# Council Environmental Quality Committee - March 13, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 13, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2432 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2432?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-03-13 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 17,345 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Environmental Quality Committee met on March 13, 2012, at 11:00 A.M., with Blues presiding. The committee addressed five agenda items during the session, taking four votes and hearing one public comment. The committee approved two substantive items: the Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assurance Program and the Empower Lexington Plan Resolution. The committee also received an informational presentation on Division of Water Quality Projects. In addition to these items, the committee heard public comment and reviewed items referred to the committee for consideration. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on March 13, 2012: * Blues * Stinnett * Gorton * Farmer * Crosbie * Myers * McChord * Martin * Henson * Lane No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to Form Capacity Assurance Task Force** [timestamp: 1:02:26] A motion to form the Capacity Assurance Task Force to guide the development of the Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assurance Program was made by Blues and seconded by Martin. The motion passed by voice vote with no opposition. All ten members voted in favor: Blues, Stinnett, Gorton, Farmer, Crosbie, Myers, McChord, Martin, Henson, and Lane. **Amendment to Empower Lexington Energy Plan Resolution – Annual Reporting Requirement** [timestamp: 1:42:58] An amendment to the Empower Lexington Energy Plan Resolution was proposed by Cordon and seconded by Martin. The amendment requires the Department of Environmental Quality to report annually on progress toward energy reduction goals. The amendment passed by voice vote with no opposition. All ten members voted in favor: Blues, Stinnett, Gorton, Farmer, Crosbie, Myers, McChord, Martin, Henson, and Lane. **Amendment to Empower Lexington Energy Plan Resolution – Government Actions Reporting** [timestamp: 1:49:14] A second amendment to the Empower Lexington Energy Plan Resolution was made by Lane and seconded by McCord. This amendment requires the annual report to include actions taken by urban county government to reduce energy consumption. The amendment passed by voice vote with no opposition. All ten members voted in favor: Blues, Stinnett, Gorton, Farmer, Crosbie, Myers, McChord, Martin, Henson, and Lane. **Adoption of Empower Lexington Energy Plan Resolution as Amended** [timestamp: 1:50:17] A motion to adopt the Empower Lexington Energy Plan Resolution as amended was made by Martin and seconded by Cordon. The motion passed by voice vote with no opposition. All ten members voted in favor: Blues, Stinnett, Gorton, Farmer, Crosbie, Myers, McChord, Martin, Henson, and Lane. ## Public Comment Edward Cushy addressed the council regarding LFUCG's regulation of agricultural pollution in South Elkhorn Creek [timestamp: 1:51:27]. Mr. Cushy criticized the local government for exempting large livestock properties from water quality management fees. He expressed concern that despite these exemptions, such properties contribute significantly to pollution of South Elkhorn Creek through manure runoff and direct animal waste. Mr. Cushy called for accountability and enforcement of the consent decree, indicating that current regulatory practices do not adequately address agricultural pollution sources in the waterway. ## Contested Items **Energy Reduction Goal of 1% Annually** Council members debated the proposed energy reduction goal of 1% annually. The disagreement centered on whether this target was sufficiently ambitious and whether adequate accountability mechanisms were in place. Several council members expressed concern that the 1% annual reduction goal was too modest. They argued that the target lacked sufficient accountability measures to ensure compliance and progress toward the stated objective. In response to these concerns, multiple amendments were proposed to strengthen the proposal. These amendments focused on two key areas: - Enhanced reporting requirements to provide greater transparency and oversight of energy reduction efforts - Clarification of long-term objectives to establish a more comprehensive framework beyond the annual targets The item resulted in a split vote among council members, indicating that consensus was not reached on the original proposal as presented. The amendments reflected an effort by some members to address the perceived weaknesses in accountability and long-term planning before moving forward with the energy reduction initiative. ## Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assurance Program (1-15) Director Charlie Martin presented the Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assurance Program (CAP), a consent decree requirement designed to ensure that new sewer connections do not overload the system. [timestamp: 0:04:53] **Program Components** The presentation outlined four key components of the program: - **Capacity determination** — establishing available sewer capacity - **Credit banking** — tracking and allocating capacity credits - **Essential service exceptions** — provisions for critical infrastructure connections - **Database development** — creating a robust system to manage program data **Implementation Focus** Martin emphasized the need for a comprehensive database to support the program's operations and ensure effective capacity management across the system. **Committee Action** The committee approved the formation of a Capacity Assurance Task Force to guide the program's implementation. This task force will oversee the development and execution of the CAP framework. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. ## Empower Lexington Plan Resolution (16-17) The committee discussed and amended a resolution supporting the Empower Lexington Energy Plan [timestamp: 1:14:04]. The plan aims to reduce Fayette County's energy use by 1% annually through voluntary actions. **Key Speakers and Discussion** Susan Bush, Tom Webb, and Mark York participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Amendments Adopted** The committee adopted amendments to the resolution that strengthened its requirements: - Annual reports on progress toward energy reduction goals - Documentation of government energy reduction efforts **Outcome** The resolution passed with unanimous support from the committee. ## Division of Water Quality Projects (18-20) Director Charlie Martin presented an update on the Division of Water Quality's ongoing and upcoming projects [timestamp: 1:04:06]. **Current Projects** Martin reported that two major pump station projects are progressing on schedule: - Deep Springs Pump Station - Dixie Pump Stations **Upcoming Projects** The division is planning additional infrastructure improvements, including: - Wolf Run Pump Station - Stormwater improvements **Key Coordination Efforts** Martin emphasized the importance of coordinating with the Streets and Roads division to avoid repeated pavement damage during construction and maintenance activities. This coordination is intended to streamline project implementation and reduce disruption to roadways. **Outcome** This item was presented for informational purposes, with no action required. ## Public Comment Edward Cushy addressed the committee during the public comment period, raising concerns about agricultural pollution affecting South Elkhorn Creek. [timestamp: 1:50:49] Cushy specifically highlighted unregulated agricultural pollution from livestock manure runoff as a significant water quality issue. He questioned the current regulatory framework, noting that agricultural polluters appear to be exempt from water quality management fees despite the existence of a consent decree that governs pollution control measures. The comment was informational in nature, with no formal action or decision required from the committee as a result of the remarks presented. ## Items Referred During this agenda item, the committee reviewed referred matters without making any changes to the existing referrals. No recommendations were made to add or remove items from the referral list. [timestamp: 1:53:42] Following this review, the committee proceeded to adjourn the meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to form the Capacity Assurance Task Force to guide the development of the Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assurance Program - **Motion** — passed: Amendment to the Empower Lexington Energy Plan Resolution requiring the Department of Environmental Quality to report annually on progress toward energy reduction goals - **Motion** — passed: Amendment to the Empower Lexington Energy Plan Resolution requiring the annual report to include actions taken by urban county government to reduce energy consumption - **Motion** — passed: Motion to adopt the Empower Lexington Energy Plan Resolution as amended --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm out. guitar solo and take your places and we can get this meeting going. I would point out just for the sake of accuracy and timekeeping that that clock is about five minutes slow. So once we're settled, we can start the meeting. Oh, no, you don't. I've never... I'm right in time. We do have a quorum, and so welcome to the meeting of the Environmental Quality Committee for March 13, 2012, we have a major item on today's agenda, and that is a report from Director of Water Quality Charlie Martin on the Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assurance Program, which needs to begin to get moving, and this is the first big step. Charlie, thank you for being here. Thank you, Council Member Blues. you know it seems like i'm always up here talking about the consent decree and we've been really focusing on stormwater stuff or remedial measures capital projects there's a lot of other components of that and here's another layer of the things that we're dealing with as far as with the uh the consent decree and specifically this is the sanitary sewer capacity assurance program i'm gonna try to walk you through a few slides try to describe to you what this is and where we are as far as implementing this component of the consent decree. As I said, the CAP is it's a consent decree required sanitary sewer program. It's pretty fundamental in a part of EPA's programs called CMOM, Capacity Management, Operation, and Maintenance. So obviously it's the C in CMOM. Why we're doing this is basically EPA wanted assurances that Lexington, isn't just fixing its sanitary sewer system while at the same time overloading it with customers. The driver of the consent decree is a lack of capacity during wet weather, and so if we're going to be making remedial measures, capital project improvements, that's going to control things on one end, but on the other end is controlling that we don't allow new service connections to where we never really ever catch up. We just continue to allow it to be unsustainable or unacceptable from their point of view. This is out of the consent decree. There are specific cap components that are really important and fundamental to this. One is how we determine sanitary sewer capacity. Over the last several years, we've invested over $10 million in assessing our sanitary sewer system, which would include a development of a hydraulic model, field investigations to find out where the problems are and how we can go about fixing them. But determining that sanitary sewer capacity is the first step of that. Second is how do we ensure that capacity is available before we authorize new extensions or tap-ons to the system? Thirdly is how do we keep track of increases and decreases in sanitary sewer capacity? I've got some examples in some later slides, but basically, you know, the increases obviously come from new customers or expanded service from existing customers. Decreases come from a variety of components, from as simply as tearing a building down, but all the way to a capital rehabilitation program that would restore capacity in the system. So it's going to be really important how we go about tracking the increases and decreases. Essentially, it's like a bank statement or a bank account that you're making withdrawals and you're making deposits on a pretty regular basis. So the importance of a database to manage that program is critical. It will be very complex for the system wide in that a robust database is a fundamental component of it. Lastly is the details and assumptions associated with the hydraulic calculations. We've got 1,400 miles of sanitary sewer with over 30,000 manholes. I'm confident in the accuracy of the model up to a point that it is a mathematical representation of a complex system. And so there will always be some level of subjectivity, and we need to be able to make those things clear to folks what assumptions or what type of calculations went into determining whether someone has capacity or not. The outcome of those critical components is this. Again, this is also right out of the consent decree. The Capacity Assurance Program will enable LFUCG to authorize new sewer service connections or increases in flow from existing service connections only after LFUCG has determined, based on CAP procedures, that there are these three elements, adequate treatment capacity, adequate transmission capacity, and adequate collection capacity. And we'll talk about those things in a little bit. The treatment capacity part of it is probably really pretty obvious, that prior to authorizing some type of connection, we must certify that the new flow combined with the existing flow will not result in the treatment plant being bypassed. There's too much flow coming through there, and it just can't even get to the treatment plant. But secondly, the second one, result in noncompliance. Even if we can get it into the plant, that it causes it to fail its process and thus fail and violate its permit conditions for discharging into the creek. So it's pretty fundamental, but obviously we can't undermine our treatment plant capacity by allowing new connections once the cap is in place. And we have to consider the present and the proposed, because we're going to make commitments through the course of this that are going to take time to actually show up as actual flows. So you're going to have existing ones that you've committed to, and then the next one you're getting ready to commit to. And being able to keep track of all those to don't realize that you go over your bank is going to be a challenge. On the adequate transmission capacity is that we have to certify that any pump station receiving new flow has the capacity to transmit one-hour peak flow. This may be obvious to some of them, but other folks maybe it's not obvious, is that sewer flow is not consistent through the course of the day. Usually in the morning it ramps up really high and then it drops back down during the daytime. and then at night when we all go to bed, it ramps back up again. It's what we call the diurnal curve. So when they talk about one-hour peak flow, that's what they're taking into consideration. It's not the lowest point of the day, but actually the highest point of the day. Again, it's to consider existing, proposed, and then future flows. Lastly, adequate collection capacity. Same scenario. we've got to demonstrate that we've got one-hour peak flow capacity for existing, committed, and proposed connections. But there's one other caveat to it is this without surcharge conditions. And so I've already talked a little bit about that peak flow, but I want to go into what surcharge conditions are. For a gravity sewer, because it operates under atmospheric pressure, it just flows downhill like a stream or a creek or anything else. But once it gets so full, it gets under pressure because the pipe is completely filled and then the manholes start filling up. Those pipelines were never designed to do that. So when they do that, there's the risk of not only the manhole overflowing, but also the sewage exfiltrating or going outside the joints or other breaks in the pipe. So EPA was pretty adamant is that unless a sewer was designed to operate under pressure, we're not going to allow you to exceed certain conditions. conditions, and that's what surcharge conditions mean, is that for a gravity pipeline is that it cannot be more than 24 inches above the top of the pipe. Those pipes are sometimes 8 or 9 feet deep, and so as the water rises up in the manhole, it can only be 24 inches above the top of the pipe or within 3 feet of the manhole rim because you've got some sewers that are super shallow. The one that's down there on Richmond Road right there next to the reservoir, the one it overflows pretty regularly i could stand in that manhole and you guys could see me it's barely waist deep so that 24 inch thing is somewhat of a misnomer that's where the three feet from the manhole rim plays into it the whole reason why they do that is to again try to avoid the potential of exfiltration of sewage into the groundwater and into the ground because that is still considered to be an unpermitted release and although the pictures in here don't always come out really great. I mean, here's a classic example of one. This manhole is completely full. It's not overflowing, but it would not meet the CAP criteria because, you know, I'll say that at least five times in the course of this, is that it would not meet the CAP criteria. Okay, how a CAP works. We have to certify capacity, and by we meaning either LFUCG or a duly authorized representative of LFUCG. And if capacity doesn't exist, it doesn't meet the criteria of the cap, it doesn't mean that we say no, that we can use credits that we have developed in a watershed or in a particular area as a means to authorize the additional sewer flow. The whole purpose of that is to try to be able to utilize repairs, new development, other things to help fix your system. So if you've got people out there aggressively repairing things and allowing some portion of that recovered flow to be returned to customers, that creates a motivation to where you're incrementally getting better. And we'll talk a little bit about that in a couple of slides here as far as examples. But the capacity recovery credits must be obtained from work that's associated with the sewer infrastructure that doesn't meet the criteria. So, for example, we'll use that same manhole there on Richmond Road. If it fails to meet the CAP criteria, you can't go over and do something off of South Broadway and count that as a credit because those two are not related to one another as far as the way sewage flows. They're in completely different drainage areas. And so any credit you get from working on South Broadway does not apply to Richmond Road. Okay, so here's some examples of how credits work in very general terms. This is somewhat confusing, and you'll see in the next slide here I even blew my math myself. And so my third grader, who I'm working with on fractions right now, would be terribly disappointed with me for blowing that number. But it probably underscores the need of having a computer program. But for capacity-enhancing projects, which are typically offline storage, the big storage tanks that we've talked about through the remedial measures plans, or the simple removal of connections, tearing down buildings or unused homes or things like that, you get a credit for that. But it's a ratio of not necessarily a one-to-one. West Hickman, because it's considered to be the worst of the problems for sanitary sewer overflows, is you only got a 1.5 to 1 ratio of credits for building offline storage or removing those connections. All the others, since they're not considered to be as bad, you get a 1 to 1 ratio. So, for example, in West Hickman, if you tear down a building that was generating 150 gallons per minute, You don't get the whole 150 gallons, you only get 100 because it's a 1.5 to 1 ratio. Now if you do that in Wolf Run, you get the whole 150 gallons. So here's an example of where they're trying to utilize the rehabilitation things to offset future connections and not make the situation worse. other types of credits that we can get that don't involve offline storage or removal of connections you see that there's a varying ratio again more geared towards west hickman as far as having the most conservative approach because of its large number of recurring sso's in that drainage area but you see a four to one for west hickman to three to one for all the other sewer sheds and that's when it applies to a recurring SSO. And a recurring SSO is capitalized because it's defined specifically and listed specifically in the consent decree. Now that last bullet is important because we do have some pipes in Fayette County that don't meet the CAP criteria, which is the two-year, 24-hour storm, but it's not overflowing either. So it doesn't involve a recurring SSO, But we still want to be able to gather the credits that we need for that area because somebody may want to connect to it at some point in time. So EPA allowed a two-to-one ratio for all sewer sheds where we make repairs in that category that are not related to a recurring sanitary sewer overflow. So here's the West Hittman example, and here's where I blew my number, is that you eliminate four 10-gallon-a-minute sump pumps, and what you end up getting is it's not 5 to 10 gallons per minute, but it's actually 10 to 20. So like I said, there's where Jordan will be embarrassed that her daddy blew that number. It will motivate, I think, folks to go out and do the sump pump redirections for us or help us with being able to implement our new ordinance because it's certainly a good opportunity to build up credits where areas have particular pressures to them. But we don't get a one-to-one, and I think that's important for everybody to understand is that we've really got to get ahead of the game in order to be able to not find ourselves in a box regarding available capacity. Another reason why I think it's important that we're able to get out ahead of this as quickly as we can is there are certain essential services provision in the consent decree that allows for some connections without certification. Health care facilities, public safety facilities, public schools, and then the catch-all of other facilities as agreed upon by the state and the federal government. Essentially, recognizing that there are some things that are a public necessity, and so you've got to have them and you can't allow the sewer capacity to undermine it. But the key part of this is this bottom part here is that it could result in a negative bank of credits. So if I've got an area that has no credits and we tie in a health care facility that meets this criteria and they want 200 gallons a minute, now we're at negative 200 and we've got to make up that 200 before we can even start building the credits from that point on. So we don't get a freebie on it, but we do get the opportunity, if it's considered to be a public necessity in these categories, to allow it to proceed because of its public benefit. Okay, so this is in the consent decree. Like everything else in the consent decree, it has a schedule. Because of the appeal process that went on from 2008 until early 2011, we did not try to start working on the Capacity Assurance Program because of its old complications. EPA made it very clear to us that they were not going to approve anything while we were in the appeal process. So while we moved ahead on many other things that didn't necessarily require their approval, approval it was more about data collection this is the one this is the last deliverable that we have not made to them yet and we put it off for that reason but now time is of the essence so we have the division advertised a scope of services on march the 6th looking for engineering services to help us implement our capacity assurance program council member farmer was kind enough to volunteer to contribute on that recommendation review committee and we'll be working on that soon after the 19th of March because that's when the proposals are due. Most important deadline is the consent decree deadline for submitting a plan is January 3rd of 2013 and obviously that's a very very aggressive schedule. I would like to have gotten a little bit farther ahead of this, but it seems like every month, every day, there's always some new deliverable that we've got to send to EPA, and this is just the way that the schedule washed out. I think we can be able to meet this because there are a lot of other cities, Knoxville is one that comes to mind, that's already doing this. Our language that's in the consent decree is very, very, very similar to Knoxville's, and I can attest to that because I'm the one who wrote it. We have to begin implementation of the CAP no longer than 30 days after EPA approval. So it's really important that we come together with a plan that we think is what's best for the community, because we're going to have to begin to implement it as quickly as we can afterwards. One little commentary here before we get to question and answers is that this will be hard, I think. It will be challenging. It will be a different way that we do business than what we've done at least in the 12 years that I've been here. But I do see this as a tremendous opportunity for us as well, is that opportunities to be able to streamline our permitting processes, streamline our approval processes, involve more online permitting when it involves sanitary sewer stuff. I think those are great opportunities that even though EPA doesn't require us to do it, if we don't include that in our work, that we would be missing the point. So with that, I can answer whatever questions that you may have. Charlie, thank you. And committee members, if you'll log in. First questions from Vice Mayor Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Charlie, very much for your presentation. You mentioned Knoxville. How long has their CAP program been in place, and do they have credits and that sort of system? Yes. It has been in place since at least 2009. We were there on a conference, and I scheduled a visit with some of their capacity assurance programs, so I know that they've been doing it at least since 2009. They've obviously tried to work hand-in-hand with the development community. you're kind of doing a balance between not only providing sufficient capacity in areas that you know are prone for development or redevelopment, but also eliminating the sanitary sewer overflows. To my knowledge, they've been able to manage it. They've been able to get out ahead of it and hasn't been as controversial as some might have thought it was going into it. One of the things, I want to be sure I understand the credits. So in the credit program, you mentioned the example of Richmond Road and South Broadway. Would the credit have to be in the same sewer shed? Yes, it would have to be in the same sewer shed, and in order to benefit the potential connection, it has to be somewhat hydraulically related to it. I'll use an example is that if you were looking at connecting something in Veterans Park, the likelihood of being able to use a credit that you got in Woodhill is probably pretty unlikely, even though they are connected to one another, and that eventually Woodhill ends up going through Veterans Park. One of the things that you'll recall from our remedial measures plans that we have proposed to you to date is that we've tried to emphasize in the early schedule of that downstream projects because I think those downstream projects will have a broader benefit to not only eliminating sanitary sewer overflows but also give us latitude and breathing room in order to implement and manage our cap. So same sewer shed and an impact on that exact system. So talk a little bit more about the essential services provision, because I guess I'm wondering how that would work for us to go into the negative. For instance, health care facility, new school, public safety facilities, et cetera, if we're full in that sewer shed and that area and we put in a new public facility, I mean, do we just go over the capacity and hope it works or plan for it? Yeah, we'll have to plan for it. We'll have to react to it, especially if there is potential for additional new service connections or expanded service in that same area, because you'll be blocking out the people who want to do something else that don't fit into that category. So, yeah, we'll have to try to plan ahead for it. In many of these cases, some of these places that you're going to have it, they are already exceeding the capacity. So the question, if it's a public facility but not our public facility, is who pays for the extra infrastructure to handle it? And I'm not asking you to answer that. I'm not so sure I really understood your question anyway. Let me help to paraphrase that in that it's my recommendation in the scope of services that we have a broad group of folks help us implement this thing because this is a whole lot bigger than the Division of Water Quality. I mean, it involves planning. It involves Division of Engineering. It involves the Lexington Home Builders at Commerce Lexington, the neighborhoods. It involves this as much as the water quality management fee is probably the thing that touches everyone more than anything else that we're doing in the consent decree. So, you know, I don't have all those answers yet, but I certainly invite some of the bright minds to come in and help us figure that out. I agree. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Chair. Charlie, thank you for the presentation and bringing us up to date. Before we move off this last slide, I know the bottom one is Town Branch. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Yes. And what's the upper left? Does that pick it on? No, the upper left is Lower Town Branch. It's out by the federal prison out on Leastown Road. They replaced that treatment plant that was out there on Leastown. So is it near the road? Can you see it from the road? Yeah. Yeah. Built it kind of to look like a barn. It kind of blends into it. The fact that you haven't noticed it is a good thing. The one on the right is actually a storage tank for wet weather flow in Dayton, Ohio. It was one that Rod and I went to visit a couple years ago to kind of get our arms around what these things look like and what kind of footprints. So that structure on the right is a tank? Yes, it is. That's a big tank. It is a pretty big tank. Yes, it is. I think that one, if I remember correctly, is 2 million gallons. Say it again. 2 million gallons. Would we have need to build anything that large here? We will have ones that are multiple ones that are probably that large. As you'll recall, the storage requirement for West Hickman for the treatment plant itself was over 40 million gallons. So you could see as many as 20 tanks that look like that at West Hickman. Thus the price tag of $550 million. When we talk about tanks themselves are the most pricey part of this thing because they're roughly $1.75 a gallon to build. A lot of concrete, a lot of steel. I'm kind of sorry I asked now. I mean, there's a lot of, I mean, that's set back. That's got some room around it. I don't sense any place where we would be placing those where they wouldn't be in close confines to something that might be negatively impacted. We're looking at that as much as we can to try to figure out ways that they can be inconspicuous. And we'll just, you know, that's in the implementation phase. I mean, that's one of the more important things about getting the water out of the system. But if we've got 11 to 13 years to implement the consent decree, that's going to be a challenge to get rid of all that water. So we're trying to hedge our bets with the storage. I'll use West Hickman as an example. Storage at West Hickman, I think, is inevitable. We're not going to build all 10 of those tanks right off the bat. We're going to build a couple, and then we're going to continue to get water out of the system and continue to reevaluate. Because the savings is that when you project it to build 10 and you only built six, that's a lot of money. But in other areas, like in the Woodhill-Eidelauer area, is that we're looking for potential property sites there to be able to construct a similar-sized tank because it's more expensive to fix the pipeline that goes through the reservoir than it is to build that tank. So how soon might, I mean, since I'm going whole hog here, how soon would be the first one of these you might consider building then? I think that we'll begin the planning process of it next fiscal year. we're waiting for EPA approval of the two-year, 24-hour storm that the council authorized through resolution. You know, thank you and appreciate that resolution, but ultimately the final pushback will come from EPA. And if they say yes to the two-year, 24-hour storm, we would begin detailed design of that. I don't want to start before they say yes, because if they say no, then I've got to pull back. And so I don't want to invest money that we have to pull back on. Okay, now back up to the slide previous to this. Okay. So them saying yes to that is separate from this? Correct. The cap being done? Correct. Now, let me say this, though. The two-year 24-hour storm is explicit in the consent decree regarding the cap. There's no negotiation of what design storm we're talking about with the cap. The reason we chose that two-year, 24-hour storm for the remedial measures for the ultimate capital fix is because it matched the capacity assurance program requirements. That way we didn't have two different storms that we were trying to figure out. And plus, as you recall, is that it was $300 million more for a higher-level storm, and it just didn't make any sense financially for the level of protection that you'll get. But, you know, I don't know when EPA is going to approve those remedial measures plan. It could be sitting in my mailbox right now, and it could be indefinite from now. I can't really guess that. So with the cap here, we're going to move forward with the cap because we know what design storm that we're working against. And the sooner that I can start banking, every sump pump I redirect, every point repair that we make, Every time we disconnect something, the better off that we will be as far as being able to start with a positive credit bank as opposed to the negative credit bank that Ms. Gordon mentioned. So it says consent decree deadline, regulatory submission of plan by January 3rd, 2013. Yes. But does our 10 years run from then or from January last year? Our 10 years, our 11 to 13 years actually runs technically right now, as far as from a legal standpoint, I believe, January 3rd of 2024. Now, there is some provisions in the consent decree that allows if EPA takes an additional time for reviewing and approving certain elements of it, that they will provide extensions. And, you know, I think they'll be reasonable about that. I've never known them to be unreasonable. Well, if they take a year to look at something, they're not going to shorten our time frame by a year just to be arbitrary about it. They want it fixed, and so I think they'll give us a reasonable latitude to do it. Plus, we've been doing this. We've been implementing all phases of the consent decree all this time. If we haven't built some goodwill with them, I can't imagine what they would expect. We've worked very hard to meet or exceed every deadline thus far and have given us wise counsel, and I think we have followed it. I just, when you step back and look at the idea of big tanks being built to hold sewage, I mean, that's different. It is, and it's going to be a hard thing, I think, for us to, it's different the way we've been doing business in the past. But I've been to tanks in Knoxville, been to them in Dayton, Ohio. I think Rod was at one in Louisville a couple of weeks ago. I know there's one in parts of suburban Cincinnati. Most every community that is dealing with this same issue, tanks become part of their repertoire because you've got so much water that you're dealing with in a short period of time, you just can't simply squeeze the rag enough on the deadlines to be able to get the water out of the system. If you all do another exploration to look at a tank, I would like the opportunity maybe to join you. I would just like to see one of those somewhere else before I see it here first. Absolutely. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Kaye. Thanks for joining us. Thank you for permitting me, despite not being a member of the committee, to ask a question or two. Charlie, I'm most interested in the database and whether there's been some thinking about ways to integrate the development of that database with other needs in government. We've had some conversation in the infield and redevelopment committee. There are other permitting aspects. Is there some thought to using this as an opportunity to allow some of that same kind of development to happen in other parts of government? In the long-term implementation of it, absolutely. Absolutely. It's a must in order for this thing to work correctly. On the interim basis, I suspect that we will probably be implementing an interim, very simple and rudimentary access type of database. Before I would recommend that we go hire a software solution, we would need to do a needs assessment to understand clearly what we're asking for somebody to develop for us. I can't do that until I actually have the plan. So, you know, after we got the plan in place and we worked through it and realized some of the things that we wouldn't have anticipated otherwise adjusted, then I think it would be a great time to be able to implement the permanent long-term software solution, which would include the online permitting and a lot of things that I know you're thinking about. Absolutely. I just don't see that. There's no way that we're going to be able to turn that around by January of 2013. I just don't see that happening. So practically that means an interim software package? Say a little more about what that really means practically. I suspect that the potential suitors who are interested in coming after this work that we're advertising right now, they all have something already that they've already either built or can build fairly quickly because they've probably done this work in those other cities that I've mentioned. So they will probably bring their in-the-can software solution to allow us to get started, to get going. Again, I'm recommending this kind of all-hands-on-deck, stakeholders involvement type of thing, because I want to hear what they want and how they want it to work, and then we would bring a software vendor in to develop and write the code for what it is we want to be. And having that integrated, for example, with the software we're using for asset management right now would be very wise. So I agree with you. I think that is an implementation phase that goes on after the initial submittal of the cap. EPA is not going to regulate what kind of software we have. They're just going to regulate that we have one. And I want to be able to say on January 3, 2013, yeah, we have one. And I'll have to say whether it's the one I really want to have in the long term. Okay, so is it fair to say that that will be one of the items on the agenda as you talk with the other stakeholders within government? Yes, yes. We'll keep hearing back about how that is being developed? Correct. What I proposed in the implementation phase of this for the consultant is that there would be at a minimum quarterly meetings with the stakeholder group that we would work through those implementation aspects, essentially us reporting back to them about what we've implemented to that point in time, them giving us feedback on what they see as working or not working, and that over the course of the probably 18 months after we've submitted it, that we would have a pretty good idea of where we want to land, and we'd be implementing where we want to land that. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Charlie, can you explain the purpose or the function of these tanks? It stores the sewage and releases it slowly or what? Yes. You know, when it rains too much and we have manholes that overflow, rather than them going into the creek or into a stream or down the street, essentially it offloads into those tanks. And once those tanks get full, hopefully it stops raining, and then we can slowly release it over time back into the system without causing overflows. So two things to reduce would be redirection of sump pumps and keeping the stormwater out of the sewer system and building these tanks to reduce, and then that takes the pressure off of the treatment plants. Yeah, and we're going to have to do work at the treatment plants as well. The question is, one of the reasons for having the storage tanks in certain key locations, there's two reasons. One of them is that can we make the plant big enough to have the whole surge of water that's coming to it? I worry about that at both plants, is that on an average day we might be treating 15 to 18 million gallons a day. But when we get this gully washer, 15 goes to 96 million gallons really fast. and we got huge problems and so having those go into those storage tanks to where the amount of flow that's recognized in the treatment plant slowly goes up instead of this kind of thing that's happening now secondly and as i mentioned to council member farmer is that in some places the constrictions of being able to upsize the pipe enough to move it someplace else they're just too they're too difficult to overcome and particularly in areas where it is fully developed. To try to rebuild the sanitary sewer that crosses reservoir number one in multiple locations and then comes down the levee there at Alumni Drive, it was just cost prohibitive compared to the tank. Do the tanks that you visited, is there a strong odor or did you notice any? No, actually the operations people that told me that one of the things they regretted was spending a bunch of money on odor control because they never use it. It doesn't stay there long enough to smell and that it's so dilute, and they do have mixing systems in it, so they just don't fill it up and just leave it sit there. It kind of mixes, but they're trying to get it back out of there as quickly as they got it in there. So when there's measurement devices in the diversion structure that once the flows get up, it sends it to the tank. When the flows go back down, the tank's going to try to send it back. So it would be a smart system. But we will include some provisions for odor control. I would suspect that it would be my recommendation that while we always provide essentially a blind flange to connect odor control, in certain areas we might be wanting to risk not investing the capital in it initially and see if it does stink. Because if it doesn't, we don't want to spend another million dollars on odor control that we didn't need. Thank you. Vice Chair Stinnett. Thank you, Chair. Charlie, talk to me for a minute about how you envision projects within LFUCG working within the CAP program, especially those that were receiving grants for to do unsewered areas, and how we would judge those credits for people who don't even have existing sewer systems in their area and how we're going to manage internally to get them on and comply with the program? Well, in the unseared areas, new connections, that is considered to be a deficit, not a credit. I have a pretty – I devoted a half a page in my scope of services pointing out to prospective consultants that urban county government, we are not completely prepared to be able to adequately track our credits because they come from all over the place, even from within my division. You've got the Division of Engineering out doing things. You've got Transportation Cabinet out doing things. You've got all these different people doing things. And so that's what the work group and this plan is to set up. Thus, the need for the database is that we don't want to miss not one credit, and we've got to figure out a way that we can do a better job of tracking it. We've never had to do it before. So there is no system in place, and we're going to have to make one. And, you know, you mentioned starting off at a deficit. I mean, obviously having sewer system available to homeowners and residents is a quality of life issue in some cases. In other cases, it's a property value issue. There's a lot of different reasons why people want to get on our sewer system. And, you know, we're able to get grants the last several years and do three or four areas in my district. I know I still have a couple I want to do, of course. So I'm trying to figure out how we encourage them to pursue those grants to get them on our system because, obviously, it helps areas. but at the same time work within the capacity assurance program to make sure that we're not negatively affecting other people. I can understand your question better now. We might have to sit down and look at those capacity maps because off the top of my head, the only one that jumps out at me is out extended in the Joyland area, Swigert Road and all that, because we've got some reoccurring issues out there. Some of the other ones, of the bigger pockets, I'm not as concerned about as far as having a diminished capacity. It just depends on how much more flow is going into it. But I'd be happy to sit down with you and let's try to identify which ones that those may be. Again, the whole scheme of this is going to be is how do we go out and get ahead of the game, take advantage of the time that we have to start tracking credits and banking credits to where we don't start at a loss. We started on the plus side. So in essence, the bottom line is our own projects internally will be judged the same way as we would judge a private property or someone else in the public. Exactly. They're all the same. What they'll do is that in the cap, they'll categorize certain types of repair. If you make a point repair on Main Street, you went and dug it up and replaced a 10-foot section of pipe because it was broken, it doesn't matter who does that. That's worth so many gallons per minute. likewise with sump pumps or anything else, is just as long as we can certify that it happened. The EPA, all they care about is whether somebody of authority is willing to put their name on the dotted line that says, yes, that did happen, is good. So the property owner, whether it be LFUCG or a private citizen, would be responsible for upgrading any other parts of the system, i.e. another pump station, in order to meet the capacity requirements? I have heard of other cities, and I don't know this for a fact, but I've heard it through the grapevine that some development entities have actually done rehab work themselves in downstream areas and able to be able to get themselves credits that they want to be able to do in upstream development. The challenge of that, and this is another part of what the work group is going to have to try to deal with, is how do we do that? You know, is that, you know, if you get credits, we have available credits. Can you buy them? Do you get them? Do you give them? How long do you get to keep them? Can you sell them to somebody else? Can you trade them to somebody else? Do they expire? Those are kind of things that the work group is going to have because in the early phases of this, in particular areas, credit's going to be golden. And that's what I was getting to is we're kind of creating a credit market out there that if I want to go upgrade a pump station and I get the credit for it, then I also control the development upstream as to who can tap onto my pump station. So I want to see how we're going to deal with that issue. And that's why I'm encouraging we involve multiple stakeholders because there will be multiple opinions on that. But at the end of the day, this isn't Charlie Martin's CAP program. It's Fayette County's CAP program. And we may voluntarily give up our control of our own system to someone who can buy up off the credits. And I'm sure that's not beneficial for everyone involved. So I look forward to that discussion. Thank you, sir. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Chair. Charlie, thank you. I appreciate all this information. Everything we do, I always want to boil down to ASTOR. And so how does the problems that we see with overflowing sewage in basements and things like that, Will that be affected at all by this CAP program? I think only indirectly because the CAP program, I think, will become a stimulus or motivator to do rehabilitation at a faster pace than what we would have otherwise. I mean, what we've got right now is there's a pipe there, connect to it. And so there's no restriction, or that's not really the word I'm looking for, but there's no impediment to additional flows going into the system. And so when the rain comes, you get like Astro Drive. So what I'm seeing on this is that if the overflow is coming up in the middle of the street, that's one thing. But if it's coming up in people's basements instead... It's all going to be about what the model says, that if we show that these segments do not meet the two-year, 24-hour capacity for adequate transmission or adequate collection system things, that's going to be the driver for this. It's not whether or not that there necessarily ever been an overflow there or not, because sometimes overflows occur not necessarily because of capacity. So it can't be subjective, because some people will say, oh, well, I've had all these overflows, And there won't be any documented of it, and you can't allow that to happen just because they didn't like a development that was going upstream. It's going to be all driven by what does the hydraulic model say. And so I'm looking at the end game, what this is going to look like at the end. And I want to make sure that at the end of the day that these folks with overflow problems are satisfied. And so if we have a segment that satisfies the two-year, 24-hour rain, then their only recourse at that point would be to fix their personal sewer line. Is that a fair statement? Can you restate that one again? Well, let's say, and I'm going back to Garden Springs. I mean, let's assume that that pipe is somehow made to comply with the two-year and we're still having overflows. Is that a likely thing, that we're still going to have overflows if it satisfies the two-year? Yes, because you'll have a five-year storm, you'll have a 10-year storm, you'll have a 25-year storm. If you'll recall, we talked about that a lot, is that everybody's got to get it in their mind, is that we cannot promise that you'll never have an overflow. Right. So what I'm trying to understand is what is the recourse of these folks who have chronic problems? And I'm postulating, I'm guessing that their recourse is to have a plumber come out and either put in a grinder pump or redirect something at their own house. Is that right? Yeah, that would be the main recourse to it. But at the same time, we may be out there collecting credits that are for that area and then making it better ourselves just by what we're doing. If we're going to go and do the sump pump redirection program and we're targeting areas that don't meet the CAP criteria, that may be downstream from them, and they'll enjoy a residual benefit because the bottleneck that used to exist downstream doesn't exist anymore. And so because of the dynamics of the system, they may encourage some benefit and they don't realize it. But I would never discourage anybody, if you've got a problem, as you just said, to contact a plumber and try to get to the bottom of it, because when you've got things in your own hands, it's probably the best place to be. That's where I like to be. And I think that the city continuing its program of redirects, of grant programs, and things like that to help folks with chronic problems, because it's not just the overflows of the streams, which is a terribly important problem to fix, but it's also folks that ended up with three feet of sewage in their basements. And so I just want to make sure that the different pieces of this get put in place at the end of the day because if we're going to spend $540 million and we've got folks that still get three feet of sewer in the basements, then that's a problem. Right. And just using the example you did is that when you have them that occur once every few years on those significant storms, I mean, it's never, never good for people to have sewage in their basement. But this $540 million fix is not geared to that because we have to be spending a whole lot more money to handle those more unusual storms. So what you're suggesting about using the grant programs and all that as leverage to be able to protect yourself is a good suggestion. Because at the end of the day, we're looking at this two-year, 24-hour storm, and that's the guiding light right now. And many of those you've just suggested, they don't have problems on the two-year, 24-hour storm. They have problems on the larger storms. well i just want to make sure that we don't spend a lot of a great amount of effort and money fixing things if we don't end up fixing things so i i know that there are different things to fix and that's the city where there's different things to fix i'm with you is that um you know sewage in the creek is bad sewage in the house is horrible you know is that when you talk about human contact and potential for human exposure you know that's there's no gray area there in that as opposed to going in the creek. So I agree with you. And I guess that's the point, is that I just want to make sure that we're we're, and I know you are, but that we are focusing as much on the people and their houses as the fish in the stream. Both deserve our attention. Thank you. So I appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. If there are no other questions from committee members, I have a couple. Charlie, could you Go back to the essential services exceptions. What is the rationale for those? Well, it's been a while since we did this negotiation. Five years now. Time flies when you're having fun. I think that it was one of those situations that most, I think the EPA and us and all others recognize that a cap can be a real trap. challenge for communities is that when you start using the word moratorium, even though it was before the economy turned the way that it did, it's not a good thing to have hope to your community. And so they came up with the credits program, but also these essential services because they were considered to be public necessities. If a community has a huge need for a hospital for overall broader public health needs, that you needed to move forward to that. You've got to have schools, you've got to have police and fire. These are just considered to be those basic essentials that are part of a civilized community. And that's why I think they elevated them to the level that they did. Recognizing, again, is that even though they had the exception to move forward, it's not a free pass because we end up having to pay for it through credits. I think that's the best of my recollection was the essentialness of their purpose. Thank you for that. And where do we go from here? Well, I would ask that you as the chair, ask the committee to lead me, I guess, in appointing some type of work group or task force. I mentioned the list of potential stakeholders that I have, and I'm sure that all of you have some good ideas as well. I mean, at the end of the day, we will provide the technical support and administrative support, but this is the community's plan for capacity assurance in its sanitary sewer system moving forward, and I really need some stakeholders to help me do that. So task force, work group, whatever it is that I need somebody, I'm requesting that someone in a leadership position appoint that. So you're suggesting that since we're all in this together, that all of the stakeholders need to be representative of the entire community and to work through these issues, and especially the one that Council Member Stinnett raised about the allocation of distribution of the credits. Yes. Committee members, I would, at this time, I'd welcome a motion. I think this might be the way to go, a motion to ask the Vice Mayor to form a task force of community stakeholders, government officials, LFUCG people, and others to monitor, help manage, guide, form the policies for moving toward this capacity assurance program. Just to enlighten the vice mayor, what I propose in the scope of services is that whoever we select for the engineering firm to lead this charge, that their task would include providing the technical and administrative support necessary to support this group. It would be completely their responsibility. There would probably be an initial kickoff of what does the cap require, a little bit meatier than what I've done here today. Also some examples of what other communities have done in their capacity assurance programs so we can understand the benchmarks of what some of our potential economic competitors are. But the task force is there for their sage advice and guidance. we will take care of all the administrative support and debt in this board. Vice Mayor Corden. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know you don't yet have your motion, but Charlie, would you envision this similar to the water quality management fee group where the consultants provided information and technical expertise? Is that the kind of thing you're thinking? Yeah, very similar to that. I mean, it would be the pleasure of whoever forms the task force on how they want to invite public comment and things like that through the course of it. My initial thing was that the different stakeholders, whether it be the development community or the neighborhoods, and also to Councilmember Kay's point, I mean, essentially from the planning level all the way through down the approval process, that those people be involved because if we make changes that impact how they do business, they've got to be at the table. One of the things that I'm really concerned about is once we move forward with this, is how I'm able to share with the impacted community where there is capacity problems because if they don't know that early in the game, they have the risk of investing a significant amount of money and then find out that that door is closed. And so that's why planning really needs to be involved in this. So whatever your pleasure is, we're at their service. And so you would also help the group determine what their timeline was so that you could meet your EPA deadline? Exactly, yes. Okay. You know, again, the task force in some ways serves two purposes. There's one is the thing that we're required to do for EPA, for the components of the plan, and then there's the second part of it is the things that we want to do or we know we need to do. Those won't be part of the plan, and so the focus will be more on the plan. And it's not really negotiable. We have to do it. It's in the consent decree, and we'll get that part of it through, but we'll do it with a mind about how we're going to begin with the end in mind and also then work on some of the other implementation things that we don't want to commit to EPA that we're going to do it if it's not required to do it. We just want to do it on our own time and at our own speed and in our own way because it's a local issue. Committee members, is there any committee member who would like to make this motion? Well, since a committee chair is permitted to make motions in committee meetings, I will, you say no, vice chair? well there's a difference of opinion but we've always operated out of the premise that this is a semi-large body and anytime you have a large body the chair normally does not make motions a smaller group you would be able to but normally a larger group you do not make motions according to robert's rule on a large committee and 10 people is two-thirds of our council but it's the council's pleasure if you want to make one make it well i will i would certainly wouldn't want to break precedence here, but I would like to move forward with forming this task force. And I'll make the motion for you, or Councilman Martin will. I was going to suggest, in public safety, we had a plethora of motion making, so you might pass the gavel to your vice chair and have at it. No, there's no point in doing that. I'll just ask the vice chair to make the motion. Yeah, make a motion to form the, what do you want to call it, the Capacity Assurance Task Force? Sure. Does that work? The CAP Task Force? Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. And opposed. And that motion passes, and we'll ask the vice mayor to create that task force for us. Yes, ma'am. So, Charlie, just one more question or statement. I would like to talk with you about your ideas about different stakeholder groups and timeline and expectations. I think this is going to be really important for this group and important in terms of us making our EPA consent decree deadlines. So if we can have that conversation soon, I would appreciate it. Be anxious to do that. Again, since we're opening the proposals on the 19th, and I believe the selection committee meets on the 28th, we're on a pretty aggressive schedule, and I would hope we'd have all that ironed out so I could give them their margin orders very quickly. Okay, very good. Thank you. So I'll be with Jennifer. Thank you. Thank you. I want to jump to item three on the agenda, that is the water quality project. so because Charlie will review that list, and then that will enable the water quality team to go back to the Tate Building. Committee members, does everybody have the large-size spreadsheet? If you don't, we have extra ones here. are you ready yeah well typically what i do is i just kind of hit the highlights because you have here is a list of all the different things that we have going on from a project management standpoint with the division of water quality number 10 the deep springs pump station that was one that is required by the consent decree to be completed by, I believe it's April 4th of this year. We're on schedule to be able to have that pumping in time. Council Member Stendon, I think that hopefully you have been briefed is that we'll still be working our way through the restoration and the final finish work, but having it pumping is obviously the key component of being able to meet the deadline. Likewise, number 11, Dixie Pump Station, that was one of the capital projects that we were also required to have done by April. and it is now operational as we work through the finished work. Long story short, if we get Deep Springs done within the deadline, we had four specific capital projects that were due in the consent decree with specific deadlines. We will have all four of them done, so we'll be able to move forward into the next level. Number 13, the Wolf Run pump station. That is out near Alexandria and Old Frankfort Pike. As some of you may recall, Solid Waste or Waste Management had bought a parcel out there to construct the new materials recovery facility. They've been kind enough to allow us to have a corner of that property to build our pump station, And so we should be breaking ground in June of this year, no later than that, to start building that pump station. It will eventually replace one of the oldest pump stations that we have that's been operating since 1962 that we can't get parts for. So it's been a long time coming to replace that one. I'm going to jump a little bit down a little bit to cover a couple of stormwater projects, number 42 and 43. And Council Member Farmer will be working on some design work regarding idle hour. There's a storm sewer that goes between some houses on St. Michael's, I think, that have been on the priority list for a while, and we're going to start the planning and design work to redirect that flow away from those homes that experience flooding. And then the next one, which is number 43, the Walhampton Drive. That's Manowar and Nicholasville Road. It's just downstream from the Fritz property where they sell trees and process fill material and stuff. Ongoing project there, a priority project that we'll be kicking off this year. And then lastly is that 44 through 53, those are some small projects that we're going to try to knock out by the end of this year. The council passed a budget amendment for us a couple of weeks ago. these are very small but maintenance oriented projects that we found that we had some we do overestimate a little bit on our professional services money so we moved it into capital to make some of this stuff go away and the sense that i'm sure you'll recognize one like halls lane which we're going to try to make that thing go away that's the highlights i can answer whatever question you have about specific ones if you thank you are there questions council member martin are you on. I just had a short follow-up question. This is a different topic. Charlie, and this is a, there's a number of folks who might be able to answer this, but since you're here, I thought I might ask you, you know, as we do projects, how are we coordinating with our streets and roads, folks? Because I can't help but notice that after we spent all this money on Main Street, we've patched, dug it up, and patched it again. Is that from sewers and water and stuff, or what's that I can't say for sure whether it's us or not. I can tell you this, is that we have a monthly coordination meeting with Streets and Roads, Engineering, and ourselves. Before the consent decree came along, I think we were doing a lot better about doing advanced investigation on the paving list. One of my complaints has always been is that by the time the paving list comes out of the legislative body, there's not enough time for me to react to be able to get out ahead of it. But we try to do the best we can because that saves me money of having to do restoration unnecessarily. So we try to avoid it as much as we possibly can. I can't say that it always happens. Well, I mean, perhaps you can communicate with the council members, and they could reschedule or delay or something like that a particular item on a paving list. But I just hate seeing new pavement and have it carved up with. I agree. I've got some plans to sit down with Columbia Gas and Kentucky American relative to our larger scale projects. I've talked with some of their engineering folks. We need to coordinate or do a better job of sequencing some of our larger capital projects. If we're getting ready to go over the edge with $550 million, they need to know what that schedule is going to be so they can get in there with us. And for that same point, after I go and restore Main Street, that they come back in and tear it up. That's not good planning. Thanks, Charles. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Martin, if you wouldn't mind me interjecting, 17C requires that we have our master paving plan submitted in January. The last four or five years, Streets and Roads hasn't been able to meet that goal, not just because of the council interaction, but some of their own inertia as well. But I think your point is well taken. And at the same time, all the public utilities are supposed to submit an annual plan to Streets and Roads. Because our plan is not submitted, their plan isn't submitted. So it's a concern. we'll just leave it at that for us, what we were doing before the consent decree we were going out and televising every street that was below a certain pavement rating number and I can't remember how that pavement rating number is we weren't trying to guess what you guys were going to approve or not approve we were just trying to say, we'll look at every bad street and try to find out what the problem is because the capital projects are one thing It's that little maintenance thing that's getting ready to cause a problem, and that on Christmas Eve the line backed up, and now we're out there digging it up right after we got done paving it. And I will check with Rod to see whether or not that we've gotten back on that. I know when the consent decree first came along, it kind of blew us off our normal thing because we were doing that up until 2008. are there any further questions on the water quality projects if not thank you thank you thank you Charlie thank you committee members let's move back to agenda item number two you hold on Charlie before we move on I was going to ask you one question on projects going forward Are we to the point on the stormwater field we could start looking at bonding projects and getting more in the pipeline? Have you all sat down yet? Because I know we said two years into the program we'd have better numbers. We're right over that mark at two years in February. I think my internal budget meeting is a week from Wednesday. So I'm sure that we're going to have that discussion either then or as we get into the links. I can't speak for Ryan, but I know that he was looking at that sort of thing. and so we've given them the information and obviously we've made a submittal to continue to do those capital projects we've got that obligation talked about here in January, $30 million in the course of 10 years and so that's what our submittal matches and I'll look to Ryan to figure out how we're going to pay for that Okay, because there are different bonds than what we've normally used for stormwater they would be revenue bonds so having that discussion a week from today or whenever you meet with them is very valid at this point. As a secondary note, this year for the first time in my tenure here, we submitted a whole package to the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority for potential funding through their mechanisms, Loan Fund A and Loan Fund B. Those things have been in place for water and wastewater projects for decades. I'm not sure they still know how to react to the stormwater component because really it's us, Louisville, and northern Kentucky who's really doing that. But they have shown interest in that, and that's another opportunity to mine some low-interest financing to be able to keep projects moving. Very good. If you can report it back to us a month or so whenever you get better information. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. As you remember, two weeks ago at our February 28th meeting, we had the report on the Empower Lexington Energy Plan. And at that time, Director Bush indicated that the next step would be to bring forward a resolution asking the endorsement, the support of the Council. That resolution, that draft resolution, has been provided to us. It is in our packet, as you know. and Susan Bush and Tom Webb and Mark York are here to answer any questions so we can take up that resolution now. If you have a question, please log. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mine is on the actual verbiage of the resolution itself, which I think appears on page 16 of the packet. I guess the header, a resolution supporting the Empower Lexington Energy Plan designed to reduce Fayette County's energy use by 1% annually through voluntary measures and supporting its implementation. So in 99 years, will we have no energy? I mean, is there a cap on this, or when would it end, or what's the goal? Well, that's an interesting question. Well, the term annually kind of, if we drop that out, I have comfort. But with annually, I kind of, where do we hit the wall? Councilman, we had a lot of discussion in the task force meetings about that very issue, what should our goal be. The 1% per year goal we thought was a good compromise goal in that it was easy to communicate, easy to get across. You can do it in several ways. You can do it by turning lights off in rooms you're not using. You can do it by taking public transit. There's various ways to get there, so it's not one sector that we're targeting there. A lot of communities have different goals. They're all over the board, to be honest with you. Some of the goals, like the U.S. Marist Conference goal, it's 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. A lot of communities have adopted that. There are goals out there, 20% by 2020. There are staged goals. Some communities have goals that are staged for 2015, 2025, 2050, but we didn't want to go that route. We wanted to have something that would have an immediate impact on the community. As we talked in the presentation, this plan is meant to be a fluid plan, and it's meant to be a plan we can go back and revisit every few years, update the plan as needed. So it's not a forever and ever go, no, to answer your question, I guess. But that's what it says. And that's what the plan itself says at this point in time, yes. And this is one of the issues that we debated the most in all the various task force meetings we had. This can have been everywhere, but it's here now. And if you're asking me to vote for this, I won't, because 1% annually is not sustainable in and of itself, period. Well, it's kind of like, from my perspective, you know, walking halfway across the room and trying to get to the other side of the room, you never really get there, but you're putting forth the effort to get there, and that's what we're trying to do here is provide the resources for the community to become more energy efficient. Thank you. We can reword it. The wording is an issue in itself. if we can be worried of that particular header portion of it. We did work with the law department to come up with that language. But if there's a problem with that particular wording, we can work on that. I've told you my problem, and then I won't vote for it. I'm not offering a motion. I'm just done. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Chair. I support this, and I understand Council Member Farmer's concerns about it. I think it's an admirable goal, and you have to set some sort of goal in order to reach it. If we don't have a goal, then it's really hard to reach it. We don't make a lot of our own energy in this country, and it is becoming increasingly expensive and dangerous for us to import energy from other countries. And so I think it's very important that we both develop new sources of energy here on American soil, but also that we develop a lifestyle that reduces the amount of energy we use. And I think this is not only a feel-good thing, but I think it's a national security issue. I mean, this is going to be a very dangerous world in the next 50 years. And our ability to reduce our energy footprint and to create our own energy here on American soil, I think is going to be vital to our long-term survival. So I'm going to support this. I'm going to applaud to have some goal in here that we can reach for. But if we don't start aggressively managing our energy usage here, we're going to find ourselves with the lights off. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I sort of have a hesitation for voting for this also because, in a way, this was perhaps a hollow resolution in that we're not providing any funding on this and we're not really setting up a specific program to actually work towards reducing the energy reduction usage by the government that I'm aware of. I know we're always trying to save energy, but I don't think we have a specific problem that ties into the resolution. To me, a more effective way to do this would be to have the mayor pass a proclamation that we're in support of reducing energy rather than just passing a resolution from the council. That's just a thought that I was having. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, first of all, I agree with a lot of the things that Council Member Martin said. We do need to be looking at energy efficiency. And the thing that I wanted to know about the task force discussions is I think the one thing that this lacks is any accountability, really. Did you discuss putting in this resolution some kind of accountability or reporting back in terms of progress and goals? We did not put it in the resolution. It is in the plan that we will report back to the council every two years. will review the plan and report to the community the progress that we're making. This plan is not really what I would call a prescriptive plan. What we're trying to do is build partnerships with stakeholders, U.K., Fayette County Public Schools, Commerce Lake, and Bluegrass tomorrow. So this plan will kind of change as we go, as we find out what our possibilities are and our opportunities are and what our grant dollars are. We have a lot of resources on the table right now, a lot of things that are going on. I think we spoke about the community energy advisor last time, that we're paying for through a DOE block grant. We do have an internal program for owned government operations. We've got some programs out there to help nonprofit facilities change out to LED exit signs. So we're doing a lot on the community energy side of the house now. What this plan gives us a framework to work from and to expand that. But it's never really meant to be a government plan. and we facilitated the process, but it's actually a stakeholder plan, and we'll work with the stakeholders to do what we can to make Lexington more energy efficient. That's really the goal of the plan. I guess I would ask Director Bush, I want to call you Commissioner still, but Assistant Acting, do you feel that the administration has, I mean, you represent and work for the administration, And do you think that the mayor has had input into this or is well aware of this and is supportive? Or at this point, do you know? Well, certainly the administration's been briefed on the Empire Lexington plan and knew this was going on, and this is something that we've been working on for two and a half years and is generally supportive. I think you've all heard the mayor say that energy efficiency in our buildings is a high priority. And to Council Member Lane's point, we actually do have, for the first time, an energy program for government within government headed by an energy manager, which we've only had for two years. It's the first time. And we've been able to do a lot of aggressive things that are in line with this plan. And to show you that this is not an insignificant savings is that over the last year or so, we've been able to save about a half million dollars in taxpayer money that would have gone to utilities through our governmental energy, our internal plan. And this plan is meant to be a touchstone for the community so we can all work together, kind of see where we are, build momentum for this type of thing. And I think it's important that we requested council approval because we feel it's important that people know that energy efficient and being an energy efficient community is an important thing for our community. So, you know, that is why it was requested, because we feel it's very important. Thank you. Mr. Chair, eventually, if we don't have a motion on the floor, but I will be considering an amendment to this to make it a stronger resolution once we have this on the floor. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Chair. You know, I, too, think it's a lofty goal to be more energy efficient, and I think we have to as a community and as a country. But it's kind of ironic that two weeks ago we talked about raising the franchise fees to the same utilities we're talking about saving money from that we don't have to pay as much. When you save half a million dollar utility bills, that also comes off our franchise fees if we charge people that we're banking on funding maybe streetlights in the future. So it's kind of a double-edged sword when we're talking about becoming more energy efficient. Do you not get that? What I'm saying is anytime you cut what you spend on utilities, You're also cutting what we receive on franchise fees, which here or there can be debated on. What's the better way to go long term? And obviously energy efficiency is a better way to go. But I guess my question is, why the 1%? I mean, who came up with 1% per year? Why not say 20% by year 2020 or something like that so that we can get a goal, obtain it, and then reevaluate where we're at versus coming back to council every two years and saying we want to get 1% annually? The process that we went through to develop this plan, this two-and-a-half-year process, this is a consensus plan that had a lot of stakeholders involved, and you all have seen that list now. There was long discussions about how we should go about setting our goal, and this is the goal that the group came to consensus on that was right for the community. We wanted to have some early successes. I think they believed this was achievable. There was some concern expressed. I know that they didn't want to set a goal so high that people just didn't even try because we can't meet that. Again, this is a first step down the energy efficiency path. This plan is not carved in stone. It is something that we know more today about this than we did two and a half years ago when we started. Two and a half years from now, we're going to know a lot more. And I would expect, based on what we learned, that plan will be changed, and it will be changed to accommodate the lessons learned and still move our community forward. It's just the 1% doesn't sound like a great number. You know, I know in aggregate. It's 1% per capita. Yeah, but why not say 20% reduction or 10%? And then once we hit that goal, say, hey, we met our goal. Look, let's move forward. I'm not sure if the 1% really has the same meaning as being able to obtain a larger percentage at once. Well, we had that very discussion, Council Member. One of the things we didn't want to do was, as a group, kick the can down the road because you can make a lot of pledges for a future point in time that, you know, by the time that comes around, then it's not me, it's my kids that has to worry whether or not we made that goal. So we wanted to do something immediate, something to have an immediate impact, and lets people know that we're serious about it now and not in 2020 or 2025. Does that make sense? Yeah, I mean, I understand it's sort of the same premise. We want to be zero waste by 2020. We said several years ago in this case, Council adopted it. But is that really going to happen? No. But is it our goal? Yes. And I understand this is the same premise. We're never going to be 100% energy efficient. But I just want to get a big victory early is what I look for. Or can we reduce it by 10% in two years? Well, and to be honest with you, the 1% is a minimum to live by. It doesn't mean we can't go beyond that. We're just trying to pull people together and get them to work with the resources they have and to educate folks on what they can and can't do to improve their own energy efficiency. And we're doing that. If you look at the goals and the plan, the goal for each sector, a lot of it dealt with education, outreach, providing tools, those kind of things. So there's nothing in the plan that I would think would be overly burdensome. But we're just trying to, as a community, move down this path, further down this path. And if we find out two or three years from now that this goal is not aggressive enough, we can always change it. I commend you for the effort, and I think we're on the right path. So thank you for your work. I appreciate it. Thank you. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Chair. A couple of comments. I was a part of the task force before I got elected as a citizen representative, and then I continued to serve after I got elected. I was less able to be present because I had somehow this council decided to schedule meetings occasionally. I don't know why. but one of the things that I was interested in working on when I was a part of the group was having the group agree to a set of priorities so that we don't end up with what some people would characterize as an undifferentiated laundry list of things. The work on priorities went forward and then in the infinite wisdom of the group, the priorities were eliminated. I think that was a mistake, and I think it makes this plan harder to support. I think we need a plan. We need to become more energy efficient. It's economically sound. It's environmentally sound. I believe this plan is a modest step forward, but without a pretty consistent monitoring effort. And I think the questions about the percentage of the goals kind of emphasize that, that what we need, if this plan is to be approved, is a way to include in the plan regular reporting back to the Council on what progress is being made on the series of recommendations and also a way to monitor our energy uses on an ongoing basis. In the plan, that report does not come back on reduction of carbon for five years, and i think that's um five years too long so i i'm going to be interested to see what the amendments are and i'm not a voting member of this committee but eventually this will come to council and we'll be resolving that issue thank you chair thank you councilmember lane uh thank you mr chairman i wanted to just add additional thoughts of this i would like to go on the record more strongly and say that i advocate the reduction of energy usage in all areas of our economy and our community. But I still have a concern about this resolution where it says to reduce our community's overall energy use by 1% per year through voluntary actions. And my question is, how do we measure that we've reduced energy use, and then how do you make adjustments? because every time you put a new home, a new business, people buy more cars, you have more people living here, more visitors coming in, more people working, commuting in to work here, and they use energy in their offices where they're working. To me, this just doesn't have enough meat on the bones so that I can really get enthusiastic about it. It's not that I'm opposed to the idea. I just feel this needs to be a stronger message. And I can speak to that if you'd like me to. We actually are going to quantify our baseline emissions. We did it for 2007 calendar year. We'll do it again for 2011. And then we'll compare energy use on the annual, well, however frequent we need to decide to do that. But we'll compare energy use overall to that baseline. So we'll have a baseline. We'll have a benchmark to work off of. But basically, we look at the community's overall energy use. We don't get down into the weeds to the individual business, what they're using, or individual person. We're looking at numbers that KU gives us, numbers that Columbia Gas gives us on aggregate use for the entire county. So that will be how we measure energy use. And basically divide it by your population, you'll get your per capita energy use. I mean, we're really lucky here. This is one of the fastest growing, most dynamic cities in the whole state of Kentucky. And because of our growth in population, economic activity, we're going to be using more energy. And so, I mean, maybe we could say to try to reduce the adjusted increase in the use of energy because we're going to use more energy because of our growth. Anyway, I appreciate your comment. Those are some of the thoughts I was having. and perhaps it might be interesting if you could do some kind of a comparison for the last three or four years of our energy usage and sort of submit something like that to the council to look at so we could visualize how you would try to account for the energy usage into the future. And that is actually in the plan to do that. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to comment that I think having a short-term and a long-term goal might work. I'll wait and see what the amendment is. But I was thinking, you know, to reach the 1% annually is a success, and that's what you want out of a goal. And then that motivates you to continue because without some sort of success in it, I think we would lose interest and not move forward on it. So maybe a short-term goal with a long-term cap or something along that line would work, like to reach 20% by 20 years from now or something in addition to the 1% annually with an overall goal of 20%. But I like the program. I think I agree with Council Member Martin. We certainly, this is critical for our country. And I think it also helps folks that are struggling right now due to the economy. If I have to cut back any way I can, and I know many others do, so I appreciate you working on this and thank you for your work. Thank you, Council Member Hanson. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing this forward. And, you know, it's interesting. The last two presentations have probably demonstrated better than anything the real crossroads this community is at right now and how it has to think differently. You know, the education process, I mean, Charlie just said up here, this is not how we have done business all the way up until now. And now, as it relates to our water, we have to think differently. We have to educate our public completely differently about how we treat our water and our runoff and so forth. So thinking the same way and expecting different results is not the way it's going to work. As I listen to this and I listen to the comments, a couple things come to my mind. Energy conservation, Commissioner, you mentioned just internally in our own house how we've done that. I mean, this building that we are in leaks like a sieve to the tune of about $600,000 a year in energy loss. So taxpayers are paying for energy flying out the window of this particular building. So we have to completely think differently about the structure in which we do government in going forward. So doing nothing costs, doing something costs, and having a goal to improve those things is what we should do, and I applaud the committee and all the folks that were involved in the language that we've come up with so far. I think we're just trying to improve what that is. And the reason why we're trying to improve it is what I want to get to, is that just doing it for the sake of doing it, or because we should, or because this is what we know we ought to do, that's kind of implied. And I think folks understand we have to start thinking differently. We are as a country and as a state and as a city. But what I would like to see come back is some sort of reward system, some sort of rewarding the community for people doing this. And, you know, we were sitting up here just talking about if you equate this to better health, that physical health and weight loss or getting in shape, But losing one pound a year is not very exciting, or 1% of what you weigh is, okay, that's great. And you've got to do something that builds momentum, but you also have to have something that causes people to go, man, I want to keep doing that, because there is a carrot for that. So one of the things I would just encourage us as a body, us as a government, is to think about what can we reward our community with for doing these types of things we know we ought to do. And again, that's us thinking differently. If we're going to ask the community to think differently, then we as a government need to think differently. And the one thing that I know it's tough when we're up here, and it doesn't matter your political stripes, the one thing that is evident across our country is that people are not really excited about government telling them what to do and just constantly being the solve and being the motivator. And so I think that collaborating with that private side sector and asking what is it that works to cause people to do these types of things that doesn't necessarily come from on high up here is probably the missing ingredient right now to taking this and really moving it forward to where it becomes something that folks do. So I would just encourage us to keep fleshing this thing out in the right way. This is a fantastic start, and I think what you're hearing is just council members wanting to make sure that we're galvanized on this thing, and it causes people to do the things we want them to do. So, again, thank you for your effort, but let's continue to think differently, and especially around how we reward a community that does this. And it isn't with just plaques, and it isn't just with empty. platitudes and pats on the back. It's got to be in ways that really are meaningful to them, generally in their pocketbook, but that can take a lot of different forms. Again, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Chair. I agree with Council Member McCord's ideas and thoughts on this, and I agree that people don't want to be told what to do. I do think that An important role of government is leading people into the future and helping the community galvanize and prepare for what's ahead. We have plentiful sunshine, hopefully most of the time here, and we have very inexpensive electricity, and we have some of the smartest engineers in the world. And I think that we as a city and we as a country can do this, and we can become self-sufficient from an energy basis. this is not perfect there are other things we'd like to see and tweak as we go through this but i'm prepared to move to recommend this to the full urban county council so move moved and seconded is there a discussion council member cordon thank you mr chair One reason that I think it's important that we move ahead with this is it is general and broad enough that the work group or the folks, stakeholders involved can bring forward their own ideas. And that's, I think we shouldn't have in this resolution the specific ways we want to ask people to do this. We do have a creative, smart population here. And the other thing I wanted to say is, to Mr. Lane's previous comment, our community has shown that even though we have grown by about 30,000, 35,000 people since the last Senate, we have decreased our water usage. And I think that people have done that because of the conservation message. They get it. And I think finally, not only Fayette Countians, but Americans are getting the message that our energy is not limitless. It is finite. And so this does give us a broad enough framework. I guess the only thing I would do is I would like to make a motion to amend it. And I'm not sure this is the perfect wording, but I move to amend the resolution to place between number Section 3 and Section 4 at the end that the Department of Environmental Quality will report back to the Council annually on progress toward attaining the plan's goals and on actual reductions in energy use. So moved. We have a motion to amend and a second. Is there a discussion on the amendment? And again, Vice Mayor, if you wouldn't mind, if you would repeat the motion. I will. And just to say, I think this will give some structure to the accountability piece, which several of us have talked about. And so the motion to amend is to insert between Sections 3 and 4 that the Department of Environmental Quality will report to the Council annually on progress toward attaining the plan's goals and on actual reductions in energy usage. Thank you. Further discussion on the amendment? Council Member Crosby. Well, so you're suggesting that with the voluntary program that we're going to pass a resolution on to move forward for people to voluntarily participate in this, that you're going to then ask our division to monitor these recommendations that the committee has come up with? Is that what I understand? I'm asking for some progress report on meeting the goals. If we don't have a way to say we're making progress or we're not making progress, then the resolution becomes, I think, just words on a piece of paper. I think it already is. Thank you. Thank you. Further discussion on the amendment? Council Member Martin. Thank you, Chair. I support the amendment because I think it's impossible to manage anything that you can't measure. And I think it's important to measure this. And if next year the department comes back and tells us that we can't measure it, then we will, I guess the council at that time, will make adjustments and take another vantage point. But I can't stress enough, and if council members have other proposals they want to make for how we're going to become more self-sufficient, But I can't stress enough the fact that we as a city have to prepare for the eventuality that we're not going to be able to import oil from the Middle East forever. I think that the world is going to continue to fight over the energy that exists. I think in our lifetime we're going to see the price of gas double and triple and even more. and I think this city has to prepare for that eventuality and encouraging folks to become more energy efficient is a way to do that. And so again, I don't think this is a, to me this is not a feel-good thing. It's not about being stylish or being PC. This is about preparing for the future and I think this is a very small, modest step that I appreciate these folks have brought to us to try to galvanize our community around something, anything, to try to do that. And so if folks are not supportive of this, I'm expecting to hear some sort of alternate proposal. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Martin. Further discussion on the amendment? If there is none, then let's take a vote. All in favor of the amendment, please say aye. Aye. And no? No. I think I heard more yeas than nay, and so the amendment passes. Further discussion on the motion as amended? Vice Mayor? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a question for the director and Mr. Webb. Are you envisioning that if the council passes this, that you would not only, if it passes with the amendment, not only would you bring an annual report, but you would give us some progress along the way as to what people are thinking about and doing in order to reduce their energy, or had you gotten that far to plan? What the division has done, and it's primarily in Tom's shop, our environmental initiatives shop, is we have already begun the process of trying to work with people and give them ideas through our community energy advisor, through our website, and through other programs to give people the tools they need to make the changes in their personal life. So, yes, we're not only willing to do that, we are doing that. You're already working on it. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Well, as I said, I am in support of energy efficiency, and I do like the amendment giving a report on our usage on an annual basis. I think that I would like to add an amendment to include with that a report the actions of the urban county government to reduce energy in that year so that we could see what effort the government is taking to reduce energy. If that amendment would pass, then I would be very happy to support it. Thank you. The motion, as I understand it, is to include in the annual report out what the urban county government has done in the past year to reduce its energy consumption. Yes, sir. And that motion has been seconded by Council Member McCord. Discussion on the amendment to the amendment? Council Member Cason? Crosby, sorry. That's okay. Are you all not already doing this? we are obviously tracking the improvements we make there has not we gave a formal report to the council last year about this time i believe we may be giving another one mid-year but if you want a more formalized i think it's quite reasonable that this be part of the report i don't have a problem with that at all thank you further discussion on the amendment Let's take a vote on that. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? Amendment passes unanimously. Further discussion on the motion as amended and amended. Let's take a vote on it then. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Two opposed. The rest, yea. and the motion passes. Thank you committee members. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Bush, Mr. Webb, Mr. York. Let us go now to the next agenda item, public comment. Is there any member of the public who wishes to address the committee? Mr. Cushy, if If you will come forward and tell us your name and address, and you will have three minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Edward Cushy. I am from 2089 Vercels Road. He has left, however, if I may, I would like to quote Director Martin from today by saying, sewage in the creek is bad. Here is the same recent newspaper article that I brought with me for your last two meetings showing a property that borders South Elkhorn Creek in Fayette County. This property continually produces tons of uncollected manure that lie in the fields, soak in the rain, and the polluted runoff washes into the creek. Immediately across the road from this property is another that on any given day in the summer, a large number of cows can be seen standing in the middle of South Elkhorn Creek, defecating and urinating, thus directly polluting the creek. Here is a recent email from a LFUCG Division of Water Quality engineer senior to other officials in the Division of Water Quality. This email references a government report that specifically identifies and details the severe water quality problems of the creek in this area related to fecal coliforms and E. coli bacteria, which is the direct result of stormwater runoff passing through the manure on these properties and flowing into the creek. The water quality management fee is supposed to be about clean water. The water quality management fee is supposed to be based on ERUs. The water quality management fee is supposed to be used in these areas to resolve these serious water quality issues and implement the consent decree between the LFUCG and EPA and meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act. These properties, according to your report, are toxically polluting South Elkhorn Creek and interfering with the consent decree. These properties each have a grand multitude of ERUs. In the name of clean water and environmental quality, why does the LFUCG ignore these polluters by nearly completely exempting these properties from their huge amount of pollution-causing ERUs. As a citizen concerned about clean water, I've been asking the experts at the LFUCG this important question since 2010 and have yet to receive an answer. I have also been advised that, even if I ask, the Environmental Quality Committee will not discuss or respond to this important environmental quality issue at their meetings. Therefore, my phone, email, and address are not private. Please feel free to contact me if anyone is willing to help me understand. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cushy. Council members, the last item on the agenda is the committee referrals. Are there any recommendations to either remove referrals or to add? Seeing none, a motion to adjourn would be appropriate. All in favor? And we are adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you.