A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Senate | March 3, 2015 | Committee Room | Senate Finance Committee

Full MP3 Audio File

Ladies and gentlemen, the meeting will come to order. Welcome to 544 again, and as we get started… thank you, Senator Rucho. As we get started, we will recognize our Sergeant-at-Arms staff, ?? and Donald Blake. Welcome and thank you for all you do. You may need to maintain order today; we do have a spicy agenda. And our pages are Joshua Core from Havelock – Joshua, welcome, with Senator Sanderson; Micaylah Robinett from Pinetops, Senator Brent Jackson. Right? Good. How far is Pinetops from Autryville? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is it? Is it in hollering distance? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you holler real loud. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Josh Rogers from Jamestown, Senator Wade. Josh, welcome. This is another program on information. I hope that the committee will be as engaged as you were in the last meeting; there’s a lot of good information here. Staff will present, and as we finish each section, we will entertain questions or accept questions, and please ask them because we want everyone to know what’s going on so we can make some good informed decisions moving forward in this session. So with that, again, welcome, and welcome to Mr. Ettefagh. We will have you start the presentation on economic development in North Carolina. Aubrey, are you just… you’re going to maintain your seat and just answer when time comes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. That’s my plan, if that’s alright with you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. Good to know. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good afternoon. My name is Dan Ettefagh with the Bill Drafting Division, and today we’re going to finish the discussion that we started last week regarding the economic development incentive funds program of the state. I want to quickly recap – very quickly recap – the first program we covered, JDIG, and then we’ll move into the four other programs. So as we discussed last week, the JDIG program is an incentive for businesses to create new jobs in the state where the incentive amount is equal to 10 to 75% of the withholdings of the created eligible positions. JDIG liability has a calendar year cap of $15,000,000 per year with an agreement term of no more than 12 years. For projects located in tier 2 and tier 3 areas, 15% or 25% respectively is diverted away from the incentive paid to the business and put into the utility account, which is used for utility infrastructure improvement in tier 1 and tier 2 areas. Safeguards for the state’s JDIG investment in the business take the form of active clawbacks, fund dispersal scheduling that ties the incentive payments to being dispersed after certification of performance, dispersal reductions that are commensurate with underperformance or nonperformance by a participating business, and then monitoring auditing and reporting. You’ll notice in your packets… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you waving? We were going to go get a little further along, but you go ahead, Senator Cook. I don’t want you to… If you’re like me, you forget your question before we’ve got to the answer. Please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s exactly right. I’m an old person. I’m kind of like Jerry there. Anyway, when last I left this stirring saga, we had talked about the cost of JDIG – I think it was a billion and a half, was it? – and how many jobs were created, or something like that. Anyway, it worked out to the cost per capita, I think it was, of around 22 thousand if memory serves. First of all, would you check my memory? Is that about right, and how have I got it screwed up if I have it screwed up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Aubrey Incorvaia, Fiscal Research. So last time we talked about the total amount of grants rewarded was $1.5 billion; that’s inception through calendar year 2014. We also talked about the minimum number of jobs associated with those awards; that is the minimum number of jobs

JABVDK [0:00:00.0] …That would have to be created for the company to avoid default and that was 64,141 jobs. The cost per job associated with that was $23,000 approximately, commerce has generated some new information that I believe you have in a packet in front of you which references a larger number of jobs created associated with those total grants awarded that is 73,313 and that is on the third page of commerce’s document where it says, “JDIG, it’s a map company selected project sites.” At the bottom, it list 201 projects and 73,313 jobs and that number is the target number of jobs. When you make the cost per job, yes Dan is reminding me to have you look in the commerce packet that has been passed out; it is titled “Job Grow People”. The third page of that document is a map, the map is titled, “JDIG Company Selected Project Sites.” At the bottom of that map you see the number of 73,313 jobs. Again, that number is the target number of jobs associated with all grants awarded and when you do the cost per job calculation based on 73,313 jobs that comes out to $20,203. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you that got you, Senator Cook you have a follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What's the difference between the first set of numbers and the second? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. So when commerce makes an award they outline the minimum number of jobs that must be created to avoid default and that’s the low threshold that is the number that I provided in last meeting which is the 64,141. When commerce makes an award they also have a target job creation number that is the 73,313 tally that I just provided today based on commerce’s new information. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry one more follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One more follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I quit. What I’m trying to get out here is—how much is thing cost me as per job? And so far I got up at bottom and I think I got at top number job. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mm-hmm. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What's the real number? What's the number of jobs, do we know? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, for that response I will direct you to an item in your packet that has taken from the economic development grant report that commerce generates annually. The title of it is, “Job Development Investment Program.” And the bottom it says, “Page six” and you will see that it has the 2014 economic development grant report. Is everybody there? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I’m not there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It looks like this document here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It says, “Job Development Investment Grant” it’s across the top. Now, this is not for all of commerce’s awards. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mm-hmm. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is for a specific subset of awards between 2007 and 2014 and you can see in that table there, table 2 job development investment grants, this calculation is based on 136 projects, the initially projected minimum required new jobs that’s a couple rows or rather columns over is 40,291. Again, that is the minimum number to avoid default not the target number. And then if you look further to the right under ‘Actual Performance’ it has jobs created, these are the actual jobs created associated with the JDIG grants. You will see that ‘Under Active’, 11,516 jobs have actually been created today. I would also note that these active grants may still be in there job creation period or creating jobs so they have not closed yet, they have not come to term. For terminated jobs, they also know that 2135 jobs have been created. [0:05:00.2] [End of file…]

and then the withdrawn jobs are not applicable. If you tally all of that up, that amounts to 13,651 jobs. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Senator Ron Rabin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I'm still, I was on the same track that Bill was, trying to get at what's the, just trying to get at what's the real number of jobs created by the investment made by the tax payers in this state is what Bill's trying to get at and what I'm thinking about also. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you. Senator Ford. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the questions but the one that I have most pressing, dealing with the job number that I'm looking at here, Mr. Chairman, is 73,313, of that what is the income tax collected for the 73,313 jobs that were created by these programs? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you'll look at another document in your packet, which has been provided by Commerce, it's called JDIG 2003-2012 awarded grants, actual liability payments, and eligible withholdings. That looks like this document here. You'll see, under 2003 for example, the total actual liability for the 2003 awards was 404,000, but the total payment was $160,000. The total eligible withholdings associated with jobs created is $274,000 and this provides those metrics across all performance years. I would turn it over to Commerce if they'd like to elaborate on this document, which they have created. This document includes payments to the utility accounts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, I just want to make sure, this is representative then of the 73,000 jobs that they're talking about? Because I'm looking at, I guess this is being calculated from 2003-2008, is that accurate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, the 73,000 jobs are attributed to the $1.5 Billion that has been awarded. Some of those jobs will not come online until twelve years from 2014. So no, I would say this does not encompass all 73,000 jobs because some of those are yet to be achieved in the future. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But it's still not a complete representation because I'm seeing here this only goes up to 2008, there's some data that's, okay, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You got it? Okay. Senator Alexander? I think this is may be your first question in this committee, so make it a good one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll do my very best, sir. Senator Tillman told me to ask this question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh, okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, sir. Now, I understand this does not include taking the utility fund out, is that correct, Ma'am? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This does include payments and liability to the utility account. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And so these are payments that go in to, say, tier one and two areas, to help out those areas that are, where they don't get jobs but they get some utility upgrades, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Money goes in to the utility account and the Rural Infrastructure Authority, which oversees those funds, designates them to grants to local governments in tier one and two, tier two counties for the reasonable, anticipated reasonable creation of jobs. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And we'll be covering the utility account in just a minute, if you'd like. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, let's move on and do that because we have session at 2:00. I'm not trying to rush this thing through, we'll take as many days and as many hours as it takes and I appreciate your questions and your desire to master this. But let's move ahead and then we'll stop at another point, maybe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Which is a great segue into the utility account, so thank you. As was mentioned with JDIG, with projects located in tier two or tier three area, a percentage of the businesses JDIG award is automatically diverted into the utility account. The utility account provides awards and funds to tier one and tier two areas for construction and improvement of utility infrastructure. That the funds are going to one of twenty-five most economically distressed counties, there is no local match requirement.

If it's going to any of the other eligible counties, there's a 25% match requirement. Funds are only available for utility infrastructure improvement projects that are reasonably anticipated to create new jobs, and the program has both prioritized and ineligible industry types. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Questions on the utility fund, a pretty important piece, does everyone understand it, how it works? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can I, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question for clarification probably for myself as much as anyone else. A company has created 100 jobs, and they're entitled to get so much withholding back based on what percentage they're allocated. Can you describe to me, let's say 75% of all the money they collect is in the fund going as far as the grant money. How much of that money goes into the utility fund and how much of the money stays with the business that gets the grant? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right there, and this is, we're referring to a Tier 3 county receiving notes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to clarify. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I know that, it gets even more confusing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, let's assume that there's the generation of, and I'm very bad at doing numbers on the fly, so bear with me, but I'm going to try to make it easy. Let's say that there's a million dollars of withholdings associated with the eligible created positions. So those are admitted to the department, the department certifies assuming the 75%, the award is based on a percentage of the withholdings that are remitted, and let's say it can be between, well it is somewhere between ten and 75%. If the company has 75%, that means that their incentive payment for that year, for the $1 million withholding is going to be $750,000. Out there on a Tier 3 Project, that's $750,000, you take 25% of it, it goes to the utility account, the rest goes to the business. Out there on Tier 2, 15% of the $750,00 goes to the business and the 15% goes to the utility account. I would give you the numbers of 15 to 25%, but I'm not that, I'm just not that good. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, follow up. That's good, because that means that the award doesn't even exist that consists of the entire amount that should have been there because a portion of it, how much percentage goes to the utility? 25% for Tier 3, 15% for Tier 2. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, so the grant would actually be less to the business that created the jobs, and the utility fund money would go to help out the Tier 1 and Tier 2 counties. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct. It's limited to Tier 1 and Tier 2 eligibility. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have the estimate of, I'm sorry Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go right ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have an estimate of what amount of dollars that utility fund actually has reached and has it been taken by other budget times? And thirdly, what those projects were used for? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aubrey, would Aubrey answer that? Did I see you over there pen in hand. Is that okay? Please. I'm pulling up a document that will help me tally the total amount to the utility account. So, transfers to the utility account between FY05 and FY15 total $48.1 million. To your second question about budget activities that have drawn upon those funds, in the 2014 Appropriations Act, $5 million of utility account funds were directed to the general fund, $5 million went to a new program for expanded gas to agribusiness and commercial farmers, and another $1 million went to the Main Street Solutions Fund, which is an existing fund and program in commerce that helps revitalize downtowns for economic development purposes. I should say, rural downtowns. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can you tell me, please, the second one again? $5 million went to the general fund, $5 million went to what, I just didn't hear you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's called, it's a new program called the Expanded Agriculture Fund. I might be botching the name, I'm not familiar with it as others.

But it provides natural gas and propane gas to agribusiness and [SPEAKER CHANGES] I know that, thank you. Thank you. Dan, carry on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, so the next program we’re gonna talk about is the One North Carolina Fund. It is the oldest of our discretionary incentive programs. It was created back in 1993 and was codified in 2004. Monies from the One North Carolina Fund are allocated to local governments who must then match the monies coming from the fund, and then use them to recruit, retain or the expansion of new or existing businesses. Permissible uses for the fund include purchasing and installing equipment, structural repairs and improvements or renovations to existing buildings, construction of utility infrastructure for existing or proposed buildings as well. One NC commitments may not exceed $28 million per fiscal biennium, and the One NC award, unlike Jaded, you have two agreements -- you have the agreement between the state and the unit of local government, and then you have an agreement between the unit of local government and a participating business. The first is the local government grant agreement. The second is the company performance agreement. With respect to the company performance agreement, the agreement must require job creation or maintenance with agreement specific salary and location requirements. It must contain a scheduling for the dispersement of the funds that is proportionate to complete performance under the agreement. And it must contain recapture provisions that recapture funds to the extent that there’s under performance or non performance. The local government grant agreement must contain the local match requirements, and the local match or an in kind contribution. It has to set forth the recapture provisions when the locality goes after the business for under or non performance. It must couple that with reimbursement provisions to the extent the locality has to go after funds from the business to the extent it recaptures funds that represent funds from the One North Carolina Fund, those have to be diverted back into the fund. Finally, it must give the state access to records and it must set forth the fund disbursement schedule. One NC funds may only be disbursed after the local government shows the business has complied with the performance metrics under the agreement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are there members of committees questions on One North Carolina? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Sen. Rucho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not, not so much the--if the last part of my question was on the utility fund, what were the grants used for, and I think [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the 2-1 counties? [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the utility fund, can we, can we get that information, please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] So those are for utility infrastructure improvement projects. Generally speaking, what they can be used for is construction or improvements to new or existing water, sewer, gas, telecommunications. Am I answering the wrong question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, no, you’re right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, telecommunications, high speed broadband, electrical utility distribution lines or equipment, and transportation infrastructure for existing or new or proposed [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good. Mr. Chairman, I think we have a three-page list of the specific grants. May we share that at some point with the committee please so that people can understand where that utility money went to? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, I’d be happy to send that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Edifal?, I have a question on the One NC Fund agreement before we go forward. How, I went through your slide and this and that, but is this, are these handled by the Dept. of Commerce or are they tied, handled by the executive branch per se? How does, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, the criteria [SPEAKER CHANGES] Who doles out the money, that’s my question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It, ultimately the Dept. of Commerce administers the program. They, they give the money to the locals who match it and then--well, they call for money based on performance under the agreement. In fact, I think the One NC Fund has been requiring that the participating business notify them in advance when they are expecting a payment. So there is, there, the agreement, the company performance agreement must contain a provision where a business that has completed performance and become entitled to a final disbursement of the funds, must in writing timely request from the Sec. of Commerce a disbursement of funds. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It gives a scheduling of when that is, so it’s not that the department completely does it because the, the locals are going to be involved, but for the most part the funds are kept by Commerce, but the business notifies Commerce when they’ve completed...

performance ?? they want it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, and oversight comes from whom? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Commerce. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you. Move ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The next program is the Sight Infrastructure Development Fund. It was created during an extra session in 2003 and was used as a part of the incentives that were given to Merck Pharmaceuticals. The fund is used to provide grants for forgivable loans to businesses, non-profits, state agencies or units of local government to acquire or improve land for industrial purposes if associated with a project in which a business will invest at least $100M dollars in private funds and create at least 100 new positions. You'll see the recurring theme for this fund that you've seen for previous funds, the agreement must protect the state's investment in the form of wage standards, job maintenance requirements, and reimbursement provisions that are key to a businesses failure to meet those performance metrics in the agreement. This fund was originally set up for Merck, it was funded for Merck if it met its performance agreements, Merck did and the fund was depleted. It has since remained depleted and inactive. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What was the original amount set aside for that development fund? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll answer, it was $24M dollars. [SPEAKER CHANGES] How much, follow-up. Who has the direct oversight of that, because we bought the land at $47,000 at an acre. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Department of Commerce oversees the program. They develop the criteria, yeah, the Department of Commerce shall administer the selection of projects and they, I mean there are statutory program checks, so you have Osher requirements, you have environmental impact but generally speaking the safeguards and the agreement are within the auspices of the Department of Commerce. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a follow-up or just more of a comment, this land was shown by a particular person in real estate who bought the land for $1,600 an acre then turned around and sold it to the state a few weeks later at $47,000 an acre to a company who did not want any type of incentive package. So literally we just paid someone $24M dollars to sell land to a company who did not want this money in the first place. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My question concerns how competitive are these grants and do you have more applicants for them then you have money to give out? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are we talking about site infrastructure developments? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, it's sort of in limbo right now because there's no funds in that program. It's a fallow account, if you will, right now. Since the amount was used for the incentives to Merck, it just hasn't been active since. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. It appears that, this is a comment, basic set aside for those who already have a good operations component set together and is it that small businesses or start-ups could not be eligible for any of this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, there's nothing that prevents a small business from being eligible but the job creation and investment requirements would probably be very difficult for a small business to meet. So, the last program to talk about is the Job Maintenance Capital Development Fund. This was enacted in 2007 after the original legislation was vetoed. JMAC funds are used to encourage businesses to maintain high paying jobs in the state while making further capital investment in the state. Depending on the type and the location of the business, the amount of the incentive and the job requirements varies. JMAC is a little different from the other four funds we've talked about in that each time we've set the investment requirement and the job maintenance requirements, it's been with an intended beneficiary in mind. JDIG agreements do have performance metric-based recapture provisions and the incentive paid to a JMAC recipient is based on the things listed on the slide, taxes paid on machinery and equipment, sales taxes paid on building materials, additional income and franchise taxes that are not otherwise offset by tax credits, tax paid on electricity and fuel, working training expenses, and state permitting fees. Commerce can enter into no more than five JMAC agreements total. All JMAC agreements entered may not have an aggregate cost of more than $79M and no single JMAC agreement may have an annual cost of more than 6

20 Dollars. [Speaker change] Thank you, any questions? ?? [Speaker change] quick question for staff, whats the total number of incentive programs that we have? [speaker change] Well, I mean it depends, are you counting certain tax incentives as incentive programs? Or are you talking about just discretionary fund programs? [speaker change] I'm talking about all incentive programs that deals with an investment that the state can legally make a contribution to. [inaudible] [speaker change] Is there any one that can answer that ?? [speaker change] I think we would need to access the economic development inventory to get a total count for you. [speaker change] Ok and you have a couple of other things that you need to go over before we move on ?? [Speaker Change} Yes one more item in your packet is an over view of the walden model. There was interest in being, being educated about how commerce goes about determining which projects will be awarded. So the Walden model takes in to account revenues, spending costs, project impacts and then provides an output that assures [speaker change] May I interrupt? [speaker change] Yes Sir! [Speaker change} I believe that ?? maybe we should start with that tomorrow ?? [speaker change] I feel confident I can wrap this one up. [Speaker Change} ?? You so you just go right ahead an wrap it up. [Speaker change] Okay. So basically this just tells you how commerce runs the model there was interest in return on investment metrics and how commerce decides if you have questions about it I would be happy to get answers to you or commerce would be able to as well that's it. [speaker change] Any questions for Senator Jackson [speaker change] Thank you Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to follow up on Senator forbes comment about the number of incentive programs. ?? can you get that to us, please as a committee. [Speaker change] Yes, Sir. [Speaker Change] Thank you , Thank you Mr. Chairman. [Speaker Change] Senator Bryant [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Chairman I'm sort of going back to the beginning of it because I was trying to follow Senator Cooks questions and the answers and look at these maps [speaker change] That's the problem. [Speaker Change} and dots and thing and stuff and correct me if I'm wrong. This 73,000 dollar picture I mean number ?? I'm sorry this 73,000 dollar ?? seventy three thousand three hundred and thirteen number of jobs on this map are I'm not sure what. What is that? Thank you. [Speaker change] Those are the total number of target jobs associated with the one point five billion in grants awarded program inception through calendar year twenty fourteen. [Speaker change] Ok. ?? Follow up this year. The thirteen thousand six hundred and fifty one on this page are the actual jobs with people in them for whom wages have been paid ?? as a result of ?? [Speaker change] Yes Ma'am and I would also say that this is a subset of years this is not where the whole program. Its only for a snap shot of the program.[Speaker change] Follow up, Do we have [Speaker change] Go ahead. [Speaker change] Do we a number of actual jobs that matches with this lifetime target number here of seventy three thirteen? ?? Im kind of getting mixed up between these years and subsets. [Speaker change] We don't have that, that is something that commerce would have to provide us. [Speaker change] Would you like to make that request? [Speaker change] I would like to make that request but I want to ask one other question. [speaker change] You are full of questions today Senator ?? [Speaker change] Thank you, have we ever had that number? [Speaker change] No. [Speaker change] Do you have one more follow up for that last follow up? okay I wan to thank Brent Lane for coming out, we will start and hopefully finish with him tomorrow. We do have a couple of questions left about numbers today and we do have a couple of minutes left. So senator Clark, I believe that I saw you. [Speaker Change] Yes Mr Chairman with regards to the outstanding action item requested by Senator Ford the list of all the investment type programs, when we get that last I would appreciate it if we can also have some sort of indication as to whether

The investment grant is paid by reimbursement or up front. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Will staff please handle that. And Senator Ron Rabin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I had a similar question to Senator Davis. Can we get a sense somehow of the overall cost-effectiveness of the umbrella of all of these and then by subset, so we know which are really performing or which we think are performing or which would just make us feel good? Just the overall picture. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I bet we can. I'll bet that Brent Lane's evaluation will be very revealing. Senator Rucho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I think next week we will have a presentation by Mike Hannah that will show the -- I guess if you want to use a metric -- number of jobs created. The effectiveness of the overall-- I don't know if we've got it divided into specific areas because you have the JDIG and all these others that are there. You also have a lot of exemptions and deductions and a lot of other things that you may consider economic development tools or not, but there is a number out there in the vicinity of fifteen billion dollars of the amount of money both in grants and in economic tools -- if you consider deductions and exemptions -- and it shows the number of jobs that are created. And I think Mike Hannah will present that next week as part of continued education. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Last question and there's a short one, I've been told, by Senator Wells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] More of a request while we're asking for additional information from commerce. The JDIG company-selected project sites map would be a little more informative if the dots represented the size of the grants instead of having a million-dollar dot and a fifty-million dollar dot being the same size. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that's it for today. Brent, thank you. I apologize that we're behind and didn't get to you. Joshua, Joshua, and Michaela, thank you. And the Sergeant at Arms [INAUDIBLE]. Meeting adjourned.