 Good afternoon everyone and thank you for being here today. Now that we're through the holidays and the inauguration and budget address will resume our weekly press conferences and whenever they're in the state house or in the pavilion We'll make sure to have remote access for our quarters around the state I'm sure you have a few things on your mind today But first I'd like to spend a few minutes discussing the three million dollar rural infrastructure assistance program I'm requesting in BAA As you've seen members of my team have spent the last two to three months Visiting parts of the state on an ARPA tour Where they've heard from Vermonters in smaller more rural areas about their infrastructure needs and how they could use some help as a matter of fact yesterday the team was in Orange County and Like others they had a good turnout It's clear that towns and villages across Vermont want to take advantage of the state and federal funding that was appropriated last year and they eager eager to learn out about how they can do this Because many of these towns have small select boards with part-time clerks They often rely on community volunteers to determine priority projects submit applications And if successful they then try to manage them with all the reporting that comes along with it They're simply not equipped to deal with them like Burlington, Rutland or Montpelier is who have full-time staff typically Apply for and manage the grant funding As I said my inaugural address We should use the opportunity we have right now to help small towns build the infrastructure They could never afford on their own and solve problems that have stifled their economic progress for far too long Things like water sewer stormwater broadband and many many more Can make a big difference of these communities, but they need some help getting these funds The rule infrastructure assistance program aims to do just that Helping places who need the help the most get it We're grateful to have the support from members of the rule caucus RDCs RPCs and many community leaders for this concept to support and understand the importance of this proposal But I believe we we need to make sure this is addressed now in the BAA Because every week and month we're delayed puts already disadvantaged communities at a further disadvantage And that's what will happen if we wait until the big bill passes at the end of the session Deputy Secretary Parnam has been attending these ARPA meetings and he can speak to the mechanics of how the program works And why there's such a need so I'll now defer to Doug Thank you governor So as the governor said This program is in the BAA because there's a high degree of urgency We only have until the end of next year to obligate the full 1.05 billion dollars of ARPA state fiscal recovery And at this point we estimate over 400 million of that 1 billion is already obligated So all of these programs that were authorized over the last two years They are in flight. They are moving forward And we want to make sure that small towns have the fullest opportunity to participate in these programs that they can Now A great example of this is we have another round of pre-treatment grants going live in March As we see at the federal level of the state level We're going to have rolling opportunities coming out constantly. The goal of this program is to help rural communities Get prepared as soon as possible so that they can participate the Program as we call it is not really a new program But is a method to get technical assistance out to those communities that need it the most We're not creating new Architecture in Vermont. We're going to leverage existing architecture through the rpcs through vlct through the rdcs I apologize for all the acronyms there, but we're going to leverage our existing resources With an rfp that we would publish immediately after the baa if this is in there Get this moving as quickly as possible establish those relationships and set up retainer agreements With the rpcs to provide Focus support to these communities if they're on the list then they can work with the communities We know from our conversations in multiple counties now that the barriers to Participation are high for these towns. They need it to be easy They don't need to fill out a 10 page application and talk to the deputy secretary of the agency of administration before they get help They need to be able to go and get help And I think this is an important mechanism to focus that support So the types of programs that would be eligible water quality infrastructure That is a basic need for many communities to move forward. It's kind of a foundational element housing development Community recovery workforce development and business supports climate change mitigation other projects that we would Evaluate at aoe that are necessary for economic development Not every project is going to fit squarely into those boxes But in the you know what you when you see it some projects would be very valuable to a community But not easily put in one of those buckets We do have the eligibility for that three million dollars of technical assistance Right now is linked to the underserved community index That's constructed by looking at the needs in a community and balancing them against the capacity We're in active conversations with legislative partners to modify that and make it as good as it can possibly be To balance the capacity community against the needs that they're demonstrating To get them the technical assistance Not all towns of a thousand people are the same not all towns of 2000 are the same So it really needs to be a bit more nuanced and who really needs the help the most To take advantage of this opportunity Again just focus on the urgency here. This is a short term program It's run out of aoe because we have contact with all of the federal programs right now And we can help bring the partners together and work as a team as we're so good at in vermont to make this program successful So speaking of our partners I would like to hand it over to Peter Gregory from the rpcs Thank you Doug and the governor. Thank you very much for having me here. My name is Peter Gregory I'm executive director the two rivers out of quichy regional commission. We serve 30 small towns in primarily Windsor and orange counties Very simply we concur with this initiative and what you've identified as a need in our communities How many of us have been doing this many many years and have seen the stresses on our communities Not only in deploying the federal and state resources But also in the staffing that they have and the gaps that they have in the turnover. It's really profound We are out the regional planning commissions are out in the field Four nights a week in planning commissions and select boards Energy committees broadband committees. So we see the needs out there and they are real I think our goal in working with The executive staff is to ensure that as Doug said the Communities that are selected not only have a demonstrated need But have a willingness to move forward because there is a time Situation that we're facing here and we want to make sure that we are strategic in our investments in which communities Are really ripe for that kind of support We also support as regional planning commissions additional capacity in our own shops To do some of the same work that really we've been doing for in some cases 60 years So I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here and I want to work With you all to kind of flesh out the program in the coming weeks Thank you All right now we'll open up to questions Is anybody's looking at this through the like eye of a master planner I'm saying Sharon would be tremendous because they've got this going on Some place in windham county could use a bunch of broadband money to get them across the finish line I think every every individual Community is different. Um, and that's where the where the rpcs come in As well to help them with some of that planning. I'm sure they can identify What direction they need to go in but help With that decision making Is something that we'd be be willing to do as well. I mean, we all have to work at this together because Again, as you identified what one community needs another one doesn't and trying to use their attributes to get to where they want to go in the end Peter anything you want to add to that? I would just concur You know, the regional planning commissions have built up relationships, you know for years in the communities and know their needs through their town planning and And development issues. So I think we will be able to Ground truth the needs and help target the the resources where they need to go the technical capacity How many projects do you see this money funding? I want to have $3 million sounds like a lot of money On the other hand, if I'm my town is going to do wastewater treatment That's going to be very expensive So what's going to be the impact? Well, again, we're talking about some of the smaller communities. So There it's not quite as expensive as you might envision for like a montelier burlington or barrier and so forth in terms of sewer stormwater treatment So these are smaller systems, but it's not just sewer water and storm water There are other infrastructure needs that they could utilize as well. So not every community is going to need that infrastructure but We believe in the time frame That we have the three million dollars would go a long ways to getting a jump start on this again Because of the time element the money we have to it's it's like we had with other federal dollars We have an end date here unless they extend it, but we won't know that until They a month or so before So we can't take that chance and in the rural areas really do need our help Mary, I'm just trying to answer the context that we're talking about when this is done This three million dollars will be spent in 15 years, let's say. I mean, what's the impact overall statewide? So this is Part of the intention here is to Show a targeted investment moving for programs forward We're not receiving applications right now in some of these areas, but they're expressing needs So we need to we need to bridge that gap. I do think out of the 60 communities We would be fortunate if if half of them come forward and work with us I think if I'm pleasantly surprised and more come forward and really want to work with us, that would be great We are having a lot of turnout at our at our county-based events So we know that some of the municipalities definitely want to work with us. I think for the impact of the funds State dollars Part of this is to do a needs assessment and to identify federal funding opportunities where we're able to line things up We're going to be helping those towns find four or five times more money Than we spend locally on those projects. So anytime we have match dollars We're looking at potentially getting, you know, four times more out of our investment So this is to try to help us Get more federal money Not only from the ARPA state fiscal recovery to balance the scales there But the inflation the investment in infrastructure and jobs act also known as bipartisan infrastructure law That has some programs that impact municipalities the inflation reduction act the omnibus package If we can get them prepared to engage in those programs We could see a lot more Project activity in these rural areas Just by helping them set the foundation. So that's part of the goal here I think Doug makes a good point in terms of other federal programs that they may be viable for that community as well It might not be ARPA in this case. It might be something else that would be It'd be more advantageous for them or a combination of the two But that That's another reason why we need to get a jump start on this So if we're overwhelmed, let's say and the three million dollars doesn't cover everyone We have an opportunity in the next three to four months To put additional funds in the the big bill to satisfy those needs So this gives us an opportunity to see what's out there because we don't know for sure We targeted three million dollars for planning, but but it could exceed that. We just we just don't know What the demand will be Yeah, well, this is a very real issue and that's what happens During these emergency times for the last Two to three years There has been a lot of money that we've been able to take advantage of here And and it's helped a lot of people But this money is coming to an end And we have to off-ramp this and it will have a real impact on some people But we're trying to do whatever we can To create this this slope That is more manageable I might ask secretary samelson if she could comment on on this in particular The one thing I want to point out is that for many of these verminers their situations may have changed during the pandemic But we simply haven't gone back and redetermined eligibility, which is our normal process And so What this will do is go back and see how they got in job has has their life changed and they no longer Need Medicaid insurance Defaulting back to our pre-pandemic Medicaid position. So for many verminers They may have other alternative coverage That's gone into effect during this time period and this is an opportunity to check in on that. So again Many of these changes came into effect during the public health emergency To serve a very specific time and need And we are at the end of that point and it's time for us to begin to unwind Governor what we're talking about Medicaid or everyone eats or some of the emergency housing funds You know, you talk about that that winding down. How how do we make sure that just broadly we don't hit a cliff? I mean the legislature, you know, there's of course many of column For any of these programs on the legislature to extend funding So I guess how well again when when when is a good time to do that? And I would say during these times when we have a the economy is is booming There are plenty of jobs available. There's all kinds of funding that surplus money in our own budgets This is probably a good time as any to ramp down if there is a good time because obviously if the federal government were to Continue with some of the dollars flowing into vermont that'd be advantageous to vermont But that's not being realistic unless of course Um, we have a great congressional delegation. Maybe they can make something happen But the decision has been made in washington to end these programs and uh, it's an enormous amount of money that we can't fulfill on our own without sacrificing other investments Being alive with that a lot of school nutrition folks are going to be coming to the building tomorrow To urge lawmakers to permanently fund universal school meals Is there funding for another year of free breakfast and lunch for all kids in your budget? We um No, I mean we went through this was uh, this was money that was put in the education fund, I believe If I'm not if I had that right But it was for a one-year universal program and we didn't include that Obviously, we want to help those in need those who can't Afford their breakfast and lunch that we would provide for that My own feeling is and I had this concern When we had this debate last year was a universal program Would would in fact Burden those we are trying to help to help those who are affluent enough to pay for it So I I would prefer that we take care of those who can't afford it on their own and help them out But those who can't afford it should be able to provide for their families Secretary french, do you have anything to add to this? You're correct. Um, this deal one year was funded out of an education fund surplus. Well, so it is something Uh, it was part for a one-year initiative. Um, we are working on a household income form process Which is a sort of a connection between this policy and the revised pupil weights But I also was going to mention that there are some adjustments happening at the federal level to the reimbursement rates around meals So some of the costs, uh, related to Providing the universal meals will need to be readjusted based on those new supports from the federal government And we're working on that now governor, uh And several of us in this room have been asked to leave Committee rooms because there's not enough room in the committee rooms Some pretty nice things you have here any any chance of This this room being used for a repurpose for some legislative meetings. No Why not? This is the this is my state house office. This is the governor's office and will remain so We we're a we're a Part of this as well this institution And uh, we need a place to land so we're part of the process There's plenty of space by the way, there's 133 state has all kinds of room 109 has all kinds of room. It's been identified. It's it's actually been saved and Been empty, uh for the last couple of years So it's plenty of space available if they want to stretch out just a little bit, but it's been reserved Um and they're paying for it What do you say to some of the retired state employees who feel like you are forcing them into this medicare advantage program Which by many critics say saves money by dying benefits So yeah, yeah, I I don't see it that way and uh, maybe we'll be proven wrong, but um What's been described to me and in a lot of this we'll have further conversations about this in the not too distant future But from my standpoint this program would save The state money, but it also saved Um, the retirees money as well and give them added benefits. This isn't the same as we're seeing non-stop on cnn. Uh, this isn't that program. This is customized for us The nea has this The state state college retirees have this And I haven't heard any complaints from them. So I think there Is some conflict in between what we're hearing on a national level for some of these programs and what we're actually proposing so I think we'll be able to we need to communicate that in a better way and And prove that this is viable and viable for them better benefits and viable for the state So it seems like a win for everyone. Um, from my standpoint Is this something that you feel you can put into place on your own or is this a negotiated benefit or is this required legislation? Well, I guess it depends on who you talk to right? Um from my standpoint, I think we can do it Um, but we didn't include this in our budget. We didn't include the savings. You know, we want to Uh, support the process and and we we feel good about this proposal and we're hoping to convince the retirees That uh, this is good for them as well So you think when you're able to communicate the benefits of this program that the retirees will see the benefits involved? I believe so. I mean, I think we just need to prove it and show them That they will save money We will save money and they will have additional benefits as a result And I think again, I think it's going to be a better one than what they have today And if the retirees association doesn't come around to your way of doing this, then will you drop it? Well, we'll see. I mean again, we'll we'll continue to do our part to to make sure they understand the facts Um, the house is going to begin taking testimony on shield laws for abortion providers later this week Do you have any concerns as it relates to that legislation? I don't know enough about it to Maybe comment other than to say we want to protect anyone who is providing a service here in vermont But but I don't know what that piece of legislation will entail So look forward to to hearing more about it on board entirely conceptually though Yeah, I mean, I have no real problem with it. Um, so but I you know I guess facts matter, so I need to know the specifics There's also a new gun bill that's been proposed at senate judiciary. That's for I believe banning The uh, straw sales or straw purchases This is part of the bigger bill We call that the gun bill I would call that Something else, but I think there are some I think there are some provisions in there Again, I I think I've made this fairly clear that I think we've done a lot over the last few years I think we need to make the system better the next system in particular I think we're going to need some congressional help on that We need to educate people More about the red flag laws that exist and how they're utilized Better and how that interacts with the next system. So I think we have a ways to go but But I'm I'm not feeling as though we need to do anything with our gun laws at this point Mr administration formally put the letter Requested that the legislature delay limiting raise the age yet last week or there might be a three-year delay The commissioner more somebody know about this. Yeah, yeah um Yeah, I don't know if Jay is on or Mr. Morrison Have we sent the letter specifically asking about this document recommendation that we intend to make is that The current pause continued for another couple of years and I'm sorry that I can't find the exact section that I'm looking for Currently it's it's set to expire on 7 1 of 23 Um and that our recommendation would be that we lower the age of automatic family court puristiction for delinquents Um and repeal the timeline or defer increasing the age up to 20 years old So it's as I said, it's currently set to expire on July 1st And we are going to make recommendation that that be deferred or repealed Can you maybe extrapolate as to why we're pushing it proposing to push it back I'm prepared to to talk about that right now. Um, it's part of a broader set of policy recommendations that we are going to be recommending to Feel some gaps that we've identified in the last couple of years since the legislation took effect So I think I'm going to leave it there for now and we will be Sharing more about our position on that in the coming weeks as s4 and other bills make their way through the system So I think our middle ground is going with our proposal For a volunteer program that we can test drive so to speak And then we can we can identify the impacts and how do we broaden it from there, but but this point I'm not in favor of any payroll tax at all And raising any taxes at this point in time when we're seeing record surpluses and all this growth and money in the system so Building the foundation I think could be utilized with this new Proposal that we put on the table that we're actually doing with the state employees And seeing how we broaden that Again, I think going The route that we have envisioned with a volunteer program could lead to something like that in the future, but I don't think we're ready for that What are your thoughts on uh, Doug Hoffer's recent report on the tiff district in Burlington being just rife with errors and Short changing the education fund by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Did you did that? Can you pause about that tool as a redevelopment tool around the state which First first of all the state auditor hasn't exactly been a fan of tiffs Over the last few years. I have been So I would say that he's he's brought up some good points But Burlington the tiff district in Burlington Was amongst one of the original tiff districts and we've cleaned up a lot of those things fixed a lot of things and Over overseeing and requirements and so forth So I I believe that the the tiff Program that we have today is much different than then But in terms of I I think I think it's for Burlington to work out. Um, I we haven't seen that type of problem with any of the other districts I'm sure I'm sure the auditor has looked Yes Of Well, again, things have changed a bit since that one. I think I feel good about our program In terms of the short change in the ed fund, I think that's been the argument about tiff districts all along My from my standpoint I don't believe these These projects would have been started without without the tiff districts So we wouldn't have had the money going into the education fund to begin with so It's just a different philosophy and but I'll let Burlington will work through some of that and we'll do the same on our level to make sure that it's secure Totally different subject. That's okay Right outside this building. There's a very large portable diesel generator It's parked next to the state house and hooked up to the state house Because the battery pack that was installed a couple of years ago in the basement was very quickly found to be Characterized let's say as a firehouse to the building by the insurance company Uh, that state has for its buildings And uh, those batteries had to be removed from the state house. You praised that project, uh, a couple of years ago pretty, um pretty strongly as the Out-of-the-box thinking and positive thing What's your take on that? Well, I still do praise the concept I think having uh energy storage with batteries is the future. I mean we see it on individual homes with the tesla They came up with the first battery pack and there's been many more since I think it's part of the answer Overall microgribs with large scale capacity to to store this energy is going to be part of the future It's unfortunate again I don't know Obviously any of us contemplated that it would be a fire hazard in the in the state house in the basement But but that's what the insurance company said So we had no choice but to remove it. So Lesson learned there Check with your insurance company before you do any any big alterations of any sort. So, uh, again, we'll uh We'll we take that one on the chin and uh, we'll do better next time But but it's something that we learn and we're going to have to continue to learn as we evolve Into this new future that is really going to To have to utilize Some of these large-scale energy storage devices In order to level out of the peaks and valleys of our energy needs Um Mr. Tierney have anything you'd like to add to that? I think you fit that very nicely. I think the point here is that no transition Is going to go completely smoothly and we have to embrace this kind of Event not because it's desirable not because it's how we want to proceed But because as you said it teaches us what we need to know from this point forward That'll be a tick mark for everybody who engages in this kind of work But the idea behind it is very much valid and it's what we would do again And we try to do again once we can Figure out how to Encounter into taking their obstacle the path has to go forward Would you like to see along if there's a legalized sports study in this session? Yes Why? Because I think we've we've studied it for quite some time I think there's a lot of sports gambling happening in vermont Much like the use of cannabis. It's something that has been utilized for quite some time We just need to do it in a safe manner So the sports betting I think falls into that same category You have concerns about problem gambling? I have concerns about cannabis As well and some of the safety concerns I see on our highway and with our kids and And some of the products that might be Might be available to our youth I have concerns there There are always concerns with anything as we move forward But the reality is most of the states around us are doing something And and it's being it's being done here in this state And we just need to find a path forward so that we can Provide for the protections necessary To make it viable for us and for Vermonters And our guests who come to visit us Governor you say it's being done here now in the state of New France with illegal activities? Sure We'll go to the We have a few folks on the phones. We'll start with Tim McQuiz in Vermont Business Magazine They weren't they were assuming the current structure of child care And not looking at trying to do that. That wasn't their mandate. Do you have um Have you considered bringing the zero to five kids into the regular public school system? And if so, how much added cost would that be if you looked into that? Yeah, I you know, I've talked a lot about child care over the last six years And we put a lot of money into that area and we continue to do so And because I think it's the right thing to do Um having a cradle to career approach Is something that I've also talked a lot about so eventually I think it will be part of our Normal education system, but it's not ready. I don't believe for prime time at this point Because of space needs and so forth and We can put a lot of money into the system But some of the same challenges are going to be there that we're experiencing in every other sector across the state Whether it's we don't have enough teachers. We don't want to have enough snow plow drivers. We don't enough state police officers We don't have enough health care workers And we won't have enough early childhood educators either So we need to build our system. We need more housing. We need more sewer water and storm water We need the basic fundamentals in order to attract more people into the state. So Again, um, I think the the proposal we put forward I think takes takes care of some of that and gives us an opportunity to start building this This structure out, but I think the money that we put forward Goes a long ways towards doing that You know the cost of the rad report and what basically what the the report stated Well, I was in it the range was Anywhere from a hundred and something million dollars to six hundred and something million dollars. So I was shocked at the range first of all But then when you get into the details and it's fair to uncover what what is proposed and What they're trying to what they were trying to get to We know it's a lot of money, but but at the same time, I'm a believer in early Care and learning and and I think I look forward to working with folks over the next couple of years in order to do that But but again, you got to walk before you run and and I believe that the proposal we're putting forward Makes the most sense at this point Stuart leb better One of the concerns Initially from democratic lawmakers about your child care proposal is that it didn't at least on space include money increased wages for child care workers Your thoughts about the need to increase those wages Well and putting more money into the system 56 million dollars, I think we'll cover Some of the wage increases we'll see as well. I mean, I think it's it's something that we're seeing through this The inflation that we're seeing throughout the the state and country wages are increasing and they need to increase more but To artificially Increased wages isn't necessarily going to get us to where we need to go because we don't have the people Um, I thought the entirety of the 56 million went towards juicy fat. It does but but it goes in pockets of somebody, right? I mean, it's it's money that's injected there Utilized paid into the system so that The money has to go to the program so eventually I think the The educators will benefit as a result You know, we've been through this a number of times over the years. I think it's unfortunate Um I think if we were worried that worried about our debt, we shouldn't have spent so much money And not had this this fight to raise the debt ceiling because I think it's in we've already we've already done the damage, right? We already spent the money so This should be we should Come together some way somehow and take this off the table because we're looking at the wrong thing Would you agree that that this is money that's already been spent, right? So Is it are republicans in washington sort of raising a false issue here? I don't know if it's a false issue because debt is debt and I don't like that any more than anyone else But I should have thought of that when you're spending the money Should have brought that up then right? I mean, maybe there's some provision to keep you. Maybe there should be Some sort of proposal that shows you what the debt would be if you spend this x amount of money To give some folks pause as to what they're doing But I don't know if they even put that together right they spend the money And nobody looks at how much you're really borrowing to do that. I don't believe I mean, if I understand it's practically this is money that's already been spent Yeah, so doesn't the government have an obligation to pay for it? Yes No, I'm that's what I'm saying, but I'm saying in future years when you're when you're debating budgets That's like we do If if you should know how you're going to pay for it And that's part of my concern with the budget that we Put into place this year As you'll notice, uh, I'm not I'm not taking a lot of the money and putting it into base because I'm not I don't think we should we should Um use what I what I would uh describe as one time money for ongoing programs. So We have a debt affordability committee for the for the capital bill We've downgraded how much we borrow every year. Um, this is down to about 54 56 million something like that this year Which is down from previous years. Uh, it was up to a high of a hundred million dollars. I think Back in the 90s, maybe 2000 somewhere in there Where we were borrowing a hundred million dollars a year. Um, so since this debt affordability committee takes a look Determined how much we should be borrowing how much of a debt service can we afford? so We found a way to do that. I think I know the numbers are gigantic on the on the federal end But I think that they should do the same, you know, I mean, let's talk about How much debt we want to take on before you spend the money as you're developing your spending bill It sounds like you're saying that the house republicans Are fighting sort of at the wrong place Yeah, no, I think this should they should come to agreement that we we need to raise the debt debt ceiling They should come to that agreement now, but they should also put into place In congress some way to to make sure that we're we're not over spending and we're not over borrowing Because it's a real issue House general is now talking about homelessness Any thought about your administration requiring people receiving emergency Housing services to to work on the issues that landed them in homelessness Well, we're we have services. That's what we've been trying to do Is to try and identify what put people into homelessness that to begin with and try to help them Provide those wraparound services To to bring them out of homelessness to give them a permanent home So I'd say we we're doing that we stepped up our efforts We're doing that right now And we'll continue to do that because I think that's the right path Is there a requirement that People receiving services Work on their stuff. I understand that their services often Yeah, I I don't know that we have any requirement specific requirement, but I might ask secretary samuelson if she's aware Governor thank you. You are correct. There's no specific requirement that makes individuals get employment or address other issues related to Their homelessness what I can say Is that the state has significantly over the last couple of months in partnership with community providers Stepped up efforts to Gather information around what the barriers are the individuals are facing in their homelessness to Also have teams of individuals who are case managers nurse case managers work Teams that also include individuals to help with employment And navigating economic services as well as housing have really come together to Work with families and individuals experiencing homelessness To dig into the barriers and to help them navigate How to address those barriers so an unprecedented effort to really both understand And to provide supports and services For those individuals experiencing homelessness to help them make that transition Is starting two days of testimony on a shield wall to protect Patients and providers from out of state litigation. Yeah, we did you did have that question before I'm sorry Jason you did me better That's the same thing to me But we're taking a look at it. I don't know the specifics of that legislation, but But if there's a need we will work with them to provide and support in any way we can Well, it depends I don't know the specifics of the legislation So I don't want to level them and say I support it until I know But but we'll be at the table as well the spirit of it perhaps perhaps the spirit of it. Yes I've heard some lawmakers express skepticism about the wisdom Of the state spending millions of dollars to incentivize businesses to move to the state in an environment where The acute labor shortage you outlined were all those different categories you listed We're short of why would we continue to spend millions of dollars to bring new businesses to the state where We're already Having different multi staffing the businesses who are already doing that. Right. Well, I I understand Some of the difficulty in envisioning that but But we can't stand still right we have to plan for the next Business that will be supporting Vermont if we if we did that in every instance We thought I thought curie was going to be here forever They left IBM I thought was going to be here a staple in vermont was going to be here forever They're no longer here So we have to be one step ahead all the time. So at the same time We're trying to address all the the needs that we have to bring more people into the state They have to continue to try and build out the Businesses as well and to spread them out a bit more not so concentrated in one area of the state And that would be more beneficial to in some of the areas that we're talking about today Where they have like Derby newport area has a 5% unemployment rate right now where the rest of the state has about 2.6 So that's where we need more businesses In the areas of the state that have Have workers and could could utilize them and destabilize vermont in a much different way So we are actively pursuing more businesses, but we're trying to disperse them as geographically Diverse as possible to help those regions that have been left behind Buildings in the state yeah, that's an effort to lure businesses Yeah, we do be done in concert with the business that already wants to come not to lure them But just be prepared like you can build You can have a building like they've done in st. Albans successfully They they'll put up a building with a fairly large footprint That could accommodate almost any business So then you can go from there if you have a shell and you have a foundation It's all permitted ready to go Then you can build out the interior make those alterations In order to satisfy whatever business you're trying to attract. So it's more kind of a cookie cutter Type approach so that we're prepared when and if There's a business that wants to come because we've lost out On some businesses that that have moved on and gone to other Areas because we haven't been able to accommodate their needs. Maybe we just don't have The infrastructure they need I would not agree with that I think that the bobby miller did this successfully He was speculating on on buildings and throughout Throughout chinning county For just that reason And he would he would build something that would accommodate a number of different Businesses from all sectors. So It really is about the shell foundation and you can go from there or you know You wouldn't have to put the floor in you could just have the outside foundation and the shell And the rest would go pretty quick Again we do that with the rdcs right now They they do that. They did in st. Albans. They do it in other areas as well And successfully Georgia they did in Georgia. They have an industrial park that That some then somebody buys that might lease it for a while and then moves on So it makes sense In from a timing perspective All right. All right. Thank you very much