# January 12 2023 Water Quality Fees Board - January 12, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 12, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5744 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5744?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-01-12 - **Last revised**: January 12, 2023 - **Length**: 18,219 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Water Quality Fees Board met on January 12, 2023, at 9:03 a.m. in the North Elkhorn Conference Room at the Tate Building, 125 Industrial Avenue, Suite 180. George Woolwine presided over the meeting. The board addressed eight agenda items, including approval of minutes from the October 20, 2022 meeting, and heard one public comment regarding the Incentive Grant Program. The board took 12 motions and votes during the session, which covered topics including programmatic changes, FY 2024 grant application documents, and an incentive grant status update. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on January 12, 2023: * George Woolwine * Harry Clarke * Donna Fogle * David Lowe * Aaron Vaught No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions All motions brought before the meeting passed unanimously with 5 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 abstentions. **Approval of 10/20/22 Minutes** [timestamp: 0:01:05] Motion by David Lowe, seconded by Donna Fogle. All five members voted in favor: George Woolwine, Harry Clarke, Donna Fogle, David Lowe, and Aaron Vaught. **Schedule Special Meeting for February 16, 2023** [timestamp: 0:29:32] Motion by David Lowe, seconded by Harry Clarke. The body approved scheduling a special meeting for further discussions regarding an amendment to the scoring matrix. **Sustain Current Cost-Share Percentages** [timestamp: 0:42:28] Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by David Lowe. The body voted to sustain the current cost-share percentages for all three grant classes. **Adjust Small Project Target in Class B Infrastructure** [timestamp: 0:38:40] Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by David Lowe. The body approved adjusting the Small Project Target from $60,000 or Less to $75,000 or Less in the Class B Infrastructure program. **Continue Feasibility Targets** [timestamp: 0:41:57] Motion by David Lowe, seconded by Aaron Vaught. The body voted to continue with the Feasibility Targets in the Class A and Class B Infrastructure programs. **Continue Innovation and Experimentation Pool Funds** [timestamp: 0:59:34] Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Donna Fogle. The body approved continuing the Innovation and Experimentation pool funds as is for the FY 2024 grant application cycle. **Add Criteria Language for Innovation and Experimentation** [timestamp: 1:00:08] Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by David Lowe. The body voted to add language establishing criteria for considering whether a project is innovative and/or experimental. **Allocate Change Order Pool Funds** [timestamp: 1:10:26] Motion by Donna Fogle, seconded by Harry Clarke. The body approved allocating funds for a Change Order pool to allow organizations to request additional funding. **Support Change Order Criteria** [timestamp: 1:17:08] Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by Harry Clarke. The body voted to support staff's recommendation for the criteria for change orders. **Add Maintenance Language to Class B Education Grants** [timestamp: 1:22:36] Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by David Lowe. The body approved adding language to the Class B Education grants regarding maintenance responsibilities. **Update Class B1 Score Sheet** [timestamp: 1:25:57] Motion by David Lowe, seconded by Harry Clarke. The body voted to update the Class B1 score sheet regarding a breakdown of 10 points allocated for question 3A. **Adjust Score Sheets for FY24 Grant Cycle** [timestamp: 1:30:27] Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by Harry Clarke. The body approved adjusting the score sheets for the FY24 grant cycle. ## Public Comment [timestamp: 00:02:25] Leandro "Nachie" Braga addressed the meeting regarding the Incentive Grant Program. Mr. Braga proposed an amendment to the scoring matrix that would include incentives for establishing tree canopies. His proposal was supported by letters from the City Tree Board and an academic from the University of Kentucky. ## Call to Order George Woolwine called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. [timestamp: 00:00] ## Approval of 10/20/22 Minutes [timestamp: 00:01:05] The meeting included a review and approval of the minutes from the October 20, 2022 meeting. George Woolwine, David Lowe, and Donna Fogle participated in this agenda item. During the review, a correction was identified and made to the minutes. George Ely's name was removed from the record. The minutes were approved following this correction. ## Comments / Suggestions from Citizens About Incentive Grant Program [timestamp: 02:25] Leandro "Nachie" Braga presented a proposal to amend the scoring matrix for the Incentive Grant Program to include incentives for tree canopies. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes. The discussion focused on potential modifications to the program's scoring criteria to encourage tree canopy development as part of incentive grant considerations. ## Memorandum Regarding Programmatic Changes [timestamp: 00:30:03] The board discussed various programmatic changes during this agenda item. Key speakers George Woolwine and Frank Mabson led the discussion on several policy adjustments affecting program operations. The discussion covered the following programmatic areas: * Cost-share requirements * Small project targets * Feasibility targets * Innovation and experimentation pool funds The agenda item was presented as informational in nature, with the board reviewing proposed changes rather than taking formal action. The specific details of each programmatic change, including the rationale behind the adjustments and their anticipated impacts, were addressed during the discussion. ## FY 2024 Grant Application Documents [timestamp: 1:33:18] The board reviewed the FY 2024 grant application documents during this agenda item. Denice Bullock led the discussion on the necessary updates and changes to the documents. The board's review of the grant application materials was presented for informational purposes. The discussion focused on identifying and addressing required modifications to ensure the documents met current requirements and standards for the fiscal year 2024 grant cycle. No additional details regarding specific concerns raised, particular changes debated, or the nature of the updates discussed are available from the meeting record. ## Incentive Grant Status Update Frank Mabson provided an informational presentation on the status of various incentive grant projects [timestamp: 1:48:40]. The update covered incentive grant initiatives from multiple fiscal years. The presentation focused on reporting the current state of ongoing incentive grant projects without indicating specific debate or concerns raised during the discussion. The session served as an informational update for the meeting attendees regarding grant project progress and status. ## Other Matters During this agenda item, the board addressed scheduling and other administrative matters. [timestamp: 2:01:41] George Woolwine led the discussion on these items. The outcome of this discussion was informational in nature, with no formal action taken. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by George Woolwine at approximately 2:03:32. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of 10/20/22 Minutes - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Schedule a Special Meeting for February 16, 2023, for further discussions regarding an amendment to the scoring matrix - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Sustain the current cost-share percentages for all three grant classes - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Adjust the Small Project Target from $60,000 or Less to $75,000 or Less in the Class B Infrastructure program - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Continue with the Feasibility Targets in the Class A and Class B Infrastructure programs - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Continue the Innovation and Experimentation pool funds as is for the FY 2024 grant application cycle - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Add language to establish criteria for considering whether a project is innovative and/or experimental - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Allocate funds for a Change Order pool to allow organizations to request additional funding - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Support staff's recommendation for the criteria for change orders - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Add language to the Class B Education grants regarding maintenance responsibilities - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Update the Class B1 score sheet about a breakdown of 10 points allocated for question 3A - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Adjust the score sheets for FY24 grant cycle --- ## Full transcript Good morning. Good morning. We can go ahead and get started. It's about 9-0-3. I'd like to welcome everybody to our January 12, 2023 Water Quality Peace Board meeting. I'd like to call the meeting to order. First for the business approval of 10, 20, 22 minutes. I don't have a chance to read those. I did notice members in attendance, George's name was on there. I think that was one version. I had had his name. Another version did not have his name. Any other comments, corrections, additions? Hearing none, do I hear a motion to accept as written? I'll move to accept. It's been moved. Is there a second? Seconded. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. I was like saying I was curious next item of business is comment suggestion from citizens about the incentive grant program I have some packets that I'll pass out. So are you guys all for staff? Mr. Natsi is going to present some information about adding trees to our scoring matrix. I want to thank you in various areas more presentable evidence to try to see the board's position. Okay. Yeah, so thank you very much for your time and consideration. I do want to be respectful of that time and focus on answering any questions you may have as much as possible. but the general idea, as Frank just explained, is I'm proposing an amendment to the existing scoring metrics for these warm water infrastructure incentive grants such that the establishment of new tree canopy will also be incentivized as well and along with the reduction in the purchase service area. I'm hoping that some of you have had a chance to review this proposal as it was sent out in advance of the meeting, but some additional materials in this packet. There are, in the back here, two letters of support from the City Tree Board, which, of course, represents several professionals in the waterculture trade, Division of Engineering, Division of Planning, City Council, and then also from an academic, Dr. Carmen Adriguez, at the University of Kentucky. certainly in my field her reputation precedes her but she's an accomplished researcher, professional engineer working in the field of hydrology stream restoration. And she's had some involvement in this program and certainly consulting the city in the past as well. So I'll kind of leave it at that. I'm happy to hit the finer details, specifically these two points, one and two, kind of spell out what we're looking for, basically adding a coefficient to value establishment of tree canopy, again, similarly to how production of pervious areas are like that. I just want to say, to make it easier, an example is called tree canopy, it's a document called tree canopy, just to kind of give you a scenario of some of the project. I have two questions. We should have done something like this. Can I ask a question? Thank you. I'm sorry. I was back. Thank you. Yes, please. You said something about, did I understand you correctly, that there's an impervious marriage, right, unfortunately? I may have mispoken credit not being the exact term, but using the existing scoring metrics here, projects will receive a certain amount of points to determine eligibility and scoring based on square footage of production services. I thought you were referencing the zoning ordinance. No, not the zoning ordinance. I just want to make sure the board there's there's different kinds of credits that there's not credits necessarily five four three canopy in administering storm water management fees right everybody's not in that I just want to make sure that that's clear because there's different kinds of credits yes and we're not requesting any reduction in storm water management fees for applicants I have a question I had when I thought about trees, trees, canopies, this or related things, and it may be answered down here in the clawback clause, but thinking about trees once they're planting, then if they die by disease or someone cuts it down, is that what it is here in the clawback clause where it says incentive for a grant for a 15-year also provides for a for ensuring compliance with the natural establishment of the tree canopy. Because that's my concern, you know, plant trees and then someone comes along and just activate them. Absolutely. And I can say as a contractor, it's a concern as well. So that is a feature of the proposal, is trying to keep it as simple as possible to preferring to existing LFECG statutes, existing policy. And so the clawback clause, I don't know if there's a more formal term for that, but already existing as a framework in the grant program I think as I say in the letter and I think it's a measure of the kind of period that you need to look at for establishment of tree canopy to really say okay this isn't just the planting this is having tangible soil water benefits long term over decades a few questions first I would say well done on the packet you gave us your idea how to implement it you kind of pro-con yourself and then a lot of supporting documentation so very well prepared and really appreciate that I think this is only the second time we really had a public comment in a few years so thanks for being here and very well done on the packet and I am curious though the multiplier here 1.5 how do you arrive at that yeah so you know looking you right in the face I have to tell you there's subjectivity in that but I I think there are a number of arguments that could be made in support of that. I will say, though, that it's another strength of the proposal that if you want to tweak that in years ahead, if you want to change it, that is a single point that is pretty easy. But in terms of 1.5, obviously what we're doing is incentivizing it. We're saying that it's going to be awarded more so than reduction in impervious service areas. So what are the arguments for that? One is that the tree canopy establishment, we're really talking about a true nature-based solution, not just an engineered kind of gray infrastructure. Trees are, through evapotranspiration, through the fixing of potential pollutant loads, they are working 24-7, or at least during the day, to really kind of mitigate stormwater quantity and quality. So I think that's worth looking at. The other reason to add the 1.5 is to account for the synergistic effects of establishing a whole stand of trees. The way that we are calculating based on the planting manual and the zoning ordinance here that we're discussing, that's just per tree, and we certainly do get cumulative effects as we establish multiple stands in a stand. I think the last thing is kind of to acknowledge what Director Martin just made clear there, that we are not putting we're not tying this any kind of incentive in terms of stormwater management fees so people who do this are not going to be seeing a recalculation potentially like they would be from reducing their pervious service number so another way to kind of account for that I can tell you again subjectively that it's my professional opinion that that multiplier could be several times what it is there before we talk about it being a movie. Set by landscape. Which brings me to my second question, which would be staff's opinion. I referenced the stormwater manual, it kind of seems reasonable. So what do you think? Well, I mean, one of the issues that comes to mind when I think about it, I agree, but it was very well presented, lots of information. I think there is a lot of science to support that trees are certainly useful in sunlight management. I think it's the timing of the establishment of tree canopies that might become an issue because obviously when you first play the trees, they start out as happening. Of course, there's a whole period that has to go before you really see the full benefit of those canopies and what happens. So with regards to our maintenance agreement and what have you, it just seems a bit more challenging with regards to maintenance especially. We have a 15 or 20 year depreciation schedule on our infrastructure grants for I think it's 20 years for green roofs and all others like meringue gardens, swells and everything else. It's like 15-year depreciation. A lot of times, one canopy may not be established until well into that depreciation schedule, so that may be challenging for the staff, I would think. It's just different, so we would have to establish some kind of different schedule or understanding for maintenance of those tree canopies and how long we expect those to be. So we also put those, if it was longer than 15, 20 years, that means staff would have to track it longer. And that means we have grants, not the project being open, but maintenance, we have to monitor those, I would imagine, for a longer period to get our full value out of it. I would think. If a proposal like this is approved, implemented, it would be implemented for the next process great it was one thing about is timeline because you're talking about you know we'd have to see kind of how to do this so what I was like time to do research and figure out if it's feasible and what the algorithms are what it would look like so you know for a timeline if this were proven and implemented would it be for the next great I would say we are we were hoping to have our applications out published by March 1st so this would certainly probably pause that a little bit if the board elected to go with it now because yes we would have to do some research to make sure that you know as far as our attachment being made we need to make sure there's adjustments required for that as well as our grant award agreement documents in addition to the changes that we're showing you as an example in that tree canopy which you can see up close the changes that he's asking for that show the multiplier and how that language and it's just proposed as a right now that's just an example but we have to make those changes as well and of course staff would have to speak with the director to make sure that you know we're in the grills or whatever other adjustments we need to get those out in time for this year's cycle but certainly for next year if the board elected to go with it yeah it would be possible When did you get this? When was this presented to the staff? Well, we knew Mr. Naki was going to come and speak, but we didn't have a lot of the research documents until, what was it, last week? When we provided it, Thursday? The proposal itself. The proposal itself. The literature review has been since mid-last year. I think it was, I don't know when it was, maybe in the middle of last year that you said this meeting. May, right. But we didn't have the full package to be able to present to the board to be able to put the whole presentation together. So until last Thursday we got the main documents. So that's kind of where we are with it. So staff can be doing it at the same time. Yeah. Yeah, so we aren't necessarily prepared to make a full recommendation to the board today. of course there's always you know throw the idea out there of a special meaning you know if the board elected to go that route or went back like any good ideas I think it's very important that we consider this at the same time I would be I would feel much more comfortable if staff had a had more time to consider it and bring it back to board as a recommendation and I think In your case, I think the work you've done is very important as a former member of the tree board. I understand and I'm not throwing cold water on this, but I think it is really important that the staff has time to look at it carefully and see the impact on the staff and on the applicants as we consider something like this may be a very good idea. But I think it's really important for the staff to have an opportunity to really look at it and say how is this going to impact us and the applications itself. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but we, our existing process, does consider these projects. Didn't we just fund some for the UK, some canopy type projects? Yes, so the way it has been for projects that incorporate trees, what we've done is just we've scored them accordingly. So without trees being included in the matrix currently, we've just scored them, and generally they would probably be scored lower because there isn't a specific item in the score sheet that speaks to trees currently. So it would look a little different going forward to having actually injected into the scoring matrix because they would receive points. so they would compete up there with those removal of impervious area applications and things like that. I would like to add the way that we scored that, not having this obviously, but at the time when we tried to score the soil cell, we did it based on the, I'm pretty sure we did it based on the canopy that it was going to provide because that canopy was replacing the impervious or capturing before. So we did something similar to this ad hoc, like while we were there because we were trying to figure out how to score it. And so that was what we determined. Obviously no multiplier during that process, but that's how we scored that application. Well, and I think this is just another way to reduce the quantity and improve quality. and before as you say we've been focused on reducing impervious area reducing stormwater runoff and hopefully reduce the amount of sediment in the streams this is another way to do it using trees and using trees to address the stormwater issue so very well very good job I think we should definitely give serious consideration this I agree with you I think we need to yet make sure you have time to make a recommendation to us. Certainly, I see the pros. I don't necessarily, well, you mentioned the time for it to go, and I think that raises a good point. It seems like there would have to be certain species of trees that are encouraged. For example, the ashtray. You know, those used to be a big, I remember the ashtrays would be a big thing. Well, here comes the ash borer, and here 20 years later, you have to come down because they've been infected and all that kind of stuff. So that changes over time. But I would say that certain species of tree are more durable and are a better candidate to use for this than others. Is that a true statement? Absolutely. And what you have, I noticed in your package there's some attachments that had different species of trees in that type of thing. So yeah, specifically the LFUCG planting manual is a collection of different professionals who have put that together and continue to revise it. It cannot be greatly changed without actually changing the Article 26 of the zoning ordinance. So if you have any concerns about, you're going to set this and someone in environmental quality is going to change the planting manual, it's a little more complicated than that. But the planting manual is a solid science. It is regionally appropriate. So as long as the tree is in that list, including trees, everything is good if we pursue this. Yes. So I think staff is inclined to support it as well. It's just I think logistically, we need some more time to be able to implement something. I was concerned about how the applicants react to that. I mean, it's a good idea, but when you start getting into about whether something's evasive, whether it's on the list or it's not on the list, because we deal with this all the time, is that the tree that people want is not necessarily always the tree we want them to have. Got it. And is there a penalty if they don't plant what they were supposed to plant? Because once it's in the ground, that's kind of a hard thing to undo. I think we've got to think about it from the end user's standpoint, instead of creating ourselves another administrative nightmare where we have to regulate somebody we just can't correct it. That's good. A very good ledge about to us. Any thoughts or comments? All of us. Any other questions? Just thinking about, you know, again, timeline implementation and piloting and stuff, is there any, maybe also something for staff to think about as they're going through the process, is there any benefit to having it as, again, for a year or whatever in the innovative one because it is different than kind of thinking of the Nancy. how that goes and then expanding it to the other? I would say if we had a project that, you know, if we had received an application, yes, I would certainly be a good candidate as, you know, for an innovative and experimentation type of project for sure. But as opposed, I mean, as it relates to the scoring matrix, I don't know how we would capture the effects of that if we don't go ahead and do that. You know what I mean? That's why we have more time just to see how it would work on that end, the scoring part, and how we affect, like Mr. Martin said, the end user. We just need a little time to. I think it would be more like, it would be an application that would come in this year with a heavy tree planting emphasis. And using the current scoring metric, it would probably not score well at all. It would probably be at the bottom of the list of applications, which would then trigger the board to look to that innovation and experimentation pool to provide funding for it. But I think what Lindsay was speaking to is that we actually gave it, you know, based on the information that UKRF provided for their soil sale project, we gave it. Because of the information, like we didn't just come up with it. Like they gave us some research which allowed us to apply the scoring in that way, which is one of the things I just wanted to add. I definitely need to think through the consequences of making the change. Consequence is a bad word, just what it will triple into as far as the depreciation schedule, changing stuff. But at the same time, I always like to look at how to uncomplicate things. So it's really not that complicated when you think about it. It's just a matter of if we want to do it or not. So there is that. And since we've already, since the staff has scored in a similar way in the past, all this is really doing is just putting it on paper now and allowing us to have something to go off of. Right, because in practice, it's just saying, you know, you're either, you're and or removing impervious area and or planting trees. and that is giving you a certain amount of square footage, either in reduction or in tree canopy, that we're totaling together to give you a point. And so that's very simple. And so, you know, and obviously we've already done it in practice without the multiplier. And so I really don't know that it's complicated enough. I think it's worth, like, because we didn't have time to meet with Charlie to come up with an official staff recommendation. There is that. But at the same time, if the board likes it and you want it to be, you know, I don't think it's that complicated, I guess is what I'm trying to say. And from the other side, it puts words that you all agree with, if you do, on the score sheet that allows us as staff to then score applications, which is helpful. I think that impervious area and trees, I think it makes sense that it's both in D. I like that it's not a totally separate part of the score sheet because then you really are giving more points in terms of weight. Yeah, in terms of weight, whereas when you put it with D, it's an and-or, and you're also, like impervious area, when you remove it, that permeable surface that now exists, even with a high intensity storm, eventually it's not going to be permeable anymore. Same thing with trees. They also work well with low intensity, smaller storm events because once you get to a certain intensity, the tree is not providing that same surface anymore. So they're kind of comparable to me. So I appreciate the location of it in the score sheet with the recommendation. So it probably wasn't helpful, But I just wanted to say that I don't think it, I also don't think it has to be that complicated. It's just a matter of your comfort level without an official, like, staff is disgusted. So if the board wanted to move forward with it and wanted to have a special meeting, of course, to formulate an official recommendation, we could do something. Because like she said, in this tree example, she's giving you an example of what the language would look like in the score sheet. And so our recommendation would be similar to that language as well. It would just probably include some additional thoughts on the maintenance aspect of it. And so if you guys wanted to, if the board wanted to wait to be able to hear that information as well to include that. I think what I'm hearing here about it, I think we all like the idea and there's a lot of justification and common sense. makes sense to utilize I think that's been a concern I've heard for years in Lexington the concern about the loss of tree canopy and so I think this is kind of a way to encourage getting more of that in our in our community and at the same time addressing the stormwater issues was a win-win both ways so I would I would suggest I think there is an interest on our part perhaps having a meeting call me to to hear from our staff in terms of what your thoughts are I think everybody what I'm hearing is there's a lot of positive agreement but we would like to have some time for you guys to kind of chew on a little bit and see if there are any unintended consequences that that may not be obvious I don't think there anything jumps to mind but have a little more time to address it but I agree that we have a system in place that we can address this type project number one we've already done it before with UK on the project there number two if that doesn't work we still have latitude and flexible use of innovative funds because in a sense it is innovative there has been a whole lot of projects like that if I'm not mistaken I think UK is the only one we ever had but I've been on the board. No there was across the street in Manathor. I believe they had a sort of tree canopy project. Okay, great question. Oxen Circle. Oxen Circle as well. So yeah, we've had, they incorporated some trees and a pollinator garden. It was supposed to be a rainbow. Okay. So there's where you started introducing traffic engineering into the matter, the utilities into the matter and stuff like that. I'm glad to hear that you're going to allow us to try to digest this. Exactly. I think that's a lot of promise. I think we ought to give a serious consideration. I don't think we have enough information today to make a decision one way or the other, but I would like to make that recommendation. I would ask the board to think about also the multiplier that he's included in it, whether or not you all feel that that was appropriate. while this is doing is trying to put these type projects on equal footing with impervious area okay so so that that makes perfect sense so how does that sound you guys have any I would have a motion yes please so I'll move to schedule a special meeting to give staff an opportunity to review research and create a point of view for the board to hear. I don't have a date for that. If you all want to keep it on a Thursday, I was thinking maybe perhaps the second Thursday in February. Is that enough time? I'm thinking ahead of what we anticipated for the application to go out in March. I certainly wanted to come before that because we want to give the applicants enough time to be able to see the applications, fill them out. out until March would be one of the latest I want to get those out published on the lab so so anytime let's go tonight I'll show them. I've got something. We can make it a different day of the week. Yeah, the 16th was good too. Okay. So, okay. So, 16th works fine. I believe everybody is 16 o'clock, okay? So, David, you will put February 16th as your date? I will. Okay. All right, thank you. Is there a second? It's been seconded by Harry. All of every motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you for your participation. We'll just our attention. Of course, we've got a picture. As normal as always takes a while for government support. Big shift, long time. You figured that out. Item 4, rule angle and burn and appropriate. So, for item 4 we provided the NEMO via the digital link, of course, we provided a list of items to discuss to the several more problematic changes this year. So I guess at this time we can just kind of go through whatever order the board recommends. I'm trying to get this meeting. Give us a couple minutes. And that will be 9 o'clock, right? Yes, sir. So that will be February 16th. February 16th. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. This is your January 23rd, middle of spring. Okay, and every year we do this at this time to see if there are weeks we need to make the warm baby. Okay. I suggest we go through each one one at a time. We'll share any other questions. Okay. The first one is should we change the soft cost share requirements for any of the grant classifications? I think we're going to be doing a lot of things. I think that that was a good move because it gave us an opportunity to fund more projects and kind of leave the ones out and play more skill to gain so they had to consider that. So I think things are going very, very well with what we have our system now. And unless there's any issues that we need to consider, I would suggest we say that for Yes, that's 20% across the board is one of the benefits to staff because it was 50% for classroom education previously. And so that 20% across the board certainly makes it easier. Like I said, we're able to do a few more projects across the board. We increased it for classroom infrastructure, design and construction projects because it used to be, we only had to contribute 10%. So we just kind of need to get out. I mean, the staff would recommend it. Any thoughts on making any revisions, changes? I think 20% is good. Okay. I think that it seems to have worked well. All right. So I think we're in agreement to keep our proceedings the same way it currently is. Okay. I don't agree. Should we continue with the small project, target project, 60,000 or less? How many projects of this, well, as I recall we did that because there were small projects that weren't able to compete. With Lard kind of on the same, kind of the same where we're talking about the thing, the Ferguson city and the Trigampiers, they couldn't compete, so we wouldn't have some opportunity for small projects because the problem was wrong. we've had three to four small projects since we've done that. We didn't have a whole lot of them last year, in the last year cycle at all. So staff just recommends keeping it, just to have that opportunity, just in case we receive those applications, because if we don't receive an event, those funds just go back to the general pool. So since we have started that, have we seen more small projects coming in? We've seen, it's been moderate, one or two applications a year. I only comment, if we could use that money someplace else, if we don't get those, what's the difference? It's just having an opportunity if we do see applications for small projects to give them an opportunity to compete. Any? Yes, sir. My observation on this is it looks like the trend over the last three grant cycles is that we were getting fewer of them. It may not necessarily be so much of a lack of interest as we only have $60,000 doesn't buy any money used to. So we probably just need to keep an eye on this for you moving forward. If we're not getting any, that we have that ability to move that money elsewhere because we certainly don't want to just keep it in the shoebox. Exactly. And it doesn't build up. We use it that year. Yeah, we use it that year. So like if there's no applications for it, it just goes into the infrastructure and we push it out that year. It doesn't build up. i mean going forward we may want to consider whether or not 60 000 is enough yeah maybe it should be 75 i don't know maybe tap it up a little bit this is for bi right so it's yes i mean they can get 360 so 100 000 is now a small project right yeah i was going to ask for that so when like since it was whenever 60,000 etc especially the past year or whatever cpi and inflation whatever has done to that what what the number would be now when 60 if it was if we looked at 60 a small two years ago it was it was that so we did that with the inflation increases when it last year it went up as well but I mean the board's going to help them to if we think small projects is a hundred thousand now that's still less or less than a third of what a full project is then that's a reason what you fall to a big bracelet I'm interested in that because I don't I don't necessarily think I'm hearing any downside to doing that. If nothing happens, then the money goes back. Yeah, it goes immediately. Right, but on the other hand, impact, or if we were to get application for that, how much of the larger projects, how much project we were getting, how do you get a hard impact? So it's taking money out of that larger pool as well, so that's just something else to consider. But you're not changing how much you're taking out of that pool, because it's still 15%. You're not changing. And to adjust the figure is basically testing a theory that 60,000 doesn't value much. I think it might be worth testing that because it, you know, I want those folks to have the opportunity. Yes. So if we test the theory for a year, I'm not sure that we're doing much harm. I like that idea. I really do. I think that's a valid point. Maybe go to 75. Yeah, maybe not. Dr. Matt, right. Go to 75. Might encourage some that didn't get it overwashed. Okay. Which will we agree? Well, I will move that we increase the amount of smaller grants to 75,000. Okay. I will second that. It's been moved and seconded. Discussion? Just to clarify, we're keeping the 15% for that allocation, but increasing it from $60 to $75,000 per project. Correct. That's what I heard. Second. Did your intendance? Yes. Okay. All right. All in favor of the motion, testify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed like so? Motion carries. Item 3. Should we continue with the feasibility targets in both Class A and Class B infrastructure problems? And I think this was a proponent that George Ely had made. I think we've seen some benefits because we are funding some feasibility projects and those are then coming in. Feasibility allows a project team to evaluate different alternatives and come up with this alternative so that they can come in with a construction, design and construction project and a better sense of what the project is and how much it should cost. something I think there definitely is value for that but we do have it they set aside for that as well don't we or not yeah it's 45 for class A okay do you see any projects in the past that have done the fees have gotten funds for feasibility and for whatever reason they don't get additional funds or they don't come back for funds but they use that feasibility study and it's implemented anyway. Have you seen any of that at all? The only examples I have are ones that where they receive feasibility funds and then they come back and apply for funds through the design of construction. Just thinking if there's an impact at all. Someone that does feasibility but for whatever reason it's implemented otherwise they still have some... No, I don't have any specifically yeah absolutely somebody take their own funds yeah what are your thoughts this has been used for class B in school last year What is the UK stormwater project? That's Class B. Lexington Center Corporation is another example. They did the feasibility and design project and they came back for construction. And this is the same where if it's not used, it just goes into the pool for that whole class. And there's not going to be as much or any inflationary pressure here because there's not materials. Right. And we already kind of increased it from a labor perspective last year. Yeah. 5,000. 5,000 each. So, I'm talking about the support of no change. Okay. Excuse me, we're... All right. Any other comments, thoughts? Hearing none. So, discussion, was there a motion? Do you make a motion? Oh, sure. i will move to keep the allocations consistent okay thank you is there a second a second okay it's been moved and seconded all in favor the motion signify by saying aye aye opposed like saying motion carries I think we need a motion on number one. We didn't have a motion on number one. Okay. I'll make a motion to continue with 20%. Okay. It's been made. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed like so? Motion carries. Okay, item four. Should we continue the innovation and experimentation pool of funds for 2024? And again, this is one, I think we have, a lot of times we have these for flexibility only to give more opportunities for different type projects, small, large, innovatively, to be funded. And again, if there is no innovative project that comes in, that money rolls over to other projects in that category. That's correct. IE, well, the experiment, the innovation experimentation funds are available in any class. And so we've kept those funds in that pool. We haven't used those in the general pool, except for the fact that we've allowed UKRF to utilize some of those funds for their changement. This isn't an allocation like the other ones we just previously discussed. This is actually set aside money. it's not like it's not replenished it's not put if it's not used we don't use it somewhere else it stays there to you all decide to use it okay so there's no money in there now because there's a balance there was 300 and we used 143 too for that I think the idea was for that to be available but I'm kind of getting back to Charles Paul a while ago I don't want to see money sitting around and our findings people do not yeah maybe we need to read structure how it's identified and say there's no innovative projects that might be above label for other projects. So I would say if you want to continue with the innovation and experimentation profiles then we would have to see it every year with a percentage of the allocation. Right. Okay. So we would have to consider. I don't know that we have that math today to do but we can probably. Well that's just me. I thought we had, we said it again, we had a flexibility that was there to be used for innovative projects but if there were none that came in that money can roll over to fund any other projects in their category. Yes but going from year to year if we allow those funds to be utilized in the general pool then every year to consider innovation then we would need to see that. Which pulls it out of the need. Right which is the same way the feasibility projects and the small classification project. And so understanding that if we would increase what you all have wanted to increase the small project retirement, and so that's going to take funds away from that Class B infrastructure general pool of funds. And so whatever we decide to seed it with every year, we have to understand the impact. Well, it can be rolled back over to the others if there are no. Absolutely. If there are, they would be released. Yes. What's your thoughts? I'd like to get staff's sense of that item five kind of proposes more clarity to applicants on what we really mean by innovation projects. And so you kind of wonder, we have been holding out hope for this innovative project for a few years now, and it hasn't come. But I wonder if it hasn't come because folks like Scott had to put time against an application. And if they don't have reasonable clarity on what we're expecting, they may be disinclined to invest that time. So, you know, I'm kind of inclined to keep it with another year of, well, I guess the first year of providing more clarity in our definition of innovative. And then next year we decided, well, it didn't really change anything. I don't know. I played the role of Scott. I don't know what's in his head. But you have to wonder, do we hear that from applicants? I mean, is that a plausible scenario? Well, I think that's just the thought that both the board had and staff had is, okay, what is considered innovation? And so I would agree that now that we are providing a little bit more clarity, not to science per se but just giving them at least some direction to go in referring to the storm as we'll see in the next item there then maybe that makes further a little bit more interest in that kind of thing. I think that makes a good point and I've been a proponent of this because I think there are reasons to assume that there are are good ideas out there that are not used because there's some reluctance to tackle this because well this doesn't really quite fit and I also wonder how how well we have publicized the idea that this exists that give people the option hey we've got a special special category here that could encourage people they don't know about it then obviously they're going to assume that this is kind of a crazy idea sometimes maybe that somebody who's really thinking through these things that might work again the clarification yeah I was going to agree with you I think that most people would apply for grants a lot of times look at the application and try to work backwards on it because you don't want to burn a bunch of time and calories trying to apply for something you know you're not going to score well. So maybe figure out a way to be able to do a better job of advertising that, you know, the scoring matrix is not the only way to be able to gain funding. You can gain funding by coming up with innovative ways to do things. I think you're dead on with that. I was going to also ask, you know, we're just talking here right now, is that I know the finance people don't like us building up a pool of money. Maybe a compromise of that is that we do build up a pool, but we have a cap on it. That it doesn't just completely, just completely build up and build up and build up while we wait five years for somebody to come with the innovative thing. Instead, we say, okay, we're going to cap it at $250,000. And that may include money that's from previous years and things like that. But it's a substantial amount. and then when we have somebody, we've got a sufficient amount of money to be able to fund it in a way that we want to and then time to be able to replenish the fund before the next one comes. Just to clarify, this pool is not a pool that the board currently sees. It was just a canceled grant, I'm assuming, that it was set aside at some point several years ago, and now you've used some of it and there's still some left. So for future, if you're wanting to seed it, the cap applies. But right now, we're not seeding this pool. It's just $156,000 chilling until you want to use it on an innovative project. I was commenting, if we said, oh, okay, we want to move $100,000 over, and then that's the cap. Because we're not seeding. Right, or you don't have to at all. Just leave it at $150,000 and spend it as you will and reconsider next year. I just there's another program further down on this memo that we're also talking about seeding and then so we've got a lot of moving parts a lot of seeds being yeah and so I would I would if I'm being asked of a recommendation it'd be nice I agree with Mr. Lowe that maybe we provide some more clarification and publication for this year and or next year and then reconsider so that we can have the other seeding conversations too And so I was just going to add, I agree with Lindsay. We've had some innovation type of application. It's just that we had the money to fund it. For example, the sole sale would have been probably a good example had we not had money in the first place, as well as the water harvesting project. We've had some interest, as well as the pellet application we had years ago. Of course, that didn't make it for a couple of other reasons. but we've had some interest it's just a matter of marketing like you said just to pick up the pace on on that just to see if it'll get utilized but i agree but it's never had it's never ballooned up because it's been just a standard 300 000 previously before we tapped into a change order that we used from the council grant but i agree with charlie i i can't see us allowing it to just accumulate so if we don't do okay so it's got a hundred and fifty six thousand hundred dollars now so if that's what it's going to be unless we put some more money in for this year right no and I guess another way would be to add that as a suicide and by doing that the disadvantage would be we take again kind of eroding the total amount but we still have the flexibility of using any money in that set-aside in other projects if there are no worthy candidates in that classification so it's i guess on one side i see well let's just keep the pot we have and go but it's eroding. There's no more money coming in to replenish it to get back to Charles Board and putting a cap on it. Is it typically in a given year do we have money to sell it over? We do, except for like the Lincoln Board, we're asking for an additional sort of seed money money for in the memo for another item and so that's our thing is that innovation is one thing and then the seed money for this other item is something else to consider as well as the increase that we're talking about for the small project fund. It just seemed to me that here whenever I go through these things with you guys and it's like if you use this one or this one I'm making my recommendations there's always a balance. We can move it over here we can move it over here maybe if there is a balance that we take it to innovation but with an understanding that we're not going to take innovation as the number. It's been more or less each year. Before I got here there was a lot of money from that previous year and we spent all that this year and had a balance of $6,000 at the end of the day. We spent all of our money for fiscal year 23 applications with the exception of $6,000. Since then a couple grants canceled, unfortunately. And so there are situations like that. We are recommending to use those canceled funds for a program a couple numbers down. It doesn't mean that you can't also see either a percentage or something with this as well. I was just... Well, we do have some other items that have impact here, so let's focus on this. I guess, first of all, should we continue the program, I guess, is the first and foremost. I was going to say, and I think different than saying this, but four and five, they're going together. And so four, leaving it as is, let's talk about five, if that's good, but waiting to approve four and five at the same time because they're so related and seeing how adding that additional language for this year, how that looks and then go from there. yeah and it's a little late for this thought but you know we there are the same contractors that tend to come to the project so I wonder if there's an opportunity for a future meeting to contact them and solicit feedback I have a theory I'd like to keep the program I have a theory that the program is used because the application lacks clarity the director of the department seems to agree. So, you know, kind of, hey team, this is available, why aren't you applying for it? And, you know, they don't have to show up or perhaps a written response or something. But I think maybe some market research might help us a little bit here to resolve it. And again, it doesn't help us today. It wouldn't be in favor of keeping the program moving. But just a thought. I think to help with that, you know, with your thoughts on that, we can lean on a lot of the services just to help us with some kind of initiative to market the IE funds. I mean, that'll help in that regard, right? and then number five is going to help with some clarity to the application document so i think you know if we implement those kinds of actions i think we may wait until next year to see maybe the difference is all there okay maybe yeah i think we're looking for some help too to spread the word yeah as i mentioned we perceive sort of innovation application is just a matter of whether or not we have leftover funds you know if there are funds available and they're pulled in and we'll just throw them in and score them how they let them sit down how they do and they won't give them money for that okay well i did i would leave that because when he was speaking about the one is in our area but if they say those cabinets use it then how can they do that if someone's in english needs anything so we have currently 156 800. if the board wants us to utilize those funds for which other projects then we also need a motion from the board to for a seat and i'm not sure that number would be. That's why I said I don't think we would be prepared to even discuss the seeding of it because I think we need to see the impact in general once we discuss the increase in the small projects target as well as when we get to the items further down in the memo, see what impact is going to be to see additional. I share a lot of this field that long term, but I think right now what I would suggest is we focus on whether we should continue the program. I think I'm hearing that we should. Currently there's $106,800 in there. but if if we go ahead and if item four is in the firm that is approved then that means that item five is a companion it's going to be approved as well there's no need so but I think longer term I think we need to think in terms of making sure we don't have money sitting in pots that are not going to be utilized for the reason charlie mentioned but what i would suggest now as we focus on whether we should continue that with the current balance of 156 800 in there i'm hearing you say that at the end of the year if there are projects that are that are canceled for whatever reason latitude is there for the staff to put some money to replenish that i do like the idea of having a cap on it maybe 300 000 might be a good number for that but right now let's focus on keep things going let's focus on should we continue the program in i'll make that motion george if i might okay uh that we we continue the innovation experimenting program as as it exists okay then moves there a second it's been second madonna all in favor motion signify by saying aye aye those like said motion carries okay and the companion argument is should be established the criteria which staff has developed. We agree that we approve forward and continue the program we all have, the criteria to give more narrative on what that means. Do I hear a motion on that? A motion to approve the adding of the language. It's been moved by Aaron. Is there a second? Second. and say the name of all the favorite emotions signify by saying aye I was like said can I ask a question quickly about about the statement their language the last sentence the applicant is part of the research behind the proposed innovation and or experimental project element I was not sure whether that was the applicant is making it before My intent of that was after the fact. We wanted to share in whatever. That's what I was asking. Perhaps that should be clarified somehow. We can approve the motion but being modified as we... I think the person who made the original motion has to become a motion. okay it's been moved and seconded all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye aye opposed like so motion carries Turning page number six, should we allocate funds for a change order pool to allow organizations through gas and district funding to help cover extraordinary costs caused by certain unforeseen economic challenges? I guess we're seeing more and more of that. Yes. So we're trying to salvage projects as we move along. And as Lizzie and I discussed, it's temporary. We see it as temporary. We don't know that this is going to be high demand going forward. We doubt it. But coming from the pandemic and now this challenge is economic. We're just trying to salvage as many projects as we can. So far, I believe we've lost two that we can account for due to material cost high bids coming in and what have you in so this is our efforts to try we've got two more likely canceled because um we've kind of given the word that we we're going to try to mention this to the board right uh so they're just waiting we told them to hold off from the starts um and then now come not to be presumptuous or anything but no guarantees and so um this is our efforts to try to say so the implementation of that okay so projects it did cost coming out with budget was you know to cut in the same week well so we try to address that that would be the next item that we know this is the specifics tonight okay this is the things you just speak into the water like you you all would be interested in allowing us to uh i think we're going to change your program in general and get into it and these are projects that have already been implemented yeah because of covid the funding everything was expensive so i think that we should if they were good projects i think um and um the staff and board approved that i think that it's depending on the cost you always have to consider them but i think if they can show where the cost is I think that if they're a good project, we should because COVID just kind of caught everybody off guard and I don't think that the project should suffer because the actual people didn't do anything to do that. But I think that's something we should really consider so that if they're a good project, let's go through with them. And like you said, it may not be a long term thing. It just might be a short term thing. So I think we should, I recommend that we should go ahead and fund those programs if they were already approved. I was just going to say staff, you know, there will be rules for the engagement. And that's what I was going to bring up. I always have to think about how people are making sure they're not gaining the system by underquoting something, getting the funding, and then turn around and changing it. Absolutely. That will be a real challenge for them to try to make sure that they're fairing out the legitimate change orders versus, oh, well, now that we're here, we'd like to add all these things. I always have this problem with the treatment plan is that all my operations people are behind every change order because once the contractor shows up, the projects are growing like this. That'll be hard. My concern was in the last sentence on that page under number seven, it applies to number six as well. That's what Charlie's talking about. Taking advantage of, okay, well, now let's underfund first and then we'll get a change of order because it's a good project. This is a discussion for some items in seven as well. but some of those items we've tried to consider in a form slash checklist that they would submit some of the things we would be requiring. But I guess this before even getting that, this doesn't include scope change. So it's not like they can change their scopes that the board approved and then ask for more money for it. That's not what this is. So there's that. And then we're also requiring three bids. So it's not like they can just get one person and show its way. So if we're going to issue or approve a change order based on all of this criteria and the things that they submit, as part of this process we want to include that free bid requirement. I was going to say also very important that design costs are very important. That would be indicative of scope. So at number six, we're kind of just voting on this conceptually. Conceptually, I'm definitely in agreement because we have evidence of real harm here. Two projects are gone, two more are kind of at risk. I thought about, in our original discussion last year, we talked about sunsetting it. So would we want to kind of be overt in that sunset date with the approval of the concept? That would be my only thought. and you know and I would inform that thought by staff you know I think you're still having you mentioned last time Charlie that they're pricing pipe like gas you know it's like the second it goes bit in the ground that's not what you pay for so if that's still occurring then I'm definitely con support regarding the actual sunset date I would want to be informed by people who are much closer to it I would say like we're doing during this meeting, I would say to keep it as an item on our memo, to revisit, to see if we would want to continue with that from year to year would be probably the best way to go about that. So not setting it now, but being mindful. Yeah, ask if we want to continue. More than fair. More than fair. And the years that we're seeing in effect is fiscal year 21 and fiscal year 22 projects, which makes sense because that's when they were budgeting or submitting budgets in 2020 and 2021 before a lot of this kicked off in 2021 and in 2022. So it makes sense that those are the projects that are structured. and some awardees, grantee shows, were able to feed the cost and suffer through it and some weren't. We lost one as recent as last week because of it. They just hung in it as long as they could. And just to salvage what was left, they just... And they're class A's, they're more likely to be class A's? Class B, infrastructure. because it's material cost. One was a class A. Which one? Oh, yes. Well, no, that was a class B. Oh, that's a class B. As long as the staff can be really particular and really investigate us as you're proposing, I think it's a good thing to do to continue. And I think that's the key in how we control that. All right. Any other questions? I want to have another question. because I've got to leave for a second. Lindsay, Frank, would it be fair to say of the three things that we talked about seeding areas here, the change order would be the number one priority for us? Yes. We kind of got that vibe from them. Yes. And I would agree with them. We've talked about we've got three different places, innovation fund, small projects, and change orders. For us, we do think that the change order situation is probably the most critical thing right now because it's Mr. Lowe's point. We're losing people. And projects that we've gone through, we've scored them, we've known. There's been a lot of effort to lose these projects and the tail end is hard to see. That's a good point. They've gone through the process and they've come up the other side being eligible for funding. Now we want to make sure they follow the review of the project. you okay any other comments on line of the six I think good discussion I think so you need for it yes I'm also going to say the important is how we're receiving that as well as we know the memo where those funds originate so we're looking to see them with the hundred fifty seven thousand nine hundred and eight dollars so again as you see it's kept at ten percent and so it's not like we're taking all council funds and I think we're looking to cap it like you said at 10% and of course we'll get into some greater details of number seven right if we arrived there as to how we would do it okay I think Donna made the motion to originally continue this is that right this was been moved is there a second I'll second. Been moved by Donna, seconded by Harry. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like so. Motion carries. So the next item are, I guess, the criteria to help see what qualifies and give guidance to staff on how to evaluate what qualifies as a legitimate, legitimate, is the word I was trying to say, legitimate change order request. And we, you know, I think everyone's rightfully concerned about, you know, protecting, protecting ourselves here and making sure that the change orders submitted are valid and reasonable. And so to protect against that, we require, I kind of see three buckets. There's greater documentation, there's the three bids, and then there's design changes aren't eligible. To your earlier point about the scope changes, the material cost. So is there anything else to understand? I think UKRF was a great template, that situation, because I think important would be just a presentation to the board to understand comparison. of what you approved previously and what exactly was the impact, you know, where those increases occurred. And then staff would just have to look into verifying those increasing material costs and labor costs and the bids that were required would help ensure that. Let me think through that a little bit. if a change order means that they have the same contract, the contractor do the work. So if they come in, for example, let's take a prudable paper project, and the supplier comes in with an increase from the letter they got from the supplier, How do we get a bid for, if we have a contract, how do we get a bid from two other people? Well, at this junction, I think what's happening is when we approve these grants, the contractor isn't scientific. I mean, very rarely do we see somebody come in with a contractor already on board. Right. And so they normally put them out to bid, and as they're receiving those bids is when they're giving those. That's when they really find out. Right. But what they do is conceptually in the application process they go to the consultant because the consultant gives them some numbers, you know, and they say, okay, here's how we're budgeting. We're saying this will likely cost some words in the ballpark. It's the timing of it. But the application process, and then by the time we get the agreement and the notice to proceed, the market has changed. And so now when they actually put it out for bid, the numbers are different. Well, you might be getting documentation in the form of a letter. a letter from the contractor, from the supplier saying that our costs have gone up. What you're looking for is documentation to justify the increased cost that the project is showing. I guess the point is, if you get more than one price, that's great. But in probability, if it's a change order, it's a change order to an existing country. Okay, I'm thinking construction change order, not a grant change order. be this one definitely play out like that if we get that far but right now what we're seeing it's more of they had their opinion of our construction and all the bits are coming right i apologize for that and i think that complication the board is like i feel like we would have the the wherewithal to be able to see that situation and say that makes if the board trusts the staff enough to be able to review the justification and if they don't need it's facility that three bit more because it's a special situation so sorry so then to your point would staff make the decision or is it doesn't come back to the room right well we're going to do is put out an application that requires the information the revised summary budget materials and what have you and they would have to come before the board present the order would be making the decision as to whether to accept the change but we would provide a right we will have reviewed it provide a recommendation but then the board would have to and so and we're not putting this out on the website this is this is not a promoted right pool of funding this is a they've come to us desperately and we said here is an option for you i like that yeah that's good i think it's also important for the board to know about if I'm not mistaken I heard someone ask what if we get two applications at some you know we thought about that as well so certainly helpful would be if both of those applications were scored in the same fiscal year be helpful because then we just lean on the score within that fiscal year but if they were scored in different years it would be a little bit more challenging for the board and in such an instance you know of course there are different size of projects to consider what have you so maybe we'd be looking at splitting the pot the change of the funds amongst those applications somehow that way everybody suffers you know of course it would be subjective to the staff's discretion at that time but you know hopefully the board would trust the staff to be able to make that recognition at that time right okay and to your point the is there anything else the other big thing is that this would all be capped at the maximum grant award amount which is 360 000 right all right new thoughts comments i would say that i'm relatively comfortable that we've created strong guard rails to prevent abuse i'm confident that staff would have included an additional bullet point if they felt like there was another item that we needed for an appropriate guardrail. And I think really the three bids, I think, is what's giving me the most comfort because if there was a bad actor out there, you know, there'd be three of them. And you guys look at this all the time, and you can probably sense when someone's a bad actor. I agree with that. Good point. Any other comments? Hearing none, are you in motion to be moved on this? I'll motion to support staff's recommendation for the criteria here. On item 7. On item 7, yes. Okay. It's been moved. Is there a second? I second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed like so? Motion carries. Your February 16th meeting might have just got two things out of it. to potentially. I mean, I don't know for sure, but I feel like if they're, they would have to call a special meeting if they submit everything. And since you already have one on the calendar, we may recommend that they just come to that. It shows we're doing something. It would be helpful. I'm just saying. All right. Item A. Should we end language to the green-or-and-lummit and provide a separate attachment regarding maintenance responsibilities? for class b education grants for this item we provided uh believe did we provide an attachment b uh i believe we have a attachment b for class b education that we're proposing and for this item what it is we want to be able to we're receiving rain garden projects in our class b education section and so we want to we don't want to let them off the hook with regards We don't want to fund, even though they're small scale rain runs, we don't want to let them out without having them plant at least five years. I think there are our thoughts in terms of how long we, it's not a 15, 20 year depreciation schedule, but we'd expect those plants that rain runs to be replenished for at least five years, for example. And so this is our efforts to try to hold our Class B education grantees accountable for maintenance. I think that's a good idea, but I'm concerned about the state. What we did was, we pretty much used the Class A. It was simpler. We're not recording these with the Fayette County clerk as we are with the Class B infrastructure. So it's more of a simpler version of the maintenance responsibilities. And so we're just essentially, we want them to provide an inspection, operation, and maintenance plan to us that's going to incorporate who's doing the maintenance, how frequently, and what have you. And so it's just some small stuff to take to make sure that we get our bang for our buck out of these projects and incorporate. And the ones that we're thinking of that just got approved in fiscal year 23, they've already written all that in their application. So like if they were to come up, you know, the bonus is more on them than us. and we've already worked with Evan to get the application documents revised for this, if you all are agreeable to. As well as the grant award-winning. As long as you're all comfortable doing that? Yes. Thanks, good night. Well, we felt it was fair to Class B and Class A applicants or awardees that are held accountable for maintenance. So is this primarily for like ring garden maintenance? What are the projects would it be? The education, the only things would probably be either an outdoor classroom, which is normally a rain garden of some sort. So which of the two that you opened last year would be the Locust Trace and Montessori, Providence Montessori rain garden. So those were BE education funded projects, but they have infrastructure involved and we were kind of like, no, there's... Without this, there's, in the past, if they funded an element like the rain garden, for example, there was nothing to require them to maintain it once it's installed. No, that's correct. Because typically for education projects, we would see curriculum. For a year or for some stated period of time? well they would just give us curriculum that we're getting able to use in our yeah well they're like going into schools and doing stuff and we're helping with that because workshops or something right it was less and now you're just seeing some of the applicants actually putting in infrastructure so this is just a i guess a a means of having them maintain something that our group is funded that that the board is funding to make sure that it's operating the way it's post-op. Also makes them think about this too. Yeah we're just trying to avoid disposable rain bodies if you will. And it doesn't have to be a rain one so if they wanted to if the school had a need you know for a small swell or something close by that they wanted to incorporate into the curriculum just to use as an outdoor classroom nearby you know I'm just throwing that out there as an example it's just that maximum grant award that you see for class the education doesn't allow for something huge otherwise I'm sure they throw that in there too but it's typically just some small way going and it would obviously have to operate curriculum to be able to turn it into an educational tool you see and so we're just wanting to make sure that these are sustainable to a certain degree and these really any other false discussion was the point you're important I will move that we agree with staff recommendation and language to this times the education grants okay thank you is there a second it's been moved and second no in favor of the motion signify by saying aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye that we update in the class B1 score sheet about a breakdown of 10 points allocated for question 3A regarding future educational opportunities for personal or public. So what was the reason? The reason behind this item here is that in our application is a question that asks the applicant to elaborate on educational opportunities. And so previously if they say yes simply I'll just try and it was across the board on the whole score sheet with the exception of one or two places that we changed last year and so as we did this again as we scored these class B it was like all or nothing and they were all very similarly scored and it was like the staff would love an opportunity similar to A and B I where we can impartially credit for things. If you have more detailed and more thought out plan you should get more points than somebody. Right. That's less detailed. Yes. Kind of an afterthought. Oh my God will do this. Right. So this is almost it's making the PE score sheet look a little bit more like A and B I with those ranges. Right. Well and for this one this is specific to infrastructure number nine is and then as we you'll see you'll see on the next item we provide actually a scoresheet oh i'm sorry that's all right so so this one we're just speaking i'm sorry yes today we're just speaking to elaborate on this specific question but number nine is about the education allowing us to further differentiate those applications I'm thoroughly confused. I'm going to do a club. That was the same way last time. I'm so sorry. Okay. Any thoughts, comments on question item 9? In the proposed format, are you asking for additional information? Oh, no. We're just asking for the scoring panel and staff to be able to put a range to give them 0, 20, 0, and 10 points. Where do they get the information? information to come up and get yourself to see in the application right if somebody does a good job detail you know how it's only this over showing you here is a scoring score itself that elaborates on that question all right any other thoughts and comments very nice once the bill the group on item 9. I move to update the scoring to 0 and 10. Okay. It's been moved. Is there a second? It's been seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed like said. Motion carries. Item 10. as we adjust the score sheets for FY24 grant cycle. Realizing for underdain appreciation for applications. So, you're proposing... So for this one, that's what the high-speed education score sheet? Yeah, we revert back to Lindsay's kind of... Copy and paste on it yet, but this question... We provide you with the example in one of the score sheets of one of the factories that are folded there to show you what we're talking about in those items that are being red. So that's the score sheet that you're kind of hanging from here. This? Yes. So what you see there in red and the rings are the pages that we're referencing in that question, but you refer to question 1C through 1F as well as 2B. We're asking to adjust those scoresheets to ranges as opposed to, if so, the full amount of points. Okay. Great, Greg. Any thoughts, comments? Oh. No, I haven't needed you. Our attorney, as I mentioned, is on virtual and I think he has a question, you can turn him up. Yeah, so I just want to, it's not really a question, more of a comment. Can you turn him up a little bit? If we end up okaying the, you know, having ranges, we just need to make sure that it's clear somewhere on the application or whatever of what allows you to get more points. You know, if we're going from an all or nothing, you know, there might be some differentiating. Might be if we might have a better might be better to Also to make sure it's just clear to the applicant This you know more more detail gets you more points Certain type of things like that just so that way today the applicant knows What what scores them the most points and things that are differentiated I don't have the applications in front of me, so maybe they do but that's just something to think about if we add the differentiation numbers ranges Good input. Thank you. A comment to that would just be that they can see the score sheets. So these are all posted. So they'll be able to pull it up and see the changes that were made to the score sheet when they're filling out the application. And that the applications all ask questions that almost all of them elaborate on these items anyway. So it's just a matter of... I didn't see the error in the application when we were making this change. I saw the error in the score sheet, in the scorer's ability to judge based on what we were actually getting. When I read this at the bottom, I guess the last sentence, the breakdown of our scores to tell those applicants who simply answer yes was by little or no details, but explicitly asking the application document. And I guess I looked at it in a different way. Another way of saying that is it's a method to give greater points to those applicants that provide greater detail in their proposal education strategies so it's the same way just there's only different and we're probably coming at it from more of a negative perspective because if they say yes the scorer feels like they have to give the full points so it was like there was always a desire to give less or something but we felt like we couldn't okay very good any other thoughts comments I would move to support staff's recommendation to add ranges to many of the elements on the VMA application. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. If it's been moved and seconded, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. I would like to sign it. Motion carries. Okay. Number 11 is for the boys, especially if there were any other items that we may have missed. Maybe an idea regarding the program. We keep that up. We've achieved a lot here. But are there any other thoughts that we haven't? Again, I think it's encouraging that we're spending time. and have a call meeting to ask some other things. I think we're doing our job. I'm going to ask this question. I saw where we're going. It looks like we're going to be doing most of this online rather than killing trees. And I'm concerned about that. And it's not only weakness. And having to do a lot of this on the computer is difficult for me. I'm saying this because of my own personal personal commitment to the rest of the board and they have no problem with it at all, which is fine. But I'm a little concerned that I'm going to have to look at all that material that we're going to get on the applications. Well, I was going to say that what we said in the email is that if you prefer the hard copies, I think she gave an option. Are you talking about the actual applications? Yeah. No, no. That email was strictly like the draft applications, like the documents that are going to be posted on the website. You're still going to get paper bound copies of the actual grantee application, the applicant applications to review. Yeah, that would be out. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Yes, that was just so we don't, because a lot of times with those draft applications, they're the same as the previous year, and we're just changing the year. Yeah. Unless we elect to make these changes mentioned in the memo that you've already approved. And so, by other than that, you will receive a hard copy of anything at your discretion. Good. Excellent. Yeah, this was just, we didn't want to print a whole bunch of application documents that would step into a title and effort at the end of this meeting. meeting the old. We would have to make these changes. Yeah, in the past, we've seen times where we don't make any changes to it, but we have these kinds of applications that we end up constantly trying to. That was just our efforts to be as green as possible. Plus, I guess some of the actions we've taken here are changing the application documents that are going to be developed. And I think it would be good for our meeting. Can that be available for our meeting on the 16th? the those application methods right the revised yes uh all of them or just the ones that were in that i would say just the ones that are in yeah sure like printouts are in the google drive printouts yeah i like i like that yeah okay so item five is grant application documents And for that, Denise is going to man the screen here. Again, instead of printing out all those applications, we're just going to pull them up on the screen here and allow them to take a look at them. Just a question. Sorry. On that, what are you wanting us to bring? The changes, any part of the applications that were impacted, for example, the Class B Education score sheet where we're adding the ranges. So changes that we made today? Yeah, that they approved today. Yes. going to present those documents to show how those changes were implemented. And so for this application view, we provided them digitally and obviously Mr. Clark mentioned that it was a struggle for him to look at them digitally, which I understand. But the point of this part is for you guys to review those, to suggest any more changes that weren't mentioned in the memo and to approve with changes these applications for for FY 24 so we can publish those when that time comes. And that's what we're doing. It's pretty voluminous. Well, yeah, I know. She can zoom in, but I mean, I didn't know if you guys had an opportunity to view them via the Google Drive. Because typically we would print them and then you would go to review them and make them markups and items that you felt questionable. but most of the time to be honest with you we hadn't seen him until now when Mr. Blues was here of course it was a whole right you know grammatical situation what I would suggest is we go through each one and you might highlight any change or any item you want to make but I don't think they'll need to go through each one item for all the different yeah that's my thought I would suggest that the only thing we changed in the draft that you would see today, the fiscal year and the deadlines for the application documents. So it's the same document we had last year that we've written? Okay. Except for the fiscal year and the new deadline because the dates change. Okay. And then our next meeting will change. Exactly. I mean, we can put them up just so you guys know which form we're talking about, but I certainly wouldn't say. that's why we put each one up and if there's anything that you want us that you think we should be aware of or highlight that we can discuss that's one thing but I don't know you go through line item by line item. Okay. That makes sense? Right. Okay. Starting with the class A application documents and starting with the application packet document. I'm just going to write it up from Google Drive. Oh, you want from Google Drive? Yeah. Okay. So you just pull up the packet. Actually, you can go, you know what, go back. Start from the top and work your way down. Close that real quick. Okay. Okay. Let's just work our way down from the top. Yeah, so starting with the, this is the sample budget that we provide to applicants from applications and nothing changed about this other than the FY24. Okay, let's keep going. No changes to that. This is the attachment A example we provide for class A. Again, no changes other than the references to the fiscal year, both at the top of the document and then at the bottom right there. Those are the only changes. changes okay the dates will change on the application itself when the deadline is right but not in this document this is attaching a simple one okay next uh same here fiscal year change no changes to the language one actually actually there's a change here okay go to number 10 number 10 of this document here right there yep so we've changed if you want to blow that up a little bit zoom in just a little bit right here where it says the grantee agrees that all stormwater control facilities including equipment and infrastructure shall remain in service and maintain by the grantee or it represents for at least the service life listed in the listed in part we referenced the inspection operation and maintenance plan as opposed to attachment a because we found that there was no reference in attachment a to it so they were they were referencing each other yeah so when we were leaving this with evan when we were going to add the attachment b for class vp we found this so we fixed the circular reference to refer to a document where the service lights would be listed at home right and so the inspection operation and maintenance plan is going to inform the board as well as staff as to how long we expect those facilities to be in service so would that would that for instance would there be a service life for rain garden would there be a service life for tree canopy referenced in the inspection operation and maintenance plan that they owe us this is specific to class a in this instance but for the new one BE, in BI we define that with our depreciation scheme. But with these smaller projects we do not, hadn't defined it in the past and chose to continue to allow the definition to be placed on the applicant or the grantee I guess. So they present what they expect, how long they expect facilities or whatever they're their building to be in service okay and we agree to it or not through the grant award agreement process these attachment b's aren't recorded with the fayette county clerk so okay they aren't as strenuous as the class b infrastructure because again we have a depreciation schedule that's set and that establishes what that service is my service life is but for class a we do not because typically there's multiple homeowners involved just like an neighborhood associate yeah okay all right thank you so that's the change to that document that would be similar to our class B education just to keep that in mind this is the class B document attachment B document for class A's there were no changes to this document other than the physical reference at the top This would be the class A package. There was no additions to this information, no additional bullets added, just the deadline reference and the year reference. These will change though with the innovative. There's going to be changes as a result of the decision. We'll bring that back. because as you guys suggested, we may want to add some language to clarify innovation. Right. Okay. We'll actually present draft language in the middle of it for now. Uh-oh. You better speed it up a little bit. We'll wrap this thing up. I'm throwing a low battery out of here. It's the cord. No, the cord's right here. Excuse me. Sorry. It's right here. Okay. That's what you don't want to see. That's where Annie is. That's right. You have 30 seconds. They don't worry about me. This application form, same thing, reference, just changes to the fiscally referenced as well as the deadlines mentioned in this document here. In terms of additional changes, I don't think anything in the memo prompted any changes, additional changes to this document. So, yeah, yeah, but if we do, we're presenting that right. That's right. Yeah. There's a portion for the class. A again, just the changes to the fiscal reference and the last revision dates. Okay. Other than that, no change today. Moving on to class B education, making it as painless as possible. Sure. this document is this this is the class B education attachment document that the board has now agreed to allow us to program that holds the grantee would be grantee accountable for maintenance for them for the same time mentioned in the inspection operation which is referencing that's just like the classic yeah we do this with long-term budget just a change in the fiscal year that's all change agreement or agreement or this is actually the attachment a there was no change to this as well the change only came in the main document but this just provides specific details of that specific project okay and that's it no changes other than fiscal year records here we add the language about the attachment b in this document i think it's also if you So if you would go down to number, I want to say, is it 10 again? No, so. No. No. Go up a little bit, I'm sorry. Just so I can see the changes, can you go to the version, the law version real quick? So I need to just go back to the link and go back. Law drafts for reasons I know. put up the grant award agreement. No, no, no, the one above that, the one right there. This has the track changes on. Here we'll just show you, we'll get right to it, show you the changes along there. Go down. That'll change. This is just to show this. This is just an example, because he had, he marked up the 23 version. Okay. Yeah, show it. So, we just added including any attachment thereof. And then further down. And then further down, yeah. Further down. This is additional language he added that law felt that it needed. The column machine is saying that you take it to the class A. It's just that Classical Education didn't incorporate any language about maintenance or anything of that nature. So this is the language that he suggested. I just wanted to show you where those changes were. And again, we'll provide these to you after meeting since these are considered changes. Right. This is the application. This is going to change too because I believe we will need to add the information about the attachment bead into this packet. Similar to what we have in class A. We'll bring that to the special review. This is the form. Nothing changed in this document here. We do think we need to add information to this. I think it's just an act. I don't think we need to ask any additional questions or not. Okay. Unless you think we might need to ask a question regarding maintenance and add that to the, we may need to, to be honest with you, to ask them a question about maintenance in the application form so they can provide us a response. You guys can talk about that. So far, no changes. If you make a change to it, you'll bring it to the meeting as well. And this is just the worksheet as it currently is, but as you all approve the one from the member, it's going to look like that. You close that one. and so class b infrastructure um no changes to this criteria scoring scoring guidance document here no changes to that other than the fiscal year references okay sample budgets same thing Class B Infrastructure Attachment B, no changes to that, again, under the fiscal year references. And this is our Class B Infrastructure Attachment B document, maintenance document. There were no additions to that. Let me go to the next one. Cool. Wait a minute. Okay. Back up. I can say before you can pull up the rest of them there were no changes to the other document. I think we can pull them out. Just wanted to point out the ones that really had changed. So that ends that portion unless you all have it. Any comments or thoughts? Okay. In Senate Senate Senate Senate. That's the big deal here, right? Let's go. because Pepper Distillery was sold and I think there's some discrepancy about who owns what and who should be responsible for what that we're trying to hire now. Without going into detail, we're going back and forth with the world right now to try to hire those out so we can establish the attachment deed for that project. The project has pretty much been completed. It's completed and we have the firm documents in hand. We've already reviewed everything that's good outside of this attachment deed document. We gotta turn that out before we close out the project. Okay. 2018, 2017 is on. 2018 we have Bluegrass, starting with out. The only not opening in this one is the Bluegrass Green Source Plastic and Construction Project. And we're set to meet with them in February. They mentioned that we would like to continue, but they wanted me to request an extension that they didn't provide us with the details. They would provide budget and other documents that we require to approve the extension. And so we're set to hear from them at the end of February about continuing going with that link and how that looks. Their board has an ad hoc committee that's making the decision. They were just assigned that in the fall after the litigation, and so they just needed more time. So they're hoping to come to the decision in February. So the status is it's designed but not starting construction? Oh, it's designed. They even have the permeables delivered. This is the one that had illegal snowmower outfall on the property that was donated to them. And so they finally worked in the litigation on that and now they're just trying to reconcile what the project looks like in terms of schedule going forward. This is a good property. Yes, over at Setzoo. Okay. 2019, we have, I believe, one project remaining. This is going to make good progress on these projects. This one only has one project remaining over at Isle, Opportunity for Learning. and the construction is proceeding well I think it's almost it's near complete in terms of construction in that project it's near completion Mr. Mond is the great manager and he's been really keeping up with that when providing good pictures of construction equipment so we look for that the game completely well we got caught with the closeout close down the asphalt plants and so but construction is still proceeding monitoring that as well and we're going to get to a place where they're going to everything done except for the reservicing so but percentage wise what's that percentage wise with the construction can you give us a percentage um they're probably about 60 percent at this point in time um we yeah we Yes, so they're about 60% complete on construction designs. The reason you see that you find it is because of the corporation design reporting and everything. Okay. That probably was static for a while because they're changing the leadership. So it's been changing properties too. Yes. On their camp, they have gone through a number of iterations in terms of location. Yes. Who really is? Yes. Number 9 on the FY20, the University of Kentucky. During the grant closeout process, the grant managers are looking on the documents and I'm working with her on that team, one of our new grant managers. So we're working on that team act. We look for that to be closed down, certainly before the end of the month. That's a Classical Education Grant. Kentucky American Water, they asked for a grant extension, which was approved. And I think it says, they're trying out a new site. new site I think there was some issues at the site that they had decided on previously so I think they're just trying out there were some issues about how the trash coming in it was overshooting the collector and so now I think they're just trying out a different site to see if it's a better place to capture it and to keep it contained so that's really kind of difficult for them just to get that in place on a permanent basis. That's going to incorporate a good site to be able to collect and pick up for solid waste or whoever they, because I think that was one of the issues, is how frequently, who's going to collect it, so they have to make sure the site is going to be able to have access to good . I had some questions about the process to begin with, and I'm still concerned about it. Yeah, they're in the wild and those guys, they're tediously trying to help their way through narrowing down the best possible stuff. Lakeshore Village, can you? Yeah, this is Phase 1. FY29. Yeah, Lakeshore Village Phase 1. We are working to have the closeout documents prepared. We had one little area that was having some Ponding and we're trying to address that get that resolved before and actually wasn't it Yeah, I mean other than yeah, it's Well, not to get is the weeds, but it's where we've got a concentrated flow coming in Elevation chain challenges associated with it. So we're just trying to work through And then got me bored and it's free education as well. I'm trying to think, 5th District Council is asking, there's a sanitary sewer manhole, kind of right by one. Is it the same place? Is this the same one? Okay. Yeah. And unfortunately we can't do anything with it because the casting's sitting right down on the... Yes, and top of the manhole. And again, we may need to have an online conversation. about it but but we did that because it was in a planter and you couldn't find it and so we worked through the lowered and I think a couple loads of topsoil I think that's kind of kind of what I told him but still have it exposed for me right already just not get to it but it can be screen yeah yeah sorry it's I'm sorry University Kentucky class B infrastructure project I would like to bring them to just comment on that yeah they're doing really well they've got the tap into the culvert fleet wet wells installed but they've had a delay on all their controls and so they're those are expected to be doing in February so they've done so they did some great work and played some rock for trucks to get down in maintenance in December, but they're kind of on hold until they get their controls, and then that project will wrap up by June. They march for them, but June for the report. That's Virginia Avenue, that project. This is, it's the UK RF rainwater harvesting project. It's all Virginia Avenue. It's all Virginia. Yeah, Press Avenue. Right. That's one side of the team. I can see that. Oh, it's looking good, too. Yeah, and we'll see how that works. Yeah. I mean, I know it's not too optimistic. If we have a rain like we did last week, they'll get all kinds of water. We have a spray set, too, so they're going to be. It's a good project. It is. It is. It looks good. All right. Flight 21, I will be close. If you don't have questions about quite specific, These are all ongoing and we're making growth projects. As you can see, we've closed down several projects. Just we're going to go. There's a whole front. We're going to go just fine. I think Hartman had some issues. Yeah, we're working through with Division of Water on permitting right now and trying to get them to respond to some of our comments or our questions. So if you all have any questions about any of those other things, let's think about fiscal year 21, let's think the creek will be long, bluegrass green source as well. I think that is something to close out. Lexington City Corporation, the Class of the Education portion is contingent on the design. So the fiscal year 21B infrastructure which incorporates the feasibility of design. Their educational components are contingent on finalizing those design documents because that's what they're aiming on, to educate the public with those final design documents. So is that, what's number 15? Is it the same? That's the design. Yes, that's the feasibility design. So I say, the movement. Number 11 is dependent on order 15. Yeah, so they're kind of stagnant, waiting on the design. They do have some information for the feasibility that they're incorporating that they're propending to present to us. But as far as moving forward with information that should incorporate the design, their design portion to wrap up. And that's why they're supposed to submit 50% of the drawings for the design, I believe, in the next week or so. They're supposed to actually have this, that problem, FY21 project wrapped up soon. Because, of course, the 22 construction project is contingent on that one. Looking forward to seeing those projects as well. So 16 is terminating, right? What happened there, Frank? I'm sorry? Number 16 or 21. That's the one that we canceled, right? That's the one that we canceled, yeah. Is that the time? That's the change order. That was the one that they couldn't wait for us to see what happened. But they received really high bids and were concerned. as well as price bill he just he just said it timed out for him that's for the fiscal year 22 if you have any questions about any of those specifically we're happy to answer those proposals going along just where we are closing up too low yeah we can press group another one of the lenses projects is about to close as well But the Gardens of Hardland project, we were able to wrap up. I don't know if you guys were going to wrap up. That was like the repair of the rainwater area. They got that installed, and it's functioning good. Right here. Number nine and ten is who you're going to hear from, most likely. Yeah, Beaver Creek and Colt are the two that we anticipate will present change order requests. because they were kind of inquired about it. And of course, we had nothing to give them at that time, but now we're able to close the company that they should be prepared to present to the board. So please anticipate that with the special meeting as well as the election. As for the fiscal year 23, we're getting those grant awards really strapped and we are hoping to have those out by the end of February. We were hoping by the end of the year, but we're trying to get those shovels in the ground. In order to do that, we have to get the agreements executed by statute. Any other matters to bring before the group? Next meeting? Special meeting on Thursday, February 16th. Yes, sir. 2023 at 9 o'clock. In this room. There was a change in the second Thursday in July. Is that your July date? Yes. I was looking at that the other day. I don't remember why it's not on the second or third. You all had some kind of conference or something? I'll be out. So would you have changed it to the next group, right? Yes. There's a Stormwater conference going on? Is that here? Or where's that going to be? It'll be in Bowling Green. It's your PSA. Can you have to start with that? Yeah, I'd like to. Do you have any information on that? Yeah. I'm trying to keep that professional development hours going home. That might be a good opportunity. It's a good conference. It's made you say so much. I'm planning to go. Good, good. How many people usually attend that? It's usually 120-ish. Okay. I plan that. It's allowed. I would like to go. It was great here. It's usually about 120-130. You said that with authority. like yeah time flies any other comments bring for the group hearing none did i hear a motion that we adjourn so it's been moved is there a second been moved and seconded all made motion signify by saying aye aye opposed like that motion serious thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you Thank you.