 Good afternoon. Thanks for being here. As you know, I vetoed the budget this weekend because of racist costs on everyday Vermonters relies on a new payroll tax increases DMV fees by 20% and grows base spending at more than twice the rate of inflation which isn't sustainable. I think it's why I've been elected and re-elected to provide balance common sense and fiscal responsibility. So I will follow through on that promise. As I make made clear in my veto message, we continue to face an affordability crisis. I hear it from Vermonters every single day. It's one reason I ran for governor in the first place, whether it's young Vermonters just starting out seniors on fixed incomes who lived here their whole lives or working families trying to get by were simply too expensive for far too many people. And with high inflation, the last thing we should be doing is adding to the affordability problem by imposing new and higher taxes, fees and penalties. That's especially true when we have record surpluses. But unfortunately, that's what this does. And here's the important part. It doesn't have to be this way because we have enough money from organic revenue growth to make significant progress on the initiatives we agree on without adding to Vermonters costs. My budget proved that it leveraged a historic 390 million surplus revenue to fund many of these shared priorities like childcare, voluntary paid family medical leave, housing, climate change mitigation and more. Again, all without raising taxes and fees. Now I understand how this process works and also know I won't get everything I want. That's why I've offered alternative pass along the way because this is supposed to be a two way street. I think it's also important to remember the legislature has also vetoed their fair share of my ideas by not taking them up. For example, the legislature had no interest in tax relief for senior citizens on fixed incomes, expanding the earn income tax credit, which helps low income working families. We're joining the vast majority of states by fully exempting military retirement pay from the state income tax, which I heard a lot about over the weekend and a lot of the different events. And they cut my funding request for VHIP by 33%, which has been incredibly successful for those experiencing homelessness, which makes no sense at all to cut. They also reduced my proposal for missing middle housing tuition breaks for community college members and more. Again, those are just a handful of many examples of the legislature basically vetoing my proposals. Now, with the but with this budget, I know there's been a lot of attention around the GA program. To be clear, this is not an area of disagreement between me, legislative leaders and the majority of the legislature. So instead of the conversation being about getting 100 votes to override my veto, we should focus on how we can come to an agreement on the budget to get a signature, because I think that's what most Vermonters expect of us. So with that, I'll turn it over to questions. Has to go to a currency is called on you to declare a state of emergency in advance of motel and hotel exits. She said the budget upon passage would have released funds, including 12.5 million dollars in hot funds that would have been available to your administration to ease a transition. You're responsible for the declaration and the extent to which lack of those funds in the interim is going to hamstring your efforts. Yeah, we'll take them separately. First of all, the state of emergency is something that we use during the pandemic. Obviously, it's almost like a last resort. It's not something that I want to overuse. But it's always been on the table. It's always been something that we've considered using. And we'll consider using it if the if the situation avails to it. But but at this point in time, I think we need to get through June 1 get in the middle of the month and see where we're at at that point. But it is on the table. It's one of the tools in the toolbox that we could use that would give broad authority to myself in doing all kinds of things to help with the housing crisis that we face. And we certainly have heard a lot over the last few years from leaders myself included have talked about the housing crisis here in Vermont. We tried to hit that head on record number of amount of money being spent for housing. But we need it faster. And then we're implementing it. So that's the that's the situation in terms of the homeless situations. We just don't have enough housing stock. So that's on the table in terms of the money that's in the budget, the ARPA money. And it really is about a pass through that they would just give authority to use the ARPA money. We believe there's another way forward to expedite that and put that into play. So I disagree in some respects that it isn't at our disposal. But that's a conversation we can have to clarify what would you need to see in order to implement the state of emergency to be able to expedite those those funds. What would you will know when we see it? Because we don't actually know exactly what's going to happen on June one. I've been very clear about that honest about that. We think we're taking steps to prevent this from growing to a situation where we'd have to impose the state of emergency because again, that's a big deal. The state of emergency is just that. And you can use extraordinary means to solve that problem. And as you remember from the pandemic, it went on from my perspective probably too long. But we were searching for ways to end it. Because I think that's an authority that should be used just in terms of emergency situations. So we'll we'll know when we see it. But it's there at our disposal whenever needed. And what specifically what a state of emergency allow you to stand up in the way of assets to address? What you know when you see? Well, again, I think it's this all stem is from a housing crisis. So it would get broad authority to do all kinds of different that the power is almost limitless. You can utilize assets that you have. It also can free up money that might be in different areas, different buckets that you could it's fungible. So you can move that money around. But I would be seeking to solve the housing crisis that would and also help with the homelessness issue. I know one of the authorities you can be granted under a state of emergency is the ability to commandeer for lack of a better word assets that are privately owned for government use. Is that a scenario that you're again, it's it's it's part of the whole package is regulatory reform. There's different funding that may have been committed to other other areas that we commandeer in some respects to do whatever we can to solve the housing crisis. Governor, as part of these ongoing budget negotiations, right now, among the Democratic caucus, there's this group of 17 that's pushing for more of an off ramp or more funding. They're going to be putting up their proposal forward. But there there is a real possibility, though, that this budget which you vetoed could come back larger could be bigger during the veto session. How do you square that and what what would you like to see to get your your signature? Well, again, you know, I would counter that I could probably get 18 Republicans, if we had a common sense proposal that we could compromise that I could get their votes to get it across the finish line. So it's not all about the 17 that that are unwilling to to move forward without or maybe even sustain my veto in order to get what they want. But you know, I have to be realistic. And I think we all have to be. I've seen this play out in other scenarios. And I bet is some of those who have said that they would sustain the veto would probably come home to the party. And the party would probably take precedent over their principles. You've talked about having consternation yourself about what the next few weeks is going to bring as it relates to the exit of 760 households from motels and hotels. I'm wondering to what extent should the general public take that as an indictment of the planning that has been underway that got us to this point? Well, we we have been working at this since October to survey those in the program to find alternatives. And we found alternatives for some will continue to work on that path. We don't want anyone to suffer. We want we want to provide long term housing for them. So we'll continue to do what we've been doing. And hopefully, we will be able to prevail and make this as seamless as possible. And what has prevented you from arriving at this moment now, communicating to everybody, we've got this under control. This is in hand. We are going to have a safe orderly transition and everybody is going to be taken care of. Yeah, well, again, you know, we put these proposals forth since the very beginning. And they've been extended numerous times by both the federal government and by the state government, the legislature and others. So it's hard to to move forward and and provide the certainty until we know what the date is. So that's been in flux a bit over the last year or two years. In some respects, the federal government extended a couple of times as did the legislature. So again, we are doing the best we can. We think this is going to be seamless as possible. But I don't think people should be surprised to see that there are some who choose to maybe set up a tent somewhere in other using other alternatives. So throughout the session, you've been very clear on not wanting to raise fees or taxes, where, for example, childcare, for example, the DMV fees where Democrats do not have as much of an issue doing that saying it's more of a long term investment. But both sides so dug in on one not wanting to raise fees and taxes, the other not having a problem with doing that. I guess where does this middle ground come from besides just seemingly arm budging at this point when it comes to that? Well, I'm providing the middle ground, I guess. And if I had had played hardball from the beginning, maybe and then more politically astute and maybe more politically driven, I would have come up with a different proposal for the budget. So that we come to the middle where we were where we actually presented the middle in our budget proposal. So I wanted to, again, I've tried to be straight with Vermonters, giving them the best path forward that I can that I can see. And we put a budget that was sustainable, that invested in areas that we all agreed upon. And maybe that was, I wouldn't say it was naive, but but I knew it is getting myself into but I thought it was important to meet them where they were and to provide a path forward. And they exceeded that much more generous and generous with the taxpayers pocketbooks as well. And and got us to where we are today. But it's not sustainable from my perspective. I have talked about the economic storm clouds that are on the horizon. I still believe that they're coming. And and I don't believe that this budget will get us through. We won't be able to weather that economic storm when it comes with a budget that they've they propose. So they have the numbers, they have the power. They know it. And we'll see where we where we where we go when we get to the veto session. But I'm sure I'm sure they have the numbers to to override the veto. You mentioned those economic storm clouds that you've been talking about for months now. But just in a in a world where you I'm sure you wouldn't like to see where your veto is overridden with this budget as constituted. You mentioned, you know, just short term implications, people can afford these taxes and fees right now. But just 1020 years down the road with this precedent of this kind of spending, what do you think Vermont is going to look like in terms of housing in terms of jobs? Yeah, I think they'll they'll be more of the haves and have nots. You know, there'll be more of a divide between we knows that have the resources who it doesn't matter how much they pay, they have they have the money. And then they'll have those who are going to be reliant on the government to get them through. So there'll be that divide will will see the middle middle income for monitors will become fewer and fewer. And that's what we're seeing. You mentioned the votes to override, but the budget didn't pass the House by a veto proof majority. Are you concerned that we could be headed toward a situation where they don't have the votes by the time of fiscal year turns over? Yeah, I think I said it before you came in. But there are 17 votes at this point in time. And they they voted no on the budget in terms of principle. But I I truly believe they'll come home to the party when push comes to shove and party will come before principle. You talked last week about extending the exit date for the second slug of households on July 1. Not really extension. Just restarting the GA program itself. Is that what you're talking about? Well, so I was going to maybe I was misunderstood that there are 1000 or so households that are set to be exited from the motel hotel rooms on July 1. Is that still all 1000 of them are still going? Yes, but they will have their disposal 28 days of the original GA program that they'll be able to utilize 28 days worth. The entirety of that population will have those 28 days. Anybody who qualifies might want to have Secretary Samuelson describe that better than I can. So what we're doing is we're restarting the general assistance program on July 1. So for those who qualify, including those who have a disability and have SSI or SSDI, those who are pregnant in their third trimester, those who are 65 and older and children and families with children will will be restarting and eligible for their benefit. So it's 20 it's 28 days. That means that there are some individuals who will not be eligible at that point and will exit on July 1, who would not normally be eligible for the GA program. If I'm in the second month of my third trimester, and I take my 28 days on July 1, does that mean I would not have any housing for the third month of my third trimester? We get back to you on that one and how and how they work with that. The governor said that you all are looking at ways to draw down money that was not specifically earmarked in the budget. What's can you talk with any more specificity? Yeah, I don't think that would be under their their department, but but remember, this is federal money, startup of money. And we believe there's a path forward and I wouldn't want to get ahead of myself. I'd want to talk with the leadership in the legislature about that path forward. And that would be in response to what you're seeing on the ground in the coming days. Yes. Governor on a separate note, one of the bills you vetoed this morning, S 39, I think it is lawmaker pay. When you were reading over that bill, we've known this conversation has been coming. You've talked about it before. What was going through your mind as you were reading that that bill? Well, it's it's something that I felt since they started this conversation in the legislature. I if if we're really trying to get more people to run for the legislature, I think it's a time commitment. And I've felt this way for the last 20 years. In fact, Senator Mazin myself testified on this very issue when I was in the Senate, the government ops and offered that the solution that I've offered today, a contract amount for a set amount of time, 90 days, everyone I speak to about running for office is always asking not about the pay. It's not about the health benefits that they passed. It's about how much time. What do I tell my employer? How long is it going to be? How long is the session? They don't understand all of that. And when I say that it's open ended. And they say, Well, how long can it take? You know, I said, Well, until the budget passes. And and in my experience, I've been in there since into the mid June. So it's hard for some to commit to that, because their families because their their their work, their employer, they need to be able to tell them how long they're going to be there. And can they make this work? With a 90 day session? They could, I think a lot more candidates would step up, because they would know when that end date is, and there'd be a contract amount and they could they could increase their pay that way. I mean, you talk not infrequently about the legislative branch over stepping in terms of telling you how to do your job, right? Separate equal branches. I mean, just really make sense with the executive to be telling the legislature how to how it ought to be running its business. Well, I think we all have an obligation if we really want more balance in the state, which I think I would like to see more balance. Maybe they don't. When you're in power, maybe that's not your that's not your mission. But my mission is to provide more alternatives, more different perspectives. And having more people at the table running for office, I think it's healthy for democracy. And this approach that they're taking, I think has ramifications far beyond the candidates who are running. But this is setting themselves up for longer sessions. Probably I think there are some who feel that we're we're destined for a year round session, a full time legislature, which Vermont does not need. So I would like to do all I can to prevent that from happening. Am I hearing you reading through the lines that you think that that bill would lead to less diversity in the legislature? Well, I think you'd have I mean, people stay a long time. I think this would just allow them to stay longer. I do believe that we need more diversity, more balance, different perspectives. I think that's what what really makes a successful legislative session. When you don't have one one party in power, completely a super majority, I don't think gives you the best results. So yeah, I'd like to see more people stepping up to run. So so Billy did sign I believe it was yesterday s 138 having to deal with school safety, whether it's making mandatory walking exterior doors, options based response drills, I guess what are some parts of that bill that I don't know if excited use the right word but make you I guess be more confident that people or students will be safer at school and parents can kind of trust the school systems more saying their kids everyday. Well, it certainly was a step in the right direction. Many of the events we've seen over the last few years led us to this legislation working with the legislature. This is an example of success in the legislature. When we work together, we worked, we had our whole team working on this from the very start, and had legislators from both parties working on this to try and have a common mission of protecting our kids. And I think that the the result was just that and I and I do believe this will him will continue to make tweaks along the way as we see necessary to make it even safer. But but I think this goes a long ways towards that. Do you think there's sufficient resources in schools to carry out all these measures? I think we spend a lot for education. So I think there are resources available in terms of educators and teachers just sheer numbers. Do you think they'll be able to carry out everything? Well, again, we're we are facing labor workforce shortage as well. It's in every single sector. Teachers are included in that along with law enforcement in every other sector across the board. So it will be challenging. There's a lot on the agenda for the session, good return of veto override votes as well as some things that just are spilling over that they may get done during the session. Do you foresee anything in particular falling off the plate and not getting done? I think that would be up to them. I don't want to get involved in their legislative decisions. I have a question about health care reform. I don't know if Secretary Samuelson is still here. It looks like the Green Mountain Care Board hold the hold one care Vermont's budget off their agenda today. I don't know when they're going to be voting on it, but just broadly heading into this vote. I mean, how how has the administration been thinking about where one care Vermont is right now in meeting its goals and how we're funding it? Yeah, we're challenged in some respects, but we're moving forward. So as an independent board, we don't necessarily impact or influence the Green Mountain Care Board's decision about the ACO. We are in the process of working closely with Green Mountain Care Board providers across Vermont and others to negotiate the next all pair model agreement, which really will set the direction for where we go with the ACO and broader reforms going forward. You see those discussions looking like and the governor just said it's challenged, you know, and I think some some told me that we're kind of this inflection point here. Where do you see this? So the ACO has achieved some things. But it hasn't achieved all of the goals that we would have wanted to see happen in the state of Vermont. It's been a great mechanism to help us drive forward things like payment reform that really were the foundation during the pandemic at keeping our hospitals and other providers stable. It hasn't necessarily actualized the full transformation of the health care system that we would have hoped. And so I think that's a part of the evaluation is to really and I think is to really appreciate and evaluate where the ACO is now. Prior to the pandemic, we put it the Agency of Human Services and put out an evaluation of the ACO and we continue to monitor progress towards that and that influences our impacts, our decision going forward. I guess what have some of those stumbling blocks been if you just have to maybe name a few. I mean, I know it's really complex and there's a lot of pieces to the puzzle here. But what what has sort of hamstrung progress? Just what I want to say is that when we entered into the all pair model agreement, we all knew that it was something new, that we were evaluating something that was different, a new model of paying health care providers, a new model of driving change. I think what you're sit what we have right now is just is that inflection point for us to evaluate how successful it's been over the last over the last more than five years. Now, we also had a pandemic in the middle of it. And I think that it's important for us to recognize that want to go to the phones and we can come back to the room. We'll start with Tim McQuiston for my business magazine. Thank you. I have a question about revenues and a follow up. You mentioned that we have more organic growth than there's to be enough surplus to cover the programs as you see them going forward. But as you well know, the personal income tax revenues have kind of cratered the last few months. Is is that surplus still going to be there at this point? Yeah, with our budget that we put forward, we did take a lot of that into account. We think, for instance, the $56 million for childcare is something that we have enough basic growth that will be fine in that area. But but we won't have all the surpluses in the future that we've been experiencing over the last two or three years. That's because, as I've said before, the vast amount of money that has been coming from Washington and has really stimulated the economy and provides that maybe overstimulation that won't be there in the coming years. But but if we if we do this right and we live within our means, we'll be able to weather any economic storm that comes our way. But we have to be pragmatic and we have to be realistic about what that means. And we can't continue to tax increase taxes and costs on on every day for monitors. I've been able to get a handle on why the the PI has come down so much from expectations given employment numbers are getting better. We know there's been wage inflation. Has your has your office been able to figure that out yet or we're going to have to wait to see how it all washes out. I think we're going to have to wait. I think it's too early to come to any conclusions on that to see if it's sustaining or if it's continuing to drop. I think we'll have to watch that as things progress. And again, some of this has to do with consumer confidence as well. And when we see what's happening across the nation and the economy throughout the world, we we are, you know, along for the ride in some respects. So we'll continue to do all we can to make sure we don't put ourselves in a position where we're vulnerable. And and if we have, you know, if I'm wrong about this, and we have surpluses the next year and the year after that. Good, great. I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. And we'll have those resources to be able to define the initiatives that the legislature wants. But we should be measured in how we move forward so that we don't put ourselves at risk. Okay, thank you. Tom Davis, Compass, Vermont. Thanks, Jason. No questions today, Governor. Thank you very much. Thank you. Chris Roy, Newport Daily Express. Good afternoon, Governor. Thank you. I have no questions today. Thank you, Chris. Back to the room. Governor, you sent a sharing film today. I know we've talked about that a lot, but any thoughts? Yeah, I mean, it was controversial. In some respects, we didn't have all the sheriffs on board. We didn't have anybody really on board 100%. But it seems as though we were able to come to agreement in the end to make it palatable for both sides. So it's not ideal for some, but not enough for others. And I guess that's when when compromise is truly successful is when you have both sides, the extremes, not liking what you ended up with. That's like what we're seeing in Washington by example. Do you say that the impeachment of Sheriff Grismore had anything to do with your thought process on this? No, no, separate from that. You bear up Washington. Any thoughts on the the debt ceiling battles? I'm encouraged to see that they were able to. I mean, if Washington can come to an agreement, we should be able to as well. But it appears like it's moving forward. I hope I hope it's taken up and passed because as I said before, the debt ceiling is something that shouldn't be done in the aftermath. Alright, that should be done during the budget process and and not spend over spend, which is what I'm trying to prevent from happening here in Vermont. Don't over spend. Make sure that you live it in your means and they haven't been doing that. So looks like they might have some progress on that and some agreement and that's encouraging. I think it'll be good for all of us if that they can put that behind us. What do you think of the fact that social policy debates have kind of crept into the conversation around the debt ceiling? I'm thinking of the work requirements for SNAP benefits and the student loan repayment, you know, I find. Yeah, I think they always do. I mean the work requirements, I believe we're in at one point anyhow. A few years ago, but but I may be wrong. So yeah, I mean, we see that all the time and all the work that we do, some of your philosophical differences surface and and they have to compromise on that as well. Back to the motel housing. I've heard some folks in the housing support universe hypothesized that there are going to be some people that just don't leave the hotel, right? Like, alright, you time up. I'm not leaving. I mean, you're ultimately the client, right? I would say no. I think that they are the guests. Those who are in the program. We were just a credit card. We paid the bill. So have you, I mean, have you and your team like gained that scenario out at all and thought about what you'll do if people don't leave? Well, we'll go by the law at that point, whatever law prevails and we'll assist in any way we can. But this is between the hotel and the hotel management and their guests. Apologies that this came up on on Friday. But has there been any talk about security deposits that the state paid to some of the hotel rooms or hotels and who gets the security deposit back? That would come back to us eventually. So that's our assumption. No, that isn't our assumption. That's my assumption. Apparently it's an our assumption. That goes back to. Yeah. So for those individuals who have been staying in the hotels for four months or longer, their security deposit is pretty significant. It's three thousand three hundred dollars. And that's returned to them and minus any damages to the room to the rooms that have happened. For those who were less than four months that comes back to the state. So I think that that's that's an important opportunity for many of the folks who are in the program. I do want to go back to a question that you asked earlier. And that was around folks who are pregnant and leaving the program. And I can get you the technical details. I think one of the things that we emphasized last Friday is that the hotel program as the general assistance housing program is really temper intended to be a temporary program for really short stays. We have had we have individuals who were going in helping people navigate to the next steps. And for anyone who you know who's had a baby before you recognize that's a really tumultuous time. And so programs like Lund that exist out there for new mothers are probably some of the better places for us to help folks get to rather than staying in the hotels. Again the security deposit apparently wasn't something that I considered that we wouldn't be getting back. But but this is good news for the guests there. They will be able to utilize that money for whatever purpose they might want to. Maybe even negotiating with the hotel to provide a longer stay. We I just want to last follow-up. We've heard from some of our viewers that are asking for the security deposit act. The hotels are saying no we have to get this to the state. I mean what sort of outreach is the state doing to the hotel? Yeah apparently I wasn't aware. So I apparently it does go back to the guests. So they will be able to utilize it in any way they see fit. And this could provide them with a bit of a slope or ramp off from from where they're at today. Is the state anticipating any you know major influx in law enforcement calls, police, CMS, fire, other health care issues that might come with the off-boarding so to speak of this program? I don't think we're anticipating any more than what way they have been experiencing over the last couple of years. They have especially in the Berlin area I know at the hill top in Berlin they have multiple calls a day with law enforcement. So I don't expect that they'll have any more than they've been experiencing but everyone's always prepared. You will need to act on each 230 the suicide prevention gun bill very shortly. Still contemplating my action on that as I've been saying I don't I don't believe the waiting period is constitutional and I'll have to decide whether that's enough to veto the bill or let it go without signature. But my my belief is that he'll be settled by the courts eventually. You took an oath of office not to do anything contrary to the constitution. And you're saying right now you don't think it's constitutional. Right that's what I'm struggling with. At the same time I know that it's going to be challenged and the Supreme Court will prevail on this. So that's exactly my I guess inner turmoil in some respects. Shifting on that slightly in Franklin County and as well as Orleans County we have a large section of 105 that has been very dangerous. The state has looked at it. I'm told that several of those crashes have to do with mental health if not suicide. And possibly even the one that was that happened on Saturday night that killed a sudden girl girl. Can you balance I don't know I don't know that to be the case. I'm not saying that it isn't. But but I do know it involves crossing the center line. There's been a number a number of these tragedies over the last few years that involved crossing the center line distracted driving in particular. I think cell phone use is is common. But but there is we have a mental health issue on our hands. We are seeing more and more of that. But I I haven't seen the lawn line drawn between that and these these particular crashes. But could be but I haven't heard that. You mentioned your contemplation has the bill had your desk yet. It's not. May have it here but I have not gone through it. Thank you all.