Okay, well, it is 9.20 and from the meeting to order. It's honored for me to continue to be on the White Quality Fees Board. And I wish everybody was here, but I have served as chair for a number of years and totally enjoyed that responsibility, but I don't want to monopolize that position. and if someone else on the board wants to serve as chair, I'm certainly open to do that. But maybe that's another discussion when everybody is here. But I do want to go on record saying that I certainly have enjoyed my time, not only being on the board but also as chair, but I don't want to monopolize that area. If somebody else has a desire to do that, I totally support that. So, having said that, approval of the October 14th, 2021 meeting minutes. Does everyone have a chance to review those? Very extensive, staff-to-device job, compiling a lot of very detailed information in a precise and understandable way. Any corrections, additions to that? I know you're at a disadvantage because you weren't here, but David, do you see any? I did not. No, I meant to approve. Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. All of a favor, motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed like signed. Motion carries. comment suggestion from citizens about incentive grant program we have any Scott Scott our only Scott's our only citizen okay all right item four or item five memorandum regarding programming changes. Aaron, typically, first meeting of the year, we look at programming, look at maybe fine tuning, making adjustments to address some things we've learned over the past year. And staff comes up with items to discuss and outlines pros and cons, pros and cons and we discussed to see if we feel it's good the way it is or whether we ought to make some revisions to it so that's what this this memo January 2022 memo about programming changes is I guess we'll go through one at a time okay the first concerns changing the cost share and early on the cost I first came out cost share was the government the grant program was higher and so the grantees did not have as much skin in the game and we changed that to get them to have more skin in the game plus to make more money available to fund more projects and I think it's done really pretty good it was different for the class it was different depending on the class right for example class B education was 50% cost share about 2500 and it was 10% for class B infrastructure on projects and so basically it was 100% of construction and this this specific one this was the only one that was not consistent with the rest of them. So now everything is consistent. So what are your thoughts? Leave it the same? Is there any justification or thoughts as far as making an adjustment? I would argue that you know based on the supply chain and inflation and things of that nature that would make it probably more difficult for some of our customers if you will so you know i would i would suggest kind of leaving it for now because we're trying to tackle that issue which you'll see in the demo as well so you know i would hope but that's just me so i was just wondering what you guys recommend a lot our recommendation is to keep it the same David, Eric? Okay. Yeah, that's it. Excellent. Whatever it's worth, my straw vote was maintain the current cautionary will. So we would just need an action on that. So we need to take an action specifically. I would say for each one, each one. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay, so I guess we're looking for a motion to maintain the current cost share percentages. I would move to maintain consistency in the cost share percentages. Okay, thank you, David. Is there a second? I'll second. Aaron, thank you. All in favor of motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like so. Motion carries. Next concerns continue with small project target, $50,000 or less. Frank, could you kind of address this? The small project target came about several years ago, and this was to give the smaller business an opportunity to compete in a better fashion for the grant money because the larger parking lot projects were kind of swallowing up the funds because of the scoring matrix and how it's designed. Because it basically asks for the amount of square footage to be retrofitted and what have you. And so naturally those larger projects would score higher. So the idea came along to introduce the smaller, it used to be 90,000 or less. And then I believe a couple years ago, we said, well, let's let's increase the amount per grant. That way, maybe we can get both of the projects and that. And so what we did was they increased the allocation to 15 percent of the overall class B infrastructure funding, which would allow us to hopefully get, you know, two to three projects, decent projects out of it. We're asking here whether or not it's a good idea to continue with that. And then the next question to follow, I believe, speaks more of the allocation of whether or not we should continue with that allocation of 15% or decrease or decrease. So those two questions kind of follow each other. We do that pretty much in this memo with all the targets we have, excuse me, building small project targets, just to see if you guys are inclined to continue. Hey Donna, how are you? Good, not a problem. From 10,000, well let's see, you mentioned there was only one category. Yes, we only had one in the category last year that applied and it wasn't selected. So those funds just went back into the general pool in the past year. perspective no food and so to be allocated to the bracket so i guess that is to say that we haven't had it it hasn't been heavily competitive however you know with covid and things of that nature we don't know what the what the reasoning was but i think it's a good idea to continue with it because it's still we may have you know years prior we've had a couple two and three at a time okay i would i would recommend and see that and i think it's good for the smaller guy yeah i think the bottom line is it it opens up another category of projects that typically would not qualify and so it opens it up if there's a worthy project that meets the criteria with the appropriate score so if we get away with it we will be eliminating that and if you don't use the money for the 50 000 then that goes into the other projects i think it's a I don't see a downside to changing it. To be honest with you right now, we have a decent amount of funding. As I mentioned, if it doesn't get used, then it goes back into the general fund. I think it's no harm or fault. What are your thoughts? I agree. David, you okay? I would probably move to maintain consistency. Okay. Okay. It's been moved. It's been moved and second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like I said. Motion carried. I'm sorry, we're talking about changes. We're on item 5, moving to Jim. Everything is going through different items that staff come up with. We're going to look at for past years. So we've gone through items 1 and 2 And moving to item three, should we have to maintain the current funding level for Class B infrastructure projects, $50,000 or less? In terms of our last year, what is that? How much money is in that? It was approximately $166,000 in that pool, which was 15% of the overall allocation to class B infrastructure. And so we're asking here, should we maintain that percentage or should we stay into a dollar amount? It used to be $90,000 flat, which was enough to cover one project. But here, as I mentioned, we pretty much gave 15% to see if we can get multiple projects, relatively small projects in the last. Okay. and you got to think it's consistent to try and do that. Right. Any thoughts, comments on that? Item three. And as we mentioned in the memo, just so you guys know, we list the pros and cons that staff felt, you know, would benefit or would be a disadvantage for implementing each of these suggestions or these discussion items. You know, it's just a way to guide your thinking. Mr. Chair, I have a question for Frank. Yes, sir. On most of these, is it fair to say that the changes were made prior to COVID and we really only have the pandemic as a data point to decide whether or not people are really reacting to the change that we proposed? That's good. That's good. That's good. I just want to make sure that was clear because I think that's important is that, you know, You only got one data point in many of these cases, and there aren't really good ones to make done. Right. And so if we can get past the pandemic, I think we'll be able to get back to reality to see the effects of desired outcome. It's hard to make a decision to change the allocations and percentages. For example, prior to the pandemic, we had probably about four or five small project applications in one season. And so that's our contender to do walks. And then it kind of dropped off last year and what have you. So I think post-pandemic will be fine. I think that's a good point. Any other thoughts, comments on number three? Yeah, number three. I think we can do it. Keep that status quo. Okay. Thank you. It's been moved. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion carries. Going to item four. Should we continue the feasibility targets in class A and class B infrastructure programs? Very similar to the small project target. we're asking to continue here for both the class A and the class B infrastructure feasibility options. And it's $40,000 and $50,000 respectively in those amounts as of right now. And the problem question we ask about the allocations for those two items. So since we started having, well first of all, feasibility projects were basically an evaluation to see what's the best solution to solve the problem. So this is a feasibility only project which identifies a specific problem. And the thought would be that the grant team would get a feasibility grant to evaluate alternatives and then in a subsequent year come back with a grant to ask for construction to do what the selected alternative was. So we started that several years ago. How many fall part? Do you have any idea of how many projects we funded? Feasibility? After feasibility. The feasibility has been done. It's resulted in other projects down the road. Approximately 10. Okay. In terms of that we funded that we converted. But that ended up as a construction project. So another way to look at this is that by going through a feasibility study, there has been an evaluation done to come up with the best alternative to meet that particular problem. And had a feasibility study not been done, maybe we would or maybe not be the best alternative. Right. We've had a total of 18 feasibility only in the infrastructure and four in the class A. So being infrastructure is more active in terms of feasibility. And again, 10 total that have turned into actual infrastructure. Oh, okay. That's a number of years ago has been pretty well, served as well. A clarification. So the feasibility study kind of being a feeder system in... Okay. Yeah, several years ago, as Joyce mentioned, somebody thought that... George, you're a good one. Yeah, more bang for your buck if you knew which direction you were heading in. I'm coming with a better solution. Yeah. Donna, any thoughts on that? I don't think we're following the policy. It's okay. It's okay. Everything's been working. We're good. Okay, I think we definitely should continue that. I think it's been a good program. I'm taking over a verified document plan. Thank you. Any other thoughts or comments on continuing with the feasibility to target? I hear a motion that we move forward with that. Motion now. Okay, Aaron, thank you. Motion to continue with the feasibility to target pool. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been second. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign? motion carries okay number five should we consider increasing allocation of funding for feasibility targets of class A and B in the structural programs I would recommend possibly holding on making a motion for five until we discuss the last question in the packet Okay. Just because that one's on a percentage, it's dollar-based, and we have a discussion at the end, so maybe we come back to that or it gets answered in number 11. Very good. Which for the small project target was different because we didn't talk about the percentage. Right, that was a percentage versus the dollar. Okay. So we're going to hold on five right now. No. Okay, moving on to six, should we continue the innovation and experimentation funding application for FY23? And a little, correct me if I'm wrong, as I recall, we got a really interesting project from the University of Kentucky to do a project that didn't score well, but it was really a very innovative and one that we really like, but at the end of the day there were other projects that scored higher. So it didn't score in the funding category. We didn't fund it. And then the first meeting after that funding cycle, we came up with a solution to come up with this innovative and experimentation funding allocation to be able to fund projects it may not meet the rating that would allow it to be funded. So we did that. And I guess the next year UK reformatted their application and got funded under the regular. Their rating was such that it didn't need to be considered innovative. Right. That's correct. We had enough funding to learn the following year that scored well enough to actually be funded in the regular process. Okay. So this the additional $300,000 which is the amount that's been allocated is still sitting there and it's available for any class of grant. Class A, Class B education or Class B infrastructure. So it's not just the infrastructure funding. So any innovative educational projects or the neighborhood projects could qualify as well if the board's off-base. so so this is this is a a allocation of funds to serve those projects that might fall in the innovative experimentation category but we have not used that probably yet no we haven't used it in we have as I mentioned earlier a decent amount of funding right now and so staff would recommend just leaving it for right now Now, going forward, maybe perhaps make sure we're out there. If it starts to get really competitive and we start to run out of money for some of the projects the board might consider, you know, just throwing those back in and that would be a commitment forward. So am I understanding correctly that the money that's not used is $300,000. It's not being spread out for other projects? No, sir. No. being held out there okay separate pot of wood okay this is a carryover from previous years it was from a council grant that's where the mission came from it was a cancellation we had but it's not like separate so you have your budget it's not taken out of that budget it's literally a I think it's still in the same fund, it's just we don't allocate it, we just direct it to the side. It's earmarked with that allocation. Yeah, there you go, thank you. Right. Thank you. Okay, so then next year if there's not another project, will that then be $600,000, $300,000? No sir, it's just a set amount, it doesn't grow. It's just $300,000 sitting aside for the innovation that you guys did. Charles? So what happens, this is in the closed fund. We have an open fund and a closed fund from an accounting standpoint and stuff. And so that $300,000 has been sitting there from a prior fiscal year most likely. And the only corrective thing we may have to do is that finance may tell us, you need to spend that money because you can't just have it sitting there. and what we'll do is we'll spend it but then we'll read your market in a current fiscal year so basically it's three hundred thousand dollars earmarked for if and when somebody comes at us with an innovative project that the board and the division thinks that we need to invest in it's there okay and i think your recommendation is is to continue that yes and and to be honest with you what we do with all the funding is we'll go back and grab anything that came in under budget anything that would cancel and we push it all toward our can fiscal year that way it's not sitting dead on the books we still make it available for the can fiscal year the auditors prefer that yeah well that's good that's good fiscal property policy on our part to utilize the funds that are made right so any leftover funding from under budget project or anything like that we have to put in change orders otherwise it would be stuck in that fiscal year we have to put in a change order to allow us to move it forward okay what's will the group should we continue the innovative and excrementation funding allocation for fy 23. staff is recommending we continue that i totally agree the great thing about this one is you only have to hit one home run if you because one home run with this, this will all be worthwhile. So, again, back to the pandemic thing, that muddied the water so much that we really haven't had a chance to see whether or not somebody's got something out there because everybody kind of went on a hiatus for a few months. Well, it enables us to reach out and fund projects that typically may not qualify. It gives more flexibility to be more open if we agree that that's a good project. If somebody comes up with something that's super unique and it becomes more of a regional or national application that we worked every day sure okay i'll move to enable the home run all right would that be a grand slam yes okay it's been moved is there a second i'll say it's been moved and second second it i would make a motion six about that i said all right i got it opposed like so motion carries Okay, item 7. Question 2B of Class B Education. She asks what size of the budget, what size of the target audience? So why don't you give us a little breakdown. Yes sir. For item 7, the issue we have been having with Class B Education is that all the scores were coming out the same. And so in terms of competition, we weren't able to give anybody, you know, because the person's a general target size. Everybody was having the same target size. And so what we're asking here is to be able to increase the, change the tiers here. Right. To just increase each tier. So there's some differentiation. So you can see some separation, different point difference. Yeah. Everybody's the same. So, for example, the greater than 1,000 people, most of them have greater than 1,000 people. So everybody got 40 pounds. Okay. So this would allow us to kind of separate the competition. Gotcha. What made you go with the proposed one? What made you go with 5,000 instead of? Well, because we felt like from, you know, less than 500 people to greater than 5,000 would give us enough room for somebody like a Bluegrass Green Source and what we like to find it. which those would typically hire but for some smaller organization which is similar to our next question it's another opportunity to separate the competition so I think all we're trying to do is in view of their review of applications trying to reorient the points so that there's a difference I can understand what you're saying. If everybody said way to the 1,000, everybody got 1,000, 45 points. Everybody had the same score on that particular item, so you're not getting any differentiation as far as scoring is concerned. So if we're really competitive, and we don't have enough funding, so our question is, who do we do with it? Who gets out? So this will allow us to separate. Same thing with the next question. If everybody's scoring, picking 45 greater than 1,000, do you see a need to push the less than 1,000 to the bottom and change? Or do you think this is sufficient? I think this is sufficient. I think, you know, based on what we've seen in the last few years, I think this would be sufficient. Any other comments, questions? What's the will of the group on item 7? I move to put an audition. Okay. Okay. Thank you. It's been moved. Is there a second? I'm second. It's been second. I'm done. I all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like said. Motion carries. Okay, how'd it be? The same issue, and this was, for this question here, what it was is we would have applicants, we would ask whether or not their application is a long-term component, their educational component is a long-term component, and most people would say yes, and we asked for detail, and some people wouldn't provide detail, or very little. well they would still receive the full 40 points and we're asking to be able to give a range okay again different change the competition so these are things kind of learned by yes oh you know on the job training so to speak which we're just trying to tweak sure the first even on the staff to differentiate so I made it very similar to nine and seven and then you're trying to have some differentiation to qualify scores okay any questions about item eight and it's it's clear that it does the program contain a lot of different components so it's clear to the applicant that they they need to describe absolutely yeah what you're saying here is the actual question you know on both the table three and table four here we're just showing the question and just the difference in how we would score The only question I had about this one is what guides the scorer in assigning points in that range. In other words, if they're given a range of possible 40 points, are they looking at more detail? Do it score points? Yes. More years at the same time? We're looking for, obviously, something greater than a guess, but some detail about the funding, how much, who's involved, and some details about how it's going to be sustainable. Any comments, questions? And for the support, I'm sorry. You know, we've come to a consensus in terms of the goal. We've basically taken advantage of our thoughts and said, okay, it's what we felt like they were planned to put zero in the form. Yeah, like I said, the only reason I'm asking a question is I want us to be able to articulate if somebody comes in and says, X organization got 25 points, I only got 15. What accounts for the difference we'd be able to articulate? What that difference was. Can I ask a question? So in determining those points, are you going to base it on the gift of gab? Not necessarily how much information, some of them could just have a lot of words. So how can you define the difference between somebody that's being detailed with two lines and somebody getting a whole lot of unnecessary information? So, I mean, how do you repeat that to determine the amount that they're going to get? I think looking at the overall application, the project team, whether or not they have an ongoing source of funding and things of that nature, I think we'll be able to make out whether or not it's practical. You know, we had an application, I think, last year where a guy put in an application, they had no credentials. We couldn't find any credentials, I think Charlie pointed out, so we denied them. And so in a case like that, I think staff will be able to, I mean, because we do our research, we try to figure out whether or not this person qualifies for a grant, whether, you know, even outside of the Lexer or the billing part of it, we try to make sure that they're going to be able to follow through with the project. And so I think based on their reputation, you know, the prior records and whatnot, and I think we'll be able to make that determination. and i believe i believe we'll get into articulating why we've been scoring next year this is something we can come back after you've done the zero of the 40 and be like okay well you know you found out oh well we actually needed a little bit of this i'll bring it if they give us a good meet to be honest with you they're probably going to get 40. yeah they're going to get the full 40 and then but if they give us just very mental it'll probably be somewhere between zero and 20. It just gives us some room. Okay, what's your will to bring? Can I ask you some questions? I'm sorry. Is the zero to 40, like is that detrimental on a point scheme? I'm asking just since I've never been through the review process yet, is that something that could kill a project or will it just help It just gives me the competition, but in terms of the 40 number, it's a total of 100. So if we adjust that, then we have to add those points somewhere else to that position. So we have to make sure the 40 just gives us room, but we need to keep it at a max of 40 so we don't alter the entire point. Thank you. Well, this particular line item is not a great deal as far as the total point being evaluated. No. So that, getting back to your point, it's not going to be significant to the difference of you because it's a very small part of your overall score. But it's important because, you know, we don't want to be funding projects that's just going to last a year. Right. It's a very important point here. So just to get, so no would be zero, like if they just didn't say anything about the beginning, it'd be zero. Yes, with everything you're looking for, it'd be 40, and the middle would be kind of like 20. Yeah. I'm just trying to make sure. Yeah, if they say yes, they say yeah, we have a staff in place to make, you know, for this program to be able to last for a few years, that's a minimum point. They need to give us a link on how that's going to be done, a plan, a short plan. It's all right, Indra. It's all right. Good discussion. All right. What's the will of the group? Item 8. Move to accept the recommendation. It's been moved. Is there a second? It's been moved. And secondly, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like so. Motion carries. Item 9. So we add language to the application packets to assert that the water quality metrics will not be used to fund irrigation projects or irrigation projects outside the urban service area. What you do is just a brief background with the errors in perspective how this came about. We had a project last year that we had some concern about. Charlie, you want to speak to this? Well, that touched my memory here, but we basically had somebody that was a farming operation, and basically what they wanted to do was build a detention pond and then draw water from it so they could irrigate their crops. And to me, that didn't necessarily meet the intent of what we were trying to accomplish with the water quality management fee. And I sensed that, you know, we do this, and every golf course in town is going to be contacting us wanting to build a pond for them. And it was in the forefront of my mind because I have a friend who's a member of Lexington Country Club He's been after me for the longest time Helping him do something out there. They're tired paying Kentucky American, you know, as Kentucky American bills go up They'll be more interest in that so my recommendation was not to fund that And us to examine that here at this time to see whether or not we can insert the appropriate language that You know reuse of water or encouraging infiltration to reduce peak flows is that what we're trying to do here not necessarily irrigate crops and long-term percent and I'm looking over here at Michael because it may be a matter of being able to in such because it's kind of a hard to hard to state distinction yeah I mean I I guess my concern, and it kind of alluded to in the past, is basically this grant program exists because we get an allocation to the water quality management fee. And the reason we adopted the water quality management fee was to address stormwater management. And it's kind of a, it's almost a bang for your buck question in terms of this allocation for these grant projects is really intended to provide rate payers a way to help us with stormwater management situations. And the irrigation projects may be water reuse, but it's not necessarily what this program was intended to address. because there's no concern with stormwater and irrigation system. They're not taking all the water or anything of that nature, and it's not necessarily community-based. And also, too, being in the rural area, they're technically not going into the MS4 because our MS4 permit doesn't really cover those rural areas with the exception of some of the isolated rural activity centers like Blue Sky and Avon, et cetera, et cetera. So, you know, if somebody's got a flooding in a stream out on Darby Dan Farm, that's not necessarily something we're going to do anything about. Well, I guess being the devil's advocate on that regard, if these people are having to pay the water quality management fee, you know, there's some equity issues here. Well, I'm having to pay the fee. Why shouldn't I be able to get some grant to do something else? Then it gets back to how the funding gets back to the looking at the funding of each project to see how it funds, whether it funds at a high level. Well, the devil's advocate of that, too, though, is if you're a farm, you're paying a residential fee. So you're paying like $550 a month or something like that, and you're going to get a $300,000 grant. Okay. Or I sign up for that. Okay. Well, and to pay to Charlie's point, if you get to lose with what you consider to be eligible for funding, you kind of put pressure on the projects that really this program is designed for. Because suddenly instead of dealing with 10 applications for infrastructure projects that might really fit the purpose of this program, you're dealing with 20 that might be of a warmer reach. And so it's kind of a do we want clarity in terms of what are we really looking for in a good project that we want to fund? And I think what we're looking for under the terms of the grant program is something that's more about solving a stormwater issue and not necessarily a water reuse issue. And it somehow relates to number 10, and my thinking of this as well too, is that you potentially cross a line where you're actually funding someone's business enterprise in order for them to maximize their profit and you use the public money to do it. That's kind of a difficult place to do. So it leaves us open to a real challenge about how we're using this currently. of the things that just I get stuck on with this one I think we just need to really be specific if there is language that needs to change on what that is because like I would see water reuse as a benefit to the stormwater system because you're collecting it during your rain events but it's not going into our storm system or potentially in our sanitary system and then you're releasing it at a time when it's not raining and when it would absorb into the ground or your whatever you're doing so i just think there's a i don't think it's this black and white so like there has to be i don't know what the recommendation is as far as language because i don't know it as detailed yet but i that's my concern is that i do kind of i do see it as a benefit it just depends like are we wanting that to just not be the only part of the project are we wanting what do we need to change to get what we're going to do if you were if if this would have been collecting water off of their parking lot right and and reducing sheet flow and peak flows that would have been a lot easier this one as i recall was more of a grand collection of storm water and using it to irrigate a farm right and i thought okay well if we go there where does that lead us to again let's sit the golf course and i think that was my concern is the language of like just banning all irrigation because of like if we are doing what you just said collecting it off of an impervious surface and holding it until that is a benefit so i don't know that was just my two cents uh doesn't the comment that you've now put the ordinance section 16 plus 410 a and b doesn't that give us what we're looking for i I think so. I think you talked about existing stormwater concerns. I don't think that reuse necessarily is a concern by itself. I think it tells you what you plan to do, use the water, but it doesn't necessarily address a concern, nor is it a community-based type of project that tells you where everything's on. So I think that determination by law is that it is not consistent. It's not fitting in that code of ordinance. So does that take care of this ambiguity we're talking about? I think, I guess what I would say, and I guess the clarification I make about the ordinance is, I'm not saying you couldn't fund a project with an irrigation component. I think what I'm saying is you want to be careful and be clear about what this program is looking for. And it's not to defray, as Charlie said, the business expenses of private business. It's to actually solve a stormwater issue or to have a stormwater management aspect to it. And so I guess it's kind of a, if this program weren't competitive, I don't know if we'd care. But I think it's a are we comparing apples to oranges if we throw the gates open to allow irrigation and water to reduce when that's really the only thing going on to compete for these. There's a limitation of the funding. It's not a Bob in this pit. We don't have a, you know. But we have prepared some language, a base language that the board might agree with. So I guess what I would say is it needs, I think any grant application you all fund needs to serve and promote the purposes of the program that's set forth in the ordinance, which is stormwater concerns, community-based stormwater projects, that sort of thing. There may be projects that come to us with an irrigation component, but if all it is is irrigation, that's probably not cleanly. Okay. Okay. And then one point of clarification, how is, how would this project be different than the one at Lexmark that received a national award, remember the one that would be funded there where they captured the water and then it was used in their heating and cooling system? Well, number one, Lexmark is not a farm. They played the water quality management team based on the square footage of the parcel. Okay. And I think they did have some stormwater concerns at that parcel that they were addressing. Okay. So getting back to your point, it was the reuse was a component but not the sole component of justification of that grain. Absolutely. Okay. That's a difference. I always get confused which is which, Class A, Class B, but they're Class A. They're the commercial facility and stuff, and they're in the MS4. Yeah. tends to view them differently because whatever sheet flows off of their impervious area impacts the out-stream customers both from the flooding standpoint but also from the water column standpoint so based on that are you developing have you developed language we have addressed this item yeah we have some base language there needs to be tweaked I'm sure you probably get michael's involved with that as well i mean i could state it down if you would like to hear it for now it says the waterfall and as we see shall not be used to fund farming rock courses commercial or institutional irrigation projects that do not clearly define what the reuse of the water will be or that do not provide a lasting or direct benefit to the So for now, that's what it is. We can go back and forth on that. He probably needs to digest that. Okay. So I'll send it to you in an email. Yeah, we can wordsmith it. Then that will both fit with basically the stated purpose and the ordinance and what work. Yeah, because I think sole component language needs to be in a baby. Maybe we need to add something in that way. Make that so clear. Okay. Just so you know, don't feel bad. He always corrects my legal stuff, too. I tend to lean on Charlie. Any other comments, thoughts, concerns about the item number? So I guess we're questioning, should we end language to clarify that? And I think the recommendation of staff is that we do. Yes, sir. Okay. It's Will the group. Okay. It's been moved to add language to the application package to address that. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like so. Motion carries. Item 10, during the scoring of FI 23 Class B, infrastructure applications reference going over the program funding of new development expansion parking versus funding of retrofitted parking projects. Once again, Charlie, this was a concern for Charlie. I figured this was, I stayed around for the East UI. So basically I brought this up to Frank in one of our meetings last year sometime or another because what I was concerned with is that we're funding S total for somebody's parking lot. In my mind, I thought, you know, if you're doing a development, you're going to have to have a parking lot. Planning, you know, development plan, all this stuff requires you to have parking in the first place. So you're going to have a cost for asphalt, and if we want to incentivize you to do pervious pavement, then there's going to be this additional cost, which is pervious, and so you've got a dollar total. In my mind, we should be granting them this, not this, because otherwise, what I had said the forum with the irrigation thing we're in potentially funding somebody's private enterprise by absorbing the cost of their their parking lot you know if I give the government to pay for all of it and I don't have any parking spaces like it's possible because I got no reason not to so that's my recommendation here is what we should be funding is the cost of the purpose above what their base cost would be for building an asphalt farm yard. And to clarify, that language already exists in the application packet itself, so that language is there. If you look in your application packet on page 5 for Class B, this is more just a clarification we're asking to add the proposed language that you see there into the application form for Class B under where they get their budget just to remind them for new development. Well, that's been approved, essentially, because as you mentioned on page 5, it talks about the program not funding new development for new development. So let me ask this. Do you have a sense of breaking it down in those two components? Do you have an order of magnitude of what the base asphalt cost would be versus the cost the additional dollars for the pervious portion of it it's only a small amount that might not be an incentive for somebody to try to get the pervious granted my thought would be is if you're having to put under grains and all this stuff into the parking lot that's pretty dangling expensive okay I think I think most of these enterprises will take the savings or even have offsets from that is the permeable pavement would act as your water quality and that you may not have that water quality units and therefore... Okay, so there would be enough money involved for somebody to pursue that even if they're not getting the total. Right, especially when you think about it in the future, the savings on the water quality management fee, that's additional, you know what I mean, because that footprint gets decreased from the water quality management fee. That's a little permeable pavement. Scott's point was is that all new development is required to have water quality component of their development and so rather than happen to build a separate detention basin They can build this and basically use it as parking and now they've got that detention space that they would have had to use for detention now they can use it for something purposeful Okay Okay. So my big concern was is that, you know, a third party would look at this and say, well, wait a minute. Now, you're basically funding a private enterprise because they would have to have that parking lot in there anyway. And so us absorbing the entire cost of a parking lot seemed like it was subject to a question. Right. And the result of this, the outcome will be that there will be more money to fund other projects because we're not paying the total traditional asphalt. And so for the application form, already asked the question about the budget. the applicants to present a budget and so we're recommending to add another point to just ask to ask them to provide that material that proof in the actual application form the target guides them in terms of what we need what our expectations are and then we ask for the actual proof in the application form as part of the budget portion okay uh any questions this kind of a somewhat complex issue. Any questions about this? In retrofitting, is it safe to assume you retrofit a parking project? That's because their parking block is need to be repaid and they're looking for ways to get somebody to help pay for it? Retrofit because your water quality measure fee is high and you want to get it decreased over time it takes a while to get the savings but that's the reason that I would say typically their parking lot might be old and need of being replaced anyway. For retrofit I don't think this applies. This wouldn't apply to retrofitted project. We want retrofits. That's what we really have. We really want only retrofits. This only applies if they're adding additional parking, expanding or if it's a new development. So community Montessori could it that way. Last year, you guys approved one. They wanted to take the green space really next to a former project that we have funded and create additional parking for the students. Glad you reminded me of that because that was the thing that caught me is that we're going to pay for them to pave over something that's already green space. It didn't seem like it made a lot of sense to them. But she makes a good point. I mean, the incentivized, we're trying to incentivize somebody that's got a big parking lot that's in the middle of town here, water sheet flows off at all the time, creates flooding down the street. If we can get them to do that, then we win. It's the big win for us. Yes, the carrot and the stick. The stick is you're paying the fee. The carrot is you're doing a project that reduces your fee and helps us with stormwater. It's a win-win. Those are the kind of projects you like. All right. Any more comments, discussions? on item 10. Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second? I second. It's been moved and second. I'll open it. Motion. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign? Motion carries. Okay, now we're at item 11. This is really, Charlie addressed this earlier about supply chain issues and inflation. I tell you, this is a tough one right here. But why don't you, Mr. Lulon, I want to tell you that in the last year I've received at least four to five calls from projects we previously awarded where the vids came in double. what they were in the first place and so they're all concerned with having enough funding to even complete the project i have one late yesterday that came in for lakeshore village uh that scott can speak to and so we are trying to this is an idea to try to meet halfway we're not trying to necessarily cover i mean because i think that would that increase would be too significant maybe on the program and we would end up with only one or two projects in the season so i think this idea kind of gives them a little bit of leeway because they can also incorporate a contingency in their budgets as well that would help cover hopefully any additional costs but this is just an idea and the numbers were based on the increase in building supply materials that we got off the bureau labor statistics the report that they put out and so it's around 19.4 percent i believe it's a total increase for each of these lines and we round it up or down depending on who wants the number to be more cleaner ledsy liked it that way and so that's so those are the tools you see okay the education and feasibility were more of like an inflation percentage as opposed to the bill yes because there's material there's no material cost Okay. So these increases are not a across the board 20% increase? No. Each one is kind of- Yeah. Anything involving construction was considered within 1924% increase because of the cost of material. And then everything else was more or less inflationary impact. Okay. Does everybody understand that? Have any questions about the need and how these numbers were generated sounds like this is a real pain point that you're hearing I didn't read your note under the table so I look for my own inflation data and I got the same numbers okay you I think from top to bottom it's 13 20 20 14 10 20 which construction input construction inputs are up like 21 to 22 percent of The bids are up anywhere from 5 to 12 percent based on one table you're looking at. That's from the Associated General Contractors in America. So I got the exact same numbers, so this makes a lot of sense. Right. And in fact, while we're on the subject, I will tell you that in the next meeting in April, I think we have a couple of those grant teams that are looking to present to you guys for possible solutions to try to deal with these issues they have. UK being one of our favorite projects, their bid came in, I think, $600,000, $700,000. And so they're looking for some solutions there. And so far, I'm telling you, the programs, our hands are tied behind the back in terms of the awards. These are not to exceed amounts. And so there often would be, one, to terminate the grants to reapply, or two, to try to come up with a way to mitigate their issues in a different way that's more cost effective, which in their case, I don't think there's any way around it. I mean, because they're looking to build a rainwater harvesting unit, and I don't know if there's any cheap way around that at this junction. And so a third one would be to try to request a change in scope to phase out the project. I don't know. That's not one we're advertising per se. But it's one that would have to be on the table short of terminating these grants and going back to the drama. Well, that's raising a good point. In our April meeting, we're going to need to have given some thought to how we're going to respond to this. And so that's a good thing. But I think your suggestion is very on target. And David, thank you for taking the time to do that. It's pretty impressive, nice work. So I think there certainly is a documented need to increase that. And I think we've got documentation for two sources that fill up the same number. So any other comments, questions on item 11? Those individuals have been instructed that they're going to need to provide as much detail as possible. You know, a new budget, new schedule, new executive summaries, and so on. I told them without detail the board would certainly be inclined to not entertain any thoughts on that. Well, yeah, the worst thing is best case is maybe fund some way to help in some way. The worst case is this is the way it is. These are the funds we got. We can't generate new funds. They have to eat it. So, and that falls back on them to come up with, you know, does this make sense for us or not. Yeah. And hopefully it's a short-term issue, not a long-term issue. Hopefully in the future these supply chain issues will go away. But certainly for the immediate future it's more of an issue. Yeah, it's the ones that's already started, but that's where the real trouble is. Yeah. Yeah. Hopefully a lot of them will be able to handle the additional cost themselves. UK, I don't think, I don't see having as much trouble, but they are strict on their funding because they do receive grants and stuff too. Well, another way to look at it, it's just showing that they are paying a higher percentage of the project cost. So it depends on how you look at it. All right, what's the rule of the group on item 11? Okay, it's being moved by 9 a second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Let me go back to item five. That was a good suggestion to suggest we table that. And that gets back to increase the allocation of funding for feasibility targets. I think based on what we just did, I think that makes it a little easier to answer to that. Very good decision. Very good discussion on that. So anyway, should we increase allocation of funding for feasibility targets in Class A and B at the larger project? Okay. So when you're looking at the chart, you see 40 and 50. On the chart, it's listed 45 and 55. So there's two feasibility targets now. That's the comparison here. I'm going to accept the recommendations that other ones previous to that. So maintain the existence. Well, it would be an increase. Increase was the number of lessons. Because of the lessons. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So is there a motion? Motion. Been moved by Aaron. Is there a second? Second by Donna. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion. Periods. Okay. So this basically sets the direction for our criteria for projects this year. and I think we've done a good job in setting these as we go through. We fine-tune things from year to year, and I think it results in a free program, which is what we're trying to do. Okay. Frank, you want to go through item six, the grant application documents? Yes, sir. For the grant application documents, for now, all we've changed is the deadline date. So what we're asking is that you all agree to the number one, the deadlines that are in the application. And second, the items that you all approved here, we will go back and incorporate those items, those changes to the application documents. And then we'll give you a copy of these for your review to see if you have any more truth for us in these applications like this, aside from what you all already approved. and the staff will make the changes and then prepare to publish these in early March. Can you give us a real brief review of Class A neighborhood and Class B infrastructure? For Aaron's perspective, he's new to the group, and I'm like Charlie, sometimes I get confused. So can you kind of go through very briefly the difference between Class A neighborhood and Class B infrastructure? Right, yes sir. and so our class a neighborhood projects with the vibe are geared around neighborhood projects community-based stream cleanups and things of that nature these are individuals these represent homeowners but you have to be a homeowners association or some kind of institution registered with the secretary of state in order to apply for these funds so an individual homeowner can't come and apply to to to get a project on their parcel alone now we have had uh an association applied for example to incorporate like permeable pavers in five five driveways which affected flow downstream it took some of the pressure off downstream to alleviate flooding so that's not to say that a project can't happen on a parcel on a residential partial they just they would have to be represented by the association in order to do so but what we have in these application packets is we give we provide a packet of information that gives a guideline for how the applications will be scored so we have an application package and then we have an application form where we ask them to give us the data of the information and then we provide i believe the score sheet in the package to show you the scoring matrix as well as a marked budget and then we show you the basic agreement which is the grant award agreement and then attachment a gives those are project specific details that we provide there and within the class a it also incorporates a maintenance agreement that will be attachment b that will address the maintenance responsibilities between the association and LSECG. That's what you see in these application packets. But the difference between, again, Class A and B infrastructure is just the fact that the Class A's are neighborhood-based projects and Class B infrastructure are commercial, like the Walmart or the U.S.B. Those are people that pay the water quality match with T based on square footage, the footprint of the forest and any apartment settings, including the rooftops and what happens. A few years ago, where I previously lived right here, Woodfield Homes went through the water quality process. I believe they've seen two of them before, different portions of the pond out there off Tate Street. So I know that perspective of going through. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That was a beautiful project. We love that one. So yeah, so we got to have that background before we go to the process. Well, thank you for kind of refreshing us and helping inform. Okay, so you're going to be updating the packet information and the forms to reflect the decisions we've made thus far. Right, and so the deadline for the Class A neighborhood and Class B education grants that we have in here is May 6th, which is a Friday. And we typically do that first Friday in May and then the last Friday in July for the Classy infrastructure. So that's where those dates come from. So we want to make sure you guys are okay with those deadlines. And any other information that you see in there to date until we get those changes. Does anybody have any specific questions or comments in looking at... We've updated the numbers in the Bureau of Labor Statistics chart that you see there on page 6 of the application package. We bring those to date each year to make sure that those are accurate. Because what we're doing is making sure that anything to grant us funding gets straight with the market. And so those who can help please, thank you, Denise. Okay. any other questions comments as far as cost share i'd like to make mr bottom aware that when it comes to cost share donated professional services can only be used as cost share okay and not paid by the grant so Got it. Can't find a position. Exactly. That's a good one. Okay, any other questions or comments on that? I guess we will just move forward, and you will make the adjustments to that. The dates look, I mean, everybody found the dates. May the 6th. The first Friday in May is the day before the first Saturday in May, which is the derby days. Okay. And then July 29th for the FESB infrastructure. All right. May we move to item 7, incentive grant status update? Yes, sir. As you can see, your first sheet there, 2016, there's one project remaining. Jennifer Terry, who has directed the district in the Department of Education, it was her project. She agreed to just keep it real quick because it's in the lab. They're producing their final report as we speak. And so that one, I suspect, will be closed down to 4 April. And that was one, like you all, we mentioned. that's the only project in 2016. 2017 we have that's the project that we mentioned in our last meeting that there were some workmanship issues. There were some issues with the depressions in the parking lot and so we're in the process of dealing with getting those areas and hopefully we won't have to request our reimbursement for that. And so that was in the working area. So we will probably have a more definite update for you in April on that because I'm giving away a recent deadline by March 1st because I want it to be practical in terms of the weather. I mean, there's no way in a dead smack of winter and they're going to make pay these companies out. So I told them, you know, I want to give them until the weather warms up a little bit and give them a little bit more time to get these products corrected. So we're at the pension list phase. These depressions are incorporated in their thing. They must repair the pension line. Because what happened, if you recall, he decided not to use what the contractor bailed on him. And instead of waiting for a new qualified contractor, the property owner decided to lay the papers himself. And unfortunately, there's a reason why you call them specialists. It's kind of like Bill Cosby, one of these guys trying to do their own plumbing issue or temp island. You get what you pay for. So that's what we are with it, and we hope to have that dealt with by the anchor meeting. On your 2013, there's five projects remaining. Beaumont is another one that we had small issue with in terms of them took the cart before the horse, but the project is complete. The work is done. They're going to punch this item. The contract is on site, taking care of any issues that Jennifer pointed out during our site inspection. We just received a request for funds, so that's another one that's going to be closed out in April. Cardinal Valley, Alex Scott, since he's so kind to show up here. We finally got the plant material in the ground this fall. We got the signage erected last month. And right here I have the final report ready to go to the owner, first of all, for a signature this weekend. And then hopefully to Hunter by Monday. It's fantastic. And we're excited to get that one over the way it goes. Stonewall Equestrian was another one that Jennifer had taken on after Lee Hudson had moved on to Florida. And we now have the final report in hand and we're kind of going back and forth tweaking. And so that one would also be closed down by April. I suspect Bluegrass Green Source. This project is the one where they want us to build the Environmental Education Center here across from the Hope Center, right there at the railroad tracks. But there's an illegal outfall from Setser that sits right in the middle of that parcel and there are litigation to solve that issue, to relocate that outfall. And of course, I think we're trying to recoup some funding from the losses there. so she hopes to have an update to me on that litigation by next month university kentucky research foundation this is the um final retention area of alumni this is pretty much a wrap i think we're reviewing the final project for that now the signage is up the project obviously is complete and so it's going to be used as an out of the classroom so we're excited about that it's a beautiful area especially in the spring time in the office i've seen a video i think was a kspe contention society professional here meeting they had a video presentation and the people from uk that did this were talking about this project right that's pretty cool it's being used as a education resource for students that are studying this topic. Yeah, you probably didn't get a better job. High traffic, lots of traffic. Absolutely. So we're pretty proud of that. Good. On our 2019, we have two remaining friends with one. And I believe you just submitted another request for funds. So I suspect this one would also be one that will come up by April. Because they're now starting to focus on the FY20 and beyond projects. You know, of course, of course, President Wolf, unlike a few of our other customers, you know, pretty much come back each year to replenish some of their supplies and their programs. But it's an online stewardship, and it's a great thing that they have going on because Ken Pitt does a good job. He just does bring the neighborhood together, getting all hands on deck, cleaning up the stream, and eventually just assimilating more issues there. and then we also have opportunity for work and learning this one is moving forward as well I think they decided on the old go back to the old location where the project was set to occur and so I think the design is moving forward quite well Scott I'm sorry this is yes yes we are in the process of contacting contractors right now to see get a list of contractors that are interested in bidding and hopefully moving forward with bidding this spring. They had a change in leadership I think. We also had a change yeah they also initially started off with a change in leadership. They went through some fluidity in terms of their programming, their internal programming, what they were looking to do. So yeah. And the pandemic hit and yeah. So we're hoping to make progress. A lot of progress this year. A lot this year. And for FY20, I won't name any individual. If you see anyone, I will say that Endover 4 is completed. City Private Avenue is a good local project. They are in fact involved. If you recall, the board allowed them to adjust the scope because of the high bid issue. issue. This was the start of a high bed issue and they instead installed an erosion control blanket out there over their spillway over the dam there and it looks good. I mean starting to break the vegetation's coming through and it's pretty good. We walked out there so we're pretty proud of that one. Andover neighborhood association that project is moving along quite well. As matter of fact that construction is just about done. The only issue we had with them was they changed their construction interest off of they moved it to off of todd's road which is a pretty busy street and they kind of tore up the curve and stuff there but uh they agreed to put it you know to redo it and what have you and they can and there's a steep embankment right off of that thing to get down to the wrong court so they had to install a ton of rock just to to make that happen but they've been you know they've been another try to be able to turn that to the way way it was. So that was going on quite well. And so on most of the other projects here, Kentucky American Water, I believe they're looking for locations on that one to install the trash situation. You know, the one in Lexmark. The giant Oscar deal. Lakeshore Village is one that I spoke about earlier that they have a high-end issue as well. And so they may come to Florida Board to bear some of those concerns. And I told them there are no promises. So Scott and I both were realists with them and told them, you know, it may be a situation where you may have to eat the cost, but it depends on what you present, how you present it, except for what we're doing. North Lex is moving along quite well. Doug said the devil is set to wrap up. They have a final report in this one. Research Foundation, this is the one about the water harvesting so that one is the one that they plan to tell virginia Avenue right yes they plan to they have that bill came extremely high and so they may want to come before the board as well and you know in a highly competitive situation those innovation funds you know could be revisited for sake of you know okay just a thought true because they qualified as innovation in the first place meeting uh when they were awarded is there any chance you have a copy of that application anywhere in the long list are you talking about the ukr i believe so yeah i just think and really obviously yeah absolutely let me see if not though we can do a city you digitally yeah oh yeah yeah we have a digital office we just send it to you digitally okay it's very cool cool thanks yeah because what we do is normally after the grad season we uh we keep one or two copies but then the rest of them yeah just yeah if you can imagine yeah solid waste issues right uh so fyi 2021 all these projects are ongoing The agreements were returned, the projects, the notes proceeds went out and the projects are ongoing. One has completed Griffin Game here. It's a really quick project where they amended the soils out there. They were having some infiltration issues, so they amended the soils so the water would infiltrate. And so that was done. That was great. If you have any questions about any of these specifically, they're happy to answer any questions you have about it. The two that you're expecting to hear from on the high-vis and fishies are the Lakeshore and the UK. UK is what Brittany's been talking us about. Right. So they'll definitely hear anything. That was two that said that they requested to come before the war, but they wasn't prepared. And then we did have a third, but they didn't say definitely, but they would have never been suppressed. is that which year uh that was 2021 so let's see let's see that one is no i'll take it back that's 2022 president condominy association item number four when you're 2022 um and that one is at urban county council currently but they already know that they have a business when the attorney went that far with it so you all definitely see uk in april they wanted to come today but you know i told them they have to get the materials to staff so we can review it exactly the board of recommendations right so they wasn't prepared so april we don't have a lot going under that mean so it's pretty much wide open and so it's probably the better option. So moving on to 2022, these are all the great award agreements have gone out to the awardees and we've received I believe four of those and so those are just ongoing in terms of the approval process getting the agreements to the awardees and getting them back. We're waiting on most of them to come back to us so we can send them to Irving County Housing for improvement. So if you have any questions about any of those, let me know. Okay. A lot of different projects over the years. Yeah, we have a total of 53 onboarding. Because 10 of them within the past year have completed. We have 53 active projects now. So, you know. A suggestion, it seems like in the April meeting, we typically in the past have gone to look at some projects and that might be if there's something particularly unique. So I think it really helps to see some of the projects we're funding. It's one thing to vote on it and see what the plan is. The other thing has to go out and see it, look at it and see how it's working. feel for it as a matter of fact since we have uh new board members you know i wouldn't mind going back to some of the old a couple of the older ones you know the really spectacular projects to to let our new board members see those live in the green line would be i would like to see that but i didn't have a chance to go to that oh that's right that's right so that is a really cool project and i perform out there all the time yeah this is all right i got matter of fact that's how we got we did the tour at the end of the project and the guy at the bar there says hey you got a band don't you why don't you sign the band up to come out and perform so we're doing regular um but i believe that's it okay all right very good any other business to bring before the roof oh i did want to mention that train officially sold at 1500 mercero they officially sold that property so they're taking on new owners and the stormwater facilities there we've informed them that the maintenance agreement is transferred so they're responsible for the upkeep going forward so i wanted to let you all know that they are under new ownership now and so we'll be keeping to make sure that they strike out. Very good. Any other business friends for the group? Hearing none. I'm going to stand and turn to 10-22-8. 10-41. 10-41. Yeah, I was looking for it. Thank you. No problem. And Donna Aaron is our new board member. Nice meeting you guys. So we're fully staffed and ready to go. And staff would like to thank each of you for your time and your commitment to our community. Because we realize that you can be doing anything. Not a lot of people serve in this capacity, but we really want to expect that thing to do. Thank you very much. So in the interest of concerning the paper, you can leave all this stuff back to the air. I think it's a good thing.