Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We are live.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: This is Senate Appropriations. It's January 21. We're going through budget adjustment act requests. We have legislative operations in today, legislative council, and about the things that they're making there. So I'll let you introduce yourself for the record and tell us the change that we're looking at.

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. Will do. So hello, committee. You all. For the record, Brenda Herrera, Director and Chief Counsel of Legislative Gospel, here to talk to you about 10 pages of statutory changes that are being proposed to be included in the budget adjustment bill this session. I'm here. I'm gonna start I'm gonna back up and start a little bit at the beginning, but I promise I'm not gonna take a whole bunch of time.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's 10 pages, but it's one sheet.

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's pages, I'm proposing not really talking to you about what's in those. It's not going through the language specifically, but rather just giving you an overview of why it's there, what it does, and what would the next treat. So, is the result of some staff organizational changes that your staff directors worked on over the summer and brought the proposal to the Joint Legislative Management Committee, which is a committee that oversees legislative staff and is also specifically tasked with doing any reallocations of staff, like approving reallocations of existing staff positions, approving new staff positions, etcetera. So, your joint legislative management committee the vote on a proposal from the directors, and that proposal is essentially what you see in these 10 pages of legislation. So, the history of this, About five years ago, some of you might remember, the General Assembly staff were organized into five distinct offices, and those included the House Clerk and Senate Secretary, the Sergeant at Arms, Legislative Counsel, and Joint Physical. At that time, the legislative council encompassed your legal staff, your IT services staff, your committee services staff, and your operations staff, so it housed a whole bunch under that legislative council umbrella. In 2020, you underwent a restructuring initiative that separated IT out into its own distinct office, and then it separated committee services and operations staff into its own distinct office, which was called the Office of Legislative Operations, and a new director position was established to oversee the operations work and the operations staff. So, just prior to last session, the 2025 session, you might remember that Mike Front, former director of legislative operations, departed for another position. And given the timing of that departure, your staff director sort of came together and decided timing was not right to conduct immediate search, and instead, we transferred the remaining operations staff to the supervision of Scott Moore, who you will speak to next, on an interim basis, which would give your staff time to sort of analyze whether we could absorb rest of the operations staff, so you didn't have to hire another director positions. And so, essentially, we collaborated over the summer and determined that we could absorb those staffs, So, the operations unit, which formerly consisted of that director position, and three full time supporting staff members, also all during session, have been transferred to the office of legislative council, and the fiscal support responsibilities that legislative operation provided before have been transferred to the joint fiscal office. So, this change that you see in the legislative language before you has been operational and in effect for about nine months. We have sort of understood this change halfway through the last meeting, and we have been operating this way since then. So, we brought this proposal to the Joint Legislative Management Committee, gave it a formal proposal, Joint Legislative Management Committee voted on it, and directed that we put together the legislative language that would carry out this new organizational structure for the operations duties, and present it as a proposal for the budget adjustment bill to the appropriations committees. That is what you see before you in those 10 pages of legal language. I am more than happy to go through the language itself quickly, or not so quickly, however you would like me to do it. But I can summarize overall by saying what it does. It repeals the chapter in title two, the legislature title that created the Office of Legislative Operations, and it reallocates the duties that were formerly assigned to legislative operations, to legislative council, to get a vote where appropriate.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Are we going back to the way it was in the team except for IT?

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's exactly right. Essentially, we're going back to a six office model. Rather than a five office model, which was the pre 2000 model, we are going to a six office model, where legislative council encompasses community services and administrative responsibilities. And it's a little bit new because JFO now have one additional staff person, one and a half, and also a piece of the administrative responsibilities, which is the expense reporting thing that are all very important for your.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And IT is still separate?

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And IT remains its own office. Is that

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: correct? Yes.

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you started at the five office model, you went to a seven office model, and now you're going to a six office

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: model. And there's no budget for transportation.

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No significant budget implication, but Scott is here to talk more about that.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Any questions for the director of legislative council? Yes, Senator Watson.

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. So, when it was done, how how is it arranged? Was

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: just so

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it was so pre 2000, pre voter restructuring created the office of legislative operation. It was the house clerk and senate secretary and sergeant in arms, and then just two, the two other chat outs, are JFO and legislative council. So, council had oversight over IT, committee services, and operations. No. Recalling that you said that, you just So thank you. Yeah. And then one further question, which is that so this language that we have in our agenda today. So this this is potential language that would be baked into the VA.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The house is moving it into the VA. Oh, it is.

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Super interesting.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We could have waited till the bell came over, but we'll be prepared.

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a good chunk of the bill.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I heard you double decided to be a I

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't think that's quite true. Okay. I am happy to go see the language anytime.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It looks like you're just changing wherever it's at.

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's quite It's quite straightforward. Straightforward. There are a couple of, frankly, more specific duties that are reallocated to legislative counsel over to jail. And yes. But that is primarily what it says.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Thanks. Scott, if you had a testimony you wanted to provide on this one. Good afternoon. I'm over here at the fiscal office.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: To answer your question, Mr. Chair, about the budget implications, if you look in the budget passed last year, the legislative budget, we have all of the the clerk of the senate and everybody else, it was $26,044,703. After we make this change, the total budget will be $26,044,703. Right. So effectively, all we're doing is send this memo that's having your community page. We're taking $837,000 out of the legislative branch, we are getting some of that through JFO and some of that through the legislature. So that really is net zero. There's nothing that changes in terms of dollars. It's just a matter of having the money to follow the people so we can pay the people for people

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: who earn different business units as

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: the type of offer. Is that the same number of physicians? Did you change that number? No. Same number would be the It's literally just, for instance, all the committee assistants that were being paid by this business unit, now they're being paid by that business unit, And we wanna make sure that the money flows over that new debt ID to make sure there's money to pay them by the end of the session. So like with the with with that position that's gone, but basically the position was just recreated under equity title? Correct. And with that that new position I'm sorry. That same position ID number is still in the legislative budget. We haven't removed it. We're looking at it basically to say, at the end of this session, how did it go? And if we need to hire another person to help out the council, JFLO, or other different things, we have that position number already. It would not be a direct position, it's it's easy to keep that It's in the budget. You're adding there as a vacancy station. You have it in there. Correct. In the FY '27 budget, we had the total dollar amount. So there's less budget impact because we're not funding the full direct position. You're hired, you're going to have less responsibilities, so it will be a lower cost. Exactly. Exactly. Thank you. Any questions? Yes, nurse. Yeah. Scott, just a quick one. I know, a year or so ago, I had conversations. And are you happy with the way the system is set up now or is it in reference to what you folks do and what vision does. Is this something you like to slide one way or the other? Can attest to the fact that now that I'm in charge of making sure that all the legislators have their salary and their expenses, I am one of the most popular people in the vote. But I think some of that, I will defer a little bit to Catherine, my boss. By the end of the session, we're hoping that my picking up a lot of these expenses, all those other things are not affecting the office's ability to do the fiscal notes or the other fiscal responsibilities that I had two sections of it. So far this session, I feel like I have more bandwidth than the last session, in part because you did ship a lot of the responsibility. And the department took a lot, and JFO's taking a smaller part. Would we need someone? I don't know. So if we needed to have a position right now, things feel comfortable, but it's early. I think you're to bang up your ass, thanks. Thanks, sir. And that's not just because you approve business.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Any other questions? Alright. Thank you. You're straightforward. Thanks, Bob. Alright. Tim, you like the one?

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: Thank you.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'm

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: Doug in from the state treasurer's office, director of the Vermont Retirement Systems. With me today is Jeremiah Brewer. He's our chief financial officer. And Ivan Shun, she's our new legislative intern who just started this week. She's here helping us in this eight house in session. I just tried to join the Zoom meeting, and I have a slide presentation that I can use to help him present what's going on today.

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hey. I don't have anybody in my Zoom room, so let me resend you the link just in case there is a little bit something happening.

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: Bottom line, we are ceding $3,000,000 in the BAA to fund the, teachers' pension costs. Those that request is coming because our federal grant assumptions, for what we would receive this year are turning out to have been a little too high. I think everyone knows what's happening at the federal level that, grant fund grant funding, especially in the education space, is coming down. And so we're having to reborn into that reality. And what I was hoping to do today and join now, let's just walk you through what that federal grant assessment is and how it works to offset the state teachers' pension costs and then the reason for the ask, if that makes sense. So just pull up. And I am. So talking about the federal grant assessment, what is it? This was put in place in 2016 and put the statutory reference in there. It's basically a charge against federal grant where that grant funds the teacher's salary. So if a teacher's in the school and they're being funded by a federal grant, which is for ease of reference instead of making a $100,000, in the past, before 2016, there would be no pension costs funded under that program, so the safety goes on. So the legislature put this assessment in place to help offset the cost of funding our pension system. And so what we do is each year, Jeremiah's team, they set the rate that is gonna be applied to a teacher's salary. So in '26, that rate's 25.47%. So if that teacher's making $100,000 coming from a federal grant, there's an extra 25,000 that will also come from indirect rate, lots of federal grants. Exactly. And so school districts pay that into our office, but the whole system is on lag because we need to have information about what that teacher was actually paid. They report quarterly into our system. So we have information at the end of the first quarter in October. And then once we have information about what teachers were actually paid, Jeremiah's team can then start billing schools, and then school districts start remitting those costs. So what we have present, we're just getting the first quarter receipts from fiscal twenty six. And when we were setting this rate, it was way back in, you know, lead up to the budget in the in the fallwinter of last year. That's why we're in this place, because we have we have a whole lag in the system, and so we're reacting to what's going on in the past. A little more background on how this fits into funding. So just a reminder, the state pays the employer costs for the teacher system. The amount that the actuaries tell us that is needed for the current year has two parts. It has the normal cost. That's basically the cost to fund this year's benefit, and it has the unfunded liability payment. And that's the annual cost that you have to pay to pay down our legacy unfunded liability. The FTA offsets those two amounts in proportion. So if if the normal cost is 20% of the total aid end, then about 20% of the FTA revenues go to that, and the balance goes to the unfunded liability. You'll recall that part of act one fourteen, the pension reform legislation a couple years ago, there's a third payment going into the pension systems. That's what we refer to as the plus payment. This year and until the systems are 90% funded, that will be that's $15,000,000 above the not impacted by the debt. That kinda stand outside the actuarially determined amount that has to go into this.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And the other thing the other deducting, is it all in payroll, or does it The state system. Yeah. Or is it paid in a chunk, or it's just, like, part

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: of payroll? For the teacher system, it gets paid in a chunk. The the state makes that payment early in the fiscal year. But then it makes less than what's needed, and the federal grants come in throughout the year to make for state employees, it's just not payroll. It's payroll. Yeah. There's the percentage of payroll. I think this year, might be 28, twenty twenty, and that amount just it's applied to biweekly payroll. So this is the f y '26 total aid in there. It's 212,750,000.00. And the two parts that I talked about, you know, $41.04 is the ongoing cost, which is spot on this year's benefit. 171 is the legacy part that we're we're looking to have fully paid down by 2038, though. We're looking at a funding task force to evaluate that funding policy, and we'll be talking too about that,

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: you know, our treasurer's on this bill at another point.

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: So then what we have there is the two components of how we get to that $2.12 7,000,000. We have the FTA amounts, that's what we were estimating a year ago, over a year ago, to be $13,400,000 and the balance is picked up by the state. And I just put the references to the big bills so we can have them. And then this is really the chart that I think is important here. If you look at our projections, historically conservative, they that's the green lines going out. And then particularly when you see, you know, '22 through '24, I mean, it's a bigger time period. Folks remember all the the federal funds put in the schools during that period. And so so revenues really outpaced our projections. And just as the revenues were falling off, our projections kinda caught up with that higher reality, and now we're having a pivot. So in the '27 budget that that you'll be taking out, our projection is much instead of 13.375, that's eight. But for this year, there's a concern.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: There's some back and forth with the budget office. So we we provide so we we do a projection of the provider number. And then, you know, kind of like with everything that we present present to the governor, they opine and decide to, by the way, what they're going to present, and the governor recommend that is informed by the budget submission from the president's office. Okay. Thank you.

[Jeremiah Brewer (Chief Financial Officer, State Treasurer’s Office)]: And from the record, Again, Jeremiah Breer, I'm the chief financial officer of State Treasury.

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: So Jeremy and team flagged this issue last spring at the time of the budget when we first started seeing we started seeing FY '25 FGA revenues. You know, we were a couple quarters in at that point in the budget and kind of saw them starting to fall precipitously. Came over to legislature to flag the issue, and you folks put a $3,800,000 reserve to backfill any amounts needed in fiscal twenty five and '26. Fortunately, no additional funds were needed in fiscal twenty five, so we still have that full $3,800,000 in reserve for this purpose. But the revenue projection, we've revised down again from where we were before. And so we're currently thinking it might we're we're thinking it might be 6,500,000.0, but Jeremiah can attest to not having all of quarter one in. We are admittedly at a very early stage here.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So at this point, you still want us to order one of the state fiscal year? We have correct. We have partial. Is that normal or is this something? That is quite typical. Think there are 54 entities and I think we have 30 something of them. We have a plurality of the entities they're reporting. It also is limited data because the first quarter is not a full quarter. So the July, August, and September obviously, but the schools start in late August. Yeah, but that lag is typical and it's due to the fact that, you know, we have to close the systems on our end, and then we have to get the bills out in the meeting to report back. And to be frank, there is perhaps some lag in just the way that the districts, you know, report to us. So we have

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: a limited sample size right now, but the issue is presenting in that limited sample size, and we wanted to raise it to you as soon as possible in the Budget Adjustment Act. So that's why we're requesting the additional $3,000,000. And as I mentioned before, the the projection for f one twenty seven that's currently in the budget is $50,000,000. We need to watch that. So it's it's something that we will be monitoring and apprising you of as the session develops. I just wanted to explain it. Worked with JFO and have some recommended language for your consideration. What this does is build on the model that that this body used in the they built last year to add that additional $3,000,000.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: As far as you know, this language in your proposing, it's going in the house, putting it in the house version of

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: the We we made this presentation last week to house

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: appropriations. And you book this as a reserve that that was actually kept on the books because then you could use it or not use it depending on It's it's an appropriation. And I think we have language so that the appropriation carries forward indefinitely. And then we will only use the amount of money that is necessary, which is why we got a 3,800,000.0 last year and then we ended up not having to use any of that. So we have that, and then we need to add 3,000,000 to that pot. We're not really creating a special bond reserve. No. It's a it's a it's like essentially a one time appropriation that doesn't make fire. It just rollers. And so you have

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: to carry forward by the government. Okay. And I think some of the reason is if you were to just appropriate it into the pension funds, you can't take it back out at that point. So I think what this is doing is to make sure that it's there if needed, but not there if not needed. Okay. And finally, I will be remiss if I didn't point out to mister Roop's fiscal note or issue brief, I think it's called, on how this system works.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: He's got

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: a great description in the link here, so I would commend it to your attention if you have any other questions on federal grants assistance. Okay.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Maybe we could add that to our committee page.

[Brenda Herrera (Director and Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, definitely.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Under this button, yes, Sarah Watson?

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: Yes, okay, so on the graph, it's, I've got it already. With the orange and green bars, so you had mentioned that the well, actually, thing that I'm not clear on is this is the federal grant assessment. So, this federal grant is, this is money coming into us. And I guess I am wondering about the, comparing that with the slide where you have the boxes for the normal cost. I guess what I'm saying is we're projecting $8,000,000 for '27, and so, that's less than even what is projected for 2025 or '26. And so, where where does the difference come from? Does that make sense?

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: So, for '26 right now, we're projecting 6.5, and that's based on that's based on what we're seeing so far.

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: Okay.

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: We budgeted for it. We budgeted for in '26, we budgeted 13.375. We're now thinking it's gonna be basically half of that. So and so that's where we are for this year. Mhmm. For next year, you know, I think there's some amount of inflation that's going into the $8,000,000. I think we had a robust discussion in the office about what the projection should be. But knowing that we began talking with you about this year, I think we were comfortable and in conversations with the administration landing on '8. And so there's there's some amount of art to this. Mhmm. You know, it's a shifting environment at the federal level, so you're also trying to predict Sure. What's happening.

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: Well, and is that is that 8,000,000 the theory we we got that. Is that used effectively, like, immediately? Is that sort of, like, in and out the door? Or or is that going to pay down?

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: That's coming in to satisfy the annual ADAC requirement. Okay. And so but from a practical standpoint, the money we get from the legislature, so that $1.99 Mhmm. That comes in right away in a big one big loss. Okay. Right? That's a big payment right away in the year. But then the that 8,000,000 or the 13.375 in this example trickles in starting around this time. And it's it actually still comes in after the after the end of the fiscal year. We're still catching down the two ways. So we can't bill it until we know what's actually charged against a grant at a school level. So that's why there's this whole lag that forces it to come in after the fact. But the purpose of it is always to meet that that two twelve in the leftmost box. Right. That's the amount the actuaries telling us we need to

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: To meet to fund the pensions on the in a way that's consistent with state statute.

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: And so if I'm understanding correctly, so if that number continues to go down, then we're just gonna have to make that up with the state payment.

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: Exactly.

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: Is that okay?

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: And it splits between the ED fund and general fund.

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: Right. And the the ADEC amount does well, I may does that that shifts over time, or is that

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: the ADEC shifts every year. If at we the fiscal year ends, and and then our actuaries get all the data, demographic, and financial from the fiscal year, and they revalue our system, our annual evaluation. And in that valuation, that's where, these two numbers are developed. Mhmm. One of the, I think, really encouraging signs from this year on the pension side is that, you know, where those amounts used to go up substantially every year, it was pretty much at inflation. Mhmm. I think the teacher's system was maybe three six or 37% over last year, and the state system was maybe two six, 160%. So so on hold on the pension side Mhmm. You know, those costs are are pretty much out of inflation. So that's pretty flat. The retired health care side, as with everything in health care, it's a different subject.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yes. When you say our actuaries, those are contractors, actually.

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: They are. Yes. The system the boards of the retirement systems retain a a consulting firm. Consulting is who it is right now, and they're the ones that perform it. We don't have any state employed actuaries. And what

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: did we do in '15? Just like all this federal money, they just allowed it to go all towards salary, and we just paid the the retirement benefit.

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: Was before my time. I imagine it kinda caught up what we're doing on the state side because, you know, we use you know, for a lot of our state employees if their transportation got in or something, therefore, we're gonna use some of those funds to help fund the total ADAC on the state side. Right. So I imagine there's some amount of over here that's over here too. Okay.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Alright. Well, I really expect we will see this in the budget adjustment. And I have you talked to the administration? I like, we'll hear from them, but I assume they're supportive of this. They're not. We've made them aware of of the request. Here, go on first.

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: It's okay.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Send

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: everyone. One more question. So in the language that you have in terms of carrying it forward, more or less indefinitely, you're just thinking about the end. You know, we let's say everything goes ideally, and we get to 2038, we're about to pay it off. Does the need for that reserve remain, or does the need for can could we would you use that to, like, you know, pay pay the remaining

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right.

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: Does that make

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: sense? This money is only used if at the end of the year when we're closing out, we realize that the federal grants amount has not come in as expected. That's the only reason. Otherwise, it can be used and redirected at at this body's level. It's only when you put it into the pension funds specifically that you limit that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: Okay. So this reserve doesn't live somehow beside that pension?

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: No. The reserve actually goes to the secretary

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: of the agency of administration. Okay. On a related point, this dynamic where we have we're setting a budget and then we're doing that ahead of time and we don't have the data and then we need the right amount of money to make the ADAC. This will continue into the future. Every year we're gonna have to have this discussion where we potentially need to set aside some money to make sure that we have enough to fill any back from the federal grants of funds.

[Doug (Director, Vermont Retirement Systems, State Treasurer’s Office)]: And that's not necessarily a bad thing in the past. We were very conservative projections, and so we were overfund. And that's a good thing for the pension funding, but it's also funds going to place if somebody's gonna go to someone else. So I think this kinda ties it more closely. Okay. So it's not necessarily a bad thing to have that. Okay.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Any other questions? Looks like that was pretty straightforward. Thanks for your time. Great. Thank I hate to leave for sure. Okay. And then we won't take it personal. She comes by. Okay. She was a safe I have sick.