# Water Quality Fees Board Meeting - October 20, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 20, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5745 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5745?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-10-20 - **Last revised**: October 20, 2022 - **Length**: 10,541 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 October 20, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in the North Elkhorn Conference Room at the Tate Building, 125 Industrial Avenue, Suite 180. George Woolwine presided over the meeting, which included seven agenda items and resulted in 12 motions and votes. The board approved the minutes from its July 21, 2022, and October 13, 2022, meetings, and approved the 2023 Calendar Year Meeting Schedule. The meeting also included informational presentations on the FY 2023 Class B Infrastructure Grant Selection, a discussion of remaining funds recommendations, and an update on the Incentive Grant Status. No public comments were heard during the meeting. ## Attendance **Present:** - George Woolwine - Harry Clarke - David Lowe - Donna Fogle **Absent:** - Aaron Vaught **Late:** - Donna Fogle ## Votes and Decisions All motions brought before the meeting passed unanimously with no opposing votes or abstentions. **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 0:00:00] The minutes from the July 21, 2022 and October 13, 2022 meetings were approved. The motion was made by Harry Clarke and seconded by David Lowe. George Woolwine, Harry Clarke, and David Lowe voted in favor. **Director's Recommendations – Huber Real Estate LLC #1 (701 E 7th Street)** [timestamp: 0:12:37] Approved unanimously. Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by David Lowe. All four members voted in favor: George Woolwine, Harry Clarke, David Lowe, and Donna Fogle. **Director's Recommendations – University of Kentucky Research Foundation (UKRF)** [timestamp: 0:14:47] Approved unanimously. Motion by David Lowe, seconded by Donna Fogle. All four members voted in favor. **Director's Recommendations – Fayette County Public Schools Education Foundation Corporation** [timestamp: 0:17:34] Approved unanimously. Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Donna Fogle. All four members voted in favor. **Director's Recommendations – Centenary United Methodist Church, Inc.** [timestamp: 0:19:51] Approved unanimously. Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by David Lowe. All four members voted in favor. **Director's Recommendations – First United Methodist Church (parking lot)** [timestamp: 0:23:13] Approved unanimously. Motion by David Lowe, seconded by Donna Fogle. All four members voted in favor. **Director's Recommendations – United Landscape Services, Inc. (aka James McFarlane)** [timestamp: 0:28:58] Approved unanimously. Motion by David Lowe, seconded by Harry Clarke. All four members voted in favor. **Director's Recommendations – Running Away Incorporated (aka John's Run/Walk Shop)** [timestamp: 0:30:09] Approved unanimously. Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Donna Fogle. All four members voted in favor. **Director's Recommendations – LCP Holdings, LLC** [timestamp: 0:32:26] Approved unanimously. Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by David Lowe. All four members voted in favor. **Director's Recommendations – University of Kentucky Research Foundation (Feasibility Study)** [timestamp: 0:39:31] Approved unanimously. Motion by David Lowe. All four members voted in favor. **Director's Recommendations – Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc.** [timestamp: 0:41:44] Approved unanimously. Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Donna Fogle. All four members voted in favor. **Director's Recommendations – First United Methodist Church (side walk)** [timestamp: 0:42:49] Approved unanimously. Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Donna Fogle. All four members voted in favor. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting approved eight FY 2023 Class B Infrastructure Grants totaling $1,934,050.80 to various recipients: * **Huber Real Estate LLC #1** — $180,000.00 * **University of Kentucky Research Foundation** — $360,000.00 * **Fayette County Public Schools Education Foundation Corporation** — $360,000.00 * **Centenary United Methodist Church, Inc.** — $302,672.00 * **First United Methodist Church** (parking lot project) — $359,814.00 * **United Landscape Services, Inc.** — $316,564.80 * **LCP Holdings, LLC** — $20,000.00 * **University of Kentucky Research Foundation** (Feasibility Study) — $35,000.00 The grants support infrastructure improvements across educational institutions, religious organizations, and private entities within the jurisdiction. ## Call to Order George Woolwine called the meeting to order. ## Approval of 7/21/22 and 10/13/22 Minutes The board reviewed and approved the minutes from two previous meetings: July 21, 2022, and October 13, 2022. George Woolwine, Harry Clarke, and David Lowe participated in this agenda item. The minutes were approved by the board. ## FY 2023 Class B Infrastructure Grant Selection The board discussed the FY 2023 Class B Infrastructure Grants, reviewing available funds, submitted applications, and the Director's recommendations for award selection. **Key Participants** Frank Mabson and Lindsie Nicholas led the discussion on this agenda item. **Discussion Overview** The board examined the Class B Infrastructure Grant program for fiscal year 2023, considering the applications received and evaluating them against available funding. The Director's recommendations were presented to guide the board's consideration of which projects should receive grants. **Outcome** This agenda item was presented for informational purposes, allowing the board to review the grant selection process and recommendations without a formal vote or decision being recorded at this time. ## Remaining Funds Recommendation / Discussion [timestamp: 43:25] The board discussed the allocation of remaining funds and explored the potential creation of a change order pool fund. Frank Mabson and Lindsie Nicholas led this discussion. The agenda item focused on determining how to use available funds and whether establishing a dedicated change order pool would be beneficial for future project management. This discussion was informational in nature, with the board examining options for fund allocation rather than making a final decision. The outcome of this discussion was informational, meaning the board gathered and shared information on the topic without reaching a binding resolution at this time. ## Incentive Grant Status Update Frank Mabson presented an update on the status of various incentive grants to the board [timestamp: 0:58:09]. The presentation covered incentive grants from multiple fiscal years. This agenda item was informational in nature, with the board receiving updates on the current status of these grant programs. No specific debate or concerns were documented as part of this presentation. The outcome of this agenda item was informational, with no formal action or decision required from the board at this time. ## 2023 Calendar Year Meeting Schedule [timestamp: 1:18:35] The board reviewed and approved the meeting schedule for the 2023 calendar year. George Woolwine presented this agenda item to the board. The board approved the proposed 2023 calendar year meeting schedule. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by George Woolwine at approximately 1:20:40. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of 7/21/22 and 10/13/22 Minutes - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Director’s Recommendations for Huber Real Estate LLC #1 (701 E 7th Street) - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Director’s Recommendations for University of Kentucky Research Foundation (UKRF) - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Director’s Recommendations for Fayette County Public Schools Education Foundation Corporation - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Director’s Recommendations for Centenary United Methodist Church, Inc. - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Director’s Recommendations for First United Methodist Church (parking lot) - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Director’s Recommendations for United Landscape Services, Inc. (aka James McFarlane) - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Director’s Recommendations for Running Away Incorporated (aka John’s Run/Walk Shop) - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Director’s Recommendations for LCP Holdings, LLC - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Director’s Recommendations for University of Kentucky Research Foundation (Feasibility Study) - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Director’s Recommendations for Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc. - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Director’s Recommendations for First United Methodist Church (side walk) --- ## Full transcript Application number 6 is for United Landscape Services. The requested grant amount is for $324,564.80 with a cost share amount of $81,441.20. Total project cost of $405.706. This request stems from FY21 Stormwater Grant for Feasibility Study that United Landscape has, so that's just a note. The project elements are as follows. Number one, remove temporary ditch along the office building foundation and replace with a new enhanced French drain bioswale. Construct a new doorway on a structure with demonstration, vegetated roof, and walkway to pass over the new bioswale. Number three, remove existing gravel area. Number four, connect existing downspouts to the office entry spouse well leading to the Area B Rain Garden infiltration basin. Number five, install a rain garden for bioretention. Number six, add stormwater harvesting container. Number seven, remove stored materials from Area B inside fence at the north corner for rain installation of rain garden. Number eight, replace existing gravel parking area with permeable parking pavers to reduce impervious area by removing pavement. Number nine, stormwater educational silage. The recommendation of the Director of the Division of Water Quality is applicant and proposed project meet program eligibility requirements with project scope of 65.05. Approve the grant application for the partial amount of $16,464.80 requiring a minimum of $79,141.20 in cost share. Approve the grant application with following the suggestion. Number one, application shall obtain written approval prior to work being done on properties not owned by the applicant. Number two, permanent pavement shall not be installed within 10 feet either side of the existing cemetery sewer and measures taken to prevent infiltrating water from entering into the cemetery's sewer storm and trench. An inspection operation and maintenance plan shall be provided at the conclusion of the project. The IOM plan shall preclude storage of certain materials on the permeable pavement. Number four, BMP locations be modified to comply with the minimum setback distances stipulated in the engineering manuals, codes, regulations, and ordinances. Number five, because of modifications for the partner, an applicant will need to work with the LFCCG Division of Planning to verify the regulatory requirements. Number six, if underground detention is provided, property owner will be required to conform to LFCCG court ordinance, Chapter 16, Chapter 10, Division 2. Number seven, applicant to notify the Royal Springs Airport World Health Protection Committee prior to work being done on the property. Number eight, which goes back, treating, moving, and planting activities shall be reviewed and approved by the Division of Environmental Services, Forester, and or operatives prior to any tree removal or planting activities. Abatement's plan for tree planting should be provided for approval to the grant manager prior to planting. Number nine, planting should be selected from the LFUCG Urban County Government's Rain Garden. Number 10, item number 23, fence and gate replacement is not an eligible grant expense. Applicants provide the Division of Water Quality with a revised budget omitting defense and gate replacing the activity budget item 4 inclusion in the groundwater agreement for taxing the document. Number 11, applicant to clarify the media intended for the gravel parking areas proposed in the application for inclusion in the groundwater agreement. Number 12, since the budget does not include costs for an underdrained system, applicant must provide results from soil testing to verify soil infiltration rates per the LFUCG stormwater management. in the county lane booker or johnson workshop requested grant amounts of $49,660.20 with a cost share of $87,460.20 for a project budget of $437,076.00. The grant program elements include retrofit existing parking lot with permeable and locked in concrete papers, Redirection of downspouts from the building to allow for flow towards the green infrastructure systems to reduce or eliminate the flooding. Provide underground storage as needed. Replace a concrete pad at the front lawn with permeable road rise surface and stormwater education signage. The recommendation of the Director of the Division of Water Quality asks to include Project MEET program eligibility requirements with a project score of 60.53. This project is not recommended for funding this fiscal year. If the grant application is approved by the board, approve with the following stipulations. Applicant shall obtain written approval agreement prior to work being done on properties not owned by the applicant. If the intent of the applicant is to incorporate the project element as part of the public system, it will need to be inspected by an engineer hired by applicant. Rememberable payment shall not be installed with intent to be either side of the industry sanitary sewer and measures taken to prevent implementing water from entering the sanitary sewer stone trench. An inspection operation and maintenance plan should be provided with the conclusion of the project. The plan shall preclude storage of certain materials on the permeable pavement. If underground detention is provided, property owner will be required to conform to LFCC Code of Ordinance's Chapter 16, Article 10, Division 2. Because of modifications to the parking area, applicant will need to work with LFCC Division to plan to verify the regulatory requirements permanent educational signage designs to be approved by current manager and administrator of production maturity bond will be required for all public infrastructure installed in LFACG right away this is required to be in place before LFACG can sign off on final construction stormwater facilities constructed in publicly owned areas shall be dedicated in the city at the conclusion of the project application number eight is for LCP holdings with the respective grand amount of $20,000, the cost of the amount of $5,000, the project cost of $25,000. Project elements are number one feasible study to evaluate and recommend water quality and quantity DMPs on property located at 219 East High Street. Current project components would include permeable pavement retrofit, bioretention strip, enhancement to neighboring stone water infrastructure and stabilization of existing stack stone retention recommendation of the director of the visual quality applicant and proposed project need program eligibility requirements with project score 52.96 feasibility only grants were compared to other feasibility only grants until program target funding was achieved approved the grant application for the full amount of $20,000 recalling a minimum of $5,000 in cost. Approved the grant application with following stipulation. Applicant shall obtain written approval prior to work being done on properties not owned by the army. This is yours, we present the research foundation for another feasibility study. The requested grant amount of $55,000 in the cost share of $15,750. The total project budget of $15,750. This feasibility study is to review existing conditions from our infrastructure in this campus across 813 acres and three watersheds. develop a five-week plan of strategic water quality to quality of the project to lend two million dollars for future application this includes a high level layout of five or more proposed projects the recommendation of the director of future water quality applicant proposed project meet program eligibility requirements with the project score 21-207 feasibility-only grants were compared to other feasibility-only grants until program target funding was achieved approved the grant application for the partial amount of 35 000 requiring a minimum of $8,750 cost share. Approve the grant application with following situations. Applicant shall enter the approval prior to working on a property not owned by the applicant. Application number 10 is for Copperhead Environmental Consulting. Request a grant amount of $12,000. It costs you about $3,000. The total project costs a 15 minutes. Project elements feasibility study to evaluate and recommend water quality and quantity of use for the parking lots and buildings along the western side of Walton Avenue. We should look at 125 Walton Avenue, 257 Walton Avenue. That expense, stormwater flood emissions, recommendation of the record of the vision of water quality, applicant and proposed project meets program eligibility requirements with the project score 49.12. Feasibility-only grants were compared to other feasibility grants until program targeted funding was achieved. This grant is not recommended for funding this fiscal year. If the grant application is approved by the board, approve of the following stipulations. The project shall not proceed with field work until written approval of the proceedings obtained from the grant administrator or director of water quality for the potential conflict with future LFCCG projects. Number two, applicants shall obtain written approval prior to work being done on the project. And the last one, first to note, an amendment to the church cycle of the project. Requested grant amount $229,242.50. The cost share amount $57,000. The total project budget of $286,599. The project element is designed and construction of 15 Klandra Islands in the right of way along West Tide Street and permanent educational signage. The recommendation of the Director of the Position of Water Quality applicant and proposed project lead program eligible order requirements with the project score of 45.79. project is not recommended for funding his fiscal year. If the grant application is approved by the board, approved with the following stipulations. Applicantial obtainable prior to working done on properties not owned by the applicant due to the property being located in the historic district, the applicant will need to work with the eligibility to historic preservation. Planting shall be selected from Lexington, Irwin County Government's Rain Garden Annual. If the intent of the applicant is to incorporate the project element as part of the public system, it will need to be inspected by an engineer hired by the applicant, tree removal painting activities shall be reviewed and approved by the division of environmental services urban forester or arborist prior to any tree removal or painting activities since the sidewalk will be replaced and containers installed along the right of way the applicant will need to consult with the utility companies to ensure traffic and engineering permanent educational signage designs to be approved by the grant manager or administrator prior to production an inspection operation of the units plan shall be provided at the conclusion of the project the plan shall be stored in certain materials for payment organization proposes a larger cost share beyond that required of the grant program budget shall reflect the 20.01 percent cost share offered in the application which is approximately seven thousand three hundred seven dollars okay so So, as we normally didn't go through each one in the group, I guess we're going to know what you presented. The first project is human real estate, LLC number one. I did have a question on the first paragraph. this grant request for the FY21 for audience in a grant feasibility study identified evaluated selected the DMP state for reducing impact of flooding at the 701 East Seventh Street safe hole and downstream at the world spring aquifer it's more concerned with its upstream of the aquifer is it is that just identifying where it's located that's wrong it should be upstream upstream okay good guess i thought downstream that really should be right we're upstream okay all right Any questions or comments? I just questioned that we had talked about fences and not being eligible. This includes a chain link fence around the sinkhole. We believe this one was more for a safety concern. And so we allow for it here to just speak to the same reason to address that. The other one was more steady. Makes sense. Any other reports for clarification? Let's do it. group move for approval it's been moved is there a second i'll second it's been moved and second dollar fair motion signify by saying aye aye those like said motion carries the next project is the University of Kentucky Research Foundation the request agreement is $360,000 that is the maximum grant that we can make yes sir so they come back because of cost of woods that's the maximum grant description right yeah they're not they wouldn't be qualified to uh okay that was going to receive any additional funding okay well that we don't have an actual change order system in place but based on the precedent that would that should be the rule from them i would think any comments questions I don't really have any comment except just my curiosity about soil cells. It seemed to be, is that a fairly new thing? I'm unfamiliar with that. I thought it was very interesting. It's like a protection. I understand what it's doing, and I just wondered if this was fairly new. It's new to me. They used to have a town branch comments as well. Oh, they did? In front of us. Oh, okay. Because I know that's always been a problem downtown. tree wells yes but we thought it was interesting yeah very much so any other questions comments on this project I make a motion to approve. Thank you. There's a motion made. Is there a second? Your turn. Oh, I think. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All in favor of the motion. Motion is yours. third project is the Fayette County Public Schools Education Foundation Corporation the question is the maximum allowable Any questions, comments? So this is a component of a larger project to redo that building over the old kind of reading building. Yeah. So we thought it was a very good idea. This is like a perfect project because it's a retro. And that's the portion of the parking lot that's adjacent to the parking lot. to make sure yes the front against the right door with the front party which will very I'm going to ask this question looking at the score sheets I was just wondering if there it would be practical to have a different kind of score sheet for feasibility studies because it looks like a lot of the categories don't apply and it must be harder to... Well, the way it happens is most of the, well, all the feasibility just simply grade below the rest and then kind of, you know, and we pretty much... You compare them all. Yeah, we compare them all on whichever one lands at the highest score and amongst the rest they receive the award. In this case, it was a partial, it was a full ask and then a partial for the remaining funds. I just thought maybe there were different elements in the feasibility study that would be more important than some of the things on the current. I think the goal of the target was to accomplish that knowing that we score low. It being a target allows us to not create a whole other grant category and keep them. But I totally understand where you're coming from. If we could have a scoring matrix that speaks directly to feasibility study. We'd have to create a list. We'd have to, yeah. We can make that part of the discussion. It's something for y'all to think about. It's not something that we can learn. Just to follow. Look at the score sheets. We'll discuss. We can put it on our list in January just to have a discussion about the score sheet. That's important. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? What's the will of the group? Moved if approved. It's been moved. Is there a second? It's been moved and second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like said. Motion carries. this project is the city of the united church project I was interested in the use of the cost share it was it just seems vague to me B6 seems a bit vague 50% design and 50% construction. Are you speaking to the budget? Yeah, and that's all they said. 50% design, 50% construction was how the cost share would be designated. I thought that was vague and didn't have much specifics. That's all they said in B6. So I just wondered if that was a suggestion. Well, I think as a comment during our scoring process, we asked for more details. I think it was reflected, I believe, in the budget portion of the scoring matrix. I think we would have liked to see more details as well. So it was scored accordingly. Any other questions, comments on the Central United Methodist Church project? Hearing none, what is the group? Move for approval. It's been moved. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. I was like saying. Motion carries. The next project is the First United Methodist Church Parking Lot. Any comments, questions? I like seeing a bunch of them pitch too. It's right there in the front. is there a is the portico share part of part of funding I'm sorry? The part that goes share, the entrance. You mean the? The hooding, yeah. I don't believe it was. I believe it was outside. I don't believe they were actually for funding for it. Yeah, it was mentioned as part of the I think the funding for it. Yeah, it was mentioned as part of the request, but I didn't see any place where it was actually being part of it. It was part of First United Methodist? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's coming up with the, you know, the awning, not the awning, but the... I thought that was part of the United Landscape. Right. I don't remember an awning of this project. I think maybe they're just the first time to the executive summary might just be speaking broadly about the whole project, including what they're asking for with the grant, but they just was talking about their project as a whole, what all they plan to do, but it's not included in the budget document. I'm asking you any questions. No, no, no. It's actually a great question because we want to make sure that everything is eligible, you know, that it's going towards stormwater. So it's definitely a great question. But some of them tend to take an overall project and just include the project elements to which they're requesting funds for in the narrative. Yeah. This is confusing because they have two different projects in this case. Right. Yeah. Yeah. And the map, the BMP sketch does include, I think you see the dashed line there where it's not called out specifically in the sketch. Right. Yeah, they provided labels in the sketch for the included items. So this one, they labeled the ones that, you know, the fans in the office. Other questions, comments on the parking lot project? that is the rule of the group move to approve it's been moved is there a second second it's been moved and seconded all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye aye aye motion carries next project is United Landscape Services Inc The only difference here is that there's a vegetation in the garden and the garden. Right. Any questions? Contingency seemed high to me, and actually I thought the project was expensive for this particular project. I think I saw $56,000 as the contingency. Oh, yeah, and the construction budget. Yeah. It's 20%. of what it says 20% of the total construction budget. So that's normal. Yeah. Yes, sir. It's pretty, you know, and then, of course, with this inflation issue, everybody's kind of covered with a pan. Yeah. So we didn't see it as concerning because of that. Yeah, I think the scores did have some questions about the budget being you know overall cost of project but I think the consensus was it's the consultant you know it's the fees and instructional tools they allow for it we just scored a accordingly and this is one that they are approved for a partial grant yes so we need to go back and see the impact that has on that one before right yeah it's because we alleviated the fence and gate replacement we felt the location to have that into a safety so it was more not necessarily connected to the water so those things there are forces in a proportionate higher than what they had requested yes okay any additional comments question concerning this surprise me. Just from my own understanding, how is the cost share, what's the formula for cost share for partial funding? That we use? Yeah, what do you use to figure that out? I was trying to figure that out. We just make sure that the amount of the request covers 80% of the total project cost. So if we make it a partial, we want to make sure that the partial we give out is still 80% of the total project cost. Of the total project. Yes, we make sure that whatever they propose, if they propose even a higher cost rate, that proportionately, that the partial that they give meets that percentage. Okay, good. Okay, let's develop the group. I have a question to approve the award of our program. Okay. Thank you. It's been moved. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. All the present motions signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like so. Motion carries. Thank you. And the next project is Running Away Incorporated, aka John's Run Workshop. shot this is not recommended for funding because we're out of the funds and lower priority any comments questions oh thank the motion to agree with the director's recommendation for for to not recommend funding for this thank you there's a second it's been moved and seconded all in favor of the motion say aye opposed like so motion carries Next project is LCP Holdings LLC, which is a feasibility study. So this is right beside the High Street YMCA, right? Yes. Backs up to Ballast Street. Yes, sir. Any questions, comments? Thank you. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed like said. Motion is serious. Just as a comment, they received the highest of the feasibility scores, which is why they received the full. So we have to balance the maintenance. Okay. next is the University of Kentucky Research Foundation feasibility study this is one that's going to be partially funded All these feasibilities came in pretty close to one another. Yes, sir. And this is basically setting a strategic plan for the whole campus, is that it? Yes, sir. Any questions, comments? If there are leftover funds, would we have the opportunity to utilize those to fully fund this? I mean, it would be the rule of the group. I mean, yes. There's about 6,000. Remaining. Oh, 6,000. So that's what I was saying. Yeah. We Yes, so there's a Target and feasibility So we get 20,000 LCP holdings Up to this is the remaining for us for peace building on the grants We could I guess a larger point is that any remaining funds we have the recommendation is that that be available to cover any potential other runs for fuel price increases. I mean moving from the pool. Yes, tell me up to the board. The 55,000 is kind of an arbitrary target pot to those type projects. And given the medium term scope, it seems like if they can cover the balance, they'd be all right over the way they hear. I'd say they probably could cover it. I would say for this matter. Seems about right. But over to the other thing, I don't know. I'm still having trouble figuring out how we come to a figure for a cost share figure for a partial. So in this case, basically, there's a pot of money in the other projects that had power funding had been funded, and this was all that was left. Is that correct? Mm-hmm. Okay, so this was the amount of money left after funding the... Yeah, I understand that. I would just talk about the cost share, how we came up with the 87. That's 20. We basically take the 35,000 that was remaining and we divide it by 80 because we want the We want to make sure that what we're giving them covers 80% of the total project cost, which will leave 20% in cost shares. So the figure you get, so you basically take the $35,000 divided by 80, and then you multiply it by 20, which will be their requirement, and you will go to the $87,500. So you can take any amount, we just divide it by 80, because that's what we want the grant to cover. Okay. Any other questions, comments? Oh, one more comment. So if they propose a larger cost share, then we just adjust the 80 to whatever that percentage is. Right. Just so. Did Stephanie have any concerns about the cost share in their budget salary and benefit batch for an FTE? Is that? And I think it notes here that the salary wage figures with the luxury purposes only that one could infer that I suggest that they want to take us approach. We normally ask for a copy of their payroll, you know, their records, so we can see how those funds are allocated. We don't have to ask for structure to see what... I think we've seen previous budgets with like BLSS tents or something. Yeah. Yeah. So, yes. So, it's a new loan. I mean we can we can add an additional stipulation I think it's not a concern So they'll have to submit an updated budget? Yes, because it's partial. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. We have stipulation for them to produce a revised budget. Makes sense. Yeah. Any other questions? Hearing none, what is the role of group? I move to accept this, to approve this. Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second? And to be clear, utilizing the left over 6,000 or the partially amount of 35. Well, I mean, I would ask the chairman, he's asking if that's part of the motion. If that's what you want to, you need to, I guess, modify the motion if that's what we want. There's a way to do it. I would recommend whether until we have a discussion about the remaining funds. I mean, the overarching importance of setting aside some money for change orders versus UK's ability to pay, it might be right. so yeah so as a part of the conversation about those change orders you know i believe at this junction we're trying to salvage some projects to make sure if we can we're not saying we're to save all right that's that's a good point yeah because there might be some projects that they really need to get some additional funding where the project will and not move forward. But you make a good point. And we're certainly not as a target amount. If we have any money, we can move some money around. So if you're okay, the motion is worth $35,000. I'll second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like said. Motion carries. Next project is the Copperhead Environmental Consulting Project. Any questions, comments? this i think it's not fun the application i second it it's been moved and seconded all in favor motion signify by saying aye aye I was like that motion carries and the last project is the first time that is church sidewalk and this is not recommended for funding. I move this project not be funded. Okay. Motion made. Is there a second? I second. It's been moved and seconded. I'll in favor of the motion and signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed like said. Question, curious. I'm on to all the projects. Okay, now getting back to item five, remaining funds recommendation discussion. I guess that's this page. At the bottom of that, remaining funds recommendation, staff recommend use-wise, $109,603 in the remaining funds to seed a pool for future change orders. We have received several inquiries from grantees seeking municipal funds due to high construction bids, some of which have expressed interest in canceling your grant due to lack of funding to cover the cost increase. The CO, the change order pool fund would be capped at 10% of the annual FY budget. Each year they see how cool would be replenished, would not exceed the cap amount of 10% of the F-Rice budget that year. And so here in the table we just showed you how we arrived at the $6,000, about how those funds were allocated to get to the $6,000. and then there was some additional funding of 102,000, approximately $5,000. Yeah, just to add to that 102, that was after, you'll see at the very top from unused grant funds, there was $304,000 in that category that added to our pot for these projects you all just went through. That 102 happened after we already, you know, grant canceled between the time we did that. and you know so we had already used those that 300 000 that was cancelled plus a couple other minor change orders and additions from unused funds to fund these projects because we felt that was important as opposed to holding that 300 000 but this additional grant um instead of adding it retroactively and trying to figure out what to do with it we wanted to propose that with the the unused grant funds from this year for this program. And I think that maybe this is a temporal issue, I'm not sure, but with a lot of our fiscal year, especially 2021 and 22 grants even, we're seeing a lot of issues come up from their original budget to construction budget until now and the board's gone through the process of approving and all those projects and to keep losing them we're kind of seeing them fall off and I think it's valuable to you know maybe lose a future project here and there to sustain the ones we've already gone through the process of approving and seeing value in there's obviously a lot of things that we need to be thought through with this but we wanted to start the conversation we've started the conversation with law so it's just you know they don't you And you can speak to that as well, but when we spoke it wasn't that we couldn't do it, it's more of just logistics and making sure it doesn't just become a pot of money and they can just do whatever with their construction budget because they know this exists. It's not that. Yeah, structure. I mean, we were going to speak during the January meeting to how it would be structured and the criteria, but that would be more detailed during the January meeting. who asked Lindsey, who wanted to just start the conversation about how to seed it at least and if the board would even be, you know, willing to go that route. We do have a couple of grantees that have recently talked about canceling the projects and have kind of put them on hold and said, hold on, we may have some alternatives, but no promise. Absolutely. So this is just the start of the conversation. So, thinking that a step further, if we have several projects and the amount they're asking for to come down, what exceeds the amount of money we have, then you base it on priority, what the original priority was. How do you determine which projects you're going to? Well, that's what we're going to talk about in terms of criteria. They would have to show us comparatively what the bids, what the estimation was for construction was before and what they're receiving now, as UK had done. And so they would have, and how we score those, is that to be determined. But that's sort of awesome. We talked about it being more of a first come, first serve basis. obviously at the start of a program we've already got a couple that we know so there will need to be some sort of mechanism but if you all have thoughts on that as we between now and January right now that is helpful for us we start thinking through what that would go for. Then as far as the budget is concerned is there typically a contingency item in the budget? Some of them included and some of them have not and to the ones that have, that's to their benefit. Maybe we should require that there be a contingency item in the budget so that they would have some money built in to cover that. Yeah, we just don't want them to be creative with funding, you know what I mean? Yeah, yeah. I just mean, you know, it's nice to know what it's, you know, have some idea that they'd be real contingencies that, you know, we don't want them to be creative after the fact that oh, let's find a way to spend this money. Right. That's a concern. Is there any way to help them with it? I would also say that if you're talking about 20% of some of these large numbers, you'll end up clogging up more money that way than just saying 10% potentially. And sometimes these projects take a long time to play out as well, too. So if you've got 20% of $360,000 projects sitting there for a year and a half or two years, that might be a problem. Okay. We need to kind of think through that. You know, at this juncture, for those ones that have, you know, addressed it with us, and we know that here in real time, they've received construction bids higher. So, you know, the faster or, you know, if we can do something now, it's an issue for them. They're ready to go. They're ready to go. And so. How far back are we going, Frank? As far as. Some of these. What's the subject? Physical year for the ones we're working on? Oh, FY20, FY21, FY25. Frank, just to clarify, you're still going to have the 360 max, kind of like you did with the UK too. That won't raise, the change orders won't allow you to raise over the 360. Right. Yeah. What happened with the UK is essentially the precedent, and that's how we want to move forward with it, but we just need to be more specific in terms of criteria. I don't know if you have a question. Yeah, I was just concerned when you said some of the other projects there are what because they, I guess the cost of everything has gone since COVID. Are they going to, are they going to still keep their projects right where they are? I mean, because I know if they know there's more money, you don't want that. You don't want them to get creative and start adding. So would it still be okay to stipulate that they must stay where it's at so that they don't add that? It's not possible for them to adjust project elements unless they come before the board. How it was approved, the rules that were expected on approval will still be the same. It's just that the cost has changed and that they would actually have to come in and present to the board and show the issue that they're having. They would have to justify it. Yeah, and the project elements are non-negotiable at this juncture unless they ask the board that they can modify the scope. That's a whole different subject. I was going to follow up his question about are we going to say somebody's been awarded a $360,000 project, but they say, okay, we've got some overruns here, we need more money. They have to eat the rest of their main cost. They're cats. We would maintain the cat. And I think that was the will of what we did back in January, April, when we raised it from $300 to $360 to try to account for that. Yeah, so we're trying a couple of different strategies. We raised the maximum grant, and now we're talking about a change order situation. So we're trying to help it along the way. However, as Charlie mentioned a while back, you know, they have to eat. They have to have this equal dog in the fight. They're going to have some skid of meat. Yes, skid of meat. So we're not telling them that we could cover the remaining costs. Like with the UK, they had to cover a lot more. We gave them a little something on the overage. And also, raising a change order, increasing it would require more of a to get up to the cost share to get up to that new 20%. That's correct. So it's not just, I need all the money for the overrun. They have to have something to get. In UK's case, I think they ended up at 50% cost share. It worked out for us. Yeah, so in our landscape at least maybe temporarily we'd have our grant pool, we'd have an innovation fund around $956,000 and then we'd have this changeover fund and that would kind of, that's the landscape. I think we probably have a lot of things to think about. Yeah. Okay. Is there any more discussion as far as this is just prior information? To see the conversation? Yes. To see the conversation, yes. I would ask if there is a thought before we dive into what it could look like to present that in January, If you all do have thoughts on how you convert a prime work as change orders that come in, obviously we'll look at it. But before we dive too deep into it, we all had thoughts. I can buy a staff at all. So they have a lot of thoughts. Original score, first come, first serve. And then construction. Yeah, where they are in the process. Completion. Sure. I was just wondering, Frank, if you guys delve into it to see whether or not there's any other grant programs out there that are contemplating or have done the same thing as far as any kind of change. We will research that. It might be worthwhile to see what else somebody else has done. Right. It's going to be happening. Yes. so i guess the implication is we're targeting more construction type projects rather than feasibility or something like that yeah it doesn't make sense in my mind i would say material costs is probably too expensive that by jam issue yeah yeah yeah I think that's exactly right there. Because those are where we're sitting on over. Supply chain issues, that's, of course, time. Time is money. And material costs has just gone up. So to me, those would be the main priorities in terms of qualifications for these change orders. And how fast they request it in getting to the board. Charlie, as far as the bidding projects are going on now, are you finding the same thing that you experienced on Wolf Run where you have assigned a bid amount for X number of dollars and then because of supply chain issues, the supplier's going back to the contract, The contractors come back to this LFUCG saying we need more money for this project, this product that we gave you a price on six months ago. Yeah, I think that in terms of just pipe, what's changed and may never go back is now you're paying for pipe like you buy gas. When you pull up to the pump, that's your price. You know, back in the old days, you used to get a quoted price of installed at $200 a linear foot. Exactly. They will not honor that price anymore. So that's the new normal. That's the new normal. And then the other part of it is that, you know, especially if it involves some type of electronics that have components, usually there's one or two vendors that are in the midst of putting this piece of equipment together that, oh, well, there's a shortage of that. Chips. It's like cars and getting microchips. You make plenty of cars, you just can't get them to start. Those are the two biggest factors for us right now. You know, material stuff, it was a concrete scare in there for a while. I think we've kind of gotten out of that. The economy has changed, and a lot of it was fuel is obviously the other thing, is that anything that involves excavation is risky because of the cost of diesel fuel. Okay. So, again, I think anything related to material supply chain issues, material costs depending on what they expected. something that there's numbers that we can see documenting what their increases they incurred were. So no relief on cost. Yeah. That's what I'm hearing from you. So this fiscal, fiscal 23, some of that is maybe we can think of priced in, whereas certainly the 20s, the 21s, not. 21, 22, not. And that's the really focus of establishing this. The reduction workforce, you know, filters through the contractors. You have fewer contractors out there that can actually perform work, which kind of in some ways gives them the ability to put whatever price they want on it. And some of them throw ridiculous prices and stuff just to see if it lands their lap. If nobody else bids on it, voila, you know, I got a huge payday when you don't do the project. We've had several of those. You know, on top of the fact that they have a lot of options. There's a lot of projects happening. So they're able to raise the cost because they have options. The ARPA money impacted that a lot. Right. You afford a lot of demand on top of a limited supply. Yeah. All right. I think we have gone through item five. Incentive grant status update. Yes, sir. That was a good spreadsheet, large spreadsheet that you all have. It starts with 2016. We have one project that Jennifer carried over with her that she's closing out. It was already so far in that she was already in the process of reviewing the documents. She's getting around to that. She ensures us that she's going to get that to us ASAP. If you notice 2017 is missing, it's because there's no active projects. They're all closed out. So we skip to 2018 where we have two projects remaining, Bluegrass Green Source. This was the one where there was an issue with an illegal outfall at the Setser site. And now they're deciding whether or not they want to build at that site or whether or not they're going to try to sell the property and acquire a new property. If that's the case, then they may end up canceling the grant and reapplying it so as to not hold those funds high. They should have to do that. Yeah. Yeah, so that's what we've recommended to them. University of Kentucky Research Foundation, this project is actually in a closeout phase. We just recorded a maintenance agreement, and that was the last deliverable project. The final report is in hand. Last request for funds has been processed as we speak. 2019 as you can see one remaining making headway here with these last fiscal years opportunity for work. They had a change in leadership which is why this one had lingered on and now they have the new leadership in place. They were thinking about making some changes to the actual scope. However, they elected to continue on as originally planned and that project is actually moving forward really fast. They had an issue with the structure. They dug it out and noticed that the concrete foundation was void. And so they were scared the building was going to collapse. So they had all this structural units to try to really get it. And I think they injected some concrete in, but it paused our activities. Oh, it's not going to smoke today. I'm sorry. I can't keep finding. I'm sorry. Hey, I'm just sitting here back here, quiet, just in case. Yeah. Just to elaborate on what Frank said here. This project has gone through numerous hurdles, but we are under construction. In fact, I was out on site yesterday, and they are making great strides once again to move it forward. And as Frank mentioned, we did have a found condition once they peeled back the asphalt removing from behind the buildings in which case found that the more than that half of the concrete block had deteriorated due to 50 years of exposure to a freeze-thaw cycle with water getting in between the foundation or getting between the block and the pavement. So we had to kind of put an immediate stop to the project, call in a structural engineer. That work is all outside of the grant, obviously, but it affected the grant in terms of the project moving forward. But we're hoping to have it wrapped up here in the next, in about 45 days, and have the project closed out roughly by the first of the year. They actually changed site for the community, Scott. Yes, sir, they did. I didn't want to go into the War and Peace version of it, but yes, we had initially there was a change in leadership and then bringing the new leadership up to speed. Then there was the change in location within their property on the site. that activity actually kind of fell through so we went back to the original scheme between the two buildings because of some issues with property lines we actually had to kind of flip what we were doing on between the two buildings so the amount of area that's being treated actually got to increase so we are actually improving you know a greater amount of water quality but we had to do a little flipping of it and so that took some time we bid it earlier this year and just to talk about bidding climate we had three bids one was right about our estimate one was about 15% more than our estimate and one came in about 10% less so it's it's the wild wild west out there in terms of the bidding environment. Okay, thank you. Let's move on to FY 2020. FY 2020, first at the top there, we have several projects closed out, Andover Neighborhood Association, which is number two on the list there. The only thing remaining is the educational component and they're taking inventory of the buffer area and the plant teams to see how many plants they need to purchase to fill that buffer area up. That project will be set to close. I don't know if anybody knows what's going on right now. Friends of Warfront just submitted a request for funds. In the narrative here, we hadn't spoken. The grant manager was on vacation, but since then she's returned and she received a submittal from Friends of Warfront from Kinkook. And so she's in the process of revoke the real net now. Is this the one where they'll be returning $10,000? Yeah. this year 2020 and their grant rating. And so they had some issues with one of their areas, and so it's been, they decided not to move forward. So there's a savings of $10,000 that we expect from this grant here. For TANBART, of course, the grant manager, the construction is complete. The pay request is being processed, and they, he did grant them an extension until this month, the 21st of this month, but the project is set to complete anytime now. So all work is good. Number nine educational grant for the University of Kentucky Research Project. I believe they submitted a request for funds and we just made some adjustments to make sure that they stayed under the threshold for our 5% retainage because they had to turn to find a report, so we just had to make adjustments. But that project is moving forward, and hopefully they will, I think they'll be set to close out on time. Kentucky American Water Company, they got a request for extension, and it was approved for January 2024. They're evaluating a new location because the very high water they were getting was making the trash go over, so they're just trying to kind of take a look at another area to make sure that they'll be the actual actually capture the trash that's been working on it Lakeshore Village Lake Shore Village phase one we had a punch list on site visit two weeks ago everything is basically state by the site is stabilized there's some cleanup the contractor needs to do they did that I was out on site yesterday they've got a little bit more that they need to clean up and currently working on the final report as we speak project looks good though yeah this was one that it was a 2019 it had a lot of covet challenges associated with it they had some changes in their management leadership and there's a lot of additional work that they have put into the project and funded to themselves and so we talked about differential of the funding mechanism the grant is good end up looking like it's going to fund about 40% of the overall cost. Contractors do a good job out there. Green Solutions. Yeah, and they're also ones working with us on OWL. The University of Kentucky Research Foundation. Yeah, they were still waiting for an official contract extension request from them. So we're in the works of getting everything we need for that project. Some goal that was approved for additional funding. construction has started and we're now linked into their bi-weekly construction meetings. They did not include us at first so we had to get on them about making sure that we're included in the invites for those meetings. So we'll be attending those starting next week and moving forward. Okay. And in your FY21, the first one listed Cumberland Hill that are here We'll just wait another final report from that. They're all construction for, what I'm saying. Construction items are pretty much complete. They were just amending the souls out here. Ellerslie and DeLong, that project is also moving along. They were granted an extension to the end of this month, so they're just working on the signage right now, and that project will be done. If you remember, they just also received a partial for FY23 as well, but phase one, as we recall, is completed in terms of construction. Friends of Wolf Run, that project is moving along. They're trying to get the former closed out, FY21, as we just spoke. We expect savings, but before they launch the activities for this one, but everything so far seems to be on schedule. Heartland Homeowners Association, they've got a new deadline of November 1st, so this project should be closed out by then. I think they just turned in a request for funds. Eric? I think so. Yeah. And so that one should be closed on time by November 1st. Hickland Creek Conservancy, another extension request until March of 2023. That was approved. Lakes Edge, they submitted request for funds number two. and the final report, and I'm actually reviewing that right now and should have that back to them first thing next week to be able to close that grant out as well. Walnut Hill just turned into a request for funds and the final report, so the project is set to close out as well. So we look at quite a few projects that's going to close out by November, which we're excited about. because of what bluegrass green source they submitted a request for funds back in September and I believe we're going back and forth with that now just to make corrections for that Lexington Center Corporation they just submitted the design plans for the town branch of park project we actually have a meeting to review those to sign off on those or submit our questions and request for clarification on those drawings here tomorrow tomorrow morning we're going to to be. Michael Claiborne is the grant manager for the design portion, feasibility design portion, and that ball will be taken over. So we're all going to meet to make sure we're on the same page in terms of where the design is and where the construction will be heading. Let's see. Living Arts and Science Center, that one's moving along. They're moving along with all their programs. I believe they just turned into Final Report. Actually, they just access from a template for the final report so they're putting together those documents now to close that one out and over neighborhood association this is sort of a phase two to the andover on the previous page there um this one's they're working on a covert down at hole number 17 instructions underway they're making tremendous head uh headlines over there uh the um They put in, they've actually installed a new covert, and so they're making, I'm pretty impressed by how much progress they're making in such a little time, but the old covert was terrible. It was a safety issue. It was cracking. It was walking over. It was a question of whether or not you're going to make it to the other side. So we're glad that they finally got that out. Let me see here. Lexington, I'm sorry? You just moved to the Lexington Center. That was the education. Oh, that's so sorry. How it's from the previous one? It's too many. So the one above that I meant to speak to earlier is the educational portion that goes along with the part. That one's moving along as well. It's kind of in sync. I did have to get on there, but it was just about communication, to be honest with you, about just keeping us informed and steadying the progress. And so everybody agreed. We're seeing a little bit more flow. So we feel a little bit better about it because for a minute there it was kind of stagnant. I think it was because they were trying to get some more funding. I also think it's when we're a part of a bigger project, sometimes they forget that we're funding. So it's making sure that they're keeping us involved because we are a funding source for part of their project. So something to keep in mind for the public school that we funded is just making sure we stay involved in those conversations. Yeah, they have a lot of area to report in. However, we brought the point of it as a part of the stipulation in this grant, we hold reports every three months. So we just wanted to kind of... So we should be updated. Yeah. So moving on to North Lexington Holdings 2, this is one of the projects that has mentioned that they may have to cancel. And I'm going to pause. They're looking for additional funding due to high bids. and so they were awarded a small amount they were awarded a small amount but they've spoke up about challenges because of supply chain, because of material costs now they've kind of paused until a resolution is reached about the change order situation but I did mention there's no guarantee so terminating event may still be an option Wesley United, that project is, I have a final feasibility study in hand, final report, reviewing that now. The project should be closed out before the end of the month. And on FY22, instead of going through all those, if you all have questions about anyone individually, let me know. But those projects are all executed and moving forward. The second project is completed. Yeah, the second one is completed and the third one is completed as well. We're just waiting on the actual final report with construction is completed out there at Gardens Park. Yeah, and that was just the repair sort of situation. Prestwick is also almost done. Yeah, Prestwick is almost done too. So we're making steady hand when you consider it on all our projects. We just, I'm reminding grant managers as well as myself to make sure to communicate that our expectations to the grantee to make sure that we stay in progress. So we're seeing some flow. And if you have any questions about those, let us know. We're happy to answer those now or later. Any questions? There are a lot of projects that we've funded over the years. Some really, really interesting and yeah. I would like to add to that point. Because of all those projects, we are working with some interns on... I'll get one phone, start listening to you. We're working on implementing an inspection, a tracking and inspection program for all these projects. So, you know, I think it's been more on an as-needed basis. Frank and others have, and grant managers have kind of gone out and looked when there's been an issue. But we've never had an implemented inspection program for these projects. So that's something I'm trying to spearhead with the help of Frank and interns on how can we make sure we're seeing these once a year or, you know, every other year, however it pans out. And so we've got interns working on that and helping us get all of our plans, attachment Bs, and creating some sort of continual inspection. Obviously, they're on a schedule. Once they fall off that 15-year or 20-year depreciation, they would fall off our inspection list. They'd stay on a tracking, but off our inspection. But during that term, they would be in an inspection program. So just something to add that we're doing on the side that will, I think, really add value to the money we're putting in. Where do you find interns like this? We've got some great interns from UK, EKU, and PCTC. So we've reached out to a lot of the professors with natural resource and a lot of their STEM programming. So they've been great. We've had some great summer interns that do a lot of our other programs. and so some of them that were able to stay through the next two semesters I've kind of looped in now that we're done with some of the summer things I've moved into this and they're working on it as they have time. That's very interesting. Yeah, it's a really, I think the one that's really had time to dive into it is a future being a part of creating something like this. The resume building. Yeah, he's really latched onto it and so I'm excited to see where that goes and it'll involve, Right now it's a lot of in-office work, but eventually it will be site visits and compiling our initial condition assessments and stuff like that. Future employees, too. Yeah, exactly. That's what we say. Especially him. Yeah, he's great. And providing an opportunity on our end to have all of these mapped and in our tracking system for condition assessments is going to be a game changer. We just want to make sure these projects are sustainable, you know what I mean? you know when we get calls about hey is that a grant project you know a lot of times we're kind of guessing whether or not it's in shape and so we want to kind of take that away and do something that we have to put a beat on you know but we just want to make sure it's fair you know i mean if we get a call about non-compliance yes we speak to it but we want to make sure that we're doing our due diligence in terms of inspection to keep these guys honest because it's to their and obviously we're focusing on Class B infrastructure and then Class A, the ones that have reported maintenance. Yeah. We were having a conversation as well about whether or not we should, for those Class B infrastructure, I mean Class B education grants that are, you know, rain gardens, things, and that should, whether or not we should have a maintenance agreement, maybe not to the extent of the infrastructure ones, but some kind of arrangement to keep them honest as well so we're not just getting the money to fund the rainbody for that season good thank you any other questions as far as the city event if not our next item number seven is our 2023 calendar year meeting schedule there should be a handout showing you ever thanks looks like this and it just list the proposed meeting dates for next year to see if you all have no any conflicts that we can speak to right away otherwise we would ask the board to vote. I actually have a requested change if possible so it's similar to how we did this past year the July meeting falls on a day where I know I won't be there because of the KSA conference so if there is a will to move that to the following week since that will be a meeting where we're discussing projects and improving moving it to 20 yeah uh mr chair i'll move the dates for 2023 of january 12th april 13th july 20th and october 12th i'll second move and second all in favor of motion signify by sunday night i oppose like some motion carries thank you it's good to have i think it's helpful to have this beforehand so we can all kind of plug it in yes yes we appreciate us creating a calendar we were talking about this one speaker actually creating a calendar yes yeah we wanted to send out official calendar each year well allow me to say we want to thank you guys for the services for helping us out. It's a good program. I just wanted to apologize for my talk. I was halfway here and then I realized I didn't have my glasses. No sense showing up when I thought. No problem. Thank you. Alright, anything else? Thank you for our guests and Scott for coming and filling this in a project that you're working on. and hearing nothing else do I hear a motion to adjourn? It's been moved. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. That was my second. Thank you very much. We'll see you next time. That will be on January the 12th. Yes sir. If you don't mind, what day the university will be available to sign? Probably Tuesday. Okay. We'll receive a reminder. Email. Email. 10 o'clock. I'll put it there. Yeah. 10 o'clock. Two-step.