# Public Meeting on Proposed Water Quality Fee - May 2, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 2, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/890 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/890?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-05-02 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 9,972 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The City Council met in the Council Chambers under the presiding officer of the Mayor. The meeting included one agenda item focused on public comments regarding a proposed fee, which was handled as an informational matter. During the meeting, the Council heard 18 public comments from members of the community. No motions were voted on during this session. ## Attendance **Present:** - Council Member Blues - Council Member Gordon - Council Member Crosby - Council Member Stenet **Absent:** - Vice Mayor Gray **Late:** None reported ## Public Comment The meeting included eighteen public speakers addressing the proposed stormwater fee and related water quality initiatives. **Support for the Fee and Water Quality Protection** Jack Wilson, a former director of the Kentucky Division of Water, urged the council to maintain momentum on protecting Fayette County's water quality [timestamp: 0:32:15]. Walt Gaffield, representing the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, supported the fee as essential to meet legal obligations under the Clean Water Act and warned against delays that could worsen flooding and pollution [timestamp: 0:47:58]. Hank Coratti, speaking for Kentucky River Watershed Watch, framed the fee as an investment in the future and praised the task force's work [timestamp: 0:54:13]. **Requests for Credit Systems and Exemptions** Multiple speakers advocated for credit systems to incentivize stormwater best management practices. Andrew Steckinger emphasized that credit systems still provide public and environmental benefits even with low utilization [timestamp: 0:04:56]. Bill Lear criticized the one-size-fits-all fee structure and proposed a benchmark-based credit system with engineering review [timestamp: 0:10:19]. Robert Ryan, representing Colony 4 Neighborhood Association, argued that residents maintaining stormwater ponds should receive credit or relief [timestamp: 0:16:54]. Mary Wright from Fayette County Public Schools requested credit recognition for the district's existing investments in rain gardens [timestamp: 0:24:00]. Tracy Spencer urged exemption of schools, churches, and hospitals from the fee [timestamp: 0:26:02]. **Concerns About Fee Structure and Implementation** Louis McCoy expressed frustration about being taxed without prior stormwater guidance [timestamp: 0:29:52]. Bernard McCarthy questioned the logic of taxing schools and churches [timestamp: 0:45:35]. Billy Forbus warned that high fees could drive businesses away [timestamp: 0:56:27]. David Trapp objected to the fee as a property tax with no end and demanded transparency on fund usage [timestamp: 1:00:22]. **Green Infrastructure Recommendations** Dave Leonard urged funding for comprehensive urban forest management, citing Cincinnati's success [timestamp: 0:20:45]. Sue Beard urged prioritization of green infrastructure like trees and rain gardens [timestamp: 0:51:27]. Mike Winkler yielded his speaking time to Andrew Steckinger [timestamp: 0:02:39]. ## Contested Items The meeting featured three primary areas of contention: **Lack of Credit System for Stormwater Management** Multiple community members, including Bill Lear, Robert Ryan, and Mr. Quick, expressed strong opposition to the absence of a credit system for stormwater management. These speakers argued that without such a system, the proposal fails to incentivize green infrastructure investments and unfairly burdens property owners who already manage stormwater on their properties. The critics contended that a credit system would reward proactive environmental stewardship and create more equitable outcomes for those already implementing stormwater solutions. **Taxing Schools, Churches, and Nonprofits** Speakers Tracy Spencer and Bernard McCarthy criticized the proposed fee structure, specifically objecting to its application to schools and churches. They characterized the fee as unfair and expressed concern that it would be potentially harmful to community organizations that already serve important public functions. This opposition centered on the burden such fees would place on institutions that typically operate with limited budgets and serve the broader community. **Transparency and Use of Funds** David Trapp and other speakers raised procedural concerns about the lack of clarity regarding how the $30 million would be spent. These participants questioned the transparency of the proposal and demanded greater accountability. They specifically called for a defined end point for the fee, expressing concern that without clear parameters and spending plans, the financial commitment could become open-ended and lack proper oversight. ## Public Comments about Proposed Fee A public meeting was held to gather comments on a proposed water quality management fee. Multiple residents, organizations, and experts participated in the discussion. **Key Speakers and Participants** The following individuals provided comments during the meeting: Andrew Steckinger, Bill Lear, Robert Ryan, Dave Leonard, Mary Wright, Tracy Spencer, Jack Wilson, John Brunau, Mr. Quick, Robert Lail, Bernard McCarthy, Walt Gaffield, Sue Beard, Hank Coratti, Billy Forbus, and David Trapp. **Main Issues Discussed** Speakers expressed support for the necessity of the proposed fee but raised several significant concerns: - **Lack of credit systems** – Commenters noted the absence of mechanisms to provide credits or reductions for those implementing mitigation measures - **Unfair burden on nonprofits and schools** – Concerns were raised that these institutions would face disproportionate financial impacts from the fee - **Poor transparency** – Multiple speakers highlighted insufficient clarity regarding how the fee would be calculated, collected, and used - **Need for green infrastructure** – Participants emphasized the importance of incorporating green infrastructure solutions into the fee structure and planning - **Long-term planning** – Speakers stressed the necessity for comprehensive, long-term planning to address water quality management sustainably **Outcome** The meeting was informational in nature, serving to document public input on the proposed fee rather than to reach a decision or resolution during the session. --- ## Full transcript Music Let's go ahead and call our public meeting to order. Let me welcome all of you to the Council Chambers and go over just a little bit of what we're going to try and accomplish tonight. Tonight the limited purpose of our meeting is to elicit comment from the public about the proposed water quality management fee. If you have not already done so, I hope you will sign in near the back door where you came in. And what I'll plan to do is just go down the list and order people sign up. We'll allot everybody three minutes to speak. When you come to the podium, I'd appreciate it if you would state your name and address so that we can have that for purposes of following up with you if we need to. If you have anything in writing that you would like to make available to the council, please feel free to leave that with our clerk, and we'll make sure that gets distributed. When I call your name, if you would step up to the podium, and then I'll ask the next person on the list to sort of stand by in an area over there closely so we can move on as rapidly as possible. So, having said that, I think the only other thing that remains to be said is tonight is not a time for us to debate. It is a time for us to listen, and so there won't be back and forth with members of the council tonight, but we do welcome your observations, and that will be factored in as the deliberations go forward into next week. With that said, let me just start down the list. The first person who has signed up to speak is Mike Winkler. And Mr. Winkler, if you'll step to the podium, I'd appreciate it. The next speaker will be Andrew Steckinger. If you'll stand by close by there. Mr. Winkler. Mike Winkler, 3555 Olympia Road. I'm going to give my time to Andrew Steckinger. If that's okay. Very well. Mr. Steckinger, you'll have your three minutes plus three. And our next speaker will be Mr. Lear following you. There is one other thing I should have mentioned to members of the council. In the last several days I've received a couple of letters which I have made available to the Clerk. The first one was from the Farm Bureau which was a letter in support of the proposed fee. The second one was a letter from John Roberts who spoke here on Tuesday evening as you may recall. He is opposed to the fee and he had some modifications to his testimony and copies of those letters are with the Clerk. And if you have received correspondence that you'd like for others to be aware of, I would encourage you to pass along to the clerk, if you'd like. Council members also have received, and I will pass along a copy to you, a letter from the Fayette County Neighborhood Council in support and a letter from the Kentucky Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association in support. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor Gray asked me to inform you all in the audience that he regrets he could not be here tonight, but due to a previous commitment at Bluegrass Community and Technical College, he had to be at the other place instead of here. Thank you, Mayor. And I have a prior commitment that starts about 630 tonight, so I will only be here for a short while. Mr. Steckinger and then Mr. Leader. Thank you. My name is Andrew Steckinger. I'm at 1014 Tate's Creek Road. I recently moved back to Lexington from Portland, Oregon. Working with Commerce Lexington recently, I had phone conversations with several regional municipalities that currently have stormwater utilities. and in order to find out the stormwater fee credit system and how well these systems were utilized. A complete review of my conversations and findings is included in your packet that we'll provide from Commerce Lexington. A majority of these cities have some form of basic credit system, and other municipalities I spoke with are strongly considering credit systems for the near future. During the course of the stormwater fee task force, it was decided that a credit system would not be included as part of the water quality fee for reasons that include credit systems were underutilized in most municipalities with a national average utilization of 2 to 5 percent of available funds for credits. And the upfront capital costs for implementing stormwater BMPs to earn a stormwater fee credit could not be recouped with credit savings in the short term. I would like to address these arguments based on what I've learned from the municipalities I've spoken with and add some other considerations to support a credit system. In regard to the first point, the municipalities I spoke with did admit that their credit systems were underutilized in comparison to initial expectations. However, none of them reported zero utilization. Most reported at least two credit applications per year, and Charlotte actually received an influx of 20 applications within the last year. Most of them attributed the low utilization to lack of advertisement and lack of engineering and developer education about the program. Chattanooga has seen 1% utilization, but they are planning to expand their credit system and plan to advertise it using billboards around town. None said that there would be any consideration of terminating the credit system, and most were actually considering or in the process of expanding their credit systems. There were two common factors that convinced many of these utilities to implement a credit system, which include it helps to reduce public animosity over increased payments to the government, and offering credits, especially at the inception of the utility, insulates the city from legal action regarding tax versus fees. In general, the advantages of an underutilized credit system outweigh the advantages of no credit system at all. The task force also mentioned the financially upside-down economic returns associated with credit systems. A stormwater detention facility can be quite expensive, and it may require 10 to 15 years to recoup their investment with the savings provided by the stormwater credit fee. Some utilities are addressing this issue in creative ways to encourage installation of stormwater BMPs. For example, SD-1 is considering a program that will allow the increased credits for the two to three years after BMP installation in order to expedite the recuperation of capital costs. The problem today is that there has been too much focus on stormwater detention facilities and not enough on stormwater quality BMPs. The consent decree, after all, has more focus on water quality than quantity, and in fact only mentions flooding once in the entire document. My experience working with this issue for four years in Portland, Oregon, is that water quality facilities can be much more affordable to design and construct than detention facilities. And the expense to implement these BMPs can also be justified as landscaping costs. Most properties have landscaped features on their properties, and with proper design, landscape features could double as water quality BMPs. These smaller BMPs have the ability to retain the first flush storm events that are most common to our area, thus reducing the stormwater volume. Furthermore, properties that implement a rain garden or planter box for stormwater can use it to publicize their environmental stewardship and the green ethic of their company. The rain garden at the Coquacobo distributor is an excellent example of this result. In summary, based on discussions I've had with various municipalities, the overhead cost of administering credit systems can be reduced with strategies currently employed by cities in our region. Moderate to low utilization still provides ample benefit to the community by encouraging beneficial stormwater management and reducing potential frustration over paying a fee, which they have no power to adjust. Moderate annual utilization of credits can also be viewed as beneficial for preserving annual budget. This sends us the need to increase the stormwater fee in order to make up for revenue lost to credits. Based on my conversations, the consensus is that an underutilized credit system is better than no credit system at all. And if a property has to wait 10 years to recoup their capital costs, then they should have the opportunity to make that decision. Apparently, that decision has been made by hundreds of property owners in multiple cities across the region. Ultimately, a credit system is a good way to encourage public environmental stewardship that will positively reflect on the City of Lexington for generations to come. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Steckinger. Next is Mr. Lear, and following Mr. Lear will be Michael Harrison. Mr. Harrison, if you would stand by close to the podium. Mayor, I understand that there is one person who has signed up later than I have on the sheet that will yield his time to me, so I would like six minutes if that's... And who is that? Nick Nicholson. Got it. Thank you. I want to take just a few minutes to address what I believe to be the most glaring deficiency of the ordinance as it's currently drafted, and then the second part to suggest a solution to that. And this does relate to what the previous gentleman just said. The most glaring deficiency, and I don't want to talk about timing or anything else, just in the way the ordinance is set up is that it's basically a one-size-fits-all ordinance. It puts single-family properties and duplexes on one side and everybody else on the other and doesn't differentiate in any way between the good guys and the bad guys, between those that are contributing significantly to the problem and those who are contributing little or nothing to the problem. And there's no safety valve, no relief mechanism to allow for an adjustment of the fees to take into account those differences, and they are radical. I'll give you one of the most extreme examples, and that's an entity that's one of my clients, Keeneland. Keeneland, under this ordinance, will pay a huge, approaching six-figure annual fee because it's got a lot of impervious surface. That impervious surface sits in the middle of a 1,000-acre rain garden, which means not only that there's very little impact beyond the boundaries of the property of all this impervious surface, but also that there is plenty of room there to put in literally a world-class facility if there were incentive to do so. Yet, under this ordinance, that organization, I could give you a lot of other examples, despite its commitment to quality environment, will be charged a fee as if it had the same amount of impervious surface, no green space, and were located in or adjacent to the worst flooding area in Fayette County. And there are dozens and dozens of other like examples. Not having a credit system or a method for reducing the fees really puts us at odds with many of the cities that we have. We, our task force, have cited as benchmarks. If you look into this report that was produced to you several pages over in the Q&A section, there's a list of about 10 or 12 cities and their current fees. If you pick out in that 10 or 12 cities, there are about six metropolitan areas. only one of those metropolitan areas, Dayton, has no credit system. The others all have credit systems, most of them significant. Charlotte allows up to a 100% credit. Louisville, an 82% credit. Northern Kentucky, an 80% credit. Chattanooga, a 75% credit. Columbia, South Carolina, a 60% credit, which can go to 100% for certain types of facilities. As it currently exists, therefore, there's really nothing in this ordinance that incentivizes altered behavior. What we would really like is for every property owner that can, can either to reduce the rate of flow off of the property, hold property so that they reduce the total quantity of flow, or improve water quality. There is no incentive in this ordinance as it exists today to do any of those things. What I've passed out to you is a proposed solution. It would set up benchmarks, baseline benchmarks, against which any property could be judged, and those benchmarks are based on rate of runoff, on total amount of runoff, and on water quality. It does not cost the government to administer this because it would operate like the local Board of Assessment Appeals works, and that's the rough model. If you believe that you would qualify for a reduction, then you, the property owner, have the burden of bringing engineering studies and the like before the Water Quality Manager, the Water Fee Board, and demonstrating that you exceed by a certain percentage these various criteria. I've created a blended rate where quantity of flow, rate of flow, and quality each count for one-third, although you could weight it more toward water quality, for example. and you would qualify for a reduced fee. The reduced fees would be reviewed every four years, or if you got cited for and it was determined that you were guilty of a violation of the chapter, then you'd go back before the fee board and have the reduced fee subject to being revoked. It's all it is is a safety mechanism. This also provides that every two years you'd look at the actual receipts from the fee, the costs of the fee, take into account if there are any reductions, and there would be adjustments in the fee based not just on the consumer price index but actual experience with the fee. Now, would that mean that if some people got lower fees, others would go up? That's possible. Frankly, I think you're going to find that they have underestimated the amount of revenue that's going to be produced by this fee. But if, in fact, some others go up, you would be shifting the burden onto those that are most responsible for causing the problem and off of those that aren't responsible for causing the problem. Now, I'll conclude by telling you why I have concerns that you have underestimated the revenue. The school board has estimated, and there's a representative here, that their fee could be $500,000 or $600,000 a year. Lexmark, $100,000 to $120,000 a year. Does it make sense to you that the school board has one-twentieth of all the impervious surface subject to this? Even though they're big, it doesn't make sense to me that they are one-twentieth of the entire amount of fee. It doesn't make sense that Lexmark, as big as it is, would be one-one-hundredth of the entire fee for Fayette County. That's a solution to the problem, which I think is serious, and I hope you will consider it and be glad to work with you on trying to implement it. Thank you, Mr. Lear. Mr. Harrison, if you'll... Thank you. The next person I have on the list is Suzy Lawrence. Ms. Lawrence. Suzy Lawrence. All right. Mr. Ryan, if you would step forward then. And following Mr. Ryan is Dave Leonard. Mr. Leonard, if you would step around, please. Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, I'm Robert Ryan, an attorney here in town. I'm coming tonight representing one of the communities, the Colony 4, Neighborhood Association and Community, Adolph-Rosales Road, near New Circle Road. As a little background, and I must say that we echo Mr. Lear's concerns and sentiments, that there's no credit system or method to reduce the fee that may be charged to lot owners in that subdivision and others in similar position. As a little bit of background, that particular subdivision has three impoundment ponds that they are responsible to keep in good shape and to in good working order. One is a very large pond, the other two are smaller. They have aerators. It is an expensive proposition. When they bought their lots included in the lot cost were obviously costs that the developer passed along to them for the development construction of these detention ponds. Also on an ongoing basis, these residents out there in order to keep this water quality in good shape, to also keep everything else in operating order and condition and to maintain and operate the aerators necessary. They have spent significant sums of money. It amounts to over $250 per lot in that particular subdivision. When you add on the $52 proposed fee, that would take it up over $300. Of course, there would be potentially a little bit more of that as I read the proposed ordinance. I must assume because it's not one of the exempted properties that all but the streets and roads of the Lexington Federal County Government will bear some part of this fee and will be paying on that. The state obviously will be paying except on its roads, streets as well as the Federal Government. So those additional incremental costs will be passed along as well so that will put it up well over $300 for these residents just for maintenance of stormwater. We think that there should be some credit given, some way to rebate the fees. If not, then they certainly would like to have the city consider to come out and take over and to front the cost and the total cost of maintaining and operating these three ponds, which as I said are significant. But that's what we find to be, as Mr. Lear says, a glaring omission from this ordinance And it's unclear the way that it's written, at least the way I read it, whether this incentive credit program would cover these types of ongoing maintenance obligations for neighborhood associations or whether that simply is something that would be for to incentivize a community to implement a new plan. Certainly the $200,000, I think, that was earmarked would probably be woefully short for all the communities in Lexington. and they don't see much relief in that area. So again, I would ask the council to consider the inclusion of some credit system or some way to, a method to rebate or readjust the fees for communities in this situation. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Ryan. Mr. Leonard, if you will step forward and Mary Wright, if you would stand by, please. Thank you for the chance to address the council one more time and be brief. I'd just like to note that you're about to vote on an ordinance that will impact the people of Lexington for a really long time. And I'd like to see it invested in a plan that will grow with Lexington and improve over time rather than one that will not, which basically is concrete. Concrete tends to say the same over time. Obviously trees grow and have many benefits if you all had a chance to look at the packet that Yvette gave you all last night, you know, on Tuesday. Cincinnati is a shining example of what can be done with a good forest management plan. They have a fee assessed annually that with that they prune every tree on a five-year rotation. They plant every available site, and they remove trees as needed, even have a hotshot crew standing by to take care of emergencies. That's all funded out of house even by that. So it's just the money's set there. A lot of other communities are doing similar things. One good example of what Lexington can do and has been doing, which is great, is to re-force the bluegrass. Really been a big help with our streams and the examples that we've set forth on those as far as water quality and runoff. So an improved urban forestry department with a comprehensive management plan would assist in proper planting, maintenance of trees, restoration of soil through the trees and the leaves that fall, reduce stormwater runoff, clean water, and do more of everything as the trees grow. Everybody knows here 40502 is kind of a nice place to live. I don't live there. It's nice. Chevy Chase, an example of what mature trees can do for an area in the city. They've been there. They've got good soil, which is another issue we'll have to talk about later, and engineering practices being what they are. Retention of soil is really important in growing nice trees. There have been many mistakes made in the past, such as planting 90% of our urban forest in pin oaks. Now the pin oaks are dying. huge problem, especially when they fall on your house and have root rot. So let's just don't make another mistake by ignoring a great opportunity to do something for Lexington and fund a comprehensive urban forest management program that will grow over time. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Leonard. Ms. Wright, if you'll step up. And Tracy Spencer will be our next speaker. If you would come around, please. Ms. Wright. Thank you. I'm Mary Wright. I'm representing Fayette County Public Schools. First, I'd like to commend the task force for the work they did to try and understand a very complex problem that's developed in our community over decades. I understand that they approached their charge with a sense of urgency to develop a viable solution for our community. On behalf of the Fayette County Public Schools, an entity that will be responsible for paying a large portion of the stormwater fees in our community, I'd like to ask that the Council and Task Force reconsider the possibility of having a credit program. We'd like to see a program that would give credit for efforts above and beyond to minimize runoff and improve water quality without relying solely on an engineering solution. Already our school district has invested in the construction of several rain gardens on various campuses throughout the county in order to reduce water runoff. Additionally, in each of our new construction projects and renovation projects, our Board of Education has committed to looking at the cost of ownership, not just the upfront cost. We've always complied with the requirements for managing stormwater and certainly will continue to do that and are interested in going beyond the minimum requirements where we can see a long-term benefit for the school district and the community at large. While incentive programs are nice, we need a plan that supports investments to address the stormwater needs of Fayette County and recognizes cost-benefit relationships that can encourage creative solutions. We would prefer to participate in a comprehensive community effort that reflects a systemic solution rather than a piecemeal approach. We're also interested in partnering with the City on ways to meet a huge component of the consent decree in the area of public education. We want to be a part of the solution in investing in educating our children. Certainly the school district with our 35,000 pupils is capable of effecting immediate educational programs. the impact when our children go home and share what they are learning with their families. In the long run, educating our youngest citizens has the potential of changing mindsets, values, and habits. And that will certainly yield positive results for the environment in our community. We certainly hope that the council will be willing to recognize the value of those educational efforts as well. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Wright. Mr. Spencer, if you'll step forward. And then the next speaker ahead is Louis McCoy. Mr. McCoy, if you'll step around. My name is Tracy Spencer. I live at Tabor Lake Drive in Lexington. Appreciate the opportunity to address the council and the mayor. I have four points to make. I think one you'll all agree to and the other three you'll probably have problems with. First of all, I think the system you've set up to address the residential part of the stormwater issue is probably as good as you're going to get it and okay. No one wants to pay more taxes, but I think we can all afford $50 a year. No more, though. I'm still trying to pay off the last two or three the mayor has put on us. The second point is that I can see why the Farm Bureau and the Thoroughbred Association endorsed this. Agriculture got a complete pass on this. And I'm not saying this is a criticism. I'm complimenting you for recognizing the importance of agricultural community and that you have exempted them from this tax system. I just wish, and I can't understand why the same consideration wasn't given for schools, hospitals, churches. Just the church I attend, I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation. It's going to cost over $4,000 a year. Well, that's money this church doesn't have for room at the end, High Street Neighborhood Association, and those type things. So I think for our nonprofits, we have to exempt them out of this, and at least we should have them do a stormwater plan, identify, benchmark where they are, and then maybe use some of the government money or incentives that will be there to help them improve their water quality. Because I do agree we need to improve water quality. We just, taxing people doesn't help anything. The third thing is, I guess I disagree with what Bill Lear said and others, is that our biggest gains can come from our commercial businesses in town, and it only makes sense to get them involved by writing stormwater plans, benchmarking where they are, and setting up plans to improve their runoff in water quality. Putting a large tax on Lexmark and their school systems is not going to help do that, and will only help drive our businesses out of town. The fourth thing is, I know you are sensitive to this. We need to do this right. I just have a sense that we're rushing into it. I know the common citizens like myself are not up to date on this, and the people I've talked to in the last two weeks are totally unaware of anything going on. So I don't know how many letters you're getting, but everybody I talk to is just, what's that? We're going to be taxed. They're not aware of it. So we need to do it right. We need to make some changes to it. Let's go ahead and maybe implement the first part of it and then really listen to some of the people here and get the other parts right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Mr. McCoy, if you'll step forward. And Mr. Wilson, Jack Wilson, if you will stand by. Let me say before you begin, Mr. McCoy, I have to step away now. And I want to tell those of you who have spoken tonight, and I see a number of other familiar faces in the crowd who I know will wish to speak, I've been very, very impressed by the quality of the comments both on Tuesday night and tonight. Whether you support it or oppose it, I think without exception, the people who have come forward to speak have had very thoughtful and insightful comments, and I appreciate your willingness to be involved in your community and being here tonight. Having said that, I'll turn the meeting over to Ms. Gordon so that she can hear from the rest of you, and I'll check you out on the video streaming option at a later time. Mr. McCoy. My name is Louis McCoy. I live at 1562 Bauman Lane. That's out in the rural part of Fayette County. My question is, they was wanting to do a zone change out there some years ago for a church that was wanting to build. I come here for that meeting and stuff and because I was in on the low end of the water deal And I was told at that time about some of the water and about the new houses that they built They told me there wasn't no qualification that a new house had to required to retain their water and Now here two or three years later They're wanting to impose a tax on me and they wouldn't give me no help two or three years ago with the storm water that I was receiving out there on bombing lane Like I said, I don't think it's right that I couldn't get no help back in and they're wanting to charge us a tax now for this. Like I said, that's all I've got to say about it. Thank you very much. Mr. Wilson, will you say your name and address please? My name is Jack Wilson. I live at 3424 Heathshire Way. I moved to Lexington in 1975 with my family and was amazed to learn of the status of the sewer system and even more surprised in observing stormwater handling in Lexington. I subsequently was employed by the Environmental Protection Cabinet where I witnessed the decline of Bayette County streams in terms of water quality and some of the problems faced by the city on their sewer system. Fourteen of the years since then, I was director of the Kentucky Division of Water. In that professional capacity, I met with three previous mayors met with three previous mayors of the city and various council people, urging them to take action to establish a stormwater fee system that would meet the needs of the county. I also served on probably three, perhaps four different task forces with the same aim. All of these efforts failed. They failed for some of the same reasons we still hear about. It costs too much. We don't need to do it right now. We can wait a while. It isn't evenly applied and so forth. This council and this mayor, in my estimation, have brought real leadership to this issue in the last year or so. So I urge you, don't lose your nerve now. This is important to the citizens of Fayette County, to the businesses of Fayette County, to the tourists we wish to attract to Fayette County, and for our children and our grandchildren. So support this ordinance. Take the steps that we need to protect the water quality in Fayette County. Thank you. MS. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Next is Mr. Brunau. I may have massacred your last name. And then after you will be Mr. Harpole. Tell us how you pronounce your name. My name is John Brunau. Brunau. John Brunau of Markinsaw. That will help you there. That helps. I appreciate you speaking to me tonight. I was on the original stormwater task force some ten years ago. Reason being is that I lived along Wolf Run Creek and my home flooded thanks to Ms. Henson helping us out there. But tonight I want to share a couple things with you that hopefully will be a bit of history and some other things in addition to what's been addressed tonight. Excuse me, do you mind to give your address, please? It's 1212 Cape Cod Circle in Lexington. However, at that time my address was 1120 The Lane, and I lived in the middle of Wolfram Creek. So I had the opportunity to speak before Ms. Gordon's task force on behalf of the Apartment Association a couple weeks ago. And I was pleased to notice that they had, and it was not on the original task force itself, but that they had taken the trouble to go back and look at history, to connect history with what they've done, brought in the consultants that consulted with us many years ago and had a great continuity in what they had decided upon. And I was very impressed by that, impressed the progress they had made and the reports that they made. And we have exceptions today to perhaps some of the implementation ideas, but they built on this initial work and arrived at what I consider a fair and workable solution. We ended up with our task force with a recommendation of a multi-year project because at that time it was funded out of the mayor's budget and was 120 projects, many of which have been done already. And then with that, it had a budget of over $100 million spread over time. But I want to talk tonight about a couple ancillary issues. It's very important that we be aware, in addition to water quality, of the issue of home flooding. My home flooded. Couldn't stop it. Engineers couldn't stop it. City bought my home and tore it down because of its location. It was zoned, but upstream development created the problem. So home flooding is a very important part of this thing. It is home acquisition on the part of the city has been a vital part of this program. So please don't lose track of that important element of what you're doing here tonight. The second thing is the issue of retention and detention areas, which Mr. Ryan spoke to. I happen to be a resident of Colony 4, so I moved from one issue to another. But in reality, that retention that we have there was mandated by the developer. it not only services our area, but services a broad area of city and state property, which was designed to drain into this area. So our concern is very great. We are paying the fee, but we're also maintaining a facility of retention and detention, which the city is benefiting from. And these kind of exceptions need to be addressed while you're viewing the larger issue. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Ronal from Arkansas. Mr. Harpole and then Mr. Quick. Council Member Gordon, with your permission, I would like to yield my time to Mr. Quick. No problem, Mr. Quick. You have six minutes. Thank you. I'd like to thank all the members of the council for giving us the opportunity to come here and to address you tonight. I'm here representing Commerce Lexington, our 2,000 members, and our member companies, which represent churches, nonprofits, and education groups as well. I stand before you today not as an impediment to this fee or an obstructionist, but rather a messenger on changes and concerns that the non-residential community, as it's been defined by this ordinance, has concerning the proposed stormwater fee. Commerce Lexington is still concerned with the timing of the fee with the recession. But it's clear the Council has the will to move forward with solving our stormwater problem. And we do respect the political will that you have to bring resolution to this. The other day I had a chairman of 35 years ago approach me and say that 35 years ago we led an effort. I think we worked alongside our elected officials to come up with a solution, only to have the public voted down at the time. So we've been in this game a long, long, long time trying to get resolution as well. The business community strongly urges you to ask yourself, what kind of city do we want to be, and what are our benchmark cities to which we want to be compared? To that end, the stormwater program can help answer those questions and ultimately help our city reach its future potential. Lexington is not competing against Hopkinsville or Radcliffe, Kentucky. They're wonderful communities. We are competing against the likes of Charlotte, North Carolina, Indianapolis, Indiana, and Chattanooga, Tennessee. Do we want to institute a program that only encourages residents, businesses, education groups, and churches to write a check to pay the fee? Or do we want to change behaviors and build green infrastructure? Do we want the government to fix all the problems themselves? or do we want to encourage public-private partnerships to get the kind of signature projects that will put Lexington on the map? Your vote on this ordinance will have that kind of impact on our community. We are confident our suggested changes to the current ordinance will help the city achieve the latter. Thoughts and suggestions like the ones that Bill there mentioned and his exact kind of outside-the-box thinking is the type of thinking our city needs to be showing in the process. We're still discouraged that the council will not strongly consider a credit program. When we look at successful programs across the country, like Charlotte, North Carolina, as one example, their credit programs are skyrocketing and taking off. We're extremely confused as to why not a credit program. In our research, we found that, for example, in Nashville, Tennessee, they're being encouraged to develop a credit program, and they have the same consultants that we're using, AMEC, where they're advising us here not to do that and telling us that they don't work. So we're not sure what all the issues are there, but it just seems that for us it's very confusing as to why they would tell one community one thing and our community a different. We know you're encouraged by the incentive program, and so are we. But the incentive program should be part of the overall solution and not the total solution. We're extremely concerned this program isn't more clearly defined in the draft ordinance. It isn't made permanent and most of all may become, and we hope not, become a political football where different districts have to fight and try to buy for money for the incentive programs within your own districts. And we know that you don't want the same thing. We all know the purpose of the consent decree is focused on water quality. The water quality portions of the decree were volunteer programs that our city agreed upon, which we fully understand. There has been a lot of attention and scrutiny of Lexington's redlined or impaired streams and how this fee will be used to fix those streams. I would like to point out the Kentucky Division of Water has identified only one 1.4-mile segment of a stream in Fayette County that has been impaired solely because of urban stormwater. Finally, we must make Fayette County Public Schools a permanent part of the stormwater program. We need to change behaviors of our citizens and corporate partners, and schools are just the perfect way to do that. Please consider making permanent agreement with Fayette County Public Schools to teach water quality programs to our youth. I would like to draw attention to the packet we provided. has some minor changes we'd like to see made before the ordinance is passed, if that's possible. We'd love to sit down with each and every one of you throughout the next week to explain those changes further and hope that you would consider these changes. One of the changes I would like to point out is the Independent Oversight Board that we feel strongly should be established. It would be the role of this Board to review the program and make recommendations in the future to the Council on what needs to be changed with the program. Another critical function of this Board is to provide oversight to the deadlines established by the consent decree and ensure the City does not pay hefty fines by not meeting the deadlines. This oversight Board is meant to be separate from the Fee Appeals Board, so please don't confuse the two. But throughout all this, we've tried to be a good partner. We've spent a lot of time in research on other communities. We're continuing to do that. like to share as much of that with you and we've been very encouraged by some of the interaction that many of you that some of you are starting to have with us about how we can you can learn more about some of those initiatives and figure out how to make what we've got right now much better because as one gentleman said this is something that's going to have a dramatic impact on us for not just years to come but decades to come. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Quick. Next is Robert Lail followed by Bernard McCarthy. I came down to say I was against taxes, but I guess this is something we're going to have to live with. This year, because I can't. Will you state your name and address, sir? Oh, Robert Lail, 940 DeLong Road. year the state has raised taxes on beer, cigarettes, and gasoline. If they put wild women in there, I'm in trouble. They got me all the way around. But I do have problems with not having a credit system. First time I heard it was here tonight. But I like that idea. I'm going to get killed on some of my commercial property, but I've got green grass out there if I could get some credit. Hamburg has just about washed one of my places away. But I always thought these retention basins were going to be the answer to all this stuff. And it did seem to work for a period of time. And then about five or six years ago we got the understanding we were going to do regional retention basins. And my farm became one of those retention basins. And as you can see there, I tried to fix it. But it is a problem, I guess, that we're going to have to pay for. But I like the idea of that credit. That's all. Thanks. Thank you very much, Mr. McCarthy, and then Mr. Gaffield. My name is Bernard McCarthy. I live at 515 Harry Street. So far, you've already raised our taxes to pay for fixing the sanitary sewers, and I have not yet heard a satisfactory explanation of how throwing more money at the storm sewers is going to improve the quality of the water any. I mean, if getting rid of the sanitary sewage that overflows and then finds its way into the streams didn't solve it, what more are they expecting us to do? Considering stormwater is essentially rainwater that fell from the sky, and if the city did not exist at all, if this land were still wilderness instead of a city, it would still find its way into the same waterways so I don't see what it is the federal government is expecting us to do to it and I also have a problem with one branch of government taxing essentially another branch of government which the school system is and you're inflicting this on organizations that are normally exempt from other taxes as well such as churches and I kind of have a problem with that. Now, having said that, I don't mind paying a bit more to control the flood problems that I know exist, that some people are who just happen to be in the wrong place get repeatedly flooded. Although when you buy out somebody's house and tear it down, instead of just keeping the land empty, I think you need to find a way to use that ground for retention basin or something to help relieve the problem elsewhere. In other words, we need to get more flood control for the buildings we tear down. And by the way, in 30 years that I have earned my living working for the state, only 60 houses have been wiped out by all the roads I worked on plans for. In 18 years of volunteering, I have helped build 249 houses. Thank you, Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Gaffield, followed by Ms. Beard. I'm Walt Gaffield, 2001 Bamboo Drive. I'm speaking on behalf of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. Neighborhood Council would like to thank the members of the council who worked on the committee to prepare the stormwater management fee. It was a very open process and was really a model of citizen involvement in that kind of work, and Neighborhood Council appreciates that. We, of course, support the stormwater management fee as proposed. We participated in that process. There's really no question that Fayette County is in violation of the Clean Water Act. We should have an MS4 permit from the state of Kentucky within, oh, maybe as soon as two weeks, and we're going to be in violation of that. It's going to be necessary to have this fee in place really as soon as possible to be able to meet the legal obligations of the city and Fayette County. So really any delay is problematic. I'm reminded of a woman who lives in Councilmember Stenet's district who basically has had sewage in her basement for 30 out of the last 35 years. She shouldn't have to wait for two years or five years or even one year. I mean, there are just certain things that need to be dealt with right away. The stormwater really impacts every council district in Fayette County. It impacts every income level. It impacts minorities of all sorts. It really affects everyone. In terms of economic development, having clean water and worrying about your environment, not having flooded homes, not having sewage in your basements, is important in attracting businesses. If you're going to promote walking trails, and this council's worked a lot on that, You don't want your walking trail next to a polluted stream that floods. It's something that we simply need to deal with, and I appreciate this Council's courage in actually dealing with the issue. This issue has been there for a long time. In terms of the – a lot of people have spoken on behalf of credits. I don't think this is the time to get into that. It's a very complex issue, and you're simply going to delay your fee and delay your program. A consultant spoke to the committee who put this package together and basically said it had never really worked anywhere else. There really wasn't a good example of where that worked. I think in addition, it's administratively very inefficient. For example, if you put a rain garden on your property, if there were a credit program, you'd get a credit for it. But somebody would have to go look at it. They'd have to figure out how much of a credit you should get. And then I suppose someone would have to go back on an annual basis and make sure it had been maintained and was still working. Mr. Gaffield, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ms. Beard and then Mr. Grady. Hi, I'm Sue Beard. I live at 1854 Belafonte, and I've been writing this since I've been sitting here, so I have to kind of read it. Fortunately, we live on high, dry ground, but I see the problems all around me because I'm a realtor. And I live near the Arboretum, which is a good example of the use of green plant material for stormwater problem mitigation. I would like to encourage our city to give serious consideration to green infrastructure as part of our stormwater solution. Our stormwater problem has been ignored and been developing for a really long time. It's a complex problem that deserves to be carefully researched and evaluated by experts to come up with a good quality long-term solution for our community. I know you've already heard that trees are being used successfully in other communities to reduce the volume of water that must be managed in urban areas. Trees lessen stormwater flow by intercepting rainwater on the leaves, branches, and trunks, slowing its movement into drainage areas. Stormwater volume is also diminished when some intercepted water evaporates into the atmosphere and soaks into the soil. As an added benefit, trees are natural pollution filters. Their canopies, trunks, roots and associated soil filter polluted particulate matter out of the flow to storm sewers. Reducing the flow of stormwater reduces the amount of pollution that's washed into the drainage area. Hopefully our urban county government will carefully consider and research the use of trees and other green infrastructure as a long-term solution to our stormwater problem. The EPA says that this approach is a cost-effective and environmentally preferable approach. And I forgot to tell you that about 30 years ago, I chaired a committee of the Land and Nature Trust that wrote Lexington Street Tree Ordinance and set up our street tree board. And we did a lot of research for about a year before we finalized that document. So I'm hoping that just a lot of good research will be done by qualified people regarding this issue. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Grady, and then I believe it would be Dr. Forbus. Good evening. My name is Hank Coratti, and my address is 406 Mill Road Place, Midway, Kentucky. I'm not necessarily speaking as a downstream resident who gets what leaves Fayette County, although I am on the Elkhorn Creek downstream from you. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Kentucky River Watershed Watch. And on behalf of the Kentucky River Watershed Watch, I want to commend the Council and the task force for getting this issue to the current point. In summary, from our perspective, the $51.84 per year minimum that every Fayette County property owner must pay for developed property should not be seen necessarily as a tax or fee. It is quite simply an investment in our future. Even if the Lexington-Fayette Urban County government were not under contract with the U.S. EPA and the Division of Water to enact this fee, it would be the right thing to do and should have been done years ago. The more important issue now will be implementation where this community has failed year after year. Again, I want to go on record in strong praise for the people that formed the task force and for the hard work of the task force for the report that you have prepared and for the recommendation that you're making. I say this because the Kentucky River Watershed Watch monitors your waters in Fayette County and throughout the Kentucky River Basin. We are part of a statewide citizens monitoring effort, and we monitor across Kentucky and in Fayette County and downstream from Fayette County. My letter gives you the website of our data. We did a 10-year trend analysis, and seven of the top 20 or bottom 20 sites in the Kentucky River Watershed Basin were in Fayette County. Fayette County is a source of ongoing serious water pollution problem, and we believe that this is part of the solution. If only things were so simple that stormwater didn't cross over into the sewer system just like the sewer system crosses over into the stormwater system. They do, and they aggravate each other's problems. We recently submitted comments in strong opposition to the MS4 permit. We believe this night we're happy to be here to say something affirmative about the direction that Fayette County is going. I do have some concerns. The concerns are in my letter, and I would urge you to read the concerns and address them when you implement this program. Thank you. Are you submitting your letter? I've submitted my letter, and I will also submit it by email. Okay, very good. Thank you very much, Mr. Grady. Dr. Forbus and then Mr. Trapp. I'm tempted to sing, but I won't. Thank you. I'm Billy Forbus. I live at 227 South Ashland. And I want to thank you all very much for how hard you've worked on this. And as a former biology teacher and a school instructor for many years, the water quality is very important to me. And I love Mr. Leonard's idea and several of the other people who've talked about things to do about quality of the water. But also I have concerns as a citizen that we're going to tax our community to the point we're going to lose incoming businesses. Why would they come here with this huge tax when they could go to Madison County or Jessamine County or Scott County? And those loss of jobs, that loss of payroll tax, the loss of taxes on the homes, you know, this is a short-term fix, and it's a long-term crisis. I'm not opposed to us doing something about it. I'm just opposed to how this operates. This is absolutely a long-term crisis. You can look at large cities like Detroit, who 25 years ago were booming and bustling, and today it's a death town. And it's purely about they taxed and taxed and taxed until the business is left, then the property values declined, people moved out, and they're left with just square miles of vacancies, and they have no tax basis left. So the city's out of business. One of the things that was interesting, they talked about the taxing of churches and schools. I mean, I can't grasp that concept. Even if my taxes go up, I don't grasp the concept of taxing my schools and my churches. But one of the things that I did want to bring up, I made a little chart I'll pass around. Based on the city's information to me, there are 1,600 miles of roads in Fayette County. And that makes 300 million square feet of pavement. Now, that makes the culprit not the private businessman, not the fellow who owns a fourplex, and not the fellow who owns a duplex, and not the guy that owns a little strip mall. 300 million square feet of pavement is a crisis. And I haven't seen anything in here to address that. All I've seen is tax the entrepreneur and tax the Lexmarks and tax the hospitals. but I haven't seen anything about what are we going to do about that issue, and I think we need to address that with getting that water taken care of too. Obviously we can't tax the city and the state. I'm not proposing that. That would be foolish. I'm just saying we need to address it, and we have planted a lot of trees in the last couple of years, especially up and down the Tate's Creek Quarter. Those are things that I applaud, as Mr. Leonard brought up, and I think we have to look about the long-term solution, and this kind of progressive tax that's going to continue to increase is not going to be a long-term solution. Mr. McCarthy brought up about the sanitary sewer we were told by paying that tax it would solve this storm sewer problem and it hasn't seemed to to date so I agree with several of the other speakers we really need to look at implementation and follow up and I haven't seen that addressed in here so please take enough time to look at it and address the whole situation thank you very much and the last person on the list is Mr. Trapp. I'm David Trapp, live at 111 Woodland Avenue. I'm really not here to argue against what you're doing. I'm here because I'm upset about the heading, say, Water Quality Management P. Let's face it and say this is a property tax. As a property owner, I agree with what we just said. At some point, you're going to have to quit chasing the property owner just because we can't run and hide. Now, sure you need financing. Okay, I'm willing to pay my part. But look what you're doing here. You're using 2,500 feet as a residential area, and that's what they're being taxed on. So you're going to take my property, which is shopping centers here in town, to buy 2,500 feet of my property, I'm going to pay roughly 8 to 10 times per foot that the average property owner is paying. 2,500 feet works out to 14.7 lots per acre. Now, we know that's ridiculous. The average here in town, and I have no way of knowing, is probably 10,000, 13,000 feet. So tax me at that. Don't tax me at 2,500 feet. Another thing is the fact there's no end to this tax. You're pricing or trying to put a property tax on that doesn't quit. I would be very much supportive if you said, hey, we need $30 million. We need $40 million. divide it up, at the end of the $40 million when we've collected it under this procedure, we'll stop, we'll figure out what we need, and we'll go from there. But all you're telling me is you're going to increase your taxes five years, we're going to increase them some more, we don't know what for. There's not even anything in this that clearly states what you're going to do with the money. The $30 million even. All it says is you're going to improve it. What does that mean? Where did the $30 million come from? Why isn't it $28.5? Why isn't it $32? I don't know. Do any of you all know where the money's going? But you're asking us to just hand you some money. That's all I have to say. I object to it. I think it's wrong, not what you're doing, but the way you're attempting to collect the money. For instance, let's just say you're going to add a 1% sales tax in the city. Mr. Trapp, thank you very much. See how that would go over. Thank you very much. Was there anyone who didn't get to sign up who wishes to speak from the public? One of the things that several council members have talked about is asking Charlie Martin to, he had put out a fact sheet on Tuesday night, and to address whether there are any factual issues. Charlie is our Division of Water Quality Director. Council Member Gordon, point of order. This is a public meeting for the public, and I think we could get the fact sheet maybe put online and And also have it presented to us at council meeting. I don't think this is time for I I don't think this is time for We were quite clear that we would not be debating or would we be receiving information Well, we're also receiving information from our government on this, and this is a time for the public to comment, not for us to comment. And I believe that Mr. Martin would be considered part of us. That's fine. Council members received an email about this, and there were... I understand, and I was not aware that we were... I was actually told beforehand that I didn't think this was going to happen, so I didn't bring it up. But since you're bringing it up now publicly, I think that he should do it at another time. It's a public meeting for the public. If that suits the council, that's fine. Yeah, the reason that this was brought up before council was to put out factual information, but if you don't wish that, that's fine. There's many ways to bring out factual. That's not, do we have someone from law here perhaps to tell us? Council Member Crosby, that's fine. Okay. We don't need to make a point of it. To the public, I'll say if you'd like the facts, you'll need to find them out online, or Division of Water Quality Director will be happy to answer questions at another time. Thank you. If there's no one else who wishes to speak, that concludes our public meeting. Thank you.