Music Music Let me welcome those of you who are here tonight to speak on the water quality management fee issue. We have sign-up sheets in the back. If you have not yet done so and you wish to speak this evening, I would appreciate your signing the sheets. Our plan this evening would be to allow each person who wishes to address the council to have three minutes within which to do so. I would anticipate taking people in the order in which they signed up. As a matter of fact, if someone could bring me the list from, thank you, we'll be ready to roll here in a moment. We'll ask you to step to the podium, give us your name and address. You'll have three minutes to speak. And then we'll ask whoever the next speaker is to stand by. Thank you, Council Member Stennett, so that we can move things along. All right. The first person I have listed this evening is John Roberts. Mr. Roberts, if you'd step to the podium. And Karen Angelusi, Ms. Angelusi, if you would stand by. My name is John Roberts, and I live at 3325 Lansdowne Drive. here in Lexington. I would like to pass out these reports. I am opposed to the impervious surface fee now being proposed for the Fayette County. I do not believe the impervious surface fee is justified. I believe that we are overtaxed and overfeeed. And now, and we should look elsewhere for revenue. All of the runoff on my home we own goes into the ground, and nothing goes into the stormwater system. I would direct your attention to the blue sheet that I've handed out, the one that's marked landfill. If you look, that is from the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government Comprehensive Annual Report, Financial Report for the years 2003 through 2008. The 2003 is on the second page. It shows the landfill account activity, revenues, expenses, other revenue, transfers, and net balance for the end of the fiscal year. The balance just above the last number in the column is the balance carried forward on June 30th and is available for expenses in landfill only. as I understand it. The number at the bottom of the column is the number of years that the balance will pay the expenses without any additional revenue. The balance in the landfill account will cover expenses for three and a half years without additional revenue. Let me say that again. the balance in the landfill account will cover expenses for three and a half years without additional revenue. That also is true for the average of the six years reported, and I have that on page two. In 2006, the landfill report also indicates that a million dollars was taken out of the landfill account without explanation. I would now direct your attention to the other sheet. Mr. Roberts, your time has expired, but you spent a little bit of time distributing your materials on the front end, so we'll give you an extra 30 seconds here to wrap up. Okay. Well, in the sanitary sewer system, the numbers at the bottom of the page, the balance covering expenses for over five and a half years and over eight years for the average. So I just, I think the council should lower the taxes and or fees in these two areas if you intend to impose a fee for the impervious balance or surface runoff. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Ms. Angelucci, if you'd step forward, and Dave Leonard. Mr. Leonard, if you would stand by, please. Just a moment. Pardon me. I was just going to ask Mr. Roberts if there are more copies, or does anybody have any copies at the end? Because it appears to be. Oh, thank you. All right. I should have said on the front end, tonight is a public meeting for the express purpose of receiving comment. This is not a council meeting in the traditional sense where we'll be debating the issues back and forth, but we do welcome your comments again in case anyone has come in. If you've not yet done so, please sign up in the back corner there near the door where you entered, and we'll just take people in the order in which they sign up. Ms. Angelucci. Mayor and members of this council, I am Karen Angelucci. I'm chair of the Lexington Tree Board, and I am here not to oppose or promote a fee. Doesn't that make you happy? I am here because I would like for you all to take huge consideration, and when you do implement a fee, to make sure some of it goes toward green infrastructure, primarily in tree form. Okay? The tree board and our wonderful Yvette Hurt has given out some great information for you all to take back and absorb yourself. our problem that I see from the tree board point of view is our urban forestry program is pretty much depleted totally, so therefore we can't possibly take care of the trees that we have, much less plant more trees or maintain. And in order to have a healthy urban canopy, tree canopy, we can't possibly do this without funding. And I know that our dwindling account has gone from like $22,000 to a proposed $8,000, which won't buy a whole lot. So I'm hoping that if you do implement a fee, you will consider the green infrastructure that is the wave of the future, and let's try to get it less into the root system instead of the concrete system. And that's all I got. Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming. Mr. Leonard, if you would step up and give us your name, full name and address. And Ms. Hurt, if you would stand by, please. Dave Leonard, 1302 North Limestone, past chair of the tree board, currently just a friend. And as Karen said, not trying to promote a fee, but I think we need to take time to study some things, especially some benefits of trees. They have gotten a really bad rap lately and suffering from that bad publicity from the trees. And we need to get information out about what they can do for us, not what they have done to us. And I think that would make a big difference to the public's understanding of the trees. and the council's understanding of the trees. But what the damage that occurred, that we had tremendous losses and tremendous expenses, occurred with an unmanaged urban forest and not a managed one. And that would be a huge difference in itself if we had plans for all of that and were regularly pruning. When the trees, of course it would be great for my business too, But besides that, we have the trees that we had pruned in the last four years for many, many clients had no storm damage. And if we had tree pruning that was knowledgeably done on the city's trees, we would have had a heck of a lot less storm damage. So, I mean, that's easily, and that's shown everywhere. But among the things trees do for us, everybody knows, is they reduce stormwater runoff, a huge thing. And, okay, direct link, they improve water quality. Again, a direct link. That's what we're trying for. There is a free program available called iTree. It's a little I dash capital T, R-E-E. It's put out by the Forest Service and backed by them. And with that, you can value your tree. an individual tree or the urban forest canopy. And with that program, you can just put a value on your urban forest. Or I can say this tree did $2,207 worth of benefits due on this thing in the last 10 years. And it's that exact. So I would like to see a program like this utilized in Lexington. Northern Kentucky has done that with their Urban Forestry Council. The Boone, Kitten, and Campbell County have gone together and made a great study, and they know everything every tree up there is worth. And if they can do it, I would think Lexington can do it on a much smaller basis and much more reasonably even price than they did it. So that's what I'm saying is we need to study a little bit more, find out the benefits, and, of course, I'm looking for a greener Lexington, I think, as most of us are, and a more inviting Lexington to bring businesses in and more people in. So that's all we've got. Thank you, Mr. Leonard. I appreciate your being here. Ms. Hurt, if you would step to the podium. You'll have three minutes. And Ms. Van Noggle, if you would stand by, please. Okay. My name is Yvette Hurt, and I live at 311 Irvin Road. It's nice to see you all tonight. I want to first thank Linda Gorton and all the task force members for all the hard work they've done in coming up with the stormwater management fee recommendation. I totally support a stormwater management fee or a water quality fee, which is really what it is. It's about protecting our water from pollution. I worked for eight years as an attorney for the Environmental Protection Cabinet in Frankfurt and I did a lot of water cases so I know a little bit about this subject I'm also serving on the Lexington Tree Board and that's how I became aware of how inadequate our funding is for our urban forestry program and the reason I'm talking about that tonight is because the research and the science shows and the EPA has stated that trees, urban forests, and green infrastructure are central elements to any community stormwater management plan. It has to be a central part, not an afterthought, not sort of feel-good projects here and there, but a central part of managing our stormwater. The science is there. I put together a packet. this is just the tip of the iceberg. I hope you all look at it. I hope you're not done studying this issue yet. I hope that you'll take more time to look at the science and make sure that funding our urban forest and other green infrastructure is a central key element, equal portion of a stormwater management plan gets substantial funding because that is what's going to treat storm water before it enters the storm sewer system. It's as important as concrete infrastructure, and all the science is here, so I won't go over it all tonight. We don't have time. But I just want to remind you that in your packet is an EPA memo from US EPA recommending that trees and green infrastructure be a central and a very cost effective way of managing stormwater as part of the community stormwater management plan. And thank you very much and I hope you'll take a few minutes to look at the packet. Are you leaving a copy of this with the clerk? Are you leaving a copy with the clerk? Yes, I will. If you would, so we can have it as part of the record, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Ms. Van Nogel, if you'll step to the microphone, and Mr. Cook, Ken Cook, If you would stand by, please. Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Knox Van Noggle and I'm here on behalf of the Fayette Alliance. As you know, we join Fayette County Farm Bureau, the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association, and the Fayette County Neighborhood Council in strongly supporting the proposed water quality management fee and program. For us, our support of the proposal comes down really to three main points. First, the time to act is now. Fayette County has an environmental and public health crisis on its hands. Our community is a place where people and livestock have tragically lost their lives in flooded streams. Raw sewage and stormwater runoff pollute over 70% of our creeks, and feces finds itself in household basements, neighborhood parks, and in the scenic fields of world-famous farms. The fee is a fundamental first step in addressing this crisis, as required by the EPA Consent Decree in the soon-to-be-signed NPDES MS4 Permit. To this end, the dedicated fee will be audited every five years with strong project and personnel management to ensure that it measurably addresses these requirements. This fee cannot come too soon, as LFUCG does not currently comply with Federal Water Quality Standards. Each day we wait to act is another day our water remains polluted, jeopardizing the health and welfare of every Fayette-Countian. Number 2. The Fee is Fair. The Council Task Force calculated the proposed fee openly and transparently over the course of four months receiving public comment and expert opinion, hosting stakeholder meetings and responding to voiced concerns. Our water quality crisis impacts us all, from the first grader and businessman and homeowner to the equine and general ag farmer. Indeed, we are in this together, and together we must now embrace the opportunity to fix a problem to which we all contribute that has been decades in the making. As such the fee will be collected from all Fayette County owners of developed property, all of whom will have the opportunity to participate in an incentive program to offset fee costs. This approach will generate $13 million each year in a dedicated water quality fund, add little overhead to LFUCG. And third, the fee is good business. While no one wants to shoulder additional expense in this very difficult economic time, supporting the fee is good business, as it will restore our quality of life and environmental integrity, key ingredients to future market recruitment and investment. We have learned this from cities visited on the Chamber trip such as Boulder, Colorado and Austin. Ms. Van Magel, your time has expired. Thank you. We would just ask that you all support this for the aforementioned reasons. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. Cook, if you'll step forward. And the next speaker I have is Jean Watts. Ms. Watts, if you would stand by. Let me remind everyone, if you wish to speak, please sign in by the door where you entered so that we can get you on the list. Mr. Cook. Very good. I'm Ken Cook. I live in Doug Martin's district on Cardinal Lane. Basically, I have a tributary of Wolf Run in my backyard. I'm also treasurer of the Friends of Kane Run, working in the north side of Lexington. Basically, I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you tonight about this particular ordinance in my next two minutes, 42 seconds. And I know that each of you have done your homework on this issue. In other words, you have been inundated with consultant reports. You are awash with legal opinions on the consent decree. You have been showered with scientific data from all over the place. And now you're getting stormed by probably constituents, most of them not here tonight, but you're hearing from them. So now I know that you've done the research. You have done your homework. You already know the issues inside and out. and you know what is right to do. Now, if you'll bear with me for the next two minutes, I would like, instead of addressing you, I'd like to address the folks back here behind me for just a second. There are some people that are still opposed to this particular ordinance, and there are a few groups that are well thought out, they're legitimately reasoned. I'd like to find out if anybody, is there anybody here either from Commerce Lexington, the Home Builders Association, any of those organizations? Huh. I'm from Commerce Lexington. Very good. Thank you. Okay. Now, is there anybody here that is opposed to the passage of the ordinance tonight? This may not be kosher to ask, but I hope you don't mind. We've got one gentleman here who's opposed to it. Commerce Lexington. Interesting. There goes the rest of my presentation. I need to really read your website better. Okay. So we have one gentleman opposed to it. Now, let me ask you this question. Do you think it's okay for Lexington to continue violating federal law? Do you think that's okay? No. Now, do you think our streams and rivers – No, wait just a minute. I don't have any problem with your addressing the rest of the crowd. I do have some difficulty with engaging in the back end. Oh, okay, very good. All right, I'll stop there. So we'll assume that there are people that – in other words, I think most of us are in agreement that our streams and rivers are in need of repair and that it's not okay for Lexington to continue violating federal law. And I think the gentleman's point was that we could find the money elsewhere to fix the problems. But basically I think that what we need to do is realize that these are the cases. Now, I know that you have done your homework, and I know that you have also not made it easy for the environmentalists because we probably came in after the study done in 2000 with a request for about $9 per residential unit. So these guys hammered us back to $4.32. So I appreciate the opportunity to address you, and thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Cook. Ms. Watts, if you'd step forward. And Bob Edwards, if you would stand by. I would, again, remind anybody that's coming in late, please sign up. This, Mr. Edwards, is the last person I have on the list at the moment. Ms. Watts. Hi, my name is Jean Watts, and I live on Cardinal Lane. here in Lexington. I'm a professor at Bluegrass Community College, and I'm a member of Friends of Wolf Run. And I'd just like to say that my students and I get out in the creeks all the time, and we see in every creek we go to the physical impact of the stormwater on it. And when we try to look at the living creatures in it, we find that the biological has certainly been declined by the amount of stormwater and the pollution that's there. So I'm definitely in support of the fee. I think that we need the money to do the job. And I also would like to say that we have been involved with a neighborhood grant that you all gave us to work with individual homeowners to do stream restoration projects. And I'm really pleased at the willingness and eagerness of people in the neighborhood that have no interest other than that their house backs up to a creek and to take a very small amount of money and to do a lot of work on their own to actually help the creeks. And so I think that the program that you all have proposed that will provide money for these incentives is a really good thing. And I think you'll get a lot of bang for your buck for it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Watts. Mr. Edwards, if you'd step forward. And Mr. Pettit, if you would stand by. I'm Bob Edwards. I live at 1930 Natchez Trail, which is just across the road from Gardenside Park where Wolf Run is located. My children grew up playing in the creek. My grandchildren are growing up playing in the creek. I'm not really a supporter of a fee, but in this case I support the fee in the hopes that my great-grandchildren can play in a creek that has water in it, if it has hazardous waste. Thank you. Mr. Pettit. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Van Meter Pettit, 155 Constitution Street. I've followed this process closely, not nearly as closely as some of you all have, and I want to commend the government on making a Herculean effort to catch up on about 40 years of deferred maintenance. And some of us have watched this with great anticipation for a long time, And I think we have high hopes that over the course of time, this is a work in progress that we, the people, can improve. And so I speak very much emphatically in favor of taking this step forward. But I would like to simply suggest that there are a lot of people out in the public that probably would be interested in weighing in on this. and we need to give them an occasion. And they have had occasion, but further occasion. And that there are aspects that are best practices from other places in the country that we can fold into our program. And one of them is kind of a credit or cap and trade where folks that want to participate with their dollars can direct them towards things that we all agree are improving our stormwater and our water quality. And in specific, I would like us to ultimately be able to focus. I know we have specifics that we have to satisfy with a consent decree, but when we can catch our breath, I would really like us to sit down as a community and say, we're the bluegrass. We have no great body of water. What is it going to take for us to reclaim our urban creek corridors towards the end of water quality, with great justification pursuing the motives of this ordinance and this effort? And if we set ourselves on that course, won't we ultimately be able to give access to those creeks, to clean them up, to then put trails in virtually for free because of the investment we've made. And isn't that going to change our whole reality of our relationship to the environment if we can actually see where the water's going? And currently that really isn't possible. We don't know what watershed we're in. 90% of the public just doesn't have a clue. I'm in the Wolf Run or the Town Branch or the Hickman. We're detached from it. If we can open up and allow opportunity to come to those watersheds and care for them, the whole city will benefit. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pettit. That's the last person I'm aware of wishing to speak. Does anyone else wish to address the council? Seeing none, we'll stand adjourned. Thank you very much for taking the time to share your thoughts with us tonight. Thank you.