Since he knows how it will be in the 10th century, here's the thing, I think I won't place it back. I will just believe strongly. Okay. It was after that meeting we had out there at Doug and Court. Yeah, anything's. It was like an hour late. Who is this? He was an hour late. The man was literally over. I'm going to go try to steal the mouse from downtown. Oh, is that mouse? Unless I can't see. Somebody said that. You want me to go get it? Yeah. See you then. I would like to also stop the record from . Motion carries. All right, opportunity for work learning, fiscal year 2016 class B infrastructure grant. Okay, what's up with that? So Mr. Scott Southall is here to speak to this item on the agenda for now, which was one of our 2016 projects that had been delayed due to a changing of the guards, which I'm sure he will explain a little bit further. And so they would like to request a change in location due to some new discoveries and what have you. So I'll just turn it over to Scott so he can kind of get into the mood with that. Thank you. Thank you, Frank. Thank you. Yes. Scott. Can you state your name for the record? And who you're with. Yes. Scott Southall with Earth Cycle Design. and we are the consultants on the project. And I believe, just to make one minor correction, I believe this was FY 2018 grant. It was actually FY 19. 19, excuse me. All right. The 16 was the feasibility study. My apologies. Yeah, so FY 2019 is the grant. So the last year was somewhat of a, well, the last year has been somewhat of a challenge for all of us, but also for Al. They went through shortly after the acceptance and award of the grant, they went through a leadership change due to a fairly major health concern for their executive director and president. And as such, they needed to kind of take a step back in their evaluation of all their activities with the new leadership that came on. And one of the things that they looked at was moving forward more rapidly with a change of their headquarters and their venue. If I don't know Jennifer, Frank, share. Yeah, can we share the screen? Yes, here we go. So, as I mentioned, this started off as a feasibility study, and this is an exhibit from that feasibility study, and the star buildings are the buildings that are owned by Al, and the buildings with the triangle on them were leased property. So they were owned by OWL, but they leased them out to other entities. Next slide, if you don't mind. During the study, we discussed numerous possibilities, including the expansion of one of their existing facilities, and that was highlighted in the brown hatched area. The parking lot that was an existing parking lot, but we were going to expand upon it, was the parking lot that is between the expansion in the brown and the existing building, which is the 650. Next slide. uh in addition to the expansion this kind of shows you what the improvements were going to possibly occur to their existing kind of facilities with a new revised parking lot on the north side or to the right side of the of your screen there And that was all keeping with the lease properties that are at the end of the cul-de-sac in mind. So that was part of the feasibility study. Next image. So the original proposal, knowing that they may have a future expansion in mind, the next proposal, or the proposal that was the FY 2019 grant was to focus on their existing office slash manufacturing facility. That is the hatched area in the yellow. And what we were proposing was a parking lot renovation of their main guest visitor parking lot slash employee parking lot that is highlighted in the pink. And so that's what the grant was written on and was awarded for. This, again, as I mentioned, they own basically the entire cul-de-sac on Kennedy Road from the place of where you're looking at this image here all the way down to the end of the cul-de-sac. If you go to the next slide. So in the change of leadership, what they then proposed doing was to consolidate all their resources under essentially one roof. Their operations are such that they travel between all the four buildings that were in the light gray and they would have traffic movements, not only of personnel, but also of equipment and materials going back between these four buildings. And so the leadership, the new leadership decided that it was best for them to move forward with a new building and on the end of the site, as you can see in the dark gray. So this is the concept design for that new building and then the new parking lots that would be associated with that. the hatched areas that are in the parking lot represent the area that we would be proposing the impermeable pavement that we were proposing on the original parking lot to be included then on or to be a replacement for this parking lot area yeah if you can maybe increase it just a little bit. So you'll see that the hatched areas, and in here I was about ready to do my pointer with my pencil, and realizing that you weren't going to see that, but the hatched areas of the parking spaces represent the proposed area for the permeable pavement. Yes, thank you, Jennifer. So you can see that we are at this concept level proposing to make those swap out that space. And because this would be a redevelop site, we would already be meeting the 20% requirement for redevelopment for water quality. So this project would then exceed that 20%. And then the last slide shows the change in the cul-de-sac. So we are going to be presenting this to public works for reducing and moving the cul-de-sac forward to allow for the space for the new facility that, again, would incorporate all their existing facilities under essentially one roof. So what we're requesting is that we're being able to move essentially the project from the address of the 650 to essentially the address of, again, still owned by Al, but to the address of currently 692, 691, and 670 something, 676. So that is the end of the presentation and I'll entertain questions you all may have. So if I'm understanding you correctly, the scope of the project has changed from what was originally proposed to now. and I guess this is a question for staff as far as the square footage of the permeable pavers is the new project going to be as much or more than the original proposed I believe it's about the same can you can you tell us the difference I know the original was 9,000 Yeah, we're up to about 12,000 square feet. So we are increasing the area under the new project. And what you're asking the board to do is to approve your revised concept as far as moving forward. Is that correct? That is correct, sir. Yes. Thank you. All right. Any comments, questions? Scott, my only question is, is the cost going to be the same, or are you going to ask that for a change order? Well, the cost of the grant, let me put it in this terms. The cost of the grant request amount is not going to change. The cost of the project because of the substantial increase in the scope of work is going to change as a result of them building a new facility and the site work associated with that new facility is going to increase. So essentially, they're, and I don't know if we want to get into this, but the amount of cost increase of the overall project is going to be such that it's going to have an increase, but it's going to be on the owner's side of the increase and not on the grant side of the increase. Does that make sense? I mean, in other words, the owners putting up more, will be putting up more of their money into this project. Now, whether, like I said, we want to get into changing the cost, you know, match amount that the grant has already established. The grant already established that they were, and again, this is an approximation, about 25% cost match. So they were already exceeding the 20% cost match. But with this project and in terms of the site work, they'll far exceed that. But again, from a grant standpoint, I don't know if we want to change those calculations. Thank you, Scott. I would like to add that, you know, for the board's consideration, if they do consider it, is that we definitely like to, I don't know if we can actually incorporate a new stipulate, but we certainly would need a revised budget, detailing the new construction details for the project so we can see the material cost and what have you, as well as, you know, a layout of the complete scope. So we would need to revise those things in our documents so we could track them accordingly. Yeah, that's a pretty substantial change from what was reviewed and approved. So I think you're right on target with that, Frank. Any other comments? And I guess to respond to that, of course, the grant's already been approved, right? So in order, if we decide to move forward with the change, a condition of that is providing the information you just talked about, Frank. Yeah, and then, you know, for staff, also for the staff, we would just, you know, our major concern in terms of what we would recommend is that the scoring wouldn't have changed, you know, based on the footprint since this is an infrastructure grant. So, you know, if the scoring changed, we would have to go back to the drawing board. But since Scott noted that the square footage would actually increase, then I think staff would be comfortable with the changes. I mean, I think we're getting even more bang for our buck here. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Comments, questions? I'm sorry. I would also like to add that, Scott, assuming that the educational portions and everything else are the same? Yes. Because those things are important to that. Everything else is consistent other than what you noted to the board today. Yes. I mean, there wouldn't be any change in terms of the – essentially, the scope of the project has not changed based upon the grant application and what was approved. were essentially moving the location onto another part of their property and expanding it, as I noted. Because I couldn't remember if there was any signage involved, so that would mean relocating that if that was the case. Well, yes. I'm sorry, Frank. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe there was a sign. And yeah, that sign would, you know, obviously hasn't even been, you know, produced at this time. time so that would yeah that's what make sure you note that new location in your scope when you give us those revised materials we want to make sure that it includes the education material updates that you know you may have on that yeah thank you so Frank is is it and this is Harry it is important that that a revised application be made without without a lot of detail just so that on the record it shows the right property. Actually, we're not touching the application because that's how you all approved it in the original state and how we scored it. We're just asking for a revised scope. And that's what you all would be approving to accompany a new budget, a revised budget, as well as any other changes in location of, like I said, the educational activity since they're moving the parking lot. If there was signage to be at the old proposed lot, then it would have to be shifted to the new location. So we just want to note those locations as well as an amendment to the attachment A document. What's the will of the group? I move that we accept the request of change. Thank you, George. Is there a second? I'll second. moved by George seconded by David all in favor of the motion signify by raising your hand and saying aye aye opposed like son motion carries and and I guess as a part of that um that approval again gets back to Scott providing the requested the clarification and documentation that Frank was describing. Yes, yeah, we can provide that. Okay, very good. So I think we're good to go. Thanks Scott. Thank you very much. Thank you Scott. Next item, FY 2021 Class B Infrastructure Grant Selection. So for this item, I want to start out by giving an overview of the funding for the Class B infrastructure grants so you all can kind of get an idea of the funds that are to be allocated. And for that, I think we forwarded the summary of FY 2021 Class B infrastructure grant applications document. Yes. To use a phone. Yeah, the one-page. And I only, I'm sorry, go ahead. The one-page document front and back? Yes, sir. Gotcha. And for the same, I'm only going to be referring to the top portion and then I'm going to move on to the actual grant determination forms so we can follow those details from those sheets as opposed to reading the applicant ranked scoring summary portions at the bottom and back of that sheet. Okay. So for the FY2021 Class B infrastructure funding, there's a $300,000 maximum per grant, a target of $50,000 for feasibility-only projects. and as a note there were four applications submitted in this category a target of $166,500 for projects 50,000 or less and there was one application submitted for that available in FY 2021 budget is 1,110,000 available from prior years is $74,501.60. And these came from available, these were available from previous FY grants and that were completed under budget or canceled or terminated. Available from funds remaining after selection, selecting the FY 2021 Class B education and Class grantees was $0 so we didn't have any monies left over. Total available for FY 2021 funding is $1,184,501.60. Also available is the experimentation pool monies in the amount of $300,000 and these are available for use in any grant class. The total requested amount was $1,139,576.00 dollars and sixty three cents in nine applications. So that's a preview, I mean it's an overview of our funding that we have to consider. And now Jennifer and I will trade off, we'll kind of alternate for the grant determination forms for the class B infrastructure. Yes. Okay. The first applicant is Andover Neighborhood Association. The requested grant amount was $158,701.13 with a cost share amount of $39,729.65. The total project budget of $198,430.78. This was a design and construction application and the grant project elements include the intention to maintain the green space as a park-like setting and it will have the following five separate tasks. Number one, replacement of the failing concrete spillway at former hole number 17 pond, bank stabilization and construction of a riparian buffer along the northern bank of number 17 pond, replacement of portions of the cart path with pervious concrete, community stream cleanup extending along East Tickman Creek from Todd's Road to the pond just upstream of Jacobson Reservoir, and the fifth is placement of permanent signage at the proposed bank stabilization explaining the benefits of riparian buffers and improved concrete spillway. The recommendation of the director of the division of water quality is that the applicant and proposed project need program eligibility requirements project score of 70.9. Approve the grant application for the full amount of $158,701.13 requiring a minimum $39,675.28 cost share. Approve the grant application with the following stipulations. Number one, LFUCG and applicant agree to all project elements, eligible expenses, terms and conditions, and a grant award agreement to be approved by the Urban County Council. Number two, applicant shall verify the need and ensure all permits are received prior to any stream bank stabilization work. Number three, applicant shall obtain written approval and agreement prior to work being done on properties not owned by the applicant. Number four, the project shall not proceed with field work until written approval to proceed is obtained from the grant administrator or director of water quality because of the potential for conflict with future LFUCG projects. Number five, the operations and maintenance plan shall preclude storage of certain materials on the pervious concrete. The O&M plan shall be provided at the conclusion of the project. Number six, organization proposes a larger cost share beyond that required by the grant program. Budget shall reflect the 20.02 percent cost share offered in the application approximately $39,729.65. Application number two is for Beaumont Residential Association. The requested grant amount is $299,740.50, with a cost share of 20.01% in the amount of $75,000. The total project budget of $374,740.50. $740.50. This is a design and construction project. The grant project elements are to stabilize an existing swell using concrete reinforcing block mats to permit grass and vegetation growth. Install a bioswale that includes large rocks to prevent erosion and reduce runoff velocities. Number three, plant vegetation and deep roots to stabilize the banks and encourage infiltration. Number four, replace asphalt pedestrian trail with pervious pavers. Number five, install a sign beside the trail at the purpose pavers to educate residents about the benefits of the pavers. And number six, conduct the community-wide educational seminar at the conclusion of the project's construction. The applicant's proposed project does meet program eligibility requirements. Does not, I'm sorry. And the project's score is 61.08. This project is not recommended for funding. Application number three. George? Yes, George? I have a question. Could you elaborate for my education, could you elaborate why that was not eligible? Yeah, Frank I think he's directing that to you. Okay, with this project, which I will get into that more, we'll get more into detail when we talk about the discussion, but this project Since it's a Class B infrastructure project and the project elements were proposed on Class A properties, and so it is in our guidelines that we do not recommend Class B funding be used for Class A properties. Does that make sense? We can discuss that, I think, a little more detail after you finish going through that. If that's okay, George, we'll drill into the details after I've gone through the summaries. Okay. Okay, application number three is for Huber Real Estate LLC number one. The requested grant amount is $12,000 with a 20% cost share offered of $3,000 for a total project budget of $15,000. This is a feasibility application, and the grant project elements are a feasibility study to identify, evaluate, and select BMPs capable of reducing the impact of pollutant floating and flooding at the 701 East 7th Street sinkhole and downstream Royal Spring Aquifer. The feasibility study will also help to identify educational opportunities for showcasing the selected BMPs, including but not limited to signage for Huber employees, visitors, and pedestrian traffic, facility tours for professional groups, and outdoor classrooms curricula for student groups. The recommendation of the director is that the applicant and proposed project meet program eligibility requirements with a project score of 68.64. 4. Approve the grant application for the full amount of $12,000 requiring a minimum $3,000 cost share. Approve the grant application with the following stipulations. 1. LFUCG and applicant agree to all project elements, eligible expenses, terms and conditions, and a grant award agreement to be approved by the Urban County Council. 2. Applicant to notify the Royal Spring Aquifer Wellhead Protection Committee prior to work being done on properties. Number three, applicants shall provide documentation that the feature at 701 East 7th Street is a sinkhole and part of a karst network. Application number four is Lexington Center Corporation, a requested grant amount of $234,400, the cost share of 20.2% in the amount of $59,250, a total project budget of $293,650. This is a design project. Due to the large scale and complexity of this project and the schedule, this application only seeks feasibility and design funding at this time. The grant project elements are, number one, a feasibility study to evaluate the most innovative and best practices in green infrastructures and stream restoration appropriate for the proposed urban park. Number two, design of selected BMPs and stream restoration. Number three, develop educational signage plan and create the signs for the stormwater management BMPs and stream restoration. The applicant and proposed project meet program eligibility requirements with a project score of 75.79. Approve the grant application for the full amount of $234,400, requiring a minimum cost share of $58,600. Approve the grant application with the following stipulations. Number one, LFUCG and applicant agree to all project elements, eligible expenses, terms and conditions, and a grant award agreement to be approved by the Urban County Council. Number two, organization proposes a larger cost share beyond that required by the grant program. Budget share reflect the 20.2% cost share offered in the application, approximately $59,250. Application number five is from Manly Farm, LLC. The requested grant amount is $300,000 with a 20% cost share offered of $75,000 for a total project budget of $375,000. This is a design and construction application, and the grant project elements are, number one, design and construction of a rainwater harvesting system. Number two, development of an educational component regarding sustainable farming practices, including effective stormwater management and water reuse. Recommendation of the Director of the Division of Water Quality, the applicants proposed project does not meet program eligibility requirements project score 76.18. It is not recommended for funding. Application number six is for North Lexington Holdings 2 LLC, a requested grant amount of $49,755 with cost share of 20% and the amount of $12,439 with a total project budget of $62,194. This is a design and construction project and as well as it's also a project's $50,000 or less so it kind of hit two categories. The grant project elements are number one, retrofit of an existing parking lot with permeable pavers, approximately 550 square feet. Number two, installation of an underground detention basin. Number three, plantings of native landscapes. Number four, install permanent signage as a stormwater educational tool. Applicant and proposed project meet program eligibility requirements with a project score of 68.56. Approve the grant application for the partial amount of $48,255, requiring a minimum cost share of $12,063.75. Approve the grant application with the following stipulations. LFUCG and applicant agree to all project elements, eligible expenses, terms and conditions, and a grant award agreement to be approved by the Urban County Council. The project shall not proceed with field work until written approval to proceed is obtained from the grant administrator or director of water quality because of potential for conflict with future LFUCG projects. Fermeable pavers shall not be installed within 10 feet either side of an existing sanitary sewer and measures taken to prevent infiltration water from entering into the sanitary sewer stone trench. The operation and maintenance plan shall preclude storage of certain materials on the permeable pavers. The O&E plan shall be provided at the conclusion of the project. Number five, applicant to coordinate with the Division of Planning prior to starting the project. Number six, applicant to consult with the Royal Spring Aquifer Well-Held Protection Committee regarding placing infiltration BMPs within the spring recharge area. Number seven, if underground detention is provided, property owner will be required to conform with LFUCG Code of Ordinance, Chapter 16, Article 10, Division 2. Applicants shall submit a revised budget omitting the bike racks in the amount of $1,500, which are not eligible for funding or be counted as cost share for inclusion and attachment aid to the grant award agreement. Application number seven is from Paladin Incorporated. The requested grant amount is $34,980. The cost share amount offered was 20.1% for $8,795 and a total project budget of $43,775. This is a feasibility application and the grant project element is a feasibility study to evaluate the efficacy of reverse vending machines to encourage residents and visitors to properly recycle via return for deposit their disposable single-use plastic bottles. The recommendation of the Director of the Division of Water Quality is that the applicant meets program eligibility requirements. However, the proposed project does not meet the goals set out by the grant program. Project score 40.74, not recommended for funding. Application number eight is for United Landscape, James W. McFarland. The requested grant amount is $26,000 with a cost share of 20% in the amount of $6,500, a total project budget of $32,500. This is a feasibility grant, and the grant project element is a feasibility study to evaluate and recommend water quality and quantity BMPs in the form of green infrastructure that would resolve pollution, siltation, and flooding issues at 729 Bel Air Avenue while addressing the shared boundary with the Legacy Trail. The project will also include stormwater education via active demonstration, workshops, educational, and interpretive signage. The applicant and proposed project meet program eligibility requirements with a project score of 62.5. Approve the grant application for the full amount of $26,000 requiring a minimum cost share of $6,500. Approve the grant application with the following stipulations. LFUCG, an applicant, agree to all project elements, eligible expenses, terms and conditions, and a grant award agreement to be approved by the Urban County Council. Number two, an applicant to notify the Rural Spring Aquifer Well-Health Protection Committee prior to work being done on the profit. Application number nine is from Wesley United Methodist Church of Lexington, Kentucky, Incorporated. The requested grant amount is $24,000. The cost share amount is 20% or $6,000 for a total project budget of $30,000. This is a feasibility application, and the grant project element is a feasibility study to evaluate and recommend water quality and quantity BMPs in the drainage way behind the church. The recommendation of the Director of the Division of Water Quality is that the applicant and proposed project meet program eligibility requirements with a project score of 53.41. Approve the grant application for the full amount of $24,000 requiring a minimum $6,000 cost share. Approve the grant application with the following stipulations. Number one, LFUCG and applicant agree to all project elements, eligible expenses, terms, and conditions, and a grant award agreement to be approved by the Urban County Council. Number two, applicant to notify the Royal Spring Arquifer Wellhead Protection Committee prior to work being done on the property. Okay, thank you. So I guess the first thing, let's see, there's three projects that are not recommended for funding. And I think some common elements of those are that they don't qualify. And maybe it might be helpful to Frank to identify what are the requirements for a class A and class B so we have a little better understanding of that. In terms of the requirements, are you speaking in terms of the one specific to Beaumont or any other one? One of the requirements is that for Class B infrastructure projects that they be a class B fee payer and in this case all of them are actually class B fee payers but the issue with with respect to Beaumont is the fact that the project was set to occur on class A properties and for the maintenance for the issue of maintenance that would it was going to to be troubling which is why I think they separated the classes in the first place because we don't have control over the home ownership. The Beaumont Association does not own the properties that they wanted to propose the project for. Okay George I think that's getting back to your point. Yes. so okay so i guess i'm asking a confusing question trying to lump it so let's look at each one individually since we're talking about beaumont let's specifically address address the beaumont and as as i recall one of the issues was i think division c that that applied to a HOA of a property that, as you say, they don't control. And I think one of it was they hadn't gotten authorization or approval. And I guess a question I have is if they get a letter from the HOA approving to the project, would that take care of the concern that you had raised in the review process? I think that, I mean, we certainly, through the application process, through the application document that we provide to all the applicants, encourage them that if they are going to propose work on a property that they do not own, that they speak to that property owner or to that entity to make them aware. And then certainly, if not as part of the application, by the time the grant award agreement goes through council, they have gotten that other property owner to sign the grant award agreement as a party to the awarding of the funding. I think Charlie wants to weigh in. There's a back story to this as well. They've got channel erosion problems back there on the stormwater channel that goes behind the houses on Guilford Lane and Savannah. We had already done some preliminary engineering on it outside the grant program to begin with. And when I saw this come in as a grant application, I kind of flagged it for that reason. um the aside from the fact that they they applied as a class b rate payer and they want to do the improvements on a collection of class a properties roughly 15 of them is that we also one i found was that where most of the improvement would go on is on two parcels that they don't have a letter of recommendation from, which I thought was kind of surprising. Secondly is that I have, we have some concerns about whether or not the viability of what they're proposing to do, while I think it would help stabilize the channel, the fact that there's too much water trying to go through that, there's not enough detention upstream, that would actually undermine the long-term operation and maintenance of the improvement that they want to make. So then couple that into what Frank was trying to say is that trying to have a maintenance agreement that involves 15 different parcels recorded on 15 different lots just seemed untenable to us. So what we're doing is we're proposing that the board not approve this because, one, they didn't follow that into that classification. But two, then instead we move this back over to the stormwater capital program because we think we've got a way to be able to do not only what they're proposing to do here, but also to divert some of the water around from where this problem area is because the root cause is during these intense storm events, there's just too much water trying to go through too narrow of a location. Okay, that helps kind of clarify that. Thank you. And another point is if this was proposed with the Class A neighborhood applications, when we put maintenance agreements in place with Class A property owners, those are not recorded. So they're not recorded at the county clerk's office. So it's not something that follows the title or the deed to the property. And that's sort of also reflected in the dollar value of what can be applied for a Class A project versus a Class B infrastructure project. project. So again, trying to compel individual homeowners to maintenance over a 15-year service life, tracking changes in ownership, it just was going to be too tenuous for this grant program to wrangle all of that. So it really is more suited to either a capital project, as Charlie spoke of, or sort of repackaging it and submitting it as a Class A application. Okay. Okay, what's Willow Group? Any more questions, comments concerning this? I think it's kind of helped me understand a little bit more where the staff's coming from. Yeah, I'd just like to comment. I think it's, in the first place, it is a serious problem. I'll walk in that area and I understand exactly what the problem is. So it does need to be fixed. And I think Charlie's explanation is good. And if it can be part of a capital project, that would be good. And I think we need to be sure that there's some future for this. And I'm not sure this board has any responsibility of that, but I would certainly recommend that we support some action here because I do think it is an important project. And as Charlie says, there's some serious problems here. Yeah, I've talked to Council Member Bledsoe about this because she was the one who originally introduced me to the problem a year or so ago. And so I've let her know that what our recommendation to the board is going to be. And I think she's going to reach out to them as well. So basically, I've already kind of tried to solicit her help in trying to make sure that we've got participation by all of the neighbors that are going to have some skin in the game with the thing. And then secondly, is that she can maybe help me through the course of our budget procurement process with the FY22 budget looming, that we can make sure that we get the funding in place in order to make this happen. You know, obviously the critical element, like with any of it, is that on paper, it looks like doing a pump, I mean, basically a flow around looks really great. We got to make sure that the grades work. And as I pointed out to her yesterday, when we blow up Savannah Drive, You're going to invite people to the party that weren't at the party before. That seldom goes well. That's right. Other comments, questions? Also, to speak to Jennifer's point earlier about property ownership for those two Class B properties, the property owner just didn't sign the application. So they didn't actually, on the application document, it actually has a place for the property owners to sign, and that line was not filled out. They just signed the line for the organization as the grant, as the applicant, but not for the property owner. So that's why we knew about the problem as the property owners did not sign on, so we couldn't bind them in a contract. Okay. So, again, to help me understand, Class A properties are basically like neighborhood associations. that type of things, whereas a class A properties are actual single family residential properties, duplexes and farms. What about HOA projects? HOAs, if they own common property that has impervious area, they are actually a class B rate payer, but not all HOAs actually own common area or common property within a neighborhood. We do require as part of the class A application process that it can't be a single class A property owner who applies for the grant. They have to fall under the umbrella of an HOA or neighborhood association or a nonprofit entity or some sort of representative who is registered with the secretary of state in order to be the person who's signing on the dotted line. Okay, but class B, I'm sorry, go ahead, Charlie. I was just going to add to that. HOAs are difficult to deal with as far as from a government standpoint, because they don't have necessarily a legal standing that causes them or forces them to remain in existence. So we've had this problem with different detention basins and other things over the years is that when the HOA kind of everybody loses interest in it or they're tired of paying dues, they just dissolve. And then you're kind of stuck with infrastructure that you can't figure out what to do with. So as Jennifer pointed out, they do have a standing in this, but we look at them very carefully because we want to make sure that as an HOA, they're not committing to something that they probably can't do. which is what I think is this case in particular. Okay. Well, and to expand on that a little bit further, Beaumont Residential Association does have a Class A grant that is currently in process. It was awarded with fiscal year 2018 funding, and they've quite frankly had difficulty getting the project going. And we're going to talk a little bit more about that during the status updates later in the meeting. But staff who have dealt with them, we have some reservations about their ability to complete this class A. So then extending an additional $300,000 to them seems sort of a risky proposition for us as well. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions, comments? What's the will of the group as far as the Beaumont project? Mr. Chair, I would like to move that we support the staff's recommendation of not funding this project, with the understanding that there may be a better solution in the future. I'll second that motion. It's been moved by Harry, seconded by George. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Opposed, like, son? Motion carries. Okay. Why don't we look at the other do not fund recommendations because there is a balance of money left. So let's look at the next do not fund recommendation. What about the Manly Farm, LLC? Okay, Manly was very similar to Beaumont in that the project was set to occur on a Class A. In this case, it was a farm. And so they wanted to construct the rain harvesting system on a Class A property. And as well, the staff could not qualify Manly Farm as a Class B ratepayer. So that was another issue with them. So the guy, the owner, actually wanted to switch the name to another entity where they own an apartment complex. But we never got back to him to officially make that happen. But again, the reason we disqualified them was because the project was set to occur on a Class A property. So it's the same as Vermont in that sense. Okay. This particular project had the highest score of the whole Class B group, right? Yes, sir. Yes, it did. Okay. Okay, so if one of the current requirements, they would not qualify because they're trying to get basically a Class B project on a Class A parcel. Am I saying that correctly? But there is an alternative or solution that is changed to another entity that would qualify as a Class B? well that is part of the solution but the second part really can't be achieved within the class b stipulations because a farm is considered a class a property so truly their best course of action would be to repackage their application next year as a class a submittal um and get some entity to to carry forward their application maybe someone like fayette alliance or something um and then of course they could the maximum amount of um funding they could seek is a hundred thousand dollars right and i think that sort of goes to the fact that class A properties are paying $5.02 a month. So allowing them to get in the pool for those maximum grants of $300,000 doesn't really seem fair when we've got class b rate payers that are paying you know for hundreds of erus each month um you know and hundreds of dollars in water quality management fee and and really they should be the ones that can seek those larger pools of funding okay okay uh any comments questions from the group I move to accept the staff recommendation on Manly Farm. Okay. Thank you, David. Is there a second? A second. It's been seconded by Harry. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye and raise your hand. Aye. Aye. Opposed like son? Motion carries. okay then let's look at the last one the Palladian Inc. project so for Paladin they met the eligibility requirements but staff felt that the project simply did not meet the goals that were set out by the program and I guess you know For that matter, it's just they wanted to propose to install the vending machines, the reverse vending machines for disposable bottles and what have you. And staff just didn't feel like that fell in line fully with the program's objective of reducing, I mean, improving water quality and reducing stormwater runoff because of the issue of the stakeholders at these various locations. Logistically, we didn't see how it would be plausible. If Charlie wouldn't mind speaking to that. I was just going to add to that because that was basically my recommendation was, I mean, I think we all know that in Kentucky and other states, they've tried to pass bottle laws over the years. And it felt like to me is that we were wandering into a place that we didn't need to go. while it was interesting. And I, on a personal level, having lived in states that had bottle laws, would be supportive of it, except it just didn't feel like that was someplace that we, as a grantor, needed to be. Okay. Thank you, Charlie. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I would agree with that. I think it's the purpose of the idea is good, but this is not something that this board, I think, has the privilege of acting on. And perhaps this is something that LFQCG could take on as a project because it would be a city-wide kind of thing. So if the idea is good and they want to pursue it, I think that's fine. But I don't think it's appropriate for this particular process. I did float it a little bit with waste management and from the recycling program standpoint because, Mr. Clark, I agree with you. I think there's a lot of merit to it, but there's a lot of people involved, as we know as well. I thought it was interesting that they wanted LFUCG to maintain it. That's pretty innovative in itself, getting a grant but letting the city be responsible for maintaining it. It works if you can get somebody to buy off on it. I guess that's true. All right. Any other comments, questions? If I may speak to that, this is Scott Southall again, and this was a grant that we proposed to basically do what we're doing here right now, which is start that conversation. Because we know that historically, Kentucky has tried to have a bottle recycling program. this board has funded many projects to collect the bottles and you know once they get into the waterway and downstream and we thought that instead of trying to address the problem once the problem has occurred maybe there was a way to start the conversation to collect the materials prior to, and we weren't looking at just Lexington or LFUCG as the end recipient of having to maintain this program, but we were looking at other opportunities into exploring this. So really, it was to start the conversation. It wasn't to fully implement the project, but it was to start the conversation. Thank you, Scott. Okay. Any other comments, questions? What is the will of the group? Mr. Chair, I move to accept the staff's recommendation of non-funding of this project. Thank you, Harry. It's been moved. Second. I'll second it. Been seconded by George. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Raising your hand. Aye. Opposed like son? Motion carries. Okay, let's get back on track with the other projects. Lexington Center Corporation. Really an interesting project. That's a real exciting project going on. And I'm happy that we have a chance to help support that. Any comments, questions on that? All right. It's an important part of a massive project that's coming soon, we hope. So it's a great opportunity for us to be part of it. Well, kudos to the city leaders over the years that have had the foresight to see this, to have the vision to see it. And it looks like it's coming to fruition. So it is an exciting project. I think that will really improve the quality of life for all of LFUCG ratepayers. Any other comments, questions on that Lexington Center Corporation project? what's the will of the group i've moved to uh approve the staff recommendation thank you david it's been moved is there a second i'll second it seconded by george um okay all in favor of the motion signify by saying i'm saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion carries. Okay, Andover Neighborhood Association. This is for the construction on the former golf course and surrounding area of the green space. Any comments, questions on that? George, we'd like to make it a point to recognize that Andover Neighborhood Association also has a current grant in the Class A. So they are doing some bank stabilization and permeable pavers in another portion of their property. So we just want the board to be aware of that as well. It's in a different class, but Andover Neighborhood Association owns common areas. So this is an example of what we were talking about earlier. They qualified. They have their Class B rate payer, and they had a common area that they also qualified, you know, that they wanted to propose the project, which is where this Class B infrastructure project is proposed to occur. So the other Class A project, is that a previous year project? Yes, it's a fiscal year 20. It was awarded last year, and they're making some really good progress on that one. Yes. Okay. Any questions, comments on the Andover Neighborhood Association project? What's the will of the group? I move. We accept it. Okay, George, thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Seconded by Harry. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Opposed like sign? Motion carries. Huber Real Estate LLC. This is the 701 East 7th Street sinkhole area. that's a feasibility study isn't it correct well that's that's raising a good question we had a fifty thousand dollar target but we've got four different projects what is the total funding of all four do you have that information readily available well it well exceeded the fifty thousand dollar target um but i don't have the well it's it's really not that much of an issue because we do have have a substantial amount of funding left after funding the class b and making discussing revisions for class a after this is done so that's really a moot point yeah the total George just for the record the total of the four applications is ninety six thousand nine hundred eighty dollars. Okay thank you. Well they look like all good projects so thank you for that. Okay what's the will any comments questions on the Hebrew real estate project? I'd just like to comment that I was not aware of this area having such a issue with the sinkhole being a primary conduit so it's news to me. Yeah. Yeah the Cane Run watershed is very karst in nature. Parts of Cane Run Creek disappear from surface flow to underground flow throughout the watershed. and then of course it feeds the Royal Spring Aquifer which is the city of Georgetown's drinking water supply. So we certainly have an impact on their water supply by what happens here in downtown Lexington. All right, any other comments, questions? What is the will of the group? Mr. Chair, I move to accept the staff's recommendation of funding for this project. Okay. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like son? Motion carries. Let's see. the North Lexington holdings. Basically that's one that essentially you've approved, but just deleted a line item for the bicycle racks. Is that, is that right? Yes, that's correct. And this also, this was a project. The application was actually submitted last year for fiscal year 2020 funding. but it fell short of the score, the cutoff score. And if you remember last year, we had multiple projects. I think there were five applications that were in the $90,000 or less project target. So that was very competitive last year. And then in January, we reduced the target to $50,000 or less projects. and there were no new submittals in this category for fiscal year 2021 funding, but this was a carryover request to be rescored from last year. Okay. And I believe we added monies to this category as well. Yes, yes. So there's some extra targeted funds set aside for this category that we won't be using this year. Are there any comments, questions on that? I believe this is the 525, right? Yes, this is at 525 North Blindstone. Yeah, because they have another project at 900 blocks. Yes. Okay. Okay, any comments, questions from the group? I see that the bike rack is a noted concern from staff, but looking at the budget, there's also under the site finishing section a $3,000 bench. And there's one educational sign noted in the budget in the amount of $3,000. It's unclear from the application whether there would be one sign or two. there's variance depending on the page but in this round of applications we've seen signs anywhere from I think Andover said two signs for 500 and another applicant said you know 750 for a sign so I don't know if it's an existing practice for us to fund benches and the sign cost just also seemed a little unreasonable based on some of the other applicants in this round Well, I will speak to the sign costs real quickly. We have seen estimates and budgets for sign, one sign come in at almost $6,000. So that was shocking and hard to swallow. But I really think, if you think about Health First and the Bluegrass, which is a grant that we just recently closed. They had a sign. It was $2,500. So it's all sort of in the quality of signs, but I think sort of our comfort level is anything $3,000 or less. I mean, we're assuming that for $3,000, it's going to be a high-quality sign that once it's installed, it should stay put, it should weather well, that type of thing. um so that's you know three thousand anything above three thousand sort kind of raises the hairs on the backs of our neck but um that and under is typically reasonable and okay um i noticed that aaron turned her camera on she might want to speak to something in regards to your questions david um the benches got past us that's that's a good question and right yeah I think Frank's got it pulled up yeah maybe maybe we should incorporate the bench in that stipulation as well because I like she said I believe that one kind of got past this as well so I mean we I don't know if staff would I don't think we would oppose to adding that to the decrease yes i mean you know we can modify the stipulations as you all see fit what was that amount for the bench three thousand dollars three thousand for the bench and three thousand for the sign yes so we can basically revise that particular stipulation and just add the bench and reduce the partial amount yeah i think that's good and if there's a representative from that as well. Clarity on the quantity of signs would probably be good too. Aaron, would you introduce yourself and tell us who you're with? Can you turn your mic on? Or turn your mic on? It looks like your mic is off, but we can't hear you. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. It's weird. The sound is coming out of my computer, but not headphones. Sorry, this is Aaron Hathaway with Gresham Smith. I'll speak to the signs. I think Jennifer was right That, you know, in the past projects we've had to get a sign company to prepare a graphic that will hold up to UV and weathering over time. The cost we've seen come back from the sign companies has been about anywhere between $2,000 and $3,000, depending on, you know, the size and the complexity of the sign. So it's one sign and that's, I think that the 3000 is, is what you're going to have to pay to get something that's going to last longer than a couple of years. So is there one sign or two signs? One sign. One sign. Thank you. Any other comments, questions? Okay. What is the will of the group? I would move to approve the application in line with staff's recommendations with the existing stipulations and the bench stipulation. Added to that, added to the bike. That's correct. So to clarify that amount, I believe reducing the partial amount, it would be $45,255 officially for the record. and that stipulation number eight would be bike racks 1500 and a bench 3000. Yes. Okay. Any other comments, questions on that? Okay. So David has made the recommendation. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been seconded by Harry. all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye and raising your hand aye aye oppose like sign motion carries Kerry thank you or I'm sorry David thank you for making those comments good catch it was a good catch next can I make a note real fast the bench was actually part No, I'm sorry. Got that wrong. I was going to say it was part of the applicant's cost share, but that's not really correct. They just basically took the total cost and split it between the grant and the cost share. So removing that should not have a bearing on their percent cost share. Sorry, I was speaking out of turn. But the required minimum cost share will change to $11,313.75 based on the reduction. Well, why don't you guys take care of the crossing the I's and dotting the T's. Or other way around. Okay. Next project, United Landscape. Please avoid a study. anyone have any comments questions on that one what is the will of the group Mr. Chair, I move to accept the staff's recommendation of funding for this project. Okay. It's been moved by Harry. Is there a second? I'll second. And seconded by George. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Aye. Opposed like sun? Motion carries. Next project is the Wesley United Methodist Church of Lexington, also a feasibility study. Any comments, questions? what is the will of the group I move we accept it recommended I'm sorry I move that we accept it as recommended okay thank you George it's been moved is there a second I second it. Thank you Donna. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Opposed like so? Motion carries. So Frank correct me if I'm wrong have we I think we have covered all the applicants applications for class B infrastructure. We have and with funding remaining before we get to the status update we would like to note the next agenda next item on the agenda which is the class a that were partially funded or not funded and since we have additional funding we staff has recommended going back and amending or adding those projects that weren't funded because they all were recommended in terms of the project elements they passed. They were qualified. It's just that we had insufficient funds. So that's the reason that staff recommends that we go back since we do have additional funding. Okay. It took me a while to figure that out, but I did kind of gather that. And it's nice to have some money left over for a change. That's kind of nice. Agreed. uh and and george kudos to you having all the your recommendation to have a pot set aside for feasibility studies we're starting to see some fruition some activity on that thank you nice uh nice job okay there are two projects that we're talking about three i think george i'm sorry There were three, I think. Three. Okay. My bad. I guess the best thing is to go back over to the summary for 2021 Class A. On the back page, it has director recommendations updated. And, George, if you don't mind, I'd like to give you an overview of the funding that occurred as well as the additional funding that we have. Okay so you're here to go through the summary? Yeah just the front the the top portion. Okay. There's an overview of the funding just so we can get an idea of what we're allocating here. That'll work go ahead. Okay so for Class A projects there's a hundred thousand dollars maximum grant request. The Class A's have a target of $40,000 for feasibility-only projects. There was one submitted in that category this year. There's available FY 2021 budget of $250,000 originally. Available from prior years, FY grants is $6,582.46. Available from funds remaining from selecting the FY 2021 Class B education grantees was $12,685.92. Available funds remaining after selecting the FY21 Class B infrastructure grantees is $681,145.47. The total available for FY21 funding for Class A was $269,268.38 originally. Yes. And there was also the experimentation funding of $300,000. We had a total of nine applications requesting an amount of $424,021.10. So that's just an overview. So pointing out that $681,145.47 is what we're allocating because of the money's left over from Class B infrastructure. And even after, if we should fund these, there'll still be a balance left. Yes. Yes. Okay. So are you going to go through and read the... Yes. Okay. We're just going to read the updated grant determination forms for the three applicants. The first one is application number two, Ellerslie at DeLong Homeowners Association. They requested $100,000 with a 20% cost share of $25,000 for a total project budget of $125,000. The grant project elements are, number one, restoring the eroding creek bank, bedded banks, stormwater ditches, and conveyance swales, and number two, providing stormwater education programs that include a field day event and educational signage. The updated recommendation of the Director of the Division of Water Quality is that the applicant and proposed project meet program eligibility requirements with a project score of 70. Approve the grant application for the full amount of $100,000 requiring a minimum $25,000 cost share. Approve the grant application with the following stipulations. Number one, LFUCG and applicant agree to all project elements, eligible expenses, terms and conditions, and a grant award agreement to be approved by the Urban County Council. Number two, applicant shall verify the need and ensure all permits are received prior to any stream bank stabilization work. Number three, the applicant shall obtain written approval or agreement prior to work being done on properties not owned by the applicant. Number four, the project shall not proceed with fieldwork until written approval to proceed is obtained from the grant administrator or director of water quality because of the potential conflict with future LFUCG projects. The second one is application number four for Griffin Gate Community Association. They requested a grand amount of $10,397.60 with a 20% cost share of $2,599.40 for a total project budget of $12,997. The project elements are, number one, addressing erosion by improving grading, amending the soils, and adding plantings to mitigate the bare areas created by a heavy runoff. Number two, providing stormwater education through a Think Tank Sundays event on stormwater management. The updated recommendations of the Director of Division of Water Quality are the applicant and proposed project meets program eligibility requirements with a project score of 65. Approve the grant application for the partial amount of $10,293.20 requiring a minimum cost share of $2,573.30. Approve the grant application with the following stipulations. LFUCG and applicant agree to all project elements, eligible expenses, terms and conditions and a grant award agreement to be approved by the Urban County Council. Number two, applicants shall obtain written approval or agreement prior to work being done on properties not owned by the applicant. Number three, the project shall not proceed with field work until written approval to proceed is obtained from the grant administrator or director of water quality because of the potential for conflict with future LFUCG projects. Number four, only native plant materials will be allowed within the project area. Number five, since partial funding was awarded due to a conflict between page one of the application and the budget provided in the application, applicants shall provide the Division of Water Quality with a revised budget for inclusion and attachment aid to the Granted Water Agreement, listing how the approved funds and associated cost share will be allocated. The last updated recommendation form is application number five, Heartland Homeowners Association requested grant amount $99,915, cost share amount 20.05% or $25,050, and a total project budget of $124,965. The grant project elements are number one, improving grading, removing invasive species, stabilizing approximately 300 linear feet of stream banks, and installing native vegetation to address erosion issues and potential pollutants being carried through the drainage way. Number two, providing stormwater education through the Heartland HOA's website and by hosting two seminars. The updated recommendation of the director of the Division of Water Quality is that the applicant and proposed project meet program eligibility requirements with a project score of 77.5. Approve the grant application for the full amount of $99,915, requiring a minimum $24,978.75 cost share. Approve the grant application with the following stipulations. Number one, LFUCG and applicant agree to all project elements, eligible expenses, terms, and conditions in a grant award agreement to be approved by the Urban County Council. Number two, applicants shall verify the need and ensure all permits are received prior to any stream bank stabilization work. Number three, applicants shall obtain written approval agreement prior to work being done on properties not owned by the applicant. Number four, the project shall not proceed with field work until written approval to proceed is obtained from the grant administrator or director of water quality because of the potential for conflict with future LFUCG projects. Number five, organization proposes a larger cost share beyond that required by the grant program. Budget shall reflect the 05% cost share offered in the application, approximately $25,050. Okay, thank you. If you recall, let's start with the Heartland. I had recused myself from that vote our last meeting. I don't have any direct involvement in the Heartland Homeowners Association, but I am a member of the Heartland Gardens, which is not directly related, but somewhat affiliated. So I want to recuse myself from the vote on the Heartland Homeowners Association. And Harry would ask you again to lead that discussion, if you would. George? Yes. I just noticed in this application that I was an engineer 32 years ago. I think I should recuse myself also. Okay. I think statute of limitations apply here, George. Thank you. George, I guess the wheels of progress move slowly sometimes, don't they? Yeah. I didn't realize it until I saw this application this time. I'm the engineer of record. Well, thank you for bringing it to our attention, but I don't think that's going to be a major issue in our discussion. So, Harry, if you would lead the discussion on the Heartland Garden or the Heartland Tumlers Association. All right, let's talk about that. And before we do that, I'd like to ask the staff this question. Do these applicants know that their application being reconsidered? Are they aware of this? Yes, if I'm not mistaken. I know I personally spoke to Griffin Gates, and I believe we spoke to Ellerslie. Ellerslie may not. But I know, well, Scott's here as the design engineer professional of record on Heartland. Right. He may or may not be surprised that we're talking about it today. I'm not sure. um ellersley might be the only one who is not aware that we're discussing their application today okay so so you think there's there still would still be interested regardless i know ellersley would because miss demarco was here at our august meeting and requested that even though they didn't score well enough to get full funding, I know she was still interested in receiving some partial funding. So I feel like she'll be ecstatic when she learns that it was reconsidered again today for the third time. All right. Just thought I'd ask that question. All right. Let's go back to the Heartland application. Any comments about that from the board? If not, I entertain a motion. I make a motion to approve the staff's recommendation. Motion made by David. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Thank you, Donna. So all in favor, please indicate by a raised hand and by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. it's approved and uh i'll turn the chairmanship back over to george thank you thank you appreciate that okay uh next is the ellerslie at the long hoa project this might be a pleasant surprise for that group if they're not plugged into it any comments questions on that Okay, what is the will of the group? Sorry, there was some staff comments on this one about belonging to State's Development LLC, you want to sign. So all that will be taken care of, right? Yes. I know that that LLC is aware of the project and has indicated that they will be willing to sign the grant award agreement as the property owner all right Mr. Chair I move approval of this of this application as approved as recommended by the staff thank you harry is there a second a second okay seconded by david all of the motions signify by saying i ain't raising your hand Aye. Opposed like son? Motion carries. Next project is the Griffin Gate Community Association. Any comments questions on that? George? Yes sir. I beg to recuse myself from that because we were engineers on that project too. Okay. 30 years ago. All right. Any other comments, questions on that? If the board was wondering why the amount was partial, it was because there was a discrepancy between the budget and the amount being requested. And so we reached out to them and just let them know that if they were approved that that would be the case, that we would go with the lower amount since the budget only called for $10,293.20. And as well, we noticed that they, we wanted to put a stipulation about the native plant materials. We didn't want them to just randomly pick plants. We wanted to make sure that they were native. So it's, the difference is only about $100, right? Right. Okay. All right. what's the will of the group do I hear a motion that we accept the director's recommendation Well, if no one else will, I'll make the motion to accept the staff recommendation and fund this application. Thank you, Harry. I'm just glad of doing it. I wasn't sure whether I was beaming out. I thought I might be talking to myself. I was wondering myself. It's been moved after a long silence. It's been moved by Harry, is there a second? I second. It's been seconded by Donna, thank you. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Opposed like that. Motion carries. All right. Remaining funds recommendation discussion. Item number six. So for this section, I guess the board can elect to. So at this point, we have, if my numbers are correct, we have $550,178.15. that is essentially unallocated from our fiscal year 2021 pool of money for funding grants. What was that number again? $550,178.15. Okay. And it is staff's recommendation that we move those monies forward into the fiscal year 2022 amount that will be allocated for the grant program. and proportionate among the grant classes based on where those funds originally were remained from. and hopefully do, you know, spend more time and effort publicizing the grant program in early 2021 in hopes of getting some really good applications submitted and in hopes of using all of that funding for fiscal year 2022. Okay. That makes perfect sense to me. What are your thoughts, comments? So are we saying that we're going to roll that money over to use for additional grants that may be coming in next year, or is that just for the publication of the fact that we do have grants? Well, for the next round of grants, we're recommending to just shift that $550,000 to next year's portion, and then we'll try to find the originating class and then proportion it accordingly. So we're looking at probably about $2 million to be able to fund grants in fiscal year 22. So is this going to fly in terms of budgeting, you think, carryover funds? I think it shouldn't be a problem because this is in fund 4052, which is essentially a capital fund, and those monies can transfer from fiscal year to fiscal year. and the ordinance about the water quality management fee does stipulate that 10% of the revenue each year be used to fund the grant program so by ordinance I feel like those monies are pretty well protected to be allocated to the grant program. we actually um we actually go through a process of of um making sure that these funds you know for these projects are stable or untouched every year so everybody does that in every section so for us we just give them a list of the funding that we want to make sure that it's protected in this case it's fairly common that we we carry over each year yeah yes yeah it's pretty a given like you said, with capital projects, all of those, those funds, those types of funds are automatically rolled over. Not to say that it hadn't been accidentally touched in the past, but yeah, we do go through a process to make sure that those funds stay in place. Thank you. Do we need to make a motion on this or does this? I think we just, you know, I've never heard a motion on. But if you want to, please do. Yeah, please. Well, I think there's a precedent. As I recall, several years ago, we had a similar situation where roll funds over. But what's will the group? You want to make a motion? I'll move. I move that we accept the recommendation that we move the money forward. Thank you, George. It's been moved. Is there a second? I'll second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Raising your hand. Aye. Opposed like son. Motion carries. Very good. Okay. Incentive grants status update. Denise, thank you for sending that out, but my printer would not print that big, so I didn't even bother to try to print it because I couldn't read it if I saw it. I think last time, weren't you able to put that on the screen to look at? Yes, I'm going to pull it up. Okay. George, I'm sure you could have read that, but my eyes were too feeble. I couldn't see it. Yeah. If you could remember 30 years ago working on Griffin Gate and other projects, you got me beat. Okay, go ahead. All right, so if you would look at the screen there, she's going to try to blow it up a little bit bigger here. We'll start with the FY16 grants. All projects prior to that have been completed. So if you notice on the FY16 sheet, there's one remaining project left, and that's Peppermill LLC. And I went through that the other day and they were actually wrapping up because they finally got the crane removed and they were completing the cleanup activities. And so we look forward to them submitting their final report and final request for funds document here soon for staff to review. So we look for that to be closed out, hopefully before falls in. Any questions on that one? No. Okay. So as you look at the screen, the FY17 grants, there's also another loaner here, Dalton Court, and Ahmad is the grant manager who was also in our meeting this morning. For that project, he has been contacting them regarding their engineer of record because they had in the past had issues, And so I believe he's looking to get some answers in terms of the status of their rain garden, which was the last project element that they had to complete. The pavers were in. And so I think he's communicating with the property owner to get that grant completed out. How much money is remaining? That one has $15,721.73 remaining. So we're still holding over 10%, which is stipulated in the grant award agreement. We hold that until the final report and our project elements are completed. So until they come through with that, we'll hang on to those funds as a retainer. If you go over to FY18, we have several projects completed in that batch. And as we mentioned earlier, Beaumont Residential Association has a Class A, as you can see, as number one there. they actually are preparing a request to change or to add a location to that grant. What they want to do is they want to complete the location, still do the same thing at that location that was proposed in the original agreement, but they feel like they can do it with minimal, with smaller resources. They can complete that same task with smaller resources, but add a location of a similar problem down at another location, which is, is it like on the next street over? I don't think it's. Sebring is where their original project location was, and the new location is on Mumford, M-U-M-F-O-R-D. So we kind of wanted to broach it with you all and see if you wanted to hear a presentation from them in January about the changes they want to make, or if you feel comfortable letting staff approve the change in location as long as they are completing their original grant project elements, which were to reduce ponding of water and fix some erosion problems. You know, if the location is of concern to you, we can ask them to come and speak at the January meeting, or if you're comfortable that as long as they're completing those two project elements and location doesn't matter, then staff can basically go ahead and authorize them to proceed and hope that they can get back on track to finish this grant. So for clarification, if I understood you correctly, Frank, they're saying they can complete the original scope as approved for less money. and they can pick up an additional site and stay within the total original grant amount approved. Did I understand that correctly? That's right, but I want to be clear. I don't know that they're going to do it verbatim. I think they could achieve the same goal ultimately using smaller resources at the current site, but they're saying that they want to shift some of the funding to another location to also achieve a similar goal at a second location. But the grant amount awarded, the $53,595, will stay the same. Right, exactly. We've stressed that to them that, you know, this amount is not to exceed. You know, there's no change orders that could be authorized here. And they assured us that they could accomplish both locations within this amount here. But I think, I don't think they can fully address what they originally intended at the first location on Sebring because they have to access that site going through Cardinal Run Park. and I think some of the work that they proposed related to trail improvements and maybe installation of a new head wall, they wouldn't be able to achieve very easily and certainly not within the original project budget. So I think there are some erosion areas and maybe some ponding areas that they can access fairly easily, but they're not going to be able to do the new culvert installation and the headwall. But the way they framed their application is they were mainly concerned with fixing erosion and fixing some areas where they were experiencing ponding. So it sounds like there's a change in scope, but the initial intent is being met. Met, correct. The scope has changed somewhat. Correct. Okay. So if you want to hear more details, we certainly understand. But, you know, if you think that as long as they're meeting the original intent, then the location of where they do the work is fine to change. Jennifer, let me just say on my part, I'm a little uncomfortable with this simply because of the delay here. Uncomfortable with the project in the hands of the Homeowners Association. But I'm also but I'm comfortable with the staff making the decisions about how it would work. And so I think my discomfort comes from lack of action here. And but on the other hand, if the staff is comfortable with the changes that they're proposing, I'm comfortable with that. But I think we need to be cautious. Well, and one thing to point out, their original professional of record is no longer supporting them on this grant. They have changed engineering firms, and that firm seems to be well engaged and has developed some conceptual drawings. So I feel like as long as this new professional of record stays engaged and involved, their chance of successfully completing the grant is much higher than it certainly was a year ago. That's good. Yeah, because the delay was essentially the guy that kind of represents the Homeowners Association had trouble just getting one of the new engineers of record. And so that kind of drug it out. And so finally, like she said, Bill Engineering came on, and they've made tremendous progress just in the short amount of time that he's been on board. So I think staff is pretty comfortable that they're going to do what they stated. That's good. I'm sure I hear his view. I think if the staff, and it sounds like the staff, is comfortable with the direction going, I think that would be prudent to let them move forward as long as the original intent is being met and what I'm hearing is that that is the case. What about the rest of the group? Is everyone comfortable letting the staff make that determination? Yes. Okay I think I think we got it. So let's keep going. Cardinal Valley Neighborhood Association. We just heard from Scott Stone. Let's see. Yes, I'm still here. Scott's still here. Did you want to speak to that real quick? If you give us a quick update, I think you'd be a lot better at it than I would. Sure. So we had a kind of tentative schedule for planting and installation of the plant material back in the spring and then some small little distraction came up and then caused us to kind of postpone that. We are now scheduled, provided everything goes correct for this fall for an installation, and we've got a date set for almost a month from now. And we're working through some details with staff, and we are also working with a contractor to obtain the plant material. So with everything, with the wind behind us, we should be able to get the plants installed this fall and be able to move closer to wrapping up the project by the end of the year. Scott, our next project is a Stonewall Equestrian. we're waiting on them just to turn in their final report as well as I believe to install the final gate at that location and Lee Hudson the grant manager has been communicating with them so we look forward to that one hopefully getting completed by the end of the year as well Tate's Creek High School which is number 11 on the sheet there they've requested an extension to May 31st of 2021 due to COVID as you can imagine number 13 150 northland that one is just about wrapped up i think he's just uh doug the project manager is just waiting for uh he sent some comments on the final report and he's just waiting for the response from the grantee to um approve those documents um bluegrass green sources number 15 you see there they've had a issue with um i think they had a legal issue with somebody illegally installing a stormwater outfall on their project, and so they're consulting with their attorneys to help litigate that issue so they can move forward with the grant. Scott, did you want to speak to that? Yeah. Yeah, it's unrelated to the project, but there has been some placement of some infrastructure onto their property. And we feel like before we can move forward with the implementation of the project, that that needed to get resolved. So that's unfortunately where we are with this project. this project. Right because this project is just permeable paper so it relates to the parking lot but the outfall is in another area on the property but you felt like. Correct. Okay. Lexmark International we know that project is it's pretty it's pretty much wrapped up. The grant manager is collecting the final report I believe he's communicated with them just days ago to get that one wrapped up. This was for the feasibility study for the Oscar, the original Oscar grant, which is related to the Kentucky American Water, a larger version that you just recently approved in FY20. Yes, and I know that they recently, I think it was last week or two weeks ago, did some testing with Division of Waste Management in unloading those roll carts using the trash trucks to make sure that the structural integrity of the roll carts could withstand being lifted and dumped by our trash vehicles. Pepper distillery. Pepper distillery, Scott, you're on. Yes, So one of the requirements of this grant was for the completion of the phase one parking lot. That was done early, forgive me, late 2019. And then COVID hit. We have been able to move the project forward now and on track with the revised schedule to keep it moving forward. We did receive approval from the Planning Commission for the development plan that associated with the revisions to the site and are now in the process of getting the sign-offs and starting the construction documents. The University of Kentucky, number 19 on that list, they actually just submitted their request for funds number five, and the grant manager and myself, we sent some corrections and clarifications to them, and so we're set to approve that once we get that information back from them. But that project is pretty much all but complete. The construction, I believe, is complete. I think they're just waiting on the educational elements of that project, and then they'll be set to close that out probably hopefully by the spring. If you turn over to your 19 FY19, we have several of those completed already as well. Friends of Wolf Run, Gardenside, they're moving along as they typically do, making lots of headway there. I will note Opera House Square Town Homes Corporation, which is number five there, the grant manager myself met on site at this location because they are set to request a change in scope. We let them know that, you know, the square footage of that project, we're hoping, you know, the footprint doesn't change, you know, as to change, as to have changed the scoring. So because we let them know if they change it too much, we have to rescore the project but they had a lot of constraints due to utilities on site and so they have acquired a new engineer of record to kind of restructure the project they had issues with the dumpster pad locations and the integrity of the paper so we look forward to them submitting for the January meeting we've reached out to them and she actually see Meyer actually emailed me yesterday to said that they are actually preparing for that so that will be forthcoming in January. The Village at Rabbit Run, I think this grant they just submitted the final report. Ahmad, the grant manager, is reviewing that and hopefully that one will be wrapped up by the end of the year. But it's not expired until May but I think that one will close out early. Waterford 2, that one is pretty much done we're just finalizing the final report and doing a change order because they had funds remaining on that grant in the amount of $13,000 I think it just came in under budget they were able to accomplish what they needed to within the budget actually well under budget number 11 University of Kentucky moving along moving forward according to Demetria and DS We have Ashwood Townhomes as Michael Claiborne. Scott, did you want to speak to that one? Yeah, we are wrapping up the design elements for this project now. Again, COVID gave us a little delay, but we're on track to get those design elements finished up. And then moving forward with the following, which is FY20 application for the implementation of the pavers. Yeah, in your defense, Ashwood receives a couple of partials. They had submitted for the full grant, and unfortunately they received a couple of partials, so they've been able to deal with it in tad bits. Yeah. Next is Community Montessori. We've been reaching out to them. This is the organization that actually submitted a request to change the location of the parking lot. And so we've been reaching out to them to see if they actually plan to move forward with the grant. They had some issues due to COVID as well. They had to focus on, of course, what they were going to do with their curriculum and whatnot, just like Fayette County Public Schools. So they're supposed to get back to us pretty soon with a decision on whether or not they want to even continue with the grant. North Lexington Holdings, I mean, North York LLC, number 17, unless they're moving forward. They're almost done with construction. So Doug Baldwin is communicating with them well, and we look forward to them completing certainly by spring. And they've had a lot of really good publicity in the news lately. And I think it was a news piece on Channel 27. Chad Needham even acknowledged the grant program as helping to fund some of the renovations that have occurred at that site. Is that the old bus station? Great line, yes. Cool. I saw that. That's really a cool project. It really is. That's great. Opportunity for work. Go ahead, George. Go ahead and keep going. Oh, okay. Opportunity for work. I think we just covered that one earlier. Scott had spoke to that earlier. Next page. Yeah. Next page, FY20. We have two grants that unfortunately decided to terminate the grant due to COVID. They were fake cooperating preschool and Sater School. We reached out to them, and they actually let us know that as much as they wanted to, unfortunately, their priorities were different due to COVID. And so they may come back later. The rest of the projects on that list are ongoing, except for Kentucky American Water Company, which we spoke to them. they are set to return the signed agreement to us so we can process that through the urban county council for approval and we look forward to that happen hopefully within the next week actually but I'll let you if you have any other questions about any any of the other grants feel free meanwhile I'll move forward. I'm really looking forward to seeing following project number 17 the UK Water Research Foundation project, the cooling water project. Right and they're actually moving forward pretty quickly as well. Yeah, they had a really good kickoff meeting late last month, so they're ready to get going on that one. As that project evolves, I would certainly suggest that we, at the appropriate time, make a site visit to actually see project looks. That's a great idea. Okay, what else, Frank? Last item on the agenda is the meeting dates for the calendar year 2021. I believe you received a revised version of that. We kind of had the dates messed up on that at first. My apologies. But we wanted you to review that to see if those dates jailed with you all, if there were any objections to those dates as you know it to you know kindly so as the the copy i have the version i have shows january 7th april 8th july 8th and october 7th are those that's the old one i think george oh okay so what is the new one should be january 14th and i believe um october October 14th. Yes. Okay. George, repeat those dates, please. Okay. As I understand, it's January 14th. It's April 8th. It's July 8th. And it's October 14th. Okay. Thanks. That's correct, right? Yes, that's correct, George. Okay. Well, I think unless anybody sees a conflict, I think we ought to go with that. i think we need a we need a motion and an approval of those dates okay all right well i'll make that motion that that the meeting the meetings of the water quality fees board in 2021 be scheduled for january 14th april 8th july 8th october 14th at 9 a.m in the morning nicely done harry thank you Is there a second? Second. And seconded by David. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye, raising your hand. Aye. Aye. Like son, motion carries. Very good. Is there any other information you need to bring before the group? All staff's concerns have been addressed. Well, I think we've got some really, really interesting projects and and we're a small part but it's really cool to be a part of some really interesting things going on in urban county government the downtown the project the Greyhound bus project and many others that are very similar maybe on a smaller scale but it's a great program I'm happy to be a part of it. Same here George. All right I think we are set to adjourn so So good meeting and thanks for everybody's participation. And I guess we will get together next on January the 14th, 2021. Thank you. Good meeting. Thank you, everybody. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Oh, Frank. Yes, sir.