 I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about affordability and the impact of new taxes and fees. At first, like last week, I want to take just a minute to remind folks that while the attention at the end of the session gets focused on areas of disagreement, there's still a lot of areas of agreement and good work being done both in this building and throughout state government. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending the Public Service Recognition Awards, which gave me the chance to recognize and meet many state employees who have gone above and beyond and excelled at their jobs. A few weeks ago, we marked the one-year anniversary of the creation of the Agency of Digital Services. In its first year, this agency now has a handle on all our IT assets and investors, which wasn't the one throughout state government for embracing this transition. As I also mentioned last week, we have a very good capital budget that moved forward this week. I believe it's all done and completed at this point. Tomorrow, I'll sign two bills focused on equality for women and the LGBTQ community as well. And I'm pleased to see the bills franken there are criminal laws. Work that was done quickly in response to the Fairhaven case and Jack Sawyer's release. And it appears that has passed as well. And there are many more bipartisan bills that will have a positive impact on the economy and Vermonters moving forward. Now, that brings me to the topic I wanted to focus on today. As too many of our families and businesses are well aware, the affordability crisis in Vermont is real. It's undermining economies in most counties across the state. In particular, the rural areas in the eastern side who battle each and every day with tax-free in New Hampshire. Working to reverse this trend is one of the primary reasons I ran for governor. Since taking office, I've talked a lot about how important it is to moderate costs in state government. As we work to grow the economy, make Vermont more affordable and modernize state government. My fiscal and economic priorities could not be more clear. Yet the legislative majority continues to advance legislation and proposes millions of dollars in new or higher taxes and fees, knowing I'm going to veto them. Last year with the support of the Republican minority and some fiscally responsible Democrats and independents, we prevented millions of dollars in proposed taxes and fees by insisting on a budget that did not raise a single tax or fee. Currently, the legislative majority has either passed or are poised to pass a total of 83 million in new or higher taxes. That includes 25 million of taxes and policy bills and a $58 million property tax increase. It's important to note the state budget already includes more than $150 million in new money, including the following. As you recall, the budget I proposed in January grew by $82 million due to natural and organic growth in economic activity, spending $82 million more this year than last year. Since January, we've also received unanticipated one-time money through tobacco settlement of $34 million in a one-time revenue surplus as announced last week and agreed to of $44 million for a total of $78 million. And yet the legislative majority is still looking at moving forward with an additional $83 million in new or higher taxes. Again, this approach is not acceptable to me. And honestly, it doesn't make any sense to me either. And based on what I've heard over the last two years and really for most of my political career, it's unacceptable to most taxpayers. For monitors understand, we can't make our state more affordable by making it more expensive to live in and do business here either. They also understand it's going to take consistent fiscal discipline and much more innovation and modernization in state government to strengthen our economic foundation and help families and employers get ahead after the higher and higher burden placed on them in previous years. I want to take a moment to thank the Republican minority and the fiscally responsible Democrats and independents, those that live in and represent communities that can't afford and haven't benefited from the policies of the past in both the House and Senate for sharing in this commitment. We are prepared to stand together again this year to make Vermont more affordable and our economy stronger. Frankly, this reality makes any effort by legislative leaders to pass bills and a budget they know will not receive by support and that I will veto an unnecessary waste of resources. If the majority of leadership will focus on ways we can achieve bipartisan consensus that ensures state government is living within its means, making investments that will help grow our economy and doing its part to help our monitors keep more of what they earn than this session can end on a positive note. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions or try to answer them. Again, it seems unacceptable to me when we've had so much growth, organic growth in revenue. Again, we're spending upwards over $80 million as opposed to last year and new found money of $44 million. It's somewhat dropped from the sky as well as this tobacco settlement fund. There's plenty of money there. We did it last year. We can do it again this year. Do you think that when local voters approve their school budgets, they did so with the understanding that their property tax rates might go up as a result? I don't feel that at all. I know when I went in to vote, that wasn't on my mind. This was something that I looked at whether and I didn't vote in one sector. I didn't vote for my school budget, but because it raised that it went over my growth rate indicator. But I don't believe voters went into the booth and looked at whether and considered that their property tax was going to increase next year and voted for this budget in that manner. I just don't believe that. You don't think that voters, when they went in and they saw that their local school budget was going to go up one and a half to three percent that when they support that budget that they didn't realize that there'd be an accompanying tax increase? No, I don't believe so at all. Where do you think they think the money comes from? I don't believe that they thought they were putting that into their equation. I don't think that they were looking at whether they, to vote yes or no on their budget that was within maybe their, they thought it was fiscally responsible. Maybe they thought that it was within one and a half percent, but I don't think they put it in their equation that their property tax were going to increase next year by seven, eight, nine cents. I just don't believe they did. I don't think most Vermonters know that. Well, maybe not the exact percentage or cents, but you don't think they had basic math skills to understand the higher budget and the higher taxes? No, I don't, because that's not exactly what happens either in retrospect when you look at how a budget is derived. That's what is the problem with the education fund in and of itself. You have communities, schools, districts and so forth sending in their invoices, so to speak and then they take the grand list, they do the math and that determines the tax rate. So through natural growth, our grand list does increase in some years and maybe it wouldn't go up. I just don't think that people do that kind of math. They are thinking that this is an acceptable one and a half percent and that's the best they could do. They have faith in their school boards and they either vote yes or no. Well, the plan we put forth, I don't think anything's artificial about it. I believe that the plan that we put forth proposes keeping property tax rates stable for five years, making investments in areas that we think will give us a better return. It will save, you know, depending on how you look at it, anywhere from one to $300 million. There's so many benefits to what we're trying to do. We're trying to manage the education fund and instead of letting the education fund manage us. And I think there's a big difference there when you take a look at how we're looking at things in the future. So, you know, regardless of how you look at it, the proposal we put forth is addressing many, many concerns and the concerns are some that we talk about almost weekly here that we have a decreasing population of students. We're spending $1.7, maybe even $1.8 billion, a single largest investment and expenditure in state government. And that can't, we can't continue in that regard. It can't continue to go up when you have a student population that's decreasing and a population, an overall population that's decreasing as well. So we have to do something. I just don't think it's responsible to just stand back and let it happen. It's not just a self-leveling fund. It has to be managed. Somebody has to manage it. So the Democratic leaders would say you're encouraging them to come to the table and discuss this and compromise on this issue. And yet they say that you, your position is not compromising at all. Well, I wouldn't say that. I mean, what I've been saying for the last two years, I don't think it's any surprise to any of you that I'm saying no increase in tax and fees. I would challenge anyone here in this room that hasn't heard that I've said that consistently over the last two years. They've heard it too. They read your articles. They understand that. This is no secret. So I'm, you know, I'm a little bit surprised that they take such offense at the end to my saying we're not going to raise tax and fees. Now, we can, we can talk about how to get there. We can talk about how where we spend the extra money or how much money there's going to be. Or maybe they want to maybe on a stabilized tax rates for six years instead of five, maybe seven. I don't care. You know, if they want to go further, let's stabilize tax rates. Let's give Vermonters something they can count on in businesses and so forth and allow the organic growth as we did this year. I mean, look, look what we did this year. We didn't raise tax and fees last year and we were able to bring in more revenue organically. 80 million dollars. That can continue if you make the right investments in the right area. The whole plan is about stabilizing tax rates, but you can't promise Vermonters that their tax bills won't be going up. No, that's true because of the grand list does increase. The cost of houses will probably rise, but it's a rate. So why provide a double whammy for them when you want to raise the tax rate and, and their, their, the cost of housing increases. So you're going to hit them twice. I haven't, I haven't heard anyone in your administration made clear Vermonters that you want to hold their tax rates steady, but you can't promise them. Actually, you can promise them the rate that bills will be going up. Well, given the full story. Well, I think we have, but I'll do it right now. We can't guarantee that their tax bills won't go up. What we're trying to do is keep them from going up much further with this proposal. What they're proposing is to continue to let the education fund manage us and allow the tax rate to increase so that the taxes will go up even more. So when we have the price of housing goes up and the tax rate goes up, you're going to be paying a substantial amount more. So I want to be clear about that. What we're trying to do is stabilize the growth, live within our means and work, work through as the cost of living increases. And the rise in wages increases that this doesn't get any worse. What kind of conversations have you been having with legislative leaders this week and how would you characterize those discussions? Well, we haven't, I know a lot of my administration has been in conversations with legislators in committees and so forth. The meeting that I had scheduled with the speaker, she canceled today. She was on the floor. The pro tem had canceled his meeting this week as well, our regularly scheduled meetings. So I haven't spoken to either of them this week. I'm just saying that those will be rescheduled. As far as I'm concerned, they can be. Has your administration and the joint fiscal office moved any closer to finding consensus on the actual numbers? I think they are working along those lines. I might be able to ask Kai to our commissioner of taxes to come up and explain further, but they do work, normally work together very well and share data and try to come to consensus. So I believe that they've been doing that. In fact, two of my key staff are over there right now. And, you know, I think we're a little bit blindsided by this kind of idea that there was a calculation problem or whatever. We've since had time and opportunity to connect with them further and make certain adjustments where basically the plan is in the same place it was when it was first released as far as growth savings and net savings. So, but they're working there right now and we're just trying to make sure that at least they understand where our numbers come from, how we arrived at them. Is the goal, much like, you know, Kevan Karth, come up with a consensus, is the goal to find a consensus between the administration and JFO? I think a consensus understanding of the formula and the methodology, I would say. But, you know, there are a lot of, this is a forecast. This has never been done before as far as anyone that I talk to knows where there's been a proactive step to say, let's look at what this Ed fund, what the destiny of this Ed fund is in the next five years and let's plan accordingly. As the governor says, let's start managing this a little more actively. That inherently involves forecasts and assumptions of revenue and of savings. Coming to a consensus on a fifth year savings amount for ratio improvements is very difficult, but I think we can make a lot of headway in understanding the formulas behind it and the methodology behind it. And again, at the end of the day with almost $300 million of capacity created at the same tax rate while allowing sustainable per pupil growth, we believe that if you want to look at that capacity as an opportunity to lower tax rates back to your prior question or as a margin of error on what our projected savings are, this is a solid, credible plan. Have you gotten rid of the projected savings on the student staff ratio or staff student ratio because the language that was given by the agency of education to House Ed for that bill only has a task force and it doesn't say 5.15, it doesn't create any kind of actual ratio. So the task force is going to be left up to the task force to come up with a ratio, so then you can't really bank savings if there's no ratio. We have not, as you will recall, we floated the idea of the mandate. The House Education Committee was not particularly impressed. So we thought that a task force would be a good way to go about it, to create guidelines to try to make it not a one size fit all, but try to make it unique to each district to take into account their unique needs. So we do think that that's the better way to go. We also think that task force or no task force, some of these savings are already locked in in terms of the momentum towards governance changes and towards district consolidation and the like. So it's not like we're waiting around to hit the go button and this is all going to happen. A lot of these changes are already in motion, including different staffing and achieving scale. But are you taking the 74 million off of your savings now? No, we are not. We intend that to be... Because it's based on a ratio that doesn't exist yet. But we think we can, through the task force and through guidelines and through working with the agency of education, we think we can get there anyway. If these steps are already being taken, hasn't the legislature already done things which does manage the education fund instead of having it manage us or whatever the terminology says? As the commissioner says, there are two or three Act 46, they're changing the special platform, they're doing several things to hold down future savings already. Well, I think that's part of the point. Most of it, you know, the surprise has been that this plan came out and some were shocked by it. But I would contend that, you know, two-thirds of it is our areas that we've already spoken about, that they've already agreed to. But we have to get to the finish line. There's other things that we need in place. Excess spending thresholds, I think, are important as well. And there's some movement, I believe, in the house around the Beck Amendment and CAPS and so forth. So I think there's still a ways to go to make sure that we adhere to this. But again, if... And I believe that there's, I believe, I still believe, that there's upwards to two to 300 million dollars worth of savings if we do this right. But even if there's, you know, if they say it's only 100 million, isn't that worth it? Isn't 100 million dollars worth it? And keep property tax rates stable for five years? I think that there's just so much that we could do if we just could work together and look at what we've already passed or some... Each body has already passed in some respects and put it folded into one plan. Your tax commissioner testified that the plan came out so late because the menu was released in January and lawmakers did nothing with it. And now you're saying that lawmakers actually ran with some elements of it. So which is it? Well, again, some did. I think the House looked at special ed. I'm not sure if the Senate did move forward with that. But we have to bring everybody to the table. And again, in the House, they had already passed the Beck Amendment at one point. Maybe they want to resurrect that. Maybe they want to bring that into the fold. But bringing all these proposals together, different ideas, is what we had hoped they would start doing in January, trying to coalesce around something that we could all agree to. But there wasn't enough movement. So we gave them the leeway and they didn't take it. So at this point in time, the House has done some. The Senate maybe have done a little bit in their area, but nobody has come to the conclusion to coalesce around one single plan. That still sounds like two different messages. I mean, on the one hand, you're saying that the legislature is two-thirds of the way there. And on the other hand, you're complying, as your political messaging has stated overtly this week, that they have done nothing. Well, no. Again. Two-thirds have said they have done nothing. But they haven't passed anything. They've come two-thirds of the way there. What's that? They have worked. They have been working through the session. Well, what have they passed? Well, the session has been over. Did they pass special ed? No, it isn't over. That's the whole point. We're here at the table. We're trying to bring them all together. And with the ideas we have, ideas they have, and put it all together in one plan. So, you know, I'm sure they've been working on something, but they haven't passed anything. The $25 million from policy decisions that you say the legislature has added to the tax bill, to the tax law, can you itemize? We have, actually, we have something here. I don't know if it's here or not, but we can get that to you. There's a whole list. Is there any respected figures in the education community that you can point to that think what you want to do is a great idea and the legislature should comply? I haven't. I wouldn't say that we found a whole lot of support within the legislature, but, again, we look at areas that may have been agreed to in the past, just trying to bring it all together. And again, this isn't the areas that we're talking about. It's not as though these are new issues. We've been talking about this. Many have been talking about these issues for a couple of years, but we're just bringing them all to the table. And hoping that we can come to some consensus on this, so that we can adjourn. Save some money. I have a question. Are there any principals, superintendents, teachers, leaders in the education world that are saying, Governor, we're with you? I haven't heard of any. Does that explain why there's been a complete absence of the agency of education through this whole debate? I wouldn't say that there's a complete absence of the agency of education. As far as I know, in a public forum or to any legislative committee about this proposal. So the agency of education has been engaged almost from the beginning, as has the Department of Taxes, Agency of Human Services, Commissioner of Finance and Management. So this has been a global effort and the agency of education has engaged throughout. It isn't just Democratic leaders that are averse to this idea of using one-time money. Senate Minority Leader thinks it's a bad idea. House Minority Leader thinks it's a bad idea. Well, I wouldn't say that they've said it's a bad idea. I've been averse to using one-time money in the past as well, but this isn't using one-time money for the sake of using one-time money to let it go away. This is making an investment and it's being paid back, by the way. In other times when one-time money has been used to plug a hole somewhere, nobody has found a way just to pay it back. This plan actually pays that money, the borrowed money, back over a five-year period. So that's a huge difference in that. It's an investment. It's like borrowing from the bank and repaying it. How can you guarantee that that money will be paid back? Is that written in any proposed legislation? That's all part of the plan, right? Yes. Yes. It's in the legislation we proposed. So you guys have actually put a legislative vehicle on the table? Yes. We have. Yes. Does it have a number? We can't. No. We can't put numbers on. But you would have a... We presented to the leadership, to the conferees, some language that pulled all of the pieces of a plan together from the budget to the inter-fund transfers to the SPED bill to the contract negotiation bill that we proposed at the beginning of this session to the tax changes that if you look on the spreadsheet that we provided at the press conference and that was provided again last night. All of those line items on the left have corresponding language and budget language in one document now pulling the pieces together of what the legislature has worked on and what we are supplementing it with to create, to your point, John, this has always been about a five-year plan. In January, we presented to the House Ways and Means Committee three sets of ideas. One for immediate cost containment, one for... If you want to talk about a formula change, we're open to that as long as there's cost containment and a five-year plan going forward to continue to achieve savings and reinvest. So that's where there's not been the movement this year and that's what this plan achieves. Governor, you talk about paying back the one-time money because that's important to you and that's going to come through this task force and the recommendations that it makes. No, that's already baked in. That's not included in the two to 300 million. This is baked into the underlying proposal. We feel that's going to happen regardless. We feel with the stabilization of the tax rates for the next five years and paying that back, the 200 million, two to 300 million is over and above that. So it's not based on what the recommendations of having a statewide teacher's contract were? Well, no. Yeah, that's all part... It's all part of the... Well, I guess what I'm wondering is, you're assuming that there's going to be action to save the money and you can use that money to pay back the one-time money... That's what a plan is all about. Right. What if the plan, you're going to use the one-time money now with the hope that the plan is going to be put into place? What if it's not? No, that's all part of the legislation. It all has to be baked in together. I think Bob is particularly talking about the ratios, which goes... Ratios, healthcare. Yeah, the healthcare has to be in. The special ed savings should be in. Those are areas that we believe that there's some consensus here. I mean, if we... If you want to go back down memory lane, let's look back for the last year. If we had been able to put the $25 million state healthcare benefit in the statute, we wouldn't be in near the position we are today, wouldn't have used the one-time money that they had decided to use last year, but we would have... We've been saving $25 million this year. But at the end of that negotiation, the press conference where you said it was going to result in $13 million less in reduced spending. Yeah, and it never happened. They were convinced... I was convinced by the conferees in our discussion that it would happen naturally, that they would just do the right thing, but it hasn't happened. So isn't a lot of your plan based on people doing the right thing? In putting something into a statute, you know, a health care plan, a statewide health care plan? Sure. Yeah, I think that would do it. Particularly the ratio thing. That's the over and above. That's the $200 million, and that's part of this task force. Did you feel sort of burned last year? No, I don't feel burned. I just feel as though everyone's forgotten that our proposal was to put the health care benefit into statute and have a statewide health care benefit. And last year, nobody could find themselves a pathway to do that. But now this year, it seems to be a good idea. So I'm thankful for that. It's a year late, but I'm thankful for that. So the Senate has language for a health care benefit that all parties have agreed to? I don't know that. Or education. You probably know more about it than I do. The committee brought it up when they talked about it. Ruth will not put it forward because you're going to veto. He's going to keep it as a bargaining chip. Okay. So what's your response? Would you consider not vetoing if it was... We need the whole plan together. We need the health care benefit. We need special education. We need all the provisions within the plan. We need something of substance. We need all those. The special education is happening. And the ratio of language is... That's passed both the House and the Senate? It's about two. Okay. But we'll see what passes. Maybe they'll go... Maybe they're going to pass all these things and maybe this is all for naught. But the education bill, the tax bill, is still going to come back the way... Raising... Either... Well, then that gets vetoed. So even if you get all your other cards to your plan... If they put it back in to hang down the rate... For the life of me, again, we're spending... They're contemplating spending upwards to $160 million more than last year. But that's not enough. They want to spend... They want to tax you $58 million more. And that's just not acceptable. That wasn't their decision. That's... I just... I don't agree. I fundamentally don't agree. I believe that the education fund can be managed. You don't agree that voters know when they vote for a higher budget that they will have to pay more tax money? I'm not convinced that that's... When they go into the booth, they're contemplating having to pay a 7, 8, 9 percent... Or a cent rise on their state property taxes. No, I don't believe that. So you just said that the plan has to be taken as a whole. And that, again, sounds like... That is not a compromise. That sounds like... We need a plan to account for ways to conserve in the future. By just using one-time money, that just doesn't seem acceptable to me either. We need a plan to make sure that we aren't in the same position year after year. And that we can manage the fund. We can come up with a plan. It doesn't have to be my plan. Just come up with a plan that shows how we can get over the next few years and we're able to save money, spend less, and then raise enough money so that we can reinvest in areas that are really beneficial to our kids. We know that special... We know that early childhood care and development is real. Investing more in early childhood care and learning will have beneficial results. So if we're able to raise... We think 200 to 300 million. If they think 100 million, that can be reinvested in the kids and get us better results. So where's the part where you're willing to compromise? Within the plan. I mean, there may be areas, again, they may want to... They may want to go more years. But in the fewer years, they might want to put the back plan in that they already passed once. There's areas that we can compromise within that plan. There's a number of bills heading their way. Are you going to have detail on the way? I'm wondering if that's passed both the House and the Senate at this point? I don't know. What about medical monitoring and exposure and that sort of thing? Is that passed? I think it's on it. Well, yes. It has. To be honest with you, we haven't looked at that. Have we received that yet, Jay? I don't think you've received any of them. There's another bill that will regulate dams or have DEC regulate all these small dams around Vermont and test drinking water wells. Does that make sense, Steve? Again, I have to look at the provision. That one didn't rise to the surface as far as I can remember. Do you oppose a tax on our fee on manufacturers of opioids to cover some of the state's expenses on addiction and treatment? I do. It's another tax in fee as far as I'm concerned. And if it arrived with a tax, then I would be in a way. On opioid manufacturing? What about there's a bill? I don't believe it contains tax that set up a system to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. Yeah. Again, we're waiting to receive that, but we'll take and review it just to make sure that it's technically correct. I'm not sure how it's going to work, and I know that we have some concerns in the Agency of Human Services over whether it really will save in the long run. But again, I think that we should try it and see if we can get approval from the FDA and move forward. Anything we can do to reduce our costs in that regard I think is a good idea. So it sounds inevitable that there's going to be some kind of a June event here in the building. I don't care whether it's a veto session or a special session. Yeah, I've heard a lot of rumors as you probably have as well about whether they're going to schedule a veto session. I'm totally up to them, obviously. Separation of powers, they can do what they want. If they decide not to have a veto session, I'll call a special session. It doesn't matter to you. It doesn't matter to me. Did you make the final call on Vermont Life? I've been, yeah. I mean, we've talked about this over, not just this year, but many years. And unfortunately, it's an iconic magazine. It really is some part of our tradition. I know seeing many of my relatives who receive that magazine every single year. But I don't have to remind any of you. The media has changed. And the era of the magazines have changed. And it ran up a bill of over $3 million. We decided to try it for another year to see if we could resurrect and make it profitable. But it doesn't appear to be working. So we have to do what we can. At this point in time, we just feel it's necessary to finally change directions. We'll keep the name and maybe change it. It's something digital. But the era of the print magazine will be over. Well, two questions. One is when was the decision actually made? And two, you mentioned giving it a try for a year. Last September, it was put up for bid. The bids were all rejected in January. So when does that one of your clocks start? It seems like to me like it started in January. Well, I think it started previous to that from my standpoint. Secretary Shirley. Good afternoon. Well, the running clock on our analysis of Vermont Life started last January, of course. As you've observed, 17. So we've been looking at the magazine as an enterprise since then. Relative to the RFP process, as you were called earlier in the fall of last year, we put out to bid a variety of options for the future of Vermont Life. We got a number of responses. The best of those responses would have paid the state $25,000 and then shared in profits following that. But the profit levels would have needed to be something that we haven't seen in two decades. So that was sort of a stretch. At the time, based on the rolling revenue, we thought that we could make this year in the black and then potentially make out years, 19, potentially 20 in the black as we continue to assess what the future looked like at the end of quarter three. So, yes, when the decision was made, ultimately made, I think, Monday of this week, finally. But for about two weeks now, we've had the Q3 financials under analysis. And it was clear to us that while we can make it in the black for fiscal 18, beginning in July, we would be running additional deficits. So, you know, if things were different, if there wasn't a debt already, maybe the equation would have been different. But to continue to run additional deficit spending was not viable. Have you made any attempt to quantify the return on that state investment? I mean, presumably this magazine has been losing money for a long time now. But I imagine the determination was that the benefits that we derive from these expenditures warrant this deficit spending on this particular thing. So what made that calculation change for you? There were analyses of Vermont Life's economic impact done under the prior administration. And there's a report available, I think, on the commerce website that shows you that in totality. There were disputes in this building as to whether that was a valid assessment, whether they were the right things that were looked at. But ultimately, the equation came down to whether it made sense to put taxpayers further in the red. And both because the legislature has directed us not to do that and because even absent that direction, I don't think that would have been the prudent thing to do. We opted to make this decision today rather than go further in the red beginning in January. Are there going to be layoffs as a result of this thing? And if so, how many? There'll be six folks that are subject to reduction in force. We met with them early this morning. So what happens then? They get assessments or offered other state jobs? As a result, there's a collective bargaining agreement that strictly provides guidance on how all that occurs and we're not allowed to get into the details of that until next Wednesday. So they'll be the first to learn of the details. You can, of course, find them in the collective bargaining agreement, but we're not allowed to get into the details with you. Mike, how much was the projected loss going forward starting in July? And what was the annualized? The minimum we were projecting for fiscal 19 would have been over $200,000. So a little bit smaller than the most recent losses, but still substantial. So your view was that it doesn't generate $200,000 worth of additional economic activity? Not necessarily, just that we're not in a position to deficit spend. The legislature actually passed legislation last year saying you can't deficit spend, you have to backfill that, the dollars to backfill that have not been appropriated, so there isn't a way to do that. Does it seem strange to you that a state that is wholly dependent on tourism and has a product that casts a state in such a favorable light would be put to rest? It's not surprising that I'm talking to the media for those of you watching at home and as you watch the evolution of media from a front row seat, obviously there have been substantial changes in recent years and that seems to continue to accelerate and print media certainly bearing the brunt of a lot of that change. So this is no different. It's a great asset, great staff that we've got and unfortunately the economics just don't bear out anymore now. So will there be any original content being produced to be delivered via the digital platforms? We don't know exactly what that's going to look like yet. The state will retain the Vermont Life brand and we certainly have ever evolving digital channels and we anticipate that there will be opportunities to use the Vermont Life moniker and brand as a potential digital asset in the future, but this is just day one of this transition. So we haven't assessed exactly what that might look like in the future. So you don't have a transition plan for the move to its digital existence now? No, we're not taking Vermont Life to make it a digital magazine. We're retaining the brand and we have to assess what the best use of the Vermont Life brand will be. Again, this information about the finances and the decision had to be made fairly rapidly. We've only known this for a few days. So there's not going to be a digital version of Vermont Life? Is there any budget? All in 1.1, 1.2 million. Yeah, the German budget, yes. The Vermont Life budget? 650 is in the budget, the FY19 budget. 16 hammy subscribers, printed subscribers. I have to look that up. And what did it come down to? Were you losing advertisers? Were you losing subscribers or single copy sales? Both. Advertising being the largest source of revenue and ad revenue being down precipitously declining and subscription rates also declining. Is there some potential future value to the Vermont Life name that could be spun off later? Conceivably. But again, at this point, our attention is primarily focused on our employees and then on ensuring a smooth wind down over the course of the next few weeks. How are you addressing the debt and what is the running number at this point? We're using 3.5 million as the best assessment that may be altered a little bit, but we don't think substantively. And I'm sorry, I lost the front end of your question. The agency of administration joined fiscal office and the legislature will work on a plan for addressing that in the coming days and weeks. Do you know if there's been anything included in the budget proposal, the Senate budget proposal, or either a proposal that would address any of the debt? Earlier this year, we had a proposal for the think from a move initiative that would have in part addressed the debt. That was not an active piece of legislation under consideration and the most recent documents that would address the debt were a letter from the Secretary of Administration to the legislature, I think dated just two days ago, suggesting that a piece of the surplus be used to retire the debt. For your third view, I just wondered if you could speak to what that magazine has meant to you if you've had any personal interaction with it over the years, significance of Vermont Life. It came to my house for my entire childhood. It went to my grandparents' house. My grandparents had a sort of spiral staircase with a little telephone stand with an old rotary dialed telephone and there were Vermont Life issues stuck in the stand. So unfortunately my grandmother's not with me to yell at me about today, but she probably wouldn't be very happy. So why not take the best offer you got from that RFP process? If you're getting rid of it in any way, why not hand it off? I think logistically at this great question, and that's something we contemplated, we think logistically we're not able to reopen a closed RFP process. It's just not something that you're allowed to do. But you could reopen, you could create a new RFP process? You could and, you know, those options we haven't explored yet. Again, our focus has been just ensuring that we get this information to our employees as quickly as possible to legislators before they go home and then ensure a smooth transition given that the wind down is going to have to happen in just a few short weeks. Earlier this week the administration put out a list of possible uses for the 44 million and extra revenue this year. And one of those items was 3.6 million to pay off the debt for Vermont Life, which obviously means this decision was extremely sudden and recent. Correct. Let me just point out that the debt has to be paid off regardless of whether Vermont Life exists or not. So I just wanted to make sure that's understanding that, and the debt has been on the balance sheet for a number of years. It's built up. So whether or not we have a magazine functioning or not, the state owes the money and we intend to pay it off. And again, there was a ray of hope when it was running in the black and there was thoughts that maybe we could prevail and continue to offer the subscriptions for Vermont Life, but that didn't come to be. No, I don't believe that that will help at all. I believe that that artificially raises the cost of living in Vermont and puts particularly those on the eastern side of our state at a tremendous disadvantage to New Hampshire. So rural parts of the state would suffer tremendously with the raise in the artificial raise of the minimum wage. Is there a publicly available version of that legislation that wraps all of the plans together? You got that? Sure. Governor, in that list of uses for the anticipated surplus, your administration also asked for $10 million for paving projects, and why out of everything you could spend that money on, would that be a priority for you? Well, we had a very difficult winter. We're receiving a tremendous amount of complaints about surface conditions on many of our roads throughout the state. Wilmington being one, down in Route 100, many in the Northeast Kingdom. So, again, with the freeze-a-thaw cycles and the number of them we've had this year, it seems to have taken its toll on the surfaces in particular. So we thought if this was money that was available, this would give immediate relief to many that have to drive those roads each and every day. So we just thought it was an appropriate use. It would do $100 million or $10 million would do about 85 miles of roadway. So we thought it would be good use of money. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.