Assembly Standing Committee on Revenue and Taxation

Well, good afternoon everybody, and welcome to the second regular meeting of the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Tax. Before we take up bills on our agenda today, I want to remind everybody in the audience and Members of the public that the Committee is not accepting remote testimony. As always, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. Please make sure to submit letters at least one week prior to the Committee hearing in order for them to be reflected in the analysis.

I will also remind those in the hearing room and Members of the public that we have reinstituted our suspense file this year, bills with a fiscal impact of plus or -150,000 will not be eligible for a vote immediately after presentation. With that in mind, only one Bill on today's agenda, AB 559, will be eligible for a vote today. Additionally, AB 123 by Assembly Member Bains has been pulled from today's agenda by the author. It looks like we have a quorum.

Thank you, Assembly Member Petrie Norris. Ms. Highland, please call the roll. [Roll Call] We have a quorum. All right, we have a quorum. So we will begin by taking up AB 559 by Assembly Member Boerner Horvath. And again, this is the only Bill which will be having a vote today. Assembly Member, begin whenever you're ready.

AB 559 would extend the sunset date for the California Senior Legislature Voluntary Tax Contribution Fund to remain on state tax returns through the taxable year 2030. The existing sunset expires in the current 2023 taxable year. The California State Senior Legislature is a volunteer organization which advocates for priorities to enhance the quality of life for senior citizens by way of model legislation. Since 1983, the California Senior Legislature has been funded through voluntary contributions received with state income tax returns.

Currently, there are more than 20 voluntary contribution funds that allow taxpayers to donate money by checking one or more boxes on their state income tax returns. With a few exceptions, voluntary contribution funds remain on the state form until they are repealed by a sunset date. AB 559 would extend the sunset date from 2023 to 2030 to provide ongoing financial support to the California Senior Legislature, allowing our aging population to remain engaged and active in our legislative process. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

And I have here with me Senior Senator John Pointer, Chair of the Joint Rules Committee for the California Senior Legislature. The sponsors of this Bill.

Chairwoman Irwin and the Members of the Committee, thank you for the consideration of AB 559. I'd like to start by noting that the CSL was one of the original participants in the tax checkoff. In 1985, AB 1386 created the California Fund for Senior Citizens. The Fund was designed to conduct annual session and support ongoing activities continuously, and there was no minimum contribution required.

AB 559 ensures the CSL remains on the tax checkoff through 2030 and provides funding to support our efforts in advocating for seniors. The CSL is the legislative champion for the California Seniors with over 40 years of experience advocating for seniors. The legislation developed by the CSL Members impacts the lives of seniors across the state. During these four decades, over 200 bills have been signed into law.

Some examples include AB 643, Assembly Member Nazarian, Silver Alert, Madam Chair AB 20511 Assembly Member Irwin, skilled nursing facilities backup electrical supply, AB 2145, Assembly Member Davies, oral healthcare and skilled nursing facilities. Those are just a few. I could go on, but I'm sure for expedience here. In an environment where seniors are destined to become the largest population segment in the state, we need an organization with our history of advocating for seniors.

AB 559 provides CSL with the ability to continue this role. I urge you to vote for AB 559. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And we certainly appreciated your suggestion and the Bill that passed on backup generation for nursing homes. So always like your suggestions. We were looking at them this year, too. I urge everybody to look at the bills that those seniors come up with. They work very hard. Are there any other witnesses wishing to speak in support? Any witnesses in opposition? Questions, or comments from the Committee? So I think we had a motion by Assembly Member Grayson. Second by Assembly Member Wallace.

And just so we have... can you tell us what your legislative priority is this year? Priorities. A couple of them.

There are 10 legislative priorities we're working on. I'm going to list just a couple.

Sure, a couple.

One that jumps out immediately is an issue involving grandparents and grandchildren in guardianship and also adoption. There is also.

I'm sorry, you don't have to go through all of them, but I thought you might like to share a few. And the grandparents and adoption one we will certainly look at. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

All right. And the recommendation is passed. I have, again, a motion by Assembly Member Grayson and a second by Assembly Member Wallace. And the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Ms. Highland, can you please call the roll?

The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]. It's passed 10 to zero.

Congratulations. That Bill has passed 10 to zero.

Thank you.

All right, next up is file item two, AB 582 by Assembly Member Connolly. Mr. Connolly, whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Chair and Members, good afternoon. Today I'm proud to present AB 582, a tax credit to help our vulnerable seniors who are threatened by ever-increasing wildfires to safeguard their homes and protect their lives. I'd like to thank the Committee and staff for working with my office on this Bill, and I'm committed to working together on the issues raised in the Committee analysis. The increasing threat and destruction from wildfires as a result of climate change is one of the most significant challenges facing California today.

According to the CAL FIRE, there have been 23,711 fires with a cumulative 7,237,704 number of acres of land destroyed. In 2021, over $500 million worth of damages were caused from wildfires. As climate change continues to worsen, wildfire conditions are expected to last longer and be more active. Since 2018, there have been 145 fatalities and 40,257 structures destroyed due to wildfires in California. Social services are also strained as those who lose their homes often face long-term displacement or even homelessness.

California seniors are among the most vulnerable to wildfires. According to a 2019 UC Irvine study, the areas affected by fires have substantially higher numbers of seniors. A recent KQED and CalMatters investigation found that nearly 2 million older Californians live in areas where wild fire is a formidable threat. Seniors often have mobility and health issues, as we know, that make it incredibly difficult to evacuate quickly or at all when a wildfire starts to threaten their home.

Home hardening measures have been proven to save lives and spare communities from the worst of these aggressive fires. AB 582 creates a tax credit for 40% of home hardening costs incurred by a California senior who lives in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone for up to $400 per year. In order to encourage seniors to have their work done as soon as possible. This credit is eligible to be carried over for up to $2,000 spread over five years.

Expenses that qualify include work done for a class A fire-rated roof, fire-resistant vents, fire-resistant eaves, and the use on non-combustible materials in fences and gates. California should be doing all it can to help folks in high-risk areas protect themselves and their families from these deadly natural disasters. With me to testify today, and welcome is senior Senator John Pointer of the California Senior Legislature.

Senator, you may begin.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm here today to speak to you about a prevention approach designed to address the rising threat of wildfires in older Californians. I'm also speaking from personal experience. Living in Laguna Niguel, I was one of the individuals that came close to experiencing the fire. In fact, it came within 100 yards of my home. So I've got some personal experience, I guess, also have some personal skin in the game as well. Wildfires are increasing exponentially in the state.

Property destruction is occurring at alarming rates. In response to the threat. CAL FIRE recommends property owners take necessary preventive measures to prepare one's home to increase its likelihood of survival when wildfires strike. AB 582 proposes a tax credit for Californians living in high-risk areas. The Bill enables older Californians to take preventive actions to protect their property against fire damage, commonly referred to as hardening one's property. Studies have noted the importance older Californians place on remaining their homes.

This typically represents the largest asset they own and provides stability as well as affordability in their lives. There have been multiple news clips of older Californians being crushed by the devastation they have stained from wildfire damage. They may never recover from the loss of real and personal property and the devastating effect it has on their personal lives. AB 582 is a critical to keeping older Californians in their homes. Therefore, I ask for your vote on AB 582. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support?

We don't.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Vanessa Chavez with the California Association of Realtors in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Katrina Foley, County Supervisor for the County of Orange, District Five, representing Mr. Pointer, and we support as well.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. We were able to get an opposition letter in this weekend. We apologize. We're just finishing our positions on this Committee's numerous bills.

CTRA, the California Tax Reform Association, is in opposition to this measure for the numerous reasons outlined in the analysis. As this Committee knows, we are spacing a significant budget deficit and believe that these issues could be more narrowly addressed by a targeted grant program that benefits individuals who otherwise may not be able to afford to tend to these needs. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have questions or comments from the Committee? Assembly Member Petrie-Norris.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just wanted to pick up on a couple of comments that were made in the Committee analysis regarding the challenges around implementation given the lack of standard definitions in this space. Have you thought about those comments and thought about ways in which the Bill might be refined to address some of those concerns?

Yeah. Are there specific issues you're referencing? Because we're certainly open.

The Committee analysis, I think specifically notes, let's see, that the lack of specific definitions could create opportunities for confusion or other cases where credits are provided for expenses that do not actually improve fire resiliency.

Yeah. We're certainly willing to continue to work to alleviate any confusion. My understanding was one of the main issues that the analysis raised was just the issue around the income cap, why we set it at $125,000. I can talk about that a little bit if that would be helpful to the Committee. As was referenced, the goal of this Bill is to help low and middle-class seniors protect their homes.

If you look at the income tax for the middle-class tax refund that the state just implemented last year, that was $150,000. If you look at what qualifies as a medium individual and family income in Marin County as an example for affordable housing under HUD regulations, right now, family of four low income is $146,000, and for an individual, it's $100,000. So we tried to target this toward, I think, what would have a meaningful impact toward middle-class and lower-income seniors.

That having been said, we're certainly open to suggestions on a different number, so to speak, if that's the Committee's pleasure, as this continues to work through the process.

Great. So, yes, thanks, for explaining the income cap. And I don't have any immediate suggestions, but I think that the Bill might benefit from a little bit more specificity in terms of qualifying expenses, just to ensure clarity I think both for taxpayers as well as for the state and help everyone make sure that we're applying this credit to things that are, in fact, building fire resiliency and accomplishing the goal of the Bill and the sponsors.

Anybody else? No? I mean, kind of adding to that, if you have compliance requirements, we should make sure that that's not something that the Bill is going to subsidize. We shouldn't be subsidizing compliance. And obviously, as was mentioned, the budget situation is not great this year. This is an extremely important issue. I hope that you're looking at a budget request or if there are some issues going forward, if this Bill is held in appropriations, certainly a grant program, the next time is something to consider also. All right.

Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

All right. And then, without objection, this Bill will be referred to our suspense file. Thank you. Next up is file item three, AB 14 by Assemblymember Davies. Whenever you are ready.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, today I'm here to present AB 14. I first want to thank Committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure. I will be brief with my comments.

AB 14 is a simple measure to provide an additional income tax credit to help working taxpayers afford the expense of childcare. The Bill reduces state income tax an additional $500 for taxpayers that have childcare costs. Childcare costs are a major expense for families, with California ranked third in the nation for the cost of infant care. The average cost of infant care is $1,412 per month, and care for a four-year-old is expected to be $956 per month.

As the analysis correctly points to the Madam Chair, there are already existing state and federal credits geared towards childcare. I will commit to working with Committee as the Bill moves forward to ensure this credit does not interfere with existing credits or can be amended to ensure we expand eligibility opportunities for more Californians to have access to these funds. AB 14th is meant as a necessary piece to those credits to ensure all families can take advantage of state funding to help with childcare.

I think everyone can agree the more help we can give to families, especially during record inflation we have seen the last few years. It is worth the cause. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote when the appropriate time comes in the future hearings. Thank you very much.

All right, and is this your primary witness? No? Okay. Do we have any witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition?

Samantha Corbin, on behalf of the California Tax Reform Association. Unfortunately, in opposition to the measure as written. Thank you.

All right. Any questions from the Committee? I am not sure if this was in the analysis already, but this would be layering on a third tax credit after the federal and the state credit. Have you thought about just expanding the existing credit, or could you explain to me why we would create another completely separate program?

Expand eligibility.

What we want to do is be able to expand eligibility, it's not going on there today, just because of these other programs don't do that. We want to make sure that we are able to make sure we can serve all those that need it.

So is it expanding the income threshold then? Is that what you?

Yes, that would be the goal.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the Committee? Well, thank you very much, Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Without objection, this Bill will be referred to our suspense file.

Thank you. Have a great day.

Let's see, do we have anybody sitting in here? Okay, Ms. Petrie-Norris. So this is file item six by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. Whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And good afternoon, Members.

I am pleased to be presenting AB 294, which proposes a statewide continuation of several one time bills that the Legislature has passed in recent years to exempt Californians who receive a settlement related to a fire or other natural disaster from having to pay state tax on that settlement. Wildfires and other natural disasters, sadly continue to be a terrible reality for our state

and victims should not have to pay taxes on a settlement they receive when the intention of that settlement is to help them rebuild their lives. I am grateful for the Committee staff's work on the Bill and we do intend to amend the Bill to establish a five year sunset. I'm now pleased to be joined by our witnesses in support. We're joined by Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley on behalf of the Orange County Fire Authority, and by Ryan Spencer as well. Okay, Supervisor Foley, thank you.

Good afternoon again. I'm Katrina Foley. I'm the county supervisor representing district five, which a majority of the district I represent is in the severe fire mitigation hazard zone. I also now serve on the Orange County Fire Authority as a Director. And just last week, I was selected as the chair of the Ledge Committee, legislation and public affairs Committee. I'm honored to be here today to express the Orange County Fire Authority's support for AB 294 by Assembly Member Cottie Petrie Norris.

Orange County, especially district five, is home to several wildfires over the last several years in Laguna Beach and Laguna Neguel. Serious damage caused. And after going through the horrific experience of losing your home and your family being displaced, the last thing that a homeowner should have to endure is that they cannot use the funds in the settlement to rebuild their lives. So worrying about paying the tax on the settlement funds received from the entity responsible for the wildfire, it puts those homeowners at a severe detriment.

AB 294 exempts settlement amounts received by wildfire victims from gross income for personal and corporate tax purposes, and doing so ensures that the total amount of the settlement funds can help victims rebuild their lives. For these reasons, the Orange County Fire Authority supports AB 294 and we ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Chair Brian Spencer. On behalf of myself and my hometown community of Iguono. In late 2020, Iguono was devastated by a large wildfire known as the Zogfire. The Zogfire destroyed over 200 structures, including the one store in the town and its range, and killed four people, including an eight year old girl. After the disaster, an investigation was conducted to find its source, which ultimately ended in a financial settlement between the victims of the fire and Pacific gas and electric.

This monetary Ward was a small consolation, given what was lost, but it was indeed something to help these families rebuild and heal. However, recently they're notified that the money, which only exists because of alleged negligence, started the fire, was going to be taxed. Taxed as if it was a salary bonus, which is absurd. And I think the history of this committee shows that I'm not alone in this thinking.

Just last year, two bills were passed and eventually signed into law that provided tax exemption relief for victims of previous wildfires, AB 1249 and SB 1246. There's currently another Bill moving in the Senate specific to the Zogfire. And unfortunately, you'll likely see more and more bills in the years to come as wildfires and other disasters are prone to continue. AB 294 will eliminate the need for these independent measures and just put in statute once and for all, what we all know is right.

These settlements are not meant to be revenue generators. They're meant to help victims recover and to move forward. I'd like to personally thank the assemblywoman for taking this on when the time comes to vote for AB 9294. I appreciate your support. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Witnesses in opposition?

Samantha Corbin with the California Tax Reform Association. This issue is a little bit of a tweener for us in the past. We've generally not taken positions, at least in recent years, and appreciate the author's intent to take a sunset amendment. We do still have concerns about the breadth of the proposal at this time, and so I believe we'll probably still remain in opposition, but happy to have a conversation about that.

Thank you, Ms. Corbin. Yeah. It does strike me that we are constantly going through this with the fires we have, and I think at a certain point we might need to consider that we shouldn't have a legislator coming up individually for every fire. I think the committee is going to, I'm certainly going to recommend that this moves through. And we haven't had any issues in appropriations for this either.

Thank you.

Yes, all right. We'll certainly do that. And thank you for your comments, Madam Chair, and would just respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. All right.

So it seems a little silly to have to come every time when these people have their lives devastated. Are there any other questions from the comments from the Committee? All right, and then there are some. In the analysis, it does mention a few things that, some considerations that should be addressed.

So without objection, this Bill will be referred to our suspense. Thank you, Mary. Thank you very much. And we have assemblymember Fong up. Thank you. And that is file item 509 whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I would first like to thank the Chair and Committee staff for working with me on this critical issue. I will continue working with your staff on suggested amendments. There are 3.8 million Californians with student loan debt, which is nearly 10% of the state, and we all know that student loan debt is on the rise.

Student loan debt leaves less money in the pockets of Californians that have pursued higher education, and so it often precludes borrowers from contributing to personal savings and retirement plans and buying a home. Many employers, ranging from the healthcare industry to small businesses, contribute to employees' student loan repayments to help ease this growing burden. This benefit also assists employers to recruit and retain top talent for their businesses.

When Congress passed the CARES Act, it allowed employees to exclude up to $5,250 per year in employer student loan repayments from their federal income. Californians' student loan assistance from an employer is exempt from federal income but not exempt from state income. California is not in conformity with its federal law. While current law states... while current state law already allows a tax incentive of up to $5,250 in education assistance for an employer, this does not include student loan repayment assistance.

California has the opportunity to deliver meaningful student loan debt reduction through employers. This will help employers like hospitals, mental health facilities clinics, attract and retain needed workers to provide critical services in underserved communities. By exempting employer student loan assistance from an employee's taxable state income, AB 509 will boost the economy, increase consumer spending, and help more Californians plan for their financial future. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote and I'm joined by the California State Council of Society for Human Resource Management in support.

Good afternoon and thank you for having me here. Thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished Members. My name is Trisha Zulic. I'm from San Diego, California. I'm a certified HR professional and I'm here to talk to you about the impact, what I see when it comes to attraction and retention of employees, when it comes to student loan forgiveness. What I feel and hear from people that sit on the other side and interview with me is I need something.

I want to work in my passion versus going someplace else and quietly quitting. If we could have something like this where it forgives the personal income tax on this, it would greatly impact their lives. Like Assembly Wong said, Fong said, they're not saving money for themselves. They're not buying homes, they're not taking the next step. They're just dealing with the debt that they have. I think this Bill, AB 509 will help, and I ask for an Aye vote.

Very good. Do we have any other witnesses in support?

Thank you. Good afternoon. Preston Young from the California Chamber of Commerce here in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition?

Sample Corbin with the California Tax Reform Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Corbin, any comments from the Committee? Mr. Zbur.

I just have a question. Have you looked at how... so as I understand it, this would be if an employer has some kind of program that would sort of pay off student loan debt, which obviously is a really good thing. But have we analyzed, sort of, one, how much this would cost, and second, sort of what the income levels are for families that would have this debt forgiven?

As we sort of move into sort of a really tough budget period, the thing that I get concerned about and some of the concerns I had in some of the other bills that we heard this morning is that we've got to make some really tough choices.

And because there don't seem to be sort of means test on any of this stuff we could have, I don't sort of see a lot of teachers, a lot of people that work in fast food places with programs on student loan forgiveness. I mean, it tends to be folks that are in fairly affluent professions that have these kinds of programs.

So I'm just wondering if you sort of have any information about how this would break down in terms of who benefits and income levels of the recipients.

Well, certainly student loan debt assistance is something that we're grappling with in the budget. The Governor has a proposal as well. Certainly budgets reflect our priorities, and if this is a priority, then we need to invest those resources. We are working with the Committee on that type of fiscal analysis.

But this Bill does not prevent low-income Californians from benefiting from it, but it does exclude high-income earners. A student loan repayment program can be offered if it is found by the Franchise Tax Board, to not be discriminatory in favor of employees who are highly compensated. So there is existing state law on that, and that's defined by an employee owning more than 5% of the company or receives more than $150,000 in compensation, inclusive of salary, bonuses, and other benefits.

This requirement is also the same under current law for educational assistance and would remain the same under this Bill. In 2016, we looked at the numbers. The average income of those who used Section 127 benefits was 59,517. That's $473 above the nation's annual wage for full-time, year-round employees during that time. So, therefore, a student loan repayment program like this would exclude about 10% of income earners in California.

By comparison, the family income and asset ceiling for the middle-class scholarship, which provides scholarships to attend a UC, a CSU, or a community college, is $217,000 for dependent students. So under this program, the average award is approximately $2,000 a year for over two years. So we're trying to conform not only with federal law, but the existing programs that exist for student assistance.

Yeah, I guess just one follow-up. I just like to see more information on it.

But when we're doing sort of student loan tax relief, and we're sort of doing it through the budget and estate program, we sort of can estimate sort of who's benefiting. This is something where the benefits are determined by the employers. And if employers, if these kinds of programs are weighted in favor of sort of more affluent folks, then I worry that we're end up using budget resources in ways that are the most helpful for vulnerable communities. So that's the concern I have.

I want to let my witness also comment as well.

I just want to say, as an HR professional here in California, when you say the service industry or fast food restaurants, but they can use it as a tool to attract and retain, we're having problems hiring in the state and retaining good people, and this could be a tool that we HR professionals can deploy to help in those industries. I think the opportunity needs to be there to be able to utilize it as a tool. And so I agree.

Section 127 gives us some of the stats that we're looking for, but I think we don't want our hands held, to not be able to use it as a tool at any type of industry in the state

And we certainly wouldn't preclude any of those industries to take part in this. I mean, those individuals or those businesses that do employ, whether it's in the fast food space or the retail space, we obviously want them to be able to offer student loan repayment programs, too, to their employees as well. So we don't exclude anyone in the low-income space. We certainly, because of the existing law, exclude those who are on the high-end side.

And I'm not saying that you're excluding that. That's not the concern of it. I think the concern I have is what is the actual effect of these programs. I mean, when the programs that come about as a result of this, are they going to be, I would like to see if there is data existing sort of. Where are these programs currently in place and sort of at what income levels are they in place at? And that would just be helpful for me.

And we'd be happily work with the Chair and you as well to fine-tune those. I mean, workforce shortages are everywhere, and so we're trying to provide a little bit of assistance to the employer side to provide that assistance.

All right, one question. Can you explain your rationale behind authorizing this bill's exclusion for 10 years rather than conforming with the federal standard?

We're happy to conform with the federal standard. That's something that we're willing to work with the Committee on as well.

All right. Any other questions? Comments? Would you like to close, Mr. Fong?

When the time is appropriate, we'd love to have this moved Bill move forward.

All right. Without objection, this Bill will be referred to our suspense file and our last bill up. Thank you very much, Mr. Fong. Our last Bill up is AB 778.

Assembly Member Ta.

Thank you, Madam chair and all Members. I'm here for AB 778. AB 778 will exam start up small businesses from the minimum of $800 Franchise Tax until the business had passed. Frost received $20,000 in a single taxable year. For many Californians, starting a small business is the best part to achieving the American dream. For many immigrants and underserved California, starting a small business is only a viable path to reaching the middle class.

The $800 minimum tax is a strong endurance to start a small business. And for many, it is the difference between success or value or even trend at all. We cannot leave people out of poverty and our policies are systematically keeping them there. So AB 778 would allow new businesses to become viable and ultimately pay a lot more in taxes. More importantly, this Bill will remove policies that continue to keeping vulnerable California stuck in a cycle of poverty.

I ask for your aye vote when the time comes to support this important bill.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ta, do you have any witnesses?

I don't have any witnesses now.

All right, so other witnesses in the room in support. I see the chamber walking up.

Thank you very much. Preston Young, California Chamber of Commerce here in support.

Witnesses in opposition.

Samantha Corbin with the California Tax Reformer Association in opposition.

All right, thank you. Questions or comments from the Committee? All right, Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yeah, I would like to ask for the aye vote when the time comes.

All right. Thank you so much. And without objection, this Bill will be referred to our suspense file. So I think everybody has voted except for Assemblymember Zbur on item number one. AB 559.

Zbur aye.

All right. Like to thank all the Committee Members for being here right on time and this meeting is adjourned.