10 BSA chapter 53 related to beverage containers provided that the secretary may not take action to enforce the provisions of section 1530 that are enforceable by the commissioner of taxes. Same type of language, page 23 on appeals except that those actual decisions of the commissioner of taxes under section 1530 are not appealable underneath A&R default appeals section. You're not going to be appealing misdetermination by the commissioner of taxes to the environmental court. The environmental court judges probably want nothing to do with that. I think you're right on that. So basically although by default A&R would normally have enforcement in this case because of the taxes you would need. It's about a collection of money. Right. So one other change that I will note and Luke has the rest at that after passage the title of the bill is an act relating to weatherization, building labeling and benchmarking of public utility commission proceeding and unclaimed beverage container. Nice, very cool. Rolls off the top. All right, who knows who's going to be up for the report. Thank you, so there was some discussion before you came in the room around the refund requesting a refund. So you want to say something about this question? Yes, yes, I would. On page 21, line four and five. I'm going to go ahead and read it out. I'm going to go ahead and read it out. I'm going to go ahead and read it out. I'm going to go ahead and read it out. On line four and five. There's a sentence. The reimbursement shall be calculated based on the previous four quarterly filings. And I agree with everything that Mr. O'Brady just said. This does. But in that every quarter, if there's over redemption, if we take more bottles in and we give deposits, we can apply for this refund. And I agree in subdivision B, lines 12 through 16, that you look back in the previous four quarterly filings to make sure that a depositor isn't getting the windfall that he discussed. What I think is confusing and different is the sentence it said in lines four and five that says the reimbursement shall be calculated based on the previous four quarterly filings. Because I think when you're in the quarter and you're looking at whether there's over redemption, you should just be looking in that quarter and only do you look back for the previous four quarterly filings when you're looking at the full year period. And so I'm wondering if lines that sentence needs to be struck. You're saying the reimbursement amount is calculated for the quarter that they're in. What year is it? The test is against how much money is spent in the previous four quarters. Exactly. Thank you. I think that's a good point. I would just ask if the Department of Taxes agrees with that. I've sent a email to Douglas. I have not yet heard from him because I want to cross that line. I think with the language on page 21, lines 12 through 16, we basically achieved the intent of that language on lines 4 and 5. I don't know what's goal. My understanding from the Department of Taxes is that we want to make sure that we are not looking back in that same quarter. We don't want it. We also need to be saying, oh, this quarter is more essential to it. Because that's kind of an administrative nightmare. We want to make sure it goes back. That's my understanding of that. But the language that says we want to calculate it based on the reimbursements based on their net balance in the current quarter, whether they're eligible for remediation. If I understand this, it's calculating the amount to be reversed to make the current quarter bit of math. The eligibility to get it is higher than what would be needed in the previous four quarters. So then as soon as though if you struck the sentence, you would have it solved. Okay. It's a great time for that. The way of resolving it is based on the previous four quarter requirements. You're right. Okay. So with that, we're going to have that edge coming back to us. Two. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I'm going to bring that show up. What's that? It has to be one of those variables. Mr. Mark, would you be able to make that change? Yes. It's a little... And I think we're asking you to make if there are any change to the pages one to 17 that weren't in what we've had before we finished up with the guess. We're looking for changes, right? There's a change. You don't want to go over it again? There's a change since 37,000 and the 37,000... No, it's okay. All right. Good morning. I'm Luke Mark from Legislative Council. I'm going to ask you about your assistances. Those are those three asterisks and then the words and another three asterisks that you have no legal significance that really meant to divide up this bill, which is very different parts to it. So the reader can say, all right, we're talking about weatherization. A couple of those ratted in. The pages one through 18, sections one through seven is the same language you looked at yesterday in that combined document. So the version that will have that sentence that we just put that struck just so we can go around something can we get a draft number on it? Do you want me to tell you that would be or do you want to vote now pending that change? Let's call it 2.1, which would be at the upper left hand corner. It's still be version one in the lower right hand corner. Given that a motion to vote out yes. So thank you. So the first motion to amend the bill. So any further discussion? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Please.