 Good afternoon everyone. We have a shorter run of show today which may be more typical moving forward depending on current events. On the COVID front things continue to move in the right direction with hospitalizations continuing to trend downward. Mr. Pichek is away today so Dr. Levine will hit the highlights and due to yesterday's holiday the full modeling presentation will be posted on the DFR website tomorrow. Next this week members of the House and Senate are continuing to meet at a conference committee to resolve their differences on the budget adjustment bill and I'm hoping they address some of the issues that I have as well. As a reminder BAA usually contains pretty modest changes but this year given the unprecedented amount of federal money as well as upgrades and state revenues we have an opportunity to address some important issues right now and because BAA can appropriate money earlier in the session rather than waiting until the next fiscal year beginning July 1 we can invest in urgent and immediate needs right now. That's why the budget adjustment I originally proposed included over 15 million for health care workers given the significant workforce shortage we're experiencing and while housing has been a priority of mine since I came to office the need today is even more urgent which is why I asked the legislature to take half of this session's 145 million dollar housing package and put it in budget adjustment because we could and should begin this work now and the 75 million I originally proposed in budget adjustment would help tremendously. Unfortunately the money we asked for to address the middle income housing was stripped out by the House and more concerning 20 million more was removed in the Senate version so we're hoping the conference committees recognizes the urgent need we have and puts the money back in. I also have concerns about how the current bill spends American Rescue Plan Act funds last year after we received historic funding I was clear that this one time money must be used on tangible transformative initiatives specifically I asked that the funding be dedicated to housing climate change water and sewer infrastructure as well as broadband. In last year's budget the legislature appeared to agree and pass intent language in the budget stating that this is where the money should go. At the time we agreed because we knew we needed to have a clear vision and a plan for how to use this funding in order to get the most value out of this once in a lifetime opportunity. It's important we don't change course now and water down the incredible impact we could have in every county of the state. We can't bend to pressure and spend it piecemeal without thinking about the big picture. Unfortunately the BAA currently uses the federal ARPA funding where surplus general funds could be used instead. Now I'm sure this may sound like nitpicking to some but this would be like taking money out of your savings account to pay your electric bill when you're still getting a paycheck every single week. I realize the legislature isn't going to agree with everything I put forward but I laid out a plan for the entire pot of ARPA money and I haven't seen one from them at least not yet. Spending ARPA money in the BAA without having a road map sets us up to miss out on an important opportunity when the final budget is crafted. It may lead to not having the money we hoped have for these big investments. As I've said I know legislators have their own ideas in addition to what I've proposed and I do appreciate the areas where we overlap but we've got to get this right. Before putting hundreds of millions of dollars out the door we need to know where we're going so we don't squander this moment in time. My team will continue to communicate with the committees over the last few weeks we've laid out where we'd like to see the BAA investments go to get the best results for our monitors. Secretary Clouser is here to walk us through our concerns so with that Secretary Clouser. Thank you Governor. Good afternoon. The Budget Adjustment Act is a traditional document which in a typical year includes dozens of accounting adjustments and net neutral changes with anywhere between three and ten million dollars in appropriations. This year the BAA is quite different than a typical year in size scope and importance. Total appropriations exceed 200 million in this BAA and the bill contains critical proposals and key issues for Vermonters. Because of that as the Governor indicated in his remarks it is more important than ever to invest wisely in the BAA to make the most of the historic level of federal recovery and state surplus money. This afternoon and likely throughout the rest of the week members of the House and Senate conference committees will meet to discuss the BAA. The legislature has spent significant time on this bill and the administration appreciates those efforts and the fact that we have many shared priorities. Despite those shared priorities however we continue to have concerns about how decisions made now will impact Vermont's future vision. So I wanted to take this opportunity to elevate some of our greatest concerns which relate to ARPA funding and putting the opportunity to build resiliency and lower statewide debt at risk. The BAA currently before the conference committee invests substantial ARPA funds without considering the larger economic revitalization needs of the state or maximizing the value of this money. The House amendment to the BAA results in over 106 million in new net ARPA spending and the Senate amendment spends 114 more ARPA funds which is 84 million more than the Governor's version. Further the legislature directs many of those ARPA funds outside of the five spending categories agreed upon by the legislature and the governor last year. Housing, climate change mitigation, water sewer wastewater infrastructure, broadband and economic recovery. In total legislative changes to the BAA reduce available ARPA from 508 million to 423 million a 17% reduction. That's almost equal to the total appropriation to broadband in the governor's FY23 ARPA budget. It exceeds the total appropriation to water and sewer projects in the budget and perhaps most importantly as the governor mentioned the legislature has made these significant cuts without providing a vision or roadmap as to how or if they plan to fund these essential infrastructure projects in the future. We appreciate the Senate adding waterfall language which would allow a portion of this ARPA funding to be recaptured if there was a surplus at the end of the fiscal year but even this construct only allows for a recapture of approximately 34% of the additional ARPA funds allocated by the Senate. So while this is certainly a step in the right direction the surplus construct continues to place ARPA funding at risk and does not adequately address the administration's primary concern with the use of ARPA dollars for short-term programmatic needs. The investments the legislature makes with these ARPA funds may be worthy efforts but they do not maximize the return on investment or accelerate Vermont's economic recovery. The infrastructure projects proposed by the governor are critical and they are expensive. That is why they have not been done and they might never be done if we fail to direct these resources to once in a generation investments. In addition to concerns about the way ARPA funds are being allocated in this year's BAA the administrative proposals to pay off state debt are put at risk in the current version of the bill. Several proposals in the governor's BAA were designed to improve the state's financial standing now and into the future. The governor with the support of the treasurer's office proposed to retire 20 million general obligation bonds. In addition to the benefits received from interest savings this sends an unmistakable message to our creditors the credit rating agencies that financial sustainability is a top priority for government leaders. The House declined to fund this priority. The Senate put it into waterfall language in the event of a surplus. We asked the committee to restore it outright. The administration also requests the legislature to fund the governor's initiative to close the property management internal service fund deficit. This deficit currently 21 million dollars has been on the state's balance sheet for almost two decades. There's a plan to close half of it but there's no plan to reclose to close the remaining 10 million. The governor's budget adjustment included the full 10 million. The House cut it in half. The Senate put the remaining half into surplus waterfall language but we ask it to be restored in full. This is not the kind of investment and initiative that gets top billing when money is tight but it should be a prime consideration before funds are allocated to new programs or new services which may not be sustainable in future years. Similarly the governor's budget adjustment put 6.7 million dollars towards bolstering our state liability fund. We are pleased the Senate restored this funding in full and urged the conference committee to retain all 6.7 million in the BAA. We should be putting more money aside in this area to build resiliency not less. In conclusion the administration is asking the committee specifically to adhere to prior commitments included in last year's budget to continue using ARPA funds for high value transformational infrastructure projects including housing, clean water, climate action, broadband, and economic revitalization in every county in Vermont. To remove ARPA funded proposals for short-term needs from the BAA these one-time programmatic needs could be better supported through general fund dollars. And finally to restore in full the funding for the governor's proposals to reduce the state's debt, close long-standing deficits, and generate future savings for Vermonters. Thank you and I'll now turn it over to Dr. Levine. Thank you. Since Commissioner Petschek isn't here today I'm going to start with just a few slides that he normally presents and these as you'll see will continue to reinforce the improving picture of COVID-19 here in Vermont. The Department of Financial Regulation slide deck will be available at DFR's COVID-19 Modeling website as usual. So here on the first slide we can see that Vermont is now averaging 220 cases over the last seven days which is a 28 decrease over the previous week and 44 percent over the past 14 days. As the slide shows cases have come down a dramatic 88 percent since the Omicron peak. In terms of hospitalizations the rate of new hospitalizations have stabilized and we saw a 20 percent decrease in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 over the previous week. A trend that we expect will continue in the coming weeks. Notably the number of Vermonters in the ICU for COVID has dropped by a third the lowest level since last October. On this morning's count first time in a long time we've seen the number in the ICU below 10 at eight. Regarding fatalities we have mourned 587 COVID related deaths with an additional four reported over the past four days. I'm somewhat heartened by the fact that this grim aspect of the virus also appears to be trending down. COVID-19 fatalities are lower in February so far but we're not sure yet where that number will end up as this metric takes the longest to reflect the impact of improving case numbers. Nonetheless as we continue to watch these downward trajectories we can see where we are headed which is a time of less transmission and disease in our state. That's why we are looking forward planning for deliberate and phase transitions in the future. You may have seen other states beginning to make the same types of decisions and plans moving toward recovery as we collectively accept that this no longer new virus is here to stay. We'll continue to integrate current case and serious outcome data wastewater surveillance monitoring modeling projections and Vermont's continually increasing and high vaccination rate to slowly map out how we can live safely while COVID-19 remains a lesser overall threat. The data that we discuss here and that you can find on our web pages allows us to see trends and make projections about future planned actions and mitigation measures much like the governor's recent announcement about masks in schools had a start date two weeks after the announcement. It allows us to think about our future efforts related to things like testing a Herculean effort by so many teams throughout the pandemic especially recently as we pivoted pivoted to distribution of take-home tests around the holidays and then to schools and childcare programs on a regular basis. As we see a decrease in demand for testing at our PCR test sites around the state we are assessing how much will still be needed and where take-home tests can better meet the needs of Vermonters. These self-tests are more convenient and provide quicker results. They help those who test positive to isolate more quickly thereby reducing the potential for further spread and when virus transmission decreases Vermonters will not need to get tested as often such as before and after social gatherings as overall risk will be much lower. As we move forward in our planning we will gradually shift toward fewer broad-based public health recommendations to a more individualized approach based on one's own circumstances and health needs. This will mean a strategy that is based on how we all have different levels of risk and will need to navigate them and manage precautions in our own way at our own pace. Considering our own individual risk will become part of our own decision making decisions to translate into our routine daily day-to-day acts to protect ourselves and the people around us. I understand that it has been and will continue to be harder for people who are at higher risk of more severe illness and we cannot leave behind these Vermonters and anyone who faces personal historical or cultural health equity challenges. Within our communities we will all need to understand a person's need to take extra precautions and support their needs. Remember the person who wears a mask has their own good reasons to do so and we need to respect their reasoning and be understanding. As mask policies evolve we cannot let wearing a mask become a political statement or cause for dividing us. We will focus our public health efforts on protecting those at higher risk by making sure they are up to date on vaccines and have access to testing and treatment to help prevent the worst outcomes. Now in this planning for the future we do need to expect new variants of the virus. Some variants may emerge and disappear while others persist. One of these a sub variant of the Omicron virus BA2 is causing concern in some parts of the world and has been found in 47 states including Vermont. We are still learning a lot about this variant and any possible impact on transmissibility and severity and there is not yet any definitive word. However keep noting that case counts are going down so it's certainly not increasing in vast proportions. We will continue to follow the real-time data on BA2. Even though variants may pose new challenges in the future we will continue to use sequencing monitoring and surveillance and our experience and knowledge of the virus to minimize any threats as much as we can. I'd like to reflect for a moment on how hard these past two years have been especially on certain groups of people. In a new study from the CDC's morbidity and mortality weekly report we see yet another example of the toll the pandemic has taken on children's mental health. It found that during the pandemic girls age 12 to 17 had more emergency department visits for some mental health conditions including eating and tick disorders, depression and anxiety. Our own Vermont data from 2021 also indicates higher rates for females 10 to 24 than other age groups for emergency department visits related to suicidality. That is what we mean when we say our kids are not all right and why we are working to refocus on issues like these as we balance the presence of COVID in our lives with all of our other needs. And please be sure that young females and anyone who may be in crisis know that help is available. Text VT to 741-741 and a counselor will respond. This pandemic has been tough on all of us both physically and emotionally and now we are facing yet another time of uncertainty as we slowly make our way toward a more normal way of life. I'll share some simple advice from our mental health safety officer at VDH who is supporting our teams in the COVID-19 response. Be aware of how the pandemic has impacted you and consider these effects as you think about your future plans. Each of us will transition back to normal routines at a different pace. Try not to take on too much too fast. Be open and flexible to the changes ahead as we look to the future with hope. On a similar note, I know some parents and caregivers of children under age five are still anxious about the risks of COVID-19 and eager to have their child protected by vaccine. I and others in public health and health care are glad the vaccine will get more time needed to review data on a third dose. The doses being studied are much smaller and it is common for young children to need multiple doses of a vaccine to get a big enough benefit. But I know how hard it is to have an end in sight only to be told the wait will be a bit longer. The good news is we are still planning ahead and engaging our pediatric provider community to have the vaccine ready to be given once it is reviewed and authorized by federal regulators. I'll turn it back to the governor. Thank you Dr. Levine, we'll now open it up to questions. Reaction to Christina Nolan announcing her candidacy for the Senate seat and will you be supporting her? I haven't spoken to Christina but I was very pleased to see her step up. She's a viable candidate. She has a wealth of experience and the right to meet her and it should be an interesting race. So no plans on whether you will? Oh I mean I supported myself and Senator Leahy worked together to appoint her to as U.S. Attorney so I have no doubt that I'll be supporting her. The town meeting day break is next week and we've got a crossover week. Have you moved any closer to making a decision of whether you'll run or not? I haven't really. For this press conference we got the notice that you did decide to veto the legislature's, excuse me, gun bill. You issued a statement but can you explain here your decision to do that and why you came to that conclusion? Yeah as everyone probably recalls back in 2018 we made historic changes to our gun laws. They included expanded background checks, red flag laws, a ban on high capacity magazines and many other provisions that many people, many Vermonters, haven't become accustomed to and know that they're there. I believe that we need an opportunity to make sure that we're educating Vermonters to tell them what's in there before we change and make any further adjustments but having said all that I mean I am sensitive to the so-called Charleston loophole. I'm not sure if it's really a loophole. It was put there intentionally by Congress back when the Brady Bill was enacted and it was put there I believe to make sure that government reacted accordingly and put this on the front burner and made sure that the background checks were done in an expeditious fashion. Again I am sensitive that things have gotten complicated and we need to make sure that we're not providing an opportunity for people to get guns when they shouldn't have them so if they're on if there's any question they may need a little bit more time but I don't believe I think it's I think it's excessive to go from three days three business days as it currently is to 30 days and as well during that time the applications run out in 30 days so if someone is buying a gun they have to fill out an application it goes through the NICS system and and under this proposed law if they didn't hadn't made a decision in 30 days the applicant would have to make out another application they could get stuck in this this vicious cycle so to speak so I think there's an opportunity for us to work together I provided the why in my for anyone who hasn't read the veto message as I do typically I want to explain why I vetoed it but I also want to provide a path forward if possible and in this case I thought instead of going from three days to 30 days to give a little bit more time possibly going from three days to seven business days which should be provided enough opportunity for the federal government to go through a background check to be sure that we're not putting guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them is that explained enough okay I wanted to ask about your concerns with budget adjustment that you mentioned um you know it sounds like you've got some concerns of how lawmakers are spending some of this money should whatever comes out of conference committee should they not address concerns me would you consider vetoing the bill well we'll see where we end up again I don't uh I don't try to overuse the threat of veto but I have concerns I just want them to at least have a seat at the table and not ignore some of our concerns because I have a vote too so um again suffice it to say this isn't what I thought we had agreed to in the last budget cycle that was there was intent language in the budget to focus ARPA funds on these buckets whether it's in broadband or water sewer infrastructure or climate change mitigation or housing those were the main initiatives and I want to make sure that we're spending in the right place because if we if we take and spend the ARPA money on programmatic needs for instance we just won't have the money left when we when we go to the final budget so where are we going to take it out of I mean it's not an endless pot of money so are we going to have less housing are we going to have less broadband or we're going to have less water sewer and storm infrastructure are we going to have less climate change mitigation steps we have to make choices then so let's uh as difficult as it is let's focus on the fundamentals and make sure we get this right I just had one clarification I might be for Secretary Closer but um I understand in BAA there's some money for the general assistance hotel motel program should this not be worked out by March first because I understand that's when it expires what what happens then yeah from what I understand and this might be a question for Secretary Samuelson but from what I understand FEMA is going to extend that to March 31 so we will uh if there's money available from FEMA we will extend it as well but I'll let Secretary Samuelson answer so housing is a major concern for us and and really working to ensure that individuals are able to transition from from the hotels to transitional housing to permanent housing um what will happen in the next couple of weeks is that we will extend the current GA housing program through the using the weather provisions through the end of the month to March 31st that gives us time to work on getting the emergency rental housing assistance program up and going which will allow us to work with individuals to transition from GA to transitional housing where we believe that they will get better services and the supports that they need to eventually transition through the governor's investments to the more permanent housing options that are going to become available to them it is important though to note that in order to make that transition from the current program to the e-wrap program that the title nine provision in the BAA is essential in order for us to have enough housing to make that transition so the number we found in our own sequencing is less than 10 but I just got a report from a cdc that I get weekly it's unfortunately the experience through January 29th so it doesn't include February there we had about 2.8 percent delta and about 96 percent the traditional ba1 omicron which leaves hardly any but you know one or two percent maximum of the ba2 you don't believe so but it really is not definitively known yet we're looking at experience around the world and around the country but you're just isn't that much experience so I would be hesitant to say anything on either side of the equation except that it does seem to be a little more transmissible perhaps 1.4 times more transmissible than the traditional ba1 omicron so can affect a few more people but doesn't seem to be more severe for what we know now and I'm just very heartened by the fact that we're not seeing it expand in a major way here in Vermont while we're finding it our case counts and everything else hospitalizations are going down it turns out the cdc was not publishing a significant amount of data on booster effectiveness hospitalizations things of the like has that raised any concerns for you and has Vermont now been making decisions based off of unreleased data of the CDC is that or yeah so I don't want to throw my dagger into the chest of the cdc on top of the New York Times and others I mean the reality is the cdc has a tremendous amount of data they don't publish it all quickly they do try to put it through a fair scientific review process and the reality is and they will admit this as quickly as I will they need severe data modernization for which a lot of federal money is now being allocated so that's part of it Vermont though you may recall throughout this pandemic we haven't relied a hundred percent on cdc we've relied on our own data and we've relied on our own trends and plus the understanding of the science which comes from cdc but comes from you know literature around the world and the scientific research community so we've tried to be very integrative in how we approach things so this announcement by the New York Times you know it doesn't look good for the cdc but at the same time it doesn't impact how we utilize data or how we view the cdc and plenty of what they have published has been very useful for us it turns out that legislators over the past couple of years have been using the private chat function in zoom to have private conversations during their proceedings that were not archived or made public for folks to see what are your thoughts on that especially when it's when these zoom meetings have been touted as being more transparent because people can log into youtube and and otherwise it turns out these conversations that have been happening out of the public well i want to give them the benefit of the doubt this is new territory for the legislature and having at least the proceedings be visible to anyone who wants to log in is a step in the right direction i think they have many opportunities to be more transparent and a lot of what they do and as we have done in the executive branch uh for instance we have a code of ethics uh and and uh and we have to respond uh to all of your requests uh FOIA requests and so forth the legislature does not um so again we we want to make sure that we set the mark set the tone and um but i think uh in this day and age i think everything should be uh be able to be foy it all right as well i wanted to go back to the the s 30 um yeah i meant to mention that s 30 would have gone uh been enacted uh in july july one so there is an opportunity uh regardless uh they weren't going to uh put this into uh this wouldn't have been put into place before july one so this gives us an opportunity to work between now and then uh for resolution all right we'll move to the phone starting with wilson ring ap uh hi everybody thank you as always governor i think you might have been asked this question but i heard your answer but couldn't hear the question uh when are when are we going to hear about your political plans that that was a question by calvin so you'll have to ask him he was asking the same question though so i um sometime during this legislative session i will make my plans known okay fair enough and secondly i have a question for uh dr levine about the switch from uh pandemic and he didn't use the term endemic but i'm curious is that going to be a uh you know on one day we're still in pandemic mode and then it switches to this endemic mode that you were describing or is this something that's going to happen gradually this is going to be a gradual transition but i would suspect it'll be over weeks to a short number of months not like a prolonged transition and i think you know endemic is a fine term and i've described it and defined it before but too many people see the three letters e and d and that's not the implication of endemic that you know it's the end of everything covid's over you know go back to completely normal it really is meant to imply that we coexist with the virus in a very new way in a very plausible way uh and it becomes like other respiratory viruses that we live with every year year after year it seems a couple of months ago you were looking toward late winter or early spring maybe sometime in march for this uh do you think that is uh fair i think that's completely realistic okay thank you very much the uh the department of homeland security issued a bulletin on february 7 declaring that people who are american who are online critics of government policy on covid 19 and election fraud and 5g technology are quote-unquote domestic threat actors and that department of homeland security will be working with with its public and private partners including state and local government to uh address this this problem that it claims and i'm wondering if you've heard about this and if you have any plans to cooperate with dhs on identifying uh so-called threat actors in vermont who are online critics of these government policies i have not uh i've not seen that guy and i was on a call with the department of homeland security last week and i don't recall anything of that nature on the call so i'm not aware of anything i mean if we're well it's uh bulletin right in the website uh i'm there for all to see um we start taking uh if we start taking action against online critics it's going to be a a long long road of any sort yeah i mean of any subject so it doesn't sound right to me but again i'll we'll take a look thank you very much i have a question about corrections and i understand that someone from the department of correction isn't in the queue um today but maybe uh governor scott and maybe um secretary samlison might be able to comment um you know we've we've even as cases have declined statewide we continue to see pretty large outbreaks and corrections facilities including i believe it was 45 people testing positive over the weekend it's spring fields um what kind of approach is the state taking to tackling specifically on a front in these kind of facilities yeah i might i don't think we've let our guard down in terms of our correctional facilities and i was somewhat surprised but at the same time this is a highly transmittable variant and so when it comes and gets centered in one congregate setting it it does go like wildfire so i'm i i guess in some respects i'm surprised in other respects i'm not but but i'm grateful that none of the cases seems to be severe so just because they have covid as we've seen with this particular variant doesn't mean that they will have experience any severe conditions especially if they've been if they've been vaccinated now we do have not all of the population has been vaccinated it's been offered in the uh and we continue to offer it in the correctional facilities but that that's been a problem throughout the last couple of years secretary samuelson thank you governor um the governor is absolutely right the we've kept the covid related protocols in place um which means that there are things like quarantine and isolation for people who are coming in and out of the facility or who are positive for covid and these have been essential throughout the pandemic we with springfield we are not seeing anyone who has severe symptoms at this time but due to the nature of amicron it does spread more quickly and can come in with staff or can come in with with inmates who are or incarcerated individuals who are new to the facility we do expect to begin to process of looking at our covid related protocols we know that it's had a significant drain on our mental health of our staff and of the individuals who we serve um but we'll do it thoughtfully and as it's a congregate setting it's likely one of the last settings that will begin to see the protocols um completely removed and instead we'll see a phased process that will allow us to move forward um and move back when we when we have um outbreaks in in our settings in the um in our doc facilities yeah so you know those kind of facility wide lockdowns that can occur when people start reporting cases as a facility is that something that you still anticipate will be a part of the strategy for combat in covid or is there a hope for kind of more i don't know less restrictive approach to combating the virus i think that you'll see a phased approach as we move forward what you'll see is that when we have a facility wide outbreak we may still be in a position where we're going to need to have facility wide lockdowns but in the phased approach and again it's still in the process of being vetted and designed in partnership with the department of health and corrections together i think you'll see a more targeted approach when there's a single case or a small cluster of cases where it may not be facility wide lockdown but instead a much more targeted intervention we just need okay we just need to get there i also i heard from a reader a question of what kind of enforcement do you guys have for the guards if they are found not complying with covid protocols such as masking is that something that you're familiar with i'd leave that to hr potentially to secretary um clauser but we definitely are working with our employees it's not we aren't seeing any rampant issues with employees who are not participating in the covid protocols but related to the specific elements i'd turn it over to secretary clauser thanks jenny short the um we have a specific disciplinary process that is used for masking violations or failure for folks to comply with masking guidance and that's been something we've spoken to the union with and we have agreed on that disciplinary process so i can get you the specific um process through hr but but it has been discussed with the union and agreed upon okay thank you thanks jason governor um just want to ask uh clearly if the background check that was proposed the time of the time period uh proposed in the bill that you just vetoed if uh if they changed it to seven business days and instead of the currently proposed one is everything else in that bill to your acceptability yeah the rest of the provisions in the bill i don't believe are necessary but they aren't problematic um other than allowing high capacity magazines come into the state for sporting events i think that's one provision that they had uh that isn't allowed right now everything else could be done under existing statute but it's not problematic uh the problematic piece is the uh going from three to thirty days in terms of the time period okay that's all i have thank you very much thank you chris roe newport daily express chris roe moved to tim mcquiz uh excuse me joseph gressor barton chronicle all right now we'll try tim mcquiz in vermont business magazine hi governor um as you know the the fit is meeting in march and it looks like they're going to raise rates by half a point and the mortgage rates are up i have about a full point since just last september uh inflation's a concern and on the other hand the revenue report from last week was pretty good what what's your take on inflation and the the near future anyway of the vermont economy given all that i think you asked me about uh three or four months ago what was my biggest concern moving forward with the economy and i said inflation and uh i still am concerned about inflation um this is uh we're seeing you know worldwide events that are going to have an effect on inflation here in our country the workforce shortage is going to have an effect uh as well as uh all of the you know projects that we're we're doing we just don't have the capacity to fulfill everything that we want to do so um i'm still concerned about that i'm not surprised that they're raising the interest rate to try and counter some of that but i'm but i'm not sure that's going to i don't know if that's going to do it it doesn't seem to have had um much effect yet anyway that we're just sort of um um there's concern on the other hand that they're raising the rate too fast will will have could put the the country into a recession and i'm wondering what what your concern was on that my my thoughts are as we continue to pump all kinds of federal money into the economy we have all kinds of arpa money available to us all kinds of FEMA money that's been coming in all of that billions of dollars here in this state uh that's been pumped into our economy uh creates a lot of opportunity creates a lot of income and and revenue so when that starts to dry up um when you know uh there's no more money being pumped in and we're having to rely on the economy itself uh that's when i'm i'll start being more concerned about a recession all right thank you governor dirick seven days yeah thank you a couple follow-up questions on two different topics uh first uh going back to the governor you're uh in uh support for christina nullan senate campaign i wanted to make sure i understood you are are you saying you you support her uh in a in a potential uh general election over uh like way democratic challenger peter welch yeah so why yeah again um i've known um both of them for quite some time i have a lot of respect for both of them um and uh i serve with uh with congressman welch when he was uh in the state senate and uh we always had a great relationship still do but our philosophies are different uh and uh so i uh i'm supportive of uh christina now again i'm not sure if there's going to be any other republicans uh joining the race they may i just don't know um so at this point in time with what i see i'm i'm supportive of having any candidate step up uh to create a race so i think it's healthy uh for our democracy is there is there any particular issue or or aspect of the different philosophies here that you would point to as um as being decisive for you here well i think we'll find that out once the campaign really begins um but uh but at this point in time again i like uh christina's style she brings a lot to the table um she's uh she's energetic uh she has a great background and uh and well versed in a number of subjects so i'm again i'm encouraged to see a uh candidate step up with her credentials and then my other question is back to back to prisons uh i'm wondering if uh if uh you see the state is having an obligation to mitigate the cumulative effect of these lockdown cycles on incarcerated people and if so is there is their funding available or planning in the works to provide services to help mitigate that i i believe we have had ongoing mitigation measures uh in our correctional facilities and we'll continue to do so uh until it's safe um but um but i'm not sure what else we can do uh i'm looking for a lifeline from if his secretary samuelson or dr levine who might be able to help derrick if i interpret your question correctly i'm thinking you're thinking about things like um recovery from having been through multiple lockdowns and um having to do all the mitigation strategies that are important in covet so you're probably thinking about things like their access to good mental health care and health care in general um things of that sort because i know there's a significant amount of effort in that arena i don't know if there's new money that's allocated as much as it's part of the ongoing recovery process but secretary samuelson may have another detail to fill in yes um it is a it is something that we're considering significantly so that you may recall that the department of corrections participated in a participatory research study um that looked at the overall impact um of you know and the health of our correctional facilities they identified um mental health as one of those areas of focus um and what and part of the participatory research study is really to work with individuals who are incarcerated and the staff at that facility to design the intervention but before that even went into place we're working to strengthen both for our staff and for individuals who are incarcerated the mental health care um that they receive including continuing to support the um the peer to peer program the corrections has that has been very successful adding additional mental health counselors for staff who are also affected by the the by the lockdowns and then a host of other measures which i can provide additional detail but again i think the part the participation in the research study shows the commitment of the department even at a very challenging time through the pandemic to continue to support and improve um the facilities and support and improve mental health great thank you all and barbara new port daily express those of us in the north these came done don't have any questions thank you thank you ed hi governor um since we're about halfway through the legislative session um curious in your point of view uh outside of the necessary bills like the budget what's the most critical thing that the legislature has to pass or has to address this year if you could if you could point to just one or two you know it really is about spending provisions and how we utilize this once the lifetime opportunity that we have before us uh the billions of dollars that we have to invest in our state to help out the rule sections of the state in particular um we haven't ever had this opportunity that i know of and uh as i said in my remarks we can't squander it um we have to be we have to have a vision a plan uh and how we do this strategically and thus far i haven't seen a plan from the legislature other than their intent language that they had in their in the budget that i signed last uh last year and if you haven't seen that you should read it because it lays it out but again everything that comes along uh with that spending the money strategically in a short period of time so if we take say housing uh water sewer uh storm water infrastructure even uh climate change mitigation broadband so forth um anything that would have to go through let's say act 250 uh is a concern any regulatory process that we have in place right now that would slow that process down uh to get the money uh out and get those projects built is another like a secondary concern but it's it's certainly in the mix because if we don't have if we haven't got a regulatory process that that allows for some of these projects to be built um and we don't have the workforce either again uh the workforce initiatives are just as important so it's hard to say it's it's like everything together uh has to work in unison uh in order for us to take advantage of this once in a in a lifetime opportunity and spend the billions of dollars we have available that's it for me thank you governor uh yes thanks good afternoon uh for dr levine um looking at uh the the results of the self-reported tasks that the health department's begun sharing out um on the on the website the dashboard just curious if you think the dramatic reduction in the number of test results since the beginning of january is um a reflection of the at-home test use or a a diminishment in the the number of results that are getting posted um and also if having that data available to the health department is is even meaningful anymore or if we're really getting to the point where new cases are are far less important than hospitalizations and outcomes and things like that yeah there's a lot in there and as with every question is not one answer so when we look at the self-report tests you know through the month of january we had you know some months early in the month like uh some weeks i mean three to eight thousand self-report tests towards the end of the month there was down in the um 13 to 1500 range per week mixture of positives and negatives but more more negatives than positive some weeks in the flip of that other weeks that even those numbers let's say we average it out to one or two thousand a week that doesn't account for all of the home testing we think is being done that's but a minor fraction we can't know what action it is because we really don't have a good handle on how many people are doing these tests on a regular or semi-regular basis and what their results are all we know is that the need to access our own state pcr testing site seems to be diminishing and they're making up a smaller proportion of all of the cases as well so the reality is i don't think cases are ever going to again represent a great way of having your finger on the pulse of the of the pandemic at this point in time they're just another piece of data that we integrate in with everything else you know along with this one thing we didn't talk about this morning is our percent positivity is now below five percent it's in the four and a half percent range hasn't been there in a long time and it will continue to drop but again even the validity of that as a metric is challenging because you don't know the complete denominator of tests so your last comment is really the true one that we need to look at other indicators to really know how much of an impact this virus is having on our population at large and on our health care system and hospitalizations and hospital capacity sort of the flip side of that are really key indicators at this point in time and that's why we're very heartened by the data that we see in the hospitals regarding covid we've also been reporting on a weekly basis the percentage of covid admissions that seem to be people who actually are admitted because of covid versus they are admitted with another condition and test positive for covid and the most recent number came out today and that was about 63 percent having covid as the reason for admission and that's pretty steadily varied between 60 and 70 percent did i cover the answer in all of what you asked yes thank you for dissecting my multi part question as a quick follow-up do you know or does if secretary french is available whether the number of requests for at-home tests from school districts for the for the test at home programs is that still steady is there are they seeing a reduction in the distributions that schools need is there a way of knowing sort of the pace of testing at schools i believe that deputary secretary boucher is on so she may be able to answer that yes good afternoon thank you to my knowledge we haven't seen any major increase or decline it's been pretty steady so i can get back to you with that exact information from our team okay thank you very much going once we set a new record that appears to be it and we'll we'll send out a notice about next week town meeting day is on tuesday so we're not sure we'll have a press briefing sometime during the week not sure if it's going to be tuesday but we'll send out an announcement on that as soon as possible thank you all very much