Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:09.760><c> $9,000</c> trap, and she was asked to pay $9,000 trap, and she was asked to pay
• </c> pay provisions. pay provisions.
• In other types of stay or pay contracts, employers have demanded that departing workers pay them for
• This is just around pay and stay.
• got to pay us a month

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Who says the insurance company doesn't have to pay the bill? Well, they pay the bill.
• Oh, right, they don't pay it in full. Do they? Do they pay what they want to pay?
• pay whatever is that's going to pay pay whatever is going<00:28:55.120><c> to</c><00:28:55.240><c> be
• They are saying Howard was paying 50%; other insurance paying like 40, 30, like that.
• They are saying Howard was paying 50%; other insurance paying like 40, 30, like that.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee discussed three ambulance reimbursement bills and tried to distinguish their approaches. House Bill 185 would require insurers to pay the full amount billed by an ambulance provider when there is no contract rate, with no balance billing to the patient; the Insurance Department clarified that emergency ambulance services are already covered under the benchmark plan, so the bill’s reference to policies without ambulance coverage is effectively meaningless. House Bill 725 would set reimbursement at 325% of the Medicare rate for non-contract ambulance services and prohibit balance billing. House Bill 316 was described as addressing the broader problem that Medicare/Medicaid rates are low and that current balance billing shifts costs to patients or municipalities; its sponsor said the bill would require insurers to pay a rate that gives providers a fighting chance to remain in business, and he viewed 325% of Medicare as the most logical option. Members debated whether insurers should pay the billed amount, a negotiated in-network rate, or a regulated percentage of Medicare. Some argued that out-of-network ambulance providers are underpaid and that in-network rates are often too low to sustain service, especially for emergency providers who cannot steer patients. Others said ambulance companies should not be able to bill whatever they want and questioned the fairness of charging insured patients or insurers more than the service is worth. There was also discussion of whether rate schedules should be reviewed by an oversight body and whether different costs in rural areas justify different reimbursement levels. A recurring issue was balance billing and who ultimately bears the shortfall. Several members said balance billing harms patients and often does not get paid, leaving cities and towns or property taxpayers to cover the difference for municipal ambulance services. Others argued that shifting the cost to insurance premiums would spread the burden more fairly, though it could raise premiums by a few dollars per person per month. No vote or final action was taken in the excerpt; the discussion focused on clarifying the bills and weighing their policy tradeoffs.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the Texas Teacher Bill of Rights is not just about pay.
• I think we were all in favor of the teacher pay raises.
• When we shift. a historic record amount of billions of dollars to the state to pay teacher pay. raises
• Chairman, what I heard, sir, West says that we're paying, we're paying extra because we're acknowledging
• They're paying $250 a month. month for their cars when they used to pay $125,000 five years ago.

Bills: SB26, SB28, SJR36, SB26, SB616, SB565, SB384, SB28

Keywords: teacher compensation, education funding, public school educators, teacher retention, teacher designation, lottery, gambling, internet gaming, mobile application, criminal offenses, aquifer, water management, Edwards Aquifer, sustainability, regulatory framework, SB 565, Texas Water Code, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, compliance agreement

Transcript Highlights:

• They don't pay into the system. program. They don't pay into the system.
• </c><00:26:46.080><c> for</c> they could pay uh they could pay for they could pay uh they could pay for
• </c> programs would pay the normal cost. programs would pay the normal cost.
• </c> It's like pay now or pay later. It's like pay now or pay later.
• </c> report to us that do not pay into. report to us that do not pay into.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call: 00:00:17 Approval of Minutes: 00:02:09 Legislative Proposals: HB 213: 00:02:13 HB 516: 00:25:00 HB 589: 00:39:30 Kentucky Public Pension Authority: 00:44:52 Adjournment: 01:14:07, 958, all

Summary: The Public Pension Oversight Board met on February 13 and approved the minutes after establishing a quorum. The committee then took up three pension-related bills, beginning with Rep. Callaway’s proposal to allow certain retired police officers with 15 to 19 years of service to be rehired by local law enforcement agencies. Callaway and Brandon Lincoln of the FOP said the bill is intended to help recruitment and retention, especially for departments facing staffing shortages, and emphasized that it would be optional and would not allow double-dipping. Committee members raised concerns that lowering the service threshold from 20 to 15 years could create an unfunded liability and weaken the pension system, and several members said they did not yet fully understand how the pension and insurance provisions would work. The sponsor said she was open to working on the bill, and the chair noted the committee would continue to examine it with help from KPA staff. The second bill, presented by Rep. Lewis with Brandon Lincoln and Jeff Taylor, addressed probationary employees in CS agencies, including firefighters and police officers. The bill would let certain former probationary employees purchase service credit for time spent in probation, and would extend line-of-duty death and disability protections to employees who are injured or killed during probationary service. Testimony said the measure is optional for employers, could be used as a recruitment tool, and would allow employees within six months of the probationary period to buy back the time themselves if they choose. Members generally supported the concept, noted a negligible fiscal note, and discussed whether current employees could buy back older probationary periods; the sponsor said the bill did not appear to allow that, though he was open to further discussion. Throughout both bills, members focused on whether the proposals would create new pension costs or liabilities and how they would interact with existing retirement tiers and contribution rules. Several members asked for clarification on whether rehired workers would contribute to the pension system, whether employers would pay normal cost or any contribution at all, and whether the bills would affect future retirement benefits. The sponsors and witnesses repeatedly said the measures were limited, optional, and intended to address staffing and fairness issues without changing the core retirement system, but the committee did not take final action on the bills during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• We were initially able to get them to agree to pay Cynthia the higher wage with back pay.
• ><c> back</c><00:06:58.160><c> pay.
• </c><00:07:19.680><c> time</c> would no longer commit to paying time would no longer commit to paying
• </c><00:07:26.240><c> They</c> not paying workers as much. They not paying workers as much.
• Instead of us paying for two, we just enhance the pay that we are...

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• How are we going to pay the bill?
• How are we going to pay for this?
• Do they all pay dues, or is it...? They all pay dues. They're different, like retired members.
• They pay smaller dues.
• In fact, they can pay for a lifetime due, or they pay a little bit every month.

Bills: SB2160

Keywords: health insurance, public employees, uniform group insurance, retirement, state employees, 908, all

Summary: The committee resumed work on Senate Bill 2160, which would move the Public Employees Retirement System health plan from grandfathered to non-grandfathered status under the Affordable Care Act. PERS officials Rebecca Frickie and Derek Holbein explained that the bill would allow more flexibility in plan design, including higher deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pocket maximums, while also adding enhanced preventive benefits. They clarified that ACA “essential health benefits” apply to individual and small-group markets, not to PERS as a large employer, and that the bill’s projected cost increases were based on actuarial estimates and prior bid scenarios from Sanford and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Members debated whether the bill would actually save money or simply shift costs to employees. Supporters argued that non-grandfathered status would create more levers to manage medical inflation and could produce net premium savings through plan redesign, citing prior bid comparisons showing potential reductions of 1% to 8% depending on the option. Opponents, including Representative Schauer and North Dakota United president Nick Archelette, questioned how the state would pay for the estimated $25 million to $30 million in added benefits and warned that employees could face higher out-of-pocket costs amid already strained household budgets. Frickie said the legislature would control funding decisions and that current law requiring the state to pay full family premiums could be changed only by statute. The committee also discussed reserve funding, with members noting that a $4.3 million reserve draw in the bill was intended to cover the final months of the biennium and could be modified. After testimony and discussion, Vice Chair Johnson moved a do-pass recommendation and referral to Appropriations. The motion passed 10-3-1, with Representatives Ostlie, Schatz, and Schauer voting no. Representative Gump agreed to carry the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• You're paying income tax. You're paying income tax.
• This redistributes how we pay, who pays, how often they pay.
• Everyone else pays more so they can pay less. Everyone else pays more so they can pay less.
• Speaker, after she pays her bills, pays her rent, there is nothing. Mr.
• Paying rent is not voluntary. Paying rent is not voluntary. Paying Fair.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the House Journal by roll call vote (117-5), and a long series of special guest introductions, including YouthBuild students, school groups, family members, former legislators, and a Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Day recognition. The chamber then moved to third-reading business and reconsideration motions on House Committee Substitute for House Bills 3283 and 3306. Members explained the bills needed to be sent back to Legislative Review to address possible conflicts with current case law and to tighten the language, especially around arbitration and municipal/court jurisdiction issues. The reconsideration motions and the motion to commit the bills to Legislative Review all passed by roll call votes in the 98-43 range. The House then took up House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 982, which would revise Missouri’s sex offender registry system. The sponsor said the bill responds to concerns from an advocacy group and registry administrators, converting Missouri from a hybrid offense-based system to a true tier-based system aligned with federal SORNA standards, clarifying who must register, reducing litigation exposure, and adding related language on civil commitment housing, name changes, and carnival employees. Members asked about whether offenders could eventually petition off the registry; the sponsor said the bill would streamline removal where allowed under the tier system. House Amendment 1, correcting a typo, was adopted, the committee substitute was adopted, and the bill was third read and passed 141-4. The House also debated House Joint Resolutions 173 and 174, a proposal to amend the constitution to phase out the state income tax and shift more of the tax burden toward sales and use taxes over time. Supporters argued the current income tax hurts the middle class, discourages growth, and places Missouri at a disadvantage compared with no-income-tax states like Tennessee; they said the measure would let voters decide and could improve economic development, population growth, and fairness by making taxes more visible and consumption-based. Opponents argued the plan would raise taxes on most Missourians, especially low- and middle-income families, seniors on fixed incomes, and people who spend more of their income on necessities, and that it would shift costs onto consumers while weakening funding for schools, health care, and other services. The debate was extensive and included questions about constitutional tax limits, revenue neutrality, and comparisons to Tennessee and Washington, but no final vote on the resolutions was shown in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• But getting to my question, before the pay plan, we had a thing at the HDCs, a differential pay plan.
• So prior to the pay plan, So prior to the pay plan being implemented this last July, we were essentially
• The new pay plan significantly increased what we pay CNAs and RNs and LPNs.
• , that they weren't required to pay more?
• We're already paying for a pharmacy there. We're already paying for security.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Businesses not directly paying the premium tax would no longer be exempt from paying the B&O tax.
• So are you saying all those businesses you listed do not pay taxes? They don't pay the B&O taxes.
• So are you saying all those businesses you listed do not pay taxes? They don't pay the B&O taxes.
• B&O tax. that the people who have not ...are already paying and have been paying B&O tax.
• have been paying B&O tax during this time than not paying B&O tax.

Bills: HB2487

Keywords: insurance tax, state regulation, insurers, taxation, budget impact, 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That means we pay more.
• A lot of people are paying. A lot of people are paying $0 in premium.
• You have relied on us to pay for all of your expenses. It's time for you to pay up.
• We're saying we want you to pay your fair share because we're saying we want you to pay your fair share
• How am I going to pay it and so on?

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review subcommittee heard four budget trailer bills: AB 110, AB 122, AB 125, and AB 177. AB 110 was described as a budget bill junior identifying budget-related legislation. AB 122 would extend sales tax to electronically delivered or remotely accessed prewritten software, extend and later limit business tax credits, reduce the annual LLC/LLP/LP tax for first-year businesses for three years, and impose a 100% tax on certain federal anti-weaponization fund settlements. AB 125 would renew the managed care organization (MCO) tax for three years beginning in 2027 to support Medi-Cal and targeted provider rate increases. AB 177 would require the Department of Finance to return by March 1, 2027 with options for assessing large employers for the Medi-Cal costs of employees enrolled in the program, including at least one employer-paid premium option for firms with 250 or more employees, and would appropriate $1,000 General Fund for implementation. Administration witnesses said AB 122 modernizes the tax system and helps create general fund revenue, while AB 125 is needed to preserve Medi-Cal financing and targeted rate increases under new federal constraints from H.R. 1 and to avoid a budget hole if the MCO tax expires. On AB 177, Finance said the bill is only a study and does not itself impose a tax, but would direct the administration to develop options for future consideration. Supportive members argued the package is part of a balanced approach to address the structural deficit, protect health care and other safety-net programs, and ensure large corporations pay more of their share. They also said AB 177 is a necessary step toward asking large employers to help cover public health care costs for workers who rely on Medi-Cal. Opponents, led by Vice Chair Niello and several other Republicans, argued the state does not have a revenue shortage but a spending problem, warning that the proposals would raise costs on consumers and businesses, discourage innovation, and expand taxes beyond their intended scope. They criticized AB 122 as potentially taxing labor-like services and limiting research and development credits, and said AB 125 would increase premiums for commercial enrollees and employers. On AB 177, they questioned the lack of definitions and specifics, saying the bill is too vague and could eventually burden employers, including hospitals and part-time workers, without clear standards. No votes were taken in the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and questions before public comment and later action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, it pays itself, but it pays itself more than it pays independent providers.
• much higher prices than what I am paying as a cash pay consumer.
• Pay less for care.
• Regardless of who pays it.
• I mean, you'd rather pay 30% more, but only pay when it works.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here to testify in support of Page 733, an act relative to educator pay.
• My daughter pays $3,000 a month.
• ESPs and for, and this minimum pay for teachers. Right.
• I urge you to support and act relative to educator pay to address the educator pay crisis and ensure
• House Bill 733 and Senate Bill 370, an act relative to educator pay.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a public hearing on a large slate of bills, with most testimony focused on two main topics: improving access to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for students with disabilities, and raising educator pay statewide. On the AAC bills (House 514/Senate 418), parents, advocates, and attorneys described how AAC devices and communication books help nonverbal or minimally verbal children communicate, participate in class, and reduce frustration and behavioral issues. Testimony emphasized that while districts are generally required to provide devices, many teachers and school staff lack training to use them effectively; the bill would direct DESE to update licensure and training requirements so newly licensed teachers are prepared to support AAC users. Committee members asked about current teacher-prep practices, implementation, and whether DESE could act without legislation, and witnesses said the proposal was intended as a long-term solution and had previously received some support and compromise language. The committee also heard extensive testimony on House 733/Senate 370, which would set a statewide minimum salary of $70,000 for teachers and $55,000 for education support professionals (ESPs/paras), with inflation adjustments and a phase-in structure that would shift costs over time from the state to municipalities. Supporters, including the bill sponsor, MTA leaders, and school employees from several districts, argued that current pay is not a living wage, contributes to staffing shortages and turnover, and forces many educators to work multiple jobs or rely on public assistance. They said the bill would help recruit and retain staff and better reflect the importance of the work. Committee members raised questions about how the state would fund the mandate, how it would interact with Chapter 70 school aid and local budgets, whether other states have similar mechanisms, and whether the proposal could create disincentives for districts already paying above the floor. Witnesses pointed to the Student Opportunity Act, the Fair Share Amendment, and the need for a broader school funding formula review as possible parts of the solution. The committee also briefly heard and discussed Senate Bill 435/House Bill 736, which would require de-escalation training for school bus operators, with the training paid for by employers. The sponsor and a parent advocate said the bill was prompted by a school bus incident involving a child with cerebral palsy and epilepsy and would improve safety and reduce reliance on law enforcement. Members asked whether the bill should also cover bus monitors and other transportation staff, and whether private contractors and public operators currently provide similar training. At the end of the hearing, the chairs closed testimony on the full list of bills and adjourned the hearing without taking any votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Businesses not directly paying the premium tax would no longer be exempt from paying the B&O tax.
• So are you saying all those businesses you listed do not pay taxes? They don't pay the B&O taxes.
• So are you saying all those businesses you listed do not pay taxes? They don't pay the B&O taxes.
• B&O tax. that the people who have not ...are already paying and have been paying B&O tax.
• have been paying B&O tax during this time than not paying B&O tax.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held its last scheduled public hearing of the year on March 9, 2026, taking testimony on House Bill 2487, Substitute House Bill 2689, and Engrossed House Bill 2681. For HB 2487, staff and the Department of Revenue explained that the bill would narrow a B&O tax exemption for insurance-related businesses after a 2024 Supreme Court decision, make several related changes including annuity and assigned risk plan exemptions, adjust the advanced computing surcharge threshold for certain affiliated groups, and allow a penalties-and-interest waiver with a repayment plan. DOR supported the bill as clarifying the original intent and preventing double taxation, while insurers and health plan groups opposed it, arguing it would create higher costs, retroactive tax liability, and uncertainty; consumer and policy groups testified in support, saying it closes a loophole and restores the intended tax structure. Committee members questioned the retroactivity, the number of affected businesses, and the fiscal estimates, and the chair reminded members that amendment requests were due by noon for the next day’s executive session. For Substitute HB 2689, staff described changes to the Working Connections Child Care program that would keep income eligibility at 60% of state median income, reduce future rate-setting from the 85th to the 75th percentile, block enhanced rates for certain cross-region providers, cancel the planned move to enrollment-based prospective payments, revise attendance-based reimbursement to a full month for absences of 10 days or fewer and half-month for longer absences, and require a 65% market survey response rate for validity. The fiscal note projected substantial savings, offset by implementation and staffing costs. SEIU 925 and Head Start representatives supported the simpler House approach to attendance billing but raised concerns about the new survey threshold and the risk of increased audits and provider burden; they also noted an amendment under discussion to address the 2026 survey issue. Committee questions focused on how a full month is defined under the attendance rules. For HB 2681, staff said the bill would raise annual issuance and renewal fees for cannabis producer, processor, and retail licenses by $400, generating about $866,000 per year for the dedicated cannabis account with minimal administrative cost. No one signed up to testify, and the chair closed the hearing without a vote on any of the bills. The chair also thanked committee staff for their work and reiterated that amendments for the heard bills were due by noon that day.

Transcript Highlights:

• The scenario where they accidentally or unintentionally pay that, pay it without doing the withholding
• The scenario where they accidentally or unintentionally pay that, pay it without doing the withholding
• They pay the net cost of the drug.
• You pay for the claim cost.
• The member always pays zero.

Bills: HB591, HB765, HB826, HB870, HB938, HB1151, HB1162, HB1176, HB1196, HB1236, HB1241

Keywords: family leave, insurance, paid leave, employment benefits, caregiver support, liability insurance, coverage defenses, direct action, judgment enforcement, legal procedures, insurance referrals, compensation, non-licensed agents, consumer protection, insurance products, HB 870, Act 907, Louisiana insurance, health insurance, prescription drugs

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:14:43.440><c> their</c> We will stop paying them their We will stop paying them their retirement
• </c> &gt;&gt; In addition to that, they have to pay &gt;&gt; In addition to that, they have to pay back
• </c> [clears throat] are being they're paying [clears throat] are being they're paying the<00:21:53.000
• that wasn't retired, would be paying into the system and helping to pay down the unfunded liability
• </c> continuing to pay what's required? continuing to pay what's required?

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:54 Pension System Update 00:03:38, 958, all

Summary: The committee held its first official interim meeting after merging the General Government and Finance, Personnel, and Public Retirement committees, establishing a quorum and opening with the pledge and prayer. Members then received a briefing from KPPA representatives Ryan Barrow and Aaron Sarock on the state retirement systems, including KERS, CERS, and SPRS, and on the importance of fully funding the actuarially determined employer contribution, supplemental appropriations, and investment earnings in reducing unfunded liabilities. They said the systems have made progress toward a statutory closed amortization target of 2049 and emphasized that supplemental funding lowers current employer contribution rates but does not change that end date. A major topic was federal and state reemployment-after-retirement rules for retirees who return to work with participating employers. KPPA explained that retirees must have a bona fide separation from service, no prearranged agreement to return, and generally a one-calendar-month break in service for retirees on or after January 1, 2024. If a member fails to comply, retirement benefits can be voided, payments stopped, health coverage ended, and benefits repaid. The presenters also noted that rehired retirees do not earn a second retirement account, and employers rehiring them must pay employer contributions and, in non-exempt cases, reimburse health insurance costs. Members asked about the scale of rehired retirees and the difference between employer contribution and health insurance reimbursement amounts. KPPA said that in fiscal year 2025 there were over 3,500 rehired retirees in CERS and over 5,000 in SPRS, with substantial employer contributions and health reimbursement payments collected. They also explained that some positions are exempt from these chargebacks, including school resource officers and certain law enforcement positions that meet statutory criteria. The committee discussed House Bill 213, which allows cities, sheriffs’ departments, and post-secondary institutions to offer health insurance to rehired officers if authorized by the governing body, effective August 1, 2026, and clarifies the fiscal-year basis for certain exemption limits. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a small program, pay-as-you-go, so we just pay benefits. through appropriations.
• At the time, $510 million to pay that out and pay it off by 2054.
• it off quicker, you pay less.
• They pay 100% of those benefits.
• Higher ed does not pay into that, for example.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• should pay?
• should pay?
• I pay the same for concrete as a builder does. I pay the same for steel.
• you have to pay for.
• I don’t want to be, okay, because we’re willing to pay, and we do pay our share.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> to have to pay more? to have to pay more?
• military pay would be that pay that military pay would be divided<01:21:22.320><c> and</c><01:21:22.560
• </c><01:45:44.800><c> is</c><01:45:45.119><c> pay</c> ruled that military retainer pay is pay ruled that
• </c> retainer pay is pay and not property. retainer pay is pay and not property.
• </c> retired pay. retired pay.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That means we pay more.
• A lot of people are paying. A lot of people are paying $0 in premium.
• You have relied on us to pay for all of your expenses. It’s time for you to pay up.
• We’re saying we want you to pay your fair share because we’re saying we want you to pay your fair share
• How am I going to pay it and so on?

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that going to slow down the pay on authorization versus the pay on enrollment or pay on attendance
• But presumably, that's what a private-pay individual would be paying—100%.
• In that instance, state government's paying more than a private-pay individual would be paying for the
• on attendance to pay on all. ...when that pilot group went from pay on attendance to pay on all, and
• There's language saying we shall pay. We're choosing not to pay.

Keywords: 959, house, all