# April 13 2023 Water Quality Fees Board - April 13, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 13, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5796 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5796?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-04-13 - **Last revised**: April 13, 2023 - **Length**: 10,729 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 April 13, 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 five agenda items. The board took two votes during the meeting and heard two informational presentations. No public comments were received. The board approved the minutes from the February 16, 2023 meeting and voted to approve a change order request related to FY22 work by Colt Engineering (dba Thoroughbred Engineering). The swearing in of a board member was deferred to a later date. Two informational updates were provided to the board: one on the status of an incentive grant program and another on a forensic analysis of stormwater infrastructure. ## Attendance **Present:** - George Woolwine - Harry Clarke - Donna Fogle - David Lowe **Absent:** - Aaron Vaught **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of 2/16/2023 Minutes** [timestamp: 0:00:00] The meeting minutes from February 16, 2023 were approved by unanimous vote. Harry Clarke moved for approval, and Donna Fogle seconded the motion. All four members present voted in favor, with no votes against and no abstentions. - **Vote count:** 4 ayes, 0 nays - **Voted in favor:** George Woolwine, Harry Clarke, Donna Fogle, David Lowe **Change Order Request for FY22 Colt Engineering (dba Thoroughbred Engineering)** [timestamp: 0:19:39] A change order request for FY22 Colt Engineering, doing business as Thoroughbred Engineering, passed by unanimous vote. Harry Clarke moved for approval, and David Lowe seconded the motion. Three members voted in favor, with no votes against and no abstentions. - **Vote count:** 3 ayes, 0 nays - **Voted in favor:** George Woolwine, Harry Clarke, David Lowe ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included consideration of a change order request for fiscal year 2022 work performed by Thoroughbred Engineering (doing business as Colt Engineering). The requested amendment totaled $111,281.80. ## Contested Items **Change Order Request for FY22 Colt Engineering** A heated discussion arose regarding a change order request for FY22 Colt Engineering. The primary concern centered on a significant increase in project costs and the need for additional funding to proceed. Despite the disagreement over the financial implications, the board ultimately approved the change order based on staff recommendation. ## Swearing in of Board Member The swearing in of a board member was scheduled as the first agenda item for this meeting. However, this item was not conducted at this time. Instead, it was postponed to the July 20, 2023, WQFB meeting. ## Approval of 2/16/2023 Minutes [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed and approved the minutes from the February 16, 2023 meeting. George Woolwine, Harry Clarke, and Donna Fogle participated in this agenda item. The minutes were approved by the board. ## Change Order Request – FY22 Colt Engineering (dba Thoroughbred Engineering) [timestamp: 19:39] Joe Elder from Thoroughbred Engineering presented a change order request for the FY22 grant project. The request sought additional funds to address increased costs in materials and construction that had arisen during the project. **Key Speakers:** - Joe Elder (Thoroughbred Engineering) - George Woolwine - Harry Clarke **Outcome:** The change order request was approved. ## Incentive Grant Status Update Frank Mabson presented an update on the status of various incentive grants spanning from fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2023. This was an informational presentation with no formal action items or decisions required. The presentation covered the progress and current state of multiple incentive grant programs across the specified fiscal years, providing an overview of grant administration and implementation during this period. ## Forensic Analysis of Stormwater Infrastructure Richard Walker presented a forensic analysis of stormwater infrastructure in the Walnut-Hill area, focusing on two development projects: Chilesburg and Ellerslie/Delong. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes. The analysis examined the stormwater infrastructure systems associated with these developments, providing technical assessment and findings related to their condition and performance. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of 2/16/2023 Minutes - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Change Order Request for FY22 Colt Engineering (dba Thoroughbred Engineering) --- ## Full transcript Does everyone have a chance to look over about any questions, comments, additions, corrections? It's the pleasure of the board. Move, move, move. Okay. It's been moved. Mr. Clark, a second? I second. Second. I second. I'll approve the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. I would like to say, those are the periods. And then the value of business change order request, FY22 Co-Engineering. So for this part, I'll give you a little background. Sure. We'll pass you a set of recommendations, and I'll just read the backgrounds here. Okay. I'll give you a little bit. Okay. Thank you. We'll let Joe Elder from Thurberand Engineering present his materials. Please cut it on. Thank you. Thank you. The Russians are going to have you guys. Okay, so my name is Joe Elder. I'm the representative of the Thoroughbred Engineering for the 239th Broadway Stormwater Retrofit Project. Today I have a couple slides to go through. There's six different slides I'd like to get through today. The project summary, the set of site design, project details and context, final site design, construction, analytics, and the cost condensing, and the proposed cost share for additional funding that we will be requested. So for the project summary, the picture at the top left, that is our existing office building, 239 on the front way, and it's located in the north side of the historical district. You can see with the existing site photos that we currently have asphalt parking lot that needs repairing. We have storm water ponding within the parking lot. And also our our drive files are unnecessary to avoid creating unutilized and purging services. So our proposed solutions for this project were to resurface the parking lot area with permanent papers, install rain gardens to treat stormwater runoff, and also include educational benefits for our employees, clients, and our community. So here's our conceptual design as you can see. So as you can see here is where we will have our permeable pavers for all the parking lot runoff. For our rain garden we'll include over here and we'll be catching the runoff from the existing roof and also the existing patio space that we have proposed. And we'd also proposed rain barrels for rainwater harvesting off of these trees. It's always there. Orion is where the street is. So the existing road is North Broadway right here. So you turn it to the side here. So for the project details and context, there are three areas of concern for our additional funding. That would be one, construction and site demolition, two, the rain garden and landscaping, and three, our proposed paces. The top right photo you'll see is our proposed rain garden after the construction document phase. It actually increased in size due to the water quantities. And also down here in the bottom left, we originally had our terminal papers at the 8-inch aggregate base. We actually increased that as well due to the water quantities. And so now we actually are going to 18 inches of aggregate sub-base with undergrain system. So that also increases our escalation calls and the emotional calls. So to continue on the Friday details and context, we saw increases to concrete as well. And so this can be seen through our concrete rule stuff, also the concrete header curve that was recommended by the paved grant grabs, just for the longevity and the structural integrity of the paved grant system in the long run. When it comes to the unit cost of the demolition, it increased from 804 square yards of $15 to 860 square yards of $83. So we saw an increase of $68 square yards. So for our final site design, you can see the existing parking lot. You can see the ponding, the asphalt that needs repaired, our proposed site designs with the permal papers and the paid grant system. The bottom left photo shows educational signage where we'd like to educate the community about the grant, the year we were awarded it. And also in the back where you can see our rain garden and our patio space, there's another educational signage there that will talk about the rain garden and the permal papers So when we get into the construction analytics and building cost indices, when we look at the major sources, since 2020 we use that as our baseline to just keep numbers easy. It's right at the 100 mark and then we can see going to 2022 it actually goes straight of and were average around the 1.25 mark. So we can roughly say that the construction building costs increased by 25%. When we look at the construction analytics, building costs index and construction inflation for residential buildings, we can see that it can go back to the 2020 mark. It's also at the 100th mark and it actually jumps above the 130 mark. almost the 140 mark so we're seeing a 38 increase since 2020 in residential construction costs so for our proposed cost share of additional funding of the three areas that were of concern were the construction site demolition we saw a 46 000 increase here that was due to increases new costs underground system and the depth of the estimation work for our proposed pavements we saw a hundred thousand dollar increase that was just due to the increase of view cost amount and aggregate base that we now need an additional header around the playground system we actually saved money 2500 in the site features that was just simply to remove the rain barrels from the project for our proposed rain garden landscaping we saw a 13 000 increase this was to the increase in size of the rain garden treatment and the increase of the fine material And so our new project total comes out to be $362,000 roughly even. And the grant will cover $290,000. And we, thoroughbred, will cover 20% of that match at roughly $72,000. So our change order requests now will be for $111,281.87. Thank you, guys. We've got you in a question. Any questions? Questions? Thanks. So did you all have an opportunity to actually change all the application? Yes. Let me ask one more question. Thank you. Could you expand a little bit on the cost of the investment? My first thought was it was, you knew cost of the investment, but then I heard the fire saying that we made it deeper or something. Yeah, we made it deeper. So we made it 18 years deeper just for the underground system. Therefore, now you have more material cost for the excavation, hauling that material off, and also the aggregate facing up. And the reason for that was it was more water than the current. the current we have this player looking at the initial project I have great respect for the company I was just wondering how I understand the increase in cost of labor, materials, etc. But the total increase is 62%. That seems like an exceptional amount. And I think the site work was up like 94% demolition, it was up another 94%. So I don't understand how we can make an estimate to present to us originally that was a certain amount. and then when we get into the real figures, we're up 62%. So I just want some explanation of how it can be that much. I know costs are going up, believe me. Well, yeah, costs went up in that class. We touched on the aggregate base was set at 8 inches, and now we added 18 more inches. So now we have 18 more inches of excavation work needed to be done and demolished the base. also the hauling off mobilization of that material and also bringing in 18 inches more of accurate plates. So it pretty much doubled and that's why you're seeing not 40% you're seeing 89%. Why wasn't that proposed at the beginning I guess is my question. So initially whenever we were in the concept phase me and my colleague whenever we did this we initially just went with the paper and system. It just originally had an 8-inch aggregate base, preliminary cost estimate. And once we dove into the construction documents, actually did some analysis. And our architectural engineer did his analysis. We realized we needed a lot more depth in our head. Thank you. In the fall of 2021, Code Engineering Incorporated was awarded a $178,675 grant to retrofit and partner at this historical site, 239 Lowe Railway. At that time, the total project cost was estimated to be $223,323.75, which included the organization's cost share of $44,768.75. Since being awarded, the organization has received bids in excess of $360,000. Third branch has settled in the process. The project, the new total project estimate is $362,046. The request wishes to proceed, the organization wishes to proceed with the project, but cannot without additional funding. The organization is requesting that their existing grant award be amended allowing them to access change order funds, not exceeding the maximum allowable grant award for class And then we present the table B here, I mean table one here, where we present the maximum election federal government award for a project was $360,000. The design fees and grant administration fees came in at $35,500. The bid amount for the project elements was $326,946. The total project cost with the bid was $362,000. deducting the initial award of $178,675 and deducting the cost share of $41,668.75, the gap was $139,83. The additional funds, when added to round one, is $111,281.80. The additional commitment from the organization would be $27,820.45. The Division of Water Quality Recognition. The Division recommends that the Board consider approval of the change order requesting $111,021.80 based on the following. The project construction cost increase is validated by the competitive bids received by the applicant. The board previously awarded a change order to the University of Kentucky to provide additional funding for its Land Water Harmester project. Since then, the board has approved to pilot a change order program, which currently has a total of $157,908 available. Approval of the amended grant award as summarized in table 2 still keeps the organization's total grant award $289,956.08 within the program's maximum amount allowable for class new infrastructure grants which currently is $360,000. Applicant has agreed to provide additional match to meet the contracted view percentage which would be an additional $27,820.45. The project site is located at 239 L. Bromway, an Irving setting with high levels of impervious surfaces in the impaired Town Branch watershed. So you got the 289.5680 from adding the original 178.675 plus the additional request of 111,281. Okay. Okay. Any comments, thoughts, questions? Okay, we discussed the presentation, we've heard the recommendation from staff. I guess the one that's a little, I guess concerns aren't the right word, the fact that the material I want to understand the fact that after making the original cast note, you came back and came up with some redesign costs. I guess that's kind of a little concerning, but I guess I come back to the fact that if they had come in with that number, getting an opportunity that have been approved. So I guess the issue before us is the proof for discuss the request for additional funding, $11,281.99. What's the rule of rule? Mr. Chair, I'm concerned about this and as I've expressed and I think the questions here come back when we began talking about giving some credibility to the fact that the cost is rough and we should be thinking about the possibility we're going to have to give more money to some of these projects. I think we agreed to that. Everybody agreed to that, and I certainly did. I think this is an exceptional amount, but I'm going to make the motion that we approve this, and that's based primarily on the staff's recommendation. Because I think that's... I have to trust the staff that feel like this is the right way to go, but I will do that with my own concerns about this particular project. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Gary. Appreciate it. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. Dialed in favor of the motion, signify by seven tonight. Aye. I would like to say motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is it in print status? We have the first one is 2016. 2016 grant as you can see there's one grant remaining there it's Peppermill LLC. We recently reached out to the organization via a letter to discuss the attachment B. The property had sold at 1170 Manchester. They had sold it to a new owner of AmeriCo Real Estate Company. company and so we were concerned about the new organization the new owner signed up the attachment being well recently they ended up signing the attachment so now we have the maintenance agreement proposed 1170 manchester and 1228 security and it's being signed up in there as we speak so we're going to record that to the fayette county clerk's office and then have this project backed up there's a few items that we need to settle in terms of the final report we look for this project to be off our books next order what's our stories now this is still yes where is it the papers are in the patio area behind the good fellas and then in the whole parking lot right in there behind the storage units okay so it's the main parking lot they're opening two different they're not okay and then i would say production right now it's scrabble no it's it's a project the construction has been completed for a while now it's just a matter of settling getting them to turn in the final report and to include the attachment fee i mean that's agreement to make sure we secured that and so that's what we're going to do thank you for 2017 uh 2018 we have bluegrass green source remaining and with this project they have decided the board Bluegrass Green Sources board has decided to try to acquire new site new project site this is the project that we had previously mentioned had an illegal stormwater outfall located at the middle of the project site there so we went through litigation yet loud about that sets away and so they decided to try to secure another site at which one we told them they may have to present to the board it's really just a location change the footprint of the pavers that they were awarded for wouldn't change unless they did decide to change come back if there's a scope change in any way but they've already purchased or pavers and have those secured at their location. So if there's any design changes, they will get to come back forever. They put in for an extension for the end of 2024 to give them time to get with that process. 2019, we have the opportunity for learning. Construction is underway, well underway. As a matter of fact, it's almost completed. Construction is in completion at this site, and the grant manager is in the final stages of trying to do some, I can't believe what he said there because it's kind of small. I'm sorry that he meant that. It's really small there. I'm sorry about that. But, yeah, it's in the final stages of construction. Mr. Ahmad is taking care of that one. And on our 2020 sheet, we have the University of Kentucky, and this is the steam we've been meeting project we're just securing finally I've actually just received a final report for them we just reconciled those final items with that one for Kentucky American Water Company this is the site for the trip this is the trash collector I visited the site out there to West Bar, and it's collecting a tremendous amount of trash. The only thing is, as it is right now, you have to haul it in, haul it out from the boat because there's no access from Squires Road right there. It's kind of gated off, and it's around a curve where it would be very dangerous to put any kind of dock on it. So that's the site that did it. But that seemed to be the most efficient site for them at this time. So that's still progressing quite well. Lakeshore Village, we're just wrapping that one up. I think the board is meeting with the consultant just to get their signature on the final report for that one. University of Kentucky, this is the Rainwater Harpster. I'm going to wrap it up. Sure, yeah. All their panels have finally come in and they installed fiber last week. And they've been working on getting all their stuff connected. and they're looking for a start up next week. So they're getting close to a completed project there. And they'll be done by their extended deadline of June, but they're hoping to be constructionally done by April. So it'll be a cool project to provide something we'll want to go see. Can I ask a question? Sure. The rain falls in 12 Kentucky American Trash. They've only spent 13% of the funding, but they've completed 67% of the project. Yeah, they've been one of those grantees that kind of like holding their invoices until the kind of last minute. They've been turning in reports, but haven't submitted any requests for funds. That's a little odd. So it's done, but not done. It's not done. It's not done there. No, but I mean that particular part of the project is done. Well, they've switched sites several times. And so the site that they're at now is one of three that they've attempted. And so it's just progressing. It's not complete. They've got a lot of turnover over there. Yeah. They're probably way behind in the building because our water bills are covered in the water bills. Let's don't talk about water bills. I was confused because you've got 13% of our water bills. I think it's 67% of the fees. yet. You know, the way we have it is we require them to submit the reports quarterly, but we don't necessarily require them or enforce that they request the funds. We require the project update. You're answering the question. Yes, sir. Okay. Friends of Wolf Run, which is our 2021, on our 2021 list, the grant manager reached out for a quarterly report. She's waiting to hear from them. They closed out their 2020 grant not too long ago and so she's reaching out to them for the 2021 progress report. Heartland Homeowners Association, I've been informed by the grant manager that they may be interested in additional funds. Their bids came in slightly higher and so they may be interested in submitting a small change around application. In Creek, the work is ongoing. The grant has expired, so we're anticipating putting a request for an extension in the project within the next few weeks or so. We have bluegrass green sources. This is for the walking tour of the Town Branch Park. The grant manager says that process, they just turned in a request for funds number four, and it's being reviewed by the grant manager. So they'll make progress to get that completed. Lexington Center Corporation, we just met with the design team. Oh, I'm sorry. This is the Lexington Center Class B Education. So we just met with the design team because the Class B Education grant goes hand in hand with the design. So as that design finalizes, you should see the fruits of the educational department come to fruition. Andover Forest, this grant construction is complete. I'm waiting on the final report from them. Vegetation is being established in those areas around Culver. So I'll look for that when we close that in the next week and a half, two weeks actually. Lexington Center Corporation, Class B Infrastructure. Again, we met with the design team and discussed where they are and where they stand with it. We've had questions about the placement of the treatment, the manufactured treatment device that they've addressed. And so it's progressing. We've told them we'd like it to speed up a little bit, you know. But we've mentioned that this is an exciting project and we're looking for it to be successful. Wesley United is a feasibility study. It's really simple. I think we're just waiting on the final report from the consultant at the meet with the church board to make sure that they were on board with the results of the feasibility study. And then they looked at the final report there. On 2022, if you have any questions about any one of them specifically, all those projects are progressing basically. I think there's a question about anyone who has to say, we have to answer those because there's one. We'll each enter the one. Of course, Colt is on that list who just presented for the change order. They will be number 10 on that list. If you have any questions about any other project on the list. I should have told you they had to magnify you last time. There are guys that you can feel. Well, these are, yeah, there's none that I feel like are in jeopardy or have any issues. I know all of these are pretty standard ongoing. Winburn, in fact, is almost wrapped up. Ten county public schools, Winburn, it's a small ring right in there that's been put in and started at the school. That one's nearly wrapped up in terms of construction. So Lakeshore Village would be a phase two to the initial one that I ran from 2020. And all they're doing is that they've installed permeable sidewalks throughout the community. This would be a second phase just to install additional sidewalks, permeable sidewalks, a different portion. But the project turned out beautifully. It's working well. Let's see here. And the Lexington Center Corporation of Construction portion is also on this list, which cannot proceed until the previous grant was wrapped up naturally designed. And then of course on your 2023 list, most if not, well I think all were one at the county council for approval and so we're just waiting on our last agreement from Ellerslie for their phase two project to get that approved and signed by the mayor. If you have some questions for any of those, please do. That concludes our status update. Before we move on to that one, I just wanted to add, because it's sort of in the realm of status of all the projects, that we are all starting to start using the grant checker that Frank and the team have been working on. And so we've been working really closely with computer services geek and that. We did our training with our grant managers last week. And so we're hoping there's a couple things to work out. And we've had it for a while now just playing with it and adding information. And so it's right. So we're very excited to be able to track projects through that tracker where people can have access to project files and be able to see last communications and request for funds. And we can print reports like this instead of having 10 spreadsheets. So it's going to be really exciting to get that out to grant managers. So that's been a big success we've done a lot in the works. And we're also working on an inspection program. It's getting developed to make sure that the funds that we're spending are going to be the projects that we take care of. And this is in relation to our attachment. We have made this agreement, so we want to just go out and start putting an eye on our own projects. sort of on a random basis. Not really. It's a process. It's a process. We haven't decided on it. The frequency yet, but yet we're working on that as well. And our next item is I think we'll be doing a tour following the meeting. But I think Mr. Richard Walker is here to present a forensic analysis of Ellerslie and Walnut Hill and Chumper locations. I wanted to give a little background. During the July meeting of last year, when we were reviewing allocations, the board and Charlie had both talked about newer development. I say that because Ellerslie is hearing towards 20 years old at this point, but applying for grants and using funds when the original thought was that it would be for older areas that weren't, you know, didn't fall under the stormwater manual and current requirements. And so there was some concern there. And so as a start of that conversation this we didn't add it to the january meeting just because we have so much to get through in january but wanted to honor the fact that the board wanted to have that discussion still and so uh back probably in 2021 jennifer had asked richard to do a forensic analysis of as the two projects that had applied for funding in reasonably new areas walnut hill and elders lean and so this is the result of that I thought would be good things to present Thank you Okay, thank you Thanks, Lindsay So, I'm Richard Walker with Tetrach We are in the city's and that's more appropriate than Salt Lake As Lindsay said, this was a task that was assigned to us a couple years ago to dig into the details of the stormwater design and construction construction of these two projects. A couple things about the word MS4, that's stormwater, but it really stands for municipal separate storm sewer system. The word stormwater is not in there, but that's kind of what that is. Engineers are bad about acronyms, right? I could write a whole sentence of nothing but acronyms. And then forensic analysis. That's a detailed look at the design and the construction in this case. We did a similar thing on erosion control a couple of projects a couple of years ago. So that term kind of caught over. So I want to avoid getting down into the real nitty-gritty details of some of this because it's a lot of engineering calculations. So feel free to ask me any questions if I go through this. So it's Tim right in here. So what was the purpose? The two grant applications for these projects identified some yard flooding and some erosion problems. And our task was to look at the design plans, compare it to the stormwater panel, the city stormwater panel, to see if they were designed properly. The second thing we did was to see was the infrastructure constructed according to the plans by the engineers, the developers engineer. And then from that does the manual and the procedures manual contain the design standards, procedures, and kind of an overall check of the various things. And then based on the above, in item number two, are there any changes we need to consider making to those two panels? Now, I'll give you a little more background here in a minute on the stormwater manual and the procedures manual. For now, just be aware that the stormwater manual was adopted in 2001, originally been updated several times. and it's the manual that developers and their engineers follow when they're doing improvement plans, infrastructure plans for new developers. The procedures manual is a document that details the procedures that must be followed by the developer, the engineer, and the city. So it's into a lot of details on that. Any questions about this? Mr. Chairman, do you want to wait until she comes back? I don't think she's got the time. Let's go ahead. Okay. All right. So I've got about 24 slides here to go through. But I want to give you the summary of the findings right up front. and then I'm going to give you the background. So here's what we found. We looked at the design drawings. We obtained those from the Division of Engineering. Doug Burt here is with the Division of Engineering. And our conclusion was this. The storage centers were designed properly. One of the big things in the manual is about erosion control at the outlet of planks. Gabion mattresses were proposed on the design drawings as required by them. In one case, channel lining should have been proposed for an open channel. It was not proposed, it was not installed. That's probably contributed to a little bit of erosion in that channel. I'll show you some photos of that. but kind of oddly enough, the erosion wasn't too bad. And then in terms of construction, the one thing that we discovered is that the Gabion mattresses that were proposed under the text before were not installed and shown on the engineer's plans. That's what led to some of the more significant erosion that he saw with the brand application. Excuse me. Were they not installed? The drawers were not installed here, but none of them there at all? There's no evidence that they are there at all. We're talking, gabion mattresses, I should say what that is, these are wire filled bags of rock, big rock. They're pretty big structures. They're like 12 inches thick, 10 or 12 feet wall and wide. And it's for the water coming out of the pipe to hit that rock, slow it down, and then by the time it gets to the end of it, the little grass is there anymore, the river grass. Thank you. Okay, does the stormwater manual or the procedures manual need to be changed? Our conclusion is no. We believe the design standards in the manual are adequate. The procedures that are detailed in the procedures manual are adequate. There's two key parts of that to make sure that the developer installs all the infrastructure. The first one is that engineering conducts a final inspection to make sure everything's been constructed before the developer's bond is released. That's a big deal. Managing those sureties is a big deal. Doug can attest to that, I know. Some of these things last a long time. Ellerslie, the design started in 04. I mean they're still doing work out there. Most of it's over, but that's going on 15 years. So managing that's important. And then engineering and water quality, do a final inspection of retention basins stormwater controls to make sure they are in place and constructed property and function so real quickly what we did we got the design plan and reviewed the grant documents we went and looked at the project in the field uh tried to identify what the causes the flooding we're seeing at the erosion and they compared what is on the plans to the requirements in the storm life so the first project elders lead along to get you oriented Richmond Road is on the right top of the screen and the reservoir there you can see in the top left The areas that are circled in red are the areas that were identified in the grant application. And I'll also point out, you'll see that HOA in green. There's some big, large green space areas there owned by the Homeowners Association. They maintain it, they own it, they mow it, those kind of things. This is a page right out of the grant application. that showed the areas they were concerned about. Starting down at the lower right, you can see that photo of some eroding swell, a channel. There's some yard flooding they were concerned about, some erosion in a ditch where pipes are outleted, and then some sediment down retention. So those are the things we looked at. You've probably seen that before, I'm sure. Okay. So we went out and took some photographs. You can see the left photo is a storm sewer outlet where the gabion baskets should have been installed. You can see some erosion of her area. That's like a 24 inch pipe. A similar thing on the right. And you know, this is all about velocity. Velocity coming out of those pipes is, you know, over 10 feet per second. And grass will not hold. Grass won't hold at 5 feet. You've got to have something in place to slow it down until it can slow it down to a point which is around 5 feet per second or less, and then it can move on to the stream. Now this is a problem that it's a challenge on a lot of development projects. You see where the outlet is there. Typically one of the requirements in the manual is you've got to take it to the property line, which they did. The property line is between the homeowner and this case the homeowners association. But you take all this water and you concentrate it, it used to be sheet flow probably. You concentrate it in the pipe and when it comes out, from there to the stream it can be a problem. They gave you a matter of sense that some other techniques can be used. I wanted to ask you to point out what you said as far as the commandment saying to take it to the property line. So that's to the property line of the person who's building this. Correct? So the erosion then very well results on the adjacent. Correct. That's not part of the equation to begin with. A constant source of problems. Yeah. So is this part that's loaded? Is that the HOA in the toothpaste? Both of them. Now this is kind of an odd point. This is another area identified in the grant application. This is at the outlet of a car, a big car. I'm talking about 3x5 or something. And high velocity. And no Gavian mattresses. But it's holding up pretty well. Kind of surprised me. It could be the type of soil. It's hard to say. But that's what we saw. So that's not too bad. Not too much of a problem. All right. I'll try not to go into too much detail on this, but what I have here is from the Eleanor Grant application, the problem on the left, that's what was identified in the grant. And on the right side, the right column, is an explanation that explains the problem. The first two we've just talked about, high exit velocity, no outlet protection. The third one we just talked about, they saw some erosion at the outlet. With that culvert, when I was there, it didn't look too bad. Yard flooding, and we'll show you some photos of that in a minute. They have yard flooding in the back of some homes, two kinds really. One is a swell in their yard, okay, the homeowner's yard. And I'm sure it does, I've seen photos of it. But I think it's functioning the way it's supposed to, that's where the water's supposed to go, okay. Going on down, there's an eroding channel on the HOA property adjacent to the channel I just described, right? And it's eroding. And we looked at that, did some calculations, and it appears to me it was designed properly with grass lining. And with the velocities that were anticipated, grass should have worked. I think during construction there might have been some additional flow unintentionally diverted into that channel, which created a higher depth and a higher velocity, which created what we're seeing. And then lastly, there's a concern about stream bank erosion in the channel leading to a detention basin. It's pretty common in urban areas. It did not appear excessive. There is some, but it did not appear excessive to me. Okay, so these are photos we took. On the left, you can see the left photo, you can see the swale up close to the holes, you can see a berm, and then you can see a channel on the right side of that photo. The top right photo is another example of that. Then the bottom right is the erosion that's occurring in that chapel. And its erosion is a little different than what I typically see. You don't really see a stream bank as much as you see kind of a sloughing, kind of a, I don't want to say sinkhole, because I don't know that that's what it is. but it's like the ground, rather than eroding away, is kind of collapsing a little bit. So the soils could have been weak or whatever. This is not developed properly. This is pretty much natural ground. So that's what's going on. There's a construction project underway to deal with this, right, as part of the ground. I mean, is it ongoing until it's good? It's complete in this section. Okay. Again, these were taken a couple years ago. A year ago, I guess. So we did some, you know, in-depth look at that open channel, look at the design flow, what was on the plans in the middle column, and then what the manual would have required. In this case, we're talking about the 2001 manual. So we're going back a ways here. And for the most part, the channel was designed properly. It was designed properly. It met the requirements of the manual. I've highlighted the part at the bottom just to show you how we came up with this conclusion. erosion is all about the attractive force, the amount of force that is being exerted on the grass in this case. And we came up with .9 pounds per square foot. Grass can take about one. I've seen cases where they can take one and a half or two depending on the grass and how well it's established so it's close point nine to one I mean it's close but it should have held up well I think it was designed properly all right so let me stop there before I go to the next project any questions on Ellersley. Do you know what the manual is insinuating or suggesting when it says to the edge of the property line? Because what Charlie was saying, the end of the property line would technically be outside of the development, whereas this was the property line, we took it to the homeowner line, property line. That's a good question. There's a story behind all that. In 2001, when the manuals were being adopted, a common problem is that the storm sewer would be terminated in someone's backyard. which is a problem because now you've got a homeowner having to deal with it. And we're talking very close to the house. Houses are kind of close together to begin with. You stick a pipe in there and a head wall. Now you've probably got two people. So if it's on the property line, you've got two homeowners dealing with it. So the decision was made extended to the property line of the home. or beyond, but at least to that point and get it, deal with it that way. That answer your question, or something? I guess getting back to Charlie, the original question that you raised, is, if I'm understanding you correctly, the fact that there's no evidence of gas and gas and gas and gas that were there were coming back and having to deal with issues that should have been addressed in that development screen. That was kind of my point of why I wanted, I wanted to just, you know, this is where I guess I still want to talk because I didn't want to talk about coal or thoroughbred when they were here. Going back to when we started this grant program, in my mind we were trying to go back and fix the longs of decades ago. Older neighborhoods that weren't built to current standards. But then I see stuff that I view as being a little bit more current, like what we're getting ready to talk about now. So my question is, we clearly, it doesn't seem like we've solved it yet here. So what are we missing? What have we missed? And is it because maybe the manuals are not strict enough? Or maybe our inspection or or field verification of what gets built is not strong enough. That was really kind of what the whole point was about this in the first place. And it wasn't expected, the board was going to fix it for us, I guess. It was more of that you having the acknowledgement and recognizing that there are some things that we could do to tighten things up. And your endorsement of us trying to tackle that was helpful for me. So, you know, I picked up on the edge of the property line thing because we get a lot of complaints about, I never had a problem until they built that. If we all have gotten paid for how many times we've heard that, we're going to carry another sitting here. And so, you know, that decision shifted the problem over onto the adjacent property. To Lindsay's point, or what Richard was talking about before, it was even a bigger problem. because it was in somebody's backyard and basically you created this ravine basically in their fenced-in backyard where they're trying to raise three of the small children. I mean it was awful. It was that way but neither one of them is good and I'm hoping by the time he finishes this up that we'll see that there are I think there are opportunities for us to try to do better and continue to try to focus our grant money on projects that are inside New Circle. As much as that i i felt like you did mr clark that i was troubled the fact that we were having to dig into our pocket more for that one because of some of the circumstances when you look at the footprint of where they're at that was the stuff we were trying to fix in the beginning so i was able to get over that a whole lot easier than i can over so long so that was the whole point of this whole exercise and at least this is a homeowners land owned by a homeowners and homeowners association that's actually managing their areas because there's a lot of areas around town that are owned by homeowners associations or maintenance associations that no longer exist which then ends up having problems with the government so that's at least a positive let's hope it stays that way right let's hope it stays that way but those tend to be in the lower income area Yeah, instead of this area. Sorry. I'm happy to hold this question until you have Richard, but at the beginning I was excited for this. You delivered. So these mattresses are missing. That's missing the inspection, and that seems like kind of essential. We've got this property line, the kind of two. But item two is this missing element. So what, if anything, do we do about that? because we're $700,000 in stormwater projects for this area. As a result, not all of it in part, these missing elements that were designed and not installed. I wasn't intending that we were going to do anything retroactive to any of these. It was more about us trying to be better about how we go about moving forward. At one time when we first proposed a stormwater feed, what I had was proposing that we had a basically more frequent forensic analysis of picking out specific plans or random plans and digging deeper into those. Doug's, you know, he's got a little bit of stat. He can only review or accept plans when he can. And then in the construction, and especially during when things are really hot, I mean, There's something going on everywhere. You cannot have somebody there all the time. But if you were picking stuff out randomly, then potentially then the developers, engineer, and their inspectors might be a little bit more conscientious about what they're making sure it gets put in and doesn't get put in because they don't want to get caught in the back end of it in the post-construction forensics. I'm sorry, go ahead. We have roughly 600 apartments a year. basically six inspectors. So, there's limited opportunity. The odds of us missing something, it's there. Our guys do our due diligence, especially on surety items, because it has a financial tie, too, which a lot of these things were, but, you know, this was, I don't want to do this before my time, but this was before my time. Before my time. Yes, so, I think, could the engineering group miss something entirely possible but that's still the due diligence is still on the owner to make sure they install things but you know they're they're trying to cut costs here and there so maybe they thought they could cut this one and that and that's why they got missed but i think we have a better inspection program and follow-up that we've had in the past so the The opportunity for them to get missed is definitely going down. So Doug, is there a penalty for discover inadequacy? Is there a penalty? Again, it's usually caught during inspection and now, again, it's hard to go retroactive because once the land disturbance permit is closed, and our attorney can tell you, once that's closed and we've accepted something, it's hard to go back and enforce, oh, you missed something two years ago. That's effectively impossible. But our goal is to, again, with these continuous inspections every 30 days or whatever the inspection rate is going to be, that we catch it then and say, hey, we've got to install your gabium mats or et cetera. Or when they come back to us and say, hey, we'd like to get our surety released on this project, we say, well, you haven't installed your gabium mats yet, so we're not going to release your surety. So I think we have a lot better mechanisms than we did 10, 15 years ago to make sure this doesn't happen again. Could it still happen again? Absolutely, people are flawed. But I think it's the odds of it having again have gone dramatically down. Okay, should I continue? Yeah. All right. The next group won't take it as long because there were not as big issues. Walnut Hill, Childsburg, one area that was a concern was an open channel. There were some other things that were talked about in the grant application, but the biggest deal was an old check that is circled in red. There's a road there on the left going up through the photo. That's Walnut Hill Childsburg. It's an old county road. It's never been improved. I'm going to say never. It had been improved in 30, 40, 50 years as far as I know. an old culvert underneath of it. Since we stopped being a county, right? That's right, yeah. Already said to you, for sure. So, the developer's project had nothing to do with that road. The road, part of the problem, I think, in this case, but the developer didn't have any responsibility for that on this project. So some photos from the grant application, you see some flooding there in three different pictures. You know, we use the word flooding, which has a bad sound to it to begin with. Flooding of an open channel is one thing. Flooding in somebody's home is entirely different, right? Well, it's not getting in anybody's home. The water's going where it is supposed to. The left photo, part of the reason for the water backing up here is a metal culvert that's too small in an access road that the developer didn't have anything to do with. It's a metal culvert, so I don't know how that got to do it. Then you see the footbridge there in the middle that probably causes some impact on the channel. That was separate from the development. And then the other photo, that's a pretty good sized channel, but it's doing what it's supposed to do. Those were flooding photos. These are the erosion photos. You can see that metal pipe on the left. You can see in the middle some erosion in the bottom. This is where channel lining should have been put in. And then the upper right is the culvert underneath Walnut Hill-Jilesburg. It's kind of hard to see. It's pretty sort of clogged up anyway. Some photos that we took. The channel on the left looks better than the photo you just saw. I think part of that is time of year. And again, this channel shouldn't have channel lining. It could be a rock or some kind of a geosynthetic. And I would have expected erosion to be much worse, but it looks pretty good, actually. The photo on the right, that's the outlet of the metal pipe. There is some erosion there. Somebody's put some rock there to help with that. But again, that wasn't part of the developer's project, so we didn't look at that. There's the footbridge and then there is the culvert on the right underneath Walnut Hill Childsburg and you can see some erosion that is occurring here and it is happening. It has been for a long time. So we looked at that open channel again like we did on the other project. the flow, the bottom width, the side slopes, how deep was it, and concluded that a turf reinforcement mat should have been installed because of the velocity we were seeing of tractive force. But oddly enough, the channel appears to be stable. So these are the items identified in the grant application and the probable cause of it. The culvert under Childsburg Road, lack of maintenance in its age, the erosion downstream, lack of energy protection, but again, you know, that's just, Charlie, this is probably what the kind of stuff you were envisioning the grant program could be used to be fixed, but it's a legacy for me it's been there for a long time. High water levels and part of that project area that pipe under the access road is too small causing backup. Channel erosion at the at the outlet of that carver lack of energy protection and then And they identified some erosion in the channel itself, and our analysis showed it should have had some channel protection in the bottom. Okay. So I won't go into a whole lot of detail here, but this kind of is some more detail on what Doug was talking about. The stormwater manual was published in 2001, it's been updated several times and it contains the design and construction standards that the engineer has to follow, developers engineer. The procedures manual was also adopted in 01, updated in 2016 and it goes into a lot of detail about what everybody's supposed to be doing. Now, I use this phrase often. There's a lot of cooks in the kitchen, okay? The developer, the engineer, the contractor, subcontractors, utility companies, division of engineering, division of water quality, environmental services. What are you going to say, sir? Home builders. Home builders. Yeah, don't let me forget that. And it goes on for a long time, okay? The stormwater manual was developed to make sure everybody understands their responsibilities in that process. That flow chart on the right looks pretty overwhelming, right? And it is. That's the process. I left out a division, the division of planning, okay? That's the process that primarily is in Doug's division to deal with. It's a long, drawn out process, a lot of people involved, and you know, a lot of chances for things to go off the rails. So it takes a lot of oversight by Doug and his people. I do want to point out that area on the bottom right in red just to kind of show you the process here. So at the end of construction, a lot of things have to be submitted to DOE. A statement by the engineer that the infrastructure has been constructed and is operating. and then there's always a few things that need to be delayed that's on a punch list we call it which is a list of things that we're going to construct later and they submit a bond to cover which Doug the box can get pretty big right 2017 long there 18 they didn't have to update for new unit prices so we had 20 20-year-old bonds at a 20-year-old numbers type to them. Now, every three years when they update their bond, they have to put new unit prices to them. So, yeah, they can get substantial. The part in blue is more about commercial development with the building permit. And the certificate of occupancy in that case becomes the regulatory stick sure things get done before the developer moves on. So I guess you get a lot of attention from developers wanting to reduce their bond. So I'm sure they're trying to put pressure on you to go through your review process so they can have their bond reduced, which is taking money out of their pocket. Is that correct? Correct. They, and honestly, they'll say, oh, this is finished, and we'll go out there, and they've frankly halfway done it. Right. And want full release. So we get a lot of that, but we have two surety inspectors that handle all of that work. So they're out there every 30 days on the job, whether they're getting a request for the release or not. But yeah, that's a lot of demand on those two inspectors and one engineer we have in our shop that came in the place. And that's important because when you release that bond, you don't have the leverage to get them to perform what you're supposed to be doing. That's our last stand, yeah, releasing that bond. Once we release that, it goes back to the, once we release the land and service permit, we just don't have any regulatory authority anymore. Thank you. And Doug, if you have a situation where you don't have rainfall, for instance, that is adequate to really test the situation, you have to release it anyhow, even though it hasn't really been tested. And that's been a, I have one inspector who's, he's my bulldog, and he goes, well, we haven't seen it actually work yet. How do we know it's gone? And we kind of go around sometimes to say, I know, but it's built as designed. It should work. So, yes, there have been instances where we release something that maybe doesn't work as we hoped. It still worked as designed and as built. So engineering isn't perfect. No. Nobody wants it. Okay. Okay. I'm not going to go into this in any detail. I just pulled out portions of the manual, the 2020 manual, that address things like velocity and storm sewers. There's a thing about how the folks didn't put the property on it. How the protection for the erosion. The manual's got a lot of things in there to cover all this. There's stuff about channel protection itself, priming constructed channels. And then things about gay-bid mattresses that we talked about earlier. So overall conclusions, stormwater manual contains adequate requirements. We do want to look a little closer at this stuff we talked about earlier about where does the, where do we end the head wall and how does the water get from that head wall to the stream in a way that will not cause erosion. We want to look at that again to see if anything new needs to be done there. I'm not sure there is, but maybe what we need is more to emphasize again to the development community and the engineers. This is a problem you need to start taking a closer look at. So more to come on that. The procedures manual that we just talked about has a lot of detail in here about all the various entities. I think the procedures are fine. It's just, as Doug said, there's a lot going on. A lot of eyes on it. So that's where, that's the last slide. With respect to both of those projects, Frank has lined up. The people that were involved in designing construction of Ellerslie and Walnut Hill. Portions of Ellerslie are complete and Walnut Hill is complete. So, I hope that you all would join us for a tour of those after this week. Just a little more perspective on things here. When these erosion issues happen, we're the ones that people come to and this is going on, what do we do? Well, in the visual water quality, we don't have any sort of program anywhere to deal with stream bank erosion. We hear about it on the biggest creeks, Wolf Run, Town Branch. We hear about it in swales and backyards. We don't have a program to do it. I don't even know how to start to do something like that. So when we go out and talk to them, I'll just say, we tell them to look at this program. This may be a way to deal with this, but you just can't go throw a bunch of rocks in there. You've got to think about this from a water quality perspective. can you do to improve or enhance water quality as well as resolve your erosion problem because you know I mean I've dealt with both of these sites and you know my first answer is we don't have any program to deal with it maybe this can help didn't you know because then you also get into having go along with us spending a bunch of public money to improve private property when there's no I'm going to say damage being done. You don't have a house being flooded. You don't have a street that's impassable. You don't have a piece of infrastructure that's failed. So I got Charlie's a little bit of angst on this, but generally that's how we approach these things is that I don't have any way to deal with this. Maybe this will help. It's a competitive process. Maybe you get selected. Maybe you don't. If there's no structural that we can allow to store my section, stay inside of them, that's why they suggest the program is there's no flooding inside their house. If they can come back away from them because it's on private property. But they suggest they come to the program to see if they have an HOA that they're kind of championed the cause. In some cases they do and some they don't. They don't. I can see a homeowner seeing the puddle of water in their backyard. They say, you know, this is not right. And then we tell them what the water is supposed to be. Yeah, exactly. I can see a homeowner not understanding that at all. A couple of photos that Richard showed were like, that's perfect. It says, you know, it's going to have a channel. The grass is in great shape. It's working exactly what's the problem. So that's where some of this comes from, is that we just don't have a program within water quality, the stormwater group, of dealing with these issues. That's not the focus or the function. It's really home flooding, street flooding, and infrastructure that's inadequate or not there. I don't recall seeing a large number of projects like this that we've been asking. There have been some. It just seemed like there was a recent uptick in that. That's what it learned to be. It may be because Greg sent them all here. I don't send them all here. So, you know, my thing was, in my view of it, is that they are fairly recent, if not new development. And that, to me, wasn't what the original goal of this was to begin with. And so you ask yourself, are we doing enough to prevent erosion in new development? If you just built your house five years ago and you have a complaint, they don't understand that. I mean, they really don't. And so, again, it wasn't that I was really necessarily expecting the board to do anything about it. I was kind of appreciating the discussion because if there are things that we can do that minimize that for new development, then I think we're doing what we ought to be doing. Water wins every time. We all know that. It's going to go where it's going to go. So if it was designed to puddle in this HOA here, those folks are just going to get over that. But if there's dirt and rock and it becomes an unsafe condition all the time, like when you showed the H08 thing, you mentioned they'd mow that. I wouldn't want to mow that. I mean, it's one of these kind of things and stuff like that. Is that are we doing enough as a government to, as we continue to do new development, to do it right the first time and not necessarily spend public money on the back end correcting something that could have been done in front of you. I want to take more trees. More trees? More trees. We miss you on the tree board, Harry. I think a good part of it is the different agencies of urban county and we're working together and comparing those. I think if each was an old silo, it would be easy to perhaps overlook, but I think working together, I think there's a synergy there. Well, you're right. They pointed that out. It is much better than it was when I came to here in 1999. And one of the things that I've recognized when watching the presentation here is that the evolution of the annual has had an impact. Because, as you pointed out, at Ellerslie, the development plan was approved sometime in 2001, 2005. And so while people are still building houses out there, you know, they're new residents, but the actual, maybe the development itself and the underlying infrastructure, it is as new as I have this impression in my mind it is. All right. Thank you, Richard. Appreciate the presentation. Great work, David. Appreciate it. If you could make sure there was a good time. That's a good one. You can see it. I don't know if it was sent to be a great event. I'm going to contact the mayor's office to see what happened there and then with regard to I would have done that. I would speak with her in terms of, frankly, whether or not it's a good idea. I mean, her schedule will. Yeah. It's a good idea with the GI1 and whatnot. I don't speak with her. Okay. All right. Any other business? No, just as Lindsay mentioned, following, you know, if you guys are willing to take you to see these actual sites that we're at real quick. I would love to know that I've got a previous engagement. I'm going to get to. I can go. Okay. Most times it's all 30. Are you going out anyway? They're already out. They're going out. The HLA and the engineering team are lined up to be in the bed. Yeah. All right. So, which is typically what we kind of do for this meeting. Yeah. We're kind of . I'm happy. I'm happy. Follow somebody. Is there a function that we adjourn? So moved. Is there a second? I'll second. I'll say the motion to seek the facts say aye. Aye.