draft several meetings ago the select board authorized the submission of a number of elevation applications to the hazard mitigation great program a lot of this was pos eileen money that still left over but i believe we had applications twenty three applications from richmond for homes within the special flood hazard area to elevate them above the base flood television the reason we would do that would be to lower the flood insurance premiums that they would be required to have substantially lower them every time you don't home is below the if they're approved it will require a fair bit of management interaction with the state interaction with homeowners going out to bid for contractors making sure the elevations are done correctly making sure the money is available to pay making sure the reimbursements are made for the greater program and finally close out these projects could potentially take a year or more to complete and carol bellamy did the initial solicitations for these green projects i think it's only natural that the select board going to contract with kara to manage these through her company right you know it's really doing twenty three of these would be taxing on town staff that would have to hire somebody when they're the other to try to get things done change there was no real amendment to it claire feels that with the two thousand and ten census data and some other items that we really need to do more revisions so the consultant would help with some of the plan wording but would also help with public outreach and some other tasks she doesn't have a firm budget yet but anything any time you apply for funding over a certain amount you have to have a twenty percent match and it has to be cash so the maximum funding we could get would be forty thousand dollars and we'd have to have six thousand dollars of a match and we do have thirty one hundred  services or contracts money in the current year playing budget and will have to play gas for thirty one hundred next year that would cover the batch for what we're talking about which would be less than forty thousand dollars this the cash match is there any risk or downside to using that budgeted funds for this purpose do we lose anything or lose any future know you don't except for maybe an opportunity cost to engage a consultant for for something else part of the reason why we created this line was in the past these plain grades come up every couple of years and the question is always where you get the match and you never had the answer to that other than we we would try to find funding available or in the past they allowed you to use in kind as part of your match and they don't do that  so this is this is the kind of project that that budget line is there for i we don't have any other projects within the next nine months that we're aware of that we would dedicate these funds is really just committing to providing the man should you get the award so right we're looking for a resolution so we want to move the resolution yes so move that w so i want to ask a question about this now a that is saying that we agreed to the match if we would question more if we request the twenty thousand dollars in grant money so we agree to match or is that saying that we will match up to eight thousand dollars now if amounts before the public service board i've communicated this to you already because there was a deadline of last friday to get all these decisions made we have decided to end the fight on the a towers we tell project for two reasons the first really has to do with the contents of that decision from the hearing officer and white ion our attorney jerry the town's bylaws are are ignored their preempted therefore they don't exist in the public service board's free to make any decision they want in absence of any of  that and again we are frustrated and we sort of try to correct some of those errors and restate our case knowledge in the end it doesn't mean anything because they're free to do as they wish the degree the second event and also the second reason we're giving up the fight is that at the last legislative session the legislature told the public service board defined two terms which are in the two forty eight a legal framework good cause and substantial deference and for the benefit of the public all read this paragraph two forty eight a c t reads in part unless there is good cause to find otherwise the board is required to give substantial deference to the land conservation measures in the play into the effect of this of college days and the recommendations of the really municipal legislative bodies and the municipal and regional planning commissions regarding the municipal and regional planes so when you read that intuitively you think that the town's plans should be given substantial deference by the board unless there's a really good reason not to so those terms are still sort of vague because they were undefined they were a moving target and the public service board could  strengthen or weaken them or their reliance on those terms as they saw fit so they have to find them now in all read the definitions for the benefit of the public but i do find the definitions very disheartening sort of substantial substantial deference means to give significant in meaningful way to the land conservation measures in the plains of the affected municipalities and the recommendations of the municipal legislative bodies and the municipal and regional planning commissions regarding the municipal and regional plans respectively so when you read that it sort of reinforces what what you might think of two forty eight town plans even though the town planes don't provide the level of regular tory detail the bylaws do that's not too bad but good cause they defined as means of showing that deferring to the lane conservation measures in the plains of the affected me a surprise in the recommendations of the municipal legislative bodies and we just pull in regional planning commission regarding the real small regional plans respectively would be detrimental to the public good or the state's interests articulated in thirty v s a t section two hundred two c so what they have done here is to say giving substantial deference to towns that's detrimental to the state's interest which is articulated in a separate legal section they're going to find good cause to ignore arguments and in fact it really mandates that good cause is already found to where your argument so it's a matter of if you decide to raise an issue that issue itself defeats itself in this legal section because if it in any way is detrimental to the state's interest they're going to ignore it they have to so the stronger your argument the more quickly it's thrown out it's useless to fight these two forty eight projects and longer because they've sealed the deal it's a clear racket anybody that comes in and if they can prove even in the least way that their telecommunications project improves coverage anywhere whatever that means it's got to be approved the public service board in my opinion reduced their role from a quasi judicial judicial body to merely an administrative review board measuring the application as to how well it improves service coverage and nothing else it is really just a matter of did you do it then that's fine nobody can say anything against it we've spent fifteen thousand three hundred forty four dollars filing fee till only to have at the end the door slammed shut i think it's a clear defeat not only for richmond but for every town in the state if any more of these projects come through my we just cannot do anything until something changes you also included jeff a document from our current statutory regulatory structure if all the cards are stacked against us is it worth playing the hard game right and when we went into this last december i think we had some hope that our something would matter that we had or at least we would fight for our on or at the very least and be heard on our merits in front of the public service board at this point anyway that's clearly not the case the state's very clear in section thirty vs a section to it to see that they desire improved broadband wireless telecommunications services throughout the state if you say anything against them you're done to i heard limited enthusiasm about take this information draft a protest letter to be delivered to you know brian mean the only read the only remedy here is legislated and then there will be probably not much of a remedy but at least we are on record saying this is not the way it should be without spending more money more in the lines for lighting   originally the board it said they wanted to take a first review two weeks after it was posted that will be on wednesday so obviously it's open to the till now or the select board wants to proceed with that but if anybody out there is interested get something in writing to me as soon as you can tell for that immediately to the select board will determine how to best candidates and make an appointment i didn't really read every that section and i do agree that it is at the discretion of the select board so if the site board wants to appoint another water sewer use i personally don't have a problem with that i would do it well i got a sense from users that there was a certain sentiment anyway that they'd like to see more users the select board i mean on the commission i'm sorry if you select for kicks do you think ok i think it's not an issue in any specific meeting but there are future agenda i mean cities i think it would be helpful to have five i don't have a strong feeling does it have to be a select board member i g they're looking at several more weeks of gravel before they're done but they've got the base of gravel on there working on the top gravel will probably do it be doing that for quite a final site visit and get reimbursed looks like it's going to be within or timeframe that was required and i think that they've got the zipper construction we haven't updated works in progress is there anything to highl that nothing in particular we are going to be starting or budget process of the next we'll be doing the capital budget in the first look at the department budgets perfect and the department budgets following that we will need to schedule session for an apartment to come in that may be a special session live to do i think it will ya is there any particular guidance that you have is so yeah you know it think that would be good to really see justification for capital projects that are coming through especially ones that may not be in line with the budget ask for a department that's to be ready to talk about where they feel we are in the capital in their capital where we're kind of coming to that point where we're almost going to come to the end of the capital plan but we're coming to a point where we've  done a lot of major projects in it and we need to start thinking about the next step is you know are we just repeating this or are we talking about different equipment for the next time so i want to know basically is this work great are probably the would be a solar project somewhere in the g n p to service territory but not in the town of richmond we would be buying electricity through under the vermont's group that metering regulation a second point on this was something that heinz burger had a public meeting a couple weeks ago now on their proposed energy ordinance downtown in chicago residential energy zero nine zero for work by vermont gas on bridge street and depot street lingeringly on the roof will be removed and disposed of approximate hundred pieces and and twenty two by the love and peace of pennsylvania black slate will be used for those repairs existing rich cattle be secured neoprene roof screws the lower perfect but right words jeff there were a couple questions that there is an item here for fifteen hundred dollars to environmental hazards