 I'm going to do a formal introduction for the TV camera. So I'm Peter Conlon. I'm the state rep for Hancock, Goshen, Ripton, Lester, Salisbury, and Cornwall. And I'm a resident of Cornwall. Then go ahead and teach yourself. I'm a rep for the Grandville, as well as Randolph, Berkfield, Graytree, and Rocksbury. And I live over there. And Jay Hooper is the other rep for Grandville. If he's doing the Penguin Flush later today, I'm in Burlington. So he may be just sitting by the heat before he has to go do that. Anyway, thank you for coming. And please eat some food. I don't want to haul it all back with me. But just thought maybe Ben and I would talk a minute about what our role has been at the legislature. We're both in our second term there, actually our second year of a two-year term, as is Jay. I'm on the Education Committee. And so at this point in the session this year, a lot of the work is happening in the committees, as opposed to out on the House floor, because that's where all the legislation has to begin. And there's actually a lot of big issues going on in the Education Committee. And this is just on the House side. Of course, the Senate side is doing their own thing. But we are looking at some rather big changes in how we fund special education in our schools. I know for you folks, school issues are you have you tuition all your kids. So the school issues remain with the schools. But this could be a big change in how we fund special education that we feel will lead to better results and over a number of years of some savings. And the idea is right now, when it comes to special education, which is about, I think it's about $300 million bill every page year, schools, for every minute they spend with a child who's on an individual education plan, basically that's the definition of a special ed child. You have to account for every minute you're with them. And the amount of paperwork is just unbelievable. And you also can't give the kids the service that is reimbursable by the state unless they're on an IEP and unless they're being taught by a special education teacher. So in broad terms, we're looking and moving to a model where you basically give school districts the money they would normally receive and let them do what they think is best with it for special education. And the goal being that kids who may not yet be in special ed can get the specialized services that they need with this money and hopefully prevent them from being on an IEP later. And we feel that, first of all, it gets rid of a lot of being counted, a lot of being counted, and hopefully a lot more flexibility to do what they really think would be best for a kid without having to worry about whether the money is going to be reimbursed or not. We're also about to get a bill from the Ways and Beans Committee there in charge of raising money, setting tax rates and all that. But it's on how we raise money for education and relying less on property taxes and shifting more of it to income. And really, we already rely significantly on income because even though we pay property taxes, so many people have what's called income sensitivity that we're 2 thirds of the people who pay property taxes pay based on income rather than actual property taxes. The idea would be to kind of chuck that system and really make it much more understandable, much more easily defined system that still relies so much on property taxes, not as much, but a bunch of it would then shift to the income tax, feeling that that's more progressive, but also make it a heck of a lot easier to explain to people how it works, because boy, it's real hard right now. So that and then we're dealing with some pre-kindergarten issues. That's kind of those are the three main topics we have going on at the Education Committee. And Ben, I'll let you talk about what you're doing on your committee. Sure. So I'm on the Health Care Committee. That's also a big one. Yeah. There's a number of big issues that we've been dealing with. So I'm just going to hit on three. One, there's a number of things happening on the federal level around health care. Here's Jay. Hi, Jay. Hi, Jay. About the Trump administration made some changes to cost-sharing reductions, which are help people be able to afford their premium and make sure that insurance companies offer large, are able to offer a wide amount of benefits to a wide amount of people. So that was about $13 million. We spent the last couple of weeks dealing with that and figuring out a type of solution that actually will give for monitors more money than they had before. It's really complicated. But we're spending a significant amount of time addressing those changes that are coming down from the federal level. The second area is the mental health system, which I'm sure it's been in the news a lot. We're really struggling with the flow through the system and capacity at a lot of our highest level one facilities treatment hospitals. So the governor's budget had some money in it to explore building a couple of additional units to make sure that we can get the flow going. Because what we're hearing from emergency rooms, what we're hearing from mental health professionals is people are showing up with a higher acuity of symptoms, and they're staying a lot longer in inpatient facilities. So that's leading to a lot of backlog. And a lot of people, frankly, sitting in the ER for days, weeks, even months, waiting to get into an available bed. So that's something that we'll be spending a lot of time figuring out what structural changes, as well as different investments we can make to get the system to a more sustainable level. And finally, something that I've been particularly interested in is we're in a broad area of health care reform in terms of moving to this all-payer model, which changes how we pay for health care. Not, it won't affect consumers in any way, but it makes the payer, the insurance company, to the provider, the hospital, the doctor. And I've got some real concerns about how rural health care providers are being impacted by this and how they fit in the picture. Because I don't know how it is on this side of the mountain. Over in the Randolph area, we really struggle to attract primary care doctors, be able to get in and see our doctors. And I'm not convinced that this new direction of health care reform will adequately protect access to a lot of our rural communities, which is much of Vermont. So those are a couple of the key issues that we have health care dealing with. There's no shortage. We've been putting in some long hours. But it's given us busy. Well, to get settled up, Ben and I both serve on what's called the Rural Economic Development Working Group, which is called the Rural Caucus for short. And we're just a group of legislators from rural areas that we just keep an eye on and support legislation in support of rural communities. And so we've kind of focused on a couple of things this year. We had a big hearing that we opened up to the state. In November, to just say, come in and tell us what your concerns are around the state and for rural folks to come in and talk about that. Really heard two or three main things. One, broadband access in rural areas. I think tied with that would be cellular access. Guys are incredibly lucky over here to have a strong AT&T signal. Folks in Ripton and what not are definitely don't have it. And then rural wastewater systems, as rural areas try to build or try to, you know, say we maintain or attract business or even more housing as our wastewater rules keep getting tighter and tighter. That clearly means that communities are going to need more and more support in order to put in adequate systems, especially if they want to cluster their development. That's why I asked you about the tail development. I was curious as to know how they do it. Ben, was there one other that, those are the two main ones? Those are the two main ones, as well as, you know, forest products industries, which has been going through a whole flux of changes and the impact from, you know, the worldwide economy. So figuring out how do we support and foster more sustainable, Vermont brand of Vermont forest products. Which, of course, the Hancock mostly issued there very well, having been through the warehousing closing. That warehouse is closing, is that what you said? It's a warehousing. The, what's it called, Hancock? Not the Building Supply. Not the Building Supply. Down here are the rights of big guys. So, Jay, why don't you go ahead, as Jay Hooper? Well, that's actually a good transition topic because I'm serving on the House Ag and Forestry Committee. So Jay Hooper represents Brookfield, Brantree, Randolph, Bainville, and Roxbury with Ben. This week, we had a cool host of things that we got into, one of which was visiting the farm show up in Essex. Some of the bills that Ag and Forestry are taking on are, this week, we pretty much got to the destination in the conversation around on-farm accessory businesses. Accessory on-farm businesses. So that'd be like anything from a farm stand to a slaughtering facility. Basically, trying to level the playing field across the state so that certain town bylaws don't get in the way of farm's capacity to have a business. There was a controversial section of that bill that was centered around weddings and events. And a lot of the zoning administrators around the state weren't into that section. So we struck it. Basically, it was going to give farmers real farms, not just wedding facilities, basically the right to have weddings several times a year. But there's still a lot to do that. We just didn't keep that in the bill. Another issue we took on this week and last week was hemp farming. We took some testimony on the vitality of the hemp industry, but there isn't really a market right now in Vermont. And of course, as I must probably know, it's illegal to grow hemp. Well, the federal law, basically, is in the way. So one of the obstacles on this issue is for farmers who are looking into growing hemp so that they can have an alternative source of income is that they can't get the seeds to plant the crop. But it is a serious cash crop, so it's kind of interesting to look into the viability of diving deeper into the hemp market because a lot of farmers, as you may know, are struggling with the milk market because that is volatile and sort of stagnant. I think it's $17.50 per 100 weight right now for a conventional dairy. And the organic milk market has been declining also because a lot of farmers have made the transition from conventional practice to organic. And so I think the price is per 100 weight for them, but I think it's like $38 or something like that. One of the most interesting topics we've taken on this year so far has been about regenerative ag practices and I've signed on to a bill that Amy Sheldon put forth. She represents Middlebury. She wants to have a $50,000 jump start program for farmers who are looking to a $50,000 allocation to help farmers who are looking to make the transition from conventional ag practices to regenerative ag. But we took some testimony this week that was kind of startling to me because apparently within the regenerative agriculture movement, there's a lot of disagreement about what it means to have an organic farm, what that entails, what's allowed. I guess there's discord as to what it will mean to be certified organic. So I think that it's kind of an interesting add and tension considering the inevitable tension between conventional dairy and organic as it is because a lot of the conventional farmers are feeling attacked by the left or the liberals or the environmental side of the discussion because as you may not be as aware down here, but as you get closer to Lacy and playing the issue is more talked about, but water quality is number one. That's going to be the heavy lift for the state and for ag to figure out how to fund a cleanup effort that works for everybody. The farmers are responsible for 40% of the runoff problem and they feel like they're being charged with 90% of the solution, which is, I guess, true in some respects. And sorry, I don't have a very fluid presentation here. So I'll just say starting, I think, next week in most of our committees, we start hearing the details of what Governor Scott is recommending in his budget. So we'll get our first look at the governor's budget for education and the education committee. I assume human services and agriculture are the same. And as we talk about great ideas, other things, it's always against a backdrop of an immediate requirement by the governor, no new taxes, no new fees. He constantly repeats that. You know, if we say we want to focus on rural development or focus on something that's a hard nut to crack to be able to do both, everybody certainly understands the reason why we were saying no new taxes, no new fees. And in fact, the legislature last year unanimously, minus one, passed a budget that did exactly that. And I think we want to keep that in the background. But then we look at things like what I was talking about in rural development, there's a bill that our rural development caucus is backing that would tack on a half a percent increase in what they call the universal access fee. And that's one of those little lines on your landline phone bill. I'm not sure how big it is. Maybe it's 10. Yeah. And this would add a half a percent to it. But it could raise $1.2 million to help expand broadband in rural areas. Because basically broadband's an unregulated market. State can't force anybody to do anything. And that's by federal law. Can't really usurp that. And so the only way to get companies to expand broadband service or allow communities to try to do it on their own is to provide some money. But when they say no new money, they make it hard. Right. And I would say going off internet, because I think it's important in all of rural Vermont, I've seen a real dirt of leadership in terms of getting the ball rolling to a plan that will provide good broadband in the places that we don't have it. So I think this, I signed on to the bill and Peter and a number of other rural economic development folks would really jumpstart that conversation about how we're going to get there. So enough of us. Yeah. We'll have to hear your questions if you have any of your comments. I have a question about the change in how special ed is funded. So you said that previously there was a lot of paperwork, a lot of accountability. Currently, yeah. Currently, right. So what will be the accountability in this new system if school boards just get like a block grant type of thing? So how are they going to? So that's our big issue as we work through this bill. It's very complicated to figure this out because there's a lot of federal stuff. So accountability is the big issue. You just give to a school, instead of giving them their $2 and 1 half million in special ed funding with lots and lots and lots of paperwork strings attached. Maybe just give it to them how they know they're not going to spend it on new carpeting. First of all, the agency of education will continue, as it always has, to monitor special ed progress. All kids who are, quote, special ed are under contract. An individual education plan is a legal contract between the child and the education. And it's monitored by the federal law. So there's a lot of federal oversight, especially those who are on an IEP, where you sort of have to move from a legal requirement basis to a faith basis in the fact that people who want to educate kids is in that more discretionary area of money, where you might be having a math specialist or a reading specialist work intensively with a group of kids before they're on an IEP to prevent them from being on an IEP. And I think I feel comfortable, as I've heard more and more expert witnesses talk in our committee about it, that between the oversight of the state level and, frankly, the strong, strong desire of special educators to get to kids as early as possible and as effectively as possible, I have faith that it will work. Right now we have kind of a reverse system in that the trend has been to hire parent educators, not licensed teachers, to work with special ed kids on kind of a one-on-one basis. They are not teaching specialists. In many cases, they may not have even a bachelor's degree. They are dedicated, wonderful people. But in a way, we have the highest need children not being taught by the highest skilled teachers. I have a second question. What's the chance that the changes to property have property taxes calculated over the past? It's looking very strong. So it's going to come out of the Ways and Means Committee with sort of how we can raise exactly what we're raising now. This is all for the education fund. And if you think about the education fund, all it really is, it's what we call a self-balancing fund. It takes in as much as communities voted to spend on education. So whatever that rate is or how it's raised is all set by the communities who vote for or against their budgets or cut their budgets or add to their budgets. It's not the state deciding on that. It's the communities. And again, this would just sort of tinker with it would better diversify the revenue that creates the education fund. So it's sales tax and income tax and property tax and lottery money and some other things, but shifting a little from property to income more so than we have now. Anyway, it looks very good to come out of the Ways and Means Committee. It then comes to the Education Committee. And we've been tasked with putting in the constraints. In other words, they're just going to come up with a formula to how to raise the poll and money. Our job is to come in with the sort of throttling so that people don't go crazy saying, hey, we know our. Because you'll see your property tax rates plummet as a result of this. But of course, it's going to be made up on the income side. And so we don't want people to think all of a sudden, oh my goodness, we can now go to town and spend all kinds of money. Again, you guys aren't in real control of your education spending. But anyways, we're trying to put in the constraints on it so that we will continue to emphasize the need to have our spending reflect our declining enrollment in our schools. So when you're talking about income, do you mean the income of the town's getting or your individual income? Individual income, it would be. And I think it even calls for pulling the town out of having to be the collection agency for education taxes. And instead, you'd get a separate bill. So therefore, people would really know the difference between their municipal taxes and their education taxes. Anyway, it's looking good. You know, there's a lot of Republicans who are very interested in this. It's a Democratic-controlled house. And thus far, they're satisfied with it. So we really hope that this will be a bipartisan program. What we've heard is that the governor is very clear. It can't result in new taxes and new fees, as he keeps repeating. So B doesn't want it to be used as a vehicle to start spending more on education at the state level or at the local level. And so it's really going to be incumbent on us to put the thresholds in place that will cost containment. That's the term I'm looking for. Put the cost containment measures on it. And so this process would be ready for the fiscal year and July 1st of this year? No. Well, so there's a big amount of debate going on about that. Whether we should spring it on folks this year and really just rip the mandate off, let's make the move, let's make it happen, and potentially avoid a bunch of confusion where you've got dual taxing systems going on for another year, right on the other side, you've got, hey, we can't handle all this at once. Have you decided what side of that debate you're on? No, I haven't. I haven't decided what side of that. That's a good question. I have. I would just add to that, and correct me if I'm wrong, it needs that education expert. But there's also pieces of the bill that would better link communities with their local spending decisions, which I think have contributed to attracting a wide amount of support. Because so better than voters with their local budget. And the way that by getting rid of the income sensitivity portion of what we have now. Now today, a lot of people are protected from whatever your school district wants to spend, because they'll never have to pay more than 2% or 2.2% of their income on property taxes. So if you're spending $23,000 a kid on schooling when the statewide average is $15,000, you're kind of protected right now. In the future, the tax will become more progressive. So you still have a certain amount of protection there. But everybody's going to have more skin in the game. Why do you say if money in is what controls that pool of money, money in going out, it's going to be equal. Why is there's only a 2% increase or so in spending that there's a projected 9% increase in the money needed? So I would look at it differently. I would say that it's a 4.5% increase last year this year. Last year, we took the price of surplus money and one-time money and bought down the tax rate. So there was no increase in statewide property tax rates last year. And that would pay that price. It would pay it for last year. Yeah. That was a lot of behind the scenes negotiations that went on to make a deal. I would say many of us thought that was not a very good idea because now we're facing what we're facing. So the 9% is also based on the idea that on the projection that school district or school spending, education spending, is going to go up 3.5% on average statewide. Now, I haven't seen any of the budgets that have come in in the Addison County area or other ones I've read about in the paper that have come in that high. So I'm hoping that that's not going to prove to be true. Are you looking at that teacher-student ratio much? We're so high, number one in the country, four kids for every teacher, for every professional, whatever. Mostly we argue about where the statistic comes from. The 4.25, that's adults. So that includes bus drivers, everybody, custodians, and our places that contract that labor out, counting it. So we have a lot of concern about that. But one thing we just know for sure is that we've got a declining enrollment in the vast majority of the state. And we have not been keeping pace. Right, a huge declining enrollment and a huge increase in staff. Right. But yeah. Or a little less than 10 or 15 years. Well, what we really had the last five is level staff but declining. So it's the same thing. And so the question is, should the state be mandating how local school boards decide to staff their school systems? I think that's a big local control issue. They would mandate or encourage or make a policy that, you know? Yeah. So the encouragement, so I'm the chair of the Middlebury area school board. And one thing that unification has brought was is the ability to make broader decisions in a big system. When you are the five member school board for a little school and you're looking at cutting a teacher, that's a hard thing to do. But when you have created a much larger system and you can move people around and you can make more strategic decisions. So in our district, I think we were looking at cutting 21 full-time equivalent people. A lot of that is through attrition. Retirements. And we had an early retirement benefit. So despite what we're hearing from folks on high, it's actually happening a lot at the local level. And a lot of it is because of the projected 9 cent tax rate increase. But you're still projecting 3 and 1 half percent increase. Right. So I don't think that the 3 and 1 half percent increase is going to come true personally. In our district, $37 million budget, our per pupil spending is actually going down. And we have to be looking at that. We have to. Well, Bob, there's many more. And I understand school education is important and all that. But I worry more about the senior people because they can't afford to stay in their homes. They have to go to a senior assistant living or independent whatever. And when I was growing up, we had so many widows here in town that could still maintain their home. And now that's not happening all because of property taxes. Well, it's not just property taxes. That's a big part of that. Yeah. But I guess we have to look at it case by case, because with income sensitivity, they should be protected from a large tax increase. I understand that. But I'm just trying to express my feeling that I feel bad that somebody who has worked all their life and then they're forced to go into a home because they can't afford the property taxes on the home that they've built or maintained through all these years. I would also add to that that we do a lot of other things that are counterintuitive to that mission as well. For example, we tax some social security income, which doesn't make sense. So I was happy to see that in the governor's budget that they're going to start phasing that up. Taking a broader approach to what contributes to a high cost of living. The other thing I would say, and I think Peter would agree with me, is you look at our demographic shift. We have to do more to make sure we can attract and retain young people in rural areas. If we're looking for a long, for a lot in 50 years, how will we make sure that we have vibrant communities? We need to be taking a proactive approach to that. Part of the problem is secondary education. We're focusing on pre-K, which is wonderful. But kids are coming out of school with extreme debt. They can't afford to work here. If the job's here, don't pay. So I work at Vermont Law School. And I counsel students as they're looking for work. Many students come from, I mean, Vermont Law attracts people internationally. And so there are definitely those students who come in who don't expect to stay here. But then there are some that would really love to stay here. But the debt, the student, the secondary, I mean, the higher ed student loan debt is oppressive. And there aren't very, I mean, I just don't see any relief coming for that. There are some that you're always weighing that when they're making decisions, they're going, should I go into public service? How long is that debt forgiveness going to be there? Are they going to get rid of that piece? And so I think if we are able to figure out a way nationally to deal with higher ed education costs and being able to provide that education for people so that they're not starting out their lives with this ridiculous debt, I have $100,000 in debt from my undergrad and graduate school. When will I ever pay that off? And the drain on the economy, I mean, we hear about it all the time, is that people who can't qualify for mortgages because they are all under credit is taken up with paying off their student loans. So we have less home ownership. They just can't invest, and they have to struggle. I get very frustrating when we care these businesses, such as the Burlington area, saying we can't find qualified people. Well, we have a way. I work for Jackson Community Action. It's a nonprofit that deals with people in poverty. A lot of our people, they're working. If they have a high school degree or a graduate from high school, they have no post-secondary education to be able to do those jobs. So how do we connect them with the training necessary to be able to get that job that will pay so that they're not working at McDonald's, which is not going to pay fair market rent in the state? So that's something that we deal with both at the education committee level and then the commerce committee. We're all very interested in exactly this issue and mostly focused around career and technical education. We've got all of these great technical education facilities throughout Vermont. And how do we get more kids to go there? Of course, we have fewer kids. And as I always say, with education, everything comes down to buses. And when you have technical centers that kids have to then go 45 minutes around trip to go to and spend half a day there and half a day at the other place. So we're looking a lot at how we can get kids interested in a lot of these technical skills that we're so lacking. The college education thing is a much tougher enough to crack because it's not a regulated industry. And people make choices to go to places that they can't afford and borrow too much money. I'm not sure they have a lot of choice. Every place costs too much money. We get chastised constantly from the Vermont State College system and from UVM in the luxury amount that the state gives to support these areas of higher education. On the other hand, if we spend more on these places, taxes go up and then we make Vermont even harder to live in. So it's a really hard balancing act. One of the things I've heard from young professionals here in Vermont is that, and these are folks who have grown up here in Vermont. Maybe they were first gen folks who went to college and have come back to raise their families here. My daughter's one of those. It's a lack of support for young professionals in the sense that housing's too expensive, health care is expensive, and their child care deserts in our communities, especially in rural areas. So in terms of finding a job that will pay you enough to cover your costs is more difficult here in Vermont. And I think that's definitely supporting young families is how we grow our population and definitely keep some of those folks here. Both Ben and Jay are young native mothers. I was once a young native of Vermont as well, but you guys can comment on that. What I would say is I agree as a young person living in rural areas, it's tough. And I think, yes, we have a lot to do on the cost of living side. I think we also have a lot to do on how do we expand opportunities for young people to live in these communities. That's where I say, as a young person, in an increasingly global economy, connecting people, giving people access to high-speed internet really could be a target, an opportunity for Vermont because we have such a great quality of life. People want to live here. We have good schools. We have a small, tight-knit community. The question is, how do we connect people to opportunities so they can telecommute? Working from home, running a small business, selling it out to a larger audience outside the state. I see that as one of the growth areas of where, if we're looking to build a more vibrant, small town in rural settings, that could be an area that we could attract to the next generation. What we're seeing now is you look at property values. You talk to realtors. The first question that a young family asks is, do you have internet? When you're seeing property values, the house is not sell if you don't have access to at least reliable type of internet. I'm a little confused about the broadband internet. This area, we've got 24 towns that are part of EC-Fiber and Hancock and Granville are both going to have every poll wired next year or this year so that everybody will have 100 megabatter speed internet. And I don't believe EC-Fiber is getting any public support. This is a nonprofit that's set up and making money. And the rates are going to go down as they put more people on it. And yet, they're coming through these two rural towns this summer and stringing every poll with fiber. So I don't understand why we got to put more money, taxpayer money in there if a thing like EC-Fiber works so well in a very rural area where your density is far lower than what Verizon and Fairpoint or anybody else even looks at. Yeah, good. I would say it really is a conversation about density. And if you look at these two towns, we have no dense. We have some dense density in the state. And everybody's going to be able to have it from their poll, not that they're going to have to string it for the last six people on a mile or whatever. But they're doing it. And I believe EC-Fiber is totally nonprofit. They don't pay an executive a whole lot of money. They don't have a big staff. But they're getting it done. So I don't understand the whole conversation about how it's so expensive. Yeah, frankly, Hancock and Granville, because they're so hemmed in by the National Forest, are actually denser than what you're going to find in the Northeast Kingdom. And even Franklin County and Wynnum County, the southern part of the state, is definitely struggling with this. I think the number of residences, houses per mile were one of the lowest. So and EC-Fiber, I think, frankly, it's a community effort. It's taken those people to get together and make it happen. Your point's well taken. I commend that you guys are focused on school spending and health care. That should take most of your time and other big issues. And the development of internet is key. And it'll make these smaller towns like ours more economically viable. Keep in your mind, please, all three of you, as you're funding things, road conditions. I personally feel that rural communities have roads that are all beat up a lot of the time. And it's a tax on us, really, because it beats up our cars. It makes it harder to do what we got to do. So as you go about your business, they're the big issues. Keep in the vacuum mind every time you come. Or come take a ride on Route 100 down again between here and Dublin. We just got a new asphalt on Route 125. It's great. In five years, come see it, because we get all beat up. And it's a tax on those people. Yeah. Just to go one further than, you know, you take a look at our rural roads, our dirt roads. And the regulations that are coming down, clean water, clean water is great, but it's costing, it's going to cost these towns so much money. And when you don't have a good tax base, we're poor communities. I mean, a nickel on our taxes is a lot. And that doesn't raise a whole lot of money. And the regulations that are coming down, we have to do with our town roads is extremely expensive. And I don't know how we're going to. No, we hear a lot about it. You talk about having to measure every 100 feet of your road. We have 350 culverts or something, example. And a lot of them need to be neat work. All the ditching requirements now that have come across, you know, where you've got to put the rocks in and in 10 years they're going to be filled up and you've got to take them out and put them back in again. You know, I'm not so sure what the real net effect is going to be on clean water, you know. So on the topic of the cost of living, what do you all feel about an increase in minimum wage? You know, within the Senate, this is the Senate bill right now, so it would be kind of a six year or eight year phase in up to $15 an hour. My feeling is that probably the market force is going to drive it up to 15 anyway. So I think there's a bill to get it to 15 by 2022, right? And then there's a Republican from Berry City offered one for 2026, which would be more doable, I guess, for the rural, for the Vermont economy. But I guess I'm curious, yeah, do you all, is there a consensus in these communities that that's a good idea, or is it? Well, I think it's always good to have more money, but you've got to stop and think too about your business people, your business owners. Can they afford to raise that with the amount of business that they have? So I think I'm seeing is that we have folks that are making minimum wage. The fair market rent for a two bedroom apartment, I think you would have to make in Rochester, over on $20 an hour to be able to, in a reasonable budget to be able to afford it. You're making 10 bucks an hour, you're not gonna be able to do that. That's a two bedroom apartment. How do you make that work? So the folks are then having time to apply for benefits. So in order for them to meet their needs, tax money is then having to go to pay for food stamps, or it's having to pay for their healthcare, or it's having to pay for things that people can't take care of by themselves because they can't make a wage that will cover those things, the bare necessity. Yeah. So how do we, and how do you balance the business side? In an area like this, you know, poor Diane up there, I mean, I don't know if she could afford to get up to $15. There's restaurants different because if you receive tips, there's a different minimum for that. But what about Sarah, or JDs? There's also the conversation that I would add to it that I think is really starting to emerge in the Senate around, and we see it in health care all the time, is around the benefits club. Because, you know, if you take a step that would raise it to a certain level, there are some people that are gonna be worse off, especially when you get into, you know, the child care credits and stuff. As well as larger healthcare questions about subsidies and, you know, advanced premium tax credits. So I think, you know, it's an idea that's worth exploring, but there are many nuances once you get into, you know, shifting, you know, a base wage. My dad always said, if you can't make your rent in one week's pay, you won't make it. And those days are long gone. Yeah, there's no way I can make my mortgage. I mean, no, not in one week's pay. And that's a reality for most people. But, The mortgage to taxes and insurance. Exactly, exactly. So, but the thing is that, and I have a decent job with benefits. I mean, for somebody who has, who is working minimum wage, that's it, with the housing prices the way they are. And if you have children and you work multiple jobs to cover your costs, which as a single mom, when I was a single mom here in Rochester, Hancock, Granville area, I worked multiple jobs and had to struggle to figure out which friend does my daughter go to today while I work and do I bring her with me? Do I have a job that I can bring her with me to? And those are real struggles that people have. So they're, even if they work more jobs to make more money, they're dealing with childcare issues and then they're dealing with the benefits click, which I had to deal with too, in terms of like insurance. Once you make like, I think this was back in 2000, when I hit $17,000 a year, which is a ridiculous amount of money to try and live on with a child, I lost my insurance. And then I couldn't afford insurance. Then I got really sick, had to go on, then I had to go on Medicaid because I lost my job because I got really sick. So it's a whole snowball effect that happens for people. You raise the, Yeah, you go ahead. You raise them in a way to save five years or four years, look at $15 a year, $20 because that won't cover it. Right. But I guess on that score, we're behind that, we're behind the pace of that inflationary impact as of now. So, you know, you think we are overdue to catch up, but can these small businesses handle it? And I think- They just go up under prices, which is going to make it worse when there's the costumers of it. Yeah, the economics of it are challenging, but I think that the economists, at least the pro-wage economists would say that that actually still ends up being an economic plus. I've been kind of a supporter of raising the minimum wage. And then somebody said, well, you got to remember that all of the people who are making $11, $12 an hour in our schools are also all going to go up. That's going to raise property or school education costs and everybody's going to yell at the schools for raising their budgets higher. Well, you know, where does it balance? And of course, one of the schools is we try to give those folks very good benefits and that's sort of in exchange for a lower wage. But then how did we balance that? So, we're going to be kind of business and make it so it's affordable. The employee still doesn't make enough to pay their bills. And then that employee, though they're working 40 hours a week, 60 hours a week, whatever, trying to do their best is getting looked down upon by society and by the community and saying, you're taking our money because you're living on benefits. That person's doing their very best. So, we need to shift the way we look at things. Then if we're going to say that we're subsidizing when business can't pay opportunity enough to pay their bills, that we accept the fact that we as a community are going to continue to support our community members and subsidize what that employer isn't paying them. But then also, the welfare system makes it so that people don't have to go out to work. No. No, I don't know. There's not. Did you want to say something? I did. And I'm here today to thank Peter. I'm Robert Frey, so I'm from Bethel. Okay. The reason I came to thank you is you were front porch forum notes that you put up a couple of weeks ago, I believe, just to give an idea of what you're doing up at the State House. That's the reason I'm here today, communication and transparency. And today, Saturday, this beautiful day is a great day for all of us to sit and celebrate democracy. I arrived late this morning because my propane tank was frozen and I needed to shower, so I just had to see you early. There's all the traffic we go through. I live off the grid on the top of Mount between Bethel and Rochester. I fought for seven years with Governor Shumlin, but any time I could find him with regards to high speed internet, it is a major conduit to economic development. It's incredibly serious. I have it through Fairpoint. It comes right through my phone line. So I'm always confused as to why EC5 work is, why isn't Fairpoint, why isn't, if you have a phone line coming from Fairpoint in Granville, Hancock, I live off the grid way up miles from anything. If I speak, thank God, because for a while I couldn't afford that option on Fairpoint, and my brother Michael from Pennsylvania said, Robert, you need to get high speed. It's more important food to be able to communicate. What's your private size fee? Oh, it's pretty high. I don't know what the technical thing is. Yeah, yeah, yeah, sad. I don't know what it is, but I know one thing. You can watch a movie. I can watch a movie, I can watch a movie, I can do all that stuff. But the other thing I wanted to talk about and say we're on it, because this economic challenge in these battles is confusing and challenging. But there's a few things that ironically last, I don't need to take too much time, but last night in Rochester, serendipity crowd got together when we were talking, and we were talking about working and minimum wage. I think it should be called a livable wage. Not a minimum wage, because the economic development of a town or community will force the wage to be able to live. It's a weird way to look at it, rather than saying we want a minimum wage. We want companies to be able to produce and manufacture as many products and get the economies of scale. And like you said, the minimum wage or the livable wage will rise according to the marketplace. We have no economic development in this valley. There's nothing. In my county, our ones in Rutland County, there's pretty much a directive. We don't want economic development. That was told to me by our state representative. We want grassroots companies growing. We don't want a company coming in from another town, another state or anything in this town. We want it to be grown, home grown. Well, guess what? That's not happening. So that's a huge conversation. And I clean windows, and I know what I have to pay people to even, for them to even show up. And guess what the number is? $20 an hour. You cannot even live. Sorry. Well, it's harder than that. Okay, so the other concerns I have, you got into the conversation last night with this whole EBT card thing. I agree that there are people in need that need assistance. But here's the big question. Why does someone that has assistance using a car, and they need to know when this changed, why are they available to use it as cash by alcohol and cigarettes? That is a huge problem to stay in house. I don't know when that went into it. Like an EBT card should be for milk and for the groceries. But when you see people buying alcohol and cigarettes. Yeah, and I don't know how EBT cards work, and I think it's generally federally controlled, not state controlled, and I've heard people say that that's a myth, but I've also heard people say, I've witnessed it, they get cash back, because you can get cash on it sometimes. Yeah, you can get cash back. So all of a sudden, the assistance begins for anything you want, absolutely. So for gasoline, great. But when you see someone getting cash back off their EBT card, then they go behind a liquor counter and buy a bottle of Jack Daniels. And then they have a balance on their EBT card with $840 in it. This is what happens, they leave the receipts. They don't even, they leave them on the counter. So the town knows that person on the EBT has an $800 balance in their EBT card to buy Jack Daniels. Some of it depends on what the benefit is. So if you're over the age of 60, you get cash, I think, instead of the card, maybe. And then I think some people have a cash benefit. Some people, so if you have a wood benefit for supplemental fuel, you get your wood. You have to come with a receipt to show that you paid for your wood. Now people, I'm sure that there are people that do abuse that, but it might not just be a food benefit that they're pulling that from. Also, but how much do we police that? That's a big question. For when I understand this department at the State House level, there's nine people being rift, reduced in forces. So what I'd like to know is, what is the demography like within your voting district that you, oh, I had another question for you. Oh, we should spread it around a bit too. All right, I'm sorry. How long have you been a state legislator? The three of us have only been there one year and we're in our second session. Well, God bless you. So I have a question. Yeah. Do you believe your position seated as a state representative as a leadership position? I guess if you answer that would be yes. What it is we lead would be a harder question. I mean, it is, we are in a leadership position in a sense that we help shape state policy. I think it depends on the issue, honestly. I think we're leaders for our communities. Obviously, we're working in cooperation with the state house, that's the nature of democracy. Right, when it comes to roads and school, you know. The reason I say I think it depends on the issue is because certain issues take leadership on a moral level or an ideological level, whereas other things are all about what's, I don't know what, and for me, I try to make my decisions mostly based on my constituents. So I'm willing to part with my own ideals to represent the majority on an issue, you know, back home. Does that answer your question? I guess it does, it helps in that, and again, the reason I'm here is because Peter was actually, he took the time to communicate out to the people that voted for him or even the people that didn't, to let them know what to do, okay? But then the people of the towns need to be able to, like we are today, talk about issues, whatever those issues are. What I see in our, in our county, where I am, there's a total disconnect from the voice. I have no clue how to even get in touch with my state. Yeah, well, the internet's changed a lot of that. We're pretty easy to get a hold of. Yeah. Posting on front porch farms, you know, not challenging. Right. So I appreciate your appreciation, but to write a few paragraphs and put it on front porch farm is probably the least that we can do. I've been, I've seen him post as well, and Jay probably over his, yeah. It's actually great. It's funny, our front porch forum has had this culture of no politics, please, for some time, so we're trying to kind of overcome that, but I've got a radio talk show every Saturday. Are you going to buy some room tree? Yeah. Yeah. God bless you. I'm so excited when I heard you guys got in the office. I'm glad. Well, we need young people in there. Yeah. So every Saturday from 11 to noon, I talk on the radio with one or two guests about a specific issue. Today it will be about childcare, so maybe we'll take up the childcare deserts issue, but I'm going to give you my card. Thank you very much. Just so that in any way. Yes, sir, behind the camera. I am also a remontor, a voter, and in the holistic approach of our talk about wanting to see young people move to our state and have high quality education and $15 an hour and make this all work, let's not drop the ball on climate issues. Now, our governor just received a nice big check from Volkswagen. We as a state are a collective group of people having a contract with a school busing company and we have the power to say electric now. When we say electric now, we send a signal to young people who want their children to come to Vermont to be educated because this is about the kid's future. And by the way, as a taxpayer, I don't know why the heck I'm spending money on education when we're killing the kids. I mean, let's get real about what this is about with climate change. And as a collective state, we can demand the school buses to be electric. By the way, we can have a conversion plant in Bethel. That company in New Hampshire can have the buses driven to Bethel, converting, creating jobs in Vermont. Our buses can be electric and our children can go, gee, our adults care. So please push on this issue. Thank you. There actually is a bill that I know I signed on to. I signed on also. That would require that the folks who are getting money be used for the electric vehicle infrastructure. True. A lot of that talk is about plugging in. Forget that. We can do it. Go to Quebec, Canada's websites. They have tons of electric school buses. Why? Because they have a lot of free electricity off those dams, which is causing environmental problems too. But it's not a mystery how to convert a school bus to electric. It's not difficult. Let's do it. Thank you. So speaking about vehicles, what are your guys' feelings about this new Seatbelt law and the new instruction disaster? So primary Seatbelt law, that bill passed with an overwhelming affirm, you know, a vote for it. I think it was like a hundred. It was like 135 to 15. Yeah, it was like seven or eight votes against. The House vote. Yeah. So the House votes to seven. That's right. And I think that that is a bill that if it saves five lives in a year because an officer pulls somebody over just to tell them, buckle up. You know, that's, I don't think that this is a method for police to slap a fine on somebody. I think it's more of a, I am hoping that police will have the discretion to just use it to the safety of the driver and the passengers in those vehicles. I think that should be a freedom that someone should decide on. Seatbelt, I believe the fatalities would go down, but I think it's another flag for more and more intrusion into people's private lives. I don't think, if I decide not to wear a seatbelt and I die in a car accident, that's my problem. It's not someone at the State House. I'm thinking that it's being used for more insurances. Like now we have tasers in the town. We have, it's like, how'd that get into town? We'll prove that. So with all the digital recordings at every intersection, you can go to Burlington, there's cameras everywhere now. Okay, I forgot to put my seatbelt on and there's something else in my car or there's a, and all of a sudden, standing on the side of the room with my hands on it. So I would, as an American citizen, say, let the person decide on the seatbelt. You know, it's actually, it was your representative, Sandy Haas, who put it in an amendment to make it so that, let's say somebody gets pulled over. And I think the example she used on the floor was, they reach into the, this woman reaches into her purse to get her license and the joint falls out. That is a non-driving related violation of law. And therefore, based on her men, it shouldn't be to the police's availability in terms of, you know what I'm saying? I get that. I think that was a good clause that Sandy put in there. But on the other hand, I still think it's an intrusion of the state police and the whole, the whole machine of his big brother and homeland security and everything going on. Can we just live on our, drive our cars? And then we get to the inspection. There's another disaster. That's a total, total. Yeah, that one was passed before we all got in there. But we, I mean, I personally think that that one is, it's robbing the faith of the, I mean, we should trust our mechanics to take care of it. Well, we're talking about people being able to afford their children and living in their apartments. And now they can't even afford to drive a car because it has a, an air valve broken in it. Yeah, no, this is, this is of interest to a lot of people, specifically for that reason that we're flagging issues with cars that it make, you know, so if it's a sensor that's out, it may cost $300 to fix the sensor. And the sensor's only job is to tell you what the other problem is. So you can fix the problem yet. And these generally are all emissions issues, which frankly it's important, but it is very expensive. You're in a very rural area, you should talk about people. You don't see very many nice new cars around here, okay? So if you've got a 10 year old car, you're almost automatically got a thousand dollar bill every time you want to go get your car inspected down. And it's not because of safety, it's not brakes, it's not clean air, it's, you know, because- Higher pressure sensors. Right. That's what a lot of people have been running into. Well, I think there is a lot of legislators that are, you know, interested in curtailing, you know, the inspections to a more safety level. The thing now that it's all photographic and sent into DMV, so that, you know, the guy tells you you need brakes, we don't need brakes. You could go down to the next inspection and, you know, another service area. And they say there's no need brakes. Brake orders in particular, and brake orders in entire sensors seem to be the one that are really getting attention. Well, I think there's check engine light on. That you can get inspection with a check engine. You know, we actually have. We passed a bill I signed on, I don't know if you did, but it was like one of the very first bills that I signed on to going into there because I'll tell you what, in Roxbury, one of my five towns, some of the mechanics were like, what the heck? Now we've got to take pictures of every segment of the day. But if you don't need brakes, I don't think there's an appeal process right now because there's, you know, it's certainly, you know, whether or not you need a new tire when it gets down to, you know, I mean, it's not bald, it's still got another season on it, but some people say, well, I can't inspect it. And then that goes on the record so that you can go to the next mechanic and see your tires are fighting and legitimate. And maybe both of them had an argument, but I don't think there's a court of appeals once that goes to DNV. You've got to get it fixed. Well, the car I drove up in today is 25 years old. It's a Subaru Legacy. Good luck. You know what the great thing is about it? It falls below this disaster, all this inspection stuff. So I'm promoting everyone in Rochester to import cars that before 1995, it supersedes the whole ugly office up there in Berlin, Berlin, Montpelier. I wish the state of Vermont would have the referendum clause where the people can actually, I'm saying, we're gonna make the change. Force coming down from the other state house is basically killing the state of Vermont in all aspects, economic development, inspections. What else do they want us to do? You know, trade old shoes in to get money for a hot dog, I mean. So I wanted, Jim, as our lone Granville resident here, wanting to give you an opportunity to get a question. I actually, Bruce, I'm sorry, Bruce. But I will say why it came down. One of the struggles that we're having in our small town is of course people are aging, young people are moving out. And we no longer, in my opinion, have people who are qualified to do the municipal jobs. Now, it used to be, in all cases, you had to do a charter change in order to overcome that. In other words, all the important positions need to be, you need to be a resident. Okay, well, the state did, we had a problem with auditors. The state did change that. So we didn't have to go through that process. The other one was the Listers who changed that. What I'm saying is that we need that change so that you don't have to be a resident nor to be a road commissioner, for example. Almost every position with the exception of someone, I think, should be allowed to be done from the outside because we just don't have to qualify people. We went through that. In Cornwall with our road commissioner, he moved on to another job. And we should say that there wasn't anybody in town who either wanted it or was qualified. And we ended up, I think the select board does have the power to change that to being a road format that you can hire from the outside. But then somebody's got to be the commissioner overseeing that person. That's the district point. I'm sure we're not the only town that has a problem. Would that be a state jurisdiction or would it be town by town, state by state? The state would have to make it so that you could, yeah, it's probably a statute. Yeah, town has to vote if they want to do that. Right, right. But it gets on the flexibility. Right, it saves that big barrier of change and charter to what it is, it's just a barrier. That's a very strict one. Municipal positions are getting more and more complicated. There's a lot more requirements that we have to address for the state. A lot more forms to fill out, permits to apply for, administration of grants is a lot more complex, especially if you apply for a federal grant like we just did with the CDBG DR grant for the Churchville Culver and the management and administration of that grant was very complex. And that's, you know, those are things that not everybody is capable of doing because they don't have to do it in their regular life. So that's, those things are becoming barriers, I think. The other thing that would allow, for example, Hancock in Grandville could have the same road commissioner. Maybe paid separately to different jobs, but it would allow that kind of overlap because the small towns just don't need that much. The other thing I was concerned about, I saw, where the bills had been introduced over the, since starting in January 2017, you guys got a lot of bills there and they're on their own committee. Right. One of the first ones, and I shouldn't have written down the number of it, but it was to exempt social security wages from Vermont taxes. That, you know, that's over a year ago that was introduced, it's in ways of means, I assume. And that's current rates, Bill. Is that you on that? Yep. So that was, so we're gonna be digging into the governor's budget, but if you heard his state of the state, he said that they're gonna begin moving towards that path to exempt social security. So obviously the big question is how do you pay for it? You know, because it is about $30 million a year. But I was encouraged personally to see that he's taking a step in that direction because it just makes sense if we're taking into account our aging demographic and the cost of living, especially for seniors. Again, it's a balancing, you know, I need to see more numbers on it myself. We are essentially removing a tax from, unfortunately, what is our greatest population density and that tax, if we're gonna continue to raise the same amount of money, is gonna get shifted to the tax burden to those people who are trying to keep here or attract to come here. So again, it's the hard balancing act. Yeah, it's kind of personal that. You take care of your old folks or do you not? You take care of your children. Well, there are no young people here that help take care of them and it becomes even harder. Right, that's for sure. Once you got it, you got to cut the budget sometimes too. Yes. I mean, it's not just that, you know, you got less people, you got less money that people are making and you keep saying how to shift our taxes, well, maybe cut $30 million. Yeah, I agree. One more thing. Yeah, please. We used to always say that, you know, the federal government can't mandate. We do such and such without funding it. Oh. Right. That's about to happen, right? But the same thing is happening now with this whole cleanup thing in our roads. You guys say we got to spend another $50,000 a year. There should be some funding with that. Well, yeah, I've been reimbursed for the work we've done in Irene. Yes. So, you know, this is now for over six months and we're still waiting. The state holds the FEMA money and waiting for the review of piles of paperwork, which is just ridiculous. How much Bruce is that bigger, but how much do they owe you? Right now, we're still at about $20,000. And then people are still out with some money and stuff. I don't know the figure on that. And I realize some of these projects took years to finish. But it's been completed now, you know, that summer was the end of it and we closed out, you know, the end of last summer and still haven't seen. So now we've got to budget this into our new budget for next year, because when are we going to see it? Right. And of course, the water quality issue and all that, that is also, you know, that's not just federally imposed. That's court imposed, you know, that we have to do this. And the rule is that if we don't do it as a state, the EPA is going to come in and tell us how to do it. Well, and FEMA is going to max it out. You know, we've got three projects in our camp now that are waiting for approval from July 1st storms last year that amount to over half a million dollars, which is like three times what our annual road budget is. Okay. And we're still waiting. They got to get me paired, you know, and they were obviously a washout from July 1st storm that was a declaration, but that, you know, you can't have the state and feds agree on what has to be done and how much it's going to cost, you know? I mean, it leaves the town at a tough, tough spot. Is that a similar situation in Hancock with the July? Well, we only had one area on Bassett Hill that was damaged. And so we were really lucky. That was the repair was an amount that we could handle, but we're waiting for reimbursement for that. And it wasn't as much as what you guys have. I still would like to get back to the point of this high speed internet, which is fine. I'm totally for it, but there's a lot of people, older people, or even young people that can't afford it. So therefore, they may not have known about this meeting today, because I only saw it on front porch form. I did hear that there was a poster at Hancock, the store, but I didn't see anything at the post office. I saw it. So there's one, there's one. I put one up at the restaurant at the store, left one here at the town clerk's office and put up at the library. I did not do the post office as I came by after hours. And then there were a few at the same location. Well, I'm also gonna say that I think it helps to make a physical appearance in the towns that you represent. Not just through computers, because not everybody has a computer. So I think you need to come in to town and go to the various businesses or just walk through town, meet up with people and tell them who you are and they may be able to express, they might feel better about expressing what they're concerned about, or better than coming to a meeting. Sure, yeah, yeah. I've been trying to schedule a public forum on minimum wage specifically, but whatever else. Anybody would like to chat about being in Roxbury so I can do my best to keep Grandville Post. That's not very easy to get to, I'm sure. There's Grandville's having a legislative breakfast on the next Saturday that's following Saturdays. It's on Monday morning, February. East Grandville. Yeah, okay, so that's... No, no, no, no, this is the Addison County Grange. Okay. Addison County Grange, they have a legislative breakfast every Monday throughout the legislative session and they move it around the county and this year they've decided to hop over the mountain and do it at the... Now why do they pick Monday? Because that's a work day. Because, well, they do it at 7.30 in the morning and the main reason is, well, you can take it up with them. They do it all over the state, but there are a lot of legislative breakfasts. But anyway, the reason is Mondays... I don't know, but they're always on Monday. Well, that's because that's when the legislators are at the state house. And what is this? So this is February 11th. 11th, Monday, February 7th. Grandville Grange, 12th. 12th, 12th at the Grandville Grange. I know it. So why is today's meeting... Do you know it? Well, today's meeting on Saturday. I thought it was really refreshing not to be pressured to be somewhere else. No, this is just something that three of us set up. I think it's great to have another Saturday morning going towards your place. Well, that's why I'm in a legislative breakfast. Why are we on Monday? Well, you can take that up with the Grange. I knew, do you try to do this last year around this time and it didn't come? We got to go now. Yeah, but we would totally be glad to come and have a... I mean, this is a very robust discussion. We just have a lot to... And you guys really come to all the town meetings, too. So I think that's important. But I'm certainly getting here full at the town meetings. I'll tell you what, one of my campaign promises was that I hope to make Grandville and Roxbury feel more included in the process because I know our three towns in Orange get a lot more attention because we're over there. It's a funny district. I mean, we represented an interesting geographic district which we're at our map with some of the East Grandville. Can you do something with East Grandville? Yeah. East Grandville is over the mountain. Takes 45 minutes to get there. There's a small few residences there and it would make much more sense to go with Grandville for Frank here. And I'm not throwing them under the bus or anything like that, but we can't provide services. I've held a number of things in Roxbury. Nobody wants it. Yeah, because it's all rental housing for the most part, right? Well, it's not the top-end housing. Well, if you go to Middlebury, you talk to people in Middlebury, they don't know where Hancock is. And people live there all the way. That's actually a big issue for this valley is when somebody applies for services, sometimes they will go over to Randolph because that's where they go for their mess. Some folks go for their medical care there and then they'll say, oh no, you're in Hancock or Grandville. We don't service that area. You have to go all the way over to Middlebury. Well, that's where your services are. Yeah, so Hancock, Grandville, Rochester is our catchment area and Clara Martin Center is supposed to cover that as well. But ESD, Economic Services Division, you're in Addison County, you've got to go over to Middlebury. Rochester has to go down the White River. Exactly, I know that. And we don't have an ESD office in Orange County. This has been a problem time for the long time and it drew those crazy lines, East Grandville being the craziest part of the crazy lines. Addison County is where it's good. Well, I'd just like to say thank you guys for coming but also want to encourage you folks that if you have the chance and I know it's difficult when you're working, if there's something, try and keep on track of what's going on in Montpelier. Sometimes there are specific days when constituents are called in like there's like a child care day. As you get an example this past week, the place was flooded with orange because there was a gun or a couple gun bills that all the hunters came out of the woods to say, we don't need any more gun laws. But the fact is that if you folks haven't had a chance to go to the Capitol, it is wide open, you can go anywhere you want. You can sit in the room. We're all very available. It's amazing, yeah, it's a very public place but a lot of people don't know that and even the people who do know that aren't necessarily, they don't feel like ushered in. It's sort of you have to have the gumption to go into and sit down and, you know. I can also say that now that Orca and other community access is available, they are filming all the meetings at the state house. So, they're going nuts right now. It's good. That's great, yeah. That way you can. So you do a great job with this stuff, too. Okay. Going down to select board meetings and I don't know how you're putting it all the time but it's great that we have a lot of people. It's a lot of wage. Well, you got to come out to the center of the valley sometimes, too, you know. Well, thank you. So you can, it's a, the state house is really an open place, as you mentioned and you can go into committee meetings, hear what's going on, you can't talk but you can listen to what's happening. They're kind of tight and small and, but it may be an intermittent, it's really. During cold season it's a little dangerous. Yeah. But it's really worth the time and effort to go and spend some time up there to hear what's going on and definitely like go up to the cafeteria because that's where a lot of the work happens and it's, yeah, it's a, I always feel really energized when I go up there. That's good. It is. I mean, we are truly a citizen democracy. We're only there for four and a half months. We all have jobs outside of it. Yeah. My job this summer was just about minimum wage. So that's why I kind of wanted to probe that. Conversations, it was a financially stressful summer which was good. I did that on purpose to understand, you know. What do you do for your full time? So this summer in the interim, I worked at the Veteran's Cemetery and ran off center, digging graves and mowing, you know, maintenance. So I was kind of double dipping as a state employee but it was a good experience to firstly familiarize myself with the conservative culture of the military and get a little bit of exposure to that type of. Then what do you do? I work at another seasonal job which you kind of have to do with the legislature. So I work at Monique Golf Course in Randolph. I also, I started a non-profit mentoring program in Randolph. So that takes up a good amount of my time as well. And also the education over there. Well, that's a volunteer. I'm a school board member. Now I run a small business. You can see my funny looking orange van in the parking lot. This is my third career since I've been in Addison County anyway. But it's a small move management company. We help folks who may not have the family or friends support to help move to organize and moves and help them downsize, clean up, pack and go from full to empty. You're not going to downsize. That's my question for you too. How do you keep your foot in guns? Ha ha ha. Oh, sir. There's a lot of razz in me, you know. They'll pick on me about my hairdo or about two minutes later, how much I'm eating that much. I would say that at least I felt taken seriously, which I appreciated from a policy perspective in the discussion. We are outliers. You look at the average age, it is much higher. But I think a lot of people, both in my pillar and outside, recognize the need for a broader conversation for people in a more diverse group making decisions. I'd also say it's a more senior one. It is great having younger folks in the legislative and having their perspective as we focus on how we retain and attract young people to Vermont. I've got three sons, 25 to 16 ones in Chicago. He's a typical millennial in the sense that his desire was to be in a walkable, urban area. He also is engaged to somebody from the Midwest. That's where all their friends are. He went to college in the Midwest, working really hard to get back. The other ones in law school, accumulating mountains of debt out in California. We'll see what happens with that. But my wife and I both grew up in Vermont and this is where we chose to stay. And it's always been hard. If it were easy to live in Vermont and you make a lot of money, you would have five million people here. It just seems like it's gotten a lot harder. I wanted to ask you guys, being young guys at the state house. Are you including me in the Scottish one? That's good, Peter. I'm just wondering, as young people, representing young people, if you introduce a bill, do you feel as a young person respected by other representatives and what you're trying to promote? Or do they kind of say, well, you're just this young guy and you really do two green people? I can only speak for me, I'm in the healthcare community, which is where a lot of the policy making happens. You know, I think if you're willing to dive and improve yourself policy-wise, people do take you seriously. So I felt like I've had the opportunity to put meaningful input into healthcare-related bills and not been dismissed as just a young guy. So you feel this. I feel like, yes, I'm taken as seriously as any other representative. As I should. Yeah, no, that is true. And even in other spheres. It was funny, there was one time I went to the National Life Building to consult the agency of tourism for a map of Randolph. And they didn't give me the time of day because I walked in in plain clothing. And then finally, I told them I was a representative and all of a sudden I had a map of Randolph. And so we're taking seriously in a lot of capacities, but as Ben said, we are valued also in certain areas. Like, for instance, the other day, the governor called in the dozen or so millennials from the house chamber to come and discuss youth exodus and how we reverse demographical trends based on data and technology that is more easily understood by a younger guy. How old are you? I'm 24. 23. Oh, that's good. I'm 28. Of course, I've looked. That's okay. Most people think that I'm the youngest because I'd say Ben looks a little bit older than me. So I'm totally okay with that. I have a problem, thank you gentlemen. Oh, thank you so much. But it is, I'll tell you on the issues where I am more ignorant than older folks, that becomes both an asset and a disadvantage because at times I can ask a question that others can't and get away with it while I also have to tread lightly on certain things. Yeah, grab a couple of donuts, thank you. I'll tell you what, the property tax issue going in has been, tried to be very sensitive to that. So that's why the first time around when the governor was battling with the teachers, I sat with the governor because I said, okay, the Democrats haven't necessarily presented an alternative that's superior. So I'm gonna go with this. Congratulations guys. Thanks. And thanks all of you for coming this morning. Yes, I did wrap up at 10.30 and happy to stick around and chat as much as you like, but don't want you to feel obligated to sit here any longer. You're a radio operator. Yeah, I gotta go to get on my radio show.