 All right six o'clock we'll get started. Hello I'm Hunter I am the director of telecommunications and connectivity for the public service department and this is our public listening section for VSA 248A so tonight we have Harley with us allow her to introduce herself so thank you all for coming the reason that we're here tonight is to talk about 248A and to get your input on potential changes you would like to see to make the process easier to engage with so the reason we're doing these is back in I think it was May the legislature passed H110 which was the extension of 248A which is the statute which dictates cell tower sightings within the state of Vermont it's one of the ways 248 or I'm sorry Act 250 is the other but 248A is the most prominent way that cell towers are cited within the state so every three years at Sunsets and every three years the legislature passes us another bill which extends the Sunset out three more years this year when they passed the bill to extend out the sunset they passed a provision which said the public service department would seek input from municipalities the utilities and the public on ways to make the process more accessible so that's why we're here that's what we're hoping to accomplish with this meeting in general I have a short presentation on what 248A is just a kind of level set so we all have some idea of what the statute entails and then it's just a public comment session Harley will take notes after I get through the presentation I'll give her her computer back so she doesn't have to write in a pencil and then we'll take these notes and we'll put them together and on or before January 15th we will present our report back to the legislature and what they do with it is up to them I can't dictate that but what I can do is make sure that the comments and the feedback that you give us during this process is given to them and we let them know what your opinion is on the statute so what is 248A there's three major players in the 248A process those are considered the three P's there's a public utilities commission which is the PUC the public service department which Harley and I represent and the petitioners the public utilities commission if any of you have dealt with the PUC the PUC is an independent quasi judicial agency that regulates the utilities in the state of Vermont I read that part because that's kind of written into exactly who they are within the state they operate a lot like a court I don't know if any of you have ever been to court but they conduct evidentiary hearings issue decisions that they refer to as order as they establish rules and procedures related to utility matters and then when they come to a final decision they either issue or deny the petition from the party seeking it in the form of a certificate of public good the public service department so who Harley and I represent we represent the public interest in proceedings before the PUC general relating to electricity telecommunications and cable companies so we are the regulatory authority for these agencies we're the ones who actually can regulate them in the event that something needs to happen and we need to step in and then there's the applicants or the petitioners so the applicants can initiate the 248 proceedings by filing an application with the PUC there are the parties to the proceedings and must represent their interest before the public utilities commission and typically in the state of Vermont is either the telecommunication providers or tower builders who are the ones that issue the or the ones that submit the 248 petitions to the public utilities commission so some of the considerations that are taken during the sitting of these telecommunication towers so the PUC considers many factors when choosing a site this is uh including but not limited to the availability the host property there needs to be a place to put the tower access to utilities you know if you just have a spot in the middle of a field it doesn't do much good you need to get power and fiber optic backhaul the ability to meet the service coverage goals which generally means how many people will the tower cover if it's erected and then the ability to co-locate equipment on existing structures so that means that if you have a tower 50 feet away the chances are you're not going to get approved to put another tower up right next to it if there's an existing structure we try to encourage co-location as much as possible most of the time when there's concerns with these they're resolved prior to the application actually being submitted I think I'm not sure if that was the case in Worcester if these were resolved prior to the application during the notice period but I've seen that happen in other places where the utility will have a meeting with the town before they even submit the application and basically the grievances will be aired and then the utility will decide whether or not to actually proceed with the application so this is a brief overview of the three types of 248A projects that we have we have a de minimis modification limited size and scope and then a full 248A project so the de minimis is kind of exactly what it sounds like it's the smallest type in general it involves adding a antenna or an attachment to a tower or a silo there's some height restrictions related to how big the tower and some restrictions on how much surface area can be impacted for instance can't increase the tower more than 300 feet it can't increase it 10 feet for that particular application it can't increase the aggregate surface area of the support structure by more than 75 square feet so one of the takeaways from this is that there's no advanced notice required for this type of project the utility can go decide they want to do a de minimis project and submit the application directly to the PUC I would say 85% of all the applications we see at the public service department are de minimis applications and most of them entail an existing structure where the utility wants to go in and replace an antenna that's five years old with an antenna that's brand new or something along those lines objections to these must be filed within 30 days of the day of the application so they it gets submitted and there's 30 days where objections can be filed in case someone has an issue with one of these de minimis modifications limited size and scope is the next one out these can be for new projects but they can't exceed 140 feet in total height they must remain under 200 feet after project completion they can't expand the width of the structure by more than 20 feet and they can't disturb more than 10,000 square feet of earth total these applications require a 60 day advance notice period prior to the application submission within 60 days of the application going in to the PUC it's expected that the public utilities commission will make a determination in the event the application raises a significant issue the public utilities commission has 90 days to issue their final order and then the full 248 a project these are big new communication pieces of infrastructure we don't see very many of these in fact I've been with the department I think seven or eight months now and I have yet to see one of these come through for a full project there's no higher size limitations on these the PUC must make a finding that the project will not have undue adverse effect on specific criteria and it requires 60 days of advance notice for this project type the PUC is expected to make their decision within 60 days and if a significant issue is raised then they're expected to make their final decision within 180 days of this application so undue adverse effects I think this is probably why a lot of people come to these and what people consider one of the sticking points is these are the issues or these are the adverse effects that the PUC will will look at when they decide whether or not to issue a certificate of public good so they can issue a CPG for a project if the following have not been violated aesthetics historic sites air and water purity natural environment public health and safety and the public use of enjoyment of 89 and 91 and any highway designated as a scenic corridor or a scenic road there's additional criteria written in the statue but I didn't copy it all down if you're interested all the Vermont statue is online it's it's not too difficult to find if you need help let us know and I'd be happy to send it to you so what happens if there's a significant issue raised during a 248 a proceeding there is and this is where the quasi-judicial nature of the PUC kicks in there's a pre-hearing conference which is going to it's decided how the case will be managed there's discovery around the petition there's an evidentiary hearing and then the final decision is issued by the PUC parties can appeal the decisions that the public utilities commission makes all the way up to the Vermont Supreme Court I don't know if folks realize that but that's a final authority so ways to participate in this process towns and cities can participate in the following three ways there is a right to request a public meeting with the applicant and the public service department so during that 60-day notice period the town can request a public meeting and the PSD will consider the comments and recommendations recommendations when it makes its recommendation to the public utilities commission they can submit comments and recommendations directly to the public utilities commission we'll go over that in the next slide on exactly how that's done and then they can file a right to intervene in the proceedings and become a formal party in the case so the comment process after the PUC receives a submission is any person wishing to file comments with the PUC is required to do so within the comment period this is for de minimis limited size and scope and then a full 248 project they have different comment periods 30 days for de minimis and I believe longer for 248 for full projects and limited size and scope um let's see comments on the limited size and scope must be filed with epoch by email to the clerk of the PUC or in paper form as long as there are not a motion to intervene in their request for a hearing and the comments from an individual have to be filed in epoch which has the online electronic system that's it I ran through it pretty quick because it's a very complex process and we could spend an hour and a half going into the minutiae of it but I wanted to give you folks an opportunity to ask questions and uh to get your input on how you potentially think this could be made easier to participate in and I'm going to give Harley back her computer now so she doesn't have to use pencil to take notes all right it's your meeting yes sir what's your sense about how a regular citizen can get standing to address the PUC I'm sure I wish we had one of the lawyers here I'm unsure if a regular citizen can file for standing as a PUC or if a town or municipality can't I can figure that out and get back to you I know that the town or municipality has the ability to file to be a party within the case but I don't know if a non adjoining landowner has the right to do that I would have to look that up and get back to you I think it's difficult and that's you're going we got an hour and 15 minutes let's let's hear it yeah well it would just it would just seem as though uh it would be beneficial to uh members of the PUC to hear uh what folks in the community think about a given uh proposed a structure or or or some alteration by the minimus or or such uh that would seem to be something that they would want to hear yet it's nearly impossible for regular citizens that is not uh joining uh land owners or town officials to get standing to address the PUC so it just seemed to clean that up would be unless they don't want to hear people but I don't think that's no I don't think that's the case so if I was to phrase that as a suggestion to put in this report it would be increased let's see how can we phrase that right so a an easier public comment mechanism for private or personal interested parties to comment to the PUC that summarize it is that is that okay I can add that I'm I won't quote that but I'll take this away as one of the themes that we got at this meeting was a the request for easier comment for individuals on PUC cases if you do have a comment I just want to put this out there if anyone has a comment that they would like me to copy verbatim from an email into this report please just email it to us and that way I can guarantee I'm not misquoting you and I'm also not taking away the the wrong general idea if you must send me an email I plan on making an addendum to this report which includes all the comments I received electronically and I will cut and paste it in there directly and then you can be guaranteed what you had to say makes it into the report but I think I understand what you're saying I don't disagree I think that a mechanism to make it easier for the public in general to provide comments to the PUC on their feelings around any particular citing would be useful I think that would definitely encourage participation yes ma'am our neighborhood and there was no way for the neighbors to weigh in on the project everyone was against it except the one person who stood to gain from the project and so but but no one else had standing no one else had the way to to move in I was an adjacent landowner so I could have had standing but that meant a lot of money because for me I would have to get a lawyer so the process seems a little weighted um I couldn't stand up against the lawyers of AT&T okay I've heard similar concerns uh I guess looking into results of the public survey that people have found it hard to participate in without legal counsel so we can definitely say that was another theme that came up is there any particular suggestion you think you could make that might help alleviate that like require a public hearing require posting a public hearing and a easier to find place you know for instance with these meetings we advertised on Frontport Forum and WCAX as our statewide advertiser I think um I think in general it depends on the town on how these get notified out to the town I think that's one other comment that I would make is that um our town and trust me I have you know I have a lot of respect for the people who are in the planning division and the select board and they put in a lot of time and effort but they weren't prepared for this situation um they didn't know how to handle it either and so it was relying on the town was difficult because they weren't prepared no I think I got you so I think that's kind of twofold one go back to the the making it easier for people to participate without needing to procure legal services or without without needing to get a lawyer to do some of this work and then potentially helping to prepare the towns prior to this happen so we got some of that feedback as well but I can reiterate that point and that it might be useful for some sort of crash course to be offered up to the municipalities on what a 248 a process entails so that in the event that they'd like to participate they've basically come to one of these but one of these aimed at municipalities and uh and their their place in this whole process right you know the towns certainly understood their place in the process but for instance our town plan had nothing in it to discuss the place themselves towers and it it was a scramble for the town to start researching what should go into our account plan and so now that's retroactively that's being worked on but at the time it was it wasn't helped to us so I'm unsure if the Vermont League of Cities and Towns has anything that can help out with that I know we had someone in St. Albans last week who mentioned a process that was outlined many many years ago that kind of assisted the towns with these potential issues that we're going to come up with telecommunication sightings and telecommunications towers and I know some towns have taken advantage of that and I've seen that um I've seen that make an impact for instance there was a tower and the town did have very specific statue on where a cell tower could be sighted and it came up and they brought that back to the utility and said we have statue within our town plan that's on the books and been approved and the utility took away took that and took away and said okay we'll try to find a better place for this tower but oftentimes I fear that utilities and municipalities might be on different schedules and that municipalities are not thinking about any of this until the time comes when a utility comes to get put up and at that point it's often too late for a lack of a better way to put it than to be able to get zoning statue on the books in the short amount of time you might have for one of these towers yep so uh since we're not being large with responses well I sort of prepared a couple of things that I I thought would be we were looking for feedback so I said okay if there's sort of suggestions I would have so let me shoot the first thing sort of what you're talking about is time the 60 day advance notice period is is inadequate the applicants uh have months to prepare these things and they are all practiced in the process so in our case and I'm from Worcester and there was a tower proposed to Worcester two years ago and and when when the town was alerted to this tower coming to town we what's more we had an ordinance that said you couldn't build a tower that was more than 20 feet taller than the surrounding crowded trees so we thought that it couldn't happen because it had problems anyway that we discovered that was inaccurate but it took us 60 days to even understand what was going on so that 60 day uh advance notice period I think is just wholly inadequate I would think of a more reasonable kind of the underneath use uh because it's uh that gives a town a chance to sort of catch its breath and for a town like Worcester where we have a volunteer select board and and and no town that everything's volunteer uh no full-time attorney you have to scramble to figure out what's going on okay so would you would you would you like to see 180 days on all the types or do you have different date thresholds for the different types or do you just I would think demandumus could be shorter but a limited the limited scale still 140 feet is a big tower most trees around are by 70 feet tall so that's still going to be 70 feet above the canopy trees in our case the tower proposed in our town is 198.16 so that's a hundred 30 feet above the canopy trees please bring the button that's something right please so you described the DPS as being the regulatory body so so in this process of the 60 day it didn't that if you love read the 208 a how the process should work it doesn't sound that bad but in our case at least in Worcester the whole process felt like it was slaughtered and nobody liked the regulatory body which maybe would have been the DPS spoke up about that for example when the proposal dropped on us and it said please call this number before you have correct questions the person at that number was on the permit vacation for release or four weeks or something so there was nobody I mean we did try to talk to somebody there was nobody to talk to that was right on the edge of Christmas so then the holidays started so already we're like four weeks into the the 60 days and we have not been able to reach anybody or talk to anybody so the applicant is is charged with providing telling them certain information like propagation maps and surveys that they've done how many phone calls that would that was not forthcoming at the beginning many phone calls to get those maps and the finally game again normal human beings reading propagation maps was kind of impossible fortunately we have an electrical engineer in the family so we could find one and and understand it and what we learned by understanding them that they were totally incomplete there was nothing that was there that was allowed us to compare what they were proposing to what is so on every level our information was adequate the timing was inadequate we had nobody to turn to and there wasn't anybody from the regulatory body that seemed to be holding the applicants to the fire so I guess my comment would be what is the role of the regulatory body and can they work for both sides so I'm going to quote statue and say the public service department replacements of public interest in 248 a proceedings said I've been here seven months I apologize I did follow that case I watched all the hearings on youtube I'm the new clay purpose yeah I took over for clay so if we can kind of change that into a suggestion I can include in this report it sounded like the first part was that some of the information that you would have wanted to see in the original application was difficult to get so and complete and readable so I can do timely and complete but I can't make anybody a telecommunications engineer propagation maps are hard to read even for me at times so I can uh I can do timely complete and readable but I can't guarantee readable but what I can do is I can put in a comment that says we got feedback that when would you like that information included or would you I can say easier to get but that's kind of a generic comment that's right hold on I want to I want to get this button up and then this this may have had our hand up we lost weeks so we've got longer notice period you get that and then it sounded like required information included with the initial application or at the beginning of the notice period I think that that was what you were getting at good so number two I consider collaboration it seems to me that mandated and enforced collaboration between municipalities state officials and developers should happen before signing and design our final lines so developer wants to come to Worcester and build a tower that person should come and work together with the town to figure out where the best place to build is and what's the best kind of tower to build is so that that can be a collaborative efforts of the towns always angry I think that when you're building a big tower even 140 foot which is not a big difference firstly all towns fight these things if it's a demerit thing like you said 85 percent or more but not they're almost all five of their big and so to make that whole process be not such an onerous situation it's far better to get the town municipality to buy in on this right from the getaway I agree how do we and maybe a way to to handle that I said so between the municipality state officials and the applicant making the state officials could be sort of some sort of an ombudsman provided by the PUC to sort of help the municipalities through this process recognizing that they are virtually all conflicted hands come when this sort of thing happens to that town so help the towns through it so the town feels like the state is helping me I'm not all alone here I can sort of understand the process makes it to make it so much easier there are people in the state who are very very helpful don't charge anything but they're way overworked and and quite imagine how long they can do what they're doing but without some of those people I think little communities like ours would be absolutely unable to again okay so sounds like there was two takeaways for not one was the abuzzment did you get that the PUC or the PST to provide an interface to municipalities and the 248 projects where they could kind of have a go to and then the other piece the other thing is that was a collaboration how do we collaboration between the town the state and the applicant to work on this before siting and design of a tower is completed or contemplated or at least completed so so far in my limited experience what I have been told is one of the hardest things for utilities to find in terms of siting a tower is a willing landowner who has property in a position that's going to offer a wide amount of coverage so I've made this suggestion elsewhere internally I think it would be in the public's best interest of the public service department kind of took the helm and tried to act as a middleman to connect people with land to utilities and I think you're saying you would like to make sure that the town is also involved in that so that it's a it's all three it's the cider it's the landowner in the town before a tower goes in and I don't think maybe this is me just being idealistic I don't think the utilities want to put towers in where they're not wanted the utilities don't want to force their way in necessarily they want to go and find people who are willing participants in towns who want their service but I do agree that there's that disconnect between those three parties between the landowner the municipality and the utility in terms of siting these and I think that's often what leads to some of the conflict when these these come up I wish I shared your optimism about that these tower companies I'm I'm still naive so and so I I hope maybe things have changed in the last two years but that was not that was not our response anyway my third suggestion is that environmental and health risks need to be contemplated the 96 1996 telecommunications act prevents the valuation of the telecom towers and radiofrequency radiation based on environmental effects communications act is based on 30 year old science at least 30 years old or likely 40 or so I'm a retired ER 30 year old science I don't think anybody would want themselves or members of their family treated for that kind likewise I don't think that people in the state of Vermont want the evaluation of RFR to come from 30 or 40 year old science they wanted to come from science that is evolving and is much much more easy and the overwhelming weight of recent studies show that at the very least we need to be concerned about the safety of the tower so it seems to me that the state has a responsibility to protect the health safety and welfare of the citizens and if it does it does not evaluate this recent literature it is not doing that and so at the very least it seems to me that the state should develop a commission to evaluate the environmental and health effects as one's done in the state of New Hampshire so I'll say that we in Vermont are federally preempted from making decisions based on the health impacts or potential health impacts of RF radiation so we are not allowed to take that into account in any of our decision-making process I have heard similar comments from other folks during this and I think we can say that this was echoed here where the public would like to see the state take a lead in doing something in terms of investigation of the potential health impacts of RF radiation yeah I understand that you are you are you're preemptive preempt state law state law municipal law I get that but when federal law is so obviously outdated and unwilling to even look at new information at some point you have to stand up and say this is just nuts now I'm not saying that I think that there's a lot of information on there and it's just that the preponderance of the thousands of articles that exist and evaluate RFR the preponderance it shows that there are big concerns and uh as a state we we can't stick our head in the sand and that's exactly what we're doing and so almost all the states are doing it because no one wants to buck the FCC we don't make sure that makes it in there it's the best I can do I can't I can't tell them to to do the study but I do understand your concern and I can make sure that your comment is passed on up to the legislature thank you comments okay by the way well it's been a couple of years since I've dealt with this the missing element there is in this case in our case this was again a residential neighborhood and there were many neighbors who were interested effective who had no way of having to say in this process and so it seems to me that there's a missing element there the community the town didn't necessarily align with our community so with our neighborhood and so that seemed like a missing missing element there was no way for those people to have any say in the process is public service more where that should happen I don't know the answer to that but how do those people so any individual can input a comment into the epoch system during a sighting during a 248a sighting do you mean somehow have standing above and beyond the comment as the public comment period and I guess it would depend on I'm not exactly sure how to make that happen I know that the abutting landowner you know they're an interested party but if your strip of land is only 50 feet wide or 100 feet wide because you're on a small building plot and the next land over the next piece is not necessarily abutting and falls under a different set of rules how big would you like to see that sphere increased I guess would be a question so we can try to formulate how to put this into the statute I just put it out there that there are people impacted who have no way of weighing in other than to make a comment so something along the lines of maybe increase the impacted area for impacted landowners or individuals does that kind of sum up I guess that my point is it's not just the abutting landowners impacted by a project where I am trying to think of how to word it to impact probably in 2015 15 homes that were impacted visually or distance wise I think I got the general theme increase the distance as opposed to just abutment for impacted people and come up some more articulate when I'm not standing up here but this gentleman spoke to that and I think it's important is that there's a what kind of situation like that I don't have the information that the AT&T has or whoever it is the applicant I don't have that information and so is there a way people like me can get support in understanding the process and making my standing or my opinion at all the only way that we were able to do it was to hire a lawyer that's pretty expensive a neighbor stood to gain spent a lot of money a neighbor stood to gain and so that just seems unjust is there a way that the public service can go forward and help represent officers I think we've we've gotten similar comments in terms of easier participation for the public and for municipalities we can definitely say that that was echoed again I think one of the suggestions that had come in was related to offering kind of the crash course that other people had spoke to for municipalities that one came in and writing maybe from you so that's been echoed a couple of times as well but are you suggesting some sort of kind of public information along what the lines of what we're doing here but less public input and more with the public service department or the public utilities commission kind of coming in and explaining the minutiae of the 248A process to towns you could provide that information so that common citizen who's impacted by a project like this understands the process I personally will provide anything you ask me to if you email me at hunter.tompson.vermont.gov I am happy to give you all the information and explain it to the best of my ability which is mostly right but no, I know what you mean but it was a kind of search for where do I learn about this okay, so easier access to information about 248A are you okay with that being on the website or being published in electronic format or even YouTube videos whatever the case may be you mentioned that there is a topic here a place for a different kind you see, hearing perhaps I mean I've heard some people say maybe there should be an open hearing instead of having all this done by sort of deposition like things that then it goes to the TUC and they meet in the dark room somewhere and review all this stuff that there's actually an open hearing where people can speak and rebut things that are presented so maybe that's a better idea so if that was the case do you see that being led by the Public Utilities Commission or by the municipality or it's to me that this would as file that it dealt for example they've gone through the 60-day period then the 30-day whatever that came up with that's called a response period or something and now it goes to the TUC some others are hearing and rather than gathering all this stuff sent in by the electronic needle some sort of if there's actually a hearing where people sit down in a room TUC sits behind that's where it's a little black clothes and and there are people that are saying we're not so excited about this talk and so people talk and the college will say everyone in your town loves it and the town said it's not exactly right so you can actually rebut what's said I mean is that a possibility? I can make sure to suggest it so public hearing with the PUC for any application that has a significant issue raised I think that's it right to me that's a lot more transparent what you're asking for whatever you're asking for is make the whole process transparent let's get this out into the open and the way the PUC acts now as I understand it you didn't go to the PUC thankfully it stopped before that it seems to me that that's the most transparent way of having this sort of thing occur yeah there's kind of a strange juxtaposition there when you have that advanced notice period and you have that public hearing but the PUC is not directly involved yet because the petition has not been submitted to the PUC so you have this kind of I don't want to say good faith public hearing because the public hearing is is done but the PUC is not really it's not an application or it's not a petition yet so the PUC isn't involved so potentially doing that sort of same public hearing after the petition is in place and the PUC is involved but on the other the flip side of that is that as you've seen in case with the Worcester Tower as well as the other tower that was withdrawn during the public comment period if it can be resolved before going to the PUC it saves having to go through that quasi-judicial process so I'm not sure how to circle that square but I do know what you're saying I just don't have a good answer yet I apologize I mean we had a public we had a public meeting it wasn't a hearing it was a meeting where what was going on and then we invited the tower and they saw what was going on and then I saw several other similar hearings in different towns around the state and I and so sort of see how these things were presented and in many of those hearings sort of further suggestions by the applicants and you kind of question how straightforward some of the suggestions are anyway that's why it seemed to me that it went beyond that to the PUC hearing that that could be an open and open meeting we will definitely include that as a suggestion I don't disagree yep I'm just listening Peter stand up here for another 40 minutes you guys are all welcome to stand you could sit down I can ask a question I missed the first two minutes coming in here can you review the municipal responsibility of this process again the proposed process what do you mean responsibility I know there do they have an official role responsibility so I don't believe they have an official responsibility I think responsibility implies that they are required to participate and in more than one occasion these applications will be submitted approved and the certificate of public good will be issued with no involvement from anybody from individuals or from municipalities but municipalities do have a right to participate so while it's not a responsibility they do have a right to participate and I find the slide so towns and cities may participate in the following three ways the municipality has a right to request a public meeting with the applicant and the public service department so during the 60 day comment period or 60 day notice period rather the host town can request a public meeting and the PSD will consider comments and recommendations to the public utilities commission the town can submit their comments and recommendations directly to the public utilities commission they can either file those electronically through the epoch system or in writing or via email to the clerk which is actually just I think what is it, clerk.puc at vermont.gov and then they can file a right to intervene and become a formal party in the proceeding and they will be able to participate in participating so those are the three ways that towns and municipalities can participate but I don't believe they have that responsibility they're not forced to that's a choice that they make and those are the three avenues that they can they can pursue for these type of applications I'm not sad that Mike died alright I'll be here but you guys are welcome to stay keep talking to me I don't know if you're going to keep recording just me sitting around I announced it till 7.30 so I'm not going to officially till 7.30 but like I said it's going to be Harley and I sitting around here so if you feel like wandering back in do so I'd love to talk to you after as a citizen as opposed to my role in the public service department so thank you all for attending we will do our best to make sure that your comments and themes are included in our report and again if you have anything you would like copied and pasted so that you can ensure that I didn't misrepresent what was said please send it to me in an email and I will copy and paste it directly out of your email into our report to the legislature on the screen I added our department our division's email so myself Karen Brasser who is not here with us tonight he is our project manager and Hunter who received that email so any questions all three of us will get a few comments to this one thank you all