MONTPELIER — In his budget address delivered to the Legislature on Tuesday, Republican Gov. Phil Scott once again implored lawmakers to refrain from increasing state taxes and fees on Vermonters, and keep state spending within current revenues.

And similar to his State of the State address earlier this month, Scott again threw up his hands, conceding that Democrats hold theoretically veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate, “which means you don’t have to listen, or even consider, my priorities or objections.

“But I bet many of you do hear, and maybe even share, some of my concerns. More importantly, I’m pretty sure the majority of our constituents certainly do,” Scott continued in the opening of his speech. “Let’s put them first by doing the hard work to fix — not just fund — the problems they face, put party labels aside, and listen to each other.”

Hard feelings over last year’s budget showdown — which ultimately resulted in Scott’s veto and the Legislature’s definitive override — loomed over not only the governor’s speech, but also Democratic legislative leaders’ reactions to it.

Speaking to reporters afterward, House Speaker Jill Krowinski, D-Burlington, criticized the governor for his tone and what she characterized as a lack of concrete policy solutions.

“I think his speech was long on fear and short on hope,” Krowinski said. “We in the legislature are ready to get to work… and we’ll do our work because we believe that this budget is a reflection of our values. It’s not a political strategy.”

Last year, Scott made his objections to lawmakers’ fiscal year 2024 budget known to no avail, vetoing the $8.5 billion spending plan — which marked a 13% increase in state spending from the previous year, a percentage that Scott deemed unsustainable. Lawmakers responded by overwhelmingly voting to override Scott’s veto and dubbing it, in the words of Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden Central, at the time, “the most flawed and harmful (veto) of any in recent memory.”

In his speech Tuesday, Scott once again harkened back to that 13% increase in spending, drawing the ire of Sen. Jane Kitchel, D-Caledonia, who chairs the Senate’s influential Appropriations Committee. Yes, she told reporters after Scott’s speech, last year’s overall budget increased by 13% — but that was largely attributable to one-time funding, not ongoing spending. She pushed back against the implication that lawmakers were spending irresponsibly.

“I’m a Vermonter from way back, and I view myself as very much a guardian of the budget and the decisions and the integrity of the budget, and the sustainability,” she told reporters. “Those are the kinds of comments that I think, if I’m the general public, could really create a source of concern.”

Kicking off negotiations for this coming year’s budget, Scott on Tuesday implored lawmakers to keep a lid on new spending — though he did not call for substantial cuts to state government operations. The governor ultimately proposed an $8.6 billion budget, divvied up over the state’s three major pots of money: $2.4 billion for education, $2.3 billion in the general fund and $353 million for the state’s transportation fund, which did not enjoy the same sunny revenue projections from state economists as the other two funds last week. (The remaining approximately $3 billion of the proposed spending is backed by federal funds, for the state’s Medicaid program and other social services.)

The spending plan Scott proposed Tuesday was, according to Secretary of Administration Kristin Clouser, substantially more optimistic than what the administration had been expecting to propose before it heard positive fund revenue projections during last week’s Emergency Board meeting. It was then that state economists offered Scott and legislative leaders their rare assurance that a recession is not on Vermont’s horizon, and other than the state’s transportation fund, revenues remain strong.

Clouser referred to the economists’ revenue projections as “welcome news” for the administration, “because prior to that revenue increase, we were looking at a budget that included cuts.”

“Thankfully, because we got that slight bump, we’re no longer in that position where we need to make cuts to balance the budget,” she continued. “However, we are still in a position where we have to make very targeted strategic investments, along with policy changes and tweaks in order to grow within our means.”

In that vein, Scott proposed to keep increases to general fund spending under 3.6% — a number that falls below the nation’s current rate of inflation. That number, the governor insisted, is “not arbitrary. I didn’t just pick it out of a hat.”

“It’s what we can do within available revenue, without new or higher taxes and fees,” Scott said in his speech. “I’m sure it’s no surprise to you, given the growing burden they already face, I don’t support asking Vermonters to pay more.”

Adam Greshin, Vermont’s commissioner of finance and management, told reporters shortly before the budget address that the budget proposal represents “slimmed-down growth” compared to the past several years, which were bolstered by historic influxes of federal cash — “But it is growth.”

Asked after the speech what she made of limiting general fund increases to under 3.6%, House Appropriations Committee Chair Rep. Diane Lanpher, D-Vergennes, told reporters, “the devil’s in the details.”

“What does it result in for services for Vermonters?” she pondered. “What are they going to do without because of that?”

Legislative leaders also took jabs at Scott for a speech that, in their view, offered much criticism of the Legislature’s spending and policies, but was short on solutions.

Most notably missing from the address, according to Sen. Pro Tem Baruth, were solutions to what he called the “elephant in the room”: an anticipated double-digit percentage increase in property taxes first flagged in the administration’s Dec. 1 letter, attributable to statewide education spending. That figure has since been updated by the administration to a 17.3% increase.

“The truth is, that’s the number-one concern for all of us in the building right now. I know it’s one of the governor’s No. 1 concerns,” Baruth told reporters after Scott’s speech. “He always uses phrases like, ‘Take things head on,’ ‘Do the hard work.’ If you’re going to do the hard work, if you’re going to take it head on, you would talk about that tax increase and say, ‘I can do this (as governor) from my end.’”

Scott did note the projected tax increase in his speech, saying that it was something that “none of us should be OK with.” But he also questioned the Legislature’s willingness to work collaboratively with the administration on the issue.

“I’m not naive,” Scott said. “Without a willing partner, I’m sure any proposal I put on the table will be used to drive divisive attacks and headline clicks, and we won’t get anything done.”

Covering the spending increase this budget cycle would cost the state $213 million, Scott said in his speech. Earlier Tuesday, Clouser told reporters that amount was unaffordable in an already tight budget proposal. Asked what solutions they would propose on Tuesday, both House and Senate leadership said they needed more time and committee hearings to come up with their strategies.

Asked whether she was optimistic that property taxes would not increase at that level, Rep. Emilie Kornheiser, a Brattleboro Democrat who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, told reporters it was too early to tell. Lawmakers need time to dig into the most updated data from the Agency of Education, she said, something she expects will happen later this week.

Roughly three weeks into the legislative session, the governor’s annual budget address marks a turning point when activity ramps up in the Statehouse. With a framework for state spending on the table, legislators begin making their tweaks and — depending on how much money is on the table — deciding what policies the state can afford to enact.

Ultimately, it’s legislators who write the final budget, or the so-called “big bill,” which is historically the last bill passed at the conclusion of the legislative session in May.