you go meeting water quality for meeting of January 11th I'm Harry Clark meeting in absence so first order of business is to approve of the 10, 12, 23 and then if you have corrections or additions please indicate now otherwise i'll call for a motion or approval motion to approve second motion motion made in second all in favor please say yes thank you thank you the next thing frank if y 24 likes your ability to llc request a change yes sir I want to know that I was going to counsel they decided to opt out very freezes I might I would like to make some comments as my last meeting this just simply to say how much I appreciate the opportunity to do this And I told my wife, and I was going to this meeting to get a gold watch. And I haven't seen it yet, but that's not exactly why I'm here. But I will say that to cite my experiences here in the last few years, that in essence, that's what I've done. I've come to McClike, my God, and gold watch because of all the experiences I've had here. And it all started with my election to the council eight years ago. They came in and said, is there anybody who would volunteer to be on the water quality needs board? Well, you know, I said, oh, that sounds like fun. So I said, yes. That was eight years ago, I guess now. And so I was truly interested in having that kind of a new experience. And it didn't take long to realize how much I had to learn. And the very first term I had to look up was rip-rap. I said, well, what is that? But that started it, and I've spent quite a bit of time looking at stuff like that. And I really enjoyed visiting the sites that we have looked at and seen what actually happened there. And that was exciting to me. and I continue to be fascinated by the processes and the goals that it takes to make all this work. Some of you may know that I'm a musician. Now that sounds a little strange coming from a career in music to something like this. I mean, I was a band director in the UK. I took the UK band to schools, SEC football games like LSU and Ole Miss and Georgia and Auburn and Florida. Maryland, North Carolina State. We played in the World Series. We played a Bengals game. I've conducted the Lexington Philharmonic. So what in the heck am I doing here? But anyway, I want to thank the staff in particular. You all have done a great job in preparing us to do what we do up here. That's been very important. And Frank in particular, because Frank has kind of led me through all this, and it's been quite an experience for me. And yet here I sit as a musician with all you folks who know a whole lot more than I do about it. And then poor Charlie, who facing the consent decree during this whole period, I can't imagine what he's been through. So anyway, that's how I changed from a musician to a mostly public servant to the unqualified engineer sitting up here for some reason. So thank you all. I've enjoyed the experience. If I may, Harry, we want to thank you as well. Charlie couldn't be here this morning because of it. The EPA showed up at West Hickman Monday, so they're having a closing conference this morning. that's where he's at well thank him for me I admire what he's doing he wanted to express all appreciation for your service to the board thank you absolutely it's been completely priceless to have you, George and all you guys your input has been priceless I did know you was a musician I'm glad to hear it because I'm a musician myself and so I'm happy to hear that I knew we had something going on Yeah. Yeah. And I think Mr. Ely, the former board member, was a musician. I saw him on TV playing, I believe it was the saxophone. Yeah. And I was blown away. I was like, man, these guys' music. I knew I liked these guys. And so we want to really thank you for your time. Two terms, four terms. It's been quite an experience, and we've enjoyed it. Well, same here. Thank you for your time. Same here. We appreciate you. All right. Let's get this business. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. So now we're in number four suggestion for citizens about InCeni Grant Program. Yes, so I'm going to actually interrupt one more time and I want to introduce Mr. Salli, who will be sitting in joining the board come February. He's a former LFUCG employee, I'm told, in the Division of Planning. planning and we're just happy and it's good that he's getting to meet you because maybe you can give him some pointers on the way out we might run out behind you though I don't know. We kind of know each other. Oh yeah we've been in a few meetings. Let's just leave it at that. So, okay, this item number four is like we have any additional comedy from the Republic or anything, so we have, Scott, did you want to? No, I'm just here to, yeah. Everybody else is pretty much staffed, so, okay, then we can move on to the next item. Alright. My item is the donuts, one of the donuts has the go watch. Not the one that I have, but this is embedded or is it on top? It's like a day certificate. Thanks. Okay, member Adam, regarding programmatic changes, Frank. Yes, sir. So for this item, we've provided the memo that I'm hoping that each member has a reason. I think staff, I don't know if you usually have extra copies. Okay. So what we'll do is I'll just kind of read through it, do the intro, and tell you about the memo, and then we'll start revealing each item from the memo. This memo is dated January 2024. Per comment submitted to LFCCG, items discussed as previous Water Quality Fees Board meetings and items noticed while administering the Stormwater Quality Projects as a grant program, we are providing the following list of items to facilitate discussion during the January 11th, 2024 meeting of the Water Quality Fees Board. Table 1 lists the program's current funding structure and parameters. So instead of giving you this big narrative paragraph about how the program is structured right now, we provide this table here so you can see and hopefully it's decent enough for you to understand kind of how the funding is allocated and the classes is broken up and you can see the target for each class. As you can see, for example, the percentage of annual funding we provide there, we provide in the headers there, each class where the funding is allocated, and that being Class A, B Education, B Infrastructure, and there's a separate change order pool based on the approved change order program that is currently in its pilot state. And then there's the innovative and experimentation pool funding that has existed since around 2020. And as you can see, we explain how those numbers are, you know, the percentages or where those funds, how we determine how much goes into each fund pool. We also give you the cost share amount for each class of grant and provide an explanation otherwise. and then we provide what the maximum award for each pool of funding is there. And then we, in that last row there, we tell you what the targets are for each pool of funding where it's applicable. And so if anybody has any questions about that, just let me know. But we just want you to see how the program is kind of structured currently, And that way, if you've got any questions about the items or the last item on the menu, which is the other items, which is where we can discuss anything in addition that's not listed to spark a discussion. So that's just explaining the table. So we are hoping to complete the discussion about programmatic changes as well as the discussion about the application documents and the score sheets for three grant classes during this meeting. This should allow the grant application package to be finalized and advertised well in advance of the application due date of May 3, 2024 for Class A and B education grants. And that deadline for Class B infrastructure, I believe, is like July 26, 2024, for Class B infrastructure grant applications. The deadline. Please know. Yeah. It also is a note here, please note that the pro-economists are not exhausted but have been provided to aid in the discussion process. Also note that items below are not presented in any particular order. So if you would like, Chairman, we could start with item number one. All right. And if you all would like, we could get a motion on each one. Each one. All right. Yes, very brief memo. So after the discussion, we can just get, if we can get a motion on those, we would appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. Well, let's discuss number one. And Mike, would you like to begin? Yes, yes, yes. Item number one states, should we continue with the change order program to allow organizations to request additional funding to help cover extreme gain costs caused by certain unforeseen economic challenges? Ergo, rising material costs. The history of the change order funds used today is shown in the table that we present in the memo. Well, in this case, on the next page. And as you can see in the table there, we just give you the history. Now, you don't see UK there, the first item that was kind of a change order because it was not approved under the change order program. So that was prior to. We added that. Yeah, we came up with the change order program after the fact. So the beginning balance, we seeded with $157,908, and then we awarded code engineering 111,000, approximately $111,000. And then we allocated the FY24 funding with 10% of our annual fiscal budget to change orders. And that amount was $114,873.86. And currently our balance is $164.00. I'm sorry our balance now is $157,702.38 after awarding Hartley Homeowners Association. That last check. Is there any discussion, comments, opinions? Clarification question. So change order you said the UK is not on the list because it's the first one. So basically there's been three projects that we're thinking about for change order. Well, I can't say because that was a special circumstance and it wasn't change order pool funding. So far two official change orders. And so my comment is, you know, I would like to see it continue because I'll just say two and a half. There have been two and a half projects considered under change order. So, you know, try to, for another physical year to see what comes about. And I would like to add, I think, did we provide the change order application document? There's a document that should be in a packet that looks like this. This is the application. And if you glance through that, these are the criteria for those change order. If the board saw any need to revise, we're happy to entertain. You know, I have a discussion about that as well. But as we see today, you know, the only item that we'd like to add, that I'd like to add on the spot is item number two. We would like to add that we would require three bids as opposed to just stating current quotes or bids. We would like to see a minimum of three stated in the application. So that's a change that I would add to the board to make, too. And that's sort of administrative, but since we're discussing change orders, I figured we just ask to go straight out for it. Any further discussion on number one? I would agree. I think we should continue. I think we should continue, too, because I know that there's a lot of unforeseen things. Changes prices are going up, and I said we've got a lot of good programs that we don't want to lose them because they don't have a fund. So I say, well, what you said, I actually, an additional bid just to make sure that they don't get enough. Three and all. Urban County government. Yeah. Do I hear a motion? Motion to move forward with the change order program, D. And then do we need another motion? Well, you're talking about as far as adding three. Yeah. Yeah, you can just say I stipulated. Yes. He can approve it. I thought that was part of number two. I'm sorry. You added the three bids. Well, no, I'm not speaking to the application. That's just a change to the document, but we're approving item number one of the memo. I'm sorry, yes. Yeah, but that's the only change we have for the application. So unless the board has any other suggestions or revisions to the actual application, I just wanted you all to see what those parameters for the criteria for the change orders were currently. Just in case you wanted to add or make it tougher or, you know, if you were fine with it as is. Okay, but this is just for number one. This was just for item number one of the memo. Do we have a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Continue to change. Second motion. All right. Motion made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Number two. Okay, so now we go to the . Number two, should we continue allowing for tree canopy expansions to be a part of the Class A and B infrastructure scoring matrices? The pilot was approved during the 216 special meeting of 2023 for FY24 grant cycle. Eight out of 12 total Class A and B infrastructure applications included Tree Kennedy. Then we provided an attachment, or a couple of attachments, one being the director of the staff of recommendations, recommendations for Trey Kennedy and if you read that was you guys to that you can see what items were impacted and that means to like the document application documents and if you have any questions about that we're happy to answer those as well and we also provide you with a table that just gives you an overview of what happened on application process last year we tell you that we actually had a total of 454,211 square feet of canopy that was approved through those applications. Those eight applications. If you guys have got any questions, we also provide the project score so you can kind of see how those range in scoring. We pretty much approved that last week. Yes. Yes. And we're just asking, it was a pilot that you all approved and we're asking to continue the treatment. Any further discussion? I make a motion to continue. Motion major. I second. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Number two is passed. Number three, Frank. Yes, sir. Number three, since inception the program has referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics under the U.S. Department of Labor as a source for hourly volunteer rate, which currently sits at $7.25. Should we increase the volunteer rate from $7.25 per hour to $10 per hour or something similar? This question was posed by potential applicants during the FY24 grant cycle. For example, the Corridor's Neighborhood and Anthem's Mass Grant Program has adopted LPCG's higher name-on wage rate of $15 an hour as its new volunteer rates. And this one, particularly, I've been approached a couple times about just the possibility of asking about raising that volunteer rate just because from a practical perspective, it's just low, you know. I mean my personal opinion is even on the federal level the seven dollars 25 cents. It's still behind We're just a little bit behind and of Lexington the city of Lexington has raised its minimum to fifteen dollars an hour and while Some of our documents. I think the state has raised their volunteer rate in this category So like twenty six dollars an hour. Yeah, you know, we've had discussions and for this I actually provide recommendations There's some recommendations on your table there If you want to look through those, it should be that page right there. It says 15. No, right here. I'm sorry. No, this page right here. These are recommendations right here for this particular item. So if you guys wanted to look through that, if you have any questions, we just want to let you know our justification, you know, justify our reasoning for recommending what what we see in this document as $15 an hour as the new volunteer rate. That's what we're asking. So are these volunteers, are they adults or are these volunteers that don't need children? Well, they're adults, but I mean, we get some kids like high schoolers. Right, and I'm saying that not because I know my son had a summer job and they paid $15 an hour where my daughter worked in the workforce and she was making $12. And so I think that, you know, you kind of got to raise it with the times. And it's just they can go to McDonald's and make more money. So if you intend to get volunteers or to get anybody, you kind of got to make it presentable and almost cost efficient. Because they can't, even to children, $15 an hour is better than nothing. But $7.25 is ridiculous. I think you're going to have to, if you want to attract the kind of people that you're going to need to really make this project work. I can't see doing any less than $15. I would, I'm all for it. I would take over. I should clarify that this volunteer rate, this value, this is for cost share. Now, this, these monies will not go to people in the form of, you know, payment. Cost share, okay. Except it will go toward the grant in the form of cost share. Either way. Yeah, it's like donated, not professional services, but just volunteer hours. I understand. Volunteer time. But even that, you know, we want to. Yes. It's what's going to appear on paper as much as anything. Right. Exactly. So we felt like $15 an hour is a progression without overdoing it. And we want the grant to remain, you know, have some value still. We don't want all the dollars to go toward volunteer rates, even though, again, on a major project, that may be practical. On the state's level, $3-4 million projects, that may be something that's practical. But for these grants, you know, we felt it be reasonable, like at a $15, it's just a slower progression. Well, I would agree with $15. I think that sounds right to me. I think it's in these LFUCGs' family as well. Yeah. We've spoken along this year, and they didn't see any issue, taken issue with that raise. All right. Do we hear a motion? I'll make a motion that we raise $15. I'll take a motion. Three. I'll second. I'll second. All right. For the discussion. We'll be in a discussion. Please say aye to I have passed. I think we're ready. Item number 4 says as LFUCT and other partners develop watershed management plans for the seven major watershades within the urban service period, these plans can be used to direct capital investment and help prioritize water quality best management practices. Apparently, K-1, West Hickland, and Wolf Run have approved watershed management grants. Should we give preferential scoring to projects that align with the proposed BMPs and or action items of approved plans within the urban service area? And that's applicable to all three grant classes. to climb so we would this would impact the scoring of all three classes and what we do is we provide you with the tattoos if you see on the last page it says see the tax proposed FY 25 scoring and application forms for all three classes and we provide again some pros and cons to doing so so if you guys I I think they provided, and I would want to note, Mr. Lubick was kind enough to note a small error on the score sheet for the Class A document score sheet. And the infrastructure. Oh, is that the one? Okay. And the item that I'm referring to, I will pass to you at this time just so you can see. because I can have it in the packet there that's the that's the well Harry has depend out of all of them but in this stuff in these here we provide we provide the changes that we made that we're proposing and there was just there we want to just pass you correct If we look down on item 1H, the area was that it gave you a range. The original, it had a range. And this is a question whether it's either yes or no. And that item says, fulfill one or more of the proposed BNPs of an approved watershed and revenue plan. So that can only be yes or no. If you do, then you get the points. If not, then you don't. So we had a range there, and we just wanted to make that note that that has been corrected. Otherwise, you see up above the changes we made to the scoring. It didn't impact the weight of the scoring at all. We just borrowed from items, for example, in that one I just gave from Class A. We borrowed from item 1E and 1,000 a couple points to create this new item to give preferential treatment if the board wishes to move forward. we approve number four we approve the change yes yeah and this document as well as the other application forms where we're just asking the questions you all can feel free to look through those if you want to to take a second to look through the impacts of the other items so we provided you with scoring documents for all three classes to show you where this item would be included. I like the idea of recruiting watershed management plans. Yes. Well these items in the watershed management plans have been researched and approved and what we're trying to do is give preferential treatment to projects that have already had some research done and have been approved and just to kind of promote that, not to discount the other ones. We realize that those other watershed would need to, you know, hopefully get a plan approved at some point in time to try to level the ground there. But, you know, when we talk about maximizing these grant dollars, this is the idea that we've come up with to try to, you know, put the program in alignment with what's going on in real time to do stormwater management and watershed management. So you mentioned Canerun, Weston, and Wolf Run have watershed management plans. One of the watersheds that, what are the other watersheds? Uh oh. Do you mind? This is North Elkhorn. Oh, right here. Okay. Canerun said we got North Elkhorn, South Elkhorn, East Tickland, Town Branch would be the other thing. with a bnb one so basically oh the other ones are mostly outlined but yeah it's really the one that's primarily outside the urban services boundary yeah so it's on west hang right ahead plans that's my understanding i think environmental services starting to work on those yes that's a rumor or something So we realize those other watersheds are slightly at a disadvantage. However, we still, you know, we're entertained. We're not discouraging. Yeah, we're not discouraging at all. We're just saying. They're quite at the advantage. Right. Sort of like we did with Ecoli a few years ago where we looked to, where you guys approved to allow preferential treatment for projects that incorporated treatment for E.coli or education about E.coli and what have you. So that actually happened. It's been in our application documents for a while now. And so we're taking that same approach, again, without impacting the weight at all to the scoring overall, but just giving some points, segregating some points for projects that are in those watershed management approved areas. And thinking about the overlay of whenever you all did the mapping of the projects, you know, mostly in Wolfram and West Aikman, you know, besides the town branch, there's a few there, but they kind of reliant with the approved ones. Yeah, obviously those have been our focus, those more trouble there than I assume, those were some of the most, I mean, yeah, well, I don't want to misspeak, but. Your stuff can be done in all the walls. Yeah, yeah, of course. We're starting somewhere. I like this, and I think we have to, we approve number four, we're off approving the change in the form, right? Yes, yes, we're to approve number four is to allow for the prefrontal treatment as well as the changes that we proposed, which will impact FY25 application documents that we're hoping to be published by March or so. So we're going to incorporate those changes in those FY25 documents. So do I hear a motion for change number four as we've discussed? Motion made. We'll hear a second. Second. Motion made and seconded. We'll hear further discussion. Otherwise, please vote by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you all very much. All right, we are now on the FY2025 print application. Yes, sir. And so for this item here, as I just stated, what we have, we didn't print these unless you all ask for them, but what we can do is put them on the board and finish them right over there. I'll just a second, she'll fill those up. And what we're doing here, most of the change, only changes that you'll see in the one that we're presenting here, and we don't have to go each one of them because I'll tell you, the application documents that she's putting up are the same as last year with the exception of we've changed the fiscal year and then we've changed the date, the deadlines of those application documents. Now, you all just approved the changes based on the watershed management item in the memo and so those will be incorporated in the application documents as well. So those would be the only changes just so you know there's nothing dramatic here. Denise has also added a couple more applications. We'd like them to submit a couple of, we had seven, had them submitting seven hard copies. We want them to submit nine just because with five members when we have a full panel as well as director and staff, We need more application packets because there's more people who come involved in the process. We'll go through a couple of just so you can run through just the application packet. Before we get started, let me mention maybe a mistake that I caught in. It's on Class B infrastructure. The date is July 26th. There's one that's listed as July 28th. That's the name of it, right. You talk about in the same packet? In the same packet. Application packet. Yeah, on page 11. Class B infrastructure application package. Class B infrastructure. One of those. That's a good catch, Eric. Mr. Blu will be proud of you. Page 11. It's just a deadline, I think. And you can zoom in once. Yep, there it is. Good catch. Good catch. Again, these application items are the same as last year, with the exception that you can see right there, submitted nine hard copies as opposed to the seven that we had previously, just to allow us to have packets for our director and what have you. But those are the only changes. Would you like to see those changes on the screen for the Watershed Management Plan? We can pull those up too. I've seen them all. Okay, so if you guys are okay with it, then we don't get it. So, would we make one motion Frank? Yeah, we're asking. That's a major, major.