 Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for being here today. In January, I talked about how those of us in the state house need to focus on the fundamentals, to consider the impact and the cost of every decision we make on the families and places that need our help most, and to prioritize communities that have been left far behind for far too long. And as I said then, thanks to all the federal money and state surpluses, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do just that, increasing economic equity from region to region, which will benefit our communities and families all across the state. This team behind me and their teams behind them work for months building this budget with these goals in mind, putting together policies and making strategic investments so that all the pieces work together in order to put us in a better financial condition for decades to come. The budget we presented to the legislature in January prioritized low and moderate income for monitors with tax relief, historic child care subsidies, increased dental care, permanent homes for the homeless, more housing for middle-income families, upgrades to water and sewer and mobile home parks, weatherizing homes, funding for career training, and much, much more. Next, we focus on revitalizing communities with a plan to bring back employers to rural parts of the state, cleaning up contaminated industrial sites, and focusing on small business development, housing, growing the workforce, and supporting community-led public safety. We also made sure there was state money to leverage federal funding for the next three to four years so we can help communities by upgrading roads, bridges, water, sewer, stormwater, and more. But unfortunately, the budget coming out of house appropriations cuts or removes almost every single initiative I just talked about. Not only that, but they also increase the state general fund budget over the last year by 12%. 12%. They did that by spending over $60 million more than I proposed in ongoing base expenditures. They also put a lot of pressure on future budgets by doing things like only paying for one third of the startup costs for their paid leave program, leaving $74 million unfunded over the next two years. I think what they're banking on or hoping these unprecedented fiscal times fueled by federal dollars and state surpluses will continue when, in fact, their own economists says the opposite is true. And it's not just the startup costs for their generous new programs. It's ongoing money from tax increases for the benefits that come along with it. Not to mention the very real financial harm to Vermonters caused by the clean heat standard that the house has yet to take up. Three initiatives alone could add a half a billion dollars in costs on Vermonters every single year. What's also been lost is that we're already moving forward with a family and medical leave plan we bargained with state employees. And it will open up to businesses and individuals over the next two years. And it will be voluntary without having to add over 60 new state positions to oversee it that will struggle to hire. And I've also proposed $56 million in our budget to increase childcare subsidies. This has been done without raising taxes and fees at a time when economic anxiety and inflation is already high. To put it simply, we can achieve our shared goals without putting us on an unsustainable economic path. I believe one of the reasons I was elected was to bring balance, common sense, and pragmatism to the table. And I think I've proven over the years that I'm not an alarmist. But I have to say, I'm very concerned with the direction we're heading in. And it's not because some of my proposals have been cut. I understand the process, and neither side gets everything they want. That's how it works, but this year feels different. I'm truly worried about the seniors on fixed incomes, the working families who can't afford to pay more, and the communities who need our help most. And I also worry about how we will possibly pay for all of this as we look towards an uncertain economic future. In my opinion, if this budget passes with all these big ticket initiatives that come along with it all at once, it has the potential to hurt Vermont in both the short and long term. So I hope for monitors are paying attention. Our budget proposal was built through a collaborative, thoughtful process where we weighed priorities and focus on those who need our help most. It was balanced, and we fully funded new initiatives. It invested in future expenses to make sure we could ride out the economic downturn that's sure to come. And we did all of it without raising taxes and fees. I'm sorry to say the House budget does not meet those same principles. To make room for the over 50 million in increased spending in the BAA, which by the way I warned against, they had to siphon off every bucket they could possibly find. They also had to increase tax and fees, including on those who can least afford it. And the reality is, this budget and the half a billion dollars in new taxes, fees, and penalties could eventually pass, even if I veto it, because they have a supermajority. If that happens, we'll not only have squandered this once in a lifetime opportunity, but we'll have turned it into a liability. So from my perspective, this is not business as usual in this building. It's more important than ever for Vermont to know what decisions are being made and make their voices heard by calling their legislators. So with that, I have my team here to answer any that I can't. Some of these policies, like paid leave, child care, some of the big ticket items that you say you're concerned with, some Democratic leaders might say that it does require an upfront investment, but it will pay dividends later on, and it will help our workforce, our demographics. I'd imagine that's what some might say. What do you say to that? How do you balance the upfront versus the benefits later on? I'd say our goals are shared. We put a paid family leave program into place. It's voluntary. It mimics the one we put in place for our state employees. And it'll be voluntary. And it doesn't require all the upfront costs because we're using an outside provider. We're using someone, the Hartford in this case, that is going to oversee it. They're well capitalized. We don't have to put that money up front. And they have the expertise to oversee it without having to add 50 or 60 employees that we can't hire. We have 800 employees right now that we need to hire, but can't find. We're retiring just as quickly as we put people on. So it seems to me there's a better way to do this and get to the shared goal. And I believe we'll be able to do it quicker than with their proposal. Now their proposal, again, you have to form the bureaucracy for paid family leave. You have to form the bureaucracy to oversee it. You have to put in place some sort of IT structure that's going to cost millions. I think they propose it's like $30 or $40 million for the IT structure alone, plus the people to oversee that. And then you have to build a reserve. So that's going to take some time, like years, before it's put into place. Hours can be done in a lot less time than that. You mentioned that you were hoping that Vermonis would contact their legislators about these issues. What do you say to the Democratic leaders who say this is the message they got from voters last November? They're doing exactly what people want them to do. Well, again, I'm saying we can have both. I talk with Vermonis as much. I did fairly well in the last election. And some of their same constituents are my constituents as well. And they voted for me. And I talked about this voluntary paid family leave program, increased childcare. It's something that I've been concerned with since I first became governor. And in fact, I think I propose more than anyone else has. We came out of the gate much quicker than the legislature did back six years ago. We increased subsidies. We've increased them more. We're proposing to increase them more today. So it's not as though we don't have the shared goal. It's always about the how. How do we get there the most efficiently possible without breaking the bank? So when you look at the payroll tax for the child care bill in the Senate, I know how you feel about the payroll tax for the paid family leave bill in the House. You look at the one in the Senate for child care and feel the same way about it. I do. I mean, we were able to put $56 million towards this initiative without raising tax and fees. I believe if we build this correctly, eventually we can get there where we'll be in the same position they want to get to. But again, we can do this without raising tax and fees. We can do it with organic growth if we do all this right. Is there anything in the budget that you like, things that you think the legislature is going in the right direction? Well, again, we have shared goals. It's just the how we get there, always about the how. So in our budget, we had paid family leave. In our budget, we had increased subsidies for child care. There are many initiatives that we have a shared goal in accomplishing. But take, for instance, I think it's in the Senate. And this isn't the House. This is the Senate. For instance, it appears they want to take away the child tax credit that they just put in place last year. It was something we negotiated with them. It wasn't exactly what we wanted, but we wanted tax relief. So they decided this was a good way to do it, with $30 million. It's been in there less than a year. And they want to claw it back to pay for something else. And again, I talk about it a lot, follow through. The fundamentals. And it just feels as though we're moving backwards. We're clawing back all these initiatives that we thought were so important less than probably eight months ago. So is your message to them fees and tax increases are off the table for all of these programs? I have said to many over the last few weeks. And I try not to overuse this, because I've said, I don't want to threaten vetoes. But if there's increased tax and fees during these times, these inflationary times, when we have so much state surplus and so much federal money, it seems counterintuitive that we would want to put more burden on Vermonters. If we were to do that, and we don't match the federal money that we know is coming, we have upwards to $1 billion coming our way. But we're going to have to match that. And we'd have no idea what's going to happen in the future. I've heard some comment in the legislature who have said, we always match the money. We always make it work. Well, not to this degree. I don't recall. I've been around here for close to 25 years. And I don't recall us getting $1 billion from the federal government and having to match it. So these aren't normal times. And these aren't normal circumstances. And we should do everything we can while we have money to make sure that we plan for the future. So we can make these investments so we can keep the economy going in the future with all these programs, all this money that we want to invest in our infrastructure. So that will help the economy move forward. So again, to get back to your original question, it doesn't include the match money. It raises tax and fees. It invites a veto. Governor V, regarding the match, it appears as I think you mentioned they're setting a little bit aside, I think $10 million. But they're also raising fees at the DMV, which is one of the ways that they plan to set aside some of the money for childcare and some of the bigger priorities. But raising the fees, which your administration has not had a fee bill in the last six years or so. So I guess, how do you square those two? We've got the Democrats want to raise fees to help pay for their initiatives. We have the money. We don't need the money. I mean, we went back six years ago. I said, we don't need to raise tax and fees. We need to find other ways to grow this economy, organically grow revenue organically. And we've been successful doing that. In my view, these are regressive taxes and fees. These will hurt everyone across the board, not just the elite, not just those who have resources, but those who don't. Everyone who has to get a license or register their vehicle or do whatever, they want to increase by a lot. $22 million. And I just think it's unfair and unneeded. And I believe that during these times, when we have budget surpluses and we can live within our means, that we shouldn't be putting more burden on everyday for monitors. And that's what they're doing. Those costs, and they'll say, well, it does impact those larger trucks and so forth and so on. I heard that it could increase registration on certain vehicles, a lot higher weight trucks by maybe $400. Well, where do you think these businesses are going to cover that? They're not going to absorb it. They're going to pass it on to consumers. So they'll pay it. They might pay it twice. I know you said you also meet with the pro tem and with the speaker, but do you meet regularly with the chair of the appropriations committees on the House or Senate sign? No. I mean, I'm friendly with both. But I don't meet with them regularly. Could this maybe have been avoided, or we could have gone to a different place if you have. With half to ask, did any of you listen to my budget address? Is any of this a surprise? I said every single word I said today in my budget address. And if anyone was paying attention, if legislators were there and listening, they should not be surprised by this. In terms of the transportation fees, what about the argument that gas tax revenues are down, we've got a financial crisis coming in the transportation budget? And so raising the fees is really the most responsible short-term solution. Yeah, well, two things. One is, if they're doing this to match money, our match money will not be needed four or five years now. This is ongoing, what they're doing, right? This is not going to end. They're not sunsetting this at the end of three or four years. We started out six years ago being probably the highest in terms of motor vehicle fees in the Northeast. We're just catching up now. I don't think I think we're still higher than most. So I just, again, think it's unnecessary. But don't forget about the T-bill. We still transfer money out of the T-bill for general fund purposes, the JTAC transfer. Now, one time when I first came in for legislature, it was upwards to $47 million we transferred. We were able to cut that back. Now it's down to about $20 million. And I'm not saying it's not needed. But the reason that JTAC transfer happened to begin with was because the general fund wasn't performing. The transportation fund was because of gas tax and so forth. So it was the place where there was a lot of money. That's where they went to. So they used that to buffer the general fund. Well, now it's turned around. We still transfer $20 million out for general fund purposes. But the general fund's performing quite well right now. Maybe it's time to turn that around. Maybe it's time to stop transferring money out of the transportation fund for general fund purposes and let the general fund absorb that. Because we're transitioning to a new frontier as well. I mean the gas tax has changed. The cars have gotten much more efficient. So we're not collecting as much tax revenue. And we're moving with lightning speed. I might add to electrification. So we're going to have to find a different way, both on the federal level and the state level. And we put a proposal together and we're listening to some of their ideas as well. As to how are we going to put some sort of a user fee within the collection of taxes from electric vehicles, which we don't today. And I know it's a small portion of our vehicles now registered. But it's growing. It's up, I think it's 5% or 6% at this point. You said early on you're not an alarmist. But this year, you feel something is different this year. Is that pretty close to that? What is going on in your mind? What's different? I think it's not as though I haven't faced a supermajority before. But now we have all this money. And so I know there were a lot of promises made during the election. I'm not blaming the House or the Senate in terms of following through on what they promised. But we have to be realistic here. And we can't forget. I don't know if some have gone through an economic downturn. I've been through a couple, both in business and here in this building. It's not pleasant. I think you probably remember, Bob, when we went through a downturn under Governor Douglas's watch, there was a lot of rifts. A lot of state employees lost their jobs, I think, up towards maybe 1,000. And that happens quickly. And so we don't live in this utopia. There's going to be a downturn. We saw the effects of who saw the bank closures happening on the national level coming. I didn't. I don't think anyone did. But it sent a ripple across the country. And again, we're OK. Everything's going fine. But if something like that were to happen, again, we'd see a downturn. And I think we have to be prepared for that. And if I'm wrong, great. We'll have money available on the bottom line with a budget surplus that we can use to put towards those initiatives and grow it without raising tax and fees. Governor, this is going back to something you said earlier. But when you're talking to legislators, are you getting the sentiment that they think that they can hit the federal matches despite paying for all of this? Is that kind of what they're saying? Yeah, they're betting and hoping that we'll keep performing. I mean, we're seeing unprecedented revenue coming through our coffers. But again, our economists, their economists, have said, this isn't going to last. There's a day of reckoning here. So we just need to be prepared for that. Let's not go in blindly and have to take something away. Let's build it so that they have faith in what we do so we don't have to take and do an about face. Similar but unrelated note, the House of Representatives today is taking up the independent school bill as a result of the Supreme Court decision last year. Maybe Secretary French can weigh in as well. This would bar funding from private schools and independent schools, a few of them. What are your thoughts on this proposal? Well, I probably have talked enough. I got myself in enough trouble already. But I will say, I'm a fan of independent schools. I think it's part of our educational system, has been for decades, if not centuries. And I think that there's room for both. So I'm hoping that there'll be agreement in making sure that we protect all the resources we have so we give kids the best education possible. Let's go back to the kids. What's best for them? So I think there's room for both. Secretary French? Thank you, Alvin. I've testified earlier in the session on the topic. My perspective is we just came through a very contentious regulatory process of the State Board to its credit, strengthen the regulatory oversight of independent schools. The bulk of those rules go live in July 1 of this year. So my perspective is let those regulations go into effect before we contemplate any further structural changes to the system. The governor's point is the system that serve Vermont and rural Vermont in places where I've worked quite well over the years. And we have strengthened the regulatory approach. And I think those regulations are given a chance. And with those regulations, are there any benchmarks or any protections to make sure or, I guess, regulations around discrimination, making sure that state dollars don't go to institutions that may discriminate or might be exclusionary toward certain commodities? Yeah, that's an area the State Board has taken some action on as a point I've made in my testimony that I think that is an area where we could strengthen our statutory framework, particularly around public accommodations. But again, I think that's been anticipated to a certain extent in the regulatory changes that the State Board has put forward. Do you have any thoughts on the reappraisal plan? No. Whether or not I should move to the state, take it away from the local municipalities and have the state reappraise them? Yeah, I don't have thoughts on that. We have a tax commissioner right here. Take that one, go ahead. I think it's a really big question, right? There are a lot of moving parts to that. So what our testimony was really focused on was let us study that, right? Let's figure out what the pros and cons are, what the transition period needs to look like. So we were happy to be at the table to be part of the discussion, and we're happy to be part of the study and do that research and come back and report to the legislature. I do think it might be a little bit premature for the actual transition to happen in law before we're able to report back on those studies and what it would actually take. Do you have the impression that the law, with the bill at this point, assumes that the study will recommend how the state can do it, but be more of a roadmap of how the state can achieve this whole? Well, certainly if the bill today is transitioning it, so yeah, I think that is making an assumption that that would have to be the better approach. So our hope would be that we could study it and then come back and talk about what that structure would look like if that's the best approach. Do you think having local appraisals is sort of an outdated concept these days and given the problems that towns have, getting appraisals done on a time of the basis and so there's an argument for the state to do it? There's certainly an argument for it. That's why we're having the discussion, right? But there's, again, a lot of unanswered questions, right? And not every community around the state is having the same struggles. Certainly some are. And we also want to acknowledge the system as a whole is really struggling, right? The money that we're putting into the system today is producing about 16 reappraisals a year. There's over 250 municipalities that are part of the system and over 160 of those now have reappraisal orders through existing law because of what the hot real estate market has done over the last few years. So it's certainly a discussion worth having, right? And we've got to try to figure out some solutions. I just don't know exactly what that best solution is today. But again, happy to be part of these conversations and do that study and come back to the legislature and work in partnership on that. Go ahead, Senator Kitchell has put out a proposal for paid parental leave only. It would be a universal program for workers, 12 weeks to bond with a newborn, $600 flat fee. She says it would be not a huge administrative lift to do that. Is that a universal program that you would give on? Yeah, I mean, we like our approach, to be honest with you. We like our paid family leave program that we've offered state employees. And we think we should be building off from that. Again, making sure that we have a structure to administer this, I think is important. I don't know what she's contemplating. But again, I worry as much about the structure and the oversight and the building. Paid family leave program isn't going to be easy to implement. This is going to be as complicated as unemployment. And we've seen, you know, we've experienced some of the pitfalls in that during uncertain times. And we'd have to build a system that mimics that in order to best serve Vermonters. I'm saying there are entities outside of state government that do this for a living. And we wouldn't have to build a new structure. They have the expertise to do this right now. And they have the capital and reserves and so forth. So we wouldn't have to build those reserves. So I'm in favor of going with that approach. And regardless of what happens, I don't think that the state government needs to be a part of the oversight. The Senate passed on second reading yesterday, S17, a sheriff reform. Bill, I'm wondering what you think of it. Yeah, again, I'm trying to get with a couple of sheriffs who value their judgment right now. I know there is a difference of opinion across the board. I'm not sure that it's all partisan either. So I haven't read it myself, but I plan in the next week or so to get with my associates who are more in tune with what the difficulties are in implementing something like this. Do you think that the situations that we've had with various sheriffs departments do warrant legislative action though? It could, yeah, I mean, we've seen what happened in Franklin County in particular. So I think it's a good conversation to have. But again, it's about the how and what this actually does and how far it goes. Maybe there's a compromise there somewhere. And then the Senate also proceeded with S4, the gun bill, they took out the section prohibiting Vermonters under 21 from possessing semi-automatics, but there are other measures in the bill, I know we've talked about it before, but that's your latest read. My feelings haven't changed on that. Again, I am concerned about the enforcement and having weapons in your home, in your own home. And I believe in safe storage, by the way. I think the U.S. attorney is doing a great job with public safety and some of our folks in trying to get the message out. I think people should lock up their weapons and make sure that they're secure. So I again worry about how we would enforce that and what that would mean. So do you mean you are in favor of safe storage to be an option and to encourage it among Vermonters, but do you think that legislative action is required on that? That's exactly what I'm saying. And I believe that the U.S. attorney has taken on this initiative. We've been part of that. There's a lot of outreach. There's a lot of ads that I'm seeing. And I believe that trying to educate people as to why this is so important is going to be something that's, I think, essential. What about the 72-hour waiting period? Yeah, I mean, I've been concerned about that in the past, obviously. And I understand why it's there. What I haven't seen is the data to really back that up. And I know that what we see with suicides by using a weapon, a gun, is typically done by older males. And I would contend that older males probably already have the weapon. So I'm not sure that it's going to have a dramatic effect, but, again, I understand why they're doing it. But I haven't seen the data to back up. Could you be reluctant to sign it without the data? Well, I vetoed something close to that in the past, so we'll see. I mean, it still has a ways to go. We talked about it a few weeks ago and it was still in committee, but at overwhelming, Luna voted in favor of four in the second reading yesterday in the Senate, Austin and Bill 18 dealing with outlawing flavored tobacco, flavored e-liquids, things, and Vermont would join California Massachusetts, obviously it makes it all the way. Would this be a bill you're in support of? Yeah, anything we do to reduce, prevent kids from smoking, I think is beneficial. I don't know if this does it or not. I'm also a little bit concerned about other flavored substances, whether it's in cannabis or whether it's in alcohol and so forth. I mean, how are we going to regulate that? How do we treat everybody the same? So I think that's going to be an area of conversation in the future. So just speaking of cannabis, I mean, we've had a few months now of tax revenue rolling in, we've seen stores are opening up, we've got testing facilities, cultivators, what's your read really? I know we might have talked about this a few months ago of how the market's working out so far. I think so far, so good in some respects. I mean, it's a measured type of approach. I think we did the right way. I was very concerned about safety on our highways and I think that the way we've done it is and having this cannabis control board overseeing it has been helpful. So it's a measured approach and it seems to be working out fine at this point unless there's anyone who sees it differently. Hearing no one. I want to give a couple of folks on the phone the chance. We'll start with Ed Barber, Newport Daily Express. Just a follow-up question which is, have you seen the revenues coming in from the does of cannabis and are they anywhere close to what was projected? I heard revenue and anything close to what was projected. What was it, one particular fund? Revenues from the sales of cannabis. Oh. Are they coming in as projected? I don't know that but my feeling is that it's a little underperforming but I said from the very beginning we shouldn't be counting on a lot of revenue from this source. The more other states who do this, the more it gets distributed across the country. And so we've never really counted on all that revenue to do anything in particular. But I don't believe it's overperforming. Anybody? No. I'm hearing, I've seen some heads shake. No, it's not overperforming. Okay. I haven't. Has the legislature put potential tax revenues in the budget? I heard tax revenue in the budget. You've got my attention. Has the legislature put any type of revenue that they're anticipating? I think we all did count on something coming in from that. I can't remember where it was going. It was about four million. Somebody wanted, somebody wanted to get that information. So there is about four million in total revenue anticipated from cannabis built into the budget as expected revenue. Tom Davis, come to Sir Ryan. You pointed out the fact that there hasn't been a lot of studies on the waiting period and the impact on different things including suicide but also homicide. There was a study to your point that was done in 2013 by the CDC which showed that it could reduce homicide by about 15%. Needless to say, in this day and age, a different study would be more appropriate. But my curiosity is what's the downside to Vermont and to Vermonters to have a waiting period? What's the urgency? Yeah, I think it's just that this constant erosion of individual rights. So again, we'll see where this bill goes in the future. I know there's a sportsman coalition that is working on this and we'll see where it falls. And maybe they'll come to some sort of agreement and find it palatable to everyone. I just don't know at this point. But it's just this constant erosion of constitutional rights. Okay, that's all the questions I have. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any others in the room? Yes. You made thoughts on House Bill 158, the only court today of expanding the bottle of redemption system. I know this has been something to work for sessions and years now. Yeah, I just not in favor of an expansion at the bottle bill. I think it was something that was unique in the beginning and it did a lot of good. But we moved on from there. We have single source recycling that I think that's what we should be focusing on. Because if at the end of the day it's about trying to make sure that we recycle every product, that's the way to do it. It's almost, from my perspective, it seems like what we've come up with and what they wanna expand upon is almost like a Rube Goldberg type of approach to recycling. This doesn't make any sense to me. So from a pragmatic standpoint, I just feel as though we should be moving in a different direction. But if we wanna keep it the way it is right now and keep the redemption centers going and so forth and so on, and not expand it, fine. But I don't think it makes any sense to expand it. What do you say to supporters of the bill, though, who point out that 99% of bottles containers that have a deposit redemption now are either recycled or redeemed? 99%. And the number of floors, the single stream recycling plastic bottles is far lower. So if you really wanted to, they see this bill as an evolution from an anti-liter effort to a strong recycling program. Yeah, I think, again, that when I'm going out on Greenup Day, I see the litter on the highway. They're talking about litter, for instance. I still see all kinds of returnable cans and bottles on the road. I see far fewer plastic bottles out there of other substances. So from a litter perspective, I'm not buying it. Secondly, I think that we should, I think it's up to the recyclers as well as those of us that have to oversee this to make it more lucrative to recycle. If we can make it more lucrative, to make it a cost advantage to recycling versus disposing, I think that's where we'll make the biggest mark. And I believe that's the approach we should be taking. Again, this other approach, it just uses up a lot of resources. And I'm not sure who's going to do it. I'm not sure that all of the Redemption Centers can handle this. And where do we store it? Where do we put it? Then what do we do? And they can basically, I don't see them. I think they have a hard time taking care of what they have right now without expanding it. But maybe I've had this business all wrong. But I'm not seeing that it's that advantageous. It almost sounds like philosophically you're saying, let's recycle these plastic bottles through the single stream system as opposed to putting a deposit on them separately. Absolutely, yes. Yeah, I'm a huge recycler. I believe that we should be recycling every possible thing we can. And I do, but I think there could be an economic advantage to the consumer if we could figure a way to make it more lucrative to dispose of your recycle products versus your ordinary trash. I think that would make it even better. I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. If you have your recycling, you have your trash, so to speak, just to have some sort of more of an incentive to recycle rather than throwing it away. Because that's what they're saying is happening right now, correct? That they're saying people are just disposing of their plastics and not recycling? That the recycling rate is considerably lower. Yeah, I don't know who's counting all those plastic bottles, by the way, but there's probably a way to measure that. Governor, I'm not sure how familiar you are with this considering you cannot about 10 o'clock this morning, but are you familiar with Doug Hoffer's audit of the Department of Disabilities of Agent and Independent Living that came out this morning? Not, but I have a set of human services here that might be able to answer your back. So essentially, my question is, in his audit he found that DAIL was not inspecting facilities on an annual basis like it's supposed to, timelines of following up weren't necessarily followed and he kind of just stopped multiple issues with that and was just looking for anything on that. Yeah, so the good thing about the audit that happened is it's consistent with some of the findings and investments that DAIL has already identified and made both by adding positions and adding in the budget and adding additional inspections. So I think the good thing about the findings is there was nothing outside of what had already been identified by the department just further reinforced that they're on the right track. Can you just a quick follow-up on that? I mean, do you think that maybe the department does need more oversight of these facilities certainly during the pandemic, long-term care facilities were in the spotlight that I think it was put on for Ontario's consciousness a lot more. And is that something that you think that lawmakers should be looking at, DAIL? So a lot of the regulations around long-term care facilities are and do sit with the federal government and with CMS. And so what we saw during the pandemic is it was important for us to focus with those facilities on responding to the pandemic and during that time period, the normal and usual business as with many other things didn't happen. What we've seen is that we've returned to that. They're catching back up. And so I feel like what we have in place right now and particularly with the added resources that are in the DAIL budget are sufficient for our current long-term care facilities. Governor, I'm sorry to hear your thoughts on the school safety bill that's probably gonna get through the Senate here today. Coming in the wake of Nashville, where do you think we are in general in terms of school safety in this state? And also it's to my understanding that the recent amendment that would kind of exclude these behavioral assessment teams from certain schools that don't already have them that you weren't in favor of that. I just wanted to see if that was correct. Dan? I think firstly, we're really appreciative for the legislature taking up our interest in improving the statutory framework for school safety. We think it's really important. It's a conclusion we had come through last summer so it's not really related to contemporary events. It's just as we were contemplating how to improve our statewide disposition at school safety, we identified a need to strengthen our statutory framework. And our recommendation is that basically things that have been essentially voluntary over the years become mandatory and those things pertain to physical safety, the drills, the planning and then the behavior threat assessment. So we are concerned that basically when we had recommendations that left to this pattern of inequality and inconsistent implementation around the state, and I think that's something we struggled with over the summer and ultimately led to our conclusion that we need to bring forward a recommendation to make things mandatory because we had a hard time justifying how some schools could be more safe than others essentially and all schools need to be safe. And I'm quite optimistic as I know our team is in DPS that behavior threat assessment is a really proactive element of our layered response and it's really important that all schools engage in that. So we look forward to continue to work in partnership with the General Assembly but from my perspective, behavioral threat assessment should be a mandatory approach. Okay, thank you very much.