 Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here. Before taking questions today, I want to spend a few minutes talking about why raising motor vehicle fees as proposed by the legislature is not only regressive, but it's not needed and makes no sense, at least to me. When I became governor, I told Vermonters that raising taxes and fees would be our last resort. Because across the state, they told me repeatedly. They weren't sure they could afford to live here anymore. And it's no secret that Vermont has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation. So we've held the line against raising taxes and fees ever since without cuts to programs. In fact, quite the opposite. We've actually seen organic revenue growth, which we've used to fund new initiatives and coupled that with a historic amount of funding, Vermont is in better financial shape than I can ever remember. That's why I find it so unfair to ask Vermonters to pay even more, especially when their face was so many other fixed costs increases, like food, fuel, and rent. But what we're hearing from lawmakers is we need to raise DM fees by 20% because we haven't done it in six years. And that's what inflation has increased since 2016. For awareness, DMV fees include things like driver's licenses and permits or renewals, as well as car, truck, and trailer registrations. And just so everyone understands, the purpose of fees is to fund the operations of a specific program. And in this case, the Department of Motor Vehicles has testified they don't need the money. To justify the increase, House Ways and Means asked the legislature's joint fiscal office to give them the inflation factor since 2016. So our Department of Finance and Management decided to take a look a bit deeper. Here's what they found. First, Vermont's driver's license renewal fees have increased at more than double the rate of inflation since 1996. And that includes the six-year pause of no taxes and fees. That same year, 1996, Vermont had the lowest driver's license renewal fees in our region. Now, even with the six-year pause, they're the highest. They also found we currently have the highest registration fees in our region. And they would get even worse with the fee increase have been proposed. In fact, if what the House passed becomes law, registrations will be twice the average of our six neighboring states. Now, there are more examples we can provide, but I want to at least give you some context. The other argument I've heard is that they need the money for the federal match I keep talking about. Two things about that. Number one, we have the cash without raising fees because we can use the historic surpluses. And number two, if they're successful in raising the fee, it will never be reduced after raising all the one-time match money we need. It doesn't sunset. That's why the fiscally responsible thing to do is use the cash we have, which will pay dividends for years to come without burdening the very people we're trying to help. So with that, I'll turn it over to Secretary Flynn. Thank you very much, Governor, and good morning, everybody. I think you'll hear that I think a lot like the governor. Fees raised by DMV provide Vermont's monetary share needed to fund highway construction and maintenance projects. The remainder of dollars needed for construction come from the Federal Highway Administration, as you've heard, at a ratio of at least four to one. The Agency of Transportation under the Scott administration has now delivered seven consecutive transportation budgets without once increasing DMV fees. Two of those budgets, including this year's, as recommended, are of record size. Also included in this year's budget, as you heard, is a request to the legislature to set aside $80 million from the general fund tax surplus to secure Vermont's monetary share for construction projects and maintenance across fiscal years 24, 25, and 26. The House budget, though, is suggesting to increase the DMV fees, resulting in Vermonters paying 20% more and collecting another $20 million across the board. Everything from driver's licenses to vehicle registrations, trailer registrations, have vehicle transfers, transit buses, delivery trucks, commercial vehicles, and the list goes on. Over 200 fee categories are proposed to be increased. As you also heard, the last fee increase was in 2016 in a previous administration. Some are saying we should have raised fees sooner. And if we only had, they would not need to raise them so much now. If the legislature had felt strongly about that in previous years, it could have imposed a fee increase on its own, like it is this year. Instead, it passed our previous six budgets without doing so, agreeing with what we had recommended. It was also said that Vermont has long left federal dollars on the table for a lack of enough money in the state's transportation fund. Let me be clear. The agency of transportation does not ever leave federal formula dollars on the table. If we are given an importionment, we use it. There is no lack of enough money in the state's transportation fund. However, not all of the money Vermonters pay into the transportation fund is kept in the transportation fund. Every year, year after year, $20 million is transferred out of the transportation fund that Vermonters pay their DM fee fees into. This money goes to bolster other parts of state government. The governor's transportation budget ensures our share will be secure. Construction and maintenance projects will go forward without delays. Delays that would have been caused by our share not being available or predictable. And it ensures that the Vermont economy will continue to churn with hundreds of projects and thousands of jobs that are necessary to deliver them. It is not necessary now to increase DMV fees on Vermonters. Doing so would be regressive, striking a blow to those who can least afford it. Fees can remain as they are. And the transportation fund should be kept intact, left alone, and used for transportation purposes. Thank you. Thank you, Secretary Flynn. Now I'll open it up to questions. As you know, some of those surpluses that you're talking about that lawmakers aren't using for a federal match, those are going to other initiatives like paid leave, child care, et cetera. What do you make of the argument that having robust social support programs like those actually save Vermonters money and that these fee increases at the DMV, those pale in comparison to what a parent might be paying for child care or others? Well, again, we agree with the goal. We want paid family leave. We want more child care. In fact, this administration, under my watch, has done more for child care than any other administration of previous record. So we have a common interest here. It's just about how we get there and how fast. They'd like to do it all in one year, which is admirable, but it's not practical. This is something, I believe, that we need to build over a period of time so that we have the organic growth to be able to have it be self-sufficient. So again, we have the same goals. We have paid family leave in our bill, a voluntary plan. We have child care, increasing child care provisions as well in our bill, but it isn't the same as theirs. Theirs is much more generous, but we contend that we'll get to the same place probably quicker than they will if they follow our lead and then be able to use the surpluses for one-time expenses, as we've said. This one-time expense is this federal money that's coming our way. This federal money's not going to be recurring. It's a one-time shot. We're going to get at this. So we better make sure we have the match money to take advantage of every single federal dollar that comes our way. And this is the most secure way to do that. We're good. Everyone's good on topic was. I was just wondering if you had any thoughts or comment, kind of what's going on down in Tennessee with the legislature and two out of the three being expelled and just if you had any thoughts or a comment on what's going on down there. You know, I haven't followed it consistently, but I've seen broadly what's been happening over the last 24 hours in particular. First, I want to make sure that everyone in Vermont understands this wouldn't happen in Vermont. It's unfortunate that it's happening there. As many of you know as well, I believe in respect and civility. I guess number one, I believe in the process. I believe in decorum. I was president of the Senate at one time. I presided over the Senate and we adhered to that. There are rules and regulations for that, but there are rules and regulations, right? There are policies. They're not criminal acts. To expel someone from a legislative office who has been elected by their constituents to represent them over a rule violation, I think is way over the top. And again, I don't believe there's any place for that. It seems to me, and again, I'm not trying to give advice to them. We have our own issues here in Vermont, but this isn't one of them. And I think it could be dealt with in a much, much more even-handed way with different provisions, different penalties of sort for violating the rules of their chamber. I have another off-topic one. A handful of Republican representatives introduced a bill this morning that would prevent those that were assigned a male at birth in our transition to become a female and would prevent them from playing sports as a female in Vermont. I don't know if you had any initial thoughts on that. Well, again, I go back to when I played sports when I was a kid. I can't tell you how many games we won, how many games we lost, what the scores were. We just played baseball and basketball and hockey. And I would ask that we take that segment of the population and just let them play. Let them be who they are and let them play. Now, on a higher level, professional collegiate and so forth, then there probably should be some parameters, but let's let the kids be kids. Yesterday, Governor, it appears that Vermont is on track to set another record year for fatal opioid overdoses. Yesterday, as you might have seen, a group of advocates and some lawmakers calling on lawmakers to restart the conversation on safe injection sites and decriminalization of some drugs. Has your thought process changed on that since last year? Well, obviously, Fentanyl has changed the game across the country. It's not just here in Vermont. I think we've seen increases in almost every other state. And it is something that we need to pay attention to and we are, I think, prevention and treatment recovery are three areas that we need to make sure that we're focusing on, which we are. I also think enforcement is another area. Taking the fentanyl out of the stream, so to speak, I think would be helpful. It's also xylosine that is becoming more prevalent. That is, when mixed with fentanyl, is concerning because naloxone doesn't have any effect on xylosine. So we have many areas that we're trying to make sure that we're paying attention to, but the so-called safe injection sites isn't one. And I don't believe that's the answer. You mentioned the treatment and recovery. The hub and spoke model, you know, Vermont has certainly been a leader in that nationally. How do you think that's holding up? I mean, do you think any changes need to be made? Expanding, obviously. I mean, I think there's more fentanyl, there's more drug use. We need more prevention and we need more of the hub and spoke throughout Vermont. So we need more treatment facilities. When somebody's ready for recovery, we better make sure that we're ready to take care of them and lead them on that path. And lastly, H222, I think it is, it's kind of a grab-back, if you will, of initiatives. It's got expansion of syringe collections, zoning for recovery group home houses, expansion of Narcan. Any thoughts on 222? I haven't looked at 222 to be honest with you, but we have always advocated for the syringe exchange as well as disposal sites, more prevention. Anything like that that we're already doing, we want to do more of. But I haven't looked at that bill in particular. Governor, you mentioned that the safe injection sites in overdose prevention centers aren't the answer. When you vetoed the bill last year, you said you didn't want to take away from the resources that have already been proven to work, whether it's the Narcan or distribution of Narcan or the fentanyl test strips. But you mentioned xylazine there and how it's not being able to be detected. So I don't know what you think needs to be done to help with that. Yeah, I'm not sure that xylazine can't be detected. It just can't be treated with naloxone to prevent an overdose, a death. And that's the concerning factor there. So that's where, again, more enforcement in terms of taking it out of the drug stream, so to speak, is going to be critical. We'll go to the phones now and we can come back to folks in the room. Start with Tim McQuiston from my business magazine. Thank you. Tom Davis, Compass for Modem. How are vehicle fees? How is the progress going on the proposal to have an electric vehicle fee and who places gas tax for the number of electric fees? I don't know where we are today. Again, we put forth a proposal that would be more of a mileage reimbursement fee. And my preferred method, and I think the Senate has talked about this, would be to utilize the charging itself, but I don't know as we're there yet. I don't know if the power companies can actually do this or not effectively. So it's still in conversation. Hopefully we'll get to a point where, because we're at, I think we have about 6% of the vehicles sold of late of being electric vehicles. So they're in demand and we need to make sure that they're paying their fair share. I mean, it's a user fee as I see it. So we're still working on it. I don't know where it's at in the Senate at this point in time. Do you know the crazy overall with the transit and the attempt to also get the electric vehicle fees? What are the places you want to figure out again? I don't know if I'm understanding the question is, are they in favor of raising the DMV fees? No, they're in favor of the electric vehicle user fees as much as they are for raising the fees of all the other things that isn't going to be able to park. I don't think it's either or for the legislature and I want to speak for them, but I think that they see the merit in trying to come up with some way to impose a fee on electric vehicles, but they also feel, at least in the house, have felt pretty strongly. Obviously they voted it out to raise DMV fees by 20% across the board. Thank you. Chris Roy, Newport A.L.E. Express, and Pete, I couldn't remember if you said you had a question if you were just listening, so if you have one, if not, we'll go back to the room if I know who's others. The Senate Appropriations Committee will come up next week, so I'm sorry. They're set to pass out a committee today to build up and raise legislator pay and open legislatures up for healthcare benefits as well, but it's here in particular tonight. I've responded in the past. My feelings haven't changed. I would be in favor of raising the pay of legislators and benefits if we could restrict the length of the session. I view this as a contract over maybe a 90 day period. Get them in, get them out. If some of the thought is that this will attract more people to run for the legislature, I'm in favor of that. I think that we need to do more, but I think what you'd find when I'm speaking to people about running for the legislature, it's the time commitment. It's like you don't know how long the session's going to last. It can be anywhere from four to six months and for them to leave their careers to do this on a part-time basis just doesn't work for them. So if we could restrict and shorten the session, I think that would attract in and of itself without raising pay. That would attract more people. But having said that, if they wanted to raise pay, then I would be in favor of that if we could couple it with reducing the length of the session. Do you think it's a toss to all of your monitors right now politically for legislators to be potentially increasing their own pay to do that? Yeah. Yeah, I don't think the everyday Vermonter would understand that. 90 days, that's really short. Not according to other states. Bigger states have 90 day provisions, error states who meet every other year. So we're a very small state. We can get the work done. We have to prioritize in order to do so. But I think that that would make the process better. I don't know where I was, Secretary French or Deputy Secretary Ruchet is on, but... They aren't on today. They're at a conference. Maybe you can weigh in. There's a couple of bills that have been floated this session. They've been taking up basically mandating certain curriculums, whether that be Holocaust education or financial literacy is one from Treasurer's office. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on lawmakers setting or mandating curriculum, which as you may know is created on the local level standards or made on the statewide level through the Board of Education. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on what this shift could be. Well again, these are important issues. I've always thought that we should have more of an awareness about the Holocaust in particular because history has a way of repeating itself and we can't forget history and sweep it under the carpet because it was real. And I'm not sure that everyone understands that. So for that one situation in itself, I think there needs to be more. I think financial literacy again is something that should be taught because I'm not sure that everyone has an awareness as to how to balance their own lives and how to make sure that they have the resources for the future. I will say one thing. I think even legislature might consider a financial literacy type of program for the first couple days of the session. And I'm just saying to understand the finances and how they work in the state, I think would be well suited for the legislature because typically the appropriations committees, the ways and means and finance, they understand how it all works. But not every legislator understands that and how the inner workings of the state government and fees and fee structures and so forth. So I think it would be beneficial for all of us to get a refresher course on financial literacy. Just as a follow-up, the concept though of the legislature setting curriculum, whether it be financial literacy, what do you make of that? It's like micromanaging a bit in a system that is supposed to be locally controlled. We have a state board of education as well. I think there is a way to connect all of that, but you can't pick and choose, right? So there are some other areas where I think local communities, local school boards and local supervisor unions want to focus on as well. So finding that balance is always difficult, but again, some of these issues should, we should make sure that the students are aware, our youth are aware of both history and everyday reality. Okay, have a great Easter for those who are celebrating.