 Morning everyone. Thanks for being here. A lot has happened over the last week, including the supermajority overriding most of my vetoes, costing for monitors hundreds of millions of new taxes, fees, penalties, and unsustainable spending in the coming years. We wanted to focus today on some changes to the pandemic housing program or the hotel motel program, as it's commonly called. But before we do, as a reminder, one of those bills I vetoed was the state budget, which was because of a $20 million unnecessary increase in DMV fees and a 13% increase in annual spending. Unfortunately, the legislature wasn't interested in addressing those concerns. After a political flare up at the end of the session, they were interested in discussing the pandemic housing program. Now, what was interesting about the housing bill, H171, which I signed today, was that for the first and only time this session, legislative leaders were willing to negotiate with us and pass a bill that gave us tools to ease this transition and address the issue of permanent housing at the same time. Secretary Samuelson and Commissioner Hanford will outline some of the specifics from this bill, as well as an update on the work we've been doing. But in summary, instead of transitioning back to our pre-pandemic program in its entirety on July 1, which was what the legislature had passed unanimously in the budget adjustment act in March, participants will be able to stay eligible until we find an option for them. Importantly, it gives us more tools, including investments we'd asked for during the session for permanent housing and requirements that those in the program work with us to find a solution. Overall, we believe this is a good step forward, which we can fund with existing resources rather than diverting it from other investments. And I appreciate the collaboration, at least on this one. So with that, I'll turn it over to Secretary Samuelson. Good morning, everyone, and thank you, Governor, for the opportunity to update Vermonters on the Pandemic Error Housing Program. Moving forward, AHS will provide these updates on a weekly basis on information related to the program. And more information, in addition to that, is going to be available on the DCF website. The Pandemic Error Hotel and Motel program has changed many times during my time as deputy secretary and secretary. Each time we have evolved to meet these changes, doing our best to assist those who are experiencing homelessness. But now with H171, which the governor has just signed, this is a collaborative effort between the administration and the legislature to better serve Vermonters in the general assistance housing program by connecting them with services and supports and not just rooms. This latest change provide us with a longer runway to engage those living in the hotels, getting them into services and the programs they need to support them in finding and keeping housing. To maintain eligibility, clients must engage with a housing provider and case manager to develop a plan that will assist them in making the transition to permanent housing. And this is a significant update. It is important to recognize that each month's households have been entering and leaving the program over the past three years, including over this past month. We have been working to engage these individuals in case management and care coordination and to identify and connect them with services. H171 actually stops and defines this population and allows us to clearly focus resources to those who are in the program on July 1. It also bolsters the tools that we have and strengthens the staff on the ground who are doing this work. DCF, since the bill was passed, has been working to clarify what the program will be and will not be for clients on the ground, and is working to publish emergency rules and to communicate with clients. To that end, there's a lot of information out there and not all of the information is true or accurate. So I want to be clear about a few things. First, please rely on the written materials that are provided by the Agency of Human Services and DCF with the DCF's logo on it. These written materials, these written materials are the point of truth. We know that there are other written materials that are out there to contact individuals outside of the State of Vermont that may not be correct or accurate due to the evolution of this program. We do not anticipate anyone losing eligibility on July 1 if they are working with economic services and their reassessments and that they are offered and that they will be offered a unit and become eligible if they are eligible under the new rules. ESD is the only source of information about eligibility and an individual must be reassessed every month. Okay, I'm going to slide. Okay, go to slide two, John, please. So here's the big picture on the situation statewide as we look at the program. We have currently 1,214 individuals who are currently in the hotel and motel program. At the end of this month, we'll be determining eligibility based on those numbers which will be published as soon as we've done the eligibility for July 1. Each room in the program right now is costing an average of $153 per night and we will actively be collecting information on households who fall into the pandemic era program including how many have been transitioned to other forms of housing. These measures will be coming online in the next couple of weeks. Next slide. So this slide helps to identify the proximate number of units that will be needed over the next year by district. It's important to note that Vermont has a housing shortage and we need units to come on plain and simple. The lack of these units is making this matter more difficult for us to resolve. Even when a household needs services paired with units, the units don't simply exist. I think many people look at the units similar to what we see in our skilled nursing facilities, but many of the units where we provide housing are actual housing units in communities. It could be the house next door to each and every one of them, us. The Rutland, Burlington and Berry districts have the highest number of units that we need. More than half of that need for those that are in the hotel and motel program need an actual single family unit or an actual one bedroom unit as you can see here. Okay next slide. So this also this slide helps to identify the units by the number by the type of eligibility of folks coming into the program. As you can see, as you can see this helps us differentiate what the needs of the individuals are as we begin to move forward and our case management data will help us drill down even further. Next slide. It's important to note that the agency of human services will continue to partner with community providers and housing providers to screen and assess clients both for their housing needs and their services needs. Clients will now be required to engage in the process and actively participating in this and that's a new tool that's been provided by H171. This will make a big difference. When offering an alternative housing option in writing, clients will have 48 hours to respond. This is from this is for the pandemic air household household group only. In addition, clients will be required to go back to the process of contributing 30% of their income to their housing costs and this is what what has been the requirement of the GA program all along. Next slide. Okay. Eligibility for the pandemic housing program. This information is all available on the DCF's website. A household that has lost its house and these are the individuals who will be eligible under the pandemic air house housing program. A household that's lost its housing due to a natural disaster such as a flyer flood. A household that has been a member who is experiencing domestic violence. A household that is a member who is experiencing a dangerous or life-threatening incident. A household with children who are up to the age 18 or 19 if they're attending school. A household who is 60 years and older. A household that it has a disability and by disability we want to be clear that that means that they're eligible under the federal designation of SSI and SSDI. A household who has a member who is pregnant. A household that is pursuing legal resolution of a violation of their rental housing agreement. And a household that has been physically barred from entering their residence through an intentional act by a landlord. Next slide, John. Okay. Clients entering after July 1 are eligible for the traditional general assistance housing program. That means that if they come after the first of the month they will have 28 days for continuous enrollment if they are 65 years and older. They have SSI or SSDI. They're a family with children 18 years or 19 if they're still in school. They're in their third trimester of pregnancy or they're a household that has been assessed for a total of four or more points according to the GA systems rules. Those have been in place for many years. In addition if a household has falls under the catastrophic category which trumps the ones above they get 84 days. As we've talked about here before that means they've experienced a fire flood or natural disaster, the death of a spouse or a minor child that their court ordered construct or constructive eviction or domestic violence. So that's the GA program and individuals entering at the housing program after July 1 will be subject to that. Okay. Next slide. So the Department for Children and Families is in the process of promulgating rules. The rules will outline specifically how households will maintain their eligibility under the pandemic era program. They also will be communicating that out to the clients in active communication. The bill was only passed by the legislature last week and they're working to make sure that they get the information out to clients prior to the beginning of the month. Next slide. There's been a lot of questions about the security deposits and I want to make sure that we are clear the security deposits were provided to clients who are participating in the program for a very short period of time during the pandemic. We don't know how many people who have been in the program and should have received a security deposit back, received them. However, we are working with the Attorney General's Office Consumer Protection Division and Vermont Legal Aid to make sure individuals have the support that they need. I want to make sure that folks are clear. The program that had the security deposits ended before March 31st and those deposits should have been paid out at that point in time. Next slide. Okay. Again, I want to remind folks that the Agency of Human Services is actively working on projects with local communities and we are engaging with them related to what's happening under Act 171. For those who we have been working with, we've reached out and contacted them already. Again, I want to remind everyone of the resources that are available to help on the DCF's website. They also can call ESD at 1-800-479-6151. Thank you and have a good day and at this point I'll turn it over to Commissioner Hanford. Thank you, Secretary. H171 included more targeted and permanent housing investments and to accelerate the building of homes we need where we need them, advance the effective date for zoning reforms included in S-100 or the Home Act. Much of the reforms in S-100 such as allowing duplexes everywhere single-family homes are allowed and allowing increased density in areas with water and sewer now become effective July 1 instead of December 2024. It's understandable this accelerated timeline is concerning to some communities. We'll work with them and the regional planning commissions to do everything we can to help. But the housing crisis nearly brought us to a brink, brought us to an impasse over the state budget and the governor and the legislature all agree we need to do everything we can now to build the housing we need for our fellow homeowners not in 18 months. H171 also included more money for VHIP, the most productive program so far in bringing new housing units online to those exiting homelessness. It also included funding for VHCB, Vermont Housing and Conservation Board to purchase new energy efficient manufactured homes and fill vacant lots in manufactured home communities around the state. It also included more funding to rapidly deploy for emergency repairs to mobile homes where families could otherwise be at risk of becoming homelessness becoming homeless and it helps our non-profit mission-driven housing providers increase the number of units set aside to those exiting homelessness. We are targeting these investments to communities with the greatest needs the largest population of those participating in the pandemic housing program and ongoing gap analysis of units produced versus unit need by region guides these investments daily. For example we're working with partners in fire safety and code enforcement to analyze offline properties across the state for rehabilitation opportunities. We're working with other housing funders and lenders to bridge funding gaps to get projects to close in quicker. We're working with regulators at all levels across the state to resolve stalled permits and barriers preventing projects from starting construction. It's important to remember that this housing crisis is much bigger than the 1214 households that are still in the pandemic emergency housing program. Literally tens of thousands of Vermonters from every background are impacted every day by the lack of housing and our future depends on solving this together. Thank you. Thank you Josh. Thank you Jenny and that will open up to questions. If I do my arithmetic right $150 a night is $4,590 a month. I hope I did my arithmetic right. Couldn't do any better than that. That sounds like a lot of a lot of money. It is a lot of money and we actually was more during the pandemic and because of the supply demands versus what the need was. So we understand that. That's why we want to move to more permanent solutions, get them transitioning out of that program as quickly as possible and get them into the permanent housing they need. Either one of you want to answer further? Thank you Governor. H171 does require excuse me the Department for Children and Families to renegotiate these rates. As the Governor mentioned with the supply and demand it was really hard if not impossible to negotiate when the rooms were all full and we needed all of them. They are no longer full. We have a better position to negotiate and we'll begin those negotiations very soon with the hotel and motel owners. So maybe going down. Yes. Governor you talk about the need to have our housing market right now firing on all cylinders with all of these policy changes especially with some of the zoning reforms and due flexing by right. I'm wondering how far some of that will go as we haven't really acted on Act 250. You've mentioned I think it's a 0.3 or 3% something like that of the land mass in Vermont has exemptions so where do you see Act 250 playing into this? Yeah I mean that's an ongoing conversation we need to have with the legislature. The modernization of Act 250 is something that we've been working on. I think we've had a bill almost every single session that has not survived in its entirety if at all. So it's vitally important that we look back and modernize this provision that was put into place over 50 years ago and it needs to be updated and upgraded. I think most or modders understand that but we haven't been able to get it across the finish line. And to clarify the seven or eight hundred households that have already left the hotels they are not included in that 1200 number or they're not included in this program going forward. That's correct. The folks who were exited on June 1st are not counted in those 1200 and 14 households. They are not counted going forward. They may still be eligible in other ways and I think a number of those households are applying to see if they do qualify under one of the other categories. Do we have a sense as to with those re-applications how many have gotten accepted again? I don't know that off the top of my head but that's something we could find out for you. One thing I'm confused about and maybe someone could clarify we have the program that's 28 days. We have the program that's 84 days and yet are you also saying that these programs will be continued indefinitely as long as people participate in the services? Is that what the message is? We still will have a general assistance program. Commissioner Winters can speak to this in more detail. I think what the legislature did in H171 is they put a marker in the sand. They said for those who've been in the who are in the pandemic air hotel program which ends on June 30th. They are eligible under Act 171 to the new provisions. In addition to that we've reset the GA housing program which is Vermont safety net program for those individuals who are experiencing homelessness. That will be running in the background. So there will be two populations. One population is the one that's been clearly identified and we'll know exactly what that number is on July 1st and then the second population are those who will be entering homelessness on an ongoing basis and it gets us back to our pre-pandemic program. It would be best to answer this but I believe in H171 there's also a provision. Once the state finds an alternative housing option they have 48 hours to choose whether or not they want to pick that. Can someone just elaborate on what the downfall of them not taking that is or would they be out of the program if they don't take that? Would they still be in the program? How would that shake out? They would be not eligible for the program at that point. Just say you know there are a lot of changes going on and we've only you know learned about the provisions about a week ago and the governor just barely signed the bill so there's a lot of detail that we're still trying to work through. So I'm a little reluctant to say anything that causes more confusion or anxiety out there. What is true there is that 48-hour rule we are implementing administrative rules to clarify what it means to engage, what it means to exit people from the program once they've been offered an alternative option. You'll see some more clarity in the administrative rule making that will be coming across soon. Is there any, I know you say it's fluid obviously, but is there any kind of regional part of this to say if someone is in a motel in Barrie and they're from Barrie will it be in central Vermont or did they be found an option in Rutland or something like that? Is there any rules to that? I'm not sure that that's addressed in the rules. I would just say as a general principle we're trying to help people into permanent options that work best for them. So I think we would take regional considerations into account. We'd do our best if they had a preference, but ultimately I don't think alternative housing option is really defined in that way. It doesn't have to be, you know, within a certain number of miles or anything like that. We will be looking statewide but hoping to accommodate the needs of the person to make them successful in a permanent housing transition. Thanks. And Kelly, I understand you to say that you'll be filing some emergency rules to move up the implementation date of some of the zoning changes. Did I hear that correctly? Yeah, there was. Okay. So that's essentially the signing of the legislation moves up that implementation date from December 24th to July 1st literally in four days. So giving folks more options to build the housing we need in our communities and it accelerates that process quite a bit. And just to be clear, each 171 had the July date in it. Correct. To move it up. Yep. Okay, thanks. Governor, how are you feeling about the bottle bill? I know you've got some time. So that you have to act on that shortly. How are you feeling about that bill? Yeah, well, you know my concerns with the bill. But I have another 12 hours or so to figure that out. You'll learn about it. I don't think anybody's going to be surprised but I'll obviously be making a decision today. And what are those concerns just for viewers that might not remember? Well, costs for one thing. I think that when you look at the bottle program, redemption program, it was well suited and put into place at a time when we needed it. But we've done a lot of, we've made a lot of improvements over the years, especially with recycling, zero sort recycling in particular. That was mandated by legislative process put into law that we have to recycle and we established this zero sort process. And my feeling is we should double down on that. That's the wave of the future. What about the argument that bottles and containers that have a deposit are much more likely to be not only redeemed but recycled at the same time? So if the goal was to recycle clean products as much as possible for future use, wouldn't the bottle deposit law be the way to go? Well, I think it's just a, you know, I've used this analogy before. It's like a group Goldberg type approach to recycling. I mean, think about all the process, all the steps in the way when you have to recycle and redeem your deposits. And what about those areas that don't have redemption centers? What about the folks that we're talking about housing right now? You're living in a single family dwelling, you're living in an apartment, a one bedroom facility somewhere and the redemption center is two miles away. What are you supposed to do with all the bottles? I mean, this is the magnitude of the expansion here is dramatic. We're not talking about just some carbonated beverages. We're talking about all kinds of things and it may be expanded beyond that. So I think it's time for us to decide what we want to do here. Are we serious about recycling? And if we are, then we should double down on the system that we put into place and pass them the law. It's part of your thinking concerned with the possible, if this law goes into effect, some of the recycling centers, the single source people can sell have said it's going to increase recycling costs because you're diverting some very valuable taking all the good stuff out. So what's their incentive? So is that part of your concern? It's it's the cost and the complication of what we're trying to do. And I just think there's a simpler way to do it. But we need to focus on that in order to make it successful. I think it's been highly successful. I see people that and I've always taken recycling serious and maybe it's just part of my frugal nature. I just like to get as much as I can out. I don't like to throw things away. So I've seen, you know, other businesses and friends and family members who have really taken it on and really have are starting to recycle much more than they put into their regular rubbish at this point. So I think it's working. But I think it could be working better. We need to focus on that. So whether it is the impeachment investigation into the Franklin County Sheriff's, we have the Orange County audit that couldn't really happen just historically with sheriffs. And I know some legislators are working things maybe next session down the road to kind of maybe have some more oversight on them. And with all this going on, do you feel that not necessarily an overhaul to how the sheriff's department works? But do you believe there needs to be some change and kind of just going crazy right now? Well, we did pass that provision this and I signed that into law with some more oversight. And I thought that was a good step forward. But we'll see what they have to offer the next session. Back to the housing discussion, you mentioned negotiations with legislative leaders and obviously they had implications with the budget. But for you, what was that negotiation like knowing that if you got a deal done that your veto probably wouldn't would get over? Was it lost on me that I was working against myself? But at the end of the day, it was the right thing to do because we know we need housing. That's a, you know, we have a crisis on our hands and we need to do everything we can to forward that. And I saw an opportunity for us to get some of the provisions that we've been actively pursuing during the legislative session, but we're unsuccessful in doing and accomplishing. Many of those were cut from some of their bills. So I thought it was a good opportunity for us to get more of what we needed, more tools to provide assistance and for them to get what they needed as well. How do you view your role in Vermont's government now? Obviously you're frustrated off the top about the veto overrides and, you know, obviously everyone knows the climate in the state right now. I'm just wondering, you know, how do you view where you are and kind of your decisions? Well, again, you know, I'm trying to oversee and trying to make sure that we aren't exceeding our ability to pay and to keep our economy going and make it so expensive here that nobody wants to live here. And I think that, you know, it's unfortunate some of the things that passed this year. I thought I talked to a lot of folks throughout Vermont and some have come to me unsolicited and said, I can't believe what they're doing in Montpelier. Can't you do something about that? They just assume that the governor has the power to stop anything from happening that is detrimental to the state. And I, you know, we're so out of balance that that's just not the case right now. So again, we'll see what happens in the next election. Hopefully we'll get some balance. I don't think any one party should have that much power that they can just sidestep the governor. I just think that the governor has a role to play. What are you doing to reach out to more Republican candidates to get more Republicans involved? I've said this before. It doesn't have to be Republicans. I just want more legislators with common sense, more centrist moderates than I understand how to balance a checkbook. You know, you've said several times that the fact that Democrats have a super majority in the legislature and voters decided to elect a Republican governor was sort of a balancing power balance. Do you think that's the case? Or is it a little out of one? Yeah, I don't know if they did that knowingly. I don't know if they went in and said, you know, we ought to have a Republican governor and we need all these legislators who are left to center to come in and make sure that we get what we need in the end. I don't think they did that. I think they know their legislators or they think they know their legislators and they think that they're forwarding their ideas and keeping their pocketbooks in mind, you know, when they're voting on different measures. But they also know me and it's something they've gotten to know me better over the last decade. And so, you know, all I can say is I was elected, I think, with a clear message. We need to grow the economy. We need to make Vermont more affordable and protect the most vulnerable. And for the most part, I think we've done that. Unfortunately, some of the measures that were passed this session take us backwards and unravels some of the good work we've done, especially with taxes and fees. Just the pre-court today struck down affirmative action 6-3. Any thoughts on how to fight for Montin's? I just heard that coming into the press briefing. I don't have any clear thoughts on that. I don't know as I was surprised to hear that they did, but it's a long 237-page report and I think we'll glean a lot from that. I don't know what effect that will have on Vermont or how broad it is either and we'll all be interested in figuring that out and see if it has any detrimental effects to Vermont. Governor, given the internal problems at the Agency of Digital Services outlined by auditor Hopper, a leadership transition and repeat outages, do you think, is it wise per age 291 to give the ADS chief the lead role in cybersecurity not only for the state, but for the private sector as well? Where do I start? I think ADS, this was something we established and made it an agency. ADS is one of the best things we've done as an organization, probably doesn't get all the headlines or the notoriety unless things go wrong, but I think it's one of the best things we've done. Previous to having an agency oversee all of the new technology, we did this in silos. Every agency and department had their own systems. They weren't connected. They weren't talking with one another and it was clear that they had no common theme. ADS has done an amazing job in bringing that together so that and I would say if we hadn't had the Agency of Digital Services, we'd be paying a lot more right now and we'd have a lot more cybersecurity issues as a result because nobody would be overseeing this. Not one common agency would be overseeing that and again, I hats off to the Agency of Digital Services for all they've done and continue to do and those the outages that we've seen of late. Oh, it was a severed fiber optic cable in Washington, do you see both of them? That's nothing that we have much control over. In terms of leadership, and I want to give Secretary Naylor an opportunity. I may regret this because he's retiring as of tomorrow, I think. So I may regret this, but I want to give him an opportunity to answer as well because he's a longtime state employee given well over 30 years to the state, worked in different agencies and departments and again, when Secretary Quinn decided to step down, he was deputy secretary and we put him in charge and we knew all along that he was going to be retiring soon. We'd hoped he'd stay on much longer but he has other things he'd like to do as well. So Secretary Naylor, do you want to add anything or talk about what you've seen because your perspective is a little bit different than most of us having this broad perspective and seeing this from the ground up long before we had a lot of digital issues, I guess. Thank you, Governor. Thank you for the wonderful comments about the Agency of Digital Services. It's been a point of pride to be part of the creation of this agency and I will say I was at transportation when this administration came in and the governor used executive order to create ADS and the state government at that time was in the technology space for what it has and have nots and there was a lot of agencies and departments that didn't have the same level of technology access that we do today. The audit alone was possible because of the transparency that the agency of digital services has brought to state government. We have worked tirelessly with the administration and then the legislature to put in place cybersecurity protocols, controls, investments. We have a 24 by 7 security operations center now that was never going to be possible with the silos that the governor mentioned before. Those are all possible because of his commitment in the agency. Where we're at right now having done things like realize over 35 million direct savings, having wiped out a $7 million deficit to the IT fund, established a modernization fund for the state of Vermont to continue to move forward modernizing legacy applications like motor vehicles, unemployment insurance, our HR and finance systems are all successes and when we look at what the auditor focused on and I want to just kind of help clarify here, there was performance measures were key to their recommendations. Those performance measures were not performance measures related to the agency of digital services. Those were not performance measures that were related to the actual project or the technology. They were how does the result yield positive outcomes for Vermont. We're starting now to measure things like this technology will reduce processing time by 10% or things like that in where we need and I've got to give the auditor his office credit. These were insightful things about how allowing us to mature and continue this vision that the governor had for how technology could be better done in the state of Vermont. So when you look at all of that as a package and you look at that we are fully engaged in as a leader in the state of Vermont now, regardless of public sector or private sector, when it comes to cybersecurity, we feel strongly that the role that we have, which is two positions on an 11 person council that does not have rulemaking, right? This is meant to start open lines of communication, assess where everybody is at and start to look to identify what needs to happen so that Vermont is information is protected or more importantly, their critical services, whether it's water, sewer, electric, hospital are all protected to a certain standard. And that's why we're excited about doing this. And I feel that the trust that the governor has put in us to accomplish this is well-founded at this time. Thank you, Governor. Again, Sean, just one more question for you because we were at the an award ceremony last week a week before honoring some of the long standing state employees we have and the talented state employees we have and it's vast and deep when you think about it. And I remember there was some who had been there for 40 years and were being honored, but my dad was a state employee as well, worked for the highway department in the early days. But Sean, maybe just where did you start in the state government? What agency or department? I started in transportation. I actually started on the engineering side. I started counting cars in 1988, moved up to highway design and then moved into construction. And then from there I got to start to get involved with technology in the little 90s and have had a tremendous opportunity to help from honors from that one since then. And I just want to clarify, you said counting cars and not cards. I'm curious, what's the biggest cyber security threat that the state of Vermont faces? It's like, you know, I'm going to let Sean answer this, but it's always the weakest link, right? Every single state employee is a link in all of this. And we have, that's the other thing that has grown tremendously. The number of cyber attacks we have on a daily basis is astronomical. And Sean, you could probably tell us off the top of your head, but this has grown in thousands over the last five, six years. We suppress in the millions a month at this point. It fluctuates depending on like geopolitical situations, you know, certain things happening around the world. It's hard to say one technical thing. What we have focused on through the governor's support is really education. We have a strong training program to train staff because often the person that clicks on the wrong link is your weakest link as the governor pointed out. But we also have invested in strengthening our perimeter to make sure that things like ransomware are not successfully watched in the state. There is no one thing. Every night I wake up worrying about pens of things in the cyberspace because it is a costly evolving and accelerating, as you may or may not can imagine. ChatGVT and the acceleration of artificial intelligence is being used just as quickly for the bad actors as we are trying to figure out how to use it to help us keep them off our doorstep. So there is no one thing, but just being cognizant and aware is the first step. I think I was just trying to get a sense of, you know, are these criminals trying to get ransoms or hack into the state financial system or all the above? I think it's all the above. A mix of everything. All the above? Yeah. I'm sorry, Governor. No, no, I think we're saying the same thing. I've listened to you for so long that... He understands very well and I think he was summed up once for me really well that when you realize that probably a significant portion, their goal is to undermine democracy. Right? And when you think about that, there's ransomware, there's all these vehicles, but that is one of the things they're really trying to do is to use technology to undermine democracy. So we do not take it lightly here in the state. No other questions about cyber security? I might just see, I think we only have one reporter on the phone, but if Tim McQuiston from Vermont Business Magazine has a question, I'll give him a chance now. Hi, Governor. The revenue report came out and it was, again, a disappointing, especially the personal income tax. And I know that you don't like to speculate, but you have to have contingency plans. I'm sure I remember Governor Shumlin having to just, I think in August, it's a couple of months after the budget had been implemented and acted, had to cut across the board because of there wasn't enough revenue to meet the spending. Do you have a contingency plan if things continue on this track? Yeah, I mean, we'll be meeting with the emergency board and talking about what we're seeing in the future. We did have the economists on last, I think it was last summer, well, before the session started, and they had warned that they were concerned about revenue projections and things were going so well here in the state of Vermont that many people think it's never going to end. Well, I've been through a couple of these and they do end, and they end quickly. So we will take whatever measures we need to take, but we're hopeful that we'll be able to continue to provide for the services we need. I mean, we'll prioritize in that respect, but I'm still hopeful that we'll continue to do good work. Regardless of my opposition to the state budget, for instance, or any of the bills that I vetoed, now they're law and we'll adhere to them and we'll do the best we can to make sure that Vermont is as competitive as possible and continues to bring people into this state and tries to attract businesses to come here and so that we don't suffer, so that Vermonters don't suffer. But again, I've been concerned about those economic storm clouds that I say are on the horizon, and we're starting to see them with the revenue reports. All right, thank you very much. Thank you. Last call. Thank you all very much.