I will call this morning an order and also explain that our chair is is exposed and I have suddenly discovered that I'm the substitute chair. Not a pleasant feeling, so you'll forgive any inconsistencies in this process, but I'm happy to take the chair as necessary. So, our first order is an approval of the minutes of January 13. Do I hear a motion to accept that? Motion made to accept it. I hear a second. I'll second. Second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor, please negate it. I'm pleased. Very much. All right. The next item on the agenda is the 2020 University of Kentucky Research Foundation grant. Excuse me, sir. I'm just going to see if it's okay with the board if we can flip the order and have Ellerslie. All right. Item 4. Yes. Okay. I understand. I'm just going to see item 3 here. So we'll call that item the 2021 Ellerslie at the Long Homewinners Association. Yes, sir. And just for the record, Ellerslie is here to present a request to amend their scope for the 2021-2021 grant. And the details will be in the presentation and then the board will discuss and then we'll go for that. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Jared DeWalt. I'm going to let Dave Osborne, the president of the HOA, talk first. And then I'll just go through the slides and answer any questions. Good morning, gentlemen. My name is Dave Osborne. I'm a retired military officer and the relatively new HOA president. I've been on the board as a treasurer previous to this position, so I'm very aware of this project. And I'll just say that I support everything that Eric's going to present to you this morning and the change of the scope. As this has moved on, we've really had some flooding issues and erosion issues that have to be addressed and modifying this will really take a large step in that direction. So what I want to show you is this is the Ellers League. That's Richmond Road, which you see on the building from the top center to the bottom right. Eldersley is that subdivision to the left. We have 40 acres of new construction going on. You can see the dirt back there. Over the next six to eight years, that will be 100 new homes in that position. And the large green space that you see along Richmond Road, in the future, that will be 96 condominiums to be in there. When we're finished, we're going to have slightly over 500 homes in this area. The other thing I wanted to show you that's really important is how close we are to the reservoir. Eric will show you the outline of where this project is and why it's so important. That's where the project starts. It goes under Ellerslie Park Boulevard there, and through that tree line, that water goes down and hits a retention basin, which is literally feet from the entrance to the reservoir. Thanks, Charlie. I almost forgot how to use one of these. I had to go dig down my desk. Alright, so I'll carry you forward. Thanks, Dave. And so, just wanted to zoom in on this little box here. I wanted to give you some scale and perspective. So this is the conceptual plan that we put together for the grant application in 2019, I guess it was. As part of that, the big concern that the board had was this area here. These houses here were experiencing backyard flooding. Some of them have basements. And so that was the big thing that got them most excited about the grant. And it turns out that the swale was eroding. This is a hill slope here and everything kind of flows down toward the back of these houses. This is the picture. This is what the backyards look like. You can see there's a little swale kind of up on the hill here, but it wasn't built very well and it wasn't capturing all the water. So flooding was a big thing and some erosion was causing water quality issues. These little ditches were eroding. You can see the pictures here. Nothing major. We had some stream. Of course, every stream in the central Kentucky is eroding, so it wasn't necessarily different that then there was a little ditch here there is a detention basin down here that it has a sand filter in it or i don't know if it's exactly a sand filter but if it gets clogged up with sediment obviously that's a problem for long-term maintenance and that does protect lake heller school so again that was from 2019 and then we're going to zoom in a little bit more on this little red triangle here and so during the design over the past six months we've kind of tooled in on this area and so the yellow is what was originally proposed in the grant against the stream restoration bank work a little bit of ditch erosion some ditches and this was that original swale that we were looking at repairing that was approved in 2019-20 time frame Then of course it's been raining ever since. So the neighbors have found some other stuff that caused some consternation. One of the things was there's a swale that kind of comes along through here that doesn't quite connect with this swale. So what it does is it dog legs and goes in between these houses, a la the standard developer way of doing things of quickness, fastest, and most efficient to them. didn't work very well because it creates a river behind the houses which then kind of floods their backyards but then it also turns and this swale has to run water in between some houses. So the HOA said hey can you fix this as part of the project? So we said sure we'll go ahead and design something and then ask you all if you approve. So we designed a bunch of stuff that's seen in blue and yellow, but then when we started doing the budget, of course, you know, there's only so much money to go around and we had a limited budget, we were doing more work, so we said, okay, well, if you've only got $100,000, which is what approved construction, we can do all of this. That number is about 1,200 linear foot of total work. We had proposed 1100 foot so it's about the same amount of length of work to be done. I think you all have this if you really want to get in the weeds feel free it's the budget it has the proposed budget that was in the grant agreement on the right and on or on the left I'm sorry and on the right is you know after design and coming up with the actual budget for everything you can't see that the main thing I wanted to point out with this on the screen was the total project cost was originally $125,000. The revised project cost is basically the same and from the grant requested amount is $100,000 originally and that hasn't changed. So no change in overall project cost or requested funds for the grant. We just want to move some stuff around. So in summary, We found more repair work that was needed during the design process and when we got out there and actually surveyed it during the winter when the leaves were off. We're still proposing to repair about the same length, 1,100 to 1,200 linear feet with the current grant with just some different locations extending here and shortening some other spots. no change in grant funding and the HLA after going through this process of finding other spots to repair is interested in applying for a future grant this this term additional repairs. Thank you. Got any questions? Any questions for the board? Yes. So this area here is draining the area and I'll go back to this slide. Yes. Yes. Thank you. I forgot to say that. So this area here is draining the area and I'll go back to this slide. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I forgot to say that. So this area here is draining the area and I'll go back to this slide. It's still under development. There. So we're still getting runoff with some sediment in it that's coming down. So some of those ditches that were derodied are now filled with silt. That didn't make sense to me until we did clean that out. They were still going to be working on those ditches. Thank you for my friend. Is there any proposed development where you showed the houses where the triangle? That's all the drinks, right? That's H-O-8. The triangle is the common, I guess. Got it. There's a couple of houses that are being built. And the condominiums that you were talking about earlier are that space up upon? That right there, yes. Which wouldn't drain into that area. No. So if we could, if you could do this for me, can you be very specific about what you're asking? Doug, you can jump in here and make sure I'm saying you're right. Essentially, we want to move, well, instead of doing this, we want to do this. And then there's a little extra here and there's a little extra there that wasn't in the original script. Basically, take care of all this upstream work as part of this project. So how does the staff feel about this project? The staff actually recommends that the Board approve the adjustment scope as spelled out. Since there's a slight net increase in the climate area, a slight net increase in the total project cost cost that's going to be absorbed by the organization so staff feel this is kind of six to a half dozen i think it makes sense to take that here with the upstream area and kind of pause on what's going to occur far north so we want to put funds there and then come back and have that work done or negated so a future application would include the the areas that you're not going to include this along with some other i think they have a cost kind of a car stereo that they have some issues with because it collapsed and then there's some flooding and they'll present that in the new application i have plenty of pictures to show them for that one but to extend that swell we think it staff needs to be a positive thing to help flooding as he shows you the pictures right here In essence, I'm Doug Baldwin, the project manager for the city. When the swell was being built, it was intended to keep the water away from the homes. It wasn't poorly, I guess it was poorly constructed. It just got low and flat spots, and then the water doesn't drain. And what's happened is the water's getting in behind it. And if we'd only done the lower portion of the swell, we weren't capturing the upstream end of it. So we were going to capture this, but then the water was still coming in behind it. These people were still going to have flooding in their basements and that type of stuff. So I felt that as an engineer, along with Eric and them, that it's wise to go on up here and capture this water and build it like it was intended and take care of this. and there's some erosion down here in the lower end and up here across on the north side of Ellerslie where there's just been enough erosion. That sediment has ended up downstream. So it doesn't do, it's not good use for our money to try to repair something downstream when we know we still haven't fixed the problem upstream, let the sediment have deposition down there. All right, thank you, Doug. That's good. That's good. Any further comments? the board? Distance? Do you have a position on it? No, I focused on building as it was intended. You know how I feel about this. I'm troubled with the fact that you're spending money on such a recent development. That doesn't have anything to do with the board or the applicants. They're the unfortunate beneficiary of poor quality work in my view. I think we mentioned that before I leave. Unfortunately, if you guys are kind of stuck with it, I mean, unfortunately for you all, the program is here, but that's for sure. Any further comments? I'll speak for myself. I have been following this with adjustment, but I'm speaking personally. I can't make a motion, so I would entertain a motion. Motion to accept your opinion. Second. Second. motion made in second thank you thank you All right, the next agenda item is the University of Kentucky Research Foundation. And similar to Ellerslie, the University of Kentucky Research Foundation is here to present a request to amend their scope as well. There's a little bit more depth to it. So we'll give the floor to Mr. Brittney Ragland. Okay, if I pass these out, some people have their own copy. That's why I brought them to it. Thank you. I want you to special in Charlie, sir. Do you wish to have one? Yes, please. Thank you. We'll go ahead and get started. I'm Courtney Ragland, Utilities Engineering Manager for the Utilities Division at the University of Kentucky. My local assistant is Graham Gray, the Distribution Manager. And we also have present on our behalf, Shane Tedder, the Sustainability Officer for our campus. Unfortunately, some of our other partners were not able to be with us today. Bell Engineering is also a partner with us and some other folks on campus. But we will be able to get any questions answered that you have when you're here or not. So today we're just going to give everybody a background of what this project entails. I'm not sure that all of the board members are familiar with this. I know Frank's very familiar with this. We will go through the history of how we got to where we are today and we'll have some proposals for the board to consider. So, we've got this interaction. What we're looking at here is the University of Kentucky campus. We have limestone football stadium, if you can get your bearings here. We've got the, you can see it from the medical center, somewhere in this vicinity. Tell me if I'm wrong, Shane. And then the project area we're looking at here just nestles up against the railroad tracks. So that'll give you some context of where we're talking about. As I mentioned, this is our project team. Graham and Shane are here with us today, and Bell Engineering has been on board with us since we started this project in 2017 as our technical support and designers. So the intent of our project is to improve quality and quantity of stormwater flowing into Wolfram Creek drains off of our campus. We've got a really great opportunity here to divert some of this water into the cooling towers that we have directly adjacent to the area where the stormwater drains. There's also, of course, positive educational benefits. We believe this to be an innovative project, integrated with our own stormwater quality and hopefully give some other folks with cooling towers, which they're all across the nation, some really great ideas on how we can conserve resources intelligently. So, I'm going to get this laser one here. This is an aerial image of that storm culvert draining, I guess this would be east to west towards the railroad tracks. On the other side here is Dairy Queen, all of our reports here in the road, Broadway area. So, Bell Engineering did a study for us back in most of the year in 2017. They found that this storm culvert drains at 170 million gallons per year, which is off of about 200 acres of our campus. Here are these cooling towers, some of them that are directly next to one of our four cooling plants that sits right here. here we call this CUPS. So here's referred to this project as the CUPS stormwater harvesting project. That's what we're talking about in that way. Graham, did you say these were about 15 feet in diameter? Yeah, those fans are about 15 feet in diameter just to get a scale, okay? So the point being here, we can go into as much detail about those as you want. But they are the component of our cooling system that expels the heat from our campus into the atmosphere to enable us to have air conditioning in the summer and dehumidification and all of that. So they use, at this point, about 45 million gallons per year, much of which is evaporated at the atmosphere. So if we connect A and B, our project is to pool storm water and some ground water that flows year-round out of this storm culvert into a pump system that will be right here, and then it will just run along through here and get dumped into our cooling towers as we need it. Concernably, we are banking on about 23 million pounds a year that we will harvest. Of course, we will use as much as we can get depending on the dynamic of when the cooling is needed and when the flow is based. I'm not going to dwell on this slide that's much of what I just shared with you all, other than to bring it down to the bottom bullet. we are expecting water and sanitary savings to be just over two hundred thousand dollars annually for the university based on the displacement of the water we will not have to purchase because of this storm water that we're using you're getting a little tighter understanding this is an excerpt from our documents our vid documents just to show you a here we're going to cut into this culvert have a pump station in this general area which will include some metering it will include some controls for us to be able to stop the flow of that should be determined that maybe something got into the culvert some oil or something that was spilled so we don't get that into our cooling towers there will be some filtration available to get some of the larger sediment out and then we'll be running that pipe just behind our substation into our cooling towers here now those cooling towers granny can vouch for me here pretty funky they get rainwater in them they get leads it's probably not much different than the quality of the water that we'll be pulling out of the stormwater anyway. So as I mentioned this was initiated back in 2017. One of our brilliant engineers, Joe Grafson, you may remember him. This was one of the ideas that he was really passionate about. Unfortunately we lost him in February but we're trying to carry this one on. and 2019 was when we were here last. If you remember that we were here to present. You guys had some questions about the original project scale. We were awarded that. Of course in the middle of that, COVID hit, so we did not actually get the grant award until September of 2020. Spent the next few months getting those design documents put together and finally were able to go out for clothes for construction in the fall. If you'll remember, which we'll get to in just a second, the total scope that we had budgeted for was about $271,000, including construction and the design, which included the pumps and so forth to look at. These quotes that we got from two of the members of the integration person he works with both came in around $650,000. We said, hold up, hold up, hold up. So I was going to ask about that. You had two bids? They were quotes, they were not bids. Okay. Yes. Currently out to bid. Yes. So we were not comfortable with that. We decided to pull back. We had another trusted vendor take a look at these design documents, tell us are we missing something, is there something we can do to not value engineer but be smarter about how this design works. And then where we are at right now is we are in the middle of the bidding process as we speak. So I believe the biddin's going to come out maybe today or tomorrow. We expect our final bids in next week. Graham, you're up, buddy. Go ahead, show me a arrow. A arrow, thank you. I know you're so smart. Thank you. The number's a little funky. Let me just say real quick, we have four cooling plants on campus. They're interconnected by about 25 miles of piping. That's how we cool about 200 buildings on campus. Out of your yard you've got that little noisy thing outside or your condo, that thing with the fan. That's what we're talking about. Ours are so much bigger because we're cooling 200 buildings where at home you're just cooling a floor or two. So that's, I mean our scale is just huge. Back in 2017, the consultant came up with these numbers, and I'm going to caution you here just a second. Some of the numbers are tied in different packages. We thought we'd have about $200,000 worth of equipment. electric it's called thirty thousand dollars and we would be around 270. now in the fall we had two quotes and bottom line is about six hundred and fifty thousand dollars of course as one of the gentlemen she works with kind of a smart aleck he called this BC before COVID is how we're referring to at the university. Some of the vendors included the electrical cost in the actual installation. Some of them didn't. That's what we're always trying to decipher. So the pump station went up by a lot more than five thousand dollars. This one included the electrical. This one broke it out. We're not we're just trying to get the best comparison we can. And ultimately the bottom line is what we're looking for anyway. So the grant was right at 216,000. Just as you all have experienced, we are seeing projects that are coming in two to three times what we had budgeted for. We may have underestimated originally the metering part of it. Certainly we're not going to be buying water from Kentucky American and we need to have a better sense of how much water we're pulling out of the stream because that affects certainly the evaporation bills and any sewer credits that we get. Conductivity, I'm not a chemist, it's It's a measurement of how much gunk is in the water, whatever gunk is. And at some point you get so much gunk and crud, you get rid of the water. So we may have underestimated that. Now around Thanksgiving we got these poachs and we all said, whoa, this is just marking insanity. So we decided to go back with Bell Engineering. We also worked with Staggs and Fisher, mechanical engineering, out in the town. They went in, that's the third party consultant, went through the drawings with us, made some minor modifications to the design, hopefully save some money. So here's where we are now. We call it on the street, it's out for advertising on March. We had an on-site meeting a couple weeks ago. If there are any questions from the potential vendors, they have about a week to give us questions and answers. Today all the answers are going out. There was some issue on offense, very minor. So next, whatever that is, next week, the 20th, we should have some bids in our hand from competitive bidding. Assuming that number is in the ballpark, we hope to start construction, have it done around football season. Final completion, what we call substantial completion units and it's installed and it's working. Final completion, you may have to come in and clean up the site, take down the fences, So that's what we call it. It's a financial completion. We realize this is, we think, still a very good proposal. We're talking about harvesting 23 million gallons. Frankly, that's 23 million gallons that you all don't get into the storm systems. That's 23 million gallons you all don't have to deal with. We're going to tie it into our educational systems, stormwater programs. We think it's certainly beneficial, very innovative. Possibly in the future we would do this at other cooling towers on campus. And we're a very open institution. If somebody in western Kentucky or Ohio wants to come down and see these sorts of things, we're always tickled to have visitors and show them what we're doing. We don't know if this is even possible. We understand this is a different situation. Assuming the budget is not crazy next week, we would like to implement it and move forward. We understand the costs are significantly different than we were three years ago. We don't know if there's a way or not to get any additional funding. Of course, it's contingent on a bid next week. So it's in the $600,000, $650,000 range, and that's all I can say right now. We're here to see if there's any way to get some additional funding and still move forward with the project. Frank, do you have my question? I wanted you to speak to if no additional funding is available, then what would be your request to the board in that scenario? Well, certainly we will be open and honest. We could, you know, things are upside down. It's possible the university is going to have some extra funding to fill in the gap. Now, that's all dependent on what that bid is next week. So certainly, you know, we agreed to a fund a couple years ago. We haven't spent it yet. We haven't spent a dime on it. But what we did spend, we hired the engineers to do it, and we're not asking for anything on that. So certainly, for one, this is an update on where we were. What have we all been doing the last couple years? Well, we've been dealing with COVID and some other things. So certainly, it's just an open discussion on here's where we are. If there's an additional way to get some funding, we're, yeah, yes, Charlie. I don't know what the university has available to. Have you looked at ARPA? That's what everybody does is look at ARPA. It looks at the federal relief funds. As far as for a particularly innovative project and stuff like that, it seems like when they talk about ARPA funding, especially through the Division of Water or through the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority, that might be a, someplace you might want to look. I was going to ask you also, too, that, okay, bids open on April the 20th. How typically, ours are typically good for 90 days. What's the, that's typical we have. I mean, every now and then vendor tries to put something on there different, but our documents are very specific. We put them out at the gate of that, but, you know, we have to go through that. So there is some time there, Charlie. Yeah, some contractors will honor it for longer than that, but it has to be mutually agreed. But expiration is 90 days. That's pretty typical. I was trying to figure out what latitude the board has as far as trying to be able to evaluate this, because it's a significant ask. Oh, clearly it is. No questions asked. The price of poker has really gone up in the last couple of years, and we don't want to be 100% transparent on that. I'm going to drill down way deeper here than you're probably ready for, but how big are your pumps on that pump station? Two of them. They're about 200 GPM. I think they top out at 400 GPM. Of course, our consultant wasn't able to be here. Well, we were talking about this yesterday. Now, all pumps basically cost about $1,000 of horsepower. That seems to be the running number these days. There's $1,000 of horsepower. So I was trying to figure out how much pumps were. We could find out, but I don't know. Well, what I was going to ask is that since this is out on the street, as you said. Yeah, that's what we say. We would like to get a copy of the BIP documents. I'd like to be able to review what you've got in there. I'd be the engineer here. I'd like to dig in a little deeper and see whether or not the quantities that are in there that are ones that make sense. One thing that jumped out at me on the one that you showed before, in 2017, clearly they missed the electrical. given the complexity of what you're trying to do, draw water when it's available, there wasn't enough meat in there for a PLC and a control system that would allow that to happen. No questions asked. Sure. This next slide may or may not even be feasible. This is the one that... Could be. We talked with Lindsay and Frank a couple weeks ago online. A possibility is that we would go ahead and purchase the equipment, may or may not start actual construction until say a year from now. We miss another opportunity to save some water, but we understand the financial implications and then perhaps come back in the fall early next year and apply for additional funding at that time. The only drawbacks we have is buying equipment, storing it, and a year from now the warranty is gone. That's not a huge issue. Pumps usually work or they don't. That's not our favorite concept, but we understand that could be an option. Yeah, we've done that before basically to save sales tax, but we didn't have them sitting around for very long. Yeah, we've done that too, because sales tax on a lot of equipment can be significant. So, that would not be our preference, but we understand that that could be perhaps an option. I would say this slide speaks to if the former wasn't available, isn't available, then you would be asking the board to reduce your scope and to hold on construction activities in hopes to reapply and be awarded in the fall. And we understand no guarantees. I mean, this is not a, I'm not trying to back into a corner, Frank. The issue would be the notice to receive on a second grant, assuming they were awarded a second grant, assuming, then they would have the issue of wanting to continue with the activities. However, our grant award says, right. And we'd have to evaluate that. But if we did that, you all need to be completely aware that we would use that first sum of money to buy equipment. We would not be installing it. So, I mean, that's the full transparency. If we went that way, I don't know if that's a scope modification or a timeline adjustment. I don't know what that term would be. But we don't want to mislead you all, and that would be operational by football season. It would be get the equipment. We've got plenty of places to store it. So that would be, if that's the option, we're going to be clear up front that we're not going to be doing construction. So it would be asking the board to take the funds for the existing grant and to utilize it on those top two items that you see on it. Which is pretty much, that's what we could fund. Yeah, because that would be the cap of that funding and then it hopes to reapply and if awarded to be able to take care of the construction costs? The installation and the excavations though. So if the current grant pays design fee and equipment, then let's say you don't get the end of the grant, what's the thought? Great question. We discussed that with our vice president and her quick response is what he expected folks to pay. we're in a 600 650 range mary and if it's more than that i said we're probably having another discussion that it's something we just can't afford it it's a good project but if you don't have the funding you don't have the funding so uh ideally we would have the quotes open before we came to this meeting that just it's just not going to happen to be next week so i'm not trying to be speculative here for the boards uh concerned if if they were allowed to reduce the scope and reapply and then didn't get it, I mean, we would have a stipulation that, which is already kind of stipulated that if the project didn't continue, they would have to reimburse. I mean, that kind of takes care of itself in that regard. If the project is not fulfilled. That's understood. Yeah, that's understood. We've been in one agreement in general that if the project isn't completed, then the organization has the responsibility to reimburse LFCCG. So, perhaps if we approve the change, what kind of ask are you going to have in a succeeding application? I mean, what kind of money are you going to be asking for? Because that $650,000, obviously we're not going to be able to help you in a good grant that much. Sure, we understand that. Now, we pick some numbers arbitrarily out of the hat, if you will. Top-wise would be the total bid. If we think 700 is too high, I think it would be 6.25. That just means full numbers. If the total, there's the 217,000, I'm rounding numbers, from a couple years ago. There's a U.K. match. That's how we got to 271, right? Depending on where that bid is, there's some numbers that's kind of a purple, according to my eyes, could be an additional ask or parts of that, and then the lower the number would be additional funding that our vice president's going to have to come up with. So that's kind of the spectrum, if you will. We think one's way too high, we think one's way too low. Hopefully we're somewhere in the middle. That could be ballpark numbers. So an additional ask. Next cycle, if that was even possible. But again, the original quote is not going to get us installed. We'll probably have some money. But we want you all to be aware that I guess that's a scope change. I mean, we don't want you to think we're trying to go faster than you. So, Chairman, what they're asking for initially, as they presented in their performance line, the preferred option is they're asking LFUCG to provide as immediate as possible some additional funding. And if not, the second option is to allow them to amend the current grant to those items, the consultant fee and equipment costs, and to reapply to company construction costs. Naturally, not to exceed what our max is, which currently is $360,000 for a Class B infrastructure grant. And so, and of course there are the innovative funds that are still sitting aside as well. However, staff wouldn't recommend pulling from both sources and under no circumstances. It would be kind of an either or thing. Of course, the innovative are capped at $300,000. So, but that's to be debated on with law for use of those funds. Is this an innovative program? Yeah. Was that originally? Yeah. If you recall back to their original plan was when they first presented this grant, it was not awarded. And then they came back. However, when they came back, they was actually one of the top scores and received the general, you know, the money in the general pool. And so we didn't have to pull. So after they were denied staff, the board decided to set aside funds for innovative and experimental projects to be used in any of the classes with grants. It just so happened they didn't need it, so it's been sitting there ever since. And so those funds haven't been exhausted. Well, I may be the only one that remembered this. I may have been the only one here. Right. We were in university, but there were a lot of reasons for that. I didn't mean badly. I didn't say that. I was very excited about this project originally, but it was innovative. It was exactly the kind of things that UK ought to be doing in these kind of ways. but I'm also disturbed by the increased cost because it seems like we've missed the boat here somehow. Regardless of the value of the project itself, it just seems extreme based on what the original cost was. It's okay if I put some numbers on this board. We didn't have time to put this in the slide. We have some other projects on campus. Most of my time spent on steam lines. That's a different kind of piping. Undoubtedly, everybody probably knows where Rose Street is. That's the street you can't go through anymore. And there's a steam mod work we have to do there, a couple hundred feet of steam pipe. And I picked this project because it's got concrete work, it's got excavation, and it's got piping in it. It's not identical to a stormwater harvesting project, but that project has concrete work, excavation, and piping in it. And our consultant did a budget analysis and we got to the end of it. We added 30% to that estimate due to market conditions, just for lack of a better word. with a 30% fudge factor, I guess, for lack of a better word, we thought we'd get that project by $436,000. It was competitively bid. We have not awarded it yet because the Board of Trustees has to approve these kinds of projects. The low bid, and I'm rounding, was $641,000. with a 30% adder. Now this is just typical of what we're seeing in the market. There are other projects like that. We didn't want to include this in the slide one because it's not been approved by the Board of Trustees. We'd ask you not to tell your neighbors about that necessarily at this point. I mean, we're open, transparent, but that's what we're seeing. It's insane. It makes no sense to me. Most consultants don't like to be the low bidder. That's true. I was kind of, they shall remain nameless, right? Right. I don't mind telling them who it is. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. That's, that project's either here or there. I mean, that's another issue the university gets to deal with. But I guess I am saying those sorts of market conditions is one reason we back in the fall, we said we're going to circle the wagons, we're going to get another engineering firm to go through the drawings, try to make a more intelligent decision moving forward. So, I mean, that's one of the reasons we did that. Well, you know, we do a fair amount of pipe work around here, too. Sure, hopefully I will do. I mean, I can attest to that escalation going on. Like I said, that's why I wanted to kind of dig into the bid documents and get a better comfort level for myself as far as what the components of it are compared to what we've granted. Sure, we'd be happy to do that. Because the escalation in cost of this to this, like you try to do, you try to compare apples to apples, and that's hard to do. It is. But that would give me a better comfort level. is that if you're putting in 2,000 linear feet of 12-inch pipe and in 2017 it was this, in 2022 it's this, everybody can get their mind around that, even if you're buying lumber or anything else. Oh, yeah. Do you have an idea of the impact from economical challenges versus the miscues, if I may call it that, from these? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Okay, so relative to the same conversation, what the impact is based on the economic challenges versus what you guys didn't include in the people? Okay. What did Bell miss versus what did the market escalate? I think we slash Bell Engineering missed on the electric side. I think we underestimated that. that, part of that would be the conductivity measurement. If at times during low flow periods there's less water so the stuff, the gunk, the dead leaves in there becomes a higher percentage, at that point we probably would not pull it into our towers. If the water really doesn't offer us any advantage with all that stuff in there. We probably underestimated the systems, the logic, the controllers to measure what we call conductivity. I would think we need to see. This is the, I mean, because that's about 13,000. We talked about electrical supplies and electrical controls. This number here is one that's really huge as well. Oh, it's astounding. I think we need to see, too. I mean, this may cause for us to reconvene, for the board to need more details. I'm not sure. I'm not feeling the level of comfort on the board's behalf, so I certainly don't want to pressure. I mean, staff has recommendations, but we certainly don't want to pressure these ladies and gentlemen to make an uninformed decision. Sure. And again, if we had the bids open, we would have. Those are coming in in a week. Next week. Next week. Well, even if we gave you an significant additional amount of money, you still could do it right there. The university had to pony up some money too, clearly. A whole lot of them. Sure. And that would have to be the stipulation in any event. What's your payback right now based on your current level of? We're in a $650,000 range. Payback's about 3.3 years, which is pretty darn good in today's way. That's pretty good. How does your vice president feel about that? She likes 3.3 year payback. This project checks a lot of boxes. I mean, it's a sustainable, that's an easy word for me to say, sustainability. We have students that study this sort of thing. It's good for you all. That's 23 million gallons you don't have to deal with in a flood. And that's, frankly, 23 million gallons I'm not going to buy from Kentucky American. I haven't told it that yet. That's 23 million gallons you're not going to send out? Yeah, that's right. I mean, there's something about that. No, I'm talking about the sanitary end of it. Exactly. There's about, what you said, $65,000 of sewer user fees. Right. We understand that. That would change that calculation. And that's also probably where we missed our metering side of it is that we kind of skipped through that and ignored, not ignored, just didn't quite get our arms around that. It's going to change our sewer exclusion request, which I send to Hillary and Gabe every month. Right. Yeah. And, you know, with your exclusions, a very small percentage of that cooling tower water. Sure, sure. But it's there. I mean, that's something to... We agreed in 2019 that we would meter it in such a way that we could pay for the harvested water that we were sending to. And that was part of the amendment that went on from the very beginning. No, I was just making light of that. I think that if I'm reading where the board was headed with that, is that the university is probably going to have to look because we just can't give you all of that money if those numbers are righteous. So looking at it, if you've got a 3.3-year payback, they may have to figure out a way to get more comfortable with one that's close between 5 to 10 because then that still makes sense economically. It doesn't make you as happy and as glad as 3.3 does, but it's not awful either. But it's still good business. That's not a bad business decision. Precisely. Yeah, in my mind, when it's less than 10, I'm excited. Sure. So it's kind of a fuzzy ask. If we had more data, we'd share it with you. We had hoped we would have that data when Frank put us on the agenda. It's just not going to happen. So it's kind of, I understand this is a little fuzzy. So Chairman, initially staff, we had the idea, Lindsey and I initially had an idea to try to utilize the innovation and experimental funds and the change order process. However, we realized that it had never been done for grants, the change order process, and we certainly needed Law's input and of course our director's input. and we'd have to be on the same page before we could put that recommendation out there. Obviously, we would have the position of recommending the second option, which would be to allow them to reduce their scope and then come back and reapply, and then with the stipulation of reapplying the new proposal, or if awarded in the new framework, we need to have where the organization has to cover any overages. And by that time, they would have to bid. And so they would just simply have to propose something that includes a higher caution. That would be the second option. But, I mean, we still have to get laws positioned on the recommendation for the innovation funds. And, you know, the ordinances and how they speak, they seem to give a little latitude. However, I need Michael's interpretation of that. Here's my, I'll make a couple of observations. Number one, the original grant award agreement is a not to exceed the value. So typically the way we do these grants is we give you the grant, the board gives the grant for this amount, and if the budget comes in higher than that, it's the responsibility of the grant recipient to make up the difference. So it would be unusual to immediately up or to up the same grant award via changement. I don't think the board has ever done that. I think what has been done, and I think that goes to the second option, has been to kind of take a harder look at the grant project in terms of phasing it. So that you basically take the existing grant and do this reduction in scope or this reduction in timeline or whatever, and then have them reapply for additional funds, and that will give staff the ability with the budgets budgets and you'll know what the bids are at that point and those kinds of things to make that evaluation and make a recommendation to the board as to whether that additional funding should be given. I would just say legally the board has a lot of discretion but what's more equitable to go ahead and immediately give more money or to basically submit this to more scrutiny via a second grant application for cost of construction. It's kind of, like I said, I think Frank's right that the board has certain discretion on how it administers the grant funds, but generally we try to keep this program as competitive as possible. And so there's an element of, we know the UK's got a great project here, but is it better from the program administration standpoint to treat this as a case where we need a new grant application to look at these costs of instruction and so staff can make a recommendation on these more firm numbers or to just up it without enough information to really give the board a comfortable level on the project Did you all have any more information that you wanted to provide us with? One of the components of the secondary... Another option which I'm sure has more legal challenges is for us to go ahead and continue with the construction to just get through it. We have to wait to do construction. We don't know if the winds are going to keep escalating. We have no crystal ball to tell us what's going to happen if we have to rebuild this again down the road. But in talking to you, that was a really tricky place to be, whether we could go ahead and continue this and apply. If we get it, great. If not, it's our community. Yeah, it's the timing aspect. The first option I mentioned is the changeover. So, you know, like Michael said, we've never done that before, and staff is not sure if even what that looks like in terms of how we present that in the forum to the Irving County Council. You know, I guess we would have to hone up the original contract as supplemental materials to accompany the change order documentation to even request that. But, I mean, that's a logistic thing that we can have, that staff can have it later. However, my position here is that I don't feel a level of comfort in that you all have enough information. And so I'm not sure how staff's position should be. I mean, I know staff would recommend option number two to shrink the scope and allow them to come back and reapply. As Ms. Brittany mentioned, timing then becomes the area of concern. I mean, because, you know, they can purchase the supplies and equipment, you know, and then the bid as far as construction, we don't know what this thing is going to lead in terms of inflation and demand for it. In terms of timing, what would be the earliest that you could approve an additional application? Well, the applications are out. They were going to deadline for Class B infrastructure is July 29th. And so at best, after the award ceremony, if awarded in October, we could expedite their group. They could be the first one, and we could expedite that process. And I would say late fall, maybe November, would be the earliest they would be able to put a shovel in there. If with their option two rather than option one. Yeah, yeah. Because the thing about allowing them to proceed with construction and then talk about a reimbursement, We've never done that either because staff has typically had a lot more control in terms of overseeing. But I would say that even with the first agreement, we still have grant oversight. We have a grant manager, and they could still be involved in whatever processes if they were allowed to continue through. But that grant award agreement does speak to the fact that no activity would occur before awarded, before the awarded. So speaking on that second application, if awarded, we would kind of be having to extract those items from the agreement. For the second option, like you said, where to go with that, purchase equipment and then see what happens with the second application. If the second application is not approved, it's written in the grant that the UK reimburses. Yeah, if they don't follow through with the project in general, even as is, no matter what the board does today, then they would have to reimburse. But as you mentioned, they haven't requested since the problem. Yeah. So, today, so, yeah, but if they were to reapply and not be awarded, then any work they've done or anything they've done, if they actually put in requests for something, they would have to turn it and give it back. So it seems like everything is kind of predicated, not saying it's come off of a snippety, but it seems like everything is predicated on something that's happening. So how then are you sure that, you know, even if they do do option one, that it's going to be approved for the next phase? Are there any guarantees where that is concerned? Are you just going to say, well, this could happen even to the quotes, you know? I kind of like to see a little more. I think it would be a lot better if you had some actual official numbers, opposed to if this happened, then this could happen. I just think it's a lot of tips. Maybe it's a better idea to wait on, I don't know, maybe Lindsey, she just walked in, maybe she could come out here. No pressure. Maybe in a reconvene, once we saw the beans and they got their eyeball on something actual, maybe there would be more of a level of comfort. We know what we were talking about. Well, yeah, so, yeah. Yeah. He kind of gave some scenarios in his screen where he showed the 700 and kind of walked it down, worst case scenario, hopefully best case scenario, so. Let's just say for, I'm sorry, go ahead. We're still talking over 300,000 pounds. Yeah, and the class B infrastructure has a cap of 360. We raised it. I wouldn't say it would cover everything, but it would certainly, I'm sure, be helpful. It would be a nice chunk, sure. So, Mr. Sharon. I think the second option that was on the screen a second ago, understanding a bullet point list of cons on that approach. I heard that there's an equipment warranty in play. There is time, so there's more water runs to do our culture. We roll the dice on construction costs. On the pro side of this alternative option, it seems like we are operating with more order. So we have this initial grant process that takes care of the design fee and equipment supplies, and then we run this through a second Class B grant process that takes care of the balance that makes we see, based on what the bids do versus looking at the experimental bucket of money and saying, okay, do we consider this immediately? Is that what the table looks like? Well, immediate as if the board were to approve that, however long it took to get a change order put together logistically and sent to the urban county council and assuming that they approve it as well. So they might have some scrutiny for it too. Yes, sir. Well, I was going to add to that. Go back to the slide that you had that had the cost share, the different cost amounts. There we go. You know, is that I think Mr. Clark was pointing out, I mean, we don't have enough to cover 340 to even up to 260. I think that if we were going to go forward with a change order, I know since I'm the one who would be standing at the podium trying to defend this, is that seeing a bigger part of UK's contribution absorbing the costs associated with the impact of the pandemic and inflation and all that kind of stuff, make a more solid argument for me to be able to do that. It demonstrates a high level of commitment on the part of the university to make this happen, and then we're more or less partnering together and maybe not establishing a terrible precedent that if projects run long, the government will just foot the bill. And someone raised an interesting point about the difference between the economic conditions and the electrical that was missing in the first round. And I don't think we have a full understanding of what that amount is, but maybe it's $130,000, which is only about 30% of the $414,000 variance based on this guess. I love it. Right. That's the best number I've got, I'm sure. So it looks like to me, I'm sorry, you through? Oh, yeah, sorry. It just looks like to me one of the things that we need to know in the future at least is what kind of obligation the UK is going to fulfill here. I think that's really important, kind of backing up what Charlie says. I'd like to know what the university is willing to do. I don't think this board, these funds are made to do everything he's done. As a matter of fact, this is such an important project. I mean, I'm very excited about the project. Let me say this. Excuse me. Go ahead. I can't speak for the Vice President, but I think I can go out on a limb and say once we have the bids next week, you and I and Shane can meet with Mary and say, okay, Mary, this is where the bid is. Pick a number. You're crystal ball as good as ours on these things. How much can you bring to the table? And then we can come back, probably tired of seeing me by then, and say, hey, certainly, as we still hear a couple years ago, it ain't going to happen. I mean, that's, we understand that. That's fantasy land now. And whenever we get back on the agenda or maybe you come, we get back. Here is the extra funding that Mary slash university says. X dollars, whatever, you know, based on the bid next week, we can find one of our budgets. I'm picking up $4 million. I don't know. I just don't write that down. Conversely, you may say, hey, we're comfortable up to $200, 250 we take it to mary and say hey if they match us 250 additional or whatever can we do this it's got to be it may be quicker to do it that we couldn't do that until we see a new application i understand what you mean that's exactly what i'm talking about but we couldn't we couldn't put the first finger right there i guess okay mr chair charlie from here i think the 80 20 match shown here on the additional funds mirrors the conditions of the original grant, not the hard line for us. I knew where it came from. I just wanted to use it as a little bit. And so I think, you know, this chart could certainly be expanded today or any other time to have additional complexity to show that those additional funds are cost-shared differently than the initial award. Some format of this would go in my blue sheet memo when you want to counsel. Given the economics of this, it totally makes sense that the university, I think, is prepared to participate at more than 80-20. I do have a question relative to the alternative proposal that's been put forward. If there is a scope change and all of the 271 that's currently committed from the grant fund and our match goes toward equipment purchase, if we decide to just green light on our own, so hypothetically, if Plan B is approved, we use all of the grant to do that, and we decide not to come back to the well and just to do the project to not roll the dice on additional construction costs and to get it done in a timely manner, would there be any constraint preventing us from doing that? In other words, we take the parent funds and instead of using it to complete the whole project, you're going to cover the rest. And just, I mean, we feel no losses there. I wouldn't think so. Just wanted to make sure that that pathway would be open if that second option. I think in closing out the grant, then, all you're doing is demonstrating that the equipment that we paid for is purchased. Where is the sole intention? Okay. We still have to keep it open long enough to complete the project. but at the end of the day, we would just show that you're the university's cost share. I assume that that was the case. I just wanted to be crystal clear on that. Yeah, if the board votes to reduce the scope, then that's the scope of the project, and then the grant fund is being used for it. When it's reduced for that, you fulfill the obligation. Well, however, the initial contract, they voted to amend it. However, I know the board would want to stipulate that the project would still have to be completed otherwise they would still want to be reimbursed. Sure. It would work out. Yeah. So because, yeah, that's kind of tricky because, I mean, you're amending to reduce the scope but not to cut the project in half, you know, in terms of completion. I mean, they still would want to stipulate, you know. We'd still want to be able to say that the grant funds were expended for a purpose that is consistent with the stormwater quality of the program. And so if you're three-bind equipment for whatever purchase, that's not consistent with the program. But if you follow through with a stormwater project that needs to be affected to the program, now is that good? You know, I think that the thing with Brittany is just having to halting all processes. So if the board, if they reduce the scope and allow them to reapply, but allow them to continue with those activities and then if they were to receive a second grant, you know, offer, still allow them to be reimbursed, of course, the stipulation could be, we still would have grant oversight over those activities or whatever the case is, some look into those activities, then that would be just a matter of adjusting the second grant award agreement and just to say, hey, we would scratch the item that says they can't proceed until the notice to proceed. We would have to strike those items because it just simply wouldn't be the case. But this grant is already, the project is already approved as is under the formal agreement. So that could be a logistical thing that could be, that could help, you know, some of the results. Well, I have a problem with the treatment. that's just what you would have to go through, go through council. I would have to involve with the change order you say? Change order. Oh yeah, so I kind of sense that and I sense that from some of our members as well. However, you know, we think it's an innovative project. We support it. And so we're just trying to kind of scale and see what options are on the table. We knew it was a challenge logistically, both questions in law and as well as literally what does that look like to change order, especially given the fact that we're going to have to have some stipulations to it. We want to pay for a change order without saying, hey, here are the terms for that change order and I'm not sure if I've ever even seen additional documents attached to a change order whether it's been a general form, but it all depended on what was already listed in the So that was one of the challenges that we were going to have. Lindsey, did you want to add anything to support of that notion or whatever? Just adding. Okay. So just when you were talking about option two, or the second one, the only fear that I have is if you're doing the scope change, you approve that, and then you're allowing to apply but keep with construction, which is preferred in my opinion. I want them to be able to do the project, use their current bids, but if you then allow them to reapply and then fund work that's already been done, I almost, I like that precedent less than the precedent of awarding or of considering this an innovative and experimental project because I don't want this to be a program a program where someone, like they just, you can go do a project and then come and ask for it to be funded after you've completed it. I know this is special, you know, obviously they've already gone through the process and awarded it, so, you know, it's a little different in that sense, but it's just the precedent of saying we'll award funding for the fiscal year 23 that we've set aside for fiscal year 23 projects, to a project that's already happened also feels a little strange to me. So since it's already been deemed, and I'm sorry I've missed a big chunk of this conversation, but the innovative and experimental funds would allow us, and I feel like the board has discretion to decide if we're not comfortable with the full amount, what are you comfortable with, to help fund this project, you all have already kind of teamed an innovative and experimental project. And is there a level of comfort that you would have? And I think it may even be worse, you know, rejoining between meetings to allow them, you know, if they get their bids on the 20th, doing a meeting shortly thereafter, if the board is willing to bring this conversation back to the table so they're not waiting until July so that we're talking real numbers. I think that's a worthwhile suggestion. Well, I was just going to say, similar to before, we literally stopped this when they applied the first floor, when they were awarded this time, and reconvened to allow the board to get some more information from them to allow them to present to give the board a level of comfort. So that may be a good option to not just throw out the change order idea in the first place because I think for the second option, it's hard for them to put together an application that's moving in real time. You see what I'm saying? It's kind of like strange to, you know, because most of the time we get a concept, you know, application documents concept, nothing has happened, so we can kind of put our mind around what we think will happen, what they intend to do, but things will be happening, and so it's like that scope of the project might be changing as they're putting in an application process. Let me say this for you. One thing that bothers me about that is all our projects are competitive. And if we're doing this now without knowing what kind of competition is going to be in the future, then that seems to take away the competition factor because who are we competing with if we get into the next application? It seems like it needs to be part of that whole process. Right. For option two, certainly. Option one was more about the project was already deemed innovative and experimental, And we were basically alleviating the competitive portion for the use of those funds since they've been kind of sitting there stagnant in the first place. And that's what we were kind of, Lindsay and I were kind of championed using those out of the application process and just pulling those in to allow them to complete the project due to those economic challenges and what have you. But for the second option, absolutely, they will be, we told you, they will be back in the competitive process. That's why there's no guarantee they'll get funding. However, I would note that even in that process, those innovative funds will still be there if funding was exhausted or to be exhausted at the end of that process. You might have other innovative processes available in any classes, and we're coming up on a class A and B education, so they could tap into those funds. We never know, but that's just the kind of chance we're taking here. Let me say that I'm pro-special meeting. You're going to get your vids in. If we need to come back here in three weeks, buy it with me. But if we come back in three weeks, our guesstimate here that we're operating from and we've hit on page 10 is 685. So if we come back in three weeks and instead of 685, it's 691, is the group comfortable considering option A in that case? I don't know if that gets us any more comfortable with option A. I think almost everyone is more comfortable with option B. The board does have discussion in terms of how much they would want to offer in those innovation funds. They don't have to max it out. They can ask or force the university to meet them halfway somehow. somehow you know or perhaps the idea of even eating the cost of the I keep saying it miscue I'm sorry but but allowing them to use it for those economic challenges toward that but that just quickly that would be an unusual action a more more typical action would be to okay go ahead and do the kind of purchase to the equipment and then come back the next grant application. I agree. Right? I mean, that's kind of what Ma was referring to is it would be unusual for us to do that. And I think the board has to consider their level of comfort with that unusual action. Also the precedence is the essential issue, which is always important. I can't disagree with that. It's certainly something that hadn't been done before. We've never done that. We hadn't done certain. We hadn't had an innovation and experimental pool in the first place as well. So it kind of added some levels to the program. So it was, you know, we're just kind of throwing that out there as an idea to try to. Are we comfortable as a board to have a set of meetings? Yeah, let's see what that date looks like, if that would be the answer. I guess that's a fair question. Would you all begin to allow us to come back with a more complete, accurate set of data, including the money the university made? That's what I was going to ask. Or is it encumbered or whatever the fancy accounting term is? Once the bins come in, have you met again with Mary to see? This is our additional commitment, X, whatever that number is. I think we can do that. Unless something happens. At this point, if there was an additional addendum that had to be issued, it would get pushed back seven days. Right now, it's sitting next Wednesday the 20th. I can't foresee it getting pushed back more than a day or two if something did happen at this point, but we could target the last week of the month. Or even the following. In person or online? I would say in person. I'll commit that we can do that. And what that says, that's Mary's call. It's sure like Graham's call. Shane, did you know? Shane, you know Mary probably a little better than I do. Do you think that's a reasonable ask for Mary? Out of respect for the board's time, in thinking through a couple of the comments that were just made, I think any application of the innovation fee is going to be new process for the board because you've not awarded those funds yet. So ours or any other is going to be a new precedent if you award it. I think the amount of difference that we expect based on the quotes is probably outside the range of an 80-20 match. And so what I've heard floated, I think, first from Lindsay, is that the board has the discretion to say, well, the maximum we'd be able to award you from an innovation fund would be this, and then it'd be up to you to come up with the rest. And so I think the numbers that we've got on the quotes and the numbers that we're going to get on the bids, we're going to be, you know, any difference is going to be on the university. So I say that out of respect for your time relative to a special meeting, that if the path you wanted to follow was the one that I think Lindsay recommended, which was a certain amount of innovation funds to support this project, that that could be done now without any increased risk to the funds. but that thought is kind of forming as I'm sharing it for the sake of discussion. That's correct, but part of it is not. What's unusual is the innovation fund because, yeah, they've never dispersed those funds. However, I think initially the idea was to, during the application process and part of the award process, to divvy them out. That was the idea of doing the compendium process. And so what's unusual is the request for the change order. Understood. You know, so, I mean, that's the part that the board, I think, would need more information about and probably want to pause for either option just to get a better idea on what these numbers are going to look like. And so I think it would be a good idea on both parties to maybe reconvene. I would probably hold out for the first week of May if possible. It doesn't have to be on a Thursday per se. It could be on any day that the board agrees on. That would be available for you guys. Just to give you time. You mentioned an addendum of some sort. Just give you time to get your ducks in a row. That's what I want. I think the board will also, especially if it's May 1st, there's a 99% chance I will not be there yet. So, I just wanted to say, if option two, you all know that option, you vote to amend their scope, allow them to purchase with the current funding, You really need to think about what it looks like for them to continue with the project this summer and clearly define what you're okay with because they, as far as them applying again and seeking additional funds, because they have to make a decision too on what they can afford. And so I just, we have to figure out like are we okay with them if they continue with construction and we say, yes, please reapply, are we okay with them continuing with construction, reapplying, you know, and then getting the funds even though they've already done the work? I just want to make sure that discussion happens at some point if I'm not here in the beginning of this. I will say that differently. I don't want this to turn into a reimbursement program. Well, that's what I'm worried about. I know. I'm just agreeing with you. It sounds like staff would be inclined to champion to halt all activities until that new application came in and try to expedite it if awarded as much as possible. But just like any of these other options, I mean, we can't guarantee anything with regard to the award. I don't think we'd be comfortable with the university spending more than the $271,000 until we approve a new application. So would you agree to change the scope if they want? That kind of seemed like a stipulation to you, that you wouldn't want them to? Because they want to be the new contract. So would the board be in front of the team, them moving forward certain activities, but in their new application, you know, at some point in time, they'd probably have to try to draw a line and pause and ask for funding for whatever portions are remaining at the time. I mean, it sounds like that would be the only option that staff or... Or they would have to understand they wouldn't pay for it. Well, yeah, correct. Yeah. So I think we agree that we want to meet again. Yeah. So let's pick a date. You think you'll be out in the last week of the month, too? Oh, yeah, that looks good. So I guess we'll go ahead and shoot for that first week in May, maybe Tuesday or Wednesday. Do you all feel comfortable on that day? Starting off the Monday. What about the Monday? Or did you want to go with the Thursday? That's fine. Any day that we start, we may talk about you on any conference. Just not Wednesday. Not Wednesday and 4th. Okay, not Wednesday and 4th. Is that if other Thursdays go to Thursday? Thursday. Should it go tomorrow? Yeah. Probably ruin your derby plans, but... Thursday and 5th. I think we need a motion on that. Right. It takes time, 10 o'clock. Does that make sense? It doesn't matter. It's 9 o'clock. Yeah, we have to have a motion. What I'm sure about, for my own good, when we come back, are we going to be discussing both our preferred option and the alternative option or exclusively the alternative option because that's going to determine how we frame. I think you would just be elaborating on what you have here but you would be including the actual needs. We might have a little more information about what you might be able to commit. For me, that's key for me to know what the additional action is. So in your new, in your reconvene, you know, you might have that discussion again later and just amend your proposal to maybe include more skin in the game for UK or after that. It sounds like. Yeah, oh yeah. I think we are well aware there's going to be more skin, but if we just modeled it after the first. Yeah, yeah, summary, summary, summary, summary, because 80-20, that's kind of like how the program was written. Well, I want to be crystal clear, too, that if Mary commits, and Shane, I think she will, to some percentage, that at that meeting, we have the numbers, here's the additional fund that the university is willing to admit, that you all would at least entertain, accept a scope change, because we're clearly not doing what we said we were two years ago, three years or whatever it was. If that's a non-starter, let's... That's the acting chairman. That's how we would proceed at that meeting. Yeah, the acting chairman just mentioned, I think, it's all on the table. He's not removed anything from the table. It's just that we're at a pause here, and I think we need to see more information just to give it... A work-while pause. We agree. We're not trying to... Plus, we're going to have a new chair. Yeah, I think... We need a motion to meet on the 5th of May at 9 o'clock. Which is a Thursday? Yes. We have the motion. We have a second. Second. Second. All in favor. Thank you. Approving. I'm going to guess our intention. we're not going to go back to the cooling tower issue unless somebody has specific questions. We can do that. We'll focus more on the financial side of that. Is that what you all would expect? I'm not going to bore you with the 23 million gallons. The project in itself, I think we've accepted that. Okay. Okay. But you might want to quickly give an overture for the chairman. I would like to give him the... Sure, okay. Maybe not as detailed, but just... Okay. He's certainly familiar with it, but just kind of really just feeling. If we could do that prior to the meeting and give him an update, sure. We'll send him the presentation that we've had so far. We'll send it to all the... Or if there's a meeting between now and Cinco de Mayo, my daughter-in-law's birthday, what benefit we can meet with him and then share that side of it with him. If you all just have to share it again, that'd be fine, too. It's great. And then, of course, I mean, you can reach out to us or board members for questions in between the time. Just give them a lot of time to put their thoughts together, you guys, to get your guts to the road. And then we, you know, we start the discussion. I have asked, and I'm going to confirm with our project manager, that he's going to come in itemized so that we have a better understanding of what are we thinking electrical, what are we thinking excavation. I think it's fair that we all want to avoid any miscues, especially when the inflation or something is still a moving target. We were not comfortable with those numbers either while we went out to bid. We didn't want somebody to be slipping out, well, this is market conditions slash fluff. We wanted to tighten this as much as possible. It definitely causes a double take, but it could be warranted or whatnot. But, yeah, we certainly want to give it as much consideration as possible, staff's position, to the board in terms of our recommendations. But we want to make sure the board is well informed because, you know, this is on record. This undergoes an audit process, and none of us want to look like the bad guy. I don't want to be on 6 o'clock news. It might also be helpful to include in some of this the benefits that UK will experience from this. We talked about three and a half years. It might be helpful for us to know that part of our different relationships. One thing that I wanted to mention in the discussion kind of moved forward is, you know, is their substantial contribution to the water polyvagant, which, you know, they have nearly 7,000 ERUs that they pay for, which amounts to about $432,000 a year. So that's one thing to be considered too is just the scale of their contribution or their, you know, MS4 responsibilities and their contributions. So just to put that in the board's mind as well. And Shane, I think, has this concept and we totally agree that we want to start lining up our dominoes, that we are here every time there's an application to have an idea to get going on this. And, you know, we've got another site on campus. We've already studied to do the same thing once this concept is proven. I think at the end of this road, for both the staff, there's some lessons here. And so for them, they're definitely going to pause on these numbers and make sure, you know, and for us, it's just to see fully what this program has the ability to do, latitude-wise. I appreciate you bringing that up. And given the scope of the program, I think it's worth noting that we will always pay and we will be eligible to receive it due to the size of our campus. All right, thank you all. Thank you all. We appreciate your time. Thank you. We didn't expect to be here an hour and a half, but thankful for the discussion. It's a good project and worth our time. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Lindsay, good luck. Thank you. All right. I think this was Frank's. I don't move. Oh, that's Charlie's out. Oh, not Frank's. I'm sorry. Thank you. Make sure you can take that one. Thank you. All right. Next on our agenda is the city grants status. Yeah, I believe you all received a copy of the usual. Right there, right here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, I will go ahead and start with the 2016, this Peppermill, which as you can see is obviously the last one remaining here. We have the final report in hand. We're reviewing it. This is Jennifer Carey. She has retained this project even as the director over there. She said she would go ahead and close it out. No sense to change her hands. So she's actually reviewing those and we hope to hear back from her pretty soon about any questions she has for that organization. So we expect that to be closed out hopefully by summer. So Dalton Court, 2017, the last one remaining, they have actually a new deadline of April 31st. And the reason we extended the deadline that they had prior was because they had trouble getting socked. So we had some punch list items that we needed them to take care of. And so we agreed that market conditions were an idea and that there were some issues in the supply chain. So to help them out as we champion trying to get the project to complete as opposed to stopping it and terminating and seeking reimbursement and all of these, we agreed to allow them more time to be in our best interest. As for 2018, Beaumont is actually, I have the final review and final report. Unfortunately, we've lost our grant manager. She's resigning to move on to Big and Better Things. Hunter Pace is her name. She's going to be working for the state now. So I was taking over that. She just got it in hand and passed it on to me like the quarterback. I'm going to be reviewing those documents and get that project closed out as soon as possible. Hopefully within the week. Well, let me say next week. Next week. Because I've got a couple of them on my desk. Stonewall, same thing. Jennifer Carries, this grant manager as well, after Lee Hudson left. She has received from Keith Berber the final report. We've gone back for several times. They had some errors going on. And so both of those will be closed out within the month, I would say. Bluegrass Green Source, this is the Class B infrastructure. This is the, hold on, which one is that? I want to make sure I'm speaking to the right one. Oh, yeah, this is Bluegrass Green. So this is for that Environmental Education Center. They had issues with an illegal outfall over at Setser, which was the project site, and that's in litigation. We've been in communication to make sure that's moving forward. And there had been some conversation about, maybe Greg can speak to us about possibly a land swap, but I don't know where that conversation has gone. Okay, so it doesn't look like that may happen, and so we're going to depend on what happens in their litigation because they're seeking damages from sets of properties for installing an illegal outfall smack dab in the middle of a project. So they can relocate it, but that's going to take some time, too, to try to figure out where to put it as they don't want to contribute. They don't want to be a bad actor for someone else. So we'll stay in touch with them to make sure that either they move forward with it or they get the idea to just terminate the grant and try to reset. And then at that juncture, we will seek reimbursement. This is University of Kentucky. This is the final one on the 2018 list is closed out. It's just about closed out. I think we're just waiting on the final report. I think we're waiting on the educational sign. I think we anticipate that final report any day. I'm assuming so. I've been paid so. He's been paid so we look forward to receiving one. He didn't have to write the report so that was a good one on the. Is that alumni project? Yes sir. It's alumni project. It's a beautiful project. 2019 has had significant progress as you see. There's one remaining here. And this project had an opportunity for learning. They had a change of leadership, which is what the cause was for. And then in the middle of all of it, they had the idea to try to adjust the code of the project area, but then decided it was going to be a little too heavy. and then we came back at the original site. However, Scott indicated that the design was moving along quite well, and so they looked to put the shovel in the ground this summer. Certainly. As for 2020, we've had a few close out already for those as well. Andover Neighborhood Association, I have the final report, and we're going back and forth with that one. The construction is complete. What they did was remove the gabion baskets that were out there. I think it was Hole 17, maybe. Don't quote me. But they removed the gabion baskets and stabilized the stream. After the bridge, going downstream for a portion for X amount of linear feet. And it's a beautiful project. You guys get a chance to stop out there off of Todd's Road. which is just off of Todd's Road, and take a look at it, I think you'd be impressed. It's a great project. Of course, they're going to be coming back for more projects, too, because the entire stream is eroding heavily after these significant events we've had of late. Friends of Wolf Run moving along steadily, as usual. Demetria has been satisfied with their progress on this particular grant. Tim Bark is also moving along. I wish I wasn't so small. He mentioned that they've completed the design and now got the project out for bid. So we're expecting some progress on that. Bluegrass Green Source Education, they're tagging along with their typical campaigns. and they've submitted a few requested funds to date, so that one is moving along steadily. Moving on down, the University of Kentucky Research Foundation. This is for the class B. I believe this is for the one of the No P on My Line grant campaigns that have been approved. That's moved along as well. They're monitoring the treatment of, well, actually I misspoke. This is for the steam, the steam weed heating. So Hunter, this is another one of her grants that she's passed over. I think they've done some treatments and they're just monitoring those sites and kind of seeing how those are turning out so far. But they're progressing as well. I actually emailed Scott and commented on this one that I wanted to see more progress out of this grant here. So to be honest with you, I would put that organization on notice that we'd like to see a little bit more movement out of here. Kentucky American Water, they have put out, of course this is the Oscar, this is the giant Oscar if you will. I think they're just trying to make sure that the location is going to suffice. But the design is near completion and they want to make sure that the location is going to be an effective one. They installed a few temporary booms to try to get a beat on the better location. They had a couple of different options for the location that they were going to put the booms. They have some temporaries in place just to make sure. They know what the compactor is going to do as it was drafted for the Lexmark situation. They kind of did a pilot situation. What was that, 2018? Maybe four. Yeah, we got so many projects in our head. But they did a pilot, and this Kentucky American Water was kind of based on the notion of that pilot project. We put temporary booms out on Lake Yellowsley, and it's where a culvert is submerged, and there's no trash that has come to the culvert yet because the lake hasn't gone down enough yet to suck it in. it in so just making sure that it's going to catch trash before we put a trash trap we have built a prototype trash trap we can launch this week actually thank you yeah make sure village they're literally thinking to construction right now just started uh maybe like a month and a half ago the grand manager and i visited the site several times they're making significant projects out there And all they're doing is putting permeable sidewalks in to try to alleviate some of the pool in the water and what have you. North Lexington Holdings 2, 900 block. I think Doug mentioned that they just got an extension for the construction because of the construction, but they said they had substantial completion of the construction. I think he told me that they have moved forward with construction and they have substantial completion. So let's move along quite well. University of Kentucky. Sorry about that. This is the one we were just talking about. You know the status of that. We'll skip right past that one. And then as I move to 2021, I won't go down the line for each one of those, But I'll tell you, there's been significant progress on each of these projects right here. The awards are out. Notice for CEDs are out. And the projects are moving forward. If you have a question about anyone in particular that you see on the list, as you see Ellerslie's on that list, and you've kind of been brought to speed on them, so they are just at the point where they're just trying to request an amendment which you guys kindly approved. But if you have any questions about any of those, our staff will certainly be glad to answer them. Looking at the bottom, you see human real estate. You see United Landscape Wesley. Those are all feasibilities, and those are all tracking well. We expect those to finish fairly quickly here by the end of summer. have those studies in our hands. As for 22, the notice of all the agreements went out, were returned, went before council, everybody's received their notice, received. We had great time and thanks to Denise, we'd like to thank you for your hard work on that. So those are all ongoing. So we'd like to know those are going forward. And that's pretty much an update that I have for you without going through each one, because if you see something that out for certainly no life thank you thank you of our item number five you have some other matters we would like to we have some conflict during our July meeting and staff would like to request to shift that meeting date to, I believe it's July 28th, 2019. The following week the 21st is fine, but it's shifted beyond that. Yeah, so, but it's whatever date we wanted to move it instead of being to July 14th, because there's a couple of conferences going on. I think you had, she has the KSA. KSA we have a couple of conflicts going on with the schedule so we would request to see if the board would be inclined to move it back. To the 22nd. Yeah and the reason not before is because I think staff and I told Lindsey. I'm sorry 21st. Staff would need all that time in between to get the grants scored, the applications scored, the recommendations and what have you. So I think afterwards, you know, to postpone the meeting is the better option. Actually, that's better than the 14th of the meeting. So either the following week or the week after. About the 21st. 21st is going to be what you want. Okay. I guess we're okay. Okay. We need a motion on that, if you don't mind. Move to move the QI meeting to the 21st of Monday. Second. Second. Thank you. Thank you. I think that's it, but of course right after the meeting, we had planned to do a quick tour over at the Gray Line, and Mr. DeWalter was going to give us the tour. So if you did it after me, if we could just make our way over to Gray Line for those that have time, that haven't seen it. And that's all. Staff have you. Do you have any opinion for other members? I've spent a whole bunch of time with them. I don't need to get them. Okay. Okay. Well, we'd love to take any of the board members that haven't yet. I don't need to get to. Yeah. Unfortunately. Okay. Well, okay. We may just, I guess it was a council report. Very exciting. Sorry, Eric. It's all right. I learned something. You said you don't? I haven't been. Oh, well, then we're going. We're going. We're going to have lunch. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I didn't have lunch. Are you sure, guys? We can do that. So that's all staff asked if we would just need a motion to do. Okay. Second, thank you, Jerry. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor. All right. Thank you, y'all. Thank you. Thank you. What an interesting meeting. Yeah.