 Well good afternoon. Thank you for being here. As you might recall in my state of the state and budget address in January, I focus on two of the greatest challenges we face as a state. Our demographic crisis and the economic inequity we see from county to county. As a reminder today in Vermont there are about 55,000 fewer people under the age of 45 and 44,000 more over the age of 65 than there were in the year 2000. For years we had more deaths than bursts and they've seen more people move out of Vermont than in. And the impact is not the same in every community. We have to acknowledge the real and growing economic disparity from region to region. Of the five towns that have seen the most growth in recent years, four of them are in Chittenden County. In the past 12 years only three counties have added workers. The other 11 have lost a total of about 18,000. And from county to county is a huge gap between home values, household income, average wage, and so much more. Because of this across the state we're feeling the negative impacts on everything from our homes, schools, and colleges to our hospitals and nursing homes. And to be honest counties outside of northwestern Vermont feel forgotten. On Monday I brought the entire cabinet to Essex County for capital for a day. Our first stop was two and a half hours from here in Beecher Falls, population 177. We were within sight of both New Hampshire and Canada. The largest employer in Beecher Falls is Ethan Allen Furniture, with a little more than 100 employees, down from about 750 not too many years ago. Beecher Falls all volunteer fire department covers 600 square miles in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Quebec. Their chief has served since 1973, and their deputy has served for over four decades. He's also a retired B-trans employee. We learned that their budget for last year was about $85,000. So it's clear they do a lot with a little. And we heard stories of hard work and dedication all day as we travel throughout the day. We heard time and time again, please don't forget about us. Please don't forget that wages are different here. Benefits are different here. Policies have different impacts here. Everything we experience on Monday reinforced why my team is working so hard and why we're committed to an economic development strategy that expands growth and opportunity beyond northwestern Vermont. With that in mind, we built a balanced budget that doesn't raise taxes, but includes more than $15 million for economic development and benefits that will benefit every corner of the state. It includes more money for the Working Lands Enterprise Fund, an increase in the tourism marketing budget, the largest increase in the downtown and Village Center tax credits since the program was first created, a plan to complete the LaMoyale Valley Rail Trail, which will be incredibly valuable to the economies of 18 towns in some of the most rural parts of the state and more. It also includes a proposal to adapt tax increment financing, a tool used by larger urban areas like Burlington and South Burlington to successfully spark economic growth so it can be put to use in rural Vermont. The project-based tax increment financing tool will give downtowns and villages the power to complete much-needed infrastructure projects, which then spurs a private investment, new housing, and new businesses. I want to thank the House and Senate Commerce Committees, some of them coming in now, for working with us on this and for those members here with us today. I've also invited several communities here today to tell you about the obstacles they face when trying to reverse decades of decline in their communities, and most importantly, to tell you how this new tool could help them overcome these challenges. The town of Westford will share their story, but you can also talk to Charlie Hancock, the select board chair from Montgomery. You can tell you about their 20-year effort to build a wastewater system in downtown Montgomery, which is needed to allow for more businesses and housing in their village center. Seth Jensen, a planning commissioner from Westford, can tell you about his community's work to redevelop their village core, also dependent on a wastewater system that's just out of reach of their town's financial grasp. Russ Bennett from Middlesex can talk about the transportation and streetscape improvements the town needs in order to spark more private investment at near Camp Mead. Brian Storie, the town administrator in Johnson, can tell you about the investments the town has made for a new industrial park that needs basic infrastructure in order to grow. And of course, you could ask Paul Costello in the Vermont Council on Rural Development about the dozens of communities they've worked with and the many priorities of need of funding. The project-based TIF proposal could help each of these communities. And the best part is, this approach doesn't require any new general fund dollars. The concept is pretty simple. It uses the increase in tax revenue from the new project to pay off the debt with revenue that would not exist without this new investment. For more than two decades, we've allowed our larger communities to use this tool in complete transformative projects. It's time to provide the same advantage to our rural communities. It's only fair. And as we work to increase economic equity from county to county, this is a critical and crucial way to level the playing field. I've invited members of my team and the communities that need this tool to tell you how it will work. I've also invited Michael Gahn from the Vermont Bond Bank to discuss the issue of rural equity. With that, I'd like to turn it over to Secretary Curley. Good afternoon, everyone. As Governor Scott mentioned, our team has traveled around the state, meeting with local and regional planning and development teams, housing leaders, local and county government, legislators, employers and residents, many who are represented here today. These connections and the collaborations have enabled us to identify the barriers that are impeding our ability to create economic equity from Newport to Bennington. Dozens of small towns in Vermont, rural areas have done the work to identify what investments are needed to enable them to improve their downtowns, their housing stock, and to recruit and retain businesses, those who will provide job opportunities that Vermonters want and deserve. We continue to hear about how our small towns, the backbone of our state, need new wastewater systems, new water systems, brownfields cleanups and transportation enhancements. However, construction costs, steel and labor don't cost less in a small town than they do in a large town. And there simply aren't enough taxpayers in a small town to float the costs of these wastewater systems, water systems, brownfields and transportation enhancements. Unfortunately, too many of these basic infrastructure projects have been relegated to the shelves of planning offices, often because of failed bond votes or user fees that would make communities unaffordable, or a lack of necessary local match to draw down the state and federal dollars. Other communities have been reluctant to take the planning on that they need to do to prepare for a catalytic infrastructure project, because they know the math just does not pan out. The rural project based economic development tax increment financing tool solves this equation, giving rural communities equity in their project by capturing future economic growth and tax growth to finance the project. I would now like to invite Megan Sullivan, Executive Director of the Vermont Economic Progress Council to share additional details on how this proposal aims to turn decades old plans that could leverage economic development in our rural villages and downtowns into a reality. Megan. Thank you, Secretary Curley and Governor Scott. As you've heard from those who have spoken before me, many of Vermont's smaller and rural communities have a need to reinvigorate their village centers, but face fiscal barriers to building the key infrastructure necessary to allow for new private development. While communities may be able to identify some funding sources, often the match requirements for these funds or the gap left to be filled by rate or taxpayers are out of reach. So many times much needed development and projects don't come to fruition. In this project based economic development initiative, a community could identify a single eligible public improvement such as wastewater system, brownfield remediation redevelopment or transportation enhancements that would stimulate private development on specific parcels in their village center or their designated downtowns or rural industrial park to finance with tax increment financing. Like in the current tax increment financing district program, a town would need to receive approval on the local level and then on the state level to participate in this program to ensure local support and verify viability. In this program, a town would incur debt one time for one project though, unlike the district program. The town would use the debt proceeds for a public infrastructure improvement. That improvement then allows for private sector development, which increases the value of the property. The increase value generates new property tax revenue, which the town uses to repay the debt they incurred to make infrastructure improvements. At the end of the 20 year retention period, the full increase of the taxable values will go to the taxing authorities. As one senator said this morning, as I was discussing this in committee, this initiative could be a lifeline for our smaller rural communities. This small scale program will reduce the administrative burden for rural towns with limited staff capacity, but also give communities the opportunity to access this important tool and get the necessary projects over the finish line. Some of the towns here today will speak about their experience and their opportunity to this program could provide. I'd like to start that with Westford. So thank you for this opportunity to discuss Westford and rural needs for housing and economic development. My name is Seth Jensen. I am a member of the Westford Planning Commission. And I'd like to begin by telling you a little bit about my hometown. I grew up in Westford and graduated from the Westford Elementary School in the mid-1990s. At that time my class was the largest to graduate from the school and the school's history. So was the next class and the class after that. But then by the time I returned home in 2004, like many rural communities, the school population had begun to decline. Fewer young families were settling in town and older residents who could no longer maintain a rural home on rural acreage found few opportunities to downsize in the community. And while my class was the largest to graduate 10 years earlier, I could now count on one hand the number of my classmates who are turning home to set down roots and raise their own families. These trends were further exacerbated by the closing of the mobile home park in town due to its long failed septic system. Overnight the town lost an entire neighborhood. And while the Vermont Community Development Program softened the blow by assisting the families with relocation, our small town of 2000 people was permanently changed. So rather than accepting that rural decline is inevitable, the town began to proactively search for solutions. Since then the town has taken many steps to remove barriers to housing and economic development at the local level. Thanks to support from the Vermont Municipal Planning Grant Program, we developed and adopted a new form based code that replaced an old outdated zoning regulations with clear more predictable standards and a much more streamlined, straightforward process. Also thanks to the support from the Agency of Commerce and Community Development and the Agency of Natural Resources, we have secured Village Center designation in our town center, as well as neighborhood area designation for properties in our town center that front on Vermont Route 128, which is the state highway through the town. Westford was the first community with less than 2,500 people to achieve a neighborhood development area designation and remains the smallest community with such a designation. However, despite these efforts on the local level, wastewater remains the key limitation to revitalizing our village. Westford's town center faces the same limitations as rural villages throughout Vermont that were built in the 1800s prior to septic rules and modern infrastructure. There are high water tables, thick clay soils, small lots, proximity to surface water and well shields from private wells. We are now seeing both this work and these limitations play out in real time in our town center. The first test of our form based code is currently underway as a local resident is in the process of building a new country store next to the common, something that would not have been possible under traditional zoning. And while it is very exciting and rewarding to see work trucks building a new building in our village, the very limited capacity of the existing grandfathered wastewater system is preventing sit down cafe at that building as well as the occupation of two affordable dwelling units on the second floor. But for wastewater, our town and the state of Vermont would have two new apartments in the middle of our village. On a personal level, I want to say that this is more than just the loss of two apartments. These are the types of dwelling units that would be ideal for the young residents that our town and the state of Vermont desperately needs to attract and maintain. Those are the young families, the people who I graduated from 20 years ago. It's not only two apartments, it's two apartments above a cafe and walking distance of municipal facilities, schools, community spaces, natural resources and recreational amenities. This is not just one uniquely challenged lot. Across the common is the largest property in the town center, the former pigeon bus garage. The property is within the designated village center and neighborhood development area and also adjoins our town offices and public libraries. While the town's form-based code wouldn't allow a lively mix of housing and commercial development creating the main street that is found in many small villages and the neighborhood development area would provide numerous incentives including reduced state permitting fees and Act 250 exemptions, here too wastewater remains the primary obstacle. The town has begun reaching out to both private and non-profit housing developers as well as small business investors and the answer is all always the same. Wastewater has to happen for this property to be revitalized. So while the town has taken numerous steps towards overcoming this challenge including securing land needed through unique conservation purchase, receiving conceptual approval of a soil-based system from A&R and now beginning the process of the final design to become eligible for clean water revolving loan funds, every financial scenario we run shows a gap that needs to be filled in order for this project to be financially viable. Now and unfortunately of course there's also the still matter that the small matter of building the system. Like most rural towns we have a very limited grand list and a very limited population. Our only option to pay back the costs especially if they are through a bonded loan would be through user fees and local property taxes. So even with a substantial grant share even with 50% grant if those costs were borne by users we would be looking at a user fee of at least a thousand dollars or more a year. Westford has a very limited supply of rental housing almost all of it is located in the town center. Again this is very similar to many of our rural communities. More than half of renters in our town are already paying 30% or more of their income on housing costs and nearly a third are what the census classifies as severely cost burdened meaning that they are paying 50% or more of their income on housing costs. So we are in a situation without state support and another alternative to close this gap that we would need to make the small amount of existing affordable rental housing in our community unaffordable in order to create new affordable housing. This is a broken system but it is the challenge that dozens if not more Vermont communities face throughout the state. The proposed project based TIF legislation provides a way forward for towns like ours that cannot afford these types of investments on limited population and grand lists alone. It provides a path forward that is manageable for small communities that lack the staffing in larger cities by focusing on a single project and a handful of properties. It will allow us to create infrastructure needed for the housing and economic development that simply will not and cannot happen otherwise. These new housing and job opportunities will benefit not just our town but the entire state by providing much needed housing and services as well as in the long run growing the state grand list and state tax base. So I want to close with two final thoughts. One from the national perspective and one that is deeply local. There is a memo prepared by the United States Environmental Protection Agency that serves as the primary guidance document for water and wastewater preliminary engineering reports. It states that facilities proposed to be constructed to meet future growth needs should generally be supported by additional revenues. So the highest levels of government recognizes that systems designed to encourage economic development need revenue and funding beyond user fees and local property tax payers. And finally on a more local level. My mother has a letter dated May 11th 1991 from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources to a member of the select board who happens to be my father. Following up on his request for a meeting to discuss the town's quote wastewater challenges. So we've made a lot of progress in the last 30 years. But if this could happen by local effort and local gumption alone it would have happened by now. The project based tiff will help us cross the finish line. We want to thank you for your time and support. I would like to introduce Charlie Hancock from the town of Montgomery. Thank you, Seth. And thank you governor for the opportunity. I'll take the chance I can get to talk about Montgomery. As the governor pointed out in his opening remarks this isn't something new for Montgomery. 20 years ago our community was battered by a flood and in the in the aftermath of that the community invested in a engineering study to see what a wastewater system would look like for the community. And the study was done and it was put forward to the town and the town saw one big important part of it which was the price tag. And it was because of that price tag that study ended up in a shelf on a shelf in our town office and it sat there for 15, 20 years. So we embled along. We did what we could and then in the past five years or so we started to see growth in town. We've seen population growth and population growth in young people. People in that 21 to 30s demographic with kids. And we've seen some business growth. We've seen small businesses pop up on Main Street. And so the select board stepped back and said, okay, how do we not screw this up but how do we actually use this as a catalyst to launch Montgomery into the next century. And so we got together with Paul Costello shop and had a community visit with the Vermont Council for Rural Development and said to the community, what is it? What is it that's doing this? What do we need? And the answer we got back wasn't anything sexy or exciting. It was infrastructure. It was a public wastewater system and a revitalization of Main Street in the center to encourage more business development and also looking at the areas of affordable housing specifically for young people and for seniors. And so from that we stepped back and we looked again at our infrastructure system. We saw that that growth we're seeing has a ceiling to it. And that ceiling is the infrastructure ceiling. We've got a guy that wants to open a flatbread fired pizza shop in town that he's currently running out of a portable unit. He can't do that because his building doesn't have the wastewater capacity. We've got somebody who's looking at one of the largest lots in our center to develop for affordable housing. He can't do that because there's no wastewater capacity. This isn't new too. I think people in this room are probably familiar with the company called Trout River Brewing. Well, when I first moved to Montgomery, one of the first stories I heard was that that company wanted to base themselves in Montgomery. That's where the Trout River is. But they didn't because there was no wastewater capacity. So this isn't a new story. So the town got together with a consulting firm, engineering firm, and we've just completed our preliminary engineering study to show us what will it look like to set this up in our village and our center, servicing not just the 165 existing parcels we've got there, but what it's going to do to serve the build out that we've projected. What is it the growth that we want to keep going to attract young people, to attract businesses? And so we have that preliminary engineering almost finished. And again, the first thing that we looked at was the price tag. And that price tag for this whole project came to what we think will be $12 to $14 million. Now, as a selectman, that's the kind of number that makes my heart not skip a beat, but like stop. And so, you know, luckily there's there's resources out there, you know, we can go to USDA Rural Development, luckily, Montgomery's eligible for a 75% grant portion of that, you know, which brings that down a lot, brings it down to like two to three million. But two to three million is still the kind of number that makes a selectman's heart stop. And those gaps as Seth described, you know, without other tools like this project based TIF, those are costs that are born by our tax rules. And you know, we've got 1200 people in town were projected to have about 30% growth since 2010. But still, it's only about 1200 people. Our grand list is like 1.6 million. So unless we need to look to that base to finance this whole thing, it won't happen. And so these other tools that we've got, like the project based TIF, are what's going to fill those gaps and make communities like Montgomery or Westford manage our debt in a way where we can still afford that new fire tanker that Montgomery needs, or we can still afford those other things that we need to look at for debt service. So it will make those debt commitments manageable. And it will also help us leverage greater resources. One of our goals at the Montgomery Select Board is how do we use other people's money? And so this will draw that money into the community, which will, in turn, leverage that development, catalyze that growth, grow the tax base, and launch Montgomery into the next century. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you for everybody who's supporting this and working on it. You know, this is a huge step towards rural equity and helping our rural communities really work themselves into the next century. Thank you. With that, I'd like to introduce Michael Gahn with a non-bond bank. Thank you. Thank you to the governor for inviting us to this event. As executive director of the Bond Bank, I'm not necessarily here because of this specific policy, as that's ultimately in the hands of lawmakers, but because of the proposal's larger intent of fostering rural equity, which is one that we care deeply about. We view this through two lenses, one distributive and one financial. In the first definition, distributive equity means a fair shot for all residents at improving their community's well-being. In the second definition, financial equity, we're talking about a source of capital that results in ownership from day one in that community. In the governmental world, this typically means reserves, grants, loan forgiveness or outside revenue sources to facilitate that financial equity. In both cases, a municipality's ability to find equity is critical to all of the Bond Bank borrowers as we're only as strong as our weakest link in many ways, and so the health of our overall portfolio results in lower-cost capital for all of our communities that we work with. Our expertise at the Bond Bank, as you might expect, is on the topic of financial equity. This is commonly discussed in the context of creating social infrastructure but is often forgotten about when addressing physical or hard infrastructure development. The topic is likely overlooked because Vermont, like the country, has many programs and methods of providing debt financing for all types of municipalities. However, what is missing in this past discussion of capital gaps is acknowledgement of debt capacity, as you just heard in the Montgomery example. So what does this actually mean? Excuse me. Simply, debt capacity is the maximum amount of debt that can be raised when considering payments that a community can afford. The resulting difference between the project costs and a sustainable level of debt is the capital gap that is best served by low or no-cost equity. Part of the reason that this is overlooked in infrastructure development is that debt capacity at the municipal level is one part hypothetical and one part comparative. The latter of these is where the bond bank has been able to make observations about the overall need for rural equity in Vermont. First, between 2013 and 2018, roughly 30% of towns had declining grand list valuations, meaning that the same dollar of debt service now comes along with a higher tax burden. Second, Vermont's ratios of debt to the grand list are below national medians. We're working to better understand the capital needs of our communities and we're optimistic that this is a positive observation, but if we're honest, suspect that this more likely indicates underinvestment in infrastructure. Finally, we're first-hand participants in the difficult conversations occurring in small villages, which face the prospect of double-digit rate increases alongside multi-million dollar infrastructure projects. Fortunately, Vermont has the resources in addressing the need for rural equity, not the least of which are the people of this room discussing this policy proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to lend our perspective on this important topic. With that, I'd be happy to open it up to any questions. We do have other communities in the room, if you'd like to ask anybody else questions as well. Is a project-based tiff in a small community, is there inherently a high level of risk then in a large community where there are a lot of factors involved and how they can pay this off? I would say that it's relative to the size of the community and some of the size of the loans that are needed and the revenue that's going to be received as a result. So I think it's relative to the community. Is there anybody else that would like to weigh in on that? Sure. So similar to the district program, an application would come to the state that would look at what is the viability of the program, what is the project that's being proposed and the private development that's coming. Part of the reason that we're looking at this as the gap funding is because when we're looking at one project, one debt incurrence as opposed to many projects over 10 years, there's an acknowledgement that the amount of increment is really to finance the gap and not to finance a whole project. So the example that you have on the table and on these boards show how the financing for Westford would work that they would be able to access grant funds and that their rate payers would have to bear some of the cost as expected. But this would really cover that smaller gap and it's the viability of how much that would be reviewed by the state. If God forbid any project should be built, the debt is accrued and the development doesn't happen, is the community on the hook for the gap? Yes. So if the private development doesn't come about, then the community is on the hook. I think because again, we're looking at one project that by the time they've come to the state approval, there's a pretty good relationship already started. I think from what we've heard there, private developers may be interested, but because of the limitations of the public infrastructure can't move forward. While these tax, while these lower taxes are in effect, doesn't that hit the education fund? There would not be lower taxes in effect. The original taxable value would be frozen at the time that this is established, that the project-based TIF is established. And then a percentage of the increment would be added to that. So again, in the handout here, it shows that the original taxable value would be frozen for the time period of the retention period, and 30% of the increment would go to the education fund. The example of the 1991 letter, there hasn't been, if this could have happened locally, to drive the addition to the grand list. It would have happened. So this ensures that the education fund is getting their base value and a percentage of the increment. Doesn't freezing it keep tax revenue down for a few years because the ordinarily would go up a little bit? There's a 30% increment on top of the base value. What is the scope of the need across the state for projects like this? We know there's a need of about four or five communities right here in the room. Paul, do you have any idea of maybe the interest across the state in other communities who've been around quite a bit? We've worked with 75 communities, towns and cities around the state, Westford, and Montgomery included, who are struggling to look. We think that the ground is a flat playing field out there, but you look at some of these towns that don't have municipal staff. They don't have an organization in the town, a town of 800 people. There's a heroic understanding and a heroic set of efforts going on in rural Vermont right now to look at how do we attract youth? How do we drive the future of our economy? No one can come with a top-down formula that rescues these communities. And we see towns like Westford and Montgomery all over the state that are stretching up and they're saying, what's within our power? And then what are the tools that are available? Thank goodness for the regional development corporations, like Battle Rural Development Credit Corporation, the RPCs, the Agency of Commerce that help those communities that lack staff figure out ways forward. But it's all about local leadership. And these folks are trying very hard. This is another really significant tool that could help lever these projects forward. I suspect there are 30, 40, 50 projects that are in consideration now. I think it's sort of fundamental for the equity for rural Vermont communities in the future. So the total need is $30 to $59? Well, it depends on the community and the project as well. But do you have that number and you figured out what the need is? I have not. You do have that. What's the limit in terms of capacity that would be made available? Well, certainly, we have to grow slowly. I don't know if there's the capacity issue. Karen? I think that what's going to be important is once there's a program in place, you'll find towns that have projects that are almost ready to go, but they haven't been able to move ahead at all. So that's why you don't know what the need is today. You're going to have to have something that's an incentive and actually allows projects to move before you'll see what the total need is. So how do you choose the projects? How do you select which projects? Well, Megan had gone through that to fill in the gaps, making sure that it's a viable project and meets all the requirements. Right. So there's an application process that would start at the local level to make sure that there's community buy-in in this project, that the community wants this. And then that application would come to the state for review of things like cash flow and viability, look at the number of parcels that would be frozen. This would be much smaller than the district program, where you may have hundreds of parcels frozen. This would be a limited number, five to 10 parcels that would be funding the gap. What is the status of H642 now? I believe there's activity in both the House and the Senate. I would let Randy or Charlie maybe speak to that. Mark, Mike, I'm sorry. I didn't see you. Randy? Well, H642 today was the first day that we took it up in detail in the Senate Committee on Economic Development Housing and General Affairs. And we're going to be working on it for the next several days and probably into the week following town meeting week. Mike? Thanks, Governor. My committee heard H642 this morning. It was a first introduction to it. We had conversations with many of the people that spoke here already. We have, I have it planned on the agenda when we come back. I think we're going to do our best to get through the bill and get it across the hall to ways it means so it meets crossover. So it's not a hit to the end fund? Not as far as I'm concerned because you'd have to buy into the premise that these would, these projects would happen without this help. And I would say they won't help. They won't progress unless we have some program like this. Any other questions on topic? So you say off topic? On. No, not yet. So it's still not clear to me what the financial ask is. Well, this bill goes to House Ways and Means. What are they going to hear from you all about, you know, what the cost is? It's really about the authority to do so, to make sure that we can utilize this tool that, you know, in the economic toolbox to utilize in these smaller communities. And we've been able to expand the number of TIFFs over the last three years, which I think has been beneficial for Vermont. But we need to make sure that we can expand to the smaller communities as well. Anything else that I missed on that? Is there a concern with too many TIFFs? I mean, the more you have, the more gross indebtedness there is around the state. We have a proposal in the legislature that looks like it's going to go through. And I believe you supported that would allow a TIFF district to use proceeds from the debt to pay down the debt, which puts you in danger of circling the drain. Is there a concern that there could be too many TIFFs? I would love to have that problem here in the state. That would mean there was a lot of economic activity going on throughout the other 12 counties. We'll, again, this isn't, I can't imagine that this will be utilized by such a great number that it would create that opportunity for some challenges from a financing standpoint. But I think we can cross that bridge when it comes. This won't happen overnight. And certainly, I believe this will be beneficial for the state. OK. This is when they start with the other questions. You're welcome to stay for life. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming in. And, Charlie, I appreciate that comment about using other people's money. We do that all the time here in the state, I would say. You're the best, right? Sure. We have enough time for one, one and a half questions. Representative Toll is experiencing some significant reservations about the quantity of tax credits in your budget. She counts about $8 million worth. She's wondering if we can afford all of that. Is that a concern for you? Well, if it had been a concern, we wouldn't have pushed to put the budget forward. Obviously, the budget is balanced. We accounted for all of that. We had to make some changes within the administration in order to do that. I would remind everyone as well that we've seen some organic growth in revenue over the last since last year, or another $40 million, I believe. So there's some more capacity. It's about making choices and priorities. And I believe if we don't continue to invest in some of these areas, like these tax credits that I think are so important, we're going to continue to find ourselves in the position we find ourselves in today. And we need to try and find a different path. Because what we're doing right now is just not working. And we need to move forward and trying to really focus on economic activity in order to grow our way out of this. The demographics are real. The workforce shortages are real. And what we've been doing thus far hasn't done anything to help that. So we have to take a different approach. And I believe the measures that we put forward, as limited as they are, are a step at least in the right direction. Is there any work being done to try to convince skeptical members of the writing papers? Every day. Every day. Would you sign a tax and regulate marijuana bill if it includes the necessity to have a warrant for a saliva test? No, because I think what they've done at this point in time is that they've done the roadside testing. It doesn't exist under the bill that I've seen on the floor today. Providing for a warrant, even with a warrant, I think it precludes anyone from any roadside test that would have to be done somewhere else. I just want to remind everyone. I mean, I was pretty clear in the three conditions I had to support this bill. And one of them was roadside testing, a saliva test in particular. I view this as the same as a breathalyzer. It's not evidentiary, but could be utilized to help those on the road, those who help determine whether there's any impairment due to not just THC or POT, but opioids or alcohol or THC or any combination of anything of that nature to determine whether we need to bring a DRE in. So I think, again, I've been clear that that would be what I would need to support this bill. But they've proven, obviously, this week they don't need me. They can do this without me. But this is the condition I have to have my support. So they do still need you? I don't know what it is today. That was yesterday. It could be quite different. And I would say it's about the same as what the other vote was. And they were able to convince six, eight people to change their votes. Is your problem with the warrant civil liberties oriented or that it's going to be taking at a later time in a different location? My concern is that they're not able to use this just like they would a breathalyzer right on the roadside to determine right then whether there's an issue or not. It might preclude someone who is maybe suspected to be impaired. It might clear them of that as well. And they could be on their way. Otherwise, they might have to spend three or four hours at some facility waiting for a sum warrant. So you would veto this in this current warrant? I'm going to be very careful not to use the V word. But I've been pretty clear about what it would take for me to support this. Well, why do you so? Because we don't even know. I haven't seen whether it's passed the House at this point. I know there's more amendments today as well. This isn't going to, I don't. I can't imagine this will go over to the Senate. And then they'll rubber stamp, OK, on this one. There'll be a conference committee and we'll see where it ends up. But again, those three conditions will exist throughout the process from my standpoint. But again, they don't need me to pass this. For the virus, President Trump went on the National College last night and spoke with me about it. We are working every day on this and have been for the last few weeks our Department of Health with Dr. Levine at the helm has been doing a terrific job in trying to anticipate what this could mean to the state. We put together some contingency plans and we're just planning for the worst, but hoping for the best. And so we want to monitor the situation. We have no known confirmed cases in the state of Vermont at this point in time, but we know that could change any day. So we're continuing to monitor. We're just asking people to be vigilant and be aware of their surroundings, be aware of what's going on with those that they may come in contact with to make sure that if there is a case that we know about it and then we can prevent the spread from there. But this could change quickly, as we've seen. Does the state have an emergency preparedness plan? We do. First take out a new one? We do. What is it? It's the plan that's put in place for everything else. We're asking every department to review their plan. And we're staying in daily contact with the CDC as well as with the human services, federal human services as well. So we feel as though we're staying on top of this, but it could change again any day. How does it prepare people without alarming them? That might be up to you as much as anything else. We're doing our best to say we want to be realistic about this as well. We don't have any cases in Vermont at this point in time. But there are many people traveling, coming back, coming in contact with someone else. We just need to communicate and make sure we know about this and take the proper precautions. Treat this like the flu at this point in time. In prevention of getting the flu, trying to make sure you don't come in contact with someone who might be sick, who has been traveling, and come back, make sure you wash your hands multiple times a day, as well as coughing, sneezing, and so forth. Do that in your sleeve or in your shoulder. Take all those same precautions. And if you're sick, stay home. Are you aware of the state, if any of the hospitals in the state have the capacity to test for this virus? You know, I don't. I don't know that. I know there's a limited number of facilities across the country that can test, but I don't know who they are. Where's Senator Slav, do you? I just don't know. I can get that for you though. Another topic. Can you tell us why Emily Bodecker left her administration? She, this was a conversation she had with the secretary. I don't know all the details, but she resigned to pursue other opportunities. What do you know? Is it pretty unusual to have someone resigned back to immediately? Yeah, I mean, I just don't know the details of it. But she was great in terms of great, great person. Wish her the very best, and she did a lot of good work for us. Can you tell us anything about your discussion with Mr. Weld today? Just met with him briefly, just a little bit earlier, and just stopped in to, he stopped in to thank me for my public support. And I just asked him how things were going, and his reception here at the state house, he said it was very respectful. And I appreciate that from members of both sides of the aisle, in terms of they might have different views on who they would support, but they treated him well while he was here. Is public support different from an endorsement? No, I don't think so. No, no, it's the same. Okay, I wasn't sure if that was kind of cool. So you have an endorsement? Yes, yeah. When I vote for somebody, that's like an endorsement as far as I'm concerned. Got it, thank you. Was there a photo of? No, no. We were told it was closed to the press, and if you're totally supporting him, then why was it closed? Well, it was just a five to 10 minute conversation, more personal than anything else. I've met with him before, but he wanted to check in on his way out to his next stop. And I'm not really sure where that is, to be honest with you, but it was just really a more of a personal check in, and he just wanted to thank me for publicly doing what I did. So not that you were concerned about photos of you and Bill Wells? No, no, not as far as I'm concerned. I think he's a decent person, decent human being. He's a very, uh, ultimate endorsement. Well, listen, listen. He sounds like the infinity reserve endorsement, is he not? No, no, no. Listen, I've said all I'm going to say about the alternative at this point, but I think he served his state well as governor, very, very popular in the state of Massachusetts as a Republican, had high favorability ratings in the 70s, and is well, I mean, he was a U.S. attorney. I mean, he's well respected across the field, and I just think he's a great choice. Was there a hint that the alternative is mine? I've read some of those comments, but I don't believe that to be the case. Do you have any concerns for election security in terms of, you know, influence on those? And which, what election? In the primaries. In the primaries? Not that I'm aware of, the Secretary of State seems to think everything's well in hand, so I have no reason to believe that there's going to be a problem in Vermont. Secretary of State has more talked a lot about misinformation campaigns and how they can be targeted locally. That's been, that's like over the last 200 years, but. Sure. The city, because there's social media, the ability for those, just to stand like wildfires. What would you like to say to people with polls? Stay off social media. You know, don't believe everything you read, other than these folks in this room. What do you think of the Act 250 reform is coming out of the house seemingly without the statewide commission sent deal breaker for you? I wouldn't say that in itself is a deal breaker, but there are some other provisions in that bill. It's got a long ways to go, obviously, but there's some other provisions in the bill that I would think would be problematic. One of those going, changing the elevation, for instance, of what would determine an Act 250 permit, and it's gone from 2,500 feet today, elevation 2,500 feet, and last I heard it was at 2,000 feet. Now, that doesn't sound like a lot, 500 feet, but that accounts for about 500,000 acres. That also accounts for, I think, over 4,000 structures. So think about this, you have a camp or a home in that that you've had for decades, and then all of a sudden this provision comes into place and if you want to redo your driveway, you wanna redo your home, you wanna do whatever, you're gonna have to get an Act 250 permit to do it. So that one, as well as some other areas that I believe are problematic. I wanted to ask, just we're about to get the all-star break here. Your impressions of the session so far. You know, it's been, I think it's been challenging from a number of different perspectives and I think the national perspective changes even the dynamics in this building. And I'm just concerned about many are losing sight of the fact that we have some real challenges here in the state, that we should be focusing on more of the economic tools that are needed and incentives to progress and work our way out of the challenges we face every single day. You heard it here today. I'm sure if you'd heard other communities come forward that they would told you similar stories. And we saw it really firsthand when we went to Essex County. And you think about Essex County and Lindenburg being the highest populated town in Essex County. And I think it's like 22 or 2300 people. So it really reinforces everything that we've been working on, everything that we've been seeing and hearing. And this is replicated throughout the state, 40% reduction in the number of students over the last couple of decades. I mean, this is, they're seeing it, they're feeling it. And they want some help. They like their privacy, but at the same time, they're looking for some economic vitality. These problems in rural areas in small towns are happening all over the country. In many states, actually, they're really worse. And are you checking to see what may be other states are doing that's working and that isn't working? Well, yeah, we're always trying to glean any information, any ideas that other states are having success with. I think we can look at Maine. Maine's doing a few good things. In fact, their tourism dollars have increased by about two or three fold over the last few years because they tied some incremental approach to boosting their tourism dollars, marketing dollars. So there are a lot of things that many others are doing, but just because it's happening in other states doesn't mean we have to accept it. We're too good a state and we have too much to offer. We have a lot of great assets we could leverage. And we just have to make it affordable for people to both stay here and come here and give them a few incentives to do so. And I think we have a few ideas of our own that we put forth. I hope the legislature spends as much time on those initiatives as they did their own initiatives in the first half and then we'll see what happens. But I still, again, we're at the almost at the half time break and we'll see what happens in the second half. So too much time on things like paid leave and cannabis and... Well, again, I mean, those are real issues and they have a lot of interest from many constituents, but we're getting through those. So check those boxes, but let's focus on the things that will bring us in more revenue so we don't have to have all these difficult conversations about where are we going to cut? How are we going to fulfill the needs of Vermonters and living with their means at the same time? I mean, think about, again, our underfunded liabilities. The mortgage payment on that this year is going to be $199 million, up about $7 million from last year and that's going to continue to grow. So those are the real issues that we have to face and figure out how are we going to pay for these because it's not, so there's an endless amount of money that's available. You said that the national politics is having some effect on dynamics in this building. Do you see more partisanship or more contention? Well, you know, yeah, I'd say it's a ripple effect across the country. When you hear all kinds of things happening, the polarization that's happening throughout our country, it's bound to affect us in some way. I'm doing my very best to make sure that we're treating each other with respect and civility but in listening to different ideas and different approaches. But at the same time, it's part of Vermont to work together. I think it's part of our culture and our heritage and I'm not seeing that we have as much, we haven't seen as much of that in the first half, but we'll see what happens. Do you think school spending will be an issue after town meeting results as it has been in past years? It should. I mean, we're spending, again, we've tipped that $1.8 billion perspective of that $1.8 million threshold at this point in time. And that's up $87 million over last year of projected spending. Meanwhile, the student count continues to deteriorate. So there's another area where we need some, we need to get realistic about what we're doing and how do we deliver it in a much better way, a much more efficient way? Going back to Essex County, Beecher Falls, Canaan, it was interesting because we were there and the community is going through the work of trying to work with New Hampshire on a new school or a different school under one roof, working with Pittsburgh, Colbrook, and Canaan, working across the lines to develop one school. So it's an interesting concept, but they're facing some of those nostalgic types of challenges like sports, you know, who, where you went to school and are you gonna give that up and so forth. So, but they're trying to do something about this education dilemma we are facing right now. Team with six mascots. Yeah, and now I'm not players. Aside from the economic development initiatives, are there other issues you think really need to be hit hard in the second half? Well, that would be where I'd like to see us put most of our effort, but take a look at my budget address and come up with the rest of them. Governor, would you support H-808 and Don Hughes' proposal to address the deadly force issue that we talked about last week? It would basically provide us with a California of a standard for deadly force. Is that something you'd support? I don't know where it's at in terms of it's, obviously must be still in committee or is it out of committee at this point? It's still in committee, but in principle, we do support it. Yeah, again, I think we can do better than what we're doing today. And we're, as an administration, we're always willing to find better ways to deal with some of these situations. And as I said last week, we're willing to have the conversation. I don't know about the bill and that one in particular, I haven't read it myself, but we're willing to work together to come to a place where people are safe and not overuse. It basically says your force is only justified if it's necessary and if a threat is imminent. So it sets an example. And I'm not sure. I'm sure there's some lawyers in the room that might be able to tell us what necessary means unless and those words matter and how do you determine that out in the field? And I think that's the question. I mean, you can come up with all kinds of different requirements, but I think it comes down to, mostly I think it comes down to training and how to deal with people in those situations. And that's where it starts. But there wasn't a single police officer who was dinged in any way as a result of investigations by the AG's office over a period of 50 years we found in our study. Is that right? If I have to assume that it's right if that's what the results were, but... I mean, is it okay that no one's ever been charged for homicide or malpractice of any kind? Yes, again, I would have to, if it happened over 50 years, it had to be over multiple attorney generals at the time who determined this, right? So it's okay that they're always justified at least? It's never okay to take another life, but sometimes it is justified. I'm not, I'm just saying that there may be different ways to deal with this with training and maybe this bill would help. We're always willing to learn how to do things differently than we're doing today to prevent this from happening. So we don't have to have the investigation, possibility of charges against those who are trying to protect us. But so what you're saying is it shouldn't always be justified even over the past 50 years. It's always been justified. I don't think that's what I'm saying. I'm just saying that obviously someone has found them to be justified, not me. They never asked me in any of those cases, but over multiple attorney generals, they have found that they've been justified. So I have to take that at some value. So does that mean we need to change the standard? I think it needs to, I think it means we need to do a better job in training in a different way to prevent this from happening in the future. The Governor, in your budget address, you pitched tax breaks for military pensions, retirement people from the armed services. For the fourth, three year, yes. Yeah, for the fourth, three year. So what's holding it up? The legislature. I didn't see it specifically, Donnie. Can you speak to sort of why this is a partisan issue? I don't know if it's a, yeah, I wouldn't say it's a partisan issue, but I don't know if they've been convinced that this could actually help us economically as well. If we can have more of those retirees come back home that have left Vermont after a career in the military and wanna come back home, but are prevented or don't come back because we tax their pensions. That's, and when we have a workforce shortage, it just doesn't make any sense to me. I believe this would be revenue neutral. I don't believe it's eliminating anything. I think if we can bring back more people, put them to work, we'll recoup those costs associated with this so-called tax dilemma. What are your thoughts on the Green New Deal that was introduced in the Senate? I, they had, I don't know what they're doing with it to tell you the truth. I don't know if it's gonna make crossover or not. Obviously they, I mean, they had other priorities if it doesn't. So I think it's a better question for them. Okay. All right, thank you very much. Thank you.