Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you, welcome back everyone to the House Committee on General and Housing. We've been looking into housing data issues. What's the relationship between supply and price, and what are the underlying demographics, and we've invited our joint fiscal office to testify, and they brought Sal Sveda, is it Spada or Spades? I pronounced Sveda. And Ted Barnett is in the room. So why don't you, I'll tell you what, Sal, why don't you tell us your name for the record? Yeah, my

[Sal Spada (Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: name is Sal Spada and I'm an analyst in the Joint Fiscal Office.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, and Ted, why don't you tell us yours so that if you do pipe up.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Sure, temperament and breakfast box.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. So why don't we introduce ourselves to you? Debbie, you wanna? Debbie Dolgin, and I represent St. Johnsbury, Concord and Kirby.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Hi. Tom Charlton, Athens, Chester, Grafton, and Windham.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Joe Parsons, Scrouch and Topsal in Newbury.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Ashley Bartley, Fairfax, Georgia. And I'm Marc Mihaly, and I represent Caledonia and Plainfield and Marshfield. And do we have Hello. Who's there we go. Elizabeth. Elizabeth, you wanna introduce yourself?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Hello. I am representative Elizabeth Burrows, and I represent Windsor one, which is Heartland, West Windsor, Windsor. Hi, Ted. Hi, Sal.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I'm Mary Howard, and I represent Rutland City District 6. Gayle Pezzo, Chittenden 20, Holchester.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Alright. Take it away, Sal. Hey. Great, Flo. It's great

[Sal Spada (Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: to meet all of you. And so we'll be presenting information on both current data on Vermont's housing market, and then Ted will come in and present to the second half of the presentation about demographics data. So I'll just lead it off if it lets me go. And I'll be presenting more of sort of I'm an economist by training, so I'll be presenting some data from the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, as well as specific to Vermont and The US averages, and then relating it to the specific theoretical framework around understanding what moves supply and demand and prices in housing markets. So first, I'd like to show just some statistics on Vermont's statewide housing markets. These aren't specific to any particular region within the state, but these are just averages. So currently in the state, there are 343,000 housing units. And over the last five years, those have grown at around less than a percent per year. There are currently less than 3,000 building permits active. And in terms of how prices are growing, personal income, average per capita personal income in the state has grown at around 5% in the last year. And home sales have grown in the last year at a little over 8%. And currently, the home vacancy rate is at 0.5%. That's current homes that could be sold out of the total number of homes that are owned and are available for sale. Then the rental vacancy rate is currently higher at 3.7. And then The US national average thirty year fixed mortgage rate right now is sitting at 6.72%. So this is just to frame the current environment that Vermont is working in as I'm moving through this presentation, and I'll go more into detail into some of the statistics. So In terms of how the actual regions differ across the state from the total state averages, we have some information from the basic needs budget from 2024 that shows that housing costs across urban and rural areas, they differ across all different types of individuals and across different types of households as well. So you can see the left column here, which is urban, that is showing the projected per month housing costs for individuals and different households ranging from single person in a single bedroom apartment to two adults with two children and their own independent house, just showing that those costs, they higher when we're talking about urban areas, which is representing a lot of Burlington in there, and then Burrows representing a

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: lot of the states There seems to be an anomaly there. Number are you? I'm just looking at, for both urban and rural, the number for a single person is identical to the number for two adults and two children. Is that a misprint or an anomaly, or why is that?

[Sal Spada (Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: I didn't compile this report personally, so I don't want to make assumptions about the methodology that went into it. I'm not sure if Ted might have something more to say about that.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes, I've already identified myself. So one, what

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I would guess, I'll check-in with

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Pat who did work on the basic needs budget. My sense would be that because those two numbers are the same with two children, you could have them in the same bedroom, for example. So the housing cost for one and two children would be the same. The adult has a bedroom for a single parent and then four and two children can share the same room. But I'll confirm if that's what's going to that number. It's the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: single person in me. It's the smallest and the largest identical. I have a feeling there might be a misprint there, but anyway.

[Sal Spada (Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, yeah, we'll confirm that to make sure. Okay. So that's the frame sort of the difference in in how they're sort of different marker markets operating in the same state for for the same housing. And so here, what we have here is the number of housing units that are currently active in the state across time from the year 2010 to the year 2024. And on the same plot is building permits. You'll notice in this little table here that numbers are significantly different, but the scale of the graph is just changed to see how they they change in relation to each other. And so you can see here that building permits have increased over time, and units have increased over time, but permits have increased faster than units. So we know that there's a lag from the time that you are issued a permit to the time that you can actually build a house, and it's going to be available for for sale or for rental or whatever its purpose will be. So you can see that sort of lag in this graph. And then the gray bar behind just shows when there's a period of recession in the economy, and it's just showing national recessions, not specific to Vermont. And yes? Are these Oh, sorry, let

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: me go back. Are these certificate of occupancy permits?

[Sal Spada (Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Sorry, could you repeat that?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Are they certificate of occupancy permits?

[Sal Spada (Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Certificate of occupancy permits? These are just I don't know specifically. These are just data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, so I can't confirm necessarily.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: So they could be built in permits, like any kind of permit.

[Sal Spada (Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Oh, I see what you're asking. These permits specifically are for building housing units that are available for residential use. And I think call me out if that's not correct.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No, it's correct. So the numbers for number of permits referring to the number of units permitted. It's not like a certificate. The whole building is ready to be habitable. So part of the piece here is that there is a lag between when folks are getting permits. As you know, there's often a long lead time before they're actually converted into units that are coming online, so it's a bit of a leading indicator. But yeah, that number refers to the number of units that are within. And if you go further into the data, and I'm happy to provide you to the committee, it breaks it down into permits for one unit structure, two unit structures, and then five and above. So there's a little extra context for y'all, but I can

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: provide it.

[Sal Spada (Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Thank you. I

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: don't think anybody else would want to I was just wondering if you can, if the metric is correct, if it's one permit for what you're building, let's say 14 units versus two units.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Right, so the permit, the number in permits would be 14 units, which show up as 14 in Yep. That Okay.

[Sal Spada (Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Mhmm. Yeah. I did a great job explaining that. But

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Thank you.

[Sal Spada (Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: And so moving on slightly here, we have in addition here, this is showing the difference in in Vermont between home vacancy rates and rental vacancy rates. So this is just the home vacancy rate is the number of units that are available to buy over the number that are in total in the market that are currently owned and available to buy. So what you can see here is that the homeowner vacancy rate is consistently lower than the rental vacancy rate in the state, but both are trending down over time, over this period from 2000 until 2025. You can see that in 2000, the vacancy rate was 0.9% for the homeowners and 3.8% for the rental vacancy rate. And the rental has decreased to 3% and homeowner has decreased to 0.4% over that period. And next, can just compare again how home prices in the state have compared to changes in personal income. So both of these are indices produced by federal agencies. The first being the home price index, which is in the dark solid line, which is just a measure of average home sale prices across this entire period from 2008 to 2024. And I just may shown the growth rates on this graph. So this is showing how fast they're growing. So higher values are just showing that it's growing faster in a year than lower ones.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And Is that just mean, those inflation adjusted?

[Sal Spada (Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: I've I've just chosen to not include inflation adjustment in this. It just shows the growth of those index indices, which can be used for inflation adjustment in Europe. But you can see that home prices have the growth of those have increased over time. And in the current period, the home index price grew at 8.4%, whereas personal incomes grew in the last year at 1.43%. Is that per year? That's annual. Yeah, these are annual rates. And so that's just saying, yeah, 8.4% per year in the last year. It's 12.4 to 12.5. And then this graph just shows thirty year fixed mortgage rates in The US over time. So we know that thirty year fixed mortgage rates are influenced by a lot of different activities. Specifically, you could think of monetary policy set by the Federal Reserve, and they also fluctuate based on economic conditions. So in 2000, that average was 8% roughly, And in 2025, it's at 6.6%. But you can see that there is rising and falling depending on what policies are set in other areas of government as well as other economic conditions. And so that is just a little bit about the current state of the market in Vermont and The US right now. And I'd sort of like to switch gears a little bit to just show more about what drives supply and demand and prices for homes and sort of develop sort of a framework to think about how those prices can move and all the different factors that can drive them. So what I've done here is I've just included a supply and demand graph, where on the bottom axis that just shows the number of homes in a market. And on the vertical axis, it just shows the price of homes. And the demand curve there is just showing as the price that somebody would pay for specific homes. And this slide just shows the price that producers would produce them and sell them at. And when they meet in the middle, that is the equilibrium price that would be sold for a certain number of homes. So just the point of that is to just say that demand and supply, they both influence the price of a home in this theoretical framework. And the magnitude of the shifts in demand or supply will dictate the change in total price in the market. So when we have some sort of supplier demand effect that can change the market, we call that a supplier demand shock. And they can happen pretty rapidly, and that's how they're usually measured. But they can also be temporary or permanent. And temporary supply shocks you know, I've given a couple examples in the slides here. You could think of some portion of remote work during the COVID nineteen pandemic would be temporary because some of it might be offices that just needed to go remote but would have preferred to stay in office, and so they went back right afterwards. But some of that could have caused permit shifts as well, like remote work trends just consistently increasing. And that can change things like demographics or people moving around and just migration across states or things like that. And then an example of a permanent shift could be reoccurring natural disasters. For example, like floods may change people's willingness to live in certain areas or may change the actual ability to build housing units in certain areas. And so it can be it can be pretty challenging to determine whether a shock will be permanent or just temporary. And so a lot of lot of economists try to work through that, and it can be very challenging in the moment to determine how long a shock will persist across time. And this will be the last thing that I present here. So some more examples of these things that can shift either supply or demand to change the price of a home. Specifically, they differ across whether the shift is happening on the supply side or the demand side. So on the supply side, we know that builders, construction companies, they're subject to they actually have to fund these projects. So the cost of capital, which is just their financing costs, which is just a market interest rate for getting a loan or whatever they might have to do to get more money to be able to finance the whole project. And so that's similar to on the demand side mortgage interest rates, where you're seeing those being subject to market conditions in other markets, and government policy and Federal Reserve policy and all those other things that could move those things. And then government policy can also shift supply, zoning regulations from the state or federal level, any sort of thing that might make it easier or harder to build in a specific area. And then additional land availability, that's hard to change that. That can you know, just what's available to build that hasn't been built on already and that people would want to build on. Additionally, environmental factors on the supply side, you can think of things like, there might be a really nice view or something like that that would suppliers think they might be able to get a higher price for a home or access to skiing, something like that. And then finally, construction input costs. So labor, material, equipment, those prices are set in other markets, and they might just rapidly increase the price of building a home, for example. And that might be out of control of of the builders themselves. And then there's also a lot of things that shift demand as well. I just talked a little bit about mortgage rates, but also population demographics that Ted will get into more. But things like migration in and out of the state things like that. And then there's income, how much money people are actually making relative to the price of a home or rental or anything like that. So that's going to influence people's decisions to buy or rent significantly. And then additionally, just the economic growth opportunities around in the surrounding area. You can just think of what's the economy like near Burlington, or what's the economy like near Montpelier or any other town, And what are the available if you were to buy a home or rent in an area, what are the available jobs that you could actually get if you lived in that area? That's a big influence on buying. And then seasonality. We know that some parts of Vermont's economy are very seasonal. So people rent more over the wintertime in ski towns, for example, because they might only be able to work there during the ski season. So there's just these ebbs and flows throughout the year that are gonna influence demand in certain areas. Then And there's also preferences by consumers. So people might just prefer a house with three bedrooms and a nice view that overlooks Lake Champlain or something like that over one in a more rural part of the state. So those preferences are just gonna influence people's buying decisions. And then I've sort of looped into this expectations. So people's expectations about how well the economy is doing, how well the housing market is doing, are going to influence their decision to buy and rent as well, because they may become more skittish if they expect prices to increase or something like that, or they're tying overall economic growth to their individual selves. And lastly, insurance prices, which is correlated to environmental risks and factors. Is insurance going to increase in price for you in the future? Is it high already right now than anything else? So that's what I have. And then the next thing will just be Ted presenting his demographics, but I just hope I can give you some level of sort of understanding of what's moving all the different things. Questions for Sal.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you, Sal. Okay.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So I will identify myself for the record. And again, just in case, Barnett joined fiscal office. Yes, Sal, I think, highlighted all the different ways in which the housing markets in Vermont are fairly complicated. And we're going to dive into one right here of the demand shifters as population demographics. JFO annually publishes an issue brief on the population estimates for 2024. These issue briefs are generally more of a point in time type estimate. The census produces data as of July 1 in a given year. These are annual updates from the American Community Survey, and so they give you a chance to look at the trends and the different components of population trends. And so I'm gonna go into each of those pieces. First of all, very high level. The story of Vermont's population since the 2020 census has been really the story of two different pieces. First is right after the pandemic, we all know Vermont's population increased fairly substantially, especially for a small state. The base in 2020 was about 643,000, and the next year, it was over 647,000, so a jump of about 4,000 people, which is pretty large compared to anything we've seen certainly in the past at least decade and change. And then in 2022 and 2023, there were more modest increases, but still increases in Vermont's population as of July 1 in each of those years. But then starting in 2024, population started to decline and the decline was a little more modest. And then in 2025, there was a decline of about 1,800 people between 2024 and 2025. And so what that means is since the 2020 census, population the growth has not been all that large. The overall percentage increase between 2020 and 2025 is 0.2%, which translates to an average growth rate of just 0.04% per year. So the question here is, given these two different stories, what's going to happen for the rest of the decade? Don't have a crystal ball, but instead we're going to look at the different components of population change. And so this is showing there are two pieces. There's vital events, which are births and deaths, and then net migration. And those two pieces, looking more granularly, can help provide some insight on how things might change. And the main headline is

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: This was since 2020.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So there are two pieces here. The first row where it says Vermont is the change between 2024 and 2025. So there's the total population change of a little more than 1,800 and where is my mouse showing up? It is great. And then the second row here that says Vermont is the annual estimates, which is the difference between the census in 2020 and then 07/01/2025. And so they kind of tell similar but different stories. So first of all, the main piece is that in both between 2024 and 2025 and 2025, the natural change was negative, meaning that guests in those two periods outnumbered the number of births. And overall, the birth rate, and this is not a Vermont specific issue, is the birth rate has been declining over time. This is a national issue. And so that is a If there was no migration, Vermont's population would have decreased in both periods. The second piece is net migration, and there are two components. One is folks who are coming from other countries or leaving Vermont to go to other countries, so that's our international net migration. And then domestic net migration is folks moving from Vermont to other states or coming here. Yes, coming here from other states. And so in the post pandemic period, if you're looking for 2020 to 2025, both of those pieces really powered Vermont's growth, especially early on. The domestic migration piece was largely positive. We had folks coming from Massachusetts to New York, more urban areas moving to Vermont to lifestyle changes or recognizing that Vermont managed the pandemic relatively well. But in 2024 to 2025, that net domestic migration number was negative, meaning that folks were moving from Vermont to other states on net. And so the net migration number was negative, combined with a negative natural change number, meant that the population decreased. So a number of policies also have to comment on international migration. There are certainly federal policies that mean that this number is likely to stay subdued going forward. Yeah, so looking into the crystal ball, obviously can't predict how things are going to turn out. There are not a lot of signs for positivity, I would say, Vermont's demographics going forward. And then this graph is pulled from the demographics issue brief and there's a fun I don't know what happened to that font there. But the population by single year of age, so this is, we were looking at 2025 data in the two previous slides. Don't yet, the census has not published data for 07/01/2025 based on single year of age. So they published a dataset that shows how many people age zero, one, two, three, four, all the way through are in Vermont. And so that allows us to build graphs like this. So we're working from 2024 data. And this, the two lines show, first of all, the blue line is representative of 2020. So for each point that's showing, there are a little bit less than 6,000 people under the age of one. And then going forward, it calculates them for each single year of age. And so the blue line is 2020, the green line is 2024. And so it highlights a few key things about Vermont's demographic structure. First of all, you can see that the line for 2024 is below the line for 2020, the ages of zero to 17. This is reflecting the decrease in birth rates primarily. The second piece is the number of people who are in their early 30s to just shy of 50 in 2024 is higher than it was in 2020 in Vermont. The absolute number is higher based on this seems to be in migration from the pandemic. Many of the folks who are moving here were of that age demographic. And so a lot. So you could see there was a change in that age group in 2024. And so that number is higher than in 2020. And then the other key part of Vermont's demographics is the importance of the large number of baby boomers who live in the state. And so you could see the increase in 2020, it was the fifty five to sixty four age group. And as baby boomers age, that demographic structure, you see a move shift over to the right. That means folks are aging and Vermont's general population structure is aging. This would make sense four years into the future.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes, Jake. We count college students in

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: that 18 to 24. We do. That's the big spike that's what was coming for UPM. Yep.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Seems like we don't really retain any. You do it is a good question.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: If you were to connect both sides of that.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: You don't and so it's a question of you don't know whether this story is that you're not doing a great job of retaining college students or how many Vermonters who aren't going to college are necessarily staying. So it's part of the picture too. But it doesn't seem like it's not. You're right, it's not. Line is washing high. We bring in a bunch. Right, yeah. A lot of folks just, you know, if you see the population decrease, then yeah, you connected the line that you said, it's not substantially different. So we were talking about age structure. Vermont's population is older than The United States overall, so this is talking about the shares of population that fall into each age band. The green bar is Vermont. The gray bars are The US as a whole. And so The US has more the age structure in The US. Folks 18 represent 21%, 2021.5% of the overall US population, but only 17.4% of the Vermont population. So yes, Vermont or US's population structure is certainly younger. And then as you go forward, then the green bars in Vermont surpass those age structures in The United States. And so especially once you hit the 65 79 age group, that age band represents nearly 18% of Vermont's population, but only 14% of The US population overall. We were listening to the testimony with BHFA and appreciated the discussion about the number of households and household formation in Vermont. I want to emphasize, so I think there certainly has been a lot of debate about the nature of the housing crisis. Vermont's demographics news, certainly a population decline of 1,800 people creates tension. There are certainly housing targets. If the population is decreasing, are those targets still relevant? I think we did want to highlight here that the real key figure to look at is change in households. Households just want to have their own space, not share the residence with another household. And so even though the population decreased in '24 '25, the number of households increased. Though I will say the nature we've presented a lot of data from the US Census. It's always worth looking at the margin of error within census data. So they give you a specific point and they say the number of households is about 285,000, but it's plus or minus about 3,000. And so the margin of error is about 1%. So when you're seeing changes in households, it's helpful to keep in mind that the growth rate more recently has been in certainly that 1.6, 1.7 range. But given the margin of error, that point may not be there's a band on where the actual number of households could be. The second point is Vermont's housing stock is either the first or certainly up there in terms of its age in the country. And so units are being lost to decay and lactation. And so even if per month population was declining and number of households were to stay relatively level, you would still have to create housing to replace units that are being lost. And then second is this question of where are houses located. So I remember even before, so I moved to Vermont in 2019, and the conversation is that I was living in Rutland County at the time, but there was still a conversation about Chittenden County having a housing crisis. And then the demographics were much different than they are today. And so the story of where there's different demand, as I'll talk about, different markets in different corners of the state, and so different rates of demographic and population change in different corners of the state. And so yes, demographics is only one of the demand shifters, and it certainly depends on the market where they're located. And so here's our list of resources. Happy to answer any questions. Yes, and I've appreciated hearing all the testimony. Think this is certainly an interesting topic of thinking through the current status of the housing market and how different variables affect each of the general sense of what we're hearing and seeing on

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: the ground. Emilie, do you have any questions?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Have you had the opportunity to look at any of this data in other states, or do you just focus on Vermont?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: In terms of the demographic data in particular?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We do

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: look more out of curiosity. I think the state I pay more attention to is Maine because they have a very similar demographic structure to Vermont. I think they are continuing. They've diverged a little bit, whereas our domestic migration has started to cool a bit. Maine's is a little more robust. And so I think one of the questions, we update the demographics issue brief every summer. Domestic migration. Domestic migration, yep. And so one of the questions when looking in the summer and fall that I'm going to spend time investigating is seeing if there are any determinants of why there's that difference. But yeah, we do pay attention to other states, and particularly our regional neighbors.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: One of the contrary areas where we've heard different things is that an assertion that in a number of housing markets in The United States there's actually a surplus of housing.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: This is in Southern, I would say, Southern states, Texas and Florida, they're able to build in a different I'm from Florida, in full transparency, and when I go home, yes. It always gets a reaction saying that I'm from Florida. And the way there's different regulatory structures, there's certainly different I'm gonna try and hit as many of Sal's supply and demand shifters as I possibly can. Construction costs are different. Materials costs are different because Florida is more accessible to ports that can bring in Florida shipments of materials. And routinely, I grew up in an area that was very it's grown a lot, impacted certainly by the Great Recession and the housing prices. But a developer can go in and build a housing project that is thousands of units. It's just a different scale and the ground is perfectly flat. Are fewer constraints, I would say, in Florida to make changes in supply more quickly. In Vermont, we are seeing the number of permits has increased, as Sal said. There is a response in the market, but yeah, they're just able to move at different speeds. And so it does seem like there's certainly more supply. I don't know about an oversupply, but in the South, there's certainly been a stronger response to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: housing shortages. Any questions? Well thank you so much. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to come and testify. Of course, that's a great Both of you. Members of the committee, we do not have any other testimony scheduled this morning and I think we're in for a relatively warm floor this afternoon. Tomorrow, Mary, do we have anything scheduled at this point?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: we're here. Let's just talk about this for a minute. So when bills, if bills, our bills leave the Senate, then they come over to us, it generally takes a day, and they are assigned, on the day they arrive, back to our committee. Our choices are: we can concur, or we can fail to concur and request a conference. We always have the option of simply doing either and leave it on the wall and it dies. We can do that. But thank you gentlemen. But anyway, whatever we do, we need to take a straw poll. Then we get on the floor, and one of us, who's the reporter, gets up and says, you know, it's on the floor, and says that the committee, let's say, recommends concurrence by a straw poll of X, and then there's a vote on the floor, and either the House concurs or it doesn't. If we request a conference, then the speaker, after talking to me, assigns the conference members. You heard that yesterday, in fact. Okay, so what do we have? We have S-two 30, which is our labor bill. It has passed out of all its committees. Is it on the Senate floor? It is, but it is out of all committees. It has two amendments. One is an amendment that Labour has asked for, which has nothing to do with anything that was in the bill, which appears superficially to me to be somewhat harmless. And then the other is, they took out the portion of, remember we inserted non compete, they left in the medical, they took out the non exempt. So, it comes out, but now it's on the floor, see what happens. So, that's out there. Seven seventy two, the landlord tenant bill, is still in committee in economic development and they haven't acted yet. They didn't vote it out. So we just don't know what's going to happen. We have control of three twenty eight. Oh, seven seventy five. Where is seven seventy five? Was it voted out in committee? Oh, it says seven seventy five, which is our housing bill. It is their natural resources committee, having left economic development. The reason was do you remember that our when we had three twenty eight and it came over, it's sort of their parallel seven seventy five. There's a lot of overlap, but theirs included, their 03/28 included three provisions related to plan. We cut them out, gave them to environment, which did not add them in. The Senate has added them back into seven seventy five, and so it doesn't just leave economic development, it goes to Ann Watson's Natural Resources Committee, which is hearing them and I don't know what's gonna happen. But at any rate, seven seventy five at some point may come to us. Meanwhile, three twenty eight, which is our version, is out of ways and means, eleven zero, out of here, out of ways and means, assigned to appropriations, which may hear it today. Is it on their agenda? Tuesday. Tuesday, they'll hear it Tuesday, then it goes to the Senate, well, it comes to the floor, it goes to the Senate and the Senate concurs or asks for the conference. If the conference is too late, then it's dead. I mean, once we have an education bill and a yield bill and a few other basics, we're out of here, I think. So, we'll just have to see. So, there we are. And at the moment, so tomorrow we're holding time in case for some reason 02:30 comes to us, but we have nothing else on the agenda. Please watch your email, okay, or your text, and Miriam will keep you apprised, alright, because if something comes to us, we want to meet, boom, right away. Okay? Thank you everyone, anything anyone wants to.