 Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for being here today. Since the beginning of the legislative session and long before that, it's been clear that housing must be a top priority because it's part of the solution to the many challenges we face. You've all heard me talk about the numbers and how we need to build thousands of units a year just to meet demand. As you know, over the last few years, we've invested hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in housing. And what we've learned is that money alone is in solving the problem. And we also know we need more investment from the private sector. It's clear the most impactful way to get results is to make it easier, faster, and less expensive to build and restore the housing we desperately need. Despite legislative leaders agreeing we're in a housing crisis and that housing is a priority, the House chose to instead pass a conservation bill, H687, which, as it stands, would expand regulation, making it harder for communities, many communities, to build the housing they need. On the other hand, the Senate Economic Development Committee way back in February passed a very strong housing bill, S311, which over the last two months has been stuck in that Senate natural resources because they didn't have time due to their work on battery recycling and the Fish and Wildlife Board. Over a month ago, I told you what I thought they were doing. I said they were going to take the house version of the conservation bill, H687, throw a few pieces of S311 into it and call it a housing bill. I was hoping I'd be wrong, but unfortunately it looks as though that's exactly what they're doing and what they were going to do. Last night, my team once again went into Senate natural and asked they pass 311 as a standalone bill because it has broad bipartisan, tripartisan support and took a lot of work to come together. My guess is they came to the political calculation, conclusion and we'll keep them together because that's the only way they can get their Act 250 expansion bill passed. If that's the case and they insist on a merger, I will only accept it if it actually moves us toward our goal to build and repair the units we need, which means adding all the reforms and tax incentives from 311 coupled with substantial changes to the house's version of H687, which again will expand Act 250 and limit growth throughout Vermont. Failure to make the changes needed to give all our communities a chance to thrive would be a failure to meet the moment and a failure to deliver on an issue I think we can all agree is a top priority for all our constituents. It should be a surprise to no one that it will not accept any bill that makes it harder, slower, or more expensive to build housing because we need to do the exact opposite. But it shouldn't come to that because almost every lawmaker in office today began their campaigns promising to address housing. So with that, I'll turn it over to Secretary Curley to talk through her testimony last night. Thank you, Governor Scott. Good afternoon, everyone. Vermont is in the throes of a housing crisis. The dearth of housing in Vermont touches everything and affects all of us. The lack of housing available across the economic spectrum is our greatest barrier to affordability, growing the economy, and creating safe communities where all Vermonters can thrive. Earlier this week, I saw a presentation by VHFA that showed only 6% of renters in Vermont could afford a median priced home. That is alarming. It should alarm all of us. The dream of home ownership is slipping away from too many of Vermonters. All Vermonters need more housing options for renting and buying. We need them for young people just getting their start, families with kids who attend our schools, older people who are looking to downsize, individuals and families experiencing homelessness, as well as people who want to move here and share the Vermont experience with us. It is our obligation as leaders to increase Vermont's housing stock for all Vermonters. Part of what's driving our housing crisis is the added time and expense required to navigate Vermont's current permitting process under Act 250, driving up costs for renters and buyers as well as taxpayers who contribute to affordable housing efforts. Another crucial element we can't ignore is the fact that demand for housing is outstripping our supply. Vermont has some of the oldest housing stock in the nation. Every year, hundreds of homes fall into disrepair and out of our housing stock. Current estimates show that we need to add roughly 6,800 homes and apartments now just to get to a healthy housing market. So my team is doing everything it can to get more units online. Vermont did not get into this housing crisis overnight. It took decades of underbuilding. And none of us know exactly what the Silver Bullet is, but there is undeniable evidence that modernizing zoning and land use regulations, reforming the appeals process, increasing tax incentives, and making targeted investments, all combined will move the needle. And I've said repeatedly, just like the governor, we cannot buy our way out of this, meaning we cannot solve this housing crisis solely with state money and programmatic investments. As I told the Senate Natural Resources Committee last night, it has always been the administration's position that we need a housing bill that addresses the immediate housing needs of Vermonters. The moment requires legislation that will help jumpstart the creation of new units in addition to rehabbing others that have fallen into disrepair and offline. Don't get me wrong, Act 250 needs updating. It's 50 years old and should reflect the needs of our time. Permitting and appeals are an important part of the process, but overhauling Act 250 is a massive undertaking. As currently drafted by the House, modernizing Act 250 would require a significant on-ramp time and investment. It would take years to build and even longer to get off the ground. We can't wait years. If we don't act now, it will exacerbate our housing crisis. The exact opposite of what we need to be doing. I understand the likelihood of getting two separate bills is slim, but I want to be clear that the administration wants a comprehensive housing bill like S311. We'd like it to contain the following. The adoption of immediate interim Act 250 exemptions for housing built in designated downtowns and village centers and areas with municipal water and wastewater. Build on the Home Act passed last year with increased housing density by making it clear that those density requirements are for places with water and sewer. We also want to update parking by-laws. Update Act 250 appeals should stay in the environmental court and not be redirected to a separate land use review board. We should also add another environmental judge to speed up the review of housing appeals. Change the appeals process to require higher threshold for participation. Right now, any 10 individuals from a municipality, regardless of their standing in a project, can file an appeal. S311 includes a provision to raise that bar to a more reasonable threshold. Limiting appeals in areas planned for growth in dense housing as long as they meet the planning goals of their community. A freeze on property tax valuations on blighted properties to incentivize the rehabilitation of these properties into permanent housing. And rather than the state collecting the property transfer tax on blighted structures being rehabilitated or converging into housing, which will allow buyers to use that money to fix up those properties. We firmly believe that we can preserve the beauty of our state while also encouraging growth in the areas where we want it. We can protect our rural working lands and key natural resources while supporting the rehabilitation of blighted housing stock and adding new housing units. So I want to echo the governor and say to those lawmakers who want to boost our housing stock, please help us seize this moment. With that, I'll turn it back over to the governor. Thank you very much, Secretary Curley. And I'll open up to questions. The climate naturals move forward with merging these bills. They included many of the provisions in 311, interim exemptions, all the tax incentives, things like that. So why is it important to you to keep these bills separate? Well, first of all, I don't know as they pass it out. Maybe you've seen something that they... The client to pass it out later too. I'll believe it when I see it. I'd like to see what's in it first before commenting fully. But what I've seen over the last 24 hours is actually moving the wrong direction, moving backwards, making it 687 even more difficult. So unless they have all the changes we want, S311 is really important to be in there. It had unanimous support in Senate economic development. It deserves to have the full Senate at least weigh in on this. And for them just to piecemeal it, just add the small pieces here and there. I don't think it's fair to the body. It's not fair to Vermonters. It's the only housing bill that is viable that I've seen moving through this legislative process. So I just think they should be separated, but if they're not and they're merged, it's going to take the whole thing as well as some changes to 687. Can you be specific about the sticking points for you in 687? Well, they're numerous. And again, I'm not sure what they've done thus far, but it's first of all, and I'm going to let Secretary Moore weigh in on this, but it's taking too long. It's over a long period of time. We need immediate relief now if we want to get addresses housing crisis. So that's one area. And it just puts more restrictions on everyone throughout Vermont. And I know that they claim 1A will give exemptions to many communities, but only the big ones, not the rural communities that need our help. So with that, Secretary Moore, can you describe some of the other challenges? Sure, I do have to do that, Secretary. I think there are a number of places where, frankly, it complicates some already existing challenging processes. For example, if separate survival cases, the appeals process, and with Act 250 appeals heard by the Land Use Review Board, where they and our permits would continue to go straight to the e-court, it actually repealed deference and our technical determinations, which to my mind creates a significant amount of regulatory uncertainty for anyone who is subject to and our oversight. It requires any jurisdiction interested in that tier 1A designation to have wildlife planning bylaws. And it is my understanding that no Vermont communities currently have those in place. So there are a number of places, and that may just be a starting set, but where there are either additional requirements, changes in process that actually further complicate rather than streamline and simplify our existing regulatory system. Sure. Just to clarify, too, the interim exemptions that were added into this from what was intended in 311, this is very different than what was in 311. 311 was much broader in their interim exemptions, and I think more akin to what we would need over the next several years while we're laying out the land use mapping and gearing up with the new tiers. And so to scale way back on that and then put in very modest interim exemptions does not meet the need of what we were advocating for nor what was seen in 311. One more, if this merged version of 687 continues to advance, do you expect to veto it? Well, it depends on what's in it. And again, if they will include all of S311 and accept the changes we see are necessary in 687, then maybe not. But as it stands right now from what I've seen, it would very likely reach a veto. But we'll see, see what happens. Long ways to go. If there were exemptions for smaller towns, Barnaby, et cetera, what's your confidence level that developers would actually build there? I mean, isn't the demand being shittling county, Franklin County? Yeah, again, I'm concerned about the smaller communities, but I'm also concerned about S311 also had some tax incentives in there for developers, whether they continue to keep those in and that's why it's so important to take all of S311, make sure that's the body of the legislation. And again, it would be much easier, simpler, and give us a faster results if they just separated the two and took them up at different times and had the body weigh in on them. Because I would suspect, again, based on everything I saw in the last election with everyone pretty much universally saying we have a housing crisis on our hands and we need to fix it. 687 passed, I think the House would be 89 votes, which is not enough to survive a veto. Should it come to that point? I mean, I guess, what is your confidence level that someone can get across the country line this year? I think it could go either way. You know, it's, I don't want to move us in the wrong direction. We need immediate help and if this doesn't provide it, then we'll just have to soldier on. But from the House version, and again, from what I understand and what I've seen, this is evolving in the wrong direction. 687 was bad enough, I think, coming over from the House and now they're making it worse. So we'll see what happens. Maybe some of those same House members that were supportive of 687 may say today with whatever comes out of a conference committee or whatever comes out of the Senate, they may say, I'm not supportive anymore. Especially when they figure out it doesn't really help their small towns. Governor, sort of a blunt question. Do you think that 887 shows more concern about their habitat and conservation than about building new homes? 687, you mean? Yeah. Yeah, I don't know if I would characterize it like that. I think there is a measured approach. They're looking at the big picture, the long picture, and they're trying to include everything in it. And that's exactly my point, that we need relief now. And this really doesn't do it. 687 is something that's going to evolve over a number of years. So again, pitting one against the other, I think you can have both, but not in this timeframe. Not here, not now. Developers, I spoke with this to be very free of you. So it's very frustrating when they're running these appeals. They can take anywhere up to 18 months in an environmental court to get it figured out. And they said, they don't necessarily know if this new board's going to work, but it's something different than what they're dealing with right now, which is super frustrating. So I guess what would be your kind of response to that, like them saying? Well, again, let's discuss that. I mean, that's a minor portion of this. Although it's important to sum, we are adding an environmental judge that will help the process as well. So don't mind discussing some of those issues. Obviously we want developers to develop and because most of the housing is built by private entities, not by government. So we need to work with them to make sure that we're doing everything we can to help. Secretary Moore, is anything you want to add to the, I don't know if you heard the question or not? I'm trying to mute the mute button. I think you cover the bases largely there. I do worry that there are a number of smaller pieces in there that just add to the complication that would further slow the e-court review process. Okay, yeah, sorry. Deputy Secretary Tapeworks for the agency of commerce community development. Just want to touch base and grab your question about appeals. I think it's also important to realize that over 20 years ago, there was a board that heard appeals and appeals for municipal permits, ANR permits, Act 250 permits went all different places. And one could probably imagine, speaking with somebody who is building homes out there, oftentimes they'll need to get a local permit, an ANR permit, and if it's going to trigger Act 250, an Act 250 permit. So what we're seeing here within H687, and certainly being discussed and debated down in the Senate House Natural Resources Committee, is that by splitting off the appeals, the Act 250 appeals, separately pulling them out of the environmental court and putting them to a separate body. Now you have somebody who's trying to build a home who not only needs to get approved and get signed off from the environmental court, you're now gonna have to have a whole separate entity also in agreement. So it kind of provides an opportunity for opponents of housing, two opportunities to kind of shut down those projects. What is it means committee that is set to advance the yield bill to tax hikes in it? I know you've said you've opposed, but sets up a study really to look at the future of education, funding and financing. What's your read on the yield right now? Typical legislative reaction. I don't wanna address the issue right now. We're gonna put a study, we're gonna study it. Meanwhile, Vermonters are going to be impacted by up to a 20% increase in the property taxes that they can't afford. And I think again, raising taxes isn't something that we should be doing, especially these days, and with everything that I've seen on the other side of the aisle there, this is concerning. So we've known about this since December, and I think we have to be creative. We have to think about our constituents, Vermonters, the real impact this will have on their everyday lives. So I would advocate that we do something now, not study this. Let's do something to fix it. State treasurer said the proposal that you and Cushar brought forward to essentially having payments over time, said that that could have a big concern, a big effect on the state's credit rating. I mean, have you seen that, have you thought about that, and what alternative could there be? Obviously, I've been concerned about that throughout my legislative career as chair of the institutions committee when I was in the Senate as the lieutenant governor, and now as governor. Our credit rating is very important. But, having said all that, I'd like to see the numbers as well, because here, and the word you use was could, could. The rating agencies haven't waited on this. We might suspect that they would look unfavorably at this, but if there was a plan in place to reduce costs in conjunction with this deferment, it could work. So I know what the impact will be on Vermonters. I'm confident this will have an adverse impact on every single Vermonter here, because of this education spending bill. And I don't know what the rating agencies will do with it, but again, I know what it'll do to Vermonters. So I'm gonna be on the side of Vermonters on this one. Should we stop to uncriterate the agencies to ask? Isn't the time, they don't have all the, that's not what they do. We will be meeting with them as we typically do on a yearly basis, and that will probably come up, but they're not going to give you their opinion at this point in time. They wanna see all the numbers. They wanna see everything that we've done or not doing, and then they'll arrive at their conclusion independently of one another. So that's just not how it works. Are you still suggesting that, would you still recommend that legislators move forward with the proposal that I have on Friday, despite this concern raised by HECCHEC? I'm saying we need to get creative. If we ignore this and we don't at least contemplate at least contemplate this, we know what the impact's going to be. It's going to affect every single person in this room in a negative way and all across Vermont. So we know that. So we better do some, I think we should do something about it now. What we could, the treasurer could do is tell us what the, if, if, if, and that's a big if, if the bonding agencies decided to downgrade our credit rating, what's the effect? How much will that cost us? And then weigh it out about from, and in relationship to what we know is going to impact the $200 million is going to impact Vermonters versus what is the, what is the negative effect on Vermont? So we're saying that we think that a downgraded, a potential downgraded credit rating might be worth that. I don't, I'd like to see, I'd like to see the analysis. I think we have to weigh that out. I'm sorry. But your administration hasn't asked for that analysis? We have not. I, I didn't know that the treasurer was going to come out and oppose it. So I don't think there's been enough time, but that's something that maybe he could forward. Did you talk to the treasurer? I didn't talk, I didn't talk to him personally, but we've had conversations with him. Is there any leadership happening on cutting school spending, either from the administration or the legislature or the advocacy groups? So I looked at Spalding as an IT director, just a supervisor as an IT director and five separate IT people in the supervisor level. And each school has its own. I just wonder, are you kind of talking? Well, there's no doubt. You know, we have local control in this state. They're going to do what they need to do. The school boards have worked really hard to put budgets together. I think there was another, what, seven that went down yesterday? Six. Six went down yesterday. So some are getting there and it is having a positive effect on, lowering the burden on Vermonters. I think it went from 240 now down to maybe 200. So that's working, but it's not going to get us far enough. So if there are measures that we put into place, we, being legislatively, that have a negative effect on the costs or have increased costs on school districts, we should be looking at that. And I know they did. We worked with a group over the last month or so and with our folks at the tax department and came up with all kinds of ideas, ideas that we had contemplated over the last eight years and brought forward and they weren't well received at the time, but they're looking better, I think, to legislators at this point in time. And they want to study them. That's a step in the right direction, but I'd say, you know, we need immediate relief. We need it now. And we don't need to continue to study this. We ought to do something. So if there's something that we've done, like universal school meals, if there's something like that that we did that costs $30 million, then maybe we should take a look at that. I remember in 2022, everyone was running on housing. You mentioned that people were saying we need to build a more house, we must do this. And I guess, maybe you could explain a little bit to us, but what happens to everyone signing that when they're running for office, then when they get into this building, it seems that the whole thing changes. Where does that go from, we need to open more housing, but then we're now still talking about the housing we need to build and nobody wants to do anything. Yeah, I'm as mystified as you are. I have no idea. Is it ideologically driven? I, hard to say, you know, I would ask them individually. And again, these are based in some of the committees as well. So, S3-11, something that would have a positive effect on housing in Vermont, something that we need, sorely need, was passed in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate Economic Development Committee in Animas. So, that's good news. And then it gets stuck in Senate natural. And I believe for political reasons, trying to marry it up with another bill that's not as palatable in hopes that they can get a little bit of both. So, is it ideological? Maybe, but I don't know as all legislators have had an opportunity to weigh in on this yet. So, until they have a bill to work with, that's actually viable, then I don't know as we can cast judgment on them individually. Thank you all. Oh wait, did you have something on? Somebody on Teams? Oh, yeah. Okay. I hate to have to do his job for... I was looking at a watch, wow, it's a full one, yeah. I'm going to say Kevin, seven days. I may regret this, Kevin. Go ahead. I saw you on mute for a second, Kevin, it looks like you're re-unit. There you go. Oh no. Gotcha. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thanks Governor, I appreciate it. So, I hope you don't regret taking my call. But nonetheless, I'm going to ask you a tough question here because you said that H687 would, it is problematic for you because you felt it would limit growth and it would make it harder and slower and more expensive to build. And my question is, if you're going to make it cheaper and faster and less expensive to build in the areas where we want development to happen, what is so bad about limiting growth, making it harder to build, slower to build and more expensive to build in areas that are environmentally sensitive, fragment forests, damaged wetlands or otherwise, it creates sprawl. I mean, that's what I understand. The purpose of marrying these two bills together is to do both at the same time to develop where we want to develop and make it harder to develop in areas that would be problematic. Some of the conditions within H687 would really adversely impact some of the rural areas of the state that need housing too. So, it might help Burlington, it might help some of the bigger communities but it would do little from my understanding to help some of the rural communities that again, need our help and they need housing. They need to be, they need a revival as well. So, those are some, just a couple of the things that are problematic from our standpoint. I think Julie had talked about some of the other ones earlier in this conversation but maybe Julie would like to weigh in as well. I'd be happy to go, sir. And I think it is that we're not meeting just the moment we're in, that the additional environmental protections that are contemplated by H687 take a medium and long term view in part because we have a whole series of new definitions that need work and contemplation and evaluation. And while we're in the moment of doing that work, we need housing right now and the balance isn't there between those two. In addition, as I noted earlier in the press conference, H687, whether intentionally or simply by virtue of people losing track of components that is more than 200 pages, creates real and immediate complications around appeals, around deference being granted to the agency and our current regulatory studies and is going to add time and confusion to the process in the near term even as it seeks to provide additional regulatory requirements in the long term. Governor, may I add to that? And Kevin, I think just to clarify, we in concept agree with the idea of this location-based jurisdiction where you have exemptions in certain areas, focus, development there. The complication here is that tier one has certain requirements, especially tier one A has requirements that even the Burlington's and the Muruski's, the big communities, they'd even have a hard time reaching some of the standards that are set for such as wildlife protection, bylaws, and other things that go above and beyond what was ever in a compromise. And so it goes beyond restrictive for allowing that type of development. So I think Secretary Moore said it best that that balance just isn't quite there. There are tweaks we can make and we're ready to offer those changes as Secretary Curley did last night, but it's just not there yet. Thank you very much. I understood. Thank you very much. I have a different question on a different bill, Governor, if that's okay. Sure. So H72, this is the bill that would allow overdose prevention sites in the state, which you've expressed opposition to. Has that been modified or is in the process that we gather of being modified to only provide funding for a single site? Everyone presumes that single site would be in Burlington. I believe even your health commissioner has said that he's not terribly opposed to the idea of a single pilot site in the city of Burlington. And given that there's a mayor, new mayor in Burlington has expressed support for this and there seems to be support in Burlington. Where does your opposition of that bill stand if it's just for a single site for Burlington? Yeah, my position hasn't changed at all, Kevin. I'm still opposed to it from a financial aspect and philosophical aspect as well. Thank you. I have Newport Daily Express. You can. Okay. I've got a running ass day on the education subject. The last time I asked you a question was about whether you would consider state-wide teacher contracts and also for support staff. My question today is with the new secretary about the UCF education on board, is there any consideration to consolidating supervisory unit districts and make them more broadly regional as a way of cutting back some of the administration and some of the overlapping functions? I would say basically yes. I believe that I believe this for quite some time that we should be thinking about the structural problems we have and not just the educational financing but as well as in the structure itself. And it seems as though we are a top heavy in some of the supervisory, superintendents, number we have in the state compared to the population. That number hasn't decreased dramatically over the last couple of decades when we did at one point reduce it but not far enough. So I think we talked to some of the education leaders in other states and they have one district that has more student population than we have throughout the whole state. So I think again, I think it all should be on the table and we should consider anyway we can to lower the costs and put the money, any savings possibly towards the student themselves so that we deliver a better education for them without using it up in overhead. Is there going to be, is there still going to be a need for the state board of education? Do they turn into the future? I think there has to be some sort of entity. So I would say in some form, sure. Thank you very much Governor, have a good day. You too. Keith, Rutland-Herald? Rutland Towns select board met last week and one of the things they were talking about was a rumor they had heard and they acknowledged it was a rumor but they seemed fairly concerned about the idea in any way. They seem to be, somehow they got wind of the state was looking at the Cortina Inn and maybe possibly some other ends to lease or maybe purchase, I don't purchase but at least seemed like it might be reasonable. You just basically get control of that building to use it as some kind of homeless shelter type of thing. They were very concerned about this to the point where I think they were going to invite someone from AHS to come talk to them about it. I was wondering if you knew what might be going on there, what they were hearing, what the actual fact of the matter is? I don't know, have any of those details at this point in time, Keith, but be happy to get somebody from AHS or DCF to contact you directly. Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you. Tom Davis, Douglas Vermont. Thanks, Jason. Governor, the Affordable Leap Act, S5, is set to go into action in January 2025 subject to one more legislative vote. Some fuel and propane suppliers around Vermont have been issuing letters to their customers to warn them of the incoming service charts that they will be seeing and they're estimating it's gonna be around 70 cents per gallon of propane and or fuel load. And I want to know if, notice those letters have come out, have you seen any reaction from that from the public? And also, do you have a sense whether or not the legislature is gonna stick to its guns and go ahead and implement this in 2025? Well, as you know, Tom, I vetoed that bill and was overridden, but the 70 cents doesn't surprise me. Maybe it might even be a little light, I don't know, but we'll see what happens when they get through their process and it comes before the legislature and the next session. So I have no idea whether they'll move forward with it or not, I think it'll all depend on the realities and what the impact will be. But again, this is all predictable. It's something that we've been talking about for quite some time. When we see this cliff that we're facing with the Education Fund that was predictable, something we talked about since my first day in office and that offered solutions to that, we have apparel taxes being going into place in July, we have 20% increase in DMV fees, we have all kinds of taxes being proposed by the legislature at this point in time. It all adds up. It's like this drip, drip, drip, and it's increasing the cost of living in Vermont and forcing people to make decisions about where they live. And it's not just the affluent, it's I'm more concerned about those who are struggling, struggling now. And this is just, when I'm moving in the right direction, affordability is an issue that all of us face and I think it's something that some seem to forget when they get in here and the natural reaction to the legislature to any problem, any jerk reaction is let's just raise another tax and fix it. Well, sometimes that's the easy way. The more difficult way is to look at the structural problems we have and fix them. And it's something you have to do in business every single day. And I think that we were a little void of that here in this body. With those different increases in those costs, the fees and the taxes, has the feedback into your office increased from Vermont? I don't know if it's increased, but there has been a steady, steady. I think people are scared to be honest with you. I mean, they just don't know what they're going to do because they don't know where to go and they know these fees and taxes are coming right down on them. Some of them last year, some of the taxes that were imposed were regressive. They talk about taxing the rich, rich and last year they taxed the poor as well. So they're just scared and we'll just have to do all we can to prevent it from happening. Other questions, thank you. Governor, we have tens of millions, really I guess hundreds of millions, committed in telecom and emergency communications planning. Are you satisfied with the planning and oversight of this process? Yeah, I think so. I mean, I know that like with any planning, nothing's perfect, but we're moving forward in a measured way. Not at the speed I'd like to see, but not everyone thinks the way I do. I wanted to make sure that we had a dispatching that was universal, that could be utilized by everyone throughout Vermont. But I've wanted that for over a decade and through different administrations, that hasn't happened. So it all comes down to who's paying in, who's not and who's supportive, who needs it, who doesn't. And it's just not, it's a difficult, it's a difficult concept to move across the finish line. It's complicated. Back to education, do you have any concerns about Zoe Saunders' confirmation? I know some folks have expressed concern about the background in charter schools. Yeah. Well, I think the more that Zoe gets out and meets all of you, and if you haven't had an opportunity to interview her, I would offer that you should call us and or call her and set it up because the more you get to know her, you will see the strength she has, why she was our top pick and the benefit she will bring to Vermont if she is confirmed. So I think the more you get to know her, the better you like her. I had a follow-up to what Kevin was asking about. Drug policy, as overdoses are still currently high, we don't have year-end data from last year, but potentially setting new records. Oregon recently rolled back measure 110, which was the decriminalization of all drugs to get people into treatment. They rolled that back. There's still a bill kicking around here in the state house which would decriminalize personal amounts of drugs. I mean, for you, is there, I know you've been opposed, but is there a learning lesson here or something that's remarking clean from Oregon? Well, I think we can always learn from other states. And if Oregon rolled theirs back, there was a reason for it. That's why I'm opposed to the safe injection sites. I think more money should be put into treatment. We know that works, and we've seen elevated overdose deaths, unfortunately, but I attribute that to fentanyl and xylozine and what it's being, other drugs being laced with it. So highly addictive and very deadly. So we're doing all we can in that respect, and some of that comes on the public safety sector as well. And so that's why we've been trying to do everything from all different approaches to lower the risk. But treatment is something that we can't let our foot off the gas on this one because we need to get them in treatment when they're ready and get them on a better path. Is our hub and spoke model able to keep up to it with fentanyl and xylozine, you mentioned? These are really, I mean, lethal drugs in some cases. I mean, how do you crack that enough? Yeah, some of it, of course, they have to be ready for treatment as well, those who are addicted. So that's always a challenge. And what we feel if we want to broaden the hub and spoke program and find any efficiencies we can there and make it as user-friendly as possible to get those who are affected into treatment and then into recovery. Well, yeah, to be clear, does your administration have any plan B if legislators don't go for? Well, I don't know what the plan B would be. If they're not willing to do anything right now, then they're part of the problem. They're accepting this 20% increase, which I'm not accepting. So alls I can do is have my one vote. Great, but do you have an alternative plan for something that they could do instead of? I mean, you're saying that they're not willing to do anything, but do you have? Well, how can I get them to do something when they're unwilling to do it? I mean, you could draw other options. Well, what's wrong with the option that we put out there? Well, then they ought to get creative and figure a way to make it work without affecting our bond rating. They're smart people. They're smart people. You're smart too, so what about a proposal? Look, again, I want to tone this down a bit because I think there's a creative approach to this. We just have to think it through. And I don't accept that we can't do anything. I just won't accept that. I don't think Vermonters expect us to do that either. They're counting on us to fix this. So we need to fix it. And if we have to implement something that's uncomfortable, then let's do it. Okay, there's uncomfortable, but then there's also, if our credit rating is downgraded, that costs money. What is it going to cost us? How much is it going to cost us? I don't know. Well, I don't know either. So I think we should have that information before we shove that aside. Shouldn't we have that information before we put this thing in place, though? Sure. Do you think that if you move forward or if the legislature describes what they have potentially rates as, or downgrades their credit rating, and then Vermonters pay for that in the long term if our borrowers are increased, isn't that just shoving the cost burden down to future Vermonters? It really depends. It depends on how much it is, right? And this is an if they downgrade. They don't always downgrade because of some approach we've taken. I think the treasurer would agree if we had cost measures in place, and a plan, a real plan to lower costs, then I'm not sure that they would downgrade. I think they would take that as a solid plan that you understand where we're at. If we don't do anything, it's gonna keep increasing. And so when it starts affecting the economy, I think those same bond agencies, other rating agencies would have a problem seeing our whole economy start to erode because we're taxing too much. They worry about those kinds of things, too.