 Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for being here. We're now about halfway through the legislative session, so I wanted to share some thoughts on where we are, or unfortunately, more like where we aren't on housing. As a reminder, I've made housing a top priority since my first year in office, long before it was called a crisis by many in this building. And the reason I made it a priority is pretty simple. Workers need housing they can afford, and employers need workers to survive. And we desperately need more taxpayers, not more taxes, but none of it is possible without housing. During the pandemic, to their credit, many in the legislature also began talking about this issue, and as a result, they approved many of my historic housing proposals, investing hundreds of millions of dollars to build and restore units. And although we've made progress, one thing has become very clear, is we can't just spend our way out of this. So we need to make it easier, faster, and less expensive to build and restore the housing we all know we need. So the state's investments go further, and the private sector, who historically build way more housing than the government, get back to doing just that. As a reminder, we're seeing about 2,200 residential permits each year. Only one third, around 700, are state funded. Just to meet current demand and create a healthy market, we need to build about 6,800 units per year. So if government spending alone was the key to closing this gap, it would cost over $3 billion a year, which we obviously don't have. That's why we need to focus on the other side of the equation to make it easier, and less expensive, and more attractive to build. At the beginning of the session, I stood here with a tripartisan group of lawmakers to outline a package of common sense, but impactful regulatory reforms and incentives that would help increase housing rehabilitation and construction across the state. To date, that bill has received no attention in the house, despite the efforts of members like Rep Bartley and Rep Elder who are here with us today. The Senate Economic Development Committee moved forward with the Be Home Bill, which has been stuck in the Senate natural resources for weeks with no discussion. What we're hearing, and this is what we're hearing, is they're waiting for the conservation bill in the house, H687 to pass, which has little to do with housing other than to prevent a lot of it. And then they're going to lump it all together and put it in one bill. This isn't anything new. For years, I've seen the legislature play the game of combining housing proposals I support with others I don't that actually made the problem, makes the problem worse. As I said, if we truly have a housing crisis, we need to start treating it like one. So I'm asking the legislature to send me a real housing bill, one that has tools to fix our housing problem, and the Be Home Bill in the Senate is a very good start. For monitors, can't afford these political games. We need more progress and less politics to get it done. Representative Bartley and Representative Elder have been strong voices for common sense and will give their perspectives on what's going on in House General. And Commissioner Farrell will also give a refresher on the tripartisan bill we spoke about in early January. So with that, I'll hand it over to Representative Bartley. Thank you, Governor Scott. Two months ago in the early days of the legislative session, I had the privilege of standing alongside a coalition of legislators from across the political spectrum. We gathered under the banner of tripartisanship with a shared commitment to addressing one of Vermont's most pressing issues, our housing crisis. Joined by Governor Scott, we unveiled a comprehensive housing reform bill, H719. The housing crisis has permeated every major hurdle facing Vermonters. More inventory would help stem the tide of increasing numbers of people experiencing homelessness. Education funding issues can be helped with an increase in the grand list across Vermont cities and towns. Our demographic crisis can be resolved by recruiting newer Vermonters to fill thousands of open jobs we have now and contribute to our local economies. But since mid January, when it was introduced, H719 remains untouched in the House Committee on Environment and Energy and has subsequently died on the committee wall with no interest to take up the bill, despite being sponsored by over 30% of the House, 30%. Simultaneously, another crucial piece of legislation known as the Be Home Bill, S311 took shape in the Senate Economic Development Housing and General Affairs Committee. The committee did great work and I applaud Senator Rom Hinsdale and her leadership seeing the bill through. H719 and S311 represent collaborator of efforts towards comprehensive housing reform, offering effective solutions. Both bills were sent to committees with chairs vocal in their desire to not only maintain the status quo and land use and zoning, but as we are seeing in the House, this session thus far has spent far more time expanding Act 250 jurisdiction and creating further hurdles to development. Neither bill will meet crossover. The process enabled by House and Senate leadership has stunted progress. Not only will at now, S311 will not make crossover. There are however plans in the Senate to water down the benefits of S311 by combining it with a separate land use bill, not a housing bill that will come from the House, effectively ensuring that the House will have absolutely no substantive input on any landmark housing legislation this session. As a member of the House General and Housing Committee, I have struggled with the arbitrary notion that our committee does not have jurisdiction over Act 250 or municipal zoning. Our committee has been forbidden to discuss any aspect of land use, a struggle that has been shared by several others within our committee. How can we possibly have holistic conversations about housing and legislate effectively when we cannot discuss factors in housing development, planning, land use and zoning? For decades, we have witnessed a status quo approach to the housing crisis, but now momentum is building across the political spectrum and we need to act in unison. As we stare down what is in the House called calendar math, we can still get this done. I acknowledge that addressing the housing crisis requires a multifaceted approach and I recognize the very valid concerns of my colleagues who argue that Act 250 jurisdictional reform alone won't solve the crisis. I agree, but simply spending more state funds will not solve it either. We cannot buy our way out of this crisis, as the governor has said. That's why I had voted against a bill that barely passed out of our committee that proposes nearly $200 million more a year spent for the next 10 years. $2 billion taxpayer dollars yet to be funded that we do not have the budget for. More money thrown at a problem without solving the systematic underlying issues. To be clear, this administration has already invested far more money in housing than any administration has in the history of the state. Since 2020, we've committed over 500 million on initiatives aimed at bringing vacant units online, constructing new homes and expanding shelter capacity. Despite these efforts, the impact has not been significant enough. That's why we're here today. We must explore fresh solutions. The legislator has been made aware that there is a need for 40,000 units over the next decade and that is a conservative number. With construction costs the way they are today, this could total $18 billion at the current rate. Addressing this aspect of the housing crisis will take every possible tool. As I've outlined, the process is broken. When the voices of the few drown out the collective outcry of an entire state. Vermonters deserve better. They deserve proactive and earnest efforts from their elective representatives. They deserve transparency and accountability in the legislative process. I stand before you as a voice for Vermonters for housing and for housing everyone. And I am committed to championing tangible, collaborative solutions to our housing crisis. I urge my colleagues, irrespective of party affiliation, to join forces in this endeavor. It is time for House and Senate leadership to prioritize the well-being of Vermonters over political posturing and personal agendas. We are at a precipice where progress and process must be made more important than party. Together, let us rise to the occasion and deliver the meaningful, collaborative housing reform that Vermont so desperately needs. Thank you, and with that, I will turn the microphone over to Representative Elders. Hello, and thank you to Governor Scott for having me join the press conference today. My name is Caleb Elder. I represent the Addison Ford District, the towns of Bristol, Lincoln, Moncton, and Starksboro. I also want housing to turn a new leaf in Vermont for us to be able to build the houses that we need right now, the houses for our future, for our kids, that acknowledge the challenges of climate change and bring our communities closer together and walkable downtowns. These are goals that many of us share and that I know a majority of my constituents hold as values. I want to just talk a little bit about regulation, but first I will mention, in terms of money, with all respect, the governor's budget doesn't have enough money in it for housing, in my opinion. Now, it also is not going to help to just put a ton of money in and not have regulatory reform. Last year, Representative Bartley and I worked closely together in the General Housing Committee on S100, the home bill, where we deployed over $100 million towards housing, but without the accompanying regulatory reforms that I thought were necessary to give that investment a place to land. When we asked to address those in the General Housing Committee, we were told that basically in the house, we don't have the housing folks work on Act 250, it's just the natural resources or now energy environment. One, I don't think that's supported by the historical record, and two, it's not supported by the House rules. House rules say that our committee gets housing, the other committee gets land use. The rules do not mention Act 250, and I think it's clear that Act 250 must be shared between those jurisdictional areas. That is the approach in the Senate, and I believe that's why the Be Home Bill, S311, is as strong as it is, because you had an opportunity to look at the land use and the zoning from a housing perspective, not at the expense of not looking at it from a natural resources perspective, but in addition, I believe we have to take this approach in the House to have good results, merely saying this is the way we've always done it, so this is the way we've got to do it, is clearly not acceptable in this moment. If we keep doing things the way we've always done them, we'll get the same results and those are not acceptable to our constituents, so I stand here today as a supporter of S311, as a supporter for multi-jurisdictional consideration of Act 250 in the House, and also as a firm believer that we have it in us to come together from all sides and really address this issue. That'll help our economy in many ancillary ways, fundamentally get people more affordable places to live, and I believe mitigate some of the effects of climate change and give us greater resiliency moving into the future, so thanks very much. I'll turn it over now to Commissioner Farrell from the Department of Housing and Community Development. Thank you, Representative Elder, I appreciate that. So as a lot of you will recall, since prior to the start of the legislative session, the governor and the administration worked with legislators of all parties to develop a comprehensive approach to combat the housing crisis using a variety of complementary tools. Our approach has been informed by data that the administration and our housing partners have gathered regarding our housing needs in Vermont. To put it simply, Vermont has not been generating nearly enough housing, and that's not news to anybody. According to building permit data, since 2008, Vermont has produced an average of just over 1,700 units per year. By comparison, in the 1980s, the average was about 3,900 units per year. Our data suggests that in order to not only meet the current and coming need, but to dig out of the current deficit, in the short term we'd need to create about 6,800 units conservatively, and then at least 4,000 to 4,500 units on an ongoing basis. While progress has been made in 21 and 22 Vermont produce an average of about 2,300 units per year, we're still far behind, and it's clear that structural change is needed in order to meet the need right now. As such, we developed a plan to meet this need, and that plan formed the basis of the priorities that we've worked with legislators to advocate for this session. Initially captured in H719, and now largely captured in S311, the B Home Bill over in the Senate. These bills represent a comprehensive approach to housing that builds on recent successes, corrects historic flaws, and empowers communities of all sizes to create housing. All the tools and those proposals are needed to meet this challenge, and any effort to reduce or diminish those tools will simply inhibit the state's ability to catch up on housing production. So to walk back through what those proposals include at a high level, I'll start by talking about what's in both H719 and the B Home Bill. Firstly, updated standards for local zoning to encourage gentle infill development and greater density in areas where we have municipal water and wastewater. This approach accounts for community capacity, maximizes the taxpayer investment that we've made in municipal water and wastewater systems, and it focuses development in areas that are prepared for growth. Two, appeals reform for housing development. Too often in Vermont, popular and necessary housing construction development gets derailed or diminished by a small number of folks with no direct skin in the game, and reluctance to welcome new neighbors. Three, interim exemptions to Act 250 for residential development in designated areas, such as designated downtowns, village centers with municipal water and wastewater, and growth centers. Those exemptions, with a five-year sunset, will provide a runway for the implementation of the broader land use reforms being discussed, but it'll provide a five-year window for robust and smart growth. Four, tax incentives directed at the rehabilitation of blighted structures for residential use. This is an innovative approach which has been successful in many jurisdictions across the country, and which will direct private investment into our neighborhoods where buildings are falling into disrepair, we're losing homes, and where communities are in desperate need of revitalization. And five, investment in innovative programs that reinvest in our aging housing stock, create new homes for low and moderate income Vermonters, and revitalize our communities. So these tools, all of these tools, are absolutely essential in this effort. We've heard from employers, health care organizations, labor unions, educators, community leaders, homeless advocates, and residents from every income level and corner of the state. They all support this approach, and they're begging for bold action, not symbolic or modest gestures, but immediate and bold action. If folks listening today want to help, please reach out to your legislator, reach out to legislative leadership, express your support for these priorities, express your desire to see movement on the Be Home Bill, S311. If you don't know your legislator, you can go to legislature.vermont.gov to find your legislator and their contact information. I'll now turn it back over to the governor. Thank you, Commissioner Farrell. I'll now open up to questions. Governor, Commissioner Farrell mentioned more density and infill in urban areas with the wastewater capacity. Are you confident that there is enough capacity that we seem to have had quite a few sewer overflows? Sure, there is in some areas and some have challenges in terms of capacity, and we should be building out the infrastructure in those areas where it's appropriate. So it's a balance, and we have to invest money in the traditional infrastructure of wastewater and water, other water, stormwater, and so forth, in order to move forward. But that's an ongoing process. What do you say to folks that might say that activity isn't a problem here, right? That might say the vast majority of permits are approved and that there's factors like labor, lumber, lending, inflation, things that are other things that are cycling growth? Yeah, I would say that it's labor prices, it's construction prices. Black of any competition in some respects. We suffer from a lack of workforce. We have a labor shortage in the state, but the only way we're gonna work our way out of that is to build more housing units. I hear from people every day, it was in the Springfield yesterday, not a single entity of people who were there, there's the local chamber and the rotary, who didn't have a shortage of workers. So they're saying we need housing. So we need to do everything we can to provide a pathway to more housing. Act 250, as you heard, Act 250 isn't totally responsible for this, but it's a 50-year-old law that needs to be updated. We also have local zoning that needs to be updated and upgraded. If this is truly, again, if this is truly a crisis, housing crisis, everyone seems in this building would agree, or most everyone, a lot of them, a lot of representatives and senators campaigned on that issue. Then we ought to treat it like a crisis. And during a crisis, it gets uncomfortable. Some of the regulations we have to impose or put off to the side are uncomfortable. But if it's a crisis, you do what you have to do to improve. So I'm just saying we should be reflecting on all the barriers, any barriers that prevent us from building more housing units in the state and do something about it. We're hearing plans for a number of interim shelters of the administration coming together from the adverse weather conditions and for the motel program on Friday. Can you tell us what the administration is planning? We're always planning. We're always planning for the worst. We don't know what to expect after we were successful in negotiating with the hotels and motels and reducing the rate through the efforts of Eric Pembroke and his whole team and many from the administration we were meeting on a daily basis about that. He was meeting in contact for weeks with the motel owners. After that, when we were successful in accomplishing that in the legislature past the BAA, which had the cap in there, which was tremendously helpful. At that point I said, this isn't a time for celebration because in two weeks, we have another cohort of people who aren't don't qualify for the GA program that will be falling under the adverse conditions. Now, remember the adverse conditions are still in play. If there's a couple of things with the temperature drops or precipitation with drop in temperature is one other qualification, then they would qualify for adverse conditions and have a place to stay. But we're trying to anticipate. We don't know what the number will be, what plans they've made, but we wanna be prepared just in case so that we can give a slope, a transition to them being unhoused in the hotels and motels to a better plan in the future. So we're just trying to give them a little bit of room, but we wanna be prepared for whatever hits us on Friday. Can you give us any more specifics on that? I can't at this point in time because we're still dealing with negotiating and so forth and I wouldn't wanna give any details that would hurt the process. Back to housing, we all know you've mentioned the four of the supermajority that the legislature has and as you mentioned, it seems like this bill in the House is kind of near the transit vehicle that then goes to the Senate, but what is your confidence level? I mean, if that means it does get to your dust, it's really gonna have anything that you like in it or what you believe the state needs. Well, I'm a bit of an eternal optimist and I hope that they will listen to their constituents, listen to their monitors, understand the businesses that need workers, need housing and will do something about it. So this is just a way to reset or halfway through the session. Anything can happen and I hope, I hope that they hear what we all have to say and do something about it. Take action. The BAA, I believe, on the adverse weather housing included a pathway for people who qualified for housing under the adverse weather program to qualify for extended housing after March 50, have those people been reassessed? Are they all, what's going to happen? You know, I don't know the details of that, but we have had, for those who will be affected, we've asked our agency of human services and they have followed suit and they are interacting with those who might be impacted to determine where they're at, what the path forward is and what to expect. So they are in communication with them. I think they know who they are. And I might, is Todd on here? Jenny, I may refer to Secretary Samuelson to go further on that. Governor, you're actually right. We'll repeat very closely with the clients in the program to assess their current needs, to assess where they're at, and to help them with their planning as they make transitions or show manageability. Anything further, John? That Secretary Samuelson might be on the answer. I think it was, the intent of the legislation was to, when lawmakers were writing the final language, they believed that many of those who are currently in the adverse weather program would qualify for extended housing. Has that process gone forward? Are those, has there been an assessment whether these people would qualify because they're disabled or elderly or family or children, et cetera? Yes, we've been working very closely with individuals who entered the program under the adverse weather conditions to determine their eligibility under the guidance that was provided in the BAA to make sure that we are clear on whether they continue to remain eligible and to stay in the program. And so we're working very closely with the individuals who are currently sheltered in the hotel to make sure that we know whether they meet the criteria laid out by the legislature. And the program, that process will be included by Friday? We've been working very closely on an ongoing basis with the clients in the hotel. And so this isn't the BAA, it was the start of that process but it's a continuation of that process and the work that we have to ensure that the clients that we started really get connected to the services that they need are working on developing a plan for permanent housing and have the supports that they need to be successful in their housing. Thank you. Got a few folks on the phone. Starting with Ed Marver, Newport Daily Express. All right, we'll go to Keith, Rhell and Harold. Hi, I was talking to some folks with the Vermont Business Roundtable earlier. They have a survey they do for nursing staff level needs and one of the things we were talking about that I hadn't heard before but maybe it's come up is there seems to be a little shortage of people who can teach nursing to others. That seems to be one of the bottlenecks they're talking about now. And I was wondering if there's been any talk or thoughts or decisions made towards possibly ongoing funding to increase the number of teaching positions in the nursing field? Yeah, this is nothing new in some respects. I remember having a conversation with Senator Sanders. We had a group discussion at the VVC campus in Williston about this very subject and that was probably two, three years ago anyhow. And so we identified the problem. There was, I can't remember the terminology used for this teaching position. And Senator Sanders took a great interest in that, was trying to get federal funding for it. And it's not lost on us but just finding those people has been difficult just like everything else. The whole labor shortage, labor crisis affects every single sector and this is one of them. Even the teaching positions themselves. So this has been a struggle for us and then they need housing too. So we all end up back at the same place where we need more housing. In order to attract more people and it has to be affordable. So that's what we're here for. So Keith, I don't have any specifics on that. I can get you, I can get in touch with our folks to see if there's any movement on that. But we did, we did address that. It seems like two or three years ago and identified that as a barrier. Tom Davis, come with us for a minute. No questions today, thank you very much. Tim McQuiston, Vermont Visits Magazine. At Governor, it was four years ago today that the housing situation has a crisis. Would you consider a state of emergency in that regard? It's always on the table. I spoke about this a little bit yesterday at the Springfield event. And somebody asked, you know, aren't there any executive orders, anything you could put into place? And I said, well, we do have, you know, a state of emergency provision. I know the speaker had asked me, or maybe not asked me directly, but it said that I should declare a state of emergency on housing maybe a year or two ago. And I'm hesitant, you know, in some respects because I want to preserve, I don't want to abuse that power, we used it during the pandemic. Obviously four years ago, we've used it, it's still in existence for the flooding in July. And if we can do something legislatively, that's the preferred track. But as I've said, if this is truly the crisis, everyone is saying it is, and I believe it is, then that is on the table. And we will do everything we can to keep moving forward with improving housing and improving our economy here in the state. So again, no plans at this point, Tim, but it's always on the table. And it's not something that I've put aside. And the time is kind of running out of legislation. Where will it be a tipping point on the timeline? I would say we'll see where we end up at the end of the session. There's always an opportunity here. So we're only halfway through too early to talk about that emergency provision. But again, it's on the table. Thank you. Back to the room. Governor, are you putting on signing the budget agenda? I am, although I might be doing them a favor by vetoing it. And I only say that because I listened to some of the dialogue and I'm sure you have and others have in a house appropriations yesterday and there it was interesting. Maybe a little frightening as well when they started coming to the conclusion that we don't have any money. And the $15 million that they had added to the BAA is going to impact the budget itself, the big bill. So they were all over the place on that and wondering where they were gonna come up with $15 million without cutting other programs that we guess where they need. But they were, you know, even they were talking about mental health. They were talking about all kinds of things that cut. They were saying that taking the FEMA match, not doing that, leaving federal money on the table, which would be incredibly bizarre in some respects because we leverage a lot of money by federal money, free money in some respects by having our match. If we're willing to leave that on the table, that's concerning. So again, I'll be signing it. I'm sure they don't want me to veto it, but I might be doing them a favor by giving them extra time to reflect on that at this point in time because these are gonna be tough, tough decisions. We had to make them early on and my budget address I tried to put a fine point on that. How difficult this year was going to be because there just isn't any money. But many here seem to be in denial. At least now, I think it's coming to fruition. I think that they understand the complexity of the problem we're in and there's no easy way out. And we're back to what we were long before the pandemic where a million dollars is a lot of money right now. Whereas during the pandemic and the billions of dollars coming through, a million dollars didn't seem like that much. And now the million dollars, a lot of money, I expect 100,000 or 200,000 will be a lot of money as well. Can you be impressed with the mental health services or a few amount of dollars? I know you stood really firm on not letting you raise taxes but is there a point that you think that the tax dance has to change you? We were able to present a budget that didn't raise taxes. So, and we actually increased spending by 3.57%. So I think it's doable, but tough decisions will have to be made. So I stand firm. I think we've taxed enough. I think Vermont would look at the property taxes and that's $225 million, 20% increase, 30% of the budgets fell. That's unheard of in Vermont. So we've got a problem on our hands and that we'll just add to it. Sometime this week, the House will be voting on the flavored tobacco ban. As you were thinking on, you said that you were opposed to it originally. No, I said I was, I wasn't opposed to it. I was ambivalent in the beginning because when we first started talking about the menthol ban, we're talking about the menthol ban and the cigarettes and I thought, well, it's not, it wouldn't be my first approach but that's what they wanna do, fine. But they've added a few things. Now they've included the zins in that which is caffeine filled pouches, I believe. And they also started to do the financial aspect of what that would mean to the state and we're talking millions and millions of dollars. So if it's $15 million that we stand to lose by putting this ban into place, I think we've gotta reflect on that because we have 15 million that we have to come up with from an overspend in the BAA and now we have another 15 million that we'll have to be backfelt in some respect. So we're talking about 30 million. So then we started talking about real money again. So I don't know what they're going to do. I know it's up for a vote. We'll see what happens. A lot of folks I speak would say that kids are actually getting these things online on apps. Is there anything that the state can do or the attorney general or the law enforcement can do to? I would assume so but that would be a better question for the AG. But I would assume that there's something that could be done from that standpoint. But getting back to the menthol, I made this connection before. You know, we promote flavored alcohol. We sell it and that's a choice that adults make, right? And that increases the use of alcohol which we know isn't great for us either. We have cannabis that we've now legalized. Now they have edibles. I'm much more concerned about the edibles available to kids than I am menthol. But that's a choice. If we can keep it out of the kids' hands, that's a choice that adults have to make. So it just seems like we're not being fair about this in some respects. I mean, we already do it so many different areas. I'm not sure why menthol and zins and so forth is getting all the attention. On the subject of edibles, H612 would take away the caps on THC concentration for legal cannabis. Is that anything that you're concerned about? I've been concerned about it in the past but I don't know what the language looks like now. I don't know where it is. I haven't been following that bill. A housing question follow-up. Governor, Representative Bartley said it's not good for Ramon, quote, when the voices of the few drawn out to collective outcry of the entire state. Would either of you characterize Representative Sheldon and Senator Bray as among the few there? And if so, who else are we talking about? Well, I have, you know, I made no secret that I think that these, some of these bills that are going through have been stalled out in two committees, one in the House, one in the Senate and both deal with natural resources. That's not a secret. So, but they have their viewpoint, I respect that. But I think it is unfortunate that it seems as though the majority in both bodies understand that we need to make some changes, that we need to do something about housing. And I'm not seeing that there's any movement there. I think it's take some leadership to pull those through, bypass the committees, do something, put it to a floor vote. What's the grand bargain gonna look like when we all find out, you know, any sense of that? I have no idea. No idea. Governor, around town meeting day, mob healer approved just cause eviction protections. Historically, you vetoed a similar measure coming out of Burlington. What do you make of another municipality passing these? Yeah, again, I have been concerned about what that means. I understand why they're doing it, but I'm concerned about the incentive for anybody to want to be a landlord, even a small landlord with some of the provisions that are going into place. So anything that prevents housing from being created. And I think we do need more accessory dwellings. We need more small apartment units and so forth. And I think that this has an adverse effect on that. But I'll take another look at it. Okay, you know, a similar charter change that ends up on your desk. We'll take a look at it. Governor, about six months ago, excuse me, you went to bear and presented the plan to reach out a portion of the city with the hit by plans. Is your administration tracking that at all? And do you see that as a model for other communities to really rethink how they've probably developed their areas and provide housing? Yeah, we are tracking that. And Pat Moulton is our lead there in the city. And it's been going to all the meetings and talking with individuals, getting smaller meetings together and so forth to determine a path forward. When I presented that to the city council, a lot of it was predicated on financial help from the federal government. That seems to be much more difficult path than it was then. So I'm not sure that we can bank on support from them. I was thinking we needed $100 million from the feds to make this work. But there are things we can do. There's TIFs and so forth that we can be creative. We can look at some of the buyouts and so forth that are going to, I think, are going to take place in some of the commercial establishments as well. So we're still working on all of that. But I do think it could be a model for others and I hope we see it through. I know that they're engaged, the city of Erie, the city council, it's been good to work with. I took a vote, I think it was last week, on supporting some different measures. So we're working hand in hand with them to see this through. And I'm just looking for clarification on S18. Did it ban the sale of fences, is that part of S18? That's what I heard, but maybe I have that wrong. Just looking for clarification, that's all. Yeah, I didn't even know what the term meant about two weeks ago. But maybe you do, Paul. I do. Okay. It's all my friends' days here. I think it's that generation, yeah. Governor, what do you think, to the charter change question, today there's gonna be one of the town of Essex which will allow for recalls of select board members. I think it's one of the first times the system looked at in the state histories. Is that under radar or would we make the main call? I have, I think in this case I will sign it and we'll let them see it through and see what happens. I know that they had some issues there in the town before it became the city. And so that's probably in anticipation of that, maybe what they've witnessed and experienced. So I will probably sign that. So I also came up in GovOps earlier this week in talking about municipal ethics and GovOps. I mean, is that something like a recall idea? Is that something that can be formed on a statewide level? Well, we certainly have had a lot of issues with sheriffs, state's attorneys, select boards and so forth. So I don't know. I mean, it's uncharted territory and maybe it has to be considered but it should be a fairly high bar. I don't know, when people are elected they should be able to serve in that position, but at the will of the voters regardless of your, you know, maybe dislike for someone. It would have to be a very high bar, from my perspective. Governor, does the Senate will soon be discussing the drunk resolution to reestablish the post office here in the middle of the year? Do you have any thoughts on that? Well, we've been working with a post office in DC for a number of months. We've reached out to them. We've presented a number of different alternatives to them. Both short-term, long-term, here in the complex and there doesn't seem to be much interest. So I'm supportive, but I would say, and I live in Berlin now, they took a vote wanting a post office there to, you know, resolution's fine, but it doesn't seem to carry any weight with anyone. So, but I'm supportive of reestablishing the post office here in our capital city. I mean, I think that that's important to have. And we gave them, again, some, I think some viable short-term options, but they turned us down or had no interest, which is bizarre to me. On Friday, are there any bills that have a data of the committee yet that you're watching? Housing. Oh, there's more. I haven't, I don't know, I don't know what else, you know, I'm sure that there are, but we have the money bills to come after that as well, so we'll see after Friday what's left. Thank you all.