um before we start i would like to uh george offer our condolences staff and the water quality fees born in your loss uh you continue to be in our thoughts and prayers so i know it's a tough time but we we're with you in spirit here here thank you very much appreciate it um like to have a call to worship, but before we do, or as a result of that, we'd like to read the statement concerning our meeting today. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and state of emergency, this meeting is being held via live video teleconference. Pursue it to 2020 Senate Bill 150 and in accordance with KRS 61.826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary fiscal location for the meeting. So with that, has everyone had a chance to review the minutes of our October 8th meeting? Yes. Okay. Are there any additions, corrections to those minutes? Very extensive, and staff did a nice job pulling a lot of stuff together. Corrections, comments? Hearing none, do I hear a motion that we accept the minutes as written? Move approval. Been moved by Harry. Is there a second? Second. Been seconded by David. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye and raising your right hand. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion carries. We have on our agenda today a couple of appeals that as a board we will be addressing. And what I would like to do at this point is just go through kind of a protocol of how this is going to be done. This is the first time since I've been on the board that we've had to deal and had to discuss this, but I thought it appropriate that we discuss the protocol that we'll use. I'm the chairman and will be, I guess, leading the meeting agenda. First of all, we'll have an oath of all the people involved, both the folks bringing the appeal as well as the staff, testifying that it will be the truth, nothing but the truth. following that we'll have a order of proof first of all the appellate will discuss their information and present their appeal to the group as well as any evidence following that the division of water quality staff will follow up with a their information and their their discussion of that. The appellate will have an opportunity to present a closing summation from that. The Division of Water Quality will have a summation of that as well. At that point, the board will have an opportunity to ask questions to everybody involved, either the folks appealing or to the staff. So we will have an opportunity to ask questions. Following that, the hearing itself will be closed, and then the board will discuss the findings and then make a decision, either deny the appeal, grant the appeal with any adjustment, and go on from there. and then at the conclusion of the meeting the findings of the fact and the conclusions will be sent to each of the appellants so that's kind of the protocol we'll be following and this is our first so we'll just kind of hang in there and we'll we'll proceed ahead Any questions about that? No. Okay. First on the agenda is the appeal of water quality management fee from 2849 Walnut Hill Road. I presume there's someone on our video that is representing that group. Yeah, my name's Travis. Travis, what's your last name? Stein, S-T-I-N-E. okay thank you um my name is george woolwine as chair and uh we would uh i guess move forward with is the uh the appellate of the other uh from old richmond road are they on as well is that a yes you're up you're on mute burgess yes i am thank you okay well i guess we gotta to go ahead and do the oath for everyone concerned, both the staff members and each of the folks appealing. So with that, I will ask each of you to, that will be having discussion or presenting information on that, to please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you give in the proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Okay, thank you. Then again, just to give you a little background of our group, we are not paid by the urban county government. We are volunteers that have been asked to serve on this board, and we receive no compensation for serving as board members. we have discussed the the rules and the information that go through the protocol the process and all persons that are speaking must state their name for the record so they will have that on file and all documents considered by the board shall be marked and numbered as exhibits and entered into the record by the person assigned to record the meeting and Jennifer who is that person? Denise Bullock. Okay thank you and the recording the meeting will be verbatim without interruption. So at this point would like for the representative of 2849 Walnut Hill to present their case. yeah so um there's not service out here um it's really simple there's no water there's no sewer there's not even like a storm drain or anything like that have your name again please for the record my name is travis stein thank you um and so this fee feels really egregious when you get a bill for four dollars because it decided to rain or something it uh it doesn't feel good and I don't even have access to the service if I wanted it. When we built the house, we tried to get Lexington water and it's like almost a mile away. They were wanting us to go through our neighbor's property and put in a pipeline and all this nonsense. So, I mean, that's pretty much the case. It doesn't exist out here. So, that's where I'm at. Okay, so you're okay. Thank you. Anything else you want to add to that? I guess we'll get to that when you guys have questions. Okay, thank you. Okay, staff, do you have anything you want to say to address Mr. Stein's concerns? Yes, I am sharing my screen, if you'll give me just a second. Can you see the address of the property on your screen? Yes. Okay. All right. So briefly, I just want to talk about the ordinance that provides for Lexington assessing and collecting the water quality management fee. This is a screen grab of our code of ordinances. It's Article 16 and Chapter 16 specifically covers the water quality management fee. There are definitions in Section 16-402 and I'd like to direct your attention to three of those. The first one is the water quality management area, which includes all developed parcels within Fayette County. The next one is the water quality management fee, means the fee levied by the urban county government upon all developed parcels within the boundaries of the water quality management area as authorized by this chapter. And then there is a definition of undeveloped, which means the condition of real property unaltered by construction or addition to such property by man of impervious ground cover or physical man-made improvements of any kind, which changes the, sorry, the video's in the way, changes the hydrology of the property from its natural state. And then looking at section 16-403 in regard to the water quality management fee, it's imposed on every parcel of land within the water quality management area except for the following. Undeveloped parcels, railroad tracks, state and federal roads, urban county government streets and roads, and private streets used exclusively to access single-family residential parcels. So essentially, this property is a developed property. It is not one of the excluded parcels within the ordinance listing of excluded parcels, since it is developed. Therefore, it does qualify to be assessed the water quality management fee. Okay, thank you. Is there any other information that needs to come before the group before we have our final closing summation? We've heard from the Mr. Stein, we've heard from staff. Jennifer, I guess, are you making, or I guess we need to have a closing summation from the staff. Is that, what are your final thoughts on that? Well, again, his parcel has been developed. Therefore, it meets the definition of the type of parcel. for which we assess the fee. It is a class A parcel because it's a single family residential parcel and therefore it is assessed one ERU per month, which currently is $5.02 a month. Mr. Stein, do you have anything you wanna add to what you've said before? I'll just be happy to say it again. like, you know, there's nothing provided to me out here. Like I understand, um, that Lexington had trouble with the EPA for the storm sewers and that this fee is meant to, I guess, fix or recover those funds or fine or whatever it was that happened. Um, but none of this water out here goes into a storm drain. Um, it, it's just like, um, in the back of my property, I have water that runs off of Judmont Farms next to me. It runs into a sinkhole. And in the front, kind of the same thing happens from my other neighbors. So I understand that the ordinance or whatever says what it says, but I just feel like it's misapplied in this instance. If I felt like I was getting some benefit, I would just pay the fee, but I feel like I'm not. And so that's why we're here. Okay, thank you. George, may I reply to that? Yes, go ahead. Okay. So I understand Mr. Stein's assertion that he's concerned that there's lack of storm sewers in his part of the county, but the fee also helps to assure that runoff that your property receives from off-site, that any potential impacts are mitigated. So by paying the fee, it's hoping to assure that any runoff that leaves your site is, you know, unencumbered from pollutants. And then likewise, if you were to receive runoff from other properties, the city is providing services in hopes that any of that runoff that reaches your property is unencumbered by pollutants. So, for example, if your neighbor, Juddmont Farms, were to all of a sudden decide to construct a building right there at your property line, you certainly would not want to receive a bunch of sediment-laden runoff onto your property and reaching your sinkhole. and through our erosion and sediment control inspection program and permitting program that is funded by the water quality management fee, you would have those assurances that we would require Juddmont Farm to put BMPs in place that would prevent that from impacting your property. Anything else you want to say on that? Sorry I can't hear you. Anything else you want to say on that? No, I don't have anything else to say. Okay, thank you. Well, at this point, I'd like to open it up for the board. Does the board have any questions either for Mr. Stein or for the staff concerning this matter? here anybody have any questions comments uh mr chair let me just express myself i was muted so i'm i'll start over it it seems like to me that this this is an ordinance that we may not have um the authority to counteract that ordinance because obviously this is something that affects hundreds and hundreds of properties probably throughout the county. And so to make an exception here, it would seem to be stepping beyond what our authority is. I may be wrong about that staff, but it just seems like to me that it's an ordinance that we're following. And I understand Mr. Stein's concern. It does seem a little strange, but I suspect there are a whole lot of people who are in exactly the same boat. So, Steph, am I right about that? Is that correct? Yes. There's an ordinance here. Is Michael Cravenson on? Can he address that as well? Yes, I'm on. Yes, as Jennifer explained, there is an ordinance in place that basically mandates this fee. I think, but also there's an ordinance that allows anybody that wants to dispute that to bring their appeal to the board. I think the question for the board is, essentially, is there some exemption from the fee in the ordinance that would apply here? And so I think that's why Jennifer went through the exemptions in the ordinance and explained what those are so the board can make its determination as to whether any of those apply and whether the fee is properly assessed. So yes, there is an ordinance and your issue is basically or your task is to apply that ordinance to the appeal that's been brought and make a determination as to whether there's an exemption. Yeah, yeah. Is there an exception? Yes. Okay, so in the exemptions, undeveloped parcels was one of the exemptions. Is that as if you have land that's not developed, built on? Is that what that means? Yes, that's correct. And if a house is built on it, then that's considered to be a developed parcel. Yes. Okay. And the property we're talking about has a house built on it? Yes, it does. A developed parcel by definition? Yes. Okay. All right. All right. Thank you, Harry. Any other comments, questions to address either the staff or to Mr. Stein? Okay, if I understand this correctly, we can then call the hearing for 2849 Walnut Hill Road closed, and the board needs to decide course of action. So the hearing is closed for 2849 Walnut Hill Road. If the board has any comments, discussion, motion, and I guess the options are to deny the appeal, to grant the appeal and order an appropriate adjustment. and make such other make such order other order consists with water quality fee ordinance that is justified based on the nature of the appeal and adopted findings of fact so those are the options we have what's the will of the group I'd move to deny the appeal I'll second it it's been moved by David it's been seconded by Harry all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye raising your right hand aye aye motion carries Mr. Stein thank you for your time and I'm sorry that we didn't provide the relief that you were looking for. But again, I think the ordinance is set up that outlines the protocol and what qualifies to be issued the stormwater fee. And unfortunately, even though you're out in the county, it is part of the water quality management fee requirement. So thank you. Appreciate it. Yes, sir. Thank you. Next is the appeal of the water quality management fee at 8291 Old Richmond Road. And I think we have someone on the line for that. Could I have your name, please? My name is Burgess Carey. Hey, Mr. Carey, thank you. you and you can present any information or statement that you wish the floor is yours okay well thank you very much I appreciate the board hearing this appeal we have had a few communication glitches I think due to the pandemic but Jennifer has been very willing to work with us on this, and I appreciate all your all's time. Just to be clear, I'm not appealing the charge for the water quality. Prior to 2019, we at this property had paid that ever since it was instituted. As the property is a developed lot, we're in the agricultural area. previously zoned agricultural rural. We had the zone changed just about three years ago to a previously unused designation of agricultural natural. The reason for that was a agribusiness, an agritourism business that we opened here, Boone Creek Outdoors, which consists of a tree-based canopy tour. So prior to that, the property had operated and continues to operate the Boone Creek Anglers Club, making use of a house that was constructed in the mid-1980s and is located on Boone Creek. When we, and prior to the opening of the canopy tour, there was a second house on the property previously served as a gas station decades ago, but since then had been occupied and converted to a three bedroom single family home. when we were able to open the tree-based canopy tour, that home was converted to our welcome center. And essentially, the shower was removed. Kitchen facilities were removed. There's no laundry facilities there. But as a part of that, we were asked by the Lexington Fayette Urban County government to install a new septic system instead of using the previously grandfathered in septic system. And we did that. And when I went through that process, we had to size that system. And as a part of that process, I discovered that the rated usage for a welcome center was by a factor of almost 10 less than a three-bedroom family home. And I think that's an important point as we consider this appeal. And I think the overwhelming reaction that I had when I received the increase of the water quality fee from somewhere around $5 a month to over $100 a month. When I became aware of that and I inquired about it, the primary reason I was given was that because our status had changed to a commercial use. And while it is a commercial use, it is an agro-commercial use, and agritourism, an agricultural-based business, just like a horse farm. And if horse farms and the other agribusinesses in the rural areas of Fayette County are being assessed, these commercial rates, we can end this hearing right now. If they're not, then I feel like that we should be treated the same. and with the additional information that we have not expanded any infrastructure here to what was there previously. Our parking lot is the same as what it was when I bought the property in 1994. In fact, we did improve a small detention area off the parking lot to mitigate stormwater flow from the parking lot into the field below it. but we have not increased usage of the septic system. And our numbers are pretty minimal. For the canopy tour itself last year, we had 1,800 guests throughout the course of the entire year. And with only our bathroom there, again, our septic system was actually reduced in size from what was necessary for a three-bedroom home. So the appeal is to restore our rates to the rates that we had and been paying previously, which would be comparable to other agricultural small operations in Fayette County. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your information and background on that. Jennifer, would you like to present the staff's findings? Yes, sir. Again, I'm going to share my screen. can you see the address 8291 old Richmond road I can't see that Burgess you cannot see it I cannot see it Okay. Are you on a computer? Yes. I can see everybody else in the tiles, but I can't see a screen. All right. Hold on a second. Okay. Okay. I've stopped sharing. I'm going to try that again. Were you able to see the screen on the Walnut Hill Road? No, I just didn't want to interrupt. Okay. All right. Well, I will be as descriptive as possible. All right. All right. Okay. All right. So going back to the ordinance and the definitions, 16, or I'm sorry, yeah, section 16-402, which has the definitions that are applicable to this ordinance. if you can see number 13 is the definition of a farm property which I've copied and pasted here so that it's a little bit larger for everybody but a farm property means any parcel occupied exclusively for agricultural use which is in quotations as defined in article 1-11 of the zoning coordinates. The water quality management fee is defined in section 14 or section 16-403 and it differentiates between a class A property and a class B property. Class A properties are single family residential or farm properties. So that farm properties links back to the definition that I just read. And then class B covers all other parcels. So keeping that in mind, if we go to the zoning ordinance section 1-11, which is the definitions for the zoning ordinance, agricultural use is shown there on the screen grab from the Muni Code website. and then pasted here in larger font for everybody. Agricultural use means the use of attractive land of at least five contiguous areas, acres for the production of agricultural or horticultural crops, including but not limited to livestock, livestock products, poultry, poultry products, grain, hay, pastures, soybeans, tobacco, timber, orchard fruits, vegetables, flowers, or ornamental plants, including provision for dwellings for persons and their families who are engaged in the above agricultural use on the tract, but not including residential building development for sale or lease to the public. So the definition in the water quality management fee ordinance requires that for a farm parcel, it has to be exclusively agricultural use. And if you look at our aerial photography, this is a screen grab of a map. The blue highlighted, turquoise highlighted parcel is the one we're talking about on Old Richmond Road. Looking at our aerials, you can clearly see a well-defined parking lot on the north side of the original, I guess this was the original house that has been converted to the Welcome Center. There's also a parking lot to the south. I believe there's 40 spaces across the two lots, which is certainly indicative of a commercial type of enterprise and not necessarily something that would be required or necessary for an exclusive agricultural use. here's a screen grab from our 2016 aerial photography Mr. Carey said the the footprint of the parking area hasn't changed but you can see that there was significant improvement of that parking area by paving between our 2016 and 2018 aerial photography Can I clarify that picture? We didn't pave any more square footage that was already paved. It had just fallen into district repair. And I can't see the picture, but it may not show that there's eight inches of asphalt across that entire area. Sorry. Okay, thank you. And then this is an adjacent parcel to the south, also owned by Boone Creek Properties. The address is 8385 Old Richmond Road. And when we look at this parcel, this is our 2020 aerial photography. There is nothing on this parcel that's indicative that this is a commercial enterprise. I think there probably are parts of the canopy tour that cross onto this property, but you don't see the parking lot. You don't, it's not readily evident that there's a commercial enterprise occurring here. So even though when we do our impervious area calculations, we come up with five ERUs for this parcel, we are only billing it one ERU as a farm parcel, meaning we see that it's, you know, just from visual aerial photography looks like it's used exclusively for agricultural use. So Mr. Carey's property is currently there's it's a combined bill like serve bill for the two properties that totals 29 ERUs. So one of those ERUs is for the 83, 85 Old Richmond Road address and 28 ERUs are for the 8291 Old Richmond Road address. And this is how we determined the impervious area. It's the yellow shading, and it's over a fairly long winding driveway down to the lodge area that was used by the Anglers Club. And then as well up toward the road, the original home that's now the Welcome Center, as well as the two parking lots on either side of the Welcome Center. And then this is what we calculated as five ERUs. But again, we are only building one ERU for the 83-85 property. yeah so that's um that's the information that i wanted to share okay um so again i guess um well is there any other i guess at this point jennifer is there anything that you want to present in a closing summation? Again, I think I just want to stress that a farm parcel as defined in the water quality management fee ordinance is a parcel that is exclusively used for the agricultural use, which was well defined in the zoning ordinance. It is essentially a parcel that's used for either row crops, an orchard, livestock, something along those lines, and not for a commercial business that includes a tour or something like that. Okay, thank you. Mr. Carey, anything you would like to have as a closing summation? Yes, thank you. I think the crux of the disagreement is with the classification. This is an agricultural use, and it's been defined by the federal government and the state government. We're regulated under the Department of Agriculture, and agritourism has been determined to be a legitimate agricultural use. Without the trees on the property, which is silver culture, I couldn't have a tree-based canopy tour. There's not an opportunity, nor was there before, for row crops because of the steepness of this property. And that's why we went through the process of changing the zoning. And when we changed it, we didn't change it to a commercial zone. We changed it to another agricultural zone. So by definition, I would disagree with Ms. Carey. This is an agricultural use. and I would also like to emphasize that the parking lot that is there is the same parking lot that was there before and I would like to also add that this is the only ecotourism project in Fayette County. It was very difficult as I'm sure many of you all are aware to work through the process to get this properly permitted and so that we could open. It's a small business and the business is designed to maintain our property and to take better care of our property just as agricultural properties or other agricultural properties are permitted to do. And as I said in the outset, if Champaign Run, if other horse farm operations are being charged on a commercial basis when they bring in tour buses of 50 or 60 people at a time, very large parking lots then my argument is moot but if they're getting the benefit of the agricultural use charge then I feel that we should too and I don't feel that we should be singled out differently because we're the only property zoned ag natural in Fayette County okay thank you sir um we now have as a board the opportunity to ask questions for clarification does anyone have any questions they would like to ask either to Mr. Carey or to staff open that up now what's the will of the group uh is there any way that we could look into possibly because I understand what he's saying uh it makes a lot of sense he wasn't aware of the fees at the time of purchasing, but is there any way we could possibly look at maybe getting an ordinance that would kind of refute what has already been set in place, or is this just etched in stone? It appears the ordinance is what it is today. I guess you can always go back, and that's not our job to change the ordinance. That has to go back, I guess, to Irving County council. But I think we have to act on what the ordinance is this minute in making our decision. We can't base it on what could happen down the road. Michael, you got anything to add to that? Michael Cravens? I think your task is to apply the ordinance as it exists today. If the ordinance were amended or expanded to include or recognize Mr. Kerry's operation or or that type of operation as an agricultural use, that would be, that would apply going forward, but it wouldn't change where we stand today. Okay. Thank you, Donald. Anything else? What's the will of a group? Mr. Chair, I will reluctantly move to deny the appeal. Once again, I say reluctantly because it seems a little unfair, but I think, as I said, our hands are tied and I make that motion. Thank you, Harry. Is there a second? I will reluctantly second. Moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Raising your right hand. Aye. Motion carries. Mr. Carey, thank you. And I think we all are very sympathetic to the position you're in. It's a case of getting different messages from different avenues of who you're talking to to to make your business a reality. And I applaud you again for the persistence in, in, in, in your business. And I'm very supportive of you and your business and I'm happy that you're there. I'm sorry that we had to make the decision we did based on the facts before us. But that that's the situation that we're operating under. And that's the course of action we had to take. I understand. But thank you again for your coming before the board, making us aware of that and making us aware of things that we might want to present on to urban county council to make it more fair for businesses, because yours is a very unique business. None other like you in Fayette County, I guess. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Burgess. Hi to your mom. Thank you very much. okay we will move on next item on the agenda is the opera house square townhouse corporation give us just a second we're switching control here Thank you. Okay. How's everyone today? Great, thanks. How are you, Frank? Alrighty. Sorry for that quick pause. Opera House Square is one of our fiscal year 2019 grants. And the project, let me bring this up. If you bear with me for a second. second and access the drive so I can bring Thank you. So go back to Zoom, down at the bottom. Go, yeah, and then share screen. Yeah. So what I'm sharing, let's see. Over there, yeah. This one here. Yes. And then hit share. Oh, sorry. so what i'd like to share is their project elements for the fy19 opera house square townhomes corporation stormwater quality project and their project was to install as you can see approximately 16 203 square feet of permeable pavers in the existing parking lot area of the property located at 541 West Short Street. And so at this time, the organization has put in a request to reduce the scope of the project, specifically to decrease the footprint of the permeable paver lot that they had initially proposed. and so I think we have Fee Meyer to represent the organization so she can present the reasoning the justification for the request and what have you Fee are you on here? I am can you hear me? Yes are you do you have a visual or are you just on the phone? Can I move this? I do have a I can share my screen if that would be appropriate. Okay. Okay, wonderful. Yeah, that's good. She'll have to do it. What is your name, please? It is, it's Fee Myers. That's a nickname. It's Freda Myers. I'm a resident and homeowner at the square. Okay, thank you. And thank you for allowing us to allowing me to to present what happened and why we are here today. I would like to thank Frank Mabry and Lee Hudson. They've been very kind in working with us since we are homeowners and, and we are a homeowner run HOA. So we do not have a construction, I mean, excuse me, a property management company. We hold the maintenance and contracts ourselves and we're a volunteer board. And let me, I apologize. I usually do this on my work computer and I'm on my personal computer. are you able to see the grant application that we submitted? Yes. Okay, very good. Let's see here. When we submitted the grant application, which was for the Class A neighborhood, we requested the full amount of the grant at $100,000 in order to provide our portion and share of 20% or greater. We were putting in from our HOA $25,963.30. sense. While we do have some rentals in here, we are still primarily homeowner occupied, and many of our folks are on fixed income. So we are always conscious of of our homeowners and the HOA billing, so to speak. So this grant seemed like an opportunity for us to do two things. One is to address the stormwater issue that we have, that we slow it on our property, but it's probably not slowed down in the best method that we could could have. And the drainable pavers offered an opportunity to provide an alternative to slow that water runoff. And I'm not a civil engineer or a landscape architect, so please forgive me for not being able to probably speak in the proper language. We reached out to a designer, and we received a number that really was underestimated at the time. And then again, as you all may have seen, construction costs have risen quite a bit since the the end of the recession and labor. So when we got with a contractor, we found that we needed to reduce the square foot area. And forgive me, I'll scroll down through here. I think visuals are always a little bit easier to see. The grant budget itself would remain essentially the same request. We are trying to put up $10,000 and really it's $25,000 of our money as a share and volunteer service. And then $100,000 of the grant, the full amount would go toward the construction of the drainable paver area. Our schedule originally was to start this this project, basically with the construction portion starting in June and good weather and ending in October of last year, excuse me, of 2019, we ran into some issues that are also related to the second piece, which is our, and I'll move down to the visual here. the issues that we have at hand we have a drain right behind this fountain which is in the center of our square and when it rains with a very heavy rainfall we as you can see the water backs up around this area and it takes up a large portion of the area it does drain off In about an hour, it will dissipate if it's a very heavy rain. In about, you know, 30 minutes, it'll be down from a less heavy rain. To us, it's still an issue and one that we would like to address. The drainable pavers, and I'll just kind of skip down, would, of course, allow that. And I know we've looked at installations at the co-op and also at the Woodland Park area. What we've learned from talking in particular to the contractor is that it still requires a drain tile or perforated drain pipe to pick up water from the stone underlayment area. Now, when we look at our particular area, initially, the goal was to do the hatched area and to leave the parking spaces. That was $16,000. And I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that at the cost we received, that would have been about $7 a square foot. Well, it turns out it's closer to $25 to $26 a square foot for drainable pavers. And because that includes the sub drainage and the gravel and base and geotech fabric, and then, of course, the excavation and removal of the old and the installation of the new. So in looking at this, and I'll show this very quickly, this is a contour map of our site. This all drains, basically the entire area drains to this catchment here, and then drains slowly, which we're not sure exactly how this connects, but it drains over to here and out. Mr. Mabry was able to supply us with this limited information from when the city went through the sewer system and was doing some cleaning. We do have a manhole back in this area, and there are storm drain lines in this area that pick this up eventually and out to here. How this gets from here to here, I don't know the clear path. It wasn't on what we saw. I'd like to switch over to, in looking at the square footage, you can see this is quite a reduction. And I've gone ahead and listed $27 a square foot because costs are not going to go down between when we met with the contractor. They're going to go up. So in greatly reducing that area, one of the reasons this is a better area, and also this one is another alternative solution we looked at, is because of the relatively, I guess, even slope, so to speak. As you get into this area, this is a one, two, three, four, four foot slope from here to here. We have a very big slope down toward this island. and both sides, but this side in particular. And in reviewing with the contractor, the drainable pavers do not do as well in a very steep slope. And I've looked at these installations around town. They're primarily on a level slope. So we're a little bit limited in our area, somewhat to this back area where the slope is not as steep, and in particular here. One of the issues we have, though, is we've got a dumpster area here, and we will have to provide a concrete base here. So this hatched area may actually extend into here for the drainable pavers to work around this concrete base. the garbage trucks come into our facility this way and then they pick the dumpster up dump it and then they back out and then they go this way we also have heavy moving trucks that come into our area and typically park alongside the island for people moving in and out and And so really this back area becomes an area that is much greater potential for doing the drainable pavers. And given the cost and the amount of the grant, and really it does stretch our organization without having to start doing assessments, which we have tried to avoid. And by being a volunteer board, we've been able to keep our HOA fees low because we take that responsibility on as homeowners. And I'm sorry, I know this is a great deal of detail to go into, but it's been quite a learning experience in going through how our parking lot actually performs and the slopes. So we would propose two areas, either this area or this area, depending on when the contractor has a chance to do more assessment on connection to this underground pipe that runs through here, which is this. And again, these are not exact locations, they are approximate, so we need to to really have a little bit of investigation done. And so the goal would be, and we also have an existing manhole here that we do not have anywhere else except up at the front of the property. So that's actually also a benefit in this area. The reduction in the square foot area is really just due to the cost of these drainable pavers. They are very expensive. And while they perform also a great service in terms of slowing runoff, they are much more expensive than we thought. But the next question would be to, in sitting through this meeting and learning more about the Class B infrastructure, our hope would be if we could get this area done, that we could perhaps, or this area, get the rest of this piece through a secondary grant. should this be successful and we can prove to you and the board that this enterprise was successful and completed and that all our residents were ultimately happy and ready to move forward with additional paving. So the request here is really for the reduction in the square footage. I've probably given you more information than you need. And I apologize for that. We are, and again, then, of course, COVID hit this past year and all of us were, I know for me anyway, I was forced to pull all of my staff and work from home. So we have had a little bit of a year, we'll put it that way since last March. And we have been investigating this. It is, again, we're volunteer oriented. We do, once we, now that we have a, I think a fairly good contractor who is willing to give, who has experience in doing this, I feel that we have better information and are better prepared to to undertake it the the project if if the board would deem the the possibility of an extension okay is that it miss meyers yes sir thank you so much appreciate your information and it gives us a much better idea of what the situation is and and what you're trying to do uh jennifer would you like or the staff like to present your thoughts on yeah well we the staff we have some other things to also consider we had several questions i mean you know you miss p you could stop sharing your screen now if you don't mind sure okay appreciate it okay so you know in our discussions discussion between the grant manager and his conversations with fee and then myself coming into play you know we've discussed the multitude of constraints that present themselves as a part of this project which initially you know i'm not sure why they weren't considered by the initial consultant on board. And she presented some of those. One she didn't mention was the utilities, the heavy utilities within the full lot there. Because not only was cost a major consideration, but as we presented it in the grant determination form as a stipulation to the grant. The permeable pavers cannot be constructed within 10 feet of either side of the existing sanitary sewer, and measures would have to be taken to prevent infiltration from entering the system. Where they have so many lines running through the entire lot, that was going to be a major issue as well. Another constraint would be temporary parking for the residents at that location. And I mean in terms of how it was presented to do the whole entire lot. And staff just really does it. we really have an issue with the fact that we don't think it would really mitigate the flooding at the fountain because of the runoff from the from the from the buildings as well as the full lot size as well and how it's sloped i think she presented it in that uh contour drawing um and so we had questions about how you know the the the quite the decrease from 16 000 square feet as all the way down to 3,000 square feet. So we do know that cost fluctuates and that with high demand and construction costs and everything, we do know that it was probably going to present an issue since they weren't able to move forward right away with the grant. And so we probably understand that part, but it's quite the distance. So when we also asked for a revised budget so we could see the breakdown so we can present to the board the difference. So we can see the value or the lack thereof for this case. And so those are some of the things to consider with this request. And also one major thing is when we look back to when we initially scored it and they presented it as 16,000 plus square feet, we went back and reviewed the scoring sheet. and we do realize that the class A score sheet and the way that it's currently structured did not present an area where we could actually reevaluate it and put it up against those that did not receive funding at that time but we did have uh we did have three other uh applicants at the time that did not receive funding due to insufficient uh funds one of them was Rosemill Neighborhoods Association, and they scored a 76 at that time, which was below Opera House, which scored 83 that year. These were all Class A applicants. Waterford II Homeowners Association also scored 73, so they came in next. And then Old Richmond Road, which was at Grimes Mill, they scored a 68. None of those received funding that year because of insufficient funding. Waterford II was able to pick up funding in FY20. So that still leaves Rosemill Neighborhood Association and Old Richmond Road that was denied funding due to insufficient funding. And so that was one of the things that we had to consider in terms of this request to reduce the scope, because we wondered if it would have adjusted the scoring or had a different impact, certainly by them not being as ready as it was presented, that's an element of the score sheet that would have probably been a little bit more impacted had we known that from the outset. So those are some of the things that some of the questions that the staff would, you know, take or has rather. And we wondered, you know, where we are in the process in terms of permitting or, you know, or even inquiring about the permitting and just the timeline, because we didn't see a revised schedule presented or breakdown of the, specifically the construction budget is what we're interested in seeing. Because in the, if I'm going to share my screen again, when we looked in the budget of the contract, this one here, I'm going to scroll down. It didn't really break out the construction costs. It actually combined the removal of the permeable pavers, the existing pavement, the installation of the pavers, and the installation of the educational signage into one line. I'm sorry about that. This mouse is moving fast enough for me. As you can see here, line seven and eight. And the reason it's broken down in the two here, we just broke out the grants portion and then the cost share. The one to the left here, this line seven, shows what the organization we're going to put in for those three elements, for removing existing paving and providing new permeable pavers, as well as installing the educational signage. And then line eight is the grant portion. So we really want to see a revised budget so we could try to make sense of the differences between then and now. And so we struggle to support it as well as those other constraints based on those factors. so it's kind of hard for us to make a a decision you know in terms of recommendation that would support uh the organization based on the lack of uh you know evidence and what have you so that's that's pretty much the staff's position on it we thought about it and and So our recommendation would be to essentially deny the request at this time and just to have them go back to the drawing board to reapply, to reassess the entire project. number one to see if it'll solve their flooding problem at the fountain because the eight there's an eight inch pipe at that fountain as well that we feel like it may not be good enough to even you know even if they install pavers they would have to um probably increase that pipe size we would think because it's it's pretty steep we think that the water coming off may even bypass the pavers you know you know we don't know that it'll infiltrate properly okay so with the with the various constraints we just feel like it would be better to go back to the drawing board with this property as well this this prop this project occurred in fy 19 was the FY19 project. And so we're here in FY21 in terms of our grant season headed toward FY22. And we haven't even, at this junction, committed to the design of the project. So that's kind of like where we are with it. Okay. Thank you. What about it? Any questions, comments, either to Ms. Myers or to Frank and the staff on this? I guess, Frank, to be clear, you know, I hear the staff's position, you know, maybe the direction of going back to the drawing board, but there are, I'm hearing that we can't get pavers within 10 feet of some existing lines. You know, that manhole, I think, presents a problem. The dumpster obviously presents a problem. And then big trucks moving throughout the parking lot around the fountain. You know, I wouldn't want anyone to spend time on a new application or something if the likelihood of that application scoring well is unlikely. Do we have any thoughts on that? It just seems like the orientation of the property, there's just a series of unfortunate realities, I guess, with the orientation of the property. And I'm not sure that would even necessarily be successful in the future. When I say go back to the drawing board, what I mean by is even assessing whether or not permeable pavers, you know, is even the option here. Right. The flooding issue and maintenance was another thing, which the dump trucks or the heavy equipment, that's what it's referring to. the maintenance and the integrity of the pavers you know we see that being an issue period because we discussed whether or not that the uh solid waste would have another alternative to come into that backlight and i believe they said that it was not an option that this was the only alternative to come in from short street right there and so we just feel like this property isn't a good candidate for these permeable pavers, especially as it was presented initially. You know, to maybe to even if you put it in that back lot, that probably would be the better option to put it in that far back lot where the dump truck doesn't even go, which I think she presented at the bottom of that revised drawing there. but to to to make it a value from the top to the bottom as it was presented from from then to now we just feel like it just needs to be re-evaluated because that doesn't solve the problem with where the utilities are located because if i'm not mistaken that's that was a that was an area where the utilities were really heavy so we just feel like just the assessment part should go back to the drawing board in terms of whether this is a good candidate. Is there other option, maybe increasing the pipe size? We feel like this proposal as it was presented may not be appropriate, but that's how it was scored and that's how it was awarded. It wouldn't be proper to move forward as is. They would have to go back to get with a consultant in terms of feasibility. I'm sorry, go ahead. I just wanted to ask a quick question. First, I wanted to say that these parameters, as they kept coming in more and more and we kept reviewing the issues and that portion keeps getting smaller, I understand where the review is coming from. I think, I guess my question is, and we'll work again with the board to ask more questions out to, because it sounds like you're offering, perhaps we should look at the fountain area and addressing the size of the storm catchment and really move in that direction. And I do greatly appreciate that feedback. I think this is a wonderful grant and opportunity. And I do understand all of the issues that you're presenting. And our property is unique in terms of how many utilities that we keep finding. Thank you. So if this, to help me understand, the original project included putting permeable papers on the entire parking area. No, in the, it was not in the parking spaces. We couldn't, we basically had a budget bust. I was given some information that really was more related to material cost and from what I can discern at this point in time. It was to cover the drivable areas and not the parking spaces. And we discussed the possibility of switching to the parking spaces themselves. um but again it's because this requires a sub drainage system you know drainable pavers just just um don't go into the ground directly they still require a drain tile which was um becomes a unique i guess uh portion of the project on how to deal with that drain tile where that ties in, if that makes sense. It does. And so you're asking that the original grant that included a much larger area than what's proposed now be reduced either to the parking area where the dumpster pad is or the small area over that entrance that at the Bruce Street side of the development. I guess what you're doing is you're reducing scope to fit the dollars for the grant that you got in 2019. Is that basically it? Yes, and the contractor we met with was great and had a lot of experience and has done these projects, but what we got from him was basically a dollar per square foot. and perhaps we do need to go back to him to get this it sounds like this more detailed information to understand the budget implications of all the sub drainage and to have a better breakout which we were not given we were given a dollar per square foot well I guess that's another question I have is if the board did approve making the changes as suggested, whether that would really help the issue down in the parking aisle and planting aisle and whether that really have any significant impact on reducing that flooding issue. So it looks like that perhaps you do need to have some more investigation done to see the best way to address that and maybe maybe a way to do that would be a feasibility study to to look at different options to address the overall flooding problem that might be a course of action to take. Mr. Chairman yes sir I'd like to uh let the um Miss Fe know that the program does have a target for class A properties for a feasibility. And I think that's an amount of $40,000. Yes. So, you know, that would be an option for them to come back and apply for that feasibility because, you know, feasibility, it really saves you a lot of time and money, you know, in the long run, especially with the, you know, with the many constraints that's at their property, it just may, it may be a great option for them. I would agree with that Frank and and I was going to suggest that as a possibility and and actually I like the idea of going back to the drawing board because I really think that's what this project needs I think there's there's some significant need here there's no question about it. but how that need is going to be satisfied is a bit more complex than we realized at the beginning. And so I think starting over is the right way to go. So if that's the case, what is our action here just to deny the change or what's our process? Right. And I'm also, before you all do that, I want to offer another note that in that back parking lot, the way that it was presented this time, it was going to be not just the drivable areas, but the parking spaces. And I'm worried that those permeables were going to go next to that structure. They would need also 10 feet for the drainage of those permeables. So that would be another constraint in terms of how it was revised. They wouldn't be able to do that whole lot because they would be restricted, you know, from 10 feet of those existing buildings right there in that back lot. So that was another, that was an issue for how it was revised for the revised proposal. So we, just, just clarify for me. So we would need to be 10 feet away from existing sanitary lines or from the buildings themselves? It's actually both. Yeah, it's actually both. One stipulation of the grant was to be 10 feet from the existing sanitary to prevent infiltration into those lines. But then another stipulation, just as it is, I think it's an ordinance that you can't put in drainage that close to a structure within 10 feet of a structure. Of a foundation. Of a foundation, yeah. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to put that out there before, you know, before we, before the board. Those are the kind of things that a feasibility study would cover. Absolutely. I think that's the point of a feasibility study is to get all these issues out. Yeah. You're studying it based on facts rather than what you would hope to do. Right. I understand. And I appreciate I didn't realize there was the ability to appreciate that option for the feasibility study application. So I really do appreciate that. I appreciate everyone's time. I can see many more parameters that we need to fulfill. as I wish we had a flat parking lot. We'll go back to the drawing board. And those applications are upcoming. I mean, they'll be published in probably the next month and a half. So, you know, but the deadline is not until May, the beginning of May, I believe. May 7th. May 7th. So it's actually a good time to, you know, I mean, to kind of get with the consultant to see if you can get someone on board to kind of help with the application to present it. But just to let you know that those applications will be opened up here probably begin to March. Some words in that area. Right. Thank you very much. I want to say thank you and I apologize that we were not able to pull the information. Well, first, it's our site is very difficult to. And I appreciate these options. That's that's very helpful. Well, we certainly appreciate your participation in the program. You definitely have a problem, as is pointed out, and we want to be supportive of that. And I think the benefit of the feasibility study is that it will look at all possible alternatives to solve the problem. One of which is the paver issue and the discussion, the paver may not be the best option to go because of all the other issues that come into play. But there will be other options that we looked at that might perhaps give you the relief from flooding at a lower cost and a higher probability of being successful. So we appreciate your participation and your interest in trying to do that. Thank you. And thank you all for your service to our community. I didn't realize you were a volunteer board. That's much appreciated as well. Thank you. And thank you to Mr. Mabry and Mr. Hudson. Thank you. Thank you. Likewise. And we're looking forward to hopefully seeing your application. so i guess the the issue before us is um addressing the request to reduce the stroke and i think that's the question before us uh what we do with that and then we have motion for we need a motion as to approve or deny the request then depending on what the outcome of that is then certainly we've already discussed the recommendation that perhaps the Opera House Square Board consider putting together a future application for a feasibility study to look at that particular problem. So what's the will of group. I'll make a motion to deny the application and hopefully folks move forward with a feasibility. Thank you David. Is there a second? It's been moved by David, seconded by George. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye raising your right hand aye aye aye opposed like saying motion carries um okay thank you thank you and good luck oh thank you we need it the next item on the agenda is uh comments suggesting suggestions concerning the incentive grant program. That is, I think, the information in the December 17th, 2020 memo from Frank to the board. Is that what we're talking about here? But this is what's, this is what would be for citizens comments for anybody that want to give any suggestions or comments for the program. That's before we get to the memo. Okay, I'm sorry. My mistake. Okay. No problem. I think we have Scott Southall on the line, and he may want to present or speak. Scott, are you there? Looks like he's muted here, huh? Yes. Sorry, I was just listening. I actually don't have anything. I was just on in listen mode in case any questions came up about any of the projects that we were working on. So I was, that's, that's all I was doing. Okay. I was just talking to you all. Yeah, definitely. Certainly welcome. Alrighty. Well, I'm sure some of your projects have come up in our status updates. So if you want to hang around, that's fine too. Yeah. So now George, we can move to the next item. We are going then to the memo concerning potential changes to the... Yeah. All righty. If you all have that memo printed out, you can bring it up. Otherwise, I'm going to try to share the screen here. Where is it? It's in the water quality piece board. Let me go back. We're going back. Yeah, all the way. And I guess just as a point of clarification, what you're doing is basically just pulling up items that we generally have discussed every year when we're looking at potential changes to the requirements, to priorities and things like that, correct? Yes, sir. In some cases, then we've added a couple of new items as well. Based on what we've encountered over the past year. Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. Okay. So, one second. I'm just trying to share the screen here. This. As a point of clarification, the action we just took as far as the Opera House Square, so that means the grant, we denied their request to change the scope. So that means that money goes back into the fund to fund future projects. Is that correct? Right, but we would have to get official word that they want to terminate so we can just kind of make that official. Because I know she wants to go back to her board to present, to let them know that the request was denied, but we would want to hear from them that they officially want to terminate the grant or cancel the grant. Gotcha. Okay, thank you. Yes. And we have not expended any of their grant funds. No, there's not. So that full amount can return to the FY22 cycle. And that was $100,000. Yes. Do you think Ms. Myers understands that? Oh, yeah. Yeah, I believe. And we'll follow up after today's meeting. We'll follow up and let her know, based on our action, these are things you need to consider doing. Right, right. the reduction in scope was their only option for moving forward. I think she understands that. So, but we'll communicate to clarify what they need to, you know, that, that those funds will be returned. The good news, like we said, they don't have to reimburse us for anything. So that's good news. So I have, I'm sharing on the screen, the memo that you all, I believe received in your packet. That's dated December 17th. And as George mentioned, it typically incorporates items that we've discussed in the past to revisit to see if we want to continue along that path or to update any of the components like cost share, which is item one here. And then we've added a couple of items. And I believe we also have an additional item that we thought about that we will present as item number 10 of the memo. 11. 11, sorry. Right, 11, sorry. Okay. And so the first item, first of all, did anybody need a restroom break? Or we don't want to, I was just wondering just to make sure. That's a good one. I didn't want to get into the thick of it and then we, you know, that somebody's kind of shaking their leg or something. Why don't we take a five-minute break? Because we've been on this for about an hour and 45 minutes. Yes. Just a quick five. Take a five-minute break and then reconvene and get into this. Yeah. Good. Thank you. Do I need to? Hit pause recording up the top. Gotcha. Harry how long ago were you on the board of adjustment I'm on the board of adjustment as we speak you oh currently yep so is that is that LFUCG or is that state no that's LFUCG yeah it's part of the planning commission I got you we're still waiting for Frank there he is he needed that break worse than any of us I guess Thank you for suggesting that. That was a great, great suggestion. Perfect. No problem. It was a long first section we had there. Is Donna, we don't see your face. Are you still on with us? I don't. Yes, I am. There you go. You see your bright, shining face now. There we go. So I'm going to go and share my screen once again so we can all. Oh, man. button right here? It just... No, you're fine. First of all... We got you. Thanks. Huh? I don't know what you just did. It's just moving on its own. One second. Stop sharing for a second. Go back to Adobe. Go back to Adobe. Click on that. All right, close that. minimize that thing. Yeah. There you go. Yeah, sorry about that. Here. Share screen. There. Alrighty. So we can start with item number one of the memo And then item number one is, should we change the cost share requirements for any of the grant classifications? We've looked at this, the cost share percentages in previous year and the board has made changes. So does this, does it need to be adjusted again this year? for FY 2021 the board decided to continue with the percentage percent match for class BE above the first 2500 from 50 percent to 20 percent so we downgraded the cost share so it'll be consistent across the board for all classes and this helps which it helps maintain the consistency consistency among the classes so we felt the pro of the if the percentage increases it would mandate a larger contribution by the applicant, a higher dollar project for the same LFUCG monetary investment. And if the percentage decreases, the grant program might be more appealing to some applicants and increase competitiveness. The con is if the percent increases, it might discourage some applicants from applying and make the grant program less competitive. And if it decreases, it might decrease the size of the project for the LFUCG monetary investment. So those are the pros and the cons to consider for the cost-shared consideration. Frank, I think we're right on target. That would be my first impression. I would agree. I can't say that we disagree. We just wanted to present the opportunity to the board for discussion to see if you all's feelings on that. So I think staff would agree that, especially in this time, we probably would suggest not to make a change in that would be our recommendation. I would agree with that. Okay. Don, are you okay with that? I'm fine with that. Okay. Suggestion, do we need to take any formal action on each one individually or is this just basically discussion or? I think it might be easier if we just quickly do a vote on each one as we come to it. In case there are some that do require more discussion and, you know, potentially not agreement among everyone. Gotcha. Perfect. Okay. So we need to take action. And do I hear a motion that we, I think based on what I was hearing, most of us agreed to remain the way we are, leave the cost share as it states, as it currently is. That would be my motion. Okay. Harry's made the motion. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been seconded by David. All in favor of the motion, signify by aye, raising your right hand. Aye. Opposed, like, son? Motion carries. We will keep the cost share as it currently is. Item number two. Item number two is should we continue with the small project target, which is projects $50,000 or less, and the Class B infrastructure grant class. For FY 2021, the target amount was lowered to $50,000 and 166,500, 15% of the budgeted funds for Class B infrastructure grants was allocated for the small project target category. Of the nine Class B applications scored for FY 2021 funding, only one competed in this category this year. And the pro is it provides an opportunity for some of the smaller projects to be funded, since these typically score lower than the applicants requesting full funding. It increases the number of applicants who are awarded grants. A con is it reduces available funding for the typical higher scoring applications requesting full funding. It also increases the number of grant projects for LFUCG staff to manage. So those are the pros and cons that staff recommended. Frank, let me ask you this question. If we don't spend the entire amount for the small project target, the money just simply moves to another category. It does. It goes back to the general funding of that particular class. Right. Okay. So basically what we're doing is we're opening it up for smaller projects to qualify, which they may not be able to if we didn't have this provision set aside. Right. I see it. Yeah. I move as it is thank you George is there a second second I was just trying to get Donna I'm here we just couldn't see you on our we had our screen set up so we got you now so are there any comments questions hearing none all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye raising your right hand. The motion was to not change, correct? Correct. Okay. Can I get who filed the motion? I'm sorry. I think Kerry you seconded, right? Thank you. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye, raising your right hand. Aye. Opposed, like son. No two carries. We will continue to have the small project set aside. Ready? Item number three is should we consider continuing with continuing with the current funding allocation for Class B infrastructure projects or less and this is referring to the $166,500 which was 15% we increased it 15% from the year before for the Class B infrastructure budget. And the pro for this consideration is that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, this target category had increased in its competitiveness in previous years. Continuing the 15% allocation to this target would still allow for more of the applicants to be awarded a grant if the trend generally Class B infrastructure funds were to resume. The con is it reduces available funding for the typically highest scoring applications requesting full funding and increases the number of grant projects for LFUCG staff to manage. Okay. What you mentioned last year, there was one project that met this criteria. What was the budget on the one that was funded last time? It was just under $50,000. So it was like 48 something. So basically 116,500 plus or minus was available to the other projects in this category. Yes. Yes. Okay. So I guess the question is, should we leave it at 15% or modify it up or down? Is that the issue? Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. What's will the group? well we my thought on this is we can't predict the future maybe there's going to be an increase in applications because hopefully covet is winding down so this gives us space for three such projects on the other hand we have some funds left over from the previous fiscal i think around 550 000 so i don't know three slots seem sufficient for this next round so I think we'd probably keep it at 166. Yeah, I think so too today. Okay, any other thoughts on that? That makes perfect sense to me as well. I move to keep it the same. All right, Harry makes a move that we keep it the same. Is there a second? Well, can we clarify that? Are we going to keep it at the same dollar amount or are we going to keep it at the same percentage? Because we're going to have an extra half a million dollars in the Class B infrastructure pool than we normally do. So if we keep it at 15%, it's going to raise that amount. But if we just want to keep it at 166.5, that's fine also. We just need to know what your will is. I understand. My motion would mean that we keep it at 166.5. Okay. same dollar okay um who seconded that david uh did someone else second i don't did it have a second yeah i thought we did but i can second it okay so the the motion is to keep it at the same dollar amount, $166.5. So a point of clarification for me, then that from now on, it will be at $166.5 until we take action to change it from that. Yes. Yes, we'll revisit this next year, but we feel, well, I guess you all feel like that three projects would be enough as opposed, because like she said, with the additional funding it would increase substantially substantially yeah okay all right all right any other discussion on the motion second okay well well sorry mr chair that that gives me a thought then if we have three three slots that's uh 150 000 so we have this kind of extra 16.5 that's kind of out there. So maybe it would make more sense to make it at 150 flat. I thought about that too, Dave, but I guess the point is that some of these may be less than 50. You might get more than three applications into the mix. Yeah, two years ago, we had one that was submitted for $15,000. That's a great point. Great point. Right. And I think I believe Mr. Ely had introduced the notion of 15 percent. That rate during last year's discussion is how we arrived at that that number there. So we felt it was fair at the time. So. So do we need to keep it at the original motion? Do you want to change the motion? We need to actually amend that motion. No. Well, well, or maybe not. Actually not right. Just to keep it the same dollar amount as opposed to percentage. That was my motion. Keep it. OK, it's been moved. And David, you seconded that. Yes. Any other discussion? OK, all in favor of the motion to keep that allocation at one hundred sixty six thousand five hundred for this fiscal year. signify by saying aye, raising your right hand. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion carries. We'll keep it at 166.5. Item number four is regarding feasibility targets. It says, should we continue with the feasibility targets in the Class A and Class B infrastructure programs? For FY 2021, the targets were $40,000 and $50,000 of the budgeted funds, respectively. Also, some additional information for FY 2021, we had zero feasibilities for Class A and four feasibility-only applications for the Class B infrastructure class. A pro is that it provides an opportunity for feasibility projects to be funded since these typically score lower than the applicants requesting funding for design and construction. Also, it allows the board to anticipate future grant applications for design and construction and should allow for a better use of grant funds. It increases the number of applicants who are awarded grants. A con is that it reduces available funding for typically higher scoring applications requesting full funding, and it increases the number of grant projects for LFUCG staff to manage. Okay, what are your thoughts? the discussion we just had about the opera house square it shows the the kind of value of the of the feasibility targets targets in any program yeah as well as a potential application and in the staff's experience this this amount of money is sufficient for a feasibility study in either of these grant clauses? Yeah, the amount is the actual item number five. Number four is should we continue it all together? And number five is going to address the funding, the actual amount. so we're just agreeing or discussing whether to continue the feasibility targets for the class and class b infrastructure on this particular item right yes i move we continue then okay so moved by george is there a second i second the motion been seconded by donna any other discussion comments? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye, raising your right hand. Aye. Opposed, like son. Motion carries. Is this for four and five or just four? Four. Just four, okay. And item number five is should we increase the allocation of funding for the feasibility targets, I'm sorry, let me move that up so you can see. For the feasibility targets in the Class A and Class B infrastructure programs. FY21, the targets were $40,000 and $50,000 of budgeted funds, respectively, which might possibly go to one grant project in each class. The pro is, if these targets are competitive, it would allow for more of the applicants to be awarded a grant, especially for the Class B infrastructure feasibility target. The con is that it reduces available funding for the typically higher scoring applications requesting full funding, as well as it increases the number of grant projects for LFUCG staff to manage. You mentioned on the previous item, there were four feasibility-only applications submitted. Did we have sufficient money to cover all those? Actually, we didn't. Well, we didn't originally have enough set aside to cover all four of those, but because we only had the one small project that left substantial, you know, that left $60,000 from the small project targets that were used to fund all four of those feasibility-only applications. from fiscal year 2021. Right. Okay. So we do have flexibility to move from one category to the next to cover this. Yes. Yes, sir. All right. Very good. So what are your thoughts? Do you think these targets are sufficient? Should we address those? Or what's the staff's thoughts on that? I believe, you know, especially for Class 8, I mean, since it wasn't as competitive, We certainly want to continue it, but I don't think, I think it should make, our recommendation is to maintain the $40,000. And we probably feel the same way for the Class B infrastructure, especially with the additional funding, because it looks like in the upcoming season, we will probably have enough, if there were additional feasibility application, to go ahead and fund those as well. So we would probably recommend to just keep it all the same. for the for this year FY22. Okay thank you for that. What's will the group? So moved for keeping it the same. Thank you Frank. No problem. Moved by Harry is there a second? A second. Been seconded by David. Is there any further discussion, comment? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Raise your right hand. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion carries. We'll move right along to item number six since we have some momentum here. Should we continue with the innovation and experimentation funding allocation for FY22? This was first introduced in FY 2020. However, to date, no applicant has received funding from this allocation. Also, as a note, the seed funding for the innovation and experimentation allocation came from an FY 2019 grant recipient who canceled their project. One of the pros is that it allows LFUCG to fund applications that are innovative, but that might not score well within the existing scoring matrix. It also allows LFECG to fund applications that are innovative while maintaining funding levels for traditional applications. A con is that if the board does not fund a grant from this allocation, then keeping the $300,000 held in reserve for innovation and experimentation prohibits using these funds for traditional applications. i thought if we didn't use that money for a experiment innovative and experience experimentation project that that could be used for traditional projects am i mistaken on that but the board would have to elect would have to approve that uh because as it's been it's just been sitting there uh well and we haven't had a need to to really use it so far but we had no intentions unless the board if that's what the board uh recommends or agrees upon but right now that three hundred thousand dollars is carved out and has basically remained in reserve as its own little pot of money since that 2019 grant was canceled. Okay. Let me just say, we sure don't want $300,000 just to be sitting there. On the other hand, I see this as one of our most important possibilities. the the idea of inviting people encouraging people to be experimental in dealing with the kinds of problems that we deal with in the county in terms of water quality it seems like to me there may be some great ideas out there that that people don't take advantage of because they well it's a great idea, but I don't have any way of, of, of having it funded or just so, you know, it's a great idea, but forget it because I don't have any support. And I just, I just think that we would be making a mistake if we, if we said, well, no, we don't want to be innovative. I think that's exactly what we want there. I just bet there's good ideas out there. And I think probably what we ought to do is make more of a deal of communicating this to people in widespread way that we can say, we've got this money. If you have a great innovation idea, you'd like to experiment, maybe this is a way we can move forward and somebody can have a great idea that everybody, including Charlie Martin, says, yeah, why didn't we think about that? So anyway, I just think it's a great idea. And that's just my opinion. And I'm talking too much. And I will say that if UKRF, the rainwater harvesting project, if there weren't funding left for that, that would have qualified, I believe. I mean, I believe the board would have qualified. Yeah, if this pot had existed the first year they submitted their application, when they did not score well, I think you all would have awarded them the grant from this pot of money. But then they just, you know, did such a good job repackaging it the second year that it was, if not the top score, it was the second highest score. So it just easily got some of the more traditional funding. Yeah, I agree. I remember that. And but of course, you have you have real experts at UK being able to do these kinds of things. I was thinking of people who probably don't have the experience or the technology that somebody at UK would have or the supporting staff, for instance. So that's a great example, actually. I just want somebody to spark the notion for innovation. Yes. I think that's very well said, Harry. I appreciate you taking the comment and saying that. The thing that's brought to my mind that is troubling, and I think we need to change that, is that it's a pot that's sitting there and not being available to be used. I think we certainly should continue this potential project, innovative technology, but if we don't have an innovative innovative project for a given year, that money ought to be available for other more conventional type projects. I don't know how we got it just to set it by itself and not be able to use it like we are the other projects. Well, it sounds like you want to give the staff the latitude to be able to, if we needed to use it, then. Yeah. If it was not used for innovation, then we ought to be able to use it for something else automatically. Right. So in any given year, then we could add that essentially to our recommendation that you all would still need to approve. We would just need to know that or we would just leave it to the side. Well, it's something that, you know, after. if it wasn't used at the July meeting during the awarding of the class A and class B E grants, because we didn't feel there was anything especially innovative or experimental about any of those applications. And then if it wasn't used to fund any class B infrastructure applications in October, then maybe at the end of that meeting, we could revisit if there were grants that we ran out of funding before we could award them, then using that pool. Even if that meant going back to a class A or a class B. So, right. So we would, you could, you all can approve it at that time and we can just reach back and let them know that funding became available, sort of like we did this year. But those Class A projects that didn't receive funding, Griffin gained in a couple of them. That's a good idea. Well, I think the intent is exactly what we were saying earlier. I think the intent is to have a pot of money that might be used for projects that don't score well with the more traditional scoring system. And I think that's what we did. But I think if there's no projects that fall in that category, we want to make sure the money is used for some useful purpose rather than just sitting there in perpetuity until another experimentation project comes forward. So however the best way to do that and the timing of that, that's up to you guys to give us guidance on that. But I think we'll need to make sure that that money is not just sitting there and can be used for other projects if it warrants it. Yes, sir. Yeah, so I believe even this year when we drew up the recommendation for the Class B and we had the additional funding, I believe Jennifer had noted also that those fundings were there as well. So we can continue along those lines just to make the board aware that those funds are available to consider any project, be it Class A or Class B education, to go back and fund as well. Okay. So could you, in a few sentences, describe what we're proposing on how to use that money if there are no experimentation, the timing, or the protocol of how we're going to do that? I believe Jennifer mentioned that at the October meeting, when we finalized the Class B infrastructure applications and you finished awarding, if any applications were denied from Class A or B education, then we could utilize those funds for those projects. We can go back and award those projects the difference. Okay. And I guess you wouldn't know if that $300,000 available until October when those round of projects are being reviewed, right? Right, because it could get used during our July meeting for Class A projects that, or, well, I think it does it apply. Yeah, it could be you, you all could distribute that money at any point during the grant cycle, whether it was to an A project, a B, E, or a B infrastructure. So if it's not used at the conclusion of the B infrastructure selection, then we can, you know, we can collectively look at the ones throughout the entire grant season that did not receive funding and then somehow prioritize which applicants would receive funding through that $300,000 until it's depleted. but we wouldn't know that until october right right and we would include that in our recommendation yes well if this comes from the b infrastructure pot does it shouldn't that be where it stays as opposed to no it doesn't it doesn't i mean that's where the money originally came from but the way that it was designated by you all was that it would be available in any grant class Very good. Okay. Is everybody plugged into that? Does that make sense? So I'll paraphrase, but I think what I'm suggesting we consider is opening up that pot of money that's set aside for innovative technology, technology, experimentation, and making that available to other Class A or Class B projects, that would be determined at the end of October when the Class B infrastructure projects are reviewed. If there are no experimentation projects that are submitted for consideration, then that $300,000 could be used to perhaps fund either Class A or Class B projects that were not funded before because there was insufficient funds in their priority. Is that? That's correct. That makes sense? Yes. One correction, perhaps, George. It's not if no application to receive, but if there are funds remaining of the $300,000. Good point. Good point. It might be one that comes in for something less than $300,000. Right. Okay. Good point. Good catch. Okay. Is there any other comment or you want to make a motion on that? I move what George said. I'm not sure what I said. Is that good enough? I mean, I can read. Yes, that's good enough. Good. I think that you made a good point. It's, it's anything left over from the $300,000 set aside. That's a very good catch. So the motion is to open up the remaining funds for the innovation experimentation funding. If there are no projects selected for that category at the conclusion of the class B selection process, not, not no, no projects, but if there's funding remaining, right. That's what I said to begin. Open up the remaining funds for experimentation and for innovation and experimentation. Right. Right. OK. OK. Thank you, Harry. It's been moved. Is there a second? I've taken it. Seconded by George. Any other discussion, comment? And we're hearing none. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Raising your right hand. Aye. Opposed, like son. Motion to hear. Thank you. So that was a motion to open up the funding. So now we need a motion. Did that speak to item number six, just to continue it? Is that kind of like? Okay. Just want to make sure. Yep. So it was amended. Okay. Alrighty. Item number seven. For Class B grant applications, should we clarify that not only does the applicant, the entity asserting itself as a water quality management fee rate payer, need to be paying the water quality management fee as a Class B rate payer in order to be eligible for funding in that grant class, but that the location of the grant project being proposed is designated as a Class B parcel. In other words, Class B grant funds cannot pay for improvements on single-family residential and or farm properties. And this issue arose in scoring Class B infrastructure applications submitted by Beaumont Residential Association and by Manly Farm in FY 2021. The pro is clarifying this would explicitly remove the gray area staff might encounter when qualifying grant applications, specifically proposed project areas. It also encourages applicants to investigate whether they are proposing a project on a qualified parcel. Clarifying this will ensure that long-term maintenance will be conducted by a Class B entity as opposed to an individual homeowner or multiple homeowners. And we felt there were no cons. to this. Questions, comments on that? I think this is just a point of clarification. As Frank says, I don't think there are any cons. It's making it more clear makes it more clear for applicants, potential applicants, to know what their options are. Yeah, and this is really just kind of adding a note to the application packet to clarify the type of parcel that qualified for Class B funding. Because as it's written now, it mentions that it has to be a class B rate payer. And so we just want to make sure that the parcel is included in that language. That's a bad idea. Okay. What's the will to group? I would move to approve the clarification that the parcel needs to be a class B parcel. Okay. Thank you, David. Is there a second? second seconded by harry any further comment discussion all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye raising your right hand aye opposed like son motion carries Okay. Item number eight. Last year the board approved to give preference to funding projects that upon implementation will reduce E. coli pollution in the storm source system and Fayette County's creeks and streams. Should we increase the weight of this scoring item in FY 2022 in an effort to reduce pathogen pollution in our streams and creeks? A pro is it allows greater focus on the mission of the grant process program increases synergy between the grant program and the stormwater quality management program and encourages applicants to consider BMPs that will be of the most benefit to improving water quality in Fayette County. The kind is that increasing this scoring item will diminish the weight of the existing scoring items. we added this year last year to um i believe all the applications the school and adjusted the score sheets so based on of course it's only been one year did right were there any projects that benefited from having this designation yeah so the way we we definitely had some applicants that honed in on this particular item and brought forth ideas that would address E. coli pollution. But the scoring weight of it wasn't significant enough to really make a delineation between those project applications that did include it versus didn't. And I think that was good because it was really just our foray into getting that idea out there. But I think to truly have an impact, it would need to be given more weight in the scoring matrix to really have those applications rise to the top. So, Jennifer, how does an applicant determine the impact of E. coli? How do they come to the conclusion that they can put on an application? um there there's a lot of research published literature that shows the pollutant removal rates for various types of pollutants with various implementation of various types of bmp's um and so you know if you if you go to that literature and if they included that a reference to that in their application. Like we intentionally selected increasing buffers around a retention pond. That's been proven to show a reduction in E. coli reaching that water body. So applicants can find this information pretty easily then? Absolutely. Yeah, we asked the question plainly in the application and they have to present evidence, you know research of such that we can score where they got their information where they got their information good um i think if we've only had it one year and we haven't really been able to see a whole lot of difference i don't know that we have enough information to to to make a change of course I think the whole program we're trying to reduce, I mean, we're trying to improve water quality, and that certainly includes reduction of E. coli. And we would not want a project that had a high E. coli pollution situation be bumped out by one that doesn't have as much. but I don't know that we have enough information to really make an intelligent choice of whether to include that or not to increase that or not what's the current percentage I think it's about three percent yeah that's not a whole lot right but for example um you know bluegrass green source or living arts Science Center, you know, they've obviously applied many times through the years, but when they're putting their application together, if it's a toss-up between educating their target audience about the impact of dog waste and how picking up after their dog and encouraging that type of an educational component versus focusing on native plantings in a rain garden, well, if we're truly focused on reducing E. coli pollution, we want them to focus on their educational efforts on getting people to pick up after their dog. Even though it's important to put the right plants in your rain garden, you know, what do we as a grant program want to encourage? and that was an example of an educational right you know the way to improve it in terms of education the education application to focus their efforts specifically on eco-life pollution okay so so what is the recommendation of staff in this area well i think staff recommends to to boost it a little bit at least a five percent maybe yes and we'll we'll take care of the logistics of that of course okay what's the will of the group i'd go along with the recommendation of the staff okay thank you george um what are any okay there's a recommendation there's a motion by george to increase it from our three percent to five percent is i'm sorry go ahead is there a second to that is there a second to george's motion i'll second that and seconded by donna any further comments discussion all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye raising your right hand Aye. Opposed like son? Motion carries. We've increased it from 3% to 5%. All righty. Item number nine, should we update the class eight score sheet to provide a breakdown of the 15 points allocated for projects intending to improve water quality that reflects the footprint, i.e. square footage, linear feet, cubic feet of the proposed improvements. Currently, the scoring of answers to the questions in the Class A application is vague and not quantifiable, which makes it difficult to differentiate between applications that propose the installation of similar features but at different scales or magnitudes. A pro is if the Class A applications are competitive, adding the scoring breakdown will help to differentiate the impact of the proposed projects. Also, if after receiving an award, a grantee requests a change in scope, particularly a reduction in the footprint of their project, then this type of scoring breakdown will assist in the rescoring process as the current matrix offers limited evaluation based on the scoring in this regard. The con is not all Class A projects look to install BMPs or are necessarily measurable, and this might lower the scores of those applications. And so for this, we kind of studied the opera house consideration where we want to go back to revisit the scoring and we really had no avenue to adjust it downward to make it fair to those that didn't receive funding due to insufficient funds. so we wanted to go back to see if there were any place on these class a score sheet that we could kind of break down into a range so you're basically trying to make it more quantifiable in less uh yeah yes in terms of the footprint of the project for those that look to install or improve areas? Even in the case of like stream cleaning, what is the length of the area that they look to clean, to, you know, to do cleanup? Okay. So again, you're looking at being more quantifiable and less subjective. Is that a bottom line? Yes. Okay. Mr. Chair, I move to update the Class A score sheet to provide a breakdown of 15 points. Thank you, Harry. Is there a second? I'll second. Been seconded by David. Any further comment or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Raise your right hand. Aye. Opposed, like, sign? Motion carries. Hey, Frank. Yes, sir. Item 10 is similar in nature. It just speaks to, let's see, should we update the Class A score sheet to provide a breakdown of the 15 points allocated for projects intending to reduce stormwater runoff that reflects the drainage area to the proposed improvements? Currently, scoring of the answers to the question in the Class A application is vague and not quantifiable, which makes it difficult to differentiate between applications that propose the installation of similar features, but at different scales or magnitudes. A pro is if the Class A applications are competitive, adding this scoring breakdown will help to differentiate the impact of those proposed projects. Also, if after receiving an award, a grantee requests a change in scope, particularly a reduction in the amount of stormwater runoff to be addressed, then this type of scoring breakdown will assist in the scoring process as the current matrix offers limited evaluation based on the scoring in this regard. A con is not all Class A projects look to install BMPs that reduce stormwater runoff, and this might lower the scores of those applications. So this one is similar in nature, except it speaks to the drainage area as opposed to the footprint of the improvements. One's footprint and one is drainage. Yes. And that's similar to how there's a breakdown on the class B infrastructure in terms of, for example, if it's a new parking lot, how many square feet of that, what's the size of that parking lot? And then there's a second question about the drainage area to that parking lot. So that, you know, basically we're quantifying and trying to get a bigger bang for our buck. Right. And differentiate between those various applications. So that would have helped again on the, on the, yes, yes. Like she said, it's, it's similar to the class B infrastructure. And both of these are the impact portion of the scoring sheet. So it just helps quantify those items. There are currently questions in those regards, but it's not quantifiable. It's just... Right. So typically scores, we look at it as all or nothing. So they either get zero points if they don't have it, or they get 15 if they have something that's one square foot or a thousand square feet. So it just and especially if we end up with money remaining in the innovation and experimentation pool at the end of next year, and then we're looking at unfunded grants across several classes that might help look at their scores more consistently. If if we're quantifying the A's like we currently are with the B infrastructures. Very good. Any comments, questions on that? Again, it sounds like we're trying to be more quantitative and less subjective. I think that's a good thing. What's will the group? Well, I move to update the class A score sheet to provide a breakdown of 15 points relative to the drainage area. Thank you, Harry. Is there a second? I'll second it. It's been seconded by George. Any further comments, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Raise your right hand. Aye. Opposed like son? Motion carries. Okay, we had one last item. Stop sharing. Yeah, yeah, please. We had one last item that wasn't listed on the memo. And this item was in reference to the cost share differences between the class A. No, the percent retainage. Oh, retainage. that we hold on each of the grant classes. Currently, they are not the same across the board. Currently, our grant award agreement specifies a 3% retainage on class A, a 5% retainage on class B education, and a 10% retainage on class B infrastructure. Frank and I, Frank thought back and he thinks maybe that evolved to be that way because of the maximum grant request amount in each of those grant classes. But I think... Well, the cost share that was allowed for Class B infrastructure, it was 100% of construction at the time. You paid 10% for just the design portion. But now that our cost shares are the same across the board, it seems like this might be a good opportunity to make the percent retainage the same across the board. just for consistency in our agreements in our contract agreements so what would it be going to what's your recommendation of what it goes to we would make it 10% across the board because currently it's only 3% for class A projects we require a 3% retainage of the funding until they complete until they turn in the final report items and the final documents for the report. And we've had a couple of class A's that have just sort of thrown up their hands and they're unwilling to submit the project final report that's required of them. And they're just willing to not get that last 3%. And obviously, we want to see completed grant projects. We want that final report for our tracking purposes. and I think if we had it at 10% like it is for the B infrastructure, that might be more incentive for those homeowners associations to fulfill their obligation. Plus they'll get full funding. They would have the benefit of getting more. There's more money being withheld, so they have more incentive to go ahead and finish their obligations to get that money. Exactly. Right. And then in one case, this may be last year or so, one neighborhood association wanted to come back and get the last 3%. You know, they asked how could they? Years later. Years later. So this would give incentive for them to just finish the project out, you know, completely, so we won't have to revisit. That's what they should do. Okay, what's will the group? I'll say it again. What's will the group? Am I beaming out? Am I talking to myself here? We can hear you, George. Beam me up, Scotty. i'll make a motion to uh increase the or standardize the withholding amount at 10 per staff's recommendation thank you david appreciate it seconded by harry any further comment discussion all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye raising your right hand Opposed, like son? Motion carries. Okay. I think we have completed that phase of our agenda. This is a busy agenda today. Yes. Yeah. We realized that. The next item was the application documents, the actual application documents. What can I access? Let's see here. I'm going to, should we share the screen for that? Yes, I would. Are they in? Well, let me just go through the SQ folder. Are they in this folder? No. It's going to SQ folder. Let me go back. It's right there. Oh, shoot. It's right on the left. There it is. Sorry about that. No, 2020. Application documents. PDF. PDF? No, you're good. You're good. PDF. Okay. Sorry about that. And then. We're just going to talk about that. sort by date modified. Gotcha. Cool. And then open up both of those. Yeah, both of these. Good. Can I close the memo? Mm-hmm. Let's go. Open up the form. And then share your screen. Okay. Let's start with the packet. At least I'm getting plenty of practice. Okay. Let's see. So I'm going to share. Hold on. Let me close this. I need to do that first. There we go. Can you all see that? Yes. Okay. Okay. So now we're just reviewing the draft applications for the up and coming grant season. these are the FY2022 applications. And so they're generally the same with the exception of a few proposed changes that I believe we highlighted. So from the top, we just, of course, we adjust the dates of the document name. We just adjust that to reference the year, the fiscal year, as well as the due dates and what have you. So if you go to page two, I don't know if you've printed them out. Yeah, this area. We've made the change in the language to say continuing from fiscal year 2021 projects to let them know we're going to give equal our pollution preference. So we've just adjusted the language here. And then you can go to the bottom of page 9. Oh, God. Use that cool-down thing out there on the right. There we go. This question, staff is hoping to request more detail from the outset regarding the budget. because we had received quite a few one-liners when it relates to construction. And so we're asking them for breakdowns of those construction costs, as well as any other elements of the project. We want to see specific components of those activities. So we propose to just add this language to the existing question, to an existing question in the application. Yeah, so go to the form, that tab. No, don't stop. Don't stop. I got you. There you go. Now go down to the middle of page three. So right here for question three, we asked about we asked them to submit a budget, to attach a budget. And in that budget, we've added the language to the application form to describe the portions of the project elements to be covered by the applicant's cost share. So they can differentiate between what the grant will fund and what their portion will be. Because we've had some applicants submit applications that didn't do so and we just want to put the language in their request. Yeah, we would see conflicts between what they would include on the first page of the application where they just do the overall total project cost, grant share, cost share. But then when you actually would go and look at their budget table, you couldn't get things to line up or match. So we're hoping that by adding this question that they'll provide a little more thought or at least double check their math before they submit their application. Yeah, and in some cases they wouldn't tell us at all which portions were going to be cautious. And then go to the middle of page four. And lastly, for the class B, I mean class A, we want to add this statement to certify that the organization's application, if it's selected, funding agrees to execute a grant award agreement. So basically that first stipulation on the grant determination forms that Frank and I read off, instead of having it as a stipulation on the grant determination form, we're putting it on the application. So that if they sign off on their application, then we didn't see the reason to have to include that as a stipulation. So basically they've already acknowledged that they agree to executing a grant award agreement with LFUCG. And we did the same, not only on the A application, but on the other two application forms as well. Right. In the event that they're awarded. Right. So then that means it will not be on the stipulation page? Right. Right. Okay. All right. So just go, don't stop sharing, but go to your folders. Oh. Yeah. Yeah. And then back up to application documents to the right. click that nope too far sorry right here right there and then go to the b yep so now we're just pulling up the we want to share the class b um packet and form as well which is essentially the same two things um continuing with the e coli and um including as much detail as possible in the budget yeah so here's the application packet uh well actually the form i'm sorry let me let me ask a question frank real quick okay the what we just did on the item before this changing the the weights and stuff like that for e.coli for example is that going to impact any of the information on either the form or the application packet? No, it will be captured on the score sheet. Okay, and that's not included in things you're talking about now? Right, because we figured that there would be changes resulting from our meeting today, so we're just going to, we just held off and we're making those changes. We will make an adjustment to the guidelines, you know, the list of guidelines that lets them know about the weight. Right, right. Yes. We will make an adjustment to that. Yeah, on the class day. Nothing we did before is going to impact what you're presenting to us now. No. Okay. I'm sorry. You said page. This is the packet. He's on page four. Right there. So this is the language, just like in the class A, about the E. coli, just letting them know we're going to be continuing to give that preferential preference in the scoring. This is just that acknowledgement. And then go to page eight near the top. There you go. This is the same question like the class A speaking to the budget breakdown. We're asking them for more detail and to let us know about the cost share components, which elements of their budget will be allocated to cost share. I'm not saying that, Frank. For some reason, my screen hasn't changed. Oh, hold on. It's page two. Yeah, I'm the same. What did it say? You mean on the screen you're seeing here? Yeah, it hasn't changed. You're two things ahead of us, I think. Oh, hold on. Oh. Yeah, click on that now and start sharing. Can you see that? Yes. That's it. Okay. Maybe I'll roll one. So this is a. Make sure. No, you're on the right one. The education. Yeah. OK, so again, this what you're seeing right now is just the language in the application packet that lets them that informs the applicant that we're going to request a breakdown of the budget items for the cost share. And so we've added that language to the application packet as well as the application form. And so that's... What application is this for? Class B education. Okay. Yeah. Just as a note, we added this language to all three grant classes, and we're just showing you where it was added in the application. I mean, for your consideration. And also, like Jennifer mentioned, in the last one, in the application form, where is that at? I think it closed. Oh, no, there it is. I don't know why it's doing that. This one here. So, again. Can you see the application? i obviously have to stop sharing well i'm gonna do it again i'm sorry yeah it might i think be helpful for us copies of this in the packet rather than looking at it on your screen i mean i know we got it this morning but we didn't really have a lot of chance to digest it yeah um include this in the packet like the other stuff that was submitted so that we can actually have a chance to make more sense of what you're proposing. Okay. Yes, sir. And so here's the question in the application form that corresponds to that language in the packet. And we just added to describe the portions of the project elements to be covered by the applicant's cost share. The question in its original form is the area you doesn't see highlighted. So we just wanted to just kind of add that part so they can give us a little bit more detail about which components or which elements of the budget will be covered by the cost share. That's it. Okay. mentioned in that last one, we added the information, the language about them agreeing to a grant award agreement, to enter a grant award agreement, if awarded. Okay. And so I will go to class B infrastructure. Maybe not. Yeah, this opened up. Can you all see the application packet? Yes. Class B infrastructure. Okay. Okay. Okay. You're on the application form now. Right, right. You can click more so you can move that. Hide floating meeting control. Thank you. There you go. Oh, hide the other one too. Okay. Thank you. Yes, that's the issue. So you can see the application packet. No, no, you need to go up to page two. Sorry. Okay. So for what you're seeing here is, as we referenced in the memo where we wanted to add language to the class B infrastructure packet to clear the gray area to designate the class that the project had to occur on a class B parcel and not a class A parcel. So we just wanted to clarify that not only do they have to be a class B rate payer, but that the proposed project must occur on a class B designated parcel. And this is the language that we added, the bullet that we added under other eligibility requirements. Relative to our previous discussion. Yes. So the portion of that sentence about the proposed project must be located in Fayette County in prior years was lower down in this bulleted list, but we elevated it to the top of the list and added the class B designation because then when you look at what used to be the first bullet, the one that's right below it, that's where it has always implied that it be on a class B parcel, because if it's owned by someone else, they have to sign off. So it's just trying to lump all that in the same part of the application packet. Okay. And as you can see above, it talks about who can apply. and here we're addressing the type of property that it needs to occur on. So that's what we're asking the board for consideration to add this language to remove the gray area. Do you want to go down to page six? Yeah, we'll go down here. Right here. And this is the E. coli language being added to the Class B infrastructure packet, similarly to the Class A and B education that we discussed. And then, if you go down a little bit on that page, just... Right here. Yeah. Right here, we wanted to, on the Class B application form, we asked the applicant to check off the type of project that they're applying for. and I believe in the past it said design and construction, but we've had applications that Class B infrastructure applications, especially in this case, it was Lexington Corporation, Lexington Center Corporation, that only wanted funding for design, feasibility and design only. So in the application form, we're going to ask them to check all that apply, and we wanted to adjust it to say design and or construction. So they'll have an opportunity on the form to check off all of the boxes. I mean, yeah, all of the boxes or specific ones. And the and or just addresses whether or not they were going to do both design and construction or design and construction or design and or construction. Sorry. So that's what you're looking at here. Let's see. On the page 10. Right there. And this is the budget question or the budget language again about the cost share, asking them to allocate which portion of the project are going to go to cost share that the organization is going to find. So that's the packet. And here's the form where those adjustments would occur. Right here you're looking at the, where we're adding the and or construction. and we want to remove the language below and that addresses whether or not we'll keep the application on file for an additional year because what we found out is that the application needs updating anyway typically so we felt it would be appropriate for them to just reapply altogether yeah yeah i think that's a really good suggestion or the bottom of three. And this is the language added to the application form about the cost share, the details regarding the allocation of cost share right here. We added that to question B6. And then again, this language about the agreement. Is there one for that? The language about the agreement that they agreed to enter an agreement if awarded. So we can remove that from our stipulations list. This is an attempt to purge that item. All right. So why don't you go back to the Zoom? Yeah. Where'd it go? Close that. Yeah, let me just close it. Close all tabs. There we go. Squeeze, yeah. So from 10,000 feet, all these recommendations are meant to clarify and be consistent between the different classifications. Is that the bottom line? That is. We addressed the programmatic changes in the memo, and here were just tweaks to the application, as well as we went ahead and installed the language about clearing up the gray area as to the designated Class B property type for Class B infrastructure projects. I presume we need to make a motion on this. Is this just for information purposes? We need to actually act on it or. Opposed it wouldn't harm to do a motion that, you know, whether or not you agree with the overall changes unless you have a specific one that you had an issue with. yeah this are good reaction from the board any comments questions on what staff has presented and if we make a motion i guess we ought to make a motion on each specific class individually the class a class b education and class b infrastructure but a lot a lot was was presented so any comments questions points of clarification we need what's the will the group any comments questions um mary you're on mute i don't i don't have a problem with any of these changes i'm not sure how to proceed from here can we believe you can motion yeah motion just to approve the changes okay all all of them i think we can do that since we're all presented at once And if you could also include an authorization to incorporate changes to the scoring worksheet based on today's discussion on the memo items. So I'll make a motion to approve the changes to the Class A, Class B infrastructure, Class B education packet application form and scoring sheets. Does that cover us? Yes. Very good. Thank you, David. Is there a second to that? A second. It's been seconded by Harry. Any further comment, discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Raising your right hand. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion carries. Okay. Incentive grant update and if we could could expedite that. Yeah. Want to ask him if they have any questions about any grants in particular? Yeah, do you all have any questions about any grants in particular? I mean. Just going to share the screen. well when they're sent to us there we can't print them in a scale that we can actually see the particulars of each project yeah we apologize for not including that in the packet we we had a delay in getting our updates from grant managers so we couldn't get them included in the packet because we couldn't print them out yet. As a matter of fact, to be honest, one of the grant managers had the document open and it prevented us from actually finalizing the changes to the sheets and so we had to figure out who it was and hunt them down. And they were at home when they had it open is the issue. Remoting, they was working remotely so they had to go all the way home to even close it so sorry so do you all have any concerns about that's what if you have what you would like to make us aware of just as a general statement everything all of our projects are moving along we only have one 2016 open um and that one is is i believe they're set to complete that by the end of the summer it was just a delay with the COVID, they were already delayed. And then of course, COVID gave this blanket, you know, kind of a excuse, if you will, or issue for everyone. There's only one remaining in 2017. And that's Dog Court. And we're, we're working with the grant manager to put, apply a little bit more pressure on that one. Of our 2018, those are moving along as planned. We've closed quite a few of those. We only have like eight of those remaining. 2019, we have impressively closed several of those. We only have, let's see, seven of those remaining for 2019. And 2020, we're kind of just getting our feet up under us. All the projects are moving along steadily. We had a couple of cancellations just to note, FIC, Cooperating Preschool, and Sayre Schools. Both of those are education. One is an education grant and one is a Class B infrastructure grant, but both of them closed because of the issues with COVID in terms of having to shut down, essentially. And so we anticipate they will come back in the future, we hope. and just to comment on FY21 we're getting those agreements out as we speak as fast as we can and look forward to those projects getting approved by council and moving forward. So nothing stands out as far as being really behind the curve in terms of moving forward. They're all moving as they should be? they're moving as they should be we've had an issue with one over at Dalton Court that we're applying pressure for them to either to be honest with you they're going to end up either getting an engineer on board to certify the results or the construction or they'll repay us our money that's the issue uh because we there were some issues with how it was installed to be honest with you, but we've put them on notice. The UK Experimental Project, what's the most important thing? They're in the design phase. It's moving along, and you had mentioned maybe going and visiting that one as part of the April meeting when we sometimes do a tour, and I did talk to the grant manager on UK's in Brittany Ragland and she thought that timing wise that might be a good time to come and see the progress that they're making. Well assuming everything is is safe and the pandemic is under more under control I think that would be a great thing to see at whatever point in time we can do that that really is a really cool project. I'm really excited. Yes. We also hope to tour the Grayline facilities as well. Great project. Terrific project. I did the other day. I was pretty surprised how fast they got that thing up and moving. I mean, it looks like it's been in business for years. So we anticipate giving the two of those projects as well as kind of giving an overview of some of our completed projects, either virtually or if we can for the April meeting. And then I believe Harry, who made the request for Living Arts and Science Center to kind of give us a synopsis of how they've been spending grant money through the years, and we've got them on deck to at least, if we're virtual, make a virtual presentation at the April meeting. That'd be good. Great. All right, folks, we've covered a lot of ground today. Any comments, questions concerning incentive grant status update or any other comments? I was just wondering, George, if we're getting overtime. Yes, you are. Absolutely, Harry. One and a half times zero. If we had it our way. Just remember that, checks in the mail. That's right. Yeah, right. That's what I've heard. Any other comment before we adjourn? And we appreciate you all very much. Yes. Thanks for hanging in there for a marathon. We appreciate you all too. George, this is short. I mean, you know, in the past, we've seen these meetings go the entire day and then reconvene. So, you know, we've been in this expedited kind of, you know, pattern for a while now. We're getting too spoiled. Good. Well, listen, everybody take care. Is there a motion that we adjourn? i'll make that motion thank you george i had to go recharge my ipad is there a second a second been made and seconded all in favor of the motion signify by saying i raising your right hand all right thanks folks great meeting thank you very much take care take care All right. Okay. We hit in. Hold on. In. Yeah, end the meeting. Do I need to stop record first? Yeah, hold on. Hit cancel on that. Okay. Yeah, hit stop. Yes.