# October 12 2023 Water Quality Fees Board - October 12, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 12, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5933 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5933?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-10-12 - **Last revised**: October 12, 2023 - **Length**: 6,601 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 12, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in the North Elkhorn Conference Room at the Tate Building, 125 Lisle Industrial Avenue, Suite 180. George Woolwine presided over the meeting, which included five agenda items and one public comment. The board took 12 votes during the session. The board approved two items: the minutes from the August 8, 2023 meeting and the FY 2024 Class B Infrastructure Grant Selection. Three additional agenda items were presented for informational purposes: a discussion of remaining funds recommendations, an incentive grant status update, and other matters. ## Attendance **Present:** - Harry Clarke - Donna Fogle - George Woolwine - Aaron Vaught **Absent:** - David Lowe **Late:** None recorded ## Votes and Decisions All motions brought before the meeting passed unanimously. **Approval of August 8, 2023, Minutes** — Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Aaron Vaught. Passed unanimously (4-0). Minutes to be corrected as noted. **Director's Recommendations for Wesley United Methodist Church of Lexington, KY** — Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Aaron Vaught. Passed unanimously (4-0). [timestamp: 00:22:21] **Director's Recommendations for Dan Partin, Partin Lex Acquisitions, LLC** — Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by Harry Clarke. Passed unanimously (4-0). [timestamp: 00:24:40] **Director's Recommendations for University of Kentucky Research Foundation** — Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Donna Fogle. Passed unanimously (4-0). [timestamp: 00:27:21] **Director's Recommendations for Fayette County Public Schools** — Motion by Donna Fogle, seconded by Aaron Vaught. Passed unanimously (4-0). Approval includes stipulation for publicizing the project. [timestamp: 00:32:48] **Director's Recommendations for Rob Prop, LLC (2592 Palumbo Drive)** — Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by Donna Fogle. Passed (3-0-1), with one abstention. [timestamp: 00:35:37] **Director's Recommendations for Bread & Roses, LLC** — Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Aaron Vaught. Passed unanimously (4-0). [timestamp: 00:37:14] **Director's Recommendations for OP Innovates, LLC** — Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by Harry Clarke. Passed unanimously (4-0). [timestamp: 00:38:18] **Director's Recommendations for Rob Prop, LLC (2512 Palumbo Drive)** — Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by Donna Fogle. Passed (3-0-1), with one abstention. Not recommended for funding. [timestamp: 00:39:23] **Director's Recommendations for Mediocre Creative, LLC** — Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Donna Fogle. Passed unanimously (4-0). [timestamp: 00:41:38] **Accept the 2024 Calendar Year Meeting Schedule** — Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Donna Fogle. Passed unanimously (4-0). **Adjourn the meeting** — Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by Harry Clarke. Passed unanimously (4-0). ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed the following financial action: **FY 2024 Class B Infrastructure Grant Awards** The body approved Class B Infrastructure Grant Awards totaling $1,128,487.54 for fiscal year 2024. ## Public Comment No public comments were made during this portion of the meeting. ## Appointments The following appointment action was taken during this meeting: * **David Lowe** was reappointed to the Water Quality Fees Board. ## Approval of 08/08/23 Minutes The board reviewed and approved the minutes from the August 8, 2023 meeting. George Woolwine, Harry Clarke, and Aaron Vaught participated in this agenda item. The minutes were approved with corrections noted during the discussion. The board's action resulted in approval of the August 8, 2023 meeting minutes. ## FY 2024 Class B Infrastructure Grant Selection The board discussed the FY 2024 Class B Infrastructure Grant selection process, examining available funds, submitted applications, and the Director's recommendations [timestamp: 0:16:00]. **Key Participants** Frank Mabson and Lindsie Nicholas led the discussion on this agenda item. **Discussion Topics** The board reviewed the available funding for Class B Infrastructure Grants in fiscal year 2024, along with the applications received and the Director's recommendations for grant awards. **Outcome** The board approved the FY 2024 Class B Infrastructure Grant selections. ## Remaining Funds Recommendation / Discussion The board discussed the allocation of remaining funds from the FY 2024 Class B Infrastructure Grant Awards. [timestamp: 0:43:29] Frank Mabson led this discussion, which focused on how to handle the unallocated funds from the current fiscal year's grant program. The board recommended reallocating these remaining funds to FY 2025, allowing the resources to be carried forward and utilized in the next fiscal year's infrastructure grant cycle. The outcome of this discussion was informational in nature, providing the board with an update on the status of grant fund allocation and the planned approach for managing the remaining balance. ## Incentive Grant Status Update Ms. Lindsie Nicholas and Mr. Frank Mabson presented an update on the status of Incentive Grants spanning fiscal years 2016 through 2023 [timestamp: 0:45:07]. The presentation was informational in nature, providing an overview of the incentive grant program across the specified fiscal year period. Ms. Nicholas and Mr. Mabson reviewed the status and progress of these grants during their tenure. No specific concerns, debates, or detailed outcomes were documented in the available meeting materials beyond the presentation itself. ## Other Matters During this agenda item, the board addressed several administrative and planning matters [timestamp: 0:57:05]. **Topics Discussed** The board reviewed three primary items: - FY 2024 Budget Summary - Publicizing the Stormwater Quality Projects Incentive Grants - The 2024 meeting schedule **Key Speakers** Lindsie Nicholas and Frank Mabson led the discussion on these matters. **Outcome** This segment was informational in nature, with no formal action items or decisions required. The board received updates on the fiscal year 2024 budget, discussed outreach efforts for the stormwater grants program, and reviewed the upcoming meeting calendar for 2024. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of August 8, 2023, Minutes - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Director’s Recommendations for Wesley United Methodist Church of Lexington, KY - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Director’s Recommendations for Dan Partin, Partin Lex Acquisitions, LLC - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Director’s Recommendations for University of Kentucky Research Foundation - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Director’s Recommendations for Fayette County Public Schools - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Director’s Recommendations for Rob Prop, LLC (2592 Palumbo Drive) - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Director’s Recommendations for Bread & Roses, LLC - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Director’s Recommendations for OP Innovates, LLC - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Director’s Recommendations for Rob Prop, LLC (2512 Palumbo Drive) - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Director’s Recommendations for Mediocre Creative, LLC - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Accept the 2024 Calendar Year Meeting Schedule - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript Thank you. and the easement of the bill. In November 12, on the back, both electronic and hard copies of all materials are to be provided in OCCC for its use as part of the grant and finally, in November 13, the organization proposed a large cost share beyond that required by the program, by the share reflected 20.08% cost share offered in application, which is approximately $42,206.04. Next project is for the Rose cell seat. Requested a grand amount of $31,850 with a cost share of $8,200 in the total budget of $40,050. This is a feasibility only project. The feasibility study will evaluate the opportunities to integrate the lawn management into the parking lot retrofit to have an action plan in the next steps in implementing the parking lot retrofit. that addresses best-chain connectivity, renewals and permeate surfaces, plants native vegetation, and tree canopy. The project also includes stormwater education, running workshops with trees like Santino discuss the importance of stormwater incentive grant program and the new tree canopy scoring program. Applicant and the proposed project meet eligibility requirements with a project score of 52.69. Peaceability-only grants compared to other peaceability-only grants until the program The recommendation of the Director of the Engineering is to approve the grant application for the full amount of $31,850, requiring a minimum of $7,960.50 cost share. approve the grant with fine stipulations applicant to obtain worth approval prior to any working online properties that are not provided applicant both electronic and hard copies of material provided to allow the studio for its use as part of the grant developer deliverables and organization to close a larger cost share beyond the required better grant program budget shall apply for the 20.5 percent cost share offered in the application which is approximately 8,000 per month. All right application number seven from the OPEX LLC. They professed a grand amount of $29,890, cost sharing of $7,490. Total project budget $37,380. Feasibility on the Grants Well. Project government's feasibility study to identify green infrastructure being used that may be utilized to reduce flooding hazards along the town branch, as well as provide options to improve water quality and reduce the water runoff. We'll also determine the location of an educational sign along the Camden Ranch Trail and the possibility of a public space to demonstrate the concepts of green infrastructure practices and provide resources for visitors using the Camden Ranch Trail. recommendation of the director of the department of quality after the proposed project meets the program eligibility requirements and project score of 50.57 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 29,000 dollars reported a minimum of 7,472.50 of caution approved the grant application with the following attendance Applicant shall obtain written accrual prior to any work that is not owned by the applicant. Applicant to avoid permeable concrete asphalt as a BMP alternative. Both electronic and hard copies of all materials to be provided to LCT for a change as part of the labor. Organization proposes a larger cost share beyond that required by the program. The budget shall reflect 20.04 percent cost share of the application which is positive $7,045. The application is the second of the property application for the 8512 Longboat Drive. The requested grant is $163,132.50 with a cost share of $48,830.90. The total project budget of $203,975.30. This is a design and construction grant. The purpose of the project is to improve the project of the facility and the project elements include of rain, gardening, grass, pollinators, and filtration swale, removal, existing grade, and then replacing a bridge or straight. Remove or replace the existing subplum size, storage, captivation, free grade, asphalt entry, and stormwater education. The recommendation of the director and convention of water quality, to applicants because the project does not meet eligible requirements and the project score 43.47. This project does not require the requirements. Finally, application number nine goes to Mediocre Creative LLC. The requested grant amount is $12,500, cost share amount of $3,500, to a budget of $16,000. This is a feasible one in Brown's will. Feasible is still to identify, evaluate, and select best management practice capable of reducing the impact of pollutant loading and flooding at 712 and 714 North Limestone Streets. The study will identify potential projects to benefit the immediate areas of the True Alley and North Limestone and the downtown and to improve water quality and quantity through potential rainwater retention system, removal of impervious parking areas and additional tree canopy. recommendations of the director of the division water quality applicant proposed project needs approved applicant and proposed project needs program eligibility requirements the project scores 32.2 approved the grant application for the full amount of $12,500 required a minimum of $3125 to cost share approved the grant application for the following stipulations applicant share will obtain written approval prior to the original is not owned by the applicant. Both electronic and the hard copies of all the shares with regard to LFCUCG, where it's used as part of the grant deliverables. Finally, organization supports the larger cost share beyond the application grant program. Budget shall reflect the 21.9% cost share offered in the application which is approximately $500. Well done. Well done. Okay. So, I guess we'll move some 320 individuals. Yes. Let's type in the same order they were presented. Yes. The first project is Weston Northern Methodist Church of Lexington. Questions, comments? clarification needed. I just have one comment. It doesn't really matter, but Chevy Chase has mentioned that it seemed like. I saw that. I thought, wait a minute. Yeah, I believe that. Obviously, they use it as a template. Yeah, of course. It's from the John's one application. He says no. any other questions okay hearing are there any what are your thoughts with your will on this one it's recommended to be a good project so i'll move to approve thank you is there a second i'll second second by erin all in favor of the motion signify saying aye aye those like saying motion carries this project is the Dan Parton Lex acquisitions LLC I noticed both in two of his applications he marked feasibility and design and construction and his application but under in the report that we just read it just says design and construction so well yeah that's correct it's misunderstanding things yes it's really design extract of course yeah any questions or comments associated with this What's the role of the group? I move to accept the recommendation for the, what was the name of it? Parton Lex Acquisitions LLC. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. It's been seconded by hearing. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Both like sign. Motion to hear us. Next project is the University of Kentucky Research Foundation project. I was wondering how this ties into the existing, I guess it's the old Alumni Drive stream restoration. I remember that project. It's nearby, but I don't know that it. Is it connected at all? I'm sure those waters maybe pass through. It's near that location. It's kind of upstream, but to the side of it. It's behind a Baptist hill. Yeah, well, yeah, actually it's closer to the other. Yeah. Well, the reason I mention that, in my early days, I lived on the apartment right next to this in graduate school. which one like Grand Page or something no it was it was on Shining Place at the end of the street yeah was that back in the woods back then well out in the country UK was just barely developed it's changed a lot it has I remember that bridge was there The one that they're working with. Replace it? Yeah. Is it the same one? Same one? Just now replacing it. Yeah. This stretch will actually drain in between the two. So it's just upstream of the first roundabout after an initial round. that first yeah that was where the people were actually well you're coming up with the road yeah any questions and other questions or comments I'll move to Boogl. Thank you. It's been moved out here. Is there a second? Second. Second by Donna. All in favor of the motion is signified by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by Son. Motion to be moved. Thank you. Next project is the Fayette County Public Schools project. And is this for a number of different schools? Yes, this is for all of their locations, all of their campuses. They're just going to figure out the best places to plant these trees. I've noticed that's why it's a lot. It's a huge canopy, potentially. It really is. 360,000 square feet. that we're I think practically everyone projects we looked at tree campy it's one of the elements of that so well I have numbers to report to you I think somebody had one so I think this is a really good project I'm really happy to see the schools doing this I would also like to suggest I don't know there's any way to doing this but it could very easily become an internal project that just kind of sits there in making as valuable as it might be I wish there was some documentation that could be the information could be spread widely to all the schools as a requirement for for this particular application so people get to know what's going on and maybe even and I would like for all this all the students in them in our school system to know this is going on it's awful easy to do something that it's internally and not you know they just kind of so I don't know if there's any way we can do that frankly here would be nice if we can kind of insist it publicize to the all the schools let them know what's going on in 500 500,000 trees I don't know if it's about 5,500 trees. That's major. So it would be really good if we got more information out about what they're doing. I'm sure we can add stipulation that kind of requires them to publicize them. Maybe you suggested that somehow they fold that into the elementary curriculum where third graders go to the site and visit it and learn about why it happened. Yeah, something like that. So is this something that's going to be at every school or just specific schools? I think wherever there's available land to do it, I think is what they're talking about. I think part of it is they're working with one type of students at the career center to work on the design, selection, and then another set of students that want to learn about the trade and the planting and that. Career center is important. Yeah, it's across different types of that kind of public schools as well. But my concern would be that, like they say, somebody at a certain school based on whether or not they have land available. What about the schools that may not? And so will those kids still get access or still get the knowledge that, let's say this? It could be a matter of a field trip. Field trip, yeah. Just like that. You know, like I said, I know those that haven't, they will get it, but there are some kids that may never know about it, so it may not be something that they're interested in, but if they were exposed to it, they may realize that this is something that I'm interested in. It's my understanding that the kids involved in the career center, or the technical schools that would be participating, they're going to be going out to the other schools to do that, so if there's some sort of cross between that. Because I don't know that it's every single school that seems focused on some of their career path. I think important to note about this project is they're wanting to involve the students in the entire process. I think that's part of the discussion. Involve them in the planning as well as the actual projects. And how to use data. Yeah, I guess they're going to collect it. They just kind of incorporate it and perhaps they can put together a filter. I mean we don't want to tell them how to do it but we can word something that kind of insinuates the requirement to publicize it. And maybe it finally shows us how you're distributing this information. Right. They don't like it but they're just not in that school district so maybe if they would send out, even if the kids are not in that school district, maybe they send a brochure and send something that will introduce them to it and then like I said a field trip where they can at least be exposed. because I personally, there was a lot of things that I wasn't supposed to do because I went to a school that didn't have those things. So I think it's important that everybody get an opportunity to at least know about it, even if they don't participate, but at least they know about it. Agreed. Yep, good point. We'll word something, and if you've got time, then you can sign a grant determination form, but then you may actually come back to give us time to work on an additional stipulation for this particular grant. I know the stipulation says tree removal and planting shall be indeed approved by the vision of environmental services of forestry and arborist in particular tree removal or planning activities. Do we have a stipulation that it says or designates there are only certain trees that should be planted right there's a list of acceptable trees and ones that are not acceptable yes is how is that part of this how do we well the urban forest and the arborist that's how they operate they're only going to recommend trees from our native planting list or whatever okay unless that they have our there's a list okay so if they come with a tree that's not not one that we would like to have then the arborist would say this is really not big this is the list okay i guess my I point out, should we provide a list of development trees before the... That's the coordination with the urban forestry. It's in the ordinances. Okay, yeah. All right. That's good. Okay. Good discussion. Any other comments, questions? Hearing none, let's go to the group. Your turn. I'd like to make a motion. All right. Thank you, Donna. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Aaron. I'll take a motion. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like I said. Motion carries. Thank you, girls. Next is Rob Barprea's LLC. And I think I have to refuse myself. I know Rob and I'm in a club with him. And so I don't, if we have enough without me, probably that would be the cleanest way to do it. Both of the projects he has, I like. Three. I believe. Three. I think it's three. But Dan Parsons is a part of that. One of his portfolio as well. 25-14 Regency Road is part of that. Number two. Okay, I didn't see Rob's name on that one. Well, when you look in the application document, I think he's just listed in the Kentucky Organization, Secretary of State. Okay, okay. So, okay. Well, if you would conduct the meeting for this part of it. Okay. so number five the water quality retrofit 259 people will drive comments Hearing no, none, I will entertain a motion. Move to approve 2592 Columbo Drive. Motion made to approve. May I second? I second. Motion made and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. I have a quick question for the infrastructure. Do we have any sort of aggregate data that says, like, from the Class B infrastructures, what percentage do we fund that's on private land versus public land? Does that make sense, what it means? Yeah, I don't know that we have anything like currently, but we I believe we have a map to show I think we have a map later to show you that okay it doesn't yeah they're big private I think you can have that staff you can sometimes infer baseball yeah okay sorry but not nothing That motion was approved. The big map. The big map. Can you get this out of our office? Oh, okay. Next project is Brandon Moses LLC. The feasibility-only project. Are there any questions or comments on this project? Hearing none, what is the role of the group? I'll move approval for the Red and Roses feasibility application. Thank you, Aaron. It's been moved by Aaron. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Aaron. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like so. Motion carries. Next project is OP Innovates LLC. Also a feasibility-only study. Any questions, comments, What's the clarification? Hearing none, let's move on the group. I'll move to XFOPE Intervalence. Thank you, sir. Moved by Aaron. Is there a second? A second. second by Harry all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye aye aye those like seven motion carries here next the next project is a water quality metric for 2512 Palumbo Drive this application is recommend not recommended for approval. Any comments or questions? I'll move to not fund 2512 Board of Boardroom. What you made to not approve this application. We're here second. I'm just kind of curious as to, I didn't really understand why this one was. I know I don't know if they had stormwater projects and rain gardens and all that, but I guess they don't really consider that this one didn't. Well, the next one didn't, but this one didn't. Well, this one was not recommended because they were planning to design over our senator. Oh, okay. So it just goes against. Oh, okay. I saw the rain gardens, so I'm like, okay. We don't recommend building, you know, biopotention or anything over the top of a sanitary line. And there was nowhere to move it on their property. But the other one, we were able to work with them on shifting some of their design elements. But on this one, there was nowhere. Yeah. It was all arcing lot or that area that they suggested. But, I mean, of course, there's a sanitary utility here. that's one of our stipulations that we kind of read off over top or within 10 feet rather than a cemetery school I didn't see this up with Dominic in a second I can say okay motion made in second all in favor please indicate by saying hi motion motion passes thank you I'm sorry was that Aaron that made the motion or who seconded that I'm sorry not a second she seconded it okay thank you for raising that question I was thinking the same thing and you explained it makes perfect sense okay last project is video creative LLC feasibility only study any questions comments concerns interesting name it is coming in If we were tight on money and it didn't receive funding, it would be clearly explained. This is a fairly obvious reason. It's a mediocre project. Nobody ever didn't pay it. All right. Sorry. Any questions, comments on this? Yeah, this is a little brief. I move approval. Is there a second? I'll second. Seconded by Donna. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion period. Thank you all. Okay. Are we at five? Yeah, we're paying funds. I can just read here. Yeah. I can just read the back of the summary recommendation sheets, the The final bullet indicates that NWMU has recommended to fund $1,128,487,54 in funding for Class B FY24 funding. That leaves $225,807,59 in funding for Class B FY24 funding. Okay, we're next year's fund that we're just going in the next year's pool over our funding in FY75. That's the way it is. I think we're in a pretty good place in that with our 20% match, we're still getting projects in and we're getting more projects funded and this is good. Okay, so what you're asking is us to approve using, I guess, using the remaining funds with $225,874.59, moving that to next year's? Yeah, we just shifted to FY25 funding. Is that required? Yeah, we don't have any other recommendations for the funding, like any target specific So we just recommend this 15-0 set of 5-4. Okay. Thank you. What's the bill in the room? Do we need a vote on that? We do need a vote. We don't need a vote on that. Just let me know. Alright. That's the plan. Okay. Other matters? We're going to give a status update number six. Six, I'm sorry. That's all right. For that, we provided, we wanted to show you a dashboard of kind of giving our general numbers so you can see like over here, over the years, what we've been. It should be on top of it. Yeah, it's the sheet that looks together. Is it the one you got here on the wall too? No. No, that's just, what's this? Did you get this long? Yeah, here it is. Well, this is part of the report, but this is just a dashboard here. We just wanted to show you how many active projects versus completed projects. You know, the totality of what the program has seen over the years. Total of 227 projects that were funded, 187 of which have been completed, 40 are currently active. So I just wanted to show you, that's what I call a dashboard. The reason we've added that is because we've moved to the grant tracker project status reporting. so you can see these sheets are not what you're used to. So we're trying to move away from the 10 spreadsheets and into the one grant tracker, and that grant tracker prints things so you can read them, which means it wastes more paper. So we were trying to not print all the projects for each year, just the ones that are still open, so we wanted to provide the dashboards so that you could see how many have been closed out for those years. So we're moving into the new world. Grant management. Right. So you'll notice we're not including the projects that are completed. We don't want to show you the stats of the ongoing projects. We go all the way back to 2016 with Pepperdell. Yeah, which I'm happy. We'll start there in 2016. We have the final documents. I'm currently reviewing those. I just can see those a week ago. I'm in the process of reviewing those. So Lord knows I'm trying to get this one off my face. It's been a while. But yeah, so I have to report that. and moving on to your next, she said it was FY 18, the C18. The only one remaining is Lugans Green Source. We've given it until December to decide whether they're going to proceed at the location that it was approved at, which is a very accepted and complicated allowments. They're trying to sell the property and acquire a new one. And so we've given them some December report back and I'm not going to either proceed there or a determination of whether they want to cancel the grant and kind of go back to the drawing board. So they have a decision to make that December 31st of this year is the deadline for that. The next one is fiscal year 19, and I'm happy to report that that project is on the verge of coming to a close as well. I'm sorry, which? Al. Al, yes. In fact, I was just texting. We have had it punched and we are down to the maintenance agreement being signed by the owner and we have all other elements bundled up on the grave to be submitted. So anything. Thank you. This is the year 20. We have Contempting Area 1. We received a third recording project report for that one. The grant manager is working on a review of that. Lakeshore Village, I actually just walked into the village. Just walked in, yes. Final documentation, closeout documents, all supplied. So that is for the version of completion as well. And our grant manager next to us will report on our UK for the last few years. And for our water harvesting system project, if you can, the construction complete, send them revisions for the educational sign. That will be out there. And we're just going to work with flying documents. They're connecting all that together. that project construction is complete and we're just holding that 10% until May. So that's their final office. Okay. And this is going to be 21. This is the first project that is hard-legged. And I'm told that this one is also on the verge. I know I went out there to take a look at it and they were punching the, He wrote a punch list on construction, and replaced the side as well. Probably he has those documents in his hand, but he ended up reviewing those with the final documents. Grant manager reported. He's in the pre-conservancy. I think he mentioned that he's waiting to receive his status. I think so. So, waiting to hear back from the grant team on where they are with that project. We have Class B Education still open in fiscal recruitment as well. The next incentive corporation, I know Demetria is waiting on the final report. They've gone back and forth with the last request for funds over some issues with how they were reporting. We wanted to remove anything that wasn't related directly to this grant since this project is part of a larger project. And so I believe she finally got that. Now she just made another final report to close this one out there. Fiscal year 22, I have several pages to that one. Friends of War Funds, she's requested a report from them from Kim Cook. And I believe she's ready to head back from that one. It's typically on time with that one. I think you just got his timing off on that one. But I'm pretty sure, knowing Kim, that he's progressing with those activities. for FY22. They have the FY23 grant as well, but they're in the way to move forward with those activities. Bluegrass RingSource, Class B Education Grant. He's approved with Request for Funds Number 4. Living Rights and Science Center, Larry Lewis is working with. Jessica, two reconciling items with the most recent Request for Funds. They're going back and forth. I see some emails going back and forth yesterday. He's on the verge of, I think there was one last invoice that he was trying to obtain from him to get that big sign off on. He's to give him that payment. The balance progression as well. Also in FY22, we have the University of Kentucky. This one is on the verge of closing out. They actually presented their results for the final No P on My Line campaign for the meeting and so I believe the final report is on the verge of being submitted. They got an extension to the end of the year. Just recently, yeah. They lost some staff so they're trying to get people back to help integrate what they found into their outreach materials. Right. Just need a little bit more time. Yeah, they asked for that extension just yesterday, by the way. This code engineering, this is the project that you guys approved the change order for. So that project is progressing. They did lose Joe Elder, who designed it. So Charlie Hall has taken over his duties and he's just trying to be brought up to speed on what the project is and then planning on moving forward. Community Montessori, that parking lot is built. I don't know if you've been on the stone road. It's pretty good. It's not one of our picture perfect projects because it's an expansion. It's not a retrofit. But it's up and running. It looks great out there. So they're punching it. Preparing their final documents for that project. H.O. Village is just waiting on this previous one to close out so they can move forward with that one. I mean with them next to discuss Also the fight comes to like the center for a reason From design The Newtarian Universalist Church of Lexington, I believe he said he had some charges, went through, and so I'm hoping he has those in the hand. right give it up a little use so sorry so we went to bid in the past couple months we had six invited contractors did they basically all hold out except for one that one did significantly over the budget so we are following up with that contractor as well with others that discussion is about what was it that is over on the bid and we are planning to re-bid it in january so we've asked for extension on that most of the contractors responds backwards that they were just slammed to get it fit in within this fiscal year or this calendar year so scheduling scheduling more than anything as far as busy scheduling busy yeah without talking to them directly anticipating that they were close out the year fairly uh fat Thank you. FY23, Parkville Valley Day Club Association. Yes, so all of FY23 are open. Obviously, we're just going to kind of get this going. If you have a question about any of them specifically, we're going to have to answer those questions about any particular one. But yeah, all of those are. We got the last one through council approval, which was just recently. It was full and treated, but it's done, and so we're all going to see. I like to do format. Yes. You did. You said it makes sense because I would really focus on the ones that are still open. Right. That's what we're going to be talking about. We've been using it for about four or five months. and we've kind of been working through kinks, fixing bugs, so I feel like we're finally getting somewhere where it's usable and all the grant managers are using. I like the summary part too, that it's a very effective way to do that. We use that for our meetings with our grant managers, so it helps kind of just give them a sense of where they put into the new puzzle of this big program. Pretty good. Okay. This shows the allocations for FY24. It just shows you, there was a document we provided to show you how the money were allocated for all of those grant classes and where the funding came from. on this sheet will correlate with, yeah, so you'll see like available fiscal year 24 budget, the $1,155,000 that'll line up with fiscal year 24 anticipated allocation, $1,155,000 plus 127 of unused gives us, we had a total amount of $1,292,147,000. So, that green line on the second chart to the right, that was our budget for income in France. Yeah, which got transferred to this sheet and we just gave a bullet version of that. We showed you all three classes funding and we also showed you the targeted funding down below and how those funds and how much the totals were in each target. So for example feasibility only, he shows you what those totals were as well as the projects, $75,000 or less. You can just kind of see how much was allocated specifically in this case for class-meet infrastructure. So you'll see like the feasibility target was $55,000, but we had over that in applications. But because we had extra money remaining, we were able to fund the rest of the feasibility projects out of the general. I noticed that we spent like $82,000 on feasibility. Yeah, because there was remaining funding. Right. So that's all that sheet is. It's kind of like we just wanted to show you where the funding sit from the beginning. And then now we'll be sitting with remaining funds. But this is where the original sources of those funds came from. And I will make a lot of comment. at least it's something we observed that the scores this year are relatively low. At least that was my opinion based on my previous year's scores. And so we had had a discussion internally just about what it looks like to promote the program to start getting some bigger, because the scores are low because what's weighted is the amount of impervious searches that you're either reviewing or retrofitting. And so we're seeing less impervious surface being retrofitted and more like stream projects or tree canopy, which there's not a problem with that, but we still want to make sure we're focusing and targeting on how we can bring in a community that wants to reduce their previous area and what that looks like. So those are discussions we're having as far as publicizing the program. The scoring matrix doesn't really, I mean, it's suited for removal of the purpose area, so that's why those scores came to go, because not a lot of applications are for a large number. It seems like a minimum E. coli projects, too. Yeah, and you're talking about E. coli reduction? Yeah. And some of them, what they're proposing, like, for example, you know, they just don't explain it or understand that what they're proposing doesn't, you know, be approved. So that's another problem. And then this sheet, before we move on, this sheet was your summary of, like, how the applications that submitted that would have been eligible to get points for tree canopy. So your feasibility projects aren't on there because they don't get points for something they're not putting in. So you'll see all the infrastructure projects that aren't feasibility and then all Class A projects on this chart, whether they were funded or not, they're all on there. Just to show you, did they take credit for tree canopy, yes or no? What was the amount of tree canopy that we gave them credit for? some of them proposed more but then they had to show like we would be required to do this much for parking lot landscaping so we had to take the requirement out and that was the net and then i just put the overall project score so this just since this is the first year obviously we don't have metrics on how it works because these projects are going so many projects were showing that so the words are getting out but that is us yeah and it's in the application like we updated the terminology so they when they answering the question they would have seen I guess anything else yeah I guess under I guess this doesn't have to be under other matters but last time you all have requested a map of projects and so after the meeting if y'all want to go not the map under it i just needed something to flip it to but the map on top is the map we've created based on the work we've done this year and jared has helped a ton with that this is jared um and so we went out and we we mapped all of our um infrastructure or like green infrastructure projects so obviously like education projects are not mapped on here so it's not all projects but but it's all projects that have some sort of stormwater control that we would go out and look at. So that map is showing. It's organized, the dots are organized by colors, like older projects are a certain color. It's only five years, you can kind of see. But it shows where it is in relation to the watershed, and then it's got a metric on the side in the orange box on the right of how many of each type of project we have and what we're going out. we'll be looking at these once a year and so just note that i know someone had asked last time so we wanted to provide that we've done the work already to do it so we might as well show what that looks like that's good very good i guess the uh the last item number seven is our meeting scheduled for 2024 yeah that's documented provided the dates all but one will be on the 11th of its respective month that's pretty interesting it kind of happens that way sometimes october 10th is the outline there is uh i mean october 10th of 2024 so we just wanted you guys to kind of vote on these dates or if there's any things that you know you might not be around. I think it requires a vote that doesn't matter. Yes, so we just want to. But if anybody has a date before we vote on it, let's see if we would adjust it. This point is pretty far out. You don't know what you're doing next to your own. I'm still alive. Okay, does anybody have any conflict as of today with any of these dates for 2024? And typically this is the second Thursday of the quarter, right? Yes. It's quarter, so. We're all early this year. Yeah, we're going to have a fall early in the month. Okay, has anybody got any conflicts with any of these? Jeff, move. I move to accept these dates as our meeting dates for next year. Thank you, Gary. Is there a second? I second a motion. Second about Donna. All of those motions signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like 7. Motion carries. I think with that, that's okay. There's a couple other notes before we close. I'd like to know that this potentially could be our last meeting with David. I mean, not David, because David, I believe, did he sign back up? Mm-hmm. Oh, okay. Well, David has decided to renew his membership with the board. Good. I just wanted to make that note because I thought I didn't know if he was going to actually do it. With that, sorry that he wasn't here. He noted that he wasn't going to be here, but he didn't sign back up. So he's going to be sworn in between now and the next week. He's just going to let you know. And Harry, of course, yours will be expired in February. And this would be your second term. So we potentially could have one more meeting with you. We'll enjoy you thoroughly. You will be missed. Just keep me out, Frank. yeah you've been on these boards but we've certainly enjoyed you sir I'd like to say that so that's it okay thank you any other items hearing none do I hear a motion that we adjourn motion to adjourn okay thank you Aaron is there a second second all of a motion say aye aye motion period