# Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee - July 11, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 11, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5862 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5862?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-07-11 - **Last revised**: July 11, 2023 - **Length**: 10,235 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Environmental Quality & Public Works Committee convened on July 11, 2023, at 1:00 PM, with L. Sheehan presiding as the meeting officer. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, covering both administrative matters and informational updates on key environmental programs. The meeting included two formal votes, with members approving the previous meeting summary and taking action on committee business. No public comments were received during the meeting, allowing the committee to focus on their scheduled agenda items without additional input from community members. The committee successfully approved the May 23, 2023 Committee Summary, providing formal acceptance of the previous meeting's proceedings. Two informational presentations were delivered to keep committee members updated on ongoing environmental initiatives: the Annual Energy Improvement Fund Update and the Annual Urban Forestry/Street Trees Update. However, the committee was unable to complete all scheduled business, as the Environmental Commission Ordinance Updates item was tabled for future consideration. This mix of completed approvals, informational briefings, and deferred items reflects a typical committee meeting balancing administrative duties with oversight of environmental programs and policy development. ## Attendance The following members were present at the July 11, 2023 meeting: • L. Sheehan • H. LeGris • D. Wu • T. Fogle • S. Lynch • D. Gray • F. Brown • D. Sevigny Two members were absent: • B. Monarrez • P. Worley No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The committee took two formal votes during the July 11, 2023 meeting. **Approval of May 23, 2023 Committee Summary** [timestamp: 00:30] D. Gray made a motion to approve the Committee Summary from the May 23, 2023 meeting. The motion was seconded by D. Wu. The motion passed unanimously with no opposition or abstentions recorded. **Motion to Adjourn** [timestamp: 02:30:00] At the conclusion of the meeting, D. Sevigny made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded by T. Fogle. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously with no opposition or abstentions recorded. Both votes were conducted as voice votes with unanimous consent from all committee members present. No roll call votes were taken during this meeting. ## Approval of the May 23, 2023 Committee Summary [timestamp: 00:30] The committee reviewed and discussed the summary of their May 23, 2023 meeting as agenda item I. L. Sheehan served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the summary to the committee for consideration. The committee proceeded to approve the May 23, 2023 committee summary without recorded objections or significant discussion points noted in the available materials. **Outcome:** The May 23, 2023 committee summary was approved. ## Annual Energy Improvement Fund Update James Bush presented an update on the Energy Improvement Fund during this informational agenda item [timestamp: 05:00]. Bush's presentation covered several key areas of the fund's activities, including: • Utility expenses and their impact on the fund • Current lighting projects and their progress • Solar projects under consideration or implementation During his presentation, Bush emphasized that the current approach to energy savings may need to be expanded. He highlighted the need for a more comprehensive strategy to maximize the fund's effectiveness in achieving energy improvements and cost savings. The presentation was informational in nature, providing council members and the public with an overview of how the Energy Improvement Fund is being utilized and its current performance. Bush's recommendation for a more comprehensive approach suggests potential future changes to how energy improvement initiatives are planned and implemented. No formal action was taken on this agenda item, as it served as an update on existing fund activities rather than a request for new authorization or policy changes. ## Annual Urban Forestry / Street Trees Update [timestamp: 01:00:00] Jennifer Carey presented the annual update on urban forestry and street trees, focusing on two key municipal programs addressing tree management and maintenance throughout the city. Carey provided details on the **Hazard Street Tree Program**, which identifies and addresses potentially dangerous trees that pose risks to public safety and infrastructure. She also discussed the **Street Tree Clearance Pruning Program**, which maintains proper clearance for pedestrians, vehicles, and utilities while preserving tree health. During her presentation, Carey emphasized two critical areas needing attention: • **Increased participation** - The city requires greater community engagement and property owner cooperation to effectively manage the urban forest • **Diversity in tree species** - Current plantings lack sufficient variety, creating vulnerability to diseases and pests that could impact large portions of the urban canopy The presentation highlighted ongoing challenges in maintaining the city's street tree inventory while balancing safety requirements, aesthetic considerations, and environmental benefits. Carey's recommendations focused on expanding both programs to better serve residents and improve the long-term sustainability of the urban forest. This was an informational presentation with no formal action required from the governing body. The update provided council members and the public with current data on tree management efforts and identified priorities for future urban forestry initiatives. ## Environmental Commission – Ordinance Updates [timestamp: 02:00:00] The committee discussed proposed updates to ordinances governing the Environmental Commission during agenda item IV. Grace Leppert Downey served as the key speaker for this discussion item. The proposed changes focused on modifications to the Environmental Commission's membership structure and duties. The committee reviewed updates that would affect how the commission operates and its responsibilities within the municipal framework. During the discussion, committee members examined the specific ordinance language and considered the implications of the proposed changes. The conversation centered on ensuring the Environmental Commission would have appropriate membership levels and clearly defined duties to effectively carry out its environmental oversight responsibilities. After reviewing the proposed ordinance updates, the committee determined that additional time was needed to fully consider the changes and their potential impacts. The item was tabled, allowing for further review and discussion at a future meeting. The decision to table the ordinance updates indicates the committee's commitment to thoroughly vetting changes to the Environmental Commission's structure and operations before moving forward with any modifications. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the May 23, 2023 Committee Summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to adjourn --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm going to call to order our July 11, 2023 meeting of the Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee. Yes, we have six. The first item on our agenda today is the approval of the May 23, 2023 committee summary. So moved. Second. Are there any additions or corrections? Okay. Hearing none, is there a motion to approve? So moved. I have a motion from Council Member Gray and a second from Vice Mayor Wu. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. Okay. Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Do you have a question? Council Member McCracken? We just have technical difficulties over here. Fred already took care of you. I'm in. Yeah, I think it's just Council Member Civicney. Okay. We will pause here. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so then I'll just restart. Are there any corrections or additions for the committee summary? Okay. I'll take a motion to approve. Second. Council Member Savigny is the motioner. The second by Council Member Gray. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that motion passes. Our next item on the agenda is the annual energy improvement fund update. This is a for information only presentation. We don't have any actions to take at this moment. But we will have this presentation by James Bush, our energy initiatives section manager in the division of environmental services. Welcome today, Mr. Bush. Good afternoon. So, yes, I'll turn it over to you. Okay. James Bush, for those of you who have not met with the Division of Environmental Services, and I'm in charge of energy initiatives for LFUCG operations. Outline for today, we'll go over what we've accomplished in the last year, give an idea of where we're heading in the near term, But primary focus will be on conclusions and expand on my comments from the last annual update. So utility expenses, this is a breakdown of how they looked at the end of fiscal year 22. In a couple weeks, we'll have the last data for FY23. But we unfortunately, we broke a milestone of $20 million in expenses on what I call the big three. Gas in this context is natural gas. Liquid fuels are handled through Division of General Services, Fleet and Facility Management. The jump between 21 and 22 was largely attributed to an increase in rates with Kentucky utilities. And then the smaller bump there, 22 to 23, was repercussions from rising energy prices, which affected a variable fuel adjustment charge with Kentucky utilities. Natural gas prices went up as well. And Kentucky American Water increased their qualified infrastructure fee, which is basically replacement of the larger lines underground. So those variable costs hit us here in FY23. Lighting projects, this has been a bread and butter for years. They are getting smaller and fewer in nature, as you can tell from the expense side of things. They continue to be extremely profitable. There's just less of them to do nowadays. The technology is more mature. It's standard practice now for our facilities. So it's diminishing returns for us as we, you know, replacing an LED for LED just doesn't have the bang for the buck that it does when you're hitting the older incandescent lighting and fluorescent lighting. The industry as a whole is now moving more into the hardware control standpoint, just strictly turn it off, advanced censoring and such. But those tend to be a little more cost prohibitive. We spent most of our time developing solar projects, doing a lot of scoping work across our facilities to understand both the site conditions, the electrical conditions. Nonetheless, we did install two new systems on our own facilities and contracted with Kentucky Utilities for a virtual system, purchasing a share from their solar farm. combined that nearly doubled the overall capacity we have. And while I love to see that number grow for context, a facility like we're in today will probably cap out between 500 and 600 kW on a hot summer afternoon. So we are just scratching the surface in terms of our own load on the community electric grid. So in total, we've got five installations on LFUCG facilities, two virtual systems with Kentucky Utilities, and then already in process for this fiscal year, we have two projects with Parks and Rec. This is a photograph taken just a couple weeks ago. This is the latest and largest installation for the Irving County government. It's on the roof over at Old Frankfort Pike and New Circle Road on the gymnasium, also called the training center for Police West. I wanted to spend a little time comparing those two because it's illustrative for the conclusions I'll make here later. But the lighting, again, very reliable payback, quick payback. That's somewhat artificially low, that five-year, because we're using our own labor resources for doing the installation. The guys know their buildings well. They can do it the way they want it, and it's good fill work between other activities. Those projects were, you know, the target there is that the savings from the project can pay for the investment. in under 10 years, which is aligned with the product life of the lights themselves. Now contrast that against solar that we're focusing on right now. These are not quick payback projects. They take years to recoup their costs. So a life cycle approach is how we use that Because when you get much beyond year five or six, you need to start incorporating anticipated escalation of electric charges. It's also in line with the products, which the industry has warranties in the 20 to 30 year. They want to target 40 to 50 year warranties on the next generation of solar modules. So we wrap that up. We model with 2% annual increases in electric prices and on a, what I'll call a compatible building, that's one with a good south-facing roof, full sky exposure, and a non-demand rate. We can see unsubsidized paybacks in around year 16. If you're in the private sector, your home, a private business, you know, that number is easily year 10 to 12. So still very good, reliable. It just takes a little longer to recoup those costs. And then that footnote there at the bottom, if that type of duration raises an eyebrow, there's full cost recovery. I shouldn't say full, sorry. 70% of that cost of investment is recuperated during the warranty of those products. And for that, I used a 12-year warranty period, which is a minimum standard for most equipment we're installing. So all the environmental benefits are in place. 70% of your money is back under warranty. And then it's likely that system will continue for the next decade or more. Our balance sheet at the end of the fiscal year. And for context, this is the 11th year of doing projects under the Energy Improvement Fund. Over that period, we've invested more than $3 million. And we've taken a fairly balanced approach, a slow and steady on allocation request and spending down our initial fund balance. But we've finally hit bottom. I mean, that $10,000 remaining at the end of the fiscal year is about as low as we can go on a bid-type arrangement, not knowing how the bids are going to come back. So we fully depleted that fund. The allocation we requested for $24,000, that $100,000, that's a little lower than ideal, but it was tempered because there was heavy conversation about using ARPA money for solar. That didn't happen. Those funds are directed elsewhere. But then secondly, part of the Infrastructure Investment and Recovery Act monies, it is likely that the city has an allocation that we'll be applying for, So we're anticipating funding from the federal government that would be in place for fiscal year 25 and 26 projects. So we're trying to balance these things is really the message I wanted to send in terms of our request for general funds with what we might be getting support externally. But it is low for what we're trying to accomplish and the savings that we've captured in the past. The other funds, urban services, sanitary sewer, those projects, one, we have fund balance remaining, and those projects being they're dominated largely by waste management and water quality tend to be heavy, industrial-intensive projects that our approach is more will come with a specific project and a specifically needed allocation rather than just asking for past savings. So that'll be a year-to-year approach is my recommendation. So this largely expands on what was presented last year, but a little more detail. You know, on the facilities that we have a project, we're seeing reductions on the order, say, 25%, typically on these electric-based lighting-type projects, solar projects. So there is very much a local impact, but at the macro level, if we're thinking about LFUCG as a whole, we're not offsetting our typical growth, whether that's a new facility like Police East Sector, whether it's a new pump station or a larger pump station as part of the consent decree. we continue to grow at a larger rate than we address individual buildings. And as a fraction that the $100,000, $200,000 investment we've been making, that's less than a half percent of our annual spend on utilities. So if our objective is to flatten that growth or even reduce our overall footprint, We need a more comprehensive approach, ideally starting with new construction. Our designs, we need to be better than minimum code on our new facilities. We would need to consider renewable power as part of a new construction. There's other methods, whether if it's on-site or purchase power agreements through a utility company, But at the moment, we do not have those specific goals or targets for either new construction or overall operations. The projects that we're doing, they're progressively more difficult. That first bullet I wrote with lighting in mind as the older technology gets replaced. But at the same time in solar, it's more time frame. As we chew up the most compatible facility rooftops, each subsequent building, be it doesn't have as good exposure, maybe it doesn't have the right rate structure, the economic payback. So financially, its payback won't be as good. So in that context, if the target, which has been self-funding within 10 years, within 20 years, that those savings recuperate all of the investment, that's what's going to be continually harder to do. Now, we've got runway left right now. Early analysis, we were anticipating we could get a couple hundred KW of power generation on our roofs. But that usable space will be, as that gets installed, things will slow down. And we would need a different approach, i.e. bring in different priorities, either renewable power as a priority and or decarbonization if we want to simply reduce our footprint. But right now, our lens to the world is strictly cost analysis, and our goal is financial savings. So we would need to bring other priorities to play to continue in this space. That isn't to say the Energy Improvement Fund. I don't mean to imply that that's the vehicle or pathway to do this. But we're an obvious magnet for this conversation. So I tend to get a lot of these inquiries about why isn't the city doing X or can we do Y? And that's where I'm trying to provide that context of how we approach this on a strictly a cost basis. And we would need to open that up to pursue those type of objectives through the Energy Improvement Fund. At the same time, the third bullet there, the options for us to acquire green power, not necessarily on our own facilities, but from outside partners like utilities, That's starting to increase. Kentucky Utilities is giving more offerings, and they're being pushed to expand those to smaller and smaller customers. So that's an area of potential access. And at the same time, the city is a unique customer in having land that's underutilized that could be made available for that, because land costs are often a significant expense for utilities to do large-scale development. So partnerships are possible. We're also unique in having flared methane at the town branch treatment plant that's, again, just being flared at the moment, but could be used in power production. So that last bullet then is if the Energy Improvement Fund is to be a vehicle along these lines or desires, the first objective would be to establish some goals and priorities and then potentially align it with those. Thank you for your presentation. I will open it up to comments or questions from council members. So sign in if you have anything. Council members, so thank me. Thank you, Chair. Great presentation. I really appreciate the information. Just a few questions, one of which is on, it seems like there was a general payback on solar. I think I saw it like 17 years or 18 somewhere in that, and probably equipment life. is maybe more like 25 to 30 years or life and efficiency, I guess, is have we contemplated our energy needs and looked, and I'm going to mention bonding just because I know Council Member Fred Brown is here with us today and he loves it when we talk about bonding, but But have we looked at bonding that with it to basically just move us along quicker? You know what I mean? And having a time basically spreading out the bond over the same period of time of the savings? You know what I mean? We have not. Our scale hasn't been of that level again as we're moving largely between 100 on a high year, maybe $250,000 a year. That's usually kind of small in the bonding scale, but towards my point, if our objective is large volumes of renewable power, then I think that would come into play. And then I think I saw on there the, because we pay for rental of hydrants, right? And I think you mentioned, I think I saw in another email, you mentioned the rate increase would probably, if there is a water rate increase by the PSC, it would affect that number as well, is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And have we looked at ways of mitigating that type of expense? The primary point of mitigation is the negotiations during the rate case. But outside of that, I am not familiar with any discussions for acquisition. Yeah, and I didn't know if there's a way to take on that more as a capital expense from our end and have a different fee structure. So basically kind of shifting the risk from the water company to us on those things. It's just a thought. So that's all I have. Thanks. Council Member Gray. Thank you, Chair. going back to the snapshot and by the way thank you for your awesome presentation but I'm just curious looking at the fiscal year 22 utility expenses I'm looking at the street lights which is a huge sum what are we doing on our end to mitigate those costs with um go ahead for for clarity just to make sure everyone understands situation we we primarily lease all street lights we lease yes so that those costs represent a lease you can even call it a rental from the utility company it's not an asset that the city owns so the city because we don't own it we cannot modify it or change it it's not our asset so those are monthly lease costs for the majority of street lights in town the only exception are the decorative green poles here downtown on main street and vine street we own those we've completely converted those to led which use less energy there that was a an early energy improvement fund project the acquisition of those lights such that we now maintain them at a lower cost than what we were leasing them for. But the remainder of the lights are owned by Kentucky Utilities and Bluegrass Energy Cooperative. We pay a monthly fee, and that fee, very analogous to the hydrants, It's a contested negotiation during rate cases, but there's not a lot of options available when you don't own the asset. That was actually just educated me on that. I had no idea we were leasing, which then draws me to a question, which is not anything to do with this, and it still deals with streetlights. that goes to the number because in my district, in the 6th district, which is I'm speaking about probably the newer part, Hamburg area, where we have a lot of areas lacking in street lights, which leads to darkness. So in that respect, do we have anything with the increase of street lights or is that something that goes to KU or? I'd be more comfortable with traffic engineering responding to that question, but there are very specific guidelines in place for which streets are lit and not. It has to do with whether an ad valorem tax is applied, but there's method to that. And I'll add, if I can, back on cost control. I can say we, Kentucky Utilities does not differentiate between a lease light that's illuminating a street versus a lease light that's like in a parking lot or in a park. And because we were seeing those escalations, we have been removing lease lights, telling the utilities, you know, thanks for your service, but we're going to do it ourselves now. So where we can, and it's usually a parks and rec environment, all fire stations, many of our pump stations, if not all, we have stopped leasing lights from the utility company. But these are dozens, you know, the magnitude is dozens versus thousands of street lights. Well, you just answered my other question because my next question was about park and recs. But thank you for your time, and thank you for educating me. You're welcome. I don't see anyone else signed in, so I just have one other quick question for you. Could you talk about, you talked a little bit about the challenges with rooftops and putting in solar on older buildings and needing to think about that for new construction. Could you talk a little bit about any other methods that may be used for rooftops to encourage energy efficiencies? Like I've seen in some places they'll like paint rooftops white or use different materials. Do we do any of that here or are we mostly prioritizing solar on the rooftop part? It'd almost be an extension to say we're prioritizing solar. We're right at the front of it. Our latest construction project, Polisi Sector, we did ask the design team to incorporate. And this is where I walk a little bit of a line. What we've found, why it's not necessarily the most efficient design, our cost for me to do a bolt-on system after the fact is considerably less than incorporating it within the new design itself. And I sense that's because the design community is not as familiar with it yet. So we're seeing fairly high prices if we let them design it up front and integrate. We need to get beyond that as a team, both sides of the coin. But our bolt-on projects tend to be more cost effective. It's just there's always something that, you know, we've got to work around, you know, a pillar, or there's not a hole in the roof where you need it sort of situation. In terms of your question, are there other – the roof itself, no. It's really being thought of as its primary objective is keep water out of the building and insulate it the best you can, but – No other modifications. We're looking at. Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate your presentation. And thank you for being here today. Next on our agenda, we have the annual urban forestry and street trees update. Councilmember Legree, this is your item, so I want to turn it over to you for an introduction. Sure. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for scheduling this update on our urban forestry program and our hazard street tree program. I also want to thank the members of this committee for supporting recent changes to the hazard street tree cost share program to expand the reach of that initiative. And I think Director Carey will talk a little bit more about that. And I wanted to thank you all for your support of the FY24 budget, inclusive of additional funds for this program so it can meet more of the residents who most need assistance. I wanted to remind you that connected to this presentation, we also approved updates to the configuration of our 17B code of ordinances, which included adding more seats and flexibility to the tree board and also refined a number of other aspects to make that ordinance more functional and up to date. So Director Carey, we look forward to your overview and your update, and we're grateful to you and to your team for all of the work that you do in our city. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. This is the annual update, and I've got about twice as many slides as you should have for about a 10-minute presentation, so I'm going to have to speed through a bunch of these, but there is a lot of good information in here and just a lot of stuff that we wanted to share and convey with you all today. So even if I don't touch on everything that's in the slides, I hope you do get a chance to take a look because there is, like I said, some good information in here. This is the org chart. We shared this last year. And in last year's presentation, almost every name in the left column had changed. So this year there have not been any changes in our staffing. So the team has really been able to come together over the past year, find their individual roles, and really learn how to work best as a team to accomplish everything that we do. And then just a quick reminder about what a street tree is. Those are the ones that are typically in what we call the utility strip but fall within the right-of-way. They are the responsibility of the adjacent property owners. So 90% of those throughout the county fall to private entities to maintain and take care of. And then there's about 10% that our group is responsible for. So to help with that, we have the Hazard Street Tree Cost Share Program. And it provides 50% funding to homeowners who need to remove their street tree and are also willing to replant with a new tree. We have provisions to provide 100% funding for those who are at the 80% area median income threshold or below, and they are screened through our Division of Community and Resident Services. If they qualify, then they proceed through the program. This slide just outlines the process for that and who qualifies to participate. And then the program was funded at a level of $150,000 several years ago, but then the pandemic and just various things that we had to deal with as a government and our budgeting process, that was cut back to $50,000 for a couple of years, including this past fiscal year, fiscal year 23. But with the allocation of $1.5 million to Lexington's tree canopy, the tree canopy ad hoc committee allocated $150,000 for us to clear the backlog of folks who are interested in participating, but we had run out of funds the previous two years before they could get their application in and approved, along with an additional $50,000 allocation contingent upon us updating the guidelines. which you all helped us to do in the earlier part of this year. So between the $150,000 allocation, the $50,000 that was in the fiscal year 23 budget, and then using a small portion of that second allocation of $50,000, we paid out just over $200,000 in fiscal year 23 for participants that applied for and completed the cost share program. So this is some statistics. Fiscal year 23 is the bottom row. We were able to have 205 hazard street trees removed and replaced. There were 149 homeowners who participated. So obviously there are homes that have more than one street tree, especially corner lots. Some of those have up to four street trees, two on each side of the house. And there were several participants who replaced all four of their street trees. There were three recipients of the 100% grant, and they were in council districts 6, 10, and 11. And then one of the things that I mentioned in February when we were talking about changes to the guidelines for the program is how this really is sort of a word of mouth program and how we've never really had the opportunity to get out in front of it and really share it with other neighborhoods because there are so many neighborhoods who are keyed in and they have their neighbors who have participated and they saw what a success it was and saw that they could, you know, replace their street tree at a 50% cost. And so this is just in that inset map is the Copperfield subdivision in Council District No. 9. And just within that one neighborhood, 36 trees of the 205 that were replaced this past fiscal year came just from this neighborhood with 24 homeowners participating. So out of all of Council District No. 9 who had 49 participants, half of them came just from this one subdivision. So it has very much been word of mouth, and we're hoping with the $150,000 that's included in the fiscal year 24 budget that we will be able to get out in front of it and share it with other council districts and other neighborhoods so that the funds are being spread throughout Lexington. And then just to show how we've tracked the expenses and the per year removal and replacement cost per tree, if you look at fiscal year 23, I excluded the 100% cost shares just so that we were looking just at the bulk, which is the 50%. 50%. So that was 202 trees at a total cost to LFUCG of $195,000, which works out to $968 per tree. And it's a little bit less than what we saw in fiscal year 22, but we also had a much bigger pool involved in creating that average. So that's probably a lot of the difference there. And then just to share the most common species of trees that were removed, Pear was certainly number one. In fact, out of those 36 trees in Copperfield, those were all pear trees that were removed. Pin oaks were second, and then red maple and ash were third and fourth. But then on the replanting, and something I do definitely want to point out with this slide, is of the replanted tree species, an overwhelming majority of those were black gum. Black gum is currently sort of the darling street tree. It's one that is stocked at many of the nurseries locally, and there's good reason for that. It has a good structure. It has a really nice fall color. It's got a nice upright form. But I think we can all realize that if there was some sort of pest or blight that were to come in, we would see a big wipeout of this particular species and it would really impact the look of our streets. So we are certainly wanting to encourage our vendors who participate in this program to consider and try to promote other tree species just so that there is more diversity throughout Lexington. And then I thought this was kind of interesting and goes to promoting diversity, but we did have one homeowner, and that was shown in the red arrow on the map of Council District number nine. And that homeowner removed four pin oaks, but cleverly planted four different species of trees. So, you know, I think it's a great example if there's other people that are considering participating and have more than one tree is to really look at increasing diversity on their own lot, which then leads to more diversity throughout the city. So the program in our eyes does continue to be a success story. We do see reductions in Lex calls about complaints related to dead and dying trees. It decreases the amount of time from the identification of a hazard to its removal and replacement. And then we do get lots of thank yous and positive comments from people who are participants in this program. We really do want to see increased participation in council districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 11. Those were each of the districts that had less than 10 homeowners participating this past year. And I've reached out to those council members and their aides and asked them to really promote this in their newsletters or however they can in their neighborhoods. woods, because we do have the fiscal year 24 applications available on the website now. And then as I mentioned a couple of slides ago, we do want to encourage our vendors and homeowners to pick other types of trees beyond the black gum. And then switching to our other street tree program, this is the clearance pruning program. We have had a successful year with this program as well. This just includes statistics from the previous year. We have pruned, or we did prune, just over 2,300 trees this year. These were in neighborhoods in council districts 2, 4, 7, 8, and 12. And this is a listing of those subdivisions. And then we also did some pruning by staff, and these are not included in the dollar figures, but there were some trees on Clay's Mill Road and Pebble Creek and Tate's Creek, old Mount Tabor areas that were pruned by our staff. And this is to achieve the clearance of seven feet over the sidewalk and 12 feet over the roadway. And what makes this program successful is that, you know, we have had some severe windstorms this year, but generally it helps to improve those trees so that they can withstand some of the storms. It prevents the pruning that happens when larger profile trucks and vehicles go through these neighborhoods so that they're not taking the lowest limbs off of the trees. And then it frees up time for staff to provide other tree compliance assistance. So opportunities for improvement in this program. We are very thankful that this program is going to be funded out of the general fund in fiscal year 24. It has previously been funded out of 1115, which limited where we could provide the service. So by putting it in the general fund, we have that opportunity to look at many more neighborhoods and look at the ages of those trees and really focus those efforts throughout the county. But then that brings up the challenge of how are we going to tackle all of the places all at once. And we'll get to that on the next slide. and another thing that we have talked about internally that you know it's certainly something to consider in future years but in addition to the clearance pruning there's certainly the need for some crown clearing and that would certainly have some immediate benefits for the trees as well as provide some longer term benefits but mainly would really help these trees to withstand these storms that we are seeing with increased frequency. So we have proposed an eight-year pruning schedule to work our way around the county. And this, you know, this is all subject to change, but we sort of took a stab at knowing the ages of the street trees in various parts of the county and how much we thought we could accomplish at the rate of $85,000 a year that's dedicated to this program. So our proposal is to start in that piece of the pie that's on the east side between Richmond Road and Winchester Road and then work our way counterclockwise around the city so we would finish in fiscal year, gosh, I can't even read that number, 31 in the area between Tates Creek Road and Richmond Road. And then again, seeing how far the funds go each year, the pieces of the pie might shrink and it might take longer or perhaps they will increase and we can work our way around the county in a faster fashion. So then our path forward in future initiatives, we will continue both the street tree clearance pruning program and the hazard street tree cost share program. that the hazard street street cost share program that has been increased to $150,000. We have certainly shown this past year that our staff can handle the larger influx of money, process those applications, complete the pre and post inspections. So we also think that the demand is still there at this level and that we will see these funds fully encumbered. And then also the tree canopy ad hoc committee continues to meet, and they have allocated the $200,000 to the cost share program that I mentioned earlier. We are also working with impressions, marketing, and events, and they are helping us with the communications and marketing plan, and we're making great strides there. And then the committee recently funded two short-term projects with Trees Lexington and Geomancer Permaculture just to get some things going as we develop our larger strategy and plan. So, happy to answer any questions. Council members, I'll open it up if you just want to sign in for questions or comments. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Director, for that great presentation. To go back to, let me see, I don't know what page you have it on. It's Hazard Street Trees Cost Share Program, that graph. At the bottom there, in terms of the number of participants, let's see, there you go. At the bottom there, I'm curious about the very bottom row of the 100% grants participants. That number seems really, really low. What do you attribute that to and how do we change that? How do we get more people to participate in that program? So the guidelines for that criteria were just changed in February. So previously the threshold to qualify for the 100% grant was more rigorous, and there were certainly people that applied for that grant, but did not meet the income qualifications. Since that time, we've seen a few more people who have applied. I think two of the three are ones who applications that came in after the cost share guidelines were approved and updated. So I think we will see more of this. Another component of the update to the guidelines was allocating 25% of the annual budget to focus on 100% grant recipients. So we will certainly, we've got that carved out and on a different spreadsheet that we're tracking things so that we can really reach out and promote and try to augment participation in that portion of the program. I'm going to be reaching out to the Community Action Council, who was of immense help to Jada Griggs when she was promoting the Solarize Lexington program, to see if some of their past participants, if there's a way they can share addresses or mapping so that we can see if some of these participants that they've worked with and we've worked with do have street trees, because we know that we could certainly help them if that's something that they have that is hazardous and needs to be replaced and replanted. Of the 25% that's set aside for this 100% grant, if that money doesn't get used up at the end of the fiscal year, does it just float over to the next or do you end up using it for the other? I think the updated guidelines give us until January or February so that if we have not successfully been able to find folks, that it frees those funds up for use as part of the 50%. And then in terms of the 100% grants, do you have a sense of how many applicants versus how many were granted? No, I mean there were a few more who did not qualify but it really just. But it wasn't a large number of applicants to begin with. No. Okay, so it sounds like there is sort of a public awareness promotional piece that we need to work on. Yes. Okay. And then let's see, I think two slides down. I have to go a little bit faster. The FY23 price per tree, if I'm reading it correctly, seems really high compared to previous years. Am I reading that correctly, and what do you attribute that to? I think overall just the cost of everything has increased over the past couple of years, and this includes both the removal and the replanted tree. And I've just noticed in the two years that I've been with environmental services that the replanted tree costs have gone up substantially for whatever reason through all of the vendors. So I think that's a big part of it. And then when we come to pruning, so this is the chart that has all the different council districts, the numbers are kind of fluctuate wildly. So who determines or what determines where this pruning happens? And how do you account for District 2, for example, having 8,000, District 3 having zero? Those always pop out to me, and I'm curious. So since this has historically been funded out of 1115, we are looking for full-service neighborhoods who are receiving trash collection, city trash collection. So that sort of limits the pool of what we can look at. And then we're also looking at neighborhoods of a certain age because at that point the trees that were planted when the neighborhood was developed have started to reach that height where they need that clearance pruning done for the first time. So if you think about sort of where development occurred in the 90s and early 2000s, and where they also have city trash collection, that's where we've focused. And so that's how it's kind of fallen out and why it's so sporadic throughout the council district. Gotcha. Thank you. I have a couple more things, but I'll sign back in. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the presentation. Very good. I do appreciate it. Just a few quick questions. Is this typically fall work? Is it typically we do it in the fall? The pruning work? Really the plant, like the whole street tree program. Does the majority get spent in four months in the fall or something like that? We want trees to be planted in the fall and winter, you know, once we're out of the dormant season, but before it starts to get really hot. So there are certainly some timing aspects to it. And some of the participants know that, and they will convey that to us. Like, I've had my tree removed, but I'm not going to replant until the fall, so I won't be able to turn my receipts in to get my reimbursement until late fall. And that's fine. We make note of it. most of the vendors do convey to the participants who have their tree planted sort of outside of that ideal time frame that it's their responsibility to make sure the tree is watered appropriately just so that the survivability is improved. Okay. Do we do any self-perform? So is this totally on the person to actually pick a contractor? Are they price focused or do we basically cap a price? They are required to get quotes from two of our approved vendors. Okay. Then we go with the low quote, tell them, we do the divide by two, and tell them what their reimbursement will be. they can opt to go with the higher quote they can they can do it themselves but we would have you know we would inspect to make sure that it was done correctly but we will cap their reimbursement at 50 of the lowest of the two quotes that they've obtained okay have we considered doing self-perform have we done like a that versus what we're doing i'm just curious have you like said we have a nursery ourselves, right? Oh. And things like that. So... We have had conversations about using trees from the nursery. I think there's still some policy hurdles we need to get past, but we have had discussions about that. Okay. And then what about trees that go down in storms? Because we've had a lot of that. So are those eligible or are those already down? They are eligible, and we have done similar things in the past. Like if someone has lost their tree, but all that's left is the stump, they can get quotes for the stump grinding and then the replanting. But, you know, if they'd already paid somebody to haul that off, that can't be included. So it's about the property owner's patience and how they're willing to look at their tree that's half fallen over until they can get the quotes and then get approval and get the company out there to do it. But they're not excluded. But we don't have, so do we not have a super efficient kind of quick form that someone can fill out online that kind of would maybe streamline it a wee bit? I feel like it's as efficient and fast as it can be on our end. So a lot of times the hang up is getting the two quotes. Yeah. Which is on that property owner to take care of and schedule. Okay. Okay. And then do we have the capacity to do more if we could do more? In terms of more applications? Yeah, yeah. Could you process more applications if you had more money or are you at capacity with your staff? I think we proved this past year that we can do a lot. I mean, we did more than we have in this next budget cycle. So, yes, I think we do have capacity. Thanks. And lastly, and I'm running out of time, but like I, it's not my district, but Catalpa, I know is like one of those streets that everyone, like it's in the paper every fall. Everyone thinks it's the most beautiful street in the world because of the, it is, it's in Councilperson's, Sheehan's district. I don't know if we've ever thought about the concept of thematic street trees. You know what I mean? Like, oh, this street's beautiful because it has X. And I don't know if we've ever promoted that, but it's just, I think, a neat idea. That is something we do currently have in place in terms of our landscape corridors and prescribed trees. And there are certain trees that are supposed to be on certain trees downtown and and it certainly can be a beautiful look but again you run that risk of if you know if the wrong pest comes through or some disease comes through you risk wiping out the canopy along that entire street Councilmember Lynch. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your presentation. I just have a couple of questions. And my first is about the has this street tree cost share program, because those numbers are definitely inequitable across the council district. So have you all decided or have a marketing plan in order to reach the community so that we can improve upon these numbers outside of relying on council members? We are working on that, and that's hopefully part of the conversations that I'm going to have with Community Action Council, and then it's part of what we are working with Impressions Marketing and Events to help promote the tree canopy, make more people aware of this program that the city offers, and bolster participation. When you have that developed, do you mind to report back out to us about what that marketing plan is, you know, at its initial stages and then maybe in the interim how it's going in the interim and then just we can see for some results to see if it's working. Because I definitely want District 2 to be better. And to have all the opportunities and resources that they can have. And I will definitely do as much as we can to help promote, but I would love to know that you all have an established marketing plan to be able to promote the services as well. and I'd be happy to report back once we get a little further along. That would be great. And then my last question is about the pruning program. I just want to make sure that I understand correctly. So the pruning is the city does that. It's not on the resident or owner of that adjacent property to do that, right? They are required. It is by ordinance the property owner's obligation. As a courtesy, the city has provided that program in the neighborhoods that need it the most, again, based on the age of the trees. And because it's certainly easier if we have the funds to go in and take care of an entire neighborhood at one time, as opposed to sending notices of violation and working with individual property owners. And there are definitely neighborhoods who pride themselves on taking care of their street trees and maintaining the clearance that's required. And, you know, we don't want to overstep, which is why we notify people in advance and give them the opportunity that if they don't want that service provided by the city, then they can opt out by letting us know. But if they do, do they just contact you all? I see in your presentation, information is on the city website. So is that just to reach out to you all if they want that kind of assistance? They can, but, you know, going forward, if we're doing it more in a cyclical basis, we will reach out through postcards and social media in advance to let them know that we're coming through just to give them the heads up and that opportunity to opt out if they don't want. Okay. Awesome. Thank you so much, and thank you again for the presentation. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Focal. Thank you, Chair. I was so excited about that last report. I think I asked your question about the diversity of your team. Has that improved? Well, I think we were more focused on the diversity of the tree board itself. And it is still people who love trees. So that's really been the people that have applied and been approved by council that the mayor has recommended or the mayor's office has recommended for appointment. But it is certainly something that the CAO's office and Commissioner Albright and I are concerned about and are looking for opportunities and ways to diversify the board. Okay, and so let me just put a correction out there. People of color love Teresa, and I know of some that has applied. They just can't make it past, I guess, the approval of the mayor so that it can get to the council. So let me just put that on the table. The other thing that I would like to ask you, did the council receive a message that there was an update in the application so that we could, I heard you say by word of mouth, District 9 got the word out. And they probably have been having the word out for quite some time. So they were able to tell a neighbor to tell a neighbor. When I was informed about this project, I went out to every neighborhood association and said, man, I got something to tell y'all. Oakwood and other communities, you can get these trees and based on your income, you can get 100%. And then it steered down. And so they must be the ones that applied in January with the convoluted application that didn't pass through due to the number of folks that we see on the screen and that percentage. And then they got discouraged. So just like word of mouth of District 9, District 1 was like, man, don't even try to apply. It is so long, so hard. And so they were discouraged, so that's why, and my office, as far as I know, didn't receive any information that there was a new application and to tell them to try one more time to apply. So District 9, I'm going to drive out through there to see how pretty that is. And so I'm really disappointed in that piece. So did we receive anything that says there's a new application? Yes. It came to our office to put on our newsletter? Yes, and I can resend it to you. And so we will, I can't speak for the other districts, but I will work hard to put it in a flyer. Because we have like elderly people who have owned their homes for a long time and they're not on the computer. They're not getting anything electronically. So that will be a different way that we can commit. And so I think I had one more question. And when you talked about vendors, are those vendors that are already in place? And is there a criteria to become a vendor? How does a person who has been working in agriculture, I mean horticulture, and has their own business, how could they become a vendor? Is there an application to become a vendor? It's a one-page acknowledgement form that basically says that this company has at least one certified arborist on staff who will oversee the removal and replanting of the trees. We have revamped the package that we can send out to potential vendors. and if you know of someone we would love to to reach out to them and get them on the list and it's not that list is dynamic so you know we can as we learn of more companies who do have a certified arborist on staff we can expand that list okay because i know district nine they they're pretty wealthy over and then oh district nine so i'm trying to see what kind discount they need and i would like to see it spread out across the districts and we do our part to help assess because i have some beautiful homes over in oakwood and over in saint martin village where council member lynch's district is and all through the east end there are some older trees i have a 10 year old who is concerned about the trees on marcellus drive in the 900 block and he is really frantic about these trees and another strong wind and they may come tumbling down. And so his name is Mason and he's really, really concerned. He visits with a veteran and the veteran has handed down the history of those trees. And so I would like for him to present to you sometime about his concerns. And I thank you for your presentation. I didn't say that on the onset. But thank you so much. Council Member LeGree. Thank you, Chair. I was just thinking about this, Director Currie, during Council Member Lynch's questions about outreach and engagement. And I think we can all agree that more can be done to connect with a wider range of constituents within our city to share information and generate more access for not only our hazardous street tree program, but also our pruning programs moving forward. I did want to reiterate, we talked briefly in this presentation about the tree ad hoc committee, and I'm the chair of that, and Naki Braga, who's in the audience, is the co-chair. And we're really excited about the work that Impressions Marketing is doing to create a campaign for really targeted outreach. Our focus with the tree ad hoc committee includes planting, maintenance, outreach, education, and with a real focus on neighborhood level engagement. and making sure that people feel really invested in the trees that are planted and that those trees get planted in council districts with a high level of need when it comes to tree canopy and tree cover in general. So I don't know, Director Carey, if there's anything else you want to add, but what I'm hearing echoes some of what we have brought up and what we're working on with those monies. And we have close to a million remaining, and we're really hopeful that the money that we've allocated with the tree ad hoc committee and our work can help with some of the equity issues that have been brought up here. Yes, and that's one of the, on the last slide, where I mentioned that we had allocated two grants to Trees Lexington and Geomancer Permaculture. The Trees Lexington project is a pilot project to reach out to three of the council districts with the lowest tree canopy based on the urban tree canopy change analysis that was completed in the fall. And to try to really develop stewards, maintenance stewards, tree planting stewards within those council districts. We've also allocated $250,000 to a USDA urban forest grant that we have applied for in hopes of leveraging that $250,000 to have a half million dollars to then expand that pilot program to all of the neighborhoods, regardless of council district, but where tree equity is low and to try to increase canopy on both private property and public property in those areas. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. I wanted to give a little bit of clarity on something that Council Member Fogle talked about, and I don't know if this would be a question for Director Carey or Council Member Fogle. You were talking about how some residents have tried to apply but got rejected and couldn't get through the mayor's approval process. What were you referring to there? Well, if I'm understanding right, they apply for a position. It goes through the mayor. The mayor recommends, and then we vote. Is that correct? Yes. Oh, you were talking about the board positions. Okay, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the application for tree removals or the hazardous program. My last question, it kind of piggybacks on Council Member Savigny's question, and it's a question I'd love to ask, and I always preface it with don't get your hopes up, but I like asking this question. With the tree pruning program as well, if it had more funding, would you all be able to ramp up that work as well? Yes, especially because the tree pruning is contracted work through our agricultural services contract. So we've got three firms that are under that contract. So when we do have a neighborhood identified, we send out a request for quotes. And of those who bid, we go with the low bid. And it's really effectively because that's what they're geared up to do. and they can just burn through those neighborhoods and get the trees taken care of. Gotcha. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. And I just have a couple quick questions for you to wrap up. So first, I do want to say thank you to the Tree Canopy Ad Hoc Committee and the chairs that are here today for that, for your investment of additional resources into this program. I think it is transformative when you can double the funding for something. It can make things go faster and reach more people. so I appreciate that work for that committee. Going back to some of the applications that you receive, and particularly ones that have been rejected for something in the past or weren't ready for additional funding, or you had exhausted the funding at that time, how long do you keep applications on file? In terms, like, ones that are eligible to continue going through? Well, even ones that apply, but that may have been rejected for some reason, like maybe they didn't meet the old income requirements, but they might meet them now, or if they were rejected for something in the past. Well, that's interesting, because I don't think we've thought to go back to the ones that didn't meet the income eligibility and re-screen them, and that's certainly something we could do. But typically beyond that, as long as the applicant has two quotes from two of our approved vendors, and as long as they own their home and reside in their home, they are eligible. So it's rare that we don't approve an application to move forward. Okay. Like I know sometimes in my district this has happened where someone has applied and they haven't been eligible because they moved too quickly. like they went ahead and touched down a tree. They weren't following the instructions. They got quotes from a vendor that wasn't on the approved list, like that. So I understand those, but it would be, I think, important if you have the applications from the past to reevaluate those now at this time. And then this is a question, and I've asked about this before, so I just want to see if there's an update or, like, what you would recommend today. oftentimes in my district i'll get a question about a street tree that was taken down but then not replaced and i understand that we don't have the manpower to be you know going around the city and and evaluating those in this tree trimming process is that something that could be potentially monitored if you're going around the neighborhoods and then if that could be a a question, but then also if someone knows in their neighborhood something hasn't been replaced, what would be the process for them to report that and what's the system there? If they would call 311 and indicate that they need to speak with the urban forester or say they have a question about a street tree and then leave that information about the address where a tree was removed but not replanted, that is something we could look at. We could look to see if they received a permit for the removal and by the ordinance 17b once a street tree is removed the property owner has a full year to replace the tree so we could see if you know what they were within that one year if they were outside the one year if they were outside the one year then we would, it's not something that I don't, I don't recall that we've ever issued an NOV or a citation for, but it's something we could certainly evaluate because they are, they are in violation of 17B if they have not replanted. Thank you, and thank you for the presentation. I don't see anyone else logged in, so. Thank you. Our last item on our agenda is the updates on the bylaws and the ordinance for the environmental commission. Due to some changes this morning, we need to postpone that presentation. So that will take place in our September meeting. So that is an update to our agenda. And then The last item for us today is if there are any items referred to committee that anyone would like to make motions to change. Council Member Gray. Well, actually, I would like to add an item to committee. Okay. You can do that during work session to add it. We can make changes to the list, like remove or edit the list today. but if you want to add an item to committee, we typically do that during the council announcements. Any other changes? Okay. One note that I would like to make is on the items, we have the update for the capacity assurance program, the audit update, and that has typically been occurring every year, I believe, in the past, And since we have allowed for additional years for that review, we can also make that a periodic update instead of an annual update. So I'm just going to put that in as a note. Okay, seeing no other items on our agenda, I will take a motion to adjourn. Second. I have a motion from Council Member Sevigny and a second from Council Member Fogel. And we will stand adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.