# Water Quality Fees Board - Special Meeting - January 16, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · January 16, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6323 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6323?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-01-16 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: March 27, 2026 - **Length**: 14,354 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and 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 convened on January 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. at the Tate Building, North Elkhorn Conference Room, 125 Industrial Avenue, Suite 180, with George Woolwine presiding. The meeting covered 8 agenda items, including the approval of minutes from the October 10, 2024 meeting, a review of programmatic changes, and the approval of FY 2026 Grant Application Documents. Over the course of the meeting, the Board took 14 votes and received several informational presentations on topics including the Incentive Grant Program and an Incentive Grant Status Update. No public comments were heard during the session. ## Attendance The following board members were present at the January 16, 2025 meeting: - George Woolwine - Donna Fogle - David Lowe - Bill Sallee **Absent:** Aaron Vaught No members were recorded as late. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took 14 votes during the January 16, 2025 meeting. Thirteen passed unanimously (4–0); one passed by a 3–1 roll call vote. - **Approval of October 10, 2024 Minutes** — Moved by David Lowe, seconded by Bill Sallee. Passed unanimously, 4–0. [timestamp: 0:12:39] - **Continue the Change Order (CO) Program** — Moved by David Lowe, seconded by Bill Sallee. Passed unanimously, 4–0. [timestamp: 0:28:36] - **Add language to application packets defining contingency costs** — Moved by David Lowe, seconded by Bill Sallee. Passed unanimously, 4–0. [timestamp: 0:34:08] - **Preferential treatment for new applicants in scoring** — Moved by Donna Fogle, seconded by Bill Sallee. Passed 3–1 by roll call vote. Voting in favor: George Woolwine, Donna Fogle, Bill Sallee. Voting against: David Lowe. [timestamp: 0:46:32] - **Modify Innovation and Experimentation pool to include Research/Monitoring** — Moved by Donna Fogle, seconded by David Lowe. Passed unanimously, 4–0. [timestamp: 0:51:31] - **Explicitly state program will not fund impervious items** — Moved by Bill Sallee, seconded by Donna Fogle. Passed unanimously, 4–0. [timestamp: 0:55:52] - **Add minimum clearance requirements to application packets** — Moved by Donna Fogle, seconded by Bill Sallee. Passed unanimously, 4–0. [timestamp: 0:59:13] - **Make pond armoring a non-eligible grant expense** — Moved by David Lowe, seconded by Bill Sallee. Passed unanimously, 4–0, favoring organic material versus inorganic material. [timestamp: 1:04:53] - **Preferential treatment for projects on impaired stream segments** — Moved by David Lowe, seconded by Donna Fogle. Passed unanimously, 4–0. [timestamp: 1:10:29] - **Incentivize BMPs based on E. Coli removal effectiveness** — Moved by David Lowe, seconded by Donna Fogle. Passed unanimously, 4–0. [timestamp: 1:16:55] - **Clarify eligible expenses for grant reimbursement** — Moved by Bill Sallee, seconded by Donna Fogle. Passed unanimously, 4–0. [timestamp: 1:19:23] - **Require documentation for projects exceeding regulatory items** — Moved by David Lowe, seconded by Bill Sallee. Passed unanimously, 4–0. [timestamp: 1:23:02] - **Add disclaimer and signature line for maintenance responsibilities** — Moved by Bill Sallee, seconded by Donna Fogle. Passed unanimously, 4–0. [timestamp: 1:27:15] - **Require letter of support from Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Committee** — Moved by David Lowe, seconded by Bill Sallee. Passed unanimously, 4–0. [timestamp: 1:29:39] ## Contested Items - **Preferential Treatment for New Applicants in Scoring:** The board debated whether to give preferential treatment to new applicants as part of the scoring process. The item resulted in a split vote, with one board member opposing the measure. The available data does not specify the names of the members involved or the final vote tally beyond noting the divided outcome. ## Call to Order [timestamp: 11:37] The meeting was called to order by Chairman George Woolwine. ## Approval of 10/10/24 Minutes [timestamp: 12:09] The Board took up the approval of minutes from the October 10, 2024 meeting. George Woolwine, David Lowe, and Bill Sallee were among the key speakers during this agenda item. The minutes were reviewed by the Board, and the item was brought forward for a vote. No significant concerns or debate are noted in the record. The Board approved the October 10, 2024 minutes. ## Comments/Suggestions from Citizens About Incentive Grant Program [timestamp: 13:09] This agenda item provided an opportunity for members of the public to offer comments or suggestions regarding the Incentive Grant Program. George Woolwine presided over this portion of the meeting. No citizens came forward with comments or suggestions regarding the Incentive Grant Program. The item was informational in nature, and the Board moved on without any public discussion or debate on the topic. ## Memorandum Regarding Programmatic Changes [timestamp: 16:28] Frank Mabson presented a memorandum outlining proposed programmatic changes to the Incentive Grant Program. This item was informational in nature, intended to brief the Board on the details of the proposed changes rather than to seek a vote or formal action. No additional detail regarding the specific content of the proposed changes, any concerns raised by Board members, or further discussion is available from the provided meeting data. ## FY 2026 Grant Application Documents [timestamp: 1:30:16] The Board took up Agenda Item 5, a discussion of the FY 2026 Grant Application Documents. Key speakers on this item were George Woolwine and Frank Mabson. The Board discussed proposed changes to the grant application documents for the upcoming FY 2026 cycle. Following that discussion, the Board approved the changes to the FY 2026 grant application documents. *Note: Detailed information about the specific changes proposed, any concerns raised during discussion, and the particulars of the vote are not available in the source data for this item.* ## Incentive Grant Status Update [timestamp: 1:33:25] Frank Mabson presented an update on the status of various incentive grant projects. The presentation was informational in nature, and no vote or formal action was taken by the Board. No additional details regarding specific grant projects, funding amounts, project identifiers, or concerns raised during the discussion are available in the provided data. ## Other Matters [timestamp: 1:44:23] Under Agenda Item 7, the Board briefly addressed the "Other Matters" portion of the meeting. George Woolwine noted that no other matters would be taken up at this time, as the meeting had been convened as a special meeting rather than a regular session. No additional topics were raised, debated, or presented by any Board members. The item was informational in nature, and the meeting proceeded without further discussion under this agenda item. ## Adjournment [timestamp: 1:44:56] George Woolwine moved to adjourn the meeting, and the Board meeting of January 16, 2025 was adjourned. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of October 10, 2024, Minutes - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Continue the Change Order (CO) Program - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Add language to application packets defining contingency costs - **Motion** — passed (3-1): Preferential treatment for new applicants in scoring - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Modify Innovation and Experimentation pool to include Research/Monitoring - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Explicitly state program will not fund impervious items - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Add minimum clearance requirements to application packets - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Make pond armoring a non-eligible grant expense - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Preferential treatment for projects on impaired stream segments - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Incentivize BMPs based on E. Coli removal effectiveness - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Clarify eligible expenses for grant reimbursement - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Require documentation for projects exceeding regulatory items - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Add disclaimer and signature line for maintenance responsibilities - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Require letter of support from Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Committee --- ## Full transcript you you you you you you you you you or very soon. Congratulations. Congratulations. Yeah, Yeah, we are. , You know what, What? I mean, I thought it might be I know you're I don't know. I told you. I'm sorry. Hey, Mr Nice. Can you hear me? Hey, Mr Nice. Can you hear me? Hey, Mr Nice. Can you hear me? Who was it? Oh, Mark. Can you hear me. Yeah, gotcha. Now I just got in. So just double check. Now I just got in. So just double check. Yeah, those little scrapers are fancy. Look at Bailey having everybody down there with her. Can you hear us Mark. Okay. Hey, I'm so sorry. I'm sorry. I need to get out of here. Hey, Mr Nice. Hey, Mr Nice. Can you hear me? I don't know. I'll be out in a minute. Hey, Mr Nice. Can you hear me? I'm sorry. I need to get out of here. Hey, Mr Nice. Hey, Mr Nice. Can you hear me? Hey, Mr Nice. Can you hear me? I'm sorry. I need to get out of here. Hey, Mr Nice. Can you hear me? I'm sorry. I'm really sorry. Hey, Mr Nice Can you hear my claims? I'm so sorry. I didn't realize it was this bad. Really, Mr Nice. I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was this bad. Really, Mr Nice. I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was this bad. Really, Mr Nice I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was this bad. Really, Mr Nice Have a good day. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. How is everyone doing today? Good Trying to stay warm I think you have to take the microphone off the others, I believe. Okay. Okay. We're here to... You can get there too. We'll try the... On the screen there for each of them. Okay. Can you take that remote and turn it up a bit so we can hear you really clearly? Take the remote. The little remote. I think there's a remote to... Yeah, there you go. Okay. Okay. We're maxed out on volume. Are you? Let me see. That says 100% here. Okay. I'm trying to... Make sure... Yeah. Do we unmute by each individual rectangle? Yeah. Well, in this room, this is your... No. I'm trying to get everybody else. Oh, they have to unmute themselves. Oh. Yeah, they have to unmute. But I just want to make sure your microphone is loud enough. Go here. I just want to make sure your microphone setting is loud enough here. The little arrow beside it. Let's see if there's a volume on it. Yeah. Let's see if we can... Yeah, right here. Is there... No, maybe. Yeah. Let's try it again. Here's both of those remote just in case. Okay. Let's try it again. I'll make sure. Okay. How does this sound now, Frank? All right. Can you hear us, Frank? Yeah, we can hear you. Okay, great. Okay. David, are you on? I'm in. Donna? I'm here. Donna's here. Okay, cool. Victoria Glasscock? She's sitting in on the meeting today. She's from Environmental Services, and she's going to be joining us just to sit in as a... Okay. Okay. All right. Very good. Well, this is certainly starting out. This is an adventure for everybody. Not only the weather, the first day of school, and the first virtual meeting we've had with this group. This is a better day. So with that, I'd like to bring the meeting to order. On our end, Bill, Sally, and myself, we got confused and came to the meeting thinking it was going to be in person. So that's on us. But we'd like to call the meeting to order. First order of business is the reading of the minutes, October 10th meeting minutes. Has everybody had a chance to read those? Yes. Yes. Okay, thank you. Are there any additions, corrections to the minutes? If not, I'd like to have a motion to accept the minutes as written. I'll move. I'll second the motion. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion carries. All right, I guess the main order of business is the fiscal year 2026 changes. So I guess Frank or Bailey, you will lead us with this and go through each one individually. Is that the plan? Yes, sir. I can share the screen. So, or unless everyone has their memo in front of them. To view to make sure everybody has is reading from the same document. Bailey's trying to get the camera working. Yeah, can you all see, can anyone see George and Bill? No. Okay. No, no one can see you. And I think I booted you off when I walked into my account twice. Oh, you did Bailey. Yeah, I think it's only been two. Okay, so let me delete my account. You all stay here. You're fine. Okay. Yeah. Oh, quick. Sorry, you all. That's not a problem. We're cool. Awesome. Yeah, thanks. Hello. You're good. So you always have to make sure that we're good. No. Okay. Okay. Okay. Can you see us now? Yeah. Awesome. Thank you. For your patience. Okay. Okay. Frank to get back. All right. Okay. I will share my screen now. So everyone can see. The memo and I'll read the narrative from it and then we'll begin. With the 1st item. Okay. Yes. All right. Today, of course, the memo is dated from last week, but this is a memo we've prepared for today's meeting. Special meeting. That's going to list programmatic changes. That staff has suggested and that the board will need to discuss and vote on each item. And so at the top of the memo, I'll read per comments, Okay. So we are committed to the LFU CG division, water quality items discussed at previous water quality fees board meetings. And items noticed while administering the stormwater quality project incentive grants program. We are providing the following list of items to facilitate the discussion. During the January 9th. Which in turn is January 16th, 2025 meeting. Okay. So the first item is the water quality fees board table. One lists the program, current funding structure and parameters. And so here's the structures. Here's how the funding in terms of targets, in terms of maximum awards. This is how it's laid out. So if anybody has any questions, just let us know. Once you start your discussion. We would like to complete the discussion about programmatic changes as well as discussions about the application packets. And the score sheets. For the three grant classes. This should allow the grant application packets to be finalized and advertised well in advance of the application due date of may 2nd, 2025 for class a and B education grants. Please note the pro and con list. In the numbered section below are not exhaustive, but have been provided to aid in the discussion. Also please note the items below are not presented in any particular order. And so Mr. George, here's your first item. I'll read it and then. Leave it up to you guys for discussion. Item one asked. Should the change order program be continued to allow organizations to request additional funding to help cover extraordinary costs caused by certain unforeseen economic challenges. EG rise in material costs, history of a change or programs used to date is shown below in table two. So here we show you. Since the implementation of the change order program here is how the funding has began. And then who has requested and been awarded. And then at the bottom here, you'll see. The current pool balance, but this is before we top it off as the change order program is required as it was approved. We would have to top it off with the FYI, 26. With 10% of the FYI, 26 funding. And I have those numbers for you as well, but currently this is where the funding has set. After we've passed out awards during this previous calendar year. And here's your list of pros and cons. If you do, would you like me to read those or. Are you guys okay with just doing it on your own? You can go ahead and read it. Okay. The pros as staff sees it is provides an opportunity to continue projects that might. Otherwise be canceled due to lack of additional funds warranted by certain economic challenges. Since implementation in 2023, the change of the program has helped continue continue three projects that might have been canceled due to higher than expected construction costs. And as a con we list reduces available funding for new grant applications and increases workload for LFU CG staff to manage. So that's the cons list as we see it. So we'll leave that up to the group for discussion. So you mentioned that there is a top off figure. What is that a numerical percentage or set a dollar amount or what? Well, actually, I'm happy to show it to you. If you don't mind. I will switch the screen so you can see what that looks like. Yeah. One second. I'm sorry. Sorry. My apologies. Find that document. I thought it was pulled up. There's no need to put that. No, I have it right here. Okay. I want you to see it. Yeah. All right. Can you. All right. Can you see the screen now? We can see we can see the screen. We can't read what's on the screen, but we can see it. I can I can read it. Okay. So there you go. That's. Yeah, so what I want to show you is at the very top. We've listed this is the revenue that the water quality fee. What quality management fee generated and the calendar year 2024, we're still we're in 2025 now, but the way it goes is we report from the previous year, because that has been completed. And so they collected 17,000,753 dollars. 100. I mean, I'm sorry, 17,000,753,183 dollars and 3 cents. And we take 10% of that, and that gives us our allocation for the grant program at 1,000,775,318 dollars. Well, the instructions for the change or program is to take 10% of that value and to cap off the change order program. And so the value that we came up with. After doing that calculation is 1,000,704 dollars 600. I'm sorry 654. That's a misprint there in 80 cents that will be available for all other grants in terms of topping off the change order program. If you come to the bottom here. After replenishing the fun, and I'll try to blow this up a little bit so you can so you guys can see it. And this 1st note here, we list. 10% of that funding that I showed you up top, you will come up to top off the change or program. The figure would look like this 177,531 dollars and 80 cents. So that's what the change or program funding will look like for this calendar year. Okay, so that's what that's what the amount would be if we decide to continue this exactly. To coverage and change orders. Exactly. We're going to be discussing whether to continue that or to go back to. Right, or to get rid of it and put that funding. Right. Okay. Certainly go ahead Frank question. I have 2 questions. The 1st. Seems like in our last meeting, we had a few things that we didn't have enough money for, but overall, my impression was, we were pretty close on application with funding. Is that correct? Or incorrect? That's correct. So, um, we, we had certain application. We were only, we were only able to fund a number of projects and others got dropped off because. There was insufficient funding. So, yes, the change of the program took away from that a bit. However, it was able to provide a number of projects. Some projects weren't approved because of the merit of the application, but yes, that would be true, sir. To answer. Okay, good. Good. My 2nd question, I'm sensitive to the increased workload for the staff. So, how do you manage that? No, to be honest with you, it would probably probably be fair to say, maybe 5%. Um, you know, we were able to fund a number of projects and others got dropped off because of the merit of the application, but yes, that would be true, sir. Okay, good. Good. No, to be honest with you, it would probably probably be fair to say, maybe 5%. Um, you know, we don't spend a tremendous amount of time on it, except, you know, like, like, if you get an application, it would take, let's say, about a month and a half to get, you know, from. From receiving their change order application. To getting it to the next scheduled meeting. I would say, yeah, I would say about 30 days worth of time in terms of effort. But to be honest with you, it's not that big a deal. That would be at the bottom of the cons list. Okay, thank you. Uh, Donna, David, any comments questions about this? I was just looking at the, at the, um, the 10%. Is that the accurate? Is that like, um, I mean, is it a weighted numbers? Because it's not the official 10% of that seven, that 1,700. So I was just wondering if that was just a typo. Is that accurate? Do you upscale it a little bit? You know, I would just look, you know, that the number just kind of threw me off, you know, that 10% kind of. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Your microphone cut off on my end. What did you say now? I said on that number, that 10% that you gave us on the spreadsheet that you just had. I think it was like, 177,000, 77,000. Is that 10% when you're calculating the 10%? Is it an accurate number of 10%? Or is it kind of, um, I mean, did you up it a little bit or down? Was that the accurate number? Because that didn't line up. I was just looking at the. Unfortunately, so sorry, Donna, if you could turn on your camera, then we'll be good to go. I think. Okay, no problem. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, that is correct. There you go. All right. All right. So, to answer your question, yeah, this, this figure, assuming you can see the camera, this figure here is 10% of. It should be 10% of this value here, which is, which is 10%. Yeah, that's 10% of this allocation, which came from 10% of the overall revenue that you see here. And this figure here is what is left for allocation to all of the grants. Okay, just want to say, because I saw it at the bottom. I'm like, which, which 10%? Okay, we're good. Yeah, I'm sorry. And I'll show you the math right here in terms of topping it off. So, the balance that was remaining is the 106,000 figure here. And so we needed to top it off. So we took what the 10% figure and subtracted the current balance. And that's why we need to top it off. Okay. Yeah, of the allotment of the allocation to the grant program this year. Okay, I'm good. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm good. Okay. No problem. Any comments. I'm supportive of this recommendation, I think conceptually this continues to make sense, based on, you know, the city seems to still be experiencing elevated prices, and if we have a project that's good. And we can save it as evidence here. I think we ought to do that. So, I'm supportive of this recommendation. Okay. Well, it looks like in looking at table too, that it has been used, but we've had a balance at the end of the fiscal year in each of the 2 years so far. So, what happens to that money is that put back into the program to to fund projects? I'm sure that's the case. No, sir, we leave those funds in place and simply top it off. We had some interest in those funds that we had other organizations that was looking to hoping to request additional funding, but they just never were able to get it together. And to be honest with you, we lost recently a project because of lack of funding. However, unfortunately for them, they were already near the max. And so it made sense for them. You know, we'll discuss which project that is later. Okay. Okay. So, I guess at this point, we need to decide as a group, if we want to continue the change order program. And I think we've seen some success with it that we have seen projects that perhaps would have been discontinued had they not been able to get access to the money. So, what's the will of the group concerning continuing the change order program? I would move that we continue with the change order program as specified in this recommendation document. Okay, thank you, David. Sir, second? I'll second. I second. It's been seconded twice, and we're in good shape. Okay. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Should language be added to the application packet defining explicitly what types of expenses are allowed to be covered by contingency funding and implement a cap on the percentage allowed per project. If approved, staff recommends adding the following language to the Class A, B, E, and B infrastructure application packets. The language is as follows. Contingency costs refer to a portion of the project budget for construction to cover unknown conditions. Some examples include changes in supply material, labor design, and site conditions not initially identified in the budget. Contingency costs shall not exceed 20% of the construction opinion of costs. And the pro, as staff sees it, is defining contingency costs will help ensure funds are utilized appropriately. Also, capping the contingency percentage will result in more complete and accurate opinion of costs from applicants. And the con is providing more specific. Criteria as it relates to how contingency funds can be utilized may necessitate scope revisions or limit some projects from being completed. Defining the contingency cost percentage may discourage applicants with limited knowledge and or resources. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Comments, what's the will of the group on this? I mean, I'm supportive of this recommendation. I think it's informed by staff experience, and I think it's designed to increase some efficiency and save some time. So, I'm supportive of this 1. Chairman, I have 1 question. Certainly. Go ahead. Frank, if we had a cap, a percentage cap on this in the past. Not on record, not on record, I think in. In the industry, I think there's been an assumed kind of a cap and I think the 20% kind of lands at it, but I think we've saw some people kind of. Etching at that, or exceeding that, and which is why this came up. We want to make sure that funds are not being held in the contingent matter and able to be utilized and budgeted correctly from jump. So, it's just a matter of us making sure that funds are not absorbed by the proposed budgets that are being included in the applications exceeding the standard. What we would consider a standard amount, I would say, thank you. That makes sense. So, what I'm hearing you say is that there was no explicit figure on what contingency should be. And different projects had different figures for contingency. Is that what you're saying? Yes. And then we wanted to define what it was sort of being used for because, you know, when it comes to contingency, it's just list as contingency. And we really would have no record other than, you know, when they turn in the invoicing and whatnot, we just want to make them budgeted appropriately now, because if the actual costs that, you know, when they get their invoicing exceeds, we want them to be able to do more research and to narrow down and get closer to, you know, actual costs for particular items, whether it be, you know, materials, labor costs. So, we want them to just kind of try to put more of a bullseye on it and just kind of narrow the scope in terms of what it can be used for. Okay. So, it's basically the clarification to make sure that everybody understands what they're using the money for. Yes, and then the wording we list, as you can see, some examples include, we list supply material, labor, design, or site conditions, not list initially identified in the budget. So, we're kind of narrowing down and identifying what types of items we feel would be legitimate. Gotcha. Okay. All right. Donna, do you have any questions about this comments? Not at all. Okay. All right. What's the will of the group? I'd move to support staff's recommendation on adding this language to the packet. Thank you, Doug. Is there a 2nd? 2nd. Seconded by Bill. All in favor of the motion signify by raising your right hand. We need cameras on I'm sorry. Okay. I'll oppose like, son. Motion carries. Thank you. I will read the next item. Can you remind me who 2nd. Who gave the 2nd for that? Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Sorry, all right now we'll move on to item 3 item 3 says to encourage new applicants for class a and B infrastructure grants should preferential treatment be given to applicants that have never received the stormwater quality projects incentive grant before table 3 and 4 below are examples of proposed formats for the FYI 2026 class a and B infrastructure score sheets. And so here we show you what it would look like, and the scoring document in terms of if the, if the board were to approve this item, and I think Bailey and I's idea for this is just to encourage, you know, different clientele, other clientele, you know, we see our repeat customers all the time and then we just want to give an incentive to to new organizations to apply for a grant. Just as simple as that. Comments anybody got comments questions about this. I think it's a good idea as Frank said to, you know, kind of welcome some newcomers to come and I think if you were to take out the preferential treatment is, I mean, I think they kind of make you think it's something unfair going on, but I think the overall. Thought process is really good that that way you can get some other ideas coming in from various people I think that would be a wonderful thing to kind of score just to kind of give you an idea of who's there before and what the newcomers are and who they are so that you can kind of encourage them to come in and take part in some of the stormwater issues I mean programs and things that they're offering. Yeah, I think that this is the spirit of this is is well intentioned I'm I'm generally hesitant to when when we start impacting scoring I think, you know, I think there may be other ways where we can do this where we can expand the applicant pool, and I'm hesitant on this one because, you know, a high performing prior applicant. Really frequent applicant like the folks that will run, you know this scoring update would would punish those folks and I just don't know that that's a. I don't think i'm totally on board with that, because, again, I think this, the spirit is right on, we should expand the applicant base and anytime the program gets more competitive that's beneficial to the entire Community. So, maybe we investigate some other methods to do that, and maybe scoring isn't isn't the right fit you raise a good point. I think that's a very good point. You're making Bill. What do you think? I really hadn't thought about the amount of the scoring, but I do understand that sentiment. I kind of agree with all the comments that have been made so far. I'm happy to show each of you the, the entire score sheet and the comparison at any point in time. If you want to see, we have an exhibit prepared for that as well. Yeah, well, I'm kind of in the same in the same thinking as David is. I think the intent is good. I guess the concern I would have is if a very strong application comes from a previous applicant. I would hesitate to bump a strong application who happens to be a previous recipient over 1 that does not have a strong and application. But are you, are you making a recommendation on how many points you're talking about doing with that? Or is that. Frank, please, so we are just adjusting 5 points, and we'd have to pull up the score sheet to share the totals and how they're weighted. But I don't think 5 points is will make a significant difference. It's more like a bitty bitty bump for what is our thinking. So, I wouldn't anticipate the high performing folks to for them to be bumped low enough to not still rank really high. Okay. But can you zoom in a little Frank and show us. Yeah, so here's the, the before version that I want to zoom into. This is what it looked like before. And then I'll zoom over here to this side. So you can really kind of see. Well, we pulled those points out. I'm sorry is it down lower? Frank? Oh, I'm sorry. Right here. I'm sorry. So, item, we put this on the, our recommendation is to put it under project team and it for 2 D. we added a question all together that has applicant received the stormwater quality project incentive grant award in the past and then if no, it would be 5 points. And so what we've done is we've split the points up in that section that were previously worth 10 points each about the project team and we just kind of allocated it. And this is how how it lands at the junction, but in terms of weight, I don't think it makes a huge difference. It just gives a small, small bump. So, I would argue it's not, it wasn't, it wouldn't be that much disparaging. I would say for, for those that have mastered the art of applying, I would say. So, it would be very unlikely that this would have enough points to have a project go to a lesser rated project is what I'm hearing. Right, and let me argue that it's sort of the same effect of the small projects target where the larger parking lot areas were receiving all the funding because of their size. And we, and the board had approved years ago to allow for small projects because we wanted the smaller applicant, the smaller lots and what have you to be able to compete in some way because they were all getting swallowed up. And so this is sort of the same fashion. And so I said to say, we've done this sort of thing before. However, I do understand your concerns. And if the board again feels it's inappropriate, then staff, of course, would have to go with that. But we would argue that it's not that it's not that big a deal in terms of impacting the scoring. And it would, I guess, show a desire to encourage all projects from all types of clients, all types of grantees applying. So, I think that's a good thing. It's a marketing tool for us, we were trying to implement different marketing tools to encourage more and more folk and different folk, diverse folk to to apply in terms of sizes and types of projects. So, the bottom line is, if someone has not applied for a, uh, if they have not applied or not received. I guess not apply, they would write a 5 point. Right, if they've never been awarded, I should say, okay, so they may have applied, but they haven't been awarded. Right now, I think this is geared toward an awards because, you know, that that's where you benefit is the exit. All right. All right. All right. So, this gives them a 5 point and what's the total number of points we're talking about. We're talking 100 for the overall application. Okay. And so we're talking 5 for this particular item in discussion. All right, well, that that makes sense and I don't think it would have a major impact on knocking out a, maybe a stronger project. And I think that was the concern I had kind of along the same line as. We want to have this this new structure for grant for applicants that have never had a grant award. I'd like to make another comment if I can, I, you know, I, I think the key question here is, you know, are, is there an issue with repeat applicants or our repeat applicants? Is there some problem or is that bad in some way? And I, you know, again, thinking about, you know, some folks who've come before us multiple times, certainly the school district, certainly the folks at Wolf Run as some nonprofit groups town have have come multiple times and receive grants and multiple cycles. And, you know, if, if staff has concerns about that, you know, I think we should address that directly. If not, and it's simply a matter of, you know, let's get kind of newer groups with successful applications again. I think there are other methods to do that. And this doesn't, I just, it's hard. It's very difficult for me to square penalizing a grant for a project that has never had a grant award. So, I think it's important to square penalizing, even if it's a minuscule penalty, you know, folks who are, you know, applying and receiving these grants on a regular basis. I think that really is the key questions. Is there a problem or is that repeat when is that bad in some way? And if it's not, or we don't have a specific concern to that end, then I just, I'm not, I'm not sure this is the right path. I don't think, I mean, there's not a problem with our repeat. I definitely wouldn't, I wouldn't label it as that. It's just a tool to encourage, again, new newcomers and it's really as simple as that. It's a marketing kind of a thing just to get to encourage those that might feel overwhelmed. The others, the repeat customers, like you mentioned, Friends of Woodfront, you know, in my opinion, they've mastered the art of applying. I don't think there'd be a disadvantage because I think they generally score decently. You know, they score high in the first place. I don't think it's been an issue with knocking their score. So, I don't necessarily think they've been, they will be, you know, shoved out or what have you. So, or penalized in a way that perhaps you described it there. I think it's more of a token. Let me ask you this, Frank. Are there, can you think of any, any applicant that has applied more than once and has been unable to be, to get funding for a project? Well, yeah, back, well, not of recent, but I remember several in the past, like one that comes to mind was Ashwood Townhomes of Laredo. I think they applied twice before they actually received an award because they were getting swallowed up by the larger parking lots and what have you. So, you know, I can think of several that have applied and haven't, and were unsuccessful and weren't awarded because of perhaps the size or they just missed the mark in terms of points. So, but no issue with repeat customers, you know, that Mr. Lowe, you know, that's not the point or that's not why we raised it. We haven't had any issue with, with, you know, organizations that we've seen. Okay, thank you. Any other comments, questions? All right, what is the will of the group concerning this recommendation? What's the will of the group? I'd like to make them make a motion that we accept the contingency. I mean, the encouragement or the preferential 5% for newcomers. Okay, 5 points. Okay. It's been, it's been moved. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been moved and seconded. Don, if you would turn your camera on. Okay, it's been moved and seconded all in favor of the motion signify by raising. I and raising your right hand. I oppose like, sign. Motion carries. Thank you. David. That was a good discussion on that. Yes. Yes, question for Frank. Excuse me, I look off that question for ask. Should the innovation and experimentation pool be modified to meet the needs of the community? Excuse me, I look off that question for ask. Should the innovation and experimentation pool be modified to include a research monitoring component? The program could fund research projects to monitor BMP effectiveness and further research alternatives to LF. If approved, the revised language shown below would be used for the innovation and experimentation pool in the FY 2026 application packet for all grand classes with the addition note noted in red ink below. So, what you have here in the exhibit, we show you the addition of the research and monitoring language to the innovation and experimentation pool and how it would be used. What it would look like in the application. And we also read how it states here in an effort to promote and encourage innovative experimental and research monitoring projects to improve surface water quality in Fayette County. The water quality fees board has allocated 156,800 dollars across all 3 grant classes for application today. They. Deemed to be worthy of funding, however, due to the nature of the proposed project, the application might not score well within the constraints of the scoring system based on the types of applications received for fiscal year 2026 funding. This allocation may or may not be used and the criteria. Is as such the criteria hadn't changed other than adding the research monitoring component. To the qualification, I should say the criteria for the pool funds shall be defined as items not currently prescribed in the stormwater manual, but meet the goals of the stormwater quality projects and similar bench program as defined by section 16 dash 410 of the code of ordinance. Projects are considered a deviation from previously approved applications and proposed new or experimental methods or approaches to stormwater quantity. And quality management, the applicant is required to provide the research behind the proposed innovative experimental research monitoring project elements. And so that's what it would look like. If the board sees fit to approve and the pros is measuring BNP effectiveness may inform BNP implementation strategies moving forward. And as staff sees it, the con is it may be difficult to define project goals that are beneficial to both the applicant and. Any comments, thoughts on that. I'm supportive of this change. I think, you know, that there are kind of 2 reasons for that. The 1st being. That the innovation bucket. I think is is smart. I think it's good that we've maintained it, but it has been a bit static the past few cycles. So expanding the definition here, or the requirement, I think is a good idea because the expansion strikes me as, you know, reasonable and responsible. You know, if if if this department is the beneficiary of, you know, research that's better able to inform BNP priority. I think that's a win for the taxpayer. So, again, I think this is a reasonable change for a somewhat static bucket. And for those 2 reasons, I'll support. Very good. Thank you. Bill, Donna, what do you think? I agree with David. I also agree with David. That makes perfect sense to me. Yeah, and I'm, I'm really. I'm really pleased that we set this up because early on UK had some really interesting projects that. Didn't didn't score well, but I think this has been a great idea and I think this is a good improvement as well. So good. Good point. David, thank you for your discussion on that. Okay, what's the will of the group. Should we modify the innovative and experimentation to include the research component as well? Oh, I got it. Okay. I'll say. Okay. It's been. It's been seconded by David. How does that work? All right, all in favor of the motion signify by saying, I'm raising your right hand. I oppose motion carries. All right, very good. Thank you. Item number 5, the program has noticed an increase in grant applications, attempting to include costs and the budget associated with impervious areas. Concrete asphalt, however, impervious services are considered non water quality quantity related items and are not eligible for grant reimbursement or to be counted as cost share. Should the application packet explicitly state for all grant classes that the program will not fund impervious items, including areas proposed adjacent to propose BMPs. If approved, staff recommends adding the following language to the class application packet. The program will not consider funding of impervious areas, concrete or asphalt, including impervious areas adjacent to propose BMPs with the exception of items included for site restoration. And that would be items like curbing and sidewalks. The pros as the staff season is ensures grant funds are used to mitigate water quality quantity issues. Also, that it saves staff time and having to request revised budgets on the cons as the staff season con, I should say, could impact the number of applications submitted. Okay, I think. I think that's we okay, we, we never had the program never has funded. Quantity related issues, right? It's always been focused toward water quality improvement issues. It's both it's it's quantity reduction and quality enhancement. Parallel, okay, exactly. Okay, but what we've seen in the past is that. Well, here of late, probably more aggressively as applicants, including. The areas adjacent to the BMPs that the plan is, I mean, the plan in terms of intention is not all bad, but it's just that we shouldn't be funding anything impervious is that they would plan it to be sitting aside for it to be sloped toward the BMP. And so we just don't want to get into practice of funding of asphalt and concrete materials, which are considered. Okay, okay, gotcha. Okay, any comments thoughts on this. Frank, it strikes me that number 5 and several of the following recommendations basically amount to helpful tips. And the application packet, is that. Fair, yeah, we just, you know, what it is is we, we felt like the messaging needs to be up front because it's causing staff to have to go back and do a lot of work in terms of communicating and requesting revised budgets and disqualifying items. And, you know, as opposed to just putting the language up in the application packet up front, and then there will be no question. Then we can just point, refer them back to the application packet and be like, it's already in there. This is why, you know, just explain it up front. Right, it makes sense to me. I can think of two applications recently where this was a challenge. And so I don't, I don't think that anybody's trying to pull it fast. And I think it's just a something that it costs us almost nothing to to include the tip. And that's it. everybody time and a heartache, so let's let's do it. I would support that. Donna, any thoughts, comments? I'm good on that one. Bill? Well, just one sentence that has me in favor of this. Save staff time and having to request revised budgets. I think we're all agreeing on that. All right, what's the bill of the group? Mr. Chairman, I'll move approval of number five as recommended by the staff with this addition. It's been moved by Bill. Is there a second? I second it. It's been seconded by Donna. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye and raising your right hand. Aye. Opposed? Like sign. Motion carries. Okay, I'll move on to item six. The program has seen an increase in grant applications proposing BMP locations that do not meet the minimum clearance requirements listed in the stormwater manual. Should language be added to all the application packets stating explicitly the minimum clearance requirements between BMPs and existing and proposed infrastructure? If approved, staff recommends adding the following language to the class A, B education and B infrastructure application packets. All proposed BMPs must be located at least 10 feet horizontally from existing and proposed buildings and LFU CG sanitary lines with the exception of tree trenches and planter boxes, which should use a minimum setback distance of five feet. If known sanitary sewer or basement infiltration issues problems exist, a greater horizontal distance must be used. This is language that you would see already in our stormwater manual is where we borrowed this from. And as the staff sees it, the pros include, including this information application packet provides an opportunity to educate applicants about location requirements for BMPs relative to structures during the conceptual phase of their planning process. And the staff doesn't see any cons to this. Is there any reason why we couldn't, when we make the comment about the 10 feet horizontally that we're pulling from the stormwater manual, is there any reason why we shouldn't have after those comments that as stated in the stormwater manual? That way it would show where those numbers are coming from? Oh, yeah. I mean, I don't, I don't, I don't see any problem in referencing the manual. I mean, because hopefully that's what they would be looking at. It's just more explicit. You're showing numbers and you're showing where those numbers came from. I think there's a little twinge, Mark, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the stormwater manual doesn't always apply to some of our applicants because it's private property and they're not regulated by it. So, I think we chose not to include that statement because in some cases they're not under that authority. So, it implies that they are even though they're not. Okay. Yeah, I believe that authority is more new development or redevelopment requirements. Okay, well, I stand corrected. I think, I think the intent was trying to show where the numbers came from. But I can see your point, if it's not applicable to all the parties that are applying, then it, that might be a way they could say, we know that doesn't apply to us. So, I'm fine with what you have now. Any other thoughts, comments? Donna? I'm good. I agree. David? None for me. Bill? I agree and I'm glad there are no cons. Good. Okay. What's the will of the group? I make a motion that number 6 be moved as recommended by the staff. Been recommended by Donna or been recommended by Donna. Is there a second? I'll second. Seconded by Bill. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye and raising your right hand. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 7, moving right along. The program currently has guidelines to limit certain types of work on ponds, including dredging, which is not an eligible grant expense to emphasize water quality enhancement and water quantity reduction for 20, FY 2026 and beyond should a guideline be added to make pond armoring a non-eligible grant expense. If approved, staff recommends adding the following language to the class A and B infrastructure application packets. For the fiscal year 2026 incentive grant program, pond armoring is not considered eligible for grant funding as the program seeks to emphasize water quality enhancement and water quantity reduction. And the pros as staff sees it is ensures grant funds are used to mitigate water quality quantity issues. The con is could impact the number of applications submitted. Okay, thank you. What is what is pond armoring? I would like Bailey. I want to defer to Bailey. Would you comment on this Bailey? Please. So, pond armoring would be like. Throwing rip rap on the banks, so, like, what. We've had several applicants that just throw the rip rap, but I think we're emphasizing. Like, plant or vegetation or roots would enhance water quality more than just doing rip rap. So. I think our emphasis is. We don't want to pay just to maintain if we're not like. Really enhancing quality. Okay. Okay. Thank you. For example. I'll give you an example, Mr. George, that would be like, what field? I don't know if you remember that 1 from back in the day. Yeah. So, that would be a good example of pond armoring person. Yeah. Chairman, I have a related question. Could there be an application where they use a combination of rip rap and plants that would succeed? I think that would be beneficial. So maybe we nuance. The verbiage. Okay. And I don't know what the percentages are. I could see a combination project. So, sorry, I think we can add language that says that pond armoring. Cannot be solely a project element along, you know, or something to that effect where, you know, sort of like we did with rain barrels back in the day where we said rain barrels are ineligible by themselves, but can be a, in addition to other project elements. Okay, now the 1 you mentioned it would feel what is that example of just having rip rap the armoring or vegetation? What was your point? I believe it was pond armory. I believe that was solely just honoring the banks with. Okay. I go by that every day and I wasn't I wasn't sure what you were saying that. So. I think you see vegetation coming through it now, but initially it was just all a certain size stone that they. Yeah, okay. Okay. All right. Go ahead. It's pond armoring. So that's that's understood to mean, like, an inorganic material, like a rock. It's not because it, you know, as like a layperson. I don't that's not necessarily clear to me. So, I don't know, but if it's if this is something that's known in the industry, then. Yeah, it's used to secure the banks to keep down erosion and what Bailey's arguing is that, you know, when you establish vegetation, it's a little bit more number 1 natural and it serves. To improve the quality more so than just laying. You know, large rocks around the bank. Per se, and Bailey, if you want to comment a little bit more on that, just to give them a little bit more clarity on that. Please. I think we could be more clear David and could explicitly say, like. Rip rap armoring or something to make it work. Right? My thought is like, pond armoring via inorganic material, like plastic or rock. Is not considered eligible, but if that's redundant, you know, I just whatever. You know, I think everyone's on the same page. The clarity is a good idea here. So, is there a armoring that does include organic material? Yeah, there's stuff like what Bill was saying where they use rock and inorganic material, but they also have plant vegetation, which would be like, more. I think you would see more pollutant removal. Okay. So we can nuance the verbiage of it. Good. Okay. So, I guess the alternative here would be to vote on it. With the condition of some revised verbiage to address the comments we're talking about. Does that make sense? That makes sense. Okay, any other thoughts comments on this. Okay, what's the will of the group concerning concerning this proposal? I would move to approve staff's recommendation with the clarification on pond armoring. Favoring organic material over inorganic material. Thank you, David. Is there a 2nd. I'll 2nd, the motion. Okay, okay. All in favor of the motion signify by raising. I am raising your right hand. I oppose like, motion carries. All right, thank you. Thank you. I'll move to item 8, which states should the program give preferential treatment to projects proposing to perform or educate the public on the restoration of maintenance of impaired stream segments. If approved staff recommends the following additions to the current score sheets tables, 5 to 7 below are examples of proposed formats for each of the FYI 26 score sheet documents. And here, we just show you what it would look like. In the score sheet, just to isolate it, but again, I have the exhibit that kind of where you compare what the old score sheet to the to these new suggestions all suggestions. From these items enlisted are included in the exhibits. That we provide here for the comparison. The pros is that it targets impaired waters, which could contribute to the listing of streams and the cons. As staff season are none. Okay. So, would there be something in other points taking away somewhere else to maintain the 100% 100 point total. Yes, so, for example, in the old score sheet, this is the class. A example, we've taken. This would be in the project impact section and we've added item. 1, I, and as you can see, this is what it looked like before and we've allocated the points 5 points. As you can see item 1, I here involved restoration maintenance of an impaired stream and I believe we just. Broke the points and that section down. To come up with the 5 points. Okay. Okay, comments questions thoughts on that. Hearing none what's the rule group. I think the intent is trying to. Take measures that will improve impaired screen streams and I think this is a. A way to try to make that happen. So let's build a group. On question a, I'll add. I'm sorry, I was going to add the fact that this is sort of like. The item that we've added years ago, this is the program trying to look to target measures that we feel that are needed or to kind of. Target the items that we feel like would be more impactful and this is just us asking requesting to add an item that we feel of problem areas that we've seen and recently. Impaired streams have been a big thing, so we want to be able to target that and give preferential scoring for those items sort of like the TV emails in the equalized situation. So, how do you, how do you designate or fire confirm that it is a impaired stream segment? There's a list on the division of water, so they assess. And so they're like known, and so the goal is always to D, list a stream and get it off the list. Okay. But we monitor the impaired waters. So we have, like, a publish. So when you see where that project located, you can document that it is, in fact, an impaired stream. And as a related question, those impaired streams are also mapped. As the location. Okay, thank you. All right. Good questions. All right. Any other thoughts. I'm, I'm inclined to support this, because I think what we're doing, you know, there will be. I think there is a con and so far as there, there is a. There will be an increased compliance. Weight on the applicant and the, and the performance of their grant. Uh, but I think that gamble is worth it. Because if, you know, you know, what if your education creates another can cook, you know, I mean, that would be a big way. Right? So, I think at least. I think this is worth doing, maybe we could asterisk this 1 and revisit it in our next. You know, grant revision process, but I think at least for year 1, I think it's probably worth doing. Okay, thank you. Any questions comments. No, sir, thank you. Bill. I would just. Agree with David, I think it's worth trying for a year and seeing if it even comes up, or if it's a success or a problem. So I agree. Thank you. Okay. What's the rule the group concerning a question proposal 8. I'll move to approve staff's recommendation with the. Point scheme that they've indicated here. Thank you. It's been moved by David. Is there a 2nd. I 2nd, 2nd by Donna. All in favor signify by raising your right hand and saying, I, I. I was like, so motion carries. Thank you item 9, the program has seen an increase in application packets that note the proposed project addresses pollution without data to back up the assertion. Should the program incentivize based on equal removal effectiveness based on the internal stormwater database tables, a, and 9 below are examples of formats proposed for the FYI, 26 class a and B infrastructure score sheets. And the pros, as the staff sees it, the 1st, 1 is targets, impaired waters, which could contribute. To the listing of streams also that it prevents applicants from checking the box without effectively targeting ecoli pollution and the staff didn't see any cons to this. And what we did with this. Mr chairman is we broke instead of just giving out 5 points. If they mention in the application, what we did was just. We gave a list of of items that we felt were effective. I'm sorry. For example, in this class B infrastructure example here, I'll zoom in. For item 1g here, as you can see, it's the installation of a water quality that addresses ecolab pollution and then we list. In order of rank, the more impactful areas, like the tension basin, wetland basin retention, etc, receive 5 points and then a subsurface flow wetlands, permanent pavement, engineering media, they would only receive 4 and then all others would receive 3. But they would need to provide supporting data is how they would still be. They would still be required to provide supporting data to receive the 3 points. I mean, it's thoughts on this. Chairman, I would just say that the supporting documentation makes sense to me. In this case, that makes perfect sense. Okay, thank you. Bill. Any other thoughts? Comments. 1 thing that I would, I would like to raise is we've, we've gone through so far. 3 proposals that impact points. And individually, it's, it's not. It's not a, it's not a, it's not a. It's not a, it's not a. It's not a, it's not a, it's not a. And individually, it's, it's not. It's not significant, but when you look at all 3. That does have a bearing, and I think that they have a good point about on the last 1. About seeing what the impact of that might be, and I think that same thought might be considered for this 1 as well. I'm in favor of the intent. But it might skew things that that we. Perhaps could disqualify some good projects. Because they don't happen to be in a impaired stream or. Don't have any coalition issue, but I think it's something we ought to be aware of and see if that does impact us. In terms of the number of projects, the type of projects we're getting. Mr. chairman, I would comment that as far as, for example, the impaired stream, I think the overall mission of the program is to improve water quality and and hopefully to the highest degree. And so that's where that particular storing component in terms of preference. Preferential treatment comes from, but as far as the equal, I, if you would note here, we were giving away 5 points essentially if they said that they were addressing and kind of listed a BMP that. That her say, improve, but not the level of of his effectiveness. So what we're doing here, the 5 points here didn't change. We just, we are willing to give them less points if it's less impactful, because there are levels in terms of impact of certain types of BMPs, the impact on pollution. So, this particular item, it started with 5 points and the Max is still 5 points. And I guess every, every project would have get some points, but maybe not the 5 because it doesn't have a. A major impact on the co, is that what you're saying? They only get 5 points if they, if they say, number 1, check the box that they, they intention, they intend to address and then they provide supporting documentation. But as we realized, there were different levels of certain BMPs that were less effective in terms of treating you call it and others. Okay, go ahead, Bailey. I'm sorry. Yeah, I was going to echo what Frank said. I think we're trying to knock out the people that check the box for Ecolab, but haven't implemented anything that's effective for Ecolab. We've got a lot of grant applicants that are like, yeah, we're doing that, but they don't provide any documentation of how they're doing it and it's sort of fishy on effectiveness of the BMP they're providing. I don't have anything to document what they're doing. Yeah, I understand. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for the clarification. No problem. Okay. Any, any comments thoughts questions on this. Because this. And diverse to add clarity and make applicants, I think, work a little harder for the 5 points for about a little bit more specificity. I will move to approve staff's recommendation and the point scheme that illustrated here. Donna, any questions or thoughts? No, sir, I second the motion. Okay. It's been moved by David seconded by Donna all in favor of the motion signify by saying, I raise your right hand. I oppose like, so motion carries. Alrighty item 10, I'll move right along the program has seen an increase in the grant application, proposing activities that are unrelated to water quality enhancement or quantity reduction, especially for class B education grants should language be added to the application packet for all great classes, clarifying what types of expenses are eligible for grant reimbursement or to be counted as cost share if approved staff recommends adding the following language to the application packets for all great classes under what types of expenses are not eligible for either grant reimbursement. And or cost share, which is in the section titled project funding, and this I'm referring to the application packet document. This is the section that is listed in the what types of expenses are not eligible and the language is as follows cost associated with items unrelated to water quality quantity or not aligned to the proposed project elements and staff sees a pro as ensures grant funds are used appropriately as well as helps provide clarity to applicants on what items takes. Exclude in the project project proposals and staff doesn't see any ponds to clarifying this. I agree. Okay, I'm in thoughts on that and I want to add Mr chairman if you don't mind, I want to kind of, I guess I'll give you, for example, so you can see where staff's mind was, for example, living arts and science center and the after school lunch programs and what have you. We wanted to make sure that our money was being used to improve water quality or to educate folk on water quality or quantity reduction, as opposed to us just paying for animal feed. Like I said, after school lunches and things of that nature, I think there was some concern in the past over this, which is why we had living arts and science center come in to show us how the funds were being used. And I think there were still some concerns. So this is kind of where the stems from. Okay, I do recall having those discussions in the past. So. Okay, any other thoughts, comments on that. Hearing none, what's the, what's the will of the group. Mr chairman, I'll move to make the changes to the expenses not eligible under item 10 as recommended by staff. Sarah 2nd, I'll 2nd. It's been moved by bill 2nd by Donna. All in favor of the motion signify by saying, I raised you right in. I like, sir. Motion carries all right. I'll move right along item. 11 states. Should the program require applicants to provide documentations? Detailing how the proposed project will exceed the regulatory items. This came up while evaluating FY 2025 class B infrastructure grant applications, or some applications lacked clarity on whether proposed elements were over and beyond new slash redevelopment requirements. Table 10 below is an example of proposed format for the FY 2026 class B infrastructure score sheet. This was an issue, whereas we could not tell, I believe the airport board application was 1 where they proposed all water separator. But a larger 1, they 1 was required under their redevelopment requirements, but it was hard for staff to determine the volume of which we're going to be considered over and beyond. And so this is us asking the applicant up front to provide us with that information. And the pro is ensure the program funding is spent appropriately and the staff sees the con as some class B applicants class B. I applicants might see this as an undue burden. So, and staff here is protecting the program against funding something that would have been required anyway. And if we are going to do that, we're going to buy the bigger version and able to purchase of the bigger, better version. Is that the idea? Yes, so, you know, it's a situation where, you know, when, when they go apply for redevelopment approval, whatnot, you know, there's a requirement. And so the grant funds are required to only be used for over and beyond. You know, those requirements, we don't want to use grant funds. To fund what is required and so the grant funds are required to only be used for over and beyond. You know, those requirements, we don't want to use grant funds to fund what is required. And so this is us just kind of underscoring that and and asking them to document provide documentation in the proposals that shows us what was required versus what they're asking the grant. Funds to pay for, and this program would only would only apply to those that exceed what they're required to do anyway. That's correct. I think it's, it's all about the Delta to, like, we're only paying for the Delta. And so places, even where, like, county public schools where they did the permissible paper application, we want to know what was required. We want to only pay the cost over so that just finding everyone's baseline. That makes sense. Okay. Any comments thoughts points of clarification. What is the will of the group. I would move to approve a status recommendation here with the point totals that they specify. Thank you, David. Is there a 2nd. I'll second motion 2nd about bill all in favor of the motion signify by saying, I raising your right hand. I oppose like, son motion carries. Thank you moving right along the item 12, some class B education projects incorporate stormwater facilities during the 24 grant cycle, the board approved to provide a separate attachment regarding maintenance responsibilities for these facilities on private property. This came up during staff discussions about establishing an inspection program to track the status of maintenance of previously funded grant projects. Should a disclaimer and a signature line be added to the class B grant application packet to ensure. The property owner agrees with the installation and maintenance requirements for proposed projects and we show you what that would look like in the score sheet here. And the staff sees a pros approach to this as this will help establish acknowledgment of installation and maintenance responsibility for class B education grants similar to the class a, and B infrastructure attachments, and the staff doesn't see any cons to this currently there's no signature line in the class B education application form and this is us asking the property owner upfront, whether he's on board with whatever proposal. That is included in the application on his property and that he's on board with allowing access and maintenance with assuming maintenance responsibility on on his or her property. Thank you any comments, any thoughts. I'm supportive of this, it seems to be kind of correcting a. Correcting an issue it makes sense to me. So, bottom line, we're basically saying. We're asking that they maintain something that this program has paid for. Is that kind of the bottom line? Yes, before we're asking for the signature line and the application document. Previously, the board had approved to allow for us to include an attachment be a maintenance for class B education, because that was the 1 class that didn't have the maintenance responsibility agreement. And so this is us just a lot of getting the property owner, making sure he's on board with that attachment be prior to them applying or as a part of the application process. I think this issue is, has been out there for a number of years. So this is just kind of tying it down and getting getting the, the grantee, or the, the grantee, I end to doing that to be committed to do that. What's more so making sure that the property owner, if different from the grantee is on board. Okay, okay. All right. Any comments thoughts on this, Donna, do you have anything? I'm good. Yeah, this makes sense to me. Okay, what's the role of group. Silence. Silence. Mr. chairman, I'll make a motion to revise the class B applications with the figure 1 sample. And recommended by there a 2nd. I 2nd. Second, Donna. Go ahead. Go ahead, Frank. Well, I would just want her to turn the camera on when you found the motions. I just want to see the face to it. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. So, the motion has been made by Bill 2nd and by Donna. All in favor of motion signify by saying, I raise your right hand. I pose like, send motion carries. All righty, the final item in our memo today, number 13 says, since no changes can be made to the project elements. Once the application deadline is passed should language be added to the application package, requiring potential applicants to include a letter of support or endorsement from the Royal Springs. Well, here protection committee, if applicable several FYI 2025 grant applicants had had to modify BMP design after the rural spring. Well, here protection committee noted certain BMP facilities could potentially impact local drinking water sources during its quarterly meeting. The rural springs will have protection committee recommended that certain BMP is not be allowed above the aquifer recharge area. If approved. Staff recommends adding the following language to the class a and B infrastructure application packets. Since no changes can be made to that project elements once the application deadline is passed for fiscal year, 2026, we are requiring applicants to include a letter of support or endorsement from stakeholders. Uh, I, uh, homeowner associations, local aquifer groups, et cetera that might be impacted by BMPs included in the proposal. Also, if the proposed BMP is within the extents of the rural springs recharge area, a map showing the BMP location relative to the aquifer should be included in the application staff sees a pro as it could potentially save the applicant time and money by not pursuing conceptual designs that include BMPs currently not recommended by the rural spring. Well, head protection committee and staff doesn't see any cons to this. Very good. Any thoughts, comments, questions about this. Hearing none, what's the will of the group? I would move to approve number 13 staff's recommendation for this language addition. Okay, David, thank you. Is there a 2nd? I'll 2nd, the motion. Seconded by Bill all in favor of the motion signify by saying, I erasing your right hand. I like some motion carries. Okay, I think that's it. Yes, sir. We'll move to the next item on the agenda. That item is the 2026 grant application documents. Um, oh, let me stop sharing. I'm sorry. And essentially. The applications will incorporate the changes and the board would just need to approve. You've essentially approved the changes through voting on each 1 of these items, whether before or against. And so we're just asking for board permission to publish the applications, incorporating the changes as stated. Through our meeting today, I guess there was there was 1. There was 1 of the items that we discussed that we're talking about some changes to the verbiage. Okay. So that reflected in. Yeah, okay. So, what I'm hearing you say, and there is that you want us to approve the application forms. That reflect the changes that we have just voted on and print. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay, any comments thoughts on that. We're basically just memorializing what we've already approved on the right. Right and the only other changes will be to the dates, the date, the deadlines and things of that nature. Other than that, everything would look similar to what they have in previous years. We're just going to incorporate these new changes. Any comments thoughts. Okay, what's the will of the group? So, the motion needs to be a motion to. Update the 3 application documents. Yes, that will be revised to reflect the changes that we've talked about before. I think at least 1 of those we had, we propose making some changes to the wording. Okay, I will make a motion to approve the revised grant applications. With the language modification of number 7 clarifying. Perfect right now. It's been moved by David. Is there a 2nd. I will second the motion. Seconded by bill all in favor of the motion signify by saying, I write you right in. I oppose like, so I've seen care. Thank you. And we'll move on to the next item chairman. Uh, status update. Status, thank you. Yes, sir. And I'll share my screen for this and I'll run through them fairly quickly not to hold. The group up, and then I'll ask if you have general comments about any specific project, but I'll share my screen and as as I mentioned before. This incentive grant update is is is organized in such a way that we, we will go over to class a, and then be education and be infrastructure as opposed to just going through the overall list. That's how the list is organized in our new database, our new grant tracker. And let me know if you guys can see that. Okay, okay, starting with heartland, starting over that class a neighborhood Heartland Association. This grant is pretty much finished. I'm reviewing the final. Um, well, actually, he has turned in the grant manager has turned in the. The final report, and so I'm just double checking it and we're prepared to process the final payment on this Hickman Creek conservative according to the grant manager. He's asked for this 1 to be wrapped up. So he's kind of. He's kind of just pushing the grantee to go ahead and get the final report in on this 1, but for all extents purposes. Every all the project elements are completed. And the same thing with Cardinal Valley, I'm, I'm actually in the process of. Kind of threatening termination on this 1, because I've tried for a whole year and a half now to to get them to wrap up. They've kind of deviated from the initial plan, which it was sort of allowed in the 1st place with Cardinal Valley. They initially asked for rain gardens in the earlier grant, and they were allowed for it to be changed to a pollinator garden. And this grant was just simply to try to help them maintenance. The areas and refers to the median areas over in the Oxford circle area, right? For sales role, so I'm just kind of pushing them to either. Turn in all the paperwork and their request for funds and to get this wrapped up or just terminate the grant altogether. So that's kind of like, where I'm at with that, but they have done some of the work. It's the interesting thing. The work is pretty much completed. I'm just trying to get them to turn the paperwork in. So I've kind of had to step up kind of. I wouldn't say threaten them, but just let them know that we're we're prepared to terminate the long. Sorry, move too fast. According to the grant manager, he's finalizing the project sign and closing out the documents. And that's all that remains to be done for that 1 of friends of war front 2023. I'm the grant manager. Demetria has resigned. And so I'm taking over those duties on that grant, and I am apparently reviewing their request for funds. They're number 2 in that project element. Those project elements are moving forward. I think they're almost prepared to wrap this 1 up. So they can move on to 24 grant, which they were also awarded. Neighbors new sick, I should say, according to Craig construction is complete. They're working on the final close out and hopefully the next 2 weeks. He says that this can be closed out with the final bill being processed. So, friends of the park, I believe we just wrapped up our capital project. Is that right? Mark. Open myself. Yeah, we just finish. I think there's some few minor minor things, but it's overall complete. Yeah, this is 1 that we, we decided to. To do a capital project to the area that leads up to the stream. And so now I believe the construction is set to start here in the next month or 2 for the actual grant project on that on that particular grant walnut here at Charlesburg. According to the grant manager, the is still considering the project. I believe this is 1 that they are considering. They were considering requesting a change order. They were getting higher than expected bids. They are prepared as he indicates here to modify the plans, but they need to come before the board for scope chain. So, they're just kind of trying to gauge that to see if they will be prepared to do that for our next meeting. Waterford to according to Mr. Merlino Josh design and has signed the application to me submitted to. And that's the 1 where they're removing the pond and taking it back to a natural stream. So, I'm sorry, friends of forefront. That 1 has no movement. We're just waiting to wrap up activities. The Rotary club of Lexington. We're just in the process of finalizing the sign. I believe we were working on that this week. And then they will be prepared to turn in their final report and get that. Wrapped up water for 2 24, nothing new on this 1, where that earlier version of water for 2 was for phase 1, I believe design. And phase 1, so this 1 has hasn't gotten off the ground yet. Bluegrass green source. This project is complete. I'm just finalizing and processing the final payment. Uh, 24 hasn't budged because we are in the process of finishing up. FYI, 2023. And the class B education fair county public schools, the grant manager, I emailed for an update and I believe he finally gave that to me and I believe I'm holding what may be the final request for funds and I'm waiting for them to go ahead and turn in the final report for that 1. And then we move on to class B infrastructure, Kentucky, American water. The grant manager says he anticipates the draft plans in the spring for walkway haul out modifications. They're just trying to figure out. A better way to be able to get the trash. On the land and have make an arrangement for solid waste to pick it up. So they're. Looking into putting in the dock out there for coat. This project is complete. I believe we're just waiting for the final request. Community Montessori, he says the school is working on the final design for the educational float device. It's taking longer than expected. And this is the final piece of the project. Lexington center corporation Doug says occasional work on ongoing as it is coordinated with the park construction anticipate completion in the spring or early summer of 2025 for Unitarian Universalist church. Craig says the construction is ongoing. Hopefully this project will wrap up construction over the next few months and can possibly close out in the spring. Centenary church, he says the spring planting and close out documents are all that remains to be done. That project is nearing is at 90%. And I believe we are at. Huber real estate Doug says temporarily on hold while is installed upstream of sinkhole work work anticipated for January. February of 2025, we'll need a 3 to 6 month time extension in order to complete this. I believe this is 1 of those items where we decided to do some modification and install the pipe because the waters are just traveling through their site. Is that right? Mark? That's correct. Yeah, okay. So we're waiting on you guys to is that internal? Are we working on that internally? Yeah, yeah, we're using that link. Okay, we're usually okay and so once they are complete, then they can move forward with wrapping up. The items actually in the grant. Okay. Yeah, why just kind of delayed us a little bit on that 1. So, we're kind of waiting on weather and in that I think structures are in. So, once we get that, we should be good. Okay, thank you very much. And then finally, county public schools, he says, reviewing the maintenance agreement now to make sure we are okay with it. This is for the C. T. E. building. The old building, the papers are installed and we're just trying to get the maintenance agreement. The attachment be documented reviewed and documented, I should say, and that's let me see. We have University of Kentucky, and this is the feasibility study. He says, I'm reaching out regarding 35,000 on the study project that we finished earlier this year, but are still finishing up the paperwork. We are discussing the issues with the internal grant and accounting people and expect the resolution soon, but they are also including. They will be required to have an extension before December 4th to be able to keep it open. He says, I know in the past that there's been straightforward for the, your team. To grant to the grant to get us past the holidays and any other unforeseen challenge. Would you be able to extend this project? Oh, so he's asking the question here. I'm sorry. They're going to be looking for an extension. In other words, for this particular project. So we'll look into that. And the next 1 room to breathe according to the grant manager, the bid set. Uh, revive received via email from Shane tether and so they're at the bidding process with this. And so that 1 is that about 25% the next 1 went to ventures. Or also known as United landscape, he says construction is ongoing. Hopefully this will be finished up during the winter spring of 2025 and they can be closed out. Opie innovates according to the grant manager aside from the completed survey. No, the work has been reported or funds requested. The site design should be in progress. Pardon Lex acquisition, no progress reported from the grantee, but I do know that. He asked perhaps for an extension on this 1 and we're just trying to gauge why he needs an extension. I have some questions out there to the grantee right now that I haven't received the answers to yet. So I'll get back to you when we meet again on that 1 Rob properties. He says they held a kickoff meeting on site in October and made comments on preliminary plans and consulting being somewhat. I'm responsive, so the grant manager is trying to kind of sway. I mean, trying to. Hope the, uh, the consultant to to move along with this 1, a University of Kentucky. Um, no changes this quarter project is still delayed due to funding and we're, we're going to see what that looks like in the coming months to whether they're planning to continue this grant or not. Uh, Wesley United at 50% plans, complete and moving ahead with the plan set. And I believe that's our last 1 that 1 is that 15% is in the design thing. So any other questions. About ongoing projects. Comments thoughts. I think we're good. All right. That's it. The next item is any other matters that might need to be brought up. Yeah, and actually, technically, we couldn't do that. This is a special meeting. So we can only focus on items in the agenda. So I should remove that. I'm sorry. No problem. All right. Well, I think we have completed our business. So, do I hear a motion that we adjourn. So moved it's been moved by bill. Is there a 2nd, 2nd, 2nd by Donna. All in favor of the motion signify by saying, I am racing you right in. Oh, like, motion care. Thank you so much. Everybody. It was kind of a kind of a rough start, but I think we got our got our wind behind us and we got it taken care of. So, thanks for participating and being being present today. Thank you all very much. Appreciate you. We'll adjourn. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. Thank you. Hold in cold. Captain freedom has hung up his announcers fight. We are now ready for the final conflict. Let's go now, live to the game zone. We are now ready for the final conflict. Let's go now, live to the game zone. It's over, over. What a colossal fight. This is an incredible moment in sports. Captain freedom, out for 10 minutes. See, only a few seconds. We win once again. Fight and fight are one and the same. Damn, that's brilliant. What's wrong? You should be happy we're officially dead. We can go anywhere, do anything. No, don't you understand it? They'll never let us out of here alive. They can't afford it. We got the police, the army, and hundreds of... Oh, John. Yes? Y'all just hung up? No, I need Frank Rice right quick. Yeah. So that's what I need. Oh, so you're going to use me to get to Frank. Is that what they're doing now? No, this is... Who? What's she doing? What's she doing? Really? No, y'all need to call ambulance. Let them take you east to the state. Ain't nobody doing all that. Right. Jailor can't do that. They watched all the other ones. Yeah. So she's overdoing it. So when he done broke up, they done fell out, and she going through a go through? Who they pray for? No, she's just heartbroken. She never had that. She just got... See, right now, they going to have to pray for her because her mind ain't right. And they don't need to argue with her when she's mentally unstable. So what you have to do is you have to pray for her. Just say, come on, we going to pray right now. That's the only thing you can do to kind of levy that. Otherwise, she could end up blooping out because this is probably her first real relationship or whatever, and she can't handle it. Right. See, you've been through it many times. This is her first one, and so you got to help her.