The Water Quality Fees Board voted on Jan. 16 to adopt a set of changes to the FY2026 Stormwater Quality Projects Incentive Grant application packets and scoring sheets, approving a group of staff recommendations intended to refine eligibility, limit contingency claims and steer awards toward projects that advance water-quality goals.

The board approved continuation of the programs change-order fund, a 20% cap on contingency costs in construction budgets, a 5-point scoring bonus for applicants that have not previously received a grant award, and new scoring and application language that covers research monitoring, impervious-area exclusions, minimum setbacks for best-management practices, and handling of projects near the Royal Springs recharge area. Board members also approved revisions to reward projects that address impaired streams and to tie E. coli scoring to documented BMP effectiveness.

The package was presented by Frank, staff member, LFCCG Division of Water Quality, who walked the board through a staff memo listing recommended edits and the reasons behind them. Frank said the memo "lists programmatic changes that staff has suggested and that the board will need to discuss and vote on each item" and noted staff had prepared score-sheet exhibits and example language for each change.

Why it matters: the changes alter how applications will be scored and what costs are eligible for reimbursement. They aim to reduce ambiguity in budgets and to encourage projects that target impaired streams and measurable pollutant reductions rather than surface work (for example, paving) that does not directly improve water quality.

Key decisions and details

- Change-order program continued: Staff described the change-order fund as a tool to provide additional funds for projects that encounter unforeseen costs. Frank told the board that calendar-year 2024 water-quality fee revenue totaled $17,753,183.30 and that 10% of that revenue is the program allocation used to size grant pools (the calculation staff showed produced an allocation figure of approximately $1,775,318). After correcting a spreadsheet misprint, staff reported the amount available for topping off the change-order pool this cycle would be $177,531.80. Board members said the fund had helped keep three projects moving since 2023; the board voted to continue the program as recommended.

- Contingency cap: Staff recommended adding packet language defining contingency and capping contingency costs at 20% of construction opinions of cost (examples listed included supply, material, labor, design and unanticipated site conditions). The board approved adding the definition and the 20% cap to the Class A, B (infrastructure) and B (education) application packets.

- Preference for prior nonawardees: To encourage new applicants, staff proposed a 5-point scoring bonus for projects whose applicant has not previously received a stormwater incentive grant award. After discussion about whether scoring should penalize repeat high-performing applicants, the board approved the 5-point adjustment and directed staff to incorporate it into the FY2026 score sheets.

- Innovation and experimentation (IER) pool: The board approved expanding the innovation/experimentation pool to explicitly allow research and monitoring projects to fund research that measures BMP effectiveness. Staff said $156,800 across grant classes is the typical allocation for that pool; the addition is intended to produce data to inform future BMP implementation.

- Impervious-area exclusions and eligible expenses: Staff proposed clarifying that the program will not fund impervious-area work (concrete or asphalt) except for limited site restoration items such as curb cuts and sidewalks. The board approved adding language to all application packets to reduce follow-up work and to ensure grant funds are used for water-quality/quantity purposes.

- Minimum horizontal clearances for BMPs: The packet language will explicitly state minimum setbacks for proposed BMPs: 10 feet horizontally from existing or proposed buildings and LFCCG sanitary lines (with exceptions and a 5-foot minimum for tree trenches and planter boxes). The board approved adding the setback language to the application materials.

- Pond armoring: Staff proposed clarifying that "pond armoring" (the use of inorganic riprap/inert materials as the sole project element) would not be eligible. After discussion the board approved language to prevent funding for projects that are solely inorganic bank armoring while permitting mixed or vegetated approaches when appropriate.

- Targeting impaired stream segments and E. coli effectiveness: Staff proposed and the board approved adding score-sheet items that reward projects sited on impaired stream segments and that link E. coli scoring to documented BMP effectiveness using the programs internal BMP database. The effect is to give preference to applications that supply supporting data demonstrating expected E. coli load reductions.

- Documents and authorizations required from applicants: The board approved several packet additions to strengthen assurance and oversight:
- For Class B education grants that include on-property BMPs, a property-owner acknowledgement/maintenance signature line (Attachment B) will be required so owners explicitly accept maintenance responsibility.
- Applicants proposing BMPs within the Royal Springs recharge area must include a location map and, if applicable, a letter of support or endorsement from local stakeholders (for example homeowner associations or the Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Committee).
- For projects that are part of redevelopment or otherwise subject to regulatory requirements, applicants must document which project elements exceed baseline regulatory obligations so the grant pays only the incremental cost.

- Application publication: After voting through the individual items, the board approved publishing the FY2026 application materials incorporating the approved language and score-sheet changes (staff said application deadlines will be included in the published materials; staff earlier referenced a May 2, 2025 deadline for certain Class A and B education applications).

Discussion and next steps

Board members repeatedly emphasized clarity in the application packet to reduce staff follow-up and to avoid funding activities outside the programs water-quality focus. David, board member, said the innovation pool expansion and the targeted scoring for impaired waters were reasonable ways to use limited funding to advance measurable outcomes. Frank and Bailey, staff members, said staff would implement the voted changes and incorporate a clarified phrasing for pond-armoring language as requested by the board before publishing the packet.

The board instructed staff to publish revised application packets and to return to the board if further substantive edits are needed. Staff also provided a project-status update on existing grants and noted a small number of grants close to final billing or needing time extensions.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the meeting transcript.