# February 16 2023 Water Quality Fees Board - February 16, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 16, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5766 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5766?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-02-16 - **Last revised**: February 16, 2023 - **Length**: 6,042 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Water Quality Fees Board met on February 16, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in the North Elkhorn Conference Room at the Tate Building, 125 Industrial Avenue, Suite 180. George Woolwine presided over the meeting, which included six agenda items. The board approved the minutes from the January 12, 2023 meeting and voted to approve changes to the Tree Canopy Proposal scoring matrix. One agenda item—SQPIGP Change Order Applications for FY22 Class BI Colt Engineering, Inc.—was deferred for further consideration. The board took three motions and votes during the meeting and heard one public comment. ## Attendance **Present:** - George Woolwine - Harry Clarke - David Lowe - Aaron Vaught **Absent:** - Donna Fogle **Late:** - Aaron Vaught ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included three votes, all of which passed unanimously. **Approval of January 12, 2023 Meeting Minutes** [timestamp: 0:03:44] Harry Clarke moved to approve the meeting minutes from January 12, 2023, with a second from David Lowe. The motion passed unanimously with 4 ayes and 0 nays. All four members voted in favor: George Woolwine, Harry Clarke, David Lowe, and Aaron Vaught. **Approval of One-Year Tree Canopy Pilot Program** [timestamp: 0:32:39] David Lowe moved to approve the one-year Tree Canopy Pilot Program for Class A Neighborhood and Class B Infrastructure, with a second from Harry Clarke. The motion passed unanimously with 4 ayes and 0 nays. All four members voted in favor: George Woolwine, Harry Clarke, David Lowe, and Aaron Vaught. **Removal of Language from Innovative & Experimental Projects Criteria** [timestamp: 0:38:37] Harry Clarke moved to remove the phrase "at the completion of the project" from the criteria for Innovative & Experimental projects, with a second from Aaron Vaught. The motion passed unanimously with 4 ayes and 0 nays. All four members voted in favor: George Woolwine, Harry Clarke, David Lowe, and Aaron Vaught. ## Public Comment Jason Hale, a landscape architect from Gresham Smith, addressed the meeting regarding tree species selection [timestamp: 0:30:32]. He raised concerns about the suitability of certain tree species for specific applications, particularly in relation to permeable pavement systems. ## Call to Order George Woolwine called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. [timestamp: 00:02:40] ## Approval of 01/12/23 Minutes [timestamp: 00:03:44] The board reviewed and approved the minutes from the January 12, 2023, meeting. George Woolwine, Harry Clarke, and David Lowe participated in this agenda item. The minutes were approved without noted objections or concerns. ## Tree Canopy Proposal – Scoring Matrix Changes [timestamp: 04:17] The board discussed proposed changes to the scoring matrix for grant programs to include tree canopy expansion as a criterion for both Class A and Class B grants. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Frank Mabson, Lindsie Nicholas, and Heather Wilson. **Proposal and Discussion** The board considered modifications to the existing scoring matrix that would incorporate tree canopy expansion into the evaluation criteria for Class A and Class B grant applications. This change would allow projects focused on increasing tree canopy coverage to be scored and evaluated alongside other grant priorities. **Outcome** The board approved a one-year pilot program to implement the scoring matrix changes. This pilot approach allows the board to test the inclusion of tree canopy expansion as a scoring criterion while maintaining the ability to assess the effectiveness and impact of this addition before making any permanent changes. ## SQPIGP Change Order Applications - FY22 Class BI Colt Engineering, Inc. [timestamp: 0:33:48] The board addressed the SQPIGP Change Order Applications for FY22 Class BI Colt Engineering, Inc. Frank Mabson was the key speaker on this agenda item. The board determined to postpone consideration of this item. The change order applications will be reviewed at a subsequent meeting scheduled for April 13, 2023. **Outcome:** Deferred to April 13, 2023 meeting. ## Other Matters [timestamp: 0:34:18] The board discussed changes to the FY24 grant application documents and the criteria for Innovative & Experimental projects. Frank Mabson and Lindsie Nicholas led this informational discussion. The board reviewed proposed modifications to the grant application materials for the upcoming fiscal year and examined the standards being applied to evaluate Innovative & Experimental project submissions. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes, with no formal action required. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 a.m. [timestamp: 0:42:23]. George Woolwine presided over the adjournment. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of the January 12, 2023, meeting minutes - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of the one-year Tree Canopy Pilot Program for Class A Neighborhood and Class B Infrastructure - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Remove 'at the completion of the project' from the criteria for Innovative & Experimental projects --- ## Full transcript Oh, boy. Because there's so many things. It's a way of win. It's a free candidate for the city. What was the reason for this understanding? Why do we have a mental health? Because of the community. Why do we have a mental health? I was always told I actually can't go over that. I don't know if you have an all-state insurance. You can go for security. Get it down. Basically, you can get it on top. You can see trees all over there. I don't know. I think that's going down. Is that how it turns into it? Yeah. It's not going to turn into more of the last one. It's nice. I'm going to have a hundred percent. So, we're going to have a hundred percent. It's going to be 25 percent. How do you stay in the state? Do you want to take time? Yeah. I can do it. Yeah, I think there's a lot of interest in the follow-up stuff. Please. Excuse me. If I can have your attention, we'll go ahead and start the meeting. It is the February 16th special meeting to discuss the Creek Kennedy proposal. so first of all item of business is approval of the January 12th 2023 meeting minutes compliments to Denise and he will pull this together a lot of detail a lot of work and we appreciate it excellent job any questions comments covered a lot of last time and I think made some very good decisions as far as moving forward any questions hearing none do I hear a motion that we approve the minutes I'll move approval of the minutes it's been moved is there a second it's been moved and seconded all in favor the motion signify by saying aye aye opposed like so motion carries okay the primary item of the day is our tree canopy proposal today we are convening in a special meeting to present well I'll give you some background which it reads here during the January 12th meeting citizen Neander Nacho Nachi Braga representing Gilmanza permaculture and the tree board presented materials to the board in support of adding tree canopy extension to the scoring matrix for class B infrastructure of the stormwater grants. The proposal letter dated January 12, 2023 is attached to the recommendation, to this recommendation, which I believe we provided to you all. The Division of Water Quality recommendation the division recommends that the board consider approval of the request with the following considerations also if approved the division asked the board to consider adding tree canopy expansion to the scoring matrix for class a grants for one year pilot as well I will now recite recommendations recommendations include amend section 1b of the class B infrastructure scoresheet to value the establishment of tree canopy square footage at a coefficient of 1.5 times the canopy square footage calculated using Article 26 of the LFUCG zoning ordinance. Thank you. Apply point allocation to current ranges, and we've got revision language at the back of this recommendation. Thank you. To determine which species fit into each size category, applicants and division staff to reference the existing LFUCG planting manual. In addition to 1D, amend section 1E of the class BI score sheet to value the drainage area in square feet intercepted by the proposed tree canopy area. This would not include the canopy counted in item 1B. questions 1F and 1H of the class B BI score sheet staff recommends no changes as the captioned questions referred to the LFECG standards. The stormwater manual which currently does not list trees by themselves as BMPs and there's a note stormwater manual does mention trees as a component of certain BMPs including tree trenches and planning boxes chapter 10.3.7 and riparian buffer restorations chapter 10.3.10 and those are all direct references to the proposal letter that that be sent um and then the second part of this would be our recommendation to also update the class a score sheet so amend section 1a of the class a score sheet to value the establishment of tree canopy square footage calculated using article 26 of mccg zoning ordinance no multiplier in this instance. Amend section 1D of the class A scoresheet to value the drainage area and square feet intersected by the proposed tree camp area, not including the area counted to N1. I don't think we need to read the example. This was provided in the previous meeting, but we just provided an example using the multiplier for the class BI to show how that would work. And then kind of additions and stipulations, conditions to the recommendation or even explanations. On the back of that would be regulatory canopy calculations for the tree canopy establishment above and beyond any new area development tree canopy requirements. And water quality staff would coordinate with Division of Environmental Services during the application and design phase to make sure that that's followed. And as well, we provide an explanation for the multiplier of, and I'll read that, the multiplier for the Class BI score sheet is an acknowledgement from the Division of Water Quality of the benefits of trees and the management of stormwater quantity and quality. This includes their role in interception and evapotranspiration of stormwater, removing notable amounts of water that would otherwise enter the storm sanitary systems as well as providing benefits to water quality, shading, local cooling, habitat division, and many other social and economic benefits. The multiplier incentivizes applications proposing tree canopy plantings since these projects will not see a reduction in their water polymorphia. Impervious removal and associated BNPs depreciate in ability to treat and infiltrate stormwater without exceptional maintenance efforts, while the stormwater benefits of trees increase with time. Then we referenced C, Table 1. I mean, table one, I'm sorry. The multiplier to tree canopy area is not recommended for the Class A score sheet in order to keep the current square foot ranges for point allocations that reference area BMPs on an even plain field with the tree canopy area. Class A projects typically propose smaller size BMPs, which is reflected in the current ranges and items of the Class A score sheet. In addition, since the implementation of a Class A grant does not typically result in the reduction of the water quality management fee billed to applicants or to the owner of the property benefiting from the grant project, a multiplier is not needed as an added incentive for tree canopy. With respect to maintenance, the Division of Water Quality recommends the use of the current Class BI depreciation schedule for Class BI tree canopy award recipients. And then the division also recommends the use of the Class A inspection operation maintenance plan to determine maintenance responsibilities for Class A tree canopy award recipients. and item four here we reference all the documents that will be impacted by if the tree canopy proposal is approved these are the documents that would be impacted we just list those documents and then provided on the last page what those provisions for that first bullet would look like to the sports themselves since that's what the proposal asked for. We wanted to show what those would look like. And the other changes to the documents can be made subsequently at this meeting. And it wouldn't be too much of a lift to make those prior to the March posting. And so considering... Do we need to read those? Yeah. Please. Page three. No, but I've got a question. Under the recommendations item 2, the last paragraph, you talked about a multiplier tree there's not written in for Class A score sheet, but then on the recommendations on the next page 3 of this handout, you have a mission of Class A score sheet, items 1A and 1D. So I'm confused. We can read it. The language on 1A does not have the multiplier in there. So the top of the page revision to class BI score sheet for item 1D includes proposed tree canopy to be multiplied by 1.5, whereas 1A is what is the size of the proposed BMP project area and or tree canopy where the improvements will occur, and then the note explains that it's just a straight calculation from the one order. at least that's and as far as the three species they're recommending those are the species that are all native to this area get from the tree manual right they're not all native but they're all non invasive I'm so in that manual has a range of different tree species based on the location that's available for planting and so we have things in there that are like rubber tree which is not native here it's also not something we're going to find in the nursery so it's not likely one that's going to put out there but but it is our recommended species based off of a number of different criteria and those are all marked out in that plan okay but there are none that are invasive correct kudzu or stuff yes none of that is in that one okay thank you Okay. So is there anything else you want to say? Well, the board just needs to consider the recommendations, you know, on the attachments and we have a discussion of questions. We have DDS here to speak to the tree question. Frank, I have just a quick question. Evan talked with the law department. If tree canopy is one of the, adding the tree canopy is one of the ways that they're going to help with stormwater in a particular project, are we going to have a condition in there that they ensure that it's not within any existing easements that might be taken down by existing utilities, not to be named later? later you know we simply incorporate that type of stipulation in all the grants putting in other words putting it on them to make sure instead of assuming that we're checking and then later take down when we basically paid them money to put it up in the first day yeah we typically incorporate that stipulation this is something remember Any comments, questions? We have a number of experts here to assist us in our decision making. Any comments or questions any of the staff? I think your list of recommendations on page one is probably exhaustive. You proposed a one-year pilot, which is a cautious or measured approach. I'm wondering, is there any other underlying anxiety about the proposal that's not reflected in the recommendations on page one? I can speak to that if you want. I think the intent of that was I think staff does not believe that this would cause tree canopy applications to out-compete impervious retrofit or removal applications with the multiplier. but I think having that one-year pilot allows us to evaluate and see how scoring went that year. And if we had to make changes to the multiplier itself, I don't know that we have any pause about including tree canopy. It's more of just an opportunity to evaluate the multiplier and how the scoring went. But I don't, there wasn't any, like this isn't going to work and we want to make sure we only have a year. And I think, you know, the fact that, as we mentioned here, for imperfect surface removal, the fact that there's a potential incentivization about lowering the water quality management fee, it's just we want to kind of give tree canopy, you know, I think that's Mr. Braga's approach is just to try to give some kind of ground to incentivize tree canopies, put your own kind of level playing field. somewhat and so I think we feel comfortable since it's a pilot program that we can tweak it if necessary next year and make a decision to continue or not the other thing is um trying to think about you know what is the potential risk we've solved for a lot of things maintenance we've solved for easement's a great question it sounds like that's solved for in the process to an extent So what risk remains? Is it simply that the tree, and obviously the tree needs time to grow, and it will be more effective for our purposes and the guidelines of the program as it grows? That seems like it's the remaining risk. I mean, the multiplier, and we talked about this the first time, but the multiplier is maybe not. It's maybe a little bit more art and science, potentially, which is all right. And one year test in my view, do I have that right? Is it basically just the trees? Right. You're right. And again, over time, the tree is going to increase in value, whereas you're going to see the benefits from these stormwater facilities, pervious predators, things of that nature, you know, immediately. And probably depreciation over time, trees will kind of go in the opposite direction. It's a good thing. And just one final comment. To me that seems like the central question is whether or not we're all right with deferred investment. That's not the right phrase, but I think you know what I mean. Are we okay with that? I'm inclined to be all right with that and certainly be supportive of the one-year test. I'm very curious to what my colleagues have to say. As far as measuring success and effectiveness, as you say, it takes time for trees to grow and for that to fully materialize. I mean, they do grow. Is it just kind of the literature, sir, saying this is what evapotransportation, transportation is for the species of tree is there some being an engineer retired engineer is there some means of measurement other than these literature searches studies that say certain success these are the types of things you can expect to see is there any actual way to actually measure this table that you have is a reference to that this is all data that's been controlled by the US I just put a few species in here to highlight because it could continue on and on whatever species you want to put in there. But it does give you what it's currently pulling out of the system upon installation based on the size of the tree. And so of course when we plant trees, we're going to plant from the other end. And then it can extrapolate for 20 years or farther depending on what size you start with. And so this is all data. It's all calculated by many, many years of research by the Forest Service. And so it is hard data. It's all calculations extrapolated for years down the road. And I think it's on there. I guess it's not. I thought it would be linked to where you can go. And you can enter anything you want and try to trim that out. You can enter the size of the tree that you're looking at currently and extrapolate it out to, like, a 20-year time frame and see what it's currently taking out of the system, currently moving through the system, and what it will, it's projected to do down the system based on things like location to a building, full sun versus part shade. It has all of those different variables that are calculated into the calculations. So these numbers would play so much per tree. Yes, per individual tree. And so once you get a forest, it will look at it in a different sense. And I'm sure that that data is out there when you're looking at a forest system. I didn't provide that here because the numbers would be a little different because they're all working together. And actually the link is up there. It's very small, but the very top little data source is the my tree, I tree trees. So yeah, these are individual single trees. And so ideally in a project, they're going to put in more than just one tree. And so those numbers would be a lot higher. I started with two-inch because, in general, I think two-inch is about the best size tree to start with when you're putting a plant in the middle. Unless it's smaller, but they can calculate for smaller. Let me ask this question. Say we improve this, how do we do it? What system will we have to analyze the success of what we've done? We've got a one-year project, which is really not very much time to do something like this. So how in a year can we make a judgment about the success of whatever we do? I don't know that we can judge the success of the canopy itself, but I know we can judge the success of the administration of and the application process. reaction from right from the public yeah yeah I'd say the pilot is more of a pilot of the scoring matrix with the update to the scoring matrix than it is of the implementation of tree canopy yeah right I got you agree because it takes some time for the developers we still have each year we go through the forms and review them so right that's always there as well we could always tweet that you can make it a topic of discussion each year during our January meeting for any graduation and as far as we're not precluding the use of tree canopy on type class a projects we're just not changing the scoring system to give them a benefit is that correct right we are changing the scoring system and give them a benefit for just not providing the multiplier. So previously there was not language in the Class A score sheet to calculate, to include tree canopy square footage in your calculation for their point system. And now there is. But we're just not incentivizing it in Class A with the multiplier itself. What else? What other comments, questions? So the recommendation, back to Class A, the recommendation is to consider adding the canopy expansion to scoring matrix for Class A grants. Yes. But under multiplier, it's not recommended for Class A score sheet. The multiplier. The multiplier itself. Yes. Okay. Just want to be clear about it. As far as maintenance, tree canopy, there's really not a lot of maintenance involved. I guess the main consideration is getting the correct species that's durable, that's party and will not cause a problem. But as far as the maintenance itself, there's really not a lot of maintenance associated with that. Well, there is. As far as mulch is a maintenance piece, particularly in the beginning, probably more so to protect it from a chemical damage than anything though it definitely helps soil and buffering of the root systems from the heat and the snow and keeping water and all that like all the environmental benefits. There is pruning, not necessarily in the first couple years you want to do two or three years before you start doing any kind of pruning that's more of a structural kind of thing. But aside from that I mean that's really it. I mean unless they're putting in fruit trees and so harvesting if that's part of what they would like to include in their projects. I don't know if that's projects that come through, but no, aside from that, watering in the first two years, if we wind up with a drought in June, July, August, that time frame, so just that would be the other piece of the maintenance, and so watering typically doesn't happen unless we have droughts, so yeah. To be clear, mechanical damage is like a weed whacker. We need our lawnmower. Yep. I'm sorry. And your name and who you're with? Sure. I'm Heather Wilson. I am the program manager senior for urban forestry for the Division of Environmental Services. Okay. Here in Irving County? Yes. Okay. So you're an independent objective source to the proposal being made. He's just sitting there. Yeah. Okay. Yep. I think that speaks highly if you have somebody in Oregon County government support organization that you're presenting this thing does maintenance of the trees just from staffs perspective include replacing the tree guys yes it can I think that's the big thing is make sure they be chopped down You can just talk about that a little bit last meeting, like if the tree dies and... Yeah. Does it need to be a time frame within that? If it dies within a year or if it dies within 10 years? So in general, trees planted by landscapers or companies have a one-year guarantee. So beyond that, it would be on... I guess I'm just not as familiar with where the projects are. So if it's on private property, it would be on the responsibility of that entity to keep that tree alive. I think we talked about a five to 10 year time frame in general, barring a significant weather event or an insect or pathogen disease onset. If you make it past a year, two years, you're pretty good unless there's mechanical damage, weather event that's unforeseen or some kind of pestle pathogen that's kind of went through. I think for our class D infrastructure, I think we were aiming on 15 years. Right, but it's a depreciation. So, which is what I was going to bring up, the way that we propose it just because of the complexity. You get into making it pretty complex if you really wanted to, and we're trying to steer away from that. With maintenance, it's not like we were proposing some sort of survivability, separate depreciation schedule for these. We were going to add it to the normal, the canopy itself is going to be added to the normal depreciation schedule. So I guess if a tree dies or a portion of it gets cut down, in that instance, it'd be more of either replant it or give us the money back. I guess they have two options because that's the same way we would treat papers. If they took them out or sealed them, we would either say fix it or give us our depreciated value money back. So I think to answer that question, trees would have to be treated the same way under this recommendation. So if a tree died after five years, they would have the option of paying some money back on a probative basis or planting of a tree. Yeah, we'd have to determine the value of that particular tree depending on how many trees they planted in the canopy. And we would just point out that tree as a unit and depreciate that value. And that's what they would owe us. Well, there was also a whole calculation to determine the value of a tree depending on what stage of life that tree is in. So that's a whole other set of calculations that are there and available if it were to get to that point. I think we'll keep it as simple as we can for what we're doing right now. Yeah. To me, just based on the other types of grants, you would have to keep basically the value being what part of that project went toward the tree planting. Agreed. So even though the tree is going to essentially appreciate and value the way the incentive grant program is set up, it's a depreciation schedule. And it's basically to be able, for Division of Water Quality, to be able to recoup those funds at a depreciated rate if a BMP or tree canopy were to be removed during that 10-year service life. I would imagine that if you list tree canopy, you list tree canopy, but then, you know, it depends on how many trees are involved. That's why it would have to kind of extract the unit cost and kind of go from there. Because you don't want to penalize it for the entire canopy. Exactly. You have one tree that's dead, but you've got 99 others that are fine. Right. Yeah. And my question was, you know, just to make sure, you know, it wasn't necessarily that, you know, we should make sure that there is some way that they have to replant it. It's just that we make sure that the money that we put into it is actually recouped in some way, whether it be you getting the continued value of a new tree, for instance, as opposed to a dead one, or the money back that that tree represents. And I think either way is fine. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear and that we're not funding potentially trees that might not survive. I know that's accounted for in the process already. Okay. So, again, you know. Okay. We don't have any more. Any more comments from the group? I have a question. I was curious to know if this would be the defended list, or could this be amended for for additional trees because I'm a landscape architect as a designer I'm thinking about the systems of potentially using permeable pavement with canopy trees next to it and you may not want to have a black walnut and planting island that's recessed you know to that eventually drop you review you have your sure yeah my name is Jason Hale I'm a Gresham Smith but I designed a couple grant projects familiar with them and yeah just thinking about the systems like permeable pavement with like a resist island let's say with a black maple you may not want that tree in particular but you you know I could think of several others that would be very urban tolerant that might still have some uptake but didn't know if it would be receptive so additional so what I'm hearing you say is that a tree might be on this list that might not be a good application for a specific situation like you're talking about. And just to clarify, this list, this table was just an example to provide those calculations on water removed from this system. That's taken, I think, from the annual, is it not? It is not. I created that. I just picked a couple species that are definitely water-loving species. That is just four or five that I chose to highlight. Not exhaust that. okay the planting manual is what you asked about because that is the kind of exhaustive list of what we would allow this was just examples to show the water uptake but the point is there might be a tree on the approved list that may not be a good application for the situation right so then you would want to get one that is doesn't have the root that would break the pavement up or whatever I think as a part of these awards for the tree camp, we're going to require some coordination with DDS in the first place. That's going to walk them into kind of a process. That's a good idea. All right. We've talked about it. Anybody else can make any comments? If not, what's the pleasure of the board? We move to approve staff's recommendation to consider a one-year product program. It's been moved. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been moved and second. I'll pray for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed like so? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. This is a very good recommendation. We appreciate you taking time and effort to put this together. Thank you all for your leadership. I really think this is pretty significant. Thank you so much. It's a win-win. As a former member of the tree board, I agree. And we're going to be in a second. Because I don't know if it has to be somewhere if you don't mind. Okay, sure. Heather, thank you very much. Appreciate your input. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, item four, SQPIGP change order applications. This item was canceled. The organization needed some more time to gather their information and tidy up their application. And so we look to postpone this. Okay. Could you enlighten us on what SQPIGP stands for? It's the Stormwater Quality Projects and Center Venture. We took out the W because it was just too much. It's so much better now. Yeah, it really clears it up. It was actually Jennifer's doing it. I'm kind of surprised that's the first time they've seen that. Well, this is Jennifer's doing it. She's like, this is a whole lot of work. Very good. Well, that's okay. I'll do five other matters. For other matters, we wanted to bring up an item in the memo. Do you mind bringing that memo? There's a couple items and other matters that we like to address. One of them would be the applications the board wanted us to present the changes in those documents. We only want to show you the changes in those documents. We've already done all that with the last meeting. We've shown all those changes. This was just their version. I don't think we need to bring them up. Okay. So we don't need to show those at all. So what we do want to speak to is the item in the memo number five, item number five, if she's right up here, right here. Okay. And it says, should we establish criteria for considering whether a project is innovative and or experimental to be used during the grant application evaluation process? Staff recommends the following language. The criteria for the IE pool funds shall be defined as items not currently prescribed the governor of the Lexington Faderman County Governor's Stormwater Manual but meets the goals of the Stormwater Quality Projects and Civil Rights Program as defined by section 1614 of the Code of War. The IEU projects are considered a deviation from previously approved applications and proposed new or experimental methods or approaches to stormwater quantity and quality management. The applicant is required to provide the research behind the proposal, innovative and or experimental project elements. And then there was a request to add the language. Can you bring up the language in the minutes? I'm going to show you the minute. I brought that up. Okay, so this is a revision from what we talked about last week. Yeah, and we didn't bring it up during the minutes because it doesn't change the minutes. But we would like to request to revert back to our original language and we'll explain why. Okay. So as she has it highlighted here, the addition to the amendment was to add the language at the completion of the project. And staff recommends to remove that because we were hoping for rec research on the front end to be able to validate that it's an innovative or experimental project in nature in the first place. Of course, we would require the deliverable outcome of the project. We want that research as well, the outcome, but we want to remove it from here so we don't give the notion that it's not required. My concern was not when, but what kind, what are you expecting in a proposal to make this, to qualify for this. so that was that was my concern not before or after but simply what what what kind of research are you asking for and I think that was what I was talking about well I don't know that we could define that as much as we could define innovative I know. And so you're looking for research that kind of shows how it is in a baby, why it's in a baby. Right. And research that validates it as a legitimate stormwater management tool. Right. That's what I'm going to use. Yeah. And we just felt like contextually it would be better removed than included. that includes so the documents that you've got with the changes because we printed application documents that had changes those have that language that we're talking about as opposed to you but we just wanted to make sure that that was okay since it wasn't voted on exactly the motion so we could extract it without right that makes that makes sense okay but do we need a motion on that I think we need a motion to allow us to revert back to the original. I'll make that motion. Okay it's been moved is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Those like saying. Thank you very much. The motion carries. so as far as projects and funded we haven't seen a large number of projects come in they're trying to get that right is that correct that are trying to get the innovative right well we've seen some in the past but they've there's been a good money I was enough in funds for them like UK RF was an innovative project but just so happened when they reapply they scored decently and where awarded the original criteria not having to utilize this particular okay I think the idea is just to in case you get a project that bright score well because of the scoring matrix and how it's put together it gives us flexibility to take chance and say that okay all right very good any other comments questions things any other any other other matters the changes to the application documents that we make with respect to the tree canopy do those need to be sent out before we post them or is that like it's the board comfortable with us making those changes. And what she's pertaining to is the examples that we provided here, these are the changes that you will see in the actual score sheet. And that's why we kind of pulled them out and put them in this document here so you can see them. These are the exact changes we're going to make in the actual application. So I think we've improved that. Yes, so I think it's an administrative thing now. That was part of our motion. Yeah. Right. I guess I was more asking the changes to the other three items that we didn't provide the exact language because we know it would more so be administrative explaining. I don't know the right wording for what I'm trying to say, but there will be other changes to the class A and BI application packet just to add tree canopy area as an option. They're very simple changes, but they will still exist. the bi application form for the questions that refer to these for scoring we will update the language to reference tree canopy area and then the bi scoring criteria which is an internal document for staff which is an important i guess i'll ask a legal legal advice on this i mean we've we've outlined what our intent is yeah i think she i thought she was more asking whether or not just administratively you want to see them first before they go out not necessarily a what's the will of green we need to see him I'm comfortable on the recommendation that's fine I think like I said she was just asking right straight up with you it sounds like you guys like to and I use guys loosely to see the documents before they go out so that was just whether or not you want to see these implement okay we're trusting of the staff okay so I think we're saying go with it the intent and the process we 10,000 feet we blast and the details of getting there I guess is that to staff to put it in the form that we can have you. Yes, sir. Okay. Anything else? If there are no other items, call the meeting adjourned at 942. Thank you. That's pretty efficient. Thank you.